[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Gerald

Each person should take what they believe into their heart.
That is where it belongs.
Not trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong or right.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by Gerald

if you want to believe in something you would not care what the book says true or not.

Each person should take what they believe into their heart.
That is where it belongs.
Not trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong or right.

If a person's belief leads them to promote what they think is true, are they wrong?

[CFrance]

It's not up to you to determine whether or not a person's belief is wrong. That's being called not minding your own business.

[Villages PL]

Originally Posted by CFrance

It's not up to you to determine whether or not a person's belief is wrong. That's being called not minding your own business.

So disbelief, you would say, is a wrong belief.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

So disbelief, you would say, is a wrong belief.

No, I didn't say that.

[Barefoot]

Originally Posted by Villages PL

If a person's belief leads them to promote what they think is true, are they wrong?

Originally Posted by CFrance

It's not up to you to determine whether or not a person's belief is wrong. That's called "not minding your own business".

IMHO, attempting to force a personal belief on another person is wrong.

As Gerald wisely said:

Each person should take what they believe into their heart.
That is where it belongs.
Not trying to tell others that their beliefs are wrong or right.

[DougB]

Originally Posted by CFrance

So... Is this a yea or a nay to what DougB said?

No idea. Made about as much sense as the post I was trying to understand.

[jblum315]

I read that the author tried to recant the story, but the publisher wouldn't let him.

[tedquick]

Originally Posted by senior citizen

.

No matter what one's belief system is, all of these books are thought provoking & mind opening.

We'll all know when we cross over.....

“Heaven is for Real” and “Proof of Heaven” are two excellent reads. The first was from the perspective of a four year old while the latter was experienced and then related by a brilliant physician who, prior to his NDE, was a non-believer.

I have a deep-believing Christian friend who says that one cannot go to heaven and then return to earth because there is a permanent separation between the two. Another “learned” Bible person has also stated (paraphrased) that while he doesn’t believe that man can travel between heaven and earth, that he cannot take away the experience of those who believe that they were in heaven and then have returned.

I do not know whether the two people in the above books were actually in heaven or not, but what I do know is that (since the Bible says that heaven is FAR beyond anything that we can imagine) based upon the indescribable experiences that they had, I can’t wait to get to heaven. I’m just not in a hurry to leave here.

[onslowe]

Originally Posted by DougB

No idea. Made about as much sense as the post I was trying to understand.

What does make me wonder is the question of whether one truly and honestly was trying to "understand" the post that Dawnmarie wrote, in which case other phrasing would have been appropriate and civil and expected; or, whether it was a very poor and transparent attack on another poster's choice of a word for ulterior and mocking motives. I know how I read it, and I think I know in what context it appeared to be written. Argue, discuss and ask honest questions… don't try to make a laughingstock out of another human being.

As for my humble post, read it please again and if you are still flummoxed, then, by all means look up the word 'sarcasm' in the dictionary. If still a problem for you, well….

Dense? Vy, I vould luff to!

[DougB]

Originally Posted by onslowe

What does make me wonder is the question of whether one truly and honestly was trying to "understand" the post that Dawnmarie wrote, in which case other phrasing would have been appropriate and civil and expected; or, whether it was a very poor and transparent attack on another poster's choice of a word for ulterior and mocking motives. I know how I read it, and I think I know in what context it appeared to be written. Argue, discuss and ask honest questions… don't try to make a laughingstock out of another human being.

As for my humble post, read it please again and if you are still flummoxed, then, by all means look up the word 'sarcasm' in the dictionary. If still a problem for you, well….

Dense? Vy, I vould luff to!

It was an honest question, but I will make sure to run all future posts by you for you to check for approval.

"a very poor and transparent attack on another's poster's choice of words for ulterior and mocking motives"? One should follow their own advice.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by onslowe

Kudos! The ability to pick on the errors of others is an admirable trait, and I'm sure well motivated and intentioned. Lends a lot to the thread at the same time as well as promoting civility.

Maybe, just maybe, Dawnmarie was referring to 2 Corinthians 12. Oh, in the Bible, Epistles of St Paul….

Originally Posted by onslowe

What does make me wonder is the question of whether one truly and honestly was trying to "understand" the post that Dawnmarie wrote, in which case other phrasing would have been appropriate and civil and expected; or, whether it was a very poor and transparent attack on another poster's choice of a word for ulterior and mocking motives. I know how I read it, and I think I know in what context it appeared to be written. Argue, discuss and ask honest questions… don't try to make a laughingstock out of another human being.

As for my humble post, read it please again and if you are still flummoxed, then, by all means look up the word 'sarcasm' in the dictionary. If still a problem for you, well….

Dense? Vy, I vould luff to!

I find this post as confusing as your answer to DougB. He was questioning DawnMarie's contradictory statement about Paul writing about something he was not to write about, and you jumped all over him. And now you're jumping all over him again. You made a laughingstock (or tried to) out of him first, and now you accuse him of doing exactly what you just did. But IMO, he didn't I understood his post to be genuine, but not your sarcastic response to it.

There are many, many people who do not believe the Bible is inerrant, and just because one person said death experiences are not true because it says so in the Bible does not mean the rest of us have to buy that.

First DawnMarie says these experiences aren't true because of science. Then she says they aren't true because of the Bible. I don't see how she can make these blanket statements. She cannot say what other people have experienced.

[graciegirl]

Doug bee is ALWAYS kidding around.

Onslowe is not a kidder arounder. He is defending someone who although some may not agree with, believes in something that he feels needs defending.

I do too. I may not agree with Dawn Marie and her take on things. I respect her right to believe. She doesn't want to hurt or behead someone. She may want to debate and evangelize. We don't have to like what she says or like her, but we surely do have a right in this country to religion. EVEN if we are not religious.

I think you are reading Onslowe wrong. I sense calmness and kindness in him. I know that you two are good people. I think that you are misunderstanding each other.

As a Catholic, I was taught to not literally interpret the Bible. But somewhere I learned that a lot of sincere and good people do literally interpret the Bible. Someday, perhaps we will know, or perhaps we won't.

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by graciegirl

Doug bee is ALWAYS kidding around.
As a Catholic, I was taught to not literally interpret the Bible. But somewhere I learned that a lot of sincere and good people do literally interpret the Bible. Someday, perhaps we will know, or perhaps we won't.

What I am objecting to is the sarcasm. I am also objecting to someone telling someone else they are wrong or what they believe is untrue when there is no proof one way or the other. (Goes back to post 9.)

[senior citizen]

Religion provides structure, whereas spirituality leads to contemplation & transcendence.........plus often just a "knowing" along with peace of mind & spirit. Been there......done that.

Now, for everyone, the existence of our soul, the existence of an afterlife, are always fascinating mysteries to ponder, except for those who just take it on faith or those who have returned to tell about it......this is why those books are so fascinating to read.

I know the soul lives on & often returns shortly after passing to comfort those it has left behind. Nothing spooky at all about it. Some folks are more sensitive to it than others......

Below the following explanation is a brief explanation of "religion" vs. "spirituality" which I found at the Georgetown University website.

Catholic Online has one of the clearest explanations of the "soul" that I have found yet.

SOUL:
(Greek - psyche ; Latin - anima ; French -ame ; German - Seele ).

"The question of the reality of the SOUL and its distinction from the body is among the most important problems of philosophy, for with it is bound up the doctrine of a future life.

Various theories as to the NATURE of the soul have claimed to be reconcilable with the tenet of immortality, but it is a sure instinct that leads us to suspect every attack on the substantiality or spirituality of the soul as an assault on the belief in existence after death.

The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.

The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while "soul" denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well.

That our vital activities proceed from a principle capable of subsisting in itself, is the thesis of the substantiality of the soul: that this principle is not itself composite, extended, corporeal, or essentially and intrinsically dependent on the body, is the doctrine of spirituality.


If there be a LIFE after death, clearly the agent or subject of our vital activities must be capable of an existence separate from the body.

The belief in an animating principle in some sense distinct from the body is an almost inevitable inference from the observed facts of life.

Even uncivilized peoples arrive at the concept of the soul almost without reflection, certainly without any severe mental effort.

The mysteries of birth and death, the lapse of conscious life during sleep and in swooning, even the commonest operations of imagination and memory, which abstract a man from his bodily presence, even while awake.....all such facts invincibly suggest the existence of something besides the VISIBLE ORGANISM, internal to it but to a large extent independent of it, and leading a life of its own."

ABOVE IS FROM "CATHOLIC ONLINE"........(that last paragraph is very profound)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Below is a brief explanation of "religion" vs. "spirituality" which I found at the Georgetown University website.

From Georgetown University......

Definition: Religion

1. “a set of beliefs and practices related to the issue of what exists beyond the visible world, generally including the idea of the existence of a being, group of beings, an external principle or a transcendent spiritual entity” .

2. “set of beliefs, practices, and language that characterizes a community that is searching for transcendent meaning in a particular way, generally based upon belief in a deity”

3. religious beliefs – “formed within the context of practices and rituals shared by a group to provide a framework for connectedness to God”

4. “an organized system of practices and beliefs in which people engage … a platform for the expression of spirituality…”

5. “outward practice of a spiritual system of beliefs, values, codes of conduct, and rituals”

Definition: Spirituality

1. “the experience or expression of the sacred”

2. “…the search for transcendent meaning”

3. “individual search for meaning”

4. “the search for meaning in life events and a yearning for connectedness to the universe”

5. “a person’s experience of, or a belief in, a power apart from his or her own existence”

6. “a quality that goes beyond religious affiliation, that strives for inspiration, reverence, awe, meaning and purpose, even in those who do not believe in God. The spiritual dimension tries to be in harmony with the universe, strives for answers about the infinite, and comes essentially into focus in times of emotional stress, physical illness, loss, bereavement and death”

7. …"refers to a broad set of principles that transcend all religions. Spirituality is about the relationship between ourselves and something larger. That something can be the good of the community or the people who are served by your agency or school or with energies greater than ourselves. Spirituality means being in the right relationship with all that is. It is a stance of harmlessness toward all living beings and an understanding of their mutual interdependence."

Again, in ending............
Religion provides structure, whereas spirituality leads to contemplation & transcendence.........plus often just a "knowing" along with peace of mind & spirit.