Christian "purpose" and "meaning" in life.

[Mudhammam]

This thread is STILL going on? Forget "Christian (fictional) purpose"... WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF 26 PAGES ON THIS THREAD?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Going back to when I lay dying, airway doubled in half, before being airlifted from the crash site, why didn't your God choose to reveal himself to me?

Hardship makes some people turn away from God. Others turn to God. I don't know why that is, but I'm guessing that it is the same reason why, when times are good, some people thank God and others simply enjoy the blessings.

I guess it also depends on where people look for God and what you expect to find. If only miracles and visions will satisfy someone's need to know then they're bound for disappointment. If a person is truly receptive to the 'still soft voice' and willing to be lead by it, I truly believe they will become aware a spiritual presence in their lives.

Either way. Congrats. Your wife is indeed a hottie.

[Bad Writer]

Going back to when I lay dying, airway doubled in half, before being airlifted from the crash site, why didn't your God choose to reveal himself to me?

Hardship makes some people turn away from God. Others turn to God. I don't know why that is, but I'm guessing that it is the same reason why, when times are good, some people thank God and others simply enjoy the blessings.

I guess it also depends on where people look for God and what you expect to find. If only miracles and visions will satisfy someone's need to know then they're bound for disappointment. If a person is truly receptive to the 'still soft voice' and willing to be lead by it, I truly believe they will become aware a spiritual presence in their lives.

Either way. Congrats. Your wife is indeed a hottie.

Because there's a still small voice to be heard? I seriously wonder if some of you would think very differently about these voices in your heads if you got some medication for that.

[Rampant.A.I.]

Going back to when I lay dying, airway doubled in half, before being airlifted from the crash site, why didn't your God choose to reveal himself to me?

Hardship makes some people turn away from God. Others turn to God. I don't know why that is, but I'm guessing that it is the same reason why, when times are good, some people thank God and others simply enjoy the blessings.

Thanks, but given that I have been literally playing for an experience of the divine since I was 16 or so, what possible meaning could God, in your estimation, have been meant to translate to me, other than "continue doing what you're doing and all is well"?

What makes you think anything you believe have access to overrides my experience, and why?

I guess it also depends on where people look for God and what you expect to find. If only miracles and visions will satisfy someone's need to know then they're bound for disappointment.

In everything. You're talking to someone who went to bed for a decade, asking for divine guidance.

If a person is truly receptive to the 'still soft voice' and willing to be lead by it, I truly believe they will become aware a spiritual presence in their lives.

And I'm open to it. Believe me; as much as I play the devil's advocate on here, it's out of an innate want for truth. If God steps in to demonstrate himself to me, nothing would make me happier than embracing him, and finally having a reason to assign to all of this to.

Either way. Congrats. Your wife is indeed a hottie.

Thank you. My wife is indeed a goddess. I have no problem pledging the best of my ability to live up to what she needs, and to make her happy.

[Mudhammam]

Hardship makes some people turn away from God. Others turn to God. I don't know why that is, but I'm guessing that it is the same reason why, when times are good, some people thank God and others simply enjoy the blessings.

Does there need to be a reason other than the physiological changes that occur within the body at any given interaction with the environment? That is, is faith in your God vs. my God vs. No God really any different than your preference for chocolate ice cream vs. my preference for cake?

I guess it also depends on where people look for God and what you expect to find. If only miracles and visions will satisfy someone's need to know then they're bound for disappointment. If a person is truly receptive to the 'still soft voice' and willing to be lead by it, I truly believe they will become aware a spiritual presence in their lives.

I think you hit on a deeper problem, which is that "God" is so ill-defined, people can literally believe they've found "him" on their french toast, if they're "truly receptive" to a "spiritual presence"---by which you mean something supernatural, I mean something physiological (and science seems to vindicate that to some extent, whereas religion doesn't), and we both mean that it does feel magical at times.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Hardship makes some people turn away from God. Others turn to God. I don't know why that is, but I'm guessing that it is the same reason why, when times are good, some people thank God and others simply enjoy the blessings.

Does there need to be a reason other than the physiological changes that occur within the body at any given interaction with the environment? That is, is faith in your God vs. my God vs. No God really any different than your preference for chocolate ice cream vs. my preference for cake?

I guess it also depends on where people look for God and what you expect to find. If only miracles and visions will satisfy someone's need to know then they're bound for disappointment. If a person is truly receptive to the 'still soft voice' and willing to be lead by it, I truly believe they will become aware a spiritual presence in their lives.

I think you hit on a deeper problem, which is that "God" is so ill-defined, people can literally believe they've found "him" on their french toast, if they're "truly receptive" to a "spiritual presence"---by which you mean something supernatural, I mean something physiological (and science seems to vindicate that to some extent, whereas religion doesn't), and we both mean that it does feel magical at times.

If by vindicate you mean that spiritual experiences have physical affects, I don't see that as justification for assuming that spiritual events are entirely physical. And I was careful to say spiritual experience recognizing that different religious traditions interpret these experiences in various ways. That does not invalidate the basic experience.

[Mudhammam]

If by vindicate you mean that spiritual experiences have physical affects, I don't see that as justification for assuming that spiritual events are entirely physical. And I was careful to say spiritual experience recognizing that different religious traditions interpret these experiences in various ways. That does not invalidate the basic experience.

The problem is, I think, that unless the distinction is more clearly defined and demonstrated, we're merely arguing semantics, describing the phenomena of experience in a manner--on the one hand--that tries to appreciate the notion of objective facts, and on the other, that seeks to reduce them to merely esoteric symbols, symbols that offer no predictive value or shed light on uncharted territory of human experience. What justification do we have for extending spiritual experiences beyond the physical when the only widely accepted definition of a supernatural occurrence is that which eludes critical examination?

[Neo-Scholastic]

If by vindicate you mean that spiritual experiences have physical affects, I don't see that as justification for assuming that spiritual events are entirely physical. And I was careful to say spiritual experience recognizing that different religious traditions interpret these experiences in various ways. That does not invalidate the basic experience.

The problem is, I think, that unless the distinction is more clearly defined and demonstrated, we're merely arguing semantics, describing the phenomena of experience in a manner--on the one hand--that tries to appreciate the notion of objective facts, and on the other, that seeks to reduce them to merely esoteric symbols, symbols that offer no predictive value or shed light on uncharted territory of human experience. What justification do we have for extending spiritual experiences beyond the physical when the only widely accepted definition of a supernatural occurrence is that which eludes critical examination?

Substitute the word mental for spiritual, and it leads back to the original post. And yes it is a matter of semantics in the truest sense of the word. The question is about how significance can supervene on physical processes. The meaning of signs and symbols have absolutely no objective relationship with the form or medium of the signs themselves. Abacus beads have no inherent meaning until a knowing subject assigns them meanings. Nor do arrangements of LED lights on a screen. And when I say the same about the fully physical states of the brain it is completely consistent with the relationship between signs and significance with all other physical systems. Materialist make an exception for brains without any evidence for a mechanism that defines the difference between conscious and unconscious processes. That's what they call special pleading.

[Mudhammam]

The problem is, I think, that unless the distinction is more clearly defined and demonstrated, we're merely arguing semantics, describing the phenomena of experience in a manner--on the one hand--that tries to appreciate the notion of objective facts, and on the other, that seeks to reduce them to merely esoteric symbols, symbols that offer no predictive value or shed light on uncharted territory of human experience. What justification do we have for extending spiritual experiences beyond the physical when the only widely accepted definition of a supernatural occurrence is that which eludes critical examination?

Substitute the word mental for spiritual, and it leads back to the original post. And yes it is a matter of semantics in the truest sense of the word. The question is about how significance can supervene on physical processes. The meaning of signs and symbols have absolutely no objective relationship with the form or medium of the signs themselves. Abacus beads have no inherent meaning until a knowing subject assigns them meanings. Nor do arrangements of LED lights on a screen. And when I say the same about the fully physical states of the brain it is completely consistent with the relationship between signs and significance with all other physical systems. Materialist make an exception for brains without any evidence for a mechanism that defines the difference between conscious and unconscious processes. That's what they call special pleading.

Well, I think materialists can agree with you that there is an element of mystery involved. My problem is filling that mystery with inferences that I find arbitrary and unhelpful. I don't think it is special pleading to make an exception for brains, in terms of being the original Unmeant Meaners, because clearly this appears to be the case in Darwinian processes--in building complex neural structures, a semblance of significance begins to to emerge, and I think there are many plausible "Just-So Stories" relating to the concept of self and the development of language that explains just how this might come about. This gradual awareness of the self, of symbols and meaning, is evident in humans, along with other primates, such as chimps, and probably even dolphins and pigs, to name a few. And of course, in our own development we "witness" its arrival from "nothingness" first hand, from birth to early infancy, childhood to adulthood. So certainly brains have evolved with a special capacity for creating significance, and the human brain is by far the best at it. Why or how that occurs, I don't see how we're equipped to seek out anything but naturalistic answers, which is why I think materialists are correct in citing them, even if they ultimately turn out to be wrong (which we will only discover through more scientific ingenuity)

I'm not sure if you ever saw my long address to you, regarding similar lines, back on page 8, but I don't think you ever responded to it. Or I just missed it. But it largely addresses this, though in particular regards to your criticisms of reductionism.

[Lek]

Evidently, they hadn't accepted that Jesus was the Son of God. They were to believe in the one coming after John, which was Jesus.

Nice apologetic try, but no, he said clearly that they already believed. If you take the idea that they didn't believe in jesus yet, then the first line falls apart, that they were believers and disciples. Furthermore, it was john that baptized jesus. John definitely was preaching about the correct god and jesus in christian doctrine. Are you claiming that John the baptist was not in touch with the correct god? Was he a mormon or something?

Besides if you did have a correct baptism, you should be hearing messages from the holy spirit, just like these twelve, yet you don't. I'm sure they used to think that they were supposed to have their conversations with god through the scriptures as well, just like you.

{or else they were delusional, just_like_you.}

They were disciples according to what they knew, and they were referred to as disciples, not believers. They told Paul that they had never heard of the Holy Spirit and had only received John's baptism of repentance. They believed in the coming messiah, but evidently hadn't heard that Jesus had come or they would have received his baptism. John was baptizing people before Jesus revealed himself in public and, therefore, baptized many people who had not yet heard of Jesus. By the way, baptism isn't the saving act, but just a confirmation of what we believe. When they received Jesus' baptism, they were confirming their belief in him. Why are you so hung up on messages from the Holy Spirit anyway? He works in my life every day. Am I supposed to get voice or text messages or what? God has never communicated directly with me in words, except through the scriptures.