Oh brother. :rolleyes:
Specific bits of knowledge (such as the correct method to set a bear trap) probably aren’t useful for tasks in general for people in general.
Knowledge itself is useful. Without knowledge, nothing can be useful.
Then you acknowledge that our knowledge of God is useful?
Only if it’s correct!
What part of this don’t you understand?! It’s not that frickin’ hard!
You don’t have knowledge of God, you have knowledge of an argument you make. You make assertions about the world based on the results of that argument.
If God is real, then knowledge about God assists you in dealing with the world. If God isn’t real, then “knowledge” about God (other than His unreality and assigned characteristics) isn’t useful.
You can believe whatever you like. You’ll still fall into the chasm.
Okay… if we can return to the subject of the OP for a moment…
Mr. Blue Sky: There are about as many opinions about the nature of Judgment Day as there are people to ask about it. Short answer: no one really has any idea. There are various assertions from authority you might consult, but they contradict each other frequently (and occasionally themselves). They are difficult to interpret (and there are many assertions about interpretation as well).
Thus, your guess is as good as anyone else’s.
Thousands of Near Death Experiencers have first-hand knowledge of God. We are not guessing, we know, been there, done that, and loved it.
No, they have first-hand experience of NDE’s. We cannot determine whether they have first-hand experience of God.
Why do you people keep confusing your thoughts for reality?
I was about to ask you the same thing. 
Hurray!! Thank you Vorlon for changing your user name!
And you, TVAA, have firsthand experience of what is actually the ineffable will of God but you mistake for various immutable laws of nature. So nyar to you.
Laws of nature, will of God, what’s the difference?
What matters is how these things manifest. If God “exists”, but His personhood never manifests to us, then God isn’t a person to us. It’s no different from contemplating impersonal laws of nature.
This, of course, is the part of the reasoning behind pantheism.
First of all, it wasn’t my thoughts, it was my experience, and please don’t try to tell us we didn’t experience God, just because you can’t determine whether we did or not. The correct option is you don’t know. Stick with the truth.
Being convinced that your experience was contact with God doesn’t mean it was.
The rest of us are not obligated to respect mere conviction. If you believe something, you’d better be able to offer a meaningful argument to support your position. Asserting that you experienced God doesn’t mean much.
Your questioning of his contact with God doesn’t mean that he didn’t.
If you want me to believe you, you’d better be able to offer a meaningful argument to support your position. Your assertion that he didn’t experience God doesn’t mean much.
I recognize good fruit when I see it. So far, Lekatt’s ahead.
I’m not making an extraordinary claim, and so I don’t “want you to believe me”.
lekatt is presenting an extraordinary claim: that his NDE was an experience of God. He is therefore required to present extraordinary arguments or extraordinary evidence in favor of his position.
If I asserted that I was experiencing God right at this moment, and that He was granting me with incredible insights, you wouldn’t believe me, no matter how convinced I was that I was right. I see no reason to believe lekatt simply because he believes his own claims.
Sorry, TVAA, but I don’t find his claim extraordinary. It is you who does. As far as any claim you would make, I would listen to what you said and by its fruits, I will know.
“To know a tree by its fruits” is a metaphor for determining the true intentions of a person by the consequences of their actions.
As a method of determining virtue, it’s crude and often ineffective.
Determining the moral value of my statements by examining your emotional responses to them (as they have no other consequences that you could examine) doesn’t strike me as particularly valid. You’ll simply find that everything you disagree with is wrong. Surprise, surprise.
My experience was real, it was something I will never forget, the greatest thing ever to happen to me. I am not obligated to prove anything to you about it.
You have choices, you can believe me, not believe me, or just not judge it at all. But that is the logical limit of your choices, to call my experience false, or worse, is not within your knowledge.
Love
Leroy
First, at the very least, your claim is unjustified given your current evidence.
Second, reports of NDE’s vary so widely in their details that the account of any one person is suspect.
Third, Occam’s razor would suggest that you had a very intense hallucination. In the absence of other evidence, this is the most reasonable conclusion.
Your adherence to your story is noted. Can we move on, please?
First, if you are the arbiter of what constitutes justification, then the world is in serious trouble.
Second, demands for evidence vary so widely in their details that the demands of any one person is suspect.
Third, you are violating Ockham’s Razor by introducing the unnecessary entity of directional causation.
Your adherence to your subjective interpretation of reality is noted. Can we return to the topic, please?
Yes, but there must be proof if you are to have “evidence”.