This is strictly my personal opinion , derived from my personal experience.
When I have witnessed spontaneous healing,, it has little or nothing to do with prayer or worthiness. often times it has evolved into a learning sitation, bringing ideas and concepts within my grasp of understanding of spiritual matters and the evolve over time and I am an amputee (not dramatic I am just missing a finger well over forty years now.) and it has much to do with nothing. What I do expect from things both positive and negitive in appearence is to beable to use those event to develop a more intimate relationship the God as I understand him (actually non gender) and I love this relationship and I find it very exciting. As for someone following my beliefs,, you would have to be nuts!!! but I love talking about what I have found. There is no secret symbols, no secret messages, or healing. What I have found is this fantastic being that from his own essence created the entire of the universe and he is greater the the whole.. I sit in awe. As for spiritual laws or rather law it is simply "Be Good" and there is a little biological thing that will help you follow the path. What you gain is up to you. Allan On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 6:04 PM, frantheman <[email protected]>wrote: > > Just to keep the ball rolling (!), a friend put referred me to this > link. It's a very pithy argument against the conventional Christian > theistic position > > http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/god5.htm > > Personally, like most atheists, I put myself in the "weak atheist"/ > agnostic position. That said, I do feel that our journey through life > can lead us into an ever richer, "deeper" experience and appreciation > of what life/existence is. I just don't see any compelling reason to > identify this richness with any of the concepts of "God" I've come > across. I can take an agnostic position on a first cause/unmoved > mover/"ground of being"/etc. I just don't see the validity of the > arguments which carry this on into any relevant sphere of our life and > reason. Most theistic arguments follow the vector, "God exists, > therefore ..." The most I can accept is; "God may/may not exist, > therefore ... nothing." > > Francis > > On 11 Aug., 16:55, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > " ... but I believe I understand why you make it. It's an atavistic > > need to return theistic thought to its former place of universal > > relevance. Since humanity as become progressively less superstitious, > > the remaining forms of theistic thought find themselves in a difficult > > position vs. plausibility." > > > > You " understand " nothing, as you.ve meant above in my context, Ian ? > > > > " Have you paused for a moment to consider that the lack of > > understanding is yours, Vam ?" > > > > This too is a personal observation, irrelevant to the matter being > > discussed ! > > > > " Remember, some of us were theists before and have walked up the path > > you're on and found it's a dead-end." > > > > You have no idea of the path I'm on, Ian ! > > > > Having said that : The " value " in this discussion goes thus : > > > > The worker who sees himself as one that is breaking stones, which he's > > doing, also thinks of himself as small ( perhaps, also feels unhappy > > with himself on that account ) compared to one, doing the same work, > > who sees himself as building a cathedral or the parliament building. > > > > The difference may be expressed as having a small or pin - hole view > > or having the ' big ' picture. Though views are something we possess, > > the views we have also possess us, and cause divergent idea about > > oneself ( on scale of happiness, cheer ), attitudes toward their work > > ( on scale of enthusiasm ), feelings towards others and the > > environment ( on scale of empathy, goodwill and respect ). > > > > Applied to matter in the opening post : the big picture is the > > universe, the one, the unit, the whole. And there is this entire > > spectrum of views we have of ourself in its respect, between separate > > from and one with it. These views of ours determine the idea we have > > of ourself ( on scale of happiness, cheer ), attitudes toward their > > work ( on scale of enthusiasm ), feelings towards others and the > > environment ( on scale of empathy, goodwill and respect ). > > > > Philosophically, it reduces to the idea, identity, knowledge, we have > > of ourself : PART ( the size may vary, with it its effects on us ) > > OR WHOLE. > > > > The identity as One, Unit, Whole, is not easy to realise. Not because > > it is difficult, but because it goes against our learnt habits and > > perceived dividends that consume our will for identity with Whole. > > > > This is understandable value I am speaking of. The realisation, and > > the experience, of that identity goes beyond mere understanding ! > > > > On Aug 11, 5:45 pm, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi Vam, > > > > > To address a your question "why are the Materialists or Atheists saying > they > > > alone are valid?" > > > > > That's quite a serious generalisation to make, but I believe I > understand > > > why you make it. It's an atavistic need to return theistic thought to > its > > > former place of universal relevance. Since humanity as become > progressively > > > less superstitious, the remaining forms of theistic thought find > themselves > > > in a difficult position vs. plausibility. > > > > > As I see it, empiricism and the scientific method are humanity's most > > > powerful and accurate tools for answering questions about our world. > Using > > > these tools I can prove, and repeat upon demand, a hypothesis and then > apply > > > this learning. This -- to give some modest examples -- enables > engineering, > > > genetics, and medicine. > > > > > Now, given that superstitious modes of thought have been wrong about so > very > > > much (position of the Sun, age of the Earth, witches, illness, the > origin > > > and nature of species, etc, etc), it is right that the scientific > method > > > casts a very dubious eye over any and all claims made by supporters of > > > theistic thinking. Why would it be otherwise? The burden of proof > remains. > > > > > In other words, succinctly, I'm saying the answer to your question is > this: > > > Because of so many previous failures, it's not unreasonably to suggest > that > > > the very core of theistic thought -- the existence of the non-material > > > outside of the material -- has proven itself unreliable. When you > combine > > > this with many theists' desire to again try to position spirituality at > the > > > top table (when it comes to answering questions about us and our > world), you > > > can see where the conflict comes from. > > > > > Vam also asked: "What prevents the understanding, even among people who > are > > > so well informed, read, educated, and intellectually endowed?" > > > > > Have you paused for a moment to consider that the lack of understanding > is > > > yours, Vam? Remember, some of us were theists before and have walked up > the > > > path you're on and found it's a dead-end. > > > > > Ian > > > > > 2009/8/11 Vamadevananda <[email protected]> > > > > > > It isn't just the crusade part that baffles us. Let us read what Ian > > > > posted in one of threads ( > > > > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-eye/browse_thread/thread/b4e5458... > > > > ... > > > > > > " I find the notion of God or the divine to be irrelevant when trying > > > > to face > > > > problems or pain in my life. This life, as I understand and perceive > > > > it, is > > > > a closed system; a singular reality, no need for, and no evidence of, > > > > divinity. For example, when I want to drive change in my life, and > > > > derive > > > > strength for this, I find the idea of looking to the supernatural to > > > > be very > > > > odd. After all, if your guess about God's nature is inaccurate, then > > > > this > > > > so-called "divinity" will appear to be a very fickle or erratic thing > > > > indeed! Sometimes it gives you what you pray and hope for, sometimes > > > > it > > > > shits all over you. Religious sorts all sorts ways of explaining > their > > > > way > > > > out of this. It's called faith; the lie at any price. It either fuels > > > > anxiety in trying to second-guess it or makes people vacuous morons > > > > who > > > > invest no real emotion in their life. I feel sorry for both. > > > > > > " For me, the notion of the divine is an unreliable tool for dealing > > > > with > > > > problems in our reality. I prefer to deal with this reality, the only > > > > verifiable reality, in strictly human and non-spiritual terms. > > > > Metaphysical > > > > whimsy is a form of delusion and does not allow an individual to > > > > really > > > > face or understand self-evident facts; worse, it can make people > > > > outright > > > > deny cause, effect, and result. Someone dying has "gone to a better > > > > place", > > > > someone with a serious illness is "facing a trial set for them by > > > > God", or > > > > someone with a propensity for murder is "doing the devil's work". > > > > > > " This is no basis for understanding or dealing with our world. > > > > > > " I don't say that I have a perfect solution, but I do gain enormous > > > > personal > > > > strength by unflinchingly trying to distil things down to their > > > > essential > > > > truths based upon the evidence we can rely upon. If someone dies, > > > > that > > > > person ceases to exist; if someone has a serious illness, the > > > > differential > > > > diagnosis will be genetic and/or environmental; if someone has a > > > > propensity > > > > for murder, we'll look to clinical psychology to find out what > > > > motivates > > > > them. All of these evidence-based views of our reality are far more > > > > satisfying to me than the weak band-aid of faith. Call me a cynic, > > > > but > > > > unless you're very easily satisfied, the whiff of bullshit starts to > > > > defile > > > > the flowery notions of divinity after a while. Give me something > real. > > > > I > > > > want to feel it, my emotions define me, remind me that life is real > > > > and > > > > sometimes hard. To not feel pain or despair and resolve them is to > > > > have lead > > > > half a life. > > > > > > " I feel incredibly level facing reality in this way. Some things do > > > > hurt, and > > > > hurt like hell, but I am vastly more satisfied by a strictly this- > > > > worldly > > > > explanation and how this helps me resolve them. " > > > > > > It stands out that Ian speaks of strength and ability to live through > > > > life situations and circumstance. His is a very valid, honorable and > > > > welcome case for pragmatism, what works, and so on. > > > > > > But, he continues in the same breath, to say that Religion, Divinity, > > > > God, Spirit, has no place in it, because they provide nothing to > > > > empower and enable him, because they in fact have a debilitating > > > > effect on these capabilities ( and need ) of his. > > > > > > Does he choose certainty ( and matter ) over doubt and contradiction > > > > too soon ? Before he could see and retrieve the ' baby in the > > > > bathwater ?' Is there a ' baby ' in the ' bathwater ?' > > > > > > The integrated ( inclusive ) understanding I am alluding to has never > > > > been easy, ever, and at the best of the times been limited to very > few > > > > who perhaps spent a lifetime pursuing that ' value.' Why has the > > > > value been debunked ? > > > > > > On Aug 11, 4:11 pm, Don Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > So, why are the Materialists or Atheists saying they alone are > valid, > > > > > true, correct and, by implication and their crusade, have the sole > > > > > right to exist or occupy the thought and knowledge space in human > > > > > minds ? > > > > > > > As you might expect, I don't feel like I'm on a crusade. While a > > > > > Christian might feel obligated to 'spread the word' I feel no such > > > > > obligation to convince others that there is no God. I have > noticed, > > > > > however, that not all atheists/agnostics are as laid back as I am. > I > > > > > really don't understand their motivations. I assume in many cases > > > > > it's folks looking for 15 minutes of fame or just enjoying causing > a > > > > > stir. Basically turning themselves into Celebrity Assholes. I see > > > > > too much good from churches to want to ruin religion for anyone. > > > > > > > Didn't the commies try to stamp out religion? Maybe it's a commie > > > > > pinko thing. Orn, can you explain it? > > > > > > > dj > > > > > > > heh > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:48 AM, Vamadevananda< > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > One dimension of the perennial debate between Theists and > Atheists, > > > > ... > > > > Erfahren Sie mehr ยป > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
