---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <turquoiseb@...> wrote:

 A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma.  :-)
 

 Bawwy, so classy, so erudite, so sophisticated. You really do take the cake 
when it comes to exhibiting yourself as an example of the lowest common 
denominator. What a guy, can anyone imagine spending time with someone like 
this? How about trying this on for size: ignorant, sad, loser. 
 

 

 From: "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...>
 To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com 
 Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM
 Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
 
 
   I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting 
on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I 
said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions 
he asks, let me know.
 

 I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest 
for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of 
classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of 
the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at 
an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information 
and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily 
require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to 
read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and 
acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person 
that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real 
world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual 
existence, a secondary kind of existence.  

 In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but 
there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of 
experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to 
reveal thought as a secondary reality.  

 Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their 
virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing 
arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to 
them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet 
they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in 
honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a 
point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the 
experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in 
awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of 
classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? 
Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? 
If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship 
with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? 
If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, 
then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have 
been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if 
something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem 
delusionally hopeful.) 





















 


 











Reply via email to