+48

Weather it is a country, a party, an ethnicity, or anything else, I think that generally people here may need to watch out carefully for this group belonging seeking or maintaining from sliding them immorally because, while one may not perceive such difference on direct self serving things, this seems to have much stronger pull on people here than elsewhere. For example, if you are a member of the Democratic Party and claim that the government of the second Bush claimed a connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11 then, because of how much I was watching those things during that time (those were real news not the current jokes), unless you show me something supporting your position I missed then I am troubled with the probability of you making an immoral stand and being a false wittiness especially if I do not perceive you as easily confusing emotions you see with statement making. 

+47: My Best Health investment

I have been postponing pointing out this for a long time. The best health investment I have made was buying one of those over the counter oil pressers (mine was of the nutrishef brand and its cost was around $250) then starting buying flax seed at bulk and extracting oil from it. I also bought a manual one which I do not use but I took its advice of adding a little water to the flax seed then waiting two days before I start using from it and applied that to my electric one to get the oil without heating the seeds (still there is a six minuets time for the machine to heat itself). It is just a little amount of water. For example, a table spoon for each cup of flax seeds might be seen as reducing the amount of extracted oil because of too much water (Although, I may accept the lower oil yield trying to lower the temperature of the extraction process further with the extra water). I do not know if in the future more side effect would be discovered for omega 3 against all  the current pointing out to its benefit currently but I have not experienced a noticeable change in me like the one that comes from increasing the amount or ratio of omega 3 generally or relative to omega 6 (combined with the simple exercise of brisk walking probably because it is still oil and you need to help your heart pumping it). Every time that amount or ratio increases or decreases I feel the change in my health like pressing a button on some machine to cause some effect. When the amount or ratio is low I drag myself to workout a little bit. when the amount or ratio is high I feel ready to do significantly more workout. It is like cheating on one's age. 
Note: When I started this process I read some talk about a relation between increasing consumption of flax seed oil and increased probability for prostate cancer. I also read some talk that seems to be associating that risk with pure flax seed oil. This is one of the reasons I always insist on consuming, in addition to the oil, whatever falls into the oil container through the filter in the extraction process.        

   

+46

That is it! My mind was messed up by the Americans. Now I convert weight from kilo grams to pounds in order to understand them.

+45

Continuing from the preceding post:

Back to the meaning of that movie and how unfitting is what seems to be wide spread view for it as sending positive message about religion through its main character instead of being about the deceptiveness of the latter and the use of religion for that purpose. I don't even need to take too much from the movie to support my understanding here. Instead I think there are at least two things that seems to suggest that in a highly direct way. First look at the behaviour of that main character in dating that woman and what he was asking her. Second, look at how much there was a justification (or a lack of it) for the way he behaved toward that man who entered his church then look again at how he behaved toward that same man when the latter returned with more power. 
And since we are talking about the scene of that guy coming back, how about the way the bible was physically used directly and as a representation for what is really is serving or being sacrificed for what?   

Unlike the real world where one may  get confused how much weight he should give to signs he sees, in a movie or a novel you know a significance was attached to something by merely  including or bringing the focus to it. So if you cant recognize such a character despite knowing about the intended  effort in the latter what would you do in the former? And by the way that was not a very high grade of character deception (The word "character" was used here to refer to the type of deception not the type of the deceiving entity as being a character in a movie or a story).

+44

After I saw the movie "The Apostle" I wondered how many would be inclined like me to see the issue as what I call deceptive psychotic personality rather than religion. To my surprise at least most of the discussions and comments I read seem to have not recognized the deception and fakeness of the main character to begin with. Instead they seem to have taken a positive message about that character and some even seems to have been affected by the religious message coming through that character in the movie despite the signs shown against its sincerity and how at least one of the preaching scenes seems to have carried an unavoidable mocking tone. So, ironically, because of that I myself want to focus on religion first here. Is the believe of some in their religion is so not dependent on facts but instead merely on the power of suggestion that they can be affected even by something that itself lacked that much intended showing of sincerity? Could the choosing of a religion look more like toying or, at best,  shopping for things like that?

Of course freedom of religion is very essential. But even better than that is if persons from different believes all of them on their own willingly choose to seek the truth and get into a discussion for that and one of the things I think about doing in the future is that. Although, frankly speaking, I feel envious by how some facts makes it hard for me to argue against not choosing my religion while so many people enjoy the freedom of religion to the level of believing in a religion that if it were filed as a lawsuit it would have been dismissed for failure to state a claim (Christianity in its obscure form as Jesus being the son of God) even before getting into the stage of trying to prove things. 

As much as religion is taken as a response to facts and arguments as much as it could be like a burden especially if those facts and arguments strengthen but still stop short of proving things and instead leaves one feels like stranded in between. However, if there is another person in a similar position but with an opposing view then even if getting into a discussion with him may not convince either to change his view why not lower his burden with mine and mine with his?

+43

Yesterday I noticed that I am not sure, at least not until further thinking, that if it were I who sought the wine maker to sell him an amount of grape I have it would or would not imply that I made a choice to participate in the wine making. Therefore my talk about"other use rule" in post +41 should have been made to sound more as a step toward recognizing when an action is considered as participating in choosing the refused path which the buyer intends to follow instead of making it sound like an absolute rule in itself (Although in the following post I was careful enough to explicitly limit the example I gave to having the wine maker comes to me to buy the grape I have without including the other way around). 
This is all about contrasting enabling a path with choosing that path.
  

+42

In my religion I used to hear from early time about things being permissible if they have good use. However, I used to think about that more in the way of being about seeking the good results and did not see it as a way for assigning responsibilities based on choices until I read that example I mentioned before. It is about how I am religiously permitted to sell grape to someone who comes to me to buy an  amount of grape I have even if I know he plans to use it to make wine despite how severely wine is prohibited, because grape has other reasonable use that is good. 

Now I look at it also from the rational side and see that you can bring everything in the world to a complete halt if everybody acts as if his responsibility for his believes always extends to beyond leaving the choice to others.

There is another issue the case of the cake shop in Colorado could help me illustrates. Of course, the court may be more focused on the question of rights. But here I want to deal with issues of psychology and existence and doing the good thing, which although maybe clear elsewhere seems to be more clouded here because of that identity establishing issue. This case gives an example showing lines separating the issue of existence of the self from the issue of excluding others. Although I feel bad for the owner if he was required to customize a cake to fit only gay wedding celebration and thereby violates his believe by participating in the making of that choice, that feeling switches to the other side when I assume that it was denied even cakes that can also be used for regular weddings ("neutral" cakes). That is because my concern was to allow  the existence of the owner as extended through his belief. It wasn't to define that existence in the world through its separation from others (Notice that I am giving myself as an example here with my dependence on my view for relinquishing responsibility with leaving the choice to others).