Donnadogsoth

The principle of ROMANTIC LOVE, the idea that if you truly like someone more than a friend and want to spend your life with them, you'll know it if you can say that if they became a hideously disfigured burn victim, you would still stay with them and be happy.

The principle of ORIGINAL SIN, which refers to mankind existing in an hereditary condition of disorder of the components of the soul, which opens the way for the gelid and monstrous will to ooze out of what should be its rational container to surmount and attempt to command the soul for itself, replacing the divine spark with a rotting corpse. All men will such, and, therefore, all men become monsters of iniquity, which only God's grace contains, like antimatter contained in a magnetic bottle, allowing for the potential for the soul to align itself with the exemplar of goodness (see the principle of HISTORICAL NECESSITY). The principle of HISTORICAL NECESSITY, the idea that the exemplar of goodness is he whose life juxtaposes the highest potential for increasing the potential relative population density of mankind, with the meanest death. Human progress demands that such a person's life and mission be aligned with, individually and socially, in order to nourish the divine spark through proper belief, which leads to virtue, which leads to proper deed.

"One thing you can't say about her is that she is not qualified or that she is profoundly ignorant of how the world works, or that she is unintelligent." If incompetence is ruled out, that leaves evil.

The principle of MERCY, the idea that judgement should be lovingly ameliorated or suspended when the guilty party has a reasonable and self-conscious chance of improving mankind.

The principle of DIGNITY, that all living beings, no matter how small, are worthy of respect and are not to be injured without good cause. A human, being self-conscious, merits self-respect, which includes respecting his own respect for other living beings. A human who disregards other beings' dignity wounds his own accordingly. The principle of PARENTAL GOODNESS, referring to a standard subconsciously imbued into every human soul at conception by which we discriminate good things from evil. When we are children, we usually end up committing evil before we consciously know it, and we may come to like doing evil, and when we learn it is evil we may even delight in that fact, and that is a bad road. A good upbringing will help give a child a consciousness of the original standard of Good. E.g., "No baby, it's a frog, frogs are good, we don't hurt the frog" so that parental love becomes imitated by the child (see principle of MIMESIS), and the general principle becomes activated, switching the child's mind from a selfish hunt for thrills, to a moral hunt for the Good. And, "What are we doing mommy?" "We're baking a cake for daddy." "Why?" "Because we love daddy very much." "Yes, we do." The principle of WORLDLY THRILLS, is the idea that a standard for Thrillingness exists with in the mind from conception, and to which all future, lesser thrills are compared and referred. Often conflated with the standard for the Good (cf., principle of PARENTAL GOODNESS). The principle of JUSTICE, is the idea that thrills and goodness should go together.

The principle of COMMON SENSE, which discriminates between a true and a false principle by whether such aids in the discovery of principle and the technological and moral advancement of the human race, or no. The principle of NEGOTIATION, the idea that words and behaviour can cause involuntary neurological reactions in unprepared individuals, swaying them toward or against a particular desired outcome of speech or deed, regardless of any logical arguments one may put forth.

I mean what exactly is the role of the potent individual in society, to merely act on the wisdom of his time, or to help discover new wisdom?

Why not, Socratically speaking, a midwife?

I think the primary reason for this recalcitrance is a fear of throwing the proverbial baby out with the bathwater. Christianity has to be careful about watering itself down to nothing, whether in aid of paradigm shift or of being seen as being as "accepting" as possible. On Biblical inerrancy itself, we are dealing with a God here are we not? Just as Christianity has supplied many generations of artists with inexhaustible wealth of inspiration, so it does not seem impossible that the Bible could have multiple plies of meaning, multiple principles at work. Unfortunately religion, both public and private, in my experience seems so...unintellectual, as to resist proper explication like film beads water. It all seems so going-through-the-motions...ersatz...compared with what I have read about the original Christians like Paul, who really had the fire of internal reward, rather than the impotent and inertia-bound guilt and greed complex we seem to have today.

The principle of PANPSYCHISM, the idea that non-consciousness is impossible because it is absolutely inconceivable, even to God. Thus, everything that exists in the sense of being a noun, contains some amount of consciousness, on a variable scale ascending from very little consciousness in the abiotic things, to significantly more in biota, to high amounts in humans. The principle of PLACEBO, by which positive effects are generated in human health and well-being by virtue of belief alone, not due to any mechanical or pharmaceutical efficacy. The FALSE PRINCIPLE OF THE SCAPEGOAT, which indicates that social cohesion can be regenerated by the ritual sacrifice of a human being upon whom, explicitly or implicitly, consciously or subconsciously, the transgressions of the community are attributed.

Paradox is the gateway to discoveries of principle. If it works in science why can it not work in theology?

1. I'm saying they are meaningless, and therefore worthless, without reference to God. 2. God can't give us aeternal bliss from the get-go, for the same reason that a human can't be born knowing calculus, or an acorn can't start out being an oak tree. Things must grow and develop in good time. So must the human soul grow and develop into a form needed to appreciate God as the source of all meaning. Such would be bliss, no? 3. Christ showed us the definition of what a human being should be: love based on the truth. The dual nature of his sacrifice was the salvation game and the progress game, which both have the same winning moves. Salvation: if you align yourself with his sacrifice, you too will be justified before God; and progress: if you align yourself with his sacrifice, you too will be an immortal boon to mankind. So yes, Christ had the right to show us the way.

Yes. On your other points: 1. I mean that without meaning, your three goods of perfect order, ending undeserved suffering, and aeternal life are, by definition, meaningless, which means they can't be goods in any way other than as a tin of beans is a good to a dead man. 2. I'm saying aeternal bliss is unachievable except through obedience to God. 3. The fundamental emotion is love. Human willfulness and bad experiences twist this, but it remains in man, buried. The only true test of love is whether a person does good without external reward, but rather in order to get the internal reward of the heart that tells a person he is acting in accordance with his fundamental emotion. Without this Jesus died in vain. 4. Yes, I've read the Book of Job. I think the esoteric message is “Every man for himself.” Just kidding! Yes, you're right. But, I would add that Job was being true to his conception of goodness, God, even if that concept was apparently at the same time raining torments upon him. God was where Job got his idea of goodness, which was why God's punishments were so baffling to him. But he refused to break faith with goodness and so he was, metaphorically, rewarded internally in his heart.

The FALSE PRINCIPLE OF MONSTERS, bane of children, the idea of substance and shadow merging to form the protean abyss from which irrational, horrible, invincible monsters come. Related to justified fears of furtive, inimical animals, objects, and human predators, and also the principle of PLAY which precedes logic (A=A). The principle of PLAY, the idea that creativity depends not on logically working out ramifications of what is known, but in happily playing with the known and the unknown together, seeking discovery of principle. Precedes the principle of A=A which must be first discovered through play. Play here is fundamentally metaphorical, as one thing can creatively become another as if by magic, revealing hypothesis.

The principle of COURAGE, an admixture of self-esteem, fear of shame over cowardice and failure, and the recognition that fear of pain is usually worse than the pain itself. The principle of REALISM, the idea that we should not be so optimistic we forget to look for dangers, nor so pessimistic we forget to look for solutions. The principle of the GOLDEN RULE, which is essentially warning against hypocrisy. "My life is worth more than your life, simply because it is mine, therefore I can do unto you as I wish." We must have one standard of action toward others, in keeping with how we view our own worth. The principle of the VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE, the idea that Man is the image of the Creator and therefore possesses his own reason to exist, expressed in his increasingly potent unfolding into and development of the Universe. Under this, every human life is of incalculably great value, because every human by definition is capable of discovering principles which infinitely increase the power of Man.

Ending death, achieving perfect order, and ending undeserved suffering all sound nice, but how can they all be the highest good? There must be something that is even higher than they, to which they are subordinate. I propose meaning is the highest good. So even if I agree to your three goods' desirability and their mutual compatibility, I ask how can they be achieved without experiencing absolute meaning? Without meaning life loses its savour. A favourite food eaten too long becomes drab. A favourite painting can be seen only so many times before it turns invisible. And the tragedy of history sooner or later unspools itself into comedy, and then into disinterest. Christianity supplies absolute meaning to history through the intervention and death of Jesus. In this we have the way opened to Heaven, by reconciling the will of God with the will of Man. There is the possibility of ending death, achieving perfect order, and ending undeserved suffering. Without Jesus, history has no immortal meaning, and without meaning, the goods you mention will not last.

The FALSE PRINCIPLE OF PROGRESS, that states barbarians must create civilisations for themselves, that human society itself is on an ineluctably upward trajectory of moral and technological development, outside considerations of the vast amounts of will and toil needed for such creation and development.

I've already addressed this. Your mistake is in misdefining the word "all-good". "All-good" doesn't mean "put everyone in bliss for aeternity, regardless of all other considerations." That wouldn't be good that would be evil because it destroys the capacity for people to be good and do good. It would not be good it would be pleasurable at a very base level. It would create a universal bliss-farm as horrifyingly un-good in its way as a universal torture-farm. God is not interested in either, he is interested in having his imago creations experience the highest good, which is freely willed communion with him, something impossible if he were as jejune as you imagine him to be.

How would you use that in a sentence? "Shut up, you white male!"? Wouldn't "Shut up, you racist!" be punchier and more to the point? "Racism" sort of links up barrel-of-monkeys style with Islamophobia, rainbowphobia, misogyny, colonialism, and everything else anyway, no?

Your game here, as an Atheist, is to insist that you stubbing your toe means God doesn't exist, because why didn't God stop you from stubbing your toe? In other words, you insist that you be created in a permanent Heroin high. Anything less than that and "God is evil". But you're wrong, because God can't do "anything," he can only do what can be done. He can't create a legal $20 bill, for instance, because only the MINT can create a legal $20 bill. God's $20 bill, no matter how artful, would be a COUNTERFEIT. And that's what you're asking God to do: create a counterfeit Universe where nothing means anything, nobody stubs their toe, love doesn't exist, and everybody lives in a Heroin coma forever. God cannot make a world without pain, death, or sin, because these things are the fruits of bad choices, and if humans have no meaningful choices, why create them? And if he's not going to create humans, why bother creating the rest of the Universe?

When will these "POC" feel "safe" enough to room with a white? Perhaps when white people are in actual chains and not just social muzzles? But, of course, by then whites will have become the black-gloved butlers, maids, and other property of the new landed elite. The longer this goes on unopposed, the more widespread it will get. Like feminism, the coloured tide has no internally-set upper limit. It wants total power. Witness the hypocrisy of privileged coloured people who would rake over the racial coals any white people who advertised a flat "WO". Coloured Privilege, brought to you by White Guilt. Claremont students refuse to live with whites http://campusreform.org/?ID=7977

This talk has made me rethink my diet. Thanks for posting it.

Jared Taylor on a recent FDR broadcast said he visited Ivory Coast and Liberia as a younger man and was shocked that the former was so developed and peaceful, and the latter was "a bombed out ruin". He asked the local Liberians why there country was such a mess and they replied, "We were never colonised." Was Ghana colonised?

A new ad for the Chevrolez Cruz features a two middle-class men at a party. One is a middle-aged white man, who gets schooled by a middle-aged coloured man, who disparages the white man's "pleats" in his pants and, bringing him to his fancy new car, shames him over his liking of happy, folksy white music, over hip, coloured urban music. What's the subtext here? The first guy is being white-shamed. White fashion, white music is inferior to coloured fashion and music. And only the coloured guy can naturally see the difference--can "discriminate"--between the cultures, even at an ostensibly white, middle-class, place-to-be party. And in the end: the one who is more "urban" and more "coloured" will be more cool, more likely to drive cool cars, and more likely to score with the ladies. Has anyone else noticed white-shaming in television commercials or programmes?

The sexes may instead be genetically predisposed to attempt to distance themselves expressively from the opposite sex. Male and female costumes and behaviours vary greatly from culture to culture, but I have never heard of any culture where these costumes and behaviours were not mutually distinguished from each other. Even primitive tribes in the nude are making, by that very nudity, obvious statements about sex differences. The best lack-of-distinction I can think of is Communist countries with things like the Mao suit. Communist boot stomping down sex differences, or bona fide example of culture? There may also be genetic differences between the sexes, or common genetic traits, which predispose parents, or just fathers, to encourage and help develop male children's risk-taking propensities.