Have things gone wrong?

[Dan Stubbs]

I can see how they can be the same thing or two sides of the same coin. For example, if one's prayers aren't answered, then it could be God warning you about your way of thinking or he has other plans for you. There may be a job your really want, but don't get it. You did everything you can to be in the top position to get it, but it doesn't happen. The decision is out of your control. Thus, do you end up blaming God or do you look for shortcomings in your own thinking? Perhaps, the job wasn't really right for you, so there is another job that will be better even though at lower pay.

Or you get in a car accident. That really is God's warning. You were being hasty trying to beat rush hour and ended up in an accident. Again, it's out of your control as sh*t happens. Do you reflect on it being your fault or do you end up blaming God?

If you look at shortcomings in your own thinking, then God is insisting on putting things right again. If you blame God, then you will experience the hardships.

I quit a job once, I knew I would fail. No one knew I have a bad case of ADHD and the Same Sheriff hired me back to my old position. Lost three stripes but was really happy at just a Road Patrolman.

 

[ding]

Only good men know just how bad they are. Bad men don’t have a clue.

If you're a good man, how are you bad?

Me? Who said I was a good man?

Of course not you, but if someone is a good man, why are they bad?

Only they can tell you.

You're a dumbass with a dumbass answer, as usual.

You’ll never convince people to follow Satan that way, Taz.

 

[BreezeWood]

.

What exactly does Genesis tell us about perfection?

It’s beyond your depth.

.

I believe the distinction is about our uniqueness in creation. No other animal has knowledge of good and evil. It is a wholly human concept.

- as an extract from your belief in a forged document is what is mindless - conforming to a fallacy for your answers.


No other animal has knowledge of good and evil ...

they certainly have, all beings have a fluid knowledge of life and their pursuits for the greater good.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

because they wrote that for you in their book does not make it true, the reality is all beings have the same precepts with varying degrees of relevance.

not being evil, a sinner, could quite easily be reduced to zero relevancy by not sinning as most beings are not burdened by your false religion. sinning is not their issue.

 

[ding]

.

What exactly does Genesis tell us about perfection?

It’s beyond your depth.

.

I believe the distinction is about our uniqueness in creation. No other animal has knowledge of good and evil. It is a wholly human concept.

- as an extract from your belief in a forged document is what is mindless - conforming to a fallacy for your answers.


No other animal has knowledge of good and evil ...

they certainly have, all beings have a fluid knowledge of life and their pursuits for the greater good.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

because they wrote that for you in their book does not make it true, the reality is all beings have the same precepts with varying degrees of relevance.

not being evil, a sinner, could quite easily be reduced to zero relevancy by not sinning as most beings are not burdened by your false religion. sinning is not their issue.

I’m not arguing they wrote that in Genesis. I am arguing that the original meaning was lost.

Our uniqueness in consciousness is relevant. It’s as relevant as the universe having a beginning and that we arose from that creation. It’s the whole point of chapter 1 & 2 of Genesis. So it is most certainly relevant.

What’s not relevant is anything you ever write.

 

[Taz]

.

What exactly does Genesis tell us about perfection?

It’s beyond your depth.

.

I believe the distinction is about our uniqueness in creation. No other animal has knowledge of good and evil. It is a wholly human concept.

- as an extract from your belief in a forged document is what is mindless - conforming to a fallacy for your answers.


No other animal has knowledge of good and evil ...

they certainly have, all beings have a fluid knowledge of life and their pursuits for the greater good.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

because they wrote that for you in their book does not make it true, the reality is all beings have the same precepts with varying degrees of relevance.

not being evil, a sinner, could quite easily be reduced to zero relevancy by not sinning as most beings are not burdened by your false religion. sinning is not their issue.

I’m not arguing they wrote that in Genesis. I am arguing that the original meaning was lost.

Our uniqueness in consciousness is relevant. It’s as relevant as the universe having a beginning and that we arose from that creation. It’s the whole point of chapter 1 & 2 of Genesis. So it is most certainly relevant.

What’s not relevant is anything you ever write.

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

 

[ding]

.

What exactly does Genesis tell us about perfection?

It’s beyond your depth.

.

I believe the distinction is about our uniqueness in creation. No other animal has knowledge of good and evil. It is a wholly human concept.

- as an extract from your belief in a forged document is what is mindless - conforming to a fallacy for your answers.


No other animal has knowledge of good and evil ...

they certainly have, all beings have a fluid knowledge of life and their pursuits for the greater good.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

because they wrote that for you in their book does not make it true, the reality is all beings have the same precepts with varying degrees of relevance.

not being evil, a sinner, could quite easily be reduced to zero relevancy by not sinning as most beings are not burdened by your false religion. sinning is not their issue.

I’m not arguing they wrote that in Genesis. I am arguing that the original meaning was lost.

Our uniqueness in consciousness is relevant. It’s as relevant as the universe having a beginning and that we arose from that creation. It’s the whole point of chapter 1 & 2 of Genesis. So it is most certainly relevant.

What’s not relevant is anything you ever write.

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

 

[badger2]

'In Hegel's phenomenology of spirit, the I first emerges when the desiring subject seeks satisfaction by engaging in a struggle for recognition. The desire that initiates and sustains the development of the subject is not satisfied until the I "is at home with itself in its being other."

Lacan attempts to demonstrate the impossibility of transparent self-consciousness by turning Hegel's argument against itself. In his well-known essay, "The Mirror Stage as Formative of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience," Lacan uses Hegel's analysis of the reflective/reflexive relation of self and other in the struggle for recognition to demonstrate that the I, understood as a perduring integrated ego, is a "specular image" that the infant first encounters in the gaze of other subjects....Contrary to Hegel's claim that the I is fully realized (and thus desire satisfied) in complete self-consciousness, Lacan contends that the subject is (always [italics]) incomplete and desire (never [it.]) satisfied. The impossibility of complete self-consciousness implies that "I think where I am not" or, conversely, that I am not where I think. "The formation of the I aw we experience it in psychoanalysis," Lacan argues, "is an experience that leads us to oppose any philosophy directly issuing from the Cogito."

Since desire cannot be satisfied, the wound that Hegel tries to heal remains open. The subject, in other words, is inevitably "split." This fissure is not secondary or consequent to a more primary or original unity or integrity. To the contrary, the subject is always already split. This split opens the "empty" space and "vacant" time of desire...."The radical heteronomy that Freud's discovery shows gaping within man can never again be covered over without whatever is used to hide it being profoundly dishonest." In terms approaching religious testimony, Lacan explains:

Kern unseres Wesen, the nucleus of our being, but it is not so much that Freud commands us to seek it as so many others before him have with the empty adage, 'Know thyself' --as to reconsider the ways that lead to it, and which he show us. Or rather that which he proposes for us to attain is not that which can be the object of knowledge, but that (doesn't he tell us as much?) which creates our being and about which he teaches us that we bear witness to it as much and more in our whims, our aberrations, our phobias and fetishes, as in our more or less civilized personalities.

From Lacan's perspective, "that which creates our being" is radically Other. This Other cannot be returned to the same. In contrast to Hegelian difference, which is always a moment in an all-encompassing identity, Lacanian difference cannot be reduced to identity.'
(Taylor MC, Refusal of the Bar, in Lacan and Theological Discourse, 1989)

 

[Taz]

.
.

- as an extract from your belief in a forged document is what is mindless - conforming to a fallacy for your answers.


No other animal has knowledge of good and evil ...

they certainly have, all beings have a fluid knowledge of life and their pursuits for the greater good.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

because they wrote that for you in their book does not make it true, the reality is all beings have the same precepts with varying degrees of relevance.

not being evil, a sinner, could quite easily be reduced to zero relevancy by not sinning as most beings are not burdened by your false religion. sinning is not their issue.

I’m not arguing they wrote that in Genesis. I am arguing that the original meaning was lost.

Our uniqueness in consciousness is relevant. It’s as relevant as the universe having a beginning and that we arose from that creation. It’s the whole point of chapter 1 & 2 of Genesis. So it is most certainly relevant.

What’s not relevant is anything you ever write.

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

 

[ding]

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

.

Does the lamb believe the wolf is evil? No. They don’t have knowledge of good and evil.

because they wrote that for you in their book does not make it true, the reality is all beings have the same precepts with varying degrees of relevance.

not being evil, a sinner, could quite easily be reduced to zero relevancy by not sinning as most beings are not burdened by your false religion. sinning is not their issue.

I’m not arguing they wrote that in Genesis. I am arguing that the original meaning was lost.

Our uniqueness in consciousness is relevant. It’s as relevant as the universe having a beginning and that we arose from that creation. It’s the whole point of chapter 1 & 2 of Genesis. So it is most certainly relevant.

What’s not relevant is anything you ever write.

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Do you want to rephrase the question or answer mine instead?

 

[Taz]

.
because they wrote that for you in their book does not make it true, the reality is all beings have the same precepts with varying degrees of relevance.

not being evil, a sinner, could quite easily be reduced to zero relevancy by not sinning as most beings are not burdened by your false religion. sinning is not their issue.

I’m not arguing they wrote that in Genesis. I am arguing that the original meaning was lost.

Our uniqueness in consciousness is relevant. It’s as relevant as the universe having a beginning and that we arose from that creation. It’s the whole point of chapter 1 & 2 of Genesis. So it is most certainly relevant.

What’s not relevant is anything you ever write.

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Do you want to rephrase the question or answer mine instead?

Too embarrassed to answer. Got it.

 

[ding]

I’m not arguing they wrote that in Genesis. I am arguing that the original meaning was lost.

Our uniqueness in consciousness is relevant. It’s as relevant as the universe having a beginning and that we arose from that creation. It’s the whole point of chapter 1 & 2 of Genesis. So it is most certainly relevant.

What’s not relevant is anything you ever write.

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Do you want to rephrase the question or answer mine instead?

Too embarrassed to answer. Got it.

No. I answered it according to how you asked it. Had you asked it another way, you would have gotten a different answer. Your call.

 

[Taz]

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Do you want to rephrase the question or answer mine instead?

Too embarrassed to answer. Got it.

No. I answered it according to how you asked it. Had you asked it another way, you would have gotten a different answer. Your call.

Whatever, you're an asshole, as usual.

 

[ding]

Who said you were intelligent?

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Do you want to rephrase the question or answer mine instead?

Too embarrassed to answer. Got it.

No. I answered it according to how you asked it. Had you asked it another way, you would have gotten a different answer. Your call.

Whatever, you're an asshole, as usual.

Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not.

 

[Taz]

Are we the only intelligent life in this universe?

Who said you were intelligent?

Do you want to rephrase the question or answer mine instead?

Too embarrassed to answer. Got it.

No. I answered it according to how you asked it. Had you asked it another way, you would have gotten a different answer. Your call.

Whatever, you're an asshole, as usual.

Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not.

Mostly you are. Proud of yourself?

 

[ding]

Who said you were intelligent?

Do you want to rephrase the question or answer mine instead?

Too embarrassed to answer. Got it.

No. I answered it according to how you asked it. Had you asked it another way, you would have gotten a different answer. Your call.

Whatever, you're an asshole, as usual.

Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not.

Mostly you are. Proud of yourself?

I try not to be proud of myself.

Vanity is the devil’s favorite sin.

I’m ok with you believing I behave mostly like an asshole. With you I mostly do.

 

[Taz]

Too embarrassed to answer. Got it.

No. I answered it according to how you asked it. Had you asked it another way, you would have gotten a different answer. Your call.

Whatever, you're an asshole, as usual.

Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not.

Mostly you are. Proud of yourself?

I try not to be.

Vanity is the devil’s favorite sin.

Then you're going to Hell for sure.

 

[ding]

No. I answered it according to how you asked it. Had you asked it another way, you would have gotten a different answer. Your call.

Whatever, you're an asshole, as usual.

Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not.

Mostly you are. Proud of yourself?

I try not to be.

Vanity is the devil’s favorite sin.

Then you're going to Hell for sure.

Maybe. I have no idea who is or who isn’t. It’s not my call.

 

[Taz]

Whatever, you're an asshole, as usual.

Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not.

Mostly you are. Proud of yourself?

I try not to be.

Vanity is the devil’s favorite sin.

Then you're going to Hell for sure.

Maybe. I have no idea who is or who isn’t. It’s not my call.

So you're following a bunch of rules not knowing if that's the right path. Got it.

 

[ding]

Sometimes I am and sometimes I’m not.

Mostly you are. Proud of yourself?

I try not to be.

Vanity is the devil’s favorite sin.

Then you're going to Hell for sure.

Maybe. I have no idea who is or who isn’t. It’s not my call.

So you're following a bunch of rules not knowing if that's the right path. Got it.

Truth is discovered, Taz. It’s a process. A journey.

 

[Taz]

Mostly you are. Proud of yourself?

I try not to be.

Vanity is the devil’s favorite sin.

Then you're going to Hell for sure.

Maybe. I have no idea who is or who isn’t. It’s not my call.

So you're following a bunch of rules not knowing if that's the right path. Got it.

Truth is discovered, Taz. It’s a process. A journey.

So reading the bible doesn't show you the truth. Got it.