The condescending ending is out of character for you, but if it does something for you, that's fine but I think it brash that you would consider someone else as being predictable. I don't really have much as far as feelings in any Internet environment, generally I'm cool headed. We are just minds here without interpersonal relationships, so you could say whatever you want without worrying about hurt feelings, that is with me, I can't speak for others. Personally I thought it was discussion as usual not argumentation. It seems as obvious now as it has in all past threads on religion and politics that opposition can remain staunch and un-yeilding. You see it as you do from your window of belief and I from disbelief. Neither will sway the other and I have no illusions of changing your world or that of Pat or Molly or anyone else. This is really a way of understanding how others come to believe what they do. It's come down to two personal opposing views and one is slinging mud. For me the good book is just that, a good book, nothing more. I admit I do push hard in some areas as a way to get past the usual and most common responses but little has shown to be anything new, just the usual. Maybe if God saves the tsunami victims suffocating under the crushing rubble there will be something to believe. Other than that it's just delusional fantasy.
On Oct 2, 4:52 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah 'natural' yes of course but what determines what is natural? > > It is natural if it pertains to what it is. When you are describing > what it then you are describing nature. It is distinct from describing > the fact that what is is. Then you are not talking about nature. One > way of saying the difference is essence and existence. Another is > physics and metaphysics, another is natural and supernatural, another > (similiar anyway) is sensory and extrasensory. > > >What is fact? > > A fact is basically a truth that is determined non-essentially. In > other words a fact is a truth that requires some existential > statement. For example, the question "Do mother's have babies?" can be > interpreted two ways: Does the idea of "mother" mean something that > has a baby? That is a question of essence. But it can be interpreted > also as something like: Are there mother's and are they having baby's? > The second question is one of fact. The first question does not > require observation to assert its validity. It requires meaning and > definition. The second does. It is possible that the following is > true: Yes, mothers do have babies but no "in fact" they are not. > > I certainly couldn't > > > present anything as fact) that it is > > Really? How do you eat? I am completely dependent on assessing and > determining facts and without that ability could not function. > wouldn't be able to find my car keys! > > > > > > is supernatural. That means that the fact (fact?) that it is is not what > > > it > > > is. Do you see that? (no I'm blind) > > Being blind is not a problem. Wanting to stay that way, that is the > problem. I'm not asserting that you "in fact" are, although frankly it > looks that way, as I get your sarcasm. Just making a point > essentially. > > > > > It is in the latter that that God lies. (God is a liar? "lol") > > I think that that would be essentially impossible. Just a guess > though. > > > (I think I already have an understanding of the supernatural, you > > speak as if you are addressing a novice, when in fact I've been > > through all this biblical, supernatural and mystical stuff for over 40 > > years, fact is I've heard the voice of God and the visual and voice of > > Jesus, whether it was real or not is another story, Chris seems to > > chalk it up to DMT while I was comatose, but since I have always been > > a non believer of such things I found it rather strange that I should > > come across such an experience, I might mention that a priest was > > called upon to administer last rites, modern day sacraments of the > > sick, then I somehow came back to this godforsaken place) > > I am always amazed when people refer to comatose experience of the > experience of miracles. In my opinion it is a dead give away for > someone who has no clue. You needn't be close to death, or on > mushrooms, or seeing something that violates the laws of physics. It > is there always in every experience. It is just being conscious of it. > We are talking about something that technically cannot be not present. > So I don't think you do have a grasp of it. You don't evidence one. > > > > > > Simplistic creation? Where did you get that from? Not me. > > > No Justin, not you, the bible, Genesis, Creation, like what, seven > > days? funny how seven is such a wonderful number for the authors of > > this perpetual hoax. > > Here we go with the fundamentalist strawman again.... > > > > > > IF scripture, as you point out, has other non > > > > contextual meaning then for sure, as I pointed out, it therefore is a > > > > more complex collection of Aesop's fables than the word of God. SD > > > > In a sense you are right. (wow, I'm right, in a sense, oh lordy) You see > > > fairy tales and other myths also > > > hold truths about metaphysical reality. And they also are not literal. > > > (naw, really?) > > > But what gives them their power is that, in spite of the fact that > > > they are not literally true, they still capture a form of truth. (form of > > > truth? sounds like another thread) They are about something deep - > > > wickedness and fear and all kinds of > > > things. In the extreme, if they are truly inspired (poetry is inspired > > > too), then they also are > > > the word of god. (Word of God? why do they have to be the word of God? > > > Why can't they just be some words out of my mind or the mind of a poet or > > > philosopher?) > > Either the Bible is a more complex collection of Aesop's fables or it > is the word of God. That is a false dilemma. The Bible could be a more > complex collection of Aesop's fables *and* the word of God. > > > > Look at Noah and the great flood story, the building of the Ark for two > > > of > > > > each kind male and female etc. Why would a supernatural omni-all > > > > being have to save anything when all of it could just be re-created? SD > > > Oops, Justin, you left off my last line, why did you do that, I > > clearly stated that is was just another "story" and now you are saying > > that I am taking it literally when it is clear that I am not. > > Ok it is clear that you are not. Then why did you say that the bible > claimed the world was made in 7 days?! You can't do both. If you > interpret it literally you are interpreting the creation as something > that happened a long time ago and took 7 days. If not then it is not > about something that took place a long time ago and took 7 days. > > > > > > Again, you are taking it literally. The meaning of that story has to > > > do with how we respond to life. (this is obviously Justin's personal > > > understanding of it) > > > It is not that there was a real flood. > > > No kidding? Not a real flood? Then why has there been this massive > > undertaking to find the ark, like somewhere in turkey. Noah's Ark > > supposedly landed on the mountains of Ararat some 4000 or more years > > ago. > > Because there are a lot of fundamentalists going around. I am not one > of them. The bible is not a work of science. > > > > like two lovers who are sitting next to each other one chattering away > > > and the other waiting and hoping in silence that the other will shut > > > up and just look at them and understand. It is like God creates the > > > silence until we are on track and not running at the mouth. Then he > > > speaks. (Speaks in lightning and thunder, typhoons and tsunamis, > > > earthquakes and mudslides, hurricanes and tornadoes, head on collisions > > > and plane crashes, diseases and plagues, droughts and famines, > > > politicians and genocides, armies of death? Praise the Lord, "lol") > > Yes and birth and light and color and the seasons and love. There is > both. You are very selective in your choice. But it goes back to the > question before. It is the "why does God make rocks question?" The > answer I do not know. All of the events you point to are part of the > natural world. Why it is as it is and why there are these > synchronistic patterns of threads running through it I don't know. > Actually it doesn't make sense. As I say its a good point. > > > > > Really? Well exactly what makes it original sin? > > It is original because it at the depths of our minds. In the same way > that axioms beget theorums original sin begets evil. The problem has > something to do with the cognitive effects of power and the > relationship between the will and cognition. It is also tied up with > sexuality. It is a very difficult problem. Look at all the conflict in > the world and try to understand it and you can see that some of it is > just people not understanding practical things, some of it is just > normal ignorance. But when you look at something like Hitler or when > they were training child soldiers ins in Africa by having them bite > the face off of a woman then you realize that this is not just a kind > of misunderstanding. It is a kind of desire to be free of all > conscience whatsoever. To be free of all ties to God and to "show > him". I know there is the theory of the banality of evil and most of > the time, cowards that we are, we hide in our roles and then evil is > banal but for the creators of it, the power elite, the urge to pull > the legs out of spiders, it is all do to a kind of instinct for power > and its relationship to the instinct for love. That is original sin. > It is the sin from which all of the others flow. > > Look we're here, > > > let's live and enjoy life, let's share our prosperity and wealth, our > > knowledge and gifts, let's drop all this nonsensical religiousity > > begin to transform the world into our own paradise, > > It is just false that its nonsense but I'll drop it and sign on to the > transformation.... > > because the "FACT" > > > is that religion and all it's claim has had enough time to do > > something > > What? Where do you get that from? It is political power not religion > that dominates. The saints have never been in control. They may have > had some influence re "Advisor to tyrants" but that is it. It has been > limited. > > but obviously it hasn't done anything, it has accomplished > > > "Nothing". > > Well, not nothing. We have made some progress. We are, as a people > getting closer. The problem is the stakes keep doubling and we are > constantly at risk. > > Anyway, sorry if my tone sounds a little argumentative... no wait... > don't reply I'll do it for you...."Whoa! Jees... thank's! I was > *really* concerned! You *really* were hurting my feelings..." Anyway, > its all recreational to me if you know what I mean.... --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
