Jump to content


Photo

Jesus As An Extra Dimensional Being And Confirmation Bias


  • Please log in to reply
70 replies to this topic

#61 Realspiritik

Realspiritik

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:
    Female
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada

Posted Today, 06:54 AM

Paul, I've watched how you reply to my posts over the years, and I've learned that you've made your decisions about God and Jesus. Nothing I say will change your position -- indeed, I'm not trying to change your position. You have free will (a comment that will no doubt make Romansch blanch in horror) and you have chosen to use your free will to willingly and intentionally break the rules of the site's protocol on many occasions. So please don't play the humility card and imply it was just an accident that you broke the site's rules about posting contemptuous remarks about Jesus on the Progressive Christianity site. You knew what you were doing and you chose to do it anyway.

 

This is why I said I don't see any change in your core belief systems. If your core belief system had changed, you would not have taken the opportunity to use Burl's Good Friday post to attack the very foundations of Jesus' teachings about who we are as human beings and how we can be in relationship with God despite our difficult lives, despite the tragedies we all face, and despite the many religious doctrines that can lead us farther away from God (rather than closer).

 

You ask, "how is asking questions or making valid points (to me anyway) questioning some of these beliefs to be regarded as insulting?"

 

PaulS, if I have to explain to you why your comments about Jesus and his ministry are so deeply offensive to those who look to Jesus for guidance in how to seek answers to some of life's ultimate questions in life, then you hold such a radically different understanding of Jesus from my own that you and I have no common ground for dialogue at all.

 

I forgive, Paul. God bless you.

 

Edited for typo(s).


Edited by Realspiritik, Today, 06:56 AM.

  • 1

Jen writes about the faith in science and the science in faith at http://www.jenniferthomas.ca


#62 PaulS

PaulS

    Global Moderator & Site Sponsor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Mandurah Western Australia

Posted Today, 07:37 AM

Paul, I've watched how you reply to my posts over the years, and I've learned that you've made your decisions about God and Jesus. Nothing I say will change your position -- indeed, I'm not trying to change your position. You have free will (a comment that will no doubt make Romansch blanch in horror) and you have chosen to use your free will to willingly and intentionally break the rules of the site's protocol on many occasions. So please don't play the humility card and imply it was just an accident that you broke the site's rules about posting contemptuous remarks about Jesus on the Progressive Christianity site. You knew what you were doing and you chose to do it anyway.

 

This is why I said I don't see any change in your core belief systems. If your core belief system had changed, you would not have taken the opportunity to use Burl's Good Friday post to attack the very foundations of Jesus' teachings about who we are as human beings and how we can be in relationship with God despite our difficult lives, despite the tragedies we all face, and despite the many religious doctrines that can lead us farther away from God (rather than closer).

 

You ask, "how is asking questions or making valid points (to me anyway) questioning some of these beliefs to be regarded as insulting?"

 

PaulS, if I have to explain to you why your comments about Jesus and his ministry are so deeply offensive to those who look to Jesus for guidance in how to seek answers to some of life's ultimate questions in life, then you hold such a radically different understanding of Jesus from my own that you and I have no common ground for dialogue at all.

 

I forgive, Paul. God bless you.

 

Edited for typo(s).

1. I have not broken this site's rules on many occasions.  

2. My remarks weren't contemptuous - that is your interpretation of my remarks.

3. I am not playing the humility card - I would make the same comments again, however I hope to next time remind myself to kick off a new thread in the right section.  

4. If you restrict my 'core-belief systems' to whether or not I believe in a theistic God (as that is the only belief of mine you mention in your comments) then perhaps my core belief systems have not changed.  However, I would not limit my core belief systems to simply being anti-theistic.  

5. I was not attacking Jesus' teachings.  I was questioning what I regard as mans' teachings that Jesus understands our lives because he had a short one himself in Israel 2000 yrs ago.

6. If I can't question and disagree with you about understandings of Jesus without you getting insulted or offended, then indeed we may not have common ground for dialogue.  But that would be your choice, not mine, as I participate here because I enjoy dialogue with all participants.

 

Peace and goodwill, Jen.

Paul


  • 0

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin


#63 Realspiritik

Realspiritik

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 537 posts
  • Gender:
    Female
  • Location:
    Ontario, Canada

Posted Today, 08:10 AM



 As for your comment about ISIL & Christianity - you didn't understand what I was trying to say in that debate so it would be useless repeating myself here other than to say that during that debate I was trying to point out the similarities of fervent, genuine faith.

 

 

Paul, your reasonableness knows no bounds.

 

Please be aware that I fully understood the comments you made to me in the past about "fervent, genuine faith." I fully understood the point you were making, which is why I did my best to counter your beliefs with scientific logic and fact. I fully understood the attack you were making and I completely disagreed with you because I've done my neuroscientific research.

 

I wonder if it's occurred to you that the man who lived as Jesus was himself a man of "fervent, genuine faith" who did everything within his power to live a life of commitment to God (as he himself understood that commitment to God). Since you've made it plain that you believe all "fervent, genuine faith" is cut from the same neuroscientific cloth (without any evidence to support your position), and that the fervent faith of an ISIL leader is no different from the fervent faith of a non-violent Christian (or a non-violent theist of any other religious stripe, for that matter), may I infer from your comments that you equate Jesus' fervent faith with the fervent faith of an ISIL leader? May I infer that you equate the fervent faith of people such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Malala Yousafzai with the fervent faith of an ISIL leader?

 

If I may not so infer, please explain to me exactly who you think Jesus was, what you think his teachings mean for people today, and why you believe you think it's possible to separate Jesus' teachings about God from the rest of his moral, educational, social, and scientific choices.


  • 0

Jen writes about the faith in science and the science in faith at http://www.jenniferthomas.ca


#64 PaulS

PaulS

    Global Moderator & Site Sponsor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Mandurah Western Australia

Posted Today, 09:48 AM

 

Paul, your reasonableness knows no bounds.

 

Please be aware that I fully understood the comments you made to me in the past about "fervent, genuine faith." I fully understood the point you were making, which is why I did my best to counter your beliefs with scientific logic and fact. I fully understood the attack you were making and I completely disagreed with you because I've done my neuroscientific research.

 

I wonder if it's occurred to you that the man who lived as Jesus was himself a man of "fervent, genuine faith" who did everything within his power to live a life of commitment to God (as he himself understood that commitment to God). Since you've made it plain that you believe all "fervent, genuine faith" is cut from the same neuroscientific cloth (without any evidence to support your position), and that the fervent faith of an ISIL leader is no different from the fervent faith of a non-violent Christian (or a non-violent theist of any other religious stripe, for that matter), may I infer from your comments that you equate Jesus' fervent faith with the fervent faith of an ISIL leader? May I infer that you equate the fervent faith of people such as Martin Luther King, Jr., Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and Malala Yousafzai with the fervent faith of an ISIL leader?

 

If I may not so infer, please explain to me exactly who you think Jesus was, what you think his teachings mean for people today, and why you believe you think it's possible to separate Jesus' teachings about God from the rest of his moral, educational, social, and scientific choices.

 

Jen,

 

It is clear from your comments above that what I had in mind in that thread is not being clearly communicated to you (and maybe others).  If you want to continue to debate that thread then I suggest we do so in that thread rather than recreating it here.

 

As for your last sentence, again, as it is a new topic, if you want to start another thread I can answer your questions there also.

 

Cheers

Paul


  • 0

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin


#65 thormas

thormas

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:
    Male

Posted Today, 10:04 AM

This is the continuation of the original thread moved here by Joseph. Correct? So, if correct, the first part can be continued here.

 

As for the last sentence, that is definitely a new thread but it also seems like one that has been discussed.


  • 0

#66 Burl

Burl

    Senior Member

  • Senior Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 513 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Central Florida

Posted Today, 11:46 AM

Yes, please continue Thormas. Jen stated that she was offended, and received self-justifications instead of an apology. Nothing new about that.

String theory and the existence of additional dimensions is an active area of theoretical physics and mathematics. If one believes we are 'all one' that is a multidimensional belief structure. The multi-dimensional nature of the cross was noted by the Apostolic Fathers.

There is a lot to discuss.
  • 0
If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.

Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

#67 PaulS

PaulS

    Global Moderator & Site Sponsor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Mandurah Western Australia

Posted Today, 12:40 PM

This is the continuation of the original thread moved here by Joseph. Correct? So, if correct, the first part can be continued here.

 

As for the last sentence, that is definitely a new thread but it also seems like one that has been discussed.

 

By 'first part' thormas, are you referring to Jen discussing ISIL & Christianity?  That is how I took it and as such this comment concerns a previous thread Jen and I had some vigorous debate on.  Hence why I think it is more appropriate to discuss there, where all the history of the debate is located, rather than hijack this thread which is a different subject matter.  If it isn't what you are referring to then perhaps I have mistaken what point you think can be continued here.

 

Why I thought the last sentence was better as a new subject is that is has nothing to do with confirmation bias and perhaps very little to do with Jesus as an extra dimensional being and again, I think it would be better and more useful to capture as a separate thread (although there are already several recent threads where many, including myself, have discussed their views of Jesus).


  • 0

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin


#68 PaulS

PaulS

    Global Moderator & Site Sponsor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Mandurah Western Australia

Posted Today, 01:01 PM

Yes, please continue Thormas. Jen stated that she was offended, and received self-justifications instead of an apology. Nothing new about that.

String theory and the existence of additional dimensions is an active area of theoretical physics and mathematics. If one believes we are 'all one' that is a multidimensional belief structure. The multi-dimensional nature of the cross was noted by the Apostolic Fathers.

There is a lot to discuss.

 

Burl,

 

Self-justification is an emotionally loaded term.  My explanation for my actions are naturally a 'self-justification' just as yours would be if you were explaining why you chose to do what you did, but they shouldn't take on the meaning you imply by using that term.  I was simply providing an explanation of my actions.  Other than post against your thread instead of creating a new thread in debates, I did not contravene any rule of this forum.  

 

It seems to me that Jen was offended because I challenged the notion of certain views of Jesus in the PC forum, a forum reserved for PC's (of which I count myself as one).  You will note that I did apologise for posting in that thread because I was shifting the subject to a debate instead of staying with the original copied article.

 

But why should an apology be required for raising a challenging view simply because it might be what some Christians don't like?  At no time did I ridicule or abuse or break any other forum rule.  If we can't debate our understandings of Jesus without being offended by other people's view, then how can we debate anything?  It's not my desire to go around offending people but I do like to push the boundaries in order to generate discussion and debate and get down to what people really mean rather than just what they say at surface level.

 

However, the why's and wherefore's aren't that important to me so let it be clear that I unreservedly apologise to any and all whom may have been offended by my comments in response to your post, Burl.  It wasn't my intention to offend but rather to promulgate discussion about a point that I see very different to traditional Christians.  Maybe my apology is more than a month overdue, but this is the first I have understood anybody to have received offence from that post.  Sorry.


  • 0

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin


#69 thormas

thormas

    Regular Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 257 posts
  • Gender:
    Male

Posted Today, 01:22 PM

 

By 'first part' thormas, are you referring to Jen discussing ISIL & Christianity?  That is how I took it and as such this comment concerns a previous thread Jen and I had some vigorous debate on.  Hence why I think it is more appropriate to discuss there, where all the history of the debate is located, rather than hijack this thread which is a different subject matter.  If it isn't what you are referring to then perhaps I have mistaken what point you think can be continued here.

 

Why I thought the last sentence was better as a new subject is that is has nothing to do with confirmation bias and perhaps very little to do with Jesus as an extra dimensional being and again, I think it would be better and more useful to capture as a separate thread (although there are already several recent threads where many, including myself, have discussed their views of Jesus).

 

The 1st part was Burl's comment about Good Friday, I thought.

 

I'm fine on the 2nd as a possible separate thread.


  • 0

#70 PaulS

PaulS

    Global Moderator & Site Sponsor

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,611 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Mandurah Western Australia

Posted Today, 01:33 PM

 

The 1st part was Burl's comment about Good Friday, I thought.

 

Yeah, that bit could be discussed here but I don't think that was what Jen was calling for (at least that was my understanding). I thought she was wanting to talk about this ISIL/Christianity from another thread that she closed out on previously.  I've tried looking for it but I can't locate it yet - essentially the thread was about parts of people's brain lighting up when mapped against their emotions and beliefs.  I'll post the link in this thread (just for reference) if I find it.


  • 0

Because they know the name of what I am looking for, they think they know what I am looking for! ~Antonio Porchia, Voces, 1943, translated from Spanish by W.S. Merwin


#71 soma

soma

    Global Forum Moderator

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,104 posts
  • Gender:
    Male
  • Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada

Posted Today, 02:26 PM

I feel Jesus and ISIS leaders have in common that they are both willing to physically die for what they think is the greater good. The difference would come from the dimension that their ations come from so for me to show different dimensions I separate the mind into different layers like an onion. I feel Jesus is coming from the highest layer and beyond as the early Christians who first began to use the term martyr in its new sense saw Jesus as the first and greatest martyr, on account of his crucifixion. Socrates was a great matyr and many matyrs are courageous but are not familiar with the highr layers of their mind so are coming from a different dimension. 

 

The exceptional individuals who have achieved Creative Intelligence, the third layer of the mind possess a certain charisma or power over others and they didn’t inherit it. It is unmistakable in some entertainers, executives, salesmen, teachers, politicians and others who are sincere aspirants of the truth. In the hands of egoists and degenerates this power becomes the most horrible instrument for misconduct and skepticism because they can draw negativity to themselves and then express it in hate and violence. These personalities are not one, but many who force their prejudices, opinions and dogma into destructive movements that cause poverty and ruin. The laws of nature stop these individuals by rejecting them from the higher layers of the mind and send them back to the beginning layers to start their evolution again so they can evolve eventually. Their minds are not reduced to cold, black voids devoid of evolution because under a greater consciousness they can exert better effort and influence to do better. These individuals are not the final ends to God’s creation even though they might think they are, because they go against the greater good with their materialistic approach. It is in direct opposition to the light and love of Jesus Christ because the Christian values are against blowing out our neighbor’s light to make ours shine. The Holy Spirit through Mother Nature is a kind of energy that is capable of producing higher forms of consciousness, which prevents universal decay. Pure consciousness is the source of this energy with information that is propelling us further, helping us to ascend the higher layers of the mind, developing physically, mentally and spiritually as we evolve. There is a need to develop the first two layers of the mind in order to remove obstacles so as not to be rejected from entering the higher layers of the mind. The Bible says to let our light shine and it shines, we don’t have to announce it to the world because the light says it all because if we have to assert that it shines, it means our light is broken.


  • 0
A soul with a body, not a body with a soul. http://thinkunity.com




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users