Posts by swiftcobra15

we Christians, unlike those who don't believe,>
don't view our opponents as enemies...>

Given how deeply intertwined the Church can be with nationalism,
and how nationalism often fuels hooliganism and chaos,
I suspect the reality is actually the exact opposite of what he said.

What really strikes me is the nuance of communication—specifically, how we can be misled by word choice.

Why wouldn't that commandment be phrased in plain, modern American English as:
"Do not commit murder!" instead of just "Don't kill!"?

We have a striking example in Pius Ncube,
who suggests that an armed uprising or even
a military intervention could be the way to topple Robert Mugabe's regime.

To me, this feels like it could turn into another Iraq—another case of "liberating" a nation from a dictator—
though fortunately, Zimbabwe doesn't have the oil reserves that Iraq does.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1208...mEditorialPage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pius_Ncube

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6562815.stm

hiddenpuma75 said:I was actually inspired by a discussion in another thread to start a little philosophical deep dive regarding the nature of the internet:

(To give you some context, here is how the debate between Mr. Pesica and hiddenpuma75 unfolded, which really sparked this whole idea)

hiddenpuma75:

Just so there isn’t any misunderstanding,😁 let me be clear about my stance!

I wasn't specifically backing Mr. Pesica (nor am I siding with his opponents),

but the role of a moderator...

seems unnecessary to me.
It feels pompous,
unfair (given that the true spirit of the internet is freedom!),
and frankly, quite authoritarian and patriarchal.

I’m not attacking the individual moderator here, but rather the function itself...

So many people never stop to realize they could live perfectly fine without

guardians,
moderators,
boundaries,
visas,
the military,
or even the government (most governments act like legalized mafia syndicates that meddle in people's wallets, bedrooms, and basic liberties through laws that restrict rather than empower).

Whether it’s the legal system,
sacred texts,
the church,
organizations,

or the STATE—with all its taxes and prisons—

and all those artificial authorities...

Most people possess a sort of slave-like, authoritarian mentality. They don't even question
the meaning or origin of the power structures that keep them shackled, much like a modern version of Plato's Allegory of the Cave.

(And I’ve just listed some of the most glaring examples of that kind of subjugation above.)

******
Mr. Pesica: An anarchist! 🙂
_________________-
hiddenpuma75: quote:

Mr. Pes says:
An anarchist!
******

If you actually understood what the pioneers of anarchism wrote and proposed,

think of folks like Bakunin, Kropotkin, or Proudhon,

you would never use the word "anarchist" as a slur or in such a negative light again.

In fact, the wonder and essence of the INTERNET is a perfect manifestation of the visionary side of anarchist thought.👍

Great foundational ideas and terms, such as

magic
or anarchism,

have become infamous simply because of mass ignorance
and the ability of state apparatuses to suppress the truth.

It reminds me of how Hitler once admitted

that masses find it much easier to swallow massive lies than small truths.

(The fact that he was a political mastermind only further exposes the twisted nature of politics and the world we inhabit.)

Please understand that the greatest miracle of our age—the Internet—
is, at its core, an anarchist idea.😲

And I truly believe that in some cosmic diner at the end of the universe,😎
Proudhon, Bakunin, and Kropotkin will be happily🙂 sipping beers and celebrating how their visionary ideas finally spread.🙂

(Once our planet—this cosmic spaceship we’re all riding through the void of the universe—is organized around the principles of the internet, or the original anarchist ideal... that is when we will achieve true social harmony.)

__________________

The fact that we’re having fun here and picking up a few things along the way
is nothing more than bait to catch the fish.

It’s nice to be an optimist, but personally, I find it too exhausting. 🙂

rustywalker36 said:

Since the original text doesn't rely on Latin,
how it was translated into Latin shouldn't even matter.

The translation isn't just off; it feels intentionally misleading. ...

... "Do not commit murder!"

This specifically refers to taking a human life, not an animal's.

I can't help but wonder why this commandment was translated so poorly in our version of the Bible.
In the comments here, everyone is strictly discussing the killing of people, or even fetuses.

Why wouldn't this command (in standard American English) be phrased as:
"Do not commit murder!" instead of simply saying "Do not kill!"? 😕

we both fell —the moderators, of course—and that was that. 🙂 🎉👏🧐 👋

It goes without saying that you don't "kill" plants.

rowdyhawk10 said:I suspect you might be mistaken. 🙂 You really should have watched the entire film to understand that it’s nothing more than blatant mainstream propaganda, where biased half-truths are intentionally amplified. I guess everything in it was just taken out of context—distorted and fundamentally false. 😢 My late father and mother didn't experience Islam quite the way the filmmakers seem to be forcing it upon all Muslims—not that I've seen anyone else pushing back against it. It seems obvious from the footage that the creators intend to manufacture a potent wave of anti-Islamic propaganda in the Netherlands, and throughout Europe as well. It feels almost identical to how Hitler's propagandists stirred up the German people against the Jews. I suppose it's a shame you don't see it that way.

I don't really see the filmmakers as independent thinkers so much as they appear to be quite devout Christians. Perhaps a possible reason for this is that Christianity is currently facing a profound crisis. History seems to be repeating itself; something remarkably similar occurred leading up to the Crusades during the Middle Ages.

I suppose I agree that the Quran, if twisted through a distorted lens, can serve as a dangerous weapon in the hands of fanatics. However, I find myself disagreeing with the assessment that the citations themselves are inherently malicious. Warfare has its own logic, governed by established principles of honor and chivalry. It seems to me that you might be viewing these "vicious passages" outside of their original context—which was precisely the intention of the authors of this propaganda pamphlet and hate generator: to package them in such a way. If there is a genuine desire for dialogue, I am willing to address your questions regarding these (or any other) verses of the Quran, in good faith, to demonstrate that they do not contain the malice that certain bad actors attempt to project onto them.

No, I don't think that holds up. If the director hadn't intended to take this specific angle, they would have likely included some nuance or offered an objective perspective—perhaps even a positive example to balance things out, wouldn't they? Instead, everything is framed in such a dark, one-sided light. Because the content feels so biased and skewed, I’d say the film is fundamentally aimed at Islam and Muslims as a whole. If the filmmaker truly wanted to be objective and focus solely on terrorism, they wouldn't go out of their way to cast such broad strokes against the entire religion. To my mind, the creator's message is quite clear, and you can see it plainly in the final moments of the film if you bother to watch it.

The most distasteful and manipulative part of this movie occurs halfway through, when they show an image of a mother holding a child with a bloody head, attempting to frame it as "THE FUTURE OF ISLAM IN THE NETHERLANDS" 😲 In reality, that image depicts a specific ritual practiced by certain Shia groups where children undergo bloodletting on the day of Ashura, marking the martyrdom of Hussein (and mind you, Shias make up less than 10 percent of the Muslim population). I should also mention, since that’s how the film kicks off—that it claims the 9/11 attacks at the World Trade Center were actually a false flag operation involving suicide bombings orchestrated by the US administration (much like the anthrax attacks) specifically to shift the blame onto Islam. Best,

Sean Cruz said:Long story short, I don't think the film is attacking Islam itself, but rather a twisted interpretation of the Quran.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=516_1207432409

Jonathan Brooks8 said:I fear we’ve framed this entirely wrong—it's a fundamental misreading of the situation. You really have to ask yourself: when we talk about these "extremist Muslims" versus "moderate Muslims," are we talking about "us" or "them"?

By framing it this way—by being so incredibly specific in our division—are we essentially just washing our hands of it and leaving them to deal with "their" own problems...?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:I fear we’ve framed this entirely wrong—it's a fundamental misreading of the situation. You really have to ask yourself: when we talk about these "extremist Muslims" versus "moderate Muslims," are we talking about "us" or "them"?

By framing it this way—by being so incredibly specific in our division—are we essentially just washing our hands of it and leaving them to deal with "their" own problems...?

Sandra Wilson68 said:swiftcobra15,

Sandra Wilson68 said:swiftcobra15,

Sandra Wilson68 said:swiftcobra15,

Are you trying to divide people into good and bad?

Sandra Wilson68 said:swiftcobra15,

Sandra Wilson68 said:swiftcobra15,

Of course, we can't just wave a magic wand (or find the right words) 😁

to make it happen. Best regards! 🙂

I remember seeing a bluebird perched on my backyard fence this morning. It was such a quiet, beautiful moment to start the day. kaže:
If we keep dodging the core issue instead of facing it head-on, I fear we’re all heading straight for a disaster. It feels like we're just circling the drain.

What does it actually mean to confront a problem head-on? I remember facing a similar hurdle during my time working at a firm in Chicago, and it really changed how I view challenges.

In the hands of a predator, even a phone book becomes a menu.

I was reading an article in The Wall Street Journal about that famous short film "Sedition"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207...mEditorialPage
and I honestly can't believe such a provocative movie caused such a minimal reaction.
To put it simply, the American article argues that this film
didn't spark massive backlash because moderate Muslims see it
as an attack on extremists, while extremists actually think the film is OK
since every word in the Quran comes from God, so if it says there
is a need to kill unbelievers, they take it literally.
The author half-jokingly suggests that with just a few tweaks, the film could almost be used as promotional material for Islamist terrorists.

Then, I stumble upon a Canadian website reporting something completely different:

http://canadian.irib.ir/index.php?opt...6206&Itemid=39

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1207...mEditorialPage

http://www.themoviefitna.com/

Now I'm genuinely confused about who is telling more of the truth here, and why.
You can watch the clip yourself and decide what you think.
The message is pretty clear-cut.

Sandra Wilson68 said:swiftcobra15,

You’ve got great ideas. They just have one flaw: they’re totally useless in the real world.

Of course they're applicable. It all comes down to us. The only question is whether we actually want to or not. Basically, we will—but only once we realize it's in our own best interest. Once we wake up to the fact that we aren't living by the truth, but by a lie, and that living a lie is a losing game. I mean, if bad ideas that hurt us are easy enough to pull off, why wouldn't good ones be just as doable?

If the whole world is an illusion and we're unhappy with it, then we should either

The world isn't an illusion; it's our perception of it—our explanation and understanding of reality. That's exactly what philosophy is for: tearing those illusions apart.

a) change the illusory world or

You aren't expressing yourself right. No, you don't "change the illusory world"; you change the illusion we have about the world to reflect the actual truth.

b) exit that world (free ourselves from it)

Wrong again. You don't "exit the world"—there's nowhere else to go—you exit the illusion of the world. Though, even saying "exit the illusion" is wrong, because we aren't inside the illusion; the illusion is inside us. It needs to leave us. For example, the idea that someone is American, or British, or Chinese, or that someone is a Christian, a Jew, or a Muslim... none of us actually live *inside* those labels. Those labels live inside us. So, we don't exit them; they have to exit us.

You aren't offering a path or a way to do either; you're just telling us to accept your "truth."

Again, you're missing the point. There is no my or your truth. There is only TRUTH, without all this mine vs. yours nonsense. That distinction only applies to illusions. You can say something is mine or yours, but not when it comes to reality.

For instance, if I claimed to be strictly defined by my nationality or religion, that would be my illusion. If you claimed the same for your background, that would be your illusion. But truth is something entirely different, and it applies to both of us equally. The truth is that you and I are simply conscious, living beings (substance) using our physical and mental abilities to build bodies that are fundamentally the same. A body isn't American, or British, or Christian, or anything else—it's just living, conscious matter.

And yeah, I am offering a solution to turn things around from bad to better. It's simple: everyone needs to break free from their own illusions.

Later.

Sandra Wilson68 said:People’s biggest delusion is thinking the material universe exists as something separate, just like they think a human being exists. The truth is way different. It's just that exists nothing but matter—one single substance that makes up everything from the cosmos to you.

That first massive lie is the root of every other mistake we make, including believing in the state as a political entity or needing religion as some kind of "spiritual" fix.

Look, if you realize that only matter exists—and that this matter is actually alive and conscious—everything changes. This stuff has its own physical and mental drive to move, perceive, feel, remember, and think. From its own particles, it built complex systems (material forms) to ensure its own survival. Basically, it creates ways to dodge evil and achieve good. It’s obvious that all these natural systems—atoms, stars, galaxies, cells, plants, animals, and humans—are strictly economic structures and communities. All those global political states and religious institutions? They are nothing more than parasites clinging to these human economic communities, sucking them dry. Their whole existence is just a byproduct of people being wrong about what really exists, how it exists, and why it exists. We see it everywhere: people still cling to the idea that, say, Americans, Germans, Brits, Chinese, (I’m keeping them lowercase because that crap doesn't deserve a capital letter) Protestants, Catholics, Muslims, etc., exist as distinct things. That’s a delusion so stupid it borders on insanity. And that insanity is what fuels the worst evils in the world, which are just physical manifestations of one massive madness called dogma, or delusion, or simply ignorance.

The only cure is knowledge regarding what truly exists, and how and why.

You have some brilliant ideas. They just have one flaw: they're completely... They just don't apply here.

It feels like we're constantly trying to reshape an illusionary world. I remember once trying to fix a broken vintage clock in Chicago, thinking if I just adjusted one tiny gear, everything would run perfectly—but sometimes the reality is much more stubborn than our perceptions. I am sorry, but I don't quite understand what you mean by "ili." Could you please clarify your request?
To finally step away from that world—to truly find liberation from it.

Edward Flores4 said:Even if you *did* say that... and even if I wasn't just misinterpreting you... honestly, it would still be true. Plenty of animals utilize their own forms of technology. That’s actually one of the main reasons we group certain species into special categories, even when they don't share any biological similarities with us. Opportunists in the animal kingdom often lean on tools, even if those tools are undeniably more primitive than anything we've built. Take an octopus, for example—it might pluck a specifically shaped stone from the seabed just to crack open a shell. That right there? That’s the application of primitive technology. If that octopus could just tuck that stone into a little pouch, it probably would—saving itself the hassle of diving down every single day to hunt for the perfect rock. In fact, that lack of storage is really the only thing stopping them from "discovering" how to shape natural materials to make themselves even more efficient. At the end of the day, even our high-tech silicon chips are just natural materials that have been processed in an incredibly specific, complex way... but whether it's a microchip or a pebble used to smash a shell, both were essentially "mined" out of the earth with a shovel.

They are the direct byproduct of human intellect and science.

I’d like to pose this question one more time. Why do we operate under the assumption that Life itself must have a definitive starting point?

An individual living being has a "beginning"—which is somewhat arbitrary since they are produced by another living thing.

The idea of a singular "Beginning of Life" is just a mental construct that
simply lacks any reliable foundation.

The fundamental relationship between life and death is this: everything that begins must eventually end.

Conversely, if something never had a beginning, it cannot have an end.

Therefore, if life had a start, it will have a finish. If it never started, it can never end.

As simple as that!