Posted on 07/22/2007 7:40:38 PM PDT by xzins
See #2,360
These are technical terms. Using them in the common use leads nowhere.
Whatever. Shooting the breeze about imagianry space balls and unbound universe leads nowhere. Good bye.
You’ll have to explain the meanings of your diectionary definitions as well. What is material? What is matter? What is form? What is actual? What is existence? What is reality? What is thought? What is etymology? Common use of these technical terms results in a meaning soup. A gray goo.
I pretty much agree with that.. Being teenagers as they mostly were.. Jesus mostly spoke in metaphor persona.. and spoke of the "Spirit".. The spirit of the word and of themselves AND of God.. Many christians even to this day miss "the Spirit".. morphing the spirit into some kind of flesh.. like a primate..
ONLY Paul IMO, saw the reality of what Jesus ministered fully.. and maybe Paul missed some things.. The end result of all this, TO ME, is we NEED the Holy SPirit to teach us what we need to be taught of the spirit/SPirit..
Quite a beautiful plan I would say(paraclete).. The spirit is something that must be learned by a human.. Because looking into "mirrors" fools us into thinking WE ARE FLESH..
Later.
I will try not to but you do know what the word itself means:
The Revelation of Jesus Christ - that is, the unveiling, the revealing, and Presentation to earth and heaven of the Lord Jesus Christ (Messiah) as "King of Kings and Lord of Lords".
.....Ping
IMHO, many contentious discussions could be avoided if the correspondents would realize up front that they are unable to agree on the meaning of the words they'd need to use.
That's news to me. Psalm 104:4 says they are fire. They are spiritual beings (asomata, lit. without bodies) who can take any form in their appearance to us. So, their "bodies" are simply appearances.
Gen 19...and they did eat
Genesis 19 is one of those OT passages where one just raises his eyebrows and says 'okay..." and moves on, because the scribe was having mushrooms for dinner that night.
Pretty much like Gnesis 18:1-8 where Abraham feeds God with "butter, and milk, and the calf..."
I think if you keep going at this perplexing rate, within a year you’ll be soo ready for RCIA.
:)
There are many other texts that claim the same...That it inself is not a proof they are. But thanks.
I sense we are wide apart in our understanding of what is involved here, RW. I am not of the school of British Empiricism, nor am I a pragmatist nor a positivist. Thus I do not believe that "representations of sensations, which we determine to be objects" are the sufficient grounds of the truth of reality. Further, logic seems to me not the exclusive criterion by which we can appraise "truth statements." Obviously, if statements are clearly illogical, then we are correct to suspect them. But perfectly logical things may be said and still be falsifications of reality.
I do agree that "we have no knowledge of reality except subjective" knowledge. But there are sources of subjective knowledge that are not tied exclusively to sense perceptions of the external world, and the objectivization of same. Revelation, intuition, perhaps even racial memory, would be examples.
Further, given that I am strongly influenced by Plato, I regard truth as a search, or quest, and never as a "final possession." As observers, we are limited in what we can know of the reality that surrounds us, because we are parts and participants in it, and have no privileged position from which we may view the totality of "all that there is" from a point of view outside that totality.
Other than divine truths (revelation), all truths are thus provisional, and subject to modification or falsification over time as we learn more about the reality we try to truthfully describe, according to our best lights. This seems to me particularly true of scientific truth, because it is exclusively based on observations of external phenomena which of necessity (given the scientific method) are abstracted from their contexts in order to be profitably studied. Parts thus separated from the wholes of which they are parts may not give a comprehensive account of the situation for the simple reason that wholes are ever more than the sum of their constituting parts.
Well, that would be for openers! Perhaps we'll have more to say (that's not the "editorial 'we'" there) on this topic in due course.
Thanks ever so much for writing!
Program review:
If anybody stayed up last night to listen to Coast and the interview of Bruce Lipton by host Lisa Garr they needed extra-strength coffee just to keep up with that pair. Dr Lipton was too heavy on his New Age stuff and not heavy enough on his cell science (which he teaches at a medical school). The interview was okay and consistant with prior interviews, but getting the idea about the mind and DNA would not have been possible from this show alone.
Heeeya...last time I cut my finger was only my imagination...Are y'all from the same club?
Oooo...I though some of them were angels, but later I realized they were just digging for gold. (good thing I have my gold-digger detecting eyeglasses)
Space and time and mathematics such as geometry and algebra for starters. Also the categories, be they Aristotle's or Kant's or somebody later who wonders where these particular categories came from if not from experience. All these are a priori or concepts not from sensation.
We have flesh but are not flesh.. as an Astronaut has a space suit but himself is not protective clothing.. When DNA dies then what is it then.. Living DNA is the same thing as dead DNA.. but something is missing.. Must be a mystery TO YOU..
Science uniquely has a greater degree of confidence in theories which can be and are subjected to many attempts to falsify the theory.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.