" If the purpose is failure Vam ... " Ah, Lord, the language !
No, Neil, the purpose is not failure. The purpose is yours ; the failure is in the way the universe is. If one is force, the other is reaction ... and the two do not equate. On Sep 24, 3:14 pm, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > If the purpose is failure Vam, I've played in some teams who were very > good at it! I find I even fail in my dreams. Currently I'm stuck with > 'relativity travel', which at least puts the universe up to the > expansion horizon within a lifetime's reach, potentially letting us > reek our failure in the vastness on a material basis. Once purpose is > failure, then logically one can succeed at it, rather making the mess > of being a successful failure. The Grand Old Duke of York, He had Ten > Thousand Men, He Marched Them Up to the Top of the Hill, And He > Marched Them Down Again. All much better than fighting. Took me > years to know. > > On 24 Sep, 06:09, Vam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > History informs us that there isn't much that can be done to > > obliterate the differentials along the evolution curve, on which > > individuals are placed ! That is how the diversity is ( manifest > > and ) here in the first place. Jesus spoke of the same unity / > > identity. Sufis have been at it since a millenium. Sikhs have been > > reading and hearing of it for some centuries now. Indians have had it > > several millenia ago. > > > But history also has a place for individuals who'd put in the effort > > nevetheless, who'd try one more time to push and roll the stone up to > > the hilltop. Failure is assured, overall. However, even the local > > success is dazzling enough to halt everyone in their tracks for a > > moment ... bathe everyone in the light which will never be forgotten, > > if not abided by. > > > The attempt is the noblest human beings are capable of. > > > All of which is from my perspective and value - system. ' Conditions > > Apply.' > > > On Sep 24, 8:57 am, Manfraco Frank the Elder <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > God’s Purpose –Minds Eye > > > Hi Pat! > > > From what you are saying, you think that somewhere somehow religious > > > people will one day come to an understanding of the present perilous > > > religious situation and accept each other more openly, and in doing so > > > they would avoid future fighting between religions? > > > I really hope you are right Pat: > > > But what I see here it is going to be very tricky indeed as you said > > > yourself; so, how do you see this change of religious heart is going > > > to start!? > > > What is going to be the catalyst that will start these changes? > > > Do you think that somebody somehow will come up with a theory, which > > > finally will make sense to them all, and so, they will be able to see > > > that they are one and the same thing, and that they all believe in the > > > same God and therefore they should not be fighting each other? > > > What sort of theory may be able to work just that? > > > What would you say to that? > > > Anyhow we have to wait and see I suppose. > > > My regards > > > Manfraco > > > > On Sep 21, 8:17 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 16 Sep, 23:02, Manfraco Frank the Elder <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Thanks Pat for the information; I guess that you have visited the > > > > > Middle East region personally. I wish I could visit Mt Sinai indeed, > > > > > since I seem interested more and more in religions lately; but I can > > > > > not see it happening in the near future. > > > > > When I talk about policies, I want to talk about future religious > > > > > policies, because I reckon that they are overdue now, people have > > > > > changed since then, so religion needs to change too, so I wish that > > > > > God (whatever God may be) causes something to happen that changes will > > > > > be made, even if those changes may not be universally approved by > > > > > everybody. I am not saying here that old religions will be abolished, > > > > > but rather that there will be a new chapter to add to the existing > > > > > religions. > > > > > I hope you see what I mean? > > > > > Regards > > > > > Manfraco > > > > > Not only do I see what you mean, I already see that process > > > > starting. If I'm right in my physical/religious theories, then we're > > > > on the very verge of that update. The message will be pretty much the > > > > same as before. That is, that morality, as presented in previous > > > > revelations, will be validated. But there's going to have to be some > > > > work done in order to DO that. And one of the first bits of that > > > > work, I think, is to convince Orthodox Judaism that Islam is the > > > > fulfilment of the Torah's statement (Genesis 17:20) that "As for > > > > Ishmael...I will bless him..." and that 'that statement' is a > > > > foreshadowing of a covenant between the 'God of Abraham' and Ishmael's > > > > descendants, i.e., Islam via Muhammed. In return, Muslims need to > > > > undertand that 'The God of Abraham' has no problem with people who > > > > accept either of His covenants (Torah or Qur'an) and that, Muslims > > > > should not bear a grudge against those who have accepted the Sinaitic > > > > (Jewish) covenant. Such a re-understanding could lay the groundwork > > > > for less enmity between the two peoples. But, of course, there will > > > > be great resistance to this from both sides. And, there's still the > > > > question of 'what to do about the Christians?', i.e., those who > > > > believe that one covenant (the Sinaitic) has been superceded by a > > > > philosophy with no direct revelation to support it. Tricky!!! > > > > > > On Sep 15, 9:24 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 15 Sep, 00:06, Manfraco Frank the Elder <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi dj and everybody else! > > > > > > > Yes indeed, Moses was a very thrilling character, what else could > > > > > > > he > > > > > > > be, since he had seen the power of God very close at hand; so, > > > > > > > every > > > > > > > time Moses is mentioned the masses are bound to tune in and be > > > > > > > thrilled. > > > > > > > I wander though whether Moses saw really God, up on Mount Sinai? > > > > > > > You > > > > > > > know it does not explain clearly for me to be satisfied beyond any > > > > > > > doubts. Now God's purpose then was to help the Jews; but what's > > > > > > > God's > > > > > > > purpose nowadays is still a mystery to me. > > > > > > > I wish that God's purpose was to satisfy people needs, but it > > > > > > > doesn't > > > > > > > seem that way at all; I wish that God would show up one day and > > > > > > > put > > > > > > > forward policies about what we would like to have from Him, > > > > > > > instead of > > > > > > > sitting on the fence and having fun at us all? > > > > > > > I would have thought that, the God of 'Mt. Sinai', i.e., 'The > > > > > > God > > > > > > of Abraham' has already listed his 'policies' in the Torah and/or > > > > > > Qur'an, depending on whether one wants to adhere to the Isaac-side > > > > > > covenant or the Ishael-side covenant. Why not go to 'Mt. Sinai' > > > > > > yourself and see if you can meet up with God, there? The particular > > > > > > 'mountain' you want now goes by the name of 'Jebel Al-Madhbah' and > > > > > > is > > > > > > a part of the cluster of hills/mountains around Petra in Jordan. > > > > > > The > > > > > > 'Jebel Musa' (old Mount Catherine) was never Mt. Sinai, rather, it > > > > > > was > > > > > > suspected because it's the highest peak in the Sinai peninsula. > > > > > > But, > > > > > > if you read the description of the approach to 'Mt. Sinai' in > > > > > > Exodus, > > > > > > it perfectly describes 'Jebel Al-Madhbah' including the bluish stone > > > > > > (sapphire, in Exodus) and the obelisks found in the 'nether region' > > > > > > of > > > > > > the mountain, as well as the 'High Place' itself. Not to mention > > > > > > that > > > > > > the 'Ain Musa', the spring of Moses, is just outside the entrance to > > > > > > Petra, just where it was described in Exodus. > > > > > > > > On Sep 14, 4:54 am, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Ah, yes. My favorite part in that movie was when Moses says > > > > > > > > "You can > > > > > > > > have these tablets when you take them from my cold, dead hands!" > > > > > > > > Thrilling! > > > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 6:37 AM, Molly Brogan > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > I don't agree with that. I think it is the greatest story > > > > > > > > > ever told > > > > > > > > > (not original, I know.) But read and you will find myriad > > > > > > > > > interpretations of the bible. It wasn't until I was able to > > > > > > > > > read it > > > > > > > > > for myself, and feel the stories alive in me, that I > > > > > > > > > understood the > > > > > > > > > greatness of the stories. > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 11, 3:34 am, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> Adam the bible is interesting but mostly fiction and or > > > > > > > > >> twisted ideas ... > > > > > > > > >> etc etc > > > > > > > > >> Allan > > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Sep 10, 2009 at 11:27 PM, Adam > > > > > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> > OK. If the Bible is true, then I think I have given a good > > > > > > > > >> > summary of > > > > > > > > >> > how things are. > > > > > > > > >> > If not, then it doesn't matter anyway. I posted this same > > > > > > > > >> > article on > > > > > > > > >> > alt.bible.prophecy > > > > > > > > >> > and got only one reply, and that was abusive. And they are > > > > > > > > >> > supposed to > > > > > > > > >> > believ in God!! > > > > > > > > >> > Adam. > > > > > > > > > >> > On Sep 10, 2:30 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > >> > > This is true, Adam, but you are riding the fence. > > > > > > > > >> > > Obviously the > > > > > > > > >> > > content of the article (thread) is about scripture, > > > > > > > > >> > > which as we all > > > > > > > > >> > > know is founded upon a belief, a concept, therefore it > > > > > > > > >> > > would follow > > > > > > > > >> > > that any and all posts would address that concept. > > > > > > > > >> > > I understand that you are 'not' presenting a position > > > > > > > > >> > > which posits the > > > > > > > > >> > > existence of God, a God or any Deity, but simply > > > > > > > > >> > > presents questions > > > > > > > > >> > > relating to the concept of such an existence. However, > > > > > > > > >> > > still and > > > > > > > > >> > > without any veering, it is still a thread based upon a > > > > > > > > >> > > conceptual > > > > > > > > >> > > God. A discussion in it's most simplistic form > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
