Faith Oriented Thread for Believers of God or a Higher Power

[_Yoda]

If you do not share this belief, or you cannot be respectful to those who do, then please refrain from participating in this thread.

This is not a thread to debate the validity of spiritual experiences. This is a thread about sharing spiritual experiences and beliefs.

liz,

Without heavy moderator control in which comments are deleted, a thread in which only happy talk about religion is permitted is not likely.

For that, you may need to go to church and all sing from the same page, recite the same prayer, say I believe, I believe, I believe all together. Or, you could do it in a private home.

On a bb such as this, prohibition of different views is difficult.

JAK

Re-read my statement, JAK. I'm not insisting on "happy talk". I'm insisting on respect. Those are two different things. You can share your own belief without invalidating someone else's. For this thread, that's all Mok and I were asking for.

Sure one thread can do little to no harm, but it's about a principle. On this board I don't think people should be told they can not voice an opinion regarding any issue, claim, point of view contrary to the one put forward.

I find it interesting, Marg, that you are so hard-lined on principle when you were the one who was so offended several months ago when I supposedly interfered with your ability as the starter of a thread to insist that participants stick to the OP.

That's all I'm doing here. I'm asking that those who participate stick to the OP of this thread.

I also find it interesting that Canucklehead, an atheist, had no problem adhering to the OP, and had this to say:

Frankly, I don't see the harm in having one thread where people can share their faith in whatever god they choose without being attacked.

I also disagree that the existence of such a thread would mean that the board was being used for apologetics.

This leads me to believe, Marg, that you and JAK are simply here to argue for the sake of arguing.

Look, I'm not going to delete posts. I'm not into censorship, as much as Marg seems to think otherwise.

The request was simply that....a request...as a collaborator of a thread. I wasn't speaking as a Moderator. There were no red letters to indicate a Moderator's note.

It's a polite request, as a poster on the forum.

Most who have chosen to participate have been classy enough to honor that request, but knock yourself out if you choose to do otherwise. You won't be censored.

[_JAK]

marg,

More to Nehor than for you, I like your phrase “extraordinary claims.” It’s a most important concept for the likes of Nehor. I doubt he can appreciate it. And, he has admitted that he doesn’t read well posts to him.

Having said that, and to him rather than you (marg), let me address it.

The less clear, transparent evidence for a claim, the more extraordinary that claim tends to be. I choose words carefully here in respect for your thinking. “Tend” allows for some latitude in interpretation.

(Again to Nehor more than marg). If I claim to have ants in my house. The claim is easily pursued. We LOOK for ants. We agree on ALL terms in the discussion and inquiry. My house, ants etc. The claim is NOT extraordinary -- whether we find ants or don’t find them.

The burden of proof lies with ME to establish my claim. If several people make careful observation and all find ANTS at various places or even one place, my claim is supported by evidence. We have objective evidence. We understand all terms of the inquiry. There is no hidden agenda, no obfuscation or trickery in language.

If all who look do not find any ants, my claim tends to be isolated and discredited. In my claim, I have no hidden agenda. If I have found ANTS, I likely want them gone. Thus, I have no motivation to make a false claim for any reason.

Since this is a religious bb or deals with religion, I’ll use an illustration at the heart of religious claims.

If one claims God, the claim does not have agreement on the term. God means different things to different people. Thus, we need a clear definition, a transparent definition, and a definition upon which we have agreement (as we did with ants). The claim is extraordinary in that it is ambiguous, dubious, and problematic.

As a result of this obscure, indefinite, and unexplicit claim, we do not know just what the claim is. Then there is the matter of evidence.

The line often given by God makers is: If you haven’t met God, you can’t know God. Or some such phrase. However, as with ANTS, the one making claim has the burden of proof. And that burden involves presenting compelling, critical, essential, and imperative demonstration and documentation for the claim.

No question about the claim of ants. The more extraordinary the claim, the more critical the integrity of inquiry about that claim.

So someone who claims God has an extraordinary claim for the analysis which I just presented. Failure to provide the corroboration for the claim should produce rational skepticism of that claim if not rejection. There is no prima facie case.

Moreover, since the claim is “extraordinary” (as you phrased), we should require much more than some observed coincidence as proof for the claim God. I have often used the concept gravity as we experience it consistently and without fail on earth. We don’t fly off into space as the earth rotates. Nothing does (and you will understand I am not talking about current space exploration where the space shuttle does go into space). If we drop a pen, it falls to the nearest surface, etc. Gravity is demonstrable, consistent, and we have abundant evidence. We have so much evidence that no one much bothers to claim gravity.

But religious myths require a continuous repetition and clarification and interpretation. They are unreliable as we can demonstrate with evidence. People repeat the same creeds, hymns, and prayers weekly if not more frequently as a self-deception. They don’t do that regarding gravity. Gravity is known rationally, consistently, and without doubt.

Religious claims (extraordinary claims) seem to require constant repetition. (I’m trying to keep religion in the picture since this is a religious bb.) The fact is there is a great absence of evidence for the religious claims. I strongly suspect that is why constant repetition is required by religious pundits who make religious claims which are nearly always extraordinary.

JAK

[_Blixa]

The good thing about having a spiritual/meditative/philosophical nature, is that you can take a cleansing breath and wonder why folks like to argue so much. But that does not matter, because it is ephemeral to your state of tranquility and it cannot really touch you.

When I disbelieved in God, I was still open to input. I felt that I had a duty towards liberal education in seeking to learn new things and in understanding the world around me. I am glad I took that route, because it lead me eventually back towards being a believer - but on my own terms. I imagine with age and maturity, even the most strident disbeliever can come to embrace some definite code of ethics beyond what is imposed on them by society. Maybe they would like to share that?

As a Mormon, I do find myself picking and choosing many items of belief, but I think that is as it should be: It is after all, my own spiritual path. For guidance, I like to run all ideas through the filter of the two great requests, that we love God and one another. Two other ideas that I have found invaluable are from the Buddha's Four Noble Truths: That desire is the root of all suffering and that we should practice moderation in all things.

I like what you have to say here, Moksha. Here a couple of thoughts:

"As a Mormon, I do find myself picking and choosing many items of belief, but I think that is as it should be: It is after all, my own spiritual path."

I agree and it is this kind of perspective I am interested in hearing about because it is so counter to the way Mormonism was presented to me (and counter I think to the core of "institutional Mormonism" for lack of a better term).

"I imagine with age and maturity, even the most strident disbeliever can come to embrace some definite code of ethics beyond what is imposed on them by society. Maybe they would like to share that?"

I think most disbeliever already have a code ethics "beyond what is imposed to them by society," or at least bits of one. Mine has changed and evolved over the years and maybe I will delineate here at some point. I'll have to think a bit about the best way to present it. By "best," I mean shortest---I could easily turn it into a much larger project than it needs to be (something I'm prone too!).

[_marg]

I find it interesting, Marg, that you are so hard-lined on principle when you were the one who was so offended several months ago when I supposedly interfered with your ability as the starter of a thread to insist that participants stick to the OP.

That's all I'm doing here. I'm asking that those who participate stick to the OP of this thread.

Once again Liz I will explain to you the problem back then because you keep bringing it up and presenting it incorrectly. First of all I did not tell Grampa 75 he could not post in the thread. Second I asked him, did not tell him, with 2 "pleases" to comment on point, on the issues presented in the thread rather than to quote scripture which didn't address the issue at hand. I wanted his thoughts on the issue not the thoughts from a book which weren't even on the issue. You took offence, not me, and told him he could post whatever he wished. I then took offence at your comment that you should attempt to overturn my request.

I also find it interesting that Canucklehead, an atheist, had no problem adhering to the OP, and had this to say:

Frankly, I don't see the harm in having one thread where people can share their faith in whatever god they choose without being attacked.

I also disagree that the existence of such a thread would mean that the board was being used for apologetics.

This leads me to believe, Marg, that you and JAK are simply here to argue for the sake of arguing.

Yes I am here to argue and discuss. I'm not here to make friends. And Canucklehead is not the spokesperson for all atheists.

I look at threads as discussions of particular issues, with pros and cons presented being a means by which people can flesh out ideas. I oftentimes don't enter religious threads because it's obvious the people are not interested in discussing from a contrary point of view and I appreciate it will be a waste of time. You brought one of Grampa 75 posts over to the celestial forum and no one opposed his posts from what I can recollect. You began one about polygamy with DCP and again same thing I didn't enter it. It is not as if ever religious thread is opposed on here.

I can appreciate that sometimes exceptions need to be made, that a focus needs to be specified and what can be talked about needs to be narrowed down for expediency.

My impression by you and Moksha with his faith promoting request post, is that you seem to think you are victims on this board, unable to talk about beliefs without opposition. But this IS a discussion board. It shouldn't be viewed as a negative to have opposition to one's beliefs. And if you can't take opposition then what are you here for?

Look, I'm not going to delete posts. I'm not into censorship, as much as Marg seems to think otherwise.

No Liz that is not what I think. I think this is a discussion board in which ideas do not need protection from moderation. When you move posts around and then say a thread is only for promotors of faith I find that to be contrary to what this board was initially set up for. I post here for the very reason that there is little moderation.

The request was simply that....a request...as a collaborator of a thread. I wasn't speaking as a Moderator. There were no red letters to indicate a Moderator's note.

It's a polite request, as a poster on the forum.

And as a poster, I took exception to the request that only believers should post in the thread. And being as you moved the thread and then took is upon yourself to change the title you did act as moderator.

Most who have chosen to participate have been classy enough to honor that request, but knock yourself out if you choose to do otherwise. You won't be censored.

As I said before there have been many threads, very faith promoting religious ones in this celestial level in which no one has offered any opposition. I don't like your inferences that either JAK or I have been disrespectful to believers in our posts. And by the way Liz I don't need the restriction of a level on a BB, to choose to not swear or use derogatory words directed at others. I've got more class than that, apparently you don't.

What isn't classy Liz is telling non believers in a subject heading they aren't welcome to post.

Have a good day, I'm off here until tomorrow but only for a short time.

[_moksha]

Blixa, I look forward to your upcoming posts.

Marg: ...And if you can't take opposition then what are you here for?

Something other than opposition.

[_ajax18]

Unfortunately you can't always post spiritual experiences or even faith promoting ones within Mormonism or any other Church. You can talk about some things, but as I've mentioned before the part of my beliefs that answers nearly all questions for me and brings me the most peace is open to such debate and attack that even Church is not the appropriate place to discuss them. Churchs have very narrow agendas in my experience and they are not always willing to answer lifes most difficult questions. They keep the doctrine so broad that it becomes ineffective and unsatisfying. Yet this keeps the membership rolls higher. We see which interest wins out.

Let me start by affirming what I believe, and what the gospel means to me

1. All living things will live again
2. While this life is not always fair, fairness or better will be reached in eternity. Nobody will be cheated.
3. While in this life, my happiness is often dependent upon the actions of other people, ultimately only my own actions will effect my level of happiness.
4. There is no such thing as good or bad luck. Nothing bad ever happened nor will it ever happen without something of equal or greater value happening in return.
5. In eternity, the good of the community does not conflict with the good of the individual. They are one.

Any problems left unsolved, besides a call for scientific evidence? Maybe I can answer it, or maybe you could even answer it yourself.

Knowing these things to be true is my own spiritual experience.

[_Yoda]

I'm not here to make friends.

That's obvious.

What isn't classy Liz is telling non believers in a subject heading they aren't welcome to post.

I never told anyone that they could not post. You're posting, right? Is anyone stopping you?

The only thing I did was make the title more functional to the OP. This thread is specifically directed toward believers in a higher power. A "higher power", Marg...not even necessarily God.

The title doesn't ban anyone from posting. It simply guides people who are reading to understand what the thread is about and the main target audience.

I can appreciate that sometimes exceptions need to be made, that a focus needs to be specified and what can be talked about needs to be narrowed down for expediency.

My impression by you and Moksha with his faith promoting request post, is that you seem to think you are victims on this board, unable to talk about beliefs without opposition. But this IS a discussion board. It shouldn't be viewed as a negative to have opposition to one's beliefs. And if you can't take opposition then what are you here for?

You're talking in circles. You say that you can appreciate that sometimes exceptions need to be made, and yet you're refusing to respect the exception in this case because it doesn't suit you to do so.

And when have I EVER come off as a victim? I hardly see myself that way, and I doubt that Moksha does, either. You're forgetting, Marg, that both Moksha and I were banned from FAIR because of our association with THIS board, and the free speech that THIS board provided.

Look, marg, post to your heart's content. All Mok and I are asking is that, on this thread, you stick to the OP, and respect others' views. That doesn't mean you have to agree with them. That just means that on THIS thread, retract your claws, and resist the urge to pounce.

[_The Nehor]

More to Nehor than for you, I like your phrase “extraordinary claims.” It’s a most important concept for the likes of Nehor. I doubt he can appreciate it. And, he has admitted that he doesn’t read well posts to him.

No I don't read well posts to me. Reading makes you write English good.

[_Canucklehead]

And Canucklehead is not the spokesperson for all atheists.

I'm not???!

Hrmph.

[_Canucklehead]

I imagine with age and maturity, even the most strident disbeliever can come to embrace some definite code of ethics beyond what is imposed on them by society. Maybe they would like to share that?

I don't consider myself a "strident" disbeliever, but I do believe in a "code of ethics" (although I probably wouldn't have called it that myself) which I think is independant from what Western society dictates.

It's been a busy weekend, and as soon as I can get the time, I'll share them. I've been planning on it since this thread was created.