Oh I testify on here alot because mostly what I have is my own experience and studies but that doesn't mean its convincing to anyone else. Probably all God wants us to do is jumpstart other people because he's the one that says ask, seek and knock in his book. I think he desires a personal relation with each of us so he tells us to seek him on our own terms because that is the most personal way.

Of course, I'm up against a platform of denial on here and every time someone doesn't get immediate results they say there's no God on here. I think that's silly though...Anyone truly seeking God and interested in being faithful is in for the long haul...How many people do you think God is going to work with overnight? Real and lasting relationships aren't built overnight...

The Sadducees didn't believe in a Resurrection. They only believed in the Law:

http://www.jesus8880.com/chapters/mk...hers/index.htm

You can contrast the Sadducees view of the Resurrection with the view of the Pharisees (who are the fathers of current Rabbinical Judaism):

See views of Pharisees and Saducees:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

i guess boring your oppenent to death with sermonizing is a pretty good debate technique.

Will jib ever return...

Are you talking about the evidence that comes from personal experience of God? Because I did address that in my argument. What I said was that the problem with appealing to personal experience of the divine is that there is no way of showing how Christian mystical experience is accurate while Buddhist, or Hindu, or Jewish, or Muslim mystical experience is not. So while religious experience can function as evidence for existence of the supernatural generally, it cannot work as evidence for a particular religion.
I'm aware of the claim that spiritual discernment is necessary to correctly recognize the meaning of religious experience. Unfortunately, this discernment is defined in such a way as to make religious experience not be very useful as an independent source of knowledge about God. So typically the constraints placed on mystical experience is that it has to be consistent with the Bible and it should be done under the guidance of a religious mentor. The first is just obvious special pleading on the part of Christians, and the second end sup relativizing mystical experience to each religion (since each religion has its own approved gurus).

I probably won't read the book you wanted to recommend, but if there is something valuable that you think I should know from it, feel free to post it here.

I should also mention that I've had what I would identify as mystical/religious experiences. First, under the tutelage of an Anglican priest, who led me through a practice of guided meditation, then while practicing Zen Buddhist meditation and Quaker silent worship. I don't, however, consider these experiences veridical.

Nah, you guys forced him into becoming a deist and he doesn't want to defend the move against his former theist brethren.

I think at some point your own personal experience can be considered veridical because isn't that the whole point of having a spiritual experience? To experience it? I do think its hard to recognize that's why I spend time digging out the oldies because they seem to be the only ones to be able to explain it. Today a lot of people run around trying to absolve everyone with grace and I think that's fine but I think there are levels to the experience and maybe focusing on grace is just the first step so you can relax, get into the groove and experience all 7 stages and recognize that is what you just passed through. For some reason a lot of people seem to want to stay blind during the process and/or the mystery is just hard to articulate.

I also think you have language problems explaining all of it, emphasis problems so you have to have enough imagination to bridge those types of gaps when you hear an account and recognize the similar patterns.

I don't discount the Buddhist, Hindu meditative experiences but due to my familiarity with the bible and my perception as Christ as being who the bible claims plus my personal prioritizing of religious timelines I do see Christ as pre-eminent over any other religious figures. I did run a thread once that compared Christ's sayings with the Buddha and the similarity between them is some what of a mystery. See post 1:
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/13...buddha-533991/

Just so we're on the same page, a veridical experience is one that is in some sense true, not an illusion, etc. So no, I don't think that is the whole point of religious experience.

Well we do have a VMAT-2 gene and parts of the brain that seem to be designed to let us have experiences.

But for me the most convincing thing was I was able to line my experience up with the bible.

I still don't get why you don't see this as evidence against God. Or the fact that I can put a really strong magnet near your head and also invoke a spiritual experience. This just seems more compatible with the fact that religious experiences are internal, physical processes like anything else, rather than being affected by the divine. One can easily see how such experiences way back when would have made people more cautious, more desiring of seeking community, and hence favoured survival. All part of the evolutionary chain.

false, unless you are prepared to demonstrate that "existence of the supernatural" is a better explanation for religious experience than evolved human psychology/physiology. good luck with that.

Since you say exactly the same thing as me, except with a more negative emotional shading, I don't really have much to say in response.

no, i'm saying the functionality of religious experience as evidence for the supernatural is the same in general as it is specifically. the latter just another level of alternate explanations that need to be ruled out.

Okay, then you just seem close-minded. You accept personal experience as evidence for all sorts of beliefs, but a priori rule it out in the case of religion.

i don't accept my own or anyone else's bare personal experience as evidence for anything. it can only be part of a framework if it fits. in the case of hypothesis of the supernatural or a hypothesis of specific religious truth it doesn't fit.

i was just disagreeing with the notion that there's effectively any functional difference between personal experience as evidence for the supernatural in general vs. for specific religious belief.

I think the VMAT-2 and the brain neural mapping in response to spiritual stimuli is a very beneficial attribute of mankind. Its very conducive to cementing societal bonds and that promotes progress. I also think it could be a remnant of a greater function we once had. The fact that we even found it this late in the game is significant. It certainly puts to bed the offensive idea that people are pushing politically that religious people are delusional and it makes spirituality a much more natural and reasonable option.

Like a lot of other people traits we just have to learn how to use it wisely. Its a "combo" attribute. I also think it has a type of extra survival power capability to it.

you've just made a good argument that evolution explains human spirituality without having to resort to the metaphysical. well done.

No it doesn't, it just means that it may very well be quite normal to be delusional! It does make spirituality more natural (although who said it wasn't natural), whether its more reasonable as an option is debatable.

Lol..I have no objection to evolution. I'm tentatively in the theistic evolution camp because I'm poor at evolution yet I suspect the interdigitation to be so complex that both evolutionists and creationists only get part of it right.

I'm sure god did it and I'm sure nobody knows exactly how he did it.

I've seen and heard of too many people who made startling improvements in the quality of their lives to doubt spirituality is a bonus.

you're missing the point. nobody is arguing the possibility that spirituality might be a "bonus" for some people.

the point is in light of evolution something humans believe in doesn't have to be objectively true to be emotionally/psychologically beneficial. a delusion can potentially be beneficial.

One of the most convincing thing about the bible is that it not only enunciates the pros and cons of a theistic worldview but it anticipates the atheist one. The book is far, far too detailed and correct on too many fronts that one incomplete scientific theory will never upset it.

when in doubt misdirect by sermonizing

How does this have anything to do with whether or not the Christian god exists (or any god for that matter)?