[Whitelight]

Has anyone here been visited by the holy spirit?

[jdjtcagle]

I would answer but...

[Whitelight]

But?

(edit) There`s no mistaking it, you`ll know it when it happens, maybe not why.. But you will know.

[jdjtcagle]

I got EXTREMELY flamed the last time and I'm tired about

[Whitelight]

Ah, I understand.

[Whitelight]

My first wife was a real treat, (eye opener). She showed me what NOT to look for in a wife..
I once asked her if she worked for the devil and she replied, I am the devil.  She threatened to stab me while I slep. Well for the next few days I didn`t sleep much.

(edit) back on topic. Faith and prayer  is all that is required.

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by Whitelight
Has anyone here been visited by the holy spirit?

No. Is it likely that someone who purportedly was visited by the holy spirit would be converted to christianity and why would this happen? Would one not seek a natural, scientific explanation to this (e.g. was high on crack, dreaming, alien interference) rather than placing the events causation on supernatural entities,  especially if they weren't faithful to begin with?

[jdjtcagle]

Shows how little you know about my experience, I swear if you people don't stop with your assumptions.  I seriously hate bigots, why can't you just accept that people can and will believe whatever they want?  Does it make them any less of a person?  Why do you have to push us down and completely disrespect us without bringing your own proof he doesn't exist?  We can't prove he doesn't, why must you all accept that people should be treated like people, unless they are inhumane to others (I.E. Suicide Bombers)?
Huh?
answer me this?

[Whitelight]

That means it hasen`t happened yet, but it doesen`t mean it won`t in the future.

(edit) Let me state though that it won`t happen to everyone.

[Whitelight]

jbjcagle, I don`t think he ment any disrespect, but he is intitled to his opion. I don`t take it personally if he disagrees with me.

(edit)  Science hasen`t proved that god doesen`t exsist eather, and it won`t.

We are all given the right to decide what we believe in.

[Kamikaze]

jdjtcagle: Erm. How exactly was I being a bigot? Particularly, how was I "completely disrespecting" you when I was musing about the general nature of faith vs. logical inquiry?

[Whitelight]

How would one explain being visited by the holy ghost. Now thats a tuff one..
The best discription I can give might not make a lot of sence, but in my view its like a vision quest that can last for a few days, or go on for weeks or even months in some cases, also without the use of drugs of corse..

[icespeed]

why do people use science as an excuse not to believe or disbelieve or whatever in the existence of God? the thing is, science looks at the physical world; God is more than physical. so what's the point of looking for proof of God through science?
anyway I think faith can be an entirely logical decision, so can someone explain exactly where the contradiction lies between faith and logic?

[Kamikaze]

Originally posted by icespeed

anyway I think faith can be an entirely logical decision, so can someone explain exactly where the contradiction lies between faith and logic?

Well, what isn't justified by someone's faith? Is there anything that can't be? What's the use of faith if it can justify any viewpoint? How is it logical to pick one thing to believe in (regarding one of these beliefs to be true can sometimes force others to be false, e.g. monotheism) when faith can justify many others?

[Bobboau]

science doesn't look at the physical world, it looks at what can be known, it's a way of determineing fact, of any nature.

eh... this thread had potental, thanks everyone for... not playing by the rules.

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Whitelight

(edit)  Science hasen`t proved that god doesen`t exsist eather, and it won`t.

If, in theory, you were presented with incontrovertible scientific proof that God did not exist, would you renounce your faith?

(Note: Do not ask me to define such proof. That's what the "In Theory" part is all about"

[icespeed]

what, Bob? don't be so dictatorial about it, rules are there to guide not to restrict.

kami, you're entirely right. but the point is to pick the one which is right, and because it's right, you have faith in it. that's the logic part. i don't think faith justifies something, exactly.

the question then being, how to pick the one which is right? which comes back to proof, only this time it's not faith vs proof.

if science doesn't look at the physical world- _just_ the physical world, I mean- what does it look at? who takes those experiments about esp and so on seriously? that's science, isn't it? so why do the hardcore scientists dismiss it?

[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by icespeed
what, Bob? don't be so dictatorial about it, rules are there to guide not to restrict.

kami, you're entirely right. but the point is to pick the one which is right, and because it's right, you have faith in it. that's the logic part. i don't think faith justifies something, exactly.

the question then being, how to pick the one which is right? which comes back to proof, only this time it's not faith vs proof.

if science doesn't look at the physical world- _just_ the physical world, I mean- what does it look at? who takes those experiments about esp and so on seriously? that's science, isn't it? so why do the hardcore scientists dismiss it?

Do you consider behaviour a part of the physical world? Science studies that. What about evolution? It's a process outside the physical world, though admittedly guided and linked to events within it, and science studies it. The question of alternate universes, cosmology, etc. etc. - all stuff outside the physical world that science studies, or is at least concerned with. Though, if you want to get specific, they can;t be studied scientifically because they can't be experimented on (ala the scientific method).

As for the esp experiments and suchlike, they're tainted - nobody trusts their integrity any more, and often the experiments undertaken aren;t done scientifically (ie. the analysis of one dependent variable against an independent in a repeatable fashion.)

[Bobboau]

@icespeed:
[damned faster typer person...]
the rules I put up were specificly there to restrict

Originally posted by Bobboau
it looks at what can be known, it's a way of determineing fact, of any nature.
 

have you ever heard of phycology, pathology, studies of behavour and emotion, none of that is physical, it's mental and yet there is science to analise it, becase it is real, and testable.

[Clive]

All concepts of right and wrong, or anything for that matter, are based entirely on the perceptions of the person doing the observing/choosing/moralising. Therefore, everything is subjective and objectivity is merely a myth, perpetuated by biggots and power-mongers in an effort to validate their biased opinions.

Happy?