Well, I guess I'll see if you decide to return.
If you do, an apology for your rude behaviour would be appreciated.
That is nice coming from an Australian
Well, I guess I'll see if you decide to return.
If you do, an apology for your rude behaviour would be appreciated.
That is nice coming from an Australian
It's pretty clear from the context that it's not a literal homecoming. It has nothing to do with seeking of acceptance within a community. It was a psychological and spiritual homecoming, feeling like I had found a place or identity wherein I could feel spiritually at-home or secure. Maybe it would be easier to understand if I simplified it: I felt like I was comfortable with where I was when it came to spirituality and religion.I always thought that the term "coming home" was one of feeling safe and being accepted, being part of the family. Perhaps I was wrong.
That's kinda my point. Mystical experiences are, with few exceptions, intangible things. They are experiences in or of the mind, not of tangible objects.Could you possibly be more specific, because what you are saying is intangible to us. What direct experiences?
Typically, mystical experiences occur in an altered state of consciousness by either inducing a trance or a dreamlike state. Some people use sleep deprivation, some use thirst or hunger, some use hypnosis, some use psychoactive drugs, some use simpler methods such as meditation or repetitive sound. Some use sexual activity, some use flagellation, some use other repetitive motions such as dance, posture exercises, or breathing exercises. On the other hand, some people experience them largely in dreams. Very rarely do mystical experiences occur while in a normal waking state.From whence did they come? How do you feel or see them vividly? Did you do anything to invoke these experiences?
Moderator note: I remind members that personal insults are a breach of the sciforums rules. Also, repeated off-topic posting can lead to a ban.
If you see an offensive post, don't reply in kind. Hit the "report" button.
Was that an attempt at a racist insult, arauca?
Just to clarify: I don't necessarily think that theism is "correct". I happen to believe that there are multiple gods, and that those gods are real beings. That does not mean that I think other beliefs are incorrect. They're just different opinions, drawn from usually very personal and subjective experiences in life.What made you change? What did it for you? What convinced you that theism was correct?
Do you mean "Big God" as in they believe it to be a powerful being? Or as in they make it a central part of their lives? There is a difference. Someone can believe that their god or gods is/are all-powerful without making it a big deal and making a religion out of it. Just as well, someone can make a perceived supernatural power a big part of their way of life even if they don't believe it to be omnipotent.I find people generally fall into the following two catagories, possibly for the same reasons:
Big God little State
Little God Big State
Do you mean "Big God" as in they believe it to be a powerful being? Or as in they make it a central part of their lives? There is a difference. Someone can believe that their god or gods is/are all-powerful without making it a big deal and making a religion out of it. Just as well, someone can make a perceived supernatural power a big part of their way of life even if they don't believe it to be omnipotent.
They sound silly. But I cannot deny what I have seen for myself.
As I was saying it appears you are affected by the "trolling" as you call it, only when it is against the atheists, because it affects you. But I am offended by remarks just as offensive when they are made against religious people in general.
So it could be "actions" (trolling) as you said the other day, but you only notice one type of action not both types. Basically you would have to be an agnostic to moderate a forum like this fairly.
Who is moderating the forum? It seemed like Bells was yet the person assigned to it never seems to get involved.Robbitbob1, I have to commend you on this observation.
I do disagree with ''Basically you would have to be an agnostic to moderate a forum like this fairly'', however.
jan.
The only reason one should be here is to learn or try to understand where other's are coming from so to speak.
All a moderator needs to do is deal evenly with personal insults. No one needs to moderate the exchange of ideas or opinions even if they are disputing an idea that you (generic you) hold.
It's not reasonable to be offended by someone disputing religious ideas (or by someone disputing non-religious ideas).
The only reason one should be here is to learn or try to understand where other's are coming from so to speak.
Moderators are needed when threads are turned into preaching threads however.
But while the atheists don't accept that it is possible for them to preach and the moderators are themselves atheists they only see christians preaching but that was to be like "My God is better than your God"
I suppose on the Christian music thread you might ocassionally get a Christian song that supports Christianity. Be strange if there wasn't.
How does an atheist preach? No one is calling it "preaching" when a theist talks about why they believe. It's preaching when the talk is about "bringing down hell fire" or fighting a glorious battle for the Lord or whatever.
It's not preaching when an atheist says I see no evidence for God. I don't know what "preaching" in a similar vein would be in the atheist context.