It doesn't assume God. Anyway, you're one to talk about assuming God, considering you've previously on this assumed a God who doesn't act in any way scripturally ascribed to Him. At least I assume a God who is either unreasonable or privy to a reason beyond our human comprehension. Ie, one so different from "reason" it might as well be called something totally different. Either way, it gives me the heebie-jeebies. I guess this is what people get faith for.
What I assume is that you remember an entire conversation where you assumed God but not heaven. If you don't, it's here: http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=119209. Notice I made more-or-less the same argument you're making now, to less effect. That is, at least when I assume God I assume God as the only real source of information we have about him makes him out to be. When you assume God you make him out of pillows to practice French kissing.
I assume God. The formulation "Could X...?" assumes X, for all that's worth. The question "Could a race of Snorks in a hypothetical universe in which gravity is frequently and arbitrarily reversed manage to keep their pants up with fewer than four grasping appendages?" assumes a race of Snorks. Unfortunately for the Snorks, it doesn't make them exist; nor does it make me believe they exist.
A1: No, I just meant, oh like it's a big accomplishment showing that I assumed something. Big rip.
DOVINA: Exactly. Big rip.
ZODIAC: So why have you spent the last ten comments trying to "prove" it?
DOVINA: That's just what I always do.
ZODIAC: Exactly. And I appreciate how you stopped being a very realistic version of yourself about three imaginary comments ago.
DOVINA: Why thank you. Did I mention you're looking good today?
ZODIAC: You have now.
A2: Could God be anything less than totally cool? No. By definition.
Of course I don't believe any god wrote, inspired (in the scriptural sense), or approves of the Bible. I don't particularly believe in God. I do, however, believe that if you assume the Christian God, even literarily, you'd should also assume the Bible's true.
I don't believe Jesus would have wanted his religion to be called Christianity, I think he would have wanted it to be called the Nuju. That's me, a Nuju. Not a devout Nuju though.
Why assume some particular god and adhere, because of an assumption, to some book? There either is God, or there isn't. If God is, we cannot confine or even describe Him. You say you don't particularly believe in god, which is hedging in the agnostic direction, atheist perhaps, except for your prior denial of atheism.
As you know, I think there is God. Much of the Bible points to God, and some of it might even be inspired by Him. But other parts are, by the authors' own admission, merely literature.
I think when you or I assume God, we almost always assume Christian God. You can argue, but "There either is God, or there isn't" is a very Christian-God-minded thing to say.
I'm not hedging; I don't particularly believe in believing. I'll refuse to admit or deny the existence of anything unproven or unproveable.
I would, in fact, argue with: "when you or I assume God, we almost always assume Christian God." But you and I know the direction that silly arguement would go. I could posit a good response, and say "Trump." But you know my position on trumping. I could do the same with "'There either is God, or there isn't' is a very Christian-God-minded thing to say." No point.
I don't particularly believe in believing either. I particularly don't believe in assuming beliefs in others when they have not clearly stated or lived out those beliefs.
A wise fish enticed to a pier-dangled hook will consider the source - Dovina
Saying "I could trump you but won't" is the worst of both worlds. Not only do you keep your ego in tact by letting everyone know you could grind your opponent to a pulp, but you also casually 'avoid' the guilt associated with publicly humiliating someone. It's an easy game to play, provided you don't let a little thing called integrity stand in the way. The rest of us aren't so greasy. In future, if you can trump someone, have the balls to trump them openly. If you can't, or won't because you're against trumping on principle, then don't you dare try to take the moral high ground by positing a stealth trump, then pretending it never existed.
I think you're missing some history here. You see, zodiac likes to trump; I really don't care to. The two proposed arguments here, if carried along past courses, would end with him trumping, by simply declaring himself the winner. I just didn't want to do that again, not that I don't enjoy his antics, but it's getting a bit much.
Integrity is something a person does with the appearance of thoughtful conversation, wouldn't you say? For example I could ask you if a spastic should be allowed to fly a plane. If you say yes, citing the high mental abilities of some spastics, I could trump with the common usage of the word spastic to mean dimtard. On the other hand if you say no, then I could cite the abilities of spastics. In either case I would shine with integrity and you would look dumb.
'Integrity is something a person does with the appearance of thoughtful conversation, wouldn't you say?'
No, I wouldn't say. Spastics are incapable of the 'appearance of thoughtful conversation,' yet many of them are the most heartwarmingly 'integral' people I know. This has nothing to do with whether or not trumping is counter-intellectual, and everything to do with the fact that while you think it's arrogant and beneath you, you continue to trump in the first derivative. Integrate your way out of that one, spazmo.
Maybe I did not say it clearly enough. I ton't particularly enjoy trumping anyone. Spastics can be intelligent, and/or heartwarmingly integral, and might be able to fly a plane if it had voice controls. I thought we had covered that before.
Trumping is not necessarily counter-intellectual. It can be arogant, but not always. It is not beneath me, I just don't usually enjoy it. I thought all this was clear. What is it you're saying again?
PS-The best (and perhaps only dignified) way to show you don't care about an argument but ARE capable of completing it is to write the whole thing out in funny dialogue form. Your response to this is going to be that you don't care to do things the best way. Your response to that is going to be that parroting back my predictions is some kind of cleverness.
Saying "trump" is not positing a response. It is only trumping.
The rest of this comment is your typical madness. To wit:
DOVINA: I particularly don't believe in assuming beliefs in others when they have not clearly stated blah blah blah
ZODIAC: I don't do that.
DOVINA: I never said you did. I was commenting generally.
ZODIAC: But you're assuming beliefs. About me.
DOVINA: Trump. I'm "wily".
You still don't get it. You seem to care most care about trumping, while I usually don't care. We could discuss those two topics you posed if your intent were not simply to trump.
1. "when you or I assume God, we almost always assume Christian God."
2. "'There either is God, or there isn't' is a very Christian-God-minded thing to say."
There seems little point in arguing just to win, when so much can be learned through dialog of parties who want to extend their understandings, and all the more so when they hold widely differing views.
You still don't get it. When I use the word "trump" I don't mean "to trounce someone, as in bridge or cribbage or whatever". I mean "to make a trumpeting sound with one's buttocks in the interest of escape." The confusion might arise from the fact that the -=Dark_Angel=-,P.I. who originally used trump on poemranker meant the second meaning, while the -=Dark_Angel=- you're talking uses the first. The original context of trump on this particular page is the original, negative, poemranker meaning.
I never intend to trump. When I do, I almost always admit it. For example: "I don't believe you. Sorry, I'm well-aware this is the comment-equivalent of a spaz."
1. I considered using lines from your poems to argue that you assume Christian-God, but then I thought, what the hell? For one, the facile (and totally correct) response is going to be that your poems don't necessarily reflect your assumptions, and besides your poems are too vague in most cases to pin them down to Christianity (the one that's a plagiarized psalm included). And for two, this is an open dialogue, right? Why don't I just ask you? I've noticed Islam, Judaism, and African animism (at least) entirely lack the following concept:
Whatever you do for the least of my people, you do for God/the good of the whole.
Keeping in mind that responding positively does not "pin you down as Christian" (you could be Buddhist or Confuscist, at least), how do you respond to the aboveposted concept? That's a start.
2. Having by now researched or personally experienced all the world's major religions, I've never heard anyone but a Christian say something like 'There either is a God, or there isn't'. That's nowhere near conclusive, but I'm not trying to trounce on you, I'm running an idea past you. Moreover, I'd say that only Christianity at present coexists-with/allows/encourages the kind of critical inquiry required for a person to think 'There either is a God, or there isn't.' Those are my experiences anyway. I'd be interested in hearing yours.
To trump, by any definition including the ones you use, is to win or claim winning, which I care little about. Hopefully, that's settled.
1. My question to this kind of thinking is: Why do you want to discover my beliefs and then comment on them, rather than just commenting on what I say?
2. My comment here is similar: Why do you answer from the position that because I make a comment about God's existence using phrasing of that position which you think is typically Christion, that I therefore am probably Christian and should be addressed as such?
I could classify you before I comment, but I seldom do. Why do you invariably do it to me? I think better discussion results from comments about comments, rather than comments about inferred character or beliefs of the commenter.
The prime example of trumping on poemranker is Mr Professor Doug Soderstrom, MA. He has never claimed to win anything, only trumped and hoped that in the resulting confusion we'd forget there was ever a discussion going on. I'm under no illusions about your desire to win. I hope that's settled.
1. Because if I do that, you say that most of what you've written/commented on poemranker doesn't reflect your real views or that it's too ambiguous to draw any real conclusion from. I'm not trying to dis; those are both excellent responses, but I'm trying to get somewhere. If you mean 'rather than just commenting on what I say, which is that I don't assume Christian God', well, because I think your a prime blunderer about those sort of things, and that people in general are not to be trusted to know their own minds.
2. Because the whole point of this argument is 'Oh, oh, shame on zodiac! He assumes God!' That is, shame on you Dovina for assuming not only God but Christian God, and then thinking it's some kind of dis to accuse others of that. Now you'll pretend the aboveposted comments and all of your other comments on this site are too vague for me to be drawing such conclusions. If that's the case, why the hell do you comment here? And do you ever suspect that you don't actually exist?
Despite your constant assertions to the contrary, you have always classified me and classify me at least as much as I classify you. Besides, I'm not the one who thinks classifying is some evil injustice; you're that one. At least half of the time. Disbelieve me if you like; these are the most obvious ways you've classified me on this page alone:
- God-assumer,
- Classifier,
- Likes to trump,
- Most cares about trumping,
- Will inevitably trump,
- Strongly-held believer.
All the answers to these heaven and hell questions can be answered by watching the movie "What dreams may come". I say this as a skeptical believer so it may count but being I'm a skeptic I doubt it.
Here's my Dovina answer: I believe it was a serious satire.
My answer: It's been a long time since I've seen it. Honestly all I can remember is Mimi's tits. Everything else I remember from the movie are scenes from The Seventh Sign.
I don't want to ruin it for you if you honestly don't remember, but it's worth watching again if just for the line "Why can't we just die, mommy?" and the part where Mimi says to Dave Duchovny "So I guess I don't get into heaven" and Dave's ghost says "No, guess not" and that's the end.
Now I remember why I didn't bother seeing it again. They might as well have just turned to the audiance and flipped us the bird.
This reminds me of a joke. It's near the bottom of the page at this link. It's called The pink and purple polka dotted ping pong ball. You'll recognize it as a big block of text. Make sure you read every word of it slowly and carefully. Enjoy.
http://www.circleofbastards.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=001775
The more I think about it, the more I think The Rapture is the point where Dovina and I converge. And just imagine me as David "Recently-abandoned-his-Harvard-PhD-for-acting" Duchovny and Dovina as Mimi "Customer-service-call-center-drone" Rogers cruising the furniture showrooms of the internet for willing swingers. I love it.
I'd love to ask her what she thinks of the movie, but I'm pretty sure the preceding has made her scared to watch it. Watch.
Here's Dovina's answer: Who cares. And concerning long links, they're not a lot better than short links, and short linked rankers come up without any added trouble.
Rebellion sends a soul to Heaven every time. Hell is just a sin a way, and good sex brings it all the closer. Rebel if you must, but remember your morals and seek the ernest path so your reward is sure.
Um Dovina if you're reading this don't be mad. He's comparing you to a beautiful woman with huge lovely natural breasts. I could not describe a perfect woman better.
Doesn't she realize
what I see through these eyes
Tis not the milk white skin
or silken hair
nor blushed cheeks
or flush red lips
not starlight eyes that in
mine eyes the sun cannot compair
Doesn't she comprehend
why I love her without end
The answers in her foolish grin
and her subtle intellect
her hopeless dreams
her clueless schemes
For she is not perfection
and that is why she is perfect
Ah, we come the old how do I know your not bullshitting me line.
The answer of course is you don't know. For all I know you could be a fat bald indian in prison with his dick in his hand right now, or visa-versa. Actually from now on I would prefer you imagine me as that and that the image haunts you in your dreams.
Is there any subject from which I am not disqualified due to one of your strongly held beliefs? Yes, I can describe some of your strongly held beliefs and how you came to believe them.
This part of the conversation has had nothing to do with beliefs, strongly held or otherwise. However, you are disqualified from many subjects due to your strongly held beliefs.
DOVINA: Ay, dios! He's assuming I have beliefs. He has a belief about my having beliefs!
ZODIAC: You just assumed I had beliefs about your beliefs. Twice.
DOVINA: I could stand up now if I tried, but I choose not to try.
ZODIAC: Would you try telling me how I came by my so-called beliefs?
DOVINA: I could, and I could disqualify you because of them. But it would make no more sense than your trumping disqusalifications. Will you repeat after me: "I could stand up now if I tried, but I choose not to try."?
Isn't this supposed to be a 5-7-5 count... I see it as a 5-6-5 count. am I missing something?
About the haiku, one thing I have noticed, though, is that although in daily life we have nothing to do with God, he has found ways of getting attention...and Brandon you are one of his many media. Ignore Him more and He will find ways of making many think about Him.
Now for the next part..... I really wonder if it would be a good scene in heaven....having zodiac and dovina together with the rest of us poemrankers. Afterall, hell has had enough of them, from how I see it.
You count the syllables not the words.
In/ hea/ven. I/ just/ hope/ that/
1----2---3---4---5-----6------7
Zodiac won't go to heaven or hell. He'll just die, as all atheists do. You'll recognise me when you get to heaven. I'll be the one God hired to clean the bathrooms.
I have no intention of "just" dying. I plan to stick around terrorizing hypocritical, "judgy" Christ cultists (starting with nutflakes like Pat Robertson and any number of Republican politicians) until the flesh melts off my bones and my bones fall to dust and I'm reabsorbed into the earth, thus becoming immortal.
Oh, the weight that this little haiku had to bear. Funny, really.
I have no beef with atheists. But if you gonna be something be true to it. An atheist should believe that he's just here to do his thing and die. No higher purposes, no immortal legacy, no miracle pill to make you live forever, just here today gone tomorrow. Same thing with Christians. If your gonna do it, do it completely. Otherwise don't bog yourself down with such labels. I actually think Zodiac isn't completely an atheist. I don't think you are either. I think it's possible to change both your minds as it is with Amanda also but I think it's highly unlikely to happen in all three cases. Most people say they have strong beliefs in something but eventually show their true wishy washiness. The difference with me is that I already admit I'm wishy washy.
79 comments
I assume God. The formulation "Could X...?" assumes X, for all that's worth. The question "Could a race of Snorks in a hypothetical universe in which gravity is frequently and arbitrarily reversed manage to keep their pants up with fewer than four grasping appendages?" assumes a race of Snorks. Unfortunately for the Snorks, it doesn't make them exist; nor does it make me believe they exist.
I cannot imagine a question starting with "Could God'" having any good answer other than "yes."
DOVINA: Exactly. Big rip.
ZODIAC: So why have you spent the last ten comments trying to "prove" it?
DOVINA: That's just what I always do.
ZODIAC: Exactly. And I appreciate how you stopped being a very realistic version of yourself about three imaginary comments ago.
DOVINA: Why thank you. Did I mention you're looking good today?
ZODIAC: You have now.
A2: Could God be anything less than totally cool? No. By definition.
Of course I don't believe any god wrote, inspired (in the scriptural sense), or approves of the Bible. I don't particularly believe in God. I do, however, believe that if you assume the Christian God, even literarily, you'd should also assume the Bible's true.
"If Christ were here there is one thing he would not be - a Christian."
"There has been only one Christian. They caught him and crucified him - early."
As you know, I think there is God. Much of the Bible points to God, and some of it might even be inspired by Him. But other parts are, by the authors' own admission, merely literature.
A bridge incomplete traverses no river - Dovina
I'm not hedging; I don't particularly believe in believing. I'll refuse to admit or deny the existence of anything unproven or unproveable.
Call it a pier, then. Fishing, anyone?
I don't particularly believe in believing either. I particularly don't believe in assuming beliefs in others when they have not clearly stated or lived out those beliefs.
A wise fish enticed to a pier-dangled hook will consider the source - Dovina
Integrity is something a person does with the appearance of thoughtful conversation, wouldn't you say? For example I could ask you if a spastic should be allowed to fly a plane. If you say yes, citing the high mental abilities of some spastics, I could trump with the common usage of the word spastic to mean dimtard. On the other hand if you say no, then I could cite the abilities of spastics. In either case I would shine with integrity and you would look dumb.
No, I wouldn't say. Spastics are incapable of the 'appearance of thoughtful conversation,' yet many of them are the most heartwarmingly 'integral' people I know. This has nothing to do with whether or not trumping is counter-intellectual, and everything to do with the fact that while you think it's arrogant and beneath you, you continue to trump in the first derivative. Integrate your way out of that one, spazmo.
Trumping is not necessarily counter-intellectual. It can be arogant, but not always. It is not beneath me, I just don't usually enjoy it. I thought all this was clear. What is it you're saying again?
http://www.areasofmyexpertise.com/hoboes
The rest of this comment is your typical madness. To wit:
DOVINA: I particularly don't believe in assuming beliefs in others when they have not clearly stated blah blah blah
ZODIAC: I don't do that.
DOVINA: I never said you did. I was commenting generally.
ZODIAC: But you're assuming beliefs. About me.
DOVINA: Trump. I'm "wily".
1. "when you or I assume God, we almost always assume Christian God."
2. "'There either is God, or there isn't' is a very Christian-God-minded thing to say."
There seems little point in arguing just to win, when so much can be learned through dialog of parties who want to extend their understandings, and all the more so when they hold widely differing views.
I never intend to trump. When I do, I almost always admit it. For example: "I don't believe you. Sorry, I'm well-aware this is the comment-equivalent of a spaz."
1. I considered using lines from your poems to argue that you assume Christian-God, but then I thought, what the hell? For one, the facile (and totally correct) response is going to be that your poems don't necessarily reflect your assumptions, and besides your poems are too vague in most cases to pin them down to Christianity (the one that's a plagiarized psalm included). And for two, this is an open dialogue, right? Why don't I just ask you? I've noticed Islam, Judaism, and African animism (at least) entirely lack the following concept:
Whatever you do for the least of my people, you do for God/the good of the whole.
Keeping in mind that responding positively does not "pin you down as Christian" (you could be Buddhist or Confuscist, at least), how do you respond to the aboveposted concept? That's a start.
2. Having by now researched or personally experienced all the world's major religions, I've never heard anyone but a Christian say something like 'There either is a God, or there isn't'. That's nowhere near conclusive, but I'm not trying to trounce on you, I'm running an idea past you. Moreover, I'd say that only Christianity at present coexists-with/allows/encourages the kind of critical inquiry required for a person to think 'There either is a God, or there isn't.' Those are my experiences anyway. I'd be interested in hearing yours.
1. My question to this kind of thinking is: Why do you want to discover my beliefs and then comment on them, rather than just commenting on what I say?
2. My comment here is similar: Why do you answer from the position that because I make a comment about God's existence using phrasing of that position which you think is typically Christion, that I therefore am probably Christian and should be addressed as such?
I could classify you before I comment, but I seldom do. Why do you invariably do it to me? I think better discussion results from comments about comments, rather than comments about inferred character or beliefs of the commenter.
1. Because if I do that, you say that most of what you've written/commented on poemranker doesn't reflect your real views or that it's too ambiguous to draw any real conclusion from. I'm not trying to dis; those are both excellent responses, but I'm trying to get somewhere. If you mean 'rather than just commenting on what I say, which is that I don't assume Christian God', well, because I think your a prime blunderer about those sort of things, and that people in general are not to be trusted to know their own minds.
2. Because the whole point of this argument is 'Oh, oh, shame on zodiac! He assumes God!' That is, shame on you Dovina for assuming not only God but Christian God, and then thinking it's some kind of dis to accuse others of that. Now you'll pretend the aboveposted comments and all of your other comments on this site are too vague for me to be drawing such conclusions. If that's the case, why the hell do you comment here? And do you ever suspect that you don't actually exist?
Despite your constant assertions to the contrary, you have always classified me and classify me at least as much as I classify you. Besides, I'm not the one who thinks classifying is some evil injustice; you're that one. At least half of the time. Disbelieve me if you like; these are the most obvious ways you've classified me on this page alone:
- God-assumer,
- Classifier,
- Likes to trump,
- Most cares about trumping,
- Will inevitably trump,
- Strongly-held believer.
So let it go.
Better yet: The Rapture. Possibly the craziest movie I've ever seen. And starring porn-era David Duchovny.
Question for a self-described skeptic believer: Do you think it was serious or satire?
My answer: It's been a long time since I've seen it. Honestly all I can remember is Mimi's tits. Everything else I remember from the movie are scenes from The Seventh Sign.
This reminds me of a joke. It's near the bottom of the page at this link. It's called The pink and purple polka dotted ping pong ball. You'll recognize it as a big block of text. Make sure you read every word of it slowly and carefully. Enjoy.
http://www.circleofbastards.com/cgi-bin/
I'd love to ask her what she thinks of the movie, but I'm pretty sure the preceding has made her scared to watch it. Watch.
You're in the Jungle, baby.
You're gonna diiiieya.
Haiku by Axl Rose
Um Dovina if you're reading this don't be mad. He's comparing you to a beautiful woman with huge lovely natural breasts. I could not describe a perfect woman better.
Doesn't she realize
what I see through these eyes
Tis not the milk white skin
or silken hair
nor blushed cheeks
or flush red lips
not starlight eyes that in
mine eyes the sun cannot compair
Doesn't she comprehend
why I love her without end
The answers in her foolish grin
and her subtle intellect
her hopeless dreams
her clueless schemes
For she is not perfection
and that is why she is perfect
Guess which one was the most perfect in bed.
But they were all perfect in their own way.
One I almost married. Wanna go 2 for 2.
The answer of course is you don't know. For all I know you could be a fat bald indian in prison with his dick in his hand right now, or visa-versa. Actually from now on I would prefer you imagine me as that and that the image haunts you in your dreams.
DOVINA: Ay, dios! He's assuming I have beliefs. He has a belief about my having beliefs!
ZODIAC: You just assumed I had beliefs about your beliefs. Twice.
DOVINA: I could stand up now if I tried, but I choose not to try.
ZODIAC: Would you try telling me how I came by my so-called beliefs?
I never trust someone who knows - Dovina
About the haiku, one thing I have noticed, though, is that although in daily life we have nothing to do with God, he has found ways of getting attention...and Brandon you are one of his many media. Ignore Him more and He will find ways of making many think about Him.
Now for the next part..... I really wonder if it would be a good scene in heaven....having zodiac and dovina together with the rest of us poemrankers. Afterall, hell has had enough of them, from how I see it.
In/ hea/ven. I/ just/ hope/ that/
1----2---3---4---5-----6------7
Zodiac won't go to heaven or hell. He'll just die, as all atheists do. You'll recognise me when you get to heaven. I'll be the one God hired to clean the bathrooms.
I have no intention of "just" dying. I plan to stick around terrorizing hypocritical, "judgy" Christ cultists (starting with nutflakes like Pat Robertson and any number of Republican politicians) until the flesh melts off my bones and my bones fall to dust and I'm reabsorbed into the earth, thus becoming immortal.
Oh, the weight that this little haiku had to bear. Funny, really.
Log in to add a comment.