Wallis Plad Wouldhe: another example of perception

[emilynghiem]

Originally Posted by OneArm

For the people like your boyfriend, that believe in a God, but don't read the bible. Where do you think they got the idea of God from?

If the bible never existed, then your god would have never existed. It would be like in the roman and Egyptian times. A god for everything going that can't be explained. That is, until it is explained, then that God wouldn't be needed anymore. Kinda like the way all their gods are no longer needed now.

Dear OneArm: He also calls himself spiritual but not religious. He believes there is a reason why things happen, and that in general things get better. But he does not believe God will intervene based on conditions how we ask or do things. Either you are doing the right thing, and good things, people, situations and outcomes tend to be attracted to that. Or you are doing bad things and that tends to attract bad people, circumstances, outcomes, etc. He doesn't see that God has anything to do with this, just plain cause and effect. That you will get what you deserve at some point, and until then, innocent people may suffer while others are learning from their own mistakes at the expense of others. He calls it as people's responsibility to learn, not relying on God to intervene.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

Yes, Wouldhe, so how do we work with such people unconditionally?
How do we handle people who can UNDERSTAND the split perception is still one stick, and still work with people who insist on calling the one stick as two?

Example: Scott Peck happens to mention a related dichotomy in his book on observing the evil demonic voices that were obsessing schizophrenic patients he was studying the process of exorcism as a form of treatment.

He RECOGNIZED both the fundamental Christians who stuck with a literal timeline of 6,000 years that does not recognize evolution and science, and world history outside this limited framework; AND the more liberal/figurative interpretations that understand older events in a larger framework of creation that may include evolution and pre-human stages of development.

He bemoaned the false division between science and religion, and urged further research that might bridge that gap, EVEN THOUGH he recognized people's perceptions of the human timeline may not change. The same people may keep framing the timeline in their rigid fundamental way; while the others may continue to integrate both science and religious symbolism into a continuous timeline that accommodates both. Even the scientific proof of the spiritual process may not change the minds of those who don't think that way.

Yet he was confident that bridging the gap would still serve greater interests.

I find this fascinating, Wouldhe. The closest analogy I can make of how the theistic and nontheistic minds work, is how some people's sight and hearing may be on different levels or ranges. So the same spectrum of color or sound could be perceived one way by one person, and another by someone else. And it is still the same spectrum or range, but they will argue what parts of it exist or not, depending on the part they can see or hear. The trick is, can we be okay with the fact that other people may see and hear on a level outside our range,
and NOT reject or judge these people as being out of touch with reality.

If one person sees in black and white, another in color, another without reds or greens, can we still work together and share information without this being a problem. Can we try to accommodate the quirks, flaws, biases and even straight out contradictions in each other's views, and work around both the strengths and weaknesses to map out a complete picture we can all live with?

How can we help each other, KNOWING this is going on?

The answer is simple Emily. Religion and faith is based on fear and fear alone. When people can free themselves from the fear of a God and what will happen to them if they don't obey God and the bible is when you can begin to go down your path. This is the root cause.

[emilynghiem]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

The answer is simple Emily. Religion and faith is based on fear and fear alone. When people can free themselves from the fear of a God and what will happen to them if they don't obey God and the bible is when you can begin to go down your path. This is the root cause.

Yes, the root is fear and unforgiveness that causes fear.
There are related issues like jealousy if you fear other people have more knowledge or control/authority than you do.
And the "scarcity" mentality instead of "abundance" mentality.
When you can forgive and not fear people, then you can love people for who they are, and not let issues get in the way that you fear or can't forgive.

I see as much "fear" with people who cling to religion to reject something else, as with people who reject religion to cling to freedom. True freedom would be independent, where you are okay whether someone is theist or nontheist.
As Wallis brought up letting go and detachment from "initial reactions or responses" he would also have to quit reacting to fundamentalists to be as free and clear as someone with absolutely no fear.

As for the "stick in the water" analogy, how do we do the equivalent of "showing" that the stick is whole and that the split perceptions are skewing that image in the minds of the perceiver?

For example, if Wallis and Sapphire are CONVINCED they cannot be talking about the same God, that the other is wrong and not talking about the same truth that the Bible or history represents,

but if I can see that the history depicted in the Bible spiritually and the history of humanity shown by science and even the changes in church and state progression are "painting a picture of the same process" that ALL humans are part of

How can it be "shown" that these are the same spiritual process?
Even though the split perceptions are completely disjoint from each other?

Plad offered to consider scientifically valid, unbiased, and peer-reviewed published proof/research of how spiritual healing works to change physical reality where it isn't just faith based unmeasurable things in people's heads.

I thought that was doable, and have found other friends to form a team to pursue this, especially with the religious issues brought up with the health care bill still contested publicly and vocally with many people who now have even more interest in proving the bill cannot legally legislate or cover certain areas.

The discussion of Justice also showed how perceptions are skewed. How can this be used to "show" that there is a basic law of how Justice works, and we can be looking at one part of it or the other, and be COMPLETELY diametrically split from how another person sees it, and yet we are looking at the same "law of Justice" as the stick underneath?

If fear is the only thing preventing us from seeing it is the same laws underneath, then is it because we are afraid to be held responsible equally for following these laws in relation to the neighbors we want to be apart from?

Have we made so many judgments based on assuming the fault was the other person for not seeing it the right way, that we would have to forgive/let go of those emotions and attachments to memories first? Is that why it is hard to let go and agree the same laws governing all of humanity are underpinning BOTH the religious ways of depicting and seeing these laws, and the scientific/secular/humanist/nontheist ways of depicting universal laws.

Again, does it help to compare to the laws of gravity; where in one case, the books are sliding and falling off a shelf that is slanted, and in another case the books are sitting upright and stable on the shelf. And in both cases, the SAME laws of gravity are causing both to occur. But because the results are different, one person is saying the laws of gravity don't work, and the other is saying it shows that it does. How do we explain that the same laws of gravity are in effect, and are causing both results to occur -- the effective ability to keep the books on the shelf, and the ineffective result of them falling to the floor instead.

I tried to explain that the difference in justice which are both in the Bible are the retributive approach of judgment and punishment which is based on unforgiveness (or fear as you state it), and the restorative approach to justice based on MUTUAL forgiveness and correction to restore neighborly working relations in good faith, based on speaking the truth with love and having equal mercy/forgiveness for others as we wish for ourselves. So the same laws of justice apply to both that you get what you give.

And so, whether someone is theist/Christian or nontheist/nonchristian, the issue is STILL whether we forgive and correct, or judge and project.

We don't just blame the Christian for being a hypocrite and that gives us the right to be fearful and unforgiving. Or we commit the same fault, as I was saying Wallis does if he starts this SAME business as judging/condemning humanity as selfish and hopeless. He would be the doing the same thing!

How do we foster mutual forgiveness and acceptance of our differences, so the faults we can correct we can do so together as equals and not as competing opponents which clearly does not work. How do we get rid of this "mutual fear" and "unforgiveness" of either theists/nontheists as the side to blame?

What do you suggest?

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

What do you suggest?

Go fuck yourself!

[OneArm]

now, now. Simmer down.

[Wouldhe]

Originally Posted by emilynghiem

Yes, the root is fear and unforgiveness that causes fear.
There are related issues like jealousy if you fear other people have more knowledge or control/authority than you do.
And the "scarcity" mentality instead of "abundance" mentality.
When you can forgive and not fear people, then you can love people for who they are, and not let issues get in the way that you fear or can't forgive.

I see as much "fear" with people who cling to religion to reject something else, as with people who reject religion to cling to freedom. True freedom would be independent, where you are okay whether someone is theist or nontheist.
As Wallis brought up letting go and detachment from "initial reactions or responses" he would also have to quit reacting to fundamentalists to be as free and clear as someone with absolutely no fear.

As for the "stick in the water" analogy, how do we do the equivalent of "showing" that the stick is whole and that the split perceptions are skewing that image in the minds of the perceiver?

For example, if Wallis and Sapphire are CONVINCED they cannot be talking about the same God, that the other is wrong and not talking about the same truth that the Bible or history represents,

but if I can see that the history depicted in the Bible spiritually and the history of humanity shown by science and even the changes in church and state progression are "painting a picture of the same process" that ALL humans are part of

How can it be "shown" that these are the same spiritual process?
Even though the split perceptions are completely disjoint from each other?

Plad offered to consider scientifically valid, unbiased, and peer-reviewed published proof/research of how spiritual healing works to change physical reality where it isn't just faith based unmeasurable things in people's heads.

I thought that was doable, and have found other friends to form a team to pursue this, especially with the religious issues brought up with the health care bill still contested publicly and vocally with many people who now have even more interest in proving the bill cannot legally legislate or cover certain areas.

The discussion of Justice also showed how perceptions are skewed. How can this be used to "show" that there is a basic law of how Justice works, and we can be looking at one part of it or the other, and be COMPLETELY diametrically split from how another person sees it, and yet we are looking at the same "law of Justice" as the stick underneath?

If fear is the only thing preventing us from seeing it is the same laws underneath, then is it because we are afraid to be held responsible equally for following these laws in relation to the neighbors we want to be apart from?

Have we made so many judgments based on assuming the fault was the other person for not seeing it the right way, that we would have to forgive/let go of those emotions and attachments to memories first? Is that why it is hard to let go and agree the same laws governing all of humanity are underpinning BOTH the religious ways of depicting and seeing these laws, and the scientific/secular/humanist/nontheist ways of depicting universal laws.

Again, does it help to compare to the laws of gravity; where in one case, the books are sliding and falling off a shelf that is slanted, and in another case the books are sitting upright and stable on the shelf. And in both cases, the SAME laws of gravity are causing both to occur. But because the results are different, one person is saying the laws of gravity don't work, and the other is saying it shows that it does. How do we explain that the same laws of gravity are in effect, and are causing both results to occur -- the effective ability to keep the books on the shelf, and the ineffective result of them falling to the floor instead.

I tried to explain that the difference in justice which are both in the Bible are the retributive approach of judgment and punishment which is based on unforgiveness (or fear as you state it), and the restorative approach to justice based on MUTUAL forgiveness and correction to restore neighborly working relations in good faith, based on speaking the truth with love and having equal mercy/forgiveness for others as we wish for ourselves. So the same laws of justice apply to both that you get what you give.

And so, whether someone is theist/Christian or nontheist/nonchristian, the issue is STILL whether we forgive and correct, or judge and project.

We don't just blame the Christian for being a hypocrite and that gives us the right to be fearful and unforgiving. Or we commit the same fault, as I was saying Wallis does if he starts this SAME business as judging/condemning humanity as selfish and hopeless. He would be the doing the same thing!

How do we foster mutual forgiveness and acceptance of our differences, so the faults we can correct we can do so together as equals and not as competing opponents which clearly does not work. How do we get rid of this "mutual fear" and "unforgiveness" of either theists/nontheists as the side to blame?

What do you suggest?

Unforgiveness has nothing to do with it. It's pure and simple fear instilled into the child from the adults about God and religion and it's repercussions if not obeyed.

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by OneArm

now, now. Simmer down.

It's a throw back to the old days when Orion was here. I'll try to behave but with some people you just have to tell it like it is.

[salem666]

Originally Posted by OneArm

now, now. Simmer down.

he might be getting horny

[pladecalvo]

Originally Posted by salem666

he might be getting horny

....for Emily???????????????????????????????

[emilynghiem]

Originally Posted by Wouldhe

Unforgiveness has nothing to do with it. It's pure and simple fear instilled into the child from the adults about God and religion and it's repercussions if not obeyed.

I don't see people acting this way if they completely forgive and understand things, so they have no fears to push onto others.

Why else would adults indoctrinate and pass their fears onto children unless there is something THEY haven't forgiven but continue to FEAR? And if the kids don't forgive either, then they carry these fears to the next level, etc. But if they forgive then they don't.

Can you see it is the same cycle repeating, based on what the generation before didn't resolve, but is either in denial about or is projecting blame onto something outside their control (due to unforgiven unresolved issues)

Wouldhe have you noticed that people who are NOT afraid are generally "forgiving" and do not "fear" that people can control them.
Do you call this something else beside forgiveness, do you call it emotional detachment where you no longer react? Sort of like the Buddhists monks who are at peace, and do not react to other people's agenda or actions.

What do you call that lack of fear if you do not relate it to forgiveness?