THIS NEW THREAD IN SCIENCEAGOGO.COM JUST OPENED

Orac is an atheist who grew up in very atheistic and communist  Russia. He now lives in the USA. See link at end of post.

For details, go to this link:

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=467...

Moderator, or anyone:

How do I get rid of the first post and replace with the second (a repeat post) one, which I corrected, slightly?

Predictably, Orac already shot down your suggestion of "spiritual science":

I have to agree with chansen. Only natural science is science. Logic and mathematics are the methods used by natural science to prove its theories truthful. Everything else is art.

Actually, I consider even the natural sciences as art, albeit the most logically true art. I even consider mathematics and logic as arts.

As far as logical truth is concerned, only pure mathematics is absolutely true. Then come the natural sciences, then the social sciences, then the spiritual sciences, then the liberal arts and finally the fine arts.

The art of natural science is mostly logical and somewhat intuitive, the social sciences are more intuitive and less logical, the spiritual sciences more so, the liberal arts even more, and the fine arts are mostly intuitive and only slightly logical. The finest of fine arts, music, is totally intuitive, but can be expressed perfectly in mathematical symbols, and thus closes the logic-inutition circle.

I think and feel that the diametric opposites of logic and intuition are on the same circle. They necessitate and complement each other. Rather than thinking in terms of either/or, we should think in terms of both, and complement both.

I think natural science is telling us that the universe is in a state of non-duality or synthesis. Duality, or logic, merely is the medium with which we measure the non-dualistic reality. In other words, duality, or logic, is relatively true whereas non-duality is absolutely true.

To me, the experience of non-duality, and thinking and acting from that experience, is spirituality.

I have to agree that the whole concept of "spiritual science" just doesn't work. It's an attempt to blend together spirituality and science. I don't believe they have to be in conflict with each other. I believe they can be complementary. But I don't believe they're the same. The idea of "spiritual science" sounds like pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo of exactly the sort that diminishes the role and place of spirituality.

Consider that science meant observation at one time ...

Could a mere mortal deal with observation of that which he didn't believe existed?

This would include the state of mind, that is eliminated by those that don't believe in abstracts, just out of here in a natural state of dog eat dog ... when perhaps a thoughtful desire might carry one thro' a crisis of where the dog would like to screw everything ...

Thought appears unnatural, in agreement with Polynesian myth that bread fruit of soul is just outa here! In other words manna of mankind was unnatural ... tending towards logic ... a belief system declared illegal under Roman decree that a thinking man was dangerous to the natural Roman legend ... putting down all others for the improvement of the Latin state.

It becomes a Romantic myth in other dimensions beyond here ... perhaps subliminal like quantum and string theory dealing with fabrication of dark cloques ... the unseen of II Corinthians 4:18 ... what else would you expect a guru to say in an environment hostile to wisdom ... the trait continues today if you observe that darkness and secrets that surrounds common people by the rich and powerful (Italian Jud's) ... and we suck it up like Black Lambs ... hard to find in the Shadow's environment ...

Then there are the desert jinns, arid shadows if you can cotten to that ...

The satire rules as a hiding place for wisdom that is not allowed in an overly emotional state ... dark as a chi-shiyr cat ... only that slice of a smile ... the infinite kitty will get you and you will be swalled up by unknown forces ... speak of catharsis!

Can you doubt this when you see the brutal murders of souls going on around us ... by religious persons of limited beliefs ... no abstract values ... mothers turning on their children .. a sign of worse to come ...

And they say I'Yam out of here ... a type of po'tat'Œ ... rye soöme? Root system ... desire to get out of here ... some psychologists call it the de'athe wish ... a stretch of the imagination to learn in our present state of hate towards word and the understanding thereof ... mere Semite-like entity ... and the bulk of the world with a wild spirit of anti-Semite-ism. Does it follow that a typesetter would once have had a dirty job ... mire at least in a myre of letters ...

Just imagine ... looking at this side tho' a vast neclear pile of letters ... dark, occult, or just obtuse to serve gods ignorance in their voids of emotion ... like smoke bombs ... the hatred is deemed to go on ... as mortal I see it pas'n ...

The know it alls jumped with the wrong bag ... twasn't a para shoot ... butte mire hyper bole ... warped/bent/wend dimensions? Waddles & cla' construct on the outside! Spirit rising from the land ... omi ga'd ... that's omi ... hummiis? Real stinker of a metaphor (pyre-measure) ... gravid leavings under the table ...

Rev. Steven Davis "I have to agree that the whole concept of "spiritual science" just doesn't work.  It's an attempt to blend together spirituality and science. I don't believe they have to be in conflict with each other. I believe they can be complementary. But I don't believe they're the same.

 

"The idea of "spiritual science" sounds like pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo of exactly the sort that diminishes the role and place of spirituality. 

Thanks RevSteven! Now, in the spirit of having a dialogue I ask the following questions:

1. What comes to mind when you use the word 'science'?

Me? I go with the dictionary, which gives the broad meaning, which suits me. Check out #4 &5.

In that case, you don't understand at least one of them.

You're doing it again. Psychology is not a science.

You're not really interested in dialogue - you only want to redefine words to suit your purposes. Orac already corrected you on this, and you ignore him and make the same mistake once again. No one is interested in playing your game.

Man wants to know.  For some it is given to know.

How does man know?  The Bible says ask and it shall be given.  What is asking?  Asking is making an enquiry and this is what science does - it makes enquiries into the whys and wherefores of things.

Are spiritual things exempt from enquiry?  Obviously not.  Science and spirituality are not mutally exclusive.  In fact, the essence of spiritual discovery is the enquiring mind.  The truths of the spirit are discoverable and testable in the same fashion as the truths of other areas of enquiry.  One day in the future, there will be no difference between these areas of enquiry.  They will be seen as part of grand unified theory of life, the universe and everything.

In the Buddhist tradition, no practioner is asked to accept unreservedly any proposition unless he has determined the truth of it for himself.   Conduct your own enquiries, ask your own questions, test your own theories.  In this fashion, you will become enlightened.

A great book on this subject is Paramahansa Yogananda's essay "The Science of Religion".  Yogananda formed the Self-Realization Fellowship/Yogoda Satsanga Society among whose aims was:

"To disseminate among the nations a knowledge of definite scientific techniques for attaining direct personal experience of God."

Any religion worth its salt should encourage testing of its precepts.

Your Buddy on the Path - Poguru

Some people like to sing a sad song, as if it would eliminate science of the mind that artistic vision ... that some nut-cases woud like to destroy ... avocation in a mortal dimension to control the absolutes but sometimes mislead due to lack of creativity ... and art of abstract knowledge that's dark ... occult to scientists and religious daemons ...

Leaves us abstracts right out there unseen by the song .. it's a separate thing like the Hebrew word ... A'B'D but in those that live in the presence ... hoo'd known such ancient wisdom? Caused a person to dig ... deeply ... or is that just Tue profound for mortalization?

Ever heard of satyrs ... eM's black ... like words on the page ... a flat out organization that is often screw'd up by absolute lies of history ... hoo da'tho'aught? Myth scratched in san .. that's an out 've Eire thing-heh ...

Bede athe 've meis ... Gabriel's data eue?

I have no problem with mental science or even spiritual science. Are they part of the physical sciences? No, not at this time. These sciences still lie in the darkness of space that are yet discovered. Are the mental and spiritual sciences actually connected to the physical sciences? I believe this will be answered once and for all one day, and maybe sooner than we think. The hidden forces of spirit work through the mind to produce the physical. In fact, say the Teachers of Wisdom, the spiritual world actually precedes the physical world, the latter being the effect of the former cause. We are what we think and our physical surroundings can be altered by what we think.

TO ME, CHANSEN WRITES:

OF COURSE, IN A DIALOGUE, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO YOUR OPINION!

===============

NOW HERE IS MY OPINION--and what I say about psychology:

===============
Orac, take note: As already indicated, I make no claim that psychology--a subject I have studied all my life--is a hard science like that of chemistry or physics. But even you agree--do you not?--that bits of it do take a scientific approach. 
 

Now, look below at how the dictionary defines the word 'science'. I assume we can both easily agree on definitions # 1, 2 & 3.
 

But, what about definitions # 4 & 5-- #4, about "systematized knowledge in general?  And #5, about knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study".
 

There is lots of general knowledge about theology, pneumatology, psychology, etc. IMO, this means they are more than just made-up philosophies, myths, fantasies, or fiction.
 

One day they could be developed enough to join the ranks of studies that take a scientific approach and could be able to measure things like morality, fear, faith, hope, courage and willpower, etc. WILLPOWER--The Greatest Human Strength, is the name of a recent and well-received psychology-based book about willpower. The book has attracted world-media attention.

MORE ABOUT WILLPOWER:

WHY IS THERE SO MUCH RESISTANCE TO NEW WAYS OF THINKING?

Let's not forget that it took a long time--over 2000 years--before philosophy morphed into psychology (1879). It took a long time before astrology morphed into astronomy. Alchemy eventually did become chemistry.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Hi Neo:

I have no real problem with calling all of them sciences, either, but I'd rather call all of them arts. Then nobody objects.

What Linds is trying to do, I think, is getting them all under one umbrella. Whether one calls them arts or sciences is just a matter of semantics. For the longest time, from distant antiquity to the Golden Age of Arabic culture to the early European Age of Enlightenment, all endeavours of the human spirit were arts. I'd like to keep it that way.

Mathematics and the natural sciences, as we know them today, were taken over from the Arabic culture, and were, by them, regarded as arts, together with all other arts. Algebra, without which modern science is unthinkable, has been invented by the Arab mathematician Al Jabira, and was originally published as "The Art of Al Jabira," hence the name "Algebra."

In German, the word for spirit is "Geist," and means intellect as well as spirit. I consider all endeavours of the human spirit intellectual as well as spiritual, logical as well as intuitive, with the ideal being a complement between the two.

Most mathematicians and scientists of antiquity and of the Golden Age of Arabic culture were also mystics who perceived their mathematical or scientific breakthrough discoveries in an intuitive flash or a mystical insight, and used mathematics and logic after the intuitive breakthrough, to logically confirm their discoveries. First came the intuitive insight, the "Eureka!" moment, then the logical confirmation of the intuitive insight. This, to my mystical mind, is art. Or, if one wants to call it science, one might as well call all endeavours of the human spirit science.

The problem is not the dictionary definition. It's the popular and cultural assumptions of how "science" and "faith" are defined. Referring to "spiritual science" will tend to make the average person on the street have one of three reactions: laughter, contempt or open mouthed staring at you as if you're from another planet. Insisting that there is such a thing as "spiritual science" will, in fact, widen the chasm between those who regard science and faith as in conflict

Science and faith can, as I have already said, be complementary. In the popular imagination and in common understanding, however, they are not the same. 

I personally don't see what's to be gained by using the term "spiritual science."

In any event, my definition of "spirituality" has nothing to do with science. Spirituality is about relationship; even more, it's about the inter-related-ness or connectedness of all of creation with each other. To be "spiritual" implies both inward reflection on that concept and then some outward shift in lifestyle, philosophy, understanding or way of inter-acting with the rest of creation. That isn't "science."

I might be willing to grant that "theology" (ie, the systemic study of God or beliefs about God) is a form of science or systematized knowledge.

Is theology like a study of the love of knowledge and wisdom (Webster) that would require a part of the mortal essence that is out of here? That is defined as intellect (Webster again) ... just stray tho'z (tho'ts) ... the icon "ð" being critical to the development of writ and chaotic places to hide intellect beyond those who wish not to Gnoe ... almost a between the lines sort of dimension ... although like the noodle approach ... stringy, creating a whole renude branch of mental activity that you might see through instead of absorbing that type of IHC in space ... sort of a blip or burp ...

That could be thought of as a portion of the chaotic knowledge sector (limbo) that a person has to draw from and put in their own order. Then this would hint at the existence of logic or reason, something frowned upon by gods and their accomplices (fathers of the church who screwed about with thought) then declared common folk (paegaens or hoyden) shouldn't know this (be deis-ruptive to higher physical powers) who would oppress metaphysical events like sublime thought patterns drawn from ... no where's man ... and ethereal dimension was there ... always ... where gods thoughts escape to ... as extreme emotional types discard those things to Gehenna ... where bi CRACKI one incarnationof sol' ... learned something amoung the bones ... structure of de void 've tho'T as Tae ... equivalence?

Fringe groups giggle ... reciprocal humours? Then if you haven't encountered soul ...

I tend to think of the word "spirit" as it used from it's original latin word "spiritus", meaning "breath" or in our modern world "energy". Therefore a "spiritual science" would be literally a study of energy in it's purest form. Cosmologists are already suggesting that there is a definite link between the worlds of unseen energy and the world of the seen and physical world. These two are not, in my books, mutually exclusive but rather one is dependent on the other, as one is a direct result of the other. In this way I see the 'spiritual science' as being, one day, the only true science of them all. Spiritual science will prove to be the science that links everything together.

They're different things. That doesn't necessarily make them "complementary".

Theists have long wanted to legitimize faith. They're desperate to give it more prestige than it is due. 

That would make a lot of things a form of science, including comic book collecting.

You can't just say that any form of knowledge gathering is a form of science. Unless it involves testable hypotheses about our world, it's just a form of knowledge gathering.

It's true that some great discoveries met with initial resistance, and it took time for these ideas to win out. But initial resistance was also what greeted a lot of really, really stupid ideas. Those ideas had champions, too.

Sometimes, the majority who are telling you you're full of shit are standing in the way of progress. More often, you're full of shit.

I didn't say they were complementary. I said they can be complementary. It depends how you use them. I know scientists whose understanding of science has deepened their faith. In the same way scientific investigation in some respects arose from philosophical and theological reflection on the nature of creation.

Some theists. Certainly not all; perhaps not even most. You're over-generalizing.

Although RevLindsayKing is, in fact, right about the dictionary definition. You're assuming that only certain scientists have the right to "define" what "science" is and that science must of necessity work on the basis of testable, provable hypotheses. I'm afraid the English language simply doesn't agree with you on that and your insistence that it does is coming across as rather dogmatic and unsupported by any truly objective evidence, which, when dealing with the definition of a word, would be represented by a reputable dictionary and not by the potentially self-serving definitions developed by "scientists,"  which in some ways sound like turf protection rather than reasonable etymology. The word does have a much richer meaning than the rather narrow one you and some scientists would apply to it.

For example, Merriam-Webster's online dictionary includes the following as one of several definitions of the word: "a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study <the science of theology>." It is this definition that allows me to concede that while I don't consider spirituality a "science," I'm willing to say that theology is a "science."

Obviously not all theists want to ride on the coat tails of science. Many think they can discredit science by pointing to an old book. Others don't care, but that does nothing to refute the point that some theists want their beliefs thought of as a science, which is laughable.

If theology is a science, then anything can be a science. If that's the way people want to think of "science", then I suppose it's a lot like the word "theory", which means "educated guess" to many people, but "an explanation that has been tested" in the arena of science.

Attaching theology to science doesn't give theology any greater standing than it had before - it just dilutes the meaning of science.

Two words:

Political science.

ABOUT DECISION MAKING

Shall we have a debate? Or have a dialogue about the issue?

http://www.agrihack.com/Forum/read.php?1,3

=====================================

Arm, Neo and all who have responded to this new thread so far: It looks like we are in the process of having an excellent dialogue--a discussion format whereby we actually do share opinions and learn from one another, while having a civilized win/win kind of pleasant game.

"But hold it a minute!" some will argue, "We do not live in a utopia. Like it or not, life is not always a pleasant game. When it comes governing large numbers of people, many of whom have no respect for law and order, sometimes  hard decisions have to be made. Even in a democracy, there will always be some winners and some losers. There is much truth in the old cliche: You can't make a nutritious omelet without breaking a few eggs." 

When I hear this kind of comment, I want to ask: "I hope your cliche does not include breaking a few arms, legs and heads! OR HEARTS!"

By the way, I hasten to add: The dialogue method does not preclude, or prevent, the use of community groups, governments at all levels or any organization, from using the principles of democracy in the process of making democratically-arrived-at decisions that promote the public good. It does not even preclude debating.

Of course, in the making of wise decisions, we all need to be as well-informed as possible. Good faith and good intention are not enough.

A GOOD DEBATE CAN BE PRODUCTIVE AND ENJOYABLE

Personally, I have no objection to getting better informed by listening to a well-regulated and civilized debate between well-prepared debaters--the method usually used by all governing bodies--secular and sacred--at all levels.

But more often than not, sad to say, we do not get a lot that is substantial and helpful answers to the issues at hand. What we get, mostly, are: ad hominem attacks and counter attacks, from the left and from the right--politics without real policies.

This is why, given the choice, I prefer the dialogue method. In this process well-informed individuals can also be encouraged to come forward and take the opportunity--without personally attacking, shaming and blaming others--to openly share what they know, and listening to what others have to share about the issues at hand.

Of course, in addition to the sharing of information, a dialogue ought to be a time for all kinds of questions and cross-examination. Personally, I would love to hear our potential public leaders question, cross-examine and get answers from one another, publicly, about the great issues we all face.

Naturally, questions from the general public are an essential part of any serious dialogue about public issues and policies. But, but especially needed are incisive questions from the media, who ought to be well aware of and prepared to ask the kinds of questions that needs to be asked.  Furthermore, media people usually have the moxie to be persistent and insistent enough to get across to all of us that there are things we all need to know and have the right to know. This, in my opinion, is the kind of forum that could help get rid of a lot of the cynicism we all seem to have about politics and politicians. It is certainly the kind of one that would sure get my attention.

==============

BREAKING NEWS

BY NOW, MOST OF US HAVE HEARD THE TRAGIC NEWS FROM NEWPORT CONNECTICUT, USA.  IT IS  ABOUT THE HEINOUS MASS KILLING 26?--children and adults--THAT TOOK PLACE AT A CATHOLIC SCHOOL THERE THIS AFTERNOON. 

What ought to think, say and do about in this kind of tragedy in this WONDER-CAFE forum?

The floor is open for dialogue and/or debate.

==============================

Thanks to all who are helping to make this thread, so far, more of a dialogue than a debate.

http://www.globallearningnj.org/global_ata/a_comparison_of_dialogue_and_debate.htm

Whenever an atheist quotes this to me, thinking of it as a joke, I always respond: "Of course! Anyone knows what the great genius of science, Nicola Tesla, said.   'GÕD is without dimensions'.

" In other words GÕD is neither subject to, nor an object of material existence. A god which exists in an idol."

Linds, now you're making jokes in response to straight lines that you wish I had written. This isn't a debate. This isn't a dialogue. This is you, once again, trying to redefine words to make theism look less insane.

BTW, making witty retorts to your own setup lines isn't helping you in that department.

BREAKING NEWS

BY NOW, MOST OF US HAVE HEARD THE TRAGIC NEWS FROM NEWPORT CONNECTICUT, USA.  IT IS  ABOUT THE HEINOUS MASS KILLING 26?--children and adults--THAT TOOK PLACE AT A CATHOLIC SCHOOL THERE THIS AFTERNOON. 

What ought we to think, say and do in this forum, WONDER-CAFE--when we hear about such tragedies?

The floor is open for dialogue and/or debate, or .... What do you suggest?.

====================

One thread was set up, in 2007, as follows:

Virginia Shootings etc

If I hurt your feelings, I certainly apologize.

Actually, when I first read the quip in The Centre for Information CFI--a humanist forum--I thought it was quite clever and enjoyed it.

Thanks for the warning when you write:

"BTW, making witty retorts to your own setup lines isn't helping you in that department."

Consider that science meant observation at one time ...

Could a mere mortal deal with observation of that which he didn't believe existed?

Welcome to quantum mechanics!

Really, chansen - as has been pointed out again and again with multiple references to completely reputable English-language dictionaries - it's you who's redefining (or at least insisting on far too narrowly defining) a word. Why won't you just admit that your definition of "science" is a narrow definition that isn't supported by any objective evidence? Man it's like you've suddenly found your caricature of religion on this one point. "This is the way it is  because I want it to be this way and I don't care what the evidence says even if it disagrees with me."

On the Happy G-string ... more entanglement!

Spiritual observation thus becomes a reality ... popped right out of that non-thing called soul/mind/psyche ... and quantum mechanics rules as a chance item. You never know when the emotions will pop up as jacked and then fall as people don't take to eM as a reversal of thought and ponder ID! Sort of like observing emotions through the eye of a camel or a pinhole camera ... everythings reciprocal on the other side (Paul Harvey?) but this leads to implications ...

Can you observe emotions (spirits)? Are thoughts black in flat out form or are there other shades to the story? There are probably 40 varieties as there is always the missing 1, or that misunderstood imaginary "i" ... some say it doesn't exist, but how do electrical engineers calculate electrical properties without that binary code? There is some suggestion it is the root of brae'n storm-in ... a contained thing in an emotional dimension. This also leads to a hint of a reciprocal sphere or a reverse psychological perspective ... like only seeing God when goan (old Hindi word) ... Herman H would call this gheist! Its a wind some of us old ph'arts get a kick out of as we get closer ... to that other way of processing ... can you dig that?

I watched a minister explode over breakfast and told me I was BS liar because I told him there was more to all-there-is than emotional context. You can see the thoughts dissapate in a fog that's almost misty .. perhaps mystical ... and he will probably deny it if asked about acting ignorant to my observations of his exploding emotions ... almost Canan in some tongues ...  a rare burr'd of come backatcha ... hyper bole? Subliminal dish ... grael, or gruel ...

Is that half-uL, or halve eM Tae'd?

Then hoo understands uL today? As complex as gammas ... spread out across the page ... and people dispise reading, generally ...

As one well-educated, proffessor at a UU meeting stated if it is not as simple as possible I don't want to read it ... and thus syntax is greatly overlooked by the powers on both sides: false thinkers and emotional sorts ...

The medium is still denied and if encountered shot full of holes or burned. Did you know how many tomes the Romans burned 2000 years ago as icon of ignorance ... thought was removed from the empiric and the Dark Age N-Zued ...

The code helps to cover up the pall of crap-shoot that is our past sense of idealism!

RevSteven, thanks for your comments.

May I suggest that, over the next while, we make a deliberate attempt to invite atheists, agnostics and humanists, whoever, to join you, me and others who would like to participate us in an experiment:

For at least a few weeks--making it clear that we have no intention of judging others, or of trying to persuade and convert others--let us invite one and all to see if we can practice the art of having a dialogue with one another. Here goes:

This invite goes to one and all,

Gathered here on This Wide Wall,

Or, maybe at the local mall.

In Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall.

Open's the door to our Cafe,

Where all are free to have their say.

Where all agree: There's no one way,

That guides us to that bright new day.

====================================

AS A START, I REPEAT THIS QUOTE:

Every science begins as philosophy and ends as art: It arises in hypothesis and flows into achievement. Philosophy is a hypothetical interpretation of the unknown (as in metaphysics), or of the inexactly known (as in ethics or political philosophy).

It is the front trench in the siege of truth.

Science is the captured territory, and behind it are those secure regions in which knowledge and art build our imperfect and marvelous world. Philosophy seems to stand still, perplexed, but only because she leaves the fruits of victory to her daughters the sciences, and herself passes on, divinely discontent, to the uncertain and unexplored.

=======================

BUT I ADD: What a wonderful support this attitude can be, and is, for the new sciences--ones like willpower--now and in the future.

Ith ink oar em oat

good you're form

And your weird form of rejection of current nurology's insistance that thought and emotion are necessarily

necessary as a nessesity -- now towering hights of the brilliant, very smart, intelligent, wise asses believe this is universally accepted ---except for one who in grade two was in school listening to a teacher in a spelling class, leapted to his feet and screamed "I KNOW what they sound like, who gives a rats ass about spelling them! " News reports indicate that the boy was never seen again....

Or heard from.

It's a good thing that their are no long-distant charges in Universe to Universe communication.....

Hey water whatever ---

A great idea: when ever anyone corrects you when you make a big now obvious error,,,mistake in a subject about which you knew little....

Just smile and say "You know, at the quantum level, that is not true."

By the time they recover, you're in to your second drink,

my experience anyway,..... 

HG,

Do you hate everything you don't understand?

Tells us something about you ...

OOPs; that was n't something I was supposed to know ... I shoud'a wrote that in code too ... so the godly standard of stoop-idée is retained !

Bends the true mind all ouda shape into a wee black Ba'aL'M ... what today we call dispersed Black Holes ... they grow unknowingly to mortals ... as mortals can't stand the stretch required to get there ..

WHY THE AMERICANS LOVE THEIR GUNS

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/03/20123277...

Because God gave them the right to bear arms.

quote=WaterBuoy

HG,

Do you hate everything you don't understand?

--------

Hell no! I don't hate YOU...

 ----------

Tells us something about you ...

---------------

What. pray tell...

-----------------

OOPs; that was n't something I was supposed to know ... I shoud'a wrote that in code too ... so the godly standard of stoop-idée is retained !

---------------

Sooooo you decided to employ clearly understood English. Excellent...

When will it start?

-------------------

Bends the true mind all ouda shape into a wee black Ba'aL'M ...

The 'true mind' ? 

---------------------

what today we call dispersed Black Holes ... they grow unknowingly to mortals ... as mortals can't stand the stretch required to get there ..

-------------------

Who is the 'we' that so call it?

Too bad. I thought at the start that I would begin to understand your 'style'

I have no idea what your post contains, so I must conclude that you really really don't wish to converse with me. Which is certainly your perogative..,

I give up.

Wee people ... they're more numerous thaneue ...

But some people only think about themselves and are happy when they can ignore the other's pain ...

Sometimes it comes home to roost as a mire point ... next to nothing they say ... but what would I know of that beyond human desctructive urges ... totally emotional for lack of logic?

God, do we hate to see another person think? You'd believe so so those that do have to hide thinking in recessive jinns ... creates holes in the fabric ... with consequence to the celestial taylor! The weaving must continue under hostile house rules ... hostility? Have you looked about? The tension grows and we can't see is as a group always in a rush ... something no one can deny, but they do ...

I was told again this week not to think ... so I do according to the covenent ... the sacred wisdom literature ... few understand ID as an ancient power ... primary even ... with latentcy ... when the dust settles ... time to do etude on the mire ... that's the dirt on the situation ... that few see ... no interest or curiosity about the other what-so-eve'Eire! A word of abstract ...