Experiencing God

[Nakosis]

It's a problem because reality actually matters. We do not personally determine what we experience as God or not God, we are personally responsible for what we THINK we experience, just as we are personally responsible for claims we make about Bigfoot, angels, leprechauns and unicorns. What we experience matters and it represents something on the "reality scale". If you think that it doesn't make a bit of difference what people claim, you're just wrong. The metaphorical drunk doesn't really see pink elephants and it would be foolish to let them think they do. We don't think that the crazy guy on the street corner is really talking to someone else that we just can't see, we seek to get him help because there is something wrong with him. We don't get to define reality as we see fit, especially if we're going to take those definitions out and try to convince others that they are true without any validation whatsoever.

Still not telling me what the problem is, other than you don't like it. I can define reality as I see fit. That's what people do. A definition is not reality. It's just a definition. Someone has to come up with them.

You and the religious folks want to fight over who gets to define reality. Ok, don't see how that changes anything.

Personally I define reality for a lot of people. Because, I don't know, someone needs to. It's a matter of convenience/agreement. I'd happily let someone define it but they don't want to accept the responsibility I suppose. So they let others define it for them.

That's sort of the problem, *YOU* shouldn't accept the non-validated testimony of your personal experiences either! You have no reason whatsoever to take those thoughts seriously. You have no way to verify them, you are just making internal assertions that you cannot test in any rational way. You might be entitled to your own beliefs, nobody has any way of stopping whatever thoughts you have going on in your head, but you are not entitled to your own reality. The second you open your mouth, your beliefs are subject to being challenged and people have an obligation to point out how utterly unsupported they are, even in your own head.

Sorry, can't go about validating everything I've experienced. Even what can be validated is limited. You get to some point and decide for yourself your are satisfied enough. It's never 100%. Other people are lazy, ok I don't want to say lazy, but don't care enough or would whether believe what they are told because it is what the want to believe anyway.

I don't have the time to validate everything I run into in life. We try to decide the important things to validate and otherwise go with what seems to work. Or in some cases whatever you can convince others to accept. People have, do and will continue to do so and get through life just fine.

As I see it, you have no more authority to define reality for me then the religious folks do. Just some egotistical need I don't have.

 

[Cephus]

You and the religious folks want to fight over who gets to define reality. Ok, don't see how that changes anything.

That's the thing, nobody gets to define reality, reality defines itself, it's up to us to accept that definition and deal with what actually is, not what we wish was. We don't get to go around and say "I think the speed of light should be X because that's what I like". It is what it is. We accept what it is because that's what it is. That's the point. Reality is what is left when we stop believing things with no justification and simply accept what actually exists.

 

[Nakosis]

That's the thing, nobody gets to define reality, reality defines itself, it's up to us to accept that definition and deal with what actually is, not what we wish was. We don't get to go around and say "I think the speed of light should be X because that's what I like". It is what it is. We accept what it is because that's what it is. That's the point. Reality is what is left when we stop believing things with no justification and simply accept what actually exists.

Instead of just [me] disagreeing. Can you provide an example of reality defining itself?

Sorry changing this since I see you having an example. The speed of light is determined by observation. There could be an problem with our ability to observe light since because no matter how fast we travel towards or away from the source the speed that light reaches us remains the same.

So you are depending on observation/personal experience as to the speed of light. Not to mention it is defined by miles, meters, some arbitrary unit of measure defined by man.

I've never measured the speed of light have you?

Sorry, another edit.

Man has define the speed of light. But ok lets say this is some constant regardless of it being defined. People have live tens of thousands of years with no knowledge of the speed of light. How does this knowledge affect your life. I know there is a limit to how fast I can get a processor to execute instruction instructions for now, until someone figures out how to beat it, then it just becomes another arbitrary constant.

 

[Cephus]

Instead of just [me] disagreeing. Can you provide an example of reality defining itself?

Actually, in retrospect, using the word "defining" is perhaps incorrect since that implies causality and purpose and there's no reason to think that there was any of that. I meant, and I know you saw my other example, that there are things in the universe that simply are the way they are. The speed of light. The gravitational constant. There are lots of different ones we can look at and for each and every one of them, they are identical for each and every of the seven plus billion people on this planet. Their beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on these constants. They can believe that the speed of light is 40mph but they are demonstrably wrong.

Sorry changing this since I see you having an example. The speed of light is determined by observation. There could be an problem with our ability to observe light since because no matter how fast we travel towards or away from the source the speed that light reaches us remains the same.

No worries, I'm happy to clarify anyhow. Everything in the real world is determined by observation. We verify the speed of light in a variety of different ways, from a variety of different sources and it always comes up exactly the same. It is so well verified that it would be perverse to think that we are completely wrong about it. Granted, we learn new things every day, the nature of knowledge is that it's always provisional, we only know what we know today, we have no idea what we might know tomorrow, but with our current knowledge set, there is no real question what the speed of light is or what the force of gravity is, etc. Just because it is in the realm of extreme possibilities that we might find out that we were wrong, that's not cause to believe something else. The time to believe something is when we have evidence that it is actually true and not a moment before.

So you are depending on observation/personal experience as to the speed of light. Not to mention it is defined by miles, meters, some arbitrary unit of measure defined by man.

Everything depends on observation and personal experience but where we find truths about the universe comes when we make those observations objectively and collectively. When we have a large number of people making the exact same observation under the same conditions and coming up with the same data, that suggests that there's something actually there. That is something that is done by science, it is not something that is done by religion.

And while the words used to describe those measurements are arbitrary, as all of human language is, the distances themselves are specific and do not change.

I've never measured the speed of light have you?

Yes I have. I got the expected speed.

Man has define the speed of light. But ok lets say this is some constant regardless of it being defined. People have live tens of thousands of years with no knowledge of the speed of light. How does this knowledge affect your life. I know there is a limit to how fast I can get a processor to execute instruction instructions for now, until someone figures out how to beat it, then it just becomes another arbitrary constant.

Man put a name on it, we didn't define it. We didn't decide it would be 299,792,458 meters per second and the universe complied. We figured out how fast it is and put a name on it, that's all. We continue to refine the speed to many decimal places as we learn more. We don't actually change the speed of light when we do so. What I think about the speed of light is entirely irrelevant to the speed of light. It is what it is whether I'm happy about it or not. Reality doesn't give a damn what you think about it. It simply is.

The problem here is that you're trying to make yourself much more important in the larger scheme of things than you actually are. You, as an individual, just don't matter. In fact, the entire human species, in the big picture, is entirely irrelevant. If an asteroid crashed into the planet tomorrow and made all of us extinct, the universe would continue on as it always did and, even though it has no cognitive function, it wouldn't care one whit that we were gone. If there is other intelligent life out there, they won't notice either. Someday, some alien intelligence might come to our solar system and we might become an archaeological oddity when they find our remains but that's it. We're an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system, spinning around in an insignificant galaxy among an insignificant cluster of galaxies, among billions and billions of galaxies out there. We're not the bee's knees to anyone but ourselves. The faster everyone gets that though their head, the better. Dealing with reality as reality is, that's part of the basic maturation process.

Religion isn't about dealing with reality, it's about human ego. It's about people who want to be the creator of the universe's BFF. It's about people who want to be special. But if you want to be special, actually be special, don't invent some kind of imaginary specialness, like the guy with the imaginary hot girlfriend in Canada that nobody ever sees but she's a model and rich. That kind of thing is absurd.

 

[Sonofason]

Are you upset because I don't consider your goosebumps to be an "experience of God"?

I'm not at all upset. What you think about me doesn't matter to me. You think it's arrogant to believe Jesus. I say so what? Who cares? I'm not upset. I just don't care about your opinions. They don't hold any weight.

 

[Sonofason]

Sonofason, I do admit that you do have your hands full with this topic, but lets face it, whatever you did is getting a lot of viewer interest and member activity . So anyway, way too cool! When I was five years old my mother shut the door to my bedroom so that the hall light no longer provided light to my bedroom and I was in the dark. I threw a fit! She told me to pray to God in the name of Jesus Christ to take away my fear of the dark. Up until then I had never heard of God or Jesus Christ. I said the prayer, I had an undescribable experience that affected me for the rest of my life (for sixty years now anyway), and I was never afraid of the dark again. That prayer, which my mother had suggested as a joke on a five year old, changed my whole life. If I had not made that prayer, then my whole life would have been different, and probably not for the best. I have been a Christian mystic for sixty years with the last forty years of it being also a yogi mystic. There has been a lot of rough ups and downs through the years but over all it has been an interesting ride. I wouldn't give any of it up and the thousands and thousands of hours that I spent in meditation has taught me a lot things that are leading to some real interesting realities. Yes I never had a life, but "whoa!", the knowledge was worth it . So anyway Sonofason, that is my story . Well, at least I got to post one post where I am on topic .

That is an awesome story and testimony. I appreciate you sharing that with me. It is exactly the kind of experience and answer I was hoping for when I started this thread. What you describe is another reason why people don't actually tell their experiences with others. It is because, in my opinion, experiences of God are indescribable, just as you have said. What good is telling of an experience you can't describe. Oh how wondrous and wonderful God truly is.

God Bless

 

[Sonofason]

Do you think Sonofason is trying to define God as "the experience of goosebumps"? I don't.

My impression was that he's taking the goosebumps as evidence of a god-concept... one generally in line with mainstream Christianity.

Sonofason, is my impression correct?

I think you're correct. Goosebumps are not God. You can get goosebumps, I believe, from various stimuli. I believe that God is one of those stimuli. But that sensation is only a part of the experience that I have experienced. There is more that I just can't describe. I'm not sure how to describe the extent of how I feel during these moments. I feel loved. I feel a sense of truth. I feel like my entire body is resonating with something. I think it's God. I think it's God because it is always associated with that which I perceive to be to the heart of God. His will, His mind, His love, His mercy, His nature. I feel connected to that something that I perceive to be God.

That sensation, that experience I call experiencing God, I usually only sense for a few moments, but there have been times that I have been in that state, feeling that entire experience for over an hour.

When do you get the goosebumps?

Do you ever get them when someone says something that is true? I'm not talking about stuff like 2+2=4, but stuff with deeper meaning. When you get a sense, a very strong sense that something is important and true? The Holy Spirit is also the Spirit of Truth. It is that Spirit of God that I sense, when I experience God. I sense it as the Holy Spirit, The Spirit of God, The Spirit of Truth. Love.

 

[Sonofason]

Actually, in retrospect, using the word "defining" is perhaps incorrect since that implies causality and purpose and there's no reason to think that there was any of that.

The problem with this assumption is that it is one sided. There is also no reason to think that there isn't causality and purpose.

I meant, and I know you saw my other example, that there are things in the universe that simply are the way they are. The speed of light. The gravitational constant. There are lots of different ones we can look at and for each and every one of them, they are identical for each and every of the seven plus billion people on this planet. Their beliefs have no bearing whatsoever on these constants. They can believe that the speed of light is 40mph but they are demonstrably wrong.

No worries, I'm happy to clarify anyhow. Everything in the real world is determined by observation.

Exactly, so how is it that I have determined that my experience is God? I experienced something, and have determined that it is God.

We verify the speed of light in a variety of different ways, from a variety of different sources and it always comes up exactly the same. It is so well verified that it would be perverse to think that we are completely wrong about it.

Yes, and a hundred years or so ago, it would have been equally perverse to have thought that there wasn't that tested, stable, invisible, weightless, frictionless, and entirely imaginary but necessary medium that was thought to permeate the universe known as the luminiferous ether, for without which light waves could not travel through space.
(A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, p119, 2003 by Broadway Books)

Granted, we learn new things every day, the nature of knowledge is that it's always provisional, we only know what we know today, we have no idea what we might know tomorrow, but with our current knowledge set, there is no real question what the speed of light is or what the force of gravity is, etc.

Indeed, it is as you suggest, not only do we learn new things every day, sometimes some of those old things we already learned through repeated experimentation need to be tossed into the trash, like lumineferous ether.

Just because it is in the realm of extreme possibilities that we might find out that we were wrong, that's not cause to believe something else. The time to believe something is when we have evidence that it is actually true and not a moment before.

Indeed, just because it is in the realm of extreme possibilities that I might find out that I was wrong with regard to my perceived experiences of God, I can see no cause to believe something else. You're not quite right here in saying, "the time to believe something is when we have evidence that it is actually true and not a moment before." Because as I have shown, sometimes what is actually true turns out to be false. Therefore, I would say, that the time to believe something else is not so much when we have evidence that it is actually true, but when the evidence convinces us that it is actually true. So far, I am not convinced to believe that my experiences are not of God. Convince me.

Everything depends on observation and personal experience but where we find truths about the universe comes when we make those observations objectively and collectively. When we have a large number of people making the exact same observation under the same conditions and coming up with the same data, that suggests that there's something actually there. That is something that is done by science, it is not something that is done by religion.

Indeed, I know many people who experience what I experience, and they are convinced just as I am that those experiences are of God. I call that an experience that is independently verifiable. It is independently verifiable because it has been independently verified by many many people. And the only ones who don't experience those experiences as experiences of God are the ones who don't believe that those kinds of experiences are experiences of God.

Forgive me for not addressing your entire post. I just wanted to focus on that part of your argument that I felt is relevant to this discussion.

 

[Cephus]

The problem with this assumption is that it is one sided. There is also no reason to think that there isn't causality and purpose.

But that's an extra step that isn't actually called for. Until there is evidence that causality and purpose are required, they should not be assumed. Occam's Razor.

Exactly, so how is it that I have determined that my experience is God? I experienced something, and have determined that it is God.

But you have not shown that it is God, in order to do so there has to be a direct causal link between the experience and the supposed cause of the experience. You cannot show that. You are taking an experience, and granted I don't have any details so please correct me if I'm wrong, and simply ASSERTING a cause that you cannot demonstrate. If you can actually demonstrate that cause with objective evidence, I'll admit that I'm wrong. I don't think I am though.

Yes, and a hundred years or so ago, it would have been equally perverse to have thought that there wasn't that tested, stable, invisible, weightless, frictionless, and entirely imaginary but necessary medium that was thought to permeate the universe known as the luminiferous ether, for without which light waves could not travel through space.

That's overstating the case significantly as there was never any evidence for such a thing but it was a widely held belief. It was wrong. Knowledge is, by definition, transitory. We know what we know right this second. We will invariably know more tomorrow. In another 100 years, we'll know significantly more about the world than we know today. It's the nature of knowledge. It's also the nature of knowledge that we accept things if and when we actually have the evidence to back them up and not a moment before.

Indeed, it is as you suggest, not only do we learn new things every day, sometimes some of those old things we already learned through repeated experimentation need to be tossed into the trash, like lumineferous ether.

Indeed they do and should be once they are no longer supported by objective evidence. That doesn't mean we get to spitball things that we wish were true and pretend they are because some day, they might be supported.

Let us know when you have any actual evidence for God. That is when it ought to be accepted and not a second before.

 

[Sonofason]

But that's an extra step that isn't actually called for. Until there is evidence that causality and purpose are required, they should not be assumed. Occam's Razor.

What exactly is the evidence that a cabin in the middle of the woods is a product of causality and purpose. Clearly we see people building cabins in the woods, and we see that when they do so, those cabins have causality and purpose. But what of other cabins that we have not seen anyone build. We happen upon them, and they're just there. How do you distinguish a cabin in the woods that has no causality and purpose from a cabin in the woods that does?

But you have not shown that it is God, in order to do so there has to be a direct causal link between the experience and the supposed cause of the experience. You cannot show that. You are taking an experience, and granted I don't have any details so please correct me if I'm wrong, and simply ASSERTING a cause that you cannot demonstrate. If you can actually demonstrate that cause with objective evidence, I'll admit that I'm wrong. I don't think I am though.

For me, the Bible was the link. I read it, I believed it, and as a result I experience God, all the time now. There was a direct causal link. I do not have to show that my experiences are from God in order to believe that my experiences are from God. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. I act. I experience. I perceive. I believe. It is you that is without. What I mean by that is that it is not a requirement for me to show anything to anyone in order to believe what I believe, however it is most essential, apparently, that you see what I have experienced in order to even explore the possibility that I have indeed experienced what I believe I have experienced. And since I cannot show you, you will of course remain in a state without, because you are unwilling to act.

That's overstating the case significantly as there was never any evidence for such a thing but it was a widely held belief. It was wrong. Knowledge is, by definition, transitory. We know what we know right this second. We will invariably know more tomorrow. In another 100 years, we'll know significantly more about the world than we know today. It's the nature of knowledge. It's also the nature of knowledge that we accept things if and when we actually have the evidence to back them up and not a moment before.

I'm sorry, it was a fact that light is a wave, and it is a fact that waves need a medium for which to propagate. It was not a belief, but a proven fact. Indeed the ether was an assumption that was based on a proven fact. It could very well be that the speed of light is an assumption that is based on a proven fact.

Indeed they do and should be once they are no longer supported by objective evidence. That doesn't mean we get to spitball things that we wish were true and pretend they are because some day, they might be supported.

I believe in God because I experience God. Like the speed of light, my belief is supported. Convince me of something else, and I will believe that. Until then, I see no reason to assume I'm wrong.

Let us know when you have any actual evidence for God. That is when it ought to be accepted and not a second before.

Okay..I have actual evidence of God, and you ought to accept that.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not at all upset. What you think about me doesn't matter to me. You think it's arrogant to believe Jesus. I say so what? Who cares? I'm not upset. I just don't care about your opinions. They don't hold any weight.

I think you misunderstood my position. I never said that it's arrogant to believe in Jesus. The point I was trying to make is that saying arrogant things is still arrogant even if Jesus said them first.

 

[Thief]

I think you misunderstood my position. I never said that it's arrogant to believe in Jesus. The point I was trying to make is that saying arrogant things is still arrogant even if Jesus said them first.

Does that mean ...no matter what quote you choose.....
To quote the Carpenter....is arrogant.

(trying to label someone as arrogant...no matter what?)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does that mean ...no matter what quote you choose.....
To quote the Carpenter....is arrogant.

(trying to label someone as arrogant...no matter what?)

No, it doesn't mean that.

Did you even read my post?

 

[Nakosis]

Man put a name on it, we didn't define it. We didn't decide it would be 299,792,458 meters per second and the universe complied. We figured out how fast it is and put a name on it, that's all. We continue to refine the speed to many decimal places as we learn more. We don't actually change the speed of light when we do so. What I think about the speed of light is entirely irrelevant to the speed of light. It is what it is whether I'm happy about it or not. Reality doesn't give a damn what you think about it. It simply is.

We did define c the constant through agreement because of our inability to make a precise measurement. Also the speed of light changes depending on the medium it passes through. A lot of things can affect the speed of light, like a black hole for instance. Man can affect the speed of light by setting up the conditions by which the measurement is made. We do affect the speed of light by how we choose to observe it. Sometimes scientists seem to forget or ignore their own involvement in the act of observation. We, at a minimum set up the conditions of observation, a necessary part of science. The observation depends on man for the observation.

The problem here is that you're trying to make yourself much more important in the larger scheme of things than you actually are. You, as an individual, just don't matter.

Actually I'm just saying I think it is a mistake for a scientist to dismiss the affects they have on their observations.

In fact, the entire human species, in the big picture, is entirely irrelevant. If an asteroid crashed into the planet tomorrow and made all of us extinct, the universe would continue on as it always did and, even though it has no cognitive function, it wouldn't care one whit that we were gone. If there is other intelligent life out there, they won't notice either. Someday, some alien intelligence might come to our solar system and we might become an archaeological oddity when they find our remains but that's it. We're an insignificant species on an insignificant planet in an insignificant solar system, spinning around in an insignificant galaxy among an insignificant cluster of galaxies, among billions and billions of galaxies out there. We're not the bee's knees to anyone but ourselves. The faster everyone gets that though their head, the better. Dealing with reality as reality is, that's part of the basic maturation process.

Species is not particularly important, but intelligence is here. Intelligence is at least required for observation.

Colors for example is an interpretation of the brain. It is a frequency that the brain interprets. No sight, no color without the brain.

A bat for example, it's brain interprets the universe through sound waves. Who can say exactly the universe experienced by a bat?

I think a problem is we place too much importance in our senses forgetting that they are limited, unreliable and the universe we experience is a matter of interpretation which we don't really control.

Scientists may forget to consider the importance they place in the senses and the brain while conducting their experiences. We as a species depend on being the species that we are. Another species may have different senses and may experience a completely different universe then the one we experience. Kind of egotistical to assume the universe is what it is according to how a human being senses it.

Religion isn't about dealing with reality, it's about human ego. It's about people who want to be the creator of the universe's BFF. It's about people who want to be special. But if you want to be special, actually be special, don't invent some kind of imaginary specialness, like the guy with the imaginary hot girlfriend in Canada that nobody ever sees but she's a model and rich. That kind of thing is absurd.

You want to talk about religion, ok. Religion at least accepts there is something unique about being a human that scientists seem to sometimes find inconvenient.[/QUOTE]

 

[mystic64]

Guys All individual conscience minds have an energy frequency signature that is unique. No two consciouse minds have the same energy frequency signature. The presence of God, the Father of Jesus that is in Heaven (and any other god for that matter) can be proven. It is just that we do not have the technology at this point in time to measure these individual energy frequency signatures. The Christian Bible in the book Revelation talks about a fellow named John who is given a rod and told to measure the inside of the temple. Our body is, or can be, the temple of God or any other presence for that matter. What this John fellow is measuring is the presence of God in a person's body/temple. The question of whether or not God is present in an individual that claims that God is present within them is going to be answered by science . It is all just a matter of time. The fonies will be separated from the real !

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Guys All individual conscience minds have an energy frequency signature that is unique. No two consciouse minds have the same energy frequency signature.

You know, it's hard for me to take what you say seriously when you tell us, effectively, that you pulled it all out of your butt:

It is just that we do not have the technology at this point in time to measure these individual energy frequency signatures.

 

[Nakosis]

Guys All individual conscience minds have an energy frequency signature that is unique. No two consciouse minds have the same energy frequency signature. The presence of God, the Father of Jesus that is in Heaven (and any other god for that matter) can be proven. It is just that we do not have the technology at this point in time to measure these individual energy frequency signatures. The Christian Bible in the book Revelation talks about a fellow named John who is given a rod and told to measure the inside of the temple. Our body is, or can be, the temple of God or any other presence for that matter. What this John fellow is measuring is the presence of God in a person's body/temple. The question of whether or not God is present in an individual that claims that God is present within them is going to be answered by science . It is all just a matter of time. The fonies will be separated from the real !

Science has chosen not to deal with the supernatural because there is no expectation of the supernatural to follow natural laws.

Supernatural claims by their nature can't be validated. You can't even validate the claim yourself.

You accept this because?

I'm assuming you have chosen to accept the authority of the Bible. Again, because?

These are claims you have no personal experience with. It can be the same with science. People can accept the authority without doing the actual testing. Trusting others to verify you experience.

You can believe it, you just can't expect anyone else to accept something they haven't verified for themselves, whether religion or science. But, people do.

I've been fooled enough by the claims of people whether of a religious nature or scientific nature that I don't accept anything that I haven't verified for myself.

I can believe a lot of things but that doesn't mean I'm going to accept the reality of something I've no personal knowledge of.

If God provided me personally with the vision of Revelation I'd probably accept it as the reality of my experience. However I don't know John, the author of Revelations. Why should I even start to trust the claims of a person I don't know?

 

[Woodrow LI]

I am amazed that so many believers that have had "spiritual" experiences won't share their experiences with others. It ought not surprise me however, as I too have had "spiritual" experiences that I just will not share with anyone. I gather that the telling of such experiences puts one at risk of throwing one's pearls to the swine.

My experience of God has actually brought me to a point where I no longer require faith to believe in God. I am absolutely certain of his existence and presence in my life.

So I guess that leaves me with a question for those who have had God experiences. What do you think it was that you did which enabled you to experience what you experienced? What did you do to invoke God's attention?

On occasion I share the reason I left Christianity for 20+ years and became Atheist and the experience that led me back to God(swt) and accepting Islam.
I tend not to do so often and usually just share it with Muslims.
I am not an advocate for any form of proselytizing and believe each person is responsible for what they believe and has the obligation to search all things. If a person believes because of an experience another person had, might be believing for the long reasons.

To share a "Spiritual Experience" with God(swt) can often drive a person away from searching, especially if they view it as delusional or some form of "brain washing"

 

[Nakosis]

To share a "Spiritual Experience" with God(swt) can often drive a person away from searching, especially if they view it as delusional or some form of "brain washing"

How about if others view it as delusional? A lot of peer pressure there. I'd imagine professing a belief in God might even prejudice folks against your work in certain circles.

Probably a lot less criticism for your experiences among the Muslim community. Also telling my experience has little meaning to people who don't know me anyway. No reason to trust anything I say.

 

[Sonofason]

I think you misunderstood my position. I never said that it's arrogant to believe in Jesus. The point I was trying to make is that saying arrogant things is still arrogant even if Jesus said them first.

Again, that is your opinion, which means absolutely nothing.

I think it's arrogant to suggest that you know what is arrogant and what is not. You saying something is arrogant is meaningless.