gratefull...we had this discussion before
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11008&page=0

seems...its an athiestic way of deneying god egsists

insists is..somehow made..an inner experience
thus not egsisting...[egsist somehow means..external]

insist..somehow means within

i know its confusing..thus put up the link

god of course eg-sists...and in-sists
but he does not insist..
[he allows us all freewill]

this is the annoyance about santa clause..[satan clause]
who has a good list..and a bad list...

[god cares not..wether we are chosing
to do good..or bad..

or..we could not*..do..bad...
if he insisted..that we not do vile]

its confusing using terms..that change
others..try to change meanings of words

gay..should just mean happy..[for egsample]
work-choices..should mean we get a choice..but evil likes to decieve..by changing meanings...

[hiding..the good of jesus being born..behind a fat-guy
in a fat suit..judging others..bad/good]

god dont judge..[there is no such thing
as an endtime/judgment day..or else jesus couldnt have returned..in three days]..

ie he would still be waiting judgment-day..and..'reserction-day'..[these also are lies]

see how jesus birth..is masked/hiden..by a judgmental satan-clause
and his death..hidden behind an ester-rabbit

this is what vile/evil..does so cleverly
simply by changing words meanings

jesus..[born of wo-man]..is man
not god..as he said..that ye see me do
you shall do greater...

[greater than god?..
of course not]

grateful & oug:

Thanks for your comments.

When I was writing the previous article I needed a verb to apply to a way of being that was real but not external or objective to the person perceiving. "Existence" is these days mainly used to mean "objectively real" -- i.e. empirically verifiable being. This was not the sort of reality I had experienced with respect to the Divine.

I decided to use "insist", firstly because it came from the same Latin root as "exist", secondly because the prefix "in-" suggested the opposite from "ex-". But there was a third reason: the word "insist" also carries the meaning of "demand", which hints at the way I experience the Word which is God. Yes we are given free will, but there is a strength to the Word that is very much an insistence.

Sometimes there is a case, I think, for inventing new words or using old ones in a new way. Of course, there should be serious grounds for doing so; I don't approve of frivolous destruction of our linguistic heritage.

Peace and Joy.

Then don't do it, crabsy.

>>I don't approve of frivolous destruction of our linguistic heritage.<<

We've been through this before, of course, on the previous thread.

>>I decided to use "insist", firstly because it came from the same Latin root as "exist", secondly because the prefix "in-" suggested the opposite from "ex-"<<

I note that you studiously ignore the entire, lengthy argument that protested against such a skittish perversion of simple Latin - and English - words, merely in order to give expression to some personal need of your own invention.

It annoys me intensely when the language is abused in such a fashion.

Doubly so, when the defence is "well, language is a dynamic tool, and you're just a reactionary old fuddy-duddy for not going along with my re-working of it".

Trebly so, when the newly-minted usage is so transparently self-serving, that it would be utterly useless in any other context except "crabsy's existential dilemma".

thanks for ex-plain-ing crabsby
here is a talk about the 'other'..aspect..[dumbing us down]
http://www.infowars.com/audio/201012/201012.html

6 dec monday...about 20 minutes in

its revealing
thats why i hate words..changing their meaning

anyhow merry christ day

cheers all

Crasby,
I re-read your post in light of your explanation. You are definitely onto something. In nearly every paragraph i found parallels with Sufism. Further, if what you say regarding the trend away from the literalist tradition is true then this too parallels the decline of literalist readings and anthropomorpic notion of God that characterises Wahabism in Islam.

salaams

Pericles,

Thanks for your opinion.
<< I note that you studiously ignore the entire, lengthy argument that protested against such a skittish perversion of simple Latin - and English - words, merely in order to give expression to some personal need of your own invention. >>
I certainly had not forgotten the “argument” on the other thread you refer to as I responded to grateful and OUG. But I saw no need to bring it up in this recent discussion because I saw no relevance to their comments. If they want to read the sequence of exchanges between you and me it’s all there ready for their eyes.
I reject the view that the article was all about expressing a “personal need of my own invention”. One of my aims was to address an urgent need that I have found in contemporary discussions about atheism, religion, science, truth, etc. Again and again people come up with a statement to the effect that “unless you give rational objective evidence to prove that God exists then you are living in a delusion.” I wanted to show that the empirical evidence they demand is sometimes irrelevant because one can perceive phenomena through non-empirical means (dreams, contemplation of a numinous event in nature, listening to a powerful piece of music, etc.) that are just as real as objective facts encountered through the five senses. The central aim of that article was actually to help those attacking religion and spiritual pursuits to see a side to that sort of endeavour that they may not have come across before. If you still see it simply as an idiosyncratic “self-serving” con-job I don’t think I can say any more to you. We’ll just have to agree to differ and leave it at that.

Grateful:
I’m glad you saw echoes of Sufism in the article. I’ve always felt Sufi practices and approach to life to be a very helpful thing in the Muslim world.