[scaredyclassic]

this novel is hitting me pretty hard. book 2 has numerous piercing insights.

he did allegedly have an odd sexual thing involving rats. but so what?

[scaredyclassic]

but I’m happy.

[scaredyclassic]

I cant remember living anywhere else. it has no roaches and I have a little room of my own to hang out in now that kids are leaving. I’ll stay until I can’t climb up the stairs.

[scaredyclassic]

WWJD

[scaredyclassic]

no one really knows.

but im pretty sure it’s not ez to make $ trading stocks.

what research can one small peon to find info not already priced into the mkt? how can u beat out all the other smart researchers?

[scaredyclassic]

the Lord hates gheys

[scaredyclassic]

laura ingraham: wikipedia. see also, cunt.

As editor of The Dartmouth Review, she had a reporter go undercover at an LGBTQ meeting on Dartmouth campus and published the transcript including the attendees.[8] She was criticised for forcibly outing them to friends and family.[8] At the start of the meeting, an oath of confidentiality was read whereby participants in the meeting were assured that information from the meeting would not be made public.[8] Ingraham claimed confidentiality did not apply, because the meeting had been advertised, and defended the outing of the gay students as a “freedom of the press issue”.[8]

During her time at the Dartmouth Review, Ingraham was known to harbor homophobic views.[9] In 1997, she apologized for her homophobia.[9] Jeffrey Hart, the faculty adviser for The Dartmouth Review described Ingraham as having “the most extreme anti-homosexual views imaginable”, claiming “she went so far as to avoid a local eatery where she feared the waiters were homosexual.”[10] In 1997, she wrote an essay in The Washington Post in which she stated that she changed her views on homosexuality after witnessing “the dignity, fidelity, and courage” with which her gay brother Curtis and his partner coped with AIDS. Ingraham has stated that she supports civil unions, but still believes that marriage “is between a man and a woman”.[11]

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=scaredyclassic]

in general though, it’s a bad idea to fuck stormy daniels without a condom[/quote]

What do you think of Stormy’s attorney?[/quote]

scrappy.

[scaredyclassic]

although happiness is subjective, we can measure it when it increases subjectively

id be willing to have less money to live in a happier society.

in general though, it’s a bad idea to fuck stormy daniels without a condom

[scaredyclassic]

what about a politician who ran on a platform of improving our gross national happiness?

[scaredyclassic]

right. plus, usually, when we love people, like they say He loves us, one sign of affection is GIFTIES!!!

[scaredyclassic]

christian money talks, bullshit atheists walk…

Slideshow
That the prosperity gospel has a hold on a segment of American culture is not disputable. Time quotes its own poll numbers:

17 percent of Christians surveyed said they considered themselves part of such a movement, while a full 61 percent believed that God wants people to be prosperous. And 31 percent—a far higher percentage than there are Pentecostals in America—agreed that if you give your money to God, God will bless you with more money. … Of the four biggest megachurches in the country, three—Joel Osteen’s Lakewood in Houston; T.D. Jakes’ Potter’s House in south Dallas; and Creflo Dollar’s World Changers near Atlanta—are Prosperity or Prosperity Lite pulpits.
For Osteen, Prosperity Gospel isn’t a pejorative term:

“Does God want us to be rich?” he asks. “When I hear that word rich, I think people say, ‘Well, he’s preaching that everybody’s going to be a millionaire.’ I don’t think that’s it.” Rather, he explains, “I preach that anybody can improve their lives. I think God wants us to be prosperous. I think he wants us to be happy. To me, you need to have money to pay your bills. I think God wants us to send our kids to college. I think he wants us to be a blessing to other people. But I don’t think I’d say God wants us to be rich. It’s all relative, isn’t it?”

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=FlyerInHi][quote=flyer]As has been discussed, the prosperity gospel is definitely big business but, according to the terms of most organized religions, you don’t receive the benefits without complying with the terms, so, per that premise, taking advantage of the benefits may or may not work out work out for those who don’t comply with the terms.
[/quote]

If God bestows earthly benefits/prosperity before full compliance then she’s a pretty gullible dealmaker.

There should be reincarnation for the prosperity gospel to make sense. But reincarnation is not part of Christianity.[/quote]

i think you misunderstand prosperity gospel. the wealth you have is a sign in itself that G-d loves you and is pleased with you. the more money you have, the more G-d thinks of you. Wealth is a tangible marker that you are on the right path, not a reward.

So, for instance Donald trump goes to his pastor, a prosperity Gospel huckster, and Donald is assured that G-d is pleased with him because the proof is clearly in the evidence; he’s rich.

G-d wouldnt give trump all this money if he weren’t an awesome individual. And it’s not that far from mainstream Christianity; prayers get answered, blessings on the faithful, etc. Donld of course enjoys this cynical take on Christiantiy because it affirms him and because, of course, he believes in absolutely nothing but money, and prosperity gospel’s extreme take on Christianity allows him to snicker to himself that of course everyone is as full of crap as he isand that at the end of the day, this blessed are the poor and help the downtrodden crap is just a bunch of malarkey, and that rich people in fact are the preferred of G-d.

of course, the notion that G-d intentionaly gives specific blessings to specific people based on merit in the form of cash prizes is just a concrete example of the Power of Prayer, a nice sentiment, taken to an extreme view, and it sounds crazy, but then again, all religious doctrine, from the outside, sound like the ramblings of an insane person.

as the old atheist says:

“I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”
…Stephen F Roberts

or, as ricky gervais out it:

“I don’t understand how you don’t believe in God” < Well, you know how you don't believe in Zeus? Like that.

[scaredyclassic]

Homepage

this is alain de bottons school.

i love it.

he has a a class in SF next week.

i bought many books off this website. need to buy phone detox asap.

[scaredyclassic]

[quote=flyer][quote=scaredyclassic][quote=flyer]As has been discussed, the prosperity gospel is definitely big business but, according to the terms of most organized religions, you don’t receive the benefits without complying with the terms, so, per that premise, taking advantage of the benefits may or may not work out work out for those who don’t comply with the terms.

Personally, I find no reason or need to argue about it one way or the other–as none of us will really know until after we take that last breath–and, perhaps, not even then. In the meantime–enjoy![/quote]

I don’t know. it’s pretty risky to not believe…

“Pascal’s Wager is an argument in philosophy presented by the seventeenth-century French philosopher, mathematician and physicist Blaise Pascal (1623–62).[1] It posits that humans bet with their lives that God either exists or does not.

Pascal argues that a rational person should live as though God exists and seek to believe in God. If God does not actually exist, such a person will have only a finite loss (some pleasures, luxury, etc.), whereas they stand to receive infinite gains (as represented by eternity in Heaven) and avoid infinite losses (eternity in Hell).[2]

Pascal’s Wager was based on the idea of the Christian God, though similar arguments have occurred in other religious traditions. The original wager was set out in section 233 of Pascal’s posthumously published Pensées (“Thoughts”). These previously unpublished notes were assembled to form an incomplete treatise on Christian apologetics.

Historically, Pascal’s Wager was groundbreaking because it charted new territory in probability theory,[3] marked the first formal use of decision theory, and anticipated future philosophies such as existentialism, pragmatism

The Wager uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées, part III, §233):

God is, or God is not. Reason cannot decide between the two alternatives.
A Game is being played… where heads or tails will turn up.
You must wager (it is not optional).
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (…) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain.
But some cannot believe. They should then ‘at least learn your inability to believe…’ and ‘Endeavour then to convince’ themselves.”[/quote]

Great quote, and no worries, scaredy. We’re believers, but we just don’t find the need to debate our beliefs publicly. Interestingly, from this discussion–it’s clear there are many viewpoints on this topic–even some that appear to be argued from conflicting perspectives.
(Not really clear as to how one can be an atheist and a believer.)

Conflicting perspectives seem quite common though, since, from my experience, it appears most Christians don’t believe Catholics have the answer to eternal life and vice versa etc., etc.–but my previous point was that the big business of the prosperity gospel that has been discussed, may present a false sense of entitlement to the benefits of a belief–without having to comply with the terms of that belief. That’s a nice selling point–but, as you mentioned would be considered “risky” from the viewpoint of those who believe the terms precede the benefits.
In the meantime, we’re loving this life, and wish the same to everyone.[/quote].

re: conflicting opinions…

“we all nod our heads in agreement when we hear the phrase, “Two Jews, three opinions.” We similarly chuckle when we hear the anecdote about the Jew who was discovered after years of living alone on a desert island. His rescuers noticed that he had built two huts aside from the one he lived in. He told the puzzled people who saved him that they were shuls, or synagogues. When asked why he needed two shuls, he retorted, “One is the one in which I pray, and the other is the one into which I would never set foot.”

We have no trouble believing that Jews tend to be contentious and have to express their disagreements with others, even when stranded alone on a desert island. ”

[Author]

Posts