I'm sure DB didn't mean to do as one will regardless of the infringement upon others.
That is a gross interpretive aberration of a comment composed of complete generalization and assumption. I live my life as I wish and enjoy it fully because I have the "right" to. This is not to ass-ume that people who commit heinous crimes against humanity are justified because they are living the life they wish to live, I would think it understood that people do not have the "right" to inflict pain and suffering upon others. To make a point based upon minuscule and pendantic notion is far out on the limb. On May 23, 2:16 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > "I live my life as I wish to live it and I believe that everyone > should have that right." > > An interesting notion, DWB, and I wonder if you mean this literally - > as if anyone who thought stealing, cheating, lying, murdering, > violence, cruelty etc., was right and wished to live their lives doing > as they pleased no matter the cost to those around them should do just > that. It seems to me that belief in not only our own, but the rights > of others is indeed important, but also needs to include the > understanding of how our behavior effects others and the relationship > of what we believe and do with the our world. Doing and saying as you > please without awareness or regard of your response - ability to your > total experience - including others, the earth, society, god....well, > do we really have that right? I think we sell ourselves short like > this most of all. > > On May 23, 10:25 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. > > Why > > do I have to have a god to something to me?" > > > Well I think the time will come when you will be able to answer that > > question yourself my friend, perhaps for some bannanas? I don't know > > and would not venture to guess.As I said, I don't wish to try to > > convince you of anything and do not bear the banner for any crusade. > > Surely we are all in our own little dreamland. > > > "Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to > > enjoy > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > kiss god's ass?" > > > Well yes and I'm glad that you make this point! By any religious > > convention I think I would be considerd a heretic though I fail to > > allow any bible beaters and the like to point that out. I live my life > > as I wish to live it and I believe that everyone should have that > > right. Along with drinking (gratuitous amounts I should add) and > > eating it makes me "merry" to search for answers and find truth, > > however subjective it may be, to explain this existance of ours and > > perhaps point to some objective or absolute reason for it. I cannot > > fathom kissing gods ass though, unless it was for bannanas. > > > On May 21, 5:36 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. Why > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to enjoy > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained phenomena > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man made "God > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the world > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often find > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as empirical > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this is mass > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on your lack > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing that > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound in > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the believing > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down to > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and greed for > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of "the > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is not the > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to convince > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain that God > > > > shall do his own work with you. > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still evokes > > > > > the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS just IS > > > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my window. You > > > > > have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When looking at > > > > > the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially is a human > > > > > construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. > > > > > We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of macro- > > > > > religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and > > > > > experience with our physical senses while the natural world leaves > > > > > open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the point at > > > > > which the constructs begin to take form because there is no proof > > > > > otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific proof > > > > > anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create "Myth". > > > > > Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and sacrificial > > > > > human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason we have yet to > > > > > let go of the main theme of religious belief. > > > > > Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation of the > > > > > unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil and the need > > > > > to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead to a oneness, > > > > > a central being, a deity and in some cultures a multiplicity, a > > > > > composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe such as the > > > > > ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of humanity and what > > > > > you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the oneness, an > > > > > extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an uncanny > > > > > resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions are > > > > > worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of god. Why? > > > > > We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This tendency is > > > > > unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history shown in > > > > > anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all remains to this day > > > > > simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit unspeakable > > > > > atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing and instill > > > > > guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life. > > > > > > On May 21, 6:51 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 May, 15:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > The ball of elaboration is in your court, this is your thread. > > > > > > > You > > > > > > > are making broad statements without saying much. > > > > > > > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have anchored > > > > > > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you consider > > > > > > > truths. > > > > > > > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be explored > > > > > > > individually. > > > > > > > > I don't see the thread going anywhere other than reaching levels > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > redundancy without resolution. > > > > > > > > I'm with Albert Einstein below. > > > > > > > > Borrowed FROM: > > > > > > > Molly Brogan Thread May 26, 2008 > > > > > > > > According to Plato: When the mind's eye rests on objects > > > > > > > illuminated > > > > > > > by truth and reality, it understands and comprehends them, and > > > > > > > functions intelligently; but when it turns to the twilight world > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > change and decay, it can only form opinions, its vision is > > > > > > > confused > > > > > > > and its beliefs shifting, and it seems to lack intelligence. > > > > > > > (Plato, > > > > > > > Republic) > > > > > > > > To Spinoza, ultimate truth is the ultimate reality of a rationally > > > > > > > ordered system that is God. > > > > > > > > To Hegel, truth is a rationally integrated > > > > > > > system in which everything is contained. > > > > > > > > To Einstein, “the truth of > > > > > > > the Universe is human truth.” > > > > > > > While I usually support Einstein, here we differ a tad. Einstein > > > > > > went > > > > > > in search of truth and discovered 'relativity'. This discovery > > > > > > flavoured his view of truth, as he discovered the importance of the > > > > > > 'reference point' from within the system. But what if one's > > > > > > reference > > > > > > point is outside the system? The Qur'an states (22:6) 'God is the > > > > > > Reality/Absolute Truth.' The Arabic is "Allah Al-Haqq". It's a > > > > > > statement that is perfectly congruent with the physics I propose > > > > > > and, > > > > > > within it, still allows for the 'Special Relativity' that we > > > > > > experience. The viewpoint is whether or not one is outside or > > > > > > inside > > > > > > the box. Einstein was IN the box whereas Allah IS the box. > > > > > > > > Read More @ > > > > > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/8531f4e... > > > > > > > > On May 16, 6:37 am, Fiercely Free <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On May 16, 11:02 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:> Thank > > > > > > > > You! > > > > > > > > > > I understand it all very well and did not discredit anything. > > > > > > > > > > I simply recognized a multi-faceted post which needs > > > > > > > > > clarification on > > > > > > > > > some specifics. > > > > > > > > > Only a multi-faceted post can clearly highlight the wholistic > > > > > > > > approach.> Truth IS that Truth is highly subjective even in the > > > > > > > > sense of > > > > > > > > > absolutism, somewhat like absolute "fact". > > > > > > > > > Calling Truth as subjective matter is part of empiricism. Our > > > > > > > > perception about Reality can be quite different from Absolute > > > > > > > > Truth. > > > > > > > > That doesn't mean Absolute Truth does not exist.> The Wow > > > > > > > > really belongs as a pertinence to your own opening thread > > > > > > > > > which covers > > ... > > read more »
