Besides the fact that religions tend to anthropomorphize God …
If He ‘see’ and ‘hear’ , it does not mean that He sees and hears the same way that humans do or that He uses 'eyes" and ‘ears’.
Nothing particularly sacred about the human organs … Even birds of prey have better eyesight than humans, dogs have better hearing and sense of smell , etc.
MM
For me … and perhaps only me … the more you explain your OBE experience the more consistent it is with how other people describe their experiences with other ‘entities’ … Beings Without Form
" i could feel his/her presence … invisible but not imperceivable.
“I saw something” … as in apparitions … size and location
Thanks Phyllo … investigating the intention of the expression “anthropomorphize God” was pleasantly informative.
It also helped me with my ongoing attempts to synthesize Taoism with Christianity.
So what would the implications of that be? Are you suggesting that leaving the body might be more like peering into another universe, one in which your body happens to be a few feet to the left (for example)?
Gib … I confess … my fingers working the keyboard got ahead of my brain … I typed the term “parallel universe” and I really had virtually no knowledge of the intention underlying the expression … it simply felt “right” to type the expression.
Surprisingly … after a cursory investigation … the notion of parallel universe still feels ‘right’. I also learned the expression “fourth dimension” … apparently our brains can only handle 3D 
I like your words “peering into another universe” … but I struggle with your words “a few feet to the left”. I don’t see any spacial separation between the one universe and the other. Over simplifying … at times, just because we can’t see in the dark doesn’t mean there is nothing there … some argue most people have a fear of the dark which I interpret to mean “a fear of the unknown” … a fear of what we can’t see … a fear of the fourth dimension???
The current technology “virtual reality” came to mind … with this technology our place in our physical world doesn’t change yet our brain can be convinced (I suppose it’s a question of degree) that the person wearing the goggles is in another world.
Yes, and it can even simulate OBE’s!
Gib … I remember Doc and Marty well … lots of laughs … though I had no idea there were physics undertones to the story. In high school I took to physics like a fish takes to land … ditto for calculus
Another confession … I don’t ‘see’ them at all.
I like John of the Cross … in particular … his poem “Dark Night of the Soul” The first two lines …
“On a dark night,
Kindled in love with with yearnings - oh, happy chance”
At the moment it feels like the scope of the above excerpt stretches well beyond the arena of spirituality(mysticism). Genius in all intellectual pursuits … physics, science, philosophy and so on … starts at the same place. A dark night … some unknown. Kindled in love with yearnings … the passion to know is born … to journey beyond current human knowledge.
I also believe all new stuff comes from the same “fountain” … though I have never drank from this fountain myself.
gib
It might just be considered justice insofar as some people go – those who have really been responsible for harming humanity but still a bit steep…eternity is supposedly considered to be non-stop. I don’t really “see” reincarnation but it would be more fruitful and logical and pave the way toward more human and spiritual growth.
Le’s not forget gib that those who wrote the bible were dealing with projection, a lack of knowledge and real insight in those days.
For many, the word “inspiration” as in the "inspired word of God just means, without those clearly thinking about it, that God actually did put the words/thoughts in the minds and the hearts.
That so-called inspiration was simply a product of those times, based on bias, desire, imagination…trying to figure out their world.
Define what you mean by infinite here?
Or vica versa.
Heaven hell purgatory were created by humans to keep us in tow. Nothing necessarily wrong with that. Laws achieve the same the thing in a matter of speaking.
Have a Happy Holiday, gib.
And that’s the thing. Eternal punishment doesn’t serve any purpose except maybe revenge or satisfaction of hatred, which again is not something a just and loving God would do. Punishment for the sake of growth and learning at least is conceivable but that requires the punishment to come to an end eventually.
Yes, and when you bring it down to the human level, we can easily see how some, through that bias, desire, imagination, etc., might see eternal punishment as “just”–but really, it’s more of an emotional reaction to those whom you despise or hate. We’ve all been there: we’ve all had moments when we were so enraged by a person, we might say things like “If I were God, I’d send you to hell forever,” and at least in the moment that seems “just” to us. But when you get yourself together and rise about your petty hang ups, you can’t seriously think eternal punishment makes sense in any situation.
Well, if we’re quantifying sin, you get an idea of what it means to be infinitely evil (or infinitely sinful) by imagining that some sins are more evil than others. Suppose you could measure the evil of a sin–say with “sin units”–or SU’s for short. So if lying count as 50 SU’s, then maybe murder counts as 1000 SU’s. So just as with anything that’s quantifiable, you can imagine an infinite amount of it: something can be 50 meters, something else can be 1000 meters, or something can be infinite in length (the extents of the universe); you can have something that takes 50 minutes, something that takes 1000 minutes, or something that’s eternal (the age of the universe); likewise with SU’s–a sin can be 50 SU’s, 1000 SU’s… can it be infinite SU’s?
You too Arc! Merry Christmas!
the problem you describe is which that enables some to rule the planet. Resolve that one and you/we resolve everything
Metaphors and allegories are part of the problem. all religious textbooks are master pieces in that sense, pick the verses matching your understanding about life and you will do just fine. Really? Society is into full self-destruction mode.
natural laws, objective reality always win over, hence the emergency for non-coercive metaphilosophical takeover and become an earth custodian 
Accidentally read the title as “Why Gib is inherently wrong”.
I disagree about God being wrong. He can’t be wrong when he doesn’t exist.
lol He?
But is it plausible/possible that Something which we consider to be God, even though way way way off in our thinking, might exist?
Your statement throws the baby out with the bathwater albeit there is much bathwater.
When a thing doesn’t exist, that doesn’t make statements about it wrong, it makes them indeterminant. But we can still fall back on analyticity. For example, all bachelors are unmarried men, would still be true even if all the men in the world got married.
If you don’t know if something exists, any conclusion is “indeterminate”. If you know that it doesn’t exist, then you know that it is neither right nor wrong about anything.
And your example contradicts your proposal. 
If you say that a unicorn has one horn, then you are completely correct. There is nothing indeterminate about that.
Similarly, it’s possible to say true and false statements about the Star Wars universe. As well, it’s possible to say indeterminate statements about it.
The only thing that one can rationally discuss concerning the non-existent is tautological to its concept definition. To claim that the thing is right or wrong about something requires that the thing be more than merely a defined concept.
No, there will be logical consequences of the definition.
Moreover, Star Wars does not define … it states what happens in an imagined universe. Therefore, events must be based on simple logic rather than definitions. For example, when a character is in one place, he cannot be simultaneously in another.
The logical consequences are not the “thing”.
I suspect you haven’t examined modern pop films enough.
A fictional story defines a conceptual situation. What proposed events and their coherency that might follow might or might not be logical. Still a story is merely a defined conceptual flow of fictional events. You can only logically discuss what was defined to be true, not what “really is true”, because there is no real to it: "What would superman REALLY have done?" - silly question.
Even superman could not be in two places at once. Therefore, there are logical limitations within fictional constructions.
Only if he was conceptually defined in that way. Some fictional superheroes can be in two places at once. I think there was one featured in the X-men series.
… not to mention Quantum Fantasy Physics.