Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Can we ever understand God?

janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 8:53:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible, as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

In order for the idea of God to be understood across peoples and between individuals, it must be defined objectively. That is, there must be a set of criteria with objective testing methods, so that, independently of culture, bias, belief, emotion or intuition, each criterion can be recognised as having been met or failed by the thing tested. Else, there are misunderstandings and dogmatic schisms.

What sort of criteria? It depends on what is claimed for God, and there's the first obstacle, since dogmas differ. But among the criteria often claimed are:

1. Creation: God created everything observable;
2. Metaphysical nature: God isn't itself part of the thing created;
3. Involvement: God is engaged to and involved in human concerns;
4. Divinity: God is some paragon of what humans would recognise as virtue, worthy of worship or reverence;
5. Uniqueness: There aren't two or more beings of this sort;
6. Supremacy: Whatever else might exist, God is more powerful than that; and
7. Moral authority: God has not just the ability but the demonstrable right to order human affairs.

That's a lot of claims to test, and they don't even cover even all the Abrahamic claims.

While I think 1 and 3 are potentially testable, I don't believe 2,4-7 are. And without being testable, I think such claims represent vague and opaque appeals to intuition: thus they're incoherent and prone to wild, dogmatic assertions of intuition and cultural or personal bias.

Thus, I don't think people really know what they're talking about when they talk about God. I think they're in a sort of trance of naive, opaque, regressed, infantile intuition, imagining they're talking about one thing outside themselves when they're really talking about disparate and incoherent things inside their own subconscious.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:04:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:53:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible, as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

In order for the idea of God to be understood across peoples and between individuals, it must be defined objectively. That is, there must be a set of criteria with objective testing methods, so that, independently of culture, bias, belief, emotion or intuition, each criterion can be recognised as having been met or failed by the thing tested. Else, there are misunderstandings and dogmatic schisms.

What sort of criteria? It depends on what is claimed for God, and there's the first obstacle, since dogmas differ. But among the criteria often claimed are:

1. Creation: God created everything observable;
2. Metaphysical nature: God isn't itself part of the thing created;
3. Involvement: God is engaged to and involved in human concerns;
4. Divinity: God is some paragon of what humans would recognise as virtue, worthy of worship or reverence;
5. Uniqueness: There aren't two or more beings of this sort;
6. Supremacy: Whatever else might exist, God is more powerful than that; and
7. Moral authority: God has not just the ability but the demonstrable right to order human affairs.

That's a lot of claims to test, and they don't even cover even all the Abrahamic claims.

While I think 1 and 3 are potentially testable, I don't believe 2,4-7 are. And without being testable, I think such claims represent vague and opaque appeals to intuition: thus they're incoherent and prone to wild, dogmatic assertions of intuition and cultural or personal bias.

Thus, I don't think people really know what they're talking about when they talk about God. I think they're in a sort of trance of naive, opaque, regressed, infantile intuition, imagining they're talking about one thing outside themselves when they're really talking about disparate and incoherent things inside their own subconscious.

It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:26:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:04:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:53:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible, as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

In order for the idea of God to be understood across peoples and between individuals, it must be defined objectively. That is, there must be a set of criteria with objective testing methods, so that, independently of culture, bias, belief, emotion or intuition, each criterion can be recognised as having been met or failed by the thing tested. Else, there are misunderstandings and dogmatic schisms.

What sort of criteria? It depends on what is claimed for God, and there's the first obstacle, since dogmas differ. But among the criteria often claimed are:

1. Creation: God created everything observable;
2. Metaphysical nature: God isn't itself part of the thing created;
3. Involvement: God is engaged to and involved in human concerns;
4. Divinity: God is some paragon of what humans would recognise as virtue, worthy of worship or reverence;
5. Uniqueness: There aren't two or more beings of this sort;
6. Supremacy: Whatever else might exist, God is more powerful than that; and
7. Moral authority: God has not just the ability but the demonstrable right to order human affairs.

That's a lot of claims to test, and they don't even cover even all the Abrahamic claims.

While I think 1 and 3 are potentially testable, I don't believe 2,4-7 are. And without being testable, I think such claims represent vague and opaque appeals to intuition: thus they're incoherent and prone to wild, dogmatic assertions of intuition and cultural or personal bias.

Thus, I don't think people really know what they're talking about when they talk about God. I think they're in a sort of trance of naive, opaque, regressed, infantile intuition, imagining they're talking about one thing outside themselves when they're really talking about disparate and incoherent things inside their own subconscious.

It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before.

Actually, the 'revelation' of new information should be strong grounds to suspect subjectivity, since revelations:
i) tend to follow cultural imagery and language (have you ever had a revelation from Vishnu, for example?)
ii) typically restate accepted dogma (e.g. have you ever been told there are not one, but two gods?)
iii) generally make vague, inaccurate or unfalsifiable predictions (these being the ones that make you feel most in control);
iv) tend not to produce specific, significant, objectively verifiable and highly valuable information; and
v) are also associated with numerous psychological disorders.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 9:29:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:26:04 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:04:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:53:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible, as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

In order for the idea of God to be understood across peoples and between individuals, it must be defined objectively. That is, there must be a set of criteria with objective testing methods, so that, independently of culture, bias, belief, emotion or intuition, each criterion can be recognised as having been met or failed by the thing tested. Else, there are misunderstandings and dogmatic schisms.

What sort of criteria? It depends on what is claimed for God, and there's the first obstacle, since dogmas differ. But among the criteria often claimed are:

1. Creation: God created everything observable;
2. Metaphysical nature: God isn't itself part of the thing created;
3. Involvement: God is engaged to and involved in human concerns;
4. Divinity: God is some paragon of what humans would recognise as virtue, worthy of worship or reverence;
5. Uniqueness: There aren't two or more beings of this sort;
6. Supremacy: Whatever else might exist, God is more powerful than that; and
7. Moral authority: God has not just the ability but the demonstrable right to order human affairs.

That's a lot of claims to test, and they don't even cover even all the Abrahamic claims.

While I think 1 and 3 are potentially testable, I don't believe 2,4-7 are. And without being testable, I think such claims represent vague and opaque appeals to intuition: thus they're incoherent and prone to wild, dogmatic assertions of intuition and cultural or personal bias.

Thus, I don't think people really know what they're talking about when they talk about God. I think they're in a sort of trance of naive, opaque, regressed, infantile intuition, imagining they're talking about one thing outside themselves when they're really talking about disparate and incoherent things inside their own subconscious.

It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before.

Actually, the 'revelation' of new information should be strong grounds to suspect subjectivity, since revelations:
i) tend to follow cultural imagery and language (have you ever had a revelation from Vishnu, for example?)
ii) typically restate accepted dogma (e.g. have you ever been told there are not one, but two gods?)
iii) generally make vague, inaccurate or unfalsifiable predictions (these being the ones that make you feel most in control);
iv) tend not to produce specific, significant, objectively verifiable and highly valuable information; and
v) are also associated with numerous psychological disorders.

God came to me first as shakti, not the Abrahamic God I am familiar with.

I received mostly numbers and geometry, which I had no prior knowledge of.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:14:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:29:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:26:04 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before.
Actually, the 'revelation' of new information should be strong grounds to suspect subjectivity, since revelations:
i) tend to follow cultural imagery and language (have you ever had a revelation from Vishnu, for example?)
ii) typically restate accepted dogma (e.g. have you ever been told there are not one, but two gods?)
iii) generally make vague, inaccurate or unfalsifiable predictions (these being the ones that make you feel most in control);
iv) tend not to produce specific, significant, objectively verifiable and highly valuable information; and
v) are also associated with numerous psychological disorders.
God came to me first as shakti, not the Abrahamic God I am familiar with.
That's hardly new. For decades, your culture has promoted New Age beliefs, including matriarchal neopaganism. (Also, in fairness please note that my seven criteria were ungendered and not specifically Abrahamic.)

I received mostly numbers and geometry, which I had no prior knowledge of.
I've read many of your posts on numbers and geometry, including your web-links. So we both know that those aren't your revelations. They're conjectures produced by other people, and promoted to you via blogsites. You have no idea how the authors came by those ideas, how much failed numerology they'd attempted before, how good is their expertise at interpreting their significance scientifically, or by what process (if any) they'd ever had their ideas reviewed and critiqued for independence of method and scientific relevance.

In other words, you can't tell whether it's science or pseudoscience.

But if you want to evaluate how many of your own intuitions are trustable, I'd invite you to consider how often your intuitions may move from one idea to another -- as most peoples' intuitions do.

Would they need to do that if they were accurate in the first place?
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:19:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:14:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:29:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:26:04 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before.
Actually, the 'revelation' of new information should be strong grounds to suspect subjectivity, since revelations:
i) tend to follow cultural imagery and language (have you ever had a revelation from Vishnu, for example?)
ii) typically restate accepted dogma (e.g. have you ever been told there are not one, but two gods?)
iii) generally make vague, inaccurate or unfalsifiable predictions (these being the ones that make you feel most in control);
iv) tend not to produce specific, significant, objectively verifiable and highly valuable information; and
v) are also associated with numerous psychological disorders.
God came to me first as shakti, not the Abrahamic God I am familiar with.
That's hardly new. For decades, your culture has promoted New Age beliefs, including matriarchal neopaganism. (Also, in fairness please note that my seven criteria were ungendered and not specifically Abrahamic.)

I received mostly numbers and geometry, which I had no prior knowledge of.
I've read many of your posts on numbers and geometry, including your web-links. So we both know that those aren't your revelations. They're conjectures produced by other people, and promoted to you via blogsites. You have no idea how the authors came by those ideas, how much failed numerology they'd attempted before, how good is their expertise at interpreting their significance scientifically, or by what process (if any) they'd ever had their ideas reviewed and critiqued for independence of method and scientific relevance.

In other words, you can't tell whether it's science or pseudoscience.

But if you want to evaluate how many of your own intuitions are trustable, I'd invite you to consider how often your intuitions may move from one idea to another -- as most peoples' intuitions do.

Would they need to do that if they were accurate in the first place?

You are wrong, I was shown the numbers and geometry before I searched for it online. It started with my clock going from 109 back to 108, so I would notice the number 108. I was shown geometry and symbols in visions. It didn't come from memory, because I knew nothing about these things before.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:30:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

It depends on whether you define God as some invisible supernatural character or as a personification of existence (life) itself.

You can understand any mythical character as well as that character has been portrayed by the writers.
You can understand existence/ life as well as as you understand reality with all its opposite sides, ironies and paradoxes.
You understand your own experiences subjectively through your personal perception and interaction with that which exists.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:34:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:30:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

It depends on whether you define God as some invisible supernatural character or as a personification of existence (life) itself.

You can understand any mythical character as well as that character has been portrayed by the writers.
You can understand existence/ life as well as as you understand reality with all its opposite sides, ironies and paradoxes.
You understand your own experiences subjectively through your personal perception and interaction with that which exists.

"a personification of existence (life) itself" is sort of the way I see God. It's as good a description as any I can think of.

I think there are different interpretations of God,as interaction is filtered though our individual subconscious.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2015 10:53:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:34:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:30:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

It depends on whether you define God as some invisible supernatural character or as a personification of existence (life) itself.

You can understand any mythical character as well as that character has been portrayed by the writers.
You can understand existence/ life as well as as you understand reality with all its opposite sides, ironies and paradoxes.
You understand your own experiences subjectively through your personal perception and interaction with that which exists.

"a personification of existence (life) itself" is sort of the way I see God. It's as good a description as any I can think of.

I think there are different interpretations of God, as interaction is filtered though our individual subconscious.

Obviously there are different interpretations and perceptions of the word God.
Human perceptions are all part of life/ existence.

Personifying existence however does not make any supernatural character any more real than Mother Nature. The personified character remains a mythical figure and actually has no individual thoughts or emotions at all.

Human life is what we make it and obviously humans enjoy messing up their lives and those of other people. Only humanity is to blame for that.

However, very few like taking responsibility for their own actions. Most obviously prefer to blame some invisible supernatural characters for all the bad things that happen to people in this world as they implore some different supernatural characters to fix everything. That is sheer stupidity in my opinion.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 1:52:55 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:53:00 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:34:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:30:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

It depends on whether you define God as some invisible supernatural character or as a personification of existence (life) itself.

You can understand any mythical character as well as that character has been portrayed by the writers.
You can understand existence/ life as well as as you understand reality with all its opposite sides, ironies and paradoxes.
You understand your own experiences subjectively through your personal perception and interaction with that which exists.

"a personification of existence (life) itself" is sort of the way I see God. It's as good a description as any I can think of.

I think there are different interpretations of God, as interaction is filtered though our individual subconscious.

Obviously there are different interpretations and perceptions of the word God.
Human perceptions are all part of life/ existence.

Personifying existence however does not make any supernatural character any more real than Mother Nature. The personified character remains a mythical figure and actually has no individual thoughts or emotions at all.

Human life is what we make it and obviously humans enjoy messing up their lives and those of other people. Only humanity is to blame for that.

However, very few like taking responsibility for their own actions. Most obviously prefer to blame some invisible supernatural characters for all the bad things that happen to people in this world as they implore some different supernatural characters to fix everything. That is sheer stupidity in my opinion.

Do you think God/the life force or whatever you choose to call it communicates with people?
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 7:36:48 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 1:52:55 AM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:53:00 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:34:55 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:30:10 PM, Skyangel wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

It depends on whether you define God as some invisible supernatural character or as a personification of existence (life) itself.

You can understand any mythical character as well as that character has been portrayed by the writers.
You can understand existence/ life as well as as you understand reality with all its opposite sides, ironies and paradoxes.
You understand your own experiences subjectively through your personal perception and interaction with that which exists.

"a personification of existence (life) itself" is sort of the way I see God. It's as good a description as any I can think of.

I think there are different interpretations of God, as interaction is filtered though our individual subconscious.

Obviously there are different interpretations and perceptions of the word God.
Human perceptions are all part of life/ existence.

Personifying existence however does not make any supernatural character any more real than Mother Nature. The personified character remains a mythical figure and actually has no individual thoughts or emotions at all.

Human life is what we make it and obviously humans enjoy messing up their lives and those of other people. Only humanity is to blame for that.

However, very few like taking responsibility for their own actions. Most obviously prefer to blame some invisible supernatural characters for all the bad things that happen to people in this world as they implore some different supernatural characters to fix everything. That is sheer stupidity in my opinion.

Do you think God/the life force or whatever you choose to call it communicates with people?

It depends on what you want to include in the life force. People communicate with people.
We are all part of the life force so yes the life force communicates with people through people and also through Nature and its signs which we learn to recognise. Mother Nature communicates with people and tells us if it will be fine day or a rainy/stormy day etc. It is not a supernatural character communicating with us but rather our own perceptions and awareness of the signs and sounds around us.
Is your conscience part of the life force within you ? Do you communicate with your conscience ?
How about your own thoughts, ideas, imaginations ? Do you "communicate" with them and consider the possibilities of your actions ? Can you hear your own thoughts? Can you hear other peoples thoughts when they share them with you ? Are thoughts part of the life force?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 12:56:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

He actually wants us to understand him, that is part of the reason for giving us the Bible.

It is also part of the reason his only begotten son came to earth as a human, to give us a pattern to understand his father through.

As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:16American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Since, as scripture assures us elsewhere, Christ is very much the image of his father, if we study Christ and learn to understand him, we will get as close to understanding Jehovah himself as it is possible for any human to get, and we can thereby accept Jehovah's heartfelt invitation, through his servant James:

James 4:8American Standard Version (ASV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

Do you not want Jehovah to view you as he viewed Abraham? As friend? You will never have a better friend, ever.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2015 6:53:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 12:56:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

He actually wants us to understand him, that is part of the reason for giving us the Bible.

It is also part of the reason his only begotten son came to earth as a human, to give us a pattern to understand his father through.

As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:16American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Since, as scripture assures us elsewhere, Christ is very much the image of his father, if we study Christ and learn to understand him, we will get as close to understanding Jehovah himself as it is possible for any human to get, and we can thereby accept Jehovah's heartfelt invitation, through his servant James:

James 4:8American Standard Version (ASV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

Do you not want Jehovah to view you as he viewed Abraham? As friend? You will never have a better friend, ever.

A friend? One that will send me to eternal torment for not believing?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 2:57:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/20/2015 6:53:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:56:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

He actually wants us to understand him, that is part of the reason for giving us the Bible.

It is also part of the reason his only begotten son came to earth as a human, to give us a pattern to understand his father through.

As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:16American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Since, as scripture assures us elsewhere, Christ is very much the image of his father, if we study Christ and learn to understand him, we will get as close to understanding Jehovah himself as it is possible for any human to get, and we can thereby accept Jehovah's heartfelt invitation, through his servant James:

James 4:8American Standard Version (ASV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

Do you not want Jehovah to view you as he viewed Abraham? As friend? You will never have a better friend, ever.

A friend? One that will send me to eternal torment for not believing?

There is no such thing as eternal torment.

And it is much more than simply not believing, though non-belief is part of it.

Do you not appreciate it when people are grateful for what you have done for them?

How do you feel about them being ungrateful?

Why should God not feel aggrieved because you do not show him any gratitude for all he has done for you, including the fact the he even allows you to exist?

Denial of his existence is the worst kind of ingratitude there is.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 4:12:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 10:19:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:14:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:29:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:26:04 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before.
Actually, the 'revelation' of new information should be strong grounds to suspect subjectivity, since revelations:
i) tend to follow cultural imagery and language (have you ever had a revelation from Vishnu, for example?)
ii) typically restate accepted dogma (e.g. have you ever been told there are not one, but two gods?)
iii) generally make vague, inaccurate or unfalsifiable predictions (these being the ones that make you feel most in control);
iv) tend not to produce specific, significant, objectively verifiable and highly valuable information; and
v) are also associated with numerous psychological disorders.
God came to me first as shakti, not the Abrahamic God I am familiar with.
That's hardly new. For decades, your culture has promoted New Age beliefs, including matriarchal neopaganism. (Also, in fairness please note that my seven criteria were ungendered and not specifically Abrahamic.)

I received mostly numbers and geometry, which I had no prior knowledge of.
I've read many of your posts on numbers and geometry, including your web-links. So we both know that those aren't your revelations. They're conjectures produced by other people, and promoted to you via blogsites. You have no idea how the authors came by those ideas, how much failed numerology they'd attempted before, how good is their expertise at interpreting their significance scientifically, or by what process (if any) they'd ever had their ideas reviewed and critiqued for independence of method and scientific relevance.

In other words, you can't tell whether it's science or pseudoscience.

But if you want to evaluate how many of your own intuitions are trustable, I'd invite you to consider how often your intuitions may move from one idea to another -- as most peoples' intuitions do.

Would they need to do that if they were accurate in the first place?

You are wrong, I was shown the numbers and geometry before I searched for it online. It started with my clock going from 109 back to 108, so I would notice the number 108.

That's an interesting clock. All of the clocks I've ever seen have the numbers 1-12. Where exactly are the numbers 108 and 109 on a clock?
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2015 4:15:12 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

What is far more possible and plausible is that those alleged "spiritual" experiences are just hallucinations caused by any number of symptoms that most likely require some sort of medication or treatment. If you're having these hallucinations, seek professional help.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 2:54:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/21/2015 4:12:15 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:19:30 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 10:14:14 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:29:50 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 9:26:04 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before.
Actually, the 'revelation' of new information should be strong grounds to suspect subjectivity, since revelations:
i) tend to follow cultural imagery and language (have you ever had a revelation from Vishnu, for example?)
ii) typically restate accepted dogma (e.g. have you ever been told there are not one, but two gods?)
iii) generally make vague, inaccurate or unfalsifiable predictions (these being the ones that make you feel most in control);
iv) tend not to produce specific, significant, objectively verifiable and highly valuable information; and
v) are also associated with numerous psychological disorders.
God came to me first as shakti, not the Abrahamic God I am familiar with.
That's hardly new. For decades, your culture has promoted New Age beliefs, including matriarchal neopaganism. (Also, in fairness please note that my seven criteria were ungendered and not specifically Abrahamic.)

I received mostly numbers and geometry, which I had no prior knowledge of.
I've read many of your posts on numbers and geometry, including your web-links. So we both know that those aren't your revelations. They're conjectures produced by other people, and promoted to you via blogsites. You have no idea how the authors came by those ideas, how much failed numerology they'd attempted before, how good is their expertise at interpreting their significance scientifically, or by what process (if any) they'd ever had their ideas reviewed and critiqued for independence of method and scientific relevance.

In other words, you can't tell whether it's science or pseudoscience.

But if you want to evaluate how many of your own intuitions are trustable, I'd invite you to consider how often your intuitions may move from one idea to another -- as most peoples' intuitions do.

Would they need to do that if they were accurate in the first place?

You are wrong, I was shown the numbers and geometry before I searched for it online. It started with my clock going from 109 back to 108, so I would notice the number 108.

That's an interesting clock. All of the clocks I've ever seen have the numbers 1-12. Where exactly are the numbers 108 and 109 on a clock?

1:08 on a digital clock.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 2:56:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/21/2015 4:15:12 PM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

What is far more possible and plausible is that those alleged "spiritual" experiences are just hallucinations caused by any number of symptoms that most likely require some sort of medication or treatment. If you're having these hallucinations, seek professional help.

Like olanzapine? Already take it. It happens less when I'm on meds, but that's only psychosomatic. God just knows I don't want to be involved.
bulproof
Posts: 25,221
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 2:56:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?
Can you understand a goblin riding a unicorn through a field of rainbow grass on Jupiter?
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
AVicu
Posts: 126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 3:17:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/19/2015 9:04:49 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:53:43 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible, as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

In order for the idea of God to be understood across peoples and between individuals, it must be defined objectively. That is, there must be a set of criteria with objective testing methods, so that, independently of culture, bias, belief, emotion or intuition, each criterion can be recognised as having been met or failed by the thing tested. Else, there are misunderstandings and dogmatic schisms.

What sort of criteria? It depends on what is claimed for God, and there's the first obstacle, since dogmas differ. But among the criteria often claimed are:

1. Creation: God created everything observable;
2. Metaphysical nature: God isn't itself part of the thing created;
3. Involvement: God is engaged to and involved in human concerns;
4. Divinity: God is some paragon of what humans would recognise as virtue, worthy of worship or reverence;
5. Uniqueness: There aren't two or more beings of this sort;
6. Supremacy: Whatever else might exist, God is more powerful than that; and
7. Moral authority: God has not just the ability but the demonstrable right to order human affairs.

That's a lot of claims to test, and they don't even cover even all the Abrahamic claims.

While I think 1 and 3 are potentially testable, I don't believe 2,4-7 are. And without being testable, I think such claims represent vague and opaque appeals to intuition: thus they're incoherent and prone to wild, dogmatic assertions of intuition and cultural or personal bias.

Thus, I don't think people really know what they're talking about when they talk about God. I think they're in a sort of trance of naive, opaque, regressed, infantile intuition, imagining they're talking about one thing outside themselves when they're really talking about disparate and incoherent things inside their own subconscious.

It is no longer subjective when God gives you information you didn't have before

That's me giving you all that information.
janesix
Posts: 3,460
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 3:49:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/21/2015 2:57:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/20/2015 6:53:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:56:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

He actually wants us to understand him, that is part of the reason for giving us the Bible.

It is also part of the reason his only begotten son came to earth as a human, to give us a pattern to understand his father through.

As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:16American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Since, as scripture assures us elsewhere, Christ is very much the image of his father, if we study Christ and learn to understand him, we will get as close to understanding Jehovah himself as it is possible for any human to get, and we can thereby accept Jehovah's heartfelt invitation, through his servant James:

James 4:8American Standard Version (ASV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

Do you not want Jehovah to view you as he viewed Abraham? As friend? You will never have a better friend, ever.

A friend? One that will send me to eternal torment for not believing?

There is no such thing as eternal torment.

And it is much more than simply not believing, though non-belief is part of it.

Do you not appreciate it when people are grateful for what you have done for them?

How do you feel about them being ungrateful?

Why should God not feel aggrieved because you do not show him any gratitude for all he has done for you, including the fact the he even allows you to exist?

Denial of his existence is the worst kind of ingratitude there is.

So you don't believe in Hell?
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 23,302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 6:39:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 3:49:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/21/2015 2:57:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/20/2015 6:53:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:56:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

He actually wants us to understand him, that is part of the reason for giving us the Bible.

It is also part of the reason his only begotten son came to earth as a human, to give us a pattern to understand his father through.

As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:16American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Since, as scripture assures us elsewhere, Christ is very much the image of his father, if we study Christ and learn to understand him, we will get as close to understanding Jehovah himself as it is possible for any human to get, and we can thereby accept Jehovah's heartfelt invitation, through his servant James:

James 4:8American Standard Version (ASV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

Do you not want Jehovah to view you as he viewed Abraham? As friend? You will never have a better friend, ever.

A friend? One that will send me to eternal torment for not believing?

There is no such thing as eternal torment.

And it is much more than simply not believing, though non-belief is part of it.

Do you not appreciate it when people are grateful for what you have done for them?

How do you feel about them being ungrateful?

Why should God not feel aggrieved because you do not show him any gratitude for all he has done for you, including the fact the he even allows you to exist?

Denial of his existence is the worst kind of ingratitude there is.

So you don't believe in Hell?

I believe what scripture tells me, and scripture tells me that Hell is nothing more than the grave, to which all go, and in which none have any consciousness.

Hell is not a literal place it is a state, into which we all go on death, and in which we have no Knowledge or ability to think or feel.

False teachers deliberately confuse Hell, (Greek Hades, Hebrew Sheol) with the Lake of fire (Gehenna) which itself is not a place of torment but of complete and utter destruction and into which hell (Hades, the Grave, Sheol) is thrown along with death, Satan and all his followers.

You will find a more comprehensive explanation at http://wol.jw.org....

Scripture also tells me that Jehovah is not a God who would even think of such cruel and unnecessary punishment.

He is a god of justice, and since death is the penalty of sin, once a person has died they have paid the price for their sin and therefore any further punishment would be unjust.

A hell of torment is simply another of Satan's ploys to pull people away from God and therefore into the destruction for which he is destined in due time.

Does it make sense to you that a God who is so fond of Justice that he feels compelled to give even Satan a fair chance to prove his case, is also the sort of God who will unjustly punish people for sins they have already paid the price of?

No, the teaching of hellfire and torment is a vile slander on the holy name of God.
10cents
Posts: 61
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 7:01:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 6:39:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/23/2015 3:49:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/21/2015 2:57:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/20/2015 6:53:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:56:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

He actually wants us to understand him, that is part of the reason for giving us the Bible.

It is also part of the reason his only begotten son came to earth as a human, to give us a pattern to understand his father through.

As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:16American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Since, as scripture assures us elsewhere, Christ is very much the image of his father, if we study Christ and learn to understand him, we will get as close to understanding Jehovah himself as it is possible for any human to get, and we can thereby accept Jehovah's heartfelt invitation, through his servant James:

James 4:8American Standard Version (ASV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

Do you not want Jehovah to view you as he viewed Abraham? As friend? You will never have a better friend, ever.

A friend? One that will send me to eternal torment for not believing?

There is no such thing as eternal torment.

And it is much more than simply not believing, though non-belief is part of it.

Do you not appreciate it when people are grateful for what you have done for them?

How do you feel about them being ungrateful?

Why should God not feel aggrieved because you do not show him any gratitude for all he has done for you, including the fact the he even allows you to exist?

Denial of his existence is the worst kind of ingratitude there is.

So you don't believe in Hell?

I believe what scripture tells me, and scripture tells me that Hell is nothing more than the grave, to which all go, and in which none have any consciousness.

Hell is not a literal place it is a state, into which we all go on death, and in which we have no Knowledge or ability to think or feel.

False teachers deliberately confuse Hell, (Greek Hades, Hebrew Sheol) with the Lake of fire (Gehenna) which itself is not a place of torment but of complete and utter destruction and into which hell (Hades, the Grave, Sheol) is thrown along with death, Satan and all his followers.

You will find a more comprehensive explanation at http://wol.jw.org....

Scripture also tells me that Jehovah is not a God who would even think of such cruel and unnecessary punishment.

He is a god of justice, and since death is the penalty of sin, once a person has died they have paid the price for their sin and therefore any further punishment would be unjust.

A hell of torment is simply another of Satan's ploys to pull people away from God and therefore into the destruction for which he is destined in due time.

Does it make sense to you that a God who is so fond of Justice that he feels compelled to give even Satan a fair chance to prove his case, is also the sort of God who will unjustly punish people for sins they have already paid the price of?

No, the teaching of hellfire and torment is a vile slander on the holy name of God. : :

The teaching of Satan as being a person is also a vile slanderous lie who religious people love to blame for their fears. Satan is not a person. It is a symbolic name for the entropy that exists in this world that have confused created man ever since he woke up in a body.

God said to listen to his voice and obey his commandments and here's the reason why;

Deuteronomy 28
15: "But if you will not obey the voice of the Lord your God or be careful to do all his commandments which I command you this day, then all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you.
16: Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the field.
17: Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading-trough.
18: cursed shall be the fruit of your body, and the fruit of your ground, the increase of your cattle, and the young of your flock.
19: Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.
20: "the Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and frustration, in all that you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and perish quickly, on account of the evil of your doings, because you have forsaken me.
21: The Lord will make the pestilence cleave to you until he has consumed you off the land which you are entering to take possession of it.
22: The Lord will smite you with consumption, and with fever, inflammation, and fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; they shall pursue you until your perish.
23: And the heavens over your head shall be brass, and the earth under you shall be iron.
24: The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down upon you until you are destroyed.

God is the one who created all the curses for man to live with in this world. If a man listens to his voice and obeys his commandments, then he will learn why he was cursed and how he was created.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2015 9:23:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/23/2015 6:39:58 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/23/2015 3:49:37 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/21/2015 2:57:05 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/20/2015 6:53:59 PM, janesix wrote:
At 11/20/2015 12:56:57 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 11/19/2015 8:38:41 PM, janesix wrote:
Or is it impossible,as all spiritual experiences are filtered through our minds, with all it's subjective memories, worldview,and experience?

He actually wants us to understand him, that is part of the reason for giving us the Bible.

It is also part of the reason his only begotten son came to earth as a human, to give us a pattern to understand his father through.

As Paul said:

1 Corinthians 2:16American Standard Version (ASV)

16 For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he should instruct him? But we have the mind of Christ.

Since, as scripture assures us elsewhere, Christ is very much the image of his father, if we study Christ and learn to understand him, we will get as close to understanding Jehovah himself as it is possible for any human to get, and we can thereby accept Jehovah's heartfelt invitation, through his servant James:

James 4:8American Standard Version (ASV)

8 Draw nigh to God, and he will draw nigh to you. Cleanse your hands, ye sinners; and purify your hearts, ye doubleminded.

Do you not want Jehovah to view you as he viewed Abraham? As friend? You will never have a better friend, ever.

A friend? One that will send me to eternal torment for not believing?

There is no such thing as eternal torment.

And it is much more than simply not believing, though non-belief is part of it.

Do you not appreciate it when people are grateful for what you have done for them?

How do you feel about them being ungrateful?

Why should God not feel aggrieved because you do not show him any gratitude for all he has done for you, including the fact the he even allows you to exist?

Denial of his existence is the worst kind of ingratitude there is.

So you don't believe in Hell?

I believe what scripture tells me, and scripture tells me that Hell is nothing more than the grave, to which all go, and in which none have any consciousness.

Hell is not a literal place it is a state, into which we all go on death, and in which we have no Knowledge or ability to think or feel.

" .... And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and that he was carried away by the angels into Abraham's bosom: and the rich man also died, and was buried. And in Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am in anguish in this flame ... " (Luke 16: 22-24, ASV)

Now I think we all know that you have deemed this a mere parable - and a pretty ridiculous one, at that. We've asked you why in the world Jesus would bother to cite the name of the beggar. You didn't know. You were asked what the "great gulf" that could not be traversed signified. You didn't know that, either. You were asked who the five brothers represented. I think you kinda attempted an answer at that one, but it was about as clear as mud.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."