Shop now Shop now Shop now  Up to 70% Off Fashion  Shop all Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

If I say: "GOD is talking to me" would you ...


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 451-475 of 644 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 00:59:10 BDT
Yes Roger, you're right. I was talking within the context of Bible-based religions, but yes the same applies to all that have written texts at their core.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 06:56:46 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Drew: The point is that we don't know when our senses trick us, which is all the time."
Not universally but clearly we can know about deficencies in our senses or general thinking. That you were unaware of them doesn't change the fact that with some critical thinking and cross referencing it's possible to know when we got it wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2012 08:54:58 BDT
Shakepen,

We know things are made of atoms but we cannot see them. Our brain simply makes a model of the world it senses. That is your "internal reality". Science attempts to make a model of reality too but tries to remove the subjectivity. We know more than what we just sense so we can make adjustments and calculations and observations which our brain cannot. Nobody can see the world of quantum mechanics and it doesn't make "sense" to us in the every day world but we know and understand it.

Posted on 11 Jun 2012 16:09:46 BDT
Spin says:
"Man is the measure of all things". (Gorgias)

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 04:52:36 BDT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jun 2012 04:54:32 BDT
Shakepen says:
Drew: I mentioned that I would offer some references for inner reality. My first source is Schumaker, John F. The Corruption of Reality: A Unified Theory of Religion, Hypnosis, and Psycopathology. New York: Prometheus Books, 1995.

Schumaker uses different terms for my mine. His terms are personal reality and primary reality. He devotes several pages to his point. I will only quote a few.

"Culture usually specifies the alternatives to a strictly empirically based reality. But, in our species, the reality of the person never overlaps completely with reality as it would be constructed with empirecal or factual data only. ...This is true in normal as well as abnormal individuals." P.19

"It is intersting to speculate about the birth of personal reality. That is, when did human beings develop the cerebral skills required in order to construct a reality that was deviant from primary reality? In my earlier book Wings of Illusion, I proposed that this occurred when the human brain reached a critical developmental threshold wherein we became conscious to a potentially debilitating degree." p. 20

"In short, personal reality defines itself by its deviation from primary reality, even though persoan reality partially overlaps with primary reality...Ernest Rossi, an Ericksonian hypnotherapist, estimated that at least 80 percent of the information contained in the human mind is false." p. 21

Schumaker goes on, but you get the message. Essentially, my understanding is almost the same as Schumaker's. Incidentally, I attended a weekend workshop in Silicon Valley in the late 80s where Ernest Rossi lectured. I can attest that he isn't some far-out, weed- smoking psychotherapist. He co-authored Hypnotic Realities with Milton Erickson. Lastly, Rossi is including all of our values, assumptions, and beliefs in the 80% staement. More to follow this post.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 19:03:11 BDT
Shakepen says:
Drew: I've posted one of my sources regarding inner reality to you, namely, Schumaker. I would now like to respond with volley two. Bandler, Richard and John Grinder. Patterns of the Hypnotic Techniques of Milton H. Erickson, M.D. vol. l. Meta Publications: Cupertino, 1975. In their introduction "The Map is Not the Territory," a phrase you will note that occurs in some of my posts and is from general semantics, not psychology: "For our purposes here, we wish not wo provide you with only a basic model of the processes by which people create models of the world.
"First, the models that we as humans create will differ from the world of reality in three major ways. Some parts of our eperience will be deleted, not represented in our model...If we tried to represent every piece of sensory input, we would be overwhelmed with data.
"The second way in which our model of the world will be different fromthe world itself is through distortion. Distortion is a modeling process which allows us to make shifts in our experince of sensory data.
"The third process of modeling is generalization. This is the process by which one element of our model of the world comes to represent an entire category of which it is only an example." pp. 7-8
This model distortion that Bandler and Grinder present is what Schumaker and others call "a personal reality," "consciousness," "inner reality," and "internal reality."
In passing I would like to note that most psychologists do not talk much about reality because they are busy helping their patients cope, using either directional or indirect techniques, not scholastic discussions of reality. Hypnotherapists are different, however, because their techniques actually change the patient's reality through distortion by hypnosis. So, many, if not all, of my sources are from hypnotherapists: Bandler, Grinder, Schumaker, Erickson, Rossi, et al are hypnotherapists. I quote a few who aren't hypnotherapists like Lifton, Mower, et al. This smaller group is concerned with processes like brain washing as practiced by the Chinese both in China with missionaries and soldiers during the Korean War.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jun 2012 19:09:57 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: Ah, Gorgias, that damnable Sophist! If man is the measure of all things and God said, Let us make man in our image, then the measure of all things is God! I knew we would get back to Christianity.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 06:23:55 BDT
Shakepen says:
Sam: I believe it was you that recommended Krauss, the Universe from Nothing. Well, I saw Kraus interviewed on the Steven Colbert Report today. Krauss was dressed in a black t-shirt, dark-grey suit, and orange canvas tennis shoes. Personally, I like a theoretical physcist who is dressed both for the boardroom or the tennis courts.

After the initial sparring, the two got down to cases. Krauss, who works at Arizona State University by the way, spoke to the point that there is more space than anything else in the universe, and since there is more matter being created from space, the universe is expanding.

Colbert expressed some incredulity at the idea that nothing was really something. Colbert then asked Krauss if there were a God.

Krauss replied that a God was unnecessary and did not exist.

Colbert said, "So God doesn't exist? Then he must be nothing."

"That's true," replied Krauss.

"Oh, good," Colbert replied, "then I can expect him to come into existence soon!" The audience laughed...and so did Krauss.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:09:46 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 10:29:25 BDT
"and whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell."
Matthew 5:22

Posted on 22 Jun 2012 12:37:08 BDT
I shall not. My salvation is promised by Christ and I am not under law but under grace.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 12:45:17 BDT
C. A. Small says:
red Who is this Grace you are under and is she fit?

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 12:47:16 BDT
Ah. So the Bible is wrong. Good to know.

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 13:24:58 BDT
Lela says:
Sam,

How come you know the Bible, as to know the appropriate verse to quote?!

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 13:30:02 BDT
Lela says:
Sam "So the Bible is wrong."

Jesus:
"16 No man putteth a piece of new cloth unto an old garment, for that which is put in to fill it up taketh from the garment, and the rent is made worse.

17 Neither do men put new wine into old bottles: else the bottles break, and the wine runneth out, and the bottles perish: but they put new wine into new bottles, and both are preserved."

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 18:06:53 BDT
Lela,

I've read it...

...and there's Google, of course. :-D

In reply to an earlier post on 22 Jun 2012 20:42:53 BDT
As long as you believe it, it doesn't really matter what anyone else thinks. Maybe you could expand on it and pray privately to god and keep it to yourself unless he has asked you to do otherwise, perhaps share it with Christians or it just becomes a 'does god exist debate' which is so boring.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 01:07:39 BDT
Shakepen says:
Reverend: Actually, I believe we can see atoms. The electron microscipe has made it possible. Other than this comment, I agree with your post, but remember when you say "we know more than what we just sense," what we "just sense" is subject to flaws. Other than these objections, I believe you have accurately described the position of science today.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 01:12:02 BDT
Shakepen says:
Roger: A few weeks ago, I believed as you do. However, Krauss makes a compelling argument about something that is completely counter intuitive! Refuting his argument means coming up with a convincing scientific scenario that explains today's observable facts. I think you will find it a daunting task.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 01:15:11 BDT
Shakepen says:
Roger: I believe your internal reality. But faith, which justifies your internal reality, is not something that you should use in a scientific argument. Just as your faith is a metaphysical proof, so science has its own proofs and faith is not one of them.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 01:30:59 BDT
"But faith, which justifies your internal reality, is not something that you should use in a scientific argument". With due respect I believe you are missing a point in that those who back science are seeking to use it to 'shoot down' faith.

The very question has God named in it and a belief in God is by definition faith. The 'prosecution' has introduced the use of faith in the case as they have sought to refute it by scientific argument. The 'defence' has a valid argument in using faith in a question where God has been introduced into the equation.

It has ceased to be a purely scientific question.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 01:31:53 BDT
As is said in The Bible, faith is a belief in things unseen.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 01:36:22 BDT
Shakepen says:
Roger: Your last two paras are correct. Science should not be used to refute faith since faith is outside the parameters of science. The only time, in my opinion. when science should intrude into religion is when religion attempts to explain the natural world. Christ was attempting to explain the coming Kingdom of God, which will only be available after one dies. Science does not attempt to explain what happens when one dies in a metaphysical sense.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 01:39:47 BDT
Shakepen says:
Roger: My sister flagellates me with this quote all the time. One must remember that "things unseen" was a statement that lst century people used to designate those processes they could not explain. It is still a good idea metaphysically.

In reply to an earlier post on 23 Jun 2012 02:14:42 BDT
The quote { and all truths for that matter } remains true whether you're in the First Century or the twenty-first. God remains God and faith in Him remains faith in some thing { someone } unseen.

God knows no time.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
155 1 day ago
Why did it take precisely 7 days, not more or less, for Jahwah,God or Allah to create the universe? 24 23 minutes ago
Gay habits and God. Smokers and the devil. 170 53 minutes ago
Is President Trump right. Should we ban all Muslims and start deporting them in large amounts until they can prove they can accept civillisation and modern practices. I'm sure we all like history but the dark ages were the dark ages. 619 54 minutes ago
How do Christians decide which rules in the bible should be obeyed? 17 1 hour ago
Does Christianity make any sense? 468 1 hour ago
Don't mention the word Muslim. Hollande won't, Obama didn't want to and the BBC certainly won't. They'd rather you didn't have any thoughts on the matter. And then they are surprised when they are voted out. 37 2 hours ago
Why are atheists without theism, which is to say why are atheists, atheists? 20 4 hours ago
New Evidence That Christianity is Fake and Jesus Never Existed 1231 6 hours ago
The Power of Prayer. 2052 8 hours ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 891 14 hours ago
Christopher Hicthens 4285 16 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  45
Total posts:  644
Initial post:  29 May 2012
Latest post:  7 Jul 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions