FormerOut rightly pointed out that some of us avoid using "absolutes" - remember we've all been part of the JW's too, and have tasted that particular bad apple.
Actually, if you've been reading my posts carefully, I've been saying this all along too? No one is speaking in absolutes; at least, not me. I have already stated that anything I make a statement upon is just how I see it being the most likely way it is - I never intend it to be absolute. Isn't this how anyone throws ideas out though? Therefore, if you follow this point, even mentioning anything you say isn't absolute is completely pointless and irrelevant since it should be assumed by the reader...that is, unless it's a belief.
Sometimes there's more growth to be had by being given the next step, rather than having it all laid out.
It is pompous and arrogant to think that anything you say simply won't be understood by who is listening. Furthermore, this is a forum, and the ability to post gives you almost unlimited capability to state your opinion in complete detail from start to finish, so this is no excuse for not laying out your ideas in full.
The very nature of being a "believer" on an exJW discussion forum is fraught with all sorts of peril, the greatest one being the accusation of proselytization. For that reason I rarely "go there", and was quite happy to overlook this thread as I've contributed to more than my fair share in the past and get tired of coming out with all the same reasonings to a fresh batch of posters.
Ok, if you won't contribute meaningfully, then don't post. You're turning formerout on.
I'm talking about having a personal brush with the "Divine", which can involve the senses I mentioned but goes far deeper.
Please define what 'goes far deeper' means in this case. Remember, it is more than the senses - something else - so please don't be circular by making sensory stimulation the primary method of explaining what this 'brush with the "Divine"' feels like. (Just to be clear and avoid a bunch of clarification posts as we've had to endure in the past.)
You can't prove that I have or have not.
See, the thing is, no needs to prove you have not. The burden of proof falls on the person making the claim.
There are others that claim such an experience and by comparing notes we can come to the conclusion that we "have", but there's no real way of proving this to someone who has not.
And it's impossible and far less likely that you are all just saying it because you are all self-convinced/deluded? Think logically for a moment and pretend you're anyone who doesn't make the claims you do. What sounds more likely? I assume this will just lead to the 'oh you have to experience it to even recognize it exists if you are a rational person' argument. When a dishevelled crazy man runs up to you on street spewing gibberish about his relationship with the moon, do you believe him? Yes, the possibility always exists (albeit infintesimally small), but the likelihood is that he is deluded. You are not a raving bum, nor are most believers in new age or mainstream faiths. But does that make the claims any more believable simply because a group of well-to-do citizens believe it?
What about those with spiritual beliefs that contradict yours? Do you rule them as 'correct' too? Doubtful, since you say the "Divine" exists. You would then require proof of their belief to change your ideas. Do you understand this whole "burden of proof" idea?
This is one reason that even ancient spiritual literature has such a fascination to the "believer", because in it they see a reflection of some of what they too have experienced.
That statement is too vague. The Bible, for instance, is a collection of stories from the creation of the world, to the tyranny of God, to the discrimination/murder/rape of many peoples, to a downright acid trip at the end. Oh and there's morals in there somewhere. A small part may reflect the actual experiences of the believer, what about the rest? This statement is incomplete. It needs detail to even be considered properly.
It enlarges their understanding.
Or, it reinforces their conviction by: 1) giving them a shared text that many other believers will tote as true, 2) give them more ideas to adopt and phrasings to interpret than what they could come up with on their own, 3) teaches them to think more like how the book tells them to, whether by example or outright declaration
It's a form of gnosis wherein you're trying to get me to describe the indescribable, for which we might arrive at some common symbols and nod our heads at each other, but to answer your question to your satisfaction would likely prove impossible.
Indescribable? Isn't it convenient all of this belief stuff is completely inaccessible to those who won't begin by openly giving up logic? Funny thing...it makes for a pretty airtight shell to protect the illogical from a logical thinker. Golly, because if it was even the slighest bit describable maybe we could compare it to something, or make it out to be something other than brushing the "Divine".
It's as frustrating for the believer and unbeliever alike.
It's really not frustrating at all. It's pretty clear what's most likely going on here. Perhaps if you could answer each and every argument in here with something to knock them over we could start with a little frustration.
You make so many unfounded statements about me. I think you are still missing my bigger point.
No listen, I don't need the pop psychology. Stop it, and stop denying saying things like they aren't permanently written into the thread. It is up to me to tell people to stop polluting my thread with rambles about my personality and writing style that doesn't relate to my questions. I started the thread. Make your own thread about "rune's terrible mind that hurt my tender feelings and drove me insane" if you feel the need to post on this.
God does not exist exclusively outside of you.
How do you know? And where is he/she/it?
He exists as a part of your being as well.
Oh, your God is a male. Interesting a divine being needs a gender. Since we're on the topic of strict monotheism now (I don't recall starting a thread only about God and Christianity), why do you think your God has a penis? If you're going to assign God a gender, wouldn't it make more sense to pick it as female, since females give birth? You do believe God made the universe after all, do you not? Men just ... well I'm sure you know. If God is genderless, then why not use neutral/neuter pronouns - it, itself?
So do emotion and many other personality traits exist within you.
So what? Does this relate to your God being present? You make your distinction between God, and emotions/personality traits very clear here.
As much as you try to suggest that you are the only one here who is capable of separating emotion from this debate, from what I have seen I think the opposite is true. You have not acknowledged a single point that I have made regarding emotion being a very part of our spirit and therefore impossible to be left out of debate.
Wait a minute, I thought you were going to relate this to the topic questions? You just start rambling about me again. I have no suggested I am the only one separating emotion from this debate, I have really meant to infer the ones who are guilty of it so far - mainly, LittleToe and you. If you want to make a point about emotion being a part of your spirit, you need to:
- Define spirit and prove we have one, demonstrating it consists of many parts of the things that are thought by others inside our brains ( by the way, if your brain & nervous system don't perform tasks like emotion, what exactly are they for? )
- You still need to prove why it's impossible to be objective in a debate. Just because you aren't able to do it doesn't mean others aren't. I have seen some fine examples in this thread besides myself. I'm not going to be an apple polisher and kiss everyone's bum just to make a point to you though. It's pretty obvious to all who prefers to make serious points that sound valid (for example, backed up with various points/examples from their experience that sound reasonable) and who wishes to express only what they feel. As I have stated numerous times, this thread is not intended for the latter. Answering my questions with, "oh um people are mystical because they love" for instance provides me with...what? Nothing to think about. There needs to be a detailed thought for something to even be considered, not even argued. Most of the opinionated baseless posts have had some substances that flounders in 'oh you'd never understand' for one reason or another. If I won't understand, then it won't help me or anyone foreign to those ideas think will it? You need to back up what you say.
Yet you do make denigrating comments about people 'flaunting their own qualities'. Denial does not eliminate the actual evidence; quite often it only reinforces the fact that the person has some character flaws, which IMHO should be addressed as a part of this exercise of yours. qualities'. Denial does not eliminate the actual evidence; quite often it only reinforces the fact that the person has some character flaws, which IMHO
........................You realize I was asking for the actual evidence you say I was denying here? Perhaps I am making a mistake even replying to you. You don't sound as though you understand my English very well. Maybe my dialect is too strange.
frenchbabyface: As much as this is going to sound like a grudge of some sort - it doesn't matter if he comes back with open arms apologizing. I was never angry or upset with LittleToe. I imagine now, though, my posts are bleeding with the annoyance of having to repeat myself countlessly. I didn't want friendships to be built or destroyed with this post. I just wanted an objective discussion. I am beginning to take this as proof some (not all) people just can't argue objectively.
formerout (again ...):
I can understand how you can perceive that I am attacking or insulting Rune, even though that is not my intention. IMO we all have tendencies that lean towards the "borderline personality disorder" traits that I have experienced in people, but some display these tendencies more than others. It is basically a disorder where we can't seem to admit that we have made a mistake. Quite a few posts ago I invited Rune to Google it and see if he felt that any of it applied to him. I got no response on it so it is up to him as to what he does about that.
Right... Um, as for that Big Tex example? It was obvious I was wrong? As far as I know most of us are all adults reading this forum. If it will make you feel better though you can print out a banner saying 'RUNE WAS WRONG' to hang on your wall. I won't take offense to that either. Judging by the condescending tone and use of winking smileys I assume the rest means you were rather pleased about this. Congratulations :D I have to admit your post made me laugh. I never intended to say we should all become emotionless robots btw, just when it comes to making posts and arguing them, even with a condescending tone, one shouldn't take personal offense to it. That's all? What would be the point of meaning we should rip the emotion 'from our spirit' or whatever... lol.