luvluv

We can continue our discussion from the free will thread here if you like.

-luvluv

Koyaanisqatsi

Redacted from <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000369&p=5" target="_blank">page 5</a> of the thread <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=50&t=000369&p=" target="_blank">Where does freewill lurk?</a>

Nor do I, considering the fact that I made it abundantly clear that the KKK reference was an analogy; a metaphor, not a literal comment that is applicable and remains unaddressed.

You consistently argue from a reformed christian perspective; indeed the thrust of your last post was all about how I was a bigot and how I don't take into consideration the 20,000 various factions of the christian cult, to which I countered that no matter how reformed you may consider yourself to be as a member of the KKK, you're still a member of the KKK, meaning that all of the victimization (the blood) that the institution inflicts and has inflicted over the years based upon the doctrines and dogma of that institution is therefore still on your hands either directly or indirectly no matter how far down the ladder you think you are.

In other words, if you've discarded 98% of the basis for your calling yourself a Christian, then what makes you a Christian and why associate yourself with it in any way other than a holdover of indoctrination?

Hence my asking whether or not you believed Jesus is God; the central lynchpin that unites all 20,000 sects?

Again, I would ask you to address the intelligence you claim to have such respect for behind the words, since it is exceedingly tedious to have to keep explaining things that I've already explained while you go on these pointless, pious sidetracks.

THEN ADDRESS THE INTELLIGENCE BEHIND MY ARGUMENTS AND STOP FALSELY ACCUSING ME OF BEING A BIGOT JUST TO AVOID THE ISSUES, yes?

I posted an extremely complex and thorough post that addressed so many different arguments and concepts that I can't even begin to count them now, yet you chose to ignore 99% of what I posted in order to go on your own diatribe about my views on cult mentality; views that you had initially baited me on to begin with, IMO, and don't agree with so say so and move on or offer direct counter argumentation to silence me (something you've only done, apparently, in your own mind as I'll get to in a moment).

And now you're doing the same thing, so that these posts are pointless character assasinations that have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the legitimate points you keep avoiding.

If you've "heard it all before" then ignore it and address the arguments. Call me a bigot and expect exposure in kind, so do not for one second pretend that you're the martyr here.

Yes, we did and your position was not tenable as was pointed out to you several times not just by myself and my counter-arguments, but, as I recall, just about everyone else who was in that thread following along.

In response to what you had written, of course, the single modis operandi of my entire SecWeb existence, contrary to the easy outs most of my antagonists claim. Unlike some, I actually attempt to provide counter-argumentation and/or direct illustrations that support my arguments, no matter how pointlessly ancillary those arguments may be, such as this one.

A point I made several times, I should hasten to add, in the hopes we could drop it and move on.

Not in the slightest. You declared my "conjecture" regarding the possible "nature" of consciousness/existence to be "silly," so I asked a legitimate question. Theists believe that a magical fairy god king (whatever you want to call it, those epithets cover it) blinked the universe into existence (i.e., created everything ex nihilo) in order to worship him, yes?

Oh, that's right. You don't believe this and neither do the handful of people you know in your own circles of belief, so, fine, you tell me from your own beliefs.

You've discarded so much of the Bible already, perhaps you've discarded the notion that a magical, supernatural being somehow blinked (or whatever verb you choose, it makes no difference to me) the universe into existence ex nihilo as well? The uncaused cause?

You believe Jesus is God, right? So let's just stick to that. How is my conjecture more "silly" than the belief that a carpenter/Rabbi from two thousand years ago is an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being who created the entire universe?

An opinion that I carefully and clearly demonstrated using your own words as evidence to support my points, yes. agreed.

As with every single thing anybody ever thinks, speaks or writes, it was indeed "my opinion."

For f*ck's sake, luvluv, I'm talking about the 99% of my post here you completely ignored in order to call me a bigot and start this pointless evasion to begin with!

Your "argument" on that thread was not tenable. You consistently declared that the words "fear" and "afraid" actually meant "love" and "respect;" that the intent and the message behind such admonitions as, "Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him." does not mean what it so clearly and undeniably states and worse that such a theme isn't replete throughout the entire Old and New testament in one form or another, to which I countered by pointing out to you that you had absolutely no basis for your reinterpretation other than your own personal desire that it be so and that the authors and translators of those words throughout the ages have consistently and repeatedly used the words "fear" and "afraid" in all of the passages like this one precisely because it is the correct interpretation and meaning.

This is a perfect example of what I was talking about; how you've simply ignored 99% of my arguments in order to go into this utterly pointless evasion.

Recall, if you will, the argument I made in this thread regarding the use of fear and the removal of fear (the poison and the antidote)? A perfectly viable and logical argument that transcends any previous one I made in any other threads with (or without) you that you completely ignored here in order to claim that you've already addressed these issues.

You have not, plain and simple. The only counter you presented in that other thread was that "fear" meant "respect." You could, of course, offer absolutely no justification for this redefinition and never addressed the counter argument I had made regarding the translators of all of the versions of the NT I had posted; every single one of which used the word fear and not "respect."

Why? Why would they do such a thing if the correct word to use was "respect," as you claim? Were they all just idiots? Too stupid to correctly translate the proper word? God said "respect me" but what he really meant was "fear me?"

Everybody who worked on those translations (the NIV, KJV, NASB, NLT, ASV, YLT, DARBY, NKJV) all use the word "fear" and not "respect." Why?

The word "respect" occurs 46 times in the NIV, all of which in the context you pretend the word "fear" is used so considering the fact that we actually have two words to choose from ("respect" and "fear") and considering the fact that the teams of translators of all of the Bibles quite clearly chose the word "fear" and not the word "respect" for a reason, you tell me.

Even the author of Luke makes it plain as plain can be with the addendum: Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Fear him! That's what I said! No question about it! Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Why? Because he has the power to throw your body and soul into hell, that's why; the unimaginable place where there is eternal torment and wailing and gnashing of teeth in the burning flames!

Fear and the antidote to fear (Jesus) is replete throughout the NT and it is quite literally the oldest trick in the book, if you'll pardon the pun. Fundamental cult indoctrination technique number one; fear and the removal of fear; pain and promise of surcease of sorrow, plain and simple and if your only response to that is to say, "No it isn't, they didn't mean that at all and modern christians in my church don't believe that, what they were really saying is that to fear him is just to respect him and to hate your whole family and your own life also really means to love your whole family and your own life also and that the eternal lake of fire that God throws you into as punishment for not believing, is not to be feared at all and every single bad thing ever written about the warrior-deity of the OT and the peace loving dove of the NT who comes not to bring peace, but a sword is totally wrong because Gandhi followed the teachings of Jesus..."

I'm not an idiot. I know when someone tells me to fear something and then explains why I should fear it and the explanation is based upon the possible and willful use of unimaginable power to consign my "soul" to a burning lake of fire for all eternity for disbelief, and then reiterates the whole damn thing with, "Yes, I tell you to fear him!" Then I'm pretty damn sure I know precisely what such a raving lunatic is getting at.

Especially when every single translation of those words uses the exact same word over and over and over again.

As you claimed to recognize previously, there is an intelligence to my posts so when I use the word "cult" or refer to mythologies that instill fear and intimidation throughout their doctrines in a cognitively dissonant manner, so that people are referred to as sheep without batting an eye and told things like turn the other cheek when authority comes to take your rights away from you and suffer your fate quietly with humility now because you will be rewarded after you are dead and blah, blah, blah, cut me just a tiny bit of slack to recognize that it's not a "diatribe" I am going on or a "rant" that I'm venting, but rather a thirty six year long journey from inside and out of the whole damn thing, yes?

But I'm sure glad you've already addressed this argument in some other thread.



I tell you what luvluv, how about from now on you just quote me and offer a counter argument instead of this stupidity? Assessing my "overall" psyche serves only one thing; evasion, and you know it. There was nothing "knee-jerk" at all about what I was posting; it was entirely in response to everyhting you were instigating and escalating, as evidenced by the fact that this is the fourth post completely off topic having nothing to do with 99% of my original post.

You were the one that rewrote my own argument and chummed the waters with this pointlessness and I have been the one pleading with you to get back on topic and/or discuss my theory. You are the one who stated that I was doing nothing more with my theory than what theists do with their beliefs and that my conjecture was "silly" and that I had no qualifications, and blah, blah, blah, all of which I had freely admitted in my very first post regarding my theory.

In short, you are the one who took us to this point, not me, so enough.

Or would you like for me to just start passing my own overall judgment on you; mindreading your motives and intentions because it's so easy to see what's really at your heart of hearts, instead of posting arguments and counter arguments?

Shall I climb up on your pious soapbox now, too, to return all of the unwarranted, generalized, deliberately misconstrued crap you've flung my way in these last posts?

You state that as if (a) it is pointless to the topic regardless of how much I detail precisely why and how it pertains to the topic and (b) that our "conversation" meant that the issue was settled and your position exonerated.

Neither of those scenarios is true, except of course for the "pointless" part. I agree, absolutely all of this sidetrack nonsense is utterly pointless and has nothing whatsoever to do with my theory regarding consciousness and where I think "free will," therefore, "lurks," but then, once again, you're the one who baited me on all of this crap to begin with; crap I thought had been either adequately addressed previously or at the very least agreed upon by me as being ancillary and pointless to the topic, yet here you are raising it again without offering anything even remotely like a counter-argument.

"We've had this conversation before" is not a counter-argument.



You simply cannot be that profoundly inept at comprehending what a metaphor is and the purpose of using it, so I will consider this as nothing more than childish rhetoric.

Wrong on both counts, which you would know had you actually address the "intelligence" behind my comment instead of the comment; the "now" part that explained precisely what I was getting at and why I had gotten there.

STOP REWORDING MY ARGUMENTS! You are incapable of correctly wording my arguments. Incapable, so please stop doing it.

Just post my words as they are written and then counter them. Is that so difficult; so bigotted of me to request?

Gee, let's see...? What could that "third" explanation possibly be? We're discussing cult mentality and the manner in which cults inculcate and indoctrinate and how theistic cults in particular are rampant throughout the whole world and have been for centuries, so let's see...? Let's really stretch our brains and apply that intelligence you so respect and consistently disrespect to see just how it might be possible that a child who grew up in and around a particular culture with particular beliefs could possibly then later in life express those beliefs in some manner...how could that be?

How in the world do cults manipulate and control people into believing what they want them to believe...? How...?

Forgive my impertinence earlier regarding my fear that you couldn't possibly be so inept. I misspoke.

Yes, no, yes, no, no, no.

What do I win?

For the fourth time now, hate the sin, not the sinner.

Yes.

Yes. What's your point?

Bullshit, but who cares? The "3" you refer to control the global economy and have influenced the entire world (the one in which I live; I don't know about you) in a demonstrably detrimental manner for thousands of years up to this very day.

I will ask you again. Do you believe that Jesus was God or "a god" or just a man teaching radical Jewish reform?

If you believe he was a god, then you are a member of the Jesus cult, plain and simple and since the entire mythology of Jesus comes from specific tracts starting most likely with the Sayings Gospel Q--though more probably with the Essenes and their concept of the "Righteous One"--that you have, apparently, just arbitrarily decided to largely toss out the window as being too unbelievable to believe, then what does that make you and why are you even spewing any of this pointlessness about the Shaolins and no "top down" cults?

You say you're a "Christian." Why? Because you still cling to the central idea of the christian cult; that a man named "Jesus" was/is the Son of God who proved his divinity by resurrecting from the dead (but apparently not to "die for our sins"), yes?

In other words, you have retained about 2% and discarded 98%. Why retain that central 2% if not for your childhood inculcation, either directly or indirectly; from your culture and your upbringing? You said youself that you don't believe the basis for Jesus entire purpose and existence as written down in the cult mythology, so why do you give any weight whatsoever to the word "Jesus?"

As you readily point out, there are literally thousands of other deities and beliefs that are identical to the Jesus myth (better in fact), so why cling to it at the same time that you throw every single thing about it out the window?

You're the one calling yourself a christian and you're the one who keeps making this the only issue you will address so don't blame me for going over ground you think you've already covered, but have not.

I only respond to what is hurled my way.

I don't understand the question. I'm a writer, so I know exactly what is fiction (mythology) and what is non-fiction (historical documentation).



So, you blame me for addressing points you raise based on you incorrectly rewording my arguments to build some of the biggest strawmen I've ever seen; strawmen that you use to say, call me a bigot and then have the nerve to say that I am the one drags everything off topic and into this pointless drivel?

How convenient. You start a fire and when I try to put it out, you complain about all of the time I'm wasting while at the same time accusing me of starting the fire.

Incredible. My hat's off.

Then address my goddamned arguments! It isn't that difficult--as you plainly see with DRF and excreationist--for civility to be maintained.

Number one on that list, however, would be to not waste everyone's time by posting this tripe so that you can falsely accuse me of being a bigot.

Make absolutely no mistake about this central fact: you are the one that started both of us down this pointless sidetrack, not me.

And if you would actually address all of my points you would have no choice but to acknowledge that very fact, since I repeatedly tried to steer both of us back on topic only to have you take us away once again with this kind of "your overall tone is what I refuse to address and here's why in five hundred words..."

You have a rather inflamatory way of "enjoying."

Point of clarification: they are not "mischaracterizations;" they are highly detailed deconstruction, with every step of my argument spelled out in EZ 2 READ type that have never been countered effectively enough for me to discard them, so be my guest.

Many have tried; all have failed.

Indeed, I have had to defend them so often against stupidity of this nature that they are rock solid on all fronts, but that's entirely irrelevant to the fact that it was you who took us on this sidetrack, not me.

All I wanted to do was posit a theory of consciousness I've been formulating recently that I think addresses the topic of "where does freewill lurk." That's all.

So again and for auld lang syne, address the intelligence behind the words you find so horribly upsetting that you just can't go on and stop loading your own posts addressed to me with religious overtones if you don't want to discuss religion with me.

Isn't that an easy enough equation for you to follow?

And don't ever call me a bigot again or deservedly recieve both barrels, yes?

Fine, then offer a counter argument and let's get into it. What is your evidence that a collection of ancient mythological stories (the majority of which you don't agree with) is anything other than that?

As I granted before, only the ones who concoct the mythology (aka, the original authors of the stories) should be considered the liars, since they are the ones who know they are creating the myths.

Matthew, for example (whoever he actually was) knows for certain that he wasn't present when Satan tempted Jesus. He made it up entirely, playing both parts. That makes him a liar if his work was not considered to be mythology, yes? If the claim is that Matthew has written a factual, historical document, chronicling actual events as they happened, then he is a liar, since it would not be possible for him to have witnessed what happened and what words were spoken, etc., etc.

So which is it? Myth or historical document?

You tell me, since you've already discounted what appears to be the vast majority of the stories as mythology, yes?

No, your doublespeak and evasion of 99% of my post in order to address something you feel you've already addressed and yet decided to make a central point in order to call me a bigot is what I correctly interpreted, IMO, as an example of your fear of actually addressing the arguments.

You did a 30,000 foot fly-by of my post, conflating everything I had carefully and painstakingly deconstructed for you to clearly see precisely what I was arguing and why I was arguing it and how your own words supported what I was saying in order to confuse and redefine what I had posted so that you could accuse me of being a bigot.

Why?

You repeatedly claimed to respect my intelligence at the same time you openly displayed no respect at all for my intelligence when it came to a deconstruction (fully open, mind you, for you to counter at any time) of what you had posted.

I offered point-by-point counter-argumentation to your entire post; you offered (three times now) an inflammatory and incorrectly reconstructed assessment of my overall tone and how one of my observations (one of many) made me a bigot in your eyes that is just so conveniently horrific that it absolutely stops you from ever being able to actually do as you claimed and see the intelligence behind my arguments and address it directly in kind.

And what was my transgression? To correctly label the christian cult for what it is and present evidence and argument supporting that label in necessary and appropriate response to points you were trying to slip past everyone's radar.

No one here is that gullible or dull witted.

I'll remind you yet again that this "pointless digression" was entirely at your instigation and escalation, sir, as even a cursory review of our posts will reveal, but rather get into a "no, you started it" playground scuffle, why don't we simply do what I suggested previously and get back to the topic, yes?

I wasn't the one calling anyone a bigot.

Metaphor: 1 : a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or analogy between them; broadly : figurative language.

Used to make a point, I should addend to Webster, which was in counter to your false accusation that I was a bigot for labeling all christians with the same brush.

I see, so you (and "most christians" who object to me, according to you) take the easy way out and discard 99% of my posts because of my "attitude;" an "attitude," I should hasten to add, that only seems to get triggered (as I think my posts here between DRF and excreationist can attest to, as well as my initial posts to you) when the people I interact with start rewriting my arguments and telling me what it is I'm arguing and why I'm arguing it; because, let's say for example, I'm a bigot.

Would that be about the time you see my "attitude" come out?

I describe the evils of the christian cult as I see them and I doubt very seriously that anyone still indoctrinated in any faction of that cult is going to like it, true, but that doesn't change either the facts or the results of those facts, now does it, so if that's what you're claiming you and "most christians" are adversely responding to, then fine, say so and prove me wrong!

That's all I've ever wanted and so far never get.

Prove my arguments are invalid and shove them straight up my ass with all of the joy and irreverence you can muster and I'll be the very first one to stand and salute, YEE HAW!

But do not bait me repeatedly and ignore or worse, rewrite my own goddamned arguments and think it will go unnoticed!

I reiterate. You are the one making a mountain out of a molehill. I can only ask for the umpteenth time now, "Why?"

I wouldn't hesitate for a moment, but first you'd have to pinpoint which "opinion" your referring to? I have several on the topic.

What "theory" are you referring to? Just once could you please be absolutely and unquestionably specific using my own words; just once, please, so that I can actually address directly what the hell you're accusing me of?

What "theory" do I have about the origins of theology that I should discuss with Harvard theology students? That the NT is deliberately crafted mythology designed to instill slave mentality through cognitive dissonance? My theory that I've posted in other threads regarding my contention that the NT mythology is actually the result of a Roman occupation destabilization campaign like the one we inflicted on the Native American Indians?

Is that what you're talking about, because I would have no problems whatsoever doing just that. I tell you what, you set it up and I'll be there with bells on.



"Nor do I," he said as calmly and as cooly as he could muster under such a remarkably bald-faced, inflamatory pile of horse shit.

Whether someone "agrees" with me or not has absolutely no bearing on anything I have ever posted, including whether or not I think they may be lying or a member of a cult.

Good for you. I, however, only respect their argumentation, should they ever actually engage in it.

You have your standards and I have mine, which is why my "attitude" only seems to get triggered when people make exceedingly poor arguments and/or deliberate evasionary strawmen like your entire ad hominem.

Would you care for me to tell you where you "go off the map?"

I make no such "assumptions" in no such manner, but then what would it matter what I post or what arguments I actually make since you're engaging in nothing more than personal character assassination instead of counter-argumentation and rebuttal?

As before and always, if you can prove me wrong, do so; if you can't, then I guess you do as you apparently have decided upon and call me a bigot, yes?

As I clarified previously, only the creators of the myths and those who know the myths to be fiction yet still preach them as if they were the truth, could be considered liars.

Read that sentence again and explain to me how that wouldn't be an example of self-delusion to whatever degree you prefer? You believe in a God (Jesus, precisely, yes, which is why you call yourself a Christian) and "admit" that, although there is no doubt whatsoever in that belief, you "may" be wrong.

Absolutely no doubt, but it's possible that there is doubt.

No evidence, either, of course, since you've discarded all of that, and no doubt at all, but you may be wrong.

How can you justify stating such a thing while at the same time berating me for correctly pointing out the illogic and irrational aspects of such an untenable, purely self-delusional declaration?

You "may be wrong," but you have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that you are not wrong?



And that is not an example of some level of self-delusion how?

Any more proclamations from the Mount you'd like to make about me or would that be an example of a deliberately inflammatory comment designed to bait me in order to avoid dealing with any of the issues?

I tell you what, luvluv, since you feel so comfortable judging me from on high, you present an argument worthy of respect and you'll get it.

How's that?

In turn, I'll continue to post 99% argument, logic and counter-refutation and try to remove the 1% that so paralyzes you and others--however triggered it may be by what it is they have posted--so that you (and they) do not feel so overwhelmingly compelled to resort to name calling and rewriting my own arguments as the only response available (beside, of course, direct counter-refutation of points and arguments presented to you for you to address), all right?

Good enough?

(edited for replacement in new thread - Koy)

[ July 10, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Proxima Centauri

Be careful Koyaanisqatsi, please try not to upset the Christians too much. Sometimes they run back to Jesus for comfort.
Please try not to make them feel too much like martyrs. Some of them love the feeling.
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

MadMordigan

Outfuckingrageous. Good form Koy.

WJ

Shack!

Mmmm, Jesus, love, feelings, comfort, what IS this? Any clue?

I'm getting the warm and fuzzies and it feels great!

Walrus

Theli

Damn, Koy!
That's a pretty massive post. I haven't read it yet, but I look forward to it.

Hans

Koyaanisqatsi:

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

rainbow walking

Gee Koy, while reading this a feeling of...well...nostalgia swept over me. I wanted to jump in there and crawl your ass but then I happened to remember...hey, we're on the same team!

MadMordigan

I wanted to jump in there and crawl your ass

Whoa dude, you converted in more ways than one, eh?

luvluv

If the religion of Christianity was at it's outset a control mechanism, who was doing the controlling?

Jesus?

Paul?

From what we know about their lives, did they seem interested in control?

(I prefer a point at a time to point by point. I don't know how you have the time but personally, I work for a living.)

PS. I can respect that you used the KKK as an analogy, but you ought to be sensitive enough that there are some analogies which are unnecessarily inflamatory and insulting. My family has had some run-ins with the KKK (at the business end of the noose). So those "analogies" have some teeth on them with me. You say that I should never again call you a bigot, I'll consider it if you never again refer to me as a member of the KKK.

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>