Do you have the hope of going to heaven

[JehovahsWitness]

As one of Jehovah's Witnesses I do not have a hope of going to heaven (when I speak of "heaven" I mean the spiritual abode/realm where God lives).

- Do you personally entertain the hope of going to heaven to spend eternity with God when you die? (if this question is too personal I respect if you do not want to share this information)

- If so, do you believe such a literal spiritual realm exists?

- Do you believe that Jesus is presently in heaven where God exists?



* My question is for people that do believe that a God exists, since I presume that those that do not believe in God do believe he exists anywhere and therefore there is no "heaven" where God is.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 324 by Claire Evans]



[center]Science vs superstition[/center]

What's more likely, that people are superstitious and gullible, or that real supernatural monsters exist?

It depends on one's outlook. If one acknowledges the supernatural as true, especially observing it themselves, then "supernatural monsters" will be a feasible explanation.

What do you mean "observing it themselves"?
WHAT are these people "observing" that scientists don't seem to be ABLE to?

We have a lot of ghost stories.. people who say that they see ghosts all the time. Is that what you mean? Something that has NOT been verified at all by science?

More superstition?
These kinds of stories DO make for good horror movies, of course.

But we have great methods to check out ACTUAL phenomena.
Scientists cannot, however, investigate what isn't actually happening.

Debate aside, I've observed it. Paranormal investigators take a scientific approach when investigating.

http://skepdic.com/paranormalinvestigator.html

Scientists tend not to like to delve into these issues. It is hard to prove:

"Two accomplished living physicists who believe in extrasensory perception are Freeman Dyson and Brian Josephson. As I mentioned in a post last year, Dyson has written that "paranormal phenomena are real but lie outside the limits of science." No one has produced empirical proof of psi, he suggested, because it tends to occur under conditions of "strong emotion and stress," which are "inherently incompatible with controlled scientific procedures." Josephson won a Nobel Prize in 1973, when he was only 33, and since then he has become an aggressive proponent of research on psychic phenomena. "Yes, I think telepathy exists," he told The Observer, a British newspaper, in 2001, "and I think quantum physics will help us understand its basic properties."

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cr ... y-not-you/

To those who dismiss the supernatural as impossible and blatantly not true, then gullibility and superstition will be more likely.

I don't dismiss the supernatural.. but where IS it?
Science studies actual phenomena. There is nothing "supernatural" going on here.

This is 2017, after all.
We would know.

Why is science the answer to everything? Has science proven everything
?

It's subjective.

No.
That's a HUGE mistake.

Data is NOT subjective.

When it's raining outside, do you think you wont get wet because you have construed the rain is "dry"? Try the experiment. See how dry you stay in the pouring rain. When it's raining outside a LOT of people seem to be able to get wet. That, my dear, is a scientific experiment. It's not at all "subjective" in any way.

Science is NOT subjective.
If you say that there are supernatural events going on... we would be able to OBSERVE them. That's what scientists are the BEST at.

Just because some people report monsters.. it doesn't actually mean there are monsters.

I'm not referring to the scientific approach. If one undergoes an experience and tries to find out what it is by ruling out all logic scenarios, then one will think it is more likely to believe in the supernatural especially if there are eye witnesses. Yet each experience is subjective.

First of all, there are those who meditate to specifically summon up their spirit guide.

Some people call their spirit guide the HOLY SPIRIT.

No, they are not the same:

OF course not.
You like YOUR brand, so that spirit guide is ok.

This is about branding.
You like your brand, don't you?

The other brands are DEMONIC, aren't they?

Your spirit is a good spirit, their spirit is an evil spirit.
OF COURSE it is....

That's the way some people used to think in Biblical times.
Bigoted and superstitious.

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

We find the Holy Spirit through prayer, while spirit guides are contacted in dangerous ways:

Tune in and start to believe. ...
Meditate with crystals. ...
Get out in nature. ...
Ask your spirit guides to reveal themselves. ...
Keep a spirit guide journal. ...
Try "automatic writing." ...
Tap into your third eye.

How are these practices in ANY way "dangerous"?
Bruises to their foreheads by tapping the third eye too much?

Yoh! Satanist Aleister Crowley practised automatic writing. He wrote an occult book in a trance through the invisible writer, a spirit, through Aiwass

https://books.google.co.za/books?id=7E9 ... ng&f=false


"Tapping the third eye" is not tapping the forehead. The third eye is the pineal gland. Opening it is extremely dangerous.

http://www.chakras.info/opening-third-eye/

http://www.simonarich.com/third-eye-and ... a-opening/

https://kimolsen.net/2007/08/31/opening ... ns-beware/

These are purely occult practices.

You can call them anything that you like.
You have your own practices.. you don't "like" theirs, that's all.

You just don't call YOURS "occult" .. you call prayer something way nicer than THAT, don't you?.

Prayer is not an occult practice. Definition of occultism:

"Occultism is the study of occult practices, including (but not limited to) magic, alchemy, extra-sensory perception, astrology, spiritualism, religion, and divination"

Bigots usually like to "demonize" their opponents ...
You might have heard of the practice.

Whatever you want to call that practice.. it's not NICE.
Have you ever met a new age person or a wiccan?

Not all of them demonize Christians, even THOUGH, Christians used to BURN Wiccans. It was NEVER the other way around.

They used to demonize "occult" people back then... and then just torture and burn them. Because back then, SUPERSTITIONS was endorsed by the Christians a lot more than now.

Bring back the good old witch burning days?
I think NOT.

I think you are being rather defensive. I am telling you the facts and I'm sorry you don't like it. They practice the occult and that is a fact. Now I'm not going to go around and demonize people and I certainly would not approve of persecution.

There have been known cases of people becoming demonically possessed by practising meditation.

It's very difficult to check out if there were ACTUAL demons involved. People have delusions and hallucinations all the time. Religion and sex are hot topics in psychiatric wards.

It depends on what they do. Levitation is not an hallucination.

Do you think there is a whole LOT of levitation going around in psychiatric wards?

There have been NO actual recorded instances of people flying around. What are you talking about?

I didn't mean people in psychic wards.

So, these "levitators" are either LYING to gullible people, or so incredibly gullible themselves as to be delusional. There are videos you can check out of people bouncing up and down pretending to "levitate".. pathetic delusion.

How did they do it?

We KNOW that people can be delusional, and we don't HAVE the world news event of people flying all over the place. Nobody floating around the Walmart, my dear.

This is 2017.
What are you TALKING about?

Can you even IMAGINE how "viral" these videos of ACTUAL levitation would be?
Almost EVERYONE has a video camera at Walmart these days.

To even THINK for a minute that "levitation" actually happens in OUR day without us ALL knowing about it? Preposterous.

Think again.

What makes you think it would happen at a place like Wal Mart? I would think it would be done in privacy and not in public. It's not an everyday occurrence.

Clearly not all become demonically possessed but there is a risk.

There is NO risk if there are NO demons.
Please provide evidence for your claim that there are.

Some people ARE superstitious, you know.
They might believe in all kinds of scary things that go bump in the night.

Yet it is not possible for you to say there aren't.

SO WHAT?


1. You HAVE NOT even tried to offer evidence for your claim.

2. It's not possible for me to say that Santa isn't at the North Pole in a magical way. It's not possible for me to say that Vishnu isn't the one true god. It's not possible for me to say that you aren't an alien robot from the future masquerading as a fundamentalist Christian in order to make a xeno-sociological study of the planet you want to invade in a million years from now.

3. The argument "you can't prove that the supernatural DOESN'T exist " is ridiculous. It sure is NOT any kind of evidence for your claim AT ALL.

I'm glad you have agreed that you can't dismiss the supernatural.

What is construed as evidence for demons can be dismissed as not so by a non believer.

"CONSTRUED as evidence?"

That statement would be laughed out of court.
Your "subjective" analysis is NOT acceptable as evidence for supernatural boogeymen.

As I said, I've experienced it myself and that is my evidence.

Shape shifting is a good example of demonic possession:

You believe in shape-shifters?

This is starting to sound like an episode of "Supernatural", where ALL manner of scary creepy monsters are real. But that's a TV show, so those monsters are NOT real.

Sorry... but we would know if there was all kinds of supernatural beings walking around.

We don't.
There's a reason why we don't.

Not everyone in 2017 are so incredibly superstitious.

Just because it is on a TV show, doesn't negate it. Shape shifting is a Shaman practice.

https://www.healyourlife.com/how-to-sha ... sformation

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 331 by Claire Evans]



[center]
Subjective truth vs objective truth

AGAIN[/center]

Debate aside, I've observed it.

I've observed that you are an alien robot from the future.. and I mean that "subjectively".

Paranormal investigators take a scientific approach when investigating.

Yep, and no paranormal phenomena has ever been scientifically observed.

Scientists tend not to like to delve into these issues. It is hard to prove:

It's about as hard to prove as observing something that never happens.

Why is science the answer to everything? Has science proven everything
?

If you find a better way, let us know. You could win a Nobel prize for that.
Until then, scientists who DO use science have not demonstrated that there's something supernatural going on.

Sorry.

Maybe you can pray for your data.

It's subjective.

I'm not referring to the scientific approach.

What are you proposing, a Ouija board?

If one undergoes an experience and tries to find out what it is by ruling out all logic scenarios, then one will think it is more likely to believe in the supernatural especially if there are eye witnesses. Yet each experience is subjective.

Everyone can imagine things.

If you want to talk to us about SUBJECTIVE experiences.. well then, why NOT the supernatural? Let's have your ghost stories. Let's have your god.

I thought you meant that ghosts and demons were objectively real.
But if you want to talk metaphorically, were good.

I have no problem with people being poetic.
Just make up your mind.. is this a SUBJECTIVE experience or an ACTUAL experience?

I'm just calling a spade a spade.

I appreciate your honesty.
Some people have been known to be honestly mistaken.

That's why skeptics ask for their evidence.

Yoh! Satanist Aleister Crowley practised automatic writing. He wrote an occult book in a trance through the invisible writer, a spirit, through Aiwass

So what?
He was also a magnificent fraud and a nut case.

"Tapping the third eye" is not tapping the forehead. The third eye is the pineal gland. Opening it is extremely dangerous.

I don't suggest that you stick your finger in your brain, opening up the pineal gland, it might sting.

Prayer is not an occult practice. Definition of occultism:

"Occultism is the study of occult practices, including (but not limited to) magic, alchemy, extra-sensory perception, astrology, spiritualism, religion, and divination"

Well you call your god miraculous, others might call him magical.
On your list of what can be "occult" is religion.. I think that Christianity is a religion.

In any case, no matter WHAT you call it, the occult or the supernatural or GOD or demons or whatnot has NOT been proved to exist.

None of it.
Not even CLOSE, Claire.

There's two side to this coin.
One one side all is well.. the GOOD side. your god.

On the OTHER side, you live in fear of the "occult" and all that is scary to you.
You don't have to believe in EITHER.

But in order to believe in your GOD, you have to believe in DEMON.
People who ACTUALLY believe in DEMONS are afraid of them.

So, right now, we are looking at your fears.

One of the jobs I love best as a father is to calm irrational fears. My children, like all children had ALL KINDS of irrational fears.. and by the way, they still do. It's STILL my job to calm them down by reminding them of reality.

I like to defend people.

I think you are being rather defensive.

Yes, I think that's true. I am defending the poor maligned witches out there.
Good Christian folks use to burn them.

I am defending those whom you would wish do DEMONIZE people outside their religions.

I am trying to defend you.
Superstitions are UNJUSTIFIED fears.

You can choose to be free of those.

I defend RATIONAL THINKING all the time.
Consistently.

I am telling you the facts and I'm sorry you don't like it.

If you think that demons and ghosts, gods and monsters are FACTS, I think you are mistaken.

In any case, you have NOT demonstrated any actual DATA proving that they do.
Not even a little.

Because there isn't any, Claire.
Otherwise, I'd be telling YOU.

Now I'm not going to go around and demonize people and I certainly would not approve of persecution.

Then I suggest that you do NOT.
Because, it may come as a shock to you, but IN MY OPINION, that's precisely what you are doing. I'm not calling that a FACT, but an opinion.

I know the difference between those two.
A whole lot of people in here DO NOT know the difference.

Some of them figure that whatever they happen to believe is a FACT.
Of course, I just call that mistaken.

I didn't mean people in psychic wards.

Then WHERE are all these people levitating?
Where is the headline news?

You seem to know about it.. what are YOUR sources.. "Superstitions Daily"?

What makes you think it would happen at a place like Wal Mart? I would think it would be done in privacy and not in public. It's not an everyday occurrence.

Yes, because the BEST way to demonstrate to the world that levitation is real would be to HIDE the evidence that it is ?

That doesn't make ANY sense at all..
If these "occult" or whatever people want to spread their DEMONIC MAGIC or whatever you think is going on.. WHY HIDE?

If anyone who wants to PROVE that levitation is real.. WHY HIDE THE EVIDENCE?

These occult demons sure seem STUPID.

I'm glad you have agreed that you can't dismiss the supernatural.

I can't dismiss that you're an alien from the future or a shape shifting mouse.
Big DEAL, Claire.

Look, I do have an open mind.. it's just that right now, there is no evidence for gods demons or anything supernatural. I think we would NOT be debating their existence if we had ANY good evidence.

We don't.

As I said, I've experienced it myself and that is my evidence.

You can levitate of conjure demons and whatnot?

Then you can convince yourself of that. You might have a little more trouble convincing others. Right?

And you STILL might be mistaken.

Too bad for you that you believe something that you really can't verify in any way.
Like your god probably.

Just because it is on a TV show, doesn't negate it. Shape shifting is a Shaman practice.

So what?
That doesn't mean that any shaman has ever shape shifted.

But WE DO have the TV shows, don't we?
Now.. those are for REAL.

Look, you are free to believe in ghosts and shape shifters and demons and gods and goddesses and levitation and WHATEVER you like. It's ok.

But if you CLAIM that any of that is TRUE... and you cannot provide any evidence?
Get in line.. there are lots of people like that.

But feel free to believe anything that you want.
Just don't hurt yourself or others.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 331 by Claire Evans]

Claire...try to resolve this contradiction.

Paranormal investigators take a scientific approach when investigating.

vs

Dyson has written that "paranormal phenomena are real but lie outside the limits of science." No one has produced empirical proof of psi, he suggested, because it tends to occur under conditions of "strong emotion and stress," which are "inherently incompatible with controlled scientific procedures.

----
As an aside, it makes no difference to mention that Josephson won a Nobel Prize, unless it refers to research on the topic in question. For your information, he won the Prize for the Josephson effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephson_effect
which has nothing to do with the paranormal.
As far as the scientific community is concerned, whatever Josephson researches on the paranormal...is bunk. Not worth the paper its written on.

Why is science the answer to everything? Has science proven everything

Science is how Person A shows to Persons B, C and D that what A is saying is true.

Prayer is not an occult practice. Definition of occultism:

"Occultism is the study of occult practices, including (but not limited to) magic, alchemy, extra-sensory perception, astrology, spiritualism, religion, and divination"

Did you not read the definition you yourself supplied? Prayer is a practice in certain religions, and guess what the definition says? I underlined key words.

Now I'm not going to go around and demonize people and I certainly would not approve of persecution.

Oh? Then what were those videos you linked to before, of certain people on TV? You accused them of being what was it? Skin changers, reptilians? Basically...from my perspective...you denied their humanity.

As I said, I've experienced it myself and that is my evidence.

Apparently, you don't even understand what evidence IS. Evidence is something that you can show to someone else. I experienced trauma in my childhood. That's something that happened to me, that I experienced. Can I SHOW any of it? Nope, and so, I cannot say 'that is my evidence'.

You and I seem to be operating at loggerheads. For you it seems that personal testimony trumps everything else, including scientifically gathered data. Claire says she experienced demons in some fashion? Well, apparently, that trumps the complete absence of demons in scientific research.

Just because it is on a TV show, doesn't negate it. Shape shifting is a Shaman practice.

Has it ever been done under controlled circumstances, such that we can rule OUT any possibility of trickery? Has it ever been confirmed by (preferably multiple) neutral minded eyewitnesses (preferably who have not been told beforehand what is being done) that a person has indeed physically transformed into a fox or some other animal?
Nope?

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 301 by Joe1950]

You didn't get me ticked off. I just feel bad for you. I did ask that you clarify what you object to as "strange beliefs" and why you say that they would be "forced down your throat." No one forces you to even answer your door, much less force you to stand there and be brow-beaten.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 308 by Joe1950]

You DID say that the people who show up at your door are "demons." Re-read your own statement.

[onewithhim]

Since Jehovah's Witnesses do not emphasize the hope of Heaven, but Paradise on Earth, what do you make of the Beattitude that the pure of heart will see God?

Is God to make an appearance on this Paradise on Earth?

I believe that Jesus is referring to BOTH groups of Christians among his 9 "Happinesses." They all apply literally to the ruling group that will be in heaven, and to the earthly group some literal and some figurative. They will literally have the earth to live on, but will "see" God only in a figurative way---through their eyes of understanding. Those "persecuted for righteousness sake" will be called happy, though the kingdom of the heavens would not literally "belong" to them but would be accessible to them by way of their ability to live within that kingdom arrangement, with the courtyards of the Kingdom being the earth.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 323 by Claire Evans]

That is from the Catholic Church, which incorporated paganism into Christianity, which is called transubstantiation. They truly believe that they are eating Jesus. There is no way that other Christians, including the only ones, who believe that is literal.

Not just the Catholic Church. While it is true that the RCC teaches that it is the literal body of Christ that is being eaten, that the bread literally transforms into the body, other denominations teach that it is the body of Jesus Christ, who may or may not be God (depending on denomination), and that the bread is the body in some sort of metaphorical sense.

Metaphoric is very different to literal as you know. It is not cannibalism.

I say

A case that can be examined? What exactly does this mean? On the surface, this statement would exclude Jesus Christ then from being plausible.

You reply

http://y-jesus.com/wwrj/6-jesus-rise-dead/

So I see a summary of what looks to be a standard Christian belief...

I want to comment on this excerpt from the link
So could this have been simply a story that grew over time, or is it based upon solid evidence? The answer to this question is foundational to Christianity. For if Jesus did rise from the dead, it would validate everything he said about himself, about the meaning of life, and about our destiny after death.
The difference between you and I is that I am a careful man when it comes to evaluating claims. I want EACH AND EVERY claim to be accounted for. So what I say to the above in red is that even if it was proven somehow to me that Jesus did return from death...how does this then validate what you believe happens to US after we die?
For all we know...Jesus lied about what happens after death. For all we know, the afterlife is a place of unimaginable horror for all, even Jesus, who managed to come back (somehow) and in order to soothe the worries of his compatriots, he lied about it.
(I am not suggesting that I actually believe the above, nor am I putting it forth seriously, just as a hypothetical).
Basically, what I've seen yourself and other Christians do plenty of times is say that with Jesus's resurrection supposedly being proved, this somehow validates any and all subsequent claims.

So He lied to soothe the disciples but didn't think it would not be soothing to actually find out it was a lie and for them to go to hell? After death, it was unimaginable horror but to come back from that means a victory over evil. Hell means death and Jesus would not have come back to life without conquering it. So the lie would have died with Him.

So motive aside, your hypothesis suggests the resurrection was proven. Or you are suggesting is that Jesus may be a liar.

I don't do that. If the resurrection were to be proven to me (somehow), I would say "Okay, the resurrection has been proven. Now...what can you give me to suggest that after I myself die, as a believer in Jesus, that I will most definitely be going to heaven?"

As I said, if Jesus was lying, then there'd be resurrection. Sin causes death and how could God forgive Jesus of the sin He took on when He comes back to life and lies? Why would Jesus need to go through hell just to convince us there is a heaven? Why would He choose to do that? If one loves the world, they do not lie.

However, we can examine the case for the resurrection all we like, if there is no faith, then there is no relationship with Christ and thus there will always be doubt for a nonbeliever.

When the Israelites became monotheistic, they changed the scriptures from "gods" to "God". We see this in the OT itself:

Not in the Noah's Flood story, is what I meant. In the Noah's Flood story, Genesis 6 to 9, only a singular God is mentioned.

Strange that they the Garden of Eden and Tower of Babel story are the only ones to mention God in the plural. Why they didn't change that is anyone's guess. Might have something to do with different writers.

I don't think anyone's claimed that the case of the resurrection is based purely on scientific research.

In which case, anything you might bring to the table thinking it might convince me of the resurrection quite simply will not work. If I can't examine it, I won't believe it.

I mean, for example, it cannot be proven scientifically how Jesus rose from the dead. Just that the case strongly indicates that He did.

We should start a new thread on "The Case for Christ rebuttal". PM or thread?

No thanks. Going from the reviews (at least two of which that I quoted were from Christians), the book does not set out to do what Strobel said he'd do. He's supposed to be an atheist journalist, with a law background (at least at first). It's supposed to be an honest examination of the case, in a legal sense, for Christ...and yet, as one of the reviews I quoted says, this is not an honest case. It would be akin to a case where only one side of the proceedings (whether defense or prosecution) is allowed to make an argument, allowed to call witnesses and not only that, speaks FOR the other side, instead of allowing the other side to speak for themselves.

So you don't want to correct me? You said you wanted to here both sides of the story.

Why would an atheist detract? Why would they want to believe what they perceived formally as a fairy tale?

As an atheist skeptical agnostic (what a mouthful)...I'd believe if I could be presented with the evidence.

Yes, but I'm asking how an atheist would go from wanting scientific proof to just accepting the claim of the resurrection without proof. What changed?

What about Simon Greenleaf? He was chief founder of Harvard Law School and the author of the renowned legal work, A Treatise on the Law of Evidence. He started off with the position that the resurrection story was inane. Yet it was because he was challenged by his students that he set forth to debunk the resurrection story. He started off with confirmation bias, obviously. Yet he still overcame that bias to come to the conclusion that the resurrection was true.

Haven't read him. Care to link to something of his, so I can look at it?

Simon Greenleaf:

http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/

Simon Greenleaf knows how to conduct investigations.

So does Strobel. He has a Master's in Law from Yale, according to Wikipedia, and yet see what he did with his book...

I see that was somehow got to do with wanting to believe because he is married to a Christian.

CS Lewis is another example.

I honestly haven't read Lewis (should get around to it one of these days), but among atheist circles, he's widely regarded as a joke for his apologetics, mainly to do with his Liar, Lunatic or Lord trilemma.

Explain further, please?

So I ask you this question again: Can you honestly say that non believers of Santa Claus could examine the story and come to believe it?

A non-believer can come to believe anything. Just because Non-Believer Person A now believes Story X doesn't mean that belief in Story X is justifiable when Non-Believer B comes along. It could be that Person A believes the story for bad reasons.

Can you give a yes or no answer, please?

It depends on one's outlook. If one acknowledges the supernatural as true, especially observing it themselves, then "supernatural monsters" will be a feasible explanation.

As someone who accepts the supernatural, consider the following dilemma. Two people come up to you, Ann and Bob, and both of them say they have supernatural creatures at their respectives home. Ann says Bob is saying an untruth, and Bob says the same of Ann.
How do you examine the situation? What methodology do you use?

I'd get in a paranormal investigator to see who most likely is being truthful. To me a claim from one person isn't convincing. However, if there were 2 or more witnesses, then there may be merit. But to someone who has never experienced the paranormal, it just wouldn't be convincing anyway. They'd brush it off as people making up the same story to get attention. But let's take it a step further. If one of the witnesses was a complete stranger, then that would be worth giving consideration to. I do try and think of the logical explanation first but if there is none, well, then what else is one to believe?

No, they are not the same:

We find the Holy Spirit through prayer, while spirit guides are contacted in dangerous ways:

Prayer can be considered a type of meditation. Either way, how do you convince someone like myself that not only is your Holy Spirit real, but that it speaks the truth, while these other people over there in that corner are talking to evil demons, even if those people say to me that what Claire is talking to is an evil demon?

Tune in and start to believe. ...
Meditate with crystals. ...
Get out in nature. ...
Ask your spirit guides to reveal themselves. ...
Keep a spirit guide journal. ...
Try "automatic writing." ...
Tap into your third eye.

These are purely occult practices.

Is 'occult' synonymous with evil? Are any of the practices of Christianity 'occult'?

Yes, prayer can be considered meditation according to the definition but prayer is not an occult practice. How do you know my claims of the Holy Spirit is the truth? That is verified by having a relationship with God. Without that, it cannot be verified.

Could people believe I'm actually speaking to an evil demon? Not likely because there can be grave consequences for contacting demons. Here are the symptoms of demonic possession:

http://www.sarahpetrunoshamanism.com/bl ... ossession/

If one has peace, then it definitely is not demonic.

Those occult practices I mentioned are evil.

It depends on what they do. Levitation is not an hallucination.

And yet to date, I am not aware of a single case of levitation being verified. More than that, even if such were verified, how do we find out whether the agent responsible for it is good or evil? A person levitating is just well levitating. What does that tell us about the intentions of the magical entity behind it?

There are studies into anti-gravity technology.

"The headline of a recent New Scientist cover-story reads, "Anti-gravity: Can the heretics turn physics upside down?" (Cohen, 12 January 2002).

http://levitation.greyfalcon.us/levitation.htm

Human levitation is merely caused by defying gravity by the supernatural as far as we know.

What would be the purpose? To show off power and to cause fear if it is evil. I don't see any forces of good using levitation now.

Shape shifting is a good example of demonic possession:

Haven't you linked that video before? I've seen it before, pretty sure you linked it before in earlier discussions. It's a low res video broadcast captured on a low res camera, being zoomed in. You linking that video just shows how much you WANT to believe that there are reptiloids (or whatever they're called) running around, how much you don't examine what you present as evidence.
Come back when you understand how video broadcasts and video capturing work. Try looking up what a pixel is, and what happens when you record a low definition video on a low definition camera, then zoom in.

So tell me how it works. How does a low res picture cause one to have perfect teeth and then pointy, sharp ones? How often do you see this when watching low res TV?

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 337 by Claire Evans]

So He lied to soothe the disciples but didn't think it would not be soothing to actually find out it was a lie and for them to go to hell? After death, it was unimaginable horror but to come back from that means a victory over evil. Hell means death and Jesus would not have come back to life without conquering it. So the lie would have died with Him.

So motive aside, your hypothesis suggests the resurrection was proven. Or you are suggesting is that Jesus may be a liar.

I am suggesting that someone being a liar is not disproven "simply" because they came back from the dead. I can think up all sorts of scenarios where someone dies, comes back, and lies about the experience (or lack thereof).

Metaphoric is very different to literal as you know. It is not cannibalism.

Either way, we still have Mass being conducted, we still have the bread/wafer/whatever being eaten, we're still being told Jeus's supposed words from the last supper, that this is his body, that the wine is his blood.
This is an occult practice, whether one believes it to be the literal body and blood of a god or not.

As I said, if Jesus was lying, then there'd be resurrection.

Prove this. Prove it wasn't just a fluke, that resurrections will happen for others.

Sin causes death

Again, prove this. I know biologically what causes death, but what is this 'sin' thing you talk of, that is able to cause the complete cessation of biological activity in an organism? Remember, as far as my hypothetical goes, Jesus's resurrection has been proven.
Nothing else is a given, including lines like the above.

how could God forgive Jesus of the sin He took on when He comes back to life and lies?

I'm not accepting that as a given either. When I say I take the resurrection as a given, I mean that Jesus died on the cross, and then, three days later, somehow he gets up and starts walking around again.
I do not take ANYTHING else as a given in my hypothetical, including that he took on sins and was forgiven.

Why would Jesus need to go through hell just to convince us there is a heaven? Why would He choose to do that? If one loves the world, they do not lie.

Millions of parents the world over who feel intense love for their children lie to them and tell them Santa Claus is real, and that Santa is the one who leaves presents underneath the tree.
Lies can be done by people who love.

Strange that they the Garden of Eden and Tower of Babel story are the only ones to mention God in the plural. Why they didn't change that is anyone's guess. Might have something to do with different writers.

Which is one of the reasons why I don't believe the Bible.

I mean, for example, it cannot be proven scientifically how Jesus rose from the dead. Just that the case strongly indicates that He did.

Tell me how you can indicate a case (not necessarily the Jesus resurrection) STRONGLY...without using science?

So you don't want to correct me? You said you wanted to here both sides of the story.

Correct you...on what? The Lee Strobel book? I already have. The reviews I quoted indicated that Strobel does not set out to do what he claimed to set out to do. He does not examine the Case for Christ in a legal setting. No court (at least in the western world) would allow only one side of a case to call in witnesses.

Yes, but I'm asking how an atheist would go from wanting scientific proof to just accepting the claim of the resurrection without proof. What changed?

You'd have to ask those people, whoever they are. I am not going to speak for them (unlike a certain New Testament author who likes to make grandiose claims about atheists...). I don't pretend to know for a fact what is in other people's heads.

Simon Greenleaf:

http://y-jesus.com/simon-greenleaf-resurrection/

In the time since our last communication, I've looked up what Greenleaf wrote and not to my surprise...despite him being considered a revered legal authority in the US, what he writes about the Bible doesn't pass muster. He allows it to slip through cracks in legal rules that, if he were being honest, he wouldn't allow.

Explain further, please?

Lunatic, Liar and Lord (or the 3 L's) are the only three conclusions that Lewis allows when it comes to examining what Jesus supposedly said. However, among atheists, this is a joke, because there is a fourth L that he doesn't even consider.
Legend.

[YOUTUBE] [/YOUTUBE]

Consider the evolution of Batman. Today, it's well understood and believed that Batman does NOT kill people.
However, Batman, when originally written, DID kill people. He DID use guns.

Can you give a yes or no answer, please?

That is my answer. Take it as a yes. Non-believers of Story X can and have come to believe Story X. Whether or not they do so for good reasons, is a different matter.

I apologize if my explaining myself is somehow detrimental to the conversation.

I'd get in a paranormal investigator to see who most likely is being truthful. To me a claim from one person isn't convincing.

But claims from many people, absent any supporting evidence (in other words, the Bible) is?

However, if there were 2 or more witnesses, then there may be merit.

Two or three people walk out of the woods after a night spent there. They say they saw a fire breathing dragon.
What is your response?

But to someone who has never experienced the paranormal, it just wouldn't be convincing anyway.

Correct, and if you are able to understand this, why isn't Jehovah or YHWH, or whatever it is you call him? Why are there calls in the New Testament for people like me to believe whatever the NT authors say, when I have NEVER experienced what they talk about? Why does a bad thing (whatever form it takes) happen to unbelievers like myself after we die?

They'd brush it off as people making up the same story to get attention.

Because this sort of thing happens quite frequently throughout history. People can and have made up stories for all sorts of reasons.
If I talk to a Mormon, they tell me Joseph Smith didn't make up his visits from angels. Am I supposed to then just nod my head and believe Smith really did talk to real angels?

If one of the witnesses was a complete stranger, then that would be worth giving consideration to.

Who is a stranger to who? I can probably guess where you're going with this but I'm asking anyway.

Yes, prayer can be considered meditation according to the definition but prayer is not an occult practice.

So you agree with me that it meets the definition, but then just reject that it's an occult practice because...?

How do you know my claims of the Holy Spirit is the truth? That is verified by having a relationship with God. Without that, it cannot be verified.

Someone whom YOU claim is speaking with a demon could say the exact same thing about themselves. They could say they're speaking to God and that God verifies their claims.

And I'm here asking "If claims of relationships with divine beings can ONLY be verified by others if they ALSO have that relationship...then why doesn't EVERYONE have that relationship?"

Could people believe I'm actually speaking to an evil demon? Not likely because there can be grave consequences for contacting demons.

Again, this requires that people presuppose that what you are saying is true, which they have no reason to, given that these people believe you speak to evil demons.

YOU certainly don't give the words of those whom YOU think are talking to demons (or are demons themselves) any weight.

Here are the symptoms of demonic possession:

I have no reason to think that any of that list is true. I mean...did you even read it yourself? It lists off feeling tired as a sign of a 'spiritual attachment'!
Besides, the link doesn't say what you say it does. You say 'here are the symptoms of demonic possession but the site says

Attachment Spirits, Spirit Attachments, and Possessions are all flavors of the same thing. These non-crossed over Spirits, human or not, who have attached to your energy field for the purposes of using your energy and/or manipulating your behavior to serve themselves.

There are many different types of Spirits, just as there are many different types of individuals, human and not, who roam this Earth.

Some Spirit Attachments are actually friendly, lost individuals who have inadvertently attached as a means to get energy, not realizing it was harmful. Others can be malicious and intentionally harmful. While still others can be souls who were troubled while alive, such as those with alcohol and drug use issues, who then attached to a living human in death to continue that behavior.

The site says that there are many different types of spirits, some malicious, some not (it doesn't even mention the word 'demon'), whereas YOU lumped them all together as being 'demons' when you gave me the link.

If one has peace, then it definitely is not demonic.

So this is something we humans just CANNOT feel on our own? We humans, with brains, minds, emotions of our own, just CANNOT feel peace naturally?

Those occult practices I mentioned are evil.

I have no reason to believe this. Given that you quite clearly DO NOT read the things you cite in support of your own claims, why should I believe this line?

There are studies into anti-gravity technology.

And so far, nothing to show for it. Is this article supposed to convince me that levitation is possible? That it can be done. I read the article. It talks about the implications of it, the attitudes of the people at NASA...but NOWHERE does it show that levitation can and has actually been done.
It just says Person So and So was seen a very long time ago and this is reported by a bunch of people.
That's it.

What would be the purpose? To show off power and to cause fear if it is evil. I don't see any forces of good using levitation now.

As expected, you don't consider the full implications of what it is you write.
Jesus would have been someone who levitated. He supposedly walked on top of water. He supposedly flew off into the sky at some point after his resurrection. According to what you just said...he couldn't have been a force of good. If he did, it was to cause fear, and causing fear is evil.

So tell me how it works. How does a low res picture cause one to have perfect teeth and then pointy, sharp ones? How often do you see this when watching low res TV?

How do you know the woman has perfect teeth, then pointy ones? What I'm saying is that you infer things about a person from an extremely low quality video.
The lower the resolution of the video, the less information there is to show on the screen, the less detail. This problem is compounded if one does as as your link shows, and point a camera at the TV screen (instead of capturing the footage) and zoom in.

You clearly either have NO understanding about how video works, or you ignore whatever understanding you might happen to have in favour of promoting this theory of reptilians working on news programs.
A physical examination of a body would go a lot further than pointing a camera at a TV.

[Claire Evans]

[Replying to post 327 by Claire Evans]

But nobody has accused Santa of witch-craft, there is now investigations into the veracity of claims of Santa.

You've really got to get a handle on your logic. Does a supernatural being need to be accused of witchcraft before investigations into claims about it can be done?

Nobody has said, "We have witnessed the supernatural beings of Santa and it clearly is witchcraft that enables him to have so much power!" There are no witnesses to Santa's supernatural deeds especially since it is not recorded historically.

Is it a historical fact that Santa existed and that he did supernatural acts like in the case of Jesus?

It is not a historical fact that Jesus existed or did supernatural acts. This is why you don't see history departments in colleges teaching Jesus rose from the dead. They leave that to their theology fellows.

Not a historical fact that Jesus existed? Are you serious? Heard of Tacitus? No serious historian believes Jesus did not exist. The supernatural acts I was referring to were the miracles, not the resurrection.

https://theway21stcentury.wordpress.com ... th-theory/

It is a fact that people witnessed Jesus doing supernatural act. This is from Celsus a pagan philosopher, from the 2nd century AD


‘After she [Mary] had been driven out by her husband and while she was
wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus…
because he was poor he [Jesus] hired himself out as a workman in Egypt,
and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians
pride themselves; he returned full of conceit because of these powers, and
on account of them gave himself the title of God.’[12]

http://wasjesusamagician.blogspot.co.za ... magic.html

[Claire Evans]

Yes, we do know that for certain. The Bishop Nicholas did exist. Santa was never claimed to be God incarnate/the Son of God.

Many Christians argue that Jesus never did either.

They don't know what they are talking about.

I disagree, many of them know exactly what they are talking about, but you can argue that with them. They have scriptures to back up their claims too. It's all a matter of interpretation and you don't get to dictate what the correct interpretation is.

Can you please give me an example? What is Christianity without the belief that Jesus is the Son of God? Are you referring to Gnostic Christians?

There is no legend where it is claimed that Santa's realm is in the spirit world, unlike Jesus.

Perhaps Santa wanted people to take him more seriously?

Other than for kids, that didn't work, did it?

I can't speak for all adults, can you?

Santa was not the pivot of a major world religion. Those adults who believe in Santa most likely have the intelligence of a seven year old or have mental illness.

But nobody has accused Santa of witch-craft,

I would not say Santa was a witch. I would say he was using some kind of godly power, not magic.

But has anyone historically said Santa had godly powers and that they knew he existed?

there is now investigations into the veracity of claims of Santa.

Yes, much like with God.

Just be aware that Santa may not appreciate being tested. If you attempt to test him he may refuse to do anything to prove he exists or to prove he has supernatural powers.

I'm talking about Jesus. Yes, there have been plenty of investigations into the resurrection. You'd think an adult would have caught Santa coming down their chimney by now.

Is it a historical fact that Santa existed and that he did supernatural acts like in the case of Jesus?

As much historical fact as there is that Jesus did supernatural acts. Simply just unverified tales. At least the author of the "Night before Christmas" can be identified!

I'm willing to believe by faith though. Even Jesus would commend me on that.

It is a fact that people witnessed Jesus doing supernatural act. This is from Celsus a pagan philosopher, from the 2nd century AD


‘After she [Mary] had been driven out by her husband and while she was
wandering about in a disgraceful way she secretly gave birth to Jesus…
because he was poor he [Jesus] hired himself out as a workman in Egypt,
and there tried his hand at certain magical powers on which the Egyptians
pride themselves; he returned full of conceit because of these powers, and
on account of them gave himself the title of God.’[12]

http://wasjesusamagician.blogspot.co.za ... magic.html