You can put a hydroelectric generator in a steam on your property. You can put a windmill generator on your property which does not violate the local building restrictions. You can put solar cells on your property. You will need to spend money in all cases. You may not generate sufficient power to cover your needs in most cases.
Solar cells, wind generators and hydroelectric generators are manufactured by ‘sleazy businessmen (and women)’. :-"
Your argument is pretty crappy honestly. You discuss for the sake of arguing, I discuss to press change. But you know what they say.
“Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something.” - Plato
You do realize that Tesla would have had free energy for the world, rather than having to pay for it separately. Go read up on Tesla, before trying to spout ignorance. The money lovers didn’t want free energy, because they wanted you to have to pay tons of money, like we have to do now.
Just like you’re trying to tell me “You will need to spend money in all cases.” Hurr durr, that’s what they wanted in the first place. What part of we created money do you not understand, it does not govern life, unless we let it, like we do now.
Solar energy costs 10,000$ + When we could have it free from ionosphere, right?
I mean no offense, but it’s like holy shit. Can’t you just do your research and know what you’re talking about? When we can just dedicate our resources to it and towards equality/freedom, instead of “having to pay”. You do realize the resources of the world are hoarded, rather than distributed equally?
this topic was meant to present a type of reformation of the Christian church…I see the church as very sick and dysfunctional to handle
survival for this century…you can still go with the human jesus but you got to get him out of the Christian church…this is meant to be a serious thread
You certainly didn’t present it that way.
I agree that Christian churches have a problem. But it is a very complex problem, not easily resolved by those who have no idea of how such things function in the first place and demand that specific things be forbidden, such as a male leader, worship, God, or higher authority.
Because you have no experience, change is easy for you.
You don’t understand how much energy is available and how it can be harnessed.
When you know next to nothing, everything is possible.
I hate this word ‘delusional’, but it applies to you.
Really? You finished high school and you are living with your parents. I’m an old fart who studied engineering and ran a business. And I need to do research??? I know a lot more about Tesla than you do. And that’s not just arrogant posturing.
james I am surprised at your behavior…you knock what people say and you imply that you have an answer to these problems…but I don’t see any answer from you…why don’t you tell exactly how you feel about male leaders, god, worship,etc…enlighten me…
remember I am a dummy…and you have not presented your deep feelings…you just are trying to be cool man…
You know a lot more about Tesla than I do, yet you fail to understand the concept of being able to harness next to unlimited energy out of ionosphere, universe, solar, volcano’s, lightning, and pretty much thin air, rather than using fossil fuels.
Yes, I live with my family, after being out on my own for 3 years alone. Great ad hominem and personal attacks using my examples from another thread. Congratulations.
I’m delusional, but my mind can change provided with evidence/facts, right? Yes, make’s complete sense.
Yes, exactly. You’re old, what changes with old? Nothing. No offense. So unless you have a new answer or at least TRY to find one to the problems of which we face today, sit down and learn something.
I have plenty of experience using my mind. I don’t need a degree to do so.
Congratulations, you ran a business. Is that supposed to mean something for the betterment and advancement of humanity, regarding new/difference? No. Plenty of people run businesses.
art and phyllo will you please stick to topic…if I am wrong about that then please explain your thinking
That was a fantasy. Today many similar things can be done at great expense. But Tesla’s plan could never have worked.
Think about that. We are discussing how each of us as indiviiduals think about God and religion and any particular denominational church, and it is [u]not[/u] important to grapple with how we, as individuals, come to acquire our own [u]subjective[/u] point of view [u]about[/u] that?!
On the contrary, as I have noted previously, such discussions in places like this about relationships of this sort revolve precisely around it:
There are two ways in which we can come to a point of view pertaining to value judgments. On the one hand, we can spend hours and hours and hours actually thinking about the pros and the cons of the behaviors we derive from our particular value judgments. We can then try to have as many different experiences as possible relating to those behaviors ; and we can discuss them with as many different people as possible in order to get diverse points of view; and we can try to acquire as much knowledge and information about these behaviors/value judgments in order to be fully informed on it.
On the other hand, based on my own experience, most folks don’t do this it all. Instead, they live in a particular time and place, acquire a particular set of experiences, accumulate a particular set of relationships and acquire particular sources of knowledge and information – which then comes [rather fortuitously] over the years to predispose them to particular subjective points of view that might well have changed over and again throughout the years. And, indeed, may well change many times more.
Now, how is this conjecture NOT related to the dicussion unfolding on this thread? All one need do is to acknowledge how our behaviors [and the consequences that derive from them] revolve around how we think about things such as this. Right?
My argument in fact is that many folks don’t want to grapple with dasein and conflicting goods as I do. Why? Because they come to recognize just how profoundly problematic their own identity and value judgments actually are.
Again, the irony here being how so much of my own motivation for engaging in these discussions revolves around coming up with an argument, analysis, point of view etc. that dissuades me from thinking like this.
Okay, point taken. I did misunderstand you. But, sooner or later, a discussion of the relationship between God and religion and any particular church has to come down to demonstrating the actual existence of this God – or simply in someone having faith in His existence. Or in predicating one’s belief in his existence on definitions and deductions, on tautological arguments and analysis, on “personal experience”, on a God that exists “in your head”.
And, sooner or later, those who profess a belief in a God have to get around in turn to speculating [for others] on whether or not this is tantaumont to their belief in the God. And whether this is the same God. And the relationship between this and the question “how ought one to live” – given that a belief in the God almost always revolves in turn around things like immortality, salvation, divine justice, and – down here – differentiating Sinful behavior from virtuous behavior.
Again, you lose me here. How would belonging to any particular church [old or new] enable us to “easily” look for the answers to the questions that [u][b]I[/u][/b] bring up: those revolving around “conflicting goods” pertaining to moral conflicts like abortion?
Because if someone does posit a new church that will be the first thing that I do bring up. I will point out how flesh and blood human beings come to embody subjective points of view about value judgments that always seem TO be embedded in conflicting goods.
Me, I’m not looking for “simple” answers. Given how I construe these relationships I always assume that the answers will be hard. But that is at the very least. What intrigues me [far more] is how any particular individual makes a distinction here between “I” as dasein and as his or her TRUE self. And then how they come up with an argument that obviates conflicting goods by showing us how we can attain the objective good instead.
Seriously doubt it. Nay sayer’s usually always say nay, even when they haven’t tried or given the idea a chance. That’s why they’re called nay sayer’s
But i’m going back on topic.
No one has asked me of “my solution”. So far, it has been about their proposed solutions, none of which I have found to be tenable.
My solution was presented long ago in the “In Sight of SAM, I Am” thread, in the society and government forum. It involves a “communal anentropic particle”, void of authority figures or any specific religious notions. I believe it to be THE ONLY option to actually remove coercion, manipulation, extortion, and slavery.
all you guys are now off topic…I have presented what I want in a new place…to replace the Christian church…if you like my ideas then jump on board…if you don’t its ok …please be critical but certain things are not negotiable…there will be no person god in this place…there will be no money and no building…we will deal with ideas and not doctrine and creeds…
Most if not the majority of males think with their dicks, rather than with their minds. A spine would surely suffice, rather than the big brains they were given.
Do you want your new church to be seen as part of the Christian legacy, as the New Christianity, or do you wish to be seen as starting a new legacy?
please for this thread will you say something about bringing a male and female jesus into this new place…and out of the Christian church…jesus now needs to be saved from the traditional church…
Honestly, we should just write out a new idea instead of using the old “Jesus” or even Buddha. Write out a bunch of tablets like Hermes. I don’t think anything new, will derive out of the old. To have new, one must think new. Change comes out of new, not old.
Of course we can use some idea’s of what they taught, but perhaps for a more modern time, like now. I don’t think using teaching’s that are 1,000’s of years out dated will do the trick for a modern technological society/world.
fuse you are helpful here…Christian legacy no…jesus yes…there cannot be a new Christian legacy…I want to throw the authority and doctrine and creed and hate and mean …I want to keep the human jesus and Buddha…plus any others that come along…I am not proposing a new church …I am finding a new place to be alive and well in this crapass world…
jesus was talking about the golden rule…please see Karen Armstrong ted talk…I will not throw out the human jesus…I think the god jesus has to be out of the new place…Buddha is more straight forward…he never was getting into this god stuff…people can really be damaged by thinking a god is going to take care of them…
I do understand it. I understand the problems involved.
You don’t understand the problem. Simple fact.
It’s like when some says : “Put hydrogen into this car and we have clean energy forever”.
Eyes-roll . Do you know how technically difficult that is? No, you don’t.
Ionosphere … I need 14,000 watt-hours of energy her day just for my house. Try to suck that out of the ionosphere.
Age gives you a lot of experience and you realize why things are the way they are.
Based on your posts… no you don’t have plenty of experience .
You learn something from that. What have you done to better humanity?