Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

End, maybe this will shed some light on these matters:

 

"The goal of ultrasonic energy is to plant the seeds of flow rather than delusion. Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is being. Energy is the richness of flow, and of us. You must take a stand against yearning.

Where there is illusion, chi cannot thrive. Only a visitor of the cosmos may release this unifying of grace. The complexity of the present time seems to demand an ennobling of our chakras if we are going to survive.

 

We must develop ourselves and enlighten others. The future will be a cosmic blossoming of self-actualization. Soon there will be a redefining of purpose the likes of which the cosmos has never seen.

We are being called to explore the totality itself as an interface between faith and nature. It is a sign of things to come. It is time to take healing to the next level.

Through alternative medicine, our bodies are engulfed in hope. Astrology may be the solution to what’s holding you back from a magnificent current of passion.  It can be difficult to know where to begin. Although you may not realize it, you are sublime. Have you found your myth?" 

Then again, maybe it won't.

As I recall, you thought it curious that someone bit a piece of the turd before. I find that pretty much fits with people hearing in their own language and understanding. Given that we would WANT to, I'm sure we could dissect this latest "piece" and have people respond with "THAT'S IT!".

 

Lol, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say.

 

Maybe I will start my own BS generator site....www.wordsaladbs.com

 

I'd say you are well qualified to do that

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Ah... so now we know what End3's 'right answer' is.

Yep, until I get spagetified in a passing black hole...

 

 

So how long has this been your 'right answer', End?

 

I don't know specifically. It changes over time with experience and knowledge. You and I have already had a conversation about salvation being a process...

 

 

Yes, I wondered about the changeability of your views.

 

Not so long ago you were 'pushing' the idea that science could test for God and that sin could be detected by scientific means.

 

But now... "science can't tell me the right answer".

.

.

.

[Guest end3]

 

It's not difficult. My view of God is that He is seen through relationships, i.e. communing with others. The object being, acquiring the wisdom, or logos, to provide others the quality we define as life and love. Given we are within creation, and created, the only option we have for providing others with this information is by faith, specifically in that One who brought it, Jesus.

It might be interesting to drill-down into different parts of your belief to see if it makes sense.

 

For instance "My view of God is that He is seen through relationships".

- Do you mean God is an emergent property of relationship in physical systems (like a universal consciousness or pantheism or panentheism)?

- Do you mean studying the relationships in the physical systems shows the design goals of God (like deism)?

- Do you mean getting to know another human (as opposed to an animal) tells us something about God?

 

I bet it would take some time to explain all of what you said, but it would be interesting.

 

All fun questions. I will ponder them and see if my view hold water. Thanks D.

[sdelsolray]

 

 

The interesting thing is Sagan can say we are all "starstuff" and everyone will lose their panties for that one.... Seems rather double-standardy to me.

 

Fuck Carl Sagan. There, I blasphemed. :-) Fuck Steven Hawking! Fuck Richard Dawkins! Fuck Christopher Hitchens! Fuck Neil DeGrasse Tyson! Fuck Sam Harris! Fuck Lawrence Krauss! Fuck Bill Nye the Science Guy! Hey, that was fun!

 

lol.

 

Some of us female (and gay/bisexual male) sapiosexuals would quite like to fuck some of those.

 

Had to look "sapiosexual" up.

[Lucynia]

 

 

It's not difficult. My view of God is that He is seen through relationships, i.e. communing with others. The object being, acquiring the wisdom, or logos, to provide others the quality we define as life and love. Given we are within creation, and created, the only option we have for providing others with this information is by faith, specifically in that One who brought it, Jesus.

It might be interesting to drill-down into different parts of your belief to see if it makes sense.

 

For instance "My view of God is that He is seen through relationships".

- Do you mean God is an emergent property of relationship in physical systems (like a universal consciousness or pantheism or panentheism)?

- Do you mean studying the relationships in the physical systems shows the design goals of God (like deism)?

- Do you mean getting to know another human (as opposed to an animal) tells us something about God?

 

I bet it would take some time to explain all of what you said, but it would be interesting.

All fun questions. I will ponder them and see if my view hold water. Thanks D.

Spoiler alert: your view will hold less water than a bucket with no bottom.

[mikey101]

 

 

 

The interesting thing is Sagan can say we are all "starstuff" and everyone will lose their panties for that one.... Seems rather double-standardy to me.

 

Fuck Carl Sagan. There, I blasphemed. :-) Fuck Steven Hawking! Fuck Richard Dawkins! Fuck Christopher Hitchens! Fuck Neil DeGrasse Tyson! Fuck Sam Harris! Fuck Lawrence Krauss! Fuck Bill Nye the Science Guy! Hey, that was fun!

 

lol.

 

Some of us female (and gay/bisexual male) sapiosexuals would quite like to fuck some of those.

 

Had to look "sapiosexual" up.

 

You'd have to really be attracted to intelligence to fuck Steven Hawking.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

It's not difficult. My view of God is that He is seen through relationships, i.e. communing with others. The object being, acquiring the wisdom, or logos, to provide others the quality we define as life and love. Given we are within creation, and created, the only option we have for providing others with this information is by faith, specifically in that One who brought it, Jesus.

It might be interesting to drill-down into different parts of your belief to see if it makes sense.

 

For instance "My view of God is that He is seen through relationships".

- Do you mean God is an emergent property of relationship in physical systems (like a universal consciousness or pantheism or panentheism)?

- Do you mean studying the relationships in the physical systems shows the design goals of God (like deism)?

- Do you mean getting to know another human (as opposed to an animal) tells us something about God?

 

I bet it would take some time to explain all of what you said, but it would be interesting.

 

All fun questions. I will ponder them and see if my view hold water. Thanks D.

 

Spoiler alert: your view will hold less water than a bucket with no bottom.

 

I disagree, but thanks for the input L. Very refreshing.

[bornagainathiest]

Lucynia's right, End.

You view doesn't and can't hold water.

.

.

.

Here's why.

In post #48 you said that...

"Science can't tell me the right answer.  I have only one other option - faith.  OR you and I endeavor to find (relational) common ground by communing."

 

If science can't give you the 'right' answer, how can you possibly use it to get anything but the 'wrong' answer? 

If you and Directionless 'commune' by using science to explore relationships, then (by your own definition) you'll be using a system of thought that can't give you the 'right' answer.  If you go ahead, you'll be knowingly using something that can only give you the 'wrong' answer.  Which is not only pointless - it's counterproductive.  So, you can't go down the scientific road with Directionless without contradicting yourself and looking silly.

 

Does that leave you with the option of 'communing' with him about relationships outside of science?

Possibly.  That's up to him.  But if he says that he wants to keep things objective - then you're screwed!  Your faith-based beliefs are subjective, not objective.  There's no reason why he has to accept your beliefs and your religious conclusions about anything... let alone relationships. 

 

See what happens when you paint yourself into the corner of a faith-based 'right answer', End...?

You isolate yourself.  You don't make 'communing' easier - you make it more difficult.  We can't find common ground with you because you won't compromise (your words) and instead, you expect us to conform to your subjective beliefs.  That's not finding common ground.  That's a one-way non-relationship.  That's preaching, not communing.

.

.

.

But, you believe that God is seen thru relationships... by us communing with each other, right?

 

So why are you working so hard against your own belief? 

.

.

.

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mikey101]

 

 

So why are you working so hard against your own belief? 

.

.

.

BAA.

Because End is not here to commune in the first place.  Let's see if he can respond to you though. 

[Guest end3]

Lucynia's right, End.

You view doesn't and can't hold water.

.

.

.

Here's why.

In post #48 you said that...

"Science can't tell me the right answer.  I have only one other option - faith.  OR you and I endeavor to find (relational) common ground by communing."

 

If science can't give you the 'right' answer, how can you possibly use it to get anything but the 'wrong' answer? 

If you and Directionless 'commune' by using science to explore relationships, then (by your own definition) you'll be using a system of thought that can't give you the 'right' answer.  If you go ahead, you'll be knowingly using something that can only give you the 'wrong' answer.  Which is not only pointless - it's counterproductive.  So, you can't go down the scientific road with Directionless without contradicting yourself and looking silly.

 

Does that leave you with the option of 'communing' with him about relationships outside of science?

Possibly.  That's up to him.  But if he says that he wants to keep things objective - then you're screwed!  Your faith-based beliefs are subjective, not objective.  There's no reason why he has to accept your beliefs and your religious conclusions about anything... let alone relationships. 

 

See what happens when you paint yourself into the corner of a faith-based 'right answer', End...?

You isolate yourself.  You don't make 'communing' easier - you make it more difficult.  We can't find common ground with you because you won't compromise (your words) and instead, you expect us to conform to your subjective beliefs.  That's not finding common ground.  That's a one-way non-relationship.  That's preaching, not communing.

.

.

.

But, you believe that God is seen thru relationships... by us communing with each other, right?

 

So why are you working so hard against your own belief? 

.

.

.

BAA.

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters. In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

 

Please tell me how science would allow for us to discern this. If there is no scientific standard to compare to, science has nothing. Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

[Orbit]

Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

I have absolutely no interest in being "holy".

 

Yes, people can empathize with each other, but that isn't an effect of religion. Why do you want to keep putting simple human interactions in religious terms? It's forcing a paradigm that doesn't fit.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

 

Or you could just part ways with that person, like normal people do. 

[Guest end3]

 

Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

I have absolutely no interest in being "holy".

 

Yes, people can empathize with each other, but that isn't an effect of religion. Why do you want to keep putting simple human interactions in religious terms? It's forcing a paradigm that doesn't fit.

 

Yes, that is exactly an effect of religion. I have to "religiously" practice empathy and grace for people or I would have next to none.

 

Would you like me to go over the many many verses in the Bible and explain how they are saying empathy though different terms/language?

 

It fits perfectly.

 

Please give me an example of how you think it doesn't fit. .....a very specific example so that I might understand your point.

[Guest end3]

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

Or you could just part ways with that person, like normal people do.

 

Yes, but knowing that person allows for more likelihood of allowing them to have life....or pursue life. If I just randomly picked some guy and disagreed with his lifestyle vs. understanding why he lives the way he lives, I am more likely to be less condemning.

[bornagainathiest]

 

(Snip)

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings.

This is an unsupported, subjective assertion on your part.

 

When this doesn't happen, Grace enters.

This is another, unsupported and subjective assertion on your part.

 

In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

Please tell me how science would allow for us to discern this. If there is no scientific standard to compare to, science has nothing. Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

 

 

Please go back and re-read what Directionless has actually written, End.

 

He wants to see if your beliefs make sense.

At no point has he mentioned feelings, bonds, grace, communing, making allowances or empathy in his three questions.  Nor has he mentioned Christianity or holiness.  You're presuming that he means these things and you're presuming that his understanding of these things. is your understanding of them.  

 

But look closely at the wording of his questions.  He's written nothing like that!   

 

For instance "My view of God is that He is seen through relationships".

- Do you mean God is an emergent property of relationship in physical systems (like a universal consciousness or pantheism or panentheism)?

- Do you mean studying the relationships in the physical systems shows the design goals of God (like deism)?

- Do you mean getting to know another human (as opposed to an animal) tells us something about God?

 

You're projecting your subjective beliefs onto Directionless.

You're assuming that what he means by 'emergent properties' is what YOU think he means.

You're assuming that what he means by 'physical systems' is what YOU think he means.

You're assuming that the way he uses the word, 'God' is the way you use the word, 'God'.

 

See what I mean about preaching?  See what I mean about a one-way monolog?  

[Guest end3]

I haven't even responded to him BAA

[mikey101]

In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

 

If you had empathy and understanding, you would understand that people here have escaped or are escaping from dysfunctional Christianity, in which many were abused.  You ignore that and come here preaching to us anyway -- about understanding no less.  Bornagainatheist started pointing out your contradictions, you might try listening to him.

[florduh]

 

 

Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

I have absolutely no interest in being "holy".

 

Yes, people can empathize with each other, but that isn't an effect of religion. Why do you want to keep putting simple human interactions in religious terms? It's forcing a paradigm that doesn't fit.

 

Yes, that is exactly an effect of religion. I have to "religiously" practice empathy and grace for people or I would have next to none.

 

Would you like me to go over the many many verses in the Bible and explain how they are saying empathy though different terms/language?

 

It fits perfectly.

 

Please give me an example of how you think it doesn't fit. .....a very specific example so that I might understand your point.

 

This is a recurring theme here. Normal human behavior has been chronicled in writings, some of which made their way into the Bible. So what?

 

Most people who aren't sociopaths exhibit varying degrees of empathy. Most people try to get along with others. They do this regardless of their particular religious beliefs or lack of beliefs. People with little natural empathy often make an effort to do better because it makes life easier. Some use their religion, magic amulet or magically charged crystal as a crutch. Nothing mysterious about it. Even animals have been observed to exhibit empathy.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters. In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

 

Please tell me how science would allow for us to discern this. If there is no scientific standard to compare to, science has nothing. Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

 

 

It can't, End.

And that's the whole point.  You've rejected it as a way of giving you the 'right' answer.  But what about Directionless?  This is a dialog, right?  What if he wants to use science to explore your beliefs?  What then?  What common ground can you find with him that's objective, yet doesn't use science?

 

Christianity?

Sorry, but that's a subjective and supernatural belief system.  

 

Holiness?

Subjective and supernatural again. Sorry.

 

Communing?  Producing a bond?  Feelings?  Grace?  Understanding?  Empathy?  

These are your subjective buzzwords, aren't they?  Not his, right?

 

Ok, you haven't even responded to him.

But when you do - do you really think he's going to agree with your subjective beliefs about holiness and Christianity?  With any of YOUR subjective interpretations of your favorite buzzwords?  

 

Like I said before, if Directionless wants an objective debate - you're ****ed!  

.

.

.

Anyway, I'm gonna grab so popcorn and watch how you and he 'commune'.

 

It should be, "Fascinating."  

[Orbit]

 

 

Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

I have absolutely no interest in being "holy".

 

Yes, people can empathize with each other, but that isn't an effect of religion. Why do you want to keep putting simple human interactions in religious terms? It's forcing a paradigm that doesn't fit.

 

Yes, that is exactly an effect of religion. I have to "religiously" practice empathy and grace for people or I would have next to none.

 

Would you like me to go over the many many verses in the Bible and explain how they are saying empathy though different terms/language?

 

It fits perfectly.

 

Please give me an example of how you think it doesn't fit. .....a very specific example so that I might understand your point.

 

This is BAA's point about the subjective. YOU have to tie this to religion to make it work. Other people don't. Empathy is human nature.

[mikey101]

 

Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

 

And which religion? Just yours?  

 

End's actions are a good example of the lack of understanding, tolerance and empathy in the world.  

 

Someone doesn't like it that we have a website about escaping their religion (since their religion is the truth), so they come here to try to set us straight.  There's no tolerance, no acceptance, not even an "oh well",, just preaching.  

 

I feel sorry for all those Native Americans and everyone else around the world that got a taste of your "understanding".

 

You don't practice what you preach, you're a fake.  

[directionless]

 

 

It's not difficult. My view of God is that He is seen through relationships, i.e. communing with others. The object being, acquiring the wisdom, or logos, to provide others the quality we define as life and love. Given we are within creation, and created, the only option we have for providing others with this information is by faith, specifically in that One who brought it, Jesus.

It might be interesting to drill-down into different parts of your belief to see if it makes sense.

 

For instance "My view of God is that He is seen through relationships".

- Do you mean God is an emergent property of relationship in physical systems (like a universal consciousness or pantheism or panentheism)?

- Do you mean studying the relationships in the physical systems shows the design goals of God (like deism)?

- Do you mean getting to know another human (as opposed to an animal) tells us something about God?

 

I bet it would take some time to explain all of what you said, but it would be interesting.

 

All fun questions. I will ponder them and see if my view hold water. Thanks D.

 

To clarify, my goal is to understand that brief statement of your beliefs as opposed to testing them to see if they hold water. The words you used can mean different things. You know what you mean, but other people don't. So if you can give examples or write some more explanation or answer questions about your definitions, then at least we will all be discussing the same beliefs.

 

For example, Jesus means different things to different people. You mentioned Jesus, so who do you think Jesus was exactly? What parts of the NT do you think are true and what parts do you think aren't? ... That's just an example of the kinds of questions I have. Maybe you have already answered them in earlier threads.

[Fweethawt]

A hamburger is just a hamburger until it becomes a hotdog.

[Guest end3]

 

Some communing doesn't produce a bond, a compromise that brings good feelings. When this doesn't happen, Grace enters. In other words, through communing, we know and understand the other and have an understanding/empathy from their standpoint. Then we make allowances for their circumstance or place in their lives.

 

Please tell me how science would allow for us to discern this. If there is no scientific standard to compare to, science has nothing. Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

 

It can't, End.

And that's the whole point.  You've rejected it as a way of giving you the 'right' answer.  But what about Directionless?  This is a dialog, right?  What if he wants to use science to explore your beliefs?  What then?  What common ground can you find with him that's objective, yet doesn't use science?

 

Christianity?

Sorry, but that's a subjective and supernatural belief system.  

 

Holiness?

Subjective and supernatural again. Sorry.

 

Communing?  Producing a bond?  Feelings?  Grace?  Understanding?  Empathy?  

These are your subjective buzzwords, aren't they?  Not his, right?

 

Ok, you haven't even responded to him.

But when you do - do you really think he's going to agree with your subjective beliefs about holiness and Christianity?  With any of YOUR subjective interpretations of your favorite buzzwords?  

 

Like I said before, if Directionless wants an objective debate - you're ****ed!  

.

.

.

Anyway, I'm gonna grab so popcorn and watch how you and he 'commune'.

 

It should be, "Fascinating."  

 

I haven't rejected science at all. There is a stark difference in rejecting and allowing for the current lack of capability. Matter of fact, I have come here repeatedly attempting to demonstrate a similarity in Christianity and the natural world.....only to be mocked to some wonderful level.

 

And to Directionless BAA, I haven't even responded to his inquiries yet and you are accusing me of responding outside of his interests. And THEN claiming that if I DID respond, that it wasn't for his benefit.

 

Again, this is the entire point. If I were omniscient, then I could respond with the EXACT response he needed to understand, find life and joy. But I am not, nor is anyone of us. Hence the need for faith in our responses.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Christianity purports a standard for holiness.

I have absolutely no interest in being "holy".

 

Yes, people can empathize with each other, but that isn't an effect of religion. Why do you want to keep putting simple human interactions in religious terms? It's forcing a paradigm that doesn't fit.

 

Yes, that is exactly an effect of religion. I have to "religiously" practice empathy and grace for people or I would have next to none.

 

Would you like me to go over the many many verses in the Bible and explain how they are saying empathy though different terms/language?

 

It fits perfectly.

 

Please give me an example of how you think it doesn't fit. .....a very specific example so that I might understand your point.

 

This is BAA's point about the subjective. YOU have to tie this to religion to make it work. Other people don't. Empathy is human nature.

 

Glory, I tie it to religion. Many people have found that their ties to religion failed. Now there are many ties to science to fulfill that lack of fulfillment. Your point? Would you like to go through the step of how perfect babies become selfish adolescents? What should they tie to in order to find fulfillment?