MESO-Rx
Anabolic Steroids
Because this almighty diety gave you free will. If God was to take full control and stop these things from happening completly then you would not have free will anymore. Its not God who does evil. God gives us free will and we can choose to do good or bad with it. Dont blame God.Perfect example of jesus not being real. Why would an all powerful feity who cares for us so deeply let this shit happen?
That my friend is different. I cant judge you for not beleiving since I dont know your specific situation. I have had several very real experiences that are "supernatural", if you will, and have 100 percent assurance that God is real. Now Im not your typical Christian. I understand that some Christians give Jesus a bad name. A SMALL portion of Christians dont beleive in global warming, dont beleive in evolution, bash gays ext, mainly due to lack of understanding. I disagree with a lot of people who call themselves Christians as they give Jesus a bad name. About 80 percent of Christians havent read the whole bible and I would guess an even greater percentage of atheist havent read the whole bible either. So I say to both the atheist and the beleivers, how can you speak of something you dont understand.? Regardless if your atheist or beleivers I challenge you guys to read the whole bible , then you can have an educated opinion either for or against. Unfortunatly most people just parrot " these insightful, enlightning", blogs where someone did the thinking for you and layed out everything you want to hear, not necceserily the truth. Instead go straight to the source the Bible and read.
Yhea theres a couple of translations in contemporary language if your interested.
Your answer is interesting. However for me the relevance of believing or not believing in God, is a matter related to moral rules of sexual character. This is a more explicit question in Eastern religions (for example Taoism has its rules, Hinduism for its Part contains the basic moral rules which they call yamas and niyamas, etc.). With regard to the question about the measure of Consciousness I have to criticize you epistemologically. Heidegger would say that the question of measurement is a question related to the need to control, and this is typical of a materialist perspective of science, that is, of reducing science to a physicalist question. Now do not misunderstand me. I do not believe in the new age speech that appeals to quantum physics as a foundation. I am trying to tell you that there is a new option to justify the existence of the sacred. This option has been cultivated by Buddhists for thousands of years; Husserl in his lessons from the phenomenology of the inner consciousness of time; By the psychologist William James and now by some branches of neuroscience where you find Francisco Varela and Antonio Damasio author of the book "the feeling of what happens." The essential issue is that moral values can be justified without religious or scientificist apriorisms (materialistic physicalism). This position is called nonreductionist materialism because it attempts to suspend value judgments on matter and then builds its observations. It is certainly an unstable but respectful position that builds values and reflects a lot. For last thing Tomas de Aquino is a materialist who tries to grant transcendence to matter (a transcendence that from the phenomenology that I describe has never and will never) motivated by a religious apriorism that is the justification of the Faith. If you want to justify the Faith from a Classical institutional perspective you would have to quote Anselm of Canterbury who is really a spiritual man. I also justify Faith and consider myself to be scientifically spiritual. But in my almost justification occurs a priori and without the need for transcendence. My starting point is the suspension of the trial that you obtain thanks to the training in meditation. But it is not meditated for religious reasons. It is meditated for pleasure. In fact Buddhists are so aware that they smoke weed to keep their monastic vows (there is documentation). In broad outline my perspective is not dual. If you read Richard Dawkin you will realize that he is dual and certainly does not have a proposal for values. Chopra is the same case but from the new age rubbish. However I use bach essences without new age speech and ,for a example,my T is big (my labs are out there).
