@davitchen said in What was the last book you read?:
Hey TWS users, I'm interested in knowing what was the last book you read and what have you learn from it.
The last book I read was El colloquio de los perros by Miguel Cervantes, and I learned some spanish from it :joy:
@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:
Why are you so into the Turin Shroud, @pe7erpark3r? I agree with @sarah_the_magpie that it's definitely the most interesting piece of cloth in the world, but at the same time, it's just a piece of cloth, image of Jesus or not (does that make me sound disrespectful? - I blame it on The Stotts:
Look I for one am an intellectual, and that means I like to think. Thinking requires you to hypothesize and to say the things you believe, and to speak. Thinking is not a thing you can do alone. Ergo I'm absolutely for free-speech!
And thus I'm okay with people thinking what I think is nonsense, or saying that the things I find significant are not significant to them. If you didn't do that, especially if you didn't give me the reasons why you don't think it is very significant, we cannot advance in understanding and learning.
So let me state it clearly: thinking is offensive! Whoever is offended by what someone thinks – as long as it's not a clear/direct insult – is not a real thinker and also works on banning thinking.
So yeah, be of the opinion you are, do not hide it. It's not disrespectful to think and have your own opinion IMHO.
I mean, if it started doing shinnanegans like Dr Strange's cloak, or the bedsheets in 'Oh, Whistle, and I'll Come to You, My Lad', then I'd reappraise m opinion.
Well I find forensic evidence quite a bit more tangible than other miracles. I mean a healing for example happens once. And if you're lucky it is documented. But you cannot re-examine it. And videos can be fake, and so can images. But something that remains tangible (like the shroud) and testable is of a different nature.
What about that spear that that centurion stabbed Jesus' side with? I seem to remember there's a cool story behind that.
I might look into that :joy:
But
@pe7erpark3r said in The shroud of Turin:
However on the other side, I'm pretty sure christianity's miracles are the only ones where there is evidence that is so physically tangible
I seem to remember reading about yogis who can materialise rose petals from thin air, behind the glass of framed photos of Buddha, etc. That's pretty cool.
That's the problem with seemingly magical powers like that: You never know if they are real, you never know if it's just hearsay. You don't know the conditions of the test – if there is even a test. You don't know if you can believe the authors of the articles. It's hard to do this in a scientifically credible way. But I think it might be doable. Needs to be reproduced however, by different labs on different continents to gain some credibility. And the image needs to be created/prepared by the scientists ofc, not the monks.
Also, there was that case study of the little lad who was the reincarnation of a Nazi pilot, and remembered the crash that killed him, and all the facts checked out when they later dug up his crashed bomber. That's some solid evidence.
That is on another level, true. What does it tell us though? This is what I conclude – assuming the facts are true:
now the important question is: can we conclude safely that there is reincarnation? I don't think we can. I think the only thing we can conclude with some security (if the facts are true and other explanations are unlikely) is that a human being can receive information (memories/visions) from a soul that lived in the past. We'd need more information, we'd need some kind of excluding factor, that makes reincarnation the only explanation for this phenomenon.
Because this phenomenon is in concordance with the christian world view, in which the souls of the dead do not disappear, they are either in heaven, hell or purgatory, and can communicate with the living (as the virgin mary frequently seems to do in the past 5 centuries :joy:).
@Leoweirdo said in Are you a good friend? Why or why not?:
@User-Left yes!!!! most interesting topics were already posted in this site somewhere/sometime. Reviving them will allow the new users to post, which, eventually will make this site alive.
Now let's all be grownups here and admit, you are not just reviving interesting topics :smirk:
But I agree, this one is!
@Indrid-Cold said in Wtf is this place:
But then it got to hometime and, as usual, I was knackered, and I just thought, 'Nah'.
Maybe we'll one day write a novel about our adventures on this amazing platform :yum:
@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:
@pe7erpark3r said in The shroud of Turin:
So let me state it clearly: thinking is offensive! Whoever is offended by what someone thinks – as long as it's not a clear/direct insult – is not a real thinker and also works on banning thinking.
So yeah, be of the opinion you are, do not hide it. It's not disrespectful to think and have your own opinion IMHO.We-ell, I get where you're coming from, but I kind of disagree. My belief is that thinking is the pinnacle of either evolution or supernatural, God-style intervention (maybe both?), and as such, we shouldn't be afraid of picking fights, either on the criteria that people are underusing their consciousness or may not be conscious at all. If we don't do that, what's the point of human progress? It's why I've got such a high tolerance (while still not supporting them) of such unpopular political standpoints as pro-life lobby, the death penalty lobby, unrepentant terrorists, etc.
That rather sounds like you are agreeing with me :thinking_face:. I for one agree with everything you just said (except your position on pro-life) :yum:
Ah maybe it's this: thinking is offensive, and it must be offensive. And I think we should think, and pick those fights, and I think we should offend people who do not know what thinking is :joy:
But yeah. I agree with you about reincarnation, that it might be more about the transmission of consciousness just -- trapped in the system (in fact, I think that's the conclusion the author came to in that book about the Nazi bomber I was talking about). I keep meaning to re-read 'The Transmigration of Timothy Archer' by Philip K Dick (his own Christian take on reincarnation) - BUT THERE JUST AIN'T ENOUGH HOURS IN THE DAY BWOY.
Lol, I disagree with this being a christian take on reincarnation – albeit only having read the summary though. The christian take on reincarnation is as follows: does not happen. dead people do communicate sometimes, but they are not reborn, they stay dead :joy:
@Angry_WtfJudith said in Are you a good friend? Why or why not?:
@layla your cat is so sexy, follow me so we can share pics
And here i thought you were into dog's nudes :smirk:
Until about a year ago Ms. Merkel has been inviting everybody in: Hey come all to us, free food and housing... People are not happy with that, so now they vote AFD. They are not turning Nazi, its just the media making everyone believe this is what it is. People just vote more sanely than the media would like to have. They are loosing power...
But, still people come in and come in and there is no proper integration. It cannot be done, too many people... I personally have nothing against foreigners, but most of them (whom I've talked to) would actually prefer to live peacefully at home. That's what politics should actually be concerned with...
@Indrid-Cold about reincarnation, I can add a personal account.
My great grandfather was a hypnotist. He helped people who came back from the second world war overcome their trauma. For example he helped some people move their limbs again (Paralyzation may have psychological reasons, or may be resolved psychosymatically).
Once he hypnotized a german soldier, and in his hypnotized state this guy spoke to him, in perfect french, and claimed to be a french soldier from the first world war. The respective soldier had never learned french and could not speak french.
After this episode, and I think another similar one, my great-grandfather stopped hypnotizing people.
About the christian world view, I might add another thing: dead people cannot only communicate, they are supposed to also be able to posses people, which might – and I have no idea if there is even a single case of this ever being reported – then look like reincarnation from the outside... But yeah, lets stop here alright, I don't actually want to go into the occult anymore than this :sweat_smile:
@Willow said in Are you a good friend? Why or why not?:
@mr-h HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHA
bitch you cute f you think it only happens once per year
And for you...i dunno...you can be fine one moment and the next you are manstruating
He meant between the 31st of february and the 30th of february, he just switched the order :joy:
@Hyde said in What is it you really don't like in a partner?:
lies in a relationship are the worst
definitely agree with that!
@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:
@pe7erpark3r It's all fascinating stuff. Your great grandfather sounds like a trailblazing guy.
But ...don't you think that a lot of this occult-style stuff might be compatible with Christianity in quite a wholesome way? I've often thought that Jesus' teachings might be less about charity and fellowship for their own sake (although there is that, and it's cool), as much as about death bringing us all together in some kind of collective-unconscious-made-conscious -- exactly the stuff cases of reincarnation deal with? Or does that make me sound like a stupid, idealistic hippy?
By occult I meant the deat possessing the living. This is not something that those who live in God (died and are in Heaven) do :shrug:. But you are right, this stuffs hints at this reality too...
Jesus teachings are about the Kingdom of God, about being united in God, living a true life in God. This shows through the charity of people and through their acts, but also through their community in love. And this kingdom is here now, on earth. Heaven is in people's hearts (if He is!). God is alive and on the cross with everybody who's on the cross. It will continue after death and you'll feel it a bit more intense I guess, but what matters is this life, what matters is that you begin to live in God here, and that just never ends. Just wanted to say that.
Look, honestly, I think we need to reinspect the word friendship. Because I've seen mention too often, that it's such a bad thing that people grow apart...
I don't think it is. People also die, and you cannot have the same kind of relationship with them anymore. That doesn't mean you hadn't been friends. I think we all have to learn to treasure good memories. I do agree, it is hard if a friendship actually breaks, if you hurt each other. But if you just grow apart, then why wouldn't you celebrate your friendship as long as it lasted and be thankful for it?
Let me portray one example of a friendship. Say you, a straight boy, have a really deep friendship with a girl. And then one day, she falls in love, and a bit later gets married. It is only natural that you cannot share intimate (not talking about sex) moments with her anymore like you might have. The friendship will change. And if you move to another continent, it might grow apart completely. But that's the circle of life. And if you 2 were real friends, you keep caring, even though the relationship is no more.
But of course we all wish for that one friend – yeah, one friend would be enough – who remains, who'll stay for life, whom you'll always be able to rely on. If you find such a friend, just marry Him. Problem solved :joy:
how's the fishing cathy?
@Indrid-Cold said in The shroud of Turin:
political standpoints as pro-life lobby
This is the first time, that I've heard the term pro-life lobby. Seems a bit odd to me, for the term lobby usually denotes a group of people who try to further their own interests over other people's interests.
Most pro-lifers however seem to be worried about the innocent children. Maybe I'm missinformed, but I haven't been able to make out a single monetary advantage for them.
The pro-choice lobby on the other hand concists of people who make billions from killing the unborn, even selling body parts for research, and of the people who make billions from selling the pill (pro-choicers are for the pill, while pro-lifers are against it, since it might cause early abortions). And then of course they consist of all the people who want to be able to get rid of a baby that doesn't come at the right moment... Did you know that 80% of all abortions (at least in the west) are done because the baby is just inconvenient right now?
Also since we are talking about souls here already: a soul seems to be able to live on after death, that is without a body. If a soul needs no body, it certainly does not need a functioning brain or a heartbeat. So if a baby has a soul, then certainly from the moment of conception on...
@Matt_Aranha said in Thought for the day:
You know those "CAPTCHA" things used to check folk using apps and websites are actually real people?
You know how they always make you check a box to say "I'm not a robot"?
Oughtn't they really say "To the best of my knowledge, I am not a robot"?
Millions of us could be being forced to lie through no fault of our own, and I wouldn't want to get blacklisted from anywhere on account of someone else's laziness.
So you're saying... erm... i don't get what you're saying, except that you suspect you might be a robot :joy:
@Hyde said in Do you believe in souls?:
@ChaosKing when i was younger i saw a soul because i had a accident with my bycycle with 14 i was dying on this crash while broke my neck to pieces
I remember pain and blood
as i awoke in hospital someone stand next to me a nurse told me to never give up on me and that my time not came !
i started to tell the doctors about this nurse since i saw the other world before with my own eyes ..
but the doctors told me there was never someone with me
they said one nurse like her died 2 years ahead of me before i was there
but she was a good soul
Indeed, near death experiences are an interesting thing to note when we talk about evidence for the soul. Sadly I believe the information we have about them is mixed... Some are hallucinations, others might be real, and it's hard to tell the difference.
A very interesting experience... I wonder what I would see if I almost died...
@Indrid-Cold said in To the christians here: Do you know a rational reason not to believe in angels?:
I'm not a Christian, but can I still answer?
Sure shoot!
One of the great things about Christianity is that it deals in absolutes: the philosophy behind Jesus is that he's the only guiding factor a person's life needs. Or besides that, if you believe in a omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God, He'd be able to achieve the exact same goals as some angels, but be able to do it all on His Jack Jones, so it'd just be an unnecessary expansion of resources.
Well yeah sure. It's not like He'd create more than necessary... I mean... That could not be like Him, I mean... After all He has only created the absolutely necessary amount of 7.5 billion people so far and the absolutely necessary amount of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the known universe... Nah, on the other side of reality He's definitely also only going to do what's absolutely necessary. I mean, us + possibly billions of other intelligent species should be enough to populate heaven, right? Anything else over there would be an unnecessary expansion of resources.
And yeah, I mean why have post-men, if you can deliver the mail yourself :joy:
:thinking_face: But then again, God's savvy, in't He? His use of angels in the Bible could be because he knows us humans love an ensemble cast. IT'S LIKE AVENGERS INNIT.
He's savvy alright :joy:
@Indrid-Cold said in If you suddenly found out that your internal monologue for the last week was actually audible, how screwed would you be? What kinda effect would it have on your relation with others?:
@pe7erpark3r That's fascinating. It must be cool to have a certain detachment when you're examining your own thoughts. I usually only talk to myself in the fallout from a steaming row.
I've been thinking recently about trying out remote viewing, y'know. I even ordered a book. :man_bowing_medium_skin_tone:
What's remote viewing? Google glasses :joy:?
@Ghost-Div Are you joining the conspiracy theorists now? :yum:
This is the normal way that technology develops. First of all the ones taking the drugs tended to be the Nazis, not their scientists. For under drugs, yes even ioasca, you cannot actually work or do science :joy:
The germans had many advanced technologies back than, developed by people who were already there before the Nazi took power. I mean just take Werner von Braun or Einstein. If the Nazi's had not driven out / killed all the Jews then the german's would have had the atomic bomb first :shrug:...
What I'm saying is: it was the time for these things. Like the telephone that was developed almost at the same time by two people on two very different parts of the globe.
With VR we have another kind of thing happening. Spatial perception (3D seeing with two eyes) was already well understood by the greeks over 2000 years ago. If it wasn't already a thing, I'd have thought of this myself. I mean who wouldn't think of VR once he has seen a videogame? Okay most of the population... But I certainly would have thought of it :shrug:
The reason why VR is only becoming big right now, is the same reason as why computers only started to become big in the 90s: they were too slow to be fun :joy:
For most people the world seems to change super fast, with a new technology every month. But to me, it really isn't. Every computer still works the same way Alan Turing defined it during the 1940s. Nothing really changed. Everything just becomes faster. And now we have reached a speed, at which VR is actually fun to use.
Also artificial intelligence has only become interesting in our time through the speed of computers nowadays. And of course I mean the stupid artificial intelligence we have today, not a general intelligence which nobody knows yet how that could even work... Heck we have not the slightest idea how conscience actually works, it's the weirdest freaking thing out there!
And about that drug thing: we stopped investigating those after some eerie results in the 60s and 70s. I'm totally curious as to what we are going to discover in the next decades as this kind of research is becoming popular again. :drooling_face:
