Faith, too, can be idiotic. But I guess that is the very concept of faith - there is no faith but blind faith. See, I would have tolerated your statement a lot more if you would have said you had faith in that there is a reason for the spreading idiocy in the world, or...a reason why an under-evolved ape, for example, can become the so-called leader of the greatest modern empire and how he will also be the leader again. Or maybe it would have been more possible for me to believe you if you had said you had faith in humanity despite what humanity has become...or, faith in something or someone that will change things for the better...or...almost faith in anything else. But faith in humanity, and the "human good"? I don’t believe you to begin with. I have faith, too. I have faith despite humanity, though, and not because of humanity; faith for humanity but not faith in humanity.Rooser:
Actually, Duke, I think the greatest illusion is the pop-liberal notion that the world is filled with idiot retards who can't for the life of them break out of their mental entrapments.
I, on the other hand, have more faith in humanity.
"My ass"Originally posted by orgg
What... do youget...
...when you cross... an owl...
...with... a bungee cord?
-Lord Betty, Kung Pow!:Enter the Fist
There is nothing more natural than your Virgo nature. "Natural nature" is a confusion: people unable to reconcile new age science, or if you prefer to call it modern science (which began with the Age of Reason), with ancestral knowledge...decided to rid the world of a seemingly impossible hypothesis that neither had any "scientific foundation" nor possessed the possibility of being “substantiated.” And yet if you're going to speak about foundations, it might be slightly risky - if not altogether offending - to begin talking about the foundation of any new age science: science is merely realization, "discovery," it is not knowledge until the roots that make up such a science, and all science, are dis-covered. Abiding by "scientific" laws is not knowledge, but a type of intellectual, or I mean, instinctive enslavement: which, at the end, is rather exactly the case with scientific astrology that, after close examination and study, shows a similar consistency to any established scientific formula.I reject my Virgo nature, and embrace my natural nature.
Actually, it's usually best to do a full natal chart. One's Sun sign and Moon signs are very important, but I usually get a lot more from people's Mercury, Mars, and Plutos...Originally posted by DÛke
Grab any researched astrology book. Read it carefully, delve into it. Learn about the Moon signs as well, as well as the planets at large, and what they rule. Give it few months to sink into your mind. Thereafter, every stranger will seem more familiar to you, and eventually you will be able to tell a stranger to his face in the very least what his or her element is, if not their sign altogether. Of course, in this "age of individuality," it is difficult for even the most reasonable mind to accept that we are less different and more similar than ever thought: too similar, even! but nevertheless, more complex.
Oh, El Dukey...How could you mention such a thing when you know how well you and I get along...Such a match are we...Originally posted by DÛke
From your profile, I gather that you're a Capricorn - a good enough reason why we don't exactly get a long very often.
And Spidey won't let me have 10-29-1929 as mine, but that's really when I registered...Originally posted by Spiderman
It's a Y2K bug in the software. I believe anyone who registered before 2000 has that date in their profile (unless they went ahead and changed it)