Under God

Many a theist and atheist came to their conclusions of life nearly half a century ago, and many have yet to open their mind since.

Equally, most brand new and old time cult followers don't see themselves as being programmed or brainwashed, that is a pretty well accepted fact among clinical and objective observers of cult followers.

Personally, I have concluded (subject to revision) that quoting others has value when someone can't articulate for themselves, and admittedly quotes look good in books and on web sites, but I prefer to have discussions with people and their knowledge not the knowledge of websites.

I will however defer to a quote, perhaps as an an appeal to authority and antiquity, and quote an old Hindu proverb:

"Knowledge in the books, stays in the books."

-------Hindu Proverb-----------

 

That's right, ART. Keep injecting generalizations as disguised smears when replying to particular people as if there is some relevance to anyone but you. How clever.

You see, the tragedy about your mind is, you could just reply to people with your sometimes interesting perspective on a topic, rather than all the distraction you habitually are compelled to post as invective, innuendo, and smear. It might actually be a useful discussion.

Which again, now with ZZZzzzzzzz just as you were with ART six months ago with me, you are now on IGNORE. Better luck in your next reincarnation. You'll waste no more of my time.

 

Clever? In some circles it might be considered genius.

Of course, in some circles they think Ayn Rand was a genius, other circles look to L. Ron Hubbard too, so who knows....people disagree on what genius is all the time....all depends on what circles they walk around.

I think Joni Mitchell is a genius with music and lyrics, perhaps you agree.

Circle Game by Joni Mitchell

Yesterday a child came out to wonder
Caught a dragonfly inside a jar
Fearful when the sky was full of thunder
And tearful at the falling of a star
Then the child moved ten times round the seasons
Skated over ten clear frozen streams
Words like, when you’re older, must appease him
And promises of someday make his dreams
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and dawn
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return we con only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game.

Sixteen springs and sixteen summers gone now
Cartwheels turn to car wheels thru the town
And they tell him,
Take your time, it won’t be long now
Till you drag your feet to slow the circles down
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and dawn
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game

So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty
Though his dreams have lost some grandeur
Coming true
There’ll be new dreams, maybe better dreams and plenty
Before the last revolving year is through.
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game

 

can it be a cult if it teaches one to trust themselves and reason ?

i disagree that ayn rand thinkers are a cult. however, L ron hubbard followers are a cult since you are required to 'believe' in the e-meter and his writings, et al.

surfer

 

If they really thought for themselves, there would never be a need to quote or read Ayn Rand or even mention thinking in the style of Ayn Rand. So the word cult naturally has a negative charge for them and is a term that they want to dismiss summarily to maintain their belief of themselves as "independent thinkers." Followers of Ayn Rand are not independent thinkers in my opinion.

The concept of "trusting in oneself" and "trusting in reason" are learned concepts for the most part, not something that most people come to on their own.

Of course for myself, I freely admit to being a dependent thinker, dependent on God, and also being a cult member of and follower of God.

 

Hey zZ,

Ever seen a little box to pop your 4 CD's in an have another ZZZzzzzzzz fella come out?

 

Yeah, thinking about stu's Gilbert!

 

Hi rgelite,

You put quite some effort in turning the Oxford dictionary inside out, without getting much wiser apparently.

Start here:

John 1:10
He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared [him].


Be good,

nononsense

 

The primary goal I had in posting comprehensive definitions of the word "god" was to illustrate that the conventional reference (and thus the one contained in The Pledge) is to a supernatural entity. And that, by inference, someone who states dishonestly that the words "cat" and "car" are interchangeable in this context has nothing to offer serious minds.

I easily achieved both goals.

I also achieved them via a constructive and time-honored method, in a way that no one has to take on Faith. I referenced a definitive source, itself being the product of people who have devoted their lives to vetting such real knowledge. People who themselves thoroughly cite references to other sources so that none of us has to take their work on Faith, either.

There are some who dishonestly assert that it's the hallmark of a weak mind to cite references to other's knowledge. That in order to be a valid point of view in a discussion, one's assertions must re-derive every premise and conclusion from its inception. Their motto is: "Originality trumps objectivity." (And apparently economy of thought--given their tedious verbosity and repetitiveness when challenged by serious people on nearly every topic they enter.)

That originality trumps objectivity is total hogwash, of course, the product of a post-modern education (whether formal or self-taught). The consequence of living their nonsense would be to turn off google. To close every university. To burn down every library. Or turn both into housing projects for the savages that would spring up in the very next generation.

But, of course, the more clever among those who make such ridiculous claims already know this. They don't actually believe it any more than we do. Their hidden goal is to obliterate definitions, and thus concepts, and thus knowledge so that they can be free to invent any unsubstantiated assertion they need in the moment to achieve their ends.

You didn't pick up on that, nononsense? You actually glossed over being told by implication that you should throw away your bible in order to post here?! And you decided to nit-pick with me? Wow.

I bet you missed this, too: How the clever muddle that poses for intellect suddenly got shifted from "god" to "church" immediately after their "well gosh, 'god' can mean 'cat' depending on whatever people want it to mean at the time" argument was eviscerated. Twice (the first time by stu). No real surprise. I suppose if some stay at it long enough, they'll eventually get to challenging what the meaning of the word "is" is.

But not me. I have better uses for my time.

Given that, like ART, there was (again) little intellectual content in your latest reply, yet you still managed to start off your post with another idiotic smear, I'll simply repeat much of what I wrote to him, happily by quoting myself: "You see, the tragedy about your mind is, you could just reply to people on a topic, rather than all the distraction you habitually feel compelled to post as invective, innuendo, and smear."

Keep approaching dialogue this way and I'll eventually decide that you're as useful to me as the cretin ART had become.

So good fortune trading today. And try to keep in mind that up really is up, down really is down. Despite what clever people might want you to believe in their own mindless amusement.

 

Hi rgelite,

I did not start talking about rgelite/nononsense being clever or not clever. Upon seeing your almost endless list of quotations, not very enlightening for the subject at hand, I said goodness gracious, this fellow's trading must be hampered by all this.

I only wanted to be of some help. Putting aside your Ayn Rand and taking a look at John can only be beneficial. Over the last 100 there have been many Rand's, most already on the pseudo-intellectual garbage heap. John's work stands for some 2000 years.

Be good,

nononsense