Misconceptions

[keith99]

About time I addressed the OP.

1) That I am Satan. No I just like the stones, the man of wealth and taste was a joke. And I'm only well off, not wealthy

2) That I talk to Satan. No, I only claimed to talk to Screwtape, Slubgob and a couple of other midlevel devils. And that is just a literary device I borrowed from a dead Anglican.

3) That I am ignorant of Scripture. I've read the Bible cover to cover at least twice. That means I know some parts that never get mentioned from the pulpit.

 

[LoAmmi]

Let's not forget adultery. If anything is to be excluded because God thought people would do it anyway that should be the top of the list.

Remember, though, that it messes up property inheritance, tribe status, and if the person is actually a Jew or not. In a practical way, it had to be there.

There are over 200 commandments. More that a score about diet and at least 2 about digging latrines. Yet there is nothing not raping or not keeping slaves.

613 commandments actually.

I will point out, however, that the Jewish sages did state that keeping slaves was wrong and did state that raping was wrong. It isn't like Judaism has been allowing raping and enslaving for years.

The Torah itself does show that rape is wrong as it has a punishment attached to it.

 

[Chesterton]

2) That I talk to Satan. No, I only claimed to talk to Screwtape, Slubgob and a couple of other midlevel devils. And that is just a literary device I borrowed from a dead Anglican.

You must be very well-placed though. I tried to talk to Screwtape and Slubgob, their secretaries would never put me though. Never returned my calls. I'm impressed with your level of evil.

 

[Cearbhall]

• That it's a cult. There seem to be some people who think that pretty much anything besides Christianity or Judaism is a cult. No, that's a specific word with a specific meaning. My religion does not have any of the features or red flags of a cult. It's further from it than most organized religions, actually.
• That "liberal religion" refers to politics. Nope. Totally different meaning. Think "liberal arts" (though I've noticed there are people who think THAT is about leftist university politics, too ).

 

[Cimorene]

About time I addressed the OP.

1) That I am Satan. No I just like the stones, the man of wealth and taste was a joke. And I'm only well off, not wealthy

2) That I talk to Satan. No, I only claimed to talk to Screwtape, Slubgob and a couple of other midlevel devils. And that is just a literary device I borrowed from a dead Anglican.

3) That I am ignorant of Scripture. I've read the Bible cover to cover at least twice. That means I know some parts that never get mentioned from the pulpit.

Do people really think you're Satan or that you talk to him?

 

[Cearbhall]

All the words looked sexual to me. Maybe that's the problem; a failure to communicate. I reject modernity the same way you and Jane reject tradition.

Tradition? Tradition is walking across the cave and mating with your second cousin as soon as you reach puberty and get those urges. Though you probably don't even know how exactly you're related. Then you'll go out and chase some big game off a cliff together to show off, and go at it again. But maybe she's a little too Neanderthal for your taste, so you get with your first cousin instead. And if she wants the guy who's better at hunting than you, you'll just kill him (or die trying). Or have sex with your male hunting mates instead until you find someone else. Oh, and you're communist. And matrilocal.

 

[Poppyseed78]

1. That only weak, ignorant, hypocritical, and judgmental people seek Christianity.
2. That Christianity is a "crutch" for those who fear death.
3. That Christians are self-aggrandizing because they like to think of themselves "created in the image of God".

 

[keith99]

Do people really think you're Satan or that you talk to him?

I'm sure there are some who do. Heck it seems C.S. Lewis actually had the problem that some thought he talked to and was even close to Satan.

BUT I'd bet I get far more responses in that direction from those enjoying the same literary tool.

 

[Tayla]

1. Not believing in dualist misconceptions about a spirit/matter-dichotomy renders me a hedonistic materialist who's just snipped off the "spirit"-part and kept the matter.

Do you believe the essential integrated reality is:

• physical material matter (consciousness is an illusion, or some such)
  
• spiritual (matter only appears physical; perhaps this is called Idealism)
• other? (are there others?)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Do you believe the essential integrated reality is:

• physical material matter (consciousness is an illusion, or some such)
  
• spiritual (matter only appears physical; perhaps this is called Idealism)
• other? (are there others?)

The first option would be a kind of amputated dualism (denying one half and keeping the other).
The second option smacks of beefed up dualism, where one side gains dominion over the other but the dichotomy is still the starting point in terms of concepts used.

My position could be misconstrued as either option. I say there is only energy/existence/reality, manifesting in different ways.

 

[Tayla]

The first option would be a kind of amputated dualism (denying one half and keeping the other).
The second option smacks of beefed up dualism, where one side gains dominion over the other but the dichotomy is still the starting point in terms of concepts used.

My position could be misconstrued as either option. I say there is only energy/existence/reality, manifesting in different ways.

Very insightful perspective.

It seems your view (which I don't presume to know about) is outside the possibility of scientific validation. It's based on faith, if you will. (I don't mean this pejoratively.)

 

[Tayla]

My position could be misconstrued as either option. I say there is only energy/existence/reality, manifesting in different ways.

I sense in this answer a reluctance to describe the structure of Reality; perhaps this is a good thing.

An extreme illustration to highlight the point: Q. What is a chair? A. Energy. Q. How does the brain process sense data leading to perception? A. Energy.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

I sense in this answer a reluctance to describe the structure of Reality; perhaps this is a good thing.

Not reluctance. Commitment to letting go of dualist categories and moving beyond that dichotomy for good.

An extreme illustration to highlight the point: Q. What is a chair? A. Energy. Q. How does the brain process sense data leading to perception? A. Energy.

Yes. Matter is a form of energy. So is light, electromagnetism, etc. (Well, sometimes it's energy interacting with energy, but the point remains).

 

[Tayla]

Not reluctance. Commitment to letting go of dualist categories and moving beyond that dichotomy for good.


Yes. Matter is a form of energy. So is light, electromagnetism, etc. (Well, sometimes it's energy interacting with energy, but the point remains).

Thank you for your reply.