The fool.

[Israel]

Anybody catch the latest Law and Order SVU? Called "Part 33".

It's a great departure from their usual format...appearing more like a David Mamet one act play. Takes place primarily in the waiting room where cops wait at trial to give their testimonies. Sure, it ain't the deepest dive, but it touches upon how things are seen, understood...and how experience influences perceptions of "fact" in the formation of our character. I was kinda surprised at how well the subject was explored and how trenchant some of the dialogue was.

 

[Israel]

When nobody is able to provide a realm outside of man's recognition or interpretation, except through assertion and unprovable claims, ....it is easy to state differently.

The notion of (I was gonna say "perfect" but that would be redundant) circle is probably easily expressed by everyone that has passed HS geometry. (we could no less say point, line, cylinder, square, cone, sphere...etc)

No need to say "perfect", right? The definitions of these things is already accepted as their irreducible being in perfection. But drawing one, creating one (by whatever means) in representation, the bringing of that thing (is it a real thing?) into the realm of man for all common recognition...something else again.

Mom says "great circle you drew Bobby". The mathematician/draftsman/scientist well, they can have a field day. They can even say "Mom, it does no good to lie to Bobby. There are no good, better, best drawings of circle...it either is circle, or it is not."

But they can only reject the representation (as no less any man might) through the tacit admission that true circle is, against which, and only in accord with such a conscious holding. (We could leave off the vanity/frustration inherent in that, but are we as ready to dismiss the practicality of the wheel...despite?)

We draw for one another.

Pretty much (when I am tempted to dismiss you on whatever basis I find a disliking, a thing I seek to justify by my perception of inconsistency, and desire to "separate" through a manifest contending against) I am reminded of your drawing. It was, to me, at least in memory...pretty inarguable...against. In so much as I would be a fool to say a man isn't holding what he says he holds...unless proven otherwise. (But I just don't remember its totality)

If you can pull it out again, (that drawing) as my memory of it suffers, and my ability to find it through this search engine fails, it would probably be a help to me.

You may remember the one? It was drawn something like this: "A God that is so far beyond my comprehension...[something something something?] is a God I can believe in"

If you don't have it, can't find it, and don't think you can adequately redraw it, that's OK too.

 

[bullethead]

The notion of (I was gonna say "perfect" but that would be redundant) circle is probably easily expressed by everyone that has passed HS geometry. (we could no less say point, line, cylinder, square, cone, sphere...etc)

No need to say "perfect", right? The definitions of these things is already accepted as their irreducible being in perfection. But drawing one, creating one (by whatever means) in representation, the bringing of that thing (is it a real thing?) into the realm of man for all common recognition...something else again.

Mom says "great circle you drew Bobby". The mathematician/draftsman/scientist well, they can have a field day. They can even say "Mom, it does no good to lie to Bobby. There are no good, better, best drawings of circle...it either is circle, or it is not."

But they can only reject the representation (as no less any man might) through the tacit admission that true circle is, against which, and only in accord with such a conscious holding. (We could leave off the vanity/frustration inherent in that, but are we as ready to dismiss the practicality of the wheel...despite?)

We draw for one another.

Pretty much (when I am tempted to dismiss you on whatever basis I find a disliking, a thing I seek to justify by my perception of inconsistency, and desire to "separate" through a manifest contending against) I am reminded of your drawing. It was, to me, at least in memory...pretty inarguable...against. In so much as I would be a fool to say a man isn't holding what he says he holds...unless proven otherwise. (But I just don't remember its totality)

If you can pull it out again, (that drawing) as my memory of it suffers, and my ability to find it through this search engine fails, it would probably be a help to me.

You may remember the one? It was drawn something like this: "A God that is so far beyond my comprehension...[something something something?] is a God I can believe in"

If you don't have it, can't find it, and don't think you can adequately redraw it, that's OK too.

?Huh?
I guess I don't hang my drawings on the fridge to marvel at.

 

[bullethead]

Maybe this one?

"The foundation of irreligious criticism is : Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is, indeed, the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet won through to himself, or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being squatting outside the world. Man is the world of man – state, society. This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world, because they are an inverted world... Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people. The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo. Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. Religion is only the illusory Sun which revolves around man as long as he does not revolve around himself."
Marx

 

[bullethead]

The notion of (I was gonna say "perfect" but that would be redundant) circle is probably easily expressed by everyone that has passed HS geometry. (we could no less say point, line, cylinder, square, cone, sphere...etc)

No need to say "perfect", right? The definitions of these things is already accepted as their irreducible being in perfection. But drawing one, creating one (by whatever means) in representation, the bringing of that thing (is it a real thing?) into the realm of man for all common recognition...something else again.

Mom says "great circle you drew Bobby". The mathematician/draftsman/scientist well, they can have a field day. They can even say "Mom, it does no good to lie to Bobby. There are no good, better, best drawings of circle...it either is circle, or it is not."

But they can only reject the representation (as no less any man might) through the tacit admission that true circle is, against which, and only in accord with such a conscious holding. (We could leave off the vanity/frustration inherent in that, but are we as ready to dismiss the practicality of the wheel...despite?)

We draw for one another.

Pretty much (when I am tempted to dismiss you on whatever basis I find a disliking, a thing I seek to justify by my perception of inconsistency, and desire to "separate" through a manifest contending against) I am reminded of your drawing. It was, to me, at least in memory...pretty inarguable...against. In so much as I would be a fool to say a man isn't holding what he says he holds...unless proven otherwise. (But I just don't remember its totality)

If you can pull it out again, (that drawing) as my memory of it suffers, and my ability to find it through this search engine fails, it would probably be a help to me.

You may remember the one? It was drawn something like this: "A God that is so far beyond my comprehension...[something something something?] is a God I can believe in"

If you don't have it, can't find it, and don't think you can adequately redraw it, that's OK too.

If I had to guess, or more importantly clarify...
I would wager that I started out with or correct that I should have started out with:
"IF a god exists that....."
Not
"A God exists that..."

 

[Israel]

If I had to guess, or more importantly clarify...
I would wager that I started out with or correct that I should have started out with:
"IF a god exists that....."
Not
"A God exists that..."

LOL...you really gunna send me on that hunt! It was like the last line to an paragraph or two that had gone before...and it may well have started "if"...but you did pretty well outline a god you could believe in...one so far in excess of our understanding/comprehension...but, till I find it...it's just me remembering it poorly. Man, it coulda been three years ago or even more.

 

[ambush80]

LOL...you really gunna send me on that hunt! It was like the last line to an paragraph or two that had gone before...and it may well have started "if"...but you did pretty well outline a god you could believe in...one so far in excess of our understanding/comprehension...but, till I find it...it's just me remembering it poorly. Man, it coulda been three years ago or even more.

What he said isn't as far off from what most deists believe. They believe in a supreme being that has qualities well outside of their ability to comprehend but it made some of its wishes know through revelation. Some of its wishes include abstinence from: masturbation, shellfish, and exposure of women's ankles. Though the uselessness and oddness of those prescriptions in itself isn't a proof that these are just man made, it may, with good reason, tarnish one's idea of the supremacy of that being.

 

[bullethead]

LOL...you really gunna send me on that hunt! It was like the last line to an paragraph or two that had gone before...and it may well have started "if"...but you did pretty well outline a god you could believe in...one so far in excess of our understanding/comprehension...but, till I find it...it's just me remembering it poorly. Man, it coulda been three years ago or even more.

I'll Cliff Note it.
If a god exists I can't understand it, nor will I try to understand it, nor will I pretend to understand it. If a god wanted me, it would surely know how to go about it.

 

[Israel]

What he said isn't as far off from what most deists believe. They believe in a supreme being that has qualities well outside of their ability to comprehend but it made some of its wishes know through revelation. Some of its wishes include abstinence from: masturbation, shellfish, and exposure of women's ankles. Though the uselessness and oddness of those prescriptions in itself isn't a proof that these are just man made, it may, with good reason, tarnish one's idea of the supremacy of that being.

I don't know if in any way you are responding to what I had mentioned in conjunction with Bullet's statement, or just Bullet's (as yet un-recovered by me) proposition. I'm not trying to "hold" Bullet to anything previous, and as he seems to pretty well state where he is now (which may be entirely consistent with what was said then) I'm happy to accept that.

God knows I have often heard him say, more or less, "If there is a God he knows my address" along with a stand that implies to me "it's the grossest of arrogance to imagine that if there is a God, any could be more privy to his mind or workings than another." And for whatever reasons...arrogance seems to be judged a condemn-able thing. Like it would be self evidently...wrong.

It would seem perhaps a funny thread, as though entirely unnecessary "What's wrong with arrogance...anyway?" But admittedly, what I think we all may easily accept as "foregone" in conclusion to its badness, is just assumption till established as something else.

What I found in that older statement, even if it be of some essence deeper to me, might be remembered wrongly or subject (by him) to any and all modification. I know I have said things I have had to apologize for, or modify in view (not that I imply Bullet need apologize for anything) but that we are all subject to some form of change, and not infrequently relative to things we may have once said.

So I won't assume any of your proposition here:

Though the uselessness and oddness of those prescriptions in itself isn't a proof that these are just man made, it may, with good reason, tarnish one's idea of the supremacy of that being.

has anything to do with my my statement a few lines back.

But perhaps you could see why I wonder. It's as if you could be saying "A man tells me that a circle is that set of points that lie equidistant from one point (called its center)." But then this man presents to me a drawing that to me appears far more rectangular, I can easily see that some points are closer, some farther (or whatever he may draw that easily gives lie to what he stated).

I have little problem in understanding your proposition in such light "a deist says God is totally transcendent and his understanding beyond searching out, but your drawing of it is also saying he has an expressed interest how clay handles its own member, and what other forms of clay it consumes and looks at". In essence (to me) saying "your drawing is absurd, a thing is either transcendent or not, you are trying to have something both ways". Like pointing out "corners" in the drawing of a circle...the set of points are obviously not equidistant.

One could ask "where on earth did you learn to draw?"! Or what rules of drawing have you adopted that appear to me so poor? Of course, if some pull out a manual it's easy to go over it and say "your teacher hates pork"...or whatever and say "he doesn't seem very good at teaching you to draw the transcendent which you "the drawer" say is a more essential element to His being".

To reply "well you have never labored in trying to draw both the immanent and the transcendent at once!" is a bit of a churlish response. Yet, it is essentially what a disciple believes. No excuse being made here for that...no appeal to a leniency, after all, it is we who have come holding and preaching such..."God is above all but has fully appeared in flesh as a Son". I cannot say you'r wrong, if holding skeptical opposition to say "then show me" (or us). "Show us how this transcendent One, comes down. As you say He has." Show me how he would have any interest in dust.

Presenting what is often called the manual (and of which I am not ashamed) many have learned has its own matters in which to contend. But, I am not in debt to the manual, except to this very point of entrance: "There is something given for all bad drawers, all bad represent-ers, all poor show-ers". I see that from beginning to end. But...it comes only by admission...and that is the price of my admission (do I say it must be yours?) to me a simple confession of what is made irrefutably true to me (and if me alone, so be it) "I am a very bad represent-er"

Now, to some who could say "ahh you paid a price for something you say is free!" I can only occupy the place where things seem paradoxical and absurd in trying to hold to a both appearing untenable. I see a price already paid that enables me to respond in truth (with what appears as a repayment) "I'm the poor representation". And represent-er. But, in that light it's no cost at all, no real payment, at all, or even repayment...the one who paid the price has also made it to me of no cost to admit such. To Him alone...if there be any owing...is owed. I no longer "owe it to men" to be a good drawer, indeed, the more I put myself in that debt to man, the more I manifestly deny the very thing that has made the appearance to me of the perfect representation, of no use or matter. God forbid! He came for the sick, not the well.

If I claim the presence of the physician, I would be rather the fool to try to deny "someone is sick in the house". As though..."O, now I am the perfect representer, made fit in all things to show". Yeah, I could take that silly burden, and no doubt have. Trying to pretend that my need of the physician is manifestly deniable by a now "such good representing". I'd rather have his presence, than by subterfuge and seeming convenience...deny him.

But, this is not my, or your first rodeo. I know now what would tell me..."you must really be a sicko to find such ease in occupying the place of ready admission of being so sick!" Kinda like "tell me how it affects the psyche to think oneself as the worst of all". Tell me what "psychological effects" it has. The truth of it is quite other. I am more fit to tell you what the terrible price is for thinking rather, one is better than another. I am really far more familiar with that...sickness.

What this physician speaks to others...is not my business, if he has told them to not eat pork, not play with themselves, or long for a view of an ankle (leading up)...is his business. He's made it clear to me, "you, follow me". I no more know whether his appearing to another might be to say "you my friend, are the bees knees, and are doing perfect in all". But don't infer from that that my recognition of my estate is due to his shaming me with reproach. I just can no longer lie very well about what I see in his light. That, I'm allowed to, even encouraged to, be free in. A thing I was once too terrified to ever concede...someone is a better man than...me. Cause to admit this, means I must be subject to him, and that friend...was all this rebel ever hated in creation. Being subject.

Maybe no one else...ever...has ever desired to be "object of all". I just can't deny that's the place I once occupied in all desire. All...lust. Yeah...that's sick, friend. If I am the only one who has ever needed de-throning...so be it. If that was the mechanism of invite to him...to not allow such a silly vanity to go on (as I have heard others on here express..."I simply cannot let a lie stand!") so be it. Whatever it took to cause him to break down my door...thanks be to God. His presence that testifies of my dire need...is something of which I am not ashamed. He's so easy on the eyes...but isn't given to graven images. That's when he gets hard to look at...through eyes that believe they can "capture him".

So, I am more glad to be a poor sketcher, the poorest represenation...and representer, than to think I can adequately show him in fullness...and be found a liar. He does that Himself....shows Himself.

No one is subject to me. Or my will. But first, I must be glad I am not. If that's not made true to me...I'm just another peddler selling shackles.

Sin is a forgiven thing. It has to be...because He is true.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Yea I don’t get the “heard the audible” voice of God folks. I’ve actually heard some say that. I’m skeptical in that area.

Don't be skeptical. It happens. It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice. They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.

 

[bullethead]

I don't know if in any way you are responding to what I had mentioned in conjunction with Bullet's statement, or just Bullet's (as yet un-recovered by me) proposition. I'm not trying to "hold" Bullet to anything previous, and as he seems to pretty well state where he is now (which may be entirely consistent with what was said then) I'm happy to accept that.

God knows I have often heard him say, more or less, "If there is a God he knows my address" along with a stand that implies to me "it's the grossest of arrogance to imagine that if there is a God, any could be more privy to his mind or workings than another." And for whatever reasons...arrogance seems to be judged a condemn-able thing. Like it would be self evidently...wrong.

It would seem perhaps a funny thread, as though entirely unnecessary "What's wrong with arrogance...anyway?" But admittedly, what I think we all may easily accept as "foregone" in conclusion to its badness, is just assumption till established as something else.

What I found in that older statement, even if it be of some essence deeper to me, might be remembered wrongly or subject (by him) to any and all modification. I know I have said things I have had to apologize for, or modify in view (not that I imply Bullet need apologize for anything) but that we are all subject to some form of change, and not infrequently relative to things we may have once said.

So I won't assume any of your proposition here:



has anything to do with my my statement a few lines back.

But perhaps you could see why I wonder. It's as if you could be saying "A man tells me that a circle is that set of points that lie equidistant from one point (called its center)." But then this man presents to me a drawing that to me appears far more rectangular, I can easily see that some points are closer, some farther (or whatever he may draw that easily gives lie to what he stated).

I have little problem in understanding your proposition in such light "a deist says God is totally transcendent and his understanding beyond searching out, but your drawing of it is also saying he has an expressed interest how clay handles its own member, and what other forms of clay it consumes and looks at". In essence (to me) saying "your drawing is absurd, a thing is either transcendent or not, you are trying to have something both ways". Like pointing out "corners" in the drawing of a circle...the set of points are obviously not equidistant.

One could ask "where on earth did you learn to draw?"! Or what rules of drawing have you adopted that appear to me so poor? Of course, if some pull out a manual it's easy to go over it and say "your teacher hates pork"...or whatever and say "he doesn't seem very good at teaching you to draw the transcendent which you "the drawer" say is a more essential element to His being".

To reply "well you have never labored in trying to draw both the immanent and the transcendent at once!" is a bit of a churlish response. Yet, it is essentially what a disciple believes. No excuse being made here for that...no appeal to a leniency, after all, it is we who have come holding and preaching such..."God is above all but has fully appeared in flesh as a Son". I cannot say you'r wrong, if holding skeptical opposition to say "then show me" (or us). "Show us how this transcendent One, comes down. As you say He has." Show me how he would have any interest in dust.

Presenting what is often called the manual (and of which I am not ashamed) many have learned has its own matters in which to contend. But, I am not in debt to the manual, except to this very point of entrance: "There is something given for all bad drawers, all bad represent-ers, all poor show-ers". I see that from beginning to end. But...it comes only by admission...and that is the price of my admission (do I say it must be yours?) to me a simple confession of what is made irrefutably true to me (and if me alone, so be it) "I am a very bad represent-er"

Now, to some who could say "ahh you paid a price for something you say is free!" I can only occupy the place where things seem paradoxical and absurd in trying to hold to a both appearing untenable. I see a price already paid that enables me to respond in truth (with what appears as a repayment) "I'm the poor representation". And represent-er. But, in that light it's no cost at all, no real payment, at all, or even repayment...the one who paid the price has also made it to me of no cost to admit such. To Him alone...if there be any owing...is owed. I no longer "owe it to men" to be a good drawer, indeed, the more I put myself in that debt to man, the more I manifestly deny the very thing that has made the appearance to me of the perfect representation, of no use or matter. God forbid! He came for the sick, not the well.

If I claim the presence of the physician, I would be rather the fool to try to deny "someone is sick in the house". As though..."O, now I am the perfect representer, made fit in all things to show". Yeah, I could take that silly burden, and no doubt have. Trying to pretend that my need of the physician is manifestly deniable by a now "such good representing". I'd rather have his presence, than by subterfuge and seeming convenience...deny him.

But, this is not my, or your first rodeo. I know now what would tell me..."you must really be a sicko to find such ease in occupying the place of ready admission of being so sick!" Kinda like "tell me how it affects the psyche to think oneself as the worst of all". Tell me what "psychological effects" it has. The truth of it is quite other. I am more fit to tell you what the terrible price is for thinking rather, one is better than another. I am really far more familiar with that...sickness.

What this physician speaks to others...is not my business, if he has told them to not eat pork, not play with themselves, or long for a view of an ankle (leading up)...is his business. He's made it clear to me, "you, follow me". I no more know whether his appearing to another might be to say "you my friend, are the bees knees, and are doing perfect in all". But don't infer from that that my recognition of my estate is due to his shaming me with reproach. I just can no longer lie very well about what I see in his light. That, I'm allowed to, even encouraged to, be free in. A thing I was once too terrified to ever concede...someone is a better man than...me. Cause to admit this, means I must be subject to him, and that friend...was all this rebel ever hated in creation. Being subject.

Maybe no one else...ever...has ever desired to be "object of all". I just can't deny that's the place I once occupied in all desire. All...lust. Yeah...that's sick, friend. If I am the only one who has ever needed de-throning...so be it. If that was the mechanism of invite to him...to not allow such a silly vanity to go on (as I have heard others on here express..."I simply cannot let a lie stand!") so be it. Whatever it took to cause him to break down my door...thanks be to God. His presence that testifies of my dire need...is something of which I am not ashamed. He's so easy on the eyes...but isn't given to graven images. That's when he gets hard to look at...through eyes that believe they can "capture him".

So, I am more glad to be a poor sketcher, the poorest represenation...and representer, than to think I can adequately show him in fullness...and be found a liar. He does that Himself....shows Himself.

No one is subject to me. Or my will. But first, I must be glad I am not. If that's not made true to me...I'm just another peddler selling shackles.

Sin is a forgiven thing. It has to be...because He is true.

Was great up until the
"One could ask..." paragraph (but nobody did ask) where you used it as a segway to expound upon your earlier started "drawings" thoughts just to get them fully out there.....then more question and answer session with yourself conversation.
If you ask yourself something and then answer it, it isn't REALLY like someone else asking you and you are replying with an educated factual reply that answers their questions. The way you bring it up and answer it almost seems like a cover to make assertions seem like legitimate answers to questions that nobody is really asking.
Because, well...Nobody is asking those questions for good reason.

 

[bullethead]

Don't be skeptical. It happens. It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice. They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.

There ya go. That type of testimony will definitely remove all doubt.

Hans, The Fly in your Ointment can still hear you and reply for the benefit of the others, despite you smashing your radio in frustrated defeat. ~Roy

 

[Spotlite]

Don't be skeptical. It happens. It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice. They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.

I’m skeptical of the “audible” voice claims, not the God speaking to people.

God is a spirit with no flesh and bones.

 

[WaltL1]

Don't be skeptical. It happens. It hasn't happened to me, but I know at least 2 people who God spoke to in a "audible" voice. They both will tell you it was just as audible as a man's and was totally unexpected.

Its interesting to me that folks always "hear" or "see" or whatever... the god they just so happen to believe in. Its never one they don't.

 

[j_seph]

Its interesting to me that folks always "hear" or "see" or whatever... the god they just so happen to believe in. Its never one they don't.

Now your catching on!!!!!! There is only one God to hear!!!!

 

[WaltL1]

View attachment 958768
Now your catching on!!!!!! There is only one God to hear!!!!

The light bulb would be brighter if that wasn't true across the religious board.

 

[bullethead]

View attachment 958768
Now your catching on!!!!!! There is only one God to hear!!!!

Honest, THAT is your point???
You just made the case for EVERY god that is heard worldwide.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

Its interesting to me that folks always "hear" or "see" or whatever... the god they just so happen to believe in. Its never one they don't.

For you it will be.

 

[SemperFiDawg]

I’m skeptical of the “audible” voice claims, not the God speaking to people.

God is a spirit with no flesh and bones.

Why would you be skeptical of an audible voice? The Bible is chock full of examples, and I would be willing to bet if you asked some people in your church you would be surprised at how frequent it happens.

If anything, I’m skeptical of people hearing voices in their head. Those are the ones I have to question in others and in myself.

 

[Spotlite]

Why would you be skeptical of an audible voice? The Bible is chock full of examples, and I would be willing to bet if you asked some people in your church you would be surprised at how frequent it happens.

If anything, I’m skeptical of people hearing voices in their head. Those are the ones I have to question in others and in myself.

If anything, I’m skeptical of people hearing voices in their head. Those are the ones I have to question in others and in myself.

I’m skeptical of the “audible” voice claims, not the God speaking to people.

God is a spirit with no flesh and bones.