Messianic Jews say they are persecuted in Israel

Full story: Newsday 71,186
Safety pins and screws are still lodged in 15-year-old Ami Ortiz's body three months after he opened a booby-trapped gift basket sent to his family. Full Story
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#51257 Apr 28, 2013
"An aimless life is always a miserable life. Every one of you should have an aim. But do not forget that on the quality of your aim will depend the quality of your life. Your aim should be high and wide, generous and disinterested; this will make your life precious to yourself and to others. But whatever your ideal, it cannot be perfectly realized unless you have realized perfection in yourself."

- The Mother (Sri Aurobindo's Jewish spiritual collaborator).

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51258 Apr 28, 2013
JOEL wrote:
Had my parents been alive and had they seen my present damaged condition they'd have wept and taken forthwith action and knowing them they'd quickly pack me off to grad school in the US hoping that it would serve as a balm to my damaged mind, emotions and nerves. My late sister, Tina, who'd studied at Cathedral and then at Cornell in the US would have also made the same suggestion. Now, there's no one to goad me on in such a persistent manner.
At some point we all have to grow up and take responsibility and direction in our lives, and not rely on others to do so for us.

Now is your moment.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51259 Apr 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
Again, you are using the modern standard.
You need to consider that standards are relative.
I think we're saying the same thing.

Standards are relative for sure. One man's evidence is another man's ancient literature.

But I don't agree it's a modern vs. ancient thing. If one TODAY believes in a body of evidence based on ancient scrolls and scripture, he is holding that evidence to his standards of TODAY.

One cannot in my mind say that he is held to standards of a by-gone era if it's a belief system he subscribes to in the here and now.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51260 Apr 28, 2013
http://www.salon.com/2013/04/28/dont_stop_bel...

Donít stop believiní: Do atheists need a church?
There's song and fellowship in London's first atheist church.

But are these non-believers just having it both ways?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51261 Apr 28, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
I think we're saying the same thing.
Standards are relative for sure. One man's evidence is another man's ancient literature.
But I don't agree it's a modern vs. ancient thing. If one TODAY believes in a body of evidence based on ancient scrolls and scripture, he is holding that evidence to his standards of TODAY.
One cannot in my mind say that he is held to standards of a by-gone era if it's a belief system he subscribes to in the here and now.
I disagree. Religion is a subculture and as so has its own rules and standards, and internal logic which is based upon that.

Even in the modern era there are more than one systems of standards. Scientific definition of evidence is very different from the legal definition.

Just like legal evidentiary standards and definitions of what is evidence are different from scientific standards and definitions of evidence, some organized religions can define on their own what is considered evidence and what is not, and what the standards for evaluating are.

The problem is when they apply their standards to your world, and vice versa. That is what you are getting at. You dont buy their definition, and they shouldnt assume that you should. But among themselves, they have an internal logic.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51262 Apr 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Religion is a subculture and as so has its own rules and standards, and internal logic which is based upon that.
Even in the modern era there are more than one systems of standards. Scientific definition of evidence is very different from the legal definition.
Just like legal evidentiary standards and definitions of what is evidence are different from scientific standards and definitions of evidence, some organized religions can define on their own what is considered evidence and what is not, and what the standards for evaluating are.
The problem is when they apply their standards to your world, and vice versa. That is what you are getting at. You dont buy their definition, and they shouldnt assume that you should. But among themselves, they have an internal logic.
The ATF crowd might say the same thing.

You don't buy their theories, but to them it makes sense.

You say they ignore evidence. But they simply find their evidence more compelling.

And atheists say believers have zero evidence on which to base their beliefs.

You then say that "evidence" in religion means something else. It has do with feelings and experience. That it depends on whose "world" we are talking about at the time.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51263 Apr 28, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
The ATF crowd might say the same thing.
You don't buy their theories, but to them it makes sense.
You say they ignore evidence. But they simply find their evidence more compelling.
absoultely .
They have different standards for evaluating evidence. ANti-Scientific (ignore the contrary evidence). However, they make the mistake of assuming we are using the same system (applying their standards to our modern standards).
former res wrote:
<quoted text>And atheists say believers have zero evidence on which to base their beliefs.
You then say that "evidence" in religion means something else. It has do with feelings and experience. That it depends on whose "world" we are talking about at the time.
The atheists make the SAME mistake by evaluating the religious evidence with modern standards, and assuming that is relevent to the religious. It isnt.

And SOME of the religious compound that by encouraging the atheists as so.

Others just ignore the atheists as being irrelevant.

You got it!
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#51264 Apr 28, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
The ATF crowd might say the same thing.
You don't buy their theories, but to them it makes sense.
You say they ignore evidence. But they simply find their evidence more compelling.
And atheists say believers have zero evidence on which to base their beliefs.
You then say that "evidence" in religion means something else. It has do with feelings and experience. That it depends on whose "world" we are talking about at the time.
rabbee: and just what, religious function does the atf serve? and why would anyone expect them, to accept anyone elses religion. they have their own cause, and their own religious laws and bible. their just another religion, that thinks they are the only true church.
rabbee yehoshooah adam

Denver, CO

#51265 Apr 28, 2013
maybe you should pray, that the fbi religion. does not take such an interest in yours, that they investigate it. cause their bible is a lot bigger, and has more authority and laws than all of yours.

in fact if there were as many real believers in G-D, as there are in the fbi. we would not have any problems in this nation.
The Advocate

Mexico, Mexico

#51266 Apr 28, 2013
JOEL wrote:
Those who outright dismiss every conspiracy as a product of imagination without proper thought or investigation and who accept as truth the official version of events are braindead and superficial individuals.
Unless you consider how legitimately impossible and insane some proposed theories are, and why so many people people waste their time giving a damn over things like Area 51 and whatnot.
Voluntarist

United States

#51267 Apr 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
I disagree. Religion is a subculture and as so has its own rules and standards, and internal logic which is based upon that.
Even in the modern era there are more than one systems of standards. Scientific definition of evidence is very different from the legal definition.
Just like legal evidentiary standards and definitions of what is evidence are different from scientific standards and definitions of evidence, some organized religions can define on their own what is considered evidence and what is not, and what the standards for evaluating are.
The problem is when they apply their standards to your world, and vice versa. That is what you are getting at. You dont buy their definition, and they shouldnt assume that you should. But among themselves, they have an internal logic.
Modern law is rooted in mosaic law.
Voluntarist

United States

#51268 Apr 28, 2013
The Advocate wrote:
<quoted text>
Unless you consider how legitimately impossible and insane some proposed theories are, and why so many people people waste their time giving a damn over things like Area 51 and whatnot.
Lol i would hardly call area 51 an event, ufo chasers dont believe for a second that experimental military aircraft is over head, that is foolish not to consider.
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51269 Apr 28, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
absoultely .
They have different standards for evaluating evidence. ANti-Scientific (ignore the contrary evidence). However, they make the mistake of assuming we are using the same system (applying their standards to our modern standards).
It seems that all the "mistakes" are being made by everyone else: the ATF-types, the atheists. Interesting way of looking at the world. We are all wrong and you're right.(Do you know my wife?!:))

"Anti-scientific" you say. Pot meet kettle.

The 9/11 conspiracy crowd are very much into science (and engineering). Perhaps you haven't looked at any of their evidence.

I would argue they are much closer to the truth than the religious crowd. They are at least in the realm of reality.
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
The atheists make the SAME mistake by evaluating the religious evidence with modern standards, and assuming that is relevent to the religious. It isnt.
And SOME of the religious compound that by encouraging the atheists as so.
Others just ignore the atheists as being irrelevant.
You got it!
To what religious "evidence" do you refer?

It seems as though you saying something along the lines of, "Don't bother a psychotic person with reality - that isn't relevant to him. He is by definition detached from same."

And I could certainly understand that this would all seem "irrelevant."

It must be blissful!:))
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51270 Apr 28, 2013
ATF - are you an atheist?

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51271 Apr 29, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that all the "mistakes" are being made by everyone else: the ATF-types, the atheists. Interesting way of looking at the world. We are all wrong and you're right.(Do you know my wife?!:))
"Anti-scientific" you say. Pot meet kettle.
The 9/11 conspiracy crowd are very much into science (and engineering). Perhaps you haven't looked at any of their evidence.
I would argue they are much closer to the truth than the religious crowd. They are at least in the realm of reality.)
Among the several steps in the scientific process they do not follow:

"When evidence is contradictory to predicted expectations, the evidence and the ways of making it are often closely scrutinized (see experimenter's regress) and only at the end of this process is the hypothesis rejected: this can be referred to as 'refutation of the hypothesis'."
former res wrote:
<quoted text><quoted text>
To what religious "evidence" do you refer?
It seems as though you saying something along the lines of, "Don't bother a psychotic person with reality - that isn't relevant to him. He is by definition detached from same."
And I could certainly understand that this would all seem "irrelevant."
It must be blissful!:))
documented testament, feelings, and the process of weighing credibility of such

It is blissful, obviously.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51272 Apr 29, 2013
former res wrote:
<quoted text>
It seems that all the "mistakes" are being made by everyone else: the ATF-types, the atheists. Interesting way of looking at the world. We are all wrong and you're right.(Do you know my wife?!:))
"Anti-scientific" you say. Pot meet kettle.
The 9/11 conspiracy crowd are very much into science (and engineering). Perhaps you haven't looked at any of their evidence.
I would argue they are much closer to the truth than the religious crowd. They are at least in the realm of reality.
<quoted text>
To what religious "evidence" do you refer?
It seems as though you saying something along the lines of, "Don't bother a psychotic person with reality - that isn't relevant to him. He is by definition detached from same."
And I could certainly understand that this would all seem "irrelevant."
It must be blissful!:))
Also, in most likelihood, much of what is considered "science" within the 911 conspiracy crowd would fail the Daubert standard

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daubert_test
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#51273 Apr 29, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>

At some point we all have to grow up and take responsibility and direction in our lives, and not rely on others to do so for us.
Now is your moment.
Thank you, Papa, for your kind words and timely advice.

However, the damage in my mind-body is not ordinary nor are the troubles and experiences the same as that of worldly people.

If you could only see the pitiable state that I have been reduced to you'll understand that the suffering and attacks that came upon me were of an extra-ordinary kind and as such it's not easy to recover from such damage without leaning on someone comforting and understanding.

The recovery is slow and painful and my nerves keep shivering all the time and the heartbeats are irregular making breathing difficult, eyesight gets feeble on many occasions and at times there's some bleeding through the nostrils or I simply collapse on to the floor. As for my mind/emotions, well, there's been serious damage. He's not forgotten how I walked out after criticizing and abusing him after the intense suffering that would have killed me in late Dec.

I suffered for a decade or so due to him and he killed my parents and sister using occult power due to certain differences in the past and on account of the persistent objections my family would make to my lifestyle and to him ruling my life.

In certain ways, he's troubling me till now making even the little recovery gained difficult to sustain. His aim is to finish me off using his occult powers. He does this to all his opponents. Don't be surprised if I drop out of sight on a permanent basis. If this happens understand that something bad has happened to me due to him.

It's almost over for me. I'll go willingly if death comes today since living is more a torture.

Anyway, thank you for everything.

Papa, stay peaceful, safe, healthy, prosperous and happy in all ways, always.

I will never forget you.
JOEL

Mumbai, India

#51274 Apr 29, 2013
Intuition should not contradict reason.

If the intuition of a spiritual kind is true, it will always be supported from below by a lower or higher reason.

Intuition that's not supported by reason of the higher or lower kind is false intuition.

Never let go of the logical faculty and always fine tune it to its maximum capacity so that it fulfills the instincts that it exceeds in its nature and scope and supports intuition or inspiration that exceeds it.

“Legumes of the World Unite ”

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#51275 Apr 29, 2013
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
Modern law is rooted in mosaic law.
in what way(s)?
former res

Cheshire, CT

#51276 Apr 29, 2013
Frijoles wrote:
<quoted text>
documented testament, feelings, and the process of weighing credibility of such
It is blissful, obviously.
What do you mean by "documented?" Documented to be written by the hand of god? Is the existence of god documented?

Feelings? Seriously?= Truthiness.

How is the credibility weighed?

Faith means no evidence needed. It's ok to admit that.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Chicago Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min johnplustwomore 1,155,506
Topix Chitown Regulars (Aug '09) 27 min cheluzal 98,870
Chicago Pizza Blows 1 hr joey 2
Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 1 hr KiMare 51,279
AP Exclusive: Union members appointed after $10... (Mar '08) 2 hr IUEC 7,564
Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 3 hr OzRitz 49,304
Israeli troops begin Gaza pullout as Hamas decl... (Jan '09) 3 hr festivus infidel 68,906
BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 6 hr Jacques Ottawa 182,017
Chicago Dating
Find my Match
More from around the web

Chicago People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Chicago News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Chicago

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]

NFL Latest News

Updated 4:21 am PST

Bleacher Report 4:21AM
Fantasy Football 2015 Awards
Bleacher Report 6:00 AM
What Can Bears Do to Get Back into Playoff Hunt?
NBC Sports11:49 AM
Reggie Wayne needs offseason triceps surgery
NBC Sports 1:29 PM
Colts say they will be all business despite nothing to gain - NBC Sports
NBC Sports 1:40 PM
Cutler realizes Bears could be in for changes - NBC Sports