Bitcoin Forum
July 19, 2018, 08:24:35 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.16.1  [Torrent]. (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 ... 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 [197] 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 »
  Print  
Author Topic: Martin Armstrong Discussion  (Read 572062 times)
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1002


View Profile
October 07, 2017, 03:08:49 AM
#3921

Im fairly certain nash instrumented btc.

No he was just the excuse.

The truth about who created Bitcoin and why.  <---- More details have been posted this thread. Re-read it.

Remember I told you (@sidhujag) I was not interested in being involved with Danís EOS.

Here are the gory details and that is an important read because it also provides some relevance to Bitcoin and our ecosystem in general.








Quote
"Our Major Target Resistance for this year stands at 25,648. The critical support is shaping up now at 20,000. There is a serious risk of a very critical Vertical Market move that can create the most awesome trade in a generation beyond most people's wildest imagination. We will focus on this at the WEC."

Are we looking at correction in DOW and than sky rocket up after weak hands taken out?   Huh

He is saying that if we end the year above that 25,648, then the bull market headed towards 38,000+ is underway. Whereas, we still have the possibility of a SLINGSHOT dive down first, and that critical support is at 20,000. If we were to break below 20,000, then his SLINGSHOT theory would be void and we would be in a bear market.

So what he is saying is the we are waiting either for the SLINGSHOT dive down to maybe as low as 20,000, else we will simply just start rising without a dive down.

But the timing can delay into next year.

More complete explanations are given to subscribers.

Armstrong is very bullish on DJIA over next few years. Should go to 38,000+ as there will be an international capital stampede out of Europe into the US dollar. The Catalonia separatist movement election may be the catalyst. We are still waiting for the catalyst in Europe. A strong wind could blow over the entire banking system in Europe. The ECB is bankrupt.

Long-term LEAPs on the DJIA would be a ďno brainerĒ if we get that SLINGSHOT dive down. Presuming you do not fear capital controls in the USA that steal your investments.
Idea was to work on yours not eos. He chose eos because he had 200 million reasons for it. Chasing paper i guess was his decision.

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
1531988675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531988675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531988675
Reply with quote  #2

1531988675
Report to moderator
1531988675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531988675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531988675
Reply with quote  #2

1531988675
Report to moderator
1531988675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531988675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531988675
Reply with quote  #2

1531988675
Report to moderator
fair bitcoin games | pvp - pve - solo pve games | faucet |
Free satoshi code btcoon500
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1531988675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531988675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531988675
Reply with quote  #2

1531988675
Report to moderator
1531988675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531988675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531988675
Reply with quote  #2

1531988675
Report to moderator
1531988675
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1531988675

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1531988675
Reply with quote  #2

1531988675
Report to moderator
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 07, 2017, 04:44:11 PM
#3922

I predict ESR will never approve this comment. And thus he will deny the truth about the Civil War. Heís been fed a lot of lies by the revisionist history sources provided to him by the Zionists who organized the Civil War to break down the States Rights and individual sovereignty.

Itís sad to see the rationality/objectivity of a man with a very high IQ be destroyed by propaganda which he canít distinguish from facts.

Quote from: Eric S. Raymond
The South revolted to defend the indefensible of chattel slavery

[Ö]

Robert E. Lee Ö his opposition to Ö black freedmen

Incorrect.

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/politics/north-v-south-revising-history/

https://www.armstrongeconomics.com/international-news/rule-of-law/do-states-in-usa-have-a-right-to-leave/

Armstrong has original copies of the historical newspapers and other documents and artifacts going back 1000s of years.

Surprisingly ESR did publish the comment and I replied challenging him to maintain his CREDibility:

Quote from: Eric S. Raymond
We have standards here. In future, if youíre going to post links to a tendentious fake-history site, please make sure itís at least coherent and more than semi-literate first. That wasnít even competent propaganda.

Thank you for publishing the counter argument. But itís not a sufficient ongoing condition to continue to rely on you to do that becauseÖ

Itís a shame for a man of your apparent intellect to be guided by ideological biases instead of objective sources. Itís impossible to get objective information on your walled garden Mr. ďopenĒ source. Weíll scrape your public data to a blockchain and open discourse to everyone who has something to say and hopefully crowd source more data. Curation can be decentralized, so your audience may choose you as the curator of their filters if they so desire.

Honestly I donít currently have an objective source for the necessary data to know whether most of the Confederate soldiers were plantation owners. Do you?

And I donít trust revisionists sources controlled by the Zionist media of present or yore.

I was born in New Orleans so Iím offended by your accusations of Southerners, although my recollection growing up thereís some truth to the romanticism theme. From my perspective, the overriding theme is Statesí rights, we had a culture that we wanted to protect and we viewed ourselves as culturally and ideologically distinct from ďcity slickersĒ who we perceived to have sold their soul for bright lights, money, and hedonism amongst other corrupted values. We felt others were interfering and trying to eradicate our culture. I agree that the ďblacks are inferiorĒ attitude was still a pervasive (but rapidly waning) part of that culture as late as the 1960s and early 1970s, yet even my grandmother who had that attitude was vindicated when a black man followed my female cousin home from the French Quarter to Metairie and mugged her on our front porch, which I was watching through the window. Because of my liberal mother and genius IQ stepfather, I attended all black public schools in Baton Rouge in the poorest neighborhoods wherein my sister and I were the only two white students in the entire elementary school. That forced integration stunted my education, because all they did was throw spit balls and kick the (afair mostly white) teachers out of the classrooms.

Secondly, when Armstrong has been challenged in the past, he has been able to produce original copies of artifacts because he claims to have spent an inflation-adjusted ~$billion on collecting historical artifacts. For example, he claims to have spent $10 million in the 1970s and 1980s collecting Roman era silver coinage so that he was able to construct the first and only accurate chart of the debasement of silver during the Western Roman empire.

I want to know the truth about this and my mind is open, but Iím not getting the necessary raw data from your exposition. I presume we both agree that claim is not proof. Where is your data? And how do I know your data hasnít been curated and inculcated by the Zionists? (Zionists != all Jews)




Iím starting to realize why I prefer the self-deprecating, badass Linus Torvalds to the politically correct hack ESR:

Are you a Libertarian or a minanarchist? Why are you even promulgating these questions? We do not ask the free market questions, we observe outcomes. Politicization is ďOh he is so vile, but I must defend him because of my superior virtuesĒ masturbation in front of power vacuums.

And by pandering to the popular notion that the guy is vile, he obscures that it is purely a free market outcome that women demand vile men. He enables continued ignorance while protecting himself by couching his essay in some politically correct speech.

Itís similar to what the Trilema dude wrote about the Core devs. Politicizing instead of focusing on doing important work or analysis.

Making sure he jumps on the side of political correctness by declaring the man vile whilst simultaneously declaring himself virtuous yet recognizing that its just human nature both from the standpoint of the way women and men operate in certain settings of power structure and especially in a decadent society which fosters such. Unnecessary moralizing pandering to the tyranny of the mob power vacuum while judging a man for being the sort of jerk women want (i.e. that the free market of human nature demands) yet placing himself on a quicksand pedestal of political correctness, whilst implicitly encouraging the decadence by pandering to political correctness.

James A. Donald explained more scientifically without the leftist bullshit:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/chicks-dig-jerks/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/what-women-want/
https://blog.jim.com/culture/in-defense-of-hugh-hefner/

The entire point is that if we succumb to peer pressure and appeasing the majority, then we lose our own objectivity and relevance.

I do not want ESR as a role model having to constantly worry about his pandering and how he (mis)judges even history due to his self-important ideological bias:

https://blog.jim.com/culture/role-models/



(In due respect, some of Ericís code such as gif and gpsd apparently widely used)

P.S. on politics vs. research:

Btw, not that it changes the point of what other people perceive to be offensive to their own politics, my pursuit is not politics because I am not trying to tell anyone else what to do or leverage the collective to do so. I am doing research on (e.g. WTC, Zionists, theology, etc) and challenging others to also do so.

I am not pandering to any constituency.
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 07, 2017, 06:04:08 PM
#3923

Quote from: anonymous
Quote from: Hyperme.sh
Quote from: anonymous
Quote from: Hyperme.sh
How did you determine the shepherd is not leading me? And if the shepherdís guidance is not helpful then what is the use of a shepherd.

Your logic is all discombobulated and internally inconsistent.

I have not made such a determination nor could I.

I don't it is inconsistent but I suppose that would depend on what fundamental assumptions one has assumed to be true and are testing it against.

So you attribute none of anyoneís accomplishments to their own. So why do anything? Just do what ever because the shepherd is in control of all us sheep.

As I said, your logic is internally inconsistent.

Because we won't be sheep forever. We can make incremental progress and work towards elevating ourselves into something more then sheep. The full scope of that transition, however, from homo sapian into something more divine is far beyond current human ability, understanding, and wisdom.

The shepherd does not control the sheep. He simply sets broad guidelines and rules to keep them safe, healthy. He often fails as the sheep kill them selves in large numbers for stupid reasons.

The error is not the belief that we can strive towards becoming less sheep like. We can and should. The error is in thinking that turning oneself into an alpha sheep somehow changes ones fundamentally sheeplike nature it does not. Worse yet is rejecting the shepherd entirely and wandering through the forest pretending to be something other then a sheep. It's entirely possible to be an alpha sheep this way and find the very best grass to eat while being entirely unaware of the underlying peril of the situation.

A sheep will always fail the prisoners dilemma or look for ways to change the rules by introducing outside variables.  Alpha sheep will always fail the prisoners dilemma. That's a very simple way of confirming we are sheep not and not something better. Sheep striving to improve ourselves yes but sheep nevertheless.

The simple reality is that there is no FREEDOM, except under the full control of the 10 Commandments and strict Biblical Principles
unless each and every individual can exercise self-control, spiritual discipline and accountability before, under and in allegiance to GOD Almighty, true civic Freedom along the lines of "live and let live" will never be and can never be.

As Iíve observed you for a long time now (and vice versa) and tried my best to develop a mutual understanding with you, Iíve reached the exasperating conclusion that youíre displaying the confirmation bias that you desire to fit everything into your rigid, dogmatic, judgemental, highly idealistic (and unrealistic) belief system which lacks sufficient degrees-of-freedom to allow you to understand and fully appreciate others ó your belief that thereís some absolute truth, God, or morals. You might think vice versa that Iím favoring a confirmation bias for Nihilism or decentralization.

Ideologues want to control others, even if itís by proxy through their God. They believe the virtues of their ideology justify their right to judge and conquer others. For example those who believe they must conquer Islam to liberate the females. Or those who believe the North was righteous in violating the sovereignty of States and conquering the South to liberate the slaves.

Ideology spawns zealots, collectivized oppression, and in general fights against the universal trend towards maximum entropy. Itís far too simplistic (and thus incomplete) to conclude that the fight for egalitarianism and equal rights, is required for maximizing universal entropy. Nature is multifarious and competitive.

The most dogmatic and rigid, such as the Jews and the Socialists, are prone to leading themselves right into megadeath over and over. And their ideological bent seems to incubate disrespect for diversity (the antithesis of egalitarianism) and eventually becoming justification for what the Zionists are doing now.

Ideologues are incredibly dangerous shepherds who lead their flock over the cliff (e.g. the Holocaust), and spawn zealot sociopaths like George Soros[1].

I reject that notion of an absolute truth as unprovable and necessarily untestable, because of the necessity of relativity (of even information) as I have explained numerous times. My belief is not Nihilism.

I believe weíre all cogs in a greater wheel that canít be observed because our existence is predicated on the quantization of time, as I have explained numerous times (that omniscience is impossible because spacetime is not collapsed into an undifferentiated past and future light cones).

We have free will in some partial order perspective sense, but not in an unobservable total ordering perspective. Why even mention what canít be observed!

The sheep donít entertain all the information nor attempt to assimilate as much information as is possible. Therefore, Iím not a sheep.

You have some inborn (or mother instilled) resentment against the true nature of males and especially alphamales, so thus presumably I will be your antagonist.

I donít reject ethical values, but for example your extreme dogmatic stance and resentment of the true nature of males, is a rejection of the commandment to not idol anything. Youíre idolizing your belief system!

Whereas, Iím trying to not have a belief system that I canít observe. Iím not trying to tell anyone else what to believe at the existential philosophy level. I try to understand nature and the reasons that we have evolved to have the natural characteristics that we have and try to contemplate which patterns of culture have been successful. I am information based, not ideologically biased (or at least trying not to be).

Yet Iím not idolizing myself. I know that no matter which choices I make in life, there will be ramifications which are not the ones I wanted or even couldnít anticipate. Thereís no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses. Yes there are consequences, but thereís no absolute truth by which to measure those outcomes consistent throughout (all space and time and metaphysical dimensions).

After all, Iím just a simpleton Southerner boy who wants to play sports and fiddle with technology until I die. I wish the world would just let me play.

The abhorrent evil of 9/11 is a phenomenon which is beyond my grasp to directly confront. Itís not analogous to a boxing match or a basketball game. The opposition and I canít settle our differences directly in a tournament. Itís a battle of social organization and over the beliefs of others. The only rational way for me to confront this evil is to apply technological efforts attempting to decentralize the control systems of social organization. I donít desire to engage them on the battlefield of politics. Itís clear that politics and control over others (even for sheepdog ideological reasons) is misdirected away from the only universal truth: the maximization of universal entropy. Entropy is a measure of uncertainty. While itís true that breaking down local barriers to global interaction, can increase the level of uncertainty in the possibilities, itís too simplistic to conclude that must necessarily take the form of an overlord world government. Itís also too simplistic to conclude that it must necessarily take the form of the 10 Commandments or some absolute truth morality. For example, the commandment that we shall not bear false witness against another. Since thereís no observable total order, itís quite implausible to be sure that anything we do is absolutely true. I can actually give you a very realistic example where one makes a fool of themselves because they were lacking complete information but didnít know it. Yet this isnít Nihilism because I believe partial orders do allow observable consequences and the game weíre playing called life, is contemporaneous and reflective. What did you do today or last year which is dear to your heart or mind?

It seems to me that the less one attempts to bear witness or judge, and the more one attempts to facilitate uncertainty, the more well directed one is w.r.t. to the only known universal truth.

Perhaps one reaches peace when they realize they donít have to get anyone elseís approval for their beliefs, when one is comfortable in their own philosophy even if no one else pats them on the back or joins with them.

[1] George Soros, the man whose rationale is it was okay that he participated in slaughtering his fellow Jews because if not him somebody else would have done it any way. Soros is presumably funding SJWs because he justifies any means to the ends of destroying tribalism, but per Armstrongís explanation in my prior post in this thread, the cycle of return to separatism and local sovereignty is unavoidable. The police brutality in Catalonia notwithstanding. The polls in Catalonia employed decentralization to subvert the Spanish Federal police thugs.

Some will escape being put to death, because they saw the signs prior and fled. According to the book, those people will be sustained by the entity in some manner and will be the ones who endure till the end.

Itís not clear in the Bible if those who are raptured are not put to death or whatever. Rather the rapture applies to the personís soul not their earthly carcass.

The Bible says those who refuse the Mark 666 will be put to death, but they can still be raptured.

As Dork says, the Bible says that in heaven (and on earth after Jesus returns with those who were raptured), there is no use for money. So thus your proclamation that Bitcoin is useful for those who survive the reign of the Anti-Christ is a nonsensical theological theory.


My perspective is the threat from the Zionists is much nearer-term and I donít base that on the Bible but rather the expert videos by scholars that exquisitely lay out the evidence that Mossad slaughtered 2700+ Americans on 9/11. The Zionists are collapsing the globally economy with a global monetary reset coming within several years.

They will be ratcheting up their use of laws to force everyone into the corrals, but entirely turning off Bitcoin would be antithetical to the reasons they built Bitcoin in the first place.



9/11 by 19 incompetents and Bitcoin by a lone Japanese hacker are posited to be examples of the amazing (almost magical to the masses) feats the Anti-Christ will do which the people will greatly admire. And yes, the people are admiring 9/11 as the example of what 19 Arabs with box cutters who couldnít even fly airplanes well enough in flight school, were able to accomplish ó i.e. the sheep are hoodwinked by the Anti-Christ as predicted in the Bible.

ďAny sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.Ē ó Arthur C. Clarke
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 07, 2017, 10:12:24 PM
#3924

A bull market in all private assets is well underway, yet people mistake this for a bubble:

The Bull Market Ė This time It Really Is Different

This current Bull Market has indeed been the most hated in history. Typically one expects complete euphoria as new highs are made. However, this bull market is really different this time. This rally is by no means the product of euphoria. While the majority of analysts have been calling for a crash since 2010 and every new high was supposed to be the last [Ö]

[Ö]

Rare coins, art, and antiques have soared around the globe. Add to all this the craze, we have  cryptocurrencies and BitCoin going nuts. Yet the entire bull market of the Roaring í20s was 97 months. We passed that mark in April 2017. This is also the longest bullish trend suggesting there is something else afoot.

So exactly what is going on? Do we really have a bull market in EVERYTHING? Well the answer is yes and no. If we look closely at the high-end property market, much of the sales are for CASH Ė not leveraged. This too is highly unusual. Historically, such asset bubbles have been funded by banks. Yet the bitter experience has shown that debt-funded asset bubble implode taking the banks with them. The assets collapse in value because the banks need cash with withdrawals. The leverage magnifies the cash on the way up, and on the way down, assets crash to rebalance against the actual supply of cash.

The bull market in everything is really a global realization that government is in trouble. We are looking at money getting out of banks and government to REDUCE the risk of government as we move forward.  So this time it is different. Normally, we have one sector at a time in a bubble, commodities, stocks, real estate, tangible assets. We normally do not see a bull market in everything unless there is a wave of movement away from government.
sidhujag
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1876
Merit: 1002


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 12:00:36 AM
#3925

A bull market in all private assets is well underway, yet people mistake this for a bubble:

The Bull Market Ė This time It Really Is Different

This current Bull Market has indeed been the most hated in history. Typically one expects complete euphoria as new highs are made. However, this bull market is really different this time. This rally is by no means the product of euphoria. While the majority of analysts have been calling for a crash since 2010 and every new high was supposed to be the last [Ö]

[Ö]

Rare coins, art, and antiques have soared around the globe. Add to all this the craze, we have  cryptocurrencies and BitCoin going nuts. Yet the entire bull market of the Roaring í20s was 97 months. We passed that mark in April 2017. This is also the longest bullish trend suggesting there is something else afoot.

So exactly what is going on? Do we really have a bull market in EVERYTHING? Well the answer is yes and no. If we look closely at the high-end property market, much of the sales are for CASH Ė not leveraged. This too is highly unusual. Historically, such asset bubbles have been funded by banks. Yet the bitter experience has shown that debt-funded asset bubble implode taking the banks with them. The assets collapse in value because the banks need cash with withdrawals. The leverage magnifies the cash on the way up, and on the way down, assets crash to rebalance against the actual supply of cash.

The bull market in everything is really a global realization that government is in trouble. We are looking at money getting out of banks and government to REDUCE the risk of government as we move forward.  So this time it is different. Normally, we have one sector at a time in a bubble, commodities, stocks, real estate, tangible assets. We normally do not see a bull market in everything unless there is a wave of movement away from government.
I think its time to sell.. crypto is a safe haven

★☆★Syscoin - Decentralized Marketplace and Multisig Platform
Pay with Bitcoin, ZCash and many more
For more visit Syscoin.org  ★☆★
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 08, 2017, 02:32:19 AM
#3926


As Iíve observed you for a long time now (and vice versa) and tried my best to develop a mutual understanding with you, Iíve reached the exasperating conclusion that youíre displaying the confirmation bias that you desire to fit everything into your rigid, dogmatic, judgemental, highly idealistic (and unrealistic) belief system which lacks sufficient degrees-of-freedom to allow you to understand and fully appreciate others ó your belief that thereís some absolute truth, God, or morals. You might think vice versa that Iím favoring a confirmation bias for Nihilism or decentralization.
...
I reject that notion of an absolute truth as unprovable and necessarily untestable, because of the necessity of relativity (of even information) as I have explained numerous times. My belief is not Nihilism.
...
I have explained numerous times (that omniscience is impossible because spacetime is not collapsed into an undifferentiated past and future light cones).
...
Thereís no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses. Yes there are consequences, but thereís no absolute truth by which to measure those outcomes consistent throughout (all space and time and metaphysical dimensions).
...
The sheep donít entertain all the information nor attempt to assimilate as much information as is possible. Therefore, Iím not a sheep.

I... try to contemplate which patterns of culture have been successful. I am information based, not ideologically biased
...
This isnít Nihilism because I believe partial orders do allow observable consequences

Perhaps one reaches peace when they realize they donít have to get anyone elseís approval for their beliefs, when one is comfortable in their own philosophy even if no one else pats them on the back or joins with them.

Hello Hyperme.sh since you have decided to take our friendly banter public I think some background information would help readers understand what we are talking about.

The above private message exchange was sparked by my post of Ben Hunt's essay titled.

Sheep Logic - This Is The Age Of The High-Functioning Sociopath
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1373864.msg22652426#msg22652426

I actually have little desire for theological debate. So I will instead post some friendly queries.

You report the following beliefs.

1) You reject that notion of an absolute truth. You also categorically state that omniscience is impossible.

2) You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one that each person chooses.

3) Your argue that your belief that actions have observable consequences make your beliefs a separate entity from nihilism.

These are the questions I have for you given your stated positions.

Question 1: God according to all of the major monotheistic religions is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), and had an an eternal and necessary existence. As you have chosen apriori to believe that there is no absolute truth and that omniscience is impossible how can you reconcile these views with a belief in God, Jesus, or religion of any kind?

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil? Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 06:09:40 AM
#3927

I think its time to sell.. crypto is a safe haven

Lol.



Question 1: God according to all of the major monotheistic religions is omniscience (all-knowing), omnipotence(unlimited power), omnipresence (present everywhere), and had an an eternal and necessary existence. As you have chosen apriori to believe that there is no absolute truth and that omniscience is impossible how can you reconcile these views with a belief in God, Jesus, or religion of any kind?

If only God is omnipresent, then I have no way to observe or comprehend Godís existence. At best, due the Shannon-Nyquist Sampling Theorem, I would at best only have aliasing error. The most I can have is a belief.

So in my closet (Matthew 6:5) I might choose to console with my belief, but I wouldnít feel empowered with sufficient knowledge to tell someone else (or judge) what they MUST believe in order to achieve something. I might as well be speaking out of my ass, rather than make up stupid reasons to justify why my advice doesnít work for everyone.

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

Iím delighted you did not make the mistake of using the word Ďbeliefí in this second question, because youíre correct that I argued logically for this perspective based on my understanding of the reality of the Universe.

I explained that thereĎs no absolute (total ordering) ends, thus thereís no valid justification of means. Moreover, I argued that ideological (i.e. the feigning of absolute truth) ends are foolish.

I understand youíre pointing out that without a moral compass, you believe that civilization will lose a common purpose and that many ills will plague society, such as promiscuity and lack of k selection, or the use of ransomware in order to become wealthy. But the free market deals with that. Societies perish and others thrive. Diversity (greater uncertainty thus higher entropy) provides for resilience. It occurs to me that an absolute truth or morality would not be antifragile, because there would be no alternatives adapted to differing scenarios.

Thus I think ideology and morality are actually the most amoral.

I might love my neighbor, because I like the observable outcomes or my private belief in a God, not because itís supposed to be some absolute truth about morally correctness which everyone must follow in order for it to be successful.

I personally like the do unto others as you would want them to do to you. This is how I feel about a society that cares for each other, and I think this works only on the local level though not at large scale collectivism. At large scale, there is massive defection the cheaters escape the Dunbar limit of a tribeís ability to efficiently squelch defection. For example, although I might want to offer free health care to every person, the scammers would find a way to extract profits from my generosity creating a non-meritorious misallocation of capital which can make the outcome uncompetitive.

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil?

Someone was doing some ideological shit and justifying the means.

Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Nothing morally wrong with stealing if its not in support of some lie about absolute truth. However, you might consider if that is the society that you want to live in and whether there even exists a society that wants to accept you. Letís make sure we have an agreed definition of morals. Morals that are an absolute truth or morals that are just accepted norm of a particular society but do not have the ideological power of being claimed to be absolute truth.

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

Afaik, Nihilists do not reject ideological (absolute truth or forced imposition of beliefs) pursuits as amoral and differentiate that activity from any other activity w.r.t. to the issue of morality. So I guess you can conclude thereís two absolute truths Iíve arrived at:

1. Universal trend towards maximum entropy.
2. Amorality of absolute truths (other than these two objective ones).

My brief sketch of nihilism is that it is devoid of preference for purpose and meaning. I have not rejected the ability of the individual to choose a meaning or purpose. Iíve only rejected their nonsense of trying to tell me to involve me in their meaning if I do not wish to be, even passing judgement on me and what will happen to me, and thus slippery sliding into being forced to take control over me.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.

Obviously Iím not arguing that rules, norms, or laws are entirely unnecessary, nor am I arguing that thereís no meaning of existence.

Rather Iím stating that thereís no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). Iím arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, theyíre likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. Iím confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasnít really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

Itís Just Time.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 08, 2017, 08:16:45 AM
#3928

Question 2: You argue that there is no right answer about what to do in life, except the one each person chooses. How is your view anything other then a conclusion that the ends justify the means?

Iím delighted you did not make the mistake of using the word Ďbeliefí in this second question, because youíre correct that I argued logically for this perspective based on my understanding of the reality of the Universe.

I explained that thereĎs no absolute (total ordering) ends, thus thereís no valid justification of means. Moreover, I argued that ideological (i.e. the feigning of absolute truth) ends are foolish.

I understand youíre pointing out that without a moral compass, you believe that civilization will lose a common purpose and that many ills will plague society, such as promiscuity and lack of k selection, or the use of ransomware in order to become wealthy. But the free market deals with that. Societies perish and others thrive. Diversity (greater uncertainty thus higher entropy) provides for resilience. It occurs to me that an absolute truth or morality would not be antifragile, because there would be no alternatives adapted to differing scenarios.

Thus I think ideology and morality are actually the most amoral.

I might love my neighbor, because I like the observable outcomes or my private belief in a God, not because itís supposed to be some absolute truth about morally correctness which everyone must follow in order for it to be successful.

I personally like the do unto others as you would want them to do to you. This is how I feel about a society that cares for each other, and I think this works only on the local level though not at large scale collectivism. At large scale, there is massive defection the cheaters escape the Dunbar limit of a tribeís ability to efficiently squelch defection. For example, although I might want to offer free health care to every person, the scammers would find a way to extract profits from my generosity creating a non-meritorious misallocation of capital which can make the outcome uncompetitive.

Question 3: You mention evil several times but seem to have adopted a set of assumptions that precludes the existence of evil. How do you define evil?

Someone was doing some ideological shit and justifying the means.

Can evil exist under your assumptions? If the only thing that matters is observed consequences why is it wrong to steal from or kill my enemies if I can get away with it or to take from the weak because that is the natural order of things?

Nothing morally wrong with stealing if its not in support of some lie about absolute truth. However, you might consider if that is the society that you want to live in and whether there even exists a society that wants to accept you. Letís make sure we have an agreed definition of morals. Morals that are an absolute truth or morals that are just accepted norm of a particular society but do not have the ideological power of being claimed to be absolute truth.

Question 4: You mentioned that your belief that actions have observable consequences makes your views a separate entity from nihilism yet a belief in cause and effect is entirely compatible with nihilism. The foundation of nihilism is the belief that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value. Nihilists also assert that there is no inherent morality, and that accepted moral values are abstractly contrived. When you say that your beliefs are not nihilism are you saying that you disagree with the nihilist on these issues or simply that you have reached the same conclusions via different means?

Afaik, Nihilists do not reject ideological (absolute truth or forced imposition of beliefs) pursuits as amoral and differentiate that activity from any other activity w.r.t. to the issue of morality. So I guess you can conclude thereís two absolute truths Iíve arrived at:

1. Universal trend towards maximum entropy.
2. Amorality of absolute truths (other than these two objective ones).

My brief sketch of nihilism is that it is devoid of preference for purpose and meaning. I have not rejected the ability of the individual to choose a meaning or purpose. Iíve only rejected their nonsense of trying to tell me to involve me in their meaning if I do not wish to be, even passing judgement on me and what will happen to me, and thus slippery sliding into being forced to take control over me.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.

Obviously Iím not arguing that rules, norms, or laws are entirely unnecessary, nor am I arguing that thereís no meaning of existence.

Rather Iím stating that thereís no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). Iím arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, theyíre likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. Iím confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasnít really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

Itís Just Time.


Hyperme.sh thank you for answering my questions above let me briefly summarize your answers as I understand them and then give you my thoughts.

1) You argue that the ends justify the means and that any and all actions and crimes can be justified if one can get away with them as the free market and survival of the fittest at work.

2) You argue that the definition of evil is supporting a belief as a universal truth. Thus you define following an ideology or morality as the most amoral thing a person can do.

3) You argue that morals are just the traditions and norms of a particular society nothing more.

I find it interesting that under your code the worst taboo is proclaiming the universal truth of God. The slaver, the murderer, and the thief are all to be praised as successful alpha men as long as they get away with their actions undetected.

In contrast the priest and the rabbi who spend their time in the slums spreading the word of God and warning people against sin are in your world the epitome of evil proclaiming and spreading their "false" belief of a universal truth.

Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 10:02:31 AM
#3929

1) You argue that the ends justify the means and that any and all actions and crimes can be justified if one can get away with them as the free market and survival of the fittest at work.

Logic fail. Try again to read what I wrote and correctly comprehend it.

I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.

I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these arenít ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.

Youíre trying to demonize my thoughts, because your always moralizing everything, which I vehemently dislike about you. Instead of attempting to understand my analysis with an open mind, youíre approaching it with an ideological bias, wherein you hope to prove that my philosophy is inconsistent and your moralism is consistent, but you have lost that debate already whether you fail to recognize it, is not my problem.

2) You argue that the definition of evil is supporting a belief as a universal truth. Thus you define following an ideology or morality as the most amoral thing a person can do.

Correct. It can only lead to outcomes which deceive society and prevent society from acting rationally, because there is no check-and-balance (no feedback loop) of observable reality to test whether absolute/universal truths are actually true and functioning.

3) You argue that morals are just the traditions and norms of a particular society nothing more.

No I argue that morals are the absolute truths nonsense you and others promulgate.

Societal norms, laws, culture, and customs, are just that and not morals.


I find it interesting that under your code the worst taboo is proclaiming the universal truth of God. The slaver, the murderer, and the thief are all to be praised as successful alpha men as long as they get away with their actions undetected.

There you go again trying to put words in my mouth that I never wrote. You attempt to demonize my words, but you exhibit a lack of comprehension of my statements.

I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.

You can proclaim all you want, as long as you are not trying to establish that your truths are superior to my beliefs and thereby subjugate me by getting society to act irrationally and adopt your beliefs which are not verifiable.

It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And youíve done more to convince me of that than anyone else Iíve ever known. I fear or wonder what you may slide into in the future (you presumably have the same thought about me). I often wonder if your a wolf in sheepskin who will pounce one day ramming ďI told youĒ ideological crap down my throat.

I tried in exasperation to establish a mutually respectful dialogue and even perhaps intellectual friendship with you, but your ideological subversion makes it impossible. Unfortunately, the antagonism creeps into every discussion we have.

In contrast the priest and the rabbi who spend their time in the slums spreading the word of God and warning people against sin are in your world the epitome of evil proclaiming and spreading their "false" belief of a universal truth.

As brain washing, yes very evil.

It should be taught more as questions about beliefs and logic about how to respect the autonomy of others (which is what part of 10 commandments is about).

If taught as a private relationship with God in each individualís closet and taught not to impinge their beliefs on others, but rather spread it in the same very humble and not antagonist against non-believers principles, then maybe I can say they are not interested in create an ideological subversion and genuinely interested in the welfare and free will of people.

Even a society which wishes to not emancipate females in order to get more k selection strategy, should not brain wash females with unprovable universal theories as the justification for such subjugation. Rather simply tell them frankly that woman canít make rational decisions during their fertile years due to hypergamy.

A meaningful relationship with God can only be a very personal thing (maybe even family/clan oriented) any way. All that ideological subversion is antithetical to the cause it purports to achieve.

Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 08, 2017, 03:39:51 PM
#3930

I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.

I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these arenít ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.

You argued that there was "Nothing morally wrong with stealing" but that you would prefer to live in a society where it was not allowed and legal.

This leads to the logical conclusion that we can and should steal as long as we can get away with it and not get caught get either via clever misdirection or finding loopholes in the law.

This also leads to the logical necessity of an all powerful and ever growing state to increasingly monitor and observe its citizens ensuring compliance with an ever growing law.

I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.

You also stated that there is nothing morally wrong with theft and presumably murder as well. At best these are simply local social norms under your system with no inherent meaning or significance.

It is your own worldview that if actually applied would impinge on you either directly via crimes committed against you or indirectly via the state.

It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And youíve done more to convince me of that than anyone else Iíve ever known.

I will take that as a compliment. If it makes you feel better the feeling is not mutual. I do think your worldview facilitates evil but I do not think you are evil.

Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.

It is not false but true to the best of my understanding and wisdom.

In the past I have seen you refer to Matthew 7:1 as a prohibition against judgement.

This is one of the most commonly misunderstood verses of the Bible. I believe you would benefit from reading this commentary on the true meaning of this verse.

http://thediscerningsheep.blogspot.com/2014/12/matthew-71-most-misunderstood-bible.html?m=1

Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 05:37:00 PM
#3931

Rather Iím stating that thereís no observable absolute truth about these matters, although one could certainly argue for their experience and knowledge of history and argue why some historical observations should continue, but nothing is observably perpetual in our Universe (and we do not observe in perpetuity nor can we even observe everything in any given iota spacetime slice). Iím arguing for a free market of choices. If some group wants to try to enslave another, if that activity is not the most economic or fruitful, theyíre likely to get out-competed by a society which has a more efficient organization. Iím confident the maximum division-of-labor destroys (chattel and I argued eventually Theory of the Firm) slavery, as I had explained in great detail in my past writings which you cited in your Economic Devastation thread, as well as my blog Information is Alive!

The USA Civil War wasnít really a battle about slavery, because economics was going to take care of that any way, rather it was a battle about consolidating the economies-of-scale of the United States at the time when territorial consolidation was economically valuable (the two major oceans of the earth on each coast and the Mississippi river bisecting North-to-South). And now with the Internet (as you have written about), it is about separating into efficient autonomous locales that foster the maximum division-of-labor.

ESR has not replied. I hope he perhaps he has finally gotten the point about his hypocrisy:

http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=7660#comment-1902810

I think that is the first time someone has successfully slapped him back down. And I really was not trying to be disrespectful. He is the one slandering Armstrong[1] and not providing any data to show that the Confederate soldiers were slave owners. They were predominately not. We Southerners were[still are!] fighting against an INVADING army for our way of life and to not be subjugated by the Yankees in the North. It just so happened that slavery was ongoing on the plantations but that was not necessarily something that every Southerner agreed with. It was just the economic conditions of that era. It is very foolish to make the ideological BS conclusions that he did and I hope realizes that now.

The culture of the South is still sufficiently distinct that the breakup of the USA is coming. Armstrongís predictions will be vindicated yet again and ESR will continue to look like a washed up genius whose unable to predict the future as presciently as Armstrong because of ESRís ideologically biased analysis versus ArmstrongĎs objective computerized machine learning on huge historical and current data sets.

[1] Indeed Armstrong does often have typos and even thought typos, but he is writing several blog posts per day and ESR a blog post every few days or weeks. Armstrong (similar to myself) is not renown for his writing skills, but rather for the insights and research he provides.
cripperz
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 105
Merit: 10


cripperz.sg


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 05:57:12 PM
#3932

...

Martin Armstrong is a financial, well, forecaster might be the right term, who has written extensively on historical patterns of economics.

He has a checkered past (I know that he went to jail for contempt of court, but what I have read it seems that was an injustice), but there is no doubt that he has introduced new concepts for us to read and analyze.  While in jail, he produced a number of interesting papers looking at asset prices through history, including from ANCIENT history.  He is one of the few who looks at cyclicality (time patterns) as well as a MACRO view of the markets (that is, he does not look at the price of gold alone, he looks at everything else too -- with a supercomputer).

He is now out of jail and has set-up shop as a macro-consulting company.  On most days (including today, Saturday) he publishes a few easy-to-digest items looking at various issues of the day.  His blog:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/armstrong_economics_blog

What finally moved me today to start this thread is his post was his very interesting piece (from today) "Money -- Credit -- Debt & Derivatives".  It looks like derivatives are as old as money itself (maybe older!), take a look at the article:

http://armstrongeconomics.com/archives/31401

*   *   *

I have been in various threads here at the forum where Armstrong's material has come up.

I look forward to reading your views on his ideas, and his proposed solutions (also controversial).

Where does he talk about Bitcoin though? No offense, but all of this research is on fiat currency which is doomed to fail.

This account was hacked and just being recovered by the original owner. Previous ratings regards with atlant, i have nothing to do with it.

Now the account is recovered.
Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 08, 2017, 06:42:04 PM
#3933

After reading this, I think you will conclude my health is indeed improving. The brain fog is lifting. I am almost back to being mentally the @Anonymint of 2013 yore that originally captured some of your interest (when you were still a borderline atheist if I am not mistaken?).

Btw, it seems eating the seeds of the Papaya fruit has done something to drastically improve the recovery of my liver and gut health post the anti-TB regimen. Makes me dizzy and flying in cloud after digesting them, but that fades after a couple of hours. The rest of the time the benefits are outstanding thus far.

I stated that I would not want to live in a society that did not punish such actions and doubted whether one could find a society that would tolerate them.

I distinguished moralistic (absolute truth) ideological ends and stated these arenít ever valid thus never justify means. For the remaining ends, I stated these are not ends because they have no total ordering. Thus there are no ends. Instead we live in societies and follow the rules of our chosen society.

You argued that there was "Nothing morally wrong with stealing" but that you would prefer to live in a society where it was not allowed and legal.

Because I argued morals (as so defined to be absolute truths) do not exist, because there are no observable absolute truths. If morals do exist, only an omniscient God knows what they are. Not any human interpretations. Any such omniscient God can only communicate directly with the believer about this, not through middlemen. Even Jesus spoke about this and praying in your closet directly to God for the synagogues are for those who want to be adulated as believers.

This leads to the logical conclusion that we can and should steal as long as we can get away with it and not get caught get either via clever misdirection or finding loopholes in the law.

You incorrectly applied logic. If A is true and B is not A, does not make B false.

This also leads to the logical necessity of an all powerful and ever growing state to increasingly monitor and observe its citizens ensuring compliance with an ever growing law.

And thus this does not follow. I said live in society, not attempt to destroy a society. How can someone rationally live in a society that they are trying to destroy.

Youíre ostensibly presuming that humans have to be fearful of an unobservable absolute truth in order to become rational, which to me is incredulously illogical and irrational on the face of it. Why would anyone be rational if theyíre being irrational by believing in implausibility of absolute truth (as already elaborated in my prior posts in this discussion with you).

I clearly stated that anyone is free to have their own beliefs as long as their beliefs do not impinge on me.

You also stated that there is nothing morally wrong with theft and presumably murder as well. At best these are simply local social norms under your system with no inherent meaning or significance.

Indeed some tribes might still mutilate female clitoris and sacrifice each other at the altar and it is none of our fscking business!

Feel free to offer them your ideas, but if you think you have the absolute truth and they are wrong, then in my philosophy youíre evil because youíve tried to elevate yourself to be an omniscient God and the judge of humans. (Because again we canít observe universal/absolute truths in order to verify them)

That does not mean you should not try to offer ideas to them about how certain beliefs are self-destructive. As long as you donít preach it as an absolute truth that they are commanded to obey. The use of fear doesnít employ the rational prefrontal cortex. Quoting from my 2013 blog post:

Quote from: unheresy.com/Information Is Alive.html#Existential_Fear
The fear emotion is inherited from the primitive, post-paleozoic, hunter-gatherer time period when mortal danger was omnipresent. Fear stimulates a fight-or-flight adrenaline spike in response to extreme stress. Adrenaline rushes are thrilling and addictive, especially when the threat is low-grade, not thoroughly exhausting, and thus repeatable because it only exists in the imagination. Adrenaline (plus cortisol) shuts down rational thought in the pre-frontal cortex. Production of the steriod cortisol spikes to redistribute more energy to the muscles and nerves, depleting energy from the immune system, digestion, and toxic waste processing necessary to maintain health.



It is quite simple. I think ideologues are evil. And youíve done more to convince me of that than anyone else Iíve ever known.

I will take that as a compliment. If it makes you feel better the feeling is not mutual. I do think your worldview facilitates evil but I do not think you are evil.

I agree our struggle to communicate could be seen as a necessary learning process, thus complementary (not complimentary).

Well I hope so, but I do wonder if you could slide into being a zealot. But I must admit, having never interacted with you verbally, perhaps Iím reading more between the lines than is really there. Iím also antagonized by those who judge with biases, absolute truths, and incoherent comprehension, but not in a way that I need to prove something to every single case (at least not any more). Just want to get my philosophy solidified and communicated well.

You got that precisely transposed. My worldview is not evil, but I might be evil because Iím only human.



Suffice to say I strongly disagree with your views and find them to be internally incoherent.

That said I wish you well on your spiritual journey.

Passing false witness is condemned in the Bible. Please be more circumspect.

It is not false but true to the best of my understanding and wisdom.

You passed judgement before confirming whether your demonizing interpretations were coherent and correct. You could have instead stated your interpretations and asked for clarifications before stating your demonizing conclusions.

Your careless haste could possibly be construed to exemplify your underlying motive to make demonizing conclusions.

The above are factual and non-slanderous (not even disrespectful) conclusions, not subject to any interpretation. The ďcould possibly be construedĒ is not an absolute statement, thus the statement is factual.

Youíre engaging a 30+ year programmer in the area of logic ó which is thus my speciality. God help you, lol.  Cheesy

In the past I have seen you refer to Matthew 7:1 as a prohibition against judgement.

This is one of the most commonly misunderstood verses of the Bible. I believe you would benefit from reading this commentary on the true meaning of this verse.

http://thediscerningsheep.blogspot.com/2014/12/matthew-71-most-misunderstood-bible.html?m=1

It is a heresy to tell people they need an authority to tell the readers how to interpret what Jesus meant. Jesus communicates directly to the reader.

Once again this is yet another example of trying to organize and force people to a monolithic orthodoxy (belief system). The Bible is supposed to mean different things to different readers.

It is okay to discuss ideas, but not from an authoritative/canonical stance, because no humanís interpretation can be absolute truth.

I think you have not yet grasped that I am trying to avoid the megadeath that comes from the slippery slope of zealots who think they have some absolutely justified ends that justifies the means. You probably think you will never personally become a Zionist, Crusader, or other ideologues who burned humans at on the stake (as the Zionist Mossad did at 9/11), but how could you be sure when you self-profess that you promulgate the concept of absolute truth?

Btw, I was indeed asking you to not pass judgement, because you are not the judge, and only make statements of material fact. That is what Matthew 7 means. Cast the plank of wood out of our own eyes before looking for the speck of dust in someone elseís. Who is above sin? The point is to try to work towards harmonious and fair and accurate mutual understanding. And this is the dilemma of claiming absolute truth. It turns you a human into a judge of other humans. Which is evil and the Bible condemns it in numerous verses. Even in 1 Samuel 8 and in the 10 Commandments, the Lord is demanding that we form our relationship directly with him and no middlemen. No charlatans who think they possess the truth. This is the necessary humbleness I was referring to. Which must admit we can not have the absolute truth.
OROBTC
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1512
Merit: 1000



View Profile
October 08, 2017, 10:04:27 PM
#3934

...

The above is a necessary conversation.

I look for opinions & other writings on what Jesus meant, but in the end, yes, it comes down to each of us seeking Him in our closet.  No intermediaries.  Those who *may* have better or more insight are worth reading (thanks CoinCube), but the key is honest hard internal work reaching out to our Creator.

Matthew 5 - 7 is probably the core of Christian thought.  It is worth extensive reading, thought and meditation.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 09, 2017, 12:34:22 AM
#3935

Hyperme.sh

Thank you for your response.

As I said above I believe your world view suffers from ex falso quodlibet.

It allows you to redefine almost any any evil act any crime as acceptable and simply part of the diversity of choices or survival of the fittest in action.

The worst kind of human evil is evil that deploys sin and crime to strengthen itself at the expense of the innocent and weak. As far as I can tell your philosophy withholds any judgement on such evil and perhaps condones it if successful.

I believe your philosophy to be terribly flawed and cannot personally reconcile it with the biblical principles you also claim to follow. However, I am not an authority on these matters so I would refer you to someone who is or better yet a period of deep religious reflection.

I have said everything I wish to say on this topic. I will leave you with this excerpt from The Way of God by Moshe Chaim Luzzatto who wrote on this topic around 1734.

Quote from: Moshe Chaim Luzzatto
The true optimum state of the world primarily involves man's spiritual state. It exists when man grasps the path of wisdom and is engaged in devotion to his Creator. In such a world, truth is obvious and unambiguous. The wicked are prosecuted, and deception no longer exists. Everything in such a world involves some aspect of devotion to God, and all good qualities are maintained and strengthened, while all evil ones are repelled and rejected.

As a result of this, security and tranquility prevail, and there is no longer any pain, suffering or injury. God openly projects His Glory on such a world, and He rejoices in His handiwork. In a similar manner, His handiwork is happy and rejoices before Him.

The opposite of this optimum world exists when man becomes overwhelmed by the pursuit of physical desires, rejecting wisdom and furthering himself from it. In such a world, little if any attention is given to true devotion. Truth is ignored, wickedness is reinforced and prevails, and deception and error increase. It is a world of false values, where good qualities are eclipsed and evil ones prevail. As a result of this, tranquility ceases to exist, and there is no security, while there is much suffering and injury. God hides His Glory from the world, and it goes on as if left to chance, abandoned to the laws of nature. God neither rejoices in His handiwork, nor does mankind rejoice in Him. Man neither realizes nor recognizes even what it means for creation to rejoice before its Creator. In such a world, the wicked become strong, and the good are deprived of all status.

Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 09, 2017, 01:02:31 AM
#3936

I have said everything I wish to say on this topic.

Õtís okay with me if you continue.

I hope you note with the massacres increasing in frequency in the USA and North Korea ready to test a nuclear missile which can reach the continental USA, that the issues I raise are becoming ever more relevant.

The massacres are not due to inadequate awareness of absolute truths and morals. Rather it is ideological subversion and power vacuums which are at the root cause.

As I said above I believe your world view suffers from ex falso quodlibet.

It allows you to redefine almost any any evil act any crime as acceptable and simply part of the diversity of choices or survival of the fittest in action.

Incorrect logic (or comprehension) again.

I said that the only basis we can observe for predictive truth is relative (often discordant or mostly orthogonal) partial orders. Thus the determination of what is criminal is relative to the society you can form with others. Whomever is able to successfully operate a society that allows murdering each other at whim, then please by all means demonstrate its sustainability if some so desire.

You canít just go do any evil you want, if others arenít willing to join. Youíll be destroyed. Natural limitations and self-destruction will limit the evil that can survive, biblically even the AntiChrist destroys itself.

The point is that nature doesnít have our arbitrary biases about our belief of what is true. For nature all that is true is what actually survives.

I am confident you will discover that societies not founded on more-or-less Christian principles tend to be quite dysfunctional and self-destructive.

But I also think you will discover in your analysis of history that societies founded on humble Christians who donít go trying to evangelize everyone and mind their own business praying in their small white rural churches or in their homes, are much more industrious and resilient than those societies which consume themselves with Crusades and Zionism and other forms of ideological conquest and subversion.

The worst kind of human evil is evil that deploys sin and crime to strengthen itself at the expense of the innocent and weak. As far as I can tell your philosophy withholds any judgement on such evil and perhaps condones it if is successful.

I believe your philosophy to be terribly flawed and cannot personally reconcile it with the biblical principles you also claim to follow.

You just canít fathom allowing people to having the freedom to experiment with forming their own societies. Afaics, your ilk (cohorts) are determined to ram your absolute truths down everyoneís throat (presumably relying on the collective State as the proxy to do the thieving and war on your behalf), because apparently youíre so fearful that if you donít then some person some where might be trapped in a society that is abusive. So go to war and take all their virgins for yourself. But do understand itís war. Stop pretending youíre the good guy who is above sin. Rather try to understand that this world is imperfect and even to battle sin you must sin. The lust for universal truth is an insecurity and a refusal to acknowledge the teaching of Jesus.

However, I am not an authority on these matters so I would refer you to someone who is or better yet a period of deep religious reflection.

It doesnít matter even if you have a million priests agree with you. My relationship with my creator and my beliefs is not the property of third parties.

My study of the Bible indicates to me that we are only to leave the judging to the omniscient one, other than the Romans chapter which is explaining that we are subject to laws when we choose to live in a society.

But remember what Jesus said, to come walk from town to town with nothing. And he railed against the orthodoxy and said he came bearing a sword. Jesus was all about the substance of love, understanding, flexibility, and not the horrors of orthodoxy and ideological war.

Jesus ate with the sinners.

If sin is so repulsive to you, then how are you able to look in the mirror?

Sin is part of our existence here on earth. Jesus lead by example teaching us not to be repulsed but to prioritize understanding.

Youíre practically forcing me to preach, but I did not want to.

I just did not want to be judged by you in your belief system (yet that forces me to judge you in my belief system, sigh Ö sin is unavoidable).


P.S. I will say it again, what Iím trying to avoid is the slippery slope of humans falling into the trap of thinking theyíre capable of enforcing absolute truths on each other. This is a power vacuum that enables evil in the guise of a desire to reduce evil. Weíre simply incapable of arriving at any form of perfected total order and itís actually necessary for we wouldnít exist if we could (weíd already be equivalent to the omniscient one where spacetime is not quantized and nothing is uncertain, thus quite boring if you ask me). In return for this predicament, we receive an entertaining smorgasbord of uncertainty called life. Perhaps I should have entitled my philosophy, Avoiding Boredom in Heaven. Seriously though, weíre incapable of comprehending what might be the benefits of such an existence where uncertainty is impossible because omniscience and perfect have no exceptions.

I think what separates me from a Nihilist is do really in my heart want to believe humans can be adorable and we can have love and happiness all over. My logic however doesnít let me too far with that emotion as perhaps it does for others. I try to enjoy my adulation for humanity in the moment, and set the big picture stuff aside. Blissful ignorance.

The following isnít driven by morals but by the innate human spirit and the love of community:

ďHe told me, ĎGet down, get down, get down!íĒ Laurie Beaton told The Associated Press ahead of the memorial service.

He put his body on top of hers for protection, she said.

ďHe told me, ĎI love you, Laurie,í and his arms were around me and his body just went heavy on me,Ē she said.

Jeff Sallee, a next-door neighbor to the Beatons, said Jack was the kind of person who put others first. If you tried to thank him for his kindness, Sallee said, he would cut you off and say: ďWell, thatís just what you do. Doesnít everyone?Ē

Donít you remember our discussion some years ago about the little white church on the hill. I think you still do not understand the distinction Iím trying to make. Those spend their time trying to focus on making the world perfect create ideological power vacuums for evil bastards to leverage. Those who focus inwards on their communities and love ones do not inflict their ideology on others.


EDIT: What is really odd is I wrote about Mossad and 9/11 on the same day of the Las Vegas massacre but presciently. I accidentally wrote the 666th reply on the EOS massive scam thread recently.

The Zionists have their false flag fingerprints on the Las Vegas massacre. Theyíre trying to force Trump deeper into war. Also an attempt to foist more control in USA. Maybe the conspiracy chatter is deception, but it does make one think:

CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 09, 2017, 01:49:44 PM
#3937

I have said everything I wish to say on this topic.

Õtís okay with me if you continue.
...
I think what separates me from a Nihilist is do really in my heart want to believe humans can be adorable and we can have love and happiness all over. My logic however doesnít let me too far with that emotion as perhaps it does for others. I try to enjoy my adulation for humanity in the moment, and set the big picture stuff aside. Blissful ignorance.
...
Donít you remember our discussion some years ago about the little white church on the hill. I think you still do not understand the distinction Iím trying to make. Those spend their time trying to focus on making the world perfect create ideological power vacuums for evil bastards to leverage. Those who focus inwards on their communities and love ones do not inflict their ideology on others.

I agree with your comments about the little white church on the hill. Rather then trying to make the world perfect and striving externally I believe we should be striving internally and trying to make ourselves perfect a task we can only work towards not achieve.

It seems to me that there is an inherent conflict in you between the center of who you are and the logical worldview you have embraced thus your comments of blissful ignorance above. One potential resolution to this conflict is to find a way to rebuild the logic in such a way that it no longer conflicts with the essence of self but whether this is possible or not is something only you can determine.

Thank you for the invitation to continue but I have contributed what I can to this conversation. Here are four very short essays from Bruce Charlton on this topic that I think you would enjoy reading. I have found his writing to be insightful and he is someone who I believe has attained a higher degree of wisdom in these matters then myself.

Being a Good Person is not enough - not here and not now...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/08/being-good-person-is-not-enough-not.html?m=1

How many Christians are atheists? A test...
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/08/how-many-christians-are-atheists-test.html?m=1

Taking modern nihilism seriously
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/09/taking-modern-nihilism-seriously.html?m=1

The Method of Jesus - So absolutely right; but why so indirect?
http://charltonteaching.blogspot.com/2017/08/the-method-of-jesus-so-absolutely-right.html?m=1


 


Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2017, 01:34:59 AM
#3938

I agree with your comments about the little white church on the hill. Rather then trying to make the world perfect and striving externally I believe we should be striving internally and trying to make ourselves perfect a task we can only work towards not achieve.

You claim so, but then why are you still still sending redundant Bruce Charlton crap which reads like a laundry list of your judgements of why I have/had an chronic illness (the blog you linked about atheism), etc.?

I do not like this dogmatic chap Bruce Charlton.

He goes on and on as if he so sure of himself Ö passing judgements on others Ö Itís as if you did not read what I wrote about the Bible says only God shall pass these judgements. Romans says basically societies should be just, not judges of universal ideological truth.

In 1 Samuel 8, the Lord says:

Quote
The Lord answered, ďListen to them and give them a king.Ē

Then Samuel said to the Israelites, ďEveryone go back to your own town.Ē

Does Charlton really think that anyone he criticizes is really going to listen to him  Huh  Roll Eyes

He is not presenting any information which I did not already know.

Do you really think his Nihilism blog has any applicability to me. I am not basing my principles on satisfying my feelings. I explained my principles to you but you somehow you still judge me and conclude I have insufficient principles (i.e. you conclude IĎm conflicted but that is not what I wrote). We keep going in circles in our discussion. I realize you probably think youíre trying to help me learn and save me from destruction, i.e. you seem to be acting out Charltonís call to action (but I highly disagree with his odorous judgemental style of evangelizing). I certainly have gone through phases where I thought I needed to wake people up about certain matters and employed blunt calls for self-introspection, so I am not claiming I am any better. The society is transforming but I doubt any of that judgemental speech will do anything other than incite his cohorts to become more aggressive in their sin of blaming others.

Afaics, his blog on Jesus is repeating what I wrote to you.
CoinCube
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1498
Merit: 1007



View Profile
October 10, 2017, 03:15:48 AM
#3939

...
I do not like this dogmatic chap Bruce Charlton.

He goes on and on as if he so sure of himself Ö passing judgements on others Ö Itís as if you did not read what I wrote about the Bible says only God shall pass these judgements.
...
Does Charlton really think that anyone he criticizes is really going to listen to him  Huh  Roll Eyes
...
His blog on Jesus is repeating what I wrote to you.

Yes his position on the teachings of Jesus match what you say your position is. Exactly the same almost word for word. The rest of his worldview presumably follows from that core belief.

Yet from this shared truth you diverge into very different ethical systems.

This extreme divergence despite starting from the same starting beliefs should be if nothing else grounds for deep reflection.

We cannot escape or avoid making judgments in this world. Given our flawed natures we must make them with humility and always strive to avoid hypocrisy acknowledging that ultimate judgement will be rendered by God. If you have not yet had a chance I do recommend reading the biblical commentary on this topic I linked to previously.

Matthew 7:1: The Most Misunderstood Bible Verse
http://thediscerningsheep.blogspot.com/2014/12/matthew-71-most-misunderstood-bible.html?m=1

I agree that we keep going in circles in our discussion. I will make this my final reply and give you the last word.

 

Hyperme.sh
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 98
Merit: 10


View Profile
October 10, 2017, 10:01:42 PM
#3940

We cannot escape or avoid making judgments in this world. Given our flawed natures we must make them with humility and always strive to avoid hypocrisy acknowledging that ultimate judgement will be rendered by God. If you have not yet had a chance I do recommend reading the biblical commentary on this topic I linked to previously.

On that note, we can fully agree, without trying to further discuss the other differences in our philosophical outlook. So maybe that is a good place for us to end up for now. God bless.
Pages: « 1 ... 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 [197] 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 »
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!