mercedo wrote today at 11:57 PM
Many years ago one pretty young single girl talked to me when I was browsing an English book in Rainbow plaza -meeting place for foreign people. We had a meal a couple of times since then. But she was not my type. I mean she didn't attract me sexually. We had date four or five times, talked about various things. Basically we both studied abroad, so we had a common topic. Love makes our interest closer, but we had just the lack of love. We stopped meeting soon.
I guess I had a countless examples for this lack of love. Love is not particularly different from friendship, but love just makes our friendship perfect.

mercedo wrote today at 12:30 AM
Hi TohI feel honour to be a part of your network. Keep in touch..Mer

Re:At my work, we recently had a going-away party(Score:?)
by mercedo (822671) on 2007.08.31 0:05 (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.29 3:35)
Here is the picture and its legend of English circle. I think that helps you understand it vividly. http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal/item/56/Farewe ll_party/
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Hi,

Thanks a lot!

Allow me to use your photo, if you approved, here's where your photo was editted.

http://mercedo.multiply.com/journal/item/56/Farewell_party


I am eager to hear from you after you resume your life in the Philippines.

See you soon!

Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling

This is indeed, true.

This statement merely tells us that it's not suitable to have couples of both clever-clever and silly-silly. If both were clever, they won't yield to one another. If both were silly, they won't go forward any longer.

Because I coincidentally wrote this journal after I read slashdot maxim at the bottom of the page, coincidentally.

mercedo wrote today at 8:08 PM
You always open your window to the east. I'm afraid you need not make a real window in the east side.

mercedo wrote today at 5:00 AM
I'd like to pay a visit this place with someone whom I care for a lot. Preferably you.

mercedo wrote today at 4:56 AM
I think you are looking at me. ;)

I think you were advertising PC, I guess this is IBM.

I had half a mind to send you my very private photos. But first I need to ask your permission, can I send you via email?

mercedo wrote today at 4:31 AM
Thanks for accepting my invitation!I feel as if we were destined to see one another.Thanks for choosing my head shot on the front!

Pleasure Boat
2007.08.29 3:35

On the last Sunday I went to one university where test for social insurrance solicitor took place with a friend who took this teat.
We arrived at 8:30 in the morning. She's going to take this test until 16:40, so I needed to kill time until then. I went to the famous Wajiro lagoon near the university. I walked and walked along with the lagoon under the extremely strong sunshine. I was the only who dared to do under such a extreme sunshine. I got tanned very much.
I was the only one on the land side, but on the bay there're three pleasure boats that were playing ski on the water. Some of a young girl wearing bikini shouting very loud, which was of course seemed very fun.
It takes nothing to walk along with the beach. It takes a lot of money to play on the water. I felt envious, to tell the truth.
Back in my home, I learned one of the people who were playing ski on the water accidentally drowned to death. He was drunk and dropped from the pleasure boat accidentaly when someone cut the direction sharp.
The news report revealing that he was a member of self diffence force.
Total eclipse
2007.08.29 2:57

One of my friends let me know that we had a total eclipse for a couple of hours. It was till 20:30. I was unable to observe though. I thought it symbolises his leaving from our sight soon.
Famous last word
2007.08.29 2:45

Tonight we had a farewell party for one of our colleagues who came here a year ago for excange scholar from the Philippines. He's about to leave here soon.
'This is the beginning of our true friendship.' This word came to be my famous last word to him.
Men and women are physical relationship. The relationship is likely to cease when they leave. Between men and men are of course spiritual relationship. Spiritual relationship will start strengthening itself as they left.
Matter of comparison
2007.08.28 23:32

Take my word for it, the silliest woman can manage a clever man, but it needs a very clever woman to manage a fool. -- Kipling
Now I understand why I've been needing a clever woman.

Re:Ahhh...(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 1:20 (#20372945) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
War is in short a tremendous consumption of human, or materialistic resourses. The age of mass consumption primarily took place prior to our current ages in a form of drastic decrease of population at war.
Another aspect of war is that killing one another definitely contributed to the sufficient food supply.
Mass consumption in any form makes economy viable.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:slightly different(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.28 0:58 (#20372635) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.23 5:47)
life is shades of gray
I've been pondering about this theme for a long time - the hypocrates and those who pretend to be evil. Hypocrates pretend to hold higher moral values than ordinary people but tend to have a lower moral value. On the contrary those who pretend to be evil pretend to hold a lower moral value. But actually they tend to have higher moral values than ordinary people.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

About those who pretend to be evil
Aug 21, '07 11:15 AMfor everyone
There are some people who pretend to be evil. What's their psychology?
Probably their moral standard is extremely high and they realised their behaviour cannot possibly meet their supposedly very high moral standard. Their claim is humans are so sinful and they themselves feel as if they are committing some crime. According to God's standard, humans make error. According to ordinary humans' ordinary moral standard, humans are perfect.
Tags: moral standard
Prev: Cross cultureNext: War Crimes
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
You mean sort of: "I have so much evil in me that I might as well be honest and show it"? Interesting theory - and not at all unlikely.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
I don't have to pretend.

reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
briangriffith saidI don't have to pretend. When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.

reply
eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O

reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 22
Yeah, sort of..
If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.
If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.

reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 22
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"

reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?

reply
imelnychenko wrote on Aug 24
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).

reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
imelnychenko saidA very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good? A very difficult question...
Indeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabbits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabbits. Our observation is obviously not enough.
And who are the people who pretend to be Good?
Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.
My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
This is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin. There are e.g. doctors with great reputations of unselfishness etc. who beat their wives and children, and there are mafia bosses whose families have met nothing but love from them. We all have both sides. Most people try to hide their "evil" side, often even to themselves. Others have seen so little good and/or live under such circumstances that they deny their good sides in order to survive in a daily struggle or fight. Very few people have an evil self-image, with the exception of those who suffer from permanent guilt feelings, usually induced by some crazy religion. The rest think that what they do is necessary - whatever it may be. Sure they hide their actions since they're often illegal, but they don't "hide among really good people", generally.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
People who pretend to be worse than they are often do it as a provocation, and/or their "evilness" is nothing but talk. They may be rebels against impossibly high standards, yes.

reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 25
"how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms
Suppose in the case of a fictitious serial killer, he thought humans are so sinful that they ought to die. That was his motivation of serial killing.
Can atheistic people feel like Evil? Can christian people feel like Evil?
No, I don't think atheistic people feel like evil. Their way of grasping the reality of world is just fair. Atheistic people consider humans as perfect.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 25
No normal person consider humans perfect. If you beat a child in anger or hurt your friend's feelings, you'll feel guilty whether you believe in God or not. If such things happen often, i.e. you can't control your anger, you'll feel you're a bad person. The difference is that the atheist doesn't think in terms of sin - his/her thought is more like "I'm not adapted to society" or "I harm other people".

reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:31 PM
ullangoo saidNo normal person consider humans perfect There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.
Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.
Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 12:43 PM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:06 PM
I'll subscribe to the idea that humans are in principle perfect. No one above 7 or 8 think any of them are in reality. We make mistakes, as you say, we make decisions that harm ourselves, we hurt others unintentionally or even intentionally, or we do things that are simply stupid. Guilt is universal. Will you tell me Orientals never say "I'm sorry, I shouldn't have done that". Or Communists? What did Stalin tell all those people he executed, that they were innocent?In most cases, Atheists make people responsible to something else than a god, usually "society". Another name, same result: there's one way of being "good" and a lot of ways of being "bad". The over-simplification consists of the idea that a person is either good or evil, not both. It hasn't got a f--- thing to do with God or coming from a Christian country (mine is basically secular).

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 1:08 PM
I should say "feelings of guilt are universal". I don't believe in the reality of all that guilt shit myself.

mercedo wrote today at 1:43 AM
ullangoo saidThis is so over-simplified that I don't know where to begin In a country where they think God is almighty, supreme being, or perfect, the position of humans are naturally located lower than God. In atheism that is human who can decide everything. Atheism is a humancentrism. It is silly of humans to feel guilty for their deeds in a country where no God exists. This was a Stalin's word.

There's a basis of belief in Western culture, that is 'original sin'. So it might be very natural for them to feel humans are imperfect in a country where almost all people are Christians.

Obviously this idea is totally unfamiliar in traditional East-Asian culture. If we were born under no particular defects both in body and mind, of course we were born perfect. Here imperfect means handicapped, disabled or subnormal.

Aside from that, I agree humans make mistakes. But I must say this is a sign of human evolution. It's not human that is to blame, but a system. Human makes an error because existing system won't have been able to follow the speed of human evolution.

Some types of fish were forbidden to eat in times of Moses. All fish as well as pig presumably started being eaten in times of Jesus. Besides many apostles were fishermen indeed. It's not hard to imagine thus the sign of fish became the symbol of new religion.

A very difficult question...

ndeed, it's difficult. For we need to define those rabits who wear the cloth of wolf and wolves who wear the suits of rabits. Our observation is obviously not enough.

And who are the people who pertend to be Good?

Actually majority of them are really good though, here I meant for example, policeman, nurse, monk, guardian, rescuer, or firefighter, who usually help us when we are in trouble. Because we often find the cases those people involve.

My guess is those who really wicked feel safe when they hide themselves among really good people.

mercedo wrote today at 11:38 PM
imelnychenko saidSocial Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs? Yes.
Let me tell you a little bit about its background.
In time of peace, the gap between the rich and poor get bigger and bigger limitlessly. The gap keeps on expanding to the point where no solution other than war is found. War as a result of this economic gap? Yes, at war there are many merits for the rich and the poor. The poor can get a job, which is military. Otherwise they are unemployed. The rich get richer by selling weapons. They send the poor people to the front. They are safe behind the gun. At war the poor people by killing one another eliminate themselves, and this is the best way for social evolution.

imelnychenko wrote today at 3:37 AM
A very difficult question...And who are the people who pertend to be Good?


imelnychenko wrote today at 3:55 AM
Is it a psychospiritual problem? Can atheistic people feel like Evil?Certain people with psychotic disorders feel like Evil; another psychotic patients feel like Good.Can christian people feel like Evil when they are otherwise mentaly healthy? - They call it lost faith. We probably do not talk about is she/he indeed good/bad - that will be an "objective" estimation of other people who deal with her/him. We are concerned about "how does she/he FEELS like" and not about his actual symptoms (torturing, lying, burning, stealing).

imelnychenko wrote today at 2:58 AM
"Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil."Social Darwinism... Isn't it an underlying reason of both WWs?

Death Toll
Aug 22, '07 4:48 PMfor everyone
Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.
Tags: war
Prev: Hirota & Hitler, one common point
reply share
Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
iamrevmike wrote on Aug 22
mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:30 PM
24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.
According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.

reply
schared wrote on Aug 22
Don't forget the millions killed by Stallin.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:36 PM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.

reply
briangriffith wrote today at 5:20 AM
It's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity".

reply
iamrevmike wrote today at 9:52 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. Maybe we basically agree they were bad guys and it was like normal warfare the kill them. And of course there's the estimated hundreds of millions of Natives in the Americas, whose killing we generally treat as a "tragic necessity". It is more that Israel has a powerful lobby, and Communists and Slavs do not, so the Holocaust is portrayed as simply anti-Jewish.As for the Native Americans, there are two parts to this. Most of them were killed by pandemic diseases which spread throughout the continent after first contact with Europeans. This can't truly be blamed on anyone since people were a long way off from developing the understanding that this was even possible.The Spanish and Portuguese later enslaved Native Americans, and the English and Americans pushed them off their lands even after making treaties with them, in some cases attempting to eradicate their culture. Certainly this could qualify as intentional genocide.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 1:57 PM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.

mercedo wrote today at 2:57 AM
briangriffith saidIt's funny how we don't normally count the Communists and Slavs killed by the Nazis. It's only for you Americans and British. The battle between German and Russian was merely a poison to poison for your country. Humans evolve. If some people in humans remained to be obsolete in system, they are to be eliminated by other people who succeeded in embracing more advanced technology. History is a repetition of the very survival of the fittest. War was a necessary evil.

mercedo wrote today at 2:36 AM
You are right. He killed the same number of his nationals as the number of the dead at war to maintain his regime.

24 years ago I read one book called 'Starlin's Secret War' in which I remember it says Starlin killed the same number of people as the number of the dead at war in Russia. I checked at Wikipaedia about the number of the dead at WWII, which was 23.6 million. Probably the description of the book was something like at WWII Russia lost 20 million people and Starlin killed the same number of people in execution, purge, sending them to gulag, etc.

According to Wikipaedia the number of the dead at WWII in each country was China; 19.6 million, Germany; 7.5 million, Japan;2.6 million.

mercedo saidHitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin. Minor nitpick...Hitler's death camps killed about 11 million. Most of the other 5 million killed were Slavs, but homosexuals, communists, the mentally ill, etc. are part of that number as well.I've seen estimates of Stalin's death toll in the to be at least 20 million, maybe even 40 million.

Death Toll
[ Edit Delete #179957 ] 2007.08.23 5:47

Hitler sent Jews to death camp, eliminating 6 million. The same number of Germans were killed at the end of war.
Hitler eliminated 10 million Russians. The same number of Russians were killed by their leader Stalin.
Japanese troops are said to kill 10 million Chinese. 2 million Japanese people were killed at war.
In battle of Okinawa, 200 thousand people were dead in 80 days. In Nanking Massacre, 300 thousand people were killed in 42 days.
In atomic bomb, roughly 70 thousand people were dead in each two cities instantly. About 100 thousand people were dead in Tokyo incendiary air strike at one night.
Crime doesn't pay, let alone war.

iamrevmike wrote today at 4:59 AM
mercedo said True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.
In general the Nazis did not commit atrocities against western troops. The normally obeyed the "laws of war", accepting surrenders, treating POWs humanely, etc. Also they did not target the general population of western occupied countries to a great degree. There was no policy of slaughtering the French.The Nazis did carry on their race war in the occupied areas, however. They did round up Jews and Slavs and other undesirables in occupied France. They did ship these people off to die in concentration camps.On the Eastern front in Europe the Nazis were hell bent on extermination of the Jewish and Slavic populations. A captured British soldier could expect reasonably humane treatment, while a captured Russian could expect a death camp.

mercedo wrote today at 4:48 AM
briangriffith said Meanwhile, the war in Western Europe was fought with some degree of restraint and respect between enemies.
True. In early stages of WWII Hitler didn't try to eliminate British soldiers in Calais. He let them go back to Britain.

eglamkowski wrote on Aug 22
Then again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :O


morosoph wrote today at 3:35 AM
eglamkowski saidThen again, maybe he tortures puppies for fun and pulls the wings off of butterflies? :ONo! It's "Pulling the wings off rabbits"!"But rabbits don't have wings""Not unless you nail them on first!"

mercedo wrote today at 4:30 AM
Whatever you say, :)
If some one showed my picture saying if it's me, I would reply yes it is. I dare not say no, it is not me, but it's a photo of me.
Language is not an absolute tool. Language merely define the relative meaning, in other words, any word in various sentences ought to be understood in line with each context they are used.

ullangoo wrote today at 4:15 AM
No, Mer. If you see a photo of me, you say "that's Ulla", right? But the photo you see can't walk, talk, eat, contradict you, smile ---. It's actually not me, it's a photo. Your statement is simply a short form of "this is a photo of Ulla". Yes, the relation between copy (e.g. a photo) and original is one of similarity. That's how we recognize the copy, so to speak. That's also why the linguistic sign, the word, can understandably be applied to the copy, but we all know that we can't take a pipe from a painting, put tobacco in it and smoke it. For that we need a tangible three-dimensional thing, not a two-dimensional picture, and we all know it although we can't all express it as "thing and picture belong to different ontological categories". Usually, when you connect a particular and a universal by "be", you express predication. "Ulla's face is red" means "Ulla's face has the characteristic (attribute) red". It doesn't mean that my face is identical with the colour red per se. But when you say "God is love", you claim to identify the particular 'God' with the universal 'love', and that's impossible without slurring the categories, as Tim said.

mercedo wrote today at 3:57 AM
briangriffith saidWhen the Russians attacked the Japanese army in Manchuria and Korea in the summer of 1945, they encountered little serious resistance and were surprized to receive large-scale surrenders of Japanese troops. True. In 1939 Russian mechanised troops and Japanese infantry division crashed in borders between Russia and Manchuria, known as Nomonhan Incident. Russian army is said to eliminate totally about 60,000 Japanese soldiers.
European and American army was extremely advanced as opposed to a very primitive and poor war equipment in East Asia throughout those days. Japanese tank is as good as real tank with stick-like hose.
I must add one thing in defense of Japanese army there those days. In 1945 Russo-Japan Neutral Pact was still in effect.

mercedo wrote today at 3:17 AM
bugsey saidthe dead have their own appointment with God which is none of our business I think it's you who got to the 'point'. :)

~mercedo 1 hour 36 minutes ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AMA war is in the end killing because of the difference in language, culture. I think the value of life is much more important than just the difference in language, culture. In order to prevent such atrocities men tend to commit, we'd like to try to learn a bit more about our neighbours.Know your neighbours, that's men's eleventh commandments.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users

Hirota & Hitler, one common point
Aug 23, '07 2:45 AMfor everyone
Hirota was the only civilian politician among 7 executed war criminals in Far East War Tribunal held after the WWII. Other 6 were all military commanders.
This tribunal was held under over lawful considerations. Under the Constitution at that time Emperor was the supreme commander of all military forces and adminislative body couldn't possibly interfere any decision military forces determined. Military was where no political power could reach. Hirota, prime minister in time of war was not guilty if they applied existing laws at that time to him, but he was charged and hung to death in the end.
In Germany, Ribbentrop was executed though he was a civilian politician. General Headquarters of Far East wanted to execute Matsuoka too, he was a foreign minister and civilian politician. He was dead in natural cause during the trial. Some civilian politician had to be hung in this trial at least to reinforce the justification of political forces in Allied by denying the political power in Axis countries. In my opinion, Hirota was chosen to act for this justification. Hitler was of course a civilian politician.

mercedo wrote today at 1:03 AM
It is silly for all of us to undermine or admire the dead excessively. It's better for us to pay simple respect to the dead though some are revered in a mausoleum and others are just buried in a humble tomb .

~mercedo 8 seconds ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 11:47 PMThis is not a pipe. If this statement is true, we ought to think this is similar to pipe, but it's a musical instrument, or a trash box, people's residential house, simple art objet, tunnel, pot, hammer, golf patter, jar, vase, or a balloon, anyway anything other than pipe.If you think this statement tells us this is not a pipe, but a painting of pipe, you are failing to understand the essence of language. Pipe means a real pipe, pipe in paintings, pipe objet, whatever.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART UsersReply
~mercedo 52 minutes 1 second ago Hide
mercedo wrote today at 10:49 PMYeah, sort of..If someone were a hypocrite, he would try to hide their evil and pretend to be a good person. He has to pretend to be a good person, therefore he must be evil.If someone's moral standard is extremely high, he would always feel he are committing some sin. Therefore he might say he is an evil person, but actually he is not.--Ancient Greek Philosophers - 18c Enlightenment Thinkers - deviantART Users

mercedo wrote today at 10:17 PM
briangriffith said I don't have to pretend.
When you say so people immediately understand you must be an evil. Those who pretend to be evil usually say 'I am evil'. Because they want us to believe they are evil.
So when you say 'I don't have to pretend ( because I am evil ), you are saying the word in parenthesis, and I understand your moral standard is very high to the point you consider yourself as evil.

ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
Different shrines sound absurd to me. It could perhaps be argued that war criminals shouldn't be respected at all - in my opinion a rather arrogant attitude. The alternative is to say: they were punished, they paid for their crimes, now they are like every other soul. I believe we all get the chance to learn what we didn't learn in this life, as "spirits" and/or in our next incarnation. Judging those we don't understand and accept gets us nowhere whether they are alive or dead.

reply
briangriffith wrote on Aug 21
In WWII, all the beligerants engaged in a race to eliminate their enemies' civilian populations. Those with insufficient air power tried to do this extermination directly on the ground, as in the Japanese army order to shoot all Chinese on sight. The Western allies were able to do this from the air, with their thousand-bomber raids or fire-bombing of German or Japanese cities. Several fire bombing raids on Japanese cities managed to kill more people than the atomic bombs did. The only thing superior about this, compared to what the Japanese did in China, was simply a matter of taste -- that it seems more civilized to slaughter civilians from a distance, with high-tech impersonal devices of mass murder, rather than with guns and swords at close quarters.At present we have the USA and Israel trying to make the same distinction between their own killing and that of their enemies. Terrorists, they say, directly intend to target civilians, while the civilized nations only accidently kill civilians in the crossfire, while trying to kill only the enemy. In my opinion the distinction is totally imaginary. We have already seen the firepower which the Western nations bring to bear on any community which may "harbour" their enemies.

reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 21
Yep, it's Tim.I think that we're on the same track. BTW (regarding your clarification) pantheistic isn't polytheistic.Yin and Yang aren't quite it: the concepts are too "human"; it's the same error that leads to the Christian God, IMO, and leads to the need for a theory of evil (such as Yin not "obeying" Yang). Such theories are usually too simple.To me, it is the "being" that is the wrong concept. At that point we are overgeneralising, and we are doing so to an even greater extent as to when we "personalise" nations (vis, Britannia, Uncle Sam, etcetera). At least nations are made of people; nature is not a being, and making it one falsifises our intelligence concerning nature, as one would if one were seeking comfort, rather than truth.The image that I chose is called "The Treachery Of Images"; that is no arbitrary title. It is our greatest risk, that in seeking meaning, we overturn truth.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21
Sure - I know Spinoza and pantheism, but I wrote something about polytheism in a reply far above and thought I'd gather the loose ends.I don't really know what to call the fundamental principles; yin and yang are better for me personally than most others because I don't hear these words as one negative and one positive. I don't trust all those human value judgments (including my own at this stage). The "Being" - well, sometimes I sense a presence that feels like a "person". Aspects, manifestations, something/body that shows me the tiny parts that I'm able to comprehend. I can't define it. Maybe it's one aspect of whatever and nature is another, and you and I have chosen to focus more on one than on the other.Maybe there's nothing that chooses except me, i.e. sometimes I'm open and sometimes not. Jeez - this is difficult to put in words. I don't have so many answers, anyway.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 21, edited on Aug 21
Do some people say that Yin should obey Yang? I didn't know that - it's utter baloney. It's just one more judgment of something we don't understand.
Reply deleted at the request of the author.

reply
morosoph wrote on Aug 21
ullangoo saidDo some people say that Yin should obey Yang? I didn't know that - it's utter baloney. It's just one more judgment of something we don't understand. Only strong Confucians would say that, but it is assumed in Chinese philosophy that Yang should lead and Yin should follow. To interpret that as "obey", and to rigidly allocate Yin and Yang to particular people is to miss the subtlety, I agree.Partly, I am sure, to avoid this, the Richard Wilhelm translation of the I Ching uses the terms "firm" and "yielding" concerning the six-line forms that the book describes. The Lynn translation, while academically superior, simply doesn't have the Wilhelm translation's humanity. It uses "Yin" and "Yang" to refer to the lines, and doesn't cushion the reader from patriarchal assumptions within the text. In a way I prefer that, for it leaves me the job of contextualisation, but it can go too far, as I feel that it does in another book "The Elemental Changes" that is structurally interesting, but the interpretations in that book are pointlessly strict, IMO.

Cultural Revolution

In China 1960s.
Chinese leader Mao Zedong made use of two traditional very useful tactics. One is to make a scapegoat. The other is Divide and Rule. Many regional leaders made targeted as counter-revolutionary and two different sects were struggling whether they were revolutionary or counter-revolutionary.
Red Guard led the struggle and People's Liberation Army settled the conflict, or semi-civil war.

I believe in God
2007.08.14 23:52

One of my best friends pointed out pointing one of the famous Bible account that is God is love. He said God is love, not God has love. That means God is a personification of love as well as wisdom, power, justice.
We must believe in God or at least we ought to.
Where is the Red Sea?
2007.08.14 23:31

I read Exodus in New International Version and in the description of crossing the Red Sea the note says that is the Sea of Reed located at the lower Nile that has an ebb, so I understand Moses was well versed in astronomy and he made use of his knowledge and he crossed the Sea when the land appeared from above the sea.
But one of best Christian friends insisted that he as well as Jewish people crossed the Red Sea and he thinks it is well in accordance with Bible descriptions. But I think it's hard to cross the Red Sea, because it's too deep the seabed lies. Do you really think Moses really crossed the Red Sea or Sea of Reeds? Also it's too circumnavigating way to take the root across the Red Sea when Canaan is just next to lower Niles.

War Crimes
2007.08.22 3:13

In Japan August is a season of war. Two atomic bombs were dropped in two cities in August. Japan surrendered in August. Besides they have usually bon festivals which celebrate the return of ancestor's souls as well as the souls of the dead at war.
Dead people are free from any discriminations they had while still they were alive. Even though executed crimes ought to be treated just as the deceased souls as ordinary citizens. War criminals are a strange word. For those who think war is nothing but a crime, war crime just sounds like capital punishment death penalty, or automobile car, submarine undersea boat.
Seven war time leaders were executed as A class war criminal in International Military Tribunal for the Far East held in Tokyo after the World War II. One out of seven was a civilian official. They were charged at their role of war in three parts, war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity.
Some insist that they ought to be payed respected in a different shrine other than one particular shrine that specifically designated for soldiers who were dead at war. Is there any meaning to discriminate even after their death?
About those who pretend to be evil
2007.08.22 0:14

There are some people who pretend to be evil. What's their psychology?
Probably their moral standard is extremely high and they realised their behaviour cannot possibly meet their supposedly very high moral standard. Their claim is humans are so sinful and they themselves feel as if they are committing some crime. According to God's standard, humans make error. According to ordinary humans' ordinary moral standard, humans are perfect.
Cross
2007.08.20 0:00

Many people believe cross means Christianity. How come it came to be a symbol of Christianity?
Jesus was believed to be crucified on the cross, that is one reason. The fish mark was used to represent Christ, and cross might be the simplified form for fish or Christ. The first Greek letter for Christ is X as the abbreviation form Xmas suggests and X became the representation for Christianity. Cross had been used to represent Seraph, or angel, cross came to represent Christ after people started believing Christ became angel after resurrection.
In Japan there's very few church and many people here don't know the relationship of cross and Christianity. For almost all people here cross is just a decoration of some design. Probably I think cross was used to indicate an important target as a bull's eye, this could have meant simply an objective of life.
Economic Aspect of War
2007.08.19 22:19

In ordinary times it's hard to decrease population drastically. People cannot kill other people in legal manners. Population tend to increase. The more population grows the harder they feed themselves. War occurs when systematic culling was necessary. At war innocent people kill one another. There's no more effective way of culling of population other than war.
Did St Paul meet Caesar?
2007.08.15 0:08

He insisted he meet Caesar when he was talking to local authority or he asked this local ruler to make him see Caesar. But I think he didn't see Caesar. There's no direct description as to him seeing Caesar.

ullangoo wrote today at 12:48 AM
You mean sort of: "I have so much evil in me that I might as well be honest and show it"? Interesting theory - and not at all unlikely.

ullangoo wrote today at 1:20 AM
Yes, I checked - name's Tim, right? Sorry, the pop-up mini profile thingy wasn't working the other day. You interest me - I mean: what you say does. Slurring of categories, definitely, and I'll add a very anthropomorphic/centric view of the Universe. It's not the love I react to, though, it's the idea that the Lord of everything is sitting there judging us for petty doings that we at some point have decided are socially unacceptable. Down to interfering with our choice of food, s'help me. Nope.I sense a very strong harmony-seeking force in the Universe. Yin and yang trying to be reconciled, become one. God is to me a Being who has managed to reconcile those two principles in him/herself. One result of this is an acceptance and understanding that may be called love although it's not a kind of love we find "down" here. The principles themselves contain everything including what we call "evil" - but it isn't evil, it just is. It all has its part to play.


ullangoo wrote today at 1:27 AM
Shit - I don't think I explained it very well. Anyway, that's why I find it easy to see all sorts of gods in polytheistic religions as parts or aspects of the divine. They are. They are just seen at a stage at which harmony between them isn't yet created and/or through eyes that can't perceive such harmony because it doesn't exist (yet) in humans.

Re:Not exactly(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.21 23:41 (#20304455) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.20 0:00)
So, he was still a man, not an angel.
Probably Jesus was one of the archangels like Michael before he was born as a man's child. And he returned to his previous figure when he ascended to heaven.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:You could be right(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.21 23:31 (#20304297) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.20 0:00)
We humans have instinct to love someone. We humans have a desire to have offsprings. We marry, have babies, and make family. If two people had two babies, they neither contribute nor are against for population growth. If two people only had one baby, they contributed to population decrease. We need to make every possible effort not to increase population any more rather than culling existing population, which is in essense 'evil'.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

morosoph wrote today at 1:13 PM
Well, despite my terse reply, I wasn't deliberately being trivial. I count myself a Spinozan Pantheist, and one of the problems that I have with the Christian god is what I perceive as the slurring of categories. A concept such as love is welled up by the desire for it to have a personification; Christianity is psychologically hard to resist.I have had experiences of the paranormal, but the intelligence that I detect in the world is not a human intelligence, and appears to have the character of a cool ordering force that is slow on the individual scale, yet massively parallel. I would choose to use a word such as the Tao for it; love is simply the wrong concept.However, if there is an emergent pattern, wishful thinking is going to attribute love and a given theology to the design. By saying that the personification of love is not love, I am attempting to get people to remove their rose-tinted spectacles so as to be able to perceive a different, more natural kind of wonder.I'm not a big one for quoting texts, religious or otherwise: to my mind, replacing experience with words is a sure way to push spirituality out of one's mind. I make a partial exception for the Tao Te Ching and similar poetry, for there the words are a springboard for experience. To often, words normalise, distort, and limit experience to acceptable interpretations instead.BTW, it's a he :o)

mercedo wrote today at 10:46 PM
mercedo saidThere's no more effective way of culling of population other than war. I think I was rather sarcastic. Obviously this idea is dangerous. We all need to make an every possible effort to evade such a very stupid half-baked idea.

ullangoo wrote today at 4:57 AM
Oh, I see - a little misunderstanding. Yes, the word meant fish ever since Greek became Greek, of course. I simply meant that it didn't symbolize anything in Greek culture. I don't know what it meant in other tongues, but a shift in meaning from or to "dolphin" is rather likely. "womb" sounds more like a coincidence.Atargatis is not a Greek goddess, but of course not all the first Christians were Greeks or Greek-speaking.

mercedo wrote today at 2:36 AM
ullangoo saidAnother possibility: in astrology, the age of Pisces began around the time of Jesus' birth. This is worth considering.
Where have you found that story?
I found in one article posted in other comment. If this word ichthys was invented in early Christians, what was the term for fish before ichthys in Greek? I think ichthys has been always the word for fish in Greek.

mercedo wrote today at 2:22 AM
In Wikipaedia or other related articles, ichthys is an acronym of Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour. Yes, it is, but it doesn't say ichthys is originated from this acronym. The history or etymology of this word is much older, this is a Greek word, from the offspring son of the ancient Sea goddess Atargatis, The word also meant "womb" and "dolphin" in some tongues, and representations of this appeared in the depiction of mermaids. excerpt from http://www.atheists.org/christianity/fish.html
Suppose even if we admit the word ichthys is an acronym of Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour...then why this word meant fish? I assume it is because this word originally meant fish.

ullangoo wrote today at 1:25 AM
Are there NO limits to what people can connect to that flipping great mother goddess?? Where have you found that story?Another possibility: in astrology, the age of Pisces began around the time of Jesus' birth.


ullangoo wrote today at 1:28 AM
I have NEVER seen a Greek text in which ichthys meant womb or great mother or even dolphin. And I kinda think I would have if there were any.

mercedo wrote today at 1:51 AM
In fact some epidemic played an important role on population control in the past. But it is no doubt two major wars in 20th century had much to do with the skyrocketing population explosion.
We males repeats potency and impotency regularly, and this is just a matter of a few minutes. We always surrender by the charm of our wives.

mercedo wrote today at 1:28 AM
ullangoo saidActually, I assume that war used to take place when a population outgrew its territory - you're right so far. When you can't grow enough food in your own fields, you want your neighbour's fields. Strikingly correct, that's what I mean.
As to nominal value, let me explain.
Nominal value is in short, money. Money means merely a relative value to substantial value, or resources, land, goods, etc., basically nominal value means almost nothing as opposed to substantial value. There's no meaning of possession of money itself, if they can buy something valuable, then money has value for the first time.
What are you going to do if you have enough money but you don't have enough resources and you can't buy them in ordinary commercial measures. Those who have enough money took them at war.
If money( nominal value, flow, price of company shares ) and resources (substantial value, raw material, end products, stock-not company shares- in general, ) strike a balance, war never occurs. But this gap has been increasing for these ten years.

mercedo wrote today at 12:54 AM
This is a very basic economic argument according to my theory.
Black Monday took place in 1987. Gulf war followed in 1990. Great depression started in 1929, then Nazis took power in 1933.
Prior to any war, we are sure to have a kind of economic recession, in other words economic crush is the omen of war in advance.
Nominal value is money or savings, or 'flow' in economic term, if nominal value is much higher than substantial value, or 'stock' in economic term, a stock here means supply of goods or materials available for sale or use, again if nominal value exceeds substantial value, it is very dangerous. Because war is the easiest way to eliminate this gap. In war always winners acquires some substantial value( land, raw material, resources, etc) to add up to their previous substantial value, which resulting in making their nominal value and substantial value equalise.
I think you heard about the news of sub-prime non performing loan. This loan was sold all over the world through security companies in each country, so it is impossible to make up for each loss those non performing loans made. This has been causing the downward of the price of shares in stock market.

mercedo wrote today at 11:54 PM
Of course I understand cross has a special meaning for Christians. Most notably cross represents Jesus's redemption to all human sin. Personally I think cross is one of the oldest points where humans started to settle down, so cross means love.
Another one is angle. We need to approach from another angle as to this.

mercedo wrote today at 10:52 PM
Obviously the history of Greek word ichthys is much older than early Christian adoption of the word. I don't know many but ichthys is related to some ancient sea goddess, before the birth of Christianity traditionally the word had represented the womb, great mother, dolphin, etc. Then early Christians found the spelling of acronym happens to be the same as their faith then they started using the sign of ichthys to represent Christians.
This is not a fish story.

the cross originates from a stylized Tree of Life

I didn't know that.

Symbols are only conventions anyway.

Exactly, that's what I was driving at. I think it's non sense for us to try to seek for some meaning in it.

mercedo wrote today at 1:17 AM
My reply was as to morosoph's interpretation of language as a whole, and not at all for ullangoo. Your way of understanding language and reality is very balanced and completely acceptable.

mercedo wrote today at 12:58 AM
There has been widening constantly the separation between nominal value and substantial value of stock price since 1997, or all savings and substantial gross domestic products. I mean nominal value has been expanding. I'm simply stating that war had been used as the best way to eliminate this gap instantly.

ullangoo wrote today at 12:35 AM
I don't know what denomination you belong to. I could discuss the subject with a Jesuit with little difficulty, they are darn good logicians and fond/proud of it. Meaning that a Jesuit would want to apply logic here. He wouldn't insist on a fundamentalist interpretation of a sentence. It's in my experience Protestants who argue like you. Never mind - just interest in you as a person.

Re:Was this person in (Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.20 0:30 (#20285989) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.20 0:00)
No, I don't, I don't believe in past lives. Past can be changeable completely by our present effort and future endeavour.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

You almost always think as language thinks. But as long as language is the reflection of reality you need to work out your imagination to suplement the extremely limited role of language.

morosoph wrote on Aug 19
The personification of love is not love, any more than a painting of a pipe is a pipe.


paji2 wrote on Aug 19
morosoph saidThe personification of love is not love, any more than a painting of a pipe is a pipe. You are thinking in physical terms - God is not physical, he is a spirit. And when the writer says God is love - he means that literally. God is the personification of love - he IS love - just like a pipe is a pipe.People are not love personified - they cannot be as physical beings. But they are supposed to imitate God's love toward each other. Christians are to love other Christians .. and they are supposed to love even their enemies - but let's leave that out.I can think of several examples of Christians displaying anything but love - oh, couched in other words, sure ... freedom, democracy, equal rights, independence - still not love!Just think of Ireland .. loving Christians killing other loving Christians.God's principled love (agape) extends to all.


ullangoo wrote on Aug 19
morosoph is perfectly right. Body or spirit, plant or artifact, an individual entity (a particular) is not IDENTICAL with any concept (a universal). The two groups of "things" have different forms of existence, just like a pipe and a picture of it. God is a spirit (maybe), but love is not a spirit. We may say that love is the most essential characteristic of God, but it's not the only one, and God is not the only being who feels love. They are not identical.As logician Gilbert Ryle said back in the 60es: "God, however perfect, is a particular."Thank you, morosoph. I didn't say this before because they aren't so fond of logic in this context.

paji2 wrote on Aug 19
As right as you are, you are also wrong. :) You are mixing apples and pictures of oranges.T o accept that scripture at its face value, one must first believe in God - the God of the Bile I hasten to add!:) One must believe that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God .." (2 Tim 3:16a). The words "given by inspiration" literally mean "God-breathed".Only from this viewpoint can the scripture under discussion be contemplated. The linking word "is" ties "God" and "Love" into one and the same. Love as spiritual entity is the same as God, the spiritual entity. Again, let me emphasize that the "Love" here is the Koine Greek "agape" - love based on principles.It is not "philia", "eros" or "skorge" - brotherly love, erotic love (love between two people), family love (father/daughter for example). Those are loves that man is well acquainted with and comfortable in applying. Agape comes in hand-in-hand with Jesus' command to "love you enemies" .. not so comfortable for mankind.It is not possible to apply man's philosophical thoughts or logic to God or to understanding of God. Only belief in God can accomplish that.I grant you this is a very narrow-minded point of view, but the only one applicable to this particular scripture - and to understanding God.


ullangoo wrote on Aug 19
Sorry - I mean formal logic. I don't mean that any of you are illogical in a broader sense.

Cross culture

Many people believe cross means Christianity. How come it came to be a symbol of Christianity?

Jesus was believed to be crucified on the cross, that is one reason. The fish mark was used to represent Christ, and cross might be the simplified form for fish or Christ. The first Greek letter for Christ is X as the abbreviation form Xmas suggests and X became the representation for Christianity. Cross had been used to represent Seraph, or angel, cross came to represent Christ after people started believing Christ became angel after resurrection.

In Japan there's very few church and many people here don't know the relationship of cross and Christianity. For almost all people here cross is just a decoration of some design. Probably I think cross was used to indicate an important target as a bull's eye, this could have meant simply an objective of life.

Economic aspect of war

In ordinary times it's hard to decrease population drastically. People cannot kill other people in legal manners. Population tend to increase. The more population grows the harder they feed themselves. War occurs when systematic culling was necessary. At war innocent people kill one another. There's no more effective way of culling of population other than war.

mercedo said...
Thanks again for your comment.

Re:old gradeschool joke(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.18 0:17 (#20261475) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
That might have been a hat trick.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Re:Gulf of Aqaba(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.18 0:14 (#20261433) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
Considering the fact that the place must have been covered with full of reeds as the name Sea of Reeds suggests, I think it's less likely that the event was actually taken place in the Gulf of Aqaba. But as you suggested, many suppositions are possible.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

mercedo wrote today at 8:59 PM
I didn't know I can add a comment particularly to your reply, after some time.Keep on being my best friend!

mercedo wrote today at 2:40 AM
because Husband & Wife have to remain together all their lives
But I don't have wife, so I must find her at first.
I have heard the reason we wear wedding ring in ring finger is because it directly connects to our heart.

mercedo wrote today at 1:37 AM
ullangoo saidmany Buddhists - who firmly do NOT believe in a personal God; Correct.
There's no God in the teachings of Buddha. But since Buddha became the objective of reverence so now largely plays a role of God for the general public.
There's another story as to a Buddhist monk. He is trying to reach Buddha through meditation, Zen practice, abstinence, reciting, etc. So there's absolutely no God.

Re:Was this person in (Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.17 0:44 (#20250117) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
That's so philanthropic, or philharhamic. :)
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 14, edited on Aug 14
This seems to be one of those open questions - open to debates - and indeed it has been debated, sometimes hotly. :)There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, yet the Catholic Sea made that ruling and so it stands. Why then not take Paul at his word? As a Roman citizen, he may well have seen Caesar. And, as a Roman citizen, he had the right to be brought before him for judgment.

reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 14
He was a Jew born in Taurus, he was a tent-maker, he used to be a Pharisee and converted to Christian. He didn't ask help of God, or probably he did in private. But above all of things he was a Roman citizen. It was his citizenship not his faith that saved him in the face of great difficulty that threatened even to his life.

reply
flolin wrote on Aug 14
mercedo saidHe didn't ask help of God, or probably he did in private. But above all of things he was a Roman citizen. Hi Mer, thanks for sharing this very important post. Paul was a Roman officer given the authority to kill the Christians before conversion. If it was his citizenship or not which saved him in the face of calamities, or, if ever Paul met Cesar, cannot be proven here and now. I for one think and believe it was his strong faith that saved him.Reading the Bible and looking for answers to questions is different as believing in it wholly. The Bible - the New and the Old Testament - is the story about creation and how God tries to reach out to mankind over and over again after He sent them out of paradise until the birth, suffering, ressureccion and ascencion of Jesus - the greatest proof of His love. The apostles wrote about God by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13-15; Acts 9:15-16), and Paul, whose mission was the conversion of Gentiles (in the logical and spiritual sense) was chosen by God the Son himself. And yet, all these are parts of the whole message - the Word of God, the Bible. The Bible translation process should only prove that it is what it is and there´s no such thing as coincidence. Was Paul jugdmental? If so, it´s because God gave him the authority to speak in His Name. If Paul was judgmental then, it´s because God was speaking in Paul. " If you judge, you have no time to love." -- Mother Theresa. Doesn´t God love us then? He does, but being judgmental is accorded to Him, only to Him.Conclusion: You can only love if you have hope, and you can only hope if you have faith in God. Thus, I believe that "Love is the passport to peace." "What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror; but then, we shall see face to face. What I know now is only partial, then it will be complete. ............. " Peace to everyone and God bless you!

reply
mercedo wrote today at 8:53 AM
One of my favourite Bible verses and probably for many other people7s too is 'Vengeance is mine' Deuteronomy 32:35, that emphasises the importance of the rule by law. Moses decalogue was a decree issued to rule Jewish people. It was originally connected to real political power.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 8:56 AM
mercedo saidHe was a Jew born in Taurus No one knows if he was really born under the zodiac sign of Taurus, but it is sure that he was born in Tarsus, Minor Asia.

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14
I strongly doubt that "Caesar" literally meant that the emperor personally judged all those cases. Consider the amount of Roman citizens ---. There must have been magistrates/judges who represented Caesar. I've never really gone into the chronology of "Deeds". When is it supposed to have happened, under Nero? Then I doubt it even more, even if such things belonged to the emperor's duties. Claudius probably did his job, though. Do we know that Paul was actually saved? He's in a kind of house arrest when "Deeds" ends, isn't he?It's true that there were limits to how Roman citizens could be treated, but they were rather academic during Nero's reign.

reply
paji2 wrote today at 1:51 AM
ullangoo saidI strongly doubt that "Caesar" literally meant that the emperor personally judged all those cases. You may well be right about "Caesar" .. Perhaps in the same way as today an American in trouble in a foreign country might appeal to the Secretary of Sate. He would never know (unless you were a Paris Hilton or an oil company CEO) - his underlings in the Department would handle the problem.Similarly, an appeal to Caesar simply meant an appeal to the Roman laws and authority.Interestingly, even though Paul was under arrest, he had a great deal of freedom, as we can see from the number of letters he wrote and the company he received - so the appeal must have worked to some degree. :)

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14, edited on Aug 14
He must have died in the early or mid 60es - his letters stopped (thank goodness).

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 5:35 AM
It's a good analogy, I think - the Secretary of State. I guess the point is that Paul had the right to a fair trial during which his defense was heard; he couldn't be punished according to some emergency law in a certain province. He wasn't considered a dangerous criminal, evidently. He was under a kind of "don't leave town and don't make trouble in it" orders. Apparently he never left it again - do you know what happened to him?

reply
paji2 wrote today at 6:02 AM
There is really no clear evidence in the Bible - obviously he was in failing health, it seems hie eyesight was failing, for he writes (1 Cor. 16:21) "The salutation with my own hand, Paul's." - Apparently his disciples wrote his letters, most likely Timothy as long as he was with Paul. So, he most likely died of old age or some sickness.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 7:36 AM
Well, there are other sources than the Bible. Tradition recorded by some 2nd century writer? Anyway, I'm sure that if Paul had ever met Nero (?), we would have had 50 references to the event in later authors. Actually, if it had been likely, they'd probably have invented the meeting. Think of the possibilities! Moses facing Pharaoh once more.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 10:17 AM
I wouldn't call that verse a favourite of mine - otherwise I agree completely with you.Since we're correcting each other (lol): the proper designation is Asia Minor.He could be a Taurus - Capricorn is more likely, in my opinion.

reply
mercedo wrote today at 11:35 AM
ullangoo saidAsia Minor. Asia was used originally for Anatolia region, what is now called Turkey. Later it had been used on the regions including what we call now Asia too. Asia Minor and Asia are the correct use as you pointed out.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 12:52 PM
Yeah, well, it's Latin, and they put the adjective after the noun, as in homo sapiens. The French still do.I hadn't noticed that typing mistake at all; I just read "Tarsus". Your reply is sooo funny. :-)

Judging from following descriptions, probably he was able to meet Caesar and he got an official permission for preaching from Caesar himself.
He was guarded by soldiers ! and able to preach there for a couple of years, I think.

I really wonder how well you read Bible.

Thanks for your research.

It helped me undrstand Bible more deeply.

mercedo wrote today at 12:35 AM
ullangoo saidAsia Minor. Asia was used originally for Anatolia region, what is now called Turkey. Later it had been used on the regions including what we call now Asia too. Asia Minor and Asia are the correct use as you pointed out.

Yes, it is.

ercedo wrote today at 12:01 AM
One of the pretty young girls were wearing a cross pendant on her neck. I asked her if she is Christian. She seems to feel perplexed by my remark, catching her cross and saying it is just a decoration. Here in East Asia, cross is just a decoration.
We tend to believe that hakencreutz is probably associated with Nazis, but in Asian countries this sign, though the direction of arrow is not clockwise, represents temples in general. It is illogical to seek for the meaning in symbols and signs as a whole. For believers of God, God is almighty so it's natural that they believe in God. On the other hands, secular people who think God is a representation of many virtues are also believing in God probably in a slightly different manner from believers.
I am a completely secular person. But I think we ought to believe the value of virtues like love, justice, etc. Some believe in superhuman incarnations usually believe in God. In the same manner some who think Jesus was just the assassinated sage are believing in God as long as they think Jesus was assassinated and sage. If we thought Jesus was just the executed criminal, we are definitely not believing in God though.

If you love someone, you are automatically believing in God, please don't worry too much.

Re:I'm convinced it was the Reed Sea(Score:2)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2007.08.15 22:54 (#20235877) (http://mercedo-works.blogspot.com/ Last Journal: 2007.08.15 0:08)
The greatness of God would be unchanged even if it had been the Sea of Reeds. Even if God were able to split the Red Sea it's human who actually cross the Sea. It might have taken many hours to get down to the seabed had it been the Red Sea.
--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters

mercedo wrote today at 9:56 PM
mercedo said
He was a Jew born in Taurus No one knows if he was really born under the zodiac sign of Taurus, but it is sure that he was born in Tarsus, Minor Asia.

mercedo wrote today at 9:51 PM
One of my favourite Bible verses and probably for many other people is 'Vengeance is mine' Deuteronomy 32:35, that emphasises the importance of the rule by law. Moses decalogue was a decree issued to rule Jewish people. It was originally connected to real political power.

Comments:Chronological Reverse Threaded

reply
paji2 wrote on Aug 14, edited on Aug 14
This seems to be one of those open questions - open to debates - and indeed it has been debated, sometimes hotly. :)There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome, yet the Catholic Sea made that ruling and so it stands. Why then not take Paul at his word? As a Roman citizen, he may well have seen Caesar. And, as a Roman citizen, he had the right to be brought before him for judgment.

reply
mercedo wrote on Aug 14
He was a Jew born in Taurus, he was a tent-maker, he used to be a Pharisee and converted to Christian. He didn't ask help of God, or probably he did in private. But above all of things he was a Roman citizen. It was his citizenship not his faith that saved him in the face of great difficulty that threatened even to his life.

reply
flolin wrote on Aug 14
mercedo saidHe didn't ask help of God, or probably he did in private. But above all of things he was a Roman citizen. Hi Mer, thanks for sharing this very important post. Paul was a Roman officer given the authority to kill the Christians before conversion. If it was his citizenship or not which saved him in the face of calamities, or, if ever Paul met Cesar, cannot be proven here and now. I for one think and believe it was his strong faith that saved him.Reading the Bible and looking for answers to questions is different as believing in it wholly. The Bible - the New and the Old Testament - is the story about creation and how God tries to reach out to mankind over and over again after He sent them out of paradise until the birth, suffering, ressureccion and ascencion of Jesus - the greatest proof of His love. The apostles wrote about God by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Jn 16:13-15; Acts 9:15-16), and Paul, whose mission was the conversion of Gentiles (in the logical and spiritual sense) was chosen by God the Son himself. And yet, all these are parts of the whole message - the Word of God, the Bible. The Bible translation process should only prove that it is what it is and there´s no such thing as coincidence. Was Paul jugdmental? If so, it´s because God gave him the authority to speak in His Name. If Paul was judgmental then, it´s because God was speaking in Paul. " If you judge, you have no time to love." -- Mother Theresa. Doesn´t God love us then? He does, but being judgmental is accorded to Him, only to Him.Conclusion: You can only love if you have hope, and you can only hope if you have faith in God. Thus, I believe that "Love is the passport to peace." "What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror; but then, we shall see face to face. What I know now is only partial, then it will be complete. ............. " Peace to everyone and God bless you!

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14
I strongly doubt that "Caesar" literally meant that the emperor personally judged all those cases. Consider the amount of Roman citizens ---. There must have been magistrates/judges who represented Caesar. I've never really gone into the chronology of "Deeds". When is it supposed to have happened, under Nero? Then I doubt it even more, even if such things belonged to the emperor's duties. Claudius probably did his job, though. Do we know that Paul was actually saved? He's in a kind of house arrest when "Deeds" ends, isn't he?It's true that there were limits to how Roman citizens could be treated, but they were rather academic during Nero's reign.

reply
paji2 wrote today at 1:51 AM
ullangoo saidI strongly doubt that "Caesar" literally meant that the emperor personally judged all those cases. You may well be right about "Caesar" .. Perhaps in the same way as today an American in trouble in a foreign country might appeal to the Secretary of Sate. He would never know (unless you were a Paris Hilton or an oil company CEO) - his underlings in the Department would handle the problem.Similarly, an appeal to Caesar simply meant an appeal to the Roman laws and authority.Interestingly, even though Paul was under arrest, he had a great deal of freedom, as we can see from the number of letters he wrote and the company he received - so the appeal must have worked to some degree. :)

reply
ullangoo wrote on Aug 14, edited on Aug 14
He must have died in the early or mid 60es - his letters stopped (thank goodness).

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 5:35 AM
It's a good analogy, I think - the Secretary of State. I guess the point is that Paul had the right to a fair trial during which his defense was heard; he couldn't be punished according to some emergency law in a certain province. He wasn't considered a dangerous criminal, evidently. He was under a kind of "don't leave town and don't make trouble in it" orders. Apparently he never left it again - do you know what happened to him?

reply
paji2 wrote today at 6:02 AM
There is really no clear evidence in the Bible - obviously he was in failing health, it seems hie eyesight was failing, for he writes (1 Cor. 16:21) "The salutation with my own hand, Paul's." - Apparently his disciples wrote his letters, most likely Timothy as long as he was with Paul. So, he most likely died of old age or some sickness.

reply
ullangoo wrote today at 7:36 AM
Well, there are other sources than the Bible. Tradition recorded by some 2nd century writer? Anyway, I'm sure that if Paul had ever met Nero (?), we would have had 50 references to the event in later authors. Actually, if it had been likely, they'd probably have invented the meeting. Think of the possibilities! Moses facing Pharaoh once more.