I don't believe in any God, but I believe in God

[doom]

quote by pammy
"Philosophically:
I think if everything is evolved, then we would all be just moving pieces of flesh and bone, like animals. Maybe just another species of Monkeys that eat, sleep and reproduce. We would probably never even ask ourselves where do we come from?
You have to agree that dna wise, we are not much different, however "spritually" we are different. This is because we have a soul and a higher level consciousness"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Objection your honour,witness is making an assumption,and is only telling us what she wants to believe!
and has no proof either way on whether or not animals ask themselves where they come from!
"have you asked them miss pammy?,think of yourself as a female doctor dolittle?" :bugeye:

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by James R
Yes. What's so bad about that? Do you have something against animals? Do you think humans are better than animals? Why?

Yes humans are better than animals, given a choice i would prefer a human body any day of the week.

Why not? We don't need a soul to have a brain.

How do you know?
Do you know what a soul is?

What makes you think that we have souls? Why don't animals have them too?

All living beings have souls.

I agree with you that we have a more developed consciousness than some other animals, but I say its because we have bigger brains.

Are our brains bigger than elephant brains?
I genuinely don't know.

These days, though, I know that other explanations are far more likely.

That is only your opinion.

To find it, we'd need a lot more detail, though.

Such as?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[A4Ever]

Hi Jan! It's been a long time since I saw a post by you. Maybe I didn't look well enough. The other day I thought: I wonder what Jan Ardena would have to say about this or that

Yes humans are better than animals, given a choice i would prefer a human body any day of the week.

You say "I" would prefer. So it is your believe, right? Your believe is valid, but is another believe, the opposite, not just as valid? There is no source, we define this, right?

All living beings have souls.

That's what makes me think the distinction is not that big.

Greetings,

A4Ever.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by Tyler
So? If science had not even a theory on how we came to be would that be proof of god?

Modern sciences theory on how we came to be, (AFAICS) is a desparate attempt to create a society in which there in no God.
A society where the inhabitants believe they are the sum total of their body, is an animal society.
As Godlessness is sweeping the world, we can see how nations and societies are slipping into the jaws of chaos, we can see the decay of morality by the moment.
For example, in the UK, it appears that it is okay (not necessarily lawful) to have sex with a minor (13 years old), if that person consents to it. Right now there is a big uproar about whether or not burglery is to be treated as a serious crime.

One cannot prove Gods existence by putting chemicals into a test tube, or reading the age of rocks and fossils, one has to understand what and who God is, and what and who they are, then they are in a good position to realise that God is in everything and everything is in God.

Does that mean that in Ancient Greece lightning came from god? No, it just means that at the time there was not enough to know where science came from.

I accept that you can understand the physical cause of lightening. In a similar way when you strike a math on concrete at will, it produce a spark, but you are not in a position to say as fact that gods do not will this act.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by A4Ever
Hi Jan! It's been a long time since I saw a post by you. Maybe I didn't look well enough. The other day I thought: I wonder what Jan Ardena would have to say about this or that

Hi A4, how's tricks?
Long time no see!

You say "I" would prefer. So it is your believe, right? Your believe is valid, but is another believe, the opposite, not just as valid? There is no source, we define this, right?

Yes, it is my belief, at the end of the day, that is all you have. Our beliefs are supported by what we know, what we know is due to our intelligence. I look at how different animals live, some have really hard lives and some not so hard, some can fly etc. But all in all, their whole existence seems to be based on just, eating, sleeping, sex life and defending, they don't care for anything else (AFAICS), so i have come to that decision. Everybody has to make decisions, decisions, generally are based on what you know, your intelligence, when we know something, we believe it. The real questions are, what do we know, and what is the state of our intelligence.

t's what makes me think the distinction is not that big.

It's not, it is a matter of bodily garbs. Personally i would not like to be obese, that doesn't mean i have anything against fat people, they, like me, are a person (soul), and for whatever reason they have become gigantic. However, the person is non-different to me, we have made different choices according to our experiances, but when all is said and done, we have 80-100 years, in this form, so to accept the body purely as self, is to commit spiritual-suicide. Oh! (before I forget) IMHO.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[A4Ever]

Jan,

But all in all, their whole existence seems to be based on just, eating, sleeping, sex life and defending, they don't care for anything else (AFAICS), so i have come to that decision.

I have different experiences with that. Some animals have a need to be helt by their master, like cats.

Dolphins are unhappy in those waterparks, yet they have food, sleep, sex and no ennemies.

I think there is more to animals than what is generally said. I think it is the same thing as describing a human as an animal with the extra asset of reasoning.

so to accept the body purely as self, is to commit spiritual-suicide.

Yes, but that is not what I meant. I think the animals just have fewer possibilities of expressing what is in them because they are more preoccupied with the struggle for existance. That doesn't mean there is not more in them.

Greetings,

A4Ever.

 

[Pammy]

Originally posted by A4Ever
Dolphins are unhappy in those waterparks, yet they have food, sleep, sex and no ennemies.

And Doom would have asked you where that came from. Have you asked the dolphins?

I think scientific testing might have judged them 'unhappy' but we don't know if it is the same unhappiness that people feel when they get put into prison (ie wanting freedom). They are intelligent enough to know that they are in an enclosed environment where they cannot escape. Their sense for self preservation could cause them stress because they know that if a predator appears they will be in big trouble. I hope you can try to understand what is the difference I mean.

Again there is no proof and this is just my reasoning. That is what we are here for aren't we? To share our thoughts..

 

[Jan Ardena]

Originally posted by A4Ever
Jan,



I have different experiences with that. Some animals have a need to be helt by their master, like cats.

Some, yes.
There are different grades of intelligence, try holding and petting a poisonous snake.
My point is, that animals in their everyday life, do not bother about God, their only bother is their own bodily needs.
Humans, on the other hand, has the ability to question their existence, this is why we are human, otherwise we are animals.

You can be the most educated person in the history of the world, but if all your efforts are wasted on creating a better bodily situation, then where is the difference between such a man and animals?

I think there is more to animals than what is generally said. I think it is the same thing as describing a human as an animal with the extra asset of reasoning.

But, what is the ability to reason, for?

Yes, but that is not what I meant. I think the animals just have fewer possibilities of expressing what is in them because they are more preoccupied with the struggle for existance.

And that is why they are a particular animal, because that is the level of their intelligence.
The fact that they are preoccupied with the struggle for existence, proves that they are animals.
If we do the same, although having a human form, we are, in essence no better than animals, but clearly we should be.

That doesn't mean there is not more in them.

What is the difference between an excellent student and a hopeless one?

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[A4Ever]

There are different grades of intelligence, try holding and petting a poisonous snake.

Snakecharmers. Or what's their name. Have cobra's as pets. Lets children play with it.

Just popped into my mind, cause I know what you mean.

My point is, that animals in their everyday life, do not bother about God, their only bother is their own bodily needs.

I sometimes think that animals know more about God than we do. It's because they know that they use their time for other purposes. Just a thought.

But, what is the ability to reason, for?

Biologicly: to enable us to think of ways to protect ourselves, since we have no paws or other special skills.

New Agely: to be able to experience things and contemplate on them.

Religiously: to serve God.

The fact that they are preoccupied with the struggle for existence, proves that they are animals.

I read a book that was set in Africa. The people there were preoccupied with the struggle for existance. That doesn't make them animals.

Domesticated animals are often less preoccupied with their struggle for existance. That does not make them human.

What is the difference between an excellent student and a hopeless one?

In todays society, I would have to answer that the difference is found in achievement. Only what is visible on the outside can be judged.

 

[(Q)]

Pammy

I don't think you are talking to a God. Most likely you are talking to yourself in the third person. You may have labeled it a god but it appears as though that label is simply yourself.

 

[Siddhartha]

Originally posted by (Q)
Pammy

I don't think you are talking to a God. Most likely you are talking to yourself in the third person. You may have labeled it a god but it appears as though that label is simply yourself.

Indeed. The idea of a creator to take out all you don't understand is like a comfort blanket. It's nice, but in no way essential.

 

[Jan Ardena]

A4,

Snakecharmers. Or what's their name. Have cobra's as pets. Lets children play with it.

Only because the snake is subdued by sound vibration.
(Sound vibration, now there’s a subject matter)

I sometimes think that animals know more about God than we do. It's because they know that they use their time for other purposes. Just a thought.

I probably understand what you mean, in the sense that they act purely naturally, and do not commit any wrongful acts, or acts that are against its nature, unless trained by a human, and even then, they are not responsible.

Religiously: to serve God.

But Who and What is God?

I read a book that was set in Africa. The people there were preoccupied with the struggle for existance. That doesn't make them animals.

People all over the world are pre-occupied with this struggle, from the filthy rich, the most educated, to the poorest of the poor, not just remote tribes. The animals are always in this struggle, simply because they are animals, some struggle more than others, but that is their natural position. Humans do not have to struggle, we are equipped mentally to put an end to it. Acting in such a way, does not mean that we are animals, but we have animal mentality.
How often do you hear the phrase “they behaved like a bunch of animals.”

Domesticated animals are often less preoccupied with their struggle for existance. That does not make them human.

No, but due to their association with good humans, they do benefit.

In todays society, I would have to answer that the difference is found in achievement. Only what is visible on the outside can be judged.

So you can see what animals have in them, they are not much different, mentally, from humans, but they do not enquire about the origin of their existence for if they did we would see the results, apart from the body types, that is what I think distinguishes us from animals.

Love

Jan Ardena.

 

[A4Ever]

Pammy,

Again there is no proof and this is just my reasoning. That is what we are here for aren't we? To share our thoughts..

That's exactly how it is. I don't have much to add. Your post is very reasonable, but not disproving what I said. Leading to the conclusion you made

Jan,

Sound vibration, now there’s a subject matter

There must be a lot of interesting things to say about sound. Sound could be the origin of the universe according to some people.

Indeed, worthy of its own thread.

But Who and What is God?

I think we can not describe him from our human perspective, since our concepts are to limited.

I would like him to be fully transcendent and fully immanent. But anyway he is is of course just perfect

Humans do not have to struggle, we are equipped mentally to put an end to it.

You mean stop collecting food, stop defending against animals and just die?

I don't think all people have options like the once you describe, unless they stop value life.

Acting in such a way, does not mean that we are animals, but we have animal mentality.

That's nicely put. The finer the tools, the finer the work.

But this animal mentality is not always a choice. Unless you don't value life and just sit there till you die. This goes for tribes. I don't mean people with an actual choice who have animal mentality. I think there is a difference.

No, but due to their association with good humans, they do benefit.

That's good news for my girlfriend's cats and other pets

Greetings,

A4Ever.

ps: this will be my last post until somewhere around februari the first. I have non-animal pre-occupations to deal with, which require my full attention

 

[Tyler]

You're free, of course, Pam to have any belief you have; simply accept that none of it is based on logic. Or, rather, you have not shown that any of it is based on logic.

 

[Pammy]

Originally posted by Tyler
You're free, of course, Pam to have any belief you have; simply accept that none of it is based on logic. Or, rather, you have not shown that any of it is based on logic.

Do you have love in your heart? If yes, how do you show it is based on logic?

 

[Pammy]

Originally posted by (Q)
Pammy

I don't think you are talking to a God. Most likely you are talking to yourself in the third person. You may have labeled it a god but it appears as though that label is simply yourself.

Of course, you are entitled to think whichever way you want. I know who I talked to because it happened to me. Some times God tells me to do things which I don't like to hear. Tell me how could anyone tell themself things they don't want to hear?

Suppose you talked to your friend just 5 minutes ago. Without the telephone company's verification, how can you prove that you have been talking to your friend and not talking to yourself? Because the friend tells you things which you have not thought of, and tells you things which you may not totally agree. Maybe you even prefer that the friend have not talked to you about whatever was talked about.

I think God has spoken to many (if not all) but you prefer not to acknowledge it. It is like doing a wrong thing and then when you get caught you can say "Nobody told me it is wrong so don't blame me for doing it. If I have been told I wouldn't do it".

However, remember that God knows that you have been talked to many times but you chose to pretend not to hear it, so you will still be held accountable whether or not you admit hearing him.

In fact, to whoever reads this post, This particular message could be meant specifically for you.

 

[Tyler]

Define "love in my heart".
Are you asking, do I feel compassion and emotion for others? If this is your question - it has been explained through neurology, our brains chemistry.

 

[Pammy]

Originally posted by Tyler
Define "love in my heart".
Are you asking, do I feel compassion and emotion for others? If this is your question - it has been explained through neurology, our brains chemistry.

That does not prove that it is in your heart(spiritually, emotionally not physical). It only proves that the brain recognises these emotions. Also lets say some great scientist is able to prove love in an experiment on someone. Still you can't prove it yourself love is in 'your' heart. But the thing is, whether it could be shown by science or not, you know you have love and emotions.

I am not a great scientist, how am I supposed to prove that I talked to God? I just simply know that because I talked to God. Not being able to prove that does not me I am illogical. I would only be illogical if I have talked to God and then think I have been talking to myself.

 

[James R]

Jan:

<i>Yes humans are better than animals, given a choice i would prefer a human body any day of the week.</i>

Humans are better than animals because of what you would prefer? Not much of an argument, Jan.

<i>How do you know [we don't need a soul to have a brain]?
Do you know what a soul is?</i>

Do you? If nobody can define what a soul is, we can't really discuss it, can we?

<i>All living beings have souls.</i>

That's not what the bible says.

<i>Are our brains bigger than elephant brains?</i>

Not sure. Probably. The important thing, though, is generally considered to be the ratio of brain size to body size. We're way ahead of elephants on that score.

I said: To find [the explanation for Pammy's ghost], we'd need a lot more detail, though.

You said: <i>Such as?</i>

Such as the full story, what the "ghost" looked like, what had happened just before, the details of the setting where the ghost was seen, some personal information about Pammy... The more detail the better.

 

[notPresidentAndrew]

I'm a liberal Christian. I rely on the Catholic Church for the proper interpretation of the Bible, because most protestants are just so damn off. I'm a theistic evolutionist and consider myself to be a "reasonable theist."

Just wanted to let you know that I'm a heretic, too, whoever started this thread.