Jump to content

Does 'your' Christianity Involve The Supernatural?


Mike
 Share

Recommended Posts

Pete,

 

I don't think anyone here, certainly me, is trying to persuade you or anyone else of anything. We each, as you suggest, must come to an understanding that works for us. Each of us have different temperaments, different experiences and backgrounds. So, I don't think there is, or should be, a one-size-fits-all understanding.

 

However, sometimes just discussing these matters helps us focus our thoughts. And, sometimes, other perspectives can help one see alternatives not before fully considered.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we define the supernatural as a miraculous event that violates the laws of nature like walking on water or parting the Sea of Reeds, then I don't believe in the supernatural. In spite of the centuries of religious belief in the supernatural, there has never been any objective scientific proof of the supernatural. But for me, following Jesus means bringing the Kingdom of God to Earth through following Jesus' moral teachings as opposed to hoping for a supernatural realm beyond or waiting for a miracle to solve all our problems. Though Jesus said the greatest commands was to love God and love your neighbor as yourself and Jesus most surely believed in the supernatural himself, he never expanded further on what it meant to believe in God. When the rich young ruler asked Jesus what he must do to be saved, he didn't say you must believe in heaven and eternal hellfire. He didn't say you must believe in the Trinity or ghosts or aliens, and he didn't say you had to be dunked into magic water to be saved. What Jesus said you had to be saved was he told the rich young ruler to sell his possessions to the poor and take up his cross and follow Jesus. The Kingdom of God to me is found when we take up our crosses and follow Jesus' teachings to make our own miracles.

Edited by Neon Genesis
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi NeonGenesis,

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder why you believe in "the laws of nature" in opposition to the supernatural. What I'm getting at with this question is that a belief in "the laws of nature" seems very metaphysical, especially if their existence is presumed to be such that it is possible to think of "them" being "violated". Why is "supernatural" ruled out while "natural" is a given? Is there such a "thing" as "nature"? Perhaps even more to the point: why must we insist on a "natural" vs "supernatural" dichotomy to begin with, when it is not clear how either of these terms refer to anything that actually exists? Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you said, I think we're in agreement in practice, perhaps we approach the topic a little differently in principle though.

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pete,

 

I don't think anyone here, certainly me, is trying to persuade you or anyone else of anything. We each, as you suggest, must come to an understanding that works for us. Each of us have different temperaments, different experiences and backgrounds. So, I don't think there is, or should be, a one-size-fits-all understanding.

 

However, sometimes just discussing these matters helps us focus our thoughts. And, sometimes, other perspectives can help one see alternatives not before fully considered.

 

 

George

Thanks George. The reason I raised that issue is that I did not want people to think that I was telling people what to think, only what I think.

Do I believe in many of the things listed by Neon Genesis? I would have to say no I do not. For all the miracles created by what I believe is by a person's belief there has never been a man who has lost a leg grow another one, no matter what his faith. The issue for me is if one then says one believes in God are we saying God exists only in the materal, God is everything, or God exists in another realm (the spiritual) which influences the heart of everyone in this. I guess I go with the later rather than pantheism. For me if evil exists and God is everything then God must also be partly evil, which is something I cannot follow. I know as I have said that others like Marcion struggled with this one and came to the conclusion the NT God maybe not the same as the OT God. I do not believe Jesus believed that there was two Gods but I think I can see why Marcion came to the conclusion. I just deal with it in believing in a realm of God that exists in the spiritual rather than the conflict of this one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what we are bumping up against here are differences in just what we are referring to by such words as natural/supernatural, or miracle.

 

Whereas some may use such term as 'supernatural' or 'miracle' for such an idea as that by one's conforming to and professing a certain set of religious beliefs, saying certain phrases, praying a certain prayer, performing a certain ritual such as dunking in special water, there is "something" far and away beyond any natural part of that action accomplished, such as ones soul saved from eternal hell or what have you, to me, better terms for those things might be superstitious nonsense, hype and hoodoo, but not supernatural or miraclulous.

 

I think that as awareness of our concept of "material and natural reality" expands into previously incharted regions of what has been "beyond (known) natural", there is and will be the challenge of sorting out what of that IS "real", vs what has come of ignorance, superstition, delusion, and mere uncritical and fanciful thinking.

 

As for connecting the supernatural with events that 'suspend' or 'violate' the "Laws of Nature", if, as many of us here are expressing, one has turned loose of the idea of a dual 'natural' vs 'supernatural', then whatever is possible in that supernatural sphere is no longer suspending or violating any Law of Nature, but simply operating in accord to laws of nature we just don't know about just yet. However, I also have to condition that with caution about any supposed event any would declare a 'miracle'...first, do we really have valid evidence it ever happened at all, or happened the way it was supposed to happen, etc.

 

I would also have to consider whether there was anything 'supernaturally remarkable' about what happened at all, to begin with.

I get most annoyed at those that are all into the "God answers Prayers" ("God obeys our commands and grants our demands!") mentality and attitude, that so casually attribute every sick person they've prayed for/over recovering to "another answered prayer.", when there was absoltely nothing unusual or remarkable about the person's recovery at all. To me, all of that is nothing more than people caught up in a delusion about their own superior power and favor with God, which be extension becomes power over others...."well, if I can affect your recovery from an illness, you owe me your gratitude and respect, and if you don't give me that, then I can just as easily affect ill against you by praying against you."

 

I have to agree I've not seen evidence of any such spectacular 'miraculous' events that could stand as such under those kiinds of definitions of 'miracle'. Yet I have seen things there seemed no immediate reasonable explanation for under what we know of the laws of material nature, that seemed to me not so much in suspension or violation of Laws of Nature, but rather perhaps involving some factors beyond what I was able to identify, quantify, qualify. Actually, it has been that very kind of incident, or event, that has often led to new scientific discovery, as someone looked further into some phenomenon that just didn't seem to conform to what was known reality at the time. It has only been a few hundred years since the only exlanation people had for disease was evil spirits, and from that perspective, the only effective 'remedy' would have been casting out the evil spirits and/or evoking the help of good spirits, or the application of some "magical potion" that happened to contain actual active natural ingredients. Most of us no longer accept this model of "spiritual warfare," or the effects of material compounds that seem effective against disease as being "magical" in nature....we simply call them medicines.

 

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi NeonGenesis,

 

I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I wonder why you believe in "the laws of nature" in opposition to the supernatural. What I'm getting at with this question is that a belief in "the laws of nature" seems very metaphysical, especially if their existence is presumed to be such that it is possible to think of "them" being "violated". Why is "supernatural" ruled out while "natural" is a given? Is there such a "thing" as "nature"? Perhaps even more to the point: why must we insist on a "natural" vs "supernatural" dichotomy to begin with, when it is not clear how either of these terms refer to anything that actually exists? Again, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you said, I think we're in agreement in practice, perhaps we approach the topic a little differently in principle though.

 

Peace,

Mike

I don't "believe" in the laws of nature. I only accept it as the simplest and most logical explanation we have so far to explain how the natural universe works. For example, we can be fairly certain that gravity is real because of objective scientific testing done through the scientific method by scientific figures like Isaac Newton and the like who have objectively verified gravity is real. We can verify its existence ourselves through our own testing by dropping heavy objects from a high location and observing what's happening. There is no such rigorous testing that proves the existence of the supernatural. Now if someone could prove to me that humans can walk on water or part oceans with their staff, then I'll gladly accept the existence of the supernatural. But we have no such double blind objective experiments that proves the supernatural is real like we do with gravity to the best of my knowledge. The only "proof" we have of miracles are personal subjective experiences. But as Thomas Paine said in the Age of Reason, personal revelations by their very nature are only convincing to the individual who had them and without objective evidence of the supernatural, we are not obliged to believe the personal experiences.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think of gravity more or less as an observed phenomenon with accompanying theoretical descriptions. Nobody to my knowledge has ever empirically observed a "law of nature" or even something called "nature," these concepts belong purely to metaphysics. In other words, the idea of "nature" as such does not serve to explain any empirical phenomena, nor could it, since "nature" and "laws of nature" are philosophical categories. Let me demonstrate what I mean through what you wrote here,

 

I don't "believe" in the laws of nature. I only accept it as the simplest and most logical explanation we have so far to explain how the natural universe works.

 

My understanding is that "nature" is a metaphysical concept; therefore with this in mind your statement would read, "I accept nature as the simplest explanation of how nature works." There would be an inherent circularity here. It doesn't mean that the concept of nature is wrong because it is metaphysical: I believe that metaphysics is a valid type of discourse. However, it does mean that "nature" and "laws of nature" cannot be treated as if they are scientific and empirical concepts, as if there is something out there in reality that truly goes by the name "nature".

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws of nature are not merely a metaphysical concept but we objectively observe them all the time. We can observe that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and so we observe that as the law of conservation of mass. From the Wikipedia article

A physical law or scientific law is a scientific generalization based on empirical observations of physical behaviour (i.e. the law of nature [1]). Laws of nature are observable. Scientific laws are empirical, describing observable patterns. Empirical laws are typically conclusions based on repeated scientific experiment and observation, over many years, and which have become accepted universally within the scientific community. The production of a summary description of our environment in the form of such laws is a fundamental aim of science.
Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, if it were the case that it people walking on water or parting seas was in fact empirically observable, I'm sure that in some way such occurrences would be subsumed in the concept of the "natural". If it exists and can in some way be accounted for, it is "natural" by definition. Perhaps that is just the definition of nature: a closed system that is defined by itself (self-limiting). But what does that really tell us about the nature of reality? Not a whole lot, as far as I can see. Perhaps the concepts both of the "natural" and the "supernatural" are more a matter of convention and consensus than reality. I'm not actually sure what "supernatural" might actually mean, aside from "something which exists which we formerly did not think did (or could), or which we cannot presently account for in our worldview."

 

Peace.

Edited by Mike
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The laws of nature are not merely a metaphysical concept but we objectively observe them all the time. We can observe that matter cannot be created nor destroyed and so we observe that as the law of conservation of mass.

 

I think then there is some equivocation going on. Metaphysical conclusions cannot be drawn from generalizations based on the regularities of the behavior of phenomena.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even accepting your definition of the laws of nature and the supernatural, that doesn't change the fact that there is no objective proof of miracles as defined by most Christians and theists. There have been scientific studies that have shown that prayer has zero effect on healing people's physical ailments and in some cases can actually complicate them. Faith healing pastors have been proven to be money-grabbing scam artists. Speaking in tongues and near death experiences can now be explained as being purely natural creations of the mind and I've never known anyone who's won a Nobel Peace Prize for claiming to have had their ailments miraculously healed.

Edited by Neon Genesis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There have been scientific studies that have shown that prayer has zero effect on healing people's physical ailments and in some cases can actually complicate them [. . .]

 

Faith healing pastors have been proven to be money-grabbing scam artists.

Neon,

 

In fact, I have seen studies reported that showed beneficial effects of prayer. So, I don't think the science is quite as conclusive as you say.

 

Also, your characterization of "faith-healing pastors" is rather sweeping and stated without empirical support. I have no doubt that this is true of some, but I also suspect that some are sincere. FWIW, it is most likely that the historical Jesus was himself a 'faith-healing preacher' (but not a supernatural miracle doer).

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

While there indeed might be fraudulent elements of faith healing, here is one i challenge you to investigate yourself and convince the woman (Kelly) that her healing was not miraculous or supernatural to her. This is not to say that all supposed healings are real but there are many people who can attest to her affliction being present before and not after this event. Watch it from beginning to end.

 

BTW I have no personal interest in the ministry of this man nor am i a follower of his nor do i attest to his character, but i have personally experienced enough of this phenomena being part of such a ministry that science may one day explain but for now to the receiver and in the perception of my mind it definitely classifies as a miracle regardless of the belief of others.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't speak on the details of this specific case but Benny Hinn has long since been proven to be a fraud. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benny_Hinn#Criticism_and_controversy

A controversial aspect of Hinn's ministry is his teaching on, and demonstration of, a phenomenon he dubs "The Anointing"—the power purportedly given by God and transmitted through Hinn to carry out supernatural acts. At Hinn's Miracle Crusades, he has allegedly healed attendees of blindness, deafness, cancer, AIDS,[17] and severe physical injuries. However, investigative reports by the Los Angeles Times, NBC's Dateline, the CBC's The Fifth Estate, and the Nine Network's 60 Minutes have called these claims into question.

Hinn has also caused controversy for theological remarks and claims he has made during TV appearances. In 1999, Hinn appeared on the Trinity Broadcasting Network, claiming that God had given him a vision predicting the resurrection of thousands of dead people after watching the network—laying out a scenario of people placing their dead loved ones' hands on TV screens tuned into the station—and suggesting that TBN would be "an extension of Heaven to Earth".

 

In November 2004, the CBC Television show The Fifth Estate did a special titled "Do You Believe in Miracles" on the apparent transgressions committed by Benny Hinn's ministry.[3] With the aid of hidden cameras and crusade witnesses, the producers of the show demonstrated Benny's apparent misappropriation of funds, his fabrication of the truth, and the way in which his staff chose crusade audience members to come on stage to proclaim their miracle healings.[3] In particular, the investigation highlighted the fact that the most desperate miracle seekers who attend a Hinn crusade--the quadriplegics, the brain-damaged, virtually anyone with a visibly obvious physical condition--are never allowed up on stage; those who attempt to get in the line of possible healings are intercepted and directed to return to their seats. At one Canadian service, hidden cameras showed a mother who was carrying her Muscular Dystrophy-afflicted daughter, Grace, being stopped by two screeners when they attempted to get into the line for a possible blessing from Benny. The screeners asked the mother if Grace had been healed, and when the mother replied in the negative, they were told to return to their seats; the pair got out of line, but Grace, wanting "Pastor Benny to pray for [her]", asked her mother to support her as she tried to walk as a show of "her faith in action", according to the mother. After several unsuccessful attempts at walking, the pair left the arena in tears, both mother and daughter visibly upset at being turned aside and crying as they explained to the undercover reporters that all Grace had wanted was for Benny to pray for her, but the staffers rushed them out of the line when they found out Grace had not been healed.[3] A week later at a service in Toronto, Baptist evangelist Justin Peters, who wrote his Masters in Divinity thesis on Benny Hinn[21] and has attended numerous Hinn crusades since 2000 as part of his research for his thesis and for a seminar he developed about the Word of Faith movement entitled A Call for Discernment,[22] also demonstrated to the hidden cameras that "people who look like me"--Peters has cerebral palsy, walks with arm-crutches, and is obviously and visibly disabled--"are never allowed on stage[...]it's always somebody who has some disability or disease that cannot be readily seen." Like Grace and her mother, Peters was quickly intercepted as he came out of the wheelchair section (there is one at every crusade, situated at the back of the audience, far away from the stage, and never filmed for Hinn's TV show) in an attempt to join the line of those waiting to go onstage, and was told to take a seat.[3]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

This conversation isn't about Benny Hinn. You disputed the power of prayer and the miraculous and in fact said

There have been scientific studies that have shown that prayer has zero effect on healing people's physical ailments and in some cases can actually complicate them.

I was just challenging you to watch the video and tell me how you will convince Kelly of that by such a statement.

Joseph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re-read the post... Joseph said..... watch the video....

i challenge you to investigate yourself and convince the woman (Kelly) that her healing was not miraculous or supernatural to her.

 

I said nothing about the reputation or character of Benny Hinn. It is irrelevant to the point of my post.

 

PS.

Here.... No Benny Hinn....

http://www.newswithv.../sizemore59.htm

 

Convince Bill sizemore and his daughter.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was just challenging you to watch the video and tell me how you will convince Kelly of that by such a statement.

Joseph

It's not my business to convince anyone of anything. If Ms. Kelly wishes to believe she was healed by prayer, that's her prerogative. But if Ms. Kelly is going around on live TV claiming to have proof that God can perform miracles, I would like to hear her explanation as to why studies liked these failed to find proof of the power of prayer: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/health/31pray.html?pagewanted=all
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's the point Neon,

 

You challenged the power of prayer and the miraculous by your statement. I was merely pointing out by the video and then a link that all the studies in the world will do nothing to convince Kelly or Bill Sizemore and his daughter that there is no power in prayer or that miracles don't still happen. They don't need to explain a study and could probably care less about studies. They know something happen to them. or as the NT records in John 9...

24 A second time they summoned the man who had been blind. “Give glory to God by telling the truth,” they said. “We know this man is a sinner.”

25 He replied, “Whether he is a sinner or not, I don’t know. One thing I do know. I was blind but now I see!”

 

i do not fault you for being skeptical. My only point was that studies do not speak for all personal realities. It seems to me that when unity is at its best regardless of personal dogma or doctrine, there is a healing presence of power that can be received by one whose faith is in harmony with that possibility. Those 2 cases i have published here can be investigated if one is seeking evidence but it seems to me that we only seek those things that support our present beliefs and in doing so, little progress is made. To me, from personal experience healing of that sort is a reality that a study may be used to explain but no study can invalidate its reality to the person who knows only that once they were afflicted and prayed for, but now they are healed.

 

Joseph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also was aware of the study that Neon has mentioned as its in the UK Times too. :- http://www.timesonli...icle1072638.ece

I am also aware of the research Richard Dawkins gave to the numbers of people said to be cured at Lourds :- http://en.wikipedia...._of_All_Evil%3F

The American Cancer Society :- http://www.cancer.org/Treatment/TreatmentsandSideEffects/ComplementaryandAlternativeMedicine/MindBodyandSpirit/faith-healing

 

"Available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can cure cancer or any other disease. Available scientific evidence does not support claims that faith healing can cure cancer or any other disease. Some scientists suggest that the number of people who attribute their cure to faith healing is lower than the number predicted by calculations based on the historical percentage of spontaneous remissions seen among people with cancer. However, faith healing may promote peace of mind, reduce stress, relieve pain and anxiety, and strengthen the will to live."

 

Now I have worked in the health service for 40yrs and I have seen people whose illness went in to remission or they recovered quicker or unexpectedly they get better. It happens with or without prayer. If I could see a regular increase in the cure of those who were prayed for or had faith against those that did not then I would feel I would say that the supporting evidence says that prayer works, but that is not the case. There is no difference (IMO) that I can point to between those who do recover unexpectedly and those who did not. Now do not get me wrong, I love it if people pray for me dispite knowing that it may not make much difference to any illness I may have. It is great to feel loved. The problem I have with faith healing is that research does not support them and when many people do not get the improvement they desired they are often told its because they do not have enough faith. This can hurt.

I had Poliomylites at two years of age. My parents being very fundamental prayed a lot for me but I still have some paralysis from the disease. They were told this was because they did not have enough faith. The minister did not point out the fact that if this was so then he too could not have had enough faith as his prayer never worked either.

I can also recall patients insisting that they had been cured by faith healers and disbelieving the fact that a medical examinations findings did not agree with their belief. Yet, on the other side I have seen people deteriate very quickly because they have resigned themselves to believing there was no hope. So I do not come out and say that prayer does no good, just that it may not be the cure that they may have been seeking.

I did not watch the full length of the video of Hinn at work. The emotional music, the langauge used, the insistence on their belief systems is well known for its use in hypnosis but it is not the same thing as a genuine research into the event.

As I said previously that I feel the real miracle is on the spiritual level and one is yet to show me research that it is as affective in the physical sense. I am sorry but this is my understanding.

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In my opinion, the efficacy of prayer should not determined by whether it cures cancer of not. There is no evidence that it does. But, it can help relieve anxiety related to cancer. Scot Atran, a scientist, (In Gods We Trust: The Evolutionary Landscape of Religion), says that prayer has been found to be "a stress reducing means to deal with the existential anxiety that accompanies uncontrollable events." He also says that it has been found that prayer can relieve everyday stress.

 

Tonight on the PBS Newshour, there was a segment that related health and stress. So, to improve health in general, it helps to relieve stress. A British scientist was interviewed who has done work on this subject.

 

George

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

i do not fault you for being skeptical. My only point was that studies do not speak for all personal realities. It seems to me that when unity is at its best regardless of personal dogma or doctrine, there is a healing presence of power that can be received by one whose faith is in harmony with that possibility. Those 2 cases i have published here can be investigated if one is seeking evidence but it seems to me that we only seek those things that support our present beliefs and in doing so, little progress is made. To me, from personal experience healing of that sort is a reality that a study may be used to explain but no study can invalidate its reality to the person who knows only that once they were afflicted and prayed for, but now they are healed.

 

Joseph.

I was asked if my Christianity includes the supernatural and I responded that no it doesn't and I simply gave my reasons for why it doesn't include it. I agree prayer has meditative benefits to it and I still pray every day to God myself even though I don't believe in an interventionist deity because prayer fills my mind with peace and helps me organize my thoughts but I don't think there's anything supernatural about this way of prayer. Yes, I agree all the studies in the world won't be convincing to Ms. Kelly but not everyone is convinced by personal subjective experiences either and some people need more than that to convince them to believe in the miraculous. To quote Thomas Paine from The Age of Reason:
No one will deny or dispute the power of the Almighty to make such a communication if he pleases. But admitting, for the sake of a case, that something has been revealed to a certain person, and not revealed to any other person, it is revelation to that person only. When he tells it to a second person, a second to a third, a third to a fourth, and so on, it ceases to be a revelation to all those persons. It is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other, and, consequently, they are not obliged to believe it. It is a contradiction in terms and ideas to call anything a revelation that comes to us at second hand, either verbally or in writing. Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication. After this, it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it cannot be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner, for it was not a revelation made to me, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

Good quote by Thomas Paine. Of course he was referring to the Bible as revelation.

 

Kelly's testimony is firsthand and true to her as is Bill Sizemore and daughter and my own. Certainly, i do not expect another to believe based on my own first-hand testimony nor the first hand testimony of the two i mentioned. One cannot know the truth except by ones own experience and personal revelation. The same can be said of studies concerning such an issue as this. Studies have shown different results but all studies have been refuted from both sides with poor controls. The only way you will know for sure is if it happens to you and then no study will be necessary. Even Jesus is recorded saying at most all healing he is reported to be involved in "Thy faith hath made thee whole". If one accepts a study whereby one is not open to such a personal revelation, how can one then have the faith to receive it? However, if one is more open or agnostic to the possibility, it seems to me that perhaps one is more likely to have such an experience for oneself.

 

Just my personal view,

Joseph

 

Pete,

It is necessary to watch both the beginning and end of the video to understand her full testimony and proof. The event took place in 2000 if my memory serves and her healing is still in effect. However as always, testimonies only serve to help us remain open to the possibility that all healing events are not fraudulent. Whether one believes or not is up to the individual so of course no offence is taken for having a different personal position in this matter.

Edited by JosephM
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joseph, you did catch in this video that "Kelly" is part of the "community" surrounding that ministry? Use of "actors" that were also often connected to Hinn's operation and and interconnected network of such "ministries" were eventually implicated when these ministies were debunked and fraud exposed. No, I don't accept "Kelly" as evidence of anything beyond clever showmanship.

Sorry.

 

Jenell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neon,

 

Good quote by Thomas Paine. Of course he was referring to the Bible as revelation.

 

Kelly's testimony is firsthand and true to her as is Bill Sizemore and daughter and my own. Certainly, i do not expect another to believe based on my own first-hand testimony nor the first hand testimony of the two i mentioned. One cannot know the truth except by ones own experience and personal revelation. The same can be said of studies concerning such an issue as this. Studies have shown different results but all studies have been refuted from both sides with poor controls. The only way you will know for sure is if it happens to you and then no study will be necessary. Even Jesus is recorded saying at most all healing he is reported to be involved in "Thy faith hath made thee whole". If one accepts a study whereby one is not open to such a personal revelation, how can one then have the faith to receive it? However, if one is more open or agnostic to the possibility, it seems to me that perhaps one is more likely to have such an experience for oneself.

 

I must respectfully disagree on this. To say all experiences are subjective and that you can only know truth through personal revelation is in itself an objective statement based on an impersonal observation unless you've somehow been able to personally experience everything that's ever happened in the universe. Of course some experiences are subjective and personal, but to say that they all are and that there is nothing which can objectively be known would put us in an Alice In Wonderland topsy turvy world where up is down and you can't ever objectively know that gravity will turn you into a pancake if you jump off a building until you actually jump off yourself. This postmodern worldview where all experiences are equally subjective and all truth is personal may make sense at first on paper but it's not really liveable when put into practice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service