that is what i heard last night at my yoga class.
she said for something to be fixed first it must become known what needs fixing.
it is true for the physical, but also for the spiritual i believe.
So how is it you believe the mind can't discover God for real? Is it because you have not learned to trust your own thoughts?
I think what you are saying is that you can make God be whatever you wish. He either is, and nothing I think about him would change him, or he doesn't and I am just wanting an imaginary friend that will pat my back when I need one.
How is defering your thoughts over to a non-existent being any different from solo meditation, reflection, etc.?
that is what i heard last night at my yoga class.
she said for something to be fixed first it must become known what needs fixing.
it is true for the physical, but also for the spiritual i believe.
Many methods. First of all prayer. Meditation. Common sense. Intuition. Experience of course. Maybe many more.
And all of these are subjective. Yay!
1. if you say that reducing harm is a valid standard because that is what people want, then how are you not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want, is what makes something morally right?.
2. if you say that reducing harm is a valid standard of morality because that is what people want, then how are you not promoting an arbitrary standard since it is based on peoples subjective feelings and desires which change?
3. if reducing overall harm is the standard of morality, then should a nation that is being attacked by another nation not practice self-defense, since by defending itself it may very well increase overall harm to both nations?.
A glaring example of differing cultural norms defining morality is exactly what NC pointed out. Some tribes around the world still have women bear-breasted. This would be looked down upon by people of other cultures.
Perry, is that a biblical absolute? That of being unclothed as a sin?
1. if you say that reducing harm is a valid standard because that is what people want, then how are you not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want, is what makes something morally right?.
2. if you say that reducing harm is a valid standard of morality because that is what people want, then how are you not promoting an arbitrary standard since it is based on peoples subjective feelings and desires which change?
3. if reducing overall harm is the standard of morality, then should a nation that is being attacked by another nation not practice self-defense, since by defending itself it may very well increase overall harm to both nations?.
Yes, NC, I agree. If we went to another part of the world, I would probably try to respect the local customs and kindly request to abstain from certain things I was not comfortable with.
I think morality is more about humans trying to understand one another and acting in ways to benefit themselves and others at the same time.
1. if you say that reducing harm is a valid standard because that is what people want, then how are you not committing the logical fallacy of begging the question by saying that what people want, is what makes something morally right?.
2. if you say that reducing harm is a valid standard of morality because that is what people want, then how are you not promoting an arbitrary standard since it is based on peoples subjective feelings and desires which change?
3. if reducing overall harm is the standard of morality, then should a nation that is being attacked by another nation not practice self-defense, since by defending itself it may very well increase overall harm to both nations?.
A good standard for right and wrong would be to work together with others, because it benefits you, it benefits others, and in others being benefitted, you will in turn benefit more.
Perry, shame on you. You didn't even attempt to answer the other questions posted on your other thread. You merely ignored them and started this new thread. Is this a regular habit of yours? It's quite off-putting.
i do, every few months and the dreams are terrifying.
i had one last night and the demons grabbed me as usual and instead of shouting out big j's name like i usually do in these dreams (not out loud mind you) i shouted instead ''get away from me satan'' ha!.
i don't believe in either but obviously my fear of demons growing up as affected my subconscious into adulthood (i'm 40).
Demons are just a subconscious representation of your struggle of believing in the unbelievable. Your demons is really your intellectual side surfacing, and your yelling "Get behind me Satan!" or "Jehovah!" is your thought-stopping mechanism.
Your welcome. You owe me 2 cents for my services.
thinking can undermine religious faith, study findsthose who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.those who think more analytically are less inclined to be religious believers than are those who tend to follow a gut instinct, researchers conclude.
(uriel sinai / getty images / april 26, 2012).
by amina khan, los angeles times.
Fernando, I find that that quote from Prof. Yamane is accurate. There are "spiritual Atheists" I have encountered.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ao0k9qdsovs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>.
.
zap2it.comdan savage, bullying and the truth about gays and the biblehuffington post - 42 minutes agodan savage, bullying and the truth about gays and the bible... walked out of dan's speech the moment he began talking about the parts of the ...
We all have an opinion. Hate is just one of them.
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/ao0k9qdsovs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>.
.
zap2it.comdan savage, bullying and the truth about gays and the biblehuffington post - 42 minutes agodan savage, bullying and the truth about gays and the bible... walked out of dan's speech the moment he began talking about the parts of the ...
Sorry, I still see that BTS is offended by the message and uses the messenger as an excuse to condemn both.
BTS, perfect time to answer your accusers. Do you agree with the message, mainly to stop the anti-gay sentiment? This is apparently what they are looking for.
When the presentation is polished, the message usually gets ignored. There are plenty of "voices of reason" out there that get ignored in favor of more extreme voices.
There are other ways to do it. Sarcasm, humor, hyperbole, etc. Cursing just seems so juvenile, you know? That's the whole point of it. Dawkins and Hitchens didn't curse when debating, as far as I'm aware, and they certainly used scathing words to describe Christianity. See what I'm getting at?
jehovah in the old testament and jesus in the new testament are one and the same.. .
3. jehovah is salvation.
5. jehovah wants only himself to be worshipped.
We are not condemned because of the sins of our parents, or Adam and Eve's sin, but for our own sins
The problem is even little things are sins in God's eyes. Something stupid like petty theft is no different in God's eyes than murder. Sin is sin, according to him, and so all must be sentenced.
That simply would not hold up in a court. No one in their right mind would give the death penalty to a theif the same as a murderer. Only God get's away with that.
