I thought you were referring to your “God = mathematics anyway. We are but chess pieces in the eternal game of the Master.” statement and directing the FSM to me as if it were the equivalent of the God I worship.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I thought you were referring to your “God = mathematics anyway. We are but chess pieces in the eternal game of the Master.” statement and directing the FSM to me as if it were the equivalent of the God I worship.[/quote]
Oh, easily done. God is a being of pure logic, correct? Mathematics is purely logical, though never ‘complete’.
"Gödel’s incompleteness theorems are two theorems of mathematical logic that establish inherent limitations of all but the most trivial axiomatic systems capable of doing arithmetic. The theorems, proven by Kurt Gödel in 1931, are important both in mathematical logic and in the philosophy of mathematics. The two results are widely, but not universally, interpreted as showing that Hilbert’s program to find a complete and consistent set of axioms for all mathematics is impossible, giving a negative answer to Hilbert’s second problem.
The first incompleteness theorem states that no consistent system of axioms whose theorems can be listed by an “effective procedure” (e.g., a computer program, but it could be any sort of algorithm) is capable of proving all truths about the relations of the natural numbers (arithmetic). For any such system, there will always be statements about the natural numbers that are true, but that are unprovable within the system. The second incompleteness theorem, an extension of the first, shows that such a system cannot demonstrate its own consistency."
Wiki. So God is forever seeking to complete the universe as mathematical systemic.
This is one reason, by the way, that all we actually have are probabilities.
God therefore = mathematics (the mind of God).
Thoughts regarding some quotes from a hijack of “Circumcision Ban”:
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Who said we’re not in a committed relationship?
[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So where’s the committed part?
[/quote]
I think that nowadays, when most young and middle-aged adults apply the word “committed” to a relationship: it means exclusive, serious, and not to be terminated solely because the party wishing to terminate eventually decides that he or she likes somebody else better. On the other hand, either party is free to terminate the relationship if there is something unsatisfactory with the relationship that cannot be fixed, or that the other party is not cooperating in fixing.
This might differ from a classical, more narrow definition of “committed” insofar as under the classical definition, both parties would at least implicitly intend to stay in the relationship even if there is eventually something unsatisfactory about the relationship that apparently cannot be fixed.
Thoughts regarding some quotes from a hijack of “Circumcision Ban”:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
I really have no idea nor care how socially involved Chris is IRL. Very little of it has transferred into an understanding of how people are.
[/quote]
And this ‘awareness’ of others is just oozing from the other side when they’re teasing about masturbation?
[/quote]
There are no “sides” here just individuals.
I didn’t lump anyone with Chris, I’m only talking about Chris.
[/quote]
If you don’t think there are side here, you might need to rethink your own social awareness. There are two entirely different worldviews expressed throughout this thread.[/quote]
You’re fighting tooth and nail to move this discussion from being about Chris to something broader. Sorry, but I’m not interested.
I’ve pointed out Chris’s lack of basic understanding of human relations/sexuality NUMEROUS times on this forum. This isn’t a single instance in which he’s shown his ineptitude, rather it’s a recurring theme in his posts.
You think Brother Chris has a good grasp on human relations/sexuality? Okay, But others have noted his weird/awkward comments in discussions, it isn’t just me.
[/quote]
I don’t know one way or the other whether Brother Chris has a good grasp on human relations/sexuality in terms of the finer points of what people usually do and usually expect. But I suspect that at least some of the “weird/awkward comments” are a type of long-term pedagogical method – trying to re-acclimate people to thinking in traditional Judeo-Christian terms by using certain words and phrases according to their more traditional meanings or classical meanings; and by making statements and/or asking questions that assume traditional norms – even though all of us including Brother Chris know damn well that at the current time most people do not accept those particular usages and those particular norms.
Thoughts regarding some quotes from a hijack of “Circumcision Ban”:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
If it is your goal to marry and procreate you’ll have to let your premarital sex rule slide.[/quote]
This is not true. I’d even wager to bet that most premarital sex is initiated by the male. Well, that’s always been the case with the people I know and me.[/quote]
I said it before and I’ll say it again. You’re extremely socially unaware of how people are.
[/quote]
Yes, I’m aware of your ad hominem attacks. Because you have yet to prove that I’m extremely socially unaware of how people are.[/quote]
Newsflash: Women want to have sex just as badly as men.
These “poor” women aren’t being tricked into having premarital sex by men. Even if you do not initiate sex and refuse to satisfy their sexual needs, they’ll find someone who will.
So your comment about premarital sex being initiated by the male is totally irrelevant.
This discussion is a perfect demonstration of how you are socially handicapped.
[/quote]
Remarks regarding some of these statements:
-
On average, women feel less of a physical urge for sex than men, with the possible exception of when they are in the presence of an unusually charismatic and self-confident male. But taking into account other motivations for having sex (emotional closeness; affection; validation; belief that no sex at a certain point in a relationship is a “problem”) – it is likely that women on average want to have at least some sex just as badly as men. Most premarital sex is explicitly initiated by the male, but in a lot of cases there is an expectation on the part of the female.
-
There are at least some women who do not believe premarital sex is a good thing. Even among women who do believe it is a good thing, there are some who will tolerate getting none from a romantic partner or fiance who apparently does not believe in it. Women who fit the description in the first sentence of this paragraph (possibly even the first two sentences) are in the minority nowadays, but I think there are still a fair number of them around. Some men who have done a lot of dating might believe women who fit the descriptions in the first two sentences of this paragraph are rare or non-existent; but perception can be skewed by having dated a non-representative albeit large sample of women.
-
Even if one wishes to marry and procreate, one should not wish to do so at any and all costs.
-
Believing that it is rare for women (nowadays) to find a lack of premarital sex to be acceptable might be a false belief. But if one does not want a woman with that particular viewpoint: then it is most likely an inconsequential false belief, i.e. not a “social handicap” in and of itself.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ya know what’s one of the great side benefits about being a Christian to me Joe? I not only love you folks, but I like you too. All of you. I mean it. You included. Even the most hateful vitriolic and vicious heathens who call me obscene insulting names. I don’t get angry, I don’t get a knot in my stomach, I don’t even get insulted. Ya know why? Because I KNOW who I am,
[/quote]
From the Bill Nye thread.
This is, without a doubt, why I have grown to have nothing but respect for the religious people out there that feel and act in this mannor.
‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…’
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Saw this today.
Eery huh?[/quote]
Yeah. Authored by Robert Fisk, no less.
I have submitted a report in the support forum, but my PM,s are not working. Joab, Groo, Christopher, Schmichael and KK and a couple others who will remain private. You guys have all been sent PM’s you didn’t get. The last one that successfully sent was three days ago.
Recently sent you a PM about that question you asked me 5 days ago, haven’t received any since then though.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
"The Roman Catholic archbishop-elect of San Francisco was arrested for investigation of driving under the influence, San Diego police said Monday.
The Rev. Salvatore Cordileone was taken into custody after being stopped early Saturday at a police checkpoint near the San Diego State University campus, said Detective Gary Hassen, a police spokesman. He declined to comment on whether Cordileone took a sobriety test or reveal his blood-alcohol content.
The stop was made at 12:26 a.m. on the outskirts of the campus, an area populated by college housing, modest restaurants and low-slung apartment buildings.
Read more: San Francisco archbishop-elect charged with drunken driving | Fox News
Probably out partying and looking for 14 year old boy runaways, to add to his San Francisco ‘flock’.[/quote]
He was driving his mother home. Plus, the “gays” and liberals in SF aren’t much happy about his appointment. I’m not sure how long they’ll be staying. And, at the time he wasn’t an Archbishop as you said in a later comment, he was Archbishop-elect…he was going to be appointed Archbishop, as in future tense.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I spent a long time in drunken rebellion against the Lord AFTER He made me His child. Most miserable time in my life. Haven’t had a drop in going on 7 years, but I’m still rebuilding. There are a million things wrong with Catholicism. A single man’s criminal stupidity is not an indictment of any church. [/quote]
That ‘single man’ is an archbishop. He IS the church, as an archbishop.
And he’s drunk driving…late at night…near a college campus…where no one will know him.[/quote]
Except his mother.
[quote]“Why do you talk and interact with evil drunkards, pedophiles, and money grubbers, when all you had to do was talk to Me?” Thus spake the Master…
[/quote]
Glad you receive revelation from God.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And we are no better for it.
[/quote]
Stopped reading here, even though I reject Tirib’s interesting brand of AE, the possibility of America Democracy is proof this is a bold face lie.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Headhunter wrote:“Why do you talk and interact with evil drunkards, pedophiles, and money grubbers, when all you had to do was talk to Me?” Thus spake the Master…[/quote]Glad you receive revelation from God.[/quote]YOU ARE!!! Think about what you’re saying Christopher!!! Don’t make me sic Sister Smackdown on you again.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I reject Tirib’s interesting brand of AE, >>>[/quote]What does this mean? AE? As I gird up my loins in preparation for your answer Chris.
American Exceptionalism
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:[quote]Headhunter wrote:“Why do you talk and interact with evil drunkards, pedophiles, and money grubbers, when all you had to do was talk to Me?” Thus spake the Master…[/quote]Glad you receive revelation from God.[/quote]YOU ARE!!! Think about what you’re saying Christopher!!! Don’t make me sic Sister Smackdown on you again.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I reject Tirib’s interesting brand of AE, >>>[/quote]What does this mean? AE? As I gird up my loins in preparation for your answer Chris.
[/quote]
I think he means American Exceptionalism.
[quote]JoabSonOfZeruiah wrote:
Recently sent you a PM about that question you asked me 5 days ago, haven’t received any since then though.[/quote]I’m not receiving either then and you’re not allowed to understand what Chris is saying better than I do. Let’s get that reeled in for the future huh?