Christianity

[attofishpi]

It was we, ourselves, who decided humans were the pinnacle of creation... and we made up god-stories to give it 'credibility'. So much make-believe -- maybe even more than that of children. Yes?

Really? Your belief is totally contrary to my knowledge.

What 'belief'? What 'knowledge'?

"What 'belief'?"
You believe GOD to not exist, made up (*fake/lies) stories by mankind, rather than formed via humans having interactions with GOD through history.

"What 'knowledge'?"
I have 28 years of direct interaction with GOD to now claim 'I know IT exists.' (*not to be confused with: 'I know everything about the attributes of this entity')

Do you not see how much make-believe there is in the world?

Wot? Disney?

Are you referring to your experience as knowledge?

I am referring to 28 years of interaction with this entity and my analysis of IT as knowledge of ITS existence, yes.

Can other people's experiences be 'knowledge' too, even if they conflict with yours?

Absolutely, especially if their analysis of their experiences that formed their knowledge is capable of convincing me that my analysis has shortcomings.

Could each person's experience/'knowledge' be true for them but no one else?

Of course, regarding experience per an individual it's is always unique to them. People may experience similar things however, and they are likely to analyse that in many different ways per person. Thus ones knowledge based on individual analysis will often draw different conclusions.

Something interesting I learned on a statistical survey done many years ago, I think I read it on the BBC news site, that as many as 1 in 5 people claim they have heard voices from the aether, usually indicating something positive to them. Perhaps a sage gets to voice something via the GOD system to these people, thus I am not totally unique for that experience.

www.androcies.com

[Belinda]

Really? Your belief is totally contrary to my knowledge.

What 'belief'? What 'knowledge'?

"What 'belief'?"
You believe GOD to not exist, made up (*fake/lies) stories by mankind, rather than formed via humans having interactions with GOD through history.

"What 'knowledge'?"
I have 28 years of direct interaction with GOD to now claim 'I know IT exists.' (*not to be confused with: 'I know everything about the attributes of this entity')

Do you not see how much make-believe there is in the world?

Wot? Disney?

Are you referring to your experience as knowledge?

I am referring to 28 years of interaction with this entity and my analysis of IT as knowledge of ITS existence, yes.

Can other people's experiences be 'knowledge' too, even if they conflict with yours?

Absolutely, especially if their analysis of their experiences that formed their knowledge is capable of convincing me that my analysis has shortcomings.

Could each person's experience/'knowledge' be true for them but no one else?

Of course, regarding experience per an individual it's is always unique to them. People may experience similar things however, and they are likely to analyse that in many different ways per person. Thus ones knowledge based on individual analysis will often draw different conclusions.

Something interesting I learned on a statistical survey done many years ago, I think I read it on the BBC news site, that as many as 1 in 5 people claim they have heard voices from the aether, usually indicating something positive to them. Perhaps a sage gets to voice something via the GOD system to these people, thus I am not totally unique for that experience.

www.androcies.com

Mysticism is hard for philosophers to deal with because philosophers nowadays are sceptical about subjective interpretations such as yours, Atto.

Maybe I can help you to be a little more objective when I tell you that there are mind -altering substances that you can take that diminish ego so that you feel the blessed mood that you describe. NB I do not recommend taking these substances solely to get this effect!

To feel the subjective God experience i.e. the mystical experience , you could try one of the tried and tested ways such as solitary prayer in a dark huge cathedral, or a quiet woodland glade, or a religious ceremony, or solitary contemplation of a great work of art for at least one hour , or music in slow tempo and minor key.

[attofishpi]

Mysticism is hard for philosophers to deal with because philosophers nowadays are sceptical about subjective interpretations such as yours, Atto.

"Philosophers" should be dealing with the objective evidence that I provide in support of my analysis, but alas, there arn't many on this forum that can look past their ego biases to look objectively at the evidence.

www.androcies.com

Maybe I can help you to be a little more objective when I tell you that there are mind -altering substances that you can take that diminish ego so that you feel the blessed mood that you describe. NB I do not recommend taking these substances solely to get this effect!

You really are rather random at times Belinda!

[Belinda]

Mysticism is hard for philosophers to deal with because philosophers nowadays are sceptical about subjective interpretations such as yours, Atto.

"Philosophers" should be dealing with the objective evidence that I provide in support of my analysis, but alas, there arn't many on this forum that can look past their ego biases to look objectively at the evidence.

www.androcies.com

Maybe I can help you to be a little more objective when I tell you that there are mind -altering substances that you can take that diminish ego so that you feel the blessed mood that you describe. NB I do not recommend taking these substances solely to get this effect!

You really are rather random at times Belinda!

Evidence is best when it's unwitting. Your evidence is in any case far too small a sample of subjective anecdote to count as evidence of God's personal existence. i think the closest you will get to your interpretation that God is the substance of your experience, may be my experience of altered consciousness. However I do not attribute my altered mind experience to God's intervention .

It would be very pleasant to experience the intervention of a loving heavenly Father. But I know we poor humans are easily swayed by what we want to be true.

[Belinda]

Attofishpi, I am not "random" about mind altering substances. I actually took them and my first hand experience is ,for several reasons ,that they are not good for me.
If I were hospitalised and the doctor recommended a mind altering drug I'd probably take it in order to make me more comfortable. But otherwise: no.
I don't want to be a prig, and I agree there is a case for recreational marijuana.

Even spontaneous mystical experience is best indulged within reason. Nobody can live without ego.

[attofishpi]

Mysticism is hard for philosophers to deal with because philosophers nowadays are sceptical about subjective interpretations such as yours, Atto.

"Philosophers" should be dealing with the objective evidence that I provide in support of my analysis, but alas, there arn't many on this forum that can look past their ego biases to look objectively at the evidence.

www.androcies.com

Maybe I can help you to be a little more objective when I tell you that there are mind -altering substances that you can take that diminish ego so that you feel the blessed mood that you describe. NB I do not recommend taking these substances solely to get this effect!

You really are rather random at times Belinda!

Evidence is best when it's unwitting. Your evidence is in any case far too small a sample of subjective anecdote to count as evidence of God's personal existence.

OMG Belinda, the moment I started providing cumulative evidence per anomalies in the English language per key words that are so unfathomably unlikely to have come about courtesy of natural etymological evolution, you refused to address it!!


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀HELL OWE!!!!


Christ at the "crew see fiction":-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Y

[Belinda]

"Philosophers" should be dealing with the objective evidence that I provide in support of my analysis, but alas, there arn't many on this forum that can look past their ego biases to look objectively at the evidence.

www.androcies.com




You really are rather random at times Belinda!

Evidence is best when it's unwitting. Your evidence is in any case far too small a sample of subjective anecdote to count as evidence of God's personal existence.

OMG Belinda, the moment I started providing cumulative evidence per anomalies in the English language per key words that are so unfathomably unlikely to have come about courtesy of natural etymological evolution, you refused to address it!!


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀HELL OWE!!!!


Christ at the "crew see fiction":-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Y

Etymology is very interesting however it's not evidence of absolute meaning.
You mention the word 'Hell'. 'Hell' sometimes refers to a culverted or otherwise buried thing. Such as that potatoes are or were "helled" under earth heaps to stop them going green. Or that a brook is a "Hell Brook " when it's culverted.


'Owe' is cognate with 'ought', and own. The etymological roots are via Old High German and thence back to Proto Indo European.

The pictures in your linked website symbolise the idea of a personal God and are obvious and ugly. It's not clear why you adopt a man who was hospitalised for a psychosis as your role model.

[attofishpi]

Evidence is best when it's unwitting. Your evidence is in any case far too small a sample of subjective anecdote to count as evidence of God's personal existence.

OMG Belinda, the moment I started providing cumulative evidence per anomalies in the English language per key words that are so unfathomably unlikely to have come about courtesy of natural etymological evolution, you refused to address it!!


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀HELL OWE!!!!


Christ at the "crew see fiction":-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Y

Etymology is very interesting however it's not evidence of absolute meaning.
You mention the word 'Hell'. 'Hell' sometimes refers to a culverted or otherwise buried thing. Such as that potatoes are or were "helled" under earth heaps to stop them going green. Or that a brook is a "Hell Brook " when it's culverted.


'Owe' is cognate with 'ought', and own. The etymological roots are via Old High German and thence back to Proto Indo European.

The pictures in your linked website symbolise the idea of a personal God and are obvious and ugly. It's not clear why you adopt a man who was hospitalised for a psychosis as your role model.

You clearly have no idea what I am talking about, and right now, I have no idea what you are talking about. This chat is pointless.

[Belinda]

OMG Belinda, the moment I started providing cumulative evidence per anomalies in the English language per key words that are so unfathomably unlikely to have come about courtesy of natural etymological evolution, you refused to address it!!


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀HELL OWE!!!!


Christ at the "crew see fiction":-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Y

Etymology is very interesting however it's not evidence of absolute meaning.
You mention the word 'Hell'. 'Hell' sometimes refers to a culverted or otherwise buried thing. Such as that potatoes are or were "helled" under earth heaps to stop them going green. Or that a brook is a "Hell Brook " when it's culverted.


'Owe' is cognate with 'ought', and own. The etymological roots are via Old High German and thence back to Proto Indo European.

The pictures in your linked website symbolise the idea of a personal God and are obvious and ugly. It's not clear why you adopt a man who was hospitalised for a psychosis as your role model.

You clearly have no idea what I am talking about, and right now, I have no idea what you are talking about. This chat is pointless.

Okay.Over and out.

[Lacewing]

Thanks for the discussion.

"What 'belief'?"
You believe GOD to not exist

This is what I said a few posts ago, and it is more accurate than what you are imposing on me above.

Well, as you know, I don't have beliefs in any gods... at least not in the way that we human beings tend to imagine them.

You see... there's a difference. I don't have to believe in anyone's idea of a god.

Do you not see how much make-believe there is in the world?

Wot? Disney?

Seriously? Do you NOT see how much human beings make up... and can you NOT fathom they might do so with their ideas of gods?

Is your defense of your own experience preventing you from acknowledging the shortcomings in human perception and thinking?

"What 'knowledge'?"
I have 28 years of direct interaction with GOD to now claim 'I know IT exists.' (*not to be confused with: 'I know everything about the attributes of this entity')

Sounds like a very compelling and useful experience for you. Of course, this is not to be confused with it being an ultimate truth that applies to everyone else.

I am referring to 28 years of interaction with this entity and my analysis of IT as knowledge of ITS existence, yes.

IT may be GOD to you, and IT may be awesome(!), but IT may be perceived as something else from a different perspective.

Maybe the countless understandings of, and interactions with, 'God' and divine beings in so many different forms (across humankind) are uniquely geared (in whatever form they take) for the individuals that 'experience' them. And it is human beings, themselves, that have tried to consolidate and define that as something to be recognized and acknowledged by everyone in their cultures and families... and then it is imposed/pushed further onto others, for all sorts of human agendas.

Can other people's experiences be 'knowledge' too, even if they conflict with yours?

Absolutely, especially if their analysis of their experiences that formed their knowledge is capable of convincing me that my analysis has shortcomings.

But maybe you're only going to see what serves you. Maybe I'm only going to see what serves me. Is that bad?

We're having our own unique experiences. Maybe they are all 'divine'.

Of course, regarding experience per an individual it's is always unique to them. People may experience similar things however, and they are likely to analyse that in many different ways per person. Thus ones knowledge based on individual analysis will often draw different conclusions.

Well said.

as many as 1 in 5 people claim they have heard voices from the aether, usually indicating something positive to them. Perhaps a sage gets to voice something via the GOD system to these people, thus I am not totally unique for that experience.

Yes. I have definitely heard and seen things too... as well as receiving insight and direction that has been perfect. I do not perceive this as a 'god'. More like 'greater awareness and wisdom' was being channeled to or through me... and I have been visited... by many loving and helpful beings.

Just sort of seems like to me that identifying a 'god'... a single entity/idea... is enabling human beings to claim some sort of ownership/stewardship of that idea, to then be used for whatever their purposes are.

[iambiguous]

Faith & An Unreliable God
Patrick Wilson argues that it’s irrational to trust an untrustworthy God.

While ‘faith’ is commonly defined by atheists as ‘belief without evidence’, in practice, someone having faith in someone or something implies more than mere intellectual assent, either with or without evidence. Few Christians, Muslims, or Jews would claim to ‘have faith in’ Satan, despite many believing that something called Satan exists.

Faith is always going to be tricky in my view. Unless, perhaps, you happen to be in possession of an...Intrinsic Self? In other words, those among us who "just know" deep down inside them that some things simply are what they are. They're what they must be if you wish to think of yourself as a virtuous human being. And the fact that over and again people will believe this even though it is often in regard to entirely conflicting goods...? That speaks volumes [to those of my ilk] regarding the role that dasein plays in a world that never, ever stops being awash in contingency, chance and change. 

That's why objectivism [God and No God] is seen by me to be rooted [by and large] in human psychology. It's not what is believed so much as the fact that something is believed. Something that anchors the objectivists to an ontological and [for many] teleological font that enables them to sustain their interactions with others as though the behaviors they choose are necessarily what they must be. 

So ‘having faith (in)’ suggests an endorsement of and commitment to a person, idea, or institution. Similarly, the act of ‘trusting’ goes beyond simple affirmation of existence. The entrustor chooses to live as if the entrusted will not betray them. For the theist, ‘faith’ and ‘trust’ are virtual synonyms.

I suspect however that for the truly fanatical faithful like the evangelicals here in America, it's less faith than it is a solid belief that a God, the God is not only their God, but that those who don't become "one of us" are, well, among other things, damned for all of eternity some will insist.

From my own frame of mind "here and now", with so much at stake on both sides of the grave, "leaps of faith" or "wagers" make no sense at all. And that, perhaps, is why some like henry quirk will  "choose" a God that isn't even around anymore, or others like Harold Kushner suggesting He's around alright but he is not omnipotent.     

On the other hand, if I could manage to go in that direction myself, I would. And God knows I've tried often enough.

[attofishpi]

Thanks for the discussion.

No worries, not sure what the point is though.

"What 'belief'?"
You believe GOD to not exist

This is what I said a few posts ago, and it is more accurate than what you are imposing on me above.

Well, as you know, I don't have beliefs in any gods... at least not in the way that we human beings tend to imagine them.

You see... there's a difference. I don't have to believe in anyone's idea of a god.

You don't believe in GOD's existence either, in whatever form you could conceive of it beyond daft humans and their own concepts.

We had this conversation ages ago, where you almost admitted to a belief in GOD, but you admitted you can't admit to that, since others may perceive you as some wackjob religious freak. I sometime shiver when I have to admit being a Christian. Those wackjob "christian" churches (*cults) in USA are enough to turn anyone off of the Christ thang. (*I mention, since we are in the 'Christianity' thread)

Do you not see how much make-believe there is in the world?

Wot? Disney?

Seriously? Do you NOT see how much human beings make up... and can you NOT fathom they might do so with their ideas of gods?

Oh, that. Yes, some humans have twisted the message to align with their own ideas and bigotry, contrary to the message that people that have actually experienced GOD have provided. (*Moses for example )

I assure you, GOD is not fictional.

"What 'knowledge'?"
I have 28 years of direct interaction with GOD to now claim 'I know IT exists.' (*not to be confused with: 'I know everything about the attributes of this entity')

Sounds like a very compelling and useful experience for you. Of course, this is not to be confused with it being an ultimate truth that applies to everyone else.

Ultimate truth? If the fact that GOD exists is an ultimate truth, then yes that applies to everyone else.

I am referring to 28 years of interaction with this entity and my analysis of IT as knowledge of ITS existence, yes.

IT may be GOD to you, and IT may be awesome(!),

Oh, I've had a lot words that are different to 'awesome' for this entity.

..but IT may be perceived as something else from a different perspective.

Perceive wot you want. My DAILY interaction with this entity since 1997 (*and this morning 5am, annoyed me to get out of bed for some reason) has confirmed to me that it pervades our entire construct of REALITY, and it is so fast, so clinical that it is akin to A.I.

Mount SIN_AI is an interesting concept don't you think? REAL_IT_Y? <-- interesting word don't you think?

Maybe the countless understandings of, and interactions with, 'God' and divine beings in so many different forms (across humankind) are uniquely geared (in whatever form they take) for the individuals that 'experience' them. And it is human beings, themselves, that have tried to consolidate and define that as something to be recognized and acknowledged by everyone in their cultures and families... and then it is imposed/pushed further onto others, for all sorts of human agendas.

Yes, human idiots have convoluted the message of Christ (*this is the Christianity thread btw) to suit their political\bigoted ideas, agendas - HOWEVER, let us not allow that to block the actual Truth per GOD and its existence.

The red bit I highlighted in your statement is important, especially now:..Now that we have technology, indeed emerging A.I. - we can now comprehend that an entity can exist that is aware of all of our actions. Thus, if GOD is operating A.I. from the Planck scale as is my belief per years of analysis, then things such as Mount SIN-AI become very very interesting in our current time, as is the word REAL-IT-Y.

Mount SINAI (*Red Sea to scale)
https://www.androcies.com/Images/Art/Mount%20Sinai.jpg

Can other people's experiences be 'knowledge' too, even if they conflict with yours?

Absolutely, especially if their analysis of their experiences that formed their knowledge is capable of convincing me that my analysis has shortcomings.

But maybe you're only going to see what serves you. Maybe I'm only going to see what serves me. Is that bad?

Not sure what "serves me or you" insinuates..

If you think I am going to bias my analysis of GOD to suit some self serving agenda, you are wrong. 1) GOD could be divine. 2) "GOD" could be merely A.I. and we have evolved into a simulation.

It's either 1 or 2 from my analysis.

We're having our own unique experiences. Maybe they are all 'divine'.

Absolutely they are all divine in my opinion, since GOD is PAN to ALL of our reality.

Of course, regarding experience per an individual it's is always unique to them. People may experience similar things however, and they are likely to analyse that in many different ways per person. Thus ones knowledge based on individual analysis will often draw different conclusions.

Well said.

as many as 1 in 5 people claim they have heard voices from the aether, usually indicating something positive to them. Perhaps a sage gets to voice something via the GOD system to these people, thus I am not totally unique for that experience.

Yes. I have definitely heard and seen things too... as well as receiving insight and direction that has been perfect. I do not perceive this as a 'god'. More like 'greater awareness and wisdom' was being channeled to or through me... and I have been visited... by many loving and helpful beings.

'Awareness and wisdom' being "channelled to and through you" - requires an intelligence to accomplish that, or do you disagree?

Did you see these 'loving and helpful beings' - if so, what form did they take?

Just sort of seems like to me that identifying a 'god'... a single entity/idea... is enabling human beings to claim some sort of ownership/stewardship of that idea, to then be used for whatever their purposes are.

Nah, that's just daft because what you are doing is compromising your analysis due to thinking that by using the term GOD as a "single entity/idea" requires you to accept other human beings concepts of that - you don't!!

One does not need to feel like one is lacking, being manipulated by simply acknowledging that GOD exists. You don't have to go to some wackjob USA "christian" cult where such manipulation can be attempted by fools, PASTOR = ROT_SAP..

Again, you refrain from using the term GOD, and I understand Y.

[Fairy]

"Philosophers" should be dealing with the objective evidence that I provide in support of my analysis, but alas, there arn't many on this forum that can look past their ego biases to look objectively at the evidence.

www.androcies.com




You really are rather random at times Belinda!

Evidence is best when it's unwitting. Your evidence is in any case far too small a sample of subjective anecdote to count as evidence of God's personal existence.

OMG Belinda, the moment I started providing cumulative evidence per anomalies in the English language per key words that are so unfathomably unlikely to have come about courtesy of natural etymological evolution, you refused to address it!!


⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀HELL OWE!!!!


Christ at the "crew see fiction":-⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀Y

It’s HELLO not 3 thousand word salady syllables.

[Belinda]

Iambiguous wrote:

That's why objectivism [God and No God] is seen by me to be rooted [by and large] in human psychology. It's not what is believed so much as the fact that something is believed. Something that anchors the objectivists to an ontological and [for many] teleological font that enables them to sustain their interactions with others as though the behaviors they choose are necessarily what they must be.

Human psychology as an academic scientific enquiry is, like other scientific enquiries, presumed to be discovery not invention tabula rasa. Underpinning all scientific enquiry is Platonic Truth.
I suppose by "human psychology " you refer to the human psyche not the academic study of the human psyche. Well, the academic study of the human psyche is no more than the orderly and objective study of the human psyche.

Scientists are not by and large also mystics. Therefore a psychologist is unlikely to claim she is in direct contact with the sun of Truth. However faith, as rooted in human psyche is where all searches grow from. Scepticism is a posh word for humility. Trust, i think, is what people feel in everyday life while faith properly is essential for life, on every level, age, and stage of life. Loss of trust is a horrible feeling, but loss of faith is more than a feeling and can't happen while the subject lives.

I thought I'd better a disclaimer to the effect that by 'faith' I don't refer to specific doctrinal faiths: I do refer to refer to a compound of curiosity, imagination, mental energy, waking awareness, courage, humility, freedom, and love of life and its manifestations.

When people are ill, they need to be spoon fed small amounts of others' faith carefully as to method and generally not specifically. A degree of clinical depression often accompanies other illnesses particularly viral fevers.

[Fairy]

And it’s “crucifixion” not ten thousand word salady syllables.