Spirituality
12 Jun 16
28 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkBut you didn't even answer it. I want a yes or no answer!
I explained to you clearly why I rejected your question, now explain to me why you reject mine.
Finnegan clearly explained to you why he gave a longer answer than one word and you were not satisfied. Therefore I am not satisfied with your explanation. I want a one word answer, Yes, or No.
Originally posted by twhiteheadNo. There you go, now let the adults continue with their conversation.
But you didn't even answer it. I want a yes or no answer!
Finnegan clearly explained to you why he gave a longer answer than one word and you were not satisfied. Therefore I am not satisfied with your explanation. I want a one word answer, Yes, or No.
28 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonship
sonship:
To whom am I ultimately responsible ? Anyone? Someone with limited authority or unlimited authority ?
Just myself ?
Just society ?
Just man ?
Which man then ? Hegel or Hugh He or Oprah [edited] ? googlefudge or Socrates ?
To whom, if anyone, will I ultimately be accountable ?
[quote]
finnigan: ...[text shortened]... t's your problem with the concept of accountability for the things done with and in our bodies ?[/b]I find it weird that you refer to us as bodies. Bodies do this that and the other. It is not a conventional way to refer to ourselves and it is not one that I propose to go along with. It is, as I said, weird.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
28 Jun 16
7 edits
Originally posted by finneganI find it weird that you refer to us as bodies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not say we were only bodies and nothing more. Far from that.
I said as far as accountability I was accountable for the deeds done in and by and with my body.
Bodies do this that and the other.
--------------------------------------------------
People in bodies do this and that with their bodies.
It is not a conventional way to refer to ourselves and it is not one that I propose to go along with. It is, as I said, weird.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
That is your prerogative to consider this strange. But if you think on it just a little bit it is perfectly reasonable. Thoughts may not harm. But thoughts which ISSUE is actions of the person (which pertain to the members of the body) do harm or benefit others.
If I had said accountable for thoughts, probably loud protests would have arisen from the Atheist corner about "thought crimes". It is the actions that we carry out or perhaps the inaction that we carry out with our bodies which have the greater impact.
Of course physical actions have their inception in the thought life. They usually do not jail people only for thoughts but for the physical actions that arise from them.
28 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonship
[b] I find it weird that you refer to us as bodies.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course physical actions have their inception in the thought life. They usually do not jail people only for thoughts but for the physical actions that arise from them.[/b]
That is your prerogative to consider this strange.Thanks
But if you think on it just a little bit it is perfectly reasonable.I did. It's not.
They usually do not jail people only for thoughts but for the physical actions that arise from them.In most countries you may be right. In the USA you jail people mainly because they are black. In general though it is not bodies that go to jail, but people, and it would help Americans to see that more clearly.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Originally posted by finneganIn most countries you may be right. In the USA you jail ...[text shortened]... is not bodies that go to jail, but people, and it would help Americans to see that more clearly.[/b]Red herrings.That is your prerogative to consider this strange.Thanks
But if you think on it just a little bit it is perfectly reasonable.I did. It's not.
They usually do not jail people only for thoughts but for the [b] physical actionsthat arise from them.
In any country what you think will not land you in trouble.
Once you act on some evil thought, you can land in incarceration.
What does hacking require? Action with the fingers.
What does stealing require? Actions with the hands usually.
What does character assasination require? Just thinking things? No. writing or speaking which requires the members of our body.
What does drunk driving require? The body again.
What about child abuse? Maybe the hand or the tongue. The tongue of course is of the body.
What about peeping tom crime? Your eyes a member of the physical body.
Stalking? The body.
Rioting? The body.
Hate crimes? The body (tongue, hands perhaps)
What about embezzlement? Again probably hands. Perhaps fingers on a keyboard.
And of course GOOD DEEDS require the same action of the body too.
Let's not be completely negative.
Talk can harm or do good - requires the mouth and tongue - the body.
Adultery may start with the eyes. Eventually it will blossom out into the ________, again part of the body.
What's your problem ?
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
In most countries you may be right. In the USA you jail people mainly because they are black. In general though it is not bodies that go to jail, but people, and it would help Americans to see that more clearly.
As for jailing people simply because of skin color.? That is injustice - which also requires the use of the BODY.- of the one practicing the injustice.
Accountable for WHAT ? Again, accountable for the actions carried out in and by the body.
That would include injustice and racial prejudice.
Your USA example only underscores the same thing. The BODY is needed in wrong DOING.
29 Jun 16
Originally posted by finneganAre you absolutely sure about that?
Leave me alone. Go and be creepy to someone else.
Creepiness is relative depending on the individual. What you might think of as being fine and dandy and normal (or even noble) someone else might find objectionable and disgusting and creepy... or weird. I'm personally fascinated by academically inclined wordsmiths who demonstrate a predilection for exercises in unnecessarily convoluted buffoonery. Is that creepy? I'll admit it may seem odd, but I don't think it's creepy...
There's nothing wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with me, wrong with wrong wrong dinga dong.
29 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkWhat exactly is 'absolute' truth? Is it something that is always true, no exceptions?
I have seen quite a few people on these threads make the claim "There is no absolute truth".
But the statement can only be true for everyone if it is a statement of absolute truth.
Originally posted by finneganIn most countries you may be right. In the USA you jail ...[text shortened]... is not bodies that go to jail, but people, and it would help Americans to see that more clearly.[/b]In the USA you jail people mainly because they are black.That is your prerogative to consider this strange.Thanks
But if you think on it just a little bit it is perfectly reasonable.I did. It's not.
They usually do not jail people only for thoughts but for the [b] physical actionsthat arise from them.
Oh good grief, another PC m***n masquerading as an intellectual.
How many of you are there?
29 Jun 16
Originally posted by sonshipActions reveal what is in the heart, if one could see the heart before actions would it then
Red herrings.
In any country what you [b] think will not land you in trouble.
Once you act on some evil thought, you can land in incarceration.
What does hacking require? Action with the fingers.
What does stealing require? Actions with the hands usually.
What does character assasination require? Just thinking things? No. writ ...[text shortened]... tually it will blossom out into the ________, again part of the body.
What's your problem ?[/b]
matter if actions were part of the equation or not?
29 Jun 16
Originally posted by lemon lime"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
What exactly is 'absolute' truth? Is it something that is always true, no exceptions?
29 Jun 16
Originally posted by FetchmyjunkA circle is defined as a shape all of whose points are an equal distance from its centre. A square is a shape whose four sides are all straight and the same length and has right angles at the corners. Consider the space with the following metric:
"Absolute truth" is defined as inflexible reality: fixed, invariable, unalterable facts. For example, it is a fixed, invariable, unalterable fact that there are absolutely no square circles and there are absolutely no round squares.
g(x , y) = x^2 if x >=y
g(x, y) = y^2 if y >=x
a square arranged in that space so its corners are at +/- 1 is a square because vectors parallel transported along its edges do not change direction, until they reach the corners where there are right angles. It has all its point equidistant from the origin because of the way distance is defined in the space I've constructed. So the square is also a circle. In other words one can have a square circle.