The christians said that the human nature of Jesus is not divine. They also admitted to worshipping the entirety of Jesus. So that means they worshiped what is not divine. Did any admit this outright? Why couldn't they do basic logics?
When confronting the statement “Jesus was a great teacher, but he was not God,” a shocking 30% of Catholics “agree,” 27% “somewhat agree,” 9% are “not sure,” 12% “somewhat disagree,” and 22% “disagree.” https://www.wordonfire.org/articles/fellows/for-too-many-catholics-jesus-was-just-a-great-teacher/
god creates this horribly ugly thing named *** ******, and this quote is sitting out there on youtube, recorded for everyone to hear.
"As you must know from meditation, there are experiences of extraordinarily intense sensation when you're sitting for hours with, you know, pain in your knee, for instance, where it becomes genuinely difficult to tell whether what you're experiencing is agony or ecstasy. It's just sheer intensity. If you have a true equanimity of attention at that moment, the difference almost doesn't matter, so there is something paradoxical even about suffering when you really pay attention to it."
I have to live in terror every day because there are things on this planet that say that pain in their knee might be ecstasy, and they can't tell the difference between agony and ecstasy.
I have to live in terror because god made horribly ugly things I have to live in terror because god made horribly ugly things I have to live in terror because god made horribly ugly things I have to live in terror because god made horribly ugly things I have to live in terror because god made horribly ugly things I have to live in terror because god made horribly ugly things
why does god hate me
Quidfacis_ says that Spinoza would not agree that if A is in B and B is in God, then A is in God:
"Spinoza would say that the peanut (suffering) is in the chocolate (mode). The chocolate (mode) is in the candy shell (God).
You want to say the peanut (suffering) is in the candy shell (God) because the peanut (suffering) is in the chocolate (mode) and the chocolate (mode) is in the candy shell (God).
Spinoza is all like, "No, the peanut is clearly in the chocolate. The chocolate is in the candy shell. Stop trying to use the transitive property to get the peanut in the candy shell; the peanut is in the chocolate.""
How can anyone take r/askphilosophy seriously if it has these lies?
What caused there to be a human me rather than a bunch of particles? A pile of particles that make up "sand" on the beach don't combine into one thing, but I'm one thing.
Why is there a video of someone turning cards into goldfish, or pretending to?
When will humans finally be stopped?
Why did "Job 9:15" come to my mind?
Maybe he would just shrug and say that he's gonna turn them to ash soon.
"I think we can, in the next few years, completely suppress the disease in most people" - 2024
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2024/06/427831/cure-multiple-sclerosis-scientists-say-within-our-lifetime
"Like you say what's the future going to be? It's not going to be a conventional phone. I don't think there will be operating systems. I don't think there will be apps. The phone will just display the pixels and make the sounds that it anticipates you would most like to receive." https://youtu.be/O4wBUysNe2k?t=4351
What an odd thing to say
Why would he say that?
“The most thought-provoking thing in our thought-provoking time is that we are still not thinking”
"We do not know what thinking is"
I live in North Carolina, but I don't like it. My IQ is 37. I don't know what I am. People tell me that intelligence properties must be properties of the brain, but I don't see how matter changing forms is intelligent. There was Descartes who said he was an immaterial thinking thing, but I don't like him. I haven't found anyone today who agrees with me. Is there anybody out there?
What would make them lose faith?
Chaucer died in 1400, so I'll say this person was born in 1399 and then somehow survived until the 1520s, which is probably something that never happened, but I don't care about that.
Aquinas clearly stated that every phenomenon that has being is good. Rape has being, yet he wouldn't say rape is good.
"This also means that everything that exists is good, insofar as it exists" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absence_of_good
So "Rape is good, insofar as it exists"
I guess he was programmed by the creators of this planet to write a bunch of garbage and now there are "people" today who "study" his writings hahahaha humans don't even think.
I wonder if the only things I've ever enjoyed are food and masturbation. I used to read and listen to music, but maybe I never enjoyed it and that's why I stopped. Or I did but I can't enjoy things anymore.
People talk like social media is a drug or they say "dopamine hit" as if there's actually a reward. I don't think I get a reward from the internet. I think I might get a headache or something if I stare out the window all day instead. I often sit and do nothing, but doing it for hours doesn't sound good.
How could the internet be that tempting to people if they could be doing a bunch of other things they enjoy? It should only be tempting to someone like me who has no soul.
I watched him have someone take out their billfold, pick a dollar bill from it, and pick another person in the room. then oz asked the second person to think of someone and he guessed their name correctly. oz asked for the birthday of the person they thought of and the number on the dollar bill was the birthday. how did he do it?
have you ever seen someone do something like that?