On Oct 25, 2007, at 12:06 AM, new.morning wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--Vaj, your'e not being consistent. I just received my Snow Lion
magazine today with a cover article on the Green Tara. Devotion to
Her is not only a wisdom
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I wonder if you are using the term in a different way from a Christian
evangelist who might use the same words. I guess I might need to
understand what you mean by loving God, how that manifests, and how
you
An independent view:
why is God necessarily a prerequisite, or an intermediary, to
Universal Love -- defined as loving everything intensely. (Including
Loving the homeless man you pass -- and doing something with that
Love). Can't a pure atheist experience the same intensity of
Universal Love as
TurquoiseB wrote:
You believe in God, and I think that's just
wonderful. I don't, and I perceive a strong
undertone in most of your posts to this thread
that you *don't* think that's wonderful.
Michael wrote:
As a non-belief isn't anything positive in and
of itself, I cannot make
TurquoiseB wrote:
Imagine you're in a poker game, and you have a royal
flush and so do I, but yours is in Hearts and mine
is in Clubs. Yours wins because Hearts are a higher
suit than Clubs, and thus your hand trumps mine.
You are incorrect, Sir! In Texas Hold'em, the most
popular game of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
God and Its divine symbols, and messengers. All nice. But you can make
your own placebos -- if you need one -- faster, easier, if you dare to
do so.
Faster? Easier? Make it yourself?
New, I don't get you. If you wish,
Whachoo mean ONLY a placebo?
The placebo effect is so-called precisely because no one knows how to account
for it. So if I were your opposition (and I'm not) I'd say, Well, how do you
know that the placebo effect ain't the God-effect?
Also, it says in the Bible plain as day that God is love.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
Imagine you're in a poker game, and you have a royal
flush and so do I, but yours is in Hearts and mine
is in Clubs. Yours wins because Hearts are a higher
suit than Clubs, and thus
On Oct 24, 2007, at 11:11 AM, new.morning wrote:
An independent view:
why is God necessarily a prerequisite, or an intermediary, to
Universal Love -- defined as loving everything intensely. (Including
Loving the homeless man you pass -- and doing something with that
Love). Can't a pure atheist
The God vs Placebo argument begs the question.
Vaj [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Oct 24, 2007, at 11:11 AM, new.morning wrote:
An independent view:
why is God necessarily a prerequisite, or an intermediary, to
Universal Love -- defined as loving everything
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, cardemaister [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Richard J. Williams
willytex@ wrote:
TurquoiseB wrote:
Imagine you're in a poker game, and you have a royal
flush and so do I, but yours is in Hearts and mine
is in
Erik wrote:
You're splitting hairs, Sir!
I stand corrected, Sir, I was splitting hairs! But
apparently suits have no value in some variants of
standard poker:
In most variants, if two players have hands that
are identical except for suit, then they are tied
and split the pot.
Source:
new.morning wrote
If loving your god brings intense universal love,
then you have a good god -- or at least a good
placebo.
Maybe so, but it seems to me that one would have to
understand human love before one could understand
Devine Love. For example, divorcing your wife probably
wouldn't
--Vaj, your'e not being consistent. I just received my Snow Lion
magazine today with a cover article on the Green Tara. Devotion to
Her is not only a wisdom proposition, but has an objective of
ofsetting physical calamaties of all types, from arthritis to zits;
snake bites, poverty,
New.Morning, this what I feel, too. *You* (the understood *you*) is
the only one that gets there (or realizes where they've always been)
and the only way (IMO) you can get from here to (t)here is to follow
what you feel is right; follow what moves you.
Follow your bliss, as the man says.
**
On Oct 24, 2007, at 1:42 PM, matrixmonitor wrote:
--Vaj, your'e not being consistent. I just received my Snow Lion
magazine today with a cover article on the Green Tara. Devotion to
Her is not only a wisdom proposition, but has an objective of
ofsetting physical calamaties of all types, from
I'm almost reluctant to say this, because things
have quieted down and I don't want to stir them
up again, but I suspect that the distinction being
discussed here was also discussed by Maharishi in
the Science of Being. It's been decades since I
read it, but didn't he there speak of the notion
of
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning no_reply@ wrote:
God and Its divine symbol
s, and messengers. All nice. But you can make
your own placebos -- if you need one -- faster, easier, if you dare to
do
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, matrixmonitor
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--Vaj, your'e not being consistent. I just received my Snow Lion
magazine today with a cover article on the Green Tara. Devotion to
Her is not only a wisdom proposition, but has an objective of
ofsetting
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I was not trying to convince anyone that my POV is right or debate
it's superiority (as Edg wants me to do) or try to argue that others
should adapt it. But evaluating my capacities for love or passion for
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My point really is, that in this discussion about God, the
word 'Love' didn't really enter until now, but it is the
most important word for any theist. I could easily say,
that I believe in God, because I love him, and
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
My point really is, that in this discussion about God, the
word 'Love' didn't really enter until now, but it is the
most important word for any
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
My point really is, that in this discussion about God, the
word 'Love' didn't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Religion and spirituality are about practice.
I just have been to India where there is a general
religiosity pervading, and you can see it in the eyes
of the people, you can see it even in the eyes of
children.
I'm just curious, and coming into the discussion some time after it started.
Before arguing about whether or not God exists, did you establish some
consensus on who or what God actually is?
Tubingen is a university famous in Europe for many centuries for its department
of theology. They had
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
What I think you are saying in these posts is
that your subjective experience trumps any
possible objective assessment. Right?
I don't know what
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As a non-belief isn't anything positive in and of itself...
In the parts of your response I snipped (because I
had nothing to say about them), you claim that you
aren't saying that belief in God is superior. Look
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Angela Mailander
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm just curious, and coming into the discussion some time after it
started. Before arguing about whether or not God exists, did you
establish some consensus on who or what God actually is?
Angela no we didn't.
Michael, this (below) really helps me understand what you're speaking
about and that equivalency among the concept labels fits my feeling
and understanding as well. Thanks for the question, Angela.
Marek
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I do not for a moment belief that there is one Truth,
objective or not. Or one reality. I believe the exact
opposite, in fact.
You are *choosing* to believe that that's what I'm
saying. What I'm really saying was
You're welcome. Defined in the way you have done, God is the equivalent of the
tiger in an analogy that represents a consensus in the field of psychology to
the effect that the small self can be likened to a monkey riding a tiger. The
monkey is desperately inventing all kinds of stories about
First Michael, thanks for keeping the ball rolling. We are discussing
abstract topics across language and cultural barriers and I really dig
the way you are keeping the discussion very respectful. I hope you
sense my own respect for you in my attempt to understand your POV and
get a chance to
Not to interrupt a good discussion with Michael
but to start a tangential thread:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I get that you aren't trying to put me down. Inherent in
this discussion are our beliefs that we are correct in
our view.
Ok,
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Not to interrupt a good discussion with Michael
but to start a tangential thread:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
curtisdeltablues@ wrote:
I get that you aren't trying to put me down.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, curtisdeltablues
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB no_reply@ wrote:
...when I present a view, I do *not* hold the belief
that it is correct. I hold only the belief that it is
a view that has passed across my
Curtis, et al,
To me, this refining an atheistic stance is merely a waste of time
like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
cesspool. Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to bear
than than the doo-doo stink over there.
Oh, I'm being haughty, don't
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curtis, et al,
To me, this refining an atheistic stance is merely a waste of time
like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
cesspool. Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to
Curtis,
Shame on you. I gave you a chance to really dig in and try to pony up
a defense of atheism (your brand) but you've just continued the
personal attacks on me instead of addressing the incredible concepts I
tried to convey. I thought you were a cut above Barry, but, like
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Duveyoung [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Curtis, et al,
To me, this refining an atheistic stance is merely a waste of time
like having a discussion about where's the best place to stand in a
cesspool. Oh, stand over here, cuz the puke stench is easier to
Good stuff, T, good stuff. I wanted to use the word love, but I was
afraid I'd come off as even more new age, but yeah, I've posted here
that true love is consciousness, and thank you for helping me come
back to that. More later, no time to reply-enjoy your words right now.
Edg
--- In
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
An atheist may be in awe, but
basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring
a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in awe, yes. But he
cannot LOVE reality as such, and he cannot develop a
T3rinity, what you've written (below) is way over my present mental
acuity to grok but I do agree with you that Curtis is not the
rational atheist Edg is railing against. Basically, I don't get what
Edg's problem is; if Curtis just said he believed in a God then
that's cool, but if he follows
--Heinz R. Pagels, died on July 23, 1988, in a mountain climbing
accident on Pyramid Peak in Aspen, Colorado. His death had an
enormous impact on a wide and disparate range of individuals who,
each in their own way, were affected by his inquiring mind.
Heinz, a physicist, was Executive
Thank you, Judy, this is excellent and such a better expression of
what I was trying to write about in reply to t3rinity's post.
**
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
snip
An atheist may
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thank you, Judy, this is excellent and such a better expression of
what I was trying to write about in reply to t3rinity's post.
Thanks for your post Marek. I don't think any claim about what
another person can or
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, t3rinity no_reply@ wrote:
snip
An atheist may be in awe, but
basically (Unless he is a Buddhist or Taoist)he is just exploring
a kind of a metaphysical study. So he may be in
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Marek Reavis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
T3rinity, what you've written (below) is way over my
present mental acuity to grok but I do agree with you
that Curtis is not the rational atheist Edg is railing
against. Basically, I don't get what Edg's problem
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As I've suggested before, try to have some
compassion for Edg. He's melting down, and
for some reason has chosen Fairfield Life as
the place where he wants to do it.
Lol !
I don't read much of the Turqey's posts
48 matches
Mail list logo
