Martian:


How correct is the message when the messenger’s thinking is flawed?

They had some “rational” ideas and plenty “irrational”.

budaatum:
I finally got to the end of the Introduction and I'm about to start Part One. The introduction is 64 pages and I read it 7 times (to the end only twice), and in fact had to cheat.

I found the hardcopy has far too much untranslated Greek and Latin, so I had to keep checking meanings which made it unreadable. Then I found someone to translate the Greek and Latin as he read it to me and the book revealed itself to be more profound than I thought.

You may want to cheat as I did so here is a link to my reader.

kkins25:

Ahh, it's online streaming!
I'd have to find a way to get downloadable version. This my network that I have to go ND sit outside to be able to use.

LordReed:


Are there any thinkers that have no flaws?

HellVictorinho:

Who determines what the flaw is or what the flaws are?

LordReed:


Are there any thinkers that have no flaws?

LordReed:


Human beings.

budaatum:


£42:29 on audible!

kkins25:
Streaming it is!!! .
I love streaming!!!

budaatum:


That is exactly what I thought. Lol! But I'm now thinking of buying it just for you.

budaatum:


Please do not c'mon buda me! Have you not read many books knowing nothing at all about the author? I myself was so poor growing up, I even read books with the cover and title missing, some were even just half the book. And I bet you have read more books knowing nothing about the author, unless you want to claim you research the author of books first.

Second, not all books are preaching or for practice. Things Fall Apart would be an example. Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of Rome is another, both unpractisable even if you tried really really hard.

Third. Some practises are just not worth practising. I've read Mein Kampf, for instance, but I doubt you'd think I plan to build gas chambers, or do you think I will? I've also read a book about brain surgery but I do not plan to touch your brain.

Fourth. Do you seriously think reading a book is for practise alone even if it preaches? I mean, have you not seen Bible and Quran readers stealing or killing or lying? They both do preach in the book that one should not do these things, or are you not aware of this fact?

Fifth. You must really think one is brainless, and can not read a book with ones own critical mind and is a sheep who just practises everything one reads. That might explain why you think buda is a believer despite buda telling you to the contrary.

Sixth. Or some sort of superhuman being with many abilities and skills because I do read very very widely and doubt I can practise all that I read.

Preach what you practice might apply if I wrote the book aadozia, but you'll find I am reading, and I do have a mind of my own.

Do let me know how you disagree now because I suspect you are bound to.

SegFault:

As far as his teaching carries something for me, everyone has a message that can attract you even a mad man on the streets does, as a critical thinker it is left for you to listen and take the ones that appeal to you. It is only when a man foolishly believes in a man that you ought to remind him that the person is just a man.

aadoiza:


I find it absolutely ridiculous that you put forward a hodgepodge of incongruous analogies and instances just to justify your dishonesty. We're talking about individuals whose supposed ideological propagations, which have brought them relentless publicity, are in brazen contradictions of their lifestyles. These individuals are so famous that you are proud to quote them, and would even go to the length of opening a reverent public discourse about them but here you are citing people I know nothing of, erring believers and so on.
I could eat with with shekau if I didn't know him or know of him, but I do. So it would be foolish of me to go about quoting him on a supposed message of peacefull coexistence between the North and the South if such was ever ascribed to him.

aadoiza:

C'mon, buda. Who you are takes precedence over your message. Would it not be considered delusion or deception if an infamous rapist went about preaching chivalry? To coin a phrase, buda: preach what you practice.

budaatum:


Aadozia, you are going to have to forgive me, but I guess I'm just not on your level. I don't think reading Shekau means I am eating with Shekau or will make me become Shekau because I do have a mind and know how to use it. I after all have read the Bible and do quote it a lot but that does not mean I have become God.

Please know that I am not asking you to read what you do not want to read and I do not need your permission to read whatever I want to read.

LordReed:


What is rational is rational no matter who is saying it.

aadoiza:

It is not the message per se but the deep-rooted contradiction which forms the essence of the messenger.

If I cooked delicious fried rice for you in a face-me-i-face-you pit latrine of old would you eat it?

LordReed:


More like if you had shit stained hands and was handing me a cookie would I eat it, no I won't but that is not the case here. Rational thought doesn't get "stained" by the messenger however our receptivity to it might be negatively affected but again that is a different thing.

aadoiza:


You almost always get things mixed up. O ga o.
The day the so-called educated programmed people in Africa break free of their education programming, that is the day Africa's problems begin to solve.

aadoiza:

Yeah, right. I hear shekau has condemned the kidnapping of school children in Zamfara given a message of peace.. Jokers

LordReed:


What is rational is rational no matter who is saying it.

HellVictorinho:

What is your point?

SegFault:

You are obviously here to twist words, I wonder how that relates with philosophy and discourse.

HellVictorinho:

What is your point?

LordReed:


More like if you had shit stained hands and was handing me a cookie would I eat it, no I won't but that is not the case here. Rational thought doesn't get "stained" by the messenger however our receptivity to it might be negatively affected but again that is a different thing.

budaatum:


Receptivity? Aadozia has not read a single word in the book, so how can you be talking to him about receptivity, lol. And he sure is not going to receive from buda, he thinks, so he covers his eyes so he will not see.

My Lord, I will invite you when he does see though just so we can laugh at him. You know I plan to make him because my life depends on it.

aadoiza:

You should have answered yes or no rather than conjuring up this circumlocution.
Anyone with a tad bit of rational thought in their head would be found swimming in the cesspit of racism.

aadoiza:

I'm an giving an instance on why the "who" matters more but you're pretending to only see word-twisting. Someone who enjoys practising open defecation is giving a lecture on environmental sanitation, and you expect me to listen to them? Abi what does hypocrisy mean these days.

aadoiza:

I'm an giving an instance on why the "who" matters more but you're pretending to only see word-twisting. Someone who enjoys practising open defecation is giving a lecture on environmental sanitation, and you expect me to listen to them? Abi what does hypocrisy mean these days.

LordReed:


Is this not the receptivity I mentioned? Is environmental sanitation wrong because the person who says it is a hypocrite?

SegFault:

Leave him, in his dire need to make mockery of others he's making a fool of himself.

LordReed:


It's exactly what we are saying, resisting the information because it is from a source you don't like. If he even looks well, he'll see we actually agree.