i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
All people are weak and therefore shortcomings should be tolerated. Different religions and customs should be tolerated. Like the life of the nomads, peoples' lives are difficult enough and subject to the pressures of nature. No one is perfect before Tengri, which is why Genghis Khan said: 'If there is no means to prevent drunkenness, a man may become drunk thrice a month; if he oversteps this limit he makes himself guilty of a punishable offence. If he is drunk only twice a month, that is better — if only once, that is more praiseworthy. What could be better than that he should not drink at all? But where shall we find a man who never drinks? If, however, such a man is found, he deserves every respect.'
I love that Genghis Khan assumed a man who never got drunk would be nearly impossible to find.
Granted, this was the 13th century. If I lived in the 13th century, I'd get drunk all the time, too.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
More tangentially related to Tengrism, Genghis Khan was planning to team up with France and just hand the Jerusalem:
Arghun Khan expressed the association of Tengri with imperial legitimacy and military success. The Majesty (Suu) of the Khan is a divine grace or stamp granted by Tengri to a chosen individual and through which Tengri controls the world order, in other words it is the special presence of Tengri in the person of the Great Khan. Note in this letter that the divine name 'Tengri' or 'Mongke Tengri' (Eternal Heaven) is always placed at the top of the sentence, even if the former sentence has to look like it is incomplete when the divine name is moved to top of the next sentence. In the middle of the magnified section, the sacred phrase 'Tengri-yin Kuchin' (Power of Tengri) stands completely separate from the other sentences, forming a sacred pause before being followed by the phrase 'Khagan-u Suu' (Majesty of the Khan):
“Under the Power of the Eternal Tengri. Under the Majesty of the Khan (Kublai Khan). Arghun Our word. To the Ired Farans (King of France). Last year you sent your ambassadors led by Mar Bar Sawma telling Us: "if the soldiers of the Il-Khan ride in the direction of Misir (Egypt) we ourselves will ride from here and join you", which words We have approved and said (in reply) "praying to Tengri (Heaven) We will ride on the last month of winter on the year of the tiger and descend on Dimisq (Damascus) on the 15th of the first month of spring." Now, if, being true to your words, you send your soldiers at the appointed time and, worshipping Tengri, we conquer those citizens (of Damascus together), We will give you Orislim (Jerusalem). How can it be appropriate if you were to start amassing your soldiers later than the appointed time and appointment? What would be the use of regretting afterwards? Also, if, adding any additional messages, you let your ambassadors fly (to Us) on wings, sending Us luxuries, falcons, whatever precious articles and beasts there are from the land of the Franks, the Power of Tengri (Tengri-yin Kuchin) and the Majesty of the Khan (Khagan-u Suu) only knows how We will treat you favorably. With these words We have sent Muskeril (Buscarello) the Khorchi. Our writing was written while We were at Khondlon on the sixth khuuchid (6th day of the old moon) of the first month of summer on the year of the cow.”
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
So, question. Is there a more immature atheist argument than the iron chariots?
To clarify, this is based on the following Bible verses:
'The people of Joseph said, "The hill country is not enough for us. Yet all the Canaanites who dwell in the plain have chariots of iron, both those in Beth-shean and its villages and those in the Valley of Jezreel." Then Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, "You are a numerous people and have great power. You shall not have one allotment only, but the hill country shall be yours, for though it is a forest, you shall clear it and possess it to its farthest borders. For you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong." -- Joshua 17:16-18 (ESV)
"And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the B)'>hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had C)'>chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 (ESV)
This is taken to mean that if the Lord is with people, they still can't overcome an opponent with iron chariots. This must be God's weakness; he's not truly omnipotent!
But if this is so clear, o wise atheists of the internet, why wasn't it mentioned as early as the Enlightment? Do you think you're the first generation of unbelievers to read the Bible? Certainly not, but you may be the first conditioned by pop culture to think of superhuman beings as superheroes, who may have powers like "invulnerability" or "omnipotence" with limiting factors like "kryptonite" or "iron chariots".
Wouldn't a more sensible reading be that the people of Joseph and Judah were never promised the plains in the first place, and the strength of chariots on plains and weakness on broken terrain was the natural cause limiting their expansion to hill country? "God was with Judah" need not denote a supernatural causal factor in military conflicts, of the sort you're used to from your fantasy strategy games.
iirc there was an antinatalist(?) dude Odradek found who extrapolated from that passage to the belief that God is vulnerable to iron, so he was safe from hell because he had iron or something
i guess following the logic that if it works against the fae and the undead maybe it works against any and all supernatural beings?
iirc there was an antinatalist(?) dude Odradek found who extrapolated from that passage to the belief that God is vulnerable to iron, so he was safe from hell because he had iron or something
Actually it was a weird troper guy called Falconfly.
I think he briefly reappeared on IJBM and was discovered by his weird continued belief in that.
I have no objection to any person’s religion, be it what it may, so long as that person does not kill or insult any other person, because that other person don’t believe it also.But when a man’s religion becomes really frantic; when it is a positive torment to him; and, in fine, makes this earth of ours an uncomfortable inn to lodge in; then I think it high time to take that individual aside and argue the point with him.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
R. L. Stine said: Tachyon said:iirc there was an antinatalist(?) dude Odradek found who extrapolated from that passage to the belief that God is vulnerable to iron, so he was safe from hell because he had iron or something
Actually it was a weird troper guy called Falconfly. I think he briefly reappeared on IJBM and was discovered by his weird continued belief in that.
Wasn't he that guy who acted like Orson Scott Card? I remember a troper acting really really enthusiastic about the U.S attacking some country.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
How to explain All Hallows Eve to children:
"This is the night we play at witches and monsters, who can't hurt us, because on All Saints Day the Archangel Michael chases them away with his flaming sword."
At one time I've been fascinated with Baron Samedi - an affably uncouth spirit of the dead. As it happens, the fascination came from a couple of songs by an obscure Russian band :) One of them went somewhat like that:
"Don't you look out of the door, for during the night He Whom Mortals Fear can be seen walking the roads. During the times of the full moon, keep the doors shut and turn the key. But ah, the He Whom Mortals Fear is walking past your gate! He leads away those those who are sleepless this night. For those who open the door to him, there is no way back Dancing with the moonlight shadows, he is so dangerously merry. But don't you dare heeding the whisper of the maracas in the night! Among the weeps and sorceries of the night, the He Whom Mortals Fear is knocking at your door Don't you follow him, please! He is calling you, so what? Don't heed his call! Let me walk with him instead, to the Hell, Heaven and back The door fell off from it's hinges, and the lock is clattering along the floor So be it, then! Greetings, Baron! Feel free to pour yourself some rum! I am drinking with the Him Whom Mortals Fear The night, the rain, the cigar smoke, and the tracks leading far away Me and Death are going for a walk It's fine, as long as it is me and not you"
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
^^ This is an interesting bit of theology that gets played with a bit, but yeah, there has been this concept that the death of Jesus was some sort of 'payment' or 'ransom' to the devil as a way to create the new covenant.
I think the version you posted is probably one of the better spins on the idea. Some don't like the idea because it potentially suggests God isn't omnipotent, though, of course, is God was omnipotent within the bounds of some sort of logic, it works (though, many reject this idea).
Another idea is it's not God who would owe the Devil anything, but humanity that would owe God because of the actions of Adam and Eve and the Devil is either a tool to make good on the suffering, or simply allowed under the conditions of disobeying God. Chrit's sacrifice on the cross makes up for the fall of Adam (a sinless being for a sinless being). Basically, God's elaborate way of invalidating his own vow of suffering against humanity.
"It is a matter of grave importance that Fairy tales should be respected.... Whosoever alters them to suit his own opinions, whatever they are, is guilty, to our thinking, of an act of presumption, and appropriates to himself what does not belong to him." -- Charles Dickens
It's a bedrock principle of orthodox theology that God is the Good. So omnipotence is his ability to do whatever he wills. He's not irresistable pure and amoral Will.
So i was looking at the 72 kings of hell with my brother and i found something
This is Stolas he is a prince of hell
And this is a Furby
stolas just has longer legs
I hate to be a pedant, but…
actually nvm I love being a pedant. They’re not *kings.* The 72 demons of the Ars Goetia can be of various ranks of nobility, from earls to dukes and yes, kings.
Man is a most complex simple creature: see what he weaves, and how base his reasons for doing so.
Certain forms of theistic Buddhism seems to hold to some of those particular aspects.
You could observe a particular Buddha and emulate.
The Buddhas did not create the world, and are not omnipotent (because they are free from the cycle of existence).
As you live, your kammic deeds are recorded and accounted for; after death, you are reborn in one of five-to-six different lives. At the very bottom are the weakest fiends, hungry ghosts, and animals, their lives full of anger, rage, and misery. At the very top are the titans and gods, their lives full of passion, joy, and ecstasy. Sandwiched in the middle are humans, the only rebirth capable of enlightenment.
The fiends and hungry ghosts are those who have accumulated negative kamma, and once their (sometimes near-eternal) kammic debt is fulfilled, they may be reborn at zero, as a human. Titans and gods have much positive kamma, and are thus rewarded with power and wealth. But they are too self-absorbed and distracted, and thus expend all their positive kamma in their wickedness, leading to a lower rebirth.
The central tenet of Buddhism is thus that the entire system is endless, feeds on itself, and wrong. Through learning how to detach the fetters that bind, one can free the self from the cycle of varying joy and suffering and become truly free, truly eternal.
You could also call it socially liberal as the greatest charge is to reduce attachment and by extension suffering.
Unfortunately, love and justice are attachments to the world and should ultimately (in their own time) be discarded.
...
That turned out longer than I expected. And I listen to Aon a lot, okay?
Of course there is always an option of making up something on my own, but that would hardly be persuasive even for me.
And yes, the socially liberal point is not negotiable.
The one point that I could work with is the "creator of this world" thing - it is hard for me to get around the problem of evil in such a case but it can be done
Comments
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
I love that Genghis Khan assumed a man who never got drunk would be nearly impossible to find.
Granted, this was the 13th century. If I lived in the 13th century, I'd get drunk all the time, too.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
More tangentially related to Tengrism, Genghis Khan was planning to team up with France and just hand the Jerusalem:
Arghun Khan expressed the association of Tengri with imperial legitimacy and military success. The Majesty (Suu) of the Khan is a divine grace or stamp granted by Tengri to a chosen individual and through which Tengri controls the world order, in other words it is the special presence of Tengri in the person of the Great Khan. Note in this letter that the divine name 'Tengri' or 'Mongke Tengri' (Eternal Heaven) is always placed at the top of the sentence, even if the former sentence has to look like it is incomplete when the divine name is moved to top of the next sentence. In the middle of the magnified section, the sacred phrase 'Tengri-yin Kuchin' (Power of Tengri) stands completely separate from the other sentences, forming a sacred pause before being followed by the phrase 'Khagan-u Suu' (Majesty of the Khan):
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Just a little message I liked from Pope Paul VI.
He also happens to be the Pope that's pictured in my Catholic Bible.
The fancy one, that is...I think I have more than one, now...
So, question. Is there a more immature atheist argument than the iron chariots?
To clarify, this is based on the following Bible verses:
'The people of Joseph said, "The hill country is not enough for us. Yet all the Canaanites who dwell in the plain have chariots of iron, both those in Beth-shean and its villages and those in the Valley of Jezreel." Then Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, "You are a numerous people and have great power. You shall not have one allotment only, but the hill country shall be yours, for though it is a forest, you shall clear it and possess it to its farthest borders. For you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron, and though they are strong." -- Joshua 17:16-18 (ESV)
"And the Lord was with Judah, and he took possession of the B)'>hill country, but he could not drive out the inhabitants of the plain because they had C)'>chariots of iron." -- Judges 1:19 (ESV)
This is taken to mean that if the Lord is with people, they still can't overcome an opponent with iron chariots. This must be God's weakness; he's not truly omnipotent!
But if this is so clear, o wise atheists of the internet, why wasn't it mentioned as early as the Enlightment? Do you think you're the first generation of unbelievers to read the Bible? Certainly not, but you may be the first conditioned by pop culture to think of superhuman beings as superheroes, who may have powers like "invulnerability" or "omnipotence" with limiting factors like "kryptonite" or "iron chariots".
Wouldn't a more sensible reading be that the people of Joseph and Judah were never promised the plains in the first place, and the strength of chariots on plains and weakness on broken terrain was the natural cause limiting their expansion to hill country? "God was with Judah" need not denote a supernatural causal factor in military conflicts, of the sort you're used to from your fantasy strategy games.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i guess following the logic that if it works against the fae and the undead maybe it works against any and all supernatural beings?
I think he briefly reappeared on IJBM and was discovered by his weird continued belief in that.
sorry, you see enough internet crazies and they start to blur together
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Interesting discussion of aztec mythology vis a vis the new Amnesia game here. Spoilers for those who want to play the game.
☭
B̤̺͍̰͕̺̠̕u҉̖͙̝̮͕̲ͅm̟̼̦̠̹̙p͡s̹͖ ̻T́h̗̫͈̙̩r̮e̴̩̺̖̠̭̜ͅa̛̪̟͍̣͎͖̺d͉̦͠s͕̞͚̲͍ ̲̬̹̤Y̻̤̱o̭͠u̥͉̥̜͡ ̴̥̪D̳̲̳̤o̴͙̘͓̤̟̗͇n̰̗̞̼̳͙͖͢'҉͖t̳͓̣͍̗̰ ͉W̝̳͓̼͜a̗͉̳͖̘̮n͕ͅt͚̟͚ ̸̺T̜̖̖̺͎̱ͅo̭̪̰̼̥̜ ̼͍̟̝R̝̹̮̭ͅͅe̡̗͇a͍̘̤͉͘d̼̜ 
⚢
</nogeologyastronomyeducation>
^ Yours is the dwarf that will break the heavens?
Actually it was a weird troper guy called Falconfly.
I think he briefly reappeared on IJBM and was discovered by his weird continued belief in that.
Wasn't he that guy who acted like Orson Scott Card? I remember a troper acting really really enthusiastic about the U.S attacking some country.
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
How to explain All Hallows Eve to children:
"This is the night we play at witches and monsters, who can't hurt us, because on All Saints Day the Archangel Michael chases them away with his flaming sword."
Cool.
"Don't you look out of the door, for during the night He Whom Mortals Fear can be seen walking the roads.
During the times of the full moon, keep the doors shut and turn the key. But ah, the He Whom Mortals Fear is walking past your gate!
He leads away those those who are sleepless this night. For those who open the door to him, there is no way back
Dancing with the moonlight shadows, he is so dangerously merry. But don't you dare heeding the whisper of the maracas in the night!
Among the weeps and sorceries of the night, the He Whom Mortals Fear is knocking at your door
Don't you follow him, please! He is calling you, so what? Don't heed his call! Let me walk with him instead, to the Hell, Heaven and back
The door fell off from it's hinges, and the lock is clattering along the floor
So be it, then! Greetings, Baron! Feel free to pour yourself some rum!
I am drinking with the Him Whom Mortals Fear
The night, the rain, the cigar smoke, and the tracks leading far away
Me and Death are going for a walk
It's fine, as long as it is me and not you"
So I wonder just how accurate the description is
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
simplywonderfulmindlessness:
I hate to be a pedant, but…
actually nvm I love being a pedant. They’re not *kings.* The 72 demons of the Ars Goetia can be of various ranks of nobility, from earls to dukes and yes, kings.
he's clealry a fucking mutant owl
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
i get so angry sometimes i just punch plankton --Klinotaxis
Of course there is always an option of making up something on my own, but that would hardly be persuasive even for me.
And yes, the socially liberal point is not negotiable.
The one point that I could work with is the "creator of this world" thing - it is hard for me to get around the problem of evil in such a case but it can be done