I guess I would have to say that the analogy is more so connected with one's own psyche, it is on a personal level, naturally the daily cubicle grind for a compensatory reward seems a recapture of a previous snap shot with some subtle nuances that may add some flair to the day. I'm sure that much of my view stems from the ability to lay in bed in the morning thinking about how I want the day to go from me while evaluating the possibilities. I've been wanting to take off to the Gulf Coast but I'm skeptical on account of the oil spill, so that possibility gets stricken from the list. I think that one's attitude is equally as important when considering the film analogy because one may repeat the previous day in action but vary the attitude and perception of the day. I could visit the riverside three days in a row but each day can vary according to what I do with it. I could bring my guitar one day, camera outfit the next and have a great picnic the next.
Seems like the OT god and anyone's god is capable of annihilating someone else if the believer "hears the voice". It's like the Salem Witch Hunt, the counsel sitting around and deciding that a lucid dream is the work of the devil. Burn baby burn! On May 27, 8:53 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > The OT god was eager to bump off the Canaanites, etc.//The new rage > are the novels of Steig Larsson- Pippi Longstocking or Harry Potter > for adults. http://www,nytimes.com/2010/05/23/magazine/23Larsson-t.html > After reading this article, the friend who is repairing my window > mentioned he had read two with gusto- shall I proceed? lol//About your > remark that each day is a "new roll of film"- I like the thought but > it is just as likely to recapture the day in a new light or angle- > somewhat like Monet and his cathedral or water lilly paintings- and > few can stray too far from a talent that seems to work and is > profitable. > > On May 27, 8:41 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I guess the real difference is that I don't really care why or how the > > earth came about. I see it as part of the solar system and the > > universe. I don't go assigning superstitious reasoning to it in order > > to establish a myriad of rules, dogma, fear and organizational > > structures around it, not to mention the atrocities attributed to it > > and the trail of collateral damage that many perceive as justifiable. > > > You really did not disprove the anthropological implication but merely > > satiated your own rebuttal to it through a personal rationale that is > > clearly defined by your affirmed unsubstantiated beliefs. The skew > > here is that you try to establish fact on account of, "because it says > > so here in this book" and because you believe it to be true. The > > books, most of them, are a collection of sage advice and wisdom and > > like the read of Kalil Gibran, the Prophet. People love the mystical > > and the esoteric labels associated with it, that is how the prophets > > and pharisees gained so much popularity and control. It is still the > > same, people running to the priest thinking they know something above > > and beyond the obvious. > > > When it's all about the good stuff then the people say the lord this > > and that but you don't hear about the lord when there are horrific > > scenarios. You don't hear ".......the lord wanted all those people > > to die a horrible death, that is why the genocide took place". Now > > you will tell me that it is on account of humanity that these things > > take place, which all the more makes me wonder about your "Loving > > God". The Omniscience, Omnipotence and Omnipresence just don't seem > > to fall into place or make any sense unless of course it is what it > > is, eg; a conjured notion of ancient man that fueled the myths. Like > > Superman the Movie. > > > On May 26, 6:36 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 26 May, 03:31, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Well Pat, it seems I'm not alone in recognizing your fruitless efforts > > > > in portraying a simple set of faith based beliefs as being anything > > > > other than the delusive conjuring that it is. > > > > Fruitless? Methinks you've judged this a tad quickly. Let's revisit > > > that in another 20 years. > > > > >But let's have another > > > > look at what might be a plausible viewpoint concerning the spiritual, > > > > metaphysical and cosmological world in which we live. Perhaps it is > > > > simply the cause and effect of human telepathy and interaction with a > > > > collective consciousness that has evolved and expanded throughout > > > > time, ergo: the advancement of humanity via the communicative ability > > > > of the consciousness with that of the collective consciousness and > > > > subconsciousness. In 386 BC no man woke up one morning and discovered > > > > laser technology but in time it was discovered through the "collective > > > > knowledge of the collective subconscious". > > > > Doesn't exactly explain how the Earth came into being, though. So, I > > > think there's a distinct lack of 'cosmology' to that viewpoint. > > > > > I know you are desperate to prove the existence of a supreme being > > > > that created the universe and out of your desperation you conjure > > > > ideas just as did the ancients who were desperate to have explanations > > > > for lightning, thunder and the solar eclipse. I can only be impressed > > > > by the tenacity with which you hold onto these antiquated ideas of > > > > what life is all about. Like I said earlier, it can be quite amusing. > > > > Always glad to put a smile on someone's face!! ;-) > > > > > Vam is right in identifying your approach as totally anthropologically > > > > based. > > > > Yet, actually, I've proved that false. But, as you liked it, you too > > > are wrong. > > > > >You actually think that because humans have intent in action > > > > there must be a creator who has intent. > > > > No, rather, the existence of intelligence and awareness is evidence > > > that there is intelligence and awareness at work. I simply have > > > joined the dots. > > > > >You are simply an advanced > > > > organism among the other organisms on the planet that ingest, digest > > > > and excrete. (don't forget the toilet paper) > > > > What I would really like for you to answer is this.................... > > > > Exactly where does this "Great Creator" come from? > > > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > > > Who made the "Great Creator"? > > > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > > > The Super Creator of Great Creators? > > > > Energy is neither created nor destroyed. > > > > > Where does it end? > > > > As soon as you get it through your head that energy is neither created > > > nor destroyed and that energy is the 'stuff' of which God is made. > > > > > I can answer that, it ends right here because it is simply another > > > > which came first chicken or egg question. > > > > IF there is a God then WHO created God and Who created the God who > > > > created the God who created God? > > > > I refer you to energy. Science is happy with the fact that energy is > > > neither created nor destroyed. So, I ask YOU, who created energy? No > > > one. Energy exists. It is that simple fact that stands as the > > > underlying axiom. > > > > > Imagination is a wonderful thing until we take it seriously! Imagine > > > > you can fly then jump out the window. Then you will realize the > > > > reality of your fantasy. That is if you live and I'm hoping you > > > > aren't taking this suggestion seriously but if you are I hope you are > > > > living on the first floor or better yet jump out of the basement > > > > window. LOL > > > > Of course, as I'm in the UK, the first floor is one floor above the > > > ground floor. But, I'm not suicidal. Death catches us all > > > eventually, it's completely fair in that regard. Whilst some may take > > > issue with which HOW death catches us, that is their problem in that > > > it takes omniscience to understand why things must be the way they > > > must be. Although it does NOT take omniscience to understand that it > > > takes omniscience to understand the previous statement; just decent > > > insight. ;-) > > > > > On May 25, 7:48 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > On 25 May, 02:23, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > You talk about it all with such affirmation but in all actuality it > > > > > > is > > > > > > something that you have bought into and choose to believe based on > > > > > > some written text. What makes you think that book is any different > > > > > > from any other book, I see no difference between you and a Jehovah > > > > > > Witness. What makes your belief more believable. There is > > > > > > absolutely > > > > > > not a shred of evidence that even suggests the existence of a god or > > > > > > supreme being that is a creator of the universe and life. Even if > > > > > > there was one I don't see why such a great creator would have to say > > > > > > something through the writings of a bunch of ignorant desert > > > > > > dwelling > > > > > > sheep and goat herders. There is no evidence of any heaven or hell > > > > > > or > > > > > > anything that suggests consequential outcomes to action. We suspect > > > > > > and give in to superstition in fear of it being real when all the > > > > > > time > > > > > > we know it is false without foundation. > > > > > > LOL!! You know, I was up last night just hoping you'd have written > > > > > something like this. OK, lets look at the atheistic alternative. > > > > > This whole 'cause and effect' universe was an accident--an effect with > > > > > no cause. There is no evidence whatsoever that would lead any > > > > > rational thinker to believe in an effect without a cause. With > > > > > respect to 'purpose', this whole universe is without one (by atheistic > > > > > viewpoint). Yet, as an intelligent entity, when you do something, is > > > > > it 'without purpose'? How often do you act without purpose? So, > > > > > again, (y)our own experience seems to point to intelligent beings > > > > > doing things with purposeful intent. Yet the atheist argument is that > > > > > this causeless effect is without purpose; yet they feel it is their > > > > > purpose to point that out. No dichotomy there, oh no! Not even > > > > > you're own existence stands as any evidence to the committed atheist. > > > > > As for there being nothing that suggests consequential outcomes to > > > > > action, I refer you to Newton's 3rd Law of motion: For every action > > > > > there is an equal and opposite reaction. If you think you have > > > > > disproven THAT by mere disbelief, then I applaud you. However, I'm > > > > > not clapping, because I think you see, quite clearly, just how > > > > > ridiculous your argument sounds. Effects without causes and no > > > > > reactions to actions? What universe do you live in? > > > > > > > On May 24, 6:30 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 21 May, 22:36, 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? > > > > > > > > If He did, He would have said so...but that's NOT what He said. > > > > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > > > > You're supposed to. It's a test. You may be failing. How would > > > > > > > you > > > > > > > know? > > > > > > > > > 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 > > > ... > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
