Thoughts on angels
Telicalbook
could kill or did kill?
I think it is something like ten thousand.
This makes me realize that God allows us all tremendous free will.
And also possibly that a lot of what people experience as angels may just be
imagination. The brain can mimic experience as if one is dreaming while being
awake.
Thoughts?
--
Robert Pearson
http://www.rspearson.com/
ParaMind Brainstorming Software http://www.paramind.net
Baruch
> Does anyone know that verse in the bible about the number of men one angel
> could kill or did kill?
>
> I think it is something like ten thousand.
>
I suppose it would be as many as necessary to accomplish whatever it was God
wanted done. In Exodus, the firstborn of the Egyptians were probably more
than 10,000 strong.
> This makes me realize that God allows us all tremendous free will.
> And also possibly that a lot of what people experience as angels may just
> be
> imagination. The brain can mimic experience as if one is dreaming while
> being awake.
>
> Thoughts?
I have a couple. First, you suggest that experiences of angels might be
"just" imagination. Imagination is a mighty powerful force in our lives,
though we tend to dismiss it as "unreal" because it doesn't usually
manifest a physical effect. However, sometimes it does this, too - for
example, the well-known placebo effect in medicine is based on our
imagination. Imagination is a force to be reckoned with, and it is as real
as a brick.
Do angels exist outside our own minds? I couldn't say. I couldn't show
that anything exists, except in our own minds. Some philosophies claim
that that's *all* there is - our imaginations. Check out the Net of Indra,
for example - we're all a dream of the god Indra; but each of us is
dreaming, too, and we dream of Indra, giving him his existence; and we
dream of others, and they dream of us, and so on.
Another thought - we say that under certain conditions, the brain fabricates
unreal images. During drug intoxication, or coma, sensory deprivation,
certain types of mental illness, hypnosis, and so on, we experience an
altered state of consciousness, and hallucinate or have illusions.
It would be equally valid to claim that, in an altered state we see more
clearly what is really there - that in our normal state we are blind to the
angels or other entities that exist, but in altered states or in dreams, we
are able to see better.
Is our normal state the "true" vision, and the altered states simply madness
or unreality? Or are those altered states the true view, and what we call
"normal" a state of comparative blindness? How are we to tell?
Lady Azure
Obitrol.
An Amphetamine, with unusual side effects, Telekinetics
Baruch
> During the 70's the United States did testing with a drug Called
> Obitrol.
> An Amphetamine, with unusual side effects, Telekinetics
>
Back in the '70's, I was personally testing all sorts of drugs.
Telekinesis; clairvoyance; interplanetary travel; astral projection; you
name it...
Alas, all these wonders stopped when the drugs wore off...
Telicalbook
>Telicalbook wrote:
>
>> Does anyone know that verse in the bible about the number of men one angel
>> could kill or did kill?
>>
>> I think it is something like ten thousand.
>>
>I suppose it would be as many as necessary to accomplish whatever it was God
>wanted done. In Exodus, the firstborn of the Egyptians were probably more
>than 10,000 strong.
>
>> This makes me realize that God allows us all tremendous free will.
>> And also possibly that a lot of what people experience as angels may just
>> be
>> imagination. The brain can mimic experience as if one is dreaming while
>> being awake.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>
>I have a couple. First, you suggest that experiences of angels might be
>"just" imagination. Imagination is a mighty powerful force in our lives,
>though we tend to dismiss it as "unreal" because it doesn't usually
>manifest a physical effect. However, sometimes it does this, too - for
>example, the well-known placebo effect in medicine is based on our
>imagination. Imagination is a force to be reckoned with, and it is as real
>as a brick.
Very good point!
>Do angels exist outside our own minds? I couldn't say. I couldn't show
>that anything exists, except in our own minds. Some philosophies claim
>that that's *all* there is - our imaginations. Check out the Net of Indra,
>for example - we're all a dream of the god Indra; but each of us is
>dreaming, too, and we dream of Indra, giving him his existence; and we
>dream of others, and they dream of us, and so on.
>
I really don't like that kind of thinking as it really is false on a simple
basis.
All one has to do to prove that others are not an illusion is to break a law.
Then one finds out the consequences if one is put in jail.
>Another thought - we say that under certain conditions, the brain fabricates
>unreal images. During drug intoxication, or coma, sensory deprivation,
>certain types of mental illness, hypnosis, and so on, we experience an
>altered state of consciousness, and hallucinate or have illusions.
>
>It would be equally valid to claim that, in an altered state we see more
>clearly what is really there - that in our normal state we are blind to the
>angels or other entities that exist, but in altered states or in dreams, we
>are able to see better.
I guess the whole thing a lot of people don't see is that this all leads
to break down of the mental state, a degeneration that leads to insanity.
It is sickness. Hopefully you won't have to find out for yourself.
You will see if you investigate that a lot of the homeless mentally ill people
fancied themselves first-rate occultists and magicians of some type.
>
>Is our normal state the "true" vision, and the altered states simply madness
>or unreality? Or are those altered states the true view, and what we call
>"normal" a state of comparative blindness? How are we to tell?
>
You tell by the practical improvements real spirituality brings to your life.
Baruch
> Sorry it took so long to reply to the post.
>
>>> Thoughts?
>>
>>I have a couple. First, you suggest that experiences of angels might be
>>"just" imagination. Imagination is a mighty powerful force in our lives,
>>though we tend to dismiss it as "unreal" because it doesn't usually
>>manifest a physical effect. However, sometimes it does this, too - for
>>example, the well-known placebo effect in medicine is based on our
>>imagination. Imagination is a force to be reckoned with, and it is as
>>real as a brick.
>
> Very good point!
>
>
>>Do angels exist outside our own minds? I couldn't say. I couldn't show
>>that anything exists, except in our own minds. Some philosophies claim
>>that that's *all* there is - our imaginations. Check out the Net of
>>Indra, for example - we're all a dream of the god Indra; but each of us is
>>dreaming, too, and we dream of Indra, giving him his existence; and we
>>dream of others, and they dream of us, and so on.
>>
>
> I really don't like that kind of thinking as it really is false on a
> simple basis.
> All one has to do to prove that others are not an illusion is to break a
> law. Then one finds out the consequences if one is put in jail.
>
No, all that proves is that we *think* we're in jail... To be sure, I don't
believe this, but your example doesn't prove or disprove the idea. As far
as I know, the idea is incapable of falsification - it can't be put to any
definite test. Any supposed refutation could be countered by the statement
that you only *thought* such-and-such occurred, that it was an illusion.
Yadda-yadda-yadda.
I reject this line of thought, not because I know it to be false, but simply
because it doesn't lead to new places. It's sterile, unproductive,
unhelpful.
>>Another thought - we say that under certain conditions, the brain
>>fabricates
>>unreal images. During drug intoxication, or coma, sensory deprivation,
>>certain types of mental illness, hypnosis, and so on, we experience an
>>altered state of consciousness, and hallucinate or have illusions.
>>
>>It would be equally valid to claim that, in an altered state we see more
>>clearly what is really there - that in our normal state we are blind to
>>the angels or other entities that exist, but in altered states or in
>>dreams, we are able to see better.
>
> I guess the whole thing a lot of people don't see is that this all leads
> to break down of the mental state, a degeneration that leads to insanity.
> It is sickness. Hopefully you won't have to find out for yourself.
>
Again, this is an assumption - that what most people see is true, and what
most people do not see is false or non-existent. However, reality isn't
necessarily based on Jeffersonian Democracy. Maybe we don't get to vote.
There are some people who are able to taste certain things, that others
cannot taste. This is based on genetics and chemistry, but there is a
point. Does this item have the taste? To some, yes - to others, no. The
chemical is detectable, it can be measured, and so we can say with
confidence that in this case, what certain people sense (the bitter taste)
is a reality. The fact that most people don't notice this taste isn't
important, because we can demonstrate the existence of the chemical causing
the taste.
Reasoning from there, what would have happened if we couldn't detect this
chemical? Then certain people would talk of some mystical taste, that most
people didn't notice. It might well be assumed that some people were just
nuts, talking about non-existent flavors.
Taking another step, some people claim to be able to see an "aura" around
living things, a sort of very faint, luminous emanation or layer
surrounding their bodies. Does the aura exist? I don't know - I've never
seen it, but I've spoken to people who claim to be able to see it clearly.
It is easy to dismiss these people as seeing things - that they're simply
imagining they see an aura, and that there isn't one there. However, there
actually is an electrical field around people, measurable with sensitive
instruments. Perhaps some people are able to see this. Perhaps what
they're seeing is something entirely different, not yet discovered. And of
course, it may be that they simply are imagining things.
It is a small step from aura to angel, in my opinion. There is nothing we
know of scientifically that could account for angels, but they have been
seen by many people in many cultures, throughout history. Perhaps they are
nothing more than a common hallucination. perhaps the people who see them
are more attuned to them. I don't know, but I surely wouldn't care to
claim that they don't exist at all, or that all visions of angels are
hallucinations.
> You will see if you investigate that a lot of the homeless mentally ill
> people fancied themselves first-rate occultists and magicians of some
> type.
>
A lot of homeless people are males, too. Being homeless doesn't make a
person become male, nor does being male make you homeless.
That many people claim to be occultists, magicians, psychics, prophets,
etc., does not mean that there are no prophets, etc. And the fact that a
large number of people who claim to be prophets happen to be mentally ill
does not invalidate the possibility that some prophets exist.
Finally, when we say that a person is "mentally ill", it is a label,
society's value judgement on them, that they are somehow incorrect in their
world view. If they see things we don't, they must be wrong, crazy,
stupid, or otherwise incorrect. Their vision *must* be wrong, because most
people can't see it; but as I said, reality may not respect the idea of
democracy.
You will also notice, if you investigate, that the definitions of mental
illness, and the proof that a person is mentally ill, are circular. It
goes something like, "he sees angels because he is mentally ill", and then
we say, "He is mentally ill because he sees angels". You could substitute
any other word for angels, and it makes as much sense. "He sees sunsets
because he is mentally ill. He is mentally ill because he sees sunsets."
Our definition of madness hinges upon a person's perceptions or thoughts
being other than what the majority sees or thinks. And in fact, many
people are sadly unable to function, because their vision is so far from
what the mass of humanity sees. They *are* ill, in the sense of being
unable to fend for themselves. However, people like scientific geniuses,
artists, poets, etc., also see things differently, but are able to
function, and we happen to like what they say or do for us. There may be
more prophets than we acknowledge.
And of course, all these people might be mentally ill after all, and there
are no angels, no spiritual beings, no magical worlds anywhere. What a
grim sort of world that would be.
>>
>>Is our normal state the "true" vision, and the altered states simply
>>madness
>>or unreality? Or are those altered states the true view, and what we call
>>"normal" a state of comparative blindness? How are we to tell?
>>
>
> You tell by the practical improvements real spirituality brings to your
> life.
>
That only shows you whether the vision (or whatever) was beneficial, not
whether it was real.
I would also ask, can you tell me what is a "practical improvement" in your
life? How would you measure it? More money, more possessions? Better job
satisfaction, happier marriage or relationship, better health?
I think we don't know blessings from curses, most of the time - assuming
there is actually any difference between the two...
Telicalbook
family and new agey.
I come from a long experience in Eastern philosophy, as well
as Gurdjieff, alchemy and the like. I have also been totally
Judeo-Christian, which I now am again.
>
>I think we don't know blessings from curses, most of the time - assuming
>there is actually any difference between the two...
>
This tone is very sophisticated sounding but I would grant
you this overall answer: real spirituality doesn't benefit by
the same kind of sophistication and eloquence. In fact,
spirituality is often thwarted by sophistication.
A child knows the answers. Ask a child what is the difference
between a blessing and curse.
If there weren't a difference, the bible would not have been written
in the way it was. The kind of amoral religion some follow today
is a product more of capitalism and being taken advantage of
than anything else. Virtuous people help the working classes and
uphold democracy. I'm not sure exactly all of what you wrote right
now but it seems like the same kind of quicksand that so many people
find themselves on.
Telicalbook
at you. Sorry I didn't. I am referring mostly to the last statements
quoted below.
I have personally lived the way you are describing and it can really
bring one to accept just about anything in one's life. There is such
a thing as "depravation addiction." Most people don't want to live
that way and the people who are very dysfunctional or mentally ill
in some way accuses them of being evil (I have to confess the New
Testament if not taken psychologically in points really enhances
this kind of distrust of the normal or the wealthy).
>>>
>>>Is our normal state the "true" vision, and the altered states simply
>>>madness
>>>or unreality? Or are those altered states the true view, and what we call
>>>"normal" a state of comparative blindness? How are we to tell?
>>>
>>
>> You tell by the practical improvements real spirituality brings to your
>> life.
>>
>That only shows you whether the vision (or whatever) was beneficial, not
>whether it was real.
>
>I would also ask, can you tell me what is a "practical improvement" in your
>life? How would you measure it? More money, more possessions? Better job
>satisfaction, happier marriage or relationship, better health?
>
>I think we don't know blessings from curses, most of the time - assuming
>there is actually any difference between the two...
>
That is true is a sense that we are instructed by our trials and "chastisements
of the Lord."
Baruch
> I was going to preface my remarks saying they weren't aimed
> at you. Sorry I didn't. I am referring mostly to the last statements
> quoted below.
>
Hi - I didn't think you were talking about me. I wasn't talking about how I
live or how I believe, but rather explaining why I try to remain
open-minded about things. I've been shown to be wrong far too many times
for me to insist on some particular way of looking at things. ESPECIALLY
if I happen to like some way of seeing things.
> I have personally lived the way you are describing and it can really
> bring one to accept just about anything in one's life. There is such
I'm not quite sure what you're referring to here... living what way?
> a thing as "depravation addiction." Most people don't want to live
I don't know what this is - are you saying "deprivation" addiction? You
mean, getting hooked on sensory deprivation?? I haven't ever heard of any
such thing - neither deprivation, nor depravation. I'm just assuming it's
a typo...
> that way and the people who are very dysfunctional or mentally ill
> in some way accuses them of being evil (I have to confess the New
> Testament if not taken psychologically in points really enhances
> this kind of distrust of the normal or the wealthy).
>
The New Testament is based on fear; and it fosters distrust of anyone who
doesn't seem to follow a very narrow set of beliefs that are impossible to
follow in this age. People live in constant fear of being tricked by the
devil and going to hell for it. The so-called "normal" are living lives of
sin, because they're not kowtowing to the mad deity that God is supposed to
be. The wealthy are all going to hell, unless they contribute heavily to
my church. And so on...
>
>>>>
>>>>Is our normal state the "true" vision, and the altered states simply
>>>>madness
>>>>or unreality? Or are those altered states the true view, and what we
>>>>call
>>>>"normal" a state of comparative blindness? How are we to tell?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You tell by the practical improvements real spirituality brings to your
>>> life.
>>>
>>That only shows you whether the vision (or whatever) was beneficial, not
>>whether it was real.
>>
>>I would also ask, can you tell me what is a "practical improvement" in
>>your
>>life? How would you measure it? More money, more possessions? Better
>>job satisfaction, happier marriage or relationship, better health?
>>
>>I think we don't know blessings from curses, most of the time - assuming
>>there is actually any difference between the two...
>>
>
>
> That is true is a sense that we are instructed by our trials and
> "chastisements of the Lord."
>
>
That's one way to look at it - we step out of line, and God punishes us for
it. Or, we act in ignorance, and God lovingly "chastises" us, giving us a
painful but necessary lesson.
Another way of looking at it is that God has warned us of pitfalls in life,
that we are free to ignore or believe. When we get hurt, it's not God's
punishment, but it's simply what God was warning us against.
Baruch
> I only skimmed your response because the tone sounded very
> family and new agey.
>
What does this mean - my tone was very "family and new agey"?
Also, the fact that my tone may have sounded one way or another does not
refute anything I say. Is there something I said that you know to be
wrong? Or, do you have some counter-argument to what I said? Then let's
have it. Otherwise, you're simply bickering about how I presented my
ideas, not the ideas themselves.
> I come from a long experience in Eastern philosophy, as well
> as Gurdjieff, alchemy and the like. I have also been totally
> Judeo-Christian, which I now am again.
>
I come from no such experience. I've never been totally anything - not
Judeo-Christian, New Age, nor anything else I know of.
>>
>>I think we don't know blessings from curses, most of the time - assuming
>>there is actually any difference between the two...
>>
>
>
> This tone is very sophisticated sounding but I would grant
> you this overall answer: real spirituality doesn't benefit by
> the same kind of sophistication and eloquence. In fact,
> spirituality is often thwarted by sophistication.
>
However, what I said was not based on any sophistication. It was based on
experience. Hence, I know what I am talking about.
> A child knows the answers. Ask a child what is the difference
> between a blessing and curse.
>
This is nonsense. A child knows that it's a blessing to get to eat as much
chocolate and ice cream as he wants. Ask any child, and he'll assure you
this is the case. However, let the child do it, and he'll have a different
take on the situation when he's desperately sick or has a bellyache.
I could multiply examples, but this should suffice. We do not, in general,
know the difference between a blessing and a curse. I am not convinced
that there is a difference between them. What we like is not necessarily
what is good. What we call a curse may, in light of subsequent experience,
prove to be a blessing.
> If there weren't a difference, the bible would not have been written
> in the way it was. The kind of amoral religion some follow today
The Bible is just a book. It is not, despite claims to the contrary, the
ONE AND ONLY WORD OF GOD (tm). It is an inspired book that contains much
of what God is about - but it is not the only such book, and it is highly
contaminated with pure, unadulterated crap.
> is a product more of capitalism and being taken advantage of
> than anything else. Virtuous people help the working classes and
> uphold democracy. I'm not sure exactly all of what you wrote right
> now but it seems like the same kind of quicksand that so many people
> find themselves on.
>
Perhaps it would be better if you took the time to read what I wrote, before
choosing to comment on it. An informed opinion carries considerably more
weight than an uninformed one.
Telicalbook
>
>> I only skimmed your response because the tone sounded very
>> family and new agey.
>>
>What does this mean - my tone was very "family and new age
very familiar and new agey.
I'm sorry what the media Christianity did to what you people understand
of real Christianity, but it's not all that way.
I think I've covered all the points I want to. Thanks for chatting.
angelicusrex
spiritually guiding people. According to you I had best listen to a four
year old to help me formulate a moral philosophy, wouldn't I? Or someone
with the IQ of a four year old...maybe G.W. Bush? He assuredly knows what
sort of curse he has brought down on our heads...the curse of war, poverty,
injustice, witch-hunts and preposterous greed, avarice and hatred of other
religions and nations.
I would think that wisdom, though often coming from the mouths of babes and
others with little inhibition, could only be used by those with lucid enough
minds to grasp said wisdom. So putting down eloquence and sophistication in
favor of listening only to children is dangerous. By the way Gurdijieff was
extremely eloquent and very sophisticated, as were his followers, mostly
intellectuals and authors, artists and creative types. Make you heart as
innocent as a little child's or a dove, but, as Jesus said, have the cunning
and wisdom of the serpent.
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Telicalbook" <telic...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20041030211219...@mb-m22.aol.com...
angelicusrex
nothing and therefore begin to distrust and hate the wealthy. Well, I'm
middle class and I still hate and distrust the wealthy. Mainly because they
are out for themselves. I am sick of SUV bullies for Bush/Cheney. But then
the same could have been said of Jesus, who resented the long flowing robes
and fringes of the priest and the elite of his time. He despised the money
changers and seemed fit to be tied about how the poor were treated by the
wealthy. But he was a long-haired commie pinko liberal. Most likely he would
have hated America and not stood on the side of G.W. Bush in his effort to
"kill the terrorists." (Something that Kerry also says which I heartily
disagree with). Jesus though said to pay deference to one's king. I wonder
how he would have felt about democracy and voting? How would he have
respected a man placed in power by cheating the good voters out of their
rights? yes: What WOULD Jesus have done?
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Baruch" <baru...@N0sbcglobal.net$PAM> wrote in message
news:GQYgd.25287$Qv5....@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
angelicusrex
had none to begin with. The ones he had fell short of sounding reasonable or
logical. In some sense though, I hate it when Baruch or I or anyone "wins"
an argument by default or lack of interest on the other party's part.
Without good, solid, well intentioned argument, nothing ever gets solved.
But be that as it may. Baruch Wins! Baruch Wins! Yeah! (I feel suddenly like
a Red Sox fan).
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Telicalbook" <telic...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20041031125644...@mb-m02.aol.com...
Baruch
> I think Robt. means some people become addicted to being poor, to having
> nothing and therefore begin to distrust and hate the wealthy. Well, I'm
Well, it's not like people go and shoot up poverty... some folks just can't
get away from it, no matter how hard they try.
> middle class and I still hate and distrust the wealthy. Mainly because
> they are out for themselves. I am sick of SUV bullies for Bush/Cheney. But
I'm sick of SUV's altogether, and all the mindlessly wasteful things people
do that consume unconscionable amounts of resources and do harm to the
world and its people. Unfortunately, it's not just rich people. Most
people would do things like that, if only they had the money to do it -
even the victims, sometimes. I believe money can have a corrosive effect
on people - not that money is bad, but just that it allows people the
ability to put into play their own "badness", their own unconcern for the
environment.
If I had the money, would I buy an SUV? I'd like to think I wouldn't,
but... who knows? Maybe if I had the cash, I could ease my conscience by
telling myself I really *need* it, unlike those others who merely want
it...
> then the same could have been said of Jesus, who resented the long flowing
> robes and fringes of the priest and the elite of his time. He despised the
Yeah, and he didn't like their arrogant attitude, either - looking down not
just on the poor people, but on anyone who was a "sinner" - which would be
everyone, of course.
> money changers and seemed fit to be tied about how the poor were treated
> by the wealthy. But he was a long-haired commie pinko liberal. Most likely
> he would have hated America and not stood on the side of G.W. Bush in his
> effort to "kill the terrorists." (Something that Kerry also says which I
> heartily disagree with). Jesus though said to pay deference to one's king.
> I wonder how he would have felt about democracy and voting? How would he
> have respected a man placed in power by cheating the good voters out of
> their rights? yes: What WOULD Jesus have done?
>
I think maybe Jesus was being a little bit sly when he was asked that
question (about obeying the government, etc.; his answer being, "Render
unto Caesar that which is Caesar's...). Sure, render to God, Caesar, etc.,
what belongs to them. But - what belongs to Caesar? Does anything belong
to him? Or does it all belong to God??
Anyway, let's face it - Caesar wasn't elected either, any more than Bush
was. So I guess he'd say, "Render unto Bush...", though that doesn't have
the same ring to it...
Baruch
>>Telicalbook wrote:
>>
>>> I only skimmed your response because the tone sounded very
>>> family and new agey.
>>>
>>What does this mean - my tone was very "family and new age
>
> very familiar and new agey.
>
So OK, what does *that* mean - "familiar". I have an idea what new-agey
supposedly means, but what does "familiar" mean? I sound like I know you?
I sound like arguments you've heard before? I sound like someone in your
family? I sound like I'm being overly friendly towards you? But never
mind... you haven't troubled to read what I said, so you wouldn't be able
to answer the question.
> I'm sorry what the media Christianity did to what you people understand
> of real Christianity, but it's not all that way.
>
I'm sorry you think you can read my mind, and that I am somehow following a
media version of what a Christian is. I'm sorry you didn't identify
yourself as a Christian in the beginning. I had no idea you were pushing
Jesus. Shame on you for not saying so, since it was a vital part of this
"discourse". You were being deceitful.
> I think I've covered all the points I want to. Thanks for chatting.
I think you came here with a hidden agenda, trying to make converts. When
you encountered someone whose ideas you could not answer, you turned tail
and ran.
I know almost nothing of what the media say about Christianity. I don't use
the media, outside of the Internet, and I don't use it for my information
about how Christianity is practiced. I learned that by going to the
Christians - from the Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anglicans,
Fundamentalists, Baptists, Society of Friends, and so on. I attended
services, bible studies, healing services, and revivals.
You came here asking for ideas, remember? I gave you some ideas. I didn't
try to impose these ideas on you, nor did I ever suggest that anyone try to
live them. I wouldn't try to push anything on someone else, unlike you. I
had no idea you were trying to push your brand of religion onto people, or
I'd have given you short shrift and killfiled you immediately. I took you
at your word and responded accordingly. Unfortunately, you misled me and
others as to your intent.
When I made certain comments, you stopped talking about the issues
themselves, and moved to talking about me personally. I said, "I think we
don't know blessings from curses, most of the time - assuming there is
actually any difference between the two...". This was an observation that
came about as a result of my own personal experiences, backed up with
observations of what happened in other peoples' lives. You chose not to
address the concept, but rather to dismiss it as "sophisticated", and then
went on to say that sophistication could interfere with spiritual life.
What you did not do is to address the original statement, which I believe to
be valid. What is a blessing? What is a curse? How can you be sure? Is
there really a difference between them?
A while ago, I had a fire that left me homeless, with only the clothes on my
back, and not even shoes to wear. This sounds like quite a curse, doesn't
it? There was a time when I'd have been utterly devastated by such a
disaster, broken and despondent. Fortunately for me, I was not - I was
able to let go of the lost belongings and to move on with my life - with
far less stuff to worry about.
Was this a curse, or a blessing?
I have heard stories of people who get money suddenly, winning the lottery
or whatever. Many, many times, this has caused them more heartache than
being broke ever did. Was winning the lottery a blessing or a curse for
them?
Repeatedly I have witnessed, read about, or experienced supposedly happy
events that seemed to become curses, or supposed tragedies that people were
grateful for. Which are the blessings, and which are the curses?
So yes, I say that we don't know blessings from curses, because so often
curses turn out to be "blessings in disguise", and vice versa. This
happens so often that I even question whether there is any difference
between a blessing and a curse.
The reason I question this is because maybe, just maybe, events are neutral,
and whether they're a curse of a blessing depends on what *we* do with
them. So, whenever we win the lottery, if we keep working our spiritual
path, it may remain a blessing; and if we have a fire and keep working our
spiritual path, it *becomes* a blessing.
In other words, if we have God in our lives, we're blessed, no matter what
befalls us, "good" or "bad". And if we do not have God in our lives, we're
cursed, regardless of what befalls us.
Just a thought. Somehow I don't think this "sophistication" is keeping me
from my proper spiritual path. I may be wrong, but I am not lost.
I suggest that you take a look at how you try to present whatever it is
you're selling. Trying to be a con man for God isn't going to get you very
far. If you use deceitful or misleading techniques to engage people in
discussion, you are going to alienate most of them when they discover
they've been deceived. The ends do not justify the means, and lying will
not help you to present your version of the truth.
By deceiving, you have shown yourself to be untrustworthy. What reason
would anyone have to listen to the words of an untrustworthy person? The
penalty for being a liar is that you are not believed, even when you tell
the truth.
Granted, you did not come right out and tell a whopper. You were more
subtle about it. You presented yourself as a seeker, yet thought yourself
a teacher. You are neither.
Baruch
> In other words, Bob has nothing. He won't argue points anymore, because he
> had none to begin with. The ones he had fell short of sounding reasonable
> or logical. In some sense though, I hate it when Baruch or I or anyone
> "wins" an argument by default or lack of interest on the other party's
> part. Without good, solid, well intentioned argument, nothing ever gets
> solved. But be that as it may. Baruch Wins! Baruch Wins! Yeah! (I feel
> suddenly like a Red Sox fan).
>
Yeah, it's "winning ugly"... But to me, no one wins. I just wasted my time
trying to have an intelligent discussion with someone who came her to
preach his version of the ONE TRUE WAY(tm). I prefer the Fundamentalists
who let you know up front where they're coming from. It's easy to ignore
them or put them in the killfile. Guys like this, trying to come on as an
equal, are a real waste. He's not being honest, he's basically lying, and
I'm happily chatting along with him while he's trying to figure out how to
turn it all around to Jesus (or whatever he's pushing).
Oh, well... chalk it up to experience. I just *know* Jesus wouldn't get all
shady like that. He'd just come around, talk to us as equals, maybe ask a
few questions or tell us some stuff, and be OK if we didn't believe him.
And if we were sick, he'd heal us, no charge; if we were hungry,he'd feed
us, no 2 hours of gospel preaching first. Why can't Christians be more
like Christ?
Baruch
> On 31 Oct 2004 17:56:44 GMT, you wrote:
>
>>
>>I'm sorry what the media Christianity did to what you people understand
>>of real Christianity, but it's not all that way.
> too bad YOU werent there WAY BACK WHEN..
> oh well, ANOTHER fundy
> ta ta..
>
> --Shiva--
Yeah - we've been had. It would be nice if these guys were more like Jesus,
and less like The Enemy they fear...
Baruch
> If one is interested, IMO, of what Jesus would be like IF he was
> here today, there is a series of books, the authors name is
> Grizone, and the names vary but "Joshua", or "Joshua and ______",
> are in the title.
>
>
> --Shiva--
You know, someone told me about those books - a whole series of them, I
guess. Maybe I'll see if I can track them down. Might be interesting...
But I'll just bet he wouldn't be like most Christians behave.
Lady Azure
Greeks/Jacobites.
--Shiva-- wrote:
>
> On 31 Oct 2004 17:56:44 GMT, you wrote:
>
> >
> >I'm sorry what the media Christianity did to what you people understand
> >of real Christianity, but it's not all that way.
Telicalbook
>subtle about it. You presented yourself as a seeker, yet thought yourself
>a teacher. You are neither.
It's the same thing most people get in here: a lot of hatred, sometimes
very thinly veiled.
I'm tired of talking to people like you and I recognized it early on....
there is a HUGE difference between intellectual converation and
cloaked internet posts that base themselves on New Ager hate attacks
on one of the major world religions.
Telicalbook
to begin...why don't you read my web page....study it....thanks.
Baruch
> No, it's just that you have so little of an education, that I don't know
> where to begin...why don't you read my web page....study it....thanks.
Why don't you read *my* Website?
See, here you are confirming what I said - you didn't come here as a seeker,
you came here as a teacher. You just admitted it.
The reason I don't read your Web page is that you haven't offered a single
reason for me to do so. All your arguments so far have been either
ineffective or wholly irrelevant. What would be different with your
Website?
You have not even bothered to reply to most of what I have written,
preferring instead to blame your silence on my impure motives. Here you
continue to lie (yes, lie, not simply err). First, you claim to know what
I'm thinking. You do not, and you know it. This is a lie, since you claim
knowledge you could not possibly have. Second, your claim is incorrect.
This is not necessarily a lie, it is simply that you are wrong to impute
motives to me that I do not have.
So I said that you were neither a seeker nor a teacher. This is not hate.
It is a fact.
You just admitted that you did not come as a seeker, thus confirming that
part of my statement.
You have failed miserably in teaching anyone. Hence, you are neither a
seeker nor a teacher.
You will never be a teacher until you become a true seeker. As long as you
think you've found the answer to it all, you will never learn another
thing. The only person who learns is the one who understands that he
doesn't already know.
Baruch
> No, it's just that you have so little of an education, that I don't know
> where to begin...why don't you read my web page....study it....thanks.
Your Website needs some work. You should consider changing your background
image to something with a smaller range of brightness. The image you use -
a sunset or sunrise - has relatively dark areas, along with very bright
areas. This creates a wide range of contrast, which makes reading text
difficult and uncomfortable.
Another problem is that your image is too small, and is tiled on the page
many times. Once again, this creates several "hot spots" of brightness,
distracting the eye and creating an unpleasant sensation.
I suggest that you find a larger image with less of a brightness range.
Failing that, choose a plain background, and add the photographs as images.
The layout of the information is chaotic. It is generally more effective to
present related items together in a box, or separated by a horizontal line,
or otherwise demarcated. You had a good start with that largish box (with
the white border), but you didn't follow through.
On a related note, you would probably do better to put stuff on the right
side of the screen as well as the left. What you have now is largely
left-justified material that looks uneven. You can accomplish this by
using tables, as you may possibly know.
I have to say, your Website needs a lot of work. Whatever skills you might
have, Website design is not one of them. If you *paid* for this, you got
took. If it's any consolation, my Website is even worse than yours; but
then again, I don't ask anyone to look at it.
As for the content, it looks "familiar and New Agey", so I didn't bother to
read it...
Baruch
>>Granted, you did not come right out and tell a whopper. You were more
>>subtle about it. You presented yourself as a seeker, yet thought yourself
>>a teacher. You are neither.
>
> It's the same thing most people get in here: a lot of hatred, sometimes
> very thinly veiled.
>
[Translation: I don't like what you said, but I have nothing to offer to
refute it, so I'll just claim you hate me. Maybe you'll go away.]
I did not treat you with anything even close to hatred, thinly veiled or
otherwise. I treated you as an equal, while you tried to treat me as one
you were going to "educate" or "save", or whatever your game was. From the
beginning you were presenting a false front, and I did not recognize it for
what it was. That was a lie, pure and simple - and we know who is the
father of lies, don't we?
If you behave in a deceitful manner, then people are going to be displeased
when they discover your deception. It's how people are - most of them. If
you lie to them, they wind up not trusting you. And you, my friend, lied
by presenting half-truths. Deceit is deceit, however you accomplish it.
My displeasure at your deception is not "hatred". It is anger at being
treated dishonestly. It is a normal human reaction, perfectly appropriate,
and within my rights. There is nothing at all "New Age" about this
response. No one likes to be treated deceitfully.
> I'm tired of talking to people like you and I recognized it early on....
[Translation: I don't have anything to say that could refute any of your
statements, so I'll blame it on you. I'll refer to "people like you" to
make it a personal attack, but won't specify exactly what it is about
"people like you" that I don't like. That way, you won't be able to
challenge my statement, because I keep it vague. "I recognized it early
on" means I want you to think I knew all along you'd prove more than I
could handle...]
Until recently, you never talked to "people like me", because there aren't
any. Each of us is unique. When you start to talk about "people like
you", or "those kinds of people", you are dehumanizing them, distancing
yourself from them. You are trying to justify your new silence by laying
the blame on me for your being at a loss for words. You cannot answer what
I say, so you must attack who I am. It won't work. Unlike some people, I
won't just cave in and go away when you get personal.
You claim to have "recognized it early on..." - however, you are the one who
began this discussion by asking the very open-ended question, "Any ideas?"
I presented my ideas, which you did not find to your liking. Most
probably, you found yourself unable to twist my words around to your brand
of ONE TRUE WAY (tm), and so were unhappy with what I was saying.
Unfortunately, at no point were you actually soliciting anyone's ideas.
You were at all times attempting to find an opening to force your ideas
onto other people. So you "recognized it early on..." apparently means you
were aware of being shady from the beginning.
> there is a HUGE difference between intellectual converation and
> cloaked internet posts that base themselves on New Ager hate attacks
> on one of the major world religions.
[Translation: Since you don't agree with me, you must be a New Ager. If you
disagree with me, you are not being intellectual, but are simply expressing
hatred towards me. "One of the major world religions": Christianity.]
This is amusing. You are condemning me for being a New Ager, as though
there were something wrong with believing in God and His universal power.
Someone else on this very newsgroup is condemning me for being a Christian,
for much the same reason. I think this tells me something important. As
long as I'm getting flak from both sides, I am probably doing OK. If one
or the other side stops attacking me, then chances are I've gone too far to
one extreme or the other.
Is there some reason you wanted to avoid telling us you're a Christian? You
have avoided that word like the plague, while throwing about "New Age" like
a weapon. "One of the major world religions" could be any of a good
half-dozen or more, depending on how you decide it's major. New Age might
even be one of them... It's OK if you're a Christian. Nothing to be
ashamed of. What is shameful is lying, not being a Christian. Why, some
of my best friends are Christians.
I was OK with you, until you pulled your stunt of dismissing what I said as
"New Agey" and not worth bothering to read. Oh, and then you began to
attack me, rather than what I was actually saying. Only then did I realize
that I had been deceived - you were not the least bit interested in
*hearing* ideas, but were intent only on presenting your own ideas, hoping
I'd provide you with some opening or other for yours.
You simply got yourself in far over your head, and you had to start laying
the blame on me for your inadequacy. Your errors are, IMNSHO:
1. You initiated this whole exchange on a false premise. You had a hidden
agenda. You never intended to have an equal exchange. You expected to
preach at me and anyone else who participated. Lying is not a good way to
start anything.
2. You didn't have the necessary skill to turn the exchange around to suit
your hidden agenda. No shame there - everyone has his own set of strengths
and weaknesses. Yours weren't up to the task.
3. Realizing you were out of your depths, you resorted to dismissing what I
said on the grounds of being "familiar and New Agey", without saying why
that would make my words invalid. Again, this is dishonest.
4. Having been caught out in that ploy, you then tried to turn to personal
attack against me, blaming it all on "New Age hatred". Dishonesty again.
5. Having erred, you persisted in the error instead of admitting the
mistake and trying to learn from it. The most egregious mistake of them
all - to persist in your error when you have been found out.
So now I ask you some questions. No doubt you'll claim they're beneath your
dignity to answer, or they're New Age hate attacks or something. No
matter. Others here will read, and see through you. That is more
important to me than having you answer them.
1. Did you, or did you not, come here presenting yourself as a seeker?
2. Did you, or did you not, come here thinking of yourself as a teacher or
preacher?
By your own admission, you were trying to "teach" me (and others, I
suppose), which answers the second question. You have already answered the
first, by your actions. This leads to the same conclusions as before.
You are a fraud. Frauds do not make good teachers.
angelicusrex
Major Religion, i.e. Christianity that has been attacking other religions
for centuries. It is now losing ground slowly but surely because of its need
to divide itself into warring sects and then allowing the least intellectual
of their sects to foist off things like "Creationism" as science in our
schools. It is Fundamentalist Christianity right now that is making "hate"
its campaign slogan.
New Agers on the other hand, are notable for not hating anyone. They are
hesitant to hurt anyone or deny anyone else their rights, while Christians
go about banning gay marriage, abortion, liquor, or anything else they
doesn't like people to choose, and then support war, the death penalty and
treating poor people like dirt world wide. Too bad.
Meanwhile you have been anything than "intellectual" in your "arguments."
Then you pompously go on to explain how you don't want to talk to certain
types of people and that they in turn should read your website. As if there
would be anything on it that would interest an intellectually inclined
person.
Why don't you just go brainstorm with your software (evidently people with
brains seem to bore you...).
Buhbye.
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Telicalbook" <telic...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20041102002944...@mb-m17.aol.com...
Baruch
> No, it's just that you have so little of an education, that I don't know
> where to begin...why don't you read my web page....study it....thanks.
> --
I've looked at the Paramind site - much better. You must have paid someone
to do it. It's not great, but it's a whole lot better than the other.
The software, though - surely you are joking? Charging $80 for something
like that? If you are making any money from this program, it only shows
that there's one born every minute, and some of them still have their
money...
What you have could be thrown together with a PERL script and a GUI
interface, with a thesaurus for a database. I have a mind to actually do
it, and then give it away under the GNU Public License. Depending on how
irritated I get, I may port it to Windows as well. Come to think of it, I
could probably just do it in Word, using macros and the built-in
thesaurus...
Have you ever heard of the combinatorial explosion? It's a simple idea. If
you have a set of things (such as words) that can be combined in different
ways, the number of combinations increases very rapidly as the number of
words increases. Your output increases exponentially, as the number of
varying words increases. Add one more word, and you multiply the output by
20 times or so, give or take.
One of your examples was to transform the sentence, "the clear blue sky was
washed in rainbow subtle light". Your program produced over 11,000
variations of that simple sentence, over 250 pages worth. As far as I
could see, it only transformed the adjectives. The verb "washed" appears
to be in every sentence, as do the nouns.
From what I could see, only four words were changed: clear, blue, rainbow,
and subtle. Even so, this created far too much output to be useful. No
one is going to read every single line of 11,000+ very similar lines, to
find the single best phrase.
Here's a free bit of advice: Rather than presenting the output in the same
way the computer generates it, try randomizing it [hint: create a file,
generate a sequence of N unique random numbers between 1 and N, and pick
out the lines by their position- then create a second file with those
lines]. This way, the lines won't be so utterly similar as to dull the
eye, and it will most likely improve the usefulness of the program. Or at
least, present this as an option.
You might also consider weeding out those sentences that have too many of
the same words in them as the seed sentence - why present phrases that are
almost identical to the input? This is called pruning, and it's really
helpful in programs like this.
Now, aren't you glad you told me to read your Website? I thought so...
Baruch
>
> New Agers on the other hand, are notable for not hating anyone. They are
> hesitant to hurt anyone or deny anyone else their rights, while Christians
> go about banning gay marriage, abortion, liquor, or anything else they
> doesn't like people to choose, and then support war, the death penalty and
> treating poor people like dirt world wide. Too bad.
>
Hey, you're sounding like one of them bunny-lovin' tree huggers...
> Meanwhile you have been anything than "intellectual" in your "arguments."
> Then you pompously go on to explain how you don't want to talk to certain
> types of people and that they in turn should read your website. As if
> there would be anything on it that would interest an intellectually
> inclined person.
>
> Why don't you just go brainstorm with your software (evidently people with
> brains seem to bore you...).
>
The Website seems to indicate that Mr. Pearson thinks very highly of
himself...
His software needs a little work, IMNSHO. I think I might just see if I can
whip up a little something on my own, just to see... maybe it's harder than
it looks, but from what I see it's just running the words through a
thesaurus and cranking out line after line of mostly gibberish, with a few
potential gems interspersed. Kind of like Usenet, come to think of it...
angelicusrex
something. Or some object. Or some particle. Or a piece of matter...etc.
Like I said he should leave the thinking to the thinkers, not a computer.
Creativity and brainstorming is not random words bound together by
circumstance. It is trying to come up with an idea that speaks to people.
What Pearson has created is another way for lazy people to remain lazy. Ah,
the modern world...
--
Namaste'
Saint 0;-)
"There are only two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a
miracle.
The other is as if everything is."
Albert Einstein
"Baruch" <baru...@N0sbcglobal.net$PAM> wrote in message
news:cEZhd.1921$cj2....@newssvr16.news.prodigy.com...
Baruch
> Or kind of like the human brain...Brain like kind of human the or. Or
> something. Or some object. Or some particle. Or a piece of matter...etc.
> Like I said he should leave the thinking to the thinkers, not a computer.
> Creativity and brainstorming is not random words bound together by
> circumstance. It is trying to come up with an idea that speaks to people.
> What Pearson has created is another way for lazy people to remain lazy.
> Ah, the modern world...
>
I have to agree. It seems that all this program would accomplish would be
to juggle words around mechanically, and then somehow a person could select
just the right combination that would be creative, etc. The problem, I
think, is that if you aren't creative enough to *create* this combination,
you probably aren't creative enough to recognize it if a computer does it
for you. And if you have to read through 11,000 possible variations, by
the time you're done your mind will have been turned to mush anyway.