Doing God's will.

[Mr Walker]

20 hours ago, GoldenWolf said:

You KNOW what that was saying, so don't try and use it incorrecty

it is a Buddhist like saying that, if you  love any material thing too much (even loved ones or your own life )  it becomes an anchor which binds you to the material and thus prevents your spiritual development 

Another way of saying it is, that to be free, one must be prepared to give u everything one desires or loves.  

Or that one cannot successfully serve two masters in one's life. 

[Mr Walker]

38 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

LOL I never saw Gabe Kaplan as an adonis that women fall over to meet, and that photo of Jesus looks more like he would appeal to the male group his father hates so much. Lol. 

I would say blokes like the Rock would be more deserving of the descriptions you give. I just can't see your stories of being inundated with female proposals to be anything but greatly exaggerated if you cite those 2 guys as examples. But hey  I'm a straight male. What do I know. 

Interesting I once had a physique very similar to "The Rock"  on a smaller scale, and in my last two years of high school had the nickname, Mighty mouse" due to my physique 

However i found early that women are not really attracted to perfection of the male body  They require several things 

First the evidence that a man can be a good provider for them and their kids (an old fashioned idea i know but still important )

Second that the man has the abilty to be a friend and companion, to love, comfort and support, and provide a role model  for their children

Becsue men are men they consistently overrate the attraction of sex and physical appearance to a woman. These are important, but several rungs down the ladder, for a woman seeking a mate   

So, while i was always cute then good looking,  women  became increasingly interested  once i was in uni proving my future income earning capacity and when i was adult enough to display the respect  and affection i held for women

I just realised that, looking back  on lt,  I ever only made a move on two women in my life. 

First when i was in high school aged about 15,  and my box of chocolates was accepted, but my affections were rejected, and second, when i met my wife and was lucky enough to win her. (aged 21) 

With ALL the other girls and women, from a simple dance, to romance, I was busy doing other things when the woman propositioned me (for a dance, or a romance, or just for sex)  

Edited March 20, 2019 by Mr Walker

[GoldenWolf]

55 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You KNOW what that was saying, so don't try and use it incorrecty

it is a Buddhist like saying that, if you  love any material thing too much (even loved ones or your own life )  it becomes an anchor which binds you to the material and thus prevents your spiritual development 

Another way of saying it is, that to be free, one must be prepared to give u everything one desires or loves.  

Or that one cannot successfully serve two masters in one's life. 

I think you don't properly understand it.  It's a divide and conquer strategy (that and revenge) , cult leaders employ it all the time.  Also since I know you're more than likely hinting at my signature, the Golden Rule is a moral code, it's not a living breathing taskmaster like your god .  Luke 14:26 is anti the golden rule.

Did you know the Vatican uses the Golden Ratio in designs?

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by GoldenWolf

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Well at least SOME athiests argue that gods do not exist and do not allow  for critical thinking which might create an alternative position or view. 

That's not the situation here. So no need to bother with that. 

Quote

Critical thinking by individuals never leads them all to one fixed conclusion, and nor does pure logic 

That's why consensus is considered. 

Quote

The definition of indoctrination includes NON critical thinking. To my mind this is rare, and perhaps even non existent. Human minds, by nature, think and consider and evaluate  and ponder.  So, no matter what a person is taught, their mind will construct other possibilities

Its most likely rare for you because you say you had a secularist upbringing. You're one of the lucky ones that being the case. Outside of your understanding obviously. 

Quote

Learning  the sciences is no elixir of disbelief..

It really should be though, that's why I ask people about this all the time. It seems to be cherry picking which defies the logic of the sciences themselves. And that conflicts with the values that bring greater understanding. 

A true unexplained mystery. 

Quote

it might tend a person to disbelieve in creationism, but not in god. People believe in gods to meet human needs, and a scientist will recognise this  ie it is belief which is critical, not whether the entity believed in actually has its own existence 

Its not critical, therefore atheists. 

Its more a security blanket from what I can tell. 

Quote

Atheism is not a default state because atheism is NOT a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is a positive disbelief in the existence of gods.

Rocks are not atheists, dogs are not atheists. One only becomes an atheist when one chooses to disbelieve In gods. Belief is the first cognitive construct of an infant, and disbelief only comes much later. 

Your doing it wrong. The beliefs have to be constructed to refute. Before the mind constructs such things as God  there are no gods. Inanimate objects can't believe in a God, so they are exempt and your point is moot. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Apart from this forum I've never met a person outraged by either.

I  do get annoyed at people who argue that children should simply evolve their own values moralities, ethics and beliefs, rather than have them passed down by wiser, older , experienced adults 

"Lord of the flies" and "Coral Island"  epitomise the two sides of this debate showing how boys the same age can act in very difernt ways, with very different skills and moralities, depending on how the y were raised 

In reality the atheist and the theist will; logically, naturally, and correctly, educate their chldren in whatever world view has worked for them, NOT introduce them to a world view which the y see as either destructive, or less constructive than their own.  

Shallow thinking on your part there. Removing choice is a form of abuse. 

Religion doesn't make removing choice valid. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

And when a scientist's critical thinking leads him or her to a belief in god ? What then? 

Indeed that is a good question that few seem to be willing to answer. 

Does that silence not say a great deal to you??? 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You assume that, because you believe your belief is true, then anyone who thinks critically, logically, and rationally, will inevitably come to the same belief that you hold 

You keep confusing belief with facts  but that's to be expected considering your most unique views and opinions. 

Yes, I don't see how critical thinking can result in God. I invite any academic poster to explain how that is possible. At a point, one negates the other. Two answers conflict, they do not work.in harmony. Either we are created or not. Critical thinking can only lead to not with modern information. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Science simply does NOT refute the existence of gods That is just how you understand science, and uses a very restricted idea of what a god is.  

Yes it has. It has refuted many gods. We've been over this. Yaweh the creator God is a prime example. That others make up more gods is of no consequence. 

The only place anyone can find any reference to God's is in the minds of men. Nothing in nature suggests God exists. Its a concept purely restricted to imagination. 

[+joc]

2 hours ago, psyche101 said:

It's amazing. I find the people who claim to be open minded are actually very closed minded and guard that ideology well. I've noticed that few, indeed if any, are happy to insist the non material is perfectly valid, but shy away from the the arguments that refute that. 

And so many seem to think personal evaluation of unusual things is beyond reproach. I just don't get that. And then they have the audacity to label others as arrogant!!

I think that those who have actually experienced NDE are decidedly unable to except the fact that they did not actually die.  I understand that...in a sort of...Hey, I experienced it and you didn't so you can't really say...way!  And yet...facts are facts and the fact is that my Grandmothers and Grandfathers and everyone else who's funeral I have attended are not going to come back and say anything about anything.  Being brain dead...having no heartbeat...doesn't mean you are dead.  It just doesn't.  There are factually, medically documented cases of people who have had all of their blood removed for surgery.  The blood is swirling around in tubes overhead while their brain is completely devoid of oxygen, blood and their hearts have actually been removed from their bodies, operated on, and then re-implanted and their blood transfused back into their bodies...and they have been brought...back to life.

That being the case....NDEs don't really have much meaning to me as far as proof of an afterlife.  I understand their confusing the two states...one of being 'dead' and the other of being really, really, six feet in the ground dead.  I just don't think they are able to comprehend the difference because of their 'conscious' awareness of what they experienced.

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You tell us all constantly tha t  you know that god does not exist and that science proves this to be true 

That is trying to enforce an uncritical personal  belief, and thus, by your definition, is indoctrination ( i don't find it so, but then you think my definition of indoctrination is wrong )  ,

The dictionary stated the definition. That's what I work with. That's what all should work with. I don't think I know your definition is wrong, the dictionary proves it. 

No, its not forcing a belief in any way. You're being quite silly there. It's inviting challenge to known facts. When others don't understand those facts, or have heavily invested in belief they tend to get aggressive. And that says all anyone needs to know. I'm open to discussion on the facts presented, but many are not and resort to personal attacks when they can't discuss the information. We have seen exactly this over the last few pages. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

You KNOW what that was saying, so don't try and use it incorrecty

it is a Buddhist like saying that, if you  love any material thing too much (even loved ones or your own life )  it becomes an anchor which binds you to the material and thus prevents your spiritual development 

Another way of saying it is, that to be free, one must be prepared to give u everything one desires or loves.  

Or that one cannot successfully serve two masters in one's life. 

That's exactly what scientists with faith do though. 

[psyche101]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Interesting I once had a physique very similar to "The Rock"  on a smaller scale, and in my last two years of high school had the nickname, Mighty mouse" due to my physique 

Stop it, your killing me with laughter!! 

I'm imagining Gabe Kaplans head on the rocks body, I can't see how you would not be a very comical sight!!! 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

However i found early that women are not really attracted to perfection of the male body  They require several things 

Everything I know about the fairer sex could be written on the back of a matchbox 

And it seems you know less than I do!!! 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

First the evidence that a man can be a good provider for them and their kids (an old fashioned idea i know but still important )

Second that the man has the abilty to be a friend and companion, to love, comfort and support, and provide a role model  for their children

Becsue men are men they consistently overrate the attraction of sex and physical appearance to a woman. These are important, but several rungs down the ladder, for a woman seeking a mate   

Then it's all wrong isn't it? 

Ones love for another should outweigh ones need fir one another. The Dalai Lama said that I think. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

So, while i was always cute then good looking, 

LOL and barf 

So we have a barf emoticon? I think we need one. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

women  became increasingly interested  once i was in uni proving my future income earning capacity and when i was adult enough to display the respect  and affection i held for women

Bad boys get more girls at that age. See it all the time. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

I just realised that, looking back  on lt,  I ever only made a move on two women in my life. 

There's probably a good reason behind that. 

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

First when i was in high school aged about 15,  and my box of chocolates was accepted, but my affections were rejected, and second, when i met my wife and was lucky enough to win her. (aged 21) 

With ALL the other girls and women, from a simple dance, to romance, I was busy doing other things when the woman propositioned me (for a dance, or a romance, or just for sex)  

We really need that vomit emoticon. 

That was a long time ago. A very long time ago. You are out of touch I would say. 

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, GoldenWolf said:

I think you don't properly understand it.  It's a divide and conquer strategy (that and revenge) , cult leaders employ it all the time.  Also since I know you're more than likely hinting at my signature, the Golden Rule is a moral code, it's not a living breathing taskmaster like your god .  Luke 14:26 is anti the golden rule.

Did you know the Vatican uses the Golden Ratio in designs?

 

I understand how it was meant when it was written The problem is modern people who try to alter that meaning by adding a modern perspective to it OR simply don't understand (as an example) how the word fear was once used ie not to be afraid of but to adore and worship

This source explains it well 

quote

In the scriptures, we are commanded to love God. In the same Scriptures, we are commanded with similar emphasis to fear God. I did not find this difficult to understand. In our home, I was taught to love my father. He was a reserved and quiet man, but even in my teenage years, when it seemed “uncool,” he would hug me and kiss me on the cheek. I knew I was loved, and I responded with love.

In that same home I was taught to fear my father. This was not a morbid terror; it was a fear that reflected a reverential awe. He was beyond me in position. He was my father and I was not his equal in position. I was under his authority and dependent upon his provision. He was beyond me in knowledge and wisdom. He was beyond me in the eyes of the world. In the eyes of the world, I had to have his permission to be engaged in certain activities. In a limited way, he was the first transcendent person in my life.

https://tabletalkmagazine.com/article/2018/01/worship-fear-god/

 

We are to "Fear God." This means we are to reverence God as our Lord, not as an afterthought, when it is convenient or to regard as just as a "pal." This is a principle aspect of worship we must take seriously and heed. We are to come before God in this way, along with humbleness (1 Pet. 5:6). We bring Him our endearment and respect with more meaning, power, and intensity. This is the reverence and awe of God before His holiness that He seeks (Job 28:28; Prov. 1:7; 3:5; 8:13; 9:10; 16:6; 31:30; Psalm 2:11; 34:11; 111:10; Isa. 12:6; Eccl. 12: 13; Mal. 1:14; Matt. 10: 27-33; Rom. 2:11; James 2:1). It does not mean we are afraid of Him; rather, we are fearful of His wrath and in awe of His presence (Matt. 11:28; Rom. 3).

http://www.discipleshiptools.org/apps/articles/default.asp?articleid=38824&columnid=156

 

John Calvin described reverence as the place where joy and fear are held together. Not the fear of trembling and despair, but the kind that cultivates awe and respect when contemplating God’s holiness, nearness, grace and power. This kind of reverence does not invite worshipers into what C.S Lewis has called “an obligation to feel,” but into a space where personal feelings serve only as a background to the drama of God’s being. “Be still and know that I am God (Psalm 46:10).”

This is the kind of fear that Scripture calls the beginning of wisdom. We were built for reverence because we were built to glorify God. We develop a capacity for deep joy in the same measure that we learn to revere God, ”Humble yourself before the Lord, and He will lift you up (James 4:10).”

https://www.reformedworship.org/blog/cultivating-reverence-worship

 

So, for me, there was no conflict between loving him and fearing him. My reverence of him was evident in every part of our relationship. The way I addressed him, the way I obeyed him, the way I sought his counsel and his will demonstrated a very real respect.

The golden ratio is an observable mathematical and geometric device Of course it was one of the first such devices to be recognised and naturally, in an age when people saw the order of the wold as evidence of god's creation it was seen as a sign of god.  But it is just a natural  mathematical reality 

[GoldenWolf]

I am atheist and will never love and respect anyone who tries to make me fear them.

[psyche101]

40 minutes ago, joc said:

I think that those who have actually experienced NDE are decidedly unable to except the fact that they did not actually die.  I understand that...in a sort of...Hey, I experienced it and you didn't so you can't really say...way!  And yet...facts are facts and the fact is that my Grandmothers and Grandfathers and everyone else who's funeral I have attended are not going to come back and say anything about anything.  Being brain dead...having no heartbeat...doesn't mean you are dead.  It just doesn't.  There are factually, medically documented cases of people who have had all of their blood removed for surgery.  The blood is swirling around in tubes overhead while their brain is completely devoid of oxygen, blood and their hearts have actually been removed from their bodies, operated on, and then re-implanted and their blood transfused back into their bodies...and they have been brought...back to life.

That being the case....NDEs don't really have much meaning to me as far as proof of an afterlife.  I understand their confusing the two states...one of being 'dead' and the other of being really, really, six feet in the ground dead.  I just don't think they are able to comprehend the difference because of their 'conscious' awareness of what they experienced.

Exactly, that is one of the massive holes in Eben Alexanders claim in his Paperback! Steve Novella challenged this very fact and Alexander danced around it like a tribal dance around a fire!! 

Believers omit gigantic holes like this, and then have the audacity to suggest fringe science undermines known facts and make God of the gaps arguments. 

The even more amazing thing is they say this is logical and think they are challenging science. And should one point that out, one is being arrogant!!!! 

I find it astounding. The human ego is a much bigger mystery than silly old god myths. 

[Habitat]

1 hour ago, GoldenWolf said:

I think you don't properly understand it.  It's a divide and conquer strategy (that and revenge)

That is just paranoia on your part, Walker's take on the true intent behind those words was fairly accurate, I would say. It was saying being a part-time "God-botherer" is not enough, for the true disciple.

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Stop it, your killing me with laughter!! 

I'm imagining Gabe Kaplans head on the rocks body, I can't see how you would not be a very comical sight!!! 

Everything I know about the fairer sex could be written on the back of a matchbox 

And it seems you know less than I do!!! 

Then it's all wrong isn't it? 

Ones love for another should outweigh ones need fir one another. The Dalai Lama said that I think. 

LOL and barf 

So we have a barf emoticon? I think we need one. 

Bad boys get more girls at that age. See it all the time. 

There's probably a good reason behind that. 

We really need that vomit emoticon. 

That was a long time ago. A very long time ago. You are out of touch I would say. 

Nice that i can provoke laughter rather than anger   

I think you  must have the quote wrong. it doesn't make sense

(except in this, which i agree with) 

We should not only love those we like or whom we need.

We should love all people 

Sorry but i dont see bad boys "getting" more girls. Occasionally they have more sexual liaisons, IF they are the right type of bad boy. However few women choose a long term relationship, or marriage, with a bad boy,  and most get out from such a relationship as soon as the y can, if the y are unfortunate enough to enter into one  

You have a couple of intriguing, and strong, emotional reactions  to quite normal points.

Out of touch with what?  

I remain  as loved and respected by women today as i ever was .  

If my wife died i would have no trouble very quickly finding women who would seek me out as a husband  (and yet even now i don't know if I would  need anyone else if my wife died )   

 

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

I am atheist and will never love and respect anyone who tries to make me fear them.

You miss the point. If you love and respect god then you will "fear"  it. As Christ points out,  our relationship with god must not be one of legalism, or fear, but of love.

 In Christian theology  the laws of god were made for us because god loves us.  if we obey those laws it must ONLY  be because we love and respect god. Not because we are scared of him or because the law says we must. 

[GoldenWolf]

2 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You miss the point. If you love and respect god then you will "fear"  it. As Christ points out,  our relationship with god must not be one of legalism, or fear, but of love.

 In Christian theology  the laws of god were made for us because god loves us.  if we obey those laws it must ONLY  be because we love and respect god. Not because we are scared of him or because the law says we must. 

Let's agree to disagree.

[Mr Walker]

45 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

That's exactly what scientists with faith do though. 

No The y might find a way to compromise, but if they chose one as their guiding light then the other cannot be 

For example one legitimate approach is for a scientist to study, and conclude that faith is a significant positive in Human life The y could then decide scientifically to choose faith over non faith or theism over atheism based on statistics and clinical findings.

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Nice that i can provoke laughter rather than anger   

Yes, I agree. Good way to start the day. 

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I think you  must have the quote wrong. it doesn't make sense

(except in this, which i agree with) 

We should not only love those we like or whom we need.

We should love all people 

 

I just Googled it. It seems my memory serves me well. 

Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.

Dali Lama

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/20699-remember-that-the-best-relationship-is-one-in-which-your

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Sorry but i dont see bad boys "getting" more girls. Occasionally they have more sexual liaisons, IF they are the right type of bad boy. However few women choose a long term relationship, or marriage, with a bad boy,  and most get out from such a relationship as soon as the y can, if the y are unfortunate enough to enter into one  

LOL, you must have one eye tied behind your back. You know how there are far too many early pregnancies and single mums? Bad boys. 

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

You have a couple of intriguing, and strong, emotional reactions  to quite normal points.

?? 

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

Out of touch with what?  

Dating and modern social structures. 

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I remain  as loved and respected by women today as i ever was .  

LOL.... You say you ate never wrong either, and everyone in this forum but you know that's really not the case at all, not by a long shot. You're prone to fantasy too. 

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

If my wife died i would have no trouble very quickly finding women who would seek me out as a husband  (and yet even now i don't know if I would  need anyone else if my wife died )   

LOL, I refer to the previous statement. I know a lot of men as confident as you, not one of them has good reason to be according to every lady I know. 

[psyche101]

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

No The y might find a way to compromise, but if they chose one as their guiding light then the other cannot be 

Cherry pick is the word you are looking for there. Some things just have to be completely ignored to honor two masters. Some use it as a moral guide. I honestly think it's just that human security blanket that some seen to need. 

3 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

For example one legitimate approach is for a scientist to study, and conclude that faith is a significant positive in Human life The y could then decide scientifically to choose faith over non faith or theism over atheism based on statistics and clinical findings.

That would be opinion. Again, cherry picking and for personal (selfish I might add) reasons. 

[Mr Walker]

8 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

Let's agree to disagree.

OK.

[Mr Walker]

6 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Yes, I agree. Good way to start the day. 

I just Googled it. It seems my memory serves me well. 

Remember that the best relationship is one in which your love for each other exceeds your need for each other.

Dali Lama

https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/20699-remember-that-the-best-relationship-is-one-in-which-your

LOL, you must have one eye tied behind your back. You know how there are far too many early pregnancies and single mums? Bad boys. 

?? 

Dating and modern social structures. 

LOL.... You say you ate never wrong either, and everyone in this forum but you know that's really not the case at all, not by a long shot. You're prone to fantasy too. 

LOL, I refer to the previous statement. I know a lot of men as confident as you, not one of them has good reason to be according to every lady I know. 

 Bad boys are increasingly restricted to young and uneducated women  That pool is rapidly diminishing As the graph below indicates, teenage pregnancies are also consistently declining. 

Well i was pretty much aware of dating and modern social structures among the young up until 2015 as i spent most days with hundreds of them  I read lots of women's magazines while waiting for Chinese takeaway and at the doctors or hairdresser   You know (just as an aside)  given that almost all reading material in public areas is female oriented i think many people  assume  that men don't read  

You don't know the ladies I know  

 

 https://www.hhs.gov/ash/oah/adolescent-development/reproductive-health-and-teen-pregnancy/teen-pregnancy-and-childbearing/trends/index.html

[GoldenWolf]

H.T.F. did race get into this?

Edited March 20, 2019 by GoldenWolf

[Mr Walker]

10 minutes ago, psyche101 said:

Cherry pick is the word you are looking for there. Some things just have to be completely ignored to honor two masters. Some use it as a moral guide. I honestly think it's just that human security blanket that some seen to need. 

That would be opinion. Again, cherry picking and for personal (selfish I might add) reasons. 

No making a choice based on scientific data is not cherry picking  It is what logical, rational, human beings, such as scientists, do best. 

What sort of idiot makes a choice which is NOT "selfish" ie who will choose a belief or behaviour that hurts or harms them, and offers no advantages  ? 

[Mr Walker]

7 minutes ago, GoldenWolf said:

H.T.F. did race get into this/

if oyu are referring to my chart i used an american example because it was easiest to google.

It shows how much teenage pregnancy has declined in the last 30-40 years.

  I am a bit race blind.  i don't "see" the colour of a persons skin or their facial characteristics ie i do "see" it, but it doesn't register in my mind or memory  

I notice a person nature; kind or cruel, honest or dishonest polite or rude etc 

quote

Teen mothers and their infants are at increased risk for lifelong health problems and social and economic challenges.1 Today the U.S. teen birth rate is at an all-time low.2 Since 1991, the rates of teen pregnancy have dropped by half.3 In 2013, the CDC reported that birth rates for U.S. teens 15-19 years old dropped to a record low not seen since 1946.4 This decline in teen pregnancies crossed all races and ethnicities.5

Decreases in teen pregnancy rates are partially due to lower rates of sexual activity among young women.6 Also, more of those who are sexually active appear to be using birth control than in previous years.7

https://www.womenshealth.gov/30-achievements/09

Spoiler

 

Edited March 20, 2019 by Mr Walker