Welcome to Gaia! ::

Salmenella's avatar

Girl-Crazy Ladykiller

Admiral Dardanos
Salmenella
Admiral Dardanos


The ED is so slow these days, any conversation is appreciated.

True. Still though. I don't want to come off like I know everything. I don't, still learning sweatdrop


An admirable quality. We are all learning. Those who claim to know everything, well, they are the ones to watch out for.
Agreed. And I know for something like this one never stops learning. I'm just so early on in learning that I don't want to say anything that might be wayyy off.

Although I found a blog that I adore from someone that has been apart of this religion since birth. His grandfather is even religio romana.
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/religioromana/all-posts/

Although granted he's only a sect of Roman Reconstructionist (which he gets into in one post) and obviously what he says isn't the end all be all to the religion. Still good. If you're curious about the whole Roman deity bit check him out. I'm sure you'll find a post that he gets into that stuff (haven't read all his posts yet)
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

3,650 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
Have I offended you?

Madam, you offend reason.

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".
Any afterlife except rebirth/reincarnation/whatever is good enough for me.

Just please don't make me go back here. I'd rather stay in Purgatory forever.
metamary's avatar

Friend

CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
Have I offended you?

Madam, you offend reason.

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".

Do you believe everything you read?
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

3,650 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
metamary
Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.
metamary's avatar

Friend

CuAnnan
metamary
Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

3,650 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?

Therefore, not true?
You know, like I said?
And directly opposite to what you said?
metamary's avatar

Friend

CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?

Therefore, not true?
You know, like I said?
And directly opposite to what you said?

That's not what you said. You said that it's impossible for "A" to exist because "B" says it cannot while "B" exists, and vice versa. Not once did you ever give way to the possibility that they were both lying. You are now lying.
The New Wineskin's avatar

Conversationalist

Fermionic
The New Wineskin
Fermionic
The New Wineskin
Fermionic


Oh, how silly of me, the OP was so very clear on that point.

I never said it was clear. Hence, why I explained myself. You're welcome.


I certainly feel so.

The point I was making still stands however; regardless of the factor you deigned to emphasise. They all exhibit a wish for continued consciousness, and most a wish to curb what are perceived as negative behaviours in their mortal life for promise of a joyful immortal existence. The rest is mostly detail.

Not necessarily. (I.e., in Judaism, they tend to worry about the world, and not the afterlife, because of the benefits they receive in mortal life for their good deeds; there are many Jews that don't even necessarily accept an afterlife).


Are the two mutually exclusive?

Good question.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

3,650 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
Do you believe everything you read?

My understanding of boolean logic does not come from casually having read something.
It comes from two years studying boolean logic in a university setting, ten years of computer science experience, fifteen years of non-academic (but to academic standards) learning and so on.
So, no, I don't believe everything I read.
However, believing what I read is not neccesary for understanding that two mutually exclusive statements cannot be true, but the fifteen years' education certainly helped.

Is it so hard then, to think that "A" and "B" might have been lying?

Therefore, not true?
You know, like I said?
And directly opposite to what you said?

That's not what you said. You said that it's impossible for "A" to exist because "B" says it cannot while "B" exists, and vice versa. Not once did you ever give way to the possibility that they were both lying. You are now lying.

Samsara is eternal rebirth.
Heaven is precluded by eternal rebirth.
A not B.
B not A.
You're the one whose lying.
Malaresianx's avatar

Saint Bloodsucker

CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary
Have I offended you?

Madam, you offend reason.

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".
I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?
Malaresianx
CuAnnan
Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".
I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?


I've only noticed him here when there's people to be sacrificed.
- ninja
Ask Jappleack's avatar

Greedy Consumer

Fermionic
Sometimes, I like to pretend that Narnia is my afterlife.
That would be like.
*dies* *sees narnia* wtf I thought I was done with my suffering now I need to overthrow evil rulers and s**t, Im probably in a coma.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

3,650 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Malaresianx
CuAnnan
metamary
CuAnnan
metamary

How?

By insisting that mutually exclusive truths can be true.
By insisting that some supposed "system" is responsible for our belief in objective truth.

Why can't it be true?

Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".
I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?

Because the brehon laws recognise the law of the land.
The law of the land forbids the intentional ending of the life of another.
CuAnnan's avatar

Dapper Genius

3,650 Points
  • Person of Interest 200
  • Autobiographer 200
  • Dressed Up 200
Lucky~9~Lives
Malaresianx
CuAnnan
Because when one statement is "A is true, B is not true" and the other statement is "B is true, A is not true", both categorically cannot be true.
You know, reason. The thing you offend. With your "reason is just a system holding you people back from true unlightenment".
I notice you a lot here. If you're a recon pagan why don't you properly reconstruct your faith? Why not sacrifice people anymore?


I've only noticed him here when there's people to be sacrificed.
- ninja

My Calling is a b***h sometimes.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games