Do you believe in God?

[Enters Laughing]

You're asking me to repeat myself

If someone spoke like you IRL to a person i'd say it's wrong, you can say it's not IR or something else, I don't like to see this and i've never seen this from EII so it's all strange and it's up to you,

I am raising the matter of the "Maritsan methodology" with her. She is obviously convinced of its correctness, so if she has an issue with the way her pupils use it, it would be good if she say why. This is an intellectual debate (in the sense that ideas are being discussed, on a relevant forum, and that each of us are talking to each, whether directly or indirectly).

I find it peculiar that you do not consider Maritsa behaviour to be similarly intentionally hurtful, especially considering she is prolonging the alleged conflict in a manner that she claimed was unacceptable when I do it. You will note her typing of me as a "Sensory realist" and a SEE in this thread, despite neither of them being directly relevant to to the thread being discussed (this is especially inexplicable, because I asked her for evidence of things that cannot be observed...why SEEs would be especially knowledgeable about such things I do not know).

Further, her behaviour towards others in the past has been absolutely abhorrent (especially of self-typed EIIs and Deltas), and a normal human being would know that the behaviour was intentionally hurtful: I certainly believe Maritsa knew this, especially if she has claimed as such when lesser alleged grievances happen to her. I also do not see how a person cannot see the blanket description of whole groups of people (which at times, has essentially been all non-EIIs...which is essentially, everybody other than herself) as "immoral", based on their percieved personality type. This is especially outrageous considering that Maritsa makes attribution of personality types based on phrenology.

I suggest that if you seriously have a problem with my behaviour that you report it, because it would certainly be interesting to have my deviances weighed with those of Maritsa's.

[Beautiful sky]

I am raising the matter of the "Maritsan methodology" with her. She is obviously convinced of its correctness, so if she has an issue with the way her pupils use it, it would be good if she say why. This is an intellectual debate (in the sense that ideas are being discussed, on a relevant forum, and that each of us are talking to each, whether directly or indirectly).

I find it peculiar that you do not consider Maritsa behaviour to be similarly intentionally hurtful, especially considering she is prolonging the alleged conflict in a manner that she claimed was unacceptable when I do it. You will note her typing of me as a "Sensory realist" and a SEE in this thread, despite neither of them being directly relevant to to the thread being discussed (this is especially inexplicable, because I asked her for evidence of things that cannot be observed...why SEEs would be especially knowledgeable about such things I do not know).

Further, her behaviour towards others in the past has been absolutely abhorrent (especially of self-typed EIIs and Deltas), and a normal human being would know that the behaviour was intentionally hurtful: I certainly believe Maritsa knew this, especially if she has claimed as such when lesser alleged grievances happen to her. I also do not see how a person cannot see the blanket description of whole groups of people (which at times, has essentially been all non-EIIs...which is essentially, everybody other than herself) as "immoral", based on their percieved personality type. This is especially outrageous considering that Maritsa makes attribution of personality types based on phrenology.

I suggest that if you seriously have a problem with my behaviour that you report it, because it would certainly be interesting to have my deviances weighed with those of Maritsa's.

When LSE says something smiling the want to keep it friendly and peaceful. Light hearted way.

[Enters Laughing]

Certain phenomenon that doesn't make sense fits that bill. Like there might be a 4th dimension but we lack certain things to tell for sure.

I would say such phenomena are by definition observed evidence, and that something being currently inexplicable would not be evidence of something we can never observed.

[Enters Laughing]

When LSE says something smiling the want to keep it friendly and peaceful. Light hearted way.

What use is this for typing via visual identification? Is it falsifiable? Is it something that has empirical research to back it up? Why should such impressions be considered more useful for example than self-typing via tests?

[QuickTwist]

I would say such phenomena are by definition observed evidence, and that something being currently inexplicable would not be evidence of something we can never observed.

I think we just have a little bit different interpretations of what phenomena mean. I am talking about observations that you can't make sense out of.

[Beautiful sky]

Morals help us treat people with kindness.

[Enters Laughing]

I think we just have a little bit different interpretations of what phenomena mean. I am talking about observations that you can't make sense out of.

But what would be an observation that was not in itself evidence, regardless of whether it was "explained"? (There cannot be things that are unobserved AND unexplained, because why would you have something unexplained that you have not observed?)

I do understand by what you mean by extra dimensions possibly existing...perhaps as a way of explaining phenomena for which the causes cannot be explicitly explained, but that supposition is not evidence for something which has not been observed. The scientific process necessarily considers all possible explanations based on previously observed phenomena (although I would say that "evidence of unobservable things" is necessarily oxymoronic without needing to mention this).

[Enters Laughing]

Morals help us treat people with kindness.

If that is how you define morals. There is no virtue in morals for morals sake.

[QuickTwist]

But what would be an observation that was not in itself evidence, regardless of whether it was "explained"? (There cannot be things that are unobserved AND unexplained, because why would you have something unexplained that you have not observed?)

I do understand by what you mean by extra dimensions possibly existing...perhaps as a way of explaining phenomena for which the causes cannot be explicitly explained, but that supposition is not evidence for something which has not been observed. The scientific process necessarily considers all possible explanations based on previously observed phenomena (although I would say that "evidence of unobservable things" is necessarily oxymoronic without needing to mention this).

This is a little tricky, let me try to explain. it depends on the methods used. Sometimes observing before making a hypothesis or explanation is the way things work and sometimes coming up with explanation comes before observation ie, theory.

There is not observable evidence in the 4th dimension, something that we only knew by theory before. other times, like with psychology, an observation comes before a theory.

Make sense?

As an aside I think explaining or theory that comes first is more intuitive and a sign of generally more intelligence. But that is personal opinion. I believe it is more primitive to come up with observations first and then give meaning to them rather than vis versa.

[Aylen]

If that is how you define morals. There is no virtue in morals for morals sake.

I do not associate morals with kindness since that is often taught as good manners. A psycho without any morals (good or bad) could be very kind to others. I am not sure if I believe they are intrinsic in human beings either since it is mostly taught. I do believe that most people have a conscience that guides them when it comes to what is right and wrong but I am reluctant to categorize it as morals which implies "good". I have taken that stance to only have someone I thought was a "good and moral" person, because they claimed to be a good Christian, turn around and screw me worse than someone many people considered a "bad" person. The lines get blurry when the one considered moral is not a good person and the one considered immoral is not the bad person. I think perhaps we are born amoral in a sense so it is a combination of nature, nurture, and sometimes conscious choice.

I am sure some people assume if you do not meet their standards of what morality is then you are not a moral person and it doesn't matter if you pay the bills of 1000 war widows, and give random underprivileged kids fully paid university scholarships, anonymously. They will just judge you by their idea of what is moral and right which has more to do with proper conduct, I suppose, and nothing of an inborn nature. I am thinking of the show "Lucifer" as I write this. lol The devil is actually a great guy in that show but he doesn't really know it yet.

Based on characters created by Neil Gaiman, Sam Kieth and Mike Dringenberg, this series follows Lucifer, the original fallen angel, who has become dissatisfied with his life in hell. After abandoning his throne and retiring to Los Angeles, Lucifer indulges in his favorite things (women, wine and song) -- until a murder takes place outside of his upscale nightclub. For the first time in billions of years, the murder awakens something unfamiliar in Lucifier's soul that is eerily similar to compassion and sympathy. Lucifer is faced with another surprise when he meets an intriguing homicide detective named Chloe, who appears to possess an inherent goodness -- unlike the worst of humanity, to which he is accustomed. Suddenly, Lucifer starts to wonder if there is hope for his soul.

You could say I have sympathy for this devil.

Criteria[edit]

David Lewis offered a list of criteria that should condense the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic properties (numbers and italics added):^[1]

1. A sentence or statement or proposition that ascribes intrinsic properties to something is entirely about that thing; whereas an ascription of extrinsic properties to something is not entirely about that thing, though it may well be about some larger whole which includes that thing as part.
2. A thing has its intrinsic properties in virtue of the way that thing itself, and nothing else, is. Not so for extrinsic properties, though a thing may well have these in virtue of the way some larger whole is.
3. The intrinsic properties of something depend only on that thing; whereas the extrinsic properties of something may depend, wholly or partly, on something else.
4. If something has an intrinsic property, then so does any perfect duplicate of that thing; whereas duplicates situated in different surroundings will differ in their extrinsic properties.

Value

Intrinsic properties are fundamental in understanding Kantian deontological ethics, which is based upon the argument that an action should be viewed on its intrinsic value (the value of the action in itself) with regard to ethics and morality, as opposed to consequentialist utilitarian arguments that an action should be viewed by the value of its outcomes.

Intrinsicism and extrinsicism

Intrinsicism

Intrinsicism is the belief that value is a non-relational characteristic of an object. This means that an object can be valuable or not, good or bad, without reference to who it is good or bad for, and without reference to the reason it is good or bad. One example of this might be the belief that certain sex acts are intrinsically evil, even if they harm no one.^[2]

Extrinsicism

Extrinsicism is the tendency to place major emphasis on external matters rather than on more profound realities. In terms of morals and ethics, it tends to stress the external observance of laws and precepts, with lesser concern for the ultimate principles underlying moral conduct.^[3]

Human amorality[edit]

Human morality appears in adults and even children from a young age. However, some humans may be considered amoral. There is some debate as to whether the infant human being develops a moral sense—is moral education cultivated (from within) or implanted (from without)?

• Young humans
  
  • Newborn human infants, like some animals, do not display any sense of empathy with their fellow creatures, nor answerability to obligation, nor guilt or remorse.
  
  
• Cognitive disorders
  
  • Cognitive disorders and psychopathologies like antisocial personality disorder may be examples of human beings without morality.
  
  
• Rejection of morality
  
  • Philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche argue further that rational human adults may even be able to choose to be amoral by rejecting the morality. If morality is bad, then it should be discarded. Yet if morality is bad, even asserting that it is bad invokes a kind of morality. Therefore, the truly amoral argument would reject morality for non-moral reasons.

Humans may discard codes or systems of morality that have been purely socially constructed by their native cultures. If a rational human being can in any way override the capacity to establish notions of right and wrong, it is arguable that human beings have the ability to become amoral.

• Suspension of morality
  
  • At times human beings willingly suspend consideration of moral values, although in a limited domain. For instance, a lawyer may choose to be amoral with regard to his client in order to avoid judging his client's guilt or innocence before the trial is complete. This is different from a complete rejection of morality if the lawyer continues to abide by moral laws and take into account moral considerations when he is out of the courtroom.

Maybe I am naive but I see the "good" in people more than I see the "bad" but my idea of good and bad might not pass the delta morals test. Is there a delta morals test? Seriously, I want to know.

[QuickTwist]

This is a little tricky, let me try to explain. it depends on the methods used. Sometimes observing before making a hypothesis or explanation is the way things work and sometimes coming up with explanation comes before observation ie, theory.

There is now observable evidence in the 4th dimension, something that we only knew by theory before. other times, like with psychology, an observation comes before a theory.

Make sense?

As an aside I think explaining or theory that comes first is more intuitive and a sign of generally more intelligence. But that is personal opinion. I believe it is more primitive to come up with observations first and then give meaning to them rather than vis versa.

EB***

[Enters Laughing]

This is a little tricky, let me try to explain. it depends on the methods used. Sometimes observing before making a hypothesis or explanation is the way things work and sometimes coming up with explanation comes before observation ie, theory.

There is not observable evidence in the 4th dimension, something that we only knew by theory before. other times, like with psychology, an observation comes before a theory.

Make sense?

As an aside I think explaining or theory that comes first is more intuitive and a sign of generally more intelligence. But that is personal opinion. I believe it is more primitive to come up with observations first and then give meaning to them rather than vis versa.

Hmm, I don't believe "hypothesis" and "theory" are really distinguishable from each other. At their root, they should be based on observations. I think even in the case of extrapolation..or hunches, there is never the supposition that there is something inherently unobservable at work. That would not be falsifiable.

[QuickTwist]

Hmm, I don't believe "hypothesis" and "theory" are really distinguishable from each other. At their root, they should be based on observations. I think even in the case of extrapolation..or hunches, there is never the supposition that there is something inherently unobservable at work. That would not be falsifiable.

I said that completely wrong, sorry. I agree that a hypothesis is in effect a theory.

Perhaps you are correct that whenever an explanation is made that it is based on some kind of info. If that's the case I will change it to consciously observable. I guess what I am really trying to say (and gets totally lost in the obfuscation) is that some people make observations first and explanations later and some people vise versa. Do you get what I am saying here or is it still unclear?

[Enters Laughing]

I do not associate morals with kindness since that is often taught as good manners. A psycho without any morals (good or bad) could be very kind to others. I am not sure if I believe they are intrinsic in human beings either since it is mostly taught. I do believe that most people have a conscience that guides them when it comes to what is right and wrong but I am reluctant to categorize it as morals which implies "good". I have taken that stance to only have someone I thought was a "good and moral" person, because they claimed to be a good Christian, turn around and screw me worse than someone many people considered a "bad" person. The lines get blurry when the one considered moral is not a good person and the one considered immoral is not the bad person. I think perhaps we are born amoral in a sense so it is a combination of nature, nurture, and sometimes conscious choice.

I am sure some people assume if you do not meet their standards of what morality is then you are not a moral person and it doesn't matter if you pay the bills of 1000 war widows, and give random underprivileged kids fully paid university scholarships, anonymously. They will just judge you by their idea of what is moral and right which has more to do with proper conduct, I suppose, and nothing of an inborn nature. I am thinking of the show "Lucifer" as I write this. lol The devil is actually a great guy in that show but he doesn't really know it yet.



You could say I have sympathy for this devil.

Maybe I am naive but I see the "good" in people more than I see the "bad" but my idea of good and bad might not pass the delta morals test. Is there a delta morals test? Seriously, I want to know.

even LaVeyan Satanism has "morals", so saying that morals make us good, or that morals teach all humans to treat each other with respect is completely empty. It says nothing. It would be better to focus on what your "morals" actually are, and why you do them, rather than say "I am moral" etc.

My view is that genuine, unselfish altruistic behaviour exists, but do not consider this to be an especially important realisation. I think in cases of "anonymous" acts of altruism, the act could still be selfish, in a Darwinian/Dawkinsian sense, because it may give you a boost to self-esteem, or perhaps, you feel that there would be an exponentially increased effect to your social standing should your act be discovered (other people react more positively to something apparently done completely altruistically). There is also the explanation that such an act of improving the lot of others, will also indirectly improve your own life. those who believe in god of course can never do an altruistic act anonymously, in their view, although atheists certainly could.

I've read/seen etc. instances where individuals have carried out altruistic acts that it is difficult to see as anything other than genuine and pure altruism, where they had no obvious immediate gain to themselves or perhaps where they were unlikely to see the outcome of their actions. There have been many instances where individuals have acted very much in the moment, on instinct: you could say such actions were not "truly" altruistic, because they were subconscious actions ...but I like to think in such cases, there is at least the briefest of moments where the individual thinks "this is the right thing to do..." ...I think individuals in general would find it unconscionable if the failure to carry out a minor act on their part led to some "bad" happening, or prevented some great "good". But as I say, I do not consider the exact reasoning (if any) to be important. It is merely enough that people know what is the right thing to do.

[Enters Laughing]

I said that completely wrong, sorry. I agree that a hypothesis is in effect a theory.

Perhaps you are correct that whenever an explanation is made that it is based on some kind of info. If that's the case I will change it to consciously observable. I guess what I am really trying to say (and gets totally lost in the obfuscation) is that some people make observations first and explanations later and some people vise versa. Do you get what I am saying here or is it still unclear?

yes, I get that point. I actually think that is a normal behaviour that all humans do.

My initial contention was with Maritsa saying "There's a lot that we can't see.": I consider that purely a matter of faith, and something that can never be proven via evidence (presuming that "see" = "observe", which it should, given the nature of the thread).

[QuickTwist]

yes, I get that point. I actually think that is a normal behaviour that all humans do.

My initial contention was with Maritsa saying "There's a lot that we can't see.": I consider that purely a matter of faith, and something that can never be proven via evidence (presuming that "see" = "observe", which it should, given the nature of the thread).

I like to think we don't actually know much... it would be one thing if stuff like Albert Einstein's theory of relativity was utterly rock solid, but it isn't as seen in some new string theories and equations of quantum mechanics.

[Enters Laughing]

It's a quadra thing so you wouldn't understand.

Try talking to Gammas and leave the Deltas alone thanks.

I would suggest you follow your own Words of Wisdom.

[Enters Laughing]

I am done talking with you, you are just a little boy on the internet. I cant see that of course because I can't see you, but I realised this and i'll remind myself of this and stay away from you. I'd ask you to not address me again but I see that fails - I've seen it with Maritsa. I would prefer if you didn't type yourself EII, but it's your choice it's only a forum, although it confuses so many people.

I have already reported you previously for harassing Maritsa. For instance on QuickTwists typing thread you posted with no inclination towards the users type, but simply to start an argument with Maritsa then asking for it to be derailed. That's not the type of behavior I associate with.

But i'll try incase it gets to moderation stage - please do not speak to me or address me or quote me again, I find you are relentless, harassing and far too harsh.

I have posted on several occasions that I do not trust my own objectivity when typing people, especially people I do not know very well. I suggested that QuickTwist take tests, for example, the most recent one I made, as I considered this the most useful approach for him finding his type as a new member to the forum. If you look at the first post in the thread for the latest edition of my test, you will note that it actually states that I consider the test the most objective way of "me" typing a person I do not know. In QuickTwist's thread, I also voiced my view that VI and the Reinin dichotomies are unhelpful: this is my personal view of two approaches to typing that many have used, and has nothing to do with making an argument with Maritsa. You also apparently unaware of discussions I have had with QuickTwist in the chatbox, although based on past performance, I would not put it past you to ignore facts when attacking people.

It is clear based on what you posted here and in other threads that you have a vendetta against me and other people. That is just on your latest sockpuppet account.

On your permabanned accounts, you frequently harassed people, via the forum, and via PMs, even when you were told to stop. You also harassed Maritsa most horribly, so your hypocrisy is especially boundless. I suggest you limit yourself to areas where you are still respected.

[Beautiful sky]

I have posted on several occasions that I do not trust my own objectivity when typing people, especially people I do not know very well. I suggested that QuickTwist take tests, for example, the most recent one I made, as I considered this the most useful approach for him finding his type as a new member to the forum. If you look at the first post in the thread for the latest edition of my test, you will note that it actually states that I consider the test the most objective way of "me" typing a person I do not know. In QuickTwist's thread, I also voiced my view that VI and the Reinin dichotomies are unhelpful: this is my personal view of two approaches to typing that many have used, and has nothing to do with making an argument with Maritsa. You also apparently unaware of discussions I have had with QuickTwist in the chatbox, although based on past performance, I would not put it past you to ignore facts when attacking people.

It is clear based on what you posted here and in other threads that you have a vendetta against me and other people. That is just on your latest sockpuppet account.

On your permabanned accounts, you frequently harassed people, via the forum, and via PMs, even when you were told to stop. You also harassed Maritsa most horribly, so your hypocrisy is especially boundless. I suggest you limit yourself to areas where you are still respected.

He never harassed me.

[Enters Laughing]

He never harassed me.

I don't think this member is coming back. ..lesson learned about lse swings sudden abandonment

Have you ever been at receiving end of restraining order

No why?

Like you locking onto this new forum member if you are like that IRL I know lots of people who rightfully see it as stalking and unwelcoming is why.

Take this example. Both my sister and I are visiting my father who is bed ridden at the hospital and on morphine for extreme pain. While I remain quiet and listen to my father attentively as he tells me "honey, I can't stand this pain any more, I don't know what's going to happen to me." I listen without any further emotional output or expectation than rubbing his shoulder and saying "I know dad, I'm working closely with the doctors to see what we can do." I provide reassurance and a breath of hope; my sister reacts and cries saying how she's feeling about dad being so bad. I feel bad too, but I don't get into emotional hysterics at least I don't let my dad see that as a proof of how I feel. I toughen up and I am that person's compress. I'm not there for my own proof of emotions. My sister tries to stir the pot and make him laugh or aggravate him by saying "we'll just cut your foot off…" and whatever any other shit she can say that will get him to get mad or react. I use my calming emotions to be a compress she uses hers to liven him up rattle him up.

Because Fi remains quiet and feels while Fe is too busy stirring the pot to get people showing emotions. I hug and tenderly touch while feeling the pain of my father so that he won't get mad while he's in pain about how my sister jokes to lighten the situation. I sit next to him and he says "honey it hurts and I haven't slept all night" and I can say I know dad I'm hereand I'm asking the nurses to make sure that you get your meds on time. I offer better reassuance

Maritsa I think this is a wonderful thing.

It is interesting because i remember when I used to go on TC a little and you would always burst into tears or create a drama scene, your favourite target was Ashton. So please don't say you are a calm one or is your Fi malfunctioned?

I cried when Ashton was around because I tried hard to communicate my needs despite him cursing at me endlessly and how bad he used to make me feel. My bf has observed that the miscommunication created by myself and my activity relations brings me to rage, a state that is uncomfortable and out of the ordinary for me. He recently took steps in cutting a relations between myself an an activity who was using me and who resorted to insults to make me feel bad about who I was and what I was doing. I quickly returned to my calm and serene state and feel good now. Ashton and I have no place in one room together ever.

Is it possible for you to go OH WAIT I SEE WHAT YOU MEAN I AM WRONG. Maritsa you were crying and screaming and all sorts, so what you say about Fi not Crying or Not Screaming or Not Having Histrionics is nonesense. I think you just want to be right all the time which is a very unattractive quality regardless of type.

Words you're equating my reaction in two separate situations. Why do you want it to be all the same? If you find it unattractive then don't talk to me. I don't talk to people who have qualities that don't appeal to me. Why would I? You want to change me, go change yourself.

I don't understand why you're telling me this. I don't really care what you do. I know what I do and what my sister does. she and I are total extremes in the opposite directions. While she cries and gets hysterical and loudly, I pull myself aside and am too closed in.

If you've nothing positive to say, if you can't spare a moment to listen to someone talking about a clearly emotionally important issue with nothing positive to say, why take the time to say anything, why not just say nothing? I don't get this lack of common decency amongst those who espouse to have such values in abundance.

i would love to have you leave me alone. She upsets me. When someone upsets you don't you get upset? Mr Nice guy?

You have called far less than this harassment.

[Beautiful sky]

You have called far less than this harassment.

Words is not yen

[Enters Laughing]

Words is not yen

Yes he is.

[Skepsis]

I only wish I could say with confidence that I have the answers as to whether God, or a god(s), exists or not. I do not. I do not see any evidence for a personal God, and more specifically the Christian god; one that answers prayers and suspends the laws of physics to perform miracles. That allows me to just say that I don't think that kind of a god exists. I don't know for sure, but I don't think anyone can really "know" such a thing anyways.

While I think the question of whether god exists or not is pretty innocuous and can be very compatible with a sense of awe and wonder, it is when people take the question and answer it with dogmatic certainty that probably bothers me the most. I prefer knowledge that is based on reason and empiricism over revealed knowledge mostly because I distrust people who claim some sort of revealed knowledge, knowledge that only they have access to. A claim to receiving revealed knowledge seems to be a very egocentric claim which people try and use to give themselves special privileges over other people. Otherwise, why the insistence? It seems to be more about power than about truth.

I think we have as close to what we can call objective knowledge through the philosophy of science. Individuals may possess different kinds of knowledge that may be true to some degree but can never be proven because it is not testable. It may be knowledge about the objective world, and may be true, but how does one prove it to other people when there isn't an objective means to collaborate? When this occurs, we should withhold judgement until more information comes to light.

[Beautiful sky]

Yes he is.

Doesn't seem like it. Judging from the outlook on their values And how they were expressed the come through differently.

[Enters Laughing]

Doesn't seem like it. Judging from the outlook on their values And how they were expressed the come through differently.

They both had many similarities in their behaviour that were apparent even when there was a prolonged effort to hide them.

[Beautiful sky]

They both had many similarities in their behaviour that were apparent even when there was a prolonged effort to hide them.

They don't. Words was not as congenital

[Enters Laughing]

They don't. Words was not as congenital

Do you mean "congenial"?

Sure, if an individual is permabanned and cannot give up being on the forum, it is in their interest to not act as abominably as before. However, it is difficult for such individuals to act comparatively agreeable for long.

[SongOfSapphire]

I think it's interesting how most of the conversation on religion here has centered on Christian theology/mythology. No Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, etc.

Also, someone posted this kn FB this morning, and I found it worth a share hereimage.jpeg

[applejacks]

An excerpt from CS Lewis' essay The Weight of Glory. I've skipped around a bit, but it summarizes his point:

"I am trying to rip open the inconsolable secret in each one of you-- the secret which hurts so much that you take your revenge on it by calling it names like Nostalgia and Romanticism and Adolescence... the secret we cannot hide and cannot tell, though we desire to do both. We cannot tell it because it is a desire for something that has never actually appeared in our experience. We cannot hide it because our experience is constantly suggesting it.... Our commonest expedient is to call it beauty, and behave as if that had settled the matter.

The books or the music in which we thought the beauty was located will betray us if we trust to them; it was not in them, it only came through them, and what came through them was longing. These things-- the beauty, the memory of our own past-- are good images of what we really desire; but if they are mistaken for the thing itself, they turn into dumb idols, breaking the hearts of their worshippers.

We notice this the moment a vision dies away, as the music ends, or as the landscape loses the celestial light. What we feel then has been well described by Keats as "the journey homeward to habitual self." You know what I mean. For a few minutes we have had the illusion of belonging to that beauty, that world. Now we wake to find that it is no such thing. We have been mere spectators. Beauty has smiled, but not to welcome us; her face was turned in our direction, but not to see us. We have not been accepted, welcomed, or taken into the dance. We may go when we please, we may stay if we can, but "nobody marks us."

A scientist may reply that since most of the things we call beautiful are inanimate, it is not very surprising that they take no notice of us. That, of course, is true. It is not the physical objects that I am speaking of, but that indescribable something of which they become for a moment the messengers.

We should hardly dare to ask that any notice be taken of ourselves. But we pine. The sense that in this universe we are treated as strangers to this beauty, the longing to be acknowledged, to meet with some response, to bridge some chasm that yawns between us and reality, is part of our inconsolable secret. And surely, from this point of view, the promise of glory becomes highly relevant to our deep desire.

For glory means good report with God, acceptance by God, response, acknowledgement, and welcome into the heart of things. The door on which we have been knocking all our lives will open at last.

Paul promises in the New Testament that those who love God shall be known by Him... and at last to be summoned inside would be both glory and honor beyond all our merits and also the healing of that old ache. "

[End]

I think it's interesting how most of the conversation on religion here has centered on Christian theology/mythology. No Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, etc.

To be exceedingly blunt most of the people on this forum, indeed most of anyone who'd even be interested in its contents, are westerners. The major religion in the west is Christianity. Like it or not, the majority of the people will have thus had a "Christian" experience of spirituality. Thus, the bias. You are surrounded by Christians, ergo you will approach things from a Christian standard whether you try to or not.

However, while I myself may be a Christian I do have an interesting insight into the Buddhist viewpoint. I think the Buddha discovered an interesting hack with his whole Nirvana thing. If you desire nothing then you are in a state equivalent with having everything you could possibly desire. You can never have everything you desire as, once one desire is fulfilled another will inevitably take its place. Yet, it isn't beyond the realm of conceiveability to rid oneself of any and all desires. This state would be static as it, by definition, prevents the feedback loop of one desire leading to another. Thus, you achieve Nirvana. You enter into heavenly bliss by eliminating all earthly desires. You even break the cycle of reincarnation if ya pull it off. After that things get more messy as there isn't exactly a uniform agreement within those sects as to what happens to you and what agency you have after you reach the goal but it is an interesting little hack he discovered IMO .

[End]

I am a new Christian (I guess you could say I was more agnostic before I found God), but I still hold close a lot of Buddhist philosophies, stand behind science and have a lot of liberal views on things, such as sexuality.

I'm pretty liberal in that regard as well, but I draw the line at secret affairs. If you want an "open" relationship you had better make that apparent on the first date. Same thing for if you're going for a traditional monogamous relationship. Neither of you are getting any younger, and if ya ain't mature enough to know what exactly you want out of a romantic partner then you probably shouldn't be "experimenting" to find out. I mean hell, if ya don't follow this advice and sleep around behind your partner's back you'll probably get an STD and pass it on to said partner (and god knows who else). I'm pretty sure that's not a good thing...

[Enters Laughing]

I think it's interesting how most of the conversation on religion here has centered on Christian theology/mythology. No Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, etc, etc.

Also, someone posted this kn FB this morning, and I found it worth a share hereimage.jpeg

I could argue somewhat on Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism, although in the case of Islam, it is basically a corrupted form of Judaism with even weaker arguments and being more evil than Christianity. I would only be continuing my view that there is no evidence of the supernatural, regardless of the religion though: whether those religions have something of value is another matter altogether however!

[End]

I was talking about homosexuality, which I think is okay. Yes, cheating and betrayal is horrible.

My bad for misunderstanding then. However, my stance is the same as it is on damn near anything. God has a plan, and you're a fool if you think you know what it is and how it will play out as things move forward. If the gays are bad and doomed to suffer in hell then they're destined for a painful and horrible demise. Said demise will not have you or any other human actor carrying it out because of some booming voice telling a bunch of people to kill em' nice and slow. God's got a flair for the dramatic, parting seas, flaming hail, a friggin' dude returning to life after dying in front of a crowd after a torture session only the most hardcore of masochists could ever find enjoyable, the man's got a reputation people. Ergo, just sit back, relax, crack open a beer, and wait for that judgement day which probably won't happen within our lifetime.

Anyone who argues otherwise has both a mental disorder and a stick so far up their ass that I don't even have to wait around for the X-Ray to confirm the problem. It's just like how I hate eugenicists. We don't need death camps, we only need to remove the warning labels from dangerous products and instead replace them with exceedingly accurate ingredient lists. People like me (i.e. smart people) already know when you probably should run away from a given substance if certain ingredients are involved. You won't find any Chemists anywhere near a FOOF factory if ya catch my meaning. You need to have a high IQ to even know what FOOF is, let alone why it being manufactured should scare you right down to your very soul so hard that you'd like to put at least a state or two between you and the factory's operation...

[Aylen]

[Aylen]

You have called far less than this harassment.

*any depictions of Jesus are allegorical. Meant to represent my experience with a type of person and not any "messiah".

My aunt used to say something similar when I locked my bedroom door.

[Nicovali]

I recognize an original singularity or primum mobile but I do not call it divine, I do not worship it, but I (try to) recognize its presence in and effect on everything.

I'm not sure how to answer the poll. Do I believe in God(s)? I believe in their symbolism.

[Aylen]

"Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship because they depend upon separating the “saved” from the “damned,” the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group. . . . All belief is fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty."

~Alan Watts

"There was never a time when the world began, because it goes
round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it
begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the
world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of the
watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night,
waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can't
have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn't be able to
know what black is unless you had seen it side-by-side with white, or
white unless side-by-side with black.

"In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when
it isn't, for if the world went on and on without rest for ever and ever, it
would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it;
now you don't. So because it doesn't get tired of itself, it always comes
back again after it disappears. It's like your breath: it goes in and out, in
and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It's also
like the game of hide-and-seek, because it's always fun to find new
ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn't always hide in the
same place..

"God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing
outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over
this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of
hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people
in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the
stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of
which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams,
for when he wakes up they will disappear."
.
--Alan Watts (1966) The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, Pantheon Books.

[Aylen]

[Enters Laughing]

"Religions are divisive and quarrelsome. They are a form of one-upmanship because they depend upon separating the “saved” from the “damned,” the true believers from the heretics, the in-group from the out-group. . . . All belief is fervent hope, and thus a cover-up for doubt and uncertainty."

~Alan Watts

"There was never a time when the world began, because it goes
round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it
begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the
world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of the
watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night,
waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can't
have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn't be able to
know what black is unless you had seen it side-by-side with white, or
white unless side-by-side with black.

"In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when
it isn't, for if the world went on and on without rest for ever and ever, it
would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it;
now you don't. So because it doesn't get tired of itself, it always comes
back again after it disappears. It's like your breath: it goes in and out, in
and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It's also
like the game of hide-and-seek, because it's always fun to find new
ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn't always hide in the
same place..

"God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing
outside God, he has no one but himself to play with. But he gets over
this difficulty by pretending that he is not himself. This is his way of
hiding from himself. He pretends that he is you and I and all the people
in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the
stars. In this way he has strange and wonderful adventures, some of
which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams,
for when he wakes up they will disappear."
.
--Alan Watts (1966) The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are, Pantheon Books.

Yes, I do wonder why such a high value is placed on the question "Do you believe in god/the supernatural etc.?" The answer has no effect on the material world (all that exists), nor should it affect the way you live your life. Why should it?

[andreasdevig]

I have no problem with you dismissing supernatural claims since you have shown understanding and consideration when I have stated my subjective understanding of what I have experienced as supernatural. Even if you are skeptical or find it silly. I see no reason why that would point away from you being EII as it is explicitly stated in the EII description that EII are more likely to outright dismiss such claims as silly, unless they pertain to a specific religion the EII follows. Intuition is not "all knowing" in anyone, except me.

I don't relate to that part of EII at all. I'm basically the opposite. I try to stay open-minded to many different ideas (incl. supernatural/spiritual ones) (I thought this was an Ne thing?), except if it's part of the Abrahamic religions. I tend to dismiss the Abrahamic religions, as I view them as silly, illogical and of course immoral.