A True Prophet

[pureinheart]

Have you ever been in the midst of a seasoned Prophet of God? Would you recognize one if you saw him/her? I would compare being in the presence of a true Prophet of God as having an Angelic visitation.

 

I got the awesome opportunity witness an actual Angel....was driving, on my way to work, and was stopped at a stop light. A young man and a girl were crossing Fig Ave (the Lord had been ministering to me concerning the Fig tree) and for the record Angels have the ability to manifest themselves as human beings. Will explain this to the best of my ability...the man looked right at me while crossing (they were moving very slowly) and the look on his face was angelic.....his eyes were extraordinary and I felt Gods presence greatly....then the light turned green and the lady in the lane next to me started honking her horn, and screaming to hurry up....the man looked at her with the saddest look I'd ever seen....it their eyes....

 

A Prophet is not a fortune teller, they do not conduct séances, read palms, tarot cards nor are psychics. They are the very heart of God, preparing the way for what ever God has designed.

 

Not to down play or undermine any of the other gifts/anointing/callings, it just seems as if the Prophetic is the least understood and the most coveted gift/anointing/calling in the church today...also the secular world has it's counterfeits in the form of psychics.

 

Concerning the church, the Prophetic is greatly sought out because of the miraculous relationship the Prophet has with the Lord. Some in the church see this and desire it in a covetous manor. They see the favor and popularity....BUT that is all they see....they don't see the Prophet that has gone through the literal hell on earth since birth. Our enemy, the devil/Satan is anything but stupid, remember he was the highest of the angelic realm, he knows who the Prophets are from birth and begins his strategies to kill them (or try to).

 

Some of you have been turned of to the things of God due to the cheap theatrics, that put God on stage as a parlor trick to attain money and self notoriety....these are self proclaimed prophets and not Prophets of the Most High God. Our best references to the exact nature of the Prophetic are best patterned by the Old Testament Prophets.

 

In the New Testament we have the Five-fold ministry, outlined by the Apostle Paul....Apostle, Prophet, Teacher, Evangelist and Pastor (not sure of the order of the last two). 95% of the churches today don't recognize this chain of command as most are occupied with only the Pastoral. This is why the churches are not as functional as they could be. By "functional" meaning, I have to wonder if every Bible-believing church operated in the Five-fold ministry, would this nation/world be in the sad state that it is in?

 

Every true Prophet of God is different, with different extraordinary manifestations of the anointing. King David was a fighter, Moses a deliverer, Solomon a builder and so on....

 

When a true Prophet speaks you will hear the authority and will not be able to deny it, they are analytical and deep, they find it very hard to carry on a meaningless conversation, they are predominately loners and are considered "different", "weird". They are perfectionists, yet most things in their lives are out of order. They are moody and hypersensitive at times. Most of these traits subside once the Prophet has gone through a few fires.

 

The main ministry of the Prophetic is intercession, this deep level of prayer takes them to places in God that few experience, it is why they are loners, they would rather intercede. The Prophet is the eyes, ears, mouth piece and heart of God here on earth, they know the "secret" things of God....they know God like no one else. They hear into the heavenlies and Spiritual realm.

 

A seasoned, mature Prophet usually cannot be moved, this may come across as an "I don't care" attitude, or "close minded"....this is far from the truth as they have been through so much, so many humblings, fires, cleasings, attacks ect...they literally cannot be touched, they know who they are in the Lord and respect that truth.

[quankanne]

They are the very heart of God, preparing the way for what ever God has designed ... they don't see the Prophet that has gone through the literal hell on earth since birth ... the main ministry of the Prophetic is intercession, this deep level of prayer takes them to places in God that few experience, it is why they are loners ...they know God like no one else ... they literally cannot be touched, they know who they are in the Lord and respect that truth"

 

this is how I see John Paul II, the late pope. This man has bourne many burdens since his youth (lost his whole family, saw his beloved homeland overrun by Nazis, then Communists, had an attempted assassination on his life because of his beliefs, was unpopular because he refused to secularize or "modernize" the Catholic Church so that it reflected contemporary values), yet he remained firm in his conviction in Christ. And somehow managed to use his training and skills as an actor and poet to help make God come alive to hundreds of millions of youth.

 

though I would prolly go one step beyond and describe him as a true apostle of Christ ...

[amerikajin]

I am a prophet.

[pureinheart]

They are the very heart of God, preparing the way for what ever God has designed ... they don't see the Prophet that has gone through the literal hell on earth since birth ... the main ministry of the Prophetic is intercession, this deep level of prayer takes them to places in God that few experience, it is why they are loners ...they know God like no one else ... they literally cannot be touched, they know who they are in the Lord and respect that truth"

 

this is how I see John Paul II, the late pope. This man has bourne many burdens since his youth (lost his whole family, saw his beloved homeland overrun by Nazis, then Communists, had an attempted assassination on his life because of his beliefs, was unpopular because he refused to secularize or "modernize" the Catholic Church so that it reflected contemporary values), yet he remained firm in his conviction in Christ. And somehow managed to use his training and skills as an actor and poet to help make God come alive to hundreds of millions of youth.

 

though I would prolly go one step beyond and describe him as a true apostle of Christ ...

 

Are you Catholic quankanne? Wow I never knew he went through all of that, I remember the attempt on his life. I was raised Catholic and have such a soft place in my heart for the Catholic church....if it had not been for them, don't know where I'd be today....went to Catholic school and loved going to church everyday....

[pureinheart]

I am a prophet.

 

 

LOL....my son loves "Creed", I told him Creed was evil....he told me no they weren't, just listen to some of the songs....so I did, turns out I really like most of Creeds stuff...lol

[Fun2BMe]

I got the awesome opportunity witness an actual Angel.... ...the man looked right at me while crossing (they were moving very slowly) and the look on his face was angelic.....his eyes were extraordinary and I felt Gods presence greatly....

But you don't know anything about that person. In all honesty, he could be an abuser or crook. It's really wrong to judge a person by appearance from what they portray to you from the outside.

 

A Prophet is not a fortune teller, they do not conduct séances, read palms, tarot cards nor are psychics. They are the very heart of God, preparing the way for what ever God has designed.

Isn't a prophet defined by someone who God talks to ?

 

the secular world has it's counterfeits in the form of psychics.

There are psychics and fortune tellers and those who talk to the dead in the bible, but they are not referred to as prophets but I take it that your definition of a prophet is simply a psychic? In that case would you consider me a Prophet since I do in fact have some psychic abilities?

 

they don't see the Prophet that has gone through the literal hell on earth since birth. Our enemy, the devil/Satan is anything but stupid, remember he was the highest of the angelic realm, he knows who the Prophets are from birth and begins his strategies to kill them (or try to).

What is the source of that information? I think there are only a small handful of prophets throughout the bible who experienced any suffering/"hell on earth" as you say. Most were blessed by God and enjoyed a good life. Those who sin experience hell in most cases and prophets are not sinners.

 

When a true Prophet speaks you will hear the authority and will not be able to deny it,

 

I would disagree with this statement. Usually a prophet will say things that are 'uncomfortable' and goes against the grain of what people want to hear. In the bible some have been imprisoned and punished. It's not like people will realize that they are a prophet and bow down to them. Usually it is the devil like people who get all the attention.

[Moai]

LOL....my son loves "Creed", I told him Creed was evil....he told me no they weren't, just listen to some of the songs....so I did, turns out I really like most of Creeds stuff...lol

 

Then you are truly lost...But it's not to late!

 

Go out and get a Turbonegro album (Scandinavian Leather or Apocolypse Dudes) and listen really loud, and you WILL be saved!

[pureinheart]

Fun2BMe;1150241]But you don't know anything about that person. In all honesty, he could be an abuser or crook. It's really wrong to judge a person by appearance from what they portray to you from the outside.

 

I know beyond any shadow of a doubt this man was an angelic being based on spiritual insight. In the natural state it was evident to me by his eyes.

 

 

Isn't a prophet defined by someone who God talks to ?

 

Yes, they can hear God and Angels 24-7

 

 

There are psychics and fortune tellers and those who talk to the dead in the bible, but they are not referred to as prophets but I take it that your definition of a prophet is simply a psychic? In that case would you consider me a Prophet since I do in fact have some psychic abilities?

 

No, the Prophetic and Psychics are completely different

 

 

What is the source of that information? I think there are only a small handful of prophets throughout the bible who experienced any suffering/"hell on earth" as you say. Most were blessed by God and enjoyed a good life. Those who sin experience hell in most cases and prophets are not sinners.

 

What I meant by "hell on earth" was simply trials and tribulations....as far as having a good life, Solomon is the closest I can come to that would fit that, even he, to wards the end of his life he suffered greatly mentally. The majority had great wealth, but as we all know that can be a hindering factor also.

 

 

 

I would disagree with this statement. Usually a prophet will say things that are 'uncomfortable' and goes against the grain of what people want to hear. In the bible some have been imprisoned and punished. It's not like people will realize that they are a prophet and bow down to them. Usually it is the devil like people who get all the attention.

 

Well Joseph was sold by his brothers and ended up in prison twice, he ended up running the prison and went on to entering into second in command in Egypt.

 

Whether it be a judgement word or encouragement, there is power in those words because they are from the very mouth of God, and God is authority.

[bluetuesday]

When a true Prophet speaks you will hear the authority and will not be able to deny it.

 

if this were true, then everyone who heard jesus talk would have accepted that he was the son of god. clearly they didn't, yet he was a true prophet.

 

the fact is that people will only perceive truth - they will only be unable to deny it - if the truth they hear resolnates with the truth within them. if they have no truth in them, they have no capacity to discern what is true and what is not true. this is evidenced everywhere, with people believing whatever they like as being true, because they no have no genuine truth to compare their own 'truth' to.

 

and this situation will continue until they accept they have no truth - until they wake up and realise that actually they DON'T know, and they are sick of not knowing - and ask god in humility to open their eyes to WHATEVER the truth is. until this time, they will not recognise a true prophet, even one living in their own house.

[Moai]

This raises an interesting point.

 

If you believe in angels and demons and that people communicate with them, how do you determine if someone is crazy?

 

I just saw a film about Daniel Johnston, who hears demons and angels and fears for his own salvation, and he is crazy. Anyone I have ever heard of who claims such is considered crazy. Daniel Johnston makes records and is something of an alternative rock darling, FWIW.

 

So how would you determine who was crazy, and who was not? Their behavior other than hearing spirits? What they claim the spirits say to them? Or what?

 

I am not asking this to be funny or sarcastic, I am interested.

 

I think that anyone who claims to talk to angels or demons or things like that is either crazy or a liar. If they function in society in most other ways and do not endanger themselves or others (directly) then I would say that they are lying. Otherwise, crazy.

[Fun2BMe]

This raises an interesting point.

 

If you believe in angels and demons and that people communicate with them, how do you determine if someone is crazy?

 

I just saw a film about Daniel Johnston, who hears demons and angels and fears for his own salvation, and he is crazy. Anyone I have ever heard of who claims such is considered crazy. Daniel Johnston makes records and is something of an alternative rock darling, FWIW.

 

So how would you determine who was crazy, and who was not? Their behavior other than hearing spirits? What they claim the spirits say to them? Or what?

 

I am not asking this to be funny or sarcastic, I am interested.

 

I think that anyone who claims to talk to angels or demons or things like that is either crazy or a liar. If they function in society in most other ways and do not endanger themselves or others (directly) then I would say that they are lying. Otherwise, crazy.

 

I don't think it's right to straight out label them as a liar or crazy. I mean, what if they passed a lie detector test, would that give them credibility. Or I think if you yourself don't believe in spirits and angels, then it's more understandable that you'd think they're crazy. But if you believe in spirits, then I think it's not fair to label them as lying or crazy. There are many books written by those who communicate with other spirits such as Seth Speaks. Imagine if all the biblical prophets had been given prozac and locked up.

[Topper]

You do Have to wonder about some of the Prophets in The old testament. Were some in fact insane?

Isaiah20:2-4 He is told by God to walk around bare fot and naked for 3 years.

Micah1:8 He, like Isaiah goes around Nude. Now he also Howls and makes sounds like dragons.

This is just two exsamples of Prophets that don't seem to be playing with a full deck.

Lets see the Prophets sighted above all had their problems.

David, Despite having many wives and concubine has to have the wife of his General so he commits murder and takes her.

Moses, Also has a few wives . God almost kills him because he has not circumcised his son. His Egyptian wife does it with a sharp rock so god won't kill Moses.

Salomon, Has a bastered son, again he has many wives and cucubines Yet he still has a bastered son? I have to hand it to those Old testament guys they were a randy bunch.

[bluetuesday]

I think that anyone who claims to talk to angels or demons or things like that is either crazy or a liar. If they function in society in most other ways and do not endanger themselves or others (directly) then I would say that they are lying. Otherwise, crazy.

 

this is a very good illustrative example of someone who has made the world conform to their pre-existing beliefs, rather than examining the beliefs impartially and forming an opinion based upon them. it's convenient also that you use two indicators (sanity and truthfulness) for which there is no irrefutable proof. i thought science was above such things!

 

to you, i am either a liar or insane and there is no third option. since i am a fully-functioning, non-threatening, consistent and legally sane (according to the criminal definition of being unable to tell right from wrong and/or being a danger to myself or other people) member of society, then i must by your rationale be a liar.

 

however i am not a liar. it's quite a conundrum isn't it.

[Enema]

He was probably high and his pupils were just dilated.

 

You're seeing what you want to see in order to justify spending so much time in the pursuit of god.

[Moai]

I don't think it's right to straight out label them as a liar or crazy. I mean, what if they passed a lie detector test, would that give them credibility.

 

No, it wouldn't. Lie detector tests are unreliable, and someone who is deluded into thinking that he talks to demons would certainly pass one. That wouldn't make demons real.

 

Or I think if you yourself don't believe in spirits and angels, then it's more understandable that you'd think they're crazy. But if you believe in spirits, then I think it's not fair to label them as lying or crazy. There are many books written by those who communicate with other spirits such as Seth Speaks. Imagine if all the biblical prophets had been given prozac and locked up.

 

They probably would have been. Look at the behavior of those with serious mental illnesses. They make the same claims as to interaction with the supernatural that the prophets did, fear demons are entering their mind, etc.

 

Just because there are lots of people who claim to talk to spirits doesn't make it real, either. The depth of feeling someone has in a belief is not indicative of its reality.

 

And yes, it is fair to label them as lying or crazy. Because up until tis point, they have all been lying or crazy--or at least deluded. Belief in spirits communicating with the individual is one of the key components in diagnosing certain forms of mental illness. If one were to accept that such communication is real, then what test is used to determine if the person is genuine or not? Is it if what they say conforms to a book, or matches others deluded in the same way?

 

Something like 4% of the population is schizophrenic. It has always been this way. In tribal societies, these people were shamen or witches, and read the "signs" for other people. This is what happens when mental illness is not well understood, and spirits and demons are thought to be real. It is convenient to say that the "prophets" that you believe in aren't crazy, but the ones you don't are, no?

 

I again ask, if these spirits are communicating with people, how can you tell who is genuine and who is mentally unstable?

[Moai]

this is a very good illustrative example of someone who has made the world conform to their pre-existing beliefs, rather than examining the beliefs impartially and forming an opinion based upon them. it's convenient also that you use two indicators (sanity and truthfulness) for which there is no irrefutable proof. i thought science was above such things!

 

The notion was not preconceived. Granted, the question was solved before I was born, but I need not revisit every question myself, must I? If that were so, knowledge would never advance. Demons, witches, and angels were shown to be imaginary long before I was born. I just accept that. I did believe in them once, but that belief crumbled because of lack of evidence.

 

There is certainly a phenomenon at work. There are people who make wild claims about speaking to angels and the like. As we examine these people, the vast majority have some form of serious mental illness. The fact that we know there is mental illness at all is because of the search for demons in many ways.

 

For others, they have convinced themselves that they are communicating with another world and that is giving them some insight or what have you, but are otherwise "normal." Does that make their assertions any more real? For the most part, such is harmless, but in point of fact most who claim to have such spiritual knowledge or leadership are looking for money.

 

If someone can drink a fifth a day and yet still pay all his bills and function, does that mean that he is not an alcoholic?

 

to you, i am either a liar or insane and there is no third option. since i am a fully-functioning, non-threatening, consistent and legally sane (according to the criminal definition of being unable to tell right from wrong and/or being a danger to myself or other people) member of society, then i must by your rationale be a liar.

 

There is a difference between being "legally" sane and being sane. It is certainly a sliding scale. Is someone who harbors delusions truly sane? That is certainly an open question.

 

As far as those who are liars, I was referring more to those who claim to be prophetic and the like. From what I see of their fund-raising techniques and their moral behavior I can reasonably conclude that they are liars.

 

however i am not a liar. it's quite a conundrum isn't it.

 

No, it isn't a conundrum at all. Since you believe as you do, how would you determine sanity in another? Since interacting with spirits is possible and all.

[bluetuesday]

Demons, witches, and angels were shown to be imaginary long before I was born. I just accept that.

 

demons and angels have never been shown to be imaginary as you well know, since you cannot prove a negative.

 

moai, with our eyes you and i can obviously see only the energy waves which vibrate between the frequencies our eyes can detect. in their spirit form, angels vibrate at a higher frequency than this. so while they are fully real, they cannot be seen physically unless a person raises his or her own state of consciousness to that which can detect finer (or higher) frequencies. this is not an unnatural thing to do. as the spiritual beings we are, we are designed to do it. realising this does not make a person insane, my friend. it makes them inconvenient to someone who thinks as you do, that is all.

 

There are people who make wild claims about speaking to angels and the like. As we examine these people, the vast majority have some form of serious mental illness.

 

it's pretty convenient to make the claim that everything you haven't yet experienced is false and that everyone who experiences something you haven't is delusional. yet the world doesn't revolve around you, moai. there are plenty of sane, ordinary people out there with experience that differs vastly from yours. i am one of them.

 

yes, some people who claim to be sane are certifiable. and some people who claim to speak to god are nutters. but the objective reality of god is a fact whether you believe it or not. your lack of belief changes nothing. if you only knew how much more complex the world is than you can imagine. but i can't make you understand because you are determined not to. your conviction you're right blinds you to everything else.

 

For others, they have convinced themselves that they are communicating with another world and that is giving them some insight or what have you, but are otherwise "normal."

 

do you need to convince yourself you're communicating with me? if your friend rang your doorbell right now, would you have to convince yourself you heard it ring? moai, i don't have to convince myself of my experience. it is simply my experience. patronising me doesn't change a thing.

 

as a point of clarification, 'communicating with another world' would be incorrect. angels and demons, if you want to call them that, are part of this world, not another. there is much that is part of this world that you have not yet experienced or understood, that is all.

 

There is a difference between being "legally" sane and being sane.

 

is there? what is the difference? we all harbour delusions, moai. you as much as anyone. are you delusional? yes, we all are to some extent. do you fight to overcome your delusions? no, you think they're real. so who is more delusional - the person who trusts in their delusions as reality or the person who sees that what they're experiencing might be delusional, and therefore questions it?

 

Since you believe as you do, how would you determine sanity in another?

 

i wouldn't, i'm not the sanity police. i can't speak for anyone else, i can only tell you that any sane health professional in the world would tell you i'm sane. the fact i have experiences you consider the mark of insanity is neither here nor there, since you aren't the sanity police either. but then you may well think that the vast majority of the world's population, since they believe in some form of god or higher power are, to a lesser or greater degree, insane.

 

there just comes a point at which you have to start considering a third option, moai. if a psychologist would pronounce me sane and if i have no reason to lie to you about what i experience and nothing to gain from a lie, at what point does the possibility i am sane AND telling the truth come into play?

[burning 4 revenge]

I feel most close to God when I go to Cheetah's and see the Brazilian girl named Tatiana. When she is dancing like Salome I would cut the head off the Baptist.

[Moai]

demons and angels have never been shown to be imaginary as you well know, since you cannot prove a negative.

 

I don't think that you know what "prove a negative" means.

 

Let's say someone says, "Prove that there is no invisible teapot out in space!" I cannot. Logic does not work that way. However, it is totally reasonable and follows the principles of logic for me to ask someone who asserts that there is a teapot in space to show me evidence of said teapot. No evidence means that I can reject the idea of the teapot.

 

And yes, demons and angels are known to be imaginary. Nobody (well, nobody sane anyway) has ever seen one. It was once thought that demons caused illness, paralysis, blindness, and mental illness, now we know that demons don't cause any of those things. Again, we understand nature better and magic gets smaller.

 

People who claim to have guardian angels with them (which is odd considering they are not in the Bible, but many Christians believe in them) experience just as much suffering and accidental death as those who do not, and these events occur in exactly the amount we would expect by probability. Either there are guardian angels and they are incompetent, or they don't exist.

 

Demons and angels were once thought to control just about everything. Now we know that the world operates based because of natural, explainable causes. Demons and angels do not exist.

 

moai, with our eyes you and i can obviously see only the energy waves which vibrate between the frequencies our eyes can detect.

 

Uh-huh. Why can't we hear color? Why can't I see flavor? And eyes don't see energy waves, they detect radiation within a certain spectrum of light. I know light is both a particle and a wave, but it is the radiation that we see. It isn't vibrating.

 

in their spirit form, angels vibrate at a higher frequency than this. so while they are fully real, they cannot be seen physically unless a person raises his or her own state of consciousness to that which can detect finer (or higher) frequencies. this is not an unnatural thing to do. as the spiritual beings we are, we are designed to do it. realising this does not make a person insane, my friend. it makes them inconvenient to someone who thinks as you do, that is all.

 

All these assertions with no evidence. Angels vibrating at different frequencies is all very nice, but if that is the case why don't you tell me what this frequency is and we can design a machine to detect them?

 

And you cannot "tune" your consciousness to detect anything. You detect things through your senses, and your senses operate within the norms for humans, just like mine. You can't "learn" or "tune in" to sounds that hummingbirds can hear. Your ears will never pick that sound up, no matter how hard you wish it.

 

And while realizing such a thing may not make someone insane, I would certainly suggest that such a person is deluded. In point of fact you have no concrete way of knowing if such an experience was imaginary, or real. You wish it to be real, and so it is.

 

Consider, too, that you didn't just happen upon this, did you? Someone else told you about it (and presumably how to do it) and so you tried and tried and because it was so important to you to have this experience you have convinced yourself that you, in fact, did have it.

 

I'll use the Mormon Tablets as an example. Early on, a few members of Joseph Smith's new religion wanted to see the tablets. He said fine, led them to a room, moved a curtain, and said, "See? Behold the Golden Tablets of Moroni!" The men just stared and said they didn't see anything.

 

"This is terrible!" said Joseph. "Only the righteous can see the tablets, so since you cannot see them you are not in god's favor! You must go, fast, and pray for his glory and then perhaps you will see them. We will meet again in a week."

 

A week later, Joseph Smith again moved the curtain and *SHOCKER* the men all saw the tablets! A miracle!

 

Or was it? Could it be that there never were any tablets, and that after the first failure none of the men wanted to admit to not being in god's favor, so they convinced themselves that they did in fact see them? I am giving them a lot of credit here, as I think that they lied, but whatever. You can read their names on the first page of the Book of Mormon, attesting to the fact that they had seen the plates themselves and that what Joseph Smith said was true.

 

The Whitmer's were felons, by the way.

 

it's pretty convenient to make the claim that everything you haven't yet experienced is false and that everyone who experiences something you haven't is delusional. yet the world doesn't revolve around you, moai. there are plenty of sane, ordinary people out there with experience that differs vastly from yours. i am one of them.

 

It isn't convenient at all, actually. And I have had what some would call suprenatural experiences, but I didn't leap to any conclusions about them. And it isn't a question of someone experiencing something I haven't as being delusional, it is about experiencing something that only is not repeatable in any meaningful way as being delusional.

 

I have no idea what it is like to be a sherpa, for example. but sherpas experience things as a human, so not only can I read a description of the experience and have it make sense, I could go an live as a sherpa and actually experience it for myself, since all humans experience things the same way. But to duplicate your experience I have to retune and open up to vibrations or something. If I were to put in that effort and get a different answer, what then? Would I be wrong and have to start over, or would my experience be equally valid?

 

Also, I never claimed that the world revolves around me. I am not making up the rules of science, logic, or rationalism as they suit me, I just follow them. I am sorry that such rules mean that what you experience is a delusion, but it isn't just that way because I say so. The rules say so. And these rules are what make your computer work, your car work, your hairdryer work, electricity work, language work--everything works based on these rules. Am I to toss them out on your say so, just because it might offend your sensibilities to call them what they are?

 

Your belief system is based on no tangible evidence. Such beliefs are referred to as delusions. Could what you claim be true? Sure, I suppose. But forgive me for not just taking your word for it.

 

And you keep avoiding the question. I answered yours about design, but instead of addressing that you just said, "Intelligence is obvious" and left it at that. How can you be sure that you are deluded? What outside support do you have for your claims? How is it that you can be so certain that you are right about your beliefs and virtually all other theists think that you are not? You made the claim that when you look, god is unmistakable, is that not so?

 

I would also add that I provided a link to you that is excellent regarding design in Nature. Your local library has volumes on the subject, I am sure. yet to substantiate your position you make assertions and expect me and everyone else reading this thread to just accept it as so, because you did, and it is real for you. No offense, but things don't work that way.

 

yes, some people who claim to be sane are certifiable. and some people who claim to speak to god are nutters.

 

How do you separate one from another? We both know how I do, but i am curious as to how you do. I suspect it ha something to do with not agreeing with your beliefs about the subject, not the subject itself.

 

but the objective reality of god is a fact whether you believe it or not. your lack of belief changes nothing.

 

This is certainly true. But given that there is no evidence for such a belief, I have a much higher probability for being right than you do.

 

God is not a fact. We would not be having this discussion were that the case. Notice how the very nature of god has changed over the centuries. What was once thought to be divine is now known to be pedestrian.

 

if you only knew how much more complex the world is than you can imagine. but i can't make you understand because you are determined not to. your conviction you're right blinds you to everything else.

 

I know the Universe is more complex than I can imagine. That is why I enjoy learning about it so much. Would that you would do the same. Did you bother to look up that site I posted? Have you bothered to familiarize yourself with even the most basic biology? I don't think so, or you would not assert intelligence the way that you do. Please yourself, but it would behoove you to familiarize yourself with the basics before making assertions as to their reality.

 

do you need to convince yourself you're communicating with me? if your friend rang your doorbell right now, would you have to convince yourself you heard it ring? moai, i don't have to convince myself of my experience. it is simply my experience. patronising me doesn't change a thing.

 

Huh? I don't need to convince myself that you are communicating with me because I have evidence to that effect. If the doorbell rings, I know someone pushed the button outside. These things do not require constant checking, as they are average, everyday occurrences that I can take for granted are real. But your experience requires a great deal more evidence for me to accept. I mean, I do accept that you believe these things and are probably experiencing something, but I doubt your conclusions. I think that most rational people would. Does that mean that I am right? No. But it puts the odds in my favor. Immensely.

 

And you need not convince yourself of the experience, but you are certainly convincing yourself as to its meaning.

 

as a point of clarification, 'communicating with another world' would be incorrect. angels and demons, if you want to call them that, are part of this world, not another. there is much that is part of this world that you have not yet experienced or understood, that is all.

 

How do you know? I may have experienced exactly what you have, but didn't label it demons or angels and used a naturalistic explanation.

 

is there? what is the difference? we all harbour delusions, moai. you as much as anyone. are you delusional? yes, we all are to some extent. do you fight to overcome your delusions? no, you think they're real. so who is more delusional - the person who trusts in their delusions as reality or the person who sees that what they're experiencing might be delusional, and therefore questions it?

 

I am not sure that we do all harbor delusions. Maybe we all do to some extent, whether we are delusional about how popular we are, or attractive, or thin, or whatever. But such things protect the psyche more than they are delusions, in my view. Otherwise I would not say that everyone is delusional.

 

And I fall into the latter category and you the former, given your posts and opinions. I experience things, and the more outlandish and intense the more I examine them. I look for external evidence to support my conclusions. I don't trust my feelings or my experience, I trust evidence. Who has the greater chance of being deluded, me or you, do you think?

 

i wouldn't, i'm not the sanity police.

 

Neither am I. But there is a group of doctors and they kind of are the "sanity police" and they are pretty good at diagnosing mental illnesses and delusional behavior. I defer to them.

 

i can't speak for anyone else, i can only tell you that any sane health professional in the world would tell you i'm sane.

 

Very possible. Very possibly not, too. You can be sane and be deluded, you know.

 

the fact i have experiences you consider the mark of insanity is neither here nor there, since you aren't the sanity police either.

 

I never said that you were insane. Given that you can at least make some sense on this board indicates that you probably aren't. Wacky maybe, but not insane.

 

But that isn't the point. The point is, and the question I asked (and still have no answer for) is how YOU would determine if someone is crazy or not? You obviously don't think yourself crazy, Love Hurts and lonleybird do not consider themselves crazy, but you must have some idea what makes someone crazy, right? And, since most people who are crazy describe themselves as interacting with demons or angels or god, how can you separate one from the other?

 

but then you may well think that the vast majority of the world's population, since they believe in some form of god or higher power are, to a lesser or greater degree, insane.

 

No, deluded. Not insane. Insanity is rare.

 

there just comes a point at which you have to start considering a third option, moai. if a psychologist would pronounce me sane and if i have no reason to lie to you about what i experience and nothing to gain from a lie, at what point does the possibility i am sane AND telling the truth come into play?

 

You miss the point. I don't need a psychologist to pronounce you "sane." For most, sanity is a foregone conclusion. I operate as if everyone around me is sane--even though that cannot be the case. Otherwise, nothing would get done.

 

I am sure that you are not lying about what you believe in, either. As I stated, I have no doubt that you have had an interesting experience, I just doubt your conclusions. It goes so far against what I now to be factual that you would need a great deal more evidence than your word to convince me--or anyone else.

 

You could be sane, telling the truth, and still be deluded. You know that, right? Consider witnesses to car accident. One man swears he saw the blue car run the red light, another says that the red car was speeding, and another man says that there was a yellow car that fled the scene. All men have nothing to gain by lying, and are sincerely describing what they saw. they are all sane. Does that mean that they are all right? Does that mean that all their opinions have equal merit? Of course not.

 

How do we determine which man is correct? We examine the evidence. We look at the skid marks, the timing of the crash, the speeds involved, and we can determine what actually happened. One of the men could be right, or none of them. But that doesn't mean any of them were insane or lying. It just means that they did not experience what they thought they were.

 

I used the term "lying" before in the context of Christian prophets who make outlandish claims and then beg for money. I am certain that they are lying. Flat-out lying. I do not think that everyone who makes a supernatural claim is lying, but I do think that they are probably deluded. And so far, all of them have been.

[quankanne]

went to Catholic school and loved going to church everyday

 

ooh! Did you have to deal with nuns? I've only worked with them, and they seem to be sweet ... but I think that's because I'm an adult, not some brat in a classroom :laugh:

 

yep, I'm a cradle Catholic ...

 

the question I asked … is how YOU would determine if someone is crazy or not? You obviously don't think yourself crazy, Love Hurts and lonleybird do not consider themselves crazy, but you must have some idea what makes someone crazy, right? And, since most people who are crazy describe themselves as interacting with demons or angels or god, how can you separate one from the other?

 

I always thought the best way to ascertain sanity is to observe people in all elements possible. Someone can be straight on as an employee, as a family member, as a spouse or parent, as an athletic teammate (meaning, they're good, decent people), and claim to have visions or see spiritual beings, and my thought would be, "Okay, so they've got this interesting little quirk," and I could live with that. But if that person couldn't operate in any other segments of their life, to me that's a sign that there's something "off" about them. Kinda like the guy who goes around claiming everything is a conspiracy theory – his whole reality is delusional because everything is grounded in that one thought, rather than some guy who has a beef because he just happens to think that the government is out to screw over military veterans. Does this make any sense?

[bluetuesday]

Angels vibrating at different frequencies is all very nice, but if that is the case why don't you tell me what this frequency is and we can design a machine to detect them?

 

tell me how that would be possible, moai. seriously, i'm curious as to whether it would be possible to detect something far outside the vibrational frequency of this planet with instruments that vibrate within the vibrational frequency of this planet. or considering superstring theory, would it be possible to detect one or more of the 10 or 11 dimensions proposed by string theorists from our 3D viewpoint? the theorists claim it wouldn't be, even if the said angel or demon was, in reality, occupying the space a centimetre away from you.

 

And you cannot "tune" your consciousness to detect anything. You detect things through your senses, and your senses operate within the norms for humans, just like mine.

 

you seem very sure of what i can and cannot do, and of what the human brain can and cannot do. would you like it if i kept insisting your experiences were delusions? or would you think i was arrogant?

 

Consider, too, that you didn't just happen upon this, did you? Someone else told you about it (and presumably how to do it) and so you tried and tried and because it was so important to you to have this experience you have convinced yourself that you, in fact, did have it.

 

no, the first time i encountered what you would call a demon (but really that's a misleading term) was one saturday morning about 6 years ago when it appeared in my bedroom. it was a terrifying incident i certainly didn't want at the time and have never wanted to repeat. i worked very hard to ensure it didn't happen again by invoking spiritual protection - after all, if there are baddies, and i'd met one, isn't it reasonable to assume there are also goodies? and it was calling for protection which enabled me to have experiences of the spiritual realm. those experiences are not confined to one religious model and they don't conform exactly to anything i've been taught.

 

thank you for your interesting story about joseph smith. my experience was particular to me, and nothing like that.

 

If I were to put in that effort and get a different answer, what then? Would I be wrong and have to start over, or would my experience be equally valid?

 

your experience may well be equally valid. if two people see a rainbow - which substantially isn't there - and have different experiences of seeing it, aren't both of them right?

 

i am a journalist. when i've reported on football matches and come to a different conclusion about the quality of a striker during that game than a reporter from another paper, is it reasonable to assume we've had different, but equally valid experiences of that striker? or would you take the view that since we didn't agree on a player, we must have imagined that a game took place?

 

And you keep avoiding the question. I answered yours about design, but instead of addressing that you just said, "Intelligence is obvious" and left it at that. How can you be sure that you are deluded? What outside support do you have for your claims? How is it that you can be so certain that you are right about your beliefs and virtually all other theists think that you are not? You made the claim that when you look, god is unmistakable, is that not so?

 

yes, i made that claim. i have no independent support for any of my claims. what external evidence is there that someone is in love? love is something that takes place within the brain. is it a delusion? does it cease to be a delusion if every person on the planet experiences it at some time? that other people may not have experienced what i have is a shame for them, but i can hardly be held to account for other people's lack of spiritual experience. it doesn't invalidate my own. a transcendental concept such as god will never be quantifiable experimentally. it has worth only as an inner experience, in the same way that hope is an inner experience, or bliss, or understanding. yes, there may be physical actions which suggest these inner qualities, but i can leap about for you if you like. it won't prove anything to you.

 

Your local library has volumes on the subject, I am sure.

 

i am not a member of my local library. i built up a £11 fine several years ago by forgetting to return a 'teach yourself serbo-croat' tape and have never been able to go back.

 

I suspect it ha something to do with not agreeing with your beliefs about the subject, not the subject itself.

 

i am respectful of other people's beliefs. it matters nothing to me that most people on the planet don't yet share my beliefs. someone's got to be first, right?

 

The point is, and the question I asked (and still have no answer for) is how YOU would determine if someone is crazy or not?

 

why does it matter? however, since it does appear to matter to you, i will try to answer. i guess if someone was particularly obsessive about tiny things, if they were inconsistent in their moods, if they were given to violence against themselves or other people, if they were unable to consider anyone else's feelings and acted solely for their own purposes, if they contradicted themselves a lot, if they were unable to hold a rational conversation, if they had difficulty interacting with people, if they had delusions of power or control, if they had unusual emotional or behavioural responses, if they got things wildly out of proportion, that kind of thing. but i'm not a health professional, they're just the indicators i can think of that might show someone who was not mentally well. i guess they'd need to display a couple of them at least to be anywhere near crazy.

 

I am sure that you are not lying about what you believe in, either. As I stated, I have no doubt that you have had an interesting experience, I just doubt your conclusions.

 

but moai, you have to doubt my conclusions. accepting them would be unthinkable, right? you have to find other conclusions, however unlikely, because you cannot accept what i say. that's fine. i'm perfectly aware i can't convince you, and neither do i want to. i just think it's odd for you to assume you know me better than i know myelf, that's all. that you think somehow i am too close to the situation, that i've not asked questions, that i can't accept i'm delusional, that i'm not clever enough or sane enough to analyse myself. if that's easier for you to accept than the alternative, fine.

 

I do not think that everyone who makes a supernatural claim is lying, but I do think that they are probably deluded. And so far, all of them have been.

 

i never used the word supernatural. look at it this way. if you took all the people with the same IQ as me, divided them into them into groups according to the number of freckles on their right arm and then further divided them into 'appalling' 'can hold a tune' or 'sings like maria callas' categories, i would probably be the only person in my group out of all the people in the world. i am unique. i have an unusual IQ, an unusual number of freckles on my right arm (and my left, actually) and an unusually good singing voice. because i am in a category of one does not make me deluded. it makes me human. in our own ways we are all in a category of one.

 

my spiritual experiences are no different to any other facet of me which i cannot prove to you, such as my hatred of the smell of celery or the way i feel when i hear ella fitzgerald sing 'every time we say goodbye'. the fact i claim to communicate with beings you cannot see makes me no different from anyone else who lives a spiritual life. or maybe you think everyone who doesn't think the way you do is deluded. hang on, let me go back and add narcissism to that insanity list...

[norajane]

the look on his face was angelic.....his eyes were extraordinary and I felt Gods presence greatly....

 

Once, I saw that light in someone's eyes...a woman at my 10 year high school reunion. I'd gone to grade school and high school with Cindy and never saw that light there, but upon running into her at the reunion, it was unmistakeable. We didn't even talk about God or anything, and she barely mentioned she worked for a church somewhere, but her spirituality shone through regardless.

 

I've never seen it in any other person, ever. I'd have been very interested to discuss her views on God/goddesses/whatever it was she believed...much more so than discussons with many other people who talk religion instead of spirituality.

 

Our enemy, the devil/Satan is anything but stupid, remember he was the highest of the angelic realm, he knows who the Prophets are from birth and begins his strategies to kill them (or try to).

 

Well, Cindy had a pretty ordinary life, no more or less so than anyone else in my neighborhood. I never had the impression Satan was after her.

 

 

The mind is an interesting thing. Humans are so imaginative, and so interested in seeking knowledge, yet spirituality is entirely a matter of faith. The concept of angels and demons is so similar to the Egyptian, Norse, Greek and Roman mythology of various gods and goddesses whom they believed made unexplainable things happen, and they prayed to them and made offerings. Now we "know" the sun isn't pulled across the sky by a chariot, but humans still have this desire to have faith in *something* spiritual.

 

I sometimes think of my cat as my guardian angel. When she roll around stretching on the floor, she reminds me that I should do my yoga. When she sits in the doorway of my home office meowing for attention, she reminds me I've worked too long and need to take a break and refresh. When she refused to tolerate my ex-boyfriend though she's so friendly with everyone else, she was telling me he was untrustworthy and ha, turns out he wasn't. It has nothing to do with faith or god, but I suppose I could see how if I believed in angels and demons, I might want to make it about god...god speaking through Angel Kitty.

[Moai]

tell me how that would be possible, moai. seriously, i'm curious as to whether it would be possible to detect something far outside the vibrational frequency of this planet with instruments that vibrate within the vibrational frequency of this planet. or considering superstring theory, would it be possible to detect one or more of the 10 or 11 dimensions proposed by string theorists from our 3D viewpoint? the theorists claim it wouldn't be, even if the said angel or demon was, in reality, occupying the space a centimetre away from you.

 

Well, you detect these things by retuning or whatever, right? We have machines now that can sense the world far better than the human body can. So I would think it would be easy.

 

I can't respond intelligently as to how string theory supports or refutes your position, but I do know that it is not well understood and as of yet it is not falsifiable and there are no experiments to test the idea. It could be true, but nobody knows yet.

 

Are you now asserting that demons exist at the sub-atomic level? I could say that there are a billion creatures living a centimeter away from me on the sub-atomic level, it wouldn't make it true, and there is no evidence to support this.

 

It is certainly possible that there are other realities, and that we inhabit one of many. That is irrelevant since I am in this one and therefore must deal with it and not the others. We can sit and postulate all day long the "what-ifs" but that isn't evidence, nor is it even rational. I am not aware of any school of thought within particle physics that is dedicated to angel and demon detection. Are you?

 

you seem very sure of what i can and cannot do, and of what the human brain can and cannot do. would you like it if i kept insisting your experiences were delusions? or would you think i was arrogant?

 

I didn't say that your experiences were delusions (although that is possible), I think that your interpretation of them is delusional. Dictionary.com defines a delusion as "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact." Given that the only evidence for your position is your assertion that it happens and what it means, what conclusion can I draw? If I told you that I could swim a mile in four minutes, wouldn't you ask me to prove it?

 

I am not being arrogant. I am abiding by the rules of rational thought that have been given to me by men far greater than I. The rules not only have predictive value, they have given us more benefit than any other system of thought yet devised. They work, so I use them. If you have a better way of understanding the world than science and rationalism, throw it out there.

 

no, the first time i encountered what you would call a demon (but really that's a misleading term) was one saturday morning about 6 years ago when it appeared in my bedroom.

 

So now demons can warp through dimensions, or what? Either demons exist in our reality or they do not.

 

it was a terrifying incident i certainly didn't want at the time and have never wanted to repeat. i worked very hard to ensure it didn't happen again by invoking spiritual protection - after all, if there are baddies, and i'd met one, isn't it reasonable to assume there are also goodies? and it was calling for protection which enabled me to have experiences of the spiritual realm. those experiences are not confined to one religious model and they don't conform exactly to anything i've been taught.

 

Ok. What method did you use to determine that what you saw was, in fact, a demon--or whatever? I would assume that you believed in demons and the like before this encounter, right? You didn't just have this experience in a vacuum.

 

Just before my born-again experience I was certain there was a demon in my room. I could feel it. It was across the room, over by my stereo. My sister, already a born-again believer walked over there, and i saw light radiate from her and the "presence" left the room. I wept, and said the sinner's prayer, and was saved. The experience was incredible, and at that time the sense I got from that side of the room was palpable. Over time, as I learned more about the human mind, use experimentation and evidence to evaluate experience, I now realize that the whole thing was in my head. All of it.

 

That certainly doesn't mean that what happened to you was imaginary, but considering you are a human, like me, with senses, like me, and can be mistaken, like me, is it not reasonable to assume that your experience was similar to mine?

 

I am also curious as to how "spiritual protection" can be invoked. If demons are there and have any power at all, surely they could get us before we could figure out spiritual protection.

 

thank you for your interesting story about joseph smith. my experience was particular to me, and nothing like that.

 

Mine was, too, but the principle is the same. Do you dismiss their claims? If so, based on what? You aren't Mormon, so you either believe them to be lying or at the very least gravely mistaken. Surely you have reasons for this, no? You can apply skepticism to their claims and reject them easily, but when the same skepticism is applied to your belief it is arrogance.

 

I apply skepticism to all such things equally.

 

your experience may well be equally valid. if two people see a rainbow - which substantially isn't there - and have different experiences of seeing it, aren't both of them right?

 

There is a difference between validity and truth. And the experience of the rainbow is not the point, it is the assertion of meaning behind it. I may assert that there are leprechauns at the end of the rainbow, and you say there are not. We cannot both be right.

 

i am a journalist. when i've reported on football matches and come to a different conclusion about the quality of a striker during that game than a reporter from another paper, is it reasonable to assume we've had different, but equally valid experiences of that striker? or would you take the view that since we didn't agree on a player, we must have imagined that a game took place?

 

Exactly my point. The game can be shown to exist outside of your interpretation of it. Hence there being fans of different teams. If a certain player scores a goal, and I then say he is the greatest player ever, you may disagree, and come up with evidence to dispute such a claim. That has nothing to do with the fact that a goal was scored. Sports is not the best example, as such things are argued over and over, and depending on the individual certain attributes take precedence over others.

 

Let's say a man scores a goal, and you assert that an angel obviously helped him. I saw the play, and saw no angel. Since angels would be a fantastic claim, the amount of evidence you have must also be very great. But all we have is your assertion. Therefore, it is reasonable to reject that angels helped him. That's it.

 

yes, i made that claim. i have no independent support for any of my claims. what external evidence is there that someone is in love? love is something that takes place within the brain.

 

Different. Love produces specific changes in the body and the brain, and these can be measured. Not only that, but love is easily repeatable by almost every human everywhere. Your claims obviously cannot.

 

is it a delusion? does it cease to be a delusion if every person on the planet experiences it at some time?

 

If they assert that Cupid is real, then yes, they are deluded. But they are not deluded because of the experience.

 

that other people may not have experienced what i have is a shame for them, but i can hardly be held to account for other people's lack of spiritual experience. it doesn't invalidate my own. a transcendental concept such as god will never be quantifiable experimentally.

 

True, but with all the assertions out there about such things we should certainly expect some evidence of such a thing, right? If not, then why bother with it?

 

it has worth only as an inner experience, in the same way that hope is an inner experience, or bliss, or understanding. yes, there may be physical actions which suggest these inner qualities, but i can leap about for you if you like. it won't prove anything to you.

 

I would be happy with one instance of anything that can't be explained through natural processes. So far there aren't any.

 

i am not a member of my local library. i built up a £11 fine several years ago by forgetting to return a 'teach yourself serbo-croat' tape and have never been able to go back.

 

Fines are the bane of my existence as well.

 

 

i am respectful of other people's beliefs. it matters nothing to me that most people on the planet don't yet share my beliefs. someone's got to be first, right?

 

I am respectful of the right to believe, but not the belief itself. I have no respect for racist belief or fascist belief, for example. I don't understand why all other beliefs humans have are held up to impartial, unemotional scrutiny, save god belief. Why? What makes god belief so special? I don't think that it should get a free pass, considering how harmful it is.

 

 

why does it matter? however, since it does appear to matter to you, i will try to answer. i guess if someone was particularly obsessive about tiny things, if they were inconsistent in their moods, if they were given to violence against themselves or other people, if they were unable to consider anyone else's feelings and acted solely for their own purposes, if they contradicted themselves a lot, if they were unable to hold a rational conversation, if they had difficulty interacting with people, if they had delusions of power or control, if they had unusual emotional or behavioural responses, if they got things wildly out of proportion, that kind of thing. but i'm not a health professional, they're just the indicators i can think of that might show someone who was not mentally well. i guess they'd need to display a couple of them at least to be anywhere near crazy.

 

Thank you. I am just curious as to how you distinguish the beliefs that are real and the ones that aren't.

 

but moai, you have to doubt my conclusions. accepting them would be unthinkable, right? you have to find other conclusions, however unlikely, because you cannot accept what i say.

 

You are correct, I cannot accept what you say. The rules say I can't take your word for it. But I must actually take the most likely explanation, not the most unlikely one. Which is more likely, that you actually see demons, or that you are imagining things? Given all the other experiences I have had, the experiences of others, and what we know of the natural world, the most likely explanation is that you are imagining things. That is the most likely conclusion.

 

that's fine. i'm perfectly aware i can't convince you, and neither do i want to. i just think it's odd for you to assume you know me better than i know myelf, that's all. that you think somehow i am too close to the situation, that i've not asked questions, that i can't accept i'm delusional, that i'm not clever enough or sane enough to analyse myself. if that's easier for you to accept than the alternative, fine.

 

It has nothing to do with being clever. Maybe everything else is true, though. It would certainly explain a great many things about your experience without having to invoke the supernatural.

 

I again mention that for those who disagree with you, they believe as ardently, have just as much passion about it, and have probably asked the same questions as you. And yet you have determined that they are wrong, and you right.

 

i never used the word supernatural. look at it this way. if you took all the people with the same IQ as me, divided them into them into groups according to the number of freckles on their right arm and then further divided them into 'appalling' 'can hold a tune' or 'sings like maria callas' categories, i would probably be the only person in my group out of all the people in the world. i am unique. i have an unusual IQ, an unusual number of freckles on my right arm (and my left, actually) and an unusually good singing voice. because i am in a category of one does not make me deluded. it makes me human. in our own ways we are all in a category of one.

 

Yes, we are all individuals, but it does not follow that individual interpretations of reality are all equally valid.

 

my spiritual experiences are no different to any other facet of me which i cannot prove to you, such as my hatred of the smell of celery or the way i feel when i hear ella fitzgerald sing 'every time we say goodbye'. the fact i claim to communicate with beings you cannot see makes me no different from anyone else who lives a spiritual life. or maybe you think everyone who doesn't think the way you do is deluded. hang on, let me go back and add narcissism to that insanity list...

 

Ha! Sorry, but most people would think that if you talk to invisible beings that you are deluded. You can accuse me all day long of shortcomings, but that doesn't mean you aren't delusional. It isn't as if I just wake up and decide that you are delusional because it makes me feel good about myself. I come to the conclusion that you are deluded based on what I know of the world, which is based on evidence and reason. These things show that you are very probably deluded.

 

People who talk to invisible supernatural beings, believe in astrology, ogres, spectres, vampires, ghosts, goblins, gremlins, elves, and on and on are deluded.

 

I have had some pretty amazing experiences while under the influence of psychadelics. They were every bit as real as me typing to you now. I have heard creeks call my name over and over, had a strange sense of malevolence coming from the trees, the feeling of being watched, and on and on. The feelings are intense, and cannot be dismissed. But I never forget that I am on drugs, and that these things aren't real.

 

I remember once walking into a room that was dimly lit, and seeing a man standing in the doorway. It filled me with dread. I stared at him, and moved slightly, and his eyes followed me. I decided to approach the man to see if, in fact he was really there. I swallowed my fear and walked over. What I found was a full-sized Coors beer poster. The "o's" on Coors in that light looked like sunglasses, and all the graphics involved were formed by my brain into a man. It is the same as looking at clouds and seeing things in them.

 

I could have run out of the room and convinced myself that there was a spectral being in there with me, but I didn't.

 

I have had similar experiences sober, like waking up and being terrified that there is someone in my closet. I can see the shape. But as I look and concentrate, I begin to see that it is just my shirts hanging there. The terror is very real at the time, though. I am just coming out of a dream and wigging myself out. Given that I am capable of these things, as is everyone else I know, is it not reasonable to assume that you are the same as we are? Who is the narcissist now?

[Storyrider]

the look on his face was angelic.....his eyes were extraordinary and I felt Gods presence greatly

 

Yes, I know someone like that. I am married to him.

[bluetuesday]

I am not aware of any school of thought within particle physics that is dedicated to angel and demon detection. Are you?

 

of course not. but then angels and demons are the tip of the iceberg. it's like saying is there a branch of medicine that's dedicated to the strange whooshy feeling you get if you stand up too quickly. no there isn't, it would be part of a range of phenomena explored by neurologists, i would imagine. however, there is exploration at the subatomic level of how energy becomes matter, which i supposed could be defined as exploring how things that are not seen, become seen, and is therefore interested in the phenomena of that which is unseen.

 

Dictionary.com defines a delusion as "a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact." Given that the only evidence for your position is your assertion that it happens and what it means, what conclusion can I draw? If I told you that I could swim a mile in four minutes, wouldn't you ask me to prove it?

 

let us look at this. first of all, the belief has to be proved to be false. now there are beliefs that can be proved to be false, such as the belief the moon is made of green cheese. however, the belief in angels has not been proved to be false, it has simply not been proved to be true. therefore, by the rationale you've chosen, it does not come under the dictionary definition of the word 'delusion'. the question of the existence of angels is therefore, a question without an answer. provably neither true or false.

 

secondly, since the belief in angels cannot be proved to be false, confrontation with the fact of its falsity is impossible. so whatever you think my belief is, you've just shown that it can't be a delusion according to your own definition. at best we have a situation which is open to question and reliant upon experience, the interpretation of which proves nothing either way.

 

Ok. What method did you use to determine that what you saw was, in fact, a demon--or whatever? I would assume that you believed in demons and the like before this encounter, right? You didn't just have this experience in a vacuum.

 

name me any experience anyone has in a vacuum. i used my eyes to see the thing, my ears to hear it and my brain to determine that whatever it was, couldn't have been human since it had the ability to dematerialise in front of me.

 

Over time, as I learned more about the human mind, use experimentation and evidence to evaluate experience, I now realize that the whole thing was in my head. All of it.

 

so you've drawn a conclusion that you imagined something. so what? by what parameters does you drawing a conclusion mean you're right? you could easily be deluded in that conclusion. i just wonder where science gets off telling people that unless something can be measured in a lab, or repeated ad infinitum with the same results, it isn't 'real'. scientific experimentation is very obviously limited in what it is able to assess. science knows a lot about a tiny amount. that's all. there's a lot about a vast amount it hasn't scratched the surface on. but because it can't explain an experience you were once sure you had, you convince yourself you're deluded. i don't get that at all.

 

I am also curious as to how "spiritual protection" can be invoked. If demons are there and have any power at all, surely they could get us before we could figure out spiritual protection.

 

what do you mean get us? demons don't necessarily want to get us. they like using us, but that's different to getting us. we're actually much more valuable alive. i can explain this if you like but it's a long story.

 

Do you dismiss their claims? If so, based on what? You aren't Mormon, so you either believe them to be lying or at the very least gravely mistaken. Surely you have reasons for this, no? You can apply skepticism to their claims and reject them easily, but when the same skepticism is applied to your belief it is arrogance.

 

before you start asking about thor again, i repeat, i am not a member of any religion. i dismiss them all for the reason that they must be incorrect if they think they've got a monopoly on god.

 

Love produces specific changes in the body and the brain, and these can be measured. Not only that, but love is easily repeatable by almost every human everywhere. Your claims obviously cannot.

 

i assert that everyone can do what i do. whether they choose to or not is the difference. and spiritual experiences can be measured on brain scans. scientists just assert, as they must, that the brain causes the experience, it is not caused externally and then interpreted by the brain. a circular argument.

 

I would be happy with one instance of anything that can't be explained through natural processes. So far there aren't any.

 

my parents, sleeping next to each other, once had the same dream. they dreamed them met underneath a tree in our garden and chatted. when they woke up, each was able to tell the other what they talked about in the dream. it happened in a bedroom, not a lab, so of course you'll dismiss it as coincidence or suggestion or delusion or a lie. can you explain this through a natural process?

 

most people would think that if you talk to invisible beings that you are deluded.

 

so everyone who prays is deluded. gandhi, martin luther king, isaac newton, galileo, copernicus, george washington, louis pasteur, kepler, all deluded. all unable to tell if what they experienced was true or false. all lacking the ability to determine for themselves what was a genuine experience for them. you think it bothered pasteur that he couldn't see god in a petrie dish? you think newton, whose life was based on carrying out experiments and testing himself and the world around him didn't have the ability to assess his own mind?

 

the fact is that people will always be able to convince themselves, as you have done, that they imagined something. but there's zero evidence that THAT conclusion is the correct one either.

 

Who is the narcissist now?

 

it's still you.