Listen to Erathoniel ranting on and on in good ol' conservative Christian fashion.

     I've revieved complaints from people saying that I'm "projecting" or "impressing" my views on them.

     I know how to project things. You put them in your hand, close your fingers, pull your hand back, open your fingers, and push your hand forward. In some places, it is called "throwing".

     I know how to impress things. Either you make their jaws drop, or you take a stick or similar object and shove it into a softer, pliable object, which will then bear the imprint of the impressing object (you can use fire, too).

     So, let me get this straight, my stating that I believe in an absolute good and evil is "evil", but stating that my belief in absolute reality is "evil" is not?

      See, secular humanity has one problem. They answer only to pleasure, like dogs answer to treats. They know not discipline, immortality, or hope, only drunkenness, death, and uncertainty. And they give up their will in order to gain what mere senses can percieve. Gone is logic, gone is reason, only desire and emptiness remain. They lose any purpose, they lose any life, they give up all for one night stands, booze, cheap food, revelry, action movies, pornography, hollow shells that provide no salvation, merely result in addiction and dependence, a crutch for the weak that only makes them weaker.

       Faith comes with apparent drawbacks. One cannot continue on in a life of sin, for then they experience only what the dogs who reject hope experience. Instead, they must work for their dinner, and they recieve a fine feast in God's house while the dogs outside enjoy their meager meals, feeling hopeless and weak. They must give up uncertainty for trust, desire for logic, emptiness for reason, but they are rewarded with salvation through Jesus Christ, independence, and strength. They find the sanctity of marriage, fellowship, and other wholesome rewards, and, above all, dignity.


Comments (Page 1)
on Jul 14, 2008

Oi Vey!  You just don't get it man.  You know what I would recommend.  Start reading more books.  Read something that will make you think logically.  Something divorced of religion and apart in its own right.  HMM let me thingk try "Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche.  While I don't believe in the books whole message it does make you think and look at things differently. 

on Jul 14, 2008
Oi Vey! You just don't get it man.


I think he does, but perhaps does not express it well. Everyone projects their concepts onto others. It is a simple fact of human nature. Some may say it is wrong, and indeed given certain circumstances everyone does.

Some project their concepts of homosexuality on others; condeming others for not being as tolerant as they are. Some project their concepts of sin on others, saying that the others are condemned for sinning. But the root of all these projections is applying your set of beliefs onto the actions of others. and then judging. Christians are told "Judge not lest ye be judged", so they are especially vunerable to the criticisms that Erathoniel is discussing. Yet those who are criticizing him, are doing so through projection of their own belief system onto him.

Logic is a good start to come to a well throught out belief system. Some dont use it and blindly adhere to a concept of faith given to them by others (and this can be religion or anything that is accepted without questioning or research). Others question and eventually come to a belief system that is consistent with their findings and research. But all belief systems have one thing in common, and it is at the root of why there is not one universal one, even among scholarly people.

Kirkegaard's "leap of faith". While he was talking about the belief in a supreme being, it applies to all belief systems. There is a reason that the sciences are divided into soft and hard ones (Hard - Physics, Chemistry, biology, etc. - Soft, Psychology, Sociology, etc.). One has a very rigid set of rules with proofs and intermediate steps (Hypothesis, theory), while the other does not. And the ones that do not are the ones that attempt to explain the actions and thoughts of man. A very irrational creature. Therefore, there are no hard "facts" that can be universally applied to them, only after the fact observations that only apply to the situation at hand.

So Erathoniel is being criticized for extending his belief system to others. Yet the irony here is that those criticizing him are doing the exact same thing in their criticism. Many do not agree with him, but ignore his projection as they do not believe it. And the truth of the situation is, they are the most comfortable in their belief system since they see no need to be threatened by another's.

Having read many of Erathoniel's writings, I think he is well read and knowledgeable from a pure knowledge standpoint (wisdom is the application of knowledge and cannot be learned or taught). Whether that makes him right or wrong is in the eyes of the beholder since they must then incorporate his belief system into theirs to see if there is a fit.
on Jul 14, 2008
Well, that is a very nice thing to say about Erathoniel, DrGuy. Considering his attitude and the way he perceives most peoples opinions, I would not be surprised to see him find something in your comment that will somehow offend him, maybe to the point of BLing you.

It's the irony of all ironies of the Human Being. Believing that everyone has the right to their own opinion while at the same time taking that right away because they think their opinion is wrong.

And this is why things like peace, equality and "can't we all just get along" are nothing but fairtale words and beliefs.
on Jul 14, 2008
See, secular humanity has one problem. They answer only to pleasure, like dogs answer to treats. They know not discipline, immortality, or hope, only drunkenness, death, and uncertainty. And they give up their will in order to gain what mere senses can percieve. Gone is logic, gone is reason, only desire and emptiness remain.


I disagree with this. The evidence is that Stardock exists, or any video game publisher for that matter. Let me tell you why.

Theory predicts that the most rational decision to make in a situation in which there are "free-loaders" is to free-load yourself. The idea is that if someone is getting what you are gettiong for free, you shouldn't pay either. From an economic standpoint, this is unquestionably the most sane decision to make. But people pay anyway. They pay because it would offend their morals to free-load.

So, I guess you are right. Logic is gone, and so is reason. But if that were such a bad thing, then there wouldn't be computer games.

on Jul 14, 2008

Oi Vey! You just don't get it man. You know what I would recommend. Start reading more books. Read something that will make you think logically. Something divorced of religion and apart in its own right. HMM let me thingk try "Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche. While I don't believe in the books whole message it does make you think and look at things differently.

Hey, I like Beyond Good and Evil! Oh, wait, the book?

So, I guess you are right. Logic is gone, and so is reason. But if that were such a bad thing, then there wouldn't be computer games.

Not entirely, but it requires foundationless discipline to keep logic and reason. Have you ever had an addiction? It's a bad thing. Say farewell to logic.

I would not be surprised to see him find something in your comment that will somehow offend him, maybe to the point of BLing you.

Watch it. I've BL'd two people. One used the phrase "shall I use crayons" too much (and told me to "Rot In Hell", the other blatantly attacked me and used overly harsh language. I deleted the latter's comment, too. I don't BL for anything short of an attack. And then it has to be a blatant, unconstructive attack.

And this is why things like peace, equality and "can't we all just get along" are nothing but fairtale words and beliefs.

Or the Christian Church. The early Christian Church was a working communal society, with no intolerance or judgement, and relatively low crime or corruption in the era of the Roman Empire.

It's the irony of all ironies of the Human Being. Believing that everyone has the right to their own opinion while at the same time taking that right away because they think their opinion is wrong.

Horsecrap. You can keep your opinion. I don't want it!

Dr. Guy is actually being my best ally at this point. He's the only one who doesn't seem to be mindlessly swarming me with their indoctrinated minds. There's a good reason that he's the top user on JU. I'm not sure that the compliment is correct, but I'd take it.

on Jul 14, 2008
Horsecrap. You can keep your opinion. I don't want it!


Duh, you don't want my opinions. You simply want to replace mine with yours.

Dr. Guy is actually being my best ally at this point. He's the only one who doesn't seem to be mindlessly swarming me with their indoctrinated minds. There's a good reason that he's the top user on JU. I'm not sure that the compliment is correct, but I'd take it.


LOL, enjoy his comments while you can. One post saying something nice about you does not mean he's on your side. DrGuy can be honest in his feelings and will grant peoples points when they deserve it, hell even a broken clock can get the time right twice a day. BTW, your "swarming me with their indoctrinated minds" comment, now you know how it feels.
on Jul 14, 2008
There's a good reason that he's the top user on JU.


The only reason he's the 'top user' is because he's commented on more people's posts than anyone else.

He's got more points because of his copious amounts of comments and articles.

If you want to see if someone's really a top user, look at their Karma. Tells you what the community really thinks about them, not how much time they have to waste on JU on any given day.
on Jul 14, 2008

You simply want to replace mine with yours.

Nope. I don't care about yours. Why is it that one can't write an article and not be viewed as "projecting" or "impressing"? If I were commenting on others' articles, then, maybe, but not by writing my own.

One post saying something nice about you does not mean he's on your side.

He is in that matter. And that's all I'm working on right now.

BTW, your "swarming me with their indoctrinated minds" comment, now you know how it feels.

How what feels?

@ SanCho: Nice to see you again.

on Jul 14, 2008

Erathoniel writes:

my stating that I believe in an absolute good and evil is "evil",

Psychx posts:

Read something that will make you think logically. Something divorced of religion and apart in its own right. HMM let me thingk try "Beyond Good and Evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche.

I haven't read this particular book, however, I know something of Friedrich Nietzsche and I'm curious why you think that reading anything he wrote would make one think logically.

Nietzche detested Christianity, charging that it advanced weak, feminine qualities like modesty, chastity, and humility. I'm telling you right now, find a man with those virtues and wow! He's a real man in my book...nothing feminine there. And I''ll tell you what....real women really like real men. So, Nietzche was 100% wrong on that score.

Nietzsche admired the warrior and conqueror and much of his "superman" thinking was later adopted by the Third Reich. He was an unashamed atheist who by in large rejected the notion of the human being as a person who lives by knowedge and love. I see him as a weak person, vain and his logic as a mere house of cards. He spent his final days in a mental institution hopelessly mad and not even knowing his own name.

So, without reading the book, I'd have to agree with you that it would be something divorced from religion and apart on its own right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

on Jul 14, 2008
Nope. I don't care about yours.


First of all, if you didn't care you would not bother to point out when someone's opinion is erroneous based on you ideals. Something you do very often on these forums. You obviously care, even more you care not only about what the other persons opinions are but you are very interested in changing those opinions to yours. Otherwise you would not bother to put your opinions as if you were right and they were wrong, which is another thing you do often on these forums.

Why is it that one can't write an article and not be viewed as "projecting" or "impressing"? If I were commenting on others' articles, then, maybe, but not by writing my own.


Erathoniel

Do you not realize that this articles came upon from comments made on another article? How can you think that this article is somehow separate, unique, it's own topic when this same topic was being discussed on your other article? It's obvious you felt this particular topic deserved it's own comments, comments that were based on "projecting" and "impressing" from the other article. What did you think would happen on this article? I just don't understand why everything is so confusing, so irrational, so out of place to you.

He is in that matter. And that's all I'm working on right now.


Well as I said enjoy it. I'm sure everyone is bound to get something right sooner or later.

How what feels?


You know? You are an interesting character. When you are not playing the clueless one you are playing God's perfect little alter boy. Even KFC knows when to come back down to Earth from time to time.

on Jul 15, 2008

1. Do you not realize that this articles came upon from comments made on another article? 2. How can you think that this article is somehow separate, unique, it's own topic when this same topic was being discussed on your other article? 3. It's obvious you felt this particular topic deserved it's own comments, 4. comments that were based on "projecting" and "impressing" from the other article. 5. What did you think would happen on this article? 6. I just don't understand why everything is so confusing, so irrational, so out of place to you.

1. Yes. That's the point. That comment was not adressing this article, but an earlier one I wrote spontaneously (yes, psychx, spontaneously, sorry to crash your party, but before I read the "boycott McDonald's" one.)

2. I don't.

3. Every topic deserves it's own comments.

4. An article one does not need read throught the course of their lifetime.

5. This one wasn't meant to achieve a response, merely state a response too long for a comment.

6. It's not that I don't understand the facts of the matter, it's that I refuse to accept the sorry state of being we have reached as a whole.

You know? You are an interesting character. When you are not playing the clueless one you are playing God's perfect little alter boy. Even KFC knows when to come back down to Earth from time to time.

Who's saying they're perfect? The clueless part is intentional. But I'm never saying I'm perfect. I'm a sinner. I'm human.

Well as I said enjoy it. I'm sure everyone is bound to get something right sooner or later.

My, my, being optimistic, are we, about yourself? Or being negative towards me?  Don't worry, you'll have a turn sometime.

 

on Jul 15, 2008
1. Yes. That's the point. That comment was not adressing this article, but an earlier one I wrote spontaneously (yes, psychx, spontaneously, sorry to crash your party, but before I read the "boycott McDonald's" one.)


Oh Lord. Never mind. Pointless to argue.

2. I don't.


If you say so, now.

3. Every topic deserves it's own comments.


Sure it does, for that matter write an article instead of a reply every time you need to make a comment. But don't try to create an article that derived from an argument on another article and expect different comments on it. That's simply ridiculous.

4. An article one does not need read throught the course of their lifetime.


Well, just because you don't want it to be read does not mean we won't.

5. This one wasn't meant to achieve a response, merely state a response too long for a comment.


So why did you allow people to comment? I don't get it, all your responses point towards the idea that your word should be the final word. That no comments should be made after yours have been stated. And this is what I keep trying to point out; you respond to other peoples comments but get frustrated when someone replies to your comments contesting them. It is this attitude of absoluteness that you project in your comments that drives people to be rude and hostile to your comments. Your "And that's the bottom line, cause Stone Cold said so" attitude is what's your real problem getting along with people on this site.

6. It's not that I don't understand the facts of the matter, it's that I refuse to accept the sorry state of being we have reached as a whole.


It's not that you refuse, it's that you don't understand why others refuse to accept your words as absolute. You seem to think you have the answers to all the questions in the world and then you find yourself wondering why people don't accept your answers. You need to take a step back and realize you are just another mortal human being no better than the man/woman next to you. You may have your beliefs that drive your existence, but your beliefs are not absolute cause you are not God.

Who's saying they're perfect? The clueless part is intentional. But I'm never saying I'm perfect. I'm a sinner. I'm human.


Yea, this is one of those arguments where people claim "I never said those exact words" so that the conversation can be controlled by them. It doesn't really matter Erathoniel. There is no point in trying to make sense of anything when your mind is already set to reject anything that does not fall in line with your views. Which is why many here say you are closed-minded.

My, my, being optimistic, are we, about yourself? Or being negative towards me? Don't worry, you'll have a turn sometime.


LOL, your attempt to turn the tables on me failed. But what can one expect from someone who thinks very, very highly of himself? I am who I am as God made me. I do my best to the best person I can be. When my time comes I will let God judge me, based on my free will and humanity he gave me, not this perceived notion of being better or best.
on Jul 15, 2008

Sure it does, for that matter write an article instead of a reply every time you need to make a comment. But don't try to create an article that derived from an argument on another article and expect different comments on it. That's simply ridiculous.

Ah, yes, but that was when MasonM was flaming me like all heck. I couldn't have posted, it would've been swallowed up.

Well, just because you don't want it to be read does not mean we won't.

Oh, I want it to be read, but I'm not making it required reading or anything.

I don't get it, all your responses point towards the idea that your word should be the final word.

???

Your "And that's the bottom line, cause Stone Cold said so" attitude is what's your real problem getting along with people on this site.

You mean absolute faith?

There is no point in trying to make sense of anything when your mind is already set to reject anything that does not fall in line with your views. Which is why many here say you are closed-minded.

And, if they fail to beat God, why shouldn't I just reject them entirely?

on Jul 15, 2008
Ah, yes, but that was when MasonM was flaming me like all heck. I couldn't have posted, it would've been swallowed up.


I was always taught to ignore people if I didn't like how they were treating me. I have to believe you are not naive to how people express themselves on this site or any other for that matter. You may wanna grow a thicker skin if you plan on hanging around here for a long time. If you believe strongly enough in your opinions than you have nothing to fear.

Oh, I want it to be read, but I'm not making it required reading or anything.


You need to make up your mind already.

???


Is this you being intentionally clueless again?

You mean absolute faith?


No I mean you think your faith is absolute.

And, if they fail to beat God, why shouldn't I just reject them entirely?


Why do assume anyone is trying to beat God? You are not God dude; trying to contest your opinion is not trying to beat God. You fall way short of being God or an extension of him. Your faith is your opinion, not the supreme word, not the absolute meaning. Which is what I keep trying to tell you and you keep avoiding when you answered "???" above.
on Jul 15, 2008

I was always taught to ignore people if I didn't like how they were treating me. I have to believe you are not naive to how people express themselves on this site or any other for that matter. You may wanna grow a thicker skin if you plan on hanging around here for a long time. If you believe strongly enough in your opinions than you have nothing to fear.

You lost at this fight once before, didn't you?

You need to make up your mind already.

I did. I've said that, or tried to say it, before.

No I mean you think your faith is absolute.

I have absolute faith, and I believe that you are important to God.

Is this you being intentionally clueless again?

Nope. I missed your point entirely.

Why do assume anyone is trying to beat God? You are not God dude; trying to contest your opinion is not trying to beat God. You fall way short of being God or an extension of him. Your faith is your opinion, not the supreme word, not the absolute meaning. Which is what I keep trying to tell you and you keep avoiding when you answered "???" above.

But you are trying to replace the beliefs taught by God with those of your own.