Nick suggested this very popular no-brainer:It's amazing how many people can tell you what is morally bad, but really struggle if asked to give an account of that judgement.
I reckon this one would also get a fair workout:In the Bible it says...
Good point.Philo wrote:Perhaps you think that, but that has nothing to do with the psychological use of the term "neurotic." A "neurotic" trait is just a preoccupation that causes a person distress, as many people today experience with regard to their cell phone use -- for example when the phone goes out, when they are left without it, and so on. The fact that a person is neurotic about something says nothing about his moral standing.
But for fate, they are generally correlated, are they not? If you lack all morals, what would compel you comply with public safety mandates other than fear of getting caught? If a thing is morally right, it will be publically safe, in general. Morals relate to your inner obligations, public safety and social manners to your external obligations. You could not function if they were completely unrelated.Carl G wrote:What has public safety and social manners to do with morality?
I don't know who wrote this. Was it Iolaus? Anyway, samadhi said "Indeed." to it. As long as we make it clear that even if we don't condemn the sinner, we must condemn the sin. Listen, literally accepting "everyone as they are" could mean accepting Hitler while he was shoveling Jews into ovens.When you understand - in fact see, that everyone has the same, identical core, that is pure and unsullied, you can then accept everyone as they are.
American beer is not just Budweiser. Ever had a Sam Adams? And there are many wonderful microbreweries springing up in the US.Dan Rowden wrote:We could discuss this over a few beers sometime, expect that American beer and cat's piss are indistinguishable.
Yeah, mikiel, he doesn't. In fact, it's work. This forum doesn't just happen.Your constant insinuation that I wear my admin status on my sleeve as a poster is one you can fairly shove up your arse. I do not. You seem to have some kind of authority issue
Again, I have to agree. I pretty much ignored sam's posts, but that's just because they never really said anything.Philo wrote:If it were my call, I wouldn't have banned Sam, but I can see David's point that Sam's attitude and style of posting were antithetical to the goals of the forum.
It goes without saying that my judgment is made in the context of philosophy and spirituality.Shahrazad wrote:David,
He may be like me and just sucks at philosophy, but is very good at other things that require high intelligence. I hardly ever call anybody dumb because I could be falling into assessing them along a single dimension, and there are many dimensions to a person's brain power. Even the smartest person does badly in some fields. You, for example, may be terrible at math, and/or physics.
No doubt this is the way you look at things, but I'll have to say I strongly disagree. You don't get to set the purpose of everybody else's life, just your own. There may be as many purposes as there are people.If a person sucks at that, then it essentially means that he sucks at life itself. He sucks at being conscious.
Same as above.To allow oneself to be smart in one area of life, such as math, while remaining dumb in the wider, more important area of philosophy/spirituality is .... it has to be said ..... pretty dumb.
No, but you're the only one who keeps harping about it as if you're saying something relevant. Your account of the process seems like a rather limited, specific, personalized instance of a much more general thing. Have you ever been in a message board or any group at all where this phenomenon doesn't happen? But you might not see that from the analyst's chair you've carved out for your self.Alex Jacob wrote: [Mikiel is, it seems, the psychological doppelganger, the forgotten relative who pops up through the Ouija board, the poltergeist in a spooky teenage girl's bedroom closet, who just won't go away---like a dream that repeats itself until one psychologically gets it.
[I wonder sometimes if I am the only one who sees these things?
Projections and reflections are part and parcel of how all inter-relating goes, everywhere, every time. It doesn't mean repression and distortion is always the case, that's just your psycho-analytic obsession speaking
There's a whole list of people to ban first before that might happen! Anything below Tomas' second tier perhaps. I hope you do realize that your posts are quite dull as well. Beautiful at times but still rather dull. Surfing the surface but never the nerve!Alex Jacob wrote:... a way out of the more stupid aspects of dull conversations. Meaning, there would be greater frequency of more interesting conversations.
But the analogy implied that deep space was home base - the World - and the planet an imaginary construct inhabited by ghostly gravediggers.Alex Jacob wrote:
Remember the spaceship that takes off into orbit and sends back signals?
Curt, dismissive, slam down the shutters.Shahrazad wrote:Ambitious people don't impress me.
Yeah, well...well, you chased away elderwoodxxx.And if the Earth---your platform---is really in your eyes a place of 'ghostly gravediggers', you are perhaps more invested in a false Christian conception than you let on.
