Does Christ speak and how?

[tam]

May you have peace!

A question that continues to be posed to me is with regard to my bearing witness to a living and speaking Christ. How does He speak? What does that mean? How can we test that?

I imagine that one reason the questions are continually posed to me is because I cannot provide the proof that some are asking me to provide. I can only provide evidence in the form of:

a) Personal testimony from having heard Christ
b) The written testimony of or about others who have heard Christ
c) What Christ Himself is written to have said on the matter


If none of the above are acceptable to someone, then I am not sure what more that person and I would have to talk about on this particular matter. We could hopefully discuss respectfully from a point of love, reason, logic. For those who are interested...


Christ said that His sheep would hear His voice.

My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27

"I am the good shepherd, and I know My own and My own know Me, even as the Father knows Me and I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep. "I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; I must bring them also, and they will hear My voice; and they will become one flock with one shepherd.…" John 10:14-16



Written testimony about/from others who heard His voice, confirming the truth of what He said:

The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." Acts 8:29

**
In Damascus, there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, "Ananias!"

"Yes Lord," he answered.

The Lord told him, "Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight." (Acts 9:10,11... and it continues)

**
There is Peter's vision telling him that he should eat foods that he considered unclean, and then after his vision:

While Peter was still thinking about the vision, the Spirit (Christ) said to him, "Simon, three men are looking for you. So get up and go downstairs. Do not hesitate to go with them, for I have sent them." (Acts 10: 9-20)

**
There are of course multiple examples from Paul. The entire book of Revelation is from Christ to John. There is a warning against hardening our hearts if we hear His voice.

As has just been said: "Today, if you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts as you did in the rebellion." Hebrews 3:15

Then of course there are the examples of Abraham, who heard, Noah, who heard, the prophets, who heard, Joseph, who heard, Daniel, who heard, etc, etc. Their faith is based upon the evidence of what they heard.



My own personal testimony


I did not always know that Christ spoke, and I did not always recognize that voice within me as being His. But someone else bore witness to a living speaking Christ, and it bothered me, lol. I had just ended a two year bible study with a certain denomination, and I did not want to get misled by man ever gain. But here was this person claiming that Christ spoke. If I believed this person, that they were from God, then what was wrong with me that I allowed myself to get misled yet again. On the other hand, what was wrong with me if this person did hear Christ, and I rejected them?

But soon into my dilemma (and my asking how I might know, even though I thought I was just asking myself) I heard:

Test WHAT this person is saying. Test the message. Do not pay attention to the person. Test to see if what this person is saying is true, or not. Then you will know who this person is from.


I still did not know this was Christ speaking to me. I just thought, "Oh, of course... that is what I will do."

So that is what I did. Along the way, I saw all these verses and examples and testimony that Christ does indeed speak, that God spoke also, though now speaks through Christ. In dreams, in visions, in direct words, in reminders, in opening eyes and ears to a truth that one might read, see, or hear. Once I realized that Christ is supposed to speak, I asked for ears to hear as well. Even though I did hear Him; I just did not know I heard Him. I needed to learn His voice and recognize Him.

**

I was asked how does He speak

He speaks in words. He speaks in visions (I have never had a vision that I am aware of). He speaks in dreams. He can also bring to mind something learned, read, or experienced in the past to help me see the truth in something He is teaching me. He has opened my eyes to something that is written, if I am reading the bible. He can and has read to me something that He is written to have said, so that I hear it in His voice. That was enlightening.

Sometimes when I am responding to something that someone else has asked, He will give me the words to say, or reveal something to me (as in open my heart and ears to understanding something) that I had not previously understood.


The language that He speaks is truth. He has never spoken anything to me that was not true, and that was not from love. And everything He teaches me deepens my understanding of love: His love and the love of His Father.



(As for testing the inspired expression... anything that is in conflict with what Christ teaches cannot be true. Also Christ (truth) comes from love (God), so nothing that He says will be in conflict with love. Especially since the law that is written upon our hearts in the new covenant is the law of love.)


**

I do not expect anyone to take my word for these things. I do not take the word of others for what they claim came from Christ. I explained above what I did, what I heard from Christ TO do.

If I have shared anything that helps anyone, then great. If not, then no problem. I am not the one people should be listening to if they are following or desiring to follow Christ... I can only point TO that One: Christ Jaheshua, the Holy One of Israel and Holy Spirit, the Chosen One of Jah. Christ, who is Himself, the faithful and true witness of His Father, Jah.



If one wants to know the truth of this matter themselves... then ask Christ. That is how one can confirm for themselves. Ask for ears to hear, and in the meantime DO what He has said to do, so that you prove yourself to Him. He does not have to prove Himself to us.

"If anyone loves me, they will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come and make our home with (in) them."


(Please note that He says that they will obey HIS teaching. Not man's teaching. Not religion or religious leaders, not Paul, not the law, or anyone or anything else over Him. If we love HIM... we will obey HIM. If we love someone or something else more, then we will listen to and obey that one/thing. Including if we love our religion more than Him, although we might not realize it at the time. Including if we think the bible is the Word of God, especially when even that book states that Christ is the Word of God; and Christ himself said, "You diligently search the scriptures because you think that by them you have eternal life. These are the scriptures that testify about ME, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.")



May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, to get a sense of these things, and to hear as the Spirit (Christ) and the bride SAY to you, "Come... take the free gift of the water of life."


Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Clownboat]

I have an inner voice of my own as well, but I am not just assigning my own inner voice as the voice of Christ.

I suggest you remove yourself from this scenario as to not make it personal and review why and how humans evolved to not just assign agency to things, but to overly assign agency.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ble-beings
Why, for example, is belief in invisible, supernatural agents - such as ghosts, angels, dead ancestors, and gods - so widespread?

There is some evidence that a predisposition towards beliefs of this kind may actually be innate - part of our natural, evolutionary heritage. The Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett has suggested.

We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.

This explains why there was a time when thunder, lightning, valcanoes, earthquakes and floods were assigned agents.
Now imagine ancient man wondering about what happens after death. Que religions being invented and agents supplied.
(Again, please consider your religion as immune to all this in hopes you can see this not as personal, but for what it is when we look at all the remaining religions).

[tam]

Peace to you,

I have an inner voice of my own as well, but I am not just assigning my own inner voice as the voice of Christ.

I suggest you remove yourself from this scenario as to not make it personal and review why and how humans evolved to not just assign agency to things, but to overly assign agency.

Okay. May I also make the same suggestion to you?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... ble-beings
Why, for example, is belief in invisible, supernatural agents - such as ghosts, angels, dead ancestors, and gods - so widespread?

There is some evidence that a predisposition towards beliefs of this kind may actually be innate - part of our natural, evolutionary heritage. The Oxford psychologist Justin Barrett has suggested.

We evolved in an environment containing many agents - family members, friends, rivals, predators, prey, and so on. Spotting and understanding other agents helps us survive and reproduce. So we evolved to be sensitive to them - oversensitive in fact. Hear a rustle in the bushes behind you and you instinctively spin round, looking for an agent. Most times, there's no one there - just the wind in the leaves. But, in the environment in which we evolved, on those few occasions when there was an agent present, detecting it might well save your life. Far better to avoid several imaginary predators than be eaten by a real one. Thus evolution will select for an inheritable tendency to not just detect - but over detect - agency. We have evolved to possess (or, perhaps more plausibly, to be) hyper-active agency detectors.

I am wondering how you read that article and come to the conclusion that this is how invisible supernatural agents were invented.

The example depicts someone assigning agency to a rustling in the bushes - that this could be a predator (and the person reacts as if it IS a predator). But the fact of the matter is that it COULD indeed BE a predator. The person is reacting to something that is in fact possible; something that he has in fact experienced (or believes/knows that it is possible to experience based upon evidence, experiences of others, etc.). There COULD indeed be a predator in that bush. Predators exist. The person did not hear a rustling in the bush and then assume some unheard of/unknown explanation.

This explains why there was a time when thunder, lightning, valcanoes, earthquakes and floods were assigned agents.

Not according to the blurb you quoted, it does not. It is a incomplete hypothesis meant to show a possible reason natural phenomenon might have been assigned agents at some point. But in the blurb you quoted, the assigned agency was something that was indeed real and possible. At the very least, the person had to already have a belief in whatever they are assigning agency to. It does not explain how people came to a belief in the spiritual to begin with - except to suggest (unwittingly perhaps) that the spiritual is indeed something real.

Now imagine ancient man wondering about what happens after death. Que religions being invented and agents supplied.

I don't have a problem with a simple explanation, but this seems to be a simplistic explanation.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/simplistic

It also does not follow the blurb you quoted. As stated, the "assigning agency" example in your blurb reveals people assigning agency to something REAL, even if that real thing was not the cause of the 'rustling bush'. They did not assign agency to an invented concept. Predators are real. The human did not believe the bush had come alive and was going to eat them (unless they had experience with flesh-attacking-eating-bushes). The human could also conceive of the fact that the wind caused the rustling or perhaps even a smaller prey animal. But - as the article states - it was probably better for survival to act upon the worst case scenario and run (or be ready to fight), just in case it was a real threat. Something that was certainly possible.

(Again, please consider your religion as immune to all this in hopes you can see this not as personal, but for what it is when we look at all the remaining religions).

I do not need to consider my faith as being immune to anything.

Every single community or tribe that we know of, isolated or otherwise, has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spirituality. Every single one of them.

Some (such as in your article) are seeking different possibilities of how and why this occurred. You can add to that list of possibilities that people have always sought (and continue to seek) out the spiritual because the spiritual exists. That is what is being demonstrated in the blurb you posted. A person might mistake something natural/physical for something spiritual (or vice versa), just as a man could mistake the wind for a predator (or vice versa). But both exist.



Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #372]

Some (such as in your article) are seeking different possibilities of how and why this occurred. You can add to that list of possibilities that people have always sought (and continue to seek) out the spiritual because the spiritual exists. That is what is being demonstrated in the blurb you posted. A person might mistake something natural/physical for something spiritual (or vice versa), just as a man could mistake the wind for a predator (or vice versa). But both exist.

Just to add more this this thought, some assign "spiritual" to things "of the mind" as both are so similar as to be the same thing being spoken of.
Both explain an invisible but nonetheless real thing interacting with other real - but physical things...like the mind interacting with the brain...or with other minds...

[Clownboat]

I suggest you remove yourself from this scenario as to not make it personal and review why and how humans evolved to not just assign agency to things, but to overly assign agency.

Okay. May I also make the same suggestion to you?

Anytime you want to discuss my god or my religion, and would like me to analyze what you say leaving my god and my religion out of it, go right ahead and request this of me as it would be reasonable. Well... except for the part that I don't insert a god or a religion in my life, so it doesn't apply.

I am wondering how you read that article and come to the conclusion that this is how invisible supernatural agents were invented.

It really isn't a hard read Tam. We evolved in an environment where when we heard a rustle in a bush, and assigned an agency to it (it's a predator), the times when it was a predator and we acted accordingly we were more likely to survive the encounter in place of hearing a rustling in the bush and ignoring it. Assigning agency was a trait that helped humans survive.

The example depicts someone assigning agency to a rustling in the bushes - that this could be a predator (and the person reacts as if it IS a predator). But the fact of the matter is that it COULD indeed BE a predator.

Now your getting it! Those times that it was a predator, survival chances increased and such thinking would be beneficial. When it was just the wind, (and early man acted as if it was a predator) no harm came about.

The person is reacting to something that is in fact possible; something that he has in fact experienced (or believes/knows that it is possible to experience based upon evidence, experiences of others, etc.). There COULD indeed be a predator in that bush. Predators exist. The person did not hear a rustling in the bush and then assume some unheard of/unknown explanation.

So when a kid imagines a monster under their bed, you claim it is because monsters are real. Tam, Tam, Tam...

This explains why there was a time when thunder, lightning, valcanoes, earthquakes and floods were assigned agents.

Not according to the blurb you quoted, it does not.

Blurb? Surely you mean the article from Psychology Today?
Ancient man: "What caused that lightning bolt to strike down poor Oomga?" An agent was assigned. Surely you have heard of Thor? Evolving in an environement where assigning agency to the rustle in the bush is the same mechanism for assigning Thor to lightning and Vulcan to volcanoes. Oomga wasn't struck down for no reason afterall and the angry mountain didn't explode for no reason. Humans assign agents. It's what we do and you error by pretending that humans cannot imagine an agent like the monster under your bed.

It is a incomplete hypothesis meant to show a possible reason natural phenomenon might have been assigned agents at some point.

Now your dog in the fight is getting in your way.
What you should have said is that it is a valid hypothesis that explains how humans evolved the mechansim of assigning agency to things. You can surely reject it and I expect that you will because you have a god you want to be real. Not everyone is saddled with your belief though. Please bare that in mind.

But in the blurb you quoted, the assigned agency was something that was indeed real and possible. At the very least, the person had to already have a belief in whatever they are assigning agency to.

You limit assigning agency to just things humans have seen. Do that at your own peril. I acknowledge and will not stick my head in the ground about just how imaginative humans are, to at times, even invent concepts that have never existed.

It does not explain how people came to a belief in the spiritual to begin with

Yes it does! We assign agency to things. A rustle in a bush was assigned to be a predator (not spiritual) just as volcanoes were assigned to the god Vulcan (which is spiritual). Your argument would make Vulcan be real and surely you do not believe such a thing.

It also does not follow the blurb you quoted. As stated, the "assigning agency" example in your blurb reveals people assigning agency to something REAL, even if that real thing was not the cause of the 'rustling bush'.

For one, it is an article in Psychology today, not some blurb. You are also terribly wrong about only assigning agency to something real. Is the boogy man real? The monster under the kids bed? Surely you see your error and have corrected your thinking so that Vulcan, the god of volcanoes doesn't necissarily have to be real for it to have been imagined by humans. Surely the Boogy man or the monster under the bed are also not real.

Is the Chupacabra real, or more likely an agent assigned by mothers to keep their kids out of the woods at night?

They did not assign agency to an invented concept.

You really need to stop, this is embaressing.

Predators are real.

Yup, but not Vulcan, Thor, the Boogy Man or the monster under your bed. These are all fake concepts that humans have used to assign agency.

But - as the article states - it was probably better for survival to act upon the worst case scenario and run (or be ready to fight), just in case it was a real threat. Something that was certainly possible.

Now you are back to getting it again. You just stated the mechanism for why assigning agency to things proliferated in human psychology.

Every single community or tribe that we know of, isolated or otherwise, has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spirituality. Every single one of them.

False, but your point is meaningless either way.
See the Pirahã tribe who live in the Amazon Rainforest if you care to correct your thinking.

[tam]

Peace to you,

I suggest you remove yourself from this scenario as to not make it personal and review why and how humans evolved to not just assign agency to things, but to overly assign agency.

Okay. May I also make the same suggestion to you?

Anytime you want to discuss my god or my religion, and would like me to analyze what you say leaving my god and my religion out of it, go right ahead and request this of me as it would be reasonable. Well... except for the part that I don't insert a god or a religion in my life, so it doesn't apply.

Clownboat, come on. Set aside anything that may cause you to be biased. Obviously this will not be the same thing you think I need to set aside.

I am wondering how you read that article and come to the conclusion that this is how invisible supernatural agents were invented.

It really isn't a hard read Tam. We evolved in an environment where when we heard a rustle in a bush, and assigned an agency to it (it's a predator), the times when it was a predator and we acted accordingly we were more likely to survive the encounter in place of hearing a rustling in the bush and ignoring it. Assigning agency was a trait that helped humans survive.

See below...

The example depicts someone assigning agency to a rustling in the bushes - that this could be a predator (and the person reacts as if it IS a predator). But the fact of the matter is that it COULD indeed BE a predator.

Now your getting it! Those times that it was a predator, survival chances increased and such thinking would be beneficial. When it was just the wind, (and early man acted as if it was a predator) no harm came about.

Keep reading...

The person is reacting to something that is in fact possible; something that he has in fact experienced (or believes/knows that it is possible to experience based upon evidence, experiences of others, etc.). There COULD indeed be a predator in that bush. Predators exist. The person did not hear a rustling in the bush and then assume some unheard of/unknown explanation.

So when a kid imagines a monster under their bed, you claim it is because monsters are real. Tam, Tam, Tam...

Clownboat, Clownboat, Clownboat... please re-read my response. The child imagines a monster because he already believes monsters to be real. He did not imagine a 'whu-mp/abla' because such a thing has never been introduced to him.

But in the example that you are giving from your article, the human imagined that it was something REAL in the bushes, he assigned agency to a predator. Not to an invisible 'whu-mp/abla'.

This explains why there was a time when thunder, lightning, valcanoes, earthquakes and floods were assigned agents.

Not according to the blurb you quoted, it does not.

Blurb? Surely you mean the article from Psychology Today?
Ancient man: "What caused that lightning bolt to strike down poor Oomga?" An agent was assigned. Surely you have heard of Thor? Evolving in an environement where assigning agency to the rustle in the bush is the same mechanism for assigning Thor to lightning and Vulcan to volcanoes. Oomga wasn't struck down for no reason afterall and the angry mountain didn't explode for no reason. Humans assign agents. It's what we do and you error by pretending that humans cannot imagine an agent like the monster under your bed.

Unless ancient man had already been told about 'thor' or something similar, the article does not suggest that ancient man invented 'thor' out of thin or even sizzling air.

The article suggests assigning agency to something one ALREADY knows about (a predator, even the child who thinks there is a monster under his bed learned about monsters from someone else first.)

It is a incomplete hypothesis meant to show a possible reason natural phenomenon might have been assigned agents at some point.

Now your dog in the fight is getting in your way.
What you should have said is that it is a valid hypothesis that explains how humans evolved the mechansim of assigning agency to things. You can surely reject it and I expect that you will because you have a god you want to be real. Not everyone is saddled with your belief though. Please bare that in mind.

No, what I should have said is "it is an incomplete hypothesis meant to show a possible reason natural phenomenon might have been assigned 'invisible supernatural' agents at some point.

Assigning agents is fine - first thought from rustling in the bushes will be dependent upon your experiences. I would be wary of an animal (keeping that in mind just in case), but expect the wind <- unless there was no wind. When pipes creak in an old house, someone might understand that is old creaky pipes and someone else might think there is a rat or something in the walls.

But the blurb you posted has tried to connect a natural thing - assigning agents according to known or ALREADY believed in things - to a completely different thing: inventing previously unknown and unheard of supernatural agents to explain natural phenomena. That is why I said the hypothesis is incomplete.

(The article states itself that it is only a possible explanation; it does not state that it is actual evidence. Stating that this is the reason man believes in 'gods/spirits/supernatural' is a leap.)

But in the blurb you quoted, the assigned agency was something that was indeed real and possible. At the very least, the person had to already have a belief in whatever they are assigning agency to.

You limit assigning agency to just things humans have seen. Do that at your own peril. I acknowledge and will not stick my head in the ground about just how imaginative humans are, to at times, even invent concepts that have never existed.

The article is the evidence that you presented. If you read more into it than what is says, more than what the evidence reveals, that is up to you. But you are interpreting one set of data (humans assign agency to real or believed in things) to fit it into your conclusion that humans invented the Spirit and the spiritual. Rather than that men seek out, experience, even know the Spirit (and the spiritual) because the Spirit (and the spiritual) exist to BE known. Yet just as people have mistaken the cause of the rustling bush, people have mistaken the cause of a volcano.

It does not explain how people came to a belief in the spiritual to begin with

Yes it does! We assign agency to things. A rustle in a bush was assigned to be a predator (not spiritual) just as volcanoes were assigned to the god Vulcan (which is spiritual). Your argument would make Vulcan be real and surely you do not believe such a thing.

The article attests to assigning agency to real - or already believed in - things.

The article does not show that someone 'made up' the god vulcan out of thin air. If you are suggesting that is what happened, then you are going beyond the article (as I am sure others are doing as well), beyond the actual evidence, and beyond what science has shown. If you had actual evidence (not just hypotheses and possible explanations), then the argument (god or no god) might be over.

But you have no such evidence.

(cutting out stuff that has already been responded to)

Every single community or tribe that we know of, isolated or otherwise, has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spirituality. Every single one of them.

False, but your point is meaningless either way.
See the Pirahã tribe who live in the Amazon Rainforest if you care to correct your thinking.

I googled them and this is what I found (if you care to correct your thinking):

According to Everett, the Pirahã have no concept of a supreme spirit or god,[9] and they lost interest in Jesus when they discovered that Everett had never seen him. They require evidence based on personal experience for every claim made.[6] However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.[5]: 112, 134–142  Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that "Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle." Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach.[5]: xvi–xvii 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people

We can classify as belonging to the ritual plane all those actions that place the ibiisi into relationship with the abaisi and with the kaoaiboge and toipe. There are two types of ritual: shamanism and festivals. Both have the intention of placing the social domain into relation with the supernatural domain, but shamanism is the society’s most important ritual, while festivals, qualified as ‘big’ and ‘small,’ are complementary rituals.

Shamanism materializes the interactive process between the ibiisi and the abaisi and/or between the ibiisi and the abaisi, kaoaiboge and toipe. It is through the shaman and his performance that the encounter gains dramaticity and durability. The shaman ‘swaps places’ with the abaisi or with the dead by visiting their respective levels while the latter come to the Pirahã level.

https://pib.socioambiental.org/en/Povo:Pirah%C3%A3


There are a lot of words in that second link that would be the Piraha's words, so you would have to read the article to get a sense of them, I think. But even they have a belief in the spiritual.


Peace again to you.

[William]

[Replying to tam in post #375]

There are a lot of words in that second link that would be the Piraha's words, so you would have to read the article to get a sense of them, I think. But even they have a belief in the spiritual.

Yes. I just scanned wiki and got similar information...

Their decoration is mostly necklaces, used primarily to ward off spirits...{SOURCE}

...which corrects the misinformation Clownboat offered to argue there was one solitary tribe out of them all, that didn't have theistic-based tendencies....

[Clownboat]

Clownboat, Clownboat, Clownboat... please re-read my response. The child imagines a monster because he already believes monsters to be real. He did not imagine a 'whu-mp/abla' because such a thing has never been introduced to him.

Humans assign agency to things as we evolved in an environment where doing so increased our survival. The agents can be real or imagined, possible or impossible.

But in the example that you are giving from your article, the human imagined that it was something REAL in the bushes, he assigned agency to a predator. Not to an invisible 'whu-mp/abla'.

See your own words in bold! My work here is done.

The article does not show that someone 'made up' the god vulcan out of thin air.

Correct, it doesn't. Now Tam, kindly explain to the class as to how you think it came about that humans attributed volcanoes to Vulcan. Did they assign some agent (real or imagined, possible or impossible) or is Vulcan truly the God of Valcanoes, because how else would humans come up with such an idea?

[Clownboat]

Yes. I just scanned wiki and got similar information...

Cool, what is there belief about creation or what happens when they die? What is the name of their religion and the name of their Gods? The best you can come up with is beads to ward off spirits. I'll give this to you both and will ammend my thinking, but come on, they are a culture that doesn't have a god concept, nor beliefs attached to one. Which is what I was referring to. Sure, tree and jaguar spirits, but even that is questionable as they don't believe in things unless you can show them according to Everett.

...which corrects the misinformation Clownboat offered to argue there was one solitary tribe out of them all, that didn't have theistic-based tendencies....

Is it misninformation or accurate information that they don't worship a god, nor do they have stories about creation or what happens after death?

Such desperation from you both, but I admit, to be accurate, I gotta give you this one and I do need to ammend my thinking about them never referencing spirits. The gods, which was what I was referring to is still accurate, but there is something to whatever they consider to be a tree spirit and I acknowledge that.

Your claim that Clownboat is spreading misinformation is desperate though and I laughed out loud at you for typing it. So thanks for that!

Why is it that you chose to pick this one semantical, off topic argument to reply to while avoiding the entire article from Psychology Today?

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #378]

Cool, what is there belief about creation or what happens when they die? What is the name of their religion and the name of their Gods? The best you can come up with is beads to ward off spirits. I'll give this to you both and will ammend my thinking, but come on, they are a culture that doesn't have a god concept, nor beliefs attached to one. Which is what I was referring to. Sure, tree and jaguar spirits, but even that is questionable as they don't believe in things unless you can show them according to Everett.

My own argument will continue to be that theism is obviously a natural path that humans naturally consider.

The idea that the Pirahã folk don't believe in things that they have not seen for themselves, supports the idea that theism is natural and stems from natural enough incidence as the Pirahã obviously believe that spirits exist, so must have experience re that.

They have not developed any theology beyond finding ways to ward-off those things, but it still aligns with Panentheism, which is considered a theistic view, and also aligns well with the idea that the planet is a residence for a "Spirit"/sentient self aware creative intelligent consciousness which in turn supports the evidence re the forms evolving from said planet in an intelligent organized fashion.

Is it misninformation or accurate information that they don't worship a god, nor do they have stories about creation or what happens after death?

Not at all. The misinformation is in not acknowledging that they do dabble in theism and that their lack of doing so to the degree where they can understand how the one [knowledge of the existence of spirits] leads to the other, [knowledge of God-concepts] is besides the point, other than it is a curiosity. Perhaps the tribe thought that such musings would interfere with their daily grind surviving?

The critique was not to do with the entire article so much as showing you that the tribe wasn't completely devoid of theistic thinking and re that, underlines the argument that theistic thinking is natural to the Human condition.

[tam]

Peace to you,

[Replying to Clownboat in post #378]

Is it misninformation or accurate information that they don't worship a god, nor do they have stories about creation or what happens after death?

I am going to remind you of what is is that you said was false:

Every single community or tribe that we know of, isolated or otherwise, has sought and believes in some form of the spirit/spirits/spirituality. Every single one of them.

That is what you said was false. You then suggested I look up the Piraha tribe to correct my thinking. I did just that. But it turned out that it was you who needed to correct your thinking.

Now you have decided to call me and William desperate for doing the very thing you suggested that I do, simply because we pointed out that you were incorrect. How is that not desperate in and of itself?

I'm going to go back and respond to your last post to me, but I thought I would quickly respond to this first.


Peace again.