flat assembler
Message board for the users of flat assembler.

Index > Heap > f*** the f*** (tm) ~ devine ecstasy

Goto page 1, 2  Next
Author
Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8900
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
the title hopefully doesn't sounds too rude.

animals f4 to gain devine ecstasy
human f4 too.
whether using the "legal marriage" way or not, in the end, they gain devine ecstasy.

a dog, cat, etc animals, they will eat watever you throw, whether hygiene or not, they don't care.

if the devine ecstasy is like the "dirty" food "GOD" throws to us through the place where you urine, aren't we just like the animal?
Post 31 Jul 2008, 20:52
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
sleepsleep wrote:
aren't we just like the animal?
We are one of the species of animals, but many ideologies try to make us think we are something special.

BTW, seems that you throw away every "earthly delight". I'm curious why? Maybe you are unhappy and through severe self-control you try to manage your problems, but believe me - in some cases it isn't a good way. Wink
sleepsleep wrote:
a dog, cat, etc animals, they will eat watever you throw, whether hygiene or not, they don't care.
It isn't true. If animal isn't very hungry always would prefer fresh meal in the clean bowl (my cats behave that way). Wink
Post 01 Aug 2008, 06:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
Loser



Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Gliese 581 d
Loser
MHajduk wrote:
We are one of the species of animals, but many ideologies try to make us think we are something special.
Exactly. A wise man once said, "We are NOTHING more than a system of complicated biochemical processes which are full of bugs!" Wink
Post 01 Aug 2008, 07:08
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Loser wrote:
A wise man once said, "We are NOTHING more than a system of complicated biochemical processes which are full of bugs!" Wink
Blaise Pascal (the same which name was given to one of the programming languages Wink) said: "Man is a reed, the weakest of nature, but he is a thinking reed".
Post 01 Aug 2008, 07:22
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
asmcoder



Joined: 02 Jun 2008
Posts: 784
asmcoder
[content deleted]


Last edited by asmcoder on 14 Aug 2009, 14:56; edited 1 time in total
Post 01 Aug 2008, 08:13
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Loser



Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Gliese 581 d
Loser
asmcoder wrote:
Quote:
devine ecstasy

whats that?
The highest levels of sexual pleasure.

asmcoder wrote:
We are animals, but much more advanced.
Watch out! Someone here would challenge you:

"advanced" definition? Are primates more "advanced" than Cetacea?

Remember, you need to support your points with rock-solid evidence and you must provide a full list of references! Wink

asmcoder wrote:
There is no god.
I wish sleepsleep could accept this FACT!
Post 01 Aug 2008, 08:41
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Loser wrote:
Watch out! Someone here would challenge you:

"advanced" definition? Are primates more "advanced" than Cetacea?

Remember, you need to support your points with rock-solid evidence and you must provide a full list of references! Wink
Laughing It sounds very familiar... Wink
Post 01 Aug 2008, 09:10
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
ok, ok,
mea culpa...
Embarassed
Post 01 Aug 2008, 09:24
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Loser wrote:
I wish sleepsleep could accept this FACT!
A fact you say? Where is it? That means somehow people PROVED that God doesn't exist???

Lack of proof =/= Proof it doesn't exist. It may not be good to believe blindly in it, BUT to say that it's a fact means you KNOW there is no god. Which you don't. Razz


(i just like being annoying don't take it that harsh) Wink
Post 01 Aug 2008, 16:57
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Loser



Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Gliese 581 d
Loser
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
=/=
Check this link. All commonly used Math symbols are there! Very HappySad
Post 02 Aug 2008, 04:19
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Loser



Joined: 12 Jun 2008
Posts: 111
Location: Gliese 581 d
Loser
The_Grey_Beast wrote:
... BUT to say that it's a fact means you KNOW there is no god. Which you don't.
Yes, I do. In fact, a wise man has already proved, in this thread, that God does NOT exist. Wink

The_Grey_Beast wrote:
i just like being annoying don't take it that harsh
You're a beast. Being annoying is part of your nature. Laughing
Post 02 Aug 2008, 04:37
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Borsuc



Joined: 29 Dec 2005
Posts: 2466
Location: Bucharest, Romania
Borsuc
Who said anything about a "loving" God? Wink

It's really hard to be both loving and let your children be free Laughing
not that i want to argue with the christian god anyway, they say it's out of my reach Wink
Post 02 Aug 2008, 12:34
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
Loser wrote:
Yes, I do. In fact, a wise man has already proved, in this thread, that God does NOT exist. Wink
I just wrote a "poem" Wink describing this event:

One citizen of Hong Kong
wise man, forumer YONG
said: "I will enlighten you
and dispel this mist!
With no doubt I can prove
that God doesn't exist."


Wink
Post 02 Aug 2008, 15:56
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8900
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
Quote:

It isn't true. If animal isn't very hungry always would prefer fresh meal in the clean bowl (my cats behave that way).

quite true. somehow if you just finish the first bowl of divine ecstasy, you will demand the second bowl to be more delicious than the first bowl Razz

Quote:

full of bugs!

if this is a bug, why couldn't we just debug it....?

Quote:

I wish sleepsleep could accept this FACT!

i wish i could, but the more i learn, see, experience bring me further away from your so called fact.

and isn't it funny, christian God, muslim God, hindu God, etc God, where in fact, we are talking about the one God that got same characteristics?
Post 02 Aug 2008, 16:26
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
MHajduk



Joined: 30 Mar 2006
Posts: 6034
Location: Poland
MHajduk
sleepsleep wrote:
and isn't it funny, christian God, muslim God, hindu God, etc God, where in fact, we are talking about the one God that got same characteristics?
To avoid religious wars we should assume that number x of the Gods is given by inequality

0 ≤ x ≤ 1

and if x=1 then God is the same for all people and every "Gods" are only avatars of the same being. Wink

BTW, as you perfectly know, God is an individualist jealous about his/her/its power accordingly to the principle:
Quote:
Do not ascribe partners to Me!
Wink
Post 02 Aug 2008, 17:52
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
sleepsleep wrote:
and isn't it funny, christian God, muslim God, hindu God, etc God, where in fact, we are talking about the one God that got same characteristics?

What is especially funny is that these same gods have now different characteristics than they had 500 years ago, and very different characteristics than they had 2000 years, etc... At least, I haven't seen Jewish/Christian god Yahweh kill anyone for pissing on the wall lately, like he did in Bible, nor he destroyed San Francisco like he did with Sodoma/Gomora. In fact, he should hit me with lighting right now, since I dared to pronounce his name...

I quess God has somehow become more humane, when society became more humane. How could it be, hmmm? Only... if... god was made by humans?

Razz Rolling Eyes
Post 02 Aug 2008, 18:46
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
vid wrote:
...he should hit me with light[n]ing right now...
That reminds me, vid and HyperVista, please be careful out in Las Vegas in this hot summer, because Electrical storms arise very quickly in that desert, and they kill people, every year.
sleepsleep wrote:
...where in fact, we are talking about the one God that got same characteristics?

Gosh, I am unsure whether or not we are discussing the SAME, SINGLE god, or not?
Back in 325 C.E., Emperor Constantine convened the Nicean Council of Christian Bishops to debate that VERY POINT. The focal point of the conference was the opinion of Arius, one of the senior Bishops, who believed, more or less, in what you, sleepsleep, have written, i.e. ONE god. But, the overwhelming majority agreed, instead, in the concept of THREE gods, in harmony with Emperor Constantine's pagan traditions, and dear old Arius was then PURGED. He was kicked out for denying the "triune god", three headed god monster, with only one flesh. I believe, without even a shred of evidence, that Arius, who was murdered shortly after having been expelled, was the real intellectual force for the creation, three hundred years later, of Islam. here's a historical summary of Arius
Post 02 Aug 2008, 20:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
sleepsleep



Joined: 05 Oct 2006
Posts: 8900
Location: ˛                             ⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣⁣Posts: 334455
sleepsleep
it could be the whole mess up is due to language, the different sound, words for the word "one God".

Code:
person A : hi there, what is your God

person B : my God is APPLE, it is one God.

person A : no no, it is ASUS

person B : why ASUS, it is cleary writen in our manual, the God mentioned itself as APPLE.

person A : but don't your God exists even before the manual exists? He could even use different name before the manual exists.

person B : well, this is true. i am somehow astonished by this fact.

to be continued....
    
Post 02 Aug 2008, 23:20
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
vid
Verbosity in development


Joined: 05 Sep 2003
Posts: 7105
Location: Slovakia
vid
tom tobias wrote:
Back in 325 C.E., Emperor Constantine convened the Nicean Council of Christian Bishops to debate that VERY POINT.

heh, Tom, seems you still didn't do your homework and read the actual Nicean Creed. Please do so before posting any more about it: http://www.piar.hu/councils/ecum01.htm

Quote:
We believe in one God the Father all powerful, maker of all things both seen and unseen. And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten begotten from the Father, that is from the substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia] of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten [Gr. gennethenta, Lat. natum] not made [Gr. poethenta, Lat. factum], CONSUBSTANTIAL [Gr. homoousion, Lat. unius substantiae (quod Graeci dicunt homousion)] with the Father, through whom all things came to be, both those in heaven and those in earth; for us humans and for our salvation he came down and became incarnate, became human, suffered and rose up on the third day, went up into the heavens, is coming to judge the living and the dead. And in the holy Spirit.


They said they believe to one god, who manifested himself in jesus, and they also believe to holy spirit... basically same blurry nonsense as today christians. But jesus and spirit are definitively not considered to be gods, as you put it.

Quote:

2. And those who say
1. "there once was when he was not", and "before he was begotten he was not", and that
2. he came to be from
* things that were not, or
* from another hypostasis [Gr. hypostaseos] or substance [Gr. ousias, Lat. substantia],
affirming that the Son of God is subject to change or alteration these the catholic and apostolic church anathematises.

Here it is apparent who they were arguing with: people who had different views on jesus. There was no issue about one vs. more gods. It was about whether jesus was spirit-only, or spirit sent upon man, if he was son of god before being born, if he was son of god before being baptized, etc...

This is *all* that Nicean Congress had to say about trinity. Instead, they were discussing typical problems of contemporary christians, like self-castration, forbidding sex to priests, and converting pagans or christians with slightly different view.
Post 03 Aug 2008, 03:03
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website AIM Address MSN Messenger ICQ Number Reply with quote
tom tobias



Joined: 09 Sep 2003
Posts: 1320
Location: usa
tom tobias
vid wrote:
...seems you still didn't do your homework and read the actual Nicean Creed.
Thank you vid, for your gentle reproach. Perhaps I expressed myself inadequately in my zeal to avoid verbosity.
Wink
Allow me to amplify two points:
1. I agree with your assessment of a deficiency in my scholarly approach. I had sloppily simplified my submission to the forum, by simply writing, above, "without even a shred of evidence", instead of furnishing one or more useful citations from the literature. Mea Culpa.
2. I disagree with your impression that I was writing about the Nicean Creed. I was not. I was writing about the Council of Nicea, from which the Nicean Creed emerged, as ONE consequence of that political gathering. The MAIN rationale for the assembly of Christian Bishops, IN MY OPINION, i.e. NOT A FACT, was the desire of Constantine, (who had only recently concluded at least TWO very costly, very bloody wars to achieve unity of the Roman Empire,) to avert schizm, at all cost, and to achieve a unified agreement on the chaotic presentation of the mature Christian religion, throughout his vast empire. The problem then, at that time, was that, unlike the present, there were huge differences of opinion on the meaning and function of Jesus, God, and "holy spirit", (whatever that may be). Was Jesus the "son" of God? Well, if so, then, obviously, in anthropomorphic terms, there MUST, by definition, have been a time, some point in time, when the FATHER existed, but not the son. Arius was not in error on this point, but he was in conflict with the majority belief, and Arius was expelled from the Christian movement, as a result of the gathering at Nicea, because of his explicit repudiation of the divinity of Jesus. Arius regarded Jesus as a prophet, not a deity. To my way of thinking, not a fact, only an opinion, hence, not based on scholarship, or "homework", (and certainly not based on reading the Nicean propaganda, i.e. Creed,) Arius' position, (which, incidently had also been held by Eusebius, and Constantine himself,) according to some sources, was so widely accepted, that upon the death of Constantine, a few years after the Nicean gathering, his sons ruled, and they imposed, in essence, REINTRODUCED, Arius' demand for strict montheism, with Jesus as a mere mortal, not a deity, and certainly not a "second god". I return to sleepsleep's comment, which seems to me inaccurate, in that it supposes that we are all here on the FASM forum discussing the "SAME" one god, when, in my opinion, we are not of one mind on that subject. Christians, today, in my opinion, believe in the DIVINITY of Jesus. They portray a physically distinct persona, "sitting at the right hand" of God, in describing Jesus, in other words, a separate entity. They refer to God as the "father", and Jesus as his "son", in support of that notion that there are TWO distinct "forces", i.e. Gods. Evidently I am not the only person who imagines that Christians have, for at least the past sixteen hundred years, thus repudiated monotheism, and that Islam and Judaism share, in contrast with Christianity, a belief in only one god, not two or three. They may or may not be more logical than the Christians, depending on one's perspective, but, at least, those two religions are consistent, in denying any requirement for an omnipotent, supernatural force, i.e. God, to generate offspring, (as is required of humans) as Constantine legislated via Nicea, in harmony with his own polytheistic proclivities.
What is truly remarkable about the past several thousand years of human history is how much TERRIBLE suffering, mutilation, torture and terror have been imposed on so many people, with entire populations waging warfare against one another over ideas about supernatural deities, instead of fighting, as they properly should be, over oil.
Sad
Oh, I see. Idea
Ooopsie. Shocked
You mean, maybe some clever people only used religion as a means to mobilize the masses, but their real objective was to control the natural resources. Oh. That puts a different light on sleepsleep's notion. Question
Hmm. How cynical. Constantine wouldn't have done that, now, would he?

_________________
I don't know if there are men on the moon, but if there are they must be using the earth as their lunatic asylum.--George Bernard Shaw
Post 03 Aug 2008, 07:55
View user's profile Send private message Reply with quote
Display posts from previous:
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  
Goto page 1, 2  Next

< Last Thread | Next Thread >
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Copyright © 1999-2020, Tomasz Grysztar.

Powered by rwasa.