Discussion or Dialog?
Discussion, although sometimes necessary for an immediate solution, isn’t the method to bring about peace among all people. So, I have been thinking quite a bit lately about dialog. Is it even possible? I think so. Some think that in the field of religion it is impossible because, for true dialog to occur, each party must suspend their own beliefs, certainties and assumptions. And, as we all may know, religion is one of the most embedded fields for non-negotiables. Here’s another list, comparing discussion with dialog:
- Discussion comes from a fixed position. Dialog suspends its position.
- Discussion exchanges opinions. Dialog discovers new ideas.
- Discussion is in favor of its own view. Dialog is open to the view of the other.
- Discussion attempts to convert the other. Dialog listens to the other.
- Discussion produces agreement, compromise or division. Dialog creates a new place.
- Discussion can become more rigid. Dialog softens and opens.
- Discussion can become confrontational. Dialog is sympathetic.
- Discussion has non-negotiables. For dialog, everything is negotiable.
- Discussion will not produce deep change. Dialog invites it.
- Discussion does not require a spirit of goodwill. Dialog assumes unity.
I suggest that we find ways to dialog. This could begin with ourselves. We can dialog with ourselves first by suspending our beliefs, opinions or assumptions… those ideas we think are absolutely necessary… to discover new ways of thinking and even different and creative modes of thought and ways of relating. Then we can expand this out to others close to us, and eventually to our enemies. I’m asking: is it even possible? Can a religious person suspend their conclusions in order to discover a new way of being? As someone once said, “The cup has to be empty to hold something.”
(Thanks to David Bohm, who’s ideas in quantum physics have encouraged me to think even further in this direction.)
Check out my t-shirts HERE. I’m growing my inventory all the time. And check out my contemplative art here.
If you liked this post, or would like to use it, please buy me a beer!
This is an interesting entry for me, David. I have been thinking about dialogue for a few years now and got involved with some folks who are gungho about it. These folks are not religious at all, but “nonreligious” certainly doesn’t preclude dogma. The “dialogue circle” became their religion, their dogma (from my perspective). It was fascinating really. The dialogue circle had to run a certain way and there was a sharp line drawn between those who did it and those who didn’t. Exploring and dropping one’s assumptions was central to the process but the assumption that dialogue circles were a superior form of communication and the only valid form of communication didn’t get explored. “You are either with us or against us” was the attitude and was even spoken at one point (though in anger). I had spent too many years in fundamentalism to want to go to that place again, even though it was in another form. That said, I do believe in the power of dialogue and have had some profound experiences in that context. I highly recommend it. And, YES!, it is possible for a religious person to suspend their conclusions in order to discover a new way of being. I’ve been on that exciting journey for a decade now (busting out of that box you describe in your cartoon).
Thank you for your insight, David! As I read your thoughts, I could not help but associate the ten discussion vs. dialogue ideas with Martin Buber’s “I and Thou.” The hope is to create the space for an other within the context of relationship (conversation, life, etc) that is not foundationally established upon assumptions derived from my own story. Assumptions that would unintentionally and inescapably confine the other individual to something other than his/her true self. And, if I continue with Buber’s theological thought, it is then in the midst of the true encounter (or dialogue) with the open space for the other (difference) that God shows up.
Perhaps expanding on your statement of “beginning with ourselves,” I have to know myself prior to being able to engage and know an other (in psychotherapy we often talk about “observing ourselves observe others). To know myself fully so that I might be able to enter into dialogue with my whole presence then cultivates the invitation to the other to do the same.
This all sounds quite abstract…and, even so, when authentic dialogue (encounter) occurs, it is a marvelously beautiful thing. When dialogue happens, God can be.
Anya: yes, i do remember that about Buber. excellent.
Can a religious person suspend their conclusions in order to discover a new way of being?
_____As a Christian, how can I possibly suspend the truth of Jesus Christ?
Why would I even want to suspend truth?
Why would I want to suspend the truth of Christ to discover a new and phony way
of being?
I suppose that if you are not happy or satisfied with your religious conclusions you
may want to suspend them and search for a new way of being.
8.Discussion has non-negotiables. For dialog, everything is negotiable.
_______Maybe for you. But when it comes to religion, some things are not
negotiable for me, and I don’t think I am alone in that possition.
_______So in this formula that you have given, do you ever come to a
CONCLUSION?
I am really confused now. I don’t know if I am discussing or dialoging, or maybe in some peoples mind, just shallow rambling?
fishon
well, fishon, you certainly don’t suspend the truth, but what you believe to be the truth. they are two different things.
“…but what you believe to be the truth.’
_____Ah, there is the rub.
So if we are trying to negotiate towards a dialog, finding that common ground of agreement is going to be difficult at best, when it comes to religion, and that is the theme of your original question.
So as you say “…you certainly don’t suspend the truth…, so, David, how do you define religious truth so we can get beyond #8. “…everything is negotiable,” so we can dialog?
fishon
np, I have to say, based on experience, and that alone, that for some people, dialog about religious beliefs with someone of differing religious beliefs, is impossible.
As a non believer, I stand ONLY where I am at any given moment in time. As a non believer, I am open to reasonable persuasion. As a non believer, what I believe, AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME is probably important only to me, and it is not as important as the truth, that hopefully I’ll find and recognize tomorrow.
I think the reason that (for me), religious dialog with someone like, say, fishon, is impossible is because they are beyond persuasion. One can see that in his comments. But it seems that it is not just being beyond persuasion, but I get the impression that he, for lack of a better description, revels in his unpersuasive attitude. It seems to me that, even if he discovered that he had been wrong about one of his core religious beliefs, he would remain entirely un persuaded.
I mean no disrespect to him, but from experience, people like fishon seem to think that there will be some reward in heaven for those who refuse to accept the idea that they might, just might, possibly, believe something about their God that isn’t true. Is it the belief that “doubt” is a sin? I don’t know. But dialog with someone who has already decided that they will not be persuaded, is useless.
I can be persuaded. There is nothing “holy” in where I stand right now.
We are living in an era of post expertise despite the reality of having more technological facts today than ever. For many years we were encouraged to think great thoughts if they were first given to us by an expert. Large books were written that supposedly held all the expert truth. They were called “Encyclopedicas” but now we go to a Wikipedia that has articles that can change daily as other experts and novices add to the articles and add also hundreds of links to the article.
Dialogue is entering into a thughtful interaction with others with the desire to find truth. Since I have the Holy Spirit in and with me I can rest in the security that He will lead me into TRUTH. I can relax and allow the truth to emerge without trying to force others to see my truth. I have faith in God’s leading, hope that He will show up and love for the people with whom I am dialoging.
We live in a time of not only movable type but movable facts and movable people. This makes evangelism much more exciting and possible around the world.
Bob, Only when we have faith, hope and love can we dialogue with others who differ
from us.
Bob said: “I think the reason that (for me), religious dialog with someone like, say, fishon, is impossible is because they are beyond persuasion.”
___Yes, Bob, you are right; I am beyond persuasion.
Bob said:”I mean no disrespect to him, but from experience, people like fishon seem to think that there will be some reward in heaven for those who refuse to accept the idea that they might, just might, possibly, believe something about their God that isn’t true.”
_____No offence taken, Bob. However, though you were right on your first assumption, you are wrong on this one. 1. I don’t believe that someone will get some reward for thinking they might believe something about God that isn’t true. 2. I am SURE that there are things I believe about God that ARE WRONG. In fact, I am more than sure.
_____I can assure you that I do not revel in my belief that I am right on some things about God. If I find that I am wrong on something I believe about and in God, I will willing go with the truth. I was a devote atheist for 33 yrs. and overcame that. When God shows me I am wrong, believe me, I fear him more than any of my beliefs.
Bob: “But dialog with someone who has already decided that they will not be persuaded, is useless.”
_____Maybe so, but my Iranian, Muslim friend, Shawn and I use to dialog often, and we grew to have great respect for one another—–though he knew he could never change my mind, and I was well aware that I could not change his.
fishon
bob: i do agree that religion is probably one of the most difficult arenas to hold true dialog in, but it must be possible. i can’t believe that we are destined to disunity and division, in bondage to our own belief systems and authorities. there must be a way that a person can be deeply and truly religious and in unity with others.
fishon: “finding that common ground of agreement” wouldn’t be the goal of dialog, but just dialog in itself would be the goal, and all that entails (mutual respect, sympathy, spirit of goodwill, listening, etc.)… then the goal, if there needs to be a goal, is achieved. i don’t think factual agreement is even possible, but dialog is… where we suspend what we believe are the facts. we don’t suspend the truth because we must admit that we don’t really know what it is.
David,
I will combine your last two posts.
YOU: i can’t believe that we are destined to disunity and division, in bondage to our own belief systems and authorities. there must be a way that a person can be deeply and truly religious and in unity with others.
______What do you mean “in unity.”
Would you define my muslim friend and me talking, working, eating together, but still adamate that each other was totally wrong in our religious belief, as unity?
Would you define my practicing gay friend and me talking, working, eating together, but me still adamate that he is in deep sin and going to hell unless he repents, and he telling me I am wrong, as unity?
YOU:i can’t believe that we are destined to disunity and division, in bondage to our own belief systems and authorities. there must be a way that a person can be deeply and truly religious and in unity with others. NEXT POST:: we don’t suspend the truth because we must admit that we don’t really know what it is.
_____________Interesting that you call a belief system bondage. I see mine as freedom.
So your belief system, ‘…there must be a way that a person can be deeply and truly religious and in unity with others,” is bondage, as you define belief system and bondage to a belief system; that is, unless your belief system is excluded from being in bondage.
______When you conclude that we must admit that we don’t really know what truth is, you then blow away your hope that unity will be possible in many, many cases. Oh, you will get some who will follow your dream, but it is a truth, you will not get all, and that all is a very big number. But then, that is a Biblical truth irregardless of your acceptance of it or not.
I hope you take my disagreement in the spirit of a simple disagreement, not as being antagonistic.
fishon
Peter Rollins makes a profound statement in his “How (not) to speak of God”. He says that the way in wich we hold our beliefs (i.e. Loving and christlike) is just as important as the content of the beliefs we hold. A dialogue like the one NP is describing could be a very good exercise in learning to hold your beliefs in the right way. What sometimes bothers me about fision is not the content of his believes but the way he carries and uses it, ways I precieve to be hurtful and degrading to others that carries different beliefs.
allowing the possibility of your faith-structure to be wrong does not cheapen it if it’s true, only if it’s false.
there must be a way that a person can be deeply and truly religious and in unity with others.(NP)
Impossible, unless the religious person is willing to believe their religion may be wrong. This is made clear by looking at fishon. Im surprised he even comes here to “discuss” or “dialogue”. Mind you, we do know his great commission is to make disciples.
Maybe so, but my Iranian, Muslim friend, Shawn and I use to dialog often, and we grew to have great respect for one another—–though he knew he could never change my mind, and I was well aware that I could not change his(fishon)
I bet money if your “muslim” friend tried to install a government that had its Laws based on Sharia Law, you would be the first to lose your “respect” for him.
The question I ask is this: Would someone’s Christian faith suffer if they began to consider their religion as ‘ A Way’ rather than the ‘The Way”?
Gabriel says::What sometimes bothers me about fision is not the content of his believes but the way he carries and uses it, ways I precieve to be hurtful and degrading to others that carries different beliefs.
_____I concede that what I say, sometimes, may be hurtful, but then, for many people they are hurt just because you disagree with them. As far as being “degrading to others…” could you, would you give me an example or two. I promise I will not defend myself—just take and examine your examples.
fishon
criticaltc said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:02 am
allowing the possibility of your faith-structure to be wrong does not cheapen it if it’s true, only if it’s false.
____But criticaltc, why do I as a Christian or my muslim friend have to allow for the possibility of our faith-structure to be wrong? Why is it so important for some people to have people like me cough-up, “Well, maybe my belief-system is not correct”?
Jesus said, I didn’t say it, Jesus said it, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Now as a follower of Christ, and a believer that what he taught is true, are you telling me you can NOT see that if I allow that what he says MAY not be true, that does not cheapen my faith?
I can tell you, if my muslim friend was to admit that Muhammad might have been wrong; well, you know where I am going on that.
fishon
tfort said:I bet money if your “muslim” friend tried to install a government that had its Laws based on Sharia Law, you would be the first to lose your “respect” for him.
_______You lose. Just send whatever the bet [money] might have been, in your mind, to some food bank.
_______I do believe that history tells us that many Yankee Generals had great respect for their enemy, General Lee.
_______It appears that because you would bet that I would lose respect for my muslim friend because of something he might believe in his religion, you may be the one who losses respect for someone whom you disagree with. Hmmm!
fishon
faithlessinfatima said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 9:20 am
The question I ask is this: Would someone’s Christian faith suffer if they began to consider their religion as ‘ A Way’ rather than the ‘The Way”?
______Yes.
fishon
fishon
Well then, you now have truly shown your ignorance. If you know anything about Sharia law and would not lose respect for someone that follows it. May your God have mercy on your soul.
nakedpastor said – “bob: i do agree that religion is probably one of the most difficult arenas to hold true dialog in, but it must be possible. i can’t believe that we are destined to disunity and division, in bondage to our own belief systems and authorities. there must be a way that a person can be deeply and truly religious and in unity with others.”
David, I agree. I just meant that for some people, dialog, actual contemplative dialog, is impossible, or it would seem so, based on experience.
fishon said – “But criticaltc, why do I as a Christian or my muslim friend have to allow for the possibility of our faith-structure to be wrong? Why is it so important for some people to have people like me cough-up, “Well, maybe my belief-system is not correct”?”
As for myself, I do not think it is “important” that you allow for the possibility. But if you desire meaningful dialog with those you disagree with, you might need to consider the possibility.
What it comes down to is this: you may be wrong, whether you allow for the possibility or not. BUT, to the person whom you are dialoguing with, who also allows for the possibility that you may be wrong, it makes a difference.
Honestly, what you should do prior to any engagement with a non believer or any believer who has beliefs that differ from yours is, you should tell them upfront – “There is absolutely no chance that I will concede that any of my current beliefs are, or may be incorrect.” If you put that disclaimer out front, I think far fewer people will engage you in dialog.
What I see as the major obstacle in any religious discussion or dialog is this: Many religious believers mistake belief (faith) for factual knowledge. Many think that what they “believe” is actual knowledge, rather than simply faith or belief. Many will use the words “I know”, rather than “I believe”. That simple misconception, I believe, is the greatest barrier.
TitforTat said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 12:53 pm
fishon
Well then, you now have truly shown your ignorance. If you know anything about Sharia law and would not lose respect for someone that follows it. May your God have mercy on your soul.
____Hehehe! I love it. Now you tell me when I should lose respect for someone. Seems to me that you have taken me on more than once for intimating someone to be ignorant on an issue. You have given me hell for, in your estimation, not respecting someone on this blog for things I disagreed with. And now you…. You are way to funny.
____And you surely mix up respect for the person because they are made in the image of God as opposed to having NO respect for their particular belief. But then, why would I expect you to understand the difference between respect for the person because they are made in the image of God, and at the same time not respect their views. You don’t believe in the God of the Bible–you can not understand.
fishon
fishon said – “But criticaltc, why do I as a Christian or my muslim friend have to allow for the possibility of our faith-structure to be wrong? Why is it so important for some people to have people like me cough-up, “Well, maybe my belief-system is not correct”?”
As for myself, I do not think it is “important” that you allow for the possibility. But if you desire meaningful dialog with those you disagree with, you might need to consider the possibility.
What it comes down to is this: you may be wrong, whether you allow for the possibility or not. BUT, to the person whom you are dialoguing with, who also allows for the possibility that you may be wrong, it makes a difference.
_____I think you have come upon the fact of the matter concerning dialog, in reference to religion. Some people will insist that to dialog you MUST accept the possibliity that you may be wrong, and others with dialog with you even though you will not accept that possiblity. So the end of the matter may be this: It all depends on the people who are dialoging as to the ground rules so as to have, what they consider, a meaningful dialog.
YOU:What I see as the major obstacle in any religious discussion or dialog is this: Many religious believers mistake belief (faith) for factual knowledge. Many think that what they “believe” is actual knowledge, rather than simply faith or belief. Many will use the words “I know”, rather than “I believe”. That simple misconception, I believe, is the greatest barrier.
______How about this: I KNOW Jesus said, “I am the way…,” and since I BELIEVE what he has declared, I KNOW he is the only way because he said so?
fishon
Fishon, you said….”But criticaltc, why do I as a Christian or my muslim friend have to allow for the possibility of our faith-structure to be wrong? Why is it so important for some people to have people like me cough-up, “Well, maybe my belief-system is not correct”?”
– I hope I’m not oversimplifying, nor do I mean to dismiss your question in any way, but it seems painfully obvious to me, that minimally one of you, possibly both of you, are wrong in your belief-system.
you said…”Jesus said, I didn’t say it, Jesus said it, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” Now as a follower of Christ, and a believer that what he taught is true, are you telling me you can NOT see that if I allow that what he says MAY not be true, that does not cheapen my faith?”
- My original point was that your faith in something (mine too) has no bearing on its truth. So allowing yourself to question your faith will only prove problematic if the faith was in something that was false to start with.
criticaltc said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Fishon, you said….”But criticaltc, why do I as a Christian or my muslim friend have to allow for the possibility of our faith-structure to be wrong? Why is it so important for some people to have people like me cough-up, “Well, maybe my belief-system is not correct”?”
– I hope I’m not oversimplifying, nor do I mean to dismiss your question in any way, but it seems painfully obvious to me, that minimally one of you, possibly both of you, are wrong in your belief-system.
_____For sure, one of us is wrong.
YOU:My original point was that your faith in something (mine too) has no bearing on its truth. So allowing yourself to question your faith will only prove problematic if the faith was in something that was false to start with.
______Oh, I agree; my faith has no bearing on the truth–But Jesus is truth, not a truth. And no one can know it unless they know Him.
fishon
I KNOW Jesus said, “I am the way(fishon)
I KNOW he is the only way because he said so?(fishon)
Ok remind us where Jesus says he is the “only” way.
Fishon, but since you can’t prove that last statement, don’t you feel even mildly obligated to disclose that it’s just what you have come to believe based on your studies/life instead of presenting it as fact?
TitforTat said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
I KNOW Jesus said, “I am the way(fishon)
I KNOW he is the only way because he said so?(fishon)
Ok remind us where Jesus says he is the “only” way.
________”I am the way….NO ONE [caps mine] comes to the Father EXCEPT [caps mine] through me.”
________But then, I do not expect you to accept it any more than I would expect you to believe in the virgin birth of Christ, since you don’t believe that the Bible is God’s word. However, whether you believe what Jesus says, the context makes it clear—Jesus is making it crystal clear, he is the only way.
fishon
criticaltc said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Fishon, but since you can’t prove that last statement, don’t you feel even mildly obligated to disclose that it’s just what you have come to believe based on your studies/life instead of presenting it as fact?
_____1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.
fishon
fishon said – “I think you have come upon the fact of the matter concerning dialog, in reference to religion. Some people will insist that to dialog you MUST accept the possibility that you may be wrong, and others with dialog with you even though you will not accept that possibility. So the end of the matter may be this: It all depends on the people who are dialoging as to the ground rules so as to have, what they consider, a meaningful dialog. ”
I agree. I misspoke.
fishon said – “How about this: I KNOW Jesus said, “I am the way…,” and since I BELIEVE what he has declared, I KNOW he is the only way because he said so?”
I hope I am not being to picky but – you KNOW what you understand the bible to be saying concerning Jesus. You BELIEVE your understanding to be correct. And since you BELIEVE what the bible says Jesus declared, you BELIEVE he is the only way because you BELIEVE he said so.
I just don’t see how you can KNOW Jesus is the “only way” if you don’t actually KNOW what he said, but actually only BELIEVE what is attributed to him in the bible.
fishon said – “Fishon, but since you can’t prove that last statement, don’t you feel even mildly obligated to disclose that it’s just what you have come to believe based on your studies/life instead of presenting it as fact?
_____1 Corinthians 2:14 The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.”
Oh fishon, please don’t resort to this, I beg you.
yes. and is it possible that the scriptures are not accurate in the “quoting” of Jesus. The Jesus Seminar, et al, would say that they are not necessarily historically factual. THEN: is it possible that the words carry MEANING that we have not yet fully grasped? Is it possible for “Jesus is Lord” to mean something far greater or deeper or broader than we have thought? It is not just the words, but the meaning.
Bob said:Oh fishon, please don’t resort to this, I beg you.
_____And so the dialog ends.
_____And there is the crux of the problem for your hope, David, about dialog. I use scripture to back up my answer and and it is pleaded of me to not resort to my way of answering. Bob is asking me to limit myself in our dialog. Ah, it was good while it lasted.
fishon
nakedpastor said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 3:56 pm
yes. and is it possible that the scriptures are not accurate in the “quoting” of Jesus.
______Oh simple me; if I believed that scripture might be inaccurate, then I would not have taken Jesus as my Savior, saking my life on it. For you see, David, I would die for the words that are called scripture as many others have in the past.
I have lost friendships because I stake my beliefs on the accuracy of scripture——I have family members all but disown me because I stake my beliefs on the accuracy of scripture.
David, my friend, you seem so afraid to take a concrete stand on anything. You seem to always leave your self a way out. No wonder fear is seen thoughout many of your thoughts; and that certainly explains trying to come up with new theories and ways.
Jesus seminar, heretics.
fishon
fishon: you need to go back to my 10 points about the difference between discussion and dialog. You want a discussion. It is not dialog when you have non-negotiables. How can there be a discussion when one party says, “Well, my scripture is right. And my interpretation of it is right. Therefore you are wrong.” No matter how kindly or gently you say this, it shuts down dialog and won’t create a new place of peace and unity.
I like fishon actually – he’s one fo the funnest people to have a dialogue with since he takes a ’stand’ on some issues and is pretty ‘firm’ about it. You know how you make a rock into a beautiful sculpture? You have to chip away at it for a long period of time – and refine your precision as you go deeper…and I enjoy that type of dialogue also.
Fishon and I obviously disagree on a lot on this site – heck he even swore to never come back to my site since I said some things that just wasn’t with his viewpoints. Still, I see it as a bump in the road and he helps refine me in many things.
Maybe people need to begin to see the benefit of dialoguing with someone that simply disagree with them – for example – you have to check what you believe more closely – maybe you are wrong on something – maybe you need more ‘proof’ to be right? That can also be helpful in life – the refining of what you think you know is right – and people that disagree with you can help in this process.
“if I believed that scripture might be inaccurate…” (fishon)
I can find you one place where it most defintively is – and maybe a few more if you’re interested. But scripture is not the problem – interpretation is.
I wish people wouldn’t have a go at Fishon for his beliefs. Why can’t people be more tolerant? Look at how much he puts up with from the rest of us.
When I studied the ‘I Am’ sayings in St. John’s gospel even at school level, I was taught that they were ways of talking about God. God being the great ‘I Am’ (JHWH), so Jesus wasn’t necessarily pointing to himself as a Jewish man from Galilee, but to the Divine within all of us, but particularly (from our perspective) manifested in himself.
‘I AM the way, the truth and the life and no one comes to the father but through me.’
None of us come to the Father (God) except through the Divine with us. I’m not saying Jesus wasn’t in some sense the Son of God or the Messiah or the Anointed One or even God incarnate, but given the theological depth of John’s Gospel, you don’t get someone saying ‘I Am’ and it not referring to JHWH.
However, whether you believe what Jesus says, the context makes it clear—Jesus is making it crystal clear, he is the only way(fishon)
Thanks, you made this quite easy. We will now use the words of your Lord to show you everyone is included. These words are quite direct and quite succinct.
John 12:32 (English Standard Version)
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself.”
Now the real question is, Do you believe him or do you need someone to interpret this for you?
fishon – “And there is the crux of the problem for your hope, David, about dialog. I use scripture to back up my answer and and it is pleaded of me to not resort to my way of answering. Bob is asking me to limit myself in our dialog. Ah, it was good while it lasted.”
Actually, you did not present an answer. Rather than respond in a manner that would foster more dialog, you quote a bible verse, an often quoted bible verse that I have had quoted at me to many times to count (I realize you did not direct it at me, but I have no doubt that you do think it applies to me also).
Tell me fishon, what was your intention behind the quote?
What do you think that verse says about me, a non believer?
What do you think that verse means to me, a non believer?
Let’s explore –
1 Corinthians 2:14
“The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God,…”
I have no problem with this portion. I do not have “the Spirit”, and I do not believe there are any such things as spirits, so I also don’t believe there are “things” that come from “the Spirit” if I don’t believe “the Spirit” exists. Does that make sense?
“…for they are foolishness to him,…”
I am not sure that I would categorize it just that way, so that portion of the verse does not apply to me.
“…and he cannot understand them,…”
Try me. Give me something from “the Spirit” and see if I don’t understand it.
“…because they are spiritually discerned.”
Sounds like it is saying that the Spirit helps or guides people who have the Spirit, into understanding the things of the Spirit. Is this correct? Tell me, am I completely misunderstanding this entire verse? Am I understanding any of it? Am I understanding all of it?
fishon, if this verse is from the Spirit, why would you quote it at someone you believe won’t be able to understand it anyway? And if I understand this verse, and I do not have the Spirit, how can I understand this verse? Please explain. I mean, feel free to test this verse (that you obviously believe). Feel free to find something that should be “spiritually discerned” and see if I can understand it.
Tiggy said – “I wish people wouldn’t have a go at Fishon for his beliefs. Why can’t people be more tolerant? Look at how much he puts up with from the rest of us.”
Please tell me you are being sarcastic Tiggy…please.
nakedpastor said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
fishon: you need to go back to my 10 points about the difference between discussion and dialog. You want a discussion. It is not dialog when you have non-negotiables. How can there be a discussion when one party says, “Well, my scripture is right. And my interpretation of it is right. Therefore you are wrong.” No matter how kindly or gently you say this, it shuts down dialog and won’t create a new place of peace and unity.
_____David, are you telling me that you preach a gospel to the church you pastor, and you are under the belief that what you preach may be wrong? I won’t hold my breath for your answer, though.
fishon
nakedpastor said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
fishon: you need to go back to my 10 points about the difference between discussion and dialog. You want a discussion. It is not dialog when you have non-negotiables.
______You need to go back to my very first post in responce to this issue. Nah, here it is:
8.Discussion has non-negotiables. For dialog, everything is negotiable.
_______Maybe for you. But when it comes to religion, some things are not
negotiable for me, and I don’t think I am alone in that possition.
fishon
I am guessing the discussion or dialog is over on this issue.
SocietyVs said::I can find you one place where it most defintively is – and maybe a few more if you’re interested. But scripture is not the problem – interpretation is.
_______Wow, agreement between us. Interpretation can be the problem and is.
fishon
No, I wasn’t being sarcastic Bob, I was trying to see it from his point of view. People are at where they’re at. I can remember a time when I had very different ideas from the ones I have now, but I don’t think it would be very kind if everyone had a go at me because of them. Even now my ideas about life are changing. I’m less of an idealist than I was. We all have our own journeys to make – look at St. Paul.
And anyway, Fishon is our resident Maiden Aunt.
The scripture is “New every morning” so it could definitely be new when I enter into a dialogue with another person. The basics do not change or become new but as I grow in Christ and have new experiences I have new ideas about what a particulary passage means.
Dialogue comes from two terms: Duo-two and Logos-Word
In Luke 10 Jesus sent the 70 out among people with whome the Disciples differed greatly. Jesus told them to offer people shalom and if they accepted it to dialogue with them, eat with them and pray for them.
Jesus said this was His approach to evangelism.
TitforTat said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 8:06 pm
However, whether you believe what Jesus says, the context makes it clear—Jesus is making it crystal clear, he is the only way(fishon)
Thanks, you made this quite easy. We will now use the words of your Lord to show you everyone is included. These words are quite direct and quite succinct.
John 12:32 (English Standard Version)
And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw ALL people to myself.”
Now the real question is, Do you believe him or do you need someone to interpret this for you?
______Sure I believe Him. Why wouldn’t I believe John 12:32?
fishon
Bob, you asked me some questions. I am off to a county wide prayer time, so I will attempt to answer them when I return, or tomorrow.
fishon
Sure I believe Him. Why wouldn’t I believe John 12:32?(fishon)
Cool.
No need to worry about your Muslim friends soul I guess. Your Lord has him covered too.
actually gary, the “dia” means “through”… through the word… so it is talking about meaning.
I stand corrected. My early Latin failed me for I confused di-two, with dia-across. (According to my Webster’s, it is not through but across. However, that may be too fine a distinction.) So, a dialogue is not just between two persons but between two or among several.
I consider the meaning in Greek even more profoundly applicable in Luke 10 than my earlier misunderstanding. Especially today, in the Post Modern Era, dialogue and discussion are essential. My friends in Taiwan established seven churches by following the Luke 10 model.
Thanks for the correction.
TitforTat said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Sure I believe Him. Why wouldn’t I believe John 12:32?(fishon)
Cool.
No need to worry about your Muslim friends soul I guess. Your Lord has him covered too.
______For sure the Lord has him covered.
______I am soooo happy that you are now using scripture to prove your point. You have come a long way. So I take since you are siteing scripture, you will agree with these! “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.”
fishon
Tiggy said, on September 2nd, 2009 at 7:38 pm
I wish people wouldn’t have a go at Fishon for his beliefs. Why can’t people be more tolerant? Look at how much he puts up with from the rest of us.
____Tiggy, thank you for coming to my rescue. But I promise you, it is ok. I know full well that there will be reactions to my responces, just as David understands full well that he will get them too.
In fact, I believe the ones who take me on, to my face, so to speak, really are tolerant. Maybe not of my beliefs, but they are tolerant enough to take me on. The ones who are not tolerant, but claim to be the most tolerant among us are the ones that David mentioned to me a few months ago that had e-mailed him and asked him to remove me. Now that is intolerance. The easy thing for them to do was just not read what I wrote. But they chose to read and complain, when they already knew my positions.
Thank you for your concern.
jerry [fishon]
Bob asked:
Tell me fishon, what was your intention behind the quote?
What do you think that verse says about me, a non believer?
What do you think that verse means to me, a non believer?
#1. My intention was to show that just what the scripture sited says. I don’t figure the scripture sited needs me to interprete it.
#2. Well, Bob, I did not realize you were not a believer. It is not so important about what I think [know] what the verse says about you, a non-believer; what is important is what you think it says about you, a non-believer.
#3. Bob, I have no idea what the verse means to you? How could I possibly know that? On second thought, you being a non-believer, maybe the scripture means nothing to you. Why would it mean anything to you if you are a non-believer?
fishon, if this verse is from the Spirit, why would you quote it at someone you believe won’t be able to understand it anyway?
____Again, didn’t realize you were a non-believer.
____And I will and do quote scripture to non-believers in hopes that the Holy Spirit is moving in their life as He moved into mine before I believed. You see, before I was a believer the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to a portion of scripture to which I responded. Kind of like the parable of the sower that spread seed along the path, the rocky places , among the thorns, and on good soil.
Feel free to find something that should be “spiritually discerned” and see if I can understand it.
____No, Bob, I will not play that game.
fishon
fishon said – “…if this verse is from the Spirit, why would you quote it at someone you believe won’t be able to understand it anyway?”
____”Again, didn’t realize you were a non-believer.”
As I pointed out, “I realize you did not direct it at me, but I have no doubt that you do think it applies to me also.” So I guess my question stands unanswered – why would you quote it at someone you believe won’t be able to understand it anyway? If the verse says that one must have the Spirit to understand the things from the Spirit, why would you quote a verse “from the Spirit” to someone who does not have the Spirit? Makes no sense to me.
fishon said – “And I will and do quote scripture to non-believers in hopes that the Holy Spirit is moving in their life as He moved into mine before I believed. You see, before I was a believer the Holy Spirit opened my eyes to a portion of scripture to which I responded. Kind of like the parable of the sower that spread seed along the path, the rocky places , among the thorns, and on good soil.”
So, let me get this straight, you use a verse that says that those who do not have the Spirit will not understand the things of the Spirit, in hopes that the Spirit will use that verse to “open” the “eyes” of the one without the Spirit so that they will then believe in the Spirit? So, 1 Corinthians 2:14 is true, some of the times?
fishon – “#1. My intention was to show that just what the scripture sited says. I don’t figure the scripture sited needs me to interprete it.”
Do you assume that every verse you quote will be understood by us who read it? Isn’t that a rather naive view? Are you suggesting that what ministers should do from now on is stand and read scripture aloud to their congregation…no need to offer any explanation of what they just read?
fishon – “#3. Bob, I have no idea what the verse means to you? How could I possibly know that?”
My question was “What do you think that verse means to me, a non believer?” I was not asking you what you know, but what you think. Dialog!
fishon – “On second thought, you being a non-believer, maybe the scripture means nothing to you. Why would it mean anything to you if you are a non-believer?”
For someone who claims to have been an atheist, you sure don’t seem to remember what it was like to be an atheist. As a non believer (former believer) the bible does have meaning to me, in that I understand much of what I read in it. I just don’t consider much of what I read in it to be true or factual, but I do understand it.
fishon – “Feel free to find something that should be “spiritually discerned” and see if I can understand it.”
____”No, Bob, I will not play that game.”
You quote a verse that says that I, a non believer, one who does not accept the Spirit and does not have the Spirit, will not be able to understand the things that come from the Spirit. I ask you to test that verse. Why would you quote a verse that you believe to be true, no, a verse that you KNOW to be true, but then refuse to prove that it is true?
fishon, you accusing me of “playing that game” is an obvious cop-out. What better way to show (me) that what you KNOW to be true, is true, than to test what you say is true. Just a simple test. If you are not willing to offer me some proof that 1 Corinthians 2:14 is true, then it shows how little confidence you actually have in the very verse you site. And if you have such little confidence in it, isn’t it time that you admit that, with regard to your religious beliefs, you don’t really KNOW much, but you do BELIEVE much. Isn’t it time to admit that you don’t KNOW that 1 Corinthians 2:14 is true, you just sort of BELIEVE it is true (but not to the extent that you are willing to prove that it is true).
…or, if your faith is exempt from all reasonable questions and dialog, then just ignore everything I just said.
I am soooo happy that you are now using scripture to prove your point. You have come a long way. So I take since you are siteing scripture, you will agree with these! “For many are invited, but few are chosen.” “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to.”
fishon
Now you’ve gone and confused me. In the other scripture Jesus says he will take ALL, and these suggest only a limited amount. Hmmm, contradiction. I think I need you to tell me what he “Really” meant.
TforT,
Now you’ve gone and confused me. In the other scripture Jesus says he will take ALL, and these suggest only a limited amount. Hmmm, contradiction. I think I need you to tell me what he “Really” meant.
_______Oops, tfort, go back and read your original scripture reference. Give me the quote where Jesus says “he will TAKE [caps mine] ALL.”
fishon
“If the verse says that one must have the Spirit to understand the things from the Spirit, why would you quote a verse “from the Spirit” to someone who does not have the Spirit? Makes no sense to me” (Bob)
Because even fishon has to admit he doesn’t quite understand the ’spirit’. The definition of the ’spirit’ is what’s lacking here – a more detailed explanation of terms might help in the dialgue.
As for me, I believe there is a spirit – as to what and how that works – I am not quite and totally clear. But I do know that some things happen and the spirit of it can cause one to change their heart and mind because of the results.
King Jr, Gandhi, and movements for the under-classed people in society move me – spiritually.
Many of us hold that pre-believers can and do have “spiritual Insights” that are brought about by the Holy Spirit of God. However, as it says, “That person will not accept what is occuring” as being from God.
It seems to me that the passage in I Corinthians indicates any person, even a Christian, who attempts to understand the depths of God with a “natural” mind, e.g. secular humanistic mind, cannot really understand or accept what is going on.
Look at the data relating health and church attendance. The data are clear. Christians have better health and love longer. My agnostic friends and professional colleagues reject the notion that this increase is related to God or the Holy Spirit but usually accept the data.
There are numerous cases of people being healed or significantly improved with prayer and Christian love. My secular counseling colleagues reject that out of hand in most cases.
Look at the data relating health and church attendance. The data are clear. Christians have better health and love longer.
So what? maybe they have less to worry about, but so what? These are just stats anyway, it doesn’t mean that there aren’t people outside the church who have better health and live longer. Jesus didn’t live very long anyway.
Gary: I’ve read that there’s evidence that being a part of a religious or spiritual community may promote long life. I’ve never read that being a Christian increases your lifespan. I would be highly skeptical of that research.
Are you interested is seeing some of it or does your scepticism forbid that action?
What I am suggesting Gary is that the fact that these Christians have a meaningful faith, philosophy or passion, and are part of a community that supports and nurtures that passion, might be the reason, not because they’re baptized believers.
I agree. You hit the nail on the head. Baptized Believers filled with spite, bitterness, etc wil make each other sicker.
It is a package deal. God’s truth, God’s power and God’s love.
And, the greatest is love.
You want to be great? Get God’s agape love.
Preach on!
Why is it always agape love? Women’s spirituality tends to be about Eros love – the power of connectedness. That’s what I experience in relation to God and nature and people and myself.
fishon
Very good. I see your point.
You are right. Agape, however, encompasses eros, phila, etc and gives it a sense of service rather than selfishness.
Gary, you make it sound so very unappealing! Maybe it’s just my personality type, but for me serving others comes out of a sense of connection rather than being impersonal. I admit that restricts it to being less than universal, but it’s going to be that anyway. We all have our limits. The political causes I’m involved in are ones that I feel passionately about – I can’t be involved in every cause.
I don’t know where you get your definition of ‘agape’ from, but it’s not necessarily a word denoting an unselfish love. It’s used in Matthew 5:46; Luke 6:32 to denote selfish love. Why do you say it encompasses eros and philia?
Gary Sweeten – “The data are clear. Christians have better health and love longer. My agnostic friends and professional colleagues reject the notion that this increase is related to God or the Holy Spirit but usually accept the data.”
But Gary, I believe the percentages are negligible (1-2%, perhaps a little more). But one would rightly ask, is this minor difference due to God, or due to just being a part of a group of like minded individuals. And if it is due to God, why is he neglecting all the other Christians who are not happier or healthier?
Gary Sweeten – There are numerous cases of people being healed or significantly improved with prayer and Christian love. My secular counseling colleagues reject that out of hand in most cases.
I have seen study results showing that prayer has no benefit at all. I have seen study results that show terminally ill Christians are more likely to ask for drastic medical measures costing thousands of dollars, only prolonging the inevitable.
So what do we do with this?
Lets say we take 500 agnostics and 500 Christians. Follow their physical and mental health till their death. If the study shows any benefit for the Christian side, it will be very insignificant.
Now, if EVERY Christian lived a longer and happier life than all of the agnostics, you would have something (what, I am not sure, unless it was proved that they lived longer and happier due to supernatural intervention by the Christian God). But if only 1-2% benefit more than the agnostics, well, that is not something I would brag about.
Care to discuss the divorce rates?
Tiggy,
Phila indicates friendship or brotherly/sisterly concern. We might say, “I like this person and I treat him kindly.” That is the meaning of the English term translated “love” in Matthew 5:46, I believe. It is not selfish but kindly.
Eros is usually translated as “romantic love”. You indicate that females seem to show eros more than males. Some would say that is also empathy.
Agape is a term used by the NT writers who did not have a good Greek Term to translate Hesed or “Covenant Love” from Hebrew. It usually mean caring for people with no strings attached.
Christians are able to have and to show all these types of love. You may wish to read C.S. Lewis book on that subject. You are not wrogn in any way, IMO, to focus on friendship and kindness.
Bob,
You put a lot on the plate. I have never seen the 2% figure before and need to check it out a bit. It is not easy to get data on the results of prayer, religious involvement, etc. But when we look at church attendance and health the outcome results are large and in the direction of Christian commitment.
No Church: African American-67 Yrs White American–77Yrs (10 Yrs)
Weekly or Less–African American-75 Yrs White American-80 (5 Yrs)
Weekly or More–African American-80 Yrs White American-83 (3 Yrs)
Whites gain six years of life and Blacks gain 13 years, double that of Whites, by attending church regularly. I think that is quite significant. And, Black churches seem to produce more health than White churches. I wonder why.
I would love to discuss divorce rates. What have you got to say about that?
There have been some studies indicating that regular attendance at a religious service can increase life expectancy by 2-3 years. Why this is so hasn’t been definitively proven. Churches often contain more women than men–women live longer. Many churchgoers steer clear of alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs. It’s proven that a people with a greater number of social contacts (not just through church) will experience less depression and more happiness, on average, and optimism has been shown to increase longevity as well. Churches can provide support and encouragement in getting and staying healthy. So, there could be many reasons why people who attend church live longer.
As far as “prayer being effective” studies–the studies I’ve read cancel each other out.
I have a much wider understanding of eros than empathy. I’m not sure one feels empathy for nature, at least not in the way I mean – I wasn’t talking about feeling sorry for pandas running out of bamboo etc. For me, eros means connection and is fundamental to the nature of the universe. Agape is to do with the will and intention and can go towards good or bad. It’s much more individual, whereas eros is about becoming part of a whole. The romantic, sexual element is just an example of this sort of connection. I certainly don’t view eros as kindness, though it may result in that.
Much as I love C.S. Lewis, I do think scholarship has moved on since his time and we can’t always go back to a word as though its meaning is static. Language changes and is reclaimed. The word ‘Paradise’ is in the process of being reclaimed. I hope we can go back to the original meaning of the word ‘perfect’ as well, to mean complete, whole – as it did when the NT was translated, rather than the meaning it took on much later. I think that has caused a lot of confusion.
Hardly anybody goes to church in England – no idea if that affects our health or longevity.
@Tiggy,
Regular attendance at religious services aside, do you drink tea? Tea will increase your longevity:
http://achievinglongevity.blogspot.com/2007/07/black-tea-or-green-tea-which-is.html
There is something about just holding a warm cup between your hands, breathing in the earthy or delicate fragrance, and savoring the heat as it wends its way over your tongue and into your chest that just soothes the soul. There is something “erotic” about drinking tea.
Recently I had my own definition of “eros” stretched by the information I encountered in the book ‘They Mystery of Love” by Marc Gafni. While reading it (and savoring many cups of tea, of course) I had several “aha” moments.
Here’s my raised teacup and a “May you have good health and a long life!”
Clink-clink.
That should be “The Mystery of Love.” I hate typos…
Of course I drink tea – I’m British. In theory then, British people should live longer than Canadians.
I’m not feeling I really want to live long to be honest. And I don’t particularly have any desire to go anywhere afterwards – I’d rather just cease to exist. The thought of it fills me with blessed relief. In fact I think I should be mercifully put down.
There’s someone who held me in their arms a month or so ago and I just wanted to die there so I’d never have to leave.
All right then, Tiggy, I”ll raise my cup again with a “May you fully enjoy your life today–each and every moment!” (Clink-clink?)
You have such interesting insights. You challenge me to think about life and to be aware. I really would not want to see you “put down,” but must admit, I’ve had similar feelings about my own life at times.
I hope that you can rediscover those comforting arms (or a similar pair) to hug you through the hurts…
Thanks. I’m going out to buy milk for tea and some biscuits. English people have to have biscuits with their tea, to dip in it. It’s what we do in a crisis – we make a cup of tea.
I think I’ll find my way back to his comforting arms again, but I never know when. It could be next week or it could be months. I feel like the Time Traveller’s Wife except at least she was his wife.
…For his research, he pored over age-specific, actuarial death rates derived from census statistics, comparing effects of regular exercise, cholesterol-lowering drugs and church attendance. All three have health benefits, he found. Exercise can add three to five additional years to life, statin therapy 2.5 to 3.5 years and church attendance two to three years.
link – http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2006/apr/03/20060403-103809-9183r/
Seems there are numerous studies, and the conclusions all differ, but, generally, people who attend church regularly do live longer. WHY?
“Others agreed that the study’s results were due to the social benefits of churchgoing rather than churchgoing itself.”
link http://www.dailycal.org/article/8160/researchers_link_reduced_health_risks_with_weekly_
“Praying for patients undergoing heart operations does not improve their outcomes, a US study suggests.”
link – http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4681771.stm
11% of the adult population is currently divorced.
25% of adults have had at least one divorce during their lifetime.
Divorce rates among conservative Christians were significantly higher than for other faith groups, and much higher than Atheists and Agnostics experience.
link – http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm
Gary, I don’t know what to make of all this, do you?
Statistical correlations are not causations.
OMG, I bumped into the Time Traveller in the supermarket but it wasn’t a moment for being held, just comparing the contents of our shopping trolleys under the fluorescent lights. Such bathos – you see, next week, next month or next day!
I wonder if a lot of the people who are currently divorced came after after getting in a bad relationship or being divorced. We know that a high percentage of those who hurt get involved in things “spiritual” and “religious” after the pain becomes awfully high. For example, some 42% of all persons who seek a “professional Help” go to a Clergy Person with 18% to a Doctor and 8% to a Mental Health Professional. Thus, many people seek a “Higher Power” and/or God when in trouble. After diagnosis with AIDS many people return to a church and ask for prayer.
It is also Conservative/Evangelical Churches that usually have Divorce Recovery Groups, 12 Step Groups, Al Anon, Peer Counseling, Pastoral Counseling, Kindness Outreaches, Single Parent Outreaches, Inner Healing Ministries, and Free Prayer Ministries. These can all swell the ranks of those churches.
I have consulted with and trained Evangelical and Charismatic churches for years in integrating faith, worship, psychology, medicine, fellowship, kindness, etc. They alone offer hope for the hurting. Liberal churches and secular/agnostic groups have no outreaches or healing groups so why would people struggling with a divorce go there for help?
Steve Sjogren’s work is marvellous in that regard but churches must also develop a caring infrastructure based on biblical ideas.
Many of these research reports are difficualt to understand for they confuse prayer with a pill. I am on a Committee discussing faith and medicine at University of Cincinnat. Many of the researchers do not understand the most basic aspects of the Christian life and badly mismanage the research. Dispite this, even they can see that faith applied has a positive outcome in almost every case.
We can not separate social support from church attendance nor should we. On the road to Emmaus it was the social interaction that opened the eyes of two followers to Jesus. In 1 Corinthians we see love as the greatest healer. Love does not happen in a vacuum but through fellowship.
Shalom,
Gary
‘They alone offer hope for the hurting. Liberal churches and secular/agnostic groups have no outreaches or healing groups so why would people struggling with a divorce go there for help? ‘
Wow, you do generalise! I don’t even know what country you’re talking about. I know of plenty of ‘liberal’ or as we prefer to call them, ‘progressive’ churches that have outreaches and healing groups. They also have caring and healing people. I have been helped myself through them. Don’t limit the work of the Spirit to people of your own theological or liturgical bias. In any case, t hose old definitions are breaking down. I know of Pentecostal churches that are involved in Celtic spirituality and Charismatic churches that are very strong on social justice issues. I also know Progressive churches who are big on healing – often they are smaller groups though and don’t have the same kind of resources or money.
I was gonna put this in the previous blog but thought it would be more appropriate here
I get annoyed by the superiority that often accompanies the edict to proclaim the gospel – I dont get it – the Bible contains more than 300 verses on the poor, social justice, and God’s deep concern for both. there are very few about proclaiming the gospel by comparison.
There are so many evangelists and Christians out there proclaiming the gospel – saying we got the good news – we got the only way to heaven etc. They go out seeking conversions to their faith. Where is the whole stack of people that are prepared to go out and be taught by the people they encounter. The word humility appears in significant numbers too. Are we taking notice of the emphasis’s in the bible?
Where are the people that are prepared to get out there and be willing to be taught? I have found that people have more to teach me than I ever thought possible. The ratio of ears to mouths is a good indicator in this regard. Not saying we shouldn’t talk but being humble and open is a good place to be.
I love a couple of quotes from Thomas Merton:
The beginning of love is to let those we love be perfectly themselves, and not to twist them to fit our own image. otherwise we only love the reflection of ourselves we find in them!
And here is a part of a prayer by the same man:
I have no idea where I am going.
I do not see the road ahead of me.
I cannot know for certain where it will end.
Nor do I really know myself,
and the fact that I think I am following
your will does not mean
that I am actually doing so.
I love this mans humility and wisdom – we could use more of it – this is the stuff that can enable us to begin dialogue instead of creating more “mini me’s” and assuming that we are right.
Just a few thoughts…
Tiggy,
Sorry about the generalization. I did use the term “Usually” but that was still too broad.
[...] } This belongs in ‘dialog’ with the last post – a vision from NP about a better way to be human: [...]