Protestantism

» pink101 - GI--GO

In response to GI--GO posted by paper_turtle:
.
9,702 words, that one wins the word count for long reads.
.
:)
.
I think the mind is a fantastic tool and able to conjure up anything imaginneable. I have been in group discussions when individuals recalled all kinds of complex near death experiences. I think the only thing any such stories prove is the inexhaustible imagination of the mind. But, we are unable to have thoughts beyond the words we know. The more complicated our vocabulary, the more inexhaustible our imagination. I think there is a correlation between the two--vocabulary and imagination.
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Imagination

In response to GI--GO posted by pink101:

.
What I found fascinating is van Lommel's ideas about the function of DNA.
.
Phil wrote:
.
The more complicated our vocabulary, the more inexhaustible our imagination. I think there is a correlation between the two--vocabulary and imagination.
.
One function of imagination is the ability to project results of an action which has not yet been started. For example, you want to put a box on the top shelf of your closet. You imagine the box in that location, and conclude its a bad idea 'cause it might fall.
.
Chimpanzees utilize imagination to invent tools to help them reach termites or crack nuts with stones.
.
Very young children have such vivid imaginations that they will fight over who owns a completely imaginary object. Both my children (at around age 3 or 4) had invisible playmates, and both "saw" them in great detail.
.
I think imagination is one of those functions which is helped by use of words, but I don't think words are not essential to its devleopment or exercise.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - Imagination

In response to Imagination posted by paper_turtle:
.
Well, words, or signs, or symbols of one type or another. Something metaphorical. But, that's just what I think and I'm far from an expert on the subject.
.
Existentialism tells us we are the sum total of our choices; but, how do we decide what choices we are to be offered?
.
Your thoughts are probably as valid as mine--maybe moreso.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - As A Diabetic

In response to Imagination posted by pink101:
.
Speaking of signs and wonders, as a diabetic it's time for me to get my sugar in control.
.
So, it's out to the club I go. Some good steady exercise will do me a lot of good.
.
:-)
.
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Imagination

In response to Imagination posted by pink101:

Phil wrote:
Existentialism tells us we are the sum total of our choices; but, how do we decide what choices we are to be offered?
.
Wow! what a question! We have as many choices as we believe we have, but when we are in extreme hardship situations we may come to believe we have no choices.
.
If we create our own reality, we also create our choices. We decide for reasons which make sense to us, but might not seem sensible to another. We all have our own criteria. For me, the question revolves around what will best help me continue to learn and grow? If I am doing my best to be my best person, then I will also be doing what is best for others. So I look for choices which lead to growth and learning.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» Migisi - Would we believe them?

In response to Would we believe them? posted by paper_turtle:

.
I don't agree with that notion about God wanting nothing to do with imperfect humans. The Pslamist David was far from perfect. Moses protested that he was unworthy because he was not good at speaking. Jonah tried to escape his duties as a prophet. Jeremiah protested he wasn't worthy because he was "a mere child."
.
I didn't mean 'nothing to do with', but I do question God wanting human companionship. God communicated with the imperfect people you named for a specific purpose(s). Briefly, God chose Moses to deliver the Hebrews from slavery. God chose David to replace Saul as king, to unite the Hebrew tribes, and established the cohesive Jewish kingdom. God assigned Jonah as a prophet of doom to heathen Nineveh. God asked Jeremiah to warn the Hebrews about the fall of the Kingdom of Judah (among other things). I don't read in scriptures where God kept friendly company, or shared his beingness, with them.
.
In any event, why would a just and loving God create us as imperfect and then demand the impossible of us?
.
Excellent question. One I've pondered and argued for years.
.
According to the narrative in Genesis, we are made in God's image,...
.
1:26 reads "... in ~our~ image, in ~our~ likeness..." 1:27 reads "male ~and female~ he created them". That presents a problem for monotheism, and God's personna as male. The verses 'our image' and 'male and female' imply two Gods, a male and female. But this would be a subject for a different thread.
.
AND God thought highly enough of humankind to let Adam name all the animals.
.
Frankly, I think God gave Adam that job to keep him busy. As they say, an idle mind is the devil's workshop. Sure enough, look what happened when Adam took a break from naming the animals. All hell broke loose.

-- posted by Migisi

» paper_turtle - Would we believe them?

In response to Would we believe them? posted by Migisi:

Migisi wrote:
God communicated with the imperfect people you named for a specific purpose(s). . . . I don't read in scriptures where God kept friendly company, or shared his beingness, with them.
.
Yes, but those people are more than their stories, and confining them within their stories limits their larger significance. Those people were all examples of ordinary people who did extraordinary things through faith. They were meant to be examples to other ordinary people. This was the intent of those who composed/compiled the OT.
.
The psalms are highly personal, but the narratives contained in my other examples were not. We aren't told how those people felt about much of anything. In the storyteller's mind this was not an important detail--and they also wanted their audience to put themselves in the character's place. That we aren't told about a personal relationship with God doesn't mean it didn't happen. The storytellers might also have felt that they wouldn't need to mention such a detail because everyone would know it.
.
I wrote:
According to the narrative in Genesis, we are made in God's image,...
.
Migisi responded:
1:26 reads "... in ~our~ image, in ~our~ likeness..." 1:27 reads "male ~and female~ he created them". That presents a problem for monotheism, and God's personna as male. The verses 'our image' and 'male and female' imply two Gods, a male and female. But this would be a subject for a different thread.
.
First of all, Hebrew grammar also used "he" as an indefinite to signify both male and female. The "our" in your Bible is rendered "his" in both my NEB and NAB Bible. (The NAB is a Catholic translation.) The "our" reflects the usage of the royal (or editorial) "we," as in Queen Victoria's "We are not amused." People are biologically male or female, but within the psyche we all contain male and female characteristics.
.
A male-dominated religion promulgated the *idea* that God was male, because it reinforced their position of power. In addition, they wanted to differentiate between their God and the gods of other religions (especially those with female goddesses). That doesn't mean its so.
.
About the naming of the animals--I think this is a symbolic way of saying that God gave humankind the right to determine meaning in their lives. For me, knowing the names of the plants and animals where I live makes them into something much more than stage scenery. They become friends, friends I care about and want to know better.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» redback - innate or inert?

In response to GI--GO posted by paper_turtle:

"I think we don't even begin to guess at what the human mind is capable of doing, in and of itself."

How we attempt to objectively measure this is fascinating to me including how we rate the wisest among us now...or the wisest who preceded us by a few thousand years. Can the less wise make that assessment? In my previous life (work), we tried to hand over more complex assessments to a group of higher skilled thus to be, higher paid staff. We found what was fair dinkum simple to some, was fair dinkum complex to others. What took a bit more effort or time to work through also ended up becoming too complex within the defined meaning for higher pay.

I like to think in that area I developed a decent skill to recognise what I didn't know with no concerns for self-preservation concerns. But within the philosophy being discussed here, I occasionally get a glimpse, rarely a tenuous hold...of what lies within us.

I won't write-off divine inspiration just yet...in case that's the queue I'm already on.

-- posted by redback

» pink101 - Instinct

In response to Imagination posted by paper_turtle:
.
I'm surprised it is so difficult for me to articulate or for others to understand what I mean to convey.
.
As human beings, we are limited--completely--ot whtever comes into us from our environment. And, how and what we choose is limited to the knowledge we gain from that input.
.
Is there some instinct built into our genetic makeup?
.
Do we have the ability to create concepts outside of our knowledge?
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - Instinct

In response to Instinct posted by pink101:

Phil wrote:
As human beings, we are limited--completely--ot whtever comes into us from our environment. And, how and what we choose is limited to the knowledge we gain from that input.
.
Well, in terms of every day experience, yes. But unless you define "environment" very broadly this doesn't explain how (for instance) a psychic can describe a killer in a crime which was not witnessed--sometimes even from hundreds of miles away.

Is there some instinct built into our genetic makeup?
.
I define instinct as built-in responses to help us survive, such as the fight or flight response. Some psychologists believe that fear of snakes is instinctive rather than taught.
.
Do we have the ability to create concepts outside of our knowledge?
.
There is a tribe in Africa which has as its insignia the depiction of a formation of stars. According to their creation myth, this star formation played a significant role in their origins. Only a few years ago scientists discovered, to their surprise, that this star formation actially exists.
.
Other primitive peoples have possed knowledge about things they "shouldn't" have known about, for one reason or another. But they knew, nonetheless.
.
The van Lommel article talks about universal mind. Jungian psychology also believes in this. *If* we have the ability, in dreams or meditations, to access universal mind, we can know things beyond our normal limits of knowing.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle