Conversation
Notices
-
Anyway it may come as a surprise to many, but I actively support efforts to ban gay marriage in the US. My activism doesn't extend to banning homosexual relationships, though I am against it from a moral and spiritual standpoint. I don't hold it against people, and I never try to convince anypony that it's wrong, but it does leave me feeling sad for those who actively practice homosexuality.
-
@pony and what is your moral argument?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:24:03 UTC from web -
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:24:07 UTC from web
-
@purplephish20 I felt the need to share my view since everypony else appeared to be doing so, but I'll only explain because you've asked. Gimme a sec since I'm on my phone.
-
@purplephish20 @hakupony Morally it's wrong because God has said it's wrong. God is love and desires our continued happiness. God knows everything so, despite the fact that we may strongly believe otherwise or think we know better, I trust that God is correct and that obeying him will lead to my own happiness and others' happiness. Obeying God includes opposing gay marriage in the US. according to the counsel provided by my local and general religious leaders who receive divine revelation for our benefit. Spiritually, I've received a witness from the Holy Ghost (personal divine revelation) that my leaders are to be trusted.
-
@pony Okay. I'll reply to this this evening :)
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:39:02 UTC from web -
@pony Ok... if thats what you believe then fine, within christianity, but what about athiests and agnostics? Couldnt the law be changed to allow THEM to marry? Even if its morraly forbidden bbetween christians?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:39:30 UTC from web-
@purplephish20 I believe God is the father of every soul including friends of other belief systems, that He holds everyone's happiness as equal, and that to do his will means to lovingly support and encourage others to be obedient to him as well for their own happiness's sake.
-
-
@pony The part I have particular issue comprehending is the part where you then force those beliefs on others. You're entirely welcome to your belief structure, but I do no understand why you are so eager to attempt to apply it to nonadherents.
-
@ceruleanspark I worry about people that live their lives according to advice given by an imaginary friend.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:46:32 UTC from web-
@colfax Asides from existance or nonexistance, the fun part is that they themselves say that men cannot comprehend god, yet they talk about "god's word"
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:49:08 UTC from web-
@nerthos Hell, I'm still trying to figure out how someone could be a carpenter in the middle of the fnarking desert...
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:51:31 UTC from web-
@colfax Thou shall not question the holy words! God gave them magical workbenches, that grew wood out of them.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:53:04 UTC from web-
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:54:32 UTC from web
-
@colfax Silly romans, they didn't know how to buil with sandstone. I always liked "God gave Moses cheats, and then he gave Jesus even more cheats (or a GM status)"
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:57:44 UTC from web -
@colfax I don't know whether to ignore your jabs at people's faith or redress them, but either way I feel I should let you know that they're uncalled for.
-
@pony You can do as you see fit, I just choose to trust in my own conscience instead of a storybook, if you can't deal with that it sounds more like it's your problem and not mine.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:18:52 UTC from web-
@colfax I don't mean to convince you to believe anything. I simply mean to draw your awareness to the fact that the tone of your comments is offensive to some. Believe as you wish by all means, and, if you intend to offend ponies, then of course change nothing about how you express youself.
-
-
-
-
@nerthos @colfax http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eIkVdYJWLAE Vid related
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:57:44 UTC from web-
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:58:43 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
@ceruleanspark Because Christianity has one heck of a two-pronged memetic hook. Firstly, that one should be kind to others. Secondly, that anyone not good in the eyes of God will go to hell, where they will suffer eternal torment. Therefore, persuading others to follow this same path (and thus saving them from) hell is the kind thing to do, and is (within this belief framework) the right thing to do.
-
@bitshift >Poorly writen law
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:51:16 UTC from web -
@bitshift I have studied on a purely conceptional level, the various memetic aspects of religion. I do not understand that people cannot grasp the logical flaws inherent in "I will make people happy by making them miserable."
-
@ceruleanspark Purely conceptional. That's the only explanation you need. To comprehend a concept you must have a doubt to try to satiate. If you're trained from birth that doubt over that matter means you'll spend eternity burning alive, you cannot conceptualize nor comprehend.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:55:31 UTC from web -
@ceruleanspark I can understand being willing to make someone sad in the short run if you earnestly believe that same action will make them happy in the long run. So that could be it?
-
@bitshift Like parent/small child logic?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:59:24 UTC from web
-
-
-
@bitshift (Sidenote: this does not preclude the possibility of it being the actual correct path, it is simply an explanation of why such beliefs will spread regardless of any truth/lack of truth behind them.)
-
@bitshift That's not exactly true of my Christianity, or, at least, I find your statement oversimplified
-
-
@ceruleanspark I think I may have responded to this in a different dash, but I can't find it on my phone. In short, God commands us to /invite/ others to believe as we believe (not convince) for their eternal benefit. As far as gay marriage in the US. is concerned, I feel there are other reasons for opposing it than encouraging others to live a certain way. Even if ultimately we fail to ban gay marriage, I trust that my actions will have served to benefit my country. Also, I don't see how simply opposing government support of gay marriage forces anypony to live a certain way. It certainly withdraws support, but doesn't seem to oppose.
-
@pony Ah. I thought that perhaps you'd had enough of me and determined to stop dignifying my questions with answers. Opposing gay marriage works to deny gay couples the various legal, financial and social benefits given to straight couples. Even something as simple as getting a mortgage for a home is easier for a married couple than two (legally) single people. If actively seeking to limit the quality of life of someone based on their sexual preference ISN'T attempting to force them to live a specific way, then I'm not sure what is.
-
@ceruleanspark nah! I've yet to get fed up with most anypony here actually, much less you. I guess you have a point. I still have difficulty understanding how giving benefits to straight married folk in the interest of promoting traditional families means holding back gay couples. Part of me kind of thinks they just want to feel justified or get handouts or something. The law will never justify them socially unless it takes away freedom of speech from those who oppose them. Also, I believe that the traditional family unit is the fundamental unit of society. By promoting it over alternate lifestyles/relationships, my government prospers. At least that is what I've been taught by my religion, (there's that word again *_*), the truth of which, again, I've received a spiritual witness of.
-
@pony This does plan does not hold together logically: Homosexuals are already outside of your alleged "ideal family unit", so they do not contribute to your countries (questionable) prosperity. What harm therefore, does treating them as equals actually do? Following on from this, if ideal family unit is in fact, ideal, how can it be threatened by a less-ideal one? I mean, I know you guys don't believe in evolution, but still, survival of the fittest holds true as much socially as it does in an evolutionary context.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:27:41 UTC from web-
@ceruleanspark I could try and discuss the logic, but that wasn't my original intention except to say that God knows best. My last effort at explaining the logic behind why gay marriage ought to be opposed tooke the form of a freshman college essay for a low level english class. It was exhasting and tedious to write, but, despite the teacher discouraging me to write on the topic, I was the only student in his class to get an A.
-
@pony Talking about College: it's sure I may write about ponies:)
-
@hakupony That's great! Even if it means I have to use Google translator, I'll be really interested to read that!
-
@pony I didn't start yet. To be honest, you could even help me because you used to be a fan of theold MLP series. Could you recommend an episode to me to compare to FiM?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:09:59 UTC from web-
@hakupony You should compare the very first episodes. The episode that introduced them to the world, compared to the episode that introduced them to us.
-
@ceruleanspark Wouldn't @hakupony have to start with a movie, then? I'm pretty sure the G1 movies predate any other MLP cartoons.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:12:22 UTC from web-
@bitshift I was just thinking that it'd make an interesting contrast to see both beginings together, all the character introductions and the like.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:13:39 UTC from web-
@ceruleanspark Oh yeah, certainly. I was just pointing out that said beginning would actually be in one of the movies (the same one #SHOOBEDOO comes from, in fact).
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:15:16 UTC from web
-
-
@bitshift @ceruleanspark The point is I need two things to compare to MLP FiM to show how the performing of gender roles in media changed. This is why I want to look at an earlier Generation and in an older boys series.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:19:58 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
@pony Ah, too bad. I guess it is more scientific if I choose a random episode, so I think, it'll work.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:34:04 UTC from web
-
-
@hakupony gladly! I love the minty christmas episode to this day! I don't have link to the full episode on hoof, but here's a part of it https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSRp6wlgbEM&feature=youtube_gdata_player
-
-
-
-
@pony OK, then I'll cut to the heart of it really: How do you reconcile the idea that god is both just and right with the idea that he wants you to promote the misery of a specific group?
-
@ceruleanspark As I see it, they are making themselves far more miserable (or setting themselves up be be so) by making immoral choices. Their outrage or temporal frustration may be due to society's refusal to support them, but the worldly consequences, in the grand scheme of things, are of little consequence. They would ultimetley be unhappy even if they weren't rejected. Sometimes worldly woes even help some to be humbled enough to seek God, but that's their choice and they will never be forced to accept God even if doing so would save them from inefable misery. We're all infants and children to the understanding of spiritual things. What may seem like harsh and unjust punishment is the firm but sympathetic guidance of a loving parent. God will not cause us misery, but he will allow us to bring it on ourselves like any parent that respects the choices of their child. Keep in mind that if God stepped in and said there would be no more misery, there would equally be no more joy.
-
@pony But by actively mistreating them in this world, all you're really doing is conditioning them to believe god hates them, heightening their rejection of his love. I know that the idea that god hates pretty much all of my lifestyle choices doesn't exactly encourage me to seek his love.
-
@ceruleanspark I absolutely agree. A loving parent may not accept certain choices you made but he wouldn't disapprove of your personality - or even abandom you for eternaty if you don't behave.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:28:44 UTC from web -
@ceruleanspark I don't know god's logic in all things, but I do trust him. I do know that worldly circumstances (eg. Social rejection) (oppresive or otherwise) and well reasoned arguments alone cannot convince anyone to love God and accept his love. In that decision we're supremely independent
-
@pony There is no such thing as a well-reasoned argument for God, as it violates the principle of falsifiability so there's *always* going to be a flaw in the argument. You must be willing to abandon reason if you want to argue for it (and there are plenty of valid reasons why someone might want to take this path, so don't assume I'm making a value judgement here because I'm not).
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:14:57 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel You could make a reasonable argument if you stayed in the area of pure Rationalism. That is: formal logic and mathematic, because those truths do not need empirical proof.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:19:25 UTC from web-
@hakupony That is the specific arena in which I am saying that you can't make a reasonable argument, actually. That is not to say that faith is necessarily a bad thing, so long as one is able to recognize it for what it is. It's a tool, and all tools are only as good as their wielder. For example, each night when I climb into bed with my plushies I have faith that they are alive. Deep down I am fully aware that they aren't, but believing that they are helps me combat my depression and the immense stress and anger that builds up each day. That is how faith ought to be used, not as a tool of oppression but as a tool of self-empowerment.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:26:17 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel I agree you on the faith-aspect and I also kind of admire that you can believe your plushies are alive. It may seem strange, but I really, really would like to have that skill. But I disagree on the empiricist world view. Rationalism makes it possible to take certain sets of believe and check if they contradict each other - even if it is about God. We can also prove by reason that God exists IF certain premises are true - these are reasonable statements as well...
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:37:37 UTC from web-
@hakupony If you can provide a "God is True if..." test, then you no longer have an unfalsifiable and instead have created an experimental condition to check for. This would be a pretty big deal because no one's ever done that before. With regards to rationalism though, so long as the subject is unfalsifiable there will always exist a counter-argument. You can't accept a thing as rational unless all counter-arguments can be shown to be irrational. One could contend that arguing either for *or* against an unfalsifiable is itself irrational. Rationalism has its place but I don't think it's in proving or disproving the existence of an unfalsifiable. Rather, I believe instead we should use it to determine if faith in God is helpful. To this I argue, for some people it is helpful and to others it is harmful and both types of people ought to be able to coexist harmoniously instead of trying to convince the other that they are wrong.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:51:01 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
@toksyuryel Ikve seen some interesting arguments, but its true that there's no flawless argument the same is true of disproving God.
-
@pony This is why unfalsifiables occupy a category outside of the true-false dichotomy: they are simply irrelevant.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:30:54 UTC from web-
@toksyuryel anyone may, by direct experience, know that God exists, but the method of the experiment which proves he is real requires sacrifice, humility, desire, and dilligence.
-
@pony Or i could do it like this: My statement is "God does not exist." I will admit I was wrong if I meet him or a black rose grows out of my toilet.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:39:47 UTC from web-
@hakupony @toksuriel He sets up the experiment that way for our own protection. To know that God exists is a great responsability which, if we fail to keep, we suffer.
-
@pony @toksyuryel misspelled your name xP
-
-
-
@pony If God doesnt exist, then you would be putting down all idea's of paranormal things. I can tell you that the stuff does exist. #experience
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:40:05 UTC from web -
@pony Not saying that you are, but rather what I know.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:40:38 UTC from web-
@renovatedkitchen :)
-
@pony ^_^ Dealing with that was a roller coaster all in its own.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:47:02 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@ceruleanspark If I'm not clear or you have other questions please don't hesitate to ask.
-
-
-
@ceruleanspark also, while my church believes in intelligent design, that doesn't preclude any particular belief or disbelief in macro evolution as a concept.
-
-
-
-
-
-
@pony Now to your moral argument. If you aren't a Calvinist, you believe in free will, which means that He refrains from using his allmighty power for making us follow His path. He allows us to choose for our own. He even forgives our sins if we truly regret them because he wants us weak beings to decite following Him of our free will. Evil does not exist because He is weak or malicious but because we decite against what is good. Now I wonder where you (or any other human being) got the right to take this decition from people which even GOD did not take from them. If you force people to live how you want them to, you oppose Gods will which includes the free will of humans. How do we know it is his will? Because he does not fail.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 16:21:36 UTC from web-
@hakupony you have an interesting argument. @ceruleanspark @hakupony I believe in the freedom to choose, but not freedom from the consequences of our choices. If we choose to drink and drive it is our perogative to do so, but we may suffer social, legal, or mortal consequences. God is far more merciful than the world because he allows us to repent and escape the spiritual consequences of sin through the sacrifical payment of his son Jesus Christ's life and his indescribable spiritual agony in the garden of Gethsemane. Also, thanks to Christ's sacrifice, we are accountable for our decisions only insofar as we understand the truth and have sought truth dilligently. Where spiritual knowledge is brightest there is the greatest potential for happiness which is why we invite others to believe and receive his commandments as an improvment to their lifestyle. Everything god does in for our happiness in this life and the hereafter.
-
@pony Social and even legal consequences are not written in stone, they are constructed of how people react to actions. As someone not stupid enough not to know, you influence these things and it is your decition what you do with that influence - and of course, it also is your responsibility. This brings me to the point I was getting to: if I'd drive and drink, I would risk your life. So it is just self defense that you won't let me do that. If noone paid taxes, we wouldn't have a police and no safety. These rules are reasonable because they make it possible that society works and we can survive as parts of this society.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:05:45 UTC from web-
@hakupony iwhat you said makes sense, but I'm refering to spiritual and natural laws as well, over which we have no control.
-
@pony And what does these laws differ from my example: "If you are drunk and drive, you are more likely to hurt someone." ?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:21:18 UTC from web-
@hakupony I guess what I mean is that ideally I feel that spiritual and social laws should exist in harmony with one another. While mankind isn't usually clever enough to manage this on our own, we're left to do the best we can and commanded to seek divine guindance in all things. The modern living prophet of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has explicitly instructed the modern saints to support the banning of gay marriage in th US.
-
@pony People have free will, this is the basis for all devine rules. Of course, ideally the devine rules and the social rules would be the same, because we had absolute virtue and justice then. This, however, is something, you can not force. About the reference to the "modern living prophet" and the "modern saints": Do you know these are not the whore Babylon? Sapere Aude! You may value their wisdom, but if you don't think for yourself, you can get lost on dark paths.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 17:55:40 UTC from web-
@hakupony "by their fruits ye shall know them." I know by the doctrines taught by the modern prophets and the personal witness I've receive from the Holy Ghost that they are divinely appointed for our guidance. My faith is not blind because it is backed by scripture study, prayer, and personal revelation. God continues to provide prophetic guidance today as he did before the great apostacy following the death of the ancient apostles (and their limited successors). There's a lot to explain, and I'm going to dinner now.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@pony I'll write down my point for you but that would need attention which I can't spare in that amount right now.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:26:07 UTC from web -
@pony Well, I too believe that "gay marriage" is completely unnecesary and kind of a silly notion, since marriage is in itself a way to make a relationship stable enough to raise a family. Since two of the same sex cannot birth children, it lacks sense. There's the legal advantages of marriage, of course, taxes and all that stuff, but that could be easily fixed by a new marriage-like law.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:29:30 UTC from web-
@nerthos So what about a man and a woman who are between them, completely infirtile, incappable of raising children, should THEY be denied the right to marry?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:30:50 UTC from web-
@purplephish20 Not really, because marriage is a custom and that would bring unnecesary suffering to mostly the parents, who wants their progeny to marry.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:32:37 UTC from web-
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:33:19 UTC from web
-
@purplephish20 You are, like always, seeing this from an emotional point of view.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:35:57 UTC from web-
@nerthos You were wuite hypocritical just then, you said to put it bluntly, gays shouldnt be able to marry because you say they cant have children, yet you say an infirtile straight couple should be allowed to marry
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:37:17 UTC from web-
@purplephish20 http://rainbowdash.net/notice/1347850 Custom carries a great weight.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:39:28 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
@nerthos There are adoptions, you know?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:31:31 UTC from web-
@hakupony Yes, but you do not need really need marriage for adoption.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:33:02 UTC from web-
@nerthos You don't? In Germany you do need.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:33:55 UTC from web-
@hakupony Then, as I said, make an alternative to marriage for that particular cases.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:35:26 UTC from web-
@nerthos Which would be arriage under another name.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:36:15 UTC from web-
@hakupony Yes, without messing with tradition or custom. Everyone would be happy. If you just remove the walls in a plane and say to everyone they're flying in one single class, yet you retain the treatment differences, everyone would be mad. But if you just make two planes and serve them differently, noone would complain.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:38:31 UTC from web-
@nerthos Except that this is what people are complaining about. The invention of a second-class "marriage" exclusively for certain groups of people.
-
@ceruleanspark Isn't a second class marriage better than nothing? If childs complain about the toys you gave them, you simply take them back until they understand they have to stop complaining to have them back.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:41:23 UTC from web -
@ceruleanspark Isaac Asimov, Bicentennial Man: "People can stand an immortal robot, but they won't allow an immortal man"
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:43:36 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
@nerthos I also subscribe to the ideal-child-rearing environment idea, but in the end there are many things I don't know so it rests on my faith
-
@pony If a religion wants for any reason; to call me a heretic and say I'm going to burn for all eternity once I'm dead, then so be it. But it's wrong to try and change laws and dictate what I can and cannot do while I'm alive based on religious philosophy
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:47:27 UTC from web-
@purplephish20 While I believe in setting clear boundaries between church and state, I disagree with you about religion and politics mingling. I also find your language unnecessarily prejudiced against religion
-
@pony I dont think my language in that post is "unnecessarity prejudiced" I am simply saying that a countys law should not be dictated on the grounds of specific beliefs held by members of a certain religeon... I cannot see any reason why that should not be
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:02:37 UTC from web-
@purplephish20 the part I found prejudiced wasn't your opinion of the separation between church and state.
-
-
-
-
@pony And, of course, we fall into the same hole, like in every conflict there was in our species: Lack of knowledge. Fait or law cannot fix our problems, only knowledge can.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 13:47:59 UTC from web-
@nerthos I have a convinction of the reality of spirtually derived knowledge through personal revelation from God which is available to anybody who is willing to make the sacrifices necessary to receive it. Faith is not always blind, nor do I believe it should be.
-
@pony Personally, I feel that people should do good things because it's right, not because some imaginary sky wizard will give them candy one day in the future.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:06:13 UTC from web-
@colfax But wizards are so awesome!
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:12:24 UTC from web -
@colfax Hope I don't open a can of worms here, but I just want to say that I agree one hundred percent with you on that.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:06:29 UTC from web
-
-
@pony The problem I have with that notion is that a divine nature is required to comprehend what a god says. A god is absolute, and a beign that is not himself absolute cannot grasp it's contents. Either we can't know what god says or wants, or we are god ourselves. And since the bible says that Lucifer was basically kicked from hell from trying to become god, then it's silly for god to make us divine beings. So, or either we cannot understand, or god is silly, or there's no god, just the possibility of one of our own nature in a more advanced stage.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:06:51 UTC from web-
@nerthos that's an interesting point of view. I suppose we differ in our understanding of mankind's role in creation. http://m.bible.cc/psalms/82-6.htm
-
@pony Then, according to that, we are god: So, why is it wrong to actively try to reach the highest peak of our capabilities and effectively become the main god?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:45:23 UTC from web-
@nerthos Why indeed shouldn't we, as His spiritual progeny, become /like/ Him? If we truly become like God, that would mean existing harmoniously with him I think.
-
@pony The point is, god is absolute, god is the universe. So to become absolute we must first assimilate and make a part of us what is already absolute. Nothing changes, just a head recedes inside of the building, and a new one comes out.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:51:25 UTC from web-
@nerthos Only if you agree on the pantheistic view - and as Schopenhauer said it: If od is everything, just say everything.
-
@hakupony Yup. That's why I just search for a way of walking that one more step ahead of what was already walked, effectively becoming the lead of eveything.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:56:12 UTC from web-
@nerthos so... now you'e a god?
Tuesday, 08-May-12 14:57:46 UTC from web-
@mushi No, the divine nature is in everything. To reach goodhood you just need to in a conceptual way devour the rest of the universe.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:00:27 UTC from web-
@nerthos ah, i have no interest in godhoodz
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:03:43 UTC from web-
@mushi Why not? You know, sith goodhood you can have Twilight.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:04:22 UTC from web-
@nerthos ah, to be honest i dont believe she'd like that
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:05:04 UTC from web-
@mushi Absolute power. You can shapeshift into a pony specifically crafted after her tastes if you want to.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:09:53 UTC from web-
@nerthos ah, that wouldnt be the same thing
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:11:11 UTC from web-
@mushi Think of this that way: you can do everything. Find a way to make everything work together is no issue.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:13:08 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
@nerthos *with
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:06:48 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
@nerthos Nietzsche might be the right philosopher for you :)
-
@hakupony Yup, probably. Even though I haven't read much of him, what I didn read I liked.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:00:55 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
@nerthos I understand God the Father as a corporeal being after whose image we were formed. If and when we become like him we will be the heads of our own divine family, as he is. Having power over what we create won't limit Him. He may still provide counsel to us in our state then and he may continue raising more spiritual progeny (our brothers and sisters), or not, I don't know.
-
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:23:27 UTC from web
-
@colfax I'll see you there, my friend. Many a drink will be shared.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:27:13 UTC from web-
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:28:23 UTC from web
-
@colfax I'll be the sober guy who looks like a bearded Legolas and carries a sword.
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:29:04 UTC from web-
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:33:36 UTC from web
-
@colfax Bearded. If you put a beard on a woman she looks manly. #beardlogic
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:36:22 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
@pony >absolute
Tuesday, 08-May-12 15:26:16 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
