Yesterday soemone recommended this fascinating site about the most famous "direct voice" medium Leslie Flint.  The site is not biased in my opinion and shows how many scientists tried to prove him as a fraud but all failed miserably, Flint was even gagged and fored to hold a cup full of water in his mouth and the voices still came through clear as day.  The site features an amazing communications archive should you wish to hear the actual recordings that were made at Flint's seances

Site #1
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ewichm/dirvoic3.html

Site #2
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ewichm/deathnoe.html

I have to say, if you follow the links to the voice recordings of Oscar Wilde, they appear witty, sarcastic and authentic - really quite remarkable.  Now Elias claims he was Wilde in a recent incarnation (Wilde afterall did not perish that long ago).  Read and listen, and you will see this voice sounds like the witty author.   Elias sounds nothing like Wilde, on the tape.  I know the rebuttal will be that the essence is different than the specific person.  Yada yada yada.

Houdini debunked many people, if this was genuine, it bears listening to some more of these tapes.

Thanks for the post.

Matthew

Thank you so much for the links. The material is extremely interesting.
Could you please tell me whether you think the child's voice is genuine or not?.
It sounds to me like the voice of an adult male impersonating a child. The kind of voice you would hear in comedy sketches. I'm not saying this was taken out of a comedy sketch but that voice could have been faked by an adult.
This is the clip I'm talking about
http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/tracey.html
The rest of the recordings are absolutely fascinating but unfortunately the child's recording makes me now question the authenticity of all the voices.
What do you think?

Peace

SC

Intresting.

What i like about direct communication is, it's better then having someone merely pass on messages. It gives you more areas to judge/test.

I would like a living example though :(, someone who could be tested while being filmed. It allows you to see frame by frame, and therefore it is easier to see foul play.

The gag + the vocal cord moniter was a good idea though, but i would have liked it to be using more up to date technology, but i'll have a look around to see if i can find an experiement conducted closer to the end of his life.

Im not 100% trustworthy of the infomation which was piped through though.

They are all Nice messages,but alas, do not contain infomation which would prove there identity. They all say how wonderful the afterlife is, but they dont kind of say is somthing which few people would know, and to which the medium would have no clue of.

I also wonder why ectoplasim is not used very much these days?. It leads me to think that it was something which was believable before the invent of modern technology, and as doc said houdini did break alot of mediums.

Anyone who gives themselves over to be tested, gains respect in my book though.

It's hard to think of a way he could have produced such affects with his mouth full of water, unless the sitters were in on it?

Worth Studying. Thanks for the link.

The sound could have been projected from somewhere else, with a script into a darkened room.  So, his vocal cords would not have been important.  Houdini new all the tricks, and so could debunk most of these.  However, if this medium was tested by others, without the ability to set  up on his own, perhaps there was something to it.  

M

wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 9:03am:

Thank you so much for the links. The material is extremely interesting. Could you please tell me whether you think the child's voice is genuine or not?. It sounds to me like the voice of an adult male impersonating a child. The kind of voice you would hear in comedy sketches. I'm not saying this was taken out of a comedy sketch but that voice could have been faked by an adult. This is the clip I'm talking about http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/tracey.html">http://www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/tracey.html The rest of the recordings are absolutely fascinating but unfortunately the child's recording makes me now question the authenticity of all the voices. What do you think? Peace SC

Good point, i did'nt think there was any children on the other side? i thought we re-gained all our knowledge from which we have learned from previous lives?

That throws a big spanner in the works.

It does sound like a child though, he must be very good at doing voices, if it's not really done through paranormal meens.

Of course there are children who perish, and would identify with a child's ideas for a time.  

I'm glad you all liked it guys , I knew you would

Many psi scientists at the time accused Flint of all sorts of hocum, such as mental schizophrenia and dual or even multiple personalities.  I believe that Spitfire's theory on the audience being invloved is silly becuase it states from a BBC report investigating Flint's abilities that tests were done with Flint locked in the room with up to 3 different RESPECTED scientists and yet he still could produce these remarkable voices, emitted from what seemed to be an external voicebox made of ectoplasm.  According to Victor Zammit's website, Flint could also produce totally accurate facts such as dates, times etc. about the person who supposedly came through, Cold guessing and hot guessing were ruled out according to Zammit's site.

I am not 100% sure that any medium who claims to have a "famous" spirit talk to them is genuine as their memory of the person could get in the way, although nobody will ever be able to prove or disprove this theory.  I also don't fully believe that those ectoplasm photos should be trusted but there is one that sticks out in my mind to be 100% genuine as the technology to fake it in that particular way was not even invented yet.

The amazing photo
http://www.xs4all.nl/%7Ewichm/vboxstot.jpg


There is another page that I have found highly interesting that gives more detailed information about the tests that were carried out on Flint when he was alive to prove/disprove his ability, the sight clearly points out that he was genuine.

The site is
http://www.survivalafterdeath.org/experiments/direct-voice/flint.htm

I heard a childs voice while metating.First there was a white noice,than a voice saying do not be afried,what you have asked for you will receive.The sound came from my right ear.Love George

Jambo and all,

You raise an issue that I simply must comment on.
Periodically, I have recommended David Fontana's book, "Is There an Afterlife?   A Comprehensive Overview of the Evidence" as the most enthralling book of its kind.   The book contains nine lucid chapters on the evidential value of classical mediumship.   As disdainful as I am of popular "TV mediums" and modern channeled entities like Seth and Elias, the classical mediums discussed by Fontana are of a much higher order.  Particularly impressive are Fontana's chapters on independent voice phenomena (including Flint's mediumship), transdimensional communication devices (on which indepedent voices are recorded which can even give details like former social security numbers), and physical mediumship (psychokinesis, levitation).  

So not all channeling can be dismissed as ESP or fraud (conscious or unconscious).  At its best, channeling is either genuine or spirit impersonation of discarnate humans.   Remember that prior to the 19th century western revival of mediumship (e.g. the Fox sisters from Rochester, NY), channeling was usually credited to a god or a demon rather than a discarnate human.   Who is to say which of these sources is culturally biased misperception?  

The spirit impersonation theory derives support from various sources, most spectacularly from the exorcism that inspired the horror movie "The Exorcist."  The possession began when a lonely little boy, Robbie, (not a girl as in the movie) tried to use a Ouija board to contact his beloved deceased Aunt Harriet.  The possessing entity exploited Robbie's longing for contact and deceived him, gradually achieving a ghastly possession replete with the classical symptoms.  My former office was next door to a professor who personally  knew Father Bowdern, the priest who performed this famous exorcism.  Thomas Allen's book is based on Bowdern's diaries of the exorcism.  The book "Possessed: The True Story of an Exorcism").  recounts the supernatural phenomena accompanying the exorcism (e.g. teleportation and messages from Hell engraved on the boy's skin).  

Here is just one extended quote from Thomas Allen's book that illustrates the entity's gradual deception and possession of little Robbie:

"After six nights of squeaking shoes, Phyllis [the Mom] and Grandmother Wagner went into Robbie's room and lay with him on his bed.  They all heard the sound of moving feet, but the feet seemed to be marching to the beat of drums.  Up the bed, down the bed, up the bed, down..."

"Phyllis again waited, then said, `If you are Harriet, tell me positively by knocking 4 times.'  A pressure wave, and then a knock.  A wave.   A knock.  A wave.  A knock...A wave and the fourth knock.  Now below them, inside the mattress they lay on, they heard what seemed to be the scratching of a claw...they felt the sound undulating through the mattress...It was at that moment...that the mattress began to shake, gently at first, then violently.  When the shaking stopped, the edges of the bedcover flew out from under the mattress... The edges of the covers stood up above the surface of the bed in a curled form as though held up with starch (pp. 6-7).'"

Despite such cases, I oppose that standard Christian view that all such paranormal communications are demonic.  Why?  For the same reason that I oppose many New Age claims on this site: the justification for such a blanket dismissal of channeling is unfalsifiable even in principle and prematurely precludes further investigation.

A PERSONAL NOTE ON OUIJA BOARDS:

When I was a professor, a group of education professors approached me one day and asked what I thought of Ouija boards.  I admitted that its use can be harmless fun.  But I warned that many I knew had been badly burned by deceptive spirit contacts that were intially friendly but ultimately  revealed their evil demonic identity.  

The professors seemed distraught.  What they had concealed from me is this: they had already been playing with a Ouija board at a recent party and had eventually been terrorized by a spirit  allegedly from Hell.   My warning was consistent with their own experience!  

Don

P.S.  I know I sometimes come on strong, but the recent deletion of my post (and Rondele's) is unacceptable to me.   It's not that I object to posters "ratting us out."   But the thought police are highly selective in their censorship.   So why don't I "rat out" guys myself?  My honor code!  I may take my adversaries out to the metaphysical woodshed, but I will always respect their confidences in PMs and respect their right to vent, especially against me.   Perhaps, I should just admit that I'm a fish out of water here.  I must reassess whether I should continue posting, especially in the light of the censorship "dissing" of Rondele (my favorite poster on this board).      

wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 3:47pm:

A PERSONAL NOTE ON OUIJA BOARDS: When I was a professor, a group of education professors approached me one day and asked what I thought of Ouija boards.  I admitted that its use can be harmless fun.  But I warned that many I knew had been badly burned by deceptive spirit contacts that were intially friendly but ultimately  revealed their evil demonic identity.   The professors seemed distraught.  What they had concealed from me is this: they had already been playing with a Ouija board at a recent party and had eventually been terrorized by a spirit  allegedly from Hell.   My warning was consistent with their own experience!   Don P.S.  I know I sometimes come on strong, but the recent deletion of my post (and Rondele's) is unacceptable to me.   It's not that I object to posters "ratting us out."   But the thought police are highly selective in their censorship.   So why don't I "rat out" guys myself?  My honor code!  I may take my adversaries out to the metaphysical woodshed, but I will always respect their confidences in PMs and respect their right to vent, especially against me.   Perhaps, I should just admit that I'm a fish out of water here.  I must reassess whether I should continue posting, especially in the light of the censorship "dissing" of Rondele (my favorite poster on this board).

From Hell.....theres no proof such a place exists, or that theres any "evil demonic" spirits, merely mis guided souls, which apparently need help. Nor have i ever seen a case where someone has been burned by evil spirits.

I dont know who "ratted" you out, but at the end of the day, this is bruce's board, if he does'nt like me you or anyone else, he can kick us or delete our posts at any time he wants, this service is free, therefore not open to criticisim.

You should read your own posts and also look up the words "honor" and "respect", such words should not be applied to ones self so readily.

While i dont wish to argue with you, be assured i will if forced, at the end of the day, we cant all be right, all the of the time, and i think this is a lesson you would be wise to learn.

Spit, if you've read my posts, you'd realize that I don't prejudge (a) whether the spirits are evil discarnate humans (so Swedenborg) or demons (so e.g. Robert Bruce) or (b) whether they actually come from Hell or otherwise.  What is iniitally important is who they say they are and where they claim to come from, especially when the Ouija players don't even believe in Hell, as in the case of the education professors. Remember, though, that the reality of hellish planes is independently verified by NDEs, New Age astral adepts,  Swedenborg, the Bible, and most of channeling.   I don't know how one could determine whether or not these spirits are discarnate humans. We know so little about how much power can be generated by the unified efforts of the malevolent dead.

Last night, I scouted many of your past posts and, as a result, am even more eager to "get it on with you."    Still, I may not do so because I don't like "rats."   Of course, I know it's Bruce's board.    But my motto is: "To thine own self be true."  I regret nothing that I've posted.  

Don      

wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 9:06am:

Intresting. What i like about direct communication is, it's better then having someone merely pass on messages. It gives you more areas to judge/test. I would like a living example though :(, someone who could be tested while being filmed. It allows you to see frame by frame, and therefore it is easier to see foul play. The gag + the vocal cord moniter was a good idea though, but i would have liked it to be using more up to date technology, but i'll have a look around to see if i can find an experiement conducted closer to the end of his life. Im not 100% trustworthy of the infomation which was piped through though. They are all Nice messages,but alas, do not contain infomation which would prove there identity. They all say how wonderful the afterlife is, but they dont kind of say is somthing which few people would know, and to which the medium would have no clue of. I also wonder why ectoplasim is not used very much these days?. It leads me to think that it was something which was believable before the invent of modern technology, and as doc said houdini did break alot of mediums. Try reading this article. It explains some things about physical mediumship, and there's a bit in the article (second page) about why it's not so common these days. Anyone who gives themselves over to be tested, gains respect in my book though. It's hard to think of a way he could have produced such affects with his mouth full of water, unless the sitters were in on it? Worth Studying. Thanks for the link.

wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 5:49pm:

Thnx for the link GW, there explainations aint great for why ectoplasm aint being used anymore though.

During the last century, up until around the 1930's, physical mediumship was very common, and the strength and range of phenomena were amazing. Today, it is quite rare. There are two basic reasons for this:

One: Earlier on, when modern Spirit phenomena was relatively new, people needed to see. They needed objective evidence of Spirit's presence; thus, the preponderance of physical manifestations. As people began accepting the reality of mediumship and, then, yearning more for teaching and philosophy, the occurrence of physical mediumship began to lessen, while mental mediumship began to predominate. In other words, the needs of Humanity dictated how Spirit would respond to those needs -- always the case with Spirit.


Two: The development of physical mediumship can be a lengthy process; sometimes tedious, with nothing happening in the circle for months or even years; requires great commitment on everyone's part; and generally revolves around the development of one, maybe two, people in the circle, with the other people sitting to help them in their development.

Today, people are just not geared to putting this amount of time and effort -- sometimes totally selflessly -- into the development of any form of mediumship. In earlier years, sitting in circle was, often, what people did to socialize. Most of the great pioneer mediums began by sitting in a home circle. Today, this is simply not the case.

Thus, today, the occurrence, as well as the nature, of physical mediumship is nothing like it was a century ago. However, we have noticed during the last decade that there seems to be a resurgence of interest in physical mediumship and, consequently, a resurgence in the development of physical mediums. Where this will lead, only time will tell.

A picture is worth a thousand words, as they do say. and a big ball of goo that looks like a face telling me somthing, would get my attention rather more then someone telling me something about a relative, which i could pass off as a guess.

Point 2, i can except that - but theres people who do mediumship ever day, and the more you do the better you get. People can make a living from mediumship, and they can get paid for there talents far more so then the 1800's. So they have more practice which should lead to better skills, and you would think something with as much impact as ectoplasm, would be prefered to a few messages, and if it is the goal of mediums to prove the afterlife, you would think they would take this avenue.

Last night, I scouted many of your past posts and, as a result, am even more eager to "get it on with you."    Still, I may not do so because I don't like "rats."   Of course, I know it's Bruce's board.    But my motto is: "To thine own self be true."  I regret nothing that I've posted.

As i said, i did'nt "rat" you out. But If it means that much to you, pm bruce and ask him.

You can scout me out all you like, it does'nt matter, someone who can only insult through words, is a coward - and cowards disgust me.

The only reason you dont regret what you have posted, is because you are behind a computer screen, safe from the consequences of your actions.

Im sure your much more civil face to face.

"[Spit:] "Someone who can only insult with words is a coward--and cowards disgust me."
_______________________________

Ha!   Don't you wish I'd just offer ad hominems.  In fact, I've actually taught logic in college, though not for long.  It was not my specialization.   So if I engaged your arguments, I'd do so with ruthless logical precision.  I'd only make it personal if you did.   And as you can see, I enjoy holding up a mirror to rhetorical tactics like yours.  You can dish it out, but....Oh, why don't you just lighten up?   ;D
And why are so scared of fresh approaches to "the truth?"  

BTW, I used to be a soccer player and teammates considered me a confrontational kind of goon.  It wasn't by design though; I just kept hurting guys in awkward collisions I never anticipated.   But I wanted them to think it was deliberate!  Otherwise, they'd discover that I was just a tad clumsy!   I got injured sometimes too.

See you on March 1--or not!
Don

wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 7:11pm:

"[Spit:] "Someone who can only insult with words is a coward--and cowards disgust me." _______________________________ Ha!   Don't you wish I'd just offer ad hominems.  In fact, I've actually taught logic in college, though not for long.  It was not my specialization.   So if I engaged your arguments, I'd do so with ruthless logical precision.  I'd only make it personal if you did.   And as you can see, I enjoy holding up a mirror to rhetorical tactics like yours.  You can dish it out, but....Oh, why don't you just lighten up?   ;D And why are so scared of fresh approaches to "the truth?"   BTW, I used to be a soccer player and teammates considered me a confrontational kind of goon.  It wasn't by design though; I just kept hurting guys in awkward collisions I never anticipated.   But I wanted them to think it was deliberate!  Otherwise, they'd discover that I was just a tad clumsy!   I got injured sometimes too. See you on March 1--or not! Don

I fear few things, and i am open to any "fresh approachs to the truth" but you only like "the truth" when it fits in with your own "truth". Can you even entertain that god does'nt exist?.

Soccer aye?...a bit of shoving and leg to leg action, ive been an amatuer boxer for 5 years, im more used to broken jaws, and shattered eye sockets.

[Spit:] "Can you even entertain that God doesn't exist?"  
In my survey of your polemical posts,  I noticed one of your greatest debating weaknesses.   You make unjustified assumptions about your posting partners and their positions.   As I will perhaps demonstrate on March 1, your assumptions often cause your critique to unravel.  In logic we refer to this tendency as a lack of awareness of hidden premises.

In fact, I'm confident you've never met a poster as thoroughly trained in academic reasons NOT to believe in God.  Nothing is more devastating to faith than a PhD in religious studies from an Ivy league secular Religious Studies department.   One of the first things my professor/ advisor told me was: "You won't find many Jesus fans around here."   In debates, you must keep your assumptions close to the vest until they are borne out in your opponents' statements.  Otherwise, you just lead with your chin.  As an ex-boxer, you know that's a bad idea.  

BTW, another of your false assumptions seems to be that I'm mainly interested in winning.   In fact, I'm only interested in expanding the horizons of those I engage.   Your posts often criticize what you obviously don't understand (e.g. biblical teaching).  The first crucial step in a serious spiritual quest is an acknowledgement of what you don't know.  Most debaters blur the line between what they do and don't know.   Without that acknowledgement, there is no lasting growth.    

That does not mean you need to be shy and restrained.  Rather, you need to begin your posts with phrases like, "My understanding of biblical teaching about God is..."  No shame in that.   That way you open the door to correcting your misunderstanding.  Then ask more questions until you are confident you've grasped the point at issue.  Then, of course, you may or may not like the corrected version of the teaching.  

If you follow these two guidelines on March 1, our discussion may actually be quite cordial and productive.  I've summarized my overall position before and will briefly do it again.  In life theological understanding is the booby prize because it offers just enough spirituality to inoculate you against the real thing.  Personal experience of the divine is everything.  Living vicariously off of other people's miracle stories just creates a 2nd-hand spirituality that severely limits growth potential.   I share such stories not as an end, but only to evoke wonder and excite people's spiritual quest towards the transforming experiences that make the decisive difference.    

Don

P.S.  I may or may not stick around until March 1.    I still don't like "rats."   And I know it wasn't you.        

I too did not alert the administration.  However, I still think you (Don) could have thrown down the gauntlet/glove without the personal stuff.

To get back to the point.  I think that anyone who posts on this site with regularity eventually will show an open mind toward mystical expiences.  Even Spitfire.  Look at you, Spit now talking of spirits saying you hear they can't see their hands (on the other thread).  This from a sceptic who did not admit to belief in anything other than what he could touch/see/fee/hear/ or have proven in a controlled environment.

I like Don's idea that voice mediumship may be more rare due to it being a more difficult skill to cultivate.  

I'm not sure, if people do ascend to higher planes, then it would make sense to me that those best able to communicate would be those recently passed or closer to the earth plane (Focus 27 and under - especially Focus 23).  As one's ideas and perceptions change, one might imagine that manipulating media in the physical C1 plane might be more difficult to accomplish.  Just a theory.  That you must feel tied to the physical to want to communicate with the physical - to converse - the art of conversation about earthly matters takes a spirit who still, to some extent identifies with earthly things.  Of course Flint says he channeled Gandhi - someone who was selfless, full of love, and should be sitting on the right hand side of the lord almighty.  So maybe I'm wrong....if it were real.

Wilde says in his tapes that he doesn't want to disappoint anyone, but that his life on the other side is much like it was before his death.  Hmmm... and that Chopin still composes!

I am not sure what to make of it all.  In another post, I answered Spit's quesiton about my own experiences.  But I still feel many here have a yearning to explore more, travel more, in meditation and otherwise, and let their consciousness roam free.  We are all still very much a part of this reality though as the conflicts on the board show.

Matthew

wrote on Jan 9^th, 2006 at 8:13pm:

[Spit:] "Can you even entertain that God doesn't exist?"   In my survey of your polemical posts,  I noticed one of your greatest debating weaknesses.   You make unjustified assumptions about your posting partners and their positions.   As I will perhaps demonstrate on March 1, your assumptions often cause your critique to unravel.  In logic we refer to this tendency as a lack of awareness of hidden premises. In fact, I'm confident you've never met a poster as thoroughly trained in academic reasons NOT to believe in God.  Nothing is more devastating to faith than a PhD in religious studies from an Ivy league secular Religious Studies department.   One of the first things my professor/ advisor told me was: "You won't find many Jesus fans around here."   In debates, you must keep your assumptions close to the vest until they are borne out in your oppoents' statements.  Otherwise, you just lead with your chin.  As an ex-boxer, you know that's a bad idea.   BTW, another of your false assumptions seems to be that I'm mainly interested in winning.   In fact, I'm only interested in expanding the horizons of those I engage.   Your posts often criticize what you obviously don't understand (e.g. biblical teaching).  The first crucial step in a serious spiritual quest is an acknowledgement of what you don't know.  Most debaters blur the line between what they do and don't know.   Without that acknowledgement, there is no lasting growth.     That does not mean you need to be shy and restrained.  Rather, you need to begin your posts with phrases like, "My understanding of biblical teaching about God is..."  No shame in that.   That way you open the door to correcting your misunderstanding.  Then ask more questions until you are confident you've grasped the point at issue.  Then, of course, you may or may not like the corrected version of the teaching.   If you follow these two guidelines on March 1, our disciussion may actually be quite cordial and productive.  I've summarized my overall position before and will briefly do it again.  In life theological understanding is the booby prize because it offers just enough spirituality to inoculate you against the real thing.  Personal experience of the divine is everything.  Living vicariously off of other people's miracle stories just creates a 2nd-hand spirituality that severely limits growth potential.   I share such stories not as an end, but only to evoke wonder and excite people's spiritual quest towards the transforming experiences that make the decisive difference.     Don P.S.  I may or may not stick around until March 1.    I still don't like "rats."   And I know it wasn't you.

We all make assumptions. Yes i make assumptions, just like you do. And as you have even in your last post, such as

"'Imconfident you've never met a poster as thoroughly trained in academic reasons NOT to believe in God."

"BTW, another of your false assumptions seems to be that I'm mainly interested in winning.


You say you wish to expand others horizons, but after your polemical posts it seems your not willing to expand your own?.

As i have said on pervious posts, im not versed on the full bible, nor do i wish to be, it does not intrest me in the slightest, i do not believe it will enhance my "spiritual growth", therefore it's a waste of my time.

I cant be bothered to bounce back and foreward with 10000 word essays, "my understanding of the biblical teachings about god is...." can be nicely condensed to "God is...". You can save that for your academic papers.

Personal experience of the divine is everything. I have had none, the majoirty of the population has had none. How can you even try to convince others of a god, when it comes down to personal experience?, unless you can give me his phone number, and i can verify myself?

If second hand accounts limit spiritual growth, why do people base there lives upon the bible?

Would you even know about god without second hand accounts, the answer is no.

Tell me what "personal experiences" of god, convinced you of his/it's existance, i would be very intrested.

You said you were not gonna post until march the 1st. Since you have broken your word, i would recomend you "unleash" whatever you have now as i see no point for you to wait.

Spit,

A few years ago, I was attending an obligatory conference of United Methodist ministers.  Our superintendent boomed: "Don't make premature assumptions about people.  When you ass/u/me, you make an `ass' of `u' and `me.'"   It was a very conservative crowd; so I was shocked that he said this.  But I like his illustration.  

I like to be up front about each assumption so that they can be affirmed or denied.   Discussion proceeds effectively only if everyone's assumptions are clarified.   As you shall see, my own quest is open-ended with many loose ends.   We are both fellow travelers here.  

Like most Christians, you've displayed some understandable misconceptions about biblical teaching.  Don't worry.  I won't subject you to long lectures.  What I ordinarily prefer to do is to offer simple summaries.  Only when someone wants to challenge me do I prooftext my points in detail.  But as I said, it's experiences of the divine that you want--or at least paranormal experiences that demonstrate your potential for life-changing mystical experiences.    In this respect, I take the approach that has worked for myself and others in the past.   This involves a hefty dose of my own paranormal experiences and the questions they raise.   One must spproach spiritual issues in such a way that key cognitive barriers are removed.   You might be surprised at how easy it is to do this.

In couple of days, I fly across the continent to central British Columbia for 3 weeks.  My trip is part of the reason I want to postpone in depth discussion until March 1.   As you think of it, you might formulate a series of questions or contentions that seem important to you.  Believe or not, apart from certain basics, I prefer not to set the agenda for other people's quest.  But as I said, I've already collected several of your questions and comments from other posts.  Presumably, you would like me to begin with those.  My goal is not to get you to share my outlook or believe my spiritual experiences, but to help you have your own self-authenticating experiences.    

Dpn

You'll have to blame Bruce M. for that one I'm
afraid... he's been keeping up pretty well with
threads he doesn't like/thinks are in the wrong
place. (He's slapped my hand a time or two lately.)
A "rat"? What's up with this anway? You sound paranoid, buddy.
You'd better be packing some serious philosophical
artillery on March 1, Don... otherwise I fear you're
wasting your time. (And NO more name-calling, if
you please.) And Don...
I have yet to hear the Christian apologetic that I
couldn't demolish (or at least de-fang) in a sentence or two. Unlike your average "pool hall atheist" or tabloid/Reader's Digest-reading schlub, I've got my Christian theology down pretty well.
Just lettin' ya know...
BTW, those "self authenticating experiences" you speak of had better be more than listening to Christians tell their miracle stories, combined with "fear-tizzies" invoked by threats of Hell-fire. They'd better not involve resorting to FAITH either, or so much as the merest whiff of legalistic "rationalizing." Otherwise, they'll just go into my "mental trash-bin" along with Rapture theology and all the other arguments people have thrown at me since I was 16 years old...

B-man