Latest • Categories • Groups • Forums

There are 11 choices, 16 votes for Moshiak's debate

This is not a question; this is a statement.

Moshiak...

your arguments are entirely circular and have no basis to them whatsoever. first you claim that you are the only one who defines messiah correctly. first off, you did not create the word messiah, therefore you do not get to define it as you wish. the word messiah was created by the hebrews and it is defined as "an expected deliverer". are you an expected deliverer? no one ever expected you...you cannot alter the original meaning of the word just because you think its wrong. you don't have that right.

also you claim to know the meaning of life, and when people ask you how you know you are right you tell them to "read the philosophy". the philosophy was written by you, therefore it is not credible to proving yourself right. you are basically saying "i'm right because i said so". there is no credibility to that whatsoever. that is completely circular.

also, you have discovered what you THINK is the meaning of life. just because you THINK that what you have discovered is correct, that doesn't mean that it is. what is your supporting evidence to show that what you are saying is in fact true? you say that you are right and your only reason for saying that you are right is that it is written in the philosophy (which was written by you). plenty of people have come up saying that they have discovered the meaning of life and each of them has thought that they had the only correct views. what makes you any different from the rest of them? what makes your arguments any more valid then theirs?

PROVE to us that you are really a messiah, instead of just saying "if you read the philosophy, you would realize that i am the messiah..."
31% Voted for by cosmosis, looking4realtruth, a woman to love, nikadvise, Demonethes.
View 6 comments Hide Comments
Please login or register to comment.
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
- right now
  
  Adding your comment:
- Moshiak
  April 5, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  If you read the Philosophy, you would realize that I'm the messiah.
- Moshiak
  April 5, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  My arguments are circular, and they have a basis to them. ... I did not create the word messiah, but I do get to define it as I wish. I not only have that right as protected by the freedom of speech; I should define the word as I and everyone else define it because my definition is the best. You currently don't define the word messiah in the best way. Nonetheless, I am what can be called the expected deliverer. A deliverer is expected, and I am the deliverer. So your statement is false that I am not the expected deliverer. People did expect the arrival of the messiah: especially the Jews. As for the Christians, they define the messiah as Jesus and I not Jesus. ... You're wrong. People don't ask me how I know the meaning of life, let alone do I answer "read the Philosophy." Don't misinterpret me. Don't attack me with your own sloppiness. I answered that question already in my comments suggesting that the Philosophy is self-evident. ... "the philosophy was written by you, therefore it is not credible to proving yourself right. you are basically saying 'i'm right because i said so'." Bullshit. First, the Philosophy was written by me AND it is credible in proving myself right. What the hell are you talking about? Second, I don't say "I'm right because I say so." What a blatant lie. I never said that, nor would any proper reading of what I have said be interpreted in that way. In fact I don't say "I'm right" because "I'm right" doesn't make sense. As I said in the other post, "truth" is the correspondence of a statement with reality, so you can't have truth without a statement and a reality. I don't say "I'm right" and I don't say "I know the truth." I say that I know how to live, and so should you. I also say that a part of knowing how to live is knowing the meaning of life: that is the most important part of how to live, and that is covered in the first two volumes of the Philosophy. Nowhere in there do I say "I'm right" or that "I know the truth" because those are textual fragments. That's like saying "I know" or "I was." I know what? I was where? You can't just "be right" and you can't just "know the truth." You have to be right about something or know which statement is true. The statements in the Philosophy are true. Nowhere in the Philosophy do I say something that is false, such as "the average person has six fingers" or "Abraham Lincoln was the second president of the US." ... That's correct; I discovered what I THINK is the meaning of life. I.e., I discovered what I KNOW is the meaning of life. I.e., I discovered the meaning of life. That's right. I don't define "think" as GUESS; I define it as KNOW. Didn't you read that part? So yes: I THINK that I discovered the meaning of life and because I THINK I discovered the meaning of life I discovered it because there is no difference between thinking and knowing. You should read what I write before you comment on it. Don't you think? ... I already said that life - any and all experience - is the evidence that validates the Philosophy. Philosophy by its nature deals not with events in isolation, but with the sum of all events: the meaning of life: so life is the laboratory in which philosophical statements are tested. If you were to consider any observation, it would confirm the Philosophy. The Philosophy explains everything. ... "you say that you are right and your only reason for saying that you are right is that it is written in the philosophy (which was written by you)." Again, that's BS. I don't say "I'm right because I say I'm right" and I don't say "I'm right because I wrote it." I don't even say "I'm right." But yes: the Philosophy is right. That's implicit when I say "I know the meaning of life and The Philosophy describes it." ... "plenty of people have come up saying that they have discovered the meaning of life and each of them has thought that they had the only correct views." I dare you to dig up quotes of someone making these three claims: 1. "I have discovered the meaning of life" 2. then specified "the nature of God, the nature of the universe, and the nature of the mind," 3. and then specified that "the meaning of life and how to live are interdependent: knowledge of the meaning of life is the most important part of how to live." You'd be surprised how few people have made so much as the first claim. Anyone can say "I have discovered the meaning of life," but the vast majority of people have a conscience that prohibits them from saying such a thing unless they are right. Further, everyone who has made this claim before had to be a little stupid because they lacked the conscience not to say such a thing, so those people's "discoveries" are brazenly false. I don't even think L. Ron Hubbard said that he discovered the meaning of life. And even if there are a few people out there who have abused that phrase, nobody claimed to be the messiah as I define the word, and that is all that I claim: that I am the messiah as I define the word: and I am. In fact, I am the first man to define "the meaning of life" such that those words make sense when I say them. No one else has provided a logical definition of that phrase, so no one else has really meant what I mean when I say that I know the meaning of life. ... I don't even need to use the word "messiah." I could just call myself "Mr. X." But how else would you describe the man who discovers the meaning of life and how to live: the knowledge that would rid this world of evil and that would bring about the peace and prosperity that the Jews have always sought in a messiah? Exactly.
- - WaltzMoore
    December 18, 2007
    Edit | Reply
    
    wtf BS is this?
    I really can't be bothered to address every single issue arising from this comment. The one that stands out the most to me is this:
    
    "I discovered what I THINK is the meaning of life. I.e., I discovered what I KNOW is the meaning of life. I.e., I discovered the meaning of life. That's right. I don't define "think" as GUESS; I define it as KNOW."
    
    This is a circular argument! You can't just change the definitions of words. Think does not mean 'guess', true. But it does not mean 'Know' either. You can't say that you know the meaning of life just because you thought of it and you decided to define everything you think to be knowledge.
    
    Thats like someone who has never seen an elephant seeing a pink creature in their mind and saying "I think elephants are pink, therefore i know they are."
    
    Think does not mean know.
    
    I dont even need to read your work to know you are a fraud.
- cosmosis
  April 6, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  "I did not create the word messiah, but I do get to define it as I wish."-and why is that? you can't go around altering the meanings of words. so does this mean that i get to change the meaning of the word "apple" to mean "peach"? don't i have that freedom of speech as well to define words as i please? you can't go around altering words just because you want it to fit your description, because if you could do that, then there is nothing stopping me from changing the word "apple" to mean "peach". "Nonetheless, I am what can be called the expected deliverer."-how were you expected in anyway? no one has ever expected you in any way...i don't even think that anyone on the planet ever expected a man named Moshiak (if that is even your real name, which i'm assuming it's not)to create a website describing his views on the meaning of life. you are just a random person who claims to have discovered the meaning of life but you were never expected, therefore the word messiah does not describe you. you just contradicted yourself. you said "People don’t ask me how I know the meaning of life, let alone do I answer “read the Philosophy.” "-but right above that you said "If you read the Philosophy, you would realize that I’m the messiah.". you just said that you don't answer people by saying "read the philosophy" and yet you just did it to me. "My arguments are circular, and they have a basis to them."-circular arguments don't have a basis to them. they are not credible. take for example the following scenario: "the bible is the god-inspired, inerrant word of god" "really, how do you know" "well, because the bible says so...." do you see the flawed logic in that? it is possible that the bible is the inerrant word of god but you can't use the bible to prove that the bible is correct, you have to use an outside source of somekind just like you can't say that the philosophy is correct just because it says it is correct in it. i could if i wanted to write my own philosophy book and say that it is right and when people ask me how i know it's right i will just tell them to read the philosophy to find out. arguments like that don't work. any one with even a little knowledge of philosophy would know that. one person who claimed to have known the meaning of life was Jesus, who christians believe is the messiah. he taught his followers to "love thy neighbor as thyself", etc...he described what he thought was the meaning of life and how people should live. whether or not he is right or wrong didn't stop him from believing that he was correct. so his meaning of life differs from yours, but how do you know for a FACT that yours is indeed correct? try PROOVING that your meaning of life is the correct one. also, there is a difference between "knowing" and "thinking". if you think something, that doesn't mean that you know it. i may think that the sky is really orange....i may think that russian is the main language spoken in Japan and i may think that Hitler lived in Canada. obviously, those things that i just said were false and obviously i don't really believe that. but if i did believe that and i did infact think that doesn't mean it is correct. the same goes with your philosophy. you may think it is correct, but just because you think that, that doesn't mean that it is. it may possibly be correct but you have nothing to back it up. also, you can't just say that you have discovered the meaning of life because life means different things to different people. people are diverse, they think differently and they believe differently so one meaning of life isn't something that everybody can be ok with since people have opposing views about EVERYTHING. there is absolutely NOTHING that every single person on the planet agrees with so obviously there can't be just one meaning of life. this meaning of life may work well for you but it most likely will not work for all of the other 6 billion people on this planet.
- Moshiak
  April 6, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  First of all I will say that I have decided to change my name from "Moshiak" to "Edward Brent" because people either don't understand "Moshiak" or they do understand that it means "messiah," but they readily misinterpret me. Frankly, the word isn't worth it. I really don't care what people call me, as long as they don't call me a liar or a fraud. Now I will address your comments, but I must say that this is only because I believe you are a thinking man and I have respect for such men ... if in fact you are a man. I won't address the "messiah" question because I no longer call myself that. I'll let people call me that a thousand years from now. No, I didn't contradict myself by saying these things: 1) “People don’t ask me how I know the meaning of life, let alone do I answer “read the Philosophy.” 2) “If you read the Philosophy, you would realize that I’m the messiah.”... "you just said that you don’t answer people by saying “read the philosophy” and yet you just did it to me." I didn't say that I don't answer people by saying "read the Philosophy"; I said that I don't answer "read the Philosophy" after people ask me HOW I know the meaning of life. I may say "read the Philosophy," but I don't answer that question in that way. Rather, when people ask me HOW I know the meaning of life, I answer that I know because I know. The question of HOW someone knows something is ambiguous: are you asking about how the brain functions to acquire knowledge or are you asking me how I get THAT knowledge, and the ultimate answer is "I know because I know." In other words, the question "how do you know" is ultimately invalid. Knowledge is self-evident; otherwise, it isn't knowledge. ... As for Jesus claiming to know the meaning of life, the ontological status of Jesus is questionable, let alone what he said. Let's not forget that Jesus didn't speak English. Anyway, my point was that very few people would utter the English expression "I know the meaning of life" when they know that they don't. ..."the bible is the god-inspired, inerrant word of god” “really, how do you know” “well, because the bible says so…." That's not a circular argument. That's just a bad argument. And if you call bad arguments "circular arguments," then I propose that we either improve or dispose of the phrase "circular arguments." If you believe that everything that is written in the Bible is true just because it is written in the Bible, then that is a shallow and superficial argument that disregards more fundamental truths that even the Bible-believer is aware of. ..."It is possible that the bible is the inerrant word of god but you can’t use the bible to prove that the bible is correct, you have to use an outside source of somekind just like you can’t say that the philosophy is correct just because it says it is correct in it." I told you that I don't say that. Let me quote myself: "I don’t say “I’m right because I say I’m right” and I don’t say “I’m right because I wrote it.” I don’t even say “I’m right.” But yes: the Philosophy is right." ... "whether or not he is right or wrong didn’t stop him from believing that he was correct." That's not true. People only believe true statements, insofar as they are true. "So his meaning of life differs from yours," Not entirely. "...but how do you know for a FACT that yours is indeed correct?" I don't say that my account of the meaning of life is correct whereas everyone else's is incorrect; I say that mine is correct whereas everyone else's is less correct. I also say that the vast majority of philosophers are smart enough not to say that they "have discovered the meaning of life" when that is not entirely true. "Try PROOVING that your meaning of life is he correct one." Try proving that my statements are correct? You don't understand. I keep telling you that everything that you experience proves my statements to be correct. Everything is proof of the Philosophy. ... "i may think that russian is the main language spoken in Japan and i may think that Hitler lived in Canada." Not according to my definition of "think" which is synonymous with "know." You don't know those things, so you don't think those things. "but if i did believe that and i did infact think that doesn’t mean it is correct." As with the word "think," I define "believe" as "know" such that you can't believe that which is false because you can not know that which is false. "the same goes with your philosophy. you may think it is correct, but just because you think that, that doesn’t mean that it is. it may possibly be correct but you have nothing to back it up." I think, believe, and know that the statements in The Philosophy are correct - that The Philosophy is correct - and I have EVERYTHING to back up those statements. In other words, the Philosophy is self-evident. ... "also, you can’t just say that you have discovered the meaning of life because life means different things to different people." "Life" is the best word that describes what I want to describe, and if people were to learn the meaning of life as I describe it in my book, everyone would define the word in the best way: a way that everyone agrees with. ... "people are diverse, they think differently and they believe differently so one meaning of life isn’t something that everybody can be ok with since people have opposing views about EVERYTHING. there is absolutely NOTHING that every single person on the planet agrees with so obviously there can’t be just one meaning of life." That's not necessarily true. Two people can guess that Jesus walked on water. Two people can guess that California is a good place to live. Two people can guess that Ayn Rand was the greatest philosopher of the 20th Century. People don't necessarily have opposing view on everything. That false and ridiculous. "people can't agree with each other." Again, bullshit. "this meaning of life may work well for you but it most likely will not work for all of the other 6 billion people on this planet." What do you mean "work well"? Knowledge of the meaning of life doesn't "work" because it's not a machine that either works or doesn't work. It is an idea that is true and that is therefore universally agreeable and believable. The only question is whether people are willing to learn it. And that will take a while because we live in an age in which philosophical language has been battered by nihilism/skepticism. I can hardly communicate with people because our language is so philosophically impoverished. ... Given the poverty of philosophical language and the fact that it would take a while for people to develop that language such that they learn the Philosophy, it may be best for me to provide people with more superficial insights into the world around them: insights that would indirectly inspire people in the meaning of life. At this time, you may not be able to understand my metaphysics, but maybe you can understand and find agreement with some of my political views. I have positions on immigration, race, gender, government, psychology, psychiatry, anti-Semitism, etc. My website address is www.edwardbrent.com.
- Molzahn
  December 28, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  Moshiak
  Relative to your personal universe, you are the messiah. But this has no relation to the universal reality
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free
right now

Adding your reply:
Your Comment:

messiah? uh... no?

you claim to be a messiah yet you show no actions of a messiah. granted most of us only know of one messiah, that being Jesus, but i do know that he is the prime example if he exsisted at all. you have no humility. you are too arrogant. you are indeed a fraud. and in some aspect a blasphimer. claiming to be something of great importance to some people. i looked at your page and your “book”. i must say for all the “bullshit” you clai m there is, your page has the most bullshit ive ever seen. come off and admit it, youre a disgruntled person, somewhat racist,sexist, and above all ignorant using a label to sell off your “ideas” and thoughts. you dont know the meaning of life. ths is evident because you cannot explain how you know it. even einstein had some sort of answer for coming up with e=mc2 (“God told me…”). i think you should have some way to tell everyone how you supposedly came to knowledge of the meaning of life. almost everything can be explained that is in exsistence. and those that do not yet have explanations are either undiscovered, opinions, or on the verge of being figured out.

you cannot change words to fit your needs. they are established for the sole purpose that they cannot be changed. its the only reason we have certain languages in designated areas becasue language has remained constant. the topic of this post, is for everyone to see what you really are. you may have some intellect and a unique thinkinh pattern and for some part it is impressive, i give you that. but by no means does that make you supreme in philosophy. if that were the case the right people would have seen your philosophy on the meaning of life, verified it, and youd be sharing your ignorance in alot bigger places than an internet debate forum.

what is it that youre delivering? your manifestos and your political bashings. you dont understand anything because you like the rest of us are subject to your own opinions. sadly your opinions have morphed into something of more of an ego than anything which leads most people to disagree with you and your philosophy. no one on this board agrees with you. in fact, this entire thing is to contemplate the legitamacy of you and everything you say. you say you dont claim top know truth but the meaning of life is truth. it is a truth people brighter than you and i have spent lifetimes looking to find and i highly doubt you are deserving of that knowledge.

the only partially agreeable thing you have said anywhere on any of your pages is that women on average are shorter than men. but thats only a statistic for the U.S.A. so therefore you cant assume you are correct unless you personally have gone around and measured all 6 billion people on this earth.

i think i share the same feelings as most of the people here, that you are a human and a fraud and a fake looking for an easy way to impose you thinking on everyone. and i pitty the fools who buy into it.

12% Voted for by Neros Decay, rockys8r.

Add a comment

just visited the site.

the ms paint graphs are hilarious. YOU ARE A PAIN MACHINE.

Voted for by Hamumori.

Add a comment

I Don't know what you wanted to accomplish but...

I don't know why you posted this, but I think it brings up a really interesting idea... can a true religion, a correct religion be started? I don't think so, if religion is the means to get to God than doesn't God have to initiate it? We could never guess and hit the right God and the right way to worship Him/Her/It. Another question is, can a man who claims to be God, but can't back it up collect a following and start a religion? I don't think so, Buddha never claimed to be God, if he had come out and said it the people around him would have thought him arrogant and mislead. Jesus claimed to be God and backed it up, now there's something that could be taken seriously. He was a Jew, like you Moshiak, He claimed to be the messiah, again a similarity, but He lived a perfect life and worked miracles to validate His claims, if you can say honestly that you have NEVER since you were a baby done ANYTHING that was evil, thought anything that was evil, or had a bad motive when doing something good than you have no right to declare yourself anything, except a dirty sinner, along with the rest of us.

Voted for by Makessenseright.

View 25 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
Moshiak
April 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

Why did I post this? Because the world should know the Philosophy. Both God and man would initiate the correct religion/philosophy. We could never guess at the right way to get to God? No, but we can know the right way to get to God: by knowing God. No man can claim to be God, but a man can claim to be the messiah. Buddha didn't even have the concept of messiah; that's a Jewish concept. He wasn't the messiah anyway. Jesus didn't necessarily claim to be the messiah, and he certainly didn't back it up. Where does Jesus back it up? By walking on water? Hah! Silliness! Sheer silliness! Jesus never walked on water if he even existed. I believe he existed, but only as a human being. You Christians have a silly concept of messiah whereby the messiah has supernatural powers. The Jewish concept of the messiah has its silliness, but it's closer to the best possible concept of messiah. According to the Jewish concept, the messiah is a human being (ie, not possessed of special powers). "...if you can say honestly that you have NEVER since you were a baby done ANYTHING that was evil, thought anything that was evil, or had a bad motive when doing something good than you have no right to declare yourself anything, except a dirty sinner, along with the rest of us." What a terrible and ridiculous definition of "messiah". A part of learning the meaning of life is learning the meaning of "messiah." The messiah is the man who discovers the meaning of life and how to live and publicizes that knowledge, thereby starting the humanization of humanity. That is the real definition of messiah; not someone who rises from the dead. Finally, someone who claims to be the messiah isn’t necessarily dismissed as arrogant: only when the normals have a false view of human nature. People today are cynical, so they would be highly skeptical of messianic claimants such as I. Not too many people claim to be the messiah. In fact, I am the only one who defines what I mean when I say that I am the messiah, so I am claiming what I claim, and my claim is proved by The Philosophy. Your silly definition of “messiah” doesn’t describe me, and it wouldn’t describe anyone. It should be disposed of.
Energizer Bunny
April 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

We could never guess at the right way to get to God? -------------------------------------------------- exactly who is doing the guessing??
Makessenseright
April 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

Who does the guessing? Us, as a species looking up in the sky and conjecturing about what God is. It makes no sense to me. The only way to know God is to have Him make contact with us, not the other way around.
Moshiak
April 2, 2006
Edit | Reply

What do you mean who does the guessing? The way to know God is not for God to make contact with us, for God ALWAYS makes contact with us. Rather, the way to know God is for God to FULLY manifest in us. That manifestation comes in the form of concepts which are produced by way of contemplation. You don't quite understand what I say until you read The Mind of God and The Mind of Mankind - the first two volumes of The Philosophy.
Makessenseright
April 2, 2006
Edit | Reply

How do you know God is always making contact with us? Why are there so many atheists if God is always contacting us? How does God fully manifest in an evil human? God doesn't manifest in actions? How do you know it isn't Satan talking to you when you contemplate? Lastly how do you know that what's in "The Philosophy" is true. You are making and extraordinary claim and "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you want to discuss this with me you will have to explain everything thoroughly, because I believe you are smart, your just not making any sense. About Jesus not walking on water, not claiming He was the messiah. He did and He did. My statement that He did carries just as much weight as your statement that He didn't, neither of us were there and neither of us have talked to anyone who was an eyewitness. I'd like to point out some evidence for Jesus, that the earliest writings AGAINST Jesus did not deny His many miracles. They argued that He got His power from some source that wasn't God. It was undisputable at the time because so many people had seen Him perform them. It was an established fact that His opposition didn't even dare disagree with. As far as claiming to be the messiah, "I am THE way, THE truth, and THE light, no one comes to the father except through me." "I and the Father are one." Sounds like God to me. Jesus also accepted worship; Jesus made it plain that He was God. Like I said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and I believe there is extraordinary evidence that PROVES that Jesus is God. Not in a scientific sense, but more than enough proof for anyone who has an open mind. If you want to hear it I'd be glad to share. Anyway, looking forward to hearing your responses to my questions, SVD
Moshiak
April 2, 2006
Edit | Reply

God is not seperate from us; He is of us. ... Why are there so many atheists if God is of us? Because atheists insist on being logical, so if they don't know God on logical (complete) terms, they deny His existence. But everyone on Earth knows God to some degree. It is only by way of The Philosophy that you can know God on logical/complete terms: that you can fully understand God. To one who doesn't know the Philosophy, God is a fuzzy, unclear, undeveloped concept. ... How does God fully manifest in an evil human? By way of the complete understanding of the concept of God. Regard it as any other kind of knowledge. How does calculous fully manifest in humans? When humans fully study calculus. If you don't fully study calculus, you may partially know calculus, but you don't totally know it. The story of God is a true story that is told only in The Philosophy. Every other account is incomplete. By the way, humans are only evil if they don't fully know God, and humans aren't necessarily evil. ... God doesn’t manifest in actions? God manifests in everything. ... How do you know it isn’t Satan talking to you when you contemplate? Because of how you define "Satan." I don't acknowledge the devil in The Philosophy - there's no reason to - but I understand what people mean when they use that term. You must realize that words like "Satan" were invented by humans. When you know the universe and human nature, you can infer why such words were invented. I infer that the word "Satan" describes the aspect of the universe that God doesn't have control over. You'd understand what I mean if you learn The Mind of God. ... "About Jesus not walking on water, not claiming He was the messiah. He did and He did." I didn't say that he didn't. I said that he may not have. To quote myself, "Jesus didn’t necessarily claim to be the messiah, and he certainly didn’t back it up." ... "I’d like to point out some evidence for Jesus, that the earliest writings AGAINST Jesus did not deny His many miracles." Just because such writing didn't say that he didn't perform miracles, that doesn't mean that he performed miracles. Further, I know God, the universe, and human nature, so I can say with certainty that Jesus did not perform miracles because I know what is possible and what isn't possible. ... "They argued that He got His power from some source that wasn’t God. It was undisputable at the time because so many people had seen Him perform them. It was an established fact that His opposition didn’t even dare disagree with." What do you mean by "power"? Do you refer to persuasive power or the power to walk on water? If you refer to the power to walk on water, then Jesus could have performed tricks to trick people into thinking that he is greater than he really was. Anyone who claimed to be the messiah before me was a fraud insofar as they defined the word correctly. If they defined "messiah" as the ability to tie a shoe, then there have been several messiahs. I don't care about any other definition of "messiah" than the correct one: the one stated in The Philosophy: as the man who discovers the meaning of life and how to live, both of which are interdependent. Now, as for Jesus walking on water, if there really was such a man and if it appeared to others that he performed that feat, then there is no question that he was employing trickery: the same brand of trickery that magicians use. ... "As far as claiming to be the messiah, “I am THE way, THE truth, and THE light, no one comes to the father except through me.” “I and the Father are one.” Sounds like God to me." Again, I define the messiah as the one who discovers the meaning of life and how to live. Did Jesus explain the nature of God, the universe and the mind? The answer is absolutely not, which is why scientists search for the answers to those fundamental questions 2000 years after Jesus. Also, are you aware of the fact that the concept of the messiah predated Jesus, and that there were many Jews in history who claimed messiah? Those words define the essence of the Jewish concept of messiah, and that concept wasn't invented by Jesus. He might as well have said "I am the messiah." You think that just because he was poetic in how he spoke, he was the messiah? In fact, all rabbis spoke that way because that manner of speaking is found in the Torah. ... "Jesus also accepted worship; Jesus made it plain that He was God." Well I am making it plain that a man can not be God, and that Jesus was a man. Rather, the messiah would be the physical representation of God. There is a difference between being something and being a representation of something. Of course, the authors of the NT were being sloppy and poetic. They did not understand the concept of messiah enough to speak logically about it as I do. ... "Lastly how do you know that what’s in “The Philosophy” is true. You are making and extraordinary claim and “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If you want to discuss this with me you will have to explain everything thoroughly, because I believe you are smart, your just not making any sense." It's hard to make sense when all the sense is found in The Philosophy, not in some discussion forum such as this. Just as you can't learn calculus in a discussion forum, you can't learn the meaning of life in a discussion forum. You have to read the book, and you have to take the time to understand it. Everyone can and should know The Philosophy.
Moshiak
April 2, 2006
Edit | Reply

.
Makessenseright
April 3, 2006
Edit | Reply

I won't respond to most of what you have said, not because I don't have an answer, but because my answers are similar to ones you have refused to believe. I just want to point out that much if not most of your arguments are circular, it's written in The Philosophy, you'll understand if you read The Philosophy, honestly if The Philosophy is anything like your posts I think I would walk away feeling confused rather than enlightened. Can you define what "the right way to live" means? The way to get to God? The way to be happy? What exactly do you mean when you say that? Let me circle back to Jesus, let me make you a promise, if you can, with your arguments get me to question Jesus, I will read The Philosophy thoroughly with an open mind. Otherwise why would I waste my time? I've found God and the right way to live, (that meaning the way to get to Heaven) already. If you even bring up one question or serious argument that I have never heard or thought through I would be surprised. Oh, by the way I did know that Jesus didn't come up with the Messiah idea, it was written of in the OT, the first reference to Jesus in the Bible is in Genesis 3:15 and the pattern continues with messiah found on almost every page. Jesus didn't come up with messiah, but He did fulfill all the prophesies, think of Isaiah 53, this perfectly describes Jesus, does it describe you, is the "iniquity of us all" on your shoulders? Speaking of Isaiah, He says in chapter 53:6 that "we ALL like sheep have gone astray," Chapter 64:6 is even clearer "All of us have become like one who is unclean, and all our righteous acts are like filthy rags." When you say "humans aren’t necessarily evil" you are directly contradicting these verses, and also experience, everyone does evil. Back to Jesus, He's the drum I beat, just like you keep going back to The Philosophy. I think you keep brushing Him of as a Christian thing. Jesus was and is a Jewish thing!! Gentiles are like stepchildren almost. Even in the NT it makes this clear, Romans 1:16 states "I am not ashamed of the gospel (of Jesus), for it is the power of God for the salvation of all who believe: FIRST FOR THE JEW, and then for the gentile. Even in the last book of the NT, Revelation the Jews play a key role, in chapter 7 God commissions 144,000 Jews to preach the gospel! In Rev 14 they come back, having fulfilled their mission and worship Jesus. Christians should be the last people on the planet to hate Jews, why do you think I keep responding to your posts? I don't want you to walk away without first giving just a little serious thought to Him. All right, you didn't ask, but I'll give you some evidence that Jesus was no mere man. Let's skip all the small stuff and go straight to the resurrection, Jesus was killed, and then He rose from death. One argument against this goes like this, Jesus never really died and simply rolled the stone away Himself. That doesn't work, Romans were expert killers and if they screwed up an execution they themselves would die. They made sure He was dead. Even if somehow Jesus did survive would the pitiful creature that crawled out of the tomb be able to take on a squad of Roman soldiers and then make his way back to his disciples. Then if he accomplished all that would they mistake him for God, and be so sure of his divinity that they each (exception John) are willing to go to a martyr’s death? Theory 2, Jesus really died, but his disciples formed a conspiracy to make people believe in Him. This also has many logical flaws, could a bunch of uneducated fishermen convince the world? Start the biggest religion in the world? And even if they could, what was the point? To trick the world into being moral by deceit, which you condemn and then die to keep the conspiracy going? 10 of the twelve disciples GAVE THEIR LIVES for this cause. They never became rich or had easy lives, they were rejected by their family and friends, they became some of the most hated men in the world, all this for a conspiracy? Like I said, come up with other arguments, I believe that the evidence around Jesus is watertight, so question it. Truth, when examined closely, will only seem more and more sure, while falsehood, when examined closely only loses credibility. While your pondering this, give me a bone to chew, give me a piece of evidence that could show me that you are the messiah, please don't tell me to read The Philosophy, give me a reason first.
Energizer Bunny
April 3, 2006
Edit | Reply

Moshiak
Going by much of what you have said about Christ like: "Well I am making it plain that a man can not be God, and that Jesus was a man." makes you sound like a false prophet.
Moshiak
April 3, 2006
Edit | Reply

The Philosophy is not to be compared to any other writings or any other belief systems. Why must I prove anything about Jesus for you to look at the Philosophy? I say that you should learn how to live, and that you can learn how to live if you read The Philosophy. If that’s what you call a “circular argument,” then circular arguments aren’t necessarily wrong. In fact, ultimately all arguments are circular. The argument for God is circular, as you would find if you were to read The Mind of God. The only time that a circular argument is bad is when it’s premature. ...As for your attempt to prove the existence of Jesus, those fail because once you know what is possible and what is not possible, you can not take such stories seriously. You ask how people could have lied about Jesus rising from the dead. Easy. They could have removed his body from the grave, and told people that he rose from the dead. You must realize how superstitious people were. People didn’t have access to science as they do today; they didn’t know what to believe about anything. ...Then there is the possibility that the NT is SO fictional that Jesus didn’t even exist, in which case the book would be like Homer’s Iliad: false history. False histories were rather common in antiquity. The more that I listen to your “proof” of Jesus, the more that I am convinced of the latter status of the Bible. The more “proof” you give me, the less that I believe the Bible is history and the more that I believe the Bible is literature: including the part about Jesus actually living. Why do you assume that he even lived? Because it isn’t written that he never lived? Well, there’s a reason that it isn’t written that he never lived. For about a thousand years you would be tarred and feathered by the Church if you dared to question the Bible. You and your book would have been burned. History is full of stories of ghosts and goblins and men walking on water. The only question is which stories to believe and which stories to dismiss. Science and philosophy provide us with a standard of truth by which we can judge the validity of such stories. Many people don’t view religion in such terms because all of the claims in religion are based on alleged historical circumstances. It’s not like Santa Clause or the Tooth Fairy where the adults know that THEY are the ones who put the presents under the tree and the money under the pillow. Rather, the NT – and the OT for that matter – deals with mythical subjects and events that are alleged to have occurred long ago. Does that make those tales any less tall? No. Why would people write and promote such stories - even at the expense of censure? Because such stories reflect how to live, and that is extremely important. Everyone seeks knowledge of how to live. ...I don’t say that I walk on water, I don’t say I can rise from the dead, I don’t say that I can perform miracles. I say that I am a man who knows the meaning of life (the nature of God, the nature of the universe, the nature of the mind) and – most fundamentally – how to live. The most important rule of how to live is that you learn the meaning of life, which is why I say that the meaning of life and how to live are interdependent. There is more to how to live than knowing the meaning of life; there are secondary issues with regards to economics, politics, and relationships. I am in the process of writing essays that elaborate upon matters of psychology/psychiatry and politics/economics. Perhaps you have a child who was diagnosed with "Asperger disorder." Well, if you want to know what "Asperger disorder" actually is and what you should do about it – if anything – you would need to read to read my writings. I have no reason to lie about The Philosophy because The Philosophy is for free. I am not a salesman: there's no money in this. I wish there were, but there isn't. Rather, I am someone who wishes to make this world a better place. The ultimate goal of the Philosophy is social, economic, and political revolution. The Philosophy is about politics. Metaphysics is important because it is the most important political issue. ...Finally, everything in the Philosophy is backed by any and all observations. Unlike the Testaments, the Philosophy doesn’t conflict with science. To the contrary, true science is impossible without the Philosophy because the Philosophy is the foundation of science. Whereas science deals with narrow areas of life to be observed in isolation in a laboratory or a field, philosophy deals with the nature of everything (the biggest picture) the evidence of which is to be observed in every area of life. In other words, the evidence upon which the Philosophy is based is found in the laboratory of life.
Makessenseright
April 3, 2006
Edit | Reply

I will not read The Philosophy because I don't not respect the ideas you put forth. Claiming that Jesus never lived is Historical nonsense, equal to the Iranians claiming the Holocust never happened. Saying the The Philosophy is based on the laboratory of life just makes it sure that it cannot contain anything higher than anything anyone else has written. We all observe life, and every person could write a book about what they see and what they think the answer is. Then they could all claim that they were correct! I can't read everyones book!! Nothing in your claims or ideas sets you apart in any way. So I won't waste my time reading your book.
Moshiak
April 4, 2006
Edit | Reply

First, don’t put words in my mouth. I didn’t say that Jesus didn’t exist. I said that Jesus may not have existed. Second, what you say doesn’t make sense. You say that because the Philosophy is based on evidence found in the laboratory of life, that means it’s false. No, that means it’s true. It's false that everyone observes life. Rather, different people observe life to different degrees. No one observes life as much as I, and I record my observations in the Philosophy. You don't define "life" properly, just as you don't define "messiah" properly. "Life" is the common attribute that is experienced by everyone. Only if you experience it could you think you know what it is. No one has experienced it fully but I, so I am the first man in history who thinks he knows the meaning of life. Your statement that "we all observe life" is wrong, just like your statement that I needed to be perfect since birth to be the messiah. Third, no one claims what I claim. I claim to be the messiah according to my proper definition of "messiah": a definition that no one else has established, and a claim that no one else has made. And you lie when you say that my ideas don't set me apart from other, especially considering that you haven't even read my book.
Energizer Bunny
April 4, 2006
Edit | Reply

~"I said that Jesus may not have existed."~ That is like saying 2+2=8. Wether you are Christian or not has very little to do with it for even the deepest minds and experts may have and still dispute Christ as 100% man physically and 100% God spiritually but they do not disagree on him being here. ------------------------------------------------------- ~"No one observes life as much as I."~ This is not a proven fact, only one MAN'S mere opinion. Do not impose your opinions and ask us to accept them as facts. ------------------------------------------------------- ~"No one has experienced it but I."~ OMG, you are so far off base that it's not even funny any more. ------------------------------------------------------- ~"I am the first man in history who thinks he knows the meaning of life."~ FINALLY, here is a true statement you made and the key words are WHO THINKS HE KNOWS. ------------------------------------------------------- ~"No one claims what I claim."~ A few in padded rooms do I'm sure. ------------------------------------------------------- ~"No one claims what I claim. I claim to be the messiah according to my proper definition of messiah: a definition that no one else has established, and a claim that no one else has made."~ Philosophy is not an open ended book to the extent that you can claim ANYTHING you wish and call it fact. Your philosophy is flawed to the point no one on this site would consider it even remotely credible. ------------------------------------------------------- ~"You lie when you say that my ideas don’t set me apart from others."~ If you wish to be taken seriously you must stop speaking in such a foolish way. I'm not trying to hurt your feelings in any way, but this thread is turning into a joke my friend. Your debate has no meat in it and it is not viable at all.
Moshiak
April 4, 2006
Edit | Reply

1. I don't care that how many others think that Jesus lived. There is no proof that he lived, so he may not have lived. Also, no ones mind is as deep as mine. I am very different from others. Also, there are others who acknowledge the possibility that Jesus may not have existed; you just don't hear of such people because their voices are silenced by the normal fools. 2. Yes it is a proven fact that no one else observes life as much as I because if there were such a person, they would have written The Philosophy. By the way, it is possible for an opinion to be a fact. 3. I'm not off base about anything. No one has experienced life as much as I. Again, you don't define "life" properly. Your definition of life should change. Life is the Philosophy; the Philosophy is the meaning of life. 4. I think I know the meaning of life. I know that I know the meaning of life. There is no difference between the two in my vocabulary. I will not succumb to your abuse of language or anyone else's abuses of language and define "think" as "guess." I am not the only man in history who guesses that he knows the meaning of life; I am the only man in history who knows that he knows the meaning of life, because I am the only man in history who knows the meaning of life. 5. No one in padded rooms claims that he the messiah when that word is defined correctly (as opposed to the insane definition offered by Christianity.) 6. I know that people shouldn't claim anything they wish and call it fact. People shouldn't claim that the average person has six fingers on each hand and call it fact. Where do I say that people should lie? I say that people shouldn't lie. Honesty is virtuous. 7. You don't know my philosophy, so how dare you say that it's flawed. Now you commit libel. It is you who are the liar, not I. 8. Nothing that I say or do is foolish, in contrast to what you and everyone else says and does. And don’t call me your friend, for you libel me. It is a legal and moral crime to lie to others about the nature or merit of one’s work. Until you read my book, you are ignorant with regards to my ideas. 9. Finally, don't patronize me. I don't have "feelings" that you can hurt. I don't get my wisdom from pretenses; it get it from knowledge of the meaning of life as gleaned from the Philosophy. 10. You should learn the Philosophy.
Energizer Bunny
April 4, 2006
Edit | Reply

HHhuummmm
Until you read my book, you are ignorant with regards to my ideas. Finally, don’t patronize me. I don’t have “feelings” that you can hurt. I don’t get my wisdom from pretenses; it get it from knowledge of the meaning of life as gleaned from the Philosophy -------------------------------------------------- Careful now, no need to get your panties in a wad. It's not my fault that no one on this board sees your so called philosophy as viable and rational. No one is making fun of you. If someone crossed the line and made it too personal their comments would be removed so crying foul will do you no good. Most of the members on this board, whether they like me or hate me, will tell you that I NEVER demand anyone respect another person's comments, ONLY the person. """ALL""" opinons are welcome on this board including even yours, as long as you do not engage in personal attacks. You should learn the Philosophy. -------------------------------------------------- The members on this site, including myself, will learn what they deem worthy. Take care....
Moshiak
April 5, 2006
Edit | Reply

First, of course people will learn what they deem worthy; you might as well say that 1+1=2. Second, it's not possible to personally attack me. However, it is possible to lie about me or my work in which case you commit libel. Anyone who says that my philosophy is flawed or that I am a fraud commits libel because they lie about me or my ideas. Third, the Philosophy is worthy. So you should learn the Philosophy.
Energizer Bunny
April 5, 2006
Edit | Reply

it’s not possible to personally attack me -------------------------------------------------- Why??? Anyone who says that my philosophy is flawed or that I am a fraud commits libel -------------------------------------------------- I'd rather commit "libel" against your flawed philosophy(as everyone sees it so far) than lie before my God and say you are not what most people would perceive as a false teacher.
Moshiak
April 5, 2006
Edit | Reply

It's not possible to personally attack me because a "personal attack" is an insult, and an insult is a comment that "hurts the other person's feelings." I already told you that you can't hurt my feelings becasue I don't get my inpsiration from pretenses; so you can't personally attack me. How can anyone "see" or "perceive" my philosophy as false if they don't know my philosophy? Do you know what "see" and "perceive" mean? You don't speak properly when it comes to metaphysical terms such as those because you are Philosophically ignorant. What you mean to say is that people guess that I haven't discovered the nature of God, the universe, the mind, and how to live. But that is precisely what I have discovered, and you're missing out on it if you don't read The Philosophy.
Energizer Bunny
April 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

the philosophy = Fiction
you are Philosophically ignorant. -------------------------------------------------- LOL....I, like anyone else on this board, would consider that a major compliment since it comes from your mind. I've read a little of it but not all of it. It just didn't interest me. I'm not really big into fiction.
Moshiak
April 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

What part of the Philosophy would you consider "fiction"? In other words, what part of the Philosophy don't you understand?
Moshiak
April 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

On a related note, the man who calls himself "Energizer Bunny" absolutely lies about my work. The Philosophy is not fiction; it is as non-fictional as it gets. He's just frustrated that it would take him some time to understand it.
Energizer Bunny
April 6, 2006
Edit | Reply

Overall
Your views, the way you perceive most things but that is okay, to each his own..;)
petethemeat
April 8, 2006
Edit | Reply

.
cosmosis
April 29, 2006
Edit | Reply

.
Oral Fixation
December 19, 2006
Edit | Reply

Scientology.
We all came from clams because some guy decided we did and Zenu is this super-sexy-hot-ruler amzing alien who created us or something like that. He made a zillion dollars. If this Messiah crap takes off, Mosh is gunna be a rich son of a tool shed.

Please register or login to comment! It's totally free

Huh????

Who is messiah?????I have no clue who messiah is.

Voted for by The Blind Bandit.

View 1 comment

The correct opinion.

Moshiak is the messiah. He is the greatest philosopher that there ever was and that there ever will be. He knows the meaning of life. He knows how to live. He has a website that describes this www.moshiak.com. He is I. I am he. The one who provides final answers to the philosophical questions has arrived, and what better place to announce my arrival than here, in this philosophy discussion forum. Behold the Philosophy.

Voted for by Moshiak.

View 20 comments

right now

Adding your comment:
DryIce808
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply

LOL. Oh holy messiah
DryIce808
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply

HOLY CRAP YOU ARE SERIOUS. I just checked out the website. You are nuts.
rob7
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply

You know what they say about opinions.They're like assholes,everyones got one and everyone elses stinks except yours.HaHaHa!
Moshiak
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply

By "nuts" you mean arrogant. You should stick with the word arrogant. Nobody really says that they are the messiah unless they are either lying to you (like reverend Moon) or unless they speak the truth (such as I). No, I'm not a liar. Try reading the book on the website before judging that I haven't discovered the meaning of life and how to live. By the way, there's no proof that Jesus claimed to be the messiah. His followers claimed that he was the messiah, just as they claimed that he walked on water. That didn't happen, of course. Jesus didn't walk on water and Jesus wasn't the messiah. There is no such thing as "being nuts." There's such a thing as LYING or BEING STUPID or BEING MISLABLED, but there is no such thing as BEING NUTS. The word "nuts" or "crazy" are post-modern (nihilistic) descriptors of "immoral" and "sinister." Because nihilists don't believe in morality (good and evil, right and wrong), they don't say that you're "bad" or that "you've sinned"; they say "you're nuts" or "you're crazy" as if to say that I am having delusions of messiahship, but that doesn't make sense. Nobody can have delusions of messiahship. Schizophrenia does not cause people to have CONCEPTUAL delusions; it causes people to have PERCEPTUAL delusions. Not one man who has schizophrenia believes that he is the messiah because the condition does not cause people to come to false conclusions. It just causes people to confuse thoughts for live reality. It doesn't make someone believe that they are the messiah. So no, I'm not delusional, and you don't really believe that I'm delusional. Rather, you guess that I'm lying to you. But I'm not lying to you. I'm not a fraud. I understand your skepticism, but you can see for yourself that I speak the truth when I say that I have discovered the meaning of life and how to live. And no, not everyone's opinion is wrong. Some opinions are better than others, and sometimes my opinion is wrong. But when it comes to the meaning of life and how to live, I'm not wrong. I'm right. See for yourself that it is possible for someone to have a CORRECT opinion about philosophy. Granted, you have to be very intelligent to discover the meaning of life, but it is possible. In fact, it's inevitable. So you people are just skeptical of my claim, and you have every right to be. I am a freak, I know. But my book speaks for itself. www.moshiak.com
- DryIce808
  March 31, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  I don't believe that you or Jesus are messiahs. So you feel better, I will let you know that you and Jesus are equally unimportant.
rob7
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply

I scanned your manifesto(part3) to get a quick snapshot of your philosophy.From this quick scan I've decided to not waste my time and read your other writings.You obviously don't understand world affairs and have proven incapable of leading your own life let alone leading others as a messiah.The Mulsim terrorists are NOT driven by envy towards western civs.They have a completely different value system.They shun western values and do not want the technology based lifestyles we live.They prefer a simpler religeous/agricultural lifestyle and see western lifestyles as a threat to their system.Osama BinLaden was a multi-millionare playboy in his youth but turned his back on the wealthy lifestyle,presumably because he found the western materialistic values somewhat lacking.Thats why in Afghanistan the Taliban gov. banned t.v.,radios,computers,etc.You are completely uninformed and should educate yourself about basic understandings in world affairs before you attempt to call yourself a messiah.A true messiah should be one of the intelligent people you spoke of.Clearly your not one of those.
cosmosis
March 31, 2006
Edit | Reply

dude...what the hell is with this statement from your website: "Because the average Jewish man is slightly more intelligent than the average Aryan man, the average Jewish man is slightly wealthier than the average Aryan man." i'm afraid to tell you this but that is a stereotype and that means that that is not true... there is nothing about jewish people that make them smarter than anybody else in the world. also, judiasm is a RELIGION, not an ethnicity. there are german jews, russian jews, israeli jews, etc. all of these people are from different races so are all these races superior to aryans? if i convert to judiasm will i suddenly gain 20 points on my IQ? there is no study that shows that certain races (not religions) are naturally more intelligent than others. the fact that you would even say something like that shows that you are no messiah.
Moshiak
April 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

rob7 ... thank you for looking at the Manifesto. However, you didn't read it. You scanned it. Therefore you don't understand it, and therefore you can't judge it. If you were to read it, you would come to the same conclusion that I did. I address your "culture clash" concern in the Manifesto. The Arabs argue that they fight the infidels, but that's a scapegoat for envy. The Arabs do not desire Western civilization because they are suicidal due to their ignorance of the meaning of life. They don't really want to be poor. Nobody really wants to be poor. The term "simple life" doesn't make sense unless you mean "poor life," and nobody wants a poor life. The Arabs are poor because they are ignorant, they do desire wealth, and they do seek to be helped. But not by riches. By a better philosophy. To just throw wealth at the Arabs would not be desired because that just makes them worse off. What they really want to coerce from the West is the messiah: the priceless commodity of the right philosophy. Perhaps I should make this point clearer in the Manifesto, but that is the root of terrorism. Osama bin Laden wants to coerce a messiah out of the West. So my argument is correct.
- Oral Fixation
  December 19, 2006
  Edit | Reply
  
  rob7 was not really judging.
  You're being extremely unfair. You are not the messiah, and if you were, may I be struck down by the power of you, Mr. Almighty, because what you are saying to these people and all of us on allphilosophy is EXTREMELY RUDE, and if you're so holy and hot, why don't you put the whole world in an Ice Age by tomorrow, because your father created the whole world in a week!?
  
  AGHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!
  
  *silence*
  Holy eff, I feel better.
Moshiak
April 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

Cosmosis, I recommend that you read The State of the Mind 3-28-06.
rob7
April 1, 2006
Edit | Reply

Moshiak: "The Arabs do not desire Western civilization because they are suicidal due to their ignorance of the meaning of life." The Arabs are not suicidal due to their ignorance of the meaning of life.They are defending THEIR definition of the meaning of life.There is no way to measure a right and wrong way of living.Survival is the only true measure.The universe doesn't care whether humans survive by modern industrial methods or primative hunter/gatherer methods.The way you choose to make a living on this planet is of no concern to anyone.If you want to have fancy toys and mind numbing entertainment 24/7 then by all means have at it.If on the other hand you do not value these things,and there is no law of the universe that says you should, and you prefer a simpler subsistance lifestyle then that is equally ok. If you really look at a bigger picture you'ld come to the conclusion that the Arab lifestyle,if practiced by everyone,would be a far superior garrantor of human survivability because there would be no degradation of the envirenment(the hole in the ozone layer,nuclear pollutants,and who knows whats coming with genetic manipulation of different lifeforms) and no threats of nuclear warfare. It looks to me like fear of western civ. rather than envy.And when your threatened you defend yourself. Moshiak: "Nobody really wants to be poor. The term “simple life” doesn’t make sense unless you mean “poor life,” and nobody wants a poor life. The Arabs are poor because they are ignorant, they do desire wealth, and they do seek to be helped. But not by riches. By a better philosophy. To just throw wealth at the Arabs would not be desired because that just makes them worse off. What they really want to coerce from the West is the messiah: the priceless commodity of the right philosophy. Perhaps I should make this point clearer in the Manifesto, but that is the root of terrorism. Osama bin Laden wants to coerce a messiah out of the West. So my argument is correct." I'm pretty confident that you have no idea what Osama Binladen wants.Have you spoken to him personally?If you have then the CIA would like to talk to you.

There are 11 choices, 16 votes for Moshiak's debate

This is not a question; this is a statement.

Adding your comment:

wtf BS is this?

Moshiak

Adding your reply:

Adding your comment:

Adding your reply:

Adding your comment:

Adding your reply:

Adding your comment:

Moshiak

HHhuummmm

the philosophy = Fiction

Overall

Scientology.

Adding your reply:

Adding your comment:

just visited the site.

Adding your reply:

Adding your comment:

rob7 was not really judging.