> Nathan:
> Sadly you appear to have no concept of what a gentleman is, given your
> response to the hand of friendship, etc.
I haven't claimed to be a gentleman; I described you as one, but... wait, you're right, I DON'T know what a gentleman is, do I?
"Hand of friendship"? I must have missed that - was it when you were calling me "nasty and beligerant" or when you described me as "juvenile," or when you called me "a pr*ck"?
We have a saying over here - "with friends like that, I don't need enemas."
> (PLEASE prove me wrong by your conduct - I beg of you).
Sorry, I wouldn't know how...
> My apology still stands, even though you thusfar prove unworthy of it.
> That (I am afraid to say) is your loss, not mine, since it was genuinely
> extended and did not require reciprocation to be either offered or accepted.
...and there is where my weeping and the gnashing of my teeth will be. It's like being cut off from god himself; really!
> I'll reiterate my original question, from page two, which you have still not
> deigned to answer and which seems to have been the cause of you "going off on
> one": Why is it that rationalists and scientists have less trouble saying,
> "I don't know" than metaphysicians do?
Because rationalists and scientists do not afford themselves the luxury of pulling a wild and baselss explanation for phenomena out of thin air. Metaphysicians are not constrained by the laws of logic or objective reality.
> How many of each category of person do you know?
Let's assume the answer to that is NONE. So what? Does it matter that I have known bunches of Dubs, that I have known Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, followers of Eckankar, Scientologists, practitioners of Huna, Sufis and born-againt Xtians?
> All the metaphysicians that I've ever met have been happy to accede that they
> are ignorant of certain things, yet like the scientist, it drives them onward.
My position is that metaphysicians claim to know things that are unknowable because they rest on an assumption that is not true, the assupmtion that there is "another world" behind everyday ordinary reality.
> You tout the word "metaphysicist" like a schoolchild who has just discovered
> the word. May I further ask how long it has been part of your vocabulary?
> Enquiring minds want to know...
I was flipping through Daddy's dictionary the other day when I found it. It's a cool word. How is it pronounced?
> Now I can understand why people would be upset by "parasitic metaphysicists"
> (your phrase) who do nothing but scam people, but is that genuinely the desire
> of everyone who delves into such things?
I didn't say it was. I specifically said, "When these guys derive their living from playing to the weaknessess of others, I describe them as parasitic metaphysicians."
Jim Jones, Jim & Tammy Fae Baker, Joseph Rutherford, Fred Franz, Herbert Armstrong, Jimmy Swaggart, Benny Hinn, televangelist in general. John Edward, James von Pragh, Sylvia Brown, the Pope, the Dali Lama, Pat Robertson, Da Free John, Krishnamurti, Anne Besant; it's a long list.
> Further, what about the expressions of experiences that have been offered
> during the course of this thread? Has it been to hoax people, or merely to share?
I have not said to anyone, "that did NOT happen." I have said that something happened. I do have serious doubts that any of them can honestly say what caused the experience they had, and I am certain that none of the experiences "proves" anything aboout the world "behind nature."
To me it seems more honest to say, "...the damnest thing happened to me, and I don't know why it happened or how" than it is to say, "I fell off a ladder and struck my head, and remembered that I was really T. Lobsang Rampa, ancient mystic and metaphysician."
> I've seen nothing that I would deem parasitic on this thread, other than what
> appears to be an insatiable desire to feed off of negative energies (an esoteric,
> metaphysical term, that probably turns your stomach, but is appropriate in usage
> to those who are inducted in such knowledge (be it true or otherwise, in an
> absolute or subjective sense)).
I do have a lot of negative energy. I'm positive of that.
> I'm now off to bed, to hopefully enjoy some lucid dreaming and astral travel,
> before reaching for the land of Nod. See ya around...
I'm sure you'll let me know if you've awakened to another nightmare...
