Do We NEED God?

Thats not "communion."Thats simply interacting with your own imagination. Its a closed loop, you arent receiving input from any external source. There is literally no difference between this form of communion with "god" and communion with Darth Vader.

How would that have anything to do with communion with god?Did you just say "Based on the description of the character of Jesus, in the Bible, can you imagine how He might respond to a given everyday situation that we humans face now?" Isn't that an example of me "communion" with me?

Well...if, as the story goes, Christ is "in" us, wouldn't communion be at least theoretically possible?

Technically you have a valid point. Let me ask you a hypothetical question, however. If a devout group of religious/spiritual/truth seekers were believing the idea that communion with a God or a higher (or even alian) power is possible, would it be beneficial to them to simply burst their bubble...or at least attempt to do so....if the result of their belief made them better people and was beneficial to humanity? Granted all kids outgrow Santa Claus, but some adults keep the belief going, if only to make Christmas seem more magical and benevolent. Some stories as mythos are best left alone by logic and critical thinking.My point is that there can be a purpose for a belief, even if it can logically never be proven.

What do you mean by "theoretically possible"? Is there some theoretical reason to think this is the case? Or do you just mean that it is "theoretically possible" in the sense of being unfalsifiable? I suspect there are a plethora of unfalsifiable ("theoretically possible"?) things which you would dismiss without a second thought. What makes this one worthy of more credence than any other? Forget proof. Simply ask yourself if the belief in question is more likely to be the result of human needs and dispositions. And if the answer to this question is "yes" then eventually that's what people will conclude and that is what the followers of said belief will have to find strategies to immunise themselves against. Look at history. What does it tell us? It tells us a number of things. It tells us that humans are naturally inquisitive creatures who eventually will question most things. It also tells us that we will never be short of those who seek to place themselves at the top of the mystic tree by claiming to have some sort of unique relationship with the divine.If the belief in question doesn't stand up to scrutiny then eventually it will crumble like a castle made of sand or (probably more likely) there will be splits and schisms as one group claims to have greater access to the unfalsifiable mind of god than the others. The less the belief stands up to reason the more those who adhere to it will be forced to entrench themselves in ignorance and denial whilst retaining conviction that they are the true followers of said entity.So whilst you may propose as some sort of premise the notion that "the result of their belief made them better people and was beneficial to humanity" I would suggest that in the long run any such belief which doesn't stand up to scrutiny will result in a culture of ignorance which is not at all beneficial to humanity. Think creationists. We know you don't have to believe in god to do good things that benefit humanity. If you met an otherwise normal 40 year old guy who genuinely believed in Santa Claus then, no matter how kind or generous or good natured he might be, wouldn't you think that he was completely deluded to the point of having some sort of problem?I'm sure there are some lovely people doing charity work and whatnot who have complete faith in biblical literalism. This is no reason to do anything other than point out the flaws with biblical literalism is it?

How?

We would listen to our conscience and act on what we knew to be the best to do. We would do what is right and not merely what we wanted. We would sacrifice in many cases for the benefit of others. We would let wisdom prevail. Some say this would entirely be our decision and our mind. Others would believe that we were in communion with the Spirit of God.Since this Spirit can't be detected by any scientific means, I suppose that theoretically it would be entirely our decision and our responsibility regardless of our beliefs.

Shouldn't we do this anyway? Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God much of the time? Again - Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God most of the time? Again - Does the fact that we seem to find it so hard to do this much of the time mean that we are NOT in communion with God most of the time?Why do all theistic arguments seem to require that anything positive be attributed to God and anything not positive be somebody else's fault?Isn't this the sort of psychological behaviour that we would expect of those who have a psychological "NEED" to believe in some sort of perfect idealised being.......?

I suppose that it depends on whether this communion is initiated and/or maintained by our own effort or through Gods grace.The bible says differing things, depending on the translation. Galatians 5:16:Symbolically or literally are we through our own efforts walking/doing the right vibe or are we letting the right vibe personified(God) guide our lives?

So when we act wisely, selflessly and conscientiously it is thanks to God. But when we act unwisely, selfishly and negligently it is down to us.That is a very depressing view of the human condition. We can only ever be responsible for the bad things we do.I don't think this is the sort of god anyone needs.........

According to his other thread Phat thinks this behaviour is caused by demons.

Not exactly. I think that when we act contrarily to our altruistic nature we allow demons legal right to reinforce our negative behavior. It is still initially our responsibility.

What does this actually mean in practise?Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that I want to experience some demonic influence. What should I do and how will I know when the demon(s) is/are influencing me?

Good question. I think that a good indicator which you may or may not be able to perceive internally, yourself, is when you are observed to be unable to control yourself. In other words, not only are you eating yourself to death, you are incapable of stopping even though all logic suggests that you should. Its interesting how you say that--for the sake of argument---you would want to experience that which you don't believe exists. ts the same with your GOD argument with jar. You seem bemused to believe that a GOD could exist without your acknowledgement...which I suppose is true from your subjective awareness. GOD very well could exist even though you never chose to believe such a thing. So could demons. In the case of demons, however, I give them much less respect. So should you.

Well from a strictly practical point of view a demon that could cause me to ruin my life seems far more relevant than an "unknowable" GOD that refuses to have any interaction with me at all. I have absolutely no problem with the idea that all sorts of things could exist without my acknowledgement. In fact I'm sure that lots of things are happily existing without any reference to me or my acknowledgement at all. So I have no idea where you are getting this from.......? There are all sorts of things I'd like to experience which I don't actually think exist!!! Some descriptions of heaven sound rather pleasant for example. On this basis everytime someone eats a donut, smokes a cigarette, drinks a can of coke, has a few too many beers or consumes a cheeseburger they are doing so under demonic influence.We know these things are bad for us. In some cases we know they are literally likely to kill us in the long run. But we do them anyway.Do you really think that it is demons rather than aspects of evolved human psychology that are at play here? Really?