₦airaland Forum

ROSSIKE:
Just like the Jesus character - mythical through and through.

Exactly.

Dulcet7:
TGIF, Deep Sight
Hitler's people were the Nazis [/i]and not the Germans. Many WWII German soldiers were non-Nazi in fact. Nazis adored Hitler, and wherever they still exist in pockets, they are believed to still adore their belated Fuhrer.

There are still pockets of people who respect Sani Abacha a great deal. Ditto with Amin, Mobutu, Stalin, et all.

Does that do anything to justify a sane and sober mind electing to respect such a man.

What does respect mean to you. We may all respect the attribute of strength, but surely for one who splits hairs as much as you do: it is incongruous to fail to see that strength applied towards murderous ends is definitely not worthy of respect!

If anything it amounts to a callous waste of talent: which again is not worthy of respect.

Well, for me I distinguish [/b]between respect and admiration. You might accuse me of splitting hairs very often ~ and you won't be far from the truth ~ because I don't see the world in black and white.

I respect [b]the riveted application [/b]of a man, [i]any man, to his vision [b]even though I might not approve, condone or excuse or even admire what he did or why he did it. This is because it shows that if this man's heart had known [/b]better, the same application would have made a [b]significantly positive impact [/b]in this world.

It makes no sense to respect the riveted application of attributes of strength of mind to murder and gross genocide.

Again I state to you that for one who makes such distinctions all the time, it is worrying that you fail to make this cardinal distinction.

Any person can have any attribute. Its all useless if negatively applied: and that is [b]not to be respected. Positive application is what is to be respected.

At this rate you will wind up stating that you respect the focus and "riveted application" of a serial killer.

In fact, that is what you have stated already: for Hitler was beyond even a serial killer.

There is always something to take away, to learn, to respect. Even from a life like Adolf Hitler's. Or the life of Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Stalin, Mobutu, Mussolini or Sani Abacha.

Of course there is always something to take away: and that is teh lesson that one must nt permit such despicable men or their equally despicable tendencies to rule the world.

Dulcet7:
@Deep Sight:

Scandalous? I apologize if you are offended. No, it's no impertinent [/i]joke. To his own people, the Fuhrer Adolf Hitler was a great man indeed - so I was only taking a global view. And as for what there is to respect about Hitler? I do not [b]condone [/b]or [b]appreciate [/b]what he did, but I [b]respect [/b]it all the same ~ [i]considering his background (I read his biography). Regards.

@noetic16:

I'm cool, sir

Sometimes i wonder if you are a prankster. Hitler was adored by his people? Perhaps u are unaware of the numerous attempts to assasinate him. U seem not to know the level of intimidation that hitler deployed. Go to Germany today and see if he is adored or an icon of national shame, the object of a national guilt that is yet to heal.

You say you respect him by dint of his story and struggle. By the same token you must respect despots such as Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin, Mobutu, Mussolini and the like.

I dont understand u. Each time i read your posts and i am on the cusp of respect u come up with some post that is either a ridiculous prank or what else i just dont know.

Noetic, long time and happy new year! We have missed you bro.

Dulcet, you might want to check out this thread to get a feel of noetic -

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-336988.0.html

Dulcet7:
In fact, in my rather young life I have done nothing compared with great people like Mother Theresa, Adolf Hitler, Mahatma Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, Aung San Su Kyi, the Dalai Lama, or Martin Luther, or even Christ or Krishna or Buddha (if they existed as human beings). I respect all of these people beyond their frailty ~ if they had any.

Your inclusion of Adolf Hitler in a list of such eminent positive leaders who have made such telling sacrifices for the greater good is scandalous, and actually most annoying. Do you seek to denigrate the acheivements of these people by associating them with Hitler? Or is this another impertinent joke of the sort that you attempted in the other thread. For Jupiter's sake.

You also go further to state that you respect them all. What exactly about Hitler do you respect so much: as to make you go so far as to include him in a list of such positive leaders of humanity.

Further, it is for hagiographic statements ~ like this one below ~ that I created this thread.

Appreciated.

Thank you. There is much that you have written which may readily appear evil especially as delivered in he words of a conspiracy theorist. I can assure you that such writings exist regarding even the best amongst us: Mandela, Martin Luther, Theresa, the Dalai Lama, . . .the list is endless.

The fact is that human beings are fallible.

Now even in terms of things that are stern and disciplined, and in which many virtues actually reside for the disciplined mind, it is easy for a man such as yourself to discern a resident evil: whereas it needn't necessarily be so in point of fact and reality.

I need to urge you to understand that the very best of us: being only human - will still have a catalougue of frailties, failures and negative proclivities. When a human being excels and thus becomes an icon of good: it is never because he is entirely good: but because the principal ideas he stood for were a driving force towards the greater good.

Having that in mind, it seems to me rather petty to select such outstanding human beings and begin to carve into their failings in a bid to discredit them. The fact is that what they stood for can never be discredited - and it altogether reduces the persona of the person so attempting to reduce such legacies: as though such a person is bitterly envious of the esteemed heights to which such humans rose.

Believe me: it is possible for you to dig up a catalogue of evil regarding Nelson Mandela and Aung San Su Kyi. In so doing however, you will never destroy their legacies however hard you try. Because they are only human and nobody in the first instance presumed them to be perfect. Howveer they courageously devoted their lives to causes that you, Dulcet, may not sacrifice as much for.

If you Dulcet, begin to smear the life-work of such a man, I will have to ask you what your contributions to the cauyse of humanity have been: that you dare use the fact of human imperfection to denigrate the leading moral lights of the world.

Dulcet7:
Hello Deep Sight. To me, Gandhi is not really too different from Adolf Hitler at the core of their hearts, although the extents of their outward actions and reactions differed somewhat. I think he was an [i]exemplary [/i]leader who stood and fought for only his own people.

1. Please can you very sincerely tell me if there is something wrong with spending one's lifetime fighting for one's people?

2. Do you really think your comparison of Ghandi to Hitler is sustainable?

3. Do you believe in reincarnation?

4. What is your view of dreams, visions and clairvoyance?

5. What is your view of Deism?

Thanks.

Okay, this actually arose in my mind again when I was reading the "Atheism and Morality" thread. Personally I am of the view that there is no such thing as a necessary connection between theism, atheism and morality: a theist may be immoral just as surely as an atheist may be moral and vice versa. Its all down to the nature and conscience of the individual. But I digress.

So I am reading that thread and just as I had pointed out to the OP, another poster (harakiri) made a post announcing himself an atheist and stating that his morals would depend strictly on his personal views and nothing else.

This got me thinking - is there in fact any particular "immoral" thing which an atheist may be favourably inclined towards on account of his atheism?

I felt at first glance that there was no such a thing. And perhaps indeed there isn't.

Nevertheless I probed the question in my mind and thought: if indeed an atheist's moral compass could be circumscribed by anything, it must be something that arises from the fact that the atheist holds himself as the highest power in his own life.

Is there any sin that could arise from such? It would have to be a sin with regard to oneself then.

Enter the sin of Suicide.

I have always thought that people should have the right to choose to die: essentially because i regard death as nothing more than a transition from one realm to the other, nothing more than that. I see no reason why a conscious being cannot decide that he wants to go to a different realm: pretty much as one may decide to permanently re-locate to a different country.

The Religious mind, however, regards suicide as a sin, and in many countries attempted suicide is a crime.

So. . .what are your views - is there anything morally wrong with suicide?

What about mercy-killing - Euthanasia?

Dulcet, what is your view of Mahatma Ghandi?

^^^ I really dont know what comments you are looking for. For heaven's sake the flip question could also be asked: "are theists moral?"

Hmmmm.

Whilst the biblical ontology of God may be problematic, this does nothing to help anybody. A recognition of the source and fount of all creation - God - and a deep appreciation for the wonder of conscious existence as a sentient being should be all that the thinking spirit should concern itself with.

^^^ Appreciated. I just read your views on th "Assurance of Salvation" thread. That was most enriching. Cheers.

Dulcet7:
To Deep Sight: In case you misunderstood me, I meant human beings always look for shortcuts ~ so when there is a rigid ethical code and personal morals attempt to catch up, it is certain that pretense, cunning and falsehood will get many of them there. There are criminals walking the street who only manage to stay out of the long arms of the law because they are cunning. Either way ~ if you understood me or not ~ no problems. I wish you well.

In that case your words were a severe and tragic misapplication of your meaning.

"Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning." - this is just dead on wrong. What you should have said is that the attempt to show morality may involve pretense and cunning.

Dulcet7:
Hello again Deep Sight.
It is Descriptive Ethics that is the same as Morals; and not Ethics same as Morals.

Whatever.

As for the other points in your post, I don't have anything else to say here about my allegedly ludicruous statements. Maybe you are right after all ~ but have only failed to convince me.

Lol, this chap strolls in here and says morality involves "pretense, cunning" etc and sits back to say he cannot defend such a preposterous definition of morality. No problem. Maybe YOUR morality involves "pretense, cunning," and is "a ploy". . .my morality certainly involves no such things.

I just hope you are not allowed to teach little children anything. Good, grief, what an odious perception of morality you would bequeath.

Dulcet7:
From the Lander University link http://philosophy.lander.edu/ethics/types.html , it seems I may have been right or at least close.

Please stop obsfucating issues. For heavens sake even the quote your yourself sourced said - "Descriptive Ethics or morals - a study of human behaviour. . ." thus showing the terms to be essentially dealing with the exact same thing. So there.

Anyhow I don't want you to side-step the comical statements contained in your first post on this thread. I am not interested in a pedantic debate about the distinction between morals and ethics. That is of no use to anyone.

What you should defend are these ridiculous statements of yours -

Dulcet7:
Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning.

Dulcet7:
The idea of morality seems to be a ploy to silence all ethical qualms.

These are ludicruous statements. I ask you again how morality is "a ploy"? ? ?

I ask you again how morality "involves alot of pretense and favours the cunning"? ? ?

You are subscribing to machiavellian ideas of expedience and translating that into some pseudo understanding of morality.

Dulcet7:
Deep Sight, you were on that thread, sir; at least I found two posts.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-35449.800.html#msg4447849
and

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-35449.832.html#msg4447880

Okay, but certainly not on the page he cited. Anyway i stand by my views regarding se.x as expressed in teh quotes you sourced. What is immoral about s.ex? Is it not a natural instinct programmed into our hormones? Let's say i never get married all my life. Do you expect that the proper thing is that i will battle the natural instinct of my hormones all my life? That is just beyong absurd.

Uyi Iredia:
by unbelievers >>> i was reffering to people who do not adhere to any religion (especially the 'Big 3') >>> i did not intend to use it in an abusive manner >>> the only scapegoat of my abuse has been Mudley

Well the fact still remains that the link you provided contains no post from me.

Dulcet7:
Morality (or Immorality) has little to do with religion.

Accepted.

Morality will thus involve a lot of pretense and favour the cunning.

This is a hilarious statement. I presume on your behalf that you mean this as a joke: for it has no other intelligible or even vaguely rational justification. Moraility favour the cunning? Perhaps your moraility is that espoused by Niccolo Machiavelli.

Hogwash.

This is the only place where I think atheism and morality will clash. The idea of moral justification is bad enough without the belief that you need to answer to no one.

I hope you are aware that a country like Finland which is almost entirely atheist sets a moral standard that an almost entirely theist nation like Nigeria can probably never acheive.

Finland ranks amongs the countries with the lowest levels of crime, corruption etc. So quit the chit chat.

Besides, this statement contradicts your excellent opening line.

In a bid to present morality ~ especially for atheists whose hearts are not answerable to anyone except maybe some fellow humans who definitely cant see all sides of the scenario ~ people spend time looking for loopholes and ways to whitewash or to sweep under the rug that which their conscience tells them is not quite right.

Most atheists i know of answer to themselves in terms of conscience and not to other human beings. If anything it is the theist in most cases that seems to answer to other human beings. The bit about sweeping stuff under the carpet applies to everybody generally: atheists, theists, pagans, etc.

The idea of morality seems to be a ploy to silence all ethical qualms.

How is it a ploy?

What is the differenec between morals and ethics.

Your conception of morality is disastrous.

Uyi Iredia:
in the 7th >>> just curious >>> cuz on more than one occassion i've chanced unbelievers who are complacent about sex outside of marriage >>> DeepSight opinions here was the height

Bros, the link you gave contained no posts from me. Infact I was not on NL in 2007. Besides why do you call me an unbeliever? Who is an unbeliever?

Ok, no problem. The posts above are all there for any person to read and derive their conclusions. If you see no contradictions in what you have laid out, especially the answers to my questions, and most especially your acceptance that refering to past states must indicate events in a timeline, then so be it.

Thank you for your time.

As a closing summary let us all carefully note that -

Thehomer -

- Claimed that time commenced with the big bang but then acceded that the big bang occured within a timeline

- Claimed that time commenced at the big bang, but that the timeline commenced at the singularity: which he says pre-existed the big bang

- Accepted that physical things exist in time and space

- Accepted that the singularity was physical and yet:

- insisted that there was no time at the singularity.

- Denies the obvious fact of pre-existing space given the expansion of the universe into already existing space by saying "i don't know"

- When asked the simple question: is it not obvious that inorder for something to expand, there must be some room into which it is expanding - avoids this starkly simple and obvious fact by saying that he is not sure if there must be room to accomadate such expansion.

That is the summary of wild contradictions which thehomer canvasses as credible science. I have pointed out these contradictions ad infinitum ad nauseum. It seems to me that the difference between my worldview and that of thehomer is simply that he takes current scientific thinking on any subject to be infallible: i do not. Otherwise he would not assume that the current scientific theories on time and space are exactly and infallibly correct - especially given the obvious contradictions and deficiencies that the theories throw up. I am of the view that it behoves a genuine thinker to prob beyond that which is offered by other human beings when such offerings throw up contradictions and inconsistencies.

In this regard i should mention the fact that people like Galileo Galilei and Nicholaus Corpernicus were derided in their day for propounding ideas that ran against the accepted "scientific" worldviews of the time. As it turns out, the questions and probes conducted by these people gave rise to better and more precise knowledge. Let us not be shy of challenging concepts that even Einstein has put forward regarding these things: for Einstein was only human: and you cannot tell me that science and knowledge will not continue to grow and expand beyond that which he knew in his day. If Einstein surpassed Newton's physical theories: surely with the passage of time and the growth of knowledge someone in the future may also surpass Einstein's physical theories, possibly even by contradicting them.

I will just leave a link to a discussion viaro, justcool and myself had about space a long while ago. That discussion i believe shows that some ideas about space may be wrong.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-362859.0.html

Enough said. Cheers.

^^^ I am telling you that that theory of the universe is innacurate and inchoate. The difference between us is simply that you accept current scientific thinking as infallible whereas i do not. I see logical loopholes in the theories of time and space.

We agree to disagree. Your contradictions above speak for themselves. Cheers.

Abeg, feel free o.

Now i herewith tender solid, irrefutable proof of the duplicity that I have alleged above.

I state that thehomer's argument has always been that time commenced at the big bang, that is, the initial expansion.

Here are several quotes from him in proof of the fact that that was what he always stated -

thehomer:
I thought it was clear that time as we know it was simply not available before the universe began to expand because as I said, time and space are intricately linked.

thehomer:
As long as one is in this universe, time for that person started with the Big Bang.

thehomer:
Time and space as we know it began with the expansion of this universe.

Suddenly, when it is conclusively shown to him that time ALREADY existed at the moment of the big bang, he suddenly changes gear. Cheack out this astonishing somer-sault -

thehomer:
I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself again and again. While we can refer to a state before the expansion, we cannot refer to time before the singularity. This singularity was the beginning of the time-line. From there we can commence counting down (or up) to the present time.

Wow! So time no longer commenced at the big bang, but at the singularity! Amazing, this fellow, ehn? See how he runs away from his own statements when ratted out?

Tell me, Mr. Homer, so which is it - did time commence at the big bang or at the singularity? Reconcile your contradictory falsehoods!

Lol. its obvious this fella has no idea regarding the concepts he borrows from primary school science text books.

This is not worth my time.

As I said before, regardless of your response I will not be reverting to the issue of pre-bang time again because any objective third party can see clearly that you admitted that the word 'before' is (in your own words) a reference to events IN a timeline. You then said that the singularity existed before the big bang. That simply means the big bang is an event in a timeline. If you cannot wrap your head around such simple logical sequences, I will not waste my time: i already take the point as proven - and it may interest you to note that I do not debate the point to convince you; but to lay bare the contradictions within your surmise to the objective third-party reader. So if you are not swayed do not worry: you are not the target sought to be swayed.

I will only point out one thing which begins to show some level of duplicity on your part: and if not duplicity, then the most severe and lamentable confusion. And here it is -

thehomer:
I'm getting tired of having to repeat myself again and again. While we can refer to a state before the expansion, we cannot refer to time before the singularity. This singularity was the beginning of the time-line. From there we can commence counting down (or up) to the present time.

Now there it is above. An outright lie: a deliberate falsehood on your part. And you told this lie only because you saw that the questions had pulled the rug beneath your inconsistent and contradictory heels.

Why tell such a lie? You are aware that your statement which this thread takes to task is that time commences at the big bang. I have argued that time pre-existed the big bang. You have argued the contrary: that time began at the big bang. Now you suddenly conflate the terms and state that time began at the singularity. Please sir: you know very well that the singularity and the big bang are not the same thing, so why conflate the terms to avoid the clear implications of the answers you gave to my questions.

You now say  - "we cannot refer to time before the singularity. This singularity was the beginning of the time-line" - whereas your position had always been that we cannot refer to time before the big bang - and that the big bang was the beginning of the time line!

It is obvious that you do this comical flip-flop only because the existence of a state PRIOR to the big bang has been shown and proven to you: and that also proves, in your own words, that the big bang was an event that occured within an already existing timeline.

So stop desperately conflating terms and telling lies, will you? How dare you deliberately switch "singularity" for "big bang' when you your self had earlier presumptuously warned me against doing such? ? ? Here is what you said -

You're using the singularity and the Big Bang interchangeably, I am not.

There it is. Cold hard evidence of your duplicity in this matter. The moment it is proven to you that there was a state in time prior to the bang, you now claim that you mean to say there was no state prior to the singularity. Consider carefully the facts before posting another falsehood, because i will be happy to embarrass you with further quotes of yours proving this very point that what you actually argued was that time began at the big bang, and not that time began at the singularity, which is what you are now attempting to escape by saying this.

The point is well proven. I will only proceed to deal with your respones to my further questions.

Thank you sir.

Having conclusively and incontrovertibly shown that in terms of your very own answers, time could not have been "created" by or at the moment of the big bang, we thus proceed speedily to a further line of questioning to prove the other averrments i made in the OP -

Q. 3 - Do you take it as reasonable and agreed, that for anything to expand, there must be some room of some sort, however defined, into which it expands. That if there were no room to accomodate expansion, such a thing could not expand.

Q. 4 - Did the universe begin to expand at a point, and is it still expanding.

Q. 5 - As we do know that the answer to Q.4 is "yes" - i.e: the universe did begin to expand and is still expanding, is it not logical to suppose that for it to expand, there is necessarily some room (however defined) into which it is expanding, for if there were none, it would have nowhere to expand into.

Q. 6 - What is the room (however defined) into which the universe is expanding called?

Q. 7 - How is that room different from or distinguished from what you terms as "space?"

Thanks and warm regards.

I do not have the proclivity for endless circular discussion which heads nowhere even after a point has been very succintly proven and laid to rest. What is starkly obvious to all who can read is that within your answers to my two questions, you conveyed a concession that time did pre-exist the big bang.

For you agreed with me answering my first question to the effect that indeed, the notion of a past, or the concepts of "before and after" can not exist without a timeline. Regarding such words a "before" you specifically answered -

thehomer:
Yes the words refer to events that occur in a time-line.

Thus accepting that one cannot use the word "before" without reference to an event that occurred "IN a timeline."

Your words, not mine, brother.

I then asked you what existed before the big bang, and you responded saying - "A singularity state."

You thus have clearly indicated that something existed before the big bang (a singularity state), and going by your own answers to me, the word "before" is only used in reference to events "that occur within a timeline."

Ergo, the big bang occurred within a timeline.

Ergo, the claim that time was created by or at the moment of the big bang fails, as the big bang occured within a timeline, otherwise one would not be able to speak of anything "before" the big bang whereas you have spoken of something before the big bang - a singularity - and you have also acceded that reference to "before" refers to events that occur within a timeline.

This point is firmly rested against you now on the strength of your own answers to my questions - regardless what denials you might make, I will thus take the point as sealed: as any objective third party who can read can see clearly the concession you have unwittingly made.

I will thus only proceed to prove the other contradictions i set out in the OP, this point already being firmly closed against you, and i will not be inrested in returning to beat this dead horse over and over again.

Thank you sir.

^^^ Jesus also lived and taught amongst a very small nation. Buddha spoke to very small groups of disciples. So that says nothing.

justcool:
@Deepsight

I have already made familiar to you that you cannot pick out verses from the Grail Message like that. The Grail Message is a whole, its like a jigsaw puzzle, picking out a piece of the puzzle may give an entirely different idea of what the entire picture looks like. I have already explained this to you so there is no need repeating it. But since you are already familiar with the entire message, I will also pick out two verses for you.


Read the lecture "At the boundary of Gross Matter." In the volume III of the message. From there I lift this quote:

"Your thoughts too, are only of gross material nature, being products of your brain. They are belong to fine gross matter, which consequently also embraces all the thought-forms that can so often be seen by mediums." Abd-ru-shin

Latter in the same paragraph we read:

"Thoughts as well as thought forms are still of a gross material nature and even though they are part of fine gross matter. They are not ethereal." Abd-ru-shin.

Please read the entire lecture.

Thanks

Thanks for providing these extracts. I must say I had not averted my mind to them.

What is thereby made obvious is that there exists a contradictory flow of thought development within the Grail Message regarding this matter. If the authour believes thoughts to be matter, I must say i quietly and humbly do not share his view on that. And as I have shown, there is much that he himself wrote that gives a lie to such a perspective. It only shows that the message is not a perfect work, and that it contains some gaps and inconsistencies. I say this particularly in light of my concerns in the two posts preceding this namely -

1. He writes that all matter, gross or ethereal, are coverings only. What is a thought a covering of, if it is matter? Is it possible for a covering to be lighter and less coarse than its core? No it is not, just as the spirit cannot be more coarse than physical matter. Accordingly it is impossible for him to speak of " the ethereal form of a generating thought" if indeed thoughts are matter The only way he can speak of such is if the generating thought is actually something lighter than the ethereal form.

2. In creation it is not possible for matter to be the quickening element in anything. It is rather quickened by something else. Thus again it would be impossible to conceive of matter generating ethereal forms, for that would mean that matter itself is alive in and of itself and proceeds to generate forms that are higher than itself. This simply does not add up.

Again, remember that in creation, it is the inner element of a thing that generates an outward form and not vice versa. The outward form does not generate the inner element.

How then is it possible for something material to generate something ethereal. It should be the other way round.

So then the phrase "the ethereal form of a generating thought. . .?

justcool:
@Deep sight

The verse that you quoted does not apply to our discussion on this thread. Gross matter and ethereal matter serve as coverings for creatures, because gross matter and ethereal matter are inherently immobile; all creatures with mobile core must carry either a primordial spiritual, spiritual, or animistic core. Ethereal and gross matter only cover these cores when the creature enters subsequent creation, I believe I have already explained this even in this thread.

Thoughts are not creatures with mobile core. And I never said that thoughts are ethereal matter; I have always maintained that thoughts are fine gross matter. I have said this many times in this thread already, yet you keep implying that I said thoughts are ethereal matter.

Thoughts are material; they are fine gross matter.

Thanks and remain blessed.

I am surprised that you do not see that the cited extract still applies, whether you state thoughts to be fine gross matter or ethereal matter - becuase the extract states that both gross and ethereal matter are coverings only. Is a thought a covering? A covering of what?

It is quite obvious to me what the message says regarding this. And it is similarly obvious that your view is not in consonance with what the message says.

It is actually worse that you claim thoughts to be fine gross matter: because in that event Abd Ru Shin's words when he refers to "the ethereal form of a generating thought" would then become absurd - because would we say that something gross material has a covering which is lighter and higher than it? That cannot wash because you are aware that coverings are always coarser than cores.