That Boat Don't Float!!

[BananaSlug]

So what if in the future we create a device that repels the polarity of water, allowing a human to walk on water?

 

[Catherineanne]

I see how your mind works now Catherineanne, you believe something because no one can show that it's not true,
while we do not believe something because no one can show that it is true.

Nice try, but no cigar.

I believe that which I have experienced, and found to be true. I do not expect anyone else to understand that experience, because their understanding is far more dependent on their ability to see, than on my ability to communicate.

You believe that there might be pink elepants flying around Mars because no one can show they don't, whilst we don't because no one can show that they do.

In this universe there are no pink elephants, no flying elephants and no creatures flying around Mars.

Anyone who wants to believe that there are, is free to do so. Just as atheists are free to believe there is no God; such belief has no bearing on objective reality. Or, putting it another way, God's existence, or that of angels, is not dependent on our belief.

Wouldn't it be better just to believe the things you KNOW to be true?

Indeed so, and I do.

I just don't expect others to know what I know. Everyone has a different path in life, and therefore everyone sees things differently along the way.

rather than believe things that you don't know are true just because no one can show that they're not.
I have heard about thinking sideways but you think backwards by believing everything.

Twaddle.

 

[Nathan Poe]

So what if in the future we create a device that repels the polarity of water, allowing a human to walk on water?

Or just head on down to the local arena and watch groups of people walk, run, dance, and even fight on water?

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

Nice try, but no cigar.

I believe that which I have experienced, and found to be true. I do not expect anyone else to understand that experience, because their understanding is far more dependent on their ability to see, than on my ability to communicate.



In this universe there are no pink elephants, no flying elephants and no creatures flying around Mars.

Anyone who wants to believe that there are, is free to do so. Just as atheists are free to believe there is no God; such belief has no bearing on objective reality. Or, putting it another way, God's existence, or that of angels, is not dependent on our belief.



Indeed so, and I do.

I just don't expect others to know what I know. Everyone has a different path in life, and therefore everyone sees things differently along the way.



Twaddle.

From my understandings you advocate subjectivity as the only reality? What is true for one is not true for another? Forgive me if i'm wrong, just trying to get a grasp on your perspective.

 

[JustMeSee]

Not to mention mythological characters

One man's faith is another man's myth. That is why I would love to read evidence of angels. (Other than their obvious existence in The Bible.)

 

[Catherineanne]

From my understandings you advocate subjectivity as the only reality? What is true for one is not true for another? Forgive me if i'm wrong, just trying to get a grasp on your perspective.

There are many different realities. There is objective reality, which can be measured, and there is subjective reality, which cannot. There are probably other kinds as well, but it is getting late and I can't think of them at present. Realities by mathematical deduction, perhaps.

My experience of God falls within the subjective reality bit. I can't show anyone a photograph, or an email. I can't prove that I have met angels, or that they have ministered to me. I could point to events in my life, but none of these are proof; they are only evidence. And evidence is only accepted by those who accept it; it is always subjective. It is meaningless to talk about such experiences to those who do not share my own frame of reference in relation to God, because in essence I will be speaking a foreign language. Therefore there is no point trying; it would sound the same to an unbeliever as someone talking about the Loch Ness Monster.

This does not mean that I think God is the same as the Loch Ness Monster, only that I can see that for some people he is. For me he is not. Which is fortunate for me; that would be a really weird God.

 

[Catherineanne]

One man's faith is another man's myth. That is why I would love to read evidence of angels. (Other than their obvious existence in The Bible.)

The angels are around us all of the time. Lots of them. If you have the ability to see them, then you can see them. You can talk to them, and you can ask them for favours.

Angels are God's messengers. They take our prayers to God, and they bring us his consolation and his peace. When we are in distress, and there is nobody else to comfort us, then the angels come.

I have seen them lots of times; whenever I look for them, really. It is a matter of perception.

None of this is evidence, unless you accept it as evidence. There is no reason why anyone should do so, unless they want to. But not accepting it does not make it untrue.

 

[AV1611VET]

There is also psychology, strangely enough. If a person speaks to his or her psychologist and says they have encountered angels...

But only if it's a Christian psychologist, right?

Talking to a [lay] psychologist about looking forward to Heaven, or that you tell the devil to 'get lost' can land you in the psych ward.

 

[ExistenceUnknown]

There are many different realities. There is objective reality, which can be measured, and there is subjective reality, which cannot. There are probably other kinds as well, but it is getting late and I can't think of them at present. Realities by mathematical deduction, perhaps.

My experience of God falls within the subjective reality bit. I can't show anyone a photograph, or an email. I can't prove that I have met angels, or that they have ministered to me. I could point to events in my life, but none of these are proof; they are only evidence. And evidence is only accepted by those who accept it; it is always subjective. It is meaningless to talk about such experiences to those who do not share my own frame of reference in relation to God, because in essence I will be speaking a foreign language. Therefore there is no point trying; it would sound the same to an unbeliever as someone talking about the Loch Ness Monster.

This does not mean that I think God is the same as the Loch Ness Monster, only that I can see that for some people he is. For me he is not. Which is fortunate for me; that would be a really weird God.

Very good, you are of a rare theistic breed. I can actually admire someone who can admit to the subjectivity of god.

To me shared subjectivity is equivalent to objectivity. Ultimately all things, be it religion, or science is shared subjectivity. If we all agree that the sky is blue, and we all agree what blue is, then we have made a shared subjective conclusion.

I am not religious because, obviously, I have not had a subjective experience great enough to convince me of god. Even if I did i'm not sure I would rule out schizophrenia.

 

[Hespera]

The angels are around us all of the time. Lots of them. If you have the ability to see them, then you can see them. You can talk to them, and you can ask them for favours.

Angels are God's messengers. They take our prayers to God, and they bring us his consolation and his peace. When we are in distress, and there is nobody else to comfort us, then the angels come.

I have seen them lots of times; whenever I look for them, really. It is a matter of perception.

None of this is evidence, unless you accept it as evidence. There is no reason why anyone should do so, unless they want to. But not accepting it does not make it untrue.

oh my.

 

[AV1611VET]

The angels are around us all of the time. Lots of them. If you have the ability to see them, then you can see them. You can talk to them, and you can ask them for favours.

Have you ever seen a demon?

 

[Catherineanne]

Very good, you are of a rare theistic breed. I can actually admire someone who can admit to the subjectivity of god.

To me shared subjectivity is equivalent to objectivity. Ultimately all things, be it religion, or science is shared subjectivity. If we all agree that the sky is blue, and we all agree what blue is, then we have made a shared subjective conclusion.

This is correct. With other theists, I can talk objectively of God. With non theists, there is no point. I think God rather likes being elusive; he sustains the whole universe and yet he cannot be found unless we already know he is there. Eternal hide and seek.

I am not religious because, obviously, I have not had a subjective experience great enough to convince me of god. Even if I did i'm not sure I would rule out schizophrenia.

The diagnostic criteria for schizophrenia do not include believing in God. In our culture believing in God is not pathological; there have to be other factors included as well. Hallucinations. Voices in your head. An inability to determine what is real and what is not. That kind of thing. I know it may be tempting to write religious experience off as someone experiencing unreality, but in fact to that person it is not unreal at all.

Why on earth would I believe in God for - erm - many years, without any evidence whatsoever? Makes no sense.

On the other hand, it would also make no sense for you to believe in him, given that he has not given you the grace to do so. It is important to remember that nobody can be blamed for not believing; we all believe by God's grace, not by our own efforts. Therefore, if you don't believe, and he isn't doing anything about this, then he perhaps hasn't got round to you yet, or he wants you to experience some other stuff first. Either way, you don't need to worry about it.

 

[Catherineanne]

oh my.

See? Like talking about the Loch Ness Monster.

 

[Catherineanne]

But only if it's a Christian psychologist, right?

Talking to a [lay] psychologist about looking forward to Heaven, or that you tell the devil to 'get lost' can land you in the psych ward.

There is no such thing as a Christian psychologist, not in the sense you mean. There is no such thing as 'Christian Psychology' to stand in contradistinction to normal psychology.

A psychologist is a psychologist, regardless of their personal faith. And any psychologist will understand cultural norms, of which religion is one.

If I as a Brit talk about seeing angels that is fine. If I talk about seeing the Hindu Goddess of destruction, perhaps not. Either too much Bollywood, or else something going funny somewhere.

You can indeed, therefore, talk to a psychologist about aspirations of heaven, and about discussions with satan, if you choose to do so, with no risk whatever of being admitted to a psychiatric hospital. Such language may be rather more left of centre than is totally good for you, but it is still part of normal behaviour. I would recommend, however, not talking out loud to satan in public. That does head towards dodgy ground.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

But only if it's a Christian psychologist, right?

Talking to a [lay] psychologist about looking forward to Heaven, or that you tell the devil to 'get lost' can land you in the psych ward.

Because there's a big difference between someone who believes they see angels, or talks to god? Where do you draw the line? What is considered delusional? Is merely talking albout angels, demons and god ok, but acting out what they "tell" you to do, not ok?

At what point is someone diagnosed as crazy?

 

[Hespera]

See? Like talking about the Loch Ness Monster.

i wonder how it would turn out if we were the only two shipwrecked on an island

 

[Catherineanne]

Because there's a big difference between someone who believes they see angels, or talks to god? Where do you draw the line? What is considered delusional? Is merely talking albout angels, demons and god ok, but acting out what they "tell" you to do, not ok?

At what point is someone diagnosed as crazy?

I am no expert, but I believe it is at the point where psychosis occurs; where the person can no longer perceive the difference between reality and unreality. This is a very dangerous place to be.

 

[Catherineanne]

i wonder how it would turn out if we were the only two shipwrecked on an island

Why would that be a problem? The immediate needs would be for shelter and food. If you can swim, you can go get the fish, while I build the shelter. If you can't swim, I will fish, and you have a go with the shelter.

I don't think there would be any reason to fall out, do you?

 

[Hespera]

Because there's a big difference between someone who believes they see angels, or talks to god? Where do you draw the line? What is considered delusional? Is merely talking albout angels, demons and god ok, but acting out what they "tell" you to do, not ok?

At what point is someone diagnosed as crazy?

The difference is probably the point at which someone acts on it.

I think often of the guy who told me he prays every day to god for word Word) that he is to begin killing people like me, for the purification of America.

He is not likely to find me, but.... i do think if a person earnest prays to whatever spirit he thinks he is communicating with, he sooner or later will really think he got a response. I wonder how many would be killer angels there out there wanting to take their version of a flaming sword to the evil atheists. Im sure they will get judged to be criminally insane and not responsible for their actions.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

That's what I'm asking. At what point does one lose touch with reality. When they see angels, demons, etc. (only things that they can see), or is it when they begin acting out what said angels and demons, etc. tell them to?