Philosophy Now Forum

Consider this: All higher order animals think and reason to some degree, simple observation of cats and dogs demonstrates that claim. Human brains, however, have evolved further, to the point where most of us have an active conscience, a superego (Freud's term) that helps us discern right from wrong. Nature itself is clearly beyond good and evil, but humans know the difference. Through our minds, we have superimposed morality on the world.

For those people who cultivate an awareness of the spiritual dimension of reality, the conscience serves as the primary receptor for guidance from spirit beings - angels, the Holy Ghost, or in some cases, demons. It is the center of our soul. Most people in the civilized world, however, are materialists who consciously reject the idea of a spiritual dimension, or at least are deeply suspicious. To them, religious belief is almost indistinguishable from superstition.

To the God-fearing believer, supernatural phenomena (e.g., miraculous healings) can only be explained as intervention of the Paraclete. The serious devil worshiper also perceives certain supernatural phenomena (e.g., trance states) and rightfully attributes them to intervention by his/her favorite demon.

What do you think? - CW

chasw wrote:Consider this: All higher order animals think and reason to some degree, simple observation of cats and dogs demonstrates that claim. Human brains, however, have evolved further, to the point where most of us have an active conscience, a superego (Freud's term) that helps us discern right from wrong. Nature itself is clearly beyond good and evil, but humans know the difference. Through our minds, we have superimposed morality on the world.

For those people who cultivate an awareness of the spiritual dimension of reality, the conscience serves as the primary receptor for guidance from spirit beings - angels, the Holy Ghost, or in some cases, demons. It is the center of our soul. Most people in the civilized world, however, are materialists who consciously reject the idea of a spiritual dimension, or at least are deeply suspicious. To them, religious belief is almost indistinguishable from superstition.

To the God-fearing believer, supernatural phenomena (e.g., miraculous healings) can only be explained as intervention of the Paraclete. The serious devil worshiper also perceives certain supernatural phenomena (e.g., trance states) and rightfully attributes them to intervention by his/her favorite demon.

What do you think? - CW

That all this can easily be understood as one stands in front of the mirror, seeing their reflection, as that of everyone else. Make no mistake, one shall be standing there for quite some time, for sure, if their minds eye be opened.

The clear of mind are those that are agnostic, as they see possibility either way, they are just not necessarily fool enough, to bet on an invisible horse, conjured by ignorance, belief or desire, they do not necessarily leap as to anyone's faith, as they have lived and understand the pitfalls of the mind and it's senses. Power over no one but themselves, is where they live, as surely the man in the mirror advises.

chasw wrote:Consider this: All higher order animals think and reason to some degree, simple observation of cats and dogs demonstrates that claim. Human brains, however, have evolved further, to the point where most of us have an active conscience, a superego (Freud's term) that helps us discern right from wrong. Nature itself is clearly beyond good and evil, but humans know the difference. Through our minds, we have superimposed morality on the world.

For those people who cultivate an awareness of the spiritual dimension of reality, the conscience serves as the primary receptor for guidance from spirit beings - angels, the Holy Ghost, or in some cases, demons. It is the center of our soul. Most people in the civilized world, however, are materialists who consciously reject the idea of a spiritual dimension, or at least are deeply suspicious. To them, religious belief is almost indistinguishable from superstition.

To the God-fearing believer, supernatural phenomena (e.g., miraculous healings) can only be explained as intervention of the Paraclete. The serious devil worshiper also perceives certain supernatural phenomena (e.g., trance states) and rightfully attributes them to intervention by his/her favorite demon.

What do you think? - CW

"For God hath put in their hearts to fulfil his will, and to agree, and give their kingdom unto the beast, until the words of God shall be fulfilled." --Revelation 17:17

"The evil that lurks in the minds of men is manifested in the collective evil of the beast. Understand the man and you cannot be deceived by his institutions." --from "The Ouzo Prophecy"

It is our institutions that prevent God's will from reaching our minds.

bobevenson wrote:It is our institutions that prevent God's will from reaching our minds.

This thing you call "God's will" is incumbent upon who knows what any god's will is. Those who speak of knowing any God is merely a presumptive shot in the dark.

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote:It is our institutions that prevent God's will from reaching our minds.

This thing you call "God's will" is incumbent upon who knows what any god's will is. Those who speak of knowing any God is merely a presumptive shot in the dark.

God's will is already in our heart, but our institutions prevent it from reaching our mind.

bobevenson wrote:God's will is already in our heart, but our institutions prevent it from reaching our mind.

That is a matter of belief based upon trust in those who portend to speak for god.

Do you accept those who speak of 'god' to be truthful or hopeful in their own belief?

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote:God's will is already in our heart, but our institutions prevent it from reaching our mind.

That is a matter of belief based upon trust in those who portend to speak for god.

Who but a divinely-inspired prophet could have written "The Ouzo Prophecy," my friend?

bobevenson wrote: Who but a divinely-inspired prophet could have written "The Ouzo Prophecy," my friend?

Perhaps a madman... or even one who is drunk on the idea of a god that takes care of her/him..?

Not having read this 'Prophecy' (is it simply accidental that you keep bring that up?), I have read and am familiar with what is referred to as "holy books", which I find in many to be very trippy and worthwhile to those who enjoy poetic and imaginative pieces. The real trick is holding onto the reader, having them engrossed in the subject.

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Who but a divinely-inspired prophet could have written "The Ouzo Prophecy," my friend?

Perhaps a madman... or even one who is drunk on the idea of a god that takes care of her/him..?

Not having read this 'Prophecy' (is it simply accidental that you keep bring that up?), I have read and am familiar with what is referred to as "holy books", which I find in many to be very trippy and worthwhile to those who enjoy poetic and imaginative pieces. The real trick is holding onto the reader, having them engrossed in the subject.

Please refrain from commenting further until you have read it at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf.

bobevenson wrote: Please refrain from commenting further until you have read it at http://church-of-ouzo.com/pdf/ouzo-prophecy.pdf.

You certainly appear desperate to find someone... anyone to partake of this writing.

Personally, bobevenson, I'm not interest at all and would well advise anyone reading this to do the same.

mtmynd1 wrote:You certainly appear desperate to find someone... anyone to partake of this writing.

No, I thought you might perhaps have normal intellectual curiosity, but obviously I was wrong.

bobevenson wrote:... I thought you might perhaps have normal intellectual curiosity, but obviously I was wrong.

Good to see you admit your faults.

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote:... I thought you might perhaps have normal intellectual curiosity, but obviously I was wrong.

Good to see you admit your faults.

Having a thought is not a fault, my friend.

bobevenson wrote: Having a thought is not a fault, my friend.

Do you recall writing: "...but obviously I was wrong"?

mtmynd1 wrote:

bobevenson wrote: Having a thought is not a fault, my friend.

Do you recall writing: "...but obviously I was wrong"?

Making an assumption that proves wrong is not a fault, my friend.