what is religious experience?
- Thread starter Q25
- Start date
Man of jade,
If you remove the spiritual component, i.e. the ability to survive death, then all those religions become void of their essential basis and become meaningless. Everything else involved in a religion is just its particular arbitrary cosmetic wrappings.
Common to every major religion is the belief of duality, i.e. a human has both a spiritual component and a physical component. Every major religion assumes that when the physical component dies then the spiritual component survives.
If you remove the spiritual component, i.e. the ability to survive death, then all those religions become void of their essential basis and become meaningless. Everything else involved in a religion is just its particular arbitrary cosmetic wrappings.
MarkM,
If there were no rules then God would simply save everyone and there would be no such things as heaven and hell. The way one becomes saved is by following the rules of Christianity. If one does not follow these rules then they are condemned to hell.
There really is no issue here, no matter how you want to cut this, the primary incentive to follow Christianity is the promise of heaven and to get there you must make certain decisions and follow the rules. Loving your neighbor is very virtuous, but is nevertheless a rule espoused by Christianity.
Of course it is.
Read what you write. “Need to realize” is a definite action. This is a rule you must follow.
If there were no rules then God would simply save everyone and there would be no such things as heaven and hell. The way one becomes saved is by following the rules of Christianity. If one does not follow these rules then they are condemned to hell.
There really is no issue here, no matter how you want to cut this, the primary incentive to follow Christianity is the promise of heaven and to get there you must make certain decisions and follow the rules. Loving your neighbor is very virtuous, but is nevertheless a rule espoused by Christianity.
Markm,
Regarding your miracle anecdote.
A 15 year old alone in a massive national park, soaked and exposed to a violent thunderstorm, in a state of panic from locking keys in the car, experiencing the fear of an authoritarian father, and in this understandably confused disoriented panicky and traumatic state you fail to realize that the window was really open.
And of course once again there is no witness to your fantastic claim. I see no miracle here but the exaggerations and delusions of someone with an over active imagination, who was once traumatized by an understandable confusing sequence of events.
Regarding your miracle anecdote.
A 15 year old alone in a massive national park, soaked and exposed to a violent thunderstorm, in a state of panic from locking keys in the car, experiencing the fear of an authoritarian father, and in this understandably confused disoriented panicky and traumatic state you fail to realize that the window was really open.
And of course once again there is no witness to your fantastic claim. I see no miracle here but the exaggerations and delusions of someone with an over active imagination, who was once traumatized by an understandable confusing sequence of events.
Cris;
You have made a statement, but have no other evidence. Satanism, as I've read, believes in no afterlife or god, and it seems to be growing in popularity. Do you have an example, solid proof of your statement other than just a few assumptions?
You have made a statement, but have no other evidence. Satanism, as I've read, believes in no afterlife or god, and it seems to be growing in popularity. Do you have an example, solid proof of your statement other than just a few assumptions?
Jade,
The proof is inherent to the definition of religion.
Then it doesn’t conform to the definition of religion. It is therefore not a religion. The republican party also believe in a set of identifiable characteristics, rules, and values, would you then say Republicanism is a religion.
What do you not understand about the definition of religion? That you have decided to add additional meanings to religion is not my problem.
Cris;
From dictionary.com;
Have you an example of your assumption? Something that actually Happened?
From dictionary.com;
Proof? Please point it out, theres more than one definition as you can see.
Republicanism is different, it is a political system. It can be defined as religon, but it doesnt make it so. Satanism, however, Fits/can fit 1.b, 2, 3, and 4.
That you conform to your own definition of religon is not my problem. Im just stating what I found.
Have you an example of your assumption? Something that actually Happened?
SanDolphin61
Registered Senior Member
Thanks Persol
SVRP wrote
Or maybe he should have picked up the book authored by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, a key founder of Harvard’s School of Law. He is regarded as one of the principal figures responsible for Harvard’s eminent position among law schools in the United States, and he produced “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.”
After a challenge by one of his students to disprove the claims of Jesus and the Bible, Dr. Greenleaf was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. He determined, once and for all, to expose the myth of the Resurrection of Jesus. With a lawyer’s skill, Greenleaf put his principles to work as he examined the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in the ancient writings of the biblical text. After careful study, he wrote “The Testimony of the Evangelists”, in which he stated that it was "impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead."
The conclusion from one of history’s greatest lawyers, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, was that the physical resurrection of Jesus is an unrivaled historical fact.
Or maybe your brother in law should speak with Jay Sekelow, president of the American Center for Law and Justice and lead litigator of cases brought before the United States Supreme Court. He can find ways to contact Jay Sekelow at www.ACLJ.org, and ask for consultation on eyewitness testimony written two thousand years ago.
Or maybe he should go to a bookstore and pick up “A Skeptic’s Search for God” by Ralph Muncaster, who took the challenge to disprove the resurrection, and found analytical and legal proof that supports it.
SVRP wrote
The resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. God’s challenge is still before you.
SnakeLord wrote
Maybe your brother in law should have spoken to Tom Anderson, President of the California Trial Lawyers Association and one of the top ten trial lawyers in America today, Tom accepted a challenge to “examine history or archaeology or any other discipline” in order to discredit the resurrection of Jesus. In his words: “My four month study was motivated to find a loophole, any loophole, in the truths of Christ. Finding none frightened me.”
Or maybe he should have picked up the book authored by Dr. Simon Greenleaf, a key founder of Harvard’s School of Law. He is regarded as one of the principal figures responsible for Harvard’s eminent position among law schools in the United States, and he produced “the greatest single authority on evidence in the entire literature of legal procedure.”
After a challenge by one of his students to disprove the claims of Jesus and the Bible, Dr. Greenleaf was certain that a careful examination of the internal witness of the Gospels would dispel all the myths at the heart of Christianity. He determined, once and for all, to expose the myth of the Resurrection of Jesus. With a lawyer’s skill, Greenleaf put his principles to work as he examined the historical evidence surrounding the resurrection of Jesus Christ as recorded in the ancient writings of the biblical text. After careful study, he wrote “The Testimony of the Evangelists”, in which he stated that it was "impossible that the apostles could have persisted in affirming the truths they had narrated, had not Jesus Christ actually risen from the dead."
The conclusion from one of history’s greatest lawyers, Dr. Simon Greenleaf, was that the physical resurrection of Jesus is an unrivaled historical fact.
Or maybe your brother in law should speak with Jay Sekelow, president of the American Center for Law and Justice and lead litigator of cases brought before the United States Supreme Court. He can find ways to contact Jay Sekelow at www.ACLJ.org, and ask for consultation on eyewitness testimony written two thousand years ago.
Or maybe he should go to a bookstore and pick up “A Skeptic’s Search for God” by Ralph Muncaster, who took the challenge to disprove the resurrection, and found analytical and legal proof that supports it.
SVRP wrote
SnakeLord wrote
As you can see finding support for my belief is not so hard.
The resurrection of Jesus is a historical fact. God’s challenge is still before you.
SVRP,
But then according to the best lawyers in the USA OJ Simpson was innocent.
Ahh but in another trial another set of the best lawyers in the USA showed that he was guilty.
So much for the authority according to lawyers fallacy.
You mean according to the lawyers.
But then according to the best lawyers in the USA OJ Simpson was innocent.
Ahh but in another trial another set of the best lawyers in the USA showed that he was guilty.
So much for the authority according to lawyers fallacy.
Well Svrp, I'm English so law works different here.
This reminds me so much of the current America-Iraq conflict.
What you're saying is Tom has been challenged to show jesus didn't ressurrect. There's not one person who can prove that for fact unless they were there. Just because we cant prove something didnt happen though, it has absolutely no bearing on it actually having happened. You seem to think because there's nothing to show it didn't it instantly turns into the case that it did. Let's see your next statement:
Yet again you are assuming because someone can't prove against, it instantly becomes ultimate truth. That isn't the case, at least not in a sensible legal system
Just because i cant prove i didnt kill this person.... does it mean for fact i did? Don't be silly- there's not one legal system in the modern world that would work like that.
Next quote:
Third time now: Took the challenge to disprove. You seem to mistake fact as simply being something that can't be disproven. All you have to go by are 2000 year old texts. Nowadays even tapes and video can be turned down as evidence because people can manipulate them-
There are stories of ressurrections written about 1,500 years before the story of jesus was ever told. there's stories of alien visitors dating back to that same time. Does that make the existence of extra terrestrials fact? In line with your way of thinking i now challenge you to disprove aliens exist. If you can't do it we'll ask Tom or Simon Greenleaf to start legal procedures. There are texts from eye witnesses so obviously there are aliens. [ Edit ] Add to that the fact there are still, to this very day millions upon millions of eyewitness testimonies involving alien life. Their testimonies must be taken as a lot more credible than the writing of some guy we dont know anything about who apparently lived 2000+ years ago. These eye witnesses to alien events are still alive to question, are from all different walks of life and so on. There are millions of photographic and video images which show aliens/ufos.
The books you speak of are nothing more than religious propaganda aimed at satisfying the weak minded.
No it isn't fact, it's lack of evidence to show otherwise. I'm sure once you disprove the existence of aliens to me i'll agree with you.
This reminds me so much of the current America-Iraq conflict.
What you're saying is Tom has been challenged to show jesus didn't ressurrect. There's not one person who can prove that for fact unless they were there. Just because we cant prove something didnt happen though, it has absolutely no bearing on it actually having happened. You seem to think because there's nothing to show it didn't it instantly turns into the case that it did. Let's see your next statement:
Yet again you are assuming because someone can't prove against, it instantly becomes ultimate truth. That isn't the case, at least not in a sensible legal system
Just because i cant prove i didnt kill this person.... does it mean for fact i did? Don't be silly- there's not one legal system in the modern world that would work like that.
Next quote:
Third time now: Took the challenge to disprove. You seem to mistake fact as simply being something that can't be disproven. All you have to go by are 2000 year old texts. Nowadays even tapes and video can be turned down as evidence because people can manipulate them-
There are stories of ressurrections written about 1,500 years before the story of jesus was ever told. there's stories of alien visitors dating back to that same time. Does that make the existence of extra terrestrials fact? In line with your way of thinking i now challenge you to disprove aliens exist. If you can't do it we'll ask Tom or Simon Greenleaf to start legal procedures. There are texts from eye witnesses so obviously there are aliens. [ Edit ] Add to that the fact there are still, to this very day millions upon millions of eyewitness testimonies involving alien life. Their testimonies must be taken as a lot more credible than the writing of some guy we dont know anything about who apparently lived 2000+ years ago. These eye witnesses to alien events are still alive to question, are from all different walks of life and so on. There are millions of photographic and video images which show aliens/ufos.
The books you speak of are nothing more than religious propaganda aimed at satisfying the weak minded.
No it isn't fact, it's lack of evidence to show otherwise. I'm sure once you disprove the existence of aliens to me i'll agree with you.
Last edited:
Experience vs Religion
The fact that our view of God (or no god) shapes our lives to such a powerful extent is a primary reason the Scripture ascribes such incredible importance to seeking to know God personally and experientially. All else falls into opinions or legalism (whether religious or atheistic).
The atheistic intellectualizers lack the courage to get their hands dirty and keep themselves at a very safe distance by rationalizing everything they do not want to believe away.
The fact that our view of God (or no god) shapes our lives to such a powerful extent is a primary reason the Scripture ascribes such incredible importance to seeking to know God personally and experientially. All else falls into opinions or legalism (whether religious or atheistic).
The atheistic intellectualizers lack the courage to get their hands dirty and keep themselves at a very safe distance by rationalizing everything they do not want to believe away.
Markm,
It is only your opinion that leads you to think it is important for non believers to seek your god, there are no facts involved.
That is an incredibly confused statement. Having a view of no god specifically does not lead to the importance of seeking to know God personally and experientially.
It is only your opinion that leads you to think it is important for non believers to seek your god, there are no facts involved.
All else? What does that mean?
Or rather, the theistic emotionalizers lack the courage to face the reality that they are on their own and that they are going to die. Depending heavily on the crutch of religious fantasy keeps them at a safe distance from having to take responsibility for their lives. Learning the discipline of reasoned thought takes time and effort, it is just laziness to do otherwise.
Man of jade,
You should also find that when I’ve made statements about the root cause of religion I always qualify it with the words ‘major religions’. If you find an exception then that would be me being lazy. Some of the ‘new age’ religions are quite bizarre and stretch definitions of religion beyond what we conventionally consider religion.
You mention Satanism as if that were a religion. Satanism has been described by some as unreligion. It is a philosophy in the same way that objectivism, or atheism offer distinct philosophical positions. But then all religions are subsets of philosophy. The critical distinction between a religious philosophy and the others is the adoption of a supernatural concept as a key component. Satanism specifically does not have that component. However, ‘devil worship’ would be a different issue, but Satanism has nothing to do with devil worship. It looks like you have a misconception of Satanism so I recommend you check it out more carefully. It has been debated numerous times in these forums in the past and I can quite understand your mistake.
If we stay within the limitations of your offered dictionary definition, apart from number 4, we see the common theme is the supernatural or a spiritual aspect. I hope you agree that the debates in this forum really do revolve around these concepts.
When people practice their religion the focus is overwhelmingly concerned with the worship aspects, or the actions required by the respective rules. Buddhism for example involves many mental disciplines and the development of critical attitudes. Hinduism, with its concept of karma also includes similar disciplines. Christianity of course has the 10 commandments and the additional rules given by Jesus. And so on for each of the major religions.
The daily practice of religion tends to emphasize the ritual and the application of the rules which are a significant distraction from the underlying basis of such religions. And here we need to look more closely at what it means by supernatural and spirituality.
The supernatural is the concept that there is a realm outside of or beyond what we can detect and observe and what we call the physical realm. The concept of Spirituality has definitions that would fill many encyclopedias so I am pretty sure that whatever I say here will likely be disputed/corrected by someone. But I’ll try the most common approach anyway. My assertion, based on the observation and study of many religious ideas is that the spiritual aspect necessarily assumes that each person has a supernatural component that allows existence outside of the physical realm. In all the major religions this is a fundamental concept and I believe is universally accepted and is an essential axiom. And here I don’t think I am in any way trying to be controversial.
If you can accept the concept of duality, i.e. you have a physical component and a spiritual component, then the inevitable and necessary implication is that when the physical component dies then the spiritual component survives.
My assertion has been that the root basis of every major religion is the desire to cheat death. I believe this follows on naturally from the acceptance of duality and should not be a surprise. What I think is the basis of your objection is that the vast majority of those who practice a religion do not openly state they are following their religion because they plan to cheat death. They virtually always state other seemingly more admirable reasons, like wanting to experience the love of god, etc. But underneath all these ‘higher level’ claims is the underlying expectation that they will cheat death when they die. I assume you are religious so isn’t this also your expectation?
Now consider the alternative where people do not believe that duality exists and that people only have a physical component. Here there would be no expectation of cheating death. What are the implications for religion? I would suspect in this case that religions would simply not exist. Without a spirit then people could never experience a supernatural realm. Reincarnation would have no meaning and that eliminates Buddhism and Hinduism. No one could ever meet god since he exists in the supernatural realm, and heaven and hell also become meaningless. Without a spirit all the major tenets of all major religious cease to have meaning. Being saved from sin and achieving eternal existence by believing in Jesus would equally have no meaning or ability to be achieved.
The conclusion, that I hope you can now see more clearly is that the root basis for every major religion and most others is the conscious or subconscious assumption and implication that duality exists and that this implies that death is survivable. And that this is what everyone who follows these religions ultimately desires and expects, whether they openly state this or not is immaterial.
Definitions of religion are far more variable than these few. The 4th item can cover almost anything, for example – the dedicated athlete who religiously follows a strict training regimen. Is this really what we mean by religion in the context of this forum? I’d hope you’d agree that that is not what we mean.
You should also find that when I’ve made statements about the root cause of religion I always qualify it with the words ‘major religions’. If you find an exception then that would be me being lazy. Some of the ‘new age’ religions are quite bizarre and stretch definitions of religion beyond what we conventionally consider religion.
You mention Satanism as if that were a religion. Satanism has been described by some as unreligion. It is a philosophy in the same way that objectivism, or atheism offer distinct philosophical positions. But then all religions are subsets of philosophy. The critical distinction between a religious philosophy and the others is the adoption of a supernatural concept as a key component. Satanism specifically does not have that component. However, ‘devil worship’ would be a different issue, but Satanism has nothing to do with devil worship. It looks like you have a misconception of Satanism so I recommend you check it out more carefully. It has been debated numerous times in these forums in the past and I can quite understand your mistake.
If we stay within the limitations of your offered dictionary definition, apart from number 4, we see the common theme is the supernatural or a spiritual aspect. I hope you agree that the debates in this forum really do revolve around these concepts.
When people practice their religion the focus is overwhelmingly concerned with the worship aspects, or the actions required by the respective rules. Buddhism for example involves many mental disciplines and the development of critical attitudes. Hinduism, with its concept of karma also includes similar disciplines. Christianity of course has the 10 commandments and the additional rules given by Jesus. And so on for each of the major religions.
The daily practice of religion tends to emphasize the ritual and the application of the rules which are a significant distraction from the underlying basis of such religions. And here we need to look more closely at what it means by supernatural and spirituality.
The supernatural is the concept that there is a realm outside of or beyond what we can detect and observe and what we call the physical realm. The concept of Spirituality has definitions that would fill many encyclopedias so I am pretty sure that whatever I say here will likely be disputed/corrected by someone. But I’ll try the most common approach anyway. My assertion, based on the observation and study of many religious ideas is that the spiritual aspect necessarily assumes that each person has a supernatural component that allows existence outside of the physical realm. In all the major religions this is a fundamental concept and I believe is universally accepted and is an essential axiom. And here I don’t think I am in any way trying to be controversial.
If you can accept the concept of duality, i.e. you have a physical component and a spiritual component, then the inevitable and necessary implication is that when the physical component dies then the spiritual component survives.
My assertion has been that the root basis of every major religion is the desire to cheat death. I believe this follows on naturally from the acceptance of duality and should not be a surprise. What I think is the basis of your objection is that the vast majority of those who practice a religion do not openly state they are following their religion because they plan to cheat death. They virtually always state other seemingly more admirable reasons, like wanting to experience the love of god, etc. But underneath all these ‘higher level’ claims is the underlying expectation that they will cheat death when they die. I assume you are religious so isn’t this also your expectation?
Now consider the alternative where people do not believe that duality exists and that people only have a physical component. Here there would be no expectation of cheating death. What are the implications for religion? I would suspect in this case that religions would simply not exist. Without a spirit then people could never experience a supernatural realm. Reincarnation would have no meaning and that eliminates Buddhism and Hinduism. No one could ever meet god since he exists in the supernatural realm, and heaven and hell also become meaningless. Without a spirit all the major tenets of all major religious cease to have meaning. Being saved from sin and achieving eternal existence by believing in Jesus would equally have no meaning or ability to be achieved.
The conclusion, that I hope you can now see more clearly is that the root basis for every major religion and most others is the conscious or subconscious assumption and implication that duality exists and that this implies that death is survivable. And that this is what everyone who follows these religions ultimately desires and expects, whether they openly state this or not is immaterial.
Cris;
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.
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?
Anyway... If someone had no spirit, there could still be a spiritual realm. 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?
One last thing...
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.
We could say he pursues it "like a religon" but it does not make it so, agreed.
I mentioned earlier that satanism can fit 1.b, 2,3,4. Definitions, I never said once It fit 1.a, in case there was a misunderstanding.
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.
Right here. The focus is on following the rules of karma, or the ten commandments, not on getting into the next life.
The focus is on the rules and rituals, is it not?
Yes, in most religons there is a concept of a soul.
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? 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?)
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 do have to point out however that already "cheating death" is already a scientific endevour. Uploading into a complex computer type thing, wasnt it?
Anyway... If someone had no spirit, there could still be a spiritual realm. 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?
One last thing...
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.
Man_of_jade,
"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."
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.
"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."
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.