Amos

Sullster, I wrote that special for you with the hope I could win your favor and be your newest best friend. Don't you love the imagery and couldn't we keelhaul them with that? Read it again and ponder the image.

Amos

Dear Charter Member of the Fellowship of Reason.

May your blank stare endow you with Pure Reason.

The Skakespeare quote is from Macbeth III.ii.13-15 and reads "We scorched the snake, not killed it./ She'll close and be herself, whilst our poor malice/ remains in danger of her former tooth."

This is the same when Pilate was concerned that Jesus would become the "final imposter" in MT. 27:64c if he did not go into the netherworld of his own subconscious mind and preach there for the conversion of the 'dead weigth' that would drag him down until he died nonetheless. This means that illunination must also happen in the subconscious mind to the disciples of Herod. Notice that John the Baptist was born from parents of the subconscious mind (they were old) and therefore paved the way for renewal of the mind (it became an intuit urge as opposed to a rational decision). Hence, Catholic Baptism only.

The subconscious mind is where the "fire burns" and is therefore where "illumination" comes from. To burn in hell is to torn between these two, in midheaven so to speak, as if with one leg in heaven and one upon earth and therefore the persistent unresolved paradox sinful yet saved (new skin but old wine).

[ March 27, 2002: Message edited by: Amos ]</p>

Eudaimonist

Amos, your postmodernist skill of deep myth-analysis is a bit beyond me, I'm afraid. Clearly, you've done much more analysis that you let on in your posts, and are reporting the results, not the process. That makes it difficult for me to understand, but you have made yourself a little clearer. You just need to keep in mind that we need to learn Myth-Analysis 101 before we can get to the PhD-level courses.

I agree that being "torn" is a terrible situation to be in. As a Eudaimonist, I can easily identify with that concern, since I want people to live focused and harmonious lives.

Actually, that is an interesting idea you raise. You should understand that, while I participate in a Fellowship of Reason, I don't believe in a Star Trek Vulcan life of "Pure Reason" (though I do agree with well-wishing "Live Long and Prosper"). We saw how conflicted Spock could be -- his rational stoicism never could quite deal with his unruly feelings, and he ended up repressing instead of resolving. I see feelings (which may include emotions, desires, intuitions, and the like) as having their proper roles to play in life.

Think of it this way: which organ is more important to biological life, the heart or the lungs?

Answer: neither, since they are both necessary for life when performing their proper functions in the body. The heart should do what the heart does best (pump blood), and the lungs should do what they do best (gather oxygen and expell CO2), and they both need to work together, or both fail to be of any benefit.

The same is true for the rational (conscious) and intuitive (subconscious) minds. My impression is that religion and mysticism place too much emphasis on the intuitive and emotional, and not enough on the rational (hence, Fellowship of Reason, to emphasize the corrective element). I value both aspects of mind for the life-giving roles they play in human life.

Amos

Thanks and true. The problem is that there is no method of learning. Insight is required and that is why philosophy is the finest of fine arts.

I took a course once on Continental criticism (supposed to be opposite to analytic criticism) that was taught by the same prof. It became a nightmare for me because the guy didn't know what he was talking about (and I told him so).

Corwin

Errrrrrmmmmm..... no.

'From his mother's womb untimely ripped' is a reference to a C-section, which Macbeth supposedly was. (His mother had been killed just before he would ordinarily have been born.) DO try reading a little history on occasion.

sullster

No thanks, Amos, I won't join you in "keelhauling" your protestant heretic enemies. Your antipathy to the prods is solely based on your Counter-Reformation zeal to re-establish catholicism as the dominant cult of the West. I reject the protestant fundies for the exact same reason I reject the catholics. They both are theistic delusions.

I don't wish "hell" on the fundies like you do with your catholic theological hate. I find them obnoxious and their theology absurd, but unlike you, I don't say they are going to be tortured. To me, you and your fundy enemies are on the same theistic boat and I wish the boat would just float away.

Amos

No sorry, I don't send them no-place but can see them suffer today. Remember here that in my view both heaven and hell are in the here and now. All we have to do is see the difference between the two.

Amos

Don't be silly, the "first C-section" became the answer in the last 50 years or so. Until then it remained a literary concept.

Eudaimonist

I tend to agree with this.

BLoggins02

Amos maybe you've done this before and I wasn't here and don't remember,

maybe you've never done it because no one has ever asked,

or maybe you're just totally screwing with us and have been laughing your ass off behind the keyboard for at least a year now, BUT...

Could you, from the beginning, offer your testimony in clear and concise language so we know where you're coming from? I don't want to hear your mystical or mythological tenets (we get those from you all the time), I want to know, in plain English, how and why you believe what you do.

Also, sometimes it seems like you're a pure mystic, and you don't even really believe in "God" as most monotheists define "Him", and then sometimes you sound like a traditional Catholic with some of your own theology thrown in here and there, would you mind elucidating exactly what you believe, in comparison to, say, a traditional Roman Catholic or perhaps a Protestant?

Thanks.

[ March 28, 2002: Message edited by: BLoggins02 ]</p>