The Black Vault

I'll also add, it seems extraordinarily selfish not to share something so powerful that it might potentially change minds. Probably wouldn't, as usual, but it seems like such a cop-out. Especially in the context of an internet forum where people can make vague claims of special knowledge or extraordinary experiences, and can inevitably retreat to that when failing to put forth a compelling case for their position.

It seems suspiciously like a psychological defense mechanism intended to insulate something the claimant considers a mental-emotional linchpin which they fear couldn't withstand objective scrutiny.

Not a good way to inspire confidence in witness credibility, that.

DIss0n80r wrote:So, nope, not interested in witness testimony if I'm expected to treat it like solid gold before even being allowed to hear and judge it for myself. I'm not impressed by whining about not hurting feelings, either. If someone really has had such a profound experience, they ought not be so wary. Otherwise, they come across as insecure. So we're only left to wonder if the believer is merely guarding a house of cards.

I think that since you are expected to not have any motive other than to marginalize, it makes a lot of sense that frosty not share his life-changing experience. I doubt he expects you to treat it like solid gold and I doubt he expects you to not be skeptical.

DIss0n80r wrote:I'll also add, it seems extraordinarily selfish not to share something so powerful that it might potentially change minds.

You can't share an experience with words, nor can you share the feeling of how profound that experience is. If, in the extremely unlikely event, that the reader is actually open to the possibility that the experience is profound, only then would I say sharing a description of the experience might serve a purpose.

Doing nothing other than criticizing and marginalizing to score points in a debate is a cop out.

To each his own and the cycle continues.

Well said, and its very obvious from the history here, nobody is interrested in an earnest heartfelt experience, they are here only to do exactly like you said, and marginializing is no more than riducule.

You guys mention earnest, heartfelt, and profound as if they add to the reality of the experience somehow.

I don't doubt that frrosted's experience was all of those things, and I have the right to approach it skeptically, but if one is secure in one's experience it shouldn't matter how others feel about it, it can still make for an interesting discussion.

DIss0n80r wrote:I'll also add, it seems extraordinarily selfish not to share something so powerful that it might potentially change minds. Probably wouldn't, as usual, but it seems like such a cop-out. Especially in the context of an internet forum where people can make vague claims of special knowledge or extraordinary experiences, and can inevitably retreat to that when failing to put forth a compelling case for their position.

It seems suspiciously like a psychological defense mechanism intended to insulate something the claimant considers a mental-emotional linchpin which they fear couldn't withstand objective scrutiny.

Not a good way to inspire confidence in witness credibility, that.

Or, perhaps, they take the Bible seriously and interpret Matthew 7:6 to apply to just this very thing.

"Do not give what is holy to dogs, and do not throw your pearls before swine, or they will trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you to pieces.

Now I'm not calling anybody an actual dog or swine, those are simply terms used to get the point across. In Jewish law, swine were "unclean". Sinners are "unclean", and by extension, unbelievers are "unclean". Why toss those pearls to those who would walk all over them and tear you up (or down) in the process? In the words of OT, that makes good non-sense.

humphreys wrote:You guys mention earnest, heartfelt, and profound as if they add to the reality of the experience somehow.

Can you prove the reality of any experience? If we're all gonna go around rejecting testimony outright, then I wish you good luck.

qmark wrote:Now I'm not calling anybody an actual dog or swine, those are simply terms used to get the point across. In Jewish law, swine were "unclean". Sinners are "unclean", and by extension, unbelievers are "unclean". Why toss those pearls to those who would walk all over them and tear you up (or down) in the process? In the words of OT, that makes good non-sense.

Isn't everyone a sinner?

at1with0 wrote:Isn't everyone a sinner?

Yes, they are. The difference being, with believers in Jesus Christ, their sins are covered by the blood of Christ. As believers in Christ, they no longer "practice" sin.

qmark wrote:

at1with0 wrote:Isn't everyone a sinner?

Yes, they are. The difference being, with believers in Jesus Christ, their sins are covered by the blood of Christ. As believers in Christ, they no longer "practice" sin.

Who invented the concept of sin?

Thank You Qmark. A passage perfect for this.