Let's be honest: If there's a god he would be opposed to gay marriage

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Such is clearly the case as he created a man and a woman, or so the
story goes. If gays appeal to marriage, they better profess their
atheistic or at least Pagan credentials. When they do so, I'll
carefully study their case before I pronounce a verdict. The Greeks
didn't have any objection to homosexuality but their gods were quite
fun and open minded.

I think we may as well dump Christianity and turn to the fun-seeking
Olympian Greek gods. Dionysus has a Spring festival dedicated to him
so we can go out and have some wine. "Hey --I'm talking to the gays--
do whatever, just don't bother me anymore with democracy and gay
issues."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

[Kitty P]

"His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"
<thetibet...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7a6638d7-ff5c-453f...@u20g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

Well that's it then. That particular Christian God must be dead. What a
shame to go the way of so many other Gods.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 29, 11:48 am, "Kitty P" <kittyp2...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"<thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Hey, we got to celebrate something, don't we? ;)

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 29, 11:48 am, "Kitty P" <kittyp2...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"<thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote in message

Wait, I just thought of something (the Muses surely inspire me):
"Atheist" is such a strong word. Not everybody is willing to "come out
of the closet" and say, "Look, mom, I'm an atheist." Modern moms are
supposed to understand, "Look, mom, I'm gay."

I wonder why the double standards...

[Kitty P]

"His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"

<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3acf0feb-6bc9-409a...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

-----

No one likes to talk about their private parts?

[Sanford Manley]

I talk about mine all the time ;)


--
Sanford

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 29, 5:57 pm, Sanford Manley <ansa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 3/29/2013 3:17 PM, Kitty P wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"

> > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

I'm just too humble to talk about my private parts...

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 30, 11:22 am, Liberal Here <liberalh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 11:39 am, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Such is clearly the case as he created a man and a woman, or so the
> > story goes. If gays appeal to marriage, they better profess their
> > atheistic or at least Pagan credentials. When they do so, I'll
> > carefully study their case before I pronounce a verdict. The Greeks
> > didn't have any objection to homosexuality but their gods were quite
> > fun and open minded.
>
> > I think we may as well dump Christianity and turn to the fun-seeking
> > Olympian Greek gods. Dionysus has a Spring festival dedicated to him
> > so we can go out and have some wine. "Hey --I'm talking to the gays--
> > do whatever, just don't bother me anymore with democracy and gay
> > issues."
>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
>

> Hmmmm, perhaps you'd care to explain homosexuality in several species
> of animals...including horses and (recently discovered) penguins.
>
> I'd label you "stupid" but that doesn't do ya justice.

Hey, we are not an animal. Well, we are but we have a powerful brain
to behave in a civilized way. You may argue that incest is also common
in the animal world.

How about "threesomes"? Group sex is also found in the animal world...

God is fine with incest though since Cain must have "married" a
sister.

See all the possible contradictions?

[x]

i believe being gay often comes hand-in-hand with being more evolved than
the "civilized" ways of the cultural environment of the times. it's also
got associations with very animalistic levels so there is a contradiction
there but their minds are almost necessarily evolved by being made to
think outside the box, being so outcast. i think in the old days it also
used to be a thing amongst well educated young men who probably found the
women to be typically stupid and boring, and traditions made to be broken.

i guess i feel there is an obvious kinda symmetry in males relating with
females in sex, love and marriage..something that may concern us more as
we evolve from animal instincts to civilized cultures..in the beginning..
but tradition is a mere type of OCD if they become too full of themselves.

[x]

hmmz.... i wonder if there is a culture anywhere that has outlawed
talking front to back (homosexuals favourite position). more sinful than
anything grotesque, in any civilizations eyes, is probably breaking a way/
pattern of how things are either meant to be or are usually done. that's
probably what peeves me most and i have OCD. then you could break that
down into entirely absurd habits of absurd cultures vs natural patterns,
neither of which are necessarily right for an individuals ways.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 30, 12:18 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

When we take clues from the animal kingdom we may learn that animals
do whatever they want, in many different ways, but there's hardly
homosexuality per se. The only animal that practices homosexuality is
the sheep. No religious connotations here. Rams ramming rams, so to
speak...

(I quote)

"Although homosexual behavior is very common in the animal world, it
seems to be very uncommon that individual animals have a long-lasting
predisposition to engage in such behavior to the exclusion of
heterosexual activities. Thus, a homosexual orientation, if one can
speak of such thing in animals, seems to be a rarity.[7] One species
in which exclusive homosexual orientation occurs, however, is that of
domesticated sheep (Ovis aries).[8][9] "About 10% of rams (males)
refuse to mate with ewes (females) but do readily mate with other
rams."[9]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_the_animal_world

***

If I were to classify god's sexual tendencies, I would say he's a "he-
she," with both male and female organs. He couldn't be a "he" or a
"she" and understand the opposite sex.

[x]

the story of the creation of eve from one of adams ribs seems to be an
explanation of this from the bible and corresponds nicely to the fact
that females have a pair of XX chromosones and males a pair of XY
chromosones...IOW males have that which females are defined by within
themselves, there's a balance within them. we obviously do not have a
vagina but some interpret it as being lack of something (like a negative
void rather than a positive void), and we never hear about vagina envy.

the chromosone issue corresponds mainly to humans so it isn't universal.

god created humans in his image, though...so...oh fuck it who cares.....

[Zero]

Oo ooo I have Vagina envy :-(
I think they are quite neat :-)

;-)

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

It would be nice not to go out looking for one.

It would save humanity a lot of trouble.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

How can the gay guys deny they are beautiful?

In the beginning there was a Big Vulva that gave birth to everything.

[Zero]

On 31/03/13 17:07, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

ErK! and then the human race would be extinct in about 120 years :-(

Actually I do *really* think Vagina's are quite neat, they come in all
shapes and sizes (It seems that many women are reclaiming the term CUNT
which is quite nice, descriptive, powerful and more accurate than Vagina
imo) - penises just look stupid to me fwiw ;-)

Who would ever envy a penis <ROFL> :D

;-)

[Zero]

On 31/03/13 17:20, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Philosopher wrote:
> On Mar 31, 10:17 am, Zero <z...@thebackofbeyond.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:52:49 -0500, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>
>>> god created humans in his image, though...so...oh fuck it who
>>
>> cares.....
>>
>> Oo ooo I have Vagina envy :-(
>> I think they are quite neat :-)
>>
>> ;-)
>
> How can the gay guys deny they are beautiful?

The "Gay Gays" <ROFL> Is that a new boy band :D :D :D




>
> In the beginning there was a Big Vulva that gave birth to everything. No we all came forth from the universal female CUNT

hahahahahah !

:D

[x]

"cunt"..wow that brings back memories... who'd i upset by saying that?
probably the whole fucking group. those were the days! noname liked it,
he probably lists it with his power words for offending regular people.

i used to hate the word but there are times and people appropriate for it
and can save us the energy of raising the voice or temper to make a point.

well that's one use of it but here it is rarely used to seriously insult.
there are so many layers to the word, though... actually the last time i
was genuinely insulted was by a resident here screaming i'm a rude cunt..

it was a compliment coming from the self proclaimed queen of the bitches.

[x]

that's settled then?

i'm not sure when we're covering up or unveiling..

[Zero]

Maybe we should ask "The Gay Guys"

(I am sure we would get numerous opinions)

:D

ERk, somehow I missed the beginning of this thread....

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

Who can deny the metaphorical "forbidden fruit"?

http://www.tocadacotia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/10-propostas-loucas-de-perfume-para-seduzir-voce-vulva-original-.jpg

The sheep herders who wrote the Bible must have found it unnecessary
after coexisting with the sheep for so long.

[x]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 12:41:32 -0700, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey,

they were confused enough by words.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

And they naturally thought of sheep and herders being the perfect
metaphor for the world.

http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/Jesus%20good%20shepherd%20Wallpaper__yvt2.jpg

Their metaphors were quite practical. Not much to think.

[x]

On Sun, 31 Mar 2013 13:40:43 -0700, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey,

i am not good at philosophy or scripture but it is not over thinking to
wonder if there were layers of meaning meant for different audiences...
my main contamination by anything biblical beyond christmas stories was
through western occults qabalism and qabalists appeared to be, more than
anything else they applied qabalah to, students endlessly learning to
become masters of symbolism seeing god as the greatest master of the art
creating nothing less than the entire universe out of the power of words.
(the other major practice important to qabalists is magickal application)
symbols do not merely reflect things but create everything to begin with
so in that sense words and symbols are more fundamental than the meaning.
and thus the philosophers and writers elevate themselves above farm work.
thinking a lot was elevated to a mystical meditation leading to godhead..

well ...that is their hope after becoming fundamentally perplexed anyway.

[Zero]

On 31/03/13 20:41, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Nah,

Sheep herding never died out

:D

This whole sex malarkey is a quite interesting thing imo and reminds me
that I am related to a dog, a horse and some ducks that we saw yesterday
doing a 'mating dance' :D

(and, god forbid, we are probably related to Sheep too)

http://tinyurl.com/c8we3c6

:D

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 31, 5:17 pm, Vinegar <kolwe...@astromail.com> wrote:
> On Mar 29, 11:36 am, "His Higness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

>
> Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Such is clearly the case as he created a man and a woman, or so the
> > story goes. If gays appeal to marriage, they better profess their
> > atheistic or at least Pagan credentials. When they do so, I'll
> > carefully study their case before I pronounce a verdict. The Greeks
> > didn't have any objection to homosexuality but their gods were quite
> > fun and open minded.
>
> > I think we may as well dump Christianity and turn to the fun-seeking
> > Olympian Greek gods. Dionysus has a Spring festival dedicated to him
> > so we can go out and have some wine. "Hey --I'm talking to the gays--
> > do whatever, just don't bother me anymore with democracy and gay
> > issues."
>

> If there is a God???? You are NOT even sure that there is a mighty God
> who gave his holy Laws to Moses? Hmmmmm

I don't know, Moses may have been inclined to smoking weed or magical
mushrooms.

Is there any deed of such real estate transaction???

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 31, 4:45 pm, "Chris Tolles: Evil Scumbag"
<jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hey, whacko, your premises are irrational. If there is a god and
> this god made people and he made some of them gay, then why would this
> god discriminate against the gay people and not let any of them get
> married to each other?
>
> You're about as dumb an ox as any I have seen here, and I have seen a
> blue million of them.

Hey, what kind of irrational rationale is that. God created men and
some of them turned corrupt politicians, terrorists and child
molesters...

What kind of rationale is that?On Mar 31, 4:45 pm, "Chris Tolles: Evil
Scumbag" <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Hey, whacko, your premises are irrational. If there is a god and
> this god made people and he made some of them gay, then why would this
> god discriminate against the gay people and not let any of them get
> married to each other?
>
> You're about as dumb an ox as any I have seen here, and I have seen a
> blue million of them.

Hey, what kind of irrational rationale is that. God created men and
some of them turned corrupt politicians, terrorists and child
molesters...

What kind of rationale is that?

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Mar 31, 12:20 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Having said the vulva is beautiful (a fact denied by gay guys) I'd
have to question God's design. The "pleasure button" should have been
located more prominently outside. I say it's hard to locate sometimes.

Of course, I don't expect God to have tested his own design, so he is
excused from a perfect design.

How about the two teats? Women hardly ever have twins...

Is that an invitation to a threesome?

[Zero]

On 02/04/13 15:46, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Philosopher wrote:
> On Mar 31, 12:20 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
> Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Mar 31, 10:17 am, Zero <z...@thebackofbeyond.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:52:49 -0500, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
>>>> god created humans in his image, though...so...oh fuck it who
>>
>>> cares.....
>>
>>> Oo ooo I have Vagina envy :-(
>>> I think they are quite neat :-)
>>
>>> ;-)
>>
>> How can the gay guys deny they are beautiful?
>>
>> In the beginning there was a Big Vulva that gave birth to everything.
>
> Having said the vulva is beautiful (a fact denied by gay guys)

Arrghhhh ! Who are these "Gay Guys" - I would like to meet all of them
and check their concordance on this point :-/

Anyhow even a lot of women don't like their own body parts and thus have
them surgically modified which is a tragedy imo - viva la difference imo
- Thank Christ <chuckle> different folks go for different things - I am
sure that even "Gay Guys" (GOOD GRIEF!) have different
tastes/preferences.....

> I'd
> have to question God's design. The "pleasure button" should have been
> located more prominently outside. I say it's hard to locate sometimes.

Isn't that part of the fun?:D

>
> Of course, I don't expect God to have tested his own design, so he is
> excused from a perfect design.

You are just being silly now :-)

>
> How about the two teats? Women hardly ever have twins...
>
> Is that an invitation to a threesome?

Well you can share your fantasies right here if you want too :-)

[Wet Paper Bag]

well now that both zero and monkey are confessed... know all about
its... that mysterious G spot... they have not been able to describe
it much less locate it and thus their knowledge of tantra is wrapped
up in their immature adolesence fantasies of being the world's...
greatest... LOVER!!! hahaha... off the top of my head.... hahaha...

check it out boys... just as there are cultures (still) that cut out
the clitoris reducing sexual congress to truely reproduction as god
intended... hahaha... but that is not why they cut it out... that, in
fact, circumsicion is the same operation. the removal of that little
button at the end of the back side just under your head... lots of
operational room to commit errors yes?... the removal also had the
extra benefit of reducing highly toxic and infectious dick cheese
cultures... and lead to the rules of moses in leviticus... plagues
gentlemen... but in more modern times with cleaning facilities in
every home and plumbed... higher degrees of hygene etc... make sex
quite safe again...

but then, it only stands to reason that, without that orgasmic button
on the penis, how does the man ejaculate to fulfill god's procreation
plan... hmmm... slide the hand down closer to the base of the penis...
right in there, somewhere on the underside is a second button which in
the male anatomy (the same as the female with the differences of
innies and outies...)... which when stimulated will produce the
necessary ejaculation. that, in the male is the "other"- spot.

thus extending our document of science to the clitoris, that button at
the top, if one starts from the inside of the vagina proper, starting
at the clitotis and working ones way in... following the road, the
nerve... one hits the G-spot which is more or less in the same place,
if it were a dick... the extra special function of that G-spot
however, in the female, acts in such a manner as to accomodate two
penis'... one in the anus reaching forward to the G-spot... and one in
the vagina providing clitorial stimulation... like any electric
current when those two buttons react orgasmically at once... but all
three? ... that would take mastery...

further, therefore, the G-spot is in the woman although some gays
suggest males have one in their ass... is that true? i don't know...
never found it... however, the G... in terms of God spot, is when a
male takes the woman's anus (a poking in the "eye" hahaha... now that
you know where the g-spot is)... where, the male entering the vagina
is now stimulating the womans clit ... G-spot and the other guys g-
spot up front... the man's "g-spot" at the just under the head of the
penis... in other words, you put on a woman and as the guy nails
her... you get to feel exactly what a woman feels... assuming perfect
meditation and form as always...

since we are on the topic of size then... has it occured to you that
size does matter? but just as a one foot hard on is a freakshow,
something to see maybe try once but fuck... so too then is a pussy
that is too huge... elephants as the good book says... the zen of it
then is such that no one ever hears about vagina envy do they? a woman
power i suppose to belittle men however i assure you... that is one
grossly massive cunt is just as devasting as having a 4 in soft and 8
inch hard which is the average normal hand for the average normal
baseball glove...

so WOMEN!... don't like sex? is it because it hurts?... too big?...
hahaha... and so you don't want it as much? hahaha.... and he does?...
hahaha... and what is that yellow chessy discharge? hahaha.... man if
you are not waking up with a smile and going to bed with a smile you
are in the wrong bed goldie locks... glad you got married first before
you knew all these things...

but in terms of finding it... it only takes fingers... not
footlongs... and the clitoris, on the top, right out there, sitting
there, pointed swollen and as eager as any cock... i mean get with the
program fags... if you are gay because you can not please a woman,
that your cock is too small and only suitable for anal congress...
under the illusion of no woman wants a little one but in her ass... it
is only a zen to understand the appeal of lesbianism... so you see,
folks... a myth... what is a little harder to hide however is why one
tit is bigger than the other and your nipples look like marty
feldman's eyes...

but in terms of effort monkey and zero... like reading the kama sutra,
or any other wiseman's book... it is the end all be all guide to sex
when in fact it is the social game of mating (hooking up) and nothing
more (try the mahanirvana)... i guess even though you pretend to know
how the clitoris at the end of the penis and hood... you seem to have
fooled yourself into believing the books of wisdom who mystically,
cunningly, slyly labelled it a "button"... perhaps if they called it a
magic lantern from which a jinn comes out you would have got it right
off but as it is...

it is much more difficult for a woman to find to guys to fulfill her
fantasy... than it is for you to find two women... culturally, women
have been getting it on since they were kids... that is their
secret... that is their power... so do the boys but it is shunned upon
and disciplined with violence... women however? encouraged...

so personally? through ritual and dildo, i have figured it all out...
in terms of shkati, i indulge every fanatasy to its fullest enjoyment
and ultimate ectasies... but that is astral... i am completely open to
sex however, but am looking for a little more than the unenlightened
fail to offer... intimacy is built in time and trust... and women can
not offer that... never could it seems... i used to swell up my ex
with gay and lesbian stories and at the first sign of... i fucked my
life... she used that as a social network persecution... and for the
little Jews like that daniel fag... it is just a game... but unlike
material gain... can't take it with you... that, sexual spirituality
does...

you see, in spite of all the dirty bird talk... i never acted on
anything... foreplay... and when it comes to the difficulty of having
sex with another man... even just for the experience... kissing and
inimacy is a hard reality to swallow and deserves a lot of laughter...
if only there was an easier way... but in the end, gentlemen, it is a
matter of opportunity... isn't it always? given the right magickal
stage i would settle back and enjoy myself...

but i doubt that will ever happen... you see... just like the use of
dirty bird talk... you all believe i belong to some dark cult of evil
and as such have participated in unspeakable rituals and ceremonies...
hahaha... so even when, since their are those of women who claim to
have no ego, no scrupples, no inhibitions, are free temple protitutes
adandoning your body to pleasure all creatures... etc... there is
still something "right" about it, you and me that prevents you from
seducing me... is it the fame? the power? the friends i run with?...
or are you just talk as in fact, you allow others to form your
opinions and dictate your actions... so whatever the word is you use
for it Goddess... you are pathetic, weak, and a sheep... hardly the
dark lady of the Light i know...

i bet being about sex you read it all... did you read the one about
the mistake a woman made one day by washing the dog the same time as
she took a bath? hot... i would have loved to walk in on that one in a
hotly intimate relationship... sprong... eh? huh? HUH?

(no not me... you...)

Lucifer

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Apr 2, 11:49 pm, linuxgal <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote:
> His Higness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher wrote:
>
> > Having said the vulva is beautiful (a fact denied by gay guys) I'd

> > have to question God's design. The "pleasure button" should have been
> > located more prominently outside. I say it's hard to locate sometimes.
>

> Then it would get all beat to shit and desensitized. Sort of like what
> happens to circumcised men.
>
> --
> Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0

Really? Are Jewish people desensitized? To what pain or pleasure?

I think I'm circumcised (I never worry about those issues), but I'm
far from desensitized!

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

It's like the Easter egg?

Well, many women go without fun in their lives.

And they must thank God for that.

>
>
>
> > Of course, I don't expect God to have tested his own design, so he is
> > excused from a perfect design.
>
> You are just being silly now :-)

Wait a minute, I'm serious. God must have tested his design somehow to
know it works.

How about if the pleasure button turned out to produce pain?

How about the relationship between pain and pleasure, aka sado-
masochism?

>
>
>
> > How about the two teats? Women hardly ever have twins...
>
> > Is that an invitation to a threesome?
>
> Well you can share your fantasies right here if you want too :-)

The one about two girls? Who doesn't have that one. Even the Pope must
have thought about it.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Apr 3, 7:29 am, Zero <z...@thebackofbeyond.com> wrote:
> On 02/04/13 15:46, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Philosopher wrote:
> > On Mar 31, 12:20 pm, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
> > Philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> On Mar 31, 10:17 am, Zero <z...@thebackofbeyond.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Sat, 30 Mar 2013 22:52:49 -0500, x <x...@x.org> wrote:
> >>>> god created humans in his image, though...so...oh fuck it who
>
> >>> cares.....
>
> >>> Oo ooo I have Vagina envy :-(
> >>> I think they are quite neat :-)
>
> >>> ;-)
>
> >> How can the gay guys deny they are beautiful?
>
> >> In the beginning there was a Big Vulva that gave birth to everything.
>
> > Having said the vulva is beautiful (a fact denied by gay guys)
>
> Arrghhhh ! Who are these "Gay Guys" - I would like to meet all of them
> and check their concordance on this point :-/

"What Gay Guys Think About Vaginas"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bd3gw3caSEk

[Tim]

On 3 Apr, 14:16, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > Halftime at Circvs Maximvs, and the Lions lead the Christians 326-0
>
> Really? Are Jewish people desensitized? To what pain or pleasure?
>
> I think I'm circumcised (I never worry about those issues), but I'm
> far from desensitized!

i have seen a documentry or two about men that wish they had a choice
and yes, they all report decreased sensitivity... but then how would
they know? hahaha... but that little clit on the underside of your
dick near the head is the same thing... and it is the more sensitive
of the two... you dirty monkey... the addition of anal stimulous adds
and enhances the orgasm but is not the point...

hey! speaking of scores... it is all in how you add it up... the
personal game of fucking up a life of a Devil must be really awesome
when you consider that the riches best off province in Canada is
ripping off its poor and disabled... i did mention i have a program to
cash in on all that federal skills money right? us and/or canada... of
course you are going to have to ask for help... hahaha... pride before
the fall as yes, you know me by know, i will be glad to share it
freely when it is too late... anyway, think of the money the province/
state is saving by not paying what it is obligated to pay... vs... the
millions i am costing...

$985/month vs... how much was keystone worth brad? and potash? and
crops? and you do not have a plan...

sorry monkey, mixing business with pleasure...

speaking of points... since we all understand the tree of life now,
and what is mean by each sphere having a tree of its own which is
levels of knowledge, alphabet, things you need to set out on your own,
astrology, mysteries etc... did you know that the kundalini experience
is, on that the tantric level, is the orgasm?... and that the alledged
three and a half coiled snake is not enlightenment in its latent
potential but in fact... measure the spine from tip to where it
connects with the skull at birth... now the mature body? i know...
three and a half times...

a show of all you kundalini yoga know it alls please?

Lucifer

[Zero]

On 03/04/13 21:44, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

"Thank you vaginas!"

ROFL

:D

:D

:D

[x]

Mary and Mary are one.

[Zero]

On 03/04/13 21:24, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Sex is complicated!

My theory on S&M is that it is all about 'yielding' i.e. 'giving up
power' in other words to COPULATE somebody has to, at least,
temporarily. 'give-up' , power , and obviously, to 'penetrate' somebody
has to, at least temporarily, go a bit 'wild', 'dominant' (Monkey style
<chuckles>) to get off... So to be 'submissive' in certain situations
can be quite seductive, as it can to be 'powerful'. Imo all this gets
symbolised, imprinted and mashed up with all the other developmental
stuff (Mums clomping around in heels when babies crawl around the floor
for example?) and out pops S&M along with all the other paraphillias and
as long as everybody is having a good time, and nobody is getting
exploited then good for them imo :-) :-) :-)

From what I know 99% of S&M seems more about role plays and fantasy
powerplays all about yielding, giving up power in one way or another.
The 'pain' bit is more about endorphins and stuff.. Sex/pain/life/death
a complex matrix... From what I know only a small percentage of S&M
could be considered to be physically harmful in anyway and then of
course you would be phasing into the area of 'self harm' or some kind of
exploitation....

I think the watch words for S&M are stay "Safe", "Sane" and "Consensual"

Of course it can occasionally go off the rails... and I don't know the
stats but I guess guys can die from straight sex (Burst blood vessels?)
And every year or so we here of some poor guy dies from auto-erotic
asphyxiation or something....

Sometimes I think I am more closely related to a Bonobo than a
Homosapian :D :D :D

Be careful out there...

(But have fun!!!)


And women's fantasies put men's to shame :-0

The above are only my thoughts fwiw ... I am no expert?

Are there any experts in this little discussed area ???

Actually I came across a guy on the net called "Dan Savage" who seems to
be rather an expert in these areas and I really rate him :-)

"Betty Dodson" is an expert in Vaginas :D

>
>>
>>
>>
>>> How about the two teats? Women hardly ever have twins...
>>
>>> Is that an invitation to a threesome?
>>
>> Well you can share your fantasies right here if you want too :-)
>
> The one about two girls? Who doesn't have that one. Even the Pope must
> have thought about it.
>

Hopefully "in a good way" ;-)

Don't talk to me about all those horrible thing exploitative sex things
that Catholic priests got up to ... :-(

[Zero]

My GOD

Does G-Spot really stand for "GOD-SPOT" :D

?

[Zero]

On 04/04/13 16:02, Zero wrote:
>
> Actually I came across a guy on the net called "Dan Savage" who seems to
> be rather an expert in these areas and I really rate him :-)

Yes usually he is Brill, but I just had a look and he seems a little
"off" this week....

Maybe something to do with his husband and the "moustache" :-0

> "Betty Dodson" is an expert in Vaginas :D

Now she *is* a female goddess imo...

:D

[Tim]

On 4 Apr, 09:09, Zero <z...@thebackofbeyond.com> wrote:
>
> My GOD
>
> Does G-Spot really stand for "GOD-SPOT" :D
>
> ?

hit it and know.

that is what my ex gave up chasing her dream... the big O... every
time... twice a day... sensusal, sexy, sexual, deviant and...
explosive... multiples... the tantra, which obviously everyone knows
so much about... the words... hahaha... is simple... longevity... that
is what i really means monkey... a three day fuck fest begins... but
you know this and i am trying to cover things that you do not know...
the first orgasm is purely mental... the second, a matter of
masterbation highened by a sense of voyeurism... the third? get that
first fuck out of the way... and then... wow. that is the first night
monkey... two more to fill in which exceed physical and snakes its way
into spiritual copulation... then the thrid day it is purely mental
again... like a hard pinch creating a bruise that will force her to
crunge in pangs of pain... while at work... and the correspondence was
last weekend... when i used that energy to kill... succubus or is it
incubus... i really need to know... because...

the word God however, is like M in M theory... but if you know how to
do it to her, to hit that spot... she will be a fool to let you go
since everytime, twice a day, earth shaking and shattering orgasms...
or under box number two... but you will have to talk to jacquie about
that...

the tantra here then becomes the ability so separate consciousness
from the shiva force and the shakti field then objectively transmute
them into a pure mental orasm which becomes the character in the dream
that.... and it manifests in the rose.

here is the formula... IHVH... the formula of the tetragrammaton...
blah and blah make blah... but then there is the daughter... the...
when i say red you think... <is the daughter>... you must get into the
higher states by first face, purging, destroying your own obstacles of
karma... thus, when a Devil of Light comes along, on the very, very,
extremely rare chance you should meet one, when he says : truth...
which penetrates the veil, kills the ignorance... and releases the
daughter of err through the mechanism of action... action to action...
i become your world... so in effect, since this media is so open to
perception, state and translation... it really was the best place to
get it started...

but in real life... face to face... my power in your shakti bitch...

now, please, things are getting testy... i have already located a few
fringe gamers on the edge of real satanic exploration... they simply
need a guide connie and jenna... the work is already done... it, and
you, are already set up... i am told that the Catholics, as well as
just simple common reason, suggests that to willfully commit suicide
is a grave, grave sin of which even the church can not save you...

... there is the trigger you Jew whores... you need only die once to
see what i can see... which unites with what i have shared with you
before in your first life... creating... and executing...

what.

Lucifer

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

I really like what you say sometimes, but usually I get bored after
the first paragraph and then I try to look for key words. As usual the
word "Jew" pops up in your comments. Is there a sexual fantasy to it?
Something like a Jewish woman removing her wig and going wild like a
monkey?

I really stopped going wild in a howling or athletic way. Now it's
just nice soft Tantra --the TibetanMonkey way. It's a crescendo with
hands free to explore those spots so well hidden by God. It's the
monkey way as well. The "missionary position" is out, meaning I have
developed my own style.

I may as well have unleashed the energy of the Universe, same energy
only God is thought to posses. God as engineer seems to be as smart as
the engineers who design bike lanes that don't connect. In other
words, he's an idiot. I mean the dots are not connected and then a
clever monkey comes along...

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 5 Apr, 10:37, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble
Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:

<snip>

hahaha... hey monkey.. i rarely get passed your subject... and only
read to laugh at you because that is what monkeys are good for..
entertaining me...

Lucifer

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Apr 5, 12:51 pm, Wet Paper Bag <ultimate.henchman....@gmail.com>
wrote:

Thank you. Actually my subjects are all you need to know. They become
mottoes for the revolution.

This one is particularly important: God doesn't care about gays, women
or anything. Now we are free to do what we want.

[His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher]

On Apr 5, 2:40 pm, Earle Jones <earle.jo...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <b63ac943-e0d8-43f1-9d5f-6c43dfb45...@q6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
> "His Higness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble Philosopher"

>
> <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 4, 12:39 pm, Tim <8.tim.har...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 4 Apr, 09:09, Zero <z...@thebackofbeyond.com> wrote:
>
> > > > My GOD
>
> > > > Does G-Spot really stand for "GOD-SPOT" :D
>

> *
> No. It actually stands for Graefenberg, (from the German gynecologist
> Ernst Gräfenberg, the physician who dreamed it up.)
>
> earle
> *
>
> See Wikipedia:
>
> "G-Spot proponents are criticized for giving too much credence to
> anecdotal evidence, and for questionable investigative methods; for
> instance, the studies which have yielded positive evidence for a
> precisely located G-Spot involve small participant samples. Scientific
> examinations of vaginal wall innervation have generally shown that there
> is no single area with a greater density of nerve endings. A 2006 study
> of 110 biopsy specimens drawn from 21 women concluded with the absence
> of a vaginal locus with greater nerve density. Several researchers also
> consider the connection between the Skene's gland and the G-Spot to be
> weak. They contend that the Skene's gland does not appear to have
> receptors for touch stimulation, and that there is no direct evidence
> for its involvement. However, while neither the area of the anterior
> vaginal wall where the G-Spot is said to be located nor the Skene's
> gland appear to possess great nerve density, the urethral sponge, which
> is thought by some to be homologous to the G-Spot, does contain
> sensitive nerve endings and erectile tissue. Additionally, sensitivity
> is not determined by neuron density alone: other factors include the
> branching patterns of neuron terminals and cross or collateral
> innervation of neurons."

It may argued though that the g-spot is as imaginary as God...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9026947/Female-G-spot-may-not-exist.html

I don't look for it anymore. Another distraction from reality. Women
want men that act like a monkey, but not in the howling sense. They
want hand action, sensitive hands that only a monkey possesses.

"monkeys, and especially apes, resemble us most closely in the hand
and arm..."

http://people.wku.edu/charles.smith/wallace/S350.htm

***

God may have made a clumsy job by hiding the "pleasure button," but it
takes a curious monkey to find it.

[Tim]

On 5 Apr, 12:00, "His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Philosopher" <thetibetanmon...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you. Actually my subjects are all you need to know. They become
> mottoes for the revolution.

you are a lighthouse monkey... revolution is exactly what i had in
mind... send all the light left... or right, as you prefer...

> This one is particularly important: God doesn't care about gays, women
> or anything. Now we are free to do what we want.

monkey. it has always been this way. and then came those fucking
lobbiests... and their violence. remember the good old days? when the
elders knew as they do when to leave, to go away and curl up in a
handful of spirit...

see what i did there monkey... all the way around dushbag... yeah...
hahha... i just took your head buddha... you are dead.

Tim

[Peter Olcott]

On 3/29/2013 10:40 AM, His Highness the Wise TibetanMonkey, Most Humble

Philosopher wrote:
> Such is clearly the case as he created a man and a woman, or so the
> story goes. If gays appeal to marriage, they better profess their
> atheistic or at least Pagan credentials. When they do so, I'll
> carefully study their case before I pronounce a verdict. The Greeks
> didn't have any objection to homosexuality but their gods were quite
> fun and open minded.
>
> I think we may as well dump Christianity and turn to the fun-seeking
> Olympian Greek gods. Dionysus has a Spring festival dedicated to him
> so we can go out and have some wine. "Hey --I'm talking to the gays--
> do whatever, just don't bother me anymore with democracy and gay
> issues."
>

> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
All conceptions of God are misconceptions.
I forgot exactly how Tang put it, I will attempt to provide his words:
Whatever you think it is, it is not that.

The truth can not possibly be provided, it can only be pointed at.

[i2i]

"Peter Olcott" wrote in message
news:19GdnUdroZJXde7M...@giganews.com...

======================\\

the reason they say that is because _it_is
beyond thinkingness, _it_ is beyond feelingness
and is closer to a type of intuitive apperception
but even that begs the limits of conceptual
perception and doesn't do _it_ justice. if you
ever do stumble upon _it_, you will laugh at
your previous ideas, concepts and perceptions
of _it_ .

[Peter Olcott]

To oppose requires thinking and judgement, thus forming a paradox.
It might be more along the lines that God would fail to agree that
thinkingness is beingness.

It seems to me that when Christ said {do not judge}, he was intending
the Zen Buddhist meaning of this phrase. Sort of a {do not form
divisions within the mind}.

[{:-])))]

From a Zen view, such may it seam.

Do not divide, lest thee be divided.

Do not discriminate,
lest that mind destroy one's unity.

Matthew 6, particularly verse 22,
might speak to a singularity.

Interpreting a body,
be it of work, of play, of scripture, et al
in terms of some other body, already
there are more than one.

Putting the pieces back together,
solving a puzzle, being complete, at times
a picture perfect world is viewed.

For an instant.

Fleeting, it sails.

Now, one is at sea.

At present, one returns.

The gift unfolds
of its own accord.

- thanks

[Peter Olcott]

http://bible.cc/john/17-21.htm
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
that they also may be one in us

[Tim]

On 22 Apr, 07:52, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

holy shit peter first post back and stupid right off the bat...

if there was a god he would have his own sexual nature and
preference... i do not know why people like anchovies in their
pizza... but i don't...

Lucifer

[Peter Olcott]

I seems to me that the most dishonest types of people tend to be the
ones that fail to quote the context to which they are replying. I think
that this issue arises because these sort of people are so dishonest
that they even lie to themselves, and are unaware of this self-deception.

As far as I can tell your reply has nothing to do with what I said, and
that is very likely because you did not even bother to read what I said,
before "replying" to what you thought that I meant.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 22 Apr, 10:16, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

> I seems to me that the most dishonest types of people tend to be the
> ones that fail to quote the context to which they are replying. I think
> that this issue arises because these sort of people are so dishonest
> that they even lie to themselves, and are unaware of this self-deception.

it is good to see you have finally come full circle peter... perhaps
then you are capable of learning... so why don't we take it back a
couple of years and start again shall we? or do you plan or have you
found a way to replace what you have taken from me proving once and
for all that, as our savior elect, that in fact, things that can not
be replaced are such, not subject to the rule of duality... and that
is the Law... and in there is everything you need to know...

> As far as I can tell your reply has nothing to do with what I said, and
> that is very likely because you did not even bother to read what I said,
> before "replying" to what you thought that I meant.

what is the topic peter?... damn, just when i thought we had a break
through...

Lucifer

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 22 Apr, 07:52, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

> That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee,
> that they also may be one in us

for the rest of the group i now stand humbled by the "head master"...

was this not your conext regarding sexuality being that the subject is
"let's be honest... if there is a god he woul dbe opposed to gay
marriage..."?

Lucifer

[Peter Olcott]

Go back and read it this time.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 22 Apr, 11:11, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

> Go back and read it this time.

check your header asshole... i, unlike you accept the rebuke, but do
not glorify myself in failure...

Lucifer

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 22 Apr, 11:13, Wet Paper Bag <ultimate.henchman....@gmail.com>
wrote:

i know what they are going to do before you do it... i have already
consumed your soul... at least i give you your portion of doubt... the
only rewrad you can get from me... we talked about this last week...
guess you were absent...

Jesus Christ

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 21 Apr, 07:25, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

> All conceptions of God are misconceptions.

nihilism... we covered this... where does the question come from? how
can you say with certainty you first life fruit fly that at the point
of death, there is obsolution and annhilation of the self when it is
in fact this self that is in unity, the very self we all are? in other
words, two scientists want to explore death. i will go first one
says... so in fact, in order to claim a truth, does not the second
gent also have to die in order to get a and b on the same side of the
equation? then we could say. this is what it is... conception,
misconception? that is a duality... where did God come from? where is
the question? and why is it your goal? what a waste.

so then why do you all spend so much time saying a monk is this and
thus he is not a monk... or perhaps, there are all the qualtities of
the buddha and he has them all but one?... big boys don't cry...

> I forgot exactly how Tang put it, I will attempt to provide his words:

yes and so far the only "my words" we can see in your posts peter are
insults and critisms... same as me? really... where is the content?
since you are the context king of the world...

> Whatever you think it is, it is not that.

could the context of the above be different? when look at red that is
exactly what i see. you and i have a correspondence, an agreement that
the cup, whatever color it is we actually see... is red...

now i am just down right hungry...

so someone said that and it is so because it fits your current trouble
yes? sure it is... like solomon... he said 1000s of years before
Jesus.. who is also of the house of david... we all know solomons
father but what was his son's name?... any way, context being the
thing here peter... when solomon says that all wisdom is grief and all
knowledge leads to sorrow... you don't think that there was a first
life timing thing here... like a tree that bears fruit directly from
the seed... ever heard of that? no one has. i suppose you want to
argue why now but hey... whatever it takes to pass your time from here
to there.

continuing then... was he as a king saying knowldge leads to sorrow as
a bull to his people (where have i heard that story before...
lol... )... or perhaps, just maybe, as he got older and become more in
tune with the Law he realized the sorts of errors from which he could
not escape? when does Hell begin? shortly after then i am told... but
i am not dead yet... and neither was he...

> The truth can not possibly be provided, it can only be pointed at.

really... so when i point over the cliff... you think i can not
provide?

jump. fall. no excpetions... and now i am pointing at you... what? you
did not break the vase? who did then... huh? your sister? your
brother?... the cat...a familiar, must be witches here... but you do
not have a sister or brother or cat... huh? someone broke in tied you
to a chair, broke the vase, untied you and run away... it must be
look... over there... rope and a chair... but i was just over in the
other room... why didn't i hear anything... ohhh... i see, a mime did
it... is he still here?... can you point to him since that is the only
door out over there and no one came passed me... huh? telekenisis? a
poltregist>.. wow... tell me more...

peter, do you want me to take a baseball bat to your face... why not?
is there a truth perhaps? just one even? then, you broke the vase?...
didn't you...

Lucifer

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 22 Apr, 05:06, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

> To oppose requires thinking and judgement, thus forming a paradox.

hahahaha... cause and effect are a paradox now eh? a paradox is a
logical contradiction... experience... thinking... judgement... we
have written each other before... i am remembering... you have not
changed.

> It might be more along the lines that God would fail to agree that
> thinkingness is beingness.

but what God since rene d... said otherwise... could it be awareness
is being? thinking is object and consciousness?...

> It seems to me that when Christ said {do not judge}, he was intending

no. the context is that it is easy to be wrong... stage magic was
rampent before it hit the satge... that the discipline of non-doing is
a kettle that is set to boil and it does... every time... lao said
that the sage acts... and in the act, there is no one that can take
that act away. not one can take the credit for that act and the sage,
the act is the receiver of the reward for that action... all the rest
is falling...

> the Zen Buddhist meaning of this phrase. Sort of a {do not form
> divisions within the mind}.

yes. and yet in all your zen buddhist mastery you have yet to span the
chasm between you and i... perhaps he meant... no excpetions... and
that must of excited something in you to make you judge you could make
that leap... but was it technically a division...

Lucifer

[x]

discovering "the truth" is like undressing a scottish woman in winter.

[x]

every new conclusion is a new beginning... enjoy the journey.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On 22 Apr, 14:30, x <x...@x.org> wrote:

> discovering "the truth" is like undressing a scottish woman in winter.

hahahaha...

[Tang Huyen]

On 4/21/2013 9:25 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:

> All conceptions of God are misconceptions.
> I forgot exactly how Tang put it, I will attempt
> to provide his words: Whatever you think it is,
> it is not that.
>
> The truth can not possibly be provided, it can
> only be pointed at.

The Buddha says: What and what they think it,
it is otherwise.

To me, you never know what truth is. And the
very question of truth is misleading, because
it is based on an objective view, like: whether
this is a cat or not.

The most that you can know is this: when you
are calm and tranquil, you are calm and
tranquil, not agitated, not upset. You know
that much from your own side, but it is only
subjective and sentimental. There is nothing
objective out there to pin it down on. You
never get to know truth, and for you, it is
irrelevant whether what you know is truth or
not, because it is based on an objective view,
like: whether this is a cat or not. The most
that you can know is this: when you are calm
and tranquil, you are calm and tranquil, not
agitated, not upset. You feel harmonious, you
feel that everything co-breathes. That much
is not truth, it is only what you feel. And
it is what matters. So you don't care what
truth is.

Tang Huyen

[x]

i once took skepticism to the point of conscious oblivion, know knowing
or appearances of any sort. it felt like going on a holiday far away....
when i returned i didn't return fully detached from beliefs of all kind,
it appeared natural to have beliefs, but my certainty and need for it was
very much relieved in comparison to before i let go of everything. i was
lightened if not enlightened. if the moon seems like it's following me
then maybe it is. i felt less inclined to suspect everything of falsehood
but less needful of knowing the truth of it as well. content with things.

good to see you're not dead tang. :)

[i2i]

"Tang Huyen" wrote in message
news:1s-dnUTKtI9uKTnM...@supernews.com...

==================\\

welcome back.

"what and what they think it"
simply means that you'll never
grasp awakening from a thinkingness
platform since thinking, understanding
and knowingness are facets of the
human stink and just subsequent
processes of that human interaction
with relativity. to even get an intuitive
apperception of "divinity" you may still
need your human-ness to filter the
"absolute" into somewhat discernible
concepts that you can chew on. kriya
yoga states that you must have a human
body to become enlightened.

[liaM]

What is the sense of discussing qualities and
qualifications of something, when the concept of what
it is being discussed is defined as being something undefinable?

I've never understood why you make such a preach
about something which you say it is desirable not to
care about.

Mystery.

[liaM]

Le 5/28/2013 3:45 PM, Tang Huyen a écrit :

What is the sense of discussing qualities and

qualifications of something, when that something is defined as being

[brian mitchell]

This has always been the dilemma one kind of mysticism finds itself in, hasn't it? You wish to draw
attention to a potential that a forced attention obscures. Saying something could very well mislead;
saying nothing is usually of no help.


>Mystery.

Something else which can't be manufactured but is also a matter of inward balance and response.
>

[{:-])))]

liaM wrote:
> Le 5/28/2013 3:45 PM, Tang Huyen a écrit :
>> On 4/21/2013 9:25 AM, Peter Olcott wrote:
>>
>>> All conceptions of God are misconceptions.

A conception of inconceivability.

Concepts may tend to be derivatives.
Ore, they may be gestalts.

Refined, one may find, an essence.

All maps are maps.
Explanations, explanations.

At times
a map can be a territory.

A space, a niche.

Myths exist.

>>> I forgot exactly how Tang put it, I will attempt
>>> to provide his words: Whatever you think it is,
>>> it is not that.

To think there is an it
such that the it
is not what is thought
about the it
may be,
as it turns out
to be
a thought.

At times it
is the thought
which counts.

Presuming, assuming, an it exists
might be done for some reason.

A reason, rationale, ratio
may tend to be of a fractional nature.

Uncarved blocks are fractured often.

>>> The truth can not possibly be provided, it can
>>> only be pointed at.

An assertion.

Presuming a word, truth,
has a meaning beyond the word,
might be taken for granted.

Words usually have meanings,
but the meanings are not fixed.

Slop in terminology, within tolerance,
could provide space for the cranks
and bearings to function.

>> The Buddha says: What and what they think it,
>> it is otherwise.
>>
>> To me, you never know what truth is.

For me, I can know what truth is.

To you, one may or may not ever know.

People often use the second person pronoun
when they are referring to themselves,
as well as generalizing.

Grammar might contain germs.

>> And the
>> very question of truth is misleading, because
>> it is based on an objective view, like: whether
>> this is a cat or not.

Meanings can be agreed upon.

One, or more, may call a cat a cat.
There might be this cat or that cat.
It might be in a hat.

Values of truth
may be found within sentences.

A sentence may be long or short.
At times a fragment.

Doing time for a crime of thought
might be what one sentences
oneself to at times two.

>> The most that you can know is this: when you
>> are calm and tranquil, you are calm and
>> tranquil, not agitated, not upset. You know
>> that much from your own side, but it is only
>> subjective and sentimental. There is nothing
>> objective out there to pin it down on.

Brain waves may be of amber.

Flowering fields in neural nets
might be captured on film.

>> You
>> never get to know truth,

I might get to know truth.
Perhaps others are not able.

Words have been known
to get in their
ways.

>> and for you, it is
>> irrelevant whether what you know is truth or
>> not, because it is based on an objective view,
>> like: whether this is a cat or not.

In a discussion, relevance
might enter into a picture.

One may know a cat is a cat
and a dog is a dog. Another may as well.

If a cat was lost, and found,
there might be truth
known.

>> The most
>> that you can know is this: when you are calm
>> and tranquil, you are calm and tranquil, not
>> agitated, not upset. You feel harmonious, you
>> feel that everything co-breathes.

Oar, that air is breathing all
forms of life, as life takes shape.

As if there are rarefied reified concepts
which are able to cement inconceivables.

>> That much
>> is not truth, it is only what you feel.

When meanings are found
then snares and nets may be set down,
returned back too, on the ground.

To wave them around
might be done
for a spell.

>> And
>> it is what matters. So you don't care what
>> truth is.

Objective and subjective truths,
shared with others, out there, in here,
on the net, in bamboo groves.

Some may feel a need
to knead their thoughts and find
a way to be free. To know the truth.
To be as a setting sun
of stardust.

>> Tang Huyen
>
>
>What is the sense of discussing qualities and
>qualifications of something, when that something is defined as being
>something undefinable?

A sense of nonsense may be of great joy.

>I've never understood why you make such a preach
>about something which you say it is desirable not to
>care about.

Preachers preach.
Writers write.

>Mystery.

Songs may be sung to sing them.
Walks taken for the walking.

Water falls.

Butter flies
on far flung toast

Beauty appears.

To seek for reasons
is to carve the waterfall.

First there is a waterfall.

That much might
be given.

Tang is Tang.

One can be said to be.

Eye finds
truth within and out
sides of spacetimes.

[{:-])))]

brian wrote:

> liaM wrote:
>
>>
>>What is the sense of discussing qualities and
>>qualifications of something, when that something is defined as being
>>something undefinable?
>>
>>I've never understood why you make such a preach
>>about something which you say it is desirable not to
>>care about.
>
>This has always been the dilemma one kind of mysticism finds itself in, hasn't it?

To speak of the One
which to speak of
evokes its antithesis
may be as a baby bird.

> You wish to draw
>attention to a potential that a forced attention obscures.

Letting go of a force
may afford a flow.

To ford a stream
one may enter.

> Saying something could very well mislead;
>saying nothing is usually of no help.

Speaking without speaking.

Saying nothing.

Whispering
hints.

>>Mystery.
>
>Something else which can't be manufactured but is also a matter of inward balance and response.

A center of sorts
from which all things radiate.

[on a second read]

Twas wrote:

>you never know what truth is.

If that is true
then the statement is false.

[niunian]

Because that is a complete mistake. It's never about something that is
defined as something undefinable. It's about something that is the
definition of everything else. For example, God is not something that is
defined by the concept of God, instead, God is the thing that defines
the concept of God. That's why one never needs to define God or Truth.
One only needs to know God and the Truth. From there, everything in the
world is defined and explained.

[niunian]

As long as you still have a concept to chew on, you have no idea about
what the Buddha was saying or any kind of "divinity". Concept does not
explain "divinity". "Divinity" makes you truly understand the concept
for what it is.

[niunian]

Without knowing the truth, how do you know what you feel is true or not?
or are you saying that you don't care about whether your feeling is true
or false, you just want to get high?

[niunian]

He makes the mistake mistaking knowing the same as thinking. God is
known before thinking can take place. Truth is present so that thinking
can begin.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:ko4vpu$9d3$1...@dont-email.me...

========================\\

methinks you couldn't have contradicted
your own statement any more if you had
feverishly worked at it.

[niunian]

IOW, you still haven't got a clue.

The round red delicious thing over your head on the tree is not
explained by the concept "apple". The round red delicious thing over
your head on the tree explains the word "apple" in your head.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:ko54ta$8v6$1...@dont-email.me...

projection noted.

get a new act. this one's
been stinking way too long.

[niunian]

Sad little pretentious idiot like you is why I don't come here as often
as I should. You don't deserve my attention.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:ko55ga$ct7$1...@dont-email.me...

then leave

[niunian]

It's a dilemma only because they haven't the faintest clue about what
they are saying. They are only parroting something they wish they will
one day understand.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:ko5641$gm2$1...@dont-email.me...

>It's a dilemma only because they haven't the faintest clue about what
>they are saying. They are only parroting something they wish they will
>one day understand.

every irony meter in the known
universe just dissolved into dust

[Wet Paper Bag]

On May 29, 7:45 am, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Without knowing the truth, how do you know what you feel is true or not?
> or are you saying that you don't care about whether your feeling is true
> or false, you just want to get high?

fuck tang... good to see you... there must be a certain satisfaction
now... my emperor... watching that ship japan sinking after a very
unfortunate crossing with the anna-rachael... huh? the black pearl?
heard of it... but only in stories... myths... i do not believe in
pirates and antiquated ships in these, our modern times...

without the truth why do you change what you feel when there is no
other reason for its effect?

at least i can say some silliness is because i am high, all the
time ... you must have by now grasped the absurdity of this place...
round and round... you are turning and yet... for the hate of it
all... you do keep coming back for more abuse my emperor... but not,
even then... in bored and repetitive droning lessons, again and
again... the silliness, i have not been intoxicated with stupidity and
denial... my head clear in an instant... and i am always an early
riser and begin working right away... even if, my emperor, the state
does not wish this work... and prefers another... the kind that feed
bellies and empties heads... to slavery of 100 so one piece of shit
may live as a king...

i wonder if that is what your hated enemies think... i do not have
hated enemies... only students that desire my hate as a form of
healing... a mechanism of process... of return... they expect it... i
deliver... since simple wise and humble kindness makes them feel
worse...

you see according to china... or maybe just niunian... you fuckers all
look the same form here... lol... buzzzzz..... the philosophy dictates
that japan is sinking and thus, perhaps china is sinking to...

Lucifer

[niunian]

Pleasure. Did I fuck you good? or bad?

Don't reply to me any more. You may have to spend time chew on that with
your brain the size of pea.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On May 29, 9:25 am, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Pleasure. Did I fuck you good? or bad?

oh yeah... china fucked me good... so did russia.. did you hear the
one about the philosopher who, because he felt differently about
vlad's best pick movie selection... was taken away... assigned a
title... schizophrenia... was subjected to unspeakable
"experiments"... pumped full of intoxicants... numerous mind killing
electro-shock treatments... years and years in prison... and in the
end, they released him and... alas, other than his slow and slurred
labored speech... he still knows why nothing has changed...

oh yeah niunian... you fucked me real good... but alas... any fool can
take it... but what you really want is for me to give it to you sink
alas, the pleasure was all mine... my lord...

> Don't reply to me any more. You may have to spend time chew on that with
> your brain the size of pea.

snow peas... rice and soy... how are those onions holding out?

Lucifer

[niunian]

Tang is OK, but not daring or willing to show what it is openly. For
some reason he still wants to hide the truth. Unfortunately, the world
has come to the age where the truth must be known by all in order to
stop the evil that will destroy the world.

[i2i]

"niunian" wrote in message news:ko56dn$idt$1...@dont-email.me...

===========================\\

methinks you've been playing
your dalai lama skin drums too
long

[Wet Paper Bag]

On May 29, 9:42 am, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:

> Tang is OK, but not daring or willing to show what it is openly. For
> some reason he still wants to hide the truth. Unfortunately, the world
> has come to the age where the truth must be known by all in order to
> stop the evil that will destroy the world.

savvy. he think she possess the secret of secrets. having not one of
his own.

Captain Monarch

[niunian]

I only use my personal insult to serve the truth I'm trying to explain.
It is my fault to throw my pearls at the hogs. Therefore, it is my duty
to hear the squeak to show that the truth should not be taken lightly.

[Peter Olcott]

I would tend to disagree. It seems to me that most people tend to define
their own presumptions as providing all of the substance behind the term
"truth".

Truth is exactly and precisely the mathematical mapping between abstract
representations of actuality and actuality itself.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On May 29, 9:52 am, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:

> I only use my personal insult to serve the truth I'm trying to explain.

hmmm... yes. i see. the truth you are trying to explain.... tell me
more...

> It is my fault to throw my pearls at the hogs. Therefore, it is my duty

your duty, sir, is to the truth... that pearls tend to break their
teeth and not knowing their value... they are shit out and left along
the wayside... for poor and humble bonesmen... or those who walk the
road not the sky... not the level...

> to hear the squeak to show that the truth should not be taken lightly.

"o-hoy! Treasure. stern side!... permission granted niunian... you do
not have to ask to come aboard..."

anna-rachael

[niunian]

There is no secret. The Sun is for all to see.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On May 29, 9:52 am, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

> Truth is exactly and precisely the mathematical mapping between abstract
> representations of actuality and actuality itself.

whatever peter.

"if"... is the span of the great divide yes?...

if however is not a range of unlimited possibilities...

but the fact and resistance to what it is... already is...

you will go to your grave answering if...

but since you believe in representations of actuality itself... that
the hard cold universe is somehow speaking in a strange, unfathomable
and nonspeaking form of abstract symbolism, you will never see what it
is... the thing in and of itself is not the eye...

since you were in the brig... you missed all the past discussions... i
am certain like a poor starved beggar you sucked up all the remaining
juice from the peel of that exhausted orange we tossed you...

but as we established, as fact, is that one can be aware without
consciousness... one can then see without imprint... then sight and
with imprint... self awareness of being aware... that consciousness
arises synonymously with object... before aware... not object, i do
not remember...

now i know a thing in and of itself...
i call it separate...
but only because it is an aspect...

TTC timmy translation...

thus, no object... no consciousness... the applications you missed,
the late hour drunken, stoned and thourou...hly--- ... unghhhh...
farrrttt... squeak... intoxicated discussions on other decks was then
awareness... sight without seeing... sound without silence...

you do not see... you do not hear... so really what is this self you
think you know?

Lucifer

[niunian]

There is nothing between your abstract representations of actuality and
the actuality in your head. They are one and the same thing. Truth is
something else entirely. It is the foundation of the actuality in your
head. Without it, your actuality vanishes into thin air.

[Peter Olcott]

Another ways of saying it is there are words and there are things that
the words point to.

[niunian]

From 2013年05月29日 23:58, Wet Paper Bag wrote:
> On May 29, 9:52 am, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:
>
>> I only use my personal insult to serve the truth I'm trying to explain.
>
> hmmm... yes. i see. the truth you are trying to explain.... tell me
> more...
>
>> It is my fault to throw my pearls at the hogs. Therefore, it is my duty
>
> your duty, sir, is to the truth...

No sir. The truth doesn't need me to do anything. I need to do
everything I can to make sure that I have not disgraced the truth I
value so much. Unfortunately, there is only so much I can do in this
ugly world. It doesn't always end nicely.

[niunian]

You need to recognize that the things are projections and the words are
projections also. They are the same thing.

[Wet Paper Bag]

On May 29, 10:20 am, Peter Olcott <OCR4Screen> wrote:

> Another ways of saying it is there are words and there are things that
> the words point to.

no. that is not another way of saying... it is like a way of saying
something like... we do not confuse red with the thing in and of
itself... but the way you sound... sea salted and rum punch poor... if
i say, "crowsman... you fucking slimy cunt... bring me my red
cup..."... would you look for a hammer?

Jod Daath

[Wet Paper Bag]

On May 29, 10:32 am, niunian <niun...@ymail.com> wrote:

> > your duty, sir, is to the truth...

> No sir. The truth doesn't need me to do anything. I need to do

hmmm... i see... and how long have you been experiencing this pain
here?

> everything I can to make sure that I have not disgraced the truth

can? make? do? this is more serious than i thought... "nurse! bring me
the red hammer..." you are going to feel a bit of a sting...

> I value so much. Unfortunately, there is only so much I can do in this
> ugly world. It doesn't always end nicely.

yes, but alas, i am... after all tired, stoned and pissed and you do
after all need a doctor... don't look at that like very nasty and
uglifying scars as much as it gives your vessel character... a poor
stitch job i know... buoyancy is a bitch... they will learn to fear
you but... the doctor is the terror...

> that pearls tend to break their

now then sailor... no more malingering... there are decks that need
scrubbing...

"carry on."

Lucifer

[Tang Huyen]

On 5/29/2013 11:52 AM, niunian wrote:

> I only use my personal insult to serve the truth
> I'm trying to explain. It is my fault to throw my
> pearls at the hogs. Therefore, it is my duty to
> hear the squeak to show that the truth should not
> be taken lightly.

Idiot, the truth is exactly what should
be taken lightly. It should be taken
with levity and humour, both of which
you completely lack.

Tang Huyen