2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

[danielost]

that's just it ......... the constitution hasn't always protected everyones rights. it still hasn't given all equal rights.

and how are protecting minority rights removing rights from anyone ? it is a gaurentee no one can remove equal rights. not long ago blacks couldn't vote ............. women too. those are minority rights. just as you can't kill or beat someone up because they are a minority and you disagree or don't like them .... that's a hate crime. and I'm sure if some group went around killing christians and beating them up based on being christian that too would be a hate crime. it gaurentees housing , a job , benefits ect ........... that can't be taken away based on being a minority.now your probably a white male so have no clue. unless your gay. so all this is foreign to you.

can you still go to the church of your choice ? that is the freedom of religion. not to make law with it. unfortunatly people don't think logically or can't seperate thier faith in God and government. so much for render unto cesaer what is cesaers .

if religious views feel a need to influence law maybe we should start taxing religions. count them not just as a lobby group because they already are but a collective consultation firm. what a windfall .......... that bs war could get paid off alot quicker.

that aside. it's the constitution. want a religious run country ? move to Iran.

But the amendments that change this is giving them rights. not stating in effect when they get to the voting both they get to vote no matter the time of day including if the place is closed. This is just an example and not a real right.

But people not covered by that law have lost jobs and apartments because they were not a minority. Small business admin. must put women, and minorities in front when giving out loans. second are vets.

Edited July 12, 2008 by danielost

[churchanddestroy]

Get your beliefs out of your argument. My questions above have nothing tom do wth any religious beliefs i have or dont have. Im not even american but i do have a degree which includes both history and politics, so i have an interest in this question.

The trouble is that many people dont seem to think through the actual, practical results of positions they hold,

So i'll put the question to you. Do you stick by the democratic process, even if that brings a state you dont like, or do you insist on a state you do like, even if that means doing away with the democratic process?

If you want my opinion as a non american( and ive given it before) the state should not advance religion but neither should it deny religion, and it should treat all beliefs(and non beliefs) with equal regard under the law. THe state must not sanction a particular religion , but doesnt your constitution also say something like, it should not impair any religious belief. If all religious beliefs are impaired by the state then any particular one is also impaired (impaireds not the right word but then its not my constitution.)

I think we agree without realizing it. The constitution guarantees your right to be governed by a gov't that is free from religious bias while also being able to practice as you choose. I wouldn't have it any other way. I do not, however, think it would be a good idea to take into account this or that religion just because there is a majority consisting of such and such types of believers. What the bill of rights guarantees is that even if you are a religious or ethnic or whatever minority, your rights will still be respected.

[IamsSon]

I think we agree without realizing it. The constitution guarantees your right to be governed by a gov't that is free from religious bias while also being able to practice as you choose. I wouldn't have it any other way. I do not, however, think it would be a good idea to take into account this or that religion just because there is a majority consisting of such and such types of believers. What the bill of rights guarantees is that even if you are a religious or ethnic or whatever minority, your rights will still be respected.

The thing is, in the United States, where we have explicitly stated that this is a "government of the people and by the people" it is impossible to live in a country where religious bias is not reflected in the law. "The people" are free to use whatever values they want to use when participating in the business of government. If you're Jewish, you will use the values that you hold as important as a Jew as the foundation of your political opinion. If you're atheist, then you will use atheistic values, if you're Christian, then you will use Christian values. Whichever opinion is held by the most people will then be reflected in the way our country is run because it is a majority-rule representative government! We are not the Soviet Union, where the State was the government and the people were it's servants, we are a republican democracy where the government reflects the views and values of the majority and is tempered by the views of the minority (minorities). The only way you will get a government--under our current circumstances--which is free of religious bias is to have a vast atheist majority made up of true atheists and not of people who have made denial of a god their religion.

Edited July 12, 2008 by IamsSon

[Lt_Ripley]

But the amendments that change this is giving them rights. not stating in effect when they get to the voting both they get to vote no matter the time of day including if the place is closed. This is just an example and not a real right.

But people not covered by that law have lost jobs and apartments because they were not a minority. Small business admin. must put women, and minorities in front when giving out loans. second are vets.

your not making sense. so minorities can go vote even when the polls are closed ? lmao. or are you complaining that polls are held open longer because they are swamped with people wanting to vote ? I have never seen a poll closed reopened just for a minority . nor has anyone.

People lose jobs and apartments all the time , even minorities..... the difference is you can't be fired because your black or female , but because you stink at the job.

and loans ? it's harder for women and minorities to get loans . and when they do ? it's usually at a higher interest rate. Same with buying cars. women and blacks tend to pay more for their cars than white men.

(2) Law and Economics, Yale University, USA 2008

Abstract

Recent studies have examined the question of whether there is racial discrimination in car sales by analyzing newly available data about actual, consummated purchases of cars. This article reviews this research and compares it to my previous findings based on audit studies, in which Black and White testers were sent to car dealerships to negotiate, but not consummate sales. The studies using consummated purchase data contain strikingly similar results to those of the audit studies, and together they provide compelling evidence that Blacks pay substantially more for cars than Whites. The existence of this price differential is consistent with claims of racial discrimination and effectively rebuts claims that the audit studies are flawed because they do not reflect bargaining tactics that minorities could use in traditional, face-to-face car sales that would nullify the impact of discrimination. The new data also reveal that there is a much smaller price differential when Internet referral services are used, which is also consistent with claims of racial discrimination since the race of the buyer is harder to discern over the Internet.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/p72p7m101861760q/

so when black people buy cars online they get a better price because the color of their skin can't be seen.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...0,2099860.story

I don't know about vets and loans.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Lt_Ripley

[Lt_Ripley]

The thing is, in the United States, where we have explicitly stated that this is a "government of the people and by the people" it is impossible to live in a country where religious bias is not reflected in the law. "The people" are free to use whatever values they want to use when participating in the business of government. If you're Jewish, you will use the values that you hold as important as a Jew as the foundation of your political opinion. If you're atheist, then you will use atheistic values, if you're Christian, then you will use Christian values. Whichever opinion is held by the most people will then be reflected in the way our country is run because it is a majority-rule representative government! We are not the Soviet Union, where the State was the government and the people were it's servants, we are a republican democracy where the government reflects the views and values of the majority and is tempered by the views of the minority (minorities). The only way you will get a government--under our current circumstances--which is free of religious bias is to have a vast atheist majority made up of true atheists and not of people who have made denial of a god their religion.

it's not impossible . it just takes religion to keep it's nose out of government and stop thinking it has any right to it.

I want my values seen in Government - like honor and honesty but yet haven't seen much of that in the last 20 years.

for example - you may not want abortion. that is your religious view / your values..... but then guess what ? don't have one. you have no right to dictate what someone else does ! it's that simple.

you may not like gays ( or rather the sex they have ) well don't have gay s*e*x ! but you have no right to decide what 2 adults do and the right of marriage , Don't like gays getting married ? don't marry one.

I don't like bible thumpers preaching ........... so I don't go to those services . problem solved. They fill up Sunday airwaves ......... I change the channel.

the way to get a government free of relgious bias is maybe enact a law against it ? make it criminal ? Judges , good ones anyway , put aside their personal beliefs and rule solely by law ................ and that is how government should be handled. Can't do that ? then you lose your job.

[Ozi]

Surely, if it became fundamentalist christian through democratic process, and still retained democratic process, it would be entirely different from iran.

Such an analogy tends to be misleading and perhaps over alarmist. A democratic society can choose to give up some freedoms for more safety, and often does so. This is not a popular view in some circles, but many western european countries have operated under similar parameters for a long time. America is quite a way out on a lengthy pendulum in this regard. Australia is out close to it where a f rance is much more centrist in its position.

England has moved along the pendulum but is presently debating surrendering some democratic rights (especially freedom of movement) to ensure public safety. I'm not a world traveller, but i wonder how many countries outside of australia and america there are, where you can simply rock up to a hotel /motel, pay cash, and give any name you like, without any request for identification.

I often sign as adolf hitler or mahattma ghandi, and no one has ever noticed.

LOL, America is a fundamentalist christian country ruled and run by some neo conservatives, with a christian agenda of bringing about the second coming. As for being like Iran, you already are, you have president who is the public face, and behind him you have a the supreme leaders, the shadow goverment. Iran has a public president and ruled in reality by mullahs, like Khomeni, your both very similar.

[Ozi]

Of course it would become like Iran. well maybe a bit better but not by much. Instead of hanging gays they'd be force into 'changing therapies ' , a woman would lose the choice of abortion and it would go back to the back ally days.

what would you do with all the other religions ? like Islam ? what would you do with Atheists ? Creationism/ID would be forced into schools. the dumbing down of America.

there is a whole laundry list ......................this is the tip.

look at the 'democracy ' of Iraq. It's become more religious and women have lost rights. that democratic process means squat if America were fundie christian.

Hanging gays in Iran, thats new to me. But i take your word and would not put it past them, its the law of the land. as for changing therapies, let me put something right, iran does one good thing, they allow transexuals to choose what gender they will live their life by, they dont force them to be anything, if one wants to live as a man, the goverment will aid you, and if one wants to be a women, they will support you too.

As for dumbing down of America, it already is, you cant question your goverment, if you do, your no patriot, you cant question the iraq or afghan wars, or bush, most yanks dont even know where those countries are, how much more can you be dumbed down.

Democracy in iraq, is that a joke, i think america's agenda was to implement secularism like the west, but like always they dont care about the subjects, arabs, mainly muslim, are incompatible with secularism, but not democracy. I mean as evil as Saddam was, at least he had a better handle on the different factions there.

[Ozi]

actually no ............. it's a bit more than just opinion with all the work they have been doing with the brain and religion.

the god gene ( for example)

http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101041025/

Hmmm, just to give a different angle on this, in the quran we are told that when adam was created, Allah took his entire progeny infront himself and he made them swear they recognise him as their lord and one and true god, that means me and you, before we came to earth and in to being, we swore to god and to recognise him. If such gene exists, god has placed it there, so we seek him and keep our word instintively.

On the other hand, they also said they found a gay gene, it was front page news, until a week later in the same paper, in the middle of it, a small article said it was false and that scientist forged the results because he was gay himself. So i take such things with a pinch of salt.

[DONTEATUS]

Over a thousand years of Strife in that part of the world ,mostly due to Power and Religon.Fighting in the clay is second nature to all the peoples of the Middle east.Maybe because they were taught and from many generations were taught that life is a fight. The New fight is in the Grey clay! Our minds need to expand outside of this human trait.Our speices will not survive too musch longer without a better understanding of the inner workings of Human to Human relationships.The more studies that are done in the area of brain function and the enviroments in which we live the sooner we may chance upon a new path to our Sucess,I for one am now starting a new path to learn more about it,Its a Start IMO DONTEATUS

Edited July 12, 2008 by DONTEATUS

[Ozi]

Over a thousand years of Strife in that part of the world ,mostly due to Power and Religon.Fighting in the clay is second nature to all the peoples of the Middle east.Maybe because they were taught and from many generations were taught that life is a fight. The New fight is in the Grey clay! Our minds need to expand outside of this human trait.Our speices will not survive too musch longer without a better understanding of the inner workings of Human to Human relationships.The more studies that are done in the area of brain function and the enviroments in which we live the sooner we may chance upon a new path to our Sucess,I for one am now starting a new path to learn more about it,Its a Start IMO DONTEATUS

Thats quite a generalisation about the middle east.

[ravergirl]

Hanging gays in Iran, thats new to me. But i take your word and would not put it past them, its the law of the land. as for changing therapies, let me put something right, iran does one good thing, they allow transexuals to choose what gender they will live their life by, they dont force them to be anything, if one wants to live as a man, the goverment will aid you, and if one wants to be a women, they will support you too.

As for dumbing down of America, it already is, you cant question your goverment, if you do, your no patriot, you cant question the iraq or afghan wars, or bush, most yanks dont even know where those countries are, how much more can you be dumbed down.

Democracy in iraq, is that a joke, i think america's agenda was to implement secularism like the west, but like always they dont care about the subjects, arabs, mainly muslim, are incompatible with secularism, but not democracy. I mean as evil as Saddam was, at least he had a better handle on the different factions there.

Where is the love?

We can question our government, our government acts for us. If we don't like something our government is doing we can talk about it, we can talk to them about it, and you get enough of us talking and we can stop it. It's about priorities. How can you dog down the entire nation of America for being stupid for not knowing WHERE a bunch of countries are that just want to fight ALL OF THE TIME. We are fat and happy okay, and middle eastern drama is good for small talk but we are too busy to care whether we can pinpoint something miserable on a globe. IMO. And I know where the countries are.

Implement secularism??????You think America is the devil for real huh?

You know I freed my boyfriend from his previous relationship which was horrible and oppressive, and he is having problems adjusting to a virtuous, loving, giving relationship after being walked on so long. I think there is something to that.

Edited July 12, 2008 by ravergirl

[Ozi]

Where is the love?

We can question our government, our government acts for us. If we don't like something our government is doing we can talk about it, we can talk to them about it, and you get enough of us talking and we can stop it. It's about priorities. How can you dog down the entire nation of America for being stupid for not knowing WHERE a bunch of countries are that just want to fight ALL OF THE TIME. We are fat and happy okay, and middle eastern drama is good for small talk but we are too busy to care whether we can pinpoint something miserable on a globe. IMO. And I know where the countries are.

Implement secularism??????You think America is the devil for real huh?

You know I freed my boyfriend from his previous relationship which was horrible and oppressive, and he is having problems adjusting to a virtuous, loving, giving relationship after being walked on so long. I think there is something to that.

Where is the love? Good question, it aint in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or maybe even iran.

You can question your goverment, yeh right, anyone questioning something is either deemed a terrorists and can be held of x amount of time, with out any justification. If you dont like something you can do something about it. Really, well most people voted for Al gore, how come bush won, and no body could do anything about, or at least the majority who voted for Al Gore could not do anything about it. Let me give you an example closer to home, the war on iraq, had the biggest opposition from the public ever, the biggest protests took place, all with in your beloved secular manner, did they listen to them. NO!

I am not dowing the whole american nation, just the majority who would point at Australia and say lets bomb Iran now. There is a view in europe about america and americans, most dont know what happening beyond their own front gardens.

Your question about America, no, but i think your goverment and those even behind them are little devils. As for implementing Secularims, in the guise of Democracy, if this is not what your are trying then what is it?

No comment on your boyfriend.

Where is the love?

We can question our government, our government acts for us. If we don't like something our government is doing we can talk about it, we can talk to them about it, and you get enough of us talking and we can stop it. It's about priorities. How can you dog down the entire nation of America for being stupid for not knowing WHERE a bunch of countries are that just want to fight ALL OF THE TIME. We are fat and happy okay, and middle eastern drama is good for small talk but we are too busy to care whether we can pinpoint something miserable on a globe. IMO. And I know where the countries are.

Implement secularism??????You think America is the devil for real huh?

You know I freed my boyfriend from his previous relationship which was horrible and oppressive, and he is having problems adjusting to a virtuous, loving, giving relationship after being walked on so long. I think there is something to that.

Where is the love? Good question, it aint in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or maybe even iran.

You can question your goverment, yeh right, anyone questioning something is either deemed a terrorists and can be held of x amount of time, with out any justification. If you dont like something you can do something about it. Really, well most people voted for Al gore, how come bush won, and no body could do anything about, or at least the majority who voted for Al Gore could not do anything about it. Let me give you an example closer to home, the war on iraq, had the biggest opposition from the public ever, the biggest protests took place, all with in your beloved secular manner, did they listen to them. NO!

I am not dowing the whole american nation, just the majority who would point at Australia and say lets bomb Iran now. There is a view in europe about america and americans, most dont know what happening beyond their own front gardens.

Your question about America, no, but i think your goverment and those even behind them are little devils. As for implementing Secularims, in the guise of Democracy, if this is not what your are trying then what is it?

No comment on your boyfriend.

[+Sherapy]

I am so pleased with the way this thread is moving and morphing Lady R and Church rock on you two you make great points .

Rock on Umers and keep on making this thread so awesome....

i am learning so much...

[ravergirl]

Where is the love? Good question, it aint in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or maybe even iran.

You can question your goverment, yeh right, anyone questioning something is either deemed a terrorists and can be held of x amount of time, with out any justification. If you dont like something you can do something about it. Really, well most people voted for Al gore, how come bush won, and no body could do anything about, or at least the majority who voted for Al Gore could not do anything about it. Let me give you an example closer to home, the war on iraq, had the biggest opposition from the public ever, the biggest protests took place, all with in your beloved secular manner, did they listen to them. NO!

I am not dowing the whole american nation, just the majority who would point at Australia and say lets bomb Iran now. There is a view in europe about america and americans, most dont know what happening beyond their own front gardens.

Your question about America, no, but i think your goverment and those even behind them are little devils. As for implementing Secularims, in the guise of Democracy, if this is not what your are trying then what is it?

No comment on your boyfriend.

He doesn't deserve comment. i was just saying that restoring morale is very difficult after oppression.

AND it just isn't true. You are not deemed a terrorist unless you are spouting terroristic ideals and threats. I know that because I rail, rant, and rave against the government all of the time, TO THE GOVERNMENT. and I haven't been held on anything. but then again im not threatening anyone either. and I'm not sure what the hell you mean by secular manner, but you say it like it tastes like over ripe fruit mixed with kitty litter.

If you think that the majority of america doesn't know where austrailia is you are messed up in the head. You have to be western to think western. We aren't stupid, we are focused on other things. If you said point to the clearest beaches or best surf spots you might get them to point in the right place. Not everyone is consumed with hate and fighting and political differences, and that doesn't make them dumb it makes them American. OVER HERE we get to choose what we want to know about since our government doesn't require us to blow ourselves up over it unless we choose to. OVER HERE, you don't have to look at the uglyness that poisons people, and over HERE being a child means not running around with a bomb strapped to your chest, but we're the bad guys huh.....Nope.

[ravergirl]

I am so pleased with the way this thread is moving and morphing Lady R and Church rock on you two you make great points .

Rock on Umers and keep on making this thread so awesome....

i am learning so much...

You aren't mad that it went from religion to politics?

[mklsgl]

Did the fact that other evidence was needed in order to condemn the murderer change the certainty you had about what you had seen? Did you suddenly realize that maybe the murder you witnessed didn't really happen?

No, and no. What I did realize was that the more I thought about what I'd witnessed, the more different my experience became. I remembered the unfolding of events in greater detail and in different "stages." I also realized that defense lawyers believe they can completely deconstruct and render useless eyewitness testimony.

[danielost]

The thing is, in the United States, where we have explicitly stated that this is a "government of the people and by the people" it is impossible to live in a country where religious bias is not reflected in the law. "The people" are free to use whatever values they want to use when participating in the business of government. If you're Jewish, you will use the values that you hold as important as a Jew as the foundation of your political opinion. If you're atheist, then you will use atheistic values, if you're Christian, then you will use Christian values. Whichever opinion is held by the most people will then be reflected in the way our country is run because it is a majority-rule representative government! We are not the Soviet Union, where the State was the government and the people were it's servants, we are a republican democracy where the government reflects the views and values of the majority and is tempered by the views of the minority (minorities). The only way you will get a government--under our current circumstances--which is free of religious bias is to have a vast atheist majority made up of true atheists and not of people who have made denial of a god their religion.

.

We also judge candidates on their values or professed values and of course our own.

[IamsSon]

it's not impossible . it just takes religion to keep it's nose out of government and stop thinking it has any right to it.

I want my values seen in Government - like honor and honesty but yet haven't seen much of that in the last 20 years.

for example - you may not want abortion. that is your religious view / your values..... but then guess what ? don't have one. you have no right to dictate what someone else does ! it's that simple.

you may not like gays ( or rather the sex they have ) well don't have gay s*e*x ! but you have no right to decide what 2 adults do and the right of marriage , Don't like gays getting married ? don't marry one.

I don't like bible thumpers preaching ........... so I don't go to those services . problem solved. They fill up Sunday airwaves ......... I change the channel.

the way to get a government free of relgious bias is maybe enact a law against it ? make it criminal ? Judges , good ones anyway , put aside their personal beliefs and rule solely by law ................ and that is how government should be handled. Can't do that ? then you lose your job.

Why should free citizens be limited on how they make their political decisions? It seems that is exactly what you are suggesting. How interesting. Very tolerant.

[Fluffybunny]

Why should free citizens be limited on how they make their political decisions? It seems that is exactly what you are suggesting. How interesting. Very tolerant.

Because what the founding fathers wanted and penned is more in line with what Ripley just said than the stuff you come up with?

Pretty important matter.

I will be blunt. You cant have it the religious rights way. Wont happen. If it were up to them, this country would be just a different flavor of Iran. The same type religious zealots in control, the same hatred, the same evil in a different suit.

The founding fathers were smart enough to know that and created documentation to avoid that. To the unending consternation of falwell, robertson and the like...

Freedom is a two way street, the religious right wants a one way street with them as the traffic cops. Never going to happen.

[IamsSon]

Because what the founding fathers wanted and penned is more in line with what Ripley just said than the stuff you come up with?

I disagree, the Founding Fathers along with many of the other great thinkers of that time were interested in insuring there would be no tyranny either from a powerful central government or from a powerful majority, which is why if you will notice I pointed out that there are provisions for the minorities to be represented.

I will be blunt. You cant have it the religious rights way. Wont happen. If it were up to them, this country would be just a different flavor of Iran. The same type religious zealots in control, the same hatred, the same evil in a different suit.

This is your opinion you can be blunt as you want, and I can understand why you may have this opinion, but I disagree with it.

The founding fathers were smart enough to know that and created documentation to avoid that. To the unending consternation of falwell, robertson and the like...

Freedom is a two way street, the religious right wants a one way street with them as the traffic cops. Never going to happen.

I agree, the Constitution and the bill of Rights guarantee no majority, no matter it's ilk will be able to rule absolutely, but none of the documents prevent citizens from exercising WHATEVER values they favored while exercising their political duties.

[+Sherapy]

You aren't mad that it went from religion to politics?

heck no ravegirl, on my threads they are open discussions without limits.... hey I am learning alot... and thats what matters to me...

[churchanddestroy]

I disagree, the Founding Fathers along with many of the other great thinkers of that time were interested in insuring there would be no tyranny either from a powerful central government or from a powerful majority, which is why if you will notice I pointed out that there are provisions for the minorities to be represented.

Right, thats why our government is areligious. Not atheistic, but, like science, our Government should not take 'God' into consideration either way, whether he exists or does not. The government should just govern. There is no reason to add theism or atheism into the equation. When it comes to spiritual beliefs, the government is (supposed to be) neutral.

This is your opinion you can be blunt as you want, and I can understand why you may have this opinion, but I disagree with it.

Why do you disagree with it? Honestly Iams, if people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell were given reigns of this country, what would happen to people like me? Thats definitely something I would seriously worry about if our country became a 'Christian' nation instead of a 'United' nation. On the same hand, shouldn't you be worried about what would happen if people like Richard Dawkins called the shots? Of course. But see, we reach a happy medium in the government when all we can say about religious views is 'you go your way, and I'll go my way, and that is that.' Lt. Ripley is right, if you don't want an abortion, don't get one. Personally I am neutral on the subject as I am a male, young, and haven't knocked anyone up, but my moral code dictates to me that it probably isn't a good idea to have my girlfriend run out to the clinic if I knocked her up. I made my mess, now I have to clean it. But, with that, I also have to take into consideration what is good for other people too. Is it my responsibility to tell people what they can or cannot do with regards to their own bodies? No, of course not, as it is THEIR body, not MINE. If you don't want to hear about religion, then don't go to church. I go to church with my mom because it makes her happy, but if she didn't care then I wouldn't. The issue goes to both sides, theistic and atheistic, if the theist does not wish to partake of all the rights given to us, such as an abortion, then they shouldn't get one. If an atheist doesn't want to go to church, then he/she shouldn't have to. End of story.

Would Jesus want to impose his views on others? According to the Bible, he gave us the option to accept him or not. Why don't you?

I agree, the Constitution and the bill of Rights guarantee no majority, no matter it's ilk will be able to rule absolutely, but none of the documents prevent citizens from exercising WHATEVER values they favored while exercising their political duties.

What about when your values impose on mine? As long as your values don't take away my rights, I really don't care. If you, for instance, said that you thought it was immoral for me to drink or smoke, then, well, thats your opinion, but should you be able to take away my right to drink and smoke? No. Now, whether I choose to drink or smoke is up to me, because it is my right to abstain or indulge, don't you see? We are given rights, and those rights are not to be infringed on by any party, no matter how insistent they are that they represent the wishes of God (which I don't think ANYONE does).

[Dr. D]

UMMM.... to the bold above... (because I'm short on time tonight)

There is NO indoctrination in the Quaker faith... you do realize that don't you? Quakers are about the ONLY christians that don't hold the Bible in any special regard, we don't even care if it's inerrant or not. It's just a 2000 year old book, that's it. We are also one of the only christian organizations that have no statement of faith. LOL. There is no indoctrination for Friends. None. If anything, we are closer in faith to something like Universal Unitarians.

I think you might have Friends mixed up with Mennonites or Brethren?

Hmmmm . . . . to move away from the structure of organized religion and integrate God into daily life and contact with all people . . . . to discard traditional religious dates like Easter or Christmas . . . . to celebrate church services in silence with the belief that the Holy Spirit will bring inspiration . . . .and to be pacifists in a modern world of continued violence . . . . and all that with no indoctrination?

Perhaps you see indoctrination as a regimen . . . . I see it as a social experience.

[+Sherapy]

Again, I dont understand supra. I was pointing out my wife believes by faith. I find that admirable but incomprehensibe, I dont believe anything. I work back from experience trying to determine the most logical explanations. If you dot believe my experiences are real that is a problem, because obviously i wont be able to make logical connections, and will have to confabulate. However, there is enough independent evidence for me to know my experiences do have objective reality.

I think you are trying to over complicate something which is really quite simple.

I use the methodologies of science, not of belief to explore the possibilities of my experiences.(when these experiences first began i had twenty years of education which had drawn exclusively on scientific methodologies. I had no other reference points/tools with which to begin investigation or analysis.)

Thus i do not see/experience god as a philosophical /spiritual construct but as a major part of the natural world around me.

I was never/ ever taught a religious belief system. Once i experienced god i wen tout to look at as many spiritual/ faith based systems as i could, within my geographical location and cultural constraints. Then I evaluated my own experience with a variety of belief systems. I found my experiences matched many, but christian worked because it was the one surrounding me. I dont see my god as christian god but a universal god

Sorry i get the feeling im missing a point you are tring to make, but at the moment it is simply outside of any frame of refernce i am familiar with. Keep trying to explain by alll means.

I think its because you see god as only something peole construct through the complexity of intelligence and emotiion. I experience a god like my car. It is not dependent on belief or social construct. it simply exists. My job is to find the owners manual , read it as carefullty as posible and then drive as effectively and safely as i can. If i was a different person i might choose to drive as fast and as exhileratingly as i can. That is the part where subjectivity comes in . The car remains an objective object. So does god. How we deal with him is the subjective part.

Mw i know you were , i was introducing another POV and this provided an amazing frame for this...please understand that in order to refine my critical skills I aim to get my mind disciplined and in good working order..... this thread provides a frame for this for me......in turn .. what you get from this thread if you do is for you....I simply share a pov for consideration.....

so to continue ..

If we take the 2+2=4 example that we began our discussion with (we being all of us ) the proposition that 2+2+4 follows by a purely logical deduction from definitions: that means that its truth results, not from the properties of objects , but from the meaning of the symbols bascailly ..

Now symbols, in mathematics, mean what we choose; thus the feeling of "self evident truth (certatinty)" in this case, seems comprehensible really by the fact that the whole matter is within our control...

I want to suggest that the feeling of 'certainty lies more in the fact of what the symbols represent not what the world may offer up in the way of external observationor evidence...

now for you MW judgements of perception are in qute different positions from judgements of logic.....most of our judgements of perceptions involve correlations and are obviously subject to error.

our subjective certatinty is almost always a result of habit which often lead us astray in mattters of great importance.. claiming personal relationships with god for instance would be one example......... the attempt to deduce the world by pure thought is attractive and in times of past thought cabable of success but nowadays most admit that beleifs must be tested by observation and not because they harmonize with other beleifs...

we 'beleif' various things and because we beleive them we think we 'know' them.....this applies to dieties also...as this thread shows that when we start dissecting these ideas we often see "I knows"...to mean " i beleive therefore I think i know....".

I'd like to see what constitues 'knowing' being addressed also ...what benchmarks to do we at a bare minimum lay out for this????

surely it is vaild...' your thoughts???

Edited July 12, 2008 by Supra Sheri

[Dr. D]

First, no need to apologize. I certainly recognize how difficult it sometimes is to remember who said what.

However, iif one has no receptivity at al,l then of course one would not believe, and thus not seek to improve it. Again my words were directed at a person who is angry that they cannot have such experiences. I do believe that all psychic abilities can be improved a little, both by conscious awareness, and secondly by practising a variety of basic techniques. My point was don't get mad, try to do something about i.t

But doesn't this posture ignore the distinct possibility that a person could be extremely receptive but not perceive the source as the God you believe in? The very idea that God would only speak with those religiously connected with him defies the greater teachings of Jesus.

I also try to respect others views. The only people i really have no time for are those who say, basically. "Your experiences are impossible, my experiences prove this."

Believe me, I would never make such a claim but I do conclude that there are alternatives to the black and white, God and No God posture.

I get no comfort, what so ever, from attributing things to god, or in knowing god is real, any more than i would in attributing a certain mileage to my car or acknowledging my car was real. Its just a fact of life

Could this possibily be a fact that you have discovered in your life rather than an all encompassing fact of all life?

When you know god is real it just changes everything. Yes great blessings and great comforts, but also great obligations and great responsibilities. It is not an emotional security blanket but a physical one. One which needs to be dry cleaned and cared for, but provides physical warmth and physical protection.

And not perceiving God as you do . . . . yet not being a committed sinner of sorts . . . . I have been extremely blessed by whatever power that guides and protects me. I have achieved virtually all of the dreams of my life and an encompassed with a sense of contentment. I live very comfortably in a place of my choice. My professional life was extremely rewarding. With all of this "physical warmth and physical protection" and yet not perceiving God as do you, I am at a loss to understand the exclusive nature of your comment.

I do not even know if this is god, but as ive said many times if it has the powers abilities and interests of a god then it is safest sanest and most logical to treat it as if it is a god.

I am delighted to see this phrase and thank you for it.

With respect you have not had any experience which would lead you to know god. Thus you can logically construct this view of god, and for you it is clear logical and natural. However if i, or even one other person ,actually interacts with a real and physical entity with the attributes of god, then your construct either goes out the window, or you keep that image of god and acknowledge that there ALSO exists a real and powerful entity with the powers we attribute to god, and which has a long contact record with humanity.

Exactly what experiences are need to be led to God? Near death? Been there, done that . . . . purple hearts, Vietnam. Maybe events bringing extreme sadness or despair . . . . been there. Some spiritual awakening coming from a mysterious source? Hell, each time I walk on the beach or through the deep forests . . . .

And exactly what "long contact record" does God have with humanity?

You are wrong. My simple experiences, not counting those of many others, do show that "god" or a very close approximation of god can, and does speak to us, that he does listen, that he has a personal interest in us and physicallly interacts within the real universe to affect things around us.

Well, I have to confess that I have seen babies with their guts swollen from hunger . . . . I have seen man's unfathomable inhumanity . . . . I have seen African villages disappear within ten years because of AIDS. . . . I have seen 12-year-olds in Brasilia cut off their fingers so that people will give them more money when they beg . . . .

And I am not particularly interested in hearing about how God works in mysterious ways. The truth is that I haven't seen him do much at all. It is pretty much like when Voltaire was planting a garden and the priest passed and said what a wonderful job Voltaire had done with the help of God. Voltiaire replied, "You should have seen this place when God had it to himself."