What Is Man?

Various | September 25, 2003 | betty boop

[Hank Kerchief]

FWIW, there were no "winners" here today.

What a strange thread. I totally agree with you about letting the record stand, I know I can always learn from some of the dumb things I've said.

But don't consider this a total bust. After all , the theme of this thread is, "what is man?" and mayber we've had a better answer by demonstration than by argument.

I was going to make a suggestion about how you ought to have tried to keep this thread on theme, but then I got side-tracked as much as anyone else. I, for one would like to return to the original theme sometime.

Anyway, I forgive you for bing so mean, and saying all the nasty things you did --- (Just kidding, it's me that did that, not you. So thanks for putting up with it.)

Knowing what is serious and important means knowing what isn't. Not everything is serious, and some serious things are best laughed at.

Do you laugh when you read the Bible? Some of the greatest sarcasm in the world is in the Bible, and you ought to laugh when you read it. Here are a couple of my favorites:

This is the answer of the man who had been blind from birth who had been given his sight by Jesus. He is answering those Pharisees who had been badgering him and his parents trying to get something they could use against Jesus:

John 9:26-32 Then said they to him again, What did he to thee? how opened he thine eyes? He answered them, I have told you already, and ye did not hear: wherefore would ye hear it again? will ye also be his disciples? Then they reviled him, and said, Thou art his disciple; but we are Moses' disciples. We know that God spake unto Moses: as for this fellow, we know not from whence he is. The man answered and said unto them, Why herein is a marvellous thing, that ye know not from whence he is, and yet he hath opened mine eyes. Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth. Since the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind.

I can just see those old stuffy Pharisees quivering with anger when he said, "will ye also be his desciples?" And did he ever put them in their place with that marvelous (and certainly sarcastic speech, ("why this is a marvelous thing...."), at the end.

The book of Job is full of sarcasm, but the best is Job to his advisors:

Job 12:2 No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.

(Do you know anyone like that?)

Here is one I used on this thread:

2 Cor. 12:12-13 Truly the signs of an apostle were wrought among you in all patience, in signs, and wonders, and mighty deeds. For what is it wherein ye were inferior to other churches, except it be that I myself was not burdensome to you? forgive me this wrong.

But no doubt the champion of Biblical Sarcasm is Elijah:

1 Kings 18:26-28 And they took the bullock which was given them, and they dressed it, and called on the name of Baal from morning even until noon, saying, O Baal, hear us. But there was no voice, nor any that answered. And they leaped upon the altar which was made. And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing, or he is in a journey, or peradventure he sleepeth, and must be awaked. And they cried aloud, and cut themselves after their manner with knives and lancets, till the blood gushed out upon them.

Those old prophets of Baal must have been furious. Here they are cutting themselves and frantically seeking for their home-made god to do someing, and here's that fanatical prophet of the God of Israel taunting them, "you need to cry out louder. He's probably on the phone, or out hunting. Maybe he's on vacation or taking a nap. Yell louder. Yell louder!"

And here's one for this thread:

Gal. 5:15 But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another.

Most people miss the sarcasm of this verse, but once you notice it, it becomes much more meaningful.

Hank

[DittoJed2]

What happened between this post and the previous one Betty? Please go over my posts. You can click on my name and go back to contextualize anything I've said. Not only have I not participated much in this thread, but I haven't participated much at all the past few days on the Crevo threads because I'm sick to death of the way they are run. My posts are right there to see. Did I deserve to be given the "warning"? No. Nor, conceivably, did the rest of us. I was harassing noone. I posted two times to the "she" in question on this thread. Neither time was I threatening, harassing, whatever. Instead, this "Christian" can post her misuse of scripture ONCE AGAIN in attack of us and then is somehow able to turn it around that she is the one being attacked. Unfortunately, Betty, you seem to be on the ropes on this one and between the post I'm replying to and the previous one have completely switched sides. I recommend that you not believe what you are told. I freepmailed you personally a few weeks ago and told you that this very thing was occurring and I did not want you to be drug into the attack by association of certain posters. Well, unfortunately, you are in it by virtue of being right in the middle of this thread. I've been a part of these threads since August and what I've witnessed is certain threads will go along fine and about 3 members of the evolution camp will join the threads and start with the insults, usually either getting the thread moved to the backroom (contrary to the agreement) or by getting the thread yanked. If you are sick to death of not naming names, fine. Those members are VadeRetro, Balrog666, and PatrickHenry (always sitting in the background and telling others that "Virtual Ignore is your friend, there is nothing more pathetic than a tractionless troll"). I've seen that latter part so much I want to barf! Yet, for the past week or so, they haven't realized I've had them on Virtual Ignore myself. I've been bated, yes, but I've ignored. And I saw no reason to draw attention to it. I felt like the threads would go more smoothly if I just didn't discuss it with them at all.

Alamo Girl and you set up this current thread on one of the threads that I myself began. I tried to peacefully engage AG in conversation but she just ignored me. She then announces that this thread should take place and she would play the "Christian". Of course, nobody could ever see fit to invite us to the thread until by virtue of having just a few viewpoints discussed, AG popped in on another thread and invited us all over here. She said that everyone was welcome. Of course, Jesse would be combative. You're talking about deeply held religious beliefs here. And, that went on a while. I had no interest in even dealing with the thread at that point, but finally posted twice to Alamo Girl, to again be virtually ignorred. Oh well, I said to myself. And, I moved on. Next thing I know, this afternoon I have email from JimRob saying to me and several others

"If you continue your attacks on the members of this forum beyond this point you will all be removed.

Have a good day.

Jim "

Look at my posts. Click on my name. If I get banned after this post, do a search (if they don't remove the posts, if they do, I've saved them and you can email me personally at pray4bush@aol.com). I DID NOT DESERVE THIS WARNING. I've never had a post yanked, never. And, to my knowledge I've never had a warning from Jim or an admin moderator that I can remember (I do hold out some doubt because I was involved in the Calvinism/Armenian debates a while back and something may have happened there, but I don't believe I myself have ever had a post pulled for any reason.) I've posted here since 1998 (original screename "Dittojed") and have had a good relationship with management until now. I've praised management throughout this whole time. Now I'm very disgusted with the whole situation.

Betty Boop, you will need to make up your mind as to who you believe, who you stick with, whatever. But the only thing being silenced here is the truth. Yeah, it's combative at times. But good grief, this isn't a lecture hall, it's a debate forum. If you're fed up that we continue to refer to a certain person as "she," fine, "she" has already been named in this post. She is Alamo Girl, and she needn't worry about being harassed because she is now on permanent virtual ignore. Once again, the thread belongs to you. I would advise all who were written the warning to stay as far away from the thread as possible and give those who want to disrupt and malign the space that they desire. If I'm banned after this, it's been good knowing some of you and my time on F.R. was fine. But sometimes you have to stand up for the principle of the matter and this is one of those times. Good evening.

[Ogmios]

Placemarker

[DittoJed2]

Bye Aric.

[Jim Robinson]

You were warned, but continued attacking anyway. Your account is now permanently banned. Do not come back, you will be considered a trespasser.

[Hank Kerchief]

To do so is .... pharaseeism - cultism --- anti gospel - christism !

Odd .... some post less

...loose privileges

Style gets you under the radar.

[betty boop]

Nice set up betty. Thanks so much. Yeah I have had it myself. "She" might do to me what she did to a partner this past year. I wonder if she prayed for him too. Toodles. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

End of story, right there, gshs. I said it before and I'll say it again: No more "she" attacks. After all this time, you have yet to lay any reasonable basis whatever for anyone to be concerned about a "she" invasion.

If you have nothing better to offer, please hold to silence.

Silence can be a most wonderful thing.

p.s.: If you doubt that, try listening to the music of Miles Davis the next time you let your hair down. Sketches of Spain comes to mind.

[RadioAstronomer]

End of story, right there, gshs.

She is gone. Look at post #365

[PatrickHenry]

She is gone.

The good "she" is still with us. Justice is sometimes slow around here, but when it comes, it's decisive.

[f.Christian]

The definition of an anti christ is pretty much someone who uses the power of the state to force their beliefs ... specious - esoteric - sectarian --- upon others !

Pretty much atheist - statist totalitarians ... power mongerers --- controllers - social engineers (( aclu - evo whacks - heretics )) !


Sock puppet science - politics - theologians !

[Doctor Stochastic]

Buffon: «Le style est l'homme même».

[betty boop]

Those old prophets of Baal must have been furious. Here they are cutting themselves and frantically seeking for their home-made god to do someing, and here's that fanatical prophet of the God of Israel taunting them, "you need to cry out louder. He's probably on the phone, or out hunting. Maybe he's on vacation or taking a nap. Yell louder. Yell louder!"

LOL, Hank! What a charming post. Thank you!

[Alamo-Girl]

Good morning, betty boop and Hank Kerchief!

It appears that we have an opportunity to resume the discussion where it left off in the 100's. As I recall, the subject had to do with whether man could be complete within himself or whether his being was moot without consideration of God, society, other men, etc.

Or did we finish that one?

[betty boop]

Or did we finish that one?

LOL, A-G -- who could ever "finish" that one! :^)

Before all this stuff hit the fan, I was intending to write to gore3000 about Plato's political thought in the Republic. But I'm not sure -- is gore still here?

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for your reply and for the chuckle! Indeed, the question of man's autonomy will never be decided to everyone's satisfaction!

It seems to me that the political thought in Plato's Republic would be relevant to most posters, whether actively posting or just lurking. Your insight would be particularly helpful since many have only been exposed to one point of view from the academia.

I see you also pinged Pietro and Phaedrus. That's great! I don't believe we fully discussed Pietro's resonance musings and I'd love to hear Phaedrus' take on the possibility and what has been tabled thus far.

Also, I see we have some scientists and mathematicians lurking on the thread who may have ideas on the resonance musings or Einstein's "reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" which may be applicable to this more narrow question, "What is Man?".

[betty boop]

...Einstein's "reality is an illusion, albeit a very persistent one" which may be applicable to this more narrow question, "What is Man?".

Seems definitely applicable to me, A-G! What we "see" seems to be what mostly constructs reality for us. Or to put it another way, perception seems to be what gives reality its basic form in our minds. As such, perception is an objectifying process. It would follow that if our perceptual apparatus were different, or if it were capable of processing more than 3D of space and 1D of time, the world might look very "different."

[PatrickHenry]

It would follow that if our perceptual apparatus were different, or if it were capable of processing more than 3D of space and 1D of time, the world might look very "different."

It would certainly look different; but I don't think it would be different. Many animals have better senses than we do, and many have worse. But I suggest that we're all dealing with the same reality.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your reply!

As such, perception is an objectifying process. It would follow that if our perceptual apparatus were different, or if it were capable of processing more than 3D of space and 1D of time, the world might look very "different."

Indeed, I often wonder how we could even know if what we are seeing is only a skewed partial view of the true dimensionality of "all that there is."

Likewise, we sense motion only on a very specific level. Is it that we are not able to sense the cosmic movement of which we are a part - or are we born with the sense and then subdue it?

The inverse is true as well. Are we unable to sense the motion within our members - or are we born with the sense and then subdue it? How would we know?

[PatrickHenry]

Is it that we are not able to sense the cosmic movement of which we are a part - or are we born with the sense and then subdue it?

I believe the "cosmic movement" is essentially free fall. We wouldn't be able to sense that -- except as the local absence of motion. If I'm wrong in this, I'm sure our resident experts will be pleased to leap all over me with corrections.

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you so much for your insight!

You may well be right about free fall and cosmic movement. But isn't it the absence of a fixed reference point in the field of view that aggravates motion sickness?