Jump to content
PaulS

Jesus As An Extra Dimensional Being And Confirmation Bias

Recommended Posts

To me, the "Source" does not require a belief but rather is self-evident. If you 'see' me you have seen the "Source". If you perceive anything, you have seen the "Source". Source is All in All . The substrate of reality as is. Is Source intelligent? Not applicable!

My 2 cents,

Joseph

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the "Source" does not require a belief but rather is self-evident. If you 'see' me you have seen the "Source". If you perceive anything, you have seen the "Source". Source is All in All . The substrate of reality as is. Is Source intelligent? Not applicable!

My 2 cents,

Joseph

 

Actually while I agree that the Source is all in all, isn't that still a belief? Some see you, me and others and deny a source or perhaps only a meaning to/for the source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Actually while I agree that the Source is all in all, isn't that still a belief? Some see you, me and others and deny a source or perhaps only a meaning to/for the source.

To me, no, still not a belief though some might argue that point) merely a self evident fact using the best language i am presently able to communicate with as an abstract concept. Changing my communications language doesn't change my experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burl wrote,

 

Fair enough Burl,

I find nothing argumentative in expressing or explaining your point of view.

I only moved it here because the below quote you made seems argumentative/debatable in my estimation. You seem to me, to be accusing Paul of not considering evidence which would challenge his preconceptions which seems to be a personal judgement on your part if i am understanding it correctly.

 

Your second paragraph seems to insinuate his belief system is not growing. Why? because he disagrees with you?

 

 

Anyway, that comment in my view, would seem not to have been necessary to explain your belief but perhaps we all push the envelope a bit when we seem to be challenged?

Joseph

 

What I'm wondering about (again) is why TCPC members who are very clear about their lack of belief in God and their lack of interest in Jesus' highly theistic teachings are again posting on the Progressive Christianity forum, which is supposed to be reserved for those whose views are aligned with the 8 Points.

 

I looked at Paul's comments about Jesus on Burl's thread about Good Friday.

 

Here's what PaulS had to say:

 

I often scratch my head when Christianity promotes Jesus' short 30 or so years on earth as equating too understanding our lives etc, as if we can all be summed up as first century Jews.

 

What would Jesus really know and experience about being married, raising a family, fighting in a war, living through famine, or even modern life such as pressures in modern lives. To me, his experience would fall well short of that of all human beings.

 

As for it being a sacrfice, if you knew that you would spend all eternity reigning in a wonderful place called heaven, then really, is 30 or so years of roughing it really that tough?

 

I find the sentiments behind these words deeply offensive and I can't help wondering why these words were ever allowed on the Progressive Christianity forum. Burl was speaking of Good Friday, which is, if nothing else, a time for Christians to discuss questions about mystery and miracles and non-Materialist physics. He posted in the correct place for these questions (when addressed from a Christian perspective), yet PaulS could not, it seems, restrain himself from making fun of questions that are deeply important to many Christians, including many progressive Christians, and also many Christians (such as myself) who have not closed both their hearts and their minds to the vast mysteries of God's quantum universe (which, in case I need to remind anyone here, constitutes 95% of all matter in the universe, and about which we, as human beings, know almost nothing, which puts us in a most precarious position when we INSIST we're right about how the universe actually works).

 

Personally, I'm not as traditional in my Christian understanding as Burl is, but I support Burl's right to actually BE a Christian on the official Christian forum and not have to put up with this kind of abuse.

 

Not only do I find PaulS's comments about Jesus to be filled with contempt, I also find them to contain multiple factual errors (though that's a topic for a different thread, I suppose).

 

I note, Joseph, that you rushed to protect PaulS when Burl became slightly argumentative, and you disclosed to us your personal position "that [Paul's] belief system has indeed changed rather than using past bias to re-enforce his old beliefs."

 

Since you feel free to tell the rest of us how we should perceive PaulS's belief systems, then I feel free to say that from my personal perspective there has been no change whatsoever in PaulS's anti-theistic belief system.

 

Paul asks us to sympathize with his position. He says above on this thread:

 

 

It shook my world to the deepest core and whilst I could be upset at those people who just think I'm being lazy for not considering their 'evidence' of the 'truth', I really just feel sorry for them that they don't have the comprehension of what insults like that can mean to people who have lived through these changes.

 

Trust me, there were times I wish I could have believed what some people do - it would have made my life a whole lot easier.

 

 

He's made the same statement many times in the past, as well -- that he wishes he could believe what some people do.

 

I see no evidence to back up this statement. PaulS is still an avowed anti-theist and he still has nothing nice to say about those of us who've had personal experiences of God's presence in our lives.

 

I continue to wonder about the motives of the individuals on this site who are perfectly candid about their anti-theism and their contempt for those who are trying to follow the teachings of the man who lived as Jesus. Why? Why do you do this? Why do you think it's okay to spend years on an (ostensibly) Christian site telling us how stupid we are (though I admire the many ways you've found to describe us as stupid without actually using the word stupid)? I know you like to hide behind the idea that you're following some of the humanist tenets that Jesus may have taught, but really, do you honestly think you're showing empathy and love and forgiveness towards people on this site when you say there's no difference between the faith of a loving Christian and the faith of a radical, hate-filled ISIL leader?

 

Why is it okay for the anti-theists to profoundly insult the core faith of the Christians and then call us out and imply it's unfair for them to feel insulted in their own beliefs? Isn't this hypocrisy?

 

Again, why do you do this? Do you really, honestly believe that you, the anti-theists, are the only ones who have ever had your world shaken to the core, the only ones who have the right answers to world-shaking events and the pressures of modern life?

 

I sure hope you're not trying to SAVE us poor ol' demented Christians from the stupidity of our relationship with God, 'cause if you're trying to save us, then you're no different from the fundamentalist preachers you've struggled against and overcome.

 

 

P.S. I'd like to point out that I've been a TCPC member since 2004, and many times I've stepped away from this site for months or even years at a time because I personally believe that endless arguments are not a fruitful way to follow Jesus' teachings. But from time to time I speak up because even Jesus, despite his empathy and his commitment to faith, healing, emotional courage, and relationship with God, was sometimes willing to call a spade a spade.

 

 

Edited for spelling and addition of P.S.

Edited by Realspiritik
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Soma,

 

I enjoyed reading the article you posted above. I found this quote especially relevant: 'The real problem of course is not lack of skepticism in the beliefs of others but skepticism regarding one's own beliefs: as Feynman again memorably put it, "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."'

 

I work very hard, as I think you do, too, to be open to new questions, new problems, and new ways of looking at our relationships with ourselves, with each other, and with God.

 

God bless,

Jen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jen,

 

Generally we say that those who agree with the 8 Points can post in the Progressive Christianity section. Myself, I believe I agree with the 8 points except that for me 'God' isn't a theistic or supernatural being, but rather I regard God as community, human spirit, and our love as human beings which often brings us together. Now clearly that is a different 'God' than what some others believe, so I do try to not always counter 'their' God with 'my' God. But you are right in that I am certainly anti-theist, but I don't see that as incongruent with Progressive Christianity. And I use the term 'anti' in the context not that I am against, but that I don't believe in a theistic God.

 

I'll admit that sometimes I post without thinking enough about the section in which I am posting in. Quite rightly, in this instance, Joseph identified the thread as more akin to 'debate' and properly moved that part of the thread to the debate section. I have no issue with the debate part of my comments, but I do acknowledge that I should have started a separate thread rather than adding my comments where i did.

 

However, you misunderstand my comments as ridicule. Just reading somebody's word without the advantage of face to face expression as well as tone and inflection can do that, I know. However my questions and doubts concerning Jesus 'experience' with life are pretty fair. Jesus really didn't seem to live a life recognisable to many others in the world today. I think it is legitimate to express these thoughts against claims to the contrary that somehow Jesus 'understands' everybody else's life. I can't imagine that being realistic.

 

As for it being abuse - that is just not the case. And whilst there might not be any change in my anti-theist belief system on this site, that is not what Joseph was saying. He was clearly speaking more broadly about my beliefs having moved around over time. You are the one now restricting it to anti-theism.

 

Similarly, you misquote me on wishing to believe what some people do. I'm pretty sure I have always used that in only a 'past' context. That is, I have said often (as I did in my post you discuss) that I often wish 'I could have believed' as some people do. That was in the past when I was in pain. Thankfully that is no longer the case. I certainly wouldn't want to believe just to ease any pain. I would only like to believe if I found the reasons convincing enough to do so. By the way, I'm certainly not seeking any sympathy. Empathy might be a good thing for some to consider, but I'm definitely not looking for sympathy.

 

As for my reasons being here, although they are personal I can tell you that I do not participate here just to tell others they are stupid. And I certainly have no contempt for those who are trying to follow the teachings of the man who lived as Jesus. Indeed, I follow many of those teachings myself, but I consider some teachings attributed to Jesus as not to be his teachings but later interpretation and commentary by others.. And that's not 'hiding behind' anything. That's just the facts that with my beliefs about Jesus' teachings, whilst some may be similar to yours, we may disagree on a number of others.

 

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.

 

You ask "Why is it okay for the anti-theists to profoundly insult the core faith of the Christians and then call us out and imply it's unfair for them to feel insulted in their own beliefs? Isn't this hypocrisy?". Apart from theism or anti-theism not being a factor in the 8 points, how is asking questions or making valid points (to me anyway) questioning some of these beliefs to be regarded as insulting? As I have said above, I should have taken those comments into a debate thread rather than post where i did and to that end I am pleased that Joseph shifted the comments and thread. If an apology is required for that then please know that I am truly sorry I didn't pay enough attention to this site's protocol. It was an error on my part.

I do agree with you that if I was trying to SAVE you poor ol' demented Christians from the stupidity of your relationship with God, then I'd be no different from the fundamentalist preachers I've struggled against and overcome. So of course, I am not trying to change you. As I have said a number of times before, if what you believe doesn't hurt others, then knock yourself out. But I do like debating points for and against sometimes.

 

Of course you have every right to speak up and call a spade a spade but I can tell you that in this case you've picked the wrong type of tool and have mistaken my comments for your interpretation of my comments.

 

Peace and goodwill

Paul.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Spiritual progress has demonstrable effects. Increased socialization and creativity. Humility and concern for others. Decreased worry about self and death. Heighted intuition and understanding. A charismatic and attractive personality. Lots more; all observable by others.

 

Intellectual self satisfaction decreases as one develops new questions, interests and desires. A person who is spiritually dead in the water has all the answers and no questions.

 

When using Google Canada as a search engine, and punching in "clinical implications of spirituality to mental health," a bumper crop of scholarly articles immediately pops one. A 2014 paper that I found helpful (Clinical implications of spirituality to mental health: review of evidence and practical guidelines by A. Moreira-Almeida, H.G. Koenig, and G. Lucchetti) talks about the importance of using clear definitions in these discussions.

 

The authors of the paper point out that some researchers have proposed that spirituality be defined to include "positive psychological constructs such as peacefulness, harmony, meaning, purpose, and satisfaction in life." Moreira-Almeida et al, however, suggest that while spirituality is often related to these psychological constructs, it is not equal to them.

 

They go on to say this:

 

"It seems better to define spirituality as a separate construct, related to the transcendent, the non-material and sacred aspects of existence and the universe. Therefore, the present article will use the following definitions: 1) spirituality: the personal quest for understanding answers to ultimate questions about life, about meaning, and about relationship to the sacred or transcendent, which may (or may not) lead to or arise from the development of religious rituals and the formation of community; 2) religion: an organized system of beliefs, practices, rituals, and symbols designed to facilitate closeness to the sacred or transcendent (God, higher power, or ultimate truth/reality); 3) religiosity: the extent to which an individual believes, follows, and/or practices a religion."

 

 

Although not all researchers who are investigating the overlap between spirituality and mental health would agree with Moreira-Almeida et al's definitions, some do. I personally find that clear, evidence-based definitions such as these can help lessen the amount of conflation and confusion that can take place during discussions about the specific yet different roles that spirituality, religion, and religiosity play in our lives.

 

One aspect of the journey that most people agree about on TCPC is the extent to which religiosity (defined by the Canadian Oxford dictionary as "the condition of being religious or religiose") and the extent to which being religiose (defined by the Canadian Oxford dictionary as "excessively religious") can adversely affect our ability to treat ourselves, each other, and our relationship with God is kind, gentle, healing ways.

 

Our brains are hardwired through System 1 thought processes to seek out relationship to the sacred and the transcendent. We ignore this biological reality at a cost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I think I was typing my post as you were typing yours, so my post just above (#58) was not in response to your most recent post. Just wanted to let you know.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul, I think I was typing my post as you were typing yours, so my post just above (#58) was not in response to your most recent post. Just wanted to let you know.

No problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

For reference only in response to my earlier comment.

 

http://tcpc.ipbhost.com/index.php?/topic/3677-orlando-massacre-pray-against-terrorism/

Edited by PaulS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Paul,

 

This morning, I've been going back through all the Progressive Christianity threads one by one to get a statistical sense of how often you've posted there and exactly what you said. I went back a little over two years. Hey, did you realize you're quite an active poster on the P.C. thread? I counted 20 threads where you made at least one comment, and two more (both started by Burl) where you've been . . . how shall I put this . . . argumentative with Burl.

 

I stopped counting when I got to this comment you posted on a thread called "Revealed Truth vs. Evolving Truth," which was started on 28 March 2015. Here's what you had to say at that time:

 

Overcast,

 

In short, I think if Jesus did exist he was amazingly human, just like any of us are. He may/may not have said certain things which meant a great deal to the people he was speaking to or who developed them later on (bearing in mind the gospels were written decades after Jesus' existence and more than likely not by people who ever actually met Jesus). To question any of this is proper and should not be regarded as criticism (which is how it is instantly heard by those who don't want their security rocked).

 

Regarding the 8 points - I label myself most days as an atheist, but I feel that I fit into the 8 points and don't care that other Christians might say I can't enter their club! :)

 

My interpretation of the 8 points require no 'belief' in a God. I accept that some might believe and that works for them. But to me, God or no God, I can still experience a scaredness, oneness and unity with all because after all, we are all from the same stardust!

 

Much of what is attributed to Jesus makes sense to me as a beneficial way to live, as do many of the words of Buddha and other religous and non-religous greats.

 

So being atheist doesn't preclude anybody from being a PC, IMO anyway.

 

Cheers

Paul

 

So I guess you've justified yourself in a way that works for you.

 

You know . . . you're starting to remind me a lot of the apostle Paul. You've very eloquent and you do seem to relish a hearty debate. But as for aligning yourself with the most challenging of Jesus' teachings (a thinking relationship with Mother Father God (i.e. faith); a focus on the science of healing (i.e. miracles); a rejection of status addiction in all its insidious forms (i.e. rejection of doctrines of chosenness and narcissistic specialness); an insistence on seeing the soul as the best and most beautiful aspect of one's human self (i.e. rejection of a non-Platonic theory of soul); and an insistence on keeping your eyes and ears open at all times for messages from God (i.e. introducing the spiritual practice of listening to your own soul-based intuition)) . . . maybe not so much.

 

But hey . . . I think we can all agree Jesus was probably a nice guy.

 

Well, I'm off to work. Enjoy your day!

 

God bless,

Jen

 

edited for clarity

Edited by Realspiritik
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee, and all I did yesterday was go fishing and later paint a little dinghy that I'm giving to a kindergarten! :)

 

Sorry I get under your skin so much, Jen. It is not intentional. I enjoy being on this forum. I do enjoy vigorous debate, I do carry baggage from fundamental Christianity that sometimes encourages me to debate people who might still promote such views, and I definitely like engaging people here who are more than happy to tell others that they have all the answers.

 

I have views but I most often admit that they might not be right, but they are how I see things (at that time anyway).

 

I do appreciate you pointing out the 20 or so times I have posted in the PC and the two times I have been argumentative with Burl. Being a progressive Christian myself and a moderator I am not surprised I am an active poster in the PC thread of this forum. I check this forum most days and I read all posts as part of my responsibilities as moderator (along with deleting spam, porn, and other useless and harmful posts that mostly don't get as far as the members).

 

I intend to pay much more attention to reminding myself that that section of the forum is a place for people to express their progressive Christian views without intending to debate them. That should be reserved for newly created threads in the Debate section.

 

Peace and goodwill.

Paul

 

Edited for spelling, grammatical corrections, things that I thought of later, and rewording of things I first typed. :)

Edited by PaulS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jen,

 

I think we have had enough of personal attacks. You don't have to agree with Paul's view, his apology or any others view or the way Admin runs this forum but you will keep your remarks limited to your views, why you disagree with another view, or why you agree without targeting the person as in Post #73, and other posts in this thread. If you have any complaints with this forum or its leadership, enter them in the complaints section and lets keep debates on the subject rather than on criticizing a particular person. Enough said as you have been warned in private before. Type of Posts not welcome here.

JosephM (as Admin)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×