[Decky]

Why would anyone even need to think about this stuff? If there is something you don't understand you ask the priest and he will explain it to you. Christianity really started going downhill when they allowed non Latin translations of the bible. The clergy is the vanguard party to lead the faithful on their quest to heaven.

[Albert]

Decks stop trolling and go contemplate on the existence of God.

[Decky]

I'm not trolling. Lay individuals should not be thinking about these things, they are not qualified to do so. God made seminaries for a reason.

[Albert]

Did Jesus ever say: "Seek the kingdom of heaven first ...... but if you are a layman it's okay go bang your neighbour's wife."?

[Decky]

We have the Vatican to tell us what Christians should do. This Christ guy needs to stop muscling in on his holiness's job.

[Albert]

Orthodox are similar in this regard. This is where prods are superior I believe.

[Hong Wu]

This will probably be my last deep think for awhile, my Chinese studies have been suffering from a lack of time spent and trolling through PoFo and reddit is necessarily at the bottom of the list when I need to free up some more time.

It's sometimes viewed as a contradiction for someone to be grandiose and humble at the same time. I think that if someone were to understand their connection to everything, that makes them simultaneously both the high things and the low things, at which point it makes sense to be majestic and humble at the same time.

I think that ultimately, the most important trait in a spiritual seeker has to be courage. You need time to do these things and time is what they don't give us these days, probably because they don't want us to use it in a spiritually productive way. It takes a lot of courage to source up the time you are going to need, as well as a willingness to think outside of the box without completing shirking responsibilities, since there are people out there who will use anything against you, including things you should be respecting.

[Hong Wu]

I thought I could stop having deep thinks but maybe I can't!

I think that if it's better for us to forgive, maybe that goes both ways and the reason God forgives us our sins is because it's also better for him. I think that ultimately if someone holds onto a grudge it's their problem.

[Potemkin]

Wow! That's deep, man....

[Decky]

[Hong Wu]

Deep think of the day: I think that if you hate someone enough to argue or contend with them in your head, you can only really express your anger towards a figment of your imagination that takes on their shape, which means that you're really being angry towards an extension of yourself. Some people have to be dealt with physically on rare occasions, otherwise it doesn't make sense to be angry towards people.

[Potemkin]

Deep think of the day: I think that if you hate someone enough to argue or contend with them in your head, you can only really express your anger towards a figment of your imagination that takes on their shape, which means that you're really being angry towards an extension of yourself. Some people have to be dealt with physically on rare occasions, otherwise it doesn't make sense to be angry towards people.

Let's take it deeper, Hong Wu.... All our knowledge and awareness of the external world exists only inside our own minds. When we interact with another human being face-to-face, that interaction is taking place in our own heads; after all, the inner thoughts and feelings of other people are unknowable to us, and are imaginatively constructed by us based on our prejudices and assumptions about that person. When you become angry towards or hate that other person, you are therefore being angry with or hateful towards an extension of yourself. To hate others is therefore to hate only oneself.... Whoah! Deep, eh?

[Hong Wu]

Let's take it deeper, Hong Wu.... All our knowledge and awareness of the external world exists only inside our own minds. When we interact with another human being face-to-face, that interaction is taking place in our own heads; after all, the inner thoughts and feelings of other people are unknowable to us, and are imaginatively constructed by us based on our prejudices and assumptions about that person. When you become angry towards or hate that other person, you are therefore being angry with or hateful towards an extension of yourself. To hate others is therefore to hate only oneself.... Whoah! Deep, eh?

I think it's safe to say that physical interactions exist on a different level.

[Potemkin]

I think it's safe to say that physical interactions exist on a different level.

But how do you know that, Hong Wu? How do you know?

We're going deeper, Hong Wu. Much deeper....

[Albert]

Indeed some people are just stupid Wu, they just don't get it. The only way to deal with them is either by subjugation. That is establishing authority over them, usually by instilling good dose of fear in them of you. Or leaving them alone, isolating them from your existence.

[Potemkin]

Indeed some people are just stupid Wu, they just don't get it.

True dat.

The only way to deal with them is either by subjugation. That is establishing authority over them, usually by instilling good dose of fear in them of you.

This is the Russian way.

Or leaving them alone, isolating them from your existence.

This is the British way.

[Albert]

Sometimes there is no choice but to fight back Pote. When reason and understanding can not be reached, then the stick has to come out. Feel feels get hurt but proper order becomes established.

[mikema63]

So we're thinking deep huh?

My deep think is that this is pointless and you are going to inevitably die and if there is an afterlife then that will be pointless too.

[Potemkin]

Sometimes there is no choice but to fight back Pote. When reason and understanding can not be reached, then the stick has to come out. Feel feels get hurt but proper order becomes established.

Spoken like a true Russian, Albert!

[Wellsy]

So we're thinking deep huh?

My deep think is that this is pointless and you are going to inevitably die and if there is an afterlife then that will be pointless too.

Satre Prescribes... RADICAL FREEDOM!


My 'deep' thought... was David Chalmers wrong to groom himself, losing his disheveled rockstar look? Was he inherently more aesthetically beautiful as such or is his present style the better of the two?
We may never know as I have no answers, but I will assert the opinion that 'rockstar' looking Chalmers was inherently more aesthetically beautiful because I'm not philosopher, only God is!
But pondering the aesthetics of Chalmers, I wonder how we discern whether the beauty I assert is an inherent property of Chalmers or how much is merely individual preference. To assert that he was merely aesthetically pleasing to me personally before his haircut would be to imply that there is no standard of beauty. But I tell you, all that refuse my judgement are incorrect in this matter and thus I demand they accept the objective aeshetical view of Chalmers. Perhaps I don't assert it so strongly as saying I'm right you're wrong if you disagree, but certainly that my 'taste' or 'judgement' is better, more refined. I reject the extreme relativism of beauty, it exists in such things and I have seen it.