We hear of the feats of god, but how do we know them? where did they come from?

I believe they developed alongside human evolution at the same time we learned to speak. Shamanism and ancestor worship came first. When agriculture was introduced we then expanded into fertility cults. When writing began then priest castes and more formalized religion was developed. Urbanism and the first empires allowed for deities of one tribe to either conquer that of another or come together in pantheons. That is what I see on a scientific level.

Religion is a cultural universal and I simply believe it is what makes us human as much as language or our ability to enjoy art. Those who do not believe in such maybe place their faith in other facets of society that were not available before. Alternatives. In a way we cannot escape it IMHO.

On a faith level I do believe the God of the Israelites revealed Himself to the first of mankind and then to Abraham, then to Moses, and so forth.

wonder how many changes will happen in say 100,000 years. ? obviously none will be the same.

The Greeks

I think it depends on which god you were referring to. There are literally thousands of gods but if you meant the god of the bible, then we could elaborate on who compiled the bible for you. Is that the god you meant?

Clovis has 2 fingers on this pulse. The most logical argument would dictate that as our intellect evolved, the notions of the abstract began to fascinate us.

God is an integral part of the universe. Sometimes god, like the universe, intrudes its self into the lives of people. Being human, they regognise this intrusion as something out of the ordinary, and attempt to describe, analyse and quantify it. Because such processes depend on individual, and cultural, knowledge and biases god is often seen, and described, in different ways, but the closer two cultures are, the more similar their descriptions of god will become.
Humans are a product of the universe/god. They have sentience and self awareness. As a result they have a curiousity which demands answers. Thus they create gods to help explain the inexplicable. Some people thus believe in a god through faith, some through personal experience.

There also seems to be a third element inherent in humanity which one might describe as a regognition of the metaphysical or supernatural. While this element has declined with the advent of modern science , it still exiasts, particularly in regard to things which can not yet be explained by science,

Thus some people have, as part of their sentience, an appreciation of the metaphysical, and more, a natural affinity for it in the same way that some have an affinity for maths or music or painting or poetry or literature. This is not yet fully explained in modern medical terms, although one day it will be.

Thus god is as much a part of the human psyche, as all those other things which define humanity, and make us the only beings we know of to possess a soul. (Im not talking about the religious idea of a soul here, but that difficult to define, but very real element of humanity which physically differentiates us from all other animal species on earth)

So god also exists within and as a part of humanity, as he exists as a part of the rest of the universe. The difference is that there is something in common between humanity and god which allows us to communicate with each other, in a way again that no other known part of the universe is capable of.

This ability is recognised in the many religious beliefs which can be summed up in the line. "God created us in his own image".

Yes he did, and thats why we are; both able to recognise him, and communicate with him, on a variety of levels, from faith and philosophy, to more physical forms of communication.

And so the story of god has evolved out of all these experiences and human abilities. However, it is only a human interpretation of god and, like the blind men and the elephant, even a complete composite description, from all human experiences may not provide a true accurate or full description of god, his physical form, nature, or purpose.

Humans alone practice religion because they're the only creatures to have evolved imagination.

That's the argument of anthropologist Maurice Bloch of the London School of Economics. Bloch challenges the popular notion that religion evolved and spread because it promoted social bonding, as has been argued by some anthropologists.

Source


So it came from ignorance when we couldn't answer questions through out history. People just started making stuff up to fit the situation. Like a rain god for crops or a sun god for good weather to hunt.

We're also the only creatures that have managed to evolve a form of communication that allows us to speak about things that are not there with us at that exact moment, let alone abstract concepts.
No other animal has the ability to discuss any abstract concepts, not even the ones that are put in laboratories and made to acquire human language. There are many other characteristics that other animals can't learn within human language, such as syntax. No other animal has any ability to recognize syntax.

Just because we have imagination doesn't mean that any time we speak of something that is not readily obvious in the physical world, it is just the childish side of the brain painting strange pictures. We speak of abstract concepts all day long. The fact that they are abstract doesn't make them nonexistent.

from man (woman)
but we created god. we have Always created gods
theres your answer

...as you were

Religion is the the early throws of Science.

for example an infant is usually educated on how things work but have you considered how a child's imagination would describe these processes.

ill start with a simple lesson we all learn to compare. fire is hot. i stick my hand in the fire and it burns. what do i learn the fire is hot. i do not at this time learn how it works. but curious i must grasp it, label it somehow. so fire eats it dies without food and oxygen = it is alive. thus fire must have a spirit or be one. so it needs a name.

this is kind of what god is. the science behind the veil. we hold onto childish notions of what god is. not realising science is just defining god's true form. some refuse to see what the light of truth reveals others simply only see some of the light. this is what causes secularism.

Well naturally I agree with Maurice Bloch in that point about imagination. I disagree that it had nothing to do with social bonding. People also have an incessant need to come together and connect. We would die in lonliness. What bonds us is also important since both language and writing, levels of communication, also bonds us as much as religion.

I also disagree that it came from ignorance but that it actually developed as way to create even more social cohesion. Man though has within him some traits that go against social cohesion so it is a balancing act.

You do realize that this is your *belief* -- it's not something you *know*... Knowledge and belief are not synonymous....
It's irksome to me, and sometimes amusing, when believers suggest they have knowledge of god and how he thinks and why he does things... These are personal opinions only - nothing founded by real knowledge.

I do believe most believers should begin their posts by stating "I believe"...rather than jump into flat out statements like "God is an integral part of the universe" + "god also exists within and as a part of humanity...."
This is laying claim to something that is not verifiable...so where does the arrogance of knowledge come from? Does god whisper in your ear and speak to you personally about his thoughts and actions? Again -- belief is not knowledge.

Mr Walker has proof to take it past belief and into knowledge. He has way more than me but that is for sure but I too have seen proof of spirits at work, some good, some bad. It has nothing to do with our beliefs or experience but actual manifestations in the physical world outside of our bodies with witnesses. Your knowledge template is based on your own experiences, within and without your body, but do not for a second think everyone has to have shared your own experiences. Some have different experiences and so will derive to different conclusions.

So in the end do you realize it is your belief and not something you know graylady? It is irksome and sometimes amusing when skeptics think they know it all. These are your personal opinions too.

I do believe skeptics should being their posts by stating "I believe"...rather than jump into flat out statements like "My experience defines the whole of humanity" + "God cannot exists because I know it...". This is laying claim to something that cannot be disproved...so where does the arrogance of knowledge come from? Is your experience the same as everyone else's and if not then how can you know what another experiences? Again -- your belief is not knowledge that has to be pushed onto everyone else.

again. man created god

Clovis, you contradicted yourself so blatantly in these paragraphs, I can't imagine you realized it. You opened by speaking about 'knowledge' and how you and others have 'proof' regarding something as subjective and undefined as God. By definition, there can be no proof for God. Therefore, you're doing exactly what the irksome skeptics are doing, using the word 'know' instead of 'believe.'

Where does your arrogance of knowledge come from?

I will repost that quote that responds to the first part of your question but add in one word 'spiritual' to emphasise what I meant.



The actual proof is not subjective but 'actual manifestations in the physical world outside of our bodies with witnesses' of both God and spirits effecing the environment around us. This is not subjective, taking place in the mind, it is not an emotional experience, it is things appearing or being effected in the real world around us.

Arrogance though is not us simply saying what we have seen happen outside of our bodies but others telling us it is all impossible and subjective. We know the difference between subjective and things that happen outside of us with other witnesses.

But, it is subjective. If there was 'proof' of God or any higher power effecting the environment around us, there would be no question about his existence. What you and possibly others have witnessed and believe to be proof, can be interpreted and explained by a skeptic through psychology or physics or what have you. I don't know what actual manifestations you are talking about specifically, but there are no recorded cases of this happening where it was proven to the majority to be caused by anything spiritual. As good as it gets for that theory is that science can't explain it. That is hardly proof for God.



First of all, who is "we?" You and whom? All Christians? All Christians who share your same specific interpretation? You and Mr. Walker? Either way, I don't think you should generalize or speak for others. An experience that is associated with spirituality is always subjective, by the very definition, whether there are witnesses or not. There are many solidly exampled reasons as to how a seemingly spiritual occurence with witnesses can be explained scientifically. At least explained as satisfactorily as saying it was God.

Mass Delusions
Collective Delusions

If you'd bothered to check any previous posts by me you'd know I often preface, or end, with "I think" or "I believe" or "IMO"...but, you'd rather exercise your brain by running off at the mouth...and still be wrong.
BTW - how do you know Mr. Walker has proof of anything? Because he said so on the UM forum? Well, etch that in stone then...it *must* be a fact.



How embarrassing for you. You'd rather use another's words to make a point. A point with no validity and completely wrong, simply because you couldn't be bothered to learn before you beaked off.
Next time, maybe you should do some investigating before sounding off. It could save you some embarrassment. Ever helpful..and you're welcome.

I am not certain it was a process requiring significant evolution. Primitive man shivering in the night and prey to predator animals certainly welcomed the light and warmth of the sun. To have that sun disappear below the horizon brought fear and insecurity but to have it return each day promoted the idea that the sun was a god and that it gave protection and kept is cyclical promise.

Yea..a greek man

That is a fair response. I should have not used your words and rearranged them so they would in turn apply to you. I did think it was witty at the moment but now it can be seen that you felt it was insulting towards you. Somewhere within them was my original thoughts in support of Mr Walker. He has a good heart. My apologies.

I agree graylady, it would be more honest to begin with this is what " i beleive' this is what " i think...."


maybe we can't really know anything, the radical skeptic thinks so.........


Clovis: the obvious is evidence, and subjective experience by itself really doesn't tell us much..... because its formless. its needs content to process it.... the content is often an appeal to authority but its not new evidence its just indirect evidence.....revelations and visions and voices are incompatable because they have to be subject to testing and observation to make sense of them ... to know by faith is a misuse/ misunderstanding of language.. you may beleive and it can be real strong and very imnportant to your lifestyle 'but' it doesnt make it knowledge or credible.....

Oh SS maybe you seem to keep failing to understand it is not subjective when there is more than two or three people that all see the same thing manifest in the physical realm outside each of our bodies. For you and others to guess that our experiences in those few cases is 'subjective' in our heads is just your assumption.

We do know the difference between subjective when it is a spiritual experience within and something that occurs without our body which can be verified by others. Maybe the reason you cannot admit others having such experiences is because it would shatter your belief that there are spirits and a Spirit at work in this world would shatter your world view which attempts to assign your experiences that you have had onto everyone else.



Oh some of us have had those too, I have never heard voices, I have had a revelation and vision only but once, but some have also seen actual proof to know the difference between that and what occurs outside the body while others are there to witness.



In a way I feel sympathetic, not empathetic, towards you for saying this. I wish I could have empathy but your view is foreign to me as mine is to you. The one thing I do know is your beliefs and experiences do not define me as mine do not define the world.

You really do not have to believe in God and in a way it is best for all of us you do not. It is not like God needs all of us to believe in Him and no matter what He wants it is us that need Him. Likewise it is not like I need you to believe and I only respond so others can have a different perspective.

I agree too which is why I merely mimicked her statement almost word per word, the first beginning with telling others something without saying 'I believe' and the second paragraph beginning with 'I believe'. Unfortunately using the same word format as she offered another did not suit her.

Had this discussion many times. When I am expressing a belief i try to say so. While i can not, and do not, expect other people to believe me, this statement was not one of belief but one of knowledge. I dont say I believe i have a car. I say i have a car. I dont say I believe in god, i say i know god exists from the evidence he has manifested in my life and in the physical universe around me.(im not talking about flowers and trees butphysical manipulation of matter and energy)

This includes physical miracles and physical manifestations of objects ,along with the physical appearance of angels. It gets a bit tiresom having to explain this to each new person that reads one of my posts, but i guess it is only reasonable that i do so. I had never realised how much resistance and disbelief my experiences would encounter. Its as if people will accept many things but not physical evidence of god and religiuos experiences.And yet, in human history, such complete refusal to even countenace the possibility is a very new phenomenum.

Only people who have experienced something similar, or of a paranormal nature ,actually acccept that it is even possible that what i encounter is a real physical part of the universe around us.

they came from people who needed something to belive in to make them happy in this trubbled little world of ours.

Id like to just say sun dog dayze that basicall,y that statement is bulldung. It assumes that god is a construct of humanity or a philosophical ideal. The god I know is a physical entity and an integral part of the universe. Of course there can be proof of/for it. You are taking a very modern and very limited concept of god and setting parameters based on that.

Whose definition of god are you using?

The real arrogance i see on this thread, is that of people who from their own limited experience and world view use words like "impossible" or "never" to deny the validity/ reality of the experiences of people they have never even met in person.
I find it difficult even to understand how anyone can possess the arrogance to be so certain that their experiences encompass the full range and limit of human experience.

There are whole genres of literature describing the experiences of people like myself. You may disbelieve those accounts , but you cannot simply claim they do not exist. Just because you may not even have been in the sort of book shop where such literature is sold does not mean that they do not exist either.
REAL PHYSICAL MIRACLES AND REAL PHYSICAL ANGELS, DO STILL MANIFEST ON EARTH.

That is not a belief statement but an observation based on my own experiences and those of many others. Try and show i'm either lying or hallucinating/delusional. In nearly 40 years of similar experiences, no one has been able to do so, so far.

There are dozens, perhaps hundreds, cumulatively, of witnesses to some of the paranormal experiences in my life, because many occur in front of a class of teenagers while im teaching them.

The "religious" ones seem to have fewer witnesses because they are more personal and occur on more private occasions, but even most of these have been witnessed by other people.
s
On a purely personal note, if something which can see across time and space and act to physically warn and physically intervene in a persons life DID NOT exist then i would not be here to debate the issue to day.

Without physical verbal and visionary warnings and gods direct intervention, i would have lost my life many times, beginning in my teens and continuing through til the age of 56. The fact that this entity chose to save me, and also to provide solutions to other problems in my life, is why i tend to identify it as god, even more so than the physical powers it possesses.

there is no proof!! besides a book that may or most likely may not be true! and mericals? hahaha i can change water to wine just as "jesus did" they where never real they are not real get over it

Just because you have not experienced proof does not mean it does not exist. More so it certainly does not mean that it cannot exist. Thats a simple logical and factual observation.

When you change the water to wine please try and remember that it was unfermented wine and thus non alcoholic. Not as much fun i appreciate, but historically more accurate.

You're right. I felt you were mocking me...and I don't appreciate that.
You've made a judgement about my spirituality (or lack of according to you), when you suggested "because you've always lived in a city" (paraphrased) which was completely wrong. So, if you can be so wrong about me - maybe you're wrong about Mr. Walker too... That's a *maybe*....
I try not to presume/assume anything about most posters. Although I have misidentified a few as christians, and they weren't.

its called switching jars and yes i know i was catholic until i proved when i met pope john paul the 2nd *may he rest in peace* that the bible doesnt fit into a time line nor is there physical proof or document taion jesus was real..it is all fairy tales for people to make you act what they think is a "norm" or good of scociety at that time

I'm sure you're a very nice person, as Clovis suggests. I haven't read many of your posts simply because they're sometimes quite long... I, too, have written long posts - but mostly try to keep them as short and simple as possible.
That said -- having a car and believing in god are worlds apart... Cars are tangible, god isn't.

i conqure

This made me laugh that Jesus was just playing magic tricks and He walked in sneakily with a bunch of jars filled with wine and then switched them out on the sly. Well it also made me think about how do you know you have not played the same trick? I mean if we are just jars what if you switched from a belief to a non-belief jar? Well for me the turning the water into wine is kinda like our spirit meeting His Spirit and becoming one with God if we allow Him. But I noticed something else in your post but will post it on the other thread about Satanist.

No. clovis i do not fail to understand that subjective belief does not constitute knowledge... god sightings remain at the status of beleif...


Its interesting how you are misunderstanding that my arguement is that you can't beleive what you choose to beleive.......of course you can beleive you heard voices or saw angels,.this is not in stasis what is in dispute is your understanding of what is 'a beleif based in faith' ....

I have a suggestion, you can reproduce the event and video tape it with your witnesses and I can watch it and go from there....

Indeed mr. walker is a lovely person, one of the loveliest but IMO this has no bearing on whether or not a belief is knowledge........or can be because you are a lovely person and say so.... we all say alot of things and they are real important to us in our daily lives but without a evidencial methodology our claims are simply that "claims" and the point of argumentation is to put them under the rigor of evaluation and crtical analysis to see how well they hold up and in this case they don't for me and it seems for a fair number of us, I have included my reasons why as have you and many others, beyond that MW is clearly not looking to investigate his beleifs ,IMO it seems he is seeking to connvince others he is right in what he beleives... . ..perhaps MW is taking these moments to prove his faithfulness, perhaps in this it validates and keeps the belief strong and in place.... .....IMO...


Kalsang Nima, a Bon Buddhist Monk from Nepal said, "The more you need to explain God, the less he exists....

As if anyone walks around video taping 24-7. Things happen when they happen. But you do fail to understand, drastically, and repeatedly, by attempting to define your experiences onto the whole world. It does not matter if you can accept it or not. What we know has happened outside of our own bodies and anyone else's it not subjective. Label it as you wish but that does not define reality. It is your own delusion that the world operates as you think it does based on your narrow set of experiences. Oh I am not claiming it operates as I define it either or that my experiences are not narrow. But within them I and others have seen non subjective events. We see what we see and in those times we know it and no one can tell us any difference.

I assume that by claiming that the wine at the wedding of Cana was unfermented, you base that on the belief of many conservative Christians that the translation as "new wine" indicates that since it was "new" it would be little more than grape juice.

I am not so certain that this is true.

It would be difficult for guests to claim that one "grape juice" was significantly better than the earlier one as they did after Jesus had converted water into wine. And in LXX the word for wine, "oinos" is altered to "tirosh" which means to ferment. We would need to determine which word was used in the Greek in order to really determine if the wine was alcoholic or not.

Just in the same way your 'belief' that attempts to define other people's experiences as all subjective is not knowledge it is merely your 'belief'. You can claim you are superior at philosophy, you can brag about your logic, but in the end it fails you because you attempt to use it to define not just your experiences but everyone else's through them. If you have never been in someone else's shoes you really have no clue, none of us do really when it comes to other people, the mistake is when you assume and believe that you do know and that is not knowledge it is merely your belief.

Clovis, are you excepting the challenge or not???? I will gladly look at what you have in the way of evidence...

I challenge you in return to prove that you are omniscient. That is what your view purports. The sarcasm of it all is in your attempt to disprove God, which no one can do, you in a way claim to be omniscient. You obviously though cannot know what others have experienced and any attempt to claim you can, and then further claim to know what others have seen or not, even when there are witnesses, is just assumption on your part. An educated guess is one thing but you frame your opinion quite differently, as if it were fact, and in doing so really the only response is to state that clearly you are not omniscient.

the challenge for you is to find a way of articulating a religious experince that neither attempts to 'straw man' accurate/critical analysis, or contains a built in bias for the sake of the tradition ...


Clovis, the problems associated with religious experince are notoriously hard if not impossible to verify (even if they are sincere) it involves entties not available at a moments notice for the purpose of observation or critical analysis...


Of course one would rarely if at all except the word of a stranger on line, because frequently such experiences can be faked for the purpose of gain or influence. or perhaps even conversion..... ...


What is distinct about 'religious experince' is esepcially hard to detect because they lie on a continuum that more or less sounds like alot of other experiences.. e.g. angels they are higher beings, considered intellegent, from another realm who are luminous and often come to impart some message on the one that has some importance) well the same can be said of aliens, hallucinations, acid trips, vivid imaginations etc.....)

and finally religious experinces invaribably are contextualized by cultural conditions and the symbols that are available for interpretation.......


without a context with in which to frame the experince ( as this provides a key to the response, remember relgion is a response for the most part....) the experience itself remains incomprehensible incapable of being explained or accounted for).....

Well apart from your first sentence which is Greek to me I thank you for such a wonderful post and I agree with all the rest of it SS. There is so much truth in what you said. You also dared me, I double dogged dared you, and you triple dogged dared me (in that first sentence which debate is not my strong suit) and then you continue your post by actually answering your question of 'if I would accept your first challenge' by saying how I could not. I guess we would have to come to an impasse because I will not disbelieve what I have seen that was no subjective and you will continue to claim it was subjective unless of course in this brilliant post of yours you somehow did agree that maybe just maybe someone is telling the truth and not lying about their experience.

You should know me though SS I am heartless when it comes to converting others and encourage others to remain on their path. If the Spirit within me cannot do the job then my words will be ill suited and even if they did convert over them they would find a spiritually empty experience because it was not the Spirit but my own flesh and only the Spirit can call to another's spirit.

My experience is sincere and if I do brag about it is not for my sake, I am a terrible person and have proven that, but it is the Spirit that chooses how to change me that I brag about. Yes, it is evangelism but not the kind that is oh noes you are going to burn if you do not believe me ^__^

I agree no one should accept the word of stranger's online if they choose not to but overall it is a quite chancy to make a habit of it.

True, true religious experience all have similarities and parallels be it mystical journeys, religious ecstasy, the fullness of the spirit, alien orientation, channeling ascended masters, visions of the divine, alterations of consciousness, shamanic enlightenment, and entheogenic experiences.

As for cultural conditions you are right that without a context we would be unable to translate the transcendental. But do take care to notice that because of your cultural conditions, steeped in science, you also might not be able to understand them, even if you have experienced them, they would simply be written off as subjective, and naturally you would doubt whenever someone has an experience. Now I do know the difference between subjective and objective experiences. And as I said when something happens independently outside of any human body and the physical world is affected and there are witnesses that is objective. For us there is evidence of the eidolon.

If there were aliens and they were not carbon based lifeforms we would not even see them. They would exist, at least for us, in a metaphysical reality. Well at first it was faith but now I take it by knowledge that there are spirits that do exist and I do not call them aliens but spirits in whatever guise they wish to appear as. But this is not to reject your case but simply to state my own. Overall I agreed with your post in whole except for that first sentence but it is alright because learning debate techniques will only encourage me to engage in them and I would rather not, not these types, and could care less about winning them. If I ever make a point and seems like that is it is only because at times your view could be cancerous to someone who is in a state of flux and doubt. Your view is the destroyer of all things spiritual and it is not your mind I wish to change but it is the balance I wish to maintain so someone in flux would have another view to decide for themselves.

I am sure though you might view me as the trickster figure as much as I view you as the destroyer.



Anyways if you wish to expand on some of these symbols throughout different cultures and compare them then know you would have at least one eager member of your audience. Your intelligence is telling and is very admirable by the way.

Now we are getting there. The god i know is just as tangible as my car, but perhaps more like the wind. You cant see the wind but you can feel it, and you can measure it and assess its reality by the physical effects it has on other objects around it. God is often like that but he also manifests physically, and visibly, in forms which appear like classical angels and also as apparent human beings.

However he always exists, integrated within all of us and within the physical structure of the universe.This is what allows things like visions of the future, precognition, mind reading/esp, out of body experiences etc to occur. This nature also explains how it is physically capable of manipulating matter and energy without apparent technology, because it is itself a conscious manifestation of both matter and energy with conscious control over its own being.

The linking of our consciousness to that of others and to the universal consciousness of god, explpains most paranormal "powere" ëxperienced by people (Now THAT is my personal opinion, based on a life time of paranormal experiences, and the growing realisation that; given there is such a universal consciousness, that it can manifest in the real world, and that it takes an interest in sentient beings; then this pretty well fits the parameters of all gods encountered by humanity in its long history)

That is indeed part of the rationale. The other part is in the nature of jesus and in the coherency of his teachings (whether you accept these or not is really irrelevant to this point) Jesus simply was not (from all we know about him) a person who would (at the end of a feast where, assuming the wine was alcoholic, everyone would already be under its influence) provide motre of the same to further influence their state of consciousness. He talked about the body and the importance of looking after it and the importance of themind . A teacher like jesus simply would not use a miracle to further inebriate drunken people knowing the consequences, physical and social of such an act) In fact, any good ethical human being would not do so.

Clovis, we have done more than call an impasse, we have built a bridge which has lead to an understanding for not only us but all that read us......

that is my only intent ..... is to find a way to understand each other......In my world there is no right or wrong its what we understand or fail to understand that matters the most, to me anyways......

I am profoundly touched by your candor and honesty......your post brought tears to my eyes, i can appreciate ephiphanous moments in ones life the labels one uses is not important ..



do not write yourself off on the argumetational aspect of posting..it is a skill,one that is easily aquired by anyone....I ought to know and mon amie you certainly have the intellegence and willingness to grow and learn .. its commendable and refreshing to have on Um.....

It is an honor to learn from you and I look forward to doing more of that.......

Apparently I am.(In the judgement of those who know me)
However this is not really germane to whether you believe what i write, and i wonder at why you feel the need to say so. I don't mind people coming out and simply disagreeing with me. I do not get offended, nor see them as any less, for that disagreement.

What clovis and i continue to complain about is any person using the frames of reference they have built during their experiences of life, as a tool to evaluate/validate the experiences of others. No one can empirically claim that paranormal ( including religious) experiences are never real.

They can only claim that their personal experiences lead them to logically conclude they are impossible.

It is the absoluteness of some peoples beliefs that annoy.(Yes others may claim i am guilty of the same. My defence is that as far as any one has been able to ascertain, my experiences have been objectively real ,although this is difficult to prove to non observers)

So would you believe me any more if i was a nasty ,woman abusing, biker who had experienced god? if not, then my nature is not really relevant to our debate. Although human nature being what it is, Clovis and supras comments did make my day

i remember hearing a debate about that. where they said the 'wine' woulda just been grape juice. but then there was something about all the people acting...........drunk? i guess. for lack of a better word, or bcause i cant remember the word they used. but they stated something about the people drinking acting different. 'rowdy' or something.
so historically accurate? im confused now

My understanding is that the wine jesus offered was the best wine available. This was called the new wine and was the freshly pressed grape juice from the most recent harvest, not yet fermented.

I am not as clear on whether the people had been drinking alcoholic wine, before it ran out. Many bible scholars argue that jewish religious ceremonies of that timesuch as marriages, did not include alcoholic beverages, and thus all the wine would have been non alcoholic. (This would also have been the case with the wine offered/drunk at the last supper.)

Personally this is not as convincing as my belief that jesus, given his teachings, would never have deliberately contributed to already drunken wedding guests becoming further inebriated. (There are too many biblical injunctions against alcohol and how it makes fools of wise men etc.)