EastbayRay Forum Posts (781)

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

I will take this into consideration.

RE: Hey Everyone

Welcome

RE: why do people judge?

Wishing you all the best and a merry Christmas!!!

RE: why do people judge?

Perfect imperfection!!!

RE: How smert r u??

at least i'm not the only one . . .

RE: How smert r u??

Bastid!

Nice thread idea!!!

RE: How smert r u??

RE: How smert r u??

last

RE: How smert r u??

2nd

RE: Faith, God and Us. Which is yours ?

You are correct my friend, it seems to be my misunderstanding of the terminology you have used as pertaining to 'the original Hebrew' translations and Newton’s ‘noted corruptions’ of the translations of those scriptures and not the scriptures themselves. I have been referring to the translations to which he alluded, I am not familiar with the original Hebrew script itself – I know very few people who are. As a mater of fact I know one, an Ex-Priest.

RE: Hey everyone

I hope you are not praying for bigger arms

In so far as they can be, in whatever it is that ails you or those you love and for what it is worth coming from me, my prays are with you.

RE: why do people judge?

Don't jump to conclusions . . . you might hurt something.

RE: why do people judge?

Anyway, who cares what other people think. What the hell do they know! If we go around reacting to the way people react to us and relying on a positive reaction from them we'll be feeling good and bad all day (most probably bad). Or feeling good when someone likes us and bad when someone doesn’t.
Do you really want to rely on people’s reactions that much to tell you YOUR worth?
Take it from me, myself a despised person all my life: self-admiration is the key. People will despise you even more for it but it wont effect you in the least.
If you are a good person THE HELL WITH WHAT OTHER PEOPLE THINK!
Generally, little angle, to care what other people think of YOU based on what little they know or can gather at a mere GLANCE, is in my opinion to pay them too much honor
Learn to self-adore and then no one can ever tell you your worth. I myself am something of a dainty self-admirer …because all my life people have despised me simply because I consider myself a piece of excellence and even take my imperfections as perfect faults.
I am so perfect I can MAKE a mistake.

RE: why do people judge?

That is always true: nevertheless a bridge that looks unstable to the eye when walked on may be completely sound.

Nevertheless upon its appearance I may rather decide not to cross and find some other way over or around.

This was/is a misjudgment on my part then.

People are not judging you by your looks so do not take it that way. Rather, people are MISJUDGING you by your looks.

Try to always think of it that way.

P.S the above is not an explanation pertaining to you but to anyone who feels this way.

You look fine to me!!!

RE: why do people judge?

Really? I judge people and I don't care if I am one day judged for judging them (I don't execute them). But I do care if I listen to blockheaded nonsense against my human survival instincts and decide not to judge those who I NEED to judge. Because then I would be inevitably punished for misjudging or NOT judging them.

Like when I am interviewing a babysitter I WILL judge that individual AS ACCURATELY AS I CAN.

Psh! Judge not lest ye be judged! Hah!

Judge, lest ye be judged for NOT judging!!!

We all judge, and those who do not against their own instincts to do so will forfeit this right of life very possibly at their own peril.

'Judge not lest ye be judged' is in itself a misjudgment...

The trick is to try not to MISjudge while judging.

RE: why do people judge?

I am disliked on many threads for being quite knowledgeable as well as witty. Nevertheless ‘physiognomy’ is a fact in both Man and the animals and while I have given examples in brief, it explains a large deal of why we are inevitably judged upon first appearance by all.

RE: why do people judge?

Really? Is that so, O humble woman? Here's how I explain it. When I joined this site I used a picture of me with my kitten Spikey and it got 5 ratings. Then, I posted a picture with no shirt on and it got 10, 9s and 8s from some stunning specimens.

Yup, women are really put off by NAKED MALE TORSOES!!!

Especially when I go to the beach they are really put off!!! You should see them all averting their gazes from the toned ridges of abdominal muscles that plate my hips and continue down into the waist-band of my swimming shorts. I have noticed that they ESPECIALLY avert their eyes from those.

Yeah, women . . . they are REALLY put off by a toned naked male torso.

O humble woman!!!!

P.S. rather, I find it that women are really put off by men who are very masculine, very intelligent, very learned, very knowledgeable and therefore very cocky and KNOW it!

RE: Bring on the Beef...

HERE!

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

That is true my man!!!

Nevertheless I did not actually go over to that other thread to upset anyone...

My views have a way of upsetting people all on their own.

RE: why do people judge?

Reading astutely over this nonsensical thread, I am afraid I must proudly correct all of you ‘lesser mortals’ once more and place you upon the proverbial ‘path’ of truth from which you have so clearly veered.

Stiff upper-lip, Jeeves!

There is a study, to we stiff upper-lipped academic snobs who revel in our own magnificence, known as ‘Physiognomy’. In brief, it is best understood by reading Charles Darwin’s 800 page book 'Expression’ in man and the animals. You see, to a degree, intrinsic and internal character-trait is revealed by fixed external expression as well as non-fixed but to a degree determined expression owing to the fixture from which it logically proceeds - and further more by other notable outward signs revealing inward character-traits both agreeable and disagreeable to the instinct. Dirtiness/uncleanness/unkemptness etc (or the inverse).

According to our own physiognomy, we may find someone else’s facial appearance (physiognomy) agreeable/disagreeable upon first impression INSTINCTIVLY. Unfortunately, if they see our first impression they will read from our own physiognomy (that expression which proceeds from the fixed one) whether UPON first impression we found them to be agreeable or disagreeable for the mere way they were born to appear. That is to say, whether we found them agreeable/disagreeable for THIER physiognomy as constituted by nature compared to ours.

I hope this will help answer more academically why we are judged by others for the way we look – and rightly so! So do not lament!!!

If we find a physiognomy very agreeable upon first impression the person will read this upon our own physiognomy and react positively to us; they may however not find our OWN agreeable but that we find THIERS agreeable... to be agreeable. Here tread cautiously!!!

However, when two physiognomies react positively to each other and both at the same time see this, and a further positive reaction is the consequence…it is a physiognomical-positive-reaction which we call ‘love at first site.’ Or great grounds for friendship, or the passing-strange feeling that you both knew each other in another life, for instance.

Interestingly, you seldom hear people speak of ‘hate at first sight’ – nevertheless it exists and occurs for the same reason. I myself was walking home once with a stiff upper-lip when I sensed I was being watched with ill-intent. Upon turning to face my observer I saw an intense look of dislike upon a round, featureless and very disagreeable face to me (physiognomically), on round, shapeless shoulders - compared to my excellent good looks, perfect physique and evident exuding and over-abundant male self-confidence and masculine self-assurance prevailing throughout my entire bearing in complete antithesis to his. I was not dressed smartly at the time.

This is an example not where two physiognomies find each other disagreeable upon first impression but where one finds one disagreeable and the other (me) finds disagreeable that he is found disagreeable.

I did not so much find him disagreeable, you see, but his reaction to my own physiognomy which I cannot help and was born with to be DISAGREEABLE. I.E. it is not my fault that I am such a stunning male specimen, to whit, everything a man should be and then some, and that I therefore hold myself in such high-esteem physically and physiognomically.

The truth is we judge people upon initial sense-impression without even knowing it ourselves and they sense that ‘judgment’. We then later change our opinion of them and can’t believe they were so different from the way we thought them to be especially if our initial reaction to them was instinctively disagreeable. However, we will find we touched on some considerably accurate reasons to have found them repellent.

In this instance, it was clearly because I am a man whose physiognomy will have positive impressions on almost all women of a like nature. Hence the stiff upper-lip.

RE: Faith, God and Us. Which is yours ?

Anyway . . .therefore it is my opinion that one must view such an 'immortal, timeless and unalterable' work as far from immortal, timeless and unalterable. Since alterations have been made to it many a time and by something indeed very mortal with indeed VERY MORTAL INTENTIONS!

As a matter of fact Newton’s most noted (if unknown) work is called 'An Historical Account of Two Notable Corruptions of Scripture.'

He also wrote other works criticising scriputre/possible minor corruptions.

It is just my assertion, Denente, that it would appear in many parts of The Bible that the people of that time could not possibly have had that knowledge (information), or used a certain term of expression without having knowledge which they COULD NOT HAVE HAD.

Tread here cautiously – owing to the possibilities of corruptions, is all I was asserting.

You have made me quite vexed in fact, as I am not quite sure what has surprised you. You have hit my Achilles’ heel, my man!

RE: Faith, God and Us. Which is yours ?

I am not sure I understand your refutation - or precisely of which of my assertions you were so surprised.

The suppression to which I allude is precisely that which you confirm. I do not mean that these works were destroyed. Like, for instance, the works of Vanini and Bruno - in which case I would have told you they were burned together with their authors!

Newton wrote of specific corruptions IN the scriptures and TO the scriptures as well as falsehoods taught by the churches. I am not talking here of pamphlets - but entire works.

These could not be circulated at all or allowed to be seen by anyone in his own lifetime and he left them to posterity and indeed called them his ‘hobby’. They addressed The Bible itself and its notable corruptions. The clear consequences he would invite upon himself upon reveling these to the public in his own life time is what I mean by ‘suppression’/ that the works were ‘suppressed’.

That is my assertion.

I apologize if I have made that unclear. But If I am incorrect as to which assertion/s surprised you please correct me.

RE: Faith, God and Us. Which is yours ?

While not one myself, one thing I hear a lot of Atheists saying is (in not these precise words but flowing in this vein of logic, if you will): 'If it is to be taken as a given that there must be one being who is behind all things (or even beings), who must be behind the one being or beings? For this question must follow in the vein of the same logic etc.

And who then must be behind the one being or the beings behind the beings or one being? etc . .

They have a point. Namely that if we look at the world and think to ourselves ‘all this must have come from something’, we must then say to ourselves ‘the something all this came from also must have come from something’ - and then ‘the something from the something all this came from ALSO must have come from something . . . etc and i.e. into absurdity.

Also - never jump too quickly to accepting the things you read in The Bible today as proof that something 'fishy is afoot' since people could not possibly have known THAT all those years ago . . .

Something fishy is afoot, indeed . . .

Sir Isaac Newton (needless to say one of the greatest Geniuses that ever lived was a religious scholar par excellence more than he was anything else) wrote extensively about the notable corruptions and inconsistencies he found in The Bible despite being himself a devout believer . . .

Did you know that? That Isaac Newton wrote more about The Bible and Religion than anyone else and more than anything else he did? Probably not.

One Word: Suppression.

Anway it was good that his words were suppressed, he might have hurt some people's feelings with his findings. And we wouldn't want that now would we?

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

Got no problem that she's from India, Gnome (all credit to her) . . . but she just appears out of the blue sticking up for someone and gives nothing to the thread. Now she has started her own God thread, only it is clearly stipulated in the first post that no controversy is allowed.

Well . . . we'll see about that.

I'm going over there to upset some people . . .

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

Did he now?

Are you sure?

Once again, another backwardsworld-woman...but do go ahead and tell us why God created man before woman...

If indeed 'he' (she/it/them?) did?

RE: why do people judge?

I would refer you to a study of 'Physiognomy' - and it will explain everything.

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

I don’t think you need sympathy either. In fact I don't think about you at all. Why don’t you contribute your ideas and beliefs to this debate and make it interesting? Instead of come in to waste everybody’s time and stand up for people without having seen what has gone on before and how people have been trying to suppress all and any notions and movements away from religious indoctrination!

Backwards-world woman!!!!

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

Red is a happy colour? O what dismay this man's mind brings me!!!

and so!!!! . . . the blind will lead the blind . . .

RE: God, fact or fiction -The Sequel.

Trish, fear not your pessimism: Great minds are melancholy.