DETRITUS

What's the title of that song on *perpetual defiance* album, the anti-feminist one? Love that song!
Nice to hear they're back. When I was Christian metalhead and had that album I always thought if them as the evangelical Christian version of Testament in their sound.

Contrarian Deist wrote:What's the title of that song on *perpetual defiance* album, the anti-feminist one? Love that song!
Nice to hear they're back. When I was Christian metalhead and had that album I always thought if them as the evangelical Christian version of Testament in their sound.

Check out a band called Xentrix. Fellow Brit thrashers. Detritus sound similar to them in my opinion. Especially on "Perpetual". The "anti-feminist" song is called "O.T.T.", an excellent jab at political correctness. And that was in 1990! PC culture is sooo much worse now. They should make a sequel!

UltraMagnus wrote:

Contrarian Deist wrote:What's the title of that song on *perpetual defiance* album, the anti-feminist one? Love that song!
Nice to hear they're back. When I was Christian metalhead and had that album I always thought if them as the evangelical Christian version of Testament in their sound.

Check out a band called Xentrix. Fellow Brit thrashers. Detritus sound similar to them in my opinion. Especially on "Perpetual". The "anti-feminist" song is called "O.T.T.", an excellent jab at political correctness. And that was in 1990! PC culture is sooo much worse now. They should make a sequel!

Thank you. Yeah political correctness and the cult/regime of feminism is out of control these days. That is the only explicitly antifeminism song I can call to mind, which is sad there arent many more such songs.
Yeah since they've come back, Detritus definitely should do a part 2 song about SJW insanity, lol!

Feminism was a good thing and needed when it started, but now it's become a bit of a pose, like just about everything that is political these days.

Dustofyears wrote:Feminism was a good thing and needed when it started, but now it's become a bit of a pose, like just about everything that is political these days.

Feminism was NEVER a good thing. Most people assume(because the feminists have indoctrinated us for decades to believe this lie) that the suffragettes were *feminists*. They weren't. Most suffragettes did not use that gender cult label, most abhorred it as they were only seeking the vote and a few property rights, the very few that did call themselves that were the very same that publicly shamed men that didn't want to or couldn't leave their families to go fight in WW1, they also made fun of male domestic abuse victims,etc.
The reality is that the suffragettes movement was NOT the first wave of *feminism*. The so called 2nd wave in the 60s/70s was the actual first wave of *feminism* by gender cult label, and it was gynocentric and misandric neomarxist Poison from the get go.

The reality is also this. That the suffragettes were not misandric as the feminists were, but they were gynocentric and had a skewed view of history(and feminism has skewed and revised history even moreso)...they assumed men had it so great then and before in history. They ignores that while couldnt vote men were expendable/disposable then and through history. Men were the ones sacrificed by the millions to fight, kill, and die in war by the state while the women got to live. Men had to go down with the ship(see the titanic for example,) and in disasters human made and natural. While male work was valued more(due to it being inherently more harmful and dangerous and deadly to limb and health and to life itself) ..female lives were values more than male lives(and so still today). Men had much more responsibility that required life risking, hence they had more voting or property rights. Did you know that even the suffragettes thought men should be forced into the draft but that women shouldn't?
Fact is that even till relatively short period of time before the suffragette movement neither male nor female serfs had the vote nor much property rights in most of the world fir many centuries, only the upper classes did, the monarchs, the aristocracy, etc..both male and female. Female aristocrats/monarchy and upper class had way more rights than male serfs(or female). You won't hear this facts from even the *first wave* feminists let alone from your common history classes and texts...which have all been revised by radical feminists to misrepresent history and reality.
Fact is through human global history both men and women made consensual social contracts the world over aeons ago. Men would provide women certain things for/to women and women for/to men. In order to do this both genders devised complex mix of equal but different rights and responsibilities, both had their crosses to bare and both gained certain privelages from that, equally but differently. The patriarchy theory that the feminists have fed us for several decades now over simplifies global history to suggest men had all the rights and women had none and that all Male kind basically had willfully oppressed and abused and hated all female kind in all eras of history and all parts of the globe, men and boys...males as a class hated and willfully oppressed, repressed, abused and persecuted and *held down* their mothers, their sisters and female relatives and friends and lovers or wives.
You have to ask yourself, if all thus b.s. were true, why would women a d men both be relatively content with their mix of equal but different responsibilities and privelages...why would all womankind wait thousands of years to create feminism and rise up against male oppression...and why and how if it were true....would malekind so quickly accept the suffragettes movement and even the feminist cult?

Everything you've/we've been taught for the last several decades about the global history of the gender situation and gender war or about gender oppression and privelages has been a bald faced lie...at best a gross misrepresentation of the reality of global human history and of reality, and that *feminism* was EVER neccessary or a good or valid thing, its ALL lies! Historical revisionisms. *feminism* was ALWAYS a poisonous gynocentric and misandric, history revisionist, cult seeking totalitarian rule, it never had had any rational or sound validity or legitimacy period!
The suffragette movement had a couple valid issues, but even it was willfully ignoring certain realities and facts to push gynocentrism and dismissal of legit mens/boys/males issues from the start. And from the start of the label *feminism* during the so called 2nd wave(really the first) feminism was both female supremacist and gynocentric and misandric...not to mention post modernist and neomarxist inclined, it always has been a gender based hate cult with totalitarian designs...and we are now seeing those designs come to fruition. Don't buy the lie that feminism was ever legit, it's always been cancer!

Dustofyears wrote:Feminism was a good thing and needed when it started, but now it's become a bit of a pose, like just about everything that is political these days.

Feminism was NEVER a good thing. Most people assume(because the feminists have indoctrinated us for decades to believe this lie) that the suffragettes were *feminists*. They weren't. Most suffragettes did not use that gender cult label, most abhorred it as they were only seeking the vote and a few property rights, the very few that did call themselves that were the very same that publicly shamed men that didn't want to or couldn't leave their families to go fight in WW1, they also made fun of male domestic abuse victims,etc.
The reality is that the suffragettes movement was NOT the first wave of *feminism*. The so called 2nd wave in the 60s/70s was the actual first wave of *feminism* by gender cult label, and it was gynocentric and misandric neomarxist Poison from the get go.

The reality is also this. That the suffragettes were not misandric as the feminists were, but they were gynocentric and had a skewed view of history(and feminism has skewed and revised history even moreso)...they assumed men had it so great then and before in history. They ignores that while couldnt vote men were expendable/disposable then and through history. Men were the ones sacrificed by the millions to fight, kill, and die in war by the state while the women got to live. Men had to go down with the ship(see the titanic for example,) and in disasters human made and natural. While male work was valued more(due to it being inherently more harmful and dangerous and deadly to limb and health and to life itself) ..female lives were values more than male lives(and so still today). Men had much more responsibility that required life risking, hence they had more voting or property rights. Did you know that even the suffragettes thought men should be forced into the draft but that women shouldn't?
Fact is that even till relatively short period of time before the suffragette movement neither male nor female serfs had the vote nor much property rights in most of the world fir many centuries, only the upper classes did, the monarchs, the aristocracy, etc..both male and female. Female aristocrats/monarchy and upper class had way more rights than male serfs(or female). You won't hear this facts from even the *first wave* feminists let alone from your common history classes and texts...which have all been revised by radical feminists to misrepresent history and reality.
Fact is through human global history both men and women made consensual social contracts the world over aeons ago. Men would provide women certain things for/to women and women for/to men. In order to do this both genders devised complex mix of equal but different rights and responsibilities, both had their crosses to bare and both gained certain privelages from that, equally but differently. The patriarchy theory that the feminists have fed us for several decades now over simplifies global history to suggest men had all the rights and women had none and that all Male kind basically had willfully oppressed and abused and hated all female kind in all eras of history and all parts of the globe, men and boys...males as a class hated and willfully oppressed, repressed, abused and persecuted and *held down* their mothers, their sisters and female relatives and friends and lovers or wives.
You have to ask yourself, if all thus b.s. were true, why would women a d men both be relatively content with their mix of equal but different responsibilities and privelages...why would all womankind wait thousands of years to create feminism and rise up against male oppression...and why and how if it were true....would malekind so quickly accept the suffragettes movement and even the feminist cult?

Everything you've/we've been taught for the last several decades about the global history of the gender situation and gender war or about gender oppression and privelages has been a bald faced lie...at best a gross misrepresentation of the reality of global human history and of reality, and that *feminism* was EVER neccessary or a good or valid thing, its ALL lies! Historical revisionisms. *feminism* was ALWAYS a poisonous gynocentric and misandric, history revisionist, cult seeking totalitarian rule, it never had had any rational or sound validity or legitimacy period!
The suffragette movement had a couple valid issues, but even it was willfully ignoring certain realities and facts to push gynocentrism and dismissal of legit mens/boys/males issues from the start. And from the start of the label *feminism* during the so called 2nd wave(really the first) feminism was both female supremacist and gynocentric and misandric...not to mention post modernist and neomarxist inclined, it always has been a gender based hate cult with totalitarian designs...and we are now seeing those designs come to fruition. Don't buy the lie that feminism was ever legit, it's always been cancer!

Dustofyears wrote:Feminism was a good thing and needed when it started, but now it's become a bit of a pose, like just about everything that is political these days.

Have you ever seen the documentary *the red pill. A feminists journey into the mens rights movement* by actor, activist, award winning documentary film maker, and empath Cassie Jaye? I highly recommend it.
I also reccomend checking out a voice for men.com, the honey badgers(especially Karen Straughan) on youtube, the writings of Dr.Warren Farrell. Etc.
To see the truth about the current and historical realities regarding the genders and the gender war. To see through the feminist matrix and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

Dustofyears wrote:Feminism was a good thing and needed when it started, but now it's become a bit of a pose, like just about everything that is political these days.

Have you ever seen the documentary *the red pill. A feminists journey into the mens rights movement* by actor, activist, award winning documentary film maker, and empath Cassie Jaye? I highly recommend it.
I also reccomend checking out a voice for men.com, the honey badgers(especially Karen Straughan) on youtube, the writings of Dr.Warren Farrell. Etc.
To see the truth about the current and historical realities regarding the genders and the gender war. To see through the feminist matrix and how deep the rabbit hole goes.

I thought we were here to discuss music and not insanely crazy conspiracy theories? Who let this nutcase CD in here anyways? I have worked with History teachers to put together courses on these topics, and none of the things he claims we were "falsely taught" in school were ever actually taught. Number one sign of deceived individual is that they make up a straw-man view of the "other side" and then think they have proven something by tearing it down.

grandeped wrote:I thought we were here to discuss music and not insanely crazy conspiracy theories? Who let this nutcase CD in here anyways? I have worked with History teachers to put together courses on these topics, and none of the things he claims we were "falsely taught" in school were ever actually taught. Number one sign of deceived individual is that they make up a straw-man view of the "other side" and then think they have proven something by tearing it down.

Hey, no offense meant man. My comment regarding feminism are only because the topic of discussion was Detritus, I mentioned I liked them and particularly love that last song on the album, criticizing radical feminism. So someone responded to that comment and mentioned they agreed with me(and that song by Detritus, which, if I'm a *crazy conspiracy theorist* for criticizing feminism then you would have to call the band such as well, the song is on a sociopolitical topic, so in relations to that we're talking about the topic of that song, what is wrong with that?).
If you're going to ad hominem attack me and attack my character for that, you have to do the same to Detritus and to the many of your fellow Christians who agree with my position and Detritus song opinion on the issue.

Calling people *nut cases* and crazy conspiracy theorists is not a rational counter argument to an issue. It is just ad hominem and character assassination. A non argument.
You do realize that this being an evangelical Christian forum means that the majority here believe things about the world that many in the world call but case conspiracy theories right?
They would be wrong and fallacious in just ad hominem attacking your fellow believers(I assume you are a Christian like most here, if I am incorrect-my apology for the assumption) then it would be equally as fallacious and wrong and non argument to put those ad hominem character assassinating labels on me.

The topic here is music, but it is equally about sociopolitical as that Detritus song is a sociopolitical opinion piece.

Anyways to your closing statements/claims in your mostly ad hominem attack nonargument, the last couple sentences making an argument...but providing no evidence for the argument.
The fact is if you cannot or will not see the historical revisionism and clear globalist progressivist indoctrination in academia and in public schools and their texts, which as clear as day, as clear as the evidence of it being endemic and pervasively pushed in Hollywood/entertainment industry, by major corporations, by the establishment politicians, the overt gynocentrism and subtle(sometimes overt)misandry of presenting a half truth(ie, false) presentation of historical realities, of scapegoating of, pathologizing of, gender shaming of, double standards imposed upon, fear mongering against, demonizing....dehumanization process of males...and especially *white males*(the new original sin, the new devil) as a class based soley on gender(and/or race) and the overt patronizingly fetishization of and infantilizing of women/females(and on Orwellian feat of newspeak calling this *empowerment* and *respect*) and the concept that females are somehow more empathetic or in other words morally superior to males...based on class, if you cant see this, then I cant help you. You have to open your eyes and see this matrix of deception for yourself.
You say you have worked to help history teachers put together the courses .then you are either blind and indoctrinated to be blind or are willfully ignoring the evidence.

grandeped wrote:I thought we were here to discuss music and not insanely crazy conspiracy theories? Who let this nutcase CD in here anyways? I have worked with History teachers to put together courses on these topics, and none of the things he claims we were "falsely taught" in school were ever actually taught. Number one sign of deceived individual is that they make up a straw-man view of the "other side" and then think they have proven something by tearing it down.

Hey, no offense meant man. My comment regarding feminism are only because the topic of discussion was Detritus, I mentioned I liked them and particularly love that last song on the album, criticizing radical feminism. So someone responded to that comment and mentioned they agreed with me(and that song by Detritus, which, if I'm a *crazy conspiracy theorist* for criticizing feminism then you would have to call the band such as well, the song is on a sociopolitical topic, so in relations to that we're talking about the topic of that song, what is wrong with that?).
If you're going to ad hominem attack me and attack my character for that, you have to do the same to Detritus and to the many of your fellow Christians who agree with my position and Detritus song opinion on the issue.

Calling people *nut cases* and crazy conspiracy theorists is not a rational counter argument to an issue. It is just ad hominem and character assassination. A non argument.
You do realize that this being an evangelical Christian forum means that the majority here believe things about the world that many in the world call but case conspiracy theories right?
They would be wrong and fallacious in just ad hominem attacking your fellow believers(I assume you are a Christian like most here, if I am incorrect-my apology for the assumption) then it would be equally as fallacious and wrong and non argument to put those ad hominem character assassinating labels on me.

The topic here is music, but it is equally about sociopolitical as that Detritus song is a sociopolitical opinion piece.

Anyways to your closing statements/claims in your mostly ad hominem attack nonargument, the last couple sentences making an argument...but providing no evidence for the argument.
The fact is if you cannot or will not see the historical revisionism and clear globalist progressivist indoctrination in academia and in public schools and their texts, which as clear as day, as clear as the evidence of it being endemic and pervasively pushed in Hollywood/entertainment industry, by major corporations, by the establishment politicians, the overt gynocentrism and subtle(sometimes overt)misandry of presenting a half truth(ie, false) presentation of historical realities, of scapegoating of, pathologizing of, gender shaming of, double standards imposed upon, fear mongering against, demonizing....dehumanization process of males...and especially *white males*(the new original sin, the new devil) as a class based soley on gender(and/or race) and the overt patronizingly fetishization of and infantilizing of women/females(and on Orwellian feat of newspeak calling this *empowerment* and *respect*) and the concept that females are somehow more empathetic or in other words morally superior to males...based on class, if you cant see this, then I cant help you. You have to open your eyes and see this matrix of deception for yourself.
You say you have worked to help history teachers put together the courses .then you are either blind and indoctrinated to be blind or are willfully ignoring the evidence.

grandeped wrote:I thought we were here to discuss music and not insanely crazy conspiracy theories? Who let this nutcase CD in here anyways? I have worked with History teachers to put together courses on these topics, and none of the things he claims we were "falsely taught" in school were ever actually taught. Number one sign of deceived individual is that they make up a straw-man view of the "other side" and then think they have proven something by tearing it down.

Anyways. We can get back on topic to the music.
Just be aware that the reason why we were on the topic of feminism and feminists monopoly/hegemony in regards gender issues and history was not a blind deviation from the topic but directly related to it. We were talking about Detritus, I mentioned that song as I used to like it alot(but haven't heard it in some time and inquired as to the title) ...someone responded and mentioned the title and agrees that modern radical feminism is wrong but stated they believed feminism was originally a valid thing or term/label , so I responded as to why I disagreed and laid out an argument talking about the history of it, its origins and development and its doctrines and laid out the factual history of humanity particularly in regards the global history of gender roles and relations.

That's all. Calm down. No need to get personal with nonargument ad hominem attacks. If you disagree, state your case, lay out your evidences.

Fyi. I'm not speaking our my butt here. I am 42 and in the last 20 years have done alot of research on these issues. I was once a proud feminist myself, I used to believe all the claims made by the movement, I'm well researched in regards all the *waves* and subtypes, I've researched extensively into global human history in regards the genders and the gender wars. I'm not just speaking out of thin air here or out of bigotry and unfounded personal ideological biases.

Sorry if that offends you. Sorry if it takes things a bit off topic which not my intention. But really it isnt that off topic, as it relates directly to the band topic at hand and to a song on the album.

Calm down. If you disagree, that's cool. State why, lay out your reasoned counter arguments and evidences. No reason to fly into a rage in just responding with ad hominem and character assassination off the bat.

grandeped wrote:I thought we were here to discuss music and not insanely crazy conspiracy theories? Who let this nutcase CD in here anyways? I have worked with History teachers to put together courses on these topics, and none of the things he claims we were "falsely taught" in school were ever actually taught. Number one sign of deceived individual is that they make up a straw-man view of the "other side" and then think they have proven something by tearing it down.

Anyways. We can get back on topic to the music.
Just be aware that the reason why we were on the topic of feminism and feminists monopoly/hegemony in regards gender issues and history was not a blind deviation from the topic but directly related to it. We were talking about Detritus, I mentioned that song as I used to like it alot(but haven't heard it in some time and inquired as to the title) ...someone responded and mentioned the title and agrees that modern radical feminism is wrong but stated they believed feminism was originally a valid thing or term/label , so I responded as to why I disagreed and laid out an argument talking about the history of it, its origins and development and its doctrines and laid out the factual history of humanity particularly in regards the global history of gender roles and relations.

That's all. Calm down. No need to get personal with nonargument ad hominem attacks. If you disagree, state your case, lay out your evidences.

Fyi. I'm not speaking our my butt here. I am 42 and in the last 20 years have done alot of research on these issues. I was once a proud feminist myself, I used to believe all the claims made by the movement, I'm well researched in regards all the *waves* and subtypes, I've researched extensively into global human history in regards the genders and the gender wars. I'm not just speaking out of thin air here or out of bigotry and unfounded personal ideological biases.

Sorry if that offends you. Sorry if it takes things a bit off topic which not my intention. But really it isnt that off topic, as it relates directly to the band topic at hand and to a song on the album.

Calm down. If you disagree, that's cool. State why, lay out your reasoned counter arguments and evidences. No reason to fly into a rage in just responding with ad hominem and character assassination off the bat.

Sorry for the double posts on the last few posts. For some reason, my tablet or the site keeps posting twice what I only post once. I'll see if I can figure out what's goin on and fix that.

I can't seem to find a way to delete the double posts guys. Sorry.

I just heard a good joke on the subject we've been debating about(feminism).
It gave me a good laugh, so I thought I'd share it in Hope's of making others here laugh.

Questuon.
How do you confuse a feminist?

*drum roll*

Answer.
Tell her she's not allowed to make you a sandwich

Ka-ching!

Contrarian Deist wrote:I just heard a good joke on the subject we've been debating about(feminism).
It gave me a good laugh, so I thought I'd share it in Hope's of making others here laugh.

Questuon.
How do you confuse a feminist?

*drum roll*

Answer.
Tell her she's not allowed to make you a sandwich

Ka-ching!

Let the tendies hit the floor!

Ian knows what he's talking about.  Experience teaches you about humans, about life, about religion and about the order of things, that is , should you pay close attention.  He is not the same man filled with the same ideals, as he puts it--he has grown and sees things for how and what they really are.  Only open eyes and experience will teach you that.

Dustofyears wrote:Ian knows what he's talking about.  Experience teaches you about humans, about life, about religion and about the order of things, that is , should you pay close attention.  He is not the same man filled with the same ideals, as he puts it--he has grown and sees things for how and what they really are.  Only open eyes and experience will teach you that.

Are you referring to me, *Ian*(as in ContrarIAN)?

If so, thank you for the kind words

From a Christian point of view who believes what Jesus and the Bible say, I'd say open eyes and experience can teach you very little about spiritual things if that's all you have.

Agreed!!

Black Rider wrote:From a Christian point of view who believes what Jesus and the Bible say, I'd say open eyes and experience can teach you very little about spiritual things if that's all you have.

Interesting. That's one way of looking at it(the issue of *spiritual things*). And you're entitled to that viewpoint.
But we weren't really discussing open eyes and experience related to the spiritual anyways, but worldly matters(sociopolitical, philosophical, ethical, etc).
But since you bring it up,
It's interesting because every religion(particularly revealed religions) make those special claims for themselves against every other view(including other revealed religions, and in some cases even against other subsects of the same overall religion).
From my perspective as a Pan-Deist/PanenDeist freethinker, it is my opinion that every religion makes this solipsistic special claim about itself against every other and thus misses the point(of spirituality and the divine/God) completely, making each one blinded by human made religious dogmas while denying others can reach spiritual insights or theological insights outside the box of given specific religion(and/or subsect), this is religion and human made dogmas...not spirituality. It is mythology ...not worship of the God/divine mind/creator that simply IS and can be proven to exist by observation of the creation itself...its nature and laws. Human made religions and their exclusivist claims/dogmas...special pleading for their own and against any and all others doesn't lead to the palace of wisdom or of God, but to needless strife based on egoistic sectarian cosmic solipsistic condemnations of anyband all outside said box, it boxes god in into this or that special pleading anthrpomorphism/centrism and myth worship and worship of humans who created the religion or sect in question and their personal writings in human language which over time gets lost in translation...gets altered and misconstrued via translations missing the original meanings of the writings in their original languages and contexts.
And none of the revealed religions (or religions in general) which make these special claims for their own and against any and all others can seem to prove the case for their special pleadings and their claims of monopoly on spirituality and on God.
From my perspective...this is religion...which is human made, a box, not real spirituality, it is worship of tribal deities/mythologies created by this or that person(S) of this or that tribe or culture, not of the Creator/God/divine mind that exists, but a construction of human mythologies.

But, hey, we're each free to and entitled to our opinions,
Even though I disagree with revealed religionists I would never say a revealed religionist is incapable of attaining understandings and insights spiritually at all, that would be false. There arw people of all religions of every type...as well as nonreligious people of every type who have and can attain spiritual insights, understandings, and wisdom as Individuals.
That is how God has made us.

But anyways, we were only speaking about sociopolitical, ethical, philosophical insights before you brought up the spiritual thing, which I don't mind, I welcome it, I appreciate your thoughts shared, and I love any discussions or debates, related or unrelated to the topic at hand
I believe we can all learn from each other, that is part of the purpose of us existing in this universe and this life together.

"From my perspective as a Pan-Deist/PanenDeist freethinker, it is my opinion that every religion makes this solipsistic special claim about itself against every other and thus misses the point(of spirituality and the divine/God) completely, making each one blinded by human made religious dogmas while denying others can reach spiritual insights or theological insights outside the box of given specific religion(and/or subsect), this is religion and human made dogmas...not spirituality."


Aren't you doing the very thing you're railing against? Being solipsistic or claiming that your view alone is correct?

1620 wrote:"From my perspective as a Pan-Deist/PanenDeist freethinker, it is my opinion that every religion makes this solipsistic special claim about itself against every other and thus misses the point(of spirituality and the divine/God) completely, making each one blinded by human made religious dogmas while denying others can reach spiritual insights or theological insights outside the box of given specific religion(and/or subsect), this is religion and human made dogmas...not spirituality."


Aren't you doing the very thing you're railing against? Being solipsistic or claiming that your view alone is correct?

No, cause it's just my perspective. But there's alot of evidence and logic that backs it.
I could be wrong. Somewhat.
The universe COULD be mono-deistic, it could by pantheistic or panentheistic.
It could actually be any of these or PanDeistic/PanenDeistic but also contain dimensions of realities that back every religion and every one of their theologies(ie. Deistic/pantheistic or PanDeistic/PanenDeistic but with an element of polytheism within the cosmos).
I cannot and do not claim a monopoly on it specifically only in PanDeism or PanenDeisms name(the fact that I show that which one of these two to embrace fully I am not completely sure, shows an degree of uncertainty). This is not about one wayism for only one perspective AGAINST ALL OTHERs ...as evil deceptions from some evil entity.
I am persuaded by the evidence and reason STRONGLY in one of those two directions though.
But I do not claim that people or beings(I include ETs in this) that aren't 100% of my perspective are incapable of attaining spiritual insights/understandings/wisdom(or moral, or certainly not of sociopolitical and historical and intellectual things).
I do not box the Creator in, nor the human spirit.

It would be solipsistic if I said...my way or the highway. If I said my perspective(say I choose specifically PanDeism over the other options I listed as fairly possible and reasonable perspectives and against them all absolutely...and condemned them ALL) is the only true way and that other perspectives are necessarily evil ones, and that only PanDeists such as myself were capable of spiritual insights/understandings/wisdom and/or moral insights/understandings/wisdom(and on top of that intellectual, sociopolitical, ethical understanding)....and all else, everyone else is not.
And furthermore that everyone else of every other perspective was blaspheming and will be punished by my God for it.
That would be solipsistic.
But that's not what I'm doing .

I think my view is the most likely to be correct, based on current evidence and reason/logic, but....of course new evidences could be found in the future that test this, challenge this, perhaps make me alter my perception and view. And again I'm not 100% decided in it view(I am torn between PanDeism and PanenDeism, but I'm also partly of the mind that either of these theologies...or *deologies* could be right but also that there may be an element of polytheistic nature within the matrix of the universe/cosmos...I'm just not convinced there is and so don't feel obliged to believe such...say as a universal theist such as a universalist or a freemason might for example)
But I think several other views(not all other views, but several) hold some water and are plausible.
So I'm not claiming only my view is 100% correct and that nothing could ever change my mind and that every other view is 100% wrong(and moreover *evil*).

I just follow socratic method and reason, follow the evidence trail where it leads. Nothing more or less.

The universe is complicated, God/divine mind is complicated...beyond homosapiens current evolutionary ability to 100% comprehendable with our main senses(even if one includes a 6th sense of the soul or spirit into that equation) , wisdom and understanding of it is not an ends but a journey. We can only understand both cosmos and its divine source in part because it is so vast, complex, wondrous through a glass window darkly, we cannot see it all, only in part.

To 1620.
Black rider suggested in response to dust of years saying I seem to understand and have some years if experience and understanding of the sociopolitical topic we were discussing...Black rider decided to change that subject to spirituality and suggest that because I'm not a Christian that not being Christian means one doesn't or cannot have any or much insight or understanding on *spirituality* even with experience and open eyes, etc, though we were discussing a sociopolitical topic, not a spiritual one.

I never said myself, nor would I say that a Christian(or other Non-Deists) cannot have any spiritual insights or understandings...let alone sociopolitical ones.

That is what prompted my response.