The Semmelweis reflex or "Semmelweis effect" is a metaphor for the reflex-like tendency to reject new evidence or new knowledge because it contradicts established norms, beliefs or paradigms.
This interaction kick-started after the Other read http://pawaehr.blogspot.com/2014/07/10-teachings-from-conversations-with.html
Mostly- perhaps it is because we are living in a scientific era or perhaps it's because our civilization is used to follow religion as per ancient old scriptures.
.jpg)
What I know though of everything is that no belief needs a proof. It does not. A belief simply is! It just is. It merely exists!At times I wonder since it is commonness about something that validates the righteousness of the thing-(for instance, since everyone in class get the same answer, then the answer must or should most probably be right. A common answer=Right!). Same goes for religion= Common Belief, proved, Right!
.jpg)
(There was a time where polygamy reigned in the oriental regions of the globe- but soon enough its righteousness disappeared!)
All this only to say that no belief is right or wrong. It is the believer's assumption of it that makes a belief right or wrong! So chill, and tell society to buck off!
___________________________________________________________
.jpg)
And
who had these conversations? Where do you get this from?
Conversations
with God is a series written by Neale Donald Walsch, spiritual messenger and a
Bringer of Light.
The
10 messages there are mainly the essence of these books.
.jpg)
So
it's believed* that he is a Messenger of God because he had these
conversations?
What
is your standard of evidence for accepting someone as a "Messenger of
God"?
It
is not a belief by one and all.
Those
who believe it's so makes it their belief, and those who do not believe so
condemn it.
.jpg)
The
Book does not see God as a separate entity. It sees God as our Own Selves. So
basically Conversations with God= Conversations with My Self!
It's
highly spiritual in content. Liberating, breezy and beautiful. Filled with
positivity!
Here's
another link about what Neale has to make us aware of: http://pawaehr.blogspot.com/2014/01/spiritual-but-not-religious.html
The Book does not see God as a separate entity. It
sees God as our Own Selves.
But
do you not see a problem with this?
.jpg)
The
fact of the matter is we are not God, at all. We are not creators, we are not
infinite beings. In fact, we are weak and dependent on provisions to keep us
alive, we are limited in our knowledge of this world and universe - how could
we say we are a God of anything? We are incapable of even mastering ourselves
100%, so we are not even a God of our own selves.
On
the other hand, God is the complete opposite. God is the Creator of everything,
God is not weak but infinite in power and not reliant on anything.
This purely spiritual
perspective is harmful because it blinds us from the reality.
I
personally believe that God is omnipresent. And spirituality is what I'm
currently embracing. I have moved from being a very religious person, to an
atheist- and today I'm spiritual in person.
When
it comes to this whole issue of the Creator and Us... I've discussed this once
with friends- you might want to have a look, because it is mostly what I have
to say here.http://pawaehr.blogspot.com/2014/07/blogger-post-existence-of-god.html
We are creators! And we are infinite beings.
I
think purely religious perspective is what blinds us from the truth.
There's
another collection of Conversations with God's teachings which I have published
today.http://pawaehr.blogspot.com/2014/07/some-excerpts-of-conversations-with-god.html
P.S.
"Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong. It is our ideologies and
paradigms that define righteousness and wrongness." And I respect that
each one of us is different, follows a different set of belief for "In the
absence of that which you are not, that which you are is not."
I personally believe that God is omnipresent.
See,
but here's my point, how do you come to this conclusion? Where is your
"Message" that makes this assertion?
I think purely religious perspective is what blinds
us from the truth.
But
being religious does not mean being spiritual, the two are not opposites. As a
Muslim, you have to be spiritual.
I
have never chosen to lead my life because of some message that was apparently
bestowed upon us. I believe that God is within me because I choose to believe
so. I believe so not because of some message or instruction given to me.
I
always thought so before this book fell into my lap. It's an instinct to me.
Neale is not someone who took the words of God to us. He is a messenger of
awareness. God is awareness, change, love, life and I. God is not another
different being. We are all the same.
Religion
and spirituality both can blend together and that's the beauty of things. It's
sad though that today many followers of the Sacred scriptures follow religion
but are not spiritual. An amalgamation of both could be such a divine thing!
I
cannot grasp your last sentence. I apologise.
I
am no Muslim, although I'm one. I am as much Muslim as I am of a Christian, a
Hindu, a Jew, a Bhuddist- BUT I'm first and foremost a Being. A soul. God's
friend. A human.(The only difference between God and a human is that we have
forgotten our Divinity whilst God has not!)
And
I don't feel that HAVE TO BE SOMETHING IN Particular to be branded as somebody
belonging to a particular religion. But alas, that's what religion does- it
tells you what to endorse to be someone- as compared to spirituality that let's
you define your own personal "someone".
.jpg)