TheBrotherMario - 21 May 2012 03:51 AM

No.

You don’t.

Every post you write is an opinionated mess without the least understanding or knowledge of the living God.

A person can only give to others what they first possess themselves.

Lighten up. That was a joke about how we all groan “oh god” when we have an orgasm (are coming).  You should be laughing the hardest, in that case!

Besides that Mario, our language is the “living god” and these pages are full of that. Yes, the words and the meanings behind them are all human (all too human), but god is how we live with each other. Without our language we would each be all alone.

“Whenever two or more of you are gathered in “his” name, there is love.”

Mario is a wonderful example of christianity. He is a bucket of phlegm and serves as a dire warning to us all not to go there.

Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (Rob) - 21 May 2012 08:36 AM

Mario is a wonderful example of christianity. He is a bucket of phlegm and serves as a dire warning to us all not to go there.

You can only go there if you leave yourself behind

When have I ever called myself a Christian?

Besides, how many loving Christians do atheists spend time with in an honest debate?

Bruce? The man who wrote once that Jesus is not the incarnate God, or something to that effect?

No true Christian would waffle on that extremely significant revelation.

How many good religious people do atheists respect and see as valuable assets to humanity?

Do not atheists treat such people with contempt, and maintain the position that they are not sincere because they are acting good only to get a reward?

Why then are you not saying that TheBrotherMario is acting bad because he is not concerned about a reward, so he is being sincere?

Anyway, just to be clear, if I was telling a bunch of lies over and over, and trying to justify my selfish lifestyle by degrading people who live good and noble lives, I would want someone to tell me about it. Such a person would be my friend and be “loving” to me in the best way I needed. Any person who joined in on my lies and rubbed against me in my selfish lifestyle would be my enemy.

The idea that “love” is always a kind word spoken in meekness is dumb.

If I attempted an honest debate with you atheists in the style of a loving Christian, you would have kept me off ignore, but put me in a compartment labeled “religious believer”.

I prefer to tell you so-called “atheists” like it is…and it ain’t pretty.

TheBrotherMario - 21 May 2012 09:12 AM

...if I was telling a bunch of lies over and over, and trying to justify my selfish lifestyle by degrading people who live good and noble lives, I would want someone to tell me about it.

(Andrew):  Ahem!

BM, you concern me, and I don’t mean that in a snotty way. In some bizarre sense I find you refreshing, in that I think the bigger plague in our culture at the moment is senseless narcissism. I actually prefer your attitude, in some (not all) ways to what you see featured on The Jersey Shore and My Super Sweet 16. At least you have some kind of moral and intellectual passion going on.

That said, I think you’re wrong, and I think you’re wasting your time acting out your own ego-driven, human desires and dressing it up as “what God wants.” As you said, telling you because perhaps that’s ultimately kinder if it has any influence. I’ll only say it once, though, I have no interest in engaging you in debate. Take it as you will.

TheBrotherMario - 21 May 2012 09:12 AM

Bruce? The man who wrote once that Jesus is not the incarnate God, or something to that effect?

No true Christian would waffle on that extremely significant revelation.

What are you talking about? When did I write this?

That said, I think you’re wrong, and I think you’re wasting your time acting out your own ego-driven, human desires and dressing it up as “what God wants.” As you said, telling you because perhaps that’s ultimately kinder if it has any influence. I’ll only say it once, though, I have no interest in engaging you in debate. Take it as you will.

Most of us here have recognized that for years.  It has long since become repetitious and boring.

And, I will tell you twice, dizzy—your premise that God does not exist, therefore all spirituality in a one-way affair, makes your posts on the subject a loud trip to nowhere.

What interests you is the rub, for ignorance forms in an uneducated and prejudiced mind, not in a mind open to truth.

You left our debate before you got there.

So saying goodbye to you would be redundant.

I don’t know, Bruce.

Maybe you only left the door open for the possibility that Jesus wasn’t/isn’t God.

You do have a tendency to asterisk your posts.

I only know that you wrote something to that effect.

Since I accused you of it, I’ll try to find it.

TheBrotherMario - 21 May 2012 09:40 AM

I don’t know, Bruce.

Maybe you only left the door open for the possibility that Jesus wasn’t/isn’t God.

You do have a tendency to asterisk your posts.

I only know that you wrote something to that effect.

Since I accused you of it, I’ll try to find it.

I think you are totally wrong, but I’ll see what you come up with and how you misinterpret it.

Okay, Bruce, I took the time to look through your posts and found this: “Jesus, according to Christian understanding, was “the Word made flesh.”  He had an advantage over the rest of us, being by nature divine himself. So he opened the way for the rest of us.”

So I apologize for the false accusation.

However…in reading your posts, your condemnation of “dogma” is prevalent, and that is what I was basically referring to.

Jesus as the incarnate God is the greatest “dogma” that humanity has to hang its hat on, for that means we human beings are capable of becoming like God.

Don’t be hating dogma. Hate relativism. And, Project Reason is steeped in it.

TheBrotherMario - 21 May 2012 12:09 PM

So I apologize for the false accusation.

Apology accepted.

Sheesh, I take a weeks vacation with a lady to visit Punta Cana for some positive energy and then I return to the usual schtick.

Sara has this belief that Simone was a dreamer. Actually Simone had the power of conscious attention coupled with the capacity for detachment that makes one the opposite of a dreamer. I think that is why those like Jesus, Socrates, and Simone to a lesser extent are hard to understand since they value truth greater than security and self esteem (opinion of oneself). This is absurd for us but for those who are dedicated to truth, they are willing to drink the Hemlock regardless of how idiotic it seems to the “normal.”

I’ve read the usual denials which seems to me to demonstrate the different degrees of atheism present on this site.

Of course there is the “yo momma sucks” contingent that prides itself on denial prohibiting any meaningful dialogue. Yet there are those that seem to be more flexible.

Anyhow,  Jefe seemed willing to discuss ideas as they relate to art.

For example:  Would you consider the body of work by Douglas Cardinal - a current and practicing Architect to be heartless and in service of negative emotions?  Are you talking about the Broadway play Cats?  Are you talking about Contemporary Ballet, like that being produced by the Nederlands Dans Theatre?  Are you talking about modern musical theater created by Andrew Lloyd Webber?
Further: Do you consider there to be something inherently non-valuable about engaging in whimsy (fantasy as you put it?)

If a person’s aim is to enjoy fantasy and the feeling of self importance which is the essence of negative emotion, then fine archictecture like created by Douglas Cardinal or the music from Cats is what they should enjoy.

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=douglas+cardinal&hl=en&sa=X&biw=1024&bih=571&tbm=isch&prmd=imvnso&tbnid=zugIAaa9H_9-qM:&imgrefurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/reddeer/&docid=yiYK5sytQtVPuM&imgurl=http://www.galinsky.com/buildings/reddeer/main%20view.jpg&w=430&h=249&ei=LMa6T41nhLPqAf-DjIEL&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=365&vpy=147&dur=5813&hovh=171&hovw=295&tx=85&ty=76&sig=114696581974570068887&page=1&tbnh=86&tbnw=148&start=0&ndsp=18&ved=1t:429,r:2,s:0,i:78

This quality is normal for cave life that furthers self justification. the emotions they provoke are normal for this self justification

I am referring to a quality of art allowing a person to feel their insignificance from a temporary experience of a higher reality rather than our usual significance. It can be created in several ways but the easiest to describe is cosmological art where the events of one cosmos are experienced in the context of a higher cosmological perspective.

For the time being just imagine two cosmoses: the macrocosm and the microcosm. Microcosms exist as one within the larger more inclusive macrocosm

Frederic church was inspired by Alexander von Humboldt to paint the Andes. Von Humboldt was another one of these amazing people far ahead of their time who have had a greater understanding of reality. He wrote several volumes on the “Cosmos” and needed an artist capable of describing the genesis of life as it is vividly experienced in the Andes. Frederic church had the quality of mind and talent to do it. One of his most famous paintings is “The Heart of the Andes”

http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/09.95

I’ve visited it several times and each time I am amazed how he paints each small microcosm like a bug in great detail but at the same time the Macrocosm of the world as a greater level of reality is clearly felt. This is like experiencing being in Plato’s cave and outside it vertically and simultaneously.

My favorite is Aivazovsky. Shahen Khachatrian, a leading expert on his art describes Man as often depicted as insignificant to something far greater. He wrote:

“Maybe the most alluring image of love which Nature bears is the borderline between water and dry land, where water circumscribes the earth, and the earth circumscribes the line of water. The horizon, taking off from the shore and stretching far into the distance, connects Man with the awesome endlessness of the universe, and here, right here, one acutely feels the miracle of his fleeting life.”

Watch this video. Notice that in each of these scenes, everything that is happening is occurring within a higher context expressed through the atmosphere and the sun or moon.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Qv_yCI_YKE

The point is that there is negative art based on obvious negative emotions such as anger and revenge in both visual and audio mediums. Then there is a great amount that flatters the imagination of self importance.

However, there is also this quality of art that allows the viewer to experience something not normal in daily life which is its experience within the context of a higher reality. Rather than denying something greater than ourselves, art created by those like Church and Aivazovsky awaken the viewer to this new dimension the experience which is new for many and connects the macrocosm with the microcosm.

My guess is that cosmology will play an important part with the unification of science, the God of atheism. with Man’s need to experience more than the battles of microcosms the world offers and is drawn to a higher experience of wholeness beyond the limitations of science.. Common sense says that they are complimentary. it seems the trouble is that we’ve lost so much of our willingness to experience common sense

Simone wrote that atheism can serve as a purification of the imagination of secularized religion. Yet in the process the atheist is denied the experience of the imagination they live within which denies the experience of our insignificance in contrast to human “being” potential. I believe she’s right.

http://www.djcarchitect.com/

Back in the mid-70s I use to go to sweat lodges put on by Doug Cardinal.  He was an intense shaman who took some people through pretty harrowing experiences.  Anybody who doesn’t recognize an aspect of transcendence in his architecture is clearly not looking properly. 

It’s interesting that the truth, in the mouth of a liar, becomes a lie.  And in the mouth of a devotee it becomes his/her god.  The walls of the prison close in, forcefully excluding that which is left without.  No more “sermons in stone, books in the running brooks” but only that which has been dogmatically approved and appointed as acceptable art.  Not, of course, that the approved art is bad, just that it is not all goodness.  Being a devotee prepares one to see in certain ways and not see in other ways.  It’s an effective training for crowd control.

In asylum committed she paints on the wall
scenes of day seen through a barred window
Hu would know her if she would step into day
through painted walls of sorrow
but who can tell what private hell
bars thresholds of tomorrow.

On a South Pacific island there was a village where eating a certain type of yam was taboo.  Anthropologists who investigated this phenomenon discovered that this rather tasty sort of yam had become a forbidden fruit because a village “big-man” some 100 years before had disliked it and refused to eat it.