A personal relationship with God.

Another point to mention is the conviction that the Christian I debated with had in the fact it was only Christianity which permitted/involved this 'personal relationship with God' and that other religions were 'empty' in this respect.

"Conversations" don't always have to be verbal.
I have felt that there was always something guiding me, taking care of me. There have been just too many things in my life where I felt something bigger than me was there for me. Is it God? I don't know.

As a Christian, I must take exception to this remark of your debater. It is not up to him to judge anyone's relationship with their God.

As for 'experiences of faith', if that is what you are referring to, it is difficult to explain this to someone. You really have to experience it. I suppose it is something like prayers being answered or having a favourable outcome to a situation over which you prayed for.

Whether it is an answer from God or just the fact that your faith provided the correct insight can be speculated. The final outcome is what matters and if that happens to be because one has faith then sobeit.

Of course, the same outcome can come to someone without faith and one cannot argue with that either.

Why must there be an argument about it anyway? What's so difficult about respecting another's belief, whether you share that belief or not?

Well I'm not under any assumption that there is going to be any answer or 'outcome' if that's what you mean. I debate to try and 'further' my own perspective by absorbing information and experiences from others.

I think that most if not all of these discussion wind up at this spot.

Having been raised and inculcated with Christianity, we see its benefits and faults, and when weve realized that we can no longer support what is basically illogical or evidence-free, we become pariahs in their minds.

In the US, an atheist will probably never achieve high office because of some national congenital belief in the truth of Christianity.

Have you ever - I am sure you have - had a conversation in your head with a living person? Say preparing a discussion with your boss, your child´s teacher.
You think about what you would say and what they might answer.
I think that is very normal for most of us.
Some people - especially children - have a fantasy friend with whom they have long conversations.
Some people with fantasy have discussions with dead people of their interests.
You might argue with Freud about his ideas - just to get things clear in your own head.
My great grandfather was very technical interested and he died long before I was born.
I could imagen that many authors have discussions with their figures in a novel to get that person more autentic.
When I have a difficult technical problem to solve I imagen he is there and asking me question about say Internet. Then I explain it to him in my head and while doing so things are clearer to me and I usually solve my technical problem.
Why should not a person be able to have a personal relationship with God in the same way as we do with living persons, fanatasy persons.

It's funny that you ask this now because I just had a sort of typical 'prayer conversation' with God for the first time in a long time the other day. I do believe in something outside of myself, and I am cognizant and communicating with it all the time - when I meet lovely people, see babies, experience something with another human that binds us together either in sadness or joy, view the wonders of nature, etc, etc. and the reason I believe it's outside of myself and not only within myself is because I believe it's available to everyone who wants to access it and not just me.

But I don't necessarily believe (because I don't KNOW) and don't need to believe that it's an actual being or entity of any sort. I just believe it's THE ideal. Not AN ideal - THE ideal and it represents (if not embodies) what works for people in THIS world. You know- what brings them happiness and peace, etc. And though a lot of people would probably see that as being very individual to each person, at the bottom of that there's one specific, communal need that we all share and that's love. So if we're able to be loving and feel loved, no matter what other circumstances swirl around us- that brings us some measure of peace in our lives.

In my mind God is simply that - love. So love is God. And if you're a Christian, Jesus is your example of how to spread that love.

So the other day, I was really struggling with what to do about a friend of mine who I do really love, but who I've decided I can't really help- or at least that my help is not working and in fact may be enabling, which I don't want to do.
I've been really anxious, asking myself, 'Is this the right thing to do, is this the wrong thing...' to the point that my stomach was in knots. I hate that feeling. So I just prayed and actually said, 'God, help me find the strength to do the right thing.' Because I thought the right thing was to leave him to his own devices and not support him in what he was doing, but I found it very hard to do that.
You know what - almost immediately I felt at peace with my decision to do that. I mean it was noticable - I felt so much more at peace with my decision of backing away- no guilt at all- and a certainty that it was the right thing to do which hadn't been the minute before.

Maybe it was just me accessing that best and strongest part of myself, which I call God - which is also in everyone else. But it makes a difference in my life, for sure. And it's the best and strongest part of myself- because it's what keeps me out of trouble.
And maybe it's just because I'm inculcated in the Christian religion, but I can always find peace in the teachings and my thoughts around God.

And even if it's only a placebo - it's still a wonderful placebo to have - that access to peace.

PQ,

From the viewpoint that "self" concepts are nodes within a network of relationships with other concepts, the impasse is inevitable because networks are not isomorphic. i.e. It is not "you" who cannot agree with the other, it is due to a difference of relational supports for ephemeral and transient "self awareness" , and these relationships mediate "personal experience". Thus we cannot talk about "false experiences" ...only "different experiences".

Note also that networks can be visualized a different levels of abstraction, one of which might involve "no-self" or "self-dissipation". At that level "God" may equate to "holistic consciousness" for some, and conversation per se is transcended.

Talking to oneself and talking to one's god are not necessarily always separate experiences. There is the concept of 'a god within', the notion that whatever supernal force guides your life is within you, not 'out there' somewhere. The Greek word is entheos which literally means 'god within.' Our English word 'enthusiasm' is directly derived from this. I recommend reading A God Within by Rene Dubos.

Well, that certainly clears it up for me.

In the US, an atheist will probably never achieve high office because of some national congenital belief in the truth of Christianity.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry but in the 1950s the wisdom was that a Catholic could never become President until JFK prove that wrong.

That a black man could be elected to the highest office in the land was beyond belief in fact I remember reading a book by the title of The Man" in the 60s or 70s where a black man became president due to three or four layers of people in line for that office having been kill in a fluke roof cave in of a church/temple abroad.

Now we have Obama setting in that office do we not?

Hell our third president was hardly a Christian in the normal meaning of that term and I see no real barrier for a woman or a openly gay man or even an Atheist assuming that office in the future.

More and more of the evil Atheists are coming out of the closet and even assuming the 15 percent or so figure is correct that is no a small number at all and is comparable to the far right Christian numbers.

none of those were an example of my point. JFK was a Catholic (Christian), Obama is a Christian, and Jefferson spoke bravely AFTER he was in office. After all, the presidency was not determined by vote by any other than a select (very) few who could all fit in one room. Anyway, Jefferson WAS NOT an atheist he only preached for religious freedom tgo mean the "freedom of and from religion".

Im sticking with my original point and when an atheist is successful at attaining high office, we will have come far pilgrim.

I am not sure what you would label Mr. Jefferson but he was not a Christian by the normal meaning of the term and as I am sure you know that he even rewrote the bible taking all the supernatural nonsense out of it.

Second Obama was/is a church goer but with no proof at all I get the impression that he is one of the Christians that give lip service to the faith and little else.

The out and out atheists numbers at least as must as such groups as the Mormons and the Jewish Community and right or wrong I am under the impression that we have at least double that number counting the people in the closet.

If so that would bring the number to 30 percent of the total population and
bringing them out of the closet would mean that we could have a OPEN atheist president in our lifetime.

Why not argue about it? If one person believes the sky is red and the other believes the sky is green, that means that at least one of them has to be wrong. And if you care for the truth, you'll want to find out which. It has nothing to do with disrespect, just with curiosity. Religion is no different.

Do you read the posts under threads involving sex, religion and politics ? It has nothing to do with curiosity and everything to do with egotistical bigotry.

To reply on the merits: There is no practical distinction between having a personal relationship with god and having one with any other imaginary friend. For example, there was a time in my life where I was very very deeply into classical music, and I, too, kind of thought I had a personal relationship with the composers whose music I was playing. But I would have obviously have been wrong in any usual sense of what "personal relationship" means. As Monty Python so eloquently put it, "you can still hear Beethoven, but Beethoven cannot hear you."

That has not been my experience. If it has been yours, you may consider writing politer and more interesting posts. What goes around tends to come around -- even in political threads.

You may read everyone of the threads I have posted in...I am always the second one to call names, not the first. I just have a thing against bullying bigots and have no fear of treating injustice with more of the same. I still maintain most posters here are not interested in others, they want to voice their opinion and become belligerant if someone has the gall to disagree with them. If you are genuine in being curious, then I congratulate you on being one of the very few.