Freethought & Rationalism Archive

temeraire · 08-12-2007, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticTraveler

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

You should take your own advice. temeraire did, in fact, say something coherent. You, in fact, did not.

I suppose my representation of what it means to try and "struggle up best understanding" of a mystical thing is beyond your and his or her capabilities. Perhaps, though, you and he or she ought to be a bit more humble in your confessions, saying some such as "Pardon me, sir, but I an unable and or unwilling to lend any effort whatsoever in appreciating what you contributed, so excuse me if I find it incoherent."

More incoherent bollocks. If you're trying to sound impressive through your wordiness, you've failed miserably. :rolling:

Baalazel · 08-12-2007, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticTraveler

In the beginning there was integrity, fulfillment, and joy, and all was so well and good with It that it desired to overflow.

How should it be that fulfillment and joy existed before desire? How should fulfillment precede desire. Is not joy the result of fulfillment of desire? Is it not so that to claim as you have that fulfillment and joy precede desire is to reject that integrity could exist with them? Do you not understand that to claim as you have that fulfillment and joy precede desire you as well deny the integrity you claim It possesses?

Quote:

It said to Itself without word or thought, being truly That Which Is, being simultaneously potential and actuality, initiative and action, “let Me speak Myself in a perfect Word, one which flawlessly reflects My every aspect.” Hence It uttered Itself in a Sign so seamless as to equally manifest Itself in ever detail and fullness, fathering the Word.

So then That Which Is spoke to Itself using word and thought. How else do you know what It said. Did It speak a language you understand or did It translate it’s language for you? Is the flawlessness of It such as it can speak without word or thought? Is your understanding of It such that you can understand It without word or thought?

Quote:

With this origination, yet another essence inevitably sprang forth, one which illustrated the infinite and profound attraction between Father and Word—hence the supreme Spirit of Love.

If then this Spirit of Love which illustrates the infinite and profound attraction between Father and Word sprang forth from what did it spring. Is it a consequence of the fathering of the Word or is it a directly created aspect. Is it a function of the infinite and profound attraction between the Father and Word or is the Spirit of Love a being as are the Father and Word? If the attraction between the Father and Word is infinite how then is it so that the Word was fathered? Do you imply that while the attraction between the Father and Word is infinite the Word is not?

Quote:

Thence the reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which even in Its triune dynamic, was ever and eternally existent, perfectly unified in One Nature and immutably singular, such that the unfolding of these very words are beneficial only for the finite mind, in order to struggle up best understanding of Triune, Eternal, and One God.

How should it be that what was fathered and what sprang forth are eternally existent? Can we claim reality for what, by reason of so many and such far reaching questions, is at the very least poorly presented? Can that which is infinite and eternal and immutable be understood by those minds impossible of grasping, by definition, the infinite, the eternal, and the immutable? And lastly, how can that which is That Which Is not be Those Which Are?

Baal

GenesisNemesis · 08-12-2007, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticTraveler

In the beginning there was integrity, fulfillment, and joy, and all was so well and good with It that it desired to overflow. It said to Itself without word or thought, being truly That Which Is, being simultaneously potential and actuality, initiative and action, “let Me speak Myself in a perfect Word, one which flawlessly reflects My every aspect.” Hence It uttered Itself in a Sign so seamless as to equally manifest Itself in ever detail and fullness, fathering the Word. With this origination, yet another essence inevitably sprang forth, one which illustrated the infinite and profound attraction between Father and Word—hence the supreme Spirit of Love. Thence the reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which even in Its triune dynamic, was ever and eternally existent, perfectly unified in One Nature and immutably singular, such that the unfolding of these very words are beneficial only for the finite mind, in order to struggle up best understanding of Triune, Eternal, and One God.

Theology makes no sense to me so don't try to make it make sense.

sknight · 08-12-2007, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticTraveler

Quote:

Originally Posted by temeraire

More incoherent ramblings.

Then please say something coherent.

You obviously had enough money to buy a thesaurus, maybe you should save up for a dictionary as well?

geddit? · 08-12-2007, 05:22 PM

^^^^^

I misspelled "proselytizing" twice in a single post.

Crom has failed my brain.

pob14 · 08-12-2007, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticTraveler

In the beginning there was integrity, fulfillment, and joy.

I'm sure this is a stupid question, but do you have any evidence for this assertion?

MyDogCole · 08-12-2007, 07:50 PM

This OP is the biggest piece of incomprehensible twaddle I think I've ever had the misfortune of trying to read.

Let's please burn this thread before it multiplies.

SaguaroJen · 08-12-2007, 07:54 PM

But it's so pretty. It's like the start of a sweet little fairy tale - I feel like I'm 4 years old. Is there going to be a big, bad monster in the next paragraph?

Lógos Sokratikós · 08-12-2007, 09:16 PM

MysticTraveler, I am so glad you have come to show these infidels the truth of the triune God, whose second person of the Godhead incarnated in a man out of a virgin and truly "the beginning, the middle, the end", the savior, God, the son of God. I am glad you have pointed out the perfection of the triune God, the resurrection, the way and the life, the origin of all... All hail Krishna, the avatar of God, the triune Siva, Vishnu and Shiva, (incarnated 3228 BC)!

http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa122200a.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm

Hare!

RAFH · 08-12-2007, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MysticTraveler

Quote:

Originally Posted by RAFH

You should take your own advice. temeraire did, in fact, say something coherent. You, in fact, did not.

I suppose my representation of what it means to try and "struggle up best understanding" of a mystical thing is beyond your and his or her capabilities. Perhaps, though, you and he or she ought to be a bit more humble in your confessions, saying some such as "Pardon me, sir, but I an unable and or unwilling to lend any effort whatsoever in appreciating what you contributed, so excuse me if I find it incoherent."

Why? You came into the room and spoke out. We didn't ask you to. We didn't invite you to. That's not to say you shouldn't or can't but if you do, it's your responsibility to make yourself understood. We owe you no consideration any more than you owe us any. So if you are going to speak out with the intent of having others understand, do so.

You have to understand, your rambling is very much the same as hundreds of others that come through here expecting everybody to get down and pray. Doesn't work. temeraire did you the favor of responding. His response was clear and to the point. Unlike your incoherent rambling account of some sort of creation event lightly patterned on Genesis. You don't like his response, well that's life. So your response is he should say something coherent. He did, and I pointed that fact out and suggested you take your own advice and start making coherent non-rambling statements. So then you react by suggesting you are talking about something so mystical it is beyond our capabilities. Talk about humility, again, take your own advice. What you posted is simply a flowery blathering restatement of the Abrahamic Genesis. Not half as good either because of its overly dramatic and excessive language.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-12-2007, 05:22 PM	#15
geddit? Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: ny Posts: 713	^^^^^ I misspelled "proselytizing" twice in a single post. Crom has failed my brain.

08-12-2007, 07:50 PM	#17
MyDogCole Junior Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: nowhere Posts: 88	This OP is the biggest piece of incomprehensible twaddle I think I've ever had the misfortune of trying to read. Let's please burn this thread before it multiplies.

08-12-2007, 07:54 PM	#18
SaguaroJen Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Arizona Posts: 646	But it's so pretty. It's like the start of a sweet little fairy tale - I feel like I'm 4 years old. Is there going to be a big, bad monster in the next paragraph?

08-12-2007, 09:16 PM	#19
Lógos Sokratikós Contributor Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Virtually right here where you are Posts: 11,138	MysticTraveler, I am so glad you have come to show these infidels the truth of the triune God, whose second person of the Godhead incarnated in a man out of a virgin and truly "the beginning, the middle, the end", the savior, God, the son of God. I am glad you have pointed out the perfection of the triune God, the resurrection, the way and the life, the origin of all... All hail Krishna, the avatar of God, the triune Siva, Vishnu and Shiva, (incarnated 3228 BC)! http://hinduism.about.com/library/weekly/aa122200a.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr.htm Hare!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.