(How do you know your religious "experiences" are psychotic, Janesix? What if they're not?)
What if, then? Then God will show himself to me, I suppose. That's His prerogative, right? Could be He has a plan for me.
More likely, though, is that I AM psychotic (or was,as I am not at the moment.) My doctors (a team of two plus two student doctors) certainly convinced me that yes, I certainly was. Plus, I have proven to myself, by going over some of the evidence, that I did indeed hallucinate at least a portion of my experiences.
And the Glory of God became as a beacon of wisdom unto my spirit.
I recognized that the adversarial system of law did produce much hallucinatory fantasy.
For those who do not possess the spirit of wisdom continue to develop and present vague arguments based on limited science.
This leads to disorderly acceptance of immoral acts whereby the disenchanted chase a posterior probability that a random event or an uncertain proposition was created by themselves.
The fear of subservient status brings fear to the disenchanted as they promote sinful admiration as if it were a moral event.
This then leads the disenchanted to flagrant patterns of conduct much different than those usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
It is the evil or licentious behavior of the disenchanted that presents the greatest societal danger because it increases more violent, bitter, and severe criminal activity.
When projecting that everything is man-made the disenchanted bark loudly in order to attempt to drown out the truth.
However, truth will always triumph because the moral and ethical structure of society recognizes that only a lie must be covered up by additional lies.
The truth never needs to be broadcast in opposition of itself and therefore is designated triumphant in any matter where lies are spoken.
Where there is truth - so there is God.
Where there is lies - so there is the Devil.
Those that speak truth walk with God.
So - it is only natural that those that walk with lies walk with the Devil.
Know this my pretty - for every action - there is a concurrent reaction.
When using truth - the concurrent reaction is positive.
When using a lie - the concurrent reaction is negative.
And - my pretty - when combining partial truth with a lie, the concurrent reaction spreads criminal activity.
Individual responsibility cannot be transferred to any other organism.
Therefore - my pretty - you must seek the moral ground if you are to achieve the positive future you desire.
Otherwise - my pretty - you will continue to lie in the negative path where the Devil expands the evil criminal immoral activity.
God blesses those that spread the truth.
Seek that path for it will take you places you never thought possible.
That's really creepy that you keep calling me "my pretty".
I have no idea what this post has anything to do with what I wrote.
This is the weirdest thing yet I've read on Hubpages.
my previous input was not written to anyone in particular.
it is only a response to the original statement based on the overall responses by everyone to the forum.
the pretext that it applies to single individual therefore is a wrong assumption.
the need of the masses demands that truth be spoken so that everyone will begin to work through truth as the basis for discussion.
personal accountability demands such action when discussing the truth about the world society today.
"I've also had my brain checked for aneurisms about a year ago and everything was normal."
Psychosis can't be "scanned" for. I've had scans for seizures, which really means nothing, except that I probably don't have seizures. Someone with a bipolar brain looks relatively the same as a "normal" brain.
You can't "scan" a brain to see if you're crazy. Doesn't work that way. Unfortunately.
Brain scans rule out certain things (lesions, etc.), but you're right that they won't detect bipolar disorder, etc. I'm not diagnosable with bipolar disorder or other disorders with psychosis, according to the criteria and according to an evaluation by a psychiatrist.
I can't say whether your experiences were psychotic or not, but I just thought it curious that they were "religious" in nature. Who knows...
I've been hospitalized three times. Religious delusion seems to make up around a quarter or so of psychosis. A really high percentage of my fellow patients (who weren't there for drugs/alcohol/suicide attempts) had religious delusions.
I saw the same thing when doing an inpatient practicum during grad school (I think I switched from clinical to counseling psychology around that time). In fact my friend (who was also a Christian) and I had a discussion about all the people talking about God and Jesus, and how it made us wonder if some of them had some sort of true supernatural experience (either with God or with demons), which was just being dismissed as psychosis.
Great - one patient diagnosing another patient.
What's next - one devil declaring another devil God?
OH - I see -
that has already been done by the current USA Administration.
No wonder the world population is so screwed up.
What? I'm not allowed to make observations about people I've spent a good deal of time with, because I have a mental illness?
It's called observation, not diagnosis.
I don't see anyone here trying to diagnose anyone else. She is speak lay ONLY of her own experiences, and taking enormous risks doing so, I might add. Frankly, I've observed similar things, to sharing a room once with a schizophrenic woman who refused any and all drug therapy because she didn't want to put her baby in danger. She believed that she was pregnant with the baby of Jesus and that she would endanger the baby by taking drugs.
Oddly enough, she was years beyond menopause and had been tested for pregnancy (and found to NOT be so) at admission. So, am I diagnosing anyone by saying that she was a diagnosed schizophrenic admitting to very religious themed delusions? Nope. Just making observations.
And, as I was not in a psychotic state, despite being a believer I did not accept her story as being anything even closely resembling a religious experience-simply a delusion.
Motown, If you go to page 268 you will see Cat asking for clarification before assuming, from Janesix. Cat asks,
"You don't believe what - that I have two degrees in psychology, or that I have no psychotic disorders?"
But I was talking about the degrees."
Jane confirmed both, on the same page. To understand what led up to that, the page before or so would help. It is clear though and she has stood by it.
She doesn't believe that Cat doesn't have psychotic disorders, despite her explaining how she doesn't diagnose as one with them and how she would know. She also doesn't believe she has the education she states she has, which allowed her to work in the fields she since explains she did. I like Jane, but this seemed harsh and not necessarily warranted. So only share this now, because you didn't seem to see that part of the discussion as you said she is ONLY speaking of herself. She wasn't. (Jane that is.) Hope that helps.
Because she said she doesn't believe something doesn't automatically lead to her believing the opposite. I don't believe a lot of what I see here, but that doesn't mean I'm calling people liars or attempting to discredit them. I just don't necessarily believe in the veracity of everything I read on the internet.
The only other thing is that when the advice or...opinions of someone in a given field is opposite to everything one has ever heard from others in that field, it might be a little natural to be skeptical.
I believe, personally, that Jane meant no harm or insult. She was, like we said, expressing her own opinions based on her own experience.
My point is just that if you said you have two college degrees, and that you are not psychotic, and I said and confirmed that I don't believe you.... You would have no problem with that then right?
Would there be a valid reason for me to point those things out or insist that they be believed? And would you have any way of knowing whether or not those things were true? Would it matter at the end of the day? I've been called out a zillion times on things I've said here. One Christian told another that he was making up a story about losing his wife to cancer to garner sympathy and score points. When I tell people that I've been a Catholic nun, they still insist on arguing with me about the teachings of the Catholic Church. It happens. I don't get up in arms about it. And truthfully, I didn't see Cat getting that way either. You seem more concerned by it than she has been.
Not knowing whether or not they can be proved true isn't the point here, because we don't have the capability. I was surprised at your response, and I thought you just didn't realize what had transpired to say what you did. So I showed the quotes.
In fairness, If it were about you or anyone, and I saw it like I did, I would have responded the same. If Cat doubted others college degrees and mental disorders, exactly the same thing would have happened. I am fair. You can disagree with me, and think its ok to say, "I don't believe that you aren't psychotic, nor do I think you really have two degrees in psychology." (Or some such thing.) That would surprise me if you REALLY thought that. Arguing with you about teachings of the Catholic church doesn't mean they really doubted that you were a nun, right? Suggesting scoring points by possibly lying about a dying wife is horrifying, and I would speak up on that too.
I bet that people also discussed those situations when they came up.
There are some pretty low blows on these forums (like the accusation about a man's wife; someone taking a stab at someone's marital problems, etc.). I think it's a noble thing to defend others, and I appreciate that you did. I "defend" others, but I've also had to learn that some people don't accept it, and some people don't even want words of encouragement. I've had to learn that especially some men really don't want it (I was the petite girl having to learn that the boys really didn't want you to "fight" their battles, so it was best not to try and stop a bully even from fighting a smaller boy). But I know a lot of us do appreciate encouragement, support and defense, which is often rare around here.
This one is a bit different to me, because Jane I don't think was being brutal or anything on purpose, it seemed out of character for her (in my opinion.) Some of the other examples and the people involved there are in keeping with what I sometimes often see with them. So I worry that it looks like I am being extra harsh on Jane, when I am not meaning to be, just about those comments. Jane is someone whose posts I find interesting and refreshing very often.
In light of the more recent posts, she is coming at it from an angle that psychosis would be the one thing that would explain the things she is seeing. I can understand from that point of view how she looks at some of these issues. So many of these discussions come down to that common thread I think. That is, does the materialist worldview accurately reflect what our real experiences are? Does it account for everything, like a good worldview would have to account for all things to be true?
The behavioral sciences are going to be much harder to test in this regard, compared with the natural sciences I think. Consider people's fascination with demons and demonic activity, ghosts, etc as seen in the movies and books that keep coming out? (Admittedly a side topic there, lol.) It is just interesting, in light of the sometimes (purportedly) true stories like with Poltergeist, etc, and how the patient definitely responded most to spiritual engagement of some kind.
I do appreciate oceansnsunsets confronting what she saw as inappropriate behavior and coming to my defense in that way. I wasn't the most bothered by it, BUT I actually get more bothered when I see people treating OTHERS inappropriately (I think some of my sternest words were with a couple of people mocking Sir Dent), and that seems to be the case with oceansnsunsets as well.
I missed this post earlier, Cat. I'm sorry. You just seemed to have it under control and not be too upset over it. I apologize if my saying it didn't seem like a big deal appeared as though I didn't care.
People disbelieve me all the time about my past and my education. So what? The truth is not reliant on what a strangers opinion on the Internet is.
Can you think of any point of repeatedly claiming you're a prophet of god, that you have two degrees and that you're intellectually in the 99% if not just bragging and trying to make your posts more authoritative? Why should I just believe it when I've seen no evidence that it's actually true?
JMcFarland - I haven't said things for the purpose of boasting, and I've talked of many weaknesses as well. Most of my comments about prophecy had to do with saying there are MANY with the spiritual gifts of prophecy in these forums (if you want truth, you can't just listen to any OPINION), and also often saying maybe it was knowledge, wisdom, and/or teaching I was meaning.
I have four degrees, JMcFarland, two of which are in psychology, and if my point had been to BOAST I would have mentioned all four. As it was, I mentioned the two relevant to the psychosis conversation that Janesix and I were having.
I've said I'm only smart enough to know none of us are that smart, and I'm not impressed with the "worldly knowledge" and "wisdom" of the day.
It's almost as if you resent me on a very personal level, JMcFarland.
I don't believe 99% of what you say, Cat. That's just a fact. If that means that you think I personally resent you, a complete stranger in the Internet, then so be it. I couldn't care less what you think of me, but boating about supposed spiritual gifts doesn't seem like something jesus would have done or condoned. He said to pray in a room by yourself with the door closed. Not out in public where everyone would see how pious and righteous you are. Constant boasting is the furthest thing possible from humility.
The only things I really think about you, JMcFarland, is that there seems a lot of bitterness and resentment, as well as stereotyping of believers. Your hatred comes through, at least to me. I've seen you can be nice enough to a few believers.
I haven't spoken any lies to you or anyone else, JMcFarland. But you not believing what I say is one of the least of the reasons I sense resentment. In fact, if you really didn't believe what I say - that God is real, that Jesus is Lord, that God is love, that God seeks his lost ones, that we can KNOW him, that glory awaits us with God and it is better to be with him, that the Spirit is here with us, that we have power through that Spirit, that God answers prayers, that God calls everyone, that his "prophets" (or whatever you want to call all of us) are here declaring truth to you, and so on - then I don't think you'd even have resentment toward me or any of the believers.
I've never considered myself "righteous" except as I'm made righteous through Jesus' sacrifice on my (and everyone's) behalf. I acknowledge that apart from God I am nothing, that I am probably a greater sinner than most if left on my own, that I have many, many weaknesses, perhaps even more than others. All the blessing that I have is from my heavenly Father, and he is graciously and mercifully waiting to bestow the same gifts onto you!
I am not bitter or resentful of you, or believers as a whole. The large majority of my closest friends, coworkers and family are all believers. You can't really take how you feel about a complete stranger on an Internet forum and make a straw man character of what they're really like, although it's hilarious to watch people try. Even on these forums, there are several believers that I respect and enjoy interacting with. No, I don't include you. No, I don't believe you. That's it. There is no hatred or resentment, just non belief. It's not a personal attack, and I'm not calling you a liar. I just don't believe you. You just seem incapable of nor taking it personally.
JMcFarland - If you don't believe anything I say and don't respect me, then why not leave me alone? Why keep responding to/about my posts, which aren't even directed toward you? I sense you are not being honest with yourself (even more than with me) and that you are in fact very resentful of those who have the blessing of the Lord. You have been offered the same blessings - you may either accept or reject the One True God, you may either accept or reject Jesus Christ as your Savior, you may either accept or reject the Holy Spirit. If you reject God, you reject the blessings he bestows. There is no need to resent those who are blessed when you may receive the same blessings.
You can sense whatever you'd like Cat. Doesn't make it true. I respond to whatever I please because it's an open forum and it amuses me. Why don't you stop responding to me, if I'm so resentful and hateful? I have not attacked you or called you names. I'm not sure why you feel analyzing or insulting my character is necessary, since you don't know me. I just don't believe you. It happens. Deal with it, or don't, but it's your choice to be offended or not by my presence.
From the outside looking in and looking at different forums, it appears that JM is nice and polite with those who approach her with respect to her beliefs (or lack thereof) and keep conversations mostly limited to the general topic of discussion. She appears to have the biggest issue with those who attack her lack of belief, her education, or her personal life as well as those who state she wasn't a TRUE believer simply because she is now an atheist. I'm sure there are other things she takes issue with, but these seem to be the biggest ones
I've been reading as a guest long before I joined. Just to see what I would be entering into. Like you, for instance. You seem to be genuinely nice and mean well in your posts. I don't think you really intend any offense with some of your comments (well except for an apparent ongoing conversation with A Troubled Man), but some of that seems more lighthearted poking than anything else.
EDIT- I have little more than time to sit and read these days. lack of a life...LOl
Idealistic - You say, "She appears to have the biggest issue with those who attack her lack of belief, her education, or her personal life as well as those who state she wasn't a TRUE believer simply because she is now an atheist."
Then JMcFarland should NOT have such issues with me as she does. You see, I haven't attacked her lack of belief; I've never said anything about her education (perhaps you are confusing me with someone else); I've never attacked her personal life including her sexual orientation, which I consider no different than what the rest of us do that contradicts the Word, so that we are ALL the same; and I never said she wasn't a true believer, but instead said if she was a believer God in love will seek what is his. JMcFarland started out pretty nasty toward me, before I ever had time to insult her personally. She seemed to resent my testimony about answered prayers and has been cold thereafter.
If you were really "reviewing" the posts, as you say Idealistic, you would have seen this, and not had the biases and inaccurate information you have.
You misunderstood my post completely. I had not and was not accusing you of doing any of what I mentioned. I was making a general observation of what I noticed of JM. My observation had nothing to do with any biases about anything you had done.
okay, whoa. Back up.
I have never attacked you. If I had attacked you personally, I would be banned. I'm not. I've only been banned once in my entire tenure at HP, and it had nothing to do with you. Do I like you? No. So what? Do I respect you? No. So What? Do I believe any of your claims? No. So what? You certainly don't speak to me like you respect or like me either. I have not called you names, I've apologized for my misconception that you were a Mormon - I misread one of your posts when you were CJ. It's not slander, it's a mistake - and I owned up to it. You overstepped your bounds when you started talking about my past, my earthly father and my future salvation - and that is the ONLY time I have been even remotely upset at you. You didn't know what you were talking about, and you backed off only when another Christian that you respected told you to.
The bible says that many false prophets will rise up, and that to distinguish them from real prophets, you have to test their claims and their spirits. You have done nothing to back up your assertion that you're a prophet of God. I don't resent you. I resent some of your mannerisms and methods, and they go a long way towards discounting what you claim to be about. You can have the perfect message, but if your presentation does not serve that message, the message will be lost completely. I'm not sure why you think that posting bible verses upsets, angers or causes resentment. Not with me. In fact, I usually ignore the blocks of bible verses. I can read it for myself, and have many times. I don't need it regurgitated for me on a forum by a complete stranger.
You certainly don't seem to have a very high opinion of me, and that's okay. You don't have to. I don't base my self worth on what you think of me. It would be pretty sad to base your sense of identity on what anonymous strangers think of you. In life, we run into people that we like and connect with, and people that we don't. Again, so what? You have no idea what I've been to, and what has been done to me in the name of your god - but that's not what made me become an atheist. I became an atheist much, much later. If you dislike me that much, don't interact with me. No one is forcing you to.
We test the spirits by determining if what they say lines up with the Word of God. Only a person with the Holy Spirit within them can make a true and accurate judgment, and only when relying on the Spirit within them. Since an unbeliever does not have the Spirit, how can they make any true judgment of spiritual truths?
I am sincerely sorry that anyone hurt you, and if I were ever to witness anyone hurting you, I would do WHATEVER was in my power to stop them.
Peace to you, JMcFarland.
Faulty logic. You state an opinion as fact and draw conclusions as if your opinion was fact.
I think one of the biggest issues that people have is that they believe the bible must be spoken and quoted a certain way in order for it to have "spiritual" truth. I disagree with this statement because based on what Ive read, Christ didn't go around quoting a book. He LIVED the book. He was not always soft with people. He was also (for the time period that the bible was put together) very blunt with his message. So it's very difficult and unreasonable (in some cases) to dismiss other believers who are blunt with their speech and pointing out issues they see as not being spiritual or real because their messages (if you get past their blunt words) can and often do line up. It's not always about the exact words. If it were, then why would we need spiritual interpretation?
Edit- I've also learned that even speaking and quoting the word of God does not mean that you are spiritual either. A lot of Christians in the south have a sayingi I often hear- The devil knows the word too (and no, I'm not calling anyone a devil or demon. I leave that to others)
Jesus Christ DID rely on and quote scripture often. See for example Matthew 4.
I believe it takes some twisting and deleting of the Bible to come up with falsehood, and that the majority of the words are clear when looked at as a believer with the guide of the Spirit. Here I am not saying there are not SOME areas intentionally left vague or that much of it is not symbolic. Revelation for instance requires much study and knowledge of certain things (governments and such). Some prophecies we don't fully understand until the time is upon us and then they make sense to us.
I expressed concerns with a believer's choice to continually criticize and blame Christianity for various societal ills, to continually speak against believers, and so on. That doesn't mean I've determined anything definitively about her salvation (as I think others may have). If she is in truth my sister, then I am her sister speaking to her about the behavior I've witnessed that I believe is harmful. She has strengths as well, such as a heart for the disadvantaged, which is commendable.
The devil will always twist the Word of God, and DELETE or call into question aspects of the Word. FYI, I've never called anyone a demon or devil in my life, but you seem to have misunderstood my words. The spiritual realm is real (both the good and evil within it), and the devil/demons/fallen angels are not the same as the people they influence. Those who follow the devil follow their "spiritual father" and those who follow God through Jesus Christ and thus have God's very Spirit within them follow their "spiritual father".
If you are referring to Jesus temptation where he said several times "it is written", You might want to rethink that. As I stated before, He did not rely on a book. The bible wasn't put together until several years AFTER his death, burial, and resurrection. He did not quote the book, the book quoted HIM. Sorry, your example is incorrect.. Show me where he quoted the BIBLE. Where kept referring to a specific scripture when instructing others.
There appears to be a contradiction here.. First you say it takes a lot of twisting and deleting of the bible to come up with falsehood, then turn around and say that the words are clear when looked at as a believer with the guide of the spirit. So what you are saying is that if you are not a believer, the words are not clear even when common language carries the same definitions of words?? You do realize that in a roundabout way you just called a lot of people stupid right? If it takes a lot of twisting and deleting to come up with falsehood, then the words are what they are no matter who is reading the words.
There are some that were left vague to allow us to find an understanding of the best way to apply those areas in our lives using our best judgment
Which raises a question. It appears that some of the believers on these forums (I've seen at least 5, including two that you respect as prophets) have also expressed an issue with how other believers have done bad things in the name of Christianity. With this one believer, it seems that you have a personal grudge. You are saying that you expressed concerns with the actions of a believer who you say is damaging to the faith, but this believer has (in her own way) also expressed concerns with the actions of other believers that she feels are damaging to the same faith. I asked this once before (which you attacked me for and accused me of being someone else), but I must ask again. What is the difference between what you are doing to her and what she is doing to others? It appears you are speaking against another believer just like you accuse her of doing to others. Just an observation
Once again you are trying to find accusation where there is none. I didn't say that you called anyone a devil or a demon. I simply said that I will allow others to call people that..
Now on the other hand (playing advocate here, so to speak), if you are saying that people that follow the devil are following their spiritual father, I have to point out that the children (or offspring) of the devil are also referred to as demons. So it could be seen as you are calling those people spiritual demons..
FYI- not using the actual words mean very little. Often times the implications created by using descriptions have the same effect
The Word of God from ancient days (the Old Testament Scriptures) have been translated and placed into what we now call the Bible, along with the gospels and subsequent New Testament writings. But it is irrelevant that the Scriptures were not compiled in our most current manner when discussing the importance of the Word to Jesus and his reliance on the Scriptures. The OT Scriptures existed in their previous form and Jesus explained them, relied on them and used them. He knew them well and understood their full meaning, as JESUS WAS THE WORD come to us.
Examples of Jesus quoting OT scripture can be found throughout our NT Scriptures. Throughout Matthew 4, as mentioned, we see Jesus giving us an example of relying on the Scriptures. Here are some examples of Jesus relying on or using "a specific scripture when instructing others": In Matthew 9:13 and Matthew 12:7 we see Jesus quoted or referred to Hosea 6:6 in instructing the people – "For I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings." In Matthew 5:43, Matthew 22:39 and Mark 12:31, we see Jesus quoted or referred to Leviticus 19:18 - "Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD." In Matthew 5:48 Jesus quoted Leviticus 19:2 and stated "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect."
The Scriptures in their true, full, life-giving spiritual sense are not readily understood or appreciated by those with natural minds (that is, unbelievers), as they are "spiritually discerned". When we speak of spiritual truths based on the Word of Truth, they are often nonsensical to those without the Spirit. Not understanding the words doesn't make a person "stupid" in the natural realm, but they are not yet "wise" within the spiritual realm. It takes a lot of twisting and deleting to come up with falsehood, and yes the words are what they are no matter who is reading the words, yet only those with the Spirit will understand all that the Spirit reveals through the words.
You say, "There are some that were left vague to allow us to find an understanding of the best way to apply those areas in our lives using our best judgment". I'm not sure; possibly in some instances. Sometimes it is simply that the full truth has not YET been given to us.
I've had difficulty with this one person REPEATEDLY coming against the faith/Christianity and against the other believers, and I haven't witnessed that of any other believers on here. Still, I don't hold a grudge against her, and in fact any hard feelings I once had have gone. Mercy and forgiveness are of the utmost importance. We all make mistakes, we all continue learning hopefully. I wish her well.
It is not my understanding that demons are the "offspring' of the devil. They are evil forces within the spiritual realm that follow the devil (as do fallen angels). I've never called a person the devil or a demon, as these are entirely separate things from humans (though demons can be inside of and possess humans). All who follow the devil are following their "spiritual father", but none are his actual "offspring".
Thank you for your reply. I hope you are taking my questions in the spirit (so to speak) of curiosity. I don't mean any harm with my questions.
I understand your thought about demons, but I just thought I'd point that out how words sometimes can come across to others. For example, to say that "only someone with the spirit can understand the words in the bible" sometimes can be read as calling those who do not believe stupid and unable to understand the Bible (even those who were once believers). I'm not sure how someone can lose the understanding that they had while they were filled with the spirit (as they believed they were at the time) now that they no longer believe. This brings up one of two scenarios. Either they should have been able to retain that understanding (which they should remember from their days as believers), or they were never "true" believers. I am not accusing you at all of stating that any former believer was never a true believer. You have never said that from what I've read. I am just pointing out how a certain phrase could appear as well as how the conclusions can be drawn by that comment by anyone.
That's odd, having a whopping four degrees under your belt would show quite dramatically an insatiable thirst for worldly knowledge and wisdom, far beyond what most would ever achieve.
A Troubled Man - I was very young when I obtained my degrees, perhaps seeking worldly knowledge and wisdom at that time. But in the end, I'm not impressed with any of it. I'm not impressed with my degrees and achievements and I'm not impressed with the degrees and achievements of others, I'm not impressed with my opinions and I'm not impressed with the opinions of others, I'm not impressed with my IQ and I'm not impressed with the IQ of others. I'm not impressed with the theories and popular "knowledge" of the day. The only thing that impresses me is God and his TRUE knowledge and wisdom, that which comes from above and not from earthly places. God often hides his wisdom from the "learned and wise" and reveals it to small children. This is beautiful. To God be all glory!
The point is I don't believe you have any degrees.
Therein quantifies my disbelief.
Sure, A Troubled Man, I worked as mental health therapist at a juvenile detention center with no degrees, since this makes more sense to those who find it impossible to believe that a person can achieve much at a young age and then determine that worldly degrees, achievement, worldly "wisdom", etc. is all meaningless, and that true wisdom and success comes only from God. Some day sooner or later you'll also find that everything the world has to offer apart from God is meaningless, even if that day is not until you are lying on your deathbed, or perhaps even after your death.
No, we just don't believe you because you don't have the "air" about you that speaks of a professional with several degrees in the psychological sciences. At least for me. I'm assuming others here would agree.
I can smell dishonesty from miles away.
You just don't say the right things or act in the normal manner for someone with that type of background.
I take what you said as a compliment, Janesix, though I recognize you didn't intend it that way.
I'm not as interested in the clinical aspects (which is why I switched from clinical to counseling psychology) and would never work in a hospital setting, so SOME of the discrepancy you're seeing relates to that. My interests have been in juvenile justice/detention, forming a Christian-based youth crisis shelter, etc.
Some of it is NO discrepancy in truth, as I never said anything about psychosis not coming and going, but rather that it wouldn't follow that a person is only psychotic when seeking God (Btw, the mental health field allows for supernatural beliefs and experiences without diagnosing them as psychosis; just as nocturnal hallucinations don't qualify as psychosis).
MOST of the discrepancies you're seeing between me and the mental health staff you're familiar with relates to me being a believer who would at this point only work as a Christian therapist versus those that are working as therapists and such in the secular field.
If that clarifies things for you, then good. If not, then so be it.
This is along the lines of what I was thinking, and would add one more thing.
How people behave in hospital, or doctors offices is one thing. Those very same people if they let loose, and come in anonymously to forums like these aren't always going to have their "professional cap" on at all times. In fact, this is a place for people that hold very strong views about big issues that allows for expression of those things, that the very same professionals would NEVER display on their campuses, or offices, hospitals, etc. Imagine a lunch break with a close friend, then the discussion can change again.... You get the point.
It seems some people might be judging you in this forum setting, as if you are in a professional setting. "You just don't sound right....." Yet you would sound different I am pretty sure in an office setting, not saying things like, "Glory be to God, I am a spirit filled believer, a daughter of the king, etc." I think its a response to what seems conflicting to them, and maybe without totally thinking it through. In case that is the case, it is why I share this.
I can tell in that post, again, you actually sound like you have studied these subjects. I don't know one way or the other. Many people can conduct themselves in a very unprofessional manner, that are VERY educated. Some of them are intelligent, few are wise. Totally different things.
A lot of good points here, oceansnsunsets. Therapist/client roles are defined pretty precisely, so that relationship will definitely not reflect most interactions.
I don't think any of us are going to come across as quite the same in person (whether it's in a professional setting or in general) as in a forum. The very fact that we have only the written language with no nonverbal communication here makes a huge difference also.
The purpose of this forum it was stated is to glorify God. Hopefully that's what we do.
Yeah sorry, I don't buy your story.
That will never happen. God is meaningless.
Meaningless to you maybe. Not to billions of people worldwide.
Are you talking about the Christian God, in which billions of people on the planet don't believe?
God in general.
I'm just saying, God isn't meaningless to billions of people. Whatever their particular God is.
Thor? Zeus? Methuselah? There are thousands of various gods, how can they be meaningful when they can't even be detected?
"God in general" does not really make any sense because there is no "general God", there are very specific gods with very specific attributes and traits.
You are being obtuse. You know exactly what I mean.
God is not meaningless to most people.
People have different versions of God. Still, to them, it is "God" whatever brand of God is their preference.
Most often it is an Abrahamic version of God these days. Not always. Some people, like Wiccans for instance, believe in a Goddess, etc.
Yes exactly, "THEIR" preference. In other words, gods are more about what people want to believe is true as opposed to what is actually true. And, since there are so many gods to choose from, and so many fights and battles between believers, it is all just meaningless drivel.
I think simple dismissals and disbelief in "whatever" matters a great deal to many here, not just how you share it there. One of the possible problems with that is that it doesn't really get a person any closer to actual truths in the matter, when something can just so easily be dismissed, and then a conclusion is drawn. It might be satisfactory to some, but given the amount of attention Cat generates, I think some might genuinely wonder if she holds any truth. (I could be wrong.) The strong need for HER To be wrong, and to be nothing that she says she is kind of an interesting thing to observe.
I see her as a very strong person holding strong views, and expressing them very freely. Even if or when I disagree with her, I can't imagine a scenario where a simple dismissal on my part would suffice as a "case closed" scenario, where she is shown to be wrong. I CAN see and understand people disagreeing with her style and views, but that in no way makes her ACTUALLY wrong in her views. Other things will determine that. Giving her poor treatment daily, MAKING sure she knows how much she isn't believed or respected around here, is only reflective on the person or people doing that to her. (I am not saying you do that necessarily, speaking more in general at the end there.) What is for sure happening is that people are treating her in ways they wouldn't want to be treated, and they can't seem to even seem to stop themselves. I have seen it with others also. It is like they find the "whipping boy" and go crazy with it. Why do that?
I think the actual grievances driving such behavior may lie somewhere else. I mean, that something else is likely wrong, not the person getting the treatment. This happens a lot on these forums, and it is tolerated, which is unfortunate for many to observe. I think it is part of what also drives the very same people to be supposed 'victims' themselves, while they do character assassinations of others. They blame the person getting the treatment, and heap more insults on like that they are thin skinned, or were asking for it, etc. What the goal seems to be, is certainly NOT being achieved in such cases. I think its more of a form of assassinating one's OWN character, ironically. We can choose to just ignore such people, or if people like CAT are truly so awful, why not ignore her? Its like it can't be let go, the treatment must be dished out. This is actually not a clue to people, or it appears that way to me. I can see Beth's point about not "feeding" this, not giving the satisfaction almost and I also see the not wanting to be silenced by CAT.
I gave no ADVICE to Janesix, and I do not intend to advice her on her mental health status or care (She is already covered there). We're both participating in a Christian discussion. The spiritual realm and much that can be viewed as psychosis but may not be in truth falls within Christian topics. This does not mean I think psychosis isn't real and it doesn't mean anything about how common or uncommon I think true psychosis versus supernatural experiences are (I don't even attempt to make that determination). BUT if we are blind to the truth of the supernatural realm and inaccurately label EVERYTHING that's supernatural psychosis, then we are unintentionally harming ourselves in MANY SIGNIFICANT ways.
Unbelievers won't ever label a possible supernatural issue as supernatural, because they don't exist to them. Not whatsoever. You can understand that point of view I think, correct? I mean, even if you disagree with it?
Absolutely, oceansnsunsets. What's interesting is how many believers overlook the supernatural realm as well. It seems it's one of the primary ways the deceiver works - keeping us all "blinded" to the truth "behind the scenes" that is invisible to the natural eye.
I don't think I'm here so much as an evangelist (don't think I have that spiritual gift to any great degree), but to declare truth to be heard by believers, unbelievers and those in the process of having their spiritual ears opened (more along the lines of the spiritual gifts of knowledge, wisdom, teaching and prophecy). Also, I learn a lot here and it helps me in my writing for other things/places.
I don't think I'm communicating clearly. I don't think it's a big deal. Argue away about it if you like.
My point about having been a nun is that one might think I have a little more than a little bit of knowledge about Catholicism-but they still tell me often that I'm full of crap.
Jane didn't tell Cat she was a liar. She said she didn't believe her.
Does that really matter if it's true? People don't believe things. To make a point Cat makes often, what's true is true. One doesn't have to believe it to make it so.
Again, I just think it's a big fuss being made about a little thing.
I'll gracefully bow out now, and leave the conversation for the ones to whom it is meaningful.
Actually I did get that you don't think its a big deal. I appreciate your thoughts on the matter, Motown.
See, this is a part of what I mean. The tone of that response could be read as that you think I'm heartless and don't care that Cat's feelings may have been hurt. I could also read it as very dismissive. Truth is, I care about everyone's feelings, just don't think this should have gotten everyone all riled up. You are certainly free to think that I'm uncaring. I know better, as do many others here. See how that isn't a big deal?
You were stating that you thought you weren't being clear. So I did clear that part up. I did get that you thought it wasn't a big deal. The rest you have to read in, as I almost repeated your words back. I will believe you that you care about everyone's feelings, and if you don't think any of these posts are really a big deal, does the same apply for mine? Are all mine equally not a big deal?
I will trust you, that if one of your close friends was told they weren't believed that they weren't psychotic and that they didn't really have two college degrees, that you would not care about that. I don't have reason to think you are an uncaring person.
One of my VERY closest friends is constantly taken to task over her education...here. I don't think she needs me to defend her. I have. But her knowledge stands on its own.
Cat's should be enough in its own as well, regardless of anyone's opinions of it.
Oh, and heavens to Betsy, if I had a penny for every time I've been called delusional or psychotic here-and not just had someone say they didn't believe that I wasn't-I'd be a wealthy woman.
Yet you have defended her. This is a bit different because of the other bigger half of the issue. I can kind of see your point though. Not sure where the problem lies with me then especially in light of you defending anyone here, ever?
I know two things regarding your post.
You are very caring.
Sometimes Oceans is unclear.
To be clear, she brought up being uncaring, not I, then defended that. I appreciate her clarification about caring about Cat's feelings and everyone's. Otherwise, we can only go by what we see written by people here. (Generally speaking.)
"I'm seen by others as having a sound mind. I display no signs of psychosis to others. As far as coincidences, we're talking about CONSTANT coincidences."
Neither did I. Until I did.
"I have a couple of degrees in Psychology - I have disorders, but I don't fit the psychotic disorders"
I just don't believe that for a second.
You don't believe what - that I have two degrees in psychology, or that I have no psychotic disorders?
Wow, the levels of insulting seem to know no bounds in here, and ATM echoes this below regarding the degrees.
Its not just assuming the worst anymore about people, its calling them liars about their own education. I have seen some in here puff themselves up about things I wonder about including education, etc. I don't get that sense at all from Cat, and understand she brought it up because people are basically accusing her of being crazy. She is expressive in how she shares what she believes, and has experienced.
Its disheartening that people are so not at peace with just how others are and want to think, be, and express themselves. She is different from others here, but hasn't hurt anyone. I don't even get the whole thing with Radman either, the fixation on her understanding of the spirit of God and how she expresses her thoughts and beliefs there. People can be so cruel. Its funny, cause I said that I think multiple god's are illogical, and he thought that I put down all Hindus the other day, and said not cool, while missing the other points made. Never mind that he shows no problem (as do many others here) with putting down one group in particular that differs from them. That is very strange phenomenon, that behavior expressed many times over, while ignoring whole groups of others. That this isn't a personal red flag to the people that do it, and that is isn't seen for the irony it is considering whose views are being gone after most, is a support for the attacked view. I can only pray that people start to care at least a bit more about themselves, but if not that, then others that simply believe differently from them. Notice....the need to go after it. It is incredibly strong and seems a driving force for many around here. Hours, days, weeks, months, and I have personally observed years of it myself now. Incredible that it isn't its own sign to anyone but those that can seem to see it for what it is.
Edit: (This is not all directed at you Jane, most of it isn't. Just the part of saying she is lying about having two degrees in psychology, and the part about being psychotic. You are not in the big leagues around here when it comes to what I describe above.)
She doesn't even use the correct terminology. I can tell when someone is lying or not for the most part. I believe she is.
I only have a minor degree in the social sciences, but have self studied it a lot on my own. Other than the spiritual terminology she uses which probably confuses a lot of people or frustrates them, I don't see incorrect terminology that justifies the basically outright calling her a liar about it. Her worldview wouldn't' support her lying about it either. In fact the one post seemed to support her side, when she was saying she doesn't qualify for psychosis and gave her reasons.
Just pointing out, would it feel good to you if people said, "no, you don't have two degrees in _____ (fill in the blank), if you really did? Its just a big accusation, and I have been watching some and don't see the justification. Now if Radman, ED, RA, or ATM (and a couple others) said this, I wouldn't have the "wow" factor response I did with you. You generally seem more fair, and intellectually honest most of the time. Thus the doubting she is really psychotic despite her explaining why she thinks she isn't and giving her credentials for it, and doubting those, etc. It just struck me as "ouch", for her. I am trying to also be as possibly unbiased as I can be. I see how she speaks about the things she does and can understand a measure of it.
I have been literally surrounded by psychiatrists for four years. She just doesn't seem the type. I know a ton about the subject, just out of self-defense practically. She seems to think that psychosis is something that is ongoing, which it isn't. It comes and goes, and doesn't last very long. Except in a few rare cases.
EDIT: If Cat can convince me I'm wrong about her, then I will be more than willing to publically apologize.
I don't think she has any intention of proving to anyone she didn't mean exactly as she has said in these forums. I think she expresses herself differently about her spiritual experiences than many here do,than most even.
So she will just have to get the "you are lying about your 2 degrees, and you are too, psychotic at time" comments I guess. I just don't think that is fair, not for being different, and that is what I see here. I am probably not communicating this all the best.
What's wrong with being "crazy"? I am. I don't feel like I'm less of a person because of it. In fact, I think I'm a pretty good person. With a manageable illness. I don't like to see people deluding themselves. Psychosis can be fun. Until it's not.
That was very well said. Succinct and to the point, explaining so much with so few words. I love it.
I don't judge anyone for being "crazy", and if you notice, most around here don't use it in the sense you are using it generally in these forums. That you share what you do is part of why I have come to respect you like I do, you are very honest and open and that is commendable. So, I should have "weighted" it out accordingly, compared to how others generally use that idea or suggest it.
Still, its a big thing to accuse another (I think) of being truly psychotic (if that is what was being done along with accusation of lying about her 2 degrees), even if you yourself have had some past brush with such things personally. I can see your point of view that you kind of get to speak on it a bit more perhaps from at least that one angle.
Diagnoses of truly psychotic patients, can be tested. She seemed to be knowing what she was speaking of when saying she falls out of the line of being classified under any. Many around here like to gang up on people and just say it out of hand like its nothing. Its very real though, and I get the feeling in this discussion you both are speaking of it in that real way.
Do you believe there are spirits out there, good and evil ones? Demons? Just curious. If so, that lends a whole other new perspective onto everything. I know what the materialists or naturalists would say, just curious about you, since you personally observed people having very real delusions having to do with a spiritual nature like you mentioned. I have heard about people having delusions like that before death which can be explained a number of ways too. I have heard my Catholic friends speak about how they know of people that truly felt very strong spiritual stuff happening before they died.
I think you are alright Janesix, I really like you, so I hope you don't misunderstand my comments.
I don't believe in demons or spirits (never have).
Right now I don't know what I believe.
Except that I KNOW people can delude themselves, for years. I did. Can you accept that I am HONESTLY worried about people who say the same things I did when I (now) know that I was psychotic? I'm worried about her, not dissing on her.
I am just saying that for such big accusations, I would hope you and others would know 101% almost that you were right and that she is absolutely lying about her college degrees and possible psychosis to judge her as if you were right and she is wrong.
If you are genuinely worried about her, I don't know how accusations help. All the same, I am glad you are genuinely concerned.
We have here and individual who has admitted have issues with psychosis, who is getting professional help and is on medication and we have someone claiming to be counselling psychologist who seems to be advising her that her psychosis may be real. Does that sound reasonable to you?
To the first part of what you said, you mean Janesix right? To the second part though, is where it seems you have it turned around a little bit. The one claiming to be educated in counseling psychology is saying she knows she doesn't fall under the correct diagnoses (likely from the DSM they use) for having psychosis or disorders, and that actually makes sense to me. So I can't answer your question. It seemed unreasonable to me that someone seems to be so sure another is lying about something very important to them in life, and she seems to be telling the truth.
So if you think it is Cat that is saying Jane's psychosis is or was real, I didn't see anything like that, and it was Jane that said that of herself. I think people are judging Cat for doing what I think amounts to using "Christian-ese" type of terminology found in some churches. I mean in how they express themselves and their understanding, and their experiences. It isn't always the most helpful when discussing things with atheists and non believers in general, because they can get caught up sometimes in how strange just the jargon sounds to them, and they don't see past that. And then call it crazy on top. Then call her a liar about her schooling, etc. Its kind of a pushing for a type of terminology that can sometimes be better left in church, for the problems it causes in others, especially if the hope is to be reaching and sharing with them truths as they understand them.
So it makes sense to believe someone typing words on the internet when they are saying that most psychosis's are real only the people who see aliens are seeing demons and such? Does it make sense to tell that to someone with admitted issues? Is it the responsible thing to do?
Go to any online counselling doctors and they will tell you to seek professional help.
You need to be more clear, as I was asking for clarification for who you were even speaking of in the first place.
The way you relayed the story before this post, wasn't accurate as I saw it play out. So if you use their names, maybe it will be more clear?
Nowhere did I say "most psychosis are real", Rad Man. Once again, please STOP putting words in my mouth as you often do!
Janesix is already receiving professional help. She's not actively psychotic at this time either. I'm also not on here to advice her of anything. I'm on here to engage in a Christian discussion.
YOU want to dismiss demons and the spiritual realm altogether. It doesn't mean they aren't real. Maybe there are people who have "seen" something that they described as an alien that was in truth a spirit of some sort. (Janesix never said she herself saw "aliens", but was speaking of others.)
I am glad you clarified that you didn't say most psychoses are real, because I thought Rad might be telling the truth and I had missed that post maybe. It didn't seem like anything I had seen you say, but I also can't read all the posts. I certainly didn't see it lately.
You are right, I erred when I said most, she did say some.
In my defence however, some could mean many or few or most.
This seems to be an ongoing thing with Rad Man putting words into my mouth. Thanks for your support, oceansnsunsets!
We're in a Christian discussion, Rad Man. Since she said all her delusions and hallucinations were "religious" in nature, I asked about them. I didn't really advice her on anything.
Actually what she said was.
Not all as you noted but about a quarter.
Your advice was…
Your professional advice was that her delusions and hallucinations may have been factual.
I'm not seeing the professionalism.
I didn't give her professional advice, Rad Man. And my quote was about other observed persons. I am speaking of the spiritual realm in a Christian discussion. Please STOP twisting things.
Twisting your words? I used direct quotes. She said a quarter of here delusions or hallucinations were religious bases and you said you responded to her because she said they all were. That's not the case. And then to make matters worse you tell her that you suspect sometimes psychotic episodes and being misdiagnosed.
Aye yai yai, well in fairness here, I take a step back because I did NOT see these posts being brought up, and don't want to take sides unfairly. Which I think happens a lot here.
Why not go look back and see what was written? Are you afraid to tell her she was wrong?
No, I am not afraid. I had missed this yesterday, and I think it has since been cleared up. When I saw Jane speaking of the religious based psychotic episodes she witnessed, I had read that they were observed by her in others, in the hospital when she was there. So there was some confusion. When relaying what people have said here, we need to be careful about making sure we get it right (or do our best), especially when trying to show them wrong or in error. I think sometimes going slower can help, when we are reading posts. I am guilty of it too, as time is often short and I am trying to go too fast and assume.
Unless I'm mistaken, she said a quarter of delusions or hallucinations in general (not hers) were religious based. I asked her about hers which she'd said were religious ones. I have no intentions to advice her of anything.
IF we believe the spiritual realm is real (which obviously as an unbeliever you would not), then we will look into the supernatural experience versus psychosis thing. Remember, this particular conversation began with her believing that I experience psychosis because of my experiences within the supernatural realm.
Can you at the very least learn how to use quotes instead of simply repeating what I said as if you said it?
She has experience with these things, perhaps you should listen to her.
22 And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not make clean riddance of the corners of thy field when thou reapest, neither shalt thou gather any gleaning of thy harvest: thou shalt leave them unto the poor, and to the stranger: I am the Lord your God.
Thank you, oceansnsunsets. And you make very good points, as you always tend to do.
I have an undergraduate degree in psychology (graduated summa cum laude) and a masters degree in counseling psychology (I began with clinical psychology, but found I didn't like the clinical aspects, so switched to counseling psychology). I have several scholarly publications in the field as well. I worked as mental health therapist for a decade in a juvenile detention center. It became a sort of a "mission" ground for me, and I saw the Spirit act in powerful ways in that place. I'm now at home with a toddler and preschooler, though I left work not so much because of my children as because of a sexual harassment and retaliation case against my employers (the corrections field tends to be a little behind in their sexual harassment tolerance). God promised me an unlikely victory in my case (very few people win such cases and when they do they get little compensation) and he followed through with his promises - I was given a large sum of money, my sexual harasser was fired, my employers who retaliated due to my reports were dealt with, AND I even maintained the right to talk about my case despite the settlement money I received (something that pretty much never happens, as in settlement they're essentially "buying" your silence, which I refused to allow). God gave me promises all the way, made every unlikely thing occur, and gave me the victory. I do have some difficulties with the idea of returning to work based on some of the "trauma" of the whole situation. And I would only return to counseling as a Christian Counselor.
I can't imagine a psychologist counselling someone with psychosis and telling them that their delusions may be real. That's what you seem to be doing here.
As a side note do you think Freud's model of the mind, specifically the superego could explain peoples beliefs in God?
First, I'm not a psychologist, but a mental health therapist. Second, since my field is counseling psychology rather than clinical psychology, I didn't work as much with the "psychotic" population as with other persons with difficulties (though we certainly had some psychotic youth in detention). I made the appropriate referrals for those displaying psychosis (hallucinations, delusions, etc.). Still, I did pray with some clients. And I did wonder about possible spiritual truths behind some of it (as in the case of a young man who repeatedly kept requesting counseling with me, expressed a personal interest in me, and then kept telling me the voices and demons didn't like me and told him he should kill me).
As for Freud, I'll be brutally honest - I think he was a bit of a moron.
Fraud was a moron, but you've got this covered.
I certainly don't believe you have one degree in psychology let alone two. But then, I haven't seen anything you've said in your posts that is believable at all.
" understand billions of people read the Word of God, but I am asking why believers would be particularly likely to experience psychosis, and psychosis of the exact same nature. If they were all diagnosed as psychotic, it would take the number of psychotic people to a level that is not normal or to be expected. "
Millions of people also have similar psychotic beliefs in aliens and NWO government conspiracies. Psychotic beliefs follow fads just like everything else. In some centuries, it's fairies or dwarves. Whatever is popular at the moment. Religion is common in all ages.
Certainly psychosis exists, but it's rare. If we add in all the people with supernatural religious experiences, it elevates the number of psychotic experiences or people diagnosed with psychosis to a level that we wouldn't expect.
I don't believe in aliens but I consider it possible that people have seen something they believe is an alien. I've seen drawings from biblical descriptions that look just like the "aliens" people report seeing. Who knows, maybe people are seeing demonic or other spiritual beings and labeling them aliens (or "fairies").
Yes, religion is common in all ages. God has put this within us so that we may seek and find HIM.
1 Peter 5:2
feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the oversight thereof, not by constraint, but willingly; not for filthy lucre, but of a ready mind;
"am sure of a SHARED experience - when at the exact moment I'm feeling intense warmth and "tugs" and "waves", and though I've said nothing of my experiences, the boy in detention I'm talking about God with suddenly grips his shirt and stares at me with huge eyes and says "Whoa, did you just feel that"
Yeah. People like to feel important and copy each other and pretend all the time. Ever been to one of those "slain in the spirit" BS groups? I bet you have. People love to flop around and pretend like they are specially chosen by God for religious experiences. It's pretty sad.
EXCEPT that this young man wasn't COPYING me because I had not let him know of my experience right at the same moment (of warmth, tugs and waves). I was actually in some shock and awe myself, as I tended to be especially early on in my experiences with the Spirit. The boy let me know of his experience of warmth and a jolt without me having divulged my experience at the exact same moment.
No, I've never been to a "slain in the spirit" group. I've never flopped around or pretended anything. I do understand people falling back when the Spirit falls on them and heals them, as I have to CONTROL myself to not fall back or make a sound (I'm really an overly self-controlled person). None of my thoughts are coming from any church experiences or groups. I drift from church to church almost like a restless wanderer (I move from place to place in the same way). I've tried every single Christian denomination, and while I'm thankful they speak truth for the most part (their disagreements aren't really so central), I find almost all of them spiritually "flat". My experiences are my experiences without outside influence. In fact, my influences should have me being "flat" as well spiritually speaking. But the Spirit is the one who has determined otherwise.
People like to feel important and copy each other and pretend all the time. Ever been to one of those "slain in the spirit" BS groups? I bet you have. People love to flop around and pretend like they are specially chosen by God for religious experiences. It's pretty sad.
It is pretty sad. Why do you continue to do it?
These are Janesix's words, not mine, Rad Man - "People love to flop around and pretend like they are specially chosen by God for religious experiences. It's pretty sad."
I've never "flopped around", and I maintain that ALL people are called by God (though only some respond to the call; I won't get into the "chosen" part of it).
Why would you copy her words and pretend they are yours?
I didn't. She's had my words in her responses to me and I've had some of her words in my responses to her.
Do you not know how to format your posts so that we know what your words are?
People do that all the time also, I do by accident all the time and forget to delete them before I post my posts. I guess he has never seen it before now? That would make a ton of the posts in here very confusing and explains at least one post where he was giving me kudos for my response. He must have just read the first part which was someone else's. Confirms some things for me.
Oceans, I responding to that post as I thought I should. Don't take this the wrong way, but I find you sometimes difficult to read (could be my dyslexia). You seem sometimes to say a lot and not say anything. I wouldn't say this if I didn't know that others sometimes find the same thing.
Can you guys hit the formate button and learn how to communicate so other's words don't look like yours.
I have admitted to needing to be less wordy, and clearer in my posts. It is something I have to try not to do, imagine if I really let loose, lol.
On the flip side, I feel sometimes that some here don't really understand what is being said, or the points being made. There are many reasons I say this. I can only guess as to what the reasons are. Some could be they are reading too fast, or only skimming posts. Perhaps they are not taking the time to fully comprehend points being made, to see if they are good or not. Or any other number of things. To be clear, I understand that my part in that with sometimes wordy posts doesn't help the person that might not want to really read or likes to just skim posts, etc.
It's not that you are wordy, it's that you are sometimes unclear.
2 Timothy 2:4
No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life; that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.
Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him?
These shall make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb shall overcome them: for he is Lord of lords, and King of kings: and they that are with him are called, and chosen, and faithful.
"EXCEPT that this young man wasn't COPYING me because I had not let him know of my experience right at the same moment (of warmth, tugs and waves). I was actually in some shock and awe myself, as I tended to be especially early on in my experiences with the Spirit. The boy let me know of his experience of warmth and a jolt without me having divulged my experience at the exact same moment.
No, I've never been to a "slain in the spirit" group. I've never flopped around or pretended anything. I do understand people falling back when the Spirit falls on them and heals them, as I have to CONTROL myself to not fall back or make a sound (I'm really an overly self-controlled person). None of my thoughts are coming from any church experiences or groups. I drift from church to church almost like a restless wanderer (I move from place to place in the same way). I've tried every single Christian denomination, and while I'm thankful they speak truth for the most part (their disagreements aren't really so central), I find almost all of them spiritually "flat". My experiences are my experiences without outside influence. In fact, my influences should have me being "flat" as well spiritually speaking. But the Spirit is the one who has determined otherwise."
Oh. My mistake. You obviously are a very special person. Not delusional at all.
ALL people are made the same offer - "EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved"; and ALL BELIEVERS have the Spirit within them and ALL may receive an outpouring of the Spirit, which gives power and ability they do not possess in their own weaknesses. Think of it more as an unrecognized and untapped, unutilized source of supernatural power that ALL BELIEVERS COULD HAVE. I am not "special" just because I seek God and abide in him and rely on the Spirit and say "yes" to the multitude of gifts he is waiting to bestow on those who are eager to receive.
All that I gave is straight from Scripture - "EVERYONE who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved" (Acts 2:21, Romans 10:13, Joel 2:32)
"Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies" (1 Corinthians 6:19-20); "You, however, are not in the realm of the flesh but are in the realm of the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, they do not belong to Christ." (Romans 8:9).
"But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit comes on you" (Acts 1:8). "Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit a message of wisdom, to another a message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues,[a] and to still another the interpretation of tongues. All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he distributes them to each one, just as he determines." (1 Corinthians 12:7-11)
Matthew 7:21 does NOT say anything different - "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven." In fact, it parallels Romans 8:9 in that those without the Spirit of God and Christ living in them are not God's own, no matter what they may say. They are like those who Jesus was speaking of when he said, "These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me" (Matthew 15:8), and when God through the Spirit likewise said, "The Lord says: 'These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me'" (Isaiah 29:13).
Cat, I'm not changing your words at all. I'm showing them to you.
Imagine two jr. high rival football teams. They absolutely hate each other. Now, unsupervised, in the parking lot, the opposing cheer-leading buses sit parked next to each other. The girls slide the windows down and fast, and furious, the insults begin. I picture that having more dignity than this.
Cat, I encourage you to exit this conversation and allow them the pleasure of their own company. Whether they believe you or not, is meaningless. You have shared your faith with them to the best of your ability... if I were you, I would allow God to move their hearts or not, as He chooses. Just my opinion though. You don't owe me any response. I just can't imagine there is anything left to benefit at this point.
Weren't you saying you were leaving weeks ago? If you're offering the same advice to others, wouldn't it be beneficial if you followed your own advice, first?
I said I didn't think I'd be here long; no, I didn't say I was leaving weeks ago.
What is your motivation in constantly saying negative things to me or about me?
The post that you're responding to? Yeah, wasn't addressed to you, so your post is a little irrelevant
Thanks, Beth. It often seems unfruitful labor here, BUT I do feel compelled to present the truth even if no one listens (and who knows who may read and not participate). Also, I learn from this experience - what to say and not to say, things that benefit my writing, and so on.
It seems like those of us who speak the truth straight from the word of God (as I know you do) are despised most of all by many in these forums. Those with the attitude that they're "Christian" but a Christian can have any opinion they want regardless of the truth, and truth really can't even be known, don't stir up much anger by unbelievers.
You seem to think you are a referee or something.
Plus, you are always on the side of the "underdog", whether or not that person is really an underdog or not. You don't have to defend everyone. You really don't, not the people here. Cat has balls of steel, she doesn't need your defense. I think you have a good heart Beth. You're a sweetie pie in my book (I'm totally serious here.)
Yes Jane, I'm sorry. I can't help it... it bothers me to no end to see someone be bullied. When I see someone in real life bully someone weaker, I tend to turn into a mama bear. I do apologize for sticking my nose in, but I have to admit, it will probably not be the last time.
It's ok. I don't like seeing bullies do their thing either. I wasn't really trying to be harsh with Cat. It's a simple fact though, I just don't think she's being honest. That upsets me too. I don't hate or even dislike her.
She says things that are really not good things to say to people sometimes. I wish she would think about how it might affect other people when she says those things. If she seemed fragile, I probably would be more polite. But I don't think she'll get the message with politeness.
PS, I think you're a good person, and there's nothing wrong with being a peacemaker. I think you genuinely care.
Please allow me to say. They did the same thing to CG about her education, I believe it was.
Here is my point; what's the point?
JM says she went to bible college. OK
Melissa says she was a lesbian. OK.
Radman says his wife is a Christian and his kids go to Catholic school. OK.
You say you suffer from Bi-Polar disorder. OK.
Maybe all these things are true, maybe they are not. At some point maturity says, 'Let it go.' So what if you don't believe it? So what? It's a moot point. There has to be some point where we just lay off each other and talk about the main point. It is so incredibly small, this mob mind set. I encourage you Jane, b/c you are still seeking the truth... when you see them all go off on a tangent, don't join in. It doesn't behoove you in any way. It's not like at the end of the day any of those ppl are there for you... we are ultimately alone. Those of us who have a relationship with God have a confidant and a friend, but as far as these forums... we are alone.
This is my point though. She says she's a psychologist or whatever. Someone might believe her, and listen to what she says. She says things that are unreasonable, in my opinion, and may even be dangerous. I won't rehash all those things for now, unless you want me to be more specific. A gullible or naïve person could get hurt or hurt someone else.
Tangents happen in forums, it's just how they work. All the time.
I just wish she was more responsible with her words. If she wants to praise God or share her beliefs, great. I can go all day long with Sir Dent and other believers and have no problem. Cat is a different ball game.
EDIT: To be fair, even I admit to saying dangerous things on the forums that I regret saying. Like finding God by locking yourself in a closet without food for three days (bad idea, folks, don't try that at home). We have to be careful what we say on the internet, and to other people in general. Sometimes people listen. Especially naïve or young people.
Janesix - I didn't come into a Christian Discussion forum to give anyone mental health advice (which I absolutely have not done), and I even avoided mentioning my field for awhile with you. BUT it strongly related to our discussion in which you kept insisting that I'm psychotic because of my spiritual experiences, which is simply not accurate (and my experiences would NOT be diagnosed as such within the mental health field, which allows for religious/spiritual experiences).
The efforts by many (you are not the only one in the forums) to dismiss the spiritual experiences I've had (or others have had and spoken of) by labeling them psychosis, imagination, and so on is significant as it is one more way of BLINDING people to the TRUTH, which is that the SPIRITUAL REALM IS REAL.
I understand this particular truth causes controversy in our day. That doesn't make it any less of the truth, that doesn't make it any less vital to know and understand, that doesn't make me "irresponsible" for speaking uncompromised truth in a day when the popular thing to do is "compromise" the truth, teach a "watered-down" version of Christianity, allow everyone to have their own arrogant "opinion" on everything (ironically I come across as arrogant for insisting on the truth given to us by God in his Word, while unbelievers and even some "believers" arrogantly make up whatever they desire and this exaltation of their own opinions is not recognized as TRUE arrogance). I will boldly continue to declare the truth as given IN THE WORD to everyone, and those who have ears to hear will hear. God has different purposes for his servants and one is not better than another. He will fulfill his purpose for me, just as he will fulfill his purpose for all his servants who permit it.
Speaking truth STRAIGHT FROM THE WORD OF GOD stirs up the most anger amongst unbelieves who participate in Christian forums. The more we do this, the more our words are attacked, twisted, manipulated, questioned, and so on. So be it.
In my natural state I am "frail" (people rarely speak to me harshly in person no matter what I say, as very petite size, a soft-spoken voice and so on inhibit it). But the Spirit within my gives me abilities contrary to my nature so that what you are seeing is a boldness not possessed in my natural state (which is diagnosable as socially anxious, especially during childhood - think of Wednesday on the initial Adams Family TV show and this was what I looked/acted like). I am unwilling to "please" others by compromising the truth (both in person and in forums), regardless of my own nature, and will continue to declare the truths of God despite my nature and any rejection by any of those who have been frequenting Christian forums with what appears a primary purpose to challenge and reject God, Jesus, the Spirit and/or the Word of truth (who are all one in the same).
As you can plainly see, Beth, Cat is not taking a beating, but instead, is dishing out the beating and has no problem making people angry.
If so, Then can you explain how people coming to a Christian discussion that get angry at bible verses makes sense? And how you trying to make the anger the fault of cats is logical in that actual scenario we see? The attempt to twist things seems to not be successful.
How do you equate speaking truth from the Word of God with "giving a beating"? What harsh words have I spoken toward you, A Troubled Man, Janesix or JMcFarland, three who recently have indicated they don't believe what I've said (or anything I say)?
I don't see a word of truth or honesty in your posts at all. The only thing I see is a fundamentalist hitting everyone else over the head with a Bible.
You might prefer a different forum than a Christian one, A Troubled Man. One where you are less likely to be exposed to the Word of God.
Or if you enjoy Christian discussions, surely you can't object to hearing the Word of God.
Are you telling me to go away so you can continue beating people over the head with a Bible, unabated?
I am not hearing the word of God, I am hearing someones twisted version of the Bible.
Are there any non-twisted versions of the Bible? The Bible isn't self-consistant. Even taken metaphorically in many instances, still leaves the reader confused beyond reason. People say it's the "word of God", yet if it can't even be deciphered, then what's the point of it in the first place? It's a jumbled mess in my opinion.
I would be happy to walk thru the bible with you if you'd like Jane. We can do it privately by email if you'd like. It's not a mess, it's the only good and unadulterated thing left on this earth.
Thanks for the offer, but I have read the Bible more than enough times. There are almost identical stories in it, like Gilgamesh/Noah and Jesus/Horus. I simply can't take it as a reliable document of any kind. There is wisdom in it, and I think something else to it that I can't pinpoint, but that can be found in other religions as well. The ONLY difference in Christianity that I see is the belief of Jesus for salvation.
I don't believe that we need salvation, so it doesn't fly with me.
Do you believe Jesus is the son of God? Do you believe he came to earth?
I go back and forth on that idea. A couple weeks ago, very much so. But it got me through a very difficult episode. Probably one of the worst experiences of my life.
This moment right now, no. There is that love of Jesus in my heart, though, whether I truly believe or not . But I've always been fond of Jesus, even if it's just the idea.
"but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" I Cor 1:23
There is a reason he is a stumbling block... there is a reason you are stuck there. I will be praying that he will reveal himself to you. He is the key to the kingdom. Much love to you Jane.
If you can do that, why can't you pray for Jesus to reveal himself to all of us?
Do you want to know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, A Troubled Man?
Why does Jesus have to play hide and seek? Or God for that matter? Why not just reveal they exist? Sounds a bit silly to me.
And what about people who have never heard of Jesus? How could they possibly even know to look?
"And what about people who have never heard of Jesus?" It seems people will only be held accountable for that which has been given to them and rejected or misused, or by the opportunities they've had. "Jesus said, 'If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains'." (John 9:41) Also, we don't know what goes on in the spiritual realm as people are dying; we don't know all the opportunities people are given in a multitude of ways. And if a person has only God's creation to know God by, and they accept God according to the "testimony" of the creation, then it seems that is what the person will be judged by. We don't really have to know all these things, we just need to trust that God is good and just and fair and loving. We do know that he has called us to spread the news of Christ.
"Why does Jesus have to play hide and seek? Or God for that matter? Why not just reveal they exist?" The multitude of verses within Scripture about seeking God show us it must be extremely important to God for those who desire him to look for him and find him, and to do so by faith. Think about what characteristics are desirable in a mate. It seems he is looking for certain characteristics in us - he is looking to see if our desire for him is true and great and worth everything to us. Here are just some examples:
Luke 11: 9-10 - "'And so I tell you, keep on asking, and you will receive what you ask for. Keep on seeking, and you will find. Keep on knocking, and the door will be opened to you. 10 For everyone who asks, receives. Everyone who seeks, finds. And to everyone who knocks, the door will be opened'."
Deuteronomy 4:29 "But from there you will seek the Lord your God and you will find him, if you search after him with all your heart and with all your soul."
Proverbs 8:17 "I love those who love me, and those who seek me diligently find me."
Jeremiah 29:12 "Then you will call upon me and come and pray to me, and I will hear you. You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart. I will be found by you, declares the Lord."
Lamentations 3:25 "The Lord is good to those who wait for him, to the soul who seeks him."
Isaiah 55:6-7 “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call upon him while he is near; let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts; let him return to the Lord, that he may have compassion on him, and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon."
1 Chronicles 16:11 "Seek the Lord and his strength; seek his presence continually!"
Psalm 119:10 "With my whole heart I seek you."
Matthew 6:33 "But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you."
Jeremiah 29:13 "You will seek me and find me, when you seek me with all your heart."
Hebrews 11:6 "And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him."
You didn't actually answer my questions.
"It seems people will only be held accountable for that which has been given to them and rejected or misused, or by the opportunities they've had. "Jesus said, 'If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin; but now that you claim you can see, your guilt remains'." (John 9:41) Also, we don't know what goes on in the spiritual realm as people are dying; we don't know all the opportunities people are given in a multitude of ways. And if a person has only God's creation to know God by, and they accept God according to the "testimony" of the creation, then it seems that is what the person will be judged by. We don't really have to know all these things, we just need to trust that God is good and just and fair and loving. We do know that he has called us to spread the news of Christ."
You seem to be saying that maybe God(or Jesus) reveals himself when we are dying. That's a total cop out.
"The multitude of verses within Scripture about seeking God show us it must be extremely important to God for those who desire him to look for him and find him, and to do so by faith. Think about what characteristics are desirable in a mate. It seems he is looking for certain characteristics in us - he is looking to see if our desire for him is true and great and worth everything to us. Here are just some examples: "
So God is egocentric and wants a bunch of blind worshipers.
I don't like your version of God.
I don't like the Biblical version of God. Your God is not loving and kind. He's an immature tyrant. The very BEST thing I can say about the Biblical God is that he is a bad but possible (and conditionally) loving father figure/disciplinarian. Even that is pushing it for me. I would really have to be inventive to find "loving" in the Bible.
Janesix you wrote, "You seem to be saying that maybe God(or Jesus) reveals himself when we are dying. That's a total cop out." It's one of many possibilities, that God might reveal himself as a person is leaving this world (we don't really know the fullness of the end-of-life experiences). That's ONE possibility. Another possibility for someone who hasn't heard of Jesus Christ - If all a person has to know God by is the creation he has given as testimony of himself, then perhaps that is enough, according to what has been presented to them. He has made it clear in scriptures that we are responsible when we reject salvation. Such a person has not rejected salvation. It seems that since God is just and good, he will give ALL people the opportunity to accept or reject him. We have not been given a clear word on this. We have simply been instructed to go and make disciples of all people from all places.
The God of the Bible is loving enough to LOVE ALL PEOPLE, even those who reject him, mock him, curse him, hurt him and hurt who/what he loves. He is loving enough to not only love but TO DIE FOR these very same people and even those who HATED HIM AND PUT HIM TO DEATH - "This is true love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins" (1 John 4:10). His love wasn't conditional, but unconditional to the highest degree.
He alone is God and he alone is worthy of all worship and praise. It is unfitting for a person or angelic being to be worshiped, but it is FITTING AND GOOD FOR GOD TO BE WORSHIPED. We cannot exalt ourselves to the position of judge and declare that God should not desire the worship that is due him as God; this is judging him by human standards which is nonsensical. It is God who gave us the example of humility when he gave up his rights as Lord of all and came as a lowly baby in a manger. So even God humbled himself when he came as man. Yet as God and the Creator and Ruler of all things, who gives us not only our life but every breath thereafter, who knows all things and understands all things and can do all things, and who gives us the wonderful promises of what is yet to come, GOD IS IN FACT DUE ALL PRAISE AND GLORY!
Which brings up another million dollar question. If we don't know all of the opportunities given to people and when they are given, then what's the use of continually trying to tell unbelievers they are going to hell for not believing or sinners they are hell bound when you don't even know for sure? Ultimately, it seems that God has the final word, yet believers are continually trying to tell others they know where they are headed. Whether people believe in God and Christ or not has no bearing on whether they are behaving Christ-like in their everyday lives. A lot of Christ's teachings (well most of them) are centered around loving your neighbor, loving God, treating others how you want to be treated, and doing good for others and society (helping others, feeding the hungry, giving to chariy, etc)
You joined 8 days ago. I'm assuming you're someone who is already posting on the board under another name? So now when someone like Cat is trying to simply defend her faith on a thread called Christian Discussion, she not only has to defend it to the same 5 or so, but now she gets duplicates under shadowy silhouettes.
Once again Cat, I applaud your patience. I know you only keep at it b/c you want to see the lost saved... He loves us all. I pray God blesses the efforts of you and other believers here.
Yes, I joined 8 days ago . What's your point? What does my joining a short time ago or the fact that I choose not to have a picture have to do with anything?. And I'm asking a simple question. I have not attacked her or anything. IT appears that you are trying to find offense where there is none intended. And I'm honestly not sure why you would assume I'm someone else posting under another name.
I haven't discounted Cat's having to defend herself from people questioning her directly. I have been following the conversations. The 5 I mentioned to her as far as questioning the behaviors of Christians in the past and their actions being detrimental to the faith are all believers. One of those 5 I mentioned is you. I seem to remember in one of these threads that you acknowledge that there were people who professed belief in the past who did horrible things. My question is how is her speaking against these Christians behaviors different from those Christians speaking against the behaviors of other Christians in history. I haven't made any accusations, attacks, or assumptions..
As this thread is a Christian discussion, I am and have been asking serious questions regarding the bible. Not for the purpose of attacking or mocking anyone. I asked her this question because I don't see a difference between her speaking out against the actions of other professed Christians and those Christians speaking out against the actions of Professed Christians in history
You completely lost me in the 2nd paragraph. I think you might have thought I was referring to something you've said? I don't know what you've said in the past or recently.
No, I just don't think the duplicate accounts are fair or necessary. Just my opinion though. Just that it seems to give us an uneven playing ground. Where we are all held accountable for what we say, those with more than one account can say whatever they wish. If they are banned, who cares? If they are jerks, who cares? No one knows who they are, right?
Anyway... Ive gotta go pick up my kids. Sorry to have been unclear.
And I'm not sure what your comment about duplicate accounts has to do with me as I do not have a duplicate account..
Apparently you have some idea of something I've said in the past 8 days otherwise you wouldn't have (or keep) thinking I'm someone else (or replied to my statement). Is this how new people get welcomed?
I'm new to this site (as you well know and have pointed out twice now... at least), so I am unclear as to a few things that you have said to me (which most have had to do with me not being here long and you thinking I'm someone else)
But this discussion between us is straying from the topic of Christian Discussion
Be careful driving
She's obsessed with gossiping about people here rather than the threads subject matter, pay no attention.
And I'm not sure how your questioning is related to the comment you replied to..
I'm not knocking Cat at all. I even applauded her sticking to her beliefs a couple of pages ago. I certainly hope that with Cat (and you also, I presume) wanting to see people saved that either of you wouldn't mind honest questioning from someone.
We are not lost and don't require saving, I'm sure you've heard that before many times.
But, I know evangelism is about selfishness, not love.
"Christ's teachings (well most of them) are centered around loving your neighbor, loving God, treating others how you want to be treated, and doing good for others and society (helping others, feeding the hungry, giving to chariy, etc." - Absolutely, Idealistic.
I agree. It seems the primary message should NOT be that people are in danger of or are heading for hell, but rather the primary message should be the good news of God's love, mercy, grace and the eternal life he offers us through Jesus Christ. Still, God has different purposes for his servants, so I can't say he never calls anyone to primarily be a voice of warning. And as believers we don't deny the truth of any of the scriptures. Jesus spoke of hell and hell is mentioned often within the Scriptures. But it is not the central message we come to tell others; our message is the good news that we can now be RECONCILED WITH GOD THROUGH JESUS CHRIST!
That is not true, you should probably read the Bible.
You have said a lot here. But ultimately and unfortunately, I have seen instances where Hell is the lead off conversion method. Conversion by fear. This method causes more harm than good because not only does it push people away from Christianity, but it also causes people to join and change more out of fear than faith and belief that they are doing good because it is good. Their faith become tainted by fear of hell instead of enhanced by the love they have for God and joy at the news of the sacrifice of Christ
And it's very applicable isn't it?
Someone telling others that see stuff that the others don't, when in reality nothing is there. The only ones being duped are the ones not able to think critically.
I just tried to explain that.
Cat and others tell us that they have a connection directly with God that we don't and can't see, but they just can't prove it. It's just like someone telling the Emperor that only certain people can see the clothes and so they want to look as if they can see the clothes so they go along with the story and pretend they see the clothes.
The Emperor's New Clothes is supposed to warn us about people trying to deceive us.
Now we're getting somewhere. I absolutely see your point about deception and people who make certain claims (again keeping it general) and I also know that its easy to dismiss it all as mental disorders, but things unknown to all aren't always outside the realm of possibilities or probability
So you think she may have a direct line to God and could in fact be a prophet?
Are you like the Emperor, not wanting to look critically and honestly at the clothes because you want to be like everyone else?
Not expressing an opinion of her beliefs one way or the other, but given what we currently know and what cannot be proven either way, to claim certainty (whether in agreement or non), either way is still making a claim without absolute proof.
Right. Who's to say if the Emperor is clothed or not? Perhaps we just can't see it, touch it or test for it?
But comparing the emperor's clothes (or lack thereof) to religion and all that other spiritual stuff is apples and oranges, though I do get the comparison you are making
It's not apple and oranges. It's about human nature and critical thinking. The state of mind of someone who has to decide to believe someone without any observable evidence even though what they say flies against what is known.
Do you believe her because she says so because you want it to be so, or do you stand up and say I think we should examine the clothes? The Emperor was duped.
It is apples and oranges because at tje end of the story, it was PROVEN to the emperor that he was naked and the emperor had to accept that he was duped.
To answer your question, I absolutely agree that it should be tested. I think (OPINION ALERT!!) that if you believe in something you should make sure it is true by testing it. This doesn't mean you have any doubt about your belief. On the flip side, I also think (OPINION ALERT) that even if you don't believe in it it should also be tested BUT until it can be proven definitely (which I know the cliche that a negative can't be proven) you should not offer an opinion of someone else's opinion on the subject. She believes, you don't. She has her reasons. You have yours. At the end of the day, until it is proven or disproven therr is no need to throw barbs at each other's opinion.
You know that The Emperor's New Clothes is an important story and lesson, but you have learned nothing from it. You are suggesting we simply take her word for it, she's made you some new clothes, you can't see any but you don't want to tell her that and you don't think anyone else should either.
How was it proven the Emperor had no clothes on? Couldn't see any so it wasn't there. She's making the claims, show us the clothes or stop making claims.
It cannot be Deepes, because he said he was leaving Hubpages. Plus, No True Christian would NOT publicly acknowledge their belief or ie confess Jesus: it is a non negotiable and deceptive. Mat 10:32, 2 John 1:7 etc etc.
I agree... I mean if you don't announce it how can the score of other Christians pass judgement on whether you are or not? It's just rude to take away that right from them.
One step a time, you show us Jesus and then we can go from there.
But, I already know you can't show us Jesus.
Sorry, that your prayers are not working and probably never will, but that was expected.
Are you dead yet? There's still time until youre dead.
Jane is still seeking. The bible says if you seek Him you will find Him.
Not that anyone is a lost cause. Paul was about as anti-God as they get and God rescued him... you're not dead yet.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying you can't actually get Jesus to reveal himself to anyone? I suppose that would self refute most of your beliefs in that regard.
But, we already know that doesn't work.
Again, what does that have to do with anything?
This is all a game to you. If you're not interested in God, I wont talk to you about Him.
Your will is your own.
Projecting again? Playing games would be like praying for a god to reveal himself to someone and then asking others if they're dead yet. That is a game.
I simply asked you to back up your claims about praying to Jesus to reveal himself to us, that would show I'm interested.
This is true, but I have no idea what that has to do with you praying to Jesus to reveal himself.
Why not just admit praying does nothing and you are now making excuses?
It's "seek and ye shall find". You play a part in that too. It doesn't just happen to you. What you will matters as well. That's the whole point.
You're probably right. If you're gullible enough to convince yourself that everyone who believes is gullible, or incapable of critical thought, or not as rational and smart as you are, though there are scientists and scholars who believe this stuff, then you end up reaching illogical conclusions. In fact, if you ever find yourself demoting entire subsections of people as being not as smart as you, then you might want to reconsider. You're probably wrong.
Where did I say anything about intelligence? Do you think smart people and be duped?
Believing something you're told without looking at or for any evidence is what I'm talking about. We have millions of people who think the universe is less than 10,000 year old despite the evidence to the contrary.
And your telling me that an invisible, undetectable, untestable God exists and that when we did we can see without eyes and feel pain without a nervous system. And I'm supposed to just believe you.
That's up to you. But if you think intelligence just formed all by itself, unintended and totally haphazardly, then that's on you. The mere fact that intelligence exists anywhere naturally, and we see 'natural' systems in place embedded into this natural world that share commonality with things only intelligently created otherwise, should tell you something. I would think anyway. But if that's not enough for you then that's you.
I think there are a lot of people unwilling to let go of what people in their lives that they trust told them. Parents, pastors, etc. I think it more has to do with an unwillingness to accept these people who informed them in the past could be wrong by taking the word of some stranger. I don't think that's gullible. Just trusting.
We are not even the only intelligent creatures on this planet. Evolution is a fact, no need to insert a Goddoneit.
Trusting someone you don't even know is gullible.
"We are not even the only intelligent creatures on this planet. Evolution is a fact, no need to insert a Goddoneit."
That fact goes even further in making this point. It's the fact that intelligence exists at all. Naturally. Which means it is a natural product of this universe. And being that it exists in more than one species means it evolved more than once. So, the most likely explanation, given what's observed, is that an intelligence also played a roll in the natural world being as it is.
"Trusting someone you don't even know is gullible."
Most times they're trusting someone they do know. Like the parents who raised them.
If we know intelligence evolved on it's own multiple times and why attribute that to God. If you understood evolution you'd understand that why intelligence evolves. No need to just to Goddoneit.
The same people that told you santa exists and then let you figure it out on your own, tells you God exists and lets you figure it out on your own. You go back to the source and read the words written thousands of years ago and trust them or not.
That is a fallacy based on a false premise and conclusion. Intelligence is merely a branch of evolution, like tails, wings, eyes, etc. If intelligence were God given, we would have been intelligent from the get go, but that was not the case at all. It took hundreds of millions of years to evolve.
The difficulty of most believers is the fact they can't wrap their heads around geological time. They believe in creationism as a result and believe things happen overnight, magically.
Based on what exactly?
No, but apparently you assume things should happen "magically" if a God were involved. There you go again rejecting an idea based on your own assumptions of what it should have been if true. Wrapping my head around geological time is irrelevant to intelligence, like eyes, evolving multiple times. Unless you're suggesting every intelligent species on the planet share a common evolutionary branch?
You are just not getting this evolution thing are you? Intelligence was simply another evolutionary trait that was tested. Much like speed or strength. Are you suggesting there must be a God because Cheetah's are fast?
What? No. What does that have to do with anything? Intelligence and speed aren't exactly comparable. Why is your default assumption, anytime someone reaches a different conclusion than you, that it must be the other person that's "just not getting" it? This is exactly what I'm talking about. Your assumption that you're the smarter, more informed one, who "gets it".
Sorry, I don't mean to sound like that, but you are not understanding. Speed is exactly like intelligence. They are both evolutionary traits. There are trade off's with intelligence just as there are with speed. A big brain requires a lot of energy, therefore humans have to eat constantly. If humans evolved where their was little food we most likely wound't have developed our level of intelligence.
Yeah, I get that. What I don't get is how this "evolutiondoneit' response renders everything about living organisms insignificant. For biological masses of matter to develop an intelligence capable of understanding the entirety of the universe, even to the limited degree that we do, to develop math that retro-applies and allows us to construct how things that have happened over the course of billions of years happened, is somehow rendered insignificant because changes happen over time. Therefore, nothing significant about that. And if you think there is, well then you just don't get it. Baffling. The very same people who are so opposed to just injecting 'goddunit' because it henders thinking are quick to dismiss anything and everything as 'evolutiondunit', which apparently has the exact same affect.
With the many examples of other animals with varying degrees of intelligence one would think that one could see how and why our intelligence happened. Evolution tries speed, size, strength, agility and intelligence to name a few.
The fact that we can read, add and think abstractly was a by product of our evolution. The use of tools and weapons require a large brain. All other animals that used tools have a large brain relative to their size. Throwing a spear accurately requires intelligence. If we go outside an toss a ball back and forth, we are doing large amounts of math instantly in our heads to know how high and hard to toss the ball to hit the target, not to mention coordinating all the muscles. Imagine a tribe that depends on those skills for survival.
This conversation is a perfect example of what drives me absolutely nuts in these discussions.
"Speed is exactly like intelligence."
So, the mindset that leads you to make a statement like that is the "more rational" one that I'm supposed to adopt? 'Evolutiondunit' is just as limiting as 'goddunit'. Just like you appear to have done here, you apply the apply-all answer and just stop thinking. A clump of biological matter thinking is in no way exactly like speed.
Like your conclusion, "I understand how it came about and understand we don't have to attribute it to any God". You do? Well, considering we barely understand the brain as it exists currently, that's quite a feat for you to already understand. Or, that just means your making some huge logical assumptions/leaps in formulating your explanation. Apparently there's no need to think about it or discuss it any further. Evolution is fact... so. Done?
And how you reach the conclusion that 'we don't have to attribute it to any God' is baffling. The raw materials involved have to exist, and have to have the capability to, as you said, "try" speed, size, strength, agility and intelligence to name a few, yet no need you can see to attribute anything to a God? Could I not say here, in response to your comment that "Evolution tries speed, size, strength, agility and intelligence to name a few" that you don't understand evolution? Since you seem to be speaking of it as if it's purposefully trying these things intelligently? Of course I won't because, based on our history of discussions, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you don't actually think that.
Yes, in evolution, the challenges we face in the environment we live in coaxes out of us things like intelligence. Like our battle for survival with neanderthal once our ancestors began to migrate out of Africa and into the European continent where neanderthals were already prominent and established, I suspect played a big role in the evolution of our intelligence. But how you can equate our ability to calculate the trajectory/angle/speed at which to throw a spear to being able to place a rover on Mars is beyond me.
If you can show me another animal that can throw anything with accuracy, I'll listen to you. Sit down and try to do the math. How hard do you have to throw a ball to hit a target 100 feet away if you are launching it a 45º? You can somehow do that instantly with your brain. Ever see the javelin toss at a sporting event? Humans have been surviving with those skill for hundreds of thousands of years.
So what would be the significance if I can show you another animal that can do that? I'm not sure I understand. What about animals, like squirrels, who can calculate how far to jump to land on a targeted branch? Is that not basically the same thing? A frog catching an insect mid-air, in flight? Don't you have to be able to 'calculate' approximately where that insect is going to be by the time you strike?
I agree with you that our brains were the difference maker. It's significant that out of all the animals in the world, that we humans became the lone dominant species, without the benefit of sharp teeth, or claws, or venom or stingers.
But how do you equate intelligence that evolved in order for us to survive the environment we live in to being capable of reconstructing how the universe came into being?
Notice it's only been the last few hundred that we have been able to do all these things. Before that we had to survive. We can now get paid to think about these things.
But no, jumping from one branch to another doesn't take our kind of brain power, but making tool and weapon and then using them does. Can you find another animal that can throw like a quarterback?
No, but the archer fish can spit a stream of water and hit a target, a bug, above the water, to knock it off into the water. And I disagree that jumping from one branch to antoher doesn't take the same kind of capabilities. You have to be able to judge distance, weight, how much power to put into a jump. Just like we basically guess at these things when throwing a projectile, I'm sure there's a lot of guessing involved in this as well. But it's very much the same thing.
Not the same thing at all. If it were they would be able make tools and weapons and use them. Humans can just from branch to branch, we just get hurt because we are weak for our weight.
The Magpie is not only one of the few animals that makes it own tools, but passed the mirror test and has the same brain to body ratio as humans.
Isn't that strange.
Some parrots have been know to some fairly complex math problems and they can talk and communicate with us using our language. Do they get to see, feel and think without bodies after they die?
I've been thinking, maybe it doesn't even matter, anyway. The result of a mind outside the body before/after death would be a case for immortality(in a way) which wouldn't be that great in the first place. I know I wouldn't want to be immortal, even if it would be pleasant. And I don't see how THAT would be possible. It would be boring, at the very least.
I don't see how it could be boring, but even if I did I'm not sure how dead forever is better than boring. Unless you mean just not knowing your not bored at least?
Personally, I think that whatever happens to humans after death, the same is true for all living creatures. Being that most animals lack free will, there would be no judgement or anything like that. But yes, I think it's the same for all living things.
So what about a frog that can catch a fly in mid air? You, with your human brain and ability to calculate, I'm sure find it difficult doing the same. So if survival for frogs is so dependent on being able to predict where a fly is going to be in order to catch it, why didn't the frog's brain develop more like ours?
Because a frog tongue is like another appendage. Ask him to throw a spear and make weapons?
The animals that make weapons and use them have brains more like ours.
The math of Throwing a ball.
http://www.illustrativemathematics.org/ … ations/437
Yes, our brains and physical bodies enable us to do things. But the life and will that animates these bodies, all living things have that in common. It's as if the body is a tool that this life force has to work with. A bigger more capable brain makes it more capable of pursuing its wants and needs. But the pursuit of these needs and wants, the will, had to be there throughout the process or nothing would have evolved. Something still unaccounted for compels all living things to live. That's why I think it isn't over at death. Whatever that life force is, its undetectable, yet animates tissue. Emotes feelings and wants and desires through this tissue.
You are talking about energy. Fuel. When a car runs out of gas it stops. When a person runs out of energy it stops.
You're talking about self-preservation, the naturally evolved instinct to exhibit behavior that ensures the survival of any living thing, right down to single celled organisms. Natural selection would remove any life form that couldn't respond to pain and fear, predators would easily catch their prey if the prey had no fear of them or couldn't respond to their bodies being damaged.
This was made clearly evident with the dodo, it died out having evolved with no natural predators until men and rats were introduced. They simply showed no fear of them and were easily captured.
As you can see from the example of the dodo, self-preservation and natural selection, there is no other requirement for any "undetectable forces" other than those of pain and fear.
Maybe people don't think intelligence is amazing is because it's so commonplace. We're used to it. People don't often just stop and think about how amazing things like intelligence really are. There is no sense of wonder and awe when a three year old can do a math problem that no other animal on the planet is capable of, ever, in the history of the world. It's all just too normal. We're in the center of it,and can't see it from another point of view.
Oh, I think it's amazing as well, but I understand how it came about and understand we don't have to attribute it to any God.
I can tell you do, but most people don't care. You have an interested mind.
I understand it technically (sort of), but it is still a wonder to me.
I don't necessarily attribute it to God (who made God, etc.?) but it has the feel of design to me. However, I am a science fiction reader, and I can picture many scenarios where the Universe could have ended up in many different ways. This may not be the only way it has to be. Maybe we just got lucky.
That's fine, but having a "feel of design" does not preclude the facts that there is no design.
Indeed. What some might call a feel of design, I consider a feel of spontaneous emergence. Both a joyful intuitions. So why fight about it?
Probably, something to do with teaching creationism in schools alongside evolution as a science.
On the flip side, the Creationist Museum is very entertaining and should be there for all to see.
Unfortunately, that's still the case even today. They ALMOST got it in the books. I was actually shocked that this is still a problem today.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/evolution/ … trial.html
Creationism masked as ID. Scary.
I think you're exactly right. Anything we biological machines are capable of is somehow demoted to insignificant because our being capable is fact and because evolution is fact. We're still a bundle of biological elements, somehow cognitive and aware, thinking, choosing our behaviors and actions, that's still amazing. I don't care how it happened.
Like yesterday, when Rad was saying that the belief that we retain ourselves once this body dies, that we're still able to see and feel, is non-sensical to him. I pointed out that it's 'non-sensical' that we exist as we do at all. That we, as a bundle of biological material, have a sense of self, and pride, and prejudice, our own will and inclinations, is non-sensical. Doesn't make it not true. But of course since we know we do, it isn't non-sensical. It's, like intelligence, "normal", whatever normal is. If it wasn't, and if some sci-fi writer wrote about something like that, we might read it and think to ourselves, wow, that's a load of non-sense. But because it is reality, it isn't. If it's true it isn't non-sense. Well, if it's true that we retain some form of ourselves beyond death, it isn't non-sense if it's true. If what qualifies something as 'non-sensical' or not is whether or not it makes sense to us, then there's a lot that is still 'non-sense'. The fact is we understand next to nothing about life/death. Still. So who's to say what is "non-sensical" and what isn't about what happens beyond death?
Tell me Headly, at what point do you think us humans devolved the ability to see without eyes, hear without ears and have thoughts without brains after we die? Has it been like this since the first anatomically correct human (200,000 ya)? Does it happen because we are intelligent? What about chimps? There are chimps that are smarter than humans, can the chimps do it, but not the less intelligent humans? Do you think it started with Adam and Eve? Are only there descendants able to do this? How do you think it's done exactly? Because it appears when we are knocked out we see and feel nothing.
Well, death has been happening the entire time, and is clearly an integral part of the process. Everything else in the natural world goes through cycles and progressions. Why should death, or what comes after, be any different? The only difference is, there's nothing for us to observe. All we know is the activity that animated the body before is not happening once the body dies. So what is life? Where'd it go? Whatever it is, once a body is unable to maintain it, it goes away.
I think the same happens for all living organisms. I don't think humans are the exception in this regard. The same 'life' that animates us animates all living things. Whatever becomes of it, the same applies across the board, in my mind.
Again, we return to evolution, in which the pain and fear responses that any living organism must exhibit, does so every moment of every day of it's life in order to maintain survival. This IS the life force you are referring. There is nothing spiritual, holy, sinful, divine, evil, good, or magical about it.
Come on ATM, you're a mammal, you experience these sensations, relate your own experience. How does fear and pain work in your experience? They're usually deterrents, right? But what are they deterring? You. You're actions and decisions. That is the life force. the part of 'you' that's 'you'. How can pain and fear be the lifeforce when the way they work they influence the decision making of the will? In your experience, does everything that you will and that drives you derive from fear or pain? Clearly not. It doesn't make any sense that two sensations that work by influencing the decisions of a willful creature could in themselves BE the will, or the life force, that compels it. Something must first be compelled to act for there to be anything for fear or pain to influence.
You really do throw Godoneit into everything. We have a simple model that works and for some reason you throw something else in and say it works as well. You are making something at works much more complicated.
Fear is a natural human feeling. Not all animals have fear because they don't need it when they are at the top of the food chain. Polar Bears for example are afraid of nothing making them the most dangerous animal in the zoo and in the wild.
We fear because we are pray and the fear kept us alive and still does.
What are you talking about? Where am I injecting Goddoneit? I know fear is natural. I'm not arguing that. I'm saying that what we are as individuals is more than just an evolved state of fear/pain. ATM was trying to say that the totality of the will, or life force, that compels us is nothing more than self-preservation. Clearly there's a rather important component missing from his model. I'm just pointing that out. If you don't already have the ability to willfully pursue something, then fear or pain isn't going to accomplish anything. You have to already have a willful drive that compels you before fear or pain can persuade your actions.
I really am getting sick and tired of believers telling us what we said when we never said it. I NEVER said "the totality of the will, or life force, that compels us is nothing more than self-preservation", so if you can't be honest about anything, then don't bother responding.
Clearly, you are being dishonest.
We are attempting to show you that our evolution explains all of your questions. You are attempting to assert God where no God is required. Evolution explains why we are smart, it explains why we have fear, love, pain and ambition all without any God. That's why we keep telling you that you must not understand evolution if you think you need to insert God or life-force or some such thing that is not clearly defined.
And I'm attempting to show you how the 'evolutiondoneit' mindset can lead you to all kinds of baseless assumptions not grounded in anything factual. Like this whole concept about how self-preservation characteristics like pain and fear can somehow explain the life-force that compels all living things to survive and procreate. Yes, these can certainly make an organism more successful in surviving, but it makes no sense that these somehow evolved into what we recognize today as the will of living organisms.
If your assumption is always that you're more informed, more educated, and that we don't agree because we just don't 'get it', then you're not listening and conversing. I'm trying to point out something really simple here. Yet, instead of giving what I'm saying any actual consideration, you just assume this must be yet another thing that I don't get because I don't understand evolution. What's not to get?
Here's your opportunity, can you clearly define life-force so that when someone supplies an explanation you don't change the goal posts?
The problem is life-force and God are not clearly defined things that we can discuss. The model works without them and yet some attempt to assert them into the explanation.
Explain specifically what you need by life-force as I don't think it's a term biologist use, but I could be wrong.
Correction, the model doesn't work without them. This is a key ingredient missing from the current model. How can evolution work at all if each being along the way isn't compelled to survive and procreate? Something must compel these organisms and push them through the teeth of evolution for evolution to work. If every living thing just laid there, inanimate, then nothing would have evolved.
I'm talking about the life that animates the pile of meat that you are. What is the mechanism that animates your body? That compels it to seek out food and to procreate? When a doctor tries to determine whether or not someone is alive, can they measure "life" itself? No. They have to look to bodily behaviors that signify life. Like a pulse. When your body dies, and these behaviors stop, there is no structural difference between your body when it was alive and when its dead. Yet there's clearly a significant difference.
So life-force is being alive? Specifically. And you don't think evolutionary biology explains that?
Is that right?
It's not explained. Try looking up definitions of life and you'll find that both life and death still, to this day, lack fundamental definition ...
Life - The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. - http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/life
Generally, we'd look for mechanistic reasoning for this kind of phenomena. In this case a phenomenon that "originates from within the organism", we have no mechanistic explanation for. We still have no mechanistic reasoning to account for the behaviors of living organisms. We just understand the structural and physical needs of a body to maintain it. We cling to it desperately, because we know once its gone, decomposition begins. There's no getting it back.
Much like other unseen forces, or laws, that are defined by the consistency of behaviors, you have the same where life is concerned. Every living organism, no matter how complex or simple, exhibits ...
homeostasis, organization, growth, metabolism, adaptation, response to stimuli, reproduction.
A consistent set of behaviors shared by all living things. But when something is dead, or in other words when life is no longer present, these behaviors cease. Generally, anywhere else, this level of consistency across non-related components would be viewed as consistent because of an unseen law that governs this phenomenon. But that is not the case where life is concerned.
Prions and viruses are in between living and non living that nobody knows where to put those. Prion is just a protein that can replicate if it comes in contact with other protein and it does not go out to replicate as you say. But the things that go out to replicate can produce more copies and hence they survive more and reproduce - purely mechanistic.
So, to be clear, you are stating that life can't be explained by biology or evolutionary biology therefore God has done it?
Much like Newton didn't think he could work out the math that would explain our solar system so he claimed it's beyond us, God has done it.
Am I getting this right yet?
I'm not saying it can't be explained. If you recall, I am not opposed to evolution or natural explanations. I just don't think it's all an accident. I think natural cause is "how" God accomplishes what He wants. What I'm saying is that explanations through evolutionary biology are gigantic assumptions. Keep in mind that the whole idea of evolutionary biology is based on replication and success. So for any complex, organized system to exist means replication and animation had to already be there. Without the animation success is solely dependent on the environment they're in, if they're not animated and capable of locomotion to actively 'seek out' nourishment. Living organisms, even single-celled organisms, are called that because they're organized systems. Homeostasis means an organism is capable of making adjustments, or self-correcting, to maintain a constant internal temperature/environment.
Take a look at this video to get an idea of the complexity of what's going on in each one of your cells ... http://www.ted.com/talks/david_bolinsky_animates_a_cell
Because it's complex, God must have did it?
Just trying to understand.
No, it's the total lack of causal explanation. The total lack of mechanistic reasoning behind it. What's the engine? What's the cause?
Don't you find it just a little bit odd that we can see and understand the mechanistic nature of how the body works, but not of life itself? Think about it this way. All living things are connected. We're like a giant organism that's all interconnected. Whatever the origin of life is, we all spring up from that. Only living things can create further living things. Which means we each represent the latest links in an unbroken chain that reaches all the way back to the beginning. The well of life, so to speak. Life can't just be imbued on a system. It must first be passed on to it from another before that system can form. And as long as that system is physically capable of maintaining life, it continues to live. So much so that complex organisms evolved based on how successful they are at maintaining it. Once it's gone it's gone.
Here we are, having this perpetual conversation, where one group says it's all explained. Yet here's this central component that isn't. It's a pretty major piece of the puzzle that to this day lacks definition. If we hope to reach any kind of conclusions about what happens beyond this life, then it's kind of important to be able to say with certainty what "life" even is. We still can't.
Right, you can't explain or understand it so God must have done it. You do that every time and then when I show you you say you don't do that.
But here you are again.
Just because you can't understand it doesn't mean others don't. The ones that don't want to survive don't, the ones that are lumps don't pass on that lump gene. What we are left with is the ones that can and do.
Who keeps talking about God here, me or you?
And though I know I've laced my comments with evolutionary explanations regarding what is successful passing on and what isn't not, you still come back with this "because you don't/can't understand' nonsense. This lack of understanding of life isn't just me. It's across the board.
Yes, the evolutionary explanation assumes that everything that's there that works, must be there because it made those that had it more successful than others. So it passed on. When we talked about this before your explanation was that the 'will' to live must have just been one of the first randomly mutated characteristics that was established.
I get it. But can you not see how 'evolutionexplainsit' could be just as limiting as 'goddoneit'? Like here, you're inecting an explanation that makes logical sense, but that has no confirmation of any kind. Yet you seem to think it should stop the inquiries.
You. I'm showing that you keep saying God did it. Or are you going to tell me that's not the case?
I'm trying to tell you that 'evolutionexplainsit' has the exact same effect. Your assumptions here about life, in your mind, should end the discussion. As if the case is closed. Yet you, nor anyone else on the planet, KNOWS that to be the case. Life is a major component, one of existence's largest remaining mysteries, yet you and others seem to be really quick to stamp "case closed" across it as if it too can be explained away as a randomly mutated characteristic that's just proven to be successful. You might as well be saying 'Goddoneit' because the result is the same. It's apparently not worth discussing any further because you have a totally unproven, unsubstantiated explanation.
Show me where I said I don't understand something so evolution must have done it?
No, you keep saying I don't or can't understand. It's your go-to response to me, apparently. In your mind my default stance is that this must be some sort of proof of God because my lack of understanding equates in my mind to there only being a divine explanation.
All I'm trying to do is draw a parallel between what you're accusing me of and what you're doing. Your retro-actively applying the concepts of evolution to explain characteristics I'm pointing out as if it's all already figured out. Your stamping 'evolution explains it' across things when you can't possibly know that and have no proof.
See, You say you are not opposed to evolution, but just don't understand the life-force (life) and you insert God into what you don't understand. Evolutionary biology explains just that without God as does cosmology. The way these things have been described to me they make perfect sense without God. The notion of God complicates matters more because one would then have to explain God.
"The way these things have been described to me they make perfect sense without God."
No they don't. Unless it's been explained in its entirety, which it hasn't, then you can't say whether or not a God was involved or not.
"The notion of God complicates matters more because one would then have to explain God."
You seem to be glossing over the fact that the scientific explanation still lacks explanation for the beginning of the universe. That's kind of the same thing, wouldn't you say? You've got all the components and you've got ready-made laws that create just the right environment for all the rest of it to happen, yet no explanation for those primary building blocks necessary to all the rest of it. Yet, to you, it all makes perfect sense without God. The universe expanding from nothing, already having the fundamental laws to shape it built into that singularity, as well as the matter/energy with the right behavioral characteristics to result in all we observe within the environment those fundamental laws create, all already included, yet not accounted for. It's not like your side-stepping that particular complication. It's still there. Only under a different name.
To further my point, take this for example ....
What you're claiming to 'understand' isn't actually factual at all. It's an explanation that I do understand. I get the logic. But what you and ATM often misunderstand about me is that I do 'understand' these things. I understand the facts they're based on, and just how lacking the facts are. Just how much an explanation like this, while I agree it makes logical sense, is still just conjecture and assumption.
Yet everytime I try to point this out I get accused of 'not understanding'. When, in actuality, I do understand. I understand just how few facts this tapestry of assumption is stretched across. Just because an explanation has sound logic behind it doesn't make it true. And just because someone tries to point this out doesn't mean they're unable to understand.
Alright, Rad, you've got me up on my soapbox now, so brace yourself.
I was sent the above image earlier, which just kind of pissed me off. And what you're saying has the exact same effect....
Do you see what your conjecture and that image have in common? They take control away from us as willful individuals, and attempt to reduce things like laziness and the 'will to live' down to being randomly mutated characteristics that go in the genetics category. And what's worse, is when you invoke genetics/DNA/evolution, it's as if the authority that science carries backs your statement.
Genetics my ass. There is nature (genetics) and then there is nurture (learned behavior). What your assumption does here is it reduces things like the will to live and laziness down to being genetic programming beyond our willful control. Do you really believe that? Or do you believe someone can put their mind to changing behavior?
I have a 52 year old brother in law that still lives at home with his Dad. Hasn't worked in at least 25 years, have never paid rent, and won't buy food. He has unchecked OCD that is causing him all kind of problems. Could his parents have done something different? Sure? Would it have helped? Maybe. I know I have to watch what I say here because there are all kinds of reasons people have for not having children, most through no fault of their own. But in this case no girl wants him. He's both book smart and nice looking, but he has no ambition besides watching a game.
As for that picture, some guys like that kinda thing. They may find a guy for either a long term relationship or a one night thingy.
That's a big pizza. I buy a party size with three teenage boys in the house, but it's nothing like that.
I know people like that. I have a good friend that's much the same way. Without ever having met your brother I feel confident enough to say I believe he's totally capable of changing if he really wanted to.
Can you understand, then, what gets under my skin about this? As I've said before, if I were just to swallow how you look at the world, it removes the "human" part of humanity. It means we're nothing more than biological robots who are 'slaves' to our genetic programming. When, in actuality, we've all I'm sure had experiences where we gathered up our 'will' and barreled through a situation that otherwise seemed determined to go another way.
If it's as you say it is, then that 'life force' I'm talking about, is nothing more than the output of the chemistry of our brains. Which means, everything that's ever happened in human history, every decision ever made, whether it be our greatest accomplishments or whether it be the most hideous things that people have done, it takes responsibility away from the individual. People like Hitler were then just the product of their environment and their brain chemistry. There's no 'will' there to overcome genetic programming and 'willfully' choose another path.
When you're quick to reduce all that we are to genetically passed on characteristics that are nothing more than products of random mutation, then it removes being "human" from humanity. Yet this interjection has no facts to back it up. We can't go back and look and confirm that that's the case. It's the same as an alcoholic calling his/her alcoholism a disease. It removes the responsibility from the willful individual and frames it in something beyond their control. Like they can't help it. I find it a dangerous way to think.