<<..It’s very important..to me..
that..believers..and non-believers/associate>>..

it is...to..all..of us/here..BUT*
its.only..ALLOWED*..here../now

[where..the.."fallen"..fall to.
after..rejecting..*choosing heaven..or hell}

freewill..is of..supreme..law*
none..[no/innocent]..can be forced..in heaven..or hell

[except..here..in satans..divisive/duelist realm*..
and only..the guilty..[rejecting..of both]..come here*..so..all is well]

what..we are..allowed..to do here
is not..what..can be allowable..easily..to occur there

[even..our words..are sent..to
the correct place..according..as to..their true fruit]

[heck..think why..
even..the angels..*rebelled..?]

..<<..In fact..I thought..that..is
what..we are doing..in our/current..exchange.>>

we are..
but.see..that the/angel..and/demons..watching us
are..*only getting..the bits..they..*can understand*..sync vibe with..
[as..our variable..emotive/responses..energizes..their derivative driven/passions]

[heck..in this realm..
the..supreme meam..is the law..of balance

EVERY..thing..i write
is half/right..half/wrong..[but so too..is all..we all..write]

we may..well think..it all..bright..[all-rite]
yet..in fact..its likely...to be trite..but thats..alright2
[exactly ..s its supposed..to/be..open..for further introspection..upon..later..reflection

here/ALONE..supreme good..
can*..mix freely..with super..bad
but..*not..there.*.proper..[thats..what..here..and the astral/realm clarifies]

god..glories in..our uniqueness*
rejoices..our difference..but more..loves..our deference..of love..of other..that first..step..beyond dogma..that begins..in first*.loving something..anything*..

its..all relative..when..we see..
nothing..is..irrelevance..[relatively/speaking]

to who..much..was given..so much..more..was to/be..expected

high spirits..get high-birth..to learn higher..lessons/teachings..with all..the associated temptations..[for karmic/balance]...

high/stakes=higher/return..but also..bigger/risk
to whom..much was..given..so much more..was to be expected..

thats..why..i take..[uses]..off others/words
its..not me..its..not/them..its us..as we..

david..<<...<<..Religion..has..no/mechanism..to reject/error...>

the people..who..hold..'the-word'..sacred..
must be..presumed*..to..have served..as best*..they could
[embedded..within..the doctrine..is full..accountability..to serve god]

sure..he fore-gives..
but..dont..save ourselves..from..choosing..our own,poison

lest/we forget..peer-review..was/begotten..in religion
before..becoming the..pre-eminent..preserve/creed..of science

<<..but..open/admission..of
error..is usually..avoided.>>

just/like..the science..of omission..?

is an..unnoticed/error..a crime?
how big..is..the karmic/corrective..kickback?

pearl..before..swine..comes to/mind..

once..we know..FOR SURE..
where is..the joy..of discovery?

<<..Error/correction..has/become..a sub-discipline>>

*universally..
but..what the bigger error?

highlighting..that..of transcendent/importance..
or..having control..over the software..via sacri-fiscal..scape goat..circuitry..under exclusive-license?

<<..Perhaps..you/can give..an example..
of what..the pope..meant by..a false absolute.>>

jesus died..FOR our sins?

[but..*cant remove..our choice..nor..*our will..to sin]

jesus..died..yet didnt die?

love god..by loving other?
toil-let..water?

<<..How much..of..your religion..is
a..recognition..of the..comfort>>

im only..into god..[my comforter]..[my dad..was/an atheist]
i..have attended..places..of religion..to obtain..their holy/texts

the texts..occasionally..put..my mind..in synche'
with/the..author-iz'es...imaging..the recording..of..the words

their/religion..didnt do..much..for me..specifically
*but..their scared-texts..are most/revealing..[once.you..know good..comes..*ONLY..from god]

and..by ignoring..
the things..i perceive
as.potentially..'bad/things..[we input..upon one..and other]..

i found..my comforters
not..their..religion/creed

[..like..the position..maketh..the man.].our specific life events..shapes us..more than we would..care to know.

there..but for fate..go we

[regardless..of where
the life-force..powers..came from

my life..shaped me..[could only..*shape me
just as..your life-events..could only..shape you]

Dear oug,

Would rather not be in your heaven. Would be separated from those I love. Your heaven would be hell.

its not..my heaven..david
if only you would try..to read one of the links
the reason..my posts are out of control..is by trying to quote..that one bit..

that sees someone..giving me
their feedback..on the stories

sir..t.e..Lawrence for example..began
his communication..in 1938..stopped in 1957..as he moved on

http://www.divinetruth.com/PDF/People/Other/Jane%20Sherwood%20-%20Post%20Mortem%20Journal.pdf

it was done via 'Automatic writing'
surely..somewhere in there..there can be some comment

they say it
far better than..i could

eg

SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE..said
<<>.I think the book, is valuable.

http://new-birth.net/booklet/CarolineDLarsen-My_Travels_in_the_Spirit_World.pdf

SIR ARTHUR CONAN DOYLE
1927
Rutland, Vermont

so valuable.he wrote the intro
anyhow..its pearl..and you..are far..from swine..so i..tried

but i see..the effort is wasted
just dont get too fixated..on *any theory

it aint over..till its over
as things can change..in an instant
http://new-birth.net/booklet/Subaltern_Spirit_Land.pdf

Dear Banjo,

>>I see no “à priori” reason to justify the idea that science has limited access to anything.<<

I never claimed anything about an “a priori reason to justify” anything.

>> The “reality that science has access to” is, “à priori”, all reality, without restriction.<<

That is a standard position that I called the Sagan maxim, shared by many, but not nearly all people. Among those who share - as well as those who do not share - this “without restriction” belief are many respected philosophers and scientists.

>>I consider that the restriction you propose is “void ab initio” <<

Of course, you are entitled to consider thus a worldview you do not share. I hope I am more open minded than that.

>>The definition I propose for existence is “reality”. I propose that we consider that what exists is real and is independent of our awareness of it.<<

“Reality is all that exists” is the opening remark of a Dawkins book that I dealt with in my article www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464: It defines “reality” if we can agree on what “exists” means and vice versa. Of course, I share your belief that there is a reality independent of our awareness of it.

>>Proof or evidence are elements which establish the truth of something.<<

Pleas read my question again. It was about what proof or evidence for the "supernatural" (or God) you would suggest that would convince you. It was not about a dictionary definition of proof or evidence in general.

>> I see no “à priori” reason why science could not have access to them.<<

Again, that is your prerogative, and you are not alone on that. Please understand that I was asked by David whether my metaphysical beliefs affected my science. My answer was no, and I tried to explain why, and then answer your questions. I was not trying to "convert" you, or anybody, only to EXPLAIN my position.

(ctd)

(ctd)

>> I see no “à priori” reason why science should not “investigate” them simply because they are immaterial elements.<<

Here you are extending the meaning of science from “natural” to include “social” (like the German Wissenschaft), and then of course you are right.

>> I see no “à priori” reason why science should not “investigate” consciousness too.<<

Neither do I.

>> I see no “à priori” reason why he should not continue to find out more and more about himself until, like the baron Münchhausen, he finally manages to pull himself from the swamp of ignorance and superstition by his own hair.<<

Again, I never claimed any “a priori reason” about the nature of consciousness, only reasons for MY doubts. The point with the Münchhausen metaphor was that what he claimed was a physical impossibility. Another metaphor would point to self-referential paradoxes in mathematics and logic.

Or maybe attempts at COMPLETELY understand and explain consciousness (up to the ability to reconstruct in a laboratory) are like attempts to construct a perpetuum mobile. l emphasize again, these metaphors are to support my OPINIONS, no “a priori reasons” that have to be supported by "evidence".

>> People will continue to believe in God as long as they feel the need to do so, irrespective of whether he exists or not.<<

The Christian equivalent of “believe in God as long as they feel the need to do so, irrespective of whether he exists or not” would be claiming that atheists “cannot help it because they are unable to see the light of Truth” or something like that.

In my opinion, in both cases such statements - beyond being comprehensible only to those who a priori agree with them - are often uttered only to reaffirm one in one's own beliefs or worldview. They are not indicative of an understanding for the alternative position.

>>His existence (reality) is not a prerequisite to belief. <<

I agree on the level of psychology: No reality is a prerequisite to any belief.

Dear david f,

So you disagree with both parts of JP II’s quote, actually with the pope’s understanding of religion and superstition (you could hardly expect him to identify the two). The same about idolatry. In your criticism you also seem to identify religion with Christianity or even its Catholic version.

>>Perhaps you can give me an example of what the pope meant by a false absolute.<<

He probably was referring to materialism (its metaphysical implications) or what is now called scientism, and refered to (e.g. by me) as science masquerading as religion (along the other extreme of religion masquerading as science), rather than “other Gods” as in the First Commandment. At least this is how, I think, Christians understood him.

>>How much of your religion is a recognition of the comfort and meaning it gave to your antecedents.<<

That is one of the functions of religion. However, there are now - especially in former Soviet Republics and “colonies” - many who converted to Christianity (and I presume also to Judaism or Islam) whose parents, and even grandparents, were atheists. Whatever the reasons for their conversion were, I think they were not primarily “keeping faith with their ancestors”, although this is probably one of the reasons for CHOOSING one of these Abrahamic religions when converting away from materialism/naturalism/anti-theism. Well, I am not a psychologist or sociologist, so maybe I am wrong.

As for myself, cultural ties to Catholicism are strong. For me the shock was not Vatican II - it was more or less contained in what I received from my father as I had no formal RE that Australian ex-Catholics like to complain about - but the ban of the Tridentine mass that I grew up with, was the vehicle of my religious experience, and symbolised for me our connection to European (Catholic) cultural traditions that we were separated from by a Marx-Leninist “iron curtain”. [Of course, to many, certainly those outside the cultural West, the Latin mass never made much sense].