The Atheist DMT Experience

[Garyp88]

Garyp88 wrote:

Selective breeding of carrots is fine but, IMO, Eugenics is not fine due to our self awareness. So weeding out genetically flawed carrots = good, weeding out genetically "flawed" humans = bad.

About the Cannanites, you are again making bald assertions and assumptions (although you did qualify it with "I personally believe). If they were indeed genetically "flawed" then that is how they were created. Anyway I don't recognize anyones right to ethnic cleansing or eugenics, regardless of how flawed the persons DNA is

-So in the name of political corectness you would be ok with half breed angel/humans existing on earth....Obviously they would just enslave you, me and the rest of the mortals without a second thought....but atleast we would have been PC about the whole thing...

The wicked cities of Sodom and gommorah should have not been anniahlated either by your logic and should have been allowed to influence the rest of the development of society as well correct?


So what your saying is why can't we all just get along?

Sorry man, you did lose me. I have been trying to think how to respond but when it gets to starting to talk about half breed angel/humans who want to enslave me, I just don't know what to say. To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing. On top of that all of the available evidence would suggest that if such a thing existed it would be a different species to homo sapiens and therefore would not be able to breed with it. But, that aside, I still think it would be immoral to kill half breed angel/humans if they had the same level of self awareness as humans do. It is nothing to do with political correctness, it is just my take on morality. I am not in favour of killing sentient beings, and certainly not in some kind of pre-emptive "we gotta kill them or they'll kill us" kind of way. War on terror springs to mind here.

You realize that justifying their murder by claiming they would enslave us is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught. It is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It is not "do unto other before they do unto you".

I really don't know much about sodom and gomorrah, but what I can say is that in my opinion if these people were not marauding into neighbouring areas and killing people then wiping them out is unjustified. I have yet to find a reasonable defense for murder other than to defend yourself against someone who is directly, physically threatening your own life. If someone tries to kill you then you have a right to defend yourself. if someone is threatening your "gene pool" you do not. Hitler had a similar justification for attempting to wipe out the Jews.

As this convo has progressed you seem to be leaning more and more towards an actual biblical interpretation of history and of God, so all I can say is that if you believe in that biblical God then you would surely concede that if he didn't want angel half breed humans then he would have not set up the conditions for it to happen, knowing in advance exactly what the outcome would be and having the ability to very easily set it up in a completely different way that would not result in bloodshed.

I started by saying that I didn't know how to respond, but apparently once I start typing the response, it just pours out

 

[Eliyahu]

Garyp88 wrote:

Selective breeding of carrots is fine but, IMO, Eugenics is not fine due to our self awareness. So weeding out genetically flawed carrots = good, weeding out genetically "flawed" humans = bad.

About the Cannanites, you are again making bald assertions and assumptions (although you did qualify it with "I personally believe). If they were indeed genetically "flawed" then that is how they were created. Anyway I don't recognize anyones right to ethnic cleansing or eugenics, regardless of how flawed the persons DNA is

-So in the name of political corectness you would be ok with half breed angel/humans existing on earth....Obviously they would just enslave you, me and the rest of the mortals without a second thought....but atleast we would have been PC about the whole thing...

The wicked cities of Sodom and gommorah should have not been anniahlated either by your logic and should have been allowed to influence the rest of the development of society as well correct?


So what your saying is why can't we all just get along?

Sorry man, you did lose me. I have been trying to think how to respond but when it gets to starting to talk about half breed angel/humans who want to enslave me, I just don't know what to say. To the best of my knowledge there is no such thing. On top of that all of the available evidence would suggest that if such a thing existed it would be a different species to homo sapiens and therefore would not be able to breed with it. But, that aside, I still think it would be immoral to kill half breed angel/humans if they had the same level of self awareness as humans do. It is nothing to do with political correctness, it is just my take on morality. I am not in favour of killing sentient beings, and certainly not in some kind of pre-emptive "we gotta kill them or they'll kill us" kind of way. War on terror springs to mind here.

You realize that justifying their murder by claiming they would enslave us is exactly the opposite of what Jesus taught. It is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". It is not "do unto other before they do unto you".

I really don't know much about sodom and gomorrah, but what I can say is that in my opinion if these people were not marauding into neighbouring areas and killing people then wiping them out is unjustified. I have yet to find a reasonable defense for murder other than to defend yourself against someone who is directly, physically threatening your own life. If someone tries to kill you then you have a right to defend yourself. if someone is threatening your "gene pool" you do not. Hitler had a similar justification for attempting to wipe out the Jews.

As this convo has progressed you seem to be leaning more and more towards an actual biblical interpretation of history and of God, so all I can say is that if you believe in that biblical God then you would surely concede that if he didn't want angel half breed humans then he would have not set up the conditions for it to happen, knowing in advance exactly what the outcome would be and having the ability to very easily set it up in a completely different way that would not result in bloodshed.

I started by saying that I didn't know how to respond, but apparently once I start typing the response, it just pours out

At this point your comparing apples to bowling balls.

Also- Hitler's justification for wiping out the Jews is purely speculative as far as I'm aware no one knows what his actual reasons were besides other Nazis who are now dead.

Some think i't because his mom was Jewish...who knows? To claim that you know Hiter's justification like it is a fact is fairly well unbelievable.

 

[Garyp88]

Fair enough. Don't actually respond to any point that I made, just pick out the most insignificant part of it. Seems kinda ironic that someone who thinks they are a 2900 year old prophet and talks about half breed angel-humans would be so concerned about a bit of speculation

My passing reference to hitler really wasn't relevant to what I said. Feel free to disregard that part if you like, the rest of it still stands.

 

[anrchy]

I just don't buy the whole "bible speaks in codes" talk. I used to tell people, it's all metaphorical. Don't take everything to heart. BUT if that's true then isn't it possible that when the bible speaks of a creator that it's STILL speaking in code? Maybe the "creator" god is code for "the power that drives the universe". If this were to be true then the whole bible idea goes out the window as far as belief goes, cause then believing in god is strictly left with belief as your only rock to stand on.

Take DMT for example, compare hyperspace to the bible. Believing in god is an experience in of itself. You feel it you know it. No different than hyperspace, EXCEPT you actually get to BE there. And to put into perspective, explain to me what hyperspace is... Can't? Ok. Well say for example that hyperspace is another place, either in your head as your subconscious or another dimension entirely. Now GOD created everything, and hyperspace is pretty dang complicated in terms of understanding it. So understanding god as the bible explains it, to me, it seems like a pretty poor excuse for an idea of creation and understanding what we are. Now given that it dates back to times where things were much simpler, yet they wrote the bible in codes or pure metaphor... It just makes no sense.

 

[Chadaev]

The existence of an external deity (and the external world for that matter) can not be "known" in the proper epistemological sense. It can be induced or even deduced in some instances, but the only thing that can be known in the proper sense of Kant is that you yourself exist. Cogito ergo sum.

[...] It might help if people who purport to define what is and is not "real" would also take some time to study epistemology... but that might be asking a bit too much.

Totally agreed with the sentiments about reality and knowledge here, but I am unclear on what you mean by Kantian epistemology. Cogito ergo sum is Descartes. As for Kant, as I understand him, what can be known are the so-called synthetic apriori structures of experience and associated judgements, along with the moral law. The I or transcendental subject is simply the empty accompaniment to such knowledge and could not be, for him, identified with God (though the God in Kant's unconscious, I grant you, is another matter).

I bother to raise this stuff because it really would be good to know if you or others out there have taken the specifically philosophical exploration of DMT very far.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

I just don't buy the whole "bible speaks in codes" talk. I used to tell people, it's all metaphorical. Don't take everything to heart. BUT if that's true then isn't it possible that when the bible speaks of a creator that it's STILL speaking in code? Maybe the "creator" god is code for "the power that drives the universe". If this were to be true then the whole bible idea goes out the window as far as belief goes, cause then believing in god is strictly left with belief as your only rock to stand on.

Well, the word god is in fact kinda code for "the power that drives the universe."

One does not have to ascribe to a biblical type deity (or Thor or Vishnu for that matter) to be a theist. Belief in a power that drives the universe... of any sort whatsoever... is a theistic belief.

I have a lot of friends who were convinced they were atheists until I showed them patiently that what they believe and assumed to be anti theistic... actually falls well within established parameters of certain theistic belief systems.

I don't know about this being the reason that belief in the Bible goes out the window either. There are plenty of valid reasons not to believe in the Bible, though, so I suppose it doesn't matter why you don't believe.

All I can say about the codes in the Bible is that I have seen them, there are literally thousands of books on the topic, and anyone who cares to look for them will themselves summarily encounter them. Is it just a case of forming random patterns because you want them to be there? Possibly. For the same reason that any tarot card you pull will inevitably make sense to you based on some aspect of your life... it is easy to find meaning in any sufficiently abstract data set.

And yet, the stuff I have seen about the Bible codes goes well beyond that, and can really blow your mind. I have read passages that when put through a cipher read not only intelligible info... but actually refer to the same subject matter as the original passage but on a deeper level... and then actually tell you to go back and read the same passage again with yet another cipher... that actually proves to provide even more detailed information on the same super esoteric subject matter.

I am not a mathematician, but I am willing to bet that the odds against that being merely random are... let's say astronomical.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

The existence of an external deity (and the external world for that matter) can not be "known" in the proper epistemological sense. It can be induced or even deduced in some instances, but the only thing that can be known in the proper sense of Kant is that you yourself exist. Cogito ergo sum.

[...] It might help if people who purport to define what is and is not "real" would also take some time to study epistemology... but that might be asking a bit too much.

Totally agreed with the sentiments about reality and knowledge here, but I am unclear on what you mean by Kantian epistemology. Cogito ergo sum is Descartes. As for Kant, as I understand him, what can be known are the so-called synthetic apriori structures of experience and associated judgements, along with the moral law. The I or transcendental subject is simply the empty accompaniment to such knowledge and could not be, for him, identified with God (though the God in Kant's unconscious, I grant you, is another matter).

I bother to raise this stuff because it really would be good to know if you or others out there have taken the specifically philosophical exploration of DMT very far.

Aha!

I really should stop posting when I am high... or at least make some better effort at proofreading my posts.

Naturally, I was speaking of Cartesian Epistemology. Kant is a whole 'nother ball of wax.

Ol' René is probably rolling over in his grave right now... or at least laughing at me.

I suppose "comedown" posting on the Nexus isn't as bad as drunk texting or other such faux pas. And if it weren't for PWH (posting while high), I am pretty sure I would rarely post at all.

8)

 

[Garyp88]

HF I would be interested in some example of what you are referring to. Doesn't need to be anything crazily complex, just an explanation of how a particular passage reads and how it differs once the cipher is applied. You do not appear to be a fool, despite your name, so I have to assume that you are not just talking nonsense... but I have still never had any kind of reasonable, non-rationalizing explanation from anyone on any specific troublesome part of the bible and how it could be interpreted differently. Ideally if you could choose something which you find distasteful on it's face, like the passages about genocide or stoning people, and demonstrate how it can be read differently and what process was used to interpret it that way.

 

[Garyp88]

PWI (posting while high)

Nice acronym... may want to proof read it though

 

[Korey]

Eliyahu, your post is way off....

Hitler made his feelings plain and obvious about the Jews in Mein Kampf and later to the world with his wide spread messages of hate, contempt, and blame for social problems in Germany, and the world, on solely the Jews. Claiming no one knows why he did it is lame and ignorant of his blatant expressions of prejudice and hate. That's like saying "no one knows why the KKK kills blacks and Mexicans, except other KKK members."

Hitler was, for lack of better wording, batshit insane. He identified Jews as a race of people, and really not a religion, and his drive was to "clean" The Reich of Jews, and the only way to do that was to kill them off. Genocide isn't usually some complex mind blowing decision, it's usually as simple as hate and one or more's desire to completely get rid of a certain group of people for some sort of gain, in this case, power. He had created an awesome war machine which in turn was allowing the nation to THRIVE economically, people praised him because conditions improved immensely. If he had succeeded in his plan he would have been able to tell the German people ANYTHING, and they would have trusted and believed him wholeheartedly solely off of past results, especially if he claimed the economic improvement was due to the removal of the "twisted, greedy, evil jews."

"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: 'by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

"the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew."

"The black-haired Jewish youth lies in wait for hours on end, satanically glaring at and spying on the unsuspicious girl whom he plans to seduce, adulterating her blood and removing her from the bosom of her own people. The Jew uses every possible means to undermine the racial foundations of a subjugated people."

"Due to his own original special nature, the Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him.
And a religion in the Aryan sense cannot be imagined which lacks the conviction of survival after death in some form.
Indeed, the Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world. "

"The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine.

Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation."

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

HF I would be interested in some example of what you are referring to. Doesn't need to be anything crazily complex, just an explanation of how a particular passage reads and how it differs once the cipher is applied. You do not appear to be a fool, despite your name, so I have to assume that you are not just talking nonsense... but I have still never had any kind of reasonable, non-rationalizing explanation from anyone on any specific troublesome part of the bible and how it could be interpreted differently. Ideally if you could choose something which you find distasteful on it's face, like the passages about genocide or stoning people, and demonstrate how it can be read differently and what process was used to interpret it that way.

Well friend, I have not personally dealt with such passages, and I don't want to try and justify stuff that falls well outside my moral compass. I agree with you about genocide and gay persecution among other things... naturally, we are modern people who are a product of our progressive milieu.

Seeing that even now in 2012, there are swarms of people in the Middle East who don't share our civil liberties concepts... who have no conception whatsoever of a Californian style "live & let live" credo... it is not hard for me to imagine that 2 to 3 thousand years ago things were a bit less PC. If anything, I would say the biblical folk were at least as progressive as the people of the Dark Ages, though. Meaning that they may well have been 1500 years ahead of their time or more.

The passages I have focused on are the ones that caught my fancy. As a sci-fi buff, and a sucker for the fantastic, this was often stuff dealing with angels, giants & the nephilim. Needless to say, that stuff gets even more SF when put through the ciphers. I am convinced that the Bible, like Sumerian mythology before it, is talking about some serious ET stuff. It is not really even a stretch to say that though, as the angels were created before the Earth, so therefore they are by definition extra terrestrial.

I don't ascribe to Eliyahu's interpretations exactly, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Bible was dealing with some wars that involved various ETs, human factions, and halfbreeds... I also wouldn't doubt that such beings would be considered dangerous and worthy of a preemptive strike or two. A city full of giants of the kind that is described in the Bible (where the scouts felt like grasshoppers next to their massive walls) is surely more of a threat to a bunch of tent dwelling nomads than Iraq was to the US in either Gulf War.

If you are really interested in Qabbalah and Bible codes, you might just want to go ahead and get some books on it. But, never one to keep secrets, I will say that if you get yourself a copy of the Torah in original, unedited Hebrew, and then you mess with some of the simpler codes... (every other letter, every 3rd letter, every 7th letter, reversing passages, reading up to down etc.) you can get a feel for what it is about. It is important to pick passages that have clear beginnings and endings, and chapters or verses with Qabbalistically significant numbers are usually better. But it is said that every bit of it contains info, and most of the ciphers involve applying more than one technique. (i.e. take a passage and reverse it, then take every 5th letter, going back over the passage until all the letters have been used up... then use certain rules to decide when a letter is supposed to represent a number, where one word ends and another begins, and what vowels may or may not be present.)

The possibilities are endless. Especially when you realize that Hebrew doesn't have separate symbols for numerals, but rather every letter can also mean a number. A large vocabulary in ancient Hebrew terminology... especially esoteric and mystical terms is a huge help.

Anyway, it is fascinating stuff... whatever you think of it.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

PWI (posting while high)

Nice acronym... may want to proof read it though

D'oh!

(I usually refrain from going back and retroactively fixing shit like that... but this is too stupid, so I will proof it. Going with PWH, though PWI with its obvious DWI/DUI reference might be better... Posting While Intoxicated?)

Hehehehe. This bottle of single malt I cracked open here isn't helping matters...

 

[polytrip]

Homosexuality was generally discouraged by God not only because of it's connection to dark side practices in anceint times but because of the simple fact that gay people cannot reproduce.

Being gay is fine and everything but if too many people would have become gay in ancient times it might have affected the Earth's population and gene pool in a negative way.

Somehow this seems to suggest that, if homosexuality would not have been discouraged, it would have been likely (or at least a serious posibility) that everybody, or certainly large segments of the population, would have become homosexual. As if most people would actually rather want to be gay than straight and that for this reason, they need to be disouraged, or the human race would become extinct. In some cultures, homosexuality is also seen as a contagious disease. People don´t want to come near any homosexual because they´re afraid that they would become infected with it.

To me that seems like some of these religious people, deep down inside, have homosexual feelings themselves that they´re afraid of. I mean, if you seriously believe that most people would rather be gay than straight, and that therefore they need to be discouraged, in other words, that if it would not have been for this discouragement, mosy people would actually be gay, then what you´re actually saying is: 'being gay is OBVIOUSLY the more atractive choice'. And someone who is more atracted to the opposite sex would not make such a statement in my opinion.

 

[anrchy]

I just don't buy the whole "bible speaks in codes" talk. I used to tell people, it's all metaphorical. Don't take everything to heart. BUT if that's true then isn't it possible that when the bible speaks of a creator that it's STILL speaking in code? Maybe the "creator" god is code for "the power that drives the universe". If this were to be true then the whole bible idea goes out the window as far as belief goes, cause then believing in god is strictly left with belief as your only rock to stand on.

Well, the word god is in fact kinda code for "the power that drives the universe."

One does not have to ascribe to a biblical type deity (or Thor or Vishnu for that matter) to be a theist. Belief in a power that drives the universe... of any sort whatsoever... is a theistic belief.

I have a lot of friends who were convinced they were atheists until I showed them patiently that what they believe and assumed to be anti theistic... actually falls well within established parameters of certain theistic belief systems.

I don't know about this being the reason that belief in the Bible goes out the window either. There are plenty of valid reasons not to believe in the Bible, though, so I suppose it doesn't matter why you don't believe.

All I can say about the codes in the Bible is that I have seen them, there are literally thousands of books on the topic, and anyone who cares to look for them will themselves summarily encounter them. Is it just a case of forming random patterns because you want them to be there? Possibly. For the same reason that any tarot card you pull will inevitably make sense to you based on some aspect of your life... it is easy to find meaning in any sufficiently abstract data set.

And yet, the stuff I have seen about the Bible codes goes well beyond that, and can really blow your mind. I have read passages that when put through a cipher read not only intelligible info... but actually refer to the same subject matter as the original passage but on a deeper level... and then actually tell you to go back and read the same passage again with yet another cipher... that actually proves to provide even more detailed information on the same super esoteric subject matter.

I am not a mathematician, but I am willing to bet that the odds against that being merely random are... let's say astronomical.

I understand that you could read into the bible that way but what I'm saying is it would have to of been meant to be that way in order for your theory to be true. Regardless of your belief no one can deny there is a "power that drives the universe". If that were the "main idea" originally (which I don't entirely disbelieve that it couldn't be) then it would make sense. I can also understand why it would need to be put that way, the earliest civilizations wouldn't understand the vast complexity of existence as it is in its original form.

But I fail to see proof that this is it's actual method. You can take any cartoon on tv and impose a theme on top that is different than the obvious storyline. There's nothing random about it, language is extremely immature in its complexity. We have not perfected language by any means, and the fact that we don't have singular words that have only one possible meaning for everything leads to the fact that you can take any text written as the bible is and make it sound like they are talking about a million different things.

If you applied this same technique you can say the bible tells of aliens creating us through the use of genetics. The bible can also be seen as actually a book of Satan. You can also read it as just life lessons and information about how positive thought and negative thought are mechanics in the balancing beam of life. The possibilities are completely endless and it all has to do with mathematics.

For instance:
The word SET has the most definitions of any word in the English language. SET has 464 definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. Here's how the others stack up:
RUN - 396 (defs.)
GO - 368
TAKE - 343
STAND - 334
GET - 289
TURN - 288
PUT - 268
FALL - 264
STRIKE - 250

It wouldn't be very difficult to write a paragraph, using just some of these words, that would have different meanings to each person that read it. When you read something your view on what you visualize in your head is formulated based on your experience in life, this creates the vision of what you think the paragraph is about based on your understanding of the mechanics of life. So as we progress through the ages and form even more technological advancements out view on what the bible is referring to WILL change based on the new things that we learn that form our views on what life is and how we experience it.

 

[anrchy]

Homosexuality was generally discouraged by God not only because of it's connection to dark side practices in anceint times but because of the simple fact that gay people cannot reproduce.

Being gay is fine and everything but if too many people would have become gay in ancient times it might have affected the Earth's population and gene pool in a negative way.

Somehow this seems to suggest that, if homosexuality would not have been discouraged, it would have been likely (or at least a serious posibility) that everybody, or certainly large segments of the population, would have become homosexual. As if most people would actually rather want to be gay than straight and that for this reason, they need to be disouraged, or the human race would become extinct. In some cultures, homosexuality is also seen as a contagious disease. People don´t want to come near any homosexual because they´re afraid that they would become infected with it.

To me that seems like some of these religious people, deep down inside, have homosexual feelings themselves that they´re afraid of. I mean, if you seriously believe that most people would rather be gay than straight, and that therefore they need to be discouraged, in other words, that if it would not have been for this discouragement, mosy people would actually be gay, then what you´re actually saying is: 'being gay is OBVIOUSLY the more atractive choice'. And someone who is more atracted to the opposite sex would not make such a statement in my opinion.

I think it's more along the lines of Satan playing into the equation and "infecting" people with the idea, that idea spreads to those that are not pure of heart or that haven't excepted god into their life. So by attacking homosexuality your basically fighting in gods name to rid the world of Satan.

Not a very good explanation actually. But the idea is there. I'm in a hurry gotta goto work!

 

[polytrip]

Homosexuality was generally discouraged by God not only because of it's connection to dark side practices in anceint times but because of the simple fact that gay people cannot reproduce.

Being gay is fine and everything but if too many people would have become gay in ancient times it might have affected the Earth's population and gene pool in a negative way.

Somehow this seems to suggest that, if homosexuality would not have been discouraged, it would have been likely (or at least a serious posibility) that everybody, or certainly large segments of the population, would have become homosexual. As if most people would actually rather want to be gay than straight and that for this reason, they need to be disouraged, or the human race would become extinct. In some cultures, homosexuality is also seen as a contagious disease. People don´t want to come near any homosexual because they´re afraid that they would become infected with it.

To me that seems like some of these religious people, deep down inside, have homosexual feelings themselves that they´re afraid of. I mean, if you seriously believe that most people would rather be gay than straight, and that therefore they need to be discouraged, in other words, that if it would not have been for this discouragement, mosy people would actually be gay, then what you´re actually saying is: 'being gay is OBVIOUSLY the more atractive choice'. And someone who is more atracted to the opposite sex would not make such a statement in my opinion.

I think it's more along the lines of Satan playing into the equation and "infecting" people with the idea, that idea spreads to those that are not pure of heart or that haven't excepted god into their life. So by attacking homosexuality your basically fighting in gods name to rid the world of Satan.

Not a very good explanation actually. But the idea is there. I'm in a hurry gotta goto work!

Someone who doesn´t have homosexual feelings deep down inside, would not be so obsessed with it. I mean, why THIS obsession? Why not rid the world of mais or vegetarians? Ideas originate somewhere. And it´s not very likely that it´s actually god (or satan) putting these ideas in people´s head.

If someone is afraid of being infected with homosexual feelings, he must be having them already somewhere. A persons fear is a reflection of what goes on inside his mind. Especially irrational fears.
Ofcourse they want to atribute their ideas to a book, so they can pretent that it´s not realy their own ideas. But the bible judges masturbation just as much. More people masturbate than engage in homosexual practices. The same argument (sex is for reproduction and reproduction only) applies to masturbation, but some of these religious nuts are not half as obsessed with masturbation as they are with homosexuality. That´s telling.

 

[Garyp88]

PWI (posting while high)

Nice acronym... may want to proof read it though

D'oh!

(I usually refrain from going back and retroactively fixing shit like that... but this is too stupid, so I will proof it. Going with PWH, though PWI with its obvious DWI/DUI reference might be better... Posting While Intoxicated?)

Hehehehe. This bottle of single malt I cracked open here isn't helping matters...

Cheap strong cider for me tonight unfortunately, I envy your single malt. I don't make a habit of highlighting spelling mistakes and shit like that, I generally find it to be a cheap attack, I just thought that particular one in it's context was quite funny.

I do find this take on the bible that you speak about very interesting. I went through quite a long spell a year or two ago of very pro-actively arguing about religion with everyday folks, and I had not come across this idea of the bible being basically encrypted. I may spend a bit of time trying to investigate it, but to be honest the main reason I asked for a specific example was because although I do have a passing interest in the subject I don't really want to spend months boning up on it just to find a bit of meaning in obscure ancient writings. But if someone actually spelled one out for me I would no doubt find it interesting. I recently started reading the Bhagavad Gita and to be honest it requires so much less gymnastics to find interesting concepts in this compared to the bible. Also even just a cursory glance at the words of people like the Buddha, or some of his contemporaries, seems to be rich with very insightful stuff... unencrypted stuff that just makes sense and seems highly moral (if there is such a thing as highly moral, I guess what I mean is "fits with my morality" lol).

 

[Garyp88]

I just got the PWI/DUI thing. My bad, lol.

 

[Hyperspace Fool]

PWI (posting while high)

Nice acronym... may want to proof read it though

D'oh!

(I usually refrain from going back and retroactively fixing shit like that... but this is too stupid, so I will proof it. Going with PWH, though PWI with its obvious DWI/DUI reference might be better... Posting While Intoxicated?)

Hehehehe. This bottle of single malt I cracked open here isn't helping matters...

Cheap strong cider for me tonight unfortunately, I envy your single malt. I don't make a habit of highlighting spelling mistakes and shit like that, I generally find it to be a cheap attack, I just thought that particular one in it's context was quite funny.

I do find this take on the bible that you speak about very interesting. I went through quite a long spell a year or two ago of very pro-actively arguing about religion with everyday folks, and I had not come across this idea of the bible being basically encrypted. I may spend a bit of time trying to investigate it, but to be honest the main reason I asked for a specific example was because although I do have a passing interest in the subject I don't really want to spend months boning up on it just to find a bit of meaning in obscure ancient writings. But if someone actually spelled one out for me I would no doubt find it interesting. I recently started reading the Bhagavad Gita and to be honest it requires so much less gymnastics to find interesting concepts in this compared to the bible. Also even just a cursory glance at the words of people like the Buddha, or some of his contemporaries, seems to be rich with very insightful stuff... unencrypted stuff that just makes sense and seems highly moral (if there is such a thing as highly moral, I guess what I mean is "fits with my morality" lol).

Cool. Cheers mate.

The Bhagavad Gita is an awesome read. The entire Mahabharata is fun actually. (The BG is actually just a song in the Mahabharata)

While it is nice to have stuff spelled out, and this encryption thing can seem like a boorish waste of time... it has to be understood in the context of the Israelites being enslaved in Egypt, Babylon & Persia... as well as being occupied and persecuted by every other major power. From Assyria to Germany, Greece to Russia, Rome to the Turks... the Jews have had a pretty heady run of people trying to erase them. Furthermore, two of the world's biggest religions are both based on Judaism, so there is extra religious reasons to preserve the "truth" in the face of strong pressures that would have destroyed a less hard-headed people and their culture.

The Vedas might have had some conflicts... notably with Islam, but there was never a time when Vedic culture was in any real danger of being stamped out or had to be preserved while being an oppressed and despised minority.

 

[anrchy]

Homosexuality was generally discouraged by God not only because of it's connection to dark side practices in anceint times but because of the simple fact that gay people cannot reproduce.

Being gay is fine and everything but if too many people would have become gay in ancient times it might have affected the Earth's population and gene pool in a negative way.

Somehow this seems to suggest that, if homosexuality would not have been discouraged, it would have been likely (or at least a serious posibility) that everybody, or certainly large segments of the population, would have become homosexual. As if most people would actually rather want to be gay than straight and that for this reason, they need to be disouraged, or the human race would become extinct. In some cultures, homosexuality is also seen as a contagious disease. People don´t want to come near any homosexual because they´re afraid that they would become infected with it.

To me that seems like some of these religious people, deep down inside, have homosexual feelings themselves that they´re afraid of. I mean, if you seriously believe that most people would rather be gay than straight, and that therefore they need to be discouraged, in other words, that if it would not have been for this discouragement, mosy people would actually be gay, then what you´re actually saying is: 'being gay is OBVIOUSLY the more atractive choice'. And someone who is more atracted to the opposite sex would not make such a statement in my opinion.

I think it's more along the lines of Satan playing into the equation and "infecting" people with the idea, that idea spreads to those that are not pure of heart or that haven't excepted god into their life. So by attacking homosexuality your basically fighting in gods name to rid the world of Satan.

Not a very good explanation actually. But the idea is there. I'm in a hurry gotta goto work!

Someone who doesn´t have homosexual feelings deep down inside, would not be so obsessed with it. I mean, why THIS obsession? Why not rid the world of mais or vegetarians? Ideas originate somewhere. And it´s not very likely that it´s actually god (or satan) putting these ideas in people´s head.

If someone is afraid of being infected with homosexual feelings, he must be having them already somewhere. A persons fear is a reflection of what goes on inside his mind. Especially irrational fears.
Ofcourse they want to atribute their ideas to a book, so they can pretent that it´s not realy their own ideas. But the bible judges masturbation just as much. More people masturbate than engage in homosexual practices. The same argument (sex is for reproduction and reproduction only) applies to masturbation, but some of these religious nuts are not half as obsessed with masturbation as they are with homosexuality. That´s telling.

Religious people who oppose honosexuality arent so much obsessed with being anti-gay as they are obsessed with spreadinh the word of god. You don't think religious people can have irrational fears based on the wrath of god? I'm not saying that it's Satan putting those ideas in their head to be homosexual, but religious fanatics has announced such a thing many times about that exact topic, as well as others. I think this is small beans compared to the atrocities that HAVE happened without a doubt due to the fact that someone thinks that's what god would want them to do, and that they are fighting satans army by trying to stop it.

I doubt you can attribute someone's hate for homosexuality to being homosexual themselves. There are many different reason people hate others. Racist white people don't hate blacks because they secretly want to be black. There is a more underlying cause.

Would be funny though, if all anti-gay religious people were secretly gay themselves. Highly unlikely though.