Curtis, the fanaticism of your disbelief is more unyielding to reality--or any ontological contingencies--than the fanaticism of those Evangelical Christians who tried to make you Accept the Lord into you life. I don't quite understand it, but there is a ferocious intransigence there, almost as if you secretly believed in these accounts more than anyone could on FFL.
I am sorry, but you are the guy who if Santa Claus appeared at your fireplace on Christmas night--with his full compliment of reindeer--you would shout him out of your house, and even as you saw him flying away in the sky you would be cursing him (undoubtedly with some very barbed wit). There is a terrible and tragic compulsion in you to simplify this business of what is real, Curtis. You will accuse me of failing to address your question, but the coercive intent of your dogmatic view of the matter of the mystery of Why there is something rather than nothing? just vacuums up all the space that I think should be there were your convictions originating in an innocent experience. This is the problem between us, Curtis: It was an intellectual love fest in the beginning [Robin realizes he has totally lost Curtis at this point in his post: Curtis's FPOT is erupting in disgust]; but gradually it turned to intellectual estrangement of a very high order. I dont want to go down that road again with you, Curtis; but know this: there is an argument to be made for the veracity of the phenomenon described in these accounts and it is dramatically more complex and multi-layered and interesting than your simple and outright--and nonempirical--denial. Let's just be friends, Curtis. We are looking at the universe--and all the beings inside of it--from very different perspectives. Let us leave it at that. The writers, the witnesses, the Saints, in this article they are not fairly represented by an idea that makes of all this the equivalent of someone insisting the earth is really flat, or that my pet unicorn threw up in the sink this morning. You have a reflex about this, Curtis. If in the end it is proven there is a God you will tell him he doesn't exist. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > The veracity or purported veracity of an eyewitness account is of course a > > special field of investigation. But, even were I totally skeptical, I > > would, in going through all what is said in this article, find my > > skepticism significantly challenged. > > Come on Robin, the sources for these outlandish claims are not even given. > It doesn't rise to even the level of the proven to be unreliable eyewitness > accounts. This is at best hearsay through the distortion filter of many > years and an obvious agenda to promote a cause. This is the telephone game > played through centuries. You can't make any realistic distinction between > these claims and sightings of aliens or bigfoot. > > These are stories, told by people with a purpose to inspire others that their > internal experience was extraordinary just as Maharishi did with his flying > promises. They may never have been meant to be taken literally, but if they > were. there is no good reason to take these claims seriously. Or if we do > just accept any old claim we have to include all the nonsense people have > claimed to have witnessed. > > Oh hell, I should have just left it to the 16 words I haven't helped this > cause at all! > > But if you have a case to make that I have missed some good reason to take > these claims seriously I would be happy to read it. Start with how you build > credibility for an unknown source. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "salyavin808" <fintlewoodlewix@> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > http://www.miraclesofthesaints.com/2010/10/levitation-and-ecstatic-flights-in.html > > > > > > > > > > It's just a shame that they seem to have stopped just before > > > the invention of cinema. > > > > RESPONSE: No, "they seem to have stopped" because they stopped. God--or the > > supernatural grace which precipitated this miracles--said: Fuck it! I've > > had it. I'm going to change up the game. > > > > And ever since then (just before our lifetime) there ain't no miracles (or > > if there are, they are not being done through the agency which determined > > the miracles in this article). > > > > I think if cinema had been around in the 13th to 16th centuries in > > particular, the Holy Ghost might have permitted there to be a few miracles > > filmed. But maybe not. It might have destroyed the meritorious value of > > faith. "Show me the nail marks, Jesus, baby--that is, if you really > > resurrected." > > > > The veracity or purported veracity of an eyewitness account is of course a > > special field of investigation. But, even were I totally skeptical, I > > would, in going through all what is said in this article, find my > > skepticism significantly challenged. > > > > I suspect that it what happened to you--when you began reading. > > > > No, the present ontological context of the universe would make Saint > > Francis of Assisi probably an honest existentialist (of the atheistic > > variety). > > > > No one will levitate or fly in my lifetime. This seems certain to me, > > because I sense zero miracle potential in the universe. > > > > But when I read these accounts *it is a very different metaphysic* I > > encounter. A metaphysic which simply does not exist and therefore would > > seem never to have existed. > > > > I think your reaction a normal and healthy one. > > >
