---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.)
