Jonathan H. B. Lobl

Welcome. Would you like to say a little about yourself?

This only follows if you insist that God is all good. I understand why such an assumption is tempting -- but I think it is still an unproven assumption.

This line of thought is pure metaphysics, of a type I find suspect. Perhaps pain does sharpen life's meaning. I think we could have done without suffering.

I used to have a circle of Hassidic friends. They insisted that according to Kabballah, darkness is condensed light. It actually makes sense, if matter is condensed energy.

I prefer to think of myself as a character in a SIMS game.

The magic will continue to work, so long as what you want is part of the natural order.

Our highly esteemed Brother Kaman is a Pantheist. He is not the "Lightbringer". He's God.

It's good to know you're on the job.

It was the big Vietnam, anti-war protest called "Moratorium" in Washington D.C. One of the featured speakers, Dick Gregory, told us that if Democracy was so wonderful, we didn't have to force it onto other nations. They would steal it from us. The memory lingers. The joys of getting older. To me, this is only history. Not ancient history.

I doubt if there are many original thoughts left. I first heard something similar in 1969.

As it should be. When an idea is really good, we don't have to force it on others. They will steal it.

I'm getting dizzy. The simple answer is -- I don't know.

Evidently, it is possible.

With objective, verifiable evidence, there is knowledge. Without objective, verifiable evidence, there is belief, which is a fancy word for opinion. In real life, we do the best we can with what we have.

The conceptual framework -- the underlying ideas -- are very different. As to the actual healing process, I'm not sure that they are different. I would need to do a specific side by side comparison. Even then, I might not know. So much in life is cultural interpretation. Just because it's what I do, does not make it the best.

My personal bias here. If someone wishes to make a claim of objective, verifiable evidence -- no matter what it is -- I would start with the evidence. Then, I would worry about the classification of the results. In the same way, if someone actually produces a Big Foot -- dead or alive -- then we can let the zoologists classify it. I have no objection to let the definition follow the objective results. As yet, we have nothing, either way. The soul could still exist. We don't have convincing evidence.

Perhaps we could take the reliability of the witness into account.

Or -- the soul that meets our definition, is not detectable, by currently available means.

I think that their disdain of Reiki, Therapeutic Touch, Qi Gong and others is very unfair. And lacking in objectivity. In particular, I dislike the treatment of Therapeutic Touch in JAMA -- The Journal of the American Medical Association. For all that, sometimes the establishment is right. It has been known to happen. Sometimes, there is a reality shift. In fairly recent history, the great French chemist, Louis Pasteur, was working with his newly developed microscope. He found the bacterium responsible for Anthrax. The world laughed at him. First, Pasteur was a chemist. A notable chemist, but only a chemist. He had no medical credentials. Second, the authorities of his day thought it was funny, that disease should be caused by tiny creatures. They mocked without mercy. All but one. The great British surgeon, Lord Lister -- as in Listerine -- was fascinated by Pasteur's work. He made the doctor's under his command wash their hands and their instruments. The death rate dropped precipitously. One of the greatest reality shifts in human history. History repeats. I can wait.

To my understanding -- God -- singular with capital G -- refers to the one and only. Gods? Plural with capital G? That would be looking for a collective noun, like sheep. One sheep, two sheep, three sheep. This does not work. It's sheep. Not sheeps. Man with capital M is all of Humanity. One man gets a small m. The plural is men. No help there. We don't have a good grammatical model for Gods. I think gods should be in lower case. If a Polytheist on this board thinks strongly that the correct form is Gods -- I would like to hear it.

An addendum. Again, I was too slow with my thoughts. For purposes of this discussion, I really think we have to distinguish between God -- with a capital G --- and god in lower case. They are very different ideas. Nothing good can come of confusing them together. There is a place here for Polytheists.

For centuries, the Vatican had official definitions for Jews and Judaism that no Jew would agree with. Even now, a lot of dictionary definitions of Atheism are insulting to Atheists. The Pantheist view of God has nothing to do with the God of Christian theology. Wiccans certainly have issues with how "Witch" is defined. These are not simple questions of meaning. There are issues of dominance and self determination. Having said that, if you wish to stipulate that we are talking about the God of the Bible -- and no other -- I can live with that. It would make conversation much more simple. The question is, who else would be willing to agree? Maybe, we should ask the board. Board -- do we have consensus? For a working definition of God -- capital G -- can we agree that we are talking about the God of the Bible? Comments, please.

In this matter, I actually am open minded. I think if you want to take an anti-reiki position, it should be more informed. You should know why the medical establishment -- and scientists, despise Reiki. I recommend www.quackwatch.com Then you will know why you don't believe in Reiki. While you are at it, see how they attack Therapeutic Touch. They really, really hate Therapeutic Touch. Of course, I think they are mistaken, but I am not afraid of opposing views. Or honest disagreement. I prefer the people who disagree to be informed. Enjoy.

I remember my time as a Pantheist. This would not have worked for me. It's part of the reason that I went with the Agnostic label. I got tired of arguing. Atheists are expected to argue against the God that they don't believe in. Agnostics don't get caught up the same way.

Daniel Dennett gives an interesting example. The first person says, "I love Rock." The second person says, I love Rock." The first person is talking about Rock Hudson. The second person is talking about Rock music. There is no meeting of the minds. This is what happens when we talk about God -- without common reference points. It's useless. We can talk about the God of the Bible. We can talk about the God of Pantheism. We can talk about the God of Deism. We can talk about the Tao and The Force. But God? What does that mean?