Lori and Harvey, a Match Made in Heaven
Lori:
I so struck by your post to Tiassa "To KNOW Jesus is to know the meaning of life" that I printed it out. It is so - well, classic. It really does belong in a textbook somewhere. Let me explain.

Did you see the movie "Harvey"? Probably not, it was a little before your time. It is one of Jimmy Stewart's great roles, right up there with "It's a Wonderful Life" won him an Oscar nomination (he lost to Jose Ferrer for Cyrano).

Stewart played the role of Elwood P. Dowd, a middle-aged eccentric bachelor living in a small Midwestern town, a man well known and well liked, but a real embarrassment to his socially prominent sister. In fact, such an embarrassment, she wants to have him committed, a bit extreme as I think you will agree. But first let me tell you about Mr. Dowd.

Elwood is retired now, living on his deceased father's (and his aforementioned sister's) money. He is seen around town a lot, the library, the market, the barbershop. Easy to spot Elwood, he is always wearing one overcoat and carrying another one on his arm. But never a hat, important fact, as we shall see.

Oh I forgot one of Elwood's favorite spots, the town bar. You see Elwood likes a little spot now and again, if you get my meaning.

Elwood has a friend, Harvey, who goes everywhere with him. Harvey, as imposing and handsome a fellow as you are likely to see, is everything you want a friend to be; intelligent, kind, gentle, truthful, charming conversationalist, willing to listen, always ready with good advice. Right there whenever you need him. But Harvey does get the chills sometimes so Elwood always has that extra overcoat, just in case.

Now Elwood is often irritated with the townsfolk, and with his sister, because-well they don't like Harvey all that much. In fact, they are forever stepping on Harvey's toes, or bumping into him, or sitting on the same bar stool, (Harvey likes a nip at times, helps keep him warm, don't you know). Sometimes they just ignore Harvey altogether, like he wasn't really there, very rude, and very hard to understand. He's real. He's there, right in front of their faces. They just won't look AT him. But Harvey really is RIGHT THERE.

After all, how can you fail to see a six-foot tall white rabbit who talks!

That's right. Elwood P. Dowd's friend, all six feet of him, is a white rabbit. And that is why Elwood never needs to carry an extra hat, bothers Harvey's ears, of course.

And, of course, for Elwood, Harvey really is RIGHT THERE, because Elwood wants him to be. Harvey is always there, Elwood realizes that, and he talks to him, and he listens to him.

"And He walks with me,
And He talks with me,
And He tells me I am his own.
And the joy we share
as we tarry there
few others have ever known."

Now Lori, tell me, tell the rest of us, in objective terms, with concert examples, exactly how your seeing Jesus (or Zeus, or Jahway, or Jehovah, or Jupiter, or whatever the deity of the day is) differs from the charming, humorous, harmless dementia of an aging alcoholic.

Go ahead, I gotta hear this! It'll go in that textbook under the heading "Willing suspension of disbelief, example of."


------------------
The Sailor says, remember Omar was right.

[This message has been edited by SailorMike (edited March 18, 2000).]

Are you an atheist Sailor? If so, would you mind telling me in objective terms, with concert examples, on what you base your epistemology? Without addressing this issue you don't really have much of a leg to stand upon.

If you really want to know what differs its the fact that God broke into our history as a human being and told us so. He even provided us with scripture (the Holy Bible). This Christian God also differs from a lot of other gods because the Christian God (the one true God) transcends our universe (Genesis 1) and is the real thing.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!



[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited March 17, 2000).]

On exactly this. No one, not u, not Pat Robertson, not Cal Thomas, none of u can prove ur god, or any other, exists.

U say the bible says, so what! Darwin says, Lenin says, Marx says, James Madison says. Show why any of them are holy, divine, inspired, what ever supernatural feature u like.

U say god came into the world. How do u know? I know the bible says so. So what!?

U chose to believe the bible. I don't. But it is a choice. There is not one proof, not one, that any god anywhere ever existed.

------------------
The Sailor says, remember Omar was right.

I'm not trying to prove the existence of "my god," I was answering your question to Lori which asked about Christian faith and stuff like that.

You didn't address my question and without doing so your words are nothing but meaningless verbiage to me.

I'll repeat my question to you:
"Are you an atheist Sailor? If so, would you mind telling me in objective terms, with concert examples, on what you base your epistemology? Without addressing this issue you don't really have much of a leg to stand upon."

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

ilgwamh -

Sorry, gwammy, it doesn't work that way. *You* are the one making the outrageous claims as to the existence of a deity, the burden of proof is therefore on you. Your question is a typical response to a claim of 'prove it'. If you really don't want to understand, I'll explain further, but this really should be enough.

FyreStar

Iggie:

As the term is usually used, no am i not an atheist. I believe something started this vail of tears, but have no idea who or what or why.

My words got u to read, and answer, so they must be something more than verbiage.

BTW, what makes u think i CARE if my words or verbiage to u or not?

Omar says:

O threats of Hell and hopes of Paradise!
One thing at least is certain,-This life flies;
One thing is true and the rest is lies;
The flower that once has bloomed forever dies.

------------------
The Sailor says, remember Omar was right.

[This message has been edited by SailorMike (edited March 19, 2000).]

I view gods and goddesses as devices employed by insecure people who are essentially frightened by what they do not understand. Our own mortality can be a pretty scary concept. Likewise, primitive man was surrounded by the mysteries of nature. In both cases, the notions of an afterlife and dieties were created to fill in the gap of the unknown. They are only placebos.

------------------
I may not agree with what you have to say, but I will fight, kill, and die for your right to say it.

O has it just about right.

Come on people wise up. There's no one out there to help u but there is no one trying to hurt u either. The most we can expect from the universe is total indifference. Which means WE make the decisions. WE control what what we do and within the limits of natural law we can do what we damn well please. And accept the consequences.

Now that's a real gift! Not some pie in the sky paradise with choirs. But right here and now right now, do with ur life as u will. It has exactly as much meaning as u give it, no more no less.

I can imagine some creator saying, "OK I made this place, it works, it runs by itself according to the rules I set up. U can even figure out those rules if u work hard enough. And the place is yours, I give it u, do with it as u will. But don't bother me any more. I have other things to do."

Now that's a R E A L gift!

------------------
The Sailor says, remember Omar was right.

[This message has been edited by SailorMike (edited March 19, 2000).]

Ilgwamh (I'm gonna quote one of your posts)

"This Christian God also differs from a lot of other gods because the Christian God (the one true God) transcends our universe (Genesis 1) and is the real thing."

I find that statement offensive. Sorry but that is just wrong. Just because YOU believe it doesn't make it right, or true or anything other then YOUR belief......

*Flabbergasted*

------------------
work to LIVE...don't live to WORK.

Sorry fryestar, I am not aware of any outrageous claim I made. I was merely stating a fact to a question asked.

________________________________
what makes u think i CARE if my words or verbiage to u or not?
_______________________________

You must be a mind reader because I don't ever remember posting anything like that. You must be a bad mind reader as well because I never thought that either.

I was hinting at tag when I was saying that stuff. It appears as if none of you are familiar with it. If the timings right I'll bring it up later and explain it.

_________________________________________
Come on people wise up. There's no one out there to help u but there is no one trying to hurt u either. The most we can expect from the universe is total indifference. Which means WE make the decisions. WE control what what we do and within the limits of natural law we can do what we damn well please. And accept the consequences.
______________________________________


You seem to be categorically stating that there is no God. That requires omnipotence. Something that I doubt you have. You can't prove a negative. Also, unless I am mistaken, something you said before contradicts that as well.

__________________________________
I believe something started this vail of tears, but have no idea who or what or why.
_____________________________________

Am I the only one who sees that?

________________________________
I can imagine some creator saying, "OK I made this place, it works, it runs by itself according to the rules I set up. U can even figure out those rules if u work hard enough. And the place is yours, I give it u, do with it as u will. But don't bother me any more. I have other things to do."
______________________________

Is this "creator" your imaginary friend? Is his/her name Harvey? That seems like a "what if" to me. You keep on imagining, I'll stick with the facts.

____________________________
Now that's a R E A L gift!
____________________________

The gift of God is eternal life to all those who repent and have faith in His Son.

____________________________
I find that statement offensive.
_____________________________

I'm not going top retract my statement or apologize. I am not ashamed of the gospel of Jesus Christ.

______________________________
Just because YOU believe it doesn't make it right, or true or anything other then YOUR belief......
_______________________________

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean its false. If it was only my belief than I would have said that it was my opinion. I have posted my on what I felt some scripture meant before. i made it clear that it was my opinion. If I say something like "I think x and x..." then I am probably not 100% certan. 2+2=4 whether you believe it or not. God's existence is supported by tons of evidence.

________________________________
Come on people wise up. There's no one out there to help u but there is no one trying to hurt u either. The most we can expect from the universe is total indifference. Which means WE make the decisions. WE control what what we do and within the limits of natural law we can do what we damn well please. And accept the consequences.
_______________________________

It is said that it is my belief that God exists and the burden of proof lies on me but I don't see anyone crying about that paragraph above the one your reading.

This is the way I see it. Most of you say, "ilgwamh the burden of proof lies on you, you need to prove what your saying." Yet when someone on the same side of the fence says something that has no proof I don't hear anyone complaining. Interesting eh?? That kind of stuff and statements like this "WE control what what we do and within the limits of natural law we can do what we damn well please" make it seem more and more like deep down, most, if not all peaople know God exists but reject Him because of pride or a bad experience with "religious" folks in the past or something along those lines. Not because of logic!!! It doesn't seem like some are searching for the truth, it seems like they are searching for an excuse to justify their unbelief.

Grace and peace in Christ,
Vinnie

Praise Jesus!

Vinnie,

I think you hit a big nail on the head and drove it in. PRIDE.

Being human, we hold this concept that "everything" has to have had a beginning. If we continue to hold onto this limited concept, we can look for pre-existence, for cause and effect for all eternity and never find a true beginning of it/us all. The only rational theory that explains this contradictory phenomena is that God is, WAS and always will be. God is the beginning of everything, the "theory of everything" which science so desperately seeks. God IS the beginning of EVERYTHING. The theory that everything had to start from something else is an impossible and contradictory concept unless you accept that everything originated from something. That something is what we call God, the ALL, who had no creator - The Original - the creator from which "everything" has come into existence or evolved.

Yes, acceptance of such a truth would put us in subordinate position to a superior being and the truth defies the physical laws of the universe which we prideful humans think we know so much about, but - there is much more to God's great universe than the physical realm which we hold so dear. There is a realm which has been theorized but which is relatively unexplored to date - it is the non-physical realm in God's great universe - and I believe that it is basic human pride coupled with fear of the unknown which helps to keep it that way.

Anyway, I can testify to the truth which you speak about.

May God bless you and keep you well.


Thanks,

Marie

ilgwamh -

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you have it all wrong. *You* are making the claim that there is a god. *I*, on the other hand, am asking you to support your claim. I make no claims against the existence of a god, simply because its an unprovable negative. What I *can* do is refute erroneous statements you make about reality. Your 'feeling' that god exists simply isn't enough. Neither, similarly, would another person's 'feeling' that there is no god. Reason is man's only method of determining truth; to do otherwise is to deceive yourself. You say god's existence is supported by 'tons' of evidence. Present it. In doing so, you must keep in mind that it must be objective, and it must not be based on the assumption of god (i.e. the Bible).

Regards,
FyreStar

FyreStar,

I find it interesting that you caution Vinnie against making assumptions, yet, it looks like you are assuming that the Bible exists as the result of an assumption of God rather than as the direct result of a determinate act of God.

Marie--

If I hold out a jar of water and say, "Touch, it is water," and you touch, and you say, "I think it is whiskey," then we have a problem that can be determined objectively. In this case, tasting might work, but I might taste water where you taste the sharpness of whiskey; still, we are at an impasse, for the standard was subjective. We can burn it, but the fact that water burns does not make it whiskey; it could be gasoline, and my prior observations of touch or taste would stil be wrong.

So we go down to a local laboratory, and agree on a ludicrous amount of scientific detail, about specific gravity, density, vapor temp, &c. Once we agree to the terms, a scientist tests the substance and shows it to be .... Well, it doesn't matter what it is. It's determined then by the best standard we have, one that is subjective: even the best science is subjective; we call it objective for its consistency, and the fact that everyone (well, not everyone, but some people just don't want to be part of everyone) agrees on certain principles.

When you hold out your hand, though, and say, "It's God, go ahead, touch it," the argument changes. If you had a rock in your hand, then we could argue God vs. rock. But if your hand is empty, then we face two problems: A) that God is a metaphor, representing the diversity of the perceived emptiness in your hand, or B) that not enough "certain principles" are agreed upon to agree that what is actually in your hand is not air.

If we might demonstrate a time at which the majority of humanity believed that there was no God, then there's a starting point for the burden of proof on the atheist; after all, God would be the new reality, forcing the old to defend itself against new, observable principles. But the assumption has always been in favor of supernatural forces: gods, bean-sidhe, trolls, ghosts, vampires, ad infinitum. Given that to argue against God invokes human wrath more often than divine wrath, one is left to wonder what, besides the assumption of faith, enforces God's reality.

Perhaps in the course of a specific argument, one might present a point that seems to require the burden of proof, but in the case of God, it seems that to require the burden of proof by those who argue against God is yet another ploy by the faithful to avoid having to resolve the deeper issues of spirituality.

Most of what I find wrong with any sense of an anthropomorphized deity evaporates at a later time when it becomes apparent that a specific concept was a mere convenience, a short-cut around a tough, long-standing principle. Unfortunately, most deities I apply such a standard to evaporate in a storm of illogic. There may be a god hidden inside the myriad mysteries of the Universe; but don't you think God should reflect something deeper than social trends? The nearest evidence I can begin to consider regarding "proof" of God is that God consistently reflects the technological, educational, spiritual, and psychological conditions contemporary to the incarnation of God in question. Thus it would seem that God is a fiction of human incompleteness; but this, too, is difficult and dangerous--if not impossible--to prove in any satisfactory sense.

I generally place the burden of proof, though, on God, since so many of us are told from birth that God exists, and so many of those of us told such things are also told to accept this as fact, at the stake of massively disproportionate punishment. The extant assumption is that God exists, though little has ever been offered to directly demonstrate that truth. In order to "prove" that God exists, my experience with Western theology is that one must assume that "God exists", and then argue over which god is God. Of course, people can argue over the meaning of the word "exists" until Judgement Day, which is its own special little fun.

But if people of every faith are willing to start their kids out with a blank-page about God, both at home and at large, then maybe we can start figuring out whether God is or isn't. Otherwise, everybody sees their own presuppositions as neutral, and argues a wave of short-considered prejudice.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

tiassa,

Your expressions are very thoughtful. Thank you. I understand the difficulties sometimes encountered when setting the standards for debate - Particularly when one side is debating from the viewpoint of the physical realm (loosely interpreted as objective) while the other is debating from the the viewpoint of the non-physical realm (loosely interpreted as subjective). I have my own theories about such interpretations but there is not much time to expand on them right now.

In my humble opinion, in as much as possible, the standards for such a debate (physical versus non-physical) should be mutually agreed upon. Not dictated based on the assumption that one or another assumption is most accurate at the outset. I believe that if we are to learn and advance, we must not limit ourselves to what we already know (the physical realm of the universe) but must allow ourselves to be more open to a relatively unexplored area of the universe (the non-physical realm). Surprising as it may seem, the observations of those who have dared to venture into the non-physical (using the same methods and recording their experiences) are quite consistent with one another.

Can we say with any amount of certainty that it was/was not subjective assumptions or pre-suppositions by the authors of the Bible concerning the existence/non-existence of "___" (I'll fill in the blank with the word 'God') which caused them to write the various books OR can we say with any amount of certainty that it was/was not God's objective intervention which caused the authors of the Bible to write the various books of the Bible?

Two other questions, if you don't mind:

Jumping to the end of your post - Have you considered and determined with any amount of personal certainty whether or not the first humans started out as blank pages with respect to God?

Aside - Does it seem more likely to you, personally, that humans subjectively created 'God' or does it seem more likely to you that 'God' objectively created humans?

Thanks,

Marie

Marie -

Do you understand logic? Can't you understand the concept of a circular argument? You have to assume a god exists before the Bible becomes the result of a god. Its rather pointless to assume that which you are trying to prove. I hope you see the difficulty here.

Regards,
FyreStar

Very good point FyreStar. Actually, that (circularity) was the point I was making to you which you, in turn, have stated much more succinctly.

In other words: Your argument that the Bible is non-objective assumes that it was not inspired by an existent God.

Thanks for the clarification and, please, let me clarify that I am not trying to prove the existence of God to you. That is something which you will learn/not learn of your own accord.

Thanks again,

Marie

Marie -

Close, but not quite. I am not the one trying to prove that god exists. Therefore I proceed from neither the assumption that a god exists, nor the assumption that a god does not exist. To assume the Bible is a work of a god implies the prior existence of a god, therefore the Bible is not an objective reference.

I realize that you are not trying to prove it, but these things need to be cleared up iin either case.

Regards,
FyreStar

FyreStar,

I think I've figured out this quote thing:


In doing so, you must keep in mind that it must be objective, and it must not be based on the assumption of god (i.e. the Bible).

Now, as far as I can tell from your statement above, you are presuming (assuming - taking it for granted) that the Bible is based on the "assumption" of God (a minor premise) rather than allowing for the possibility (and in my opinion, the probability) that the Bible was inspired by the determinate act of an existent God. (My opinion is based in part on the objective reality and existence of the phenomena of the Bible itself).

Now, your presumptuous assumption made in your original statement (quoted above) is made without any proof to the contrary (at least, not that I am aware of). Therefore, your caution about remaining objective and about not making arguments based on assumptions without proof is contradictory. In absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Bible is more objective than not.

I don't know what Vinnie will ultimately have to say in the matter, but I really think that keeping an open mind about such things, in view of the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary, is our best bet when debating matters such as these.

Sincerely,

Marie

Marie--

If I might start with a short quote of yours:


In my humble opinion, in as much as possible, the standards for such a debate (physical versus non-physical) should be mutually agreed upon.

You're hovering around a very difficult point for me to resolve. I suppose the question becomes--must God have a name? I've touched on it recently in a couple of threads, but the answer is most definitely elusive. But essentially, that mutual agreement to which you refer is most difficult to accommodate; if I ask a person to drop "Jesus", as a name, from the frame of reference, and to examine practical faith from a "neutral" perspective, is that really possible? For a short moment, I'm sure. It seems, though, that when we take a name for our God, we inherit much that comes with that. In the case of Christianity, if I accept Jesus as the name of God, does that not mean that parts of my "reality" are defined by the contents of the Bible? I guess that in this case it would be an issue of how mutually acceptable we find the idea of rejecting A) the outright authority of the Bible; and B) the placement of the Holy Trinity (or any part thereof) as the "official" godhead.


Can we say with any amount of certainty that it was/was not subjective assumptions or pre-suppositions by the authors of the Bible concerning the existence/non-existence of "___" (I'll fill in the blank with the word 'God') which caused them to write the various books OR can we say with any amount of certainty that it was/was not God's objective intervention which caused the authors of the Bible to write the various books of the Bible?

I think there were suppositions about what was God when the Bible was written. Can you offer any religious creation story which does not put the immediate people created at the center of God's regard? We know that, according to Judaic tradition, the Hebrews are God's "Chosen People." Well, ask the Hopi about that:


Trouble began on Tokpa [the Universe] when people traded and bartered for more and more goods, forgetting to sing praises to the Creater and singing praises for their goods instead. Spider Woman felt that the thread on this world had run out, and so the peope who still had songs for the Creator in their hearts [the Hopi] were once again led underground to the safety of the Ant People's kiva before the twins left their magnetic postions at the north and south pole so the Earth tilted crazily on her axis and froze into solid ice. (Larson, 84-87)

Larson, Cynthia S. "Comes True, Being Hoped For". Parabola, Vol. 25, No. 1. New York: Society for the Study of Myth and Tradition, 2000.


Overall, the world is destroyed thrice, and thrice are the Hopi saved, for they have "songs for the Creator in their hearts". A Cherokee creation story related by Jack Cady in The American Writer speaks of a great buzzard flying over the newly created world until he grew tired and settled in the land of the Cherokee. What we do not see in Creation stories is the following sentiment: "In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth, and he liked the Hebrews better, so he put them in Jerusalem, and left the Cherokees in the middle of nowhere with their buzzard until God decided he liked someone else better than the Hebrews, and had them try to kill both the Hebrews and the Cherokee."

Creation stories generally do not favor tribes other than those which invent them. That's the first part of that subjectivity I see.

Also, I would point to an admittedly thin association between old religions and animals: religions older than Judaism did worship the moon, which might have been among the first of our subjective Gods; big, white, perfectly round or hidden in seductive shadows, untouchable in the sky. Coyotes howl at the moon, and I've never heard exactly why. (I'm actually prepared for that answer to look a little more like Didion's summary of the Santa Ana winds, and the effect of similar foehn winds.) Certainly we think these associations are too easy, when we look from the modern perspective. But as we evolved out of monkeys (if you buy that, else the world is apparently only 6000 years old, but that's almost beyond me) we bore a very animal fascination with the benchmarks of our Universe around us. If coyotes howl for no reason other than the feeling, I would say there's the beginnings of worship if coyotes ever evolve to human-level thought (I am assuming, of course, that coyotes really are instinctive creatures, as our objective knowledge describes; I cannot guarantee this). But I think we do find gods in our world. The transcendence of the Judeo-Christian godhead, which encompasses all creation, is ambitious, indeed, but still seems to reflect the immediate world of the writers of the Bible.

For the same reasons involving coyotes, I would say that the only blank page about God was the first moment of awareness, that moment of "I". After that moment, all else becomes comparative and subjective; something exists in relation to "I".

And for the aside ... well, I think humans do create their gods. It doesn't mean we don't invest real, actual power in them, but I do think that gods are human inventions. There may be a unified force tying the Universe together, but Gravity's my best candidate right now, and that's woefully inadequate to fill such divine shoes as "God". However, when/if we do stumble across a part of the mystery that we can call God, I would assert that said entity will either be less than our usual attributions to God, and therefore subordinate to a greater mystery, or else we will find something that I cannot describe, for it will look like nothing we imagine about God, and will transcend the full depth of human exploration, perception, and assimilation.

But the clock says it's time to run ... hope that's worth something in this.

Peace,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

So,

Is anyone wondering where Lori is?

I mean this was directed at her in the first instance was it not? Its not like her to be quiet for so long. (no offence intended Lori).


Marie,

You argue and speak like a friend we used to have here, her name was Truestory. Sadly she has passed away, however in a hauntingly strange way you remind me of her to a degree.


Allcare

Tony H2o

tiassa,

Thanks for your answers.

In my opinion, no, God does not have to have a name. For purposes of discussion it is probably wise for the participants to agree on a term to use when discussing what is usually referred to as God. I hear that in Alcoholics Anonymous the term "higher power" is agreed upon and used. Is this even close to what you are getting at?

Wouldn't the original, immediately-created individuals actually be the center of God's regard at that moment? And, as members of the human race, wouldn't all descendants of the original, immedialtely-created individuals actually be justified in a way to claim that they were "chosen" (not that I'd choose to use that term because it tends to connote exclusivity).

If the only blank page about God was the first moment of awareness, that moment of "I" whereafter all else becomes comparative and subjective, what do you think happened that caused humans to "create" a non-physical God rather than using such a comparative and subjective nature to compare themselves to the vast, readily-apparent physical universe which surrounded them? Do you think that it is possible that this outcome was somehow unique to those originally created? (Well, come to think of it, those who were originally created were most unique).

Anyway, why do you think that the outcome might be different today if, as you say, people were willing to start their kids out with a blank-page about God? (Not that I buy that some don't).

Have you considered that maybe for the most part, just maybe, we have ALREADY figured out whether God is or isn't?

Thanks,

Marie

Tony,


Someone else compared me to Lori before.

I'm sorry about your friend. Maybe it's a coincidence but I keep reading that part of your post about the haunting and the more I do the more it bothers me because I found this site on the list of my sister-in-law's favorites on the net. She passed away too, very recently. How long ago did your friend pass away? Do you know what her real name was? My sister-in-law's name was Dottie (Dorothy).

Marie,
YES!!!! Truestory (TS) ='s Dorothy....
She is greatly missed... I too had thought the same as Tony...that you sounded an awful lot like TS... She and I started out with major differences...but in the end, she has made a huge impact on my life...
I'm sorry for your loss, Marie... TS was a great lady.

Hi Flash,

Good to see you back here. Don't get me wrong or anything but I don't think we've got to the bottom of this thing.

Gut feel?
Spirit of God?

Call it what you will something is just not sitting right.


Hi Marie,

You know we should all just take a deep breath for a second here.

Dorothy or Dottie as you affectionately refer to her was your sister in law??

Truestory, who I referred to was a Dorothy !!!!!!! Truestory or Dorothy, according to the attached e-mail died in early March or late Feb 2000. This is way to weird my heads spinning. (not literal)

I attach a copy of an e-mail sent to me when I was checking on her after she had not posted for some time.

Quote:

Thank you for your kind words to Dorothy (our mother). We regret to inform
you of the sad and schocking news of her passing.

Mom was the bright light in our lives and an inspiration to everyone who
knew her. She was the warm hugger of the world and the life of the party.
She welcomed everyone with open arms. Mom was an intelligent and kind
business leader and made many valuable contributions to the community. She
was very involved in our social lives when we were growing up and continued
to serve the youth of our community until her recent untimely death. We
knew that Mom had many friends who some of us never met but we never
realized just how much she had touched the lives of so many until we met the
hundreds of people with nameless faces who showed up at her wake and funeral
because they loved her and miss her already. We don't know what the boards
are but we are not surprised that Mom is being missed. She would have told
you that she appreciates your concern. Thank you.

Please take comfort in knowing that Mom was not afraid of death. She
welcomed God's will. All of us did not believe in an afterlife and God as
she did but then she made her own spirit known by communicating with many of
us during the couple of days that followed her death. We, and the hundreds
of other people who attended Mom's funeral were held spellbound and in awe
when we all witnessed the opened hand of God literally reaching down and
taking up Mom's spirit. The tears of sadness which filled the church
suddenly changed to tears of heartwrenching joy. It was the most
magnificent thing that any of us had ever seen. Mom comforted, loved,
helped and took care of so many people during her short life. Now God is
taking care of her.

Take care and God bless.

Dorothy's children.


Now please don't take me wrong but I've had a nagging feeling that I can't shake about Truestory / Dotti. I have sensed or felt (I do not like using these terms, they are to subjective and feelings can be wrong) but as I was saying I felt that....how can I couch this without sounding weird....spitting it out, she is not dead. Perhaps you can fill us in a bit on what happened to her so that I can put these feelings to rest. (I know it sound rather selfish).

Either someone is playing a cruel hoax or this is a needle in the haystack coincidence, or dare I infer that my gut tells me that Marie is claiming to know Truestory or claiming to be someone who was very close to her. If I am wrong then I appologise profusely, but it would not be hard for someone to have an indication of who she was from the posts she placed.

Again I have probably stepped way over the mark and I mean no disrespect to anyone who loved Dorothy.

I'm just somewhat blown away and trying to get a handle on this. I'm not use to intangible gut feelings, I'm use to seeing and knowing first hand.

Sorry in advance if I have upset anyone.

Tony H2o

Originally posted by Marie:
Tony,


Someone else compared me to Lori before.

I'm sorry about your friend. Maybe it's a coincidence but I keep reading that part of your post about the haunting and the more I do the more it bothers me because I found this site on the list of my sister-in-law's favorites on the net. She passed away too, very recently. How long ago did your friend pass away? Do you know what her real name was? My sister-in-law's name was Dottie (Dorothy).




Marie,

Your words are just not sitting right with me. I don't want to harp on about this instinctive feeling I have but I'm sitting here nearly in tears at the thought that someone is playing a cruel and horrible hoax.

There are people at this site who even though they had never met Truestory firsthand were profoundly touched by her views and ability to stick at her guns regardless of what was being thrown at her.

And so help me if there is a way to find out if someone is making a mockery of that I will find it.

I don't usually get this emotional and perhaps I should bow out for a few days and let the dust settle.

Marie I mean you no disrespect, you are relatively new here we don't know you and I don't know your character, so I find it difficult to accept on face value what you posted as coincidence. It looks way to constructed for me. I am hoping you will prove me wrong about my feelings, I am always harping on about testing everything and essentially that is what I am doing now.


Quote:
I found this site on the list of my sister-in-law's favourites on the net.

Possible and plausible, probbable?....mmmmm?

Quote:
She passed away too, very recently. How long ago did your friend pass away?

Very, very leading question, from our discussion on another post I know you are familiar with past posts, you know how to get around this site. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions here but knowing how to get around this site and thinking that something mentioned was haunting I would have searched around for information on this Truestory person. A post is dedicated to the memory of her and it is not that far down the page. Most people do their homework around here and refer back to other discussions for reference, you have done this with me and I don't think it unusual that you would not do so in this instance.

Quote:
Do you know what her real name was? My sister-in-law's name was Dottie.

Way to much pertinant information on offer for me. Asking what her name was and then setting up an affectionate reference to the name Dottie???


If in actuality you are Truestories sister-in-law then I stand corrected and will humbely offer my condolances. But its going to be difficult to determine the actual truth of what you say and who you really are.

If you would like to discuss outside of this forum then please feel free to e-mail me.

Tony H2o

Yes. It loooks like Truestory is Dottie. She died in her sleep when her body threw a clot to her lung.

Tiassa/Marie

What is the unifying force that ties the Universe together?
Gravity is a physical (objective) force of nature. Maybe we should be delving into, or searching for a non-physical (subjective) force that unifies “The All”
Is the unifying force that ties our Universe together not maybe the creative force? The eternal substance that bind all of creation together. Every conscious thought that comes into our minds is a creative manifestation. What force is released when we engage in a creative act? I do know that it is invisible and yet one can feel it in ones spirit. What could the first creative act have been? Could this be the Singularity that is so evasive? Is our reality not made up of this creative glue? This is what I have been wrestling with for quite some time now.(and I know … what came before? But what the hell) Look at the following passage from John.(I`m sorry, I don`t like to quote from the Bible, but it`s a nescerary example)

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God”

Do we interpret the word “Word” as the written word? Synonyms for “word” are “express” or “formulate” – create.
This is a statement that at first seems mystifying, but this is what I have found. “In the beginning was the Word” – potential thought or potential creative instinct. Then “and the Word was with God” – the potential thought or potential creative instinct being realised in a conscious manner. Then “and the Word was God” – the creative instinct becomes a conscious reality and takes on the mantle of being. Do we become Gods in our creative endeavours? Is this what sets Man apart? Not forgetting creative acts can be both positive and destructive. This would explain a lot about the Nature of God in the Old Testament.
Then furthermore here is a quote from the Gnostic Gospels. The Thunder, Perfect Mind.

“I am the silence that is incomprehensible
and the idea whose remembrance is frequent.
I am the voice whose sound is manifold
and the word whose appearance is multiple.
I am the utterance of my name.”

These are just my thoughts. What do you guys think? Am I skating on the brink of schizophrenia?
I do concur that when the mystery of my God is finally revealed, He/God will not materialise in any expected or pre-conceived reality. I sometimes think this might be like the first time you really see yourself face to face. And yet you`ve been there all the time.

Take care.

Marie,

Forgive me if I am being insensitive, but if you were at TrueStory/Dorothys funaral, would you please describe in more detail, what her daughter described in her "Thank You" post about the hand of God literally taking up her soul. I am sincere in my curiosity.

Take care.

Stretch--


I sometimes think this might be like the first time you really see yourself face to face. And yet you`ve been there all the time.

Can I just say ... um ... beautiful? I've never heard either God or one's own face put quite like that. Though I do love the mystery that your own face is the one thing you'll never see. (OBE and AP invite questions of what you're seeing ... yourself, or a shadow thereof.)

And I truly wish I could comfort you in saying that the only people who will regard you as schizophrenic are such that they only learned what the word schizophrenic means so that they can accuse people of being schizophrenic. In other words, you're doing just fine.

Of Bible quotes ... don't worry when you look to the Bible; it's a necessary thing in this arena--how can we begin to discuss God if we exclude the Good Book of the quantitatively most successful religion ever. To make a thin, but still relevant comparison ... if we discussed the merits of naturopathy, would we want to exclude Gray's Anatomy? The other thing is that your apparent perspective seems to indicate the desire to support your quotes with observations of your own or of academic sources. So I think apologies should be unnecessary regarding Bible quotes. Now, if you wanted to say that the word was the Word and so forth and leave that as your sole point of argument .... Okay, then I'll bug you about Bible quotes. ;)


Every conscious thought that comes into our minds is a creative manifestation. What force is released when we engage in a creative act?

I recently read an article in IONS: The Journal of the Institute for Noetic Sciences that addressed the issue of "faith" healing (I forget the fancy word for it off the top of my head.) Buried in that article was a slayer question: What are the physical properties of a thought? Those are, of course, difficult if not impossible to establish from the current perspective. But possibility will open up as our technology continues to improve, until we have units capable of surveying the electrochemical processes in our brain so that we can determine things such as the mass of a thought impulse.

I'll throw in a popular concept of the new-age, here ... harmonic vibrations. It's a scientific concept, but science has been unable to postulate that humans vibrate in any way consequential to the Universe. In that sense, it might simply be technological limitations. The short end of it is that I think the intangible "spiritual" forces of our emotions and thoughts might possibly be tangible, quantitative forces that we haven't learned how to measure yet. As to the detail of this process, I have no good outline to offer.

If we throw together the properties of thoughts, we might find the frequency of human vibration such that it might provide us the network-link to the Grand Illusion. But the important thing for me to establish here is the possibility that our spiritual might actually be tangible and quantifiable.

And then .... And then we would have to determine that those tangible, quantified values mimic or otherwise resemble the vibrations of God's creative urge. Or some such undertaking.

Some of your points I can only gloss over, if not pass by outright. This is not an issue I have with the points, but my own inability to address them in a reasonably coherent manner. Bearing in mind the best of my intentions, if you would ....

* Do we become Gods in our creative endeavors? I do not think so. Somehow, I think the distinction between "man" and "God" will evaporate with greater understanding of our place in the Mystery. At least one popular legend of faith says that something of this sort is actually God's Will.

* Is this what sets Man apart? I think humanity chooses to set itself apart. This is a hard point for me to demonstrate because of the level on which I believe it. It isn't that we're the same as the animals, per se. But we're the same as the animals, the volcanos, stars, campfires, rainstorms ... we are the same as any event or process in the Universe which can be observed to have a conventionally acknowledged beginning and end. I use a crude example sometimes: volcanos, earthworms, and people. Volcanos "eat" molten rock, digest it as magma rises, and excretes it in the form of noxious gas, lava flow, ash, and boulders, all expelled from within the acknowledged system, which is the entirety of the volcano. An earthworm burrows through dirt, consuming and expelling, and in the process, transforming the soil somewhat. People consume various things, digest them, and expel them. A volcano isn't "life" as we see people or cats. But on the other hand, something in the Universe can then fairly say that humans are not "life" as the stars, planets, and galaxies are alive. What sets humanity apart from the Universe seems to be twofold: A) We have the ability to choose to separate ourselves conceptually; B) We actively choose to separate ourselves. (Mind you, this is a hard concept for me to finish, hence its apparent vagaries and incompleteness.)

(Incidentally, Picasso would agree with you about creative acts being both positive and destructive: "Every act of creation must be preceded by an equal act of destruction", or something damn near to that.)

Oh yes ... I wanted to throw in two cents on "In the beginning was the Word" (as if I haven't already, but ....) You touched on a fun spot in Christian faith when you asked how to interpret the word "Word". Here I will ask someone with better education among the Classics to please tell me what the Greek (?!) term is, and how it is defined. Once we know that, we get to argue about whether we read the phrase literally, or with poetic license. Fun, isn't it?

But here's a test for you: Look in the mirror and tell yourself three times that no, you're not going crazy. If your reflection says, "Wanna bet?" it's no real problem; that's only a conscience that has been Pavlovian-conditioned to doubt itself. If, however, your reflection says, "Well, there are myriad issues to consider before we assert that you are not, in fact, in peril of psychosis ...." well, then ... um ... smoke two bowls and call me in the morning? It's okay to talk to yourself. It's okay to have discussions with yourself. But if you're doing "Crossfire" on SBN (Stretch Brain Network), then you'd probably better kick the hosts out and take a vacation. ;)

If I forego direct address regarding Gnostic Christianity, please accept that it is a shortcoming of my own familiarity with Gnostic philosophy. Recent time spent with books on the Apostolic Fathers, and also Christian diabology, have convinced me that there is something very compelling buried in the Gnostic way. I would hope to have this blank spot amid my knowledge filled soon.

Thanx much; may the days be bright,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Quote Tiassa:
Oh yes ... I wanted to throw in two cents on "In the beginning was the Word" (as if I haven't already, but ....) You touched on a fun spot in Christian faith when you asked how to interpret the word "Word". Here I will ask someone with better education among the Classics to please tell me what the Greek (?!) term is, and how it is defined. Once we know that, we get to argue about whether we read the phrase literally, or with poetic license. Fun, isn't it?


Tiassa and Stretch.

Poetic license not required.

As you will note both the Hebrew and Greek are very complex in that a word used can have many meanings and can be derived from ancient root words. It is therefore imperative to take the full meaning of the word given in the context of the surrounding text to aquire its relevance and its inferred meaning.

Enjoy, and I trust this helps.

Allcare

Tony H20


John 1:
1 In the beginning (746) was the Word (3056), and the Word (3056) was with (4314) God (2316), and the Word (3056) was God (2316).
2 The same was in the beginning (746) with (4314) God (2316).
3 All things were made (1096) by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
6 There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.
7 The same came for a witness, to bear witness of the Light, that all men through him might believe.
8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.
9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.
11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not.
12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
15 John bare witness of him, and cried, saying, This was he of whom I spake, He that cometh after me is preferred before me: for he was before me.
16 And of his fulness have all we received, and grace for grace.
17 For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.
18 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him

3056 logov logos log'-os
from 3004; TDNT-4:69,505; n m
AV-word 218, saying 50, account 8, speech 8, Word (Christ) 7, thing 5, not tr 2, misc 32; 330
1) of speech
1a) a word, uttered by a living voice, embodies a conception or idea
1b) what someone has said
1b1) a word
1b2) the sayings of God
1b3) decree, mandate or order
1b4) of the moral precepts given by God
1b5) Old Testament prophecy given by the prophets
1b6) what is declared, a thought, declaration, aphorism, a weighty saying, a dictum, a maxim
1c) discourse
1c1) the act of speaking, speech
1c2) the faculty of speech, skill and practice in speaking
1c3) a kind or style of speaking
1c4) a continuous speaking discourse-instruction
1d) doctrine, teaching
1e) anything reported in speech; a narration, narrative
1f) matter under discussion, thing spoken of, affair, a matter in dispute, case, suit at law
1g) the thing spoken of or talked about; event, deed
2) its use as respect to the MIND alone
2a) reason, the mental faculty of thinking, meditating, reasoning, calculating
2b) account, i.e. regard, consideration
2c) account, i.e. reckoning, score
2d) account, i.e. answer or explanation in reference to judgment
2e) relation, i.e. with whom as judge we stand in relation
2e1) reason would
2f) reason, cause, ground
3) In John, denotes the essential Word of God, Jesus Christ, the personal wisdom and power in union with God, his minister in creation and government of the universe, the cause of all the world's life both physical and ethical, which for the procurement of man's salvation put on human nature in the person of Jesus the Messiah, the second person in the Godhead, and shone forth conspicuously from His words and deeds.
This term was familiar to the Jews and in their writings long before a Greek philosopher named Heraclitus used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.

3004 legw lego leg'-o
a root word; TDNT-4:69,505; v
AV-say 1184, speak 61, call 48, tell 33, misc 17; 1343
1) to say, to speak
1a) affirm over, maintain
1b) to teach
1c) to exhort, advise, to command, direct
1d) to point out with words, intend, mean, mean to say
1e) to call by name, to call, name
1f) to speak out, speak of, mention

746 arch arche ar-khay'
from 756; TDNT-1:479,81; n f
AV-beginning 40, principality 8, corner 2, first 2, misc 6; 58
1) beginning, origin
2) the person or thing that commences, the first person or thing in a series, the leader
3) that by which anything begins to be, the origin, the active cause
4) the extremity of a thing
4a) of the corners of a sail
5) the first place, principality, rule, magistracy
5a) of angels and demons

2316 yeov theos theh'-os
of uncertain affinity; a deity, especially (with 3588) the supreme Divinity; TDNT-3:65,322; n m
AV-God 1320, god 13, godly 3, God-ward + 4214 2, misc 5; 1343
1) a god or goddess, a general name of deities or divinities
2) the Godhead, trinity
2a) God the Father, the first person in the trinity
2b) Christ, the second person of the trinity
2c) Holy Spirit, the third person in the trinity
3) spoken of the only and true God
3a) refers to the things of God
3b) his counsels, interests, things due to him
4) whatever can in any respect be likened unto God, or resemble him in any way
4a) God's representative or viceregent
4a1) of magistrates and judges

4214 posov posos pos'-os
from an absolute pos (who, what) and 3739; ; pron
AV-how much 13, how many 9, how many things 2, what 1, how long 1, how great 1; 27
1) how great
2) how much
3) how many

4314 prov pros pros
a strengthened form of 4253; TDNT-6:720,942; prep
AV-unto 340, to 203, with 43, for 25, against 24, among 20, at 11, not tr 6, misc 53, vr to 1; 726
1) to the advantage of
2) at, near, by
3) to, towards, with, with regard to.

4253 pro pro pro
a primary preposition; TDNT-6:683,935; prep
AV-before 44, above 2, above ... ago 1, or ever 1; 48
1) before

1096 ginomai ginomai ghin'-om-ahee
a prolongation and middle voice form of a primary verb; TDNT-1:681,117; v
AV-be 255, come to pass 82, be made 69, be done 63, come 52, become 47, God forbid + 3361 15, arise 13, have 5, be fulfilled 3, be married to 3, be preferred 3, not tr 14, misc 4, vr done 2; 678
1) to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being
2) to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen
2a) of events
3) to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage
3a) of men appearing in public
4) to be made, finished
4a) of miracles, to be performed, wrought
5) to become, be made

Genisis 1:
1 In the beginning <07225> God <0430> created <01254> (8804) <0853> the heaven <08064> and <0853> the earth <0776>.

07225 tyvar re'shiyth ray-sheeth'
from the same as 07218; TWOT-2097e; n f
AV-beginning 18, firstfruits 11, first 9, chief 8, misc 5; 51
1) first, beginning, best, chief
1a) beginning
1b) first
1c) chief
1d) choice part

07218 var ro'sh roshe
from an unused root apparently meaning to shake; TWOT-2097; n m
AV-head 349, chief 91, top 73, beginning 14, company 12, captain 10, sum 9, first 6, principal 5, chapiters 4, rulers 2, misc 23; 598
1) head, top, summit, upper part, chief, total, sum, height, front, beginning
1a) head (of man, animals)
1b) top, tip (of mountain)
1c) height (of stars)
1d) chief, head (of man, city, nation, place, family, priest)
1e) head, front, beginning
1f) chief, choicest, best
1g) head, division, company, band
1h) sum

0430 Myhla 'elohiym el-o-heem'

plural of 0433; TWOT-93c; n m p
AV-God 2346, god 244, judge 5, GOD 1, goddess 2, great 2, mighty 2, angels 1, exceeding 1, God-ward + 04136 1, godly 1; 2606
1) (plural)
1a) rulers, judges
1b) divine ones
1c) angels
1d) gods
2) (plural intensive-singular meaning)
2a) god, goddess
2b) godlike one
2c) works or special possessions of God
2d) the (true) God
2e) God

0433 hwla 'elowahh el-o'-ah rarely (shortened) hla 'eloahh el-o'-ah
probably prolonged (emphat.) from 0410; TWOT-93b; n m
AV-God 52, god 5; 57
1) God
2) false god

0410 la 'el ale
shortened from 0352, Greek 2241 hli and 1664 elioud; TWOT-93a; n m
AV-God 213, god 16, power 4, mighty 5, goodly 1, great 1, idols 1, Immanuel + 06005 2, might 1, strong 1; 245
1) god, god-like one, mighty one
1a) mighty men, men of rank, mighty heroes
1b) angels
1c) god, false god, (demons, imaginations)
1d) God, the one true God, Jehovah
2) mighty things in nature
3) strength, power

0352 lya 'ayil ah'-yil
from the same as 0193; TWOT-45d, e, f, g; n m
AV-ram(s) 156, post(s) 21, mighty (men) 4, trees 2, lintel 1, oaks 1; 185
1) ram
1a) ram (as food)
1b) ram (as sacrifice)
1c) ram (skin dyed red, for tabernacle)
2) pillar, door post, jambs, pilaster
3) strong man, leader, chief
4) mighty tree, terebinth

0193 lwa 'uwl ool
from an unused root meaning to twist, i.e. (by implication) be strong; TWOT-45a; n m
AV-mighty 1, strength 1; 2
1) prominence
1a) body, belly (contemptuous)
1b) nobles, wealthy men

01254 arb bara' baw-raw'
a primitive root; TWOT-278; v
AV-create 42, creator 3, choose 2, make 2, cut down 2, dispatch 1, done 1, make fat 1; 54
1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c) (Piel)
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat

08064 Mymv shamayim shaw-mah'-yim dual of an unused singular hmv shameh shaw-meh'
from an unused root meaning to be lofty; TWOT-2407a; n m
AV-heaven 398, air 21, astrologers + 01895 1; 420
1) heaven, heavens, sky
1a) visible heavens, sky
1a1) as abode of the stars
1a2) as the visible universe, the sky, atmosphere, etc
1b) Heaven (as the abode of God)

01895 rbh habar haw-bar'
a primitive root of uncertain derivation; TWOT-465; v
AV-astrologer 1; 1
1) (Qal) to divide
1a) be an astrologer (with obj-heavens)

Originally posted by Marie:
Yes. It loooks like Truestory is Dottie. She died in her sleep when her body threw a clot to her lung.

Hi Marie,

Thanks for your confirmation of TS identification.

As you've probably gathered TS will be missed here.

Perhaps you could tell us a bit more about Dotti / TS. From all accounts she was a person with high moral values, as was shared by her family:

Quote:
Mom was the bright light in our lives and an inspiration to everyone who
knew her. She was the warm hugger of the world and the life of the party.
She welcomed everyone with open arms. Mom was an intelligent and kind
business leader and made many valuable contributions to the community. She
was very involved in our social lives when we were growing up and continued
to serve the youth of our community until her recent untimely death.


From this I gather she was a very active person both mentaly and physicaly, and that if the untimely had not occured she would have continued to do so.

Were the doctors able to give any additional information other than a blood clot? Was she suffering from any other conditions or taking any medication that could have lead to this?

I would also like additional information the I thing Stretch has asked for regarding her funeral and events that transpired there.

I hope we are not opening healing wounds, its just that so many people her cared for and found comfort in the words of Dorothy.

Allcare

H2o

Marie -

The Bible is a book. It tells a story. To say that it is holy or a 'determinate act of god' is to first imply the existence of said god. That is *NOT* a minor premise!! That is the object of the proof! You are trying to assume what you would be proving!! That is a logical fallacy, and an enormous one at that.

Let me say again that I'm not making assumptions. Assuming it is not the work of a god is no more valid than saying it is. I don't have proof to contradict your claims, but you don't have proof to support it. (See the above paragraph if you are going to respond that it is its own proof.)

Another thing, your belief is most certainly no based on objective reality. Sorry, thats contradictory to the word 'faith'. Another logical fallacy you seem to employ is assuming the lack of existence of proof contrary to the Bible. As I said above, you must first assume a god before the Bible becomes more than a novel, therefore it is unquestionably subjective.

Regards,
FyreStar

Reason >> Emotion

You know, Tony, as furious as I was with the outburst in your post last night I really wanted to respond to your inflammatory and accusatory post immediately and directly. My first thought was HOW DARE HE??? THAT #$%&**!!! WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS???!!! FIRST, HE JUMPS ALL OVER MY CASE, SUGGESTING THAT I MIGHT NOT BE AS WORTHY AS HE IS TO CALL MYSELF A CHRISTIAN - BASICALLY SUGGESTING THAT I SUBMIT MYSELF TO HIS JUDGEMENT AS IF HE WERE THE BOARD'S RESIDENT INQUISITOR!!! AND NOW THIS??? And that was just for starters. I don't usually get like that but your words stung and hurt me severely - to the point where I wanted to lash out and hurt you back. This is a very difficult time for me.

After taking MANY deep breaths and finally getting some sleep I had calmed down today. I prayed and I thought, O.K., well, he's grieving too. His denial is probably part of his grieving process just as my anger towards him right now is probably part of my grieving process. So, I thought I would just let it rest.

Now, after reading your most recent post, I am riled up again because I sense that the inquisition is alive and well and lurking amongst your words. Sorry if I am reading you wrong, but that's how I feel.

To answer some of your questions - Yes, Dottie was all those things and more. Her children (adults) bring such joy to my life right now and we are awaiting the birth of her first grandchild. I think that Dottie not being a part of that child's life is the greatest tragedy of all. Besides being my sister-in-law she was also my closest friend and business partner. We spent mostly every day together for many years. We grew up in the same neighborhood, attended the same school, had children close in age, ended up being members of the same family and started a business together. I love her and miss her more than you could probably ever even imagine. As for her health, as active as Dottie was, she still had circulatory problems and had developed phlebitis. That is what caused the clotting.

I tell you these things because I want to give you the benefit of my doubts about you. (God help me). As far as I'm concerned, based on an internet relationship, as strong as it might have been and as much as you are hurting and miss her presence on this board, you had NO NEED to know the details of Dottie's physical problems and this is as far as I am prepared to go with this discussion.

Staying away from each other for at least a few days is probably a good idea.

Thanks,

Marie

Stretch,

I tried this once before but it got lost in cyberspace. Hope it works this time.

I would very much like to share this with you. Thank you for asking.

The church service was very emotional for me. All I can tell you is that at one point I noticed something moving above but behind the altar. At first it looked like a thick beam of light entering the church through or from one of the high stained-glass windows. Then it started to take on a form. As it came into focus it was clearly a hand that was larger than life. It gave me a sense that it was very pure and loving but it was at least the size of ten or more full-grown men. At the same time, I noticed that the sobbing had quieted down (including mine) and I heard a couple of gasps so I was pretty sure that I was not the only one seeing this. Next, I saw Dottie, or the soul of Dottie I should say because her form was not as dense as we are - she was moving upwards from the area of the casket with her arms outstretched. As the hand slowly reached down, Dottie moved towards the hand and ended up in the open palm with. She looked so beautiful and peaceful, like the happiest bride I have ever seen. The hand gently moved up and away, taking Dottie in the same way that it came.

I was overcome with a sense of joy, peace and comfort. Thinking about it now and sharing it with you really helps me to recapture those feelings.

Outside the church, after the service, people talked quietly about it. I very much believe in God but, it was like nothing I had ever seen before or even imagined.

Thanks for asking,

Marie

Hello Flash,

Thanks for your kind words and don't worry about the difference thing. Dottie and I always had differences, even to the day she died but we always loved each other. She had a unique way of loving people no matter what. I'm sure if she were here that she would tell you that she loved you too.

Thanks,

Marie

Hello FyreStar,

I appreciate your thoughts and I didn't want to leave you hanging.

Right now, with some of the other things going on in my life I find our argument to be realatively petty (although, admittedly, I basically started it). Hope you don't mind if I beg out. Maybe we can pick it up some other time.

Thanks again,

Marie

Hello Marie,

No don't wince, I need to clear a few things up for our peace of mind.


[QUOTE]Originally posted by Marie:
[B]You know, Tony, as furious as I was with the outburst in your post last night I really wanted to respond to your inflammatory and accusatory post immediately and directly. My first thought was HOW DARE HE??? THAT #$%&**!!! WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS???!!! FIRST, HE JUMPS ALL OVER MY CASE, SUGGESTING THAT I MIGHT NOT BE AS WORTHY AS HE IS TO CALL MYSELF A CHRISTIAN - BASICALLY SUGGESTING THAT I SUBMIT MYSELF TO HIS JUDGEMENT AS IF HE WERE THE BOARD'S RESIDENT INQUISITOR!!! AND NOW THIS??? And that was just for starters. I don't usually get like that but your words stung and hurt me severely - to the point where I wanted to lash out and hurt you back. This is a very difficult time for me.


Firstly regarding Truestory:

At all times I attempted to convey and make clear to you and others that my concern was for the memory of TS or Dorothy.
In light of this and in light of the knowledge that anyone can roll up here and make any claims of association that they want for whatever reasons may be their motivation I considered it best to follow my gut instinct. It did not sit right with me. My main motivator and I thought and hoped that you may see this was to preserve the memory of TS and I carried this out the only way I know how and tell others how. TEST EVERYTHING and EVERYONE, test their character and motivation. Hold fast to what is proven, tried and revealed as good. Do you honestly think I took it lightly?? Do you honestly think that it didn't cross my mind that you may be the real McCoy?? These things did and they weighed heavy on me because I hate to see people hurting and I hate it even more when the actions I take may cause to aggravate that condition. But at the same time I could not in all honesty sit back and assume that by the dropping of a name an individual had an association with another. And if you seriously look at how it came about it was for sure somewhat of a weird situation. My main motivator was to protect, to protect the integrity of someone who was no longer here to do that for herself, and to protect individuals here who's lives have been profoundly touched by TS and her passing.

So having said that I do sincerely offer my deepest and heartfelt condolence for the loss to you and you family. I would ask your forgiveness for having put you through this. Cyberspace is a strange place and does not always reflect the reality of a situation, this is why I test. It may be that individuals I grow to know are merely constructs, and it may even be that a number of constructed personalities that we grow to respect are attached to one individual. Who really knows? Regardless of the faceless names there is always a real person somewhere in the background that I am hoping and praying for.


Quote:
Now, after reading your most recent post, I am riled up again because I sense that the inquisition is alive and well and lurking amongst your words. Sorry if I am reading you wrong, but that's how I feel.


You did not read me wrong, I was not trying to get you riled I was checking the veracity of your claims, I was enquiring further. It was not a personal attack against a real person at the other end of a keyboard, I was fishing for information to check the depth of your statement about the passing of TS and the cause of her passing. The reason for this and so that we can be totally honest with each other is that less than 10% of people who suffer from a Pulmonary Embolism die as a result, and even less of a percentage when the individual is active and relatively healthy. For it to be life threatening the size of the aneurism that lodges in a critical area needs to be significant which further reduces the likely hood of mortality. A simple brief statement regarding a cause that does not have a very high statistical mortality rate needed to be tested. I am sorry for the angst and upset this may have caused.


Quote:
To answer some of your questions - Yes, Dottie was all those things and more. Her children (adults) bring such joy to my life right now and we are awaiting the birth of her first grandchild. I think that Dottie not being a part of that child's life is the greatest tragedy of all. Besides being my sister-in-law she was also my closest friend and business partner. We spent mostly every day together for many years. We grew up in the same neighbourhood, attended the same school, had children close in age, ended up being members of the same family and started a business together. I love her and miss her more than you could probably ever even imagine. As for her health, as active as Dottie was, she still had circulatory problems and had developed phlebitis. That is what caused the clotting.


I along with others do greatly appreciate the openness and honesty of your answers, also for giving us a greater insight into the person we new only as TS. The condition that you mention called Phlebitis is closely related to and generally suffered in conjunction with Thrombosis, a condition that can lead to blood clotting and circulatory problems. I am pleased that you offered us this insight and to me this is more than enough proof of your identification and claims. I am sure that this will now put many minds and hearts to rest regarding your authenticity and the fact that you are not some twisted cyberspace junkie trying to take a ride in on another persons reputation. Again thank you very much for this.


Quote:
I tell you these things because I want to give you the benefit of my doubts about you. (God help me). As far as I'm concerned, based on an internet relationship, as strong as it might have been and as much as you are hurting and miss her presence on this board, you had NO NEED to know the details of Dottie's physical problems and this is as far as I am prepared to go with this discussion.

Staying away from each other for at least a few days is probably a good idea.


You are absolutely correct, it is non of our business. It was however the only avenue that was available to explore the claims and co-incidence. As for staying away from each other, well I'm sorry if what I'm typing is hurting you again but I'm not one for letting highly emotional issues just sit and fester. I would prefer to be totally honest with you, take my licks and cop my just deserts rather than to have you completely upset at me beyond reconciliation.

Quote:
HOW DARE HE??? THAT #$%&**!!! WHO DOES HE THINK HE IS???!!! FIRST, HE JUMPS ALL OVER MY CASE, SUGGESTING THAT I MIGHT NOT BE AS WORTHY AS HE IS TO CALL MYSELF A CHRISTIAN - BASICALLY SUGGESTING THAT I SUBMIT MYSELF TO HIS JUDGEMENT AS IF HE WERE THE BOARD'S RESIDENT INQUISITOR!!! AND NOW THIS???


Marie, this is a totally separate issue to the one above and I will in due course respond to clarify our understanding of what the Bible describes a Christian to be. I am not judging you by my standards, I am judging by the same standards that I who call myself a Christian judge myself by and will be judged by, the Word of God, the Bible.

Marie,

Outside of what has occurred over the past few days I do sincerely hope that we can come to know each other better, TS / Dorothy was a special person to many here before I even showed up. Through reading her posts and discussion we had I was getting to know her, a very special individual. We shared some very similar experiences. We, all of us here feel robbed at the loss of her. But what we feel can in no way compare to the heart wrenching pain that someone who knew her as a tangible being, a friend, a companion must be going through. I too have felt similar pain recently and still do with the loss of a cousin to drugs, a tragic waste of a young life. Although we were not as close as you and Dottie I do have an understanding of what you and your family are going through.

You know sometimes I wish I could go back and take back those things I posted, but I can't and even if I could would I have? For me not to do what I did would probably have also been wrong and untrue to myself, perhaps I should have lived with my own doubts silently for a time, that way I would not have caused you such pain. I don't know? I make no apology for having stood up for the memory of TS, I do however apologise for my pig headed insensitivity and lack of forethought at the pain that the wounds you are bearing was causing you. And for this I will grieve with you and ask forgiveness. Its hard to tie emotions to words Marie, but if I could post my heart up here for all to see the sincerity of my words I would.

All care

Tony H2o

Marie,

Thanks for your kind response. I am not one little bit surprised by the events that you describe.
It really goes to show that we can debate and reason from faith and experience and the make-up of our social fabric, and come to logical conclusions. Then an experience like the one describe by you, shatters all our previous perceptions, and we stand in awe of the utter Grace and Mystery of our God. TS (Truestory) shared many of the Supernatural manifestations in her life with us in this forum, and I have often wished for a similar experience to come my way. She was special and was rewarded by these experiences. For myself it confirms that which I have come to understand … that this short life we live on Earth, is but a stepping stone on our travels through Gods reality.
Thanks once again for sharing.

Take care

Marie--

Please forgive the short delay in my reply; actually, it seems much longer than it has been since I failed to respond to your midnight 3/22 post.

As to the term to describe God, I'm generally comfortable with the word "God." When I call upon images for my own theology, I usually invoke a form of the Triune Goddess, but I'm not insistent about gender distinctions within the Infinite Mystery (as a related note, authors are authors and not "authoresses", comedians are comedians and not "comediennes", actors are actors and not "actresses"; if you can write, if you can act, if you're funny ... and especially if you're the Almighty, I don't think gender really matters.)


Wouldn't the original, immediately-created individuals actually be the center of God's regard at that moment? And, as members of the human race, wouldn't all descendants of the original, immedialtely-created individuals actually be justified in a way to claim that they were "chosen" (not that I'd choose to use that term because it tends to connote exclusivity).

I'll try to work with short responses here to prevent conceptual spiraling on my own part:

* Yes, the original, immediately-created individuals would be the center of God's attention at the moment of their creation.

* By human standards, yes, these created individuals, the first tier, would be able to foster some notion that they were Chosen. However, by a godly standard, such conclusions still seem a little irresponsible; I would ask, "Chosen as compared to what?"

However ... the immediately-created individuals would be no more Chosen than, say, a tree or fish or even a rock, for God had to give his attention to those for the moment of thier creation. Furthermore, as regards the exclusivity you've mentioned ... there is a powerful issue. While questioning God's motives generally results in a philosophical mess, there is no real advisement against observing the mystery in relation to the motives. As such ... in the Cherokee legend I've surveyed, the buzzard landed in Cherokee country because he was tired; there really isn't anything special about that. The Hopi story asserts that the faith of the people led them to this world, which then defies creation in the alpha/omega sense. Perhaps it's only modern convention, and therefore something that I've missed, but if I might single out the Hebrew creation tale for a moment ... it seems the Hebrews remain separate from the rest of humanity in their Chosenness. Lutheran confirmation, Catholic high-school theology, and the intervening years of informal study have failed to account (within my view of the situation) for the fact that the other nations of Biblical scope seem to exist merely as tools to facilitate the Hebrew endurance of their time on Earth. Where the Hopi story asserts that the Hopi people actively did something--rather, failed to not do something--to keep the favor of the Spider Woman, who facilitated their passage through the Worlds into the present world. This is not regarded as a command from God, but rather seems to be that when the time came to end the World, only a few people [the Hopi] remembered the keys to succeeding within that other World. The Hebrews seem to be Chosen simply for the merit of their creation.

Wow ... so much for not spiraling. Um ... I think the sum of that all would read: I would not contest the notion of God's attention at creation, but the faith-oriented notions inspired by being Chosen seem to separate the Chosen people from the rest of humanity, limiting entirely the scope of God's authority, promise, and possibility.


If the only blank page about God was the first moment of awareness, that moment of "I" whereafter all else becomes comparative and subjective, what do you think happened that caused humans to "create" a non-physical God rather than using such a comparative and subjective nature to compare themselves to the vast, readily-apparent physical universe which surrounded them?

Crowley asserted that a human male could achieve that blankness at the moment of orgasm; while I think I see what he was getting after, I'm only in agreement in an academic sense; I cannot offer any practical perspective on it except that yes, the mind is really quite blank at that moment. ;)

So, excessive sexuality aside ....

I'm curious about how "readily apparent" the physical universe was. The first thing I need to presuppose is evolution, or some form of Creationism that extends beyond the six-thousand years of the restricted form of creaitonism. Actually, let me correct that: I need to presuppose evolution for the moment. In that sense, there was a time when our ancestors' brains were no bigger than, say, the common housecat. Watch a cat or dog or any animal with a smaller brain regard a familiar object. The least change in status requires new examination by the animal. (My cat doesn't trust one of her toys; she has to reassess whether this platform-tree with dangly-rattly-balls is going to devour her every time she sets one of the balls in motion with her tail.)

So I have to question what "readily-apparent" indicates here. While certainly, there is a tree or a rock there, that is all that could be known about it. Thus we invest something beyond ourselves in those objects; the counterpoint having to do with harmonic vibrations, whereby supernatural creations could be psychological manifestations of a delicate perception of those vibrations. But I admit it would seem counterevolutionary to diminish that sense, had it existed at all. Therefore, being inclined toward the presuppositon of evolution, I would assert that humans invented their deities to personify those things and events they could not explain: the sun, the moon, the vastness of the earth beneath their feet; running water, the tides, the rain; lightning, fire, death.

If we look at it through evolution-tinted spectacles: 500 years out of 4 million years have humans known the earth is round. From a restricted creationary standpoint (as a juxtaposition only, not an argumentative limitation), 500 years out of 6000, about 1/12th of our time on Earth ... why did it take so long to figure out the world was round (I do not mean to be sarcastic when I say: the Earth is round ... doesn't it seem that God would have mentioned that? Or at least that you wouldn't fall off the edge of the horizon?) But actually, I wonder about how readily apparent those ideas are. Certes things like atoms are not readily apparent, but the Horizon itself ... oh, that's right, the Greeks knew the Earth was round. But I would hope to convey to you the question of how readily apparent the physical universe has been.

And now I've burned a lot of paid time on this, which doesn't concern me too much, but the piles on my desk are reaching the limits of managability if I want to do anything today. As always, let me know if I stop making sense. Thank you much for these questions, which give me space to play around in my head while I build the answers and counterpoints. But of those things I have failed to address ... I apologize. I would hope to return to them at a later time.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

Marie -

As you wish.

Regards,
FyreStar

Tony,

Sorry about the late response. Thanks for the info. I`m trying to get my head around the most rational interpretation, and will posts my thoughts at that time. Do you have a link to the site you took your info from?
This would greatly help my quest.

Take care

Hello tiassa,

No apology necessary. I am seeing time as more and more of a precious gift these days, so thanks for sharing some of yours with me. BTW, I hope you are taking time to go outside once in awhile to take in the sights, sounds, texture and fragrances and spirit of this wonderful world! (Actually, this is more of a hope for all of us, including myself). :)

I agree with you that gender doesn't really matter when it comes to God. Putting the concept of any type of physical body aside with respect to God, what I am left with is the qualities of spirit which, to me, encompass what we have come to know as both male and female.

Speaking of Hopi and coming to know, do you recognize these sayings? (Hopefully, the male gender was just used out of convenience.) ;)

He who knows not,
and knows not that he knows not,
is a fool - shun him.

He who knows not,
and knows that he knows not,
is a child - teach him.

He who knows,
and knows not that he knows,
is asleep - wake him.

He who knows,
and knows that he knows,
is wise - follow him.

OOOPS!!! Duty calls again. To be continued...

Marie--

For some reason my low period set in a couple of months late this season, about the New Year instead of just after Hallowe'en. But this week, especially, the weather has begun to force the springtime issue, and already I can feel my brain lightening in the sunshine. I'm convinced that the season of the new has begun in my corner of the world.

I must admit that I am generally uneducated about the Hopi. Their historical importance has always seemed present; history, archaeology, sociology, and anthropology texts all will cite the Hopi at some point; I've always been given to the notion that this has nothing to do with any extraordinary cultural attributes, but I'm starting to see that I'm wrong. Tunatyava, "comes true, being hoped for", is a stunning idea to me, which I literally learned this week. It sort of clicked beside other things I've heard about the Hopi (including possible alphabetic ties to the eastern side of the Atlantic Ocean) and I'm hoping to take some time before summer to learn more.

The Hopi wisdom you've included rings a bell, but I think I'm thinking of some Crowleyan idea, or other such. Literally, I might have seen those ideas in the Hopi context if they're on a coffee cup somewhere, but as familiar as the words seem, I can't remember ever having read them as Hopi wisdom. Chinese, maybe?

I will say, though, that I've never learned verb-oriented language structure, which was asserted of Hopi in the magazine article on tunatyava. That's my primary fascination, a different way of communicating, a focus on different priorities. How such a language affects culture, and therefore theology (which I generally assert to be a part of a culture) holds great possibilities for insight.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

(Edits ... well, I'm just an idiot sometimes and write dumb things that have no proper syntax)
------------------
The whole business with the fossilized dinosaur eggs was a joke the paleontologists haven't seen yet. (Good Omens, Gaiman & Pratchett)

[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited March 24, 2000).]

Originally posted by Stretch:
Tony,

Do you have a link to the site you took your info from?
This would greatly help my quest.

Take care


Stretch,

Online Bible, just type it into your browser and it should take you there. Its a very comprehensive tool and includes may translations along with the greek and hebrew word definitions. It is free to download, it also has a Bible dictionary included.

Allcare

Tony H2o