| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"ACIM student" |
| Date: |
30 Sep 2005 01:10:37 AM |
| Object: |
Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
.
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 02:07:48 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 29 Sep 2005 23:10:37 -0700 in alt.atheism, ACIM student
("ACIM student" <no@no.com>) said, directing the reply to alt.atheism
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "a spiritual being"?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jim07D5" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 12:19:07 PM |
|
|
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> said:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Oh, yeah man, I spent a summer like that once.
--- Jim07D5
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
04 Oct 2005 11:25:37 AM |
|
|
Jim07D5 wrote:
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> said:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Oh, yeah man, I spent a summer like that once.
--- Jim07D5
Woodstock?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robibnikoff" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 08:35:47 AM |
|
|
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
No, of course I don't believe in that. There's no evidence that "spiritual
beings" exist.
--
------
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
#1557
Science doesn't burn people at the stake for disagreeing - Vic Sagerquist
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 09:18:13 AM |
|
|
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACIM student" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 12:14:31 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message news:42c59$433d4927$186019b0$20007@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 12:38:26 PM |
|
|
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:One%e.59527$ct5.28211@fed1read04...
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message
news:42c59$433d4927$186019b0$20007@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
That doesn't answer the question I asked first.
But, assuming you don't have access to a dictionary, "instinct" may be
defined as "behaviors that appear in fully functional form the first
time
they are performed; they are usually supposed to be genetically
determined and 'hard-wired'."
That should suffice.
Now, what do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 08:49:33 AM |
|
|
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message
news:b991e$433d7814$186019b0$5067@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:One%e.59527$ct5.28211@fed1read04...
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message
news:42c59$433d4927$186019b0$20007@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
That doesn't answer the question I asked first.
But, assuming you don't have access to a dictionary, "instinct" may be
defined as "behaviors that appear in fully functional form the first
time
they are performed; they are usually supposed to be genetically
determined and 'hard-wired'."
That should suffice.
Now, what do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
<crickets>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 10:13:13 PM |
|
|
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message
news:b991e$433d7814$186019b0$5067@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:One%e.59527$ct5.28211@fed1read04...
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message
news:42c59$433d4927$186019b0$20007@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
That doesn't answer the question I asked first.
But, assuming you don't have access to a dictionary, "instinct" may be
defined as "behaviors that appear in fully functional form the first
time
they are performed; they are usually supposed to be genetically
determined and 'hard-wired'."
That should suffice.
Now, what do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
<crickets>
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "skyeyes" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 01:56:43 PM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
Meaning? No. It has purpose, however, in that it provides survival
technique to a life form without the life form having to learn it.
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
EAC Professor of Feline Thermometrics and Cat-Herding
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 02:46:50 PM |
|
|
On 30 Sep 2005 11:56:43 -0700, "skyeyes" <skyeyes@dakotacom.net>
wrote:
ACIM student wrote:
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
Meaning? No. It has purpose, however, in that it provides survival
technique to a life form without the life form having to learn it.
It can also as easily kill the lifeform.
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Les Hellawell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 07:07:47 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:14:31 -0700, "ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message news:42c59$433d4927$186019b0$20007@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
Saying something is, 'Instinct', is just a way to avoiding saying,
"I don't know".
Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jos Flachs - skip the aa" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 03:10:50 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:14:31 -0700, "ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message news:42c59$433d4927$186019b0$20007@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
Yes, to promote survival.
You want to hear an atheist say he believes. Okay. I believe I have
another cup of coffee.
Happy now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "stoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 02:48:01 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 01 Oct 2005 15:10:50 +0700, Jos Flachs
<aawcruiseaa@ksc15.th.com (- skip the aa)> wrote:
On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:14:31 -0700, "ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote:
"Bob" <rGODpoore@GODknology.GOD.net> wrote in message news:42c59$433d4927$186019b0$20007@KNOLOGY.NET...
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
What do you mean by "spiritual being" and "higher nature"?
Those terms mean nothing to me.
Does instinct have meaning? I'm not being sarcastic.
Yes, to promote survival.
You want to hear an atheist say he believes. Okay. I believe I have
another cup of coffee.
Another bag of coffee I.V. solution? Whoah!
Happy now?
--
Contempt of Congress meter reading-offscale.
Hello, theocracy with a fundamentalist US Supreme
Court who will ensure church and state are joined
at the hip like clergy and altar boys.
America 1776-Jan 2001 RIP
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president
represents, more and more closely, the inner soul
of the people. On some great and glorious day the
plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
desire at last and the White House will be adorned
by a downright moron." --- H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)
Religion is the original war crime.
-Michelle Malkin (Feb 26, 2005)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "kathryn" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 12:17:22 PM |
|
|
"ACIM student" <no@no.com> wrote in message
news:uF4%e.58089$ct5.3542@fed1read04...
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
I don't but I can't speak for other atheists
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wbarwell" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 02:47:58 PM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
No. What hard evidence is there to support such a claim?
--
The official spokesman of the Foxes said
today that investigation into what happened
to the henhouse may be needed.
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
| User: "society_of_artificiality" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 08:21:55 PM |
|
|
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:11jr4kci7tjhi0c@corp.supernews.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
No. What hard evidence is there to support such a claim?
You?
.
|
|
|
| User: "JessHC, aa#2220 thanks to Jason Gastrichs effort" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 10:10:47 PM |
|
|
society_of_artificiality wrote:
"wbarwell" <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in message news:11jr4kci7tjhi0c@corp.supernews.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
No. What hard evidence is there to support such a claim?
You?
Please explain how the existence of humans is evidence for "spiritual
beings." But first explain what "spiritual beings" are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 08:20:09 PM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being
What is that?
that could be called our higher nature
What is that?
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience
How does such a thing happen?
... but is not responsible for the physical world.
Eh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "society_of_artificiality" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 08:44:03 PM |
|
|
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1128129609.952324.35530@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being
What is that?
Something you don't possess, I guess.
that could be called our higher nature
What is that?
Something you don't possess.
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience
How does such a thing happen?
Wouldn't you like to know, heh?
... but is not responsible for the physical world.
Eh?
Huh?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Santolina chamaecyparissus" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 08:24:21 PM |
|
|
society_of_artificiality wrote:
"Santolina chamaecyparissus" <santolina@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1128129609.952324.35530@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being
What is that?
Something you don't possess, I guess.
What is it?
that could be called our higher nature
What is that?
Something you don't possess.
What is it?
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience
How does such a thing happen?
Wouldn't you like to know, heh?
Sure would. Feel free to explain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "655321" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 04:07:57 PM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
A cat that could be called a Frenchman? A diamond that could be called
a cow-patty?
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
Since the thing itself is so ill-presented in the first line, it makes
little sense to consider what "it" *does* (eg., "see things and perceive
things" in some way).
It might make sense to you that a spiritual being perceives things in a
spiritual way, but to me it's all vague gobbledygook.
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
So this being perceives according to it's nature, but never acts on the
world we understand?
What's the point in getting to understand it, even on a theoretical level?
Doing so would not lead to an understanding of how we got here or for
what reason, would it, since this 'perceiving being' you allege doesn't
actually affect things.
Like I said: gobbledygook.
655321
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 07:10:37 AM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Nope. Falls into the same category as gods and other mythical deities.
--
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor
A.A #1143 http://azhotops.blogspot.com/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 10:17:27 AM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Higher, by what standard? And what do you mean by "see" and "perceive"?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACIM student" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
30 Sep 2005 12:17:07 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:bGc%e.18481$ua.656045@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Higher, by what standard? And what do you mean by "see" and "perceive"?
Colin Day aa #1500
What do you mean by 'mean'?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 01:57:30 PM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:bGc%e.18481$ua.656045@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Higher, by what standard? And what do you mean by "see" and "perceive"?
Colin Day aa #1500
What do you mean by 'mean'?
I can see things such as my keyboard by having light reflect of them and
then hitting my retina. This causes the transmission of signals to the
visual cortex, which is how I see my keyboard. How do I see something
that doesn't emit or reflect light?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACIM student" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
01 Oct 2005 08:46:38 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:u_A%e.18830$ua.760608@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:bGc%e.18481$ua.656045@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Higher, by what standard? And what do you mean by "see" and "perceive"?
Colin Day aa #1500
What do you mean by 'mean'?
I can see things such as my keyboard by having light reflect of them and then hitting my retina. This causes the transmission of
signals to the visual cortex, which is how I see my keyboard. How do I see something that doesn't emit or reflect light?
Colin Day aa #1500
My point is thought, that you can ask for definitions until there
is no discussion. Do you see objects in your imagination? Is
there light there?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
03 Oct 2005 03:25:43 PM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:u_A%e.18830$ua.760608@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:bGc%e.18481$ua.656045@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Higher, by what standard? And what do you mean by "see" and "perceive"?
Colin Day aa #1500
What do you mean by 'mean'?
I can see things such as my keyboard by having light reflect of them and then hitting my retina. This causes the transmission of
signals to the visual cortex, which is how I see my keyboard. How do I see something that doesn't emit or reflect light?
Colin Day aa #1500
My point is thought, that you can ask for definitions until there
is no discussion. Do you see objects in your imagination? Is
there light there?
And you cannot have a discussion until the participants use a common
language, which requires that they use terms in similar ways.
I can imagine lots of stuff, but should I use that as a basis of belief?
Hitler imagined that he should establish a Thousand-Year Reich; Stalin
imagined that he should establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The problem is that those who claim to perceive in a different way have
few means of comparing that "perception" to reality.
Colin Day
.
|
|
|
| User: "ACIM student" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
03 Oct 2005 09:36:31 PM |
|
|
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:btg0f.77642$SL.2059747@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:u_A%e.18830$ua.760608@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:bGc%e.18481$ua.656045@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Higher, by what standard? And what do you mean by "see" and "perceive"?
Colin Day aa #1500
What do you mean by 'mean'?
I can see things such as my keyboard by having light reflect of them and then hitting my retina. This causes the transmission of
signals to the visual cortex, which is how I see my keyboard. How do I see something that doesn't emit or reflect light?
Colin Day aa #1500
My point is thought, that you can ask for definitions until there
is no discussion. Do you see objects in your imagination? Is
there light there?
And you cannot have a discussion until the participants use a common language, which requires that they use terms in similar ways.
I can imagine lots of stuff, but should I use that as a basis of belief? Hitler imagined that he should establish a Thousand-Year
Reich; Stalin imagined that he should establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The problem is that those who claim to perceive in a different way have few means of comparing that "perception" to reality.
Colin Day
Colin, if you choose do a search on "A Course in Miracles" and check out
a few things. If you want to discuss what your honest belief is the foolishness
of that, ok. I can't tell you the common language of a reality that you haven't
experienced, especially since the common language is part of the reason why
it is difficult to see things differently.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Colin Day" |
|
| Title: Re: Do most atheists not belive in this ... ? |
04 Oct 2005 01:24:37 AM |
|
|
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:btg0f.77642$SL.2059747@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:u_A%e.18830$ua.760608@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
"Colin Day" <cday3@sc.rr.com> wrote in message news:bGc%e.18481$ua.656045@twister.southeast.rr.com...
ACIM student wrote:
A spiritual being that could be called our higher nature
that sees things and perceives things in a different way
than regular human experience... but is not responsible
for the physical world.
Higher, by what standard? And what do you mean by "see" and "perceive"?
Colin Day aa #1500
What do you mean by 'mean'?
I can see things such as my keyboard by having light reflect of them and then hitting my retina. This causes the transmission of
signals to the visual cortex, which is how I see my keyboard. How do I see something that doesn't emit or reflect light?
Colin Day aa #1500
My point is thought, that you can ask for definitions until there
is no discussion. Do you see objects in your imagination? Is
there light there?
And you cannot have a discussion until the participants use a common language, which requires that they use terms in similar ways.
I can imagine lots of stuff, but should I use that as a basis of belief? Hitler imagined that he should establish a Thousand-Year
Reich; Stalin imagined that he should establish a Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
The problem is that those who claim to perceive in a different way have few means of comparing that "perception" to reality.
Colin Day
Colin, if you choose do a search on "A Course in Miracles" and check out
a few things. If you want to discuss what your honest belief is the foolishness
of that, ok. I can't tell you the common language of a reality that you haven't
experienced, especially since the common language is part of the reason why
it is difficult to see things differently.
Oh, that's what ACIM means.
I find its views on knowledge disturbing, especially since it assumes
that knowledge is from God. Also, it fortunate that I disabled my
irony-o-meter before reading
"The world of perception, on the other hand, is the world of time, of
change, of beginnings and endings. It is based on interpretation, not on
facts. It is the world of birth and death, founded on the belief in
scarcity, loss, separation, and death. It is learned rather than given,
selective in its perceptual emphases, unstable in its functioning, and
inaccurate in its interpretations."
So perception is mere interpretation, but "knowledge" of God is factual?
Would you care to support these claims, or are we to take them on faith?
Colin Day aa #1500
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
