What has happened to the God of love?

[_marg]

JAK is correct you do wish to keep your God notions from scrutiny. You have responded to him as a person would, who has something to hide. I remember when I read statements from the Book of Mormon witnesses I observed the same thing, lack of detail. When people are not forthcoming on detail of their experiences their claims do not ring true.

I don't think this is the case.
I have had spiritual experiences which, frankly, are too personal for me to feel comfortable sharing on a message board such as this.

The good news is, no one is asking you to. But if you start claiming God speaks with you and you speak with God and you have knowledge of truths over and above what science can offer..then you'll likely be asked questions if any skeptic is interested. Religious claims are not sacred on this message board, from being questioned.

In answer to JAK's earlier question, do I feel that my spiritual experiences were simply emotional responses? No, I do not.

Well if you hold that opinion then you should be able to give your reasoning why you perceive your spiritual experiences are different than your other experiences.

Am I going to go into detail here as to why?

No. I may at a later time, but not in the guise of winning some sort of debate.

Well without details, without giving reasoning, you've presented no convincing argument. Winning is irrelevant.

I don't think that you or JAK have any business insinuating that Nehor is a liar simply because he does not want to share his spiritual experiences in detail.

They are of a deeply personal nature, and frankly, difficult, if not impossible, to explain to someone who is closed-minded to the possibility that the experience could really exist in the first place.

There is a difference between someone experiencing something in their mind solely and someone experiencing something that occurred actually. It may very well be Nehor experienced something in his mind, which didn't occur in actuality, but because he is so vague, I'm not convinced of that either.

I'm not the least bit closed minded to appreciating people hallucinate. I don't require extraordinary evidence for that. And why exactly should hallucinations be too personal?

by the way, I don't think you have any business telling me that I am "closed-minded to the possibility that the experience could really exist in the first place." There is a difference to being skeptical versus closed-minded.

If a religious person, such as yourself, is going to make extraordinary claims ("I have had spiritual experiences") and then say it's too personal and too difficult to talk about, then I am being skeptical when I don't accept, not closed minded.

[Guest]

Nehor stated:
JAK, I CAN'T PROVE THAT WHAT I AM EXPERIENCING IS NOT EMOTION!!!!

An honest response and an important one.

What you were asked to do was:
1 Establish any such thing as “spiritual.”

2 Establish your claim that your experience(s) was “spiritual.”

We know humans have emotions. Psychology/psychiatry in conjunction with other medical science are in agreement that humans have emotions. They are also in agreement that those emotions tend to be unreliable. They change. One’s mood is clearly linked to one’s emotions. Moods change. Theses emotional responses originate in the brain and are a result of stimulation one or more of the five senses.

You were not asked to establish a negative. You were asked to distinguish between emotion and your claim “spiritual.”.

What’s “spiritual”?

Nehor stated:
If you've never known spirituality of course you will lump everyone else's spiritual experiences as emotions because you HAVE NO BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING THEM.

Disingenuous attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is you, Nehor, who makes a claim. I asked questions about your claim.

If you expect that your claims be taken seriously, it’s your responsibility to provide the evidence which supports your claims. It’s your responsibility to provide “basis for understanding” your claims.

Nehor stated:
No, I will not quote you directly and respond to everything you say. I'm doing good if I read it all.

If you intend to challenge analysis and give meaningful response to questions, it’s appropriate that you read and quote accurately before you respond.

This appears disingenuous to me.

At this reading of your posts you have made 1,507 posts. That takes time. Why aren’t you sufficiently honest to read and attempt to comprehend what is said to you before you respond? The courtesy I have attempted to give to you is to read what you have stated, quote it verbatim, and only then respond to your posts.

You can do better.

Nehor stated:
After a while the whole 'God claims' and 'truth by assertions' all run together into a wild medley like Lucky Charms cereal marshmellows (marshmallows).

That’s because you aren’t reading carefully (as you have just admitted here). Comments like this demonstrate your shallow level of reading and of response. It makes you appear to be a fraud. Putting out more than 1,500 posts and failing to read responses to them makes you appear arrogant, empty, and trivial.

Nehor stated:
Herein follows evidence that God exists as requested:

I see dead people.

Okay, glad that is taken care of.

Shallow and empty. Nothing is established by your claim to “see dead people” absent evidence that what you see is other than hallucination.

A few questions:

1 Where do you see dead people?
2 In what condition are the “dead people” you see?
3 Who are the “dead people”?
4 Do you see a face only?
5 Do you see a whole body?
6 Is the body wearing clothing?

Your claim comes absent evidence. Your claim is hardly sufficient to merit consideration.

Most of us “see dead people” after the restorative art of a mortician and the “dead people” are carefully placed in a casket for being viewed. Some of us “see dead people” in the morgue following a fatal accident or other reason for death.

Recovery personnel “see dead people” as the pull them from bodies of water or burning buildings or traffic accidents.

So, just where do you “see dead people”?

Your shallow empty response lies particularly in your statement:

Nehor stated:
Okay, glad that is taken care of.

Your response is non-responsive, lacking, and vacuous.

Nehor stated:
The reason I'm asking you if you have schizophrenia or Asperger's or some other mental problem is that in my experience many of those people seem unable to distinguish emotion and spiritual things at all, even the religious ones. Your evasion leads me to believe my guess is correct.

Now don't be evasive. Is it correct?

You attempt to change the subject and avoid response to questions and analysis regarding your claims.

It’s you, Nehor, who make claims of “spiritual” not I. The burden of proof for your claims lies with you.

The issue was and remains your claims for: God, Holy Ghost, and spiritual.

As you have admitted, you are a poor reader. Further, you make little to no effort to quote accurately and to respond with honesty regarding questions about your claims.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

JAK, the post you just tore apart was written while I was laughing. It was all a joke. Grow a sense of humor.

[_JAK]

JAK, the post you just tore apart was written while I was laughing. It was all a joke. Grow a sense of humor.

Another evasion, I see.

JAK

[_The Nehor]

JAK, the post you just tore apart was written while I was laughing. It was all a joke. Grow a sense of humor.

Another evasion, I see.

JAK

Yep, just like you evaded my question on your mental state. Fair enough, I guess.

[_marg]

JAK, the post you just tore apart was written while I was laughing. It was all a joke. Grow a sense of humor.

Another evasion, I see.

JAK

Yep, just like you evaded my question on your mental state. Fair enough, I guess.

Nehor, JAK asked you questions about your claims. To be taken seriously, you have the burden to respond with something greater than vague rather meaningless responses, in order to warrant that your claims have some validity.

JAK has been attempting to take you seriously but that's hard to do. Rather than appreciate this you've not responded with intellectual honesty.

Of course your question on JAK's mental state was not addressed. It's called an ad hominem fallacy. It's employed as a diversionary tactic to divert attention away from the main argument at hand, in this case your claims to God, and onto something else, in this case the person you are in discussion with.

It's interesting that YOU recognize the claim of "seeing dead people is evidence for God" is a joke, but you fail to recognize the "joke" in the rest of your claims which you do take seriously.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, JAK asked you questions about your claims. To be taken seriously, you have the burden to respond with something greater than vague rather meaningless responses, in order to warrant that your claims have some validity.

JAK has been attempting to take you seriously but that's hard to do. Rather than appreciate this you've not responded with intellectual honesty.

Of course your question on JAK's mental state was not addressed. It's called an ad hominem fallacy. It's employed as a diversionary tactic to divert attention away from the main argument at hand, in this case your claims to God, and onto something else, in this case the person you are in discussion with.

It's interesting that YOU recognize the claim of "seeing dead people is evidence for God" is a joke, but you fail to recognize the "joke" in the rest of your claims which you do take seriously.

Why? In the past I've described the Spirit in detail. JAK called it emotional response. Why share it again so I can be villified. My question on JAK's mental state was not an irrelevant tangent. If for some reason he is incapable of having the same experiences as mine that would make him a very biased source. Akin to a blind man trying to share his personal hatred of the color orange. I will assume you're evasion is due to my guess being correct and that JAK can have no say in matters he is unable to experience unless he can avoid evading the point and answer it.

Seeing dead people is evidence for God. While saying it that way was a joke it is also true. Refute away. How did I see dead people? No drugs, no altered emotional state, no extreme tiredness. Have fun. As evidence for my claim I cite my own testimony above. To show that I am not unique I recommend reading the accounts of Peter, James, John, Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, and that guy who saw his dead wife and child while crossing the plains.

By the way, I like the name, "Nehor the Evader". Has a great sound to it. Might ask Shades to make that my name.

[_marg]

Why? In the past I've described the Spirit in detail. JAK called it emotional response. Why share it again so I can be villified.

Well you could link, I asked you to do that.

My question on JAK's mental state was not an irrelevant tangent. If for some reason he is incapable of having the same experiences as mine that would make him a very biased source. Akin to a blind man trying to share his personal hatred of the color orange. I will assume you're evasion is due to my guess being correct and that JAK can have no say in matters he is unable to experience unless he can avoid evading the point and answer it.

My evasion of what? Sure an individual's bias makes a difference but that doesn't take away from the fact that you didn't offer a convincing argument. You are simply shifting the burden of proof away from yourself. The burden is on you, the claimant to present warrants to support your claim. You fail to do so and hence what you say can be viewed as a joke and who knows maybe everything you say is one big joke.

Seeing dead people is evidence for God. While saying it that way was a joke it is also true. Refute away. How did I see dead people? No drugs, no altered emotional state, no extreme tiredness. Have fun. As evidence for my claim I cite my own testimony above. To show that I am not unique I recommend reading the accounts of Peter, James, John, Joseph Smith, Wilford Woodruff, and that guy who saw his dead wife and child while crossing the plains.

I didn't realize you were serious, re: seeing dead people is evidence of God. I thought you were joking. Refute away??? No, if you are interested in being taken seriously you have to present a convincing case.

Regarding those people you named to illustrate you are not unique, I suspect this is how you think. They got away with it, why should you, right? Well they aren't here to argue with, to question and for them to respond, you are.

By the way, I like the name, "Nehor the Evader". Has a great sound to it. Might ask Shades to make that my name.

Yes, well wear it proudly if you want.

[_The Nehor]

Regarding those people you named to illustrate you are not unique, I suspect this is how you think. They got away with it, why should you, right? Well they aren't here to argue with, to question and for them to respond, you are.

Question away then.

[_marg]

Regarding those people you named to illustrate you are not unique, I suspect this is how you think. They got away with it, why should you, right? Well they aren't here to argue with, to question and for them to respond, you are.

Question away then.

JAK did already and he got nowhere. I read your responses. What you could do is link to a post which details your experiences. As you know by now, stating the negative to someone who asks you a specific question is not giving details.