what is religious experience?

[man_of_jade]

Persol;

I don't believe religion is even the best way to be a 'good person'. Most seem to be to tied up in their own doctorine about the spirit. Ethics and philosophy seem a much more direct way of deciding what is 'good', without having to call on a mythical being.

Did I say ANYTHING about calling upon a mythical being to decide what is right and wrong?
No.
Religon helps to teach ethics and responsibility, it doesnt call upon god everytime you have a conflicting decision to make. Most people that ive met that believe Ive found to be much more agreeable people. Im not saying if you dont believe, you arent a good person, but generally ive found people that choose the believing path are nicer in general.

 

[Persol]

I think it came out wrong. I meant that there are better ways to teach right and wrong then by embedding it in mythology.

 

[Cris]

Jade,

I have no conception of Satanism. By "supernatural component" I mean "magick" etc. I never said once that satanists are devil worshipers. Ive read several websites on satanic philosophy and many include things on magick rituals and spells involving summoning demons and the like.

We should drop this since this covers a whole bunch of different ideas, www.Satanism.com has no majick or supernatural, other ideas on satanic (i.e. devil) worship may indeed have what you say.

Right here. The focus is on following the rules of karma, or the ten commandments, not on getting into the next life.

So I’m not sure if you are agreeing with me or that you’ve missed the point. Following the rules is something people can deal with on a daily basis. Once you accept that you will achieve an afterlife by following the rules then there isn’t much more that can be said. After a while the rules become the religion and the underlying reason is put to one side, forgotten, or even denied. The rules often become mistaken for the original objective.

The focus is on the rules and rituals, is it not?

See previous.

First, the admirable reasons and "real motive." Has it occured to you that perhaps these people were telling the TRUTH when they said they wanted to do the right thing, and that it felt good to do so etc?

Yes but you don’t need to follow a religion to do those things, I am such an example.

Or is every religous person lying? Isnt honesty a virtue, important in religon? (gee, that would be maybe around 5.2+ billion people being dishonest, thats an awful lot, isnt it?)

And I do these things because they have intrinsic value in their own right. Religious people do them because they think that will help them reach the afterlife.

I personally do not expect to go to heaven. It is not my decision whether I get sent there or not. Even if I was saintly, why should I expect to go to heaven?

I’m not sure that I care that you reach a heaven or not. The point here is that you expect to survive beyond physical death. How you are judged after that is something else.

I do have to point out however that already "cheating death" is already a scientific endevour. Uploading into a complex computer type thing, wasnt it?

Yes exactly. I have the same desires as the religionist. I too want to achieve immortality. The difference is that I am taking practical steps to achieve it, whereas the religionists just pray and hope that their fantasies amount to something.

Anyway... If someone had no spirit, there could still be a spiritual realm.

But who would care? For example if God existed in such a realm but people did not have souls, who would care?

If there is a realm, then it could still be percieved and examined, given enough technology, correct? Could god not travel out of the spiritual realm? If heaven was another dimension, theoriatically someday we would be able to travel there even if we had no soul. Could there be the possibility of creating such a vessel in a thousand years?

How about subspace and warp technology maybe? LOL.

Without a spirit all the major tenets of all major religious cease to have meaning.
The major tenet isnt cheating death, its not about going to paradise for eternity. Its about being a good person, its about following the rules of karma, the ten commandments, that kind of thing. Even if there is no afterlife, I fear not oblivion. If I was right, or wrong, it matters not to me.

But then what makes you any different to me as a secular humanist? We would then share the same values. The difference is that the religionist believes that taking those actions will help gain a foothold in the afterlife. I don’t.

You are falling into the same trap and believing that it is the actions that are the objective of the religion. The real objective is to achieve immortality. Jesus said that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life. This is the fundamental reason why Christians become Christian, although many seem to have misunderstood why they believe.

 

[man_of_jade]

Cris;

We should drop this since this covers a whole bunch of different ideas, www.Satanism.com has no majick or supernatural, other ideas on satanic (i.e. devil) worship may indeed have what you say.

That is one website. Lavey satanism includes magic. But i do believe we should drop it for now.

So I’m not sure if you are agreeing with me or that you’ve missed the point. Following the rules is something people can deal with on a daily basis. Once you accept that you will achieve an afterlife by following the rules then there isn’t much more that can be said. After a while the rules become the religion and the underlying reason is put to one side, forgotten, or even denied. The rules often become mistaken for the original objective.

I never did religon to get eternal life. Even when I started, I did it to do the right thing. What proof do you have that the rules are "mistaken" for the cause? Have you any evidence or is this just a wild assumption?

Yes but you don’t need to follow a religion to do those things, I am such an example.

Im not denying that. But could it be that these people did/do religon just to do the right thing, not for eternal life? Is it possible that they weren't telling a lie?

And I do these things because they have intrinsic value in their own right. Religious people do them because they think that will help them reach the afterlife.

Once again, proof?

I’m not sure that I care that you reach a heaven or not. The point here is that you expect to survive beyond physical death. How you are judged after that is something else.

If I was to go to "hell,"I'd rather just face nonexistance after death. Forever is a long time.

Yes exactly. I have the same desires as the religionist. I too want to achieve immortality. The difference is that I am taking practical steps to achieve it, whereas the religionists just pray and hope that their fantasies amount to something.

Theres as much empirical proof for an afterlife as there is against; none. You cannot say for sure that one may not exist and be correct, because some evidence might be presented someday.

But who would care? For example if God existed in such a realm but people did not have souls, who would care?

I answered this already In the next paragraph of my other post.

How about subspace and warp technology maybe? LOL.

Someday, maybe, you can never say it cant exist someday.

But then what makes you any different to me as a secular humanist? We would then share the same values. The difference is that the religionist believes that taking those actions will help gain a foothold in the afterlife. I don’t.

You are falling into the same trap and believing that it is the actions that are the objective of the religion. The real objective is to achieve immortality. Jesus said that whoever believes in him shall have everlasting life. This is the fundamental reason why Christians become Christian, although many seem to have misunderstood why they believe.

Can you prove in the first place that the afterlife was why they believe? Quoting a line from the bible and saying its the entire reason behind religon is not proof.
In summary, do you have any real proof? Not assumptions, not guesses, but evidence?

 

[Cris]

Jade,

I never did religon to get eternal life. Even when I started, I did it to do the right thing.

Then why are you following a religion? You don’t need a religion to do the right thing.

What proof do you have that the rules are "mistaken" for the cause? Have you any evidence or is this just a wild assumption?

You’ve just admitted that you are following a religion because of the rules and not for the reward it promises.

Im not denying that. But could it be that these people did/do religon just to do the right thing, not for eternal life? Is it possible that they weren't telling a lie?

I don’t think lying comes into this. They are simply confused as to why they are following a religion, just like you.

And I do these things because they have intrinsic value in their own right. Religious people do them because they think that will help them reach the afterlife.

Once again, proof?

What do you mean by ‘proof’? It is the basis of religion, otherwise religion wouldn’t exist. If you are following your religion for other reasons then you are simply confused as to the purpose of religion.

If I was to go to "hell,"I'd rather just face nonexistance after death. Forever is a long time.

It looks like you don’t have a clear vision of why you are religious, or of what it offers, its promised rewards, or the penalties it imposes.

Theres as much empirical proof for an afterlife as there is against; none. You cannot say for sure that one may not exist and be correct, because some evidence might be presented someday.

And Warp Drive from Star Trek might one day be found possible, but in the meantime it is science fantasy. The concept of the afterlife is a similar fantasy.

Someday, maybe, you can never say it cant exist someday.

I agree but the difference between saying something might exist in the future, or that evidence might be found, is quite different to the current religionist claims that the afterlife definitely exists now.

Can you prove in the first place that the afterlife was why they believe? Quoting a line from the bible and saying its the entire reason behind religon is not proof. In summary, do you have any real proof? Not assumptions, not guesses, but evidence?

Go back and read the definitions of religion again. Pay attention to the components of the supernatural and spirituality. Why do you think these concepts are present in religion? Your statement that you are religious because you think it encourages good things is the same as saying that you eat food because it tastes nice. The reason you follow a religion is that you expect to cheat death; in the same way that you eat food because it keeps you alive.

If people claim to follow a religion because of other reasons then they have misunderstood the entire objective of religion. If you follow just some of the moralistic aspects without understanding why within your religious doctrines then it is questionable whether you are truly religious.

 

[MarkM]

THIS is religious experience...

Philosopher Jacques Maritain once said that the culmination of knowledge is not conceptual but experiential: I feel God. Such is the promise of the Scriptures:
“Be still and know (experience) that I am God.”
My own journey bears witness to that. I mean simply that a living, loving God can and does make His presence felt, can and does speak to us in the silence of our hearts, can and does warm and caress us till we no longer doubt that He is near, the children and the sinners, the privileged types in the gospel of grace. It can not be forced from God. He gives it freely, but He does give it and has given it to such as Moses and Matthew, to my wife Jennifer and to me. Ignatius of Loyola said:
“The direct experience of God is grace indeed, and basically there is no one to whom it is refused.”
In essence, there is only one thing God asks of us-that we be men and women of prayer, people who live close to God, people for whom God is everything and for whom God is enough. That is the root of peace. We HAVE that peace when the gracious God is all we seek. When we start seeking something besides Him, we lose it. As Merton said in his last public address before his death, “That is His call to us-simply to be people who are content to live close to Him and to renew the kind of life in which the closeness is felt and experienced.”

"The proof is in the pudding, not in the intellectualizing of it"

 

[Cris]

Markm,

Philosopher Jacques Maritain once said that the culmination of knowledge is not conceptual but experiential:

Let’s say this is true and that to really know one must experience. But then why should we accept that what YOU experience is knowledge? You need to realize that it doesn’t necessarily work in reverse. While real knowledge, perhaps, can only be truly appreciated through experience, it doesn’t follow that something experienced has to be knowledge.

If we accept your reasoning without question then how do we distinguish your experiential claims from someone who suffers from psychotic delusions? The deluded person will claim with equal assertiveness that their experience is also real knowledge.

So what is the more credible explanation, that you are simply confused, or that an alleged super being that created the universe has chosen to talk to you? You need to realize that you aren’t free to simply claim YOUR experience is true without offering a proof, and expect to be believed.

Emotions can be extremely powerful. If you have ever truly experienced the love between two people or the magical moments that occur when raising children, then you should understand why it is so good to be human. As soon as you attribute these powerful human traits to an external influence then you immediately diminish what it means to be human.

But claiming you have personal experiences and revelations from God, when others have not, also establishes you as tremendously arrogant. I.e. you believe you are so special to have been chosen but others have not.

 

[man_of_jade]

Cris;

Then why are you following a religion? You don’t need a religion to do the right thing.

I also believe in the paranormal. I cannot be an athiest and believe in the paranormal at the same time.

You’ve just admitted that you are following a religion because of the rules and not for the reward it promises.

I don’t think lying comes into this. They are simply confused as to why they are following a religion, just like you.

What do you mean by ‘proof’? It is the basis of religion, otherwise religion wouldn’t exist. If you are following your religion for other reasons then you are simply confused as to the purpose of religion.

Heads you win, tails I lose.

If someone says they follow religon for the afterlife, you win. If someone says they follow it for another reason, they are "confused" or not really following it for that. Rather convenient, isn't it?
What if someone follows it for something else, and not the afterlife, like me? Or are they "confused" and "not understanding" why they follow it?

It looks like you don’t have a clear vision of why you are religious, or of what it offers, its promised rewards, or the penalties it imposes.

I might be christian, but I hold my own belief system about what happens after death. Belief in afterlife is not why I chose to be a christian.

I agree but the difference between saying something might exist in the future, or that evidence might be found, is quite different to the current religionist claims that the afterlife definitely exists now.

How is saying evidence might be found later to something claimed to exist now that difficult to concieve? It has certainly happened before.
Having fun with your catch-22?

 

[Cris]

Jade,

I also believe in the paranormal. I cannot be an athiest and believe in the paranormal at the same time.

Was that a question? Do you realize that Buddhists are atheists who happen to believe in an afterlife.

But paranormal? You mean like telepathy, telekinesis, etc, perhaps? Ahh, going off topic I think.

If someone says they follow it for another reason, they are "confused" or not really following it for that. Rather convenient, isn't it?

Think about what you are saying. This is like buying a screwdriver and then using it as a hammer.

What if someone follows it for something else, and not the afterlife, like me? Or are they "confused" and "not understanding" why they follow it?

Yup. If you need a hammer then buy a hammer not a screwdriver.

How is saying evidence might be found later to something claimed to exist now that difficult to concieve?

Do you believe that invisible flying green elephants exist? Why not? Evidence might become available soon, right? So you had better believe they exist now, right? Do you see how idiotic that approach is?

 

[man_of_jade]

Cris;

Was that a question?

No, questions begin with words like how, and why, and end with a question mark.

Im going to skip these two messages, since I fail to see your logic here.

Do you believe that invisible flying green elephants exist? Why not? Evidence might become available soon, right? So you had better believe they exist now, right? Do you see how idiotic that approach is?

Im referring to things more plausible.

You are evading my questions. Is your almighty assumption a Catch22? Either way someone looks at why someone follows religon, by your view you are still correct. Im going to ask these questions again.
Heads I win, Tails you lose is how your putting it. Tell me if I'm right.
If someone says that they follow religon because of a belief in afterlife, then you are right.
With me so far? Am I right?
Now If someone says they follow it because of the rules, or due to some other reason, they are "confused" according to you. Like when you said;
I don’t think lying comes into this. They are simply confused as to why they are following a religion, just like you.
I say I follow and started following religon NOT because of the afterlife belief. Irregardless, you say I am confused.

Now, tell me, is your assumption a catch22 or not? Is it a "Heads I win, Tails you lose" type situation? Please stop evading and answer logically.

 

[Cris]

Jade,

I don't know what you mean by catch-22 or the tails and heads analogies.

I think you are confused about why you follow a religion.

Is that the answer you want?

 

[SnakeLord]

He gives it freely, but He does give it and has given it to such as Moses and Matthew, to my wife Jennifer and to me

Moses original name was Sargon. The Moses featured in the bible was just a badly translated version of the original story made by the sumerians. It has been adapted to monotheistic belief throughout the ages, aswell as the rest of the bible. The sumerians spoke of Gods, (plural), not God. That casts genuine doubt on what you're saying. The bible was written a good 1,500 years after the Legend of Sargon, so you must expect great translation errors and an extreme amount of 'chinese whispers'.

When a person can cast doubt on just one story, what does that go to say about the rest of the bible?

What Cris has said has much basis here. My mum worked with a black guy. According to him he was white and a close relation to the queen, (England). He is now in a mental institution. To us he's a black guy but to him he was white and there was nothing anyone could say to make him think otherwise.

The same goes for you.... Perhaps you're just schizophrenic? There's no way we'll ever make you think that but it's plausible.

The only retort to that is to ask then why there's so many 'schizophrenic' people on this planet that hear god/jesus or whatever. Humans have the intelligence to understand things which most other lifeforms do not. As such we are left weak, fearing these things- such as our own mortality. An 'escape clause' is made in order to stem these fears. You can now rest better at night knowing when you die you'll come alive again in heaven. I admit it's a pain in the ass knowing we're all gonna die and rot, but better to just accept that fact and make the best of it than pass it all onto some big invisible guy.

 

[SVRP]

SnakeLord,

First, If English law is so different than American law, then find an English lawyer who will take the challenge to disprove the resurrection of Jesus in a British court of law.

Second, all your rebuttals would carry weight if you had bolster them with references. Plus, you consider a Sumerian document to be more reliable, which is older than the Bible, than the New Testament, which is younger than the Sumerian document. That is inconsistent in your arguments of not relying on 2000 year old testimonies, but you rely on something that is much older.

Third, your insistence of the existence of alien life forms is an implication that life formed by intelligent design. Evolutionists believe life began by random design and spontaneous generation. Scientists can show the high improbability of random choice and the impossibility of spontaneous generation, yet evolutionists will insist it happened because "we are here." Therefore, if the slim-to-nil chance of the improbability odds were beaten by random choice and spontaneous generation for the beginning of life on earth, then there are no other life foms in the universe. But your insistence of alien life forms implys life began from another source and not by random choice. And scientists say the other choice is intelligent design.

 

[SnakeLord]

SVRP:

You completely missed my point, or my post. It's not about disproving anything. Just because something can't be disproven doesn't instantly make it fact. If that's the case your later referrals to my sumerian points would be invalid. Older or not the simple fact you cant disprove them would make them true. That's the wrong approach to anything. Disprove Jesus wasn't an alien with the ability to res from the dead. I don't see where you come up with this 'disprove or its true' attitude.

No British lawyer can disprove the ressurrection of jesus, that doesn't make it fact. It works the same both ways: Prove it happened or it obviously didn't. A book is not considered fact to the matter. Either way- we cant disprove or prove which means it is not fact, no matter how much you wish it was.

Second, all your rebuttals would carry weight if you had bolster them with references. Plus, you consider a Sumerian document to be more reliable, which is older than the Bible, than the New Testament, which is younger than the Sumerian document. That is inconsistent in your arguments of not relying on 2000 year old testimonies, but you rely on something that is much older.

The older sumerian references show the source works of a large portion of the bible. To find the more accurate work you would always look at the source- anything written 1,500 years later after who knows how many translations and personal author beliefs were added isn't really admissable as evidence until the source of that material had been analysed.

For example look at Ziusudra, (Noah). The bible translation states all of mankind and the whole earth was flooded and that Noah had 2 of each clean animal etc etc. The Ziusudra story says most of the lowlands were flooded. Ziusudra was on a barge when the flooding began with some goats and other farmyard animals. To analyse correctly you must look at the source to find more historical evidence. The reason we look at the source is to remove 'chinese whispers' and poor translations as seen in the bible. If you'd like to know more about Ziusudra-Noah relationship read this book: http://www.flood-myth.com/

But kindly note i do not rely on anything. I look into any pertainable evidence, read what it says and then look further to find plausability.

Third, your insistence of the existence of alien life forms is an implication that life formed by intelligent design. Evolutionists believe life began by random design and spontaneous generation. Scientists can show the high improbability of random choice and the impossibility of spontaneous generation, yet evolutionists will insist it happened because "we are here." Therefore, if the slim-to-nil chance of the improbability odds were beaten by random choice and spontaneous generation for the beginning of life on earth, then there are no other life foms in the universe. But your insistence of alien life forms implys life began from another source and not by random choice. And scientists say the other choice is intelligent design.

Insistence is a strong word. Personally i call it belief. My belief stems from a vast multitude of things... we have modern day evidence, witness testimony, video and photographic evidence etc etc to work on and continue to search for answers.

Evolutionists believe.....
Scientists believe......
Religious people believe.....
You believe....
I believe....

No difference. None of us are ultimately right, no matter what we believe. In accordance with your way of thinking we all speak fact unless you can disprove it. As you can't it shows we're all 100% correct... the only problem with that is it leads to a mass contradiction and impossible scenario.

You believe in a big invisible dood who created the planet, all on it etc etc
I believe in a dood from another planet who did the same.

We're not all that different yet you look upon me like i must be mad. Now you must understand why non believers exist? Neither you nor i has proof. Just because nobody can disprove that which we state doesnt make it undeniable fact.

 

[man_of_jade]

Cris;

I don't know what you mean by catch-22 or the tails and heads analogies.

I think you are confused about why you follow a religion.

Is that the answer you want?

A catch 22... Im going to explain this the best I can. If you still dont understand what im talking about, then I'll leave this alone.
Colin Powell: "If saddam says that he hes chemical weapons that is proof he has them, if he says he doesnt its proof hes hiding them."
In this case, according to the one using the Catch-22, there is no way that saddam cannot have chemical weapons. No matter what Saddam says, according to Powell it is proof that he has these.
In the same way, you are saying there is no way some believed/started believing religon for any reason other than the afterlife.

If someone says they follow for the afterlife belief, then you are correct.

If someone says they follow for another reason, they are "confused." According to you, the person does not know why they are really following religon, or why they started it, even if they claim to have started following it for a different reason and explain it, like I have.
So according to this explaination, is your assumption a "Catch-22?" Why do you believe that I am "confused" as to why I follow a religon for other reasons, when I have already explained otherwise(Why I started following it the first place was not to to a belief in the afterlife)?

 

[UltiTruth]

Cris,

If you haven't had a Religious Experience, how do you deny it?
And if you had it ever, how can you deny it?

 

[heflores]

Just a thought.

Some people have never died or suffered from a war and they oppose it.

Some people have never stole or been repremended for breaking the law, yet they are againest stealing and law breaking.

I never experienced cocaine and don't want to do it, although they say it's good for you.

I've never been to Southeast DC or south LA at night, and I think I'll keep the good tradition.

You don't have to experience something sometimes to know it's merits. Common sense is sufficient.

 

[Jenyar]

"The law is written in their hearts".

 

[Cris]

Ulti,

If you haven't had a Religious Experience, how do you deny it?

Why would I have a problem denying something that I haven't had?

And if you had it ever, how can you deny it?

Why do you think I would deny something that I had experienced?

 

[JOHANNsebastianBACH]

this is a religious experience