When I think of "maniacs," I think of progeny of Mohammad. When I think of the Bible, I think of history, literature, figures of speech, poetry, inspiration.
I think the godhead is just as content with a description of function and mode as with a manmade appellation enunciated by vibrating molecules through air. In space, no one can hear your name spoken, but they can see it symbolized.
Yes, to my conception, we are carriers of information that accumulates to The Unifier of Consciousness. I have no way of knowing whether our bodily forms and ideas may be preserved to be re-correlated across unfolding fluxes in the expression of space-time and Substance. But I suspect they are. :)
I take Jesus to be the "most perfect" embodiment of the meaning and purpose of the godhead. In spiritual aspect, that is The Reconciler. The perfect is the changeless. The fleeting is the changing. The godhead is the Changeless-Changer. Our logic cannot fathom how this can be, yet, to my sense, it is self evident that we are the expression of a Changeless-Changer.
I don't think a mortal expression of the godhead can comprehend or predict the meaning and purpose of the godhead. Yet, we can have faith that we can appreciate and try to be receptive to it. That can assimilate and guide us. I don't believe we can comprehend the perfect will of the godhead, much less write it down in everlasting words, much less dictate its observance to the masses. That is why I look for the Word both in the Bible and in the unfolding Cosmos.
I think we need to be receptive to empathetic good faith and good will. Some general trends can be assimilated to flow from that. But the last thing I would advocate for would be for some mortal to pretend to be the mouthpiece for the everlasting dictate of the Almighty. No thanks to that (and let Mohammad lay with his pig obsessions).
I have read somewhat deeply in most religions and philosophies. I have not seen many that necessarily accord closely to mine, though I find worth in most (excepting a few, such as Islam, Gaia Worship, and Scientism, i.e., science as a religion). I think Scientism that preaches a spiritual basis for consciousness is inferior to Substance (as opposed to coordinate or superior) is even more blnd, goofy, and wrong headed than the hero worship of maniacal "Birthers."
I am familiar with the predominant idea among Christians that our resurrected bodies remain substantive. You are correct that I do not abide to that. Not because I profess to disprove it. I just do not consider it necessary for inspirational purposes (at least, to myself), nor do I think it can be sensibly or understandingly supported. I don't require it to be empirically demonstrated, but I do require it to make consistent sense in whatever the chosen logic, and I find, to my limited insight and intuition, it to be beyond mortal means for accomplishing that.
However, as an article of faith, however incomplete and inconsistent, I do not begrudge anyone who thinks otherwise. I value the Christian heritage and cannot see how America could have been established without it, nor do I think America will last much longer by denigrating it. Even though I do not accept all of it in literal terms, and do not believe its literalisms can even be consistently expressed, I do believe it carries meanings with it that can inspire us towards assimilative comprehension of moral truths better than any other prevailing philosophy of which I am aware.
IAE, at the level of the godhead, I agree that it would not sustain with just consciousness. It has a "body," which is expressed in math based fluxes of Substance and Information. That's why it's Trinitarian. :)
For secular purposes, my bottom line is this: I want no specific church dogma to be established as any sort of detailed specification of law, whether it be thought natural or artificial. Now, as to a general regard for the empathetic entailment of a caring godhead, that is, to me, a different matter. I wish not to be misunderstood: I have no problem with monuments on our public grounds and even on our currency. And I do not think free speech should be curtailed on public venues just because some militantly demented "atheist" thinks he can consistently prescribe a "wall of separation."
As to Islam, however, I do make some qualifications. I consider Islam on a par with moral crime, as if the Mafia were to apply for religion based exemptions based on a new revelation of the boss of bosses. Indeed, the Mafia has its own religious sacraments, as when a soldier becomes a "made man" and is made to cradle a burning card of a Saint without dropping it. For all the more reason, a "religion" that does not accord freedom to stop believing in it and that stones its apostates cannot be considered as a "free expression" of religion. To my philosophy, "Natural Law" for anyone who believes in a caring God and in representative republicanism for a society that defends human freedom and dignity ought to revile any philosophy that is like Mafiaism or Islam.
I think the godhead is just as content with a description of function and mode as with a manmade appellation enunciated by vibrating molecules through air. In space, no one can hear your name spoken, but they can see it symbolized.
Yes, to my conception, we are carriers of information that accumulates to The Unifier of Consciousness. I have no way of knowing whether our bodily forms and ideas may be preserved to be re-correlated across unfolding fluxes in the expression of space-time and Substance. But I suspect they are. :)
I take Jesus to be the "most perfect" embodiment of the meaning and purpose of the godhead. In spiritual aspect, that is The Reconciler. The perfect is the changeless. The fleeting is the changing. The godhead is the Changeless-Changer. Our logic cannot fathom how this can be, yet, to my sense, it is self evident that we are the expression of a Changeless-Changer.
I don't think a mortal expression of the godhead can comprehend or predict the meaning and purpose of the godhead. Yet, we can have faith that we can appreciate and try to be receptive to it. That can assimilate and guide us. I don't believe we can comprehend the perfect will of the godhead, much less write it down in everlasting words, much less dictate its observance to the masses. That is why I look for the Word both in the Bible and in the unfolding Cosmos.
I think we need to be receptive to empathetic good faith and good will. Some general trends can be assimilated to flow from that. But the last thing I would advocate for would be for some mortal to pretend to be the mouthpiece for the everlasting dictate of the Almighty. No thanks to that (and let Mohammad lay with his pig obsessions).
I have read somewhat deeply in most religions and philosophies. I have not seen many that necessarily accord closely to mine, though I find worth in most (excepting a few, such as Islam, Gaia Worship, and Scientism, i.e., science as a religion). I think Scientism that preaches a spiritual basis for consciousness is inferior to Substance (as opposed to coordinate or superior) is even more blnd, goofy, and wrong headed than the hero worship of maniacal "Birthers."
I am familiar with the predominant idea among Christians that our resurrected bodies remain substantive. You are correct that I do not abide to that. Not because I profess to disprove it. I just do not consider it necessary for inspirational purposes (at least, to myself), nor do I think it can be sensibly or understandingly supported. I don't require it to be empirically demonstrated, but I do require it to make consistent sense in whatever the chosen logic, and I find, to my limited insight and intuition, it to be beyond mortal means for accomplishing that.
However, as an article of faith, however incomplete and inconsistent, I do not begrudge anyone who thinks otherwise. I value the Christian heritage and cannot see how America could have been established without it, nor do I think America will last much longer by denigrating it. Even though I do not accept all of it in literal terms, and do not believe its literalisms can even be consistently expressed, I do believe it carries meanings with it that can inspire us towards assimilative comprehension of moral truths better than any other prevailing philosophy of which I am aware.
IAE, at the level of the godhead, I agree that it would not sustain with just consciousness. It has a "body," which is expressed in math based fluxes of Substance and Information. That's why it's Trinitarian. :)
For secular purposes, my bottom line is this: I want no specific church dogma to be established as any sort of detailed specification of law, whether it be thought natural or artificial. Now, as to a general regard for the empathetic entailment of a caring godhead, that is, to me, a different matter. I wish not to be misunderstood: I have no problem with monuments on our public grounds and even on our currency. And I do not think free speech should be curtailed on public venues just because some militantly demented "atheist" thinks he can consistently prescribe a "wall of separation."
As to Islam, however, I do make some qualifications. I consider Islam on a par with moral crime, as if the Mafia were to apply for religion based exemptions based on a new revelation of the boss of bosses. Indeed, the Mafia has its own religious sacraments, as when a soldier becomes a "made man" and is made to cradle a burning card of a Saint without dropping it. For all the more reason, a "religion" that does not accord freedom to stop believing in it and that stones its apostates cannot be considered as a "free expression" of religion. To my philosophy, "Natural Law" for anyone who believes in a caring God and in representative republicanism for a society that defends human freedom and dignity ought to revile any philosophy that is like Mafiaism or Islam.
3 comments:
Is there such a thing as a non-whinny azz rapper? Apart from complaining against ordinary Americans and how designer-minority-snowflakes are mistreated, what do rappers rap about? Why do they rap -- except to rag, beg, or extort? Rap Crap -- "music" for self-pitying deviants and derelicts.
******
Some courses of study are difficult enough so that a teaching and mentoring environment can help students progress. However, most modern courses are not like that. Most "studies" courses exist to take money from dupes, to give them certificates, which they can use to try to dupe employers. The kind of person who needs a collegiate atmosphere to be mentored in simple minded "studies" is the kind of person whose brain is most like putty.
So, what kind of people seek to fund and control colleges that appeal to putty brains? Well, that would be the kind of people who want to brainwash entire electorates. The way to turn people into serfs is to educate them into liking the idea of becoming serfs. Those are the people who settle for, indeed, demand, equality.
In a well run elitist society, the little people need to learn their place, and they need to learn how to force other little people to keep their places. The society runs on envy, jealousy, and forced equality. Indeed, elitists want to take this model worldwide. Which is why they are pulling their hair out as they see more of the little people getting a clue and promoting anti-establishmentarian candidates.
Every taxpayer who has a shred of self respect needs to resist the funding and promotion of institutions that use "studies" courses to brainwash each new generation to wannabe equal social-justice drones. "Studies" courses need to be run out of business. Anyone who is interested in such courses, as opposed to malingering and causing trouble, can learn all he needs to know about them merely by turning on his computer. If Moochelle can learn it, it's not rocket science.
******
Muslim buttinair outdoor prayers remind me of rapper pantsonground carwindowsdown neighborhood noiseblaring. Something about Muslims and Rappers needs to offend all other people. Put 'em all on leashes until they're housebroken.
******
Americans are angry that they have been squished so long under the thumb of a rotten establishment. They know that they will never have a better chance to bite off the thumb that squishes them.
Sometimes a body needs a fever to survive a sickness. We are well beyond normal parameters.
When the Four Horsemen of Evil, Stalin (commie famine), Mohammad (religious war), Genghis (despotic plague), and Manson (leering death) are banging at my door, it's not that well creased pants wearer, David Brooks, that I would call on. Eff that.
Blue Collars are demanding representation. Finally! I like Cruz, but he cannot authentically speak to them in their vernacular.
Well, there is empathy. It abides -- more as tough love than as puppy love. It does not depend on artificial law. It abides regardless of artificial law. It sometimes evokes compassion and charity. That seems more likely when a society generally believes in a Source or Godhead that guides and reconciles empathies.
Many people believe the cosmos is devoid of any inherently empathetic Guide. Yet, they try to convince people that their governments "should" become substitutes for the moral guide they believe does not exist. If you believe in God, that is the source of human empathies (and rights). If you do not believe in any moral Guide that is innate with Nature, then the idea of human rights becomes only a confusion within a confusion.
The government of China is mainly of anti-godly convictions. "Human rights" will not much permeate it until that anti-godly philosophy is rejected. You can't stick a philosophy of human rights on an anti-god philosophy. Souldead philosophy needs to be replaced with philosophy that sees the innate moral value in respect for human empathies. In human freedom and dignity. Without that, talk of "manmade human rights" will remain a confusion and a chimera -- pressed like a prostitute to serve every interest.
Which "human right" trumps -- individual freedom or social security? In a war between individualists and collectivists, each side will always claim to be on the side of "human rights." In questing for its vision, each side will claim to be on the side of human rights, justice, or some shrunken idea of God.
I do not say revolution is wrong, per se. I do say it does not tend to advance human rights unless its proponents respect a non-shrunken, godly core. Then the proponents of a revolution would be restrained by respect for innate empathies and "spiritual rights" -- as guided by the Reconciler. Without that, a civil war is just gang against gang, and "human rights" reduces to gang sing-song, with each side nursing grudges -- for milleniums.
The Chinese were steadfast and did what was needed to put down the revolt. Had they not done so, the revolt may well have become effective. That seems to be the mechanics of it. Depending on whose side one is on, one will impugn the morality of the other. Revolution is bloody and war is hell.
Islam is at war with the West. If the West wants to prevail, it had best worry less about the feelings of Muslims and more about what is necessary to put them under leash. If you are more concerned with not being unfair to those who seek to dhimmi you, then you will be dhimmied. Then plundered, raped, mutilated, burned, or beheaded. But at least you will have been "fair" -- so you will always have that. S/
Is this too advanced for you?
********
The fact that billions of people follow this wild azz of an excuse for a man shows how utterly low human beings are capable of falling. It should caution us regarding how easily we can be waylaid. It should caution all but the most braindead among Progs to the danger of letting Musloidians into the country.
*********
Well, I wonder what Trump would have tweeted, if Cruz had said he was not going to go on to New Hampshire and Trump had heard CNN analyzing it?
Regarding Trump U and Trump's tenuous relationship with the truth, this may be interesting: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-laz-donald-trump-and-me-20160309-column.html
First, Trumpers complain no one in the establishment will work with Cruz. Then they complain the establishment likes Cruz. If there's a principle at work in there somewhere, it eludes me. Cruz is picking up endorsements. Carly Fiorina, Mark Sanford, Rick Perry, Phil Bryant, Chuck Norris, Phil Robertson, Dakota Meyer, James Dobson, Glenn Beck.
I suspect Senators have been slow out of fear of McConnell. However, it appears senatorial endorsements are coming. See also http://www.dailywire.com/news/3876/here-list-ted-cruzs-congressional-endorsements-aaron-bandler.
Post a Comment