that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
The person who feels god in his heart may be referring to Yahweh, Vishnu, or any number of beings. How would you determine that this feeling is Jesus, and not Brahma?
There is a saying that love and hate are two sides of the same coin.
But to answer your question, that person would very likely tell you which God they feel in their heart and why. Or maybe they couldn't. Like the complex emotions we've touched on, they just know they feel God.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
You continue to suggest that by allowing for feelings and fantasies to be understood as real conditions/creations of the mind.
You've categorized feelings and fantasies as the same again.
With modern equipment we actually can quantify and isolate feelings and project them on a screen.
Suppose someone significant to you tells you 'I despise you so much '.
Well, but how much is that? How absurd to think that you can pour this hate into a cup and measure the amount as you would water.
No, you would shift into the reality of the heart and mind, countering their emotion with kindness and contrition, else they determine you to be cold and indifferent which would be dangerous to the relationship. None of this is fantasy.
My aim was simply to point out that not all things that some here consider metaphysical are fantasy as was absolutely claimed.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Feelings exist in the mind, and so in that sense are 'real', feelings are not however, trustworthy assessments of reality.
But real nonetheless. Which is to say, not all real things can be measured and quantified. Desire suppressed, for example, is still very much real desire.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Do they, really? I strongly suspect that, if I asked people even in one geographic region, I would get many different descriptions of what that means. And this assumes they belong to the same religion and acknowledge the same god.
To this you can add how they feel about themselves on any given day. A person who considers himself a sinner one day may feel despondent in regards to God. A person who considers himself obedient will feel better about God.
But none of it changes the fact that they will tell you that they feel God in their hearts.
Or how about the person who is inexplicably happy over the loss of someone or something? Or the person who is sad over gaining something and can't tell you why, they just are?
Would we tell them that they are feeling the wrong kind of happy or the wrong kind of sad, and base our argument on testable claims and reliable data?
i overheard my wife listening to '2023 governing body update #2, presented by kenneth cook jnr.
a few points i got from it.. new hour requirements.
quote "with the new hour requirements for pioneers, many us us can share in the pioneer work.
Interesting, what are the new pioneer hourly requirements now?
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Jojo-Now I feel like a burger. Just writing this produced a neuro-chemical reaction that made my mouth water.
But wait, wasn't the thought of a burger what triggered your neuro chemical reaction?
Yet rivergang and yourself claimed that the metaphysical phenomena of thought and emotion always follows the chemical reaction.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Across societies and nations, people can agree on how it feels to be happy or sad.
Across societies and nations, people can agree on how it feels to have God in their hearts.
Why is my statement above any less true than yours?
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
You where the one arguing that your feelings and inner thoughts met the standard for objective truth/reality. As I said that is the domain of theoretical pure religion.
Interesting how you categorize thoughts and emotions the same as theoretical pure religion. This is what I was referring to when I responded to tonus, you either legitimize all metaphysical phenomena or are forced to discard it all.
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
Do you wish us to equate your belief in God/s to be equated with fantasy?
Perhaps you would attempt to do this the same way you would equate jealousy and envy to fantasy. If not, why?
that's what the word says.
.
colossians 1:16. for by him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created through him and for him..
I'm not sure if legitimizing is the right word. If the human brain is the source of all of our gods and related beings and worlds, that wouldn't necessarily make them real.
Then the brain, a very physical thing with all its chemical reactions, cannot be the ultimate determiner of which metaphysical phenomena is real or not.
The question would be, are there any that are real? How would we confirm that, if we have defined them in such a way to make it impossible to do so?
Good questions, if the brain can't, who or what makes the ultimate decision on wether something like desire, longing, melancholy is actually real?
