by Brummie 24 Replies latest members adult
One more thing: if something is supposedly not open to debate or questioning for religous reasons, well, how different is that than the JWs closing their minds to inquirey or anything that might upset their religous worldview? Don't take these comments as an attack, but simply how my mind reacts to this issue.
Bradley
Rarrwwrrre!
LOL....Sounds about rightish though! BTW Six, I agree with you, being a nut is totally under rated.
JT, Francios & Logan, your comments are very interesting to read. JT & Francios, I havent quite grasped what your saying totally because I feel my internal experience was due to external help. Internally It was like another pair of eyes opened within my physical eyes so I could see who Christ was, an instant understanding or recognition. Trying to explain it is impossible!
BTW This didnt make me a highly religious person, but a believer none the less.
Logun
if something is supposedly not open to debate or questioning for religous reasons, how different is that than the JWs closing their minds to inquirey or anything that might upset their religous worldview?
I agree with a lot of what you have said and I am open to inquirey and interested in any other explanation, comment, suggestion etc
Thanks
Brummie
Brummie,
Your honesty and courage in talking about this subject is truly amazing and admirable. I don't think I've ever met anyone who is a Christian and who is as open to question as yourself. Let me think about this a little, but till then, here's my take on possible "mystical" experiences (I'm still waiting Francois reply! Hope I didn't offend him):
Person A has mystical experience and that prompts her/him to conclude X about God/religion.
Person B has mystical experience and that prompts her/him to conclude Y about God/religion.
Both cannot be correct. I see four possibilities:
1) Person A is correct in his assesment of his/her mystical experience and person B has misinterpreted her/his experience.
2) Person B is correct in his assesment of his/her mystical experience and person A has misinterpreted his/her experience.
3) Both have had a truly mystical experience (ie: truly supernatural) and both have misinterpreted this experience (correct meaning being Z).
4) Both have had what they think is a mystical experience but, truly, nothing supernatural has happened. Due to psychological and biological pressures they have induced a mystical experience which they then interpret in whatever way they hope/believe. People have strange experiences smoking mushrooms or trying LSD, why can't this be done with hours of meditation? (Hint: it can)
Again, I'm not taking a side in any of the scenarios above, although I favor possibilities 3 and 4. I really hope some other people read this, because it did take some thought .
All best,
Bradley
Logans
3) Both have had a truly mystical experience (ie: truly supernatural) and both have misinterpreted this experience (correct meaning being Z).
I can see what you mean with this one, and it is a possibility. Apart from christians who have had a similar experience to me I have never met anyone from another religion who has shared the same experience as I. That doesnt mean they do not exist, I just havent met them. If there was someone from another faith who had exactly the same experience (came to know a person but not under a trance like state or LSD) as I, then I would reconsider the authenticity of everything I have shared.
BTW thanks for taking the time to respond.
Brummie
Brummie... Wow. I appreciate your post. 20 years + for me, and I'm more convicted, more glad, more content, more connected than at the beginning. Jesus is alive and I am aware of his love everyday. I have to repeat your words, that if I didn't admit to this, I'd be lying to myself (and others). I appreciate that you are such a genuine person--even in sharing this. You're a cool kitty.
Christians are all unique, and still we share so much. (BTW, you can call yourself a Christian if you follow Christ if you acknowledge that he is Lord, and that he is your savior. You don't need to belong to a church or affiliate with a group, but it's nice to do. ...I'm sure you know this already )
Logan, I like your posts and I like your personality.
Someone recently quoted the dictionary that "truth" meant something verifiable. Evaluating spiritual experiences as the basis for determining a religious truth doesn't cut the mustard. God, as I believe he exists, realizes that we need something verifiable. Therefore, the truth for Christianity is not found in an individual or group's experiences (though that should surely factor in in some way). Nor in "moral behavior contests" among different sets of religious believers, though really, that also should reveal something as well. The foundation is in what can be verified. I have written it before, and remind folks again, that Christianity is not a religion that is founded on "being goodniks", but on the historical life, the historical death, and historical resurrection of Jesus. If Jesus was not historical, Christianity is false. If Jesus did not historically die on the cross and then rise bodily from the dead, then Christianity is false. Christmas and Easter are where it all hangs. (Days JWs won't celebrate... how odd...)
How does one verify whether these events happened in history? It's a looooooong process... but worthwhile.
bebu
