What is God ?

[Mr Walker]

1 hour ago, Hammerclaw said:

At least he's not passing the plate, too.

If I was an active member of any church, I  would contribute to it's upkeep and costs, because I would gain the benefits of free weddings, funerals social events etc.

However   I am not a natural   joiner. I spent a few years paying   union fees and donations to a church when I was young and naïve.

Then I stopped both (over 40 years ago)   I don't have any dues, or payments, for any sporting, religious,  or social organisations. 

[Mr Walker]

7 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Neither.

I don't really care. I don't strive to meet what others may deem polite or socially correct.

I react to posts simply because it's a quick way to show a reaction as opposed or in addition to writing a reply.

Are you making a general statement or are you accusing me of being lazy and inadequately responding to you? Because laughing isn't necessarily ridicule and you have no idea what I do in my life to determine if I'm being lazy by forgoing adequate enough responses to you.

There is no debating or even just discussing with you rationally or logically.

I've tried numerous times and witnessed hundreds of other attempts for the better part of a decade.

You may take that as an illustration of your debating prowess, but it's the opposite.

You're a weasel when it comes to almost any kind of conversation in this section.

You're a very intelligent man in many respects.

I don't have anything against you personally.

I don't believe some of the things you post. Simply as that. Some of them are silly enough to illicit a laugh from me. You taking it as some sort of ridicule is pretty revealing.

If that's the case, then I promise to never react to another of your posts.

That being said, thanks for starting yet another off topic conversation because you read too much into a reaction to your post.

Always gotta be about you eh?

Thanks I appreciate this response and can understand it. 

Of course you don't believe.

Some of the things I post are unbelievable until you experience them.

MY questions were phrased as intended.

I didnt know why  you were laughing, and explained some possible reasons tha t a person might laugh at posts like mine 

I accept it is not ridicule,  just that you find  some posts    so unbelievable as to be humorous. I get that  

However I was curious 

This was a good post as it was neutral and explained your position clearly  

However i disagree with me not being logical and rational Indeed I am also criticised for being TOO rational/logical and not emotional enough 

Every personal experience I have posted has been true as far as I can ascertain that truth. I don't come here to tell amusing anecdotes but to talk about the unusual parts of my life.

  Every non-personal,  factual, claim has been as true as I can ascertain through research,  although there are often other arguments on each issue.  I choose the one which makes the most sense to me, and is most credible to me .OR I choose a pov which is unusual, to provoke thought and debate. 

I think people get upset that they can't "win" arguments with me   That is largely because any point I make is true/correct , or has scientific support for it 

The weaselling thing is an understandable perception.

 I dont think linearly but  in a lateral or  jigsaw fashion, contemplating many  options and how the y might look if fitted together in different ways    I do not see absolutes.  I see possibilities, alternatives, potentials and options.

Nothing is absolute. Nothing is impossible.  Neither right and wrong, not how fast humans might one day travel  

 To some i might not   seem direct and simple enough (my wife makes the same complaint ) but I 've been like it since preschool.

It is how  I see the world, think, and evaluate things.

It is how my parents thought, and how the y taught me to think, and it's served me well in life. 

But because most people are direct, linear, thinkers, with strong direct values and beliefs, many find the way I think, confusing and contradictory.

On the other hand, I solve problems and win prizes, by coming up with solutions no one else  considered Eg at a conference for teachers  we were once given a dozen straws and some rubber bands, and told to construct  something which would support  a coke can filled with coke  

The can which was highest from  the  ground with the least use of materials would win.  I did nothing until the last two minutes of the competition    Then  I used one band and one straw and attached the can to the ceiling.  I won the prize.

Many complained, but I had made sure I was following the rules .  They all built elaborate structures using the straws and bands, on which to stand or hang the can 

I had operated with the rules given, and the materials supplied, but had thought laterally.   

Edited March 14, 2021 by Mr Walker

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Dejarma said:

I would also say neither:

I say you're here for the wind-up. Something you've successfully kept going for a long time. Well done mate..

IMHO I think you're here for a laugh. You enjoy saying what you say & reading the replies. It's fun for you.

 If I'm wrong then prove it! Prove you're not a wind-up

Which just goes to underline  how totally  and completely you get it wrong  

As above,  every personal  experience I have related has been as true as I can make it Every factual /scientific  claim I have made has had scientific support (even if it is still being debated .

I came  here many years ago BECAUSE of the experiences in my life,  thinking it would be a place where i could  talk openly and freely about them, listen to others, and compare notes  

I was very naïve, and wasn't expecting the hostility  I received from people who saw my experiences as a threat to how they understood the world. 

Only when you accept everything I write as being as true and correct as I can make it,  can you understand where I am coming from

 Then you can argue, debate, dismiss etc.

But I am here for VERY genuine reasons  The part of my life revealed here is only a small part, but I find it incredible that others don't have similar experiences over their lives. I find it hard to believe that some people live in a world of pure materialism, without any unexplained mysteries in their lives, or any adventures, challenges, or excitement .

  I find it hard to believe  a person who says they have never encountered an angel or a ghost or seen a UFO .

 I have to consciously  avoid suspecting that they   are lying  

To me this is absolutely serious, because  it reflects the way the world actually is

  However, I understand and tolerate people who honestly dont have such experiences and choose to disbelieve. For them it is natural and logical  to disbelieve. 

However, I  could say that I  suspect some deniers only argue that way to be accepted and  to feel safer.

Humans need to feel secure and safe.

We order our views of the world to make them simple, safe and predictable, even when the  world is not really so 

For some, believing in god makes them feel more secure.

For others, denying its existence makes them feel safer. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Hammerclaw]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

If I was an active member of any church, I  would contribute to it's upkeep and costs, because I would gain the benefits of free weddings, funerals social events etc.

However   I am not a natural   joiner. I spent a few years paying   union fees and donations to a church when I was young and naïve.

Then I stopped both (over 40 years ago)   I don't have any dues, or payments, for any sporting, religious,  or social organisations. 

And I thought I was a good straight man.

[+Sherapy]

9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

saw this re posted 

No I am not and you will find no objective evidence that I am.

This is an easy claim for  you to  construct, in order  to make you feel validated,  and be able to dismiss my claims.

Ever since we began corresponding you have tried to  find something to hang your abilty to disbelieve upon   Early on you questioned my education, my qualifications , my sanity,  my psychological neediness You were wrong about all of them, and you are wrong about this  

I am not a seventh day Adventist.

  My  wife is,  and I find many of their health messages and social standards   to be true and healthy .  I also   like their brand of Christianity Eg There is no hell  or torture. You communicate direct with god through prayer, study, and meditation.   No priests or church is needed. Salvation comes through god/Christ, not through works, church, or the authority of priests. 

 You don't have to believe this, (and I do not)  to recognise it is a much healthier belief system than, say, Catholicism .  

I am an evolutionist who happens to have lived connected to the cosmic consciousness since I was about 13 and with its physical form since I was 22 

I f you  have read my many posts you will KNOW that I dont advocate any one faith or belief ,although science proves tha t ANY positive belief  brings benefits 

This sort of false claim post from  you is why I have to keep an eye on your posts, despite having you on ignore. You simply tell lies, either because you believe them yourself, or to make yourself   feel validated.  

Please provide any objective evidences from within my posts that I am "pushing" an Adventist theology  or indeed any other theology 

I have explained many times that my choice is cultural. If I lived with Buddhists i would be Buddhist. If I lived with Jews I would be Jewish   If I lived with Muslims I would be a liberal Muslim. If I lived with pagans I would be pagan (Indeed I might be a shaman)  

God is god. It can be related to within ANY faith, but requires none. For me it is no more a faith construct than my dogs are. 

If I was an Adventist this inclusiveness  would be heretical   They are tolerant of human diversity  by nature, but  some do believe that only their theology leads to god.

That is simply wrong  

“I hope your life continues as good and happy as it is now, and you never need the presence of god, for protection or comfort or empowerment; but if it s needed and offered, I also  hope you will consider accepting it”( Walker).

 

Tasha marie has made it crystal clear that her life works best the way she has chosen to live it and her way does not  include god. 

Perhaps you could work on stretching your perspective and accept that empowerment, protection, and comfort are states of being accessible to anyone, on any path.  
 

One doesn’t need god constructs to be empowered etc. etc, some may choose them which is fine if it works for them, but framing god as a “need” is a projection on your part. 
 

All the best, and thank you for having me on ignore it is wonderful. 
 

 

 

 

 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

24 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

All the best, and thank you for having me on ignore it is wonderful. 

He doesn't.

[oslove]

Dear jmccr8, is there something that you and I can concur on at all, like for example we have a nose on our face?

I am not requiring that you accept my definitions of existence, God, and proof, I am just into requesting that you present what you know from your stock knowledge on what is existence, what is God, and what is proof, in re the present threat on What is God.

You seem to be harping all the time on that you have got nothing to work on as to arrive at concurrence with me, so I am at a loss what you are doing in a net forum or in any forum at all.

Okay, can you at least concur with me that we have a nose on our face?

 

Posted 23 hours ago jmccr8  #307 

Hi Oslove

I can agree that those are your definitions of god, existence and proof but they are not mutual as for me I do not know that god exists so have no means to define what god is. For me our ability to adapt ourselves and our environment, to be creative/creators that can see and realize potentials is as close to what I would call god. I do not see it as and entity or something other it is what we are.

Evidence for me is as described by scientific method same as proofs and to date I have not seen evidence or proof as defined by scientific method that can be attributed to the existence of god. I know I exist, my car, tools, food all exist and are a part of my daily life. I don't know why I exist as an individual and it really doesn't bother me that I don't know nor am I complaining that I didn't have a choice to be, I am here and will live my life until I am no longer.

I don't know which god you believe in but history shows us how religions developed from on culture to another and modified god to fit their culture and to be honest even in the Abrahamic faiths there was more than one god and can be seen in the wording of Genesis not to mention the first commandment of having no other god before him so if you wish to discuss this seriously you will have to develop you position some more so we have something to work with.

jmccr8

.

[+Sherapy]

2 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear jmccr8, is there something that you and I can concur on at all, like for example we have a nose on our face?

I am not requiring that you accept my definitions of existence, God, and proof, I am just into requesting that you present what you know from your stock knowledge on what is existence, what is God, and what is proof, in re the present threat on What is God.

You seem to be harping all the time on that you have got nothing to work on as to arrive at concurrence with me, so I am at a loss what you are doing in a net forum or in any forum at all.

Okay, can you at least concur with me that we have a nose on our face?

 

Posted 23 hours ago jmccr8  #307 

Hi Oslove

I can agree that those are your definitions of god, existence and proof but they are not mutual as for me I do not know that god exists so have no means to define what god is. For me our ability to adapt ourselves and our environment, to be creative/creators that can see and realize potentials is as close to what I would call god. I do not see it as and entity or something other it is what we are.

Evidence for me is as described by scientific method same as proofs and to date I have not seen evidence or proof as defined by scientific method that can be attributed to the existence of god. I know I exist, my car, tools, food all exist and are a part of my daily life. I don't know why I exist as an individual and it really doesn't bother me that I don't know nor am I complaining that I didn't have a choice to be, I am here and will live my life until I am no longer.

I don't know which god you believe in but history shows us how religions developed from on culture to another and modified god to fit their culture and to be honest even in the Abrahamic faiths there was more than one god and can be seen in the wording of Genesis not to mention the first commandment of having no other god before him so if you wish to discuss this seriously you will have to develop you position some more so we have something to work with.

jmccr8

.

Oslove, the accepted definition for god philosophically and religiously is infinite perfection beyond human understanding. Jay’s counter reflects his grasp of this implicitly  and is excellent in the sense that he isn’t using a god of gaps (making god up and offering no evidence like you). Jay is absolutely appropriate in asking for your evidence to advance your construct of god before he can proceed. The facts are you do not have evidence so you are using a smoke and mirrors approach which he objects to and offers his reasons why, one can’t get my more clear than this.

 

 

You can posit anything but, what advances the argument are the facts that support it. 

Edited March 14, 2021 by Sherapy

[+Hammerclaw]

A friend ask me once "What is God?"

As we walked a trail which in our youth we'd often trod,

By a gently flowing brook in a forgotten meadow,

Bordered by lilacs, covered in lavenders

Their mingled scents redolent on the breeze.

"Why God is hope." I replied, 

As the golden afternoon sun broke through tumble clouds

Riding the surf of evening above shimmering trees.

"Hope?" she said. "How can God be hope in the absence of affection,

In the absence of a presence, of clear intention?"

"Hope is present in the heart." I relied.

"It's intention is the tomorrow we wish for with no pretention.

What is to be may not be what was surmised."

"Then hope is vanity, not God, at all."

She laughed, sniffing the lavenders cupped in her hands.

"Perhaps." I said.

"Yet the vanity of vanities is to pretend one has no hope, at all."

Edited March 14, 2021 by Hammerclaw

[Mr Walker]

12 hours ago, Hammerclaw said:

And I thought I was a good straight man.

lol Maybe it's my Scottish heritage. I don't mind giving to those in need, but I hate paying dues to organisations which claim to be working for me but often are not. Plus, as stated, I am not a joiner 

In 70 years I would have been a member  of less than 10 organisations, and  I stopped  belonging to  8  of those were before I was 30

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

He doesn't.

I do. You will notice that responses to Sherapy come from  where she is quoted  in other posts. There have been dozens of her posts I have not responded to and many i have not read 

However, for me, ignore doesn't always mean not reading a person's posts  (although often it also does) It means a conscious decision not to respond to every post. 

This is a classic example. I never saw Sherapy's post,  until you re- posted it  

Edited March 14, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Nuclear Wessel]

26 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

I do. You will notice that responses to Sherapy come from  where she is quoted  in other posts. There have been dozens of her posts I have not responded to and many i have not read 

However, for me, ignore doesn't always mean not reading a person's posts  (although often it also does) It means a conscious decision not to respond to every post. 

This is a classic example. I never saw Sherapy's post,  until you re- posted it  

Yeah, I don't believe a word you say so your responses are doing nothing. Just thought I'd put that out there.

[Mr Walker]

1 minute ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Yeah, I don't believe a word you say so your responses are doing nothing. Just thought I'd put that out there.

That is your problem.

In not realising this, you fall into increasing error about MANY things. 

 I don't waste my breath spouting untruths.  

I know myself.

What I don't understand is,  what sort of person  completely disbelieves what other people tell them. Why/how did the y evolve such a negative/ sceptical attitude to others.

Is it a lack of trust caused by being let down or hurt by liars  or are they natural liars themselves and so think everyone is like them ?

I haven't got a clue what sort of person you are, and so I am not judging your motives.

But it is amusing (and a bit frustrating)  that something inside you drives you to disbelieve what I  know to be quite simple, irrefutable, truths.  

eg I say that I  have;   a wife, 3 dogs, and a cat, yet you just posted that  you don't believe that.

  Interesting reaction.

[+Nuclear Wessel]

41 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

*snip*

What I don't understand is,  what sort of person  completely disbelieves what other people tell them. Why/how did the y evolve such a negative/ sceptical attitude to others.

Not "others"--literally just you. I think you are the only person I know of that I essentially completely distrust.

I thought about it, and I really can't think of a person who I have less trust for. I think I would even trust a cheating ex or kleptomaniac brother (who is a compulsive, serial liar) more than I would trust you. That may seem like an exaggeration, but I am completely serious. I don't even know how that is possible, but it's true.

That's my choice. You don't like it, and I don't really care.

Literally nothing you say will change that. You can pout if you want, or criticize it as being illogical, or whatever else you will inevitably respond with after you or Will reports my post, but my thoughts and convictions about you will remain completely unchanged.

The important thing is that you will have internalized it.

That's all I have to say.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

7 hours ago, Sherapy said:

All the best, and thank you for having me on ignore it is wonderful. 

I think you should put Mr Walker on ignore like I did. I have not regretted it for a moment.

In fact I think everyone should do it.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Noteverythingisaconspiracy

[+Sherapy]

1 hour ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I think you should put Mr Walker on ignore like I did. I have not regretted it for a moment.

In fact I think everyone should do it.

Great idea

[jmccr8]

6 hours ago, oslove said:

Dear jmccr8, is there something that you and I can concur on at all, like for example we have a nose on our face?

I am not requiring that you accept my definitions of existence, God, and proof, I am just into requesting that you present what you know from your stock knowledge on what is existence, what is God, and what is proof, in re the present threat on What is God.

Hi Oslove

Yes we can agree that we have a nose although some are of greater distinction but a nose none the less.

If I am to discuss this with you we will use your definition of god as I do not have one and proofs and evidences will be to the standard of scientific method. Basically existence is to be aware in the human/animal sense and anything that can be sensed physically exists but is only significant to the individual to make sense of and express it and it's value. This is seeing and realizing potential and is evidenced by how our society has evolved to live in houses, buy groceries at the supermarket, or discuss things on the internet.

6 hours ago, oslove said:

You seem to be harping all the time on that you have got nothing to work on as to arrive at concurrence with me, so I am at a loss what you are doing in a net forum or in any forum at all.

Not sure what you consider harping, is that about Docy? That was just me letting you know what she is going through and to take it into consideration. I have responded to a couple of your posts and earlier had no interest in discussing this and now we have guidelines as to how we will proceed or not it's your choice.

jmccr8

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Not "others"--literally just you. I think you are the only person I know of that I essentially completely distrust.

I thought about it, and I really can't think of a person who I have less trust for. I think I would even trust a cheating ex or kleptomaniac brother (who is a compulsive, serial liar) more than I would trust you. That may seem like an exaggeration, but I am completely serious. I don't even know how that is possible, but it's true.

That's my choice. You don't like it, and I don't really care.

Literally nothing you say will change that. You can pout if you want, or criticize it as being illogical, or whatever else you will inevitably respond with after you or Will reports my post, but my thoughts and convictions about you will remain completely unchanged.

The important thing is that you will have internalized it.

That's all I have to say.

I dont believe you  

 

I wont report this 

its a fair, if wrong, assessment But it comes from  something inside YOU, not from  anything within me. 

I repeat.

Everything I have posted here is as true and accurate as i can make it 

You dont believe that,  and that is ok with me.

My only concern is that it harms you to remain ignorant of a greater reality than that you live within 

One day, maybe, you will encounter something which proves just how wrong you are.

But maybe you will die, never having had such an encounter  

I do feel very sorry for you, and others, who live in a dark box and keep the lid tightly closed 

Ps I REALLY dont believe this attitude pertains only to me.

I think you extend it to anyone whose experiences or beliefs challenge your own.

 IMO It is about staying safe in that little box which contains your world . 

[+Nuclear Wessel]

4 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

*snip*

Everything I have posted here is as true and accurate as i can make it 

....

But maybe you will die, never having had such an encounter  

*snip*

That’s fine.

Still don’t believe you tho

Edited March 15, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[SHaYap]

57 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Still don’t believe you tho

You're not alone... 

Quote

~

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, third_eye said:

You're not alone... 

~

To be pedantic;  a person who thinks they are telling the truth is not a liar.

To lie requires intentional deceit. 

It is amusing that you  think things, which I know are  are total truths, are lies.

The true deceit is in your mind. 

You are fooling yourself 

Perhaps not lying  to yourself, if you believe your own  deceits, but  certainly letting your beliefs and needs override the truth.  

[Mr Walker]

6 hours ago, Noteverythingisaconspiracy said:

I think you should put Mr Walker on ignore like I did. I have not regretted it for a moment.

In fact I think everyone should do it.

Wont be effective unless I choose to put YOU on ignore  

As long as I can voice my opinion about your posts, that is all I require.

When you choose not to respond, it leaves me in control of the debate.

Love it.  

[+Nuclear Wessel]

9 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

To be pedantic;  a person who thinks they are telling the truth is not a liar.

To lie requires intentional deceit. 

It is amusing that you  think things, which I know are  are total truths, are lies.

The true deceit is in your mind. 

You are fooling yourself 

Perhaps not lying  to yourself, if you believe your own  deceits, but  certainly letting your beliefs and needs override the truth.  

Thought you had him on ignore. 

This is why I don’t believe a word that you say lol.

I’ve got you pegged. 

Edited March 15, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel

[Mr Walker]

9 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Thought you had him on ignore. 

 

see my point in a post above

However, for me, ignore doesn't always mean not reading a person's posts  (although often it also does) It means a conscious decision not to respond to every post. 

That was the first one of 3rd eyes posts ive read for about a month He is such a nasty person (at least to me) that  I  usually don't read his posts 

But its been very slow on UM recently    

I noted the comments about my honesty,  saw his name, and made a bet with myself that he had made a comment about my honesty 

I was right 

I've said before that i will correct any false statements about me that I come across.  I've just stopped actively seeking them out from  3 posters in particular.

In this case it was the false concept in the "meme" he provided, which needed correcting.

Something is only a lie when it is intended to deceive.  False statements are not lies if the person telling them believes them to be true.  

Edited March 15, 2021 by Mr Walker

[+Nuclear Wessel]

31 minutes ago, Mr Walker said:

 

see my point in a post above

However, for me, ignore doesn't always mean not reading a person's posts  (although often it also does) It means a conscious decision not to respond to every post. 

That was the first one of 3rd eyes posts ive read for about a month He is such a nasty person (at least to me) that  I  usually don't read his posts 

But its been very slow on UM recently    

I noted the comments about my honesty,  saw his name, and made a bet with myself that he had made a comment about my honesty 

I was right 

I've said before that i will correct any false statements about me that I come across.  I've just stopped actively seeking them out from  3 posters in particular. In this case it was the false concpet in the meme he provided which needed correcting Something is only a lie when it is intended to deceive.  False statements are not lies if the person telling them believes them to be true.  

Walker, you have nobody on ignore. It’s all part of your manipulation tactics. We can see through you quite clearly.

Your narcissistic ego prevents that from happening. You bask in the attention.

Also, this is very telling as to what kind of person you are:

”When you choose not to respond, it leaves me in control of the debate.

Love it.”

Yes, you are a controlling person. We can tell because you attempt to control everything from how people view you to the course of threads in this sub forum. You telling people you have them on ignore when you really don’t is part of this sense of control that you want to have. Same goes for giving BS reasons for not providing credentials—you don’t like the feeling of giving in to the demands of others because you hate feeling like you’re not the one in charge. 

Gotta give it to you, you made one hell of a preacher man in your early SDA days. How much kool aid did you sell?

I assure you that I am not the only one who feels this way—they may not be as direct as myself about it, but I guarantee there is at least a handful of people who share the exact same thoughts.

The only person you might be convincing of these delusions of grandeur is yourself... the rest of us see them for what they are: delusions.

Edited March 15, 2021 by Nuclear Wessel