U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 04-08-2009, 11:15 AM
 
21,847 posts, read 9,713,172 times
Reputation: 3700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Yes especially if no one or no thing else sees or is effected by it. It is the same with people who claim UFO abduction, but have absolutely no proof. Additionally by phrasing it in the form of a theory without having it pass the independent observer test you are asking other to take it on faith. I am not saying it is wrong mind you I have never said that. My central points are I severely doubt it is for everyone as I have heard many Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Buddhist, Hellenic Polytheist, Astruer etc. people say the similar things about their faith and the nature of the universe, and many of them are quite accomplished people. My other point is that it is not scientific and cannot be empirically proven that is all.
It is not faith (which requires no proof) because I have personal proof by direct experience. The extreme invocation of science to support this absurd belief that anything unconfirmed by others is faith-based . . . is extremist other-directed nonsense. Must everything we KNOW be confirmed by others? What an absurd dismissal of personal responsibility and self-direction in favor of other-directed confirmation.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-08-2009, 11:32 AM
 
2,955 posts, read 4,725,833 times
Reputation: 1864
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is not faith (which requires no proof) because I have personal proof by direct experience. The extreme invocation of science to support this absurd belief that anything unconfirmed by others is faith-based . . . is extremist other-directed nonsense. Must everything we KNOW be confirmed by others? What an absurd dismissal of personal responsibility and self-direction in favor of other-directed confirmation.
Of course not. But what you KNOW must be continually questioned by yourself or else what you KNOW is just one more illusion that you hold dear.
An experience is certainly not enough to confirm KNOWLEDGE. And even a lifetime of similar experiences must be questioned continually. Otherwise what you KNOW is worth very little. Your posts reveal a lot of KNOWING but very little questioning - as if you have already taken care of that part once and for all. I can't believe that one can measure reality so precisely no matter how much one reads and/or meditates.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 11:43 AM
 
21,847 posts, read 9,713,172 times
Reputation: 3700
Quote:
Originally Posted by b. frank View Post
Of course not. But what you KNOW must be continually questioned by yourself or else what you KNOW is just one more illusion that you hold dear.
An experience is certainly not enough to confirm KNOWLEDGE. And even a lifetime of similar experiences must be questioned continually. Otherwise what you KNOW is worth very little. Your posts reveal a lot of KNOWING but very little questioning - as if you have already taken care of that part once and for all. I can't believe that one can measure reality so precisely no matter how much one reads and/or meditates.
The illusion test is the first one I had to confront and test both experientially and intellectually. It is no illusion. I continually question . . . there are many things to try to discern even after the essential question between theism and atheism is answered . . . and I have spent decades pursing those answers. I do not have them all and do not anticipate having them all before I die. But the essential one is definitely answered to my satisfaction . . . there is a God consciousness that is not mine or my subconscious. (I have seen the "tornado" many, many times . . . and so have others, apparently)
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 11:47 AM
 
Location: NC
10,009 posts, read 4,454,945 times
Reputation: 2965
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
It is not faith (which requires no proof) because I have personal proof by direct experience. The extreme invocation of science to support this absurd belief that anything unconfirmed by others is faith-based . . . is extremist other-directed nonsense. Must everything we KNOW be confirmed by others? What an absurd dismissal of personal responsibility and self-direction in favor of other-directed confirmation.
Mystic. I am not saying for you it's faith for you it from what I can tell it is truth (I believe I said that numerous times already). What I am saying is that for anyone else to believe it and take it as a valid theory would be faith. My central problem concerning this point as I will say again is that you say if it is to be proven to anyone else they must have their own experience and must also take your theory on faith as it is not independently verifyable. Something you said we should not do because that would be taking another person on faith. It seems contradictory that you would present these theories, say it is a personal thing, say it is the only way for everyone, and then say we should believe your theories, except not because to believe you would mean we are putting faith in you rather then God which is the only place faith should be according to you. Can you see my point?

Last edited by Randomstudent; 04-08-2009 at 11:57 AM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 12:03 PM
 
Location: Santa Monica
4,708 posts, read 5,303,990 times
Reputation: 999
To the OP:
Wrong question, but I suspect you already know that and are asking a rhetorical question.

Messiah - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A better and nonrhetorical set of related questions would be:

1. Where does the idea of a Messiah (Hebrew for "anointed one") come from?

2. Is the idea of a Messiah specific to Judaism?

3. What is the context, and what are the assumptions, behind the notion of a Messiah?

4. Does the notion of a Messiah imply that there is, in fact, one TRUE religious tradition in all of human history and it should be imposed on all other peoples of the Earth at some point in future human history?

Unfortunately, I believe that the stories of a "Messiah" betray the chauvinism of that religion with respect to the rest of the world's peoples and to human history. That is, the idea of a Messiah presumes that MY religion is the one most in tune with God's will and purpose in human history and that these will be injected into human history in the future by the agent of a Messiah. So the Messiah fills the role of a "hero" for that religion while at the same time giving the religious the sense that their beliefs are the most in tune with God's will and that therefore their beliefs and traditions will eventually be imposed on all the people of the Earth at some point in the future. This is obviously a narrow-minded point of view about one's own traditions and betrays ignorance about the histories of other peoples around the world. So, my point is that the idea of a "Messiah" is an example of a religion inventing an idea that gives that religion's adherents something to "feel good" about themselves as a social group and actually is perhaps a clue that this group perceives themselves as "persecuted" and their culture as undervalued and underrespected by their neighbors. You might even say that the notion of a Messiah betrays an unusually intense focus on the "identity" and "existential dread" (i.e., fear of annihilation) of that group of persons.

Last edited by ParkTwain; 04-08-2009 at 12:25 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 12:12 PM
 
1,115 posts, read 1,956,515 times
Reputation: 561
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
The urge to be obnoxious seems irresistible in the young.Nonsense. Magical and wishful thinking. There are many things that we do not understand or cannot test scientifically (Yet) but NOTHING "transcends" reality . . . or it is illusion.
You call me young, but I have never mentioned my age. That just goes to show how our mind operates, making blind assumptions.

"Magical and wishful thinking"??????? You mean kind of like thinking that Jesus Christ is the ebodiement of God and savior of mankind?

Brother, you should never tell someone else that their thinking is magical and wishful with these theories you have.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 12:23 PM
 
21,847 posts, read 9,713,172 times
Reputation: 3700
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randomstudent View Post
Mystic. I am not saying for you it's faith for you it from what I can tell it is truth (I believe I said that numerous times already). What I am saying is that for anyone else to believe it and take it as a valid theory would be faith. My central problem concerning this point as I will say again is that you say if it is to be proven to anyone else they must have their own experience and must also take your theory on faith as it is not independently verifyable. Something you said we should not do because that would be taking another person on faith. It seems contradictory that you would present these theories, say it is a personal thing, say it is the only way for everyone, and then say we should believe your theories, except not because to believe you would mean we are putting faith in you rather then God which is the only place faith should be according to you. Can you see my point?
I do think I see the point of confusion . . . the bolded second half of your statement. I make no such request. The first part is true . . . it can only be true for any individual when they actually "see the tornado" for themselves. Once they have "seen" that God is real for themselves . . . everything else I assert can be evaluated by them. I have validated that it IS consistent with what science DOES know and violates none of that (like any theory that hasn't been discredited) . . . the rest is yet to be discovered or rejected.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 12:30 PM
 
21,847 posts, read 9,713,172 times
Reputation: 3700
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyMonk View Post
"Magical and wishful thinking"??????? You mean kind of like thinking that Jesus Christ is the ebodiement of God and savior of mankind? Brother, you should never tell someone else that their thinking is magical and wishful with these theories you have.
Euphemism is a powerful tool of misdirection and dismissal, isn't it. Use the terms that are associated with fundamentalists. tongue=speakers, snake handlers, and non-thinking literalists with magical connotations to their beliefs to place mine in the same category. You know that while the ultimate end result of my views about Jesus's role in our relationship to God conforms to the reality underlying their less thoughtful and more faith-based beliefs . . . mine are not remotely magical or faith-based with scientific rationale to boot.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 12:31 PM
 
Location: NC
10,009 posts, read 4,454,945 times
Reputation: 2965
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD View Post
I do think I see the point of confusion . . . the bolded second half of your statement. I make no such request. The first part is true . . . it can only be true for any individual when they actually "see the tornado" for themselves. Once they have "seen" that God is real for themselves . . . everything else I assert can be evaluated by them. I have validated that it IS consistent with what science DOES know and violates none of that (like any theory that hasn't been discredited) . . . the rest is yet to be discovered or rejected.
You do indeed make that request by putting out your theories and defending them as though they are fact, by doing so with conviction you put your credentials on the line, that very action makes a request, if it is not request why do it and go to all this trouble to defend it? Why not just say this is what I believe, it does not follow the scientific method, make what you will of it? As to science it is not consistent because it does not follow the scientific method that is basic.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-08-2009, 12:31 PM
 
21,847 posts, read 9,713,172 times
Reputation: 3700
Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyMonk View Post
You call me young, but I have never mentioned my age. That just goes to show how our mind operates, making blind assumptions.
I notice you did not dispute my assumption.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top