Regardless of view, what I think we are talking about is what tools best
fit the job, and if we are talking about progress I'd err on the side of
a healthy imaginative vein running through humanity and less mired in
myths and superstition. It is my hope that somewhere embedded in
folksonomy (wrong word probably) are clues to translate the talents of
creative psychic bursts and the low bass beats and tones that hold sway
of so many.
On 12/11/2012 8:24 PM, James wrote:
That is where I have difficulty with 'right reason', and I do know where
you guys are coming from, everyone seems to have a view on it, most
people know it when they see it I think. It's a conscience for what is
true like it or not, but it gets colored in agenda and motives that
determines the depth and scope, what narrative representation someone
can present. I think we are rife with personality cults, but that may be
a peculiar oddity of my own view, everything depends on the person. In
the wrong hands you get megalomaniacs in power, in the right hands you
get timeless vanguards of noble and hopeless causes.
On 12/10/2012 8:25 AM, archytas wrote:
I'm more materialist than RP in that I see religion as more to do with
what we do with and for each other - this said I prefer private prayer
to collective knee-bending. How does tolerance fare once religionists
become 'so pure' they can treat anyone else as infidel?
On Dec 10, 1:33 am, James<[email protected]> wrote:
The original post, that is, hmm sorry. :)
On 12/9/2012 5:40 PM, James wrote:
RP, I have been considering your post and have taken it in the view
of a
biological perspective. It is one that I do think important but I am
still left wondering why to attach such significance in an exclusive
sense. It may be that I am overthinking the concept, it is one that I
hold respect for but not to a degree of conclusiveness. Is there more I
should examine?
Browsing the TimesOfIndia recently I found talk about the common views
on China and worry over world dominance. I imagine there are vicious
clashes between them and the Arab speaking regions, it seems
unfortunate
perhaps like being surrounded by strong interests on each side. I
obviously have little political world knowledge. :)
On 12/9/2012 1:15 PM, RP Singh wrote:
Religion is first and foremost about prayer and worship. There is no
need for that but we must accept a morality code and adhere by it ,
there should be a feeling of love for one's fellow creatures and
tolerance towards them.
On Sun, Dec 9, 2012 at 8:41 PM, archytas<[email protected]> wrote:
Given what they have done with some decent spiritual messages
Allan, I
sometimes think of 'them' as Xstains. I was born into the tradition,
but thought it was twaddle by the time Sunday school was interfering
with soccer and cricket. I have no doubt we should focus more on
spirituality, fellowship, hospitality, goodwill and sensitivity to
others. I just don't want to base this on a pack of lies, banning
women from hierarchies, prejudicing gays and xenophobic stuff about
outsiders and being part of god's chosen. It's hard to think like
this without being prejudiced against the 'worshipers of the blue and
white striped rabbit' and purveyors of godswank. The inner danger is
becoming religiously anti-religious. I'm actually rather touched by
good aspects of some of the stuff.
I have no idea why we are clinging to this rock - but I don't want it
to be about being amused by Aussie pranksters making hoax calls or
murals celebrating vile killing such as one finds in the Vatican.
Science clearly provides us no answers to our spiritual plight and
religion as I witness it internally is largely about future memory
with less myth in it and less reason to take religion as we might
otherwise take opiates.
A colleague working in India is saying his students are reading Mein
Kampf - more or less replacing the word Jew with Muslim and agreeing
the plot entirely. We could do with some sensible religion and
economics to fill the void that leaves people this vulnerable.
Knowledge of thermodynamics or the biochemistry of life isn't
going to
do that for us.
On Dec 8, 10:01 am, Allan H<[email protected]> wrote:
xtian aka christianity
On Sat, Dec 8, 2012 at 8:02 AM, rigs<[email protected]> wrote:
It depends on what religion you are referring to. Very funny line
about Pilate! :-)
On Dec 6, 4:09 am, archytas<[email protected]> wrote:
Sounds like something Pontius Pilate might have used.
I guess that David Deutsch and constructor theory tries to get
back to
reminding science about its root guesses Allan. I take from
'Spartacus Ants' sacrificing themselves to destroy slaver ants
that
pre-human biology 'knows' something of survival instinct.
Descartes had it that until we could get to a point of
re-evaluating
against his radical doubt one had to trust in a beneficent god.
Whilst we can criticize his system, I think anti-religious science
misses the beat on issues of how we can live until we know
more. The
spiritual thus has its place. There is plenty to avoid in its
history
of control fraud, abuse, sexism and war crimes - but plenty to
learn
in terms of grace and fellowship.
On 6 Dec, 08:15, Allan H<[email protected]> wrote:
it is not for cleaning hands ,, it just gets rid of smell that
you
can not get rid of no matter how much you wash.. you just wash
after
youor hands are clean,, then the smell is gone.
Allan
On Wed, Dec 5, 2012 at 11:27 PM, gabbydott<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hm, I have never thought of using a steel soap bar for cleaning
my hands. I
use it occasionally for my pots and pans. And for the more
difficult dirt on
my hands I use a pumice stone or lemon. And more and more often
I wear
gloves or buy frozen and precut garlic and onion. But thanks for
the tip.
I'm sure that one day I'll make use of it. Why not steel instead
of stone,
you're right.
On Tuesday, December 4, 2012 7:54:42 PM UTC+1, Allan Heretic
wrote:
Well actually Gabby I have this stainless steel soap bar
used for
getting rid of ordure off your hands things like onion,
Garlic ,,
any strong ordure ,, just tried it on the epoxy smell left over
from
fixing my maxi egg coddler.
now one of the greatest mysteries of the universe,, how does it
work?
Allan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 6:38 PM, gabbydott<[email protected]>
wrote:
The pointlessness of the points' business. Like Lee, I find
the God
concept
much more to the point. :)
I don't follow Lee's sequencing model - first spirit, then
matter -
though.
This sounds very man-made to me. ;)
As for the storytelling aspect, yes, the Chronos story is much
more
vivid
than the "God created (x) and saw it was good" story. That's
true. But
the
children are less likely to have bad dreams at night. Which is
really
good.
Sorry, Allan, I got carried away. What were you talking about?
2012/12/4 Allan H<[email protected]>
a series of creation is at best a wild guess with no
supporting
evidence..
Allan
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM, RP Singh<[email protected]>
wrote:
You can pinpoint the beginning of this universe but not
that of
Creation with its series of universes.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Allan H<[email protected]>
wrote:
That is not true the beginning can be pretty much
pinpointed .. as
for
parallel universes that is just a wild guess with nothing
to support
the
other than it sounds good. There is more evidence
supporting the
spiritual
realm than parallel universes
Allan
Matrix ** th3 beginning light
On Dec 4, 2012 2:26 PM, "RP Singh"<[email protected]> wrote:
In my view there is no beginning to creation. There is
beginning
and
end to universes There are infinite no. of universes in
parallel
and
continuously many universes are being born and many are
dying ,
but
Creation which includes infinite universes in eternal time
, just
like
the Spirit, is without beginning and without end. The
difference is
that the nature of creation is dualistic and the Spirit is
non-dual.
On Tue, Dec 4, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Lee
Douglas<[email protected]>
wrote:
Hello Andrew,
Heh I can envisage many things, but alas many of them are
not
true.
I
distinguish between two things, matter and spirit.
Mattter is
all
that
is
physical, which includes physical 'matter' and also
energy. To
me
there
is
no paradox of who created the creator. Before the
begining there
was
only
God, God in spirit, and God created the creation out of
the spirt
of
God.
That is all matter comes from spirit.
On Friday, 30 November 2012 18:32:43 UTC, andrew vecsey
wrote:
Lee, I can see where all matter has to have an energy
component
to
it
because matter is manifested as atoms which have motion
in them.
But I
could
also envision pure motion without involving any
atoms...like a
vibration in
the fabric of space,
On Friday, November 30, 2012 5:53:26 PM UTC+1, Lee
Douglas
wrote:
Heh except of course that when it comes right down to
it.energy
is
matter
and matter is energy.
On Friday, 30 November 2012 11:22:14 UTC, andrew vecsey
wrote:
...
read more ยป
--
