| 2 years ago :: Jun 03, 2011 - 5:39AM #51 | |
I'm curious as to what you base this statement on: "Do you really expect that your "fellow religionists" would object?
Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 03, 2011 - 7:37AM #52 | |
|
Asleep, distracted. Other beings keeping us focused on their perception of lack. Oh yeah... Physical beings are well trained to look for what they don't want. What they don't see is more of what they don't want getting lined up to manifest into the physical form. Hypnotized into believing that these negative circumstances are anybody's fault but mine. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 03, 2011 - 8:20PM #53 | |
|
This is part of a work in progress. I think it is appropriate to include it here. The things I yap about are true for me, but I do not take them as absolute truth for everyone; all images are finite constructs. They are no more than how I express my understanding and it is completely beside the point if anyone agrees with me or not. I’m more than willing to admit that I may be mistaken in my misunderstandings. Take, for example, the way I discuss -O-. I talk about what -O- is like for me and the things I say are not meant be taken as saying that you must believe the same way. It matters not to me if you accept what I say as absolute truth; all that matters is that we not beat each other up over our differences. Another example, in talking about human nature, one person believes we have a dual nature and I believe in a nondual nature. We have, for the sake of simplicity, three ways of looking it the difference. One, I could be right and he could be wrong. Two, he could be right and I could be wrong. Three, we could both be wrong. I think it is fun to share our equally incomplete views and relate this sharing to triangulation - each view is a different angle and between all of them, we might get close to pinpointing the target. One connotation of the word agnostic is that we will never completely know -O-. I think this is applicable to knowledge in general as well; there is only so much finite beings can know about infinity. It seems to me that if we were to learn everything, we would lose something vital and would start stagnating. As far as the idea of complete knowledge goes, I think that is a scary proposition. That is why I call my theory of knowledge ‘Incompleteness’.
Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 04, 2011 - 3:21AM #54 | |
Why would one's fellow religionists object if they believed themselves to possess 'special' insights that unbelievers are deprived of? |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 04, 2011 - 3:26AM #55 | |
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 04, 2011 - 5:55AM #56 | |
Gosh, silly me. Here I was, thinking you were criticizing me for being "Elitist" for my statement about "hypnotized". Now it is all of us that have 'special' information. In other words, you cannot back up your assertion. Once again, you damage your credibility with your hyperbole.
Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 04, 2011 - 7:13AM #57 | |
|
Nobody is deprived of anything, however I would certainly agree, that None of this would make any sense from a perspective of fear and vulnerability. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 04, 2011 - 7:27AM #58 | |
Maybe a secret handshake would suffice.
Standard Disclaimer: This is just my 2cents worth.
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 04, 2011 - 7:56AM #59 | |
|
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|
| 2 years ago :: Jun 04, 2011 - 5:28PM #60 | |
I don't really have to back up my assertion. Your words are written in reasonably clear language for all to see. You are just rather ridiculously - in the form of patently forced, and somewhat sheepish, humor- trying to pass off your lucidly professed elitism. You may be fooling your religionist buddies, but you're not fooling me. |
|
|
Quick Reply
|
|