"And no religion, too"

[Foxfyre]

After some back and forth, you then said the experience was real but that Christ was not. And then you presumed to suggest that what I and others experienced is not real either.

Which brought us back to my original thesis that I am certain that I have experienced God/Christ and have a relationship with God/Christ. I believe that other rational and thoughtful people who testify to a relationship with God/Christ are also in an authentic relationship.

Based on what you have posted here, I can accept that you thought you were in a relationship but actually were not. And you came to a point that you realized that.But it is still illogical to dismiss the testimony of that cloud of witnesses purely based on your not having the same experience that they have had.

Why do you feel a need to consistently misrepresent my posts and experiences? Is bearing a false witness about other people something that is condoned in your faith?

Is it too much to ask that you behave in an ethical fashion? You have yet to respond to the question I asked, but I will ask it again:

Are the spiritual experiences of hindus, muslims, buddhists and pagans less real than yours?

If you specifically show me where I misrepresented your posts in any place, I will happily make any correction and apologize if you will post the specific quotes in context please. I hate it when others misrepresent what I say and I try very hard not to do that to others.

If you can show that I have been unethical in anything I have said, I will also own up to that. I try very hard to be ethical in everything I do.

And I didn't answer your question because (I think) somebody else did and I did not see that it was relevant. But the short answer is I don't KNOW whether anybody else's experience is real. Only THEY know what they are experiencing. I can't speak for anybody else's experience. Only my own. Nor do I dismiss what other people tell me they experience and I do not judge them for what they say they experience.

But I will likely point out illogical and contradictory statements when they are pertinent to a discussion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Also Catz, I do apologize if I have offended you. I enjoy a good give and take debate, but I do not enjoy an angry argument. I was serious that if you feel I misrepresented anything you said at anytime, I will acknowledge that. I try very hard not to do that. And I am pretty sure I did not lie at any time, but would appreciate an opportunity to clarify my statement if I said something that looked like a lie to you.

To help you out, here is the entire exchange. I did leave out two or three of your comments that were directed to other people and did not relate to this subject. Every statement I said, however, is here.

OP

Man Made God | Science and religion: God didn't make man; man made gods - Los Angeles Times

Good editorial.

Beyond psychological adaptations and mechanisms, scientists have discovered neurological explanations for what many interpret as evidence of divine existence. Canadian psychologist Michael Persinger, who developed what he calls a "god helmet" that blocks sight and sound but stimulates the brain's temporal lobe, notes that many of his helmeted research subjects reported feeling the presence of "another." Depending on their personal and cultural history, they then interpreted the sensed presence as either a supernatural or religious figure. It is conceivable that St. Paul's dramatic conversion on the road to Damascus was, in reality, a seizure caused by temporal lobe epilepsy.

The better we understand human psychology and neurology, the more we will uncover the underpinnings of religion. Some of them, like the attachment system, push us toward a belief in gods and make departing from it extraordinarily difficult. But it is possible.


We can be better as a species if we recognize religion as a man-made construct. We owe it to ourselves to at least consider the real roots of religious belief, so we can deal with life as it is, taking advantage of perhaps our mind's greatest adaptation: our ability to use reason.

Imagine that.

Post #20

Yes, imagine that. Though "reason" suggests otherwise. We look at the world around us and see that overall mankind, sins. This isn't no utopia; two world wars in the last 100 years alone. (We all can and/or do things wrong, hurt each other, etc). Just why is that?

In answer to your question, first, I don't believe in the concept of sin. So, I don't see sin when I look around me. I see curious primates with violent tribalistic tendencies and opposable thumbs. That's the answer to your question.

Post #21

We don't need to talk. Are you happy where you are? I'm happy where I am. What's to talk?

If you can't handle/don't want to hear opposing opinions, why post on a debate forum?

Post #27

Maybe you have never been hurt or suffered loss as an innocent? There are things that we may even only do in blindness that are very hurtful to others, then there are things we do with no justification, intentionally, that are very hurtful to others.

What part of my answer did you fail to understand? I don't believe in the concept of sin. We are primates. There is no bogeyman in the sky deciding what is right and what is wrong. We make it up as we go along, just like we made him up.

Post #36

If you can't handle/don't want to hear opposing opinions, why post on a debate forum?

Why not? People come here for all manner of reasons, and say all manner of things. HE set the boundary, and it's not likely to happen.

You are the person who has half of the forum on ignore. The ignore function is for spineless pantywaists who want an echo chamber and not a conversation.

Post #38

And you avoided answering why you only pulled my comment, and not that which I was responding to.

Here's the comment I was responding to:

In this thread? Echo Zulu is good peeps. The rest have behaved so badly and often that I have them on ignore. (*Except TS1*)

Post #49

I know that I didn't invent God because I have experienced God. I do believe humankind invents a lot of the dogma, rites, rituals, liturgy, trappings, pomp, and ceremony that goes into the practice of religion, but I don't think the God I know minds. It is our best efforts to please Him and sometimes we can't figure out any better way that feels right to us.

I think in the end, when we step into the next life, he is going to be pretty unimpressed with our theology, but he will appreciate how hard we try to please Him and live our lives in a way that respects Him.

I thnk He hates how we sometimes use the trappings of religion to criticize and accuse each other. But it is a very big world and He is a very big God able to handle all our idiosyncracies.

And as for all our friends who are so fanatical and/or passionate in their zeal to prove that He doesn't exist? I think that is pretty good proof that something is there or they wouldn't try so hard.

Post #71

The religious are entitled to believe whatever they wish, and this is not an issue for the most part.

Unfortunately there are a significant number of religious individuals who feel compelled to foist their faith on others in some pathetic need for religious justification – where non-believers can’t be ‘tolerated.’

This type of religious extremism will often manifest itself in efforts to inject religious dogma into secular laws – effecting both the faithful and those free from faith.

Such violations of the Establishment Clause will be fought in the courts; it’s incumbent upon the religious to obey the Constitution and refrain from attempts to codify religious dogma if conflict is to be avoided.

Yes there are a certain number of religious who would foist their religion on others given the opportunity to do so. Certainly it is a goal of Islam to make the whole world Muslim and make Sharia Law the law for everybody. There are Christians who would tell us that God wants us to have this or that law. And there are Atheists who want all religious, most especially Christians and any evidence of them, to be out of sight and earshot or at least stay in their place at the back of the bus. And there are those who would dictate to us what sort of automobile we should drive, what foods we must not feed our children, what language we must or must not use in reference to certain groups, what we must recycle, or even what sort of light bulbs we should be allowed to use.

We have a Constitution, which when followed to the letter of its intent, protects us from the intentions of all these people leaving them to whatever otherwise harmless opinions or prejudices they may hold. Those who would deny people we disagree with a voice are far worse than any who attempt to persuade us about anything.

And isn't that what the separation of church and state is really all about? Short of defending unalienable rights of each citizen, the State does not interfere with anybody's religious beliefs or practices. And no religious group or any other ideologically motived group may have power to dictate their religious 'law' or policy to anybody else.

Post #84

Well I'm sad for you that your faith is so weak you're too afraid to say what you believe on a completely anonymous message board. Shortcomings are what people have when they judge others for having different religious views than themselves, now who would that be in this conversation.......................................

I don't feel the least bit foolish, the overwhelming majority of people in the US and on this forum are christians.

Well they claim to be christians.
But they are not really unless they fully follow the teachings of Jesus.

Really? While not claiming any particular Biblical expertise, I am pretty familiar with the content of the Bible, and I don't recall your definition of Christian appearing anywhere in it. My definition of Christian is one who has a relationship with the Christ--he or she knows that He is of God, from God, the divine Son of God, and/or is God and has accepted the salvation that he offers us all.

Nowhere in there is any suggestion that Christians do not remain human or that we all do not sin and fall short. If we were capable of being perfect we wouldn't have needed a Saviour.

Post #95

Nothing specific, just life experience with people who don't believe in god, you wouldn't be able to make ignorant bigotted negative assumptions about all of us if you had such experience.

Ah~ more of your assumptions. You really need to be more aware of how much and how often you rely on assumptions. It is another of your shortcomings.

If you ASSumed that I haven't lived and worked with quite a few atheists you were (again) wrong. Some of my best friends have been cowed by secularism like you have.

What's the next assumption on your check list? Or is it time to bring out another straw man?

Many people have not believed in or experienced God before they then believed. These people can relate to both nonbelievers and believers alike as they know first hand what it was like to walk in such sandals.

Those who have never experienced God, however, have no knowledge but that. And they are hardly in a position to know what it is to have a relationship with the living God or to dismiss the experience of those who have such a relationship.

Post #109

That's your opinion.

There's no evidence that it's true.

You're claiming that there is no evidence that we're primates? REALLY? Some things are factual, and can be proven. One fact is that we share between 95-98% genetic similarity with other primates.

The often-quoted statement that we share over 98% of our genes with apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans) actually should be put another way. That is, there is more than 95% to 98% similarity between related genes in humans and apes in general. (Just as in the mouse, quite a few genes probably are not common to humans and apes, and these may influence uniquely human or ape traits.) Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85% similarity but a lot of variation from gene to gene (e.g., some mouse and human gene products are almost identical, while others are nearly unrecognizable as close relatives). Some nucleotide changes are “neutral” and do not yield a significantly altered protein. Others, but probably only a relatively small percentage, would introduce changes that could substantially alter what the protein does.

Functional and Comparative Genomics Fact Sheet

Perhaps you should learn the difference between fact and opinion. I don't believe in sin because there is zero evidence of the existence of "sin." There is strong evidence, however, that we are primates, and we share not only genetic tendencies with other primate species, but we share behavioral tendencies with them.

Primates are curious, experimental (learn by doing), and tribal. They are also violent. These behaviors are all well-documented.

Post #114

Many people have not believed in or experienced God before they then believed. These people can relate to both nonbelievers and believers alike as they know first hand what it was like to walk in such sandals.

Those who have never experienced God, however, have no knowledge but that. And they are hardly in a position to know what it is to have a relationship with the living God or to dismiss the experience of those who have such a relationship.

I was a believer for 30+ years. I had spiritual experiences on a daily basis. I concluded, however, after a critical examination of my faith that it was not logical and did not hold together evidentially, and I left the Christian faith back around 2003. I am no longer a Christian, but I still have spiritual experiences.

Your paradigm is limited. Many of us who are non-believers used to be as "faithful" as you.

Post #116

\
You really think that because you're passive-aggressive, you're not bashing?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/182545-and-no-religion-too-5.html#post4071798

You're alone in your belief.

If you claim that Drock is anti-CHRISTIAN, please feel free to provide evidence of these claims. Suggesting that there is zero evidence that proves Christianity is a simple statement of fact, it isn't bashing Christians.

However, since you enjoy proving negatives, please let us know when you quit beating your wife.

Post #123

Sounds like your Faith was in your perception of what you thought God was. It was tested, and you came up short, and you gave up on God. When We choose to believe in something like God, something greater than our comprehension, we accept that we are neither in control, or the final word, just along for the ride, the experience. Do we put Faith in God living in the present, seeing through our own eyes, or continue to jump through hoops, seeing through the eyes of others. Be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth. Witness and tell the truth about what you see, from your own unique perspective. It's a start. We learn as we go. Christianity, like similar Faiths, is a path that transforms, brings into harmony and communion, it is a refining, a process, we go through in life that makes us each better for having gone through it, each test, each stumbling block. Whatever your faith, choose Conscience, feed it, learn from it. There is no harm in that. Learn to trust it, and It will lead you to salvation, enlightenment. The blind cannot lead the blind, each of us has the ability to discern right from wrong, that is what we should be encouraging in each other, inside the Christian perspective or beyond it.

I understand that within your paradigm, you must dismiss my life experiences and attempt to diminish the role that my faith played in my life. It must be me, and not your religion, which fell short. But, having said that, your post is stupid. You know nothing about me, you know nothing about my life, and you have no idea what you're talking about.

I researched the historical roots of Christianity. I found that there was almost zero evidence that Christ actually lived. The evidence that did exist was highly suspect and questionable. There wasn't a single copy of the new testament that was newer than 200 years after the supposed death of your messiah (Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts).

Even the name Jesus Christ is a false creation. There was no one called Jesus Christ. The name would have been Joshua, and the term Christ is a later creation.

You have faith, but in what? A figment of mythology.

Post #125

Can't tell if srs.

Am.

Am familiar with a S. Baptist church that split over whether the church would purchase a microwave for the kitchen. Was a member of a S. Baptist church that split over whether women would be allowed to teach adult sunday school classes and handle the financial accounts.

Post #151

IIt's that we believe that life experience can be misleading and lead people to the wrong conclusions. People often have skewed perceptions and make mistakes because they either don't have all the information or they have a bias. Christians believe that when it comes to God, MAN is often (usually) incorrect and imperfect...but God never is. Error comes from man, not God. And Satan works to foster doubt. Man's arrogance and innate desire to be on the same level as God, and to define God according to our own limited view, is well known and proven.

When believers hear "I know there's no God because evidence points to the contrary" we know we're listening to somebody who thinks the power of their own perception and their own knowledge surpasses all else. It's arrogance purse and simple, the bible addresses it SPECIFICALLY and repeatedly, and predicted that as time passed, more and more people would cling to false knowledge and wisdom. It's addressed in the bible, and actually acts as more evidence of the inerrancy of the bible.

I understand what you believe. What you don't appear to understand is that i used to believe it myself. You know very little about what I believe, and I suspect, strongly, on the basis of your posts, that you've done very little critical examination of your own faith. If your faith can't withhold the same scrutiny that you direct at atheism, it isn't worth the paper it is printed on.

Suggesting that the bible is inerrant, because it says it is inerrant, is illogical. John claims that Christ was the logos (word). Logos is the root of the word logic. Word doesn't just mean word as in the noun, a word, but it means the source of all words, the root source of all words and all reasoning. It is absurd to claim that God would be illogical if he is the source of logos. Your use of circular reasoning does a disservice to your faith. God would not have given you a brain if he didn't want you to use it. Although, I admit, it appears that he gave you a rather flawed one.

Beyond that, the strongest proponents of inerrancy are generally those with the least familiarity with the Bible's rather patchwork history.

Dismissed.

Post #156

Thanks for proving my point. You're too arrogant and wrapped up in your own worth to listen.
Dismissed.

I know. How dare I ask that faith be addressed in a logical fashion. The horror.

Post #157

Logic has to be based on far more than a single anecdotal personal experience. Such an experience can legitimately raise questions as to facts within the big picture, but cannot be used as a logical conclusion that everybody shares the same experience.

I have a personal relationship with Christ/God that at one time I tried hard to dismiss and deny but it is real for me. Once you have experienced that relationship there is no question in your own mind of its validity. I also believe that it can be real for everybody who wants it, but I cannot prove it to anybody else because it must be experienced. It is not logical to hold my experience up as the way it is or will be for everybody. I can testify to what I have experienced as millions of others have done, but in the end, just as the taste of chocolate or strawberries must be experienced to fully know what they taste like, each person has to experience God for himself or herself.

I do think, given such a great cloud of witneses, however, that those who dismiss the testimony of so many are not being logical. It is illogical to disbelieve something simply because we do not wish to believe it.

Post #159

Logic has to be based on far more than a single anecdotal personal experience. Such an experience can legitimately raise questions as to facts within the big picture, but cannot be used as a logical conclusion that everybody shares the same experience.

I have a personal relationship with Christ/God that at one time I tried hard to dismiss and deny but it is real for me. Once you have experienced that relationship there is no question in your own mind of its validity. I also believe that it can be real for everybody who wants it, but I cannot prove it to anybody else because it must be experienced. It is not logical to hold my experience up as the way it is or will be for everybody. I can testify to what I have experienced as millions of others have done, but in the end, just as the taste of chocolate or strawberries must be experienced to fully know what they taste like, each person has to experience God for himself or herself.

I do think, given such a great cloud of witneses, however, that those who dismiss the testimony of so many are not being logical. It is illogical to disbelieve something simply because we do not wish to believe it.

I guess you missed the part where I had a relationship with Christ for many years, and didn't wish to stop believing. But, thanks for playing.

This is the shit that gets annoying with you people. You are so busy parroting back your paradigms that you simply don't listen.

Post #160

Logic has to be based on far more than a single anecdotal personal experience. Such an experience can legitimately raise questions as to facts within the big picture, but cannot be used as a logical conclusion that everybody shares the same experience.

I have a personal relationship with Christ/God that at one time I tried hard to dismiss and deny but it is real for me. Once you have experienced that relationship there is no question in your own mind of its validity. I also believe that it can be real for everybody who wants it, but I cannot prove it to anybody else because it must be experienced. It is not logical to hold my experience up as the way it is or will be for everybody. I can testify to what I have experienced as millions of others have done, but in the end, just as the taste of chocolate or strawberries must be experienced to fully know what they taste like, each person has to experience God for himself or herself.

I do think, given such a great cloud of witneses, however, that those who dismiss the testimony of so many are not being logical. It is illogical to disbelieve something simply because we do not wish to believe it.

I guess you missed the part where I had a relationship with Christ for many years, and didn't wish to stop believing. But, thanks for playing.

This is the shit that gets annoying with you people. You are so busy parroting back your paradigms that you simply don't listen.

Trying to be gentle here. You either had a relationship with Christ or you didn't. If you did, you can't just make that going away by deciding you don't believe in Christ any more than you can make me go away by deciding you don't believe I exist in any form or you can make whatever relationship you have had with a spouse or children or friends or relatives or coworkers or even a casual acquaintance go away just because you decide they don't exist any more.

You can see how illogical it is to say you had a relationship with Christ but that he doesn't exist? Obviously, if you believe he doesn't exist, you never had a relationship at all. You were simply going through the motions and 'doing Church' and stuff.

Post #164

Logic has to be based on far more than a single anecdotal personal experience. Such an experience can legitimately raise questions as to facts within the big picture, but cannot be used as a logical conclusion that everybody shares the same experience.

I have a personal relationship with Christ/God that at one time I tried hard to dismiss and deny but it is real for me. Once you have experienced that relationship there is no question in your own mind of its validity. I also believe that it can be real for everybody who wants it, but I cannot prove it to anybody else because it must be experienced. It is not logical to hold my experience up as the way it is or will be for everybody. I can testify to what I have experienced as millions of others have done, but in the end, just as the taste of chocolate or strawberries must be experienced to fully know what they taste like, each person has to experience God for himself or herself.

I do think, given such a great cloud of witneses, however, that those who dismiss the testimony of so many are not being logical. It is illogical to disbelieve something simply because we do not wish to believe it.

100% false. There's witnesses of different religions all over the place, not sure why you think I should believe you and witnesses like you rather than witnesses from other religions.

Me not believing in a god or gods has nothing to do with what I want, I don't believe in the concept of a god or gods because there's zero scientific proof for it.

If the Bible is ever proven factual by science, I have no problem with becoming a chrsitian.

I didn't say you should believe anything. I said it was illogical to state that something doesn't exist just because you don't want it to exist or because you haven't experienced it yourself.

If more than a million people reported seeing a bright red elephant, would it not be illogical to assume such a thing did not exist simply because you had not seen one? Would it be logical for the totally color blind man to deny that color exists because he can't see it? For the deaf to deny that great music has been performed because he can't hear it? To believe that all the science that exists has already been discovered and there is no more because nobody is teaching it?

If you go outside and see your shadow on a cloudy day, you know what you saw. You probably won't convince many others who are unable to replicate your experience and I would not be illogical in disbelieving you. But if a dozen unrelated people report the phenomenon, it would be illogical to assume that there was not some unusual phenomenon at work even though not a single one has any means to prove what they saw.

Likewise, when you have not had the experience, it is logical to have questions about a relationship with the Christ reported by hundreds/thousands/millions. It is illogical to dismiss their reported experience as something that is not real for them.

Post #165

100% false. There's witnesses of different religions all over the place, not sure why you think I should believe you and witnesses like you rather than witnesses from other religions.

Me not believing in a god or gods has nothing to do with what I want, I don't believe in the concept of a god or gods because there's zero scientific proof for it.

If the Bible is ever proven factual by science, I have no problem with becoming a chrsitian.

I didn't say you should believe anything. I said it was illogical to state that something doesn't exist just because you don't want it to exist or because you haven't experienced it yourself.

If more than a million people reported seeing a bright red elephant, would it not be illogical to assume such a thing did not exist simply because you had not seen one? Would it be logical for the totally color blind man to deny that color exists because he can't see it? For the deaf to deny that great music has been performed because he can't hear it? To believe that all the science that exists has already been discovered and there is no more because nobody is teaching it?

If you go outside and see your shadow on a cloudy day, you know what you saw. You probably won't convince many others who are unable to replicate your experience and I would not be illogical in disbelieving you. But if a dozen unrelated people report the phenomenon, it would be illogical to assume that there was not some unusual phenomenon at work even though not a single one has any means to prove what they saw.

Likewise, when you have not had the experience, it is logical to have questions about a relationship with the Christ reported by hundreds/thousands/millions. It is illogical to dismiss their reported experience as something that is not real for them.

Thanks for the explanation, I may have read your post wrong, but this one was very helpful.

Post #167

I didn't say you should believe anything. I said it was illogical to state that something doesn't exist just because you don't want it to exist or because you haven't experienced it yourself.

If more than a million people reported seeing a bright red elephant, would it not be illogical to assume such a thing did not exist simply because you had not seen one? Would it be logical for the totally color blind man to deny that color exists because he can't see it? For the deaf to deny that great music has been performed because he can't hear it? To believe that all the science that exists has already been discovered and there is no more because nobody is teaching it?

If you go outside and see your shadow on a cloudy day, you know what you saw. You probably won't convince many others who are unable to replicate your experience and I would not be illogical in disbelieving you. But if a dozen unrelated people report the phenomenon, it would be illogical to assume that there was not some unusual phenomenon at work even though not a single one has any means to prove what they saw.

Likewise, when you have not had the experience, it is logical to have questions about a relationship with the Christ reported by hundreds/thousands/millions. It is illogical to dismiss their reported experience as something that is not real for them.

Thanks for the explanation, I may have read your post wrong, but this one was very helpful.

Thank you. I am always amused at why some people dismiss an experience with God just because nobody can prove they had one--some would even call it 'illogical' to believe what cannot be proved--and yet we all believe we saw or heard or experienced all sorts of things that we cannot prove to anybody else.

Post #174

[Trying to be gentle here. You either had a relationship with Christ or you didn't. If you did, you can't just make that going away by deciding you don't believe in Christ any more than you can make me go away by deciding you don't believe I exist in any form or you can make whatever relationship you have had with a spouse or children or friends or relatives or coworkers or even a casual acquaintance go away just because you decide they don't exist any more.

You can see how illogical it is to say you had a relationship with Christ but that he doesn't exist? Obviously, if you believe he doesn't exist, you never had a relationship at all. You were simply going through the motions and 'doing Church' and stuff.

I know that this is your belief, but you're incorrect. I understand that your paradigm is predicated on these views, but you're positing a false dichotomy. The OP is about the fact that many people have ecstatic religious experiences, in a variety of settings, with a variety of deities, and that this is a reflection of a condition within our brain, and not an external entity. You are willing to recognize only those ecstatic experiences which occur within your own paradigms. I would say that they are all the same.

In my experience, I realized that the religion (Christianity) was illogical, that there was zero evidence for it, and that it wasn't morally or intellectually coherent. I lost faith in the religion, and I lost faith in the existence of a savior.

However, since losing faith in the architecture of the religion itself, I've subsequently and often repeated the feelings of connection to a "higher power." I had those feelings at a rock concert, I've had them in my backyard, and I often have them on my drive to work. In short, the emotional connection that you routinely experience with "christ" is something I experience all the time, in spite of my loss of belief in the existence of Christ. I still feel connected to a higher power, I still have those feelings all the time, but I have zero confidence in the doctrines of the Christian religion.

That "relationship" is not predicated on believing in Christ, the Christian religion, or the Christian dogmas and doctrines, in spite of your views.

I'm not an atheist, though. I'm simply non-religious. I exercise that personal connection to the divine all the time, but I have zero interest in church or imaginary religious figures like Jesus Christ.

p.s. There's a huge, obvious difference between real living people and invisible deities. I'm going to hope that you're able to see it.

Post #191
QUOTE=Foxfyre;4082543]

[Trying to be gentle here. You either had a relationship with Christ or you didn't. If you did, you can't just make that going away by deciding you don't believe in Christ any more than you can make me go away by deciding you don't believe I exist in any form or you can make whatever relationship you have had with a spouse or children or friends or relatives or coworkers or even a casual acquaintance go away just because you decide they don't exist any more.

You can see how illogical it is to say you had a relationship with Christ but that he doesn't exist? Obviously, if you believe he doesn't exist, you never had a relationship at all. You were simply going through the motions and 'doing Church' and stuff.

I know that this is your belief, but you're incorrect. I understand that your paradigm is predicated on these views, but you're positing a false dichotomy. The OP is about the fact that many people have ecstatic religious experiences, in a variety of settings, with a variety of deities, and that this is a reflection of a condition within our brain, and not an external entity. You are willing to recognize only those ecstatic experiences which occur within your own paradigms. I would say that they are all the same.

In my experience, I realized that the religion (Christianity) was illogical, that there was zero evidence for it, and that it wasn't morally or intellectually coherent. I lost faith in the religion, and I lost faith in the existence of a savior.

However, since losing faith in the architecture of the religion itself, I've subsequently and often repeated the feelings of connection to a "higher power." I had those feelings at a rock concert, I've had them in my backyard, and I often have them on my drive to work. In short, the emotional connection that you routinely experience with "christ" is something I experience all the time, in spite of my loss of belief in the existence of Christ. I still feel connected to a higher power, I still have those feelings all the time, but I have zero confidence in the doctrines of the Christian religion.

That "relationship" is not predicated on believing in Christ, the Christian religion, or the Christian dogmas and doctrines, in spite of your views.

I'm not an atheist, though. I'm simply non-religious. I exercise that personal connection to the divine all the time, but I have zero interest in church or imaginary religious figures like Jesus Christ.

p.s. There's a huge, obvious difference between real living people and invisible deities. I'm going to hope that you're able to see it.

I understand why people don't believe in God or Christ or hold different religious beliefs that I hold. But I was not referring to that in my remarks specifically to you.

Let's try again.

In an earlier post you insisted that you had experience with a relationship with Jesus Christ. And now you no longer believe that Jeus Christ exists. That is illogical.

That is not much different than saying that you knew your mother but you no longer believe that she existed.

So, in order to be logical, you need to amend your original statement to say that you once THOUGHT you had a relationship with Jesus Christ but you have since determined that you did not and you don't believe he existed or that he has relationships with anybody now.

But that brings me back to the point I was making all along that it is illogical to assume that experiences claimed by others are false simply because we haven't had them or don't want to believe them.[/QUOTE]

Post #192

In an earlier post you insisted that you had experience with a relationship with Jesus Christ. And now you no longer believe that Jeus Christ exists. That is illogical.

That is not much different than saying that you knew your mother but you no longer believe that she existed.

There is evidence of my mother's existence. That's a huge difference.

There is zero evidence of your imaginary friend.

What you call a relationship with Jesus Christ is an emotional/internal experience that can be duplicated by people in relationships with other deities and in settings that are non-religious. This "connection to the divine" results from the stimulation of a particular part of your brain. This sensation can even be created in a laboratory, utilizing electrons hooked to your scalp.

This is a verifiable phenomenon. Feel free to read up on it.

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God

But that brings me back to the point I was making all along that it is illogical to assume that experiences claimed by others are false simply because we haven't had them or don't want to believe them.

I don't believe that your experiences are false. In fact, I think they're very real. I've had similar experiences, both as a Christian, and subsequently, as a non-believer.

What I don't believe is that your experiences verify the existence of Jesus Christ or an invisible, all-powerful, omnipresent and all-knowing deity. Believers in all kinds of religions have those same experiences, and the experiences thus cannot be used to prove the veracity of an individual religion, because they are not isolated to a single religion. Those experiences are non-discriminatory. They occur for Hindus, and Pagans, and Buddhists and Christians and Jews. You experience what you believe to be Jesus Christ, but I guarantee that Sunni experiences what he believes to be Allah in a very similar way.

The only thing that your experiences verify is the existence of those experiences. They can't be used to prove the truth of your dogmas.

Post #196

In an earlier post you insisted that you had experience with a relationship with Jesus Christ. And now you no longer believe that Jeus Christ exists. That is illogical.

That is not much different than saying that you knew your mother but you no longer believe that she existed.

There is evidence of my mother's existence. That's a huge difference.

There is zero evidence of your imaginary friend.

What you call a relationship with Jesus Christ is an emotional/internal experience that can be duplicated by people in relationships with other deities and in settings that are non-religious. This "connection to the divine" results from the stimulation of a particular part of your brain. This sensation can even be created in a laboratory, utilizing electrons hooked to your scalp.

This is a verifiable phenomenon. Feel free to read up on it.

Wired 7.11: This Is Your Brain on God



I don't believe that your experiences are false. In fact, I think they're very real. I've had similar experiences, both as a Christian, and subsequently, as a non-believer.

What I don't believe is that your experiences verify the existence of Jesus Christ or an invisible, all-powerful, omnipresent and all-knowing deity. Believers in all kinds of religions have those same experiences, and the experiences thus cannot be used to prove the veracity of an individual religion, because they are not isolated to a single religion. Those experiences are non-discriminatory. They occur for Hindus, and Pagans, and Buddhists and Christians and Jews. You experience what you believe to be Jesus Christ, but I guarantee that Sunni experiences what he believes to be Allah in a very similar way.

The only thing that your experiences verify is the existence of those experiences. They can't be used to prove the truth of your dogmas.

All I'm saying my friend is that if there is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, then you could not have had the experience of a relationship with Him. You earlier said that you did have that experience.

THAT is what makes your argument illogical.

This is what you said in Post #159:

I guess you missed the part where I had a relationship with Christ for many years, and didn't wish to stop believing. But, thanks for playing.

This is the shit that gets annoying with you people. You are so busy parroting back your paradigms that you simply don't listen.

Post #198

All I'm saying my friend is that if there is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, then you could not have had the experience of a relationship with Him. You earlier said that you did have that experience.

THAT is what makes your argument illogical.

Everything in my upbringing, education, and experience told me that the experience I was having was with Jesus Christ, and that I was having a relationship with Jesus Christ. When I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart at age 6, I had the experience. I continued to have that emotional connection throughout my teenage and adult years.

I was indoctrinated, from my childhood, with the belief that this experience was "a relationship with Jesus Christ."

I know that you want to believe that what you experience in connecting to the divine is unique and demonstrates a relationship with your deity.

My point to you is that this experience, which you use to "prove" your faith, isn't isolated to Christianity. Many people, in many religions, and outside of religions, also report similar experiences. We don't know enough about the brain to know what causes them, but we do know that they can be manufactured. I've had them myself--in completely irreligious settings, which include my back yard and an Incubus concert.

What you call a relationship with Jesus Christ, and believe is unique to Christianity, and thus exists to serve as proof of the veracity of your faith--isn't unique.

There are many scientists, for instance, who suspect that Mohammed was an epileptic. Perhaps Paul was, as well. It would explain his experiences on the road to Damascus. We don't know where religion comes from, but the odds are good that it's something that comes FROM US, from inside our brains, and not from some sort of external connection to the divine (because it isn't limited to a single deity or religion).

Do I doubt your experiences? Nope. I believe with all my heart that you are experiencing something, because I too experience it. What I doubt is that it's a relationship with a mythological person.

Post #201

All I'm saying my friend is that if there is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, then you could not have had the experience of a relationship with Him. You earlier said that you did have that experience.

THAT is what makes your argument illogical.

Everything in my upbringing, education, and experience told me that the experience I was having was with Jesus Christ, and that I was having a relationship with Jesus Christ. When I accepted Jesus Christ into my heart at age 6, I had the experience. I continued to have that emotional connection throughout my teenage and adult years.

I was indoctrinated, from my childhood, with the belief that this experience was "a relationship with Jesus Christ."

I know that you want to believe that what you experience in connecting to the divine is unique and demonstrates a relationship with your deity.

My point to you is that this experience, which you use to "prove" your faith, isn't isolated to Christianity. Many people, in many religions, and outside of religions, also report similar experiences. We don't know enough about the brain to know what causes them, but we do know that they can be manufactured. I've had them myself--in completely irreligious settings, which include my back yard and an Incubus concert.

What you call a relationship with Jesus Christ, and believe is unique to Christianity, and thus exists to serve as proof of the veracity of your faith simply isn't unique.

I strongly suspect, for instance, that Mohammed was an epileptic. Perhaps Paul was, as well. We don't know where religion comes from, but the odds are good that it's something that comes FROM US, from inside our brains, and not from some sort of external connection to the divine (because it isn't limited to a single deity or religion).

You can want what you say to be true. But you cannot KNOW what experience I or anybody else has had and you are in no position to tell me that what I KNOW I have experienced is not real. It is as illogical for you to presume to tell me and millions of others what we have or have not experienced as it is for me to presume to tell you what sort of relationship you had with your mother.

Go back to my discussion with Drock. He is not a believer either and I respect that. But he also accepted the logic of my reasoning about what any of us can assume is real or not real for somebody else. Which also makes him reasonable and intelligent. (At least about that. )

So I still say nobody has disproved my original thesis. It is illogical to conclude that the testimony of a huge cloud of witnesses re a relationship with God/Christ or anything else is all fiction simply based on our own personal experience and/or the fact that we do not want it to be true.

Post #204

You can want what you say to be true. But you cannot KNOW what experience I or anybody else has had and you are in no position to tell me that what I KNOW I have experienced is not real. It is as illogical for you to presume to tell me and millions of others what we have or have not experienced as it is for me to presume to tell you what sort of relationship you had with your mother.

From an earlier post, by you:

Obviously, if you believe he doesn't exist, you never had a relationship at all. You were simply going through the motions and 'doing Church' and stuff.

It appears to me that you are attempting to presume to tell me that my relationship with Christ wasn't real because I stopped believing in his existence. Perhaps I'm mistaken. If so, please let me know. If not, then your paragraph applies as neatly to you as it does to me.

So I still say nobody has disproved my original thesis. It is illogical to conclude that the testimony of a huge cloud of witnesses re a relationship with God/Christ or anything else is all fiction simply based on our own personal experience and/or the fact that we do not want it to be true.

You've created a strawman here. No one has suggested that your personal experiences are fictional. I believe that your personal experiences are real and verifiable. I just don't believe that they are evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, God, YHWH or the veracity of your religion's holy book. Hope that helps you understand.

Post #210

All I'm saying my friend is that if there is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, then you could not have had the experience of a relationship with Him.

Why? Feel free to explain why this is so. I was told, as a child, by my grandmother, the person I respected most in my lifetime, that the emotional connection I was feeling was with Christ. I prayed to Christ, I worshipped Christ, and I felt a daily connection to Christ. I read through the bible multiple times, trying to know Christ better. I taught people about Christ, and I lead people to Christ. I experienced Christ's presence daily.

Why are these experiences not real, in your book? Did I know Christ, or not?

How would you possibly know what I was experiencing?

Further, how do you know that your experiences are with Christ?

Millions of Hindus testify to the existence of Lakshmi. Are their experiences fraudulent?

Post #218

You can want what you say to be true. But you cannot KNOW what experience I or anybody else has had and you are in no position to tell me that what I KNOW I have experienced is not real. It is as illogical for you to presume to tell me and millions of others what we have or have not experienced as it is for me to presume to tell you what sort of relationship you had with your mother.

From an earlier post, by you:



It appears to me that you are attempting to presume to tell me that my relationship with Christ wasn't real because I stopped believing in his existence. Perhaps I'm mistaken. If so, please let me know. If not, then your paragraph applies as neatly to you as it does to me.

So I still say nobody has disproved my original thesis. It is illogical to conclude that the testimony of a huge cloud of witnesses re a relationship with God/Christ or anything else is all fiction simply based on our own personal experience and/or the fact that we do not want it to be true.

You've created a strawman here. No one has suggested that your personal experiences are fictional. I believe that your personal experiences are real and verifiable. I just don't believe that they are evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, God, YHWH or the veracity of your religion's holy book. Hope that helps you understand.

No straw man at all. I have a very real and valid relationship with Jesus Christ. I can't prove it to you any more than I can prove to you that I have been loved, what I feel, what I hope for, or how I see colors or what I smell in the air right now. That relationship has NOTHING to do with the Bible, the rites, rituals, and other trappings of the practice of religion, or any doctrine I have ever been taught.

When you presume to tell me that Jesus Christ does not exist, then you are telling me (and millions of others) that we don't really have a relationship with him. We just think we do.

And I still insist that it is illogical to claim to have a relationship with somebody and then later say that person doesn't exist. The person existed or he doesn't. If he didn't, then you didn't have a relationship. You only had an illusion of one.

It is, however, logical to say that you believed you had a relationship but you later decided that it wasn't real.

There is a very large difference between those two things.

Post #218

All I'm saying my friend is that if there is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, then you could not have had the experience of a relationship with Him.

Why? Feel free to explain why this is so. I was told, as a child, by my grandmother, the person I respected most in my lifetime, that the emotional connection I was feeling was with Christ. I prayed to Christ, I worshipped Christ, and I felt a daily connection to Christ. I read through the bible multiple times, trying to know Christ better. I taught people about Christ, and I lead people to Christ. I experienced Christ's presence daily.

Why are these experiences not real, in your book? Did I know Christ, or not?

How would you possibly know what I was experiencing?

Further, how do you know that your experiences are with Christ?

Millions of Hindus testify to the existence of Lakshmi. Are their experiences fraudulent?

Post #219

[You are the one claiming that Christ never existed. To claim that you had a personal relationship with one who you now claim never existed is a contradiction in your logic. To make your statement true, the relationship had to be imaginary, either that or your current state. Make up your mind and go for it.

The experience and the relationship was real, but it was directed at an imaginary figure. It was childlike, in the same way that small children have relationships with imaginary friends. Are those relationships unreal because the friend exists only in the child's mind? Who are you to say what experiences are real?

I have similar experiences these days without the focus on Christ.

Post #220

When you presume to tell me that Jesus Christ does not exist, then you are telling me (and millions of others) that we don't really have a relationship with him. We just think we do.

I think your experiences are real. I just believe that they are occurring with yourself.

Post #222

When you presume to tell me that Jesus Christ does not exist, then you are telling me (and millions of others) that we don't really have a relationship with him. We just think we do.

I think your experiences are real. I just believe that they are occurring with yourself.

Or, in other words, I am not in a real relationship? Which is what I said.

But I am not a child with an imaginary friend that feels real to me. I am fully grown, reasonably cognizant and aware and quite jaded re anything that feels like manipulation. And I am absolutely 100% certain beyond all doubt what I am experiencing is with another very real and separate persona I know as the Christ.

And unless you have psychic abilities that have not heretofore been apparent, you simply cannot logically tell me that my relationship with the Christ is not real.

Post #223

And unless you have psychic abilities that have not heretofore been apparent, you simply cannot logically tell me that my relationship with the Christ is not real.

And, unless you have psychic abilities, you cannot logically tell me that my relationship with Christ did not exist, as described by me. Bed made. Enjoy it.

As stated, your personal experiences are evidence of nothing but personal experiences.

Post #227

If the door was opened here, and you seem to be implying it was, why not give Christ the credit,that was his point, opening the door or gateway, right? My gateway is real, seems real to me, Thank You Jesus. Is your gateway real or imagined? If you just imagined Jesus, how can you be sure? I'm just busting your chops, or at least would be, if you had chops, just consider the thought, when you get past being pissed off at me.

I believe the doorway exists, with or without Christ. I'm not pissed at you, though. I'm just providing you with an alternative perspective/experience to think about.

When a Hindu or Buddhist experiences the divine via meditation or personal worship, is their experience less real than yours?

Post #229

And unless you have psychic abilities that have not heretofore been apparent, you simply cannot logically tell me that my relationship with the Christ is not real.

And, unless you have psychic abilities, you cannot logically tell me that my relationship with Christ did not exist, as described by me. Bed made. Enjoy it.

As stated, your personal experiences are evidence of nothing but personal experiences.

I didn't tell you that your relationship with Christ did not exist. You said your relationship with Christ did not exist; i.e. what you experienced was not with the Christ. I have not presumed to question your faith or lack of faith or tell you what to helieve.

I (and others) said that those who have not experienced God/Christ can certainly question the testimony of others, but it is illogical to dismiss something simply because you have not experienced it.

You said you had experienced it and now you don't believe that Christ existed or exists.

I said it was illogical to claim to have had an experience with a person and at the same time insist the person does not/did not exist.

After some back and forth, you then said the experience was real but that Christ was not. And then you presumed to suggest that what I and others experienced is not real either.

Which brought us back to my original thesis that I am certain that I have experienced God/Christ and have a relationship with God/Christ. I believe that other rational and thoughtful people who testify to a relationship with God/Christ are also in an authentic relationship.

Based on what you have posted here, I can accept that you thought you were in a relationship but actually were not. And you came to a point that you realized that.

But it is still illogical to dismiss the testimony of that cloud of witnesses purely based on your not having the same experience that they have had.

Post #231

Tsk tsk, you aren't supposed to tell her what is real, she's supposed to tell YOU.

Don't you know anything?

Naw, I'll give her a break. She got caught in her own conundrum and I suspect reached that terrible moment in a heated argument in which she realized she was wrong. And, I can allow for how difficult it is to admit you are wrong in that situation.

I hate fighting with anybody over anything and especially dislike unpleasantries involving religion. But sometimes we Christians just have to stand up on our hind legs and stick up for what we believe or we could well lose our most cherished freedoms. I do pray for the grace to not become angry. And I am not.

Post #231

Tsk tsk, you aren't supposed to tell her what is real, she's supposed to tell YOU.

Don't you know anything?

Naw, I'll give her a break. She got caught in her own conundrum and I suspect reached that terrible moment in a heated argument in which she realized she was wrong. And, I can allow for how difficult it is to admit you are wrong in that situation.

I hate fighting with anybody over anything and especially dislike unpleasantries involving religion. But sometimes we Christians just have to stand up on our hind legs and stick up for what we believe or we could well lose our most cherished freedoms. I do pray for the grace to not become angry. And I am not.

Post #232

After some back and forth, you then said the experience was real but that Christ was not. And then you presumed to suggest that what I and others experienced is not real either.

Which brought us back to my original thesis that I am certain that I have experienced God/Christ and have a relationship with God/Christ. I believe that other rational and thoughtful people who testify to a relationship with God/Christ are also in an authentic relationship.

Based on what you have posted here, I can accept that you thought you were in a relationship but actually were not. And you came to a point that you realized that.But it is still illogical to dismiss the testimony of that cloud of witnesses purely based on your not having the same experience that they have had.

Why do you feel a need to consistently misrepresent my posts and experiences? Is bearing a false witness about other people something that is condoned in your faith?

Is it too much to ask that you behave in an ethical fashion? You have yet to respond to the question I asked, but I will ask it again:

Are the spiritual experiences of hindus, muslims, buddhists and pagans less real than yours?

Post #233

Tsk tsk, you aren't supposed to tell her what is real, she's supposed to tell YOU.

Don't you know anything?

Naw, I'll give her a break. She got caught in her own conundrum and I suspect reached that terrible moment in a heated argument in which she realized she was wrong. And, I can allow for how difficult it is to admit you are wrong in that situation.

I hate fighting with anybody over anything and especially dislike unpleasantries involving religion. But sometimes we Christians just have to stand up on our hind legs and stick up for what we believe or we could well lose our most cherished freedoms. I do pray for the grace to not become angry. And I am not.

Yes, you are just a shining example of the love of Jesus. Lying about other posters is a strong testimony to your faith. You just keep showing the world your salt and light. It's very convincing. I bet your invisible friend is really proud of you right now.

Post #236

You implied the door was opened for the first time while you believed as a Christian.

Okay. Perhaps you are right.

We are all related, we are all God's Children. By whatever name one calls Him, by whatever words one uses in Prayer, my concern is Conscience First, that is all. The Avenues God uses to address you is between you and Him. Either one has Faith and Confidence, or they don't. Don't confuse me with Fundamentalism, I view the Brands as training wheels. My Allegiance is to God, not my or anyone Else's perception of what or who God is. I accept the fact that God is not limited by my perception, as I am. As for what is beyond my ability or comprehension, I Trust.

On this, we agree.

Post #237

Meow. I smell catnip.

Yes, god forbid that Fox should live her expressed values and not misrepresent other posters.

Post #241

After some back and forth, you then said the experience was real but that Christ was not. And then you presumed to suggest that what I and others experienced is not real either.

Which brought us back to my original thesis that I am certain that I have experienced God/Christ and have a relationship with God/Christ. I believe that other rational and thoughtful people who testify to a relationship with God/Christ are also in an authentic relationship.

Based on what you have posted here, I can accept that you thought you were in a relationship but actually were not. And you came to a point that you realized that.But it is still illogical to dismiss the testimony of that cloud of witnesses purely based on your not having the same experience that they have had.

Why do you feel a need to consistently misrepresent my posts and experiences? Is bearing a false witness about other people something that is condoned in your faith?

Is it too much to ask that you behave in an ethical fashion? You have yet to respond to the question I asked, but I will ask it again:

Are the spiritual experiences of hindus, muslims, buddhists and pagans less real than yours?

If you specifically show me where I misrepresented your posts in any place, I will happily make any correction and apologize if you will post the specific quotes in context please. I hate it when others misrepresent what I say and I try very hard not to do that to others.

If you can show that I have been unethical in anything I have said, I will also own up to that. I try very hard to be ethical in everything I do.

And I didn't answer your question because (I think) somebody else did and I did not see that it was relevant. But the short answer is I don't KNOW whether anybody else's experience is real. Only THEY know what they are experiencing. I can't speak for anybody else's experience. Only my own. Nor do I dismiss what other people tell me they experience and I do not judge them for what they say they experience.

But I will likely point out illogical and contradictory statements when they are pertinent to a discussion.

 

[daveman]

Then you fail.

Not really.

You do.

I'm sure it comforts you to feel that way.

 

[Foxfyre]

Not really.

You do.

I'm sure it comforts you to feel that way.

LOL, you two sure are more succinct in your posts than I was in mine.

 

[Lokiate]

Not really.

You do.

I'm sure it comforts you to feel that way.

Nah, just stating fact.

 

[JohnA]

Man has made many gods over the centuries.
"The" God is just one of the latest renditions.

Correct and each one is *the only one *

 

[JohnA]

If the door was opened here, and you seem to be implying it was, why not give Christ the credit,that was his point, opening the door or gateway, right? My gateway is real, seems real to me, Thank You Jesus. Is your gateway real or imagined? If you just imagined Jesus, how can you be sure? I'm just busting your chops, or at least would be, if you had chops, just consider the thought, when you get past being pissed off at me.

I believe the doorway exists, with or without Christ. I'm not pissed at you, though. I'm just providing you with an alternative perspective/experience to think about.

When a Hindu or Buddhist experiences the divine via meditation or personal worship, is their experience less real than yours?

of course not. each religion is as valid as any other

 

[JohnA]

All I'm saying my friend is that if there is zero evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, then you could not have had the experience of a relationship with Him.

Why? Feel free to explain why this is so. I was told, as a child, by my grandmother, the person I respected most in my lifetime, that the emotional connection I was feeling was with Christ. I prayed to Christ, I worshipped Christ, and I felt a daily connection to Christ. I read through the bible multiple times, trying to know Christ better. I taught people about Christ, and I lead people to Christ. I experienced Christ's presence daily.

Why are these experiences not real, in your book? Did I know Christ, or not?

How would you possibly know what I was experiencing?

Further, how do you know that your experiences are with Christ?

Millions of Hindus testify to the existence of Lakshmi. Are their experiences fraudulent?

many folks thou out the world have testified to meeting (or having ) a relationship with aliens
do you believe them or think they are crazy ?
if you dont believe them why not

 

[JohnA]

You've got the wrong poster. I'm the star Christian basher on this board.

You may desire to be, but lack the intellectual acumen to pull it off.

I'm certainly no intellectual, I'll grant you that. I certainly am the identified Christian basher on this forum.

Ask your pals.[/QUOTE
I bash christians as well as any other *belief * that seeks to control my life and tell me what i should and should not be ,do & support.
if they dont do that and respect my beliefs i leave them alone
being the *star *basher is not a thing to desire