|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 10:58:41 GMT -5
Ohhh, you can't know that I can't know. There are other ways of seeing than with the mind. Ok, if you're going to go there...  I can use that too. There is a seeing without mind that the person in front of me (or the rock) exists in the same way that I exist, as consciousness manifesting. I see a web of 'life' that is all moving as one. Each element has no independent existence but exists nevertheless, imbued with that life from which it arose. It's not a debate tool.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2016 11:01:23 GMT -5
Perfection means absence of error, absence of mistake, absence of anything being wrong. All the King's horse and King's men ARE perfectly placed in the absolute context, and the perspective you offer is perfect as is mine. In the relative context, my perspective is clearly better than yours hehe. I don't think you or E understand the paradox of absolute and relative contexts, but I'm pretty sure you deny having an absolute context in your perspective, so that might be why. Paradox is always mental confusion, and should be a clue to you to slow the orbital velocity. There's nothing wrong with confusion. Confusion blurs the boundary between conceptual polar opposites. It blurs the boundary between truth and falsity, absolute and relative, emptiness and form. There is a time to talk in such way that creates a clear distinction between them, but ultimately all conceptual boundaries have to collapse. That's where confusion comes in. It's actually a damn good thing that there is confusion because without it, folks would remain stuck in their experience of being separate. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2016 11:06:46 GMT -5
Wow Doooofus, that could get kinda', painful, right??  hehe 'Well, no pain no gain, right?' hehe Oh, c'mon now Doooofus everyone knows that self-improvement is absolutely necessary to realizing the truth but it's not that kind of pain they're talking about.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 11:07:31 GMT -5
I think you need to check your history. He got his foot in the door as an elected official, and talked his way into more power, lies and deception and obfuscation, and then illegal actions then killing innocent people. An example of camel's nose under tent. German Jews were deprived of the vote in 1935 and Hitler never won a popular election anyway. He came to power via a back room deal, not a vote by the people. I presume you are googling German history...and will see I was closer to truth that you. (Hitler was head of the Nazi party, which came to power in a National election, March 1933, with a coalition of the other mentioned party). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2016 11:08:15 GMT -5
What a wacky idea! I wonder if anyone has ever done it.  I wanna' go! Siri-uslly!  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2016 11:10:21 GMT -5
Wow, that's so out of character for him.  It's hard to believe, I know. He's always been the very 'model' of integrity. unless he isn't while he does until he doesn't but in a subtle way this isn't necessarily true so we have to assume the position necessary to understand how the relative truth of integrity is contextually equal to the virtue of perpetually lying.  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 11:10:30 GMT -5
He already agreed with you! you are not understanding the problem, he doesn't understand yet. He says that everything appears, but rest of writing shows to me that he did not understand yet. He's referring to two different contexts. In one context he agrees, (so you don't have to convince him) then he talks in a smaller context to irritate you. I don't know if you understand context either, but I've had to skip most of the posts for the last few days. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2016 11:12:21 GMT -5
Oh, it doesn't matter what gopal meant. So much. Really.  It's not seems to, isn't it? All these nonsense you're talking everytimes! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 11:12:40 GMT -5
Then you don't understand context. I can certainly understand why you write reply in single line, he he I no longer have the energy for discussion with some of these peeps.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:13:17 GMT -5
German Jews were deprived of the vote in 1935 and Hitler never won a popular election anyway. He came to power via a back room deal, not a vote by the people. curious...were you taught this at school, or was it your own learning? Whole history subject was about this world war, but the above mentioned information I have gotten it from Tim'O Neil who is Atheist, Medievalist, Sceptic and amateur Historian who writes more about Romans,Jews and Christianity and many others. He is the unbiased writer in any field he writes about. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2016 11:15:41 GMT -5
Picky! Considering Goldilocks broke in and ransacked the dinner table, seems she would'nt b!tch about the quality of the food she stole, right? Breaking and entering while Blonde.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2016 11:16:05 GMT -5
You are understanding the problem of your view here. Most of the religious people want their God to give the free will for them because none of them can accept the idea of predetermination. In the same time they all want their God to be omniscient as well. But they don't know both are mutually exclusive. God doesn't need to be aware of the future to nullify your freewill, God's ability to peek into future is more than enough to deprive your freewill. If God knows what you would be eating tomorrow morning, Can you choose to eat something else? Can you ? If you can't choose what he had already known, is it not predetermined? He can't know your free choice, If he could know, then it's not free choice, it's bound to happen. God's omniscience is not incompatible with free will. But yes, God has to limit his omnipotence for the present world to exist, already spoken to. The other stuff...we did that dance when you first arrived, don't care to do it again (it's still on the record). God can't limit his powers. You are not aware of the problem when God possess certain powers. I said even if God hasn't see the future, God's power to peek the future itself freezes the future. If you don't want to continue the argument, I leave it here. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2016 11:16:34 GMT -5
'Real' can merely mean there is a correspondence between an outer occurrence/event and an inner experience/sensations. Imaginary/illusory would mean there-is-no outward evidence for an inner experience. So it CAN mean a correspondence, but maybe not? Another iteration or two and you're going to prove my point about the term 'real'. Whole post was one whole thought. If there is a correspondence between and outer event and an inner experience, then the outer event can be said to be real. However, if there is no correspondence between an outer event and an inner experience, then the outer event was not-real, the outer event was illusory/imaginary, for example, mirage. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2016 11:17:49 GMT -5
How would you express in your words what andrew meant in these two posts? Now, you all can have a nice little morph-party and backpedal away. That would be fun. Perfection doesn't mean that all the kings horses and all the kings men are perfectly placed, it means that there is a perspective available where it becomes clear that there are no men, there are no horses, and that the egg has never been broken.And that perspective is horrifying and needs to be avoided at all cost. That's where you have to give the resident hamsters some credit for their bravado in cosying up to an idealized version of it to make everything all nice, equal, bland and safe for everyone. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2016 11:18:23 GMT -5
"It's all God" does not mean it's all equally true or equally valid, or equally useful or equally enjoyable or equally anything. How 'bout equally "Godly"? Or Divine....or equally "of God?" There's a tendency in some to see divinity or Godliness in only those things that one is deeming/judging to be wanted, good, beneficial. The place of seeing that renders all equal is one absent that judgement. There is just the seeing of the fundamental 'same Sourcedness" or "Oneness" of all that appears, unfolds, arises, happens. From that vantage point ideas like 'useful, enjoyable, beneficial, wanted' just don't arise. It's a mistake to go from 'absence of judgment' to 'equally true'. |
|
