agnosticism

I'm simply baffled and befuddled.

I have never my life seen someone who claims to have so much to offer, and if you take his claim at face value should have an incredible amount to offer....

But in reality provides so little, not even less than expectations, less than 90% of those who wander through and find this site. We've seen the prophets come here before. They at least had context, content and a defense of their position.

In this case we've been offered nothing.....nothing except an incentive to become agnostic/skeptical if we weren't already.

Ya think he's a double agent?
 
IowaGuy said:
This thread is actually a good example of the benefits of being agnostic (skeptical).
Click to expand...

Yes, in a way, it is. It might also be worth noting that, in Kaballah, as I only imperfectly understand (and I am not always one of its proponents), the highest conception of God is essentially negative: Ain-Soph. Ain-Soph is that concerning which one can have no adequate conception (ain(no) soph(knowledge)). "One knows God best by not knowing God," said Alan Watts, as I recall. That is similar, or analogous, to “in”finite, “in”effable, and all of the other “in” words we regularly use in English to describe -or at any rate convince ourselves that we are describing- the “in”describable. Sometimes, it is all very paradoxical.
 
Etu Malku said:
:cool:"Conscientious Objector" doesn't get you out of military service anymore . . . neither from here. :cool:
Click to expand...

Edward Palamar said:
And rightfully so. If reason alone is so sacred to the agnostic, why can he/she not rise out of the cesspool of indecision?
Click to expand...
Lol. Jesus said, "Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth."
(or according to Edward, the cesspool.)

Whatever/whereever the non-meek or prideful inherit, I hope you two will be happy there. Blessings.
seattlegal-albums-emoticons-picture1336-byebye.gif
 
SG, where I am unaware of where Etu comes from as :
:cool:"Conscientious Objector" doesn't get you out of military service anymore . . .
Click to expand...
is seemingly completely incorrect.

as conscientious objector is one of the many things that has gotten one out of military service in the USA for almost 3 decades...

Along with not getting out of bed....

without an imposed draft, you need no reason not to go to war....despite the fact that there are thousands of valid ones.
 
wil said:
SG, where I am unaware of where Etu comes from as : is seemingly completely incorrect.[/I]

as conscientious objector is one of the many things that has gotten one out of military service in the USA for almost 3 decades...

Along with not getting out of bed....

without an imposed draft, you need no reason not to go to war....despite the fact that there are thousands of valid ones.
Click to expand...
It may determine what you will and will not be doing in the military, but when there is a draft you are going conscientious objector or not.

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_43.pdf
 
Etu Malku said:
It may determine what you will and will not be doing in the military, but when there is a draft you are going conscientious objector or not.

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/r600_43.pdf
Click to expand...


1. there is no draft, so the point is mute, or wrong.

2. I legally have never registered for selective service, so you can require all that have registered upto the age of 70....and I and thousands of others wil not be required to show up.


(note, normally I object to derailing threads and going off on tangents, but this thread was designed to provide a space for an individual to state his case on a topic...and that topic was actually quite interestingly discussed until he arrived...and now since he has participated it is apparent that the intent of the thread is no longer valid....however I could be completely wrong)
 
EM-- the Army reg you list is not the pertinent United States Code. It applies only to memebers of the U.S. Army. See U.S. Code Title 50. Believe me, Brethren, Mennonites, and the Religious Scociety of Friends (the three traditional Peace Churches) will never allow C.O. status to any military service to be repealed. We fought way too long for it.

Pax et amore omnia vincunet
 
radarmark said:
EM-- the Army reg you list is not the pertinent United States Code. It applies only to memebers of the U.S. Army. See U.S. Code Title 50. Believe me, Brethren, Mennonites, and the Religious Scociety of Friends (the three traditional Peace Churches) will never allow C.O. status to any military service to be repealed. We fought way too long for it.

Pax et amore omnia vincunet
Click to expand...
Then I stand corrected, thank you radarmark.
 
Edward Palamar said:
But one who blasphemes the Holy Spirit can never find such peace.
Click to expand...

Etu Malku said:
No, one who continues to be under the delusion of something supernatural will never be at peace Within.
Click to expand...

I really like the Book of James. Chapter 3 explains blasphemy (slander) leading to Gehenna within (last word of verse 6) and how to obtain peace within (as opposed to Gehenna within) in a very straightforward way that I think even both of you can agree on. :)
 
seattlegal said:
I really like the Book of James. Chapter 3 explains blasphemy (slander) leading to Gehenna within (last word of verse 6) and how to obtain peace within (as opposed to Gehenna within) in a very straightforward way that I think even both of you can agree on. :)
Click to expand...
That is best written "in a very straightforward way on which you both can agree, so I think."

As long as Etu Malku ranks God as a manifestation of delusion, he won't agree to a word of that chapter, nor with any prophecy.
 
Edward Palamar said:
That is best written "in a very straightforward way on which you both can agree, so I think."

As long as Etu Malku ranks God as a manifestation of delusion, he won't agree to a word of that chapter, nor with any prophecy.
Click to expand...
Ok delusion might have been a little harsh . . . gods are the product of imagination, archetypes of the unconsciousness.

During ritual work, I use my unconsciousness when bringing into consciousness various deities, but after the ritual, no matter how real they appeared to my mind, they are put back where they came, into my unconsciousness and I know they are a part of my imagination, perhaps part of the Jungian Collective Unconsciousness.

James 3:6
And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
Click to expand...
 
Ah, EM. If I could just get you to read a little Whitehead! That is, if your material versus mental mind-set were not quite so set, if you could substitute "becoming" for "being", I think you could see hwo true SG was.

Pax et amore vincunt omnia!
 
Etu Malku said:
Ok delusion might have been a little harsh . . . gods are the product of imagination, archetypes of the unconsciousness.

During ritual work, I use my unconsciousness when bringing into consciousness various deities, but after the ritual, no matter how real they appeared to my mind, they are put back where they came, into my unconsciousness and I know they are a part of my imagination, perhaps part of the Jungian Collective Unconsciousness.
James 3:6
And the tongue [is] a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Well, ok, maybe the Contemporary English Version might be clearer, but you miss out on much of the metaphorical tie-ins like the tongue is a rudder setting the "course of nature" (how your life unfolds/evolves) on fire steering towards a living hell (Gehenna.) :eek:
 
seattlegal said:
luecy7
Conscientious Objector

;)
Click to expand...
:D Perhaps I should explain. I was verbally defending conscientious objection. As I said 'false', I did not mean the whole paragraph. It seems that Edward quoted from Lactantius, from his Divine Institutes, Book 6, Chapter 20. I believe in speaking both for, and against, capital punishment. Similarly I believe in speaking both for, and against, the Holy Spirit.

As Lactantius says, "because it makes no difference whether you put a man to death by word, or rather by the sword", from my viewpoint he spoke against the Holy Spirit, against Jesus Christ, and spoke against God.

With our own words, in a way, we do slay. Looking back, I believe that on many occasions I have spoken against the Holy Spirit, and though I forgive myself I do not forgive myself for speaking against the Holy Spirit. I hope that I have slayed myself from doing that again. With every word I hope that I am not speaking against the Holy Spirit, and with every action I hope that I am not behaving counter to the Holy Spirit, though with every word and every action it is possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top