Hang on - missed that. Which views have been supported by which mental health professionals?
Evil Spirits
by LizLA 294 Replies latest jw experiences
-
-
AGuest
Before I respond further, dear EP (peace!)... I want to SINCERELY thank you... dear Q... and dear Cofty (again, peace to you, both!)... for the very... ummmm... kind and respectful manner in which you are engaging in this thread. I truly appreciate it and I know dear tec (peace, my sister!) does, as well! We don't have to agree... but we should be able to disagree without getting abusive about it. So, THANK YOU, boyz - LOLOLOL!
Okay...
Yeah, that WAS a shelby-kind-of post - LOLOLOL! And partly because of that (but mostly because I would vehemently disagree with a lot of what you stated), I am going to skip much of it - I just don't think we "see" eye-to-eye, right now: on the issues as well as what has/is transpir[ing]. Just a look at dear tec's (peace, chile!) last response tells me that we ("us" and "you") see entirely differently... and that that may not change (any time soon). So, why expend further energy (pun intended) on matters that won't be decided here? No point, IMHO... and way too long of a thread, so...
With that said, however, I would like to address two things. First:
The problem is your theology that you KNOW is true is different from MyElaine's, or BOTR's or a devout catholic, or a devout JW or a devout Baptist.
Yes! YES! It IS!! It's only a "problem," though... because "you" keep trying to "translate/interpret/understand" what I am saying... by THEIR language! No wonder, then, you go 'round in circles: they are NOT the same language!
There is no method of agreement and consensus so half the time you theological folks are all talking different ideas about the same thing and telling each other who is wrong.
First, you have GOT to stop lumping me (and some who are like me)... with certain others. We do NOT speak the same language. It's like saying, "Well, you speak Spanish; they speak Portuguese... since some of the words SOUND alike they must mean the same thing!" They do NOT and it is NOT the same language, at all. They may have had similar/the same ROOTS... but they've evolved to much, much different dialects, dear one. Primarily, based on whatever "tribal leader" each one follows. I've gone back to the Source, the ORIGINATOR of the language. Others tend to use more "modernized" languages... which have lost most, if not ALL, of the original meaning/intent/message OF the Originator.
It may well be true. But there is no hypothesis, math, evidence, predictive powers or anything else. It MAY be true that we are just materialized color operating on the 49th vibration, but so far there is no evidence and the idea go against everything that is independently testable and provable.
But don't ALL ideas considered to be... ummmmm... "radical"... initially do that, dear one? For example, for millenia men envisioned man flying. With wings. The tale of Icarus sets this out. But what was the real thinking? Not only that it could NOT be done... but that he shouldn't have even thought of it. Hence, the sun melting the wax. Pure folly - try to fly and you'll get too close to the sun and fall! Yet... hang gliders. NOT just huge aerodynamic vehicles that carry several people... but a contraption that carries on "as if" on the wings of birds. Why didn't those of that day believe it could be? Because... there was no math... no evidence... no predictive powers... or anything else... certainly no parachute material or aerodynamic apparel... to make it even a possibility. Later, though, as "technology" progressed... Da Vinci comes up with... what? Yet, it wasn't until how many centuries later that HIS hypothesis was PROVEN?
When some evidence appears, I will re-evaluate.
Which is what JWs do, yes? But let me ask you: those who KNEW 1914 was a fluke... in 1910... 1905... 1900... 1895... 1890... 1700... 1200... 200... should THEY have waited until the rest of their 'brethren" got it, too? Should WE, those of us who know NOW?
Until then, I won't simply think it might be true because I have no evidence.
But that's YOU, dear one. Not all think/believe that way. What difference is there, really, in your saying, "You're stupid because you believe without any phyiscal evidence!" and another saying to YOU, "You're stupid because you don't just believe... without evidence!" Neither dear tec nor I have ever said our beliefs are without evidence. To the contrary, we have shared... over and over again... our evidence: what WE hear and/or see. Not telling... or even asking... YOU to believe/agree with it. Shared it with someone who already did... who didn't need "scientific" evidence.
That is naive and gullable to the highest degree.
I agree. The thing that "you" keep overlooking is that there IS evidence. What we hear and/or see. That "you" reject that evidence, its form(s), and any attempt to obtain it for yourselves... makes it virtually impossible to prove TO you. It's like a religious person saying, "The ONLY way I'll believe that man can fly... is if you show it to me in my holy book." Do you SEE? You CAN'T show it to him... because that is not how such a thing CAN be proven. It's not IN there. In contrast, you are unable... perhaps because you are unwilling... to grant the same to the "other" side.
If you think it makes sense to beleive something because there is no evidence it is true, you should trust me with your bank account and social security number because there no evidence I AM a Nigerian prince.
There you go again: "no evidence." What is UP with you all on that? There IS evidence presented to us. I know WHAT I hear... and from WHOM. I asked him who he was. And I'm willing to bet that if you heard him you would say/do the same. You would not be ABLE to deny it. Assuming, of course, that you're not the cowardly type that would hear... but not profess it because you were more afraid of what others might "think" of you for doing so.
We could go 'round and 'round, dear one (and you, too, dear Q and Cofty). We all know this. Shall we call it yet one more impasse and return to our respective corners, for now? Because I don't see where much ground is being broken in either direction. Lemme know... and, as always, peace to you!
YOUR servant and a slave of Christ,
SA
-
tec
It's more than just incomplete, it's just an idea that has no hypothesis, not even an idea of what it would take to test it, AND it goes against EVERYTHING that is testable and verifiable.
Goes against... or just doesn't line up? I think there is a difference. If we consider Einstein's theory that there is a finite amount of matter/energy in the universe... matter and energy should have to be interchangeable (or we might end up with a universe of all of one thing eventually). Of course, we have more understanding now, right? That everything is energy. What determines how 'solid' something is?
No worries, I was just explaining how ideas become theories. It starts with observations some are just mathematical observations, implications of taking things to their logical conclusion. I seem to recall reading about some energy experiments with black balls that absorbed solar energy. A hypothesis on energy conversion was known to be wrong after someone observed that the math for the hypothesis led to a black ball absorbing solar energy would lead to the ball having infinite energy. Clearly that wasn't right, the math was adjusted and a hypothesis that worked perfectly was developed.
But it all started with an observation. In this case, nothing is there except some people saying "Well, this *might* be true..." and then giving nothing else
That's cool, and no worries here either. I personally think some did and do start out with an 'idea', though... perhaps they just keep that idea under wraps until such a time as they CAN come up with enough to observe and measure something.
Peace,
Tammy
-
tec
Before I respond further, dear EP (peace!)... I want to SINCERELY thank you... dear Q... and dear Cofty (again, peace to you, both!)... for the very... ummmm... kind and respectful manner in which you are engaging in this thread. I trulyappreciate it and I know dear tec (peace, my sister!) does, as well! We don't have to agree... but we should be able to disagree without getting abusive about it. So, THANK YOU, boyz - LOLOLOL!
Seconded, (and peace to you as well) :)
Peace,
Tammy
-
Qcmbr
To respect that which is without merit would be to concede it had intrinsic value. You both preach ( and not particularly well ) about your personal god view but then tell us there isn't a language with which we can understand it. You both then claim to be scientific and mix your very limited understanding of current science in as a second hand proof of your god , the very scientific theories you deride when they crush your god. What scientific knowledge has your god provided to you and to the world? If we can agree that it's zilch then let's just agree that science - whether it is 1600 alchemical dead end aspirations or 2011 LHC elegant brilliance - has nothing to do with your subjective magic world.
Its a bit insulting to try and pull your chair up to the scientific table bringing nothing more than dreams and whispers couched in a language you confess is unintelligible. Science is not faith based it is experiment based. You would suffer a breakdown if you ever confronted the fact that you are wrong because like all true believers you've wired your very existence to your central delusion.
-
ziddina
Ooooo, Qcmbr!!
You BRING it, man!!
Very concisely and well put...
Wish I'D thought of stating it that way...
-
mrsjones5
Funny, I got a pm from the OP of this topic recommending the meditation cd she mentioned in one of her posts. Me thinks this topic's purpose was to covertly spam said cd. And look where this thread is now. Interesting.
-
tec
You both then claim to be scientific
I think I said just the opposite.
So that this:
You both preach ( and not particularly well ) about your personal god view but then tell us there isn't a language with which we can understand it.
is a misunderstanding of you and others not hearing or understanding, for whatever reason. Because no one said this either (that I recall). Only that we speak tend to speak different languages... not that either 'language' is closed to the other, unless perhaps by choice in some instances.
Also that it is hard (or impossible) to describe a spiritual thing using terminology that measures and describes only the physical. The 'science and terminology' is not here yet to have the words... and I don't even know all the science and terminology that IS available. Such as DNA to someone a thousand years ago, who wouldn't even have an understanding of 'cellular'. Would have been gibberish then and to those people in their then-current understanding, even though its true.
Anyway, I find that what Shelby said earlier about frustration is true. It is as frustrating for us as you say it is for you.
Oddly enough though, I am not frustrated... yet(that word again, lol). I think AK's thread (frustrating as all hell) taught me something, and that is that we are speaking different languages, and looking at things very differently. So I get it. And understanding the why of it tends to take the frustration of... "why does he KEEP misunderstanding me? Is he deliberately doing it?????!!! "... out of things, lol.
Peace Q,
Tammy
-
Qcmbr
I think we can all agree that Liz isn't being bothered by spirits. Shame that those who do presume to such gifts weren't able to intuite the deception which was left to the rationalists, once again.
-
Qcmbr
Tec - remember that I once spoke using the same sophistry as you. I have not always been an atheist. I know exactly what you mean.