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.

Okay, but the post includes "if the accounts are true." That's a big "if." Suddenly, it's hypothetical.

Originally posted by Long Gone: 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. My contention is that it does little or nothing else, and even behavior change is not guaranteed. Not necessarily. As a simplistic, extreme example, if your past actions included cutting off a finger now and then, changing your actions would not regenerate the missing fingers. Too simplistic. A change in actions might decrease the deletion of endangered digits. I don't see where more than that was implied.

Fair enough. I think there is, but since I'm referring to the individual's catalog of experiences, it may be interpreted as anything from "coincidence" to "luck" to the law of averages, to angels, to God, to leprechauns, to being dismissed entirely.That's why I wouldn't call it "proof."

You've answered your own question.In a cause and effect world, every action will cause a reaction. The difficulty people have is with the idea of "cause," or free-will choices in a world of effect, this physical world where everything has a prior cause. If our choices are part of the physical world, they too have a prior cause. They aren't "free," then, are they? Everything is the effect of a prior cause, except where spirit intervenes. I think spirit intervenes all the time, and there is plenty of evidence in our own lives to assure us of that. We can't prove it to one another, only to ourselves, by observation. "Proof" may be too strong a word though. "Affirm" may be more realistic, more reasonable.

Why would a hard-line, left wing activist group like MoveOn be out there lobbying for NPR & PBS? Do we need our thinking cap on this one? I for one enjoy much of their programming, but I'm regularly offended by some of their blatant, political spin-mongering, in particular on news & talk shows. "News analyst" Daniel Schorr is but one example on NPR. He's no analyst. He writes his own talking points for Democrats, distributed over public radio.

I remember having the impression of a hardened, plastic brief case slowly forming around Harvey's heart. This was the early 80's. When the process was completed, he became "Harve." I could see determination in his face, ambition in his eyes. "Set like flint." It happened to plenty of others, too. How'd it happen? Who cast the spell? Pat "dragon-lady" Lynn may have served him up some of her special brew during all the "quality time" they seemed to spend together, but I'm sure it's more complicated than that.

Song, by putting some of my remarks out of order, you may add unnecessary confusion. You're welcome to go "meta," just stay brief, and focused. Thanks.

You're welcome oz. Your question is really a universal question, because it applies to anyone who tries to apply "faith" within a religious (social) context. People are going to hold you up to a standard and judge you by an ideal that nobody can meet. Why don't we meet that standard?

Thanks. That fills in some important gaps in my knowledge.

Okay George. Your "belief" is an assumption based on past experience. Science has credibility because it has a track record we can see. Spirituality should meet the same or even higher standard. It did once. Not for everybody, but for the biblical prophets, God was overwhelming and undeniable. Signs, power, miracles... Convincing stuff. God caused them to believe, just as science causes you to believe. He did it with in-your-face evidence, awesome enough to approximate a real feeling of His presence. But was the result "faith," or just persuasion by force? Convinced by signs, His people would later need to trust Him to deliver. Was that faith, or just persuasion? But after the grandiose OT days, something changed. The average physical scale of heavenly signs dramatically decreased, from geological to personal proportions. And from there down to nothing at all, mostly. All persuasion has been removed. Nothing left to go on but "faith." Whatever that is.

I asked you first.

From the perspective of the physical world, spirit is cause. It is causal. It is causation. The physical world is effect. It is usually the effect of its own virtually infinite prior effects, like an endless supply of billiard balls careening into one another. BUT it is also the effect, at times, of spirit - not another "physical" billiard ball, but of a well-aimed, cosmic (spiritual) cue stick. Jesus was a physical guy. So what did he mean by "faith?" What did he mean by "believing?" Can they even be defined, or only perceived, apprehended, experienced? More importantly, to this thread, why did they work for him in this physical world of effect? (If the accounts are true.)

1. We wanted it to work. 2. Jesus was apparently saying it worked. 3. VPW, this "respectable" midwestern preacher was quoting Greek and saying it worked, and he gave us examples from his own wonderful life. 4. Our bibles were apparently saying it worked, in addition to Jesus. 5. If it didn't work, it was due to "negative believing" of some kind. 6. It seemed, thanks to the law of averages and our own efforts, to work enough of the time to satisfy us. 7. There really ought to be seven reasons, for spiritual perfection, but I'll have to get back to you. Anyone who doesn't grasp the fallacy risks falling back into the doctrine. Who wouldn't like to think they could "believe" for stuff just by getting clear and concerned, doing the 4 D's, etc? I would.

Sorry ex, I don't follow your question. Which part "worked?" What do you mean by "hook?"

So, though the doctrine of believing was in NO way a reliable predictor of success (yes, their hindsight was always 20/20), we bought into it, through failure or apparent success alike. Why? The doctrine was sufficiently fuzzy to keep us from ever saying, "I did everything right, and I didn't get the results. Therefore the formula is flawed." We could only shrug and say, "I must have blown it somewhere." So we didn't look elsewhere for a better answer. That answer was, the doctrine and teaching of TWI is based upon a profound fallacy, which is that believing (as Christ once revealed it) is the consequence, an "effect," of a free-will choice. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no such thing, in this context, as "free-will choice." Only the illusion of apparent choice. Everything in the physical world is the effect, of some prior effect, of some prior effect... So how could there be "choice?" Believing, as Christ revealed it, is not (and could not be) the consequence of an illusion.

This pattern of assigning credit or blame reinforced the doctrine of believing, yet it was not reliable enough to predict success or failure. That didn't stop them.

If I understand the question...OJ was clearly guilty by the evidence. The glove was easily explained. MJ was clearly guilty by a pattern of behavior and a prior (secret) settlement involving a large payoff. Both cases had an inept prosecution and an inspired defense.

Jackson's access to kids will never be the same. He will have to settle for kiddie porn, if that's his thing. The whole trial was a mistake. The DA/prosecutor should have been patient.

Yeah, but Morton's ain't kosher. Is it?

This verdict is a major disservice to blacks. So was OJ. Why? Because according to plenty of studies, blacks continue to be treated differently than whites in the court system. Differently means worse. They get fewer breaks, harsher treatment. It's not a simple case of racism, but it's still a reality. The presumption here is that he is guilty as hell. I could be wrong, but I really doubt it. Ridiculous verdicts like this create the misperception that the courts are tilted in favor of blacks. I don't blame the jury, yet. The prosecution seemed weak. The prosecution witnesses were compromised, or they came out in favor of the defense (like Culkin did). If the prosecution had been handled well, Jackson would probably have been convicted. The usual garbage would go out about a racist justice system, but most people would know that a pedophile had been put away. All we have now is the perception that enough celebrity will get you off, no matter what you did. Can't blame Jackson or the defense. They exercised the same rights that protect all of us. I'd still like the jurors to be compelled to send their own kids to Neverland for a few weeks, with Michael there to care for them.

I predict Sudo will start a thread on the same topic nearly an hour after I posted this one! I'm feelin' lucky.

I don't want to get away from the principle theme of the thread, which is "cause and effect," and in part, how TWI (and most other religions) claim to offer something, and then take that claim away, when they can't deliver. Mr. H, thanks for contributing so much. Just remember to be brief. Your posts will be more focused, and that will encourage others to actually read them. :)-->

Okay, he did have the trappings of wealth. And he did enjoy them. I didn't know he had all those Harleys. Who held title? I bet it was TWI. Some of the things you mention, like the auditorium, served the ministry more than the man, UNLESS we're talkin' ego. The lavish lifestyle served his ego too. He never had a pile of money. He had a ton of privilege. It may be a fine distinction, but it's an important one. If we could determine that he was hording those gold bars, I might see it differently. The reason for the distinction is that it's a window into the man's character. People who are money-driven are different than those who are ego-driven. I don't know if I could define them so easily, but the two stereotypes are significant.

To be announced. In about 45 minutes.