On 28 Jan, 10:47, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
> " ... either God is or that God is not ... "
>
> That is a very personal issue, Pat, as it means.
>
> The other person just hears : " ... either God, as I know and
> understand, is or that God, as I know and understand, is not ... "
>
> The third guy would be eating bitters and feeling just as happy, and
> sweet.
>
> Or, you could be saying : I have this knowledge and understanding, of
> God. What do I do with it ?
>
> It wouldn't be worth much if it makes you aggressive, anywhichway !
>
{snickers!!} I suppose that explains the line from Hebrew Scriptures:
"Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." Crikey, I seem to be upsetting
so many people lately. Since that is not my intention, is it not
true, then, that people are reading what I write and upsetting
themselves over it? Besides, without aggression, would you know
peace? I've never been particularly aggressive in my life. The ONLY
time I ever threw the first punch in a fight was when I'd found out
that the other bloke had tried to rape my girlfriend. My words assert
my position and I do agree that they do so definitively; but that is
not aggression, rather, it's positive assertion. Is hail more
aggressive than rain or does it simply fall with more impact?
> On Jan 28, 3:23 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 Jan, 18:33, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > " Atheism and theism are extremes when contrasted. But there is no
> > > middle ground for a Boolean concept: either there is or there isn't."
>
> > > True, intellectually speaking or science - speak. In practice though,
> > > there is an entire entire ground in the middle, where doubt reigns,
> > > where real people are rooted and uprooted, where this or that comes
> > > and goes, now this, then that, this that and that this, and those ...
> > > Then, as you've pointed out Pat, this deity or that God, or those ...
> > > Considering the complex forms pervading this prevailing reality, the
> > > Boolean would be inadequate, and is inappropriate !
>
> > Considering the complex opinions (existing as complex forms) pervading
> > this reality, the Boolean still prevails, as the doubts that prevail
> > are irrelavent to the truth. If we are to be governed by our doubts
> > rather than the truth, why search FOR the truth? Rather, I admit to
> > being governed by the truth, which can only be that either God is or
> > that God is not. And, if God is not, there wouldn't be any space or
> > time or creation for us to discuss anything, since God is defined as
> > the creator of all that there is.
>
> > > On Jan 27, 10:28 pm, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 Jan, 14:59, Lee <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > Heheh it is funny.
>
> > > > > You all know me here, you know my views and cannot fail to understanmd
> > > > > which part of the fence I sit on. We all take sides in any row,
> > > > > argument or debate simply because some things said by another we will
> > > > > have intergrated into our personal belife structure and others we will
> > > > > disagree with.
>
> > > > > I honestly do not think Ian, was showing any kind of Mod card or
> > > > > ingaging in any form of personal attack. He merely said to Pat that
> > > > > Pat's insistance on reducing all talk and debate down to his favoured
> > > > > theory stifles debate.
>
> > > > Stifling it and solving it are two different things. I tend to think
> > > > I've solved the debate. Others, who have doubts, find that stifling.
> > > > It really IS a POV thing.
>
> > > > > Ian is correct, if Pat feels that his theory is correct(and clearly he
> > > > > does) then it is useless to enter into debate with Pat, as his view
> > > > > will not shift and because of the blinkered nature of this theory we
> > > > > cannot even use him as a sounding board for other ideas.
>
> > > > Blinkered by the truth, my eyes are FAR more open than most imagine.
> > > > I'm open to other theories, yet no one has put one forward. I'm
> > > > listening to silence with respect to any other Theories of Everything.
>
> > > > > This is simple the fact as Ian see's it, there is not personal attack
> > > > > there at all, and in fact I agree with Ian.
>
> > > > > Hah and that is me agreeing with Ian on a rather faith minded
> > > > > subject. So I guess what I'm saying is of course we all take sides,
> > > > > this is only natural, but to refuse to even think about the 'other'
> > > > > POV well does that do you persoanly any favours? Ummmmm it does make
> > > > > me wonder how extremist views are gained. Now of course these words
> > > > > are not equal to me calling Pat an extreamist.
>
> > > > One person's extreme is another's middle course. Atheism and theism
> > > > are extremes when contrasted. But there is no middle ground for a
> > > > Boolean concept: either there is or there isn't.
>
> > > > > On 27 Jan, 14:24, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > 2010/1/26 Molly <[email protected]>
>
> > > > > > > It seems our moderators are people to who occasionally lose site
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the meaning of personal attack.
>
> > > > > >http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irony
>
> > > > > > Ian- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -- 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.
