Comments | blackiris17: (без темы)

blackiris17

(Untitled)

Feb 07, 2009 00:57

So Denny told me in his sweetly unromantic way that he is pretty much going to propose this year. I'm stoked (of course). Unfortunately he's talking about it like it's more of a burden and a obstacle then something to be rejoicing over. Nevertheless I'm still excited. I've been staring at pics of wedding dresses and googling wedding customs. ( Read more... )

Leave a comment

Back to all threads

oneiromancer666 February 8 2009, 06:41:44 UTC

Start exposing your uber-Christian relatives to your beliefs now, possibly in graduated steps but eventually fully, so that any drama that might occur will be manifested and resolved before the wedding even occurs. I honestly wouldn't even set a wedding date until after you have fully exposed your relatives to your beliefs and allowed enough time for the drama to be resolved. Once the drama is resolved, you can have a wedding that you will truly enjoy participating in.

oneiromancer666 February 10 2009, 23:47:00 UTC

That's wishful thinking at best, Damien. It's *because* her family loves her that there will be 'drama'. You know how Christians believe. It's not some whimsy religious belief that comes and goes...it's real life, for life. Eternal life, really. Her family (most of them anyway) will always have a resentful and sorrowful attitude toward this decision. The best Renee could hope for is an awkward discomfort at the ceremony. I'm just speaking the truth...not trying to be a rain on a parade.

BTW, we never finished our dialogue from last year. What happened?

Also, I hope that your life is happy right now, Renee. I think and pray for you every now and again. If either of you are on Facebook...send me a line: Sean Bertolino. B-)

oneiromancer666 February 12 2009, 07:21:30 UTC

"The best Renee could hope for is an awkward discomfort at the ceremony. I'm just speaking the truth."

You are not speaking the truth; rather, you are speaking a prediction based on your personal model of reality, a model that I assert is incomplete at best. As human modelers are fallible, your humanly fallible prediction is not "the truth". Not everyone is equally convinced into believing all of the Christian beliefs. Some people, even though raised to believe a certain way, have intuitions in their heart which eventually lead them away from flawed religious beliefs.

The part that was really the wishful thinking part was hoping that Renee would actually stand up for herself and not let any of her relatives intimidate her into compliance with their intolerance.

oneiromancer666 February 12 2009, 23:01:55 UTC

Do you find it ironic that you contradict yourself at every turn? Seriously now...what sort of rubbish are you speaking? You meekly bash my beliefs and call them 'incomplete' because 'human modelers are fallible'. First, what is a human modeler? I am curious as to where your vocabulary comes from sometimes, Damian. Very intriguing. Secondly, and more importantly, that's all contradicting. You cannot sit there and say humans are fallible while you yourself issue a statement of truth. By your own definition, you're wrong. Now, don't misunderstand...I believe humans are fallible as well. Hence, God is infallible. A cornerstone of the Christian way. For you to deny truth though, is foolishness. Where do we go if there is no truth in the world? How do we know what is real or not real? Is this conversation even taking place? Do you see what I'm getting at? Just because we are fallible does dictate we are so all the time. In reference to my comments, you made no attempt to even explain why they are wrong. This is not MY ( ... )

oneiromancer666 February 14 2009, 07:05:14 UTC

We humans use our imagination to create models of reality; as such, all of our stated "truths" are approximations. Some approximations are more accurate than others. Your mind is operating within the true-or-false dichotomy, which models the accuracy of statements with a simple binary choice: true or false. The simplicity of this binary model does indeed make it practical for various applications, but reducing the metric of accuracy down to a binary value is too simplistic if one wants to talk directly about something as complex as truth itself. My statements only appear contradictory to you because you evaluate them with the insufficiently simple true-or-false dichotomy. Within the more expansive approximative model of knowledge, there is no contradiction between my statements.

When a person is so unaccepting of another's beliefs that he would stubbornly protest and absent himself from his own granddaughter's wedding if she dares to express religious beliefs that do match his own, this is called intolerance by definition. ( ... )

oneiromancer666 March 4 2009, 22:58:55 UTC

"insufficiently simple true-or-false dichotomy ( ... )

oneiromancer666 March 23 2009, 00:00:26 UTC

Sean, I made no reference to your intelligence whatsoever. I was just stating that the true-or-false dichotomy utilizes a very simple binary metric of accuracy; this simplicity is what makes it useful as a quick metric, but this simplicity also limits what it can be used to measure. Think of it as the difference between a magnifying lens and a microscope. A magnifying lens is convenient because you can carry it anywhere (especially if you have one of those neat "credit card" lenses), but to really explore fine detail you need a microscope. Discussing truth itself is one of those topics for which the magnifying lens of the true-or-false dichotomy is insufficient; instead, to discuss truth itself you need a philosophical "microscope" which will let you examine finer detail.

A statement such as "If people don't have food they die" is indeed a highly accurate declaration, but the statement itself is still just an approximation. Try to define the word food exactly and you will start to see what I mean ( ... )

oneiromancer666 June 30 2009, 21:34:33 UTC

Hey sorry for not responding. Work has taken a lot of my time and I suppose not having the internet doesn't help either. At any rate, I have responses to your arguments and will hopefully get them down when I have time. Thanks for your patience.

oneiromancer666 August 9 2009, 04:18:39 UTC

Once again, I apologize for the late reply. Short on time ( ... )

(con't) oneiromancer666 August 9 2009, 04:19:45 UTC

‘Again, attempting to redirect the focus of this journal toward your personally chosen god/truth is egotistical, and disrespectful toward Renee ( ... )

Back to all threads