Apech

Give us our colonies back you renegades!

Some features of the Holy Grail: 1 ) is variously a cup/chalice, a bowl or platter, a stone (!) - has five forms of which four are hidden and fifth is the cup. 2 ) is a cornucopia which provides feasts 3 ) heals the sick 4 ) emits intense light 5 ) produces dumbness, stupor or sleep in those 'not pure' Reminds me strongly of the philosophers stone.

Karma basically - and fairly self explanatory. Although there is a problem explaining karma in a monotheistic context but probably not an issue in mystical Christianity.

Do you mean Father = perfect clarity or do you mean the Father is in itself clear. I'm wondering if the word blaspheme here has a wider meaning of something like 'act against' more or less as you suggest.

Thnx Jonesboy. Interesting one and not immediately obvious - not to me at any rate. I take blasphemy to mean ‘speak badly about’ - and not necessarily to deny existence of - but certainly to deny virtue of. The Trinity I take as: Father - originating power Son - formal appearance ( word made flesh) Holy Spirit - the energy which moves between the Father and the Son as two poles. So the Trinity is Three in One - so we experience or we exist in a unity which has threefold nature as power, form and energy (or function since energy means to do work or the capacity to do so - so is about doing something thus function). I think the forgiveness is about consequence - as in karmic consequence - or to use Western concepts about Justice - that is you do something and there is a result. So in terms of the Father any blasphemy would make no difference to the originating power and thus have no consequence for you, for the Son who is Truth your blasphemy would be empty words and similarly make not difference, BUT the Holy Spirit is a dynamic energy and your words would echo and bounce back to have consequences. Hmmmm … well these are my thoughts so far

I think that is true but how does it fit with "for they love the tree but hate its fruit, or they love the fruit but hate the tree."

@A&P It seems to be the fault is not asking the question - rather than in Boorman's film answering the question. In the romance tales the hero knight is kind of struck dumb or inhibited from asking - while the king and the court wait with anticipation for him to do so - as if he does not the king remains sick and so to the land.

Two bacteria forming the cell see 2:50 of video etc.

It is indeed a very good lecture. It is amazing to think that not only are our bodies a vast community of cells but that even each cell is a symbiotic relationship between two different bacteria. I feel this has some deep significance which I have not yet understood properly.

I don't know if it's the case but if they have eliminated some other causes of cancer then it might be a positive thing.

I think Jesus is presenting himself here as the fulfilment of the 'law' in this case the law being the pattern of development laid down by divine power from the first time. So the 'tree' is this lineage of David to which he belongs - that is a lineage of kings (although he is not an earthly king) and the 'fruit' is the result - i.e. the Messiah = Christ = himself. And he is saying that they don't understand who is he because they don't understand the relationship between him as a being and the lineage he fulfils. That is they either cling to him as the fruit, or to the lineage/tree of Jewish tradition. So without being able to reconcile these two natures they cannot fully accept his authority.

You're very literary these days Brian.

You inhabit the rectum area? Well .....

The human race is not a sprint but a marathon .... is that your point?

Here's looking at you, kid.

Swingers prefer groupings tho'

Really? Explain.

Rename this thread 'The Long Goodbye'.

No by race. Historical locality is nationality, physical characteristics are whatever they are i.e. descriptive.

You define the limits of the application of terms. I don't get your last point at all - I am probably being dense

I assume your avatar is an accurate pic of you

Ha, ha you got me.

Well the whole point for me is that I don't have one because I think the flaw is basically trying to divide people in this way. I accept to certain extent the descriptors such as skin colour - for instance if I was to rob a bank the police report would probably say - caucasian, male, brown eyes ... etc. which would be accurate enough to identify me but not accurate enough to define me if you see what i mean.

I wasn't trying to be evasive but merely that I found the definitions to be too general to be of much use.

As I understand it they are the group of people who are closest to the ancestor of us all - so they are good representatives of us all. I don't know that much about Catalonians - but if you said Spanish you would find that they are like all Europeans a very diverse mixture of genetic and cultural heritage. If you want to divide people into races then it only means something if you say accurately what those races are.