Philosoft

You know what's coming, eh Vork? You just want to hear him say it, so to speak.

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: Philosoft ]</p>

Liquidrage

this proved an enlightening event for me into the possibility of the supernatural

The word supernatural should not exist.
It's a hangover from an older time.

If something exists it is natural.
Even if Zeus existed he would be natural.

Unless you want to define "supernatural" as "shit that I have no clue how it works" of course.
Now, it *can* be defined as that which pertains to a deity. However, the word is hardly ever used in this context as there are much better choices of words to use for this meaning.

Just because it doesn't make sense to mankind at the present and could even be above mankinds capablities to comprehend, does not mean it isn't natural.

Even if the Xian god were real, he would know how to do what ever it is he was doing. It would be natural to him. He would *know* how to shoot fireballs out of his fingers. It would make sense to him.

Secularism appears to stop at the intersection where the universe of “hard facts” ends. Those in honorable religious pursuits choose to proceed on.

Secularism doesn't stop anywhere.
Look at these boards.
There's ton of posts about First Cause, abiogenesis and other issues that are currently in the unknown.
Just because someone doesn't pass the buck to "god did it" does not mean that this someone is not thinking of the unknown.

[ May 26, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

IBW

I am not attempting to discredit your mystical experience… But what if one single person can't get there from here?

…you'll have to excuse me and the rest of the mere mortals for not having such powers. Until I develop the requisite power I'll have to discount their claims.

Again, I have no explanations for the inconsistency of spiritual experiences, but I know their manifestation invariably establishes personal evidence for them. I believe it took open-mindedness on my part, and it was something this mere mortal apparently needed. If it’s not truly needed or sought, I assume it likely won’t be manifested. I can’t help but believe that anybody can get there from here, but it may well be a matter of time and determination. I just feel its shallow for some to refute it completely just because they haven’t experienced it nor desire to. There is much I haven’t experienced or understood that I might or might not pursue, but I won’t limit myself or demonstrate my ignorance by refuting it.

Other than god created everything, what theological "theories" do you have in mind? No double standard here, let's see what you got.

Though I have some “theories” in mind, I’m not prepared to write a book here. I speak more generally about those scriptural writings and authors that have been regarded as legitimate by scholars on both sides (of which Luke, for example, seems to be a strong case), and giving those authors at least some related credibility for the theological “theories” they put forth. As with the statement, “historians try to determine the best historical explanation for…disagreements in an attempt to identify the core historical facts”, my studies have suggested sufficient textual criticism among manuscripts to establish core theological elements and corroboration: beliefs for the believer, questionable theories for the non-believer. This can be achieved apart from the issue of “the divine word of God” because I can accept the errancy of man and his free will to make mistakes in theological and historical documentation alike.

Just because it doesn't make sense to mankind at the present and could even be above mankinds capablities to comprehend, does not mean it isn't natural.

Good point. It seems like most equate “natural” with “empirical”. Maybe we should call it superempirical, though scripture seems to prefer natural to spiritual and terrestrial to celestial.

snatchbalance

IBW,

When my mother died, my grandparents, who had been dead for over ten years came to console me.

During a sesion of past life regression, I became an 11'th century celtic warrior.

During a scientology auditing session, I returned to the time that I was a sperm and an egg.

While doing halucenigenic drugs, I became part of the air around me(multicolered at that).

If you don't want to limit yourself, consider the possibility of some alteration in your brain function. You know that you have a brain, and you know that various stimulus can produce all sorts of phenomena within your neural circuits. Why not exhaust that avenue before ascribing your experiences to god?

Seems like common sense, not shallowness.

snatchbalance

IBW,

No, I don't have time to write books here either. But maybe you can give me something specific to react to.

Why would Luke be considered a more reliable source than the other gospels? What were some of his "theories"? I don't know of any reliable third party corraboration of the gospels. But I'm not a historian.

SB

hinduwoman

This is the most pathetic attack on secularism I have ever seen. We are to accept things without proof: then there is no need to call ourselves atheists or freethinkers; we can just start believing in senances and astrology.
I bet IBW would refuse to accept astrology as valid because he did not grew up in a milieau where it is held to be as good a science as astronomy. But there is no reason why we should not believe in it if we shed our intital demand for hard facts. <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

IBW

Why would Luke be considered a more reliable source than the other gospels? What were some of his "theories"? I don't know of any reliable third party corraboration of the gospels.

From my experience, many historians regard Luke as the most proficient from an historical perspective, and accept the four Gospels themselves (applying textual criticism along with related excerpts of other discovered manuscripts)) as reasonable corroboration for their content. The "theories" would be any offerings in his writings that you might consider questionable theological elements as opposed to acceptable history and events.


This is the most pathetic attack on secularism I have ever seen. We are to accept things without proof: then there is no need to call ourselves atheists or freethinkers

You miss the point. You need not believe anything without proof. My issue is the intolerance of others' beliefs and the evidences they pursue which attempts to limit the scope of investigation. Does atheism mean you simply don't believe, or deplore that which others believe. And it seems a "freethinker" (as opposed to a "boundthinker"?)would by nature harbor a tolerance for what they and others believe and pursue.

I bet IBW would refuse to accept astrology as valid

Again you make a point for intolerance and assumptions. In fact, I do assume credibility in the power of astrology. But as with any such pursuit, I practice extreme caution in such investigations and avoid those I'm not sure of or prepared for knowing that there can also be inherent dangers involved.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: IBW ]</p>

Ierrellus

IBW,

I don't think anyone here would question your personal beliefs if you could acknowledge that they serve the purposes of your own identity and security.
Being personal, they are not necessarily universal. Why would you hold your truths up for debate unless you really wanted them to be other than what they are?--insecurity?

Most Biblical sholars see Mark as the source for the other gospels. Why Dr. Luke?

Ierrellus

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Ierrellus ]</p>

snatchbalance

IBW,

1. I noticed that you skipped over my post on possible alternative sources of mystical experience.

2. If you can't list the theories you are refering to, maybe you can provide some of your historical sources.

SB

Synaesthesia

If the mystical experience of the divine constitutes proof of the divine, what of the mystical experience of the prosaic? Are they proof of the universe's fundamental materiality and mindlessness?

I myself believe that mystic experiences are a part of conviction, not merely grounds for it. They may change our minds, but they cannot occur save within our minds and so are vulnerable to the very same kind of epistemic limitations of sensory experience and all sorts of introspection.

Mystical experiences are a culmination of what is already in our minds rather than an external introduction to them.

[ May 29, 2002: Message edited by: Synaesthesia ]</p>