Receiving Messages....

[cvanwey]

It's hard to describe. That's not a great answer, but I don't know how else to answer. I'm not one of those Christians who believes that Satan can get into the prayer a believer is having with God in the first place, I see it as protected and sacred. The key is knowing when its your mind versus actually God. Sometimes that can be confusing and it should always be questioned and weighed against scripture.

Speaking of scripture... Are you then saying there is no discernible way to differentiate self thought, verses God given thought? If this is the self reconcilable case, how are you so sure that the Bible was actually words given by God????

 

[Moral Orel]

However, I find it very curious that if you were legitimately haunted by demons, or what-have-you, for roughly twelve full months to boot, why would you not seek help and also get it repeatedly documented from unbiased locations? Seems like the logical next step.

Nonsense. If you feel like you're being spiritually attacked, "the logical next step" isn't to document it. It's to stop it. People who might know how to stop a spiritual attack aren't going to be "unbiased", they're going to be fellow believers. In fact, it would be illogical to spend time and resources trying to document it before trying to simply alleviate it.

Furthermore, even if it was all in her head, it was clearly emotionally taxing, so expecting someone to act logically in such an emotional state is, in itself, illogical.

 

[cvanwey]

Nonsense. If you feel like you're being spiritually attacked, "the logical next step" isn't to document it. It's to stop it. People who might know how to stop a spiritual attack aren't going to be "unbiased", they're going to be fellow believers. In fact, it would be illogical to spend time and resources trying to document it before trying to simply alleviate it.

Furthermore, even if it was all in her head, it was clearly emotionally taxing, so expecting someone to act logically in such an emotional state is, in itself, illogical.

I think you have missed my point

If she was tormented for 12 months, she would have time to collect her thoughts, as I would assume the torment was not constant, for 12 months straight, 24/7 In such time, seems as though she would seek help, gather attempted protection, and maybe even request investigation into the matter. I myself would want to rule out self manifestation; especially since all such reported torment appeared to happen alone.

 

[cvanwey]

The intent of this thread is quite simple. Some on here, assert without proper justification. If you are going to make a claim for the supernatural, be prepared to justify it. If you choose not to, of course this is a free country. But expect such assertions to fall upon deaf ears. Which begs the question... Why bother...? If your assertions cannot be justified, it is absolutely no different than me going onto a Muslim based forum arena and listening to their assertions for truth.

Thanks

 

[Moral Orel]

I think you have missed my point

If she was tormented for 12 months, she would have time to collect her thoughts, as I would assume the torment was not constant, for 12 months straight, 24/7 In such time, seems as though she would seek help, gather attempted protection, and maybe even request investigation into the matter. I myself would want to rule out self manifestation; especially since all such reported torment appeared to happen alone.

No, I'm not. You're talking like an "armchair quarterback". Saying things to the effect of, "If I was in that extremely emotionally charged situation, I would have acted in an entirely logical manner based on the things I believe". That's nonsense. Most people don't act in a logical manner in emotional situations. Plenty of rape victims never report their attackers for a multitude of reasons long after they've had time to "collect their thoughts".

What conclusion do you think we should draw from the fact that she didn't act in the same manner that hypothetical you would have acted? I would say none. I certainly don't see any reason to believe the story either, but you seem to think we can take it a step further beyond "no reason to believe" all the way into the realm of "reason to disbelieve".

 

[cvanwey]

No, I'm not. You're talking like an "armchair quarterback". Saying things to the effect of, "If I was in that extremely emotionally charged situation, I would have acted in an entirely logical manner based on the things I believe". That's nonsense. Most people don't act in a logical manner in emotional situations. Plenty of rape victims never report their attackers for a multitude of reasons long after they've had time to "collect their thoughts".

What conclusion do you think we should draw from the fact that she didn't act in the same manner that hypothetical you would have acted? I would say none. I certainly don't see any reason to believe the story either, but you seem to think we can take it a step further beyond "no reason to believe" all the way into the realm of "reason to not believe".

Well, she did report it later. But thanks for the false equivalency.

Rather than argue over semantics, lets hear why (you) don't buy her story?.?.?.? Where-as, you may buy her story, if she later reported rape, years later? Maybe that would be more relevant and befitting

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, she did report it later. But thanks for the false equivalency.

Rather than argue over semantics, lets hear why (you) don't buy here story?.?.?.? Where-as, you may buy her story, if she later reported rape, years later? Maybe that would be more relevant and befitting

I did just edit my post to change "not believe" to "disbelieve". If you still feel that's merely a semantic distinction now, that deserves a discussion.

As for a false equivalency, please tell me how that isn't a valid analogy. Because she eventually told someone about it long after it could be evidenced to have actually occurred? Still seems pretty apt to me.

You're missing the point. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad they're pretty common, to not act in the way you imagine that you would have acted. Your hypothetical "Well I would haves..." are worthless.

See, there are some Christians who want to debate and argue, and there are some who just want to offer testimony and that's as far as they want to go. For the latter, trying to prove they're wrong or lying is not just impossible, it's needlessly antagonistic. It's a bad tactic. You should, as you put it, let if "fall on deaf ears" and simply say, "I have no reason to believe you" and leave it at that. You're not going to discredit a testimony through "logic" like this.

 

[cvanwey]

I did just edit my post to change "not believe" to "disbelieve". If you still feel that's merely a semantic distinction now, that deserves a discussion.

As for a false equivalency, please tell me how that isn't a valid analogy. Because she eventually told someone about it long after it could be evidenced to have actually occurred? Still seems pretty apt to me.

You're missing the point. There are plenty of reasons, good or bad they're pretty common, to not act in the way you imagine that you would have acted. Your hypothetical "Well I would haves..." are worthless.

See, there are some Christians who want to debate and argue, and there are some who just want to offer testimony and that's as far as they want to go. For the latter, trying to prove they're wrong or lying is not just impossible, it's needlessly antagonistic. It's a bad tactic. You should, as you put it, let if "fall on deaf ears" and simply say, "I have no reason to believe you" and leave it at that. You're not going to discredit a testimony through "logic" like this.

She is a big girl. I felt she handled herself quite well. And I'm sure she does not need you to come to her defense I said nothing to insult her. She has free reign to respond/not respond/other. Furthermore, she herself indicated she takes no stake in whether I believe her or not... I was just curious and wanted more information, which led to further exploration. Did I probe for justifications? Yes. Why is this so offensive to you? Are you related to her? Is she your friend? Did she come to you for counseling? If so, okay. Otherwise, you are investing a lot of energy into something, when you could instead be addressing the fundamental points of the OP.

I'm not sure, out of everything in this thread being discuss, why you are harping on such minutiae?

So I stand by my prior questions of importance... Why do (you) 'disbelieve' her? And why might you be more highly apt to believe her 'reports' of 'rape', from years past?.?.?.?

 

[Moral Orel]

She is a big girl. I felt she handled herself quite well. And I'm sure she does not need you to come to her defense I said nothing to insult her. She has free reign to respond/not respond/other. Furthermore, she herself indicated she takes no stake in whether I believe her or not... I was just curious and wanted more information, which led to further exploration. Did I probe for justifications? Yes. Why is this so offensive to you? Are you related to her? Is she your friend? Did she come to you for counseling? If so, okay. Otherwise, you are investing a lot of energy into something, when you could instead be addressing the fundamental points of the OP.

I'm not sure, out of everything in this thread being discuss, why you are harping on such minutiae?

A lot of energy? lol I probably spent a collective 10 minutes (including this post) responding to your arguments. I picked a fight with you because you seem to enjoy a fight, but now you're running away already. You trying to make this all about me and my motivations instead of justifying your arguments is an admission of defeat on your part. This is a debate forum, and there's no rules about unbelievers arguing amongst ourselves as there are for Christians. Do you only want to debate them because you feel like it's easy pickings?

So I stand by my prior questions of importance... Why do (you) 'disbelieve' her? And why might you be more highly apt to believe her 'reports' of 'rape', from years past?.?.?.?

I don't believe her because I have no reason to. I don't believe it didn't happen though either. There isn't enough evidence from some random, anonymous, stranger on the internet to make a judgement either way. And your second question is just too strange to answer. I don't get where you're coming from. I didn't call her attack a "rape", I simply made an analogy. And I never gave any indication about what it would take to believe it happened the way she described. So I guess the best answer I could give to such a bizarre, misleading question is, "I wouldn't".

 

[cvanwey]

I picked a fight with you because you seem to enjoy a fight, but now you're running away already. You trying to make this all about me and my motivations instead of justifying your arguments is an admission of defeat on your part. This is a debate forum, and there's no rules about unbelievers arguing amongst ourselves as there are for Christians. Do you only want to debate them because you feel like it's easy pickings?

You are picking a 'fight' with me? Awesome! What do you want to 'fight' about first? In case you are late to the party, I respond to any and all replies here. So I'm not sure what you are talking about?

I did not respond more-so to her because I felt she was 'easy'. I did so because she actually engaged in the discussion. If that's what YOU think of her responses, that she was 'too easy', that's YOUR dealio. I was genuinely wanting to explore her reasons and rationale, regarding her testimonial.

I don't believe her because I have no reason to. I don't believe it didn't happen though either. There isn't enough evidence from some random, anonymous, stranger on the internet to make a judgement either way. And your second question is just too strange to answer. I don't get where you're coming from. I didn't call her attack a "rape", I simply made an analogy. And I never gave any indication about what it would take to believe it happened the way she described. So I guess the best answer I could give to such a bizarre, misleading question is, "I wouldn't".

I was speaking about why you would be more inclined to believe a claim of rape over contact from beyond

So pick your fight. I'm ready when you are

 

[Moral Orel]

You are picking a 'fight' with me? Awesome! What do you want to 'fight' about first? In case you are late to the party, I respond to any and all replies here. So I'm not sure what you are talking about?

The question I already asked and you haven't answered. What conclusion should we draw from the fact that she didn't respond to her situation in the same way that hypothetical you would have? I say none, which would make the whole, "It's only logical to do this" completely invalid. What was your point in following that line?

 

[“Paisios”]

I truly appreciate your honesty! Would you mind exploring a bit further?

1. What is (your) definition of 'faith'? You do understand faith can 'work' or be used for any belief or trust mechanism right? I could 'take it on faith' that I know my house is haunted, right? But without proper investigation and evidence, is such 'faith' truly justified?

2. What's more likely, that God somehow chooses to remain mostly hidden, for many to doubt or deny His existence, to instead allow millions of debates for thousands of years; and He is only contacting specific and single individuals, at random points in time, and giving them information that is less than convincing to others whom question? (OR), people are instead manifesting their own thoughts as 'messages from the beyond'???? Seems odd that after thousands of years, and after millions of debates, we still have not at least established whether or not that not only does God truly exist, but which god? Wouldn't you agree?

3. Okay, so you did not read the Bible, but you were definitely indoctrinated early, like me Meaning, you were brought up in it, like me. Isn't it quite possible you are hyper vigilant, predetermined, or predisposed to the a priori of your indoctrinated beliefs being true?

1. I see faith to be a reasonable answer to the question asked, considering all the evidence and experiences, while recognizing that it falls far short of definitive. I recognize that there is a preconceived worldview that colors this, but that it still makes sense (at least to me)...sorry, probably not a great answer but I am tired after a long day of work during flu season, so not thinking at my best.

2. I don’t presume to know the mind of God, but see that there are many, many individuals who have experienced His Presence to greater or lesser degrees, and in many cases these experiences are radically life changing. Not solid evidence, I will admit. I think though the fact of God’s existence has been established, though not in ways that might be satisfying to some. Scientific and empirical is not the only form of evidence, even if the most widely and best known in the Western world.

3. I have already conceded this point, fully admitting that I could simply be deceiving myself. (But if so, the illusion still has value in its comfort for me, and even if false, has made me a better person).

...I am not a particularly worthy opponent for you to debate, I fear...

 

[disciple Clint]

Then isn't it quite possible that you are accepting the hits, and ignoring the misses? If not, please explain why?

I have never had any experience like those experiences they were very different from just having an idea pop into your head. There was an absolute certainty and peace about them that I have never experience in anything else. hard to explain but I tend to be very skeptical, if I see something or hear something or someone tells me something I am immediately working to verify it in my mind (occupational habit). There was absolute no doubt about this message from God.

 

[cvanwey]

The question I already asked and you haven't answered. What conclusion should we draw from the fact that she didn't respond to her situation in the same way that hypothetical you would have? I say none, which would make the whole, "It's only logical to do this" completely invalid. What was your point in following that line?

Believe it or not, I can see your point. But, and this is a HUGE BUT, I have found, through the decades of me inquiring in such anecdotal responses, that when 'the rubber meets the road' so to speak, and one is pressed for their evidence of their bold assertions and claims, it seems to always be lacking severely. You don't find that suspect?

Can we please get back on track now? Do you have anything at all to add, regarding the OP?

 

[cvanwey]

1. I see faith to be a reasonable answer to the question asked, considering all the evidence and experiences, while recognizing that it falls far short of definitive. I recognize that there is a preconceived worldview that colors this, but that it still makes sense (at least to me)...sorry, probably not a great answer but I am tired after a long day of work during flu season, so not thinking at my best.

No worries. I fully understand the word 'faith' means many things to many people. I just wanted to get your barometer reading of the term. But at the end of the day, I cannot help but to provide a quote or two:

'Where there is evidence, no one speaks of faith. We only speak of faith when we wish to substitute emotion for evidence.' - Bertrand Russell

Also

'When it comes to the shape of the earth, or two plus two equals four, no one speaks of faith in these terms.' - Paraphrased again from the same author

I think though the fact of God’s existence has been established, though not in ways that might be satisfying to some. Scientific and empirical is not the only form of evidence, even if the most widely and best known in the Western world.

How has God's existence been established?

And if so, this also means that I'm either in the dark completely, uneducated, or in denial. So which one is it?

3. I have already conceded this point, fully admitting that I could simply be deceiving myself. (But if so, the illusion still has value in its comfort for me, and even if false, has made me a better person).

That's great. But do you actually care if it's true? Many things make me feel good, or may even make my outlook on life better. But it would matter more to know if it were true, verses to deceive myself.

...I am not a particularly worthy opponent for you to debate, I fear...

You are doing just fine!

 

[cvanwey]

I have never had any experience like those experiences they were very different from just having an idea pop into your head. There was an absolute certainty and peace about them that I have never experience in anything else. hard to explain but I tend to be very skeptical, if I see something or hear something or someone tells me something I am immediately working to verify it in my mind (occupational habit). There was absolute no doubt about this message from God.

What was your verification method exactly?

 

[Moral Orel]

Believe it or not, I can see your point. But, and this is a HUGE BUT, I have found, through the decades of me inquiring in such anecdotal responses, that when 'the rubber meets the road' so to speak, and one is pressed for their evidence of their bold assertions and claims, it seems to always be lacking severely. You don't find that suspect?

Not really. I'm not going to believe testimony without the evidence either. But most testimony is about one-off, very personal experiences. I wouldn't expect them to go running to a skeptic about it so that you could have unbiased documentation. Especially in this case, I find your idea of a "logical" response downright silly. Absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence, and all that.

Can we please get back on track now? Do you have anything at all to add, regarding the OP?

Believe it or not, I agree with your premise. Someone else had a thread a long while back called "Are you smarter than the Devil?". I think you can make the case that if someone truly had a supernatural experience, us lowly humans have no chance of discerning the source of that experience since all these beings are claimed to be so much more powerful than us. What you can't do, and what I was getting at with my responses, is discern whether someone else's experience was true or not through "logic". Claims of supernatural experiences are unfalsifiable.

 

[cvanwey]

Especially in this case, I find your idea of a "logical" response downright silly. Absence of evidence doesn't equal evidence of absence, and all that.

Well, if I was tormented for a year, it appears logical to (me), to seek assistance at some point. Maybe not to her, or some others. I get that

When someone is raped, they may feel shame, guilt, embarrassment, fear of retaliation, or even responsibility. Hence many of the times as to why they never report it.

In regards to an entity tormenting someone, if the tormentor told the recipient not to tell anyone or they would harm them, I could see their point. But she never stated as such. And she later told. So I would assume this was not the case.

So yea, to (me) I find it illogical. You don't. Fine. Now what? (rhetorical)

Believe it or not, I agree with your premise. Someone else had a thread a long while back called "Are you smarter than the Devil?". I think you can make the case that if someone truly had a supernatural experience, us lowly humans have no chance of discerning the source of that experience since all these beings are claimed to be so much more powerful than us. What you can't do, and what I was getting at with my responses, is discern whether someone else's experience was true or not through "logic". Claims of supernatural experiences are unfalsifiable.

Kool. So I guess we are done in this thread. Thank you

 

[Moral Orel]

Well, if I was tormented for a year, it appears logical to (me), to seek assistance at some point. Maybe not to her, or some others. I get that

When someone is raped, they may feel shame, guilt, embarrassment, fear of retaliation, or even responsibility. Hence many of the times as to why they never report it.

In regards to an entity tormenting someone, if the tormentor told the recipient not to tell anyone or they would harm them, I could see their point. But she never stated as such. And she later told. So I would assume this was not the case.

So yea, to (me) I find it illogical. You don't. Fine. Now what? (rhetorical)

What? It's your opinion that it's logical? That's not how logic works. If what you meant to say was "I think you should have done yada yada" then you should have said that because that has nothing to do with logic. You basically told her, "It's logical to want what I would want and illogical for you to want what you want". You see how that doesn't work, right?

I never said it was illogical to seek help. I said it would be counterproductive to prioritize documenting an experience by an unbiased source over seeking help. And I said it is illogical to expect highly emotionally charged people to act rationally. You see how that's different from what you are trying to argue against, right?

 

[disciple Clint]

What was your verification method exactly?

I told people what God had told me at the time He told me. The verification is that these things came to pass just as He said they would. If I had not had absolute confidence in what God told me I would have never revealed it to people prior to it materializing