Al Gore and Atheists

Brent said:
Hmm, I think not. Christ, for example, condemned fornication; yet you claim I am insane because I wish to save intimacy for marriage. Christ also commanded repentence. If you honestly admire this lifestyle, then I suggest you repent now and follow it. Jesus Christ atoned for your sins and rose from the grave so that you can have a personal relationship with God, just as Adam did, and so that you can have eternal life. The life of Christ is not over, nor will it ever end; Christ LIVES and He can live in YOU if you welcome Him into your life. :)
Click to expand...
Perhaops Brent , perhaps.
Paul wrote most of what jesus "said". And a lot of words attributed to Jesus were not spoken by him according to biblical scholors.
Why did not jesus turn away the tainted lady and such people as her.
Try to learn and be a true Christian Brent. Not one of the lawfollowers that poul spoke against in ephesians and other places.
 
Brent fyi I voted on your other thread that Jesus was a wise teacher, that is what I believe he was. He taught people a discount way to heaven, bypassing the temple, which sort of got him executed.
But his biggest achievemnet in my opinion was teaching peaceful loving ways of life in a very violent world. He was a bleeding heart liberal :)
 
That doesn't mean that such an Entity would be associated to anthropmorhizing... Once can imagine the Entity to be outside our reference on that level too.

You are claiming that we can imagine an entity without contributory references? How?

"What would it look like?"

"Well, anything it wanted to."


Whatever the person decided it looks like, it's description would take its references from existence.

Try to imagine something that isn't derived from external sources...
 
AnyOldIron said:
That doesn't mean that such an Entity would be associated to anthropmorhizing... Once can imagine the Entity to be outside our reference on that level too.

You are claiming that we can imagine an entity without contributory references? How?

"What would it look like?"

"Well, anything it wanted to."


Whatever the person decided it looks like, it's description would take its references from existence.

Try to imagine something that isn't derived from external sources...
Click to expand...
Then you could only imagine yourself. However imagining what isn't is what brings progress. To say that we cannot imagine something that has no external reference plays false in a world where new things are created consistently that have never been.

We can play this game forever... If the Entity was beyond our ken the conversation begins to fail in Logos...

"Does it want?" - Bob

"How would we know?" - Fred

"Well, does it need our worship?" - Bob

"There is no way for us to know, we can't understand the motivation of such an entity." - Fred

"Um,... does it <insert another question here>..." - Bob

"<give same answer here>" - Fred

Hence my assertion from the beginning that a being specifically defined beyond our ken cannot properly be discussed using such reference. You insist that it MUST fit within this because if we can imagine it then we "know" something about it. I cry FALLACY...

The conversation fails because such an Entity is defined outside the paramaters of the tool you wish to use for the discussion, it isn't the failure of the Entity it is the failure of the tool. It was not made for this type of discussion.
 
Then you could only imagine yourself.

??? What??? I can imagine a carrot with George Bush's face.

I am neither a carrot nor George Bush.

The carrot with Bush's face is a new entity that I imagined, but it's references...carrot and George Bush exist.

I couldn't however, imagine a new entity without external references.
 
Right, but that is outside of yourself. You stated we could only imagine things that are internal... I'm digressing. That particular part was a joke...

You can imagine a character that cannot be seen, even one that cannot fit within our understanding and therefore if seen is changed to a reference that we can understand by our limited minds... ( I know people can imagine these things, because I can..) You can imagine many things that are not within your scope of experience. It is a false limitation on the mind to insist that we cannot imagine something that is a step beyond what we understand or know.
 
Right, but that is outside of yourself. You stated we could only imagine things that are internal...

When? I've always stated that you can only imagine from external sources...

You can imagine a character that cannot be seen, even one that cannot fit within our understanding and therefore if seen is changed to a reference that we can understand by our limited minds... ( I know people can imagine these things, because I can..) You can imagine many things that are not within your scope of experience. It is a false limitation on the mind to insist that we cannot imagine something that is a step beyond what we understand or know.

You can imagine an entity beyond our experience (the Bush-Carrot) but you cannot do that without contributory references (Bush and the carrot)...
 
AnyOldIron said:
Right, but that is outside of yourself. You stated we could only imagine things that are internal...

When? I've always stated that you can only imagine from external sources...

You can imagine a character that cannot be seen, even one that cannot fit within our understanding and therefore if seen is changed to a reference that we can understand by our limited minds... ( I know people can imagine these things, because I can..) You can imagine many things that are not within your scope of experience. It is a false limitation on the mind to insist that we cannot imagine something that is a step beyond what we understand or know.

You can imagine an entity beyond our experience (the Bush-Carrot) but you cannot do that without contributory references (Bush and the carrot)...
Click to expand...
Once again, I could then not state that this Entity was outside our understanding and thus couldn't fit in the framework of our understanding if such were true. You place an artificial limitation on imagination that has been proven in this very thread to be incorrect.

I have no experience with an invisible entity yet can imagine it. I have no experience with an entity that cannot fit in the framework of my understanding so that upon viewing it my own limitations would change its "appearance" into something translatable to my limited mind... Yet I can imagine such a thing. Would I know what it looked like? Of course not.

This artificial limitation is only placed on the imagination because you need it in order to fit an Entity that is defined outside that reference into such a box. It doesn't really exist except in your insistence so that you can use a tool that doesn't fit for a job it is ill-equipped to handle.

This particular Entity cannot fit nicely where you want it so you deny that I can even imagine it.
 
Good Stuff Damo and Any. I would like to ask how can I imagine what I cannot imagine. I seem to need reference points to to derive my imagination from. But then there is the odd spark of inspiration ? that can generate a new possibility. Is that just a derivitive of other things that I have known or imagined from what I know ?
 
I am leaving the office early today (in fact now) as it is bank holiday on monday and I have loads to do about the house....(ie hiding from the missus and getting stoned)

We'll continue this on Tuesday Damo...

Could you move this thread into the battlezone with your magic administrator powers?
 
I seem to need reference points to to derive my imagination from. But then there is the odd spark of inspiration ? that can generate a new possibility. Is that just a derivitive of other things that I have known or imagined from what I know ?

Inspiration is the creative linking of the reference points in a new manner.

You cannot imagine anything new without reference points in reality.

See my Bush-carrot analogy....
 
AnyOldIron said:
I seem to need reference points to to derive my imagination from. But then there is the odd spark of inspiration ? that can generate a new possibility. Is that just a derivitive of other things that I have known or imagined from what I know ?

Inspiration is the creative linking of the reference points in a new manner.

You cannot imagine anything new without reference points in reality.

See my Bush-carrot analogy....
Click to expand...
I can see my Entity beyond our knowledge or understanding analogy... You know the one where I stated, If I saw it, my own limitations would change it to fit it in my own framework? Or even the invisible entity or one that pervades all things... Each of these are outside external reference and easily imagined by the creative mind.
 
AnyOldIron said:
I am leaving the office early today (in fact now) as it is bank holiday on monday and I have loads to do about the house....(ie hiding from the missus and getting stoned)

We'll continue this on Tuesday Damo...

Could you move this thread into the battlezone with your magic administrator powers?
Click to expand...

I'll see what I can do. I might Create a new one then merge this one in...
 
There, AOI... Per your request I have moved this thread on in to the Battle Zone and you and I are the Warriors... Sorry to the rest of y'all... You'll just have to make a new one. :D
 
I've decided that Klaatu is right. This is going on back to where it started. AOI and I can start a new thread in there if we wish to bring it there... So if AOI wants to bring it to the Battle Zone... I'll happily create a thread for it.
 
Damo, for some reason I am unable to create a thread in the battlezone...

We should continue from the point we left off,

"The possibility (or not) of being capable of imagining entities without reference to outside contributory factors...."

Sounds like the title of very dull book..... lol
 
It does. No you wouldn't be able to create one. You can only respond to one if you are a Warrior and assigned to the thread... At least in that area that is how it works...
 
How 'bout we make one that links back to this thread and just states "A continuation of the discussion that began in this thread..." leaving it open for more than just a discussion of what I might imagine.

;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top