|
Post by bubbles on Mar 10, 2015 20:01:51 GMT -5
And some of those many benefits are...? 1. Having peace that passes All understanding.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 10, 2015 20:39:05 GMT -5
And some of those many benefits are...? 1. Having peace that passes All understanding. I have that. It is probably a little different because learned what gives me peace and I understand it.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 10, 2015 21:09:18 GMT -5
1. Having peace that passes All understanding. I have that. It is probably a little different because learned what gives me peace and I understand it. Ok.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 10, 2015 21:23:50 GMT -5
1. Having peace that passes All understanding. I have that. It is probably a little different because learned what gives me peace and I understand it. I think the point of "Peace that passes all understanding" is that, given the situation, conceptually you shouldn't feel peace, but somehow you do. For example, something really crappy might have happened, something that you normally could never feel okay about, but you somehow feel peaceful and accepting of it anyhow... If you understand it, I don't think that qualifies as "Peace that passes all understanding." Or am I missing something here?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 11, 2015 6:34:53 GMT -5
I have that. It is probably a little different because learned what gives me peace and I understand it. I think the point of "Peace that passes all understanding" is that, given the situation, conceptually you shouldn't feel peace, but somehow you do. For example, something really crappy might have happened, something that you normally could never feel okay about, but you somehow feel peaceful and accepting of it anyhow... If you understand it, I don't think that qualifies as "Peace that passes all understanding." Or am I missing something here? Sharon I find it difficult to articulate 'peace that passes all understanding' I dont think I would do it justice. When people visit my home (anyone) many comment on the peace. Ive always put it down to prayer. In regards to your comment when I feel peace in those times I take it as an indicator I did right or am in the right place.
|
|
|
Post by maryhig on Mar 11, 2015 7:33:00 GMT -5
And some of those many benefits are...? He gives you the strength to go through it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 11, 2015 8:35:59 GMT -5
And some of those many benefits are...? He gives you the strength to go through it. I have had problems and had the strength to get through it as well. I have no doubt that some people feel more secure knowing that there is a omnipotent being looking after them but really, there are countless examples where there is no help. Consider abused/tortured/killed children. Do you not think they were looking for help that never came?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 11, 2015 18:27:56 GMT -5
I think the point of "Peace that passes all understanding" is that, given the situation, conceptually you shouldn't feel peace, but somehow you do. For example, something really crappy might have happened, something that you normally could never feel okay about, but you somehow feel peaceful and accepting of it anyhow... If you understand it, I don't think that qualifies as "Peace that passes all understanding." Or am I missing something here? Sharon I find it difficult to articulate 'peace that passes all understanding' I dont think I would do it justice. When people visit my home (anyone) many comment on the peace. Ive always put it down to prayer. In regards to your comment when I feel peace in those times I take it as an indicator I did right or am in the right place. During the night as I meditated on what that peace is like. It permeates my whole being body soul and spirit. When I am disturbed its the same only opposite.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 11, 2015 18:54:48 GMT -5
During the night as I meditated on what that peace is like. It permeates my whole being body soul and spirit. When I am disturbed its the same only opposite. Sounds like a Douglas Adams line: He had found a Nutri-Matic machine which had provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 11, 2015 20:24:55 GMT -5
During the night as I meditated on what that peace is like. It permeates my whole being body soul and spirit. When I am disturbed its the same only opposite. Sounds like a Douglas Adams line: He had found a Nutri-Matic machine which had provided him with a plastic cup filled with a liquid that was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea.
Liquid? ..lol..
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 11, 2015 20:31:48 GMT -5
He gives you the strength to go through it. I have had problems and had the strength to get through it as well. I have no doubt that some people feel more secure knowing that there is a omnipotent being looking after them but really, there are countless examples where there is no help. Consider abused/tortured/killed children. Do you not think they were looking for help that never came? What you say is true. Unfortunately. I dont have the answer. I do think about children. I am an advocate for them in the public sector.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 11, 2015 21:30:02 GMT -5
I have had problems and had the strength to get through it as well. I have no doubt that some people feel more secure knowing that there is a omnipotent being looking after them but really, there are countless examples where there is no help. Consider abused/tortured/killed children. Do you not think they were looking for help that never came? What you say is true. Unfortunately. I dont have the answer. I do think about children. I am an advocate for them in the public sector. I wasn't thinking about the children. I was thinking about the omniscient omnipotent being that people claim loves his/her creations yet knows that a child is being abused and does nothing. Yet this is the same omniscient omnipotent being that you claim helps you get through times of tribulation yet hangs children out to the wind. You present contradictory descriptions that change to fit the circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by magpie on Mar 11, 2015 22:07:58 GMT -5
Back to KJV? Translators have worked so hard to translate the "WORD" in many remote areas and countries throughout the globe. We assist a young couple in remote Ernabella S.A,translating one of the many Aboriginal dialects,an area of hot 40degree desert. They cannot use KJV as it is a different language to any of the tribe who are learning English---Does this mean they will miss out on the Salvation story? On man,and his family we know was in the wilds of New Guinea,Dad a Translator via Wickliffe Translators .He and his team would go out to remotest jungle tribes. I introduced our friend to a youngman from New Guinea. So you lived there? Yes.Is your parents still there. No Dad and his team were eaten by cannibals.All in an effort to spread Gods word.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 11, 2015 22:30:58 GMT -5
What you say is true. Unfortunately. I dont have the answer. I do think about children. I am an advocate for them in the public sector. I wasn't thinking about the children. I was thinking about the omniscient omnipotent being that people claim loves his/her creations yet knows that a child is being abused and does nothing. Yet this is the same omniscient omnipotent being that you claim helps you get through times of tribulation yet hangs children out to the wind. You present contradictory descriptions that change to fit the circumstances. Which god do you think did the abusing? We were talking about peace.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2015 7:48:11 GMT -5
I wasn't thinking about the children. I was thinking about the omniscient omnipotent being that people claim loves his/her creations yet knows that a child is being abused and does nothing. Yet this is the same omniscient omnipotent being that you claim helps you get through times of tribulation yet hangs children out to the wind. You present contradictory descriptions that change to fit the circumstances. Which god do you think did the abusing? We were talking about peace. It is not that any god did the abusing it is that the god was aware of the abuse, had the power to stop the abuse, yet allowed it to continue. The point is, if an abused person prays to their god to stop the abuse do you think the abuse would stop? If it does stop why wouldn't the god have stopped it when it started, before the abused felt forced to cry out for help? If the abused prays to their god to stop the abuse and it does not stop does it mean the abused was not sincere in their request?
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 12, 2015 7:57:32 GMT -5
Ive known abused who prayed and yes justice was dealt to the abuser after exposure.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2015 10:07:11 GMT -5
Ive known abused who prayed and yes justice was dealt to the abuser after exposure. But the abused was still abused. The fact that someone caught the abused or reported them and the legal system had to step in doesn't speak well of god stepping in to stop the abuse.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 12, 2015 10:22:13 GMT -5
Ive known abused who prayed and yes justice was dealt to the abuser after exposure. But the abused was still abused. The fact that someone caught the abused or reported them and the legal system had to step in doesn't speak well of god stepping in to stop the abuse. Now, is there any reason why God’s eyes, ears, and hands in this world would not be human ones?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2015 10:36:20 GMT -5
But the abused was still abused. The fact that someone caught the abused or reported them and the legal system had to step in doesn't speak well of god stepping in to stop the abuse. Now, is there any reason why God’s eyes, ears, and hands in this world would not be human ones? Given that most definitions of god state s/he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent I can see a problem in locating humans with those characteristics. The reason children are abused for long periods of time is because the abuse is unknown to those who care and would take the steps to stop it. For most humans, they will act to stop the abuse if they know about the abuse. That raises the question of why an omniscient being would not do the same.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Mar 12, 2015 11:47:52 GMT -5
But the abused was still abused. The fact that someone caught the abused or reported them and the legal system had to step in doesn't speak well of god stepping in to stop the abuse. Now, is there any reason why God’s eyes, ears, and hands in this world would not be human ones? From what I've seen and experienced, the only ones doing anything about anything are humans. God seems to have gotten lost somewhere in this huge universe and can't find this planet anymore!
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 12, 2015 12:13:43 GMT -5
Now, is there any reason why God’s eyes, ears, and hands in this world would not be human ones? Given that most definitions of god state s/he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent I can see a problem in locating humans with those characteristics. The reason children are abused for long periods of time is because the abuse is unknown to those who care and would take the steps to stop it. For most humans, they will act to stop the abuse if they know about the abuse. That raises the question of why an omniscient being would not do the same. I came across a great quote the other day: "There are over 7.2 billion definitions of God in the world today". I think this is probably true. I think it's also pretty easy to limit ourselves by getting too stuck on definitions. An example of how language can bind us. I personally have no problem using the "God" terminology, though I could have equally chosen to discard it. I haven't given a lot of thought to how I might choose to describe myself these days, but an "explorer of consciousness" might be a reasonable approximation. I have a deep appreciation of and respect for the truths to be found in the wisdom traditions. My understanding of myself and the world I live in is evolving on a daily basis. I do not discard either reason or science, but I am keenly aware of their limitations. I am far from unique. Many people these days would find that the notion of God that you argue against is naïve and old fashioned. I came across this description the other day of the statistics developed by French economist Georges Anderla for the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) in 1973: “He takes the known scientific facts of the year A.D. 1 to represent one unit of collective human knowledge. Assuming that our collective learning began with the appearance of language, it had required approximately fifty thousand years for humanity to accrue that first unit. According to Anderla’s estimates, humanity had doubled its knowledge by A.D. 1500. By 1750, total knowledge had doubled again; by 1900, it had become eight units. The next doubling took only fifty years, and the one after that only ten years, so that by 1960 humanity had gathered 32 units of knowledge. It then doubled again in the next seven years, and again in the following six years, taking us to 128 units in 1973.“ Now, human knowledge is estimated to be doubling every 12 months, with some forecasts of it soon to be every 12 hours. Whether one agrees with these numbers, the trend itself is clear. Why would our understanding of “God” not be evolving in the same way? Sometimes there are concepts that are best discarded, but sometimes there is a great deal more value in a "transcend and include" approach. As Lothar Schafer says: “In a quantum world we can have a spiritual view of the world and it is not in conflict with the scientific view. In 1900, you could not have believed in science, have a religious faith, and be logically consistent. Today you can believe in science and have a spiritual view of the world and there’s nothing stupid about it.”
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Mar 12, 2015 12:57:55 GMT -5
I am far from unique. Many people these days would find that the notion of God that you argue against is naïve and old fashioned. "Naive and old fashioned" beliefs about the Christian God are unfortunately still significant in the US. The arguments rational makes are relevant here.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 12, 2015 16:09:42 GMT -5
Now, is there any reason why God’s eyes, ears, and hands in this world would not be human ones? Given that most definitions of god state s/he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent I can see a problem in locating humans with those characteristics. The reason children are abused for long periods of time is because the abuse is unknown to those who care and would take the steps to stop it. For most humans, they will act to stop the abuse if they know about the abuse. That raises the question of why an omniscient being would not do the same. I dont know the answer but you persist in questioning. Have you asked him about it? My theory has never satisfied you so I wont bother you with an explanation..
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 12, 2015 16:17:24 GMT -5
Given that most definitions of god state s/he is omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent I can see a problem in locating humans with those characteristics. The reason children are abused for long periods of time is because the abuse is unknown to those who care and would take the steps to stop it. For most humans, they will act to stop the abuse if they know about the abuse. That raises the question of why an omniscient being would not do the same. I came across a great quote the other day: "There are over 7.2 billion definitions of God in the world today". I think this is probably true. I think it's also pretty easy to limit ourselves by getting too stuck on definitions. An example of how language can bind us. I personally have no problem using the "God" terminology, though I could have equally chosen to discard it. I haven't given a lot of thought to how I might choose to describe myself these days, but an "explorer of consciousness" might be a reasonable approximation. I have a deep appreciation of and respect for the truths to be found in the wisdom traditions. My understanding of myself and the world I live in is evolving on a daily basis. I do not discard either reason or science, but I am keenly aware of their limitations. I am far from unique. Many people these days would find that the notion of God that you argue against is naïve and old fashioned. I came across this description the other day of the statistics developed by French economist Georges Anderla for the Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) in 1973: “He takes the known scientific facts of the year A.D. 1 to represent one unit of collective human knowledge. Assuming that our collective learning began with the appearance of language, it had required approximately fifty thousand years for humanity to accrue that first unit. According to Anderla’s estimates, humanity had doubled its knowledge by A.D. 1500. By 1750, total knowledge had doubled again; by 1900, it had become eight units. The next doubling took only fifty years, and the one after that only ten years, so that by 1960 humanity had gathered 32 units of knowledge. It then doubled again in the next seven years, and again in the following six years, taking us to 128 units in 1973.“ Now, human knowledge is estimated to be doubling every 12 months, with some forecasts of it soon to be every 12 hours. Whether one agrees with these numbers, the trend itself is clear. Why would our understanding of “God” not be evolving in the same way? Sometimes there are concepts that are best discarded, but sometimes there is a great deal more value in a "transcend and include" approach. As Lothar Schafer says: “In a quantum world we can have a spiritual view of the world and it is not in conflict with the scientific view. In 1900, you could not have believed in science, have a religious faith, and be logically consistent. Today you can believe in science and have a spiritual view of the world and there’s nothing stupid about it.” Fascinating sharon. BTW I do think you are unique. We have similarities with DNA & personalities but each person unless cloned IMO is unique. How can we not be.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Mar 12, 2015 17:00:12 GMT -5
I came across a great quote the other day: "There are over 7.2 billion definitions of God in the world today". I think this is probably true. This would mean that people in a religion, the RCC for example, do not actually believe the doctrine of the church they attend. I think it is more likely that most people have not ever tried to define the specifics of their god. That may be the case but without a common understanding of the words being used communication becomes impossible. I use that definition because it is the common definition provided. I have frequently asked people to define the god they believe in so we can discuss specifics rather than generalities but very few are forthcoming. As one who does not believe in a deity or deities, this can hardly be considered my definition. If the definition I use is incorrect I would hope that people would, as you have, speak up. Are there gods that are not omnipotent? Omniscient? All loving? This, of course, runs into the various definitions of god. Is it the understanding of god that is changing or is god being redefined by the believers? This runs counter to the unchanging nature of today's god(s). When I see the name Deepak Chopra associated with a person it raises a very big red flag! Lothar not withstanding, you have to be careful of Quantum Quackery.
|
|
|
Post by SharonArnold on Mar 12, 2015 21:41:19 GMT -5
This would mean that people in a religion, the RCC for example, do not actually believe the doctrine of the church they attend. I think it is more likely that most people have not ever tried to define the specifics of their god. I think both are probably true. I know a number of Catholics, in fact, I am married to one. The term “buffet Catholic” comes up pretty regularly, meaning that they take what makes sense for them and ignore the rest. They are not too hung up on doctrine, either in terms of knowing it or of believing it. Many people will not have given thought to the “specifics of their God”. However, there will be some who wouldn’t even try, being quite convinced of the ineffability of their God. Are there gods that are not omnipotent? Omniscient? All loving? This I don’t know. It is not terminology I would tend to use, as it lends itself too much to “the big person in the sky” concept. Certainly, through time, I think the vast majority of gods have been pretty capricious, with all the distressing foibles and failings of human kind. That should tell us something. Is it the understanding of god that is changing or is god being redefined by the believers? This runs counter to the unchanging nature of today's god(s). Both, I would think. I don’t think that someone’s understanding or definition of God has any impact on the underlying reality, should that exist. When I see the name Deepak Chopra associated with a person it raises a very big red flag! Lothar not withstanding, you have to be careful of Quantum Quackery. I think Stenger makes some reasonable points. But, like Deepak Chopra, he has his critics too – even from physicists who are very careful to disassociate from the “quantum mystic” label. Quantum physics is not my area of expertise, and I am, at best, an interested eavesdropper to other people’s conversations. I would like it if some property of “mind” or of “consciousness” was the missing component to some of the problems that are stumping physicists these days. Suddenly, (at least to my mind) our world gets a whole lot more interesting. It also meshes with my interpretations of my personal subjective experience. I do realize that wishing does not make it so, but I think it is fair to say that it cannot be ruled out as of yet.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 14, 2015 22:35:53 GMT -5
Ratz I saw you had posted somewhere that if you had hallucinations..etc you would head to doc. My question is if you had an angel appear at the end of your bed in the middle of the night. Telling you how you got ill and how to treat it. Is it the notion of seeing something supernatural that disturbs you or the fear of loosing your mind? Why would you seek medical help when you should be going to someone who understands soiritual things.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Mar 14, 2015 22:36:50 GMT -5
PS: quantum quakery sounds weird.
|
|