@kellyjay saidYour opinions about having had "divine experiences" and "being born again" are functions of your faith; faith is just a word for deep-seated opinions about yourself and about supernatural things; and all of this lies well and truly within the realm of subjectivity.
A divine experience is not something we can generate by our efforts no matter how much we want it, only God can cause anyone to be born again.
@fmf saidIt is not what I believe that means anything, is God, God, that alone is all that matters. Claiming it is only between my ears is not even addressing the question, that is only addressing me.
I understand what your faith is and the effect it has on you, KellyJay.
@kellyjay saidYou are simply making assertions based on your faith. The origin of everything you are saying [and me too, for that matter] is "between our ears".
It is not what I believe that means anything, is God, God, that alone is all that matters. Claiming it is only between my ears is not even addressing the question, that is only addressing me.
@fmf saidYou completely miss the point of the meta-narrative for the opportunity to discuss others.
@KellyJay
Thank you for giving witness to your faith. I hope it continues to affect you profoundly and positively in the ways you have so often and so candidly described.
If the topic was ducks and all you wanted to discuss was my tastebuds, my favorite restaurant where I ate, or if eating ducks 🦆 was even a good thing to do! None of that has to do with ducks only me, so the reality is ignored as the topic is evaded for a chance to speak about others.
@kellyjay saidI don't subscribe to the your "meta-narrative", KellyJay. I haven't "missed the point" at all. You aren't saying anything deep or difficult to understand. You are simply reciting a familiar religious/theist creed. You asked me if I had an equivalent "meta-narrative" a couple of weeks back and I answered you then. My view hasn't changed since then.
You completely miss the point of the meta-narrative for the opportunity to discuss others.
@kellyjay saidWe do not need to speculate about ducks. The analogy is a dud and it was also a dud the previous 3-4 times you trotted itvout. All you are sharing here are your personal opinions about supernatural causality. I have not been "ignoring the topic".
If the topic was ducks and all you wanted to discuss was my tastebuds, my favorite restaurant where I ate, or if eating ducks 🦆 was even a good thing to do! None of that has to do with ducks only me, so the reality is ignored as the topic is evaded for a chance to speak about others.
@fmf saidYou have had more to say about me than anything to do with the meta-narrative. Would you spend time talking about Albert
We do not need to speculate about ducks. The analogy is a dud and it was also a dud the previous 3-4 times you trotted itvout. All you are sharing here are your personal opinions about supernatural causality. I have not been "ignoring the topic".
Einstein’s hair if the topic of relativity was the topic? We could talk about the theory without ever mentioning his name. The only thing you have succeeded in doing is highlighting there are different opinions without addressing the validity of any of the different views. Just so you know everyone already knew that before you highlighted it!
@kellyjay saidNo. And I haven't been discussing your hair or anything even remotely analagous to that, KellyJay. I have been discussing the source of your "meta-narrative" and what you extrapolate from it. Have you not been reading my posts?
Would you spend time talking about Albert
Einstein’s hair if the topic of relativity was the topic?
@fmf saidEverything anyone one of us says comes from between our ears, you think there are exceptions? The topics each of us brings up all started because between our ears we thought it worthy of discussion and what is it you are attempting to do?
The topic, as I see it, is that your "meta-narrative" comes from "between your ears" while you are adamant that it doesn't.
You are most certainly not engaging in the discussion except for your Captain 👨✈️ Obvious statements suggesting I thought of it, or I have an opinion.
You think that is a revelation someone says something and it is their opinion!?
The implications are important not I had a thought. If you feel/think that they don’t that is something worth discussion. If you don’t care, why say anything you just like commenting on things you don’t care about?
2 edits
@KellyJay
“Everything anyone one of us says comes from between our ears, you think there are exceptions?”
No. Including your religious beliefs and their Biblical source material – it all comes from between somebody’s ears, as they reflect (and have reflected) on the world they live in. What you think is the truth is just that: what you think is the truth. None of us (insofar as I know) has denied that there is something called truth – just that you (or anyone one else) has some special access to it that trumps our limited cognitive abilities, even if you ascribe what you think to some revelation.
I still think you use the term “meta-narrative” incorrectly – but, if you understand what you’re saying, fine.
Here is what I offered for a meta-narrative:
“I do not expect that the grammar of human consciousness exhausts, or will exhaust, the syntax of the universe which we inhabit.”
If there is some being whose consciousness is so exhaustive, I doubt that whatever such being might try to communicate to us would end up being more than gobbledygook when translated into our limited “grammar” – or at least would have to be so dumbed down as to be less than some unadulterated whole truth, free from interpretive error.
I guess you think that can’t be “the right” meta-narrative. But I think that it’s likely true.
@vistesd2 saidAn unadulterated whole truth would be the meta-narrative since it would be all encompassing past, present, leading to the future.
@KellyJay
“Everything anyone one of us says comes from between our ears, you think there are exceptions?”
No. Including your religious beliefs and their Biblical source material – it all comes from between somebody’s ears, as they reflect (and have reflected) on the world they live in. What you think is the truth is just that: what you think is the truth. ...[text shortened]... .
I guess you think that can’t be “the right” meta-narrative. But I think that it’s likely true.
I said everything that comes from us comes from between our ears, that is not saying it had to originate from us. We ponder everything we are exposed to but not everything do we feel the need to speak about.
What is true as I have been saying is not dependent on me, do you think it is dependent upon you?
Discussion matters I can not stop those who think all truth is dependent upon us or those who think nothing is true it is all just us.
If you agree that there is truth, reality, unmarred by falsehood and we are searching for it in all of our ologies why would the meta-narrative be untrue, all truth would always fit in harmony with truth everywhere else correct?