Mankind its Downfall

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Tue Jan 15, 2019 5:31 pm

Dubious
N. What exactly is this infinitesimal part of the blame you are willing to admit? This is important stuff. We are talking about the fall of man. Honesty is the best policy.

D. Based on the Good Book - which you're so fond of quoting as if any of it were true - the human race shared in the guilt of Adam...or put another way

How Original when through it all
Generations were doomed by one man's fall.

meaning the virus of guilt has spread beyond its point of origin. We contain the virus which caused Adam to sin and therefore shareholders in that guilt...metaphorically speaking.
The cause of animal Man on earth is one thing but the question is if we have to contribute to the detrimental effects of the human condition. Do all of us including you and me have any direct responsibility for the inevitable fall of Man?

https://www.hermitary.com/solitude/weil.html
In an aphorism of "The Great Beast," Weil begins the transition from analyzing society to discovering a solution or antidote. Here her thoughts hearken to anthropological thinking circulating in the early twentieth century, which maintained that society is a project of individual relationships, a projection given life and meaning separate from those relationships, a projection to which power and thought and authority is renounced. This is not a renunciation to the fictional cooperative called "society" but to individuals as authorities, who then contrive the symbols, ploys, and coercive social structures. Anthropology called these "totems"--Weil does not use the term--which define God, religion, and the norms of society via the power of institutions to interpret and sanction.

According to Weil, the person's accession to society, the individual's renunciation of values to the collective as defined by a small group, is based on ignorance and fear, fear that without society (which is to say the state), people will collapse into crime and evil. The social and collective is seen as transcending individuals, as a supernatural entity from which nationalism and war is as normal as science, progress, and consumption. All of these evils are taking place simultaneously in a social context. The individual has probably never reflected on these issues at all, never acknowledged his or her degree of complicity in this system. But, say the apologist for the Great Beast, the individual need have no direct responsibility,
When the grand collective or the Great Beast becomes our God we sacrifice our ability for conscious attention to experience values for ourselves rather than rely on this god to provide them. When the Great Beast becomes our god and transcends individuals we sacrifice our potential to experience objective conscience so become atoms of the mindless great beast. When we sacrifice our ability to become ourselves how is our species expected to survive?

You can blame it on God and you can blame it on the Bossa nova but the problem is us including you and me. The problem is the sacrifice of our capacity for conscious attention; to be able to experience reality as it is.

“We have met the enemy and he is us” ~ Pogo

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Dubious » Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:45 am

It seems to me that "reality as it is", the way it has affirmed itself as a societal creature is precisely what Simone Weil was criticizing. There are different realities, not just one or two. Weil simply envisioned one which was more individual then collective. There is really nothing new in this.

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Wed Jan 16, 2019 9:57 pm

Dubious wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:45 am
It seems to me that "reality as it is", the way it has affirmed itself as a societal creature is precisely what Simone Weil was criticizing. There are different realities, not just one or two. Weil simply envisioned one which was more individual then collective. There is really nothing new in this.
As Plato said, we live in the world of opinions so create our own reality. But Plato also remarked that the knowledge of the reality of objective forms is the source of subjective opinions. Simone is saying that seekers of the truth must transcend belief in opinions and our attachments to them and strive through the use of conscious attention to witness the world as it is. If true it is obvious that adopting the collective mentality must by definition deny the open mind necessary to experience knowledge as defined by Plato..

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Dubious » Wed Jan 16, 2019 11:42 pm

Dubious wrote:
Wed Jan 16, 2019 2:45 am
It seems to me that "reality as it is", the way it has affirmed itself as a societal creature is precisely what Simone Weil was criticizing. There are different realities, not just one or two. Weil simply envisioned one which was more individual then collective. There is really nothing new in this.
Thee: As Plato said, we live in the world of opinions so create our own reality.
& Me - That's only because when Plato lived (a deciding factor) there were more opinions about reality than actual knowledge of it.

But Plato also remarked that the knowledge of the reality of objective forms is the source of subjective opinions.
This is circular! It's the same as saying we know there is more to know, the unknown part of which Plato described as objective forms implying a proto-paradigm of perfection which being unknowable we're forced to derive opinions from.


Whereas Plato was often brilliant this kind of twenty-five hundred year old logic has long ceased to hold up and frankly doesn't always come across as particularly insightful or useful.

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:36 am

Dubious
Whereas Plato was often brilliant this kind of twenty-five hundred year old logic has long ceased to hold up and frankly doesn't always come across as particularly insightful or useful.
This archaic quality of reason came up with the idea of forms. This means within the GOOD, there are forms which devolve into a myriad of physical expressions of These ideas know as forms

You know that a circle exists but what is the perfect expression of a circle? You will say that there is no essential idea of a circle. there are only expressions of a quality that has its existence by accident. This makes sense to you but I don't buy it. It makes far more sense to me that the idea of circle exists within the GOOD as a conscious idea which becomes an essential part of devolving Creation.

Is it more logical that Plato is no longer particularly insightful or modern Man is losing its capacity for depth of insight?

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Dubious » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:01 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:36 am
Dubious
Whereas Plato was often brilliant this kind of twenty-five hundred year old logic has long ceased to hold up and frankly doesn't always come across as particularly insightful or useful.
This archaic quality of reason came up with the idea of forms. This means within the GOOD, there are forms which devolve into a myriad of physical expressions of These ideas know as forms

You know that a circle exists but what is the perfect expression of a circle? You will say that there is no essential idea of a circle. there are only expressions of a quality that has its existence by accident. This makes sense to you but I don't buy it. It makes far more sense to me that the idea of circle exists within the GOOD as a conscious idea which becomes an essential part of devolving Creation.

Is it more logical that Plato is no longer particularly insightful or modern Man is losing its capacity for depth of insight?
Dept of insight comes from understanding nature locally and throughout the cosmos and not through any perfect circle or any of the five Platonic Solids. All this means nothing to me except what they are, what they signify. If a 2500 year old philosophy suffices for you as the ultimate in wisdom and insight so be it. If you think the ancients were so much more conversant with wisdom and all that jazz then your knowledge of history is nearly defunct. Most of these ancient thoughts offer very little in moving forward. At best they were incremental definitely not meant for all time! The contemplation of a "Perfect Circle" as a form of the GOOD just won't do regardless how much its been theorized upon and all the mystical and ludicrous conclusions derived from it.

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:43 am

Dubious wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 3:01 am
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:36 am
Dubious
Whereas Plato was often brilliant this kind of twenty-five hundred year old logic has long ceased to hold up and frankly doesn't always come across as particularly insightful or useful.
This archaic quality of reason came up with the idea of forms. This means within the GOOD, there are forms which devolve into a myriad of physical expressions of These ideas know as forms

You know that a circle exists but what is the perfect expression of a circle? You will say that there is no essential idea of a circle. there are only expressions of a quality that has its existence by accident. This makes sense to you but I don't buy it. It makes far more sense to me that the idea of circle exists within the GOOD as a conscious idea which becomes an essential part of devolving Creation.

Is it more logical that Plato is no longer particularly insightful or modern Man is losing its capacity for depth of insight?
Dept of insight comes from understanding nature locally and throughout the cosmos and not through any perfect circle or any of the five Platonic Solids. All this means nothing to me except what they are, what they signify. If a 2500 year old philosophy suffices for you as the ultimate in wisdom and insight so be it. If you think the ancients were so much more conversant with wisdom and all that jazz then your knowledge of history is nearly defunct. Most of these ancient thoughts offer very little in moving forward. At best they were incremental definitely not meant for all time! The contemplation of a "Perfect Circle" as a form of the GOOD just won't do regardless how much its been theorized upon and all the mystical and ludicrous conclusions derived from it.
Needless to say, discussing Perennial Philosophy with you would be useless. From wiki

Perennial philosophy (Latin: philosophia perennis),[note 1] also referred to as perennialism and perennial wisdom, is a perspective in modern spirituality that views each of the world's religious traditions as sharing a single, metaphysical truth or origin from which all esoteric and exoteric knowledge and doctrine has grown.

Perennialism has its roots in the Renaissance interest in neo-Platonism and its idea of The One, from which all existence emanates. Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499) sought to integrate Hermeticism with Greek and Jewish-Christian thought,[1] discerning a Prisca theologia which could be found in all ages.[2] Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–94) suggested that truth could be found in many, rather than just two, traditions. He proposed a harmony between the thought of Plato and Aristotle, and saw aspects of the Prisca theologia in Averroes (Ibn Rushd), the Quran, the Kabbalah and other sources.[3] Agostino Steuco (1497–1548) coined the term philosophia perennis.[4]

A more popular interpretation argues for universalism, the idea that all religions, underneath seeming differences, point to the same Truth. In the early 19th century the Transcendentalists propagated the idea of a metaphysical Truth and universalism, which inspired the Unitarians, who proselytized among Indian elites. Towards the end of the 19th century, the Theosophical Society further popularized universalism, not only in the western world, but also in western colonies. In the 20th century universalism was further popularized in the English-speaking world through the neo-Vedanta inspired Traditionalist School, which argues for a metaphysical, single origin of the orthodox religions, and by Aldous Huxley and his book The Perennial Philosophy, which was inspired by neo-Vedanta and the Traditionalist School.
I value universalism and well aware how and why these ideas must be hated since they challenge the supremacy of Man. But you question the wisdom of the past and I believe the past for Man is the source of wisdom. Yes I know how insulting this is. I know by experience so you don't have to tell me.

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Dubious » Thu Jan 17, 2019 10:04 am

Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:36 am
I value universalism and well aware how and why these ideas must be hated since they challenge the supremacy of Man.
Man is supreme in any event. He may be the supreme fuck-up and hurl himself into oblivion's darkest corner but what’s here to challenge him in the meantime? Assuming he adopts your ancient versions of wisdom, the supremacy of man would still be assured and still remain fucked-up in ways you can’t even imagine.
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:36 am
But you question the wisdom of the past and I believe the past for Man is the source of wisdom.
True only in the acknowledgement of its errors which surpasses the meaning of abundant. It seems wisdom was always in short supply or simply ignored...or what was assumed to be wisdom, however noble sounding, was anything but!
Nick_A wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 2:36 am
Yes I know how insulting this is.
What I find insulting to philosophy (not me personally) are your trite ideas of what it means to be wise. Wisdom for you is more a matter of sentimentality delivered in suitably prepared quotes than any actual hard thinking which the world especially now is in desperate need of.

Also, the most functional understanding of Universalism is that we're all on this planet together, no one's getting off regardless how much we may dislike each other and not a useless dictionary of mystical and Theosophical claptrap!

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am

Dubious
Man is supreme in any event. He may be the supreme fuck-up and hurl himself into oblivion's darkest corner but what’s here to challenge him in the meantime? Assuming he adopts your ancient versions of wisdom, the supremacy of man would still be assured and still remain fucked-up in ways you can’t even imagine.
How do you define supreme? The cockroach existed long before man and will be here after Man is gone. Does that mke the cockroach supreme.

Also, from a universal perspective Man’s supremacy must remain in doubt since you cannot fathom higher intelligence already existing in our universe. Again, how do you define a supreme life form?
True only in the acknowledgement of its errors which surpasses the meaning of abundant. It seems wisdom was always in short supply or simply ignored...or what was assumed to be wisdom, however noble sounding, was anything but!
Wisdom always was. Anything else cannot be wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge of the interactions of universal laws which by definition have always been. That is why wisdom begins with the understanding we lack.
What I find insulting to philosophy (not me personally) are your trite ideas of what it means to be wise. Wisdom for you is more a matter of sentimentality delivered in suitably prepared quotes than any actual hard thinking which the world especially now is in desperate need of.
Of course. What can be more insulting than the trite idea that we know nothing? There is nothing sentimental about it. It is practical knowledge. Such humility is considered weakness and ignorant so cannot be tolerated by the intelligentsia.
Also, the most functional understanding of Universalism is that we're all on this planet together, no one's getting off regardless how much we may dislike each other and not a useless dictionary of mystical and Theosophical claptrap!
No. the functional understanding of universalism is that the universe is like a giant vertical musical octave. Each note represents a level of reality. Man on earth exists at a lower level, a lower note, but with the conscious potential to evolve into a higher note: the New Man.

As a secularist you are only concerned with the note on which Plato’s cave functions. You want to argue the possibilities of Plato’s cave. The world is like this. Yet there is a minority who have felt that the higher parts of Man’s being did not originate on the earth but rather from above, a higher note, and has the potential to consciously evolve.

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Dubious » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:45 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am
How do you define supreme? The cockroach existed long before man and will be here after Man is gone. Does that mke the cockroach supreme.
I merely reponded to your easily understood and direct expression “challenging the supremacy of man”. If you meant something else by the term, it’s not up to me to speculate but for you to clarify. So make up your mind. Is man supreme or the cockroach?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am
Wisdom always was. Anything else cannot be wisdom. Wisdom is knowledge of the interactions of universal laws which by definition have always been.
That’s like saying wisdom is inherent in the universe giving it a superior moral aspect. If only the universe could laugh! Also by whose definition have “the interactions of universal laws always been? How do you know all this?
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am
Of course. What can be more insulting than the trite idea that we know nothing? There is nothing sentimental about it. It is practical knowledge. Such humility is considered weakness and ignorant so cannot be tolerated by the intelligentsia.
Then why claim wisdom? Wisdom is a form of knowing and knowing nothing as if it were a virtue or insight of the highest order puts wisdom in a very dubious position.

You’re as adept in understanding wisdom as Trump is in telling the truth.
Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 5:57 am
No. the functional understanding of universalism is that the universe is like a giant vertical musical octave. Each note represents a level of reality. Man on earth exists at a lower level, a lower note, but with the conscious potential to evolve into a higher note: the New Man.
Well, before we go all vertical, let’s first solve the problems which have the potential to destroy the supremacy of man on planet earth because if that happens the bastard won’t be supreme anywhere!

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:52 pm

Dubious
I merely reponded to your easily understood and direct expression “challenging the supremacy of man”. If you meant something else by the term, it’s not up to me to speculate but for you to clarify. So make up your mind. Is man supreme or the cockroach?
A good question. Unfortunately as a secularist you must deny the concept of the Great Chain of Being. To become open to it invites speculation as to what being is and the origin of the relativity of being in our universe. This is of course meaningless and intolerable contemplation for devout secularism so if supremacy is defined by longevity, then the cockroach is supreme. If however supremacy is defined by the quality of being in relation to the source of being, then Man is greater then the cockroach but lesser then the quality of higher life within our great universe.
That’s like saying wisdom is inherent in the universe giving it a superior moral aspect. If only the universe could laugh! Also by whose definition have “the interactions of universal laws always been? How do you know all this?
Once a person begins to become open to universal meaning and purpose, wisdom always was as explained in Proverbs 8 becomes obvious. Wisdom, sometimes known as Sophia, is speaking. Wisdom is essential knowledge so is known by nous. The question becomes how close conscious humanity can come to Sophia?

Proverbs 8
22 “The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works,[c][d]
before his deeds of old;
23 I was formed long ages ago,
at the very beginning, when the world came to be.
24 When there were no watery depths, I was given birth,
when there were no springs overflowing with water;
25 before the mountains were settled in place,
before the hills, I was given birth,
26 before he made the world or its fields
or any of the dust of the earth.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
30 Then I was constantly[e] at his side.
I was filled with delight day after day,
rejoicing always in his presence,
31 rejoicing in his whole world
and delighting in mankind.
Well, before we go all vertical, let’s first solve the problems which have the potential to destroy the supremacy of man on planet earth because if that happens the bastard won’t be supreme anywhere!
Secularism rejects the solution which minimizes the adverse effects of the human condition sustaining the eternal battles in the darkness of Plato’s cave. It denies the vertical third dimension of thought True knowledge can only become the property of a minority. They will be able to create a quality of attention like a conscious ark in their psych which will enable them to remain on top of the flood of impressions which will lead to world chaos and participation of the majority in the virtually sacred ritual of mutual self destruction.

The supremacy of Man will not be defined in the universal perspective by the quality of animal Man in Plato’s cave. The quality of the being of Man will be defined by conscious Man or Man’s origin not trapped in Plato’s cave and its relation to our Source.

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Dubious » Sat Jan 19, 2019 1:55 am

Nick_A wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:52 pm
The supremacy of Man will not be defined in the universal perspective by the quality of animal Man in Plato’s cave. The quality of the being of Man will be defined by conscious Man or Man’s origin not trapped in Plato’s cave and its relation to our Source.
Whatever you say! I'm not willing to go page after page on this subject. There are better more stimulating ways to spend one's time.

You categorize as if nothing has any affiliation with anything else making absolute distinctions in all directions. It's all so useless and stupid.

Like Herman Hesse wrote in the Der Steppenwolf, there can be many types of souls and spirits within a person not just one or two excluding all others.They don't all conform and agree with each other the problem for many being how to make them coexist. There's always the nexus between higher and lower which causes problems to greater or lesser extent in many humans. It's the strain among these different versions of feeling, believing and knowing which creates the impetus for some sort of resolution. Wisdom is its synthesis, a work in progress, relative to all the parts it seeks to combine resisting any absolute denotations which hinder its operation to reconcile; its modus, in effect, being contrary to your descriptions of it.

As mentioned a number of times, your ingrained views of what constitutes wisdom, insight, enlightenment is more akin to mental claustrophobia, to a solitary confinement of spirit than to any open spaces constituting a balanced version of human experience.

There's nothing more for me to say. I'm sure you'll keep on harping on all wretched peons trapped in Plato's cave.

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:16 am

dubious
As mentioned a number of times, your ingrained views of what constitutes wisdom, insight, enlightenment is more akin to mental claustrophobia, to a solitary confinement of spirit than to any open spaces constituting a balanced version of human experience.

There's nothing more for me to say. I'm sure you'll keep on harping on all wretched peons trapped in Plato's cave.
Yes, this is why Socrates had to be killed. He had mental claustrophobia and lacked a balanced version of the human experience. This caused him to question concepts like piety and cause the youth of Athens to open their minds. Yes this is intolerable. People cannot be encouraged to question their preconceptions created by the state. A true affront to the dignity of Man. Deserves killing.

Dubious
Posts: 2220
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Dubious » Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:55 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:16 am
dubious
As mentioned a number of times, your ingrained views of what constitutes wisdom, insight, enlightenment is more akin to mental claustrophobia, to a solitary confinement of spirit than to any open spaces constituting a balanced version of human experience.

There's nothing more for me to say. I'm sure you'll keep on harping on all wretched peons trapped in Plato's cave.
Yes, this is why Socrates had to be killed. He had mental claustrophobia and lacked a balanced version of the human experience. This caused him to question concepts like piety and cause the youth of Athens to open their minds. Yes this is intolerable. People cannot be encouraged to question their preconceptions created by the state. A true affront to the dignity of Man. Deserves killing.
No, he didn't, you do. You seem confused as to which is which and who is who. You seem to think his mind is your mind! It's positively perverted how you always default to the same pathetic closing argument using Socrates or Jesus as your last word when you no-longer have a clue how to legitimately defend your own. What a wimpy cowardly thing to do so unlike Socrates. Had he been around to reply he would have examined and argued the point made, that after all was his specialty, to examine! You're function is simply to ignore what doesn't conform and proselytize endlessly with quotes hoping to give yourself the needed authority.

Nick_A
Posts: 4063
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: Mankind its Downfall

Post by Nick_A » Sun Jan 20, 2019 12:30 am

Dubious wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:55 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Jan 19, 2019 2:16 am
dubious
As mentioned a number of times, your ingrained views of what constitutes wisdom, insight, enlightenment is more akin to mental claustrophobia, to a solitary confinement of spirit than to any open spaces constituting a balanced version of human experience.

There's nothing more for me to say. I'm sure you'll keep on harping on all wretched peons trapped in Plato's cave.
Yes, this is why Socrates had to be killed. He had mental claustrophobia and lacked a balanced version of the human experience. This caused him to question concepts like piety and cause the youth of Athens to open their minds. Yes this is intolerable. People cannot be encouraged to question their preconceptions created by the state. A true affront to the dignity of Man. Deserves killing.
No, he didn't, you do. You seem confused as to which is which and who is who. You seem to think his mind is your mind! It's positively perverted how you always default to the same pathetic closing argument using Socrates or Jesus as your last word when you no-longer have a clue how to legitimately defend your own. What a wimpy cowardly thing to do so unlike Socrates. Had he been around to reply he would have examined and argued the point made, that after all was his specialty, to examine! You're function is simply to ignore what doesn't conform and proselytize endlessly with quotes hoping to give yourself the needed authority.
From Wiki
The trial of Socrates (399 BC) was held to determine the philosopher’s guilt of two charges: asebeia (impiety) against the pantheon of Athens, and corruption of the youth of the city-state; the accusers cited two impious acts by Socrates: “failing to acknowledge the gods that the city acknowledges” and “introducing new deities”.
The death sentence of Socrates was the legal consequence of asking politico-philosophic questions of his students, from which resulted the two accusations of moral corruption and of impiety. At trial, the majority of the dikasts (male-citizen jurors chosen by lot) voted to convict him of the two charges; then, consistent with common legal practice, voted to determine his punishment, and agreed to a sentence of death to be executed by Socrates’s drinking a poisonous beverage of hemlock.
Socrates questioned the supremacy of the Gods of the Pantheon and invited students to question themselves. What could be greater proof of a mental claustrophobia and lack of a a balanced version of the human experience. I agree with Socrates and question the supremacy of the secular gods of the state and invite questioning the advocacy of blind belief or denial. It is the same thing. Anyone questioning leading to awakening must be hated by secularism as was Socrates.

There is nothing to argue. You either become open to impartial contemplation or enjoy the egoistical joys of denial.

Jesus and Socrates appealed to the open human mind and heart while you support secularism with the goal of keeping them closed. This struggle is how it is in the world. Right now unfortunately your side is winning.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Age and 5 guests