Question for Christians and those Who Believe in a Personal God

[IndigoChild5559]

I would like to pose a question to Christians, and anyone who genuinely believes that they have a personal relationship with a god or gods. My primary question is: Have you ever thought that it is possible that this relationship could only exist in your imagination, and not in objective reality?

Yes. I realize there is a chance I may be wrong.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Yes. I realize there is a chance I may be wrong.

I'm glad you have the honesty to recognize that as a possibility.

 

[1213]

Okay, thanks for the reply. So it sounds like you are convinced mainly because of the Bible but not because you have had any interactions with God that you can clearly demonstrate were in fact interactions with God?

I think Bible is interaction from God also to me. I also think that things go as told in the Bible, is an interaction from God.

 

[Kenny]

Thanks for the reply. I'm glad we can agree to disagree and still discuss.

Agreed.

As far as your friend born without an eardrum goes, I wouldn't dismiss it completely, I am sure you are not intentionally making it up, but I would definitely have more questions. How old was this person at this time? Is it possible that it simply developed late like in infancy or toddlerhood? Is it possible that the doctors misdiagnosed? Again, I'm not dismissing your claim as impossible, but I would want to learn more and explore natural explanations first. And sure, I would be interested in seeing the video, although things like that can and many times have been easily faked, and in that case my default position would definitely be to assume it was fake until proven otherwise, that is, seeing verified official doctor records, friends and family as witnesses, etc. I'm definitely open minded to these things, but I take the default position of skepticism until I see no possibility for a natural explanation.

Basically, this is the issue that I was talking about. Unless it happens to you personally or someone you really know the person, there is always room for rationalization. (understandably)

The eardrum was from birth and later in life re-examined for potential of other methods for her to hear by her parents but all said “no go”. The church paid for her to go to the doctor after she said she could hear to make sure… their position was “all we need to do is open the hole in your skin"

To address your last paragraph, I agree why *not* pray for no murder, no rape, no war, etc.? I think the reason that people don't pray for these things is because they know deep down their prayers won't be answered--there will always be evil in the world, and there isn't a god out there who is going to stop it. At least, that's my opinion.

The context is “why won’t God answer the prayer of the abused”… I just took it to its apex. I always say that people can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. “If” God would answer that prayer, then indeed we would create robotic people because we would be praying that there would be absolutely no pain or suffering

In this case, this is where I would say that people pray without knowledge or understanding. (At least in the context of my faith). The earth was given to man and was also given free-will. As I see it, it isn’t that God doesn’t care but rather it is man that has created their own hell on earth and man doesn’t care.

The parameters were set from the beginning. The earth was a gift from God to man. We are the controlling factor.

I disagree with the argument that eliminating people's ability to do evil would make us "robots."

I wouldn’t agree… choice makes us non-robotic IMV

You believe in Heaven, right? Presumably in the Christian view, God prevents people from doing evil in heaven, yes? Does that mean that all the people in heaven are "robots" and that life is no good there?

sorry… forgot to answer this one… coming up

 

[Colt]

I would like to pose a question to Christians, and anyone who genuinely believes that they have a personal relationship with a god or gods. My primary question is: Have you ever thought that it is possible that this relationship could only exist in your imagination, and not in objective reality? Furthermore, if you are convinced that this god is objectively real and exists outside of your imagination, what are the events that have taken place in your life that have led you to this conclusion, and what demonstrates to you that this god is in fact a real being who answers your prayers and is personally involved in your life on a daily basis, even though others can't see this?

I have a genuine curiosity about this, because there was a time in my life where I could say that I considered myself to be a Christian, however, even during this time, I never actually had any experiences that indicated to me that a god was directly involved in my life or answering my prayers. I prayed multiple times per day as a Christian, in many cases up to 10 or more times per day, but looking back on it, I cannot see even the slightest bit of evidence that there was an all-powerful deity in another dimension who was listening to my prayers and providing answers, or involved in my life at all. However, many of my family members, and many highly intelligent people who I genuinely respect, claim that they *know* with certainty that there is a god that has been involved in their lives and that they have seen and unambiguously felt the presence of God. They are rational, skeptical people in every other aspect of their lives, and say this with utter conviction and certainty and say that they don't understand how anyone could *not* believe in a god. I don't consider myself to be a hardline atheist in the sense that I don't dismiss them completely--it is theoretically possible that they could actually be experiencing a real being that for whatever reason, is impossible for me to detect. However, I think the most likely answer is that they are deluded, as I have not seen any clear and unambiguous demonstration that these experiences are distinguishable from the imaginary. I also think the fact that no Christian can point to a physical location where god exists is strong evidence that he does not exist outside of the mental world--I struggle greatly with understanding the concept of how a being could be objectively real and exist, and yet not exist in a definable, physical location in the universe. How is such a being distinguishable from an imaginary being, and how can we demonstrate the existence of something that only exists in the mental world?

Overall, what I am interested in is hearing your reasoning behind why you believe that your prayers actually are being answered and that there is in fact a god that is communicating with you and involved in your life, and what criteria you use to determine that these experiences are real and distinguishable from a fantasy constructed by your imagination. I would also be interested if you admit that there is a slight possibility that your experiences with God could be imaginary, but that you choose to ignore that possibility and choose to have faith that you are in fact communicating with an objectively real being.

Yes, I have wondered if it was imagination.

I was once hopelessly addicted to drugs and alcohol. I surrendered to the God (who is spirit) that I had always "sensed" in my subjective mind but who's guidance I ignored! My life radically changed! That was April 28th, 1985. I was born again of the spirit, the obsession for drugs and alcohol has been blocked ever since that day.

The "self" or EGO wants to be its own savior, but it cannot be. When one is self-satisfied, they often feel no need to search for God, but when a crisis of ego deflation at depth occurs, then "suddenly" the egotistical individual is humbled enough to search for God with a whole heart.

Prayers of thanksgiving and worship are certainly heard, a sincere prayer for strength and guidance to serve others is often helpful to both parties. Avoid selfish praying.

 

[John D. Brey]

My primary question is: Have you ever thought that it is possible that this relationship could only exist in your imagination, and not in objective reality?

Answering this question also answers to another of your threads where you imply the interpretation that suggests Jesus claimed the second coming would come in a hundred years or less is (that interpretation is) proof of the failings of biblical Christians to accept "objective reality."

Everyone by nature, biological predisposition, is predisposed to doubt and question what their lyin eyes can't see, their ne'er-do-well nose can't sniff-out, and their irascible ears can't hear; more so, the biology of the brain; it's designed only to accept as "objectively real" what can pass the nose, eyes, and ears test.

God is not a product of "objective reality." Objective reality is opposed to God such that the believer who can move mountains answers to the scene in The Matrix where the young monk tells Keanu Reeves not to try to bend the spoon since that's impossible. Instead try to realize the truth: there is no "objective reality."

Those who can't let go of the biologically logical idea that objective reality (what the biology of the body can swallow) is the summum bonum of what's real, will never, can never, be sons of God.




John

 

[Kenny]

Yes, I have wondered if it was imagination.

I was once hopelessly addicted to drugs and alcohol. I surrendered to the God (who is spirit) that I had always "sensed" in my subjective mind but who's guidance I ignored! My life radically changed! That was April 28th, 1985. I was born again of the spirit, the obsession for drugs and alcohol has been blocked ever since that day.

The "self" or EGO wants to be its own savior, but it cannot be. When one is self-satisfied, they often feel no need to search for God, but when a crisis of ego deflation at depth occurs, then "suddenly" the egotistical individual is humbled enough to search for God with a whole heart.

Prayers of thanksgiving and worship are certainly heard, a sincere prayer for strength and guidance to serve others is often helpful to both parties. Avoid selfish praying.

nice!

 

[Kenny]

You believe in Heaven, right?

Certainly… on a side note, it isn’t the end destination

Presumably in the Christian view, God prevents people from doing evil in heaven, yes? Does that mean that all the people in heaven are "robots" and that life is no good there?

There would be a big difference on multiple levels:

1. A choice has been made if you are in Heaven. A mindset. Like when you get married (at least in principle) your choice was made and other alternatives are put in the not-interested heap.
2. Heaven belongs to God and not man
3. On earth you still can make the decision. When I did, my mindset changed.
4. On earth you are dealing with a cursed physical body, in Heaven you have a whole spiritual body.

So I believe we are comparing apples to oranges. IMV

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Answering this question also answers to another of your threads where you imply the interpretation that suggests Jesus claimed the second coming would come in a hundred years or less is (that interpretation is) proof of the failings of biblical Christians to accept "objective reality."

Everyone by nature, biological predisposition, is predisposed to doubt and question what their lyin eyes can't see, their ne'er-do-well nose can't sniff-out, and their irascible ears can't hear; more so, the biology of the brain; it's designed only to accept as "objectively real" what can pass the nose, eyes, and ears test.

God is not a product of "objective reality." Objective reality is opposed to God such that the believer who can move mountains answers to the scene in The Matrix where the young monk tells Keanu Reeves not to try to bend the spoon since that's impossible. Instead try to realize the truth: there is no "objective reality."

Those who can't let go of the biologically logical idea that objective reality (what the biology of the body can swallow) is the summum bonum of what's real, will never, can never, be sons of God.




John

If God is not a product of "objective reality" then what, and where, is God exactly. With all due respect, it sounds like you're defining God as being indistinguishable from the imaginary.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

The context is “why won’t God answer the prayer of the abused”… I just took it to its apex. I always say that people can look at the same evidence and come to two different conclusions. “If” God would answer that prayer, then indeed we would create robotic people because we would be praying that there would be absolutely no pain or suffering

Not at all. If an all-powerful and all-loving god exists, he could easily stop the most horrific acts of evil from occurring without making people "robotic." Also, he wouldn't have to end *all* pain and suffering, since you could argue that some pain and suffering builds character, etc. My point is that there is incredibly dark and evil sh*t that happens in this world, and if there is a god, he doesn't do a damn thing to stop it, even when innocent children suffering indescribable pain and abuse are crying out to him. And yet, you believe that there is a god who answers trivial prayers, like prayers to find your keys or find a new job, but he ignores the really, really desperate and important prayers. Could it be that the "answers" to the trivial prayers are coincidences and the non-answers to the most desperate, important prayers are not answered because the god does not exist? I'm not trying to insult your faith or your experiences, I'm just asking a genuine question. My honest assessment is that for every strange coincidence or stroke of good luck there are 10,000 or more unanswered prayers and horrible things that happen to innocent people. If an all-loving, all-knowing, and all-powerful God is in charge of the universe, do these outcomes make sense?

I would also be interested in what you think a godless universe would look like and how it would differ from the universe we live in now. If there were no god, do you think we would still invent a god, and do you think that improbable coincidences and occasional seemingly (but not actually) answered prayers would still happen? I do.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

Certainly… on a side note, it isn’t the end destination


There would be a big difference on multiple levels:

1. A choice has been made if you are in Heaven. A mindset. Like when you get married (at least in principle) your choice was made and other alternatives are put in the not-interested heap.
2. Heaven belongs to God and not man

I'll address your first two points for now.

1. Can a person in heaven choose to do evil or is that impossible? If it's impossible then why would this be different than God restricting people's abilities on earth?
2. Who does earth belong to then? And why would God create a world knowing full well that things would go wrong and horrible things would happen, when he could just create the entire universe as heaven and not create the potential for evil in the first place? Especially since he supposedly hates evil. That's about as absurd as an expert engineer who purposely built a machine to not work the way he wants it to, and then gets mad at the machine and wants to "punish" it, because it's not working, when he knows he designed it in such a way that it would inevitably fail.

 

[Colt]

Answering this question also answers to another of your threads where you imply the interpretation that suggests Jesus claimed the second coming would come in a hundred years or less is (that interpretation is) proof of the failings of biblical Christians to accept "objective reality."

Everyone by nature, biological predisposition, is predisposed to doubt and question what their lyin eyes can't see, their ne'er-do-well nose can't sniff-out, and their irascible ears can't hear; more so, the biology of the brain; it's designed only to accept as "objectively real" what can pass the nose, eyes, and ears test.

God is not a product of "objective reality." Objective reality is opposed to God such that the believer who can move mountains answers to the scene in The Matrix where the young monk tells Keanu Reeves not to try to bend the spoon since that's impossible. Instead try to realize the truth: there is no "objective reality."

Those who can't let go of the biologically logical idea that objective reality (what the biology of the body can swallow) is the summum bonum of what's real, will never, can never, be sons of God.




John

Loved your post! I thought of this quote from the UB:

"196:3.21 The exquisite and transcendent experience of loving and being loved is not just a psychic illusion because it is so purely subjective. The one truly divine and objective reality that is associated with mortal beings, the Thought Adjuster, functions to human observation apparently as an exclusively subjective phenomenon. Man's contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB 1955 IMOP

If interested the full context is here: THE SUPREMACY OF RELIGION

 

[Kenny]

Not at all. If an all-powerful and all-loving god exists, he could easily stop the most horrific acts of evil from occurring without making people "robotic."

I think the problem here is the statement without context. Let’s see if I can help. (I deleted the rest as it is contingent on above)

Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Dominion:

Radah​

raw-daw'
Verb

1. to rule, have dominion, dominate, tread down
   1. (Qal) to have dominion, rule, subjugate
   2. (Hiphil) to cause to dominate

Questions and thoughts:

1) Who has control over the earth?
2) Is an all-powerful God - powerful enough to release rule and dominion and still remain all powerful?
3) Would God be a liar if He gave dominion to man and then exercised His dominion? If that isn’t clear, let me say it this way… If I said to my son, “Here is the title deed to the car, the keys - it is yours!” and then 10 days later I said, “Well… I’m taking it back, give me the keys and the title” - Did I lie when I gave it to him? Did I ever really give it to him.

If we can understand these points, we can understand why the all-powerful God permits evil.

All-loving.

What is it real love? Have we defined it correctly? Is it our definition or God’s?

I would also be interested in what you think a godless universe would look like and how it would differ from the universe we live in now. If there were no god, do you think we would still invent a god, and do you think that improbable coincidences and occasional seemingly (but not actually) answered prayers would still happen? I do.

Theological question… will have to get back to that.

 

[John D. Brey]

If God is not a product of "objective reality" then what, and where, is God exactly. With all due respect, it sounds like you're defining God as being indistinguishable from the imaginary.

Where is reality exactly? Find reality and you've found God. . . What the agnostic and the atheist considers "objectively real" is merely a bloomin buzzin confusion after it's been aligned by eyes and a biological brain to present the viewer with a tangible, believable, logical, version of what electromagnetic waves and fields and forces can be made into in an objective senses.

These are simple and obvious examples of the generality that it is the biology, indeed the genes, of an organism that determines its effective environment, by establishing the way in which external physical signals become incorporated into its reactions. The common external phenomena of the physical and biotic world pass through a transforming filter created by the peculiar biology of each species, and it is the output of this transformation that reaches the organism and is relevant to it. Plato’s metaphor of the cave is appropriate here. Whatever the autonomous processes of the outer world may be, they cannot be perceived by the organism. Its life is determined by the shadows on the wall, passed through a transforming medium of its own creation . . . The picture of evolution that postulates an autonomous external world of `niches’ into which organisms must fit by adaptation misses what is most characteristic of the history of life.​

​

Professor Richard Lewontin, The Triple Helix, p. 64-66.​

John

 

[John D. Brey]

Loved your post! I thought of this quote from the UB:

"196:3.21 The exquisite and transcendent experience of loving and being loved is not just a psychic illusion because it is so purely subjective. The one truly divine and objective reality that is associated with mortal beings, the Thought Adjuster, functions to human observation apparently as an exclusively subjective phenomenon. Man's contact with the highest objective reality, God, is only through the purely subjective experience of knowing him, of worshiping him, of realizing sonship with him." UB 1955 IMOP

If interested the full context is here: THE SUPREMACY OF RELIGION

Professor Norman O. Brown spoke of a newborn being "polymorphously-perverse." The child wants and expects everything in his periphery to bring him pleasure, or whatever he needs, or desires. He's perfectly subjective until he's taught he's not the center of the universe. The world begins to teach him about an "objective" reality where he's not the central figure, where he must share with his siblings, where morals and rules, not personal desires, are the order of the day.

The child that won't give up his pure subjectivity and play by the objective rules of the world becomes a pariah or rebel who often ends up in prison or worse. But the gross majority of people who totally give up the original subjective nature of the soul end up worse. They lose the only portal where God can be truly engaged since God is not part of the objective world, and can only be truly engaged subjectively. Those who seek him in the objective world will come up empty handed so that the best they can do is become religious without a personal relationship with God.

Rabbi Jacob Neusner said that though he concedes Jesus was most likely the greatest Torah scholar of his day, he would still not join his disciples and follow Jesus. Why? Because in Rabbi Neusner's words Jesus wasn't directly concerned with the objective world, Israel, the family, but merely the you, the individual soul. As Neusner points out, Israel was called at Sinai as a community, an objective group, who must make decisions and abide by rules that take every individual into account, objective rules, an objective society, law makers and followers.

Jesus wasn't direclty concerned with Israel, society, or community, to the same degree he sought out those polymorphously-perverse individuals who know in the deepest part of their being that God must reveal himself to them individually, singularly, soul-to-soul, in the most subjective sense there could possibly be, since otherwise there's no criteria to determine the reality of God except to trust the person or holy writ (written by a person) telling you about God and how to find God.

God must tell an individual the Bible is true. The Bible can't tell anyone its true, or that God is true, since we must ask how we know the Bible is true, thus setting up an infinite regression of criteria of truth. The only true criterion of truth is in the pure subjectivity of the soul.

When I accepted Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior as a youth, I totally realized the ramifications of my decision. I was making a purely subjective decision to make Christ the prism of my soul such that never again would I be able to question that decision based on so-called "objective" criteria since the decision I was making when I accepted Christ as my savior was a decision to reject objective reality as the guardian of my soul.

Anyone who understands what faith in Christ entails can never go back on that decision since part and parcel of the decision is to accept a purely subjective belief over anything that can be objectively determined. To turn around and try to determine if Christ is indeed one's savior (as the thread-seeder implies) contravenes the very decision made to accept Christ as a reality that transcends carnal-objectivity. Doing that is both illogical and cowardly such that anyone with the courage to truly accept the reality of Christ never turns back to their vomit like the dog who worries it might have missed something good in the objective reality they vomited up to make room for Christ. They turn back to re-swallow the vomit of the objective world in hopes it will fill the void in their gut it didn't fill the first time.



John

 

[Rational Agnostic]

All-loving.

What is it real love? Have we defined it correctly? Is it our definition or God’s?

That's a good question. How do you define it? Has God ever talked to you and told you how he defines it?

 

[John D. Brey]

That's a good question.

Here's another. Do you think of Richard Dawkins as some kind of authority on truth or reality?




John

 

[Kenny]

That's a good question. How do you define it? Has God ever talked to you and told you how he defines it?

Could we address the first two questions along with the third?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I find it suspect that you would create such a thread in a debate venue if you weren't interested in a bit more than just hearing theists' reasons for believing in a personal deity.

^ this

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I posted in the debate section because there is a possibility of some discussion/debate happening, but I did not create this thread with the explicit intent of starting a debate.

I don't believe @SalixIncendium, or anyone else for that matter, suggested that your intent was explicit.

But I must admit to being mildly curious about a couple of things.

1. Are you "genuinely curious" about the theology or the psychology?
2. Why the focus on Christianity rather than, for example, Baha'i, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, etc.?