What you want to know about Christ.

Why the sudden change?

quote:

---

The best way to tell is to ask yourself whether the quality of your knowing is at the max possible. For example: are you as sure of that fact as you are of the fact of your own existance. If you are then it is as real as can be. For you.

---

So, there's no external way to verify if the experience was a real one or not, right?

quote:

---

We might define real as being what a person perceives reality to be.

---

We might, if we wanted to descend into meaningless sophistry in order to avoid answering a very simple question.So, we won't, if that's OK with you.Given that you accept that it is possible for someone to imagine a 100% false spiritual experience with God, then how can anyone say that they've had a real one, like you just did?What is the way to tell the difference between imaginary and real?Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Right. And that goes for any experience (empirically demonstrable or otherwise). I've already answered this. "Real" has been defined by me. According to that definition the 'how' is answered. If you want to define 'real' in a way that disallows what I say, then fine. Who do we refer to for the absolute definition of 'real'.Come back with a debate point answer this time. Or forever hold..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I am reasonably sure your pastor is glad you don't tell children this baloney in Sunday SchoolSeriously though, if someone were earnestly seeking the truth would you actually tell them that they should believe anything they want because no one can know anything anyway? Do you really care so little?If your God has so little to offer that He has to hide behind obfuscation and willful question dodging by His followers then perhaps He isn't worth the time of day. What happened to the I-sit-at-the-right-hand-of-God Jesus? All you seem to represent is the I-sit-on-the-dashboard-of-your-car Jesus. Do you really have so little respect for Him?Back to my question about Jesus (if gen is reading): Why does Jesus hide until after belief is professed?

quote:

---

Right. And that goes for any experience (empirically demonstrable or otherwise).

---

Wrong, unless you just want to use the post-modern cop-out of "we could all be the mad imaginings of a super-intelligent lifeform.", or "We could all be in the Matrix."That's not the road we are going to go down right now.The road we ARE going to go down, my obsfucating, sophist, make-up-any-bullshit-scenario-to-avoid-the-logical-implications-of-a-question, say-nothing-in-1000-words-or-more friend, is the road where you answer my simple question in a simple way.Let's imagine that we don't actually live in the Matrix, or aren't the product of the mind of an insane super intelligent space alien.Let us operate in what you would probably consider the disappointingly mundane universe ruled by natural law.In this world that we both live in (at least I do), we happily do have a way to reasonably determine if an experience was a real one, and those methods can also suggest the level of certainly one should hold for any given experience.Are you suggesting that there is no way to verify that, say, I was at work this morning, or that I have several siblings, or that I currently reside in the US?Are you saying that thare is no such thing as knowledge, since you seem to be saying that nobody can ever know anything at all?

I'm sure he would want classical empiricism challenged. It is but a philosophy. And not one that at all represents God that well. See the discussion in the context of the person with whom I am discussing. Schraf is an out and out empiricist. She's wriggling around trying to find a way to say "can you empirically demonstrate your spiritual experience because if not then it is not (according to my philosophy) real" - all without including the bit in brackets.It's more of a game of words LQ. Don't take it too much to heart. Out-of-the-closet-seekers won't find so much obfuscation from me. In-the-closet-seekers like (potentially) Schraf, (although she doesn't realise she is (potentially) one) are a different matter.

Post-modern? Sounds like name-dropping.The answer to your framed-and-constrained-so-as-to-ensure-the-answer-you-desire-question is. Yes/No.(delete as you think best - I can't even follow it anymore)

quote:

---

"can you empirically demonstrate your spiritual experience because if not then it is not (according to my philosophy) real"

---

Nope, that's not what I'm saying.I asked how anyone could tell the difference between a real spiritual experience with God, a real spiritual experience with a demon or the Devil who have fooled one into thinking the experience was with God, and a false spiritual experience one has only imagined.So far, you've not provided a clear naswer. It pretty much boiles down to the contradictory answers of "nobody can know anything, except me and thae other people who believe like I do. We know."

quote:

---

It's more of a game of words LQ. Don't take it too much to heart.

---

You are the only one playing games with words, iano. I'm simply asking the same question, over and over again, and you continue to shovel great piles of (defensive) steaming cow dung into the place where your honest answer should be.

quote:

---

Out-of-the-closet-seekers won't find so much obfuscation from me.

---

Ha! Jar is a Christian and he asked you the same question I did.Twice.I don't think you are making much sense to him, either.

quote:

---

In-the-closet-seekers like (potentially) Schraf, (although she doesn't realise she is (potentially) one) are a different matter.

---

So, I won't understand your avoidant word salad until I believe in the same religion as you?Sorry, but any religion that makes its followers as defensive and willfully obfuscatory as yours obviously does is doomed to drive me far, far away from it.I like a straightforward approach, in contrast to what you've shown me. You wouldn't know an honest debate tactic if it appeared to you on a cloud.

Thanks for the reply, Charismaniac.I've heard things like this from religious people. Sublimation is a well-known psychological phenomenon, and a useful one. The problem is that it doesn't address this question.We're discussing biology.If Jesus was fully human, as we're told, and male, as we're also told, then his body produced millions of sperm cells every week, starting at puberty. (Can anyone provide exact biological stats?)Those millions of sperm cells don't evaporate. They go somewhere. The body is always making more of them. That's what I meant about the necessity of release.A celibate male (no sexual relationships) either has voluntary emissions (masturbation) or involuntary emissions (wet dreams). Jesus, if he remains celibate, would be obliged to experience one or the other, or both.Both options involve erotic fantasy, physical stimulation and orgasm. That's reality.If one starts from a premise that erotic fantasy, physical stimulation and orgasm constitute sin, the biological facts force one to conclude either that (1) Jesus was not sinless, or (2) Jesus was not 'fully human', in the biological sense.If neither of these options is acceptable, the premise must go overboard.What do you think?

So are you saying that a celibate male can't have a nocturnal emission without fantasy?If so, it would tend to make Jesus as "sinful" as the rest of us.I always thought that unused sperm cells were simply reabsorbed by the body.He did pray an awfully lot, though.They never had porn in those days, so no idolatry was available. In conclusion, I believe that Jesus prayed instead of fantasized.

quote:

---

They never had porn in those days

---

You wanna bet?Wasn't the area ruled by the Romans, of orgy and erotic art fame?

I may have missed that one. I don't see her as wriggling around as much as I see her frustrated with your lack of respect for her honest question.Her question really has to do with your interpretation of your experience. How do you determine if it is Christ, a demon, or your own mind providing you with this experience?When did Christ say that you should treat particular people with disdain because of who they are or what they believe? Perhaps you could enlighten us as to the meaning of Christ's teachings in Matt 7:12 and 23:40 seeing as your actions in this case appear to violate both. I am willing to change my understanding of those lessons if you can show me how your disrespectful replies to nator and me are in keeping with Christ's requirements of his followers.So, I have a question similar to nator's. When praying for guidance, how do you know that the "answer" you receive is from God? Couldn't God just as easily allow a demon to lie to you (2Thes 2:11) or you could deceive yourself (Rom 1:28)? What is the method you use to make that distinction? You and I both know that there are sincere people who pray for guidance and act on what they truly believe God has told them....yet they turn out to be wrong.Have you ever been wrong when doing what you thought Christ told you to do? If so, how did that revelation differ from those where you turned out to be right?Edited by LinearAq, : Spelling, spelling...blasted spelling

She has repeatedly ignored the answer given because it does not conform to the answer she wants. Interpret my experience? How do you 'interpret' the experience of looking at the computer screen on front of you right now. Or do you not interpret it at all and simply take for granted that what you are observing is the case: that there is truly a computer screen on front of you. Not an imaginary screen created by a demon. Or your own mind simply imagining a screen on front of you. Avoid assuming empiricism as arbitrator of what is real/not real and we will go far I wouldn't see my attitude as disrespectful. If you can't agree on terms there is little point in carrying on discussing. Schraf asks how do I know what is real. In order to answer we would first need to agree on what defines real. This we cannot do. Neither of those verses refer to God action wrt believers.How I know Gods voice is the same as how I know God exists. God takes the action required to ensure I do. Perhaps he rearranges neural networks to conform to the state of knowing. That is all knowing is surely: a particular arrangement of neural networks? Certainly a believer wouldn't be surprised at the transformation that occurs due to the renewing of their minds (Romans 12:2)I would repeat that my knowing something (anything) doesn't mean it is actually the case. The same goes for you. We shouldn't ask too much of "knowing" Not that I am aware of. Its not that I am being "spoken to" that frequently. Its a whole other subject, the relationship a person has with God. And quite individual as well.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

A silly assertion. That the computer screen exists can be verified by a number of specific tests. We can check the power usage, the radiation emitted by it, take pictures of it, ask others to look and see if it is really there.The key point to all of those tests is that they are independent of the individual.What similar list can you provide that will let someone decide if it is God speaking to them or a Demiurge?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Please point out the message # where nator asked you how you know what is real. I don't see it.Additionally, I find you to be disrespectful of me. I asked you to clarify how you could tell the difference between God, a demon and your own mind. Rather than answer my question, you proceeded to tell me that no one can tell if anything is real...several times in fact. It must be your mantra.Let us assume that your experience was real. How do you know it was from God and not someone/something else?You say you know God's voice. How? Because it is the same voice that you heard in your first experience? The problem is, you can't tell us how you knew it was God in the first experience. So, you may not be a true believer, just a deceived one.Maybe the 2Thes verse does apply to you because God sent the delusion to provide you with the first experience....and now you're completely immersed in it.