Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 84 (8913 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-16-2019 1:01 AM
19 online now:
DrJones*, edge (2 members, 17 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Arnold Wolf
Post Volume:
Total: 853,783 Year: 8,819/19,786 Month: 1,241/2,119 Week: 1/576 Day: 1/50 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Author Topic:   What you want to know about Christ.
pelican
Member (Idle past 3148 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 256 of 300 (431891)
11-02-2007 6:58 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by Taz
11-02-2007 6:43 PM


Re: human experience
No, I think insanity and psychosis exist. Those are labels describing symptoms, but the human being who is exibiting symptoms is not a label.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by Taz, posted 11-02-2007 6:43 PM Taz has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 257 of 300 (431903)
11-02-2007 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 255 by pelican
11-02-2007 6:53 PM


Re: human experience
quote:
Hang on, you are jumping the gun. I meant the 'experience' is valid. That is, the 'experience' of seeing a unicorn is valid. It cannot not be a human experience.

Wait, what? How is a human claiming to have seen a unicorn not a human experience?

quote:
Given your scenerio, I would hope that if someone had the 'experience' of god telling them to kill, then the 'experience' would be treated as valid and the person helped before a killing occurs.

But that contradicts what you said, doesn't it?

"Every human experience is a valid experience", right? So, why should we stop the person from carrying out God's will?

quote:
Hasn't 'god' ever given the order to kill? I wonder where the idea came from?

It was just a typical example. Replace "God" with "aliens" if you want to, it makes no difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by pelican, posted 11-02-2007 6:53 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by pelican, posted 11-02-2007 8:55 PM nator has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3148 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 258 of 300 (431914)
11-02-2007 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by nator
11-02-2007 7:45 PM


Re: human experience
"How is a human claiming to have seen a unicorn not a human experience?"

It is an experience. Nothing more until judgement is made.

"But that contradicts what you said, doesn't it?"

How?

"Every human experience is a valid experience", right? So, why should we stop the person from carrying out God's will?"

Silly question.

The problem occurs when the person, having the 'experience' of voices ordering them to kill, is not heard. The one hearing voices/god/aliens and obeying is in serious trouble and can cause even more serious trouble. Surely the thoughts are a big clue?Surely, prevention is better than cure, or revenge?

Edited by Heinrik, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by nator, posted 11-02-2007 7:45 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by nator, posted 11-04-2007 8:27 AM pelican has responded

iceage 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4077 days)
Posts: 1024
From: Pacific Northwest
Joined: 09-08-2003


Message 259 of 300 (431924)
11-02-2007 9:53 PM
Reply to: Message 252 by pelican
11-02-2007 6:34 PM


Re: human experience
Heinrik writes:

Every human experience is valid. None should be discounted.

Ignore the extreme cases of insanity, people from other religions have religious experiences and visions. The Iranian president has claimed such experiences and the content is very much in line with their religious ideology. Are these experiences valid? Are they from God or something else. How does one differentiate?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by pelican, posted 11-02-2007 6:34 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by pelican, posted 11-02-2007 11:41 PM iceage has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3148 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 260 of 300 (431939)
11-02-2007 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by iceage
11-02-2007 9:53 PM


Re: human experience
"Ignore the extreme cases of insanity, people from other religions have religious experiences and visions. The Iranian president has claimed such experiences and the content is very much in line with their religious ideology. Are these experiences valid? Are they from God or something else. How does one differentiate?"

Personally, I think that everything comes from within and life has put it there. Not god. Not demons. Not devil. Not the man in the moon. People just don't/can't or don't wish to take responsibilty for their own minds.
I am not trying to validate the claims made about the content or information within the experience. There is a difference between the validity of the experience and the validity of the content.

Aren't there many preachers who claim to hear the voice of god telling them to preach the gospel, e.g Joyce Meyer? The validity of her claims are accepted without question by many, but could be just as real\unreal as god telling them to kill.

The experience is real to them whether it is acceptable to others or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by iceage, posted 11-02-2007 9:53 PM iceage has not yet responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 1760 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 261 of 300 (431966)
11-03-2007 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by iano
11-01-2007 10:26 AM


Re: possibilities
Greetings, handyman.

The claim (mine or anothers) of an experience of God can have but one real source.

Not at all. An experience can have more than one source.

The main categories Schraf posed were:

- The experience is indeed sourced from God
- The experience is sourced from some supernatural being who is not God
- There is no supernatural aspect to it and I'm imagining it. I am the source

More possibilities exist. A few that come to mind:

- The experience is natural, not supernatural, but I am not its source.
- The experience comes from God (according to one definition of God) but not from God (according to another definition of God)
- I imagine it, but my imagination is a conduit rather than the ultimate source.
- The experience is both natural and supernatural.
- The experience is neither natural nor supernatural.


Archer

All species are transitional.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by iano, posted 11-01-2007 10:26 AM iano has not yet responded

nator
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 262 of 300 (432154)
11-04-2007 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 258 by pelican
11-02-2007 8:55 PM


Re: human experience
quote:
The problem occurs when the person, having the 'experience' of voices ordering them to kill, is not heard. The one hearing voices/god/aliens and obeying is in serious trouble and can cause even more serious trouble. Surely the thoughts are a big clue?Surely, prevention is better than cure, or revenge?

But every hiuman experience is a valid human experience, isn't it?

Who are we to tell the person who hears God's voice that they shouldn't believe it because we think it isn't really God?

How do you know that a person hearing God's voice is in "serious trouble"? All human experience is valid; none should be discounted.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by pelican, posted 11-02-2007 8:55 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by pelican, posted 11-04-2007 5:52 PM nator has responded

  
pelican
Member (Idle past 3148 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 263 of 300 (432230)
11-04-2007 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by nator
11-04-2007 8:27 AM


Re: human experience
Many claim to 'hear' god and do very well out of it. I was referring only to those who were 'hearing orders to kill or harm another'. As you say, and I agree, all experiences are valid but it doesn't make the content valid. The content could well be an illusion, but having the experience of an illusion is valid.

We are trying to judge the validity of an illusion when we don't even know if it is one. Maybe those who claim to hear god, and indeed have a conversation with god, may all be having illusions? Some could be love sponsored and some fear sponsored, and in truth this could be the only difference.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by nator, posted 11-04-2007 8:27 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by nator, posted 11-05-2007 9:54 AM pelican has responded

nator
Member (Idle past 332 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 264 of 300 (432315)
11-05-2007 9:54 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by pelican
11-04-2007 5:52 PM


Re: human experience
Perhaps you should define what you mean by "valid" in this context.

It seems to not mean much of anything as you have used it in this last message.

What I have ment by "valid" is something that is supported by fact or logic; cogent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by pelican, posted 11-04-2007 5:52 PM pelican has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by pelican, posted 11-05-2007 9:59 PM nator has not yet responded

  
Equinox
Member (Idle past 3304 days)
Posts: 329
From: Michigan
Joined: 08-18-2006


Message 265 of 300 (432346)
11-05-2007 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by iano
10-30-2007 7:59 PM


Re: What in the world are you trying to say?!!!


btw: Man doesn't have free will. Or at least he didn't have it after he chose to eat a certain fruit. But that's another story.)

If man has no free will, that means that God created most people who have ever existed specifically for the purpose of throwing them in Hell for eternal torture. Predestination means that literally everything, from natural disasters to the Holocaust to individual atrocities are entirely God's fault, because he specifically caused it all to happen.
It means your god is a petty, sadistic, evil fuck.

As IA pointed out, that’’s in Rom, starting around v 11:

Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God's purpose in election might stand: not by works but by him who calls—she was told, "The older will serve the younger." Just as it is written: "Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated."
What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! For he says to Moses,
"I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.
One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' " Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use?

It’s hard to find a clear statement against this in the Bible.

The response is that yes, the Christian God is what Rahvin says, but since he’s in charge, you better obey anyway. It’s simple might makes right. The Christian is to keep him or herself complicit, because non-Christians go to Hell, whether they have integrity or not.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by iano, posted 10-30-2007 7:59 PM iano has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by Rahvin, posted 11-05-2007 5:04 PM Equinox has not yet responded

Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 266 of 300 (432375)
11-05-2007 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Equinox
11-05-2007 1:23 PM


Re: What in the world are you trying to say?!!!
The response is that yes, the Christian God is what Rahvin says, but since he’s in charge, you better obey anyway. It’s simple might makes right. The Christian is to keep him or herself complicit, because non-Christians go to Hell, whether they have integrity or not.

Exactly. It's the single most abhorrent ethical system ever devised, and Christians like our friend Gen spend innumerable hours trying to twist it into something that sounds better.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Equinox, posted 11-05-2007 1:23 PM Equinox has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Brian, posted 11-05-2007 5:09 PM Rahvin has responded

Brian
Member (Idle past 3121 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 267 of 300 (432377)
11-05-2007 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Rahvin
11-05-2007 5:04 PM


Re: What in the world are you trying to say?!!!
our friend Gen spend innumerable hours trying to twist it into something that sounds better.

I wonder what has happened to our friend Gen. S/he seems to have disappeared around the time s/he was asked to provide biblical support for a few things.

Maybe s/he has realised that the Bible is a little more complex than first thought.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Rahvin, posted 11-05-2007 5:04 PM Rahvin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Rahvin, posted 11-05-2007 5:17 PM Brian has not yet responded
 Message 269 by Taz, posted 11-05-2007 9:02 PM Brian has responded

  
Rahvin
Member (Idle past 1349 days)
Posts: 3964
Joined: 07-01-2005


Message 268 of 300 (432379)
11-05-2007 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Brian
11-05-2007 5:09 PM


Re: What in the world are you trying to say?!!!
I wonder what has happened to our friend Gen. S/he seems to have disappeared around the time s/he was asked to provide biblical support for a few things.

Maybe s/he has realised that the Bible is a little more complex than first thought.

I think Gen expected to find a place to preach to a choir, like most Christian forums. This is a legitimate debate forum - we question beliefs, and some questions simply have unpleasant answers. I don't think Gen was ready or able to answer them, or even face them him/herself.


Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Brian, posted 11-05-2007 5:09 PM Brian has not yet responded

Taz
Member (Idle past 1454 days)
Posts: 5069
From: Zerus
Joined: 07-18-2006


Message 269 of 300 (432406)
11-05-2007 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Brian
11-05-2007 5:09 PM


Re: What in the world are you trying to say?!!!
I was wondering about the same thing. He/she disappeared right after I pointed out that his/her answer to my question was a total dodge and did not really answer the question at all. If anything, he/she seemed to have implied that Jesus condones the cold blooded murder of innocent little infants and toddlers.

But I guess it is too much to ask for a straight answer from a christian these days...


Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to make you blue
Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to hurt you.

All lovers make
Make the same mistakes
Yes they do
Yes, all lovers make
Make the same mistakes
As me and you

Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to make you blue
Sugar baby love, sugar baby love
I didn't mean to hurt you.

People take my advice
If you love somebody
Don't think twice.

Love you baby love, sugar baby love
Love him anyway, love him everyday


This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Brian, posted 11-05-2007 5:09 PM Brian has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by Brian, posted 11-08-2007 7:19 AM Taz has not yet responded

pelican
Member (Idle past 3148 days)
Posts: 781
From: australia
Joined: 05-27-2007


Message 270 of 300 (432414)
11-05-2007 9:59 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by nator
11-05-2007 9:54 AM


Re: human experience
Thanks. I don't think I fully explained the point I'm trying to make. I am meaning the 'validity of the belief' The persons' actual 'belief' in the 'experience.' They are having an experience that they are fully engaged in. The experience itself is real. It is a separate aspect to the 'meaning' or 'content' of the experience.

Maybe a person 'believes' they are hearing god or 'believes' they are seeing a unicorn. It is 'actually happening' to them and is a human experience, therefore their 'belief' of the experience is valid and we cannot tell them they are not having that experience because they are.

E.G Joyce Mayer (preacher) 'believes' to be hearing and speaking with god regularly. No one else can hear it. It comes directly through her. How can we prove the validity of her claims? We cannot. We either accept or reject her claims, but the experience will remain valid to her. She believes it is god and has convinced others it is god. There is still no proof that she communicates with god. Everything she preaches is from within her and within her experiences...........

So why would we believe her and not others who claim to have bizarre experiences with the unseen?

How would you feel if I claimed that: during a prayer for the truth, a blinding light appeared that penetrated my soul, bringing me peace that I had never felt before. At that moment, God spoke gently to me. God was answering my prayer. He said, "faith has no bearing on the truth. 100% faith in anything does not make it true."

Where does your focus go? Does it go to the content or to the messenger? God also told me that, "we 'believe' what we 'want' to believe."

It isn't true, of course.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by nator, posted 11-05-2007 9:54 AM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Taz, posted 11-05-2007 11:32 PM pelican has responded

RewPrev1
...
151617
18
1920Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019