Good and Evil Span Both Belief and Non-Belief.

[kallipolis]

We can agree you are dancing the dance of obfuscation to avoid ANSWERING THE FUCKING QUESTION.

Please answer the question, If there is anything at all factual about anything you're saying it has to be external to you. Because IF it is as subjective as you assert It's just your fucking opinion. Is your spirituality FACT or is it FICTION? If it's just pretty meandering of your fanciful mind so be it, but then please stop pretending it's anything else.

Please point us to your extensive research you have assured us you have completed.

My numinous experiences are internalised.....no one else shares my numinous experiences. Therefore there is no way that I can offer you a statement of fact that enables you to accept, or reject my argument that I have experienced something beyond what is normally understood to be rational.

You're looking for a black, and white presentation of my experiences that can enable you to understand the conclusions that I have reached, the result of my numinous experiences. I can't offer you this, for there is no definite evidence that I can offer you that can convince you that I have, and continue to experience "other world" phenomena.

 

[kallipolis]

Carl Jung touched on this topic when writing in some depth theorising on the human collective unconscious, influencing the decisions that we make....a sort of universal awareness, perception that the human person can tap into, to make wise decisions that lead to a happier, and more rewarding life....which inevitably leads us to contemplation of the inner life, conceived as enlightenment a world where the "mystic" harvests insight beyond the scope of rational reasoning....

 

[TX-Beau]

If you tell me your "spiritually" only applies to you and no one else, that it's not applicable to anything, it's not factual, it's just metaphor you use to see the rest of everything, so be it.

IS that what you are saying?

You are looking to AVOID THE FUCKING QUESTION!

- - - Updated - - -

Carl Jung touched on this topic when writing in some depth theorising on the human collective unconscious, influencing the decisions that we make....a sort of universal awareness, perception that the human person can tap into, to make wise decisions that lead to a happier, and more rewarding life....which inevitably leads us to contemplation of the inner life, conceived as enlightenment a world where the "mystic" harvests insight beyond the scope of rational reasoning....

Blah blah blah, refer to previous statement.

 

[kallipolis]

If you tell me your "spiritually" only applies to you and no one else, that it's not applicable to anything, it's not factual, it's just metaphor you use to see the rest of everything, so be it.

IS that what you are saying?

You are looking to AVOID THE FUCKING QUESTION!

- - - Updated - - -



Blah blah blah, refer to previous statement.

I have clearly said that my experiences are personal to me....others, may also undergo similar experiences, that are personal to them. I am sure that they do.

I am answering your question, best i can there being no way that I visit these forums, to convert people to my understandings.

Metaphor is not the issue here...it is the experience of living with the understanding there are is another conscious reality, living at one with who I am.....this is the language that best illustrates my experiences....in theological language this reality is called consubstantiation.

 

[opinterph]

Enlighten us, and not with a bunch of obfuscating twaddle that means nothing real whatsoever beyond your ego, WHERE are you getting your "evidence."

I think it is irrefutable that what I experience directly through the conduit of my own personal being is something that you can only imagine. Even if circumstances I describe to you seem to match something that compares quite closely to your own experience – you are nonetheless left with little more than your own imagination to conclude that you comprehend my personal experience.

Evidence takes many forms.

 

[TX-Beau]

I think it is irrefutable that what I experience directly through the conduit of my own personal being is something that you can only imagine. Even if circumstances I describe to you seem to match something that compares quite closely to your own experience – you are nonetheless left with little more than your own imagination to conclude that you comprehend my personal experience.

Evidence takes many forms.

No it doesn't, and that was the original point. Personal spirituality isn't evidence, opinion isn't evidence, feelings aren't evidence, and while all of that may be perfectly acceptable when discussing matters of individual belief, none of it is evidence of a factual supernatural.

If someone wants to deal in metaphor and ambiguities of philosophy then say so. When you insist that God is fact, you have entered an entirely different argument.

 

[kallipolis]

The Apostle John believes that The Word, otherwise known as The Logos alone brings divine light to a world other wise sunk into darkness…. however, certain passages in the apocryphal Thomas's gospel draw a quite different conclusion: that the divine light Jesus of Nazareth embodied is shared by humanity, since we are all made 'in the image of God'. Thus, Thomas expresses what would become a central theme in Jewish – and later Christian – mysticism a thousand years later: that the 'image of God' is hidden within everyone, although most people remain unaware of its presence. This "inner light" is known by many names: The Holy Spirit, the inner compass, the saviour, the eternal word, divine wisdom, the source etc.

Fact as understood by a faithful servant, of the divine presence in human life, is revealed daily in the willingness of the faithful person, to enact the will of the divine presence with the understanding, that faith's rewards are sufficient evidence of the divine presence.

 

[opinterph]

… Personal spirituality isn't evidence, opinion isn't evidence, feelings aren't evidence …

You appear to be relegating the scientific method as the sole or supreme measure of human experience and motivation.

Everyone is not “wired” the same.

Carl Jung touched on this topic when writing in some depth theorising on the human collective unconscious

The collective unconscious is an universal datum, that is, every human being is endowed with this psychic archetype-layer since his/her birth. One can not acquire this strata by education or other conscious effort because it is innate. [Link]

 

[TX-Beau]

The Apostle John believes that The Word, otherwise known as The Logos alone brings divine light to a world other wise sunk into darkness…. however, certain passages in the apocryphal Thomas's gospel draw a quite different conclusion: that the divine light Jesus of Nazareth embodied is shared by humanity, since we are all made 'in the image of God'. Thus, Thomas expresses what would become a central theme in Jewish – and later Christian – mysticism a thousand years later: that the 'image of God' is hidden within everyone, although most people remain unaware of its presence. This "inner light" is known by many names: The Holy Spirit, the inner compass, the saviour, the eternal word, divine wisdom, the source etc.

Fact as understood by a faithful servant, of the divine presence in human life, is revealed daily in the willingness of the faithful person, to enact the will of the divine presence with the understanding, that faith's rewards are sufficient evidence of the divine presence.

If a "faithful servant" understands that is "fact," he needs to go buy a dictionary. Words mean things. I gave up on "truth" because the religious will insist that means assertion, you can't fucking have "fact."

I do love how you attempted to redefine fact as faith in that last statement though, very creative. You still can't have "fact.'

FACT is you don't have any evidence, and we've landed precisely where this always goes - you KNOW because you know, and you believe because you FEEL.

What always amazes me is the pointless desire of the spiritual person in these little tete-a-tetes to define what is OBVIOUSLY beyond evidence in terms of the concrete. WHY must your religion be "fact," WHY attempt the terminology of reason, to define the un-provable?

Is that not the fucking function of faith? Just once I'd like to hear a believer say what is frikkin' obvious to the rest of us, the he believes because of his faith, and that is the point of faith, and there is no proof, no evidence, and there can't be, and that is why there is faith in the first place.

Just once.

 

[TX-Beau]

You appear to be relegating the scientific method as the sole or supreme measure of human experience and motivation.

If people make a claim that their religion is fact, that means for all of us despite how differently we are wired, they have chosen that context, and that discussion by themselves, they don't get to then redefine all the terms so support an insupportable argument.

Letting that stand leads to all sorts of behavior wherein the differently wired of the religious sort start foisting their "facts" on the rest of humanity claiming authorization from a "factual" god.

...and we've all seen what kind of messes that encourages.

 

[opinterph]

If people make a claim that their religion is fact, that means for all of us despite how differently we are wired, they have chosen that context, and that discussion by themselves, they don't get to then redefine all the terms so support an insupportable argument.

Well, “religion” (as such) is a fact. I think your complaint involves the imposition of religious concepts (or religious conclusions) on “Non-Believers.” Yes?

To be clear, do you assert that the scientific method is a standard by which belief should be measured?

 

[TX-Beau]

Well, “religion” (as such) is a fact. I think your complaint involves the imposition of religious concepts (or religious conclusions) on “Non-Believers.” Yes?

To be clear, do you assert that the scientific method is a standard by which belief should be measured?

As I've been saying for damn near eight years now, the supernatural CANNOT be defined (snerk) by "definition." The Scientific Method (at least if used by someone who understands it) can't be used with respect to religion in any particular whatsoever since there can be no falsifiable handles to grasp, it simply does not apply. I see no reason why this is so difficult to admit.

I do object when religious people attempt to gloss that over with glib, self serving re-definitions of terms in the lexicon of reason, in an attempt to claim some authority for their particular flavor of faith. If they don't wish to have a discussion about what "evidence" is, they need not use that word in the first place.

But that's just a peeve, you are correct that what offends me most is people who's "evidence" of their claim to fact, is "numinous experience" by which authority they are empowered by God to fuck the rest of us right in the ass.

 

[kallipolis]

If a "faithful servant" understands that is "fact," he needs to go buy a dictionary. Words mean things. I gave up on "truth" because the religious will insist that means assertion, you can't fucking have "fact."

I do love how you attempted to redefine fact as faith in that last statement though, very creative. You still can't have "fact.'

FACT is you don't have any evidence, and we've landed precisely where this always goes - you KNOW because you know, and you believe because you FEEL.

What always amazes me is the pointless desire of the spiritual person in these little tete-a-tetes to define what is OBVIOUSLY beyond evidence in terms of the concrete. WHY must your religion be "fact," WHY attempt the terminology of reason, to define the un-provable?

Is that not the fucking function of faith? Just once I'd like to hear a believer say what is frikkin' obvious to the rest of us, the he believes because of his faith, and that is the point of faith, and there is no proof, no evidence, and there can't be, and that is why there is faith in the first place.

Just once.

Faith in the divine mystery can be reasoned through the experience of living in faith, that one is being guided by an inner guidance system...so to speak....that is one in being, with the cause, or source of all that is, and can be....known by me, as the divine mystery. I use this term for I believe that it is not important, nor useful to construct an "image" of a reality of being that is beyond my understanding...despite me being in relationship with that reality, I call the divine mystery.

 

[kallipolis]

Well, “religion” (as such) is a fact. I think your complaint involves the imposition of religious concepts (or religious conclusions) on “Non-Believers.” Yes?

To be clear, do you assert that the scientific method is a standard by which belief should be measured?

A conumdrum for those who are determined that such methodology must measure up to their demands.

 

[TX-Beau]

Faith in the divine mystery can be reasoned through the experience of living in faith, that one is being guided by an inner guidance system...so to speak....that is one in being, with the cause, or source of all that is, and can be....known by me, as the divine mystery. I use this term for I believe that it is not important, nor useful to construct an "image" of a reality of being that is beyond my understanding...despite me being in relationship with that reality, I call the divine mystery.

(emphasis mine)

AS I've already pointed out, that is utter and complete tautology. I KNOW because I know, round and round it goes, then you appended some pretty verbiage to hide the complete lack of saying anything at all. Why not just say, I believe because I have faith and that isn't "reasoned" and it doesn't have to be?

A conumdrum for those who are determined that such methodology must measure up to their demands.

A statement without a point.

 

[kallipolis]

Unless you live in faith of the inner man's guidance, how would you know?

It has long been recognized on this forum that those demanding proof, clearly state that such proof should be on their terms.

 

[TX-Beau]

Unless you live in faith of the inner man's guidance, how would you know?

It has long been recognized on this forum that those demanding proof, clearly state that such proof should be on their terms.

Oh Jesus fucking H. Christ. DO you even bother to read what I'm saying? I'm NOT DEMANDING PROOF OF ANYTHING AT ALL. in fact I'M TELLING YOU THAT IT'S PERFECTLY FINE TO HAVE NONE WHATSOEVER!

You run into to trouble when you try to tell me faith is reason, because it isn't, and it's never going to be - and it FUCKING DOESN"T HAVE TO BE.

 

[Spensed]

Subjective experience and "proof" is just that. It has little bearing on objective reality, other than the existence of its own subjective experience and proof, and the projections and wishful thinking thereof.

As they say, God, if he or she exists, doesn't need anyone's vote. So, belief or lack of belief doesn't much matter on that issue.

If God doesn't exist, all the subjective faith, experience and proof won't bring him or her into existence. As witness the Greek or Mayan Gods, all once worshiped with the same fervor and convictions evidenced in this forum.

I don't think one needs to take a position on the subject of belief, if one chooses not to. But, even if one is convinced of one's faith, one needn't altogether lose one's critical reason or skepticism.

 

[kallipolis]

Subjective experience and "proof" is just that. It has little bearing on objective reality, other than the existence of its own subjective experience and proof, and the projections and wishful thinking thereof.

As they say, God, if he or she exists, doesn't need anyone's vote. So, belief or lack of belief doesn't much matter on that issue.

If God doesn't exist, all the subjective faith, experience and proof won't bring him or her into existence. As witness the Greek or Mayan Gods, all once worshiped with the same fervor and convictions evidenced in this forum.

I don't think one needs to take a position on the subject of belief, if one chooses not to. But, even if one is convinced of one's faith, one needn't altogether lose one's critical reason or skepticism.

Why does it matter to you what another experiences in the realm of the divine mystery?

 

[TX-Beau]

Why does it matter to you what another experiences in the realm of the divine mystery?

It doesn't matter until you try and insist it's something it isn't, or well, when someone's divine mystery leads them to a concert hall in Paris with a gun and a bomb.