i've actually met God

[Phillip Brix]

i know there is a God because i've met him. he told me i made him kill his son twice and then he said that i killed his son twice, then he he said, well once but still. he was just about to met out a punishment for me, then suddenly he stopped just before doing so and i haven't heard anything from him since.  also i have an angel. shes spoken to me on several occasions. if you have questions for her she might answer them i don't know.

[Phillip Brix]

also i apparently have all the colors. i'm, not entirely sure what this means. but i recently went to the hospital, and while there i suddenly felt mentally stronger, the guy there said i can download.

[Phillip Brix]

people from the government have been testing my capabilities "in secret". they've already tried waves of hate and sadness on me to little affect. 

[Kohlrak]

Bold claims, no elaboration or detail. I have a feeling that asking you what you were doing at the hospital would give us a few more answers. So what were you doing, there?

[RichardY]

Schizophrenia?

Can't say I have any specific knowledge of God. To me it is a concept without form or substance; undefined(the closest I figure is Chance, maybe limited conceptually by dimensions.). I guess the Deist model (read some of @Phillip Brix former posts) of God being outside of time, would be more rational than the theist model of divine revelation.

Been thinking recently that the term Atheism is untenable, and that Paganism, Satanism, Determinism, Freewill, Gladiator. May make more sense. 

Read some stuff that God is the principle of creation. And Satan(lucifier?) is the principle of individuation. In Jungian Psychology.

Wonder what's it's like to lose or breakdown the concept of the self at least temporarily. Some of Phillip Brix formers posts looked a bit like shuffling cards, to use a crude analogy perhaps.

[Ronin_3000]

What's the point of modding if you let posts of this quality through? I can't believe this guy actually gives money to Stef. Maybe that's why his shit posts don't get modded?

[Kohlrak]

2 hours ago, Ronin_3000 said:

What's the point of modding if you let posts of this quality through? I can't believe this guy actually gives money to Stef. Maybe that's why his shit posts don't get modded?

Free Domain Radio, please notice where you're at. If you have a bad idea, free speech should sort it out. Moderating is about ending unnecessary hostility as well as illegal content, not "bad thought" or "no thought." I know rep doesn't really matter on these forums, but i also noticed you managed to get -5, so should we hold you and your posts to the same standard? Maybe he's one of those who donates enough to get a rank then goes and trolls people. Maybe not. Who knows, and unless we get more info and more posting, it's illogical to assume he's a troll.

 

3 hours ago, RichardY said:

Schizophrenia?

Can't say I have any specific knowledge of God. To me it is a concept without form or substance; undefined(the closest I figure is Chance, maybe limited conceptually by dimensions.). I guess the Deist model (read some of @Phillip Brix former posts) of God being outside of time, would be more rational than the theist model of divine revelation.

Been thinking recently that the term Atheism is untenable, and that Paganism, Satanism, Determinism, Freewill, Gladiator. May make more sense. 

Read some stuff that God is the principle of creation. And Satan(lucifier?) is the principle of individuation. In Jungian Psychology.

Wonder what's it's like to lose or breakdown the concept of the self at least temporarily. Some of Phillip Brix formers posts looked a bit like shuffling cards, to use a crude analogy perhaps.

 

I don't think atheism is untenable, but, rather, we have a hard time wrapping our heads around atheism, secularism, etc. Agnostics don't care, secularists don't care and don't believe, and atheists "advocate disbelief." The latter is harder to see, especially when googling. "-ist" is one who advocates something (or, at least, that's how we talk about politics in the modern west). "-ism" then would be the advocacy. So secularism is advocating the believe and concentration of the mundane, secular, simple, empirical world. Agnosticism is advocating that we don't know things. Atheism, then, would be the attempt to remove belief in God: you are advocating that people become without (a-) God (theos). I don't really think "ism" and "ist" really meant to imply active voice in the past, but they have that implication at this time. So, you might not be committed to changing my mind, which is why atheism is untenable to you: you're not committed. You, in your text, appear to not believe in God, but believe in the representations that comes with it, so you are advocating for the practical, mundane view of God. I could be wrong, but this is how i look at things, and i think that, for this reason, the positions always seem so difficult (aside from theist, as we're pretty sure what we believe in, usually).

 

Note: I'm really not sure where the "God is an alien" people fall in this.

[Ronin_3000]

I never referenced his rep. When registered for FDR I remember reading that you're supposed to have proper grammar on this site. The OP has shit grammar, and his posts don't even make sense.

[Kohlrak]

14 minutes ago, Ronin_3000 said:

I never referenced his rep. When registered for FDR I remember reading that you're supposed to have proper grammar on this site. The OP has shit grammar, and his posts don't even make sense.

I know, but i'm pointing out that it's the pot calling the kettle black at this point. Is the kettle black or silver? Who cares, the pot is definitely black.

[Ronin_3000]

You're claiming I am criticizing the OP for a flaw I also possess. That is false. I never referenced his rep. That was you who drew that connection.

[Kohlrak]

1 minute ago, Ronin_3000 said:

You're claiming I am criticizing the OP for a flaw I also possess. That is false. I never referenced his rep. That was you who drew that connection.

 

If you're so big on the rules, let's go over them, shall we? Right up top, right under "Guidelines." I know by addressing this I am also breaking a rule or two, but your hypocrisy must be called out.

The board does not have to be as elegant and repressed as a Victorian tea party, but certain civilized rules must be respected:

• No swearing.
• No ALL CAPS!
• Please try to focus criticism on the theory, and not the individual.
• Please do your research before responding to factual posts. If you are refuting particular facts, please supply links to reputable sources.
• Please do not respond to a post when you are angry — take 10 minutes, figure out what is really bothering you, and then respond if you must.
• Remember, if you insult someone's intelligence or integrity, but continue to debate with him, you are escalating for no reason whatsoever. If you truly believe that someone is dumb, or dishonest, it makes no sense to debate him.
• Passive aggressive posts are strongly discouraged. If you don't know what passive aggression is, please research the term before posting.
• When responding to a post, please remember that simply stating that the poster is wrong is a complete waste of time. To correct someone, you must point out an error in his reasoning or facts, and supply evidence.
• Please respect your feelings. If you find that a thread is becoming unpleasant, please disengage. If you feel your temper rising with someone, please stop responding to him. Anger and escalation will never lead us to the truth. The truth can only result from a positive and challenging mutual exploration of facts and principles. Escalation is the responsibility of both parties.
• Please avoid accusing someone of bad intentions without any evidence. “Oh, so whenever you are wrong, you just run away!” “Oh, you're just changing the topic because you can't handle the truth!” Even if it turns out to be true, this kind of hostility will never bring enlightenment.
• Please avoid “Internet courage.” Before posting, try to imagine speaking the words you are typing directly to the person, as if he were standing right in front of you. Also imagine that he is very large.

 

I don't know how courageous you are in real life, so i'll let the last one go.

[Ronin_3000]

Yeah, I guess the rules you are knowingly breaking are the passive aggressive rule and possibly the rule right before that. Am I right?

[Kohlrak]

1 minute ago, Ronin_3000 said:

Yeah, I guess the rules you are breaking are the passive aggressive rule and possibly the rule right before that. Am I right?

You're not really giving me anything to talk about except your hostility, so i'm quite directly pointing it out, so it's not passive aggressive. Since you're not making any arguments themselves to criticize, i'm criticizing you, which is the third bullet point.

[RichardY]

8 hours ago, Kohlrak said:

Agnosticism is advocating that we don't know things. Atheism, then, would be the attempt to remove belief in God: you are advocating that people become without (a-) God (theos). I don't really think "ism" and "ist" really meant to imply active voice in the past, but they have that implication at this time. So, you might not be committed to changing my mind, which is why atheism is untenable to you: you're not committed. You, in your text, appear to not believe in God, but believe in the representations that comes with it, so you are advocating for the practical, mundane view of God. I could be wrong, but this is how i look at things, and i think that, for this reason, the positions always seem so difficult (aside from theist, as we're pretty sure what we believe in, usually).

 

Note: I'm really not sure where the "God is an alien" people fall in this.

You see this is my point my. If atheism is advocating that people become without God, what is this God they are advocating to come without? If God is a delusion, then shouldn't we see those who talk of god and to themselves as mad, insane or mistaken? What is more, what is an atheist who makes an intellectual position out of refuting a delusion they themselves, must hold,  Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 

If to be an Atheist is to be without God, what steps into fill the vacuum? Arguably the self, but why would this not make the self be extroverted in personality, what draws the line? Perhaps no self.

If not the self then why is not Satanism a plausible position of Atheism. To go one further why not some kind of gladiator Doom Style or Nietzschean overman. If God is eliminated or circumvented what is the alternative. Atheism is an umbrella term for all sort of ideas contrary to God, but not the nullification of God, which is what I'm thinking about. To essentially erase the error of God.

 What I'm advocating for is not a practical mundane view of God but, a specific subset of alternatives to God., not Atheism. The word Atheism seems to say as much about God, as Theism does. 

Although if I were to accept the concept of God. I think that a Deist model of god outside of time(inspired by norse mythology) would be more sensible then a Theist model of divine revelation. Though this leaves a God for all practical purposes that does not require praying to or worship. Functionally no different to atheism, God as metadata.

Would it be a good idea though to fully eliminate the concept of God as a kind of metadata, perhaps embracing the idea of God may lead to Schizophrenia. I don't know. Perhaps God is merely another way of saying self. In which case is without self Good or Bad? Perhap if the Self is an impossible concept to define, maybe turning back on oneself too much may cause a kind of unraveling of the person. Become too rational to the point where a person loses the concept of themself as a subject.  

At best God as aliens, presents a regression problem. 

 

[ofd]

Quote

if you have questions for her she might answer them i don't know.

Is the Riemann conjecture true?
Does P = NP?
Milk before or after the tea?

[Kohlrak]

On 5/15/2018 at 6:03 AM, RichardY said:

You see this is my point my. If atheism is advocating that people become without God, what is this God they are advocating to come without? If God is a delusion, then shouldn't we see those who talk of god and to themselves as mad, insane or mistaken? What is more, what is an atheist who makes an intellectual position out of refuting a delusion they themselves, must hold,  Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. 

If to be an Atheist is to be without God, what steps into fill the vacuum? Arguably the self, but why would this not make the self be extroverted in personality, what draws the line? Perhaps no self.

If not the self then why is not Satanism a plausible position of Atheism. To go one further why not some kind of gladiator Doom Style or Nietzschean overman. If God is eliminated or circumvented what is the alternative. Atheism is an umbrella term for all sort of ideas contrary to God, but not the nullification of God, which is what I'm thinking about. To essentially erase the error of God.

 What I'm advocating for is not a practical mundane view of God but, a specific subset of alternatives to God., not Atheism. The word Atheism seems to say as much about God, as Theism does. 

Although if I were to accept the concept of God. I think that a Deist model of god outside of time(inspired by norse mythology) would be more sensible then a Theist model of divine revelation. Though this leaves a God for all practical purposes that does not require praying to or worship. Functionally no different to atheism, God as metadata.

Would it be a good idea though to fully eliminate the concept of God as a kind of metadata, perhaps embracing the idea of God may lead to Schizophrenia. I don't know. Perhaps God is merely another way of saying self. In which case is without self Good or Bad? Perhap if the Self is an impossible concept to define, maybe turning back on oneself too much may cause a kind of unraveling of the person. Become too rational to the point where a person loses the concept of themself as a subject.  

At best God as aliens, presents a regression problem. 

 

 

Correct me if i'm wrong, but is this not essentially lying to yourself to get the benefits from a lie? What you seem to be arguing for is sort of the problem we have with the religious of today: belief in a higher power, but without realization. What this looks like is that you say you believe, and maybe you even go to a religious institution, but when push comes to shove, the religious guidelines fall apart. Remember how Stefan says that "religion is not enough!"? This is why: the religious say they stand for helping people, taking care of the poor, etc, but it's superficial. The commitment of looking around and seeing your fellow man's plight, the plight of the other worshippers especially, is absent. It's not the belief in God that brings the "good behavior," but the realization.

At one time the church i was going to was having a hard time keeping up with it's "bills to local charities." See, usually churches take the money you give them to keep the church heated in the winter, to do soup kitchens, to help hard luck cases that ask for help (which is actually very rare), and a number of other things regarding keeping the church functional as well as trying to take care of local and immediate concerns. My girlfriend's mother, who is the classic example of the above problem, stated simply: "Sure, I believe in God, and I want to get to heaven, but God isn't going to pay my bills." I did not see her having trouble paying her bills, and helping people make ends meet was one of the rare things the church provided when necessary, so yes, in reality "God" actually would help her pay her bills if it really came to that. The woman just bought a permanent campsite and quite a few other luxuries (to be fair, the comment was made 7 or 8 years ago, but i have no reason to believe her church donation habits have really improved).

And then take the religious schools into consideration, or "overly religious parents." They know that God's rules are important, but they don't apply them to themselves. God isn't real to these people. They convince themselves that they believe, so they meet "the bare minimum to get into heaven," but then they turn around and do things counter to their own religion, like physically abusing children, and even committing blasphemy by justifying it with things like "What would God have me do?" or "Do you really want to go to Hell?" or any number of things.

Without the realization of God, the religious join the rest of the hedonists, except they have an added bit of self-righteousness. These people act as if God won't see what they're doing, or as if God, being an unthinking being, will automatically see the "wisdom" in the misbehaving christian.

[RichardY]

1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

Correct me if i'm wrong, but is this not essentially lying to yourself to get the benefits from a lie? What you seem to be arguing for is sort of the problem we have with the religious of today: belief in a higher power, but without realization. What this looks like is that you say you believe, and maybe you even go to a religious institution, but when push comes to shove, the religious guidelines fall apart.

More like imposing or not imposing structure on the world. (I remember my father saying once that his sister called the ocean "A big bath.") If god does not exist and is a delusion, why not take it a step further to Iconaclasm. Be like erasing former(liquidated) members of the Communist Party from photos. Or Islam not permitting the depiction of religious figures. Though I would the regret of destroying ancient artefacts, to the point of it even outweighing human lives, but not necessarily human suffering.

Not arguing for, more like the state of my mind. Awareness, but not consciousness, or at least lack of it.

I do not go to any religious instituitions.(technically not correct, but spiritually so.) I'm interested in the psychological knowledge and how many many common expressions are from Shakespeare or the bible. I'd like to gain a wider context as opposed to focusing on one sentence.

1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

Remember how Stefan says that "religion is not enough!"? This is why: the religious say they stand for helping people, taking care of the poor, etc, but it's superficial. The commitment of looking around and seeing your fellow man's plight, the plight of the other worshippers especially, is absent. It's not the belief in God that brings the "good behavior," but the realization.

Perhaps why Baptism was/is practiced. I had a grandfather who had a baptism of sorts, when he was set on fire and crash landed into the sea. (WW2)
 

1 hour ago, Kohlrak said:

At one time the church i was going to was having a hard time keeping up with it's "bills to local charities." See, usually churches take the money you give them to keep the church heated in the winter, to do soup kitchens, to help hard luck cases that ask for help (which is actually very rare), and a number of other things regarding keeping the church functional as well as trying to take care of local and immediate concerns. My girlfriend's mother, who is the classic example of the above problem, stated simply: "Sure, I believe in God, and I want to get to heaven, but God isn't going to pay my bills." I did not see her having trouble paying her bills, and helping people make ends meet was one of the rare things the church provided when necessary, so yes, in reality "God" actually would help her pay her bills if it really came to that. The woman just bought a permanent campsite and quite a few other luxuries (to be fair, the comment was made 7 or 8 years ago, but i have no reason to believe her church donation habits have really improved).

And then take the religious schools into consideration, or "overly religious parents." They know that God's rules are important, but they don't apply them to themselves. God isn't real to these people. They convince themselves that they believe, so they meet "the bare minimum to get into heaven," but then they turn around and do things counter to their own religion, like physically abusing children, and even committing blasphemy by justifying it with things like "What would God have me do?" or "Do you really want to go to Hell?" or any number of things.

Without the realization of God, the religious join the rest of the hedonists, except they have an added bit of self-righteousness. These people act as if God won't see what they're doing, or as if God, being an unthinking being, will automatically see the "wisdom" in the misbehaving christian.

I think the churches and people in the USA probably do much to help the unfortunate. The ones in Europe are content to take their 30 pieces of silver. I think the "zeal"(abuse) does more harm than good. I guess if christianity moves to a decentralised model of something like  Francisican monks and away from the church it may do much good. Small bands of devout Christians.

[Kohlrak]

7 hours ago, RichardY said:

More like imposing or not imposing structure on the world. (I remember my father saying once that his sister called the ocean "A big bath.") If god does not exist and is a delusion, why not take it a step further to Iconaclasm. Be like erasing former(liquidated) members of the Communist Party from photos. Or Islam not permitting the depiction of religious figures. Though I would the regret of destroying ancient artefacts, to the point of it even outweighing human lives, but not necessarily human suffering.
 

 

Well, look at the left. My immediate thought is that it's a sign of doubt. I've met witches, yet I don't believe in the power of witchcraft. I don't feel the need to go around removing those plain white candles they covet, nor do I feel the need to DDoS their websites. They're not a threat. Even a malicious one is not a threat: their hocus pocus does absolutely nothing, shy of costing them resources. Yet, somehow, to the leftist, the 10 commandments is important to remove, but Harry Potter, Twilight, Fifty Shades, etc is not important to remove. Clearly, Christianity is a threat. For some reason, Islam isn't a threat to them, and I'd really love to know why. Is it that they underestimate Islam, or do they think the Muslims are more likely to cave to government for some unknown reason?

Quote

Not arguing for, more like the state of my mind. Awareness, but not consciousness, or at least lack of it.

That's the thing, though. The power of religion to "make people do good things" comes from it being by principle. The farther back in the mind,  when the proverbial bovine excretion is hitting the fan, whatever comes to mind first will be what people do. If things aren't as chaotic, they'll go a little further back. It's all about priorities, and this is why the big God debate was so irresponsible.

Let's take for a moment and assume that we all (in this topic) know that God isn't real (should be an easier thought experience for most people here than it is me) and Christianity was still the norm. If we know that it is through morality and principles that human beings will continue to grow philosophically, technologically, and pretty much every way that we deem "good," then surely, we'd wish that human beings disregard God, right? However, we also know that while we feel that putting humanity and improving humanity first is principle (else, why are we doing this without belief in God?), and other people likely won't (more like probably won't) see things the same as us, what makes us think it's a good idea to remove their primary motive for them having the same goals as us? Wouldn't it make more sense to focus on making the other existing atheists, perhaps the nihilists, change their minds and get back on board with improving humanity? Sure, the Christians are a larger group of people, but they're also on our side, even if we disagree on a few things, while we have a whole group (albeit small) of people who just don't see eye to eye with us. Sure, let's focus on the Christians so we can take away their God, then turn around and expect them not to join that smaller group which is directly opposed to us. If we assume no malice, hunger for power (this being the most likely, as the state saw a method of taking power from the religious), etc on the part of the atheists, this must've been what happened that got us to this spot today.

Remember with low hanging fruit, that you want to continue getting fruit from the tree. If that fruit is strong enough to the tree, maybe you'll end up pulling a weak branch (maybe from a really fat cat jumping on it) or two down with it, and you won't get as much fruit in the future, let alone low hanging. If God is the easy target, but it also gives you allies, worry about establishing them as allies without God, before you take the chance on loosing them as allies. Think of the consequences. You'e not going to have cake after you've eaten it.

 

 

I do not go to any religious instituitions.(technically not correct, but spiritually so.) I'm interested in the psychological knowledge and how many many common expressions are from Shakespeare or the bible. I'd like to gain a wider context as opposed to focusing on one sentence.

Beware, to fully get alot of them, you have to work in the context of believing. Contrary to popular opinion of the left, many smart people were also religious.

 

Perhaps why Baptism was/is practiced. I had a grandfather who had a baptism of sorts, when he was set on fire and crash landed into the sea. (WW2)

 

Ask a Christian, since we still believe.  It's actually right in the bible: Bible Hub Link

The metaphor is "washing away sins, like you would dirt." I doubt this practice started with John the Baptist, but the idea was that sin is a blight upon you. You do bad things, and no one takes "sorry" seriously, especially if it was a really bad thing. So, this was a much larger apology, especially in the context of believing in a deity which was believed to prefer ceremonious practices (and previously it was sacrificing lambs, but this was becoming very, very impractical), because He likes to be the center of attention (which the atheist should understand from my words above why this is important). Presumably, with Jesus' death, the need to do this to appeal to God was removed, since the ceremony was way too far beyond anything we could come up with, while still maintaining a civilization. Therefore, most churches do it "because Jesus went through it, I guess we should as well." Thus, since we believe Jesus did not sin, we also believe that it shows to others that we're not too great and perfect as to be faultless and blameless, even if we think we don't sin. It's a display of humility, but i think the meaning of this practice was very much lost.

 

I think the churches and people in the USA probably do much to help the unfortunate. The ones in Europe are content to take their 30 pieces of silver. I think the "zeal"(abuse) does more harm than good. I guess if christianity moves to a decentralised model of something like  Francisican monks and away from the church it may do much good. Small bands of devout Christians.

I don't get the impression it was ever meant to be centralized. Bible Gateway link. According to the religion, God took exception to the desire for a king: He was being replaced with the state, as that clearly wasn't a "yay! Humans don't need me anymore, i'm free!" While the new testament talks about "building a church," i don't get the impression of centralization there, either. It seems more to me to be a free market of ideas, religious ones. You'd think if it was meant to be the monolithic structure that it is now, it'd have it's rules in the bible, no? It doesn't. Even the people who dared form the government didn't dare putting it in.

This'll amuse you too. The word among the methodists about 10 years ago was that "we're loosing to the non-denominational churches." The reason is obvious, the denominational churches have mini governments, and large portions of the bible never get sermons, while small portions get regular sermons citing them. We have ruling bodies, not regular people, telling us what the passages mean. As it stands, "young christians," whom some even have the audacity to see non-literal views of the bible passages, hunger for free speech on religious matters, or at least separation from the hypocrites. Christianity as a whole is moving away from denominational governments just like people as a whole are moving away from the mainstream media. As apathetic as we view the general population, the normies, to political causes and thought, we do see that their subconscious or something is moving them in the right direction, anyway. Given that these people are the ones who don't benefit from PC culture, i think that has something to do with why we seem to be on the path of ethnic replacement. Why else would even the lefty replublicans be so worried about importing 3rd worlders who won't vote for them anyway?

 

EDIT: What is the convenient method of quoting properly on these boards?

EDIT AGAIN: I've also heard preachers say that baptism is a figurative "drowning to death to give birth to new life: a new you." Wouldn't be fair to say my own opinion without bringing up the opinion of others whom RichardY indirectly requested.

Edited May 16, 2018 by Kohlrak
more info