Positive thinking has been proven to do what? Engender the sorts of miraculous healings the Bible attributes to Jesus? If so, then where can I go to read documented case studies?
Positive thinking does modify behavior. I don't see where anything else was indicated.
I do. House's statement was in reply to your question about faith (or "believing") working for Jesus "in this physical world of effect." In the Bible, Jesus didn't primarily relate faith to behavioral changes, but to manifestations of spiritual power (miracles) in the physical world.
There are plenty of documented cases of "unexplained" recoveries from illness, etc.
They are unexplained, not because they are miracles, but because they are miraculous (miracle-like). They are inexplicable.
My presumption is that a portion of these miraculous events are true miracles. That's a big presumption, but one in which I'm confident based on my own experiences, and those of others which parallel my own.
Those experiences do not validate any particular dogma seeking to explain, or monopolize, them. They simply are.
I gladly concede that my interpretation of "miraculous" characteristics of events could be entirely wrong. In that respect, I guess I don't "believe" in them.
Luke 2:19 says, "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."
Keep is to remember or commit to memory.
Ponder is to consider deeply.
That's the best attitude, I think, for things of apparent significance which cannot be explained.
Could explain how a buffon could get elected as President.. sorry, heh heh.
A buffon? Don't know about buffons.
This is an unprofitable derail, Mr. H. Running out of profitable things to say?
You may want to retire "heh heh" for a while. Used now and then, or now and again, it may transmit a writer's wit. Repeating itself with rhythmic persistence, like a facial tick, it may transmit the writer's lack thereof.
Well, I'm not trying to win a Pulitzer prize here, but OK :o-->
But you must admit it does partly make a point. With cause and effect and all, why DO the mindless at times seem to stumble on success? In my opinion, TWI thought did not explain that very satisfactorily, at least as much as why bad things happen to those who are apparently "believing".
Could it be possible that "cause and effect" does not ALWAYS apply?
From personal experience- some of the very best things in my life occured without planning, obedience, or believing. I can also attest to the same for the worst.
I agree. But the cackle of my ego tells me otherwise
The ego is an effect, an image projected by our nervous and limbic systems upon the "screen of consciousness," which are themselves effects. The ego cannot but "believe" otherwise.
Usually the conversation stops when the ego comes up because, in our culture, it's all we know of ourselves. It's a dead end, a brick wall, a do-not-pass-go. We're just so used to it. It's as familiar to you as your own face, or the sensation of breathing. And we haven't got a clue how it got there, or how to manage it.
But we guard the ego, sometimes with our lives, and quite often with our health and happiness. Don't we? Now isn't that cause enough to ask "why?" But we usually don't ask. I wonder why not.
"Ego-management." We don't hear much about it. It usually connotes containing one's pride, but pride is only one of the ego's expressions. One of many.
Suppose you had an "ego-ectomy." Who, or what, do you think would remain? Would anything familiar to "you" survive?
Did Jesus have an "ego?" If so, where did the "christ" (spirit) end and his "ego" begin?
Another way of asking is, What are the ego's boundaries? It's a finite thing. It must have boundaries. Where does the "projection" end and the "projector" begin?
Do we even differentiate? Probably not.
Should we? Does it matter? Anyone venture a guess?
Well, knowing this stuff, I don't know how much it matters either- more of a question, "what good does it do me knowing this?"
Still doesn't exactly answer the question "who's fault is it?" If our discussion is true, that WE do not effect the cause, there seems to be a lot less options.
Satori, what you say is confusing wasn't addressed to you or about anything you wrote. Maybe you should have left it alone and let houseisarockin respond. Just because you start a topic does not mean that every post should concern you.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
66
12
12
28
Popular Days
Jun 15
52
Jun 13
51
Jun 16
24
Jun 14
17
Top Posters In This Topic
satori001 66 posts
TheSongRemainsTheSame 12 posts
CM 12 posts
Ham 28 posts
Popular Days
Jun 15 2005
52 posts
Jun 13 2005
51 posts
Jun 16 2005
24 posts
Jun 14 2005
17 posts
LG
I do. House's statement was in reply to your question about faith (or "believing") working for Jesus "in this physical world of effect." In the Bible, Jesus didn't primarily relate faith to behavioral changes, but to manifestations of spiritual power (miracles) in the physical world.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Okay, but the post includes "if the accounts are true."
That's a big "if." Suddenly, it's hypothetical.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
There are plenty of documented cases of "unexplained" recoveries from illness, etc.
They are unexplained, not because they are miracles, but because they are miraculous (miracle-like). They are inexplicable.
My presumption is that a portion of these miraculous events are true miracles. That's a big presumption, but one in which I'm confident based on my own experiences, and those of others which parallel my own.
Those experiences do not validate any particular dogma seeking to explain, or monopolize, them. They simply are.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
I gladly concede that my interpretation of "miraculous" characteristics of events could be entirely wrong. In that respect, I guess I don't "believe" in them.
Luke 2:19 says, "But Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart."
Keep is to remember or commit to memory.
Ponder is to consider deeply.
That's the best attitude, I think, for things of apparent significance which cannot be explained.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Originally posted by Long Gone:
You seem to be confusing your thoughts,
Happens all the time.
to which I was not replying in that post,
Hmm, okay, you were NOT replying to my thoughts!
with House's non-hypothetical statement,
Could've been, but I read it differently. It was singularly ambiguous.
to which I was replying.
Such as you have.
In which case, I am also confused by your thoughts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
This is an unprofitable derail, Mr. H. Running out of profitable things to say?
You may want to retire "heh heh" for a while. Used now and then, or now and again, it may transmit a writer's wit. Repeating itself with rhythmic persistence, like a facial tick, it may transmit the writer's lack thereof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well, I'm not trying to win a Pulitzer prize here, but OK
:o-->
But you must admit it does partly make a point. With cause and effect and all, why DO the mindless at times seem to stumble on success? In my opinion, TWI thought did not explain that very satisfactorily, at least as much as why bad things happen to those who are apparently "believing".
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Could it be possible that "cause and effect" does not ALWAYS apply?
From personal experience- some of the very best things in my life occured without planning, obedience, or believing. I can also attest to the same for the worst.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
No, by definition, [the law of] cause and effect always applies.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well, that leaves a lot fewer options..
Maybe WE do not effect the cause that we think we do.`
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Originally posted by Mr. Hammeroni:
Well, that leaves a lot fewer options..
It leaves no options.
Maybe WE do not effect the cause that we think we do.
We don't.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
I agree. But the cackle of my ego tells me otherwise..
You may not like "heh heh", but I have to live with it..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
We are most unusual creatures, are we not?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
I guess so. Does it matter?
What does matter for now is the topic.
Usually the conversation stops when the ego comes up because, in our culture, it's all we know of ourselves. It's a dead end, a brick wall, a do-not-pass-go. We're just so used to it. It's as familiar to you as your own face, or the sensation of breathing. And we haven't got a clue how it got there, or how to manage it.
But we guard the ego, sometimes with our lives, and quite often with our health and happiness. Don't we? Now isn't that cause enough to ask "why?" But we usually don't ask. I wonder why not.
"Ego-management." We don't hear much about it. It usually connotes containing one's pride, but pride is only one of the ego's expressions. One of many.
Suppose you had an "ego-ectomy." Who, or what, do you think would remain? Would anything familiar to "you" survive?
Did Jesus have an "ego?" If so, where did the "christ" (spirit) end and his "ego" begin?
Another way of asking is, What are the ego's boundaries? It's a finite thing. It must have boundaries. Where does the "projection" end and the "projector" begin?
Do we even differentiate? Probably not.
Should we? Does it matter? Anyone venture a guess?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Well, knowing this stuff, I don't know how much it matters either- more of a question, "what good does it do me knowing this?"
Still doesn't exactly answer the question "who's fault is it?" If our discussion is true, that WE do not effect the cause, there seems to be a lot less options.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
My opinion- not much. Maybe a lot.. sorry, have to be a little ambiguous here.
But maybe we'd figure out that we don't have the universe by the tail after all.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Yes?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
satori001
There is no "we."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ham
Would you please elaborate?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Satori, what you say is confusing wasn't addressed to you or about anything you wrote. Maybe you should have left it alone and let houseisarockin respond. Just because you start a topic does not mean that every post should concern you.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.