If I had a microscope bigger enough I watch the sex of dust and ...I can even see sex organs.
Hee-hee! Dust porn. :)
Sorry, Roy. I couldn't resist.
Anyway, not to hijack the thread, but as long as we're on the topic: I never knew there was so much sex (and violence) in the bible until I started reading it.
This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions are available. (December 2007)
A poem written by Rose Milligan of Lancaster, Lancashire, England. The poem was first published in the September 15th - 21st edition of The Lady (magazine) in 1998.
The poem is quoted on many web sites, as either an inspirational poem, or in order to reflect the ethos of that site. It is usually attributed to either "Unknown" or "Anon".
[edit]External links
Amongst others, the poem is quoted on the following sites:
[1] [2] [3]
This article related to a poem is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.
Dust if you must, but wouldn't it be better To paint a picture, or write a letter, Bake a cake, or plant a seed; Ponder the difference between want and need?
Dust if you must, but there's not much time, With rivers to swim, and mountains to climb; Music to hear, and books to read; Friends to cherish, and life to lead.
Dust if you must, but the world's out there With the sun in your eyes, and the wind in your hair; A flutter of snow, a shower of rain, This day will not come around again.
Dust if you must, but bear in mind, Old age will come and it's not kind. And when you go (and go you must) You, yourself, will make more dust.
Remember, a house becomes a home when you can write "I love you" on the furniture.
Okay, as much fun as this has been, unless some sort of topic of discussion is put up, I'm going to have to put this thread in the same place as your other threads, Roy.
On the other hand, despite, I would say, deeply allegorical language Roy uses, I, as a Chemist could not fail to notice close parallel between what Roy is saying and Alchemical concepts of the past. He says "sex", Rosenkrutz says "chemical marriage" we say "chemical attraction", the sense remains the same. Most certainly this would be a desperate try if someone undertakes finding genitals in particles of "dust", but one can easily find there some uncoupled electrons which play a similar role, at least they provide for the binding of the particles together. "Dust" is also legal as a term, given that meditation on the sizes of dust particles brought Aristotle to the idea that the smallest of them cannot be divided any finer, so he called these smallest pieces "indivisible" or "atoms" in Greek.
To me Roy meditates not on the dust as such or its sex, but on the problem of Conservation - can dust reproduce and thus create more Matter or not. We know 100% that in a closed system it cannot - but we reserve the possibility for the universe as a system to be not closed but open, so the answer would be "who knows?". In my view this OP is not simple or simplistic, it is just written in a simple non-scientific form.
Disclaimer: All expressed above is my personal opinion, it is always based on some input I previously received. It of course can be somehow biased. You are welcome to agree or disagree with it. In the latter case I would expect from you a substantiated alternative point of view, to be compared with the one I express.
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#47 S♥ ♥ ♥
♥ and peace
Group:Member
Posts:17,649
Joined:13-June 05
Gender:Female
Location:♥ sunny in the 8o's in california ♥
♥ let it go.....♥
Posted Today, 01:50 AM
marabod, on 14 February 2010 - 11:40 PM, said:
On the other hand, despite, I would say, deeply allegorical language Roy uses, I, as a Chemist could not fail to notice close parallel between what Roy is saying and Alchemical concepts of the past. He says "sex", Rosenkrutz says "chemical marriage" we say "chemical attraction", the sense remains the same. Most certainly this would be a desperate try if someone undertakes finding genitals in particles of "dust", but one can easily find there some uncoupled electrons which play a similar role, at least they provide for the binding of the particles together. "Dust" is also legal as a term, given that meditation on the sizes of dust particles brought Aristotle to the idea that the smallest of them cannot be divided any finer, so he called these smallest pieces "indivisible" or "atoms" in Greek.
To me Roy meditates not on the dust as such or its sex, but on the problem of Conservation - can dust reproduce and thus create more Matter or not. We know 100% that in a closed system it cannot - but we reserve the possibility for the universe as a system to be not closed but open, so the answer would be "who knows?". In my view this OP is not simple or simplistic, it is just written in a simple non-scientific form.
Wow!!!! now that you mention it I do think this is what Roy was getting at..
great post Ant... very interesting...
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#48 cluey
Paranormal Investigator
Group:Member
Posts:824
Joined:17-September 08
Gender:Female
Location:in your head!,lol.....but seriously! ..Aussie land.......
BLACK ADDER!!!.."let's get them when and where they are most vulnerable"...*WHACK*....."just my luck to get the one that was hard".... :D
Posted Today, 01:55 AM
Roy Perry, on 14 February 2010 - 05:14 PM, said:
God first
Sex!
02-14-2010
How many bits of dust would take to make a big ball to blow up by hitting another ball of dust? Where did the first grain of dust come from? I would think there has to be male grain of dust and a female grain of dust.
And dust had sex but I do have to tell you about sex because makes babies and more sex comes more grain of dust. Because that the way everything works every thing know to men has to multiply itself.
One and one make three that just the way things work grains of dust make more of every kind dust of air oxygen dust or even gas form dust. Everything known to men is make of some kind of dust and that a lot of dust.
How must dust did it take to form the earth with it many forms of dust all having sex before they come here? Because we know the earth is getting bigger every minute of time alone with Sun and the stars.
If I had a microscope bigger enough I watch the sex of dust and prove it once and for all time but I can even see sex organs. Have I made you read this at least with love and a holy kiss Roy?
good one Roy!!!...you are right on track.........this is how it all started......i was talking to ST about this the other day on the phone......very interesting indeed.......although one has to wonder if it is really like male/female dust particles....or are they really both...and can manipulate and procreate as such on their own??????.....or should i word it....that they can adjust and when the particles come together...they automaticly become one or the other???
This post has been edited by cluey: Today, 01:58 AM
Believes all people have to admit to some level of neurosis!!!
will never let my mother cut my hair again!!!!
The feet you step on today!....might be attached to the legs of the foot you have to kiss tomorrow!!!!
it is hard to sore high with the eagles when you are surrounded by turkeys!!!!
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#49 aquatus1
Forum Divinity
Group:Forum Mod. Team
Posts:12,123
Joined:04-March 04
Posted Today, 05:24 AM
marabod, on 15 February 2010 - 07:40 AM, said:
On the other hand, despite, I would say, deeply allegorical language Roy uses, I, as a Chemist could not fail to notice close parallel between what Roy is saying and Alchemical concepts of the past. He says "sex", Rosenkrutz says "chemical marriage" we say "chemical attraction", the sense remains the same. Most certainly this would be a desperate try if someone undertakes finding genitals in particles of "dust", but one can easily find there some uncoupled electrons which play a similar role, at least they provide for the binding of the particles together. "Dust" is also legal as a term, given that meditation on the sizes of dust particles brought Aristotle to the idea that the smallest of them cannot be divided any finer, so he called these smallest pieces "indivisible" or "atoms" in Greek.
To me Roy meditates not on the dust as such or its sex, but on the problem of Conservation - can dust reproduce and thus create more Matter or not. We know 100% that in a closed system it cannot - but we reserve the possibility for the universe as a system to be not closed but open, so the answer would be "who knows?". In my view this OP is not simple or simplistic, it is just written in a simple non-scientific form.
Interesting...interesting...So, while at first glance, there are obvious differences between sex and chemical attraction between matter, you are saying that there is actually a theory or at least a belief that dust can reproduce (sexually or otherwise) to create more matter? I admit I've never heard of this.
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#50 Stellar
Forum Divinity
Group:Member
Posts:11,773
Joined:27-April 04
Gender:Male
The objective of war is not to die for your country. It's to make the other son of a b**** die for his!
-Patton
Posted Today, 07:32 AM
Quote
Stellar - how do you know they do not?
It would violate the law of conservation of energy first of all... Second of all, an organ is some built of multiple cells, all working together for a common purpose. An organelle is something built of multiple atoms, all working together for a common purpose. An atom can have none of these mentionned structures by definition, since it is a single atom and not a group of atoms forming an organelle, let alone an organ.
Furthermore, In all the atom smashing we as a species have done, never have we seen any sort of "organs" fly out... furthermore, where would they obtain the spare protons, neutrons and electrons to "create" their offspring?
"I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent."
----Seraphina
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#51 marabod
Omnipotent Entity
Group:Member
Posts:8,878
Joined:12-July 08
Gender:Male
Location:NZ
Posted Today, 11:43 AM
aquatus1, on 15 February 2010 - 11:24 PM, said:
Interesting...interesting...So, while at first glance, there are obvious differences between sex and chemical attraction between matter, you are saying that there is actually a theory or at least a belief that dust can reproduce (sexually or otherwise) to create more matter? I admit I've never heard of this.
Not exactly "reproduce" but rather evolve and make more complex things of itself than just initial dust. From ashes we came! Ashes in Chemical terms are combinations of "dust" with Oxygen, Oxides - or sometimes even carbonates (Soda Ash). We distinguish electropositive and electronegative elements, they can be seen as different genders and they are "attracted" to each other. This spontaneous "marriage" made all around us and us ourselves. "Genders" depend on the number of the electrons at the outer layers - if it is less than 4 it would be metals, if it is from 4 to 8 it would be non-metals. The sexual acts happens when non-metals repossess those electrons of the metals, and these electrons become common household for both atoms and form the attraction bonds. If such bond is not hold firmly between the two, then a sort of "adultery" may happen and another atoms get involved, making a "polygamic" family or even a commune. There are even bisexuals - those which have exactly 4 electrons (or rather 3 to 5), they are "ambisexual" and are attracted to both genders, say Carbon or Silicon. These can form Life.
Disclaimer: All expressed above is my personal opinion, it is always based on some input I previously received. It of course can be somehow biased. You are welcome to agree or disagree with it. In the latter case I would expect from you a substantiated alternative point of view, to be compared with the one I express.
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#52 aquatus1
Forum Divinity
Group:Forum Mod. Team
Posts:12,123
Joined:04-March 04
Posted Today, 01:49 PM
Physics made naughty.
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#53 marabod
Omnipotent Entity
Group:Member
Posts:8,878
Joined:12-July 08
Gender:Male
Location:NZ
Posted Today, 02:01 PM
aquatus1, on 16 February 2010 - 07:49 AM, said:
Physics made naughty.
No, it just shows that the forces of attraction ("love") and repelling ("hatred") in this Universe work universally on all levels possible. If "love" alone was existing, all Matter in the Universe would be attracted to each other in one large chunk of Something and finally form a Black Hole, but "hatred" prevents it happening. Philosophically it means that spreading love without hatred is no less hurtful than spreading hatred without love. Physics has a law that every action causes equal and opposite reaction - means on a spiritual level if some religion tries to spread love, the reaction to this is hatred. Exempli gratia - the life of Jesus himself, his love propaganda caused hatred which crucified him.
Disclaimer: All expressed above is my personal opinion, it is always based on some input I previously received. It of course can be somehow biased. You are welcome to agree or disagree with it. In the latter case I would expect from you a substantiated alternative point of view, to be compared with the one I express.
Top
Report
MultiQuote
Reply
#54 The Silver Thong
Forum Divinity
Group:Member
Posts:17,425
Joined:02-December 04
Gender:Male
Location:Calgary Alberta Canada
Posted Today, 02:20 PM
marabod, on 15 February 2010 - 01:01 PM, said:
No, it just shows that the forces of attraction ("love") and repelling ("hatred") in this Universe work universally on all levels possible. If "love" alone was existing, all Matter in the Universe would be attracted to each other in one large chunk of Something and finally form a Black Hole, but "hatred" prevents it happening. Philosophically it means that spreading love without hatred is no less hurtful than spreading hatred without love. Physics has a law that every action causes equal and opposite reaction - means on a spiritual level if some religion tries to spread love, the reaction to this is hatred. Exempli gratia - the life of Jesus himself, his love propaganda caused hatred which crucified him.
Love and hate can not be put on a scale and weighed equally. Both encompass each other as with out one there would not be the other. I would have to say some love has hate and some hate has love. It's a tough scale to evaluate. Physics has laws, emotions have none.
Recommended Posts
soul searcher
Hee-hee! Dust porn. :)
Sorry, Roy. I couldn't resist.
Anyway, not to hijack the thread, but as long as we're on the topic: I never knew there was so much sex (and violence) in the bible until I started reading it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks soul searcher
yes there a lot of sex in the bible but sex is a big part us
you have blessed me
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
year2027
God first
thanks everybody
litter from the Atheism i go to
with love and a holy kiss Roy
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.