in exchange for the false unwarrantable promise of immortality the christians learn to lie by abrahamic means.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 21:28:38 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233141919196336133
Reply addressees: @Ozpin_88 @WillReturns1066
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233141222006566946
We know the Devil.
His name was Abraham
He was from Ur.
Only a Devil would claim one god, promise that which cannot be warrantied, in exchange for teaching european civilization was evil, life is suffering rather than joy, and faith, ignorance, denial, and deceit were virtues.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-27 21:18:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233139345936310272
Reply addressees: @Nationalist7346 @WillReturns1066
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1233137703778234373
RT @agent8698: @curtdoolittle Slovakia leads the way on how to deal with Islam:
https://voiceofeurope.com/2020/02/slovakia-effectively-bans-islam-from-country-forbids-mosques/
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 22:11:11 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232790239913091074
Michelle German to Curt Doolittle Hi Curt, I’ve been contemplating something that you spoke about not too long ago. That when we die, there is nothing else afterwards. And that legacy is through the bloodlines (meaning no spirit, no other side, etc). In my line of work as a death doula, one thing I’ve noticed across all belief systems (atheists included) is when the dying are in their eleventh hour, many speak about how they see (deceased) loved one(s). With the passing of my father recently, it’s quite challenging for me because it hurts like hell. When I contemplate that his spirit is with us, there seems to be comfort. But I’m not tried to delude myself. When the dying are talking about seeing their loved ones, is it the mind fabricating this? I don’t mean to state they’re delusional. I’m genuinely curious to know if the mind has some form of mechanism to shield itself, etc. Would love to hear your understanding of it. And pardon if I misunderstood anything about your previous post. ❤️
pW]ell, as I understand it, and as I think I explained, our current understanding of the universe is that it consists of information, and that we, as part of that universe, consist of information too, and that we, as information, live on as information in the minds of all others who remember us, in display, word, deed, or consequence, either intentionally or not. Do the spirits (patterns of information) of our ancestors live on in us? Of course they do. Are they conscious in any meaningful way? Only in how they affect our thoughts and behaviors. Can we sense that information after they have passed? Of course we can. Are we, at the end (having been there myself) more concerned with those others whose ‘information they will now join in common condition”? Then yes. Furthermore I would not deny myself or others that joy. Some things are true enough, because they need only be true enough for our spirits and the spirits of others past present and future. This is one of them. There is no irreciprocity there. And if we make no truth claims, no falsehood.
Michelle German Curt thank you.
Michelle German to Curt Doolittle Hi Curt, I’ve been contemplating something that you spoke about not too long ago. That when we die, there is nothing else afterwards. And that legacy is through the bloodlines (meaning no spirit, no other side, etc). In my line of work as a death doula, one thing I’ve noticed across all belief systems (atheists included) is when the dying are in their eleventh hour, many speak about how they see (deceased) loved one(s). With the passing of my father recently, it’s quite challenging for me because it hurts like hell. When I contemplate that his spirit is with us, there seems to be comfort. But I’m not tried to delude myself. When the dying are talking about seeing their loved ones, is it the mind fabricating this? I don’t mean to state they’re delusional. I’m genuinely curious to know if the mind has some form of mechanism to shield itself, etc. Would love to hear your understanding of it. And pardon if I misunderstood anything about your previous post. ❤️
pW]ell, as I understand it, and as I think I explained, our current understanding of the universe is that it consists of information, and that we, as part of that universe, consist of information too, and that we, as information, live on as information in the minds of all others who remember us, in display, word, deed, or consequence, either intentionally or not. Do the spirits (patterns of information) of our ancestors live on in us? Of course they do. Are they conscious in any meaningful way? Only in how they affect our thoughts and behaviors. Can we sense that information after they have passed? Of course we can. Are we, at the end (having been there myself) more concerned with those others whose ‘information they will now join in common condition”? Then yes. Furthermore I would not deny myself or others that joy. Some things are true enough, because they need only be true enough for our spirits and the spirits of others past present and future. This is one of them. There is no irreciprocity there. And if we make no truth claims, no falsehood.
Michelle German Curt thank you.
I think it’s interesting that our ancestors whose civilization depended on blacksmith, bronze, horse, wheel, used giants, titans, and gods that lived on mountains, and the sun. And the semitics, whose civilization of myths about the stars; And the chinese pantheon who found heaven as a sort of parallel; All chose different means of representing what we think of as gods, with western gods the most material, then eastern, then semitic.
I think it’s interesting that our ancestors whose civilization depended on blacksmith, bronze, horse, wheel, used giants, titans, and gods that lived on mountains, and the sun. And the semitics, whose civilization of myths about the stars; And the chinese pantheon who found heaven as a sort of parallel; All chose different means of representing what we think of as gods, with western gods the most material, then eastern, then semitic.
Well. The canon is rather obvious nonsense that fundamentalists cannot seem to get past. The question of Deism remains possible and Physical and Natural laws eradicate conflict. The left both uses Darwin against the religious right, and denies Darwin against the scientific right.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 18:29:25 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232734430185299970
Reply addressees: @CrusaderSvcs
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1232733581153312771
Martin Štěpán
Germanic religion, in so far it can be called that, wasn’t in any way centralized. There was no organization and no book every tribe would have. Every tribe’s version could slowly evolve and diverge, especially if they didn’t come into contact. What we have comes from Iceland written after Christianity was already in place. Even though the gods were shared and Odin does appear to be the head of the pantheon everywhere (Tacitus – central European Germanics, Geoffrey of Monmouth – Saxons) but who knows how the personalities and the stories might have differed.
Bill Joslin
fight fire with fire, and psychopomp with psychopomp.
P, in clarifying the reality of the socio-economic world, turns the wheel of gods, one more rotation back to tyr. law, born of martial culture which domesticates .. a natural response to Fenrir breaking his chains to race across the sky undoing the domestication of our animal nature.
Bill Smith
This. This is good.
Curt.
Yeah, Bill has a thing there. That’s a good thing.
Source date (UTC): 2020-02-26 12:42:00 UTC
—“It would also be cool to watch you debate theologians. Not pansy ones either but the few who are also high level scientists.”— A Friend
[I]t‘s a very simple argument: What is a theologian claiming: Good and wisdom, or True and demonstrable? What can they testify to? How can they demonstrate it? How can they warranty it? What is their incentive? What are the costs if they lie? Why is the world of science good for man, and the world of religion devolutionary for man? Why is science of man good and the actions of god evil? Why did christians jews and muslims create a dark age? Why are the churches full of our least competent people? Why did the churches fail to reform? Why did Europe abandon christianity? Why did the evangelical movement succeed and why are Americans leaving the church and dividing half secular and half evangelical? What should the church have done when theology was continuously defeated by science and proven false? Why did the church resist literacy of the people. Why did the church resist the printing of the bible in the people’s language? Why did the monastic orders arise if not in response tot he corruption of the church? Why did the church need the vikings to fight the crusades? Was christianity adopted or was it enforced in the past as islam is still enforced today? Did the christians destroy the ancient world, it’s monuments, it’s arts and letters, its academies, its accumulated knowledge, and instead of restoring roman order, aristocracy, literacy, and greek knowledge, drag Europe and the pagan peoples into dark ages? Why is the abrahamic method of deceit used by jews, christians and muslims used again by marxists, postmodernists, and feminist to repeat the same destruction of the old world to destroy the new – this time with false promise of economic and political reward instead of life after death and political reward? Why do theologians use the same arguments as the marxists, postmodernists, and feminists who destroy this world. I have never found a theological argument I cannot defeat. We know too much now. Hence (a) there currently are, and have been, many gods. (b) all gods exist as information, (c) this information exists in the minds of man, (d) this information influences individual and group behavior (e) this behavior is often good, but vulnerable to conquest – which was the purpose of the church. (f) but as a consequence it produces an addiction response when threatened, and is defended by the abrahamic method of deceit rather than just the simple statement “I have faith that if I live my life by jesus’ teachings that my life, the life of those around me, the life of my polity, and of mankind, in this world, and in the next if there is one, will be better than if I did not.” If you must argue your faith. you have none. Faith needs no argument. That is what it means to have faith.