Aetherous

Encephalon, I apologize for being confrontational. My intent was to stimulate more active discussion and thinking...but I see that it's created a hostile atmosphere, in which people feel less likely to share their creative ideas. I think your plan for moving to an eco-village will prove to be very useful for you and your family...my questioning was aiming at a national scale...like what can the common person who doesn't know/care do, or what can we do for them? I felt like this line of questioning could be really useful in changing our personal lives and maybe spilling over to affect the lives of others...you never know what one person can accomplish. So my motives here were really for the good, and I didn't mean to attack you. However, the article is still pointless.

Or you could consider what I said with some thoughtfulness and depth, casting aside your own presumptuous and unwarranted judgmentalism. Not that I expect you to, though.

On the other hand, look at yourself. You are part of America, right? You are it. What are you doing to change it for the better? Did you watch the superbowl...do you fit into Mr Kunstler's categories of the viewers? My favorite saying always applies: "point your finger and there are three pointing back at you." Why are you seeing America as being psychologically fucked up? Why is Kunstler portraying the common viewer as he did? Are we projecting when we criticize? Why do I not see the same thing, and actually see a lot of good in America? Why do I see continual progress? Why don't you?

If I knew nothing about you after reading your posts for 3 years...then learning today about how you think this article is relevant doesn't speak well for who you actually are.

Wow, I think this author has a huge stick up his ass that's making scrambled eggs out of his brain. What an absolute pessimist! I'm surprised you read this trash, Encephalon.

Are you in an actual position to change the world, fallintounity?? If so, want my resume?

I was told that cooking with it is okay...bring to a boil in really high fat milk (like mare's or goat's milk) then let it simmer for about 20 minutes. Mixing green tea in also, towards the end (so it's not too bitter), is supposed to have a 'triple threat' kinda effect. Might want to check other weed recipes if you're going to try, this is just from memory. I would love to try it myself, but having not smoked for like 8 years I don't have a contact for any dealers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjj6ZnTAeUA

It's not your fault...you've been trying to heal, so you've done your part. It's just the way it is for now, and everything changes. Contrary to what people seem to think....self expression is never filth. What's filth in my opinion, is hiding behind a facade of spiritual perfection and denying what you feel. Changing your behavior in order to achieve something. Maybe just to appease people. Nah, what you're doing is pure honesty...and it's a blessing to this place. Feel free to bring ALL of your "filth" here. Well, it's your responsibility but you don't have to work at it alone. We're all here with you. And since you mentioned suicidal feelings, there are also professionals to talk with. I'm sure you have friends and family that care as well. No way, man. You are still here, with a beating heart and breath flowing. And you happen to not be an evil bastard, so congratulations on succeeding at life. Something that I personally like is this book...for cultivating good feelings.

There's no difference. That is still Christianity as long as the person follows the teachings of Jesus Christ...it's just a different variety of Christianity, kind of like how Catholics and Lutherans are hardly the same thing. There's a LOT of room for interpretation. And good Christians can be so critical of their religion that they denounce it while still practicing (or in order to better practice it). In fact, I think this is something that Jesus himself did. Anyway, I'll try to stop talking with you on this. People here have little interest for the Christian religion, especially in a thread dedicated to another topic...so this is probably just an annoying distraction. I just feel like it's completely disrespectful to the founding fathers (or any deceased person) to misrepresent them by taking a few of their quotes way out of context. Anyone can simply look up a legitimate source and find information that differs entirely from what you present. But maybe you could try saying it again, because it's not like we actually read what you post multiple times over.

Something I've been contemplating a lot lately... If human beings (who are all somewhat rational) can be so divided on certain issues, then it goes to show that holding to a certain viewpoint on those issues is only part of the picture. Having a strong opinion, which other people are capable of disagreeing with, is foolish...they disagree because there's another side to the story. Because your truth is only half of the truth. Just as they can be seen as completely wrong, so can you. And I'm sure that you are. People choose to disbelieve or ignore certain aspects of the whole enchilada, so that they can make easy decisions. So they can have a team to side with. So their view makes sense. Or for whatever other reason...but the point is that there's more to the world than our view of the world. It's possible that great thinking can be cast aside by the herd...and that idiotic thinking can be elevated by the herd. Or vice versa. But the herd (or this forum) is made up of individuals. Individuals who can be either capable or incapable of juding "great" from "idiotic" due to their inability to see beyond their own views. And if they can't see beyond their own views, how can they even see themselves to determine whether they are capable of correctly judging anything? It can be safe to assume: You are a fool. Your beliefs aren't fully true. And when you think someone else is wrong, that's the time when you are most wrong, and their opinion is most worthy of consideration. Or maybe not.

If people are interested in the founding fathers' religious beliefs they should look into legitimate sources...not assume they understand it from simply reading a quote. Like I said: Edit: I should clarify, I consider a "Deist", someone who believes in God, who also believes in the teachings of Jesus Christ to be a Christian.

It's nice when you are here, Cam. I bet you $20 you'll be back.

That is one side of the coin, based on a few misleading quotes...on the other side of it, the majority of the founding fathers (especially the famous ones) were essentially Christian. And when we look at the whole coin, we see Christians who were critical of the negative aspects of their religion...who were involved in creating a new government which attempted to protect an individual's freedom of belief. They were not atheists creating an atheist government. On the contrary, their non-dogmatic attitude was actually inspired by their religious and philosophical beliefs. Funny how the creation of a secular government was truly a spiritual matter (especially in their eyes).

Oh, more of that nonsense...why did I even try?

There does appear to be at least one, mantis.

Ah yes I see, the French keep many secrets.

Ok this has me interested. You turn Budweiser into beer? Eh?

"Anger is a gift."

Vmarco, I didn't have that in mind at all. I was wondering how you can't see your own attachment to beliefs...for instance: If that's true, then that very statement is harmful and should be done away with. As are all of the quotes you post, and the multitude of viewpoints which you've shared here. They are ALL beliefs....and most of the time, IMO, false. Your stance could typically be described as, "extremist" (for instance, using the word "ALWAYS")...which is funny when you supposedly think that all religions must go. If that's the case, then so must Vmarcoism. Preferably first. So in a sense I was agreeing with your idea, yet wondering how you can't see the hypocrisy of it.

I agree, both "negative" and "positive" forms of the golden rule are useful.

Vmarco, This argument doesn't actually represent the golden rule and should never again be used by anyone with half a brain. People derive pleasure from different things...that's an important point. So here's a way that it can work: If I love Coke, but you hate it and will only drink Pepsi, then it's not following the golden rule to give you a Coke. You hate it...why would I give it to you? Following the golden rule would be getting a Pepsi for you...or you getting me a Coke. So simple. Any action that is imperfect is by definition not an example of the golden rule. "Golden" symbolizes absolute perfection...and that is its operation. How do you not see yourself?

Nah, I think what I said is pretty clear. Please ask if you have any questions, mantis.

That's funny coming from you... Typical, too... Anyway, the argument was sort of made that only people who can't get into full lotus say that it's not necessary. Joeblast disproved that idiotic assertion. Anything else you want to discuss?