quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You carry on about religious idiots shoving their beliefs down people's throats and yet have no problem trying to force feed her you own.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
You merely do not like that I follow God. If you were starving Id feed you. If you spit on me I would still feed you. Just an example. In return, I don't think you would do the same for me. THe difference in having the heart and mind of Christ, mimicking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
I am simply trying to give you understanding. I have not found something New many others already know and with a better understanding that I have. I am trying to share a priceless gift with you for not one penny. You will never know unless you try.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You carry on about religious idiots shoving their beliefs down people's throats and yet have no problem trying to force feed her you own.

Could you turn the hyperbolic nonsense down a notch. Discussing religion in a forum for religion in a thread about religion is very different from trying to legislate ones religion onto the country. It should be a completely comprehendable concept that I'm perfectly ok with the former and strongly against the latter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

There's functional MRI research which demonstrates that you're just talking to yourself. Your god isn't in favor of compromise because you're an extremest. When many others "commune with god" they find he is in favor of compromise because they are not.

"God" is really just you which is why god shares all your prejudices. That's why your god wants you to oppress gays and the gods of many others think that's awful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Morality and the belief in God has an intimate relationship and that relationship is not a mere correlation; it is theoretical.

Given the terrifying Laws in the Old Testament I would think "fictional" would be a more appropriate description for that relationship.

quote:

What of the opposite? Does the mere affirmation that God exists, make Him real? The problem with atheism is that it cherry picks its data. It is only interested in the sort of data that suggests that man can play God.

The problem with the atheist is that the theist makes of him a strawman when he cannot answer in defense of the existence of god or the need for religion. When the theist makes claims for extraordinary propositions the atheist rightly demands extraordinary validation. The problem for the theist is that he cannot provide that validation and asks us to trust his faith in the miracles proclaimed. Then, realizing his arguments empty, the theist blames the atheist for asking questions.

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
You merely do not like that I follow God.

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous

On 8 December 1933, (Bernadette Soubirous) was canonized by Pope Pius XI as a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church; her Feast Day is observed on 18 February.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
You merely do not like that I follow God.

If you were actually in communication with an all knowing benevolent being, that would be awesome. I mean the knowledge you could expect to acquire. A cure to cancer would top my list but there are so many questions that a creator could answer for us about quantum physics, biology, cosmology, the list is endless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24
You merely do not like that I follow God.

If you were actually in communication with an all knowing benevolent being, that would be awesome. I mean the knowledge you could expect to acquire. A cure to cancer would top my list but there are so many questions that a creator could answer for us about quantum physics, biology, cosmology, the list is endless.

The problem is that you aren't having such a conversation, you aren't actually following god. When it comes to the conversation between humans and god, we're the ones doing all the talking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
and to be honest I was more interested in hearing you answer this part.

Forgive me if I have gotten the wrong impression but I thought you were an athiest. And that would mean you basically think her "god" is an imaginary friend.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
If this is correct how the hell are you going to know what he is or isn't in favor of?

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
and to be honest I was more interested in hearing you answer this part.

Forgive me if I have gotten the wrong impression but I thought you were an athiest. And that would mean you basically think her "god" is an imaginary friend.

So it's not quite that simple. As an example the Greeks had a number of deities which were actually portions of the brain, Venus for instance. Nobody at this point thinks there's such a Goddess, she's been condemned to the realm of the imaginary. So in that sense those who had a personal relationship with Venus were hanging out with their imaginary friend. But that doesn't mean what they were feeling was just make believe. Love like a number of other things is generated by a portion of the brain which feels like it's outside yourself.

The point being that it would be pretty easy to mistake numerous parts of the brain outside of the conscious mind for external beings beaming stuff (emotions, intuition, etc.) into your head if you lived in a society where that was an indoctrinated belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
If this is correct how the hell are you going to know what he is or isn't in favor of?

That comes from the study I was talking about, when we're asked what someone else thinks our brains will access memories of that person and from there try and emulate that their thought process based on what we know about them. It doesn't matter if that person is real of not. The questions what does the "Dalai Lama think about homosexuality" and "what does Darth Vader think about homosexuality" illicit the same mental process.

The question "what do you think about homosexuality" illicits a different mental process. Your brain simply accesses portions of the brain associated with self.

Now here's where it gets interesting, when an atheist is asked "what does god think about homosexuality" their brain responds as though you asked them what someone else thinks of homosexuality but when a theist is asked the same question imaging of their brains shows that something different happens. The theists mental process is the same as if they were asked what they think about homosexuality.

So if I've found out what a particular theist thinks about homosexuality I know what their "god" thinks about homosexuality because it's actually the same thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

ORIGINAL: chatterbox24

For me the only way to understand is to be submissive to the word then I begin to gain knowledge. I will not say I know Gods mind. One can think they know a person 25 years but you really never know all. I won't pretend to know something that magnificent. It's not robotic sometimes it's very exciting. But with all things it's not always lightening bolts.

You say you are 'submissive to the word' and from it you 'gain knowledge' but you are 'not robotic.' The 'word' and attaining knowledge suggest some form of communication that is mindful. I wonder how this knowledge is transmitted to you and how you sort the truth of it.

http://www.paschen.tripod.com (link will not post here)
I have said many times how it is transmitted for me, whether you agree seems to be the problem, whether you believe seems to be the problem. You don't have to be perfect, in fact none of us can be, it is a quest.
I hope you don't mind Benevolent, because this is your thread but I would like to post this.

Let's be clear. I never called you robotic. I asked some questions about your faith process. I have not read through the thread so I don't know the "many times" you have explained how it was transmitted to you. It is not a question of my belief or disbelief. I apologize if my questions are causing you some discomfort. I am simply curious how the message is transmitted to you for learning. I hardly meant it to be a threatening question. The process appears to be mindful, as I said, so could you please give me a short description of the source of your growth and learning in your faith?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

I am wondering if day 18 of February has any special significance apart from what it has for me.

quote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernadette_Soubirous

On 8 December 1933, (Bernadette Soubirous) was canonized by Pope Pius XI as a Saint of the Roman Catholic Church; her Feast Day is observed on 18 February.

This is significant because I've spoke of Bernadette Soubirous here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BenevolentM

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

quote:

Morality and the belief in God has an intimate relationship and that relationship is not a mere correlation; it is theoretical.

Given the terrifying Laws in the Old Testament I would think "fictional" would be a more appropriate description for that relationship.

quote:

What of the opposite? Does the mere affirmation that God exists, make Him real? The problem with atheism is that it cherry picks its data. It is only interested in the sort of data that suggests that man can play God.

The problem with the atheist is that the theist makes of him a strawman when he cannot answer in defense of the existence of god or the need for religion. When the theist makes claims for extraordinary propositions the atheist rightly demands extraordinary validation. The problem for the theist is that he cannot provide that validation and asks us to trust his faith in the miracles proclaimed. Then, realizing his arguments empty, the theist blames the atheist for asking questions.

I understand what you are saying and your conclusions have an outward appearance of correctness, but it turns out to be wrong. I have the advantage of having decoded the Bible. Consequently, I am able to see both sides of the coin.