Comprehending God Poe, the Bible and Candid style.

[Greatest I am]

Comprehending God Poe, the Bible and Candid style.

Poe said...
If we cannot comprehend God in his visible works, how thenin his inconceivable thoughts, that call the works into being? If we cannotunderstand him in his objective creatures, how then in his substantive moodsand phases of creation?

This is basically what scriptures say when they say to seekGod in the heavens. Nature IOW.

These views are what led to my apotheosis and I endorse themwholeheartedly.

When I was a seeker, before I found this clip below. I hadconcluded that reality was in the best and only state that it could be in. Thisbest state included nature as well as man within it.

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynicalview of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on theanthropic principle and the notion that a God would start things of in a goodway as scriptures indicate for Eden and that that best way would beself-perpetuating because I could not imagine a God using creation as a make workproject that he would have to tweak every now and then as scriptures indicatedthat he did.

Candide

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwisethan as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they mustnecessarily be created for the best end.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPClzIsYxvA

The above quote should make sense to both believers andnon-believers alike, if you see nature always doing the best it can with allthe conditions at hand taken into account.

I would like to stay away from discussions of God’sexistence here because I think any such discussion would be speculativenonsense as none of our opinions of God is true knowledge and none of it can beproven until he actually shows up. Even as I do not believe in a creator God, Iwill not argue with those who give credit to him instead of nature andevolution. It is what is here that I would ask you to focus on.

Just looking at nature and mankind then at this point intime, can we agree that what we have is the best of all possible worlds, givenall the conditions at hand?

To set you on the tract and mindset that I developed, Iwould like you to think of the day you were born.
Can you say that given all the conditions at hand back then,your DNA and all other conditions, nature produced you to the very bestcondition that she could muster?
If yes, consider that the next day let’s say, after youbegan to learned and found the teat and continued learning and developing,right till today, that the initial best you, in the best of all possible world,are continuously aging as the best thatyou can possible be, given all theconditions at hand.
Not perfect, but the best you can possibly be.

Are you living in the best of all possible world and are youtoday, the best that nature can produce, given all the conditions at hand?

Regards
DL

 

[Stone]

Comprehending God Poe, the Bible and Candid style.

Poe said...
If we cannot comprehend God in his visible works, how thenin his inconceivable thoughts, that call the works into being? If we cannotunderstand him in his objective creatures, how then in his substantive moodsand phases of creation?

This is basically what scriptures say when they say to seekGod in the heavens. Nature IOW............................

Quote mining so frequently leads mental wankers in inconceivable directions other than the original context.

That's a line from THE IMP OF THE PERVERSE.
Poe 'wrote' it as a short story.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imp_of_the_Perverse_(short_story)

"The Imp of the Perverse" is a short story that begins as an essay written by 19th century American author and critic Edgar Allan Poe. It discusses the narrator's self-destructive impulses, embodied as the Imp of the Perverse. The narrator describes this spirit as the agent that tempts a person to do things "merely because we feel we should not."

Spin that.

 

[Stone]

.....................

I would like to stay away from discussions of God’sexistence here because I think any such discussion would be speculativenonsense as none of our opinions of God is true knowledge and none of it can beproven until he actually shows up........
......................

Yeah......that gnostic 'sexual magic' does sound rather speculative

https://sites.google.com/site/universalgnosticism/sexual-magic
excerpt>

True Gnosticism is the knowledge of good and evil, which is tied at its root to sexuality. All of those who say otherwise are lacking the essential gnosis

This article claims you are wrong, GIA.......any comment?

Sex is a topic of offense, it is a weakness, a stone of stumbling, a stone that causes one to fall into fanaticism and ignorance.

Wow........

However, the public has not been introduced to the sacred role of sexuality in the esoteric or "secret" knowledge hidden inside every religion. Thus, in modern times sex has become desecrated and defiled, while it was once known to be the entrance into the mysteries of the Divine.

Maybe you ought to teach us the sexual ways of gnostics as they seek enlightenment.

In Hebrew, the language of the Old Testament, the word for God is Elohim, yet the Spirit of God is Ruach Elohim. Let us understand the difference between God and the Spirit of God. The Spirit of God lives within us, yet, because we have not been born of God, God Himself does not live within us. Only when we properly make use of the Spirit of God do we live all of the mysteries of Genesis and are truly “born again.” When we elaborate the Spirit of God, then all the infinite potential of God Itself manifests and one is converted into a saint, a Deva, a Buddha, etc.

?????

We have to understand that to be born again is absolutely, incontrovertibly, a sexual problem.

?????



Looks interesting....



Teach us the secrets of sexual magic.......oh great god-like being of almost infinite wisdom......please.


And about your avatar.....
another excerpt>

[FONT=Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The serpent is that force in the blood that gives a man his erection and the woman her voluptuousness. The serpent is at the epicenter of gnosis, which is why it coils around the Tree of Knowledge. The serpent is both the strength and wrath of the God. [/FONT]

I can see why you don't want to go there



( that website is by Arkadion. He seems prolific if you google him,
http://www.google.com/search?q=Arka...s=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
but I haven't a clue as to whether he's really an authority on gnostic philosophy. )

 

[Stone]

.......................

When this was written, most thought it to just be a cynicalview of life but I think it is quite true and irrefutable, based on theanthropic principle and the notion that a God would start things of in a goodway as scriptures indicate for Eden and that that best way would beself-perpetuating because I could not imagine a God using creation as a make workproject that he would have to tweak every now and then as scriptures indicatedthat he did.

Candide

"It is demonstrable that things cannot be otherwisethan as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they mustnecessarily be created for the best end.”
.....................................

As I follow up on your claims, I find you taking liberty with substance and logic of the focus.

Candide was written by Voltaire.
The story is a satire about disillusionment with Leibnizian optimism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candide

This is the quote in context and looking at it, it's obvious that it's purpose it to project sarcasm.....not imagery supportive of your religious position.

Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron's castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.

followed by:

"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."

Your intellectual foundation is built upon distortion.
And the same logic above seen in many creationist arguments.


And you bring up the anthropic principle. How are you applying it to a faith based belief system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle#Definition_and_basis
excerpt>

All versions of the principle have been accused of discouraging the search for a deeper physical understanding of the universe. The anthropic principle is often criticized for lacking falsifiability and therefore critics of the anthropic principle may point out that the anthropic principle is a non-scientific concept, even though the weak anthropic principle, "conditions that are observed in the universe must allow the observer to exist",[SUP][6][/SUP] is "easy" to support in mathematics and philosophy, i.e. it is a tautology or truism. However, building a substantive argument based on a tautological foundation is problematic. Stronger variants of the anthropic principle are not tautologies and thus make claims considered controversial by some and that are contingent upon empirical verification.

 

[Stone]

..................................

To set you on the tract and mindset that I developed, Iwould like you to think of the day you were born.
Can you say that given all the conditions at hand back then,your DNA and all other conditions, nature produced you to the very bestcondition that she could muster?
If yes, consider that the next day let’s say, after youbegan to learned and found the teat and continued learning and developing,right till today, that the initial best you, in the best of all possible world,are continuously aging as the best thatyou can possible be, given all theconditions at hand.
Not perfect, but the best you can possibly be.

Are you living in the best of all possible world and are youtoday, the best that nature can produce, given all the conditions at hand?

Regards
DL

You do realize this contradicts the concept of evolution?

Can you say that given all the conditions at hand back then,your DNA and all other conditions, nature produced you to the very bestcondition that she could muster?

No.....a simple example in real terms would be my own susceptibility to allergens that not all of humanity shares.
My own DNA is not the very best for the environment I live in.
Other people have susceptibilities according to their own DNA which we we don't all identically share as a species.
Evolution is a progression of adaptation in life, by life, to adjust to nature ( environmental conditions).
Nature
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nature
( excerpt: "Nature, in the broadest sense, is equivalent to the natural world, physical world, or material world. "
doesn't change life, life changes ( evolves ) on it's own for the purpose of adapting to Nature ( the environment).
This is Darwinian evolution.

If yes, consider that the next day let’s say, after youbegan to learned and found the teat and continued learning and developing,right till today, that the initial best you, in the best of all possible world,are continuously aging as the best thatyou can possible be, given all theconditions at hand.
Not perfect, but the best you can possibly be.

If what you learn is conflicted and contradicting with reality, how can improvement of the self be gained?
Following your logic, myth and supposition are analogous to truisms rather than being treated skeptically.
Which, of course, leads to the term 'gnostic christian'.
If knowledge is represented in cherry picked scripture, which gnostic philosophers do ..... how can mankind be 'the best he can be ' by limiting knowledge to a given bias?
Of what good is a partial lesson that denies elements of it's original entirety?

Are you living in the best of all possible world and are youtoday, the best that nature can produce, given all the conditions at hand?

No.....there is always room for improvement.

There is an old saying that goes, The more you know, the more you realize how much you don't know.
Science is like that.
I suspect religion, too.