Would it be acceptable?

[Superglobe]

QFT=Quoted for Truth. Basically when you agree with someone, it's a less wordy way to say "I agree with this statement".

nak is just an odd verbal tic of mine.

[+Sherapy]

QFT=Quoted for Truth. Basically when you agree with someone, it's a less wordy way to say "I agree with this statement".

nak is just an odd verbal tic of mine.

Ah I get it . My kid was not around to ask. He'll find it hysterical anyone agrees with me though. lol

Thanks! Welcome to UM, by the way.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Superglobe]

Oh, I've been here for some time. I just don't post much, but thank you regardless.

QFT might not even be a web-wide thing. I'm just prone to juxtaposing slang from elsewhere into my posts here.

You have a child? My I do feel like a complete kid here. O_o

[+Sherapy]

Oh, I've been here for some time. I just don't post much, but thank you regardless.

QFT might not even be a web-wide thing. I'm just prone to juxtaposing slang from elsewhere into my posts here.

You have a child? My I do feel like a complete kid here. O_o

You'll find most of the the posters here do. We do not often get such young minds that are so refined in our little UM family.

I hope we don't scare you off. I enjoy that you contribute your POV.

[Superglobe]

Neh, it's nice to be around different groups of people.

Most of the folks on tvtropes (the other site I frequent) are young nerds like myself.

And thanks.

Also, if we're to continue this conversation we should probably do it in Private Conversation, I don't want to get in trouble for MASSIVE DERAIL.

[+Sherapy]

Neh, it's nice to be around different groups of people.

Most of the folks on tvtropes (the other site I frequent) are young nerds like myself.

And thanks.

Also, if we're to continue this conversation we should probably do it in Private Conversation, I don't want to get in trouble for MASSIVE DERAIL.

[Superglobe]

Not to derail further but ah...what part of that post are you thumbs-upping? XD

[Mr Walker]

Interpreting the bible subjectively is not an aspect of bible scholarship, or academia. Unless you are a Christian, then it is called a religion.

At first It seems in' theory' on paper you grasp this , but then you post this.

"God's" message, like all messages has two parts. Intent and reception.

So let me ask you the same question you asked DR. D what evidences do you have to support this.

You really cant step outside your own biases can you? I was responding to a comment by dr d that the bible is so clear it couldnt be interpreted in many ways. Of course it can. It can be interpreeted in a myriad of ways. The evidence for this is that it has been and continues to be, until this very day

As to your second question i deconstruct texts "professionally" as a teacher, and i teach others to do so. Next year ill be teaching a group of young adults the english course which prepares them for university, the next year.

You will just have to take my word for it(or you can look it up on the net) When a text is written, it will hold within it, a writers conscious intent (interestingly of course it will also hold within it the writer's subconscious even unconscious intents, and reflect the writers own world view.)

Any reader cant get into the writer's head, so they can only interpret or deconstruct the text in two ways. By trying to understand the writers world, and his thoughts; or by applying their own world view and thought processes to analyse it.

They go through the text looking for clues and cues to help them make personal sense of it. and also to understand the writers pov.

Of course they can also cheat by looking up many other writers opinions, and sometimes the authors, on the net, but that defeats the purpose, rather.

You cant understand shakespeares writings without undertstanding the man and his times, or dickens, or hemingway, or the brontes, or any other author.

This is especaily true of the bible, which was written long ago, by many different authors then compiled by another lot of editors.

Tell me how do you go about understanding chaucers writings?. How was Hemingway's experience in the spanish civil war reflected in his novels?

[Mr Walker]

name='Dr. D' timestamp='1292634861' post='3703150']

This is often claimed but I doubt its validity. The "message" has not been changed that much, only the names of denominations in order to form their own pockets of power and influence.

The birth and life of Jesus remains untampered within all the sects and denominations.

The concept of salvation has not been altered.

The ritual of baptism has been adjusted only to the question of sprinkling or dunking.

The content of the Bible has not been revised to the point of textual change.

Ithink you are factually wrong here In the catholic and protestant versions of the bible there are considerable textual differnces. And almost every word and punctuation mark of the bible is fought over (and does have significane) whe translators translated unmarried woman as prostitute the y added to the woes of wome allover the world as one little examle.

"I say to you, today you will be in heaven with me" or "i say to you today, you will be in heaven with me" The original had no punctuation at all. How you place that comma determines whether it is possible, biblically, for people to be in heaven/ hell now or not. I have studied, over exended periods of time, with nearly a dozen christian denominations. and with academic bible scholars.

There are huge, and significant, differnces in how they read and interpret the bible.

In the same way that I share the constant understanding of the commandments. The language was clear and concise, not leaving room for alternate meanings or understanding.

How come then, so many many people think the commandments say "thou shalt not kill" When they actually say "thou shalt not murder"(kill unlawfully) Even the commandments are open to interpretation. "Remember the sabbath(seventh) day and keep it holy" How many christians follow that accurately, yet its "perfectly clear"

If you were a christian, would you rest on saturday or sunday? What does the bible say.

[Timothy]

Maybe I need to read this bible thing...

I want to participate in these conversations but feel I would be uneducated without some further knowledge.

Although I did go to a catholic primary (elementary) school, does that mean that I'm qualified?

[Mr Walker]

Maybe I need to read this bible thing...

I want to participate in these conversations but feel I would be uneducated without some further knowledge.

Although I did go to a catholic primary (elementary) school, does that mean that I'm qualified?

You're just as qualified as anyone.

Lots of people offer opinions here, and some even know what they're talking about.

And if you feel you're not knowledgeable enough to comment, then you are wiser than many of us.

Ps Seriously, if you do want to contribute, either just give an honest opinion and admit its an uninformed opinion, or chose a topic you do have some background/knowledge in. Most people here are nice, and forgiving, and especially tolerant to newcomers who admit they dont know it all.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Mr Walker

[Leonardo]

And by what criteria would my divine experience be less valid or believable than those claimed by Christians?

Forgive me, Doc, if this has already been answered, but I have not read the entire thread.

The criteria used to determine the 'truth' of such an experience is usually via referring to a prior experience related by someone who has been 'vouchsafed' as 'reliable'. The believer believes not so much in the subject of the belief expressed, but in the inerrancy of those who have related experiences in the past and that those past experiences are 'identical' to their own (and 'true'), even though they have no objective basis for making this distinction between the experiences of those they accept as 'true', and your own experience they dismiss as 'false'.

Such a belief is irrational, but powerful. Examples of these historical figures whose experiences are accepted as 'truth' by various believers are the writers of Jewish, Christian and Islamic scriptures (in ancient times), while Joseph Smith, Ellen White, etc, are more modern examples of those the believer chooses to believe in.

[Dr. D]

Ithink you are factually wrong here In the catholic and protestant versions of the bible there are considerable textual differnces. And almost every word and punctuation mark of the bible is fought over (and does have significane) whe translators translated unmarried woman as prostitute the y added to the woes of wome allover the world as one little examle.

"I say to you, today you will be in heaven with me" or "i say to you today, you will be in heaven with me" The original had no punctuation at all. How you place that comma determines whether it is possible, biblically, for people to be in heaven/ hell now or not. I have studied, over exended periods of time, with nearly a dozen christian denominations. and with academic bible scholars.

There are huge, and significant, differnces in how they read and interpret the bible.

I think you need to read my post again. I said nothing about differences in translation or interpretation. I said that the message remains the same and listed the basics of that message.

How come then, so many many people think the commandments say "thou shalt not kill" When they actually say "thou shalt not murder"(kill unlawfully) Even the commandments are open to interpretation. "Remember the sabbath(seventh) day and keep it holy" How many christians follow that accurately, yet its "perfectly clear"

If you were a christian, would you rest on saturday or sunday? What does the bible say.

The Bible, nor I, can be responsible for people with low reading levels. Common obedience to a commandment has nothing to do with the clear meaning of it.

A better question to ask me is if I understand the commandments. Yes. Whether I obey them or not is both private and inconsequential to the discussion.

[Dr. D]

Forgive me, Doc, if this has already been answered, but I have not read the entire thread.

The criteria used to determine the 'truth' of such an experience is usually via referring to a prior experience related by someone who has been 'vouchsafed' as 'reliable'. The believer believes not so much in the subject of the belief expressed, but in the inerrancy of those who have related experiences in the past and that those past experiences are 'identical' to their own (and 'true'), even though they have no objective basis for making this distinction between the experiences of those they accept as 'true', and your own experience they dismiss as 'false'.

Such a belief is irrational, but powerful. Examples of these historical figures whose experiences are accepted as 'truth' by various believers are the writers of Jewish, Christian and Islamic scriptures (in ancient times), while Joseph Smith, Ellen White, etc, are more modern examples of those the believer chooses to believe in.

I agree, Leo, and perhaps the question here is by what authority or logic would traditional Christians reject my experience when the basis of their own belief is founded upon such experiences?

[Rock-Star]

I agree, Leo, and perhaps the question here is by what authority or logic would traditional Christians reject my experience when the basis of their own belief is founded upon such experiences?

The only "logic" being used in this situation would be the single mindedness (to use a harsher term, "brainwashing") that their belief system is the one and only way. Not to condemn all Christians with this comment, as I have come to see many on this site who are not so close-minded about their beliefs. It is the hardcore "traditionalists" who would present this view, in my opinion.

[Leonardo]

I agree, Leo, and perhaps the question here is by what authority or logic would traditional Christians reject my experience when the basis of their own belief is founded upon such experiences?

Further to the reply by Rock-Star, the authority invoked is that of tradition, and tradition is most often simply the expression of the logical fallacy of an appeal to antiquity. Of course, traditions do not start out as such an appeal, many times they start because the belief on which the tradition is founded imparts a real-life benefit to the believer. In the case of ancient religions, the benefit could have been that the believer was supported by the authority of the ruling heirarchy (on the presumption they took on the belief espoused by that heirarchy), and so enjoyed some protection from persecution - and perhaps some other material benefits - within their own society as a result.

Edited December 18, 2010 by Leonardo

[Mr Walker]

name='Dr. D' timestamp='1292691319' post='3703855']

I think you need to read my post again. I said nothing about differences in translation or interpretation. I said that the message remains the same and listed the basics of that message.

Two problems The written words change , sometimes quite dramatically How then ca the message remain the same when the words which are the concrete bearers of the symbolic attachments of those words are changed. Second Translation and interpretation makes the message.

The message is both in content and reception. So when one interprets or traanslates the original message even in a minor way, it gradually compounds a greater divergence as each change (i wont say error) in translation or interpretation gives potential for others.

Its like navigating . A compass with a very small error may give only a slight divergence from the original course but each time it is used, it builds greater divergence, until one is hopelessly separated from ones original course/destination.

The Bible, nor I, can be responsible for people with low reading levels. Common obedience to a commandment has nothing to do with the clear meaning of it.

A better question to ask me is if I understand the commandments. Yes. Whether I obey them or not is both private and inconsequential to the discussion.

9f it were just a matter of reading ability id give you that (particularly coming from someone of your own literacy levels) but it is not. People confuse the terms murder amd killing. Some for their own purposes some from pased on misunderstandings Tat commandment is often given as "thou shalt not kill" From memory it even appears as such in some modern bibles.And yetthat was not the original intent or message.

The understanding and how one would obey them go together i was not assuming you believed in them or obeyed them i was asking how yu would interpret them if you wanted to obey them Their wording is meaningless to one who has no bond withthem but critical to one who lives by them.

If the sabbath commandment has not been dramatically altered over time then why do 90% of christians worship on sunday? Both the jews and the muslims retain the worship of the sabbath.

Thus, whatever the rights and wrongs, or personal relevances, one of the ten commandments has been changed. If a commandment can be reinterpreted, why should all the rest of the bible be any more secure from reinterpretation?

How would you interpret "thou shalt have/worship no other gods" The answer depends on ones defintion of god and worship I mifght feel secure im keeping the commandment because i dont worship thor or coyote, but i can have many other gods before "god." Money, pride, lust, women, my family. etc. This is another commandment which has been widely interpreted and its message changed.

Someone who has read the whole bible has a better chance of understanding the original writer's intent, but even i cant be sure of it, because i didnt live there, at the time, with him, nor can i see into his mind.

[markdohle]

Believers often state that they gained their belief through a spiritual experience so euphoric that it is beyond description but it led them to absolutely know the legitimacy of Jesus as the Savior of mankind.

Would it be acceptable to Christians if one said that they, too, had a spiritual experience directly from God, so inspiring that it could not be denied, telling them that the tenants of Christianity are false and that only He should be given worship?

God, not being a 'being', cannot be comprehended, so all of our ideas are idols if the truth be told. I think as believers of any path mature, who believe in 'God', find their concpets changing and moving towards unknowing.

If it is true that people have experiences of God, it can only be percieved by the capticity of the preciever. No one is obliged to believe or follow the experiences of others.

Jesus Christ is believed to be by Christians a revelation, a public one, and the scripture were put togeather (the new testament ) in the third centrury to preserve what the early christians experienced with the risen Christ. So faith is neseccary for any kind of spritural path, perhaps for any path at all.

peace

mark

[+Sherapy]

Ithink you are factually wrong here In the catholic and protestant versions of the bible there are considerable textual differnces. And almost every word and punctuation mark of the bible is fought over (and does have significane) whe translators translated unmarried woman as prostitute the y added to the woes of wome allover the world as one little examle.

"I say to you, today you will be in heaven with me" or "i say to you today, you will be in heaven with me" The original had no punctuation at all. How you place that comma determines whether it is possible, biblically, for people to be in heaven/ hell now or not. I have studied, over exended periods of time, with nearly a dozen christian denominations. and with academic bible scholars.

There are huge, and significant, differnces in how they read and interpret the bible.

How come then, so many many people think the commandments say "thou shalt not kill" When they actually say "thou shalt not murder"(kill unlawfully) Even the commandments are open to interpretation. "Remember the sabbath(seventh) day and keep it holy" How many christians follow that accurately, yet its "perfectly clear"

If you were a christian, would you rest on saturday or sunday? What does the bible say.

MW, it is clear you are limiting yourself to how one interprets the bible literally as the end all.

As Doc said personal interpretation is personal and meaningless, it has no voice in Biblical scholarship. That I can understand it does.

Nor is your question how would I personally interpret Chaucer, because how I interpret Chaucer in and if itself is irrelevant; if I do not know how to read Chaucer, from the literary understanding.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Sherizzle

[Mr Walker]

name='Sherizzle' timestamp='1292783990' post='3705325']

MW, it is clear you are limiting yourself to how one interprets the bible literally as the end all.

I cant see how, as you are completely mistaken. I am not a biblical literalist. And persoanll yi dont believ the bile is the word of god or infalible. That is not logical.

What we are discussing in this thread is how people deconstruct gods word; either as it comes in a personal revelation as with docs hypothetical example, or as it is presented in the bible.

That does not mean i believe the bible is gods word. Nor does it mean i think all visions come from god, and as we have discussed what i call god i do so for logical reasons, but i accept others might call it something else.

So i dont comprehend how i can be seen to be interpreting the bible literally I asume this is another asumption on your part based on how you perceive my "beliefs"

I am discussing the intent of the writers and the reception of the readers.

Many biblical writers did not intend their words and passages to be literal. Some did. Most people dont see any of the bible as literal truth Some scholars do see many different forms of writing within the bible including factual description, allegory, metaphor, hyperbole, symbolic ilustrative and many others. beginning as an oral form the bible is designed as a teaching tool and employs all the labguages and strategies of a powerful teaching tool.

As Doc said personal interpretation is personal and meaningless, it has no voice in Biblical scholarship. That I can understand it does.

First who was talking about bible scholsrship? Second you are of course wrong Scholarship of everything in the humanities particularly at its highest level includes personal interpretations some of the greates t and best debates in universities around the world have arisenfrom differnces on personal interpreations and world views, from the realities of the trojan wars, back to the nature of ancient egyptian religion, or why human settlement of greenland ended.

Biblical scholarship is no different. Each scholar brings to it not just strengths and weaknesses in differnt disciplines from archaelogy to ancient languages, but also preexisting beliefs and values and dispsitions. Scholars are human beings after all.

Some of the greatest academic bible scholars are jews, christians, or muslims. Others are athiests.

It is an error to confuse academic scholarship with personal disinterest. Often the most motivated and dedicated, and thus knowledgeable, scholars, combine passion with reason. Are you seriously suggesting that only those with no prexisting commitment to religion are capable of academic/ logical and reasoned study of the bible?

Nor is your question how would I personally interpret Chaucer, because how I interpret Chaucer in and if itself is irrelevant; if I do not know how to read Chaucer, from the literary understanding.

That is why it IS relevant How one interprets a text depends, first on being able to read it accurately,and correctly as it was written at the time, but far more importantly on being able to connect the text to its place, time, and people.

Even one who reads middle english quite fluently wont appreciate Chaucer unless they know how chaucer and others of his time felt about sanctimonious and hypocritical wealthy clergy compared with simple monks. Or understood the nature of the lady of bath.

All texts, especially older ones, require the same contextual understandings to interpret accurately. And further, one must understand the nature, role, contextual positioning, and personal beliefs/prejudices etc., of the writer, to fully comprehend what he/she is saying in their words.

[xYlvax]

I asked my mother that once. She told me that only Satan would say that to shake our faith. lol

That's would most Christians would say if faced with the question. I can guarantee most wouldn't even stop to give it the thought that maybe their God is false.

[+Sherapy]

I cant see how, as you are completely mistaken. I am not a biblical literalist. And persoanll yi dont believ the bile is the word of god or infalible. That is not logical.

What we are discussing in this thread is how people deconstruct gods word; either as it comes in a personal revelation as with docs hypothetical example, or as it is presented in the bible.

That does not mean i believe the bible is gods word. Nor does it mean i think all visions come from god, and as we have discussed what i call god i do so for logical reasons, but i accept others might call it something else.

So i dont comprehend how i can be seen to be interpreting the bible literally I asume this is another asumption on your part based on how you perceive my "beliefs"

I am discussing the intent of the writers and the reception of the readers.

Many biblical writers did not intend their words and passages to be literal. Some did. Most people dont see any of the bible as literal truth Some scholars do see many different forms of writing within the bible including factual description, allegory, metaphor, hyperbole, symbolic ilustrative and many others. beginning as an oral form the bible is designed as a teaching tool and employs all the labguages and strategies of a powerful teaching tool.

First who was talking about bible scholsrship? Second you are of course wrong Scholarship of everything in the humanities particularly at its highest level includes personal interpretations some of the greates t and best debates in universities around the world have arisenfrom differnces on personal interpreations and world views, from the realities of the trojan wars, back to the nature of ancient egyptian religion, or why human settlement of greenland ended.

Biblical scholarship is no different. Each scholar brings to it not just strengths and weaknesses in differnt disciplines from archaelogy to ancient languages, but also preexisting beliefs and values and dispsitions. Scholars are human beings after all.

Some of the greatest academic bible scholars are jews, christians, or muslims. Others are athiests.

It is an error to confuse academic scholarship with personal disinterest. Often the most motivated and dedicated, and thus knowledgeable, scholars, combine passion with reason. Are you seriously suggesting that only those with no prexisting commitment to religion are capable of academic/ logical and reasoned study of the bible?

That is why it IS relevant How one interprets a text depends, first on being able to read it accurately,and correctly as it was written at the time, but far more importantly on being able to connect the text to its place, time, and people.

Even one who reads middle english quite fluently wont appreciate Chaucer unless they know how chaucer and others of his time felt about sanctimonious and hypocritical wealthy clergy compared with simple monks. Or understood the nature of the lady of bath.

All texts, especially older ones, require the same contextual understandings to interpret accurately. And further, one must understand the nature, role, contextual positioning, and personal beliefs/prejudices etc., of the writer, to fully comprehend what he/she is saying in their words.

This is why I am inferring this.

[Mr Walker]

This is why I am inferring this.

LOL. First, docs example was ABOUT personal revelation.

Second, you cant get into your mindset that god MAY be real, and god MAY give physical manifestations, miracles and revelations, because you assume it cant be. So, in your logic, nothing that flows from such experiences can be possible. Thats ok, but you cant apply your own extrapolations to people who have different physicla experiences.

And you cant "cheat" and just say, "Oh but those experiences cant possibly be real objective experiences" Where is your evidence for such an assumption. How can you know you are right, and other people are wrong?

We've been through this before. Personally i dont attribute my experiences as/to, god because i believe or believed in god, but because of logic. If it fits the parameters of a god, call it god.

(There is no logical reason not to, and many logical reasons to do so. Rigid disbelief is not a logical reason to discount the objective and independent reality of ones own experiences) If you saw a little grey alien, not believing in it would not make it go away, or be non real.

God is a human label for certain qualities in certain entities. You believe all gods are human constructs, so you think it is wrong to call anything god. I know certain entities are real. Thus i dont have your problem in calling them god.

But when it comes to biblical experiences i am open to them, and to their true nature.

Just because my experience are objectively real, does not mean moses or abrahams or pauls were. Maybe paul had a stroke, or a fit, on the road to damascus. But i didnt, and i saw things like paul did.

I am medically fit and certifiably sane. And i can be sure, using a good mind and logic and reason, that what i see and experience is; real, external to my mind, and integrated into the rest of the physical reality around me.

So maybe saul/paul was sane and rational and unaffected by any condition, too. Just maybe god came to paul in the same way he has continued to come to me.

Until you can accept at least the possibility of this, we are living in differnt worlds and realities. And so, your logic leads you to a place, to which the same application of logic, by me, cant take me.

The similarity between my experiences, and accounts throughout history, and religious records, is striking, and because i know mine were real and represent contact with a real, independent entity, then i have an open mind as to the possibility of those other peoples' experiences. You do not. You cannot believe anything other than that all such experiences are delusional, and all such peole mistaken. Why you are so certain of this, i dont know. It is something in your nature i guess. Or it may be that you have experienced delusional or hallucinatory states yourself, and thus assume a commonality with myself and others which does not actually exist.

I dont "believe" any biblical experience is real. Some are obvious human constructs, some are just clearly teaching models. But i dont "disbelieve" some MAY be real. That is the difference.

And i can study the bible as academically and objectively as anyone else. It is just a text, written by men and women for their own purposes. Even if they believe they are messengers of god or actually met god, it makes no differnce. What they write can be pulled apart to understand them, their cultures and how they perceive god and human connection to god.

Anyone could do the same with m,e and my writings. You try and do this at times. But you make two mistakes.

You attribute motivations to me which dont exist, and you assume my experiences MUST be delusional or subjective. In doing this you make it impossible for yourself to accurately understand me or what i write. It is frustratingly amusing at times to see you make conclusions about me that are wildy inaccurate. You must make such conclusions based on what i write here on Um, and yet they are inaccurate. The only logical reason that i can see for this, is that your perceptions and own beliefs cloud your judgement, and you see, in my writings, a persona which does not exist except in your imagination.

Academic dispassion is a mindest one creates, it is not dependent on personal experiences or beliefs.

Having an absolute belief that god cannot be a real physical being, makes it just as difficult to study the bible academically as a text, as being an absolute believer. It immediately wipes out one possible motivator, and thread, of the bible. That makes it impossible to fully understand it, as it was written.

Arguably, the only way to impartially deconstruct the bible, is if you suspend all personal judgement, and investigate the text, and the writers, and how they are embedded in their culture, and study their personal world views.

If you come to it believing saul must have had an epileptic fit, then you can't understand what paul wrote, given that he believed he had a revelation from god.

Edited December 20, 2010 by Mr Walker

[BUG101687]

most christian speak like you do . unbelieve cant understand .but lot christian pray for someone.

because most christian they came from same world like light turn on boom. your believer.

most of unbelieve cant see god but threw unbelief. mircle is that we believe now .

if that your spiritual experience your asking for .

[Mr Walker]

name='bug101687' timestamp='1292833561' post='3706147']

most christian speak like you do .

I wouldnt know about that. I can only speak for myself.

unbelieve cant understand

Id agree. Not just unbelievers, but thise without personal experience cant understand They can be open to try(or not) but its like love. You wont believe (or know/understand) what its really like until you experience it.

.but lot christian pray for someone.

I guess they do. I dont pray for others unless they ask me to, because prayer is always answered, and it is dangerous/wrong to pray for another without their argeeance/acceptance that prayer may change their life irrevocably.

I also dont pray for others because i think each individual has to find their own connection and acceptance of god. It has nothing to do with me, and it would be wrong of me to force or even influence anothers pathway to god. My path is not anothers never will be nor should it be only by following ones own path can one find ones own god.

because most christian they came from same world like light turn on boom.

your believer.

Literally, and in a nut shell, yup. It can be like that. See light. World goes boom. You're a believer (or, i would say, a knower)

most of unbelieve cant see god but threw unbelief.

Not sure exactly wha tyou mean God can come to an unbeliever and be seen, but it is more comon for a believer to see god. THose with a rigid construct of disbelief probably cant see god when he is right under their nose. But that's like not being able to see/perceive a reality because it is not within your cultural experience.)

mircle is that we believe now .

True. Miracles can be self defined.

if that your spiritual experience your asking for .

One does NOT have to be seeking, or asking for, a spiritual experience to have one. Saul was not on the road to damascus. I never was, not even subconsciously. However i accept sherrizzle's pov that we all define our experiences through our minds, concepts, language, and terminologies. And so, i may perceive a spiritual experience, and even a god, where another does not. That does not make me "wrong", necessarily, however.