A Conversion Story

[Outis]

Whag, her experiences were not to convince you, they were to convince her.

Which rather undercuts the logic of using such stories in an attempt to persuade non-believers.

[whag]

I will leave that to God.

You posited that rejecting a numinous experience as merely psychological might result in a more severe punishment. To whom much is given, much is expected. If someone is given little, should she be expected to have ardor of belief?

[whag]

Whag, her experiences were not to convince you, they were to convince her.

Seer offered her experience as an apologetic for Holy Spirit epistemology.

[Sparko]

Which rather undercuts the logic of using such stories in an attempt to persuade non-believers.

I don't think many people do that. Other Christians might find the story encouraging, but I don't think it will convince anyone who doesn't know the person and hears the story second or third hand if they are not predisposed to believing it.

[Outis]

I don't think many people do that. Other Christians might find the story encouraging, but I don't think it will convince anyone who doesn't know the person and hears the story second or third hand if they are not predisposed to believing it.

Sparko, this thread is in Apologetics--specifically dedicated to the discussion between theists and atheists. Had it been purposed to encourage Christians, why is it not in a Christian area?

By all evidence available, Seer intended to use this in his or her continued argument against atheism.

[whag]

I don't think many people do that. Other Christians might find the story encouraging, but I don't think it will convince anyone who doesn't know the person and hears the story second or third hand if they are not predisposed to believing it.

That's immaterial given the context. The context is that seer offered the story here in this forum as evidence of Holy Spirit epistemology.

[firstfloor]

Yeah, find a blind person, and tell them that you are "traumatized for a couple days" by a vision, and see if he/she agrees with the "sameness".
You really aren't very good at this, are you?

Paul got his sight back! I’m doing my best CP but you are a difficult case. We’ll get there eventually.

[Christianbookworm]

David used Uriah as arrow fodder, and Paul persecuted Christians. Despite their assery, they were divinely interacted with. I merely told you that Job isn't pure recorded history, and you're still holding a grudge.

And both were called on it by God. God sent Nathan to tell David off for what he did. And Paul did that before his experience on the road to Damscus.

[OingoBoingo]

Which rather undercuts the logic of using such stories in an attempt to persuade non-believers.

There can be a cumulative affect in these sorts of testimony. A few testimonies probably wont impress non-believers by themselves, but if you're investigating the teachings and claims of Christianity, it may be part of a larger picture that convinces you that there's something to the whole thing. Tales of personal testimony probably aren't going to do much for the hardened skeptic, but for the theist or open agnostic it could be that little bit that pushes them in the right direction.

[whag]

What sort of personal experience of God would not be psychological in nature?

There are many described in the bible. Abraham and Paul are to good examples from the OT and NT.

A regrown limb would do. Dreams and persistent dread, not so much.

[whag]

And both were called on it by God. God sent Nathan to tell David off for what he did. And Paul did that before his experience on the road to Damscus.

Actually, god did more than send Nathan. He killed David's baby with a prolonged illness as punishment. The issue of being called is irrelevant to Sparko's suggestion that God withholds interaction with believers because he thinks they're asses. There are plenty of asses in the Bible who receive tangible proof of his existence.

[Outis]

There can be a cumulative affect in these sorts of testimony. A few testimonies probably wont impress non-believers by themselves, but if you're investigating the teachings and claims of Christianity, it may be part of a larger picture that convinces you that there's something to the whole thing. Tales of personal testimony probably aren't going to do much for the hardened skeptic, but for the theist or open agnostic it could be that little bit that pushes them in the right direction.

Whag brings up a good point, OB: how am I to judge between your transcendent experience and the transcendent experience of a Muslim, or a Buddhist?

[firstfloor]

Firstfloor is engaged in mockery.

I’m trying hard to be taken seriously here but spooky logic is quite versatile and throws up some weird conundrums that sometimes look mocking.

[OingoBoingo]

There are many described in the bible. Abraham and Paul are to good examples from the OT and NT.

A regrown limb would do. Dreams and persistent dread, not so much.

Abraham and Paul also had dreams and visions. But I'd find it hard to believe witnessing a regrown limb won't have some sort of psychological impact .

I don't really believe that a regrown limb will be THE thing that gets some people to convert anyways. To the person it happens to, it might be convincing proof, but some hardened skeptic will rub their eyes and think they imagined it. Some will say it was an illusion or a hoax. Miracles happen every day. Claims of resurrection, the blind receiving sight, and cripples walking are not at all unknown, but most people go about their day thinking there's nothing in it.

[Outis]

I’m trying hard to be taken seriously here but spooky logic is quite versatile and throws up some weird conundrums that sometimes look mocking.

Perhaps it would be more effective to respond to what you perceive as "spooky logic" with what you understand as logic, instead of attempting to argue using the "spooky logic" that you, seemingly, do not understand?

I don't know if you actually understand it or not, but your posts here seem to indicate that you do not. (And if you do not, that is not a criticism on my part.)