A personal relationship with God.

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I think a lot of christians presume that non-believers have never had any sort of feelings or thoughts of this regard.
.

The present Christian cadres should be aware that non-believers have ARRIVED at their points of view only after introspection and rather deep familiarity with the alternative.
Most of us did not start out as atheists or agnostics.

Yeah. On a side note here- it annoys me the way in which a lot of christians will approach you on the street/whatever by saying 'Have you ever wondered about the meaning of life?'
I saw an alpha course booklet the other day which really irritated me, it had little cartoons in portraying atheists in various manners- one with a pot of gold, a man with loads of women, blah blah, a load of massive cliches. Yeah, we're so shallow.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

Thank you Fresco.
So in essence, 'personal relationships with God' are an alternative way of narrating our lives?

Yes.
1.For some "self" relates to "others including God"...and 2. for some "self" coalesces with "God". Type 1 individuals have a "personal relationship" irrespective of "conversations", in so far as "God" is personified. Type 2. have a "holistic relationship" in which they conceive of "selves" as manifestations of "God" and vice versa.

1 Reply

@fresco,

NB In both types of self the "existence of God" is co-extensive with "the existence of that self". Existence lies in relationship in the same way that "up" is co-extensive with "down". Atheists who argue for "the non-existence of God" (because their "selves" are not existentially related to "God") are essentially attacking the self-concepts of believers. People are their beliefs, Therein lies the impasse.

1 Reply

@fresco,

Quote:

Yes.
1.For some "self" relates to "others including God"...and 2. for some "self" coalesces with "God". Type 1 individuals have a "personal relationship" irrespective of "conversations", in so far as "God" is personified. Type 2. have a "holistic relationship" in which they conceive of "selves" as manifestations of "God" and vice versa.

Perfect.
In type two, do we have need to term 'God' God?

2 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Not for you Queenie. You could use Goddess. Or Queen of the Heavenly Spheres.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

In type two, do we have need to term 'God' God?

...well they might need a term to denote "creative consciousness".

2 Replies

@fresco,

Which one might call intelligent design as I suppose evolution theory might be called creative unconsciousness in the Jungian sense.

That's one for serious intellectuals.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

(Ionus) I dont think there is a personal God. But I have several reasons for thinking a God exists

Quote:

(The Pentacle Queen) Can you elaborate on them please?

1. I previously believed in a personal God. This changed with puberty.
2. My love of all science showed me areas where it was becoming religious.
3. An experience that convinced me and two others that there is life after death.
4. Philosophy has had great leaps that science took millenia to catch up to.
5. My research has led me to understand what it is in the human psyche that needs a personal God.

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

Yeah. On a side note here- it annoys me the way in which a lot of christians will approach you on the street/whatever by saying 'Have you ever wondered about the meaning of life?'

There have been many insecure people who have been hepled in this way. Would you deny them help ?

Quote:

I saw an alpha course booklet the other day which really irritated me, it had little cartoons in portraying atheists in various manners- one with a pot of gold, a man with loads of women, blah blah, a load of massive cliches. Yeah, we're so shallow.

Perhaps you should read what non-believers say about Christians if you like cliches.

0 Replies

@The Pentacle Queen,

Quote:

It may be outside of yourself, but it's still inside others, inside humanity, and consequential of our linguistic and emotional capacities. There's no need to extrapolate the view into something outside humanity.

Right, but this relates more to my second post which asks about the source. If it's indeed inside others, and in fact, humanity as a whole, that speaks to the research that says we as human are hardwired to believe in god - especially as children. And that makes me wonder why? And how?

Quote:

But I can't bring myself to just believe something just because it makes me feel nice/better/stronger/happier.

And I think this speaks to the point above. I didn't bring myself or force myself to believe anything. It's just a part of who I am - just the same as it seems not to be a necessary part of who you are.

What I don't like though is when those who have believed and no longer believe because they've 'thought' about it - assume that those who do believe have not also 'thought' about it.
I think how we view and integrate each of our own experiences, and in fact, how we personally fuction through what may be identical experiences, may lead us to entirely different conclusions in the end- but that doesn't mean the same amount of thought didn't go into it.

2 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

1. I previously believed in a personal God. This changed with puberty.

Does this mean that you don't believe in God anymore...or your belief changed into something else after puberty?

Quote:

2. My love of all science showed me areas where it was becoming religious.

What was becoming religious?

Quote:

3. An experience that convinced me and two others that there is life after death.

What was this experience? From what I know, nobody has returned from the dead...nobody has returned from the dead after the body has been eaten by maggots.

Quote:

4. Philosophy has had great leaps that science took millenia to catch up to.

Philosophy is part of science.

Quote:

5. My research has led me to understand what it is in the human psyche that needs a personal God.

Can you elaborate more on this? What was the research about? However, some people need a personal god....and some don't.

1 Reply

@aidan,

Quote:

What I don't like though is when those who have believed and no longer believe because they've 'thought' about it - assume that those who do believe have not also 'thought' about it.

I find it very funny Rebecca.

They assume things as a matter of course. In fact it doesn't take them very long to assume that anything they assume is a scientific fact merely on the evidence that they have assumed it and, as such, is impervious to revision as all scientific facts obviously are.

1 Reply

@Jason Proudmoore,

Quote:

this mean that you don't believe in God anymore.....

It means I dont believe in a God who will help me in life if I pray. I am here to make my own decisions. My life after death depends on what I do, what decisions I make.

Quote:

What was becoming religious?

Science is becoming more religious. There is the creation of the Universe, the death of the universe, increasing complexity, facets of life's evolution that are very difficult to accept as accidents.

Quote:

From what I know, nobody has returned from the dead.

Not in the experience of two others and I.

Quote:

Philosophy is part of science.

No. Philosophy is an art.

Quote:

Can you elaborate more on this?

It is the main topic of a book I am working on, so, no.

1 Reply

@Ionus,

Quote:

It means I dont believe in a God who will help me in life if I pray. I am here to make my own decisions. My life after death depends on what I do, what decisions I make.

With what empirical evidence do you based your assertion that there is an afterlife?

Quote:

Science is becoming more religious.

Science has never been religious nor will be religious...by definition science is not religious...Science doesn't "believe". Science finds truths of given propositions using the scientific method...Science doesn't have a dogma, doesn't pray to a god...science doesn't resort to intuition....science is not biased.

Quote:

There is the creation of the Universe,

No scientist that I ever known has said that the universe was created. Where do you get this idea?

Quote:

the death of the universe,

If you looked into the Law of Thermodynamics...you will understand what this means.

Quote:

increasing complexity, facets of life's evolution that are very difficult to accept as accidents.

Evolution doesn't happen by accident...it is deterministic.
The theory of evolution is well more supported than the Theory of Gravity.

Quote:

Not in the experience of two others and I.

That doesn't prove anything... because the brain is so complex, and we are able to experience things that we don't fully understand, we can't say that these experiences belong to the supernatural, even thought the supernatural can't be tested nor measured by scientific means. For instance, two people go in a cave and meditate for a year. They both come out of the cave with the same experiences. One of them becomes a Christian and the other becomes Buddhist. The experiences that this two individuals had don't validate that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus is the son of God and performed miracles, died on the cross and three days later resurrected.

Quote:

No. Philosophy is an art.

I don't quite know what you mean when you answered me that science is an art after I told you that Philosophy is part of science. "Art" is something that is made by humans and it is appreciated...if philosophy is an art, it doesn't make it not being part of science...in fact, if we know that philosophy is an art, and it is part of science, we can determine that science is also an art.

Quote:

It is the main topic of a book I am working on, so, no.

how biased is the book you're working on? Hope it is not a science book.

1 Reply

@Jason Proudmoore,

Quote:

With what empirical evidence do you based your assertion that there is an afterlife?

I offer no empirical evidence and I do not assert it to anyone.

Quote:

...Science doesn't have a dogma...science doesn't resort to intuition....science is not biased.

Intuition is an important part of science. Most major breakthroughs are following an intuition. Science is very biased. Science does have a dogma. It is called the scientific method.

Quote:

No scientist that I ever known has said that the universe was created.

Show me where I said a scientist said that. How many scientists do you know ?

Quote:

If you looked into the Law of Thermodynamics...you will understand what this means.

Why are you assuming I dont know the Laws of thermodynamics ? Do you make a lot of assumptions ?

Quote:

That doesn't prove anything...

I am not trying to prove anything. Perhaps that is why...

Quote:

Evolution doesn't happen by accident...it is deterministic.
The theory of evolution is well more supported than the Theory of Gravity.

Of course evolution happens by accident. Who do you think determines it ? Can you show me where I said the Theory of Evolution is unsupported ?

Quote:

I don't quite know what you mean when you answered me that science is an art after I told you that Philosophy is part of science.

Art and science have two totally different approaches. You need to understand the differences more.

Quote:

if philosophy is an art, it doesn't make it not being part of science...in fact, if we know that philosophy is an art, and it is part of science, we can determine that science is also an art.

This statement is clearly illogical and if you cant see where then I suggest you get some help with it.

Quote:

how biased is the book you're working on? Hope it is not a science book.

All books are written with bias. I will leave it to the reader to determine how much. It is a book that has science in it, and also art such as Psychology and Philosophy.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

They assume things as a matter of course. In fact it doesn't take them very long to assume that anything they assume is a scientific fact merely on the evidence that they have assumed it and, as such, is impervious to revision as all scientific facts obviously are.

I also think it has to do with perception of who we see ourselves as being, how other people see us as being, and how we each feel we need to be seen as being.

If you see yourself as a person who is most tuned to that which can be proved, and most proud of and affirmed by a capacity for intellectual and/or objective observation, anything that doesn't fall under that umbrella is seen as being less valuable - and maybe even an embarrassement- so maybe it's not admitted to or explored by them with the same passion for understanding with which that which can be proved is.

Different people are capable of different types of thought.

0 Replies

@Ionus,

Quote:

I offer no empirical evidence and I do not assert it to anyone.

of course can't show any empirical evidence...it is simply a fabrication of your brain...and you're talking as if life after death really exists. This is what you wrote:

"My life after death depends on what I do, what decisions I make."

Quote:

Intuition is an important part of science.

It is not part of science...you don't even have a clue on what the word even means..."intuition" "is independent of any reasoning process". Scientists have to discard any intuitive thought and look at the final data regardless of what they "believe" the result might be.

Quote:

Most major breakthroughs are following an intuition.

Name me even one scientific breakthrough that has been based on intuition.
and it is not that the world was created in six days...or that the sun revolves around the Earth, or that the Earth is flat.

Quote:

Science is very biased.

Science is not biased by definition. Science does not discriminate.

Quote:

Science does have a dogma. It is called the scientific method.

You don't even know what you're talking about. you don't know what the word "dogma"is... nor the meaning of "scientific method."
This is the scientific method:
1. Ask and define the question.
2. Gather information and resources through observation.
3. Form a hypothesis.
4. Perform one or more experiments and collect and sort data.
5. Analyze the data.
6. Interpret the data and make conclusions that point to a hypothesis.
7. Formulate a "final" or "finished" hypothesis.

This is the definition of the word "dogma."

Dogma: a system of principles or tenets, as of a church.

Now, do you want to continue embarrassing yourself by showing off more of your ignorance of science?

Quote:

Show me where I said a scientist said that.

You didn't say that a scientist said that the universe was created. You just said that the universe was created...my response was that no scientist that I know has said that the universe was created...the comment was meant to correct you.

Quote:

How many scientists do you know ?

Many

Quote:

Why are you assuming I dont know the Laws of thermodynamics ?

From all the barrage of nonsense that you have posted on the subject...indicates that you don't know anything about science.

Quote:

Do you make a lot of assumptions ?

No, I call it as I see it. I gather my information of you and make my conclusion...pretty much like the scientific method.

Quote:

I am not trying to prove anything. Perhaps that is why...

And when you post comments on a thread about personal opinions of misinformation made up by you, you are trying to prove the validity of such claims.

Quote:

Of course evolution happens by accident.

Evolution doesn't happen by accident. If you want to know more about evolution, I suggest you to download a series of podcast called "Evolution 101" by Dr. Zachary Moore...you could get it for free.

Quote:

Who do you think determines it ?

DNA and the environment

Quote:

Can you show me where I said the Theory of Evolution is unsupported ?

Again, I didn't say you said that the Theory of Evolution is unsupported...I just said that the Theory of Evolution is well more supported than the Theory of Gravity....do you agree?

Quote:

Art and science have two totally different approaches. You need to understand the differences more.

You are so ignorant that you can't even understand something very simple. Philosophy is the methodological system used to understand the world around us, asking questions and answering them using reason...what do you THINK science is?
This is what I wrote:
if philosophy is an art, it doesn't make it not being part of science...in fact, if we know that philosophy is an art, and it is part of science, we can determine that science is also an art.

This is your answer to what I wrote:

Quote:

This statement is clearly illogical and if you cant see where then I suggest you get some help with it.

Just because you have the inability to understand the English language doesn't mean that I need to get help....you need to go back to school and take some English comprehension courses.

Quote:

All books are written with bias.

"All books are written with bias"? What a load of crap! You don't even know what the word "bias" means.

Quote:

I will leave it to the reader to determine how much.

And you're writing a book...huh?

Quote:

It is a book that has science in it, and also art such as Psychology and Philosophy.

What are you talking about? Are you saying that all the books that contain Psychology and philosophy are biased? FYI...Psychology and philosophy are sciences...just in case you didn't know.

1 Reply

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
It may be outside of yourself, but it's still inside others, inside humanity, and consequential of our linguistic and emotional capacities. There's no need to extrapolate the view into something outside humanity.

Right, but this relates more to my second post which asks about the source. If it's indeed inside others, and in fact, humanity as a whole, that speaks to the research that says we as human are hardwired to believe in god - especially as children. And that makes me wonder why? And how?

Quote:
But I can't bring myself to just believe something just because it makes me feel nice/better/stronger/happier.

And I think this speaks to the point above. I didn't bring myself or force myself to believe anything. It's just a part of who I am - just the same as it seems not to be a necessary part of who you are.

What I don't like though is when those who have believed and no longer believe because they've 'thought' about it - assume that those who do believe have not also 'thought' about it.
I think how we view and integrate each of our own experiences, and in fact, how we personally fuction through what may be identical experiences, may lead us to entirely different conclusions in the end- but that doesn't mean the same amount of thought didn't go into it.

Yeah. There's nothing I can't disagree with here. I think Fresco encompassed it all with his posts. Different mental narration.

And yes, I'm definitely aware a lot of presumptions are made about Christians that are false in a lot of cases. I guess that's the danger of 'labeling' yourself in a sense.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Quote:
In type two, do we have need to term 'God' God?

...well they might need a term to denote "creative consciousness".

Yes. I think I thought I 'understood' more than I do. Do you really think it's a kind of symbiotic relationship?

1 Reply

@The Pentacle Queen,

Not symbiotic - that implies separation. The hypothesis is that the fundamental unity of which selves are manifestations IS "God" aka "creative consciousness".

0 Replies

A personal relationship with God.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know