I believe that repentance is also a process of healing and such a healing might involve potentially suffering — boundless

Suffering isn't an absence of joy or sadness...repentance is different from suffering also, attempting to equate the two as the same, well, of course we won't see eye to eye.

One doesn't need to repent in order to change ones ways...

The repentant criminal is none other than Nietzsche's "Pale Criminal" who hangs his head in shame and is now defined as the doer of one deed that not defines his identity, some deed that is an externalized anchor of the past...

Metanoia (μετάνοια) in Greek literally means a change of mind or a transformative rethinking. It implies an internal shift in perspective—almost existential—a turning toward a new way of being, seeing, or living. It’s often active, forward-facing, and creative.

Repentance, from Latin paenitentia (root of penitence), is soaked in guilt, punishment, and moral debt. It implies sorrow for wrongdoing, often linked to confession, penance, and shame. It's backward-facing, tied to regret.

Jesus seeks to transform through the Beatitudes, which are connected with Joy, not shame and guilt, as he didn't come to pass any judgements.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Then I highly suggest you begin to understand the secrets of Nietzsche's invention of the Dionysian Dithyrambs... as Metaphysical Poetry is what Nietzsche details as his magnum opus, his greatest gift to mankind...

In my lifework, my Zarathustra holds a place apart. With it, I gave my fellow-men the greatest gift that has ever been bestowed upon them. This book, the voice of which speaks out across the ages, is not only the loftiest book on earth, literally the book of mountain air — Ecce Homo

Added the above to showcase Nietzsche details TSZ as his greatest gift to mankind and magnum opus. The below details some about his artists metaphysics.

Already in the foreword to Richard Wagner, art—-and not morality—is set down as the properly metaphysical activity of man; in the book itself the piquant proposition recurs time and again, that the existence of the world is justified only as an æsthetic phenomenon. Indeed, the entire book recognises only an artist-thought and artist-after-thought behind all occurrences,—a "God," if you will, but certainly only an altogether thoughtless and unmoral artist-God, who, in construction as in destruction, in good as in evil, desires to become conscious of his own equable joy and sovereign glory; who, in creating worlds, frees himself from the anguish of fullness and overfullness, from the suffering of the contradictions concentrated within him...

I am convinced that art is the highest task and the properly metaphysical activity of this life, as it is understood by the man, to whom, as my sublime protagonist on this path, I would now dedicate this essay....

But, my dear Sir, if your book is not Romanticism, what in the world is? Can the deep hatred of the present, of "reality" and "modern ideas" be pushed farther than has been done in your artist-metaphysics? — Birth of Tragedy

Nietzsche's Dithyrambs are poems with metaphysical side-effects, their whole purpose is to take a self abnegated reader through a journey that overcomes their bad conscience and loathing of mankind. The dithyrambs are detailed by Nietzsche quite extensively, but nobody even takes this discussion seriously because "Nietzsche."

The Dionyso-musical enchantment of the sleeper now emits, as it were, picture sparks, lyrical poems, which in their highest development are called tragedies and dramatic dithyrambs... — Birth of Tragedy

What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb...

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude...

Before Zarathustra there was no wisdom, no probing of the soul, no art of speech: in his book, the most familiar and most vulgar thing utters unheard-of words. The sentence quivers with passion. Eloquence has become music. Forks of lightning are hurled towards futures of which no one has ever dreamed before. The most powerful use of parables that has yet existed is poor beside it, and mere child's-play compared with this return of language to the nature of imagery...

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing? — Ecce Homo

The Gospels is longer than a page. And what do you got you panties in a twist for? I literally learned something here from you. Metanoia vs Repentance is even better than Penance vs Repentance.

Everything else is reified through Judaism.

I get what you mean but I do not know* of any Greek (or even Syriac) Christian author according to whom some kind of remedial suffering is not needed for salvation. — boundless

Doesn't make a difference what people think, unless they think they know better than Jesus, which goes to show they're fluffing their own ego at that point.

The text is the text, and well, we see that the authors of the original Greek Bible chose metanoia, so saying that you don’t know of any writers or authors... well, you're glossing over the facts of the words in favor of a poor translation through reification.

If you have children, here's hoping (facetiously) they don't learn a poor version of mathematics all because someone wanted to put their own spin on the concepts of math... 7+4 = 11 regardless of how you may want to twist it to some other value.

The only hell a person might go through is their own bad conscience, if they ever stoop that low to feel a bad conscience to begin with. Not by way of Jesus, as Jesus does not judge, for he was sent into the world as God's undying Grace. One need not feel any torment over past actions.

Here's the point: metanoia, is the Greek word where as the Latin translation is purposefully altered to mean something vastly different:

Metanoia (μετάνοια) in Greek literally means a change of mind or a transformative rethinking. It implies an internal shift in perspective—almost existential—a turning toward a new way of being, seeing, or living. It’s often active, forward-facing, and creative.

Repentance, from Latin paenitentia (root of penitence), is soaked in guilt, punishment, and moral debt. It implies sorrow for wrongdoing, often linked to confession, penance, and shame. It's passive backward-facing, tied to regret.

Repentance creates the "Pale-Criminals" Nietzsche speaks about in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

The shameful doer of a single deed that defines them.

In repentance shame defines.

repentance is a feeling of much sorrow and torment. Which has nothing to do with the Greek word Metanoia. Which the Romans poorly translated into re-poenitire. The Romans frequently adapted Greek concepts, but translated them through their own cultural, political, and moral lenses, which altered their meanings. This is especially true with philosophy and religion.

Jesus doesn't demand repentance for sin though. Why keep bringing up Judaism as if it matter anything to Jesus?

We're speaking of Christianity, and thus Christ. Not the Judaism he rejected.

What are the rational grounds for deeming someone or something beyond the pale and dismissing them or writing them off? — Leontiskos

Why does it have to be discussed as if there's a universal truth behind the will to ignorance? I dismiss people when I know they're an absolute waste of time.

Like discussing the Bible with people who aren't familiar with it. They've never taken a discerning eye to it. It's why most Christians dont know wtf they even believe. It's why they follow the apostles rather than the most Christian of Christians: Christ. If you follow Christ, then you don't get to see others as sinners or as beneath you, which is what most Xtians bank on. The objective slave morality that allows them to deny the lives of others is their poppy and poison... but all these quacks don't realize:

 11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake.

These idolaters of the apostles end up blessing us, as the Beatitude goes.

Dissing the obstinate as beyond the pale is fine because they're only looking for the answers the satify their confirmation bias. Thus they're not actually here to learn anything, and thus a waste of time in general.

Anything one needs is in the Bible itself. Specifically the Gospels. If it doesn't align with that what good is it?

1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain, and when he was set down, his disciples came unto him.  2 And opening his mouth, he taught them, saying:  

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  
4 Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land.  
5 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.
6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill.  
7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.  
8 Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God.  
9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God.  
10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake

These 8 lines is how one becomes blessed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

Nothing more, Nothing less. Any one of those according to Christ.

Noone here can debate this. And they are the only lines that pertain to what it takes to become blessed to enter the Kingdom of Heaven under Christ.

If you want to do your Judaism, go for it. But that doesn't matter to Jesus. Only his beatitudes.

Certainly not the Judaic traditions of Sin, Repentance and Atonement.

Sin puts distance between man and God under the laws of Judaism, where as Jesus EMBRACES even the sinners to bring them into his fold. Hence why he sits with them unjudgingly. To lead by example of his beatitudes and TEACH them a better way of life through SHOWING his example. To AWAKEN and bring them into the LIGHT.

That Christians here don't understand that is wild af.

That you thought Jesus was a judging cunt to toss bitches asunder into God's angry wrath... that's you all projecting your own hate as if that's what Jesus stands for. BUT some how you apes forgot Jesus represents God's UNDYING GRACE and TRUTH.

John 1:17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

TRUTH didn't come by the Apostles, TRUTH isn't in the LAWS OF GOD which MOSES brought...

Jesus brought TRUTH AND GRACE...

So let the sink in for a moment...

All the JUDAISM before Jesus is not the TRUTH.

Sin, Repentance and Atonement, and all the other Judaic traditions are UNTRUTH to the BEATITUDES OF JESUS CHRIST.

The BEATITUDES are the TEACHINGS OF CHRIST. Nothing else. Not what the Apostles like Paul say... he's the resentful cunt most of you Christians worship...

And yall make a whorship out of Christianity by worshipping Paul rather than taking in the lessons of Jesus Christ and his beatitudes.

It’s pretty simple:

The Bible breaks down into sections.

The only section I'm concerned with are the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which primarily focus on the life and teachings of Jesus.

Acts, on the other hand, chronicles the actions of the apostles and the growth of the church...

I know this may be hard for you to rationalize because you're quite poor at following anything outside of your prejudice...

Just because you find the word sin or repent in the Gospels doesn't mean that Jesus is passing Judgement.

And I already destroyed the poor accuracy in the interpretation and translation of the Greek word Metanoia, into the word Repentance. Which you yourself are too poor of a mind to even counter.

Meta = a change with and among, to move beyond, and has nothing to do with the sorrow or shame of repentance. Repentance is an improper translation of metanoia.

Or do you think Facebook changed its name to "Sorrow and Shame"? :roll:

No, you're just poor at reasoning in general.

You're trying to assert a different meaning for the original word within the Greek Bible (metanoia, a change of thought towards the Beatitudes [the teachings] of Jesus) to your dumb understanding (repentance, a feeling of very much sorrow about ones actions).

Which is why you ought to use the Douay-Rheims Bible. The Douay-Rheims translation was produced by translating the Latin Vulgate, which was the official Bible of the Catholic Church for centuries. The Vulgate was translated from the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) by St. Jerome in the 4th century. 

This is why PENANCE is used rather than REPENTANCE in the Douay-Rheims Bible. And the Latin Vulgate because St. Jerome understood that METANOIA doesn't equate to REPENTANCE but rather PENANCE.

You're the idiot pointing to some poor translation of the Bible and saying "see this shit translation says repent."

That you didn't know the Beatitudes are the teachings of Jesus Christ, but thought the Apostles opinions on Christianity were, is fucking wild also...

Just goes to show you don't know shit about your own belief system.

Okay, fair, and a good catch, but my biggest problem with that is repentance Etymology doesn't come from Greek, but from Latin. Re (very much) poenitire (make sorry). Which is still different than To change one's mind towards the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ. Here's why that matters imo.

As Clément Rosset discusses in his book Joyful Cruelty on Joyous and Melancholy thinkers.

Generally the interpretation goes like this: the melancholy ruminant does not have access to bliss because he is the prisoner of a thought devoted to misfortune; the joyous ruminant (those of Beatitude) accedes to bliss because he has surmounted the thought of misfortune and succeeds in disgesting it. — Joyful Cruelty, pg 30

Jesus the Glad Tidings, and Beatitudes describes the latter. This is why Jesus seeks to change their mind. Not so that they can express melancholy through sorrow and regret, because that defeats the purpose.

Repentance is the Latin translation of metanoia.

But let us look at the difference between Meta and Para in Greek, which are closely related, but Meta connotes: after, beyond, with, and among something, where as para connotes: beside, alongside, beyond, against.

The latin translation of metanoia (one towards the light) into repentance (very much sorrow) is more akin to the Greek paranoid (the mind turned against itself).

Furthermore:

Just as the joyful person is incapable of expressing the reason for his joy and the nature of what overwhelms him [because it is with/among him], so also the melancholy person does not know how to identify the reason for his sadness or the nature of what he is lacking. — Clément Rosset, Joyful Cruelty pg 5

Thus we can see metanoia is a change of the mind towards Joy because metanoia is a change with something, not towards regret and sorrow (a change against the mind from lacking) and again considering the Beatitudes (Joy) is what makes one blessed under Jesus' Equation then I can't accept the Latin Repentance for Metanoia. It's the same way the Latin mistranslated "Public" for "Social."

Jesus isn't there to judge and make people feel bad... he's there to wake them up, to see the light of his beatitudes, his mental architecture.

Fair enough. Was mostly playing devil's advocate anyhow to give a little food for thought.

"I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” - Luke 5:32 — BitconnectCarlos

It's actually penance... not repentance.

Quite a difference. We can see in 30 Jesus is more just than the Pharisees and Scribes as the Beatitude dictates by still dining with publicans and sinners. He doesn't exclude them.

30 But the Pharisees and scribes murmured, saying to his disciples: Why do you eat and drink with publicans and sinners? — Luke 5

Penance is a duty, an action in Christianity that's like prayer, alms giving, or as we can see in the very next few lines... Fasting.

Repentance is a change of heart and mind, a feeling of sorrow for your actions.

 

31 And Jesus answering, said to them: They that are whole, need not the physician: but they that are sick.  32 I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance. — Luke 5

That's from Douay-Rheims, which is the most accurate to the Latin Bible.

No, Judaism does. Nowhere in the Gospels does Jesus require any of that. Nor can you produce a pasaage that shows it. Everything else in the bible other than the Gospels, are the DISCIPLES take on Christianity. Where as the Gospels discusses Jesus's life and actions. And as we can see by Pope John Paul II teachings: that equation of Jesus Christ.

God punishing sinners, God's Angry Judgements, are brought to man under the law of which Moses portrays. And ANYONE BREAKING THOSE COMMANDMENTS WILL BE CONSIDERED LEAST IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

John 1

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.  17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

Matthew 5: 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.  

Breaking any of the 10 Commandments of sinning and guess what you're still IN the Kingdom of Heaven.

Repentance and Atonement is of Judaism, and has nothing to do with Christ.

I think you're not very good at connecting dots then. There is no tradition of repentance and atonement with Jesus Christ, it, like sin is abolished by Jesus Christ's equation of being the ultimate example of God's grace. One merely has to follow any of the Beatitudes of Jesus Christ to make it into the Kingdom of Heaven, which more or less, every human falls under these Beatitudes.

I don't think "intelligent" design is even a correct saying to even get at a notion of God creating something (at least in so far as the etymology of intelligent). Intelligent design really just means something that understands it's own (idiocy) to the point it follows its own instructions.

Which doesn't exactly get at the notion of God.

The philosophers who detailed early Zionism was to renounce any sort of biologism and nationalism, to build bridges between every nation of man and bring them together. Berdichevski, Brunner, Popper-Lynkeus, Lessing, Herzl, Buber, Chomsky, Zeitlin... the list goes on. — DifferentiatingEgg

The Zionist businessmen didn't give a hoot about that though they just wanted a cash cow. I take my definition from the philosophers, not the business men.

Well, you support and advocate for Israel, thus by proxy, you do. You're hopelessly one sided. Where as I have actually looked into Zionist philosophers and read several works and even support a version there of. But not one that is full of the resentment of weak minded nationalist who believe that nationalism equates to self determinism.

I mean, who cares about the anything outside of the Bible in this regard? Jesus states as reported in the Gospels of Matthew: that even those who don't uphold God's laws will be least IN THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN.

16 So let your light shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.  17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.  18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled.  19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. — Matthew Chapter 5

[20] "The scribes and Pharisees": The scribes were the doctors of the law of Moses: the Pharisees were a precise set of men, making profession of a more exact observance of the law: and upon that account greatly esteemed among the people. — Notes on 20

We can see in John precisely this connection to the law Moses brought...

16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.  17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. — John, Chapter 1

So breaking any of the laws of the Old Testament, commiting Sin, doesn't matter, you'll still be ushered into the Kingdom of Heaven just for believing in the equation of Jesus Christ.

11 Amen, amen I say to thee, that we speak what we know, and we testify what we have seen, and you receive not our testimony.  12 If I have spoken to you earthly things, and you believe not; how will you believe, if I shall speak to you heavenly things?  13 And no man hath ascended into heaven, but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven.  14 And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the desert, so must the Son of man be lifted up:  15 That whosoever believeth in him, may not perish; but may have life everlasting.

 16 For God so loved the world, as to give his only begotten Son; that whosoever believeth in him, may not perish, but may have life everlasting.  17For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.  18 He that believeth in him is not judged. But he that doth not believe, is already judged: because he believeth not in the name of the only begotten Son of God.  19 And this is the judgment: because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil. — John, Chapter 3

Thus every Law of Moses, every Sin, can be forgone, cause Jesus doesn't give a damn whether you sin or not.

Just do as Jesus does: transvaluate values, live to your own equation, and bridge distances.

The beatitudes of Jesus Christ show its pretty easy to be blessed:

3 Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. 4 Blessed are the meek: for they shall possess the land. 5 Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

6 Blessed are they that hunger and thirst after justice: for they shall have their fill. 7 Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy. 8 Blessed are the clean of heart: for they shall see God. 9 Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called children of God. 10 Blessed are they that suffer persecution for justice' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

11 Blessed are ye when they shall revile you, and persecute you, and speak all that is evil against you, untruly, for my sake: 12 Be glad and rejoice, for your reward is very great in heaven. — Matthew, Chapter 5

And as Clément Rosset points out in Joyful Cruelty pg 26:

If and only if a concept is answerable to an absolute beatitude can it be recognized as specifically Nietzschean.

Which as I've already claimed numerous times before reading Rosset's book, Nietzsche vibes with Jesus in this exact manner: absolute beatitude.

Each of these attitudes offers counter-cultural and counter-intuitive ways of coming to see and endure the world. John Paul II teaches that “the beatitudes are a self-portrait of Jesus Christ” (Veritatis Splendor). If the Beatitudes are Jesus helping us see his character and disposition, his way of being truly happy and blessed in this life and in the next, then it is worth our time to attend to these eight steps of courage. — POPE John Paul II

I'm literally over here telling it like the fuckin Pope, without even knowing it, because that's how fucking legit my interpretation is... Pope John Paul II, has my back. :strong:

And I'm an atheist...

You support the Nakba, by your own standards you're "wicked." You don't "stoop to the level of Islamists" period... because you're prejudice af and see them as dirt. I know I know, your best friend is Islamic, I'm sure.

You're pretty stupid, but that's okay, every society needs your kind. Israel is Palestine.

Violence is a necessity of life. And yeah, they got a right to defend their land as they see fit, especially with dumbasses like you asserting foreign Jews can take their land as they see fit.

Let's make a deal... drop your address, we can make an agreement, if I can push you out of your home through force of violence then I keep all your shit... No? Then stfu.

Nah, moral systems are good for the people who are terrible at governing themselves. But they're not really needed for someone who can. I enjoy them being in place because most people abide by them, and you're free not to.

I think the problem comes when Jews are no longer understood to be Palestinians — BitconnectCarlos

No, you simply don't think hard enough beyond your own prejudice. To the point you think it's okay for foreign Jews to take land that they had no rights to. Thus you support unjustified eviction by threat and force of murder. You're just too X to say it so plainly.

I bet you'd attempt to protect your home from a foreign invader too.

To address a few things:

I think you're doing an injustice to stoicism to suggest it is based on cowardice. Self-control isn't fear. — Hanover

First, flight in this case, I only use in the sense of turning away from the self, not necessarily fear though that could also be the case.

We see things differently, is all. I don't see natural spontaneous acts of stoicism the same as a stoic who makes a systematic dogma out of stoicism even if it is solely for themselves.

Systematic stoicism is done out of a compulsion towards stoicism towards an illusion of control, which is a sort of self tyranny of turning away from the self. A turning away from our own humanity. That doesn't mean we don't owe much to these phenomenological systems, for many systems provide methodology to live by and to live for. But for me, stoicism is the spirit of the hermit at the door, at the peep hole, pressing their body up against the gateway of communication, tyrannizing over the locks, bolts, and hinges. Being an anchorite and hermit can bring oneself, much self-awareness, much honey, as Zarathustra might say. But ultimately, I see it as the iron mask, from Man in the Iron Mask, of masks.

It certainly takes more courage to leave the gateway of communication open at all times. And there is control with speech through ones own ability to articulate and express themselves. There is both silence and control in communication. Through one's own light and superabundance of personal power a blinding halo forms, spring-storms that build fields of sentences that a person can vanish within.

To me, systematic stoicism is a compulsory overwriting of impulsion that instills a deeper, more persistent, harder to resist urge that one constantly gravitates back to because it's comfortable there over a shallower brief momentary impulsion that's easier to resist, as it exhausts itself.

In any event, the lack of manliness (which seems to be the way you're using "animal" here) — Hanover

"Manliness" —I detailed nothing of the sort— humans are animals and as such we're scientifically classified under the kingdom of animalia. To be human is to embody both our animal instincts and our higher, rational faculties. It's not about denying our animal nature but integrating it into a more profound and conscious existence. In this sense, stoicism, while offering valuable tools for navigating the complexities of life, risks overlooking the primal, emotional, and spontaneous aspects of being human—those parts of us that cannot simply be controlled or suppressed.

I find that systematic stoicism, by demanding strict control over one's impulses, can sometimes turn our inherent humanity into something abstract, reducing the richness of emotional experience to a set of rules. There’s wisdom in moderation, but there’s also beauty in embracing the full spectrum of what it means to be human—our vulnerability, our passions, and our unpredictable, sometimes messy, impulses. By seeking to overwrite these, one might risk losing touch with the depth of human existence. It’s not cowardice or weakness to feel deeply—it’s part of the very essence of being human.

In conclusion, while stoicism offers much to the self-disciplined and rational person, it should not, in my view, be made into a dogma that dismisses the full range of human experience, including the more instinctual, emotional, and relational aspects. Life is complex and multifaceted, and it’s this complexity that I believe we must not shy away from. The spirit of the hermit at the door can teach us much, but the open door—facing the world and all its unpredictability—can teach us even more.

Nothing to do with the Ubermensch.

Philosopher X says two things...

1. He who says it best knows it best.

2. We ought to restore man before we restore extinct animals. (He's suggeating men have grown weak)

Since Philosopher X says those 2 things and Nietzsche is lauded by the intellectual elite as "he who says it best" (and thus by Philosopher X first statement, knows it best)...

Then Nietzsche stating that Philosophy domesticates man signifies that Philosopher X's "we ought to restore man" would mean that Philosopher X ought to stop domesticating himself through philosophy if he wants to actually restore man.

Because to Nietzsche (he who says it best) to restore man would be to leave philosophy behind.

In other words, you can't truly restore man (the man in ones self) and be a philosopher (because philosophy domesticates man away from his natural state).

It was in response to the Time Magazine "The dire wolf is back." ... they were trying to say something philosophically deep.

will respond, a bit occupied atm.

I wonder how many mentions you get for the houra spent moderating the forums or whatever other work one may be doing... oh practically 0. But without the higher mention ratio... they obviously haven't contributed.

I confess to being totally baffled how anyone as well informed as you seem to be could consider early Zionism to be some sort of kumbaya "let's all get together and build a better world" movement. — EricH

My man, I know Zionism was always to steal land from those who occupied it. I know a lot of the nasty little secrets about Zionism, but I also don't blame Nietzsche for all the dumbasses who ruin his philosophy and psychology. Just as I don't blame Zionism for the idiots who ruined what Zionism was supposed to be, that image of what it could be under its greatest advocates and constituents.

Is this like karma farming? Lol, whatever it is it's dumb as it doesn't take in account threads created with total comments under them. Any many other statistics. Mostly just an exercise in massaging an ego.

Now we know Banno, whilst at the hinge of submitting something is pondering how many replies he can get with every post. :lol: Fragility.

"I have an Idea, everyone in the world should follow my idea." The ego on this guy is unbelievable.

For sure. Kids are going to be kids, and overall those that simply don't sit down and stfu get labeled as trouble makers. Asking too many questions, and being a child in any sense of their creative imagination is more or less frowned upon.

I did my 9th Grade AP Biology science fair project on this... you'll find that the cure was created before there was a diagnosis of ADHD. Ritalin was actually discovered by accident by a Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Ciba Giegy or something like during the 1940's and I think it wasn't until the early 1970s that it was noted as effective for people who had "ADHD" some new diagnosis.

I personally feel like certain technologies with screens that provide boatloads of stimulation cause the brain to develop in a certain way such that sitting down and quieting the mind to a stage of silence becomes neigh impossible for a child who develops a need for the dopamine dump from being over stimulated.

So when the child is in an understimulated state, their nonquieted mind begins wandering, whats thi...wait what's tha... ooo John farted... wait, but that question I wanted to ask. You know how some philosophers say those who can't stand quiet is due to their inability to confront themselves. The child isn't so much aware of this of course. And the medications for ADHD aren't recommended for anyone under the age of 25 due to the negative side effects manifesting more, and altering the neuroplasticity of the child more drastically than an adult which affects them even after they choose to quit.

I was on those medications for a decade as a child. The only way for me to over come them and the other medications was to explosively force myself out of them.

For sure, I purposefully equivocated magic to a different version of the word than what you were using. But it also highlights what I feel about the concept of magic: the shock and awe of perceiving what is incomprehensible to us.

One of the best things about children is that you get to reexperience the magic of the world through their eyes.

I believe for example the case that the Barbarian man, as it is detailed by the Greek, to be the man who lives completely without the privacy of a household life.

The Dionsysian Barbarian for example, was often depicted as the Satyr.

"Source? It was revealed to me on my walk." :cool:

Yup.