Agreed.

On Apr 24, 5:35 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]>
wrote:
> I guess 'yes' is as good an answer as any. Although 'no' might be valid as
> well if closely examined.
>
> On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 7:06 PM, ornamentalmind
> <[email protected]>wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > So, the answer is 'yes'?
>
> > On Apr 24, 2:06 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> > > Actually, if everything is not subject to examination it would preclude
> > the
> > > examination of everything.
>
> > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 2:56 PM, ornamentalmind
> > > <[email protected]>wrote:
>
> > > > ...of course, that would include the belief that everything is subject
> > > > to examination being subject to examination, no?
>
> > > > On Apr 24, 12:29 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Ok. I'm not sure about the rest but it seems to me like one of the
> > big
> > > > > problems with organized religion is people believing they know what
> > the
> > > > > creator (if it exists) wants.
>
> > > > > Also, I doubt that god needs nectar from us. If he/she/it is up there
> > > > then
> > > > > he/she/it is probably too busy smoking some premo natures bounty to
> > mess
> > > > > around with nectar - unless hes got the munchies. Then maybe he wants
> > to
> > > > > pour some nectar on the brownies.
>
> > > > > As to belief being unmovable, I kinda feel sorry for anyone that
> > > > inflexible.
> > > > > Life is fluid. Everything is subject to examination. Maybe beliefs
> > more
> > > > than
> > > > > anything else.
>
> > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM, the taoist shaman <
> > [email protected]
> > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > i didint want to offend RP . seems ...... questionable , nieave ,
> > ,,
> > > > > > to clame to know of hevenly things is to assurte having divine
> > > > > > qualitys , belife is likend to an ant gathering nectar for a queen
> > ,
> > > > > > to sit in the forest and only see the trees that are directly in
> > frunt
> > > > > > of u , and not all around , at the same time to be able to have an
> > un
> > > > > > moveable belife that works is a beutifule thing
>
> > > > > > Chuck Bowling wrote:
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 10:58 AM, the taoist shaman <
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > >wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > damn chuck  ,    RP sounds like a hindu , i belive all religion
> > > > leaves
> > > > > > > > room for interpretations , but to make definate and solid
> > > > conclusions
> > > > > > > > seems ...... ?
>
> > > > > > > Seems...  What?
>
> > > > > > > >  Chuck Bowling wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Sorry if I sound insulting but this just sounds like a bunch
> > of
> > > > > > mystical
> > > > > > > > > obfuscation. You're not by chance trying to sell some
> > self-help
> > > > books
> > > > > > or
> > > > > > > > > starting your own cult are you?
>
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 9:07 AM, RP Singh <[email protected]>
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > God is aware in the sense that He is all or all emanates
> > from
> > > > Him
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > thus automatically He knows everything and doesn't have to
> > be
> > > > aware
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > things like us mortals. In my opinion , we should not
> > conceive
> > > > of
> > > > > > Him
> > > > > > > > > > to be conscious in the way that we are because our
> > > > consciousness
> > > > > > > > > > entails duality or is encompassed within borders. He is
> > > > conscious
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > us , acts in us but in His separate state He is oblivious
> > of
> > > > all as
> > > > > > He
> > > > > > > > > > alone is and creation being changeable and subject to birth
> > and
> > > > > > death
> > > > > > > > > > is just an illusion. In my view that which is not permanent
> > can
> > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > called an illusion.
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 6:53 PM, ornamentalmind
> > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > RP, are you suggesting that god is not conscious at
> > > > all?...that
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > > > god is/does etc. is unconscious?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > In either case, are you using one of the more common
> > notions
> > > > of
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > conscious means…like being self aware and knowing what
> > one is
> > > > > > doing?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 22, 1:45 am, RP Singh <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >> In my view , creation was not a conscious act of God ,
> > but
> > > > > > rather
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> universe emanated from the unconscious mind of God. He
> > > > doesn't
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > >> us consciously , doesn't connect results with actions ,
> > > > rather
> > > > > > > > > > >> everything is happening according to laws which exist in
> > His
> > > > > > > > > > >> unconscious mind. I don't think that any scripture can
> > > > really
> > > > > > lay
> > > > > > > > down
> > > > > > > > > > >> definitions of good and bad with His authority , rather
> > > > thinkers
> > > > > > > > among
> > > > > > > > > > >> us can lay down rules which appear logical to them and
> > > > accepted
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > us
> > > > > > > > > > >> as such. I don't believe in an after-life and consider
> > this
> > > > life
> > > > > > > > > > >> itself to be a spiritual experience.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> On Fri, Apr 22, 2011 at 12:55 AM, Chuck Bowling
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:55 AM,
> > > > [email protected]
> > > > > > > > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> Hey Chuck,
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> I guess it depends on what you belive God is.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> If you believe that God is the creator then
> > everything
> > > > has
> > > > > > Gods
> > > > > > > > hand
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> in it,  if you further belive that God is omipitant
> > then
> > > > God
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> exactly the way that God has designed you to be.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > I believe that god/goddess/gods etc. are icons. They
> > are
> > > > > > concepts
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > help
> > > > > > > > > > >> > people cope with their own frailties and inadequacies.
> > > > Whether
> > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > blame bad things on, attribute good things to, or to
> > > > provide
> > > > > > us a
> > > > > > > > path
> > > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > continue our existence beyond the grave.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> If you are a gardner, and you splice together two
> > > > differant
> > > > > > > > plants to
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> gain a desird result, the plant does have a life of
> > it's
> > > > own,
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> works in the way you have designd it to.  So in a
> > real
> > > > way
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > > > are
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> manipulator of that plants life, your hand is in all
> > that
> > > > it
> > > > > > > > does, as
> > > > > > > > > > >> >> you have designed it.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Here I would say that the original design was altered.
> > A
> > > > much
> > > > > > > > easier
> > > > > > > > > > task
> > > > > > > > > > >> > than the original design.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > As I may have mentioned in a previous post, I readily
> > > > accept
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > possibility
> > > > > > > > > > >> > that some entity may have created this universe. And,
> > I
> > > > think
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > > >> > with that kind of power would probably appear to be
> > > > omniscient
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > us.
> > > > > > > > > > >> > However, I also believe that it is VERY unlikely that
> > any
> > > > > > entity
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > could
> > > > > > > > > > >> > have created this reality would bare even the
> > slightest
> > > > > > > > resemblance to
> > > > > > > > > > >> > anything we describe as a god.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > The reasoning for that seems fairly straightforward to
> > me:
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Most of the gods we have created seem to be pretty
> > damn
> > > > lame.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > > come
> > > > > > > > > > >> > on. You want me to kill a goat, sacrifice a virgin, or
> > set
> > > > > > fire to
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > wax
> > > > > > > > > > >> > stick in your honor. REALLY??? And you're going to
> > send me
> > > > to
> > > > > > hell
> > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > >> > eternity because I thought the neighbor's wife was a
> > hot
> > > > piece
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > tail?
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Jeesh. As gods go you suck dude.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Another thing. You would think that god would find a
> > > > better
> > > > > > way of
> > > > > > > > > > >> > correcting bad behavior than to fry people for an
> > > > eternity.
> > > > > > Even
> > > > > > > > we
> > > > > > > > > > lowly
> > > > > > > > > > >> > humans know that setting someone on fire is not the
> > best
> > > > way
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > convince 'em
> > > > > > > > > > >> > to mend their ways.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > Lastly but not finally. If god created this reality
> > then
> > > > at a
> > > > > > > > minimum
> > > > > > > > > > he
> > > > > > > > > > >> > created one and possibly infinitely more universes. In
> > > > this
> > > > > > one
> > > > > > > > there
> > > > > > > > > > are an
> > > > > > > > > > >> > estimated 300 sextillion stars. That's
> > > > > > > > 300,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
> > > > > > > > > > stars
> > > > > > > > > > >> > if you're looking for precision. You would think that
> > with
> > > > all
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > > stuff
> > > > > > > > > > >> > floating around out there that he/she/it would have
> > better
> > > > > > things
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > do than
> > > > > > > > > > >> > make sure that little johnnies prayers are answered
> > with a
> > > > > > brand
> > > > > > > > new
> > > > > > > > > > bike on
> > > > > > > > > > >> > his birthday.
>
> > > > > > > > > > >> > My guess is that any entity capable of creating all of
> > > > this
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > > us as
> > > > > > > > > > >> > a minor
>
> ...
>
> read more »

Reply via email to