I think that's a difference of opinion. I think it's important to find a common ground we can agree on, or even establish a point that we do not agree on. It establishes boundaries.

This is where I am coming from. I already know we don't have the same beliefs. I believe you know we have different beliefs. However, I think we can still agree on various points to establish a common point, or at a minimum, now understand a point where we have been clear on.


A)You consider all uses of jealous fallible?
B)Or are you saying the bible says all forms of jealousy is fallible?
C)Is there any use of jealousy that would not make it fallible in your view?
D)Is there any form of jealousy that would not make it fallible in the eyes of Paul?

Why is it rational at times, but a delusion to rationalize?

Here's a question for you. Your long term girlfriend has decided that you haven't been spending enough time with her, and she decides to look for another partner. She leaves you. You see her with another guy only two days later. Seeing her makes you mad she can be with another so quickly. Are you jealous afraid, or jealous angry?

Now, do you feel that all forms of jealousy are ideas of fear, or is it possible that there is other views that do not include fear?

Here's an example of what I mean.  What's the point of me answering, when you've already decided on all the options you'll listen to?

If you really want an answer, try asking an open-ended question.  I don't see any point in telling you the answer when you've already closed your mind to it.


No sarcasm intended: You do know what a rationalization is, right?  It can be explained as a mild self-delusion.  Rationalizations can be a potent coping strategy, but when overused, or used on big things, they often turn harmful.


Jealousy is *defined* as fear.  If you're not afraid of something, you're not really jealous.  What's more, there's really only two basic emotional states: Pleasure and Fear.  Pleasure is self/explanatory.  Fear is a result of the Fight/Flight response, which means anger and fear are really the same emotional state.  This is just basic psychology.

Don't believe me?  What happens to your body when it's afraid?  Your heart rate goes up, your pupils dilate, etc., etc.  Now, when you get angry, the exact same thing happens.  That's how we know fear and anger are really the same biological response.

I have asked questions, and I really don't see anything wrong with asking a clarifying question. You can answer no or yes easily. Remember Cain, saying yes or no will actually clear up where you stand on the issue.

For example, if you state that all uses of the word jealous is fallible, that clarifies your views of the word. It does you no harm to state if you agree or disagree.

Another example, if you asked me if I agree with Nazi super soldiers should come from the dead, I could reply yes or no, and it would be ok to let you know where I stand on the issue.

They are just questions Cain. I don't understand why you do not want to answer such short questions.

I do understand you feel that they are closed ended questions, but try and be open to answering them. They are just questions, and your responses will not harm me or you.

Well my first impression would be to say rationalization means to make rational. No sarcasm intended.

I'm skeptical here. From reading what jealousy is defined in the dictionary, it actually shows more than just fear. So I think I'd have to see why the universities state it does have multiple meanings, I'm going to have to see why you disagree with them. I understand you may not agree with me, but I don't understand why you would have a view different than what is said in a dictionary.

It appears you don't agree that a jealous anger is different than a jealous fear. How about a jealous envy? Where you are envious, or jealous of someone else who is more successful than you? Is that a fear of their success?


Yea, I'm finding that a difficult comparison. When I'm angry, I'm willing to confront. But when I'm afraid, I'm wanting to get away. They seem really different emotions to me. Work stress and pleasure make you heart rate rise, and brain function faster, and yet, I do not consider them the same.

No sarcasm intended: Look it up.  Then we can continue this discussion.


Let's go to Dictionary.com for a quick reference:


We see two definitions including resentment.  Resentment is a form of anger, and anger is a form of fear.  More on that later.  Two definitions refer to fear, and one refers to intolerance, which is also a form of fear.  So, five out of six definitions refer to fear in some fashion.

It's all colored by various other factors, which make emotions seem much more varied.  But at the heart of it, everything boils down to the Fight or Flight response.  When you're angry, or frightened, you're experiencing the same basic emotion.  If I were to hook you up to an EEG, I could show you how the exact same areas of the brain light up when you're angry or afraid.

More complicated emotions are, naturally, more complex.  They're a mixture of the basic emotions, plus social scripts that condition us to feel certain ways.  But that's really a topic for another thread.  For now, it's enough to state unequivocably that fear and anger are really the same basic emotion in two different guises.

I'm not sure that completely accurate regarding that, Cain.  I'm not saying that you aren't correct so far on Flight-or-Flight, but what about Love? (not the philosophy or the ideal, just the Oxytocin-induced feeling)

What about sadness? Or wonder (not awe)?
This message was last edited by the GM at 06:27, Thu 28 Jan 2010.

Love itself is an amazing thing, and I could go on and on about it.  What you're referring to is mostly Lust, which is pleasure mixed in with primitive mating signals.  Sadness is fear with overtones of depression.  Wonder is a difficult one to pin down, since all I can think of is awe.

I'm not up on emotional theory as I should be; but the basic idea is that most of our complicated emotions are just mixtures of more basic ones.  There are four basic emotions, and two downright primitive ones, that form the basis of everything we feel.  I admit that I had a brain fart, and can't tell you what the four basic ones are for the life of me.  If it becomes important, I'll look them up.

Ah ok, four sounds more reasonable than two. But there are a few...niche emotions.

I'm thinking Wonder is different than Awe, because Awe is definitely fear/respect, while Wonder is...closer to fascination, curiosity.  I've felt wonder listening to a piece of music, or a sunset, and I'm not really sure it's fear, what do you think if I put it that way?

EDIT: In a sense, Awe causes the mind to recoil from the cause, while Wonder causes the mind to seek out the cause.
This message was last edited by the GM at 07:05, Thu 28 Jan 2010.

I'm taking a wild guess here, but I suspect that what you felt could be described as a big does of curiosity with a sizable portion of awe, plus probably a few others that I couldn't guess at.  The emotional script would depend heavily on the situation: for example, if you're stressed out, and are surprised with a burst of Bach, you're going to experience more awe than if you planned it out.

In this case, I'm defining awe as pleasure with a dash of fear.  You like what you see, you just feel somewhat insignificant.

Just so it's known Cain, I'm not going to continue this. I do thank you, but I think it's reasonable to answer my questions. Just as I would think you think it's reasonable that I respond to yours.

I think answering the questions cannot harm you to answer them. They will not even take significant time on your part.
This message was last edited by the player at 01:25, Fri 29 Jan 2010.

I did answer your questions, I just didn't give you the answers you predefined.  There's no point in asking a question if you've already decided on all the answers.

Ok, why is there is no point in asking yes/no, or true/false, or agree/disagree questions?

Why do they ask those types of questions on contracts, health forms, resume's, etc?

Please note that both are open ended question

Asking those sort of questions in a debate is usually a trap, designed to trick the opponent into agreeing with a position other than their own.  It's certainly a sign that they're not really interested in your answer, only the ones they've come up with.

How would you like it if I asked you those sort of questions?  For example, are you a troll, or just a dishonest debater?  Note how I've predefined the answers.  I'm showing that I'm not really interested in what you have to say, only in forcing you to give me the response that I want.

Yes/No questions have their uses, but not in a debate or frank exchange of ideas.   Health forms, sure.  But agree/disagree questions are usually gradiated-- You don't just agree or disagree, you strongly agree/somewhat agree/somewhat disagree/strongly disagree.  And on a resume, a yes/no question is boring, and not used on the more successful ones.  You use open-ended dialogue to intrigue and interest your prospective employer.

Well, you've stated that before, but when you're asked a yes no question, you have the option of stating yes no. Which means it's your choice.

For example, Are you a guy, yes, no? It's not a trap. Either you're a guy, or you're not. I think you have made a mistake in understanding the questions being asked. Think of them like a resume, or a health form. Clear concise statements.

Yes, your example is very much different than what I have done. However, to prove my point, I'm going to answer that I am a troll. While I do not feel I am, they are just words, and quite frankly, it's not like anyone reading this can't see the flaw of your question. I'm not too worried about the response, as it's just some words on a computer screen. I won't be losing any sleep tonight to have answered it.  If you get some kind of kick from asking those types of questions, well, go ahead and get your kicks. No one is being fooled.

For example, I didn't ask...Are you a girl, or are you a remote control?
When asked if you are a guy, it allows complete control over your yes or no.

So to bring your questions into my style of questioning, it would look like this.

Are you a troll, yes/no? You could answer yes or no, and actually clearly state your view on the question.

Are you a dishonest debater, yes/no? You could answer yes or no, and actually clearly state your view on the question.



Interesting, but I don't agree with that.  But I am letting you know that our previous conversation won't be continuing unless you're willing to respond to my questions, just like you'd expect me to respond to yours.

It's your choice if you want to respond yes or no to any of the questions. It's your choice if you don't want to answer any of them. And it's fine if you think those questions should never be used to find out where another person is on the issue.


Really, I don't know why your afraid of people finding out if you think all forms of jealous of fallible are or aren't true. I'm not sure why you're afraid if people find out if you think there is or isn't any form of jealousy that is not fallible?

Seriously here. You're willing to spend a couple days, and several posts why you won't say yes or no to a yes or no questions, but you won't take 20 seconds to respond to four yes no questions?

What are you afraid of?

If you're a troll, you don't belong here.


Yes it is.  If you had said "Male", it might be less of a trap; but "guy" carries with it connotations of masculinity.  So, you're essentially asking, "Do you match my preconceived notions of masculinity?"  Trap, and sign of disinterest in my notions of masculinity.


Again, I have answered your questions.  However, like Obama last night, whenever I rebut any of your so-called questions with answers devastating to your position, you "Play dumb" and pretend I didn't answer.  You're the one who doesn't answer ours, such as questions on Tyre or why a biblical fundamentalist doesn't know the ten commandments, a fundamental of the bible known to even non-christians.  You also need to realize that almost all of your yes/no questions come off as rhetorical, and thus do not merit an answer.

But don't worry.  I've ceased believing that you'll actually have a response to the tough questions, and instead will try and blame us and retreat.

Why? Is there a limit on trolls in the forum? We've allowed a few, what's one more? ;)

Well, I don't want to put words in your mouth. But seriously, if you don't feel you're a guy, you could have responded, no, you're not a guy. Still factually true, and allows for you to respond freely from your point of view. Remember, you're responding from your point of view, not mine.

Example, if you're being asked if you feel there are no forms of jealous that are fallible, the questions is responded from your view, not mine.



Cain, I'm telling you clearly before, and now that if you answer the questions as asked, then I will reply to your questions as asked.


You really don't have to be afraid to answer my questions directly. I will equally respond directly to yours.

Like I said before, if science had simply responded to my questions openly, I would have continued to answer directly the question on Tyre. Just like I had done with several dozens of posts the week previous to him all of a sudden not answering questions.

Cain, in the end, everyone who read along knew Science lied, and made up things that were factually untrue. No one can deny that. If science had just answered the questions, I would have continued responding to each and every question as I had been doing previously.

The worst that can be claimed about me is that I did not answer a question after responding to dozens of other questions. Cain, I did nothing shameful. I did not lie, or make up excuses. I stated I would not continue if a user was going to lie. I will continue to be open for the discussion/debate on the matter.

I freely will choose to go back to the debate if you want to respond to my questions openly and truthfully. At any time you or science want to answer my questions, I will make the time to respond to any and all questions you have.
This message was last edited by the player at 20:21, Sat 30 Jan 2010.

You ask trap questions, I disarm your traps.  Response in kind.

If you ask rhetorical questions, you'll get rhetoric as an answer.  If you start asking questions designed to engage and stimulate discussion, then you'll get stimulating discussions.


*Everyone*?  I certainly thought that Science was being patient with you.  If I could post a poll, are you so sure that 100% of the lurkers and mods would say that Science lied?  You haven't seen the PM's that have gone out, so I can safely say that there's at least half a dozen people who agree on who is the liar.


You don't want to know the worst that *has been* claimed about you.  And trolls are never ashamed.  You have made up excuses (mainly by trying to pass the blame onto somebody else) and lied by omission.  And you've never been open, as evidenced by the fact that you continue to ask closed questions.


We'll stop humiliating you when you start answering our questions openly and truthfully, and start asking open and truthful questions.

For example, Tyre has been presented as fact that biblical prophecy is historically inaccurate.  What are your thoughts on this?

Or: Why are you ignorant of the ten commandments?  You showed an astonishing lack of knowledge of the fundamentals of the bible.  In light of this, how can you continue to claim to be a biblical fundamentalist?

These are open, stimulating, and honest questions.  They're just uncomfortable for you.  I expect that you'll demand I answer your rigged questions before you blame your silence on me and Science, but I've been wrong before.

The amount of junk that's being tossed around is pretty silly and not very appropriate for a debate that should be friendly if not respectful.

Respect is earned.  For example, you're attempting to dodge the direct questions yet again.
This message was last edited by the player at 15:57, Sun 31 Jan 2010.

Okay guys, that's enough. If you want to poke each other with sticks, I'll make another thread for it.

Now that we have order in the court what are the charges being leveled again Yaweh, aka. Jehovah, Aka. Adonai, AKA El Oheim, AKA etc. etc.

No idea, really. Bringing "charges" against a fictional character is just mental masturbation anyways.  I might as well bring charges of Treason against Emperor Palpatine; it'd be less distressing considering that nobody defends an obviously evil character when they don't believe they're real.

You wouldn't see anybody defending Zeus today, but you better believe that people would be making the same arguments people make for Yahweh to defend his actions back when there were actual Zeus Worshipers. A good deal of the most basic, well-known philosophical arguments against Divinities come from this time period and culture.

Nobody defends or attacks Zeus, because nobody believes in him. You might attack something somebody else believes if it conflicts with something you believe, however.

But since I don't believe that a God ordered any Genocides, I don't object to that. I'd rather hold the characters that aren't entirely fictional for their own actions.  Perhaps their belief that they were divinely mandated might be a legitimate cause for their actions, or written in afterward to justify it.

Those who died with justice unserved cannot be punished for their crimes in any other way than being remembered as evil rather than righteous.

1) I know plenty of people who believe in Zeus, myself included, though not in a Percy Jackson walking the earth in a humanoid body sort of way.
2) In terms of a trial this does bring up a good point- what the deity has (supposedly) actually done versus what the deity has purportedly instructed others to do in his name. After all both Hitler and Motehr Theresa acted in the name of Christianity, and unless there are multiple personalities to go along with all those multiple names (in which case is it really monotheism anymore?) that seems highly improbable that both set of instructions come from the same source.

So do we need a seperate thread for Christianity on trial as well as one for God on trial?

In reply to silveroak (msg #334):

The thread originally (way way back) started as a sort of tongue in cheek response to another discussion about whether God's actions described in the bible were examples of evil (or something along those lines).  Stargate (I think it was) replied something like "well, if you want to put God on trial, I'll be happy to act as defense attorney."  So this thread spun off, though I think numerous other discussion were added on top of that original since then.

Looking back at the early posts, it seems like the first set of charges examined were:

Just my luck too...<_< I swear if I had said "nobody defends people who think they're Napoleon" somebody somewhere probably would object. There's always a few of everything it seems.

But of course, are you believing in him in some NeoPaganesque way, or are we speaking Classical Zeus here?  I know some "Bast Worshipers", but all they really do is meditate and own a lot of cats.

EDIT: and not necessarily "Classical" as in walking about the earth, but as in the method of rituals performed by the followers of Zeus.
----------

I think we can just mentally note "God" as being "The Concept of God(s)" on the thread title, probably.
This message was last edited by the GM at 12:49, Mon 22 Mar 2010.

Well I said I believe in him, not that I follow him- personally my primary devotion is to Eros, with a handfull fo secondary devotins (Hephastus, Coyote, Gaia, Demeter...) and it would be rather hard to locate a formal Greek temple at which to offer the proper observances these days, not to mention the difficulties and probable legal issues with trying to get prostitutes to run nakes through the streets smearing women with goat's blood, or hitting them with thongs of goat's skin :likely still bloody from the scrifice. (The annual high festival of Eros celebration in Greece/Rome on February 14th known as the Lupercalia)