--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@...> wrote: > > 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.
I think if Santa appeared it would be the same as someone levitating, case proved. > --- 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. > > > > > >
