Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sherapy

2+2=4 equates a certainty of god

1,115 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

MissMelsWell
I have no problem with any of that. I have a problem when you can single out a person and determine that they have no ability to hear God.

Nothing within the Quaker philosophy give such divine powers to anyone.

You are STILL mistaking my meaning and example. You don't seem to have a problem with me choosing myself as part of the example having limited ability and choosing Irish as having large ability. It's not a competition and they were examples. Sheri can't be upset... she's already stated on a number of occasions that she doesn't have that ability. If she did, she wouldn't be a non-believer. In fact, using her as an example might be the MOST accurate of all my examples given she's already stated that she doesn't have that ability.

**shakes head**

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nik Xues

God is the fundamental laws of physics.

Chaos does not exist. just appears to exist to a impatient mind [inside the box].

the laws of physics applies on all levels of existense [as karma]. therefore there is always order.

intelligence, the soul by products of evolution. morality by product of common sense [intelligence].

unless gods an alien and we just put him on a really high pedestal. then physics is physics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IamsSon
God is the fundamental laws of physics.

Chaos does not exist. just appears to exist to a impatient mind [inside the box].

the laws of physics applies on all levels of existense [as karma]. therefore there is always order.

intelligence, the soul by products of evolution. morality by product of common sense [intelligence].

unless gods an alien and we just put him on a really high pedestal. then physics is physics.

God IS the fundamental laws of physics? I believe the fundamental laws of physics POINT to God, but are not God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Better watch out Sheri... meditation is what led me to God in the first place :o

He might get you too. Oh oh. Big trouble. BIG trouble. :rofl:

indeed meditaiton can be approached and is ( especailly in the west ) as finding the answers perhaps to be a part of something ( society, a group, a church etc etc )

where as i use meditation as a way to leave these things behind (society/ labels/ church) because i am discontent at what i see....and they no longer serve me....

Edited by Supra Sheri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D
You are STILL mistaking my meaning and example. You don't seem to have a problem with me choosing myself as part of the example having limited ability and choosing Irish as having large ability. It's not a competition and they were examples. Sheri can't be upset... she's already stated on a number of occasions that she doesn't have that ability. If she did, she wouldn't be a non-believer. In fact, using her as an example might be the MOST accurate of all my examples given she's already stated that she doesn't have that ability.

**shakes head**

It is of little importance if you include yourself or not within your "example." The problem is with the example itself.

The very idea that "I believe that all people have varying abilities to "hear" God" is based upòn the assumption that God speaks in the first place. Beyond that, the categories of those who have or do not have the capacity to hear God is obviously related to their perspectives of God, not an ability to hear.

Irish is an open proponent of Christian thought . . . . you are a Quaker (a pretty heavy indoctrination) . . . . and Sheri is an observer of such beliefs without subscribing to any one in particular. It seems strange therefore that this magical "capacity" should follow so exactly their personal commitments. I am not even concerned with whether or not Sheri has stated that she lacks this ability . . . . I am concerned with the fundamental concept that some hear God and others do not.

But I will assume that God speaks and some gifted few hear him. I will not include George Bush in spite of his claims of having personal chats with God. But just as one tries to explain these messages and base them upon capacities to hear . . . . can it not be equally suggested that the message is an illusion borne of some religious zeal? I can no more prove this point than anyone can prove that they have heard a message from God.

And then we must ask by what means are these messages "heard?" A silent inspiration that places a sudden thought within the receptive mind? A spiritual exhaultation filling one with emotions that must contain some message? Or is it a whisper echoing through the canyons of the soul? Just how do these gifted few hear the voice of God? Or is it all metaphor and jargon used by most branches of the faith? Surely these messages from an omnipotent being must be of unmeasurable wisdom . . . . and yet they are never passed on to the benefit of humanity.

Yes, I am a skeptic of such claims and find them as arrogant as first I stated. God reported spoke in the Bible. There have been no reports since.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
You are the one who is applying judgement/values.The person who you replied to said "ï believe" and then made basically value neutral statements.

With all respect Walker, I wholly disagree. Comments like, "People like Sheri have no ability," cannot be whitewashed away by prefacing it with "I believe." It lacks all objectivity and clearly represents the arrogance I mentioned and opposed.

Life/experience history/writings show us that Some people experience mystical psychic supernatural paranormal experiences almost as much as they experience world as experienced by the majority. Some l;ike me experience enough of these things to know and have evidence that they are indisputably real/objective experiences(but not enough to make a living out of them) Othere experience flashes so clear and true as to be compelling, but very rarely. Some(perhaps the majority, although i actually expect not) never experience any of these.

I assume you are addressing the issue of "hearing God?" If not, never did I speak about psychic experiences or the supernatural. If so, then we have more to discuss.

In every case these things just are. To feel bitter or angry about it is like feeling bitter about being born white or very short. It is not helpful or productive. If you truly feel this way; study, learn and apply a range of techniques which might improve your receptivity.

I am at a loss with your comment "To feel bitter or angry . . . ." As for study, learning, etc. . . . I live in a 400 year old home that the entire village believes is haunted . . . I have studied in Nepal and one of my best friends is a Bon Buddhist monk . . . . I have read about and personally visited the sites contained within Scripture. I have had two 55-day permits to study in the Vatican archives. Dr. Joseph Rhine and Dr. Ian Stevenson were personal friends.

My conclusions on such matters do not come from whims or fantasies . . . I base them upon the same life experiences as do you but perhaps I am drawn to different perspectives than you. Moreover, it is an assumption that I . . . or anyone . . . would even want to "improve your receptivity" if we are not convinced that it even exists.

In saying that, I do not deny or diminish the experiences of your life or the beliefs they have formed. I respect them as I do the beliefs of all people in all places.

I have worked hard to open my mind and learn to recognise and respond to ordinary psychic episodes. I think this is one reason why god was able to manifest so strikingly and often in my life.(This does not mean that all experiences are purely subjective/ subconscious, as some demonstrate physical manifestations observable by others, but mental communication, person to person or god to person, i think is a similar /linked ability) In either case you need to prove the validity of the experience through active interrrogation and analysis.

I appreciate the fact that you have decided to attribute the messages of your experiences to God. I am certain that you find great comfort in that. I, however, believe my life experiences are created by time and people and places and simple events. I do not believe a divine hand governs or guides my existence. I firmly believe that there is a supreme power but it is not dedicated to the plights of men nor does it create them to provide secret messages.

I cannot speak with that power . . . . nor can anyone else . . . . and no one ever has. It cannot be reduced into an entity that creates and destroys, issues mandates and punishments, commands humans to enter wars or intervenes simply because words are said with folded hands or on bended knees. It is a power much greater than that and it is simply because it is.

My concept of this supreme power does not make you my adversary because you hold different beliefs. Nor does it expect or want me to conduct missions or evangelic messages in its name. But I am a good person because I want to be good. I harm no one because I have no need or desire to do harm. I do not lie or steal because it is not in my nature to do so. But I do none of these things because that power so commanded me. It is because I see that force in the wind and trees and running brooks and know that I am wonderfully a part of it and only the best of me can truly represent what it is.

So yes, I do object to the arrogance proclaiming that the select can hear God and others have no ability at all. It does not find a place in the realities I have come to know where we regard others with the respect I have given to your beliefs and demean no one . . . not even those with no beliefs at all.

First two apologies. They may be connected. I thought i was responding to agent mulder's comments( who does tend to come over as a little bitter that he has no such experiences Also I missed the reference to supra, I saw the references as some people.......other peole..........

I know from correspondence, that supra certainly has receptivity to unusual experiences, and she just attributes them to different sources than I, so either i got my posts mixed up, or didnt check the origiinal posts carefully enough. My bad, and most conerning, because it might unnecessarily hurt supra, or make her think i hadnt been listening to a word she said.

None the less, my basic point remains , people do have differing degrees of receptivity OR something targets some people more than others OR environmmental factors can influence receptivity.

No i was not refering exlusively to hearing god. After nearly 50 years of experience. i have come to think that either; Hearing god is a natural subset of all psychic experiences, or more probably, all psychic experiences, and paranormal, and supernatural, are a subset of communication which is made possible by the physical nature of god, and of his interrelationship with the physical universe and specifically with sentient beings within the universe(the only concrete example of which we are presently aware being ourselves; and possibly god)

I was 22/23 before i had my first "religious" manifestation, but since pre adolescence i had plenty of verifiable "psychic " experiences. Since then i have continued regularly to have both some clearly secular some related to"god" and others possibly a combination of both Eg using god'/psychic ability to get money when i need it for a worthwhile purpose.

Some of my other comments do not apply to you ,but to agent mulder, and so i can see why you were at a loss to understand them. However, my education and training leaves me at a loss as to why anyone would not chose to investigate, study, and attempt to understand, such experiences. No matter what the causes, this would be the case.

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

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."

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

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.

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.

Here is our inherent difference

I do not believe a divine hand governs or guides my existence. I firmly believe that there is a supreme power but it is not dedicated to the plights of men nor does it create them to provide secret messages.

I cannot speak with that power . . . . nor can anyone else . . . . and no one ever has. It cannot be reduced into an entity that creates and destroys, issues mandates and punishments, commands humans to enter wars or intervenes simply because words are said with folded hands or on bended knees. It is a power much greater than that and it is simply because it is.

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.

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.

Sadly it is true that PEOPLE often through ignorance, or deliberate misintent try to use gods messages for their own purposes. Different constructions of the same god also lead to different interpretations of god and ofthus to religious conflicts So do racial/ethnic differences. hat is HUMAN nature.

I have no desire to prosylethise any religious belief. I want to describe my experiences so that others see a different viewpoint, and may not be so bemused as i was, when such things happen to them.

I too was a good person before god found me. I was brought up by good, loving and effective parents. You sound the same. But what about the many people who do not have this background, and have never been taught to be good.

Religions like christianity teach "good" principles of life. The fact that some are not so socially acceptable today says more for the deteriorated state of human societies, than it does for the underlying spiritual beliefs. And yes, many people will not act responsibly without some form of coercion. If that coercion comes from inner beliefs, it is more effective and less damaging than if it is imposed on people externally. If society refuses to impose any social sanctions or even to set up a concrete mora/l ethical systems then that society, and all the peolpe in it ,are at many kinds of risk. Simple observaton of modern western societies demonstrates this.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
MW i see the effort you put into this analogy and appreciate your input as always ..

yet if i may, I see some flaws with your analogy....

whenever we are gonna infer( guessing) from analogy it has to meet a minimum of requirements .. so let me just mention what a valid analogy may look like..

of course coherence is a biggie, as well as that the inference is beleivable not in the realm of fantasy..

perhaps it has consistent characteristics so that the characters if you will act in character....

resonance/rapport, the reader can relate to it surely helps alot............

Mainly: Inferences from form recognize the difference between deductive certainty and that the reality that they claim, follows wth a degree of probability...

I hope this helps....

No?

Dont think of it as fantasy , think of it as philosophy :D

And the analogy is still useful precisely because ; either you see both scenarios as fantasy, or you accept both as equally possible.

My qualifying statement was (keep an open mind).. Like brave's hypothetical dilemmas, the illustration is designed to let a person, who has only looked at a problem/issue in one way, see it from a different perspective.

Because my experiences are seen as unreal, it is pointless trying to shift a persons perspective by applying an analogy from the real world. They could use the same arguments, you put forward, to criticise the validity of the analogy.

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
But thats the "democratic " right of anyone who has a knowledge or belief based view of life. Its the role of the stae/society to balance opposing viewpoints. Personally id like to live in a society where everyone believed like me( it would be a very small society but very cohesive)

However i have to live ina multicultural mult religious multi ethical society. ( i guess pluralist is the technical word)

I will fight damn hard to have society reflect my views.

But if im not successful, i have to respect the views of the majority, and confine any further protests, by me, to the acceptable parameters for protest decided by the society, (or continue more rigorous protest and expect punitive sanctions by the state).Only my personal ethics, as guided by my personal beliefs, can inform me on this, and what to do.

IF enough people in America became fundamentalist christians, then America society could democratically morph into something you felt very uncomfortable with. What would you do then, and how far would you be prepared to go in professing and protesting your own beliefs and values? I guess many christians today are living very uncomfortably in a society which they see as promoting quite harmful beliefs and practises.

In the end, how much anyone can express or live by their religious(or other) beliefs, comes down to the nature of the society they live in, how tolerant it is ,and how robust it is( a more robust society can tolerate more differences with out self destructing or serious damage)

Many people circumvent this problem by living, physically or socially, within societies of like minded people, so that while their nation may not live by/reflect their views, their true society does.

yet this is America. where minority rights are protected by the constitution ( well they are supposed to be ) so no matter how hard you fight society will never reflect just your views.

Not to forget this country was not founded on christianity but the freedom to worship as one pleased. no religion has right making law. some lamely try to argue this , but what if suddenly laws were changed to reflect muslim beliefs and ethics ? you'd have a fit. well plenty don't want christian views in government - even some christians.

If America became fundamentalist christian it would be no different than Iran.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
No?

Dont think of it as fantasy , think of it as philosophy :D

And the analogy is still useful precisely because ; either you see both scenarios as fantasy, or you accept both as equally possible.

My qualifying statement was (keep an open mind).. Like brave's hypothetical dilemmas, the illustration is designed to let a person, who has only looked at a problem/issue in one way, see it from a different perspective.

Because my experiences are seen as unreal, it is pointless trying to shift a persons perspective by applying an analogy from the real world. They could use the same arguments, you put forward, to criticise the validity of the analogy.

MW fair enough and i know that you would not seek to harm me in any way.. we have our disagreements all in the spirit of debate.......

thankyou for takiing the time to clear that up...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Quote, Mr Walker: "This does not however invalidate it, or make it non real. Some where, at least one little green alien exists. The nature of his technology leads me to logically determine there is a considerable infrastructure and social structure behind him. But that one little green alien is a unversal truth, even if no one else realises it/knows it.

To me, thats my experience of god."

------------------------------------------

With all due respect Mr. Walker, this analogy is does not amount to a universal truth. It's a personal experience that only proves something to you, the experiencer. There are no universal truths because we, as a society, do not wholly understand the universe. I witnessed a murder. I was the sole eyewitness. However, I, alone, could not prove that the murder occurred. Certainly it seemed to me that no other evidence was necessary; I saw the entire incident--from the beginning to the end--yet, that was not enough. I knew that it happened, just as 2+2=4, but my testimony could only be used as one link in a chain of evidence, to 'back' my testimony, my claims, in order to achieve truth as proof.

Did the murder occur?

Whether there is any evidence, or whether anyone else witnessed it, is not relevant.

The murder either actually hapened, or it did not. If it happened, it has a universal reality (it is part of the real/ objective history of the universe.)

Too many people get tied up in subjectivity. Subjectivity can certainly interpret an experience, it is not a decider on whether that experience was real (objective/occured in the real history of the universe)

My point was, however unlikely some people find it, if either of my scenarios( angel or little green man) actually happened, then they happened, and they are a universal truth.

If they only occured within my mind they are not. That is obvious.

What a lot of people seem to be trying to say(and this is patently RIDICULOUS) is that, if only you saw it happen , something only has subjective reality. Billions of things happen every day that NO ONE sees happen. Only philosophers try to argue that this means they did not actually occur.

Yes trees fall in the forest all the time. They create waves of comressed air. If a pair of eardrums or mechanical device is there then their fall will be heard, If not, the fall will not be heard (BUT IT WILL STILL HAVE HAPPENED)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
You are STILL mistaking my meaning and example. You don't seem to have a problem with me choosing myself as part of the example having limited ability and choosing Irish as having large ability. It's not a competition and they were examples. Sheri can't be upset... she's already stated on a number of occasions that she doesn't have that ability. If she did, she wouldn't be a non-believer. In fact, using her as an example might be the MOST accurate of all my examples given she's already stated that she doesn't have that ability.

**shakes head**

yet what makes the ability a good thing ? it could be based on nothing real. just an internal feeling the result of brain chemistry.

meditation can bring that same feeling but not all label it God. It doesn't mean it's a different feeling , but just viewed differently . those who meditate and have that same experience and not label it God may be more correct than you or Irish.

Sheri could very well experience what you do ...........yet call it something else. Since we have no proof of God it is only opinion that that inner feeling is God.

ergo everyone has the ability , just some don't jump to the cultural conclusion it's God.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
yet this is America. where minority rights are protected by the constitution ( well they are supposed to be ) so no matter how hard you fight society will never reflect just your views.

Not to forget this country was not founded on christianity but the freedom to worship as one pleased. no religion has right making law. some lamely try to argue this , but what if suddenly laws were changed to reflect muslim beliefs and ethics ? you'd have a fit. well plenty don't want christian views in government - even some christians.

If America became fundamentalist christian it would be no different than Iran.

let's see if in your opinion the minority rights are protected by the constitution, does that mean that the majorities aren't. I always thought the constitution was there to protect everyone's rights. Not minority or majority but everyone's. If you pass a law granting one groups of rights then you remove those rights from someone else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
let's see if in your opinion the minority rights are protected by the constitution, does that mean that the majorities aren't. I always thought the constitution was there to protect everyone's rights. Not minority or majority but everyone's. If you pass a law granting one groups of rights then you remove those rights from someone else.

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.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
mw quotes....

" my wife ,who never have any physical proof of god in their lives, and yet have such an absolute knowledge of gods existence that they would happily die for that faith based knowledge"

you say its a faith based knowledge , and I concur religious faith constitutes its own paradigm , using the canons of "evidence ' and argument can only operate within them not upon them or outside of them as we see this with this thread... .. at best you can validate your faith based system and at this benchmark( faith) this is precisely what you are doing........ .

In this relgious paradigm faith and evidence have very little to do with each other, literally .. faith is what gives one the free pass for one to move beyond the need for evidence and arguments ( but this only works if you have no others pov to contend with ) or this system insists that faith must be set aside if true religious insight and knowing are to occur..... well this is how we see that god works 'within' the paradigm not upon it, because its the paradigm in which one operates that determines what it is, what its not and how its intelligible and how one sets the boundries for truth and falsehood.....I'm using your rules and definitions do you understand Mr Walker????

what you dont see is that you are agreeing to the condtions and rules and frame/context of the beleif system called religion/god it is a definition you have been taught ... its the religious beleif structure .. you are simply following the rules.... Faith is simply an agreement to adhere to a 'fixed' idea that has been pre determined for you .. this is why IMO god is a mental construction.... ..

I didnt touch on the god sightings but I can if you would like....

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
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.

just because you experience an inner feeling doesn't mean there is an outer relationship of God. that's how you choose to define it.

it could be just brain chemicals. or mental illness , delusion , culturally impressed suggestion.

everything you say is just opinion and until there is proof of God other than your experience that is all it can remain to the outside world . Until then there is nothing logical about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
just because you experience an inner feeling doesn't mean there is an outer relationship of God. that's how you choose to define it.

it could be just brain chemicals. or mental illness , delusion , culturally impressed suggestion.

everything you say is just opinion and until there is proof of God other than your experience that is all it can remain to the outside world . Until then there is nothing logical about it.

The same can be said for your opinion as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
If America became fundamentalist christian it would be no different than Iran.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
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.

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.

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lt_Ripley
The same can be said for your opinion as well.

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/

Edited by Lt_Ripley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
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/

fine where did this gene which we have learned is only a bunch of chemicals come from to force us to look for God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
just because you experience an inner feeling doesn't mean there is an outer relationship of God. that's how you choose to define it.

it could be just brain chemicals. or mental illness , delusion , culturally impressed suggestion.

everything you say is just opinion and until there is proof of God other than your experience that is all it can remain to the outside world . Until then there is nothing logical about it.

Witrh respect lt ripley wha you say is true and obviously true. However i have written thousands of words on this forum detailing experiences from the age of about 13 to the age of 55. These have included psychic paranormal suernatural and spiritual type experiences. I have only really talked about a small sample of my experiences and those are generaaly the ones where i have independent verification by object or by witness that something real occured. As per my discussions with supra i have come to my own conclusions about what is behind those experiences, for good logical and coherent reasons, but I accept others may disagree with my attributions. Brain chemicals and depression have been ruled out via comprehensive testing(if something was physically wrong with me i would want to know and get it fixed)

Delusions are possible for spme experiences but not where witnessed or where physical aterations in the real world occur or where for example i am given a "vision" of the future disclose or write down that evnt occurrence (sometimes in clear and specific detail) and then the event occurs sometimes minutes sometimes days or in some cases several years later DElusions cannot in known science, accurately predict future events.

Culturally impressed suggestion may apply to how you later interpret an experience, and i do that consciously, so i probably do that sub consciously. FOr example when I experiencesd a 2 metre tall column of intense light. I did not know that angels sometimes appeared this way.

I had never read a bible til that that time. Only in researching and investigating my experience did i recognise the culturally known image of a burning pillar of fire(thats not how i would have described it... more an intense flourescent light) but to someone before flourescent lights were invented, the closest analogy would have been a pillar of fire.

The experiences i have are neither fellings nor confined to internalexperiences. I appreciate many find this difficult to believe /accept because they do not have any similar refernce points. Im not too worried about the outside world. As god, or something we call god,. does have and independent real physical existence, my experiences are entirely logical.

You may be correct that for a person without my experiences or similar ones, to acknowledge god would be illogical. I know that. Thats why I never believed in, or acknowledged god, until he happened to me.

I am still that sane rational logical person, but now with a different set of experiences to accomodate into my knowledge base and world view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
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.

Let us suppose you are right, then Which do you value more; democracy or religious freedom? In other words to have the sort of freedoms you want enshrined you may have to give up democratic procees, while to enshrine the principle of democratic process you may have to give up some absolute rights, and yes they could include religious and sexual rights, if a democratic vote opposed them.

But then, isnt that how such rights were won in america in the first place, by democratic process?

So if you do away with democracy, dont you run an even greater risk of doing away with your religious and sexual rights?

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
churchanddestroy
Let us suppose you are right, then Which do you value more; democracy or religious freedom? In other words to have the sort of freedoms you want enshrined you may have to give up democratic procees, while to enshrine the principle of democratic process you may have to give up some absolute rights, and yes they could include religious and sexual rights, if a democratic vote opposed them.

But then, isnt that how such rights were won in america in the first place, by democratic process?

So if you do away with democracy, dont you run an even greater risk of doing away with your religious and sexual rights?

So religious freedom would be having Christianity as a state religion? Maybe for you, but shouldn't you also respect the rights of those of us who believe differently? What makes Christianity better than Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or Atheism or Paganism? Shouldn't those beliefs have the same weight and merit in the eyes of the government as yours do? See, from where I am standing, as a Deist, I think a government that has no real stance on religion other than to inhibit practices that are dangerous. It makes it even for everyone, believers and non-believers alike. Neither should have any more rights than the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MissMelsWell
It is of little importance if you include yourself or not within your "example." The problem is with the example itself.

The very idea that "I believe that all people have varying abilities to "hear" God" is based upòn the assumption that God speaks in the first place. Beyond that, the categories of those who have or do not have the capacity to hear God is obviously related to their perspectives of God, not an ability to hear.

Irish is an open proponent of Christian thought . . . . you are a Quaker (a pretty heavy indoctrination) . . . . and Sheri is an observer of such beliefs without subscribing to any one in particular. It seems strange therefore that this magical "capacity" should follow so exactly their personal commitments. I am not even concerned with whether or not Sheri has stated that she lacks this ability . . . . I am concerned with the fundamental concept that some hear God and others do not.

But I will assume that God speaks and some gifted few hear him. I will not include George Bush in spite of his claims of having personal chats with God. But just as one tries to explain these messages and base them upon capacities to hear . . . . can it not be equally suggested that the message is an illusion borne of some religious zeal? I can no more prove this point than anyone can prove that they have heard a message from God.

And then we must ask by what means are these messages "heard?" A silent inspiration that places a sudden thought within the receptive mind? A spiritual exhaultation filling one with emotions that must contain some message? Or is it a whisper echoing through the canyons of the soul? Just how do these gifted few hear the voice of God? Or is it all metaphor and jargon used by most branches of the faith? Surely these messages from an omnipotent being must be of unmeasurable wisdom . . . . and yet they are never passed on to the benefit of humanity.

Yes, I am a skeptic of such claims and find them as arrogant as first I stated. God reported spoke in the Bible. There have been no reports since.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
So religious freedom would be having Christianity as a state religion? Maybe for you, but shouldn't you also respect the rights of those of us who believe differently? What makes Christianity better than Islam or Judaism or Hinduism or Atheism or Paganism? Shouldn't those beliefs have the same weight and merit in the eyes of the government as yours do? See, from where I am standing, as a Deist, I think a government that has no real stance on religion other than to inhibit practices that are dangerous. It makes it even for everyone, believers and non-believers alike. Neither should have any more rights than the other.

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.)

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.