You and your commenters are a feast of thinking — great stuff.
-C.L. Dyck
I have no need to engage with racists, so will ignore cl’s further diatribes.
-faithlessgod,
CommonSenseAtheism
cl resists following through on a thought even to provide a solid opposing position, and thus stifles many conversations. It’s a shame since it seems like cl has some brain power that could be applied to the topics at hand.
-Hermes,
CommonSenseAtheism
[faithlessgod and Hermes] fit
my definition of trolling. I didn’t take any of those attacks against you seriously, and quickly categorized them as trolls.
-JS Allen,
CommonSenseAtheism
[cl] is, as many have noticed, a master of this warfare. I’ve been following him for quite some time and he’s one of the most effective Christian trolls out there. No one can completely destroy a conversation as effectively as he does, and with such masterful grace and subtly that he rarely gets banned. This isn’t a blunt-force “U R Hitler!” troll, this is the Yoda of trolling.
-Eneasz,
CommonSenseAtheism
This seems to imply that cl is, at least in part, disingenuous in terms of how he responds/what he claims. Is this most likely true, supported by evidence, or merely a subjective claim?
-al friedlander,
CommonSenseAtheism
...I wanted to get a message to you outside of the context of specific discussions on CSA. You make good, insightful contributions to that site, and since I often agree with you I'm glad there is someone else there defending my positions better than I sometimes can. However I don't think anything of value would be lost if you stopped engaging in personal combat with juvenile snipers.
-Zeb,
CommonSenseAtheism
Thank you for your wonderful response - so reasoned in the race of [Waldvogel's] blustering.
-Annie Laurie Gaylor
Freedom From Religion Foundation
Thanks for a great Op-Ed.
-Marianne Ratcliff
VC Star
...as atheists we need to make sure that someone like cl and any Christian readers of [An Apostate's Chapel] don’t come away with the perception that the atheists caved in or were incapable of responding. I’m sure that a lot of Christians who find cl incomprehensible at times and don’t even bother reading him themselves will come away with an assumption that cl is that sort of rare intellectual theist who can prove that gods exist. And that’s how those inane rumors about the feared xian intellectuals start…
-bbk
An Apostate's Chapel
You are in so over your head here, you are embarrassing yourself...
I am well versed in many aspects of evolution biology, through my academic background, and my professional life. Unless your academic degrees and background match mine, cease and desist. Return to philosophy and rhetoric, or whatever it is you perceive your strengths to be. They are definitely not science, even at the high school level.
-R.C. Moore
Evangelical Realism
You're doing a fine job.
-Prof. Larry Moran
Dept. of Biochemistry
University of Toronto
re: R.C. Moore & others
Phyletic change and vicariance (or, drift and selection versus population isolation), as cl points out, are much better ways of describing what are unfortunately more commonly known as micro- and macro- evolution, respectively.
-Dan
Biology postdoc
Univ. of Cyprus
re: R.C. Moore & others
cl says, “The minute you call yourself a
Christian or an
Atheist or whatever the heck else, you automatically get painted by other people’s interpretations of those words, which are almost always different and almost always distorted.” cl’s point couldn’t be more on. As cl points out there is an important reason for not claiming any real religious (or lack thereof) belief. It puts logical constraints on one's arguments due directly to the bias of the individual that is translating the English to mind ideas of what it means to be religious.
-Bobaloo
Just who in the bloody hell do you think you are, you Christian piece of garbage, to come here barking out orders? You're an arrogant, condescending piece of shit. You seem to think you're an intellectual of sorts, when all you are is a Christian who's read a few books. John, everyone, this really is the limit. BR, I'm more than a little annoyed that you continue to engage him. I'm out of here. I have better things to do than to waste my time with these cretins.
-Cipher
Debunking Christianity
How old are you CL? I'd guess you have not yet experienced much life. I'd say you were under the age of 21, too young to be here. I don't give a damn what you think of me or my deconversion at all. You're too stupid to realize that regardless of it you must deal with the arguments in the book. They are leading people away from you [sic] faith. I'm seriously considering banning you cl, as I've heard you were banned on other sites. You are much too ignorant for us to have a reasonable discussion.
-John Loftus
Debunking Christianity
I admired the way you handled yourself in the discussion on John's blog. I'm not patient enough to keep my sarcasm in check with some of them blokes, but appreciate those who are.
-David Marshall
re: Debunking Christianity
cl, I have to say, while I fundamentally disagree with you, you are an individual which I highly respect. I think your responses are always well thought out and your insights always well thought out and pertinently derived.
[Y]ou have made me a stronger atheist in my regards to critical thinking and debating. I really can’t wait to hear more from you. Hell, I’d even buy you a drink, good sir. Cheers!
-Parker
Evangelical Realism
Bottom line? Sometimes I think he's right about certain arguments, and I don't have a problem admitting that. Other times, however, I think he's wrong, and I've called him on that. But I have found he can be pretty reasonable if you (1) don't overstate your case, (2) make concessions when you have, and (3) insist he do the same.
-Lifeguard
I like it when [cl] makes me stop, think and question if I am making unfounded assertions or if I am being sloppy. What has been annoying me about cl of late is that he is being excruciatingly anal...
-seantheblogonaut
I really can't thank you enough for catching me on my error in rhetoric. I always love a good debate! And I always enjoy your posts, as well! Keep up the great writing and the excellent eye for detail!
-BZ
You make me smarter...
-Mike G.
..thank you, cl. I discovered your blog on a random web search and saw it as an oasis amidst a vast desert of seemingly intractable theist-atheist debate.
-Sung Jun
It's good to be able to discuss with people who are open and respectful, and know that disagreement does not mean disrespect... You are to be congratulated, not only for your patience, but also your ability to hold an ever-growing debate together with an impressive degree of structure.
-Ritchie
My tone is derogatory... [cl is] ignorant and credulous and deserves to be mocked... In the time he's been here, he's shown a consistent pattern of antagonizing everyone he comes in contact with, monopolizing threads, derailing discussions with perpetual complaints, quibbles and demands for attention, and generally making arguments that display a lack of good faith and responsiveness... it's become intolerable. I'm not banning him, but I'm putting in place some restrictions on how often he can comment.
-Ebonmuse
Daylight Atheism
This is no defense of the annoying cl, but what a self-righteous, prissy atheist you turned out to be, Ebonmuse. I'm disappointed in you, stealing a strategem from the theists.
-The Exterminator
to Ebonmuse
I certainly didn't get any bad impression about cl, and I can't relate his comments with any of the things (Ebonmuse) said above. I actually thought it was quite interesting to have him around.
-Juan Felipe
Daylight Atheism
Please continue to allow
cl to post his views and make it clear that he is still welcome. And let me be clear, cl is not a lunatic.
-Curtis
Daylight Atheism
With one exception, you are the most coherent and intelligent theist I've seen on this site...
-Steve Bowen
Daylight Atheism
I'm rooting for cl. I hope he perpetually manages to skirt the rules enough to do his damage, forcing rule revision after rule revision,
ad nauseum. Awesome! Let's watch as Ebon, ever more frustrated, continues to struggle to figure out how to keep his precious private blog neat and tidy as cl keeps messing up his papers while one by one, readers leave due to an every increasing administrative presence. Outstanding! Well I won't go. The thought of this sounds like the most entertaining thing that probably would have ever happened on Daylight Atheism. Hot damn!
-PhillyChief
Your visit has been something of a reality check to me. It seems that when you present rational arguments and criticisms, many commenters feel territory slipping and then work up vaporous or leaky responses. I also want to remark that your presence here has considerably moved me to try being a more careful and understanding debater...
-Brad
Daylight Atheism
I do have a lot of respect for you too. You seem to be a very intelligent and thoughtful individual with a knack for getting to the bottom of a problem, cutting through all the bullshit rhetoric on the way down. The fact that many other atheists seem to unreasonably despise you bothers me a lot, because I think that maybe they aren’t acting in good faith.
-Peter Hurford
I am not going to waste any more time parsing your comments to decide if they've crossed the line or not... So I banned you.
-Greta Christina
Be rude... cl invites rudeness. Would you want an incontinent little puppy coming into your house?
-(((Billy))) the Atheist
Note to all my regular readers: Since An Apostate’s Chapel is a free-speech zone, I don’t censor conversations.
As it appears that cl is a troll, please note that I will not be responding to him any longer. I ask that you refrain from doing so, as well. Please don’t feed the troll!
-The Chaplain
…I can’t reconcile being a "freethinker" with banning speech. [cl's] comments are not offensive in the normal understanding of that term, and he poses absolutely no threat except perhaps to some imagined decorum. Why can’t atheists lighten up, for no-Christ’s sake?
-The Exterminator
Is it going to distract from my meal when crazy uncle cl starts blathering out nonsense, pick his ears with a carrot or start taking his pants off? No. In fact, it might actually heighten the experience in some amusing way. So no, I don't see cl's work as damage.
-PhillyChief
I am beginning to suspect that you are a troll cl. Albeit an evolved troll, but a troll nonetheless. Perhaps we should all stop feeding the troll?
-GaySolomon
Evangelical Realism
[cl is] is either a sophist or an incompetent when it comes to the english language... (sic)
-ThatOtherGuy
Evangelical Realism
I’d say cl is pretty sharp... it may be tempting at times to think that “the other guy” is arguing out of some personal character flaw rather than a sincere desire to acknowledge the truth, I still think it’s better to debate respectfully... It is disrespectful to make unsupported accusations against people, e.g. by suggesting that their views are caused by an intrinsically corrupt and immoral nature.
-Deacon Duncan, 3-9-09
Evangelical Realism
[cl] cannot refute my facts, so he needs must find (sic) some scapegoat in order to claim that he has confronted the enemy and proven them wrong... cl, sadly, has proven himself to be the sort of guest who comes into your living room and sneaks behind your couch to take a crap on the floor, just so he can tell all your neighbors how bad your house smells and what an unsanitary housekeeper you are... an interesting case study in the negative effects a Christian worldview has on a reasonably intellectual mind.
-Deacon Duncan, 6-17-09
Evangelical Realism
I strongly discourage discussion of the character, abilities, motives, or personal ancestry of individual commenters, as tempting as such comments may be at times. I discourage the posting of comments that make frequent use of the pronoun “you,” as in “you always…” or “you never…” or “you are just so…”, when directed at a specific individual.
-Deacon Duncan, 4-9-09
Evangelical Realism
I won’t be publishing your most recent comment because it’s a return to the same sort of schtick you’ve pulled here before: re-writing other people’s arguments to make yourself look misunderstood and/or unfairly accused, taking “polyvalent” positions so that when people address your points you can claim to have said something else, distorting other people’s arguments, trolling for negative reactions, and so on.
-Deacon Duncan, 10-8-09
Evangelical Realism
[E]gomaniacal troll.
You win... You’re a disingenuous sophist through and through, cl. And a friggin’ narcissist to boot! Since I’ve thoroughly and purposefully broken the Deacon’s rules of engagement, I shall consider my right to post henceforth annulled, and move on -
dramatic pause, lights out.
-jim
Evangelical Realism
He either thinks in a very weird way or he's quite the con artist.
-mikespeir
I will gladly admit that I have a boner for cl. Maybe some day I’ll even earn a place of honor on cl’s Blog of Infamy.
-Eneasz
Evangelical Realism
Long time reader first time poster... I like reading what you
have to say over at Daylight Atheism so I figured I'd pop in here.
-Pine
He's just a jerk
that likes to argue.
-KShep
Daylight Atheism
You’re not a reasonable thinker in my book. You’re simply an arguer, for better or worse. I’m Michael Palin, you’re John Cleese. You’re just a disputation-ist, bringing everything into question...
-jim
Reason vs. Apologetics
Motherfucker, this is an interesting blog... Quite the group of commenters.
-John Evo
You are very articulate, and I can only assume that it's a result of high intelligence; an intelligence that's interested in, and can understand, healthy debate. However, at every turn, that's not what I or others seem to get.
-ex machina
Daylight Atheism
You are a troll, a liar, and a useless sack of shit. Not only that, but you're still wrong even after moving the goal posts and trying to re-write history. So, you can stop cyber stalking me now and trying to provoke me. I know what you are doing, and you are doing it so that you can whine about how I'm being irrational and mean to you and stroke your pathetic martyr complex. You're a pathetic attention whore and I've already given you too much attention. So, back the fuck off, stop following me around the
intarwebs and trying to provoke me, and fuck off.
-OMGF
Daylight Atheism
I would just like to say that, OMGF, having read the debate as a neutral observer, some of the things cl says about your style of argument are true, IMO. It is quite hasty, which means you occasionally haven't got the central point cl is trying to make...
-John D.
Daylight Atheism
...this is a difficult question that deserves more than a kneejerk reaction, not to imply that you're kneejerking. You're the least kneejerking person I've met.
-Quixote
If you’re here playing devil’s advocate, then, hey, you do a great job at it, it’s a service, keep us sharp... You’re a smart guy, but those are exactly the ones who give the worst headaches!
-Lifeguard
An Apostate's Chapel
You are a waste of time, cl. A big fat black hole of bullshit sucking in everyone who comes into contact with you.
-Spanish Inquisitor
As for all that harsh invective that's come your way, umm... I gotta say, I've seen some of the invective, but I haven't seen the behavior on your part that called for it. Maybe I've just not seen enough? I don't know... from what I've read, I can tell that you're a smart person, and whether you deserved any of that treatment or not is quite frankly immaterial to me; I just want to deal with the smart person at the eye of that storm.
-D
She Who Chatters
I now think that you’re an atheist, just having fun at other atheists’ expense. If that’s the case, kudos.
-The Exterminator
If I may be so bold, could we not also posit that at least one person in the room (likely ‘A’) possesses some sort of psychic/telekinetic ability, and thus the belief in the supernatural (and likely the additional boost of alcohol) is the subconscious trigger which initiates spooky supernatural occurrences, which then reinforces the belief, creating a positive feedback loop.
Now, I may be being a bit facetious here, but not entirely. I have no problem in believing in ‘action at a distance’ phenomenon, given that two of the fundamental forces of the universe happen to be such phenomenon (gravity and electromagnetism). I see no reason why those two should be the only ones.
Check out:
http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/currentresearch/index.htm
The fact that the video games remained stacked is understandable. There’s friction between the games that tend to prevent separation. If the surfaces are smooth, there’s a suction force that would also tend to prevent separation.
With regard to context, you state that the conversation often revolves around metaphysics and spiritual presences. This was just the first time that something unusual happened during one of those frequent conversations.
The actual movement of the games is more difficult to explain. Perhaps the case, containing the game on the bottom of the stack, heated by the TV, changed it shape suddenly. (I have a cookie sheet that when place in the oven warps suddenly with a loud thunk. Another loud thunk happens when the sheet cools and returns to its original shape.) A sudden warping of the bottom case, pushing against the TV, might provide the force necessary to move the games.
Dominic,
Sure, but although it directly confronts modern scientific explanations of physics and neurology, most of the atheists I deal with would simply dismiss or deny that idea, too. For example, John Morales‘ attitude towards things “parapsychological” is that they’re “putative, thus accountable for as imaginary.”
Still, at some point reasonable individuals would have to ask: how might we reliably test the difference between A’s hitherto undiscovered psychic abilities, and the ICH?
nal,
To a certain extent, maybe, but in the context of what actually happened that night, I disagree. Replication of the event with PS3 and X-Box games might soften that disagreement, however.
There are other incidents, of course, but even if it were the first time, do you think such would challenge the ICH? If so, how?
Cookie sheets that warp are made of flimsy metal. PS3 and X-Box games are housed in plastic casing that would melt, not warp. Wouldn’t that seem to challenge the warping hypothesis?
cl:
PS3 and X-Box games are housed in plastic casing that would melt, not warp. Wouldn’t that seem to challenge the warping hypothesis?
I guess it would depend on the properties of the plastic and the temperature of the heat. The game box warping hypothesis is weak, I agree. Maybe the top of the TV warped and caused the incident when it popped back.
There are other incidents, of course, but even if it were the first time, do you think such would challenge the ICH? If so, how?
If this were the first time, it would call into question that “the event catalyst heard and responded to our conversation.” Why this particular time and not all of the other times?
If its a choice between psychic powers and a haunted universe, I’m sure the atheists you know would lean to the psychic phenomenon as the lesser of two implausibilities.
nal,
Maybe, but what happens when we run that against Occam’s? Wouldn’t we hear it? Wouldn’t the engineers have thought of that sort of thing? I’ve never heard of TV warping at all much less to the degree required to perform this event; if that sort of thing were possible, wouldn’t we have heard of it by now, at least as much as warping cookie sheets in convection ovens? Another thing I though of was the games were not sitting directly atop the TV, but atop another component that was itself atop the TV – which was also metallic and theoretically retains the same possibility, of course – but so far, non-conscious explanations just don’t cut it, IMO. Per Occam’s,
I don’t know. Perhaps the subject matter was different. Perhaps this time, A’s sentiments were too spot-on to ignore. Perhaps the other times, whatever caused the event wasn’t there, or wasn’t interested. There could be many reasons why this time but not others, but is the fact that it occurred this time and not others constitute evidence against the “heard and responded” idea?
Dominic,
Let’s called the “undiscovered psychic abilities” hypothesis UPA. One piece of evidence that seems to support the UPA is that the games aligned with A, not myself or L. Still, we need a wringer to run this through: do you have any ideas how we might reasonably test for the ICH vs. the UPA?
I agree, but why is that so? Each case and each atheist are unique. Some would lean towards the UPA for the simple reason that we begin with a “real” subject – the person purported to have the abilities. So be it. Yet, others would lean towards the UPA because it is the only acceptable conclusion besides the ICH, and entails the least amount of cognitive dissonance. I think the latter attitude compromises the search for truth.
nal,
Maybe, but what happens when we run that against Occam’s? Wouldn’t we hear it? Wouldn’t the engineers have thought of that sort of thing? I’ve never heard of TV warping at all much less to the degree required to perform this event; if that sort of thing were possible, wouldn’t we have heard of it by now, at least as much as warping cookie sheets in convection ovens? Another thing I though of was the games were not sitting directly atop the TV, but atop another component that was itself atop the TV – which was also metallic and theoretically retains the same possibility, of course – but so far, non-conscious explanations just don’t cut it, IMO. Per Occam’s,
I don’t know. Perhaps the subject matter was different. Perhaps this time, A’s sentiments were too spot-on to ignore. Perhaps the other times, whatever caused the event wasn’t there, or wasn’t interested. There could be many reasons why this time but not others, but is the fact that it occurred this time and not others constitute evidence against the “heard and responded” idea?
Dominic,
Let’s called the “undiscovered psychic abilities” hypothesis UPA. One piece of evidence that seems to support the UPA is that the games aligned with A, not myself or L. Still, we need a wringer to run this through: do you have any ideas how we might reasonably test for the ICH vs. the UPA?
I agree, but why is that so? Each case and each atheist are unique. Some would lean towards the UPA for the simple reason that we begin with a “real” subject – the person purported to have the abilities. So be it. Yet, others would lean towards the UPA because it is the only acceptable conclusion besides the ICH, and entails the least amount of cognitive dissonance. I think the latter attitude compromises the search for truth.
Well, if the place is haunted by an intelligence that reacts to conversations on the metaphysical, then ‘A’ could leave the house, and unexplained phenomenon may still happen when the circumstances are reproduced with different people in the room. ‘A’ may feel a bit left out, but he can rest assured that he’ll be staying sober for science! Cycle the members in the room, but still manage to attract the attention of an intelligent agent who flings video games, and you can then reasonably rule out its a detectable person in the room who is exerting the force (I say reasonably, because there’s still the possibility that there’s something unique about the house itself that confers psychic abilities to individuals residing within it…and don’t forget about the alcohol catalyst, but this is a whole ‘nother hypothesis, and its getting a bit silly, especially given how far out I’m going with this little UPA/ICH mental exercise).
On the other hand, if the phenomenon is reproducible only when ‘A’ (or any one specific individual) is around and talking about ghosts (and drinking), then I’d go with UPA.
Unfortunately, there simply is no perfectly (or even substantially) rigorous test than can be done, because you can’t test the intent of a ghost if that is the actual source of the phenomenon. This also happens to be the most damning aspect of theology (discerning the existence and intent of invisible creatures that you can’t interact with). Because what would qualify as UPA under all circumstances could just be a ghost who has a thing for following ‘A’ around. It’d be impossible to tell the difference.
Pardon the tangent here, but this really does cut to the heart (for me, at least), of what the real problem with religion is. It purports to be a different kind, or way, of knowing, that can discern the existence and intent of supernatural agents, something that science cannot do.
But given the problems one runs into given the scenario you’ve described above, this soundly exposes claim that religion is a different way of knowing as fraudulent.
I’ve seen it described by another with a boiling kettle analogy (I forget the man’s name…). If you go into a room and find a kettle of boiling water, science can tell you the composition of the water, its temperature, the exact placement of the kettle, etc, but it can’t tell you why the kettle was put there, and by whom. That’s where religion steps in. The problem with this being, though, there is absolutely no way to answer those questions (as illustrated above, when one is trying to discern between personal psychic powers or if one is simply being hounded by a ghost). Theologians who try and tell you that a man put the kettle to boil because he’s a swell chap who’s about to make you some tea are simply liars, plain and simple.
Ok, end tangent.
cl:
I don’t know, you provide so little information about the incident, it’s impossible to draw a reasonable conclusion, based solely on the information you provided. And then that information changes. First the boxes were on the TV, then they’re on some component that is not described. It is certainly not reasonable for the reader to accept the ICH hypothesis based on the information herein.
/Used blockquote. Will try “Preview.” “Preview” looks OK.
Dominic,
I pretty much agree with you as far as the impossibility of scientifically reproducible tests for spirits, but that doesn’t mean we can’t build strong cases for them, based on solid evidence, often times empirical evidence. This event must be accounted for, but that doesn’t mean we just get to make up whatever definitive explanation we choose. The way I see it, we now have four choices: my ‘music vibrations’ hypothesis, nal’s ‘warping’ hypothesis, your upa and my ich. While I can’t get my head around the music vibrations or warping hypothesis, that doesn’t mean one of the others wins by default. Whatever we choose to attribute the event to must certainly be justified by the evidence if our belief is to be justified. Problem is, as we’ve noted, the impossibility to tell the difference.
And if I might go on a tangent of my own, guess what? That turns out to be a perfect example of something DD berated me for considering in our discussion over there. When I asked him what we’re to do when the evidence reasonably supports more than one hypothesis, he implied I brought it up just so I could skirt my rational responsibilities. Hmph.[/tangent]
I think in this case, and literally thousands upon thousands of others even more bizarre than it, it is more rational to posit something like this upa or ich than that which traditional materialists are often committed to. Excluding A from the testing may not produce results if the spirit is familial; perhaps some relative of A’s that for whatever reason only connects with A. I hate to say it, but I think the naturalistic hypothesis requires the most faith of all.
I don’t think the problems demonstrate religion’s “different way of knowing” angle as fraudulent. Don’t get me wrong. I know people peddle snake oil by the boatload, but I don’t think the theologians are necessarily liars. After all, they sincerely believe what they’re offering, but even with all that aside, I think a person can investigate whether a man put the kettle to boil for his own self, with no need to take risks on charlatans.
nal,
Well, I don’t really think that’s the case. I provided a diagram, gave precise distances and locations and angles, considered an alternative hypothesis… I did a half-decent job, I thought. It’s not that I changed anything, it’s that your comment brought further details to mind. You know how lots of people keep the cable box atop their TV? That sort of thing. If I changed the information, I would have said something like, “Oh no, the games actually weren’t stacked when they landed,” right? You just made me recall a finer detail I probably never would have remembered were you not being a thorough cross-examiner. That’s a good thing.
While I’m not calling this event proof of anything, that’s what I think about the naturalistic hypothesis – that it’s not reasonable to accept in this case. So far, neither my original naturalistic hypothesis (the vibrations from the music) or your warping hypothesis seemed very promising.
I didn’t have time to read through all of the comments, but any Christian worth his/her salt cannot dismiss the possibility that there is a supernatural influence on society.
I, myself, have seen and experienced things that defy ‘rational’ explanation, and though I wasn’t there with you, your description seems to verify some form of supernatural presence.
It is possible to draw these entities to yourself, which is why scripture warns us not to dwell on them and/or their power. Admittedly, there is a certain ‘thrill’ associated with talking about the supernatural, but it’s still not recommended. The deception is often tailored to the target, i.e. what might not work on me might work on you. Things like seances, Ouija boards, Tarot cards, attempts to contact the dead… any form of divination is a pipeline to fallen beings, and they use these things as a way to gain entrance into your mind.
Alcohol does heighten one’s susceptibility to suggestion, even in small amounts, and even the presence of alcohol is an attractor. They don’t call it the “demon brew” for nothing! What kind of entertainment were you watching? Was it violent? Sexually explicit? All of the above? These are magnets for demons. Maybe there are other activities going on in your life or your friend’s like that is attracting these entities.
Inanimate objects don’t fly around the room on their own. Barring any other cause, and given the setting and conversation, you probably had a visitation. And, any display is meant as an attention-getter, they’re not clumsy. What you need to do, now, is ascertain why you had that visitation and take steps to eradicate any other possible cause for it to occur again.
You do NOT want these beings hanging around you, and WHATEVER you do, don’t try and converse with them! That is their primary “in”, and once in, they’re very difficult to get rid of.
I didn’t have time to read through all of the comments, but any Christian worth his/her salt cannot dismiss the possibility that there is a supernatural influence on society.
I, myself, have seen and experienced things that defy ‘rational’ explanation, and though I wasn’t there with you, your description seems to verify some form of supernatural presence.
It is possible to draw these entities to yourself, which is why scripture warns us not to dwell on them and/or their power. Admittedly, there is a certain ‘thrill’ associated with talking about the supernatural, but it’s still not recommended. The deception is often tailored to the target, i.e. what might not work on me might work on you. Things like seances, Ouija boards, Tarot cards, attempts to contact the dead… any form of divination is a pipeline to fallen beings, and they use these things as a way to gain entrance into your mind.
Alcohol does heighten one’s susceptibility to suggestion, even in small amounts, and even the presence of alcohol is an attractor. They don’t call it the “demon brew” for nothing! What kind of entertainment were you watching? Was it violent? Sexually explicit? All of the above? These are magnets for demons. Maybe there are other activities going on in your life or your friend’s like that is attracting these entities.
Inanimate objects don’t fly around the room on their own. Barring any other cause, and given the setting and conversation, you probably had a visitation. And, any display is meant as an attention-getter, they’re not clumsy. What you need to do, now, is ascertain why you had that visitation and take steps to eradicate any other possible cause for it to occur again.
You do NOT want these beings hanging around you, and WHATEVER you do, don’t try and converse with them! That is their primary “in”, and once in, they’re very difficult to get rid of.
Hey Gideon! I’d like to pursue our “eternal hell” conversation if you’re ever interested. I’ve responded to your response.
I agree. Did you get the impression that I was denying a possible supernatural influence in my friend’s house? If so, I wasn’t. The only thing I can say with certainty is that gravity *falls flat on its face as a proffered explanation (no pun intended).
I know, but don’t tell jim, SI, Evo or Philly. Stay tuned. I’m about to shift gears into, “Let’s share some anecdotes from cl’s involvement with the occult” years.