Search results

So in your humble opinion it's an irrefutable fact? Hint: writing things in bold doesn't strengthen your argument.

Sorry to be blunt, but that's utter cobblers.

Is it not equally valid for those who believe in free will to say "Your reasonings are rendered irrelevant by the stubborn fact that you have freely chosen not to believe in it?" That's not justification for believing in free will, any more than what you're saying is justification for not...

Unified but not undivided.

There seems to be a sense of the having and eating of cakes here... "All things" suggests to me the existence of distinct, divided things...

Sorry, I forgot that quotes italicised themselves: "which lends a wholeness to the extremes of each cycle" This requires some ponderance....

Sorry to be a constant pain, but could you explain the italicised bit and what precisely this "wholeness" is? And how does this all relate to good and bad? Thanks, Matt

Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks, Matt

Hear, hear!

So "whole" means interconnected? Well I can agree with that. But that's not the way Snoopy was using the word - whole means undivided. You can't have connectedness without division (or can you...).

Well, not for me, obviously, but I'm not the one claiming Reality is whole :) What does "Reality is whole" mean? Is this where I'm going wrong?

So Reality isn't whole then? As good and bad aren't whole.

I think/perceive/believe the former God is wiser than the latter. Don't you? Why not?

My point is that a God who can accomplish his plans and purposes without having to impose absolute determinism on his creatures is a much wiser, more sovereign God than one who does.

Right, but which is the better player?

So there is a difference (between good and bad) whether you're enlightened or not then? :confused:

I wonder, which is the better chess player: the one who is able to respond perfectly to whatever move his opponent makes, or the one who only plays opponents who make the moves he tells them to make?

Hi Avi, thanks! I'd love to hear interpretation from Tanach readers of all sorts. :) The main passages I've across that mention it are Numbers 21:1-3 Deut 7:1-5; 20:16-20 and as a theme in Joshua 2-11, though are probably a number I've missed.

Even when such actions become automatic, there is a very real an obvious extent to which these actions are good as opposed to bad. Are enlightened Buddhists aware of whether non-enlightened folk are doing good or bad deeds?

What is "the good" that becomes internalized?