Mockingbird Daily
MockingBird DaY
This morning, there were sounds of many voices heard outside my window. I thought, "Who could it be, now?" I gazed over at the security cameras. There was the neighborhood mockingbird up and at 'em prancing house-left along my home - spitting out mellow sounds and rhymes in a throaty soliloquy to no bird in particular.
I watched as this lady bird bounced and sprang up on fence and post, down to the air conditioner condenser's platform, skipped down the trail around to the back patio, then reappeared! Standing in a spotlight of sunshine and my camera's lens.
I thought, "This wild woman would never give me a show such at this, if she knew I was watching her every move!"
Immediately, I began to day-dream about what it must be for God to know our every move. That is, mind you, our moves God would care to see! After all, just how interesting can any one or group of us mortals be for God who has seen all earthly dramas?
This camera was only focused in on the stage outside my house. Every frame realized. But nothing before the lens or beyond the lens could be anticipated or evidenced. Is this possibly how an all-knowing God limits the frames of reference for our lives so as to afford us amazing chapters in privacy and personal freedoms? Even so, the 'tape' of our continuous dramas mount up in heavenly studio archives.
My mind raced.
This innocent little songstress playing to a crowd on the rooftops, and in the bowels of the trees, never could realize and appreciate the interplay she was giving the man behind these lens!
Not aware was this lady bird that mere hours of darkness ago, I had watched a tom cat skip, pounce, and race up the fence and post where she now was resting. I watched it all with ' night vision ,' and it was amazing! During the blackened early morning hours, I had seen everything occurring . That sneakiest "pouncer" none the better informed!
As Apostle Paul long ago explained to a wayfaring people:
19 . . .what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made , . . . .
What is important:
In the peaceful watching of a morning "lady" executing her feathered flight ritual unaware of me; the presence of God reminds me of unseen figures gazing in on just a few, or all, of what mankind does.
|
Are you rational #4 Are You Open-Minded? |
|
OLLY! |
— ToP Of tHe DaY tO YoU, LaDy BiRd!
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
What does God know about us and for how long has God known it? (Rhetorical question.)
Meta-Ignorance is unknowns unknowns. Dunning-Kruger Effect. For an explanation watch the video above!
There is a difference between these two:
Those of us who are not convinced that any human being has ever had genuine supernatural communication with God do not necessarily presume this is impossible. And until we go beyond anecdotal evidence (vague testimony) it is likely that this will remain as merely a possibility.
Nice original writing, by the way.
Aw shucks, TiG! (Smile.)
A launch of something different. . . . the new Religion and Reason category.
Since this is the religion and reason category, I have to ask about the mechanism(s) by which this "god" creature monitors your every move:
At any given instant is it just from one perspective or from an infinite number of perspectives? Does it monitor everything in the same way down to the atomic level or lepton level, or does it just monitor certain collections of molecules?
Does it use photons or something else as the information carrier?
Does this creature have hidden cameras set up somewhere, or does it have an invisible eye through which the photons pass unimpeded? If the latter how does that work?
If you change your clothes in a room without any windows or any light source can this creature still see you? If so isn't that a bit creepy, and how does that work?
Or is it just magic? If so how does that magic interact with the physical universe?
I cannot get to questions like that because a few others are in the way:
Because of the feverish ravings of Bronze-age goat rapists, of course. How else?
TiG, do not take this the wrong way, but did you watch the video on the article? Shrekk, did you? It does not go directly to your questions, but it is topic relevant. (Smile.)
See 2.1
"Watching" is a human term used to discuss some property of Spirit. The proper method/terminology not known. Why belabor the point? By the way, this point of God knowing is where you and I left off on another thread.
You must be "born-again." Or, in enlightened in some other fashion.
Special revelation. The only way to discuss God is through what has been revealed. Now then, you may belief nothing as been revealed and that is your. . .whatever. Other feel/think differently and live their lives accordingly.
You use the same old same old like you are reading from a script. Get some new material.
Mags if you disagree with a point I make, the most effective rebuttal is to show where I am wrong. Simply making a snarky comment like 'get some new material' without a shred of thoughtful content is an example of 'baiting' - using the term properly.
I understand you do not want to engage me in debate. Works for me. But that does not mean you have a free pass to deliver drive-by snark. So my request is to not toss poo. Okay?
Perhaps, you won't be returning to these questions/replies?
Ironically you just asked me to reply to your post, and by doing so I guess I am now belaboring. But since you asked, the reason I asked why an omniscient God would have to watch his creations is because an omniscient God would learn nothing by watching his creations. It logically is pointless. Ergo the question. And unless you have a direct answer there is no point responding.
I asked how do we know there is a God and you tell me, in effect, one must believe in God to know there is a God. So what sort of reply can I offer here? Where does thoughtful discourse go from here? I have no idea. That is why I did not answer this post. Seems like a waste of effort. There are plenty of snarky retorts I suppose, but other than that this is simply the cliche dead end of: 'one must believe'.
I asked how does anyone know anything whatsover about God and you tell me that God must directly reveal information to the believer by supernatural means. So here again, what am I supposed to do with this? Shall I ask how you know that God has touched you supernaturally? I already know what you will say and we will end up back at 'one must believe'.
What did you expect me (or anyone else) to do with answers that ultimately are simply 'one must believe'? This is why I did not reply to your post.
"Watching" as humans, is not likely "watching" as God. I can not prove this. I have not been given any certainty. I can say that 'our' books tell us God is Spirit. Thus, presumably "watching" for God is an act carried out spiritual-fashion. I doubt you will agree with this, but that is my offering.
Thank you for the clarification of your earlier question about "watching" in the above comment!
No, you can know there is a God as I stated: 1. You must be "born-again." Or, 2. Enlightened in some other fashion. This insight has been supplied to countless numbers of people. Is this insight clinical? No, it is not. It is universal? No, it is not. Is it attainable? Yes, it is. You can humble yourself and seek God or you can wait for the 'Call.'
This will not be the type of answer you are looking for. I get that. It is the one I have to offer, nevertheless.
If you wish not be be involved with the advice from those individuals who have the experiences of spirituality, let me ask you a question: Do you come here just to teach? Curious. Conversation is a two-way street. Open your mind. . . .
I do not know what that means Cal. What does it mean to 'watch' in a 'spiritual-fashion'? How is that different from observing (as in looking 'down' upon)? And how do you know that your answer is correct?
Correct. For obvious reasons.
My mind is quite open. I just do not see anything that persuades me that a god exists. The fact that I am not persuaded does not mean that I reject the possibility of a god. If someone ever comes up with persuasive evidence of a god I sure as hell want to know. If a god exists that is very important information. But given the propensity of human nature to believe without evidence those who claim the existence of god need to deliver something convincing. And telling us that we just need to open our hearts to Jesus (or equivalent) is patently NOT convincing. Quite the opposite to be candid.
By the way, do you consider yourself to be open-minded? Do you accept the possibility that God (your personal God) does not exist?
I wrote you may not agree to that "offering" of mine. We "see", because of special revelation. (Note: This is factual truth from my life, not any kind of online offer of conversion!)
I am open-minded when it comes to God and it has led to a belief in God. I used to agnostically not know and for year now I have faith. Should I experience "God (personal) does not exist," if you are around at that point, I will be open-minded enough to inform you!
Well then we have something in common, we are both agnostics. You are an agnostic-theist and I am an agnostic-atheist.
If having faith in God causes me to be agnostic in your worldview: So be it. In my worldview, I have more positiveness of God now, then I did when I was agnostic.
Having faith in God causes you to be a theist . It has nothing to do with the agnostic part.
The agnostic part comes from you recognizing that God (your personal God) might not actually exist.
Agnostic-theist = a person who believes in a God but who recognizes that they might be mistaken (that God might not actually exist).
This is in contrast to the untenable position of the gnostic-theist:
Gnostic-theist = a person who believes in a God and does not accept even the possibility that this belief could be incorrect (that God might not actually exist).
These are your 'working' definitions. You are free to use your definitions. Clearly, they have meaning for you as you often offer them up.
These are my 'working' definitions: Agnostic = not knowing. Theist = belief in God.
My experience as an "agnostic" = not knowing if God exist or not. As a theist, I believe with more positiveness that God does exist. The emphasis is on this.
what was the "special revelation" in your life and how did you verify it was a "special revelation" from God ?
We discussed this before and I proved to you that these are common definitions. These are not my definitions. These terms allow better precision when discussing religious viewpoints. The term 'agnostic' is overloaded and thus blurry in meaning.
Thus you are an agnostic-theist. The agnostic ("more positiveness") element (per the above quote) states that you recognize that God (as you define God) might not exist.
Agnostic-theists and agnostic-atheists are open-minded to new information. They recognize that their views could be wrong.
Gnostic-theists and gnostic-atheists are close-minded to new information. They hold that their views are 100% truth - no way they are wrong.
In short, you recognize that God (as you define God) might not exist. I recognize that a god might exist. You and I both can claim open-mindedness in this regard.
Actually it means I am more certain of God's existence, because of being "born again" of Spirit and bearing God's seal (of the Spirit). Thus, as the scriptural verse goes, 'we are not orphaned children of God in this world.' All of which leads to faith in God. This all goes to where one placed his/her emphasis. I accent the positive. You, . . . well you can address this yourself.
I understand that. Nowadays you are more confident that God exists. Not suggesting otherwise.
But on the question of open-mindedness, you either accept the possibility that God may not exist or you reject it.
Is it possible that God does not exist?
If you answer 'no' then you are not an agnostic-theist and your mind is closed in this regard.
I have EXPLAINED to you that there was a time as an agnostic when I did not know whether God exist or not. Now time has come when as a theist I have faith that God exist, because I bear God's seal. Now then, I can not both state I bear God's seal of the Spirit and agree that God does not exist. I am walking by my faith, a spiritual sensing, faith is not sight, nevertheless.
The percentages or possibilities of God not existing do not weigh on me. It is all where one places emphasis, as I have repeatedly stated above.
I understand! What makes you think I do not get that? Do you see me refuting this in any way?
I agree. It would be a contradiction to believe in God and to also believe God does not exist. That is not what agnostic-theists do. Agnostic-theists are not walking contradictions. They believe in God AND they recognize that God might not exist.
Not asking you for a specific percentage. Not suggesting your emphasis is not heavy on the side of God existing. What is with all this dodging on the question of open-mindedness??
As I noted, I am not convinced any god exists. Yet I am quite willing (thrilled even) to be presented with credible evidence that a god exists. My mind is open but the evidence better be credible.
Your words in this past series of comments implicitly recognize the possibility that God does not exist yet you cannot bring yourself to acknowledge that you are indeed open-minded regarding your beliefs.
This is not a trap. If you were a gnostic-theist that would be bad because that is clearly close-minded (and logically flawed). Agnostic-theists can believe in God with all their hearts but as long as they are logical and humble enough to recognize that God might not exist (i.e. -surprise- they could be wrong) then their minds are still open.
You have my answer. It is belief-faith. If it suits you to view my answer from a negative perspective of God may not exist—so be it. Incidentally, I am mildly annoyed with your choice of emoticon! "Too much info"? Really? Yet, you continue to drill down on the same question, seeking more?
It suits me to for someone to answer a simple question with a direct answer. When I see evasive tactics (especially on something that is actually a positive - open-mindedness) I tend to engage even further because I find such tactics dishonest. Those who evade (toss up clouds of smoke) just get more questions to clear the air.
If one rejects the possibility that their God might not exist then -in theistic matters- the individual is close-minded. Do you agree or not?
see what I mean?
it seems some questions are made unnecessarily harder by the person asked the question - it would be simple to just directly answer, don't you think ?
Yes, I do! (Smile.)
Depends if the person asking the question is sincere. Otherwise, he already knows what the answer will be and has his next question ready. I call it baiting....some don't.
There is no next question Mag. I already stated the consequences of either choice. Cease this baiting crap.
Real simple:
You have already stated clearly that it is impossible for your God to not exist.
Cal has implied that it is possible for his God to not exist.
Thus, Cal is open-minded and you are close-minded regarding theism.
Unless, of course, Cal disagrees with my reading of his words.
What is becoming ever clearer is you may have never been a "creature" of faith (in God)! And for argument sake, no I do not agree.
Faith gives believers special revelation and that builds on itself by creating (faith) experiences. For example: "Abraham believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness." In that, Abraham put forward his son Isaac as a sacrifice. From this unique experience God gifted Abraham the man of faith. Today, our faith is counted to believers as righteousness. For we have our own faith experiences. We do not consider "possibilities" of God not existing. Agnosticism and theism are not coupled together in our worldview.
Believers in God, by definition, belief God exist. Possibilities of God's non-existence do not exist!
Can you be less sensitive, please? Nothing written is beyond the pale in here (so far).
Oh well that is very different. Why did you not just say that? See the communication problems that occur when one is vague?
Remember how this started? You encouraged me to be open-minded. Well, although skeptical, I am quite willing to consider credible evidence that a god might exist. I have publicly stated for years, repeatedly, that it is possible that we were created by a sentient entity. I never asked you the 'open-minded' question because I presumed you would reject any possibility that God (as you define God) exists. I was admittedly surprised last night when you offered replies that suggest you do not take the gnostic-theist stance that there is no possible way you could be wrong.
Thus you are a gnostic-theist - reject the possibility that your God might not exist.
Further, I tend to agree with your statement (quoted). IMO most theists are gnostic-theists - reject the possibility that they could be wrong.
Bravo!
ah, i can understand your viewpoint - i do think TiG is being sincere, but I can't say for sure since i'm not TiG and i leave the possibility open that maybe TiG isn't sincere. Of course, based upon prior posts and evidence in those posts - i conclude TiG is sincere, but that's my personal assessment. i can understand where you are coming from as i have encountered the same situation with other posters on here.
We are believers by faith - which is the gift of God - if that is what you are suggesting. I will ignore the condescending tones emanating from your comments. You should know what they are, so I will not belabor this.
It is unnecessary to type out all the details for you or anybody else, because much of these will be discarded in your "quote-backs." I have learned over the period—better to let you and others persist in questioning. Then, it becomes necessary to fill in the nuances.
You can persist in thinking whatever you wish. Just realize that you do so from a position void of comprehension of what belief/faith in God is. Again, you seek to strip out the nuances. For example, your concept of God is deistic. Non-personal. Should I bother drilling down on: Are you open-minded to the concept of the personal God? And, would you humble yourself to seek such an Entity? Rhetorical. I presume the answer already without posing the question.
I am a theist. Gnosticism/Gnostics is a loaded term meaning much more than simply knowing. It is all in the nuances.
I was not suggesting anything. You do not accept the possibility that God does not exist. Assuming I have that right then this is all cleared up.
Try to not be evasive on such a simple question and I will not label your comments as vague.
You are a theist who does not accept the possibility that God does not exist. Not all theists make such a claim of truth.
That is your assumption void of any real understanding of faith and belief. I do not feel a need to revisit what I have written.
Wouldn't we all like to know divine instruments and secrets. How might our developing minds be "blown" and fused together! Better we learn in stages.
For not too long ago, we thought what we did in the dark stayed in the dark - but we know now that other spectrums (infrared, night vision, thermal imaging, etceteras) are possible. This knowledge we 'discover' is already in the Earth to be what we label 'found.'
Given that there's a claim that some creature is monitoring your every movement it would be interesting to know the physics behind that. That's assuming for the sake of argument that there is such a creepy "peeping Tom" creature.......so the question then becomes what is the nature of this monitoring mechanism? Do we need to have better EM shielding in the walls of our houses or would some kind of broad-spectrum EM jammer be more effective at preventing this perverse surveillance?
"Jamming God" Now there's a concept!
Mocking birds are awesome, but why did God make bedbugs and cockroaches?
The earth needs "creeping things" that move along the ground!
There is a reason for every living thing. Even us, Leno.
He didn't. They were made by Satan just to 'bug' the Hell out of human beings.
Are you really open-minded? Watch the video above!
It's good to be open-minded, Cal, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out!
Naive insults are irrelevant. Will/did you watch the video?
In the peaceful watching of a morning "lady" executing her feathered flight ritual unaware of me; the presence of God reminds me of unseen figures gazing in on just a few, or all, of what mankind does.
"Faith and reason are like two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of the truth."
Pope John Paul II
Skirting the CoC [ph] Personally. I have my own reasons for my profound reasons for believing in God and would never share them on NT or any social/political forum for my experiences to be ridiculed. Does God want me to do it? I don't know. I am in hospice. Almost six months ago, I was at death's door. Even though I was not cognizant of reality, I prayed to Him. I remember so well....dear God ........ When I awakened. I told my doctor and he thought I was crazy when I told him I spoke with God. I had died twice. As you can see, I am living and plan on doing so for a long time.
Don't know why I am telling you this.
Seven years ago, I had a similar experience, but not as traumatic as the one in January of this year. A vision came to me while I was unconscious and the same one came to me in January as I was dying, I am alive and I know why.
I have no special relationship with God that others don't have. I believe in Him with every fiber of body.
I can relate to the touch of the Spirit, Magnoliaave. I believe you, and I believe in our Lord God! I wish to extend my friendship to you as well.
Please show us on the doll where the Spirit touched you /s...
If you do not have anything good to say. . . .
Incidentally, there is a entirely
goodreasonable video attached above. How about giving it a go?I did.
Deepest wishes for your continued presence with us, my dear Magnoliaave. God is able, and I am aware of your awareness of this from your past comments across the network. I am so uplifted that you decided to share these words with me, us, today. I will confide in you that I had been feeling a "day's worth" of gloom that a few of these seeds (and blogs) can go so far off the path intended, that I, even I, can feel hopeless in effort. You being here matters to me, Magnoliaave.
I know from your sharing that you are a grandmother. Additionally, I know that you started this year off with alarming health, and it caused you to take leave of us for a time out of necessity. Now, I, we, are made farther aware of your status and plans to be with us for quite some time! Blessings to your life and joy in the Spirit!
Thank you. I hope we are friends. I look out my window and see tree tops and, then, the sky above. I praise God everyday for His blessings. Take care.
I second the praise, Magnoliaave! "And Lord haste the day when my faith shall be sight. . . ." Begins the 3rd stanza of,
"It Is Well With My Soul."
Great Sunday to all, Newstalkers!
Debate, not bait. The key difference is that the former is an effective mechanism for distinguishing truth. The latter is slimy.
In our last exchange I explained how your claim came with the burden of proof. That is not baiting, it is edifying. Baiting would be, for example, making snarky comments trying to piss you off. Thoughtful discourse / debate might make you uncomfortable but it is not baiting.
If debate / challenge is not your thing then you are quite correct to avoid my articles.
Your debate is....prove it. Or, were there witnesses? Or, faith can't be proven. Etc. Oh, piss me off? Why do you think I came back with a snarky rebuttal? I know you are smart, but almost every member participating in the baiting does the same thing with the same rebuttals.; There is no debate. Atheists coming out of closets ...ok...And, then, to top it off....how ostracized if they come out.
Happy Trails.
I never make that demand. Read what a person writes before making accusations. My challenge would be to show the evidence supporting a claim. Showing evidence is substantially easier than literally proving a claim.
I do not recall making that argument, but challenging the notion of accurate eyewitness testimony is quite reasonable.
Again, I never ask for proof. But faith is, by definition, belief without sufficient evidence. Faith and proof are mutually exclusive. That is, if one can prove the notion held by faith then faith in that notion no longer makes sense.
I suspect it is because that is the best you could do. If you can offer a thoughtful rebuttal without getting emotional and nasty you will get a thoughtful rebuttal from me (unless I agree with you). Flinging poo is never helpful. If that is all you have, you would be personally best served to not write anything.
Then you have no idea the arguments that I, specifically, make. You lumped me into some contrived stereotype to make strawman accusations. Not good.
Ever read what the late Buddhist philosopher Alan Watts had to on Subjectivity versus Objectivity?
I am what I am, also, JBB.
Hope your Mother is doing well.
Mankind comprehends omniscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence from a human intellectual perspective.
Then you will need to provide the alternative definitions, Cal! Donut?
The alternative is a realization you can only push scenarios so far. Since when has mankind fully dealt with "omnis"?
Come on, Leno. Why?
As opposed to? Intellect is not to be used in understanding concepts?
Intellect is to be used, of course. Realization of where human intellect ends, in general revelation and special revelation, is where we run up against the 'wall.'
How can one perceive special revelation without intellect?
Who suggested perception without intellect? Never crossed my mind. How did you get that from my 10.2.1? Did you miss that message's meaning? Meaning: There are limits on what God has revealed about Spirit to man—even in holy books.
how are you aware of this given you have only human intellect ? how are you able to perceive Special Revelation as opposed to General Revelation given you only have human intellect ?
Geez!
What part don't you understand?
Atheists can come up with every intellectual question and argument known to mankind. Who cares? I'll shut up as this was not addressed to me.
doesn't it seem odd to you that when someone makes a claim (political for example) that everyone demands proof for that claim to verify it's truth - yet you think you should be exempt from that when you make the claim that God is real ?
it seems that apparently anyone can make any claim to you they wish and you, by your own "logic", would have to accept it as truth without any verification or proof (since that's what you are trying to do with your claim about God) - correct ?
What then do you mean by 'where human intellect ends':
If human intellect has 'run up against the wall' (ended) then it is not being used. What happens at the point of the wall?
Mind if we ask questions without the heckling? Unless of course you can answer the questions as well as (or better than) Cal. If so, then please answer the question.
What can I say?
If you don't mind my saying so. I believe that politics is totally different than one's belief in God. Since I don't mix the two of them together you will have to ask someone else.
politics was an example of the concept - people make a claim and others require proof of that claim to verify if it's truth or not. I figured you would have caught on to that. So again -
and now you know i'm talking about the "concept" and not mixing anything - would you care to answer the question(s) ?
You don't to accept anything I say.
of course i don't have to accept it - but if you are going to make the claim, then you should expect to be asked for proof and verification of it's truthfulness, which is exactly what i do when you (or others) make the claim that God exists. For some reason you are unable to provide that verification, which is troubling, yet expect others to accept it as truth since you made the original claim.
You wait. . .for new revelation. . . . When scientists have gleaned all the general revelation from nature on any one problem - ultimately it is set aside until new data ("revelation") arrives. Similarly, in spiritual comprehension one can not go beyond what has been revealed (through holy books) about the nature of God. At that point, omni discussion are 'paused.' New revelation is called for.
In both, science and religion, theorizing can continue until it 'runs up against the wall.' I hope this is clear.
Good day, Magnoliaave! How are you, dear lady? Thanks for sharing today! I sincerely love this!
So it is not that intellect ends but rather information ends (albeit temporarily)?
This is what I originally wrote - without the commas. So yes, I can agree when information (revelations) end, we must not extend beyond this point, without new info or revelation.
Okay. So intellect does not end - that is what was throwing me off. What you are saying, if I am deciphering properly, is that we should not use our intellect without information. That, to me, is another way of saying that one should think critically. Draw conclusions that are grounded in quality information rather than speculate -and then hold the speculation as factual- past the point where quality information ceases to exist.
This is true, especially once one have studied and exhausted what humanity has by way of revelations - general and special. Faith is tangible to the believer, because of practice and experiences.
Especially informed believers who live by special revelation. These study often to see reveal to them is reasonably so. S/he walks in faith daily. Thus, these foks are developing, building and disciplining their individual faith. A (tangible) lifestyle.
Good morning......it's a grand day!
I am your proof.
you are no more my proof than cal or TiG or anyone else on here. You are not independently verified to be proof that your God exists - you are a human being who was created by a sperm and an egg joining, that's all. You are under the impression that you do speak to God, yet there's no proof of this. It's great if you want to be under that impression, i have no issues with it, but don't claim that it is the "truth" or 100% fact that your God exists since it hasn't been independently verified and neither have you been independently verified to be the "proof" of your God existing.
May I interject? Hello Phoenyx13! Please bring more light than heat to your comments. Magnoliaave is sharing with you from her inward self. It is her testimony and she is free to offer it as she sees proper and in keeping with NT rules and regulations.
If you demand "independent" or clinical evidence of God, you are looking in the wrong 'spot' in-between people of faith in God. You are free to continue your quest as needed in appropriate venues.
If you intend to address people of faith, then acknowledge and seek to understand what faith is. Faith (in God) is an old, storied, concept in the world.
she is free to do so and i think it's fine to do so, as i stated:
(please read the entire comment next time)
That is fine - but in the same category those in-between people of faith in God cannot claim that God exists as the "truth" or 100% fact unless they expect to be asked to provide proof of such - just like with any other claim that is made, correct ? (or do you take everyone's claims on anything as just a fact and require no evidence/proof etc ?)
Faith (in God) is a story - so far isn't not been proven to be otherwise, to claim it is more and as a fact requires evidence. Faith is just belief absence facts and evidence, you haven't proven otherwise yet even while still claiming it's more.
(I am free to ask questions of people of faith and will continue to do so - especially if they make claims of that nature, i'm sorry if you don't like those questions because you can't answer them directly nor provide evidence needed to back up your claims, maybe that should be something to ponder.)
Exactly. Challenging a claim is always fair game. And extraordinary claims akin to 'I have been visited by a supernatural entity' should be questioned. After all, if someone (a natural being) actual engaged a supernatural entity then that alone is absolutely amazing. That would be the biggest news in any of our lives. The scientific community would be all over that with tremendous enthusiasm. Such an encounter means that the supernatural actually exists. It also shows that something beyond nature can indeed interface with the natural world. Finally it makes an extraordinary claim about an individual being treated special - illustrating that indeed there are individuals who are chosen beacons (up to the point of being a prophet). It actually provides a little support for masters of sophistry like Ken Copeland and Jesse Duplantis who claim to have conversations with God while flying about in private jets (and how they need these to do the work of the Lord).
Since science has existed there are no third party formally verified accounts of supernatural agents engaging a human being. The reports are just like the reports of alien abductions - personal testimony - no evidence - entirely anecdotal. That does not mean all the reports are false, but it does legitimize questions and challenges. The more reports that are nothing more the anecdotal evidence the less likely any of them are real.
Sorry.....that sounded arrogant of me. My wording was wrong. Rather than "your" it should have been "my". my apologies.
ah ok - no harm done but that does change the entire meaning of the phrase. if "you" and what "you" experience are enough proof for you, then that's fine, but please keep in mind that your proof won't be enough for others and it isn't independently verified - but you are welcome to still have your beliefs, i have no issue with it nor "you" as your proof for you.
(i appreciate the apology and i do apologize if i sounded arrogant as well)
This is not the general section. Phoenyx13, I am here daily, I'll manage my own blogs. Please bring something positive to this space so all can get something out of it. I am politely asking you not to troll commenters here. Thank you, Phoenyx13. After this, there will be no other warning from me.
TiG, there has been no hint of Kenneth Copeland, or any controversial figure in the news on this blog until you trafficked in it. Why did you rise to the occasion? You could have let this pass by.
It supported the point made in my comment. The video is an example, not the point. Examples are okay in comments.
i'm aware it's your own blog, and i'm also not trolling any commenters. Please read the entire comment in the future, including where i state that i have no issues with the belief in God and the apology i had given to a particular poster, it's appreciated.
The only 'concern' I have with this video is this: These men are having a public discussion about spiritual communications between themselves and Spirit. Born-again believers are keen to indicate, a form of spiritual communication does take place between people of faith and the "indwelling"Spirit of God (the Seal of the Spirit).
If this is the level of spirituality operating separate and between two men deeply steeped in organizational leadership and culture—30 plus years are more—then it being anecdotal talk is a simplification of something these men (and numerous others) take seriously. This, being distinct from any other controversial practices these men may engage in.
I see no reason from their words to cleverly insinuate either man is detailing an "independent" and clinical discussion with God.
What these men are referring to is "being in the spirit" and communicating "spirit-ward," in my opinion. A great many "churched" persons are comfortable with this type of discourse. "Fantastic" though it may seem to unbelievers needing a physical manifestation (evidence).
Lastly, though members can question the sincerity of any engagement such as this. There is no doubt that each born-again believer has experience the presence of God in their own spirit at some point!
I will be happy to discuss this video with you Cal. Is this an appropriate sup-topic for your article? This is your call as the author so let me know.
I was tempted to seed this video. Either of us could do so and then have an appropriate discussion on how these men are 'speaking' with God and what their viewers think is going on.
I can discuss it here with you. I know of both men and they are 'flash-points' in parts of the church community. My point for watching the video and commenting on it at this time is there is sometimes method (some small truth) behind an activity which seems mad, comedic, or absurd.
What I really wanted to discuss with you: Omnis. We will get to it one day! (God willing.)
My take is this. These two multi-millionaire 'men of God' are con artists. In this video they are explaining why it is important that they have private church jets. The reasoning they use is beyond absurd and it greatly disappoints me that so many people actually believe these despicable thiefs. (Did you catch Copeland's remark that commercial jets are like getting into a tube filled with demons?)
That established, they portray themselves as being on God's speed dial (favorite's list). Obviously this is to keep the money flowing from (sometimes) desparate people looking to appeal to God to cure whatever ails them. When these slimy manipulators talk of having a conversation with God they are (no doubt in my mind) trying to get their followers (their cash cows) to believe that God is having a personal conversation with them as two of His chosen.
I am offended for all religious people by these charlatans.
I will not engage the methodologies used in these men's ministries. Only let me offer this for thought on that. Ministries such as these men and others operating at their level have need cash-flow. Therefore, the men are the "product." And, there stock and trade is ministry. This is not a defense of either teacher. I know they have critics inside (and apparently outside) the church world. Just food for thought. Moving on now.
Copeland's reference to "demons" on planes, I consider a statement about "influences" they each would rather not deal with when they are making "hops" to events/venues across the country. The practical matters of study, presentation,. . .sleep. Still, I have heard the criticisms of their prosperity ministries and indulgences with the message.
Now to the engagement for this communication. Both men raise eyebrows because of their long-established histrionics , their excessive use of Old Testament verses in and out of context, faith for material gain, and the list goes on.T o be clear, Copeland and Duplantis have never been my spiritual fare, but audiences have been loyal to these men's ministries for a lifetime!
I said all the above to state this: No one condemns them for inward spiritual 'states' and the wisdom drawn out from them.
Note: Irony. In all my years in the church world knowing about these men, this is the first time I have ever written the Copeland's and Duplantis' names. Also, the first time I have ever commented on the two men! This is the nearest I have ever come to speaking up on their behalf. I did not see that coming.
I do not deny a ministry a revenue stream. Let me make an observation that should make the point nicely. Copeland brags about a PERSONAL net worth of over $1 billion. Keep sending your money folks, the ministry needs it to do God's work.
You are listening to two con-men justifying personal jets with donation money.
That should make you sad. Makes me sad (and angry).
These two are snakes in the grass.
Well if you care to hear my advice, it would be to never speak on behalf (even if weakly on behalf) of these exploitative thiefs.
I'll have to leave off at this point, because you clearly know more about these men than me! (Smile.) Good talk! is that conviction I detect in you, TiG?
We come up with all kinds of questions and arguments because what the religions say just does not fit together and there is no real proof.
If all it fit together, there was real proof and it all made sense, I would be a believer
All things in good time, friend charger! I was not always a believer in God. I became so at 36 years of age! I spent all of my twenties and early thirties as an Agnostic! Meaning, I did not have any true sense or value for spiritual matters and experiences. God has determined we, believers, should walk by faith and not by sight harboring a 'seal' of the Spirit in this life. Odd, I know. It is the prerogative of God, nevertheless. Should you ever experience being, "born-again" you will know it. It is an undeniable happening in the life of a believer.
Note. This is not a conversion statement. It is a statement of fact from this believer's perspective.
One more thing, charger!
RELIGION is a category; an organization - with systems, rules, governance, histories, and the like.
Faith in God is a gift from God freely supplied to those who seek God.
We horribly banter the two terms interchangeably on these discussions threads. Just understand religion is organization (buildings/groups/sects) and faith is personal (between you and God).
I really did not like going to church as a child, I hated confirmation class until I was told when I passed it church was my choice. That totally motivated me and after I got confirmed I said "You made me go for 16 years and my choice is to stay away for 16 years". Age 32 passed without church and I was happy. I was more motivated to get through Confirmation Class than to pass my drivers test, at 15 and half that is a lot.
I did not like it as a kid and started questioning things, got called a troublemaker and that made me more stubborn
Religion blocked any chance for faith
Charger, seek God for yourself. Religion fails the 'test' of what every man or woman is looking for, because religion, the church, any church, is not the final arbiter for all the diverse people it invites into its congregational 'body.'
Reflect on all the diverse desires, issues, dilemmas, and questions any one church confronts from its internal membership, persons spanning every phase of life from birth to middle age to old age and death. All seeking direction for different states of mind.
Is it any wonder one house of worship can not satisfy us (all) at every stage of our journey?
World religions are centuries old institutions. They have survived all which countless men and governments have thrown at them. These institutions and systems create and receive alot of hits and strikes over an eon.
When I think of it this way: Could it be only the conservative, status quo character of the world's religious institutions which has given these institutions "storied" pasts that land them here in the present?
Also, religious institutions are storehouses and places to learn about God. They are gathering places for people to come and 'iron' out their lives. These buildings, temples, mosques, cathedrals, are not the faith which exist inside the individual.
Your response to Charger is exactly how I feel about "religions". If I never darkened a church, again, I would carry my faith in God with me everyday. A church for me is important because I hear the word of God. I can go into any house of worship for any religion and He lives within me.
When you are a youngster, of course, getting a drivers license is more important and it is generally those years where anything to do with something your parents want you to do, particularly, go to church you will most likely rebel.
Church going was never a big thing for my immediate family. Mother sent us, but not always. I hated it. They never went except for a wedding or funeral. I was 17 when this feeling came on and I would attend church alone many miles away. One morning in church, I was overwhelmed with emotion and as I sat alone crying He flooded my heart, body and soul with His love.
A church nor the Bible brings one to God. They are learning tools. At least they are for me.
Very good, friend Magnoliaave! The man, woman, boy, or girl who would come to God must first believe God exist and that God is a rewarder of those who seek God.
The gist of what I am sharing with friend Charger is coming to faith in God can be accomplished apart from the Church as an organization. Church, in all its facets, can be approached later on for exhortation, instruction, guidance, and social life. One should 'count' its cost, benefits, and potential drawbacks.
Though I am not presently a member of any church in the country, let me be clear I have no serious issue with the church world as a whole.
Actually, I am involved with many, many, churches across the spectrum through internet ministries and listening archives. For the past so many years I have been on a personal odyssey of spiritual discovery, development, and growth. I'd suggest, it is my spiritual talent—my spiritual 'thing.'
Yes, as an adult, I found 'set' faith in God outside of a church setting, but a minister was involved. I will share that story one day with you, Magnoliaave if you wish. It's short! And yes, one can be supplied the gift of faith in any number of settings, up to and including, a church service.
Peace and great day!
GM please tell me about it.
Sure! It was a part of my new direction in life plan to quit smoking after 18 years as a pack a day smoker. During my lunch breaks, I would sit alone and read this Bible I had acquired. Not long after I began reading, a man, not much older than myself in appearance, walked over to me and struck up a conversation. I had seen him around before, though we had never acknowledged each other. Eventually the conversation turned to the book sitting in front me. I enjoyed what he had to say. Our shared lunches kept up for a week thereabouts—not terribly long.
All this time, remember, I was quitting smoking and was apprehensive over when withdrawal malaise was going to kick in. To my surprise, I only had one day of discomfort during quitting—on the second day.
As the week was ending, I finally asked what he did for a living and he told me he was a minister. I was like, "Oh, okay!" This info actually had the effect of making me feel more comfortable about his interest in me. For in a withdrawal status, I was highly vulnerable to being turned around and heading back down the path I wanted to change. He asked if I wanted to join him in coming to church the following Sunday. I though about it—realized that it was exactly the next step I wanted for myself—though I did not know it ahead of him asking me. So I did go. I stayed with that church for nearly two years. Even, became a deacon there. Until, I moved away.
Your story is very appropriate for me at this time. Thank you for sharing it.
My dear lady you are so welcome. I am so glad that something of my life story is well-received.
Open-mindedness ~ Seeing the world from someone else's point of view and seeing yourself from someone else's point of view and understanding your own social position relative to theirs.
Meta Ignorance ~ Failure of the social imaginary. Failure of empathy. Lack of self-knowledge.
Open mindedness is also recognizing that none of us have perfect knowledge. Thus unless something is proved true (and that really can only happen with formal systems or purely definitional logic) an open-minded person would recognize that they could be wrong.
This is the core of agnosticism (the lack of perfect knowledge). Applied to theism, the agnostic-theist and the agnostic-atheist both may have strong conviction about their views, but both recognize that they could be wrong (they have imperfect knowledge). The agnostic-theist recognizes the possibility that no god exists. The agnostic-atheist recognizes the possibility that a god exists.
And what about:
The agnostic simply being one who having considered, comes down on neither side of the subject of God with conviction. The theist being somebody who beliefs by faith in God, and having received the sealing of the Spirit promised in scripture. Open mindness means to consider these folks points of view as well. Moreover, agreeing the mixed categories exist, too. This is not an either - or occasion.
An individual who comes down on neither side with conviction is technically an atheist. That is, a person who is not convinced there is a god. If this individual objects to that with: 'well, I think it is more likely that God exists than not' then that person is an agnostic-theist (a very weak one, but one nonetheless). Otherwise the person is an agnostic atheist (and here too, a very weak one). And, generically, both the agnostic theist and the agnostic atheist are 'agnostics' (in informal vernacular).
Depends upon the position of knowledge held by the theist. If this theist claims to have perfect knowledge of the existence of his/her God - in short, 100% certainty that this God exists - then this is a gnostic theist. Otherwise, this is an agnostic theist (a theist who does recognize their God might not actually exist).
The gnostic atheist and the gnostic theist are (by definition) not open-minded regarding the existence of gods / their god, respectively.
The agnostic atheist and the agnostic theist are (by definition) open-minded regarding the existence of gods / their god, respectively.
Also, open-mindedness does not include accepting a notion simply because another person offered it. Open-mindedness refers to the willingness to consider (and possibly reject) another's position (or a belief). It does not require acceptance. Thus one can be open-minded (indeed even excited at the prospect) to the idea of extraterrestrial intelligent life in our solar system but one could also rationally conclude that such life is extremely unlikely. Applied to God, even though there could be a sentient creator of the known universe, the evidence (and the lack thereof) suggests strongly that no such entity exists. One can hold such a position (God likely does not exist) and still be completely open-minded to the possibility - even thrilled by the possiblity - that such an entity actually does exist.
And, one can hold a position of: "Don't know." Will wait for a reason - reasons - new information - to enter the picture.
I will not force this issue with you. I know from what I speak, nevertheless. I am living proof of this stance, because I have never classified myself as an atheist.
What you appear to be suggesting is this: There is no outward distinction between an atheist and an agnostic without the hypen. Wrong. There is a difference.
An atheist probably seeks clinical and objective evidence of God. An agnostic needs to be convinced of the truth in the Gospel or elements of various (other) faiths.
Do you not see how 'I do not know if there is a God or not' includes the position of 'I am not convinced there is a God'? If one does not know if there is a god or not then one, ipso facto, is not convinced there is a god.
No doubt that you never considered yourself an atheist. That does not mean you were always a theist Cal. If you have gone through a period of your life where when asked if you believed in a god you answered 'I really do not know' then you were indeed an atheist. Not believing in a god is clearly not a theistic position. If you have always held that God is more likely than not then you have always been a theist. In your case (based on your past comments) you went from medium strength theist to very weak theist (if not weak atheist) to extremely strong theist (gnostic theist).
No that distinction is still there. The problem is that it is vague. The use of the hyphen (as you put it) enables one to discuss this in more precision. This precision, I suspect, is what is making you uncomfortable but it is not some sinister scheme by me.
That is an interesting new twist on the meanings of these words. Where did this come from? Not all atheists seek clinical and objective evidence of God. One can be (and many are) simply not convinced a god exists and go on with one's life not even thinking about a god. So you are imposing restrictions on the general term 'atheist' that simply are not there. Also, there are plenty of people who find that there is no way to know if a god exists or not. Some to the point of holding that it is impossible to know. That is the classic generic agnostic term. Note, if anyone is convinced of the truth of the Gospel or some other elements of differing faiths that person is by definition a theist - not an agnostic.
Nope. Having been raised up from childhood in the Church to teen-aged, I abandoned the church for 18 years, because I did not know or, -you could label it- confused, lacked a basis for holding to a reasoned position, or lastly suspended the question of God until some new advent. Like me, many people, never surrender to becoming in concept or label, atheist. It all goes to where one comes down on the question. Frame of reference - state of mind.
Note: It may be we are 'hitting' on a tangible difference between an individual coming out of a religious background, and a person presumably coming out of an atheist background. I am not sure how this one works. (I do not know if you were raised up as atheist.)
Note: I am not imposing anything on the term - agnostic atheist. I am simply explaining to you that not everyone across this country uses the same terminology; they do not use it to mean the same thing. It is a 'broad' country. You need to respect this, even as you offer your own ideas. Furthermore, I would never have called myself an atheist. If need be, I would have invented the stand-alone term: Agnostic. For two my mind, God exist or God does not exist. There is not sliding scale for it.
"Pregnant > not pregnant" comes readily to mind.
Nope on what part?
So for 18 years you were a theist, right?
After that you were agnostic. You just did not know if there was a god or not. Close enough to grab hold of the agnostic label. The question (rhetorical) when one wants to be more precise is whether you were a theist or an atheist while agnostic. Because Cal, no matter what thoughts were in your mind, you either believed in a god or you did not. If you say 'I do not know if a god exists' then you technically were an agnostic atheist. It all depends only the nuances at this point. I do not know know what you were but you were either an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.
I was surrounded by religion - family and friends - while growing up. A common story. My parents were religious (but not devout).
I know that. These terms are used for precision. Most people speak with imprecision so vague terms such as 'agnostic' work for them. Them equate 'agnostic' simplistically with 'undecided' and do not seem to give it much more thought than that.
These are not my ideas. Further, what is with respecting other terminology? I have been discussing atheist, theism, agnosticism, agnostic-atheism, agnostic-theism, gnostic-atheism and gnostic-theism with you. All the terms are on the table and none are being dismissed. So what is the complaint?
I know you would never allow that label. Even if it was true during some point in your life. (Not saying you ever were an atheist - other than before you were able to reason.) From your comments, however, you might just have been a weak agnostic atheist for a while. Yikes. The horror.
In what way? One is either a theist or an atheist? One is either 100% certain one holds truth or willing to accept the possibility that one might be wrong?
It is its own position.
TiG, point of clarification, please. You are agnostic-Atheist and accept the 'Big Bang?' theory of our universe?
Yes.
FACT: Our universe does exist.
As an agnostic-Atheist (AA) where do you believe our universe got its energy to begin itself and bring forth life?
Belief (as in religious belief) does not enter into the picture.
I wrote an article on this a while back. Can I find it? ..... yes, I have a collection now! Hold on.
Existence
That seems to be a better context for this type of discussion.
As an agnostic-Atheist (AA) where do you say our universe got its energy to begin itself and bring forth life?
(There may be no need to go to that larger discussion setting. Besides, so many 'voices' already there!)
There, you conclude, existence is eternal. Existence is the Cause and the universe is the effect? Is this it?
I do not say anything as an AA, but rather as an individual learned in science and logic. So my reasoning is based on logic and facts as we currently understand them (that is why I referred you to the article). There is no theism or atheism involved here.
But there are a few problems with your question as framed:
Your question presupposes that energy is the quintessential substance behind the universe. I do not make any presupposition other than existence is comprised of something.
Also, your question presumes the universe 'began itself'. That makes no sense to me. The universe, given we know it had a beginning and is thus finite, emerged from existence itself. How that might have happened is pure speculation but in the abstract (as per my article) it is a byproduct of the substance of existence interacting with itself.
So I need to paraphrase your question: where do you say the substance comprising our universe came from to start the evolutionary chain that ultimately resulted in life?
My answer is: the quintessential substance of existence, where existence is that which has always been.
Existence must be eternal. There is no other option. Existence is the 'host' for everything. And if there is a creator of the universe (a god) then it too emerged from existence (i.e. if God exists then God is an emergent property of existence or God is existence itself).
I condensed your comment for effect. My question:
Since you state the universe you, we, dwell in is finite with a beginning, that Existence is God, how can continue to state you are unequivocally AA?
Well you included 'God is existence itself' and I did not state that. I suggested that if God exists then it is an emergent property of existence or existence itself. That is a conditional statement, not a declaration.
With that correction noted:
We call that a loaded question. See above, the part in blue is where the loading takes place. Also, this might just be a case of confirmation bias - something for you to observe clinically. That is, did you read what you wanted me to say or did you just misread what I wrote?
Do not deflect. You wrote: "(i.e. if God exists then God is an emergent property of existence or God is existence itself.)"
Your words. You seem to be suggesting the conditional is lacking precision and is ambiguous. I am not inclined to 'dig out' your meaning, when you can explicitly write what you intend.
Existence is Eternal = Existence is God. Yes or No?
Okay Cal, this is THE spot where intellectual dishonesty enters the otherwise pleasant discussion. I nicely explained where you went wrong and instead of making the correction you accuse me of deflection. I am noting this for future reference. This form of discourse does not work well with me.
Yes I did. Now actually read what you just quoted. Look at the blue words. Is that not what I just finished explaining? That is a conditional statement. It does not presume God exists, it offers a hypothetical. Plus the hypothetical itself offers two possibilities: 1) God is an emergent property of existence or 2) God is existence itself.
Exactly. And you should read them carefully to understand what I actually wrote.
I did. I explained it. I just explained it again. Worse, what I wrote originally was pretty clear.
Not a yes or no question. Existence is eternal. Whether or not God exists is a question. And if God exists whether God is an emergent property of existence or is existence itself is a question.
See?
Thus, your conditional was a waste of time and effort.
This is pushing "pure speculation," and something you have no evidence for when you imply or state existence causes itself. How is that valid?
Christians have a name for what you are labeling Existence. That name is, God. Now how is your name any better than the Christian name?
Pushing? Cal, do you not understand that speculation is okay when it is deemed to be speculation? I am not saying that this speculation (i.e. if God exists then might be emergent or existence itself) is true, simply offering a few logical possibilities. Do you truly not understand the difference between speculation and belief?
Existence causes itself??? I never wrote anything of the sort. That is absurd. Where do you get this stuff?
If Christianity were to view God as nothing more than existence itself I would have no complaints. But clearly Christianity goes waaaaaaaaaaay beyond that and offers all sorts of attributes and stories about the Christian God. No, Cal, the Christian God is not existence itself. If you want to observe a 'god' (of sorts) that is existence itself I refer you to Pantheism (or Buddhism).
Not even a hint of recognition (much less apology) for the repeated attempts to misrepresent what I wrote. Not good.
You kidding right?
'Speculative' waste of time you mean. What do some here say. . .
My 'bad.'
God , by any other name, righhhhhtttt. . . .
Kidding? No. Disappointed? Substantially.
Ditto, TiG. Let's just end it here with mutual disappointment.
Time for a new blog?
Yes, indeed!