On 27 Jan, 14:06, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > Ah -- but in the adoption of your paradigm, ethics would be innately > expressed from the inside out, no longer imposed from the outside. > Laws might change, but I suspect they would simply fall into disuse. >
Yup!! In the Kingdom of God, we would endeavour to help one another naturally rather than continue to compete. Of course, this was the essence of many of Jesus' parables. But does anyone take any notice or do they just view them as 'yesterday's news' or 'tales of the ancients'? > On Jan 27, 7:57 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 26 Jan, 15:50, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I would sorely miss you if you chose another silent interlude in this > > > group Pat, especially because of what is mentioned above. The tone > > > lately has been less of an honest exchange of dialogue and more of a > > > combat zone. Historically, those of us that are here for the exchange > > > get quiet during these times, and those here for the combat rule the > > > day. > > > > Why we have the need to tear each other down is a mystery and barrier > > > to the real communication I know is possible in this group, which is > > > unlike any other I know of on the web. I learn much from all members, > > > but especially you Pat, and am always interested to see your name in a > > > thread. Let them yawn while they burn my books, it may be worth it > > > for one real connection here, and I often have many. > > > Thanks Molly!! I suppose it was a rash reaction to being shown > > 'The Moderator' card. I think Ian fails to appreciate that a Theory > > of Everything will result in what he views as reductionist. Although > > science views a TOE as a unification theory (as it tries to unite the > > seemingly different forces into one), I feel that the premiss is > > wrong, because, if the forces are different aspects of a single force, > > then we aren't uniting them, rather, we are discovering that they were > > never separate to begin with. The difference is that science views it > > from our end and I'm viewing it from the other end, i.e., the origin. > > If science discovers a TOE that is different from mine, it will still > > show that the forces have a single origin and that's the whole goal. > > Why it upsets an atheist is easy to see. It's because it DOES > > boil everything down to one, and that one has to be all, and that > > upsets an atheistic paradigm because it, naturally, points at that one > > as being all-powerful, all-knowing and present throughout all space > > and time, i.e., the classic definition of deity. > > > > It seems our moderators are people to who occasionally lose site of > > > the meaning of personal attack. > > > You mean like when I was called an apostate or lumped into the same > > category as extremists? Both erroneous statements but...they HAD to > > be said. And I only say that because it's in the past, therefore, we > > can deduce that it was always in the continuum...just waiting to > > happen. I can hardly blame someone for doing what they had to do. > > This is one of the things that worries me the most about my own > > theory, that is, what it implies for how we handle legal > > responsibility. The whole field of law changes if we are forced to > > accept that which has happened as necessary. But, of course, I have > > to leave something for posterity to work out. ;-) > > > >I say, let those of us here for > > > dialogue continue on, irregardless of the nay sayers. Let the nay > > > sayers say nay to each other while we touch on the real, there is room > > > for all, (within the guidelines, of course.) > > > Yup, and if not in this universe (that is from Big Bang to > > Apocalypse), perhaps in the subsequent one,which may only last a day > > longer. > > > > On Jan 26, 8:19 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 25 Jan, 16:17, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > 2010/1/25 Molly <[email protected]> > > > > > > > I, for one, welcome Pat's ideas and knowledge - all extensive. > > > > > > Like a > > > > > > breath of fresh air in this group, as he extends the boundaries of > > > > > > thinking with his kind treatment. > > > > > > I welcome Pat's ideas and knowledge too, which I hope was clear. That > > > > > wasn't > > > > > my issue. > > > > > > Ian > > > > > It seems I've got under your collar and Lee's. As I'd mentioned in my > > > > response to Neil, perhaps I'll just spend more time writing the book, > > > > because, I'm really just re-hashing the same things these days and I > > > > can understand that can be both boring (as Neil says) and irritating > > > > (as it seems to be with you...probably because we hold differing > > > > opinions). If I focus on my book, then my audience WILL become > > > > larger. But one thing I'd like you to understand about me is that I > > > > feel very deeply that I have a moral obligation to have my concepts > > > > heard, because, if I'm correct, then it would best behove mankind to > > > > listen AND learn. Which is why, to those who do not want to learn my > > > > subject matter, I seem to be coming across 'increasingly didactic'. I > > > > think you, like Neil, are just getting bored by hearing the same old, > > > > same old. I'm not saying I'll go away completely, but, perhaps only > > > > interject occasionally, for it may be better to be a bit of spice than > > > > a heavy salting. ;-)- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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.
