Humour on the internet is a tricky thing, especially on RF. No matter how strange the position you're arguing as a joke, we've had people here argue stranger things sincerely.
Anyhow, I'm glad to hear that you weren't being serious with your last post.
Well, let me see if I can clear this up for you. But I'm going to have to go back a little to try to make sense of it for you. For certain, I did not mean to imply that I thought that you had literally "told everyone that the woman I'm sitting here eating my dinner with might not be my wife, and these kids I keep feeding everyday, that are sleeping in my home might not be my kids." You didn't. Let's review,
Muffled had said,
So the question becomes: what do you do with someone who experiences God? The closed mind just discounts it but an open mind will investigate.
I'll just give you my thoughts with regard to this statement by Muffled. So, a person hears that someone claims to have experiences of God. Muffled suggest that those who hear such claims fall into two categories; there are those who have open minds who will investigate the matter, and there are those who have closed minds and just discount the matter. I personally believe there is an entire spectrum of people between these two extremes, but that, with regard to our present conversation is somewhat irrelevant. But it is nevertheless the comment that resulted in the following disingenuous response from you.
9-10ths_Penguin response to Muffled:
The question is moot until you can produce someone who "experiences God" (as opposed to someone who merely experiences things that he assumes come from God).
Well this made me laugh. I am inclined to think that your comment here is quite disingenuous. It's nothing less than a diversion, and a feeble attempt to remove yourself from the category of closed minded individuals that Muffled left you in. The question you were asked is "what do you do with someone who experiences God?".
I have to admit, you answered the question well, and I'll have to discredit Muffled for not being more clear. However, it is clear to me, as I am sure it is to you, that Muffled intended to be referring to those who claim to experience God. Nevertheless he said what he said, and he got the response he deserved for not being sufficiently clear. And that is the dishonesty on your part, so far, because you know quite well that he was referring to those who claim to experience God.
I can tell you things I have done in my life, or tell you of particular experiences that I have had. If those experiences that I claim to have had grab your attention, perhaps because they seem unbelievable to you, or perhaps because it is an experience you might like to have for yourself, you can investigate the matter. I could claim to have brushed my teeth this morning. If you should find that claim to be reasonable, you might not question it. Perhaps you know people who brush their teeth. Perhaps you already know that it is quite possible to do so. Perhaps, you've already done it yourself. In such a case there would be no reason for you to investigate the matter any further, unless there was something about my claim that wasn't making any sense to you. Perhaps you see last nights appetizers stuck between my teeth.
What you are purposefully neglecting here is that we are dealing not with physically tangible things. It's not like anyone's gonna pull God out of their back pocket to give you a closer look. God is Spirit. If you've never brushed your teeth, and if you have never heard of such a thing, and if I should tell you that I have experienced brushing my teeth and that it was a most refreshing experience, you might have a closed mind and completely discount my claim; or you might instead be more open minded and investigate my claim. Now a tooth brush can be considered to be quite tangible. While of course I might not have the time and the desire to show you mine, you might be able to find one somewhere. You can actually make one if you like, but you'll have to know what one looks like, right? I mean, you're going to need some sort of instructions as well, right? I mean, if you're going to experience brushing your teeth for yourself, you're going to have to actually brush your teeth. I suppose, if you can find someone brushing their teeth, you can witness them brushing their teeth; and of course, observing someone brushing their teeth should certainly give you a greater understanding of what it looks like to see someone brushing their teeth, assuming that person you're watching is brushing his teeth properly. Perhaps you have already seen someone brush their teeth at some point in your life, but seeing someone brushing their teeth is not brushing your teeth.
But surely, I'm getting distracted. In your dishonesty, you forced Muffled into a corner. He was speaking of those who claim to experience God, and you are forcing him to exclude those who assume their experiences are of God. Well my friend, you have just excluded yourself from hearing every single claim of every single person that has ever had an experience of God - how convenient for you. You see, when I am sitting at the dining room table eating my evening meal, I
assume that the woman sitting across from me is my wife, and that the children there with us are actually our own children. I have no idea if some impostors have taken their places. I assume that no such thing has taken place. You see, this is what you're doing, you're making a mockery of people's experiences, and in the present case, it is a mockery of something that is most dear to those who actually do experience God.
Nevertheless, Muffled's response to you was:
I believe I do experience God and I do not simply assume that I do. I experience the air I breathe and that comes from God but it is not an experience of God.
Lets use an anlogy. If I experience Doug itis sometimes through what Doug says. What Doug says is an expression of himself. It is also true of God. What God says is an expression of Himself. However there is a difference between hearing Doug say his word and reading a note from Doug. Hearing him say His word is a direct experience while reading a note is an indirect experience.
And here was your response to Muffled.
9-10ths_Penguin response to Muffled:
But in either case, we can ask how you know the message is from Doug. Was it actually Doug, or was it a "Doug impersonator"? Did you make a bad assumption about someone who only looked like Doug? Did you assume that the note was from Doug only because it seemed like something he would say?
Even in the case of a simple interaction with Doug, there's still the possibility that you might be mistaken or deceived. This is why when it really matters, we don't assume that you really did talk to Doug: if you go to the bank saying that Doug told you to withdraw $1000 from his account, the teller won't give you the cash.
And to this I responded.
Sonofason said:
Well, you basically just told everyone that the woman I'm sitting here eating my dinner with might not be my wife, and these kids I keep feeding everyday, that are sleeping in my home might not be my kids.
Here it should be noted, I think, that Muffled was simply trying to draw a distinction between two types of evidence, which he clearly denoted as direct and indirect evidence. And what you have done is discounted all the evidence, and the reason being that those who experience God
assume that their experiences of God are real experiences of God.
Earlier you were talking about the assumptions of those who believe that they have experienced God, and that those experiences can be discounted if the person claiming the experience assumes the experience to be real. And now you're talking about what you yourself are not willing to assume.
The point. My claim of my experience of God is evidence of God. Every single real person who has ever been aware of having any kind of real experience assumes that his experience was a real experience. You don't get to discount as evidence anyone's experience simply on the basis that they assume their experiences were real. That is absurd.
You had said the question was moot until Muffled produced someone who experiences God. Well, he presented himself to you as one who experiences God, and you dismissed him because he actually believes that his experience of God is real. This is completely rude and absurd.
, your argument is where everything has to start. After all we know that one can take LSD and experience God as well as some other drugs.