The Validity of Christian Religious Experiences

[AlanFox]

@Faizal_Ali

The 9/11 attacks

I saw that on TV and thought I was going mad.

[AlanFox]

@Faizal_Ali

If God existed and wanted everyone to know that he existed, he could do so in an instant, easily.

Just by rearranging a few neurons, I guess. Always leads me to wonder on God’s purpose. What is this existence for? Simpler just to shut it down and relocate everyone to heaven.

[Faizal_Ali]

@AlanFox

I saw that on TV and thought I was going mad.

I remember when the first tower collapsed, the CNN reporter couldn’t understand what he was seeing at first. He kept speaking of the tower as if it was still standing, and we who were watching on TV were saying “The tower isn’t there, anymore.”

[Faizal_Ali]

I just found a video of that moment. It starts at 7:10. It takes several minutes before Aaron Brown realizes the tower is no longer standing:

9/11: South Tower collapses, Pentagon hit - YouTube

[Michelle (Michelle Ols)]

I am not going to take your bait. I am explaining the story to you from a Christian perspective. Of course you do not need to share that perspective. Are you trying to understand the perspectives of others?

BTW: I just added an addendum to my explanation of the Abraham/Isaac story to explain the lesson it teaches the faithful about idolatry and trusting God.

[Faizal_Ali]

@Michelle

Are you trying to understand the perspectives of others?

Yes That is why I am asking you to follow up on and explain further regarding points you have made.
Earlier you wrote: “To know if a Christian religious experience is valid, one key check is to make sure it does not conflict with the scriptures. For example if someone thought they heard a voice telling them to steal or murder, that would conflict with the Bible so would not be from God.” But now it turns out God could and has told people to kill others (according to your beliefs), so that leaves unanswered the question of how one knows whether the voice one hears is from God (since whether killing entails murder is not at all a straightforward question in this context.)

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Faizal_Ali

Sure. If some giant guy appeared before us and started doing stuff that was undeniably miraculous, like poofing an entire universe out of nothing or causing dead people to come back to life, that would be convincing. I don’t know why that would be unreasonable. Christians believe he did that kind of stuff already, but for some reason only when no one was around to create a lasting reliable record of the event.

Is it more important for you to tell God how He should reveal himself and what He should do, or to actually evaluate the evidence?

If Christians all say they know a person X, and and a friend you know then says that person X must stand in front of me right now or I can’t believe that person exists, would you consider that friend reasonable? Or would you say they should evaluate the evidence of the person to verify that it is indeed all an illusion if they believe that to be so?

[T_aquaticus]

@Michelle

First of all, God did not ask Abraham to murder Isaac, but to sacrifice Isaac.

There’s this one:

And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’” [1 Sam 15:1]

[Faizal_Ali]

@thoughtful

If Christians all say they know a person X, and and a friend you know then says that person X must stand in front of me right now or I can’t believe that person exists, would you consider that friend reasonable?

If this friend were claimed to be nothing more than a regular human being, then it would be reasonable to believe the people who claim his existence, because we already know that regular human beings exist. Obviously, the situation we are discussing here in which people are claiming to have a “personal relationship with God” is very different.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@T_aquaticus

And Samuel said to Saul, “The Lord sent me to anoint you king over his people Israel; now therefore listen to the words of the Lord. Thus says the Lord of hosts, ‘I have noted what Amalek did to Israel in opposing them on the way when they came up out of Egypt. Now go and strike Amalek and devote to destruction all that they have. Do not spare them, but kill both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey .’” [1 Sam 15:1]

This isn’t something I’ve thought a lot about, but after thinking about what sons of God meant in Genesis 6, you can see a relationship between God and “sons of God” i.e. the rulers and leaders of God’s people. He revealed Himself to them specially - like with Moses and Joshua but not the rest of the people. Jesus has fulfilled this role, so there is no special revelation directly talking about to a ruler today.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Faizal_Ali

If this friend were claimed to be nothing more than a regular human being, then it would be reasonable to believe the people who claim his existence, because we already know that regular human beings exist. Obviously, the situation we are discussing here in which people are claiming to have a “personal relationship with God” is very different.

But the Christian claim is unique since we claim both that Jesus is God and man. So one, did he exist as a man? Two, did he rise from the dead to validate he was God? Then he could still have a relationship with Christians today as God even though we don’t see him.

[david.heddle]

@Faizal_Ali

That’s what I mean by this leading to dead end.

I agree. Telling an unbeliever about one’s personal experiences leads nowhere. We are only supposed to give one message, and that’s the Gospel. And the message (and its giving) is what is important and brings glory to God, not the response. We have no control over the response. Of course we should be prepared to answer any and all questions, even those posed with hostility, and defend our faith, but if the response to the Gospel is complete disinterest, we should dust off our feet and move on.

[Faizal_Ali]

@thoughtful

But the Christian claim is unique since we claim both that Jesus is God and man. So one, did he exist as a man? Two, did he rise from the dead to validate he was God? Then he could still have a relationship with Christians today as God even though we don’t see him.

Right. And if there were magical horses running around with horns growing out their foreheads, there would be unicorns.

So are there?

[Faizal_Ali]

@david.heddle

I agree. Telling an unbeliever about one’s personal experiences leads nowhere. We are only supposed to give one message, and that’s the Gospel. And the message (and its giving) is what is important and brings glory to God, not the response .

Would you share your thoughts on why your god, if he exists, would choose such an unreliable and inefficient way of spreading this message?

[david.heddle]

You are assuming facts not in evidence. It is unreliable and inefficient only if it is God’s intent that everyone will be saved. Scripture (IMO) rather clearly teaches that universalism is not God’s intent. Why not? I don’t know*, I wish it were, but it isn’t. So like Lincoln’s famous answer that a man’s legs must be long enough to reach the ground, the Gospel has to be reliable and efficient enough for God’s purpose, and not to meet my personal desire for universal salvation.

---

• Although Rom. 9:19-23 might give an answer, just not an easy answer.

[Faizal_Ali]

@david.heddle

You are assuming facts not in evidence. It is unreliable and inefficient only if it is God’s intent that everyone will be saved. Scripture (IMO) rather clearly teaches that universalism is not God’s intent. Why not? I don’t know*, I wish it were, but it isn’t. So like Lincoln’s famous answer that a man’s legs must be long enough to reach the ground, the Gospel has to be reliable and efficient enough for God’s purpose, and not to meet my personal desire for universal salvation.

OK. Then you can’t have it both ways and insist that the evidence for the existence of your god is persuasive. He has deliberately made it so that there will not be good evidence that he exists, so when a non-believer like me says that he does not exist, I’m coming up with the correct answer. The one’s who get the answer wrong get to experience “salvation.”

I agree with you, it’s not easy to make sense of this. Thankfully, I don’t have to.

[faded_Glory]

A thought, none of these myriads of endless conversations would have been necessary if Jesus had stayed around, all those years.

[Mark10.45 (Mark McGowan)]

@AlanFox

@Faizal_Ali

If God existed and wanted everyone to know that he existed, he could do so in an instant, easily.

Just by rearranging a few neurons, I guess. Always leads me to wonder on God’s purpose. What is this existence for? Simpler just to shut it down and relocate everyone to heaven.

@Faizal_Ali

Would you share your thoughts on why your god, if he exists, would choose such an unreliable and inefficient way of spreading this message?

John 20:29 - Jesus said to him, [f]“Thomas, because you have seen Me, you have believed. Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

2 Corinthians 4:17-18 - 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory, 18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

John 3:12 - If I have told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?

Much of the bible focuses on faith as the key and the goal to achieve eternal life through Jesus. You are re-hashing an age-old argument, that even the Jewish leaders did not even believe Jesus while He was standing with them and talking to them, nor did His own disciple Thomas until he saw Jesus standing there…The miracle is finding God where God is, which is in everything. You can’t do that if you make God a puppet master or miracle monkey…He is God. So it is a test with great reward if you believe, if you believe that…which you don’t…but that’s the choice everyone has to make.

[david.heddle]

@Faizal_Ali

In any event, that misses the point. Your claim was that one could know it was not God speaking to him if the being speaking ordered something immoral like murder. However, there is no way (in your view) to know whether the order to kill is not, instead, an order to commit a “sacrifice” which is apparently moral.

Actually Michelle is correct. The command to sacrifice Isaac was part of God’s redemptive plan serving as a type foreshadowing God’s sacrifice of his son. However, God’s redemptive plan is finished. Christianity is in some sense one long Sabbath wait (who knows how long?) for the end of history. The redemptive plan was completed in full on the cross. (Or more accurately, with the empty tomb.) So if today I committed murder because “God told me to”, you can be sure that it would be for the same reason as if you committed murder because God told you to–it would be because we were insane.

[AlanFox]

@Michelle

I am not going to take your bait.

I love that! I have the same attitude. We can only grant each other the space to form our ideas that we expect from others.