why would you not believe that god could be a
man. why would some gaseous blob decide to create such marvelous creatures just for the sake that they worship this blob with out any
passions or reason for existence. how could someone believe in a god that was something that you could not become yourself, god is a man. he once lived like we do know. if we live right we can live as he does know. that is our porpouse to inherit the universe. why do people have such low self esteem to think that this is above them. we know that the human mind has remarkable capabilities and if
given the proper body could do literally any thing. god is not something so foriegn to us, he is literaly our father. he has a body, and passions. his body has been made perfect and he is perfect

SEE!!!!! What did I tell you people???? Told ya so, told ya so. You'll be hearing a lot more of this in the near future, from our alien friends and our new age buddies. Boy are they in for a HUGE disappointment!

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

jerry seinfeld,

I'm happy to tell you that you are way off base. God cannot, in any way, be quantified down to the likes of a man. Neither could a man ever be God. Are you a mormon?

Peace, Love, and Prayers
ISDAMan

------------------
Feel free to contact me privately at isda@gte.net . I'm a Christian Web Developer. I run Apostle Creed Online (http://welcome.to/apostlecreed).

Jerry.... I would say you're almost as funny as your namesake, but he's not that funny to begin with.

Actually, in order to avoid assuming anything about the construction of your faith, I would wonder which philosophy you follow; or, of the more common philosophical foundations, which one you last followed. Having left Christianity behind, I still walk ground familiar to other Christians when considering God. Having never been Moslem, Hindu, or Buddhist, I cannot necessarily see through the veneer of faith that glosses the philosophies.

If we're speaking of the the Christian version of god, then I haven't a clue where you're coming from. However, some of your statements are fast-food for thought: "Why do people have such low self-esteem to think that this is above them?" Well, it's the nature of religion. Anselm, at one point, argued that since humanity is "imperfect" there must be a source of "perfection", and that source of perfection can only be the Christian God. The counterpoint question I would raise is: "Why do people have such low self-esteem that they need to imagine this omniscient, interactive God-form to be alternately a cheerleader and the hand that spanks?"

You wrote that our purpose is to inherit the universe; technically, that is the purpose of all lifeforms in the universe.

"If given the proper body [the mind] could do literally anything." So God designed humanity with an intentional shortfall? What, then, was the purpose of human creation, aside from dominion and egotism?

I'll leave the gaseous blob part alone--it speaks...rather, chokes...for itself.

"His body has been made perfect and he is perfect." Or, so you wrote. This I can agree with, but it requires a restatement of interpretation that I've posted before: If "God" is a word which describes all creation, that includes the universe in which we live. We are products of the universe, and therefore are made in its image. Humanity is crafted to a universal standard that allows life to adapt to its surroundings; nature is not extraneous. Therefore, we are optimized for the conditions which spawned our creation, literally made in the image of the universe around us. So that god-body I can believe is perfect.

thx,
Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

Jerry,

" if we live right we can
live as he does know. that is our porpouse to inherit the universe."

By our very existence we have nothing to inherit, but everything to learn.

"how could someone believe in a
god that was something that you could not become yourself, god
is a man."

congratulations, you've stumbled on the answer.


[This message has been edited by JMitch (edited September 02, 1999).]

God has to be a man. Only a man would slap together an entire universe in only seven days without using the instructions and call it "good enough".

Just kidding, to any guy who can't take a little joke.

Oxygen, laughing quite a bit on that one!

Why all the fuss? God is God. God is not man, nor male in the sense of male and female. In the beginning there was the Word, and the Word was God. This does not imply man. There is distinction between male and female on Earth for the simple act of procreation. God created man in God`s image insofar as we share some of God`s characteristics. We share his capacity for love, forgiveness, compassion and soforth. That does not mean we have to look like God. But because of the Fall we have forfeited perfection. We have a free will now. In this way some of us has chosen to follow godless ways. Our mission on Earth is to find our way back to God through living in Christ, but there is a far greater plan for us. Believe in me and I will give you everlasting life ! If one looks at the magnificence of the Universe and everything in it, imagine the magnificence of God`s plan for us.

In Christ.

What!! Did I hear someone say something...
------------------------------------------
Grrr, this is what makes me mad.
Lori, you are a fine person and so
are all religious people. I will not
go on to tell you how you should run
your life, but you should understand
that GOD... is... not... a... man!!!

Let me get this straight...
you're saying that the being who created
the universe is nothing but a planetary
sized human with a beard??
How is that possible? God does exist,
but why a man?

Such things only state the vast amount
of self-ignorance that exists within
yourself.

Xeno,
Ohhhhh come on, man!! You can't even
prove god exists. Lighten up... it's ok
to hold on to what you want to believe...but
why get mad about such things??

LOL, sorry for being vague in my post above. I was meaning to say that God isn't a man, but man is an expression of God, so we are in a sense...God. And, for the record this doesn't mean that I'm christian.

I'd like to hear the members' explanations for the following scriptures from the King James version of the Bible (I specify the KJV simply because it's the only one I have):

Genesis 1:26
Genesis 6:1-4
Genesis 11:6,7
Exodus 14:19,20
Exodus 33:9-11
2Kings 2:1-12
Ecclesiastes 1:9-11
Isaiah 7:14
Ezekiel 1:4-28
Matthew 1:23
Matthew 2:2,9,10
Luke 2:9-15
Luke 2:21
John 1:18
John 8:23
1Corinthians 10:1-4

I think that's probably enough for starters. Please read these scriptures carefully. If you just gloss over them, you may miss the messages contained therein, and that would indeed be a shame - if it's the truth you seek.

Oh, please! You must be a mormon. They came up with that idea 100-odd years ago! And someone had to before that. Cause and effect, man. A man could not start all this, how did he come into existance? Well, I'm waiting, whats the answer? He couldn't, aliens? First you have to prove they exist. They have left no tangible evidence of their existance. As for God? I feel he exists, but I can't prove it. We all have ideas and opinions, I guess thats what philosophy class is for. Ex nihilo, all you philosphers and Latin scholars.

Randolfo,

If we were to discover a planet that could sustain life, and then various beings of different races from our own planet cloned themselves in order to start a colony on that planet, and then hung around the heavens for awhile in their space vehicles to kind of watch over them and guide them along - would we not be gods to them? Probably they would be arguing amongst themselves several thousand years later about how they got there, don't you think?

No, we would not be "gods" to them. God would still be God, and we would still be human, but the beings that we created would just MISTAKE us for their gods. Does this sound familiar to anyone??????????????

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

And on the other hand, if they are scientifically inclined and wary of religion or idle speculation, they would probably see us for what we are... (Not to say that I think our own evolution has been subject to any outside influence.)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

I think eventually SOME of them would see us for what we are - but I think MOST of them would stubbornly cling to their religious beliefs, fearing hellfire if they dared to consider the logical alternatives.

Lori,

Exactly!

Searcher,

Don't you see, some are mistaking aliens and these "associated" beings of light, as our God and creator, and they are not. And I can honestly for the first time in my life say that I'm not afraid of anything. Can you say that?

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

I think scientists have to cling desperatly to their religious beliefs; that their world-view is correct, that everything can be discovered & ultimetly understood. If that were correct there wouldn't be so many people leaving western-based traditions and looking to the East for answers, in religion, health, thought, food & lifestyle. There would be more answers to hard questions
and people would feel good about their future
not thinking that it could all end tomorrow,
with a crash or disease or chaos. In the end we are not very logical, we as humans may be one of the biggest problems. Or to paraphrase Dr. Oppenheiner,'we have become death, the destroyer of worlds'. Look at all the destruction we cause to ourselves, our environment and possibly our comtaminated future. I hope for a star-trek future, but we'll probably get blade runner.

[This message has been edited by Randolfo (edited October 05, 1999).]

As individuals, our physical future WILL END. It might end tomorrow, a year from now, 5 years from now, 10 years from now, 50 years from now or, in the case of some individuals, 100 years from now. The fact is, OUR INDIVIDUAL, PHYSICAL FUTURE WILL CEASE TO EXIST at some point. Even for those who do not "believe" in the spirit or the soul of the individual, OUR SPIRITUAL LIVES WILL GO ON ETERNALLY. Whether or not we spend our spiritual eternity with God or without God is our decision to make, with our free will, while we are here, in this world, in our temporary, physical state.

Whether or not the temporary, physical future is of the Star-Trek or Blade-Runner type is irrelevant with respect to an individual's spiritual future. As individuals, we really should be concerning ourselves with the REAL FUTURE, the everlasting future, the future that really counts... The future of our souls. It is not going to end as the physical life does.

To those who are feeling scared or bad about their future, I say this... By developing a personal relationship with God, you will not only feel good, you will feel GREAT about your immortal future, regardless of how the physical one ends!

I PROMISE!

I understand that there are those who do not understand and/or believe in the concept of the soul. That is a fact that I am willing to accept without debate. We all have had our experiences (or lack thereof) which bring us to our beliefs in this world. For those who have not yet witnessed the truth, I hope that you have a revelation soon so that you can prepare for your eternal salvation before it is too late.

truestory,

If you believe you have seen your dead mother floating around in the kitchen and that your husband was possessed by the devil then I guess there is not much for me to say to you. I would be lying if I said I envy your firm believes, I just like to doubt things to much !
Still it must be really comforting to wake up each day in the absolute certainty that you are safe for the rest of eternity. Your entire world of people you know or have known will be preserved for all of eternity. Tell me, have you ever wondered what you will do with that infinite amount of time ?

In the anunnaki topic you say the following in relation to the sceptics on this board:

Don't do their homework for them. No matter what "proof" you offer, they will not accept it unless they have been "told" that it is so and sanctioned by the "mainstream" of their severely limited community.


You see that is the main difference between you and me. It seems you managed to completly disregard the past 500 years of philosophical and scientific discoveries. What you proclaim here is the medieval authoritive philosophy of the scholastici. You think that a modern mind works the same way but it doesn't, we don't just believe what mainstream scientists say on the contrary, we are eager for new discoveries that would turn our current paradigmas upside down.
I suggest you begin by reading Descartes because he is considered the first modern philosopher. Even though he is dead for 350 years his ideas might already seem as dangerously provocative to you, so read it with caution.
If you don't want to bother this is what he proposed as a startingpoint for everything that one experiences or hears or reads : doubt everything !

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

[This message has been edited by Plato (edited October 06, 1999).]

Quite frankly, with the "spin" you put on things, I would prefer that you not say anything to me or attempt to paraphrase me. You are entitled to your opinions but, you know what they say... Opinions are like assholes... everyone's got one... your's just happens to stink! (Particularly since you cannot even base your opinions on the facts, which are printed elsewhere on this board and available for your review).

For example, the fact is that my mother's spirit manifested itself in a way that I could see her. I never said that my "dead mother was floating around the kitchen" (although the scenario which you MADE UP in your head probably fits well into your science-fiction mentality).

Additionally, I never indicated that my husband was posessed by the devil. Did you simply make that one up for "special effect"... Or, is it nothing more than another figment of YOUR imagination?!

I do not proclaim any philosophy. I proclaim what I have learned from my own, individual experience.

I can understand your skepticism about things which you don't understand because you have not yet experienced them. However, I do not understand why you come to this site if you are not interested in learning about the experiences of others. Perhaps you are just a scared little kid who really doesn't want to know... You feel "safe" in the narrow and rigid bosom of mainstream scientific thinking and are conditioned to ridicule that which you do not understand.

Try and look at it this way... Consider yourself turned upside-down.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 06, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 06, 1999).]

O.K. Let's review... doubt everything... doubt everything!!!

1) I "see" my mother's spirit. I doubt it. I "hear" my mother's spirit give me a message which I don't understand so, I doubt it. I doubt that this whole "experience" ever happened!!! So, I don't deliver the message to my relative and my relative ends up spending the rest of their life secretly torturing themselves emotionally with guilt. So, what's the big deal? At least I did what I was told by a philosopher who lived over 350 years ago... I doubted. I'm a good skeptic!

2) I'm looking for my missing child and I "hear" the voice of an unknown spirit telling me where she is but, I doubt it. So, I don't go there looking for my child and I don't "see" the light which further guides me to my child's location because I doubt that what I just "experienced" actually happened and my child never gets found. So, what's the big deal? At least I did what I was told by a philosopher who lived over 350 years ago... I doubted. I'm such a good skeptic!

3) Hmmm... I am "experiencing" this feeling, "hearing" an inner-voice which is telling me not to let my teenager get in the car with their friend at this particular time, on this particular day. I doubt it. The feeling which I am "experiencing" is irrational so, I doubt it. My teenager's request is reasonable. My "inner-voice" makes no sense whatsoever and I have no concrete evidence to support my position, so, I really doubt it and give my teenager permission to ride in the car. My teenager is involved in the fatal head-on collision. So, what's the big deal? At least I did what I was told by a philosopher who lived more than 350 years ago... I doubted. Yes, I must say, I am one of the best skeptics that ever lived!!!

I doubt it... I think, instead, that I'll believe.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 06, 1999).]

TS,

It was me with the possessed husband. :) Did you read the link I put under "READ THIS"? I would very, very much like to hear your thoughts about this. I know it's a really long link to read, but it's soooooo important. Please read it when you can and post your comments. Thanks very much!

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

These darned believers... They're all startin' to look the same, huh?!

Just because a philospher says so, doesn't make them an authority. 500 years or 5000 years does not matter. Every person who accepts a world-view, 'knows' it is true. They live by its precepts & socialize among its believers. But a thousand philosophies cann't be right? Which do you pick? Which do you believe? Read them all? Go ahead, but will you be that much better off? We live by what we believe is true & logic has nothing to do with it. Its ultimatly what we 'believe' that matters. Because that will be how we 'see' the world around us & how we interpret what we see. And at least in this physical world, we are governed by our senses
first, then by our mind, so whether we believe in an afterlife or not, its hard to be certain what is the truth, when there are so many truths out there!

First of all, Descartes shouldn't just be believed because he is a famous scientist. Plato's point, I believe, was indeed to encourage you to read and judge for yourself. It's not about authority, get it through your narrow minds! It's about how good the argument is!

truestory,

You have had an NDE, you have seen and heard ghosts, you have experienced poltergeist, you have expperienced diverse psychic phenomena and premonitions. Any one of these experiences is considered to be a rare thing. Very few people in the world claim to actually have had even one such experience. And you claim to have had them all! I don't know how convinced <u>you</u> may be, but to me all this sounds like too much "luck" for one person! Call me a skeptic...

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

truestory, Lori

I'm sorry about the mixup with the possessed husband, it just shows that I am merly human and certainly no expert or authority figure !

truestory,

First of all I said to BEGIN with Descartes, he is certainly no end point ! You can then go on for example to Hume and Kant, they are two exponents of the age of enlightenment. What they are trying to do is struggle away from the authority of the church and the phylosophers of the middleages.
You see the big difference between a medieval thinker and a modern thinker is their starting point. A medieval thinker will always refer to the bible or some ancient philosopher to base his reasoning on, a modern thinker will do no such thing. He will look at the universe himself or through other people who have done reliable observations. Reliable meaning verified by other independent people.
The medieval cosmology for example had two basic features : Everything had his order in the cosmos, the world might seem disorderly to us at times but that is only an illusion. On the larger scales absolute order ruled ! This order was vested by and in God and was there till the day of reckoning where it would be replaced by a different order that would hold for all of eternity. (sounds familiar ?) Everything had a purpose and had his place in this grant scheme. All the big questions were solved at that time : everything simply existed for the honor and glory of God.
Two revolutions in the natural sciences however shattered this view : the first was the Copernian heliocentrism, the second was the Origin of Species by Darwin.
Now of course are people not going to give up their treasured believes, their whole view on the world without a fight. The human spirit is very tangible but at the same time very reluctant against change.
It lasted more then 200 years before the churche for example ultimatly accepted the fact that the earth was orbiting the sun in stead of the other way around. The Darwinian notion of evolution also took well over 100 years but there are still a lot of churches or individuals who like to question this notion. In a perverse twist these people like to use the same argument of doubt that lead to the two revolutions in the first place. This would be a good thing but only if they went all the way and also questioned their own believes. The only thing that they are doing is simply returning to the old notion of trusting authorities like the bible.
So you see that this modern thinking is a two way cutting sword, it takes a mature and daring mind to wheel it with care.

------------------
"If I have been able to see further, it was only because I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Isaac Newton

truestory,

you might claim that you don't adhere a philosophy that you simply take your own experiences as a base for your life. But that is impossible for the simple reason that all those phylosophies are imbedded in our lives. We don't recognize them as such because we haven't studied their originators but we are living according to them. One thing that they do is bias our so called experiences !
Suppose you have a man who firmly believes he is protected all the time by some kind of gardian angel. He walks along the street, it is very windy and suddenly a tile from a roof falls right next to him. He will thank his gardian angel and do a double prair that evening before going to bed.
On other guy who believes his mind is capable of radiating a protective field that protects him from any harm has the same experience. He will be very thankfull also to the all encompassing energy and will meditate twice as hard to recharge his body that evening.
Again an other guy who doesn't believe anything at all walks the same path. He will shrug and call himself lucky, that evening he might reflect upon the fragility of life and how it can end any second.
All these people have had the same things happening to them but they all had a different experience and were confirmed in their previous views.
What was the true experience ?

Hah! Boris,

You ain't heard nothin' yet! I don't think that my experiences are so rare. It's probably more a matter that I am willing to share them without being succumbed to or hushed by the likes of you!

Here's the real deal as I see it: Some people are capable of bearing children while others are not (or choose not to). Those who have never had the experience of child-birth cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience. Likewise, some people are capable of recognizing and experiencing the paranormal (phenomena which can not yet be explained scientifically) while others are not (or choose not to). Those who have never had a paranormal experience cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience.


Plato,

Like you, I am well aware of the biases which can influence us, however, I am not going to waste my time debating what I consider to be a mundane and irrelevant example.

Now, if two of the three individuals WERE hit by the falling tile and the third was spared because he heard an audible voice of a spirit which told him to "Get out of the way!" and he heeded the warning and jumped out of the way, then we might have something relevant to my experiences to discuss.

P.S.

Believe it or not, there are "modern" thinkers who have gone so far as to question their own beliefs and, in the final analysis (thus far), they have come to a different conclusion than you have. That certainly does not make them "medieval" thinkers.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 07, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 07, 1999).]

The Privileges of Discipleship

Turning to the disciples in private he said, "Blessed are the eyes that see what you see. For I say to you, many prophets and kings desired to see what you see, but did not see it, and to hear what you hear, but did not hear it."

truestory,

You say :

Those who have never had the experience of child-birth cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience. Likewise, some people are capable of recognizing and experiencing the paranormal (phenomena which can not yet be explained scientifically) while others are not (or choose not to). Those who have never had a paranormal experience cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience.


That is just childish ! By saying this you put yourself on an ivory tower where you can look down upon us poor normals who never had a paranormal experience ! You do realise that this self proclaimed isolation leans dangerously close to actual madness. I'm not saying that you are a loonetic but excluding oneself from the rest of society certainly is not a good example of H-U-M-I-L-I-T-Y !

Plato,

The premise of your attempt to censure me is based on the false assumption that I am the only one in society who has ever had these spiritual (paranormal) experiences. Sorry, but that is simply not the case. Both procreation and sprirituality are very much a part of human nature. The simple fact is that there are some who have had such experiences and others who have not. Just as we individual human beings are all very much the same, so do we differ in our individual experiences. These differences are also very much a part of human nature.

On the subject of humility and greatness, Jesus said:

"Amen, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven. And whoever receives one child such as this in my name receives me."

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 08, 1999).]

truestory -
The premise of your attempt to censure plato is based on the false assumption that *anyone* has these so-called paranormal experiences. It is a fact in no way, shape, or form that people have had communcation from spirits, angels, or ghosts. Just because you think something divine may have influenced you does not mean it actually happened. The human mind is a strong tool, but only if it is used correctly. It seems to me that it requires a distinct arrogance and lack of humility to say with conviction that one's existance goes beyond one's biological end. Remember that skepticism is a tool, not a weapon. It can prevent you from coming to conclusions prematurely, but it absolutely cannot harm true facts.

FyreStar

"In all affairs - love, religion, politics, or business - it's a healthy idea to hang a question mark on the things you have long taken for granted" - Bertrand Russell


[This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited October 08, 1999).]

FyreStar--

How can you assert any "fact" as regards such things as we cannot explain? Specifically, you wrote: "It is a fact in no way, shape, or form that people have had communication from spirits, angels, or ghosts."

If you try to support that statement on "lack of definitive evidence to the opposite" then I would remind you that:

* the world was flat until recently
* your skin color reduces you to 60% of a human being
* marijuana is a greater threat to society than heroin, and more dangerous to the user
* the universe revolved around the earth.

Now even I laugh when I hear about the Virgin Mary appearing in the woodgrain of a door, the reflection of a lamp, or the iridescent coating on the back of a highway sign. But to say definitively that the Virgin doesn't appear on the planet from time to time is as dumb as blind faith in God. How many square feet of the earth have you not observed? How many passing seconds of your own life are not committed to memory? Now, how can you possibly assert that the limits of your life have shown you all that is possible in the universe? I guarantee you that, of your life experiences, you've only noticed about two percent of them.

Show me the fact. I'll be more than surprised.

--Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory,

There are a few rather obvious problems with your stance (namely, that not spiritually-inclined people do not perceive paranormal phenomena.)

First of all, some of the phenomena you mention (like poltergeist) involve tangible objects flying or moving around. No matter how spiritually imperceptive, one cannot deny a visual, auditory and subsequent physical record of the activity.

But more importantly, consider the circularity of your argument. You are convinced of your beliefs because of the spiritual "evidence" -- however, you couldn't perceive that very same evidence had you not been convinced in your beliefs in the first place! So obviously, you must have become a convinced Christian <u>prior</u> to any paranormal experiences. Which makes this kind of perceived evidence irrelevant to justification of your faith.

The point is, you had the Bible, and you had the historical record. That was all you had before you decided that there was enough evidence to choose your particular faith over the thousands of others in existence, and over infinity of others possible. So, in that light, just how justified do you think your choice was?

As Tiassa mentioned elsewhere, the faithful tend to see miracles everywhere, from highway signs to wood cross-sections. What does that tell us about the perceived "miracles"? I would suggest that in this case, the truth is less in the eye of the beholder than in their mindset. If you are predisposed to find evidence of miracles and dismiss counterevidence, then perhaps miracles is what you will end up with. If you start out with a clean slate and are not predisposed to immediately assign interpretations, or block out information contrary to your predispositions -- then you are likely to arrive at some very different conclusions.

How many other people in the world have experienced the paranormal? Good question, but I've got an even better one. How many people in the world who experienced the paranormal did not already believe in some sort of a spiritual facet to reality?

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

To be brief, for now, it might interest you to know that I did not read a Bible until I was well into adulthood... After I already had experienced some of what has been termed here as "paranormal".

FyreStar,

I will pose a question which I recently posed to you in another thread... Please define "to know" if you would not mind.

Boris,

You emphasize one of the points which I have made throughout my discussion! That is, from what I have experienced, there is definitely physical evidence of the existence of the spirit. You are exactly right! When objects are observed to move (by the spirit) or an audible voice (of a spirit) can be heard through reverberation of a human eardrum, there is definitely something physical going on. For you, the difficulty lies in the documention of these types of experiences. In the grand scheme of things, yes, these experiences are few and far between for an individual such as myself. I have never solicited such an experience (except for the time that I called out, "Oh, God, where is she?!!!" when my daughter was missing and, as I explained, I was truly shocked to get an answer!). I certainly do not sit around waiting for one of these experiences to happen. They just do. Without exception, these types of experiences have been very unexpected and they end as suddenly as they begin. So, other than to record the experience in writing after the fact, there probably is no way of "recording" them to the satisfaction of individuals such as yourself. Sorry, I truly wish that there was a way. If you do have such an individual experience in the future, please let me know if you were able to record it and how you managed to do it. Thanks.

P.S.

I don't know where you got the idea that I took a stance that non-spiritually inclined individuals could not perceive paranormal phenomena... But since you did get that idea, I would like to inform you that... that is not my stance.

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 08, 1999).]

truestory,

Sorry about misinterpreting your stance... But what else could I have concluded from this passage:

Here's the real deal as I see it: Some people are capable of bearing children while others are not (or choose not to). Those who have never had the experience of child-birth cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience. Likewise, some people are capable of recognizing and experiencing the paranormal (phenomena which can not yet be explained scientifically) while others are not (or choose not to). Those who have never had a paranormal experience cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience.


So now I would have to ask you: what led you to interpret your paranormal experiences specifically within a Christian framework?

And while we are at it, what made you trust your senses more than your common sense, when you first experienced something strange? (seeing, as it seems, that you were not religious at the start?)

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris--

I, too, have witnessed the paranormal. I, too, have witnessed the paranormal which coincides with the limits of the faith I held at the time.

But I also knew when my mind was screwing with me.

Paranormal? There's a few things left I can't explain, but that, in itself, is absolutely normal.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

tiassa - You misread my post. You should know that you can't prove a negative. I was replying to truestory, who stated that it was a fact that such "paranormal" experiences occured. I stated that it was not a fact due to lack of evidence. Your other revelations were similarly trivial and unworthy of a response in this forum.

truestory -
I have defined "to know" in the topic I began.

FyreStar--

You make me smile. I did not misread your post. Now, if you and I both know that "you can't prove a negative, then why did you make such a statement? For any reason?

You wrote:

"It is a fact in no way, shape, or form that people have had communcation from spirits, angels, or ghosts."

Okay, now, let me read this again .... It is a fact ... yadda-yadda-yadda .... nope, my opinion of the sentence hasn't changed. So if you and I both know this sentence cannot be proven, why are you standing on it?

Oh ... wait a minute ... if I rearrange your words into a different order, I think I can read the sentence you're claiming to have written. Oh, forgive me for being so trivial as to read the words you wrote in order.

Like I say, Flamey, you make me smile.

Tiassa

PS--By the way, it bugs me when I have to read your mind. Because I'm quite sure I cannot. I will continue to read your words as you write them. Don't give me license to start twisting around the words based on their order.

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

tiassa -
You make me roll my eyes and sigh. Your emotions are obviously clouding your judgement in this debate. If you truly cannot understand that sentence, then you should not bother responding to it. Since you are having such extreme trouble, I will attempt to spell it out for you in words of few syllables.
It is not a fact.
There is no evidence.
Better?
If that isn't enough, I'll do a little dissection of what I wrote to furthur explain it. Your problem in reading is that you are applying "It is a fact" to the rest of the sentence, ignoring the negative operating on it. "It is a fact in no way, shape, or form" means; "it is not a fact".
Consider this example:
It is a fact that the earth is round.
This can be reduced to "The earth is round."
If we attempt to do what you are doing, then you are reducing my statement to "in no way shape or form that people.." That is incorrect sentence structure, so even if you couldn't immediately discern my meaning, the grammer should have tipped you off.

FyreStar

And please spare me from your Oh-so-deadly wit.

Okay, FyreStar, if you'll be so kind ...

The following sentence, the one of debate, is one you wrote:

"It is a fact in no way, shape, or form, that people have had communication from spirits, angels, or ghosts."

Shall we look at it as my first reply to you on this did:

Does the sentence mean: "It is in no way, shape, or form, a fact that ..."

or

"It is a fact that in no way, shape, or form."

The first is what you say you intended. I replied to the second interpretation. So if you don't want "trivial and unworthy" responses, please please please write what you mean.

Seriously, I can't read your mind. You do not want me rearranging the words to see how they make sense. Elsewise it all might become trivial and unworthy.

My wit is no more deadly than your grammar.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

tiassa -
Since you refuse to believe me, question a language professor. Either way, it is unimportant now that you understand what I stated.

Regards,
FyreStar


[This message has been edited by FyreStar (edited October 10, 1999).]

Fyrestar,

There is evidence, you just havent' experienced it for yourself. Don't be so arrogant to assume that just because Jesus hasn't slapped you across the face that he doesn't exist, or hasn't touched other's lives. Honestly, I think that a lot of the stuff that tiassa and TS are talking about are the works of Satan. You guys need to be a testin' your spirits if you get my drift. Don't assume that just because something is supernatural, that it is good.

One time when I was younger, I grew my fingers to almost 1.5 times their normal length by willing them to do so. Ok fire-boy, argue that one....

------------------
God loves you and so do I!

Lori -
It is interesting that you speak of arrogance when you condemn others for not seeing your own contrived "evidence". Just because you believe in something does not mean it exists.
As to your fingers.. I don't suppose you'd be willing to demonstrate for me sometime...?

FyreStar

Boris,

You wrote:

"truestory,
Sorry about misinterpreting your stance... But what else could I have concluded from this passage:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here's the real deal as I see it: Some people are capable of bearing children while others are not (or choose not to). Those who have never had the experience of child-birth cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience. Likewise, some people are capable of recognizing and experiencing the paranormal (phenomena which can not yet be explained scientifically) while others are not (or choose not to). Those who have never had a paranormal experience cannot even begin to truly comprehend the experience."

--------------------------------------------

In my opinion, Boris, you could have concluded a number of things from the passage. However, since there was no mention of the "spiritually inclined" or "non-spiritually inclined" I truly can't see how that is the ONLY thing you could have concluded. As a matter of fact, since the ability to experience child-birth (to which the ability to experience the paranormal was compared) is due to a physical difference, you could have concluded that I meant that there was a physical reason for the ability or non-ability to experience the paranormal... that is just one option. Your conclusion was another, but it was probably biased. (And I don't mean that in a negative sense). The point was that, as individuals, we have differences in our abilities to experience various aspects of our existence and unlessss we actually experience something, we cannot truly comprehend the experience.

I will continue with my answers to your other questions from the same post later...


------------------
Have a great day!

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 11, 1999).]

FyreStar:

Okay ... I suppose I can waste my time and go find a grammar professor. While I'm at it I'll run it by six or seven novelists and ask them how big their editors' eyes would get at a sentence like that.

So, who's yours? It would be much more worth my time if I knew what wealth of academia I was up against here. After all, if I go to a grammar or writing professor and say, "I'm confused ... so-and-so at this university says this ... I don't get the approach," I'm more likely to get an answer than, "Here, somebody who can't type insists I should read his mind."

Yes, we now agree what you mean. However, if it takes you this long to state it, then I urge you to make one of the following considerations:

* Write what you mean, unequivocally.
* Slow down, don't make typos.
* Proofread at least once.

Because in order to interpret your sentence as you claim, I still have to add punctuation or rearrange the order of the words to make it equal your intentions.

I'll even take a book citation from you. But since you've asked for my academic verification, I need one from you. It's your sentence, it's your problem, and it's your time.

And if you don't want that time wasted by "trivial" crap, then don't write ambiguous sentences and then bait people. Write what you mean, else you mean nothing.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

tiassa -
*I did.
*I didn't.
*I do.

It is a fact in no way, shape, or form that the sun is a cube.
It is a fact in no way or form that the sun is a cube.
It is a fact in no way that the sun is a cube.
"In no way that the sun is a cube." is not a correct sentence, therefore your interpretation is flat out wrong.
However, "The sun is a cube." is correct in the grammatical sense, therefore "In no way, shape, or form" (which means IT IS NOT A FACT) is the modifier. Take that to whatever professor or editor you wish.

Does this make it easier?
My problem? You are the ego driven maniac that feels compelled to find fault in his enemies even where no faults occur. Let us recapitulate; I posted, you misread, you attacked, I corrected, you ignored, I corrected...ad nauseum.
As you might tell, I'm getting frustrated with your petty, incorrect arguments and witless banter. Henceforth, you may proceed on the assumption that absolutely nothing I post is directed to you.

Sincerely,
FyreStar

Have a nice day.

Boris, to continue... you asked:

"And while we are at it, what made you trust your senses more than your common sense, when you first experienced something strange? (seeing, as it seems, that you were not religious at the start?)"

-----------------------------------------
It wasn't really a matter of trusting my senses over common sense when I first experienced something strange. Rather, it went like this:

I was a teenager, attending high school and I was working part-time as a cashier in a neighborhood grocery store. After I was employed for about a year, I went to work one Saturday afternoon in the summer and when I arrived, as usual, I got the keys and the drawer to my assigned register. I locked my purse in the cabinet below the register, counted my starting cash and began my shift. After four hours with no break, it was the end of my shift and time to close. I looked outside for my boyfriend who was supposed to be meeting me after work but, he was not there. What? He was always on time, but, no biggie. I was sure he would be there soon. I also noticed that a friend of the co-worker was in the store at closing time. What? None of us were allowed to have friends in the store at closing time. My boyfriend and the brother of another co-worker always had to wait for us outside. How come this guy's friend was allowed to be inside? I considered bringing this up with my manager later. In the meantime, I reconciled my cash drawer and unlocked the cabinet underneath my register but... nothing was there... My purse was missing. I was very upset, of course, and yelled out that my purse was gone.

Let me back-up a little now, if I may... The store was at the bottom of, and facing, the foot of a one-half mile long steep hill (the foot of the hill was approximately twenty-five feet in front of the store). The main store-front was made up of a brick sill, approximately two feet high and thirty feet long with thirty feet of glass panels which were about eight feet in height, set atop the brick sill. There were two alcoves on either side of the window front, about ten to twelve feet in length. One was used to store overstock and the other was used to store deposit bottles which were returned by customers. The total length of the store-front was about fifty to fifty-four feet.

This is what transpired in the next few seconds after I realized that my purse was gone:

(Due to the slow time of the year and the lateness of the hour, there were only four employees working at the time and there was the one person who was waiting for a co-worker inside the store). My co-worker, who was acting as assistant manager (and whose friend was waiting inside the store) walked towards the front of the store between two cash registers and was asking me what was the matter... The acting store manager, who was also walking towards the front of the store to unlock the front (glass) door, heard what I said and stopped to talk with me... The stock-clerk asked in a loud voice, "Is that it?" We all turned to look and there was my dark purse, sitting conspicuously out in the middle of a shelf in the obscure overstock alcove, amongst the extra cases of white paper towels. "What the....???" I walked out from behind my register, about ten or fifteen feet towards where my purse was and it happened... A loud bang, and then a second bang which sounded like an explosion. I turned to look and there, in slow-motion it seemed, I saw the front of a car (a kaki green station wagon), airborne, propelling itself through the glass store-front and into the store. It was about five or six feet off the ground. It did a nose-dive after coming through the window and hit the register which I had been standing at, driving it about eight feet back into the aisle and crushing it so violently that it left about one-half inch of space where I would normnally have been standing, had I not left to get my missing purse. At the same time, I could see my co-worker's body, face-up, and falling backwards onto the ground underneath the front of the nose-diving station wagon. His body was being riddled with hundreds of glass fragments. However, he was not being crushed... The friend who had been allowed to stay inside the store that night had caught him from behind and had a hold of him by his armpits and was dragging my co-worker with all his strength and speed so as to prevent my co-worker's body from being crushed... It worked. Although he was severely torn up by the glass, his injuries were not life-threatening.

After all the noise and commotion, there was a couple of seconds of stillness and silence, during which time, I looked again for my boyfriend... this time, under the wreckage which the station wagon had left because the car which he normally would have been leaning on was out front, as usual, but, this day, it had its top cut-off. Again, I did not see him.

Then there was more commotion... The unconscious boys in the station wagon came to and hopped out of the wrecked vehicle. They were covered with blood but in a panic to run away because, as we later learned, they had stolen the car which belonged to one boy's father. It had been up on blocks because the father was working on the brakes at the time the teenagers took it for a "joy ride".

As it turns out, almost everything could be explained by common sense... My boyfriend was not there, leaning on a car right outside the store-front, because a friend of his was hurt at an early-evening party and had to be taken to the hospital... A fortunate coincidence. My co-worker's friend being allowed to stay when noone else was ever allowed to was simply a coincidental exception to the rules... My manager stopping to talk with me about my missing purse, rather than walking to unlock the glass door of the store-front, was surely a timely coincidence... However, noone was ever able to explain how my purse got out from the locked cabinet (which was under my cash register which I had not left for the duration of my shift and which noone else had access to) and how it was placed in a conspicuous manner, in an overstock alcove beyond the danger of the glass store-front. As strange as it seems, this was an instance when a physical object was physically moved from one locations and relocated to another physical location without any human intervention.

So, Boris... Although it made no common sense, it did cause me to act (to walk away from the cash register to retrieve my purse). As a result, it enabled me to avoid being crushed by the runaway car. That was the first, for me.



[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 11, 1999).]

FyreStar--

Ok. I can ignore you. However, I'm still amused at your approach to grammar. Snip-snip-snip. Make sure those scissors are sharp.

Tiassa

------------------
"Let us not launch the boat until the ground is wet." (Khaavren of Castlerock)

truestory,

That's a pretty cool story (supposing it's 'true', j/k).

Ever considered the possibility that you got distracted and forgot to lock in your purse that day, and some customer later found it on the floor or something and placed it in a conspicuous place so whoever lost it could find it? Alternatively, it could've been a prank.

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

Boris,

All things considered, it seems that all I can say to you about the doubt is, "You had to be there." In other words, you had to have experienced the event in order to truly comprehend it.

Even then, as a non-spiritually inclined teenager, I knew that the series of events, their causes and effect (and the resulting safety of the individuals who would otherwise have been seriously or fatally injured that night) went beyond the range of normal experience or scientifically explainable phenomena.

Lori will like this... To everyone who was there that night, the "why" things happened the way they did was very apparent. Most elusive was the "how".

[This message has been edited by truestory (edited October 12, 1999).]

Truestory,

I'm guessing that this is what led you to find God or helped you make your decision? I've heard similar stories of objects doing impossible things. This person who had the experiences is really into meditation and experimenting with psychic abilities. He attributes them to subconscious brain energy and from what I can tell isn't religious. So, I'm just suggesting that what happened that day could have a more human explanation.

Hello JMitch,

Actually, the event I described above happened about twenty-five years before I truly found God.

Personally, I don't meditate or experiment within the psychic realm. The event described above is one of a number of such experiences which I have had in my lifetime. My experiences just happen, without warning.

God was never a man. Unless you are writing about Jesus' part in the Trinity.