Tribute Thread For the Recently Raptured Faith

Richard Wiseman also has a website: Richard Wiseman
and as I read the article from Wiki, Paranormal I think I see your reasoning and logic. The reasoning does make logical sense. I can agree with the reasoning that says that believers have a *need* to maintain their belief. I certainly don't plan on doubt or renunciation, although I will always entertain questioning. jar always told me to "throw God away." I used to get so mad when he would say this...because to me it would be like throwing away a family member whom I knew to be real. Critics would say that I know nothing about how real or fake God is for it is impossible to verify. The wiki article says this: Thus one could argue that the same brain aberrations that I have regarding compulsive gambling, as well as higher dopamine levels, magnify the chances of my propensity towards belief.I'm not disputing the logic of these alternative explanations. I remain adamant that what I experienced was and is definitely unexplained, however.

I fully believe you. The ongoing controversy and battle between secular science and orthodox belief likely will never end. I don't take one side or another. This is why the "church" disagrees with me...they claim I am sitting on a fence, as would you. My response is that I must be honest with myself and others.
Do I believe in God, Creator of all seen and unseen, Who exists apart from human verification? Yes. Do I believe that Jesus Christ was in the beginning with God and is essentially Gods human character as part of a Trinitarian dynamic? Yes.
However, I don't believe that the church (the born again set apart folks) have any more insights into this than I do. They simply have more firm and unwavering beliefs. I am as honest in regards to my descriptions and experiences and beliefs as I can be. I will always be open to questioning. I read both pro and con with equal respect, though for the record I chose years ago to become a believer that asked Jesus Christ into my heart and mind. I'm not akin to throwing that away anytime soon.

For a believer, explaining the possibility of demons is not treason. For an unbeliever, it is expected.What bugs me is when someone explains to me why my conclusions are fictional and goes on to correct me based on their understanding of reality vs fantasy. I would tell them that they are free to think as they like but not to act as if their intelligence is superior to mine. They may suggest that I am willfully deluded, which I'll take as an opinion but not a fact....for now.

. Agreed. And none of us is an expert on it.

All of these "perhaps'es" are arguably valid. I dont think they happened but I could be wrong. The supernatural realm remains unevidenced. One thing I might note, however...and that is your description of this particular church as a strong religious cult. If that is your criteria, likely 30% of protestant churches fall under your cult definition.There are many nuttier groups than the one I was in....but they did go through a particularly exclusivist and "nutty" phase. I've got stories...

Much of religion is based on tradition and belief. Strictly speaking, there is no evidence that can be objectively replicable. You know this. Why do you keep insisting that churches become scientists rather than believers? Besides, much of the evidence is controversial. The empty tomb arguments surrounding Jesus, for example. There is no clear nor concise explanation. Only different cases for or against.

And you are fully responsible for your belief. Using the excuse of lack of evidence wont get you off the hook.

And you are fully responsible for your belief. Using the excuse of lack of evidence wont get you off the hook.

No. I'm saying that there is no reason to resist believing. It's a bit of Occam's Razor. IF God desired that we take a leap of Faith, what harm is there in so doing? At worst it is a harmless belief. At best it shows allowance of trust. Nobody is saying that one should trust religion or any religious human or institution. All I am saying is that it is allowing oneself to be open to an omnipotent Creator who would hypothetically have the power to make you believe anyway. It's making the first move. There are good reasons to question everything written. There are no good reasons to doubt that trusting God...even hypothetically...is somehow harmful. I look at purposeful unbelief as a way of holding on to ones trust in their own ability and in human potential asd an expression of faith in oneself at the expense of denying God...even if one sees Him as a hypothetical and irrational belief. It is allowing yourself to believe in and trust ultimate good expressed through a character apart from ourselves. Scripture states that signs and wonders follow those who believe. The evidence will never manifest before the belief is professed. Perhaps not. But what harm can it do? Why a reluctance to go out on a limb? Why a reluctance to take a leap of faith? (even if it can be reasoned as being irrational)

You don't have evidence either. If you can honestly live with that no matter what reality turns out to become, you have done all that you can do. What I am saying is that you can't use evidence or lack of evidence to excuse your free choice not to have belief. The one that caught that tasty fat fish you are frying.

leprechauns never mess with our social order. They can wear whatever coat they want. Artists usually portray them as green. By the same token, Jesus can be any color we imagine. His character, however, is undeniable, based on the writings...which are all we have ever had, even according to you.We can dismiss Him as fiction, but we cant deny the character described.Leprechauns are not so concise nor absolute.Once I encountered the writing of a character named tangle, even if I could hypothetically imagine him as fictional, I cannot redefine the character as impressed upon my mind and heart through the writing which I read off of the internet.

I've already watched the four horsemen. I know how atheists (some of them anyway) think. I also realize that much of what I say sounds bizarre. dumb, even. take it with a grain of salt....you should be used to my wild speculations by now.

Not even close. There are many people with advanced degrees who have studied much of the available literature. We all know that Gollum was meant to be fiction. We have no such conclusion from Biblical writings. Tell me...what specifically have you read and studied which led you to your conclusions? A random guy in Canada who hangs out at the library has nothing apart from his intuitive wisdom with which to challenge the Biblical scholars. At least show us an autobiography of some books and research which led to your evidence and conclusions.

The real question is whether the stories actually happened or whether they were made up from the beginning. The problem with reading the Bible objectively is that you yourself decide what is and is not possible. As an example, lets take I forget you like KJV so here:To be objective, one has to question the intent, experience, and honesty of the original authors. Would you conclude, for example, that since Resurrections Don't Happen~Ringo that any eyewitness would have to either make one up or have been convinced that an impossible event became possible? In contrast, your objectivity taints the quest from the beginning. You would claim that "holy men of God cant be moved by God any more than CS Lewis could be moved by Gollums Ring". You would claim that " Since Resurrections don't happen, (according to the best science we have, ) then the stories were clearly made up."In other words, your objectivity is clearly grounded in what we have in known reality and presupposes that God is fiction and that Jesus is an amalgamation similar to Elmer Gantry. Now to be fair, I have little doubt that many "church councils" through early Church of Rome History and even as far along as John Calvin were not men being carried along by the Holy Spirit but rather political and control issues decided by committee. Your question to me could be framed as asking what difference between those councils and the people in the upper room in Acts? My answer would be that in the case of Acts,(Upper Room) those people were carried along by the Holy Spirit.Besides....you would claim that God is fiction even before we got to the Upper Room. Which is hardly objective nor a fair assessmentSo to again answer your question: Because at some point the goobers were there. They recorded what happened. Not what they wanted to happen or were trying to sell.And to be fair, you are trying to sell the idea that reality (as understood by humans) trumps belief from day 1.

You are the same way. You believe what you have grown up into. You believe that banks are sound. You believe that your money will always be safe. You believe that if we stomp out all religious superstition throughout the world that rationality will at last prevail and that people will have a better shot at carrying on our species.It suits you.But how do you really know that each and every story was made up from the beginning?And how do you know that today's science and logic has the best story for our future?