From: pharvey@mipos3.intel.com (Paul Harvey)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Singular Salvation
Summary: Follow me and be free! Thus spake our Lord!
Date: 30 Jul 92 19:44:33 GMT

>>That's right. God created man in his own image and man returned the favor. But
>>which came first, the chicken or the egg, the mother or the boy, God or man?

In article <1992Jul30.095711.3651@u.washington.edu> 
jeon@milton.u.washington.edu (Sangyong Jeon) writes:
>Egg, because it is more similar to the one-cell creatures that started
>life on earth. 

Seems fair.

>Mother, because the female gender is basic and the male gender is the
>derivative. 

Oh-oh. That word derivative might be a problem. Woman can not exist without
man, man can not exist without woman. Such is the nature of the field of
opposites. For me, it is not so easy to see who came first.

>Man, because existence of man has meaning to man without god. But
>existence of god without man has no meaning whatsoever at all to man.
>If exists, god couldn't be careless about the meaning of anything.

OK arguement, but one could argue that without god, humans have no meaning. 
Like this:
without god, humans have no meaning
without humans, god has no meaning
It's just another pair of opposites. Very different, very same, opposites or
illusion? Can one opposite function, exist without the other? Chicken and egg, 
mother and son, deities and humans.

>>Yes, it is the time of the individual. We are free, it is only a matter of
>>fulfilling the role. Roma backwards is amor!

>Puzzling statement. What role ? "Role" has meaning only in the context
>of the (co- or inter- )dependence upon others.
>Personal salvation has nothing to do with "role" in any meaning.

What is the meaning of the role of the individual? Answer that without calling
upon co- or inter- dependence upon others, and you will have the answer. I'm
not saying it is any easy question or that I have the answers. We all have
roles that we play out, such is the nature of life. But what is the proper
role for an individual to play? Role as in, "... and all the world is a stage".

>And who said anything about the capital of Italy backwards being love?

Roma stands for the Roman Empire, most aspects of which still haunt us today
in the world of the West. Amor stands for chakra 6, agape, love above duty,
the heart above dogma, that which we in the West know so little of today. And
don't assume that I am so creative as to have made this up. The saying "Roma
backwards is amor" comes from the Romantic 12th century of Europe. It meant
a great deal then, perhaps some moderns can also see the meaning today. It is
all a test, a test of the individual. Follow me and be free! Thus spake
Zarathustra and Jesus and many others. Now, given that one seeks to be a free
individual, what would be the proper response to this command? What would be
the proper role ... for a free individual? When one goes beyond the dogma of
easy answers, the dogma of absolutes, the questions and the tests become very 
challanging indeed. Can one expect less, if one seeks to be a free individual? 
Free of what? Roma is amor backwards, this much I think you know.

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc