Is a theist's testimony obligatory for others?

[spidergoat]

But it does invalidate their reliability as far as relating any consistent external truth. First you said that if everyone experiences the same thing, that is evidence of that thing. Now that I suggest that spiritual experiences are all different, and you think your argument is still supported?

 

[SciWriter]

I will indulge your train of thought here. Are all spiritual testimonies the same? I suggest no, because there are and were testimonies of all sorts of Gods, Goddesses, and other supernatural beings if we include other cultures besides Christian. This effectively invalidates personal testimony of God as reliable.

Good one. I put it in my new thread on the simpleton notion, for those still claiming personal testimony, which is apparently the final retreat.

 

[NMSquirrel]

But it does invalidate their reliability as far as relating any consistent external truth. First you said that if everyone experiences the same thing, that is evidence of that thing. Now that I suggest that spiritual experiences are all different, and you think your argument is still supported?

everyone experienced the dice, not everyone seen the dice the same way.


(don't make me draw this analogy out too far...most analogies can be over thought)

 

[spidergoat]

But everyone sees the dice. I recognize that testimony is subjective, just watch Rashomon.

 

[NMSquirrel]

But everyone sees the dice. I recognize that testimony is subjective, just watch Rashomon.

yes exactly.

 

[spidergoat]

But I don't think that's enough to account for such radical differences in experience. The only conclusion one could draw is that the supernatural world is filled with a variety of beings and personalities that happen to coincide with the mythology of that culture. This points to culture being the major driver of these experiences, not the supernatural realm.

 

[Rav]

everyone experienced the dice, not everyone seen the dice the same way.

Yeah, everyone's just reaching out and touching a different part of the 'spiritual elephant', right? Wrong. You can't reconcile things this way as long as there are teachings that explicitly state that you can't reconcile things this way, which there are.

 

[lightgigantic]

How could it be otherwise?

What holds you back from considering other theists' testimony to be obligatory for you?

further testimony I guess.

Kind of like what holds you back from the testimony that a religious experience involves playing with rattle snakes

Do you have something that you can really call "you" or "your own" that is completely unaffected by other people?

probably that part of me that dictates how to negotiate other people is a good place to start

 

[wynn]

Yeah, everyone's just reaching out and touching a different part of the 'spiritual elephant', right? Wrong. You can't reconcile things this way as long as there are teachings that explicitly state that you can't reconcile things this way, which there are.

Good point.

This is also why it is absurd to try to choose a particular religion.

To choose between several options, each of which specifies itself as exclusive and absolute, is rationally impossible.

 

[NMSquirrel]

But I don't think that's enough to account for such radical differences in experience. The only conclusion one could draw is that the supernatural world is filled with a variety of beings and personalities that happen to coincide with the mythology of that culture. This points to culture being the major driver of these experiences, not the supernatural realm.

another conclusion is that God shows one the face that one needs to see in order to find Gods will for oneself.
one culture may need to see God as the mean,punishing daddy in order to fulfill Gods will, another may need to see the caring God in order for them to fulfill Gods will.
God shows what side is needed, no more, no less.
No one person or group can see the whole of what God is about,God only shows what is needed.
this does not consider the ability of humans to make it about themselves, to corrupt this image to justify ones own beliefs.

Yeah, everyone's just reaching out and touching a different part of the 'spiritual elephant', right? Wrong. You can't reconcile things this way as long as there are teachings that explicitly state that you can't reconcile things this way, which there are.

first thought, post those teachings.
second thought, how much of that humanistic justification did the authors put into the bible? they are human, of course they are gonna make like their way is the only way.

 

[Yazata]

when someone tells me ' God told me to tell you' the first thing i think is..
If it is so important for God to communicate to me, why didn't he tell me himself? why did he have to go through you?

God has my phone number. If he wants to talk to me, he obviously knows how to contact me.

My phone hasn't exactly been ringing off the hook.

Instead, I find myself in this world of religious ambiguity and diversity, where everyone is insisting that they know things that I don't know. Unfortunately, the things that they say that they know aren't even remotely consistent.

The only tools that I have to sort it all out are my head and my heart. So I assume that if there really is a God, and if that God has any interest in what I choose to do, then presumably God wants to see me using the powers that he's given me.

I'm reasonably confident in walking that path.

 

[SciWriter]

Unfortunately, the things that they say that they know aren't even remotely consistent.

Obviously, they are the saying of any old thing that has come to be felt, a part of the human condition, easily dispensed with at large, but not so easy to the individual person treating their own thoughts as gospel.

 

[SciWriter]

This is also why it is absurd to try to choose a particular religion.

To choose between several options, each of which specifies itself as exclusive and absolute, is rationally impossible.

The choice would be quite arbitrary, and that is something good to demonstrate.

Someone growing up Lutheran might swear all that is true, while if they'd grown up with another religion then they might swear that one was.

It's always key to stand back for this kind of overview, but it is still the human condition for some to see only through the lens of their own vision up close.

 

[NMSquirrel]

The only tools that I have to sort it all out are my head and my heart.

more so the heart than the head.. unfortunately we need our head to figure out our heart..

 

[spidergoat]

another conclusion is that God shows one the face that one needs to see in order to find Gods will for oneself.
one culture may need to see God as the mean,punishing daddy in order to fulfill Gods will, another may need to see the caring God in order for them to fulfill Gods will.
God shows what side is needed, no more, no less.
No one person or group can see the whole of what God is about,God only shows what is needed.
this does not consider the ability of humans to make it about themselves, to corrupt this image to justify ones own beliefs.

This is just the kind of elaborate tortured logic that makes religion un-scientific. You instantly rejected your initial explanation and invented something irrational in order to hold on to your treasured mythology.

 

[Yazata]

Yeah, everyone's just reaching out and touching a different part of the 'spiritual elephant', right? Wrong. You can't reconcile things this way as long as there are teachings that explicitly state that you can't reconcile things this way, which there are.

Why must we accept all those teachings as equally and totally true?

Perhaps there are real religious experiences underlying many different religious traditions. And perhaps those experiences do ultimately refer back to the same transcendental object.

But each experience would have initially been expressed in personal terms unique to the one having the experience, and in cultural terms unique to his/her historical time and place.

And then that initial formulation would have been passed along like a game of telephone, gradually taking on the concerns and personal and organizational agendas of everyone who subsequently spread the message.

I think that a case can be made (and obviously already has been by many philosophers `of religion, though it's kind of out of favor at the moment) that all religions may well have a single common experiential core of transcendental experience. That's often traced back to and located in non-verbal mystical experience of some sort, described in the apophatic terms of negative theology.

I'm not prepared to fully sign onto that idea. But I'm not prepared to totally deny it either. I think of it as an intriguing possibility.

 

[Rav]

first thought, post those teachings.

Here are just a few examples:

Are Christians and Jews Saved?:
http://muslim-responses.com/Are_Christians_and_Jews_saved/Are_Christians_and_Jews_saved_

Sheikh: All must convert to Islam:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3309104,00.html

Is Catholicism a false religion? Are Catholics saved?:
http://www.gotquestions.org/catholicism.html

You Think You're Saved, But You're Not!:
http://www.atruechurch.info/savednot.html

Christ Has Paid Our Penalty:
http://www.bible.ca/interactive/salvation-6-christ-paid-penalty.htm

Christian Church that believes it is the only true church:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Churches_of_Christ

The common thread here is the distinct emphasis on the importance of embracing a very particular belief system. The clear implication (when it's not being explicitly asserted, which it is) is that any failure to do so means that you will not be saved. In other words, the idea that it's somehow perfectly fine to just reach out and touch God in your own way, and formulate whatever view you feel comfortable with in that regard, is completely incompatible.

second thought, how much of that humanistic justification did the authors put into the bible? they are human, of course they are gonna make like their way is the only way.

Many theists would (and do) consider it to be borderline blasphemous to suggest that God could be so incompetent as to allow the details of his 'message' to be distorted by mere men.

 

[Rav]

I think that a case can be made (and obviously already has been by many philosophers `of religion, though it's kind of out of favor at the moment) that all religions may well have a single common experiential core of transcendental experience. That's often traced back to and located in non-verbal mystical experience of some sort, described in the apophatic terms of negative theology.

If the source of that transcendental experience is indeed some being or greater 'force' of nature that has no particular interest in evoking a specific prescribed response in us, then what you're suggesting is of course entirely possible. It would be a vast improvement too if all the religiously inclined among us embraced such a peaceful sounding philosophy.

 

[kx000]

No one religion is saved.

 

[NMSquirrel]

This is just the kind of elaborate tortured logic that makes religion un-scientific. You instantly rejected your initial explanation and invented something irrational in order to hold on to your treasured mythology.

there is the goal post being moved..

we weren't discussing science.

and how did i reject/invent?
maybe you just don't want to understand?
-------

Here are just a few examples:
The common thread here is the distinct emphasis on the importance of embracing a very particular belief system.

this is true..the commonality suggests that the specifics of this personal belief system is variable, commonality suggests the vehicle is less important than the destination.

The clear implication (when it's not being explicitly asserted, which it is) is that any failure to do so means that you will not be saved. In other words, the idea that it's somehow perfectly fine to just reach out and touch God in your own way, and formulate whatever view you feel comfortable with in that regard, is completely incompatible.

i would think of it more as a 'Listen for God and do as he shows you',

here is where the struggle is..which is from God, and which is from our own humanity?

am i doing what God wants or am i doing what I want?
I don't know..nor will i ever..(maybe when i get to heaven,but even then,there is no concensus)
I am sure God can only utilize me and my own experiences only because i am not a clone. If i were a clone then he could utilize anyone.(hence, God can utilize you whether you believe or not)

IOW he needs us as individuals, not as sheeple.

Many theists would (and do) consider it to be borderline blasphemous to suggest that God could be so incompetent as to allow the details of his 'message' to be distorted by mere men.

Of course they would..human nature..i'm right/your wrong mentality.
just because I'm right, does not make you wrong.(and vice versa)