Daemon wrote:I’ve seen some things and I had to study a lot for them and I have to say that the pagan way Gorilla Gal thinks it could be something better from naïve, in the end I can say what Plato was naïve(he was not) or even mad (he was) but Aristotle was not either mad or naïve. The problem here is what by speaking for miracles in a Judaist (and not only) way where the noetic field is blocked in every possible way it’s even worst from naive. But believe in the possibility (not in the entity if you don’t have personal experience) of metaphysics it opens your mind and it leads you to understand better your self (the main target of the ancient Greek religion was to learn your self, to delfiko gnotheis eafton). As an agnostic I can’t reject the possibility of metaphysics or even the possibility of god. I believe what is hypocrisy against your self and mental passive (where actually you harm the knowledge you have for your self and you become passive in the chaos of the mental game) to accept anything with out really know.
Of course there were a lot of stupid and naïve pagans but there are always levels of understanding in the limits of a religion system.
Daemon . . . you sound like a normal, thinking person
Why can't you employ such logic in your Cyprus problem posts?