No. I'm advocating deletion because you are a hypocrite.

Based on your usage, it's not immediately obvious to me that you understand what the word 'hypocrite' actually means. Hypocrisy would be denouncing mainstream belief systems while advocating for an alternative mainstream "belief" system. Knowing what not to "believe" is not a mainstream belief system, it is the opposite of one.

But your attempt to mount an ad hominem attack is duly noted.

All you do is preach intolerance of mainstream belief systems without which you would have nothing to say.

...I am not going to come on a philosophy forum and talk about stuff not related to philosophy. I began with the problem 'from whence human suffering?' which lead me to the problem of "belief" such that:

i. Contrary to popular "belief", the Torah has 4 independent source authors J, E, P and D with a 5th R(edactor). Because the Torah opens the Bible, any/all "beliefs" which regard the Bible as the perfect word of god as delivered to a man on a mountain is certainly false. This is found by the work of Richard Friedman and elaborated by Yale U - they have videos on Youtube you can watch. Hundreds of millions of people "believe" an assertion that is certainly false. This has implications for both Judaism and Christianity.

ii. Contrary to popular "belief" the Qur'an is evolved from Syriac Christian strophic hymns that evolved over a very long period of time. The base layer (ie. rasm text) of the Qur'an was not only not Arabic (it was Syriac) it was not even Islamic (it was Christian). Additionally, contrary to popular "belief", Mecca did not exist at the time of Muhammad and the events described in the Qur'an indicate Petra (South Jordan) whereto all mosques built until 730 CE faced.

Between Christianity and Islam alone, hundreds of millions of people are dead and billions are presently "believing" assertions that are certainly false, contributing to their own internal state of suffering which "believers" "believe" is coming from somewhere *other* than their own "belief"-based religion which is based on a certainly false assertion.

If you want to hear me talk about something else, it is best not to talk to me on a philosophy forum that deals with philosophical matters, such as the root of human suffering.

As I said before, this is one of the few forums which puts up with such trolling activity.

...but do you understand you are the one trolling right now? Your replies:

#1

Divine Retribution !

#2

The question for me, is that following a paragraph like this, 'why only two deletions' ?

#3

No. I'm advocating deletion because you are a hypocrite. All you do is preach intolerance of mainstream belief systems without which you would have nothing to say. As I said before, this is one of the few forums which puts up with such trolling activity.

#1 is strictly a "troll" comment.
#2 is strictly a "troll" question.
#3 is strictly a "troll" personal attack.

You will find that the old Canaanite sacrificial rituals were all based on scapegoating the sins of the tribe onto a single animal/person "believing" the sins of the tribe will be reconciled. Christianity is an example of a Canaanite religion: scapegoating the sins of humanity onto a single man while "believers" "believe" their sins are paid for already.

The problem with enmity (Cain/Canaanite) is when a person is in a state of enmity (ie. dislike of another) they begin projecting their own nature onto others and accuse others of what they are themselves guilty of. In modern day terminology, this is called 'psychological projection'. It only happens with people who are in enmity.

In this case, the only trolling activity here is yourself.

Next !

The “philosophy” in philosophy forum deserves quotation marks. Very few, if any philosophies besides the very worst advocated for and practiced censorship.

so why can't you do as other do, even if takes greater reflection on your part? — Hanover

.. I'd like to say something about this. When a person is being mean and nasty, they are transgressing the ultimate law of morality: "do unto others as you would have them do to you", and we know that when people are found to give amusing responses, they become targets for those who goad.

So it seems that his tendency to lean on the Austistic diagnosis is attracting meanness and nastiness from those who find it amusing (and I'm only reflecting what has already been found in this thread). So then, the problem with expecting him to let it be, is that you are taking sides with the ones who are being mean and nasty - and your attitude toward him is that he should forfeit any expectation of justice.

That means you are expecting him to tolerate injustice, immorality and meanness - and such oppression drives a righteous person mad (which is again, rather rewarding to the one goading, who sits comfortable beyond his reach - Proverbs 29:27).

Christianity is an example of a Canaanite religion: scapegoating the sins of humanity onto a single man while "believers" "believe" their sins are paid for already. — A Gnostic Agnostic

That's the "penal substitution atonement" doctrine, which is widespread and most popular in Christianity, but essentially based on a mischaracterisation of God's character (1 John 4:16, 1 John 4:18, 1 Corinthians 13:5-6, Proverbs 17:15, Isaiah 59:7). So I don't like to call it a Christian teaching.

People who believe that doctrine are unable to reconcile certain logical problems, and unable to read the scriptures without prejudice (because the scriptures do not say what they have been programmed to see them as saying). It's the reasoning of a fallen mind that thinks in terms of indebtedness (and there's a lot of people claiming to be Christian who are of the fallen mind, who do not know what godliness is, just as Jesus was saying of the religious teachers in His time - consider what Jesus was saying about this through Luke 19:14 and Matthew 12:43-45 "So it will be for this evil generation").

I'd quite like to show you more, but it is off-topic for this thread, so I only mentioned it FYI. It's something that you can look into, as you say you are focused on the philosophy of the human problem. It's one of those heresies that 2 Peter 2:2 points to. (Eg. Luke 5:20 and Luke 7:47 show that blood is not necessary for forgiveness of sins).

Eh? What are you calling "mean and nasty", though? Chances are that it's something that I would have others do unto me, like mockery or bluntness.

is attracting meanness and nastiness from those who find it amusing (and I'm only reflecting what has already been found in this thread). — Serving Zion

Can you please cite actual examples to prove your case instead of slandering people in the abstract? I don't recall anyone being mean to him, though he claims we have. We simply don't agree with him, but last I checked that was not the basis of "meanness."

I think the actual injustice is going around and giving people unearned bad names.

I can live with all sorts of epithets, but I want to have earned them fair and square.

In the world of the superficial and easily offended, straight-talking criticism is mean and nasty. It could be that. It could also be that some people hear the word "autism" and automatically think "victim!".

If I go around saying that I'm a sociopath, will you all forgive me for any perceived wrongdoings? If so, then I'm a sociopath. :smile: :up:

So that's what "S" stands for!

And, yes, especially about the superficial part. The irony is of course that equating people with any kind of disability with victims is just belittling and paternalistic.

So that's what "S" stands for! — Artemis

It alternates between that and sarcastic son of a bitch.

Thread has now devolved into yet another mudfight among spoilt brats, so it will be closed and I will leave Jamalrob to deal with the OP by PM. Grow up, all of you.