On 28 May, 13:12, Molly <[email protected]> wrote:
> "how does, or is ther ea way that the chemical process of
> 'sublimation' relates to the process of communion". - Pat
>
> much has been written on the Logos, but I would love to hear your
> thoughts, Pat (maybe in a private email if you think its better.)
>
{snickers} Indeed, as I might mention some Islamic views and, God
knows, we wouldn't want to offend the public by putting forward ideas
that stem from sources that are disliked by a few. And, of course, if
there are any Gnostic-haters out there, they might not want to hear
what I have to say about Gnostic views of the Logos. Actually, I
think most of my views on the Logos are derived from my view of the
Gospel According to John 1:1; but I'm afraid to quote scripture, now,
for fear of being labelled both an proselyter of Islam and
Christianity. ;-)
And all that after once thinking that my views fell mostly into the
category of Advaita Judaism. Of course, later I DID discover that
'the cult of Abraham' was much like that. I'll respond privately with
more info in a bit.
> "At which point we'd all have laughed." - Pat
>
> Sharing a laugh - one of the best forms of communion, I think!
>
Indeed.
> On May 28, 7:29 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 27 May, 20:41, iam deheretic <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > Pat,, not to insult you but some times you add more to confusion than
> > > understanding Molly is very right communion is sublime.
>
> > Oh that's no insult, it just points out that I tend to travel deep
> > into the mathematics of the mechanisms and that many people are
> > happier with 'simpler' explanations. I've no problem with that and
> > 'communion' is a great word that can sum up a very detailed process.
> > I didn't mean to add to the confusion, rather, I was trying to define
> > certain aspects OF the details of the process OF that communion. As
> > for me, the word communion stands for a process, but I want to know
> > the details OF that process and the mechanisms that allow it to
> > occur. These cannot be explained using simpler words, so I tend to go
> > deeper than some may care to. But really, it's only out of a great
> > desire to know the details and, once discovered, try to explain them.
> > However, I gladly acknowledge that many are happier without the
> > details. For example, most people that drive cars don't worry about
> > the pistons and camshafts and/or transaxles that are involved in
> > getting them around the next corner; yet, at the same time, their are
> > mechanics out there who MUST know these intimate details. For
> > example, when I read the words above "communion is sublime", my first
> > thought was "how does, or is ther ea way that the chemical process of
> > 'sublimation' relates to the process of communion". It's just the way
> > my brain works. I drive right to the core details and, without doubt,
> > sometimes lose myself and others in the process. I think, if you knew
> > me better and we were in the same room when I'd responded the way I
> > did, you'd have just said, "Oh, FFS, Pat!". At which point we'd all
> > have laughed.
>
> > > Religious confusion is exactly what is causing most of the problems to
> > > day,
> > > it is used to justify the dance of the golden calf.
> > > Allan
>
> > > On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:43 PM, Pat <[email protected]>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On 27 May, 06:51, Ash <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > I would say that the moment of conception of "something else" sort of
> > > > > defines the landscape of theological evolution. However that hinges on
> > > > > the belief that spiritual awakening is a very personal process that is
> > > > > to a lesser extent shared through rituals and other communication. You
> > > > > could say I believe in that intimate exploration.
>
> > > > > I guess my view on God would look like multiple intelligences and
> > > > > hold a
> > > > > critical view of the extroverted and simplified political feedback
> > > > > version used for propagandist purposes (quantitative ends). To me it
> > > > > is
> > > > > much more interesting to understand what and why people believe than
> > > > > the
> > > > > fact of it. Anyways- I sort of navigate many views depending on the
> > > > > need
> > > > > or desire, with a personal tendency toward constructive analysis (it
> > > > > comes out in person/phone discussions). Sometimes I view theology,
> > > > > cosmology and metaphysics much like an engineering challenge
> > > > > neutrally,
> > > > > sometimes as a profound experience full of meaning and at others I
> > > > > mourn
> > > > > the stone cold lack of meaning. There are many arts and sciences I use
> > > > > in exploring those archetypal 'pathways', I don't trust a single one
> > > > > enough to become branded with and much prefer an eclectic mix. This
> > > > > is a
> > > > > very simplified answer and any one of these topics could turn into
> > > > > voluminous discussions.
>
> > > > > "In second place to my statement, if God is not the old wise man,
> > > > > then,
> > > > > what is God?
> > > > > Could God be the energy or the cosmos of the universe?"
>
> > > > > I don't see why not, actually one of my favorite ideas is that the
> > > > > domain of experience and material existence are the same thing from
> > > > > different viewpoints and switch between or try to work out the
> > > > > science/metaphysics. I began with asking 'why', learned a bit of
> > > > > 'how',
> > > > > and found a great question in 'what if'. That's the nutshell version
> > > > > (no
> > > > > finale)... :)
>
> > > > I would go so far as to just say, yes, God IS the energy, or, more
> > > > properly, energy is the 'substance' of God. It is neither created nor
> > > > destroyed (like God) after making that link, the rest is down to the
> > > > geometry of the system. Given the right geometric spaces (time
> > > > included as a slightly defective approximation of 'eternity'), then
> > > > energy and mass can easily convert back and forth between one another
> > > > and account for all that we encounter in this universe.
> > > > Consciousness, however, is slightly trickier, but fields of
> > > > 'consciousness energy' are easily manipulated given the number of
> > > > dimensions afforded by string theory, and string theory even allows
> > > > for the 'atemporal spaces' required for eternal consciousness as well
> > > > as regions where abstract concepts can be stored (in a Platonistic
> > > > way) given the right topology WITHIN the right geometry.
>
> > > > > On 5/25/2010 5:33 PM, Manfraco Frank Elder wrote:
>
> > > > > > It make sense to me, because I believe that everyone of us believes
> > > > > > and sees things in a different way, and therefore, if you do not see
> > > > > > God or religious beliefs like me it is ok.
> > > > > > Now, if I say that God might not be an old wise man as most of us
> > > > > > have
> > > > > > been thought to believe; but he/it could be something else, what
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > you say to that?
> > > > > > In second place to my statement, if God is not the old wise man,
> > > > > > then,
> > > > > > what is God?
> > > > > > Could God be the energy or the cosmos of the universe?
> > > > > > My regards
> > > > > > Manfraco
>
> > > > > > On May 23, 9:27 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> Manfranco, I don't mind at all, besides I think you were here
> > > > > >> first.
> > > > :)
> > > > > >> There seemed to be some similarity between FSM and Cthulhu (the
> > > > octopus).
>
> > > > > >> Before answering your questions directly I would like to give you
> > > > > >> an
> > > > > >> idea what I think of 'beliefs', as there could be many kinds or we
> > > > could
> > > > > >> have two very different ideas of what they are. I have personal
> > > > > >> experiences that inform beliefs that I don't have words for, and
> > > > > >> the
> > > > > >> ones that do I usually seek to make an accord with reality in a
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >> universal sense. So I allow a long leash for my 'romantic' side,
> > > > > >> and
> > > > the
> > > > > >> analytical looks more like a meta-battlefield.
>
> > > > > >> Belief in absolutes is incomprehensible to me, I can no longer
> > > > associate
> > > > > >> any sane expression to that. I am trying to make peace with the
> > > > > >> world
> > > > of
> > > > > >> potentials I've found myself in, and my association with it. This
> > > > > >> is
> > > > all
> > > > > >> difficult to describe, as I've been losing the distinction between
> > > > > >> belief and disbelief. Many of the symbols and ideas in the world
> > > > > >> have
> > > > > >> been stepping stones for me. I am speechless when confronted with
> > > > > >> this
> > > > > >> question, not being evasive, there are no convenient answers at my
> > > > > >> disposal but I can assure you somehow I manage to believe in many
> > > > things
> > > > > >> both great and small.
>
> > > > > >> I could conceive of a cosmos wherein the FSM and any arbitrary
> > > > > >> combination of other beliefs also reside. I consider it all
> > > > 'narratives
> > > > > >> of truth' at this time. If it makes sense to you, that makes one of
> > > > us. :)
>
> > > > > >> On 5/20/2010 6:26 PM, Manfraco Frank Elder wrote:
>
> > > > > >>> Hi Ash! Your link is very colourful and fun, but it seems to me a
> > > > > >>> direct attack to God and all religious beliefs; are you sure you
> > > > > >>> are
> > > > > >>> on the right tracks? Anyhow, I hope you don't mind my coming in
> > > > > >>> these
> > > > > >>> discussions, as I would like to ask you a question about beliefs;
> > > > > >>> Do
> > > > > >>> you believe in any god? And if you don't why? As I am under the
> > > > > >>> impression that you don't believe in anything; Am I right?
> > > > > >>> Greetings
> > > > > >>> Manfraco
>
> > > > > >>> On May 19, 10:12 am, Ash<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>> 'Obey your noodley master' -
> > > >http://www.venganza.org/materials/#flyers
>
> > > > > >>>> That was Lovecraft right?
>
> > > > > >>>> On 5/18/2010 7:37 PM, Chris Jenkins wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>> /Ia Ia/! Yog Sothoth
>
> > > > > >>>>> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Ash<[email protected]
> > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>> Please forgive our ignorance Gabby.>:)
>
> > > > > >>>>> FF may be referring to the belligerent Demiurge
> > > > > >>>>> (Yaldabaoth?)
> > > > > >>>>> presiding over this universe, and it's acolytes. Purely
> > > > speculative.
>
> > > > > >>>>> On 5/18/2010 1:18 PM, gabbydott wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>> Pat is mistaking himself for God, but he's not the
> > > > > >>>>> only
> > > > one here,
> > > > > >>>>> which makes them bearable.
>
> > > > > >>>>> On 18 Mai, 16:16, DarkwaterBlight<
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > >>>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>
> > > > > >>>>> I must be missing something here FF... Who's the
> > > > > >>>>> determinist conmen
> > > > > >>>>> that "we" are mistaking? I
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
