Bullet, Ambush and others....

ambush80 said:

Those arguments are really just God of the Gaps arguments.

The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa theologiciae. They are:

1. the argument from "motion";
2. the argument from causation;
3. the argument from contingency;
4. the argument from degree;
5. the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument").

Aquinas expands the first of these – God as the "unmoved mover" – in his Summa Contra Gentiles.[1]

1. "Everything has a cause"--Except the un-caused cause. Self defeating from the get go. There have been many religious traditions that asked "Where did it all come from?" and they were content with the answer "It was always there". Picking aoine answer over the other is a preference, like for ice cream.

2. This is the un-caused cause argument again. Some people have put forth the idea that stuff is here because it's more likely that there would be stuff than not. Picking one argument over the other is just a preference. Neither can be proven. I may not understand it completely but it seems to me that the argument goes: we know stuff is here. It could just as not be here, but it is. Given those two potentials, it's just as likely that stuff will be here as not, but there is stuff. People argue "Nothing can come from nothing" but do they REALLY know what the nature of nothing is any more than they know what the nature of infinity is? It's out of all of our paygrades yet people insist that they know it can't be any other way than the one they prefer.

3. Un-caused cause.

4. "There are heirarchies that prove there's a design".

"The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that."

These are judgements made by humans. "Of course God judges things the way we do because we are made in his image". OR--"The God of Squares has four sides". Meaning, we make God in our image and he likes and dislikes the kinds of thing we do. This bears out with the simple observation that the God(s) of one culture like the aspects of that culture.

4. "Intelligent Design". Everyone should know the arguments against this. If you don't then it's because you're lazy.

Click to expand...

The whole point in that discussion with Walt is to point out order and the chaos is only our not knowing all of that order.
Now I’ve heard arguments against Intelligent Design are about as satisfactory to me as religion is to you.

ambush80 said:

What do you think of this?:

Click to expand...

Life is unbearable if we cannot create order from chaos? No, being a control freak must create order from chaos. It’s desperation.
Life is only bearable when we do our part but also know that this drama of life is not about us, it is not the ego-drama, it is a Theo-drama or an existance in which we allow ourselves to accept uncertainties and still move forward with the principles of truth. Knowing that moving forward no matter how hard, things will always work out for our good and the good of all.

Day trip said:

Life is unbearable if we cannot create order from chaos? No, being a control freak must create order from chaos. It’s desperation.
Life is only bearable when we do our part but also know that this drama of life is not about us, it is not the ego-drama, it is a Theo-drama or an existance in which we allow ourselves to accept uncertainties and still move forward with the principles of truth. Knowing that moving forward no matter how hard, things will always work out for our good and the good of all.

Click to expand...

How about this?:

Day trip said:

Life is unbearable if we cannot create order from chaos? No, being a control freak must create order from chaos. It’s desperation.
Life is only bearable when we do our part but also know that this drama of life is not about us, it is not the ego-drama, it is a Theo-drama or an existance in which we allow ourselves to accept uncertainties and still move forward with the principles of truth. Knowing that moving forward no matter how hard, things will always work out for our good and the good of all.

Click to expand...

I was completely on board with you until you got to
here -

things will always work out for our good and the good of all.

Click to expand...

I think that can be strongly debated. Particularly the "good of all" part.

ambush80 said:

How about this?:

Click to expand...

I my opinion, (which should go without saying since I’m posting), this guy is sorta, kinda hitting on something but not in a very helpful or motivating way. It like more desperation, the message I got was “well everything sucks so we should bear it and be nice so maybe it won’t suck as bad”

I believe what he wants to say is that suffering is a way of telling you that you’re not doing it right. So bear the suffering, learn from it and then learn to avoid the suffering by acting and living nobly, or in my lingo: obey God.

Not all suffering is created equal. When we suffer from failing to live the truth we cause the suffering and need to learn from it.
For example, let’s say I want to get that log on the fireplace to sit back a little more so smoke doesn’t come out in the house. I reach in quickly just to give it a little push and burn my hand. Well I really want to just move it a little, I can make this work so I try again and burn my hand. Now at some point I have to accept responsibility for my suffering, learn from it and learn how to avoid it. So I go get the fire poker and shove the log in, problem solved, praise the Lord.
But that’s what we are like, we keep sticking our hand in the fire and getting mad at the fire or mad at the log for getting burnt. We want control and we want things our way so we force issues that cannot work, shoving a round peg in a square hole. Think of a scenario where you e found yourself sticking your hand in the fire over and over then getting mad because it won’t work.

In some suffering we are innocent. Let’s say we were sitting at a red light and a car nails you and now you’re paralyzed. Let’s ssy your child gets cancer. Why God? This is our being pushed to grow. We can whine and fuss and complain and it does no good. Or we can accept our condition, work with it and learn to grow with it.

Every scenario has variables that make us say to these ideas, “yeah, but....”. No buts. See what is real, deal with what is real and grow to understand how it was necessary that you go through this experience. It may take years or it may take your whole life but in all scenarios, we must look at it with these attitudes. Anything less is quitting, failing.

I will adamantly state that suffering is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind. Bearing our suffering and dealing with it head on in truth with no preferences is participating in that Theo-drama that I mentioned earlier.

When we come to see that when we act justly, live by the principles of common love instead of self love things work out. Always! In ways that defy logic or reason. That is what I’ve learned from life and that is the main reason I believe in God, because he is always drawing us to him.

WaltL1 said:

I was completely on board with you until you got to
here -

I think that can be strongly debated. Particularly the "good of all" part.

Click to expand...

I can certainly see why. I would like to explain a bit more later.
I’m going fishing, be out of town for a day trip down to the coast so you guys be good and I’ll catch up with you all later

.im

Day trip said:

I understand. I was poking at you just for fun. I hope I didn’t upset you. As you know, God is not provable by scientific facts, that’s why I was poking.

God is mystical and trying to find him through brain power alone is pointless. It requires a vulnerability. Too often people seem to be too vulnerable and therefore believe anything. It’s a tough balance between being vulnerable and being gullible. The question comes down to, can you hold that tension of unknowing until you are enlightened? It’s not like, “oh, NOW I get it”. It’s building a foundation of intuitions, reading between the lines. Sometimes we have to tear it all back down and start over but even that is progress.

It’s so difficult because if you are not walking that line of ‘vulnerable but not gullible’ then you can fail either way. You know baptism. What is it? Getting dipped in water so you don’t have any sins? No, No and No! But that’s all you see if you are too gullible. If not vulnerable enough then it’s pointless nonsense. Baptism means immersion and is not a one time thing but a long ongoing process. Dipping in water is just the symbolic version.

True knowledge of God depends upon immersion in the Holy Spirit, in scriptures and in life. Only then does that knowledge function as an entire form of life. We live by the wisdom gained from a wealth of knowledge. We don’t think our way to an understanding of God so much as we live our way to it.

That’s why I can’t prove to you anything. You have to seek for yourself.

If someone where sincerely curious and seeking, I would recommend Matthew Chapters 5-7, feed on it over and over until you’re strong enough for the next meal. Hold the tension until it makes so much sense that you can no longer deny it than you could deny your very existence. If it just doesn’t make sense, let it go. That’s one building block in the foundation.

Click to expand...

Been there and Done that. It didn't work.
"God is _______" that's what I have a problem with.
"Maybe a God is _______" I can live with.

bullethead said:

.im

Been there and Done that. It didn't work.
"God is _______" that's what I have a problem with.
"Maybe a God is _______" I can live with.

Click to expand...

At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean a dang thing about what you or I believe. It’s how we act, how we treat others that matters. Treat everyone like your brother or your mother and it all takes care of itself anyway.

Day trip said:

At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean a dang thing about what you or I believe. It’s how we act, how we treat others that matters. Treat everyone like your brother or your mother and it all takes care of itself anyway.

Click to expand...

Great words to live by.
Christianity tells us some of those people who do exactly that deserve to be eternally punished unless they believe in their particular god.
Wacky stuff.

ambush80 said:

Those arguments are really just God of the Gaps arguments.

The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa theologiciae. They are:

1. the argument from "motion";
2. the argument from causation;
3. the argument from contingency;
4. the argument from degree;
5. the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument").

Aquinas expands the first of these – God as the "unmoved mover" – in his Summa Contra Gentiles.[1]

1. "Everything has a cause"--Except the un-caused cause. Self defeating from the get go. There have been many religious traditions that asked "Where did it all come from?" and they were content with the answer "It was always there". Picking aoine answer over the other is a preference, like for ice cream.

2. This is the un-caused cause argument again. Some people have put forth the idea that stuff is here because it's more likely that there would be stuff than not. Picking one argument over the other is just a preference. Neither can be proven. I may not understand it completely but it seems to me that the argument goes: we know stuff is here. It could just as not be here, but it is. Given those two potentials, it's just as likely that stuff will be here as not, but there is stuff. People argue "Nothing can come from nothing" but do they REALLY know what the nature of nothing is any more than they know what the nature of infinity is? It's out of all of our paygrades yet people insist that they know it can't be any other way than the one they prefer.

3. Un-caused cause.

4. "There are heirarchies that prove there's a design".

"The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that."

These are judgements made by humans. "Of course God judges things the way we do because we are made in his image". OR--"The God of Squares has four sides". Meaning, we make God in our image and he likes and dislikes the kinds of thing we do. This bears out with the simple observation that the God(s) of one culture like the aspects of that culture.

4. "Intelligent Design". Everyone should know the arguments against this. If you don't then it's because you're lazy.

Click to expand...

It's funny, you know, all the volumes one can find written...even...all my volumes
of explanations (so I surely can't fault Aquinas) were entered through such a simple thing.

The leading down a path of explanation is surely not forbidden if the original intention remains.


But explanation (do you agree?) is always by definition, can never be anything but what it is by definition...never the thing it may attempt to capture in description.

Even that word "description" from describe de-scribe...says volumes in itself.

Using words...to explain what appears to us in word...who can "do it"?

I am brought to a thing all but overlooked here...yet said...and seemingly known (though I cannot assume lack of addressing it speaks of assent, or just not seeing
except by the writer, and whoever else sees it.

It's a huge thing said... so large I can't help but wonder why it goes without comment. Nevertheless that wondering leads me to surmisings.

They are like the words of a prophet whom most would prefer to not see...or even begin to seek understanding of how such knowledge...is known.

However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.

Click to expand...

Playing with words is a fun occupation, but seeking to live where such a thing is known "Man is the glitch container"..."man's presence is the contaminant of the rest"...well, it takes something outside man to see that. To know that.

A man knows what he knows. And trying to "unsee" a thing can only make him a liar to himself.

Israel said:

It's funny, you know, all the volumes one can find written...even...all my volumes
of explanations (so I surely can't fault Aquinas) were entered through such a simple thing.

The leading down a path of explanation is surely not forbidden if the original intention remains.


But explanation (do you agree?) is always by definition, can never be anything but what it is by definition...never the thing it may attempt to capture in description.

Even that word "description" from describe de-scribe...says volumes in itself.

Using words...to explain what appears to us in word...who can "do it"?

I am brought to a thing all but overlooked here...yet said...and seemingly known (though I cannot assume lack of addressing it speaks of assent, or just not seeing
except by the writer, and whoever else sees it.

It's a huge thing said... so large I can't help but wonder why it goes without comment. Nevertheless that wondering leads me to surmisings.

They are like the words of a prophet whom most would prefer to not see...or even begin to seek understanding of how such knowledge...is known.





Playing with words is a fun occupation, but seeking to live where such a thing is known "Man is the glitch container"..."man's presence is the contaminant of the rest"...well, it takes something outside man to see that. To know that.

A man knows what he knows. And trying to "unsee" a thing can only make him a liar to himself.

Click to expand...

I have a sense that you aren't using the word "thing" in a generic way, and that you have something specific in mind. I'm having a hard time trying to respond in an engaging way because of it. What is the thing that you're talking about?

Day trip said:

At the end of the day, it doesn’t mean a dang thing about what you or I believe. It’s how we act, how we treat others that matters. Treat everyone like your brother or your mother and it all takes care of itself anyway.

Click to expand...

You are right. Beliefs do not matter.
When a person tries to not only pass belief off as fact through unprovable claims and assertions but also expects everyone else to go along with it is when it starts to matter to me.
I figure if someone wants to say it why not call them on it to back it up.
Is that too much to ask of someone?

ambush80 said:

Those arguments are really just God of the Gaps arguments.

The Quinque viæ (Latin "Five Ways") (sometimes called "five proofs") are five logical arguments regarding the existence of God summarized by the 13th-century Catholic philosopher and theologian St. Thomas Aquinas in his book Summa theologiciae. They are:

1. the argument from "motion";
2. the argument from causation;
3. the argument from contingency;
4. the argument from degree;
5. the argument from final cause or ends ("teleological argument").

Aquinas expands the first of these – God as the "unmoved mover" – in his Summa Contra Gentiles.[1]

1. "Everything has a cause"--Except the un-caused cause. Self defeating from the get go. There have been many religious traditions that asked "Where did it all come from?" and they were content with the answer "It was always there". Picking aoine answer over the other is a preference, like for ice cream.

2. This is the un-caused cause argument again. Some people have put forth the idea that stuff is here because it's more likely that there would be stuff than not. Picking one argument over the other is just a preference. Neither can be proven. I may not understand it completely but it seems to me that the argument goes: we know stuff is here. It could just as not be here, but it is. Given those two potentials, it's just as likely that stuff will be here as not, but there is stuff. People argue "Nothing can come from nothing" but do they REALLY know what the nature of nothing is any more than they know what the nature of infinity is? It's out of all of our paygrades yet people insist that they know it can't be any other way than the one they prefer.

3. Un-caused cause.

4. "There are heirarchies that prove there's a design".

"The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. A hierarchy of each quality. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) that approaches nearer the greatest heat. In the hierarchy of complexity one might find a worm lower down, a dog higher, and a human higher than that."

These are judgements made by humans. "Of course God judges things the way we do because we are made in his image". OR--"The God of Squares has four sides". Meaning, we make God in our image and he likes and dislikes the kinds of thing we do. This bears out with the simple observation that the God(s) of one culture like the aspects of that culture.

4. "Intelligent Design". Everyone should know the arguments against this. If you don't then it's because you're lazy.

Click to expand...

Same Old Thing

"Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions."

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html

bullethead said:

You are right. Beliefs do not matter.
When a person tries to not only pass belief off as fact through unprovable claims and assertions but also expects everyone else to go along with it is when it starts to matter to me.
I figure if someone wants to say it why not call them on it to back it up.
Is that too much to ask of someone?

Click to expand...

And lets not forget, in a variety of ways, both believers and non-believers are affected by this particular belief.
How a person votes, laws that get created, whats taught in schools, monuments, finances, gotta stop because the cop is directing traffic to let the church goers out..... on and on.
Most are minor little inconveniences or no problem at all.
Some can make a difference. Think voting.
If you come on here or anywhere and make a claim like that on this subject or any subject, it certainly seems fair for the other side affected by your beliefs to expect a little proof.
At least I know I wouldn't make a claim of that magnitude without expecting to be able to back it up
with a little more than "ya just gotta believe......".

hummerpoo said:

Same Old Thing

"Some hold that, owing to the necessity of knowing the primary premisses, there is no scientific knowledge. Others think there is, but that all truths are demonstrable. Neither doctrine is either true or a necessary deduction from the premisses. The first school, assuming that there is no way of knowing other than by demonstration, maintain that an infinite regress is involved, on the ground that if behind the prior stands no primary, we could not know the posterior through the prior (wherein they are right, for one cannot traverse an infinite series): if on the other hand-they say-the series terminates and there are primary premisses, yet these are unknowable because incapable of demonstration, which according to them is the only form of knowledge. And since thus one cannot know the primary premisses, knowledge of the conclusions which follow from them is not pure scientific knowledge nor properly knowing at all, but rests on the mere supposition that the premisses are true. The other party agree with them as regards knowing, holding that it is only possible by demonstration, but they see no difficulty in holding that all truths are demonstrated, on the ground that demonstration may be circular and reciprocal.

Our own doctrine is that not all knowledge is demonstrative: on the contrary, knowledge of the immediate premisses is independent of demonstration. (The necessity of this is obvious; for since we must know the prior premisses from which the demonstration is drawn, and since the regress must end in immediate truths, those truths must be indemonstrable.) Such, then, is our doctrine, and in addition we maintain that besides scientific knowledge there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions."

http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/posterior.1.i.html

Click to expand...

Believing this is just a preference and Aristotle couldn't prove it either way. No one can. I would argue the utility of operating from one preferred premise over the other.

Aristotle didn't say what this premise is. He didn't try to say that it's a guy who loves or hates us or that it's a guy at all. That's a leap too far.

ambush80 said:

Believing this is just a preference and Aristotle couldn't prove it either way. No one can.

Click to expand...

Notwithstanding your word "just", and substituting his "demonstrate" for your "prove", I agree; and, as I read him, so does he.

I would argue the utility of operating from one preferred premise over the other.

Click to expand...

Which points to the really interesting question. — Why do some prefer a philosophy that provides no demonstrable answer and others prefer a philosophy with an indemonstrable answer?

Aristotle didn't say what this premise is.

Click to expand...

"there is its originative source which enables us to recognize the definitions" doesn't do that?

He didn't try to say that it's a guy who loves or hates us or that it's a guy at all. That's a leap too far.

Click to expand...

Would that not be a leap from philosophy to theology? In his roll of philosopher, he is content to show that the gap exists, and, at this point, his preference to fill it with an indemonstrable originative source than to unnecessarily, in his view, leave it blank.

I did not propose to argue Aristotle's argument; but to show that it's just the "Same Old Thing".
Nor do I propose to argue the "really interesting question": again, "Same Old Thing".

ambush80 said:

I have a sense that you aren't using the word "thing" in a generic way, and that you have something specific in mind. I'm having a hard time trying to respond in an engaging way because of it. What is the thing that you're talking about?

Click to expand...

WaltL1:

However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.

Click to expand...

As Walt well understood "me" enough in another place to say something like "Israel, I know you are reading this, and so I know you know I am not talking about you behind your back" I also believe I know Walt to a certain extent. For he did show...he does know me... and I would say to an extent (even by using that caveat) that shows me a lot more than mere words could.

Something is exchanged between folks, even if we may say "it's not there", something we may find "in the words"...(and sometimes very plainly in their absence, also) that we pick up of them.

And we all have a relationship to one another in whatever moment we are perceived as having being to one another.
And I would say we are all too far along to pretend this is not true.

What we labor over, it seems, what we spend time in so much of (seeming) dispute is all of "who has what?"

So, just as Walt had said to me, I say to him, believing he is reading this, along with whoever else may be, and if he does know me...(which I believe he does) he knows I fear and loathe the temptation of "gotcha" even though I may fall to it, and have, on occasion. I am not "above" any here to any immunity from temptation.

Yes, I know we are too far along with one another to be coy, or even fey. I can't make any other hear the plainness of cry I hear, but I cannot deny I hear it either..."tell us (me)...show us, (me)...plainly what it is you've got!" (And if there be sides of which I am not convinced are as plain as seems, or even are true, these things come forth as "I want to see what you have...far more than I care about what you say...you have")

And then words appear. And then discerning of words. Attempts to make sense of the words, to a showing of what is really in them.

So, again, since I am no more, nor any less than any other in "right to speak"...and also read; that is, allowed to seek in given words for a purity, if not at least a legitimate consistency (or, am I allowed to make "judgments"? or of all...excluded?) those words of Walt's are very big.

Regardless of any disposition of my own to dispossess another of their right to speak (and do not doubt I both have...and to some extent am aware of that leaning) by introductions of my own requirements that constitute a legitimacy for utterance, (what assumption have we already made...all of us, in "right to speak"?) that we take as an a priori, given, so that we even may? What, and how much, is assumed therein? Do we have "the right to lie"? (If exchange is granted?) Yes, I am far more "caught up" with allowances assumed...that need to be explored...realizing I can never make my necessity, the necessity of another.

But please, for the love of Christ, do not go from assumption to presumption in lie thinking "I can pin necessity to another, but to myself, I am free of it". For, it is far too late to hide from an eye that has seen...that pinning, that vain hope of shirking of necessity by pinning it to another, is so very very plainly motivated at depth...by the operation of necessity. "I will pin my weakness upon my brother, that it may not appear (ahhh, but it does!) in me". That very operation...betrays it...so very plainly.

So...let's be fair, if we can at all approach that. Not for Walt's shaming (for I see no shame in him) and indeed...those very words show me something very plainly...he has heard from the shameless One.

Others...Walt even...need not agree. It's a big statement. It's even a grand assertion (and how much has been said, how much has been tortured in the assumed right of testing assertion?)

However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.

Click to expand...

Walt, I live, and am seeking to abide in the place of all assertion. In truth I am seeking the way of loving (with many stumbles, no doubt) that all assertive One. I find His assertions both troubling and wondrous, and I can find no speculation in Him.

Oh! Don't doubt I have looked...(where does he utter "yes and no?) and may even, if He allows...continue to do so. It is not even that I "think" I want to, that is test His assertions...I can only say to this point (allowed in time) it appears I am set to it.

So, no Walt...I don't lift up your assertion for a dissection to shame. I have also heard this assertion, myself. And where I know I have heard it from is true.

It is the smallest of steps...but has been for me the grandest of leaps that has led to an open door...a door I could not find or see, nor make any sense of how it could be "there"...until I was pressed, forced, coerced, commanded to see all that I had cut away in path of retreat and hope of going back. By my right to "speak".

However man's presence here negatively impacts the rest of what is around us.

Click to expand...

It seems a small step...but no man can push it, no man can make any other take that step, no man has it in him to either take it, or coerce another.

I am...man.


I am the stressor. I am that man. I am the one who______________.

(We have mentioned this before, so it is not new. Do you think Oppenheimer was only speaking in hyperbole when witnessing the unleashing of some of the secrets of matter? Do you think "I am become Shiva, destroyer of worlds"...was just a cleverness? Or do you think a man saw where his "need to know" in torturing from creation its secrets...understood a thing? Aghast?)

Oh, the seeming comfort of always "needing" to see it as the "them". (Which is why I am heartily persuaded sides do not exist as we think)
For what today sees all and only of contamination to creation in "the them"...may at any moment be changed...(in the twinkling of an eye found to be in gaze upon ONE) by a realization, totally and always (apart from grace) unacceptable

"I am...the them"

I am...the man.

The door is there. It took a man, made willing to appear as the "all of them" to show it. This man made willing to be, verily (is that too stilted for some?) in Himself...all of the contamination. The "negative impact" upon all else in creation. And He took it (if one can even receive it in electrical terms) to "ground". He Himself and in Himself became the short, the wire, the conductor in holding God's righteousness (the thing that I know lets you see that "negativity" even while being...in it) and not letting go of man, and ALL his negativity upon creation. And what happened to Him...had to when these things, totally irreconcilable...meet. A death.
A death to open a door.

Where what is all of irreconcilability is. Reconciled.
How can this be?

I would ask you: Are you man? Do you believe what you say? How do you...go on...if you know...what you have said?

Here's an assertion. When man stops lying "out" to the creation by first finding the grace to no longer lie to himself (in creation)..."I am your crown", "I am the God of creation" "I am the pinnacle of all"...he will find creation itself no longer, of necessity, reflecting lying back to him.

(If this sounds too weird, as well it could...I consider something Cormack McCarthy wrote as the words of one of his characters "Whatever in creation exists without my knowledge exists without my consent.")

Truth is not merely allowed...it is commanded.

"If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself."

In submission to the Lord of creation, peace may even be found in it.

Primum non nocere.

One man walked in that.

It is a good thing to ask..."how?"

How not to reap what all else seems to say "man is condemned to by his infection".

Watch the death closely. I assert...you will find something...else. A creation now set in such order...it could not, would not, is totally unable (nor willing) to hold Him...down.

One small step. To paying attention.