<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: She Talks To Angels. Doesn&#8217;t Everyone?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/</link>
	<description>Have faith in yourself</description>
	<pubDate>Thu,  4 Dec 2008 07:23:56 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: how to make money fast</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-253308</link>
		<dc:creator>how to make money fast</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:33:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-253308</guid>
		<description>We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We are each of us angels with only one wing, and we can only fly by embracing one another</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sidfaiwu</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-108099</link>
		<dc:creator>sidfaiwu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:34:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-108099</guid>
		<description>At least we can be more sure that Mary existed.  As to whether she was actually a child-bearing virgin is doubtful though.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>At least we can be more sure that Mary existed.  As to whether she was actually a child-bearing virgin is doubtful though.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: R</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-108097</link>
		<dc:creator>R</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:23:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-108097</guid>
		<description>what's really sad about this is that the mother prays to that virgin and not to God</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>what&#8217;s really sad about this is that the mother prays to that virgin and not to God</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sidfaiwu</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-85688</link>
		<dc:creator>sidfaiwu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Sep 2007 14:57:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-85688</guid>
		<description>Hello Tabitha,

Thanks for the comment.  I would, however like to pick on one part of it and that is your use of the term 'energy'.  The sense in which you seem to be using that word is in reference to some sort of supernatural stuff.  But since we lack a good language to discuss such ill-defined concepts, you borrowed the word 'energy' from science.  While I'm sure you use the term innocently enough, I would like to point out a couple of issues that I have with it's use in such a context.

First, the scientific definition of 'energy' is that which gives matter the ability to do work.  More technically, though, energy is a classes of &lt;em&gt;measurable&lt;/em&gt; qualities of matter whose sum remains unchanged during any process in a closed system.  The key here is that energy is measurable.  Spiritualists of all stripes often (and mistakenly) apply the term 'energy' to non-measurable concepts.  The bottom line is &lt;em&gt;if it can't be measured, it's NOT energy&lt;/em&gt;.

Second, some spiritualists purposely adopt scientific terminology to describe their own particular mythology.  This has a number of advantages for one trying to popularize their beliefs.  First, it takes advantage of common ignorance of science in the population.  Science is 'mysterious' to many people.  Using it's terminology, a spiritual leader can make their own beliefs more mysterious and thus interesting.  Second, scientific terminology is adopted by spiritual leaders to give their beliefs the illusion of credibility.  People find science credible because of its practical applications (technology); spiritualists try to steal some of this.  Deepak Chopra is, perhaps, the biggest abuser of this technique.

I sure your use of the term 'energy' had none of these questionable motives.  My goal here was not to berate your comment, but to raise awareness of these abuses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hello Tabitha,</p>
<p>Thanks for the comment.  I would, however like to pick on one part of it and that is your use of the term &#8216;energy&#8217;.  The sense in which you seem to be using that word is in reference to some sort of supernatural stuff.  But since we lack a good language to discuss such ill-defined concepts, you borrowed the word &#8216;energy&#8217; from science.  While I&#8217;m sure you use the term innocently enough, I would like to point out a couple of issues that I have with it&#8217;s use in such a context.</p>
<p>First, the scientific definition of &#8216;energy&#8217; is that which gives matter the ability to do work.  More technically, though, energy is a classes of <em>measurable</em> qualities of matter whose sum remains unchanged during any process in a closed system.  The key here is that energy is measurable.  Spiritualists of all stripes often (and mistakenly) apply the term &#8216;energy&#8217; to non-measurable concepts.  The bottom line is <em>if it can&#8217;t be measured, it&#8217;s NOT energy</em>.</p>
<p>Second, some spiritualists purposely adopt scientific terminology to describe their own particular mythology.  This has a number of advantages for one trying to popularize their beliefs.  First, it takes advantage of common ignorance of science in the population.  Science is &#8216;mysterious&#8217; to many people.  Using it&#8217;s terminology, a spiritual leader can make their own beliefs more mysterious and thus interesting.  Second, scientific terminology is adopted by spiritual leaders to give their beliefs the illusion of credibility.  People find science credible because of its practical applications (technology); spiritualists try to steal some of this.  Deepak Chopra is, perhaps, the biggest abuser of this technique.</p>
<p>I sure your use of the term &#8216;energy&#8217; had none of these questionable motives.  My goal here was not to berate your comment, but to raise awareness of these abuses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tabitha</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-85461</link>
		<dc:creator>Tabitha</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 03 Sep 2007 17:33:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-85461</guid>
		<description>I don't personally believe in angels, but I do believe in positive and negative energy.  I think we've all experienced that in some form or another.  Suppose it could take the form of a being.  Why not?  But an angel?  A messenger of god?  That is the purpose of angels correct?  What is the message?  Also the history of angels in the Bible is pretty interesting especially when and where Hebrews were when angels began to appear in the Bible.  Check out what Elohim is too..........  If you believe in the Bible you must also take into consideration the factual history and the origins of words.  Sadly not many people do that and thus you have religious freaks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t personally believe in angels, but I do believe in positive and negative energy.  I think we&#8217;ve all experienced that in some form or another.  Suppose it could take the form of a being.  Why not?  But an angel?  A messenger of god?  That is the purpose of angels correct?  What is the message?  Also the history of angels in the Bible is pretty interesting especially when and where Hebrews were when angels began to appear in the Bible.  Check out what Elohim is too&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.  If you believe in the Bible you must also take into consideration the factual history and the origins of words.  Sadly not many people do that and thus you have religious freaks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: orthodox</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-52013</link>
		<dc:creator>orthodox</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 14:27:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-52013</guid>
		<description>You are funny just like this video. 
It doesn't prove that angels exist, and your comments don't prove they don't exist.
Don't forget that watching too much television is not good for your mind. It's wasting your time and your energy, but the worst of all it's poisoning your heart.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You are funny just like this video.<br />
It doesn&#8217;t prove that angels exist, and your comments don&#8217;t prove they don&#8217;t exist.<br />
Don&#8217;t forget that watching too much television is not good for your mind. It&#8217;s wasting your time and your energy, but the worst of all it&#8217;s poisoning your heart.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kamui</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-32234</link>
		<dc:creator>Kamui</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:38:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-32234</guid>
		<description>Ahhh, Robot Chicken.

What I don't get is why when someone describes an experience with "angels" everyone jumps all over it as though it's somehow credible. But if you said you had a conversation with the ghost of Napoleon who was marshalling his legions of sentient cucumber warriors, you'd wind up in a straight jacket. 

What's the difference?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ahhh, Robot Chicken.</p>
<p>What I don&#8217;t get is why when someone describes an experience with &#8220;angels&#8221; everyone jumps all over it as though it&#8217;s somehow credible. But if you said you had a conversation with the ghost of Napoleon who was marshalling his legions of sentient cucumber warriors, you&#8217;d wind up in a straight jacket. </p>
<p>What&#8217;s the difference?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Recovered Catholic</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-32046</link>
		<dc:creator>Recovered Catholic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 02:04:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-32046</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Perhaps she really can see angels. Perhaps there really are nice people in white and with halos talking to this girl, and no one else can see them.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

Time to cue calvin and hobes I think :)
&lt;a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAP2k6q_QLs" rel="nofollow"&gt;http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAP2k6q_QLs&lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Perhaps she really can see angels. Perhaps there really are nice people in white and with halos talking to this girl, and no one else can see them.</p></blockquote>
<p>Time to cue calvin and hobes I think :)<br />
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAP2k6q_QLs" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAP2k6q_QLs</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: AgnÃ¶stic</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-32040</link>
		<dc:creator>AgnÃ¶stic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 09 Feb 2007 01:43:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-32040</guid>
		<description>Ooo, zing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ooo, zing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew</title>
		<link>http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-31948</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Feb 2007 18:40:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://religiousfreaks.com/2007/02/08/she-talks-to-angels-doesnt-everyone/#comment-31948</guid>
		<description>I'm glad this story got the attention it deserved -- sandwiched between "Stolen Games" and a traffic report.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m glad this story got the attention it deserved &#8212; sandwiched between &#8220;Stolen Games&#8221; and a traffic report.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
