Conversations with God

What is religion, if not mandated sharing?

Though I will admit that organized religion is just a giant infomercial with pledge drives at times, I have always believed that at its core, Christianity is enlightened through the living Spirit (The Comforter whom Jesus mentioned) that wakes people up and makes them want to share. You may well argue that no God is necessary in order for this "spirit" of empathy and altruistic generosity to sweep through the people, and i would cautiously agree to a point.

There is a clear difference in the character of the spirit among the people. I'm not talking religion. I'm talking relationship with that Spirit. (Then relationship with each other.) Liberals and Conservatives seem moved by different causes. I wont judge any one side as the "wrong spirit" because an argument can be made for either side.

Each side sees it as a battle for hearts and minds, though I see it first as a literal supernatural war of sorts. I believe that that realm is real.

That's it. You're off my baby-eating dinner list.

That's the thing you should never do. No. Don't believe in that realm.

That's the first step in your salvation. Stop believing in that realm.

Phat writes: I have seen it happen in front of me time and time again.

And I keep telling you, you're misinterpreting what you see.

Phat writes: Even if a few people are dramatically exaggerating in front of crowds, the vast majority of deliverance is an actual physical and mental (and obviously spiritual) manifestation.

You have no basis for reaching that conclusion - and there is certainly nothing "obvious" about it. People with different cultural backgrounds than yours will reach different conclusions and consider them "obvious" too.

Phat writes: I am sure there is a way to test such an event, though you likely would dismiss interviewing the participants for their reaction.

Eyewitness accounts are extremely unreliable.

I'll give you an example: When I worked at the RCMP Training Academy, a bunch of us were accidentally involved in an experiment when we were having coffee with some cadets. What I saw was: A tall man in his mid-twenties wearing a dark ski jacket came into the room and took an appointment book out of somebody's gym bag and ran away. Then the instructor came in and asked for eyewitness accounts. The man was variously described as tall/average with dark/light hair, wearing a black/blue/red jacket and he took a book/camera.

(By the way, he didn't take anything at all.)

And what I describe to you today is not necessarily what I saw years ago. Every time I tell the story, it reinforces the "memory".

I am not infallible, but you claim that you are.

Phat writes: Jesus suggested we share. They want it mandated.

Jesus said that it's what you must do to be saved. That's not a "suggestion". Ananias and Sapphira were killed for not doing it.

Phat writes: keep in mind that society is made up of a large number of believers.

Yes, believers in Allah, believers in Brahman, believers in YHWH but not Jesus, etc.

Phat writes: This battle has been going on....

The biggest battle is between one group of your cult and another group of the same cult in the church across the street.

Ananias and Sapphira were killed for not doing it.

They were killed for lying. Not withholding. The God I worship would not kill somebody who honestly withheld. They might not get saved, but thats another matter between Him and them. You limit your understanding to the character in the book you read about. I've actually communed with Him. And you cant say one thing against that since you cant crawl inside my head.

Cant disagree with you here except to say that there are nearly as many Christians in N.America as there are skeptics and other types of worshipers. You hardly have a majority edge here.

Phat writes: They were killed for lying. Not withholding.

Nope.

quote:

---

Acts 5:1-3 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession, AND kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, AND to keep back part of the price of the land?

---

There's no distinction in the text between the act AND lying about the act.

Your argument is the equivalent of saying that murder is okay but lying about murder is really, really bad. That's just crazy.

Phat writes: You limit your understanding to the character in the book you read about.

That's the only place the character exists. I don't have the luxury of rejecting the parts that I don't like and making up my own version like you do.

Phat writes: I've actually communed with Him. And you cant say one thing against that since you cant crawl inside my head.

Crawling inside your head would not provide any enlightenment about communion. If I was inside your head, I could only see what you think is happening. You already tell us what you think is happening.

But what you think is wrong.

You are an obvious and willful skeptic. The difference between you and I is that you want to be a skeptic rather than a believer. You somehow must have concluded that being a "believer" is unimportant to God and to society. If He does exist, you likely are being honest on a daily basis which is why you say the things you say.Whether or not you actually believe that its possible that the character of god is around today, you don't place much value on betting on it. Your honesty is commendable and were I He, I would understand.

Now about me. I too am a skeptic though I am more uncomfortable with admitting it. He likely knows darn well that I doubt His power or else I would give everything away and trust Him fully, but I simply can't. And I've seen what I thought was the supernatural. You claim that I am mistaken but you don't know either. All you have is the evidence that we DO know...and it is not conclusive. Of course, I don't even have that. All I have is personal experience repeated time and time again.

Phat writes: ... there are nearly as many Christians in N.America as there are skeptics and other types of worshipers. You hardly have a majority edge here.

Do you see what a bad argument that is? You might as well say that everybody sitting in your chair agrees with you.

That's Trump's argument: "I'm ahead. Stop counting."

That isn't how majorities work.

Phat writes: You are an obvious and willful skeptic.

Thank you. I have other good qualities too.

Phat writes: Whether or not you actually believe that its possible that the character of god is around today, you don't place much value on betting on it.

You're talking about belief in belief. That's a bridge too far.

And betting is generally a bad idea. You bet on your made-up god and Vishnu turns out to be the real one.

But what you think is wrong.

How could you possible know. You claim not to be infallible but you are certainly cocky and arrogant. You cant say that a whole belief system is wrong unless you make a better case. And I don't think you have enough evidence. In fact, you show that you don't by lumping all religions in the same category. Newsflash: Many of them are WRONG. Now to be fair, I cant say anything more. I simply know and believe that there is a Right and Wrong and I claim to belong to the RIGHT group. Show me how we would even test all of the various religions to see if a clear winner exists?

Phat writes: Cant disagree with you here except to say that there are nearly as many Christians in N.America as there are skeptics and other types of worshipers.

Phat, there are nearly as many types of Christian believers as there are Christians. They all believe in the gods they create.

All I have is personal experience repeated time and time again.

Phat, I know you went through an experience and I take your word for what you physically heard, saw, whatever.
I also know that ringo is right. The emotional content of your experience did not have some spooky supernatural element.

Some confluence of physical phenomena conspired (most probably at random) to produce the events you witnessed.
People don’t like coincidence but it is a real physical phenomenon. A confluence of events that appears to be something other than what it is.

Your state of mind, however, is a totally different matter. What I hear is that you were primed for the moment by the lead-up to the event in which you and your fellows sunk into earnest prayer and heartfelt emotion. Humans have a history of psychological delusions when in such an environment, especially since there was more than one in the scene and that psychological reinforcement from fellow travelers has been known to be overpowering.

Still, it was long ago and studying the event from this distance is worthless. The actual facts of the physicality of the event are lost forever. What’s left for you is the emotion of the moment. How the strength of that emotion came to be is quite human and is known by examples.

What you felt was emotionally real, no doubt. But as ringo said your interpretation of those events is irrational. God did not come down tap you on the shoulder and say “Here I am.” Your prior emotional/mental state, led by both irrational thinking and peer pressure in the moment, was most probably the cause of your emotional epiphany. The universe acts that way. It does not act the way you believe.

Phat writes: Show me how we would even test all of the various religions to see if a clear winner exists?

Read the entirety of the Bible, Torah, Quran, Tao, Bhagavad Gita (and Mahabarata), and any other text that is central to that given religion. Compare/contrast, map to reality, see what works best.

That's what Joseph Campbell did, that is what I am doing.

Campbell chose Spinoza Pantheism, what a coincidence!