|
| Group: |
alt.yoga |
[ Post new message ] |
|
|
 |
| Author: |
Dutch |
| Subject: |
Re: SEEING THE FACE OF GOD |
| Body: |
dh@. wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 22:06:57 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
>
>> dh@. wrote:
>>> On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 03:26:53 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kerry Ladd wrote:
>>>>> Dutch wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> dh@. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 20:51:28 GMT, Dutch <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> If god is an all-powerful force then it makes no sense that it
>>>>>>>> would only exist in some parts of the universe and not in others.
>>>>>>> To me it makes sense that it would exist in things that
>>>>>>> have life, but not necessarily things that don't.
>>>>>> If you drill down to the atomic level all matter is alive.
>>>>> How cosmic!
>>>> Quite
>>>>
>>>>> Dutch claims that lead has life, that bullets think, and that all other
>>>>> items made of stuff have the ability to "think."
>>>> Notwithstanding that rather obvious strawman,
>>>> everything has life,
>>> You confirmed the first part of what he said anyway.
>> The first part was accurate.
>>
>>>> all you need to do is look
>>>> closely and broaden your definition a little.
>>> You would have to broaden it to include things that
>>> we have absolutely no reason to think of as being alive.
>> We do have a reason, we are trying to make some kind
>> of sense of the structure of the universe.
>
> Eliminating the distinction between living and non-living
> would be a hindrance, not a help.
My intent was not to eliminate distinctions. It is to
see a commonality.
>>>> The static appearance of matter is merely a function
>>>> of the limits of our powers of perception.
>>> It's truly a wonder that electrons continue to orbit
>>> protons and neutrons for billions of years. It's a wonder
>>> that they interact with each other as they do, and that
>>> electrons and photons interact as they do. There is no
>>> reason to think of any of them as being alive. To do
>>> that would blur the meaning of life to the point of it
>>> becoming meaningLESS, since then there would be
>>> no distinction between what is alive and what's not.
>> That's not true,
>
> It is true.
It's not true that I am trying to eliminate distinctions.
>
>> we are perfectly capable of making
>> distinctions between rocks, trees, ants, molluscs,
>> mice, gorillas and humans while still recognizing that
>> all share a similar molecular structure.
>
> You're still trying to eliminate the distinction.
Where? I just stated clearly that there ARE differences.
Of
> course as always when you attempt such absurdity
> the big question arises: Why do you even WANT to?
Why do you want to deny that all matter shares a
common structure?
>
>> A human is
>> about 97% the same as a banana at the DNA level.
>
> How close are we to rocks at the DNA level?
I haven't checked, but at some level I suspect very
close.
>
>>> It
>>> would say that dead people are still alive, and not just
>>> because there are microorganisms consuming their
>>> remains. It would say that they're still alive after all life
>>> in their remains has died out, and that dead people
>>> are still alive even after cremation.
>> I understand the significance of organic "life",
>
> We have no reason to think everything that's
> organic is alive. We do have reason to think that
> some organic things are not alive.
Our discussion would be better served if you would not
interject responses into the middle of my sentences.
>
>> sentience vs non-sentience, and the significance of
>> those factors *to us* but that is another level of the
>> discussion. I know that flowers don't feel pain,
>
> We hope they don't.
Right, I don't think they do, not pain as we know it.
>
>> but God is in them all the same. I am referring to the
>> very underpinnings of reality, of the universe itself,
>> nature, God if you like.
>
> God means an intelligent being who had/has
> deliberate influence on the development of life.
I have a broader perspective than that.
> If you want to pretend that God has no intelligence
> then you're trying to change the meaning of "God"
> to the opposite of what it means.
I NEVER suggested such a thing.
...you're trying to
> change it to mean "no God". "LaVeyan" "Satanists"
> try to do the same thing with the word "Satan"...trying
> to change it to mean "no Satan" and "no God".
>
>>>> Should you care? That depends on you.
>>> Having some understanding of the structure
>>> of atoms, what the elements are, what valence
>>> electrons are, what ions are, what isotopes are,
>>> the difference between atoms and molecules,
>>> how electrons and photons interact, etc, can give
>>> more meaning, understanding, and appreciation of
>>> the universe and the things around us. Trying to
>>> accept the idea that it's all alive works the other
>>> way to distort one's view of reality by eliminating
>>> the distinction between what is alive and what's
>>> not alive.
>> My intent was not to eliminate distinctions.
>
> Whether you intended it or not, it would be a
> necessary part of accepting or even considering
> what you suggested. To believe that everything
> is alive necessarily removes the distinction between
> what is and what is not, since everything would be.
> It seems even you should be able to understand
> something that obvious.
Why are threatened by the idea that there is a primal
energy in every aspect of the universe that is a
manifestation of GOD? Everything.
>
>> The
>> original poster proposed that GOD visited earth in
>> certain forms, to which he, the poster assigned Indian
>> names. My response is that GOD, if you will, as I
>> understand it, doesn't "visit", GOD, *is* the essence
>> of ALL being, right down to the particle-string level,
>> deeper than any electron microscope can delve, wider
>> than the furthest galaxy, and in our very existence, NOW.
>
> If God exists I don't doubt that he is as much in direct
> contact with whatever he wants to be as he wants to be.
> I also believe he has beings who work with him, and that
> he has as much influence on other living beings through
> them as he wants to have, and through his own direct
> influence when he wants to.
This strikes me as a rather quaint parochial storybook
kind of religious view.
>
>> This has been the message of spiritual teachers that
>> has been largely misunderstood.
>
> It may be largely doubted. Even though I believe God
> has as much influence on everything as he wants to have
> if he exists, I doubt that he has direct influence on every
> single event that takes place in the universe all the way
> down to the sub-atomic level.
Why?
I believe he does have such
> influence when he wants to, but not that he always wants
> to. I also believe that if Satan exists he has such influence
> on people's thinking, having learned how to recognise
> patterns and manipulate the minds of humans in ways
> like influencing the flow of electrons down one path more
> than another to encourage things like violence and
> substance addictions that people would really rather stay
> away from.
Those are just expressions of human pain.
|
|
|
|
| Topic: |
SEEING THE FACE OF GOD |
|
| Message: |
Author |
Date |
|
|
*Message 1* |
Dutch |
Wed, 27 Aug 2008, 9:32 pm |
|