Does the Bible want you to take it non-literally?

[rez]

Quote by: Foxfyre Unless one can prove that God does not exist, it is rather presumptious to assume that God has nothing to do with anything, much less the content of the Bible.

Proving that god exists is a fundamental piece of evidence, however, you and I know that is not going to happen any time soon. And if it does happen, then the hope (faith) that god exists turns into knowledge that god exists.

Christians who have experienced God know that the Bible is more than 'just another book'.

Since god is only capable of translating his purpose through other humans, then that gives humans the ability to be gods spokes person. Being gods spokes person is a very powerful position -- more powerful then the president of the United States. And although this is such a powerful position to have it is extremely easy position to fake.

It is the story of a people in an intimate relationship with the living God, however rightly or wrongly they perceived their experience as being of God or from God.

What does this even mean? What is the difference between "of God" and "from God" does "of God" even make sense at all!?

To assume, however, that they did not experience God is specious to those of us who know that such experience is real.

If I must give credence to your experience then I must give credence to everybody else's experience. Don't you understand the very essence of this logic? Don't you understand that I only can go by your word and nothing else? Don't you understand that there is no way to determine the bullshitters from the people who are speaking the truth?

And as we distinguish the history from the poetry, the Law from the allegory, the wisdom literature from the prophecy, we neverthless can commune with God in the reading and study of the Bible as well as in the reading and study of later writings.

You are not addressing the issue. Sure, studying and reading the Bible is a way to connect to god, but that doesn't help people distinguish between what should be considered poetry and what should be considered history.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: rez Proving that god exists is a fundamental piece of evidence, however, you and I know that is not going to happen any time soon. And if it does happen, then the hope (faith) that god exists turns into knowledge that god exists.

It is true that technology does not (yet) exist to prove the existence of a spirit world. It is also true that technology does not (yet) exist to disprove the existence of a spirit world. So we are left with the hundreds of millions, even billions, of people claiming experience with the supernatural and a much smaller group of people who have not experienced that but who desperately want to believe that it does not exist.

Since god is only capable of translating his purpose through other humans, then that gives humans the ability to be gods spokes person. Being gods spokes person is a very powerful position -- more powerful then the president of the United States. And although this is such a powerful position to have it is extremely easy position to fake.

I know from personal experience that your hypothesis here is false.

What does this even mean? What is the difference between "of God" and "from God" does "of God" even make sense at all!?

There are almost certainly times that God is blamed and thought to be intentionally responsible for events and circumstances of which people write, when God had nothing to do with it at all. As the writers of the Bible were fallible human beings as all of us are, it is almost inevitable that God was implicated incorrectly in some Old Testament events.

If I must give credence to your experience then I must give credence to everybody else's experience. Don't you understand the very essence of this logic? Don't you understand that I only can go by your word and nothing else? Don't you understand that there is no way to determine the bullshitters from the people who are speaking the truth?

Well actually there is a way to determine the bullshitters from the people who are speaking the truth. This is actually commented on in the New Testament. But you do not HAVE to give credence to anybody else's experience. You are not required to believe anything at all. Nor am I required to automatically think somebody who has not experienced something is more credible than the person claiming the experience.

You are not addressing the issue. Sure, studying and reading the Bible is a way to connect to god, but that doesn't help people distinguish between what should be considered poetry and what should be considered history.

A dedicated, competent Bible study DOES help people distinguish between allegory, poetry, history, law, prophecy, wisdom literature, etc. in the Bible. Which is why some of us have spent some years in such dedicated study and why we can speak with at least some authority despite the fact that there is probably still more to learn than what we already know.

[rez]

Quote by: Foxfyre So we are left with the hundreds of millions, even billions, of people claiming experience with the supernatural and a much smaller group of people who have not experienced that but who desperately want to believe that it does not exist.

There is another group of people that you forgot to mention. The people who bullshit that they experienced god, when they did not.

I know from personal experience that your hypothesis here is false.

What is false about it?

There are almost certainly times that God is blamed and thought to be intentionally responsible for events and circumstances of which people write, when God had nothing to do with it at all.

So you are suggesting that you have the mind of god? How else would you know what god is responible for and what god is not responsible for?

As the writers of the Bible were fallible human beings as all of us are, it is almost inevitable that God was implicated incorrectly in some Old Testament events.

So you may know this because god told you this, but god also talks to other people. And those people have a different story to tell. A story that directly contradicts your story....

Well actually there is a way to determine the bullshitters from the people who are speaking the truth. This is actually commented on in the New Testament.

Please, tell me this method...

But you do not HAVE to give credence to anybody else's experience.

Yes you do. If you want to be an honest and logical individual you have to. You have no way of determining the truth of someones experience, therefore, you can't possibly reject that experience. You can only take their word for it.

You are not required to believe anything at all.

true.

Nor am I required to automatically think somebody who has not experienced something is more credible than the person claiming the experience.

ok..

A dedicated, competent Bible study DOES help people distinguish between allegory, poetry, history, law, prophecy, wisdom literature, etc. in the Bible. Which is why some of us have spent some years in such dedicated study and why we can speak with at least some authority despite the fact that there is probably still more to learn than what we already know.

This is your exact reasoning written with the wholistic method.

"Dedicated and competent Bible study helps determine between poetry and history because some of us spent years in such a dedicated study."

This is called "begging the question", the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: rez There is another group of people that you forgot to mention. The people who bullshit that they experienced god, when they did not.

Probably, but I am in no position to judge that, nor are you. I am in a position to notice that there are those who think anything they cannot understand or anything they have not personally experienced is bullshit.

What is false about it?

It simply is not true that God communicates with us only through other humans. If that were so, then he couldn't communicate with anybody could he?

So you are suggesting that you have the mind of god? How else would you know what god is responible for and what god is not responsible for?

I didn't suggest that at all. I do speak from experience of God and what I know of God through that experience. I certainly do not know all that he knows or understand all that he knows. To take a line from "Good Will Hunting", the one thing of which I am certain is that there is a God, and I'm not Him.

So you may know this because god told you this, but god also talks to other people. And those people have a different story to tell. A story that directly contradicts your story....

Well at least you are finally admitting that God talks to people. I fully admit that everybody may not have the same experience or, even if they do, everybody may not understand or interpret the experience in the same way. This I also cannot know. Nor can you.

Please, tell me this method...

It is something John described as the Counselor who will come to lead us into all truth and also something the Apostle Paul described as 'discernment of the spirit.' It is something that must be experienced to be fully understood I think.

Yes you do. If you want to be an honest and logical individual you have to. You have no way of determining the truth of someones experience, therefore, you can't possibly reject that experience. You can only take their word for it.

I don't have to believe that the meth addict actually has the bugs crawling on him/her that s/he is experiencing and I don't have to believe that the alcoholic was terrified by a pink elephant. Both are absolute experiences that are interpreted incorrectly. I don't believe that God tells people to murder their children as a mentally ill prerson might claim. The reason I do not believe such experience is because of my own experience and the God I have experienced is a God of love and mercy, not one of delusion or hatred or murder.

Nevertheless, I have experienced God and therefore I do believe the millions of others who claim such experience.

This is your exact reasoning written with the wholistic method. "Dedicated and competent Bible study helps determine between poetry and history because some of us spent years in such a dedicated study." This is called "begging the question", the deduction contains a proposition that assumes the very thing the argument aims to prove

Perhaps it begs the question re the credentials of the many archeologists, geologists, anthropologists, linguist experts, historians, and theologians who have studied the texts exhaustively, have been peer reviewed in their research, and who have concluded certain facts re the content, intent, and background behind them. Did they err in some of their conclusions? Probably. Did they get a whole lot of it right? Also, with nothing to dispute their findings, probably.

In my way of thinking it is far more logical to at least consider the validity of their research and conclusions than it is for somebody to call it all bullshit just because s/he doesn't want to believe them.

[rez]

Quote by: Foxfyre Probably, but I am in no position to judge that, nor are you.

Therefore we must accept all the experiences! But is this what you really think? It seems as though you reveresed your thinking later in your post.

Quote by: Foxfyre I don't believe that God tells people to murder their children as a mentally ill prerson might claim. The reason I do not believe such experience is because of my own experience and the God I have experienced is a God of love and mercy, not one of delusion or hatred or murder.

So then Foxfyre, who are you to judge what god says and what god does not say?

It simply is not true that God communicates with us only through other humans. If that were so, then he couldn't communicate with anybody could he?

Uhhh...what? God communicates through individuals, in which those individuals tell other individuals what they heard and saw.

God does not communicate with every human being at the same exact time as if it were telling us what to do from a podium.

I do speak from experience of God and what I know of God through that experience. I certainly do not know all that he knows or understand all that he knows.

Correct. You only know what you saw and heard for the finite amount of time you were experiencing it. Perhaps if you spent a year with this god you would know more about it.

Well at least you are finally admitting that God talks to people.

People talk to people. You talk to yourself.

I fully admit that everybody may not have the same experience or, even if they do, everybody may not understand or interpret the experience in the same way. This I also cannot know. Nor can you.

Right, so then how do you know you are interpreting your experience in the correct way?

It is something John described as the Counselor who will come to lead us into all truth and also something the Apostle Paul described as 'discernment of the spirit.' It is something that must be experienced to be fully understood I think.

Thats what you may think, but perhaps you are not articulate enough. Maybe a priest could do a better job at explaining this. Or how about god itself?

I don't have to believe that the meth addict actually has the bugs crawling on him/her that s/he is experiencing

Of course you don't have to. But seeing how you expect me to take your word that you experienced god, you should also be willing to take everybody elses word too otherwise you would be a dishonest individual.

and I don't have to believe that the alcoholic was terrified by a pink elephant.

But since you are one to take peoples word for it, then maybe you should believe it?

Both are absolute experiences that are interpreted incorrectly.

I seem to be coming back to the question you have asked me..."Who are you to judge what is the correct interpretation and what is not. Do you poses the mind of god?

I don't believe that God tells people to murder their children as a mentally ill prerson might claim. The reason I do not believe such experience is because of my own experience and the God I have experienced is a God of love and mercy, not one of delusion or hatred or murder.

Perhaps you caught god on a good day? God has a reason for everything, so maybe the women who murdered her children was given an important reason from god.

Nevertheless, I have experienced God and therefore I do believe the millions of others who claim such experience.

Be careful buddy. How about you clarify what you mean by that.

"I have experienced god in a certain way, therefore, I believe the millions of others who claimed this certain experience too".

You certainly don't believe in the other experiences because they conflict with yours. Sure enough there are a million other experiences that totally conflict with your experience too.

So what is it going to take for you to be an honest individual and admit defeat in this debate? What is it going to take for you to figure out that god is not real and that it is your own personal desires that dictate who you are.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: rez Therefore we must accept all the experiences! But is this what you really think? It seems as though you reveresed your thinking later in your post.

I think I was pretty specific that I don't think we must accept all experiences. I accept what I accept however, as I am sure you do as well.

So then Foxfyre, who are you to judge what god says and what god does not say?

I do not EVER presume to judge what God says or what God does not say. Through quite some years of study and experience, however, I will presume to identify error in conclusions that do not compute with the facts as I understand them.

Uhhh...what? God communicates through individuals, in which those individuals tell other individuals what they heard and saw.

Yes He does. But you previously said that He communicates ONLY through individuals which is pretty silly when you think about it. Somebody has to receive the communication so He would be communicating with that person directly and not through somebody else.

God does not communicate with every human being at the same exact time as if it were telling us what to do from a podium.

No argument here about that.

Correct. You only know what you saw and heard for the finite amount of time you were experiencing it. Perhaps if you spent a year with this god you would know more about it.

And perhaps if you had spent the years with God that I have spent, you wouldn't presume to attempt to tell me what I have or have not experienced.

People talk to people. You talk to yourself.

That isn't what you said previously.

Right, so then how do you know you are interpreting your experience in the correct way?

Very often I don't. I have learned to trust it though and I try not to act against it as the results are generally quite unsatisfying if I do.

Thats what you may think, but perhaps you are not articulate enough. Maybe a priest could do a better job at explaining this. Or how about god itself?

Discernment of the spirit is a gift from God. The Counselor IS God. I subscribe to a belief in the priesthood of all believers in which each person has direct access to God.

Of course you don't have to. But seeing how you expect me to take your word that you experienced god, you should also be willing to take everybody elses word too otherwise you would be a dishonest individual

.

I don't believe I have EVER said I expected you to take my word that I have experienced God, so the only one being dishonest about that is you.

But since you are one to take peoples word for it, then maybe you should believe it?

If the pink elephant ever materialized except under the affects of drunkeness or D.T.s, I would believe it. Since it didn't, I think it is safe to disbelieve it.

I seem to be coming back to the question you have asked me..."Who are you to judge what is the correct interpretation and what is not. Do you poses the mind of god?

I've answered this absurd question so many times it is becoming quite tedious and monotonous, so I'll just refer you to my previous answers which have not changed.

Perhaps you caught god on a good day? God has a reason for everything, so maybe the women who murdered her children was given an important reason from god.

You might wish to believe that. I don't.

Be careful buddy. How about you clarify what you mean by that.

Again I have 'clarified' it ad nauseum throughout this thread. I will refer you to my previous answers.

"I have experienced god in a certain way, therefore, I believe the millions of others who claimed this certain experience too". You certainly don't believe in the other experiences because they conflict with yours. Sure enough there are a million other experiences that totally conflict with your experience too.

I believe in what is believable to me. Nothing more. Nothing less.

I have experienced God in a way that makes it quite credible to believe others who report experience with God. And then there's always that 'discernment of the spirit' thing to fall back on too.

So what is it going to take for you to be an honest individual and admit defeat in this debate? What is it going to take for you to figure out that god is not real and that it is your own personal desires that dictate who you are

I have been 100% honest with you. I wonder what it would take for you to risk experiencing God so that you would not have this obvious and most unattractive compulsion to attempt to destroy the faith of others?

[jazz fork Gun]

Quote by: rez If I must give credence to your experience then I must give credence to everybody else's experience. Don't you understand the very essence of this logic? Don't you understand that I only can go by your word and nothing else? Don't you understand that there is no way to determine the bullshitters from the people who are speaking the truth?

Maybe it's my naïveté, but I don't see any reason for "normal" people [that is, people who are not in positions of power, etc] to bullshit you on their experience. I don't see why one such person would try so hard to win you to a cause they don't fully believe in.

Quote by: rez Of course you don't have to. But seeing how you expect me to take your word that you experienced god, you should also be willing to take everybody elses word too otherwise you would be a dishonest individual.

Don't forget hypocritical. But that is a little harsh, now isn't it ><;;

What is it going to take for you to figure out that god is not real and that it is your own personal desires that dictate who you are.

That was harsh too >> Why are you SO stubborn against Fox's point of view. You are so determined to prove Fox wrong. It seems you would be glad if Fox would see things your way for a little while, but why can't you see things Fox's way? I think that's a little hypocritical, too.

Quote by: Foxfyre Discernment of the spirit is a gift from God. The Counselor IS God. I subscribe to a belief in the priesthood of all believers in which each person has direct access to God.

The Bible also says that the Devil plants people in your life to lure you away from God. You have to be really careful about your "discernment".

If the pink elephant ever materialized except under the affects of drunkeness or D.T.s, I would believe it. Since it didn't, I think it is safe to disbelieve it.

Hmm, I'm sorry but I think that many of the things that are "Godly experiences" never materialised either. If you felt God's presence or heard his voice, is it really that different from what drunkards would feel or hear? Sorry, but did Jeanne d'Arc hear God or was she mental?

I have experienced God in a way that makes it quite credible to believe others who report experience with God. And then there's always that 'discernment of the spirit' thing to fall back on too.

Again, Jeanne d'Arc. The people who led the Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. You think *these people's* reports of experience with God are credible?


That's all for now, though it seems I just attempted to destroy parts of both of your arguments and didn't show a side of my own.... oops =P

[rez]

Quote by: Foxfyre I think I was pretty specific that I don't think we must accept all experiences.

You have no way of determining which is a real experience and what is a fake experience. The evidence to support one experience is good to support other experiences that you don't agree with. Either accept all experiences or reject all experiences. I personally reject all experiences, and you seem to reject some in favor of a certain few that line up with your personal desires that have nothing to do with god.

I do not EVER presume to judge what God says or what God does not say. Through quite some years of study and experience, however, I will presume to identify error in conclusions that do not compute with the facts as I understand them.

If this was the actual case, then yes. However, this is not what you feel.

You seem to do know what god says and what god does not say. Direct quote from you....

Quote by: Foxfyre I don't believe that God tells people to murder their children as a mentally ill prerson might claim.

.

I don't believe I have EVER said I expected you to take my word that I have experienced God, so the only one being dishonest about that is you.

What else am I suppose to do but take the word of ever theist on this planet?

If the pink elephant ever materialized except under the affects of drunkeness or D.T.s, I would believe it. Since it didn't, I think it is safe to disbelieve it.

This totally contradicts everything you have ever said on this message board. Not only does this quote support everything any atheist has ever said in these threads, but it shows your inability to understand many arguments that atheists use.

Since god has never materialized I think it is safe to disbelieve. Since god seems to be only capable of going through one individual out of the billion humans on the planet and I have to take their word for it, then it is save to disbelieve in that individual.



I've answered this absurd question so many times it is becoming quite tedious and monotonous, so I'll just refer you to my previous answers which have not changed.

I have been 100% honest with you.

Your ability to disbelieve in certain beings because they do not line up with your own personal desires is not honest. You have no proof for your selective disbelief just like the others who disbelieve in your faith have no proof. The only honest position to take is to either accept all supernatural claims or reject all supernatural claims.

I wonder what it would take for you to risk experiencing God so that you would not have this obvious and most unattractive compulsion to attempt to destroy the faith of others?

It is attempt to make dishonest people become honest. Either reject all supernatural claims or accept them all. One supernatural claim is no better then another supernatural claim. One supernatural claim has no more proof then another supernatural claim. Failure to see this logic tells me a lot of things about you and millions of other theists in this world.

[rez]

Quote by: jazz fork Gun Maybe it's my naïveté, but I don't see any reason for "normal" people [that is, people who are not in positions of power, etc] to bullshit you on their experience. I don't see why one such person would try so hard to win you to a cause they don't fully believe in.

I always thought that it is how most religions start? Some insignificant person claims miraculous experiences and everybody believes them. Look at Joseph Smith for christ sakes. Nobody ever saw god come to him, nobody ever saw him dig up the golden tablets, nobody ever saw him transcribe them.

This is about gullible people and their irresponsible behavior.

That was harsh too >> Why are you SO stubborn against Fox's point of view. You are so determined to prove Fox wrong. It seems you would be glad if Fox would see things your way for a little while, but why can't you see things Fox's way? I think that's a little hypocritical, too.

Foxfyre's way of seeing things is rather simple.

He was most likely born in America where he was taught religion at a very early age. As he grew up he started formulating his own opinions and desires and started interpreting the Bible. The religion that he chooses was based on location and the religion taught to him at a early age. It is equivalent to me being born in America and my parents giving me Budweiser and a very young age and them telling me Budweiser is the one true beer and nothing else.

Hmm, I'm sorry but I think that many of the things that are "Godly experiences" never materialised either. If you felt God's presence or heard his voice, is it really that different from what drunkards would feel or hear? Sorry, but did Jeanne d'Arc hear God or was she mental?

Wow. Holy Shit. is it really hard to read what Foxfyre said and then come up with the reasoning you supplied here in this quote? I could put the dialog on a Highschool SAT exam in the easy section and most average people would get it. It astonishes me that Foxfyre would even think that was a decent rebuttal. It is almost like he is completely oblivious to any atheist argument.

That's all for now, though it seems I just attempted to destroy parts of both of your arguments and didn't show a side of my own.... oops =P

You told me that I was being mean and stubborn and you told Foxfyre that his argument was illogical and just plain backwards.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: rez I always thought that it is how most religions start? Some insignificant person claims miraculous experiences and everybody believes them. Look at Joseph Smith for christ sakes. Nobody ever saw god come to him, nobody ever saw him dig up the golden tablets, nobody ever saw him transcribe them. This is about gullible people and their irresponsible behavior. Foxfyre's way of seeing things is rather simple. He was most likely born in America where he was taught religion at a very early age. As he grew up he started formulating his own opinions and desires and started interpreting the Bible. The religion that he chooses was based on location and the religion taught to him at a early age. It is equivalent to me being born in America and my parents giving me Budweiser and a very young age and them telling me Budweiser is the one true beer and nothing else. Wow. Holy Shit. is it really hard to read what Foxfyre said and then come up with the reasoning you supplied here in this quote? I could put the dialog on a Highschool SAT exam in the easy section and most average people would get it. It astonishes me that Foxfyre would even think that was a decent rebuttal. It is almost like he is completely oblivious to any atheist argument. You told me that I was being mean and stubborn and you told Foxfyre that his argument was illogical and just plain backwards.

You presume a great deal for somebody who, at least as indicated by this discussion so far, knows almost nothing about what s/he speaks. I actually believe very little of what I was taught of religion as a child, and you have no clue as to how I have arrived at what I now believe while you would presume to suggest that I am delusional or brainwashed or fanatical or irrational. And you suggest this even while all this time you have not made any argument to support your position that does not evolve from what very much appears to be a deeply imbedded prejudice re anything supernatural or religious. You attack very cleverly. You would fail any debate you entered, however, because so far you have failed to support any contention you have made.

[jazz fork Gun]

Quote by: rez I always thought that it is how most religions start? Some insignificant person claims miraculous experiences and everybody believes them. Look at Joseph Smith for christ sakes. Nobody ever saw god come to him, nobody ever saw him dig up the golden tablets, nobody ever saw him transcribe them.

But I wasn't talking about *starting* religions. I'm saying: Why would a normal person try to persuade you to any already-established form of Christianity in this day and age if they didn't truly feel it? Not about the Men who wrote the Bible, not about the crazies who bring lots and lots to their side -- but why would I, a seemingly normal person, try so hard to get you to see my p.o.v. if I knew it was wrong? That was my point.

Quote by: rez He was most likely born in America where he was taught religion at a very early age. As he grew up he started formulating his own opinions and desires and started interpreting the Bible. The religion that he chooses was based on location and the religion taught to him at a early age. It is equivalent to me being born in America and my parents giving me Budweiser and a very young age and them telling me Budweiser is the one true beer and nothing else.

Possible, but there are other ways to come to God. I'm afraid I rather fit your discription ...Since I was little, I've been going to church and Sunday School, of which my Mum was the teacher. Still is, and she *hates* that I don't like to go any more. But don't you realise that if you were to go out drinking one night, got a little drunk, make that very, and couldn't even remember to mention Budweiser. You'd soon be drinking lots of other beers and forming your own opinions. Just because we as children are spoonfed the religion of our parents doesn't mean we're stuck with it for life.[/quote]

Quote by: rez Wow. Holy Shit. is it really hard to read what Foxfyre said and then come up with the reasoning you supplied here in this quote? I could put the dialog on a Highschool SAT exam in the easy section and most average people would get it. It astonishes me that Foxfyre would even think that was a decent rebuttal. It is almost like he is completely oblivious to any atheist argument.

*Feels stupid ><;;* I can't tell if you're dissing me, or Fox, or both...

Quote by: rez You told me that I was being mean and stubborn and you told Foxfyre that his argument was illogical and just plain backwards.

Well I'm very sorry if I came off as mean.

Quote by: Foxfyre You presume a great deal for somebody who, at least as indicated by this discussion so far, knows almost nothing about what s/he speaks. I actually believe very little of what I was taught of religion as a child, and you have no clue as to how I have arrived at what I now believe while you would presume to suggest that I am delusional or brainwashed or fanatical or irrational.

S/He's got a good point: in anonymous debate, you need to be careful of assuming too much.

Quote by: Foxfyre And you suggest this even while all this time you have not made any argument to support your position that does not evolve from what very much appears to be a deeply imbedded prejudice re anything supernatural or religious. You attack very cleverly. You would fail any debate you entered, however, because so far you have failed to support any contention you have made.

Sorry, but I don't think you've supported very well either. I think there's no real "evidence" either way, so it all boils down to personal experience. Rez's personal experiences are just as important and meaningful as yours, keep that in mind.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: jazz fork Gun Sorry, but I don't think you've supported very well either. I think there's no real "evidence" either way, so it all boils down to personal experience. Rez's personal experiences are just as important and meaningful as yours, keep that in mind.

My contention has consistently been that there is no way that I or anybody else can prove the existence or non existence of God to another. My entire argument re 'proof' of the existence of God is based on my own experience and, based on that experience, and with confirmation by the testimony of hundreds of millions of others, I have concluded that the only way anyone can know God is through personal experience. I also believe that anyone can have that experience who wants it.

As for Bible interpretation, religious history, comparative religions, and development of Christian thought, I have been blessed with the opportunity to study with some of the best over a period spanning more than three decades now, plus one of my avocations puts me squarely into that realm which requires continued study.

My quarrel with Rez is that Rez presumes to attempt to tell me what I have or have not experienced. I have not done that to Rez.

Now perhaps you can suggest some method by which I can support my take on it better?

[jazz fork Gun]

I was simply reminding you that it is all about personal experience. Until you can sail up into Heaven and get some hard evidence, there's no way either of you can be proved right. Rez may presume to tell you what you have or have not experienced, but some of your former statements have said similar things. So I repeat my questions:

If you felt God's presence or heard his voice, is it really that different from what drunkards would feel or hear? Sorry, but did Jeanne d'Arc hear God or was she mental?

[jazz fork Gun]

p.s. -- I'm not calling YOU mental >>