🚀 go-pugleaf

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.

At my age, the latter is definitely harder..