Earlier Wednesday, a spokesman for a self-proclaimed common law judge said a grand jury could form within a week and hold a trial. Michael Emory said the judge would act in a supervisory role, and the citizens in the jury would decide if officials should be arrested. He wouldn't go into details as to how the detainment process would work. CNN That blows my mind that they are so delusional as to think they will be granted legal standing to make arrests and judge guilt or innocence, either by mutual agreement or won through force. But another meeting with town folk tomorrow, so we'll see what they say about their "plans to leave." A spokeswoman for the armed protesters said a Friday meeting involving the group and a local citizen's group will be held at the fairgrounds. Ammon Bundy has said his group will discuss plans to leave the area at that meeting.

I don't think the two are related. I suspect your conclusions about not feeling loved or valued are probably a matter of crossing signals, and certain communication means something different to you than it does to the one relaying the message, if that makes sense. There may also be cognitive biases built in there that prevent you from seeing what is obvious to others. These questions about feeling or knowing a god's love are different simply because the method and means of communication is different.

I hear ya. Knowing people with strong delusional beliefs are nevertheless in charge and you have no choice about the matter is a frightening reality. It feels like being the only sober person in the car, and not being allowed to drive, kwim?

Heh, this is why I think the "golden rule" is nonsense. It means something very different to each person, and can cause more trouble than it's worth. With regard to his ignoring his feeling, no he doesn't. He just feels differently than you do. He may feel less intensely, or consider his feelings for a shorter amount of time, or attribute different meaning to them (that's my prediction), but if he's a human, he's acting on his feelings. We all do. We can't experience life, learn, and survive without doing so.

Looks like you've got a lot packed into your OP, lol! In answer to your OP, can you know something but not *feel* it, yes. I think this is demonstrably true. But then again, so is the opposite. We can *feel* something, but be demonstrably wrong, and never see it, admit it, or even care. That happens all the time, and often, our feelings over compensate for knowledge. There's a reason for this - biology. Evolution of the human species explains it. Humans have evolved in such a way as to depend on their brains for survival. We don't have sharp claws, fast limbs, thick skin, horns, camouflage, flight, or any number of defenses that would otherwise protect us from predators and help us provide resources for survival for the next generation. But we do have clever-as-hell brains, and we have each other. Our brains have evolved to take in a fantastic amount of information in a relatively short time. While our childhood, and our dependency, is longer than other animals, so to is the information we take in. Because we are social creatures (our survival depends on the cooperation of others), much of that information is socially based, and socially biased. Psychologists and neurologists study the ways in which human brains take in this information, and we have learned so much in the last few decades about this process. We've learned, for example, we accommodate for lack of knowledge by making assumptions naturally, and sometimes quite broadly. We've learned that we are pattern seekers, and predictors, and we love to see confirmation of our predictions. We've learned that we attribute in others what we experience (and that "others" isn't always human). We've learned that we have cognitive blinder that essentially render us incapable of seeing certain information, as if it didn't exist, regardless of how obvious it is to others, so long as they don't share the same blinders. We've learned so much about the brain, cognitive development, and social behavior, and one thing we've learned is that while our societies are often quite high tech, our brains are still as primitive as those brains that traveled in clans of 50-200, fearing outsiders, and attributing intent and agency to otherwise coincidental events. In answer to this question, you need feelings because they help you maintain a social connection with other people, which your brain has evolved to prioritize. They allow you to act in such a way that maintains your general security (ie, reciprocal ethics inspire people to look out for your best interests the way you look out for theirs). They allow you to respond without using precious time to think rationally, a liability when predators may be just behind that copse of trees. But... to play devil's advocate, while I don't want to give the impression that we shouldn't rely on our spouses for our emotional well-being, I do think we owe it to them to not demand more than is ethical. Some people rely on external validation to a point where it's no longer a reciprocal relationship, but one of service. I'm not suggesting that's at play with you and your dh. I wouldn't know, but I know sometimes I have to step back and wonder if I've expected some emotional service from my dh that isn't fair, and I know he's considered this same thing from his perspective. Communicating our feelings helps to keep in touch with each other's thoughts, but sometimes, keeping them to ourselves helps as well, as sometimes we burden others with the expectation of maintaining our emotional well-being unfairly. I also suspect that training a partner to conform to one's emotional needs can sometimes feel patronizing, and some people prefer to find other solutions to the problems of meeting emotional needs. Sharing your paintings with peers would be an example, but I don't mean that as a thinly veiled hint. I also think it's not inappropriate for your dh to recognize that ignoring your feelings can be unnecessarily selfish on his part. I just mean to suggest there's no "right" answer here, but one that works for you both.

I hear ya. I do to, and for the same reasons. After all, we're the same species, right? We ought to be able to speak the same language, you know? (referencing Harold and Maude here) With regard to accusations of delusions, I'm not attempting to armchair psychoanalyze these guys. I'm using that word specifically in context of their stated motives and the reality that does not conform with this expectation. For clarity, I'm using the word deluded to denote a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact. I do not think there's any reason to expect a person with deluded beliefs to not be able to function perfectly adequately otherwise. Having a deluded belief in one area does not mean one is necessarily deluded in others. Humans can compartmentalize their thinking quite well, and cognitive biases can be profound in some areas and have no effect on others.

I don't think so either, but they make references to the constitution all the time, they make reference to the rights of the citizens, and so I think they are motivated by their understanding of patriotism. And patriotism is a well respected ideology. My thought is that because patriotism is generally well respected, people want to give it leeway that isn't generally extended to other ideologies. So their "crossing the line" is met with more hesitation and patience than other examples of "crossing the line," if that makes sense. There's also the race and religion privileges tied into the whole thing, so I don't mean to imply it's just patriotism. That's part of the delusion. The definition doesn't apply how they're using it, and yet they assume this use is valid. Evidence to the contrary, such as you point out, is simply ignored. That's how delusions work - evidence to the contrary is ignored. There's also probably a psychological factor going on now. More than ever, the cognitive dissonance is likely to inspire them to hang on to their ideals in spite of the obvious fact that they don't have the support of the people to whom they are appealing. Rather than face failure, how much more likely is it they'll hunker down even more? People who have a particularly strong belief system often ignore reasons that go against that belief system, and respond with an even stronger faith in it when challenged. These guys have come to peace with the idea of dying for these beliefs. I think it's more likely they'll desire a "martyr's death" than consider their beliefs aren't reasonable.

Egads. Sounds like a mess. Sounds like incompetence intertwined with delusions of grandeur, securely strapped blinders, and attraction for tragedy porn. You gave them a pass because they're a church. Because churches are supposed to be trustworthy. But they're no different than any other organization. Some are run well, others corruptly, and everything in between. There's no magic power that protects churches from incompetence or idiocy, and if they look defective, they are defective. I'd find other resources for your kids' social and civic needs/responsibilities/privileges, and don't think twice about shaking the dust of that crazy place from your feet.

It's called delusional thinking. It's not logical, it's not rational, but it is sincerely held. People are willing to kill and die for delusional beliefs all the time. These guys have declared their intent to stay there for years. Years. Inspiring some romantic migration for freedom, despite any indication precious few people are interested (like, less than a couple hundred in a population of over 300 million, and that's being terribly generous). No, it doesn't make sense when held up to a reality check, but then again we have a culture in which sincere, personally held beliefs are often respected regardless of any lack of evidence, evidence to the contrary, or how bizarre they might seem when looked at realistically, so long as they fall within certain parameters. Patriotism is within those parameters.

Bundys' little militia game is costing taxpayers approx $60-75,000 per day. The bill will hit $million in the next few days. Their supporters don't seem to have enough money to offset the costs, although some wish they could help overthrow the government, but must wait on government checks to support such an adventure. People who send food and supplies are only prolonging these costs (the folks who sent the "box of dicks" is keeping it fun, however). This romantic, amorphous appeal to revolutionize the hearts of Americans has failed. Spectacularly. More funny memes here.

I sympathize with your little guy. I finished a good book last week and still can't find the motivation to face my responsibilities. Btw, when my oldest finished the HP series, I let him stay up all night to read, sleep late into the next morning, scrapped school work for the day, and called it good. For his character, it was. For social skills, it was. For life skills, it was. Years later, I still don't regret that, and I suspect it'll be one of his fondest memories of homeschooling.

This is astounding. How about instead of worrying about who should get a privilege, how about actually following, or enforcing the actual law? Or is the law secondary to one's belief that things ought to be a certain way? Is personal belief good enough to trump law now? The point is, these guys aren't lawfully carrying a weapon into their scenario. The point is, they are threatening violence if the law is enforced upon them. The point is, this ceased being peaceful as soon as they threatened deadly retribution.

You and me both.

I think the confusion lies in the fact that I am willing to entertain the premise of something spiritual for the sake of the topic, but when asked a question about *how* it works, I am admonished. Apparently I'm supposed to accept the claims of believers on their say-so. When I pointed out the double standard of that, it was ignored. I can appreciate your frustration, but can you appreciate mine? Do you realize how often this very scenario is being played out in all kinds of places? I'm asking a logical question and am being accused of ill-intent. I find that bizarre on a forum where people have taken the responsibility of education seriously, and yet refuse to engage in a discussion when a belief isn't simply accepted as true. I wonder if you can see the irony of this the way I do. As a personal aside, this kind of dismissal was instrumental in my deconversion. Honest questions were ultimately answered with reprimands and reminders to be polite [read as, "be quiet" and "respect my religious beliefs"]. My questions are still honest, and I still find it inappropriate for such a community to throw out unsubstantiated claims - regardless of what they are, religious or not - and then get defensive when those claims have been challenged. Greta Christina calls this defense the, Shut up, that's why defense. Ultimately, she explains, the question of whether atheists are, you know, right, typically gets sidestepped in favor of what is apparently the much more compelling question of whether atheists are jerks. Yes, I do recognize your comment about biology explaining mental illness, but you also claim this "fall" caused biology as we know it. That's an amazing claim to make. Is it really so unpopular a question that people don't consider the ramifications of their statements? Do people in your church, do your children never ask these questions I ask? If this "fall" explains "modern" biology, that opens up so many question, and so many problems, logical and moral. Do so few people ask these questions in your circle, or are they satisfied with the comfort, and led to conclude if the comfort is real, then the validity of the claim is of little importance? You never mentioned demons, but that's the logical conclusion to a spiritual variable in the chemistry of the brain. I won't connect the dots because I suspect no one cares. Those xians who believe it know what I'm talking about, and those who don't seem awfully frustrated with the fact that one person isn't shutting up when her question is ignored. Please don't worry, I'm not asking any more. I'm trying to explain my participation here as inspired by relevant questions, not a desire to frustrate you all.

Again you're refusing to answer my question. I'm asking for evidence for three things. You keep repeating that evidence has been provided in this thread and yet you refuse to link to this provision. I can only conclude they're not really there, or else you're reading something into certain comments that I'm not, but you won't share with me how. No one else will answer these questions either, which is interesting. Ask a biologist what the evidence for a cat's carnivorous digestive system and it will be forthcoming. Without hesitation. Without reprimand. I noticed you ignored the other parts of my post as well, which is of course your option, but the conclusions from such refusal is interesting. It's a pattern of behavior that implies an intent to avoid what must feel like a confrontation. I mean no confrontation, just an answer to my question. I do think it's a good use of time. For me, it's valuable to articulate the doubts and problems in a belief system that is taken for granted to be true and accurate, inspiring unjustified privilege in my community and society and in the world at large. If I'm just a tiny voice of dissent, a proverbial mosquito buzzing around and annoying people, still someone hears what I am saying and thinks, "Yeah, good question. I wonder, too." This is a good thing. It's part of critical thinking skills to recognize reasonable and rational answers to appropriate questions, as opposed to logical fallacies. Furthermore, these questions are not only appropriate in general, they are directly related to the OP's question. For a xian, I imagine it's a good opportunity to be always prepared with an answer to your faith, and also it's the opportunity for iron to sharpen iron. If one believes a thing and is willing to stake their lifestyle and the lifestyle of their children on it, teach their children to embrace it, and vote for public policy that is inspired by it, it's not unreasonable to expect an explanation for it. That's just my opinion as to why it might be valuable for a xian, though, which admittedly I'm not. I don't mean to speak for anyone when I say that. I recognize you and I aren't getting anywhere. I'd be interested in the answer to my questions from anyone. ETA: Never mind about the answers.

This response dismisses the point of the example. The example shows the implausibility of such a claim, and the problems with the idea when looked at in detail. By this logic, if we are assuming a god can create the planet, all life on earth, etc, it can create one where suffering isn't necessary for humans (and cognizant animals in general) to recognize good experiences and appreciate the goodness therein.

Nevermind. :)

Interesting response. Again, a refusal to answer the question. 8cicrles answers it, but perhaps not in the way you would. I find that really interesting as well. On the one hand, if there is evidence, I'd think a xian would be thrilled to have the opportunity to share it. Your answer continues to be evasive and ultimately dismissive, and from my perspective, it seems willfully so. Additionally, no other xian is coming to help you answer it. It would appear that evidence is really important to you, but not to all xians (if we can agree 8circles is a "Real Xian"). It's interesting to me to see such a focus on evidence, but when asked directly, there is none. So before we even explore the so-called evidence, the reality is xians are divided on the issue - evidence exists / evidence is important. So from the very outset, we don't know if xianity as a religion even professes that there is evidence for this "fall." Your idea that disease, death, and misery illustrate a "fallenness" is curious as well. Disease is a function of chemistry, so again, our 5th grade science experiment ought to be able to suss this out. Death is an awkward illustration as well, considering death leads to entomological, bacterial, and chemical activities that change an organic thing into nutrients for more organic things. Imagine if there were no death, there would be no eating (which means no pooping, which means either Adam and Eve didn't poop, or their bodies were suddenly and violently changed to incorporate an entire digestive system - which makes it odd that a piece of fruit would be tempting), the earth would be super saturated with biological life so quickly that vegetation and animals, birds, fish, insects would be some hundreds of feet deep by now, crawling over each other. Unless birth would also be suddenly inoperative once the creator god determined the earth was populous enough. So perhaps he would have been more inspired to pay attention and help out humanity if Eve never ate that first fruit, thus bringing upon us this "fall." But of course this is all speculation, not evidence. There's way one can isolate "fallen" from "not fallen," even though most people living on this earth are alive and have significant parts of their body that are not diseased. The kind of comfort JodiSue takes from this belief is no more evidence for this claim than a mulsim taking comfort from islam is evidence the claims from her religious texts are credible. Surely you wouldn't allow "It brings me comfort to believe mohammed flew to heaven on a magic horse, and back again" to stand as evidence that the greatest responsibility and privilege for mankind is to submit to allah, as revealed in the q'uran. Surely you wouldn't allow "It brings me comfort to believe I can be rid of these thetans who invade my life" to stand as evidence that thetans really did come to earth some umpteen billions of years ago in a modified 747, froze in the middle of a volcano, thawed out, and continue to plague us with illusions of being human and not gods. But it is expected to stand for the xian religious belief. Can you see the double standard in this expectation?

I find this fascinating. Rather than answer my questions, even with one word answers or links to evidence, you present a condition I must meet before you will consider answering my question. You suggest JodiSue answered my questions about evidence for the existence of the soul or medical conditions being caused by "sin," but I am incapable of understanding. I find that fascinating as these questions were met with the "have a good day" reply. For the sake of clarification, JodiSue replied to one of my posts with the comment, "It may be for you, but for me it actually informs how I respond and what any of it actually means in the long term." I interpret that to mean relying on the bible works for her, it informs her and guides her responses. This was her reply to my comment that [the claim of a "fallen world is"] irrelevant to the study of human behavior, neurology, and biology in general. In other words, What is the evidence for a "fallen world"? "It works for me." Do you think anecdotal accounts of relying on the bible for personal guidance counts as evidence for the claim that the world is fallen? Is that where our disconnect is? I don't, for the record, as I am using the conventional meaning of evidence to include facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid. Anecdotal assurances are not fact, regardless of how sincerely held a belief is. Should churches approach mental health issues based on anecdotal accounts of members relying on the bible for personal guidance in opposition to the body of evidence that suggests this guidance might be detrimental to them? Is evidence superfluous to church communities in general? Should it be? These are new questions. They haven't been asked before.

If I ask very clearly and concisely, would you answer? What is the evidence for the existence of a soul? What is the evidence for the existence of a "broken world"? What is the evidence that physical health is affected by "sin"? If you'd rather link to a post that answers these, that would be fine.

What a coincidence! My questions generally end up being interpreted as oppositional or aggressive. I understand this to be due to people feeling frustrated when their beliefs are being challenged and, and answers are challenged in kind. It can be hard to see something you cherish be dismissed as being faulty. It's been suggested I'm a minion of satan, a swine before whom a xian should not throw pearls (ie, discuss), delusional, and that the best course of action is for me to sit down and shut up (the first three were here, the last on another homeschooling forum, ironically, I was a xian at the time). When asked directly, the people who implied the first two refused to answer. I consider that to be the result of frustration, which is interesting, but I'll keep my musing to myself.

This answer confuses me because the silence is what I'm offered. I have to accept it because I cannot compel someone to answer, but it's not at all what I'm looking for. Even now, I laid out very specifically the claims for which I was asking for evidence, and rather than address it, you address my posting style. Bested how? I asked for evidence for claims offered and have been ignored when "it works for me" is challenged. Granted, "it works for me" is not an accurate quote, but a summary of the argument. Is that what you mean by mischaracterizing and belittling people? I mean it only as a succinct expression. Perhaps there is a logical fallacy here, the term of which I'm forgetting. I'll use that instead if I can recall it (assuming there is one, which I'm sure there is). It's not meant unkindly, and really, evidence is neither kind nor unkind. It just is.

I asked for evidence for the soul. It was ignored. I asked for evidence that our world is "fallen," or compatibility between science and religion. The response was an appeal to incredulity at best, but basically boiled down to "it works for me." Surely we can agree "it works for me" isn't evidence in any other situation. We don't consider astrology to be an accurate science because it "works for me." Xians don't consider Islam to be a true representation of "the one true god" even though it "works" for Muslims. This isn't evidence, it's another appeal to trust. Can you imagine how awful that would be if all evidence worked that way? "Trust me, I know how to operate on your son." "Trust me, I know how to turn on this nuclear reactor." "Trust me, I've been to the future and have come back to tell you how to get rich, for a nominal fee of course." Eventually, I was told I was trying to apply evidence to a theological viewpoint. That's not sharing evidence, it's excusing the need for evidence! I asked for evidence for a "broken state" in nature, and my appeal was ignored. I said there is no evidence for the claim that "sin" causes mental illness (a claim I've come to expect most xians to deny, any more than "sin" causes cancer, birth defects, or cataracts). I also reminded JodiSue there is no evidence for anything existing "outside the physical," and the reply to that was, "have a good day." Are you suggesting "it works for me" is a superior argument to evidence when supporting a claim? I'm showing you there was no evidence in this thread, and the reasons boiled down to "it works for me," which xians themselves don't accept from others. If there has been evidence and I didn't acknowledge it, kindly provide it again. I'm taking the time to do this in hopes someone will take these questions seriously. It seems as soon as these claims are put on the spot, either "trust me" is the most valuable piece of evidence there is, or evidence is suddenly completely unnecessary. These questions are of utmost importance if mental health is a problem for the church, and we see it is. If the answer is as JodiSue suggests ("sin" is the cause), the solution would be clear. It would also be effective, and mental health issues would have been eradicated by now. I'm not sure why the quote is relevant. No one has been silenced.

I don't agree these are circles. They're claims made, claims challenged, then... silence. One piece of evidence would make a world of difference.

better?