Is your intuition right about God?

Jump to Last Post 1-45 of 45 discussions (2013 posts)
  1. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 11 years ago

    I read something a while back about how intuition evolved to get us out of dangerous situation and that if you are using it for anything else you are more likely wrong. I then noticed people in these forums say that they just KNOW God is real and that no amount of reason will prove anything different. One person freely admits that intuition is the obvious way for find the truth. I wondered if anyone has ever studied wether intuition get the right answers or wether people who rely more on intuition belief more strong in God. One google search found this interesting link from Harvard University.

    What are your thoughts?

    http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~jgreene/Gre … JEPG11.pdf

    1. profile image0
      HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      To me - intuition is akin to "instinct."  Like the deer that senses a predator or that feeling that your mom is going to call and then the phone rings. It's just one more sense - a type of sixth sense - that science has yet to pin down.

      Energy is a fascinating topic and one we don't quite understand yet. You need not be standing by a person to hone in on their energy. It's only "strange" because we don't know how it works.

      To many - it probably seems strange that a virus can mutate in two different places of the world - at the same instant. And yet - it happens.

      Is is proof of a deity?

      I don't think so.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Intuition and instinct are similar but intuition is basing your choices on things learned from your environment and instinct is more primal (flight or fight). As the link illustrates some use intuition to do math and get the wrong answer as a result. When we use instinct rather than reason to decide if God exists we seem to come to the decision that God exists. My point is that if reason gives you the right answer to question than why use intuition to decide if God exists?

        1. profile image0
          HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I agree with that. I shouldn't have used the word 'instinct."

          Granted, intuition draws on what we've stored in our brains.  Using intuition to verify the existence of a Creator borders (to me) on superstitionism.

    2. JMcFarland profile image71
      JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Not to mention the problem of when instincts contradict.  We see this in competing religions, and we also see it within the SAME religion.  All think that they're right, and their confirmation bias confirms that they are, but other competing instincts and religions contradict them.  It all comes down to the position of "i'm right, because I feel I'm right, and if you disagree with me, you're obviously wrong.  Why?  Cause I feel that way and I said so".

      That can't be used as proof, and it's the furthest thing from objective you can get.  It stops conversation in its tracks.  As an atheist, I can say that it's my "instinct" that god doesn't exist.  A believer will say their instinct says he does.  Where do you go from there?

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Well, when it is shown that instinct produces the wrong result, we use reason when produces the correct results. That's what was done in the studies.

        1. JMcFarland profile image71
          JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'm just saying that relying on intuition and instinct means that you can justify anything, and dig yourself in and insist that your intuition is correct, and competing intuitions are automatically wrong, when they disagree with the one you've already decided on.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And I agree completely. It's rather unfortunate for them that the studies on intuition show otherwise.

      2. profile image0
        christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        couldnt say it better. from there, nothing.

    3. Thomas Swan profile image74
      Thomas Swanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Very interesting, though I wish they'd differentiated between intrinsic and extrinsic religiosity. The `belief in god' and `religious experience' questions could be applied to both, though perhaps the intrinsically religious would score higher. It seems important for this research though because intuitive beliefs may be more prevalent for the intrinsically religious.

      Other lines of research have shown we also have a `hyper-active agency detector' which causes us to attribute agency to unknown phenomena in our environment because it is adaptive to do so. For example, hearing a bush rustle in the wind will produce the intuitive thought that there is some `agent' (person or animal) in the bush. It was adaptive to do this in the ancestral environment because people who did it survived! This may therefore contribute to our ability to form beliefs about gods, spirits and ghosts. I talk about this in my hub "Does God Exist? Ask A Cognitive Scientist".

      A section from my hub "What is the relationship between religion and morality?" provides further evidence of intuitive beliefs:

      "We have evolved a superstitious trigger for moral behavior, which works for atheists and theists alike. An experiment by Shariff and Norenzayan showed that when people were unconsciously primed about concepts related to gods, spirits, and prophets during a task to unscramble sentences containing those words, they were more likely to be generous in an economic game. Another experiment by Jesse Bering showed that participants were less likely to cheat when they were told a ghost was in the room with them."

      Thus, we seem to have an intuitive attraction to religion because it confers pro-social benefits and is parasitic upon our threat-detection systems. Taken together, the finding that religion is often intuitive is therefore not surprising, though it was important to confirm it more explicitly.

    4. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Kind of an interesting question really. I know for me, intuition isn't something I often rely on. There are a couple of reasons for it.  Mine isn't always right. I've had terrible intuition about people the first time I've met them only to become very attached to them later on and to learn that my initial perception of them was entirely wrong. I've also experienced just the opposite: great feeling about someone in the beginning only to discover that they weren't such fantastic folks after all. To say that I never trust my intuition wouldn't be entirely true either, though.  As far as spiritual matters are concerned, I tend to, yes, go with my gut. Let me explain why...

      I am, by nature, one of those folks who loves to know that I'm doing the right thing. That I'm following truth and that I'm accepting things for what they really are. First, I don't like looking like a fool. Second, it just seems that one would want to align themselves as closely as possible to what we know to be true and real and factual. That said, I've put my faith - my God, however  you want to put it - up against reality so many times expecting to see it all come crashing down around me because it just isn't real or rational or logical or whatever. I can't make it go away. I can't comfortably make myself believe that what I have faith in as far as spiritual matters isn't real.

      So, for me, although intuition isn't something I generally put a lot of stock into, for my spiritual life, I trust it. I wouldn't go so far as to call it my sixth sense, or use it to confirm I have a third eye, or anything such as that, but I'd sure say that it tells me there is a God, that God did make me, and that God does love me.  It also tells me that no matter how I may feel about other people or their attitudes or their weird ideas, I'm supposed to love them. If I didn't follow my intuition as far as that goes and set out to be entirely reasonable and rational with folks, I wouldn't always be kind. So, for me, my intuition is right about God.  It doesn't mean it's a provable fact that he exists and that I'm going to be able to suddenly pull concrete evidence out of a hat, but because it is as persistent as it has been for me for so long, I just can't deny it to myself.

      smile

      1. Prodio profile image61
        Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        What evidences do you have to back up your claims?         hahahaha




        smile

        1. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Yeah.  None.  Sorta what intuition is.
          wink

          1. Prodio profile image61
            Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            This intuition thing is all bunkum!     hahaha!

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              For most, yes.  But ED and I have an understanding.  He lets me believe in my bunkum if I don't try to shove it down his throat or make him believe it. smile And my intuition has never told me I'm required to do that for God to love me so we're good.

              1. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Too much reliance on subjective feelings? Childhood indoctrination?  wink




                This is quite funny, lol! Do I sound like an atheist?  hahaha!

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Subjective feelings and childhood indoctrination usually produce these kinds of claims:

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Good job! My colleges will take that for what it is!   hahaha

                2. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Are YOU asking me?  Or just anticipating what someone else would say?  There isn't a need for that.  He and I have had many a decent, respectful, and polite comversation about these things.

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Well, I was actually asking you these questions just to demonstrate (the true nature of) how atheists on hubpages normally take these subjects. And he is not the only one of them.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "I know for me, intuition isn't something I often rely on.
        Mine isn't always right.
        I've had terrible intuition about people…"


        "So, for me, although intuition isn't something I generally put a lot of stock into, for my spiritual life, I trust it.
        So, for me, my intuition is right about God."


        smile

        1. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Hey, you asked! tongue

          I've never said it made sense...just that it made sense to me.  I'm a woman of contradictions; what can I say? My husband tells me that all the time.

    5. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Hi Rad!!! wink
      The whole intuition thing helps at first to drum up enough faith to say yes to God. However, experience with him is required to continue in faith. And the experience is spiritually tangible, but that's it.
      Now one may read a lot of books and determine that the stuff that makes up the human mind is tangible but that is a lie. We cannot see what makes those microscopic molecules move around in our brains though the molecules themselves can often be microscopically realized.
      When you die, you are a clump of decomposition. But something is missing. The microscopic stuff is STILL there. But there is no animation.  The UNSEEN element is gone.
      I remember sitting on my son's bed yelling my aunt's name as she slipped away. I saw nothing leave her body. That part of her was gone.
      Truth is, we cannot see that animator within us. That's where God is.
      I believe in God. Not without proof though. He showed me proof of him in a dream I once had. It was amazing. And I had that exact same dream from start to finish for three nights in a row. Now I cannot replay it for you. But it is etched. I'm convinced. I do not need you to be convinced. Just telling what I know.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
        EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Dreams are just our brains firing randomly while we sleep, they aren't real.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Right. I can see how you mean that. But the randomness of dreams implies that the same exact dream from start to finish for three nights in a row is something much more.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
            EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Recurring dreams are common, but they still aren't real, they're just dreams.

            1. Prodio profile image61
              Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              "Recurring dreams are common, but they still aren't real"










              What do you mean by real?

              1. JMcFarland profile image71
                JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                ED - fair warning.  I think that he thinks he's a wanna be presuppositionalist.  Have fun with that one.

                1. Prodio profile image61
                  Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Good job!







                  "People think they can come in here, be rude to people, speak for a group of people of which they are not a part and carry on a full conversation with themselves.  Have fun with it."

                  http://hubpages.com/forum/post/2593028

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                First of all, you are not here to discuss anything, you've made that crystal clear. Hence, it is pointless to answer your questions for that reason.

                Secondly, there is this amazing thing called a "Dictionary" and another amazing thing called an "Encyclopedia" for which you're free to use at any time that you're unclear on the definitions of words and concepts.

                And last of all, we are not here to teach you anything. It is up to you to educate yourself if you wish to join the discussions.

                1. Prodio profile image61
                  Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  So - in other words - you can't answer that question?

      2. Prodio profile image61
        Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for sharing this.  :-)

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Thank YOU!  smile Truth is important. They will all KNOW one day with knees in the dirt. But we must extend the invitation and share what CHRIST SAID. Not what Genaea or Mo or Prodio said. We follow ONE path. Because only one path is laid to the father. Jesus knows the way. I know that.
          I did not get my evidence by searching for God in books written by those who search as well. My books were inspired by God to ensure that I am on target. I cannot follow Christ if I do not fully take in what is written there. He came to set the captive free. Slavery is not possible when we accept his gift no matter WHO we get our paychecks from. He has chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the "wise".
          The battle is almost over.

          1. Prodio profile image61
            Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Beautifully said, sister. May God bless you, and always keep you amid health, prosperity and affection.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Geez... nice... Thanks! smile
              I think I heard someone say u were hard to talk to. That aint so strange though. The spirit of the Lord lives within. And it agrees with you. CHECK CHECK CHECK. We must try the spirit by the spirit. It's amazing how that plays out.

              1. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                That's very true. You are quite insightful.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Oh stop! Lol... The Lord IS my shepherd.

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Will keep that in my conscious. wink

      3. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        So we use intuition to come to a decision that we base your life on, knowing that when doing so intuition is generally wrong. We become emotionally involved with that decision so we don't use reason to access the decision.

        Gotcha.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Funny... smile you color so well.  Always just inside the lines. smile but no such thing as pink grass. smile

    6. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      In another forum Rad Man and I were having a discussion which led to a question of intuition, when he began this forum. I'm not sure if I'm the person who allegedly says intuition is the way to find God, but if so, it's an inaccurate statement.

      Rad Man wrote in that forum at the time he started this forum: "It's been proven that intuition is wrong when not used as it was evolved to use. Reason comes to the correct answer. You are claiming intuition is correct and reason is wrong? Can you supply evidence that reason and logic produces wrong answers?"

      My response:

      I didn't suggest we use intuition instead of reason, though I understand that to the natural mind these are the limited options. How can you even say "reason comes to the correct answer" - You really think humans are so all-knowing, they if they just use their "reason" they'll come to all the correct answers?

      Reason and logic produce wrong answers all the time, but are only recognized as wrong AFTER new discoveries. So for example, our reason and logic would tell us that drinking the bottled water is healthy because water is known to be healthy. But then we discover that the bottled water was sitting in excessive heat and so is dangerous because of the cancer-causing parts that leaked into the water when exposed to heat.

      I haven't seen those strictly adhering to the human-designed rules regarding logical fallacies getting any closer to the truth or demonstrating their cases more convincingly, whether believers or unbelievers. In fact, it looks like the logical fallacies are a distraction and an excuse for avoiding genuine openness to the truth.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        You clearly didn't read the link. Intuition is telling that logical fallacies are a distraction. I understand you want to protect your beliefs, but to what extent will you go. Read the link before you continue to tell me intuition produces the correct answers and logical fallacies are a distraction.

      2. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I agree. "That's just a ____ fallacy!" Is filler. It comes when the point made has no obvious rebuttal at hand. We are all fallacious (atheist incl.) in the face of the many argument rules the "Lord fallacy" thunk up in his worldly mind. He has many devoted "followers" here...

        1. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You always put things so well, Cgenaea!!

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Uh. I got help. wink ssshhhhh! Don't tell the others. They will never believe you. Distorted sight/distorted sound.

    7. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So, is it not your intuition that you rely on when you read the bible and 'feel' something is particularly immoral? Isn't it these intuitive 'feelings' that you then use to build your conclusion regarding the motivations of the writers based on how it reads to you? Things that seem so plainly and intuitively clear to you, leaving you baffled that others don't see it the same way?

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        No, I use reason to come to those conclusions. Does it make sense? Does it add up? My intuition tells me if a bear is sneaking up on me or if someone is about to attack me.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It's also your intuition that makes you think something is "true" without having anything to actually base that conclusion on. Like when something is deemed particularly "good" or "bad". You can then apply reason to justify your initial intuitive feeling, but when there isn't a clear definition, like in cases of morality, most times its intuition that "makes the call".

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I don't base morality on intuition. If I did, I'd be wrong most of the time. We can use reason to determine if it's right to kill someone because they didn't give you their lunch money. Reason tells us if thinks make sense or not. Do you think it's a coincidence that people who use reason to determine the right answer to test question are also more religious?

            Reason tells me that an all knowing/powerful/loving God wouldn't say are women unclean after giving birth and would force them to kill goats to cleans themselves of sin and he wouldn't say that giving birth to girls is more unclean or sinful.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              You're attempting to apply reason to things that have a whole spiritual aspect to them. In Jewish tradition there is a close tie between the state of the body and the state of the spirit.

              I realize a lot of the more spiritual aspects don't make logical sense to you, but that's because you discount it all as 'not real' or 'not relevant'. Think about it this way. What if God created a place where people with free will can live out their lives and only do so much damage? The bible makes it clear there are two realms at play, this one and what comes after. The only way to pass from this realm through to the other is through death. You must be spiritually read to make the transition. This is the same transition made by an animal who is sacrificed. There is reason and purpose to it all, but it's not going to make sense if you discount the whole spiritual aspect of the story.

              No, I don't think think it's coincidence. I agree that most religious types are happy to accept what was taught to them and generally don't turn a critical eye towards those things. But I don't think that kind of information leads one to any ultimate truths about anything.

    8. Prodio profile image61
      Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      What have been your intuitions regarding this thread?

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Based on past experience the information provided will be dismissed as invalid and unimportant because it conflicts with a belief.

        1. profile image0
          HowardBThinameposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Intuition is learned - and biological. While an adult might "sense" danger in a certain situation, a toddler doesn't, which is why they run into the street without a backwards glance.  Only after we learn and internalize those lessons do we start to draw in them intellectually - giving us "gut feelings."  Your study was good and there are many, many more that show intuition isn't some supernatural power - it's a biological construct of our physical bodies.

          Male testosterone reduces intuitive ability studies show.
          http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/ … 042314.php

          That would explain why women - and less-masculine males feel they are intuitive.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Oh dear, if people who use intuition more often are more apt believe in Gods and men who are less masculine are more apt to use intuition does that mean men who believe in Gods are less masculine? That may upset some people. I don't really think that's the case, but it would be interesting to study.

            I'd like to add that there certainly is a place for intuition. I've used it several time to stay out of trouble.

          2. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Interesting and I agree that testosterone cuts down on intuition. The previous definition of intuition was tied to the fight-or-flight response which testosterone provides in abundance. Therefore testosterone and intuition are not really related.
            To me, intuition is a knowing without knowing and is very often correct.

          3. Cat333 profile image60
            Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            A couple of points here (hopefully not too critical). Most of us don't imply that intuition is a "supernatural power". Our intuition helps us in many ways (beyond simply sensing danger), but most recognize the limits of intuition. While human "reasoning" may be an obstacle to belief in God (and paying attention to intuition may push toward acknowledgement of God), neither reasoning nor intuition will result in a saving knowledge of the Lord. That is the work of the Holy Spirit himself.

            If testosterone "reduces intuitive ability", then that would be why females and "less masculine" males HAVE MORE INTUITIVE ABILITY, not merely "feel they are intuitive", as you stated (showing disrespect for the strengths of particular people).

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Am I reading that right? Are you suggesting that what we think about Gods wether using intuition or reason has no bearing on wether we believe in God because that decision is left up to something undetectable?

              I am honestly trying to understand.

              1. Cat333 profile image60
                Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Neither the one relying on their own reasoning, nor the one relying on their own intuition (or one who uses a combination), can on their own come to a saving knowledge of the Lord of the universe. This is the work of the Holy Spirit. We seek, we ask, we knock... HE responds. Only when we seek AND he responds do we come to a saving knowledge of the truth.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I see, thanks, you are say that thinking style is irrelevant while the report on the studies show otherwise. Can you please give reason for this that isn't simply an intuitive response?

                  1. Cat333 profile image60
                    Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I'm not saying thinking style is irrelevant when it comes to a general belief in God (so no, I'm not arguing against this finding of the studies). I'm saying thinking style is not the way to come to a SAVING knowledge of the Lord - the Holy Spirit himself is the only way to come to this.

                    The assumption here is the direction of "us to God"; I'm saying the true direction is "God to us".

                    An intuitive style, which facilitates a general belief in God, may open us more to the Holy Spirit. In this way it plays its part, but the greater and always needed part is revelation by the Spirit.

                    Reasoning may hamper a general belief in God. The inflexible use of reasoning may limit someone - they may not allow themselves to be open and receptive to the Holy Spirit.

                2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  This would be scientifically accurate. Humans are not 100% conscious as God / Holy spirit is.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Your pulling our legs right?

                  2. Cat333 profile image60
                    Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Thank you for affirming, Kathryn L Hill!

      2. Silverspeeder profile image62
        Silverspeederposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        That religion, its supporters and its detractors are the biggest cause of discussions on the Hubpages forums..............................

    9. Tyrone Smalls profile image76
      Tyrone Smallsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I know God is real and He talks to all of us on the daily. Some of us ignore Him some of us listen. We also have our own thoughts which can over ride His still small voice, but if you get in a quiet enough place, turn off all the distractions, you will know the difference between your thoughts and His voice. He will answer any question and He might even make you laugh. Talk to Him just like you talk to us. "ylynd'

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Voices inside your head that can give you information? Hmmm. Prove it.

        Next time you are chatting ask him to prove his existence to Rad Man. What was the name of the street I lived on in 1980? Go ahead… make me a believer.

      2. Cat333 profile image60
        Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Amen!

    10. profile image0
      christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      i never like the "i just know God exists". for one, its not what the bible teaches. 2 those some people would make a decision like that with anything else in their life.

      1. Cat333 profile image60
        Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I know God exists, but I don't "just" know he exists - I've met him, walked with him, talked with him, heard him, experienced his manifest supernatural presence, witnessed miracles and personal supernatural healings, know numerous others who've experienced the same things, have had shared experiences with others without any influence on their experiences (by not disclosing to them my similar experience before they spoke of theirs), and on and on.

        I don't make my other decisions similarly at all and tend to be skeptical about everything. Do aliens exist? Doubt it. Is time travel possible? Doubt it. Did someone really see a ghost? Doubt it. Is the accused guilty? While others may form an opinion based on intuition or evidence (and generally do), to me it's hard to ever get to "beyond a reasonable doubt" because there's so often the possibility of confounding factors, such as the framing of a person. You see, I don't think I KNOW much of anything else. Just that God exists. And that's because the Holy Spirit has revealed him to me and sealed me in him. I can be talked into and out of a lot. In fact I'm really quite a push-over in the majority of ways. Am I sure I'm parenting in the best way? No, not really, got any advice for me? Am I sure that's the best financial decision? No, not really, got any advice? Am I sure that's the best place to move? No, any advice? But when it comes to the knowledge of the Lord, because I am sealed by the Holy Spirit, I cannot be moved by any statements, findings, or anything else provided by anyone apart from God. Praise be to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who in his mercy has chosen to reveal truth to me and I pray to all those who are open and willing to receive it!!

        1. profile image0
          christiananrkistposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          i know where youre comin from on that. due to personal experiences and what evidences and philosophical thought has been presented to me over the many years of being a christian, it would be near impossible for me to be convinced God did exist. i would never say "i just konw" either though.

          1. Cat333 profile image60
            Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Makes sense.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
          EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          But, we know you're just making that up from your imagination like you do with most everything else.



          Yes, as I've mentioned several times, indoctrinated believers will often criticize other aspects of their lives, just not their religious beliefs. And, they will reject or deny (as you do) anything they see that will jeopardize those beliefs.

          1. Cat333 profile image60
            Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

            "But, we know you're just making that up from your imagination like you do with most everything else." That is the easiest way to dismiss what I've said (and others say), isn't it?

            "Yes, as I've mentioned several times, indoctrinated believers will often criticize other aspects of their lives, just not their religious beliefs. And, they will reject or deny (as you do) anything they see that will jeopardize those beliefs." We could be "indoctrinated" into many things. Why is faith the sole one maintained for many who can critically analyze all else? And why are these people who supposedly maintain "mere indoctrination" so often the ones who speak of a PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP with the Lord?

            Do atheists do just what they angrily accuse Christians of doing - imply they are "special" and smarter, the ones capable of analysis who "opened their eyes", while those who follow the Lord are mere indoctrinated fools who should open their eyes and become like the atheist?

    11. janesix profile image60
      janesixposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I'm not even sure what intuition is.

      It seems to be the process of making decisions or judgments based on preconceived notions.

      I suppose this could be either good or bad, depending on the situation.

  2. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

    Extra Sensory Perception: We have five senses. We have imagination. We have instincts. We also have a sixth sense. It is the sense of knowing things directly through the use of the third eye, situated in-between and just above the eyebrows. This is actually the seat of the soul. The energy of a person is actually all knowing just like God. (Since we are part of God i.e. "made in his image..."/ we are made out of the pure essence of God. "Heaven is within...") But the other five senses are used almost exclusively when we inhabit our physical bodies. When we switch our focus to the seat of the soul we can perceive reality in the form of truths, knowledge, ideas, and the essences of living beings. We can read auras and comprehend astrological signs of others and perceive information about events, past and present and future. We can perceive the force and essence (felt in the heart as pure love and joy) of God directly.
    I could end with Thats The Way I See It, per usual, but no, Thats The Way It Is.
    TTWII

    1. Thomas Swan profile image74
      Thomas Swanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Prove it! heh.

      You're entitled to your beliefs, of course, but I can't help speculating on why you possess them.

      Anxiety is an emotion that appears to have four separate sources that were relevant in the ancestral environment - and that are therefore important to our present experience of the emotion. These anxiogenic cues are related to intra-species violence, predation, contamination or threats to purity, and loss of social status. (see Boyer: http://philpapers.org/rec/BOYWRB )

      1. You said "The energy of a person is actually all knowing just like God." thus making all people intrinsically good.
      2. You said: "we are part of God i.e. "made in his image"" thus making us intrinsically superior to all animals.
      3.  You said: "we are made out of the pure essence of God" thus making us intrinsically pure and free from contamination.
      4. Finally, your beliefs all suggest a special level of perceived knowledge about what would be highly adaptive traits (if they existed), thus averting any concern for a lack of status.

      You appear to be addressing the main causes of anxiety. What's more, anxiety is essentially a `fear of the future'. So when you said: "We can read auras and comprehend astrological signs of others and perceive information about events, past and present and future." I couldn't help but make the connection.

      I find that many superstitious and religious beliefs are rooted in our concern for and attempts to alleviate anxious thoughts.

      I do apologize if this reply seems overly analytical, but whenever someone professes to believe something that can't be proven, my skepti-sense tingles and I can't help myself lol.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Me too. I will not believe anything unless proven. My search for the truth began around the age of fourteen and had nothing what-so-ever to do with anxiety. When I was twenty I did not believe in God. Now I am approaching 60 and I know everything I said above is true and proven by myself to myself. I cannot prove it to anyone else. Each to their own.

        1. Thomas Swan profile image74
          Thomas Swanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Indeed. I would say that searching for truth is as admirable as ending that search is lamentable.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            yep.

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
          EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That isn't true at all, you have offered a huge list of things you believe that haven't a shred of evidence let alone having been proved, for example:

          We also have a sixth sense. It is the sense of knowing things directly through the use of the third eye, situated in-between and just above the eyebrows. This is actually the seat of the soul.

          Sorry, but there is no evidence for a sixth sense, a third eye or a soul.

          We can read auras and comprehend astrological signs

          Sorry, once again, there is no evidence for auras and astrology is pure bunkum.

          1. pattyfloren profile image80
            pattyflorenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            If someone told you there is a third eye and you believed it because you experienced it, and at the same time through understanding the context of what you saw, That in reality is an existence of God.  Why because to perceive this, one had to see that eye even if it was explained by someone other than self.  That's what I believe.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
              EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              No, that's just a fantasy that may seem real but it isn't.



              That's nice. smile

        3. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          If you can't prove it to anyone else reason should tell you that you may want to have another look at what you are thinking.

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Did you read the Harvard studies? When we use intuition to make decisions other than times it's evolved to be used for we get the wrong answer and as it turns out people who use intuition rather than reason tend to me more religious.

      When we are young children some of us are told Santa is real and most believe what we have been told until we are old enough to begin to use reason. Reason gives us the right answer.

    3. Jerami profile image60
      Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      firstly ....   Gotta agree with Ya.   I can't prove any of the reasons why I do, Intuition tells me so.

          Where did Einstein learn the things he learned.  He knew many of these things that he later proved to himself and then to the rest of the world.
         Wonder how he would define intuition, seeing as how he seemed to have had an overabundant amount of it. My intuition tells me he would describe it differently than is commonly accepted today.

  3. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    Now YOU may be convinced of that. But my dream was not just a dream. Three nights in a row is very significant.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
      EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No, it isn't, that's quite common.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        So God speaks to a lot of people through their dreams. I have heard. smile have you ever had such a common occurrence?

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
          EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That can't be true. No one can consciously make those kind of determinations while they're sleeping, they are not in a conscious state in which to do so.

          What you've "heard" is just hearsay.

          1. Prodio profile image61
            Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            "they are not in a conscious state in which to do so"



            What does conscious mean?









            And what is a conscious state?

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I think I see where you're going with this.

              1. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Well, you know, it's just like asking a color-blind person to describe how the color golden looks like.




                They *think* they can answer it!

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Without the ear to hear (that you must receive) no hope of hearing. Cannot describe the color golden. Good work!!! What did you say you wanted for Christmas? wink

                  1. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    The world needs a bit more kindness. And a bit more love. That's it!

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  But, since the color golden is well known by a great deal of people on the planet, your analogy fails to the tiny minority it refers.

                  If you wish to use a much larger demographic as an analogy, try using the one attempting to explain reality, facts and evidence to religious believers who deny or reject them. That number is quite a bit larger.

          2. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That can't be true. No one can consciously make those kind of determinations while they're sleeping, they are not in a conscious state in which to do so. (Quote)
            So my dreams had nothing whatsoever to do with my conscious ability to make up reasons to believe God exists??? That's what I said. It is God.
            Since the dream was wonderful; I woke up in amazement. Then forgot about it during the day. And once again I had the SAME dream with no variation. I woke up quickened and thought something like wow!!! Same dream. Freaky...
            But THEN for a THIRD morning, I awoke having had the EXACT same dream! I had to take a poll... never happened to anyone I know! Nor a few I DIDN'T know. So maybe it aint socommon. And maybe God showed me my future (in full swing currently) in a dream... as MORE proof that he in FACT is my companion; and I do belong to him. You choose for you. I have already chosen.

            1. wilderness profile image79
              wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              How can you tell the difference between a god speaking in your dream and the dream itself?  How does your conscious mind delineate between the two?  Or do you just decide it was a god because you like that answer?

              How do you go from "maybe" God showed you the future and saying God spoke?  To "proof" that He exists and loves you?  You chose, but based on a "maybe" instead of truth and fact?

              1. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Sometimes - an intuition (this is the word that comes closest to denote it)  may be so powerful - it might become self-evident.



                Sometimes.







                [By the way:  Can you tell me what are dreams made of?]

                1. wilderness profile image79
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Actually, the question was how to know whether it was a god or a dream.  Not how to guess...

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Hey, we may create our own realities. Mine says God. Yours says different. We are starting to move into turnip phlebotomy here.

                  2. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    What are dreams made of?

              2. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Ok, you are my favorite now. That other one is not sure who she/he wants to be yet. But you know. smile
                I am not in a position to explain the spirit to you beyond the fact that it happens BIG in my sleep. My sky daddy gave me a confirmation that he speaks to me via unconscious dreamland. Two years before my daughter was born, I had q dream about her, her father and I in our new home. She was about the age she is now. But this was two full years before she was born. Now how the heezy would I know that I'd have a baby girl with this dude who was far from me at the time; two full years before??? Who'd a thunk it???
                So, I got proof. smile many years AFTER I said yes. I walked in search of God (no way trying to prove he is NOT there) listening to his voice. He rewarded me with an abundance offaith ewith proof that I can put my hands on. He makes it plain after you give yourself. To whom much is given; much is required. He works with us according to our faith. When we believe him; he shows himself plainly.

                1. Prodio profile image61
                  Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I need to ask you something..




                  What are your thoughts on scientists? -Satanic spirits? Reincarnated spiritual masters? Deluded God-childs?

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Scientists? Some good to the world. Heck! They gave us processed cheese and smog. smile I have no issues with science.  There is much to be learned. Though I wm absolutely no good in science or math which must also be scientific; because I am horrible with Aunt Sally and LxW= I (b4) e accept after c. They can HAVE that junk. And I don't care...
                    Satanic spirits? We are plagued daily and increasingly. When I was a kid, I had dreams that people, monsters, animals all took turns chasing me. And I was always running and performing miraculous Matrix-type feats in my dreams to get away.  I ALWAYS got away. And I always woke up in a sweat or heart palpitations. I was also a devout insomniac. I wonder if one had to do with the other. Nevertheless., I believe my dreams then to be devinely inspired.
                    Reincarnation? Nah. I think that once you die, there is then the judgment. They spoke if it biblically,  but it had been explained from the perspective of the nonGodly. I don't remember Jesus speaking of reincarnation. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
                    Child gods??? There is no other God. Some may MAKE gods of many different things. But there is only one.
                    Please let me explain trinity.  (Been kinda long-winded) To me,
                    God the father, God the Son, and God the holy spirit are three separate entities.  The God part is spirit. The father is the head. He allows Jesus to sit next to him and reign. As God. The holy spirit rules our minds/hearts, I mean conscious wink as a constant reminder of God. Simple really. But one MUST make a big deal out of the foolish (trinity is a man-made word to denote the relationship) things as a deterrent. Self is a very big deal to some.

                2. wilderness profile image79
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  So you know, but cannot tell.

                  Unfortunately, that is a common answer from people that haven't a clue, and deserves no respect or belief whatsoever.  Because, whatever you might think, it means you can't tell the difference.  That you make the call because you wish it to be true, because you like the answer, not because you know it to be true at all.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Correction: I know; but YOU cant tell; the color golden because you have no ear. smile
                    If you go down and get your free ear, the Lord will whisper in it.

                  2. Prodio profile image61
                    Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this
            2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
              EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Nope, it's just a dream you had because you believe in God, so you dreamed about it. I like golfing and often dream about that, too. So what?



              Sorry, but your dreams aren't real, you just want them to be real, obviously. Had you any understanding of dreams, you would know your claims are just silly nonsense.

              1. Prodio profile image61
                Prodioposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Nice plug in. Connect to electricity.

              2. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Avid golfer. Hey, that's a nice internet persona... I'm just saying. 
                Uh, you never answered my question. How many times have you had the exact same golfing dream from start to finish three nights in a row?
                Before you answer, remember how very important intellectual honesty and nonfallacious statements are to you.

                1. Thomas Swan profile image74
                  Thomas Swanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Personally, I've had the same dream 3 nights in a row... lots of people have. Lots of people are also able to convince themselves that something is true because they want to believe it. It's called wishful thinking.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Finally! Someone who GETS it... go on brother! Tell what the Lord has done for you. wink

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I haven't had the same golfing dream, but I've had others, just like everyone else.



                  Yes, but they are not important to you, which is a big part of the problem.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I see things differently.
                    You are being unclear; and I know there is purpose behind it. You would say that you have had the exact same dream three nights in a row "many times"??? Then consider it truth? Well, if so; grab a pen the next time it happens. God is tryna tell you something. It's only happened to me once in my life. And none to many others I've asked.

  4. pattyfloren profile image80
    pattyflorenposted 11 years ago

    Can you then explain how faith (which is such a strong word in holding on to the word) is going to help make those dreams real?  You said you went after your dream by faith and the dream came true.  Same for everyone?

    1. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Now, I know how I speak; and that aint it. I actually said nothing about going after my dream. It was not that kind of dream. This dream came upon me. Golden platter. smile I chased nothing but God. He showed me what was to come, and ever will be (for me and mine).

  5. Cat333 profile image60
    Cat333posted 11 years ago

    I'm not yet clear on the role of intuition in the general sense that God exists. God has put a sense of himself within people of all times and places, so that they have tended to know of him to some degree regardless of circumstances.

    But to know him personally requires more than intuition. It requires meeting him through his Holy Spirit. The Spirit is the one who himself reveals truth to us and who then seals us in that truth.

    As for the studies, two thoughts: 1) It is entirely possible that human's own reason gets in the way of belief and truly reason alone cannot be relied on in seeking spiritual truth. Scripture supports the idea that our own reason could blind us and separate us from God: "Because that which the world deems foolish in God is wiser than men's wisdom" (1 Corinthians 1:25); "For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe." (1 Cor 1:21); "The person without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God but considers them foolishness, and cannot understand them because they are discerned only through the Spirit. (1 Cor 2:14)

    2) As stated in Psychology Today, "The task used to assess preference for intuitive or analytical thinking actually involves asking people to solve problems where there is an intuitively appealing but incorrect answer, so that to reach the correct answer the person must reject their initial intuition. The nature of the task itself therefore sets up a dichotomy in which intuition and reflection are incompatible. This may well apply much of the time but there is intriguing evidence that the two modes of thought sometimes operate in a parallel rather than a conflicting manner." Looks like the studies are pretty biased and misleading, designed to illicit a certain desired response.

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Actually there have been tribes of people with no word for God and no concept of any Gods.


      Actually all the studies did was show that intuition leads to incorrect answers and people who rely on intuition tend to me more religious.

      Sure intuition and reason can exist together, but teaching and practices using intuition for things it will come up with the wrong answer for will lead us to wrong answers. Intuition have evolved to get us out of bad situations, not for doing well on a math test or understanding the universe. When people such as yourself talk about God they speak of him as he is something intuitive and dismiss reason as false.

      1. Cat333 profile image60
        Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        When it comes to that which is of the natural world (e.g., math), you will do well to use what reason you have. But when it comes to the spiritual, supernatural world, no amount of reason can take you where you need to go.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Special pleading.

          Sorry, if it's wrong because you didn't use reason it's still the wrong answer. Notice you came to that statement using a logical fallacy, which means you didn't use reason. If using reason for math and science and getting right answers and using reason to check to make sure you have the right answer gets you the right answers how can you be sure the one thing you want to use to determine God exists (intuition) is the right answer?

          It's like insisting that insisting that a ball is 10 cents and a bat is $1 and the bat is a $1 more than the ball and then telling everyone else that you are right and we should all think like this.

          1. Cat333 profile image60
            Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            First, I don't use intuition to determine God exists, but rather he through the Holy Spirit has revealed himself and sealed me in him. Your idea looks at it in the direction of us to God (intuition to reach him) but the true direction is God to us (he reveals the truth).

            Second, I understand that reason won't work for that which is outside the realm of natural reasoning - you cannot reason your way into falling in love with someone, for example (though you may reason your way to acting in a loving manner). We can use reason when it is called for, use intuition when called for, and go beyond human reasoning or intuition when called for.   

            On your own, your ability to determine truth is limited by your ability to reason and/or intuit, however small or great that is. God is not so limited and those whose knowledge and wisdom come from him will not be so limited as those relying either on human reasoning or human intuition.

            So what to do if you haven't yet met the Lord? No point in relying either on your reason or your intuition. Just stay open and answer when he calls.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              You are forgetting that I was once a believer in both God and Santa, without knowing it I used reason to consider if they were real. I used reason to understand that we can't have a relationship with someone impossible to contact or find in any way possible.

              It's interesting how people who use intuition rather than reason tend to have stronger beliefs in God.

              1. Cat333 profile image60
                Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Not at all, I remember that you once believed that God exists. But did you know him? Had you met Jesus Christ, the Truth? Did you have the Holy Spirit within you confirming your belief? What were your experiences with the Lord? Had he REVEALED himself to you? Or did you simply have a belief in his existence, a belief that Satan came and snatched away?

                Since God is Spirit, we find him when we seek him in spirit and in truth. Spiritual truths come not from reason or intuition, but from the Holy Spirit himself.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Those are your opinions. If God wanted to and could reveal himself he would reveal himself to all not just the gullible. It doesn't hold up to reason so you are most likely left with the wrong answer.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    God revealing Himself to any and everyone would infringe on free will. Only revealing Himself to those who willfully seek Him does not. It stands up fine to reason.

                  2. Cat333 profile image60
                    Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Sure, most likely in the "controlled, natural" realm. Yet what is "most likely" in the natural is NOT TRUTH in the spiritual realm that is so far beyond our control or understanding!

                  3. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Sorry.  He reveals himself to you daily on a perpetual basis. You have locked the door. And I think I heard you yelling la-la-la-la-la once. smile you hold the key to your heart.

              2. Cat333 profile image60
                Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                You say, "It's interesting how people who use intuition rather than reason tend to have stronger beliefs in God." Perhaps human reasoning is a greater stumbling block to general belief than human intuition. Nonetheless, although human intuition may tell us God is out there, it will not tell us the specifics of who he is and our relationship with him. So we may see the supernatural occurring both in the demonic realm and through the power of the Holy Spirit. We can't rely on intuition, which can lead us astray, but on the Holy Spirit who reveals truth and gives the ability to discern the spirits.

                Regarding reason, we can see clearly that God's design was not to know him by our ability to reason (not at all impressive to God) but rather to know him through faith. In fact, he has designed it so that we must set aside our own reasoning and understanding of the natural world (e.g., we know that in the natural no one walks on water or is raised from the dead) and replace them with great faith (by faith we understand that walking on water and raising someone from the dead is nothing compared to creating that water and creating life in that raised person in the first place).

                1. pattyfloren profile image80
                  pattyflorenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "walking on water and raising someone from the dead is nothing compared to creating that water and creating life in that raised person in the first place)."
                  And isn't it true that the person who was raised has a chose if he/she will confess and be a witness to this truth?  If the word isn't confessed, how will we get new believers?  In the beginning was the word and the word was God.  1 John l:l

                  1. Cat333 profile image60
                    Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Absolutely, pattyfloren!

                    Testimonies are crucial. Of course some will dismiss our testimonies no matter what. I'm still waiting for some "explanation" by unbelievers of that one in 93,519 chance I gave testimony about a few posts back. And to think these one in 93,519 chance coincidences occur routinely for those of us with faith!

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  So on this one thing we have to set aside what gives us the right answer? That was his plan? I'll give people all these reasoning skill, but they won't be able to use it to find me?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    It's about where you shift your focus. If you're focused on external things to assure you of an answer, then you're looking the wrong direction. You can use reason, but you have to turn your attention inward. That's where spirituality can be found. Solomon was widely considered a very wise man, even outside of the bible. You can employ reason, but if you're looking the wrong way you're not going to find anything.

                    You're basically trying to boil things down to believers being generally more gullible and less inclined to use reason. But of course that means your discounting a huge section of the population as not being as enlightened as you or as intelligent.

                  2. Cat333 profile image60
                    Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Yes, you have to give up that which gives you control in the natural realm to find God. He gave you the ability to reason and you're expected to use it appropriately. But it is not the path to himself that he designed.

                    Never is anyone in the Word commended by God for their ability to reason. Reason is a natural part of ourselves which God created. Use it in the natural world, but it is not impressive to the One who holds all wisdom and knowledge. Yet there is something that pleases God in us. Simple, trusting, loving, child-like faith. So the faithful are commended, and it is they who receive the gift that has been offered to all.

                    What is your boast? Nothing, for your reasoning has led you to nothing everlasting. What is my boast? Nothing in and of myself, for it was only because of Jesus Christ that I know the Lord, and my part was only a willingness to be humble and child-like, which is nothing in the eyes of the world, and yet it led to everlasting life. If we boast, the boast is in our own weaknesses and lowly position; so let us boast only in the Lord.

              3. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                What's interesting to me is that one who says, "I used to believe in God until I started leaning toward my own understanding." It seems that one who actually follows God would know better. Wanna take a poll?

                1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                  MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure, I want to see who believes they know Rad's experiences better than him. Should be interesting.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    My poll would consist of questions to gather data concerning whether following God includes leaning toward your own understanding. Rad's mind would then not be the focus. But rather what followers of God look like; and what they don't.
                    "Lean not unto thine own understanding; in all thy ways acknowledge him and he will direct your path." Bible says man's reasoning is out. We must use his stuff to understand his stuff. Our stuff don't work.
                    If you follow God at one time and then "reason" him away or consider him less knowledgeable (because you've found a better way) you were not listening whilst "following".

                2. wilderness profile image79
                  wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I know several people that take that admonition very seriously.  To the point they refuse to investigate or think about anything contrary to biblical/priestly teachings.  This is done because of a fear their faith will be shaken (or so I've been told by the people in question), and that faith and belief is far more important than knowledge or truth.

                  Others, however, cannot so control their mind or even want to.  They wish to know truth regardless of where it may lead; if it leads to an understanding gods are myth, so be it.  Truth, to them, is more important than faith/belief in myth.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I aint scared of shaking my faith one bit. Some information needs no delving into. The spirit of God leads me to those things that matter to him.

              4. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                - just because you couldn't find a way doesn't mean no one else can either! Many have and have reported their experiences of contacting Spirit. You can read what they have experienced in autobiographies, etc. One should never give up.

            2. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              You may seek him with either your reasoning or intuition, but ultimately it is God who honors your seeking (in whatever manner) and then REVEALS truth to you. When you seek him with all your heart, he'll be found by you. When he honors your seeking and reveals himself to you, then you will at last be found by him!

      2. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Really Rad?  I find this claim intriguing.  I would love to investigate the report your believing and citing, if you would kindly reveal your source.  If you are trusting multiple claims, please provide your strongest example.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          You can't use google?

          Pirahã people
          "According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god, and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made."

          1. bBerean profile image61
            bBereanposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes I can and did Google, but wanted to address whatever you were believing, and was hoping you had something better.  I suspected this would be the one you were claiming, with their spirit being, Xigagaí, "from above the clouds".  Been a few years since I have seen this one trotted out, so I will have to research and catch up.

    2. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I am with you all the way.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Using intuition to answer question leads you to the right answers?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Only God may answer the questions that I ask. Intuition and Marx are both incapable

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That's not true, anyone can answer questions, but reason can tell if it's the right answer.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Rad Man, we can barely remember the spelling of many words we learned in 5th grade. How can any of our reasoning lead us to anything solid? All of it is up in the air.
              I have chosen that which is good. I trust God.

              1. psycheskinner profile image67
                psycheskinnerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Are you not surrounded by solid buildings, electrical and water services and many other solid products of reasoning in the form of engineering? Trust in God will not keep the rain off your head. And assuming He exists, it seems He relied on people to solve their own problems in that area.

    3. pattyfloren profile image80
      pattyflorenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If I can do a comparison using emotions on the right side of the brain and cognition on the left side, emotions activate from incoming sensory information  that a person is unconsciously aware of, and formulates a belief that motivates our behavior toward that information in a negative and or positive way.  Strong emotions toward a belief in God through the spirit is such that if you didn't believe, it would not be prevalent in your thinking, so one has to believe in a higher power to actually be a part of that power.  Emotions and reasoning are parallel because an emotion that motivates our behavior, helps to form logical analysis and this helps us to reason more clearly, to understand further, to question what we have believed, to know what we like and dislike because of...

      Do you think?

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Ah, no I personally don't think so.

        Let's see if emotions help give us the right answers. If someone is emotionally biased about a particular group will there emotions help them get over the bias? No. That's why we use reason.

      2. Cat333 profile image60
        Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks for your response - "Emotions and reasoning are parallel because an emotion that motivates our behavior, helps to form logical analysis and this helps us to reason more clearly, to understand further, to question what we have believed, to know what we like and dislike..."

        I think this is what they were getting at in Psychology Today when they said, "there is intriguing evidence that the two modes of thought sometimes operate in a parallel rather than a conflicting manner."

  6. kayecandles profile image60
    kayecandlesposted 11 years ago

    looks like you have it figured out, ready with all the answers, don't ask if you just want to show you know all the answers-very typical of many to ask questions they already seem to have answers to just to prove others wrong

    1. pattyfloren profile image80
      pattyflorenposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I wasn't trying to show out, i just put  my comparison on things to show that we were on the same page.  I dont know if that was an emotional answer or one that you chose to answer after some considerable thought.  The conversation was about using intuition without really knowing what is right about the situation, yet it usually comes out wrong, then reason steps in and we find the answer is right. 
      You must relate to this because of some deeply held belief about people who have all the answers.
      It is like something that you felt a certain way about, and then what you initially thought about that object has some emotions that come with it.
      Normally, the positive side to all of this is that your intentions will be counter to your emotions, even if you are rational about it.    Emotions can be subtle or strong, it depends.  In the past, emotions were not as important in making decisions or rationalizing.  Now, it is very important in acting behavior wise.

  7. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    Long ago, I answered your question about why God changed with my best possible guess based upon what I know of him??? You chucked it and erroneously stated that I did not reply???
    The Lord changed the penalty for those who accept the free gift because:     We were all doomed to die. The standard is higher than we most often allow ourselves to reach. God didn't want to do without man. So he sent one who could take all the law; perfect it and finish it. Now, all men have mercy and grace to get it together. Some just don't want that. The self gets in the way.

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
      AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You gave me that answer and I kept telling you that it was not answering my question, and I tried to get you to understand what I meant. That's why I said you didn't answer. You kept repeating the same answer and you weren't listening to me when I said that you were misunderstanding my question. That's why I repeated saying "you did not answer it." I did not "chuck" anything. I told you that your answer did not pertain to my question and you did not understand what I meant. That's why I kept repeating it several times.

      I realize that you are saying God changed the penalty because we are all doomed to die. I understand everything you just said in the paragraph. What I'm saying is that that has nothing to do with why one would kill someone one time and not kill them another. It doesn't explain it, I guess. That's what I'm trying to say. It just explains God's method for salvation and that He loves the sinner, not why it was imperative to kill people in one era and not kill them in another. Is what you're saying that we are all doomed to die spiritually and so killing someone was not really an issue? Maybe I'm dense or something, but I feel very much like I'm not being understood. Perhaps I'm wording this wrong... hmm

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The wages of sin Is death?
        The penalty is the SAME for nonbelievers?
        God didn't wanna keep killing because man is untamed?
        Uh...tell me when I get close to answering your extremely "clear" question.
        He gave some of us a chance to believe and accept the gift?
        The will of man is rigid but God will have his way?
        You DIE TODAY for sin!!! (Tomorrow) Too many of my little people thingies are dying because they won't do right, imma give em one more chance!???
        Did ANY of those help? smile

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
          AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Never said a word about my question being clear. that's why i kept repeating it. To clarify. Please do not insinuate I did, through your statement that I was presenting a  " extremely 'clear' question." (quotations yours) . I, in fact, said the direct opposite: that I was perhaps not stating my thoughts correctly. "Perhaps I'm wording this wrong.."That is verbatim what I said.

          No, I'm afraid those answers don't help. You are not referencing my question, at least not what I understand. You are stating bits of Bible verses which I have no idea how they relate to the idea I'm presenting.

          I'm going to bow out of this conversation. It is producing nothing beneficial to my understanding of your God. I will ask elsewhere.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Good night!!! smile

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
              AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Night smile

  8. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    Lean not unto your own understanding; in all thy ways, acknowledge him and he will direct thy path.

    We cannot understand all of anything. Some things are simply unknown.

    1. Zelkiiro profile image61
      Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You do realize this is the exact same thing that kept Europe in the Dark Ages while the Muslims over in Africa and Asia perfected chemistry and invented Algebra, Calculus, modern medicine, and Arabic numerals, right?

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Yes. But none of those inventions yeild a clearer understanding of truth. Natural laws and facts? Maybe...

    2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
      EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Ah yes, the typical lame excuse when a believer can only offer contradiction and hypocrisy. lol

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Contradiction and hypocrisy??? No. Truth...
        With God, all things are possible. Believe that; or don't. We have many things to concentrate on. If it is self for you as focus... Ok. I choose differently. I cannot allow myself to relent on ANY of what I say on this site. God stands in front of it all. I know my name is genaea. I know as well who Jesus is. He has allowed me to see him clearly; pressed down, shaken together,  and running over.
        THAT is why you see me as you do. The absolute positivity pisses them (still questiong) off. I found what I was looking for. A peace that surpasses understanding. While they are still sweating. They want to take my contentment. But they were not the givers of such a gift.
        Deny? For what? Tell me please, what answers have you gotten that work better for the answers we (you all) seek? There is no God? And that works better? Ok
        God will not negotiate his terms with us. But he will work with and through us as we walk with him.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
          EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Sorry, but we humans may not have all the answers, but we do understand quite a bit about the world around us, and we can see obvious contradictions and hypocrisies when they appear, especially when held up to the very same reality we observe and understand.

          The reason for that is simple, we haven't wasted our time obsessing over Bronze Age myths and superstitions, but instead spend our time learning about the world around us. And, when believers reject or deny this understanding, calling truth, lies and lies, truth, it shows just how much those obsessions have affected their decision making process.



          Of course, I don't believe that. That is just a rejection of the understanding we have of reality and an embracing of Bronze Age myth. There is no truth to that whatsoever.



          The Bible is not many things. The problem is a lack of concentration of anything but the Bible.



          Yes, you actually chose contradiction and hypocrisy. Reason and logic have no place in your world as a result.



          Sorry, but we have not made a conscious decision that there are no gods, reality simply shows no gods exist. I would happy to meet a god, if one ever happened to show itself.



          His terms? lol

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The existence of Christ has just as much "proof" as anything to the contrary. God saw to that!  wink
            Believe as you wish.
            Yes, HIS TERMS are written in stone. And he still is not negotiating. The ideas that we see from this world about God are iffy at best. It takes BLIND faith to believe or DISbelieve any of it. And your faith is showing.

            1. JMcFarland profile image71
              JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              And how do you prove Christ's existence?

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                You go to bible school and pay attention to the "Jesus" part.

                1. JMcFarland profile image71
                  JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  that is not proof.  It's using the bible establish the historicity of a biblical character.  In case that does not make sense to you, try this.

                  I could go to a comic book school and learn all about spider man.  The spider man comics portray him as real, and by studying them enough, does this PROVE that spider man is, in fact, real?  Does the fact that the spider man comics take place in New York City, which is a real place, make them credible?

                  in order to establish the historicity of a real, genuine, historical figure you have to examine history.  So what do you know about the historicity of Jesus?

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Just so you know, this bugged me so much that I had to actually look up the city that Spiderman lived in.

                  2. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Historicity is a funny word.  smile
                    I think a few historicity confirming books talk about Jesus. Right??? I mean, you know that my education on the matter is far less magnificent. But I think someone somewhere mentioned Jesus. I just heard (maybe Headly) a discussion on this very topic.
                    Spider-Man IS TOO real!!! (In my third grade voice). Lol...
                    Examine history... hmmm. My 66 books deemed insufficient? Well let me examine your books. Save me some trouble please... what books have convinced you that the very existence of Jesus should be questioned?

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
              EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              What proof? There is none.



              Sorry, I don't hold beliefs, they are for the ignorant and ill-informed.



              What stone? Where?



              Yes, I understand you operate entirely on blind faith and not knowledge, understanding, facts, evidence, reality, etc. So, it is understandable you would also believe everyone else operates the same way.

              *hint*

              But, we don't. smile

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Now let's see...if the "ignorant" are the only belief holders; what is one who thinks he "believes" nothing called???
                We ALL believe something... whether an ancient writer or someone new with tests that he made up without any of us checking his work. We all BELIEVE someone.
                I believe the stone IS somewhere. You, on the other hand, believe otherwise. Simple really. No need to complicate things any further. Faith says, "what God??? I don't see no God, and this book right here (which ever one you CHOOSE) says that I might be more than likely right.

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                  AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I believe that saying all people believe in something is somewhat of a fallacy. (edit: yes that was a lame joke.) No seriously. I think that that statement in logically inaccurate.

                  Saying we believe nothing is not the same as saying we do not believe. It puts the burden of belief on someone who never asked for it in the first place, and the upon whom the burden is being placed because someone who DOES believe shows up with a belief.

                  It is indeed possible for a person to not believe in anything.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Round and round the bush we go. smile
                    You said, "Sorry, I don't hold beliefs, they are for the ignorant and ill-informed." Sounds like, "I believe nothing", to me. Sorry.
                    But let me explain something to you. If you do not believe in God; you BELIEVE something or someone else. No way around it... and since none of us can produce solid evidence either way; we're just stuck with our BELIEF.
                    See how that works??? wink

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  A non-believer? roll



                  Yes, I know from which operating system YOU function, but that isn't the same for everyone.



                  Yes, you know only a belief system and not a system of understand, I know, it is clear and obvious.



                  Can you translate that into English, please?

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Can you translate that into English, please?
                    I'll try... some of us just "believe" the OTHER report. You want to call it non-belief, but you do in fact "believe" something.

                    Now, your turn...
                    Yes, you know only a belief system and not a system of understand, I know, it is clear and obvious.

                    Can you translate that into English, please?

  9. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    I'm beginning to feel that, if a good God does exist, then Satan must be on vacation. I see followers of this "God" insinuating that He would be unjust, make sexist laws, and demand mindless obedience. Why is it so hard to think that maybe God didn't write these OT laws? Satan wouldn't have to do a damn thing to get people to not want to love this God. God's own followers are already doing that really well.

    *braces for hailstorm*

  10. oceansnsunsets profile image83
    oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years ago

    I think as humans with a measure of free will at least, we sometimes want what we want without any consequences applied.  We exist in a reality where that's possible to be a desire but not one that can be realized, actually.  So it's an unrealistic want or expectation and many can disagree but then butt up against the reality of the hard truth of the matter.  Many lives work hard to get around these things and some powers can abuse this observed desire in humanity for their gain.  It still is what it is.

  11. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    Sorry, I was in the middle of editing when you responded. I responded to your other statement because what I added didn't really affect what you were trying to say (I think?) but correct me if I'm wrong smile

  12. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    Watching people be rude, arrogant, sarcastic, and throw insults around (meaning ALOT of people on the forums, NOT singling anybody out) looks just like elementary school, now that you mention it. I thought I was done with that. Apparently making fun of people, from both sides, is still in style.

    Exhausting.

    1. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sadly, it's become something of an art around these parts.

      BTW, it's been really interesting having you around.  Much of what you say is thought-provoking and well thought out. I read through these threads constantly, but post only occasionally. I think you're just cool.  smile

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        aww thanks smile That's really nice of you to say. Thank you.

  13. profile image0
    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago

    Does anyone remember the big fight about that book that supposedly said religion was an infectious virus?  Some of my fellow believers took great exception to that and threw some mega fits.  So what makes you think that A-comparing atheism to a cancer that should be cut out is any different and B-that in even identifying the possibility that you aren't exhibiting boundless hypocrisy?

    It continues to boggle my mind that men and women who believe in Gods's mercy and claim their greatest desire is to be like Jesus, and who also believe in (and in this case fight for, free will are so damned set against letting people exercise theirs?

    And the whole who's more persecuted than whom argument is silly and futile. An atheist is only known as an atheist of they mention it.  A Christian (who should be recognized by their loving kindness to ALL-not just other Christians who think like them-is only recognized by their big mouthed announcement of their Chrisianity.  Don't want to be persecuted for yapping about your belief or lack of it? Then just live your faith or your kindness and goodness that doesn't come from faith without going into all the details about where it comes from unless you're asked to do so.

    1. JMcFarland profile image71
      JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I love you.   I really,  truly do.   I need to come and give you a hug.

      You,  regardless of whether or not we agree about our beliefs,  make me want to be a better person.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Thank you.  I love you too and get your butt up here!! big_smile

    2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Did someone from that conversation say that about atheism being a cancer that needed cut out?  If so , then that person WOULD be being a bit hypocritical of the book whose title alone they would have been against.  I would agree if that's true. Both ideas are dangerous I think.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Not in that conversation, but I thought that Headly had been a part of that conversation.  I could be wrong.  But it is my agreement that both conversations are disturbing.

    3. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      For me, "a yapping and big-mouthed Christian" wink the yapping is necessary.  "How can they hear" otherwise?
      Jesus was a "yapper" and he yapped at all times; though he allowed whomever their own free will; as is imminent here. He told those who follow him to also yap.  But there are boundaries. We are not told to soothe the hearts of men who do not believe his message and ooze the love of Jesus all over their existence. He said, "Say what I said; do as I do."
      I think one of our main issues is that the word of God as biblically written is not trusted.  More and more, people compromise scripture for feelings (their own or that of others).  Is THAT the love of Jesus?
      Well let's look at what he said to the almost pleading rich guy tugging on his attention.
      He did NOT say, "come on with me! I love and accept everyone no matter what cuz I am the loving Jesus ready to ooze love all over you daily so you can come to believe. "
      I think it went more like, "prove you want to follow me (without regard for his feelings, let me add) do x, y, z and THEN..." or something like that.
      On the internet it is nearly impossible to see the actions of anyone. There is no reason not to Jesusify your conversation here. His words are life-giving. The words (that SEEM right to man) lead unto death.
      How do we Jesusify? Say what he said. Oh! But FIRST we gotta know what he said; THEN we must believe what he said.
      Some of us simply do not believe him but however take on a form of Godliness that sounds loving enough; to us anyway.
      The love of Jesus was actually very stern; and rigid.

      1. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Genaea, talk all you want.  I'm not here to stop you. I don't think you and I have ever agreed on the best means of evangelization, and that's fine.  Don't take what I said personally, unless you really want to.  I was talking to atheists and believers alike.  If it doesn't apply to you, leave it at the door.  smile

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Not personal smile we wrestle not against flesh and blood.

    4. AshtonFirefly profile image70
      AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thank you for saying this.

      It is actually in responses like THIS that cause me to respect and appreciate what you think even more.

      My observation is that talking about one's faith is really only effective if people are listening. And people will only listen to someone seriously if they respect that person. If someone defies their own message by behaving in a manner contradictory to that message, then why would I respect them or listen?

      Thanks to people like you, I have been able to have good, lengthy, respectful conversations and legitimately consider the claims of some believers in Christianity and otherwise, because they are doing so in a cordial, intelligent, and respectful manner.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        One would think others would learn from her? I try (every now and then) to give her a hard time, but in the end I end up agreeing with her wisdom.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          The wisdom of God draws us. Are you any closer to belief in God/Jesus and his gift of life? smile

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Is he any closer after having been repeatedly subjected to your wisdom?  After all, you only ever speak the word of God, so shouldn't he have really "heard" it by now? I mean, if what you're saying is only ever what the spirit gives you to say through scriptures?

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              God, I hope so... (that he's closer)
              Yes, he has heard it. But he continues with that that is not leaning toward Christ.  So we continue. He may walk away at any time. smile

        2. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          smile Not my wisdom.

      2. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        My observation is that talking about one's faith is really only effective if people are listening. And people will only listen to someone seriously if they respect that person.

        The hearing of truth is a springboard for faith. If the Christian "shuts up" about all the good of the gospel of Christ, the message does not get heard.
        Most biblical hearers of the messages of Jesus sought to discredit him. No respect. They thought he was an arrogant liar. They asked him questions in hopes of tripping him up and making him look bad.
        Only the spirit of God respects the spirit of God. All the other spirits are different.

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
          AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I didn't say they shouldn't talk. I said that talking in a way that is disrespectful and hypocritical is counterproductive.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Could you please give me an example of the disrespect and the hypocrisy of which you speak? I think we may be on a really good road to clarification.
            See, it is easy to respect one who agrees with you and says the EXACT same things you say.

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
              AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              "Could you please give me an example of the disrespect and the hypocrisy of which you speak? I think we may be on a really good road to clarification. "

              I think the terms disrespect and hypocrisy speak for themselves. Why would giving examples help? All that would do is point out particular people and situations, not a general idea, and I don't care to pick fights. I was discussing a general idea. The general idea is that disrespect and hypocrisy is undesirable from anyone. I'm pretty sure anyone can agree with that without examples. Unless one disagrees that people are capable of being discrespectful and hypocritical. And then that's a whole new concept.

              "See, it is easy to respect one who agrees with you and says the EXACT same things you say."

              Maybe for some people. That's not the criteria upon which I base my respect. I already explained what does.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                My point for asking for examples was to gain clarity on what you cconsider disrespectful and/or hypocritical.
                I mentioned being able to respect the agreeable opinions because it is undeniably true that if you meet with one who says what you say, you two are on the same page. However upon meeting one who says totally opposite of what you say; it is very likely to cause upset and color your opinion of what could be considered disrespectful.
                Without those examples, it is hard to see clearly what we are dealing with. But it is not detrimental.

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                  AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "My point for asking for examples was to gain clarity on what you consider disrespectful and/or hypocritical."

                  Fair enough.

                  hypocrisy: doing what you claim you shouldn't do
                  disrespect: not showing someone courtesy, consideration, or...well..respect... hmm

                  Well, giving examples to me is detrimental, because the application of these terms is so varied that it would present the idea as being exclusive to that situation. However, I will do so and hope that that is not how it is viewed, for better or worse:

                  If someone is attempting to get me to understand their viewpoint, but in doing so, they violate some tenets of their own viewpoint, then they are being hypocritical. Here is my creative and yet possibly ridiculous example:

                  Someone says, "Quit talking about me behind my back. That's not right!" then turns to the person beside them and says "Oh my God did you see what Methuselah did? I can't believe it he blah blah blah"  That's how I see hypocritical. I used the name Methuselah because I think there is little to no chance that someone I have talked to has that name. If I have, well then I don't know what to say except I tried.

                  Respect to me is just old-fashioned courtesy. Say I'm discussing a concept with someone whom I have never met and this conversation ensues:

                  "I think that tree leaves look prettier when they're red."

                  "that's stupid."

                  Well...okay then. I apply the term respect mostly in cases where people have never met, not ones in which I feel that one person or the other has natural reason to disrespect someone.

                  See how I think these examples are not very useful, other than the fact that they're pretty stupid sounding? lol smile These are specific examples which do not contribute much to the idea I was presenting. If those weren't the type of examples you were looking for, then hopefully they were stupid enough to elicit a chuckle. Or snort. Or something...

                  "I mentioned being able to respect the agreeable opinions because it is undeniably true that if you meet with one who says what you say, you two are on the same page. However upon meeting one who says totally opposite of what you say; it is very likely to cause upset and color your opinion of what could be considered disrespectful."

                  Well, I can only speak for myself, but I don't become upset when people say something opposite of what I say, as a general rule. I only get upset if they approach it in the ways I just described. Some people do get upset. I don't. If I allowed it to color my opinion, then, well, I guess I'd be being hypocritical and I'd be a hypocrite about being a hypocrite. .....I think....that's alot of hypocrites for one sentence.

                  You know what, I just thought of a brilliant example. I'm going to use your own words as an example of a non-hypocritical and respectful way to talk to someone.

                  You siad: "I mentioned being able to respect the agreeable opinions because it is undeniably true that if you meet with one who says what you say, you two are on the same page. However upon meeting one who says totally opposite of what you say; it is very likely to cause upset and color your opinion of what could be considered disrespectful."

                  NO problem. You asked me respectfully without unnecessary insult or berating, so I have no problem that the idea you presented seems bogus to me. See?

                  HOWEVER.

                  Now if you had said it this way: "Well duh, people will be pissed at you if you don't think like they do.  Everybody knows that. What hole did you grow up in? Your ideas are ridiculous and you're annoying to be around when you talk like this." This would be both hypocritical AND disrespectful. Disrespectful because the manner is berating, to say the least.  In this case, it would be hypocritical if the statement were coming from someone who claimed that people should not belittle and berate others.

                  But you didn't say it like that, so I responded with no "walls" up. You were respectful and even though I didn't understand why examples were necessary, I gave them because I realized that just because I didn't see them as necessary, didn't mean it was not beneficial to YOU. Thus enhancing communication.

                  Hopefully that clears things up.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    No.
                    In your effort to not offend the offender, you failed to make me see how hypocritical and disrespectful has played out in this particular conversation. smile that's what I was after...
                    Opposition most often brings about contention. We have many hours on the boards and the topic is a hot one. But one day, something good may happen. I can handle a delusional ignoramus or TWO!!! wink sticks and stones may break my bones; but words will never hurt me.... lol

      3. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I really do try.  It can be one of those things though where no good deed goes unpunished...lol

        1. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I regard fondly Mo, Headly, Genaea, Oceans, Ashton, and on and on, so the current conflict is somewhat disturbing to me, and I actually sympathize with several points on both sides. Somehow this isn't so clear cut as most of the conflicts, since there's not really a bully this time, but perhaps different interpretations, different styles, different personalities, etc. causing the conflict.

          Neither the assertion that religion is like a virus, nor the assertion that atheism is like a cancer really surprise me or get me worked up, and here's why: In theory if one is true and the other false, then one is in a sense like a dangerous virus or cancer because it spreads falsehood, prevents people from seeing the truth, may cause dangerous things to happen, and so on. First, I think we need to remember that it's the religion, not the religious person, who is the virus in one case; and it's atheism, not the atheist who likewise is the cancer in the other case. Second, the atheist who truly believes that religion is causing problems is from their own standpoint being logical in asserting that religion is like a virus. And the believer who truly believes from their standpoint that atheism is spreading lies and preventing eternal salvation of those deceived by the lies, is logical in asserting that atheism is like a cancer.

          Some people stand on middle ground and so they don't necessarily see any danger in either belief. But if one or the other is true (you all know what I believe, but it isn't really of relevance in this point) and one group or the other recognizes the truth, then in fact one belief or the other is like a virus and/or a cancer.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            But still hate speech.

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Rad Man, surely YOU don't deny that you see religion (not the religious person) as a virus and/or a cancer. Not all atheist do; many truly do take the approach that everyone can believe whatever they want and that's all fine. But you in particular (and a couple others in these forums) make it very evident by your words and actions that you consider Christianity to be an evil virus/cancer to be eradicated, speaking against it in every way possible and often taunting the believers and even manipulating their words. If you "say" to us that Christianity is a virus/cancer without verbally saying it, while you may not get a label of "hate speech", do you consider yourself to be spreading hate nonetheless?

              Let's say you do not consider yourself to be spreading hate, even though you hate Christianity. Why do you not consider yourself to be spreading hate? Because in theory if you are correct in your assertions, and religion is in fact problematic, aren't you then trying to help others by eradicating it?

              If people believe that a drug is harmless and therefore they encourage others to take the drug, but in truth the drug is very dangerous and can kill them, is it hate or love for other people that motivates someone to speak "hate" against the drug? Is it hate or love that motivates an atheist convinced of the evils of religion to speak against religion (not the believer); Is it hate or love that motivates a Christian convinced of the evils of atheism to speak against atheism (not the atheist)? Just as love motivates us to speak against the drug that is presented as harmless but in truth kills, shouldn't it often be the case that it's love that motivates you to portray religion as a virus/cancer (which you do without coming out and saying it), and love that motivates the believer to assert that atheism is a dangerous virus/cancer? If you're not motivated by love, then what motivates you, Rad Man, in your very evident views that Christianity is as harmful as a virus/cancer?

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Sorry, I don't see religion as a virus or cancer. I'm here to have conversations with level minded people with different perspectives. Almost everyone I know personally are Christians of some sort. I don't discuss or try to persuade them in any way. I see religion and faith in any God as a way some attempt to try to comfort themselves, and unless someone spews extremism or hate speech I have no problem with their belief.

          2. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I think Headly was intentionally taken out of context for a purpose. You explained his point so beautifully.
            Truth is important.

            1. profile image0
              Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              It's tough to take someone out of context when their entire statement and supporting argument are right there in front of us. It's not like this was something someone pulled out of thin air and called him on it.  Misunderstanding maybe, but his explanations didn't really do anything to clear it up for those who questioned him.  While I don't believe he meant for it to sound as objectionable as it did, the fact is that it did. 

              I do, to a point, agree with Cat. I don't personally take offense to anyone's characterization of my faith as a virus, a mental illness, a crutch, a refuge from reality, etc.  Why? Because I've heard it all and I'm entirely secure where I am.  But if I did, common courtesy would say that if that isn't what someone meant, and I objected to it, they might try to clarify. If they maintained that position, despite my pain at having my belief or lack of belief likened to something that's universally hated, I might expect them to at least apologize, especially when the tables have been turned in the past and those who are expressing these sentiments have been dramatically hurt by others who used different, but similar illustrations.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Sticks and stones... Headly is really smart. He knew what he meant and possibly offended that his statement was taken offensively, on purpose.
                He meant no "harm" but I guess he will say so himself if he puts enough stock into the complaints.

                1. profile image0
                  Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Never said he wasn't.  Never called him any names.  He said what he said and meant what he meant.  None of us can read his mind to know his intent.  He's the one who would have to speak to that.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  He had referred to that idea many times in different ways.  I would be really surprised if he would agree atheism is equatable to religion as  portrayed in the other book. 

                  Even if he admits to all that though, in general all the rest wasn't descriptive of him, IMO.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    And wasn't meat to be.  Anytime you like, you can stop trying to make what I said out to be a personal attack against him.

                  2. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    The cancer thing was an analogy. It was accurate. He tried to explain what it was he meant, but it was not "apologetic" enough;  I guess...

            2. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Thank you, Genaea!

    5. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      If this is about Headlys points....

      In fairness to Headly, I don't see him acting in the ways you describe above.  I also didn't find the post about atheism being a cancer that needed to be cut out.   Can you link me to it?

      The reason this matters is it seems like his point maybe about the cells going against the body's DNA as an example is being compared to a book about how religion infects things. 

      Since Mo is the lodging this complaint about serious hypocrisy I think a couple if things need to be remembered.  He was responding to people engaging him, and is the one most often NOT giving back insults like he gets all the time.  That kind of behavior IS in line with being a loving and patient Christian. He has scores more patience than I do!

      Also he deserves kudos for being BOLD enough to speak even the tougher parts if his worldview which assume a god and hurts no one in so doing.  It will be god in this case doing any possible judging , including of Christians one day.  Not Headly writing a book about peoples poor behavior as house guests that break rules, or cells that do their own thing instead working against the body they are in. 

      In light of fact and true fairness, Mo's view/religion (unless I am mistaken and please correct me Mo if so!)  includes a much tougher eternal fate than Headlys....  So that the truth is his outspokenness in response to those discussing with him is a brave thing to do.  He has to show all the patience he does and get put down, but then this also.  To which I say where is the love for all when it comes to certain Christians? 

      It's an option to take I suppose to let others do the work of sharing the harder to share points of ones own views in a way that we can all understand, which I think was his point.

      In fact it doesn't even sound like him to say such a thing about cutting out atheist cancer...... Does it?  Let us be fair folks.  I could be wrong but it doesn't sound like him even but I will apologize if shown a link to the post and quote.  If this is about promoting more love and acceptance, let us promote it for all.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I agree that Headly's words seemed to be taken out of context. I actually argued about this with someone on another thread in his defense.

        In response to Mo, I was agreeing to the overall message therein, not the specific example.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That seems totally fair Ashton

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Oceans, yes, the denomination with which I most closely identify has a much more unpalatable idea about hell itself, but I personally do not.  It also has a teaching about something called purgatory that people rail against all the time, but they rail against it from a mistaken understanding.  Headly used an unacceptable analogy, like it or not.  It was as unacceptable, IMO, as comparing religion to a virus. 

            I notice too that only a few object to my theory about how actions speak louder than words.  I seem to recall making the point about atheism as well.

            Talk all you want about Jesus, but in the end, if no one wants to hear you, they will walk away, and there is not one time in scripture that Jesus told us to chase the person and repeat the message over and over until it was accepted.  He never said that to make disciples of all nations, we must tell them over and over and over how wrong and sinful and horrible and terrible and useless and immoral they are.  He never preached to anyone who wasn't there willingly to hear what he had to say.  Even the New Testament is directed to those who are already believers so that they had a framework to refer to about living their faith.

            He told us over and over to DO. And he told us to move on when our message wasn't being accepted. I don't recall him telling anyone to tell...then to tell again...then to tell louder...then to get annoyed when they questioned our approach...then to tell our brothers and sisters how they weren't actually out brothers and sisters but rather following unholy spirits to be liked...then to tell them their approach sucked....then to fight with them publically at every opportunity to show how wrong they were so that people would follow us over them to his feet.

            There is no way that the people who compare religion to a virus are wrong, but the ones who compare atheists to cancerous cells are right.  If you think it's okay, you are mistaken.

            Feel free to read through the thread. He was called on it several times and only continued with the analogy.

            I love Jesus.  I love his words.  I love trying to live by them, and I do. I have no doubt that others - even those with whom I might disagree - do as well.  But I won't stand by and excuse behavior or words meant to tear people down in the hope that they will turn to a God who loves them entirely just the way they are.

            I, unlike others, don't feel a need to justify myself to HP forum participants as regards my faith in God, and that is why I don't have the patience you see in Headly.  I don't always see it that way .  I often see it as repetition. I do see, and have told him, a constant attempt to make science do what only God can do, and that's make believers. 

            Peace to all of you, and continued strength to you as you fight to convert the world. But, sorry, my faith has brought me peace, and reading scripture has given me hope, and sharing the story of how God has worked in my life has never gotten me into a fight. You want to talk about patience?  Imagine that every time you addressed another believer, they told you that even though you followed the same Lord, put the same scriptures into practice every day, begged the same Spirit for strength, patience, and endurance, you were really just trying to make people like you and you really thought more of others than of the God who had saved your soul and your life. And yet, you continue to love those people and wish them the best, and even do the best to answer their questions with words they call lies-that they twist and pick apart until someone else jumps in to tell you your faith is also meaningless and that it's okay for anyone to behave badly as long as they're a believer. But down with everyone else.

            A believer compares atheism to cancerous cells that need to removed-wrong. An atheist compares religion to a virus-wrong. If you see either of these as acceptable, then that's wrong.

            *Edit: Oceans, while I addressed this post entirely to you, I don't think that's fair.  It was a blanket post in response to you and Genaea both, so some of it does not necessarily apply to you. Sorry about that.

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
              AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Thank you.

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I think it rather unfair to feel that someone who "does" their faith under a bushel; to call out one who "does" their faith on a hill. Though I love the spirit within you personally, we have a different approach. You do seem to have a problem with the "repetition" of faith. But you are here everyday, in forums directly linked to your faith. Repeating the phrase, "shut up already." Now repeating seems to not bother you there...
              I repeat my lines of thought that tie my faith together; and the life and words of Jesus. I will repeat them all until I can no longer breathe. That to me is doing faith and showing faith.
              Yes, Jesus's very words were, "Tell it." He said "these things I do, you will do greater.  To me, this is greater. He spoke to thousands who listened intently and believed. No hecklers.  I, however speak to millions, and I persevere though people throw tomatoes. Brothers and sisters joining in...
              I have no qualms with your approach.  And I know that now, I won't ever have to hear that you disapprove of my perseverance because it is not the life of quiet faith that you have chosen. We are all permitted our choices. 
              The repetition is not a mistake. People need to hear.
              The neglect of shaking dust is not a mistake. We are here everyday...

              1. wilderness profile image79
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                And yet...the non-believers of these forums are paying a lot more attention to the one under the basket.  The discussions are more in depth and more valuable to both sides.  They are civil, never deteriorating into name calling or attacks and the non-believers are actually listening to what comes from under the basket. 

                It should be something to consider - that living the life is far more effective than shouting from the hill to people that don't want to hear and don't believe a word being said.

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                  AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Agreed. If one's approach is driving the non-believers away from any discussion about one's God, is it not detrimental to one's own cause? Thy may have gotten it "out there," but it falls on deaf ears. Yes, there must be someone there to "proclaim" something in order for people to know or "hear", but words aren't the only way to communicate. And sometimes, in certain contexts, not the most effective. I have yet to see an example where a non-believer wanted to have a discussion with someone behaving in this manner.

                  Name-calling and attacks are just petty ways of puffing ourselves up. It does nothing for our cause except make ourselves feel witty or boost our ego.

                  I have seen this from BOTH sides and it's saddening. Nobody's producing any results. I don't care if someone is trying to explain why they think that the earth is flat. If they're genuine, civil, respectful, I will  take the time to debate it with them, without hostility, because they are showing sincerity and willingness to communicate.

                2. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Do people not pay more attention to them that say the same things as they??? Uh...I thought I covered that...
                  Truth is important.  "Shut up Christian!" Is not a Godly statement.
                  Agreement often brings a sense of camaraderie. Bible says, How can two walk together lest they be agreed? Now, I know that there is disagreement very often amongst you. But now, direct opposition to truth. Jesus said, "Tell it loud!"
                  I follow Christ.  No other...

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    "Do people not pay more attention to them that say the same things as they??? Uh...I thought I covered that..."

                    You covered that idea with me. Not wilderness.

              2. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Understood. smile  We've disagreed, and may continue to do so on occasion, but I appreciate some of what you had to say here. Thanks for the bit of encouragement.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  No sweat!!! smile

              3. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                The only thing about repetition that I have a problem with is repeating it to someone who either doesn't want to hear it or has heard it before...for purposes of you and I and other believers discussing and edifying each other, there isn't much I'd rather talk about. smile

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I have read your, "shut-up" on more than one occasion. smile is this the hypocritical stance that Ashton mentioned?

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Maybe, I can't speak for her. I have also never told you to shut up.  I've said that I believed that in terms of evangelization, actions are more effective in drawing others to Christ or pushing them away.  Like I said, say what you need to say and what you believe the Lords given you to say.  We're different, and that's okay.  smile

                  2. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Your lack of honesty on what others say and don't say (saying that Mo told you to shut up when she didn't) would certainly fall under the category of hypocrisy (that of course being the assumption that you think we should not lie and distort someone's words.)

                    You're failing to see the message here. You have to remember. Most atheists don't care if you talk about what you think. However, if you nag them and talk to them in a way which is uncivil, you're destroying your cause. You are driving non-believers away. Does not your Bible say the following:

                    I Peter 3:15: "...Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully."

                    I Corinthians 9:18-23. "For although I am free in every way from anyone's control, I have made myself a bond servant to everyone, so that I might gain the more [for Christ]. To the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews, to men under the Law, [I became] as one under the Law, though not myself being under the Law, that I might win those under the Law..." and in verse 22, latter half:  "...I have [in short] become all things to all men, that I might by all means (at all costs and in any and every way) save some."

                    Is this not the proper way to evangelize, by your own Holy Book?

            3. oceansnsunsets profile image83
              oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              My very initial reply to you already said what you are repeating here about how you think its wrong.  I said if someone in that conversation said a similar thing, then I would agree. I have been consistent, speaking out when I see something no matter who is saying it.  You say a lot of other things in this post, and if that was all for Genaea and myself, then wow.  I don't know what to say to you about all of the things you said there.  I admit that I disagree with your overall view of Headly as spoken about in the greater part of the initial post from you.  I am not only focused on the comment about cells that go againt the body, etc.  The whole thing. 

              I have gotten that message from you several times, and without coming right out and saying it, I got it, as it was intended.  Perhaps it is not seeing the words like others do, but I see an attempt to say a lot about him that was pretty harsh.  The book is even harsher, if you thought that analogy is bad.  I didn't see all that went into that post, as pointing out a simple contradiction in his behavior.  There was a LOT of feeling behind it, a lot.  Thus the responses, and I am simply saying I thought it was judgmental, and not descriptive of someone like Headly.  It isn't the one point only, but ALL the points you made, then and in this post also I am referring to. 

              You have your way, I have mine.  Mine comes with not the same results, as observed.  That is fine with me.  We are all different, we don't all need to be the same, or else not being some ideal way.  I love how different everyone is.  Its unfortunate some don't want to talk to me or want me to talk to them anymore, but I actually totally get why that is.  If you look at Jesus as an example, the best example of how to be, what did it get him?   He was loved by many, but not for long, even abandoned by most of his 12 closest friends at the end until after the resurrection.  The people hated him, wanted him dead over a true criminal, and why is that?  Was it because he deserved the treatment for not being kind and loving enough?  He did leave and shake the dust off his feet, and was kind and loving, and they STILL ended up executing him for a reason.

              I am not comparing myself to him, and know better, but I will say this.  He cared about light and truth and to some that is offensive no matter how kind someone delivers the truth.  Someone engaging in lies, will not like the truth, and these forums are begging for it, inviting it, and all think they have it or at least to some degree. 

              I am a "no BS zone", and I have "radar" that can detect it pretty well lol, and don't have the patience for it.  People won't like me, and that isn't my goal, but its not always easy because I do care.  I can only hope that people will know that if they want their views really challenged and are up for a true debate, that I won't bs them.  I will be honest because I value that.  I think that is fair in a place like this, and think people should be free to discuss how they like.  I want to think hard about things, and hope to encourage others to do the same.  About these topics especially because I think they are the most important kinds of topics.

              Truth isn't wanted by all, and if people are here are discussing in the forums and especially about Christianity, then I am in the right place doing the right thing.  My point about Jesus in part, was that if its a bad sign that people don't like you for speaking what you think is the truth (which I think can be tested), then he was doing something wrong.  I don't think he was though.  I think what is wrong is that people actually embrace untruths, about all kinds of things for all kinds of reasons.  Wanting to uncover those things and search deeper isn't for everyone.  I like that kind of thing.  If I am in here by myself, so be it.  I am free to speak, at least for now.  I appreciate that and value it.   One of my most favorite questions is, "what would explain that?"  When not a lot does, then what is left that would explain it is getting us a little closer to truth I think.  I say this about all kinds of things.

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I'm not saying anything about Headly that I wouldn't say to him and I'm certainly not implying anything about him.  I've already spoken to my opinion of him.  It's his words I have a hard time with.  I'm a little confused as to how you could say that I'm speaking harshly about him when I've done no such thing.  Yeah, there's a lot of emotion that comes with being told over and over that you deny your faith so people will like you.  Frankly, I don't care if any of you like me.  I have friends. I like making new ones, but I haven't come here searching for them.  You, IMO, are overreaching in this response to make me guilty of many things I just haven't said or done.  But thanks for the subtle digs about my poor representation of Christ.

                Carry on detecting BS.

                smile

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Who was this about them? I asked and you answered. 

                  In short...this sums up my last points.  This larger post which was met with responses....

                  "Does anyone remember the big fight about that book that supposedly said religion was an infectious virus?  Some of my fellow believers took great exception to that and threw some mega fits.  So what makes you think that A-comparing atheism to a cancer that should be cut out is any different and B-that in even identifying the possibility that you aren't exhibiting boundless hypocrisy?

                  It continues to boggle my mind that men and women who believe in Gods's mercy and claim their greatest desire is to be like Jesus, and who also believe in (and in this case fight for, free will are so damned set against letting people exercise theirs?

                  And the whole who's more persecuted than whom argument is silly and futile. An atheist is only known as an atheist of they mention it.  A Christian (who should be recognized by their loving kindness to ALL-not just other Christians who think like them-is only recognized by their big mouthed announcement of their Chrisianity.  Don't want to be persecuted for yapping about your belief or lack of it? Then just live your faith or your kindness and goodness that doesn't come from faith without going into all the details about where it comes from unless you're asked to do so."



                  To which some responded, and to one of those it was also said by Mo,

                  "I really do try.  It can be one of those things though where no good deed goes unpunished...lol"

                  To anyone that questions me for questioning, this sums it all up to a degree.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    I was speaking to those who were defending Headly after having ripped others apart for making similar statements.  I was NOT attacking Headly personally.  If you believe I was, please just come out and say so instead of talking about my intentions, implications, and all that.  I'll say what I mean.  I won't play games.

                2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I was not speaking of any poor representation of Christ, actually.  Not at all. If he said anything about you denying your faith or acting certain ways I missed it, and I know I haven't said anything like that.  So I am a little confused by this response.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Then I apologize for the misunderstanding.

                  2. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Headly has never said that.  This is my own failing.  I tend to address the entire group in a thread, rather than focusing on just one person.  I do see how that could lead to confusion.

      2. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The only other point I'm going to make about this is that you are defending Headly's words by saying he was illustrating a point - but no one allowed that defense in the other conversation about the book.

        Look at this:

        Religious people are infected by a virus. 

        Atheists are cells in our DNA that behave contrary to others. Those are cancer cells.

        What is the honest difference between those two statements?

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Den of thieves... pit of snakes?
          Not being argumentative. Just pointing to Jesus.
          He spoke to those who perverted the walk for personal gain and recognition. They were not saying what he said. They had their own thing going with a big God stamp. They didn't agree with Jesus who is one with the Lord. They called him a liar. And he did not withhold from them their mirror of truth.
          They hated him for that mirror image enough to kill him. Now, I live... abundantly!!! smile
          I'm grateful.

          1. profile image0
            Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I hear you, but I think that Jesus's circumstances were entirely different, and, most importantly, what he was saying he was saying to those who made the standards so high that no one could reach them...thus keeping others from HIM.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              The standard IS unreachable. Thus, the Savior.
              Yes, he spoke to them who perverted the message...

  14. Jerami profile image60
    Jeramiposted 11 years ago

    i'm wondering how many believers can be talking to young people concerning their problems, counseling them, meeting them on an equal level of common sense, and without them being aware, you are using verses right out of the bible?
        We can gain their confidence, gain their respect ......  and actually helping them get themselves out of the jam they were in;  then one day they ask you if you are a Christian. 
    When this happens to me, My answer is always the same.
    "That depends upon what you think a Christian is".   I believe in a God and that Jesus is the Messiah spoken of in scriptures, if that is what you mean?  Then they usually  say, tell me more.

         I think we can encourage more lives in this manner than being Atheist hunters.  i guess it is possible to catch a bear in a rabbit snare, but there isn't much room for error. And who really needs that much meat.

    1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
      AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Atheist hunters? smile) sorry but the visual cracked me up.

      1. Jerami profile image60
        Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Maybe that's a good thing ??

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
          AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It wasn't funny in a psycho way. Funny in that I pictured a group of people at a hunter's camp with camouflage T-shirts having an "A" and a big "error" sign over it, holding a meeting with their Bibles in one hand, traps in the other, disscussing on how to effectively hunt down a group of atheists hiding in the forest. I then pictured a group of atheist people running away to find cover, hiding among trees and bushes, and trying to cover up their tracks. All this in a milisecond. It looked way funnier in my head than it sounds, I promise. I blame the late hour and caffeine.

          1. Jerami profile image60
            Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Deleted

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
              AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              That's amazing. And the visual is even funnier. Atheist Hunters swat team style.

              1. Jerami profile image60
                Jeramiposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                don't know why i deleted that....  guess it is a good thing you caught it.

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                  AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  lol I don't know why either. I found it quite humorous.

  15. profile image0
    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years ago

    Goodnight, all. smile

  16. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    I think another option would be that neither are like cancer?

    Edit: I was going to explain what Headly said in context, but without actual quotes, all it is is "I said that he said" etc. I'd have to copy and paste the whole conversation.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I was going to agree with what you had said, it was actually pretty right on in regards to how I had seen it explained so many other times.  I hear you though.  From what I saw, you did seem to absorb the gist of what I had over a long period of time.  Your question was a good one.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Phew, maybe I'm not crazy then.

        I think it was just a situation where an analogy was presented and misunderstood. I agree, at first I was thinking "The hell??" But once I read it...and reread it...and reread it...I kind of understood why they were using the analogy. Perhaps it would have been beneficial for me to attempt to summarize the situation. But it is there for everyone to see. page 51 onward. I won't be guilty of posting only snippets and misrepresenting a person or putting words in their mouth. I'd rather they speak for themselves.

        I don't think that either atheism or christianity HAS to be regarded as cancerous at all. How about we live peacefully among each other, not bothering each other and learning what we can from another? If believers are right, I'm pretty sure I'm going to jolly well find out. But have I harmed any of them? I highly doubt it. If believers are not right, they're none the worse. Why do people think that other opinions are so detrimental? sad I don't get it.

        Granted, I think it was a poor choice of analogy for obvious reasons, but that's none of my beeswax.  I really think that no one was psychologically damaged, just offended. I really don't think he meant that atheists should die. But that's how people might take it, if they were not thorough enough to read the whole statement.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I love what you said about living peacefully among each other, I think this is totally possible!  Its a good question about the opinions of others.  If they DO become detrimental truly, then that is another thing, and can be discussed factually and fairly.  Encouraging thorough reading of all never hurts, and can only help.

    2. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Then glittered confetti. Lol... it gets all in your hair. smile

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        ....elaborate?...

  17. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years ago

    Clearly, it seems I struck a nerve with my cancer analogy. Understand I'm using cancer as an analogy because its specific characteristics relate to the point I'm trying to make. It's not meant to be an insult or to insinuate that atheists are in some way a disease that needs to be eradicated. Cancer is something everyone is familiar with and most I think understand it to be an issue with cells in the body not behaving as their meant to according to the body's DNA code.

    As a believer I didn't take issue with comparing religion to a virus. I understand that analogy and can understand the point the author was trying to make. This is no different.

    God/God's will = DNA
    The body = the universe
    cells in the body = matter/energy, humans, animals, trees, etc

    The bible describes it exactly like this. All of existence manifests according to God's will. Then God creates two beings who operate of their own will, even when that will is in direct conflict with God's. Much like cancer. Like the body, the universe is a complex system made up of numerous parts. Each part, like cells in a body, must behave in particular ways for the system as a whole to work correctly.

    This analogy is not meant to speak of anyone in this life. This has to do with the life to come and why God can't be all inclusive. If one were in need of a blood transfusion, one would want to be careful that the blood being introduced into your body does not include cancerous cells. The same goes for the life beyond this one. Anyone who shares the trait of cancer to not acknowledge the DNA/God's will cannot be allowed access. For the same reason.

    You need no better example than to look at human behavior in this life. We kill one another. We force our will on one another. We don't act as a cohesive part of a complex system. We act out of individual wants. Humans are a cancer in this natural world. We destroy, we alter, we affect everything around us.

    This analogy isn't meant to be an insult or to in some way insinuate that atheists are damaging existence any more than any other human. It's to put the dynamic into a context to help better understand. In any complex system there must be a singular focus. A set of rules. An authority. Like DNA in the body. Because there is one single DNA code that dictates how each element in the body is to behave, the whole things works as one single unit. The universe works the same way with one singular set of natural laws that dictate behavior. We humans are the exception to this rule. We determine our behavior based on our own wills and wants. And because of that we actually work against the natural order.

    Going into the next life, if one doesn't acknowledge God's authority as the DNA of existence, then one shares commonality with a cancerous cell. It's the same issue. It's elements in the body of the universe not behaving in the interest of the system. This is why God requires acknowledging His authority before granting access. Not to be mean, but out of necessity. That's all this analogy was meant to illustrate.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      FINALLY!

    2. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      So when chimps kill each other it's part of God's will, but when humans kill each other it's against God's will?

      What comes next, are Muslims cancerous because they don't acknowledge the Christian version of God. What about Catholics or any of the other brands that may differ from your version. Let's not forget those Hindus.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        ...water flows into water. If there is debris in the water ... something like that… God will only accept purified water in his pool. kinda sorta?

      2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        "So when chimps kill each other it's part of God's will, but when humans kill each other it's against God's will?"

        Yes, things like that will happen. Life is compelled to be fruitful and multiply and to fill the earth. Life feeds on life. Chimps killing each other more goes against your whole stance of altruism resulting in morality than anything. That sort of behavior should have been weeded out if you were right. But because chimps are chimps, have always been chimps and will always be chimps, you know what to expect behavior wise. They're not compelled by their own will to be anything other than chimps. Once Planet of the Apes becomes a reality then you'll know the difference. That's what it would look like.

        "What comes next, are Muslims cancerous because they don't acknowledge the Christian version of God. What about Catholics or any of the other brands that may differ from your version. Let's not forget those Hindus."

        The same applies to any human who doesn't acknowledge God's authority. The dividing lines I'm sure aren't as clear as that. Free will is the cancer, and we all have it. I'm sure there are Muslims and Catholics who will be granted access and others who will not. Whatever title you go by doesn't matter. It's whether or not you acknowledge the authority of the universe. The origin of the Muslim religion is the same God. Hindus also recognize a higher power than themselves. It's we humans who categorize things and place labels on groups.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          It's a chimps God's will to sometimes kill each other but when human's kill each other it's somehow against God's will?

          I take it that what you are saying is that you think God gave us free will but he wants it back. What difference would it make to any God if I don't believe he exist before I see him? It's like a kid saying he has a magic turtle in his pocket and you can play with him if you acknowledge the magic turtle exists without seeing it. Sounds like you have no idea who will get into heaven, yet you claim to know how to get into heaven.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Because God gave us free will, we must willfully acknowledge God's authority the way everything else does naturally and without its own will to do anything other than. Because it's an individual will, then we have to willfully do this. Chimps don't. Trees don't. Suns don't. Just us. That's the whole point.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Everything else acknowledges gods authority?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                They don't have the ability to choose one way or the other.  Sorry to butt in again.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  You don't know that, you've never communicated with every self aware creature and that's not what he said.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    He said, "But because chimps are chimps, have always been chimps and will always be chimps, you know what to expect behavior wise. They're not compelled by their own will to be anything other than chimps. Once Planet of the Apes becomes a reality then you'll know the difference. That's what it would look like."

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Nothing else has an individual will that compels them to do anything other than what is within God's will. They don't have the 'knowledge of good and evil'. They behave naturally. Our free will makes it possible for our behavior to be 'unnatural'.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  How can humans behave in a manner that they have not evolved to have like?

                2. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  How do you know what goes on in a whales, elephants or chimps mind?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Observation. Generation after generation, no matter where in the world, whales are still whales, elephants are still elephants, and chimps are still chimps. They exhibit intelligence and ingenuity to get what they need, but want for no more than what they already are.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
              EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              So, God gave everything a choice, but not us. We have a gun to our heads to perform like a chimp, but not actually be one.

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Now when I read what Headly said; I started analyzing the words. I specifically realized that what WAS said is that WE are the ONLY species with a choice. Animals BEHAVE AS NATURE DESIGNED. NOT people. We have a CHOICE to do; or NOT do.
                No gun involved.  Chooae and accept the consequence of either choice.
                Can you see that now? Just takes a little "reasoning; knowledge; and analysis of the FACTS and EVIDENCE" (such as what was actually said.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Sure he's assumed we are the only animals that can make choices. He's assumed that a God exists. He's assumed it's his version of God. He says we are the only descriptive animals. He also says God will give us eternal life if we give God back our free will. He has stated in the past that not all humans have free will, he's said indigenous people do not have free will. I'd then assume the indigenous people are going straight to heaven. LOL

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Sounds interesting. Who are the indigenous people?  Adam and Eve?
                    I can't think of a person who is unable to decide their own path.

                  2. Cat333 profile image60
                    Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    God gives us eternal life when we accept Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.

                    Jesus stands in our place - both in perfection and in payment of our debts to God - so that we who were all guilty are now declared righteous when God looks at us and sees his Son (in whom the believers are hidden).

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Why would you invoke reasoning, knowledge and analysis of facts and evidence when you yourself do the opposite the rest of the time?

                  Yes, it is a gun to the head, there is no choice to be made because the only choice is to follow or die horribly, which is exactly the same thing a dictator would tell the people of his country.

                  1. Cgenaea profile image60
                    Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    And I was SURE that you were one to abhor contradiction as well. Choice is choice. We cannot say there is no choice; and then follow it up with "the only choice is..." it's a literary/argument "rule breaker" im sure.

              2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                No, it's the other way around. Nothing else has a choice but to be what it naturally is. Nothing else has an individual will that compels it to be or do anything other than what comes naturally. We have a choice. We're not inherently bound to nature as everything else is. But in having that choice we are capable of being 'unnatural'. We are capable of behaviors that are not the natural order.

                Why do you think we even make the distinction between what is 'natural' and what is 'man-made'? We inherently make this distinction because we know that what is 'of us' is not natural.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I don't even know what to say to that ridiculous answer, it is so far fetched and silly, any kind of reason cannot penetrate that invincible nonsense.



                  lol So, humans are not natural?

  18. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years ago

    UH OH! Headly Von Noggin, please explain : " Free will is the cancer, and we all have it."

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Free will is what makes it possible for any of us to behave in any way that contradicts God's will. All the universe is the manifestation of God's will. It exists because it conforms exactly to God's will. Free will is the whole reason we'd need commandments or judgement. Everything else operates under God's will and does not have an individual will of its own to override. It's our having free will that makes us behave like a cancer in the natural world. We destroy the environment around us. We don't live harmoniously within it like everything else. Much like a cancer. Cancer too is a natural product of the system it lives within. It is cells created by the body that don't act in accordance with the "law" of the body, the DNA. Like humans in the natural world. All of nature adheres to 'natural law'. And all of nature works harmoniously. But humans, we're a different story. We create chemicals and materials that don't break down naturally. We destroy the ozone. Pollute the water. Unlike anything else.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Deleted

        1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
          AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Ignorance is sin? So if I am unaware that something is detrimental or sinful, I'm sinning simply by not knowing?  hmm

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Knowledge is everything. The word sin is a very tainted word and I prefer not to use it. You just made a mistake. It is easily corrected. That's how we learn. That's how we take the debris out of the water of our consciousness. Clear water flows into clear water. Something like that. It is beyond intellectual comprehension. Loving/ focusing on the "clear water" is the important thing.  The Way I See It. Take it or Leave It

            1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
              AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Sorry that seems weird. If you don't know, then you don't know. How is it wrong if you didn't know it was wrong? Isn't sin about intention?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                As I said, sin means ignorance. Who does anything detrimental to themselves knowingly? They make a mistake in knowing what is good for themselves. IN ALL CASES! Take Hitler. He felt justified in all he did! He really thought he could bring goodness to himself and the world. Not on purpose to bring in evil!  Right? He was exceedingly ignorant.

                it seems the master deceiver (satanic delusion) wants us to be totally ignorant of the truth. We can always override delusion and ignorance. The school of hard knocks will assist us. Wisdom is gained through the use of free will. Free will is not cancerous. That is my point. Free will is actually our only hope.

                1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                  AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I took it you meant that the state of ignorance itself was sin.

                  "Another word for ignorance is sin."

                  That was my point. I'm not attacking. It just didn't make sense.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    another word for sin is ignorance. That does sound better. Thank you and sorry.

                2. Cat333 profile image60
                  Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Hi Kathryn L Hill, dear sister. I'm struggling some with the whole ignorance / sin thing. Perhaps I'm not understanding. As I understand it, some sins are willful, and some sins are unknown to us and committed out of ignorance. As it's written, "But who can discern their own errors? Forgive my hidden faults. Keep your servant also from willful sins; may they not rule over me. Then I will be blameless, innocent of great transgression." (Psalm 19:12-13)

                  I agree that even without knowing it we are often committing sin (e.g., not aware of an apathetic attitude toward someone suffering, or unaware of our own ways of doing the same things we accuse others of). It seems in a sense we'd still be "guilty" of even those sins we're unaware of. Especially when we consider, as you pointed out, that Satan deceives us and even Hitler justified his own sins to himself and so may have been ignorant of their sinful nature, but certainly he was nonetheless guilty of sins (of course on some level he may have known he was sinning, no matter how hard he tried to justify it).

                  Still, ignorance seems to make the sin a lesser offense, and in some regard ignorance may keep us from being guilty. "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)

                  Though it may not make sense, I know I've committed "willful" sins - those I knew were sins, knew God didn't want me to commit, and yet because the temptation was great and I was weak and/or rebellious, I committed the sin anyway (Of course a sinning Christian is more miserable than anyone and cannot continue in sin because of the Spirit within).

                  I just have some confusion and uneasy feelings over the whole idea of "ignorance is sin" or "ignorance is another word for sin". I see it as sins can be intentional or can come from ignorance, with the intentional sins being worse than the unintentional ones based on ignorance. I also don't mean to nitpick over the wording or the matter, which perhaps I'm doing?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Sin is the result of a fall in consciousness. A temporary forgetting. We, as humans spirits and souls encased in the physical, must be diligent in remembering the lessons we have learned, the wisdom we have acquired and the knowledge we have within us. We can so easily fall into satanic delusion. Jesus was tempted and was able to refrain. He could have had the world at his fingertips with the power he had from God.  Fortunately for us, he loved God and remembered His love for God. He kept his awareness intact. He did not let himself forget or IGNORE His reality and therefore God's reality. TWISI just sharin'. Thanks for asking me.

          2. Cat333 profile image60
            Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            As far as I know ignorance is NOT sin, at least not in one context of it. "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)

            I see Kathryn L Hill generally speaks truth and she is my sister-in-Christ. She also seems to be a lovely lady. Forgive me, Ms. Hill, for disagreeing, especially if I'm mistaken. Perhaps in another context ignorance is sin?

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              LOL No, Ignorance is not a sin. Sins are committed out of ignorance and so sin can be defined as ignorance. Not the other way around. This passage is defining the importance of not going against your acquired wisdom and knowledge!!! Take Heed!

              1. Cat333 profile image60
                Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                I completely agree the passage is "defining the importance of not going against your acquired wisdom and knowledge". Thanks for clarifying that ignorance isn't sin!

        2. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I think Headly has stated a bunch of time know that he thinks free will is cancerous.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No *having*  it causes cancerous results, not free will itself. Further more. Headly stated,  "It's whether or not you acknowledge the authority of the universe."
            Exactly
            How else can you guide yourself in your own best interests? Or others in their best interests?

            God is the standard for Goodness! Yay, HeadlyVonNoggin!

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Nothing else destroys the environment? Is that what you are saying? What if I find other creature that destroy the environment to suite there own needs?

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          That creature would have to be working against it's instincts. Nature is generally a very harmoniously working system. Sorry to butt in. Just my two cents.

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No other creature manipulates the elements as we do. Nothing a natural animal does can do any permanent damage. It's all bio-degradable. We make elements that don't break down. We lay concrete over the ground. We pump pollutants into the water supply and there's a huge island of trash floating out in the ocean that's our making. Everything else works in harmony with nature. Natural processes clean up after everything they do.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            We make only one thing that won't eventually break down. Stainless steal.

            Elephants destroy forest for food.

            Locusts can quickly strip whole fields of vegetation.

            Crown-of-thorns starfish cause widespread destruction of the Great Barrier Reef.

            Common carp. uprooting and disturbing submerged vegetation. These fish are notorious for altering their environment.

            Cane toads are most dangerous to native wildlife because their poison glands are toxic to birds, mammals, fish and reptiles — and anything else that attempts to eat them.

            Mountain pine beetle are known to attack and kill live trees. Whole stands of forest can be destroyed if bark beetle numbers get out of control.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Life feeds on life. Everything dies and decays. Nothing about any of that is destroying nature. That IS nature.

              Plastic is another one that doesn't break down. And any other hazardous material that must be disposed of in particular ways. Gasses and oils. Radioactive materials. All kinds of things.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Plastic eventually breaks down, stainless steel doesn't.

                The point is many animals and insects change and damage the environment to suite their needs.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  "Drop the same bottle into a landfill, however, and you might have second thoughts. Why? Because petroleum-based plastics like PET don't decompose the same way organic material does. Wood, grass and food scraps undergo a process known as biodegradation when they're buried, which is a fancy way of saying they're transformed by bacteria in the soil into other useful compounds. But bacteria turn up their noses at plastic. - http://science.howstuffworks.com/scienc … egrade.htm

                  "The point is many animals and insects change and damage the environment to suite their needs."

                  How often can you run across and readily recognize the habitat of another species other than humans hundreds or thousands of years later? It's all biodegradable. Other species may use plant life to make their homes, or chew down trees, but it's all part of the natural process. It's all organic materials.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Plastics don't decompose the same way organic material, but it does eventually break down.

                    But they are still doing what we do on a less complex level. Building homes to protect themselves.

      3. profile image0
        Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Welcome back, Headly, and thanks for explaining a bit more.  Personally, I'd have chosen an entirely different analogy.  Anyway, I appreciate the explanation.  smile

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I appreciate what you're saying, but really there's no better example I can think of. Cancer is something most are familiar with. They understand it to be something that grows as part of the body, but does not grow as our DNA intended. It's the best example to show how elements in a complex system that don't adhere to the code of that system can be a detriment to the system. I know cancer carries with it a negative connotation, but the way it behaves, what it is, perfectly illustrates a parallel. Better than anything else I can think of.

          Perhaps we could think of it in terms of each individual cell in our bodies being aware and capable of choosing on their own whether or not to adhere to our DNA code. The whole reason our bodies work as one singular unit is because every cell that makes it adheres to one singular code.

          Think of the universe as a program that God wrote. Every bit that runs is of God's making and works exactly as God intended. But then God made possible for other programs to connect to it and pass information in. This other code comes from a source that's not God's doing, but someone else's. While God knows what to expect out of his own code when run, He can't account for whatever random bits of information are going to be injected into runtime by these other sources. Free will is a will apart from His. He can't know, until it's done, what to expect from it. This is why the flood was necessary, and why it says God regretted it. It was an unintended result that God then had to change His program to account for. But couldn't know that until after free will had it's input.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
            EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That is one of reasons why a thinking, reasonable and rational person rejects the nonsense that is your religion because it teaches it's followers to remain ignorant of the world around them and to alienate and hate others who don't share the belief system.

            If anything, Christianity is the cancer.

      4. EncephaloiDead profile image54
        EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        So, Christianity means living in perfect harmony with nature and not being a Christian means we are destroying nature, polluting it. lol

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No, Christianity is about forgiveness for our natural tendency to fall out of harmony with nature. It's an acknowledgement that there is a power higher than us that knows better than we do. We're like cells in a body, that only live for a short time compared to the lifetime of the body, trying to make decisions for ourselves what's best for us and the body we live in. We simply don't have the perspective to know. The DNA code has lived beyond this one body. Through multiple lifetimes. It knows better than we do how best to be in harmony with the system around us. We can't know. Christianity is about accepting that and allowing our own will to take a back seat to the will we trust. "Thy kingdom come, thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven".

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
            EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            No, it isn't, it's about rewarding followers to worship and praise a mythical god and to punish everyone else for not.



            Yet, no such higher power has ever been shown to exist and nothing in science or reality supports it.



            lol That is why a thinking person would reject such nonsense.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              "Yet, no such higher power has ever been shown to exist and nothing in science or reality supports it."

              No higher power has been shown to exist, true, but to say nothing in science or reality supports it is pure ignorance. Chaos becomes order in this environment that we can't account for. We can't account for the fixed values of the natural laws, yet because they are the way they are, chaos becomes order. Intelligence results. It turns out there's a code engrained into our being that retains and passes on successful information. There's a system. You simply can't say "nothing in science or reality supports it". There's plenty that supports it. Proves it? No. But supports it, yes.

              "If these laws had been fixed at random, if the strength of the gravitational force, or the strength of the electrical force, or the masses of the subatomic particles, or the violence of the big bang, if any of these had been chosen truly at random, then the chances of having a world with life, any kind of life, would have been virtually zero. The universe appears to have bent over backwards to accomodate life." - Dr. Russell Stannard, High Particle Physicist

              "The universe knew we were coming." - Physicist Freeman Dyson


              "...a thinking person...", "...a thinking, reasonable and rational person..."

              Nice. Keep telling yourself that you're smarter and therefore anything anyone says who reaches a different conclusion than you isn't worth listening to because they're not as smart as you are.

              1. wilderness profile image79
                wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Our ignorance as to the details of the universe does not support a god from another universe.  It means we're ignorant, nothing more, and it certainly does not point to a god somewhere out there.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Other than speculating a multi-verse, we have no answer as to why, other than the fact that intelligence is a natural product of this universe. So, intelligence is a likely explanation that should not be removed as a distinct possibility. There are things we know about this universe that does in fact support this. It doesn't prove it, but it supports it.

              2. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Ah, yes another clue that God exists.

                He put us in the centre of the universe. No.

                He put us around a perfect star. Nope, it's rather a fast burning star that continues to heat up and didn't exist for the first 10 or so billion years of the universes existence.

                He put our perfect planet in the perfect position. Nope, because our sun is slowing heating up it will before long be to close to sustain life.

                As it turns out our only hope is that we eventually inhabit Mars and then move to a planet around a white dwarf star.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What exactly is the logic behind thinking we need to be in the center? I don't get that. Besides, space, like time, is only relevant to those of us that are a product of this universe. Beyond that, irrelevant. Where we exist doesn't matter. Only that we do.

                  The whole point of this whole existence is that it isn't forever. Everything dies. Everything comes to an end. Moving to Mars would only delay the inevitable. Eventually the whole universe will run out of energy and go cold. Fizzle out.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    May as well just lay down here then.

        2. Chris Neal profile image77
          Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          No, that's not what he said.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
            EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, it is. smile

  19. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    Can the cancer analogy please be dropped? The purpose of an analogy is to clarify. If it is not serving its purpose, why use it? To prove we were intellectually correct in using it? Who cares? If it isn't communicating what you want because it's creating a lot of confusion, then please just don't use it. I can't wait to see how the original discussion of free will proceeds once the cancer analogy and all its controversy stops bogging it down.

    *waits*

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I hear you.  I also think most do understand the general idea and aren't confused really by it . 

      As for free will in its simplest terms to me, I think being able to choose contrary to another choice right in front of us.  In any moment we are free to choose this or that.  WE choose freely everyday, things that we could do otherwise.  Consequences follow, goo or bad.

      If I had to guess, one of the biggest issues with free will is the consequences that come from/with our choices.  Some people immediately think that unless there are favorable results with all choices that we somehow didn't have free will after all.  I think that is just a reality we all live within. 

      An example would be not paying our bills which we are free to not do.  We are not free to not pay AND keep the service or not pay a late fee penalty though. May not be best example.

      What I find interesting about it all though is that we expect of a possible god what we don't expect if humans/businesses, and even nature with natural law.  People aren't usually angry with most of the laws on our societies and even IF they are, they learn to live within and cooperate to some degree.  Some take risks in breaking them but know full well they are kind of taking said risk and know a penalty will be leveled if caught or found out etc. 

      I guess I think we hold views against a possible greater authority, that don't seem the most reasonable in light of all of that.  Speaking about the idea itself in this case.  It's our human nature to want what we want when we want, even if it's not best for us.  Seems like one of the bigger conundrums of our existence.  We fight so hard, and assume so much is against us, some since the time we were toddlers.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        We can recognize what's unjust with authority.

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I don't disagree with you on that. 

          We have definitely seen unjust authorities in history, which by the way are also making choices to hurt or exploit people that may need to be answered for.  Power and corruption is a greater example of what I'm saying.  It just seems sometimes that they may not have to answer for it. 

          In my view, they actually don't or won't get away with things long term and will answer.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Just because you want them to answer doesn't mean they will. We've all been taught to think that way (they'll get theirs in the end). I makes us feel better, but there is no truth to it. Only the good die young. My father in law is 81. He is a complete narcissus and a horrible person, has late stage Alzheimer's and a heart condition, but I'm sure he will outlive of all.

            1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
              oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Lol, as Billy Joel says about the good dying young, true.  Of course that isn't true across the board but I hear you.  But as for a possible judgement, if there I one, I don't think it will be because I or anyone want it.  It will be because it will be part of a real and true reality. 

              That it happens to be a comfort in some cases doesn't negate the possibility of its reality for that reason.  There could be absolute truth to it.  Other things can lead us to conclude what is most reasonable over other options. 

              I'm sorry about your father in law.  Your example of him is representative if many others also.  I don't deny the reality that represents.  Life does seem unfair at times and that is tough.  I've dealt with Alzheimer's myself and it broke my heart as I lost my father to it and he was the sweetest, though could be a stinker too lol. It took him young but some other stuff complicated thongs as he didn't always take the best care of himself, ended up with copd, etc  you wouldn't know it to look at him though as he looked the picture of youth and health for his age.

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
        EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        That is a terrible example, totally irrelevant. Paying bills is the result of buying something. Are we buying faith, salvation, God?



        That's fine, but atheists are not breaking any laws, they are simply living their lives without religion. What you and others are saying is that should be penalty worthy of eternal fire, even though those atheists do no harm to anyone else.

        And, when it comes to laws of society, prisons are full of Christians. So much for following rules.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Yes we are buying faith/salvation/God. smile we pay with our lives.
          The jails are full of Black people. Consequently, they were GIVEN God hundreds of years ago when their people were kidnapped and taught to hate and be wary of one another so they ccould teach their kids to do the same. Voila!!! Christian jails. smile
          Christians have not given you the penalty for sin. Their leader did. Don't blame the messenger.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Christian leaders are not Christian? Way to pass the buck. Don't hate me for telling you that you are going to hell? You think it, you say it and then don't want to take the blame. If you don't want to take the blame then don't say it. What you think is your business.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              No, Sir; Jesus and God are not followers of themselves. They make the rules.
              I never say anything about anyone going to H-E-double hockey sticks. It is not my call. I cannot know which of you are on the road to Damascus. Only God.
              What I think is GOD'S business. And he takes it VERY seriously. I try to think as he does. I know how he thinks because I read and believe the bible.

        2. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          We ALL - atheist, believer and everyone else - regularly break God's laws, fail to be holy and perfect, and routinely violate the Spirit of love. These violations, not the absence of religion, are punishable by death, as the wages of sin are death. We ALL do much harm to others, even in ways we may not be aware of or in matters in which we may underestimate the negative impact - an unkind or thoughtless word, failure to help someone in need, withholding good we could have done, failure to use our God-given gifts to benefit people, ridiculing and judging others, making someone feel insecure or stupid, and on and on. On the day of judgment we're told we will be held accountable for every careless word spoken (so if Christ is rejected, hopefully such words were few).

          On our own we'd all be declared guilty of this vast multitude of sins, shortcomings, failures and imperfections throughout our lives. But because of God's great love for us he designed a way for us all to be freed from our sins, free from the penalty of death, and free to come into his presence and receive the gift of eternal life. Jesus Christ is that way. Jesus Christ lived the perfect life AND Jesus Christ laid down his life to pay our sin debt. Now we may accept his gift, which causes every sin we've ever committed to be covered by Christ. The believers lives are now hidden in Jesus, and God will see his beloved Son over us, so that when he looks at us he will see only the perfected, beloved child he created you and I to be.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
            EncephaloiDeadposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Thank you for the pointless sermon.

            You seem to be talking about a place not on Earth or else inside your imagination, because it does not appear to align with reality in any way.

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              The point is to assure and acknowledge that we are all equally guilty of sin, not the atheist in particular, and that we all come to salvation and freedom from our guilt in the same way - through Jesus Christ, the Lord and Savior of all people. 

              I speak of that which is taking place in the "unseen" spiritual realm, but which greatly affects the natural realm we live in.

              May God in his loving mercy reveal the Way to you, Encephaloidead, dear man. Peace to you.

      3. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I STILL just LOVE your mind!!! smile
        It is imperative that truth is understood in the life of those of us who struggle everyday to follow Christ.
        Our new "microwave" generation suffers immensely in the area of patience. Now, now, now, is our consistent request. Consequences are generally "pink chicken meat." Lol... nothing is able to fully simmer to the perfection God intended.
        The mindset reminds me of my Gia. She pulled the kitchen cabinet from the wall last night climbing on the step stool grabbing with both hands and slipping off the stool!!!! always trying to "do it now" herself. Moral??? We really mess up when we cannot wait on the Lord. Then we blame him for our cabinet on the floor. wink

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Thank you Genaea, you are too sweet;)

          I hear you and hope your Gia is ok!  I understand the impatience and have had my share of cause and effects like that.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Duuuuuhhh!!! wink we've all got cabinets on the floor. But if we had only listened... and waited...

    2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sure, I'll drop it. It's unfortunate that it's being taken the way it is. It's the most apt analogy to explain how elements that don't adhere to the code of a complex system can be a detriment to that system. But you're right, it's not accomplishing what it was meant to. It's only derailing the point I was attempting to make in the first place.

      1. Chris Neal profile image77
        Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I usually regret jumping in because many pages of people saying stuff goes on between what  I can read, but I think there's a point to dropping the cancer analogy. It really does parallel the whole "God Infection" thing because I, as a religious person, can't see any other way to read the book than that the author is calling religious faith a disease, and not in any sort of clinical way. Yet others keep insisting that it was not meant in a negative way. Had that discussion continued there is no way that anyone with an ounce of sympathy or empathy would not wind up with hard feelings. Whether or not cancer is truly the 'best analogy' in purely clinical terms, the feelings and connotations attached to the word will always muddy up the stream, so to speak.

  20. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    *facepalm*

  21. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    Oh! Yes, antsy-pants-hardheaded-DIYer is fine. I was there to catch the cabinet before "get down Girl!" could rise from my throat.
    Hmmmm... that gives me an idea! The Lord has "caught my cabinet" so many times. Guess I'm an antsy-pants...too. smile

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I hear you smile

    2. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I'm so glad she's okay! And I love the antsy-pants, heard headed, DIY-er comment.  That made me chuckle. smile

      I recognize impatient...LOL It's followed me around for years!

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Thanks. God works double-time to protect her. She does the most. smile but it DOES remind me...
        Don't do that Genaea.
        Ok Lord, I just gotta se...OUCH!!! wink
        And He is always there to pick up the pieces

  22. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    Ok Headlyvonnoggin:
    Says Eve got her name because she was the mother of all who lived. Let me stress all who live. This was Gen. 3:20. Then in vs 22, God said, "Look, the human beings have become like us." Stressing human beings there.
    Back during the command to subdue the earth, no mention of other people to reign over. Fish, fowl, and creepy things smile
    Then Gen 2:1 says specifically that "there were no people to cultivate the soil." THEN God made the man (with springwater 2:6-7) lol... this seems like a back-track to REtell the story of creation. 
    For "sons of God" in this instance, I'm still thinking angels. The Nephilum seemed like super-beings made with possibly immortal GIANT stuff directly from heaven.
    The angels could have been allowed to come down marry and have children.  God can do anything. Where else would the extraordinary features come from? Cain would've been afraid of that giant. For sure.
    And who knows how long after creation that this happened with Cain. He already had his own children. Plenty of time for the Nephilum to grow to large numbers as well.
    Also, when Adam was presented with his wife, he said FINALLY! Seems to point to him being alone for some time. Not with beautifully hot Nephilum chicks that he could reproduce with (according to your account) walking around.
    Please tell me what you think about these points. I so admire your scholarly presence. I wanna nickname you Encyclo. smile

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Lol at beautifully hot nephilim chicks smile

      Edit: The verse about Eve is a good one to consider, being the mother of all living.

      Regarding angels and free will and/or their incarnation to flesh and blood beings I have to study more.  I do seem to recall some angels were fallen and seem to have an element of choice if so .  I need to make sure I'm not confusing Milton's Paradise Lost, a fictional work but very cool.  Still, it's not biblical text. 

      Lots to think about.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I seem to remember fallen angels given a choice too.. Errr...what did you say that movie was again? Lol...
        My daddy was a very comical person. My family laughs if they do nothing else.
        Yeah, lots to think about.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Notice the stories don't mention Nephilim females. Notice most of the stories only mention males born. Except of course when then what to show how shallow women are.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Are not!!! smile we deep!!! Lol...

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I personally love women. The writers of the bible… not so much.

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
            oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You speak the truth! Lol

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Thanks. Seemed like SOMEbody needed to know! Lol...

        2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
          oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          What do you mean?

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Meaning the writers of the OT were only concerned with males as if only the genetics of males were past down. This was something that was commonly thought back then. An error if you will.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              You remember that dramatic behavioral change I'm always going on about. Male dominated societies is one of the things that came from that. And yes, you're right, very common back then. That is why they're referred to as "patrist" cultures.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Right, they didn't think much of women and it's reflected in the bible because no just God had any part in it's writing. I find investing that God gave Eve the pain of childbirth and a periods for her part in the fall when the same thing is seen throughout nature. It seems reasonable for other animals, but punishment for us.

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Which is exactly what God said would happen if they ate the fruit....

                  Gen3:16 - "Your desire will be for your husband,  and he will rule over you."

                  And that's what happened. And it started right there between the Tigris and Euphrates and spread throughout the world from there.

                  I think the point of childbirth was that originally Adam and Eve weren't supposed to die. It's only after they ate the fruit that it said they would "surely die". Procreation is only necessary to perpetuate life because of death.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Right, written by men.

            2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
              oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              There were some prominent women that got highlighted like Eve, Sarah, Queen Esther, Ruth and Naomi , even Rahab the harlot, are a few that come to mind.  But, I hear you though and find that to be generally true.

              1. Zelkiiro profile image61
                Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Prostitutes, servants, and women masquerading as prostitutes and servants. Whoo-hoo?

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  What do you mean?

                  The point of my small list was to show that not only men were focused on and written about even in the Old Testament. 

                  Especially for that time in the history of the world, a lot about women was recorded and emphasized.  Even if poor and widowed or a harlot that cared about things happening around them, to a Queen like Esther, it makes the point I think.

                2. Cat333 profile image60
                  Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  The first will be last and the last will be first.

                  The prostitutes and tax collectors are entering ahead...

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    That's what the told the slaves to keep them in their place as well. Hook, line and sinker.

                3. Chris Neal profile image77
                  Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  And wives and mothers and others who were not prostitutes or masquerading as prostitutes.

                  Cynicism is not the same as insight. Sometimes one leads to the other, but they are not synonymous.

        3. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          What's your point? The ladies were "daughters of men". Remember???

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The point being… women were not per trade in good light if named at all. Eve, Sara, Lots daughters. All stories written by men to people in line and feeling unworthy. You could say they these stories are simply stories of events, but the laws that God supposedly puts in place also reflects men's thoughts of women at the time. They were thought at that time to be no really fully human and were only vessels for men to grow their seeds in.

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Within the Word, neither the men nor the women were portrayed in a "good light", but their human failings were revealed. If it were written by men who were not inspired by the Holy Spirit, they certainly would have had "characters" who looked more like "super-heroes", as this is human preference.

              Likewise, Jesus Christ would not have come as a humble servant, which did / does not appeal to human sensibilities and desires.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Let's see. A man made by God to be a God who didn't strangely didn't understand that he would want a mate, so he asked the man if any of the other animals would do and finally decides to make a women out of a rib. Strangely the pair line up as male and female's do along with most other animals. He made another God and made it male. The women tempts him to do something he shouldn't so they are punished with having to die. The stories are all the same, with the exception of Lots daughters, that's down right sic.

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Women on ONS's list (or Cat333 cant remember) were portrayed differently, yes??? God loves women, even when men don't. He made special provisions for them on many occasions. wink

              1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
                oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Yes, men were mentioned more but women were often portrayed in a good light even in the Old Testament very often.  Whether a mother of all living, queen or prostitute, the OT wasn't silent on them and didn't portray them negatively only.

                For as many centuries ago we are speaking of here, a parallel history of another people might not have more esteeming of women going on than the OT.  Some might know of some and that could be interesting to look at.

                1. Cat333 profile image60
                  Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I agree, Oceans. And just as Christians pushed for an end to slavery, so also Christians pushed for women's rights before they had ANY.

                  1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
                    oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    Thanks Cat, and I agree as that seems to be the case. 

                    Trying to remember the name of a movie that is escaping me at the moment.....

                2. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Right. Women have a place in God's heart as well. smile
                  ...seems to prove that every day here...

            3. Chris Neal profile image77
              Chris Nealposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Although it is true that women were not usually accorded the same status as men at that time, it's simplistic to make it an iron-clade absolute. Ruth does not fall in line with your criteria. Neither does Esther. And the place that women did and should hold may not have been viewed the same back then as it is today, but it's a bit arrogant to say that therefor women were just possessions and treated as no more than another object by men. That is simply not true, at least not the universal way you want to portray it.

          2. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            And the angels were all men.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Well I see SOMEbody's been studying their bible.
              Keep up the good work. Just might catch something. wink

  23. profile image52
    Dani Brumfieldposted 11 years ago

    Intuition is a feeling, or for example your gut is telling you. Intuition goes more hand and hand with instinct. These people who believe in God are not going off intuition, they go off of faith.

  24. LeslieAdrienne profile image74
    LeslieAdrienneposted 11 years ago

    if you haven't seen it yet... please make it a point to see the movie, "God is Not Dead!" It has some wonderful scientific explanations on the existence of God!!! You will love it!

    1. JMcFarland profile image71
      JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      No it doesn't.   I've seen it.   It makes a lot of fallacious arguments that even most Christians can't stand.

    2. Zelkiiro profile image61
      Zelkiiroposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      This video says it all, and in a very comedic fashion, too:

      http://blip.tv/the-cinema-snob/midnight … ad-6791760

    3. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Thanks Leslie, I haven't seen it yet but I hope to.  Any favorite parts to share?

  25. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    Just a question on the whole hallucinations/dream war going on: Do we not hallucinate concepts, images we are familiar with? Just like dreaming? If people are exposed to the idea that people see "a light" and other such spiritual things when they are dying, is it not because their body remembers that that's what they're "supposed" to see, or perhaps will see?

    I've never been dead (or mostly dead,) so I have nothing to contribute to that except, I think the dying brain can hallucinate, much like an ill one does. Something's off chemically (it's dying) and it hallucinates

    Am I completely wrong or...?

    1. wilderness profile image79
      wildernessposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You've said it perhaps better than I did.  It is the expectation and hope that provides the Christian ND experience of seeing just what they expect to so.  The brain, unable to comprehend the difference between the expectation and reality by that point in it's deterioration, quite willingly turns it into reality.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Dream state before death with unconscious views of what you think you know??? Well what about all the others who see fire??? Non-believers expecting fire??? Somebody needs to do a ND study of believers and non-believers. Seems like if you don't believe...somewhere inside...there's a...fire???

      2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
        oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        The expectation and hope could be one part of it.  However, if that is the case, it wouldn't explain a lot of the other experiences unless I am not thinking about it correctly.  For instance, the doctor I worked for that is very religious, shared with me that many people have actually pretty awful experiences at the end, what they see is often more like a spiritual battle playing out.  He was sharing it with me to show how a belief of his is true, that even until the very end, there is a spiritual battle for the souls of everyone.  Even very devout people full of hope and expectation in these cases, had actually quite opposite experiences.

        So taking what Ashton said to a whole new level, perhaps it is a fear playing out?  I recall seeing a very cool piece of art once, and it was depicting a scene like what the doctor was sharing with me.  It was a person dying in their bed, and it showed the inside of the house as well as the outside and the area surrounding the house.  There was this huge battle going on.  I just thought it was very interesting, and I thought of it again now after reading yours and Ashton's post. 

        Edit:  The images they saw or hallucinated were terrifying to many of them, like very scary. sad  Just sharing another point of view from those folks as well.

    2. profile image0
      Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I've been mostly dead many times.  Coffee saves me without fail.  Vast amounts of highly caffeinated coffee. smile

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Mmmmm...coffee...

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        You might want to keep another caffein source around with that new coffee machine and all.

        1. profile image0
          Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I'm considering an espresso machine.  I'll leave the other for the amateurs! wink

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Good Idea, don't even need a machine to make good espresso. Just one of those things that sit's on the burner.

            1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
              HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I didn't think there was any such thing as a good espresso. I thought they were just for those who don't want to have to drink a whole cup of coffee to get the same effect. I'm an avid coffee drinker, but not serious enough to be an espresso drinker.

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Coffee is dirty water to Italians.

                1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
                  oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I have a fair amount of Italian in me, and I love coffee!!  I might find occasional use for espresso, or a shot of it in a coffee drink if I am feeling fancy, lol. Straight up though, not so sure about that.  As for an espresso machine, you can make some great coffee drinks from that though, like the frothing mechanism, etc.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    That's okay.  I just made a cup of coffee...just reading about it had me craving it! smile

              2. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                It depends on my needs for the day! wink

                1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I am at my most un-Christian in the hours before that first coffee.

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL.

                  2. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    You and me both, brother! smile

          2. oceansnsunsets profile image83
            oceansnsunsetsposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            You are making me want to break out my espresso machine, which I never really used much.  My husband tried selling it at a yard sale once, but I rescued it, lol.

      3. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        True story wink

    3. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      The ill brain is hallucinating about all kinds of things that don't really make sense - bugs on peoples' faces that no one else cares about, an elderly always faithful partner having an affair, etc. None of these things meet expectations. Why would the dying brain that is SIMPLY hallucinating suddenly be so sensible and uniform in its hallucinations?

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I'm not sure we'd agree it's sensible and uniform.

        Also, an ill mind can hallucinate something sensible and uniform. I should know.

        My point was that we dream and hallucinate things and actions we have been subjected to, been witness to, or what we might expect in a particular situation. Bugs are still something we might hallucinate out of fear; affairs are something we might hallucinate out of fear. If the brain is in a fearful state upon death, it is quite logical we will hallucinate that which we fear. The brain may not be completely coherent, but it will still associate fearful situations with other fearful situations.

        1. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          By sensible I mean that it relates to the person's actual beliefs and is relevant to the situation. Even if not completely uniform, the reports of the dying believer are strikingly similar.

          In contrast, those who are hallucinating in their old age or due to illness often hallucinate about any manner of things they never really focused on and may not even fear (bugs, for example, aren't always feared during the hallucination, but are sometimes observed matter-of-factly by one with a deteriorating mind). Why the contrast between these kind of hallucinations found in the elderly and ill, and the "hallucinations" found in the dying, who should have no more CONTROL over or RELEVANCE of their hallucinations than the ones hallucinating all manner of ludicrous events prior to death.

          Many people are remarkable unafraid while dying, at least those who know the Lord. When they suddenly look up and smile or reach out just before dying, does this mean nothing to you but that they all happen to be hallucinating just as they leave this life on earth?

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
            AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Yes. They are hallucinating what their brains have been accustomed to expect at the time of their death. A believer expects to see something of a religious nature. Even if an unbeliever were to see something like this, they have more than likely been introduced to the idea and are aware that this is a commonly held belief. And yes, people who are ill do have hallucinations which relate to their beliefs or which is relevant to the situation. I was diagnosed with many different illnesses which involved hallucination, and all of them were relevant to me. Isn't that what relevant is? Pertaining to what one would expect or experience? That will vary by person. How do you know that seeing spiders or bugs on someone was not relevant in some way? who are we to say what is relevant to each person? It may be very relevant for the person hallucinating. Who are we to know what lies in the hidden subconscious of the people about whom we read?

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              I wasn't referring to people I was reading about, but that which I'd had more direct experience with. I consider that the often "off the wall" hallucinations at other times do seem to contrast sharply with the consistent, expected "hallucinations" of those who are dying.

              1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Whether you know them or read about them, my point is that you can't get inside their head. You were making general statements about hallucinating people which applied to all. Therefore I assumed you were talking about "all," unless you were using the examples of a few to describe the many.

                That's just my point. If they're expected and consistent, how do you know it's legit? They're hallucinating it because they expect it to happen or have heard of it happening while they're dying. And people hallucinate similar things when they're not dying.  All the time, in fact. There is no contrast. It's all hallucinations. I've hallucinated similar things while being perfectly awake and (as far as I could tell) I wasn't dying. Things like light, reaching out for something/someone, etc. A hallucination is a hallucination. The only difference between if you're dying or not is the expectation of what you'll see when you're dying. Expectation is key here. It can and does influence even a dying mind.

                1. Cat333 profile image60
                  Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  I see a qualitative difference between the hallucinations of people in general and the experiences of those who are dying (or come close to death), which are labeled as hallucinations. These differences include the lack of consistency versus the consistency with the individual's personality and expressed focus, the person's overall mental health state at the time, the content of the hallucination / "hallucination", and so on.

                  I can't speak for your personal experiences because I don't know you or your case well enough.  You do seem a very bright person and you seem very introspective, so I'd say you likely know your own case well, though not necessarily how representative it is of others. I do agree that the content of hallucinations (or experiences) prior to death can be similar to that experienced upon dying. But we haven't witnessed much of the reverse - hallucinations of varying types (beyond the spiritual type) occurring in the dying - such as the person saying as they die, "Why are these bugs here?" (Before you say, Well, we wouldn't expect them to be focusing on bugs while dying, consider that we didn't necessarily expect it at any other time either; and also consider that bugs eat our dead bodies, so it could meet some kind of expectation of the dying).

                  I understand that expectations can INFLUENCE experiences / hallucinations, but should only be one factor, and would not make almost EVERY "hallucination" spiritually relevant / expected. If the ill, hallucinating mind can hallucinate various things at all times, and some people have no expectations about life after death, then I would expect to more often see a deteriorating, "hallucinating" mind with alternative hallucinations while dying, yet this isn't seen.

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    "I see a qualitative difference between the hallucinations of people in general and the experiences of those who are dying (or come close to death), which are labeled as hallucinations. These differences include the lack of consistency versus the consistency with the individual's personality and expressed focus, the person's overall mental health state at the time, the content of the hallucination / "hallucination", and so on."

                    Do you mind if I ask what research this is based upon? Mine brings entirely different results.

                    "I can't speak for your personal experiences because I don't know you or your case well enough.  You do seem a very bright person and you seem very introspective, so I'd say you likely know your own case well, though not necessarily how representative it is of others. I do agree that the content of hallucinations (or experiences) prior to death can be similar to that experienced upon dying. But we haven't witnessed much of the reverse - hallucinations of varying types (beyond the spiritual type) occurring in the dying - such as the person saying as they die, "Why are these bugs here?" (Before you say, Well, we wouldn't expect them to be focusing on bugs while dying, consider that we didn't necessarily expect it at any other time either; and also consider that bugs eat our dead bodies, so it could meet some kind of expectation of the dying).

                    I do know my case, because I do research on other subjects besides myself. That was simply an illustration. The experiences of one do not cover those of the many. That was my argument against your research. You said it was based upon people you know. Which is why I asked if your findings were based upon any research other than your own. As far as not witnessing much of the reverse....yes we have. Alot. To deny that the reverse happens is to completely ignore psychological research into cases like mine and many others where things make perfect sense. What about schizophrenia, depressive disorder with psychotic features, etc?
                    I wouldn't have actually said what you assumed would say. ("Well, we wouldn't...") because that would be attempting to argue something I'm not trying to argue. I'm not sure you're understanding me. But okay.

                    "I understand that expectations can INFLUENCE experiences / hallucinations, but should only be one factor, and would not make almost EVERY "hallucination" spiritually relevant / expected. If the ill, hallucinating mind can hallucinate various things at all times, and some people have no expectations about life after death, then I would expect to more often see a deteriorating, "hallucinating" mind with alternative hallucinations while dying, yet this isn't seen."

                    How do you know it should only be one factor? What experience do you have in this? If someone has no expectations about life after death, my point is that the brain will still have stored in its cells what other people expect, or what is expected. My statement is not limited to that which we expect, but that which we have been exposed to.

  26. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 11 years ago

    When I twist my neck to much I sometimes see stars. Are those stars real? They certainly look real. Little bright lights moving around.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Yikes man, that doesn't sound right. If you see stars when you twist your neck then you might want to stop doing that.

      I don't put much stock in near death experiences. I just don't see someone spiritually moving on far enough to experience something, then returning to the body able to retain what they experienced. I'm sure these accounts are more what you guys are talking about.

      It's easy for believers to latch on to these kinds of things for confirmation, but I think that's all that is. Wishful thinking. This is a faith-based thing for a reason, and its not like there's going to be some loophole that allows some to have confirmation over others, like near death experiences.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        It certainly would be an unfair advantage. Although I'm told if you write the right book about an alleged experience it will certainly makes lots of money. Because as you said there are those who want confirmation.

      2. Cat333 profile image60
        Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I honestly don't know about the sensationalized accounts of near death experiences - I personally won't read any of these types of books, etc. because I simply don't know if they're being truthful or not (and don't want to make any judgment on it). But because I won't make judgment on them, I can't say they are NOT truthful, God-given experiences.

        I agree that people wouldn't have moved far along (and I wouldn't expect an unbeliever to experience anything unless given the experience as a warning); however God is in fact with the believers HERE, as written throughout the Word. Since he is here with us through his Spirit, and since the spiritual unseen world is at times seen by those looking in faith, then it is expected that of all times he would make manifest the unseen world during the death of his children. If an experience or even a  "vision" was given for a purpose, then God would ensure that vision was retained upon returning to the body / to life here on earth.

        We'd expect to see the nearness of God during the actual death of his children. So when a believer says they have to go to the light and then dies, or a believer looks up and smiles before dying, or a believer looks upward and reaches out their hand and then dies, I consider that the Lord has made himself manifest through the Spirit (or angels have been sent or visions have been given).

        We get "confirmation" throughout our walk with the Lord in many ways and to varying degrees, depending on God's specific plans for us, the spiritual gifts given to us, our measure of faith and openness, and so on. It's not so much a "loophole" as a particular experience, and our experiences all vary. Faith is essential in all believers and it is through faith that we come to know the Lord and through faith that we then SEE with our spiritual eyes and hear with our spiritual ears (whether more or less manifest while on earth). Here we see and know in part and dimly, there we will see and know fully. Because seeing generally comes by faith, that which is seen does not give any unfair advantage / confirmation. And even if such cases exist in which confirmation appears to occur more by grace and less by faith (e.g. Paul's experience when blinded), all the righteous (including Paul) still live by faith.

      3. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        In light of what Cat has replied to your post I'd like to thank you for your honesty. I do respect your opinions even though I don't agree however I mostly respect honesty in light of what your fellow comrades would say.

        I give Chris the same respect as well as a few other. Mo and Mel come to mind.

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          I appreciate that. Anyone who's previously been a believer should already know there's not some magical confirmation you get once you believe. Faith is only faith if you're able to fall. A life of faith means maintaining something you can't know for certain, but believe in. It's not as easy as flipping a switch. If it were then there'd be no such thing as former believers.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            I must admit that your knowledge of biblical things is outstanding. There is scripture available for those who believe; then don't.  It has nothing to do with a magical switch, I must agree. But confirmation does come. We just often fail to see it. Or, then attribute that confirmation to another source. Faith is evidence of things not seen. As many have much faith in the phrase, "Do what thou wilt." There is also faith in the phrase, "If you love me, keep my commands." It's just a matter of what you really believe..today.  What one ACTUALLY believes, shows.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              So now faith is evidence?

          2. Cat333 profile image60
            Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The Spirit continually gives us confirmation. It is not magical, but spiritual. Since you did not reply to my post, I'm wondering if I've offended you. I think God has given you a gifted mind, Headly, and knowledge of much of the Word. Perhaps you are simply not familiar with the Spirit and have not recognized confirmation given. It is not an unfair advantage, since it comes by faith and the open receiving of what is freely offered to all.

            All believers have the Spirit placed within, but some are also filled/full of the Spirit, and we are given this word from the Lord: "How much more will your Father in heaven give his Holy Spirit to those who ask him." (Luke 11:13)

            I don't claim to know about the authenticity of the former faith of former believers, but I do know that those in Christ who are sealed by the Spirit and who have experienced the Spirit will not readily turn away from him.

        2. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Good to know you acknowledge NOT giving respect to the other believers, Rad Man. Your friend JMcFarland has similarly indicated that she is kind to four or five believers on here, but not the others. Funny that you should disrespect and she should be unkind to those who are very respectful and kind to you. Hopefully none of us stereotype unbelievers in the way we as believers tend to be stereotyped, or we might stereotype unbelievers as disrespectful and unkind to the majority of believers simply based on their expressed beliefs.

          1. JMcFarland profile image71
            JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            That is not at all what I said in that conversation,  and I do not appreciate the insinuation.   I said I'm close to handful of believers,  yes,  but you and me have a big difference of opinion on what constitutes respect.   I do not feel that you are respectful of many others,  some of whom I consider my friends,  and given our past interactions,  I know first hand that you have been out of line and disrespectful to me.   If people want to be treated respectfully,  they first have to agree on what that means,  and Secondly have to offer respect in return.   I have no problem treating people respectfully.   Had I broken any of the forum rules and called anyone names,  I would be banned.   I haven't been.   Do i sometimes lose my cool? Absolutely,  and i try to apologize and make it right. I'm notabove admitting my mistakes, unlike somehere who genuinely think they don't make any. That is all .

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              JMcFarland - In that conversation, I asked you if you were kind to any of the believers, to which you responded that you were kind to Chris, Headly, Mo and someone else (I forget who). I thought that was acknowledgement that you are not kind to the other believers.

              The unintentional "disrespect" I showed you was "shouting" (that is, using caps, I think) that God loves you, and bringing up a sensitive matter I was not actually aware of. For that I apologized, and I can do nothing more than apologize for it. Since I've acknowledged mistakes on this and other occasions, I assume you are not referring to me when you speak of those who do not acknowledge mistakes. I haven't personally witnessed that any of the believers do not admit mistakes, but maybe I just haven't noticed.

          2. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            Wow, so if I say I respect a few people, you get upset if you are not included? I was giving thanks to Headly for his honesty and I will continue to do so. Are you about to tell him he just doesn't know he has been given confirmation?

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Did you not make a point of saying which of the believers you respect, Rad Man, and did you not thereby also say which of the believers you do not respect? I'm glad you at least acknowledged the lack of respect.

              Yes, Headly was being honest. You praised him because it is your desire for people to say that the Spirit gives no confirmation, just as you praise others who say exactly what you want - those who say they have no way of knowing if their beliefs are true, those who you discover do not believe in the Word (It seems you don't mind theism so long as it's not of the Word - that is of Jesus Christ).

              Like Headly, the other believers have also been honest with you. Headly says believers receive no confirmation from his honest point of view (and yes I think he possibly has not been aware of the confirming presence of the Holy Spirit, but I really can't say anything with certainty). Many of us here have been given confirmation, and many have embraced the gift of the Holy Spirit. This is a gift offered to all believers. Unfortunately, just as studies find that humans in general underutilize many things (their brains, abilities, etc.), so also many believers ignore or deny the power of the Holy Spirit and fail to embrace all that God has for his children. It goes far beyond confirmation, the Spirit gives far more than we could ever "ask or imagine".

              1. profile image0
                Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                Cat, to be fair, I have never said that my beliefs can't be known, and while I agree with Rad occasionally, he'd be the first to tell you that our beliefs are vastly different.  Where I often run into trouble communicating with others about my faith is that while I easily accept certain events as proof of God's presence and the movement of the Holy Spirit in my life, I can't reasonably expect someone else to do that when I share those experiences.  So I do the absolute best I can to let the changes The Lord makes in me show in my actions, because I know my words are meaningless. Now, I do not mean to say that your words and the sharing of your experiences are meaningless, but when our experiences happen in ways that are beyond the natural realm of possibility, it's so difficult to prove them by just words alone.

                smile

                1. Cat333 profile image60
                  Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Well said, Motown2Chitown. I've seen that you do stand for your faith and you are liked nonetheless - you have been blessed with a very likeable personality and peacemaking abilities. God has given you these to fulfill his purposes for you and those with whom you interact.

                  God will likewise fulfill his purposes and plans for all of us (even if the road's a little rougher for some).

                  Btw, when I mentioned the people Rad Man has praised, I wasn't specifically referring to the list of people he'd just said he respects (and wasn't referring to you in my comments). I was actually thinking of previous times he's given praise when a believer (or someone he thought was a believer) makes a point he wants them to make.

                  1. profile image0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    smile

                  2. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    "(or someone he thought was a believer) " I guess I can't tell?

          3. EncephaloiDead profile image54
            EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            If the "expressed beliefs" are not respectful to others, then there will be no respect offered in return.

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Hello Enceophaloidead. Since 1) we humans are all the same in our unrighteousness ("There is no difference; None are righteous, no not one"), 2) we are all made righteous in the same way - through faith in Jesus Christ, the perfect sacrifice who paid the penalty for us and the one who is now our new righteousness, and 3) since ALL are offered this gift of salvation and may receive reconciliation with God and all the blessings and gifts that come with this, where is the disrespect? Are we not ALL given respect and even more by the God who loves us all and offered himself for us all and who in his great love has made the way for ALL to come to him?

              1. Zelkiiro profile image61
                Zelkiiroposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Oh yeah? Well, according to Egyptian belief, all life (including humans) is made up of Ptah's spooge. I'm more inclined to believe that I'm made from spooge than dust, because spooge is mostly water, as are humans.

                So yeah, Ptah has more credibility than God does. And I'm pretty sure Ptah is equally fictional.

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                You keep repeating the same sermon over and over as an answer when you don't have any actual answers or anything of value to say.

    2. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Twisting of the neck can get near death...hmmm... maybe you DO believe??? wink

  27. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    You were a Christian at one time? Heb 11:1

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      And evidence of….?

  28. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    ...things unseen.
    See...I told you everyone has it. Lol...

    1. profile image0
      Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Faith is only evidence in wishful thinking.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        You mean like wishfully thinking that there must not be a Father/Son/Spirit giving daily direction on good thinking; therefore good actions???
        Or wishfully thinking that the BEST of Science can come up with ALL the answers???
        Or wishfully thinking that one may simply think their way through life without eternal consequence???
        Yeah, faith is wishful thinking. I guess you are right. smile

      2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Haven't you ever taken steps in life in faith? Not knowing the outcome. Not knowing if there was going to be solid ground beneath your feet? You just take a step forward, let your weight shift, having faith that you won't fall?

        That is faith to me. There's no logical reason why I should be doing as well as I am. I've taken so many steps in faith, and should have fallen on my face time and again, but I just always had faith that something would catch me. It's like being one with the universe. It's like acknowledging your place as a component of this universe and faith falling into its arms. Like playing in a band where you and this random bunch of guys just know where the other is going. No plan to speak of. You're just in that groove. You're tapped into something bigger than yourself.

        All the best experiences of my life have come when I didn't try to meticulously plan out how everything was to play out, but rather just started taking steps.

        1. profile image0
          Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Is blind faith bringing us/humanity to a better place? This is what needs to be asked. Does following dogma help us?

          Does Islam bring humanity to a better place or does it simple help people control others?

          Does Islam bring humanity to a better place or does it simple help people control others?

          Do they cause hatred or hurt people?

          Do the help us care, be fair, have liberty?

          If I can for instance point out that a faith in Christianity or Islam causes liberties to be taken away in an unfair, uncaring manner way wouldn't that help us determine if the faiths are leading us in an ethical and moral direction?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            The faiths are being misinterpreted.

            People are not discerning properly the true message behind any true Faith. Allah is God. Brahma is God, Father is God. Spirit within and without is God. God is God. We are sparks of God, individualized. Oversoul is God. Instead, with mortal consciousness, we choose to see God according to our imaginations and wants and logical thinking…in other words, preconceived ideas.

            No. Stop already. God must be seen with the sense of intuition... with the third eye. This takes special training to develop. It takes continuous effort to tune into Actual Reality.  Jesus said, If your eye be single your whole body will be perceived as light, (to me, the energy of God.) Jesus said the harvest is abundant but the laborers are few. Jesus said the Kingdom of heaven is found within us.

            Heaven is not ownership of anything or power to control territory and people. Sorry, you Big Guys. Heaven is within.

            Makes Sense To Me (MSTM)

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

              Could you please explain what Jesus meant by single eye?

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                edit.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                  Jesus mentioned:  If your eye of intuition, located in between the eyebrows and slightly above them, (sometimes referred to as the seat of the soul) is focused within, you will perceive the energy which runs throughout your whole body as light.

                  Where did you get that this statement came from Jesus like this? It does sound like the scripture I asked you about with a WHOLE LOT of stuff "added"
                  It has been my impression that this third eye is basically a representation of the eye of Horus, which is connected to the New World Order and one world religion. The occult.
                  Did Jesus really mention the third eye somewhere? I really want to see it. I'm sorry if it sounds "scorned" I really think we can discuss without the claws. Teach me that Jesus taught about the third eye. I always considered his "eye" to BE the soul within; looking UP toward "the hills." Inside sounds a little self-godly. Please help me understand. We started out so well.
                  I asked before and now I'm really curious. Are you an advocate for NWO and/or one world religion?

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 11 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL! Forget it, Miss C. Never mind. I will delete it right now.

                2. bBerean profile image61
                  bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Kathryn.  Wow.  It appears you have a very new age, somewhat pantheistic perspective, and are creatively seeking a way to support those views with the bible.  I am very interested to see how you can support some of what appear to me to be gross misrepresentations of Jesus teachings. 

                  I think I know what verses you are trying to apply for the first two segments I have highlighted in bold, but what in the world is this last one?  Please provide all the verses you are using to support all of your comments above which espouse Jesus, (or even the bible), as the source, that we might have a look at them in context and discuss them.  You needn't provide the text, just the chapter and verse references please.

                  1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
                    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    As you requested, Bberean.
                    "No man when he hath lighted a candle putteth it in a secret place, neither under a bushel, but on a candlestick that they which come in, may see the light."
                    "The light of the body is the eye: Therefore, when thine eye is single, thy whole body also is full of light. But, when thine eye is evil thy body also is full of darkness. Take heed, therefore, that the light which is in thee be not darkness. If thy whole body, therefore, be full of light, having no part dark, the whole shall be full of light as when the bright shinning of a candle doth give thee light." Direct Bible quote from the King James Version. Luke 11/33-36.
                    I felt tricked by Cgenaea. She did not really want to hear my view of  the third eye,(single eye,) as she already had her views about it.
                    (She actually asked ME if I am for NWO???? Very Funny.) 
                    The last sentence is a logical deduction.  What is your interpretation, Bberean?
                    As I mentioned before, this explanation is what Makes Sense To Me. ( I, myself, did not make it up. Email me if you want the source.)  We try to the best of our abilities to understand the words of Jesus, but he spoke often in parable and symbol and many passages are not explained.
                    Who can explain the following:?

                    "When the unclean spirit is gone out of a man, he walketh through dry places seeking rest; and finding none, he saith, I will return to my house whence I came out. And when he cometh, he findith it swept and garnished.
                    Then goeth he, and taketh to him seven other spirits more wicked than himself and they enter in and dwell there, and the last state of that man is worst than the first." Luke 11/ 24-26

                    There is no explanation as to what this means at all.

            2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
              EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              SBTMANSAAADATBPMBN.  smile

          2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Religions failing to bring people to a better place is not the fault of the religion. That's people. That's free will. You and I know all too well that the behavior of the people of Christianity barely resembles what the religion actually teaches. People muck things up. That's the central theme to the whole story.

            Religion tends to give people a sense of entitlement. I would think you'd have to have a pretty strong sense of entitlement to feel it your place to walk up to someone and tell them they're not living right. Or to try to force your views on those around you. But that's just humans being humans. Ever since that change humans have felt it there place to enforce their will on those around them. That isn't specific to religion. That's a human trait.

            1. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              That is exactly what I've been telling all along. Entitlement.

              Perhaps it's time to stop listening to slave owners and focus on what is right for humanity. What does humanity need, never mind some fictitious God. Culture/religion plays a big role in what people want and need. There is a difference between what American's and Canadian's want.

              Care, fairness, liberty rather than divinity, community, hierarchy, tradition, sin and degradation.

              http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/25/books … books&

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Let's really think about this. I think it's probably a good thing that the vast majority of the general population thinks there's someone watching over them. I'm not sure you know exactly what you're asking for. True or not, it can't hurt that it's a common conception that someone above is watching everything we do. Fairness isn't exactly a natural human trait. We're pretty selfish if you really get down to it.

                Just think about what you're suggesting for a minute. Do you really think it would be a good thing to convince the general population that there's no one above them watching over what they do, there's no meaning to anything, nothing beyond death, etc? Or do you think maybe that that kind of thinking probably curbs a lot of people from doing what they really want to do?

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  However teaching ethics rather or along side religion would certainly benefit society. Fairness is a common trait that runs along all societies. What do you think 9/11 was all about?

                  How many times have you heard "that's not fair". Kids say it all the time, they get and understand it however we have to teach them that life isn't fair.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Wouldn't you say ethics is a big part of what religion addresses? Doesn't mean the ethics that a particular religion teaches are then properly reflected in the people that make up that religion. A central theme to Christianity is to not judge others, yet it goes on all the time. Treat others as you'd like to be treated isn't exactly what's happening. We can teach ethics all we like, people are still going to be people. People are still inherently selfish.

            2. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Seems to me that Jesus himself had that sense of entitlement. He was always telling people his truth when he saw their fallen state. He said, "follow me; do what I do." Teach others to do the same? No, that was a warning for people who teach opposite. I think im starting to see why you rarely if ever respond to me...

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Well if anyone is justified in having a sense of entitlement it would be him. He's the only one among us without blame. The rest of us aren't supposed to judge. And telling someone the way they're living isn't "right" sounds like judging to me. Especially when very few actually do live as they're supposed to. I know I don't, so the last thing I want to do is invite more judgement on myself by pointing my finger at anyone else.

                I don't purposefully avoid responding to you. I just generally engage those on the other side of the fence I guess.

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  THANKYOU!!! smile I was starting to feel ignored.
                  But yes, Jesus was/is the only judge. I have no reason to. I'm strictly forbidden. Judgment is a decision of what will/should be done with you, in my opinion. It is condeming one while actually condeming self.
                  This is a conversation on what is right in the eyes of God based solely on scripture. For instance, if one says that Jesus said that all are welcome no matter what path they choose to God; it is my duty to tell them what thus says the Lord on the matter. So many take a passage and run to the East or West in an effort to spread the love of "Jesus". But they scrap everything else like "I am the only way to the father."
                  Reminding of what Jesus said is not judgment; it is the work of the holy spirit within each of God's own.
                  I personally have not seen one spiritual "judge" on these pages, just reminders of truth. Do you have any judgmental clauses to speak of? I really am curious and oblivious to any spiritual judgment here; only, "does it line up with scripture?" Again, I have really enjoyed watching you with the "knowledge" so extremely important to many here. I really hope that fear of judgment does not keep you from truth. That's all that matters here. Truth as the bible sees it. Other truths are temporary.
                  Is your intuition right about God? That is the question. And I got many answers. smile not from my mouth...

        2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
          EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          There is faith in evidence and there if blind faith. Your religious beliefs are based on blind faith while not knowing if there is solid ground beneath your feet is just not being very smart with faith in evidence.



          And, that is evidence of what exactly?



          And, that is evidence of what exactly?

          Others do indeed meticulously plan out things, because they want to make they succeed in whatever they're doing, they don't just "wing it".

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Well, maybe others should 'wing it'. We, like everything else, are products of this universe. We're a part of it. Our thinking brains convince us that we need to think things through and plan. But all around us things work just fine without all that thinking. Do you think it's thinking that allows a flock of birds to all turn the same direction at the same time without colliding into one another? Or are they just 'going with it'. We have instincts that get buried underneath all of our thinking and planning.

            None of this is evidence of anything, necessarily. Other than that it's possible to live a successful life by just laying back and allowing the current to take you. We humans, since the dawn of reason, are always trying to control things. Yet things have worked fine without our controlling them since long before we ever showed up.

            1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
              EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Maybe, they want to take precautions so they alleviate as much as they can the possibility of failure.



              Sorry, but that isn't even remotely true.



              Fine. Change the subject matter in stride and present a strawman.



              lol Again, not even remotely true.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                What do you mean this isn't true? Are you so set in your argumentative mindset that you can't even acknowledge these simple truths if it means agreeing with me? Homo sapiens sapiens haven't been around that long. It's simple deduction to realize that our ability to think wasn't required for much of history. It's a rather new development. The majority of living creatures, including humans for much of our existence, didn't have reason.

                I'm actually trying to gear this toward something you can actually agree with. We're a product of the natural world. The same natural world that operates for the most part without the ability to reason and plan for the future.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  You're just making it up, like you do so many other things, often based on your religious beliefs, often fallacious and uninformed.



                  Sorry, but you making stuff up has nothing to do with me or my mindset.



                  So what?



                  Many still don't, evidently.



                  Try using reality, facts, evidence, that sort of thing.



                  So what?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    What I'm saying IS based on facts/evidence/reality. Do you not acknowledge that our reasoning brains are a rather late development in evolution? I'm not sure what exactly it is that you disagree with here.

            2. profile image0
              Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Sure, let's continue to pollute the oceans and warm the earth. Let's just roll with it and se where it takes us.

  29. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 11 years ago

    Would you NOT think it fair to say that MANY people have faith in the theory of evolution? 
    Please keep in mind that no one we could ever know saw the boom. Evidence comes from books. Faith or no??? wink

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      No, people understand the theory of evolution because it is based on facts and evidence, faith is not required at all.

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Your evidence is built of what you read in books (and believe) with a few tests of trinkets that seem to identify the veracity of the claim. (That you believe)
        God has a book and a few tested trinkets too...

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
          EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Once again, and hopefully for the last time, I know you operate on a belief system and most likely you assume everyone does, but that isn't the case. Some of us are able and quite capable of learning things instead of believing in things. smile



          That is not true.

  30. JMcFarland profile image71
    JMcFarlandposted 11 years ago

    Cat - Do you call it "calling me out" when you bring up a bunch of crap about my earthly father, who you know nothing about, assuming, falsely might I add, that he loves me and wants me to come home, and that your god is waiting for me and I will come back to him?  I consider that extremely disrespectful, since you know nothing about my circumstances or my past.  If I've twisted or manipulated your words, it wasn't intentionally or with malice.  Misunderstandings DO happen, and you've been guilty of your fair share as well.  You can call me unethical if you like, because thankfully that doesn't make it true.  It's impossible to gauge tone or intent on the internet, and it's possible that you just misconstrue sarcasm for rudeness, which is fine - but mentioning me here BY NAME and twisting something I said into something completely different is disrespectful.  You don't see me gallivanting around the forums throwing your name around and accusing you of bad behavior, do you?  You asked Headly if you offended him - is that because he's a fellow believer?  Have you ever asked an atheist if you've offended THEM?  I haven't seen it.  Or are you only concerned about offending people who agree with you?

    1. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      You're too fast, JMcFarland! I deleted my post within moments of posting it because I'd thought it was Rad Man responding to my post to him, and I responded as if to him. Then I noticed right after posting that it was you, not him who responded. As far as I remember you are right that you have not twisted and manipulated my words, that was Rad Man on numerous occasions. I believed you when you said it was an honest mistake you'd made about me on one occasion.

      I did apologize for speaking about a sensitive subject with you (several times actually), and can really do no more than apologize. If I were not concerned about offending unbelievers, I would not have apologized as I did.

      1. JMcFarland profile image71
        JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        I'm confused - you brought me up in a response to RadMan because you thought it was him?  Or you brought me up, I responded, and then you deleted your post?

        If I said that I was only kind to a handful of believers, it was nothing but sarcasm.  As I've said, I'm a very sarcastic person, and the majority of my friends are theists of one type or another.  If someone is being disrespectful to me, I see that as an application of the golden rule - and assume that they want to be spoken to in the way that they're treating others.  I'm very straightforward that way, and don't like to play games.  If someone treats me respectfully, I try to do the same in return.  That's really how simple it is with me.  *shrugs* take it or leave it.

        I believe you about the apology, I just don't remember it.  So sorry for assuming that you hadn't.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        Please show me where I twisted and manipulated your words? That's rather disrespectful.

        1. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          Here's a few places I recall you intentionally twisting and manipulating my words, Rad Man, and I think there were at least one or two other incidents for which I don't recall the details. I've always confronted you about them at the time.

          1) You falsely said I don't care about starving children; 2) You falsely said I encouraged people to kill their children to spare them from suffering; 3) You falsely said I encouraged people to perform exorcisms on their children and harm/kill them; 4) You falsely said I claimed to be without sin; 5) You falsely said I indicated that believers are free to sin; 6) You falsely said I support the killing of our disrespectful children; 7) You falsely said I support and defend slavery.

          This is playing dirty and makes a person untrustworthy. Confronting manipulation and slander is NOT disrespectful; engaging in it is.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 11 years agoin reply to this

            OMG? I said those things?

  31. JMcFarland profile image71
    JMcFarlandposted 11 years ago

    Cat - I don't actually recall how your question was phrased, and with so many posts in so many forums, if I'm remembering it wrong, I apologize.  I don't recall you asking me if I was "kind" to any believers, and if I responded that I was "kind" to a handful, it was sarcasm, not serious.  I'm a sarcastic person.  I don't mince words - I don't have the time or the patience to tapdance around things, and I say what I mean.  That being said, I am incredibly sarcastic, and if you haven't picked it up by now (intentionally or otherwise) then I'm sorry for that as well.  The fact is that the large majority of my close friends are believers.  I treat people with respect (or try to) until they give me a reason not to.  But if someone comes at me disrespectfully, they will usually get back exactly what they're giving me, then whine that i'm being disrespectful of them.  It works both ways, see.

    In that particular conversation about my father, you had no idea what you were saying.  You couldn't have.  And I remember you offering a general apology after several Christians called you out on it, but I do not recall you actually apologizing to ME.  Maybe I just don't remember.  It's possible.  It was a long time ago.  Doesn't really matter.  I understand that your faith is important to you, and you see it as a duty of sorts to spread it - but when you're talking to people who KNOW the message and don't buy it, repeating it over and over again isn't going to get you anywhere.  You're not saying anything new, and I don't like being preached "at" instead of talked "to" like a fellow human being.  That might be a part of the disconnect in communication between you and me.  Who knows.

    1. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I appreciate your genuine efforts here, JMcFarland. I also understand that sarcasm isn't meant to offend and honestly don't know if that's ever been a part of offense I've taken or not.

      I apologized to you specifically in a post (and somewhere later), but I understand that either you didn't see it or don't remember it. Also, you say it was because of the believers that I stopped, but in all honesty I hadn't yet seen your post asking me to stop speaking of that situation until AFTER one of the believers said you'd asked me to stop (and I went looking for where that was). I stopped in response to YOUR request at least as much as their advice.

      I also understand that some here will speak in a style you prefer to mine, and I'm okay with that. Peace to you, JMcFarland.

      1. JMcFarland profile image71
        JMcFarlandposted 11 years agoin reply to this

        my only contention here is that I don't understand why some people (not necessarily you, since I'm not in your head) look for things to be offended by from people that they do not know anything about.  Have some things said in the forums upset me?  Sure.  Is it my problem, or the problem of the person who wrote it?  Ultimately, it's mine.  It's a choice to be offended by something, and while sometimes things creep up on me and bother me, it's ultimately my choice to be offended by something.  Most of the time I'm able to successfully remember that what people here think of me doesn't matter, and it has no bearing on my life whatsoever.  In which case, there's nothing to be offended BY.  Once that lesson is learned, it makes interacting SO much easier.

        i'm never out there to intentionally offend anyone.  It's not my desire or my intent.  I'm sure it happens sometimes anyway, but in large part I talk to someone in exactly the same way they talk to me.  If they're respectful, I'm respectful.  If they're not...well then, they often find that they don't like being on the receiving end of their own efforts and claim that they are being attacked or persecuted - yet they see nothing wrong in  behaving that way towards me or others.  I cannot stand double standards or hypocrisy where I see it - and I WILL call it out when it appears.

        That being said, I have developed close relationships with multiple people here.  I'm looking for conversation and the respectful exchange of ideas.  Sometimes it's easier to find than others.  Thus is the way of the forums.  That being said, hopefully you understand a little bit more of where I'm coming from, and what my personality is like.  Perhaps we can avoid some of that unnecessary offense going forward.

        1. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 11 years agoin reply to this

          A lot of good points here, JMcFarland. It's always good to make peace and I too hope to avoid any unnecessary offense in our interactions.

  32. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 11 years ago

    I would also like to note that when one hallucinates, they are most likely ill. Dying is a form of extended illness, in the sense that the brain cells and chemicals are all out of wack. While ill, not all hallucinate something that is weird or unrelated to their lives, at all. So death, to me, is just a far more advanced part of it. But if we do not even agree on what hallucinations are experienced by those who are ill (which I say can vary from total nonsense to complete clarity, and which you say can not) then we aren't going to get very far. I would also like to point out, again, that what one considers to be "not making sense," is strictly relative.

    1. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I actually agree that the hallucinations of the ill "can vary from total nonsense to complete clarity". In saying that hallucinations in general include nonsensical ones I was not implying that NONE of the ill-but-not-dying person's hallucinations possessed clarity and met expectations (or that certain ill people don't tend to have hallucinations of this type). What I was saying is that the experiences of the dying should LIKEWISE RANGE from "total nonsense to complete clarity", so that we should also get more nonsensical ones in there along with all those that exhibit clarity and relevance. Instead, we don't see many nonsensical, off the wall hallucinations at the moment of death. IF these experiences are merely hallucinations, then they should be representative of hallucinations in general, so that SOME would be nonsensical and SOME would be those that meet expectations.

      I don't believe the strikingly similar experiences of the dying are merely hallucinations, but rather I believe that some (not necessarily all) are indicative of true experiences with the Holy Spirit and the spiritual realm - which many of us have at other times, and which would be even more likely at such a pivotal time as our death and transfer to God's presence.

      1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        But dying people do have nonsensical hallucinations...this can be found in any scientific, doctoral, psychological article or research....

  33. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago

    Ok, bBerean smile looks like you are SPECIFICALLY requested. Seems my opinion has already been spoken.
    It's 5am anyway; haven't had an ounce of sleep.
    See you  later. Late-rising later. Lol...

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      You did not show much interest. I believe the East can explain Jesus because he was a man of the East. You do not wish to go there, and I respect that. Bberean seemed interested. But, I know he does not wish to go there either. So, I will not go on about it. Its just that there are deeper meanings behind what Jesus said. For instance, John said, "I die daily."  Jesus had taught him how to control his breathing and his heart to the point of allowing it to stop temporarily. Take it or leave it. Just sharing what many others also believe.
      TWISI

      1. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Kathryn, I did say specifically that I WANTED to discuss your Christian leanings. But it seems you have Eastern leanings with Jesus mixed in. For instance, where are John's breathing lessons from Jesus mentioned in scripture? You have to kill the flesh every day. Not temporarily deprive it of air.
        Jesus is the way.  Not the East...

        1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
          Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          The point is, all we can do is interpret. (I liked your interpretation BTW. If you do not like mine, that is perfectly fine.) It seems to me we can allow for personal interpretation with mind/ heart engagement. If what we are doing is discussing, then one should be open to other points of view. Otherwise, why would anyone bother to post at all? Why do I post? Because Jesus said many confusing things and the world is a great big question mark! We can all chip in with our views and learn from others, as well. We can discriminate whether we like a particular interpretation or view, of course.

          1. Cgenaea profile image60
            Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            The spirit of Jesus knows the spirit of Jesus. He does not "confuse" that is the work of another spirit.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
              Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Not all know what you mean. What DO you mean?

              1. Cgenaea profile image60
                Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                You stated that Jesus said many confusing things. I said he does not. And I get that from biblical pages. "God is not the author of confusion." Jesus speaks for God. The only ones confounded are wise in their own eyes. And I get that from scripture too. It seems the one we quote is the one after whom we pattern.
                Who are you quoting from?

  34. AshtonFirefly profile image70
    AshtonFireflyposted 10 years ago

    roll Feels like high school here.

    1. Cgenaea profile image60
      Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Take out a sheet of paper and watch the board. I heard the teacher say a while back, that there will be a test real soon. Lol... smile

      1. bBerean profile image61
        bBereanposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I heard that too. wink

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          smile
          Gonna have to just find the teacher...

      2. AshtonFirefly profile image70
        AshtonFireflyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        I was actually talking about all the drama and subtle ego trips via sarcasm in the plethora of posts prior to mine.

        1. Cgenaea profile image60
          Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I understand, but you coupled it with a no sarcasm quote. Are you not including you contributions to class? Seems you may get Valedictorian if you cut and paste another presentation.

          1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
            AshtonFireflyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            roll

            That paragraph was ambiguous. Through all the symbols it appeared you are saying I am equally as sarcastic and immature, in the manner which I was criticizing. If that's what you think...eh...I don't care, because I know what's true and what's not.  If you don't think that then, well, I have no idea through all the surface symbolism what you meant.

            My statement was straightforward. Sick of people acting like immature, egotistical high schoolers whilst debating. That's it. Straightforward. No further expounding or explanation needed. Period.

            1. Cgenaea profile image60
              Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              But you never mentioned the part you play. That's all I was saying. No discussion needed about it. Your observation says high school.  My observation says, you help lead in that direction. No issue.

              1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                AshtonFireflyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                The part I play? I was making an observation. That's the part I play. How, in your opinion, did I play a part? What exactly do I do which points to me being immature, disrespectful, and egotistical?

                1. Cgenaea profile image60
                  Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  In my opinion, the recent conversation you had with Cat333 was a really good example of what you yourself have deemed high school behavior. Your responses to her were somewhat on the juvenile argumentative side. But she seemed to handle it well in my opinion.

                  1. AshtonFirefly profile image70
                    AshtonFireflyposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Juvenile argumentative side how? High school how? Was I openly insulting her? Was I talking about her to other forum members? Was I being witty and sarcastic simply for the sake of my ego?

                    She and I are having a discussion, and I'm being straightforward, and she is being straightforward.

      3. Cat333 profile image60
        Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Yes!!

  35. Cgenaea profile image60
    Cgenaeaposted 10 years ago

    Hi oceansnsunsets!!! smile sorry your post kinda jolted me. I answered under anxiety. I think I got you right. But if I didn't please let me know.

    1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
      oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I saw you mention my name in a post, and thought I would respond. smile  Now that I did, its kind of late to probably say that perhaps I need to sleep on this one and come back to it? 

      Hope I am not muddying the waters here for you and yours and Kathryn's question.

      1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
        Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        Hi. No .. it was nothing much. Actually I had pointed out that it is sometimes really hard to figure out the meaning of passages in Scripture. Cgenea says it is not so hard, however, and she does have a knack for it. She is lucky as she says she is able to discern from her Heart, while the rest of us are using our Brains. smile  I used that passage as an example of one hard to understand. It looks like Jesus was saying that people become possessed by spirits doesn't it! ? Why would He talk like that? Or was it misinterpreted along the way???

        1. oceansnsunsets profile image83
          oceansnsunsetsposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Yes, Genaea does use her heart a lot and I love that about her and can truly sense her sincerity when she shares.  I sense the same from Cat.  Like what you see is what you get, that kind of thing. smile 

          I do share more from my brain, though my heart is big and I tend to leave a lot of that out of my posts here due to the nature I sense from these forums so often.  It isn't the most hospitable place sometimes.  That aside, I feel like people can at least take what comes from my brain for what it is and can be discussed with anyone, from all walks of life.  People I don't think want to hear from my heart too often, and that is fine, but I commend those that do use it.  I might sometimes, but there is a lot there too, just not going to be well received here in general.  You did pick a tough one, and I never gave it a whole lot of thought.  So I appreciate the chance to rethink it, roll it around some, so to speak, lol.

          As for the idea, it seems the Jews of the day even knew Jesus was helping people ailing from some kind of evil spirit. It seems he might be saying it because it was true.  People of the day saw a cause and effect after receiving help from Jesus, for sure.  For us, a VERY tough subject to say the least.  What do you think?

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
            Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            ( It takes time to develop a workable/realistic and honest on-line personality. Once you realize we are all really humans it becomes clearer…Its a matter of learning how to behave whilst keyboarding. What you can get away with, what you can't and why you shouldn't. A work in progress for sure. Things are really pretty good these days! People coming to resolutions and interesting discussions.)

            I actually think Jesus was discussing entities! It seems possession was more prevalent in those times. They were very very hard times. There must have been evil, angry unruly spirits taking possession of people! You hear of exorcisms even in our day, of course. I have heard, unless the priest performing the exorcism can remain strong in his faith, he shouldn't even attempt it. Also what about the demons that were sent into a herd of pigs by Jesus, whereby he directed them to charge off a cliff into the ocean?

            I would say he was warning people, once they are free of entities they should not do anything to invite them back in or it could be seven times worse! There is a definite fear theme here.  Maybe he was just working off the superstitions of the times? The question is, how does one contract evil spirits?

            Kinda goes with my question which Cgeneas never quite answered. What or who is a "worker of inequity?"

            My point is we need to be open when trying to discern the meaning or lesson behind scripture. We need to objective and guard against being overly subjective when attempting to interpret. In other words, what was He REALLY saying? I am so curious about that!!!

      2. Cgenaea profile image60
        Cgenaeaposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        No problem at all. My initial reaction is that your scripture is totally different from what we were speaking of. I had not read the chapter or verse. I simply interpreted the particular quote about the 7 spirits coming back to a clean house.
        Your interpretation of the scripture you speak of rings great.

  36. profile image0
    Rad Manposted 10 years ago

    Someone a day or so ago posted a comment that I had heard a few time lately. Basically he said that all human deep down in side believe, however it appears to me by the way most Christians don't follow the teaching of Christ that deep down inside people know it's untrue.

    1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
      HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      The fundamental truth that Christian behavior is not that deep down they know it's untrue. The fundamental truth that is reflected in Christian behavior is that we are all motivated by free will.

      1. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        And then we have those who claim to only act under God's will and yet behave no better (sometimes worse) than the rest of us? Do you think these people are delusional? Honestly?

        1. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

          I haven't met anyone who claims to act ONLY according to God's will. Even those of us who submit to his will, generally readily admit acting on our own much of the time. That would be an exceptionally rare and very, very, very mature believer who always acts in accord with his will (if such a person even exists). We do (to varying degrees) strive to follow the lead of the Spirit, especially when the Spirit is strongly urging us, and the more we stop and consult with God, the better.

        2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Yes. I think there are a lot of believers, and I include myself in this, who delude themselves into thinking they're more on course than they actually are.

      2. profile image0
        Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        BTW, if I happen to complement a few of you guys with a show of respect, it's not only because it appears to somehow upset others who I don't include. wink

        1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
          HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Well, I can only speak for myself, but any time you start doling out compliments and you don't mention me specifically as being deserving of those compliments, it feels like you're slapping me right in my face!!!

        2. Cat333 profile image60
          Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

          You seem to have missed the point when I said it was good you acknowledged that you don't respect most of the believers. I think most of us have already perceived the disrespect by your behavior / comments toward and about us (it wasn't news when you specified who you respect), so the offense was not taken at this point. Since you don't tend to acknowledge any poor behavior (manipulation, slander, mocking, etc.), I was glad to see you indirectly admitting that you do not show respect to a large group of people.

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            I can respect people and not respect their beliefs or the manner in which they speak to unbelievers. You see right there (a few posts above) Headly admits that he can delude himself into thinking they're more on course than they actually are. Can you admit to that?

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

              If you say slanderous, manipulative things about a person on multiple occasions, as I've personally experienced, then I cannot concede that it is only the beliefs and manner of speaking that you are disrespecting, and must say it is the people themselves you're disrespecting.

              I see that we all make many mistakes. I also see that we often think we're right when we're not (Christian or otherwise). I personally don't consider myself "on course" regarding any ability of my own. I consider myself merely covered in the blood and hidden in Christ. When I speak by revelation of the Spirit (as when I say Jesus Christ is the Lord), then these are not my words, but spiritual truths. The rest of what I speak is my own, and as mere human opinion, may or may not be true.

              Have Christians (including myself), like others, thought they were on course in various areas/ways when they were not? Yes, of course, we are all human. Many of our Christian traditions, behaviors, etc. have been off. Are we ultimately, no matter our shortcomings and failings, essentially and in the most vital way "on course" simply by acknowledging that Jesus Christ is Lord? Yes!! And this is not of ourselves, but of God. To God be all glory!!

              1. profile image0
                Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                That's slanderous and misleading. You may not like the things I say but that doesn't mean I've slandered you or are manipulative. See those are both remarks about my person and not about my lack of beliefs. Please show we where I slandered or manipulated you or anyone else or apologies. I'm not one to hit the report button, but there are those that will.

                Sorry, if it comes out of your mouth they are your words and you will have to take credit or blame for them. I'd love to here that in a court of law.

                Love that, sure in retrospect we have been off course, but right now we are on course. Were the Crusades on course? They thought they were on course and acknowledge Jesus as Christ.

                1. Cat333 profile image60
                  Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Rad Man, you have repeatedly made false statements as to what I've said. I recently gave you several examples. Here they are again:

                  1) You falsely said I don't care about starving children; 2) You falsely said I encouraged people to kill their children to spare them from suffering; 3) You falsely said I encouraged people to perform exorcisms on their children and harm/kill them; 4) You falsely said I claimed to be without sin; 5) You falsely said I indicated that believers are free to sin; 6) You falsely said I support the killing of our disrespectful children; 7) You falsely said I support and defend slavery.

                  The key word here is FALSELY. Not one of these was truthful. The fact that you will not accept responsibility is not okay.

                  You have been confronted about your disrespect and slander, NOT slandered yourself. That's low to attempt to turn the tables. It's also typical of the aggressor, unfortunately.

                  Regarding my words, if blame is to be taken I'll take it, for never would the Holy Spirit give anything that would ever bring about "blame", as everything the Spirit says is true and good. However, I won't take the credit for the revelation that Jesus Christ is Lord and Savior because it was GIVEN to me by God, and is not of myself (I deserve no credit for it).

                  I was not trying to say that we had only been off course in the past; we all continually go off course in one way or another. As a current large scale example, I think the divisiveness within the "church" or "body" of Christ (that is the great multitude of denominations) is off course and works against he intended unity of the church / body. As for the Crusades, you want to classify Christianity by the actions of certain people; just as presently based on a minority of professed "Christians", people want to say Christians hate homosexuals, which is a falsehood for the majority who identify as Christian and is not true of anyone who walks in the light / in love.

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    That's a lot of accusations without any evidence.

        3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
          MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Is that how it works? wink

          1. profile image0
            Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Yes, I gave a few people props and then I was told I disrespected others by not including them.

            1. Cat333 profile image60
              Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

              You show disrespect to the majority of believers in the forums by manipulating words, making false accusations, speaking against their beliefs, etc. You were told that at least you were acknowledging the disrespect of the others when you made a point of listing the few believers on here you do respect.

            2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
              MelissaBarrettposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              Sour grapes. Respect is earned not given because someone jumps up and down demanding it.

              1. Cat333 profile image60
                Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                ALL people should be treated with respect and dignity, regardless of their religious beliefs. Attacking Christianity, God and Christians is not okay; making false statements about someone and intentionally manipulating their words is not okay; mocking people is not okay. It doesn't matter how "ridiculous" you or anyone else thinks their expressed beliefs are. This basic respect does NOT have to be "earned"; it is generally considered a basic right of all humanity.

                Rad Man indirectly acknowledged the lack of respect he shows the vast majority of believers in the forums (with a handful of exceptions); this is the closest he's come to acknowledging his disrespectful treatment of the believers.

                1. profile image0
                  Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  So if I acknowledge that I respect some I have to acknowledge I don't respect all?  Where is you acknowledge of your respect for me or others. LOL.

                  1. Cat333 profile image60
                    Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Consider the context, consider your point in making your statements, consider that sometimes people can see through you. Perhaps you could agree to work on respecting people in general? Btw, I believe I have given you respect. While I've confronted you about false, slanderous statements you've made, I have never mocked you, never twisted your words, never called you names, etc.

                    Anyway, I'm bored of going in circles with you, so I'm dropping it and moving on.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image54
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  Unfortunately, there are those who hold religious beliefs that are not respectful towards others, and they shout these beliefs from the rooftops to all concerned. Those people do not deserve respect.



                  Neither is shouting Christianity and God from the rooftops. See how that works?



                  Sure, but respect must be a two-way street in order for that basic right to have any context and meaning.

  37. Cat333 profile image60
    Cat333posted 10 years ago

    Oceans, Cgenaea, Kathryn:

    Love this - bible study in a forum!

    While Cgenaea's interpretation and mine were very similar, I see a lot of truth in all your interpretations for Luke 11:24-26 (Matthew 12:43-45) and I think it's because Jesus was speaking on multiple levels. With so many relevant and important points, we seem to all be hitting on some truths here.

    Oceans, I agree that while the verses apply to the Christian, he was also speaking to other people, including the Jewish nation. They were delivered by God, but they did not as a nation accept Jesus Christ, and so they left themselves open to greater demonic attack than ever before.

    I take the verses both literally and figuratively. Jesus was continually casting out unclean spirits and I think even in our day / place there may be a lot more going on in the spiritual realm than we typically recognize, so that there continues to be much more demonic activity behind things like greed, lust, offense, rage, sickness, alcoholism and so on than we realize. While I don't know exactly how literal or figurative it all is, I think the Christian's struggles very well may be not only against their own flesh, but also against the demonic. I definitely think my husband was struggling with demons (for his sake I won't go into all the details), but while I'd initially thought he was a believer, I've not been certain (heard it all from saying he loved God to cursing God) and he was definitely straying / far from God at the time. 

    Jesus Christ / the Holy Spirit must fill the person in order to avoid the return of indwelling demons. But does this mean simply to be a believer (since all believers have the Holy Spirit within) or does this mean to be filled up with the Spirit, which occurs to varying degrees and needs a constant outpouring and receipt of the Spirit?

    I do not know whether a Christian can be demonically possessed (some say no the demons can only influence but not possess the believer because Christ and demons cannot coexist within the believer; others say yes because the demons can exist within the believer's body and soul, even if not within their spirit where the Holy Spirit now resides). I must say it appears that believers do struggle with demons to the extent that unclean spirits coinciding with greed, lust, offense, rage and so on do appear to be within the believer's flesh, and their flesh and/or demons wage war against their spirit / the Spirit.

    I agree, Kathryn, that Jesus "was warning people, once they are free of entities they should not do anything to invite them back in or it could be seven times worse". You asked how one contracts the evil spirits. As far as I know, by opening themselves to evil, rather than walking according to the Spirit and in step with the Spirit of God. In a place full of evil spirits (say the occult), a person would be making themselves particularly vulnerable to strong demonic attack and/or possession (by numerous demons and particularly wicked, strong demons). Yet even in less severe cases, people might open themselves to some demonic activity through activities ranging from abuse of substances to indulging in sexual sins.

    1. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
      Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      oh!

  38. Kathryn L Hill profile image84
    Kathryn L Hillposted 10 years ago

    One of us should post that thread:
    What Did Jesus Mean?
    We could discuss confusing (to us) passages of scripture. 

    Or how about...

    1. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Would be interesting, wouldn't it?

  39. lone77star profile image76
    lone77starposted 10 years ago

    Rad Man, I don't know if my intuition is right about God. It keeps changing the more I learn.

    One of my earliest dreams was steeped in ontological meaning. I had this same dream numerous times as a young child. It was a dream of flying. It included thoughts on miracles, faith and doubt. In it, I knew how to fly. It seemed so simple and there was no doubt that I could. After a little while, though, doubt crept in and I started to sink. Soon, I found dark claws reaching up to grasp at my feet. I would always wake up kicking my feet.

    I've recently started studying Kabbalah which they describe as spiritual science -- a tried and true method for climbing the ladder back up to God. You see, we were once up that ladder and we're almost done with our descent. As spiritual beings we are timeless creatures wearing temporary animal bodies.

    But God is definitely Love. I have felt Him and that Love. After studying a little Kabbalah, I understand one major miracle I experienced in 1977. During that incident, I took 100% responsibility for the dangerous acts of others in traffic. I gave up any shred of self-concern (Ego) and was even willing for them to destroy my car and my body. I had no need to reach my destination any faster than I was traveling. I had gone from rage to bliss in an instant. I went from hate and resentment to utter and unconditional love for those other drivers who had assaulted me and my vehicle. I resembled God in that Love and suddenly miracles happened, including one very much like that of Moses parting the sea.

    For those interested in learning more about the code with which the Bible was written, and especially for those interested in spiritual growth, I recommend the following short film,

    http://perceivingreality.com/

  40. bBerean profile image61
    bBereanposted 10 years ago

    Luke 18:18-24  "And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Thou knowest the commandments, Do not commit adultery, Do not kill, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother. And he said, All these have I kept from my youth up. Now when Jesus heard these things, he said unto him, Yet lackest thou one thing: sell all that thou hast, and distribute unto the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come, follow me. And when he heard this, he was very sorrowful: for he was very rich."

    Here we have a self righteous young rich man trying to make the case that he was worthy of salvation on his own.  Jesus puts things into perspective by calling him out on that which he values more than God; his riches. 

    There are to be no gods before Him, and anything we worship or value more than God, is a god we put before him.  This young man worshipped his riches and Jesus called him on it.  No man will enter heaven by his own works, and all fall short, but this man left in despair because he was still intent that he could qualify on his own.  Ego. Greed.  Both illustrated and exposed.

    Has God told all to be poor?  No, much good comes from God entrusting riches to followers who are good stewards and do His work with it, but for them it is not a problem since that money is not their god.  Most people have gods they put before God, it needn't be money.

    1. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Well said, bBerean! I left out the part about salvation contained within the verses, but was also hoping to communicate the message about other "gods" / idols (earthly things) that had taken the place of God.

  41. profile image51
    Bonnet vd Bergposted 10 years ago

    Why can women wear mens clothes but men cant wear womens?
    I mean men can, but its more ridiculed and more looked down at. I'm female, and i wear whatever clothes i want whether theyre mens or womens clothes. No one looks at me funny or anything for wearing womens clothes because i'm dressed properly and even when i wear mens clothes no ones starts trouble, says anything to me or anything. I dress how i want and its not a problem. Yet i see other women also dressed in mens clothes, womens clothes whatever they/we want. Yet ive never seen any men in town wearing dresses, skirts, leggings, cami tops, short shorts etc. Why can women wear mens clothes and its normal+a well known right but when and if men wear ours they get ridiculed/laughed at/teased/etc? I can wear mens clothes, and girls clothes with no bother so why cant men wear ours without any trouble? Additional/sub - question: why can women have male names like bob, charlie, frank etc but men cant have names like angela, janice, sheila etc?

  42. profile image51
    Bonnet vd Bergposted 10 years ago

    Why can women wear mens clothes but men cant wear womens?
    I mean men can, but its more ridiculed and more looked down at. I'm female, and i wear whatever clothes i want whether theyre mens or womens clothes. No one looks at me funny or anything for wearing womens clothes because i'm dressed properly and even when i wear mens clothes no ones starts trouble, says anything to me or anything. I dress how i want and its not a problem. Yet i see other women also dressed in mens clothes, womens clothes whatever they/we want. Yet ive never seen any men in town wearing dresses, skirts, leggings, cami tops, short shorts etc. Why can women wear mens clothes and its normal+a well known right but when and if men wear ours they get ridiculed/laughed at/teased/etc? I can wear mens clothes, and girls clothes with no bother so why cant men wear ours without any trouble? Additional/sub - question: why can women have male names like bob, charlie, frank etc but men cant have names like angela, janice, sheila etc?

    1. Cat333 profile image60
      Cat333posted 10 years agoin reply to this

      I think the double standard relates to persistent sexism and misogyny - that which is masculine / of males is considered better or superior to the feminine, so when women become more like men it is viewed acceptably or even positively, but when men become more like women it is viewed negatively. I personally prefer the feminine (though I recognize it's just a preference), and I think there is much that is devalued but actually better in the feminine / many females. God has created both the masculine and feminine, values both, and we should strive to do the same.

  43. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years ago

    What, do you think I'm some kind of spin wizard? That I can take anything and somehow make it fit into this cohesive context I'm presenting? That I can somehow take anything and everything and not just spin it, but actually make it fit into the context of the specific story I'm telling? Do you realize what that would actually take?

    " Additionally,  common mythology doesn't prove something was ever truly real."

    No, it doesn't. I do understand that. The point is, if the stories of Genesis were to have actually happened in a populated world like described, then one of the things you should expect to see, given the populated area, would be what we actually see in the mythologies of these various cultures. It's one thing to assume they were just simple-minded people fabricating gods to explain lightening and thunder. That's the most common assumption. Yet these people were not morons. They're the inventors of astronomy and writing and mathematics. And even though they were all unique separate cultures, each with their own unique language, they all tell very similar stories about these gods. And they all speak of them as if they're real history. So, which is the more likely explanation? That multiple cultures, through differing languages, borrowed from each other and invented these stories to explain things they didn't understand? It's possible. But the more likely explanation is that it's much more in line with what they actually said themselves.

    1. JMcFarland profile image71
      JMcFarlandposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      It would take exactly what you're doing.   Asserting that something is true and then asking people to prove you wrong.  Insisting that you're correct,  and pointing to Wikipedia to prove your points and books that don't even say what you conclude from them.  No one has reached the conclusions you have.   And I'm sorry,  but you're a layman. To excuse that,  you just day that people don't want to accept the ramifications of your rightness.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        My "rightness" is justified. I wouldn't be saying what I'm saying if it wasn't. My "rightness" and the certainty with which I say what I say is because my hypothesis made numerous correct predictions. And I don't mean small insignificant predictions. But predictions like, if this is true, then there should be a dramatic climate shift shortly following 4000BC that impacted this specific region right here. And guess what, there was. Not only that, but people well beyond me look at that particular climate change as being the catalyst that led to the first civilizations because there is a direct line in the evidence that suggests that. And guess what comes next in the hypothesis, the forming of civilizations. That was a prediction. Not just of a climate change, but when and where and the impact it had. And there it was. And that's just one of many. Many where I specifically found what I was specifically looking for right in the region/timeframe it should have been. Layman or not, I know enough to know that's significant.

        I didn't expect those books to say what I concluded because we weren't looking for the same thing. Technically. I was glad to have found them because that was going to be the most daunting part of this. To research and plot across a map all the various human cultures and was going to have to study behaviors. It turns out that's what these guys did chasing much the same thing, but arriving at that conclusion by very different means. Those books illustrate a dramatic change in human behavior that was an expected result, both in how it happened and where/when, that my hypothesis predicted.

        I ask people to prove me wrong because I get tired of people telling me I'm wrong when they clearly have no idea. They're just certain I can't be right. So I encourage you to back up what you're saying. Do the legwork. I want you to, because I know you'll find what I did if you do. It's pretty undeniable. I mean it's a culture that should have existed in this area for this long, there it is, then ended, yep, then flood evidence, check, then a climate change in a region where there are actual remains of a tower believed to be the tower of babel, check, then multiple civilizations, all telling very similar stories about immortal male/female figures in their ancient past. This is all part of that one hypothesis and it turns out that's what really happened. Dismissing me as a "layman" is a copout. The evidence speaks for itself and my level of education or experience is irrelevant in light of the evidence.

        1. JMcFarland profile image71
          JMcFarlandposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          Headly,  you're shifting the burden of proof,  and you know you're doing it and you're don't it on purpose.   You have not proved anything.   You have made a lot of assertions and found scattered and strange references that back up some of the basics,  but not any that support or make your conclusion.   Because there aren't any.   You're literally the only one.   There can be no consensus.   Writing things down do not constitute proving it.   I can sit here and say that God doesn't exist (I don't gold that position,  in using it to prove a point).  Then I ask you to prove me wrong.   Until you prove me wrong,  I won't accept it.   When you attempt to show me where I'm wrong,  I spin it and change definitions of words and become a slippery apologist.   Then I tell you that since you haven't proven me wrong I must be right.   Would that seem intellectually honest to you?   Would you like to try?  Did you look for any evidence that seems to refute your position,  or only cling to the Wikipedia articles that seem to support it?   Keto in mind that since you're the only person who seems to have come up with this in several thousand years,  despite no training whatsoever that absence of refuting arguments do not mean that genuine refutations do not exist, but since apparently you're the only person ever to think of this,  no one else who had actually studied it has thought to systematically refute it.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Come on Julie, think about what you're saying. You did it again. You accused me of changing definitions of words and being 'slippery'. Just really think about that. I'm not cherry-picking some vague verse from the middle of the bible and twisting it around. I'm taking the first six consecutive chapters, and putting them in the light of one consistent story that lines up historically with over 2000 years of actual events. That's definitely some slippery word twisting. A little hard to believe, actually.

            No, I'm not "shifting the burden of proof". I'm being told that I'm wrong. That I don't have evidence. I'm arguing against baseless statements and accusations that others are making and I'm actually backing up what I'm saying. Those doing the accusing apparently do'nt feel they need to back up their statements. Whether you like the sources or not, it's all true. There really was a dramatic change in human behavior. It really did show its first signs in the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia in the timeframe predicted. It really did spread all throughout the world from there, completely altering how humans live on this planet. Exactly as predicted. There really was an abrupt end to the Ubaid culture, much like there was an abrupt end to the "pre-flood" world. And it goes well beyond that. For example ...

            Gen4:20 - And Adah bore Jabal; he was the father of those who dwell in tents, and of those who have cattle.

            "The third culture that contributed to the building of Eridu was the nomadic Semitic pastoralists of herds of sheep and goats living in tents in semi-desert areas."
            - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu

            I can't just make this stuff up. It's actually harder to continue to deny it than it is for me to simply point it out. I'm not fabricating anything, I'm not twisting anything, I'm simply acknowledging that my predictions are proving on point because my hypothesis is that on point. What other explanation if there? That I'm the world's most slippery apologist? I'm the word-twistingest fool the world has ever seen? At what point will you just stop criticizing my methods and pay attention to the fact that there's a lot of evidence to back up what I'm saying?

            You know something else that showed up in that first Sumerian city-state, Eridu? Stringed instruments. Sound familar? ....

            Gen4:21 - And his brother’s name was Jubal; he was the father of all those who handle the harp and organ.

            I mean, come on.

            1. JMcFarland profile image71
              JMcFarlandposted 10 years agoin reply to this

              A) I think you should listen to these two podcasts:
              http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/podca … ics-part-2
              http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/podca … ics-part-1

              B) I'm not saying you're wrong about everything,  I'm saying you haven't proven it with anything but confirmation bias,  cherry picking and pulling things out of context.

              C) why don't you talk to Rachel again about the order of evolution,  or someone who is an evolutionary biologist.   They can explain to you in much more detail WITH evidence that your order is wrong.   Since you don't listen to us,  maybe you'll listen to them.

              D) why did you shy away from this stuff on the podcast and not explain it.   Why don't you call them and get into it with them?   Why don't you call the atheist experience?   Be yet. Why don't you see what actual experienced professionals think of it,  and THEN you can come here and strut around like you're right.  You know. Actually after you've demonstrated it,  not just asserted it.   Until then,  I'm pretty much done  with this back and forth fruitless attempt to show you how you've not been proving anything and you're going about it backwards.   It's a waste of time.   Maybe you'll find a new victim.   I hope,  for everyone's sake that you take it to someone more knowledgeable than you or I and settle it once and for all.   Once that's happened,  email me the response and the peer reviewed paper.   Then I will research it,  read it and follow the facts.

              1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                Let's say I do all of this. Would it matter? Or would you then tell me I haven't talked to enough people? I mean you pointed me to Rachel before. I emailed her. I actually went on the show. Not good enough. If I actually did each and everything you're suggesting, would it even matter?

                There you go again, "cherry picking", huh? How exactly is taking the Genesis account word for word through out the first 11 chapters, in order, cherry picking? And what am I pulling out of context? I don't get this. I'm actually giving you what atheists are always clammering for. I'm giving it to you. Here's what I think and here's why. Here's the evidence that backs up what I'm saying. And it's not vague. It's very specific. It's right here, at this time, and these are very much relevant events in our history. It's not some little known something that happens to sound kind of like what the bible says. These are the events that actually set the modern human world in motion. That Babel story, the table of nations, who went where and what became of them. That's exactly what this is. That's exactly what happened.

                I just don't know what else I can do here. There's no winning. You're mind is clearly already made up. Nothing I say or do will matter. To you the answer has to be that I'm inexplicably able to twist things around and redefine words to make it seem as though 11 consecutive chapters line up with 2000 consecutive years of historical events that actually did shape the human world. Talk about something hard to believe. To actually be able to do that if the source text wasn't already so on point is hard to believe. It's easier to believe in God than it is to believe what you're accusing me of is even possible. Really think about what you're suggesting I'm doing. Do you really think that's even possible?

                1. JMcFarland profile image71
                  JMcFarlandposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  It's not about talking to the right people.   It's about laying all this stuff out to people who are trained in it.   I listened to the podcast.   You did not talk about this.    This was not the focus.   Why?

                  I'm not a student of this part of history.   I can look it up and read all of it,  but not find it conclusive of your theory.   You're the only person who has.   Ever.   In thousands of years.   It hasn't gotten peer reviewed.  It's only been presented in an anonymous forum on a writing site,  and you spend countless hours repeating and asserting it,  but not actually proving it is true - even if it was all true,  that does not equate to your God being true,  no matter how many people believe that he is.   You admit that,  but instead of using your time to pursue this academically,  you argue with other lay people.   Even if all of us agreed with you,  it still does not make you right - and there is no reason to accept this at face value from a layperson untrained in the field who is willing to spend hours defending it online but not to present it to academic scholars who may be able to point out what's wrong with it in greater detail.   I'm sorry,  it makes it seem like you don't want to know,  and you have little interest in finding out.   

                  You're right,  it's pointless to continue to discuss it with me.   Find someone new who isn't frustrated and start over at the beginning and see if they tell you anything different.

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    "I'm sorry,  it makes it seem like you don't want to know,  and you have little interest in finding out."

                    That's exactly what I get from you as well. This just tells me that all of those conversations that I've read where believers are being told what they should do are full of it. Because even if they do it doesn't matter. Nothing I or anyone else could ever say would make you question yourself. Because you're convinced that we can't possibly be right. So it must be us doing all kinds of crazy things, because well, believers are crazy I guess.

                    It's not lost on me that no one else has ever reached this conclusion. I tried to get into this in the podcast, but I was trying to address four different people who had questions from four very different points of view. But I did try to get into it. Remember when Aron and I were talking about the Sumerian numbering system and all of that? When I told David that Genesis works because the creation of humans and the creation of Adam/Eve were separate events? That's this. It was impossible to get into in that setting in much detail. That's why I wanted to go back and have that extended discussion with Aron, but that never happened.

                    Exactly, you're not a student of this part of history. Just like Rad isn't an evolution expert, nor is he very well versed in Hebrew. Yet neither of you seem to have any reservations about telling me how wrong I am and what I must actually be doing. Can you imagine how that sounds to me? To be told over and over that I'm apparently some weirdo who spends an abundant amount of time online twisting things around and I guess purposefully trying to lie and mislead people? That I'm some nut who wants to believe so bad that I'd twist things up to make it work? As far as I can tell you and others here think I'm some kind of lunatic.

                    At what point do you actually think to yourself that maybe you're being just a tad unreasonable? At what point do you admit to yourself that what you're accusing me of is beyond belief as far as even being possible.

                2. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                  HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  " They can explain to you in much more detail WITH evidence that your order is wrong.   Since you don't listen to us,  maybe you'll listen to them."

                  Please, find one evolution expert that will say that plantlife>sauropsids>synapsids>humans is the wrong order. Find just one. What makes you so certain I'm the one in the wrong and you and others are in the right? Are you an evolution expert? At what point do you actually question yourself?

                  1. profile image0
                    Rad Manposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    LOL…
                    "plantlife>sauropsids>synapsids>humans." Is that what the bible says?

                    I'm no expert, but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_o … ry_of_life
                    last 600 million years, simple animals;
                    last 500 million years, fish and proto-amphibians;
                    last 475 million years, land plants;
                    last 360 million years, amphibians;
                    last 300 million years, reptiles;
                    last 200 million years, mammals;
                    last 150 million years, birds;
                    last 130 million years, flowers;

                3. JMcFarland profile image71
                  JMcFarlandposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                  What I'm trying to say is that I'm not an expert in this field.   No one on hub pages is,  and you aren't either.   Yet you spend so much time arguing with us,  demanding that we prove you wrong,  when you haven't even proven your case.   You've said that everything perfectly lines up,  but you found what you expected to find,  and there is no consensus on the conclusions you've drawn from the data - and people who are trained and experienced in these fields seen to have missed what you claim to be glaringly obvious for THOUSANDS OF YEARS.   What do you think the chances are off someone stumbling upon a theory like this as a layperson and expecting it to be proven true and confirmed by experts?   This had never been seen before by anyone,  and you're demanding that I disprove it to you when u haven't studied it,  don't have a degree on that part of history and wouldn't even know where to begin looking (although I sincerely doubt that Wikipedia would be my go to primary source.

                  I'm asking you to talk to people who might know.  Who will be able to discuss it intelligently.   That's not me.   If you had made that attempt rather than spending hours and hours arguing about it here for years,  you might well be nearing the end of the process by now,  but you're not.   Not even close. I'm not going to just accept your conclusion because you say it lines up.   That's not proof.   You've provided book sources for some aspects,  but not nearly all - and drawn your conclusions anyway based on the way you've interpreted the data and NOTHING else.   That's not proof,  headly - and I think you know that any competent scholar will tell you the same thing,  and that's why you haven't even tried.

                  I'm not dismissing this out of hand. And I'm not trying to tell you that you're wrong about everything.   I don't know.   I DON'T KNOW.   Talk to someone who might.   I'm frustrated going back and forth with you when I explained that conclusions don't equal proof and then you demand that I prove you wrong.   I've told you I don't know.   That's all I have to say about it.   Prove it with facts and evidence.   Get it peer reviews,    But present it to someone who is in the field who CAN discuss it with you on the same fringing level.   What else do you want?

                  1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
                    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

                    Please remember, as I've stated, the only reason I even got into this was in response to ED's statement that there is no evidence. I was arguing against his statement, made as if it's a fact, as he so often does. There's a lot of that in these forums. Completely ignorant statements or arguments will be made, then days later someone will say I saw that so and so argued against what you're saying, as if all of the sudden the goofy argument they were making somehow counts for something now. If someone is going to have the nerve to say "there is no evidence", you can bet your ass I'm going to correct them. Because that is patently false. Yet when I do make an argument that addresses a specific statement that's in line with the context of the conversation, then I run into this.

                    Most of what I'm speaking about has only been known for the past century or less. Did you know we've only known about the Sumerians for roughly 100 years now? It literally could not have been seen before this century. Something to consider.

  44. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
    HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years ago

    Alright, now you've got me on my soap box. Can you see how there's just no winning here? Believers are being told all the time that they don't understand science or the scientific method. That 70% of the world believes much the same thing because they're indoctrinated and unable to critically analyze their beliefs. We're morons, is the basic response to everything.

    So then here I come with explanations that I back up with evidence. I critically analyze. I give you everything you've been asking for. I give you an explanation that's actually rooted in known history. But that's not good enough. I'm just a layman, afterall.

    Well then what's the point to any of this? Clearly there's no answer that will ever satisfy. You're always going to have a problem with it, no matter how it's presented. Even when I give you exactly what you're asking for.

    I get told over and over that facts and evidence are what's important. Unless it's facts and evidence that backs up what I'm saying, then it must be me twisting things around. Why? Because I can't possibly be right, right? What other explanation is there? Is the only "right" answer to agree with you? That "you" isn't meant for anyone in particular, I'm just ranting generally.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
      EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

      Not really, a moron wouldn't usually criticize or analyze anything, but for the vast majority of believers, they do indeed criticize and analyze other aspects of their lives, they have no choice but to do that if they are to function in reality. Of course, with indoctrination of religious beliefs, sometimes the process of indoctrination enters other aspects of a persons life, where they believe other things that are equally silly as religion, and sometimes even more so.



      Yes, and without them, you have only a pet theory.

      1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
        HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

        A theory fully supported by ample evidence. Prediction after prediction proving true based on this particular hypothesis. Clearly you're not willing to even consider it, but that's irrelevant. The evidence speaks for itself and your unwillingness to openly consider is only hindering you from seeing the truth. That's you. Don't project it onto me. If you truly are interested in the truth, then you should open your eyes. Your want for this to not have happened this way is only that. A want. There's plenty of evidence to show that it's true.

        1. EncephaloiDead profile image54
          EncephaloiDeadposted 10 years agoin reply to this

          And yet, you have produced no hard evidence at all, you have merely referred to other myths and superstitions to support your myth.

          1. HeadlyvonNoggin profile image88
            HeadlyvonNogginposted 10 years agoin reply to this

            Oh?

            The Ubaid culture (5500-4000BC) lasted the same length of time as pre-flood Genesis and began with a city (Eridu) very much like the one Genesis says Cain built....

            Gen4:20 - And Adah bore Jabal (descendants of Cain); he was the father of those who dwell in tents, and of those who have cattle.

            "The third culture that contributed to the building of Eridu was the nomadic Semitic pastoralists of herds of sheep and goats living in tents in semi-desert areas." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu

            The Sumerian King's List also cooborates that the 'great flood' happened between the Ubaid and Uruk cultures.

            The Ubaid culture, though it was still on the rise, came to an abrupt end at the same time that Genesis says the flood happened. Flood evidence in Ur actually shows that a flood was directly involved in the end of the Ubaid culture there....

            "We have at ur definite evidence of a very great flood whose waters, upwards of twenty-five feet deep, must have destroyed everything in the Delta expect for a few of the greater towns which had grown up into mounds high enough to be out of the Flood's reach; thus Ur itself, we know, escaped, but the houses at the foot of the mound perished, and in the open plain we have found the ruins of not one but several villages of the same date which were overthrown and never again inhabited." - http://books.google.com/books?id=E__dnn … mp;f=false (page 95)


            Then a century later, came a dramatic climate change known as the 5.9 kiloyear event that really did impact the people of this region much like what the Babel story describes. It caused mass migrations....

            "Thus, it also triggered worldwide migration to river valleys, such as from central North Africa to the Nile valley, which eventually led to the emergence of the first complex, highly organised, state-level societies in the 4th millennium BC." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event

            That climate event is directly tied to the birth of multiple civilizations. Which is exactly what the Babel story says happened. There's even a tower thought to be the tower of Babel in that same city (Eridu)... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eridu#Poss … r_of_Babel

            It's all there. The timeline is there. The events are there. The resulting impact of those events can be seen in the archaeological record. The change to human behavior that's to be expected based on the story being told is there. It's all there. The tie to Sumerian mythology is only one very small part of this.

  45. Nichole Tackwell profile image59
    Nichole Tackwellposted 10 years ago

    Personally I believe that instinct, especially highly attuned instinct, can be and for me is a channel for the divine to speak to us. I believe the divine is in each soul and when we look within what we experience is ' soul speak '. I have learned to let it guide me lately and so far it has yet to let me down.

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)