Artful Dodger: "My wife auto corrects me too."

There's no way to disable that feature with, uh, that particular model. I've tried, so I know.

Artful Dodger: I had a cell phone a few years ago that auto corrected my text messages. I had to disable the auto correct feature because it would never let me type in the correct word. Ironic it, ain't it?

Artful Dodger: "Actually, there is a science behind that idea and as I understand it, it's theoretically possible. But I'll be dead before it's perfected."

Shoot, we'll all be dead before ipads are fixed so that they won't change words in your messages.

Artful Dodger: "Frankly I prefer telephoning"

Teleportation through the telephone lines?

Artful Dodger: mmmm yes, or lightly sauteed with mushrooms in butter and garlic. But worms make me gassy, which is also troubling for scientists as there are already concerns that earthworms increase greenhouse gas emissions... eating them only exacerbates the problem.

Artful Dodger: "They use this method in many abortions"

I know. I tried watching a video about how it's done and couldn't watch the whole thing. It makes me sick to my stomach. I'd rather eat worms than to see how it's done.

Artful Dodger: "There are concerns that earthworms increase greenhouse gas emissions, which troubles scientists since earthworm numbers are on the rise."

Uh oh. I need to go down and check to see if my underground bunker is well fortified. Should have make the walls thicker, don't know if two feet of concrete is enough to keep them out.

(V): You've never heard of death by suction? It's a barbaric practice that had been abandoned (or so I thought) centuries ago... it's a horrible way to go.

Some people confuse it with sakicide, which isn't so bad if you like that sort of thing. Not me. I'm a procrastinator. I'm not planning on leaving until after the boat has sailed.

Artful Dodger: It's some kind of hog... a ground hog or hedge hog... or road hog? (Harley Davidson?)

It was overcast Saturday where I live, so that's supposed to mean the little guy couldn't be scared by his own shadow. If he gets scared and dives back into his home then it means six more weeks of winter. I don't understand the science behind this, but that doesn't matter... I don't understand how a few parts per million extra carbon dioxide molecules can severley impact the planet either, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

Bwild: "theres a substanstial population difference."

LOL... sometimes it's like shooting fish in a barrel

(V): "You do want your police and feds armed don't you? Able to defend themselves while protecting your shores, towns and cities from crime!!"

Well of course, and the response times are impressive. When seconds count, the police can be there in minutes.

Artful Dodger: "ru napping?"

Well... yes and no. I've been sleeping a lot the past few weeks. But I also lost interest in the repeating topic cycles... like 'global warming'. I'm not against it, in fact I'm all for it and can't wait for it to get here. But this so called "crises" which has been brought to us by our concerned politicians (and the people who benefit from it) has proven to be nothing more than a lot of talk. My heating bills are just as high as they've always been. So anyway, phooey on all those promises of global warming... ya can't trust anyone these days, they'll lie to ya about anything!

The only time I felt like responding to anything was when you made a point about gun free zones being a joke. It's a bonehead idea that does nothing to solve the problem. It's like extending an invitation to anyone to just waltz right in and have their way long enough to do some real damage.

The best gun control argument I heard came from former Gov Huckabee... he said we have armed security at banks because we value our money. And we have armed security at hospitals because we value the patients. But we don't want armed security in our schools because... ?

Makes you wonder, doesn't it.

Iamon lyme: Awww drat! I did it again! I'm getting ahead of myself... The metal content has nothing to do with lifespan, it has to do with a star system having enough of the heavy elements for creating an earth type planet. Our sun is expected to last a total of about 10 billion years, burning hydrogen steadily on its main sequence... so in this case it IS size that matters.

"Metal" content was about another point I wanted to make, how not just any old star or star system is able to have life just because a star is the right size or has the right luminosity. Drake and Sagan beamed a message to a large concentration of stars called globular cluster M13. The theory was because there are lots of stars in that region there was a higher probability of communicating with intelligent life.

Fat chance of that happening, since globular clusters are the worst places to go looking for life. They are among the most ancient things in the universe, which means their stars have a very low abundance of heavy elements... they're made up almost entirely of hydrogen and helium. The heavier elements are needed for building terrestrial planets. In globular clusters you are more likely to find only dust or grains or maybe boulders, but nothing like an Earth type planet that can serve as a platform for life to exist (much less develop). But here's the kicker, at the time Drake and Sagan sent their message this was already known.

Artful Dodger: I think that was the point of not allowing us to live forever. If not for death we could have ended up looking like puddles of goo, with two eyeballs looking up and pleading with God to kill us.

(V): "No.. most suns bigger than ours burn out quickly, especially the really big ones."

Size isn't the only factor. What I said was most suns the size of ours burn out more quickly because of stellar content. We have a very metal rich sun compared to most others of the SAME size. I wasn't comparing our sun to larger or smaller ones. And BTW, I don't know if this is relevant or not but our sun is among the top 10% of the largest stars in our galaxy.


"The stuff they taught us as kids is out of date!!"

Well no kidding! And probably more out of date when I was a kid than for you, but I'm not talking about what we were taught as kids.


And I wasn't talking about wild rumors of life on the moon either. I was referring to speculation among scientists (yes, actual scientists) about life possibly existing on the moon based on observations of the lunar surface indicating the presence of water. If you want to call that "wild rumors", then what would you call speculation of life on Mars because the surface indicates the presence of water?

Artful Dodger: "I could have saved Ari a lot of time and thought energy!"

Yeah, but if he hadn't spent all that time and thought energy he would have been out of a job. Besides, if centuries of analysis eventually lead back to "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth", then it's not really a waste of time or energy. If faith is based on evidence and logic then it can't be called "blind" faith.

I wasted some time and energy because I assumed an infinite regression meant traversing the infinite. It was a bone head mistake, but at least I figured out what Ari was actually talking about... well, maybe I figured it out. I think he was saying an infinite regression 'of power' is impossible, so an unmoved mover is needed to keep the motion ball rolling.

Artful Dodger: "and I wonder who geared it?"

These debates always seem to come back to the same question: Is it a "who done it" or a "what done it". Aristotles unmoved mover almost appears to be an afterthought, a sort of work around for overcoming infinite regress. But I don't think that is what Aristotle had in mind. I think the unmoved mover was something to overcome the problem with entropy, because that's all it really does. It can't make an infinite number of past events go away after asserting motion has always existed.


I blew out a brain cell last night, so am waiting for a replacement... the other one still works but I don't want to overtax it.

(V): "Dude... dem boffins are blowing most previously held theories about how rare planets such as ours are.. they are not so rare."

Theories previously held by who? Scientists in the past believed there might have been life on the moon, based on observations made from looking through telescopes. As time has gone by the odds of there being many inhabitable planets has not increased, it's been decreasing. It's not simply a matter of how close a planet is to a sun and how much water is present.

"The Universe is geared to create the necessary elements we need for physical existence."

The presence of elements needed for life are not uniform throughout the universe. Some areas contain the heaviest elements but few if any of the lighter ones. And some areas have the lighter ones but not enough of the heavier ones. We just happen to live in a system that has the full range of essential elements. And carbon is still the only viable candidate for being a basic element for life, because of the carbon atoms unique ability to build large enough molecules for the wide variety of molecular machines and other structures (including the DNA package) in cells. So you can't just go anywhere in the universe that has enough water and hope to find lots and lots of inhabitable planets. It's much more complicated than that. And BTW, most suns the size of ours burn out much faster than ours will... because our sun has just the right mix of materials to keep it going for more than 2 or 3 billion years.

(V): Aristotle believed both the universe and the unmoved mover are eternal. The kalam argument acknowledges an eternal unmoved mover, but not an eternal universe.

(V): [ Aristotle concludes, "That there never was a time when there was not motion, and never will be a time when there will not be motion" ]

But then he says...

[ Since everything is moved by something and since motion is eternal, Aristotle concludes that there must be something that imparts motion without itself being moved; otherwise, there would be an infinite regress of movers, the moved and instruments of moving, which is unacceptable (Physics 8.5). (An axiom for Aristotle is that an infinite regress is impossible.) ]

How can an infinite regress be impossible if "there never was a time when there was not motion"?

He appears to be talking about an eternal universe in which the unmoved mover is able to overcome the problem of an infinite number of past events. I don't know how, because if "there never was a time when there was not motion" then there never was a starting point, which means there must be an infinite number of past events. His argument is self defeating, unless we are able to factor in how an unmoved mover can be the starting point for something that never started because "there never was a time when there was not motion".

(V): "the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed."

Perhaps in that time we will have evolved bigger brains, and sturdier necks for carrying the extra load. With more brain power we might be able to solve the problem of where to go and how to get there. SETI is a good first step toward finding intelligent life somewhere else, so we can apply for residency on a habitable planet. But we can't depend on being welcome just because we find a good place to live. Besides, the odds of finding such a place by sending out intergallactic inquires is very remote, because there are few if any other systems in our gallaxy cabable of supporting life... in fact, the chance of finding any within our gallaxy is probably next to zero, so we need to look at other spiral galaxies for habital zones. There are two other types of galaxies, eliptical and one other (I forgot the name) but niether of those will do because of density problems and the inability of any star to remain in a clear zone with a circular galactic orbit. The circular orbit of our star prevents it from crossing over into one of the two spiral arms we are conveniently located between, in a relatively clear zone of space. The spirals are danger zones for the same reason the central bulk of our gallaxy is a danger zone... too much radiation.

Yep.... we will definitely need bigger brains, no doubt about it.

(V): "Btw... the time to Red Giant is about 5-7 billion years for our star.... when that hits, the Earth is screwed. Granted the death of our sun is a few billion years later, but if we are still around, we have to have flown the nest."

I'm sorry to hear your god is disinterested in this problem. Or too wimpy to do anything about it.

(V): "I think you ought to realise that this argument about cause and effect dates back to earlier times. The early Christian fathers were certainly 'learned' in such thinking since the likes of Aristotle (384 BC – 322 BC) postulated such in the FOUR causes, answers to one question.... "why?".

Never heard of the kalam argument before."


I've seen a few thumbnail sketches of the history of this argument. They don't agree on all points, but it's safe to assume it started with a response to Aristotles belief that the universe is eternal. The "kalam" started with early Christian thinkers, then Jewish and Islamic theologians. The one thing these three all have in common is the universe and everything in it being created by (one) God. It was an Islamic scholar who is credited with formalising this argument, hence the Islamic origins of the name (kalam).

But even without the idea of a God, there is still controversy over this because of what a first cause would have to be in order for a universe to arise from nothing. Aristotles eternal universe is equivalent to our steady state universe theory, and the creation story is equivalent to the big bang theory. The debate between a steady state universe and the big bang was hotly debated for the same reason the kalam was debated... one points towards the existence of a God, the other points away from the universe needing a God.

(V): "Then explain what you understand, or think you do."

Why? If I'm right or wrong, either way it doesn't matter. I've been asking you questions because I didn't understand your position. I even told you that was what I was doing, so what's the problem? Was I not supposed to understand?


"There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory."

"But there is now, it was even taught when I was at school in the 70's studying 'O' level physics... Does it matter??"

It mattered a thousand years ago, when there was no empirical evidence to prove the universe began to exist. Up until the last century the second statement was hotly debated and the focus of controversy. But even after being proven true by scientific evidence, the kalam argument is still being debated. Why? No one had previously argued against the first statement, so what's left to debate?

The first and second statements can be debated, and the second has been proven true by science, so that only leaves the first statement open to criticism. There's no point in arguing with the third statement, because it is only a conclusion derived from the first two.

Silvery Moon: I've moved on to another topic.

I've been reading about the kalam cosmological argument. It's based on these three statements:

1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2) The universe had a beginning
3) Therefore, the universe has a cause

There appears to be a weakness in the second statement because the argument was formulated almost a thousand years ago... a thousand years ago there was no scientific evidence to support a big bang theory. Philosophy and math were used to reason that the universe must have had a beginning. For instance, they used math and logic to prove that an infinite number of past events lead to logical absurdities. And that's just one example... different ideas were examined, the least likely ones were shaved away (occam's razor) and the last one standing was "The universe had a beginning".

This argument is mostly supported by theists... in other words, it's "arguable". *<(:op

(V): "As to the world ending.... About 6 billion years or more when the sun goes into it's red giant stage as the star starts to die"

6 billion? That doesn't give us much time. I've heard it could keep going for another 10 billion years before it starts winding down. But regardless of how long it takes, that little tidbit about the sun is all I needed (on top of what you've already said) for me to understand what or who you believe God is.

(V): ".. I worked for one company years back who were hired to check that computers their contractors used not going to have a logic hiccup through not enough date storage bits... One guy working at the company believed that even toasters were going to be affected by this ""Y2K"" problem."

It's my understanding the Y2K problem was fixed with plenty of time left over before the year 2000 arrived. Oh well, at least it was fun to speculate over what could have happened, and maybe gin up some fear over it. And it could have been worse than anyone anticipated... if it caused clocks to stop working altogether, even analogs like the wind up grandfather clocks, then maybe time itself would have stood still. We will never know, because all those clocks kept on working and moving time along.

(V): Please explain to me how any prediction can be a 'fake'. If you predict the outcome of a horse race, is the prediction a 'fake' if the outcome is not as you predicted?

(V): "You understand now why there have been so many fake end of the worlds predicted."

I'm not aware of anyone who believed the Mayan calendar running out meant the end of the world. I'm aware of people implying there were people who believed it, but I would have to take that on faith as I haven't heard of or from anyone who actually believed it. I'm sure some people believed it because they heard skeptics talking about it, but I'm inclined to believe that story started with the skeptics. However, if as you say there have been many 'fake' end of the world predictions, doesn't that imply the existence of a 'genuine' prediction? If you believe the world will come to an end, then perhaps you could enlighten us with a genuine prediction. Or are you talking about something else?

(V): "The Snake is punished for its role in their fall by being made to crawl on its belly in the dust, from where it continues to bite the heel of man. According to the Rabbinical tradition, the serpent represents sexual desire.[1][3]"


How does Rabbinical tradition interpret mans punishment of working the ground and eating by the sweat of his brow, and womans increased travail in childbirth? If not literal, then what do those represent? What are the guidlines for determining what may be interpreted literally or not? If the story of Noah had to be symbolic until our knowledge of DNA and natural selection "made" it possible for that to be a real event, am I to assume reality itself is dependent on what I am able to understand? If you reduce the entire story of creation (and the fall) to being figurative, then the serpents involvement and what happened to him CAN be reduced to the serpent representing sexual desire. So now, if the serpents roll in all of this has been reduced to biting heels, I can now interpret that to mean all sexual desires are limited to foot fetishes... in other words, as long as I'm able to divorce anything from reality I don't want linked with reality, I'm free to interpret anything to mean what I want it to mean.

Iamon lyme: "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference..."


Obviously (or not) we wouldn't have a made a choice because we couldn't have made a choice before there was a choice.

And if after creating everything, when God looked at it and said it was good, why assume that to mean evil was already there? There is no clear timeline to place exactly when satan became corrupt, except that it must have happened before his encounter with man. So according to the story, evil came into existence between the time God created everything and the serpents first ecounter with man.

So, there ARE some things we can know about the creation story, but if you ignore the internal consistency of the story, then you should have no problem finding contradictions and inconsistencies.

For instance, how could Cain have married someone before there were women? I guess I would have to assume everyone lived for a very long time, enough time for there to be enough people (a large enough population) to choose from. But I don't have to assume, because according to the story everyone did have very long lifespans. Okay then, so if he did get married, they must have been closely related, and that's just wrong! Well, you could expand on that by realising everyone today comes from the same root family, so if you hook up with anyone it's just plain wrong!

Or how about getting all those animals into Noahs boat? How could all the different animals in the world (today) have fit into that boat? That's impossible, because it would mean nature had some mechanism, like natural selection, that could take a small sampling containing enough DNA to account for all of the animals living in the world today.

So yeah, there's all sorts of contradictions and inconsistencies and impossibilities... if that's what you WANT to see.

(V): "I mean choice in the sense of before we could rationalise, see the difference rather than just reacting unconsciously."

I'm talking specifically about what it says in the book of Genesis. What happened wasn't because of an unconscious reaction, it was because of rationalisation. Eve told the serpent it was forbidden fruit, and what would happen if they took and ate of it. So they knew what God had told them and what it meant, and it never occurred to them God might be lying about it until someone came along with rationalisations. That's how liers justify what they do. They "rationalise"... they find reasons to believe what they want to believe. Or what they want you to believe, same difference.

(V): "Clothes are handy as an environmental factor."

They are now. This is no longer a "clothes optional" world, and for reasons other than modesty. But that hasn't always been the case, so I'm assuming the question that follows is which came first... the clothes, or the environmental changes.

"Yet was that the first judgement by man, the division of what came from one?"

Whether you agree with evolution or creation, no one is saying that people always wore clothes. But even with the evironment changing, people could have settled only into regions where wearing clothes wouldn't have been necessary. Somewhere along the line, wearing clothes seemed to be the right thing to do... but if not for strictly environmental reasons, then why?

(V): "Now, that depends on what you call evil. If all life is generated from God, then even the nasty parasites, bugs and diseases all come from him. The story of Moses seems to confirm this point, as God is blamed for the ten plagues."


Nope. You are making the same assumption, that before everything changed evil was already here. The effects of evil aren't limited to us, even though we are responsible for letting it in.

Natural selection is sensitive to changes in environment. It's a blind process. Natural selection didn't sin, we did. But if you open a door and let smoke from a pulp mill in, you won't be the only one (or only thing) affected by it... the smoke will get on and into anything it comes in contact with.

We are not only responsible for what happened to us, we are also responsible for the effect it's had on all of nature. If you assume evil bugs were here before the problem began, it's the same as assuming nature cannot change. Nature can (and does) change.

Iamon lyme: I need to correct myself again. God did not present us with this choice. He didn't say choose between this and that. The choice (doing something else) was presented by someone else.

So, who was this someone else.

Everything was fine and dandy with creation until 'something' (something that did have, or had the potential to have, free will) in it thought of elevating himself into a higher position. Evil did not begin with God, it began with something in his creation that could exercise free will.

God COULD have created everything with nothing in it having free will, but then we wouldn't be here talking about it. There would be no discussion about this. Everything, including us, would be blindly following Gods orders.

So what do you think? Did God make a mistake? Is free will the culprit... is it the fly in His ointment?

(V): "But then free will is excluded. Blind following orders is not as it were 'being' a reflection of the image of God."

Why would He tell us not to do something, and what would happen if we did, if there was no free will? If free will was excluded, if we had no free will or potential for exercising free will, then there would have been no reason for Him to present us with a choice.

So no, free will is not excluded because it can't be excluded... it's conditional to making decisions and choosing one thing over another.

It's not blind following of orders either way, because whether or not free will was present before the choice is irrelevant. It either started to exist at the moment we made a choice, or it was always there but didn't manifest itself until the choice was made. So either way, we can't say choosing did not involve free will.

(Actually, you CAN say that, because free will allows you to say anything you want to say.)

Free will is conditional to choosing... if we didn't have free will, we would have no choice but to obey Gods rules for us. Nobody talks about inanimate matter blindly following Gods orders... because inanimate matter does not have a choice.

Iamon lyme: Also, a tree of knowledge of good and evil infers evil already existed, otherwise there wouldn't have been a choice to be made... and there would have been no tempter to confuse us.

Blaming God for creating evil doesn't make sense, because when he created everything there was no evil. Blaming God for the existence of evil is the same as blaming him for the problems it causes for us, but we can't blame Him because we had a choice. We can't choose if we don't have free will... so if it's the fault of anything, it would have to be our own free will. We didn't have to sign up for this problem, I know I didn't, but I'm stuck with the decision Adam and Eve made. And blaming them doesn't make sense, because I don't think I could have passed that test either.... because for me to know that I shouldn't be messing around with evil presupposes a knowledge of evil.

You can't know it's wrong until you know it's wrong. All we had to go on before we "knew" it was wrong was God telling us not to do it, and what would happen if we do. So why give us a test we are doomed to fail, because a tempter is there who knows how to confuse us?

I can't say I know why, but I don't think Gods purpose for us was to forever remain ignorant, and live forever running naked through a garden. I don't have a problem with that, because at my age it's not appropriate for me to be running through mommy and daddys garden naked like a two year old. It doesn't make sense for me to believe His plan is for us to simply go full circle, and back to all of us walking naked through a garden again. I think he has a different plan for us.

(V): "Aye.. I was [confused], so I learnt how to stop thinking when it comes to matters of spirituality and further into trying to have a comprehension of what God is and his (to quote Good Omens) "his ineffable plan"

"The story of Genesis confirms this from a philosophical point of view... "tree of knowledge" why?"


Okay, first of all the tree of the knowledge of good and evil wasn't about whether we may or may not have access to ANY knowledge. The prohibition was specific to a knowledge of good and evil. In other words, the prohibition against gaining this knowledge wasn't a prohibition against all other forms of knowledge.

There is nothing there to suggest we shouldn't think or wonder about things, or pursue something like technological knowledge. Obviously (there's that word again) I'm being very literal minded when I look at this, and I could be wrong... I'm assuming things like thinking and wondering and pursuing other knowledge would be okay, because no other prohibitions were stated.

So to your question, why the tree of knowledge? First of all, it wasn't "the tree of knowledge". It was the tree of knowledge OF good and evil. But even so, it begs the question why did God put us in the position of having to choose between what he said and what someone else was saying? Maybe it's because he created us for a specific purpose.

.: oops, did it again.

I wrote "The battle began when we decided to step outside of His."

It was supposed to say "...outside of His will."

(V): "Old saying.... being good at particle physics doesn't make you a good picker of horses at the races."

The secret to picking horses is you pick the horse that looks like it can run the fastest.

".... I think there is where you have me confused."

Because... ?

"For a start I don't think... seriously, my missus can confirm that!!"

So that means you only think you are confused... but if you don't think, you couldn't have arrived at your first premise of thinking you are confused because...
Ahhhh, crap, now I'm confused!!

".. as for the comprehension... you think your the only one?"

The only one what? Are you trying to confuse me?

"... haven't I said thinking is a bad habit."

At the risk of overthinking this, here are some possible answers...

1) So is smoking, but I've had no luck in giving that up either.
2) I'll have to think about that before I can answer.
3) I can't hear anything you've said, but most of time I can decipher what you write.
4) Why, did you forget you said that?

"Me I learnt how to stop and accept what I couldn't comprehend. Some good phrases like .... happens, grow roses."

Does this mean you do NOT accept what I've been saying, because you DO comprehend it?

"....happens, grow roses"

This leads us into examining another philosophical question: Does the Animal kingdom only exist to serve as food processors for the Plant kingdom?

"The High IQ'ers .... run."

That's right, just you try to run away, you little buggers... 'cause I'm a coming for ya!! You can hide, but you can't run!

(V): "I was asking if you got it through the interpretation of passages."

I got it through the 'interpretation' of one passage. You know, the one where Jesus says he stands at the door, and if anyone hears his voice etc etc etc. It's kind of hard to misinterpret that one, wouldn't you say? What do you think it means? Also, you said "passages" (I interpret that to mean more than one) so what other passages do you have in mind, and how do you interpret them?


I assume you are asking me where did I learn about mysticism. My first encounter with mysticism is experience with it. When I started believing in God I went to various churches and meeting places. I wasn't aware of how many different denominations and cults there were claiming to be Christ centered, or included Christ in their philosophy. One time I talked to someone who started off claiming to have an IQ of 170. That should have been my first clue that something wasn't right with him. He told me the Bible was one of five books (representing five major religions) he reads, because they all (collectively) represented what he believed. I told Mr IQ of 170 it didn't make sense for him to include the Bible in that group, and explained why. And all he needed to do to see if this was true or not was to read what his Bible says about it. Mr IQ of 170 didn't like that, not one bit... because I was right. My average bowling score at that time was well over 200, so take THAT Mr IQ of 170!

Anyway, I did encounter some mysticism along the way, and wasn't fooled by that either. Most of it appeals to "religious" emotions and less to rational thought. That's how I saw it. The answers to my questions weren't really answers, they were mostly word pictures that started and ended with the same 'answer'. I was expected to find the meaning of all that somewhere in the haze conjured up for me to look at.

My search was for a comprehensible God, not for a religious feeling or some hazy philosophy that can't stand up to scrutiny.

I may not have an IQ of 170, but I wasn't interested in trying to make sense of nonsense through the sheer power of me little intellect. Very smart people can devise very smart looking ideas, but I'm interested in something more than indulging in an intellectual exercise... I don't need a bigger brain so I can be kept busy with bigger ideas.

(V): "It's a matter of conciousness, isn't it."

I don't know. Is it?

I'll only be conscious for another hour or two... It's late, and so I'll be scooting off to bed before too long.

(V): "where did you learn to think this??"

I don't understand your question. Are you asking where did I learn this (like from a book) or are you asking me how did I come to think of this?

At first I thought you were asking where did I learn to think. I can't really say where I learned to think, or when... it was an ongoing process. It still is.

Joe????

It was an analogy. Or a metaphor, or whatever it's called... I'm not exactly sure what to call it. I'm not talking about just any old Joe, or about your house... the house is you. Joe is Jesus. Inviting Joe into your house means inviting Christ into your life. If you think he is already in your life, then why would you bother to open the door to let him in? Most people would be inclined to believe in the authenticity of the first Joe, and assume the second one to be fake.

Iamon lyme: "...or is it?"

( Substitute the word "God" for "Joe". )

If there is only one Joe, then how can you be sure the Joe you know is the real Joe, and the Joe who came to the door isn't? You know one of them is a fake because there is only one Joe, so how do you decide who the real one is?

Mysticism overcomes this problem by saying they both are, or neither are, or everything is, or it doesn't matter because I'm too tired to think about it so I'll make the problem (of understanding this) go away in a mystical puff of smoke. Mysticism doesn't solve the problem by making the answer more visible, it solves the problem by making the problem less visible...



... and air freshener can make farty smells disappear behind a cloud of sweet smelling fragrance. It's like magic, only better.

(V): "What battle?"

I suppose you could call it "spiritual warfare". Before the fall we were not at odds with God. God was not our enemy. The battle began when we decided to step outside of His. I'm calling it a 'battle' and not a 'war' because the war actually started before that... and it was the leader of the opposition (satan) who got us involved in it by convincing us to oppose his enemy (God). That battle is still going on... it hasn't been resolved yet.

I don't want to bore people who don't believe any of this or are offended by "religious talk", so I'll bring this back to the point I was originally trying to make.

If you say the God in a flower, or the God in you, it suggests there is no need to invite him into your life, because he is already there. So if he stands at the door knocking, and will only come into your life if you invite him, why would you bother to get up to let him in? You wouldn't, because he is already there with you.


Think of it this way... Joe is sitting with you in your living room, he's a good buddy of yours and has always lived in your home. But then someone is knocking on your door and asking to come in... not demanding, just asking. He won't come in unless he's invited to come in... so it's entirely up to you, it's your choice. So you go to the door and say, "Who are you?" The voice on the other side says, "It's me, Joe."

So then you look back at Joe and tell him, "Well, I'm no fool! I know he isn't Joe because you are Joe, and you are already here." And so you go back to visiting Joe, and ignore the joker who is only claiming he is Joe so you will let him in. End of story...






...or is it?

(V): "Your point was pointless. Now can we get back to philosophy?"

Granted, it was a very small point, but it was there... that's why I drew the arrows, so you could find the point I was pointing to. Pointing to the point would only be pointless if you could see the point without the pointer. But if you were unable to see the point without the help of a pointer, wouldn't it have been pointless for me to have made that point? I mean really, what is the point of making a point if you don't see the point? I knew it was there, I just wanted to make sure you knew it was there too.

I didn't expect you to see the point hidden within the set up, so I didn't want to disappoint you by ending it with no apparent (eminentlly visible) point. I did this for you, but apparently you don't appreciate all the effort I've put into this explicitly for your benefit...
Shame on you!!!

(V): "Christ describes what he is, how he sees things.. in order to be like Christ we have to give up (surrender) to God (the God without) to allow the God within (a reflection) shine."

"There is no pride or ego in this, it is just something that is."

Well, there WAS no pride or ego in that until you said "the God within". You could have just as easily said "the Magnificence within" without changing the meaning. A subtle distinction perhaps, but do you see how this elevates you into a higher position, and puts you closer to being a god?

We can get closer to God, but we will never be gods. The same temtpation that caused man to fall in the garden of eden is still tugging at our souls, and we are no less prone than Adam and Eve to be drawn towards that tempation. The battle that started there hasn't ended... not yet.

(V): "I'm sorry that you've gotten confused over the God within and the God without. N' the philosophy behind it."

I'm not confused, I'm just trying to get you to say what you believe. So far you've been talking about God as though he is nothing more than an idea, or an attribute for us to emulate. Your description of the person of God so far looks a little fuzzy and non descript.

IYO is God real? Is He an independent satient being whose existence and nature does not rely on what we think of Him? Or is he something less than that, is the idea of God something you have the power to define for yourself?

These may sound like silly questions, but IMO it's important to make this distinction. If I wasn't sure of who you are or if you were real, then I might ask: Is (V) real, or is he only an idea and so therefore I have the power to define who (V) is?