[Previous entry: "Chickens five"] [Main Index] [Next entry: "busy signals"]

12/08/2001 Archived Entry: "last chickens installment?"

Maybe this is as far as we will go.............

>I understand and agree that I don't just interpret a specific and hold
>to it without testing it, but you cannot expect me to keep such an
>experience quiet.

I do not. I do expect you to not accept the unreasonable claims of
others which are based upon probably misinterpretation of observed
events. "Jesus walked on water" for example, does not logically
conclude to "Jesus is still alive today" or "Jesus can help me if I
get on my knees and pray because he said so." But if you personally
experience prayer working for you, the reasons for it's working may be
up for speculation, but I think you have to, at some point, accept
your own inputs to some limited degree.

However, I do have to say this: I reject my own interpretations of
what I have experienced as evidence for anyone else's use. Since I am
only speculating as to the meaning of my experiences, they are without
value to others. They are only valuable to me as internal settings.

>It is too powerful not to share and to try to find
>meaning from and to hope that it is shared by others and perhaps they
>have found meaning that will add to my understanding.

Perhaps. I, however, happen to be one of many people who are offended
by anyone's attempts to share such things at work, in a store, or in
an airport. My belief system is based upon not giving much of a rat's
ass about anyone else's beliefs or interpretations, and vocalizing
yours or anyone else's around me can result in Angry 24fc my
verbalizing my anger. That's in-person, not in a public forum with a
thread obviously dedicated to it.

Example: Woman at office is Jehovah's Witness. She leaves a pamphlet
in my chair to explain how the universe works. I take it over to her,
and return it saying, "My beliefs are to be respected as much as
yours. Since mine are in absolute contradiction to yours, you are not
to broach this subject with me again." After three consecutive days of
pamphlets and verbal molestations (evangelism), I finally had to take
corrective action.

>It is only wrong when somebody insists it is the absolute and only and
>untamperable truth, disregarding the human factor, human
>interpretations and language to language translations, as well as
>cultural differences that would affect perception of the explanations.

Yes. It is only "right" if someone presents stories such as the
burning bush as Moses' interpretation of what he saw. The Bible,
however, does not present the story this way. It factually states that
the burning bush was indeed God - which neither the author, nor Moses
(probably the author some think), could possibly know.

>There are both restrictive, HIGHLY restrictive interpretations of

> John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth
> and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

>as well as generic or global interpretations.

Interpretations be damned. That statement is pretty haughty and
frankly the Romans were within their rights to crucify him for saying
so. He basically pissed on the beliefs of all Jews, the Romans, the
Greeks, and the Egyptians, at a time when saying, "Rome isn't so nice"
was a death penalty offense.

>: > I suffer from PAT as well.

>Ever try to explain it to somebody who doesn't?

Take this to email? I have some questions for you about it and perhaps
a solution.

>Can you see or hear or touch or taste your love for your son or wife?

I can experience the emotion through misery during separation, anxiety
during potential danger, and willingness to self-sacrifice in ways
even I don't think are logical.

>Can you see or hear or touch or taste fear?

Yes. Yes to all of these:

>or power? or illness? or
>health? How do you know what fear or love or power or health or
>illness are? How dare you interpret these things or try to explain
>them to anybody?

They are shared experiences. That's why our language works.

These are more of your backward examples. They are irrelevant to a
religious discussion.

>You are not capable of interpreting those events
>using descriptions of things beyond your own reasoning and knowledge.

That's correct, but the emotions themselves are universally understood
and are not beyond comprehension. Their causes are known, the process
is understood, and it is finite and shared between beings capable of
detecting the emotions and understanding the source and the process.

>I didn't know God is blue! Wow, you learn something every day! But
>you are correct. It is not our place to judge.

I'm not saying that. I'm saying it is not our place to believe many
things that we do because to believe them is to credit humans with
capacities they do not have or knowledge that they do not possess.
Politically, we are free to believe as we like. Logically, we are
still wrong to do so.

> I am thinking of the
>church position on homosexuality, particularly individual positions:

You are attempting, with the excellent description you provided that I
snipped, to reconcile the church's hypocritical view of homosexuality.
My argument runs much deeper than that: We can't assume that anyone
who ever said we should worship God knew what he was talking about,
since no human has ever had a reputable conversation with God on the
topic.

Therefore, worship of God is unreasonable. Therefore, churches and
syagogues should logically not exist or be attended. They only are
because a human wrote that they should be and claims to know for a
fact that it makes God happy - which a human cannot know.

>Yes, personal freedom and liberty!!!!! Some beliefs are unreasonable,
>but a person is free to believe them nevertheless. A person or entity
>is NOT, however, free to impose THEIR beliefs as ultimate truth on
>anybody else.

In the US? Sure they are. "In God We Trust" is on the coins and paper
money. Several activities believed wrong by Christians in the US are
banned by law, such as prostitution, despite their being no victim in
the so-called "crime." Christianity is imposed upon the people of the
US heavily. Christmas is a company holiday. Yom Kippur is not.

>You will get my attention if you do marvelous things, but I will
>challenge you and try to figure you out the same as I do David
>Copperfield. Experiences of those who have gone before me are only
>pointers to the same things that happen today and in my life.

Do you apply that same challenge to every single data element in your
religious beliefs? For example, who knows there was a man named Jesus
to begin with?

>Heh! you said ghost!!!! You believe your headache and your vision
>were truly experienced, huh? Prove it to me. I won't believe it
>until I see proof.

Actually, the pain center of the brain has been identified and my
headeache can be measured with electronics. As far as a ghost, goes,
unless someone else *I* trust sees it too, I write off my experience
as psychological mind drivel best recycled.

>There is no
>opposition to logical debate, but thing is, somethings aren't
>debatable.

>: > An intellectual tragedy. An emotional cocoon.

>Marrying the woman you love is the same type of cocoon...

If you marry a woman smarter than you who helps you see the moronicism
of your unquestioned Christian faith, no intellectual tragedy occurs.

Posted by Patty @ 12/09/2001 08:04 PM CDT

That was my response, and so far he hasn't defended his choice to marry nor to marry who he chose.

Wondering if he will see the link to my choosing the church/religion/beliefs I hold so dear.

Posted by Patty @ 12/09/2001 08:08 PM CDT