>The Way has never known boundaries, speech has no constancy. But because of [the recognition of a] "this," there came to be boundaries. Let me tell you what the boundaries are. There is left, there is right, there are theories, there are debates, there are divisions, there are discriminations, there are emulations, and there are contentions. These are called the Eight Virtues. As to what is beyond the Six Realms, the sage admits it exists but does not theorize. As to what is within the Six Realms, he theorizes but does not debate. In the case of the Spring and Autumn, the record is the former kings of past ages, the sage debates but does not discriminate.
I sort of understand "theorizes but does not debate"—I interpret this as "has his own perspective/opinion, but it's unimportant." The highlighted end section I fail to understand. It seems that in a formal instance, this Spring and Autumn session, debate took place, but how does not discriminating fit that occasion?
I would post this in the reading group, but it's not on this section yet. At the end of section 3, chapter 8:
> Now what sea is this you have crossed, exactly, and what sea is it you have plunged more than once to the bottom of, alerted, full of adrenalin, but caught really, buffaloed under the epistemologies of these threats that paranoid you so down and out, caught in this steel pot, softening to devitaminized mush inside the soup-stock of your own words, your waste submarine breath? It took the Dreyfus Affair to get the Zionists out and doing, finally: what will drive you out of your soup-kettle? Has it already happened? Was it tonight’s attack and deliverance? Will you go to the Heath, and begin your settlement, and wait there for your Director to come?
I was wondering about what's the metaphorical "sea" that Pynchon refers to (perhaps like the idea of iceberg chart memes or something, where the craziest stuff is at the bottom).
When he switches to the waste pot, I thought of this as the true sort of bottom that you're in, mistaken for the bottom of the sea, mistaken for the true nature of Them, wallowing in paranoia.
The last sentence is plot related in that the characters plan to go to Luneburg Heath to shoot a film promoting their cause. I'm not sure what driving out of the soup kettle means then: is it just a compromise that the anarchist cause feels that making a movie necessitates?
So Harry gives him the book to read and Quirrell's reaction is;
>"This -" Professor Quirrell said, and coughed, it didn't sound quite right. "This is a fascinating book... if I'd ever realized..." A laugh, mixed with another cough. "Why did I assume the Muggle arts... must not be mine? That they would be... of no use to me? Why did I never bother trying... to test it experimentally... as you would say? In case... my assumption... was wrong? It seems sheerly foolish of me... in retrospect..."
Now It's totally possible he's just humoring Harry and playing mindgames with him. That this part has no hidden meaning, it's just Quirrell laying it on thick.
If he's actually telling the truth he hints at stuff but doesn't say anything directly. It's like the book gave him some concept or idea and he's actually kicking himself for not thinking of it himself.
Anyone have an idea what he may have gleaned from the book?
The examples they gave us are an article that talks about the Corona virus being a rollercoaster Or the idea of fake news in an news article. I can’t seem to find an article or anything. . We need to explain the actual meaning or the word and what they actually mean in the article/passage/movie
> Q: What is the meaning of the passage: ‘Mañjuśrī stood before Gautama with a drawn sword'?
> A: The ‘Five Hundred Bodhisattvas' attained knowledge of their previous lives and discovered how their previous karma had been constructed. This a fable in which the ‘Five Hundred' really refers to your five senses. On account of their knowledge of their previous karma, they SOUGHT the Buddha, Bodhisattvahood and Nirvāna objectively. It was for this reason that Mañjuśrī took up the Sword of Bodhi and used it to destroy the concept of a tangible Buddha; and it is for this that he is known as the destroyer of human virtues!
> Q: What does the Sword really signify?
> A: It signifies the apprehension of Mind.
> Q: So the Sword used to destroy the concept of a tangible Buddha is the apprehension of Mind. Well, then, if we are able to put an end to such concepts by this means, how is their destruction actually accomplished?
> A: You must use that wisdom which comes from non-dualism to destroy your concept-forming, dualistic mentality.
> Q: Assuming that the concepts of something perceptible and of Enlightenment as something to be sought can be destroyed by drawing the Sword of Non-Discriminatory Wisdom, where precisely is such a sword to be found?
> A: Since non-discriminatory wisdom is the destroyer both of perception and of its opposite, it must also belong to the Non-perceptible.
> Q: Knowledge cannot be used to destroy knowledge, nor a sword to destroy a sword.
> A: Sword DOES destroy sword—they destroy each other—and the no sword remains for you to grasp. Knowledge DOES destroy knowledge—this knowledge invalidates that knowledge—and then no knowledge remains for you to grasp. It is as though mother and son perished together.
What’s your karma?
This excludes context that can be gleaned from another part of the same biblical book or wider Scriptures.
I ask this partly to test my own understanding of and belief in the sufficiency and perspicuity of Scripture. Also because a church I used to attend greatly encourages reading the rest of a book to understand a particular passage as well as the author’s intentions for their particular audience and how the book fits together and is structured. (They’re very big on “every-member ministry” and training as many people as possible in handling the biblical text.) I’ve personally found that difficult or hard-to-interpret passages often become a lot clearer when taken in the context of the wider book and the purpose of the author. I’ve also learned that doing this can sometimes change what at first seemed like the ‘obvious’ meaning of a text, or at least make its meaning more focussed. However this is still well within the bounds of scriptural sufficiency and perspicuity, since the surrounding context being investigated is within the scriptures regardless.
What I’m currently trying to figure out is the extent to which going deeper into the surrounding culture and history of the time, outside of the Bible, can actually change the meaning of a text dramatically, and would raise some challenging questions around perspicuity and sufficiency.
My current theological position is that knowledge of the surrounding history and culture helps a lot, and for example simply knowing the Temple of Artemis existed in Ephesus and the surrounding Artemis cult helps to bring a richer, more fruitful and more precise understanding of the context and purpose of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. However, at the same time I don’t think this historical knowledge ever dramatically changes the meaning of the text from its “plain reading”. Or to think of it in another way, if we have a dot named “truth” which is the precise meaning of a passage as intended by the author surrounded by concentric circles, the face-value ‘plain reading’ (which still takes into account the wider book and its structure and purpose) might be an outer circle and a deeper reading with surrounding historical context might be an inner circle, but never will the plain reading be a triangle or some completely contradictory meaning that is way off base.
Anyway, I really look forward to learning from you all.
The sort of thing I'm asking about would have been seen as important by some churches but the concept would have been lost by the modern era. I'm not referring to churches that would have been outside of the empire's territory, as I would not expect them to be canonical. I'm interested in the loss of things that would be considered fairly important by early empire-friendly Christian churches (not groups that were outside of the empire's territory). If there are any specific verses that can be cited as having a forgotten meaning that would be of particular interest.
Yesterday I was in a reading group for Frankl's " Man's Search for Meaning", one of the books recommended by JBP, and I got into a very serious discussion about this passage:
>Let me cite a clear-cut example: Once, an elderly general practitioner consulted me because of his severe depression. He could not overcome the loss of his wife who had died two years before and whom he had loved above all else. Now, how could I help him? What should I tell him? Well, I refrained from telling him anything but instead confronted him with the question, "What would have happened, Doctor, if you had died first, and your wife would have had to survive you?" "Oh," he said, "for her this would have been terrible; how she would have suffered!" Whereupon I replied, "You see, Doctor, such a suffering has been spared her, and it was you who have spared her this suffering—to be sure, at the price that now you have to survive and mourn her." He said no word but shook my hand and calmly left my office. In some way, suffering ceases to be suffering at the moment it finds a meaning, such as the meaning of a sacrifice.
I think this is a really horrible advice! The man did absolutely nothing and had no due on her dying. How is it that he can claim that he is the one who spared her from the suffering? I think it's completely unearned. I find no meaning in that kind of thinking. I think you can still keep meaning in someone's death, based on how that life and yours touched each other. I remember the good moments we spent together and try to continue that person's ways and thoughts. It is through that and cherishing good memories that that person continues to have an influence. There is no need for heaven in that kind of meaning, and much less a need to grab meaning out of convincing oneself out of an unearned "achievement".
Most people in the group told me not to read it literally. I re-read the passage but Frankl is very explicit, to the extend of enunciating this as a clear-cut example. A man comes and asks how to think about something and he literally says: think about it in this way. He then goes on to tell how that man did find "meaning" in thinking in that way. He continues writing about the idea and keeps talking about the concept. How is it then that we need to read between the lines and try to find a different version of what he "meant". Those kind of interpretations are usually a red flag for me. Seems to be very similar to cases like people defending a politician... keep reading on reddit ➡
This subreddit is, naturally, filled with Christian apologetics. The Bible, from a neutral and fresh perspective is littered with problematic passages. These vary from morally concerning (death of all first born in Egypt, Lot's wife being turned to salt) to inconsistent (differing accounts of the Nativity, a made up prophecy in Matthew 27:9-10, the inconsistency on how many animals Jesus rode into Jerusalem on, etc), to wrong (Noah's flood was not worldwide, Jesus' prediction about his return did not come to pass).
I fully expect that every Christian here could raise some kind of response and reintepretation to make these not wrong, but that in and of itself is the problem. Why do so many verses, even ones that appear to be very obvious and very plain in meaning, need some sort of esoteric reinterpretation? The most glaring example I can think of is Jesus prediction that he would return very soon after his death. He believed it. His disciples, even up until Paul and likely beyond, believed it. "This generation will not pass" seems pretty obvious in meaning, but you will hear multiple explanations for how this doesn't mean what it sounds like it means, which is weird considering all the disciples believed it meant exactly what it sounded like. Christianity is unlikely to be true considering the amount of verbal gymnastics needed to make it consistent.
I had no idea that Rush's song: A Passage to Bangkok was talking about travelling the world, lookong for the best cannabis! https://youtu.be/M116Iw4sWUo
I read both, MBotF and ICE's main books, and I'm ln hold on my first reread, about to start RG. I'm looking for passages on the meaning of life on any of the books I've read (I'm sure there are a ton on Kharkanas but I haven't got there yet).
Someone with the books a little bit fresher in their minds care to point me in the right direction? Something as narrow as chapter works for me, and I'll find the paragraphs I need.
"yes... the world does spin. In fact, it spins on its axis even as it revolves around the sun. And the galaxy turns as well, a wheel within a greater wheel, producing a chime of an entirely different nature than that of a tiny hammer in a clock. And when that celestial chime sounds, perhaps a mirror will suddenly serve its truer purpose—revealing to a man not who he imagines himself to be, but who he has become".
-A Gentleman in Moscow
(very sorry if this type of post is not allowed here. if not, please tell me where i should ask this type of question)
Cartesian Meditations, passage 107 in section 55, there's a sentence that reads (I'm translating) "Animals are mostly constituted for myself as abnormal "variations" of my humanity [humanness?], without stopping me to distinguish within the animal order normal from abnormal. This is still about intentional modifications that reveal themselves as such in the structure of their sense."
What I don't understand is are these modifications made to intentionality made by the phenomena (of apperception of animals) or by consciousness (the ego)? I'm just not sure where these modifications are coming from.
Hello everyone, as I was reading the Enchiridion (I don't remember which translation I used), I came accross the following passage:
"As in a voyage, when the ship is at anchor, if you go on shore to get water, you may amuse yourself with picking up a shellfish or a truffle in your way, but your thoughts ought to be bend toward the ship, and perpetually attentive, lest the captain should call, and then you must leave all these things, that you may not have to be carried on board the vessel, bound like a sheep; thus likewise in life, if, instead of a truffle or shellfish, such a thing as a wife or a child be granted you, there is no objection; but if the captain calls, run to the ship, leave all these things, and never look behind. But if you are old, never go far from the ship, lest you should be missing when called for." (section VII)
Now, I'm having some conflicting thoughts about this. At first, I read it as a reminder to keep one's mind on one's duty and not be distracted by amusing trifles. On the other hand, the remark about being old and being ready to leave everything behind suggested to me that it was really about being prepared to die. Is it perhaps a combination of these things?
Thank you for reading.
If any person here has ever gotten into a debate with a Christian over the bible, they will recognize the tactic of "arguing away" a passage in the bible.
Let's just do a basic one as an example
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’[h] 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Now, if I said that Jesus was proposing that people should not defend themselves against their enemy, I would be told that I was being a "literalist".
This is basically how every conversation goes, the Christian argues what sounds good in their heads and whether or not it even remotely qualifies as wisdom does not matter.
The rabbi who had his skin flayed off his back and then nailed to a plank of wood at the joints is NOT saying to be a pacifist in the face of a "evil person". He is saying [enter random benign sounding idea here].
It just needs to make sense and sound passable, it doesn't need to standout as actual wisdom because Christians aren't trying to argue for the value of the bible, they are trying to make it look not bad.
Christians might say something like "Jesus isn't saying to let a evil person abuse you, you can defend yourself but he is preaching that you should not go too far and hurt anyone."
It makes Jesus seem like a moron when it comes to explaining himself. He is supposedly an all powerful god in human form, but giving a clear message is daily struggle.
Me: "Jesus just told people to help their oppressors to operate more efficently!"
Xtian: "No, you misunderstand. Jesus was saying to be extra helpful to everyone."
Me: "But "go the extra mile" specifically refers to a rule Romans made up about forcing people they conquered to carry their equipment one mile in any direction! The phrase we use today is based on Jesus saying this!"
Xtian: "No, you are reading too much into this. Jesus is just saying to go beyond the call of duty with people."
Me: "But he was literally talking to Jews and telling them to go beyond the call of duty to help their oppressors!"
Xtian: "You are distorting the scripture and ruining the spirit of the teaching."
In additon to it making it seem like god in... keep reading on reddit ➡
Be at peace, this is not a long analysis piece, but I was reading /u/TheGursh's post on Ghost Grass, and lately I've been thinking a lot about Euron Greyjoy and his purpose in the story. I might have found a literary connection between the Dothraki Sea and Euron Greyjoy. It may be nothing -- a repeated use of a phrase by GRRM. Or could signify events to come in The Winds of Winter.
##The Dothraki Sea
Ok -- after Daenerys marries Khal Drogo in A Game of Thrones, they begin the long march back to Vaes Dothrak. Early on, they encounter the massive grassland known as the Dothraki Sea. Jorah Mormont explains what the Dothraki Sea is to Daenerys (and thus to us):
> "The Dothraki sea," Ser Jorah Mormont said as he reined to a halt beside her on the top of the ridge. > > Beneath them, the plain stretched out immense and empty, a vast flat expanse that reached to the distant horizon and beyond. It was a sea, Dany thought. Past here, there were no hills, no mountains, no trees nor cities nor roads, only the endless grasses, the tall blades rippling like waves when the winds blew. (AGOT, Daenerys III)
Daenerys thinks that the grass is incredibly green, but Jorah tells her of other things. /u/TheGursh's post is on the ghost grass portion of it, but I was to focus in on something else.
> It’s so green," she said.
> "Here and now," Ser Jorah agreed. "You ought to see it when it blooms, all dark red flowers from horizon to horizon, like a sea of blood."
This really caught my attention during my latest re-read, but I didn't understand why it caught my attention until just now. And if I'm not breaking any new ground, by all means, point me to where this has been talked about previously!
##Sailing on a Sea of Blood
Much, much later in the story, Moqorro and Tyrion are standing atop a ship sailing for Meereen talking of prophecy and other things. Moqorro mentions Griff and Young Griff, and Tyrion asks what else Moqorro has seen in his fires. Moqorro responds this way:
> "Have you seen these others in your fires?" he asked, warily. > > "Only their shadows," Moqorro said. "One most of all. A tall and twisted thing with one black eye and ten long arms, sailing on a sea of blood."
Originally, I thought that this was simply a description of Euron Greyjoy sailing for Daenerys, leaving a slew of corpses on the way to Meereen and on the shores of Slaver's Bay. But Jorah's description leaves... keep reading on reddit ➡
I stumbled on this quote in my internet perusing, anyone know what it means?
Hello all! Just found you guys - this is my first time reading the Silmarillion and I'm having trouble understanding what one section of the Ainulindalë actually means:
>And amid all the splendours of the World, its vast halls and spaces, and its wheeling fires, Ilúvatar chose a place for their habitation in the Deeps of Time and in the midst of the innumerable stars. And this habitation might seem a little thing to those who consider only the majesty of the Ainur, and not their terrible sharpness; as who should take the whole field of Arda for the foundation of a pillar and so raise it until the cone of its summit were more bitter than a needle; or who consider only the immeasurable vastness of the World, which still the Ainur are shaping, and not the minute precision to which they shape all things therein.
I did some searching and found discussions over it but no one had a decent response. Is it a warning about placing too much importance on the divinity of the Ainur, not the fact they have pieces of Ilúvatar's thoughts? Or about placing too much importance in the physicality/greatness of Arda, as opposed to the care put forth into the creation of all the things contained within it?
I apologize if this is an inane question. I recently became a Tolkien fan and have started reading his works. To get the pronunciations down, I've been reading my copy of the Silmarillion while listening to the audiobook. And I kept rewinding this one section because I had such a hard time comprehending it.
It couldn't possibly have been chosen for "insert random Shakespeare dialogue to show Sherlock off his rocker."
In Thessalonians Paul speaks about the hope of resurrection when Jesus returns. In verse 14, he says, “ For since we believe that Jesus died and was raised to life again, we also believe that when Jesus returns, God will bring back with him the believers who have died.  We tell you this directly from the Lord: We who are still living when the Lord returns will not meet him ahead of those who have died.  For the Lord himself will come down from heaven with a commanding shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trumpet call of God. First, the believers who have died h will rise from their graves.”
QUESTION: Is this saying that Jesus brings back in spirit form those who have fallen asleep Then raises them in physical imperishable form? When Jesus brings with Him those who have fallen asleep are they conscious or unconscious? I would assume unconscious, because they are asleep?
Scholars, would love to understand your take on this... Am I reading this wrong? Does the Greek give more insight?
I came across a passage from a book and by some famous author a couple months ago and can't seem to find it. In the passage it discusses what humans have done since the very beginning of time to put meaning into life. It honestly cannot remembers a single sentence but I do remember the jist of it. It begins with how we looked up at the stars, and basically we made culture. The bottom line of the excerpt/passage, however, is that perhaps there's no meaning at all but that doesn't change the fact that we continue to try to put meaning behind life.
Please include the comment you are analyzing in quotes as well as the source.
A very short, simple example would be, "I miss my wife, but my aim's getting better." I'm more thinking of something more long form, like a paragraph where the final line adds context that causes the reader to reinterpret the whole paragraph.
I remember seeing this word defined, but I'm not 100% certain it wasn't on something like one of those words-that-should-exist tumblr blogs or something.
Here is a passage of from the Discourses. Could anybody elaborate on the meaning of this passage.
"Why are we still idle, lazy, and sluggish, looking for excuses to avoid making efforts and staying awake as we work at improving our own rationality?
Well, if I go astray in this, I haven't killed my father, have I?
No, you slave, your father wasn't there for you to kill.
So, what have I done, you ask? You have made the one mistake you could have made in this case. I myself too, you see, made exactly the same retort to [Musonius] Rufus when he chided me for not spotting the one thing omitted in syllogism. I said: It's not as if I've burned down the Capitol Slave, he said, the thing omitted here is the Capitol. "
1. "He, in truth, hath manifested Him Who is the Dayspring of Revelation,
2. "Who conversed on Sinai,
3. "through Whom the Supreme Horizon hath been made to shine,
4. "and the Lote-Tree beyond which there is no passing hath spoken,
5. "and through Whom the call hath been proclaimed unto all who are in heaven and on earth:
6. “Lo, the All-Possessing is come. Earth and heaven, glory and dominion are God’s, the Lord of all men, and the Possessor of the Throne on high and of earth below!”
1. Manifestations in general
Can you rephrase 3 and 4 in your own words for me to better understand. #4's "hath spoken..." doesn't make sense to me, and so how does it connect with the rest of the passage? #3's "Supreme Horizon..." is also foreign to me.
I'm looking for a word to describe the following kinds of scenarios:
Is there an apt word for this? I'd consider it related to "needless generalization" or "oversimplification" but stated more elegantly. Also, it's not "bowdlerization" in the censorship sense. A lot of things benefit from some digest/synopsis but this is like the Chinese telephone game, where making something briefer and briefer degrades the intent of the original and leads to dismal miscommunication.
This is the text I'm dealing with:
So I think I have some parts, but I can't put it all together. The first phrase is a neighborhood junior high school kid saying that red is a woman's color, right? Then something about mother putting effort into going and buying the shirt the author was wearing when they heard what the boy said? Then if they said the same thing, it would trouble their mother, and they thought that way as a kid.
Am I close? Is there something more that I am missing? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
EDIT - I just wanted to say thanks to everyone for their input and help. This is a great community and you all really are a big help.
"To this sage who sees what is good I have come supplicatingly with a question, "how is anyone to look upon the world so as not to be seen by the king of death?"
"Look upon the world as void, O Mogharagan," said the Buddha, "being always wakeful; having destroyed the view of oneself as really existing, one may overcome death; the king of death will not see the person who thus regards the world."
(adapted from the Sutta-nipata, translated by V. Fausboll)
Murakami just posted this on his Facebook page:
>“Everybody has some one thing they do not want to lose," began the man. "You included. And we are professionals at finding out that very thing. Humans by necessity must have a midway point between their desires and their pride. Just as all objects must have a center of gravity. This is something we can pinpoint. Only when it is gone do people realize it even existed.” > > ― Haruki Murakami A Wild Sheep Chase
I haven't read the book. Can someone provide context and insight into what he's getting at, without spoliers?
I finished Dune a few weeks ago for the first time. Considering how dense the novel is, I've been trying to just process everything I've read and develop my thoughts on it. However, the part where Paul is reawoken from his coma induced by the Water of Life continues to perplex me. It struck me as odd when I read it, and after ruminating on it a while I'm still pretty clueless. I'd love if someone were able to explain what's going on in the following quotes both mechanically, and/or thematically.
>Paul's consciousness flowed through and around her and into the darkness. She glimpsed the place dimly before her mind blanked itself away from the terror. Without knowing why, her whole being trembled at what she had seen - a region where a wind blew and the sparks glared, where rings of light expanded and contracted, where rows of tumescent white shapes flowed over and under and around the lights driven by the darkness and wind out of nowhere.
>"There is in each of us an ancient force that takes and an ancient force that gives. A man finds little difficulty facing that place within himself where the taking force dwells, but it is almost impossible for him to see into the giving force without changing into something other than man. For a woman, the situation is reversed."
Okay, what I do understand is that the first part quoted is clearly a description of the Force that Takes. Setting aside whatever the Force that Takes is, Paul looking at this scene within in Jessica's consciousness? Couldn't he just look for the Force that Takes within himself or...? The tumultuous nature of the Force that Takes reminds me of Paul's future sight somewhat. Possibly related? I'm honestly unsure.
>"These things are so ancient within us ... that they're ground into each separate cell of our bodies We're shaped by such forces. You can say to yourself, 'Yes I see how such a thing may be.' But when you look inward and confront the raw force of your own life unshielded, you see your peril. You see that this could overwhelm you. The greatest peril to the Giver is the force that takes. the greatest peril to the Taker is the force that gives. It's as easy to be overwhelmed by giving as by taking."
What does "peril" mean in this context?
>"I am at the fulcrum," he said "I cannot give without taking and I cannot take without [giving]"
So clearly, the that taking/giving forces are deep genetic/biological/psychological differences between men and women. Logically this woul... keep reading on reddit ➡
In this passage,
> 44 And they give light to each other in their times and in their seasons
Does they refer to "all things" or to "the heavens and the earth"?
Read full context: https://www.lds.org/scriptures/dc-testament/dc/88.42-45?lang=eng#p41
The NIV version is here, other versions are accessible from there.
My problem is, it seems like god kind of forced everyone to become gay, as a punishment for not worshiping him enough, then punished them for being gay?
So, god made gay people? Wat.
I don't know if this sub is appropriate for this question but I feel stupid asking it because I remember so little. I think I read it on reddit somewhere but can't find it now
I think it was in the context of a woman speaking to a warrior of some sort; she asks him what his life's purpose is and he responds that he does it for his master(?). She responds that it is a nonsensical answer and that one ought to live for the experience of living (or something like that...)
What do we really want from philosophy and religion? Palliatives? Therapy? Comfort? Do we want reassuring fables or an understanding of our actual circumstances? Dismay that the Universe does not conform to our preferences seems childish.
But if our objective is deep knowledge rather than shallow reassurance, the gains from this new perspective far outweigh the losses. Once we overcome our fear of being tiny, we find ourselves on the threshold of a vast and awesome Universe that utterly dwarfs—in time, in space, and in potential—the tidy anthropocentric proscenium of our ancestors.
We gaze across billions of light-years of space to view the Universe shortly after the Big Bang, and plumb the fine structure of matter. We peer down into the core of our planet, and the blazing interior of our star. We read the genetic language in which is written the diverse skills and propensities of every being on Earth. We uncover hidden chapters in the record of our own origins, and with some anguish better understand our nature and prospects. We invent and refine agriculture, without which almost all of us would starve to death. We create medicines and vaccines that save the lives of billions. We communicate at the speed of light, and whip around the Earth in an hour and a half. We have sent dozens of ships to more than seventy worlds, and four spacecraft to the stars.
We are right to rejoice in our accomplishments, to be proud that our species has been able to see so far, and to judge our merit in part by the very science that has so deflated our pretensions…
There is in this Universe much of what seems to be design. Every time we come upon it, we breathe a sigh of relief. We are forever hoping to find, or at least safely deduce, a Designer. But instead, we repeatedly discover that natural processes… can extract order out of chaos, and deceive us into deducing purpose where there is none…. But, amid much elegance and precision, the details of life and the Universe also exhibit haphazard, jury-rigged arrangements and much poor planning. What shall we make of this: an edifice abandoned early in construction by the architect?
The evidence, so far at least and laws of Nature aside, does not require a Designer. Maybe there is one hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed. Sometimes it seems a very slender hope.
The... keep reading on reddit ➡
Personally I try and prove how people who think the obvious meaning is the right meaning are the devil. I mean, when it says to love your neighbor as yourself, it doesn't mean you actually need to love your neighbor as yourself. In fact, thanks to the release of the Conservative True Christian^TM bible, we know that was just added on by the liberals near the time of Paul.
I was preparing a district meeting at the beginning of the transfer. It was meant to be the meeting that set the tone for what we, as a district, would try to accomplish in the coming weeks. I was, however, struggling to find inspiration. I kept going through previous zone conference notes, study notes, scriptures, and prayed a lot about it. But I still had nothing. The morning of the meeting I had resigned myself to doing something less interesting, and hopefully something would come for the next week.
I gave one last prayer, and began reading Alma 47. This was quite popular in my mission, because it is all about staying on top of the mountain, and not lowering standards for anything. However, upon reading it this time, I concentrated more on Amalickiah, and how he went about doing things. And it came to me: He was like a sister missionary! And his plan worked! He achieved his goals. So I recounted the story, and our motto ended up being: become sister missionaries.
They loved it. We had an amazingly productive couple of transfers based on this attitude.
What are your moments where you read a story and it takes on a different meaning?
I've been studying recently and came across passages that stirred my thinking. How do these connect to a broader understanding of Hinduism? Any insight would be appreciated greatly...
There is neither non-existence nor existence then; there was neither the realm of space nor the sky which is beyond. Which stirred? Where? In whose protection? Was there water, bottomless deep?
In recollection he withdraws all his sense from the attractions of the pleasures of sense, even as a tortoise withdraws all its limbs, then his is a serene wisdom.
Work done for a reward is much lower than work done in the yoga of wisdom. Seek salvation in the wisdom of reason. How poor are those who work for a reward.
http://adf.ly/FFLAe - Great TO.
Hi everyone. The following passage is from Gogol's revisor (first act, second scene). This postmaster guy seems to be quite a nosy fellow, going through people's mail and even keeping letters for himself! But I'm wondering: is he giving hints about a sexual content here? Maybe I'm reading too much in to it, but I find the wording suspicious to say the least: "самом игривом", "очень, очень хорошо", "с большим, с большим чувством", ... And what's that "штандарт скачет..." doing there? Could this be a eufemism for an erection/intercourse?
Thanks a lot for the help.
** Почтмейстер.** Нет, о петербургском ничего нет, а о костромских и саратовских много говорится. Жаль, однако ж, что вы не читаете писем: есть прекрасные места. Вот недавно один поручик пишет к приятелю и описал бал в самом игривом... очень, очень хорошо: "Жизнь моя, милый друг, течет, говорит в эмпиреях: барышень много, музыка играет, штандарт скачет..." - с большим, с большим чувством описал. Я нарочно оставил его у себя. Хотите, прочту?
** Городничий.** Ну, теперь не до того. (...)
Every human being has the freedom to change at any instant. Therefore, we can predict his future only with the large framework of a statistical survey referencing to a whole group; the individual personality, however, remains essentially unpredictable. The basis for any predictions would be represented by biological, psychological or sociological conditions. Yet one of the main features of human existence is the capacity to rise above such conditions, to grow beyond them. Man is capable of changing the world for the better if possible, and of changing himself for the better if necessary.