Supernatural experiences with guest Jesse Cowell

[Emery]

So what do you guys think about supernatural experiences in episode 45? If God used burning bushes and angels to convince some of his followers, must he do the same for everyone if He is to remain fair? What are skeptics to make of personal supernatural experiences that Christians find utterly convincing?

BTW, this is our first show using a higher bit rate. A larger file download, but should be better sound quality. What do you think?

[whoosanightowl]

Wow, that guy quoted so many scripture verses, I thought I was in church! But since the roof didn't collapse, I figured I was safe. Honestly, I got the impression he was just preaching to convert the infidels. He must not know that scripture verses are not going to convince us because we (non/ex-Christians) don't give a bit more credence to his bible as we do any other book of ancient mythology. I didn't find his reasons, pertaining to why he believes his experience is any more trustworthy than nonChristians, to be very reasonable.
Emery, you gave a good solid argument that, to be fair, God should give everyone the same opportunity to hear his 'voice'.

[JustJim]

Wow, that guy quoted so many scripture verses, I thought I was in church!

Amen!! It always bothers me when some Christians seem to answer any and every question they're asked with quotes or references from the Bible, almost as though they have no mind of their own with which to formulate rational responses. Strange....

I thought this was a pretty good podcast, particularly the second half or so, when the subject turned to whether it is "just" or not for God to hold those accountable who have not "heard" him knocking - or upon whose doors he has "not yet" knocked.

Jesse seemed to forget that Paul was not an atheist, but a devout Jew. He already believed there was a God who could "communicate" with him. Jesse also seems to actually believe "there are no atheists in foxholes", and that everyone who is presented with traumatic situations is likely/able to "turn to God" in their hour of need, so to speak. He advised his dying mother, who believed in God's existence (wasn't an atheist), to "read the Bible and pray". IOW, Jesse doesn't seem to realize that atheists or others who don't believe in a "theistic" God wouldn't even think of such things in the first place. They wouldn't interpret a blinding flash of lightning and a crash of thunder from the clouds as a voice from a God they don't even believe exists. They wouldn't turn to a God they don't believe exists to "save" them from danger or death. They wouldn't read a book they consider to be (in Sue's words) a "book of ancient mythology" or pray to a God they don't believe exists for guidance. As Emery very succinctly asked Jesse, "We can seek God, but why would we?"

Regarding the whole issue of God "knocking" in various ways, from a "still small voice" to a burning bush or a thunderous voice from heaven, I thought Emery made excellent points about the "fairness" of God holding people accountable on whose doors he hasn't yet knocked, and I have to admit I was surprised Jesse didn't quote this from Romans 1:18-21...

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

I also think Emery raised excellent points with the analogy between God's "knocking" and the legal service of a summons, especially the various levels of legally acceptable notice, all of which are done in a descending order of precedence - from "in your face" direct service to publishing of the notice in a newspaper (offered by Jesse as the ultimate lower end of acceptable service). And Emery's points in response to Jesse's comments about God's knocking "in due time" went unanswered by Jesse, except to say that "if there is a God, he would have sovereign power over whether we live or die." That left open the problem Emery raised of people who die before God gets around to knocking on their doors.

Jesse used the example of one-third of the angels of heaven following Satan in his rebellion against God to illustrate "free will" and explain that God wants only those who voluntarily choose him and love him, rather than robots. (As an aside, thanks for not getting into a discussion/argument about predestination...) As I listened, I was struck by how inadequately omnipotent a God must be for a third of his own angels, who've lived right there with God for who knows how many millions of millennia, to be sufficiently unconvinced of his goodness, love, power, etc. so as to rebel against him. Talk about not hearing a knock! Geez!!

Anyhow, Emery ended the broadcast by asking if Jesse makes a good case for God's ultimate justice (in view of the fact that not all have heard God's "knocking"). I say no, he has not.

Jim

[JustJim]

Oh yeah... I forgot....

Did I misinterpret something, or did Jesse actually say that he didn't think it was possible to rationally determine the existence of God or the validity of Christianity (in either the sensory or psychological realms), and that it requires some kind of supernatural "knock" from God (in the 'spiritual' realm)?

It would seem to me, as I think it did to Emery, that if that is the case, then there's no way God would be justified in condemning/punishing people who either had not heard any "knocking" or on whose doors God had not yet "knocked" at the time they died. Am I wrong?

Jim

[NH Baritone]

A. Jesse never adequately explained the difference between faith & superstition.

B. He referred repeatedly to the Bible as the source of tests for Bad Angels v. Good Angels. What makes the Bible authoratative, since presumably it's simply the record of other folks' spiritual experiences.

C. There are many atheists in foxholes.

[lorryfach]

Jesse used the example of one-third of the angels of heaven following Satan in his rebellion against God to illustrate "free will" and explain that God wants only those who voluntarily choose him and love him, rather than robots. (As an aside, thanks for not getting into a discussion/argument about predestination...) As I listened, I was struck by how inadequately omnipotent a God must be for a third of his own angels, who've lived right there with God for who knows how many millions of millennia, to be sufficiently unconvinced of his goodness, love, power, etc. so as to rebel against him. Talk about not hearing a knock! Geez!!

LOL - I hadn't thought of it quite like that. What struck me about this statement was that angels already know God exists. They're 100% sure of that part. Their actions actually are a rejection of God when they follow Satan instead. Isn't that completely different from lacking the belief that God is there in the first place? God only wants those that love him. That's fine. I only want to hang out with people that like me, too. But I don't get mad that Bob Smith of Akron, Ohio doesn't like me, when I've never met him, he has no idea I exist, and I've made absolutely no effort to contact him (or my effort was obviously inadequate).

I'll be honest here. I was raised Christian, and believed it because that's how I was raised rather than because I "heard a knock." I left Christianity years before becoming an atheist, and the reason I left was because I realized I didn't even like the god described in the Bible. Hearing a knock wouldn't be enough for me. I'd also have to then be convinced that the guy doing the knocking is worth my time. So it's not hard for me to imagine that we could all hear knocks and still have a choice in the matter. If I heard a knock, I wouldn't instantly convert. I think it would be fairer to judge my continued lack of Christian faith post-knock than it would be now, having no knock.

I also thought the whole blind person analogy was truly awful.

[NH Baritone]

By the way, just to be clear, Jesse was engaging in millenialist interpretation of the bible when he stated that "The Bible says that a third of God's angel's followed Satan." Here's the passage in Revelation that leads to this interpretation:

A great and wondrous sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on his heads. His tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that he might devour her child the moment it was born. She gave birth to a son, a male child, who will rule all the nations with an iron scepter. And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. The woman fled into the desert to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.

In the historic context of the writing, this is at least as likely a reference to people who were leaving Christianity in order to join another cult of the day, not some reference to a supernatural family feud.

[ScottBarger]

NH

Good observation. In my experience much of the modern day Evangelical's understanding of Satan (and his origins) are somewhat misinformed due to misinterpretations of the text.

[mikedsjr]

Wow, that guy quoted so many scripture verses, I thought I was in church!

Amen!! It always bothers me when some Christians seem to answer any and every question they're asked with quotes or references from the Bible, almost as though they have no mind of their own with which to formulate rational responses. Strange....

Does an ambassador speak of his own opinion or does he speak on behalf of his nation he has been entrusted to represent?

[stickmangrit]

Wow, that guy quoted so many scripture verses, I thought I was in church!

Amen!! It always bothers me when some Christians seem to answer any and every question they're asked with quotes or references from the Bible, almost as though they have no mind of their own with which to formulate rational responses. Strange....

Does an ambassador speak of his own opinion or does he speak on behalf of his nation he has been entrusted to represent?

i'll answer with a question:
does an ambassador speak his native language and expect those with whom he speaks to understand, or does he learn their language(or at the very least bring along an interpreter)? also, does an ambassador try to operate from what is mutually beneficial to both countries, or does he simply make demands based solely on the desires of his native country?

[JustJim]

Does an ambassador speak of his own opinion or does he speak on behalf of his nation he has been entrusted to represent?

Bad intended analogy, Mike. An ambassador speaks on behalf of the nation she has been entrusted to represent, but by using her own words and expressions of her opinions and her nation's ideals, and not by constantly quoting or referencing her nation's leader(s) or its documents. If she did that, we'd call her a mindless puppet of the state she represents. And it would be unbearably annoying, just as it is when Christians (or believers in other religions) constantly quote their Bibles or other "holy books" instead of expressing reasons and opinions of their own. If I ask you what you think, I want to hear what you think - not what some book I don't believe in and don't give any validity says about it. If it's the same, fine. But say it in your own words, please.

Make sense?

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

Emery,

Very cool, you finally got a rational person to represent Christianity! Good job Jesse! This was an interesting subject. Emery, you know that you have had more evidence and more voices telling you about God then most people have. Your parents, your friends and all of us talking to you.

This subject brings up a lot of issues. You brought up some very thoughtful and good points. You have had way more then enough evidence for God. Morals, law, love, beauty and so much more are there every day. The sun rises every day and if you wanted, he would reveal himself to you in your own individual way. The point is, for some deep reason, you have decided you do not want God. So much so that you promote the absence of God as a positive assertion.

But the interesting thing about this discussion was it reveals that God freely chooses to save sinners. He sets some free to choose him, others are stuck in their sins without hope of redemption because of their own free will.

This is why I am a Calvanist or Reformed believer because once one is saved, one looks back and realizes it was God who chose them. Even though "many are called, but few are chosen."

There is a view called the "middle view", which says that since God is all knowing and knew in advance, out of a plethora of possible worlds, which free will creatures would chose him in advance, he in essence chose those who would accept his expensive free gift in advance. So in essence, he is ultimately choosing the elect or the believers who still freely choose him.

Here is an interesting verse that I think address's this discussion.

Romans 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

The question left to you is, are you a vessel of mercy prepared for glory, or one by which the power of God is to be made known through wrath?

[ScottBarger]

Tony,

Are you saying that the previous Christian guests have been irrational?

[Tim-the-Hermit]

The question left to you is, are you a vessel of mercy prepared for glory, or one by which the power of God is to be made known through wrath?

Is that a false dichotomy or contrived flowchart?

[whoosanightowl]

Tony wrote:

Very cool, you finally got a rational person to represent Christianity! Good job Jesse! This was an interesting subject. Emery, you know that you have had more evidence and more voices telling you about God then most people have. Your parents, your friends and all of us talking to you.

This subject brings up a lot of issues. You brought up some very thoughtful and good points. You have had way more then enough evidence for God. Morals, law, love, beauty and so much more are there every day. The sun rises every day and if you wanted, he would reveal himself to you in your own individual way. The point is, for some deep reason, you have decided you do not want God. So much so that you promote the absence of God as a positive assertion.

But the interesting thing about this discussion was it reveals that God freely chooses to save sinners. He sets some free to choose him, others are stuck in their sins without hope of redemption because of their own free will.

This is why I am a Calvanist or Reformed believer because once one is saved, one looks back and realizes it was God who chose them. Even though "many are called, but few are chosen."

There is a view called the "middle view", which says that since God is all knowing and knew in advance, out of a plethora of possible worlds, which free will creatures would chose him in advance, he in essence chose those who would accept his expensive free gift in advance. So in essence, he is ultimately choosing the elect or the believers who still freely choose him.

Here is an interesting verse that I think address's this discussion.

Romans 9:20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?
21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use?
22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction?
23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

The question left to you is, are you a vessel of mercy prepared for glory, or one by which the power of God is to be made known through wrath?

Tony,
For one thing, Scott was a much better debater than Jesse (or you) because he doesn't simple-mindedly quote scripture verses to back up his position, as if that's supposed to mean anything to nonbelievers. Instead he admits to his own weaknesses as a believer, making himself more vulnerable and human which is something we can easily relate to. He is honest and speaks his own words from his own mind/heart, not merely aping Christian apologist rhetoric.
Next, Emery has said over and over that he is more than willing to believe in any God who gives some sort of valid evidence of it's existance, but none have so far, including your God. And the sunrise is not sufficient proof of anything supernatural, sorry.
And finally, the question left to you is, are you a complete moron by choice, or have you been so thoroughly brainwashed by the religious cult you belong to that you can't think for yourself any longer?
Damn, and I thought I had you on my ignore list!