Yep, for a long time all I have been seeing you posting was youtube videos to connect to Neil's utterances. Perfectly understandable that you miss Fran as a sincere Man of God's words.
Am Sonntag, 1. März 2015 10:11:09 UTC+1 schrieb Molly: > > It is interesting that this particular quote really represents, for me, > the meaning of Logos and presence of the Lord. Yet the discussion about it > centers around the arrogance of posting it, and not the meaning of it. Part > of what may be lost in translation has nothing to do with language and more > with personal bias. I suppose I do the same with someone presenting > scientific evidence in the form of experimental studies. This is because I > know that many of those studies are rigged from the get go, funded to > produce particular results with an agenda to sway opinion or secure > funding. I can fully understand how an atheist or agnostic might feel the > same about a biblical quote. In this case, I am not offering this quote as > evidence of anything but a suggestion of the possibility of presence at > work. > > Whether the characters in the stories actually lived, comparative theology > can give keen insights into the workings of the human psyche, especially > when tracked over time. This may be of no interest to some. To each his > own. But if we are here to share, there is a modicum of respect that should > be afforded to one another that has nothing to do with politesse. Neil is > the master at bringing the best of each member of the group to light. Yet > sometimes I wonder if it isn't more the cop in him, trying to keep a lid on > things, than a recognition of inherent value. Survival sometimes teaches us > the path of least resistance, Or that jumping into the fire is only worth > it when the stakes are high enough. > > I tire of getting yelled at in here or anywhere else (and by the way > thought Neil's article on institutional narcissism good if not practical). > Our cultures may indeed reward the narcissist as they bully their way to > the top and we fall in line to maintain our comfort zones, not knowing or > caring that it really means we will never have a comfort zone again. The > article really gave us no practical means to live with or extricate > ourselves from the clutches of the narcissist, but I suppose we learn by > living, just like anything else. > > Maybe we do all just talk around each other, but through all of that, > enough relation and affection forms so that we can at least agree that we > miss Francis. There is something to that. > > On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 10:01:13 PM UTC-5, archytas wrote: > > I obviously agree RP. They are evidence of something, but rarely stand up > to detailed analysis even in their own terms. The Christians may be > Flavians conned by a Roman plot, Christ may not be a historical person but > an invention, Islam may be from Berber Jews and so on. Make these texts in > some way 'holy' perhaps as the word of god or an angel and hence he did > come to speak to us. This is more evidence of human gullibility than > anything else to me. And this doesn't mean the texts have nothing to offer. > > Religion for me can't be a matter of smug satisfaction or rejection of > counter-evidence as economics does through 'externalities'. Seeking is a > presence I understand, not the sacred. > > On Sunday, March 1, 2015 at 12:42:27 AM UTC, RP Singh wrote: > > Neil, I don't understand how scriptures can be termed evidence, I can > quote from various scriptures but what is the use, to term them as evidence > is not scientific. > > On Sun, Mar 1, 2015 at 6:07 AM, archytas <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > A scientist in some senses is prostrated before the evidence Molly. > > > On Saturday, February 28, 2015 at 7:47:49 PM UTC, Molly wrote: > > The Logos is God,[Jn 1:1] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+1%3A1&version=ESV> as > Thomas stated: "My Lord and my God."[20:28] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+20%3A28&version=ESV> Yet > the Logos is in some sense distinguishable from God, for "the Logos was > with God."[1:1] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+1%3A1&version=ESV> God > and the Logos are not two beings, and yet they are also not simply > identical. In contrast to the Logos, God can be conceived (in principle at > least) also apart from his revelatory action─although we must not forget > that the Bible speaks of God only in his revelatory action. The paradox > that the Logos is God and yet it is in some sense distinguishable from God > is maintained in the body of the Gospel. That God as he acts and as he is > revealed does not "exhaust" God as he is, is reflected in sayings > attributed to Jesus: I and the Father are one"[Jn 10:30] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+10%3A30&version=ESV> and > also, "the Father is greater than I."[14:28] > <http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jn+14%3A28&version=ESV> The > Logos is God active in creation, revelation, and red > > ... -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
