The dishonesty of preaching theism

[Gary Childress]

How have you demonstrated it doesn't make sense?

Lace, I'm here, you're there: we are obviously separate. No device devised by man can establish we are anything but separate. Spiritually, I can only say, I see, perceive, no unity. Let's test it: read my mind. If there is no separation it ought be possible.

As I say: this ain't my first pony ride. I'm familiar with the science, and the opinions on, the conjectures about, and flim-flammery concocted with, the science. Them links aren't the evidence you think they are.

I don't know why anyone would be so resistant to such a concept... unless they think it threatens their individual ego and their yard.

And I'm at a loss to understand why any one would be so eager to be subsumed in an overmind. I reckon it must have sumthin' to do with being a flimsy, weak person.

We're all pretty flimsy and weak when we compare our individual selves to the forces at work in the world around us. Sometimes it takes more bravery to turn the other cheek or face a stranger unarmed than it does to wave a gun at anyone and everyone who is perceived as threatening. The latter can just as easily be a show of fear as anything else.

[Iwannaplato]

Well, it may be difficult to think of them that way... and it may be unnecessary... but it may be helpful to stand back and see from a broader perspective sometimes. For example, the Christian saying 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

There is an irony that your going to religion for a defense of the idea.

Or one of my favorite books suggests that when you see something dark and twisted, ask yourself "Well, what else did I think needed to be loved?"

Yeah, I think it's going too far to think of loving them. Like how much do you actually love yourself and the habits of your loved ones? There is so much guilt and shame, most humans who are not psychopaths already have an enormous struggle to accept their own emotions and desires and past mistakes, but somehow it's on the table to love destructive people. I am not advocating for the killing of my former boss or even her mistreatment. I don't even want a law to inhibit her destructive patterns. But the idea that one ought to love her....for me that's like asking an infant to play rugby. First I needed to learn to accept my own reactions that something messed up was happening - and not just whichever ones are most palatable to me, but the whole range: anger, fear, hopelessness....To try to put on top of that loving her when I am just managing to accept my own reactions, it's unhealthy I think.

I am not suggesting you run up to this person and hug them... nor put up with their shit. Rather, it's about our own state of mind -- and I think unity makes more things acceptable and understandable, perhaps, whereas separateness just divides and resists things further.

I don't think this is true. I think it is true for some people, but I think there are others who need to be even better at boundaries. Empaths need to stop letting some people in, for example. Some separateness is good. I didn't take you as suggesting the hug thing. But even at the attitudinal level, I think it's not good advice when aimed at everyone. Some people who are not competent as recognizing similarities or checking themselves/introspection or who live through mental categories and cannot really experience individuals, those people need to start experiencing less boundaries and separateness. But others do not need this.

The outward or surface character and energy can be many things, and perhaps that is the greatest way we vary from each other. And that is real... and we wrestle with each other over that. That character/energy/personality is surely our creation... and some creations are very toxic, even though it might be the combined result of all kinds of things we don't realize. I have compassion but I try to avoid toxic people. One of my employees had mental problems and it was a nightmare dealing with her. It's just not worth it being involved with such people... other than maybe to learn better how to avoid or master it.

I use the word 'divine' because I don't know what other word to use, since I think the word God is a concept loaded with mangled baggage.

Sure.

This is true in some Christian circles... but there seems to be a lot of variances across Christianity.

Yes.

For example, large groups of extremist Christian voters demonize the 'other side', turning their politics into a biblical prophecy -- they are not seeing or inspiring unity, they are waging holy war.

I'd say the demonization is pretty even these days. The left is pretty damning, in ways, it was not when I was younger. And any questioning of government policy often leads the technocratic people to label one as moronic, irrational. I see the most extreme divide in my whole long life. Choose team A or team B and damn anyone who differs on any issue or application as on the other team and [choose your favorite negative superlative here]

I think that's a "Sales line" for the Christian brochure. "We offer a path to complete forgiveness for anything you have done -- join us."

I actually agree with the interpersonal attitude. If someone really changes and can tell me what they did to me or others and why and it rings true, my anger and wariness can disappear very fast. I think the problem is not seeing that different people are fundamentally different - which of course Christians can do in negative ways also. I don't think we are all really the same.

But sure, if my former boss contacted me and in a kind of 12 steppy but honest way apologized for what she'd done, I'd be moved and forgiving. I just don't think it's in her make up. Some people are qualitatively different. One must have extreme care when it comes to damning them, even socially I mean. But I have learned not to pretend we are all really the same deep down.

Yes. There are a lot of different energies at work and in play here it seems. Like some politicians. Talk about invaders trying to take over our planet! Where do these people come from? They even look weird... like they're simply taking on human form.

Yup.

I think it's valuable to accept what people are showing you about themselves, and then protect yourself and move on as needed. It may seem strange, but I would say to them (in my head)... something like: 'Go be your version of the divine somewhere else.'

Yeah, get your own planet.

I think we learn how to play the game as well as possible for ourselves amongst all these characters/manifestations. We don't have to embrace other energies (the ability for extremism appears to be limitless). Still, I find it most helpful -- and it feels more true -- for my frame of mind to remember that all is of the same stuff and it's connected. It makes sense to me that we're all being affected all the time by other energies. If we think we're separate -- that there are no channels of transmission happening -- what might we not even realize is affecting us or is accessible?

I love wolves, but if I found one in my house, I'd call the wolfremovers. And I love wolves, not just in the abstract but in the contact I've had (not in my apartment). So, even creatures that I love I want separate most of the time. A psychopath, yes, separate, please. And I hear you. I know you are not saying I have to have them over for dinner. But even in my soul, I need to think of them and feel them as more separate.

In contrast, the free-flowing exchange of energy (and the recognition of it) can be very powerful. (Similar to how current technology continually expands.) I imagine it's possible for there to be waves of transformation in human development/resonance -- for better or worse -- on a level that we humans aren't usually aware of. The structuring of our world sort of prevents it.

I agree, but I actually think acknowledging my desire and need to have these entities separate from me, and for me precisely not to be looking for similarities, is part of what can help restructure and not just my private life.

Oops... I gotta go. Thanks for participating and inspiring this discussion further.

Likewise.

[Harbal]

But are 'you' 'trying to' USE 'this' as some sort of EXCUSE for WHY 'you' have assigned a FICTITIOUS entity to the 'God' while "others" have NOT?

No, it has nothing to do with wanting to find an excuse for anything. It is nothing more than a theory providing a possible and partial explanation for a particular state of affairs. Actually, theory is probably too grand a word for it. Intuitive hunch would be a more accurate way of describing it.

Just for the record, Age. I realise that there are various definitions of "god", and even some that I could accept. To call the laws of nature God, for example, but unless we are talking about an anthropomorphic god that created everything and rules over it, I think it would be better not to use the word "god" at all.

[Age]

If I have a psychopath - and I don't really think of psychopathy as a mental illness - or a narcissist in my life, I don't feel like I ever need to think of them as divine. .../... I just don't think it helps me in any way to think of them this way, as divine

Well, it may be difficult to think of them that way... and it may be unnecessary... but it may be helpful to stand back and see from a broader perspective sometimes.

Is it EVER NOT helpful to STAND BACK, OBSERVE, and SEE from a BROADER PERSPECTIVE?

if yes, then WHEN?

For example, the Christian saying 'there but for the grace of God go I'. Or one of my favorite books suggests that when you see something dark and twisted, ask yourself "Well, what else did I think needed to be loved?"

I am not suggesting you run up to this person and hug them... nor put up with their shit. Rather, it's about our own state of mind -- and I think unity makes more things acceptable and understandable, perhaps, whereas separateness just divides and resists things further.

Are 'you', AT ALL, ABLE TO EXPLAIN how continually SAYING and BELIEVING, 'There is NO one truth', is ACTUALLY UNITING, and NOT DIVIDING/SEPARATING?

It has taken a lot of work for me not to consider them 'really like me deep down' and even from thinking of them as having much less wonderful sounding qualities than 'divine'.

The outward or surface character and energy can be many things, and perhaps that is the greatest way we vary from each other. And that is real... and we wrestle with each other over that. That character/energy/personality is surely our creation...

WHO, does the word 'our' here refer to, EXACTLY?

And, WHY is that 'one' or those 'ones' creating very DIFFERENT and CONFLICTING 'characters'? What would be the purpose of doing such a thing?

ALSO, does the 'energy' word here MEAN the EXACT SAME as the 'energy' word previous used, which was said to be WITHIN ALL, and/or MANIFESTING ALL?

and some creations are very toxic, even though it might be the combined result of all kinds of things we don't realize.

And, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, well by some of us anyway, some of the creations under the label "lacewing" are VERY, VERY TOXIC. But, "lacewing" is OBVIOUSLY NOT ABLE TO realize this YET.

I have compassion but I try to avoid toxic people.

LOL
LOL
LOL

JUDGING and LABELING some human beings as "toxic people" is one of the MOST TOXIC 'things' one can do.

In the very SAME behavior of AVOIDING SOME people, because of JUDGMENTS, ASSUMPTIONS, and/or BELIEFS, "lacewing" is misbehaving in one of the MOST TOXIC WAYS possible.

AGAIN, talk about HYPOCRISY in the HIGHEST LEVEL. These people are, LITERALLY, 'sinning' the MOST, and do NOT YET even REALIZE this Fact.

One of my employees had mental problems and it was a nightmare dealing with her. It's just not worth it being involved with such people... other than maybe to learn better how to avoid or master it.

I use the word 'divine' because I don't know what other word to use, since I think the word God is a concept loaded with mangled baggage.

LOL And, the word 'divine' is NOT a concept loaded with so-called 'mangled baggage'?

The Fact that "iwannaplato" can NOT YET GRASP 'your' concept of the word 'divine', because of "iwannaplato's" VERY DIFFERENT concept of the word 'divine' if not PROVES the word 'divine' is a concept loaded with 'mangled baggage', for 'you', then SURELY implies or leads to this CONCLUSION.

even, in Christianity, say, that at any time they can't turn to God and find forgiveness. So, in some way, even in Christianity there is this, deep down we are all the same idea, but some people keep chosing to keep their back turned toward God. (I'm not a Christian, by the way).

This is true in some Christian circles... but there seems to be a lot of variances across Christianity.

VERY True AND VERY Correct. So, WHY 'TRY SO HARD' to bangle people INTO groups or clusters, and then LABEL 'them' AS SUCH?

For example, large groups of extremist Christian voters demonize the 'other side', turning their politics into a biblical prophecy -- they are not seeing or inspiring unity, they are waging holy war.

LOOK AT the TITLE of THIS THREAD. If this is NO 'WAGING WAR' at a PARTICULAR GROUP of PEOPLE/HUMAN BEINGS, then WHAT IS?

Also, WHAT, EXACTLY, IS A so-called "christian"? And then, WHAT, EXACTLY, IS A so-called "extremist Christian"?

The Fact that 'you' can NOT define these words and terms SUCCESSFULLY PROVES, well to me anyway, that 'you', "lacewing", do NOT REALLY KNOW what 'you' are talking ABOUT and SAYING here.

I am trying to triangulate here. I think these ideas in the abstract can be interpreted many ways.

It's interesting. Yes, I agree.

she could at any moment repent her sins and be saved and head to heaven. I think that's confused.

I think that's a "Sales line" for the Christian brochure. "We offer a path to complete forgiveness for anything you have done -- join us."

And, do 'you' NOT want to OBTAIN 'forgiveness', itself?

There is something fundamentally different about her. I am not ruling out that over some huge period of time she might learn to behave better. But I think it may be possible that she simply cannot do this because of differences in her make up.

Yes. There are a lot of different energies at work and in play here it seems.

So, is there One 'energy' WITHIN ALL? Or, are there LOTS of DIFFERENT 'energies' here?

Would be MORE HELPFUL if you picked just ONE of them and STUCK TO 'it'.

Like some politicians. Talk about invaders trying to take over our planet! Where do these people come from? They even look weird... like they're simply taking on human form.

WHAT, EXACTLY, are 'you' on ABOUT here now?

Do 'you' REALIZE "lacewing" that 'you' are NEARLY coming across as being as JUDGMENTAL, and as 'TRYING TO' act SUPERIOR to "others", as "immanuel can" does here?

I think it's valuable to accept what people are showing you about themselves, and then protect yourself and move on as needed. It may seem strange, but I would say to them (in my head)... something like: 'Go be your version of the divine somewhere else.'

Do 'you' often laugh at what 'you' say to "your" OWN 'self'?

So, what does the problematic theist do in relation to someone like this that we shouldn't do?

It varies and the signals are mixed.

And would this be true if we are dealing with a Ted Bundy or Stalin or Hitler?

I think we learn how to play the game as well as possible for ourselves amongst all these characters/manifestations. We don't have to embrace other energies (the ability for extremism appears to be limitless). Still, I find it most helpful -- and it feels more true -- for my frame of mind to remember that all is of the same stuff and it's connected.

What IS this SAME 'stuff', EXACTLY?

And, what does the 'it' word refer to, EXACTLY, which is connected?

It makes sense to me that we're all being affected all the time by other energies.

Now 'you' SAY and CLAIM there are OTHER 'energies', so WHERE do these OTHER 'energies' come from, EXACTLY?

If we think we're separate -- that there are no channels of transmission happening -- what might we not even realize is affecting us or is accessible?

But CLAIMING there ARE OTHER 'energies' is just ANOTHER FORM of 'trying to' SEPARATE thee one and ONLY One.

Separatist thinking seems like a stagnant dead-end to me... and people from all walks of life are convinced of it.

AND, "lacewing" is CERTAINLY one who is CONVINCED that there are OTHER, SEPARATED, 'energies' CONTROLLING DIFFERENT people in DIFFERENT WAYS.

How much MORE convinced of a SEPARATED 'world' could one REALLY GET?

In contrast, the free-flowing exchange of energy (and the recognition of it) can be very powerful. (Similar to how current technology continually expands.) I imagine it's possible for there to be waves of transformation in human development/resonance -- for better or worse -- on a level that we humans aren't usually aware of. The structuring of our world sort of prevents it.

It IS the STRUCTURING of the DISTORTED 'thinking' that 'you', adult human beings, HAD, back in the days when this was being written, WHY it took SO LONG to MOVE FORWARD, and PROGRESS.

What 'you', people, were NOT YET AWARE of WAS STUNTING 'your' ACTUAL GROWTH and MATURITY along the evolutionary path of Life.

Oops... I gotta go. Thanks for participating and inspiring this discussion further.

LOL What do 'you' two think 'you' have ACTUALLY ACHIEVED or RESOLVED here EXACTLY?

Inspiring A discussion FURTHER, but which ACTUALLY NEVER RESOLVES NOR DISCOVERS ANY ACTUAL 'thing' is NOT REALLY of ANY use AT ALL in Life. And, especially of NO USE in a 'philosophy forum', anyway.

The ONLY REAL purpose of what 'you' are SHOWING here is just how much 'time' AND 'energy' GOT WASTED, back in the days when this was being written. But moving UP 'levels' of Awareness, along the evolutionary path of Life, was at a VERY SLOW and GRADUAL pace back in the 'OLDEN' days when this WAS being written.

[Age]

There is an abundance of information and awareness that suggests otherwise

Yes, there is an abundance of opinion and conjecture (I'm familiar with them...this an't my first pony ride), none of which dispute the fact you, over there, and me, over here, are not the same and are not connected in a material, energetic, or (I believe) spiritual way.

There are no umbilicals binding us together.

As for God? In my view He is the First Person. I'm not Him either, nor, as free will, am I bound to Hm.

Here is A PRIME EXAMPLE of just HOW MUCH MORE these ones REALLY did HAVE TO LEARN and DISCOVER, back when this was being written.

But, as can be CLEARLY SEEN here, this is ANOTHER EXAMPLE of NOT LOOKING FOR MORE to LEARN and UNCOVER but INSTEAD they would just 'STICK TO THEIR GUNS', as some would say, (which is appropriated for "henry quirk"), and NEVER DEVIATE from what they ALREADY BELIEVED was the truth of things.

you can believe whatever you want

Of course, as can you. This conversation, however, isn't about that. Upthread, you asserted surely all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see)... and that there can be no separation, then you challenged I would really like for some of the diehard theists to explain how this doesn't make sense?

I accepted the challenge (as a deist). I've demonstrated it doesn't make sense.

'you' mean, 'you' have demonstrated TO 'you' that 'unity' does NOT make sense.

'you' CERTAINLY HAVE NOT demonstrated TO 'us' that 'unity' does NOT make sense.

In fact, 'your' so-called 'explanation' is just a REVELATION of what 'you' ALREADY BELIEVE is the truth of things here.

Now, you could claim what I see as separation is an illusion. If you do: I want evidence (not opinion or conjecture).

How come 'you' do NOT have to PROVIDE 'evidence' for what is, OBVIOUSLY, just 'your' OWN opinion and conjecture?

Or, you can withdraw the challenge saying, in my opinion, all is of 'the divine' (meaning the same creative energy that creates the magnificence of all we see.

Will 'you' withdraw 'your' CLAIM saying, 'in my opinion, the fact you, over there, and me, over here, are not the same and are not connected in a material, energetic, or (I believe) spiritual way.'? Or, are 'you' just going to go along IN Life BELIEVING 'your' OWN view, opinion, and/or conjecture here?

Which, OBVIOUSLY, 'you' have NO ACTUAL 'evidence' for, let alone ACTUAL 'PROOF' for.

But, if you're gonna hold to your assertion as fact, then expect some dispute.

LOL Just about ANY one can 'dispute' just about ANY 'thing'. But we are in a 'philosophy forum' here so 'refute' is what is NEEDED and what is best LOOKED FOR here.

Also, if 'you', "henry quirk", are going to HOLD TO your assertion as fact, then expect some CHALLENGING QUESTIONS.

But, BECAUSE 'you' are just ANOTHER one who can NOT back up and support 'YOUR' BELIEFS and CLAIMS, 'you' have ALREADY CHOSEN to RUN AWAY and HIDE.

[Age]

How have you demonstrated it doesn't make sense?

Lace, I'm here, you're there: we are obviously separate.

LOL This is ONLY because this one SEES and BELIEVES 'it' is A visible human body.

No device devised by man can establish we are anything but separate.

NO device devised by men, women, children, human beings, NOR ANY OTHER animal WAS NEEDED to ESTABLISH that 'we' are IN FACT 'united together', as One.

But, then, some of 'us' do LOOK AT and SEE 'things' VERY DIFFERENTLY here, OBVIOUSLY.

Spiritually, I can only say, I see, perceive, no unity. Let's test it: read my mind. If there is no separation it ought be possible.

I can VERY EASILY so-call READ so-called "henry quirk's mind". "henry quirk" has ACTUALLY NO idea AT ALL about what the word 'mind' refers to, EXACTLY.

And, to PROVE that 'I' KNOW 'this' ABOUT "henry quirk" could be VERY SIMPLY and VERY EASILY DONE if "henry quirk" had NOT been AFRAID and had NOT ALREADY RUN AWAY from 'I' here.

As I say: this ain't my first pony ride.

LOL 'you' are NOT SERIOUSLY 'trying to' CLAIM that 'you' have WON some sort of debate or argument here are 'you' "henry quirk"?

LOL What 'you' are 'trying to' CLAIM could NOT be MORE FURTHER AWAY from what IS ACTUALLY IRREFUTABLY True and RIGHT.

I'm familiar with the science, and the opinions on, the conjectures about, and flim-flammery concocted with, the science. Them links aren't the evidence you think they are.

I don't know why anyone would be so resistant to such a concept... unless they think it threatens their individual ego and their yard.

And I'm at a loss to understand why any one would be so eager to be subsumed in an overmind. I reckon it must have sumthin' to do with being a flimsy, weak person.

And here we have a PRIME EXAMPLE of two DIFFERENT 'egos' 'TRYING' their HARDEST to FIGHT and DESTROY the "other". When what can be CLEARLY SEEN is BOTH of them are Wrong and Incorrect here.

Which makes OBSERVING these adult human beings all the MORE ENTERTAINING, although making some WONDER just HOW STUPID some people REALLY WERE, back in those 'OLDEN' days.

But at least they are PROVIDING the IRREFUTABLE PROOF, 'FIRST HAND', WITHOUT ABSOLUTELY ANY INPUT from 'Me'. So, I can say, at least here, there was NO DIRECT INPUT from 'Me' to INFLUENCE the OUTCOME being CLEARLY SHOWN and PROVEN. Which CONFERS, EXACTLY, with what I have been SAYING, MEANING, and PROVING True here.

So, ONCE AGAIN, we are to THANK these UNSUSPECTING PARTICIPANTS for what they have REALLY DONE for SHOWING what TO DO and especially what NOT TO DO in order to REACH and ACHIEVE the GOAL that I had set out, from the beginning, HERE.

[Iwannaplato]

Why do we think theism needs to be preached at us?

There's a cultural aspect to all this too, for me. I'm from the pre-mobile/cellphone world. And I think of public communication from that perspective. I don't speak loudly into my phone about my private thoughts when sitting on a train. To do such things for the beginning of my life would mean one was potentially schizophrenic or intentionally messing with people or narcissistic, etc. We were, generally, aware of other people around us and while we might laugh or even have loud conversations, we generally kept an argument with an unfaithful partner off the table of what could be heard. Standing behind someone in line at the supermarket we weren't arguing over some private matter or even blabbing about some film such that it seemed like the person in front of us was the person being talked to. We also looked where we were going better than mobile users do now. We were where we were. If we were having dinner with someone we weren't gossiping to someone sitting at the next table.

So, when people do these things I experience them as a 20th century type person. They seem rude, idiotic, boundariless, intentionally spitting on others socially etc. But they're used to it or became used to it. They don't mind being half in the ether and I assume aren't bothered much by others like them who are, yes, on the street, in the restaurant, in line, but also are somewhere else. They don't mind when friends are half with them, half somewhere else.

I can recognize that I come from a different culture: the past. I think this aspect of the past was a healthier culture for most human bodies and emotions, but hey, that's not my call for everyone, even if I will continue to be pissed off and irritated at times, I am sure.

I think dattaswami is from another culture in this. Not the obvious that he is likely Indian and but even more importantly a guru, both of which bring cultural elements in, the latter vastly more important, I think, when thinking of posting behavior.

Of course it's fine to come to an online forum (forum indicating a focus on discussion) and post old lectures in great numbers. To consider his focus pontification. So, even when he responds, it is generally not really a response, but an opportunity to lecture some more.

Henry/Walker is right in the sense that one can simply ignore them.

I tend to use New Posts and Own Posts links to see what has been added. And, yes, the swarm of threads created by dattaswarm, even if I have him on ignore, creates a certain amount of signal to noise problems. And since I can see his thread titles, I know immediately, given my knowledge of his tradition, the kinds of what I consider pernicious or silly or loopy things that are being asserted. It would be better if that could get shut off too. But the price of his institutionalized narcissism is actually pretty low. It just seems, from my culture of online forums, the way I have experienced them, that his posts mean a bunch of pretty negative things. His tactics scream out an implicit sense of superiority, even if I never read them. If I was temporarily deaf and someone entered a party, I still might be able to tell that they were disrespecting people, interrupting their conversations, cutting in line to the punch and so on. I could GET the implicit message that person is sending even if my temporary deafness functioned as a kind filter for the content of his communication. The meta-communication says it all sometimes.

So, I could, following this crosscultural interpretation consider this a misunderstanding or just, hey we have a diversity of ways of participating and I can minimize my irritation easily and write it all off to a diverse world.

Or, I could see him as the narcissist at the party.

Or, a mixture of both.

And this is true for many interactions here, though perhaps DS presents the most openly crosscultural divide, given that he is from a country few if any others are from and then has been considered a special spiritual soul since childhood and lived in ashrams most likely as a guru or special devotee most of his life. IOW he would have no idea what he is 'saying' by his habits. And he's been somewhere where nearly everyone getting near him is giving him positive strokes for just breathing and making up explanations for any possible mistakes he's made or shortcomings he may have - just as he does for the deity.

But other people have their own little microcultures. With habits they think are just peachy or which they may not even notice differ from others. And they may also think they have good intentions - whether they do or not is another story.

[henry quirk]

We're all pretty flimsy and weak when we compare our individual selves to the forces at work in the world around us.

That there is loser talk, Gary...

[Gary Childress]

We're all pretty flimsy and weak when we compare our individual selves to the forces at work in the world around us.

That there is loser talk, Gary...

You might be right about that, Henry.

[Harbal]

We're all pretty flimsy and weak when we compare our individual selves to the forces at work in the world around us.

That there is loser talk, Gary...

You might be right about that, Henry.

Embrace it, Gary, and be the very best loser you can be.

[Gary Childress]

That there is loser talk, Gary...

You might be right about that, Henry.

Embrace it, Gary, and be the very best loser you can be.

Sounds like an excellent idea, Harbal! I hear God's a good shepherd and likes lamds, or maybe lamb chops. I get confused at times.

[Harbal]

Sounds like an excellent idea, Harbal! I hear God's a good shepherd and likes lamds, or maybe lamb chops. I get confused at times.

Actually, Gary, just so you know, I think of you as one of the few voices of reason in this place, and that makes you a winner in my book. And you also seem to have the ability to reduce me to cheesyness.

[Gary Childress]

Sounds like an excellent idea, Harbal! I hear God's a good shepherd and likes lamds, or maybe lamb chops. I get confused at times.

Actually, Gary, just so you know, I think of you as one of the few voices of reason in this place, and that makes you a winner in my book. And you also seem to have the ability to reduce me to cheesyness.

I think the same of you, Harbal.

[Lacewing]

How have you demonstrated it doesn't make sense?

Spiritually, I can only say, I see, perceive, no unity.

Exactly, you don't see it. Yet, you believe in a god?

Many people continually have experiences in life of 'unity' and a vast connected nature, which science has been considering and demonstrating on its own terms -- and you think this natural view is weak. Yet, nature can (and will) wipe you out without even thinking about it. No theatrical narrative required.

Why is it easier to believe in a god than to believe that there's a lot more to nature and our place in it than what we might perceive?

As I say: this ain't my first pony ride. I'm familiar with the science, and the opinions on, the conjectures about...

Your pony, Henry, is still circling around the notion of a god that's a person!

Them links aren't the evidence you think they are.

I did not say they were evidence. I said they offer more to consider... which you clearly think you've already done enough of sufficiently.

I'm at a loss to understand why any one would be so eager to be subsumed in an overmind.

You frame this in such a way because you don't get it... you can't imagine the benefit of what's natural... and probably because the human ego doesn't want to recognize anything beyond what one imagines themselves to know and be.

[Lacewing]

Well, it may be difficult to think of them that way... and it may be unnecessary... but it may be helpful to stand back and see from a broader perspective sometimes. For example, the Christian saying 'there but for the grace of God go I'.

There is an irony that your going to religion for a defense of the idea.

Yes, I know. I see value and insights in all directions.

I am interested in responding thoughtfully to your posts when I have more time to do that. Thank you.