Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 95 (8831 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-22-2018 8:10 PM
289 online now:
Coyote, dwise1, edge, jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, Percy (Admin), Tanypteryx (8 members, 281 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: DeepaManjusha
Post Volume:
Total: 830,414 Year: 5,237/29,783 Month: 1,169/1,467 Week: 55/311 Day: 55/51 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Author Topic:   Christian conversion experience: descriptions/analysis/links: input invited
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 136 of 199 (219889)
06-27-2005 1:32 AM
Reply to: Message 131 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 12:27 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
Randman, if you honestly believe that your wife spoke coherently in a tongue unknown to her, are you prepared to have that claim independently verified?

It was verified enough at the time for us. The idea of going about to prove our experience as real seems sort of like the people that asked Jesus to perform a sign. As of this date, I would not be comfortable with that.

It's up to people to seek the truth for themselves. If they are seeking and are willing to search, it will come to them as they do.

I've thought about doing something similar, documenting certain miracles, but then I realize that's been done in the past, and more recently, and people still reject it. I had never met someone that claimed to speak in tongues, except a boy in school, something like 3rd grade and I had no idea that it was, and never really met anyone that said they prayed and received a miracle, but I found when I was investigating these things, a great many people have received miracles, had visions, etc,...

Basically, my experience is all of the things that happened in the Bible are still happening today, and actually probably there are many more miracles today than in the Bible times, as more people have come into the kingdom, but people are fooled by secularism and propaganda into not even being aware of real events in history.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 12:27 AM Gilgamesh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 2:14 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 137 of 199 (219891)
06-27-2005 1:48 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by Faith
06-27-2005 12:45 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
There's a little more to say.

The experience of the presence of God is wonderful, and much of that was real, and I don't want dry doctrine, but that's the point, such experience can be intoxicating and when it gets away from the truth people are inclined to rationalize it or ignore it for that reason.

The experience of "the presence of God" was "real" and "wonderful."

That's what I am trying to get you to hang onto, that faith. What concerns me about these critics of they overblow things to the point that they weaken people's confidence and faith. One of the fruit of the Spirit is faith, and I don't want to point fingers, but quoting heresy hunters like Hanegraff raises a big red flag to me.

He wrote about the word of faith movement some 15 or more years ago, and there were very real errors in the word of faith movement, materialism being one of them, but it seemed like nearly every one that read his book was struck with fear, and here is the thing.

They weren't just concerned that materialism and stuff like that, which had invaded that movement, was wrong and then with faith, could just repent.

No, they were told it was a counterfeit spirit, and there were some counterfeit spirits in word of faith churches (and in every church stream I might add), but people became afraid that what they thought was the Holy Spirit was the devil or something in them, and were confused.

I see the same thing with this criticism. Faith, I know this is not the best place to discuss this stuff, but frankly, some of these critics basically find genuine errors, and then also criticize the primary good thing God is doing, and fill people with unhealthy fear.

What we need is to understand error and repent, not assume because we see something not right about some people in a movement, that the whole thing is wrong.

Paul would be branded a heretic if we adopted those standards, considering how bad his churches fell away from sound doctrine. That's Bible, by the way, not preaching my own doctrinal emphasis.

Personally, for example, I think the pre-trib rapture thing is harmful and blocks a real understanding of the Book of Revelation, but I am not going to break fellowship over it.

These critics often don't help because they don't properly address the error. They want to say the whole thing is wrong, and thus leave people not really developing any discernment at all because they don't discern the false doctrines leading to error, but just assume if it's not perfect or if offensive to their doctrinal emphasis, the whole thing is the devil.

The truth is that's nothing but trumpetting one camp's doctrines over another, and it's been done ad nauseum and is in itself one of the most pernicious and destructive aspects of the false religious spirit. I can nearly guarantee you that a lot of the problems you experienced that were hurtful in the church you came out of stemmed from that root, the root of trumpeting one religion over another.

I don't see these critics by and large as doing anything different.

What we need to do is repent of the root of the evil, and get rid of it. Slamming what the Holy Spirit is doing is not helpful, and wanting to return to more exacting denominationalism and a factional spirit doesn't help either.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 12:45 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 4:29 AM randman has responded
 Message 156 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 4:59 AM randman has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 138 of 199 (219893)
06-27-2005 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Faith
06-27-2005 1:21 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
No, but if there is no repentance for that within the denomination or withdrawal from that denomination because of their not repenting, then THAT suggests something a little less than would be expected from a genuine move of the Spirit.

Faith, the more conservative Anglicans are upset over what the liberals are doing, but you are falsely judging them, imo. You say this church should remove itself from Anglicanism because of what the liberal Anglicans are doing, but this is one of the larger and more influential churches within the communion, and many African Anglicans are so upset they are threatening to leave.

But who are you or I to tell them when to bolt, or when to remain and try to correct things, and how dare anyone judge the revival of a conservative English Anglican church by what some American bishops do!

That is not the right spirit. That may appeal because it seems to be upholding righteousness, but God has to lead all of us, and frankly, we are told in the Word not to judge a brother but to be a doer of "the law" in James.

If that church were allowing it within their own church, that's one thing but criticizing them for not having left the Anglican church, imo, is uncalled for.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 1:21 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 139 of 199 (219894)
06-27-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Faith
06-27-2005 1:13 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
Good grief, man, you think that learning to imitate glossolalia enough to deceive trusting people PROVES something? That's REALLY funny!

I don't use it to deceive. I am merely doing exactly what Christians are doing when they themselves perform "glossolalia"; performing semi-relefxise verbal babble. The reason why I (and my friends) have performed it within Christian congregations is to test whether what we are doing is indistinguishable by those who should probably know. It is. The Christians in those congregations have no idea what my personal beliefs are and I never let on: they just assume I am also Christian, and for the duration and purposes of the test and it does them no harm to believe that.

And, yea, it does prove something. That glossolalia is not supernatural, but rather a learned, semi-reflexive phenomena.

But I really would appreciate a study of tongues that purport to be genuine languages.

Agree.

As usual, the Christian churches I have approached are happy to propagate anecdotal stories in relation to these claims but are not reall happy expose those claims to controlled tests. Even though it might be somewhat difficult to determine what languages the individual speaking in tongues has been exposed to throughout their life, it would be easy enough to study this claimed supernatural phenomena. With controls in place, it would also be a possible candidate for James Randi's million dollar challenge.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 1:13 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 2:17 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 140 of 199 (219896)
06-27-2005 2:14 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
06-27-2005 1:32 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
It was verified enough at the time for us. The idea of going about to prove our experience as real seems sort of like the people that asked Jesus to perform a sign. As of this date, I would not be comfortable with that.

Fair enough. No offence meant, but the claim will reside in the anecdotal annals of your Christian church and will remain forever unpersuasive.

There is no mystery as to why Christianity has developed tenets prohibiting tests.

but I found when I was investigating these things, a great many people have received miracles, had visions, etc,...

Personal appraisal of these scenarios is inadequate. Confirmation bias and post-hoc reasoning explains belief in fulfilled miracles/prayer requests; temporal lobe, sleep anomalies and various other mental disorders explain the visions.

Basically, my experience is all of the things that happened in the Bible are still happening today, and actually probably there are many more miracles today than in the Bible times, as more people have come into the kingdom, but people are fooled by secularism and propaganda into not even being aware of real events in history.

Superstitious thinking still plagues humanity.

A phenomenal amount of Indians believed that Sai Baba was regularly performing miracles. Investigation by sceptics revealed that these miracles were merely sleight of hand tricks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 1:32 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 2:23 AM Gilgamesh has responded
 Message 143 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 2:52 AM Gilgamesh has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 27623
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 141 of 199 (219897)
06-27-2005 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 1:59 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
It shouldn't be hard simply to tape people speaking in a language they believe is a true language, given your extensive experience in these circles.

I don't use it to deceive. I am merely doing exactly what Christians are doing when they themselves perform "glossolalia"; performing semi-relefxise verbal babble.

No you are not. You have no idea what it's like not even to be seeking tongues, to be suspicious of it even, and yet in the middle of praying out loud in ENGLISH to suddenly find oneself speaking this bunch of undecipherable sounds, and to have it continue in much the same patterns over YEARS. This is frankly DISTURBING to someone like me who isn't sure it is from God. But it certainly is not from me either.

The reason why I (and my friends) have performed it within Christian congregations is to test whether what we are doing is indistinguishable by those who should probably know.

This does not prove anything. People are infatuated with their OWN experience, they take what others do as just THEIR experience, they don't think about it or analyze it or even pay much attention to it as it's part of WORSHIP when their attention is on God. They don't expect to "know" anything about it. It might not in fact sound a whole lot like anything else they've actually heard but they will accept it because after all the Spirit works with individuals differently and no two experiences are alike. I think this proves absolutely NOTHING.

It is. The Christians in those congregations have no idea what my personal beliefs are and I never let on: they just assume I am also Christian, and for the duration and purposes of the test and it does them no harm to believe that.

But it also proves nothing about the source of these things in OTHERS. You are faking it but others are not. I know that from my own experience. What exactly it is I do not know but I wish I could just accept that it is from God and not be bothered by it.

And, yea, it does prove something. That glossolalia is not supernatural, but rather a learned, semi-reflexive phenomena.

It does not prove that at all. I suppose you might learn to credibly imitate birdsong or the call of the elephant. Would that make you a bird or an elephant or the bird and elephant fakers?

This message has been edited by Faith, 06-27-2005 02:18 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 1:59 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

    
Faith
Member
Posts: 27623
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 142 of 199 (219898)
06-27-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 2:14 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
A phenomenal amount of Indians believed that Sai Baba was regularly performing miracles. Investigation by sceptics revealed that these miracles were merely sleight of hand tricks.

Most of it is pretty cheap stuff, but if they think they proved anything by merely imitating it, as magicians can do, I'm not buying.

Have you read Tal Brooke on his experiences with Sai Baba in India (Avatar of Night, Lord of the Air)?

This message has been edited by Faith, 06-27-2005 02:32 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 2:14 AM Gilgamesh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 4:02 AM Faith has responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 143 of 199 (219902)
06-27-2005 2:52 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 2:14 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
Gilgamesh, you might want to look a little harder.

I took a class in college with a Duke professor visiting on women's studies and religion, and one paper in class was done by a guy on Aimmee Simple McPhearson, who led a colorful life to say the least. This was an upper level class, and maybe graduate level but some undergrads could take as an elective. There were not many students in the class, and it was actually very liberal.

Well, I was amazed when the guy studying McPhearson said that doctors and others came out to test her and basically prove the healings were fake, but they were genuine. He treated it as historical fact, and the very liberal professor seemed to agree.

He questioned a lot about her, whether she ran off with a man, etc,...but after that I began to look at historical accounts and despite people like yourself under the impression there have been no valid proofs of these matters, I found the opposite is the case.

Miracles and healings, and all sorts of things have indeed been put to the test and proven.

The simple fact there is an inherent bias among some areas of soceity today. It's not that such things have not been proven, cannot be proven, etc,...but that some people refuse to accept the possibility that these things could be real.

There's a reason you can talk to someone from England, who lived near Wales, and yet never heard of the Welsh revival. The amazing level of the glory of God being poured out at times is often reported, but quickly forgotten.

I'll stand by my assertion that if you want to know the truth and seek for it, you will find it eventually.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 02:53 AM


This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 2:14 AM Gilgamesh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 3:53 AM randman has responded
 Message 162 by lfen, posted 06-27-2005 1:01 PM randman has not yet responded

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 199 (219914)
06-27-2005 3:35 AM


A conversion experience analysis
While the Christians above debate amongst themselves what their God never seems to be able to convey, I'll try to roll this thread back on topic.

I promised an analysis of the a conversion process. I'll use a revivalist baptism with glossolalia:

As I stated, IMO, there is no non-emotive (intellectual) path to belief, so the emotional conversion experience is essential to convert an informed sceptical intellectual. My catch phrase has always been "enlightenment transcends intellect". I have personally never discussed Christianity with or read apologetics of an intelligent person without that individual resorting to describing an emotive conversion experience or an emotional need for faith.

IMO this is because there is no intellectual path to God only an emotive appeal which fulfils the human belief desire condition perfectly and allows the trancendment of intellect. It is fundamental to understand in advance the human desire to want to believe in a higher purpose and deny mortality. This is arguably an evolutionary compulsion. It is also critical to acknowledge the fallibilities of your own human mind. This is essential to maintaining mental health for anyone, as ones grip or reality should never be appraised purely subjectively: it should always be validated objectively. Our mental health institutions are full of people who live in worlds that exist only within their own minds. Modern science has thankfully given us a way of diagnosing mental disorders and treating them.

The conversion experience is also what makes the newest Pentecostal Christian churches so persuasive when compared to more orthodox interpretations. It should be very carefully noted that some conversion experiences can be very successful and persuasive. I strongly advise fully investigating the doctrines of a church prior to submission to a conversion experience or ongoing congregation so that an adequate appraisal of the church can be made in advance. I have developed a checklist for this very purpose and may get round to posting it below.

The baptismal conversion experience:

Candidates are often sourced from the usual prime conversion demographics. They are prepared by exposure to the congregation, or one on one talks. In smaller churches, the sermon may be specifically tailored to target potential convertees that undoubtedly everyone is aware are in attendance.

The message sold is strongly emotively appealing, with references to love, eternal life, protection, prosperity, happiness, joy etc. It is emphasised that the ancient Bible foretells of the ability to "experience God" and to speak in tongues.

Once the convertee has agreed to submit to the conversion, the requirement of "humbleness and submission to God" is emphasised. This submission, is of course, to the conversion process and to those who conduct it. It also begins to establish the process of submission demanded by church "oversight".

The convertee is further humbled by a process of dressing down to a physically vulnerable state (borrowed shorts and t-shirt) allowing oneself to be fully immersed in a large tub of tepid water, often within full view of entire congregation or large portion of it, who will be singing, chanting, praying in tongues in support of the procession. This is an extraordinary process for most people, combining an emotive, vulnerable state, an appearance in front of a large audience combined with the presence of charismatic church elders demanding compliance and submission to "God". After immersion the convertee will be instructed to repeat multiple syllabilic words, typically, Praise the lord, praise the lord, Alleluia alleluia while making an emotive appeal to a God. The church elders will be touching, encouraging and praying along with the convertee.

Not surprisingly this process often solicits an experience. Glossolalia is not uncommon. The convertee may experience an overwhelming sense of warmth, relief, subjugation, love, extreme happiness or which may be expressed in laughing or even crying. A catharsis. This is an intense experience and can overwhelm the individual. However it may manifest, it is rationalised in the Biblical context and touted as proof of the validity of the ancient Bible, especially if glossolalia occurs.

The convertee is now open to swallowing the doctrine of the church.

Or alternately: sometimes nothing will happen to the convertee. They will be asked to pray with fellow Christians for sometime in the hope that the above will result. They will be instructed to continue to pray over the next few days and to attend regular church meetings in the hope the transition will occur. Sometimes an experience does occur later, even sometimes when the convertee is alone.

Result? If nothing happens now or even after a long period of committed attempts, this will never be construed as an indication of the lack of validity of the process: it will always be interpreted as a shortcoming on the individuals behalf, eg wrong mind set, not humble enough, too disciplined which is actually true because the emotive experience requires a degree of mental gullibility or vulnerableness to succeed.

What does the emotional experience mean? People have religious conversion experiences all across the world, in many different belief systems. It can be likened to a form of emotional breakdown, and to degree it is because it establishes a completely new form of knowledge accumulation: that based on faith and appeals to authority/tradition. It in no way guarantees the validity of the experience because it occurs in so many different forms and the final interpretations depends on who is there to feed you dogma when the process occurs, be it Christian, Muslim, Buddhist or New Agist.

Such experiences are also replicatable through drug use, oxygen deprivation and have been replicated through stimulation of the temporal lobes (right down to subjectively interpreted religious imagery). The experience also varies from person to person and is totally subjective. It is not objectively replicatable.

The experience should not be used as a valid form of knowledge appraisal. It does not grant evidence or objective proof, it is no more valid than a schizophrenic episode. Beliefs resulting from process depend on input after process. It is also a very transient process: many believers nevertheless still fall from faith sometime after this process. Some Christian churches have merely identified a very ancient vulnerability of humans to certain persuasive inputs and they take advantage of this.

Further reading:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/theism/experience.html


Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 3:58 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded
 Message 148 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 4:04 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded
 Message 149 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 4:19 AM Gilgamesh has responded
 Message 150 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 4:21 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 145 of 199 (219921)
06-27-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 143 by randman
06-27-2005 2:52 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
Hi Randman

I took a class in college with a Duke professor visiting on women's studies and religion, and one paper in class was done by a guy on Aimmee Simple McPhearson, who led a colorful life to say the least. This was an upper level class, and maybe graduate level but some undergrads could take as an elective. There were not many students in the class, and it was actually very liberal.

Well, I was amazed when the guy studying McPhearson said that doctors and others came out to test her and basically prove the healings were fake, but they were genuine. He treated it as historical fact, and the very liberal professor seemed to agree.

I don't know anything about this person or her claims. Is it really worth me researching, especially after reading James Randi's comprehensively researched "The Faith Healers"? Is this another anecdotal claim? Has McPhearson's claims been double blind tested? There have been other faith healing threads on this forum, including one that I started in order to demonstrate on normal healing and other real world explanations are the basis for faith healing claims. Want to know why anecdotal evidence is useless for appraisal healing claims? Read this for starters:

http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/beyer.html

Miracles and healings, and all sorts of things have indeed been put to the test and proven.

Sources please.

The simple fact there is an inherent bias among some areas of soceity today. It's not that such things have not been proven, cannot be proven, etc,...but that some people refuse to accept the possibility that these things could be real.

Unsubstantiated conspiracy claim. Science works to minimise individual bias.

I'll stand by my assertion that if you want to know the truth and seek for it, you will find it eventually.

Agree. I am personally seeking, and science is seeking. I am happy to turn to science for "answers", "truth" and knowledge. Why? Because we have the modern world as proof that it works, and because we all trust it with our lives like I did last night when I flew in a plane. It also tells me that supernatural/religious claims have never stood when tested.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 2:52 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 4:30 AM Gilgamesh has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 27623
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 146 of 199 (219923)
06-27-2005 3:58 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 3:35 AM


Re: A conversion experience analysis
IMO this is because there is no intellectual path to God

Depends on what you mean by "intellectual." I simply believed what a couple of Hindu gurus wrote in separate books about their experiences of God. Believed what they said, which later grew into a belief in Christ, pretty much by the cognitive means of sorting out truth from error. Had nothing to do with a personal experience or emotional anything. I just figured that for them to be agreeing on something like that it had to be true and from that point I read until I was persuaded that Christianity was the truth. The Bible is full of testimonies based on recognition that the gospel is the truth. This is a cognitive process, not an emotional process. GDR, on this very thread I believe, has claimed his conversion was also from simply being persuaded of the truth.

Had to make that comment. Now back to your post.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 3:35 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

    
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 147 of 199 (219924)
06-27-2005 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by Faith
06-27-2005 2:23 AM


Re: Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
Most of it is pretty cheap stuff, but if they think they proved anything by merely imitating it, as magicians can do, I'm not buying.

I've said it before... you are way too credulous. You are convinced by Sai Baba??? Is this another example of demons like astrology, which we dispelled above?

If someone claims that they can do something which appears supernatural, and another person performs the same act, demonstrating what they did most certainly wasn't supernatural, why would you ever feel inclined to continue to believe the supernatural claim?

You are buying Faith. You are buying bollocks, and lot's of it. Which is fine, except when you peddle it to others.

Have you read Tal Brooke on his experiences with Sai Baba in India (Avatar of Night, Lord of the Air)?

No. Should I really? Is this a tale about Sai Baba's miraculous powers told by a credulous git?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 2:23 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 4:25 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded
 Message 170 by Philip, posted 06-27-2005 5:00 PM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 27623
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.1


Message 148 of 199 (219926)
06-27-2005 4:04 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 3:35 AM


Re: A conversion experience analysis
You need to understand that you are ONLY addressing certain phenomena within the charismatic movement, you are NOT addressing Christianity as such, and baptism in most churches is FAR from a "conversion experience," it is a confirmation of a previous conversion, which is not part of anything emotional. You keep calling it a conversion experience but you are simply wrong.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 3:35 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

    
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 149 of 199 (219930)
06-27-2005 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 3:35 AM


Re: A conversion experience analysis
Your initial assertion is wrong, and that sort of makes the rest of your post inconsequential.

The idea that there is no intellectual path to God is not substantiated. In fact, quite the opposite for many people, although most people probably do not rely on an intellectual path for much of anything, even those that claim they do!

But you are confusing the experience of getting to know God with the path to God. Let me give you an example. Let's say I think a scientific truth can be used to create something new and pretty exciting. I arrived there via an intellectual path, right?

But as the process unfolds and the creation of the invention takes place, and it really is something special, what man is there out there that will not have some emotional satisfaction from that?

But that emotion does not make the path of evidence emotional.

You are misrepresenting how many people arrive at faith.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 3:35 AM Gilgamesh has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 171 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 8:11 PM randman has not yet responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2642 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 150 of 199 (219931)
06-27-2005 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by Gilgamesh
06-27-2005 3:35 AM


Re: A conversion experience analysis
Also, Faith is right. Spiritual experiences are not tantamount to conversion or conversion experiences. In fact, often the actual conversion is not as emotional and strong as some of the experiences which follow after. In other words, the emotions follow the faith, not the other way around.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by Gilgamesh, posted 06-27-2005 3:35 AM Gilgamesh has not yet responded

  
Prev1
...
89
10
11121314Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018