Thank you both. It is recreational AND insightful for me!
On Oct 2, 5:52 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
