What is the purpose of the universe?

[ding]

I think you must be confused about what the Bible says about homosexuality.

What do you know? You don't take the bible literally, you make up your own meanings.

I'm in good company.

Chris Langan:
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.

Chris Langan:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

They both make no sense. Now you know.

I see. So you believe you are more intelligent than Chris Langan?

I make more sense than he does.

You believe that you make more sense than a guy whose IQ is 196?

Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to tell me how he is wrong, right?

 

[ding]

How incredibly ill-informed, pedantic, and childish your view of the world seems to be.

Got that from the bible.

No. I'm pretty sure he got it from observing your behavior.

Actually I'm saying that I got that from the bible. You fucking noob.

If I am fucking noob, then how is it that I have made you look so foolish?

That is a good graphic of everyone laughing at you.

 

[Mudda]

What do you know? You don't take the bible literally, you make up your own meanings.

I'm in good company.

Chris Langan:
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.

Chris Langan:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

They both make no sense. Now you know.

I see. So you believe you are more intelligent than Chris Langan?

I make more sense than he does.

You believe that you make more sense than a guy whose IQ is 196?

Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to tell me how he is wrong, right?

His first question doesn't follow the paragraph and his conclusion is nonsense.

His closed loop nonsense is... well... more nonsense.

 

[Mudda]

Got that from the bible.

No. I'm pretty sure he got it from observing your behavior.

Actually I'm saying that I got that from the bible. You fucking noob.

If I am fucking noob, then how is it that I have made you look so foolish?

That is a good graphic of everyone laughing at you.

They should, I'm a really funny guy. Thanks.

 

[ding]

I'm in good company.

Chris Langan:
You have to prove that the universe is a self-referential system. Then you have to examine the attributes of this system, analyze the system to determine how it behaves. It turns out that in certain ways it behaves mentally like a mind. The natural question to ask then is: whose mind are we talking about? The answer to that question is the mind of God.

Chris Langan:
I believe in the theory of evolution, but I believe as well in the allegorical truth of creation theory. In other words, I believe that evolution, including the principle of natural selection, is one of the tools used by God to create mankind. Mankind is then a participant in the creation of the universe itself, so that we have a closed loop. I believe that there is a level on which science and religious metaphor are mutually compatible.

They both make no sense. Now you know.

I see. So you believe you are more intelligent than Chris Langan?

I make more sense than he does.

You believe that you make more sense than a guy whose IQ is 196?

Then it shouldn't be that hard for you to tell me how he is wrong, right?

His first question doesn't follow the paragraph and his conclusion is nonsense.

His closed loop nonsense is... well... more nonsense.

Your response is gibberish. Come again. Please tell me you can do better. What do you mean by his first question doesn't follow the paragraph? How exactly is his conclusion nonsense? You do realize that the universe is considered a closed system, right?

 

[ding]

No. I'm pretty sure he got it from observing your behavior.

Actually I'm saying that I got that from the bible. You fucking noob.

If I am fucking noob, then how is it that I have made you look so foolish?

That is a good graphic of everyone laughing at you.

They should, I'm a really funny guy. Thanks.

At you... not with you.

 

[zaangalewa]

No. I'm a fan of red indians.

I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Why by the content of their character? Anyway: "Who has visions should go to a doctor!", Helmut Schmidt (*1918+2016) or with other words.

The USA changed the world history.

Yes, it did.

For example: Every "solution" of world war 1 exploded. In the moment "explodes" for example even Turkey. Not even Chechs and Slovaks were able to live in a common state. The Balkan lives in a kind of agony. The price of the war was once a mad world where mad people overtook the power. Austria-Hungaria was destroyed - Germany was drastically reduced. From the hundred million Germans of the year 1900 survived today about 60 million descendants in the age of more than 40 years. In 100-400 years the last indigen German will have been died out. You changed the world history.

Stupid idea. You try to justify massmurder in wars how others speak about to use an umbrella.

Only because you don't understand it. I am not justifying anything. It is what it is.

It is a competly strange idea to think wars are a good thing.

To argue that no good comes out of suffering is short sighted.

Now you make yourselve even to a god. The USA has not only a little right to cause the suffering of only one human being - nor has the USA the right to cause the suffering of animals. Ask god.

In fact, I would argue that more good comes out of suffering than comes out of being satisfied.

Did you ever think about an exchange brain? To suffer is unevitable - that's all. Thta#äs whyx everyone need love. "Make love, not war" is not a wrong sentence.

Do you understand what you say here?

Yes, I absolutely do understand what I am saying there. Did you know what I was saying there?

I understand the words, but it sounds only like nonsense in my ears.

If no argument helps any longer then try it with paranoia?

What argument did you believe I was making? Because I couldn't tell from your responses what argument you were making.

War is a crime - always. There are no good wars done from the USA and bad wars done from others. It's impossible to do any war without devilish attitudes. Your logic has a very big problem: The USA is not god. Nothing is god except god. And god is not happy if his children are doing wars or have to suffer because of selfmade problems.

 

[ding]

Why by the content of their character?

Because you don't judge a book by its cover.

Who has visions should go to a doctor

They might have the visions but I have the prescription. I am the doctor.

For example: Every "solution" of world war 1 exploded. In the moment "explodes" for example even Turkey. Not even Chechs and Slovaks were able to live in a common state. The Balkan lives in a kind of agony. The price of the war was once a mad world where mad people overtook the power. Austria-Hungaria was destroyed - Germany was drastically reduced. From the hundred million Germans of the year 1900 survived today about 60 million descendants in the age of more than 40 years. In 100-400 years the last indigen German will have been died out. You changed the world history.

That sounds an awfully lot like an external locus of control. To blame Americans for the actions of Europeans is short sighted, inaccurate and irresponsible.

It is a competly strange idea to think wars are a good thing.

I'm sure it is to you, but nonetheless history has shown that when we become satisfied we become proud and when we become proud we forget the behaviors that led to our success and then we fall. But from that fall, we remember the behaviors which led to our success and we repent. Thus starting the cycle anew. It is the story of man from the beginning and it has not ended. Why? Because it takes two generations to forget suffering.

Now you make yourselve even to a god. The USA has not only a little right to cause the suffering of only one human being - nor has the USA the right to cause the suffering of animals. Ask god.

No, I don't make myself a god. I am not responsible for this. I am merely the one who is telling you about it. If I were gone tomorrow, it would still exist. Just as it will exist in 100 years. Just as it has existed since the beginning of man. Just as it will exist until man is no more. It is a part of the natural cycle. Whether I like or not or whether you like it or not, it exists and it does serve a purpose. If you don't like it, take it up with God.

Did you ever think about an exchange brain? To suffer is unevitable - that's all. Thta#äs whyx everyone need love. "Make love, not war" is not a wrong sentence.

I understand the words, but it sounds only like nonsense in my ears.

War is a crime - always. There are no good wars done from the USA and bad wars done from others. It's impossible to do any war without devilish attitudes. Your logic has a very big problem: The USA is not god. Nothing is god except god. And god is not happy if his children are doing wars or have to suffer because of selfmade problems.

"...I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment. Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address

 

[zaangalewa]

Why by the content of their character?

Because you don't judge a book by its cover.

You seem to understand principledly nothing what someone else says to you, do you? You "win" in your war of words always only your own words.

Who has visions should go to a doctor

They might have the visions but I have the prescription. I am the doctor.[/Quote]

Good grief. ...

For example: Every "solution" of world war 1 exploded. In the moment "explodes" for example even Turkey. Not even Chechs and Slovaks were able to live in a common state. The Balkan lives in a kind of agony. The price of the war was once a mad world where mad people overtook the power. Austria-Hungaria was destroyed - Germany was drastically reduced. From the hundred million Germans of the year 1900 survived today about 60 million descendants in the age of more than 40 years. In 100-400 years the last indigen German will have been died out. You changed the world history.

That sounds an awfully lot like an external locus of control. To blame Americans for the actions of Europeans is short sighted, inaccurate and irresponsible.

I had absolutelly nothing to do with anything else than only the USA itselve, when the USA decided to change the result of the great european war about a hundred years ago it became world war 1. No one tricked the USA into this war nor did anyone force the USA to become a part of this war. "You" (=your nation) changed in this way not only the world history but also the history of the USA. It was the free will of the USA to do it - so the USA is responsible, too.

If the USA had not attacked Europe in world war 1 then the multinational empires Germany, Austria-Hungaria and the Osman empire had defined the european history. Instead of this the american nationalisms and english culture define the world history.

It is a competly strange idea to think wars are a good thing.

I'm sure it is to you, but nonetheless history has shown that when we become satisfied we become proud and when we become proud we forget the behaviors that led to our success and then we fall.

What a nonsense. Give ma a concrete example. To be proud without a real reason to be proud is just simple a sin. An American who becomes a German is for example on a very good reason able to be proud to be a German and able to be proud an America too, because he used the resources of the USA (libraries for example) to learn what he needs to become a German. And both countries allow him to do so. This process needs a lot of engagement of the person. So proudness would be in this special case not a sin but a factor of reality. But you are only an American and I am only an European. No need to be proud.

But from that fall, we remember the behaviors which led to our success and we repent. Thus starting the cycle anew.

What? There are not cycles or human laws of world history. Nothing is able to be the same as it was once. Panta rhei.

It is the story of man from the beginning and it has not ended. Why? Because it takes two generations to forget suffering.

No one is able "to forget" sufferings he never suffered. That's why eyewitnesses are important.

Now you make yourselve even to a god. The USA has not only a little right to cause the suffering of only one human being - nor has the USA the right to cause the suffering of animals. Ask god.

No, I don't make myself a god.

If you think so, Dr. God.

I am not responsible for this.

Now you are suddenly not a free member of your nation so you are not able to be responsible? Whoelse is responsible?

I am merely the one who is telling you about it.

You are confusing. I don't understand why you say what.

If I were gone tomorrow, it would still exist.

If you are dead then you are dead. That's all what will happen in the world here. Only love and the spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise.

Just as it will exist in 100 years. Just as it has existed since the beginning of man. Just as it will exist until man is no more. It is a part of the natural cycle.

You seem to think you will be after your death reborn in this world here. That's indeed not impossible. But there's no guarantee for and no way to measure this. But why should god not allow you to live and to die in this way more than one time? It's a torture to have to do so - but if it is your will? Why should god not fullfill you this will?

Whether I like or not or whether you like it or not, it exists and it does serve a purpose. If you don't like it, take it up with God.

Did you ever think about an exchange brain? To suffer is unevitable - that's all. Thta#äs whyx everyone need love. "Make love, not war" is not a wrong sentence.

I understand the words, but it sounds only like nonsense in my ears.

War is a crime - always. There are no good wars done from the USA and bad wars done from others. It's impossible to do any war without devilish attitudes. Your logic has a very big problem: The USA is not god. Nothing is god except god. And god is not happy if his children are doing wars or have to suffer because of selfmade problems.

"...I am not examining the case of a disaster brought on by a world war and the changes which it would produce in society. But as long as we wake up every morning under a peaceful sun, we must lead an everyday life. Yet there is a disaster which is already very much with us. I am referring to the calamity of an autonomous, irreligious humanistic consciousness.

It has made man the measure of all things on earth — imperfect man, who is never free of pride, self-interest, envy, vanity, and dozens of other defects. We are now paying for the mistakes which were not properly appraised at the beginning of the journey. On the way from the Renaissance to our days we have enriched our experience, but we have lost the concept of a Supreme Complete Entity which used to restrain our passions and our irresponsibility.

We have placed too much hope in politics and social reforms, only to find out that we were being deprived of our most precious possession: our spiritual life. It is trampled by the party mob in the East, by the commercial one in the West. This is the essence of the crisis: the split in the world is less terrifying than the similarity of the disease afflicting its main sections.

If, as claimed by humanism, man were born only to be happy, he would not be born to die. Since his body is doomed to death, his task on earth evidently must be more spiritual: not a total engrossment in everyday life, not the search for the best ways to obtain material goods and then their carefree consumption. It has to be the fulfillment of a permanent, earnest duty so that one's life journey may become above all an experience of moral growth: to leave life a better human being than one started it.

It is imperative to reappraise the scale of the usual human values; its present incorrectness is astounding. It is not possible that assessment of the President's performance should be reduced to the question of how much money one makes or to the availability of gasoline. Only by the voluntary nurturing in ourselves of freely accepted and serene self-restraint can mankind rise above the world stream of materialism.

Today it would be retrogressive to hold on to the ossified formulas of the Enlightenment.

That's wrong Alexander. Only the "ossified" formula of the enlightenement is a guarantee as well for intellectual (=spiritual) independence and the evolvement of a wide spectrum of problem solving methods. Think about what Immanuel Kant said once, Alexander.

-----
Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed nonage. Nonage is the inability to use one's own understanding without another's guidance. This nonage is self-imposed if its cause lies not in lack of understanding but in indecision and lack of courage to use one's own mind without another's guidance. Dare to know! (Sapere aude.) "Have the courage to use your own understanding," is therefore the motto of the enlightenment.
Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why such a large part of mankind gladly remain minors all their lives, long after nature has freed them from external guidance. They are the reasons why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as guardians. It is so comfortable to be a minor. If I have a book that thinks for me, a pastor who acts as my conscience, a physician who prescribes my diet, and so on--then I have no need to exert myself. I have no need to think, if only I can pay; others will take care of that disagreeable business for me. Those guardians who have kindly taken supervision upon themselves see to it that the overwhelming majority of mankind--among them the entire fair sex--should consider the step to maturity, not only as hard, but as extremely dangerous. First, these guardians make their domestic cattle stupid and carefully prevent the docile creatures from taking a single step without the leading-strings to which they have fastened them. Then they show them the danger that would threaten them if they should try to walk by themselves. Now this danger is really not very great; after stumbling a few times they would, at last, learn to walk. However, examples of such failures intimidate and generally discourage all further attempts.
Thus it is very difficult for the individual to work himself out of the nonage which has become almost second nature to him. He has even grown to like it, and is at first really incapable of using his own understanding because he has never been permitted to try it. Dogmas and formulas, these mechanical tools designed for reasonable use--or rather abuse--of his natural gifts, are the fetters of an everlasting nonage. The man who casts them off would make an uncertain leap over the narrowest ditch, because he is not used to such free movement. That is why there are only a few men who walk firmly, and who have emerged from nonage by cultivating their own minds.
It is more nearly possible, however, for the public to enlighten itself; indeed, if it is only given freedom, enlightenment is almost inevitable. There will always be a few independent thinkers, even among the self-appointed guardians of the multitude. Once such men have thrown off the yoke of nonage, they will spread about them the spirit of a reasonable appreciation of man's value and of his duty to think for himself. It is especially to be noted that the public which was earlier brought under the yoke by these men afterwards forces these very guardians to remain in submission, if it is so incited by some of its guardians who are themselves incapable of any enlightenment. That shows how pernicious it is to implant prejudices: they will eventually revenge themselves upon their authors or their authors' descendants. Therefore, a public can achieve enlightenment only slowly. A revolution may bring about the end of a personal despotism or of avaricious tyrannical oppression, but never a true reform of modes of thought. New prejudices will serve, in place of the old, as guide lines for the unthinking multitude.
This enlightenment requires nothing but freedom--and the most innocent of all that may be called "freedom": freedom to make public use of one's reason in all matters. ...
-----
source: Kant. What is Enlightenment

I will read the rest of the message of Alexander later. Bye bye.

Such social dogmatism leaves us helpless before the trials of our times.

Even if we are spared destruction by war, life will have to change in order not to perish on its own. We cannot avoid reassessing the fundamental definitions of human life and society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that man's life and society's activities should be ruled by material expansion above all? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our integral spiritual life?

If the world has not approached its end, it has reached a major watershed in history, equal in importance to the turn from the Middle Ages to the Renaissance. It will demand from us a spiritual blaze; we shall have to rise to a new height of vision, to a new level of life, where our physical nature will not be cursed, as in the Middle Ages, but even more importantly, our spiritual being will not be trampled upon, as in the Modern Era.

The ascension is similar to climbing onto the next anthropological stage. No one on earth has any other way left but — upward." Alexander Solzhenitsyn - Harvard Address

[/Quote]

 

[ding]

You seem to understand principledly nothing what someone else says to you, do you? You "win" in your war of words always only your own words.

Clearly I must have not understood what you were trying to say given your response to my response. What is it that you were trying to convey?

Good grief. ...

What exactly do you believe my response should have been? You make a vague reference to a quote by Helmut Schmidt without any context to your intention and you expect me to read your mind. Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

I had absolutelly nothing to do with anything else than only the USA itselve, when the USA decided to change the result of the great european war about a hundred years ago it became world war 1. No one tricked the USA into this war nor did anyone force the USA to become a part of this war. "You" (=your nation) changed in this way not only the world history but also the history of the USA. It was the free will of the USA to do it - so the USA is responsible, too.

If the USA had not attacked Europe in world war 1 then the multinational empires Germany, Austria-Hungaria and the Osman empire had defined the european history. Instead of this the american nationalisms and english culture define the world history.

Are you smoking crack? The US had no influence on the outcome of WWI. That war was started and decided by Europeans. Just as the reparations which led to the suffering which led to WWII was on Europeans. WWII is a different matter. We did have an influence in that outcome, but not the cause. The cause is on Europe. When that war ended.... America rebuilt Europe. So again I say to you... Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

Yes... neither of us personally had anything to do with it, but only one of us is exhibiting the signs of an external locus of control and that person is you.

What? There are not cycles or human laws of world history. Nothing is able to be the same as it was once. Panta rhei.

The OT tells the historical account of a people who cycled between remembering God and His Ways and forgetting God and His Ways and the consequences of their actions. Hosea 13:6.

"The 4th Turning" a book written by demographers, historians and economists tell the same exact story of the modern world through a secular lens. It is called the saeculum cycle and it does exist and has existed since the beginning of man.

No one is able "to forget" sufferings he never suffered. That's why eyewitnesses are important.

History says otherwise. Surely you know what complacency is, right?

If you think so, Dr. God.

I have already explained this to you. No, I don't make myself a god. I am not responsible for this. I am merely the one who is telling you about it. If I were gone tomorrow, it would still exist. Just as it will exist in 100 years. Just as it has existed since the beginning of man. Just as it will exist until man is no more. It is a part of the natural cycle. Whether I like or not or whether you like it or not, it exists and it does serve a purpose. If you don't like it, take it up with God.

Now you are suddenly not a free member of your nation so you are not able to be responsible? Whoelse is responsible?

No. I am a free member of my nation, and I do what is in my control. I am accountable for my actions and accept the consequences of my choices. And because I do those things I learn from my mistakes. Your problem is that you have a preference for an outcome and when you don't get it you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for your failures, thus never learning from your mistakes. You ignore your failures and dismiss your incongruities. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now get off of your undeserved high horse and quit blaming America for Europe's failures.

If you are dead then you are dead. That's all what will happen in the world here. Only love and the spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise.

Yes, we came from dust and we will return to dust. So what? We are called to worship in spirit and truth. Which means that we are to be objective. To be objective, one must disregard a preference for an outcome. One must disregard his own self interest. When one does os, he will see reality. We are called to stand for truth and virtue and to speak out against lies and evil. Therefore, one must say things from time to time that others do not want to hear. Sometimes the truth hurts before it will help. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. So, I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you that only love and spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise. If you shit in one hand and wish in the other, you see which one fills up first.

You seem to think you will be after your death reborn in this world here. That's indeed not impossible. But there's no guarantee for and no way to measure this. But why should god not allow you to live and to die in this way more than one time? It's a torture to have to do so - but if it is your will? Why should god not fullfill you this will?

I have no idea where you got that I believe that I will be reborn in this world here. None at all.

Think about what Immanuel Kant said once, Alexander.

lol, my name isn't Alexander. I pasted an excerpt from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address.

Educating the Prince: Essays in Honor of Harvey Mansfield
By Harvey Claflin Mansfield, Mark Blitz, William

 

[zaangalewa]

You seem to understand principledly nothing what someone else says to you, do you? You "win" in your war of words always only your own words.

Clearly I must have not understood what you were trying to say given your response to my response. What is it that you were trying to convey?

Good grief. ...

What exactly do you believe my response should have been? You make a vague reference to a quote by Helmut Schmidt without any context to your intention and you expect me to read your mind. Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

I had absolutelly nothing to do with anything else than only the USA itselve, when the USA decided to change the result of the great european war about a hundred years ago it became world war 1. No one tricked the USA into this war nor did anyone force the USA to become a part of this war. "You" (=your nation) changed in this way not only the world history but also the history of the USA. It was the free will of the USA to do it - so the USA is responsible, too.

If the USA had not attacked Europe in world war 1 then the multinational empires Germany, Austria-Hungaria and the Osman empire had defined the european history. Instead of this the american nationalisms and english culture define the world history.

Are you smoking crack? The US had no influence on the outcome of WWI. That war was started and decided by Europeans. Just as the reparations which led to the suffering which led to WWII was on Europeans. WWII is a different matter. We did have an influence in that outcome, but not the cause. The cause is on Europe. When that war ended.... America rebuilt Europe. So again I say to you... Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

Yes... neither of us personally had anything to do with it, but only one of us is exhibiting the signs of an external locus of control and that person is you.

What? There are not cycles or human laws of world history. Nothing is able to be the same as it was once. Panta rhei.

The OT tells the historical account of a people who cycled between remembering God and His Ways and forgetting God and His Ways and the consequences of their actions. Hosea 13:6.

"The 4th Turning" a book written by demographers, historians and economists tell the same exact story of the modern world through a secular lens. It is called the saeculum cycle and it does exist and has existed since the beginning of man.

No one is able "to forget" sufferings he never suffered. That's why eyewitnesses are important.

History says otherwise. Surely you know what complacency is, right?

If you think so, Dr. God.

I have already explained this to you. No, I don't make myself a god. I am not responsible for this. I am merely the one who is telling you about it. If I were gone tomorrow, it would still exist. Just as it will exist in 100 years. Just as it has existed since the beginning of man. Just as it will exist until man is no more. It is a part of the natural cycle. Whether I like or not or whether you like it or not, it exists and it does serve a purpose. If you don't like it, take it up with God.

Now you are suddenly not a free member of your nation so you are not able to be responsible? Whoelse is responsible?

No. I am a free member of my nation, and I do what is in my control. I am accountable for my actions and accept the consequences of my choices. And because I do those things I learn from my mistakes. Your problem is that you have a preference for an outcome and when you don't get it you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for your failures, thus never learning from your mistakes. You ignore your failures and dismiss your incongruities. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now get off of your undeserved high horse and quit blaming America for Europe's failures.

If you are dead then you are dead. That's all what will happen in the world here. Only love and the spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise.

Yes, we came from dust and we will return to dust. So what? We are called to worship in spirit and truth. Which means that we are to be objective. To be objective, one must disregard a preference for an outcome. One must disregard his own self interest. When one does os, he will see reality. We are called to stand for truth and virtue and to speak out against lies and evil. Therefore, one must say things from time to time that others do not want to hear. Sometimes the truth hurts before it will help. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. So, I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you that only love and spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise. If you shit in one hand and wish in the other, you see which one fills up first.

You seem to think you will be after your death reborn in this world here. That's indeed not impossible. But there's no guarantee for and no way to measure this. But why should god not allow you to live and to die in this way more than one time? It's a torture to have to do so - but if it is your will? Why should god not fullfill you this will?

I have no idea where you got that I believe that I will be reborn in this world here. None at all.

Think about what Immanuel Kant said once, Alexander.

lol, my name isn't Alexander. I pasted an excerpt from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address.

View attachment 99729

Educating the Prince: Essays in Honor of Harvey Mansfield
By Harvey Claflin Mansfield, Mark Blitz, William

Alexander Solshenizyn made a very big mistake by confusing the expression "enlightenement". This confusion is a result of the brainwashing structures of the ideology of the Soviet-Commies. I guess in Russia the word "enlightenment" was filled from them with strange ideas. (By the way: Some years ago married in Japan a korean man his bolster. I'm astonished that he did not do so in the USA.) Nevertheless Alexaner Solshenizyn was himselve a member of the Enlightenment, without knowing what this really is. This gives some hope.

And to the rest of your words. What to say about? ... You are an American. I guess I have to learn not to take Americans serios any longer. It's for us Germans anyway completly unimportant what happens with the world, because we are not even able to help ourselves on our own. That's why we decided to die out. So be happy. Bye bye.

 

[ding]

You seem to understand principledly nothing what someone else says to you, do you? You "win" in your war of words always only your own words.

Clearly I must have not understood what you were trying to say given your response to my response. What is it that you were trying to convey?

Good grief. ...

What exactly do you believe my response should have been? You make a vague reference to a quote by Helmut Schmidt without any context to your intention and you expect me to read your mind. Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

I had absolutelly nothing to do with anything else than only the USA itselve, when the USA decided to change the result of the great european war about a hundred years ago it became world war 1. No one tricked the USA into this war nor did anyone force the USA to become a part of this war. "You" (=your nation) changed in this way not only the world history but also the history of the USA. It was the free will of the USA to do it - so the USA is responsible, too.

If the USA had not attacked Europe in world war 1 then the multinational empires Germany, Austria-Hungaria and the Osman empire had defined the european history. Instead of this the american nationalisms and english culture define the world history.

Are you smoking crack? The US had no influence on the outcome of WWI. That war was started and decided by Europeans. Just as the reparations which led to the suffering which led to WWII was on Europeans. WWII is a different matter. We did have an influence in that outcome, but not the cause. The cause is on Europe. When that war ended.... America rebuilt Europe. So again I say to you... Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

Yes... neither of us personally had anything to do with it, but only one of us is exhibiting the signs of an external locus of control and that person is you.

What? There are not cycles or human laws of world history. Nothing is able to be the same as it was once. Panta rhei.

The OT tells the historical account of a people who cycled between remembering God and His Ways and forgetting God and His Ways and the consequences of their actions. Hosea 13:6.

"The 4th Turning" a book written by demographers, historians and economists tell the same exact story of the modern world through a secular lens. It is called the saeculum cycle and it does exist and has existed since the beginning of man.

No one is able "to forget" sufferings he never suffered. That's why eyewitnesses are important.

History says otherwise. Surely you know what complacency is, right?

If you think so, Dr. God.

I have already explained this to you. No, I don't make myself a god. I am not responsible for this. I am merely the one who is telling you about it. If I were gone tomorrow, it would still exist. Just as it will exist in 100 years. Just as it has existed since the beginning of man. Just as it will exist until man is no more. It is a part of the natural cycle. Whether I like or not or whether you like it or not, it exists and it does serve a purpose. If you don't like it, take it up with God.

Now you are suddenly not a free member of your nation so you are not able to be responsible? Whoelse is responsible?

No. I am a free member of my nation, and I do what is in my control. I am accountable for my actions and accept the consequences of my choices. And because I do those things I learn from my mistakes. Your problem is that you have a preference for an outcome and when you don't get it you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for your failures, thus never learning from your mistakes. You ignore your failures and dismiss your incongruities. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now get off of your undeserved high horse and quit blaming America for Europe's failures.

If you are dead then you are dead. That's all what will happen in the world here. Only love and the spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise.

Yes, we came from dust and we will return to dust. So what? We are called to worship in spirit and truth. Which means that we are to be objective. To be objective, one must disregard a preference for an outcome. One must disregard his own self interest. When one does os, he will see reality. We are called to stand for truth and virtue and to speak out against lies and evil. Therefore, one must say things from time to time that others do not want to hear. Sometimes the truth hurts before it will help. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. So, I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you that only love and spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise. If you shit in one hand and wish in the other, you see which one fills up first.

You seem to think you will be after your death reborn in this world here. That's indeed not impossible. But there's no guarantee for and no way to measure this. But why should god not allow you to live and to die in this way more than one time? It's a torture to have to do so - but if it is your will? Why should god not fullfill you this will?

I have no idea where you got that I believe that I will be reborn in this world here. None at all.

Think about what Immanuel Kant said once, Alexander.

lol, my name isn't Alexander. I pasted an excerpt from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address.

View attachment 99729

Educating the Prince: Essays in Honor of Harvey Mansfield
By Harvey Claflin Mansfield, Mark Blitz, William

Alexander Solshenizyn made a very big mistake by confusing the expression "enlightenement". This confusion is a result of the brainwashing structures of the ideology of the Soviet-Commies. I guess in Russia the word "enlightenment" was filled from them with strange ideas. (By the way: Some years ago married in Japan a korean man his bolster. I'm astonished that he did not do so in the USA.) Nevertheless Alexaner Solshenizyn was himselve a member of the Enlightenment, without knowing what this really is. This gives some hope.

And to the rest of your words. What to say about? ... You are an American. I guess I have to learn not to take Americans serios any longer. It's for us Germans anyway completly unimportant what happens with the world, because we are not even able to help ourselves on our own. That's why we decided to die out. So be happy. Bye bye.

You should read some of his books. You should also read The 4th Turning. That way what is happening and getting ready to happen in Europe won't be such a surprise to you. Bye bye.

 

[zaangalewa]

You seem to understand principledly nothing what someone else says to you, do you? You "win" in your war of words always only your own words.

Clearly I must have not understood what you were trying to say given your response to my response. What is it that you were trying to convey?

Good grief. ...

What exactly do you believe my response should have been? You make a vague reference to a quote by Helmut Schmidt without any context to your intention and you expect me to read your mind. Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

I had absolutelly nothing to do with anything else than only the USA itselve, when the USA decided to change the result of the great european war about a hundred years ago it became world war 1. No one tricked the USA into this war nor did anyone force the USA to become a part of this war. "You" (=your nation) changed in this way not only the world history but also the history of the USA. It was the free will of the USA to do it - so the USA is responsible, too.

If the USA had not attacked Europe in world war 1 then the multinational empires Germany, Austria-Hungaria and the Osman empire had defined the european history. Instead of this the american nationalisms and english culture define the world history.

Are you smoking crack? The US had no influence on the outcome of WWI. That war was started and decided by Europeans. Just as the reparations which led to the suffering which led to WWII was on Europeans. WWII is a different matter. We did have an influence in that outcome, but not the cause. The cause is on Europe. When that war ended.... America rebuilt Europe. So again I say to you... Give me a break after you get off of your undeserved high horse.

Yes... neither of us personally had anything to do with it, but only one of us is exhibiting the signs of an external locus of control and that person is you.

What? There are not cycles or human laws of world history. Nothing is able to be the same as it was once. Panta rhei.

The OT tells the historical account of a people who cycled between remembering God and His Ways and forgetting God and His Ways and the consequences of their actions. Hosea 13:6.

"The 4th Turning" a book written by demographers, historians and economists tell the same exact story of the modern world through a secular lens. It is called the saeculum cycle and it does exist and has existed since the beginning of man.

No one is able "to forget" sufferings he never suffered. That's why eyewitnesses are important.

History says otherwise. Surely you know what complacency is, right?

If you think so, Dr. God.

I have already explained this to you. No, I don't make myself a god. I am not responsible for this. I am merely the one who is telling you about it. If I were gone tomorrow, it would still exist. Just as it will exist in 100 years. Just as it has existed since the beginning of man. Just as it will exist until man is no more. It is a part of the natural cycle. Whether I like or not or whether you like it or not, it exists and it does serve a purpose. If you don't like it, take it up with God.

Now you are suddenly not a free member of your nation so you are not able to be responsible? Whoelse is responsible?

No. I am a free member of my nation, and I do what is in my control. I am accountable for my actions and accept the consequences of my choices. And because I do those things I learn from my mistakes. Your problem is that you have a preference for an outcome and when you don't get it you rationalize your mistakes and blame others for your failures, thus never learning from your mistakes. You ignore your failures and dismiss your incongruities. Otherwise, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Now get off of your undeserved high horse and quit blaming America for Europe's failures.

If you are dead then you are dead. That's all what will happen in the world here. Only love and the spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise.

Yes, we came from dust and we will return to dust. So what? We are called to worship in spirit and truth. Which means that we are to be objective. To be objective, one must disregard a preference for an outcome. One must disregard his own self interest. When one does os, he will see reality. We are called to stand for truth and virtue and to speak out against lies and evil. Therefore, one must say things from time to time that others do not want to hear. Sometimes the truth hurts before it will help. Growth filled communities should explore all sides of an issue to arrive at objective truth. Diversity of thought is critical to this process. Honest men can have honest differences of opinion without having to act like jerks to each other. So, I hope you don't mind if I disagree with you that only love and spirit are able to build a bridge into the future and heaven or into the past and paradise. If you shit in one hand and wish in the other, you see which one fills up first.

You seem to think you will be after your death reborn in this world here. That's indeed not impossible. But there's no guarantee for and no way to measure this. But why should god not allow you to live and to die in this way more than one time? It's a torture to have to do so - but if it is your will? Why should god not fullfill you this will?

I have no idea where you got that I believe that I will be reborn in this world here. None at all.

Think about what Immanuel Kant said once, Alexander.

lol, my name isn't Alexander. I pasted an excerpt from Alexander Solzhenitsyn's Harvard Address.

View attachment 99729

Educating the Prince: Essays in Honor of Harvey Mansfield
By Harvey Claflin Mansfield, Mark Blitz, William

Alexander Solshenizyn made a very big mistake by confusing the expression "enlightenement". This confusion is a result of the brainwashing structures of the ideology of the Soviet-Commies. I guess in Russia the word "enlightenment" was filled from them with strange ideas. (By the way: Some years ago married in Japan a korean man his bolster. I'm astonished that he did not do so in the USA.) Nevertheless Alexaner Solshenizyn was himselve a member of the Enlightenment, without knowing what this really is. This gives some hope.

And to the rest of your words. What to say about? ... You are an American. I guess I have to learn not to take Americans serios any longer. It's for us Germans anyway completly unimportant what happens with the world, because we are not even able to help ourselves on our own. That's why we decided to die out. So be happy. Bye bye.

You should read some of his books.

I'm not interested in the books of Alexander Solshenizyn. Why should I?

You should also read The 4th Turning. That way what is happening and getting ready to happen in Europe won't be such a surprise to you. Bye bye.

I don't have any idea what you are speaking about. Tell me please how my breakfast tasted today in the morning, Dr. master of the universe.

 

[Yarddog]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

You got nothing. Got it.

One micro-organism tried to get over on another micro - organism, thus starting the evolutionary arms race, really probably all starting from some chemical mix floating in space, and now here we are floating on a rock, typing on laptops. Sounds like his theory is at least as good as anyone else's. Why so offended by a theory on a message board?

 

[ding]

I'm not interested in the books of Alexander Solshenizyn. Why should I?

Because his writings are relevant to the human condition. He has been on both sides; good and evil.

"in order for men to do great evil, they must first believe they are doing good." Alexander Solzhenitysn

“It was granted me to carry away from my prison years on my bent back, which nearly broke beneath its load, this essential experience; how a human being becomes evil and how good. In the intoxication of youthful successes I had felt myself to be infallible, and I was therefore cruel. In the surfeit of power I was a murderer, and an oppressor. In my most evil moments I was convinced that I was doing good, and I was well supplied with systematic arguments. And it was only when I lay there on rotting prison straw that I sensed within myself the first stirrings of good. Gradually it was disclosed to me that the line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either—but right through every human heart—and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained. And even in the best of all hearts, there remains… an unuprooted small corner of evil.” ― Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918-1956

But you are probably right, you don't need to read anything new that does not fit your narrative.

I don't have any idea what you are speaking about.

I know you don't, but you will.

Tell me please how my breakfast tasted today in the morning, Dr. master of the universe.

I don't claim to be a master of anything, not even myself. I don't know how your breakfast tasted this morning, but you are getting low on milk!

 

[WheelieAddict]

Didn't you realize we are in purgatory?

 

[sealybobo]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

Then it isn't proof. The correct answer is you don't know.

And you've made assumptions and presented them as obvious facts.

 

[Mudda]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

You got nothing. Got it.

One micro-organism tried to get over on another micro - organism, thus starting the evolutionary arms race, really probably all starting from some chemical mix floating in space, and now here we are floating on a rock, typing on laptops. Sounds like his theory is at least as good as anyone else's. Why so offended by a theory on a message board?

He thinks he has proof (which he doesn't) and doesn't consider what he says is a theory, but fact.

 

[ding]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

Then it isn't proof. The correct answer is you don't know.

And you've made assumptions and presented them as obvious facts.

Can I use something you create as evidence?

 

[sealybobo]

It is arrogant to think that you know the purpose of the universe.

Plus, you have no proof. Again.

I have plenty of proof. Just none that a militant atheist like yourself will accept.

Then it isn't proof. The correct answer is you don't know.

And you've made assumptions and presented them as obvious facts.

Can I use something you create as evidence?

All great questions but to suggest you know our purpose is silly. Should we worship you?