The sage said to the snake : I bar you from biting and poisoning others ; but not from hissing at others, who wish to harm you.
On Jan 28, 4:29 pm, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > Now we are talking, Vam! Exactly! It wouldn't be worth much if it > makes you aggressive, anywhichway ! That's why I won't publish a > revealing email exchange that was meant to be dreamt away by a > Christian Scientist but post this link > instead:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7004936.ece#... > > On Jan 28, 11:47 am, 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 ! > > > 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 - -- 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.
