Aphorism Of The Day

[Lost Leopard Spot]

let's keep it friendly
I know Spotski has connection with a ethereal being who lives in a cave in the Lake District.

In the same spirit (of friendliness, not ethereal cave dwellers) you've got me completely baffled about that spirit (ethereal cave dweller in the Lake District, as opposed to friendliness) and I'd quite like to know who/what we are talking about? Because I'm baffled

[TANGODANCER]

let's keep it friendly
I know Spotski has connection with a ethereal being who lives in a cave in the Lake District.

In the same spirit (of friendliness, not ethereal cave dwellers) you've got me completely baffled about that spirit (ethereal cave dweller in the Lake District, as opposed to friendliness) and I'd quite like to know who/what we are talking about? Because I'm baffled

Relax, twas just a joke about your unusual character (riding with the Sherpas and stuff) No insult or disrespect intended.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

let's keep it friendly
I know Spotski has connection with a ethereal being who lives in a cave in the Lake District.

In the same spirit (of friendliness, not ethereal cave dwellers) you've got me completely baffled about that spirit (ethereal cave dweller in the Lake District, as opposed to friendliness) and I'd quite like to know who/what we are talking about? Because I'm baffled

Relax, twas just a joke about your unusual character (riding with the Sherpas and stuff) No insult or disrespect intended.

Fully relaxed, no insult detected or taken. (They were Khalkhas not Sherpas by the way )

[TANGODANCER]

let's keep it friendly
I know Spotski has connection with a ethereal being who lives in a cave in the Lake District.

In the same spirit (of friendliness, not ethereal cave dwellers) you've got me completely baffled about that spirit (ethereal cave dweller in the Lake District, as opposed to friendliness) and I'd quite like to know who/what we are talking about? Because I'm baffled

Relax, twas just a joke about your unusual character (riding with the Sherpas and stuff) No insult or disrespect intended.

Fully relaxed, no insult detected or taken. (They were Khalkhas not Sherpas by the way )

Noted. Anyway, Wilson lived in a cave in the Lake District (or somewhere) and he was legend.

[thebish]

The Pru version ( either playing devil's advocate or actually knowing nothing about Christianity?) has it as hypocritical by relating Jesus's reactions as a man to a principal made in the name of God. That Jesus, (albeit the son of God) as a man should be angry that his father's house of prayer was being used as a market place is somehow abnormal?.

to be fair to Pru - why not, eh? - that is probably as near to the polar opposite of what his view is as could possibly be stated in a forum post.

Jesus's "turning the other cheek" shizzle was a radical call to direct non-violent protest. Pru's view - unless I am more mistaken than it is possible to be on a Monday afternoon - is precisely this - and that "turn the other cheek" is not an invitation to the kind of meek, quiet submission to injustice that leaves people to be treated as doormats...

And I have nowhere said it was. Surely it doesn't take a genius to understand that common sense should apply to the principal or its interpretation? Pru's views are based on a total disbelief in God and as such not overtly important anyway, but even so I'm sure (as I said) there's always a touch of devil's advocate in what he posts on religion. The fact that you could be wrong isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.

I haven't said anything about your view (that's unclear to me) - I was merely pointing out the fairly obvious fact that you have offered a pretty unfair (polar opposite) description of Pru's view - quite different than the one he actually holds.

Pru did NOT say Jesus was being hypocritical in any way at all... not even close.

[TANGODANCER]

^^

Pru said/wrote:

"If you think "turn the other cheek" as spoken by the character who overturned the tables of the moneysellers in the temple, for example, means "be nice and quiet and don't challenge anyone" then I fear you understand the doctrines of Christianity even less than you do those of Islam."

I wasn't sure why Pru quoted this particular incident (the character being Jesus in the Temple at a time when he displayed anger) when the parable related in Matthew concerned the Sermon on the Mount's generalities. The rest, as I said is a matter of common sense.

[thebish]

^^

Pru said/wrote:

"If you think "turn the other cheek" as spoken by the character who overturned the tables of the moneysellers in the temple, for example, means "be nice and quiet and don't challenge anyone" then I fear you understand the doctrines of Christianity even less than you do those of Islam."

I wasn't sure why Pru quoted this particular incident (the character being Jesus in the Temple at a time when he displayed anger) when the parable related in Matthew concerned the Sermon on the Mount's generalities. The rest, as I said is a matter of common sense.

yes - I know what pru wrote. Pru was challenging what he thought to be Spotty's view (though Spotty denies he has one!) - that "turn the other cheek" means being meek and mild and never reacting to anything... to back up his claim, Pru mentioned an incident where Jesus did react to something and challenged people quite harshly... (Pru thought that spotty was throwing Jesus's words at me because I challenged spotty)

believe it or not, Pru is probably quite close to your own belief here...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

^^

Pru said/wrote:

"If you think "turn the other cheek" as spoken by the character who overturned the tables of the moneysellers in the temple, for example, means "be nice and quiet and don't challenge anyone" then I fear you understand the doctrines of Christianity even less than you do those of Islam."

I wasn't sure why Pru quoted this particular incident (the character being Jesus in the Temple at a time when he displayed anger) when the parable related in Matthew concerned the Sermon on the Mount's generalities. The rest, as I said is a matter of common sense.

yes - I know what pru wrote. Pru was challenging what he thought to be Spotty's view (though Spotty denies he has one!) - that "turn the other cheek" means being meek and mild and never reacting to anything... to back up his claim, Pru mentioned an incident where Jesus did react to something and challenged people quite harshly... (Pru thought that spotty was throwing Jesus's words at me because I challenged spotty)

believe it or not, Pru is probably quite close to your own belief here...

Did I? I agree that Pru thought that that was what I meant. What I thought I meant (as outlined 12 posts back that way ^) was that I thought you were reacting to what I'd posted on this thread... it all gets so terribly complex after that, with different people thinking different things about the same things that I'm quite confused, but I'm fairly sure that I never claimed not to have a view. (or is that ever claimed not to have a view, or never not claimed to have one???? - whichever: I had a view. Whether anybody understood it is moot)

[thebish]

well - I may have got the wrong end of the stick - but when Pru suggested you didn't understand Jesus's saing about turning the other cheek, you replied:

I fear you have me mixed up with somebody else
If you think I understand the poxy doctrines of Any religion I've very much failed to get across the point that religion is a fxcking poison!

which - to me, anyway - sounds like a claim that you don't really have a view on what Jesus was really on about...

on reflection - I guess it is possible to have a view whilst also claiming no understanding of the "poxy" topic in question...

so - if you didn't claim that - then I am sorry for suggesting so!

[Prufrock]

^^

Pru said/wrote:

"If you think "turn the other cheek" as spoken by the character who overturned the tables of the moneysellers in the temple, for example, means "be nice and quiet and don't challenge anyone" then I fear you understand the doctrines of Christianity even less than you do those of Islam."

I wasn't sure why Pru quoted this particular incident (the character being Jesus in the Temple at a time when he displayed anger) when the parable related in Matthew concerned the Sermon on the Mount's generalities. The rest, as I said is a matter of common sense.

yes - I know what pru wrote. Pru was challenging what he thought to be Spotty's view (though Spotty denies he has one!) - that "turn the other cheek" means being meek and mild and never reacting to anything... to back up his claim, Pru mentioned an incident where Jesus did react to something and challenged people quite harshly... (Pru thought that spotty was throwing Jesus's words at me because I challenged spotty)

believe it or not, Pru is probably quite close to your own belief here...

Aye, note it down TD, I was saying something positive about your man .

-Bish tenaciously challenged something Spotty wrote.

-Spotty responded to this by asking whether bish thought "Turn the other cheek" was a relevant aphorism in context of Christian pastors.

-This seemed to imply that following the doctrine of cheek turning, as it shall hereby be known, would mean never tenaciously challenging things you don't agree with.

-I was merely trying to point out that it doesn't seem likely to me that the character Jesus, the man we're told overturned the tables of the moneysellers, would advocate quietly shutting up if there was something you disagreed with, and so I don't think that's what's meant by "turn the other cheek".

That's a good thing! Jesus in the Bible wasn't advocating pathetic surrender just so as not to quarrel with someone.

[Prufrock]

The Pru version ( either playing devil's advocate or actually knowing nothing about Christianity?) has it as hypocritical by relating Jesus's reactions as a man to a principal made in the name of God. That Jesus, (albeit the son of God) as a man should be angry that his father's house of prayer was being used as a market place is somehow abnormal?.

to be fair to Pru - why not, eh? - that is probably as near to the polar opposite of what his view is as could possibly be stated in a forum post.

Jesus's "turning the other cheek" shizzle was a radical call to direct non-violent protest. Pru's view - unless I am more mistaken than it is possible to be on a Monday afternoon - is precisely this - and that "turn the other cheek" is not an invitation to the kind of meek, quiet submission to injustice that leaves people to be treated as doormats...

And I have nowhere said it was. Surely it doesn't take a genius to understand that common sense should apply to the principal or its interpretation? Pru's views are based on a total disbelief in God and as such not overtly important anyway, but even so I'm sure (as I said) there's always a touch of devil's advocate in what he posts on religion. The fact that you could be wrong isn't beyond the bounds of possibility.

Having briefly got close to violent agreement on the last point....

On what authority do you presume to claim that preposterous statement? Firstly, my views are not based on a total disbelief in god - I don't make the mistake of arguing a priori one way or the other. My views are based on evidence and reason and result in a total (to all intents and purposes) disbelief in god.

And, what has my belief one way or the other got to do with a simple question of literary interpretation?

[Lost Leopard Spot]

well - I may have got the wrong end of the stick - but when Pru suggested you didn't understand Jesus's saing about turning the other cheek, you replied:

I fear you have me mixed up with somebody else
If you think I understand the poxy doctrines of Any religion I've very much failed to get across the point that religion is a fxcking poison!

which - to me, anyway - sounds like a claim that you don't really have a view on what Jesus was really on about...

on reflection - I guess it is possible to have a view whilst also claiming no understanding of the "poxy" topic in question...

so - if you didn't claim that - then I am sorry for suggesting so!

I'm now on the phone, and therefore cannot do that magic thing of quoting more than one previou quote in a post, otherwise I would just for the devilment of it...but basically...I don't 'know enough about the doctrine to have a debate about 'it' per se', but I have a view regarding the principle that I 'think is embedded behind the actual doctrine'. Shall we leave it there, I'm getting a headache.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

well - I may have got the wrong end of the stick - but when Pru suggested you didn't understand Jesus's saing about turning the other cheek, you replied:

I fear you have me mixed up with somebody else
If you think I understand the poxy doctrines of Any religion I've very much failed to get across the point that religion is a fxcking poison!

which - to me, anyway - sounds like a claim that you don't really have a view on what Jesus was really on about...

on reflection - I guess it is possible to have a view whilst also claiming no understanding of the "poxy" topic in question...

so - if you didn't claim that - then I am sorry for suggesting so!

I'm now on the phone, and therefore cannot do that magic thing of quoting more than one previou quote in a post, otherwise I would just for the devilment of it...but basically...I don't 'know enough about the doctrine to have a debate about 'it' per se', but I have a view regarding the principle that I 'think is embedded behind the actual doctrine'. Shall we leave it there, I'm getting a headache.

Wow I just noticed, what's the Save button do in the full editor when you quote something... Don't tell me it saves it til later.
.

[thebish]

I don't think anyone's views are based completely on evidence and reason... (you may be the one exception, of course!)

for example... the commonly held belief that we somehow possess "free will" - you might call it a modern sky-fairy! - is very much disputed by plenty of neuro-scientists... they would show you experiments (if you asked) that show your brain making decisions in a very deterministic way BEFORE you are conscious of making a decision... others argue that whilst we may not have the free will we think we have - it is actually good for us to believe that we do... hence - summat that doesn't really exist - but most people believe in and THINK governs their life, when really, it quite possibly/probably doesn't...

despite knowing about the experiments and believing in them, the scientists continue to live and act as if they have "free-will"... and there's nowt wrong with that...

[thebish]

I'm now on the phone, and therefore cannot do that magic thing of quoting more than one previou quote in a post,

there's a blessed relief!

I think smart-phones should be banned from pubs...

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't think anyone's views are based completely on evidence and reason... (you may be the one exception, of course!)

for example... the commonly held belief that we somehow possess "free will" - you might call it a modern sky-fairy! - is very much disputed by plenty of neuro-scientists... they would show you experiments (if you asked) that show your brain making decisions in a very deterministic way BEFORE you are conscious of making a decision... others argue that whilst we may not have the free will we think we have - it is actually good for us to believe that we do... hence - summat that doesn't really exist - but most people believe in and THINK governs their life, when really, it quite possibly/probably doesn't...

despite knowing about the experiments and believing in them, the scientists continue to live and act as if they have "free-will"... and there's nowt wrong with that...

The 'fallacy' in this is the known idea that the brain's autonomous systems are far faster than the cognitive functions. This doesn't mean a lack of free will, because the cognitive functions can and sometimes do override what the autonomic functions have already fired off.
But, even more importantly than that, for the theory of free will at least is the quantum uncertainty in the synapses of even the most autonomic of brain decisions. Free Will may lie in the gaps between determinism.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't think anyone's views are based completely on evidence and reason... (you may be the one exception, of course!)

for example... the commonly held belief that we somehow possess "free will" - you might call it a modern sky-fairy! - is very much disputed by plenty of neuro-scientists... they would show you experiments (if you asked) that show your brain making decisions in a very deterministic way BEFORE you are conscious of making a decision... others argue that whilst we may not have the free will we think we have - it is actually good for us to believe that we do... hence - summat that doesn't really exist - but most people believe in and THINK governs their life, when really, it quite possibly/probably doesn't...

despite knowing about the experiments and believing in them, the scientists continue to live and act as if they have "free-will"... and there's nowt wrong with that...

The 'fallacy' in this is the known idea that the brain's autonomous systems are far faster than the cognitive functions. This doesn't mean a lack of free will, because the cognitive functions can and sometimes do override what the autonomic functions have already fired off.
But, even more importantly than that, for the theory of free will at least is the quantum uncertainty in the synapses of even the most autonomic of brain decisions. Free Will may lie in the gaps between determinism.

But, even more amazing from my POV, is the idea somebody who is 'religious' can dismiss Free Will - without it what is the point behind a creator creating a universe if it's all determinative?

[Prufrock]

I don't think anyone's views are based completely on evidence and reason... (you may be the one exception, of course!)

for example... the commonly held belief that we somehow possess "free will" - you might call it a modern sky-fairy! - is very much disputed by plenty of neuro-scientists... they would show you experiments (if you asked) that show your brain making decisions in a very deterministic way BEFORE you are conscious of making a decision... others argue that whilst we may not have the free will we think we have - it is actually good for us to believe that we do... hence - summat that doesn't really exist - but most people believe in and THINK governs their life, when really, it quite possibly/probably doesn't...

despite knowing about the experiments and believing in them, the scientists continue to live and act as if they have "free-will"... and there's nowt wrong with that...

Of course! They're based on evidence and reason as far as I'm capable of doing so. I've no doubt I must be liable to various biases that I'm unaware of.

I struggle when it comes to treating the issue of Man fecking Yoo with reason and logic for example!

[Lost Leopard Spot]

I don't think anyone's views are based completely on evidence and reason... (you may be the one exception, of course!)

for example... the commonly held belief that we somehow possess "free will" - you might call it a modern sky-fairy! - is very much disputed by plenty of neuro-scientists... they would show you experiments (if you asked) that show your brain making decisions in a very deterministic way BEFORE you are conscious of making a decision... others argue that whilst we may not have the free will we think we have - it is actually good for us to believe that we do... hence - summat that doesn't really exist - but most people believe in and THINK governs their life, when really, it quite possibly/probably doesn't...

despite knowing about the experiments and believing in them, the scientists continue to live and act as if they have "free-will"... and there's nowt wrong with that...

Fxck! I thought you were talking to me.

[Lost Leopard Spot]

...get off of this thread you disruptive bastards and take it up on the Pseudo-Intellectual thread my autonomous brain launched earlier by my non-free-willed id