User Tag List

Results 1 to 3 of 3

  1. #1
    Senior Member Passacaglia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    645

    Default Make the Case for Your God(s)

    Has your faith changed your life?

    Have you had experiences that you can only explain via the supernatural?

    Do you have philosophical arguments for your beliefs?

    Does your faith come with practical benefits?

    No judgments, I'm curious.

  2. #2
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    MBTI
    NiFi
    Enneagram
    3w4 sx/so
    Socionics
    IEI4 Ni
    Posts
    9,250

    Default

    I would recommend changing the name of the thread if you can. It'd greatly inhibit people from posting on how to prove their religion is their correct one.

    A lot of religions precepts you have to take some for granted before anyone could agree with their logic.

    Obviously being restricted to do dangerous things gives you the practical benefit of not being burned by the consequences of them: for example if you don't practice drugs, no side effects, no sex no std's or unwanted children, no murder...well no trouble with the law or no people chasing down wanting to kill you.

    Traditional beliefs about family relationships could have a lasting family relationship because it may be out of duty rather than love. So stability in that way.

    Maybe the practice of eating certain foods can help you lead a healthy lifestyle rather than be tempted by the fast food right by our doors.

    Maybe supporting people and limiting use technology can build more real relationships and have an overall more fulfilling social life.

    On another side, humility can help garnish feelings of love and equality with any individual.

    What about hallucinogenic drugs or dances? Raves are often the same spiritual experience because of the whole togetherness of the whole human race.

    Or you could to the other extreme of religion like LeVayen Satanism where excessive self pride could give you the confidence to be a successful person in the world.

    Spiritual truths are meant to be contradictory. Some apply better than others and vice versa depending on the individual.
    Likes Dyslexxie, Passacaglia liked this post

  3. #3
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    457

    Default

    I would say I experience many supernatural experiences...

    I often have dreams that lay out contextual meanings, to the events that I have experienced, sometimes those events have come subsequent to the particular dream also. Dreams that include layers of depth and information which are not otherwise possible to be communicable through interpreting mere appearances that had been available to the senses.

    I have had shared dreams with people, which I have confirmed by my own skepticism by asking the other participant about the contents of the dream.

    Then I have more claims about dreams, but they would be very hard to believe, and I don't have immediate indicators as to the voracity of my claims, so I will omit these for discussion.

    I believe there is a philosophical cohesion and account for everything, so "supernatural" is a bit of a misnomer, I take it to mean that it doesn't seem accessible to Science, although for me that is not a damning claim, since Science has already fundamentally acquiesced its purchase of on Empirical knowledge: when it dropped the ball in the field of quantum mechanics, and substituted the ball for a statistical account of where the ball could be found, while conveniently forgetting that Science received all of its clout from the process of ascertaining the actual position of the ball— after rendering a full hypothesis of where the ball might 'actually' be.

    cliff notes:
    test for where it could be =/= test for where it might be.

    So, "supernatural" could easily contain the knowledge of truth, that must be scientifically incompatible (as Science is simply a gang that has agreed upon fictional assumptions, that the data is quite un-supportive of; but Science has already decided to side with mechanical-determinism as its operative filter for 'truth', so of course it can only self-identify with similar versions of faulty thinking). The first fictional assumption science relies on, is temporal determinism, which the method itself presumes about the basis of nature, and how to read it. Since temporal determinism was debunked, the only way to save material-determinism, was to shift the focus of science away from Empirical observation, and into the interpretation of statistical data; corresponding with a dogma that heralds this statistical account, as the real stuff that makes up reality: even though there is no account for what hand throws the rolling dice, or what eye will read these dice...

    So science, or the religion of materialism, in its advanced chapter tells us: we live in a universe of rolling dice, please don't ask about what it adds up to, that would be to question and usurp the God of Statistic himself, blindly follow or be branded 'stupid'.

    ____
    I had come up recently with a little discourse on how to introduce my religious views:

    Firstly: the truth doesn't have answers to every question.
    e.g. "How un-free am I?"
    This is the same form that skeptical complaints are conveyed through... its not a question that is being asked, its just a complaint, or rather a question that is being begged. Which is to say, that it's also a covert demand, and it takes the form of an obstacle, with the expectation that the obstacle MUST be surmounted, before life can be commenced unencumbered.

    The technical answer to such a question is a spectrum of retort/reply/response... and just the presence of nebulousness alone, would offend the "asker", because nothing tendered could speak to the issue as it was envisioned (excepting an ad-hoc decision to regard the reply as pertinent, as the basis of further discourse that would similarly end without resolution), because the initial construct is incoherent, or put another way: it is untrue (in this case because it represents an incoherent intention/inclination)— all appearances and constructs ultimately are (because all representations are prone to degradation as context unfolds [fractals are a perfect illustration of this]), they are only saved by humility that can offer those constructs into a shared understanding [I could reference a few scriptures that talk about communication of being heard by those who are available to such shared understandings].

    Ultimately this is a useful 'test' for the viability of an idea: is it operable between members in a collective, in a way that the character of those motivations aren't diminished from their subjective (individual) apprehension. It is the difference between saying in your own mind 'square-circles are so obvious, why don't these fools believe', 'just because I can't write it, or verbally communicate it doesn't mean these fools shouldn't respect and concede to my contention', 'until one of these fools proves that 'square circles are untrue, I am justified in my project and belief to impress upon the importance of square-circle, the jewel and height of geometric knowledge'.

    Similarly, sociologists often tell their first year students about a puzzling conundrum involving socialization: what is stopping you from getting up on your desk and taking off all your clothes... what boundaries are holding you back, what is limiting your expression? Do you have any potency for change as an individual actor? (I'll take that is framed a little bit differently than that account, but close enough to my memory to make my answer relevant): Individually one has no power, as surely as one might die and be forgotten: the power of the actor, is dormant in the audience~ and so, when you are against the room, you are limited, but if you might move anyone else, into sharing an understanding- you have the model for a culture that might be height compulsive changeability as it compares to inferior cultures of energy-exchange.

    __
    In summary, the quick retort to the skeptic, the seeker whose cup is already full: you don't know/understand the structure to your freedom.

    And yet there are so many ideologically perverse forms of rhetoric, that seek to teach 'all' about how to go about bestowing education onto them; and in the meantime, society will rot, family values will degrade, and civilization will fall to war and petty-tribalism.
    Last edited by Zangetshumody; 10-28-2016 at 10:40 PM.
    In the era of nomadic seekers, from intellectual, spiritual and cultural destitution:

    Look into these treasures that I bring to you—

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_c...&v=MqJXQPnzEsw

    https://www.researchgate.net/publica...utz_GmbH_71-83

    http://elgin.harvard.edu/undg/virtue.pdf
    Likes Passacaglia liked this post

Similar Threads

  1. Do you make others responsible for your feelings?
    By Lark in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: 07-09-2018, 01:31 PM
  2. The Case for Gamma
    By Kierva in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-15-2014, 10:14 AM
  3. How do you sort The Temperaments for your purposes?
    By iwakar in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 106
    Last Post: 04-11-2011, 09:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO