Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Talk2Us
»
Tycho !! Click here...
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:jokes wrote:Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
Quite Good. I can see some clever word play, the EATERS AND TYPE AND SYMBOLS  , nice but you need to make it a bit simpler or you loose your audience lol. Will try though my dance partner knows my moves. They are familiar to him and am not trying to 'out dance' him. @jokes, reading Muriel's post was 'difficult' at first. It's a hint that perhaps tycho is Muriel, or the other way round. A way of 'us' being equal to 'I'. Ah. Brother.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement. Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement. Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority? Whatever the prime concern (thought) was, the result (actions) was not good.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement. Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority? Whatever the prime concern (thought) was, the result (actions) was not good. And I say, there can be no higher thought than 'God'. Good and evil. Knowledge. Assuming that Cain didn't know, and that this whole matter was of mistaken identity is to absolve Cain. 'Am I my brother's keeper?'
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement. Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority? Whatever the prime concern (thought) was, the result (actions) was not good. And I say, there can be no higher thought than 'God'. Good and evil. Knowledge. Assuming that Cain didn't know, and that this whole matter was of mistaken identity is to absolve Cain. 'Am I my brother's keeper?' I know i will rub some people the wrong way but here goes. these are the scenarios: The cause was God. Gods love for Abel caused Cains reactions. He thought of the problem and the problem was God. His favour of Abel over him. He could not solve the problem and opted to remove the object of Gods love. Another scenario is due to a fault in his psyche he was unable to solve the conflict he encountered and resolved mistakenly to eliminate the symptom instead of confronting the solution and asking WHY?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:jokes wrote:Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
Quite Good. I can see some clever word play, the EATERS AND TYPE AND SYMBOLS , nice but you need to make it a bit simpler or you loose your audience lol. Will try though my dance partner knows my moves. They are familiar to him and am not trying to 'out dance' him. @jokes, reading Muriel's post was 'difficult' at first. It's a hint that perhaps tycho is Muriel, or the other way round. A way of 'us' being equal to 'I'. How now?
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
jokes wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement. Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority? Whatever the prime concern (thought) was, the result (actions) was not good. And I say, there can be no higher thought than 'God'. Good and evil. Knowledge. Assuming that Cain didn't know, and that this whole matter was of mistaken identity is to absolve Cain. 'Am I my brother's keeper?' I know i will rub some people the wrong way but here goes. these are the scenarios: The cause was God. Gods love for Abel caused Cains reactions. He thought of the problem and the problem was God. His favour of Abel over him. He could not solve the problem and opted to remove the object of Gods love. Another scenario is due to a fault in his psyche he was unable to solve the conflict he encountered and resolved mistakenly to eliminate the symptom instead of confronting the solution and asking WHY? Cain made no mistake. He struck at the heart of the matter. God has internal conflict just like Man.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
jokes wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:jokes wrote:Muriel wrote:Cain: The issue was not what he wondered or thought but what he did.
Cain: He made an attempt to obey. He brought something. He did something. He could have refused flatly and instead went to the shamba as usual as Abel did his 'weird' stuff.
"In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
The eaters ate but did not die on that day. Instead something else did. A temporary symbol of a certain permanent surety. A prefiguration. Hence the promise of a certain 'seed'. Thereafter "unto adam and his wife did the lord God make coats of skins and clothed them". All that the eaters and Cain and Abel had now to do was to recognise that promised permanent surety (the anti-type) in its current (to them) and temporary symbol (the type).
Cain: Had only to see the anti-type in the type, to see the typology, to see the symbology.
The surety and its symbol died, not just die but had its blood spilt.
In all this, the slain symbology, typology, prefiguration, the anti-type and type, Abel observed the fulfillment of the warning 'ye shall surely die' and believed the 'warner', the speaker. Abel did not do much. Cain did not have to do much. The eaters did not do much.
Cain: The matter at hand was not so much to do with God as it had to do with Cain and what he did - and Abel and what he did.
So back to Cain. Shida yake ili kuwa wapi, honestly? Jameni.
Cain: Could he have recognised anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not recognise the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings.
Ps. i just love you guys, Symbols and Tycho, how you came to choose your usernames tells me there is no coincidence.
Quite Good. I can see some clever word play, the EATERS AND TYPE AND SYMBOLS , nice but you need to make it a bit simpler or you loose your audience lol. Will try though my dance partner knows my moves. They are familiar to him and am not trying to 'out dance' him. @jokes, reading Muriel's post was 'difficult' at first. It's a hint that perhaps tycho is Muriel, or the other way round. A way of 'us' being equal to 'I'. How now? Deep 'down' the mind is one. The rest are reflections.
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 3/19/2013 Posts: 2,552
|
tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. It is also a battle against 'self deception' and 'self projection'.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
My response to God's love for Abel caused Cain's reaction:
the sequence of events is as follows;
Cain & Abel born »» Cain & Abel brought the things »» THEN The Lord had respect to Abel but not Cain.
Would it have made a difference if the sequence was instead as follows;
Cain & Abel born »» The Lord had respect to Abel but not Cain »» THEN Cain & Abel brought their things.
See the difference? At the time of bringing the things both were on equal footing. I had earlier mentioned that both had the same opportunities, privileges, chances, upbringing. Either could have copied the other THEN The Lord could have had respect for both or for none.
I agree that Cain made no mistake. Mistake implies unawareness. The sequence of his thoughts and the resultant actions could not have been otherwise. Once he got one foot on that path there was no turning back. He had made careful consideration. Not mistake.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
Tycho, brother,
assuming Cain didnt know ,,,,,,,, a weighty word there - 'assuming'. It implies uncertainty. Perhaps Cain knew. In all probability he knew. It is more logical that he knew than that he did not know. Remember he did not make a 'mistake'.
yes its about 'am i my bothers keeper?'. After all this Abel stil talked whith his brother, no, Cain talked with his brother. What could the conversation have been but 'what happened?'. Is it not logical? They were in the field, perhaps they were sitting on the grass, lazily chewing soft grass stalks. Then Cain rose up ,,,,,,,,
its about being my brothers keeper, brother.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
tycho wrote:jokes wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement. Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority? Whatever the prime concern (thought) was, the result (actions) was not good. And I say, there can be no higher thought than 'God'. Good and evil. Knowledge. Assuming that Cain didn't know, and that this whole matter was of mistaken identity is to absolve Cain. 'Am I my brother's keeper?' I know i will rub some people the wrong way but here goes. these are the scenarios: The cause was God. Gods love for Abel caused Cains reactions. He thought of the problem and the problem was God. His favour of Abel over him. He could not solve the problem and opted to remove the object of Gods love. Another scenario is due to a fault in his psyche he was unable to solve the conflict he encountered and resolved mistakenly to eliminate the symptom instead of confronting the solution and asking WHY? Cain made no mistake. He struck at the heart of the matter. God has internal conflict just like Man. Now i know why philosophers complicate their language. Some Knowledge is better left to those who understand.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
congratulations to you Tycho Muriel symbols et al. your discussion has helped me accept what i have always known to be the truth. didn't know there were others who thought the same.
But i would like to understand the tower of babel and its relation to God and MAn, over to you
|
|
|
Rank: Elder Joined: 7/1/2011 Posts: 8,804 Location: Nairobi
|
Muriel, did God know that Cain was about to commit a murder?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
jokes wrote:congratulations to you Tycho Muriel symbols et al. your discussion has helped me accept what i have always known to be the truth. didn't know there were others who thought the same.
But i would like to understand the tower of babel and its relation to God and MAn, over to you Tower of Babel is another interesting thing to talk about. Man, there is so much to read and study! Can we add it to the queue?: 1. The eaters / students 2. Cain 3. Daniel 4. Revelation 5. H.P Blavatsky 6. Annie Besant 7. Babel 8. ,,,,,,, Tycho, what say you?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
jokes wrote:tycho wrote:jokes wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel wrote:Did it? You have made me to study hard my statements. lol. But I don't see where. It, indeed, is about thought. Thoughts and actions are inseperable. Thoughts precede actions. Si hapa we are working backward from the actions to see the most logical and probable thoughts? Would it make a difference if I added the highlighted parts ,,,,,,,,, Quote:Cain: Could he have recognised the anti-type in the type and still wonder nevertheless about the problem? I posit not. It is because he did not think much of the anti-type in the type that he wondered his wonderings and so brought fruits. How do you see it? He must have known about the anti-type because: 1) the eaters must have talked to both of them about it because: 1') Abel indicated he had grasped it and because1'') Cain carried it out partially Of course I am just speculating. You have given me a huge responsibility of proving guilt. Its too big for me, I can't do it. BTW, ile maneno yetu ingine ya the eaters being students ilienda wapi? Tulifika wapi? @Muriel, we need to establish what 'thinking much of something' entails. In my opinion, it is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Such that, all 'much thought' is ultimately 'self reflection'. See? Self reflection is study. Student. The altar is not for the thoughtless, for therein lies ultimate knowledge and power. Conversing with 'God' entails 'much thought'. And this not only means knowledge and full awareness of identity but also deliberate action. Okay, 'thinking much of something' is relating the object of thought to your 'self'. Or merely relating to the object of thought. How you relate to the object of thought. Is it higher or lower as you observe from your point of view? He did not think much of = he thought low of = it was not a priority. List. Relation. Placement. From there I get a whiff of a 'sneaky redirect'. It has become 'much thought'? It is 'thinking much of something'. Relating. Placement. Then what was Cain's prime concern if 'God' was of lower priority? Whatever the prime concern (thought) was, the result (actions) was not good. And I say, there can be no higher thought than 'God'. Good and evil. Knowledge. Assuming that Cain didn't know, and that this whole matter was of mistaken identity is to absolve Cain. 'Am I my brother's keeper?' I know i will rub some people the wrong way but here goes. these are the scenarios: The cause was God. Gods love for Abel caused Cains reactions. He thought of the problem and the problem was God. His favour of Abel over him. He could not solve the problem and opted to remove the object of Gods love. Another scenario is due to a fault in his psyche he was unable to solve the conflict he encountered and resolved mistakenly to eliminate the symptom instead of confronting the solution and asking WHY? Cain made no mistake. He struck at the heart of the matter. God has internal conflict just like Man. Now i know why philosophers complicate their language. Some Knowledge is better left to those who understand. Laugh Laugh Its time to demolish that pedestal. Everyone ought to know.
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
tycho wrote:Muriel, did God know that Cain was about to commit a murder? Is it a trick question? I have pre-prepared some responses just in case. Quote:If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin (transgression of the law, of which one is don't kill) lieth at the door. Are you getting at why the question was then asked where is Abel?
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
tycho wrote:danas10 wrote:tycho wrote:butterflyke wrote:kysse wrote:tycho wrote:butterflyke wrote:@tycho, i wake up in the morning, get on with my day and somewhere along the day the lemons and oranges in lemon skin appear.
@kysse, join this philosophical train! Have I ever had lemons in my life? What is it about lemons that is 'painful'? Or what's 'undesirable'? But I have seen someone devour lemons. Lemons look like oranges. As a child they used to give me problems, these two. How did I learn to differentiate them? Then there are those who choose oranges that taste like lemons. Like me. And they get angry. The problem is ignorance. That's why Amadeus had that Library. Or Raimund went straight at the books when he visited Adriana. Like for me, this lemon matter, especially in relationships, was resolved when I read Shakespeare. Lol. Perhaps it was 'Love's labour's lost' that made me laugh at myself, and only wished I had read Shakespeare earlier. Those who want to experience perfect love must seek knowledge, for there in, lies the power of 'God'. ok lemon and oranges are found in different settings ie;work,relationships and homes. Those found in homes are not our choice.We learn how to live with them. The ones found in workplaces are temporary, we learn how to accomodate without letting them influence our performance. Now the ones we fall in love with or choose as friends are our own choice. We learn to how to deal with them. To become a well rounded person,one has to learn how to live with,accomodate and deal with both lemons and oranges. Fact is,we cannot run away from them because they form part and parcel of the society. I agree  A person isn't just how he/she looks, but is also the ideas and relations associated with him. Bodies change, ideas, relations also change, it all depends on how you think. this can also change along the way, true? Like I have changed at least thrice before making this post. Like i have changed innumerable times before i posted this post. I will re-read the bible once again. I know it will make sense this time. Jesus was a wise Man. You look yet you do not see; you listen yet you do not hear; you read yet you do not understand Thank you for the torch
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 7/1/2008 Posts: 323
|
Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel, did God know that Cain was about to commit a murder? Is it a trick question? I have pre-prepared some responses just in case. Quote:If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin (transgression of the law, of which one is don't kill) lieth at the door. Are you getting at why the question was then asked where is Abel? i do not know the truth but i intend to find out, Who is asking? God? Cain? Why is God asking? is God lost? what has he done to get lost? What did God do? who is Abel? is he God's son??
|
|
|
Rank: Member Joined: 11/19/2009 Posts: 3,142
|
jokes wrote:Muriel wrote:tycho wrote:Muriel, did God know that Cain was about to commit a murder? Is it a trick question? I have pre-prepared some responses just in case. Quote:If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin (transgression of the law, of which one is don't kill) lieth at the door. Are you getting at why the question was then asked where is Abel? i do not know the truth but i intend to find out, Who is asking? God? Cain? Why is God asking? is God lost? what has he done to get lost? What did God do? who is Abel? is he God's son?? Yes. Sorry for the delay, I had gone for the day. Yes God asked Cain where Abel was. The question was for the benefit: a) of observers to, again, see the course of a human who has done sin. b) of the culprit as the questions were designed to induce reflection on the culprit. c) of observers to illustrate the forbearance of the 'questioner' how patient he is with the 'questionees' and their expected denials. The eaters were also asked and they tried to evade as did Cain. They, the eaters and Cain, could have come out clean before being asked, or at least at the first instance after being pursued pushed to account after being caught with hands still in the cookie jar - but they did not. Instead of showing penitence for their actions human beings deny, deny, deny, deny and deny some more. Then still deny a little more. This record answers some no-longer-necessary questions in that it shows the resultant 'denial-some' nature of human beings to start with the first human beings, through history - in an unbroken chain - till today.
|
|
|
Wazua
»
Club SK
»
Talk2Us
»
Tycho !! Click here...
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.
|