Thread: what religion was believed before orthodox christianism?

Chinitial, it was nice chatting with you about language learning strategies, but the above post was so disjointed and incoherent that even I gave up trying to make sense of it.

It ain't easy to read in front of the desktop. It's not like reading a book , the eyes get tired after 20 minutes. In a book we have plenty time to re-read and pause and digest, that's why is tough to read too much in whatever issue in the internet. In forums like this , usually the messages are short and almost monosylabic. I have to write my whole ideas and not ocuppying too much space, in the condensation you can easily be confused. It's internet problem. I will make it easier for the readers:
1)Russian demons and gods are part of colective memory and are not mere symbols or archetypes but hyperdimensional realities, sometimes visible under specific circumstances.
2)The depiction of those entities in temples were done in secret sacred dark chambers not allowing the light entrance. This was done to enhance melatonine and the effect was even more acute with hallucinogenic stuff, incense , etc.
3) It's wrong to believe only what we see cos our vision is even less sharp than animals in many cases and they sense many things invisible to our eyes. With hallucinogenic substances the mind really acts like a key-lock symbiosis allowing you to see these realities maybe dwelling in hyperdimension. The myths explain these entities have been trapped in vales of the world,deserts, etc. Other methods like auto-hypnosis and Mind Silva Control or some yoga asanas help you openyour mind to what we don't usually see.
4) In some places and circumstances these entities have been witnessed even without these substances and by people who are not schizophrenic.
5) Science of superstring physics have been saying it's mathematical fact the existence of hyperdimensions and if that's the case in our holographic universe, the entities allowed us to see them like projections, so scientists explain these "paranormal" appearences (including these cherubs with 4 faces in a single head) are part of hyperdimensional cosmos.
6) There are no devices or machines that can prove the reality of dreaming experience or visions, etc. So is na

Don't worry, y'all. I actually read most of his post in this thread, and they make about as much sense as his signature. You're not missing much if you skip them.

I don't know what you're smoking, chinitial, but I want some.

Originally Posted by scotcher

I don't know what you're smoking, chinitial, but I want some.

Well, if we are gonna judge Линдзи comments so far, it's obviously he can't read nor write so his judgment must be analyzed in the same terms. By the way something to add to the Russian religion or comparitive religions? No? Ahhh, it figures!
BTW: I try mushrooms, you better too guys, better than the artificial excrement they sell in discos and pubs.

Ten bucks that chinitial doesn't actually know jack sh*t about superstring theory and he's just quoting something he read on a paranormal site.

You already bet, now would you like to open a thread about this? I challenge you and I tell you I won't use links you don't like . It seems you're mad at me cos I said your linguistic offense has no legitime fundament in the theme about race. Something to add in this thread except your irony? Nop! Ahh, no news!

Originally Posted by chinitial

Well, if we are gonna judge Линдзи comments so far, it's obviously he can't read nor write so his judgment must be analyzed in the same terms. By the way something to add to the Russian religion or comparitive religions? No? Ahhh, it figures!
BTW: I try mushrooms, you better too guys, better than the artificial excrement they sell in discos and pubs.

Well chinitial, if you would be less verbose than you are, you probably will have more time to read comments of other people. To figure out, for example, that Линдзи isn't he but she...

What's a point to post something on topic where you do all the talking?

That's why I stopped writing but instead of reading comments on WHY the people agree or disagree we have to read your message about me. Don't flatter me, say something about the issue or withdraw.

My point is that cranks like you "support" their claims with superstring theory and so on, yet they know nothing about it. If you would like to explain superstring theory to us(and no laymen's overviews you can pull from sites and twist into your own words, show us that you actually know something about the math involved) you are welcome.

First of all, I'm noticing certain rude attitude in your messages and in the thread about races I explain to you clearly there was no reason for feeling insulted. Now your attitude is not of someone wanting to discuss the item we're dealing here, you wanna make a personal Italian vendetta and I can me rude too but I 'll rather not.
Now, I'm not a mathematician yet I know the principles of superstring theory, so I will encourage to do 3 things if I'm allowed to say, Mr. Gentleman:
1) Try to add something related to the topic instead of addresing to me.
2) If you disagree with some information I provided, SPECIFY this time WHAT you disagree and WHY rather than making a general statement saying "cranks" like me. That's hostile attitude for nothing and gives the general idea you're well versed indeed but since is general attack we can't say why you disagree so is useless unless you have some basis to reject something.
3) Therefore I ask you what exactly you think was wrong in my comment to deserve that word "crank". If you don't say is because it was only liver substance going towards your brain. I hope you have something more sustancial.
4) If you wanna open a thread about the superstring theory I already challenged you, so please open the thread and start talking what you think you know about the issue otherwise shut up with the "bravata".

1) I already agreed that the word has no instrinsic offensive meaning, but that wasn't my point. I have a perfectly legitimate reason to feel offended at the word "chinaman", because it has been used against me and others in offensive ways.
2) I do not know very much about superstring theory. But you know what? It's OK, because I'm not trying to prove anything with it. But you are, so you should back up your claims.
3)I called you a "crank" because you exhibit all of the signs of a crank - long, incoherent posts that invariably have to do with either paranormal phenomena or racial theories, filled with links to various websites and using science you don't understand to support your claims. Do a search for the user "Eagle", and you will see exactly what I mean. But wait! You should not care whether or not I call you a crank, because according to your flawed logic, the word "crank" has a completely innocent origin and no instrinsic offensive meaning!
4)Why don't you write anything related to the topic? You took a thread about blacks in Russia and turned it into a "If blacks are stronger, why don't they dominate the world" thread. You took a thread about "What did Russians believe in before Orthodox Christianity" and turned it into a thread where you try to spout all of your crank ideas. In fact, it would seem that you are on this forum only to write long articles about paranormal phenomena and race theories rather than actually learn Russian. It's no surprise to me that not one of your 40+ posts here in the span of two days had anything to do with learning Russian.
5) You still haven't answered my question.

Chinitial, you seem to think that people who have emotional intelligence are stupid. Besides, what if someone isn't intelligent? How does that qualify as a reason to attack them. My dog doesn't understand what the hell I'm doing at this computer right now. But I don't feel the urge to stop typing and berate her for having a dopey look on her face.
Did you ever consider that the reason no-one reads your posts through carefully and slowly, si because all it takes is a glance to see that your verbose is greater than your substance. I started reading Mein Kempf, because everyone kept saying Hitler was an evil genious (which is a contradiction in terms in the first place). It took me two page (at most) to realize the book was empty. It's (here's a word you'll appreciate) illogical to read somehing which bores the hell out of you. Calling your reading 'challenging' is a manipulative way of saying it's 'abusive' and 'arrogant'. It doesn't have to be this way. You've got ideas. Share them, instead of forcing them down our throats. If you write the same ideas with an absence or dispisement of your reader, it will become interesting.

I really don't care if all people read or not, Brett. Let's pay attention to Pravit's emotional attitude. I already said I'm not gonna keep on using the word if he feels insulted, I was explaining it is not a matter of the word but the intention what is offensive. Yet although I have stopped he keeps on insisting and demands a satisfaction about a question I even forgot about...oh yes, it was about why I use old references....I already explained and I won't do again. The fact I mention some points sometimes need to be checked a little bit mainly cos people always think like he does " so you should back up your claims. " Yet people are never satisfied. Can you imagine the size of my posts if I'm gonna be backing up everyone of my claims? That's why I use some links sometimes and it doesn't mean I agree with 100% of everything said but I do agree in the context that I'm explaining. And I don't use all the time a "esoteric" site, I have mentioned many that don't belong in that category and in fact it doesn't matter that. What it matters is the person can still write down and analize the evidence -whatever it is- and even write to the people who have written or check in other books. If we are gonna reject everything new, well we can be suspicious even with official fields of science using the same scientific facts.
So, when people just wanna contradict for everything because he is skeptic he must explain what he didn't think was right and why. Then after I will back up what he wants. How the heck am I gonna know if the guy makes a general statement indicating or suggesting everything you wrote is 100% nonsense? Then, what are you suppose to do? Back up with a whole lotta information that you didn't even want to read first time cos you considered it too much already?
My posts are not for the mob or the imbecil pet. I came here to find Russian people or other people who can discuss about things. Yet, in a theme like "general discussion" and the other about "culture" I see God-knows-how-many-pages all about how to learn Russian and in repetetive manner also! Don't worry, I have read too many good forums where I have found people disagreeing -in cultural level- as abundantly as I do. That's a challenge. Not this! Writing with Taty?

Originally Posted by chinitial

The fact I mention some points sometimes need to be checked a little bit mainly cos people always think like he does " so you should back up your claims. " Yet people are never satisfied. Can you imagine the size of my posts if I'm gonna be backing up everyone of my claims?

This defence is fine, if you don't contradict youreslf. You incesantly demanded that I prove my arguments, as if I'm supposed to value laboratory experiments as better judge of nature, than value nature itself as a judge of nature. Check it out. Read your two posts with the Clint Eastwood references on the "Race" thread.

If we are gonna reject everything new, well we can be suspicious even with official fields of science using the same scientific facts

Again, this argument would be fine if you didn't contradict it yourself. I offered original ideas that were born from my own observation and wonderment, without any assistance from already established theories, yet you dismissed them purely on the basis that they weren't proven, according to a laboratory definition off the concept proof. My ideas were entirely plausible and based in physical and environmental occurances and correlations. (Occurance and correlation is what artificial science uses to devise its theories and claims to factuality, also. So it is no different in principle). But, you allowed your formal approach to nature and evolution get in the way of seeing the wisdom behind what I was saying. I'm not suggesting you neglect artificial science, but am suggesting that you realize that the body itself and its connection to the world, not be dismissed as secondary intelligence.

And in regards to your posts not being best provided for in this forum's format; successful communication requires flexibility. Fine, you're not used to this format, nor these/us type of people. But rather than blame the misunderstandings soley on the reader, you could instead be furthering your writing skills by sussing out the forum context. Even the greatest ideas in the world aren't going to hit home with a listener or reader if it is out of context. Perhaps you need to learn the medium. That way, you can not only be good at getting the point across in formal settings, but also in casual settings. The length of your articles, and their intellectual demeanor, are very appropriate in a specialist magazine. But, not so much on a casual exchange such as this.
Being right in itself isn't the whole truth, ironically. Tact and understanding of the readers is an equal part of that whole truth.

*As for TATY , he's very tongue in cheek. Even we've had an all-in rumble with him. (Haven't we, TATY? )

Brett: very well written, I appreciate your effort to make me see your point of view in proper manner. I tried to say we need to step on eggs whether we use science or esoterism or common sense or whatever. Perhaps what you wrote about squinting (which was an example after all) is same evolutionist argument I have read until being exhausted that we can apply to , let's say the lenght of the neck of giraffe or the gigantism of dinosaurs and so on. Perhaps if we open a thread about evolution I will make myself clearer.

Chinitial, you did not explain my question, dear friend, nope, you dodged it. There was a point back then where you said something like "And now I'm going to stop answering questions and ask them."

I agree that many of the posts in General Discussion are repetitive, but they are on-topic - this forum has to do with learning Russian. It is not a place for you to spout your crank ideas just because it is labeled "General Discussion." I mean, an off-topic post every now and then is fine. But you seem to be here for the purpose of making off-topic posts. You have, as of now, not made a single post related to the topic of this forum.

Originally Posted by brett

Originally Posted by chinitial

*As for TATY , he's very tongue in cheek. Even we've had an all-in rumble with him. (Haven't we, TATY? )

Yes, I've never felt so dirty.

Pravit: you have serious mind impeachment! The topic here is not language but GENERAL discussion and if you go to the first part you will see there are many places where you can write about Russian language, here is not only language in general. Allow me -since you're not the owner of the forum- to write what I think I can write. You're not pushed to read me. Why do you give so much attention? Just ignore me as I pretend to do if you insist in this unreasonable behavior! Who do you think you are to say what I should or shouldn't write?