Have a cold and binge-watched almost two seasons of Tokyo Vice. Didn't skip through any of it, and I normally skip through series like that.

Also, the new Dune II didn't disappoint.

I made an omelet with three pasture raised eggs, organic spinach, and cheddar cheese. Turned out great except for the pepper. My electric grinder ran out of peppercorns. :brow:

What evidence or experience would convince you that (e.g.) "the God of Abraham" at least one personal God/dess (of any religious tradition) exists? — 180 Proof

For me, the question is what evidence or experience would convince me of the nature of the universe. Ultimately I don't know if I have the capacity to comprehend that, like an ant can't comprehend the larger world beyond its capacity.

It appears to me that everything is interconnected and in a constant state of change. That indicates to me that emptiness is the nature of the universe. But I can't be certain, maybe somehow souls and such can exist.

When Moses asked for God's name, God just said "I am". Sounds very Eastern. — Fire Ologist

Not in my experience. "I am" and "I am not" both express a duality that many Eastern traditions seek to transcend. I once joined such a tradition for a short while, seeking a transcendent experience or 'revelation'. I've had what I might describe as intellectual revelations with the help of Eastern and Western philosophy and perhaps science, and shallow experiential revelations. I hope to someday have a deep experiential revelation, but it's not imperative because though I think it would be beneficial, at the end of the day it's just a transient experience.

Short answer, yes. — Fire Ologist

That very interesting because it seems to imply that your revelation was of a nature consistent with the Catholic faith, as opposed to, say, an Eastern faith which is quite different.

The OP asks what religion and why.

Long story short, if I’m reading it right you seem to be saying that you’re a Catholic because of a revelation. If that’s the case, did this revelation occur prior to becoming a Catholic?

Irreligious because spirituality and moral development are too important to be degraded by religion.

One simply cannot look at a symbol and find meaning in it, and there lost languages to prove this. The reason someone cannot decipher the meaning of a lost language is precisely because there is no meaning in the words. — NOS4A2

Oddly, this seems to show the opposite of what you intended. The symbols of an ancient language do have meaning even without knowing the language. We have no choice in recognizing the symbols as a language, for one thing, and depending on the context they could have much more meaning. For a symbol to be meaningless it would need to be completely unrecognizable as a symbol or anything else and not attract attention. Only then could it not affect us.

I think the image reveals a desire to fit into a place where there isn’t really a good fit. I do think that I’m a ‘thinker’ though, and that I’m perceived as a thinker.

I’m always pleased to see your posts because I appreciate good writing and rational thought. Kind of a rare commodity in this day and age.

Aha, my plan worked after all. :grin:

:up:

You’re supposed to offer me compliments to bolster my self-esteem.

Apparently I’m not as funny as I think I am. :sad:

Hate to think what people think of me. I have very low self-esteem and tend to think the worst.

Reconsidering, I did mistakenly think of Stormy Daniels as a prostitute.

Just bought an audiobook copy. Always been a sucker for Kafkaesque stories.

I don’t know about drugs, but we know Trump has patronized prostitutes and engaged in high-level corruption. Of course you will disagree because you know his activities were all innocent, just like you somehow know that he didn’t sexually assault E. Jean Carrol.

I think it is relevant that these sorts of accusations magically appear during such a time, even if it's over 30 years after the fact. — NOS4A2

I think a presidents past is relevant and they should be deeply scrutinized. Isn’t Hunter’s laptop relevant?

Funny I hadn't realized till this discussion how close J6 is to a coup. It was sudden, violent, and unlawful. The only question is whether the intent was to seize power. That's hard to answer because the perpetrators were a bunch of knuckle-headed Trump supporters and who knows what they were thinking.

Funnier still is NOS's claim that J6 was a Reichstag moment for the DNC, FBI, CIA, and media Nazis, when Trump's chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who he appointed, said it was such a moment for Trump and his Big Lie. Projection?

And yet there's "Be an island unto yourself / Be a lamp unto yourself". — baker

Doesn't jibe well with MAGA which demands fealty to Trump and his narratives.

Come to think of it, the mantra "Everyone is solely responsible for themselves" is what they both have in common (and the implications of this stance). — baker

Doesn't jibe well with the Buddhist concept of interdependence and no-self. The simple answer is that they're conservatives.

no laws were broken by those involved in the coup. So what? — NOS4A2

Soooooooo, a coup is a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.

The years-long investigations that you referred to were neither sudden nor violent, by your own admission they were lawful, and they were not designed to seize power from the government.

Here I thought we were talking about law. Sorry, but the declarations of the UK, France, and Russia do not represent “international law”. I suppose you should google again. — NOS4A2

You're the one who brought up "crimes against humanity," not me. What did you mean if it didn't involve other nations?

They invented the law after the fact in order to prosecute the Nazis for a crime. There were violating no law. Therefor what they did was fine, correct? — NOS4A2

Sorry, google say the Armenian genocide is a precedent to the Nüremberg and Tokyo trials. Try again?

There is nothing to confuse. They broke no law, therefor what they did was fine. Isn’t that so? — NOS4A2

You're asking me if I think slavery is fine. Clearly you are confused.

Clearly I was speaking about his crimes against humanity, which were not crimes. — NOS4A2

It demonstrates more grave stupidity to confuse international criminal laws with domestic laws.

It was also legal to own slaves — NOS4A2

It demonstrates yet more grave stupidity to confuse centuries-old laws with current laws.

It's perfect in my opinion because Hilter did indeed break the law and was convicted, for a failed coup attempt no less, and this demonstrates beyond a shadow of a doubt that enacting Godwin's Law can be a grave stupidity.

I'm unsure this is the time to enact Godwin's Law — AmadeusD

I disagree, it's the perfect time, being that Hitler was incarcerated for a failed coup.

Hitler never broke any laws either, so appealing to law is a grave stupidity. — NOS4A2

No doubt it was more "lawful power to defraud the country" that landed H in the clink.

Ah, it appears as though you're saying that you weren't sure that any laws were broken on J6, stating in the next line that the DNC, etc have "lawful power." If the DNC, FBI, CIA, and the media have lawful power to defraud the country, investigate their political opponents, and submit the entire world to their propaganda and conspiracy theories, then those actions aren't breaking any laws. But your first sentence is "I'm not sure any laws were broken," and the response is in the same order as my response, with J6 first followed by "coup".

Anyway, just to clear up any remaining misreads and for the official record, you hold that:

1) Laws were broken by rioters on J6.

2) No laws were broken in the years-long coup that you mentioned.

3) You realize that coups are unlawful.

I'm not sure any laws were broken. — NOS4A2

You must not believe there was any assault, disruption of Congress, or any of the other charges. Most of the defendants pleaded guilty, btw, even the MAGA shaman (guy with the horns) and spiritual people never lie.

The CIA, the FBI, the media, the DNC, have the lawful power to defraud the country — NOS4A2

Don't forget the GOP, with their fake electors shenanigans and whatnot. Wait, that is illegal.

It was far worse. They tried to frame the democratically-elected president for treason and waged a years-long coup based on Clinton campaign conspiracy theories that reached the highest echelons of the intelligence community and the administrative state. The riot on J6 was just their Reichstag moment. — NOS4A2

It’s clear that laws were broken on J6. What laws were broken in this coup you mention?

I don't think that you can only see stoic playacting and rank emotion. I think you're merely trolling, badly.

In the past, you've said contradictory things that indicate dishonesty. There's also the fact you're a diehard Trump supporter. I can't see how anyone who values truth could be such a diehard Trump supporter.

My defense is your apparent untrustworthiness, frankly.

I guess only Americans need to subscribe.

In the link you posted, this is what it says:

Join Fox News for access to this content
Plus get unlimited access to thousands of articles, videos and more with your free account!

Perhaps you forgot that you're a subscriber.

Maybe you're too embarrassed to admit your subscription. You should be.

Then how did you read the article that you linked to?

You have a subscription to Fox News?

Our Western notions about religion are largely tailored after Christianity, so when we look at other religions, we automatically see them through our Christianity-shaped lens. Yet this isn't necessarily how things work in other religions. — baker

Of course if people only know Christianity they’ll naturally view other religions through that lens because that’s the only model they know. I remember being in an introductory meeting at a zen center with a group of newbies years ago. One of the newcomers had a Christian background and asked about the ‘soul’ in Buddhism; asking what they called it or something. He didn’t seem to get it at all when someone tried to explain.

Regarding moral codes specifically, all religions got’m and they all basically work the same way in terms of adherence. Indeed, they generally work the same way in non-religious contexts as well, with those high in the social hierarchy enjoying immunity and those of low status suffering persecution for even minor transgressions.

I’m not a caramel fan myself, but looking up the Chomp I see that Cadbury has a wide variety of treats. The stores only stock a few around here.

Interesting about the Quakers. Until now I only suspected a connection with oatmeal.