submit the direct responses inline. o.0
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 5:09 PM, James Lynch <ashkashal@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 <atewari2007@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