Chistianity/God are tangible

From my own experiences I do not think that the tangibility (word?)of Christianity is talked about enough.Before I came to Christ and recieved the Holy Spirit I wondered how people could really claim to believe in Jesus.How did they really know?Aren't they just believing in words written on paper or pretending to be something that they're not due to their fear of death,social acceptance,etc.?

Then I recieved the Holy Spirit.The Holy Spirit is the truth (often called the Helper) and is very tangible.

"But when he,the Spirit of truth,comes,he will guide you into all truth.He will not speak on his own;he will speak only what he hears,and he will tell you what is yet to come.He will bring glory to me by taking from what is mine and making it known to you.All that belongs to the Father is mine.That is why I said the Spirit will take from what is mine and make it known to you."-John(16:13-15)

What I am trying to say is that God or the truth is tangible.When you recieve Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior,this thing called the Holy Spirit comes into you.In my case,it flooded me as if being poured by bowls.(I know that there is scripture talking about the pouring out of the Holy Spirit but I'm too lazy to look for it).When this happened,the words that came to my mouth were "Jesus is real!"I couldn't believe what was going on.

I am not a good writer and I often go off on tangents all over the place.What I am trying to say is that us whacky "Christians" don't just believe some words written in a book or that Jesus of Nazareth is indeed the Son of God,the Redeemer,Salvation is in Him,etc.,just because we are scared or believe to believe in these things.As anybody who has recieved the Holy Spirit can testify,once this happens,you just know.The truth is revealed to you and that truth is that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God.

For somebody who has not recieved the Spirit,this all sounds rather fictitious I'm sure.The reason I am posting this is because I didn't even know what was happening when I recieved the Holy Spirit as I had never really heard it explained before.I don't know what my motivation for making this up could be,but I am telling the truth,I am not lying.This (the Holy Spirit)is how Christians "KNOW" that Jesus of Nazareth is whom he said that he was,the Christ.To me,the Spirit made Jesus tangible as it was no longer something that I could say that I wanted to believe in or whatever,I knew.

When you are born of the Spirit, a lot of things begin to change. Good post Fadiga!





Puzzled

Very true, very good post!

-Tom

I didnt see him deny anyone elses mystical experience here, I just saw someone trying to quantify what thiers was......

Not that your incorrect, he may very well do that, but I dont see it being done here at all. All I see is praise being given for a gift, and I certainly cannot fault that

From my experiences, it is talked about enough. People use the tangibility they experience as evidence for God in discussions quite often. :)

I think the word "palpable" is more appropriate.
Tangible implies solid, instead of just "able to be felt".

Fadiga,

How do you know this "feeling" you describe isn't the "devil" trying to lead you astray?


Fadiga: "The truth is revealed to you and that truth is that Jesus Christ is indeed the Son of God."


Could you please tell me how the truth was "revealed" ..did something talk to you,did this thing have a high pitched voice or a low pitched voice?
Please explain, thanks.

Bludhall,my post was in reference (sp?)to Christianity.I grew up wondering how people who professed to be Christians could really believe in something when there is no proof or as Willybone corrected me,palpability.The point I was trying to convey is that there is palpability through the Holy Spirit.

ChemicalSage,I certainly didn't notice it (Christians talking about the Holy Spirit and what happens when one recieves it).Maybe people were telling me about it and I just tuned them out?This is very possible but I really have no idea.It doesn't seem to me like it is talked about that often (in Christian churches).I hear a lot of preachers telling people to recieve Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior so that they can be saved.I usually don't hear many of them talk about what happens after that......being born of the Spirit (rebirth,born again).


In reply Jesus answered,"I tell you the truth,no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born again."

"How can a man be born when he is old?"Nicodemus asked."Surely he cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb to be born!"

Jesus answered,"I tell you the truth,no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit.Flesh gives birth to flesh,but the Spirit gives birth to spirit." -John(3:3-6)


How did I know that the devil wasn't trying to lead me astray?To tell you the truth,I didn't really know what was going on.All I knew is that I suddenly got it....a revelation if you will,that Jesus is the Christ.My lack of knowledge of the Holy Spirit made me somewhat wonder what was going on.Thankfully,my whole family are born again Christians and let me know what was going on.All they said is that it was the Spirit and I knew what they were talking about.

Now if this were the Devil,why would he reveal to me that Jesus of Nazareth is the Son of God or Christ?Why would the devil want me to be against him?Jesus was accused of casting out demons by a demon.Isn't this sort of self defeating?Why would somebody who is possesed go around driving demons (the very thing in him)out of people thus making them not possesed?

I also cannot describe the Spirit except for an analogy (metaphor..I need to brush up on my English).I am a man and I think pretty much everybody on this board except for DonnaTroy is.For the rest of us,we will never know what it is like to give birth to a child.Mothers do know as they have gone through it,but us men,will never know.

Those who have recieved the Holy Spirit know what it is.Those who have not would not understand as their is no way to explain it as it is not of this world.I have to refer back to the movie Contact again.When Jodie Foster comes back from her alien escapade,she knows what happend but there is no way that she can actually prove it to people.This is similar to the Holy Spirit.You just know.

"My lack of knowledge of the Holy Spirit made me somewhat wonder what was going on. Thankfully,my whole family are born again Christians and let me know what was going on."

How do you think you would have figured out it was the holy spirit if they didn't let you know what was going on?

I would have figured it out by reading the Bible or talking to anybody who has recieved the Holy Spirit.I am not one who was learned in the Scriptures.All I knew (and know now)is that "Jesus is real."By saying Jesus is real,I mean everything said about Him is the truth.He is the Son of God,He died for our sins,He was raised and is very much alive..........He is the Christ.

I don't presume that the Spirit would have told me,"Hey,I'm the Holy Spirit....you know?Part of the Trinity?"All that I can say is that I knew (and know now and forever)and the Holy Spirit is the Truth.

Fadiga Wrote: "All I knew (and know now)is that "Jesus is real."By saying Jesus is real,I mean everything said about Him is the truth.He is the Son of God,He died for our sins,He was raised and is very much alive..........He is the Christ."


Proof?


yours in Reason

Brad

machine30: You have yet to come to the realization that any system of truth (Epistemology) must begin somewhere. If a system of truth did not begin, it could not continue.

Let me expiate this for you: Every system of philosophy must have a first indemonstrable axiom. It is a necessary presupposition this improvable axiomatic starting point.

Empiricism (the heart of the modern scientific movement) has as its first indemonstrable axiom the presupposition that "all genuine information about the universe must be derived from sense perception".

Empiricists can only assume, they can never demonstrate from some more remote proposition, that this presupposition MUST be true. But that is ok, for nothing can precede the starting point; for as we have already declared: Every system of philosophy must have a first indemonstrable axiom.

Now, the Christian should, though many do not, choose as his axioms the proposition that the Bible alone is the Word of God, and from this axiom he may develop an orderly system.

Upon hearing this, many friends and enemies alike will object that this begs the question. It does not. The question is, 'Where shall we start?' Empiricists say sensation; Christians say revelation. (Pay close attention to this next statment) One does not beg the question by answering the very first question of 'Where shall we start?'.

If you wish to push the issue than I should ask you to prove the claim that all that can be known must be known via the senses. You cannot.

If one claims as does the Christian, that the Bible alone is the Word of God, it would be a very embarrassing problem if the Bible itself did not make that claim! (Rest assured it does and if proof of that claim is needed let me know.) But what is even more interesting is that the axiomatic starting point of the Empiricist is self refuting for it denies itself!

Empiricisms' axiom is not itself sense derived and therefore it is false by its own means of determining falsity. Empiricisms' axiom is self refuting and therefore illogical.

Any attempt to deny this will cause me to charge you with demonstrating how it is that the axiom "all genuine information about the universe must be derived from sense perception" can be derived *using nothing but* sense perception; which is, as you can see, an impossible task.

-Tom Bombadil

Short version: there are lots of things that you can't prove.

Fadiga - nice to see that you've found something that gives you meaning in your life.

No, ChemicalSage.

The actual point was:

It is really idiotic to make fun of Christians for saying that revelation is the basis of knowledge when at least it is self-referentially supported (for the Bible declares that it is the Word of God) and therefore logical!

It is really idiotic to do so because the people that are saying it are saying that sensation is the basis of knowledge when that is NOT self-referentially supported (since "all genuine information about the universe must be derived from sense perception" CANNOT be derived *using nothing but* sense perception) and therefore illogical.

That's like making fun of someone for using training-wheels when you don't even have a bike and could not ride one WITH training-wheels even if you did!

-Tom Bombadil

I must have missed the part where machine was saying that all knowledge comes from the senses. I thought he was asking for more reasoning on fadiga's part.

Tom,

I'm sorry but you bore me. I find it amusing that these are the lengths you must go, to attempt to disprove the scienctific method of gaining knowledge.

Hey Tom guess what? The first axiom is that existence exists. Contradicting this leads to a self refutation.

I would also like to ad that God is not axiomatic in any way. By using these arguments, you are trying to smuggle God in a foundational system where it cannot co-exist. But there is no way to do that unless you redefine foundationalism.

Tom wrote: You have yet to come to the realization that any system of truth (Epistemology) must begin somewhere. If a system of truth did not begin, it could not continue.
Let me expiate this for you: Every system of philosophy must have a first indemonstrable axiom. It is a necessary presupposition this improvable axiomatic starting point."


I'd like to see the proof for this. What is wrong with a pragmatic measure of truth?

"I'm sorry but you bore me."

What's a matter? Is this not fun for you any more? That's a very interesting response. You where capering about gleefully just one post ago! What's wrong; have I spoiled your fun?

"Hey Tom guess what? The first axiom is that existence exists. Contradicting this leads to a self refutation."

Ahh, Objectivism. So you are an Ayn Rand disciple, huh? The situation is worse for you than I thought. Here I was thinking that you ascribed to a real philosophy. It is indeed indicative of the bankruptcy of modern American philosophy that Rand's Objectivism could go so long unchallenged and be so fervently accepted by so many.

Let's start with her axiom: The idea of 'existence' is an idea without content. Stars exist - but this tells us nothing about the stars; mathematics exists - but this teaches us no mathematics; hallucinations also exist.

The point is that a predicate, such as existence, that can be attached to everything indiscriminately tells us nothing about anything.

(Re-read that and digest it before continuing, please.)

A word, to mean something, must also not mean something. For example, if I say that some cats are black, the sentence has meaning only because some cats are white. If the adjective were attached to every possible subject - so all cats were black, all stars were black, and all politicians were black, as well as all the numbers in arithmetic, and God too - then the word black would have no meaning. It would not distinguish anything from something else. Since everything exists, exists is devoid of information.

The obvious problem with her axiom should now be painfully obvious. If the term exists is devoid of information than the phrase "existence exists" is not only devoid of information it is doubly devoid of information. But what is even more patently absurd is that even *if* the terms could contain information (which they *cannot*) it would still amount to no more than a tautology! A Tautology is a statement which is true by its own definition, and is therefore fundamentally uninformative. It is akin to saying "true is true" or "cats are cats" or "uninformative is uninformative". How can one proceed with information from this point? How does one go from uninformative to informative; from terms that are devoid of information to information?

Maybe a little background will help my point bear more force. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the nature, origin and scope of knowledge. In epistemology, an axiom is an improvable assumption upon which other knowledge must rest, from which other knowledge is built up. (www.onelook.com has it as "[...] a proposition that is not susceptible to proof or disproof; its truth is assumed [...]" And Merriam-Webster.com has it as "a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference.")

But, here is the rub; if the axiomatic starting point that is assumed is devoid of information and thus devoid of knowledge than how then can it be the foundation from which other knowledge is built up? At least Empiricism has as its axiomatic starting point a supposed means of obtaining information! Objectivism starts at a fundamentally uninformative point and it then proceeds at breakneck pace to an end that is equally uninformative. And that is what you wish to call superior to the axiom of Christianity? No bike indeed!

"One of the ways in which the damned will be confounded is that they will see themselves condemned by their own reason, by which they claim to condemn the Christian religion." Pascal, Pensees

And as to this "What is wrong with a pragmatic measure of truth?" Demonstrate the pragmatics involved in having such an absurd axiomatic starting point and then we shall talk of a pragmatic measure of truth.

-Tom Bombadil

Tom wrote: "What's a matter? Is this not fun for you any more? That's a very interesting response. You where capering about gleefully just one post ago! What's wrong; have I spoiled your fun?"


Yes you have tom , with your never ending cicular logic, it is quite old. All you are trying to say is that fadiga doesn't have to prove his claims.

I am very busy this evening, I have to go coach youth softball, and I have to leave town for a brief moment but I shall reply to your post this evening.

Circular Logic? You must mean Circular Reasoning (Petitio Principii).

The reason Petitio Principii is considered to be a fallacy is not that the inference is invalid. How can it be invalid? Most statement are indeed self-referentially sound; even your silly little tautology is irrefutable as a statement (as is 'cats are cats') even though it is absurd as an axiom. No, the reason the argument is considered to be a fallacy is because it can be deceptive. A statement cannot prove itself. A premise must have a different source of reason, ground or evidence for its truth from that of the conclusion.

For example one should not say: I think, therefore, I am! Now this is a Petitio Principii! The premise assumes the conclusion. When one says "I think" he has used his own existence as evidence of what he is trying to prove, namely his own existence. This is deceptive for the arguer is smuggling in the notion of "I am" at the get go for how else could he think?

But what has escaped you thus far is that no one is making the statement 'the Bible is the Word of God' as an argument. No one is saying it as a premise in a syllogism. It is a statement. And as a statement it is not subject to the charge of Petitio Principii!

*Any* system of truth must begin somewhere; every system of philosophy must have a first indemonstrable axiom. Yours (unfortunately for you) is 'existence exists', mine is 'the Bible is the Word of God', Empiricism's is 'all genuine information about the universe must be derived from sense perception', Rationalism's is 'all genuine information about the universe must be derived from reason', and so on.

Now some axioms are better than others. Yours is just about the worst but at lest it is not self refuting like Empiricism's.

Anyway, looking forward to your post.

-Tom Bombadil

Tom,

1. I would really appreciate it if you would please stop your strawman tactics..Thanks:-)


2.I did mean circular reasoning CIRCULUS IN DEMONSTRANDO
This fallacy occurs when one assumes as a premise the conclusion which one wishes to reach. Often, the proposition will be rephrased so that the fallacy appears to be a valid argument.
(I was on the run when I made my last post, I appologize)


Anyway....

This seems simple to me, prove wrong, existence exists! or better yet disprove Existence IS....try to explain anything without assuming the axiom of existence. Your actions are assuming, implicity, that existence does indeed exist, but the content of what you are saying is that your actions are meaningless and devoid of knowledge??? ...you can stop your little word games. Is your last name Sturgis? http://www.sturgispretzel.com/


The axiom of existence is not defended by word games or by the fact that it is a tautology.

What it is defended by is the fact that every statement relies upon it.
What it is defended by is the fact that any attempt to refute it, must also rely upon it, and ergo, commit a self refutation.

So pointing out that words are limited when discussing things that are beneath words is not all that significant to me. Pointing to the limits of words to to point to things that cannot be pointed to, is not actually taking down the axiom of existence to me.


All this does is point out flaws in our language, and our symbols. You can't do away with the points of Wittgenstein and Heidegger by turning their books into toilet paper. The axiom stands, and flaws in the limits of language do not undo it.


It seems quite obvious that you are confused as to what an axiom is. What an axiom is is not some 'a priori' truth, but an assumption that is so common-sensical so as to require as little 'leap of faith' as possible. One cannot 'choose' "Salimanders can channell god directly" as their axiom because it requires too much faith on the part of the accepter (whereas 'there is regularity in nature' is easier to accept and assent to).


Thus, 'the bible is the word of god' isn't so much an axiom as - we are back to square one - it is simply a blind-faith adherence. The key word there is not 'faith', but 'blind'. Accepting, say, the tenet of empiricism - "Knowledge, to be knowledge, should stay close to the senses," - has some rationale behind it. "The bible is the word of god" has none.


I highly doubt that you know a damned thing, so you wrapped it up in a nice semantic passage that means nothing. In a nutshell, you are saying, "If something is written or said and you believe it, that is enough to make it 'truth', and anything you say that doesn't contradict it therefore becomes 'truth' and everything outside it is a 'lie'."


What utter gibberish!