Toaster strudel alliance takes on drugs, atheists and liberalism

[Ryantology]

Proof.

Critical inquiry doesn't produce shit like that. Drinking household chemicals, maybe.

[Autumnlicious]

Can you project a single shred of evidence that suggests that I prefer ideology to critical inquiry, other than the vague claim that atheists, responsible for such beacons of rational inquiry as communism, possess an absolute monopoly on the mind?

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Sure your last drug bender didn't fry out some critical pathways?

You're acting a little unhinged and mostly disingenuous.

[jstrodel]

I guess not.

[Autumnlicious]

If you want to learn about scripture, learn about it. If you want to indoctrinate yourself deeper into your atheists myth, do that, but don't call it using "reason" and "logic". To be able to reason about scripture you must know a fair amount of it.

How about this irreconcilable dependency?

You've essentially stated that the act of interpreting (reading->understanding) scripture requires one to know (have interpreted) scripture.

It simply makes no sense as a statement, yet you're the one to make claims about the unreasonability of others?

I suggest, little Christian, that you take a hard look in a mirror.

Before it shatters, I hope.

---

Score yet another point in a list of points for jstrodel's inability to make coherent statements while, ironically, demanding proof of his inability to make coherent statements.

[jstrodel]

Proof.

Critical inquiry doesn't produce shit like that. Drinking household chemicals, maybe.

I guess you missed the deep critique of modernity's propensity to exaggerate the absolute, trans-cultural elements of phenomenological and probabilistic science which has undergone scientific revolutions, from Newton to Einstein, from Aristotle to modern biology and physics.

Perhaps you imagine like many of the enlightened critical thinkers who treat scientific theories that undergo dramatic revisions at about the same rate of change as nation states change leaders as absolute, transcultural, universal authorities.

You see no place of assessing the personalities or the role of hubris and enthocentrism in defining the relationship between the models of science and the world it purports to represent.

That is because you are what you call a critical thinker. A critical thinker is someone who understands these things have no place in "critical thinking".

[Silver]

I guess you missed the deep critique of modernity's propensity to exaggerate the absolute, trans-cultural elements of phenomenological and probabilistic science which has undergone scientific revolutions, from Newton to Einstein, from Aristotle to modern biology and physics.

Perhaps you imagine like many of the enlightened critical thinkers who treat scientific theories that undergo dramatic revisions at about the same rate of change as nation states change leaders as absolute, transcultural, universal authorities.

You see no place of assessing the personalities or the role of hubris and enthocentrism in defining the relationship between the models of science and the world it purports to represent.

That is because you are what you call a critical thinker. A critical thinker is someone who understands these things have no place in "critical thinking".

I just received a copy and paste vibe.

[jstrodel]

If you want to learn about scripture, learn about it. If you want to indoctrinate yourself deeper into your atheists myth, do that, but don't call it using "reason" and "logic". To be able to reason about scripture you must know a fair amount of it.

How about this irreconcilable dependency?

You've essentially stated that the act of interpreting (reading->understanding) scripture requires one to know (have interpreted) scripture.

It simply makes no sense as a statement, yet you're the one to make claims about the unreasonability of others?

I suggest, little Christian, that you take a hard look in a mirror.

Are you suggesting that if you want to learn something, you can do it the first time, and you will do it perfectly?

The act of interpreting scripture does indeep require one to interpret scripture. There is no way that you will do it perfectly the first time.

What things have you done in your life that you have done the first time.

I will add, that the process of understanding scripture does not necessarily require you to accept the Bible is the Word of God, though many things will be veiled to you. There are people who are perfectly responsible in their knowledge of ancient Greek and Hebrew who are not Christians that have passable knowledge of exegesis and the ancient cultures to be able to assess what the original intention of the scriptures is.

The very modest claim I am making is that atheists who criticize the Bible should either 1. know how to do these difficult tasks 2. rely on people that do. This is the most basic intellectual responsibility, to require people to have the skills to be able to correctly handle a complex historical document.

If someone asked you to read a translation of an ancient Chinese legal code, would you demand that people give a perfect understand of the code, without relying on a commentary or caring enough about the context? Of course you would immediately say that anyone who claimed to be an expert in such a matter without going through the requisite tasks would be an irresponsible interpreter, and his opinions about the legal code would not matter. But this is exactly what most atheists do when they read Leviticus.

---

I guess you missed the deep critique of modernity's propensity to exaggerate the absolute, trans-cultural elements of phenomenological and probabilistic science which has undergone scientific revolutions, from Newton to Einstein, from Aristotle to modern biology and physics.

Perhaps you imagine like many of the enlightened critical thinkers who treat scientific theories that undergo dramatic revisions at about the same rate of change as nation states change leaders as absolute, transcultural, universal authorities.

You see no place of assessing the personalities or the role of hubris and enthocentrism in defining the relationship between the models of science and the world it purports to represent.

That is because you are what you call a critical thinker. A critical thinker is someone who understands these things have no place in "critical thinking".

I just received a copy and paste vibe.

I just typed that. Why can't you write arguments? Everything you write is a one line ad hominem attack or some kind of pop psychology? What prevents you from writing arguments?

---

Because you can't understand what I write, doesn't imply that what I write is stupid.

[Ryantology]

I guess you missed the deep critique of modernity's propensity to exaggerate the absolute, trans-cultural elements of phenomenological and probabilistic science which has undergone scientific revolutions, from Newton to Einstein, from Aristotle to modern biology and physics.

I certainly did not see anything which could be called a deep critique, no.

[Silver]

The very modest claim I am making is that atheists who criticize the Bible should either 1. know how to do these difficult tasks 2. rely on people that do. This is the most basic intellectual responsibility, to require people to have the skills to be able to correctly handle a complex historical document.

There are plenty of theological experts who are atheists and still admit to the very accurate fact that the biblical claim of god's existence cannot be relied upon anything more than mere faith.

[Autumnlicious]

Proof.

Critical inquiry doesn't produce shit like that. Drinking household chemicals, maybe.

I guess you missed the deep critique of modernity's propensity to exaggerate the absolute, trans-cultural elements of phenomenological and probabilistic science which has undergone scientific revolutions, from Newton to Einstein, from Aristotle to modern biology and physics.

Perhaps you imagine like many of the enlightened critical thinkers who treat scientific theories that undergo dramatic revisions at about the same rate of change as nation states change leaders as absolute, transcultural, universal authorities.

You see no place of assessing the personalities or the role of hubris and enthocentrism in defining the relationship between the models of science and the world it purports to represent.

That is because you are what you call a critical thinker. A critical thinker is someone who understands these things have no place in "critical thinking".

Would you like some verbs with your word salad?

Nothing you just stated at all lines up.

Here, let's torture the public with your shitsack of crazy, the crazy you claimed is a "deep critique of modernity's propensity to exaggerate...":

Before anything existed, there was God in H'shem. God looked over everything and saw in H'Shem's nature that H'shem would make out of all of H'shem's joy a holy, holy creation.

This is story telling. Fantastic.

Let's continue, right? You're sure to make some "critical thinking" here, right?

Right?

Everything would be joyous and would exist free to live and be directed towards H'Shem's love.

Another wonderfully coherent statement. However, I don't see any action that God takes with Hashem or whatever.

God is the great spirit friend, because God was a friend to all. H'Shem looked over all things and smiled and said "My little spirit children, they are my favorite".

Wait...

God is in Hashem.

Suddenly it's not a location but a talking entity?

H'Shem just keeps saying this over and over "my little spirit children, they are my favorite"

Okay. So the entity God is inside is repeating this phrase.

Let's see what logical conclusion this somehow leads to...

"my little spirit children, they are my favorite"
"my little spirit children, they are my favorite"
"my little spirit children, they are my favorite"

Oh.

Ok.

Hashem is just repeating the same thing. As if we didn't figure out that the first time??

That is what God is like.

WAIT!

That's what Hashem fucking said!

God is in Hashem. But Hashem is fucking doing the talking!

H'shem just wants to hold people and love them. Everyday I spend a lot of time just holding onto my spirit friend, I feel like a little boy who goes out to write all sorts of messages on a chalk wall and a spirit friend comes to talk to him.

And now we've gone back to Hashem.

The fuck?

It sounds like something little kids would say, but I think that is really how you understand God, because God doesn't relate to people on the basis of their culture and their pride and their nationalistic concepts of right and wrong, God relates to people like they are his little spirit children.

Clearly, cause it looks like a five year old is telling a story without much of a beginning, middle, or end.

To see God you have to become a little spirit child, and realize that all these different cultures and nations and peoples and all these different ways that people do all these different things to feel important (myself included), it is all fluff.

Next you'll be telling me that to see birds I have to become some kind of nestling, as the implications of God (spirit type) requiring one to be of the same type (spirit) to 'see'.

It is just people and their beliefs.

Another word for fucking delusion it seems.

But God is the great spirit friend, and God will hold onto everyone that wants to be held on to. H'Shem loves people and wants to say over everyone "my little spirit friend, you are my favorite".

We're repeating ourselves again. Clearly that means LOGIC!

The clarity of mind comes when people see their littleness and smallness and all their funny prides and how little they are and realize the stupidity of humans and their foolish games and pursuits and try to escape.

Children see their littleness and smallness?

Children understand the concept of hubris and the stupidity of human actions on a large scale?

What?

You know it is all foolishness?

What you're spouting? And claiming is a "criticism"?

The foolishness of God is wiser than mans wisdom. That is why the Bible says, unless you have faith like little children, you cannot enter the kingdom of heaven. You have to abandon your pride and your culturally constructed hubris and see the smallness and littleness of being little towards your spirit and your eyes and ears and inner soul and what it is directed towards and just listen apart from all this talk and all these people saying this and that.

Soooo....

If you must violate your conscious by deconstructing it to an invalid combination of "child like" and "not child like", then you get some magical candy like reward?

It is all littleness.

Ah. It all makes sense now... Littleness, spirit type casting, constraints that require non-child like qualities while claiming direct child like qualities...

I want to be the littlest. And be so small that no longer do I see the little things people do as being big all their big things, really littleness.

I am uncertain how to parse this statement.

Just being little a little spirit child who says everyday "I want to be the littleest" I think when people do that they will transcend their culture and foolish industry-worship and small minded rat raceish.

Yeah.

Go do that.

Just take your fucking meds, you effing lunatic!

---

I just typed that. Why can't you write arguments? Everything you write is a one line ad hominem attack or some kind of pop psychology? What prevents you from writing arguments?

What prevents you from making sensible arguments that lead from proposition to proposition?

Because you can't understand what I write, doesn't imply that what I write is stupid.

If your audience consistently points out what you write is nonsensical, did you ever stop to consider that you wrote nonsense?