Yes, and there are many other credible people who've experienced something they can't explain.But isn't this just defining the supernatural as human ignorance? If a person can't explain something, it does not follow that either no explanation is possible or that the explanation is a supernatural one.
If the supernatural shrinks as human knowledge advances, wouldn't that suggest that it's nothing more than our ignorance?
Simplistic solution/answer, but not necessarily the right one. We'll have to regroup on that one in a hundred or so years, and re-evaluate based on our increased knowledge. ;)
|
Yes, and there are many other credible people who've experienced something they can't explain.But isn't this just defining the supernatural as human ignorance? If a person can't explain something, it does not follow that either no explanation is possible or that the explanation is a supernatural one.
I know what I experienced. It was not something that can be tested. It was not something that can be duplicated. It is also something that I will be perfectly happy to never happen again. If you choose to put a "logical" explanation to something that you did not experience -- fine. I generally hesitate to bring this kind of stuff up at all. People who don't believe generally dismiss it -- and I don't blame you. You want to believe in little green aliens -- fine. I was sharing something that happened to me because the question was asked. I'd really prefer not to discuss whether or not the supernatural exists or what "proof" there is or some other "logical" explanation to it all. If you want to believe that I'm crazy or that she was crazy or that it was a very vivid nightmare or that I was somehow on Candid Camera or whatever -- fine. Just understand that this isn't science. This isn't "provable". It is simply something that I experienced. Please don't read any more into it than that.
(Sorry. I kind of feel like me or my experience is being "analyzed" and have no desire to go down that road.)
|
I really hope that I have exibited none of that. That I have responded with kindness and intelligence. Please understand that I am not trying to convert anyone. The main thing that I am trying to accomplish is to correct some misconceptions about Christianity and possibly show that there are "good" Christians out there.For what it's worth, you know I for one will vouch for you there, Moff.
I'd agree with Kirth. I've found you nothing less than patient and calm in dealing with all us godless heathens. ;-) Even when we're hardly doing you the same courtesy in return.
Speaking for myself, Moff, I appreciate you sharing. I fully understand that to do so you put yourself out there and I respect you for that. I was curious what led you, and others, to believe. Thank you.
|
|
Speaking for myself, Moff, I appreciate you sharing. I fully understand that to do so you put yourself out there and I respect you for that. I was curious what led you, and others, to believe. Thank you.
Just to be clear -- the experience that I shared was not what led me to believe. I already believed. What I experienced was more of a confirmation for me.
There really wasn't anything that "led" me to believe other than my parents. I feel that I've always been a Christian.
Sebastian asked when we might have "experienced" God. Which was what I was really answering.
Just to be clear -- the experience that I shared was not what led me to believe. I already believed.
Acknowledged. My mistake.
|
|
I'd agree with Kirth. I've found you nothing less than patient and calm in dealing with all us godless heathens. ;-) Even when we're hardly doing you the same courtesy in return.
You have been great as well. In my experience, the people who are the most angry have good reason to be angry. In far too many cases they have been hurt by the church or other "Christians". Kind of like what CourtFool said -- it's a whole lot of static to get through. Understanding that goes a long way.
This whole "supernatural" thing...
I like the word "paranormal" better. As in beyond the normal. Things that are commonly called "paranormal," if they exist at all, must follow some sort of laws or principles of behavior, causality, origin, whatever, in order to even exist, and must also interact with the known natural world and its forces and particles somehow in order for us to perceive them. Therefore they would still be natural, but outside of our current idea of what nature and reality are.
I think that "Supernatural" is a better word for purely religious concepts like God and miracles.
(Sorry. I kind of feel like me or my experience is being "analyzed" and have no desire to go down that road.)
Well ok, but I don't think it's unfair or rude that we subject it to analysis. You certainly have.
I do admit that I'm the kind of guy who watches those shows about "real life" possessions, hauntings, and the like for giggles. They're very transparent. This kid discovered pot (One of my favorites, actually. Hilarious). This one was going through a normal rebellion stage. This guy because a conservative believer while in the military and his pagan mother humored him in the name of reconciliation.
I'll just say that your experience is really quite typical of the genre and leave it at that.
|
|
In the sermon on the mount (which is what you are refering to), in every case where Jesus contrasted what he taught with the scribes and the pharisees, he was more strict than the scribes he was preaching against.With respect, in your examples it seems to me that Jesus is indeed being more strict, but by being an awful lot less literal. Instead of following word for word, parsing them and looking for loopholes, he teaches them to look deeper -- to him, the spirit of the law was more important than the letter. I've no difficulty imagining him today saying something like, "My Father is outside time; a day for him can be as a million years for you. My Father cannot be chained by letters on a page. In insisting that He must always act in literal accordance with those letters, and can do naught without their say-so, you miss the deeper issue: that you should be giving glory to Him for His creation!"
Again, this is only my heretical interpretation, but it seems clear enough to me.
You might have a point except for the fact that everything Jesus taught could be gleaned from other passages, especially in the book of Proverbs. I think a better explanation is that given by Jesus later in his ministry where he tells the pharisees concerning their tithing that they should have done what they did do right without neglecting the other parts of the Law. In other words, the scribes and the Pharisees tended to only quote those parts of scriptures they liked or were already doing. Jesus wanted his followers to apply the whole of the law, not just bits and peices of it.
|
|
I do admit that I'm the kind of guy who watches those shows about "real life" possessions, hauntings, and the like for giggles. They're very transparent.
I agree. (Although we no longer have cable and don't get much of those shows any more.)
I'll just say that your experience is really quite typical of the genre and leave it at that.
Fair enough.
This is why I don't understand Biblical literalists. The idea that everything in the scripture had to be true isn't part of Judaism (well, most sects).I think that Judaism believes that scripture is "true". Interpretation may vary, but the scripture is "eternal" and "true". At least that's how I understand what they believe.
I wasn't referring to the law, but rather to the stories in the Bible. I don't grok why some people believe that the truth of the laws has any relation to the truth of the stories. My point was that the Hebrews were able to accept the laws as truth without necessarily believing that the stories were any more than allegory to demonstrate the laws.
Or to paraphrase the Hagadah, it's a blessing to teach the scripture, but it's a greater blessing to elaborate on the scripture.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
This is why I don't understand Biblical literalists. The idea that everything in the scripture had to be true isn't part of Judaism (well, most sects).
Out of curiosity, what do you say is a Biblical literalist? I don't know if I qualify as one or not.
I believe the Word is inspired and protected from error by God, though some have clearly tried to introduce error, and I believe God is supernatural and performed (maybe even sometimes still performs) miracles. I believe that God could make the world in seven literal days, but I don't know that He did.
There are some phrases taken literally that I think are ridiculous, and demonstrate unreasonable thinking. Jesus is not actually a vine. Every day is not literally a thousand years to God. Those are illustrative concepts, and Jesus used such very well without them needing to bizarrely be accepted as literal truths. Will the new Jerusalem really be a single city 1500 miles on a side? How many golf courses do you think that has? I've attempted golf. I'm not sure it will be in Heaven.
Too bad football wasn't around then. I bet Jesus would have loved football analogies.
There are some phrases taken literally that I think are ridiculous, and demonstrate unreasonable thinking. Jesus is not actually a vine.
Everyone draws the line in a different place. To some people, "God made the waters to bring forth life" means that He created life in the ocean and then set evolution into play. To others, it means He pointed His finger and suddenly fish, whales, squids, etc. instantly sprang into being. I'm sure somewhere there's a tiny little splinter church that prays to a gnarled, wooden, grape-bearing image of Christ.
Thomas Jefferson found the virgin birth, the resurrection, and the Holy Trinity to be "ridiculous, and demonstrating unreasonable thinking." I chuckle every time I get the mental image of him sitting in the White House, cutting up a Bible with a pair of scissors, gluing selected lines into a ledger book and throwing away the rest...
|
|
There are some phrases taken literally that I think are ridiculous, and demonstrate unreasonable thinking. Jesus is not actually a vine.Everyone draws the line in a different place.
Actually what Steven is saying is, I think, a valid point but not quite what you are meaning.
There are sections of the Bible which were written with the intention of being symbolical or allegories. There are other sections that were clearly written as history. Good hermenuetics requires reading passages that were meant to be literal as literal and passages that were meant to be symbolic as symbolic. Its not about drawing lines. Its about understanding the intent of the author.
The parables are clearly symbolic. A good bit of the psalms uses symbolic imagery as well. We should not for instance, be looking for God's foot to be crushing mountains anytime soon, though the psalms figuratively picture this. Just about everything in Revelation is symbolic, though I find that John helpfully supplies the literal meanings of the symbols if one just reads carefully enough. On the other hand, the story of Jonah is written as history and should be accepted or rejected as such. The same is true of the life of Christ and most of the other 'historical' books of the Bible.
|
|
Actually what Steven is saying is, I think, a valid point but not quite what you are meaning.
There are sections of the Bible which were written with the intention of being symbolical or allegories. There are other sections that were clearly written as history.
But sometimes it's not that clear. In their defense, when people generally bring this up it is reference to the 7 day creation story. Of which there is much debate.
Out of curiosity, what do you say is a Biblical literalist? I don't know if I qualify as one or not.
I don't think there is any such thing as a Biblical literalist. They all seem to pick and choose what they want to believe somehow. For instance there are a lot of fundamentalists who don't have any problem with divorce, and even the most ardent creationists aren't running around advocating stoning as a punishment for anything.
Still, some are more literal than others.
But sometimes it's not that clear. In their defense, when people generally bring this up it is reference to the 7 day creation story. Of which there is much debate.
Exactly. Just because one person declares the intent of the author(s) of a certain passage was "clearly" to be taken as literal fact, another person can look at the same passage and see that it's "clearly" allegory. Wicht, your mind seems definitely made up as to which are which, but there are Christians who disagree.
Just because one person declares the intent of the author(s) of a certain passage was "clearly" to be taken as literal fact, another person can look at the same passage and see that it's "clearly" allegory. Wicht, your mind seems definitely made up as to which are which, but there are Christians who disagree.
They are "clearly" wrong. :)
They are "clearly" wrong.
Yeah, that's exactly the problem -- I see the makings of a Sunni-Shi'ite schism there.
Hopefully they don't all start killing each other over it.
|
Hopefully they don't all start killing each other over it.
We Christians are constantly debating interpretations; did God mean seven literal days, will the Rapture occur before or after the arrival of the Anti-Christ...
The one thing I have found, is that no matter how we interpret this or that passage of the Bible, the one thing unifying us, is the fact that we all accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
The one thing I have found, is that no matter how we interpret this or that passage of the Bible, the one thing unifying us, is the fact that we all accept Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior...
Just as all Muslims, regardless of sect, accept that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His prophet (1st pillar of Islam).
|
|
I don't think there is any such thing as a Biblical literalist. They all seem to pick and choose what they want to believe somehow. For instance there are a lot of fundamentalists who don't have any problem with divorce, and even the most ardent creationists aren't running around advocating stoning as a punishment for anything.
Still, some are more literal than others.
The Law is a little different than taking something historical literally or not. If you wish to take a good look at the old law from a more current perspective, I'd suggest reading The Year of Living Biblically. The author decides to follow every rule even mentioned in the Bible as literally as possible and does a lot of research into the Law and how they fulfilled it and so on. (He's Jewish by descent and not necessarily by religion.) "Stoning" someone based on the Old Law was a very complicated process. But in addition, the New Testament ends up really taking a new look at the Old Law. James 4:17 -- Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins.
Divorce is tricky. The Bible is pretty clear that if your spouse cheats on you, you are no longer obligated to remain with him/her. It is not clear (at all) about abuse. I don't feel that anyone should remain in an abusive relationship. The Bible doesn't say one way or the other. Outside of that, you made an oath/vow to remain with your spouse. I know few Christians who take that lightly. On the other hand, worse case scenario is that it is a "sin" which then goes to the "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", etc.
As far as "literal" goes -- the law was literally the law. Generally, when people talk about how "literal" to take the Bible it's in reference to things like whether or not fire "literally" came out of the sky and "literally" burned up the alter and sacrifice.
Exactly. Just because one person declares the intent of the author(s) of a certain passage was "clearly" to be taken as literal fact, another person can look at the same passage and see that it's "clearly" allegory.
Indeed. It's just as easy to take the virgin birth (it's just a way of saying Jesus was born special) or the resurrection (it's telling us that he lives on in our hearts) as allegorical passages as it is to take Genesis's seven days, talking snake, and the mountains melting with blood. I suspect that the way in which one generally parses the allegories from the reportage is to exclude things one doesn't believe actually happened and include those one does believe actually happened.
|
|
Just as all Muslims, regardless of sect, accept that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His prophet (1st pillar of Islam).
True, but my point is, if two Christians meet and disagree on when the rapture will happen, it's a safe bet that there will be no blood shed...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Just as all Muslims, regardless of sect, accept that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His prophet (1st pillar of Islam).True, but my point is, if two Christians meet and disagree on when the rapture will happen, it's a safe bet that there will be no blood shed...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Well sure, now. Religious differences between Christians have in the past been quite deadly. Just because it isn't like that now doesn't mean it never was.
True, but my point is, if two Christians meet and disagree on when the rapture will happen, it's a safe bet that there will be no blood shed...
Surely you are not implying all Muslims are violent.
I just happened to stumble across Girolamo Savonarola today.
Well sure, now. Religious differences between Christians have in the past been quite deadly. Just because it isn't like that now doesn't mean it never was.
And one reason is that today the Western nations all practice religious tolerance; none of them enforce comformity to an official religion. Therefore there is no longer a great deal of wealth and political power riding on whether the powers that be officially endorse one position or the other, making the resulting debates purely academic.
Thank your imaginary gods that you are not living in an officially "Christian nation."
Well sure, now. Religious differences between Christians have in the past been quite deadly. Just because it isn't like that now doesn't mean it never was.Just as all Muslims, regardless of sect, accept that there is no god but Allah, and that Muhammad is His prophet (1st pillar of Islam).True, but my point is, if two Christians meet and disagree on when the rapture will happen, it's a safe bet that there will be no blood shed...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
Not so far in the past unfortunately. Angry people will use all sorts of blankets to try to 'justify' their actions.
…one nation, under Canada, above Mexico.
Thank your imaginary gods that you are not living in an officially "Christian nation."
Fine that you don't believe but I find your use of the term 'imaginary' offensive in this context.
Not so far in the past unfortunately. Angry people will use all sorts of blankets to try to 'justify' their actions.
Too true. Human nature can be depressingly consistent, regardless of professed religious beliefs.
Fine that you don't believe but I find your use of the term 'imaginary' offensive in this context.
I do not mean to offend. Imaginary is what I believe them to be.
…one nation, under Canada, above Mexico.
With hot dogs and hamburgers for all.
|
|
Surely you are not implying all Muslims are violent.
No, of course not...
My original response was to this:
Yeah, that's exactly the problem -- I see the makings of a Sunni-Shi'ite schism there.
Hopefully they don't all start killing each other over it.
Love the internet...
Make's it oh so easy to have ones thoughts misinterpreted... ;-P
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
…one nation, under Canada, above Mexico.Funny :)
Make's it oh so easy to have ones thoughts misinterpreted...
How dare you say that Kirk could whup Picard!? Oh wait. My bad.
I just happened to stumble across Girolamo Savonarola today.
It says that one of the things he confiscated from the citizens and burned in his "Bonfire of the Vanities" was game boards and gaming pieces! Heretic! Scoundrel! Off with his head!
…one nation, under Canada, above Mexico.With hot dogs and hamburgers for all.Not for the vegitarians... not that they can't have any but since they don't want any I'll take theirs. :)
*damn oppurtunistic american*
How about free beer and nachos, then.
How dare you say that Kirk could whup Picard!?Are you implying that he can't? hmmm? ;-P
It would be a draw. :P
How about free beer and nachos, then.
...and cake!
|
How about free beer and nachos, then.…one nation, under Canada, above Mexico.With hot dogs and hamburgers for all.Not for the vegitarians... not that they can't have any but since they don't want any I'll take theirs. :)
*damn oppurtunistic american*
As long as the nachos don't have meat on top... and people in AA don't get the beer... I'll take their beer too, I wanna get my wife really drunk!
As long as the nachos don't have meat on top... and people in AA don't get the beer... I'll take their beer too, I wanna get my wife really drunk!How about free beer and nachos, then.…one nation, under Canada, above Mexico.With hot dogs and hamburgers for all.Not for the vegitarians... not that they can't have any but since they don't want any I'll take theirs. :)
*damn oppurtunistic american*
They can have non alcoholic beer.
Soon I'll be fat, smelly, and DRUNK!!