วีดีโอ

It is a presumption that the purpose of sex is to reproduce, or that anything has any inherent purpose at all aside from the projections and aims of humans, or aliens, or whatever other entity could possess reason. If anything, humans are less geared towards reproduction because they do not have sex instinctually during mating seasons, their genitalia is not so marred by sexual antagonism (e.g., pabulum for wiping out rival semen, corkscrewed duck penis and a vagina that has adapted to frustrate the aim of said penis, to prevent insemination), they are not an r-selected species that continuously puts out great broods of young. We have sex for bonding, pleasure, emotional and social reasons/needs; pregnancy is just a byproduct of this, not the purpose or the intention. Look at Bonobos and Chimps, to whom we are most closely genetically related. It is not that eating food has as its purpose nourishment to sustain life, but that one's purpose in eating food CAN be to sustain life. What you are doing is like ascribing intention or purpose to evolution, or any law of nature, confusing an is for an ought. It may be beneficial for a society, especially in this age of conquering and striking the earth, quiverfull movements, growing yeast-like, to create children. But it is not the purpose of sex, it is just the purpose given to it by groups of humans and social programmers. If sex and childbirth are linked as if by Pavlovian conditioning, it will be beneficial for whoever desires a greater mass to maneuver. You gave a completely dissimilar example next; indeed, I can chew gum in so far as I also feed myself. But there is no such obligation for sex, unless I am sexing myself to death. Perhaps, if I am altruistic or cooperative, and having children actually is necessary to sustain the community I love, I can have children (or do as they used to- have a wife and children but actually love and romance another man or men). This does not mean one must reproduce to keep this natalistic house of cards, this overstretched Roman Empire that is modern society, from not falling. This is a far more subjective matter than 'keeping yourself from dying'- which is far more immediate and ingrained than the 'duty' to reproduce. You have transformed a desire into a duty, spuriously. It is even arguable whether one ought to reproduce the human form, which is so flawed, vulnerable, and suffers so much- yet denies the awfulness its suffering at every turn because of an insipid, callous psychology, one that is fed by culture (e.g., suffering without complaining cleanses sins, we deserve to suffer because of past lives, 'life's not hard, you're just weak'). I suppose to each their own. Some are fools enough to invest in an unworthy world and style of life because it is all they know. We have no standard to measure our existence by save for rare NDEs, mystical visions, etc. where people see and feel such things as to discredit the earth as an enchanting or just place. No, what would be bad is having animalistic sex, joylessly, only to relieve your lust. Sex can be an art, a tool for enlightenment or what have you, a beautiful gift, and much more. I shouldn't have to implant these ideas in your mind, embellish it for yourself. Be inventive. Prove you are creative. It does not follow from a creator that there is a bigger purpose. It could be a negligent creator, involved only in maintaining creation. It could be an impersonal creator and several involved, 'pagan' deities. These deities can possess many perspectives and desires for reality- not all desire reproduction, or possess and idealize a male-female sex/gender binary. This reproduction of ourselves in the gods is just a human fallacy- we have created gods in our image to serve, immortalize, and enthrone our small identities. Of course they are all married, men and women, or analogized as men and women (e.g., God is male in relation to a female creation), or carries some trace of it (e.g., the Virgin Mary is impregnated by the Holy Spirit, is termed the 'Queen of Heaven' and 'Mother of God'- appellations seen as truthful rather than arrogant; the same motif of male God and female human begetting a male demigod).

Sings: “It ain’t necessarily so...” 🎤

Well, my dear child, as Sir Michael Jagger once sang: “You can’t always get what you WANT”, right, Slave? 😛 th-cam.com/video/oqMl5CRoFdk/w-d-xo.html

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology Koons, Pat Flynn, Kerr, and DBH are pretty good defenders of DDS. But I also totally understand your concerns!

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology Well- “few” is a relative word… so I’m sure some would agree… 🤗 Thanks Alex!

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology Nice essay u wrote there. Wasn't really needed to be honest. Dude, developers have every right to exclude/gatekeep certain types of players from their games. It's their creation. Not yours. Also, if I had a disability, accessibility in a video game would be the LAST THING on my list. Trust me. These accessibility arguments stupid and y'all are losing. Get over it. Some things in this world aren't meant to be "all-inclusive/accessable". Lastly, when I'm old and disabled, I'll be smart enough to give my games away or something.

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology No, my favorite hobby is not games. I play them every now and then. Dude, the worlds not gonna stop spinning because lack of accessibility options in a game. If a game creators vision is to have a game not be for disabled ppl, then it is what it is. Even if adding options "didn't change anything". Jesus.

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology "I consider games an important part of my life". Sounds like your life must really be boring or something. My "move on" comment actually made sense. You're on the losing side of this whole debate. You know this right? You're entitled to ur opinion, but game companies will do as they please.

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology "I do not think so". Until From Software decides to bend the knee, keep on "fighting" I guess? These companies must be some evil ppl if they don't want to add assist/accessibility options to their games right😂😂😂? What a time to be alive. Again keep "fighting" the good "fight".

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology Yeah, sure whatever.

thanks.

@@absolutelyoptimistictheology 🐟 07. GOD (OR NOT): There has never been, nor will there ever be, even the SLIGHTEST shred of evidence for the existence of the Godhead, that is, a Supreme Person, for the notion of an omnipresent, omniscient, and omnipotent Deity is both profoundly illogical and extremely incongruous, to put it mildly. At the risk of seeming facetious, any person who believes in a gigantic man (or woman) perched in the heavens, is a literal moron. Why would the Absolute require, for instance, unlimited power, when there is naught but the Absolute extant? Of course, theists would argue that when God creates the material universe, He requires total power and control over His creation (otherwise he wouldn’t be, by definition, the Supreme). However, that argument in itself easily falls apart when one understands the simple fact that time is a relative concept and therefore has no influence on the eternal, timeless Absolute. The same contradiction applies to omnipresence. The ONLY omni-property which comes close to being an accurate description of Ultimate Reality is omniscience, since the Absolute knows absolutely everything (i.e. Itself). The English word “PERSON” literally means “for sound”, originating from the Latin/Greek “persona/prósōpa”, referring to the masks worn by actors in ancient European theatrical plays, which featured a mouth hole to enable the actors to speak through. Therefore, the most essential aspect of personhood is that the individual possesses a face. The fact that we do not usually refer to a decapitated body as a “person”, seems to confirm this claim. If you were confronted simultaneously with a severed head and a decapitated body, and asked to point to the person, would you point to the head or point to the body? I'm sure most everyone would indicate the head, at least in the first instance, agreed? Theists, by definition, believe that there is a Supreme Deity (God or The Goddess), which incorporates anthropomorphic characteristics such as corporeal form (even if that form is a “spiritual” body, whatever that may connote), with a face (hence the term “PERSON”), and certain personality traits such as unique preferences and aversions. Of course, they also believe that their fictitious God or Goddess embodies the aforementioned omni-properties, but as clearly demonstrated above, that is also a largely nonsensical, fallacious assertion. Of course, the more INTELLIGENT theists normally counter with “But God is not a person in the same sense as we humans are persons. God is an all-powerful spiritual being, without a body. He is all-knowing, all-loving and present everywhere”. In that case, God is most definitely not a person in the etymological sense, and not even a person in the common-usage of the word. When did you last hear anyone refer to an omnipresent “entity” as being a person? The mere fact that theists use personal pronouns in reference to their non-existent Deity (usually the masculine pronoun “He”), proves that they have a very anthropomorphic conception of Absolute Reality. If God is not a male, then why use masculine pronouns? If God is, in fact, male, then why would the Supreme Person require gender? Does God require a female mate in order to reproduce? The most popular religious tradition, Christianity, claims that God is “Spirit”, yet “spirit” is a very vague and undefined term. Incidentally, the term “person” can be (and, in my opinion, should be) used in reference to any animal which possesses a FACE, since most humans do not accept the fact that animals are persons, worthy of moral consideration. In recent times, animal rights activists have been heard referring to animals in such a way (as persons). The fact that vegans are still relatively rare in most nations/countries, seems to validate this assertion (that most humans do not see other animals, like birds, fish, and mammals, as persons), otherwise, non-vegetarians/non-non-vegans would have no qualms about saying such things as “I am planning to consume three persons for dinner tonight” (in reference to three animals). Many otherwise intelligent theists, particularly the members of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (a radical Indian cult first established in the United States of America in the late 1960’s by a truly delusional retired pharmacist named Mr. A. C. De), HONESTLY believe that the Ground of All Being is a youthful Indian gentleman with dark-blue-tinged black skin colour, who currently resides on His own planet in the “spiritual” world, and spends His days cavorting around with a bunch of cowherd girls! If one were to ask those ISKCon devotees how Lord Krishna manages to incorporate relative time into the timeless realm (since it takes a certain amount of time for Him to play his flute and to frolic with His girlfriends), then I’m not sure how they would answer, but they would undoubtedly dismiss the argument using illogical semantics. I’m ashamed to admit that I too, was previously one of those deluded religionists who believed such foolish nonsense. Thankfully, I managed to break-free from that brainwashing cult, and following decades or sincere seeking, came to be the current World Teacher himself. Common sense dictates that Ultimate Reality must NECESSARILY transcend all dualistic concepts, including personality and even impersonality. However, only an excruciatingly minute number of humans have ever grasped this complete understanding and realization. Neither Eternal Beingness, Unlimited Consciousness, nor Blissful Quietude (“sacchidānanda”, in Sanskrit) necessitate personality. See Chapter 06 to properly understand the nature of Ultimate Reality, and Chapter 03 to learn how to distinguish mere concepts from (Absolute) Truth. The wisest theologians will, when hard-pressed, admit that the primary reason for theists referring to the Absolute as personal in nature, is because the Absolute has some kind of MIND (by which they really mean some degree of Universal, Infinite Consciousness). However, it is indeed possible (and in fact, is the case) that the Ground of Being is Pure Consciousness Itself. Universal Consciousness (“puruṣa” or “brahman”, in Sanskrit) can and does include all characteristicss of Pure Being, such as unconditional love, unadulterated awareness, et cetera, and we humans are, quintessentially, of the same Nature. In other words, you are, fundamentally, “God” (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Most arguments for the existence of a Supreme Creator God are actually arguments for the INTELLIGENT DESIGN of the perceivable universe, and not for the Intelligent Designer being a person as such. As explicated elsewhere, the phenomenal sphere is naught but an appearance in consciousness. Therefore, to assert that there is a cause of all causes is a a legitimate contention, but to abruptly attribute that first cause to be a male or female (or even an androgynous) Deity is a non-sequitur. There is no evidence for any phenomena without conscious awareness. There are at least FOUR possible reasons why many persons are convinced of the existence of a Personal God (i.e the Supreme [Male] Deity): 1. Because it is natural for any sensible person to believe that humans may not be the pinnacle of existence, and that there must be a higher power or ultimate creative force (an intelligent designer). However, because they cannot conceive of this designer being non-personal, they automatically suspect it must be a man (God) or a woman (The Goddess) with personal attributes. One who is truly awakened and/or enlightened understands that the Universal Self is the creator of all experiences and that he IS that (“tat tvam asi”, in Sanskrit). Cont...

Beautiful and ugly are RELATIVE. 😉 philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas. Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside the school of Advaita Vedanta, it refers to ideas and ideologies which are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the antithesis of genuine wisdom. An ideal philosopher is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand morality to be based on the law of non- violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently WISE to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Establish that Advaita Vedanta is true wisdom. Argue for its necessity, state your case. Ditto for 'adharma;' perhaps you term them as 'adharmic,' but what does that mean, specifically? Why should one bother, if you have not first established the truth of your Hindu cosmology? Furthermore, even if these 'adharmic' things may destroy society, that does not mean that they do, but merely that society is fragile and unable to embody these things. Alternatively, it does not mean those things that destroy society are wrong; perhaps society and earthly conditions, including its attempt at an order, are all evil, contrary to universal divine law outside of earth, and completely transient. Perhaps what you consider normal- the human sexual dimorphism which evolved here on earth by virtue of its efficiency- is actually a restriction and an evil meant to be dethroned after death. No more gods and goddesses, no more Principle of Gender, but an entirely different conception. So much for an objective dharmic order. Clearly, the Vedas were written by men and developed over time, as well as these theories of karma and reincarnation. None of these things are eternal or originated at the beginning of time in any form; their teachings are the product of their communities and their desires/scopes.

Mr. Walker, what is this “SOUL” of which you speak? 🤔 philosophy: the love of wisdom, normally encapsulated within a formal academic discipline. Wisdom is the soundness of an action or decision with regard to the application of experience, knowledge, insight, and good judgment. Wisdom may also be described as the body of knowledge and principles that develops within a specified society or period. E.g. The wisdom of the Tibetan lamas. Unfortunately, in most cases in which this term is used, particularly outside the school of Advaita Vedanta, it refers to ideas and ideologies which are quite far-removed from genuine wisdom. For instance, the typical academic philosopher, especially in the Western tradition, is not a lover of actual wisdom, but a believer in, or at least a practitioner of, adharma, which is the antithesis of genuine wisdom. An ideal philosopher is one who is sufficiently intelligent to understand morality to be based on the law of non- violence (“ahiṃsā”, in Sanskrit), and sufficiently WISE to live his or her life in such a harmless manner. Cf. “dharma”.

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Did you even watch the video? I am pointing out the strawman of drawing zero distinction between the living and the dead in finality of a state or acceptance or rejection from others. My definition of Soul is of little consequence. Redeeming qualities can only be found in redeeming actions of the living. The subject is the space of all possible states of a living actor deserving all possible retribution and praise. I assume you are bringing up one state or the field that deserves praise. I am simply saying that the ideal of redemption in other people's eyes (shorthand for ideal "God") is that redemption is always open to the living acceptance is for people who can do good to encourage good actions. A distinction in consequences need only have any relation to the good it encourages in others to justify the distinguisher. If you believe (I need not have an opinion) in hell fire for eternity or even make it happen this consequence on the unredeemed would not encourage undesired actions in the living To be direct about how I use the word "Soul" we find it is a counter for living beings. A Soul is a living thing that manifests Spirits into actions. There is nothing about this that says it must be positive wisdom or negative so called "wisdom" or foolishness. If when you talk about wisdom you are also referring to the spectrum I am also making reference to it being attached to a physical body that manifests the ideas and demonstrates their usefulness. Tibetan Llamas would be one example that is needlessly super specific, but only the living ones are a living soul. I am not sure if there is any debate about Llamas meditating in urns for the last 500 years being alive or dead but if there is, the distinction I am forwarding is whether or not they have any possibility to do me wrong or help me through a choice they could make at a future date.

@@ReverendDr.Thomas Utterly dogmatized. Adharma/dharma are subjective concepts, and often 'dharma' leads to violent and dehumanizing conclusions. More presumption- that the ideal philosopher understands morality to be based ONLY on non-violence. Who determines what the ideal philosopher is? Why should I follow their conception of the 'ideal?' Will he uphold arbitrary, idiotic casteist, misogynist, homophobic, transphobic rules, with immense violence and threats of Hells and karmic retribution to the affected victims, merely presuming that the people he victimizes are creating disorder or evil- when in fact, he and his dysfunctional society are the origin of this. Societies have existed in orderly fashions without the aforementioned 'dharmic' ideals, only to be replaced and overcome by the more ruthless, bestial, mechanistic (mandatory cisgenderism, heterosexism, natalism, etc.). The Advaita Vedantin notion of the soul is not the only conception that bears 'genuine wisdom,' whatever is meant by 'genuine wisdom.' It presumes, on scant evidence, that there is reincarnation, karma, and rebirth into transient afterlives. Since there is no continuous self, appeal to the 'soul' as an immortal individual beginning here on Earth in a Christian, or (some) pagan, or spiritist/Swedenborgian sense, is futile. There is just this thing that carries forth karma, samskaras, etc. to new bodies. I may as well be an atheist, as I do not continue to live in the truest sense, nor am I connected to the past life, nor would any past life-recaller meaningfully continue from the past life, as they merely recall memories from a different person. Recalling memories of another does not make one that person or connect you to them. It is a disjointed, discontinuous 'self,' and as such, it is a cheap definition. The soul will inevitably eventually become destroyed at the end of the cycle, so who cares about its self-realization? I will become destroyed after I receive my personal due at the end of my Hell- or Heaven-sojourn. A subjective experience called 'enlightenment' with several attached myths to make it seem like a serious ontological change will save no one. If there is nothing for 'me' to escape from, why follow Advaita Vedanta? The only 'karma' I will suffer is in this life. I will not suffer the exhaustion and pain of future incarnations and hells, transient heavens. The person that will become enlightened has no connection to me. I say 'me' because, to my knowledge, Advaita does not entirely disconsider the subjective self, only preaches that it is not the true self. How is it that one perceives non-dual reality? With what perceptual organ? How can the individual soul and the universal soul even be identical? Is this as if to say that Brahman, the divine substrate, is attached to the illusion of separate self? Not to mention it is obviously a cheap trick that indulges a select set of sages and their flagships teachings, like Christianity; sin=attachment to separate self, desire / salvation = self-realization / Hell = cycle of reincarnation and transient afterlives, be they pleasant or unpleasant. I may as well make up my own religion based on my philosophical pet projects, damning those who follow, saving the select few who are lucky enough to grasp my word salad.