Questions for Nehor

[_JAK]

Yes, I do prefer assertion unquestioned. I now just wish I knew what that phrase means. Shades, you need to hit this one with the grammar stick. :)

Your wish is my command. In English, an adjective typically precedes the noun it modifies, therefore your first sentence should read, "Yes, I do prefer unquestioned assertion."

You asked for it.

*Massaging bump on head*

I meant hit him. I was using his language....and OWWWWW.

Nehor,

There is NO grammar issue here. The point which I made and with which you agreed is that: You prefer to make assertions and have those assertions unquestioned. Hence, you wish unquestioned assertions.

It’s the hallmark of religious dogma. Truth by assertion.

What does that mean? It means that someone makes a claim for which they provide no evidence. In making such claims, they want no questions, no challenge, no inquisition for evidence to support the claims made.

That’s your modus operandi. Likely, you are deficient in Latin.

Modus Operandi refers to your approach, your manner of writing, your attitude, your technique of expression.

In the more academic world, conclusions are supported with evidence. Religious myths are random, vague, and contradictory views or positions. Those posturing such views want no challenge. Since they lack evidence which is clear, transparent, and open to skeptical review, such people obfuscate by undefined terms.

With exception of your failure to be humorous when you think you’re being humorous, your pontificating is unresponsive to honest, intellectual inquiry.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

Yes, I do prefer assertion unquestioned. I now just wish I knew what that phrase means. Shades, you need to hit this one with the grammar stick. :)

Your wish is my command. In English, an adjective typically precedes the noun it modifies, therefore your first sentence should read, "Yes, I do prefer unquestioned assertion."

You asked for it.

*Massaging bump on head*

I meant hit him. I was using his language....and OWWWWW.

Nehor,

There is NO grammar issue here. The point which I made and with which you agreed is that: You prefer to make assertions and have those assertions unquestioned. Hence, you wish unquestioned assertions.

It’s the hallmark of religious dogma. Truth by assertion.

What does that mean? It means that someone makes a claim for which they provide no evidence. In making such claims, they want no questions, no challenge, no inquisition for evidence to support the claims made.

That’s your modus operandi. Likely, you are deficient in Latin.

Modus Operandi refers to your approach, your manner of writing, your attitude, your technique of expression.

In the more academic world, conclusions are supported with evidence. Religious myths are random, vague, and contradictory views or positions. Those posturing such views want no challenge. Since they lack evidence which is clear, transparent, and open to skeptical review, such people obfuscate by undefined terms.

With exception of your failure to be humorous when you think you’re being humorous, your pontificating is unresponsive to honest, intellectual inquiry.

JAK

The grammar problem is that you said unquestioned assertion which did not work. Now you've corrected it to the plural.

You are kokomamie danar though likely you are deficient in Icelandic.

I do know what modus operandi means. However, you might want to improve your English grammar. You might want to reread your last sentence, we may need the grammar stick again. It should be "With the exception". This clears up the grammar but I'm still not sure what it means. In essence you are saying that my pontificating is unresponsive to intellectual inquiry except when I'm failing to be funny (but only while I'm trying to be funny). Also, "posturing" should probably be replaced with something that makes sense like "holding". Though I'm not sure if it's incorrect, "obfuscate by defined terms" should probably be "obfuscate by using defined terms". As it stands it is borderline nonsensical.

Hold the Latin and work on the English my friend.

My religious beliefs are not vague either. They're quite well-defined. Skeptical and transparent review mean nothing to me. All they can do is increase the number of people who hold the consensus. They do NOT control the nature of reality. God does not fit in your tests. God has free will and can do as he wills. To argue that there is no God simply because he does not fall into predictable patterns is akin to denying that humans exist because we can not predict their every action. With humans, we have a body to prove their existence. With God we can only judge by the effects he causes.

Therein lies the problem. Suppose God acted once in the history of the Universe and you weren't there to see it and found no evidence of this action. Would this make God not-existent? However, instead of that situation we have millions who claim to have had some contact with this God. Throwing out the accumulated religious wisdom of our species because God does not deign to come to your lab for blood tests is the height of arrogance. You can choose to believe there is no God in spite of the evidence just as you can choose to believe in God because of this evidence. This does not make the evidence vanish.

[_ludwigm]

...
Other than that, not much to share.
...

You are on the path of Joseph Smith.

"Teachings of the Propheth joseph Smith"

Section Six 1843-44, p.361
I rejoice in hearing the testimony of my aged friends. You don't know me; you never knew my heart. No man knows my history. I cannot tell it: I shall never undertake it. I don't blame any one for not believing my history. If I had not experienced what I have, I could not have believed it myself. I never did harm any man since I was born in the world. My voice is always for peace.

"Sermon delivered at the funeral of King Follett held at the General Conference of the Church at Nauvoo, Ill. on Sunday Afternoon April 7, 1844 1"
"Sources: Joseph Smith diary (Willard Richards), Samuel W. Richards record, Thomas Bullock report, Wilford Woodruff journal, William Clayton report, George Laub record and Thomas Bullock's official conference minutes compiled from his and Clayton's minutes and published in Times and Seasons, 5 (August 15, 1844)"

... no man knows my history; ...

"President Joseph Smith delivered a discourse before twenty thousand Saints, being the funeral sermon of Elder King Follett."
"CHAPTER XIV. CONFERENCE OF THE CHURCH, APRIL 1844 (CONTINUED)-- THE KING FOLLETT SERMON--THE CHARACTER OF GOD-- RELIGIOUS FREEDOM--GOD AN EXALTED MAN--ETERNAL LIFE TO KNOW GOD AND Jesus CHRIST--EVERLASTING BURNINGS --MEANING OF THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES--A COUNCIL OF THE GODS--MEANING OF THE WORD CREATE--THE IMMORTAL INTELLIGENCE--THE RELATION OF MAN TO GOD--OUR GREATEST RESPONSIBILITY--THE UNPARDONABLE SIN--THE FORGIVENESS OF SIN--THE SECOND DEATH. Sunday, April 7, 1844. --[Conference Report Continued.] At quarter past three, p.m., the President having arrived, the choir sang a hymn, Elder Amasa Lyman offered prayer.
President Joseph Smith delivered the following discourse before about twenty thousand Saints, being the funeral sermon of Elder King Follett. Reported by Willard Richards, Wilford Woodruff, Thomas Bullock and William Clayton."

No man knows my history

[_Imwashingmypirate]

Nehor. Leave JAK alone! His English is fine. And you show signs of not being entirely honest concerning your knowledge of Latin. ;)

[_JAK]

Yes, I do prefer assertion unquestioned. I now just wish I knew what that phrase means. Shades, you need to hit this one with the grammar stick. :)

Your wish is my command. In English, an adjective typically precedes the noun it modifies, therefore your first sentence should read, "Yes, I do prefer unquestioned assertion."

You asked for it.

*Massaging bump on head*

I meant hit him. I was using his language....and OWWWWW.

Nehor,

There is NO grammar issue here. The point which I made and with which you agreed is that: You prefer to make assertions and have those assertions unquestioned. Hence, you wish unquestioned assertions.

It’s the hallmark of religious dogma. Truth by assertion.

What does that mean? It means that someone makes a claim for which they provide no evidence. In making such claims, they want no questions, no challenge, no inquisition for evidence to support the claims made.

That’s your modus operandi. Likely, you are deficient in Latin.

Modus Operandi refers to your approach, your manner of writing, your attitude, your technique of expression.

In the more academic world, conclusions are supported with evidence. Religious myths are random, vague, and contradictory views or positions. Those posturing such views want no challenge. Since they lack evidence which is clear, transparent, and open to skeptical review, such people obfuscate by undefined terms.

With exception of your failure to be humorous when you think you’re being humorous, your pontificating is unresponsive to honest, intellectual inquiry.

JAK

The grammar problem is that you said unquestioned assertion which did not work. Now you've corrected it to the plural.

You are kokomamie danar though likely you are deficient in Icelandic.

I do know what modus operandi means. However, you might want to improve your English grammar. You might want to reread your last sentence, we may need the grammar stick again. It should be "With the exception". This clears up the grammar but I'm still not sure what it means. In essence you are saying that my pontificating is unresponsive to intellectual inquiry except when I'm failing to be funny (but only while I'm trying to be funny). Also, "posturing" should probably be replaced with something that makes sense like "holding". Though I'm not sure if it's incorrect, "obfuscate by defined terms" should probably be "obfuscate by using defined terms". As it stands it is borderline nonsensical.

Hold the Latin and work on the English my friend.

My religious beliefs are not vague either. They're quite well-defined. Skeptical and transparent review mean nothing to me. All they can do is increase the number of people who hold the consensus. They do NOT control the nature of reality. God does not fit in your tests. God has free will and can do as he wills. To argue that there is no God simply because he does not fall into predictable patterns is akin to denying that humans exist because we can not predict their every action. With humans, we have a body to prove their existence. With God we can only judge by the effects he causes.

Therein lies the problem. Suppose God acted once in the history of the Universe and you weren't there to see it and found no evidence of this action. Would this make God not-existent? However, instead of that situation we have millions who claim to have had some contact with this God. Throwing out the accumulated religious wisdom of our species because God does not deign to come to your lab for blood tests is the height of arrogance. You can choose to believe there is no God in spite of the evidence just as you can choose to believe in God because of this evidence. This does not make the evidence vanish.

Nehor,

Your attempt to shift the discussion to a debate about grammar is an evasion of the issue which confronts you. That issue is truth is not discovered by assertion. There are no grammatical errors in my comments as you claimed.

JAK:
“The,” “a,” and “an” are articles. They are generally used to point out or aid in focus and are often not required.

Your analysis of grammar is as flawed as is your analysis of how one arrives at reliable conclusion.

Nehor states:
However, you might want to improve your English grammar. You might want to reread your last sentence, we may need the grammar stick again. It should be "With the exception".

JAK:
Wrong. There is no grammar error. The intent was to point to the fact that you fail to be humorous as you attempt to dodge and evade issues of substance in your posts.

You state:
This clears up the grammar but I'm still not sure what it means. In essence you are saying that my pontificating is unresponsive to intellectual inquiry except when I'm failing to be funny (but only while I'm trying to be funny).

JAK:
Nehor, English grammar is an irrelevant issue. The grammar was correct.

The point of the sentence (as I repeat since you appear too dense to get the point) is that you dodge and evade issues of substance and attempt to be humorous without success. In short, you’re not funny. Particularly, you’re not funny when you substitute your failed attempt at humor for serious address of issues regarding challenge to the claims and assertions which you make absent evidence.

Now if you want to address an issue, you can address the point:

Religion relies upon truth by assertion rather than discovery by examination of evidence.

That’s the issue with which you have been confronted numerous times and which you continue to evade. By contrast, science looks for evidence, as much evidence as it can find, before, before, reaching tentative conclusions. Tentative is important here. New evidence is continually being discovered.

Example: Only recently (relative to the time for the human species on earth), have we learned about germs, viruses, and ways to treat heart disease, liver disease and a host of otherillnesses which can be treated with medical science.

Indeed, your religious claims are vague. You make claim absent evidence and absent particulars which might reduce vagueness.

Scottie asked you about several specific issues. You gave nothing but vague response.

You just assert that your beliefs are “well defined.” You don’t offer anything which remotely could be characterized as “well defined.”

Scottie asked:

How many otherworldly personages you have encountered and how many times you have seen each?

When they appear to you, is it during times of prayer, or do they appear when you would least expect it, or both?

How do you know who is who? Do they introduce themselves, or do you just get an impression in your mind? How do they communicate with you?

Do you shake their hand when you see them?

JAK:
Nehor, you did not answer any of these questions with “well defined” response.

ludwigm asked:

- Had they a name-tag? (a small black one which says "prophet X, member of Y group in heaven" or similar)
- Did they speak english? aramaic? hebrew? reformed egyptian?
(This is a direct quote form ludwigm Jan 11, 2008, 1:12 am, so don’t divert to some grammar issue).

Nehor stated (Jan 11, 2008 7:04 am):
I'll share one more detail: They're cool but they also tend to bring up some personal weakness and make it plain.

Other than that, not much to share.

Also, having such an experience is wondrous but it does not make you a zealot, immune to temptation, or turn you into a saint (as if that wasn't already obvious).

JAK:
Nothing in that post is “well defined.” Claiming something is “cool” is high school sophomore vocabulary. “Some personal weakess” is vague. There is nothing here which is “well defined.”

The word “wondrous” is vague. What does that mean specifically? You don’t say. So you prattle along in vague babble failing to address with any substance issues before you and about which you have made unsupported claims.

Nehor stated Jan. 13, 2008 1:36 pm:
My religious beliefs are not vague either. They're quite well-defined. Skeptical and transparent review mean nothing to me. All they can do is increase the number of people who hold the consensus. They do NOT control the nature of reality. God does not fit in your tests. God has free will and can do as he wills. To argue that there is no God simply because he does not fall into predictable patterns is akin to denying that humans exist because we can not predict their every action. With humans, we have a body to prove their existence. With God we can only judge by the effects he causes.

JAK:
I’ve addressed the “vague” and “well-defined” issues.

Skeptical review is that which is done by third parties or individuals removed from the one making a claim. It’s a test of the claim to see if it has reliability or validity. Transparent review means a study of the claims made by an individual from a variety of perspectives and well-educated level of expertise.

So, I think you do understand (perhaps in a limited way). Well-informed people (consider the medical application of vaccination) develop consensus, hence a greater the reliability of conclusion.

An isolated claim by a person with no transparent and skeptical review from a wide exposure to intellectual analysis is more unlikely to be reliable.

Example: If one claims to see little people dancing on the ceiling, but no one else can see them, the claim is unreliable or false. The person making the claim (if sincere) has mental problems. The person is seeing things that are not there.

Now your opaque statement which follows lacks any consensus shown by you.

Nehor stated Jan. 13, 2008 1:36 pm:
They do NOT control the nature of reality. God does not fit in your tests. God has free will and can do as he wills. To argue that there is no God simply because he does not fall into predictable patterns is akin to denying that humans exist because we can not predict their every action. With humans, we have a body to prove their existence. With God we can only judge by the effects he causes.

JAK:
This is of no meaning as you use God four times and have yet to offer any consequential, intelligible, transparent definition for your multiple claims (here and elsewhere).

You have yet in any post here to demonstrate any relevance for your God myths. Absent that, your claims lack reliability. Further, they are vague if there is any meaning what so ever.

Your God claims are irrelevant unless you are able to establish your claim for your assumed entity which can be transparently reviewed and tested. What’s God?

Now, Nehor, you persist in the straw man attack. It’s up to you to establish your God claim. You have failed to do that. You keep making assertions about a vague, non-defined God.

Unless you are able to establish your claims, and they are your claims here, such claims should be dismissed as without merit.

It’s you who makes the argument positing God. Therefore, it is YOU who have the burden of proof for your claim.

Your last line is more of the same vague rambling.

Nehor stated Jan. 13, 2008 1:36 pm:
With God we can only judge by the effects he causes.

JAK:
How do you know what “effects” are caused by your assumed God?? Just what does your God cause? Look at the vagueness of your statement (and belief). It’s not “well-defined” as you have claimed.

Get specific. Your first order of business is to establish your claimed entity God. Failure to do that makes all of your God statements irrelevant.
In this post, you further establish the validity of my previous statement:

“Wouldn’t all the answers to these questions be privileged information that only Nehor knows.

You’re asking for evidence. We’ll see. From previous posts of Nehor, he deplores evidence – much prefers assertion unquestioned.

Now on your failed understanding of grammar here, the lesson is for you.

Modifiers may follow or precede the word which they modify.

Example: I understand completely what he means.

In this case “completely” modifies “understand,” and it follows the word it modifies.

That sentence is as correct as is this sentence: I completely understand what he means.

In this second example the modifier precedes the word it modifies. “completely” still modifies “understand.

Hence, modern English has a considerable degree of flexibility. Even so, there are grammatical errors. There is also a distinction between formal English and informal English. At the informal level, there is a wider latitude of expression. And what may pass in informal conversation would not pass in formal writing.

However, and I repeat, grammar is a non-issue in the challenge to your posts. For all your 3,000+ posts, genuine intellectual integrity is missing.

I’m skeptical that you can demonstrate it.

JAK

[_JAK]

Now Nehor,

I’ll address your last paragraph in post Jan 13, 2008 11:36 pm which read as follows:

Nehor stated:
Therein lies the problem. Suppose God acted once in the history of the Universe and you weren't there to see it and found no evidence of this action. Would this make God not-existent? However, instead of that situation we have millions who claim to have had some contact with this God. Throwing out the accumulated religious wisdom of our species because God does not deign to come to your lab for blood tests is the height of arrogance. You can choose to believe there is no God in spite of the evidence just as you can choose to believe in God because of this evidence. This does not make the evidence vanish.

JAK:
First, you continue a God assertion as if you had established the claim God. You have not established that claim.

Therefore, the “suppose…” is meaningless. In failure to provide meaningful evidence for a claim, one lacks basis for supposition.

The fact that we have people who make claim for “contact with this God” does not establish God. While the earth’s population was much smaller many centuries ago, there were those (whatever the number) who claimed the gods. They reasoned that the gods were responsible for a variety of things including light (the sun), storms, drought, famine, floods, etc. Those humans claimed that the gods required appeasement and sacrifice. And they attempted to appease and they made sacrifice. If desired result occurred, they considered that the gods had responded favorably to their behavior. They had no clue that their conduct was irrelevant to a flood or a draught or a storm, etc. But they used the gods as explanation for what they did not understand.

In the present time, the evolution of notions of the gods has given way to the notion of God. So, we can document historically to a considerable degree the emergence of superstition out of which primitive religion evolved. Many gods, a god was constructed for different observations. That number was reduced to a few gods. A further shift in religious claim came with the notion of one God responsible for everything. Hence, a further reduction of the gods..

You may recall the biblical script which alleges that God said: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me.” Exodus 20:3

It’s a recognition that “other gods” were recognized by the writer of the script. So the transition is underway toward god superiority.

It seems you fail to grasp the evolution of religion itself which came along with the evolution of human cultures and civilizations.

But let’s look further.

Nehor stated:
Throwing out the accumulated religious wisdom of our species because God does not deign to come to your lab for blood tests is the height of arrogance. You can choose to believe there is no God in spite of the evidence just as you can choose to believe in God because of this evidence. This does not make the evidence vanish.

As “labs” research for information far beyond “blood tests,” God notions become increasingly irrelevant. (No evidence for God has been established.) Blood tests have a high degree of reliability in many areas of medicine. Your charge is a false one regarding “arrogance.” Any science lab (medical or other) looks for evidence to confirm or reject a potential conclusion. The more frequently a test can confirm or reject, the more reliable the test.

High sugar levels in blood tests are strong indicators of sugar diabetes. Medically, we know what normal, healthy sugar levels are. People who exceed those levels have diabetes. (God notions are irrelevant.)

So, one can understand the process for testing of sugar and what the results of those tests mean. One can follow the doctor’s advice/prescription and live a rather normal and full life with sugar diabetes. Or, one can pray to God for cure and take no medication and follow no medical advice.

If one does both, there is no confirmation for God. The test, then for God is to use God exclusively.

Likewise, the test for medical science is to use medical science exclusively..

So how do we test a God claim here?

We find 1,000 people diagnosed with sugar diabetes medically.

500 follow all medical advice. They loose weight, they eliminate sugar from their diet to the extent possible, and they take whatever medication is prescribed by medical science.

The other 500 eat as they please. They take no medication. They pray (or whatever their religious myth says).

We follow both groups of 500 and have safeguards to be sure there is no cheating on either side. One relies on prayer and God; the other relies on the best medical treatment available for sugar diabetes.

We follow both until all from both groups are dead. We study what happens to their health at regular intervals and their age at death as well as the medical diagnosis for death.

There are many other open, transparent, objectively observable tests which could be applied in which some God notion is tested just as any authentic, honest test might be given.

Nehor stated:
You can choose to believe there is no God in spite of the evidence just as you can choose to believe in God because of this evidence. This does not make the evidence vanish.

You have presented no evidence for any God claim. You are once again engaged in truth by assertion. I have underlined the assertion in your words.

As a victim of religious indoctrination, Nehor, you appear incapable of recognizing your parroted religious dogma. Of course you didn’t make it up. Someone else did. You are just the parrot.

If you work at it, you might be able to see little people dancing on the ceiling or God or anything else you wish to imagine or which your religious indoctrination has put in your head from cradle up.

No evidence in regard to your claim has vanished. You simply have presented no evidence for your claims.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

You keep saying the grammar was correct when clearly it was not. Then you say it means what it does not. Here is one evidence of God by the way. :D

(You don't really think Shades capitulated without divine intervention did you?

[_The Nehor]

I'm wondering if you would share some more details on your visitations?

How many otherworldly personages you have encountered and how many times you have seen each?

When they appear to you, is it during times of prayer, or do they appear when you would least expect it, or both?

How do you know who is who? Do they introduce themselves, or do you just get an impression in your mind? How do they communicate with you?

Do you shake their hand when you see them?

I am genuinely interested in your experiences here. I hope you can share with us and not hide behind the whole pearls before swine rubbish.

And, please, for those of you that are of the more jerk-ish persuasion, I'd appreciate you keeping this thread civil. Please respect Nehor's experiences and don't make him cast his pearls before you swine.

Scottie, I really can't share much more. Not only am I not supposed to but I don't have words for some of the things that happened. Every time I try to write it it sounds....inadequate.

I will say I never used the shake hands test. Most of the time such things come in times of prayer but not always. I don't know how to describe the communication. Anything I tell you would be more a lie than truth.

[_JAK]

I'm wondering if you would share some more details on your visitations?

How many otherworldly personages you have encountered and how many times you have seen each?

When they appear to you, is it during times of prayer, or do they appear when you would least expect it, or both?

How do you know who is who? Do they introduce themselves, or do you just get an impression in your mind? How do they communicate with you?

Do you shake their hand when you see them?

I am genuinely interested in your experiences here. I hope you can share with us and not hide behind the whole pearls before swine rubbish.

And, please, for those of you that are of the more jerk-ish persuasion, I'd appreciate you keeping this thread civil. Please respect Nehor's experiences and don't make him cast his pearls before you swine.

Scottie, I really can't share much more. Not only am I not supposed to but I don't have words for some of the things that happened. Every time I try to write it it sounds....inadequate.

I will say I never used the shake hands test. Most of the time such things come in times of prayer but not always. I don't know how to describe the communication. Anything I tell you would be more a lie than truth.

Nehor,

Previously you said this:

Nehor:
My religious beliefs are not vague either. They're quite well-defined.

JAK:
That’s a direct quote from Sun Jan 13, 2008 11:36 pm

Now you say:

Nehor:
Scottie, I really can't share much more. Not only am I not supposed to but I don't have words for some of the things that happened. Every time I try to write it it sounds....inadequate.

JAK:
These are your words from Mon Jan 14, 2008 2:07 pm.

As I previously observed, you are vague. You “can’t share much more.” Well why not? You claim: “Not only am I not supposed to…” Who says you're “not supposed to”? Just who is giving you orders? Now don’t claim God. You have not established that claim. You have presented NO EVIDENCE for God. So just who is telling you that you “can’t share much more”?

I’ll venture to guess you are making all this up. You are either so duped as to be unaware that you are being manipulated or you’re making up stuff as you go to cover yourself. Either way, it’s disingenuous.

You say:

Nehor:
Every time I try to write it it sounds....inadequate.

JAK:
Why is that? Do you have a brain, Nehor? If so, use it. THINK for yourself. If it sounds inadequate, perhaps it is inadequate. Consider that.

Nehor:
I will say I never used the shake hands test.

JAK:
O.K. But this begs the question. What test did you use??. Did you use any test? I’m skeptical. Are you so inarticulate that you cannot tell us what “test” or “tests” you used? Such non-method as you use is mere speculation, guess, or claim absent evidence.

Nehor:
Most of the time such things come in times of prayer but not always. I don't know how to describe the communication. Anything I tell you would be more a lie than truth.

JAK:
“Prayer” is a self-delusion. Muslims pray, they come to entirely different conclusions than you. Southern Baptists pray, they come to entirely different conclusions than either Muslims or Mormon or Roman Catholics (or any other religious group-think we could mention).

Your self-delusion is unreliable. You may have emotions at work, but being unable to articulate with any intellectual curiosity or analysis makes your claims pointless. Why would what you would tell be a lie?

Don’t lie. Get honest. You’re such a victim of indoctrination that you brain appears to have lost any capacity to think. When you cannot be just a parrot, you’re lost.

You have been asked by several here for clear, concise statement. You cop out and fail. Use your brain, Nehor.

You give every indication that you are so victimized that you are unable to articulate a single independent, self-controlled statement.

Absent clear, tested, transparent, objectively reviewed evidence, your claims are bogus as well as vague.

JAK

[_skippy the dead]

I'm wondering if you would share some more details on your visitations?

How many otherworldly personages you have encountered and how many times you have seen each?

When they appear to you, is it during times of prayer, or do they appear when you would least expect it, or both?

How do you know who is who? Do they introduce themselves, or do you just get an impression in your mind? How do they communicate with you?

Do you shake their hand when you see them?

I am genuinely interested in your experiences here. I hope you can share with us and not hide behind the whole pearls before swine rubbish.

And, please, for those of you that are of the more jerk-ish persuasion, I'd appreciate you keeping this thread civil. Please respect Nehor's experiences and don't make him cast his pearls before you swine.

Scottie, I really can't share much more. Not only am I not supposed to but I don't have words for some of the things that happened. Every time I try to write it it sounds....inadequate.

I will say I never used the shake hands test. Most of the time such things come in times of prayer but not always. I don't know how to describe the communication. Anything I tell you would be more a lie than truth.

Seems to me that if you "not supposed to" share much about your experiences, then you should at least stop making such casual, off-hand comments about your communications with God, Jesus and mysterious others. You make it seem like a bad joke.