How convenient for you to only quote part of the post, to make it appear as though those statements were something (anything) other than at attempt to clarify what Raf had said previously. Par for the course, I suppose. Aside from that, however, I don't disagree with or object to most of the rest of your post, other than to note that the ability to "think/reason at a higher level" alludes to doing so in a manner that can (or at least, might) take into consideration the possibility that there certain (invisible) realities that are only possible to ascertain through the use of reasoning at ahigher level!
How quaint.
I will grant (and have stated before) that there is something going on beyond what humans can perceive. In fact, there is anthropologically determined and documented evidence that humans have found hundreds, if not thousands of ways to define those "certain (invisible) realities."
However, to give any credence to what you present (in bold, above), how do you propose to ascertain the veracity of said information received by alluded to certain invisible realities?
By definition, the Judeo-Christian creation story and the surrounding stories (as set forth in The Bible as we know it) has as a major theme, right from the start, deception by a spiritual entity. So, how would one discern whether any given thought that pops into his/her head as being from the right source? Didn't Jesus himself even have to cope with that dilemma?
However, to give any credence to what you present (in bold, above), how do you propose to ascertain the veracity of said information received by alluded to certain invisible realities?
In a manner of speaking (perhaps), it paints a picture.
15 hours ago, Rocky said:
By definition, the Judeo-Christian creation story and the surrounding stories (as set forth in The Bible as we know it) has as a major theme, right from the start, deception by a spiritual entity.
By whose definition? That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't.
15 hours ago, Rocky said:
So, how would one discern whether any given thought that pops into his/her head as being from the right source?
Twice now you've tried to insert and bring some (rather kinky) concept of (personal) "revelation" to the forefront, as if it were the key (or at least, essential) to anything I've said. And it's not.
15 hours ago, Rocky said:
Didn't Jesus himself even have to cope with that dilemma?
What sort of ridiculous question is that? Oh... ridiculous. That was your point, I suppose. To ridicule.
By definition, the Judeo-Christian creation story and the surrounding stories (as set forth in The Bible as we know it) has as a major theme, right from the start, deception by a spiritual entity.
By whose definition? That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't.
Given where this thread is located, seems unclear to me exactly which "spiritual entity" you may have intended to refer to here... which is why I opposed it, as at first glance, it appeared as if it referred to God (and not the serpent.) And, your "thought that pops into his/her head" phrase simply isn't something that I associate every day with how the devil operates (even if it is.) Neither do I see that phrase as being appropriate or fitting with any recorded interaction between the devil and Jesus Christ. Consequently, your post doesn't actually make much sense.
In a manner of speaking (perhaps), it paints a picture.
By whose definition? That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't.
Twice now you've tried to insert and bring some (rather kinky) concept of (personal) "revelation" to the forefront, as if it were the key (or at least, essential) to anything I've said. And it's not.
What sort of ridiculous question is that? Oh... ridiculous. That was your point, I suppose. To ridicule.
Btw, there was nothing kinky about what I posted. If you read it as such, you own that perception.
Was that (what I highlighted in bold) a request for clarification? I realize it wasn't framed as such, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, I had to ask.
Given where this thread is located, seems unclear to me exactly which "spiritual entity" you may have intended to refer to here... which is why I opposed it, as at first glance, it appeared as if it referred to God (and not the serpent.) And, your "thought that pops into his/her head" phrase simply isn't something that I associate every day with how the devil operates (even if it is.) Neither do I see that phrase as being appropriate or fitting with any recorded interaction between the devil and Jesus Christ. Consequently, your post doesn't actually make much sense.
If your standard/understanding of communication was even close to correct, I would have to say that you intentionally misunderstood.
However, it isn't the correct standard. The correct response from you would be to ask for clarification, as in, "is this what you meant?"
Because you didn't, that is probably why to you my response to you didn't make sense.
My phrase "thought that pops into his/her head" isn't about the devil. It's about how the human mind operates. So, I have to ask for clarification. Are you saying that because you don't associate thoughts in a person's head with how the devil operates, you assume or suppose that when you get a thought that pops (appears, or however you'd like to characterize it) into your head, it must be from God?
If your standard/understanding of communication was even close to correct, I would have to say that you intentionally misunderstood.
However, it isn't the correct standard. The correct response from you would be to ask for clarification, as in, "is this what you meant?"
Because you didn't, that is probably why to you my response to you didn't make sense.
My phrase "thought that pops into his/her head" isn't about the devil. It's about how the human mind operates. So, I have to ask for clarification. Are you saying that because you don't associate thoughts in a person's head with how the devil operates, you assume or suppose that when you get a thought that pops (appears, or however you'd like to characterize it) into your head, it must be from God?
Frankly, it sounds to me like you prefer talking in circles, and we are on such different wavelengths I can't really follow the way you evidently must think. So you probably think I'm crazy (but yeah... I think you're crazy.) But to answer your question (which certainly has an appearance of trying to put words in my mouth), no... and I'm not the one that first mentioned or brought up anything about "thoughts" popping up or appearing in your head. You did. For what purpose or reason, I'm still at a loss to see. Looks to me like an effort to spin something I might have posted previously into something called "revelation."
Relating to the concept of understanding spiritual matters on a higher level:
We were taught in the PFAL series of classes that the more we speak in tongues, the more we will be able to understand spiritual matters.
However, now that we have exhaustively examined the Way version of speaking in tongues and determined it to be fraudulent, where does that leave us with this concept of enhanced spiritual understanding?
Frankly, it sounds to me like you prefer talking in circles, and we are on such different wavelengths I can't really follow the way you evidently must think. So you probably think I'm crazy (but yeah... I think you're crazy.) But to answer your question (which certainly has an appearance of trying to put words in my mouth), no... and I'm not the one that first mentioned or brought up anything about "thoughts" popping up or appearing in your head. You did. For what purpose or reason, I'm still at a loss to see. Looks to me like an effort to spin something I might have posted previously into something called "revelation."
So, even when I ask you for clarification, you take issue with it? Asking for clarification, in the form of "is this what you mean... ?" is now "spin?"
Oh, heck no. I don't think you're crazy. I think you're needlessly defensive and paranoid.
So, how would YOU describe the process of "ascertaining spiritual information?"
Ascertaining spiritual information means drawing a conclusion and then examining the evidence, tossing out evidence that does not conform to the conclusion you already reached before you started looking at the issue.
Calling it "ascertaining spiritual information" is simply an appeal to emotion, trying to frame this fundamentally dishonest tactic in terms that elicit sympathy from fellow believers in opposition to the atheist bogeyman who won't let you get away with using made-up sh*t as facts.
The reason we don't accept "spiritual information" as evidence is as follows:
1. You cannot demonstrate objectively that such a thing exists. Really the list should stop right there.
2. You have no way to objectively evaluate the reliability of the information. Comparing it to the Bible doesn't count because it's the book's reliability that is in question. That would be begging the question (aka circular reasoning).
3. You have demonstrated no means of determining the source of the spiritual information. Is it from God? Allah? Ra? Vishnu? Thor? Satan? Calling it "spiritual information" demands an answer as to its source, which for the sake of presenting evidence you must identify.
An objective observer is not obliged to assume the Christian God is any more or less real than any other deity.
3a. You have demonstrated no means of distinguishing between spiritual information and your own predetermined conclusion (aka, made up sh*t).
Unless you can address those issues, those who evaluate evidence are under no obligation to put your "spiritual information" on the same plane as actual evidence.
So, even when I ask you for clarification, you take issue with it? Asking for clarification, in the form of "is this what you mean... ?" is now "spin?"
Oh, heck no. I don't think you're crazy. I think you're needlessly defensive and paranoid.
So, how would YOU describe the process of "ascertaining spiritual information?"
Depending on what or how something is asked, yes, it can be... even as yours is. Take, for example, your last question... as I didn't write or speak of "ascertaining spiritual information" (as though it were just an extra piece of the puzzle,) yet you put it in quotes as though it were something which I definitely said, or at least meant (apparently as another attempt to draw or squeeze some sort of missing "revelation" into the equation). What else would you call it, if not spin?
Furthermore, I've already described what I did say (about ascertaining spiritual realities) in another way, which evidently you seemed to have missed or chose to ignore.
On 4/22/2019 at 8:20 AM, TLC said:
In a manner of speaking (perhaps), it paints a picture.
So, given we obviously don't see the same thing when looking at the paint, you want me to describe... what? What you can't or don't see?
However, now that we have exhaustively examined the Way version of speaking in tongues and determined it to be fraudulent, where does that leave us with this concept of enhanced spiritual understanding?
Given I'm not part of the "we" in your statement, I don't have any sort of answer to such a question other than the most obvious. IF it is indeed fraudulent for a particular individual, why would it be expected to enhance an understanding anything, much less that which is spiritual?
.....why would it be expected to enhance an understanding (of) anything, much less that which is spiritual?
Yeah, that's my point. If there really is such a thing as speaking in tongues, what we learned in PFAL is not it. We placed an awful lot of expectation on something that wasn't real. But, I'm getting off topic here. Any discussion of speaking in tongues, specifically, would probably be better suited for one of the threads that already exists.
To be clear: If you are claiming tht YOUR SIT is genuine, then according to the Bible, you are producing a language. Can you establish, through evidence, what that language is? If so, you might have some claim to some spiritual connection. If not, you're full of sh*t and I am under no obligation to believe otherwise.
Anyone can fake tongues. If you claim to not be faking it, then the burden is on you to prove it.
What''s the language?
That's the thing. If you make a testable claim, then that claim is subject to testing. Like, if I say I have a time machine, it's not YOUR obligation to DISprove it; it is my obligation to PROVE it.
You claim to speak in tongues. Prove it. What's the language?
Because if something actually happened, especially something of historical significance, there should be more evidence of its occurrence than a fairy tale concocted by a fiction writer (or four).
One should expect that the evidence for a significant event that actually took place should be of greater weight than the "evidence" or indicators it did not.
Depending on what or how something is asked, yes, it can be... even as yours is. Take, for example, your last question... as I didn't write or speak of "ascertaining spiritual information" (as though it were just an extra piece of the puzzle,) yet you put it in quotes as though it were something which I definitely said, or at least meant (apparently as another attempt to draw or squeeze some sort of missing "revelation" into the equation). What else would you call it, if not spin?
Furthermore, I've already described what I did say (about ascertaining spiritual realities) in another way, which evidently you seemed to have missed or chose to ignore.
So, given we obviously don't see the same thing when looking at the paint, you want me to describe... what? What you can't or don't see?
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
161
58
35
61
Popular Days
Apr 23
28
Apr 24
24
Mar 9
19
Apr 6
18
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 161 posts
Rocky 58 posts
waysider 35 posts
TLC 61 posts
Popular Days
Apr 23 2019
28 posts
Apr 24 2019
24 posts
Mar 9 2019
19 posts
Apr 6 2019
18 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
If you are asking this question in earnest, you might want to consider exploring the works of Joseph Campbell.... The Power of Myth/The Hero's Journey/ etc. etc. etc. The Hero With A Thous
Raf
Tell me there's another way to read this (and by all means, go to the original post. I'm truly not doing the "evidence" part justice). Why would God deliberately make it harder for smart people t
Raf
Ok, TLC. Look, if you want to make this thread about your stamp of approval on our questions and answers, you go ahead and do that. I am deeply sorry that you do not have the patience or con
Posted Images
Rocky
How quaint.
Edited by RockyI will grant (and have stated before) that there is something going on beyond what humans can perceive. In fact, there is anthropologically determined and documented evidence that humans have found hundreds, if not thousands of ways to define those "certain (invisible) realities."
However, to give any credence to what you present (in bold, above), how do you propose to ascertain the veracity of said information received by alluded to certain invisible realities?
By definition, the Judeo-Christian creation story and the surrounding stories (as set forth in The Bible as we know it) has as a major theme, right from the start, deception by a spiritual entity. So, how would one discern whether any given thought that pops into his/her head as being from the right source? Didn't Jesus himself even have to cope with that dilemma?
Happy Easter.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
It's amazing some people even need a Bible with their higher reasoning taking precedence over what the d- book actually f-ing says.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
No, I wasn't. However, there doesn't appear to be much reason why that shouldn't (or wouldn't) be included, if it were given (rare as it might be.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
In a manner of speaking (perhaps), it paints a picture.
By whose definition? That may be one that you think and/or accept, but I surely don't.
Twice now you've tried to insert and bring some (rather kinky) concept of (personal) "revelation" to the forefront, as if it were the key (or at least, essential) to anything I've said. And it's not.
What sort of ridiculous question is that? Oh... ridiculous. That was your point, I suppose. To ridicule.
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given where this thread is located, seems unclear to me exactly which "spiritual entity" you may have intended to refer to here... which is why I opposed it, as at first glance, it appeared as if it referred to God (and not the serpent.) And, your "thought that pops into his/her head" phrase simply isn't something that I associate every day with how the devil operates (even if it is.) Neither do I see that phrase as being appropriate or fitting with any recorded interaction between the devil and Jesus Christ. Consequently, your post doesn't actually make much sense.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Made perfect sense to me
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Btw, there was nothing kinky about what I posted. If you read it as such, you own that perception.
Was that (what I highlighted in bold) a request for clarification? I realize it wasn't framed as such, but to give you the benefit of the doubt, I had to ask.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
If your standard/understanding of communication was even close to correct, I would have to say that you intentionally misunderstood.
Edited by RockyHowever, it isn't the correct standard. The correct response from you would be to ask for clarification, as in, "is this what you meant?"
Because you didn't, that is probably why to you my response to you didn't make sense.
My phrase "thought that pops into his/her head" isn't about the devil. It's about how the human mind operates. So, I have to ask for clarification. Are you saying that because you don't associate thoughts in a person's head with how the devil operates, you assume or suppose that when you get a thought that pops (appears, or however you'd like to characterize it) into your head, it must be from God?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Frankly, it sounds to me like you prefer talking in circles, and we are on such different wavelengths I can't really follow the way you evidently must think. So you probably think I'm crazy (but yeah... I think you're crazy.) But to answer your question (which certainly has an appearance of trying to put words in my mouth), no... and I'm not the one that first mentioned or brought up anything about "thoughts" popping up or appearing in your head. You did. For what purpose or reason, I'm still at a loss to see. Looks to me like an effort to spin something I might have posted previously into something called "revelation."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Relating to the concept of understanding spiritual matters on a higher level:
We were taught in the PFAL series of classes that the more we speak in tongues, the more we will be able to understand spiritual matters.
However, now that we have exhaustively examined the Way version of speaking in tongues and determined it to be fraudulent, where does that leave us with this concept of enhanced spiritual understanding?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
So, even when I ask you for clarification, you take issue with it? Asking for clarification, in the form of "is this what you mean... ?" is now "spin?"
I think you're needlessly defensive and paranoid.
Oh, heck no. I don't think you're crazy.
So, how would YOU describe the process of "ascertaining spiritual information?"
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Ascertaining spiritual information means drawing a conclusion and then examining the evidence, tossing out evidence that does not conform to the conclusion you already reached before you started looking at the issue.
Calling it "ascertaining spiritual information" is simply an appeal to emotion, trying to frame this fundamentally dishonest tactic in terms that elicit sympathy from fellow believers in opposition to the atheist bogeyman who won't let you get away with using made-up sh*t as facts.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
The reason we don't accept "spiritual information" as evidence is as follows:
1. You cannot demonstrate objectively that such a thing exists. Really the list should stop right there.
2. You have no way to objectively evaluate the reliability of the information. Comparing it to the Bible doesn't count because it's the book's reliability that is in question. That would be begging the question (aka circular reasoning).
3. You have demonstrated no means of determining the source of the spiritual information. Is it from God? Allah? Ra? Vishnu? Thor? Satan? Calling it "spiritual information" demands an answer as to its source, which for the sake of presenting evidence you must identify.
An objective observer is not obliged to assume the Christian God is any more or less real than any other deity.
3a. You have demonstrated no means of distinguishing between spiritual information and your own predetermined conclusion (aka, made up sh*t).
Unless you can address those issues, those who evaluate evidence are under no obligation to put your "spiritual information" on the same plane as actual evidence.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Depending on what or how something is asked, yes, it can be... even as yours is. Take, for example, your last question... as I didn't write or speak of "ascertaining spiritual information" (as though it were just an extra piece of the puzzle,) yet you put it in quotes as though it were something which I definitely said, or at least meant (apparently as another attempt to draw or squeeze some sort of missing "revelation" into the equation). What else would you call it, if not spin?
Furthermore, I've already described what I did say (about ascertaining spiritual realities) in another way, which evidently you seemed to have missed or chose to ignore.
So, given we obviously don't see the same thing when looking at the paint, you want me to describe... what? What you can't or don't see?
Edited by TLCLink to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
Given I'm not part of the "we" in your statement, I don't have any sort of answer to such a question other than the most obvious. IF it is indeed fraudulent for a particular individual, why would it be expected to enhance an understanding anything, much less that which is spiritual?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
That was meaningless.
Seriously. You're babbling.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Yeah, that's my point. If there really is such a thing as speaking in tongues, what we learned in PFAL is not it. We placed an awful lot of expectation on something that wasn't real. But, I'm getting off topic here. Any discussion of speaking in tongues, specifically, would probably be better suited for one of the threads that already exists.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
To be clear: If you are claiming tht YOUR SIT is genuine, then according to the Bible, you are producing a language. Can you establish, through evidence, what that language is? If so, you might have some claim to some spiritual connection. If not, you're full of sh*t and I am under no obligation to believe otherwise.
Anyone can fake tongues. If you claim to not be faking it, then the burden is on you to prove it.
What''s the language?
That's the thing. If you make a testable claim, then that claim is subject to testing. Like, if I say I have a time machine, it's not YOUR obligation to DISprove it; it is my obligation to PROVE it.
You claim to speak in tongues. Prove it. What's the language?
Cue the excuses.
Edited by RafLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Making sure we stay on topic: what is the evidence that would lead a reasonable person to conclude that Jesus rose from the dead?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
There is no physical or historical evidence.
There is no more evidence of the resurrection than there is evidence that Pinocchio was changed into a real boy.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
But there should be.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bolshevik
To what end?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
Because if something actually happened, especially something of historical significance, there should be more evidence of its occurrence than a fairy tale concocted by a fiction writer (or four).
One should expect that the evidence for a significant event that actually took place should be of greater weight than the "evidence" or indicators it did not.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Paints a picture where?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.