How To Tell Right From Wrong

[attofishpi]

****
To Hobbes Choice - you havent even got the intelligence to get the simple forum quote function sorted TOSSER
repost correctly if you wish a response.
****

That is why, when a child does something wrong, it's the parents who are held accountable.

The Bible has many stories of God trying to deal with disobedient children.

You have a very innocent and naive understanding of God.

A very simplistic description, - God died for our sin, the parent was held accountable for the misbehavior of the children. How is that naive?
Correction, I don't understand God at all, I don't claim to, and I don't attempt to. I simply trust.
If you understand God so well, describe God and explain God for the rest of us.

Comparing God to the unconditional love of parents for their child, is an extremely naive understanding of God.
Sure it has been stated in the bible that Christ died for our sins, but for a sinner (and im not talking of fornication or stealing bars of chocolate) to deserve eternal life ones own path from experience is a burden just as large, courtesy of God.
I have described my understanding of God many times in this forum, you may need to pay more attention.

[Hobbes' Choice]

Comparing God to the unconditional love of parents for their child, is an extremely naive understanding of God.
Sure it has been stated in the bible that Christ died for our sins, but for a sinner (and im not talking of fornication or stealing bars of chocolate) to deserve eternal life ones own path from experience is a burden just as large, courtesy of God.
I have described my understanding of God many times in this forum, you may need to pay more attention.

Well this is just the sort of thinking that makes people, (even other theists), question your perception. So on the other thread about Atheism, maybe you can understand why atheists tend to reject this bizarre argument as an argument about wishing for a god of your own imagination rather than anything real.

PS
I don't see any need to be rude.
You called yourself a "wack-job", not me.

[attofishpi]

Well this is just the sort of thinking that makes people, (even other theists), question your perception. So on the other thread about Atheism, maybe you can understand why atheists tend to reject this bizarre argument as an argument about wishing for a god of your own imagination rather than anything real.

Atheists are going to reject anything i state, period. Theists base everything on faith, not from experience of God, ergo their faith in God being some loving fatherly figure is unfortunately far short of the truth.

PS
I don't see any need to be rude.

I do when i am misquoted as if i'm arguing against myself, idiot.

You called yourself a "wack-job", not me.

To an atheist what else could i be?

[Hobbes' Choice]

Well this is just the sort of thinking that makes people, (even other theists), question your perception. So on the other thread about Atheism, maybe you can understand why atheists tend to reject this bizarre argument as an argument about wishing for a god of your own imagination rather than anything real.

Atheists are going to reject anything i state, period. Theists base everything on faith, not from experience of God, ergo their faith in God being some loving fatherly figure is unfortunately far short of the truth.

PS
I don't see any need to be rude.

I do when i am misquoted as if i'm arguing against myself, idiot.

You called yourself a "wack-job", not me.

To an atheist what else could i be?

What else? A snidely little deluded wanker, on the run from the real world to escape into the world of his own making; reflecting for brief moments that the rest of the world must be idiotic for not "knowing" god the way he does. Because he thinks he has the hot-line to the big-daddy whilst everyone of us poor fools is wrong.
You asked!

[Immanuel Can]

IC. In the interests of clarity it might be better if you just stick to explaining your own views instead of re-interpreting the views of others to suit your own narrative.

What did I say that was not true?

[Immanuel Can]

Many years ago I had an experience that I attributed to the Holy Spirit acting on a group of people, and if the Holy spirit, then God. Since then I have realized that many coincidences in my life could only be accounted for with one explanation. So I attribute something substantial to what I believe, but I acknowledge that it was only for me and not anyone else. For me, I have substantial events that I attribute to God, but I accept that others may not see it as I do.

So it would seem that OL is not describing you, when he says that "belief" has to be based on nothing. For you, it is based on an actual experience that you understand in a particular way. Moreover, your claims about it are suitably modest. You're not expecting personal experience to compel anything from OL by way of belief.

Yours looks like a perfectly ordinary reaction, on the assumption that you are interpreting events accurately; and your "belief" based on it looks reasonable, assuming you actually had that experience.

I wonder why OL would have any problem with it? He surely can't say, "You didn't actually have the experience," since he admittedly wasn't there; and he can't say, "You're interpreting it unreasonably," unless he can somehow show that your interpretation is indeed unreasonable. For that, he would have to obtain some proof that the God to Whom you attribute it does not exist: and this he clearly does not have. So he can't possibly know whether or not your belief is rational, and he certainly can't criticize it.

It seems to me that the most he can rationally object is to say, "Well, I wasn't there, and I didn't have your experience." Fair enough. But you weren't asking him to believe you based on that. So it seems to me he's out of objections -- at least, rational ones.

[uwot]

Yours looks like a perfectly ordinary reaction, on the assumption that you are interpreting events accurately; and your "belief" based on it looks reasonable, assuming you actually had that experience.

Do you even know what experience thedoc is talking about? How can you possibly say that it is "perfectly ordinary" to attribute an experience you have no knowledge of to the 'Holy Spirit'?
(Sorry, AS; I'll start another thread.)

[Immanuel Can]

Yours looks like a perfectly ordinary reaction, on the assumption that you are interpreting events accurately; and your "belief" based on it looks reasonable, assuming you actually had that experience.

Do you even know what experience thedoc is talking about? How can you possibly say that it is "perfectly ordinary" to attribute an experience you have no knowledge of to the 'Holy Spirit'?
(Sorry, AS; I'll start another thread.)

His PROCEDURE was perfectly ordinary. Don't overreact.

Thedoc doesn't appear to believe the experience was ordinary, and I did not say it was, so relax. As a matter of fact, not being there myself, I can have no rational opinion on whether that experience was genuine or his interpretation correct. Neither can you, or anyone else who wasn't there.

But we cannot impeach his logic if he believes in an experience he genuinely had. We all do that.

[thedoc]

Yours looks like a perfectly ordinary reaction, on the assumption that you are interpreting events accurately; and your "belief" based on it looks reasonable, assuming you actually had that experience.

Do you even know what experience thedoc is talking about? How can you possibly say that it is "perfectly ordinary" to attribute an experience you have no knowledge of to the 'Holy Spirit'?
(Sorry, AS; I'll start another thread.)

I could describe the experience, if you like, but I hesitate to do so because, as I have said, I believe it was for the benefit of those who were there and not necessarily for anyone else. Skeptics could easily attribute it to mass hallucination, or something else. I attributed this event to the presence of the Holy Spirit among the people in this group, several hundred, but I don't know the exact number, and it was over 30 years ago. IC is correct, my reaction was perfectly ordinary under the circumstances, and though I don't know, I would assume that others had the same reaction. One thing I remember is that no-one seemed particularly disturbed or surprised, it was almost as if this was the sort of thing just happened. One thing I am blessed with, or cursed with, is a very good memory of what I actually experience, and that has been tested many times over the years. So I remember things accurately, but how I interpret them is open to questioning, but in this case I can think of no other reasonable explanation.

[uwot]

... but how I interpret them is open to questioning, but in this case I can think of no other reasonable explanation.

For all I know, the Holy Spirit was entirely responsible for the experience you shared, but it is absurd of Immanuel Can, and you, to describe your attribution as procedure. But anyway, I like a good story, let's hear it.

[thedoc]

... but how I interpret them is open to questioning, but in this case I can think of no other reasonable explanation.

For all I know, the Holy Spirit was entirely responsible for the experience you shared, but it is absurd of Immanuel Can, and you, to describe your attribution as procedure. But anyway, I like a good story, let's hear it.

OK, but I will preface it by saying it was many years ago, and I am going strictly on memory, since any physical record is long gone.

My wife and I were attending a conference of Evangelical Lutherans, and during the closing service there was an event. It started with a rustling and murmuring of the people in the audience in a localized area, and seemed to move around the room. It finally settled on a young woman who stood up and started to sing in tongues, when she finished that she sang the same song again but in English. When she finished she sat down but seemed to be a bit out of it, and her friends who were with her were comforting her. While she was singing, everyone else was quiet and listening, as if everyone was attending very closely what was happening. I understand that a written description falls far short of being there, but there were aspects of the experience that were more like feelings of what was happening rather than actual physical manifestations, and those I would have difficulty describing at this time. It was a long time ago, and I have retained the impressions more than the actual feelings.

I'm not sure where the description as a procedure comes in but I didn't use that term, I just didn't argue the point, but I assumed that IC meant that my reaction was understandable under the circumstances.

[Obvious Leo]

I can have no rational opinion on whether that experience was genuine

It beggars belief that one could encounter a statement of such colossal stupidity in a philosophy forum. What the fuck is a "genuine" experience and how could one distinguish it from a "non-genuine" one? Luckily this is the 21st century and those afflicted by bizarre personal experiences can be treated with cognitive behaviour therapy and psycho-active chemicals. Fishy can count himself lucky not to have been around a few hundred years ago when he would have been marched off to the exorcist and had all sorts of foreign objects shoved up his arse, including body parts still attached to the priest. Unless Fishy was unlucky enough to be a sheila, in which case she would have been raped, flogged and then burnt at the stake.

However we all have to accept things as we find them, IC. Pining nostalgically for the good old days is not going to change things.

[uwot]

I understand that a written description falls far short of being there...

Well, yes, but thank you for the story.

[thedoc]

I can have no rational opinion on whether that experience was genuine

It beggars belief that one could encounter a statement of such colossal stupidity in a philosophy forum. What the fuck is a "genuine" experience and how could one distinguish it from a "non-genuine" one? Luckily this is the 21st century and those afflicted by bizarre personal experiences can be treated with cognitive behaviour therapy and psycho-active chemicals. Fishy can count himself lucky not to have been around a few hundred years ago when he would have been marched off to the exorcist and had all sorts of foreign objects shoved up his arse, including body parts still attached to the priest. Unless Fishy was unlucky enough to be a sheila, in which case she would have been raped, flogged and then burnt at the stake.

However we all have to accept things as we find them, IC. Pining nostalgically for the good old days is not going to change things.

A few hundred years ago, anyone with half a brain would not open their mouth about such things. Any rational person would just keep quiet and relish the experience as their own special happening. However I can see that you would have had to speak up and would have suffered the fate you describe for Fishy.

[Obvious Leo]

However I can see that you would have had to speak up and would have suffered the fate you describe for Fishy.

I suspect you're probably right, doc, in that my life expectancy under the authority of the medieval church would have been less than average. However this is only because I'm a contrarian smart-arse with a keen nose for bullshit, not because I suffer from supernatural visions. I've never been afflicted by experiences for which I've needed to ascribe a supernatural cause because all of my bizarre brain states can be attributed to lack of sleep or recreational pharmaceuticals.