Supernatural Encounters

[gerren]

Just a minute ago, I was debating with my mother about the earth being populated by incest because Adam and Eve were the only beings and their children had to have commited some form of incest (or the bible never states that God created other people). Suddenly, the shoe-rack on the door to the closet on the opposite side of the room made a noise. I quickly looked over and saw it sway back about 4 inches to hit the door and make two bumping sounds (the first one was louder than the second, obviously). I asked my mom if she had seen/heard it, and she told me that she thought that something had fallen on the floor. So I went to the shoerack on the door (which is full of shoes and couldnt have possibly been moved that far out by the ceiling fan, which i observed to see for about 5 minutes). Then I looked around the door, behind it, and around for things that could have possibly caused the shoe-rack to move and make the sounds. I came up with nothing, and I'm sure that nothing besides a supernatural force could have moved it based on my observations. I pulled it back a few inches (about 8 times) at different variations, and let go of the door to imitate the same sounds that I heard and the same things I saw, and it took quite a few inches to get this. My hypothesis is that some supernatural being could have pulled it back and let go as I did. I also think that it is especially peculiar that this happened as I was basically speaking out against the bible/God. Maybe God/supernatural force was trying to tell me that there are forces higher than human beings, and maybe God was trying to provoke me to actually include him in my decisions about religion.

The only thing I am sure of is that the shoe-rack couldnt have been moved by the wind i.e. anything in the room at the time. What are your thoughts about this??? Ive also had another experience, except it was more direct and much more "hell i believe that shit because i just saw it with my own two eyes!!!!". (i was in the bathtub at the age of 7 and saw a glowing white foot and and a stomach and some other human features in a white gound step foot into the bathroom) After seeing this i ran out of the bathroom naked and screaming for my life (im not crazy, and no, just because this happened at this age doesnt mean that my imagination was so active or i was so lonely that my brain decided to create some creepy woman at my bathroom entrance). Another peculiar thing about this is that this happened shortly after my grandmother died and this foot/woman/stomach and gound were all about the same as my grandmohter's features. I know im not crazy, and no i dont need help you guys. this is real and now im not an atheist, a deist, or agnostic...frig idk what to believe! Give me feedback and list some experiences you might have had that could be supernatural

[Nick]

Holy shit, a shoe rack moved! A God must exist!!

Is that your logic here?
Since you weren't actually looking at the shoe rack, you don't know what moved it. If it just up and moved, that would be wierd.

[PWrong]

Another peculiar thing about this is that this happened shortly after my grandmother died and this foot/woman/stomach and gound were all about the same as my grandmohter's features.

That's not peculiar at all, in fact that's the explanation for what you saw. You had an overactive imagination brought on by your grandmother's death. That doesn't mean you were crazy, death affects people in a lot of ways. Besides, I don't think the church believes in ghosts.

I can't think of any likely explanation for the shoe-rack thing, because I wasn't there and I don't know what else was in the room or how well you analysed the problem. But I can think of a lot of unlikely explanations. Maybe there was some animal hiding in the house, or even a person. Even if it was something supernatural, it wasn't necessarily the christian God. All the abrahamic religions believe the adam and eve story. It could also have been some other deity who had some other purpose in mind. Maybe it was the goddess Athe, telling you to convert to Atheism .

Btw, christians have an explanation for the whole incest thing. Supposedly you couldn't get mutations and stuff from incest back then. God invented them some time after he drowned almost all of his children, in his infinite mercy. Here's a list of biblical references to incest.

[gerren]

Trust me, there was nothing in the room that could have moved it. i gave the door a 360 degree angle look, and there is no explanation for it. I'm not saying that it was God, just a supernatural force. Also, for the overactive imagination, i really wasnt that struck by my grandmother's death, and I probably hadnt thought about it for a month then. When i told my mom about the incident, she reminded me that those were the features of my grandmother.

Also, remember that i tested the shoe rack and the door (the shoe rack is basically parallel to the door and rests upon it), there was no way that anything in the room could have moved it. And no, there were no animals/people in the room.

Also, irockyou, I did happen to get a very good glimpse at the bottom part of the shoerack falling down onto the door, so yes it was a visual/hearing type of observation. Trust me Pwrong, i analyzed the situation with as much depth as anyone would, and if i did happen to imagine it then my mother would have had to also, and remember that she thought that the sound was something dropping on the floor. The shoe-rack hitting the door is a very distinctive sound because if you know what knocking lightly on the door sounds like and then you actually see it, then it becomes a very real thing.

[Hugh]

Just a minute ago, I was debating with my mother about the earth being populated by incest because Adam and Eve were the only beings and their children had to have commited some form of incest (or the bible never states that God created other people).

Didn't Cain go into the Land of Nod and find his wife there, and have his children there with her? I think there may have been other people in the Land of Nod. There were enough people there for Cain and his wife to found a city there.

[papernuke]

Trust me, there was nothing in the room that could have moved it.

But what if the rack was unbalanced, and it fell off when you were in the room?

[gerren]

No, the rack was not off balance, and if it had fallen down then that would have been more weird (because it has been barely touched or even moved for that matter in some time). So, it didnt fall, the last two shoeholders moved forwards and backwards about twice and hit the door.

[PWrong]

Also, for the overactive imagination, i really wasnt that struck by my grandmother's death, and I probably hadnt thought about it for a month then.

It could still have been in your subconcious. Seven is very young, who knows what was going on in your mind? Imagination is a powerful thing, even in adults. If your subconcious is looking for an excuse to believe in something, it's even stronger.

I don't know about the shoe rack thing. What does your mum think happened? You said she thought it sounded like something dropping on the floor, as opposed to hitting the door.

[gerren]

I asked my mom if she heard anything (just so that i could assure myself that i wasnt going crazy). This happened as she was bending off of her bed to get something off of the floor, and she told me that at that moment she though the noise could have been something falling on to the floor. Her reaction was not that significant, and she told me that it may or may not be God. She proposed that it could even be a demon. Her point was that she didnt know what exactly caused the shoe rack to do that. She told me that I was getting to the age where i could either be Atheist or religious, and that now i should make my own decisions and choose my path in life. So, in essence, she heard it, i saw and heard it, and she didnt make as big of a deal of it.

[Nick]

No offense...

Your mother is an excellent example of how religious ideas is holding back science; instead of seeking to find out why the shoe rack moved, she simply accredits it to religion and lets that be that.

[gerren]

Well, my mother was raised in a church, so she didnt proceed to find out what happened through science and observations. Actually, she didnt care about it, whether it was controlled by supernatural powers or not. Her statements were just thoughts off of the top of her head about the shoe rack. Religion can no longer hold science back. Science can hold religion back, though.

[Nick]

Science can hold religion back

How can science hold religion back if religion hasn't done anything new forever? That's the thing, see; science changes. Religion is set in stone.

[gerren]

n/m, i just meant that now-a-days religion cant hold back science because science is actually advancing. So, science holds religion back because religion really cannot contend very well with science since it was created (christianity) 2000 yrs ago. Also, there was nothing in my paragraph about my mother's reaction that was overly religious. She said that it "could" be a demon, and as i have said before, that was off the top of her head.

[Nick]

Bush refused to fund stem cell research because of his religious beliefs.

[PWrong]

Trust me, there was nothing in the room that could have moved it.

Couldn't it have escaped the room before you looked? I'm guessing it was a neighbours cat.

I think the problem with your conclusion is that if there was something supernatural in the room, it didn't have to knock over the shoe rack, it could have done anything. It could have made any kind of noise, or knocked something else over, made a hole in the wall, or even set fire to the shoe rack and the rest of the house. So the probability of it doing something as boring as knocking over a shoe rack is pretty low. Most natural explanations can only do so many things. e.g. a cat couldn't do anything (at least while you're outside the room) except knock over things and meow.

[gerren]

YEAH< um i know that there was nothing else in the room. Either way, the probability of there being something supernatural in the room was high, big or not. Also, things such as houses burning down and such are what you might see in the movies, and if there was a supernatural force I wouldnt know its true motive.

Also, what do stem cells have to do with the supernatural??? Would you kill a embryo (future person/baby) to possibly cure someone who has lived their life to a farther extent than the embryo??? I wouldnt. It seems very unethical to me. but as far as researching the pluripotent and multipotent cells, im all in, as it doesnt affect anyone's life. The only thing you have to do is take the umbilical cord and there you have a bunch of pluripotent stem cells. I wouldnt fund the extraction of totipotent cells from the blastula of an embryo, as that is just like killing someone. But then again you have cloning to help, but thats another thread.

[Nick]

According to the Bible, there is no life in a baby until blood has formed. According to Science, there is no life if there is no consciousness. Stem cells meet both of these, therefore you aren't destroying life by saving life.

[papernuke]

According to Science, there is no life if there is no consciousness.

Wait, so if a guy gets hit on the head, then he's dead? Until he regains consciousness?

[gerren]

Good point, Icon. Anyways, I guess we just dont see eye to eye on this issue, just as some people come to a certain amount of information and decide if they want to be atheist or christian. Personally, I woulnt sabotage a soon to be life for someone's malpractice or disease. If that person needs the totipotent or pluripotent stem cells, then theyre shit out of luck in my book. It doesnt seem like a fair trade at all to me. Actual Life for quality of life? No, not a fair trade at all. And, why bring up the bible? Im atheist, remember?

[PWrong]

According to the Bible, there is no life in a baby until blood has formed. According to Science, there is no life if there is no consciousness.

That's not true. In most countries, death is legally defined as being equivalent to brain death, i.e. the complete and irreversible cessation of brain activity. A fetus has no brain activity, but has the potential for it.

The argument against abortion/stem cell research goes like this:

1. It is always wrong to kill an innocent human being
2. A fetus is an innocent human being
3. Therefore it is wrong to kill a fetus

The logic is correct, and premise 2 is correct. The problem is with premise 1. I believe that not only is it ok to kill a fetus, but in extreme circumstances it's permissible to euthanise a baby, or anyone in sufficiently severe and permanent pain.

[gerren]

Well, I am generally speaking of the blastula/morula stage of the baby, and also its even worse to kill a baby that has much more potential than 16 cells! Whoever the person is has lived their life to an extent farther than the baby has or ever will! Think of it like this---would you kill something that had the potential to live a life to save some 40 yr old man who has already lived their life somewhat? Also, if the person is in so much pain and is willing to kill for their quality of life, why dont they just kill themselves or call Dr. Kevorkian?

[Nick]

@Icon: the guy used to have consciousness. Therefore, unless there is no brain function, he is still alive.
@Gerren: "It is good to be open-minded, but no so much that our brains fall out" - Richard Dawkins.
@PWrong: I disagree, a fetus is not an innocent human being.

In most countries, death is legally defined as being equivalent to brain death

A person who has previously existed is going to be braindead unless you use a tiny embryo that has never experienced life.

[PWrong]

Also, if the person is in so much pain and is willing to kill for their quality of life, why dont they just kill themselves or call Dr. Kevorkian?

Maybe I should point out that I'm also pro-euthanasia. The diseases that require stem-cell research aren't the same as the ones that require euthanasia. Life has no inherent value. Neither does potential life.

@PWrong: I disagree, a fetus is not an innocent human being.

Ok, so apart from the position relative to its mother, what's the difference between a 9 month old fetus, and a newborn baby?

[Nick]

Ok, so apart from the position relative to its mother, what's the difference between a 9 month old fetus, and a newborn baby?

A 9 month old fetus does not think for itself or perform any bodily functions; its survival is soley dependent on the mother. A newborn (healty) baby will cry because it's starting to think and act on its own.

Life has no inherent value.

I disagree, Communist.

[bo198214]

A 9 month old fetus does not think for itself or perform any bodily functions;

What an incredible nonsense. Never heard of the heart beat of a non-born?
The bodily functions change by birth. They dont just start at birth.

What regards thinking: The new-born does not think more or less than the 9 month unborn. What evidence you have that thinking starts at birth? I mean you surely can not remember what you thought directly after you were born. So if we assume that we forgot it, or that it is unconscious, the same applies to the state before birth.

[gerren]

Actually, babies can think before birth (well before it, actually). Do you think that there is a switch that says "think at birth"??? NO! Besides, my biology teacher was telling us today about how when she had amnioscentesis done on her during pregnancy, her daughter (who was around 18 weeks old) tried to snatch at the needle while in the amniotic sack. But even more, a fetus should get as much recognition for life itself as a morula or blastula should, as they both will bring life to the earth in a matter of months. I wouldnt want to take that chance away from a baby... Would you??? I support the research of multipotent stem cells and lower. Pluripotent---maybe, but that also seems very risky. Murder. Think about it.


BUSH is an idiot.

[PWrong]

I disagree, Communist.

Sif communist. I'm a utilitarian.

So are you opposed to euthanasia?

[Nick]

I am not opposed to Euthanasia.

So basically, what your saying gerren, is that Stem Cell transplants are OK if the baby or the mother is going to die anyway in the process?

[gerren]

If in the process of the development of the baby and it is a SURE thing that one will die, rendering the baby helpless either way, then i wouldnt mind using the baby for research. Also, it is possible to research stem cells without actually killing the baby, you know. Also, i think that George Bush may have been speaking of his ethical and moral beliefs rather than religious beliefs, as he is an idiot and the two can often be mixed up.

[papernuke]

If in the process of the development of the baby and it is a SURE thing that one will die

What will die? Its parents?