Deiphilosophy

a reply to: deignostian

Look puppy, what you wrote is bs.
If you use symbols nobody but you understands correctly than maybe you are using the wrong ones?
It's like you say "Give me three flowers", some one hands you three and you yell "No three!" just because you meant five and can't count that far(yet?).

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

A request seems perfectly accurate and not sinister in any way.

Regardless of opinions, a request is not synonymous with persuasion or control and not equal by definition.

Use whatever term you want. I am not concerned with your choices.

I think you have a negative attitude towards prayer, you said as much.

Thinking of good things happening, in prayer or contemplation, is not something someone should be against, imo at least.

And not vain, again, by definition.

a reply to: Peeple

Ahh. I see now you are superior to me. lol.

But bs is an opinion and I disagree.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: deignostian

Look puppy, what you wrote is bs.
If you use symbols nobody but you understands correctly than maybe you are using the wrong ones?
It's like you say "Give me three flowers", some one hands you three and you yell "No three!" just because you meant five and can't count that far(yet?).

As bs goes you seem to know how to use it, but not recognize it because you don't know you are b.s.ing here and now. I hope you cheer up, we all have bad days.

I just don't think you are aware that you are the one spewing bs.

Insults, lame ones like "puppy" especially, only betray your (never to be admitted to) frustration.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

A request seems perfectly accurate and not sinister in any way.

Regardless of opinions, a request is not synonymous with persuasion or control and not equal by definition.

Use whatever term you want. I am not concerned with your choices.

I think you have a negative attitude towards prayer, you said as much.

Thinking of good things happening, in prayer or contemplation, is not something someone should be against, imo at least.

And not vain, again, by definition.

OK I'm happy with request. Persuasion or control could be considered a loaded term and probably is just a reflection of my negative attitude towards prayer. A misconception that you may be able to help me with.

Why do you think God should listen to your requests?

a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Maybe you have not noticed that I use the term Good over God.

God is abstract and prayer is a Spiritual activity.

Whether "God" exists is unprovable. But Good is verifiably real, even if rare.

I doubt God would be much influenced by prayers, but praying for Good things to happen is harmless.

Although some do do it for the feeling of self righteousness, this is not a universal reason.

a reply to: Peeple

Ok.

Oh yeah, wrong about...?

I tried to hide my jealousy of bbd, but you caught me. I wasn't aware you could read minds.

a reply to: deignostian

There is a lesson in all that.. Sometimes even the most positive message can be perceived as negative. People hear and see things as they are, and growth only tends to occur along preordained lines.

This is a community just like any other. Most will perceive the sharing of perspective as a conversion attempt to be doused and trampled, or to be homogenized according to group think.

Introducing new variables must be done with subtlety and finesse, and failure is still likely. Such things have been aligned so that they only come from "approved" channels, and anything else tend to result in more division (or negativity).

I suppose its the tragedy of the human perspective, and the result of programming en masse. It can be changed, but the programmers have been trapped in our own code.

Its a runaway freight train on greased tracks. The ones most likely to change it sit in the illusionary safety of the last car, shaking their heads at the folly of the cavalcade of the blind leading the blind they see before them.

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: deignostian

There is a lesson in all that.. Sometimes even the most positive message can be perceived as negative. People hear and see things as they are, and growth only tends to occur along preordained lines.

This is a community just like any other. Most will perceive the sharing of perspective as a conversion attempt to be doused and trampled, or to be homogenized according to group think.

Introducing new variables must be done with subtlety and finesse, and failure is still likely. Such things have been aligned so that they only come from "approved" channels, and anything else tend to result in more division (or negativity).

I suppose its the tragedy of the human perspective, and the result of programming en masse. It can be changed, but the programmers have been trapped in our own code.

Its a runaway freight train on greased tracks. The ones most likely to change it sit in the illusionary safety of the last car, shaking their heads at the folly of the cavalcade of the blind leading the blind they see before them.

Excellent insight. Thanks.

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Maybe you have not noticed that I use the term Good over God.

God is abstract and prayer is a Spiritual activity.

Whether "God" exists is unprovable. But Good is verifiably real, even if rare.

I doubt God would be much influenced by prayers, but praying for Good things to happen is harmless.

Although some do do it for the feeling of self righteousness, this is not a universal reason.

OK the part in the OP where you said God = Good must have confused me some how.

Why do you think Good should listen to your requests?

originally posted by: deignostian
The Wise One:

Never remembers the one who 'sinned' towards them.
Covets nothing, hates no one.
Prays the needy get whats needed, without vanity.
Works beneficence for the Will of Good.
Is a serpent and a dove.
Of Good conscience.


*God=Good*

OP! I'm paying attention.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

Maybe you have not noticed that I use the term Good over God.

God is abstract and prayer is a Spiritual activity.

Whether "God" exists is unprovable. But Good is verifiably real, even if rare.

I doubt God would be much influenced by prayers, but praying for Good things to happen is harmless.

Although some do do it for the feeling of self righteousness, this is not a universal reason.

OK the part in the OP where you said God = Good must have confused me some how.

Why do you think Good should listen to your requests?

originally posted by: deignostian
The Wise One:

Never remembers the one who 'sinned' towards them.
Covets nothing, hates no one.
Prays the needy get whats needed, without vanity.
Works beneficence for the Will of Good.
Is a serpent and a dove.
Of Good conscience.


*God=Good*

Good is an idea, not actually an entity. I like metaphors and constantly clarifying their meaning is one of the downsides.

I am obligated though so I will just say that Good is God only means that I consider the source of all good "God" using the capitalized Good as an alternative because good can be understood whereas God leads to confused opinions of all types.

Conscience is so important to me because it is a meter for determining good and evil. Some people lack a conscience and others ignore it. Some rationalize evil as necessary and unavoidable. This is not judgement, it is just true.

I believe good is an unseen form of energy (evil too) that can be harnessed. It's not that Good is a sentient being, just a force that we collectively should harness.

Evil will not prevail because of spiritual communication with the source of Good, even if nature is its source.

Good will likewise not prevail if it is not even desired.

I do see life as a good vs evil scenario of polar opposites with neutrality an option. But Switzerland as a neutral state was so just to capitalize off both sides and the eventual winner.

Neutrality has its place and war might be a good example of an appropriate time for it. But are the reasons noble? Not always.

Usually it is the with us or against us attitude that leads to neutrality and this I find a valid reason as I don't acknowledge threats or ultimatums myself.

originally posted by: geezlouise
OP! I'm paying attention.

Too...?

Glad to hear it but could you be specific about what you mean by this multi interpretable statement?

It sounds either ominous or approving.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: deignostian
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

It would be nice if you, rather than complain about the fact that you can't understand my philosophy, provide an alternative philosophy of your own. And more productive as well as less juvenile.

Your only concern seems to be expressing negative thoughts on my thoughts, which are meant to be positive. You have yet to provide one valid comment, only attempts at angrily disagreeing with me.

How can you disagree when you admit you don't understand? You can not disagree if you don't understand, unless you have foolish tendencies.

I am trying to be productive. Apologies if it comes off as rude however when someone claims to have answers to big questions I think it's important to understand them. I am trying to engage in an honest discussion.

Apology accepted. I never claimed to have answers to big questions though, or is philosophy now considered to be a statement of absolute truth?

I'm not angrily disagreeing. Just rephrasing the same question until it is understood.

Once you understand and answer my question I can understand your position better.

I will probably disagree with your position and then we can discuss my philosophies. However not understanding your position and then just telling you mine seems a little disrespectful to you and your philosophies.

I believe I have clarified my admittedly vague philosophy so we should be able to proceed further and without hostility now that everyone who just felt like smashing me for no good reason have retired.

I keep my philosophy vague to encourage questions so that in dialogue, a better method of communication than lecturing, clarification of meaning is revealed .

And so disagreements are discussed, not argued.

a reply to: geezlouise

Looking at your thread history it would seem you are not being ominous and have similar issues as I am having with intent vs interpreted intent.

Stay strong.

The op's philosophy is somewhat similar to the teachings of Buddhism except it fails to explain good from bad. From my understanding, the elite and the wise both desire happiness (or less suffering) but travel different roads. If the wise man had never travelled the road taken by the elites, how does he know it ends in a dead end, how did he end up so wise! Like a child riding a bicycle. you cannot tell people to follow good, they must first experience the bad, by falling. From the many life's lost through reincarnation our memories end up as moral extincts that start to recognise good and bad.

If GOD exists and GOD made everything, including ourselves, then prayer or thought on goodness, can affect the whole in a good way. And if the worlds people pray for material greed and gratification, the adverse is true. That by no means dictates that GOD can be influenced by good or bad. We exists in GOD, but GOD is also distinct from us, at the same time.

Thanks op for intriguing post. It did make me think.

a reply to: deignostian

OK, I'll accept that as an answer.

The Philosophy is great. You can have real life Street Fighter battles.

I'll be rocking up to the Deiphilosophy Centre straight after I see the first fight.

a reply to: glend

You are very welcome and thank you!!

I actually left out defining good and bad because of the importance of the individual conscience needing to confirm that what is said to be good is actually good and vice versa.

I actually feel that the conscience is the only thing that determines good vs evil and works on an individual basis and different under different circumstances from person to person.

I also don't like being the one to decide what is evil beyond the obvious, war, corruption, mind control and assaults, etc.

But I will say evil is, to me, all that causes suffering and dangerous ignorance (which means uneducated).

Thank you for your compliments😉

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: deignostian

OK, I'll accept that as an answer.

The Philosophy is great. You can have real life Street Fighter battles.

Where? I get to be E Honda!!!

How does this relate?

I'll be rocking up to the Deiphilosophy Centre straight after I see the first fight.

Sorry, still under construction and nobody is going to allow you in the arena to the watch the fight. You need a password...

So sarcasm was your goal all along. Act adversarial, feign humility and an attempt at comprehension, then lame sarcasm completes your "mission", whatever that was.

How philosophic. Of course none of that nonsense about street fighter really has anything to do with what I said it does make you look like you at least think you are great.

I don't want to ruin your fun, let that imagination run, oh child of heaven.