Who Hears Voices and Has Visions, Who Does Not
Many people, perhaps some who are reading this, are certain they hear the voice of Jesus or God. There are people who hear the voices of other gods. Then, there are people who see Jesus. I have known such people. Why is it some hear or see Jesus (or some other god) and others do not and say they cannot.
A neurologist who studies this has a long, and still unresolved, explanation. I can't claim to understand him but the summary of what I took from his explanation is this. Some of these experiences of hearing or seeing gods or other voices and individuals come from the brain neurons we were born with. Some is from how we train ourselves to think. And, some is from our experiences and social and physical environment.
Even as this entire field of science does not come up with clear cause and effect, it is further complicated by the inability to see into another's mind. Any research is left with hearing one describe what he/she mentally hears or sees, not actually seeing into that person's mind.
There are people who believe in a literal heaven and hell--who have utter confidence such places exist. Others, like myself, cannot fathom either than such places exist or that others believe they exist.
It would be dangerous to believers if it were found that the gods or the heavens are produced neurologically instead of existing outside the brain. Nevertheless, it would be helpful to the rest of us. Some who does not but might prefer believing in a god would welcome understanding how it could be achieved.
Minds which allow hearing voices and seeing images of gods must benefit those whose can experience this--or so such folks say. Those of us who cannot experience this feel we are better off as well. Yet, I suspect science will keep working to find an objective explanation as to why we differ.
7 days and no comments. That's what happens when you filter comments and make rules for comments you don't have to follow, i.e. cut and paste, a great way of quoting accurately.
ReplyDeleteAs for the last 7 days worth of garbage, ...
Matt--"As for the last 7 days of garbage..."
ReplyDeleteA lot of bloggers close off the comment option. I like to leave it open so you can insult me. I know it gives you pleasure.
I wish I could compliment you. That's up to you.
ReplyDeleteOf course, the issue is 7 days and no comments. That's an observation. Garbage content is an opinion and an insult.
ReplyDeleteIt's a well known fact that an editor can always win the argument/ discussion by editing out factual disagreement, which the public never see, favoring posts in agreement with the editor, throwing in non-related diversion, and having the last word.
ReplyDeletehelper "It's a well known fact...."
DeleteThat's true only to a degree. A critic may have only one goal in mind, winning an argument. An editor may have several goals that need to be balanced. Yes, he/she likes to have his argument prevail. The entire forum, however, would not even exist were it not for readers. The forum, then, needs to appeal to readers--as you say, "It's a well known fact.." that reader numbers make publication needed. A third variable for an editor is how much time he/she wants balance the time spent on competing tasks, writing material or messing with comments.
I don't allow come comments to appear here because of one or all of these reasons. I've know the people who run the editorial page in the Forum. They explained the complexity of editorial content and letters to the editor but I didn't really understand them until I started this blog.
A critic may want to introduce accuracy to the topic, not necessarily to "win an argument". If accuracy isn't a priority to the editor, it reveals not only the lack of integrity, but the bias on his part.
DeleteHow many years have you been at this, a decade longer? I'm not sure I would take advice about how to build up readership from someone who goes a week without any comments on the 7 'provocative' articles he published that week. Market size is not the issue as Rob Port takes a totally different philosophy and allows readers to comment at will. Rob does reserve the right to delete comments but I have not seen any comments that have disappeared for anything but profanity. Rob's readership may be the largest in the State of ND with 100-200 comments per article.
DeleteNo, this is about 2 things; control and garbage. John likes total control as it gives him the illusion of power. When people like me leave his blog because of being controlled, it should send a flag that something is being run wrong. The garbage refers not to just the content, because some topics are worthy of exploration and discussion. No, it's the combination of the topic and Jon's wacky analysis. Who wants to argue with a madman who deletes your comments and then makes rules for his audience but not for himself. I will give 2 examples. The first is "cut and paste". The second is repetition. Jon repeats topics at least monthly. However, if he doesn't like your comment because he feels it is repetitive, it gets the ax.
So, I agree with little helper.
Helper "A critic may want to introduce accuracy.."
DeleteSometimes, but sometimes he may want to divert the argument to something not relevant. In a trail the judge allows some arguments and does not allow others.
re "he may want to divert the argument to something not relevant." That is often exactly what you do, or allow to be done by your sympathizers !!!!!!! Case in point; the Bolsheviks of a past topic.
Deletehelper "Case in point; the Bolsheviks of a past topic."
ReplyDeleteThat's exactly my point. There was a heated discussion about something unimportant. I deleted the posts.
See? you're doing it again. No integrity. For you to save face, you need not print this.
ReplyDeletehelper--I didn't post those because your memory has failed. You and unknown wrote three or four posts about Bolsheviks, details of no importance whatsoever, that I deleted before they were published.
ReplyDelete