🚀 go-pugleaf

"The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
news:1216188845.18724.1@proxy00.news.clara.net...
> Alex W. wrote:
>> "The Natural Philosopher" <a@b.c> wrote in message 
>> news:1216105791.16115.0@proxy02.news.clara.net...
>>> BuddyThunder wrote:
>>>> Antares 531 wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:25:49 -0700 (PDT), hhyapster@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jul 14, 8:51 pm, Antares 531 <gordonlrDEL...@swbell.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:38:36 -0700 (PDT), hhyaps...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> (snip)
>>>>>>> The primary purpose of our brief existence here in a mortal body is 
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> learn about sin and rebellion. We learn by being directly involved 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> we learn by observation in those events with which we were not
>>>>>>> directly involved. We are expected to learn enough about sin and
>>>>>>> rebellion to assure God that none of us will ever want to go back 
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> explore it any further, once we've been granted immortality and
>>>>>>> absolute sovereignty.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Gordon
>>>>>> Well, I do not wish to dispute your line of thinking.
>>>>>> However, what I think is not right is that "sin", "rebellion" were
>>>>>> from your god.
>>>>>> How on earth did he created all these and get us to learn about it?
>>>>>> Surely, if he is all mighty, he should be able to prevent human from
>>>>>> those silly things, right?
>>>>>> Or, are you saying that he was actually non-mighty?
>>>>>> As I had said before, if your god really is the entity that can 
>>>>>> create
>>>>>> human, what did he wish to create all the calamities to kill living
>>>>>> things....?
>>>>>> All these believes do not match up and you did not provide convincing
>>>>>> arguments whatsoever.
>>>>>>
>>>>> I can see your point, but don't quite agree with all you've said. Of
>>>>> course I was wrong one time before...that time when I thought I was
>>>>> wrong but actually wasn't.    ;-)
>>>>>
>>>>> Would God's creation have been perfect had He left anything out? It
>>>>> seems to me that he had to create sin and rebellion along with all
>>>>> that is good, then separate them into their own domains. This process
>>>>> of separating of good from evil is what we are going through,
>>>>> presently, and we each get to make our choice as to which side of the
>>>>> line we will be on. It seems long and tedious from our temporal
>>>>> perspective, but from God's temporal perspective it is almost
>>>>> instantaneous.
>>>> Can I ask where this idea comes from? I'd be interested to know how you 
>>>> formed this opinion.
>>> It's not an uncommon view: its actually shared with many eastern 
>>> religions, and of course the Alchemical principles were based on this 
>>> sort of world view: the World as a spiritual distillery. It's based on 
>>> the observed fact that a mentalist approach to experience can lead to 
>>> changes in consciousness. Now in its proper form this is merely an 
>>> interesting fact. It took a culture infatuated with Purpose to decide 
>>> that this process was in fact What Life Was All About, and indeed, 
>>> enforce a way of life on everybody to Make Sure They Followed It.
>>>
>>>
>>> And of course 'God' left lots of stuff out of Earth's creation. He did 
>>> not, for example, include fluorescent green unicorns, which would have 
>>> been, I feel, an artistic touch.
>>
>> Perhaps they are invisible fluorescent green unicorns, only visible to 
>> the naked eye after ingesting rather too much by way of divinely created 
>> chemistry ...
>>
>>
>>> I have no problems with the facts on which religion is (probably) based: 
>>> I have deep concerns about the reckless extrapolation that those facts 
>>> undergo in the construction of a religious THEORY.
>>
>> Even theory is not the problem.
>> Theories are a dozen a dime.
>> The trouble only starts with the attempt to implement theory and turn it 
>> into reality.
>>
>>
>>> One interesting philosophical question that you may care to ponder, is 
>>> how we can conceive of something that definitely does NOT exist. Never 
>>> mind things that MAY exist.
>>>
>>
>> You mean wishful thinking, wish-fulfilment phantasies?  I'd say that it 
>> is actually easier to conceive of something that CANNOT exist (by virtue 
>> of contravening laws of physics, for instance) than to construct an 
>> imaginary something that COULD exist but definitely doesn't.  It's ever 
>> so much harder if you have to respect the laws of the universe.
> I dont think its any harder t concieve of e.g. sudddebly being somewhere 
> else, as in teleportatiion, than being in bed with your favorite movie 
> star.

I'm not so certain.  It's a matter of discipline: it is rather harder to 
invent a hero who has to obey the same laws we do than to conceive of a 
superhero who can see through walls or clear entire buildings in one giant 
leap.  If anything goes, the only limit is our imagination.


>
> At my age, the latter is definitely harder..

I shan't touch this straight line with a 10' pole ....