Conversations with God

They were killed for lying. Not withholding. The God I worship would not kill somebody who honestly withheld.

Spoken like a true victim of abuse.

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

You mean the Bible? The only primary source of information about your god? The book that your religion requires you to believe, but which you repeatedly and obstinately refuse to even consider?

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

Spoken like a true abuse victim.

I tend to blame it on our kinship with bonobos who use sex to calm down any male who starts to get out of hand. You think that the way to calm down any abuser is to get him laid. Sorry, but that doesn't always work, especially not in the long run.

Thank you. I hadn't thought of Joseph Campbell in some time.

He's been a strong influencer on my world view though I fell atheist instead of any pantheism. But he had strong input into my analyses.

I'm thinking it might be nice to search out some of his talks. Especially his Bill Moyers interviews.

I would enjoy that, again. Thank you.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

How could you possible know. You claim not to be infallible but you are certainly cocky and arrogant.

We all have noses, so we all are able to tell when something stinks to high heaven.

Have you caught COVID and lost your ability to smell?

BTW, I did come down with COVID starting in mid-January. Never did lose my sense of smell nor taste, though I did lose 10 pounds which I'm trying to keep off. Have been vaccinated since then, both doses (Pfizer, so I have no fear of Trump having had anything to do with that, thus eliminating the chance of him having screwed everything up as he always does).

You cant say that a whole belief system is wrong unless you make a better case.

Not having a complete replacement for a totally fucked up belief system is no excuse for denying that that belief system is totally fucked up. That kind of fucked up logic that you're applying is ... wait for it, wait for it ... totally fucked up.

Look at how science and scientific theories work. You can't prove most theories, nor is that how the game is played. Rather, you disprove a theory with further research and data. When you disprove a theory you are not required to replace it totally, but rather that is incentive for other researchers to construct a replacement. Just as the further questions raised by every scientific answer provide clues for researchers to follow.

And I don't think you have enough evidence.

Haven't we already been there before with pioneering forensic scientist Locard's
exchange principle?

Everything that happens leaves behind it trace evidence. You (grammatically speaking, I am referring to you, Phat, in the most personal sense possible) keep denying the role of evidence in any investigation, so now you are trying to invoke evidence? What kind of hypocrite are you? A F*CKING REPUBLICAN? (the worst kind of hypocrite, BTW)

In fact, you show that you don't by lumping all religions in the same category.

But aren't they all the same? Have you ever demonstrated that they are not all the same? How?

Newsflash: Many of them are WRONG.

Yes, as we have repeatedly told you.

I simply know and believe that there is a Right and Wrong and I claim to belong to the RIGHT group.

Spoken like a true right-wing authoritarian. What? You still haven't read that FREE book?

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

We have done so repeatedly, but you refuse to listen. Who's at fault there?

May I also recommend Asimov's Guide to the Bible as well.

Asimov is an atheist, and the last source i would use. But of course jar, who im beginning to think is an atheist in disguise, knows everything.

The bottom line is that jar thinks the Biblical Christians are engaged in fantasy, as do you AZPaul3. You may be decent scholars in secular matters but you have no clue as to the reality of God (through Jesus). Nor does Asimov.

Sorry, but I wouldn't trust him any more than you do me.

dwise1 writes: Not having a complete replacement for a totally fucked up belief system is no excuse for denying that that belief system is totally fucked up. That kind of fucked up logic that you're applying is ... wait for it, wait for it ... totally fucked up. Look at how science and scientific theories work. You can't prove most theories, nor is that how the game is played. Rather, you disprove a theory with further research and data. When you disprove a theory you are not required to replace it totally, but rather that is incentive for other researchers to construct a replacement. Just as the further questions raised by every scientific answer provide clues for researchers to follow.

It is counter-intuitive to strongly attempt to disprove or falsify a conversion or a deliverance experience. Question? Yes by all means. Disprove? I wouldn't go there because the whole nature of a spiritual war is...well...a war between spirits.

The One Holy Spirit is the truth. He is the Spirit of Creativity. Love. Let me ask you this. If your wife said she loved you, would you immediately question it, doubt it, and test it? What if she knew you were doubting and testing and attempting to falsify her feelings? Your very doubt would get you in trouble. Same with God. I'm not saying to be a blind sheep and question nothing. I'm saying that being skeptical over a strong inner feeling and attempting to falsify it may lead you to the curb, unenlightened, all hope squashed, and still looking for something better than what you could of had. So go ahead, ringo. Stand at the altar forever.Insist that believers MUST be wrong since they did not employ your reasoning process.

Go ahead jar. Throw God away. Keep telling yourself that you are likely wrong.
Keep supporting atheists like Asimov. Keep doubting that you can test the Holy Spirit by acceting Him rather than doubting and being scared that you will become a Biblical Christian. Keep mocking them for their beliefs.

Go ahead Tangle. Reassure yourself that its all man-made and a myth. Bells and smells my arse. Part of your problem was that you were brought up a religious Catholic. Hats two strikes against you ever finding out that Jesus is real to begin with.
Go ahead,AZPaul3. Keep insisting that all religions are the same. Which is why Mr.Deity never understood God to begin with. He was Mormon, for crying out loud!

And finally, you David. I respect all that you say and write, even when you get a bit tipsy and cuss me out for lying or for feigning republican tendencies. The fact that you take time to explain your stories gives me respect for you.

dwise1 writes: Everything that happens leaves behind it trace evidence.

Conversions and deliverance prayers leave behind dramatically changed lives and attitudes. Granted some of it is hyper-emotionalism. Granted some people just want attention. Personally, when I am prayed over, I have yet to emit a scream or a growl or manifest in any way. That's not my intent. I approach prayer very reverently and humbly.

Edited by Phat, : No reason given.

Phat writes: ringo writes: But what you think is wrong. How could you possible know.

Same way we know that the flat-earth idea is wrong or that creationism is wrong - by testing them.

Phat writes: You claim not to be infallible but you are certainly cocky and arrogant.

How is it cocky or arrogant to point out that YOU are not infallible?

Phat writes: You cant say that a whole belief system is wrong unless you make a better case.

Nonsense. When a tornado wrecks a house, they don't have to present a plan for the new one before they tear down what's left of the old one. We can recognize junk even if we don't have anything to replace it with. And of course, in the case of religion, we don't need to replace it at all.

Phat writes: In fact, you show that you don't by lumping all religions in the same category.

Yup. I lump all rotten foods into one category: compost.

Phat writes: Newsflash: Many of them are WRONG.

There you go again, claiming to be infallible. The other religions are wrong but yours is right.

Phat writes: I simply know and believe....

You can't know and believe. You only believe. So does the Muslim and the Raelian. And the four-year-old who believes in Santa. You have never been able to distinguish your belief from any of theirs.

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

We can easily test them. Do their claims match reality? Yours doesn't even match your own holy book.

But why must there be a "winner"? Why do we even have to test who can flap his arms to the moon fastest?

The bottom line is that jar thinks the Biblical Christians are engaged in fantasy, as do you AZPaul3.

In spades. On steroids. Fantasy Island is you, yes.

you have no clue as to the reality of God (through Jesus).

That's just the thing. Yes we do. There is nothing there. And you can't show otherwise.

Go ahead,AZPaul3. Keep insisting that all religions are the same. Which is why Mr.Deity never understood God to begin with. He was Mormon, for crying out loud!

The only differences among religions are the specific elements of a specific creed.

None of which are in any way important.

The shared attribute of all religions is belief; an insistence, using emotion not evidence, that gods exist.

Mormon, Jew, Mennonite, Hindu, it doesn't matter. The emotional insistence, without actual physical evidence, that belief constitutes reality is the one major feature of all religions. Such insistence on belief is the enemy of reason, logic, reality. In this all religion is the same.

AZPaul3 writes: The shared attribute of all religions is belief; an insistence, using emotion not evidence, that gods exist. Mormon, Jew, Mennonite, Hindu, it doesn't matter. The emotional insistence, without actual physical evidence, that belief constitutes reality is the one major feature of all religions. Such insistence on belief is the enemy of reason, logic, reality. In this all religion is the same.

Why must insistence on belief be "the enemy"? Did it ever occur to you that "the enemy" itself does not want us to believe? Does it make any sense that Were there a Creator of all seen and unseen whose only interaction with humanity was an appearance at a point in time as a human?

I dont believe this stuff simply to fit in or because it was the dogma I was taught. Out of Christian professors, perhaps only 10-25% of them have even been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. You guys are free to accuse them of fantasy, denial of "evidence" and selective bias. My question to you is why is such a scenario outside of your realm of possibility?

you have no clue as to the reality of God (through Jesus).

AZ writes: That's just the thing. Yes we do. There is nothing there. And you can't show otherwise.

Why do I need to show otherwise? You have not successfully shown that there is nothing there.

ringo writes: Same way we know that the flat-earth idea is wrong or that creationism is wrong - by testing them.

For the record, I don't believe in Flat Earth. Its the silliest thing Ive ever heard. And I don't think that any of the pro creationism arguments are rational and so don't even bother worrying about that. But how can (or could) you test God? How can or could you test whether Jesus existed and why if so, He should be treated no differently than any other human? At best I see a gallery of skeptics. I do not see anything that stands out. I think you listen to the wrong people.

And why do you insist I claim infallibility? All that I claim is rationality within the context of my experience. And the fact that many people claim the same thing gives me a reasonable assurance that I am not crazy or delusional. Only you and your colleagues make that accusation.

We can recognize junk even if we don't have anything to replace it with. And of course, in the case of religion, we don't need to replace it at all.

Personally, I would be careful before so casually tossing God out with the eggshells. I would ask myself why I had no need for the product.

You can't know and believe. You only believe.

I'm not simply going to doubt my personal experience due to some idea that it "can't happen" or that rational science shows otherwise. First, a lot of people have had similar experience. Second, I know what I have experienced. You may argue that I don't even know that, so for now I wont challenge your hypothesis...i'm just asking why you are so set on it.
Finally, there are many scientists such as Dr.John Lennox who are also believers.

You need to ask yourself why you have such a zeal to attempt to falsify belief, and also why you think that there is only one proper way to think, reason, and conclude.

Did it ever occur to you that "the enemy" itself does not want us to believe?

Hey, what good a devil would I be if wanted you to believe? Actually, now that I think on it, belief is good. It’s the only thing that keeps me going. Without your faith, I am nothing.

Does it make any sense that Were there a Creator of all seen and unseen whose only interaction with humanity was an appearance at a point in time as a human?

I think I missed something vital in here, Phat.

Does it make sense that were there a god who came as jesus? … who came as jesus and what? There appears to be a word or a clause that was skipped. I’m not trying to be grammar police (lord knows how many times I do it, daily) but I’m thinking I missed something important.

I dont believe this stuff simply to fit in or because it was the dogma I was taught.

That’s ok. I’ll believe that enough for the both of us. Culture is strong on the human soul.

You guys are free to accuse them of fantasy, denial of "evidence" and selective bias.

I don’t know about ‘you guys’ but I accuse. Accused as requested. Doesn’t change much of anything.

My question to you is why is such a scenario outside of your realm of possibility?

What kind of possibility? The science kind of “reasonable within generally acceptable extensions of established physical law”? Or the religious kind of “anything goes”?

One requires evidence, the other, not so much. You can “possible” your way into anything you want to believe. If you want to talk possible I prefer the science kind.

And so my answer is, with what we know of the universe, the planet, the history of human affairs, psychology, geology, lotsa –ologies the possibility of such a scenario as you want it to be, is staggeringly bad. I mean real bad. El stinko. To the point of no value in any discussions of the cosmos.

Such scenarios are the stuff of childhood acculturation. Or abuse, as we call it in the human world, maybe.

Why do I need to show otherwise? You have not successfully shown that there is nothing there.

Uhh, Phat?

You really want me to try to prove a negative?

You know that's not allowed from the most basic logic? As in mathematically rigorous it's a big no no, you can't do that kinda impossible, and thus, worthless task?

You know this stuff. Or should.

Phat writes: If your wife said she loved you, would you immediately question it, doubt it, and test it? What if she knew you were doubting and testing and attempting to falsify her feelings? Your very doubt would get you in trouble. Same with God.

If your wife tried to tell you something unflattering about her past, would you run away in fear of shattering your perfect illusion? What love is built on ignorance?

I ascribe to ignosticism because I find that the concept of God is too poorly defined to make a coherent argument for or against its existence. That being said, I love reading a good Jewish argument and there's two quotes that have stuck with me in particular.

The first one comes from Rabbi Paul Kipnes

quote:

---

Now consider this: Prior to the Akeidah, each encounter between God and Abraham occurs in direct one-on-one conversations. But from this point on, God never again speaks to Abraham directly. All further communication is passed through an angel. Why? Because Abraham simultaneously passed and failed the test. He showed his love of God, yes, but he employed violent means to pursue that love. The use of an intermediary – the angel – proclaims a message for future generations: Abraham really didn't listen to God’s teachings of compassion, did he?

---

The second one comes from the Chief Rabbi Emeritus of the United Synagogues of the British Commonwealth, Johnathan Sacks

quote:

---

"Do you believe,” the disciple asked the rabbi, “that God created everything for a purpose?”
“I do,” replied the rabbi.
“Well,” asked the disciple, “why did God create atheists?”
The rabbi paused before giving an answer, and when he spoke his voice was soft and intense. “Sometimes we who believe, believe too much. We see the cruelty, the suffering, the injustice in the world and we say: ‘This is the will of God.’ We accept what we should not accept. That is when God sends us atheists to remind us that what passes for religion is not always religion. Sometimes what we accept in the name of God is what we should be fighting against in the name of God.”

---

Appreciation doesn't spring into existence fully formed, but is built and reinforced by exploration and understanding.

How can you understand Jesus if you do not understand the Essenes? How can you understand the Essenes if you do not understand Judaism?

Edited by Mercury, : Capitalization error