--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Hugo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Irmeli Mattsson" > > <Irmeli.Mattsson@> wrote: > > > > > > When a politician tells lies and manages to foul up people's > > > judgment and gets elected as president, maybe nature wanted > > > him to do bad things to test you. You trusted this candidate, > > > because he had influential supporters, who affirmed you him > > > to be very trustworthy and basically faultless.You voted for > > > him, and now you are responsible for the consequences? > > > This is what I understand you to be explaining here. > > > > Yes, that's one possible scenario, if a rather simplistic > > one. But that's the basic idea. > > > > The larger point is simply that it's impossible to know > > what nature "wants" and why. The consequences and the > > "reasons" may be impossibly complex, or might not even > > resemble any sort of reasoning humans can grasp, let > > alone fitting the human notion of "perfection." > > I think the problem here is why people in the TMO > (I've not heard it anywhere else)think "nature" actually > *wants* anything.
It's shorthand, Hugo, not meant literally (that's why the scare quotes, don'cha know). > What is meant by nature in this context? MMY meant > Will of God when he said natural law. I'm a long > way from being convinced that nature needs any > sort God. Perhaps the reasons you may think are > complex and beyond our grasp are simply appearing > like this because they don't actually exist. Certainly possible. (I've been explaining a premise, BTW, not taking a stand on whether it's true. I have no way of knowing.)
