Mr and Mrs Whitepearl


It’s a rare sunny day in London. Allan and Molly Whitepearl indulge themselves with a cultural weekend at the National Gallery. After an hour strolling back and forth, Mrs. Whitepearl’s eyes rest on Thomas Gainsborough painting entitled “Mr and Mrs Andrews” (the above image)…how appropriate.
The couple walks up to it, and begins to analyse the work of art.

Allan leans over to Molly and whispers:
- How about a game, darling?
- Of what sort? – She asks.
- Simple, my dear: we select a person, at random, to listen to our personal analysis of the painting and in the end he/she will have to decide which one is best.

Molly agrees to this and takes the initiative of picking one person. A few minutes later she chooses an old lady, who was walking in their direction. Mrs Whitepearl explains the game to Mrs Dempsey who immediately accepts to be the arbitrator of such an exciting project.

A coin was tossed and Allan got to be the first:
- The husband arrives from his hunting journey along with his best friend and confider (the dog). The way he holds his firearm depicts him as virile and relaxed. The dog looks at his master hoping to be rewarded, yet the master leans over his wife expecting to be rewarded himself…look at those strong, muscled legs…what a marvellous piece of work! Gainsborough wanted to emphasize how much exercise he performed – at this last comment Molly smiles at Mrs Dempsey, Allan continues – the tranquil wife sits under the tree, perhaps confiding with her diary her longing for her husband. Look, Molly; that bleu-ciel dress suggests the innocence and purity of her thoughts! No wonder the man is so relaxed…he has got it all: an estate, a quiet wife (in a sense of inner -peace…obviously…) and a loyal companion…! Your turn, my dear…

Molly bends slightly her knee, as to bow to her husband and arbitrator, while clearing her throat:
- The husband is about to leave to his hunting journey, but before he does he wants to show-off his gun as a clear message of what expects her on his return. My argument is supported by his stance, his smirk and her bored countenance. In her diary she expresses her immense dismay at her husband’s ill “barrel organ” skills. [Ironically] Look, Allan…the cloudy sky reflects her inner-turmoil…her dissatisfaction…the pastel-blue dress suggests that she has decided to accept her fate – Allan throws a loud laugh, yet Molly continues – no, no, dear…I haven’t finished yet! His legs…indeed, a fine “piece of work”, may indicate how much exercise he performs, however not the sort of performance she expected of him – Molly winks at a frowning Mrs Dempsey -. The pet…what does the pet tells us? Well, if one is in England and hunts, one needs a dog! What say you, Mrs Dempsey?

Mrs Dempsey takes a deep breath and replies:
- Oh dear…Oh dear me…I believe that both of you are seeing too much! All I see is a man, who hunts; his wife, in their property with their lovely pet…the cloudy sky, though, does suggest that it will rain soon, and if they don’t rush home they might get soaked to the skin…God knows that they might even catch a flu…and oh dear Lord, a flu in those days; oh…a flu…in those…days…

Comments

  1. ENCORE, Max!

    I enjoyed reading every part of this IMMENSELY!!!!!!! ;-D

    You're SO creativeeeeeeeee and smart! ;-D

    ReplyDelete
  2. P.S. Poor Mrs. Dempsey HA HA HA HA HA HA...

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hey Amelia,

    *bowing* I am so glad you liked it :)! "Thank you, thank you: you're a beautiful audience!"...

    Mrs Dempsey lol...she's adorable lol! That typical old lady that in the end just says "you young people are just full of it!" lol *nodding*.
    There can be many readings to her, depending on the kind of old lady ones wants her to be ;).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  4. Max my friend what a delightful piece of work!

    I highly recommend reading the Wikipedia article on this painting; it explains a few things such as the Mr. And Mrs. Andrews are newlyweds…the painting is based on real people and is not posed by models. They are on their huge estate in the painting…it is actually a wonderful landscape as well as portrait (I like Max would have had to crop out a portion of the landscape to make the image fit). Also note that the painting is not finished (it is clearly visible in larger form when looking at Mrs. Andrews lap). This painting was early in the career of Gainsborough which explains the typical stiffness of the persons at this point of his career. Also the artist had known both of them since childhood (he and Mr. Andrews had attended the same school). Mrs. Andrews family had actually helped out the artists family with financial matters in the past….(I am also bringing this in from other sources on the paining and artist).

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr_and_Mrs_Andrews

    Let me take a wider view (and at the same time more narrow view) of this article…as Max often likes to have “layers” of thought in her articles (since she is very sophisticated)…although is a wonderful article to just enjoy it also pushes some buttons in clever ways…

    If the painting is seen as being representative of truth then the perspectives of Allan, Molly and Mrs. Dempsey can be seen as their viewpoints on that truth…absolute truth.

    One person sees (believes) one thing and another person another thing from their perspectives. They are informed by their cultural, geo-political, education (including understanding of art and this particular artist, for example sheaves of wheat often represent fertility which could be something hoped for by the newlyweds and may represent the child that is not painted on her lap) the nurturing they received as children etc…how close are they in proximity to the painting, how much natural light is on the painting.

    The question of what each sees in the painting is actually not the primary issue. More at issue is that they all agree there is a painting. They appeal to that basic absolute truth before going on to give their viewpoints.

    Next instead of simply giving their own perspectives on the painting which are interesting (and well done in this article as is per usual by Max) it changes when we understand the genuine true story behind the artwork. When you talk to the Artist and when He is willing to explain it to you in a manner that is Truth then that takes the guess work out of it. You can KNOW the truth, and the Truth will set you free, the limitations of perspective are eliminated and absolute truth is exposed…..people can deny that it is there but that does not stop it from being so.

    Very interesting article Max….I salute you….

    ReplyDelete
  5. Max,
    Lovely story. You little novelist you. I think role playing is fun. It gives us a chance to open our imagination. The skly is the limit.

    Take care.

    ReplyDelete
  6. LS,

    Thank you *bowing*, I am glad you liked it :).

    Yes, they were real people (Thomas Gainsborough was a portrait painter).
    Yes, Mrs Andrews lap...some say that he was going to paint a dead faisan, as a symbol of lack of sexual enthusiasm lol *nodding*.


    "Let me take a wider view (and at the same time more narrow view) of this article…as Max often likes to have “layers” of thought in her articles (since she is very sophisticated)…although is a wonderful article to just enjoy it also pushes some buttons in clever ways…" - Oh Lord...have I told you how much I appreciate you, LS? lol :)

    "If the painting is seen as being representative of truth then the perspectives of Allan, Molly and Mrs. Dempsey can be seen as their viewpoints on that truth…absolute truth." - not absolute truth, since Allan's point of view was refuted by Molly, whose point of view (along with Allan's) was refuted by Mrs. Dempsey. They were each expressing their own interpretation of the painting, therefore 3 refutable truths...

    "(including understanding of art and this particular artist, for example sheaves of wheat often represent fertility which could be something hoped for by the newlyweds and may represent the child that is not painted on her lap)" - that is one interpretation of wheat. It may also mean good health, food in abundance (all things that one wishes to newlyweds); and it also may indicate that the internal self becomes visible, and is ready to be shared (this is also good, when couples can share their true selves with each other). But it would be cute if a baby would've been drawn there (instead of the famous dead faisain lol, although one thing doesn't necessarily preclude the other - in term of symbology).

    "The question of what each sees in the painting is actually not the primary issue. More at issue is that they all agree there is a painting. They appeal to that basic absolute truth before going on to give their viewpoints." - LOL LOL are you trying to provoke me? *nodding*...anyway, since I never turn my back to a good challenge; I must say that their agreeing that there is a painting, that it exists, can be compared to the idea that we exist, we are here, therefore that is the absolute truth (on earth).

    "You can KNOW the truth, and the Truth will set you free, …..people can deny that it is there but that does not stop it from being so." - LS, that is the artist's truth. But from the moment that other people don't see things like him it no longer constitues an absolute truth. Knowing what the painting means may not change much in people's minds, cause they may decide that their truth is much more interesting (a concept contrary to the artist's truth may sound much more interesting, and as such, many people who look at the painting might have similar interpretations, and if their number is sufficient...then the "lie" may become an universal truth. Mr. and Mrs Andrews may become a newlywed couple bounded to have poor sex life). But something tells me that by "you can KNOW the truth" you were thinking about knowing the truth about your belief system...am I wrong?

    I have a question: which Truth will set you free? My concept, yours, or the One? :).

    "the limitations of perspective are eliminated and absolute truth is exposed" - oh, yes...when we die...limitations are obliterated, and Absolute Truth is exposed (and no longer people will refute It, as opposed to when they were on earth...).

    Very interesting comment, LS...thank you :).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Alexys,

    Thank you, dear :). Novelist, moi? Nooooo...I am just playing with words here :). Still, thank you for the compliment *bowing*.
    That is true: role playing is fun, indeed!
    The sky is the limit for everything in life, wouldn't you say so :-D?

    Take care

    ReplyDelete
  8. Max I want to congratulate you on your creativity….and charm as a hostess *bowing* :)

    You said:
    Oh Lord...have I told you how much I appreciate you, LS? lol :)

    I respond:
    I am prepared listen and learn more about this appreciation :) lol

    That appreciation is reciprocated Max, your writing is a sooo enjoyable! But pales beside how you are as a person….

    You said:
    "If the painting is seen as being representative of truth then the perspectives of Allan, Molly and Mrs. Dempsey can be seen as their viewpoints on that truth…absolute truth." - not absolute truth, since Allan's point of view was refuted by Molly, whose point of view (along with Allan's) was refuted by Mrs. Dempsey. They were each expressing their own interpretation of the painting, therefore 3 refutable truths...

    I respond:
    My intent here was to simply say that if the painting itself was seen as absolute truth they were still giving their various viewpoints upon it. Actually none of the points of view are proven to be false by the dialogue in the article itself, it is possible that one of them is correct and the others are wrong (note I am only speaking of the information within the article) in an absolute sense.

    You said:
    "(including understanding of art and this particular artist, for example sheaves of wheat often represent fertility which could be something hoped for by the newlyweds and may represent the child that is not painted on her lap)" - that is one interpretation of wheat. It may also mean good health, food in abundance (all things that one wishes to newlyweds); and it also may indicate that the internal self becomes visible, and is ready to be shared (this is also good, when couples can share their true selves with each other). But it would be cute if a baby would've been drawn there (instead of the famous dead faisain lol, although one thing doesn't necessarily preclude the other - in term of symbology).

    I respond:
    Max if a painter just paints for the joy of paining do you believe that there are still underlying reasons of symbology within the work? I am not aware of how adept the artist was in understanding symbology at this time in his career, but I believe he had a love of nature and landscapes and was probably more interested in representing them as they were more than symbology, or even the persons in the painting. It is an interesting piece of art…I find it interesting that both of us in such proximity of time wrote articles about a piece of art without the other knowing about it! I enjoyed these comments of yours…

    You said:
    "The question of what each sees in the painting is actually not the primary issue. More at issue is that they all agree there is a painting. They appeal to that basic absolute truth before going on to give their viewpoints." - LOL LOL are you trying to provoke me? *nodding*...anyway, since I never turn my back to a good challenge; I must say that their agreeing that there is a painting, that it exists, can be compared to the idea that we exist, we are here, therefore that is the absolute truth (on earth).

    I respond:
    Meeee trying to provoke you…..how cavalier for you to make such a suggestion….oh I am frenzied by such words….yeah sure it was intentional :) LOL *nodding doggedly*

    The existence of that absolute truth is a perfect example that absolute can exist. Where there is one absolute non-contradictory (see law of non-contradiction) truth then there can be others.

    You said:
    "You can KNOW the truth, and the Truth will set you free, …..people can deny that it is there but that does not stop it from being so." - LS, that is the artist's truth. But from the moment that other people don't see things like him it no longer constitues an absolute truth. Knowing what the painting means may not change much in people's minds, cause they may decide that their truth is much more interesting (a concept contrary to the artist's truth may sound much more interesting, and as such, many people who look at the painting might have similar interpretations, and if their number is sufficient...then the "lie" may become an universal truth. Mr. and Mrs Andrews may become a newlywed couple bounded to have poor sex life). But something tells me that by "you can KNOW the truth" you were thinking about knowing the truth about your belief system...am I wrong?

    I respond:
    Max truth is not popular opinion. For a person that claims to not believe in absolute truth you certainly fight vigorously for your “truth” in an absolute way. It is absolutely true I am sitting here writing this message too you (but it absolutely not true if I am standing and writing this to you). I do not think you actually believe that there is no absolute truth, and I don’t believe you live your life in such a manner.

    If you truly do not believe in absolute truth then take me up on the money challenge. Give me all of your money; you can have as your truth that you still have it and I will actually, absolutely have it. Under your proposed position we should both be happy with that. A philosophical position becomes much easier to believe when people are willing to actually go beyond theoreticals to living them out in reality long term.

    At one of our local universities a well known philosophy professor was teaching in class that there was no such thing as absolute truth and was asked by a student during class if the student came up and hit the professor would the professor be willing to keep as his truth that he had not been hit, the prof answered yes, the student went up and hit him.

    The student was expelled and the prof sued him saying it was absolutely true he was hit by the student. Theories fall away in the face of real life which shows what they are really worth.

    Our various perceptions or conceptions do not mean there is not one absolute truth.

    More to the point the position you are defending is self-refuting…

    For a person to say “there is no such thing as absolute truth” is self refuting since they are claiming an absolute truth. Now you don’t do this since you believe there does exist at least one absolute truth as you have said in your article “The Four Seasons of Truth”:

    “the only absolute truth, here on Earth, is that you and I are here; we exist (for now)...all the rest are details of existence, of the flesh.”

    So…first when there is one absolute truth then the presence of another or more cannot be denied, it is neither logical nor reasonable to do so.

    Second it is self-refuting, illogical, and not reasonable in that to say that everybody’s opinion or “truth” is “true for them”, it is contradictory. I declare there is “absolute truth” beyond just being “my truth”, that statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time, it cannot be relative it is absolute. If you respond with “well that is your truth” then you are being illogical and contradictory, you are defeating your own argument….

    You said:
    I have a question: which Truth will set you free? My concept, yours, or the One? :).

    I respond:
    As I capitalized Truth I was speaking of He Who is Truth, He has the power to set us free, when He sets us free we are free indeed. He is not just a concept but a person.

    You said:
    "the limitations of perspective are eliminated and absolute truth is exposed" - oh, yes...when we die...limitations are obliterated, and Absolute Truth is exposed (and no longer people will refute It, as opposed to when they were on earth...).

    I respond:
    I am going to bring up the Artist (note high cap) again. If He has intervened and told us what the art (His creation) is about then the opinions and guess work are gone, He will have already exposed tat truth to us before we die, He has the ability to do so and has done so. If the Artist is absolute then it is not just His opinion or truth it is absolutely true. He is the standard by which truth is measured.

    I look forward to your response….I enjoyed this dialogue.!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here is what I see:
    Mr. and Mrs. Andrews are waiting for a bus that comes regularly by the city park. Mr. Andrews has taken to carrying his firearm to protect he and his wife from being attacked and robbed. (There is also a high possibility he will be beat up from wearing those goofy looking pants)
    The dog doesn't belong to either of them, but has decided to take a sniff of Mr. Andrew's to get "acquainted". Mr. Andrews hopes the dog has had his rabies shot. He is considering using the gun if the dog bites.
    Poor Mrs. Andrews. She actually, weighs three hundred pounds, and has to wear over-sized dresses to hide her fat rolls. She is actually making out a shopping list while we waits for the bus.

    ReplyDelete
  10. LS,

    You are too kind, your lordship *bowing* :).

    "I am prepared listen and learn more about this appreciation :) lol" - LOL LOL LOL *nodding*....

    "But pales beside how you are as a person…." - you are buttering me, now...the text below must be bombastic LOL LOL! Let me check it out...

    "My intent here was to simply say that if the painting itself was seen as absolute truth they were still giving their various viewpoints upon it. Actually none of the points of view are proven to be false by the dialogue in the article itself, it is possible that one of them is correct and the others are wrong (note I am only speaking of the information within the article) in an absolute sense." - perhaps you are right.

    "Max if a painter just paints for the joy of paining do you believe that there are still underlying reasons of symbology within the work?" - you brought up the symbology of wheat, I was simply adding some other meanings. But to answer your question; yes, I do think that a painter's work has always an underlying message, symbology (even if it appears to us that he/she is simply painting for the joy of painting).

    "I am not aware of how adept the artist was in understanding symbology at this time in his career, but I believe he had a love of nature and landscapes and was probably more interested in representing them as they were more than symbology, or even the persons in the painting." - It is said that artists are some kind of mediums, cause they communicate with outside forces - which they tell us about through their art. Artists' mentality is on another level, and that is why they are more open to life than most of us. But I also believe that Gainsborough loved nature, landscapes and humans (I have seen a few of his paintings and he could captured people's thoughts...in Mr. and Mrs Andrews, did you noticed their eyes? You can read their thoughts through them...newlywed Mrs Andrews is bored to death, he captured her all too well).

    "I find it interesting that both of us in such proximity of time wrote articles about a piece of art without the other knowing about it! I enjoyed these comments of yours…" - true. I had already noticed it on Monday (when I first looked at your article)...it's graffiti aura LOL LOL.

    "Meeee trying to provoke you…..how cavalier for you to make such a suggestion….oh I am frenzied by such words….yeah sure it was intentional :) LOL *nodding doggedly*" - LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL *nodding*.

    "The existence of that absolute truth is a perfect example that absolute can exist. Where there is one absolute non-contradictory (see law of non-contradiction) truth then there can be others." - I get the non-contradictory law; however this law is only applicable on earth. when I say that "we exist" is an absolute truth (on earth) I mean that it is undeniable, no one can address you and me and tell us otherwise, here on earth. But when we die, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Muslims, Pagans, Celtics, agnostics, atheists etc will all realise that there Is an irrefutable absolute truth: Him.

    "Max truth is not popular opinion." - popular opinion among a certain number of people can be called truth. "Popular ideas or attitudes are those which are approved of or held by most people" (the nucleous of consensual truth).

    "It is absolutely true I am sitting here writing this message too you (but it absolutely not true if I am standing and writing this to you)." - this is an excellent example; however nothing guarantees me that a brilliant philosophy-skilled person wouldn't be able to refute this.

    "I do not think you actually believe that there is no absolute truth, and I don’t believe you live your life in such a manner." - I respect your beliefs :). I have told yesterday how I live my life :).

    "If you truly do not believe in absolute truth then take me up on the money challenge. Give me all of your money; you can have as your truth that you still have it and I will actually, absolutely have it. Under your proposed position we should both be happy with that. A philosophical position becomes much easier to believe when people are willing to actually go beyond theoreticals to living them out in reality long term." - LOL LOL nice try. But what I believe, and how I live my life is not relevant here. What I say is that my truth is always subject to refutation, and thus no longer eligible for an absolute truth.

    "At one of our local universities a well known philosophy professor was teaching in class that there was no such thing as absolute truth and was asked by a student during class if the student came up and hit the professor would the professor be willing to keep as his truth that he had not been hit, the prof answered yes, the student went up and hit him.
    The student was expelled and the prof sued him saying it was absolutely true he was hit by the student. Theories fall away in the face of real life which shows what they are really worth." - but someone else, could come and prove that if he/she would be hit the same way the student hit the professor, they wouldn't consider that they had been hit, since he/she hadn't felt pain. This way the professor's absolute truth (that he's been hit) would be refutable.

    "Our various perceptions or conceptions do not mean there is not one absolute truth." - I never said that there isn't One Absolute Truth. What I said is that, here on earth, whatever we state to be true is subject to interpretations and refutations; and if so it can no longer be accepted as absolute (since not all humans' mind accepts it as being true).

    "I declare there is “absolute truth” beyond just being “my truth”, that statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time, it cannot be relative it is absolute." - as long as there is one person, on earth, to refute you. It no longer is absolute.

    "If you respond with “well that is your truth” then you are being illogical and contradictory, you are defeating your own argument…." - you are a follower of Jesus, and as such your job is to Christianise others. If a Jewish person doesn't accept your truth (that the only way to God is Jesus Christ) than he/she is "being illogical or contradictory"? I think not. My argument may sound illogical and contradictory to you; but for me, and people who think alike, it is quite logical.

    "As I capitalized Truth I was speaking of He Who is Truth, He has the power to set us free, when He sets us free we are free indeed. He is not just a concept but a person." - I agree, if we are talking of Him (the Father); but I don't agree if we are talking of him (the son).

    "I am going to bring up the Artist (note high cap) again. If He has intervened and told us what the art (His creation) is about then the opinions and guess work are gone, He will have already exposed tat truth to us before we die, He has the ability to do so and has done so." - LS, the Artist (and, guys, we are not talking about Prince here) has already exposed that Truth, however there are still people (matter, flesh, creatures on earth) who deny it; who refute it, and do not accept it to be the absolute truth. If one doesn't accept something the guess work will continue, the opinions will continue to be given (and the soundest example of this are the opinions of the several belief systems) and yet the Artist is looking at us thinking "It's amazing how My Creation adores to exercise the mind! When they come back, they'll realise what a waste of time it was...".

    "If the Artist is absolute then it is not just His opinion or truth it is absolutely true. He is the standard by which truth is measured." - people, on earth, will refute this.

    I agree with the Artist: we like to exercise our minds LOL :).

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hello Delirious,

    LOL LOL LOL LOL what a great prosaic interpretation: I loved it!! LOL I particularly loved: "Poor Mrs. Andrews. She actually, weighs three hundred pounds, and has to wear over-sized dresses to hide her fat rolls. She is actually making out a shopping list while we waits for the bus." (only a woman would think of this detail) LOL :).

    Thank you for your input, dear :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hi Maximus;

    Each article…each comment of yours is like an adventure…one full of dynamic thought, fascinating wit and resplendent with Maxiness….

    You said:
    "Max if a painter just paints for the joy of paining do you believe that there are still underlying reasons of symbology within the work?" - you brought up the symbology of wheat, I was simply adding some other meanings. But to answer your question; yes, I do think that a painter's work has always an underlying message, symbology (even if it appears to us that he/she is simply painting for the joy of painting).

    I respond:
    Do you think that even if the painter is not educated that certain things are symbolic they will subconsciously use them anyways?

    You said:
    "I am not aware of how adept the artist was in understanding symbology at this time in his career, but I believe he had a love of nature and landscapes and was probably more interested in representing them as they were more than symbology, or even the persons in the painting." - It is said that artists are some kind of mediums, cause they communicate with outside forces - which they tell us about through their art. Artists' mentality is on another level, and that is why they are more open to life than most of us. But I also believe that Gainsborough loved nature, landscapes and humans (I have seen a few of his paintings and he could captured people's thoughts...in Mr. and Mrs Andrews, did you noticed their eyes? You can read their thoughts through them...newlywed Mrs Andrews is bored to death, he captured her all too well).

    I respond:
    Interesting thoughts….how would you compare these things between formally trained artists and those who have raw talent?

    You said:
    it's graffiti aura LOL LOL

    I respond:
    LOL LOL soon you’ll be starting up Max on the Blade! :)

    And I’ll be starting up LAX :) lol

    You said:
    "The existence of that absolute truth is a perfect example that absolute can exist. Where there is one absolute non-contradictory (see law of non-contradiction) truth then there can be others." - I get the non-contradictory law; however this law is only applicable on earth. when I say that "we exist" is an absolute truth (on earth) I mean that it is undeniable, no one can address you and me and tell us otherwise, here on earth. But when we die, Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, Taoists, Muslims, Pagans, Celtics, agnostics, atheists etc will all realise that there Is an irrefutable absolute truth: Him.

    I respond:
    The existence of absolute truth is an indicator (read evidence) that there is a God. But since you believe that there is at least one absolute truth here on earth and you seem to accept the non-contradictory law (do you? You do appeal to it during our debates in an informal manor) is it not reasonable that since that rule is linked to truth that it will also exist in the presence of the Creator the Standard of Truth?

    You said
    "It is absolutely true I am sitting here writing this message too you (but it absolutely not true if I am standing and writing this to you)." - this is an excellent example; however nothing guarantees me that a brilliant philosophy-skilled person wouldn't be able to refute this.

    I respond:
    LOL LOL I love the part about “philosophy-skilled person” I know some that claim that it is not an absolute truth that we exist, yet they certainly do not live like life is a delusion or fantasy. They don’t stand behind what they say.

    You said:
    "I do not think you actually believe that there is no absolute truth, and I don’t believe you live your life in such a manner." - I respect your beliefs :). I have told yesterday how I live my life :).

    I respond:
    I respect your beliefs also, and even more so you as a person. The idea I was expressing was more of a question…trust that I hold you in high esteem.

    You said:
    "If you truly do not believe in absolute truth then take me up on the money challenge. Give me all of your money; you can have as your truth that you still have it and I will actually, absolutely have it. Under your proposed position we should both be happy with that. A philosophical position becomes much easier to believe when people are willing to actually go beyond theoreticals to living them out in reality long term." - LOL LOL nice try. But what I believe, and how I live my life is not relevant here. What I say is that my truth is always subject to refutation, and thus no longer eligible for an absolute truth.

    I respond:
    When you say “But what I believe, and how I live my life is not relevant here. What I say is that my truth is always subject to refutation, and thus no longer eligible for an absolute truth.” Is that an absolute? I think I will leave it at that….

    You said:
    but someone else, could come and prove that if he/she would be hit the same way the student hit the professor, they wouldn't consider that they had been hit, since he/she hadn't felt pain. This way the professor's absolute truth (that he's been hit) would be refutable.

    I respond:
    That’s why I like the money challenge it clearly makes the point…and nobody is willing to take it up, because they KNOW it is absolutely true….

    You said:
    I never said that there isn't One Absolute Truth. What I said is that, here on earth, whatever we state to be true is subject to interpretations and refutations; and if so it can no longer be accepted as absolute (since not all humans' mind accepts it as being true).

    I respond:
    This begs the question…it is stated as an absolute truth.

    You said:
    "I declare there is “absolute truth” beyond just being “my truth”, that statement cannot both be true and not true at the same time, it cannot be relative it is absolute." - as long as there is one person, on earth, to refute you. It no longer is absolute.

    I respond:
    Is that an absolute? Absolute truth does not depend on persons believing in it for it to be true. My statement still stands…

    You said:
    "If you respond with “well that is your truth” then you are being illogical and contradictory, you are defeating your own argument…." - you are a follower of Jesus, and as such your job is to Christianise others. If a Jewish person doesn't accept your truth (that the only way to God is Jesus Christ) than he/she is "being illogical or contradictory"? I think not. My argument may sound illogical and contradictory to you; but for me, and people who think alike, it is quite logical.

    I respond:
    I guarantee I am not able to convert anybody. Max…my statement is not personal I was simply walking thru a basic logic exercise. You are equally vigorous in your defense of relative truth…which I am very happy to engage with.

    You said:
    "I am going to bring up the Artist (note high cap) again. If He has intervened and told us what the art (His creation) is about then the opinions and guess work are gone, He will have already exposed tat truth to us before we die, He has the ability to do so and has done so." - LS, the Artist (and, guys, we are not talking about Prince here) has already exposed that Truth, however there are still people (matter, flesh, creatures on earth) who deny it; who refute it, and do not accept it to be the absolute truth. If one doesn't accept something the guess work will continue, the opinions will continue to be given (and the soundest example of this are the opinions of the several belief systems) and yet the Artist is looking at us thinking "It's amazing how My Creation adores to exercise the mind! When they come back, they'll realise what a waste of time it was...".

    I respond:
    LOL LOL great line about Prince! LOL lol You win the prize on best injection of humor, that beats my apple lines on my blog!

    Max there is a difference between attempting to deny something or not accept something and actually refuting it…

    Refute:
    1)to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
    2)to prove (a person) to be in error

    Denials and acceptance can be wrong….truth does not depend on people believing it. You are welcome to not believe it but that does not make it error.

    You said:
    I agree with the Artist: we like to exercise our minds LOL :).

    I respond:
    Max you are so wonderful to spend time with! You are a fantastic hostess!!! I thank you profusely for this opportunity to hang out with you and dialogue. The exercise has been invigorating.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi LSus,

    "Each article…each comment of yours is like an adventure…one full of dynamic thought, fascinating wit and resplendent with Maxiness…" - lol you kill me *nodding*; nevertheless thank you :).

    "Do you think that even if the painter is not educated that certain things are symbolic they will subconsciously use them anyways?" - yes, I do believe. Remember when I told that artists are mediums?

    "Interesting thoughts….how would you compare these things between formally trained artists and those who have raw talent?" - the same way I compare raw talented mediums and formally trained mediums: they are both mediums, the only difference is the second has more tools to successfully interpret symbols than the first.

    "LOL LOL soon you’ll be starting up Max on the Blade! :)" - LOL LOL LOL *nodding*.

    "And I’ll be starting up LAX :) lol" - LOL LOL LOL isn't that an airport? lol....It sounds good though :).

    "The existence of absolute truth is an indicator (read evidence) that there is a God. But since you believe that there is at least one absolute truth here on earth and you seem to accept the non-contradictory law (do you? You do appeal to it during our debates in an informal manor) is it not reasonable that since that rule is linked to truth that it will also exist in the presence of the Creator the Standard of Truth?" - You see in the presence of the Creator no spirit will refute His truth, they won't even question it. Whereas here on earth the Standard of Truth will be refuted as such (by agnostics and atheists). What I personally believe is not relevant, since it can (and possibly will) be refuted by anyone else.

    "LOL LOL I love the part about “philosophy-skilled person” I know some that claim that it is not an absolute truth that we exist, yet they certainly do not live like life is a delusion or fantasy. They don’t stand behind what they say." - that doesn't mean that a brilliant philosophy-skilled person, who stands behind what he/she says, won't be able to refute your example. Philosophers who deny that our existence here is an absolute truth, refute it just for the sake of refuting...how does one prove that a flesh and bone person doesn't exist? That would be interesting to hear...

    "I respect your beliefs also, and even more so you as a person. The idea I was expressing was more of a question…trust that I hold you in high esteem." - I know you do, LS, I know you do *bowing*. As I said before, I want to be like you when I grow up :).

    "When you say “But what I believe, and how I live my life is not relevant here. What I say is that my truth is always subject to refutation, and thus no longer eligible for an absolute truth.” Is that an absolute? I think I will leave it at that…." - LOL obviously it isn't absolute since you keep rebutting me lol :).

    "That’s why I like the money challenge it clearly makes the point…and nobody is willing to take it up, because they KNOW it is absolutely true…." - it means that you haven't met an amazingly intelligent person who could refute you on that one yet. It doesn't mean that it is absolutely true.

    "This begs the question…it is stated as an absolute truth." - "we exist" is an irrefutable absolute truth on earth.

    "Is that an absolute? Absolute truth does not depend on persons believing in it for it to be true. My statement still stands…" - yes, it does depend on the mind accepting a concept as true. If someone doesn't believe it to be true, how can someone say "it's true. It's absolutely true."? The mind has to accept the concept to believe it true, beyond any reasonable doubt. (and you will ask "is this an absolute?", no it isn't if someone can refute it).

    "I guarantee I am not able to convert anybody. Max…my statement is not personal I was simply walking thru a basic logic exercise. You are equally vigorous in your defense of relative truth…which I am very happy to engage with." - lol it's quite all right, LS; I am not able to convert anybody either :). I was giving you a logical example, which rebuts your theory.

    "LOL LOL great line about Prince! LOL lol You win the prize on best injection of humor, that beats my apple lines on my blog!" - LOL «thank you, thank you: you're a beautiful audience» lol lol. No, I preferred your apple lines :).

    "Max there is a difference between attempting to deny something or not accept something and actually refuting it…" - kind LS, I didn't say that refutation was equal to denial and non-acceptance «(...) people (...) who deny it, who refute it and do not accept (...)» which is different from «people who deny (refute, not accept) it». However thank you for the definition of the verb refute *bowing*.

    "Denials and acceptance can be wrong….truth does not depend on people believing it. You are welcome to not believe it but that does not make it error." - on earth, the mind has to accept a concept in order to consider it true.
    I'd like to offer you an example (which supports both my theory and your «acceptance can be wrong»): many years ago, it was believed that black people didn't have a soul, and for that reason they should be slaves - this was widely accepted, and thus considered true (out of convenience, fear...I don't know, but the fact is: it was accepted as true by the majority). Many, many years later, it was proven that the previous theory was an absurd. The actual truth is that we all have souls (the majority agrees that we all have souls).
    What I have been saying since day one is that everything that we might say, on earth is subject to refutation (may not be right away, it may take centuries; but someday it might - ex: nowadays scientists are refuting the Big Bang theory).

    "Max you are so wonderful to spend time with! You are a fantastic hostess!!! I thank you profusely for this opportunity to hang out with you and dialogue. The exercise has been invigorating." - oh my sweet Lord "profusely"? I liked that :). Thank you, LS, my admirable co-gladiator *bowing*. It is being a true honour to learn from you :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  14. I have always been curious....do you have to write each post in both English and Portuguese, or do you have translation program that you use?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Hello Mel,

    No, I don't have a translation program. What I do is I write the articles in English, first; and then I translate them into Portuguese.

    You see, I don't believe in translation programs since they don't put the cultural effects of the language, into the translations. If you read Portuguese, and knew a bit of our culture, you would realise that Mrs Dempsey (in the Portuguese version) uses expressions from the region of Beira (Northeast of Portugal)...
    If I were to write it in Portuguese from Brazil (which is the version all programs use) it would have to be a whole different thing :).

    I hope to have satisfied your curiosity :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  16. Max,
    Wow.....you never cease to amaze me. You indeed put a lot of yourself and time into your site. I am very impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Mel,

    Thank you *bowing* :)!

    Yes, I do. What can I say? I wish to give the best to my readers :).

    ReplyDelete
  18. Hey Amelia,

    Thank you very much, girl!!! :).
    I like the name of the award already, buddy :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  19. I've had 3 plays produced. You should, without a doubt, bring this to a local theatre group, gets some actors and workshop it as a scene. You write for a live audience.
    Viewer Participation TeleVision

    ReplyDelete
  20. Lyle,

    Thank you for your suggestion, I feel honoured *bowing*!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey Manimala,

    Thank you very much *bowing*! It was fun doing it :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good writing here, Max! I enjoyed your story lines and the observations you and your commenters have made about viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hello Lynda!

    Thank you :)!

    lol oh yes, the comment section can be far more interesting than the articles, sometimes lol :).
    I have great readers and commentators :)!

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  24. That's because your thinking and writing are so interesting and as someone pointed out, sophisticated!

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lynda,

    You will make me blush :)...

    Thank you *bowing*!
    My writing reflects my vision of life :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete
  26. Hi Maximus….

    Now that Survivor is done for 2 months or so I can catch up on some of our conversations….I will just put on a bit of techno….excellent, here we go….

    You said:
    "Do you think that even if the painter is not educated that certain things are symbolic they will subconsciously use them anyways?" - yes, I do believe. Remember when I told that artists are mediums?

    I respond:
    I hear where you are coming form but let me throw out an idea….if the painter has an allergy to grass having the wheat in the image takes on a VERY different meaning….there are many ways this can change how we understand the art….and which make a mess of psychology….

    You said:
    "Interesting thoughts….how would you compare these things between formally trained artists and those who have raw talent?" - the same way I compare raw talented mediums and formally trained mediums: they are both mediums, the only difference is the second has more tools to successfully interpret symbols than the first.

    I respond:
    Would you call photographers mediums? What exact meaning are you pouring into that word?

    You said:
    "The existence of absolute truth is an indicator (read evidence) that there is a God. But since you believe that there is at least one absolute truth here on earth and you seem to accept the non-contradictory law (do you? You do appeal to it during our debates in an informal manor) is it not reasonable that since that rule is linked to truth that it will also exist in the presence of the Creator the Standard of Truth?" - You see in the presence of the Creator no spirit will refute His truth, they won't even question it. Whereas here on earth the Standard of Truth will be refuted as such (by agnostics and atheists). What I personally believe is not relevant, since it can (and possibly will) be refuted by anyone else.

    I respond:
    Max would you agree that a person bringing up an argument against something is not the same as actually refuting it?

    Questioning something does not mean it is wrong; questions can be used to acquire information….

    There is also a major problem with how you are trying to defend your position; you claim that some may be able to refute the existence of absolute truth…

    Refute:
    1. to prove to be false or erroneous, as an opinion or charge.
    2. to prove (a person) to be in error.

    FROM http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute

    That means that truly refuting something is an absolute truth….which defeats the argument you are making….it is a double-edged sword….

    You said:
    Philosophers who deny that our existence here is an absolute truth, refute it just for the sake of refuting...how does one prove that a flesh and bone person doesn't exist? That would be interesting to hear...

    I respond:
    Once again trying to deny something is not the same as actually refuting it…Also since all the evidence is that we do in deed exist puts the onus upon them to actually prove we don’t exist, simply postulating a hypothetical does not work to win an argument….And as I said none of these people actually live their lives like it is true….

    Which brings me back to the emperor has no clothes argument….if a person says “there is no such thing as absolute truth” they have made an absolute truth claim which denies their assertion….It is impossible to win an argument against absolute truth if one is being logical and reasonable…I am not saying that in a personal way but merely following simple logic…

    You said:
    "I respect your beliefs also, and even more so you as a person. The idea I was expressing was more of a question…trust that I hold you in high esteem." - I know you do, LS, I know you do *bowing*. As I said before, I want to be like you when I grow up :).

    I respond:
    Sounds kinky Max LOL LOL LOL

    Your aspiration to be like me is a kind and generous compliment that I appreciate….I will do my best to help you in this regard! LOL

    You said:
    "That’s why I like the money challenge it clearly makes the point…and nobody is willing to take it up, because they KNOW it is absolutely true…." - it means that you haven't met an amazingly intelligent person who could refute you on that one yet. It doesn't mean that it is absolutely true.

    I respond:
    I have had some very interesting interactions with this question! I had a colleague that said “there is no such thing as absolute truth” which is of course a statement claiming absolute truth! I asked her to give me a $20 bill for an experiment….she gave me the money….I put it in my wallet which I then put in my pocket and walked away…she said “hey give me back my $20”! I responded “It may be your truth that I have your $20 but it isn’t my truth”….She then attempted to appeal to absolute truth to get it back but would not admit to using absolute truth so I left with the money….a couple of weeks later she admitted to her folly….So I returned the money….Then she started using the same exercise on others! In the end you always have to give the money back, people may claim to not believe in absolute truth but they are not willing to trust their money or lives to that claim. I will not believe anybody that something is their true conviction unless they are willing to stand behind it in true life experience. Is this not how many critique followers of Jesus? They call us hypocrites for not putting into practice our stated beliefs!

    You said:
    "This begs the question…it is stated as an absolute truth." - "we exist" is an irrefutable absolute truth on earth.

    I respond:

    Absolute:
    free from imperfection; complete; perfect
    not mixed or adulterated; pure
    complete; outright
    free from restriction or limitation; not limited in any way
    something that is free from any restriction or condition

    Absolute truth has no bounds and is absolutely true even if no human thinks it is or even knows it exists….

    …..If a meteor crashes into a planet on the other side of the universe with no human witness it is still absolutely true that it happened, absolute truth is not dependent upon our knowledge….our not knowing about it does not mean it did not happen!

    Know the Truth and it will set you free! How we answer this question is the cornerstone of ALL other conversations….

    You said (OK it’s a big quote but we both like context LOL):
    "Denials and acceptance can be wrong….truth does not depend on people believing it. You are welcome to not believe it but that does not make it error." - on earth, the mind has to accept a concept in order to consider it true.
    I'd like to offer you an example (which supports both my theory and your «acceptance can be wrong»): many years ago, it was believed that black people didn't have a soul, and for that reason they should be slaves - this was widely accepted, and thus considered true (out of convenience, fear...I don't know, but the fact is: it was accepted as true by the majority). Many, many years later, it was proven that the previous theory was an absurd. The actual truth is that we all have souls (the majority agrees that we all have souls).
    What I have been saying since day one is that everything that we might say, on earth is subject to refutation (may not be right away, it may take centuries; but someday it might - ex: nowadays scientists are refuting the Big Bang theory).

    I respond:
    Max you state that “it was proven that the previous theory was an absurd”, was it “proven” in an absolute sense? (Obviously I believe that black people like all people have souls! But this is true whether I believe it or not, and as you know I abhor racism). Is your “actual truth” absolute?

    Max there is a difference between refuting a theory which by its nature is not an absolute truth and absolutely proving something wrong which cannot logically happen to absolute truth because it takes an absolute truth to deny it which then proves the existence of absolute truth….

    Do you think God’s absolute truth is captive on the other side and He cannot impose it here in the material universe? Is He not Sovereign?

    Well I am so glad I came down the hall for this conversation! It’s always nice to spend time with friends….

    By the way your word verification is dzzhpky shocking language!

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hello LS!

    "Now that Survivor is done for 2 months or so I can catch up on some of our conversations….I will just put on a bit of techno….excellent, here we go…." - LOL LOL techno?! How aggressive LOL LOL *nodding*...what is coming my way, I wonder lol. I am listening to French music...ok, je suis prête:

    "I hear where you are coming form but let me throw out an idea….if the painter has an allergy to grass having the wheat in the image takes on a VERY different meaning….there are many ways this can change how we understand the art….and which make a mess of psychology…." - LOL LOL noo, I SEE where you're coming from LOL *nodding*. My friend, the painter can very well be allergic to grass; however the symbology of it doesn't change. The message is not transmitted to mediums accordingly to their allergies or likes, or even dislikes. The message is given and that is it. Then the interpreters of signs are the ones who should interpret the message given. This is why, I often tell you that Isaiah, Daniel, Ezekiel (to name a few) just wrote what they saw; they didn't decode what they beheld...that job was left to others who certainly have decoding skills...

    "Would you call photographers mediums? What exact meaning are you pouring into that word?" - I would, yes (you put a "normal" person and a photo artist taking a pic of the same thing: the artist will show you much more than it is visible to the eyes of the "normal" person). A medium (as the word says) is a person who is a mean through which messages are transmitted.

    "Max would you agree that a person bringing up an argument against something is not the same as actually refuting it?" - yes, I would agree that bringing up an argument against something is not equal to refutation; however I am not using the word refutation because I find it a gorgeous word. I am using it with a purpose, and I am using it knowing that I am using it correctly...

    "Questioning something does not mean it is wrong; questions can be used to acquire information…." - Antero de Quental (a Portuguese poet and philosopher) said that questioning is the way to reach truth. I agree with you: "questioning something does not mean it is wrong"; however questioning something is a mean to prove others wrong, isn't it? One starts by questioning, then pursues logical answers (which can very well be absurd and irrational), and then search for arguments that support those answers, then form a thesis, and...a new truth, ready to rebut the previous one, is born...regardless if it is really true or not; absolute or not...

    "There is also a major problem with how you are trying to defend your position; you claim that some may be able to refute the existence of absolute truth…" - thank you for the definition of refute, LS :). Yes, I claim it...

    "That means that truly refuting something is an absolute truth….which defeats the argument you are making….it is a double-edged sword…." - no, actually it doesn't; since refuting something is not a guarantee that your proven theory won't be proven wrong by another person. What it means is that refutating an absolute truth (here on earth) is a vicious cycle (and many times a waste of time).

    "Once again trying to deny something is not the same as actually refuting it…" -but something to be refuted must be denied first; then if a community accepts the arguments of a certain group is because they were able to prove it; therefore any absolute truth (on earth) can be refuted.

    "Also since all the evidence is that we do in deed exist puts the onus upon them to actually prove we don’t exist, simply postulating a hypothetical does not work to win an argument….And as I said none of these people actually live their lives like it is true…." - but what if someone could prove that what we do is not real, and thus doesn't exist? What if a considerable number of people starts seeing that what we do, say and live is not real? Then they assemble their info and, agree that what they say is correct, and boom...another truth is born. Then you would have to accept that nothing that we do is real, and therefore we might not exist...it can all be an illusion.

    "Which brings me back to the emperor has no clothes argument….if a person says “there is no such thing as absolute truth” they have made an absolute truth claim which denies their assertion….It is impossible to win an argument against absolute truth if one is being logical and reasonable…I am not saying that in a personal way but merely following simple logic…" - LOL LS, you can even say it in a personal way; it is quite ok, cause you are just defending your position: we are verbal gladiators, remember LOL :)? You are trying to get me to confess what I really think about Absolute Truth lol *nodding*. All I have to say is that a person saying that there isn't an absolute truth may very well be refuted by someone (let's say) like you. And if you can proof people that there is an absolute truth beyond any reasonable doubt (that even an atheist will believe in you) then the whole world will have to accept that absolute truth exists, and nobody else can ever state that there isn't such a thing.

    "Sounds kinky Max LOL LOL LOL Your aspiration to be like me is a kind and generous compliment that I appreciate….I will do my best to help you in this regard! LOL" - lol kinky *nodding*. LOL LOL oh how kind, Professor LS *bowing*! Thank you :).

    "I had a colleague that said “there is no such thing as absolute truth” which is of course a statement claiming absolute truth!" - how many absolute truths are there, accordingly to you; LS?

    "I asked her to give me a $20 bill for an experiment….she gave me the money….I put it in my wallet which I then put in my pocket and walked away…she said “hey give me back my $20”! I responded “It may be your truth that I have your $20 but it isn’t my truth”…." - this example is very interesting. However this statement " It may be your truth that I have your $20 but it isn't my truth" sounds more like "It's your word against mine"; and it has nothing to do with truth; it has to do with a mischievous act. A concept becomes the truth when one's mind accepts it as such: the $20 was her money (this is accepted by both of you, thus true); you taking her money and putting it in your wallet is only accepted by you as being true (it isn't accepted by her) thus it isn't an absolute (= "not to be doubted or questioned") true.

    "She then attempted to appeal to absolute truth to get it back but would not admit to using absolute truth so I left with the money….a couple of weeks later she admitted to her folly….So I returned the money…." - LOL you like making people admiting to things, don't you? But she may have not been making use of your sense of absolute truth: the money could've belonged to her brother; but she didn't want to tell you (thus she kept telling you "it's my money!" when in fact it wasn't; she was just a safekeeper); and she just wanted it back.

    "Then she started using the same exercise on others!" - She didn't want to waste time debating you...she's smarter than me LOL. And the others didn't want to waste time debating her lol....

    "In the end you always have to give the money back, people may claim to not believe in absolute truth but they are not willing to trust their money or lives to that claim." - if you had applied the same example to me, I would've let you keep the money; and then what would happen to your absolute truth?

    "I will not believe anybody that something is their true conviction unless they are willing to stand behind it in true life experience." - then you don't believe in most people; how does that work for a follower of Jesus? Besides, convictions mays shift...*nodding*.

    "Is this not how many critique followers of Jesus? They call us hypocrites for not putting into practice our stated beliefs!" - Humanity is hypocritical; cause there is only One Absolute Truth and most are not willing to put it in practice.

    "Absolute truth has no bounds and is absolutely true even if no human thinks it is or even knows it exists…." - Thanks for the definition of Absolute; however you only included the definitions that support your argument...you forgot to include "not to be doubted; positive". But the truth is that people doubt absolute truth, so if it is doubted it can't be absolute.

    "(…) absolute truth is not dependent upon our knowledge….our not knowing about it does not mean it did not happen!" - funny you're saying this; than you are saying that Karma (as I know it) is an absolute truth; that reincarnation is an absolute truth; that conversing with spirits is an absolute truth...even though it is "anti-biblical" as you so many times defended...

    "Know the Truth and it will set you free! How we answer this question is the cornerstone of ALL other conversations…." - what truth will set you free? Now, that you have stated that even Karma and reincarnation can be absolute truths (since the fact that one doesn't know about it, it doesn't mean that is doesn't happen)....

    "Max you state that “it was proven that the previous theory was an absurd”, was it “proven” in an absolute sense?" - if there are still people who doubt that proven argument, then no; it was not proven in an absolute sense.

    "(Obviously I believe that black people like all people have souls! But this is true whether I believe it or not, and as you know I abhor racism)." - I know, LS. All men were created in the image of God regardless the shade of their skin.

    "Is your “actual truth” absolute?" - if there is someone capable of proving me wrong; then no; it isn't...but if there isn't anyone capable of proving me wrong...

    "Max there is a difference between refuting a theory which by its nature is not an absolute truth and absolutely proving something wrong which cannot logically happen to absolute truth because it takes an absolute truth to deny it which then proves the existence of absolute truth…." - LS; you are right when you say that Absolute Truth cannot be proven wrong for It IS the Only Undeniable Truth. However refuting a theory and proving (absolutely or not; it is still proving) it wrong is the same thing - no matter how many nice words one puts in between; in the end it means the same.

    "Do you think God’s absolute truth is captive on the other side and He cannot impose it here in the material universe? Is He not Sovereign?" - He is Sovereign, no doubt about that; but He gave us free will, didn't He? Those who choose to accept Him as the Absolute Truth are those who have not broken the umbilical cord with Him (by choice); and those who do not accept Him, and keep trying to prove His non-existence are the ones who chose (by making use of free will) to cut any link with Him (although many times they do so until something bad occurs in their life). When we get to the other side, we are free of matter and of free will itself.

    "Well I am so glad I came down the hall for this conversation! It’s always nice to spend time with friends…." - LOL I am glad too, I really had a nice time; thank you *bowing*

    "By the way your word verification is dzzhpky shocking language!" - don't tell me that it means something nasty in Startrek lingo LOL LOL :).

    Cheers

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers