Posts by deegee

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

"@deegee
OMG! Please consider my paranormal experience as an ordinary delusion.
Nothing what I'm talking about depends on this personal experience."

OK, so I guess this means you can't specifically tell when it is the unconscious dynamics of your mind at work versus when God is communicating with you.

You are not able to make a clear distinction between these two things.

It certainly is very difficult to make the distinction since no one knows what is buried in their subconscious and since God does not explicitly and unequivocally make it clear that it is he who is giving a person a vision, or speaking to the person, or inserting thoughts into a person's mind, or answering the person's prayer or showing the person a "sign". People are left to figure out all by themselves whether it was God who actually communicated with them.

So a person cannot unequivocally, beyond the shadow of a doubt tell whether a "vision" was their own product or whether it originated from an external source.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

"This is just your opinion about justice."

No John_Mann. This is not just my opinion, but also the opinion of the world's justice systems.

It is clear that God's creation has a keener sense of justice and empathy than he does in the matter of innocents suffering for the guilty.

Why would you want to serve a God like that?

Also, if I am not mistaken, the concept of transmission of sin from the guilty to the innocent is rejected by every major religion, except Christianity.

Justice has been defined to "consist in rendering to everyone according to his moral deserts; good if he be good, and evil if evil - for the purpose of promoting goodness and discouraging guilt."

If this be a recognized standard of right in human affairs, surely it should not be ignored in dealing with "divine" actions.

Let us take the case of an earthly father, who had, say, seven children, six of whom were thoroughly bad, and the seventh as good as human nature could possibly be.

Now, would it be considered just upon the part of that father to punish the one good child for the misdeeds of the six bad ones? Such conduct would ensure for its perpetrator a general and an emphatic condemnation.

If a judge were knowingly to sentence to death an innocent man as a substitute for a criminal, the act would provoke universal detestation, and the judge's judicial position would in all probability be forfeited.

Is it consistent for Christians to ascribe an act to their God which good men would refuse to perform? We think not.

The children of criminal parents are not blamed, but are rather pitied, for being innocent victim of others.

Children cannot be ethically punished for the sins of their parents. People not alive at the time of a sin cannot be held responsible for that "original sin."

Ethical systems teach that everyone is responsible for their own sins.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

No comments on the following?

"It's a personal axiom (I'd experienced a paranormal event)."

So, can you specifically tell when it is the unconscious dynamics of your mind at work versus when God is communicating with you?

Can you make a clear distinction between these two things? If so, how exactly are you able to make this distinction?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

"Well this is your opinion."

There is no justice system in the world that requires innocent children to pay the penalty for a crime committed by their parents.

It certainly isn't justice (divine or otherwise) to condemn not only the criminal to death, but also his offspring who have nothing to do with his crime. It certainly isn't justice if the law which governs societies today wasn’t satisfied with the death of a criminal but came after his offspring and executed them as well for his crime.

If God's creation appears to have a keener sense of justice and empathy than he does, then does that not raise some worrying questions about God's nature?

Why would you want to serve a God like that?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

"It's a personal axiom (I'd experienced a paranormal event)."

So, can you specifically tell when it is the unconscious dynamics of your mind at work versus when God is communicating with you?

Can you make a clear distinction between these two things? If so, how exactly are you able to make this distinction?
_______

THE UNCONSCIOUS DYNAMICS OF THE HUMAN MIND:

Information enters our brains minutely, hourly, daily at the conscious and unconscious levels. Some of the unconscious information never makes its way to the conscious mind for active processing but remains in our subconscious - hypnosis has proven to be an effective method in accessing/uncovering information buried in a person's subconscious.

There is always background activity taking place in our brains when we are awake and asleep and there is also a constant interplay between the conscious and subconscious mind - some information from the unconscious mind makes its way to the conscious mind for active processing and vice versa - thoughts/issues/concerns from the conscious mind can get pushed out of consciousness into the unconscious mind.

Our minds are never perfectly still. There is always subtle processing going on in which we can't consciously identify the thoughts in terms of clear words or clear images. There are rapid and fleeting associations taking place in the subconscious mind.

Subtle processing or preconscious or subconscious processing gives rise to conscious self-talking and imaging, however, as I have already stated, not all unconscious information makes its way to the conscious mind for active processing some remains in our subconscious and can be accessed/uncovered by methods like hypnosis.

Thoughts, impressions, visions, images, voices, words, etc. can also be released from our subconscious when we engage in certain intense practices like intense/deep/strong prayer, meditation, fasting etc. which can alter a person's state of consciousness to the point where, the person descends to deeper levels of his/her consciousness and releases thoughts, impressions, visions, images, voices, words etc. from the deep mind.

This self-induced altered state of consciousness involves a transition from the left brain to the right brain wherein the rational left brain is suppressed and quieted and the perceptive faculties of the intuitive right brain are awakened and the person transcends to the unknown, inner world of their subconscious mind.

This opens the way to the unlocking of a deep level of consciousness where psychic and extrasensory perception can be done and so some persons may become psychic or clairvoyant being able to forsee the future when in fact it is thoughts, impressions, images, visions, voices, words etc emerging from the deep, intuitive levels of the right brain as their own subconscious mind begins to "speak" to them.

New insights well up directly from the fluid matrix of the subconscious and the subtle processing taking place there, without having to be first processed at the conscious level. Some persons become psychotic or hallucinatory or some persons become both psychic/clairvoyant and psychotic/hallucinatory.

ALTERNATIVELY,
for some persons, it does not take intense activities like hypnosis, intense/deep/strong prayer, meditation, fasting etc. to induce an altered state of consciousness to unleash thoughts, images, visions, voices from subconscious.

Unleashing thoughts, images, visions, voices from the subconscious can happen SPONTANEOUSLY as well.

There is a percentage of the population for which unleashing thoughts, images, visions, voices from the subconscious happens SPONTANEOUSLY and there is a percentage of the population for which unleashing thoughts, images, visions, voices from the subconscious does not happen spontaneously but occurs when they engage in intense activities that induce an altered state of consciousness.

http://www.atpweb.org/jtparchive/trps-15-83-02-143.pdf

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

"I didn't had a vision that can be directly applied to these situations."

I imagine everybody's "vision" is unique. The point I am making is that a "vision" is a form of communication from God. It is claimed that communication from God can take the form of a vision, God speaking directly to a person, God inserting thoughts into a person's mind etc.

So my questions were essentially asking: why has God communicated with you but yet he has not communicated with the persons in the instances which I mentioned?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

"The sacrifice of Christ it's only effective to those who believe."

So the condemnation of death, suffering due to Adam's sin, fell on all of Adam's offspring AUTOMATICALLY for a transgression committed by someone else.

Yet, Jesus' ransom is not applied the same way - it is NOT AUTOMATIC, yet beneficiaries have to believe in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice, exercise faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice and work at proving worthy of "grace".

This is unfai and immoral:Since the condemnation was AUTOMATIC and not the fault of Adam's descendants, the ransom should likewise be AUTOMATIC. Christianity unfairly stacks the odds against the innocent offspring of Adam who inherited his sin through no fault of their own.

It is a fundamentally immoral worldview where the innocent are blamed and punished for the sins of their ancestors.
There is no justice system in the world which requires innocent children to pay the penalty for a crime committed by their parents.

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

"At this moment is only give the sanctifying grace (to overcome mortal sins)."

"Jesus' death erases the guilty of original sin in every baptized person."

"There's no clear plan for the planet earth. But it will be transformed at the Last Judgment. At that time everything will change."

Are you saying that God rather remove the GUILT for something which we did not do instead of its CONSEQUENCES, leaving us to continue experiencing evil and suffering?

'I will remove the GUILT but not the CONSEQUENCES' - is that what God is doing?

Why would a loving God not want to bring the object of his love (humans) relief from suffering and evil as a result of Adamic sin, AT THE SAME TIME that he removes the GUILT for this original sin?

Why remove just the GUILT and not the CONSEQUENCES SIMULTANEOUSLY?

"It was revealed to the angels the humankind will fall and God himself would become a human. This implied angels to worship the human nature in God."

So God went through the process of becoming a human when Adam & Eve sinned just so that he could subsequently die to remove the GUILT of Adamic sin but not the CONSEQUENCES of Adamic sin?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

"The vision I had was extremely convincing to me and not anyone else.
Source: God.
Delivery: an angel."

1. So why did you initially deny that your vision was from God?

2. How do you know that your vision is not convincing to anyone else?
Have you told anyone else about the specific details/ specific content of your vision?

You refused to provide the specific details/ specific content of your vision when someone from this forum asked you to share that information.

3. What about your vision makes you certain that it was from God via an angel?
How were you able to tell that your vision was from God via an angel?

4. "There's about 4 views in CC about the crucifixion of Christ."

If God can give you a vision, then why doesn't God speak to the Catholic Church and tell them which is the correct view? Why has God left the CC floundering and guessing on this matter?

5. If God can give you a vision, then why hasn't God appeared to the 40,000 Christian denominations and given all of them the same interpretation of the Bible so that they are all in agreement?

6. For that matter, if God can give you a vision, then why hasn't God appeared to the all of the various religions in the world, explain where they are misinterpreting his wishes, tells them what he really wants, what he really desires from humanity in order to end religious schism, division, confusion and discord?

7. According to the WT February 2017 par.12, p.26 - "The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible."

So the GB has admitted that God/the Holy Spirit does not speak to /communicate with them. Yet you claim that God, via an angel, gave you a vision?

So God contacts/communicates with you but not the GB?

Why would God contact/communicate with you but not the GB?

Isn't the GB equally seeking God's will and praying to him, so why isn't God answering them, speaking with them, communicating with them, contacting them as he does you?

496

This is What I Would Need in Order to Believe

by cofty in

sometimes theists challenge atheists about what evidence would be required before they would believe.

various unlikely scenarios are offered in reply.

i have taken the bait myself in the past.. i think the correct answer is much more ordinary.

deegee

John_Mann,

So, if a person does not get baptized does Jesus' death still erase the guilt of original sin from that person?
"No."

So is it Jesus' death that erases the guilt of original sin or is it baptism that erases the guilt of original sin?