Turtle Posted January 29, 2005 Report Posted January 29, 2005 Made ya look! Was that moral? Was that good? Was that clever? Was that impudent? Was that made possible only because of the web? Was that something Bhuda would laugh at? Was that something Jesus would condemn? Was that authorized? Was that logical? ... Well? Was it? :) Quote
motherengine Posted January 29, 2005 Report Posted January 29, 2005 1- amoral, as in not falling in the realm of morality. 2- for me? hard to say. 3- in my opinion, not particularly clever no. 4- no. 5- yes and no. couldn't have been done as it was without the 'web' but other things were required as well. 6- no way of telling as he is now part of the great nothing. 7- i doubt it, but again this is impossible to know. 8- i am not qualified to say. 9- in that it required a certain base logic to be applied, sure. hope i have been helpful. sanctus 1 Quote
OpenMind5 Posted January 31, 2005 Report Posted January 31, 2005 Hmmm, interesting questions....but what about if i showed u what you made me look for. What then? Quote
Queso Posted February 2, 2005 Report Posted February 2, 2005 curiosity.did it really kill the cat?impossible.the curiosity may have led the cat to it's death, though curiosity itself can not kill.if it could, you could have killed me turtle?! :hyper: Quote
UncleAl Posted April 29, 2005 Report Posted April 29, 2005 http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/horse.htm Quote
Dark Mind Posted April 29, 2005 Report Posted April 29, 2005 I don't see what that link had to do with this thread. Quote
BEAKER Posted April 29, 2005 Report Posted April 29, 2005 Was that something Bhuda would laugh at? Was that something Jesus would condemn?:Alien:Why such a diametrically opposed reaction from the two?:) Quote
Dark Mind Posted April 29, 2005 Report Posted April 29, 2005 Christianity is classically more... strict, than most religions and may have found lying about the occurrence a sin in and of itself. And Buddha was a believer in basically not caring about a thing in the world (That's ehat enlightenment is, right? Bliss... Nothing on your mind... Zero thinking... Impossible.) and would have found such a claim to be humorous, possibly. Bottom line: Buddha is stereotypically more laid back than Christ and Turtle alludes to this stereotype with that question. Quote
BEAKER Posted April 29, 2005 Report Posted April 29, 2005 I guess that's why he's so fat.:circle: Quote
bumab Posted April 29, 2005 Report Posted April 29, 2005 True, but a dead cow flying backwards is pretty funny. I think they'd both dig it. Quote
Turtle Posted May 5, 2005 Author Report Posted May 5, 2005 ___DarkMind said, " Buddha is stereotypically more laid back than Christ and Turtle alludes to this stereotype with that question."___I agree it was a stereotype inasmuch as the juxtaposition of the two came to mind without deep thought. On reflection however, some stereotypes have a basis in fact. The title of this thread in no small way plays on a justifiable stereotype of a non-flying cow & further on a sterotype (not fully acurate visa vi hummingbird) of non-backward flying.___At the present moment, I have no recall of reports of either Jesus or Bhuda laughing. Quote
Dark Mind Posted May 6, 2005 Report Posted May 6, 2005 Buddha must've laughed all the time to be as content as he was in life though. Jesus strikes me as being serious and deliberate in behavior though. Learn to laugh a little!!! :( Turtle 1 Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.