forgotten them all James. Maybe the last line read 'forget all this
tosh'! God/nature hardly matters to me either.
One doesn't really want to dismiss any argument, yet I sense we have
somehow to stop ceding all the ground to the madness of our power
elites and their appeal to the vapid. It's impossible to imagine
argument shifting this unless we can apply public scrutiny to the
argument in new ways. For me this entails some analogue of science
properly understood. We are stuck in some kind of phlogiston theory
and ecocide as surely as Easter Islanders.
On Jan 23, 10:10 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow, ignore the top thoughts, my editing got mixed up. I meant to
> submit the direct responses inline. o.0
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well, I do agree
>
> > Well, in turn I could say in my way, as I see it. What people call God
> > I can only call nature, now what that may mean to me you won't find in
> > books or the words I speak.
>
> > I would go further to say we have this in common, and as it would be
> > in error to think this means one thing or three, a thousand I know
> > would be to make the same error as to call it one.
>
> > To me it seems a cartographic feat to find acceptance, affirmation and
> > give up power for
>
> > On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> James, what God can we speak of ? You, RP or I ?
> > I think if we keep examining our experiences, sharing and reflecting
> > we might find something of value, even if it is more informative of
> > our identity (characteristically).
>
> >> We do not know enough about ourself. What the f do we know about God ?
> > They are all hypothetical gods to me.
>
> >> I am Voltaire's quote on " politicians "... " who cannot manage their
> >> wives... " !
> > I think that has been said before here a while back but I'm unfamiliar
> > with the reference.
>
> >> It would be fine, and we could speak, if we are sharing our personal
> >> experiences of God ! And, that's an informal matter.
> > Well, if it is shit how about throwing down a competing or alternative
> > explanation or a better framework. That's really what I'm looking for
> > in discussion is something to think about and new ideas or clarity on
> > a subject. I happen to see it from both your perspectives and would
> > like some explanation for why (not anyone elses responsibility except
> > with the hopes of facilitation) it would be a facilitation to the
> > awareness pool besides. The name calling I don't care much for, but I
> > care more for the opportunity for clarity so leave that to RP to meet
> > however he likes. And for round 2?
>
> >> On Jan 22, 11:29 pm, James Lynch <ashkas...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> As an aspect I find RP's view on god respectable, and find it
> >>> powerful, but where it has little power there are other aspects. Is
> >>> this not an important part of the dynamic multidimensional mind Vam,
> >>> can you find nothing of value with meeting this view at least as a
> >>> challenge? I am curious how you would assimilate it, inquiring minds
> >>> would be grateful as it is a bit jarring of a concept.
>
> >>> On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> > What you wrote, RP, was ridiculous. It you I found to be funny.
>
> >>> > I don't see why God's choices have to be of a kind and scale that
> >>> > preoccupies you.
>
> >>> > You would be hard put at defining, or drawing up a portrait of, the
> >>> > God you speak of with such aplomb ! And then you presume to know of
> >>> > his choices !! Or, worse, his choicelessness !!!
>
> >>> > On Jan 21, 1:04 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> A man jumps from a plane without a parachute and when he reaches a
> >>> >> great velocity God exercises His choice and drastically slows his
> >>> >> fall. Funny Vam , isn't it ? Again God exercises His choice and
> >>> >> cancels all His laws and there is mayhem ! Or better still , at times
> >>> >> there are laws and at times there are none. God keeps on exercising
> >>> >> His choice and man keeps on playing the fool , he doesn't get wet in
> >>> >> the pool and doesn't get burned in the fire. Imagine a world without
> >>> >> God's laws , a world in which He keeps on exercising His choice.
>
> >>> >> On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 at 2:49 AM, Vam <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> > A choiceless God is shite...
> >>> >> > So there goes all such pontification !
>
> >>> >> > #DeepakMRanade's article "Uncovering Relative Truths"
> >>> >> > in @timesofindia neatly summarises the approach to Advaita,
> >>> >> > its conceptual layout. You are invited to discover the answers.
>
> >>> >> >http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Scripting/ArticleWin.asp?From=...
>
> >>> >> > On Jan 19, 10:21 pm, archytas <nwte...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >> Interesting RP. I'm atheist only in that I reject stories that are
> >>> >> >> full of holes, talking snakes and such. The Gnostics have it that
> >>> >> >> creation was a mistake - though I have no means to determine any truth
> >>> >> >> in this I am struck most argument can be undercut like this. I often
> >>> >> >> wonder what might explain why we don't just know what life is about
> >>> >> >> and how this might be explained.
>
> >>> >> >> On Jan 19, 10:59 am, RP Singh <123...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> >> >> > I as a human have the choice , even if it is apparent and not real ,
> >>> >> >> > to do this or do that , that is, there is an element of uncertainty in
> >>> >> >> > my actions , but God has a steadfastness of purpose. God's will is
> >>> >> >> > sure and certain , the whole space-time continuum emanates from Him
> >>> >> >> > without any active choice on His part which raises the question of
> >>> >> >> > responsibility. God cannot be held responsible for any event as it
> >>> >> >> > happens without any wavering on His part , He has no choice and hence
> >>> >> >> > cannot be held responsible. This brings us to the question of
> >>> >> >> > worship , why worship a Being who has a fixed purpose ? In that case ,
> >>> >> >> > even though believing in a supreme Being and determinism , I can be
> >>> >> >> > called an atheist.
0 comentários:
Postar um comentário