Experiencing God

[Muffled]

But how do you know your experience of god is real' ?. Is this experience separate from you like the tree, or is the experience one with you like the tree ?.

I believe surprise is one reason that I see God as really responding. If it were coming from me I wouldn't be surprised by it. However it is true that my mind is able to recognize its own voice, the voice of my spirit which is usually a source of fantasy but not always and the voice of God as consistent with the way He has spoken to others.

I don't believe I can abe one with the tree without my spirit leaving the body and I don't believe in doing that. My experience of God is that of a separate person. His ways are not my ways as the Bible says.

 

[Muffled]

I was not talking about experiences. I was referring to your statement that the mind has been designed so that it cannot deceive. And the mind is capable of many things, not only experiences.

Now, my mind tells me that there is no God. It is actually quite sure about it.

Now what? Is there a problem with the design of my mind?

Ciao

- viole

I believe you mind is capable of thinking that it is sure about it but the thinking is still errant. There is a God so thinking that you are sure that it is otherwise lacks credibility.

I believe not everyone's mind is wired to be logical and sometimes minds are subject to an obstinate spirit. Minds can get stuck. That is what happens with my daughter; her mind just dwells on how awful her life is and that leads to thoughts of suicide. As the saying goes in Christianity " don't dwell on the problem but think of a solution."

So the question becomes: what do you do with someone who experiences God? The closed mind just discounts it but an open mind will investigate.

 

[Muffled]

I have no problem sharing My religious experience with people -- because my experience has been salvation. I was raised in a Christian home / parents were both believers/ we were in church every Sunday and Wednesday evenings. Youth choirs, summer camps, VBS, etc. People sort of Assumed I was a believer. But in early teen years I wasn't really sure of my salvation. So our pastor challenged everyone in a Sunday evening service -- if a person Wasn't Sure, Make sure, right where you're sitting -- talk to God about your concerns -- confess, repent, accept and thank Him for providing salvation for you Personally. So I Did and it was what I needed to do. No need to 'walk down the aisle' to get saved. Then - after a while-- I realized that I needed to be rebaptized cause the previous year I'd been baptized with some other young people from camp. Some of Them even realized they weren't really saved and then had made sure and They were also being baptized by immersion -- And that also made a difference. Baptism does Not save a person, but it the Outward 'expression' of the decision that has already been made Internally.
The Holy Spirit convicted me of my need for asking Jesus Christ to be my Personal Savior. And Scripture tells us that everyone needs to make that decision for him/her self.

I believe that is what many young people do making a mental assent but not really accepting the reality or as James says
James 1:23 For if any one is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like unto a man beholding his natural face in a mirror:
24 for he beholdeth himself, and goeth away, and straightway forgetteth what manner of man he was.

I believe I don't know if that was your experience but it was mine when I knew I needed jesus as Savior but wasn't ready to give up control of my life.

How did you experience that conviction? For me it was if a light came on and the truth became real to me similar to an impulse.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

That's baby talk. Come on, if you want to believe in flying spaghetti monsters, go ahead and believe in them. Why do atheist persist in presenting the false premise, as if there were really people who believe in flying spaghetti monsters. Look, I experience God, you don't. I will continue to experience God. You never will. I will live eternally in heaven. You will not.

When you say "I experience God", I take this to mean "I experience things that I conclude are from God."

While I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you're sincere, I reject the idea that you're the only person who can figure out how best to explain your experiences, whatever they are.

We can't climb into your head to see what you see, but if your conclusion of God is sound, then any rational person should be able to figure out the logical chain from your experiences to "God did it".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I believe you mind is capable of thinking that it is sure about it but the thinking is still errant. There is a God so thinking that you are sure that it is otherwise lacks credibility.

I believe not everyone's mind is wired to be logical and sometimes minds are subject to an obstinate spirit. Minds can get stuck. That is what happens with my daughter; her mind just dwells on how awful her life is and that leads to thoughts of suicide. As the saying goes in Christianity " don't dwell on the problem but think of a solution."

That's not exactly unique to Christianity.

... and not particularly Christian, IMO. From what I've seen, the more common advice I've heard from Christians is not to focus on the problem OR the solution (e.g. "let go and let God).

So the question becomes: what do you do with someone who experiences God? The closed mind just discounts it but an open mind will investigate.

The question is moot until you can produce someone who "experiences God" (as opposed to someone who merely experiences things that he assumes come from God).

 

[viole]

I believe you mind is capable of thinking that it is sure about it but the thinking is still errant. There is a God so thinking that you are sure that it is otherwise lacks credibility.

I think you are mistaken.

There is no God. Therefore to think otherwise or to have experiences of God is not credible.

Now what? Back to square one, I am afraid.

So the question becomes: what do you do with someone who experiences God? The closed mind just discounts it but an open mind will investigate.

My muslim friend experiences Allah very often, allegedly. And Allah tells him that Jesus is not the true God.

Should I give him credibility? If not, why should I give credibility to your experiences? Do you have evidence that your experiences are more plausible than his?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

Nope. I don't buy it. No one has to defend their beliefs.

No, actually everyone has to defend their beliefs and those who refuse clearly have no belief capable of being defended. The refusal to examine your beliefs critically shows how weak those beliefs actually are.

 

[Cephus]

Sorry, you're wrong again. If a person says they believe in aliens, and you ask them why they believe in aliens, and they tell you because they've seen them, then you have nothing to argue about. They can't provide the proof that you desire, but they know they have seen an alien. I experience God. I can't show you that experience, just like I can't prove to you that I brushed my teeth this morning, but I do experience God, and I did brush my teeth this morning. And really, all you're doing is calling me a liar. And I'm not really okay with that. But when you make declarations that I'm delusional, or that God is a certain figment of my imagination, I have an issue with it, for you have no good cause to slander anyone when you don't know that what they are telling you is or is not the truth.

You haven't experienced God, and so you have not business saying such things as I'm "disguising blind faith as intellectual certainty when it's nothing of the sort" when it is an absolute fact that I experience God. It is you who have not experienced God, and with the attitude about me and God that you have, you never will experience God, and so you will never have the evidence that you are asking for.

Sure there is, there's lots to argue about. They claim to have seen aliens. I can ask them the details of that encounter, I can ask if anyone can validate their story, I can look for alternate explanations to their tale. I have no obligation to take their story seriously unless they can demonstrate, with objective evidence, that their story is true. Just because someone claims to have had an experience doesn't mean they have actually had that experience and anyone who refuses to look at the experience objectively has issues. You experience something, I don't doubt you. I'm just asking how you know that you experience God. You refuse to provide any reason to take that claim seriously. Now you don't have to, of course, you can just walk away from the conversation believing anything you like. That doesn't mean I'm going to respect you or your claims, take your claims seriously, etc. It also doesn't mean that I, and others, may not challenge your claims whenever they are made because you are so unwilling to do more than state your position and not demonstrate it. I'm not calling you a liar, I'm saying that you may be wrong, in fact, all the evidence suggests that you are wrong and that you are unwilling to even evaluate your own position to find out if you are wrong, mostly because I suspect you have an emotional attachment to the position and couldn't really care less if you're actually correct. I find that to be a delusional position to take. Your opinion may vary.

And yes, I thought I had experienced God, back when I was a Christian. Turns out I was wrong. I reached that conclusion through research and introspection and an honesty about the world around me. Lots of former Christians will tell you the same thing. You will, of course, refuse to listen because of that emotional attachment, but it is most certainly true. Just thinking you had an experience with God doesn't mean you had an experience with God, it means you had an experience you cannot explain and decide to arbitrarily assign God as the cause because it feels good to do so.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Sorry, you're wrong again. If a person says they believe in aliens, and you ask them why they believe in aliens, and they tell you because they've seen them, then you have nothing to argue about. They can't provide the proof that you desire, but they know they have seen an alien.

There's always more to discuss. For starters, there's a key question: how did you know that what you saw was an alien?

I experience God. I can't show you that experience, just like I can't prove to you that I brushed my teeth this morning, but I do experience God, and I did brush my teeth this morning.

It might be impossible for you to demonstrate to us that you brushed your teeth this morning, but that doesn't mean we can't know anything about the question. For instance, if you couldn't even describe what a toothbrush looked like, I'd probably conclude that you hadn't ever used one.

And really, all you're doing is calling me a liar. And I'm not really okay with that. But when you make declarations that I'm delusional, or that God is a certain figment of my imagination, I have an issue with it, for you have no good cause to slander anyone when you don't know that what they are telling you is or is not the truth.

So the fact that you'll be offended if you're wrong means you must be correct?

 

[JerryL]

That's just nonsense, and you know it. Deluded? Get a grip. If my experiences of God are delusions, then I'm in big trouble, because I experience God quite often.

That's an appeal to consequence.

(though personally I'm quite convinced this is trolling and none of what you post is sincere)

 

[godnotgod]

There is no God.

I wonder if you can describe what occurs when you think the following:

"Think neither God, nor not-God"

 

[godnotgod]

No, actually everyone has to defend their beliefs and those who refuse clearly have no belief capable of being defended. The refusal to examine your beliefs critically shows how weak those beliefs actually are.

It's not the belief that is weak. In fact, it is extremely powerful, so powerful it is accepted as Truth without question. What is weak is one's attentiveness to what is going on. Because most believers are unable to adequately defend their beliefs, they become defensive, and defense leads to offense, as you can see occurring with Sonofason. This is because they are personally attached to their beliefs, and take offense when others criticize what they believe is Absolute Truth.

 

[viole]

I wonder if you can describe what occurs when you think the following:

"Think neither God, nor not-God"

Are you asking me to think to think neither God nor not-God. Or just to think neither God nor not-God?

Let's take the latter, for simplicity.

Mmh, I can only indirectly describe it.

It is the same feeling of thinking neither blue fairies nor not-blue fairies.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Cephus]

It's not the belief that is weak. In fact, it is extremely powerful, so powerful it is accepted as Truth without question. What is weak is one's attentiveness to what is going on. Because most believers are unable to adequately defend their beliefs, they become defensive, and defense leads to offense, as you can see occurring with Sonofason. This is because they are personally attached to their beliefs, and take offense when others criticize what they believe is Absolute Truth.

It's people who are terrified to examine their beliefs critically because they fear, deep down, that their beliefs are too weak to stand up to critical evaluation that I'm talking about. The act of believing is strong. The beliefs, the ones that cannot meet the criteria for rational criticism, are far, far too common. If those beliefs are actually true, they have nothing to fear from holding them to a high standard, but believers hold them to no standard whatsoever because they know, whether they will admit it or not, that they're just not that worthwhile.

 

[Parsimony]

It's people who are terrified to examine their beliefs critically because they fear, deep down, that their beliefs are too weak to stand up to critical evaluation that I'm talking about.

For some people, a reluctance to critically examine their beliefs also comes from a fear of offending God by questioning Him or the Bible. That was the case with me for a long time. I'm not saying that this is true for everyone. Indeed, some may have critically examined theism before adopting it. At least now I feel that I can more objectively examine my beliefs as I no longer have that fear. If God exists, I believe that He would encourage rational inquiry into anything before accepting it as the truth.

 

[Cephus]

For some people, a reluctance to critically examine their beliefs also comes from a fear of offending God by questioning Him or the Bible. That was the case with me for a long time. I'm not saying that this is true for everyone. Indeed, some may have critically examined theism before adopting it. At least now I feel that I can more objectively examine my beliefs as I no longer have that fear. If God exists, I believe that He would encourage rational inquiry into anything before accepting it as the truth.

Which is actually a self-defeating mechanism because if you never examine your beliefs and find that there's no reason to believe that a god exists, you cannot offend a non-existent deity. I agree with you that any god that doesn't want you to check him out isn't a god worth worshipping in the first place.

 

[godnotgod]

Are you asking me to think to think neither God nor not-God. Or just to think neither God nor not-God?

Let's take the latter, for simplicity.

Mmh, I can only indirectly describe it.

It is the same feeling of thinking neither blue fairies nor not-blue fairies.

Ciao

- viole

Oh? and what 'feeling' or change in consciousness occurs, if any, as compared to thinking God or not thinking God?

 

[viole]

Oh? and what 'feeling' or change in consciousness occurs, if any, as compared to thinking God or not thinking God?

None whatsoever. As far as I, or my consciouness, can tell. Or is consciousnesses?

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

This is incorrect, because you are still making God an object of the mind, in which you still see yourself as separate from God. What you are actually doing is projecting an image of God onto an imaginary 'other', and then transforming that imaginary image into a reality in the mind. This is a well understood phenomenon in psychology. It is one of the Five Egotistical States of Apparent Love of Others, in this case, that of Idolatrous Love. Don't get me wrong. I am not saying that a divine nature is imaginary, and no, I am not an atheist (nor a not-atheist). But these machinations of the mind must be transcended in order for real spiritual experiences to come into play.

There remains an acceptance in the reality of this experience of God. How is this any different than my experience of posted conversations with you? There is no you but there is a consistence of experience which provides a certainty that you are not me.

I lack as much control over my experience of this being who guides me towards enlightenment as I lack any control over your person. It is interesting to experience this separation which does not exist. Funny too sometimes. Who is it that we argue with. Even more unsettling, who are these adversarial entities which prance about my life, seemingly independent and non-connected.

Perhaps I should and inform them that they don't really exist. It would be interesting.

Like telling some Thief he doesn't exist regardless of how consistently he continues to insist he does.

 

[godnotgod]

None whatsoever. As far as I, or my consciouness, can tell. Or is consciousnesses?

Ciao

- viole

So when you said:

It is the same feeling of thinking neither blue fairies nor not-blue fairies.

You are saying there is no difference in your feeling between thinking either that there are blue fairies or not blue faires, and thinking neither at all? Come now! There is obviously a difference between taking a position on the matter, or not. That difference is one of consciousness. The difference is huge.