what is religious experience?
- Thread starter Q25
- Start date
Thank you for your response, SnakeLord. Through the maze of your responses I am trying to find a common ground that can be shared between us but it seems to shift like the sand. For example:
Here you state Jesus did raise from the dead, so there is no disagreement that the resurrection is true.
“Where does that mean it's because of God? Personally i'd say he was an alien with the ability to ressurrect as shown 1,500 years earlier in the Sumerian scriptures. Now you perhaps see how easy it is to interpret a story? I believe you entirely that Jesus rose from the dead, however it doesn't neccesarily equal that which you believe.”
This statement implies although you agree that Jesus rose from the dead, you believe he was an alien. This ‘belief’ implies you have ‘faith’ in something (that Jesus was an alien, which has yet to be proven). Either way, you have a faith.
“Thus whether he rose from the dead or not is still hardly adequate proof of your claims to god. As it isn't undeniable proof i just cant throw all my eggs into that one basket. Once again Sumerian scripture shows many occasions of dead beings ressurrecting.”
You start off with a bit of doubletalk and then use the Sumerian writing to substantiate a point. But in another post you implied that nothing can be taken at face value if it wasn’t witnessed firsthand (paraphrased). Then how can you use the Sumerian writings to substantiate a point if you don’t believe in their veracity, or, according to your logic, weren’t there to see it? You just shot your point in the foot by that implication.
“In the bible theres a part about 'crying for Damuzi', (Tammuz). That's from Sumerian writing where they were crying for the Sumerian God Damuzi who died and couldn't be ressurrected… However aside from the bad luck Damuzi suffered there are many cases of Gods who could ressurrect from death. Does that instantly mean the Sumerian Gods are real just as your is cause Jesus rose from the dead too?”
Were there witnesses to these ‘many cases of Gods who could resurrect from death’? You have to say ‘no’. But in the resurrection of Jesus there were, and there proclamation is Jesus rose from the dead by God’s power. And because of this proclamation they were executed.
”What would you expect as disproof? If a guy found some 2000 year old text that said: "Jesus did not res, it was a magic trick" would you instantly consider that undeniable fact against his ressurrection? yes or no? Please answer.
If you say no then how can you consider a 2000 year old text that says he did as undeniable proof?
If you say yes then you obviously just accept everything at face value. In your line of understanding the courts would just accept it as proof against. “
It seems that you don’t understand what it means to be scrutinized under the court of law. So let’s assume what you say that the text above was brought forward as evidence. The following would be a sample of the questions needed to be answered.
First, where was this document located and found? If it was found by an archaeological dig in a Middle Eastern area and dated within the time period of the New Testament, then it would be further scrutinized. Any other location or time period would be a ‘loophole’ on its authenticity. The text would be thrown out of court.
Second, what were the materials and ink made from? Scholars and scientists would examine the construction of the text. If they determine that the text is consistent with the materials used during New Testament writings, then another step of scrutiny takes place. Any other ink or material or method of construction would be a ‘loophole’ on its authenticity.
Third, what is the content of the text? Close examination of phraseology, cross references to historical events, and any references to a cultural nature during the New Testament period would add to its validity. Even the penmanship and the identity of the author would be weighed. The message that the text contained would be tested to find out whether it is the ramblings of a madman or a historical document. Any variation would raise reasonable doubt and render it an invalid piece of text.
I am sure there are more tests (like more archaeological findings that support the contents of the text, more manuscripts of the text that contain the same message, etc.), but let’s continue and assume it passes all of these tests. Then what you have is an ancient text, validated by archaeology, historically referenced, consistent with the culture and language during the time period, and contains a message that contradicts the New Testament, i.e., it was a trick.
Needless to say, nothing gets brought to a court of law without scrutiny. Any top attorney would scour every possible angle in order to find a ‘loophole’ in order to raise reasonable doubt of its validity. To make a speculative question with the assumption that a 2000 year-old text is brought before a court of law under its own face value is false. The New Testament stood up to the criteria of scrutiny. Any other text would have to as well.
But my faith also includes that he rose from the dead according to Old Testament prophecy. Your faith is in alien powers. (I see we are approaching a common ground.)
The actual fact is that you do live on faith. The fact that you are alive today is reason for you to believe you will be alive tomorrow, a faith you will be alive in the future. The fact that you traveled from your residence without incident is reason for you to believe you can travel later today without a major catastrophic event occurring, a faith in going outside without harm. And the fact you ate the food set before you gives you reasons to believe that whomever prepared the food did it properly, a faith in the person who cooked it. Faith allows you to go forward with your life. You show a willingness to be skeptical, which I applaud, but an unwillingness to take the step towards what you know is true. You seem to shy away from the challenge. Maybe you think your intelligence has to take a backseat while faith takes over in the driver’s seat (IMHO). My point is faith has always been in the driver’s seat, you just didn’t want to see it. The choices you made in your life from the person you married, the job you have, the place you live, the food you eat, were from reasons that you believed those decisions were beneficial to you, a faith for a pleasant future from decisions made in the past. Faith is not a mystery to you, because you use it every day. You just may not be conscious of it because it has become second nature. Realize this- you may already have planned to be somewhere or meet someone in the not-too-distant future. Where is the absolute fact you will live that long?
Now you have stated that you believe 100% that Jesus rose from the dead (how it was done may be the focal point of our debate), but God has given reasons to believe in Him through the resurrection of Jesus. These reasons are something you, individually, will have to investigate, something you can analyze with your intellect. A young, skeptical mind like yours is what God is looking for and He will not leave you alone if you search for Him. His promises that you will find Him if you search with all your heart is illustrated in Deuteronomy 4:29, 1 Chronicles 28:9, and Matthew 6:33, promises He will keep. But it is the faith that you already have, that you already use, that He wants you to place on Him.
(I won’t bother in responding to the rest of your post because this appears to be the closest we will get in understanding each other’s point of view. In the thirty years of discussing my faith I have seen many different points of view. Unfortunately, yours is not any different than others, but you have been more tenacious than most. Take that as a compliment.)
”Tomb raiders..... As for Jesus rising from the dead and appearing to his disciples in flesh and blood..... Don't get me wrong i agree with you 100%. Jesus did rise from the dead.”
Here you state Jesus did raise from the dead, so there is no disagreement that the resurrection is true.
“Where does that mean it's because of God? Personally i'd say he was an alien with the ability to ressurrect as shown 1,500 years earlier in the Sumerian scriptures. Now you perhaps see how easy it is to interpret a story? I believe you entirely that Jesus rose from the dead, however it doesn't neccesarily equal that which you believe.”
This statement implies although you agree that Jesus rose from the dead, you believe he was an alien. This ‘belief’ implies you have ‘faith’ in something (that Jesus was an alien, which has yet to be proven). Either way, you have a faith.
“Thus whether he rose from the dead or not is still hardly adequate proof of your claims to god. As it isn't undeniable proof i just cant throw all my eggs into that one basket. Once again Sumerian scripture shows many occasions of dead beings ressurrecting.”
You start off with a bit of doubletalk and then use the Sumerian writing to substantiate a point. But in another post you implied that nothing can be taken at face value if it wasn’t witnessed firsthand (paraphrased). Then how can you use the Sumerian writings to substantiate a point if you don’t believe in their veracity, or, according to your logic, weren’t there to see it? You just shot your point in the foot by that implication.
“In the bible theres a part about 'crying for Damuzi', (Tammuz). That's from Sumerian writing where they were crying for the Sumerian God Damuzi who died and couldn't be ressurrected… However aside from the bad luck Damuzi suffered there are many cases of Gods who could ressurrect from death. Does that instantly mean the Sumerian Gods are real just as your is cause Jesus rose from the dead too?”
Were there witnesses to these ‘many cases of Gods who could resurrect from death’? You have to say ‘no’. But in the resurrection of Jesus there were, and there proclamation is Jesus rose from the dead by God’s power. And because of this proclamation they were executed.
”What would you expect as disproof? If a guy found some 2000 year old text that said: "Jesus did not res, it was a magic trick" would you instantly consider that undeniable fact against his ressurrection? yes or no? Please answer.
If you say no then how can you consider a 2000 year old text that says he did as undeniable proof?
If you say yes then you obviously just accept everything at face value. In your line of understanding the courts would just accept it as proof against. “
It seems that you don’t understand what it means to be scrutinized under the court of law. So let’s assume what you say that the text above was brought forward as evidence. The following would be a sample of the questions needed to be answered.
First, where was this document located and found? If it was found by an archaeological dig in a Middle Eastern area and dated within the time period of the New Testament, then it would be further scrutinized. Any other location or time period would be a ‘loophole’ on its authenticity. The text would be thrown out of court.
Second, what were the materials and ink made from? Scholars and scientists would examine the construction of the text. If they determine that the text is consistent with the materials used during New Testament writings, then another step of scrutiny takes place. Any other ink or material or method of construction would be a ‘loophole’ on its authenticity.
Third, what is the content of the text? Close examination of phraseology, cross references to historical events, and any references to a cultural nature during the New Testament period would add to its validity. Even the penmanship and the identity of the author would be weighed. The message that the text contained would be tested to find out whether it is the ramblings of a madman or a historical document. Any variation would raise reasonable doubt and render it an invalid piece of text.
I am sure there are more tests (like more archaeological findings that support the contents of the text, more manuscripts of the text that contain the same message, etc.), but let’s continue and assume it passes all of these tests. Then what you have is an ancient text, validated by archaeology, historically referenced, consistent with the culture and language during the time period, and contains a message that contradicts the New Testament, i.e., it was a trick.
Needless to say, nothing gets brought to a court of law without scrutiny. Any top attorney would scour every possible angle in order to find a ‘loophole’ in order to raise reasonable doubt of its validity. To make a speculative question with the assumption that a 2000 year-old text is brought before a court of law under its own face value is false. The New Testament stood up to the criteria of scrutiny. Any other text would have to as well.
”Exactly my point. Faith..... He could have risen from the dead as part of alien powers. You rely on mere faith to assume otherwise. As such we do NOT have any facts and cannot regard it as so until we see that proof. Thank you for completely stating my argument. “
But my faith also includes that he rose from the dead according to Old Testament prophecy. Your faith is in alien powers. (I see we are approaching a common ground.)
”Accepted..... I don't just 'accept'. I need the actual facts. That's where we differ. If i rot in hell for it, so be it, but i cannot just buy something whole heartedly unless it is absolute fact.”
The actual fact is that you do live on faith. The fact that you are alive today is reason for you to believe you will be alive tomorrow, a faith you will be alive in the future. The fact that you traveled from your residence without incident is reason for you to believe you can travel later today without a major catastrophic event occurring, a faith in going outside without harm. And the fact you ate the food set before you gives you reasons to believe that whomever prepared the food did it properly, a faith in the person who cooked it. Faith allows you to go forward with your life. You show a willingness to be skeptical, which I applaud, but an unwillingness to take the step towards what you know is true. You seem to shy away from the challenge. Maybe you think your intelligence has to take a backseat while faith takes over in the driver’s seat (IMHO). My point is faith has always been in the driver’s seat, you just didn’t want to see it. The choices you made in your life from the person you married, the job you have, the place you live, the food you eat, were from reasons that you believed those decisions were beneficial to you, a faith for a pleasant future from decisions made in the past. Faith is not a mystery to you, because you use it every day. You just may not be conscious of it because it has become second nature. Realize this- you may already have planned to be somewhere or meet someone in the not-too-distant future. Where is the absolute fact you will live that long?
Now you have stated that you believe 100% that Jesus rose from the dead (how it was done may be the focal point of our debate), but God has given reasons to believe in Him through the resurrection of Jesus. These reasons are something you, individually, will have to investigate, something you can analyze with your intellect. A young, skeptical mind like yours is what God is looking for and He will not leave you alone if you search for Him. His promises that you will find Him if you search with all your heart is illustrated in Deuteronomy 4:29, 1 Chronicles 28:9, and Matthew 6:33, promises He will keep. But it is the faith that you already have, that you already use, that He wants you to place on Him.
(I won’t bother in responding to the rest of your post because this appears to be the closest we will get in understanding each other’s point of view. In the thirty years of discussing my faith I have seen many different points of view. Unfortunately, yours is not any different than others, but you have been more tenacious than most. Take that as a compliment.)
Ok let's get this clear at the start-
Firstly i find Sumerian texts valuable and key evidence that needs to be questioned, (same as the bible), thus i question and debate. Nothing is any more or less than: 'might or might not'. We can argue this all day long but the fact remains there is no fact. As such i debate, question, offer ideas and possibilities, and continue a search for absolute truth.
When i mention Jesus being an alien or whatever it is an alternative possibility based upon other translations of the bible/sumerian writing and any other available evidence. I don't really regard it as me having 'faith'. I hold it no more or no less than anything else: All are 'might or might not'.
I don't state Jesus did raise from the dead.... i can agree with the ressurrection- doesn't make it true at all. I would be inclined to assume that ressurrections have happened in history. Whether they were by god, aliens, magic tricks, or whatever else is the big question. I agreed with it to show you there are other possibilities to consider that if it did happen it wasn't neccesarily divine in its nature.
Well i would be more inclined to think along those lines. Technically whether the son of god or little green man he can be labelled as 'alien'. It's all down to interpretations. It is, same as any other reason for his ressurrection based upon nothing more than that. It remains a 'might or might not'.
I think you missed my point. Sumerian writing shows stories of ressurrections so do we assume them to be factual like with jesus because they were written about? I wasn't there to see any of it so would never ever consider stating it as fact, but if you state one as fact why not state them all as fact? I didn't shoot anything.
Yes.. there were many many witnesses. Why would i have to say no?
No point pasting all your text. But court of laws or otherwise you cannot state the ressurrection of jesus as fact. We can show by dating, ink, material, yada yada that someone wrote something. Doesn't mean he was writing factual events. Maybe the guy saw the best magic show of his life and didn't even know it was a trick- much like jesus walking on water- it's magician showmanship possibly. As such you cannot, and a court of law, cannot prove the ressurrection. They can prove somebody wrote a story but that's as far as it goes.
For the sake of debate i state he was an alien. Look it doesn't matter if he was an alien, a son of god, a drug induced fantasy caused by melanin abuse or whatever. The difference between us specifically is you assume these things to be undeniable fact whereas i say they are not. The difference isn't down to faith- it's down to openness for truth vs 'ive already found the truth'.
Well..... Let's say i do have faith my wife can cook a nice chicken roast without killing me still doesn't mean it's true does it? Exactly my point.
If i walk outside and get killed it's beyond my control. While i'm alive and have the ability to search for facts i will do so. I think God vs hit and run accident are on two completely different spectrums. You can't use one to justify the other.
I dislike the word skeptical. I consider everything as a 'might or might not'. In your above context: I might or might not get hit by a bus later on etc... I prefer it that way 'cause that's more in line with openness of mind and heart. If i was to say: that's not possible- i would be closed off to it and could never learn from it. That isn't my style. I debate for specific reasons. To ask, search, question, and look are the only way's we can ever advance our knowledge.
I spoke to a girl who had been abducted and raped by aliens. I could say..... "Cool", and accept it, i could say "lying bitch" and just throw it out with the dishwater or i could: "So.. do you have any details? What did they look like? Etc" I prefer the third method which is to question, seek and debate.
I'm not a skeptic, im a 'non-knowerist', a guy who understands 'might or might not'. If nothing else denying someones belief is rude. That's where we differ. I question your belief and add possibilities etc so we all learn. The religious man is so fine tuned into one singular belief he cannot see anything else. It turns into a position whereby the open minds question the religious man spends a life in defence as opposed to asking any of his own questions. Of course according to him he doesn't need to cause he already has the answer.
Oh.... what do i know is true?
I do? Ok in order to accept the challenge....?? I hereby state God does exist is real everyone else is wrong. Is that better? Oh by the way i mean the Jewish god, not the Christian one.
No offence but that was hardly a challenge. I think i'll just remain with my search for the facts as opposed to accepting whatever i want/need to hear.
Lol, im starting to consider the possibility you're talking to yourself.
I think there's a distinct difference between your perspective of it and mine.
You call it faith: Faith means Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. That's acceptance of something without facts.
I call it 'might or might not'. This means it might or might not be true. I am purely open minded. I haven't just accepted anything or denied anything. I question it and search for the facts first.
Big difference.
Well i wouldn't have met the woman i married unless a million events took place at the correct moment in my life. Instead i'd be married to some other woman. Same with everything.
Consider the fact i was born 600 miles from here. I had a different name, i was in fact a completely different person sort of. I finally got adopted- my name was changed, i got forced to move 600 miles etc etc etc and ended up married. You think that's having control? I didn't believe those decisions were beneficial- they're part of lifes unfolding tapestry i have no control over.
But again we are distancing ourselves from the actual debate. Whether i die tommorrow or whether i get a new job has very little to do with the subject at hand. two completely different realms. Having 'faith' in one and 'faith' in the other are complete separate contexts.
Again it's a diversion. I plan to go to the pub tonight..... It's not fact it will happen or i'll even survive that long but what's that got to do with accepting a belief in god without facts? Nothing really.
Ah..... But that's what i am doing. Debating, searching, questioning. Needless to say it remains 'might or might not' because there are no facts. And god hasn't given reasons for fact. There might not even be a god.
Well i mildly laughed at the 'young'. I'm probably older than you but i appreciated the term. I've already pointed out im not skeptical and do in fact dislike that word. If god is looking for me he knows my phone number, address and email. If he can't find me he can dial 100 and ask the operator to.
As for 'never leave me alone'........ I dunno if i like the sound of that. I can imagine my sex life going down hill very fast.
Oh ok. That's obviously proof then..
Well..... i will have 'faith' that what you say is true. Doesn't mean it is right? Exactly my point. Faith is not an answer, it's a wish for an answer when there is no answer.
Sincerest apologies for one hell of a long post. I doubt anyone will read it, but who cares?
Firstly i find Sumerian texts valuable and key evidence that needs to be questioned, (same as the bible), thus i question and debate. Nothing is any more or less than: 'might or might not'. We can argue this all day long but the fact remains there is no fact. As such i debate, question, offer ideas and possibilities, and continue a search for absolute truth.
When i mention Jesus being an alien or whatever it is an alternative possibility based upon other translations of the bible/sumerian writing and any other available evidence. I don't really regard it as me having 'faith'. I hold it no more or no less than anything else: All are 'might or might not'.
I don't state Jesus did raise from the dead.... i can agree with the ressurrection- doesn't make it true at all. I would be inclined to assume that ressurrections have happened in history. Whether they were by god, aliens, magic tricks, or whatever else is the big question. I agreed with it to show you there are other possibilities to consider that if it did happen it wasn't neccesarily divine in its nature.
Well i would be more inclined to think along those lines. Technically whether the son of god or little green man he can be labelled as 'alien'. It's all down to interpretations. It is, same as any other reason for his ressurrection based upon nothing more than that. It remains a 'might or might not'.
I think you missed my point. Sumerian writing shows stories of ressurrections so do we assume them to be factual like with jesus because they were written about? I wasn't there to see any of it so would never ever consider stating it as fact, but if you state one as fact why not state them all as fact? I didn't shoot anything.
Yes.. there were many many witnesses. Why would i have to say no?
No point pasting all your text. But court of laws or otherwise you cannot state the ressurrection of jesus as fact. We can show by dating, ink, material, yada yada that someone wrote something. Doesn't mean he was writing factual events. Maybe the guy saw the best magic show of his life and didn't even know it was a trick- much like jesus walking on water- it's magician showmanship possibly. As such you cannot, and a court of law, cannot prove the ressurrection. They can prove somebody wrote a story but that's as far as it goes.
For the sake of debate i state he was an alien. Look it doesn't matter if he was an alien, a son of god, a drug induced fantasy caused by melanin abuse or whatever. The difference between us specifically is you assume these things to be undeniable fact whereas i say they are not. The difference isn't down to faith- it's down to openness for truth vs 'ive already found the truth'.
Well..... Let's say i do have faith my wife can cook a nice chicken roast without killing me still doesn't mean it's true does it? Exactly my point.
If i walk outside and get killed it's beyond my control. While i'm alive and have the ability to search for facts i will do so. I think God vs hit and run accident are on two completely different spectrums. You can't use one to justify the other.
I dislike the word skeptical. I consider everything as a 'might or might not'. In your above context: I might or might not get hit by a bus later on etc... I prefer it that way 'cause that's more in line with openness of mind and heart. If i was to say: that's not possible- i would be closed off to it and could never learn from it. That isn't my style. I debate for specific reasons. To ask, search, question, and look are the only way's we can ever advance our knowledge.
I spoke to a girl who had been abducted and raped by aliens. I could say..... "Cool", and accept it, i could say "lying bitch" and just throw it out with the dishwater or i could: "So.. do you have any details? What did they look like? Etc" I prefer the third method which is to question, seek and debate.
I'm not a skeptic, im a 'non-knowerist', a guy who understands 'might or might not'. If nothing else denying someones belief is rude. That's where we differ. I question your belief and add possibilities etc so we all learn. The religious man is so fine tuned into one singular belief he cannot see anything else. It turns into a position whereby the open minds question the religious man spends a life in defence as opposed to asking any of his own questions. Of course according to him he doesn't need to cause he already has the answer.
Oh.... what do i know is true?
I do? Ok in order to accept the challenge....?? I hereby state God does exist is real everyone else is wrong. Is that better? Oh by the way i mean the Jewish god, not the Christian one.
No offence but that was hardly a challenge. I think i'll just remain with my search for the facts as opposed to accepting whatever i want/need to hear.
Lol, im starting to consider the possibility you're talking to yourself.
I think there's a distinct difference between your perspective of it and mine.
You call it faith: Faith means Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. That's acceptance of something without facts.
I call it 'might or might not'. This means it might or might not be true. I am purely open minded. I haven't just accepted anything or denied anything. I question it and search for the facts first.
Big difference.
Well i wouldn't have met the woman i married unless a million events took place at the correct moment in my life. Instead i'd be married to some other woman. Same with everything.
Consider the fact i was born 600 miles from here. I had a different name, i was in fact a completely different person sort of. I finally got adopted- my name was changed, i got forced to move 600 miles etc etc etc and ended up married. You think that's having control? I didn't believe those decisions were beneficial- they're part of lifes unfolding tapestry i have no control over.
But again we are distancing ourselves from the actual debate. Whether i die tommorrow or whether i get a new job has very little to do with the subject at hand. two completely different realms. Having 'faith' in one and 'faith' in the other are complete separate contexts.
Again it's a diversion. I plan to go to the pub tonight..... It's not fact it will happen or i'll even survive that long but what's that got to do with accepting a belief in god without facts? Nothing really.
Ah..... But that's what i am doing. Debating, searching, questioning. Needless to say it remains 'might or might not' because there are no facts. And god hasn't given reasons for fact. There might not even be a god.
Well i mildly laughed at the 'young'. I'm probably older than you but i appreciated the term. I've already pointed out im not skeptical and do in fact dislike that word. If god is looking for me he knows my phone number, address and email. If he can't find me he can dial 100 and ask the operator to.
As for 'never leave me alone'........ I dunno if i like the sound of that. I can imagine my sex life going down hill very fast.
Oh ok. That's obviously proof then..
Well..... i will have 'faith' that what you say is true. Doesn't mean it is right? Exactly my point. Faith is not an answer, it's a wish for an answer when there is no answer.
Sincerest apologies for one hell of a long post. I doubt anyone will read it, but who cares?
Religious experience
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Lord said to me "Take a right." I am not sure why I obeyed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hehe
If you want to convince somebody, a police report would more then suffice.
[REPLY]
I am not interested in convincing anyone. The truth will stand for itself, for those who are searching. I have learned over the years that people basically believe what they want to believe. Even if I sent people the police report, people who don't want to believe would find something else to doubt about the story. (As recorded in the Record of Luke) Jesus said that people who did not want to believe would not be convinced even if they saw the dead come back alive. In other words, some have an open heart, and are searching for God, and others have a closed heart, and want to disprove God. My story is only a "pointer" for those searching; not for those who won't believe no matter what they see or hear.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the Lord said to me "Take a right." I am not sure why I obeyed
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
hehe
If you want to convince somebody, a police report would more then suffice.
[REPLY]
I am not interested in convincing anyone. The truth will stand for itself, for those who are searching. I have learned over the years that people basically believe what they want to believe. Even if I sent people the police report, people who don't want to believe would find something else to doubt about the story. (As recorded in the Record of Luke) Jesus said that people who did not want to believe would not be convinced even if they saw the dead come back alive. In other words, some have an open heart, and are searching for God, and others have a closed heart, and want to disprove God. My story is only a "pointer" for those searching; not for those who won't believe no matter what they see or hear.
Reply
I could call the Portland police department and see if they still have it on record. But it would only record a rape and our names etc. It would not have all the details that you want me to prove - so I am sure it would not "convince" you. How would that help you? And also, like I said, I am not interested in convincing people. People can not stand on others' faith or experiences. You have to do the footwork yourself to find out if God is real or not. Then you will have (or not) your own experiences and faith.
I could call the Portland police department and see if they still have it on record. But it would only record a rape and our names etc. It would not have all the details that you want me to prove - so I am sure it would not "convince" you. How would that help you? And also, like I said, I am not interested in convincing people. People can not stand on others' faith or experiences. You have to do the footwork yourself to find out if God is real or not. Then you will have (or not) your own experiences and faith.
reply
Let's not waste space here going back and forth. If you are REALLY interested in the details because you are searching, then send me private messages and I will supply to you what details I can. But I am not going to spend countless hours trying to prove my stories to people who want to play games with me. If you are serious about talking about this stuff, private message me.
Let's not waste space here going back and forth. If you are REALLY interested in the details because you are searching, then send me private messages and I will supply to you what details I can. But I am not going to spend countless hours trying to prove my stories to people who want to play games with me. If you are serious about talking about this stuff, private message me.
Cris said:
I agree 100%!!!! i think that today, there are way too many people claiming "religious experiences" as truth, when usually, they are self-induced emotions, whether subconscious or not, or as Solomon Asch, social psychologist, and you have pointed out, it is most likely conformity... group frenzy... etc. That is why the holocaust happened, and i think it's a dangerous thing to mess around with. I hope, we realize that a religious experience is a real thing, but is often misused, mistreated, and misinterpritted.
audible said:
I'm assuming this room is the lions den, the sciforum is the lions den, as i have so seen, but does that mean that you attempt to rip me apart? if so, begin... or if by "no fun" you really mean to say, you are incapable of doing so... you should just say so.
Q25 said:
To return to the original question - a very intelligent one, though hard to answer!
At one end of the spectrum religious experience is an experience of the ineffable, which leads to a profound positive change in a person's personality or perspective. A good example is Saul on the road to Damascus. More commonly it may simply be an experience of peace, joy, gratitude and love, attributed to an awareness of the presence of God. Even maybe a shift in perception through a prayer seemingly answered.
Perhaps for Judeo-Christian-Moslems it can be described as an experience of falling in love with the Divine, which results in a voluntary turning away from mundane obsessions or addictions, and a revealing of the nature of God. This is why I don't think God can be known intellectually - it's a relationship thing. Buddhists and the oriental religions seem to be more involved with the use of mind (e.g. meditation on koans) to open perceptual doors to understanding our true nature (which may come to the same thing by a different route).
Most atheists cannot understand the experience of relationship aspect, they think religion is like atheism but with some strange exta beliefs tacked on.
I dearly would love to see your evidence for that statement, and remember the bible is only a book of fiction, some information about a jesus character, out side the bible, and also more evidence of this jesus must be produced then of george washington, you made the claim, now you have to back it up.rsy said:
unrefutable facts please, you would'nt want to appear the fool would you.
how so, there appears to be just as much evidence in writing for bilbo baggins, alice in wonderland, and sherlock holmes, but we know they never existed, however we have true accounts of georges life, and even bones to look at if we wish, and present day decendents.rsy said:
The thing about life and death is....Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father, but through me." This implies several things, Cris-it's not just about escaping death. Bridge- He is the roadmap, if he is indeed who he says he is. And to everyone- This man claims quite a bit in His one little quote, deity, purpose, truth, significance, and a distinct difference from all other religions... only one way, He is it, He is life. He has come that we "may have life and have it to the full" The only teacher, or if you must, leader of a religion that rebukes those that cling to rules instead of truth.
alright....say you have A 'religious experience'------and later are harpin on about how geeat 'paradise' is after death etc...well, THAT is phony religious exprience!...why? because you are pining after a dream post-death
that dream is the patriARCHAl religous 'experience'
the real orignal primal indigenoua religious experience is the actual ecstatic sense of union wit Nature and polar related reality, ie., dark and light, bad and good, death and life, and vice versa. THAT
religions which believe in th primacy of a sky god and afterlife,like the patriarchal religions such as JCI, and also Eastern mysticism all create conlict between aspects of xperience which in reality are related, like the examples i gave above
so such 'religious experience' makes life HELL ON EARTH. and tis is where qe ACTUALLY are. not in some fukin sky paradise
that dream is the patriARCHAl religous 'experience'
the real orignal primal indigenoua religious experience is the actual ecstatic sense of union wit Nature and polar related reality, ie., dark and light, bad and good, death and life, and vice versa. THAT
religions which believe in th primacy of a sky god and afterlife,like the patriarchal religions such as JCI, and also Eastern mysticism all create conlict between aspects of xperience which in reality are related, like the examples i gave above
so such 'religious experience' makes life HELL ON EARTH. and tis is where qe ACTUALLY are. not in some fukin sky paradise
the first two are regarding georges life, the next two are his own actual writings
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/gwash.html
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
I sure if we search we can find a a direct family member alive today.
you could literally go on all day and still find evidence of his existence, however on the other hand
this taken from this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1026844
by geeser and M*W
was there a person like this, was there a messiah. well that depends on the religion.
the subject of jesus ever existing has been debated many a time here, as of yet no proof of a character called jesus ever existing has come to light.
have you ever read of mithra, (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mithra.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra) of gilgamesh, (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library...mian/gilgamesh/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh) there are literally thousand of stories, from different religions old and new, the profess a jesus type messiah, it is just a fictious story. http://www.godchecker.com/
do a bit more studing before you make silly claims, you end up with egg on you face.
below are some of the many debates over the years.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51870
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51670
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52231
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51064
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48967
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48819
M*W: Your extrabiblical references have long been proven to be forgeries.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ein/jesus.shtml
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/gw1.html
http://sc94.ameslab.gov/TOUR/gwash.html
http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/
http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gwhtml/gwhome.html
I sure if we search we can find a a direct family member alive today.
you could literally go on all day and still find evidence of his existence, however on the other hand
this taken from this thread http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=1026844
by geeser and M*W
was there a person like this, was there a messiah. well that depends on the religion.
the subject of jesus ever existing has been debated many a time here, as of yet no proof of a character called jesus ever existing has come to light.
have you ever read of mithra, (http://www.pantheon.org/articles/m/mithra.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithra) of gilgamesh, (http://www.ancienttexts.org/library...mian/gilgamesh/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgamesh) there are literally thousand of stories, from different religions old and new, the profess a jesus type messiah, it is just a fictious story. http://www.godchecker.com/
do a bit more studing before you make silly claims, you end up with egg on you face.
below are some of the many debates over the years.
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52294
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51870
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51670
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=52231
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51064
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48967
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=48819
M*W: Your extrabiblical references have long been proven to be forgeries.
http://www.truthbeknown.com/pliny.htm
http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg02.htm
http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/camel2.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/mod...ein/jesus.shtml
rsy: what your saying is you wish to change the goal posts, firstly deal with the issue you stated, supply irrefutable evidence for jesus existence, and prove
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_keller.hcsp
http://www.afb.org/braillebug/helen_keller_bio.asp
http://www.afb.org/section.asp?SectionID=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller
http://www.helenkellerbirthplace.org/
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Helen_Keller
People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
helen keller
and then you can try to do a comparison with helen kellerrsy said:
http://www.rnib.org.uk/xpedio/groups/public/documents/publicwebsite/public_keller.hcsp
http://www.afb.org/braillebug/helen_keller_bio.asp
http://www.afb.org/section.asp?SectionID=1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helen_Keller
http://www.helenkellerbirthplace.org/
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Helen_Keller
People do not like to think. If one thinks, one must reach conclusions. Conclusions are not always pleasant.
Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature.... Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.
helen keller