Grace Is The Knowledge Of Inseparability, And Of Us.

[Guest end3]

I understand believing in something irrationally because it seems to work. I used believe in Reiki, wholeheartedly… because it seems to have healed my Plantar Faciitis.

 

Now.. this was years ago so...as a more skeptical person I reserve my belief now… something happened around the time my foot problem was fixed.. around the same time I had 2 Reiki treatments and was attuned as a Reiki practitioner. I can no longer say "Reiki is real"… because there is only my anecdotal and subjective experience to go by. I don't say it isn't real either. In the objective world.. I truly do not know. It has not been proven by the scientific method. I reserve my judgement on it because I realize that, as a human, I am always looking for cause and effect… for surety.. this is a psychological drive in humans. Keeps us from getting eaten by saber-tooth cats and mammoths. It is NOT objective however.

 

My problem with your rationalization is that many people, throughout the ages and throughout the world have systems of belief that give them, subjectively, the results they want. Islam, witchcraft, christianity, Voodoo, New Age, Buddhism, yoga, homeopathy, crystals, meditation, etc, etc, etc…. the only one of these that is scientifically supported is meditation. (and maybe acupuncture). There is no way to verify most of these… they are completely subjective and the 'results' are impossible to pinpoint as having any one cause.

 

Think of it this way. A person in Africa has a problem with anger management.. he goes to the local priest/witch doctor… they give him some herbal remedy, brush another herb over him, burn something… say many prayers/chants.. whatever… there is social pressure for this guy to get along with others, and a belief that his problem is from demon possession. After his treatment he begins to feel better, and act better. To him it worked, it is real. Same experience you went through (different method) he believes it was because oingoboingo (some spirit or god) has cast out the demon. You believe it was Yahweh's grace. It's no different… and no less subjective.

 

If your experience was only seen in christians - then it would have much more weight, objectively - but what you experience is experienced by millions (maybe billions) of others who do not subscribe to your particular system...

 

do you see the problem?

Of course. My knowledge is certainly limited. I am sure that I would have different feelings for different cultures if I went and took the time to know their perspective. It's entirely possible that Christianity is just another description...

 

Edit: Orbit put me on to a guy named Alan Watts I think the other day. If I am remembering him right, he was saying that a belief has authority because the people give it authority which gives the belief longevity.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

 

Physiologically, communion functions as a sacred rite within many christian denominations and sects to remind believers of the sacrificial death of jesus.  Consisting of a wafer or other bread-based product and either wine or grape juice, it evolved as a sacred ritual from religions much older than christianity.

[bornagainathiest]

 

So I'm out.

 

 

 

 

I'm not playing and I'm not fucking with you, End.

 

There's a real chance you can make some progress here... so please don't throw it away.

Let me phase it differently...this just came to me. How does science define subjectivity objectively? When we know that one, then I will come more close to leaving God behind. Fair enough?

 

 

Ah... I see.

 

You set up a difficult (impossible?) task and then tie your decision to leave God behind to it's resolution, whenever that is.

Then you ask me if this is fair?

 

Ok, End.

 

I get the hint.  You want out.

 

No, I am being serious. That's how I see it in my mind. If science can say END's brain does this and we know exactly why and it effects the heart to do this and those in turn give him the feeling of fulfillment, I might go without God. Even so, this only describes mechanisms and not cause/origin.

 

 

But you've just changed tack and are now talking about your brain and leaving Christianity!

 

If you are serious, stick with the issue at hand.

 

I have to go offline now - but I'll be back later.

 

Then we can continue with the issue at hand.

 

Sure, I didn't think I had jumped the track, lol, but don't mind trying to ride the rails again.

 

 

Sorry End.

 

Make that tomorrow.  Domestic crisis!

 

Thanks for being game, btw.

 

BAA

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

 

Physiologically, communion functions as a sacred rite within many christian denominations and sects to remind believers of the sacrificial death of jesus.  Consisting of a wafer or other bread-based product and either wine or grape juice, it evolved as a sacred ritual from religions much older than christianity.

 

The other definition of communion.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

 

Physiologically, communion functions as a sacred rite within many christian denominations and sects to remind believers of the sacrificial death of jesus.  Consisting of a wafer or other bread-based product and either wine or grape juice, it evolved as a sacred ritual from religions much older than christianity.

 

The other definition of communion.

 

BAA has already explained why that is not possible.

[directionless]

I don't attend anymore. Used to go to a Church of Christ. Let me give you an example so we may compare "thinking" if you don't mind participating.

 

 

Jhn 17:10

 

All I have is yours, and all you have is mine. And glory has come to me through them.

 

 

What do you perceive about this and then I will share.

 

thanks.

o.k. I read from the beginning of the chapter. Jesus seems to be saying that a subset of humanity belongs to the Son and the Father. He's praying for that subset (the Church) so that the Father will protect it after Jesus goes to the Father in Heaven.

 

That particular verse seem to be simply trying to show a unity between the Father and the Son by saying that the disciples of the Son are exactly the same as the disciples of the Father.

 

That's my impression.

[Guest end3]

 

 

 

 

 

Here's the important part in my mind. My goal was to be less mean, to be "found" and not "lost".  I now have a method that works for me and because it does I BELIEVE in the method.

I think this is a good example of the subjectivity BAA is trying to get you to understand.  You say that your method (christianity) works for you in accomplishing your goal of being less mean.  However, as I'm sure you know, we have all seen you get pretty downright nasty on this website at times.

 

This would indicate that your "method" isn't nearly as effective as you perceive it to be, however much you want to believe in it.  Perception being subjective is the operative phrase.  It ties back to BAA's fundamental work in getting you to see that the power of prediction based on observation really is the more reliable method.

 

Now, give us your best "I'm lost and broken" rebuttal.

 

I'M LOST AND BROKEN !!!

 

Your explanation is not lost on me. I would ask that you objectively define the physiology of communion....and then objectively demonstrate the evolution of communion.

 

Physiologically, communion functions as a sacred rite within many christian denominations and sects to remind believers of the sacrificial death of jesus.  Consisting of a wafer or other bread-based product and either wine or grape juice, it evolved as a sacred ritual from religions much older than christianity.

 

The other definition of communion.

 

BAA has already explained why that is not possible.

 

yeah it can happen. One person opens their mouth and shares intimate knowledge with another...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

yeah it can happen. One person opens their mouth and shares intimate knowledge with another...

 

No, that doesn't necessarily result in communion.  My doctor has shared some pretty intimate knowledge with me and I have shared some pretty intimate knowledge with my doctor.  That doesn't mean what we have is communion, though.

 

See what BAA means about subjective definitions?

[Guest end3]

 

yeah it can happen. One person opens their mouth and shares intimate knowledge with another...

No, that doesn't necessarily result in communion.  My doctor has shared some pretty intimate knowledge with me and I have shared some pretty intimate knowledge with my doctor.  That doesn't mean what we have is communion, though.

 

See what BAA means about subjective definitions?

 

No, it's by definition communion.

 

1.

 

 

the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

yeah it can happen. One person opens their mouth and shares intimate knowledge with another...

No, that doesn't necessarily result in communion.  My doctor has shared some pretty intimate knowledge with me and I have shared some pretty intimate knowledge with my doctor.  That doesn't mean what we have is communion, though.

 

See what BAA means about subjective definitions?

 

No, it's by definition communion.

 

1.

 

 

the sharing or exchanging of intimate thoughts and feelings, especially when the exchange is on a mental or spiritual level.

 

What my doctor and I share are not thoughts or feelings and they certainly are not on a mental or spiritual level.  What we share is relevant medical information, which is often of a quite intimate nature.  By attempting to tie this doctor/patient relationship to communion, you are, once again, being subjective.

[midniterider]

 

These should help you out, End.

 

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/objectivity

 

http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/objectivity

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

 

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/objectivity

 

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/objectivity

 

http://www.iep.utm.edu/objectiv/

 

https://www.wordnik.com/words/objectivity

 

http://www.aqr.org.uk/glossary/objectivity

 

http://www.yourdictionary.com/objectivity

 

this has got to be getting old at this point eh?

 

 

Nope, it will go on forever.

[florduh]

And this all springs from a snippet from a bullshit generator...

[Fweethawt]

And this all springs from a snippet from a bullshit generator...

Yeah but, I think that I just now learned that --

 

communication + woo = communion

 

So its all good!

[bornagainathiest]

I just have time to fire this off End - but no time to read any responses to it.  That'll have to wait until tomorrow.

.

.

.

Your definition of communion is subjective.

That's because it's personal to you.  It's your understanding of that word.  Nobody else's.  It's not mine and it's not the Prof's.  It's yours.  Now, the Prof isn't bound to accept your definition of it, because you don't have any precedence or authority over him.  Likewise, I'm not obliged to accept his definition - for exactly the same reason.  He has no power over me to make me conform to his definition.  And, of course, the same rules apply equally to me.  I can't insist that my definition is the one both of you must accept.

 

Each of us is also the equal of the other and none of us has the right to take control by insisting that their personal (subjective) definition is the right one, which the others should conform to. What's needed is a definition of communion that applies to each of us equally and which we can all agree on.

 

So how can we do that?

What must each of us do to make progress here?  There is a way to do this and I've already hinted at it in this thread, End.  Therefore, please think carefully about this question, which I hope we'll tackle tomorrow.

 

"What must each of us do to stay equal to the others, when it comes to the definition of the word communion?"

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Fweethawt]

We arrive at the definition objectively so as to keep the definition/understanding of the word free from the hindrance of opinion or -- subjective thought which, could be ANY interpretation.

[Guest end3]

We arrive at the definition objectively so as to keep the definition/understanding of the word free from the hindrance of opinion or -- subjective thought which, could be ANY interpretation.

Is it really that difficult to agree on the dictionary def.? I guess it is...

[duderonomy]

Choose a definition of communion, and while we're at it, Communion, and run with it.  For. the. love. of. God. or. science. please.

 

Here, like this: Communion means...

 

or like this: communion means...

 

Nobody has to agree so long as everyone agrees, OK? 

 

End3, we can commune. You and everyone on this forum can commune. You and God can commune too, but like I said before, laying on my back naked in the green grass is only communion if the grass is communing back, even if the grass is God only in my mind.

 

BAA, No offense, my brainiac friend, because I like you and think you are cool. But...ease up on the legalism a little. Let the man talk. Don't get lost in semantics. Pick a definition, even if it's a dangerous one, and deal with it.

[Fweethawt]

 

We arrive at the definition objectively so as to keep the definition/understanding of the word free from the hindrance of opinion or -- subjective thought which, could be ANY interpretation.

Is it really that difficult to agree on the dictionary def.? I guess it is...

My 'Dictionary.com' app has this as one of the definitions of 'objective'.

 

-- not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

And this all springs from a snippet from a bullshit generator...

Yeah but, I think that I just now learned that --

 

communication + woo = communion

 

So its all good!

 

Yes! Finally, someone has made sense of all this BS.  Thank you for that.

[Fweethawt]

 

 

And this all springs from a snippet from a bullshit generator...

 

Yeah but, I think that I just now learned that --

communication + woo = communion

So its all good!

Yes! Finally, someone has made sense of all this BS.  Thank you for that.

Try saying this new word out loud without giggling; commwoonication...

 

Ha-ha!

[Guest end3]

 

 

And this all springs from a snippet from a bullshit generator...

Yeah but, I think that I just now learned that --

 

communication + woo = communion

 

So its all good!

 

Yes! Finally, someone has made sense of all this BS.  Thank you for that.

 

Think what you want NZ. When you have someone or something die that means the world to you and then it's gone, ask yourself if the quality of that relationship wasn't as close to God as there could be on this earth.

 

I think when we can learn to appreciate just the fact that there IS a relationship, good or bad, and especially good, then we are at the point of living....life....eternal life.

 

You couch it in whatever terms or language you wish, but am pretty sure that is what the Bible is trying to convey.

[mikey101]

 

Think what you want NZ. When you have someone or something die that means the world to you and then it's gone, ask yourself if the quality of that relationship wasn't as close to God as there could be on this earth.

 

I think when we can learn to appreciate just the fact that there IS a relationship, good or bad, and especially good, then we are at the point of living....life....eternal life.

 

You couch it in whatever terms or language you wish, but am pretty sure that is what the Bible is trying to convey.

 

If all you care about is relationships, you can find much better religions than Christianity for that.  

 

I can see now why you have to struggle so much to find 'goodness' in yourself.  You're really missing out on alot, but that's your business.

 

It's pretty obvious you're very set in your beliefs, hence coming to an ex-Christian website to try to get us to believe like you.

[bornagainathiest]

Choose a definition of communion, and while we're at it, Communion, and run with it.  For. the. love. of. God. or. science. please.

 

Here, like this: Communion means...

 

or like this: communion means...

 

Nobody has to agree so long as everyone agrees, OK? 

 

End3, we can commune. You and everyone on this forum can commune. You and God can commune too, but like I said before, laying on my back naked in the green grass is only communion if the grass is communing back, even if the grass is God only in my mind.

 

BAA, No offense, my brainiac friend, because I like you and think you are cool. But...ease up on the legalism a little. Let the man talk. Don't get lost in semantics. Pick a definition, even if it's a dangerous one, and deal with it.

 

Hey Dude!  

 

Thanks for the input... but with all due respect, I must decline your suggestion.

 

There IS a point to this thread and there IS a point to the Prof's input here and to mine too.  

Between us (End included here) we've put in so much work that (imho) it'd be a shame to not see things thru to a satisfactory conclusion.  So, as difficult as you might find reading this thread... can you cut us a bit more slack, please?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[bornagainathiest]

 

We arrive at the definition objectively so as to keep the definition/understanding of the word free from the hindrance of opinion or -- subjective thought which, could be ANY interpretation.

Is it really that difficult to agree on the dictionary def.? I guess it is...

 

 

Yes End.  It is.

 

But that's not sheer cussedness on our part.  Nor is it down to having an attitude.  Nope.  Nothing so trivial as that.  The reason why it's that difficult for you, me and the Prof to agree on a dictionary definition of the word communion is as follows.

.

.

.

We are equals in this forum and we are all equally free to make our own choices.

.

.

.

One vital freedom of choice we enjoy is being free to disagree with each other.  

The flip side of this is, of course, that we are equally free to agree with each other.  Now, this slots in perfectly with the content of my last post to you, yesterday. (Please look at # 164 to refresh your memory. Thanks.)  Ok End, assuming you've done that, can you please go about answering that question I put to you?  Thanks.  Here it is again.

 

"What must each of us do to stay equal to the others, when it comes to the definition of the word communion?"

 

Thank you,

 

BAA.

[midniterider]

Choose a definition of communion, and while we're at it, Communion, and run with it.  For. the. love. of. God. or. science. please.

 

Here, like this: Communion means...

 

or like this: communion means...

 

Nobody has to agree so long as everyone agrees, OK? 

 

End3, we can commune. You and everyone on this forum can commune. You and God can commune too, but like I said before, laying on my back naked in the green grass is only communion if the grass is communing back, even if the grass is God only in my mind.

 

BAA, No offense, my brainiac friend, because I like you and think you are cool. But...ease up on the legalism a little. Let the man talk. Don't get lost in semantics. Pick a definition, even if it's a dangerous one, and deal with it.

 

Remember the two Lazaruses in the original Star Trek locked into eternal battle.....   :-)