@lantern53 @bobknight33

http://www.alternet.org/no-obama-didnt-lie-you-about-your-health-care-plans

just saying. @RFlagg is correct.
obamacare is a republican policy,or was initially.

and @lantern53
what is this drivel?:"hey RFlagg, you don't understand insurance, or business, or economics...all you know is what makes a utopia, and like all progressives, you don't know how to go about it, so you just make up rules, and devise policies, none of which work, but you have awesome intentions and the world would be a perfect place if only you were in charge.".

you peered into @RFlagg 's soul and discerned his innermost philosophies and all you could come up with is some one dimensional,vapid blather about "utopia"?

what special tool did you use to discern his most intimate visions and philosophies?
crystal ball?
are you a mystic?
did you fall into a vat of nuclear waste and survived only to find out you had superpowers to peer into a mans soul?

come on man.
what you posted in not only intellectually dishonest,it lacks imagination.
if you had shown some flair at least i could appreciate your comment for its creativity.
but its just the usual boring clever monkey flinging poop.

republican,democrat.
same animal.
i thought most people had come to terms that we were all being manipulated by those who wish to dominate and oppress in order to retain their silver crown.

you have more in common with Rflagg than you do with the very people fucking you and your family in the ass.
doesnt matter which team they play for.

disagree with him all you want but stop buying into this "republican versus democrat" bullshit line.
they are in a small club.
you aint in it..you will never be in it.
they dont like you..they will never like you.
the political class serves their own interests.
you? you can go fuck yourself.

or continue bickering with people you have more in common with while the elite class (that are holding all the cards) ass-rapes your kids future.

they like that.it serves their interests.
stop.
being.
a tool.
for the slave masters.

Ah, so quantum means whatever the hell you want it to mean just because it sounds mystical and mysterious. Got it.

Have you heard of numerology? I hear that's pretty "quantum" like as well.

King of Tokyo, Zombicide, Escape, Mansions of Madness, BSG the Board Game, Mice and Mystics (great co-operative game), X-Wing Miniatures game, Android: Netrunner (perhaps best 2 player game out there), Arkham Horror are just a few of the better games on my board game shelf... want to try 7 Wonders and many others... I play Small World, Forbidden Island, Eclipse, Ascension, and Summoner Wars on my iPad
Catan is a decent game, and does well as a gateway (I think Ticket to Ride is better, and perhaps even Pandemic)...
Love board gaming...

I didn't say it was true. That was your inference. I was just quoting a mystic. Funny how atheists can look all around them and not see a single miracle. Sad.

He doesn't believe anything is the word of God, does he? He doesn't believe in God.
The mystic says the word of God can be found in nature, if one were perceptive enough to discern it.

Gale Wallis

I don't use google+, don't want to use google+, but if somehow it generates something for the Sift by virtue of linking me by some mystical means, I'm in.

The founders have done so much for us as a community, and me personally, it seems the least I can do.

What is religion anyway? Many of them exude the same principles of which I believe have some truth in all of them. Hinduism and Buddhism probably moreso than others but that is just me and what I have seen and learned.

Though there is definitely more verifiable truth to Math and Science. We were built and evolved in this intergalactic system, a system largely devoted to geometry... and an intergalactic system that we do not know much about.

We hardly even know how our brain functions and even less about the subconscious or what happens when we sleep, we know these aspects of our own being impact us, we can study the brain waves, we can hypnotize, we can slip in different molecules into our serotonin receptors, but we still do not understand why. It is a mystery yet to be solved. Much like this phenomenon we might believe as God. Eventually, I believe that we can figure out the science and it will be mindbogglingly simple creating much complexity. Akin to a simple formula as x=abs(x) or y=abs(y) or m=x*x+y*y or x=x/m+cx or y=y/m+cy. But, math will not contain the science of all of the states of being, spirit realms, and matter that do not relate to us on Earth. In my opinion this is only one life. The science of the next could be completely different.

Is God a deity or a they? The programmers of a gigantic reaction that occurs probably in many more places than we can imagine. Who are connected to everything. Maybe, it was a blob of energy that never knew it could create consciousness and the Earth evolved us to be conscious to protect it. Yeah, great job guys.

No one has that great of an idea because if it is real, it would be absolutely mind blowing and beyond all human comprehension, yet probably very simple once we understood it. There is only one way I know to reach out and touch a little bit of it on Earth and it is absolutely amazing and terrifying all at the same time and beyond human linguistics. Science so far is hardly trying to figure it out but it is science, because if all living things ingest this molecule that resides in everything and then is able to see through dimensional portals, into afterlife, through the universe, think it is dead because it is impossible otherwise... well that is Spirit Science something of which is only beginning to come to fruition.

I just think everyone is somewhat right, even Christianity, hehe, as long as they are teaching compassion and love; there is something to it be it group therapeutic, psychological, or really there is something much bigger going on that science has no way of quantifying. Again, I am not saying anyone is right or wrong but that there are truths in everything and to completely disregard them might not be the best approach, even if it is an amalgamation of prior knowledge so very twisted by imperialists throughout these two thousand plus years.

Science is what we need to get behind to begin unraveling these mysteries, even though it is a slow process. I bet that science will eventually grapple to learn that these mystical underpinnings of religions, cults and ancient sacraments... these things Christians call holy light, prayer, God, resurrection, afterlife, angels... fit into the coding of the universe. If string theory and quantum mechanics did not already open that can of worms up. But, I also doubt that whoever created this thing that we are, wants to be seen and would have put up many barriers, knowing full well that its creations would seek them or it out. Or maybe it is the exact opposite....

Epistemological issues seem so central to everything. Within the libertarian devotion to reason that Chomsky has praised, two camps seem to be at odds with one another, in a kind of in-house brawl.
One camp holds the empiricist skeptics who also happen to favor scientific materialism (like Penn Jillette and James Randi and some others you may not have heard about, or maybe you have) and the other camp holds the natural law axiomatic-deductive philosophers who don't outright dismiss homeopathic medicine, for example, and who question flouride in the water.
We can broadly see at least seven different positions. One writer I enjoyed a bit in college, Robert Anton Wilson, seems to have accepted empiricism in conjunction with intuitive-mysticism as valid sources of knowledge but not axiomatic-deductive reasoning. He wrote a short piece on his opposition to natural law in "Natural Law and Don't Put a Rubber on Your Willy." I don't think he developed his opposition thoroughly. He devoted more to his writing to oppose scientism (like double-bind dogmatic empiricism) with a whole book, "The New Inquisition."
Another position is that of Ayn Rand and her Objectivist followers who accepted neither intuitive-mystical knowledge nor much empiricism, but only (or mostly) axiomatic-deductive reasoning.
In my opinion, a stronger view accepts all three and tests theories against all three.

Indeed, I am all for reactor simplification, the reactor I want to see constructed could theoretically be nearly completely made on a factory line then shipped and installed very simply. The molten salt reactor concept is just a bunch of pipes with a graphite core. Most of the Gen4 reactors have this goal, and while large construction projects do mean jobs, usually good jobs...they are also costs, and if we want China and India to adopt greener power systems, they need to be cheaper than coal.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

I am going to sift this after I post, but it is a short look into reactors in general, and why the MSR and other potential Gen4 concepts could eliminate that huge capital and labor cost. And nearly completely eliminate radioactivity problems to the general public.

300 billion is actually not to much money when you get down to it. Each year, the global economy spends up to 10 trillion dollars on dino fuel technology. Considering the reliability of NPPs and the nearly 90% load rate over the course of many years...those costs are really really good! Typically speaking, when you consider the costs of decommissioning, waste transportation, nuclear generally ends up being about on par with coal...mostly because nuclear plants last so darn long, over 60 years for some of our gen2 plants in the US and still going strong! Compare that to the 150 billion or so Germany has spent on solar project to their total ACTUAL output and it is a very telling tail. Even more so when you look at total carbon emissions of Germany compared to France.

Waste is actually what made me anti-nuclear myself. My introduction to caring (negatively) about nuclear was the Fukushima Daiichi incident. But after learning more about that situation, I actually really started to appreciate nuclear more. No one died as a result of FD failure, the containment building stopped most of the most harmful radiation, and the stuff that did get out is the really mild stuff (stuff with the million year half lives). I don't want to downplay this, it is still a very serious industrial mess to clean up, but compared to the 20 thousand people who died in the Tsunami and the tons of fuels, trash and other crap that got souped around in Japan as a result, the old reactor help up respectably, and is a credit to the operators (all of whom are currently alive an well).

I had a common misconception about radioactivity, I thought something with a long half-life was bad because it was going to be radioactive for a long, long time. That is mostly wrong. What that means is it is going to be hardly radioactive for a long time, elements that are short lived are VERY radioactive, but disappear very fast. I don't want to mire you in most of the gritty details, but the fission products reactors produce don't last very long, most only hours, a fewer some decades, and only a few longer than that. Stuff that has billion year a billion year half life...well, you don't really need to worry about it at all, it just isn't that radioactive. Most of the worry is based around "transuranics". That is just fancy speak for "stuff heavier than uranium". This is the stuff like Plutonium and Curium ect. The great thing about modern, Gen4 reactors is they don't really make those things...the thorium reactor I like starts with thorium, which is a long, long way from making anything heavier than uranium (less than 1% theoretically possible). So micrograms per year...not really that much to worry about (there is also no way to really get that to go into the environment because we don't use pressure vessels, but I will leave that to Kirk to explain).

I don't want to make it sounds like there isn't any risk or anything, but the risks have been way overplayed by political interests and not technical ones. For instance, many of the exclusions zones for FD were way overblown, they were no more radioactive than my home in the mountains ...but that isn't want you heard in the news.

But I think I will leave it like that. Nuclear has a bunch of mystic joojoo around it. Don't take my work for it, please, give "bill gates nuclear" a google, or other "gen4 reactor" stuff a chance before you completely write off nuclear as a green option for the future. I personally think it will have a big role to play if we want to stem off CO2 production AND bring more people into a western quality of life. Thanks again for the back and forth.

I would beg to differ on this sentiment. We have little knowledge of where we come from. Even Francis Crick, one of the founders of DNA suggested that we are on Earth through panspermia from another sentient race.

Then you have to ask who created them, and who created the creators, and so on. It becomes a chain of causality. You then have two options. Either, you have to believe that something came from nothing, or, there is an eternal first cause of everything that exists. I think something coming from nothing is impossible, so an eternal first cause is the only option left. If you agree, then we'll call that God.

Who knows? The Christian perception of god in reality is quite possibly unfathomably simple, that is to say that which is the creation of all existence. Listen, I want the truth just as much as you do, that is why I gone far out to experience mystical experiences that only prove to me that whatever this is, is far more complex and loving.

It's good to hear that you are pursuing the truth. That is something I greatly respect. My question to you is, if the truth is Jesus Christ, as He claims (I am the way, the *truth* and the life), would you turn your life over to Him?

The Christian conception of God is actually very complex in some ways, and simple in others. Complex, when you consider the Holy Trinity and the incarnation of Christ. Simple, when you consider the Fathers love for His children the sacrificial love of His Son. The theology also shares this dichotomy of depth and simplicity, and it is all knit together with sinews of love and unity into the mystical body of Christ. The Christian God is, like the Universe He created, both complex and simple.

I'm not sure what you mean by more loving. I'm going to need a definition and example of what you're talking about before I reply to that.

No one can prove Jesus was raised from the dead it is a phenomenon not widely occurring. I would never say that Jesus never existed but I think it is probable that Jesus existed in a much more humble way than what is described by his disciples. Therefore, I look at it as a book of tall tales. There is nothing wrong with that, I mean if you can accept it for what it really is... a book of Tall Tales.

Presumably, if Jesus is alive, He could prove it couldn't He?

Yes, I went to a Lutheran church every Sunday for eighteen years. Most of my parents community were involved with the church. They all know my feelings on the subject and over time I have seen their Christian foundations dissolve for better or worse. For me, it is undeniably a farce of divinity. I respect Christianity, probably without Christianity I would never had wanted to seek out the real, hard truths. Christianity spoke so much of honesty and truth. I adore those concepts and unfortunately Christianity does not hold a flame to what I now know.

You will find me very much in agreement with you when you say that dead religion is a farce of divinity. When it comes down to it, there are two types of Christians in this world. Those who have a religion, and those who have a relationship. Those who have a religion are those who follow the traditions of men, and believe that to follow God is to go to church, read the bible, and pray at the suitable times. Basically, if they follow their good and bad checklist well enough, some day they will make it to Heaven. Their faith is blind and based only on what they've read, but not what they've understood to be true from experience.

Those who have a relationship are those who have a personal, intimate, experiential relationship with the living God. They have the Holy Spirit living with them, who has supernaturally transformed them into new people. These people experience the presence of God in their daily lives, and are personally guided by God in everything they do. These people know the truth, experience it, and live it out every single day. It sounds to me that your experience had the character of the former and not the latter. I am not shocked at all that you left the church under those pretenses, and I would have too. It is a story I have heard many times in the past, that people who grew up with dead religion and never learned how to have a personal relationship with Christ, quickly abandoned the faith of their parents, because either they never really believed in the first place, or they had no foundation for their beliefs, and the world quickly converted them to its ways.

There is more to this story Shinyblurry, my spiritual quest started late, after I was free from the churches hold . I am not a liar, I have never purposefully stolen anything and I treat people with honesty and compassion. I may be very left leaning but I find myself to be much more ethical, non judgemental and compassionate than most

I appreciate that you're a relatively moral person. We as humans tend to judge ourselves based on a relative standard, based on how we line up to other people. Compared to rapists and pedophiles, we're both very upstanding citizens I am sure. Compared to Hitler, we are looking almost perfect. Yet, God doesn't judge on a sliding scale; He uses an absolute standard. Gods standard for good is moral perfection, and He considers anything short of that to be evil. That is why God is holy and we are not. So, for example, you say that you're not a liar, but if you've ever told even one lie then you are in fact a liar, as a liar is a person who has lied. If you've ever stolen *anything*, regardless of its value, you're a thief. If you've ever used Gods name in vain you are a blasphemer. Gods standards are even higher than this, though, in that He consider what you've thought in your heart. For example, if you've ever even looked at a woman with lust He considers you an adulterer at heart, and Jesus says if you've ever hated anyone you've murdered them in your heart. (full disclosure: I've done all of these things) So you can see that our relative standard doesn't cut it when it comes to what God considers good, and even one sin is too many. That's why Jesus died for our sins, because we cannot meet Gods holy standard on our own.

One night maybe ten years ago, for a few seconds, and then hours I thought God had contacted me and it was weirdest thing I have ever experienced. And it was real, I mean the experience. And so my quest began and I found a partial truth after many years of research...

Tell me more about your experience of God..why was it weird, and what partial truth did you find that seemed to confirm it?

and it only raises more questions on divinity, soul, morality, the mind, the universe. Thus is life. Keep asking questions. Keep thinking. Keep researching.

I respect your search for the truth, and I think it is a good thing. Scripture says, seek and you shall find. Ask and you shall be given. Knock, and the door will open. Do you believe that you have a soul?

The truth is out there, yet none of us know it yet. And I mean NO ONE.

I'll have to stop you here because you're making an absolute claim and this is self-contradictory. This is revealed by the question, "is it absolutely true that no one knows the truth?" The best you could say is that you don't know the truth, but you don't know what I know. How could you, if you don't know what the truth is?

Further, this ties into what we're discussing about the video. That there are only two routes to truth. Either you are omnipotent, or you get revelation from an omnipotent being. Since neither of us are omnipotent, there is only one possibility of either of us knowing the truth, which is an omnipotent being revealing it to us. I fully agree with you that outside of such revelation no one knows anything. But, if God gave me such revelation how would you know whether He did or not? You couldn't say no one knows the truth, because you don't know what God has or has not revealed. You only know what God has revealed to you, if anything.

>> ^bobknight33:

Single payer system will drive up costs and inefficiencies. What these guys are doing is a good thing. Putting up prices and letting you decide.

If Coke was the only drink in to have then they would no no issue to set the price high. As soon as a competitor shows up and delivers a comparable product at a lesser price the true price of the product will be discovered.

>> ^Yogi:

>> ^bobknight33:
Obamacare is not driving out the cost of healthcare for this group. Capitalism is.
from the text above:
The major cause of exploding U.S. heath care costs is the third-party payer system, a text-book concept in which A buys goods or services from B that are paid for by C. Because private insurance companies or the government generally pick up most of the tab for medical services, patients don't have the normal incentive to seek out value.
The Government gave us the third party payer system during WWII. Government is at fault.

Patients shouldn't have to "Seek out value." They're busy, usually being sick, or trying to work while being sick. It shouldn't be a for profit industry, everyone should have healthcare it should be a single payer system.



sorry i live in a "single payer system"

i know people who work in multiple departments/sectors of healthcare...everything from doctors, to home care, to IT

and i can say with full knowledge and satisfaction, that your statement that a single payer system drives up costs/inefficiencies is either ill informed, or completely full of bs...

the notion of competition as being the great equalizer is moronic, in a system where insurance companies spend 100s of millions of dollars lobbying to get the game rules changed in their favor... insurance companies main goal is to make profit... they do that by minimizing cost/quality of service while maximizing return... if you can't see how that contradicts the purpose of health care, you are either naive or morally bankrupt

the arguement that businesses are held to be more financially responsible than government is also a lie... a business only has the financial obligation to report accurate numbers while being fiscally sound... the government has that exact same obligation, but further more has to show VALUE for what it is doing

your argument about Coke mystically assumes Coke is the only drink, thus they could set the price at whatever they want... I assume you are making the arguement that Coke is healthcare? but a company who's goal is to sell coke to make profit... that's an insurance company.... a company who has to be accountable to the people giving it money while making sure that the MOST people have cheap and easy access to coke... that'd be the government

you can either argue that government operates the same as business (as you are trying to do with your horrible coke analogy), or you can argue that they operate differently (as most people who back the business produces better financial results than government argue)... but you don't get to argue both in the space of 2 paragraphs

you, sir or madam, have taken a big old swig of the kool-aid

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail.
She wasn't killed instantaneously. Regardless whether she was "declared" dead or not as she was still alive. Even though she was thought to be dead, clearly her brain was still functioning and was not dead. Her subconscious was still functioning.

What we know is that she was declared dead, and became conscious when Jesus returned her to the light. It's possible that the staff made a mistake, and it's also possible that she was clinically dead. You are weighing this heavily on the mistake side because of your naturalistic presuppositions, yet there is no actual evidence backing it up. This is exactly how your naturalistic presuppositions will always distort the evidence you're looking at in favor of naturalistic conclusions. If you had evidence of the supernatural in front of you, you would never actually recognize it. It's what I mean when I say your worldview is like a pair of glasses you wear to interpret reality.

Last night I dreamed I was chased by a dinosaur, this does not give evidence that dinosaurs are waiting for us in the afterlife. (poor example maybe - but my point is there.)

This isn't a good analogy because it doesn't match the circumstances. It's the circumstances which give the testimony weight.

And no, in answer to your question, I have NEVER seen nor experienced anything in this existence that gives the possibility that a God exists - sorry. (all due respect.)

Is the truth important to you? IE, if the truth was contrary to all of your preconceived notions about reality, would you want to know it?

And you are wrong about me not looking for anything passed the "world view" as you put it. I am spiritual, I'd love for a representation of the mystical to give evidence to itself. I'd love to live in that make believe world, honestly. I just learned early that it isn't there. I don't explain things away but I've never seen anything that could prove it existed. You are not privileged to my experiences so you shouldn't make assumptions - only I know what I give belief to.

What does it mean to be spiritual, to you? Would you be willing to pray to a non-existent God to help you with your unbelief?

My reality lays on a solid foundation while yours lays somewhere else.

What is the solid foundation that your reality is resting on?

You are correct in that I don't give myself freely to the unprovable purely for the reason of faith that it exists. That, to me, would be more than foolish. If I was to do so, I would fall prey to every word, and person said to me. I would have to join all religions and believe in them all even though they contradict one another. And what is to stop me there, why shouldn't I believe every person who has ever tried to swindle me. Faith is something earned and not given freely and so far religion has swindled my far more in life than it has proven itself to have any basis in reality.

I don't expect you to believe something without any evidence; my point is that neither do you have any basis for doing the opposite. My earlier question was, how do you know you haven't been indoctrinated into your beliefs by the secular culture? For instance, if you believe that truth is determined by what we can sense, ie empiricism, how do you reconcile that with the problem of induction?

Call me an Atheist if you like, but I prefer the term Realist. I am a Realist who likes to play at fantasy but in the end, I always land with my feat back on solid ground knowing which way is up.

I'm curious at what you mean by play at fantasy? Do you have an active imagination?

>> ^Sagemind:

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail

Yes, but you as well, are leaving out a key detail.
She wasn't killed instantaneously. (And nothing you can say will change that statement.) Regardless whether she was "declared" dead or not as she was still alive. Even though she was thought to be dead, clearly her brain was still functioning and was not dead. Her subconscious was still functioning.

Last night I dreamed I was chased by a dinosaur, this does not give evidence that dinosaurs are waiting for us in the afterlife. (poor example maybe - but my point is there.)

And no, in answer to your question, I have NEVER seen nor experienced anything in this existence that gives the possibility that a God exists - sorry. (all due respect.)

And you are wrong about me not looking for anything past the "world view" as you put it. I am spiritual, I'd love for a representation of the mystical to give evidence to itself. I'd love to live in that make believe world, honestly. I just learned early that it isn't there. I don't explain things away but I've never seen anything that could prove it existed. You are not privileged to my experiences so you shouldn't make assumptions - only I know what I give belief to. My reality lays on a solid foundation while yours lays somewhere else.

You are correct in that I don't give myself freely to the unprovable, purely for the reason of faith, that it exists. That, to me, would be more than foolish. If I was to do so, I would fall prey to every word, any person said to me. I would have to join all religions and believe in them all even though they contradict one another. And what is to stop me there, why shouldn't I believe every person who has ever tried to swindle me. Faith is something earned and not given freely and so far religion has swindled me far more in life than it has proven itself to have any basis in reality.

Call me an Atheist if you like, but I prefer the term Realist. I am a Realist who likes to play at fantasy but in the end, I always land with my feat back on solid ground knowing which way is up.




>> ^shinyblurry:

You're leaving at a few key details in your analysis here. Number one, according to her testimony she was declared dead at the hospital. You're saying this was all the result of a subconscious mind on guilt overload, but she didn't know that she was dead until after she experienced the NDE. When she got hit by the car, she was killed instantaneously. She believed that she was dead because, at the moment of impact, she was flung out of her body into a dark tunnel with demons gnashing at her. For her to be influenced by guilt would necessitate that she already knew what was going on, but she didn't until after the experience had already began. It wasn't as if she was laying there for a time, knowing she was about to die. It all happened in a moments time.
Second, she came back to life at the moment that Jesus saved her. When she called upon His name, He came and lifted her back into the light, and it was then that she regained consciousness in the hospital. Do you believe this is a coincidence?
Your explanation is plausible if your underlying presupposition is correct, that Jesus Christ is not alive, but you have no way of confirming that. There is no instrumentation which is going to confirm your explanation either. You really have no basis for ruling out the possibility that her testimony is true, in actuality. So why do you? Have you never experienced anything in all your life which tells you there could be a God out there?
To note, we're both looking at the same evidence, but we're interpreting it different. The reason we interpret it differently is because we both have certain presuppositions about reality, which you could call a worldview. A worldview is like a pair of glasses that you look through to view reality. Your presuppositions are like the prescription for those glasses, and if your presuppositions are faulty, your interpretation of what you see will lead you to faulty conclusions.
The main presupposition of atheists is that of atheistic naturalism. To an atheist, the things of the spirit are ruled out apriori, so therefore there must be a naturalistic explanation for everything. So, an atheist will completely miss any explanation which doesn't fit into naturalistic assumptions, because they are interpreting every evidence through a naturalistic lens. Your explanation here is that this woman is simply a victim of her own lifelong conditioning, which as I pointed out doesn't quite line up with the facts. If what she described is 100 percent true, you would never once reach that conclusion, because of those presuppositions. How do you know you're not simply the victim of lifelong conditioning towards naturalistic assumptions about reality? This is after all what we are taught in school, and which is reinforced in the culture, popular media, books, music, and the like.
>> ^Sagemind:
This sounds like a person who believed in God but didn't stand by the principles of religion. Then she had a close call/ near death experience which forced her to have a guilt overload.
During that overload, she experienced everything she knew in her sub-conscience, everything she had been taught about heaven and hell as she focused on her fears and guilt over the life she had lead.
I'll guarantee she she was brought up in a religious home and religion was a large part of her life, so that when this experience came, her fear of death, caused her to remember everything she had been indoctrinated with. Everything she is saying is true for her and is a sentimental retelling of her experience but this just shows you how fragile and influential the human brain is to ideas if the ideologies are ingrained enough.
I believe she saw and felt what she did, but I also believe what she experienced was a manifestation of indoctrination and fear influenced by guilt which had been ingrained into her during her years of upbringing.
This is why religion is a dangerous tool. It's very powerful and influential and can be used to as a tool to over-power a person's natural abilities to discern the differences between reality and fantasy.

>> ^Murgy:

>> ^shinyblurry:
Lilith was never in scripture and was written about over 1000 years after genesis. It was written as Jewish folklore, and developed mostly in the middle ages. Today it is particularly embraced by pagans, gnostics and radical femenists. It's yet another lie, out of millions, that tries to derail the Creation story and that people buy into without doing any research. There is no lilith conspiracy..she never existed.
>> ^xxovercastxx:
@0:34 "Ever since the earth's first woman..."
bzzt! Eve was the earth's second woman.


The very concept of Pagans and Agnostics including a story, altered or otherwise, from a book collaboratively written by groups of Judo-Christians in their religious beliefs is truly laughable. That's before even considering the fact that both spiritual ideologies existed prior to Abrahamic religion. Furthermore, your "Lilith was never in scripture and was written about over 1000 years after genesis." statement is completely invalid. A figure pulled from your metaphorical nether-regions, if you will. Your later complaint of "people buy into without doing any research" truly cements your spot on my "Wall of Hypocritical Nonsense."
I could go into further detail about your closing comment "It's yet another lie, out of millions, that tries to derail the Creation story. There is no lilith conspiracy..she never existed" in regards to your views about the integrity of a tale claiming all of humanity is descendent from two humans who sprung up, fully formed, out of the earth. Instead, however, I think I'll let your previous misinformation speak for itself.


A fallacious argument from incredulity does not provide a refutation of anything I've said; indeed, what I've said is well supported:

"In Jewish folklore, from the 8th–10th centuries Alphabet of Ben Sira onwards, Lilith becomes Adam's first wife, who was created at the same time and from the same earth as Adam. This contrasts with Eve, who was created from one of Adam's ribs. The legend was greatly developed during the Middle Ages, in the tradition of Aggadic midrashim, the Zohar and Jewish mysticism.[3] In the 13th Century writings of Rabbi Isaac ben Jacob ha-Cohen, for example, Lilith left Adam after she refused to become subservient to him and then would not return to the Garden of Eden after she mated with archangel Samael.[4] The resulting Lilith legend is still commonly used as source material in modern Western culture, literature, occultism, fantasy, and horror."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilith

With all your scoffing you are alluding to an intimate knowledge of the subject, certainly enough to call my arguments "laughable" and "Hypocritical Nonsense". So I'm all ears to hear the research you have uncovered with disproves my argument so succinctly.