This is Rain's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Rain's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Rain
Oregon and Arizona
Interests: art, relationships, writing, nature
Recent Activity
Interesting as I have not known much about such beliefs. My own craziest thing was that it was okay when Abraham was ordered by god to kill his oldest son. I think now what was I thinking???
1 reply
Thank you for sharing this :)
1 reply
It just gets weirder and weirder in this country.
1 reply
I hope you are feeling yourself soon. Take care
1 reply
Interesting post and makes one think which is good... I think.
1 reply
Plus the awards were predictable. And the way Streisand went on about a woman winning best director, it's obvious that award didn't go out on best job but based on something else. That's what the Oscars are about-- something else. I found it blah; and after the opening monologue with Baldwin and Martin, only watched off and on while doing something else.
1 reply
You can decide whether you believe in god/gods. You can decide what you do about it if you decide one way or the other, but you cannot decide the existence of god/gods. That is or it is not. It impacts our lives, or could, what we decide while we are living and for some more than others. I have heard it argued that we create our own reality (especially in new age circles) and hence we could make there be a god or not and that would be that for 'our' world. I say then stop meat from rotting. If we can create our own reality, we would have control that I don't see anybody having.
1 reply
Well one thing for sure. Whether a god or gods exist, we don't decide it. Whatever a person writes in a book, how many questions they come up with, a bigger presence than us is or it is not. It's not up for a vote.
1 reply
You are dealing with what I am asking but it's more than whether you personally have to believe in a soul. It's a question of how important is it to prove it? Does it matter to our life either way? There is a soul or there is not. Now sometimes it matters like say with global warming which is another-- it is or is not, but with it, there might be things we can do to make our life different, to change things. What can we do about the question of a soul? And even if we prove one exists by say soul travel, that doesn't prove it exists after the body dies. But, what real difference does it make to prove or disprove it? If one is using the existence of a soul as an excuse for blowing up people or ignoring quality medical treatment for children or a host of other things that impact other people's lives, than I'd say that matters but for you individually right now, what difference will it make if you prove it exists? And most of them do what they do based on a heaven or hell, not a soul alone. They are expecting a reward or a punishment and that teaches them to do what they do. If you had a good friend, one who is not a nut and they told you about past life experiences they had had which could be validated as having been real people, if they were someone who could trace where the soul went after the body of say a grandfather had died and knew the next life it was leading, and that other person did exist, would any of that change your decisions today? That's more my point. That it doesn't really matter and it's why I am an agnostic about it. I don't think it matters to living a quality life and I cannot prove it either way. Neither can you. (I don't know if there is a soul but I tend to believe like you that when we die, we die (which would mean soul also) but I have had things in my life that make me wonder about that-- my own events, but whether I know. When I die, whatever happens will happen not based on my figuring it out ahead of time). Now if the fundamentalist religions were right and there was a heaven and more importantly a hell, if they had the right idea about how 'god' operates and people got punished after it ended for saying the wrong words, that would matter to life today (in my opinion); but I spent the time thinking about this one some years back. The end result came that I don't believe they are right. I could be wrong ;) What I think about the existence of a soul that goes on after we die is-- it is mystery. Since we are beings made up of energy, we don't even know whether life exists as we presume it to. We operate as though it does but they have done tests with people showing how they expect to see something and they do. What if someone came in here who didn't expect any of it. What would they see? The thing is people can get so tangled in all that thinking that they don't live all they could on a 'spiritual' plane for where they are. We can explore a lot of things that we can prove are good or not-- like that meditation lowers blood pressure or that reiki actually helps heal some things or acupuncture can help some illnesses. We can look for meaningful coincidences in our life and utilize them for our benefit. These are what many call spiritual that we can do something about; but we cannot prove what happens to the soul after the person dies-- even if we could prove it exists. For all the stories where someone dies and the one with them feels when the 'soul' left, for all the reincarnation stories, for all the 'soul' travel while someone is alive, it does not prove the soul goes on to anything when its vehicle dies. For that matter, I can't prove there isn't a heaven and hell but it goes against all my reasoning to believe it exists at least as the fundamentalists claim it. That won't change their minds though. I can't prove it doesn't by any physical means.
1 reply
Why do you feel the need to prove this?
1 reply
So if he sticks to talking to people where he explained that, they will understand but most people see atheism as meaning something specific and we have seen that illustrated many times through atheists like Hitchens who write books and are quite adamant that there is no god and it's not good for the world to believe there is. I would guess Hitchens believes he knows as much as any believer in god believe they know. It's the agnostic who is content to not only not know but not have to convince others of their not-knowing either.
1 reply
well people can define words anyway they want but the average person likes to have a definition that makes sense to them and the use of one word, that means there is no god in that person's eyes and one word that means might or might not be one and open to either, is helpful for communicating with other people unless you spend a lot of time explaining your terms each conversation. Agnostics don't go on talk shows trying to defend their position as they don't have one. Atheists do. If an atheist is secretly a not-knower, they might consider redefining their title around other people...
1 reply
Nice photos :) And when we did all that, we were younger. It does make a difference. I am more and more aware of that.
1 reply
You might someday consider another alternative definition to the string-- agnostic mystic. That means you don't know, don't try to understand what is there but you use the energy in ways that improves your life, you recognize the coincidences when they happen and build on them for your benefit. To me, (and I understand you guys have your own set of definitions) atheist means you know there is no god and hence can be nothing behind those events. Agnostic mystic acknowledges they happen but doesn't try to assign a power behind them to anything other than knowing they happen and can be useful when one takes advantage of them. As an agnostic, one doesn't give up on the possibility of knowing more about from where they come, but an atheist has already decided and doesn't look for that option.
1 reply
That is hugely frightening.I hope he'll have good luck with the surgery.
1 reply
I like this guy's site, Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/ for a look at all the latest information coming out and analyzing it from a scientific perspective. He's in Australia and although not a climatologist, he is a scientist. The denial of it is political and it won't change it. The problem is it might already be too late to stop it and we need to be prepared. Looking at the little Ice Age in Europe that was so destructive to human life tells you it happens without us but what we might do is make it much much worse. The ignorance about it is deliberate but it's as much the fault of the people as those who profit from the lies and distortions of facts.
1 reply
As I see this question, it's not about whether someone might be shy about revealing a mystical experience but that the 'someone' is a teacher who is claiming to lead the 'follower' to some higher plane. IF the teacher has not had the experiences for which they are claiming they can take the student, why should anyone follow their guidance? If it's all about suggested mystical experiences but no specifics, then it might be a fraud. That's the issue here as much as reluctance to share with someone who might not totally 'get' it. I, and I am betting many readers here, have had what I consider to be mystical experiences but I don't share them with just anybody for a lot of reasons. Some would be that others don't care or wouldn't believe. Some is what would be the point? I am though not claiming to be a teacher of the mystical. IF I was, I would think it necessary to share what I knew from my own experience. As the article Brian wrote said, can you really take someone where you have never gone? If you are teaching mystical experiences, you should have experienced them at the least. Even then a acolyte might seriously consider whether to follow as the path might not be right for them. That's the problem with teaching someone else about mysticism.
1 reply
The people who think Obama has a failed presidency are those who get their news from one of the fear mongering media stations like MSNBC or FOX and don't look beyond the interpretation by pundits who love to stir the pot. All Obama has to have to win is 51% of the vote and the Republicans are likely to put up someone like Sarah Palin to guarantee more than that. As for a failed presidency, please. He's been in office one year which most of us who voted for him tended to think would be e learning curve. Now we'll see how he does. When he came in, the country was in a bad spot. Did anybody expect that to be turned around instantly? Yes, he's disappointed some of us who voted for him by not working harder on rights for gay Americans but he's worked on many other of his promises. Some he's not done what we hoped but the right can't go saying how he disappointed them. They never chose him to begin. It's not time to put on black if a Democrat nor to cheer yet if you are a Republican. I read one opinion that the Republicans will try to tie Obama to the democratic candidates like that will sink them. Obama is still personally popular even when his policies are not. That kind of logic will keep the Republicans right where they are. The party of no isn't likely to win over many moderates (which is where elections are won) if they keep playing the blocking game and anybody who thinks Obama didn't try to get along with them didn't pay attention to the health care bill which was basically gutted trying to get along with them. My opinion is it's time to forget bipartisanship as the Republicans only know one thing and that's not how to govern wisely even when they are in power. They supported Bush simply because he was theirs for 8 miserable years. Democrats don't do that and yes, we find fault with Obama when he blows it. Some of us will be tempted by a third party if a viable one comes along (fiscal conservative and liberal socially) but it isn't likely to happen and what is likely to happen is a tea party approved candidate which means Obama will get his second term. Now if Republicans get smart, actually work on bills to improve our situation, and put in someone more moderate, that could change but I see no indication they are getting smart.
1 reply
I have a hard time with movies that have unhappy endings. I watch them only under certain circumstances. It seems like life has plenty of unhappy endings without choosing to watch them voluntarily. As for required reading-- I think it's good for us or so I tell myself about reading Moby Dick, Bleak House or Silas Marner.
Toggle Commented Feb 1, 2010 on Of Wuthering Heights at Shadow of Diogenes
I wish he would forget bipartisanship. He might be the last person left in Washington who believes the Republicans sincerely want to do anything other than win elections and then once they get there pay off their fat cat friends. It's time to go for the jugular and accept that you do that or you lose with those who could care less about what is best for the country.
1 reply
what an encouraging report. I just hope that Oregon stands firm on this for the sake of future generations. It is so important to see farm land stay producing
1 reply
Have you been reading the information showing how much of the country is currently working for the government already? The way it's going, it would be easy to visualize 50% of the people either working for the government or getting a pension from it. I did not suggest that those people are not doing anything for that money and some government jobs might be producing a product but in general what I am saying is if you get a government paycheck or depend on a government pension or have programs you depend on for services, you will be far more likely to favor higher taxes on somebody else. As for companies moving out of Oregon. It already has happened. If we have such a good business environment, why is that happening. I can think of several that I know about personally. There may be many reasons but no income tax can be a factor in where you start up a business. Even in big tax states, companies look for help to get their starts. I suspect both will pass and time will tell if they do what they claimed. Phil Knight of Nike seemed to think they won't be good for the state but what does he know... I don't have insight into corporations that big but I know about the little ones. And some of them are already going elsewhere. I also know how it works for farmers who often have very little margin for profit and yet a lot of money goes through their businesses. If this tax increase was going to cost the businesses so little money, why would the state find it profitable enough to do it? A lot also don't like it being retroactive as if you are operating on a shoestring, that can be a big deal. The point is it's easy to favor things if you don't have to pay them and maybe even profit from the increase. The question will be whether it ends up a long term benefit for the state as a whole. As I said before, I will hope it does. I am a fan of Kitzhaber, who I know supports it. But i have a right to think as I do and I voted how I felt was best. I won't argue it further here as we have both voted and there is no gain to keep going over it. I am sure we want the best for the state and have to hope this will be it.
1 reply
Well my concern about these two is more whether they will accomplish what they promise or not. Having a husband involved in many meetings on start-up businesses, hearing the corporate side of 67, I know that it may end up causing businesses to form or move elsewhere. Oregon already has higher unemployment than many places. We have already lost corporations to Washington and their having no income tax might be a factor as the ones who own businesses pay two places-- personal income tax and business. Anyway I read the material and made my decision accordingly but neither tax will directly impact me right now either. One thing that I didn't like about the ads promoting both was how they emphasized where the money would go. That is a very unfair way to indicate it given you can put that money there and take it from somewhere else for your 'pork' projects then. I would have preferred a full budget diagram showing the spending now and the spending after the taxes. When you see it that way, you can evaluate whether it helps things you believe in. Their little pie charts showed it all going to the elderly, schools, etc. which naturally everybody is concerned to see do well but doesn't really tell us the difference it will make in the budget. I realize it's all advertising and whichever side you get, it will be slanted. Out where I live all the farmers, had signs no on them and all the people who have concerns for schools, etc. had signs yes on it. So basically the producers didn't want it and the receivers did. Not too surprising. I just think we have to concern ourselves with where money really goes, whether tax levies will actually end up raising more money (you can kill the golden goose) and whether the taxes are fair. You might think farmers don't have the choice of moving to another state, but if they end up with too little profit left after expenses and taxes, they can go out of business. That doesn't benefit us as citizens.
1 reply
Just out of curiosity, do you favor raising taxes when you will be paying more out of pocket or just when it's someone else? It seems to me this tax increase is mostly popular because most people don't expect to pay it. Now they might if the corporation raises the prices of the product they sell, but they won't see that immediately to know it. If corporations move out of the state because of the taxes, it won't happen soon enough to make the connection. Unlike what you have said, I don't find myself that fond of taxes, but I do often vote to spend more when I think it's the right thing. On this one I voted yes on one of these measures and no on the other. The yes was because it adjusted more fairly the rates on the lowest income people. I try to vote for what I think will actually help and is fair. I don't necessarily feel it's fair to tax people a higher percentage of their wages just because they make more. I also am not sure it will prove to be cost effective as many states are doing all they can to urge corporations to move there. Washington, who has a sales tax, doesn't have an income tax and same with Nevada. I don't know if this tax increase will help Oregon or not. I will hope for the best. There is a lot though that our state has done to spend money which I haven't liked. It's not like just because it's government that it automatically is wise in its spending or what it promises. Since I already mailed in my ballot (my kids disagreed with me on it also), it's not like you or I will change each other's minds on it.
1 reply
because I am a fan of long hair and having had a grandmother who wore her hair in a crown braid all of her life (except once when her hair was cut due to illness but she quickly grew it back out), i found this interesting but had the same doubts as your wife about it all being hers. I found this picture of her with it down (http://eng.for-ua.com/blog/2007/01/11/142151.html) and it seems to me with hair that length, which is close to the length of mine, she could not do a crown braid that thick. Whatever the case, it's very stylish and she is definitely a beautiful woman.
1 reply