what is that? a homosexual term of endearment? you lack originality little man. amazing how you take all your cues from me.
Eh? You really are full of fantasies.
Let me break it down for you
My moronic fellow sciforumer:
moronic—describes you. Too many times, you spew the moronic.
fellow sciforumer—you are part of this community.
Moreover, where is the lack of originality?
That done, we shall move on, my moronic fellow sciforumer.
If I had the fucking reference for Wittengeinstein, I would have fucking given it!
naturally, misspelt names will come up with nothing. you do not understand. you provide references that back your play up, not mine. in this case, a critique of wittgenstein's position.
Pathetic. I originally spelt his name correctly. I brought him up to show a side which expressed the ideas you tried to bring up
better. Whenever I thought a ”reference” was needed, I provided; outside that, these are simple notions that do not require authority to be developed.
it appears you are upset. please get a grip. throwing tantrums does not reflect well on you
Stick you concern back down your throat; do not accuse me of dishonesty and I will not get upset.
it aint christmas yet boy!
LOL. “boy”…You cannot feel your dick and need assurance eh, maggot?
i am cool mellow and laid back. aint in a hurry. these issues have not been resolved. you appear to think they have. i dont give damn how long this drags on. if you cant hack, bye. i can mount a tougher response to myself than you ever could. yes that its! i'll debate myself
The issues have been resolved. You have not provided a worthy counter to any argument posed by I.
popular? you simply assume that it supports your view. why? you have not read the frikkin thing! secondly you know i aint gonna buy the frikkin book. its quite simple. you were being dishonest in order to make a point. think i wouldnt noticed. assume the position boy!!
Stupid little fool, if it did not back up my assertions as I have them stated, I would not have presented it as a reference so you can use it to debunk me.
t's your point? i am trying to establish an objective foundation for morality without the need for gods and you are trying to impress me with some relativistic crap? a psychopath's version is good as any other?
Get it through your thick head that our sense of morality differed from theirs. You challenged my assertion that morality and religion were merged before monotheism. Yours has been shown to be an unfounded counter argument; I do not care for your “objective” morality.
…rewarding with earthly goods/rewarding with morality. two entirely different things. i suppose consistency is too much to ask of you eh? dolt!
You fool! All “good” things are supposed to come to come from the “gods”.
You realize they had a god of morality-- Quetzalcoatl, no?
Eventually, Tezcatlipoca and his gang of dark gods gained access to Quetzalcoatl's spiritual palace. Using all sorts of trickery, these gods played to Quetzalcoatl's vanity by revealing his image, and his mortality, in a mirror. (Mirrors are from Venus). The shock of seeing himself was overwhelming, even horrifying, and the dark gods immediately offered Quetzalcoatl a make-over, which he agreed to. (More Venus tricks - decorate it and no one will know). Next, they offered him a way to forget his ugliness, five cups of the intoxicating beverage pulque. Now this drink makes tequila seem like water. Quetzalcoatl got smashed and began to party. In his extremely intoxicated state, Quetzalcoatl actually wound up having illicit sex with his sister, Quetzalpetlatl.(Venus is a sucker for sexual indulgence). This shocking, dishonorable event ended his role as official spiritual leader. It was this fall from grace, due to his loss of control over his passions, that led to his resignation as leader and, consequently, the end of Tollan's golden age. His first act of atonement was to place himself in a stone coffin. Four days later he arose and left town.
Quetzalcoatl and the Sexual Secrets of the Toltec Astrologers
it is amazing that you are unwilling to see the difference b/w two forms of religion. one has a highly developed moral system and the other.... what a fucking joke.
You really are a fool. Your concept of a highly developed moral system is probably one where human sacrifice is disallowed, no? The faults of the gods are irrelevant.
you have no idea about the actual state of affairs. it is speculation but yet you offer it as carved in stone. i will not accommodate your deliberate pigheadedness again. do you realize i can do a better job debating myself as i am aware of the counter arguments? that these were given hundreds of years ago? yet you are unable to utilize any except your own confused crap? mindless garbage.
You spew that nonsense to my assertion that their way of life revolved around religion and hence their morality must necessarily follow? How the fuck is that in any way a response to that assertion? Here, since you like references:
[url]http://www.lincoln.smmusd.org...-6/hart56aztecb/religiousweb/religiousweb.htm[/URL]
And as it is in simple English, I am sure you will comprehend with ease.
*A polytheistic universe is full of unbounded sexual energy
*In the divine realm, all forms of sex occur: Bestiality, adultery, masturbation, homosexuality, incest, along with marital coitus: The Egyptian Ra masturbated, swallowed his semen, self fertilized. He spit to produce the God Shu; He urinated to produce the goddess Tefnut; He cried to produce humans
*Gender is also blurred in the supernatural realm of a polytheistic universe: The Hindu Shiva, for example, integrates both genders. Zeus gave birth to Dionysus after raping Semele, stealing the fetus from her womb, planting it in his thigh and then giving birth.
*Deities may have other deities of the opposite sex which are their counterparts (Ares and Athena for example)
The cosmic order does not preclude any form of sexual behavior
*Sex is a powerful, potentially dangerous force that pervades the entire universe under this cosmology
*The cosmic order does not rigidly segregate what is masculine from what is feminine Monotheism vs. Polytheism
some morality eh? the gods partied. humans did not. their societies require a little more structure to it
LMAO. An attack of the “immorality”—from your perspective anyway, of theirs gods is supposed to show what?? Sit down, think, and try to create an argument.