1a2bcio8

Cleverness is overated but furry muff back at you

To be perfectly honest, I'd always assumed the intention was towards nonsense. Basically the reason I like the ryhming so much. Even though it's nonsense however, it does evoke some interesting imagery

If you're open to some sureal rhyming with a morphine melody, I suggest "Clouddead". Music to pleasurably eat your fingers to. Probably my most favourite hiphop.

They said that the blue fin fish (?), despite being the first fish to near extinction, was a fashion fish, eaten because it relates to status in some way. People are all out to cope with the world and find happiness, but attempting to get it through fish-eating-status is a pretty limited way of doing so, especially when it relates to oblivious annihilation of another species. As a species, we have the greatest capacity for compassion and love but simaltaneously, the greatest capacity for emotional retardation and deep, deep confusion.

So is anyone currently watching or finished watching the channel 4 documentary, "The End of the Line", which discusses the massive decline of fish within the world's waters due to our (western) fishing industry? The summary so far is that we will cause the extinction of many species and that basically very little is being done to curb this, in terms of the fishing industry itself or the governmental institutions which have the power to regulate the fishing industry. Even when the insufficient quotas are breached, no policing of the fishing industry occurs. This seems to be yet another display of the general insanity of human beings, related to the relatively unrestrained motivations of modern capatalism which prioritise greed and hate over opposing, more healthy values and which is substantially allowed on the misconception that we are somehow above and not within the surrounding ecosystem. Perhaps also related is the delusion that in some sense we can all just continue doing what we are doing and everything will be fine, much like the consideration of global warming. Rather than consider any of this and try to realise what our proper place is within the interconnected world, everybody seem simply to prefer distracting themselves with little pleasures here and there, attempting to create a selfish bubble of sorts. Unfortunately, although people seem to lack this insight there will be a great deal of regret when those currently without children have them, and suddenly realise what sort of the world they have created for them. I still find it a shame that most people's regrets will relate to other "family" members and not other humans in general and other species on our planet, but that seems to be the current trend. All critcisms refer to me also. I am guilty of not making enough of an effort. I'll admit though that I simply do not know what to do, when what you're opposing wields great power in terms of a massive apathy against it. We're in a very depressing situation that requires a good portion of us to organise and oppose what's happening in terms of protecting the health of the planet. Little pleasures or healthy living for a planet as a whole? Anyway, please discuss. I'd love to hear an argument for not caring.

Advancement doesn't have to be about scientific advancement though. In fact, I think it's probably worth slowing or even halting certain technological developments until our morals are properly in accord with the current technologies available. As Beigemaster rightly pointed out technology has, relative to lacking morals found in secular government, allowed for the destruction and harm of life in the past and it continues to do so. Moral development is probably more important than technological development, although I wouldn't try to deny that they have a relationship in the sense of being able to focus on morals by being freed from certain restraints by technology. Most essentially though, life is about balance between the varying considerations of the world that arise in the human condition. Scientifc, humanistic, moralistic, religious and so on. Focusing on Science as the saviour to the exclusion of other approaches won't stop us using morals, being psychological, being religious and so on, but will make us not very good at them. You're not usually good at what you don't practice. Actually, older theories are often still maintained but are restricted to certain domains of usage. Newtonian physics is still applicable despite the advent of Relativity and Quantum Theory but in limited domain. The idea of applicability to limited domain bares a similarity to the situation of science relative to other systems of knowledge and systems of value (humanities, ethics, religion, art, etc.). This is specifically the reason why the attempt to replace religion with science doesn't make sense. Science is quite awesome at gaining physical knowledge but it doesn't really inform us about how to interpret the world on the basic psychological level of every day living (meaning). It doesn't inform me how it's healthy to react to the varying emotional events I go through on a day to day basis, especially regarding how I might feel about the broad fact that I exist. Religion happens to be a system that offers a way of interpreting broad facts, such as existence, that aren't open to science. What's really important here is that religion won't go away if we simply emphasise science especially in the sense that science has a dependency on a religious attitude. Religion, in its broadest sense, sets the tone of reverence and awe that we feel toward the world and which motivates us toward wanting to understand this confusing and amazing situation we find ourselves in. So you say that we are past Christianity and in many regards I would agree with you but in it's most fundamental sense, we are not and probably never will be. At its core is a human need that is evident in the standard stereotypical atheists reverence, awe and faith in evolution as a complete description of our core existence, as displayed by Anal. Although I agree with evolution it does however only tell me a very limited amount about my existence. In fact this seems so evident to that I don't think it even needs stating further? So we will always be religious but importantly we can manifest better and worse religions. Reverence and awe for science is quite appropriate but only in so much as it doesn't lead to the blind faith so common in popular and scientific culture, to the detriment or better faith that properly considers the varying evidence available, found mystically, philosophically, scientifically and so on and consequently properly considers a system of knowledge in an appropriate and humanly serving way. Christianity has and will constinue to shape itself according to the changing needs of humans. There are areas within the religion that are better and worse at this, some that are clearly awful. Picking on the bad parts and representing them as a whole is at best a confusion, at worst a gross misrepresentation. I meant to write more but I have a prior engagement. Please excuse any incoherrence.

On my bitch's machine now. Anyway, I would say that most Christians believe in God as an entity but I'm not so sure they all view him in the same descriptions contained in the Bible. No doubt a lot do and I find this imagery very unlikely. In so much as we don't try to anthropomorphise God or try to say too much about what God is like, I find the idea of a God more possible. Mostly, I'm really confused however. How did all this come to be? Nobody really has a clue. We have reasoned guesses but they all fall short of anything confident. But yeah, any individual who doesn't question their view and accept where it lacks, well, I don't think this is healthy or sane. Unfortunately, such attitudes occur in all walks of life including science. Especially now with science because of the prestige it holds, whereby it's excellence is simply assumed by virtue of the prestige, which is kind've a circular way of thinking. We are all easily secular, scientific or religious sheep...

Here's the thing again, that leap of faith, for which you criticize Christians in general for regarding their faith in God. How is you know so certainly about these lies, deciept, etc? How about the interpretation of Religion as Myth, to express certain cultural and spiritual values, constructed and realised respectively as a valid interpretation? Is a myth synonymous with a lie or does it have some other intent? How do you know there aren't Christians who appreciate Christ simply by virtue of his moral standard? How do you know Jesus didn't mean something symbolic by the term God, rather than a literal being? You create assumptions which forms your definition but questions quickly arise that bring into dispute those assumptions. It's true that we do always have to make assumptions but that doesn't stop there being better and worse ones. I have to finish now as I'm already really late for meeting my female

But to be a Christian doesn't mean you have to be an evangical Christian, taking word for word, as literally true, all that the Bible says. It's not difficult to recognise that those who contributed to the Bible could easily have placed their own spin on what Christianity was supposed to represent as many Christians do acknowledge. Modern Science and we hope better science, has developed from older, we assume less accurate, science but again, we don't identify the two as exactly the same. We think of Science 1710 and Science 2010 and judge each of their individual merits. Consequently, Christianity orignating from Christ, popularized by the Bible, doesn't instantly define later expressions that fall under the same general title. There are meaningful historical ties and some things may remain the same but not neccesarily all things. Some manifestations of Christianity are a problem but some are and have been helpful to humanity. As I've said before, I feel this is the standard mistake of mistaking a part for a whole. Christianity is such a broad term and can't be defined simply as a "religious system whereby a Christian is only a Christian if they rigidly subscribe to the literal interpretation of the Bible". I'm pretty sure that would cause a confusing problem for what we would call the Christians that preceeded the Bible. So you have faith in Science and Technology as our saviour then? Can you elaborate on the reasons for this?

You make a seemingly intelligent statement which you then follow with an absolutist, dogmatic and sweeping statement about an approach to life, which you have only limited knowledge about and surmize regarding one dimension (i.e. God in the sense portrayed by the bible). Christianity is an incredibly diverse religious institute which has evolved many differing manifestations that don't rigidly subscribe to every part of the Bible but are still considered Christianity. I suspect you might object to a complete criticism of all science based on the failings of certain manifestations of science in terms of history or discipline (biology, physics, etc.)? Perhaps though you are involved in that process I previously mentioned of identifying, synonymously, the idea of God with Christianity. Consequently, when you say "Christianity is BS", in fact what you instead mean is " the concept of God is BS"? I guess I really don't get the need for absolutism/dogma, secular or religious. How do you know you know that much?!

I was thinking in moral terms. It would of course be quite scary. As a confused agnostic (fence sitter), should I expect a divine impaling at some point in the future?

I suspect people have a belief in God, as a generic type, but when Christianity is the prevalent religion it's what people easily end up identifying with, whilst possesing very little knowledge of it. Saying you are Christian is just the average way of saying you believe in God, even though it may not be specifically the God described in the Bible. Some people who believe in God, also subscribe to an "atheism in the name of God", which basically means that we can't make any positive (cataphatic) statements about God. If God is an entity external to our universe, I'm certainly more inclined to agree with this.

Although interesting as a form of insight regarding the cultural beliefs that surrounded and informed the creation of the bible, the two 'myths' of God and heaven are probably of little use today. Both are quite laughable. It would be quite disappointing though if there is a God and he is the exact one described in the Bible.

Awesome stuff. Love your style

Beautiful Did you or somebody else write that, Charlie?

(atheist) HALLELUJAH!

If I exchanged the word "spiritual" with "psychological insight" would you find what I meant more appealing? Because that's essentially what I mean. It means nothing of the Christian form of spirituality I think you'd probably associate it with. When we practice relaxation or meditation after asanas we become very absorbed on the mind which allows us to understand the nature of the mind better, regarding structure, motivations, previously unconscious emotions/memories, etc. My judgement of you as somebody who is inquisitive, I think you would find it quite interesting and rewarding. But furry muff if there's no interest. The relaxation is well worth it regardless however because it furthers muscular relaxation/lengthening and will further form a habit of the desired condition. Here is a link to an asana reference book I use. It also teaches pranayama exercises and some purifying practices (which I stay away from) but pranayama is well worth it in terms of imporving flexibility. Developing the breath with asanas greatly helps you lenghten your muscles. This book I bought for my (ex)gf who's a yoga/sports yoga teacher and physio. She thinks it's a decent book, especially (obviously) if you want to utilize yoga for sports performance. Above books however, I'd recommend attending a class with a teacher who you like. There are many approaches to yoga so it's easy to find one you don't get on with. It's worth having a teacher though because as you become more advanced, the asanas come with a greater risk of injury if you're unaware of the way in which the musculo-skeletal system works. The first book I mentioned does give some mention (contra-indications) of potential problems with certain asanas. One piece of advice I will give though is to make sure you never force a stretch. Develop flexibility over time. I originally tried to force things because I wanted to become adept at yoga very quickly and it caused me quite a few problems. One last thing. I'd look up the sun salutation (surya namaskara) set of connected asanas. Surya Namaskara tends to be integral to most approaches to yoga and for good reason.

I've been doing yoga for about three years now. Not, I might add, the yoga you see women doing down the gym but rather hatha yoga for spiritual development (yoga means "union", more specifically union with th divine. Yoga postures are only part of the systematic approach of hatha yoga and they are called asanas. Yoga asanas have been a great help with my lower back pain and any other aches or areas of tension that arise through bad habits/posture. It's also been a great help for trials. As I understand it, the greater the range of muscular movement, the more power you can create for obvious reasons. Asanas are also for developing muscular strength. I'm currently practicing handstands, headstands, lifting myself up from a sitting position, etc. There are also lots of dynamic moves such as jumping into a balance on your forearms, knees resting on them and then into a handstand. Like calisthenics, gymnastics or even street running type stuff. Another practice of yoga is pranayama (vital force expansion or breath control) which is awesome for endurance sports, again muscular tension and mental health. Basically, if you love you sport, yoga should enable you to do it for longer in the sense of reducing injury. Flexibility allows for give rather than break regarding accidents. When you go into yoga you are also open to trippy experiences that will inform your philosophy.

I cheated on her with one of her friends after 8 months :$ She was travelling for nearly 1.5 years. I wouldn't choose to have a long term relationship again on that basis. Although you never know regarding the 'right' person.

This is some proper gang style schoolyard shit. Although I guess many of you probably are school kids?

My faith bitch.

haha Good bitchin' Well, at least I'm not a religious atheistic contradiction And yes I will admit to removing what I've said if I look back on it and think it not articulate enough or a nonsense. I am often very wrong and very confused and take actions that I later regret. The forum is no exception. And I probably do find it difficult to admit when I think myself to have been wrong. I'm working on it though That took me longer to think up than I would have ideally liked.

C'mon Anal with the response edit: Damn, beat me to it Well, I'll hope you'll realise that my responses aren't too serious, mostly in jest. There's still a difference between banter and bitching though. But yeah, doesn't overly matter at the end of the day, just sometimes I like to mention about it

Pfft, I only see judgemental bitchiness. Let the OP express himself how he feels comfortable. It's not something I would choose to do but others clearly appreciate it. That's my opinion. But unfortunately perhaps I'm now being bitchy? It's a slippery slope being critical of the critics.