The connection between a spiritual experience and a certain religion

[JussiUt]

I'm very interested in hearing how this connection is born. If you experience a spiritual experience/mystical experience or whatever you want to call it how do you draw the link between that feeling and one particular religion? How do you know that that experience was exactly the product of Allah or a product of God?

I know the most logical explonation here is that you "choose" the religion which is around you. If you live in a Christian country or in a Christian community or you have Christian parents you are most certainly going to believe that the experience was related to that particular religion. That's logical. What I'm interested in is that how do believers explain to themselves that their religion is the correct one and the others are nonsense?

I know that at least PairTheBoard has played with the idea that all religions are attempts to understand God and that all religions are "related to" the same God and that people just interpret things differently. I would think this would be the most logical and rational position for a believer. If however you truly believe that your religion and its dogmas are absolutely true how do you explain it to yourself logically?

I guess the simplest question would be "what makes Christianity special"? How do you "know" that your spiritual experience indicates that there is a Christian God and not Brahma?

The Christians who believe Christianity is correct is naturally the group who can answer this the best but others are welcomed to chime in.

I just think it's fascinating that people truly say they "know" that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. What do they think about the origins of the other religions? Are they just illogical and stupid or what is their justification for this belief?

[AWoodside]

Meh, I think it's psychological conditioning, plain and simple. Either they've been indoctrinated to some particular faith from the time they were born, or they switch gears mentally at some point in life due to a traumatizing experience. This statement is mostly from personal experience, but I've never met a mid-life convert that just started believing for no reason. Every single one (and I've met a fair amount) convert after some traumatizing or emotionally scaring event and they turn to whatever faith is most convenient at the time and then get hooked because of the psychological comfort it provides.

My first instinct was to write that these people are simply intellectually bankrupt, irrational, and lack any semblance of personal courage, but after a few minutes of thought I don't think that's fair. I was raised Catholic and indoctrinated pretty heavily when I was young so I know first hand how effective the mental conditioning churches excel at can be. It took me a long time to remove the last vestiges of said conditioning, so I sympathize with those currently suffering from it.

I agree that in some respects the question you ask is "fascinating" but I have a feeling the answer, if we can ever satisfactorily arrive at it, will be less earth-shattering than you might hope. When I was a Christian and I knew deep down in my heart that Christianity was correct it was nothing more than the result of highly effective psychological conditioning performed on an impressionable young child. Church and Sunday school every week, prayers before bed, prayers before sleep, discussion of faith in the classroom (catholic school), threat of eternal torture for not believing, etc. etc. During this time I even had what I thought were spiritual experiences, where I heard God talking to me, but I was an imaginative kid and my experiences with God, looking back, were not qualitatively different than any of the experiences I had with any of my other imaginary friends.

[goodgrief]

Christianity is not special. The answer to your question is that your vision aka mystical experience tells you what it's about. It is not just a warm fuzzy feeling. It is a complete experience that seems as real or more real than any other experience. As a child, I had a classical "enlightenment" experience down to the flash of light that broke open my skull. In that experience, I was "informed" that adults were just pretending to believe in God, just as they did with Santa Claus, because it was a game we have to play in our society to be accepted and not be accused of being a communist. I was informed that all intelligent people knew the secret, that God did not exist, but that we simply don't talk about such matters if we know what is good for us. How was my vision any different from the vision desccribed by Paul on the road to Damascus? (Flashing lights, voice, important message from our sponsors, etc.) It was exactly the same, it just carried a different message. People's susceptibility to such visions seems to be linked to activity in their temporal lobes. I was experiencing some very severe headaches of unknown origin over a period of a couple of years at that time. It is annoying that subjectivity reality can sometimes feel so much more "real" than objective reality, but no use letting it go to your head and kidding yourself that it has anything to do with some guy who may or may not have lived thousands of years earlier. The guy who gets the message from Jesus may be more socially acceptable than the guy who gets the message from Allah that "white people are the devil" or the guy who gets the message that he has been contacted by the Space Brothers for genetic testing, but his message isn't any more real and shouldn't be taken any more seriously. We have an agreement in our society to tiptoe around and pretend that Christianity is somehow special and entitled to special respect because we are, as a society, cowards afraid to point out that nonsense is nonsense. It isn't anything deeper than that. If you ever had a vision, you would quickly realize that they all seem real.

[Bigdaddydvo]

I'll do my best to answer from personal experience. Spiritual experiences are significantly different than other human emotions. To narrow it down a bit, I'll contrast spiritual joy with happiness derived from earthly events/accomplishments. I have a whole host of terrific "worldly" events to draw from for this example (meeting my wife, kids being born, running the Boston Marathon, my West Point graduation day, winning big poker tournaments, even seeing U2 in concert, etc) All those things felt awesome, were exciting, and are among my most treasured memories. Yet they all lacked something present in my most joyful spiritual experiences.

I'll use a recent example. When I was deployed the last time, there was a significant shortage of Catholic priests in the AO. Thus I was unable to attend Mass for a long period time. During that stretch, I developed an intense spirtual hunger, especially for reception of the Holy Eucharist. Later through some good fortune, I was able to attend Mass for the first time in the deployment. From the moment the priest began Mass "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" to Communion and the closing prayer, I felt a spiritual high that rivaled many in my life. Spiritual joy is the purest form of happiness there is. As you feel God's love radiate in your soul, you feel no desire to be anywhere else. No happiness derived from any drug, earthly relationship, or accomplishment could ever mirror it. The happiness I felt was not self induced from years of "conditioning" as some suggest but an absolutely real experience. As I've said, in my life I've had some absolutely kick ass non-spiritual experiences, yet none can compare with those of the spiritual realm.

If you're curious, I recommend reading the biographies and writings of several well known Catholic mystics of the last century and the recounting of their spiritual experiences. Among them are St. Faustina and St. Padre Pio.

[bunny]

I think there is no rational way to determine the correct religion, although there are rational grounds for excluding some (those which make claims contradicting known facts).

Personally, I think subjective experience is good grounds for thinking there is something there, but claiming you know much more about it (other than it induces a subjective feeling) is not justified. I never struggled with this as a believer. I considered myself a christian who was probably following the wrong religion.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm very interested in hearing how this connection is born. If you experience a spiritual experience/mystical experience or whatever you want to call it how do you draw the link between that feeling and one particular religion? How do you know that that experience was exactly the product of Allah or a product of God?

[/ QUOTE ]
The bible gives very descriptive characteristics of God, and tells the stories of many people who throughout history have connected with him.
The Christian finds himself noticing the uncanny resemblance between the God described in the bible and the God that they know personally.
But then there's lots of things, often I will(even this morning) wake up with a Book and a Chapter in my mind, I can't explain how 'perfect' these scriptures always are.
Another reason I strongly believe that Christianity is correct is that other Christians are always able to see something in me when somethings not right, they 'know' things about me that no-one could possibly 'know' for sure.
The God of amazing coincidences..
I suppose my belief is the lump sum of all of these amazing coincidences.
[ QUOTE ]
I know the most logical explonation here is that you "choose" the religion which is around you. If you live in a Christian country or in a Christian community or you have Christian parents you are most certainly going to believe that the experience was related to that particular religion. That's logical. What I'm interested in is that how do believers explain to themselves that their religion is the correct one and the others are nonsense?

[/ QUOTE ]
The fact that people are exposed to that which their parents enable them to be exposed to is no argument at all that Christianity is not correct.
[ QUOTE ]
I know that at least PairTheBoard has played with the idea that all religions are attempts to understand God and that all religions are "related to" the same God and that people just interpret things differently. I would think this would be the most logical and rational position for a believer. If however you truly believe that your religion and its dogmas are absolutely true how do you explain it to yourself logically?

[/ QUOTE ]
This just isn't right, it's no where close to logical or reasonable that mutually exclusive beliefs can co-exist.
This type of belief is just intellectual dishonesty and a perversion of the truth (if such a thing exists). The thing that separates religions is it's theology, it's defining 'facts' about the nature of God that it claims. ptb shouldn't try to make Christianity something it is not, it's nothing more than muddying the waters and perverting the truth.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the simplest question would be "what makes Christianity special"? How do you "know" that your spiritual experience indicates that there is a Christian God and not Brahma?

The Christians who believe Christianity is correct is naturally the group who can answer this the best but others are welcomed to chime in.

I just think it's fascinating that people truly say they "know" that Christianity is right and other religions are wrong. What do they think about the origins of the other religions? Are they just illogical and stupid or what is their justification for this belief?

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't claim to 'know' all that much, just logically concluded beliefs from my experiences.

Firstly, There is too much in the atheistic world view that doesn't fit my experience.
Secondly, there is sufficient evidence(personally) to suggest that Jesus is in fact who he claimed to be.

[Phil153]

godBoy,

I'd like you to think carefully about this...

If you were born in Iran to Muslim parents, and had a Muslim education, do you think you would be a Christian? Or a follower of Muhammed?

How about if you were born in Tibet? Christian or Tibetan Buddhist?

The rest of your post is interesting, and I'm merely curious about where you'd stand on this. Not trying to make a point or have a debate.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
The Christian finds himself noticing the uncanny resemblance between the God described in the bible and the God that they know personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the 'canny' part that is the expected ho-hum. It'll become uncanny when christian experience is with a Sikh god , and a hindu experience is with a christian god, and a ...

luckyme

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
If you were born in Iran to Muslim parents, and had a Muslim education, do you think you would be a Christian? Or a follower of Muhammed?

[/ QUOTE ]
I wouldn't be myself then now would I. I could say that I would most probably be a Muslim, yes.

[ QUOTE ]
How about if you were born in Tibet? Christian or Tibetan Buddhist?

[/ QUOTE ]
Same question, same answer.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Christian finds himself noticing the uncanny resemblance between the God described in the bible and the God that they know personally.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's the 'canny' part that is the expected ho-hum. It'll become uncanny when christian experience is with a Sikh god , and a hindu experience is with a christian god, and a ...

luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
This happens all the time. I know many believers who have a history with different religions.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I'll use a recent example. When I was deployed the last time, there was a significant shortage of Catholic priests in the AO. Thus I was unable to attend Mass for a long period time. During that stretch, I developed an intense spirtual hunger, especially for reception of the Holy Eucharist. Later through some good fortune, I was able to attend Mass for the first time in the deployment. From the moment the priest began Mass "In the Name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit" to Communion and the closing prayer, I felt a spiritual high that rivaled many in my life. Spiritual joy is the purest form of happiness there is. As you feel God's love radiate in your soul, you feel no desire to be anywhere else. No happiness derived from any drug, earthly relationship, or accomplishment could ever mirror it. The happiness I felt was not self induced from years of "conditioning" as some suggest but an absolutely real experience. As I've said, in my life I've had some absolutely kick ass non-spiritual experiences, yet none can compare with those of the spiritual realm.


[/ QUOTE ]
I've had this as well, its amazing. The suns shining, the anticipation, that jingle, Richie Benaud's dulcet tones welcoming us to the first morning of the first test of the summer. God is in his heaven.

chez

[godBoy]

Use multiple paragraphs please,

[ QUOTE ]
We have an agreement in our society to tiptoe around and pretend that Christianity is somehow special and entitled to special respect because we are, as a society, cowards afraid to point out that nonsense is nonsense. It isn't anything deeper than that.

[/ QUOTE ]
Is that a fact or an opinion?

[Taraz]

I was asking this very question in a thread a week ago. I never really got an answer that I found satisfactory.

PairTheBoard claimed at the time that it all just gets wrapped up in the reality of the spiritual experience. You hear these things going into the experience so they become incorporated in it.

I think that something similar is probably going on. You hear all these things about God. You have a religious experience. You start believing all these things about God because he "spoke" to you and you have no reason to doubt the claims.

Maybe later you learn that something you heard about God doesn't jive with what you see in the world. Then you go down one of two paths. You either convince yourself that you were told something about God that is incorrect, or you convince yourself that what you see/hear in the world is incorrect. Depending on how hardcore you are in your faith, you could be in a spot where you think that what you heard about God can't be incorrect because he "spoke" to you and he wouldn't have if you were mistaken about who he really was. So then this subjective reality becomes more real than the objective reality because obviously objective reality was "wrong".

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I considered myself a christian who was probably following the wrong religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Did I read this correctly?

How can possibly follow something you 'probably' believe to be wrong?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I know that at least PairTheBoard has played with the idea that all religions are attempts to understand God and that all religions are "related to" the same God and that people just interpret things differently. I would think this would be the most logical and rational position for a believer. If however you truly believe that your religion and its dogmas are absolutely true how do you explain it to yourself logically?

[/ QUOTE ]
This just isn't right, it's no where close to logical or reasonable that mutually exclusive beliefs can co-exist.
This type of belief is just intellectual dishonesty and a perversion of the truth (if such a thing exists). The thing that separates religions is it's theology, it's defining 'facts' about the nature of God that it claims. ptb shouldn't try to make Christianity something it is not, it's nothing more than muddying the waters and perverting the truth.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that you have to believe it, but I don't really think it's all that illogical. If you believe in God, why would it be illogical to think that all human attempts to reach him have ended up misinterpreting his message in some way? I don't think PTB ever claimed that all religious theologies are compatible, just that they were all trying to get to God in some way.

I mean, Muslims believe that Jesus was from God. Christians believe Moses was from God. But Muslim Theology doesn't jive with Christian Theology which doesn't jive with Jewish Theology.

[godBoy]

It's not right to give equal credibility to all religions.

The very point that mutually exclusive theologies exist amongst religions means you have a choice to make.
I've said myself that i'm sure that there is truth in religions other than Christianity, but to be a 'Christian' is to agree on the points where it differs from others.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
It's not right to give equal credibility to all religions.

The very point that mutually exclusive theologies exist amongst religions means you have a choice to make.
I've said myself that i'm sure that there is truth in religions other than Christianity, but to be a 'Christian' is to agree on the points where it differs from others.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh, I wasn't arguing at all that PTB's view is a "Christian" view. I just don't think it's a logically inconsistent view.

What do you mean that it's not right to give all religions equal credibility? In this post you seem to be agreeing with my overall point, so I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously some religions are going to seem "more right" to each individual.

And I don't think you necessarily have to make a choice. You can pick and choose like all of us do anyway /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I wasn't arguing at all that PTB's view is a "Christian" view. I just don't think it's a logically inconsistent view.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is logically inconsistent is that you believe that all religions are pointing to the same thing - when the individual religions are clearly pointing in very different directions.

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean that it's not right to give all religions equal credibility? In this post you seem to be agreeing with my overall point, so I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously some religions are going to seem "more right" to each individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree with your main point.
Some religions are just perversions of other religions and they should be seen as such.

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't think you necessarily have to make a choice. You can pick and choose like all of us do anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not one for making up my own religion, that's intellectual dishonesty and wishful thinking.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I considered myself a christian who was probably following the wrong religion.

[/ QUOTE ]
Sorry, Did I read this correctly?

How can possibly follow something you 'probably' believe to be wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]
Most people do it all the time. I have a bunch of beliefs regarding science for example, but given the nature of scientific theories I am pretty confident that they are not true representations of the world. I dont see this as a problem, do you?

With regard to christianity, of course, what I mean is that I assume that my interpretation of the bible is incorrect (after all, how could I possibly expect to get it exactly right?). That doesnt change the fact that it "seems right" to me.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I wasn't arguing at all that PTB's view is a "Christian" view. I just don't think it's a logically inconsistent view.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is logically inconsistent is that you believe that all religions are pointing to the same thing - when the individual religions are clearly pointing in very different directions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. One could easily claim that the reason they are pointing in different directions is because humans have misinterpreted things. Is there anything you have in mind when you say they clearly point in different directions? I'm not arguing that this viewpoint is correct or somehow better, just that it isn't illogical necessarily.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
What do you mean that it's not right to give all religions equal credibility? In this post you seem to be agreeing with my overall point, so I'm not sure what you mean. Obviously some religions are going to seem "more right" to each individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
I do agree with your main point.
Some religions are just perversions of other religions and they should be seen as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you could say that all religions are just perversions of the same religion/God. That seems to be an equally consistent position.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
And I don't think you necessarily have to make a choice. You can pick and choose like all of us do anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not one for making up my own religion, that's intellectual dishonesty and wishful thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't see why you keep saying it's intellectually dishonest. Would you mind expanding on that? To me it's seems the most intellectually honest. If none of the religions make sense to you as a whole, why is it wrong to choose to follow the tenets that you agree with? You wouldn't be able to claim that you follow a particular religion, but I don't see how it's dishonest.

I'm 100% fine with you disagreeing with this position, but I think it's a little strange to call it more illogical than any one of the given religions.

[bunny]

In case it's not clear what I meant, I am referring to beliefs like:
It's impossible to travel faster than the speed of light, there are a bunch of fundamental particles which combine in various ways to make "bigger" sub-atomic particles, natural selection accounts for the variety of species in some nebulous, half-understood way, the universe expanded from an infinitely dense point, a variety of half-remembered things from astronomy and astrophysics regarding the formation of stars, planets and black holes, etc etc

While I believe each of these things, I am very confident that we dont have them all right. I cant say which ones of course, yet I am left believing in a bunch of statements but confident that they aren't all true. It sounds peculiar, but I dont think it is an uncommon position if you think about it. My religion is the same.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Most people do it all the time. I have a bunch of beliefs regarding science for example, but given the nature of scientific theories I am pretty confident that they are not true representations of the world. I dont see this as a problem, do you?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do. Given the nature of scientific theories I am pretty confident that they are good representations of the world.

[ QUOTE ]
With regard to christianity, of course, what I mean is that I assume that my interpretation of the bible is incorrect (after all, how could I possibly expect to get it exactly right?). That doesnt change the fact that it "seems right" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between being 'right' and 100% correct.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Most people do it all the time. I have a bunch of beliefs regarding science for example, but given the nature of scientific theories I am pretty confident that they are not true representations of the world. I dont see this as a problem, do you?


[/ QUOTE ]
Yes, I do. Given the nature of scientific theories I am pretty confident that they are good representations of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]
So why do they keep being discarded and replaced with new ones?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
With regard to christianity, of course, what I mean is that I assume that my interpretation of the bible is incorrect (after all, how could I possibly expect to get it exactly right?). That doesnt change the fact that it "seems right" to me.

[/ QUOTE ]
There's a difference between being 'right' and 100% correct.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, perhaps you would say it differently. What I mean is that I think the bible is inspired by god and says the following things about him: blah blah blah. However, there are millions of competing religions (many of them christian) which disagree with me. I doubt very much that I've got it spot on. In other words, I believe in a religion which I expect to be wrong. This seems obviously right to me - but perhaps it is just a semantic distinction we are tripping over. I certainly disnt mean to say that I have some single statement which I "believe" while being confident it is false.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you keep saying it's intellectually dishonest. Would you mind expanding on that? To me it's seems the most intellectually honest. If none of the religions make sense to you as a whole, why is it wrong to choose to follow the tenets that you agree with? You wouldn't be able to claim that you follow a particular religion, but I don't see how it's dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's dishonest to construct a religion that has any truth value by taking the parts from different religions that you would like to be true. All you would be making is a likeable religion and not an honest one.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't see why you keep saying it's intellectually dishonest. Would you mind expanding on that? To me it's seems the most intellectually honest. If none of the religions make sense to you as a whole, why is it wrong to choose to follow the tenets that you agree with? You wouldn't be able to claim that you follow a particular religion, but I don't see how it's dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think it's dishonest to construct a religion that has any truth value by taking the parts from different religions that you would like to be true. All you would be making is a likeable religion and not an honest one.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dishonest to who? If you don't believe any of the religions to be the absolute truth, then why does it matter whether you learn something from some of them and choose to apply what you've learned to your life? If you think all religions are "wrong" to some extent, then where does the dishonesty lie? However, I understand your wishful thinking claim.

In a related but separate point, I think people do this with religion anyway. If you aren't born into your religion, you likely shopped around and chose the one which jives best with whatever you already believe.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Dishonest to who? If you don't believe any of the religions to be the absolute truth, then why does it matter whether you learn something from some of them and choose to apply what you've learned to your life? If you think all religions are "wrong" to some extent, then where does the dishonesty lie?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your being dishonest to yourself if you actually believe the religion that you have willingly crafted yourself.
But, it is dishonest just the same if you 'follow' something that you just can't 'believe' in.

[ QUOTE ]
In a related but separate point, I think people do this with religion anyway. If you aren't born into your religion, you likely shopped around and chose the one which jives best with whatever you already believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all do this. In fact many people wrestle with the Christian God, he's not.. politically correct on a few matters.

Where some may simply throw out these things - That is the point where they are being dishonest.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
So why do they keep being discarded and replaced with new ones?

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on bunny.. mostly scientific findings are very consistent throughout time(and it's getting better as time goes on), some are re-shaped, and very few are completely discarded.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in a religion which I expect to be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't justs semantic differences - this sentence means something distinctive, that you are a confused person /images/graemlins/wink.gif

When in fact you mean to say that you believe in a religion, but you don't expect it to be 100% right.
99.999% correct is hardly 'wrong'

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Dishonest to who? If you don't believe any of the religions to be the absolute truth, then why does it matter whether you learn something from some of them and choose to apply what you've learned to your life? If you think all religions are "wrong" to some extent, then where does the dishonesty lie?

[/ QUOTE ]
Your being dishonest to yourself if you actually believe the religion that you have willingly crafted yourself.
But, it is dishonest just the same if you 'follow' something that you just can't 'believe' in.


[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with your second sentence, and that's why I don't understand where the dishonesty comes in. If you believe that you've somehow "got it right", I guess that would be dishonest because you're admitting you don't know by picking and choosing in the first place. But if you're just searching like everyone else, that seems pretty honest to me. I mean, aren't you supposed to be looking for what makes sense and resonates with you personally? Again who are you dishonest to? You're obviously not lying to yourself if you plead ignorance, right?

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In a related but separate point, I think people do this with religion anyway. If you aren't born into your religion, you likely shopped around and chose the one which jives best with whatever you already believe.

[/ QUOTE ]
Not all do this. In fact many people wrestle with the Christian God, he's not.. politically correct on a few matters.

Where some may simply throw out these things - That is the point where they are being dishonest.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never claimed all did this, just that many do.

I'm still missing the dishonest. You've never disagreed with authority? Are you "dishonest" if you do? Disobedient maybe, but not dishonest. I just don't understand your use of that word.

[godBoy]

Your being dishonest to yourself if you actually believe the religion that you have willingly crafted yourself, because in 'crafting it' you know that it's made up.

[ QUOTE ]
You're obviously not lying to yourself if you plead ignorance, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Right.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Your being dishonest to yourself if you actually believe the religion that you have willingly crafted yourself, because in 'crafting it' you know that it's made up.

[ QUOTE ]
You're obviously not lying to yourself if you plead ignorance, right?

[/ QUOTE ]
Right.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you can believe it and not be sure it's correct. I think that's what bunny was getting at.

I don't think anyone believes that their cherry-picked version of religion is the absolute truth though.

[Taraz]

godBoy, I have another question for you that's more relevant to the OP.

Are there things that you believe in terms of your religion that you haven't seen good "evidence" for? I know that you see the words of the Bible confirmed in your every day life, but at some point you're doing an induction right? Everything you've seen seems to be true, so you take the parts you haven't personally witnessed as truth?

If you agree that you do this, whose authority do you trust in interpreting the Bible passages you haven't seen confirmed in your life?

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that people are exposed to that which their parents enable them to be exposed to is no argument at all that Christianity is not correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it's not but the point I was trying to make was that it's natural to select the religion which is around you. You choose Christianity because it is the most familiar to you. I don't know about your religious background but I doubt you searched most of the holy books and most of the religions before becoming a Christian. It came naturally to you that the Bible is the Book for you because it was such an influence in your surroundings.

You answered to the hypothesis that if you were born in Pakistan you probably would be a muslim positively. Doesn't that indicate that we really do not have much to say what religion we choose especially if we are taught one religion as a child? Doesn't that make sense that the same way you feel the Bible is an awesome book with great advice and great accuracy a muslim born in Pakistan feels about the Qur'an? Aren't all spiritual experiences subjective and the surroundings influence heavily on how we interpret our experiences?

[ QUOTE ]
This just isn't right, it's no where close to logical or reasonable that mutually exclusive beliefs can co-exist.
This type of belief is just intellectual dishonesty and a perversion of the truth (if such a thing exists). The thing that separates religions is it's theology, it's defining 'facts' about the nature of God that it claims. ptb shouldn't try to make Christianity something it is not, it's nothing more than muddying the waters and perverting the truth.

[/ QUOTE ]

Taraz is already discussing with you about this so I just make a quick point. IF you agree that spiritual experiences are subjective isn't it expected that different dogmas are born? This is related to the point of my original post - you feel the Bible is correct and that Christianity is what moves you. Isn't it possible that it's your subjective experience and that muslims in other countries have exactly the same feelings? How do you explain this? If you believe the dogmas of Christianity are correct how do you explain the "wrong" dogmas of Islam? Or Hinduism? How is it that the religion you most likely were "born into" is the correct one and the others are nonsense? (Ok, this wasn't such a quick point after all)

[ QUOTE ]
I don't claim to 'know' all that much, just logically concluded beliefs from my experiences.

Firstly, There is too much in the atheistic world view that doesn't fit my experience.
Secondly, there is sufficient evidence(personally) to suggest that Jesus is in fact who he claimed to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm fine with all this. That's a legitimate view of yours. Just remember that there are people who would say "there is sufficient evidence (personally) to suggest that Brahma is in fact who he claimed to be." Why do you believe they have a bigger chance of being wrong than you do or do you believe so?

And sincere thanks to the first posters in this thread. Those were great responses.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Are there things that you believe in terms of your religion that you haven't seen good "evidence" for?

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure, a number of things, heaven, hell etc..

[ QUOTE ]
I know that you see the words of the Bible confirmed in your every day life, but at some point you're doing an induction right? Everything you've seen seems to be true, so you take the parts you haven't personally witnessed as truth?

[/ QUOTE ]
This is what Faith is all about for me, I act 'as if I believed' the bible were absolutely true, but I don't have reason to 'believe' with 100% assurance that it is all 100% correct.
[ QUOTE ]
..whose authority do you trust in interpreting the Bible passages you haven't seen confirmed in your life?

[/ QUOTE ]
I get God's help when interpreting scripture, I also talk it through with those who have been around for longer than me.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
I get God's help when interpreting scripture, I also talk it through with those who have been around for longer than me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd like to put you on the payroll as a $250 an hour bible consultant. Your direct line to God will be easier to sell than your other collaborative contacts, though.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't all spiritual experiences subjective and the surroundings influence heavily on how we interpret our experiences?

[/ QUOTE ]
yes.

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it possible that it's your subjective experience and that muslims in other countries have exactly the same feelings? How do you explain this? If you believe the dogmas of Christianity are correct how do you explain the "wrong" dogmas of Islam? Or Hinduism? How is it that the religion you most likely were "born into" is the correct one and the others are nonsense? (Ok, this wasn't such a quick point after all)

[/ QUOTE ]
Firstly, being a Christian does not require you to believe that all other religions have no truth in them, and are nonsense. If there are Muslims experiencing God in the same way as I then it would be because we are experiencing a shared truth.
As in the truth of connecting with a personal creator God, it's this earnest seeking of God that will always produce results. If a child calls out to his Father - his Father will answer, even if he doesn't know the right name to call him by.

[ QUOTE ]
Why do you believe they have a bigger chance of being wrong than you do or do you believe so?

[/ QUOTE ]As i've said, my beliefs do not require me to believe these things. All I can speak of is what I have experienced, period.

[godBoy]

While it may sound ridiculous to you, it is plain and simple Christian theology.
It's not really all that bold a statement to say that I communicate with God, all believers.. well the majority of believers feel the same way.

[Duke]

[ QUOTE ]
While it may sound ridiculous to you, it is plain and simple Christian theology.
It's not really all that bold a statement to say that I communicate with God, all believers.. well the majority of believers feel the same way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who am I to argue with it? I'm just thinking that others might be less confident in their ability to talk to their gods, and figure there might be some money to be made.

Even to someone like me (to whom this is obviously absurd), the concept of a bible consultant under this pretext is less of a scam than a lot of "legit" consulting engagements anyhow.

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, being a Christian does not require you to believe that all other religions have no truth in them, and are nonsense. If there are Muslims experiencing God in the same way as I then it would be because we are experiencing a shared truth.
As in the truth of connecting with a personal creator God, it's this earnest seeking of God that will always produce results. If a child calls out to his Father - his Father will answer, even if he doesn't know the right name to call him by.

[/ QUOTE ]

So why did you say PTB's idea that all religions are trying to reach the same God is false? You said that "if a child calls out to his Father - his Father will answer even if he doesn't know the right name to call him by". That's basically the same thing.

[godBoy]

My example was saying that various people are trying to reach the same God.

But, there are Religions that aren't pointing to this God.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So why do they keep being discarded and replaced with new ones?

[/ QUOTE ]
Come on bunny.. mostly scientific findings are very consistent throughout time(and it's getting better as time goes on), some are re-shaped, and very few are completely discarded.

[ QUOTE ]
I believe in a religion which I expect to be wrong

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't justs semantic differences - this sentence means something distinctive, that you are a confused person /images/graemlins/wink.gif

When in fact you mean to say that you believe in a religion, but you don't expect it to be 100% right.
99.999% correct is hardly 'wrong'

[/ QUOTE ]
I dont think you're right about scientific theories not being discarded - admittedly not every day, but often enough that it's likely to happen again. In the nineteenth century I would have "known" that Newton's laws governed how things moved. I would have believed that newtonian mechanics was an accurate portrayal of how the world really is. Nonetheless I would have been (along with most of the scientifically literate) wrong in that specific belief. That's all that I'm saying. We have a bunch of well justified beliefs. There is no inconsistency in saying that we are pretty sure that some of them are wrong.

Taking it back to religion (where I claim to be confident I am following the wrong religion) do you claim to be 99.999% sure you are right in your interpretation of the bible? My only point was I am 99.999% sure I am wrong on some points and I think all believers should acknowledge this without feeling it is compromising their theism - it isnt a contradictory, nor particularly unusual state of affairs.

IMO, it lends some credence to NotReady's argument that you cant rationalise your way to faith, also to Peter666 and BluffThis's arguments for the necessity of the Catholic church. (Perhaps this is part of where you are coming from. I cant remember your position on the authority of the church, but it's the only way I can see to claim certainty for your religious beliefs. "I may have misunderstood it, but my church is advocating the perfect, true religion as it is the only one guided by God.")

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
My example was saying that various people are trying to reach the same God.

But, there are Religions that aren't pointing to this God.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can you say that there are religions who aren't pointing to this god? You agreed that all spiritual experiences are subjective. You agreed that the environment that we live in is a huge factor in determining our religion. So, if people around the world have had subjective spiritual experiences and around these experiences religions have evolved including all the dogmas, how can you say that some religions can't point to the same God?

You feel some of their dogmas are incorrect. They feel the dogmas are correct. You believe A, they believe B. Why can't the source of these religions be the same and why it isn't possible that they're pointing to the same mysterious force called God in different subjective ways?

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
This is what Faith is all about for me, I act 'as if I believed' the bible were absolutely true, but I don't have reason to 'believe' with 100% assurance that it is all 100% correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are a total nut and in danger of becoming a psychopath. My advice is to seek psychological help before it is too late, especially if you don't think you need it!

[godBoy]

Religions describe the character of God differently.
I believe the bible describes God accurately.

So other religions describe God innacurately, which means they're not pointing to the same God as Christianity.

[godBoy]

yep, ok. I believe c.s.lewis said something very close to what I have..

you made me giggle with the psychopath bit.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
Religions describe the character of God differently.
I believe the bible describes God accurately.


[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, you are right, the bible describe god as vengeful, jealous, angry etc... it also describe jesus as a road (or temple) rager, a killer of animals etc... all things that would warrant incarceration.

[godBoy]

There you go Dropping the M-Bomb again...

peeeeeeeewwwwewwww Kaaaboom!!

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
Religions describe the character of God differently.
I believe the bible describes God accurately.

So other religions describe God innacurately, which means they're not pointing to the same God as Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

We get to the exact point of my post. Do you have any rational logic behind it that you believe the God of the Bible is correct? The fact that you have a strong belief it is so doesn't change the fact that other people strongly belief that their God is correct too. Isn't it possible that neither of those gods is any more correct? Isn't it possible that those both subjective interpretations of God are equally correct (or wrong)?

The ultimate point: You feel the God of the Bible is an accurate description of God (or more accurate than the rest of the religions). Can you accept a claim that even though you have a strong conviction that your God is correct other people have as strong convictions too and that both of these convictions are subjective, personal and objectively equally correct? Your God is the right God for you, his God is the right God for him. Those are your subjective views. Can you say that you don't believe your God is the universally correct one but that it is a God that you personally have a reason to believe in?

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
We get to the exact point of my post. Do you have any rational logic behind it that you believe the God of the Bible is correct?

[/ QUOTE ]
I tried to answer this one up front..

[ QUOTE ]
Isn't it possible that those both subjective interpretations of God are equally correct (or wrong)?

[/ QUOTE ]
It's possible they're both wrong, it's not possible they're both right.

[ QUOTE ]
Your God is the right God for you, his God is the right God for him.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. we are talking about the true God(if such a thing exists), 'his god is right for him' is a joke.

[ QUOTE ]
Can you say that you don't believe your God is the universally correct one but that it is a God that you personally have a reason to believe in?

[/ QUOTE ]
leading the witness, your honour.. No I can't say that.

[JussiUt]

Ok, so you do believe that your God, a certain version of the Christian God of the Bible is the most accurate version of the true God that there is.

Thanks for your response. I find it remarkable that people can draw these kinds of conclusions even though they admit that people have subjective spiritual experiences. It's as if my experience is the most correct one and the others are incorrect. This kind of universalization of ones subjective view is stunning.

[godBoy]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your response.

[/ QUOTE ]You're welcome, just be sure to take what I say with a grain of salt..
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of universalization of ones subjective view is stunning.

[/ QUOTE ]
While this is correct, I feel it's a little mis-leading..

It's clear to me that people believe to be true, what they believe to be true.. Is that really all that stunning?
I believe my subjective experience gives me insight into the 'real world'
Is your point that subjective experiences should not give any insight into the 'real world'?

[JussiUt]

All of our experiences are subjective in a way. We can't shake "the chains" that tie us to our body and mind. Therefore anything that is claimed to be the truth should be based as much as possible on evidence and objective reasoning.

Subjective experiences should not give any insight into the 'real world' if that subjective experience cannot be backed up by empirical evidence. There have been thousands of religions in the world - isn't it remarkable to think that the religion you believe in and you have subjectively experienced is the universally correct one? Doesn't it make more sense if all the religions are humans' attempts to grasp the unknowable and understand the mystery, understand God if you want to put it that way?

There's something egoistical in the way of thinking that "what I subjectively experience" is objectively true. Of course true objectivity could be impossible to reach but that's why we have the need for evidence. People have subjective experiences all the time - one is a schizophrenic for example. While I'm not making a comparison between a mental illness and a religious belief it's clear that we have our own realities where we live in.

I'm not directing this to anyone specifically. I can't help but wonder what makes people think that "I have experienced the true God through MY senses and that MY subjective experience holds any universal truths." I do not deny for a second that people really sincerely believe they've had a contact with the supernatural. What I feel is illogical and a bit egoistical (though probably quite natural for us humans) to suppose that my extraordinary views about the cosmos and about life is more accurate than the next person's views. Even though YOU feel that it is correct doesn't mean that it's correct.

You can say that you saw a tree fall down. That's not a particularly extraordinary statement. You probably did see a tree fall down. There's not a lot of reason to suppose that you just had an illusion or something that the tree fall down. But when we come into the territory where people claim to hold transcendental, universal and supernatural truths about the world then we must be skeptics. Why? Because as history has shown us, there have been hundreds if not thousands of religions. What makes this one particularly more correct? Also because we know how the mind works, how psychologically we can experience same things very differently.

Long rambling short, I do find it remarkable that people can claim something so grand and extraordinary to be universally true when its source is YOU and YOUR experiences.

[godBoy]

good post.

So be skeptical.
Some of the greatest religious thinkers were.

- There comes a point when you have to 'throw in your lot' with a religion, there's just too many coincidences to keep doubting..

[goodgrief]

I don't find it remarkable. I just find it pathetic. These people who boast most about their relationship with God and their intuitive knowledge of the truth are often so into their own egos that "if I think it, if I experience it, it happened dammit!" The invisible God they claim to worship is their own infallibility, and then they wonder why they look ridiculous to the rest of us. Skeptical people seem to be, on average, more intelligent than the true believers, or at least they are more willing to make use of what intelligence they have to question even themselves. I don't consider this a coincidence. I don't think the voice in my head is the voice of God, no matter how many bells and whistles and fireworks the voice may light up. The true believer does, and the more shiny fireworks the more he believes. Or as Woody Allen once said, "I noticed that when I was talking to God, I was talking to myself." The true believer never catches on. Seems to work the same way whether the subjective experience involves an encounter with Jesus or the Grays or radio signals from the CIA. As a culture, we humor sick people who get signals from Jesus and medicate those who get signals from the CIA. Too bad for those who get their signals from Jesus and thus have a much lesser chance of ever hitting bottom and getting healed. Too bad for our society which is seriously harmed by the evil that true believers such as Falwell do.




[ QUOTE ]

Long rambling short, I do find it remarkable that people can claim something so grand and extraordinary to be universally true when its source is YOU and YOUR experiences.

[/ QUOTE ]

[godBoy]

For God's sake use paragraphs! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

My goodness that's a load a crap you've just posted.. you can call it all ego-inflation and evil.. but it just doesn't gel with my... erhh 'objective experience' - you're decent enough to allow credibility to that, right?

I also love how many times I read this one spouted from atheists so hastily.
[ QUOTE ]
Skeptical people seem to be, on average, more intelligent than the true believers

[/ QUOTE ]
This isn't ego-stroking at all, it's just observed fact /images/graemlins/smile.gif

How the militant atheist gets himself/herself all caught up in a bother..

[JussiUt]

[ QUOTE ]
good post.

So be skeptical.
Some of the greatest religious thinkers were.

- There comes a point when you have to 'throw in your lot' with a religion, there's just too many coincidences to keep doubting..

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks.

I continue to be skeptical. It's a reasonable attitude to have towards most things that do not have sufficient evidence.

I disagree that there comes a point where people need to become religious but that shouldn't be a suprise that we differ whether there is a God or not or whether there is a need to be religious. Thanks for the good replies.

And what comes to goodgrief, although he said it in a bit harsh way he's actually quite close to the point I was making about subjective experiences. I don't really care about the correlation of religiousness and intelligence. There are smart people who are religious so casting everyone as dumb or egoistical isn't quite right.

There seem to be more liberal theists, agnostics and atheists amongst scientists and intellectuals percentage wise than amongst general population but that shouldn't suprise us. In most parts of the world being an atheist requires a lot of thinking and individual thought because of the religious pressure from the society so those who are not interested in thinking about these things are usually bound to be religious at least in some way. And those who are curious usually have a higher chance of becoming part of "the intelligentsia". I repeat however that being religious doesn't mean that you have to be dumb.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
My example was saying that various people are trying to reach the same God.

But, there are Religions that aren't pointing to this God.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't it be that they just misunderstand God? They are trying to point to this God, but they get it wrong slightly? Even polytheistic religions. Maybe they are mistaken in separating all of God's attributes into separate deities.

I think all religious people are searching for spiritual truth. They follow whatever resonates with them and is backed up by their experience (spiritual and non-spiritual).

[ QUOTE ]
Religions describe the character of God differently.
I believe the bible describes God accurately.

So other religions describe God innacurately, which means they're not pointing to the same God as Christianity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe it's just semantics, but I don't see that as pointing to a different God. I see it as trying to point to the same God, but being off by a couple degrees.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Thanks for your response.

[/ QUOTE ]You're welcome, just be sure to take what I say with a grain of salt..
[ QUOTE ]
This kind of universalization of ones subjective view is stunning.

[/ QUOTE ]
While this is correct, I feel it's a little mis-leading..

It's clear to me that people believe to be true, what they believe to be true.. Is that really all that stunning?
I believe my subjective experience gives me insight into the 'real world'
Is your point that subjective experiences should not give any insight into the 'real world'?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think that all I would ask (and probably what JussiUt would ask) is something that Jesus himself taught: humility.

I think it's important that theists realize that they could very easily be mistaken and that somebody else may have it right. If you operate on the assumption that you may have it wrong (or that you probably have it wrong) you will be more open-minded in your search and you'll probably learn a whole lot more about what you are searching for.

[godBoy]

I disagree, This isn't what humility is about at all.
Humility is not admitting to yourself that you know next to nothing, and Jesus spoke more of Faith.

I am open minded, though I cannot deny what I have seen or reduce it's value or importance.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
I disagree, This isn't what humility is about at all.
Humility is not admitting to yourself that you know next to nothing, and Jesus spoke more of Faith.

I am open minded, though I cannot deny what I have seen or reduce it's value or importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying that you should admit that you know next to nothing. There is no problem with believing that Christianity is the best religion out there.

But I think you should admit that you might be wrong and that someone else might have it right. Don't you think that you would learn more about God, Christianity, and other religions if you operate from that assumption? Instead of looking for all that is right in the Bible and all that is wrong with other religions, why not look at what is right in other religions and potentially wrong in the Bible?

Basically I'm advocating that we all be wary of the confirmation bias. Don't simply look for things that prove your point. Look for things that disprove your point. I think it's an important exercise for anyone of faith to really try to get into the mind of someone who disagrees with you instead of simply looking for ways to dismiss their claims.

I'm not necessarily saying that you don't already do these things, I'm speaking in more general terms if that's not clear.

[godBoy]

sure thing.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I am open minded, though I cannot deny what I have seen or reduce it's value or importance.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just had another thought about this sentence. You have to realize that it's value to you and importance to you. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that.

How can we ever decide on objective value and importance? Should it be decided democratically or what? There is so much disagreement on religious matters that it seems like all we can do is realize that we're probably all wrong about a lot of things.

[godBoy]

It was badly worded, though I believe all experiences have educational value.

All I'm saying is that I cannot disregard parts of what I have witnessed, everything I believe to be true is because of things that I have heard / witnessed or thought about.

I take it all into consideration when forming my beliefs of what is true and what is false just as anyone else does. It is up to each person to weigh and sift their beliefs through common sense and reason. When a more reasonable explanation appears that better explains these experiences I will gladly embrace it.