>>4408365

>Symbolism is everything to them. As Q says it will be their downfall. Think of that old Star Trek episode (with Picard, not Kirk, the newer one) where Picard meets this alien that talks in metaphone ("Shaka when the walls fell"). Well that's freemasonry. Example: "How old is your grandmother" means they want the number of your lodge. Tell them they're so old they don't have an age and they will assume you are from Massachusetts.

Darmok is the name of the episode. and while I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment…..the linguistic shit going on in the next gen episode is far more complex and interesting than any of the masonic codes i've seen. Darmok has a lot to do with memeing and why its successful. Masonic codes not so much.

>>4408421

>I make one rational comment about the inefficiency of a 2000 year old mistranslated text and its educational functionality and you God faggots are trying to convert me to believe your batch of emotional bullshit. Just stop.

no issue with kicking the majority of the biblefags on here. however, any of your complaints about the bible are going to apply to the vast majority of ancient and medieval texts that played a large part in the development of the western world and culture. so Plato, Philo, and Pliny the Elder will all be shit according to whatever criteria you use. the fact that it is broadly applicable across disciplines (theology, philosophy, law, natural philosophy etc….) is what is problematic.

>4408610

>All of them are fictional. The bible is not divinely inspired in an way.

and (((you))) know any of this how? if you want to raise your shilling to a new level i'd suggest 2 points: first, get a grip on the notion of divine inspiration…there is a rich and complex literature around the topic. second, frege's work on the foundations of mathematics contains some very pertinent passages concerning meaning (intentionality) and reference (extensionality) that are required reading for the types of positions you are trying to represent.

a bit of knowledge and understanding goes a long way. shit, maybe brock will let you expense the purchase and then you can learn some shit for free. which would lead to further entertainment for this anon. or you could just fuck off and kys.

>>4408745

>Moral relativism is a lie

the current division between moral relativism and the idea of objective morality is one of the fucking psy ops. first, the idea that there is no rational grounding to any moral position is nonsense. second the idea that there ARE rational grounds for black and white, universal moral positions is also nonsense.

in fact, there is an obvious middle position available….that moral positions while black and white and universal contain within them implicit relations to the facts on the ground. that is, moral positions get some of their authority from their effects within a given population at a given time. this does not change their objectivity. when unpacking the objectivity, however, we find a level of relativity to time, place and person. this is no different from the relativity introduced by Galileo and further by Einstein (a formal argument of this type can be found in The Empirical Stance from Bas van Fraasen).

>>4408905

>Is this just a case of two married people who really have totally different views or is there more to this?

one point to consider is the number of households in america that experience tension over a situation like this. one (perhaps unintended) side effect is a public example of a marriage that doesn't completely explode because of disparate political views. maybe some relationships get saved and repaired down the line because of this.