Atheists and false believers the greatest danger for Humanity.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
I would give "peas a chance" and John Lennon would be there to sing its praises. So the peas are the deciding factor; blindfolded and cooking themselves in self righteous splendor.

Well, the answer to the roan is THE PEAS ULTIMATELY WIN, regardless of tastyness or they accidently skorched themselves. They are the subject of the arbitration and the hater human, lover human become adjutant spectators to the PEA condition. Its all about the veg anyway, and its redemption/power foothold in the marketplace (forget the children dynamic as they probably don't like mustard or cousin bean Black Eyed Peas).

Man, you really took care of that roan, single handedly. No roan is too big, to escape the mighty clutches of The VET. You observed, you contemplated, you remained Neutral lol, and then you saw right to heart of the matter, never once getting side tracked or bogged down, with the paralysis of analysis. If only there were more like you, the mysteries of the universe would be solved at a glance, rather than months of study.

Here endith the sarcasm…lol

Most mere mortals, go up on a mountain top (without even 2 peas to rub together), meditate for about a month, and then come back down, with the answer. Seems like you kinda skipped that part.

vethumanbeing
I work occasionally for Uriah Heep (hourly 450lb), he took over the business you know. I like your jury choice, mine would be these:
Osirus, Shakespeare, Anu, Jonathan Swift, Pacal Votan, Voltaire.

I like your choices too, although didn’t Pacal Votan get the dates wrong…it’s 2013, and where still here!!!…

And as for, Osirus and Anu, they weren’t even human, (not even sure, how they would fit into the “jury of my peers” category. Although, in your illustrious case; who knows) they were most likely, anthropomorphized Gods, created by humans.

Funny how wikipedia page says Osirus green skin, was meant to symbolize re-birth. Of course! How could I miss that one lol…

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
I would give "peas a chance" and John Lennon would be there to sing its praises. So the peas are the deciding factor; blindfolded and cooking themselves in self righteous splendor.
Well, the answer to the roan is THE PEAS ULTIMATELY WIN, regardless of tastyness or they accidently skorched themselves. They are the subject of the arbitration and the hater human, lover human become adjutant spectators to the PEA condition. Its all about the veg anyway, and its redemption/power foothold in the marketplace (forget the children dynamic as they probably don't like mustard or cousin bean Black Eyed Peas).

[joecroft
Man, you really took care of that roan, single handedly. No roan is too big, to escape the mighty clutches of The VET. You observed, you contemplated, you remained Neutral lol, and then you saw right to heart of the matter, never once getting side tracked or bogged down, with the paralysis of analysis. If only there were more like you, the mysteries of the universe would be solved at a glance, rather than months of study.
Here endith the sarcasm…lol

Thankyou, I never thought it was about the human's biased taste-buddian opinion of the negligible/humble pea. The pea is Hells Kingdom Come (for those that hate have eat of its combination recipes for eternity, for those that love the pea, a million dollar a season garden potencial).

joecroft
Most mere mortals, go up on a mountain top (without even 2 peas to rub together), meditate for about a month, and then come back down, with the answer. Seems like you kinda skipped that part.

I didnt walk up the Mt. in Medina I had a Polaris 4 wheeler (northstar) vehicle (fast). Meditate? I dont know how to do that at all (not within my my disaplines). I skip the long hard parts (already accomplished by others) if I can get away with it (why duplicate Pfizer style) waste of R and D.

vethumanbeing
I work occasionally for Uriah Heep (hourly 450lb), he took over the business you know. I like your jury choice, mine would be these:
Osirus, Shakespeare, Anu, Jonathan Swift, Pacal Votan, Voltaire.

joecroft
I like your choices too, although didn’t Pacal Votan get the dates wrong…it’s 2013, and where still here!!!…And as for, Osirus and Anu, they weren’t even human, (not even sure, how they would fit into the “jury of my peers” category. Although, in your illustrious case; who knows) they were most likely, anthropomorphized Gods, created by humans.Funny how wikipedia page says Osirus green skin, was meant to symbolize re-birth. Of course! How could I miss that one lol… - JC

Pacal Votan has the most memorable (and vitalily important) sarcophicus lid EVER DESIGNED. So, his dates were a little off, blame the civilization not the leader. At least I chose actual Gods, not forgetting Zeus, as it was a coin flip between him and Swift. Gods arent human (because they DONT HAVE TO BE), you chose the obvious minions of messiah/teacher CATAGORY) Osirus was more a broccoli green (thought about Vishnu (more of a Teal color) the twister was not including "THE GREEN MAN' pagan). Oh, you wanted a jury of YOUR PEERS, and Socrates, Mohammed, Jesus, Confusious, Buddha, Plato realistically fits the voir dire process for my lawyer 'Daniel Webster' for you? (whos your lawyer BTW). Who would be your pick of 4 alternates?

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Oh, you wanted a jury of YOUR PEERS, and Socrates, Mohammed, Jesus, Confusious, Buddha, Plato realistically fits the voir dire process for my lawyer 'Daniel Webster' for you? (whos your lawyer BTW).
Who would be your pick of 4 alternates?

Lawyers hmmm

OMG, my best defenders are already on the jury, talk about shooting oneself in the foot…

Ok, lets me see now…

I’d go with these 4…


(1) Abraham Lincoln

(2) Martin Luther

(3) Winston Churchill

(4) Sir Walter Scott


- JC

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Pacal Votan has the most memorable (and vitalily important) sarcophicus lid EVER DESIGNED.

Sorry, I completely missed this part, rushed my last reply…what's so vitally important about the design of a sarcophagus lid lol ?

I mean, it’s hardly on par with highly advanced battery/power system, hiding within some ancient artefact, yet to be discovered.

I’m all ears…

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Oh, you wanted a jury of YOUR PEERS, and Socrates, Mohammed, Jesus, Confusious, Buddha, Plato realistically fits the voir dire process for my lawyer 'Daniel Webster' for you? (whos your lawyer BTW).
Who would be your pick of 4 alternates?

joecroft templeman
Lawyers hmmm OMG, my best defenders are already on the jury, talk about shooting oneself in the foot…Ok, lets me see now…I’d go with these 4…
(1) Abraham Lincoln
(2) Martin Luther
(3) Winston Churchill
(4) Sir Walter Scott- JC

You picked your alternate jury members and it still remains for you to name your lawyer (main council).
As you got first pick (even though you chose a very desirable peer group) you left me the advantage.

My alternates: Herodidus, Walt Disney, The Jolly Green Giant, and last; the (pea-nut butter eater) Mr. Ed the Talking Horse of course of course. You know who my council is, we agreed on the jury selection (even if a never concieved before eight alternates). You have the advantage in chosing your lawyer and God fakir is not in the equation (the answer should be obvious).

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Pacal Votan has the most memorable (and vitalily important) sarcophicus lid EVER DESIGNED.

joecroft
Sorry, I completely missed this part, rushed my last reply…what's so vitally important about the design of a sarcophagus lid lol ?I mean, it’s hardly on par with highly advanced battery/power system, hiding within some ancient artefact, yet to be discovered.I’m all ears…

The gread lid of Palenque burial crypt for Pacal, AD 600 (his son Chan Bahlum finished the building of); beneath "The Temple of Inscriptions". The design is a puzzle, but the clue as to understand the lid is in the edges, where there are broken designs. Photographed upside down, right side up then transfered to cellophane could be overlaid, backwards forwards and the original lid becomes a story telling event unmatched. Maurice Cotterell decifered it. If you have a month to give away of your life read the "The Mayan Prophecies" Adrian G. Gilbert & Maurice M. Cotterell. These Maya were smarter than the average bear.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
You picked your alternate jury members and it still remains for you to name your lawyer (main council).

As you got first pick (even though you chose a very desirable peer group) you left me the advange.

It appears that Churchill, although a great leader, did not believe in a God, so unfortunately he will not be chosen as my defendant on this occasion. And Sir Walter Scott has too much of a connection with a craft or fraternity, which would give me too much, of an unfair advantage, therefore I will decline him.

Which only leaves me with 2 other options left. As for Abraham Lincoln although a believer in a God, and not a member of any fraternities, he didn’t have to face death, at the hands of a ranging mob, bent on controlling the masses, forever, so Martin Luther! it shall be.

(1) Martin Luther

vethumanbeing
My alternates: Herodidus, Walt Disney, The Jolly Green Giant, and last; the (pea-nut butter eater) Mr. Ed the Talking Horse of course of course.

You know who my council is, we agreed on the jury selection (even if a never concieved before eight alternates). You have the advantage in choosing your lawyer and God fakir is not in the equation (the answer should be obvious).

I’d stick with Daniel Webster, if I were you…at least he knows the terrain

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
You picked your alternate jury members and it still remains for you to name your lawyer (main council).
As you got first pick (even though you chose a very desirable peer group) you left me the advange.

Joecroft
It appears that Churchill, although a great leader, did not believe in a God, so unfortunately he will not be chosen as my defendant on this occasion. And Sir Walter Scott has too much of a connection with a craft or fraternity, which would give me too much, of an unfair advantage, therefore I will decline him.
Which only leaves me with 2 other options left. As for Abraham Lincoln although a believer in a God, and not a member of any fraternities, he didn’t have to face death, at the hands of a ranging mob, bent on controlling the masses, forever, so Martin Luther! it shall be. (1) Martin Luther.

Lincoln was a lawyer that would have been a good choice. Churchill did believe in a (the God) that provided him a 5th a day canard/flagon/flask of Brandy. Walter Scott of the literary variety. Martin Luther as your lawyer.

vethumanbeing
My alternates: Herodidus, Walt Disney, The Jolly Green Giant, and last; the (pea-nut butter eater) Mr. Ed the Talking Horse of course of course. You know who my council is, we agreed on the jury selection (even if a never concieved before eight alternates). You have the advantage in choosing your lawyer and God fakir is not in the equation (the answer should be obvious).

[joecroft
I’d stick with Daniel Webster, if I were you…at least he knows the terrain- JC

You got part of your lawyers name right, Luther/Lucifer. Id have a chance here as Webster won against the Devil once before and has the advantage. The obvious answer for you was Lucifer as the enlightener, obvious redemer and IN BIG TROUBLE personage that gave humans 'self knowledge/ awareness' (is still being refered to as satan/devil (NOT TRUE). The devil is just a confabulation, but..Daniel Webster won in the United Artist Movie version, starring John Huston Sr. (corrections appreciated) celluloid 16 frames a seconds can become true if enough believe it. As Akushla says, 'anything you believe...Is True'.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Lincoln was a lawyer that would have been a good choice. Churchill did believe in a (the God) that provided him a 5th a day canard/flagon/flask of Brandy. Walter Scott of the literary variety. Martin Luther as your lawyer.

Martin Luther had some training in Law and his Father was a Lawyer too, besides, if my soul is on the line, I need someone who at least believes in a God.

vethumanbeing
You got part of your lawyers name right, Luther/Lucifer. I have a chance here as Webster won against the Devil once before and has the advantage. Lucifer and the Devil are not the same individual, maybe sibling rivals.

Those names aren’t even close, and Lucifer didn’t even have a first name.
Appearances can be deceptive, Lucifer rejected Jesus and Martin Luther accepted him…can’t judge a book by it’s cover…

Anyway, I hate to be stickler and all, but just what exactly am I being tried for again…avoiding the Neutral Zone…?

BTW- this would make one heck of a movie; Similar to Bill and Teds adventure meets Daniel Webster and the Devil, meets A matter of life an death…

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Lincoln was a lawyer that would have been a good choice. Churchill did believe in a (the God) that provided him a 5th a day canard/flagon/flask of Brandy. Walter Scott of the literary variety. Martin Luther as your lawyer.

joecroft
Martin Luther had some training in Law and his Father was a Lawyer too, besides, if my soul is on the line, I need someone who at least believes in a God.

Because you believe in a fair and just God that lets its minions care about your legal health (even though no proof the Ninth State of Appeals Courts EXIST).

vethumanbeing
You got part of your lawyers name right, Luther/Lucifer. I have a chance here as Webster won against the Devil once before and has the advantage. Lucifer and the Devil are not the same individual, maybe sibling or father son rivals.

joecroft
Those names aren’t even close, and Lucifer didn’t even have a first name. Appearances can be deceptive, Lucifer rejected Jesus and Martin Luther accepted him…can’t judge a book by it’s cover…

.

You cannot prove Lucifer or Jesus ever existed. Martin Luther apparently left some "dear diaries" behind.

joecroft
Anyway, I hate to be stickler and all, but just what exactly am I being tried for again…avoiding the Neutral Zone…?
BTW- this would make one heck of a movie; Similar to Bill and Teds adventure meets Daniel Webster and the Devil, meets A matter of life an death…

It was all about the validity of the "peas habitation/nation existance" you started it. This is how simple problems or misunderstandings are fleshed out. You are at least patient, and a movie based upon the supposition a PEA has sentience and should be allowed to exist (dispite its naysayers) would be hilarious, (contact the Cohen Brothers) forget writing a new 'Epistle' write a screenplay (though it seems they did this already with 'Raising Arizona', 'Fargo', 'Blood Simple', "Where For Out Thou", and another independent film not affilated, "The Great Milagro Bean Field War". You are still wondering what my point is, when the other half of the arguement encompasses your point of view, and Im just a mirror.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
It was all about the validity of the "peas habitation/nation existance" you started it.

Oh, the pea exists, although perhaps not, if your neutrally inclined…

“you started it”

thanks for the reminder lol

vethumanbeing
This is how simple problems or misunderstandings are fleshed out.

Fleshed! strange notion…

vethumanbeing
You are at least patient, and a movie based upon the supposition a PEA has sentience and should be allowed to exist (dispite its naysayers) would be hilarious, (contact the Cohen Brothers) forget writing a new 'Epistle' write a screenplay (though it seems they did this already with 'Raising Arizona', 'Fargo', 'Blood Simple', "Where For Out Thou", and another independent film not affilated, "The Great Milagro Bean Field War".

The funny aspect of the movie would be the interactions between those awesome jury members, and naturally Daniel Webster vs Martin Lurther.

I guess Webster would discuss how he was a member of an Orthodox Protestant Church, which Luther helped to establish, a few centuries before he (Webster) was even born lol

Plato would discuss cause and effect, and Aristotle, would state his case for his domino principal, and Jesus would agree with them both. Although I think Hollywood would require a debate far greater, than that of a peas existence!; we all know what happened to the princess, she discovered the pea, and married the Prince.

As for those movies…I havent seen any of them…I’m clearly watching the wrong stuff..

*slaps himself* lol

vethumanbeing
You are still wondering what my point is, when the other half of the arguement encompasses your point of view, and Im just a mirror.

The point of my roan, was to do with experiencing something, in order to know it. One has to experience the taste of the pea, in order to make a decision.

How can you reflect that, which you do not know…i.e. No knowldege of the pea, other than knowing that 2 differring decisions were made on it’s behalf (the peas), for reasons unbeknown to you.

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
It was all about the validity of the "peas habitation/nation existance" you started it.

joecroft
Oh, the pea exists, although perhaps not, if your neutrally inclined…“you started it” thanks for the reminder. LOL

In this scenario, I did not know of its existing and had to be unbiased regarding such (you dont see where this is leading)?.

vethumanbeing
This is how simple problems or misunderstandings are fleshed out.

Joecroft templeman
Fleshed! strange notion!

Its a term that is more polite than that using "flayed or blooded letted".

vethumanbeing
You are at least patient, and a movie based upon the supposition a PEA has sentience and should be allowed to exist (dispite its naysayers) would be hilarious, (contact the Cohen Brothers) forget writing a new 'Epistle' write a screenplay (though it seems they did this already with 'Raising Arizona', 'Fargo', 'Blood Simple', "Where For Out Thou", and another independent film not affilated, "The Great Milagro Bean Field War".

Joecroft Scotsman
The funny aspect of the movie would be the interactions between those awesome jury members, and naturally Daniel Webster vs Martin Lurther. I guess Webster would discuss how he was a member of an Orthodox Protestant Church, which Luther helped to establish, a few centuries before he (Webster) was even born.

It would be most interesting to see, none other than Abraham Lincoln could even relate to the lawyers point of views, or LAW premises, Winston Churchill (the man who wished to be king) maybe Jesus, but he might recognise his LAW church in the protestant faith (PROTESTation against) tradition. I suppose the jury would (as a collection of livestock, Greek philosphers, Gods, entrepreners in childrens greatest fantacies, play writers and pundits. If Id chosen Dickens he would have an arsonal of spit balls to launch on both lawyers and would have been ejected from the courtroom.

joecroft
Plato would discuss cause and effect, and Aristotle, would state his case for his domino principal, and Jesus would agree with them both. Although I think Hollywood would require a debate far greater, than that of a peas existence!; we all know what happened to the princess, she discovered the pea, and married the Prince.

Well, done! The Princess was highly aware of that "PEA" buried underneath 20 mattresses, and even though it annoyed her got over it (the doubt is the uncomfortableness the pea just an ideaform to be embraced, the Prince? hes the promised heaven that awaits.

joecroft
The point of my roan, was to do with experiencing something, in order to know it. One has to experience the taste of the pea, in order to make a decision. How can you reflect that, which you do not know…i.e. No knowldege of the pea, other than knowing that 2 differring decisions were made on it’s behalf (the peas), for reasons unbeknown to you.- JC

So, what is your experience with God, in order to know it? "One has to experience the taste of the pea/god, in order to make a decision". How can you? a pea is tangible and made of consumptive matter, God is the IDEA of the PEA, the pea WAS ALWAYS just a metaphor for God.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
So, what is your experience with God, in order to know it?

What a funny question;

If you’ve experienced God, then you already know it, due too the experience itself…

It’s only the not experiencing, which would appear to keep you in the Neutral Zone…

Joecroft
"One has to experience the taste of the pea/god, in order to make a decision".

vethumanbeing
How can you?

Simple, eat the peas lol

vethumanbeing
a pea is tangible and made of consumptive matter, God is the IDEA of the PEA, the pea WAS ALWAYS just a metaphor for God.

Now your starting to ask the student (Me) the right questions.

Yes, the pea is tangible and can be easily experienced etc…

But God on the other is not easily as perceivable, so the question naturally arises, how does one experience God?

It’s like a paradox…

“You need to experience God in order to know what God is, and yet you need to know what God is, in order seek/go and experience God.”, (Joe Croft)

Can you see the solution…? lol

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
So, what is your experience with God, in order to know it?

JoeCroft
What a funny question;
If you’ve experienced God, then you already know it, due too the experience itself… It’s only the not experiencing, which would appear to keep you in the Neutral Zone…

Im not in any nuetral zone, I know the Creator as well as I know myself as I am IT and what a carnival ride it is to be a human on earth (I am humbled as to its execution).

Joecroft
"One has to experience the taste of the pea/god, in order to make a decision".

vethumanbeing
How can you?

JoeCroft
Simple, eat the peas lol

vethumanbeing
a pea is tangible and made of consumptive matter, God is the IDEA of the PEA, the pea WAS ALWAYS just a metaphor for God.

JoeCroft
Now your starting to ask the student (Me) the right questions.
Yes, the pea is tangible and can be easily experienced etc…
But God on the other is not easily as perceivable, so the question naturally arises, how does one experience God?
It’s like a paradox…
“You need to experience God in order to know what God is, and yet you need to know what God is, in order seek/go and experience God.”, (Joe Croft)
Can you see the solution…? lol- JC

Nice quote Joe, I need to experience God in order to understand it. I see the solution.
How do I experience God/Creator? I just have to accept myself as IT and all falls naturally into place (the understanding I may be the whole of it human, I may be a partical, but IAM it whether I like IT or not). Hey, we are the only ones left on this thread (empty chairs and beer glasses left on the tables) I guess we are closing the bar, the owner is nowhere to be found? Lets open another bar.

reply to post by vethumanbeing

Originally posted by Joecroft
What a funny question;

If you’ve experienced God, then you already know it, due too the experience itself…

It’s only the not experiencing, which would appear to keep you in the Neutral Zone…

vethumanbeing
Im not in any nuetral zone, I know the Creator as well as I know myself as I am IT and what a carnival ride it is to be a human on earth (I am humbled as to its execution).

I’m sure you do, And I never said you didn’t; note the word “appear” above, in my original statement.

When the word appear, appears, make note of it’s appearance! To many matrices, blocking your view perhaps lol

I was once asked by a girl what my favourite fairy tale was, and I replied “The Princess and Pea”

And she replied, “oh well, I’ll be the Princess, and you can be the pea lol”
It’s cruel world out there, I tell ya!

But, I digress…

Getting back to the point…

The Neutral Zone perspective experience, is just as valid as the others, but beneath the surface (some 22 to 33 matrices, give or take) as we both know, lies the pea of truth, just waiting to be discovered and become known.

Originally posted by Joecroft
It’s like a paradox…
“You need to experience God in order to know what God is, and yet you need to know what God is, in order seek/go and experience God.”, (Joe Croft)

vethumanbeing
Nice quote Joe, I need to experience God in order to understand it. I see the solution.

Thanks…Notice how I got the God word in, 4 times (VET Style), and “experience” and “know” in twice. Everything breaks down into mathematical formulas, including logical statements.

vethumanbeing
How do I experience God/Creator? I just have to accept myself as IT and all falls naturally into place (the understanding I may be the whole of it human, I may be a partical, but IAM it whether I like IT or not).

Yes, you are certainly a part of it, for sure.

vethumanbeing
Hey, we are the only ones left on this thread (empty chairs and beer glasses left on the tables) I guess we are closing the bar, the owner is nowhere to be found? Lets open another bar.

Yeah, like 2 peas in a pod lol,

Or 3 peas, if you include the one under the matrices lol

Sorry, pea analogy overdose, guilty as charged.

Speaking of another bar, I’m working on a new thread, which I think is going to be right up your alley…

Oh, and one more thing…who would have be been the judge…?

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Im not in any nuetral zone, I know the Creator as well as I know myself as I am IT and what a carnival ride it is to be a human on earth (I am humbled as to its execution).

joecroft
I’m sure you do, And I never said you didn’t; note the word “appear” above, in my original statement.
When the word appear, appears, make note of it’s appearance! To many matrices, blocking your view perhaps lol[

I told you I never see the obvious (terrible at multiple choice questions, as I see truth in all of the answers).

joecroft
I was once asked by girl what my favourite fairy tale was, and I replied “The Princess and Pea” And she replied, “oh well, I’ll be the Princess, and you can be the pea lol”
It’s cruel world out there, I tell ya!

Yikes (a mattress/matrice stain 'remembered') not such a bad thing. I thought fairy tales were written to warn us of the cruelty 'out there'. The one sticking for me was Grimms Troll under the Bridge..

joecroft
But, I digress…Getting back to the point…The Neutral Zone perspective experience, is just as valid as the others, but beneath the surface (some 22 to 33 matrices, give or take) as we both know, lies the pea of truth, just waiting to be discovered and become known.

Nuetral, sitting high up one leg on either side (which side has the most matrices/exponencial beautiful thoughtforms potencial, or firemen holding the net that wont collapse, or
or or faith that one sprouts wings and learns to fly "just in time". Im all for the waiting to be discovered by God, as I am it, and will announce my arrival to be known as a 'classic case of infinate self discovery FOUND'.

Joecroft
It’s like a paradox…You need to experience God in order to know what God is, and yet you need to know what God is, in order seek/go and experience God.

vethumanbeing
Nice quote Joe, I need to experience God in order to understand it. I see the solution.

joecroft
Thanks…Notice how I got the God word in, 4 times (VET Style), and “experience” and “know” in twice. Everything breaks down into mathematical formulas, including logical statements.

Yes, for me its in 4s not 3s. I dont know why.

vethumanbeing
How do I experience God/Creator? I just have to accept myself as IT and all falls naturally into place (the understanding I may be the whole of it human, I may be a partical, but IAM it whether I like IT or not).

joecroft
Yes, you are certainly a part of it, for sure.

vethumanbeing
Hey, we are the only ones left on this thread (empty chairs and beer glasses left on the tables) I guess we are closing the bar, the owner is nowhere to be found? Lets open another bar.

joecroft
Yeah, like 2 peas in a pod lol,Or 3 peas, if you include the one under the matrices lolSorry, pea analogy overdose, guilty as charged.Speaking of another bar, I’m working on a new thread, which I think is going to be right up your alley…Oh, and one more thing…who would have be been the judge.

The Pea analogy has been a good one, who would have known, it just takes a little bit of abstraction, non-linear thinking and one word can produce many ideaforms that contextually come together. New threadism, Im in. Who would have been the Judge...good question; CEO Dow Chemicals "Ortho" Lawn and Garden Products Division, not only promoting the health of your peas, but the destruction of unsightly (getting in the way of war) vegetation, Agent Orange. A fair judge, do you not think?

reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Who would have been the Judge...good question; CEO Dow Chemicals "Ortho" Lawn and Garden Products Division, not only promoting the health of your peas, but the destruction of unsightly (getting in the way of war) vegetation, Agent Orange. A fair judge, do you not think?

Its funny how our conversation has come full circle. We started off discussing biasness, and its affiliations with atheism, agnosticism, and theism, and how this ties into the analogy of God representing a Pea. We then created a potential courtroom drama, of Biblical proportions, to help solve the issue, and prove the Peas existence, once and for ALL, and somehow save my soul (not sure how my soul got dragged into it). And now you want to go with the most biased Judge available lol

Perhaps there’s a method in your madness, who knows, wouldn’t want to be the first to judge it, with any negative biasness, without knowing the full details.

But to make the case a fair one, we should go with a judge who lives in the Neutral Zone. Perhaps, maybe, even the greatest Agnostic thinker in history. Someone who is truly undecided, through and through, (whatever that means lol)

- JC

Joecroft
reply to post by vethumanbeing

vethumanbeing
Who would have been the Judge...good question; CEO Dow Chemicals "Ortho" Lawn and Garden Products Division, not only promoting the health of your peas, but the destruction of unsightly (getting in the way of war) vegetation, Agent Orange. A fair judge, do you not think?

Joecroft
Its funny how our conversation has come full circle. We started off discussing biasness, and its affiliations with atheism, agnosticism, and theism, and how this ties into the analogy of God representing a Pea. We then created a potential courtroom drama, of Biblical proportions, to help solve the issue, and prove the Peas existence, once and for ALL, and somehow save my soul (not sure how my soul got dragged into it). And now you want to go with the most biased Judge available lol

This is the genious of two ordinary concentrated/focused minds metting something out; and that something is huge at first glance, but as the focus narrows becomes easy as its inherent simplicity reveals itself. Great fun for me! Choosing the CEO of Dow Chemical, I thought we could pursuade it, corrupt it somehow in a potencial faulty judgement to the good; as in trick it.

Joecroft
Perhaps there’s a method in your madness, who knows, wouldn’t want to be the first to judge it, with any negative biasness, without knowing the full details.

I had an earlier exchange with myself today, in which I envisioned this: I am approaching an idea (one that is half formed or in need of definition) and I am visualizing myself (metaphorically) as the collector of insect specimans (the idea). I have my mounting board in place, my needle poised to stab the abdomen (base thought); if I can convince the IDEA to HOLD STILL, (without chloroforming it thus adding bias) I pierce it stick it cleanly and it is forever preserved for those who can stomach/look at it. I see all posts to this forum as being idea forms 'caught' and 'pinned' and preserved for all antiquity. This is a virtual library.

Joecroft
But to make the case a fair one, we should go with a judge who lives in the Neutral Zone. Perhaps, maybe, even the greatest Agnostic thinker in history. Someone who is truly undecided, through and through, (whatever that means).

A judge living in the neutral zone that is the greatest or most powerful/influencial agnostic thinker ever (this is something Ive never looked into). Agnostic meaning, unbeliever of messiah/teacher figures or the Whole God thing? Carl Jung, or Freud, Tolstoy, Carl Sagan, (think he had a change of heart on his deathbed). Not Hitler but would provide Even More Drama in the courtroom.

edit on 30-10-2013 by vethumanbeing because: (no reason given)