”Hssss … Jesus, I am not your father”

Jim has an interesting post up called Pure Atheism ( there is diluted kind?) and there is some even more interesting dialogue going on, too.

Like this, for example.



I never did return to atheism having discovered that “gods” as people call them do actually exist. I’ve explained my reasoning for that many times. But “spirit” to ME is a force, comparable to the Force of Star Wars.


Hmm. And may the force be with you too …. excuse me, I need to lie down. My midichlorians are playing up again.


and while you’re looking for specific terms to define things, i invite you to read this short article about the phenomena of the ‘rainbow body’ (which exists in almost all traditions, and had been documented).
make sense of that….



I lifted this from the link provided by Monica … I stopped reading after this.

“Miraculous” activities, such as passing through walls, leaving foot and handprints in stone, reviving the dead, and appearing in multiple locations at the same moment, are considered mere “by-products” of accomplishment; they are not the point, only signs along the way.






103 thoughts on “”Hssss … Jesus, I am not your father”

  1. I’m a very strange follower of the “Force” myself. See, I don’t really think it is a real thing. However, I actually believe Yoda IS real and exists on swamp planets everywhere across the galaxy. For proof, I offer you the following visual documents of his existence: The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Star Wars Episodes 1,2, and 3 along with the more recent, The Last Jedi. Thanks, and may the good vibes of the Force forever tingle your good sense of reason.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. There may be natural forces that we don’t understand, yet when people observe or feel these natural forces, the conditioned response is to say it’s spiritual. It is easy to understand why there is confusion, even among physicists as to how to word the phenomenon. Even Einstein use the terms “spooky action at a distance”. What the hell is that? Niels Bohr had his own esoteric type statements, and was also an atheist.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. @Jim

      yet when people observe or feel these natural forces,

      I am going to presume you are not talking about such things as gravity or wind.

      So exactly which forces have been observed?
      And how does one feel these very same natural forces?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ark … just a curiosity question … have you never had a “hunch,” a “feeling,” a “sense” of something happening before it did? If so, what did you attribute it to? The events leading up to it? Or did it just seem like the event was “bound to happen” because reality demanded it?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Of course!
          And I attribute such things to evolution.
          Maybe a defense mechanism that caused early man to run at the sight or sound of a rustle in the long grass.
          Rather suffer a little embarrassment at looking a bit silly than being lunch for some predator.

          I was once at a roulette table in the casino at Sun City and for laugh made a show of pressing my fingers to my temples and called out the number ”19”.
          It won.
          I then repeated the action and called out ”27” . Lo and behold it too won.
          The croupier gave me a very wary look and just before he span the wheel a short haired elderly lady leaned towards me and asked in a hoarse whisper. ”What’s the next number going to be?”

          Obviously, she had detected it was my psychic powers that picked the correct number twice in a row.
          As the croupier dropped the ball in the roulette wheel I felt my supernatural abilities desert me so, much to the chagrin of the short-haired women, picked up my chips, took my wife’s hand and went off to a restaurant for dinner and then went to watch Wishbone Ash in concert.

          Liked by 2 people

      2. Hell, I don’t know, but if you haven’t noticed the world is full of unevidenced beliefs in the “supernatural”, which are quite possibly real perceptions of things we cannot yet measure. Conditioned since birth by good mommy’s and daddy’s and society to interpret these impressions in a mystical sense. I think tildeb made a good point to George. It matters how you view things. We have a long way to go to change the mindset [sic] in supernatural when we don’t understand a principle—like my mother and I having the same thoughts when we weren’t in proximity. Coincidence? Maybe. Hardly seems like it though and it’s easy for people to assume there’s an underlying, entangled mystic pulling levers somewhere when maybe we just share similar receptors on the same frequency.
        I think it would engender some unity if everyone understood how easy it is to be fooled, smile a little at the situation, because none of us are where we thought or aimed to be just a few years ago. We change our thinking all the time (unless we employ faith)
        I know you don’t care much for sound eagle, but I think his comment captured a lot of wisdom, even Niels Bohr was of a mind to accept more than one thing at a time as objective truth.

        Liked by 2 people

        1. Neils Bohr’ was not trying to attribute anything to woo. Was not alluding to terms such as supernatural or spiritualism.
          As I have stated before, you cannot include /use such terminology and then criticize Christians, or other religious people for using similar terms. What Monica and Sha Tal seemed to be at pains to try to justify is simply unsubstantiated crap.

          Ambiguous terminology and idiotic beliefs leads to some people being hanged or burned for being witches.

          I would still like to read the details of these forces that you assert have been observed, please.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I briefly described my mother and myself. Maybe you missed that?
            The fact that different religions try to express this content in quite distinct spiritual forms is no real objection. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man’s relationship with the central order”.—Niels Bohr

            Liked by 1 person

          2. How exactly is this tale involving your mother ‘observing a force’?

            And what exactly did Bohr mean by this ”central order” ?


          3. That my mother and I had a connection that did not require us to be in the same room. I gave some ideas of how that might happen in a physical sense, but I don’t know. Niels Bohr on the other hand, had to use a nearly mystical term, that you quite can’t grasp, to explain a force, an order or whatever that is behind the ideas of matter. He also had some very interesting other things to say, one of them was that anything we determine is real is described by things we can’t consider real. Paraphrasing there, but I think you get the point


          4. That my mother and I had a connection that did not require us to be in the same room.

            And you consider this to be an observable force?

            I asked what Bohr meant by the term ‘central order.’


          5. The fact that it is not an observable force raises the question, how does that happen? What do you think? As far as Niels Bohr is concerned, a two discipline Nobel prize winner and arguably the greatest physicist of the last 100 years, had to use abstract speech to explain what can’t be said. I’m pretty sure you can figure this part out, so there’s no need to play dumb with repetitive questions that I already answered. I can only guess, don’t have all the answers and neither do you.
            True there are no gods, but a whole lot of people fill the gaps with something other than the purely mechanical universe.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. Ah … so in fact it is not an observable force after all?
            So perhaps we are back to an evolutionary trait ? One that may be more pronounced between a mother and her child?
            Something to do with genetics perhaps?

            Many years ago, my mother awoke in the middle of the night and called out the name of my younger brother, apparently.
            It was loud enough to wake the rest of the household. We emerged from our bedrooms wondering what was going on?
            My brother had recently (12 months) joined the army and was stationed 150 miles away.
            An hour later we received a phone call telling us he had been involved in a fatal car accident.

            Re: Bohr.
            I assure you I am not playing dumb.
            As Bohr is claimed to have been an atheist I am somewhat bemused by his use of the term. So, what do you think he meant by it?

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Perhaps an evolutionary trait is a fine answer and a wonderful guess. A hunch, Ark? Now that you’ve included mental telepathy in the explanation of evolution, you could include a parable (another Lucy moment, perhaps?) and join Monica and Sha for tea?
            The point I would like to emphasize, is we’re not so different. We have to use hunches and faith as a temporary waypoint to prove a premise. I would hope it could soften the divisive dialogue between the sides when we realize science is hardly different from religion when we have to explain how and why.


          8. We have to use hunches and faith as a temporary waypoint to prove a premise.

            Wrong. And your use of terminology is once more your undoing.
            Faith? Really?

            I would hope it could soften the divisive dialogue between the sides when we realize science is hardly different from religion when we have to explain how and why

            And with this you have,excused yourself from the grownups table.


          9. Haha. You have faith that science will eventually provide every answer, and readily dismiss anyone else’s perceptions and interpretations of the world. I’m surprised you didn’t offer another parable. Why not? The physicists do. You have faith that your brother story is an evolutionary trait. Please provide evidence for that evolutionary trait —

            Liked by 1 person

          10. I cannot understand why some people have this desperate fucking need to use the label, ”faith”.
            Really, in the context that you use it, it is utterly pathetic.

            I merely threw out there the suggestion / possibility that it was a vestigial evolutionary mother child trait.
            It could just as easily have been a bloody coincidence that my mother was dreaming of her son, bad indigestion, or God poking his finger through the bedroom ceiling , flicking my mother on the ear and saying: ”Oi, Missus. Wake up! Your kid has just been involved in a car accident.”

            For fuck’s sake. Perhaps you ought to go back to worshiping Jesus?

            Liked by 1 person

          11. Nice try. No thanks. I know you hate the term, but it is most applicable here. Maybe somebody with a cooler head should moderate and let them decide. So you agree that your mother had a premonition and you believe that science will be able to explain it. Evidence of things not seen… I think you’re getting it.
            You could hope it’s a coincidence, but no it wasn’t and there’s just no explanation for it yet.
            There is nothing wrong with faith as a temporary waypoint. That’s actually the purpose of it, not a final destination like Christianity. That’s where it becomes a problem. It becomes the pinnacle of the religious experience and fall short of any right of passage. Relax buddy


          12. Trust is a much more appropriate word.

            So you agree that your mother had a premonition and you believe that science will be able to explain it.

            As I did not use the term, premonition, why would you use it?

            Evidence of things not seen… I think you’re getting it.

            No, Jim, you are not getting it. And if you believe that using this particular phrase went over my head you are sadly mistaken.
            As I have stated in other comments, I don’t think you have actually accepted/embraced atheism – not fully – and still cling to a small part of your former belief system. This is why writing all these somewhat esoteric posts is a means of justifying your current in-between position.

            What ever gave you the impression I am not relaxed?


          13. Not angry? “ why some people have this desperate fucking need to use the label, ”faith”.
            Avoiding the word premonition doesn’t change what it is. Ask anyone what it is? That is the term for it, I believe.
            Actually Ark I am less of a believer than you. I have the faith of a real atheist—total trust in letting go and that the universe will do what it does if we don’t interfere with our scientific fixes. Those same fixes we are experiencing at an alarming level right now.


          14. lol …Using the expletive merely adds emphasis to demonstrate how ridiculous i consider the notion of faith.

            In fairness I can see where I may have caused some misunderstanding regarding the episode surrounding my brother’s death and my mother’s reaction just prior.

            I believe the bond between mother and child to be strong in some cases and an instinct of discord or unease can be sensed during conversation. My brother phoned home on a regular basis and no doubt they had spoken to each other earlier at some point. Perhaps my brother was not feeling tip top and while not immediately apparent, maybe my mother picked up on this?
            She was probably worried and it caused a very restless sleep and maybe a bad dream?
            I do not think there was some sort of psychic connection at the moment of my brother’s car accident. If this is the impression I conveyed, I apologise.

            Actually Ark I am less of a believer than you

            And this is the type of silly comment that demonstrates my point.
            How can one person be more of an atheist than another. One is either an atheist or not.
            And your continual use of ( purposely) obscure terminology suggests you might not be the atheist you claim to be.
            ”Me thinks he protesteth a wee bit too much” .
            With apologies to the Bard.

            Liked by 2 people

          15. suggests you might not be the atheist you claim to be” I assure you I believe in no god.
            This was an argument I had in my sleep. Where do we draw the line at the depth of human abilities. Shell has some good examples, many folks I lived with in the jungle had intuition up the yin yang regarding la jungla. I haven’t a spiritual bone in my body, but I like puzzles. If I were a Christian I’d definitely like my chances with this, at least as a stalemate. I believe nothing. I also think science has some answers, but the result of meddling and fixing is becoming catastrophic.
            You have trust in science, I have evidence all around me that hasn’t been working too well.


          16. And not to dismiss any part of your comment, I am less of a believer than you. I believe in nothing. You believe in science.
            Science is a continuation of the Christian theme to subdue the earth, confront it and be lord and master over it. I don’t believe that’s possible.


          17. I think part of the problem stems from confusion over definitions.

            Theism means belief in the existence of a god or gods.

            Atheism is an absence of belief in gods.

            Science (from the Latin word scientia, meaning “knowledge”) is a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. (Wikipedia)

            Science: the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding (Merriam-Webster)

            Science on its own is neither good, nor bad. It’s what you do with that knowledge that matters.

            Liked by 2 people

          18. Science is a continuation of the Christian theme to subdue the earth, confront it and be lord and master over it. I don’t believe that’s possible.

            And this is what you think the goal of science is, do you?
            Seriously, go back to Christianity …. or become a Shaman or Witch doctor or something along these lines.
            I feel confident in saying this would be so much more up your street Jim.

            Liked by 1 person

          19. Of course I do not think that is the goal of science, but because of the culture they cannot help themselves. Look around you. Green energy is probably the latest great example of using more to produce less. It never turns out the way they think and it always leads to unforeseen damage and misery. No?Just wait until they master the 200 year lifespan…


          20. Of course I do not think that is the goal of science,

            Except this is precisely what you wrote, stating its aim was to subdue and dominate the earth.

            There are times when it sounds as if you don’t quite know what you are writing/saying anymore Jim?

            Maybe you meant to suggest that science is being used to fuel a great deal of greed?
            This I would agree with.
            However, ”science” also discovered /created vaccines, and put men on the moon, for example.
            The 200 year lifespan? You do have low expectations! How about effective immortality?

            Liked by 1 person

          21. Maybe if English was his first language he would have said “source energy” or “prime mover”. I don’t know what he meant, for the third time. Take it up with him, he was very practical and open minded. Some of the Einstein Bohr debates were classic!
            ”Admittedly, even in our future encounters with reality we shall have to distinguish between the objective and the subjective side, to make a division between the two. But the location of the separation may depend on the way things are looked at; to a certain extent it can be chosen at will” Ie; the experiments turn out however you set them up.


          22. As a claimed atheist why would he have used either of these terms and especially ”prime mover”?

            You see, every time you deny any sort of affiliation or belief in the supernatural or something god like you have this rather odd habit of steering the conversation back in the this direction using terms that can only be associated with a creator type entity/deity.
            So once again, if you cannot be specific in your use of terms/words, then don’t use them – unless you simply cannot totally let go of your former god belief?


          23. I thought you’d like those. Not so at all with the god belief thing. I’d think you would have more to offer than faith statements. Bohr and Einstein were both non believers, and had some great contests of ideas. I think Christian/western thought is pretty much synonymous and it shows up in science. So what? What do his words mean to you? You have no answer? They imply some type of unseen force or organization. But I can’t say what he meant. I know today’s physicists are much more guarded in there speech lest they “go there”, but most of the quantum game is in parables and equations no one can understand. Classical physics at least hadn’t become so abstract. You know what’s funny? E=mc2. We take three things we know virtually nothing about and write it into an equation. It has lots of utility, manipulating properties we don’t understand at more than a fundamental level. What is energy? Energy is a property of everything that exists, but difficult to word.
            I don’t appreciate your default accusation of god. Maybe you need to think some things through and hone your argument. If you can’t convince me, you certainly won’t convince a believer. You actually seem very bias—like a believer really. Hunting for poor word choice and reading for the sake of argument vs content.


          24. The experience you just described is a perfect example of what I asked you previously. So do you attribute her calling out your brother’s name to evolution, as you suggested in your earlier response?

            Liked by 1 person

    2. Pop along to a good aikido demonstration if you want to see ‘The Force’ at work.

      Timing and applied physics explains a lot; but ‘The Force’ (“ki”) is much more appealing, instantly relatable … and right there for the watching. Boom boom!

      But yes … I too accept that there are ‘forces’ that we don’t understand and even such that we don’t know about.
      But to give those ‘forces’ names, and worship them?
      Hardly … I do NOT connect (say) electricity with disembodied intelligence (actually I’m resistant to the idea, I lack the capacity and it chokes me up).


      aye, and here’s the rub — I do believe in Time and Space. And I’m willing to concede that we don’t know everything, and that some folks may have a better grasp on Reality than I. I’ll also cheerfully concede that some things are indeed inexplicable (and sadly, too often un-replicable).

      For any of you psychics out there: pray tell me what is it that I carry around in my wallet, and have done for over fifty years (as a test for psychics, no less)?

      Liked by 1 person

        1. It would (to be of any real use) need quite a few coordinates: where we are now, time, space, direction to travel etc etc. (Failing that a taxi …)


        2. No need. As a young guy I could always get back to the ship regardless (although sometimes my fingers were trodden on in the process).

          As a psychic, Ark, no banana for you.



        1. Hah! Without checking the magazines I’m pretty sure that the rounds (such as I have left now) will all be blanks. Hence no need for the wotsits. (Typical~!)

          Liked by 1 person

  3. Considering we’ve only just discovered that electromagnetic fields can be entangled (like particles, which is already crazy-weird, but very, very cool) there’s much still yet to be discovered. In thinking about to-be-revealed some people will always be more poetic than others, hoping those discoveries will be meaningful on a personal level.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. Perhaps we ought to look upon these different forms as complementary descriptions which, though they exclude one another, are needed to convey the rich possibilities flowing from man’s relationship with the central order”—Niels Bohr

      Liked by 1 person

    2. JZ:

      I like personal level. The everyday personal level, something I can relate to. As for all the many and varied levels and layers of pseudo-scientific (science too varies with time and place) or philosophical (likewise) levels, all very interesting I’m sure.
      Actually, I’m still reeling in shock from that Brian Cox look into that wee speck of the universe … you know, the one wherein many squillions of other (dare I say it?) universes were revealed.

      After that all I could do was stand in awe at the power and might of the God that created all, yet still finds time to love us … sniff …

      Liked by 1 person

      1. That is the critical thing, isn’t it. Quantum entanglement is wild in seventeen different ways, but it has zero real world practical applications for me.


    3. For myself the binding material of everything is ‘time’ …

      But if I really wanted to stir debate I’d also mention ‘consciousness’.


          1. So to answer my question,”true there are no gods, but is there nothing at all?” Ark seems to be having a hard time admitting there may be something at play. Would panpsychism be the equivalent of a lifeless force, or a purposeful one? Curious.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Ah, I think panpsychism can mean many things to many people. Buddhists, for example, have a far more spiritual concept in mind when talking about consciousness, whereas Philp Goff and Max Tegmark would say it’s a perfectly material thing with no inherent mystery. Tegmark goes as far to say it’s a fourth state of matter.

            Consciousness never switches off entirely, but rather fades as organic complexity reduces, through flies, insects, plants, amoeba, and bacteria. For the panpsychist, this fading-while-never-turning-off continuum further extends into inorganic matter …” Philip Goff

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Ark seems to be having a hard time admitting there may be something at play

            @ Jim
            And what makes you so sure there is anything ”at play”, Jim?
            I’m sure this is just how you sounded when you were Christian.
            Can we look forward to a new post replete with ambiguous terminology about Intelligent Design?


          4. And what makes you so sure there is anything ”at play”, Jim?
            I’m sure this is just how you sounded when you were Christian”
            (are you really sure?)
            ”Can we look forward to a new post replete with ambiguous terminology about Intelligent Design? ”Not from me. I’ll comment on yours if you do it though. You’ve really not rebutted anything—just claims I’m a believer of some kind.
            Did I ever state anything was at play? I stated there are things we are perceiving that we don’t understand. Elements of the natural world (it’s all natural) that we still consider a mystery.
            Why the hostility and accusations? If I had a belief I would tell you. I may not have all the answers and sometimes my word choice fails me, but I assure you I’m an atheist, but I’m not a liar. These are simply observations and ideas.
            Everyone has these experiences in their lives they can’t explain, so I discuss them, reason, throw it out for scrutiny and reproach, be tried in open court and honest, having hopefully added something to the debate, rather than ignore it. I’ve not chosen like you, to suppress it.
            The danger of identifying too much with your thoughts, is thoughts are empty and have no reality. They can change any time and they do, many many times over the course of one’s life—and if your not careful, you start the default to faith—like linking a premonition to an evolutionary trait (evidence please, without the parables) I wonder what your mother would call it? From your follow up comment you’d accept anything but, as if you’ve made up your mind without examining much evidence at all.
            If you’ve forgotten, the Polynesian question never implied woo. It highlighted the extreme expertise of their navigation. The header of the post said something like this; Where do we draw the line between undiscovered knowledge and mysticism? Using tools we don’t yet understand— Tools that maybe you or I can’t quite master that someone else does. It doesn’t make it god or woo. If one level of human ability can exceed normal parameters, maybe people are actually seeing something they claim to be supernatural, but is in fact, natural. This is my position. All along you have inferred I claim woo—I never did.
            Nobody knows how these unseen connections (like to a parent) work. But in your book it could be anything in the universe except that underlying force people call god. But please, back off on the Christian comments. If I was a believer at this point, I might just beat you with your own arguments.
            That would actually be a fun game. I like role plays and understanding different points of view.
            Maybe next week I’ll play the Buddhist. That would be a tough one for you to win.


          5. Did I ever state anything was at play?

            Er…. yes, you did.

            Ark seems to be having a hard time admitting there may be something at play.

            So maybe you are going senile, or you are simply making shit up?

            And that’s not all folks …

            Why the hostility and accusations? If I had a belief I would tell you.

            So this next comment is what … ?

            Science is a continuation of the Christian theme to subdue the earth, confront it and be lord and master over it.

            Are you saying, in fact that you actually don’t believe what you wrote?

            I am confident I could trawl through your comments and posts and find a whole host of similar comments where you ‘haven’t ‘ said things or beliefs you ‘don’t’ have, but there are more interesting things to do and as I am sure you will agree, these couple of examples adequately illustrate the point.


          6. “something at play”? Panpsychism, perhaps? I never said god, you assume too much.
            “Science is a continuation of the Christian theme to subdue the earth, confront it and be lord and master over it”? Show me where science hasn’t meddled in nature instead of intimidating your way through an argument. Science leads one to believe it can fix nature. That’s really arrogant


          7. In that comment I never said you said God. I have repeatedly asked you to define your terms and to date you are still waffling, and here you are doing what Monica did – back pedaling to save face.
            You sound similar to the way a Christian sounds when they get pulled up for some of the bullshit they try to pass off.


          8. I’ve not back peddled. To save what face? You have to admit it’s a pretty good argument all around. I also clarified that “something at play” is a natural phenomenon we don’t understand, that people attribute to god. Relax, jeezus.


          9. Instead of being hostile, maybe you could set your beliefs aside a moment to ponder another. You’ve assumed a lot. Your mistaken


          10. It’s a little late for that. You already opened your mouth. Really try reading for content. Your presups about me skewed your intelligence


          11. I’m not stuck at all. But I get the feeling you’d be in line to take a few whacks. Ouch! To the contrary, I am completely open and curious. If you re-read the post carefully, I think there may have been some misunderstanding. However, I do appreciate your input. It helps as always to remain grounded. But don’t forget to take some time to look around. Methinks your opinions aren’t all yours, but it’s nice to think so.
            Funny thing about faith, it always makes you take passionate sides. Facts don’t do that, only beliefs.


          12. If there was one thing that was drilled into me when I did a short stint as a teacher it is if there is any misunderstanding about what was taught then the fault lies with the teacher … not the pupil. if you cannot define your terms succinctly don’t whine when you get pulled up for it.
            And if you will recall it was one of the first objections I had and one that I repeated on more than one occasion.


  4. not just the language; I’ve been a lifelong fan of fantasy, science fiction, supernatural tales, all of that. Not once in all that time did I ever think any of it was true, and while many of the science fiction stories did come true,(due to some very astute writers who could piece things together) most of it now seems overwritten bits of wishful thinking.

    I do draw the line at walking through walls (which could come in handy), reviving the dead (not everyone wants to be revived, trust me) and being in several places simultaneously. Fun, but exhausting, I should think.

    I put those believers up on the pedestal with flat earthers (sorry, CS), anti vaxxers, End Times, cander inducing windmills, and the shroud of Turin.

    I do, however, strongly believe that people can connect (and often do) without having ever met, and often do know what’s about to happen. No idea why or how, but it happens.

    Liked by 4 people

    1. judy, I tend to agree with your thinking. Sometimes I feel people get too wrapped up in proving and/or disproving something that is, well, simply unexplainable. Sure, maybe someday someone will be able to clarify/interpret/define all the things that leave us wondering but until then all we can do is rely on the knowledge we do have.

      P.S. IMO, if you are a person that doesn’t ever “wonder” about things, then you’re a heckava lot smarter than the rest of us.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. My mother and I had to stop playing scrabble, just out of self defense; I would stare at a spot on the board, waiting for my turn, and she would put a word there. I found that if I chose a place away from where I wanted to put a word, she would do her damndest to make a word fit there. 🙂

        I gave up smoking, and didn’t tell anyone. Not even my husband. One night about a week into it, my mother called and the first thing she said was, “did you give up smoking?” That was eerie. Since I hadn’t spoken to her in over a week, it was REALLY eerie.

        Mind melds do happen, but not to everyone, and not always predictably.

        Liked by 3 people

        1. Of course all these events, according to some people (😉), are simply due to evolution and/or the vestigial part of the mothering instinct. *sigh*

          Although I tend to be very “practical” in my thinking, at the same time I do accept that we humans have a long way to go to truly understand the world we live in.


    2. Interesting. The Spouse and I were a bit telepathetic a long time ago. I had a minor but very scarifying collision on the Auckland motorway (many years ago now) (before cellphones and such) and when I got home she was all of a semi-frantic mess; and had been for quite a while, which we deduced back to when the crunch occurred—it was a helluva bang, broadside to broadside, with mere very minor damage and no-one hurt at all.

      (Boy, did I EVER cop an earful!) (Wasn’t my fault either …)

      Liked by 1 person

    1. Good grief! Why on Earth do you think that (or challenge) God could do anything about the very pandemic that He alone cooked up before The Creation?

      Do you never read my posts?


      Liked by 1 person

    2. SB:

      I guess I’ll just keep on saying this until someone either
      (a) shoots it down, or
      (b) acknowledges me as the greatest philosopher ever

      GOD CANNOT “do anything about it” — because to ‘do’ so would be to interfere in the very Plan He set in motion Himself. Can’t be done. Nope!

      Unless, of course, He has already programmed in such interferences, no? (No … )

      Liked by 2 people

    3. Why should (say—) the Abrahamic God ‘do’ anything about it? Right from before The Creation He, being omniscient, knew/knows everything that would (r) WOULD happen (ergo was inevitable). No?
      In fact, if you go into it you’ll find that He being omniscient and omnipotent AND omnipresent … is totally boxed into a corner, and cannot ever in any way/manner/means create any change at all.
      Diddley … no?

      Liked by 2 people

      1. So … how now for ‘Free Will’?

        Think about it, I beg of thee … doesn’t God’s omniscience blow Free Will right out of the water and off the board?

        Liked by 1 person

          1. Thank heavens … I ask this question often, and you are effectively the only person ever to give me an answer. Kudos to you—I think with most others their train of thought is either still boarding at the station or they are pussy-footing around a possible horrible trap.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. I’ve seen your approach before and quite possibly commented once before with a yes. If I didn’t do it in the comment section I nodded my head yes. 🙂

        I have used a similar approach on another blog when encountering Christians who are complaining. Essentially, take your concerns to your omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent God who put it all in motion. Free will? Hardly.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s