i replied banjo..more fully here
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15088#15088

but began the reply..on the previous post
now to only post this brief post..or try to explain..it briefly/messily..here

anyhow the quoted bit..[linked]..
is one way..of that inner voice we may chose to qualify..[or quantify]
but..<<<...But these are only terms..used to label the voice...What is more helpful..is to learn how to recognize this inner voice by its characteristics.>>..

yes that bit is key*
is the dialogue hurtfull..or helpfull
[if hurt.full[negative]..this is indicative..of past PLUS ongoing or present abuse..[haunting]..see 30 years among the dead..pdf..that can lead to..spirit possession

i could..just list the two links
for those not trusting the link

for a practiced egsample of higher mind talk
http://www.consciousnesswork.com/recognizing_the_inner_voice.htm

one of the many./.options/names/qualities/possabilities
of mind talk [see list here-under]..from

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_monologue

See also[edit]

* Auditory hallucination
* Cognitive response model
* Free association
* Hearing Voices Movement
* Subvocalization
* Internal discourse
* Introspection
* Interior locution
* Intrapersonal communication
* Talk aloud protocol
* David Strassman
* Telepathy
* Cognitive linguistics
* Philosophy of mind
* Mind-wandering
* Self-awareness
* Self-Schema
* William James
* Visual thinking
* Human self-reflection
* Consciousness
* Stream of consciousness (narrative mode)
* Language of thought
* Language and thought
* Sapir–Whorf hypothesis

* Tumanov, Vladimir. Mind Reading:
Unframed Direct Interior

George,

I know you didn’t claim that the Christian god doesn’t communicate with us. My response shouldn’t have indicated that there was any such confusion on my behalf.

<<…only that He does not COMPEL EVERYBODY to reciprocate His attempts to communicate.>>

Well, the above is now different to what I had initially responded to…

“…you cannot demand of such an earthly “superbeing” to communicate with you on your terms.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15257#268658)

…which was more broadly referring to any sort of communication (not just reciprocation), and more importantly, to whose terms the style of communication should meet.

<<That is usually referred to as granting us free will.>>

Free will in Christianity is more just about the fact that the Christian god doesn’t force anyone to behave in certain ways, or to accept or believe in him. It overlooks the crux of what I’m talking about here by falsely assuming that the communication/revelation is already sufficient, or is in the process of being sufficiently communicated to us in our daily lives. According to the theology of some, God is sitting back and waiting for the right moment to reveal himself (often when the damage is already done and we’re at our most desperate and vulnerable - as reformed alcoholics, drug addicts, gamblers and criminals will attest to), but this still doesn’t get around the problem of a god who supposedly has an important message for us all and wants to share it.

So unfortunately this doesn’t get you out of the having-cake-and-eating-it-too predicament. It also renders your analogies regarding different understandings of maths and science irrelevant, unless you can explain what this higher or deeper understanding of Christian theology is that you are alluding to in your analogies.

You’ll remember in our ‘Abraham and Isaac’ discussion, however, that it turned out there wasn’t any deeper meaning that I was missing or wasn’t grasping there. We also saw with Richard Shumack (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15301#264224) and rational-debate (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15077#260501) that many Christians will happily point to philosophy and drop names of famous apologists and philosophers, but never actually explain how they counter the criticisms of counter-apologists.

Continued…

…Continued

This is a well-known tactic of the ‘sophisticated’ theist. PZ Myer’s has coined the term “The Courtier’s Reply” to describe it (http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/24/the-courtiers-reply/). So please excuse me if I sound sceptical, but it seems unlikely that you will turn out to be the lone exception here - particularly given our past discussions.

But I’m thankful that you at least made an attempt to explain the inconsistency this time.

<<I accept that I do not satisfy your understanding of what is Christian.>>

But it’s not really about just what my understanding of what a Christian is, though, is it. It’s more about what the theology says - what the scriptures say and what the majority view is on the interpretation of them. This is not about me.

<<Neither can I stop you from keeping on accusing me of all sorts of things that are irrelevant to the understanding of what I was trying to say.>>

The notion of ‘having one’s cake and eating it too’ only became relevant because the double-standard surfaced in your attempts to convey your view to Banjo. Whether or not it was relevant to what you were ultimately saying is a side issue. The fact of the matter is that it was there.

Perhaps you need to communicate your views a little differently? After all, using a double-standard to support a viewpoint does not exactly help to strengthen your position. And if the double-standard is not avoidable, then perhaps your position needs to be re-assessed? This is how I would suggest you avoid such accusations from me. I am not, as you are suggesting, inventing problems that aren’t there just to pick on you.

At the end of the day, however, I was only concerned about fairness. It is unfair to switch back and forth between Christianity and obscurantism when it suits you, in order to suggest that others just don’t understand what it is that you’re referring to - especially when you yourself do not understand what it is that you are referring to either.

Would you not agree?

AJ/quote..<<>.the fact..that the Christian god
doesn’t force..anyone to behave in certain ways,..or to accept or believe in him..>>..<<..overlooks the crux of what I’m talking about here..by falsely/assuming*that..the communication/revelation..is already sufficient>>

your presuming..that we are assuming
but that presumption..demeans all of us..

who deems that enough..is enough?..you..*can ignore
that your mind is thinking..hearing seeing..but it does this non stop

its sort of covered in my research
http://www.celestinevision.com/celestine/forum/viewtopic.php?p=15091#15091

even science cant explain..it..
yet you..can completely nullify..by claim to be knowing it aint god

you fail to see
where..the material 'you'..ends

either/or false revelation..<<..or is..in the process of being sufficiently..communicated..to us in our daily lives...>>

via others..also receiving gods greats gifts freely
completely unaware..they dont know..even the basics..of how our heart beats..or bodies work..but by others that were listening..guided to know

you only need ask..and a reply is given
the first thing your brains mind does is object..subjectivly

its the little errors that compound
..<<..but this still doesn’t get around..the problem of a god who supposedly..has an important message..for us all and wants to share it.>>

my dear aj..god has no mess-sage..[no me-sage]
get it?..he sustains us our every breath..our every heart..beat..fixes our broken bits..and sustains us our logic..[full-stop][we are important..to the spirit realm..because god is omnipresent..[sustaining Every life its livin

if he was..to send a mess-age..we know..
its definitively..is not of god..,

cause if he speaks..its from within..[see link]
http://www.consciousnesswork.com/recognizing_the_inner_voice.htm

the only problem..being angels and demons both sound like god
so we need to filter our..uses..of freewill..to other..just to be sure

AJ<<..unless you can explain..what this higher or deeper understanding..of Christian theology is>>

love of god..via love of other
that we do..to the least..we do to god

jesus specifically
REFUTED..bankers/creed
PLUS*..
both..judgment*day..and resection*day..
by dying and returning..[he never really died..he lives even now*]

he said..see that..ye..see me do
YE WILL DO GREATER*

[death where is thy sting]..
god above all..[is *with..and ..*in all]

THE ONLY TRUE father..is known..by his..SURE SIGNS..
grace mercy good light love life logic laughter

all..essentially good
thus all..even the least/worst..most vile..[living]
have a core of goodness..hate the deed..not the man

bless u2

.

One Under God,

.

I wrote:

“Don’t worry, George, I won’t be offended if god does not contact me. I know it’s impossible.”

.

And you, One Under God, replied:

“ i replied banjo..more fully here …”, followed by a number of links, including this one from Wikipedia on “Internal monologue”:

“ Internal monologue, also known as inner voice, internal speech, or verbal stream of consciousness is thinking in words. It also refers to the semi-constant internal monologue one has with oneself at a conscious or semi-conscious level.

Much of what people consciously report "thinking about" may be thought of as an internal monologue, a conversation with oneself. Some of this can be considered as speech rehearsal.”

.

However, what you are suggesting, One Under God - your other links were very explicit on this - is that, contrary to the definition of the “inner voice” in the Wikipedia article, when I “think in words” I am actually talking to god.

I should be interested to hear what our scientific friends, George and David f have to say about this.

Personally, I find it a bit far-fetched. What has god got to do with it? Con you provide any evidence to support your suggestion? Why not, as Peggy O’Mara (owner and editor of Mothering Magazine in the USA), says:

“The way we talk to our children becomes their inner voice.”

It seems to me that this is a more credible explanation. Conscience (which is what you are referring to), has mainly (if not exclusively) to do with our education.

Besides that, there are all sorts of things I can “think about in words”, for example: whether it’s going to rain tomorrow or not, or if I should take a shower in the morning or in the evening, or where-on-earth I put my socks. It seems to me that all this, as the Wikipedia article indicates, “refers to the semi-constant internal monologue one has with oneself at a conscious or semi-conscious level”.

I see no need to invent god to explain that.

Better save him for something else.

.

Dear Banjo,

>>Who could doubt that science has its limitations (your expert advice) ? Who could doubt that they are constantly evolving (my layman’s observation) ? <<

I don’t see a contradiction between the two, only that we obviously do not understand each other in this matter. Probably my fault. As I keep on repeating, I did not want to argue or even make you change your worldview, only explain. And on this topic I apparently failed.

Neither did I want to upset you by assuming you were an atheist. I apologise. Nevertheless, I appreciate the time you took to discuss things with me and am grateful for the feedback you gave me. So, please, let us leave it at that.

AJ Philips,

Thanks for your post though I don’t know what you want from me. To communicate my views a little differently? Communicating does not mean trying to win over, attempts that have to be resisted in a debate. My communication with david f and Banjo (and oug as far as I could understand him) certainly did not convince them to come over to my side but has enriched my understanding of my own position.

I do not think you would regard anything I would write as a viable explanation of my position, since you seem to be unable to accept that some people believe in God - whether referred to in the Bible as “God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” or by (some)philosophers as a Being outside the reach of science. And even less the position (like mine) that sees both descriptions as two sides of the same coin.

This is our fundamental difference. I can accept that many people (at all levels of intellectual sophistication) cannot believe in God, however modeled. And I do not argue with them trying to convince them (actually myself) that they are wrong in their starting position.

So, again and again, let us leave it at that. Unfortunately, I cannot take away your belief that I myself do not understand what I am referring to.