Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9038 total)
426 online now:
dwise1 (1 member, 425 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,690 Year: 3,336/14,102 Month: 277/724 Week: 35/91 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do We NEED God?
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


(8)
Message 76 of 224 (675469)
10-11-2012 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by Phat
10-02-2012 11:41 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Hi Phat. Sorry for the slow replies - the new job limits my posting.

Your response to me, however, is irrelevant. I pointed out that you are "communing" only within your own head, and you reaponded effectively that it can be good to let people talk yo imaginatlry friends.

Throughout this and other topics, you engage in a dance whereby you use pseudophilosophical wise-sounding nonsense in order to find excuses as to why you should be able to not change your mind despite your acknowledgement of arguments that clearly show that your own position is weak at best.

We dont "need god." Rather, human beings have an instinctual urge to feel accepted, loved, protected, and in-line with authority. "God" offers the ultimate solution to those urges, offering an authority generated solely within the mind of the individual that can justify any action in conflict woth "lesser" (but actually existing) authorities like the law, as well as a loving parent figure and a powerful protector to turn to when faced with something beyond our control.

But "god," like Santa Claus, is a false answer to those urges. You can pray all you want, but it is an experimentally verified fact that you are just talking to yourself. You can hold "god" up as an inspiration or authority, but you have created it within your own mind, and you are no different from a child who does good to please Santa.

Yes, faith can bring about positive results...and negative. Yes, people can feel happy or fulfilled in faith...but ultimately that happiness and fulfillment is based on a lie.

Let us be direct here: you are essencially arguing that it is good to believe in "god," as opposed to whether or not "god" actually exists. "Gods" existence is for you irrelevant - you are saying that it is good to believe it exists, regardless of whether it really does or not. This is the core of your argument that we "need god," and the reason for your reply to me. This is not an uncommon stance - many people of faith behave as if no "god" actually exists, yet still behave as if belief itself is still necessary.

This is backward, and it leads to believing in fantasies, a detachment from reality.

Please take the following to heart, Phat.

If "god" exists, then I want to believe that "god" exists.

If "god" does NOT exist, then I want to not believe that "god" exists.

I want my beliefs to match objective reality as closely as possible. Accepting reality does not actually make anything better or worse...reality is the way it is regardless of my belief. If I can be happy in the real world while believing in Santa Claus, then I can be happy in the real.world without him...because he never existed in the first place despite my belief. "God" doesnt do anything for you, because "god" does not exist. Just as Santa will not bring you presents, "god" will not answer any prayers.

You, and we, do not need "god." What we need is to stop using fantasy to assuage our emotional need for securoty, control, and acceptance.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by Phat, posted 10-02-2012 11:41 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 3:06 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15391
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 77 of 224 (675631)
10-13-2012 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Rahvin
10-11-2012 2:38 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
quote:
Please take the following to heart, Phat.

If "god" exists, then I want to believe that "god" exists.

If "god" does NOT exist, then I want to not believe that "god" exists.


You want your beliefs to match objective reality as closely as possible.
My beliefs are in the very essence of what forms objective reality. Hint: It is not formed through human wisdom, though it is often discovered that way.

Rahvin writes:

Accepting reality does not actually make anything better or worse...reality is the way it is regardless of my belief. If I can be happy in the real world while believing in Santa Claus, then I can be happy in the real.world without him...because he never existed in the first place despite my belief. "God" doesn't do anything for you, because "god" does not exist. Just as Santa will not bring you presents, "god" will not answer any prayers.

You, and we, do not need "god." What we need is to stop using fantasy to assuage our emotional need for security, control, and acceptance.

I will agree, except that I don't accept your conclusion that god never existed in the first place. Granted you may or may not be right.

Edited by Phat, : added

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Rahvin, posted 10-11-2012 2:38 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by Straggler, posted 10-15-2012 3:03 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 10-15-2012 5:03 PM Phat has responded

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 76 days)
Posts: 10328
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 78 of 224 (675762)
10-15-2012 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
10-13-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Phat writes:

My beliefs are in the very essence of what forms objective reality.

How are your beliefs and what forms objective reality linked?

Phat writes:

Hint: It is not formed through human wisdom, though it is often discovered that way.

What is? Objective reality? What do you mean here?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 3:06 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 79 of 224 (675771)
10-15-2012 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Phat
10-13-2012 3:06 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Hi Phat. Please excuse typos - I post from a phone these days.

You want your beliefs to match objective reality as closely as possible. My beliefs are in the very essence of what forms objective reality. Hint: It is not formed through human wisdom, though it is often discovered that way.

Youre demonstrating exactly what I said above: youre stringing together pseudophilosophic nonsense in a cadence you imagine to convey deep meaning, but you've actually said nothing at all.

Beliefs, Phat, do not form objective reality. Thats what "objective reality" means: it is thay which exists whether we beloeve in it or not.

"Human wisdom" is the only way anything is discovered, as we are the only ones doing any discovering (as relevant to humanity at present in any case; maybe aliens.exist, but they certainly arent helping us discover things). Your clumsy implication here is that some knowledge.stems.from a "supernatural" source.

You're wrong, of course, which is why you have no evidence to support such an assertion. Rather, all you do is stare at your navel and ponder; what comes out pf your brain originates solely from you, not from your friend who, I assure you, is imaginary.

I will agree, except that I don't accept your conclusion that god never existed in the first place. Granted you may or may not be right.

Once again...you simply find excuses to avoid changing your mind, even.as in tje same sentence you agree with a position that makes your own questionable at best.

Your capacity for cognitive dissonance knows few peers, Phat.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Phat, posted 10-13-2012 3:06 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 3:55 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15391
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 80 of 224 (675860)
10-16-2012 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rahvin
10-15-2012 5:03 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Phat writes:

My beliefs are in the very essence of what forms objective reality.

Straggler writes:

How are your beliefs and what forms objective reality linked?

Phat writes:

Hint: It is not formed through human wisdom, though it is often discovered that way.

Straggler writes:

What is? Objective reality? What do you mean here?

Rahvin writes:

You're demonstrating exactly what I said above: you're stringing together pseudophilosophic nonsense in a cadence you imagine to convey deep meaning, but you've actually said nothing at all.

You would make me think! And yes, I do often string together word salad, but im attempting to mix it up and make it tasty, eventually! And I am attempting to convey deep meaning, since my personal bias leans toward GOD as being a deep topic, rather than simply a whimsical debate.

Lets start with this premise: What Is Objective Reality

*Phat reads the source he is quoting*.....

Does anyone have a definition of objective reality that they would like to propose? What I meant was that my continual search for knowledge and definition does not mean that I personally do not believe in GOD as a final definitive objective reality, but I say that it is only a belief. I try not to search for knowledge simply as a confirmation of my bias, I search so as to be better able to
attempt to define what it is that I believe, why it is that I believe it, and what, if anything, I am purposefully ignoring.

Edited by Phat, : fixed quote


This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rahvin, posted 10-15-2012 5:03 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 10-16-2012 4:37 PM Phat has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


(1)
Message 81 of 224 (675866)
10-16-2012 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by Phat
10-16-2012 3:55 PM


Re: Questions, Solutions, and Problems
Lets start with this premise: What Is Objective Reality

*Phat reads the source he is quoting*.....

Does anyone have a definition of objective reality that they would like to propose?

...really, Phat?

Objective reality is that which exists independently of its observers.

The cup on my desk exists whether you believe it is there or not, whether you are aware it is there or not. If we all forget that it's here, it will remain for us to rediscover it later - and every person who does so will observe the same cup sitting on the same desk.

What I meant was that my continual search for knowledge and definition does not mean that I personally do not believe in GOD as a final definitive objective reality, but I say that it is only a belief. I try not to search for knowledge simply as a confirmation of my bias, I search so as to be better able to
attempt to define what it is that I believe, why it is that I believe it, and what, if anything, I am purposefully ignoring.

You've been made aware of what you purposefully ignore. Repeatedly.

Your words betray you, yet again:

I personally do not believe in GOD as a final definitive objective reality, but I say that it is only a belief.

Note your word choice here.

You believe that it is good to believe in GOD.

You don't necessarily believe that any such thing as a GOD actually exists outside of the minds of believers; you don't really believe that GOD is a part of objective reality, existing whether people believe or not. You just believe that having that belief is a good thing, a goal to be worked toward.

It's similar to believing in democracy. It's less about what you believe to actually exist (obviously various forms of democracy exist in governments around the globe) and more about making a statement of alignment - you think democracy is a "good thing" and so you "believe in it."

In the same way, your "belief in GOD" is independent of whether or not you actually think that any such thing exists. You just think that "believing in GOD" is a "good thing." You align yourself with the "believing in GOD" tribe because it makes you feel good.

It's crazy thinking, Phat. It's absolutely insane to separate one's beliefs like this. You claim that

I search so as to be better able to
attempt to define what it is that I believe, why it is that I believe it, and what, if anything, I am purposefully ignoring.

and again you get it wrong - don't try to "better define" your beliefs!

Try to find out which beliefs you should keep, which ones you should change, and which ones you should discard. That is the very definition of the pursuit of knowledge - the iterative improvement in the accuracy of one's beliefs through self-reflection and comparison to data from objective reality. You should constantly ask yourself, "why do I believe what I believe?"

If GOD exists, then you should want to believe that GOD exists.
If GOD does not exist, you should want to NOT believe that GOD exists.

This is all that should drive your position on whether GOD does or does not exist...

...you personal preference has no bearing on reality, and neither does the social pressure that compels you to believe that belief in GOD is "good." Neither will make GOD appear or disappear - such a thing already exists or does not exist. What's up to you is, to the best of your ability, determine which Universe you live in - one in which GOD exists, or one in which GOD does not.

The term "GOD" conveys a great deal of traditional information, and we now have an entire thread devoted to defining the term (an absurdity in itself). The conspicuous absence of evidence strongly predicted by the "GOD" hypothesis shows that by any definition we would actually recognize as "GOD," such a thing does not exist.

Certainly things exist of which we are unaware, and certainly someone could assign the label "GOD" to any of those "unknown unknowns," but in no way would such a thing be recognizable as any of the myriad traditional definitions of what "GOD" is.

There is no magic man in the sky. There is no magic man driving the Sun, or controlling the sea, or throwing lightning bolts. There is no magic man raising the dead. There is no magic man answering prayers, as has been repeatedly demonstrated in multiple experiments.

There is no "life after death," because the essence of a person is contained in the brain, and the brain stops working after death (if "souls" existed in the traditional sense of containing one's personality, brain damage would not alter personality, but it does).

Your need for "GOD," Phat, is rooted in your belief that believing in "GOD" is a good thing, and your wishful thinking that you should be loved and protected from that which you have no control over. That desire is present in all human beings, as is the instinctual urge to make something up to occupy a role to fulfill that wishful thinking when your desires are not met.

Your real question is whether we, as human beings, need to believe in "GOD," whether such a thing exists or not. You wonder what will happen if you, Phat, give up that belief.

The answer is nothing. You might experience some confusion and feel like your world has changed...

...but eventually you'd realize that the world exists as it is, regardless of your beliefs. You don't need "GOD," and you don;t need to believe in "GOD," because "GOD" will exist or not exist regardless of your beliefs or your imagined "needs;" indeed, "GOD" already either exists or does not exist, regardless of how you feel on the matter.

The world doesn't change when you discard an inaccurate belief.

But you change - you become stronger. You are better able to predict what will actually happen with greater accuracy because your personal set of beliefs about the world will more accurately reflect objective reality.

Instead of believing, for example, that "GOD" will cure a diabetic boy, you'll predict that without medical intervention the boy will die, regardless of how many people "pray" to their imaginary friends.

Instead of believing that "GOD" will protect the righteous or the faithful, you'll realize that the righteous and faithful suffer just as much as everyone else, and that their suffering is the combined result of contingent environmental circumstance, their own actions, and the actions of those who can affect them.

Instead of believing that this world doesn't matter and instead banking on your fate in the "next," you'll correctly realize that this world, this life is all we have, and whether it exists as heaven or hell is up to us to decide through our actions...not a magic man who will make everything better after we die.

We don't "need GOD," Phat. YOU don't "need" it either.

Edited by Rahvin, : No reason given.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 3:55 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 5:25 PM Rahvin has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15391
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 82 of 224 (675869)
10-16-2012 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rahvin
10-16-2012 4:37 PM


Three Topics -One God -Zero Evidence?
We have three "God" topics in high rotation, chiefly because I like talking about such things. I have to discipline myself, however, and sort the data as to which topic should be addressed by what specific criteria.

This Topic is in Faith & Belief.

Rahvin writes:

Your words betray you, yet again...

Indeed they do. Sometimes I dont think enough before I say something, and it comes out wrong.

You believe that it is good to believe in GOD.
For me, or for everyone? *ponders* Yes, I suppose that since I believe that God is good and is personally interactive and/or interested in our lives that it is good to believe in Him.

You don't necessarily believe that any such thing as a GOD actually exists outside of the minds of believers; you don't really believe that GOD is a part of objective reality, existing whether people believe or not. You just believe that having that belief is a good thing, a goal to be worked toward.
Not true. I DO believe that GOD exists whether or not anyone believes in Him. Jar has pointed out, however, that my definition of GOD tends to favor me and loves humanity, whereas the reality may be different. So I am forced to admit that if GOD exists, I may not know Her all that well!

It's similar to believing in democracy. It's less about what you believe to actually exist (obviously various forms of democracy exist in governments around the globe) and more about making a statement of alignment - you think democracy is a "good thing" and so you "believe in it."
How appropiate on the eve of the second presidential debate! I have an idea of what I think a Democracy should do and be, and I tie that in with what a candidate or party ideology/affiliation says, though their words often betray them as well. We know that what is said is not often done...or is partially quoted, misquoted, or taken out of context. In the same way, what you say is true in that I tend to align myself and form my own bias based on the God that I want to exist, which may not be the One whom actually does.(In this universe, anyway...maybe not in that other one!

In the same way, your "belief in GOD" is independent of whether or not you actually think that any such thing exists. You just think that "believing in GOD" is a "good thing." You align yourself with the "believing in GOD" tribe because it makes you feel good.
Based on jars analogy, its all in the capitalization. My belief in GOD is independent of how I attempt to define God, which is a mix of logic and emotion and personal bias. As to my alliance, I do not limit my affiliation with believers. I find that aligning with non-believers and skeptics as well as intelligent critical thinkers of unknown belief actually challenges me much better. Believers, if they are defined as I think you mean, tend not to think and are mired in dogma and ideology. They may be as a group less desirable to be in alliance with, though individually as heartfelt and wise as are the other group.

Edited by Phat, : changed subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rahvin, posted 10-16-2012 4:37 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2012 6:46 PM Phat has responded

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 3966
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 83 of 224 (675954)
10-17-2012 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Phat
10-16-2012 5:25 PM


Re: Three Topics -One God -Zero Evidence?
Hi Phat.

It's interesting to me that you chose to reply to only a small portion of my post...and that what you did reply to apparently sailed over your head, as you aren't even speaking to the subject matter.

Indeed they do. Sometimes I dont think enough before I say something, and it comes out wrong.

Typically, when someone says "my words came out wrong," what's really happened is that they meant exactly what was said, but upon later reflection the individual is uncomfortable when the implications of a statement are pointed out, and the individual seeks to publicly (and often internally) distance him/herself from the original statement...even as then absolutely continue to hold exactly that belief.

For me, or for everyone? *ponders* Yes, I suppose that since I believe that God is good and is personally interactive and/or interested in our lives that it is good to believe in Him.

Sailed completely over your head.

You don't actually believe any such thing as a god exists - if you did, you'd be able to define that thing with as much detail as you could define an everyday object with which you are familiar, like a pen or a television. If you did, your statements would be made in accordance with actually thinking that objective reality contains that thing.

Instead, as your words continue to tell us, you think that "believing in god" is a "good thing," and so you say to us and to yourself thst you "believe in god," while internally you do no such thing. Your internal self-predictions, I'd wager, match a person who does not believe in god - you don;t actually expect prayers to be answered in any way distinguishable from random occurrence, for example, and when you disc over that brain damage can alter personalities, you're not at all surprised even though a belief in "souls" and "spirits" is virtually invalidated by that data alone.

More specifically for you, you "agree with" posts on a regular basis that invalidate your own statements. You essentially say "I completely agree with what you say, but I continue to believe the exact opposite." You are a textbook example of contradiction on a regular basis.

Not true. I DO believe that GOD exists whether or not anyone believes in Him.

I think that you believe that you believe that. You aren't lying, but internally your predictions about the world will match the predictions that would be made if you did not believe in any god.

Jar has pointed out, however, that my definition of GOD tends to favor me and loves humanity, whereas the reality may be different. So I am forced to admit that if GOD exists, I may not know Her all that well!

Jar is High King of the God of the Gaps movement - he hides his assertions behind an impenetrable barrier of slimy fog, where his belief lie forever obfuscated from even himself. Jar, essentially, says "I don't know what I believe in, but it's out there, somewhere!" He's holding back his "GOD" label, waiting for something to come along (which he freely admits will not likely happen "while he is alive," implying some sort of epiphany after death, which he will then also disavow, because it is impossible to pin Jar down into making any specific claim on his own beliefs, much as he likes to use any relevant thread as a soapbox for his Church of I Don't Know What, But I Like to Think It's There Somewhere).

I'm certain there are things "out there" that I'm unaware of as well...but I don't get quite as much of a kick out of applying labels laden with actual meaning onto unknown unknowns. Just as it's irrational to say "God did it" to any currently unexplained phenomenon, it's irrational to say that "GOD" is a currently unknown and likely unknowable entity. If it were actually unknown and unknowable, Jar (and the rest of us) would have never conceived of such a thing and applied the specific label "GOD" to it.

How appropiate on the eve of the second presidential debate! I have an idea of what I think a Democracy should do and be, and I tie that in with what a candidate or party ideology/affiliation says, though their words often betray them as well. We know that what is said is not often done...or is partially quoted, misquoted, or taken out of context.

My words had nothing whatsoever to do with the election, Phat. It had everything to do with tribalism and the semantic difference between "believing in" (ie, believing a thing to be "good") and actually believing something to exist in objective reality (ie, the specific hypothesis of greatest probability as informed by your current understanding of the subset of your own known data).

In the same way, what you say is true in that I tend to align myself and form my own bias based on the God that I want to exist, which may not be the One whom actually does.(In this universe, anyway...maybe not in that other one!

If I were the type to insert graphics into my posts, I would add a facepalm image here.

You do more than align yourself with a specific God concept (one would think, given you can differentiate your own God-concept from others, that you'd be better equipped to define what exactly a "God" is, particularly given all of the historical usage of the term upon which you base your belief). You align yourself with a God-concept, period, because you think that "believing in God" is better (ie, more personally acceptable) than the alternative. Your internal drive to self-consistency causes you to tell yourself and others that you actually believe that this kinda-sorta defined thing actually exists in objective reality, but your intellectual core, the part of your mind that actually assimilates your real beliefs about the world and determines what you expect to happen in a given set of circumstances, shows what you really believe.

Jar's drive for internal consistency causes him to blur his concept of "GOD" sufficiently that all outcomes for all predictions will fit with his not-even-defined hypothesis. He quite simply could never given any information, right up to and including a reality-warping super-entity popping out of the clouds and saying "Hi, I'm God, sorry about all the confusion and injustice and whatnot," differentiate between a Universe that contains "GOD" and one that does not, except by his own whimsy.

An undefined "GOD" label fits a mouse as easily as a laptop computer as easily as a cloud as easily as a demon as easily as a magic rainbow unicorn. Jar is like a Supreme Court justice whose identity I cannot recall commenting on what defines "pornography" and what differentiates it from "art:" "I'll know it when I see it."

If you cannot define it, you cannot possibly know it when you see it.

Based on jars analogy, its all in the capitalization. My belief in GOD is independent of how I attempt to define God, which is a mix of logic and emotion and personal bias.

Again: you cannot believe something to exist if you can't even define what it is. Jar is not using an analogy - he's simply obfuscating his actual beliefs and assertions behind an infinite regression of "I didn't say that" when challenged with an implication of what he has said and various permutations of "it's unknowable."

Jar is interesting in his ability to spawn significant debate around a non-statement, the basic assertion that "I think there's something out there, I don't know what, and I don't think it's possible to know or understand beyond that. Oh, and I'm going to call it GOD, and it's case-sensitive."

As to my alliance, I do not limit my affiliation with believers. I find that aligning with non-believers and skeptics as well as intelligent critical thinkers of unknown belief actually challenges me much better. Believers, if they are defined as I think you mean, tend not to think and are mired in dogma and ideology. They may be as a group less desirable to be in alliance with, though individually as heartfelt and wise as are the other group.

Yet another point sails over your head, replied to with wishy-washy pseudo-philosophical irrelevancy.

You "believe in God" because that intellectual association is more personally comfortable to you. You assign yourself to that intellectual clade out of a form of social pressure, rather than actual belief guided by logic and evidence and rational thought.

That has nothing whatsoever with whether you also personally associate with those who do not belong to the "believe in God" group. It's not a statement of inter-clique relations.

You think that "believing in God" is a good thing, regardless of its existence or non-existence. Because of this, your internal drive toward consistency forces you to adopt the premise that "God" actually exists, even as your true intellectual core makes predictions about the world counter to that hypothesis.

Let me try this a different way.

quote:
There is a man named Jon who lives down your street. Jon believes in dragons...and one day, Jon tells you that he has a dragon in his garage.

Obviously, you want to see the dragon.

Jon takes you to his garage, gestures grandly toward...an empty space, which in no way contains a dragon.

You of course tell him, "I don't see the dragon."

Jon replies, "Of course not; it's an invisible dragon."

Obviously you're extremely skeptical at this point, but like any good rationally-thinking individual, you can't necessarily rule it out, so you think of additional tests.

"Okay," you say, "I'll throw some flour at where you say the dragon is; the flour should rest on its invisible skin and show us that it's really there."

"The dragon," says Jon, "is permeable to flour; it'll just fall to the ground."

Becoming more skeptical, you inquire, "why can't I hear the dragon breathing?"

"Obviously," says Jon, rolling his eyes, "the dragon is also inaudible."

"So I can't hear it roar, either?"

"Nope. Wouldn't hear a thing."

"So...how do you know it's there?"

"Well," says Jon, "I'm not sure, but I believe it's there."


In this story, Jon knows, in advance, the outcome of every possible experiment to test for the existence of the dragon. He predicts the exact same results as would be expected by a person who does not believe a dragon to be present.

In other words, he knows, even if only subconsciously, that there is no dragon. He simply finds that belief to be unacceptable; he believes that believing in the dragon is a "good thing." He believes that one should believe that the dragon is there, independently of evidence.

So too is your belief in "God." It's more comfortable for you to hold to that hypothesis, even if you'll automatically predict the results of any test I can name to be exactly identical to what I would expect if there is no "God."

If I say "Okay, Phat; I'll pray really hard for something small but extremely unlikely but benevolent," you'll respond "well, sometimes God says no," or "you can't test God," or some other such evasion. You'll know in advance that the event I pray for has exactly the same probability of happening whether I pray or not, and you'll use some apologetic excuse as a way to justify holding your belief in the face of what should be strong evidence against it.

Again: you personally feel the need to "believe in God" because that hypothesis is more comforting to you, for personal and/or social reasons, but not at all due to evidence or rational thought. You don't really believe "God" to exist...but because the thought is comforting and more socially acceptable, you continue to tell yourself and everyone else that you "believe in God" even as your unconscious core predicts reality to behave exactly as one would expect if no such thing existed.


“The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it.”
- Francis Bacon

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers

“A world that can be explained even with bad reasons is a familiar world. But, on the other hand, in a universe suddenly divested of illusions and lights, man feels an alien, a stranger. His exile is without remedy since he is deprived of the memory of a lost home or the hope of a promised land. This divorce between man and his life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity.” – Albert Camus

"...the pious hope that by combining numerous little turds of
variously tainted data, one can obtain a valuable result; but in fact, the
outcome is merely a larger than average pile of shit." Barash, David 1995.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Phat, posted 10-16-2012 5:25 PM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Phat, posted 10-18-2012 7:31 AM Rahvin has not yet responded
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 12-27-2013 8:42 AM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15391
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 84 of 224 (675986)
10-18-2012 7:31 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rahvin
10-17-2012 6:46 PM


Re: Three Topics -One God -Zero Evidence?
Rahvin writes:

You don't actually believe any such thing as a god exists - if you did, you'd be able to define that thing with as much detail as you could define an everyday object with which you are familiar, like a pen or a television.

I don't describe God as I know Him on this forum. People would either think me delusional or "talking to an invisible man" of my own creation. I DO talk with Him on a regular daily basis, however, and I only say things to you like:
quote:
I DO believe that GOD exists whether or not anyone believes in Him.
so that you understand it the way our discussions revolve. Essentially I "dumb down" God as I know Him for the benefit of conversations at EvC.
Rahvin writes:

I think that you believe that you believe that. You aren't lying, but internally your predictions about the world will match the predictions that would be made if you did not believe in any god.

I challenge that assertion, though I am not sure exactly how.

rahvin writes:

Jar is High King of the God of the Gaps movement - he hides his assertions behind an impenetrable barrier of slimy fog, where his belief lie forever obfuscated from even himself. Jar, essentially, says "I don't know what I believe in, but it's out there, somewhere!" He's holding back his "GOD" label, waiting for something to come along (which he freely admits will not likely happen "while he is alive," implying some sort of epiphany after death, which he will then also disavow, because it is impossible to pin Jar down into making any specific claim on his own beliefs, much as he likes to use any relevant thread as a soapbox for his Church of I Don't Know What, But I Like to Think It's There Somewhere).

We all love to try and figure jar out---but I think that I see his viewpoint. I would say that he essentially says "I am a believer and I believe in logic, reason, and reality, which is all that God has given me.Or you." He would go on to say that GOD, if GOD exists, is unknowable while we are alive, but as to whether he attempts to communicate in some way with this belief, he won't get that personal here. We are, after all, an internet forum and do not know each other personally, except through our words. I, on the other hand, always talk to God, and believe that God listens, though I am not sure if talking with God is necessary for Him...only for me.
rahvin writes:

I'm certain there are things "out there" that I'm unaware of as well...but I don't get quite as much of a kick out of applying labels laden with actual meaning onto unknown unknowns. Just as it's irrational to say "God did it" to any currently unexplained phenomenon, it's irrational to say that "GOD" is a currently unknown and likely unknowable entity.

I maintain that God can know us, but that we won't fully understand Him.

However, I dumbed it down (or smarted it up ) to say to you

In the same way, what you say is true in that I tend to align myself and form my own bias based on the God that I want to exist, which may not be the One whom actually does.(In this universe, anyway...maybe not in that other one!
. On a personal level, I have expectations for what I want God to do for me. Perhaps that is why He never directly audibly answers me in a way that everyone could hear. I do occasionally have audible dreams, however, and will often wake up with an answer to something that puzzled me before. Arguably the sub conscious, but I don't rule God out. He can impart to me however He wants.

Rahvin writes:

If you cannot define it, you cannot possibly know it when you see it.

I call this sentence out. I maintain that I feel it. Feeling is knowing.

If I say "Okay, Phat; I'll pray really hard for something small but extremely unlikely but benevolent," you'll respond "well, sometimes God says no," or "you can't test God," or some other such evasion. You'll know in advance that the event I pray for has exactly the same probability of happening whether I pray or not, and you'll use some apologetic excuse as a way to justify holding your belief in the face of what should be strong evidence against it.
Not so. I would say that your only prayer should be to know Him, if that is what He wants.Traditional dogma says so. I believe so. As for jar? He tells me that communicating with God is as hard to do as humans communicating with an ant. And I disagree with him.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2012 6:46 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15391
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 85 of 224 (714752)
12-27-2013 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Rahvin
10-17-2012 6:46 PM


I Need God. Evidence is irrelevant. Desperation is the call.
Rahvin writes:

You align yourself with a God-concept, period, because you think that "believing in God" is better (ie, more personally acceptable) than the alternative. Your internal drive to self-consistency causes you to tell yourself and others that you actually believe that this kinda-sorta defined thing actually exists in objective reality, but your intellectual core, the part of your mind that actually assimilates your real beliefs about the world and determines what you expect to happen in a given set of circumstances, shows what you really believe.

I sit at my computer at 6:30 am two days after Christmas. As much as I "hate" the arguments at EvC...coming from a bunch of atheists,agnostics, and skeptics...I need the interaction with all of you. You are as important to me as is any church family....since you cause me to think and question.

I still pray---my internal belief is in a knowable GOD through a living Jesus Christ---I will admit I couldn't handle reality any other way.

Jesus is alive, but He does not seem to favor me...and I grew up as an entitled American who had to be favored. I wont go on....I guess in a way I am disillusioned and somewhat depressed. Things just are not going my way. This next year will be quite a challenge. My diabetes is getting worse. I need to earn (or acquire) enough money with which to retire within fifteen (or so) years...its not easy being older and weaker. So...in line with this topic...at this point in my life I need God. Further, I need God to help me. Perhaps He wants me to help others, but all I can do at this moment in this post on this forum is to be honest. Is it any wonder I still gamble? I need to be blessed...favored...fixed...helped. Sometimes I reread old forum posts with which to argue...but after finding your (Rahvin) exchange here....I questioned whether you may have had me figured out. Honestly, I think that I still believe in God and that I amm better off doing so...but I would quite honestly fear ever considering another way to believe. In lotteries, probability is against us. In life it seems that we die regardless.

This next year I will be joining a group of young Christian leaders here in Denver and take a 12 month course. I will be open and honest with them...they probably never encountered an honest Christian who questions and doubts much before...though maybe they have. I will report here in a soon to be new topic about what we talk about.

Im sorta puzzled with God lately. He has not given me what I ask for. Perhaps I can take solace that He knows what I need...but im still praying.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Rahvin, posted 10-17-2012 6:46 PM Rahvin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 12-30-2013 10:52 AM Phat has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4041
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 86 of 224 (714957)
12-30-2013 10:52 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Phat
12-27-2013 8:42 AM


Gambling on God
Phat writes:

I Need God. Evidence is irrelevant. Desperation is the call

...

So...in line with this topic...at this point in my life I need God. Further, I need God to help me. Perhaps He wants me to help others, but all I can do at this moment in this post on this forum is to be honest. Is it any wonder I still gamble?

I wonder if it's possible that you are "addicted to God" in the same sort of way of being "addicted to Gambling."

In gambling... you fight against all odds, hanging on for that "one big win" that's going to take care of everything and grant you all the money you'll need to never worry again.

With God... you fight against all evidence, hanging on for that "one big (second) life" that's going to take care of everything and grant you all the love and happiness you'll need to never worry again.

The similarities, to me, are obvious.
You can't stop gambling because the lure of the money-happiness to you personally is overwhelming.
The desire for unlimited funds to ease your worrying overrides the scientific evidence of the odds.

You can't stop needing God because the lure of the love-happiness to you personally is overwhelming.
The desire for unlimited life to ease your worrying overrides the scientific evidence of reality.

You want these perfectionist ideals of lots of money and lots of love/life... so much so that you're willing to do whatever it takes to keep up your addictions. Of course, your addiction to God is a lot more socially acceptable than your addiction to gambling.

I dunno... I can't really say for sure one way or the other. I can only say what it looks like from the outside.
You're the only one who knows what you really feel and how you really feel it.
It's up to you to be honest with yourself and identify what it is you're having issues with.

Im sorta puzzled with God lately. He has not given me what I ask for. Perhaps I can take solace that He knows what I need...but im still praying.

Maybe, as you say, God gives us what we need, not what we want.
Or, maybe, God doesn't do anything because He doesn't exist.
Or, maybe, God works through people.

My advice would be to take an honest evaluation of your current resources.
Then make an honest attempt at a realistic goal.
Then take steps that move you in that direction. Emphasis on steps... for difficult problems, it's never going to be just one thing that solves it. There will be multiple, small decisions that will add up and get you closer to where you want to be. The hard part is remaining focused and constantly making those decisions that bring you closer to your goals.

Note that the procedure I mentioned does not exclude God or religion.
Personally, I would exclude God or religion... I think your resources would be better spent on more reliable measures. But that's not required, and only an honest evaluation of yourself can rightly determine how much time you should be spending with religion.

Hope you had a good Holiday, Phat. Good luck in 2014


This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Phat, posted 12-27-2013 8:42 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 12-30-2013 11:33 AM Stile has responded
 Message 88 by Raphael, posted 12-31-2013 6:23 PM Stile has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 15391
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 87 of 224 (714961)
12-30-2013 11:33 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by Stile
12-30-2013 10:52 AM


Addiction to Entitlement
You offer an interesting perspective and insight into my plight.

I've personally never really thought of God as an addiction---though I can see where religion would be one.

Perhaps the challenge is in maintaining a relationship (or time of meditation) with a Creator who is not simply a butler or a genie.

In the wrong sense I could see how one could become addicted to the idea of entitlement towards blessing.

I find myself praying a lot about what I need but not as much about what others need. Its not easy to think of others more so than I do myself...especially when I feel that I am entitled to some assistance.

While I don't believe that "God helps those who help themselves" is a biblical statement....I do feel that God wants me to be fully equipped. jar would argue that I am fully responsible for this...while I still believe the notion that only God can help me attain transcendence. (Hence why everyone needs God.)

Perhaps a question---would people even want to have a relationship with a Creator if they felt they didn't need anything??


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 12-30-2013 10:52 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Stile, posted 01-02-2014 9:14 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Raphael
Member
Posts: 170
From: Southern California, United States
Joined: 09-29-2007
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 88 of 224 (715049)
12-31-2013 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Stile
12-30-2013 10:52 AM


Re: Gambling on God
Stile writes:

The similarities, to me, are obvious.
You can't stop gambling because the lure of the money-happiness to you personally is overwhelming.
The desire for unlimited funds to ease your worrying overrides the scientific evidence of the odds.

You can't stop needing God because the lure of the love-happiness to you personally is overwhelming.
The desire for unlimited life to ease your worrying overrides the scientific evidence of reality.

I never wanna be that guy who just steps into an ongoing conversation, but I feel the need to speak up

I think the biggest tragedy within Christianity is how terribly we have misrepresented what we stand for, causing others to interpret what they see in Christianity as it's value rather than what Jesus actually taught, and what that book really says.

But first thing's first Science cannot prove the existence of God, or anything else supernatural for that matter. It hypothesizes on, tests, and explains what is observable only. Therefore, science does not need to prove the reality of "a great other" in order to believe in one; it merely cannot. And probably should not, looking at history haha.

You use the term "reality" as the standard for what is true and what is not. What is your standard for reality? What is real? Anything which science proves? Perhaps I'm the only making assumptions here, and if that is the case, call me out. We all have those annoying little assumptions we bring with us haha. But if that is the case, if science is the standard for what is "reality, "then again, science cannot prove anything outside the natural world. So, since science cannot prove the existence of the supernatural, "God,"in this case, let's look at something that claims to be able to do that. Scripture. Is scripture valid? I don't know. I believe it is, and if we actually take a second to look at what it says, it might turn out to be a little different than what our presuppositions tell us.

So let's take a look at what the text actually says:

Romans 5:1-4 writes:

Therefore, since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God. 3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance..

I love this! Here we see what's really going on. God, in his grace and mercy, has not only saved the entire world (you, me, everyone who has ever existed and will exist), but guaranteed our salvation (religious term that means YOU ARE GOING TO HEAVEN MAN). So we wait in expectant hope of his guarantee, instead of wanting to live forever purely based on selfish desire. Why save us? Save us from what? When we read more (Romans 3 and 5 are great examples) we find that humanity is innately in need of a savior. So, in response to you, Stile, God loves you man, you may not understand this or even know why He needs to, but He does. I encourage you to maybe open that book for yourself and see what's inside. I don't know what kind of person you are dude, or your story, but rest assured that even if you don't need him, he needs you.

And I think that's really what it's about. Do we NEED God? Probably. Does God need us? Definitely.

Hope this clears some things up!

Phat writes:

Perhaps a question---would people even want to have a relationship with a Creator if they felt they didn't need anything??

I think you hit the hammer on the nail buddy. Scripture teaches us that humanity is born with a need. We need to be saved. I think it's super easy to merely focus on candy instead of potatoes. Meaning we focus on our day-to-day needs and wants rather than the fact that we are utterly in need of something greater: life. help. grace. Well somethings . The moment we realize that, everything changes. I do not love my God for any personal gain or comfort reasons--actually Jesus makes it clear that denying yourself and following Him is a sacrifice, it probably won't be easy--rather because I was broken, and now I'm a little bit less broken . And we're all broken in some way, aren't we? He heals. It's Jesus stuff.

Regards yall!

- Raph

Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.

Edited by Raphael, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Stile, posted 12-30-2013 10:52 AM Stile has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Stile, posted 01-02-2014 11:10 AM Raphael has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4041
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 89 of 224 (715195)
01-02-2014 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Phat
12-30-2013 11:33 AM


Re: Addiction to Entitlement
Phat writes:

I've personally never really thought of God as an addiction---though I can see where religion would be one.

Again, this would depend on what "God" and "religion" mean to you.
Obviously, they mean many different things to many different people.
Therefore, you need to be honest with yourself about what the concepts mean to you, and what those ideas entail.

...while I still believe the notion that only God can help me attain transcendence. (Hence why everyone needs God.)

That makes sense.

If God exists, and if people need "transcendence", and if God is the only one who can help people with that... then, yes, everyone would need God.

That's a lot of "ifs," though. For me, anyway.

Perhaps a question---would people even want to have a relationship with a Creator if they felt they didn't need anything??

I don't feel like I need anything from God (or a Creator).
However, I would be extremely interested in a relationship with a Creator (God or not), if such a thing is possible.

I would be interested to learn if perhaps I should feel like I need something from this God/Creator.
I would be interested to learn if maybe there was some sort of master plan for this world or not.
I would be interested to learn what sort of moral this God/Creator may or may not follow.
I would be interested to learn how this God/Creator actually did create the universe.
I would be interested to learn how this God/Creator was created themselves, and what the difference between their existence and ours is.

I would want to have a relationship with a Creator for a lot of reasons.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 12-30-2013 11:33 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4041
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 90 of 224 (715207)
01-02-2014 11:10 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Raphael
12-31-2013 6:23 PM


Nothing works for everyone
Raphael writes:

I never wanna be that guy who just steps into an ongoing conversation, but I feel the need to speak up

Feel free, this is a very open forum. Your post seems entirely on-topic here... but just in case you ever want to say something that isn't on topic in the future... that's fine too. All you have to do then is start a new topic.

Therefore, science does not need to prove the reality of "a great other" in order to believe in one; it merely cannot. And probably should not, looking at history haha.

If you're saying that you don't need science to prove the reality of something in order for you to believe in it... I agree. You can believe in whatever you'd like.

You use the term "reality" as the standard for what is true and what is not. What is your standard for reality? What is real? Anything which science proves?

I don't know what my standard for reality is. It's not limited to "science" nor is it as open as "anything I read."
I think science is man's best known method for identifying reality.
I don't think it's the only one.
I think it's possible something better may be described by some genius one day.

So, since science cannot prove the existence of the supernatural, "God,"in this case, let's look at something that claims to be able to do that. Scripture. Is scripture valid? I don't know.

No, scripture is not valid.

It's had many tests and failed a lot of them. Some tests have passed. But, obviously, because of the many failures we know that much of scripture is not valid. Therefore, scripture alone cannot be used as a barometer because we cannot know if the part we're looking at is fact or myth/parable/story/analogy/best-guess-of-the-time.

I believe it is, and if we actually take a second to look at what it says, it might turn out to be a little different than what our presuppositions tell us.

That's excellent... for you. Unfortunately, I do not believe scripture is valid. So I'm afraid I cannot share in your acceptance of value in the text.

So, in response to you, Stile, God loves you man, you may not understand this or even know why He needs to, but He does. I encourage you to maybe open that book for yourself and see what's inside. I don't know what kind of person you are dude, or your story, but rest assured that even if you don't need him, he needs you.

That sounds like a good belief.
But, as it is based on your belief that scripture is valid, it is your belief. I don't intend to offend you, but (for me) I do not believe that these verses you've quoted have any validity at all, therefore I do not believe in your conclusion.

Hope this clears some things up!

I have no idea if you're actually right or not... you may very well be correct and I'm wrong. But, from my experience with scripture, I believe that you are mistaken.

Scripture teaches us that humanity is born with a need. We need to be saved. I think it's super easy to merely focus on candy instead of potatoes. Meaning we focus on our day-to-day needs and wants rather than the fact that we are utterly in need of something greater: life. help. grace.

This, I agree with. Kind of.
I do believe that humanity is born with a need... all sorts of needs.
Physical and spiritual.
Our physical needs are rather obvious.. things like food and water and (for most of us) social interaction and such.

I don't agree that we need "grace" in the "from God" sense (as I don't think the God you believe in actually exists).
I certainly do agree that we need "grace" in the "spirituality" sense... that is, I think we have an emotional aspect to our humanity and it's needs do exist; they just aren't as obvious as some of our physical needs.

I just don't see any difference between mundane (non-God) spirituality and "supernatural" (God) spirituality.
Actually, in my experience, mundane spirituality is more powerful than supernatural spirituality, but I think this sort of conclusion is different for all people.

Here's a thread I started on the topic of what religion includes that cannot be achieved without religion:

What Benefits Are Only Available Through God?

Feel free to make a comment on that thread, if you'd like. This forum doesn't have any issues with posting to old threads. The only thing is to try and stay on topic as much as possible. And, personally, I'm very vain and like to make links to all my old threads all over the forum. I won't be happy until there's at least a thousand posts to every thread I started!

Here's another (more recent) thread on my thoughts about mundane human spirituality:

Human Spirit

Feel free to join that conversation as well.

This is a vary large forum with lots to talk about. I hope you have fun looking around here

And we're all broken in some way, aren't we? He heals. It's Jesus stuff.

I agree that "we're all broken in some way." We all have our pasts.
I just don't agree that Jesus is required for the healing.

Jesus may certainly be required by some people for the healing (depending on their personality and experiences).
But certainly not for all.

If you're wondering... I also do not think that my method for spirituality and healing and everything would work for all people.
I don't think anything works for "all people."

There are lots of people. Some are very similar, and others are very different.
It's those differences that guarantee that one single method of anything isn't going to work "for all people."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Raphael, posted 12-31-2013 6:23 PM Raphael has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Raphael, posted 01-03-2014 12:13 AM Stile has responded
 Message 92 by Phat, posted 01-03-2014 3:45 AM Stile has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021