Experiencing God

[Sonofason]

You can disagree until the cows come home, the meaning of rational is "based on or in accordance with reason or logic." You don't just get to make up your own meaning to existing words.

who's reason and logic?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

You're just desperately looking for reasons why evidence doesn't exist because you're so emotionally committed to your silly beliefs. Until there is evidence, no rational person believes.

Stop being so insulting. You have no reason to be so arrogant, as you're just as lost as the rest of us.

 

[Sonofason]

I think everyone experiences the Holy Spirit in one way or another, it's whether or not they recognise it as such that makes the difference. I've experienced something too deep to put into words that do it justice. I've faught with my inner thoughts to try to debate what it all meant, but it was too intense to pass off as a dream, or my imagination.
What led me to my experience was through deeper prayer in my everyday life. I gave up tv, games and Facebook for a while and used that newly found free time for prayer. I think it was a gift from God, and although I can never hope to experience it again, because I know I'm unworthy of it, it's something I will carry in my heart forever. I may not ever feel that again, but when I think about it, it carries me through whatever struggle I am going through and helps bring me peace by silencing my doubts.
I believe we receive answers on a daily from the divine, but most don't recognise the messages. Your inner voice is more than just your intuition- I believe it's the divine telling you something.

Thanks for your response. I agree with everything you've said. It seems to me, that we can use your statement here as evidence for the existence of God. Most atheists would not see your testimony here as evidence of God's existence, but it truly is. We who experience God, experience God in virtually the same way. It proves that God is consistent. When testimony of God is consistent, it surely adds weight to the testimony as being reliable. Thanks.

 

[Sonofason]

to msiamcanadian:

That's nice for you. However, I would like to know how you determine whether what you experience is actually what you interpret it as. As you present it, your account is unconvincing.

If I had seen the moon for the first time, I would get an impression of something. I could tell others about that impression. And if by chance, others confirmed to me that they have seen it too and have experienced the same impression of what they saw as I have, I can have greater confidence that I indeed saw what I saw. msiamcanadians testimony is evidence of God, as it confirms my own personal experience of God. I'm very sorry to hear that you have not experienced God. Maybe one day you will.

 

[Sonofason]

Because you don't want improvement? You still want to believe that disease is caused by evil spirits and everything bad has a supernatural cause? Seriously?

You had said,

bad ideas should be questioned and faulty beliefs should be rejected.

And you have just presented a bad idea. I reject it, and the world is now a better place.

 

[Cephus]

who's reason and logic?

Established guidelines of logic and reason, not just something that you feel like making up for yourself.

 

[Cephus]

Stop being so insulting. You have no reason to be so arrogant, as you're just as lost as the rest of us.

No, actually, I'm not. I accept reality as it has been shown to be, contingent on new information. I don't have an emotional stake in it. It is what it is. I accept what is. I don't care if it makes me happy at all. The people who are lost are the ones who insist that reality cater to their emotionally shallow whims.

 

[Cephus]

You had said,

And you have just presented a bad idea. I reject it, and the world is now a better place.

Then you should be able to demonstrate, with evidence and reason, that it is a bad idea. Just asserting something is no proof at all.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I accept reality as it has been shown to be

Reality isn't something that can be shown to you. What "reality" even is is subject to debate. Yes, you are lost just like the rest of us and all your insults and arrogant posturing reveals your thinly veiled insecurity. You'll deny it and that's fine. I'm not that stupid, though.

 

[sojourner]

Can you please explain what you mean? It seems to me that scientific claims are also designed to help us make meaning of our life experiences. And theological claims often do explain and define our life experiences. So please explain better what distinguishes one from the other.

Scientific claims say, "The sun appears to 'rise' in the east. Here's why it appears that way, and here's how that happens."

Theology says, "The sun rises in the east, and so the east is seen as the direction of new life, or resurrection."

The first explains how and why, and provides concrete definitions. The second makes meaning of the experience.

When theology attempts to say, "God did this," that's not a definition, because there's no concrete evidence to show that it's so. It's a metaphor that usually attempts to show why the event is important to us.

 

[sojourner]

Or, given that we are all the same species, it might just mean that we are all subject to the same quirks and misfirings of our psychology. More is needed to establish that these experiences access anything external and real.

"Misfirings?"

Tell me, is raw creativity a "misfiring" of our psychology?

 

[Cephus]

Scientific claims say, "The sun appears to 'rise' in the east. Here's why it appears that way, and here's how that happens."

Theology says, "The sun rises in the east, and so the east is seen as the direction of new life, or resurrection."

The first explains how and why, and provides concrete definitions. The second makes meaning of the experience.

When theology attempts to say, "God did this," that's not a definition, because there's no concrete evidence to show that it's so. It's a metaphor that usually attempts to show why the event is important to us.

No, the second asserts meaning where there isn't any inherent. There is no meaning to the sun rising in the east whatsoever. Some people get an emotional buzz from thinking that there is. That emotional buzz has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Some people get an emotional buzz from thinking that the position of the stars at the time of their birth influences their lives, but astrology is still a bunch of irrational bunk.

 

[sojourner]

No, the second asserts meaning where there isn't any inherent. There is no meaning to the sun rising in the east whatsoever. Some people get an emotional buzz from thinking that there is. That emotional buzz has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Some people get an emotional buzz from thinking that the position of the stars at the time of their birth influences their lives, but astrology is still a bunch of irrational bunk.

Meaning isn't "inherent" in anything, so I don't see your point. Meaning is what we make of something -- and some things can mean one thing to one person and something completely different to another. "My birthday" may mean a time of stress for me, since I'm getting older, but it may mean something completely different to my kids, who want to celebrate their love for me. "My wife" has a completely different meaning to me than she does to you. And that's the way it ought to be. Doesn't mean that one meaning is "right" and the other is "wrong," or that one is "rational" and the other "irrational."

Likewise, "the sun coming up in the east" can mean anything I want it to mean. I can assign any kind of meaning to the sunrise that I want to assign to it. You can assign whatever meaning you wish to assign to it. There is no "right" or "wrong" where meaning is concerned. And each meaning is just as real as any other. It has a lot to do with "reality," as you put it, in that meaning involves us as whole people, minds, bodies, and emotions -- for emotions are a very real aspect of our human nature.

Therefore, my theological statement assigns one real meaning, out of almost endlsess possible meanings, to the sunrise. It's like art. Art is nothing if it doesn't mean something. And it means whatever the viewer or listener wants it to mean. Art and theology are cut from the same cloth, because they both deal heavily in meaning-making. Doesn't matter if it's "rational" or "irrational," since it's meaning and not constituent facts that we're dealing with.

 

[Muffled]

Logic is, by definition, "reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity". I don't see you operating that way. You're essentially saying "it makes sense to me" and calling that logic when it's nothing of the sort. There is an established methodology for determining what is actually true. Closing your eyes and wishing really, really hard isn't it.

I believe am using logic and your assessment of "using sense" is a false assessment of my logic.I don';t close my eyes and I am not using wishful thinking but you are because you are ignoring the facts and the logical arguments.

 

[Muffled]

The reason we do not throw our pearls to swine is because we know they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear us to pieces. (Mathew 7:6)

I believe that can happen but RF is a mixed bag.

 

[Muffled]

No, the second asserts meaning where there isn't any inherent. There is no meaning to the sun rising in the east whatsoever. Some people get an emotional buzz from thinking that there is. That emotional buzz has nothing whatsoever to do with reality. Some people get an emotional buzz from thinking that the position of the stars at the time of their birth influences their lives, but astrology is still a bunch of irrational bunk.

I believe seeing the sun rise is an experience. Granted it is an experience that takes place in the mind as the eyes relay data to the brain but that does not make it any less of an experience. Then there is relational information. Previous experiences of the sun rising teaches us that a day of light follows until the sun goes down in the west.
Also other people's experiences of sun rising are available in pictures. In different places the sunrise has a different appearance. Then we have testimonies of how sun rising appears to the people testifying.

I believe I have found astrology amazingly accurate.

 

[Cephus]

I believe seeing the sun rise is an experience. Granted it is an experience that takes place in the mind as the eyes relay data to the brain but that does not make it any less of an experience. Then there is relational information. Previous experiences of the sun rising teaches us that a day of light follows until the sun goes down in the west.
Also other people's experiences of sun rising are available in pictures. In different places the sunrise has a different appearance. Then we have testimonies of how sun rising appears to the people testifying.

I believe I have found astrology amazingly accurate.

The sun rising is not an experience, it is an event. You can experience the event, but the event exists regardless of whether or not you experience it, we can test for it and measure it objectively. Now try to do that with God. I'll wait.

And the fact that you believe astrology too is no surprise. If you fall for one kind of ridiculous woo, I guess you'll fall for anything.

 

[Muffled]

The sun rising is not an experience, it is an event. You can experience the event, but the event exists regardless of whether or not you experience it, we can test for it and measure it objectively. Now try to do that with God. I'll wait.

And the fact that you believe astrology too is no surprise. If you fall for one kind of ridiculous woo, I guess you'll fall for anything.

I believe I have the evidence from God but that does not mean that the evidence is available to everyone.

I believe calling things that are evidenced, ridiculous reveals your ignorance. I believe with your narrow view of the world that it is a wonder that you manage to cope with this world.

 

[Cephus]

I believe I have the evidence from God but that does not mean that the evidence is available to everyone.

I believe calling things that are evidenced, ridiculous reveals your ignorance. I believe with your narrow view of the world that it is a wonder that you manage to cope with this world.

Then it's not evidence, or at the very least, not objective evidence. Your stereotypical drunk who sees pink elephants in a drunken stupor can claim to have "evidence" that pink elephants are real, but that doesn't mean they actually are, nor should it convince anyone else. What you have to ask yourself is if someone approached you claiming to have the exact same kind of evidence that you claim to have, just for a different deity, would you believe them? If not, why should anyone take you seriously?

 

[sojourner]

Then it's not evidence, or at the very least, not objective evidence. Your stereotypical drunk who sees pink elephants in a drunken stupor can claim to have "evidence" that pink elephants are real, but that doesn't mean they actually are, nor should it convince anyone else. What you have to ask yourself is if someone approached you claiming to have the exact same kind of evidence that you claim to have, just for a different deity, would you believe them? If not, why should anyone take you seriously?

Of course I'd believe them. Deity is Deity. Differences are perception only. In the dark, all cats are black.