BrainDrain, we can abstractly extend arithmetic to negative numbers and zero but in an infinite material universe we can never find such .... i.e. no time travel nor perfect vacuums. ............. although an all powerful teddy may create some form of credit as well as a big nothingness in people's heads. lol

Same for "perfect" and "perfection" ......... simply human idealisations and cannot exist. Your constant use of "perfect" makes me wonder if you can ever progress from the notion that you only do what's right because someone bigger than you will slap you around if you don't. Also feel you are getting confused with your imagined absolutes. Like if you want an infinite teddy then this does not and cannot equate to perfection because INFINITY is a relative PROCESS, not an end point nor a product. There is no such thing as an infinite. Likewise, perfect beginnings and endings implies a problematic disconnect which I feel is necessary with this seemingly interesting but never ending thread. Catch ya later.

BD,

Whether we follow natural humans or supernatural entities, we cannot certain of sound governance. If it were possible to contact a supernatural entity, can one really be sure of its true intent? Yet, at least, with our fellow humans, we do have a measure of knowledge, personal experience and equivalence.

[Incidently, I do not adhere to the existence of supernatural entities.]

Cheers,

O.

Oliver,

I am in complete agreement with your comment: 'Whether we follow natural humans or supernatural entities, we cannot (be) certain of sound governance'.

If we listen to 'voices' in our head who tell us God wants us to 'kill all abortionsits'. we should use our own knowledge and experience to 'judge' for ourselves if this is actually a supernatural entitiy we have the right to follow blindly or merely our own paranoid bias made manifest to us. I doubt that those who do hear such voices are best able to judge this for themselves and so we should probably not use such in any way to doubt the existance of God.

Personally i think it a mistake to believe supernatural entities are human-like and capable of perverting 'lesser' entities for their own diverse pleasures.

My current belief in the supernatural entity area is along the lines of: there is more to us and to life than we have so far 'proven' in our rationality and reason and 'something' exists that is far greater than our own personal awareness and we would do best to seek such out (as many throughout or history have chosen to do more perfectly than we) and 'go with the flow'. as 'it' would undoubtedly have a greater 'understanding' than we possess in our own tiny minds (even with the benefit of the internet for 'research').

With all our long history of the folly of Man's thought following our 'knowledge, personal experience and equivalence' can you honestly put your hand on your heart and swear to me that it is best we continue to follow man's imperfection and failure to correctly understand the truth's about ourselves?

Or is it best to try to fully and completely know thyself and understand why humans go so wrong so fast for so long and continue to misunderstand our personal spiritual 'connection'/self? While leaving the majority of mankind who don't possess the intellect to discern what is true from what is false on quite the level we might believe we can to continue to experience their spirituality/atheism for themselves?

Not a single person can have the excuse of not being aware of what God supposedly is and so say 'God does not exist so i won't try looking for God'.

We can only be guilty of giving up the search or letting other's experiences or perversions deny our intelligence the fair chance to truly consider why or how or if 'God' should have a positive effect upon our own thought and heart.

Some who have not 'found' God inside of themselves yet insist upon denying to themselves, as well as others, that God exists. Some who have imperfectly formed their view of God insist upon 'forcing' 'their' God upon our own will.

I find both equally distasteful to my mind.

The more i learn about myself the better i feel able to understand God's truth.

I would not trust someone who cannot perform addition to teach me about Maths. Do not trust someone who imperfectly understands God to teach you about your connection to God.

Seek out truth for yourself with a truly open mind but beware of man's limited ability (including your own).

It is in our emotions and our Ego that we experience most of our fallibility of thought and reason. We should recognise that our emotion and ego are our most intimate and fast reacting parts of our personality, capable of misdirecting our slower-acting reasoning ability. We should also recognise that our connection with Spirit cannot be achieved by reason alone, it requires more of us than just that.

Part 1

"Laughter is the best medicine". So I would like to ask Keiran (".. they insist on intelligence before matter" 30/11/06) a joke.
Question: " Which came first, the chicken or the egg?"
My Answer: "Neither, the idea did"! :-) A smidgeon of Greek influence here. That's how it was with my wife to be and I -a twinkle in our eyes! You see, we both could have died before our two healthy sons were born, but we shared the idea with a happy result (..."be fruitful and multiply" Genesis !:28).

Oliver (1/12/06), in my opinion, plagiarism is never worth it. Like the forger trying to make a banknote, the budding artist painting a Mona Lisa, Jean Baptiste Vuillaume making something like a Guarnerius violin, all crafts require hard work. The problem with the writing one, is the need to return to sources in a hurry when the occasion demands. The plagiarist only fools himself. More than fifty years have passed since I first the learnt the need for this rigour*, quick re-access to ideas that have helped mould the intuitive process.

Relda wields a pen that exudes a fine clarity well worthy of emulation. Some of the phrases crafted keep reverberating in my mind..."beat the crap" (3/12/06)..."pretentiously usurp its 'parent body' " (30/11/06). Previously, relda noted (22/11/06), "Religion needs the rigors* of science...science needs religion". This reminds me of one of Albert Einstein's aphorisms, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind". ("Ideas and Opinions" 1956,p46).

Sells writes to Pericles that "theology is the most interesting game in town"(20/11/06). Relda adds to the "language game" (20/11/06) an interesting observation on relationships. However, it may be questioned the precise accuracy of the statement "...Yahwism was perhaps the only religion that did not have both the masculine and the feminine principle represented in deity". The post concludes with the recognition that metaphor, analogy, help to confuse a literal two dimensional view.

Contin Shmuel

Part 2
Isaiah scribed "...Art thou not it that hewed Rahab in pieces -51:9
That pierced the dragon?
Art thou not it that dried up the sea, the waters of the great deep;
That made the depths of the sea a way
For the redeemed to pass over?" -51:10
"Isaiah" (Soncino 4th impression 1961 p 252-3),
which refutes this view in a "partial" sense. Simply put, "it"/"he" (phonetic) is she, and "hoo"(phonetic) is he. To my mind, sonorous Hebrew is the most beautiful language. Translations in various Bibles are briefly listed here:
Jewish Publication Society of America "it" = "he"(phonetic) = ”ayh” (she)
King James Version "it" < “ “ < “ “
Douay Bible "thou" < " " < “ “
The New Oxford " < " " < “ “
The New English Bible "you" < " " < “ “
The New Jerusalem Bible " < " " < “ “
New International Version " < " " < “ “
Note on "it" = "he"(phonetic) = "ayh" (transliterated from Hebrew into English characters). As Rev. Dr. Israel Slotki comments, "it" refers to the "arm of the Lord" (from which there may be derived interesting possible deductions about the cosmos).

Relda illustrates the lexicologist's problems involved with translation (30/11/06), and how difficult it is not to just convey word meanings, but also idiom. With Humpty Dumpty asking the question, and Alice responding with "...the question is whether you can make words mean so many different things"(relda 27/11/06). With Hebrew, this raises a fascinating potential, and challenge! I hope the funny side can be seen to this.

Hebrew is constructed without vowels which have to be added to the consonants by the reader. Thus, only in the context of a whole sentence can the precise vowels be added. Here is a little game:
How many words can you construct out of the following letters, "r-l" ? For example "r-l" can be rendered Ariel, Uriel,oriel, real, rile, rule,...lure,liar,lair,lare...and "l-d" - lad, led,lead,lied, lode,elude...dole,duel..."relda” >< adler a student of Freud (Farad, fried, freed, ...! :-)

Contin Shmuel