IBW

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

In my experience, it has been common knowledge regarding historical consideration given the Gospels, and I assume the input of Josephus and others contributed to that. I have logged no contemporary names, so you may be able to find them as quickly as I could.

(Note: As far as Luke is concerned, he is the one I've heard more accolades for as an historian, maybe for his presentation.)

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

That is where you and I differ, at least in terms of "spiritual" experiences which implies association with spirit, not the soul or mind. There is scriptural support for the difference, and for the point where we can recognize the difference. As far as many "mystical" experiences go, your point may be valid and related to Snatchbalance's experiences.

[ May 30, 2002: Message edited by: IBW ]</p>

abe smith

Ummm. I do not pretend to be competent to philosophize. I'd just like to insert the said-to-be-likelihood:&gt;&gt;&gt;that like many/all other sources of "authority", the New Testament {so-labelled by MEN}, including its/their primary authority?assertion[s] =the Chrx Gospels, was SELECTED from a large bunch of available manuscripts of all kinds and of all levels of reliability & dubitability; and then it, the NT, was EDITED &gt;&gt;&gt; rewritten, by male selfchosen committees of Christians; and was then VOTED upon , for acceptance, by other selfappointed committees; ....AND THAT is how RELIABLE the New Testament and its derivatives are, to assert anything.; especially anything about "god" and "his" pronuntiamenti & opinions. Abe

madmax2976

What exactly do you/are you proposing that we do? I'm all for mystical/spiritual investigation, assuming such investigation can actually be conducted. If there is another realm, then it would be interesting to learn about it. If spirits exist, it would be interesting to learn about those. But I haven't seen any practical methods elaborated on yet, for determining these things with any reliability. So please lay out a practical scenario that will allow us to broaden our horizons, so to speak.

I agree with your sentiment that we should not be too "bound" in our thinking. However, I also agree with the old adage, "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

snatchbalance

IBW,

I'm sorry, but I really don't quite know how to respond to your posts. If you want to engage in a discussion of your ideas, I kind of need to know what they are.

SB

IBW

If there is another realm, then it would be interesting to learn about it. If spirits exist, it would be interesting to learn about those. But I haven't seen any practical methods elaborated on yet, for determining these things with any reliability.

That’s the problem. My contention is that secularism can’t determine these things because it’s limited its scope of investigation. If there is another realm, it can conceivably elude our intellectual and empirical senses and comprehension (though manifestations must necessarily employ such limited senses). Consequently, that means being open to possibilities and avenues beyond the empirical. Secularists cannot do that for several reasons: they simply don’t accept the idea of “belief” in such things, their intellectual study has suggested that there is little or no evidence to pursue such possibilities, they have not yet had or pursued spiritual experiences to suggest otherwise, they have had or recognized bad experiences from the perverted advancement or manipulation of theology, or theology doesn’t suit or accommodate their world view. I've personally dealt with all of these at one time or another. I won’t take issue with secularists’ choices for these reasons and others, but it surprises me when they resent the pursuits of those who haven’t reached such conclusions. A theist like myself may be open to such beliefs, have found sufficient evidence to continue, had a convincing spiritual experience (which may not have been achievable or confirmable through intellectual study), had good experiences with theology and other believers, and either had a world-view suited to theology or were willing to adjust to the values inherent to it.

I agree with your sentiment that we should not be too "bound" in our thinking. However, I also agree with the old adage, "Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

This whole post is about secularism’s implied limit of investigation into “the unknown”. That’s why I’m not repeating a previous forum elsewhere into specifics of history and theological “theories” as desired by some (and which falls under Biblical Criticism). I can only suggest taking it a step at a time (so our brains won’t fall out), and pursuing a safe avenue of spiritual experience. Though that statement may open a can of worms, I have found nothing unsafe in the pursuit of spiritual gifts as biblically recorded by Paul in the Corinthians, and can recognize, as I’m sure most of you can, the credibility and sincerity of those I may look to for guidance.

It was interesting that I was listening to a radio interview yesterday with the head of an Atheist organization in New York (I think his name was David). He described both atheism and agnosticism as non-belief, the inability to know, and the inability for others to know. I was curious about his title for a person who may accept the possibility for others to know. Later in the interview, however, he expressed the atheist’s desire to be open to the unknown. It was a contradiction to me. He expressed positively on Christians he had known and respected for guidance, and that his wife was a believer and church-goer. I only suggest that secularists recognize that there just might be, by the wildest stretch of the imagination and within their extreme capacity for objectivity and tolerance, something beyond what they have personally been able to discover, which is discoverable, and potentially has been discovered by others.

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: IBW ]

[ June 01, 2002: Message edited by: IBW ]</p>

The Other Michael

I'm afraid I still can't see how you are going to establish the existence of anything that can "elude our intellectual and empirical senses and comprehension". It would appear that, by definition, you can't be aware of anything in that category.

And science is quite open to the unknown - look at how much of what science now knows was completely unknown just a couple of centuries ago.

But it seems like you are advocating a "believe me because I say it is true" scenario, which gets us down to hearsay, not evidence.

Miracles may actually exist, if by miracles you mean things which violate natural "laws" that we can derive. That doesn't mean that anything is a miracle if we can't show how it works at this time, as it possible that we just need another step or two up the ladder of knowledge to arrive at an understanding of how the "miracle" conforms to natural laws. Much of today's commonplace items would appear quite miraculous if transported back in time a couple of thousand years.

So as soon as you can develop a spiritometer that reliably demonstrates the existance of items that exist "outside the natural universe" I think you'll find science will be a lot more accepting of the spirit/miracle world.

cheers,
Michael