NationStates Jolt Archive

Would you say you have a stronger allegiance to your nation/country or to your God/religion? Why?

About equal...and i'm non-religious.

Probably about equal.

I'm not a Christian, though.

Probably about equal.

I'm not a Christian, though.

But he didn't ask for Christians he asked for religious people.

But he didn't ask for Christians he asked for religious people.

True, but "God" implies only christians.

I voted anyways though.

My allegiance lies only to Tim Hortons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hortons). *nods*

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/christianchr/Emoticons_2/worthy.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/57/Tim_Hortons_logo.svg/250px-Tim_Hortons_logo.svg.png

Equally non-existent.

Maybe it would have been better if "divine power(s)" has been used instead of "God", but it's not like it's a big deal.

Equally non-existent.

Maybe you should convert to the church of Tim Hortons. We have doughnuts and coffee. *gives Bouitazia pamphlets*

I'm non-religious, but as a mystic, I'm certainly more likely to defend my ideas about God than I am to defend my nation. Mind you, like many Brits, I'm openly opposed to my "nation" as represented by the government under New Labour anyway, so who knows?

Would you say you have a stronger allegiance to your nation/country or to your God/religion? Why?

No multiple choice options???
Well, I'll have to go for equal, then, cause I don't really care about either.

Maybe you should convert to the church of Tim Hortons. We have doughnuts and coffee. *gives Bouitazia pamphlets*

Coffee??? Yuck! :tongue:

I am only as loyal as the tacos hold out. :)

My allegiance lies only to Tim Hortons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hortons). *nods*

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/christianchr/Emoticons_2/worthy.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/57/Tim_Hortons_logo.svg/250px-Tim_Hortons_logo.svg.png

I also worship at the altar of the Canadian Coffee God.

True, but "God" implies only christians.
Jews, Muslims and Parsi, too. I'm unsure about Hinduists.

Anyway, my allegiance to any deity is 0 (well, let's say I could assign value equal to h in the international system to my allegiance to Bacchus). My allegiance to my country... I can push it to the point of rejoicing when the our national football (or basketball) team wins a match.

My country has given me free healthcare, education, a decent house, tonnes of great music.

What has God given me? Just its non-existence, the slacker.

True, but "God" implies only christians.

I voted anyways though.

lol haha

Would you say you have a stronger allegiance to your nation/country or to your God/religion? Why?

You really need to elaborate for me to answer this one properly... Do you mean which one I identify myself by first? Which one I would fight for first? Which one I would fight for if there was a direct conflict between the two? Which ones doctrine I follow primarily? Elaborate, and I'll try to explain.

God, only God. I care about my country and what happens in it, I'm not patriotic though, and i really don't give a monkeys about religion, my own included.

I had a 100% vote in choosing my goddess, but only a 1/few-millionth vote in choosing my government.

As for allegiance to a country rather than a government, people outside the borders are just the same, so they deserve the same as those inside, no?

Maybe you should convert to the church of Tim Hortons. We have doughnuts and coffee. *gives Bouitazia pamphlets*

mmm, doughnouts. *drool*

Coffee on the other hand, no thanks.

Would you say you have a stronger allegiance to your nation/country or to your God/religion? Why?
I don't understand the implied dichotomy. What situation are you imagining in which this might become an issue?

While I wait for clarification on that, I'll say this: My country gets exactly the same degree of loyalty from me as it gives to me. At the moment, that's close to zero. This has absolutely nothing to do with my religious beliefs.

In reference to the religion, my gods do not ask me to show loyalty to them, so I guess it's moot unless you have a specific scenario in mind.

mmm, doughnouts. *drool*

Coffee on the other hand, no thanks.
Blasphemy! What are you, some kind of protestant or something? :tongue:

My allegiance lies only to Tim Hortons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Hortons). *nods*

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y43/christianchr/Emoticons_2/worthy.gif http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/57/Tim_Hortons_logo.svg/250px-Tim_Hortons_logo.svg.png

They also make some pretty good tea.

True, but "God" implies only christians.

I voted anyways though.

No it doesn't.

God first.

God created me. My country did not.

God will be there when I die. My country will not.

God is forever. My country is not.

God loves me. My country couldn't care less.

God only takes 10% of my income.

i don't trust much to God,i trust science.

Eris would be pretty pissed if I actually had any allegiance to her, but on the other hand I don't have any loyalty towards my country either. On the third, claw-like appendage sticking out of my chest, I like donuts, so I'm voting for those.

I voted country, simply because my god is so amazing and complex that she doesn't require allegiance. Meanwhile, my country requires constant surveillance by its citizenry, holding its leaders accountable. So, I spend more time on it.

But it is a false dichotomy for many people. Becuse of my mysticism, I doubt highly that my beliefs will ever even register on the political radar.

I am unfailingly loyal to the Flying Spaghetti Monster. And sometimes Eris.

God first.

God created me. My country did not.

God will be there when I die. My country will not.

God is forever. My country is not.

God loves me. My country couldn't care less.

God only takes 10% of my income.

Are you planning to die by home-made nuclear explosion?

You really need to elaborate for me to answer this one properly... Do you mean which one I identify myself by first? Which one I would fight for first? Which one I would fight for if there was a direct conflict between the two? Which ones doctrine I follow primarily? Elaborate, and I'll try to explain.

mainly these two.

I don't know. I can't remember God explicitly asking me to do anything, so how would I be showing my allegiance? Other than following a sort of moral code thing which I would do regardless. My country always wants money from me so I'm not really sure about it either... I think my allegiance is to myself.

Are you planning to die by home-made nuclear explosion?

Nope. But wherever I go when I die, betcha my country won't be there waiting for me.

Originally Posted by Abdju
You really need to elaborate for me to answer this one properly... Do you mean which one I identify myself by first? Which one I would fight for first? Which one I would fight for if there was a direct conflict between the two? Which ones doctrine I follow primarily? Elaborate, and I'll try to explain.
mainly these two.
Thanks.

1) To the first question, the answer is "both and neither." How I identify myself depends entirely on the question asked. If I am asked what nationality I am, I say "American." If I'm asked where I'm from, I say "New York City, originally." If I'm asked what my religion is, I say "animist." If I'm asked what I believe, I say "lots of things." If I'm asked what I am, I say something like "What the fuck is that supposed to mean? You better be blind, you <select expletive>, because you're not funny." :D

2) To the second question, I would fight for neither a country nor a religion. I would only fight for liberty and human life and only defensively. Now if my country were to ban my religion and try to force me to convert to a different one, I would not do that, but I am extremely unlikely to fight over it unless I am under immediate and direct physical attack. I would much more likely either leave the country or rot in jail as a prisoner of conscience. And my religion would never ask me to fight anything or anyone. (A) If it did, it would not be my religion, and (B) it is not an organized entity that can ask anyone to do anything (which is one of the reasons it is my religion).

I'm not religious at all, and with all due respect to those who are, I have more fealty to my province and then my country.

I'm not religious at all, and with all due respect to those who are, I have more fealty to my province and then my country.

Culturally, that's how it was in the United States prior to the American Civil War... where people identified with their home state above their identity as a U.S. citizen. So if I lived 150 years ago and traveled to Spain, and you asked me where I was from, I'd have said "I'm a Marylander" as opposed to "I'm an American."

God, only God. I care about my country and what happens in it, I'm not patriotic though, and i really don't give a monkeys about religion, my own included.

this is a great frickin answer.

i like you. :D

Culturally, that's how it was in the United States prior to the American Civil War... where people identified with their home state above their identity as a U.S. citizen. So if I lived 10 years ago and traveled to Spain, and you asked me where I was from, I'd have said "I'm a Marylander" as opposed to "I'm an American."

Indeed. Nationalism is very strong in Spain. Besides, people over here never identify with their religious beliefs, unless, of course, you're a devout Catholic or Protestant, or Muslim and Jewish. In that case, some people do tell you their religious belief before their nationality.

Nope. But wherever I go when I die, betcha my country won't be there waiting for me.

Well, that depends on whether you get to heaven (run by God) or hell (run by Bush) :p

Culturally, that's how it was in the United States prior to the American Civil War... where people identified with their home state above their identity as a U.S. citizen. So if I lived 10 years ago and traveled to Spain, and you asked me where I was from, I'd have said "I'm a Marylander" as opposed to "I'm an American."
I had no idea you were less than 10 years old. Maybe you missed a zero there? And a plus sign, as in "100+ years".

And I think it's still a bit that way. Not so much the states anymore as regions. New Englanders, Southerners, Midwesterners, and Westerners (west of the Rockies) don't really seem to think of themselves as all living in the same nation -- or at least not as sharing the same culture.

Indeed. Nationalism is very strong in Spain. Besides, people over here never identify with their religious beliefs, unless, of course, you're a devout Catholic or Protestant, or Muslim and Jewish. In that case, some people do tell you their religious belief before their nationality.
How does that happen? Do they just announce it upon meeting someone? Because otherwise, wouldn't they be responding a question that might not be answerable by that? Like, if someone said, "Where are you from?", would they say "Catholic"?

I can see if they were filling out a list of things to describe themselves as, and they listed their religion before their nationality, but does that happen often in Spain -- I mean, people filling out such lists?

Culturally, that's how it was in the United States prior to the American Civil War... where people identified with their home state above their identity as a U.S. citizen. So if I lived 10 years ago and traveled to Spain, and you asked me where I was from, I'd have said "I'm a Marylander" as opposed to "I'm an American."

I identify more with my state than with the US as a whole, and I introduce myself as a Michigander rather than an American (although this depends on who I'm talking to and if they're likely to have any idea what I'm talking about) but I recognize that I'm a rather odd duck that way.

How does that happen? Do they just announce it upon meeting someone? Because otherwise, wouldn't they be responding a question that might not be answerable by that? Like, if someone said, "Where are you from?", would they say "Catholic"?

I can see if they were filling out a list of things to describe themselves as, and they listed their religion before their nationality, but does that happen often in Spain -- I mean, people filling out such lists?

I forgot to mention that this is done mostly by people who lived before and during the first few years of Spanish Civil War. My grandparents usually present themselves as Roman Catholics and Spanish. It's very weird to hear this. Usually, when someone asks you where are you from, they're not expecting to hear "I'm *certain religious denomination* and *nationality*". But it happens with the older sector of the population here in Spain. Sometimes I wonder if it's on impulse, as a defiance from the repression many suffered while Franco was in power. It's odd. nevertheless, because if anything, that should've strenghtened their nationalistic pride. But such is the ways of the Old People. :D

Nope. But wherever I go when I die, betcha my country won't be there waiting for me.

I wouldn't be so sure about that, I hear heaven is like Vegas, but run by devout christians.

You really need to elaborate for me to answer this one properly... Do you mean which one I identify myself by first? Which one I would fight for first? Which one I would fight for if there was a direct conflict between the two? Which ones doctrine I follow primarily? Elaborate, and I'll try to explain.

mainly these two.

Question 1:
I tend to regard myself as British first, as in most day to day interactions this is more relevant. Religion in the company I keep really isn't a big factor in determining how people interact, whereas nationality tends to have more influence.

Question 2:
This is a really thorny issue. I really don't see how the two would ever come into direct conflict in the first place, and in what context. I'd only do something defensive when all other channels were completely exhausted. But yes, if the totally bizarre and other worldly happened, and all recourse to common sense and peaceful agreement had utterly failed, I'd fight to defend the gods.

I had no idea you were less than 10 years old. Maybe you missed a zero there? And a plus sign, as in "100+ years".

And I think it's still a bit that way. Not so much the states anymore as regions. New Englanders, Southerners, Midwesterners, and Westerners (west of the Rockies) don't really seem to think of themselves as all living in the same nation -- or at least not as sharing the same culture.

Aw I meant to put '150.' sue me. :p

(I went back and edited it.)

I agree about the regions, but if you were to travel abroad would you refer to yourself as a New Englander or as an American?

Equally non-existent.

not true; on two points:

1) even if a country were only an idea, it would still exist. ideas do exist, just not in a materially substantial way. mcdonalds and france both exist just as surely as the apple and the human body---there are just not as substantiated, materially. you can only believe otherwise if you want to turn scientific materialism into a pseudo-religious belief-system.

in any case, a country is not only an idea, since it is substantiated by terrain and geography, and a nation-state is not only an idea since it is substantiated by bureacracy and military and government-owned property.

however, i will concede that all of the above objects---however materially substantiated they be---are only conditionally existing.

2) it also depends on how you define "God". if you define "God" as Reality, Itself, and Truth, Itself, then you will always find that Real God is self-existing, and always already the case. however, if you define "God" as anything other than that, you will always find that "God" is only an object---whether materially substantiated or "only an idea" (such as the myths of the creator-god and the flying spaghetti monster)---and, therefore, neither self-existing nor always already the case---and, therefore, NOT TRULY divine.

REAL God is the ONLY "thing" that is existing UN-conditionally.

Culturally, that's how it was in the United States prior to the American Civil War... where people identified with their home state above their identity as a U.S. citizen. So if I lived 150 years ago and traveled to Spain, and you asked me where I was from, I'd have said "I'm a Marylander" as opposed to "I'm an American."

i'd appreciate an online source for this one, since i don't think that it's really true.

i think that it was certainly true before the american revolution, and equally true during the period of the articles of the confederation.

however, after the constitution was adopted, i believe that people steadily grew to identify more with the national identity as primary, and more and more would have identified themselves that way while traveling abroad. by the time of the civil war, i think that the highest percentage of americans would have identified themselves as such, first. secondarily, regionally, and only third with their state.

although i grant you that the percentages for the last two would have been much higher in the south.

i'd appreciate an online source for this one, since i don't think that it's really true.

i think that it was certainly true before the american revolution, and equally true during the period of the articles of the confederation.

however, after the constitution was adopted, i believe that people steadily grew to identify more with the national identity as primary, and more and more would have identified themselves that way while traveling abroad. by the time of the civil war, i think that the highest percentage of americans would have identified themselves as such, first. secondarily, regionally, and only third with their state.

although i grant you that the percentages for the last two would have been much higher in the south.

I'll grant you the phenomenon was more prevalent in the South than in the North, but I'm not going to source it since my source was the bunch of texts I used in College during my study of American History.

Remember that the American Civil War was an issue as much about States' rights as slavery (if not moreso.) Today, it seems unthinkable that any state in our nation would try to leave the Union but back in 1861 it was reality. This doesn't just happen without popular sentiment behind it.

This was the reason that Robert E. Lee refused command of the Union Army when it was offered to him. While he believed secession was a mistake, his first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, not the United States, and so he resigned from the U.S. Army.

I identify more with my state than with the US as a whole, and I introduce myself as a Michigander rather than an American (although this depends on who I'm talking to and if they're likely to have any idea what I'm talking about) but I recognize that I'm a rather odd duck that way.
I do that, too, but then the people who ask me where I'm from are typically Americans, too, so I don't feel the need to tell them I'm from the US. I just say where in the US I'm from. In fact, guessing from my accent, they usually ask, "What part of New York are you from?" When I was in Prague and Naples, people asked me where I was from, and I said, "the US." And then I apologized.

I forgot to mention that this is done mostly by people who lived before and during the first few years of Spanish Civil War. My grandparents usually present themselves as Roman Catholics and Spanish. It's very weird to hear this. Usually, when someone asks you where are you from, they're not expecting to hear "I'm *certain religious denomination* and *nationality*". But it happens with the older sector of the population here in Spain. Sometimes I wonder if it's on impulse, as a defiance from the repression many suffered while Franco was in power. It's odd. nevertheless, because if anything, that should've strenghtened their nationalistic pride. But such is the ways of the Old People. :D
I did not know that. Wow. Thanks for new info. :)

Aw I meant to put '150.' sue me. :p

(I went back and edited it.)

I agree about the regions, but if you were to travel abroad would you refer to yourself as a New Englander or as an American?
As I said in another post, when I was abroad I told people who asked that I was from the US. However, being the weirdo stickler that I am, I usually followed that up with "from New York City."

Actually, now that I've thought about it a while, I realize my typical knee-jerk self-identification is as a New Yorker first, before anything else. And I mean the city, not the state. To me, that place defines me culturally more than anything else. I probably even have the religion I do because I'm from NYC.

As I said in another post, when I was abroad I told people who asked that I was from the US. However, being the weirdo stickler that I am, I usually followed that up with "from New York City."

Actually, now that I've thought about it a while, I realize my typical knee-jerk self-identification is as a New Yorker first, before anything else. And I mean the city, not the state. To me, that place defines me culturally more than anything else. I probably even have the religion I do because I'm from NYC.

I think that makes sense though. While I can't assume most people in the world would necessarily know what Maryland is even if I did identify myself with it, I'd bet just about anybody who has watched the news in the last 8 years or who has been to more than 2 or 3 American made movies knows exactly what New York City is.

In fact, the identity of New York is so prevalent in some cases people think 'New York' is synonymous with 'United States.' I have a cousin from Ecuador and when I was 15 on a visit there we were discussing some international issue or another, and she commented about my life in 'New York.' I corrected her by saying 'United States' and she said something to the effect of 'same difference.' This, apparently, was not unusual.

On the third, claw-like appendage sticking out of my chest

Are you a vortigaunt?

I think that makes sense though. While I can't assume most people in the world would necessarily know what Maryland is even if I did identify myself with it, I'd bet just about anybody who has watched the news in the last 8 years or who has been to more than 2 or 3 American made movies knows exactly what New York City is.

In fact, the identity of New York is so prevalent in some cases people think 'New York' is synonymous with 'United States.' I have a cousin from Ecuador and when I was 15 on a visit there we were discussing some international issue or another, and she commented about my life in 'New York.' I corrected her by saying 'United States' and she said something to the effect of 'same difference.' This, apparently, was not unusual.
Well, of course. :cool: ;)

Stronger loyalty towards God. Partially because I'm not all that loyal to my country, but mostly because God's the one who won't let me travel back and forth between heaven and hell, and I don't like the heat.:D

In fact, the identity of New York is so prevalent in some cases people think 'New York' is synonymous with 'United States.' I have a cousin from Ecuador and when I was 15 on a visit there we were discussing some international issue or another, and she commented about my life in 'New York.' I corrected her by saying 'United States' and she said something to the effect of 'same difference.' This, apparently, was not unusual.

It's a mistake New Yorkers themselves often make. ;)

It's a mistake New Yorkers themselves often make. ;)
Oh, it's no mistake. No offense, but nobody's traveling the world to get to Maryland or places like that to make it big in whatever it is they want to do. ;) Hate to break it ya's, fellow Americans, but once you leave New York, you're just out of town. :tongue:

I'm TOTALLY more loyal to God...

I'm a Christian but my loyalty to the United States is quite fickle, actually... I'm starting to consider becoming an ex-patriot and moving to Israel (after I get my Ph.D, of course). As a blood Jew, I think it's perfectly within the realm of possiblity for me.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=UUnH9NECSUU

G-d. No question. If my country asks me to violate my religion, or if G-d asks me (hypothetically) to work against my country, I will side with G-d. Because He has Himself on His side.

Also, I identify as Jewish first, American second.

If my country is doing the right thing, I should be able to serve both at the same time. If it's not, then I would of course prefer remaining moral.

-snip-

What I meant was that my allegiance towards either is non-existent.

And the only thing that you can be absolutely sure exists is yourself.

I do that, too, but then the people who ask me where I'm from are typically Americans, too, so I don't feel the need to tell them I'm from the US. I just say where in the US I'm from. In fact, guessing from my accent, they usually ask, "What part of New York are you from?" When I was in Prague and Naples, people asked me where I was from, and I said, "the US." And then I apologized.

When I'm away from home I'm almost always overseas (in the last 8 years I've spent 4.5 of them overseas and only 6 months in a US state that wasn't Michigan) and my accent is sufficiently Canadian that there is a level of uncertainty as to where I'm from.

When I'm away from home I'm almost always overseas (in the last 8 years I've spent 4.5 of them overseas and only 6 months in a US state that wasn't Michigan) and my accent is sufficiently Canadian that there is a level of uncertainty as to where I'm from.
Wow, you must be in the CIA or something. When I''m away from home, I'm almost always just down the block. ;)

Wow, you must be in the CIA or something. When I''m away from home, I'm almost always just down the block. ;)

By "home" I meant the town in which I normally live :p

Unfortunately, a lot of that travel has been at the behest of Uncle Sam, but for far more mundane reasons than that (for example, I currently reside in a tent in the northern Kuwaiti desert, doing Uncle Sam's bidding). A not insignificant portion of that travel has been due to the fact that I'm a French major at university.

I did not know that. Wow. Thanks for new info. :)

You´re welcome.

G-d. No question. If my country asks me to violate my religion, or if G-d asks me (hypothetically) to work against my country, I will side with G-d. Because He has Himself on His side.

Also, I identify as Jewish first, American second.

I agree with you 100%. But I want everyone to know that us Jews love America very much and are as patriotic as anyone else. It is just that religious conscience must come first. I think that this is true for all faiths and is as it should be.

I agree with you 100%. But I want everyone to know that us Jews love America very much and are as patriotic as anyone else. It is just that religious conscience must come first. I think that this is true for all faiths and is as it should be.

Why? Why should religious conscience come first? What if it was your religion that was making unreasonable demands on human freedom rather than your country? In such a scenario, it would be better to side with your nation, as they are the ones protecting individual liberties.

Why? Why should religious conscience come first? What if it was your religion that was making unreasonable demands on human freedom rather than your country? In such a scenario, it would be better to side with your nation, as they are the ones protecting individual liberties.

No. Duty to the Lord first. Fortunately, there is little conflict between my faith and human liberties. Otherwise it is sinful and idolatrous to set up a human creation and worship it before God.

No. Duty to the Lord first. Fortunately, there is little conflict between my faith and human liberties. Otherwise it is sinful and idolatrous to set up a human creation and worship it before God.

I didn't mention worshipping your nation.

So, if your religion told you to kill Jews, but your nation told you to respect human rights, would you still hold more allegiance to your religion than your nation?

I have no allegiance to God or religion. I have a certain loyalty to my country, not as it is, but as I hope it will be someday, if enough good people get off their duffs, stop complaining and start acting (This, of course, includes me).

I didn't mention worshipping your nation.

So, if your religion told you to kill Jews, but your nation told you to respect human rights, would you still hold more allegiance to your religion than your nation?

Abraham was asked by the Lord to kill his only son.

Abraham was asked by the Lord to kill his only son.

So you would kill Jews if your religion told you to but your nation didn't.

I have trouble understanding that position, despite the wealth of historical precedent.

So you would kill Jews if your religion told you to but your nation didn't.

I have trouble understanding that position, despite the wealth of historical precedent.

If God told you to do something, who are you to deny him no matter how crazy it sounds? Have you set yourself up that high? You have no humility at all and your pride is idolatry pure and simple. It is shameful.

That being said, I am not talking about literary analysis here I am talking about burning bush direct communications from the man upstairs.

If God told you to do something, who are you to deny him no matter how crazy it sounds? Have you set yourself up that high? You have no humility at all and your pride is idolatry pure and simple. It is shameful.

That being said, I am not talking about literary analysis here I am talking about burning bush direct communications from the man upstairs.

This mentality will kill us all.

Lots of people attribute their ideas to God. And they all think its the OTHER guy who isn't REALLY getting messages from God. But of course, their God is the real God, they REALLY saw the burning bush.

If your God would want you to think as you have voiced above, even if he/she was standing right in front of you, then your God is the one with a problem with pride, a self-idolator, and if he wants children that would obey "no matter how crazy it sounds", well, I guess after the hangings at Nuremburg, he has good good company.

If God told you to do something, who are you to deny him no matter how crazy it sounds? Have you set yourself up that high? You have no humility at all and your pride is idolatry pure and simple. It is shameful.

That being said, I am not talking about literary analysis here I am talking about burning bush direct communications from the man upstairs.

And just how could you be certain that it was God speaking? Schizophrenics hear voices. People taking certain drugs hear voices. Hell, if I'm tired enough I hear voices and see things. If I heard "God" speaking to me, I'd see the nearest shrink and get meds.

And just how could you be certain that it was God speaking?


He/she would announce that it was now god speaking. Isn't that what happens? :p

He/she would announce that it was now god speaking. Isn't that what happens? :p

Nuh uh. Alan Rickman speaks for God.

And Christopher Walken makes love for Him.

If God told you to do something, who are you to deny him no matter how crazy it sounds? Have you set yourself up that high? You have no humility at all and your pride is idolatry pure and simple. It is shameful.

That being said, I am not talking about literary analysis here I am talking about burning bush direct communications from the man upstairs.
A god who tells you to commit an evil act is an evil god. I do not follow evil gods. If a god appeared directly before me and told me to do something that I felt in my heart was morally wrong, I would not obey. If said god threatned to send me to some kind of hell for disobeying, I would have to say, "you do what you have to do; I'll do what I have to do. But I will not kill those people."

It is my personal opinion that people who say they would do otherwise are either crazy or dishonest. That's just my opinion.

Nuh uh. Alan Rickman speaks for God.

And Christopher Walken makes love for Him.
Wait...If Alan Rickman calls and tells me to kill someone, but Chris Walken calls and says he wants to stop by for a booty call, who do I deal with first?

He/she would announce that it was now god speaking. Isn't that what happens? :p

"Rod, Tod, this is God..." :tongue:

If God told you to do something, who are you to deny him no matter how crazy it sounds? Have you set yourself up that high? You have no humility at all and your pride is idolatry pure and simple. It is shameful.

That being said, I am not talking about literary analysis here I am talking about burning bush direct communications from the man upstairs.

I have had personal revelations, so this isn't some weird thought experiment for me. I had to sit down and actually figure out whether or not it actually was a revelation, or if I was losing my sanity, or if some other thing was happening. I still question it.

I do not consider asking questions like 'am I going crazy?' to be overweening pride and utter lack of humility.

And just how could you be certain that it was God speaking? Schizophrenics hear voices. People taking certain drugs hear voices. Hell, if I'm tired enough I hear voices and see things. If I heard "God" speaking to me, I'd see the nearest shrink and get meds.

So would I. I am not sure how God can communicate with people today now that we have a great understanding of mental illness.

So would I. I am not sure how God can communicate with people today now that we have a great understanding of mental illness.

God iz in ur fone, sendin u txts :wink:

He/she would announce that it was now god speaking. Isn't that what happens? :p

"Rod, Tod, this is God..." :tongue:
"Kent, this is Jesus, Kent. You've been a very naughty boy...I want you to think about what you've done. And Kent, stop playing with yourself!"

http://eddieonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/08/girls-got-to-have-her-standards.html

God iz in ur fone, sendin u txts :wink:

...and in your emails. Seems he wants you to buy some fake viagra, must be one of the newer commandments.

2) it also depends on how you define "God". if you define "God" as Reality, Itself, and Truth, Itself, then you will always find that Real God is self-existing, and always already the case. however, if you define "God" as anything other than that, you will always find that "God" is only an object---whether materially substantiated or "only an idea" (such as the myths of the creator-god and the flying spaghetti monster)---and, therefore, neither self-existing nor always already the case---and, therefore, NOT TRULY divine.

REAL God is the ONLY "thing" that is existing UN-conditionally.
If God is reality then God still might not exist.
Nuh uh. Alan Rickman speaks for God.

And Christopher Walken makes love for Him.

http://videowatch.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/metatron.jpeg
BEHOLD THE METATRON, HERALD OF THE ALMIGHTY, AND VOICE OF THE ONE TRUE GOD!

Everytime I read this thread, the lolz take a hold of me. You're all awesome!:hail::D

"Kent, this is Jesus, Kent. You've been a very naughty boy...I want you to think about what you've done. And Kent, stop playing with yourself!"

http://eddieonfilm.blogspot.com/2006/08/girls-got-to-have-her-standards.html

damn you, I was gonna quote Real Genius!

So would I. I am not sure how God can communicate with people today now that we have a great understanding of mental illness.

Universal revelation: if one person hears voices then the odds are that they're mentally ill, but if everyone on the planet heard the same thing and could independently corroborate one another then the burden of proof would switch the other way.

Alternatively, take the Carl Sagan approach: he was constantly bombarded with letters and emails from cranks who claimed to be in contact with aliens and offered to prove it by getting answers to any questions he had. He found that if he asked the human intermediaries like "should we be good?" he'd invariably get a response in the affirmative, but if he asked a question relating to advanced mathematics or physics no reply would ever come.

We could take the same approach to divine revelation: if you think you're talking to God then ask Her whether the Riemann Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis) is true or false, and how this can be proved. Show this proof to a mathematician and if they laugh at you then you're probably mad, if they murder you and steal your proof then you probably were talking to God.

damn you, I was gonna quote Real Genius!
Heh-heh. Score. :cool:

If God is reality then God still might not exist.

i disagree with you on that one.

i think that Reality/Truth/Real God is the only Condition (or "thing") that is intrinsically and self-evidently self-existing---unconditionally, always already the case.

and i just can't swallow some piping hot load of bull that such is a blind belief on my part---since it honestly seems to me to be self-evident.

caveat: this is only true of "Real God" as defined herein---i am not talking about some "divine" object or some "divine" idea---including the creator-god-myth.

if i were trying to say that what is self-evidently self-existing (and always already the case) was not only identical to Reality and Truth, but to a creator-god, i would be full of shit (imo).

What I meant was that my allegiance towards either is non-existent.

And the only thing that you can be absolutely sure exists is yourself.

this is true, in a sense, but raises interesting questions about the nature of self.

what is the connection between your "True Self" and Reality, Truth, and Real God (or that which is always already self-evidently self-existing)?

"point of view" exists conditionally.

but, if there is a Dimension of Consciousness that exists prior to point-of-view---and i contend that there is---then it is identical to Truth and Reality and Real God.

and it is possible to Realize Reality, Truth, and Real God by transcending "point of view".

Universal revelation: if one person hears voices then the odds are that they're mentally ill, but if everyone on the planet heard the same thing and could independently corroborate one another then the burden of proof would switch the other way.

Alternatively, take the Carl Sagan approach: he was constantly bombarded with letters and emails from cranks who claimed to be in contact with aliens and offered to prove it by getting answers to any questions he had. He found that if he asked the human intermediaries like "should we be good?" he'd invariably get a response in the affirmative, but if he asked a question relating to advanced mathematics or physics no reply would ever come.

We could take the same approach to divine revelation: if you think you're talking to God then ask Her whether the Riemann Hypothesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_hypothesis) is true or false, and how this can be proved. Show this proof to a mathematician and if they laugh at you then you're probably mad, if they murder you and steal your proof then you probably were talking to God.

Excellent idea. I looked at your linked description of the Riemann Hypothesis and I could not understand anything about it.

This assumes that any interaction with god would be done on a verbal basis.

Why would anyone assume that?

Remember that the American Civil War was an issue as much about States' rights as slavery (if not moreso.)

yes, i was.

Today, it seems unthinkable that any state in our nation would try to leave the Union but back in 1861 it was reality. This doesn't just happen without popular sentiment behind it.

yes, i understand that; in fact, i am among those who deeply regret the erosion of the tenth-amendment states-rights. i'd like to go back to that more.

even so---and while conceding, as i already have, that state-identification was more pronounced in the south---i believe that the principal reason that it was the southern states that clung to this identity more than the northern ones is that slavery, itself, was a states' rights issue at that time---i.e., every state could decide for itself. in effect, the constitutional and legal defense of slavery depended on fierce and vigilant support of state sovereignty---and, therefore, identity. i posit that the people of a state tended to identify more with that state---and its government tended to more fiercely protect and project its identity as a sovereign unit---to whatever degree that the state's economy was dependent upon slavery.

This was the reason that Robert E. Lee refused command of the Union Army when it was offered to him. While he believed secession was a mistake, his first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, not the United States, and so he resigned from the U.S. Army.

lee was a man of principle---AND a slave-holder. that one is a no-brainer. see above.


in any case, i stand by my assertion that most virginians---during the twenty years leading up to the civil war, for instance---would have identified themselves first as americans, while travelling abroad---which i think was the original point of contention.

This assumes that any interaction with god would be done on a verbal basis.

Why would anyone assume that?

It doesn't: all it assumes is that the putative God can in some way understand a human question (in this case, "is the Riemann hypothesis correct and why?") and is capable of giving an answer in some way. It doesn't have to be verbal (and I doubt most people would be able to follow a verbal summation anyway :p), but if God is omnipotent, or even just quite powerful, then I don't see why manipulating a pen would be beyond Her (or creating a piece of paper with the proof on out of thin air). If I simultaneously had what I perceived to be a possible non-verbal revelation from God and found a proof of the Riemann hypothesis lying on my previously empty desk then I'd be inclined to connect the two.

It doesn't: all it assumes is that the putative God can in some way understand a human question (in this case, "is the Riemann hypothesis correct and why?") and is capable of giving an answer in some way. It doesn't have to be verbal (and I doubt most people would be able to follow a verbal summation anyway :p), but if God is omnipotent, or even just quite powerful, then I don't see why manipulating a pen would be beyond Her (or creating a piece of paper with the proof on out of thin air). If I simultaneously had what I perceived to be a possible non-verbal revelation from God and found a proof of the Riemann hypothesis lying on my previously empty desk then I'd be inclined to connect the two.

Still, it assumes that god communicates with people in such a way that you could ask the question, and receive an answer. If god communicates through direct manipulation of your neurological make-up, or through some other secondary cause, there is no assurance that it would be possible to communicate such a desire to god.

I wasn't assuming an omnipotent god either, and even if I did, I would not assume an omnipotent god that would use such an abstract and complicated method to prove themselves to you. Why wouldn't such a god just put all the evidence you need right in your head, if He so desperately needed you to believe?

It doesn't: all it assumes is that the putative God can in some way understand a human question (in this case, "is the Riemann hypothesis correct and why?") and is capable of giving an answer in some way. It doesn't have to be verbal (and I doubt most people would be able to follow a verbal summation anyway :p), but if God is omnipotent, or even just quite powerful, then I don't see why manipulating a pen would be beyond Her (or creating a piece of paper with the proof on out of thin air). If I simultaneously had what I perceived to be a possible non-verbal revelation from God and found a proof of the Riemann hypothesis lying on my previously empty desk then I'd be inclined to connect the two.

It assumes God would even care to answer. How do you know that what's really important or even moderately important to you would even be a blip on God's radar?

i think that Reality/Truth/Real God is the only Condition (or "thing") that is intrinsically and self-evidently self-existing---unconditionally, always already the case.
There may not be any thing that "intrinsically" exists, or is "self-evident", or "self-exists".

So would I. I am not sure how God can communicate with people today now that we have a great understanding of mental illness.

If God told you to do something, who are you to deny him no matter how crazy it sounds? Have you set yourself up that high? You have no humility at all and your pride is idolatry pure and simple. It is shameful.

Still, it assumes that god communicates with people in such a way that you could ask the question, and receive an answer.

Yes, I did say that.

If god communicates through direct manipulation of your neurological make-up, or through some other secondary cause, there is no assurance that it would be possible to communicate such a desire to god.

If She was screwing with your brain then I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect Her to be able to read your mind, no?

I wasn't assuming an omnipotent god either, and even if I did, I would not assume an omnipotent god that would use such an abstract and complicated method to prove themselves to you. Why wouldn't such a god just put all the evidence you need right in your head, if He so desperately needed you to believe?

Search me, that's an inconsistency for the believers to worry about. I'm just discussing what would make a claim to divine revelation more credible than a diagnosis of mental health problems.

Yes, I did say that.

If She was screwing with your brain then I don't think it'd be unreasonable to expect Her to be able to read your mind, no?

Search me, that's an inconsistency for the believers to worry about. I'm just discussing what would make a claim to divine revelation more credible than a diagnosis of mental health problems.

You're right, it would make it more credible if all four or five of your assumptions about god and revelations are correct.

If they're not, it's just irrelevant.

In my experience, your assumptions are not correct.

There may not be any thing that "intrinsically" exists, or is "self-evident", or "self-exists".

i disagree.

i think that it is impossible for there to not be any such condition. (although i hesitate to call that condition a "thing".)


it's actually just axiomatic, so let's put it another way:

existence exists.

every philosopher would agree that this statement is fundamentally true.


existence, itself, is self-existing, and self-evidently so.
existence, itself, is always already the case.

Reality, Truth, and Real God are only Existence, Itself---the Prior Mystery in which both you and i live, and experience, and conjecture.


i would agree, however, that there is no OBJECT that intrinsically or self-evidently self-exists. every object is only conditionally arising.

but: the Prior Condition of all conditions is NOT an object. it is, Itself, UN-conditional and UN-objectified. and, that Unconditional Condition of all conditions is simply Existence, Itself---or Truth, Reality, or Real God.

It assumes God would even care to answer. How do you know that what's really important or even moderately important to you would even be a blip on God's radar?

Firstly, I'm only really talking about what would make me believe someone's claim to divine revelation: instead of coming out with the generic:

Person 1: "OMG! I just had a vision from God!"
Person 2: "Really? What did He say?"
Person 1: "He said 'Be nice and shit, lol', then he went away."
Person 2: "Right..."

I'd be convinced if I heard:

Person 1: "OMG! I just had a vision from God!"
Person 2: "Really? What did He say?"
Person 1: "He said 'Be nice and shit, lol', then he proved the Riemann Hypothesis and went away, look."
Person 2: *reads proof, stabs Person 1 in face, steals proof and becomes famous*

Secondly, if God cares about whether someone believes in Her then I don't see why She wouldn't provide that sort of evidence, even if the evidence itself was of no interest to Her. If She didn't care whether anyone believed in Her then I wouldn't expect Her to leave sufficient evidence to convince anyone that the messanger is anything but mad, so my epistemic point would still stand.

You're right, it would make it more credible if all four or five of your assumptions about god and revelations are correct.

If they're not, it's just irrelevant.

In my experience, your assumptions are not correct.

Would you mind clarifying what you think my assumptions are and which ones you disagree with?

Firstly, I'm only really talking about what would make me believe someone's claim to divine revelation:...

Then you're asking for evidence that someone other than you had a visit from god, and you are assuming that god would care about you that much so as to provide such evidence to that other person. Such evidence is only useful to convinve others of the veracity of your personal experience.

Secondly, if God cares about whether someone believes in Her then I don't see why She wouldn't provide that sort of evidence, even if the evidence itself was of no interest to Her. If She didn't care whether anyone believed in Her then I wouldn't expect Her to leave sufficient evidence to convince anyone that the messanger is anything but mad, so my epistemic point would still stand.

A person who had such a visitation would not need something so obscure to convince themselves. When you talk to other people, do you also ask them to provide you with some sort of physical evidence that proves you are not hallucinating? Why is your standard of proof higher for god?

Would you mind clarifying what you think my assumptions are and which ones you disagree with?

That god would communicate to you in such a way that one could possibly discuss advanced mathematics.

That god is omnipotent.

That god cares if you believe.

That an omnipotent god who cares what you believe would use your criteria for evidence rather than his own.

I disagree with all of them.

I'll grant you the phenomenon was more prevalent in the South than in the North, but I'm not going to source it since my source was the bunch of texts I used in College during my study of American History.

Remember that the American Civil War was an issue as much about States' rights as slavery (if not moreso.) Today, it seems unthinkable that any state in our nation would try to leave the Union but back in 1861 it was reality. This doesn't just happen without popular sentiment behind it.

This was the reason that Robert E. Lee refused command of the Union Army when it was offered to him. While he believed secession was a mistake, his first loyalty was to his home state of Virginia, not the United States, and so he resigned from the U.S. Army.

OK, this is off-topic so I'm not going to dwell on it, but this view of history is utter bullshit. The Confederacy was about slavery and so was the Civil War. Here (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13314488&postcount=111) is more detail.

Your point about loyalty being to states versus the nation has some validity, although it was a fluid concept with various of our Founders and great men of history taking different views. After the Constitution was ratified, the trend was clearly towards the United States as a nation. Just as there were those in the South who may have justified their positions with reference to loyalty to their "home state," there were clearly a majority of the country that identified with the Union as a whole.

Would you say you have a stronger allegiance to your nation/country or to your God/religion? Why?

My allegience to my God is stronger than my Allegience to my Nation/Country which is still stronger than my Allegience to my Religion.

That god would communicate to you in such a way that one could possibly discuss advanced mathematics.

God isn't capable of manipulating a pen? It's not even as if you need to make the request: an intelligent who wants people to think it exists (see later point) should be able to think of the idea for themself.

That god is omnipotent.

Not sure why you think this to be honest: I've already said that omnipotence isn't necessary and that all that's needed is the power to write something on a piece of paper. I'm not omnipotent and I can do that. :tongue:

That god cares if you believe.

If they don't care if people believe then why bother speaking to people?

That an omnipotent god who cares what you believe would use your criteria for evidence rather than his own.

Erm... isn't that rather the point of trying to convince somebody? You either supply sufficient evidence by their standards, or you persuade them to use different ones. If I cared about convincing someone then I wouldn't waste my time presenting them with evidence that I knew wouldn't convince them if I was able to give them something I knew would convince them.

Then you're asking for evidence that someone other than you had a visit from god, and you are assuming that god would care about you that much so as to provide such evidence to that other person.

They wouldn't need to care about me at all: they'd simply need to care about whoever they're speaking to enough to want to avoid them being deemed mentally ill by reasonable people.

A person who had such a visitation would not need something so obscure to convince themselves. When you talk to other people, do you also ask them to provide you with some sort of physical evidence that proves you are not hallucinating? Why is your standard of proof higher for god?

People exist in the external world, we can reasonably assume that our experiences of the real world are largely accurate. There's no reason to assume that 'experiences' which occur in our heads tell us anything more about the real world than dreams, which only tell us about ourselves.

God isn't capable of manipulating a pen?...If I cared about convincing someone then I wouldn't waste my time presenting them with evidence that I knew wouldn't convince them if I was able to give them something I knew would convince them.

Perhaps I did not make myself clear.

I ask myself why god would bother doing all this. God would only go to this effort to provide someone with a written proof of obscure mathematics if god felt that it was important. Not if you felt it was important.

And perhaps god is not capable of manipualting a pen. If god is limited to working through secondary causes, then that would explain the lack of supernatural miracles.

People exist in the external world, we can reasonably assume that our experiences of the real world are largely accurate. There's no reason to assume that 'experiences' which occur in our heads tell us anything more about the real world than dreams, which only tell us about ourselves.

How do you know that a revelation is only in your head like a dream, instead of external like our concesual reality? For that matter, how do you know this is reality and not a dream? I'm honestly curious about this last question, because we are able to say that this is reality and not a dream, which implies that there is a criteria for determining whether or not our sensory information is a product of our own subconcious.

I am loyal to myself first, my family and friends second, and everything else can go hang.

Secondly, if God cares about whether someone believes in Her then I don't see why She wouldn't provide that sort of evidence, even if the evidence itself was of no interest to Her. If She didn't care whether anyone believed in Her then I wouldn't expect Her to leave sufficient evidence to convince anyone that the messanger is anything but mad, so my epistemic point would still stand.
As another poster has pointed out, this does not necessarily speak to direct personal experience (mysticism, revelation, visions) because in those cases there is not necessarily a "messenger."

However, it is the core problem of evangelism. So once you've had your direct personal experience, then you are stuck being the "messenger" who has no way to convince other people who have not already had similar experiences or thoughts that you are not mad.

This is the bedrock reason why I do not buy into evangelism.