[Previous entry: "Christmas Shopping"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "Chickens 3"]

12/04/2001 Archived Entry: "Chickens 2"

Second installment of pk and the chickens....

Note: Pk comments prefaced with > and Chickens' comments with no marker.

>I wonder about the intelligence of someone who denies experiences of
>their own

I do not. My religious beliefs are based upon my personal experience
and what makes sense to me.

>or others

I do not believe that other humans are capable of witnessing religious
experiences for one another, and therefore discount all testimony as
probably corrupted data.

>simply because it seems it "cannot be true."

That's why it cannot be true.

>A person can not explain a personal experience to another without
>subjecting it to interpretation and misunderstanding.

I agree with that. Therefore the Bible is wrong. The Koran is wrong.
The Tao Te Ching is wrong.

>Each person
>interprets/understands from his own vantage point through prior
>experience and current needs.

Yes!

>This does not negate the reality of the experience.

In fact, it totally negates the reality of another's experience for
any other person. It makes all testimony more than suspect. All
writings and spoken words that speculate beyond the knowable are
worthless gibberish.

>That would be like a blind man saying the sky nor the top of a tree
>nor lightning nor a flying eagle exist because he cannot see them

A classical logical fallacy used by the religious. You twisted it so
it is backwards from the actual analogy. More correctly: Religion is
the equivalent of a blind man telling others what color everything is,
how tall things are, and how beautiful the sunset is.

>, or
>a deaf person saying no fire alarm sounded, no music is playing, and
>nobody called his name because he didn't hear it.

Again, a backwards analogy. See above as to how you got it wrong.

Religious belief is not bad unto itself.

Christianity and other testimonies as to the structure of the
afterlife, the wants and needs of the supposed super being, and the
other data that supposedly come from unperceivable existence beyond
our senses - these are the things described by blind and deaf men for
other blind and deaf men. And that's what's wrong with the testimony.
That's what's wrong with organized religions.

>Although I have been inundated with and subjected to the ideas and
>doctrine of many "religions" and religious "systems", I do not accept
>without question what I am told, nor do I expect anybody else to do
>so. Any of my "beliefs" are simply a response to the personal
>experiences in my life.

Then you cannot include things such as the holiness of Jesus Christ in
your belief system - otherwise the above is untrue. By adopting
Christianity, you, by default, have decided to accept unexperienced
testimony of other people for your beliefs - the very antithesis of
your response to me.

>My understandings and expectations are, of
>course, influenced by others' words, but my daily growth is evident of
>the highly personal nature of the creator/sustainer's walk with me.

One of my relatives used to take walks with people we couldn't see. We
got him medication.

>I'm sure if people could understand infinity and encountered it
>frequently, they would have better words to convey the message of
>who/what they have encountered.

I don't think a finite being could ever do so, and I think if they
could, it would most likely be irrelevant, though I couldn't possibly
know.

>Intelligence is not a prerequisite to divine revelation.

A Christian belief.

I hold that intelligence is *the* prerequisite for divine revalation.
Revealing truths through vague messages to dumb people who are likely
to misinterpret because they lack the experience, education, and IQ is
not good project management - and I expect the supreme being to do
better than I could.

>John 3:10 "You are Israel's teacher," said Jesus, "and do you not
>understand these things? 11 I tell you the truth, we speak of what
>we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do
>not accept our testimony. 12 I have spoken to you of earthly things
>and you do not believe; how then will you believe if I speak of
>heavenly things?

Sounds like whining. "You won't believe in me. How can I have power
over you if you won't accept my inherent authority as a virgin-born
(ahem) baby with super powers who wasted the first 30 years of his
life?

>Very true. All you have to go on is the evidence of growth in that
>person to verify his experience, and your own personal
>experience/revelation, when you are open to it and ready.

No - all I have to go on is my own experiences filtered through my
pathetically finite and human mind. I therefore ignore anything that
others cannot verify for me. If I hear God's voice, and no one else
does, I am not hearing God's voice, but a manifestation that I am
responsible for.

But let's suppose for just a moment that the voice I hear in my head
is not my own. Only a fool would assume that the voice is God's
because it says so. It could be the devil. It could be your telepathic
neighbor.

That's why religion is so dumb. Abraham hears voices that tell him to
kill his son. Then strange beings appear and say stop. Why didn't the
voice say stop? Moses talked to a bush, for God's sake. If I had a
conversation with a burning bush, should I come away thinking that I
met God? That's insane! There's no evidence of *who* or *what* it was.