Food for thought for Christians

[horsethorn]

Jon, I would like to hear of your experience and would be prepared to tell you mine, which was quite profound, but I am not sure this is the right place for it.  We are still unable to prove any of it, rationally or scientifically;  our experiences could be explained away rationally.  Nevertheless, the experiences were true ones (certainly for us), inexplicable to anyone who has not experienced the same.

I'd like to hear about yours and his experiences. I, too, have had experiences, and I know others who also have.

It would be very interesting to share them and see what conclusions could be drawn.

ht

[Bubbles]

I'd like to hear about yours and his experiences. I, too, have had experiences, and I know others who also have.

It would be very interesting to share them and see what conclusions could be drawn.

ht

Yes that would be interesting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Jon, I would like to hear of your experience and would be prepared to tell you mine, which was quite profound, but I am not sure this is the right place for it.  We are still unable to prove any of it, rationally or scientifically;  our experiences could be explained away rationally.  Nevertheless, the experiences were true ones (certainly for us), inexplicable to anyone who has not experienced the same.

Of course.
I have said almost continually that methodology is not ontology however whether they are bald about it or subtle the naturalist implication is that experiences like ours have at base nothing to do with the divine.

They demand proof or grounds to a level greater than that they expect of their naturalism and justified that in the platitudinous but empty phrase extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence although I firmly believe I have said far, far more about my beliefs and their grounds than any non theist in these parts who tend to take their beliefs as axiomatic .

Another such phrase is ''true for you''. They are happy for that to be so since they believe they are in possession of the ''true for everyone''. ''True for you'' is code for ''you are wrong.''or at best'' your experience is only relevant for you''

I have said that I cannot and would not GIVE my experience to him. Experience is not like that.

What I can say, by dint of explaining my experience, is that this is unlike say liking Chopin. It  has the hallmarks of being a proper encounter namely of surprise, of awareness, of new and affective information and disturbance of ego, and against personal bias.

In summary then I cannot give him God or faith but I can dispute that we can absolutely and safely say that it is a ''just true for you''. I cannot prove it scientifically but then neither can naturalism be proved that way either.

In terms of whether it is fit to describe my experience... Stephen Taylor requested it and I met his request.

Enough has probably been said now in what looks like an absence of any new data or leads from my interlocutors. 

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Stephen, you asked for me to describe my experience. That is a witness statement.

I think there is a genuine misunderstanding here.
I did ask you to describe your experience and you did give me a witness statement.
I accept it as your sincerely held belief.
We have moved on now though and I have been asking how you get from your true for you claim to objectively true. Something you can’t achieve by a witness statement alone.

I have to ask whether it is a genuine encounter. Certainly it ran counter to how I imagined things to be, I was in fact biased against God, in many respects, as in the experience of Isaiah, St Paul and Augustine  and not for him and the experience was the very opposite of ego affirming. For me then the encounter has all the hallmarks of being objective.

Clearly you have been on quite a journey. However, the rockiness of the journey or the fact that the outcome is unpleasant again does nothing to get you from subjective to objective

As Brownie has said I cannot hand you God, I cannot give you the experience but whether God is true for me only?

I agree with you. The question is whether God is true subjectively for you or objectively true for all.
At the moment the answer seems to be that your claim of an objectively true God is undemonstrated.
That is fine, I’m very comfortable with that. The only reason we have had this debate is that yourself and Hope have claimed that it can be demonstrated.

Reading back over some of the posts (I note that some got a bit heated) I think that there might me another way of expressing what your methodology is.
Correct me if I am wrong but is it along the lines of.
The way to know God is through a personal experience of Him. If I were to go on the same journey as you had I might/would become convinced that god is objectively true.
If so, I agree. I might. It would still be a subjective truth though me believing it be objective does not make it objective.

I cannot give you the assurance of you not experiencing Christ

Not quite sure I understand what you mean by this.
I am not seeking assurance of an absent Christ.
I might go on to have an experience of Christ like you have at some point in my life, I don’t rule anything out.
I don’t look at the world in quite the same way that I did 20 years ago, who can say what my views will be 20 years from now if I am still around.

[Brownie]

Actually I think lots of us, if not all, have quite profound experiences throughout our lives. I know I have.

The only issue comes when people insist that their subjective experiences are objectively true.

People do need to accept that what is real to them may seem like fantasy to others. I accept it but I wouldn't talk about any personal experience of that nature to just anybody - not 'go public' if you like.  It is a private thing.

Jon said: What I can say, by dint of explaining my experience, is that this is unlike say liking Chopin. It  has the hallmarks of being a proper encounter namely of surprise, of awareness, of new and affective information and disturbance of ego, and against personal bias.

That is very similar to my experience.  I didn't see anything or hear voices but it was quite profound. It would mean nothing to most others.  Enough said about it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I agree with you. The question is whether God is true subjectively for you or objectively true for all.
At the moment the answer seems to be that your claim of an objectively true God is undemonstrated.
That is fine, I’m very comfortable with that.

!

[Gonnagle]

Dear Wonderful Horsethorn,

Great minds, yes! young Stephano talks about Profound experiences,

Actually I think lots of us, if not all, have quite profound experiences throughout our lives. I know I have.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/profound

But I would be careful here, deep profound life changing experiences can be very personal, so the watch words should be, really think before you post.

Just thinking out loud but is there a common denominator and would that then mean it is objective.

Gonnagle.

[horsethorn]

I have said almost continually that methodology is not ontology...

But an ontology is a methodology.

ht

[horsethorn]

Yes that would be interesting.

It would, wouldn't it?



ht

[horsethorn]

Dear Wonderful Horsethorn,

Great minds, yes! young Stephano talks about Profound experiences,

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/profound

But I would be careful here, deep profound life changing experiences can be very personal, so the watch words should be, really think before you post.

Just thinking out loud but is there a common denominator and would that then mean it is objective.

Gonnagle.

Yes, profound experiences really can change our life.

The 'common denominator' is what I have been investigating for 30-odd years. I think I have a reasonable working hypothesis.

ht

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But an ontology is a methodology.

ht

Is it? I think you are the only one who thinks it is.

[Stranger]

I have said almost continually that methodology is not ontology...

Yes, it's clearly your current favourite straw man.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Horsethorn,

I think I have a reasonable working hypothesis.

Care to share, sorry but I am a nosey bugger.

Gonnagle.

[horsethorn]

Is it? I think you are the only one who thinks it is.

Yes, it is.

It is a means to provide structure for a set of entities. That's a methodology.

ht

[horsethorn]

Dear Horsethorn,

Care to share, sorry but I am a nosey bugger.

Gonnagle.

Maybe on another thread? - when Vlad and Brownie set it up, and we can all exchange our experiences and investigate the possibilities...

ht

[Gonnagle]

Dear Brownie,

People do need to accept that what is real to them may seem like fantasy to others. I accept it but I wouldn't talk about any personal experience of that nature to just anybody - not 'go public' if you like.  It is a private thing.

Jon said: What I can say, by dint of explaining my experience, is that this is unlike say liking Chopin. It  has the hallmarks of being a proper encounter namely of surprise, of awareness, of new and affective information and disturbance of ego, and against personal bias.

That is very similar to my experience.  I didn't see anything or hear voices but it was quite profound. It would mean nothing to most others.  Enough said about it.

Same here, no voices, no blinding light, more like what Jon describes, disturbance of ego, which has me really thinking this wonderful morning, mines happened in a Church, if it had happened in the RC Chapel down the road, would I still be celebrating the Teddy Bears return to their rightful place.

Gonnagle.

[floo]

Maybe on another thread? - when Vlad and Brownie set it up, and we can all exchange our experiences and investigate the possibilities...

ht

Good idea.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

!

Explain?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Of course.
I have said almost continually that methodology is not ontology however whether they are bald about it or subtle the naturalist implication is that experiences like ours have at base nothing to do with the divine.

They demand proof or grounds to a level greater than that they expect of their naturalism and justified that in the platitudinous but empty phrase extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence although I firmly believe I have said far, far more about my beliefs and their grounds than any non theist in these parts who tend to take their beliefs as axiomatic .

Another such phrase is ''true for you''. They are happy for that to be so since they believe they are in possession of the ''true for everyone''. ''True for you'' is code for ''you are wrong.''or at best'' your experience is only relevant for you''

I have said that I cannot and would not GIVE my experience to him. Experience is not like that.

What I can say, by dint of explaining my experience, is that this is unlike say liking Chopin. It  has the hallmarks of being a proper encounter namely of surprise, of awareness, of new and affective information and disturbance of ego, and against personal bias.

In summary then I cannot give him God or faith but I can dispute that we can absolutely and safely say that it is a ''just true for you''. I cannot prove it scientifically but then neither can naturalism be proved that way either.

In terms of whether it is fit to describe my experience... Stephen Taylor requested it and I met his request.

I don't require evidence of a higher standard for your objective truth claims than I require for any other objective truth claims.

You seem to have a serious downer on subjective truths.

Why?

Just because it is subjective does not mean that it is of no value.

When I was ill last year I learnt a lot of techniques that help me to stay well. There is nothing objective about these techniques. they generate experiences that I would find very hard to explain to you. That fact that they are subjective says nothing as to whether or not they are of value.

In terms of whether it is fit to describe my experience... Stephen Taylor requested it and I met his request.

No, my request was for how you can tell that your subjective experiences are objectively true. You have failed to meet the request.

You did tell us about your experience though and I thank you for that.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

!

What I mean is, if that is your claim then good for you. No skin off my nose.