proglodite
Member
"Spirit-filled' refers to having the Holy Spirit living in you; it doesn't necessarily mean being led by God. I am 'spirit-filled' and yet I still make mistakes in life
Who seriously can believe in bible?
- Thread starter cfh
- Start date
lycanthropyhowl
fuck the newfits!
- Nov 1, 2005
- 95
- 0
- 6
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
proglodite said:
Yes and how do you know those mistakes don't include the following:
1. Mistaking emotional or psychological factors for religious experiences.
2. Misinterpreting the Bible and Christianity so that in fact even though you feel guided by God you are still wrong.
proglodite
Member
Ptah Khnemu said:
IMO, the brain controls the mental, and has nothing to do with the spiritual, which is the realm of... - wait for it - ...the spirit!
Thoth-Amon said:
Personally I find it easy to determine between emotions and "religious experiences". By my nature I make my opinions known, and so other christians are able to guide/help me with issues where I interpret things differently to others. This doesn't mean I conform my opinions to the accepted norm, but that I always have people to pull me up when I may be going at things the wrong way.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
proglodite said:
OK but to the outsider looking into Christianity, someone saying "I know Christianity is true because I'm guided by God" is not at all convincing when you have millions of people in the same religion claiming the same thing and yet are contradicting each other not to mention millions of other non-Christians claiming the same thing and not believing in Christianity at all. Which only makes outsiders think "well none of them are guided by God, they are all just mistaking their feelings for divine guidance". So in answer to my original question "why the Judeo-Christian God" your answer falls woefully short.
proglodite said:
But how would the brain reister something that it doesn't come in contact with? The person would never realize they're feeling spiritual if their spirit had no contact with their brain. It's like saying that you don't know that you're thinking, or that you don't know that you're breathing. What you said is prettymuch the kind of philosophy that would come from a person who believes that the entire world was actually created in 7 days. And I don't mean that as a philosophy of a specfic religion. i mean the kind of person whose desire for understanding is satisfied by such a simple story, without any explanation. A person can't know that something's happening to them, unless the thing happening to them had direct contact with the brain. Even then, things usually don't proceed to get peoples' brains working.
proglodite
Member
Thoth-Amon said:
The answer is No, it's not at all convincing.
If you were to recommend me a favorite black metal cd, you have no way of proving to me that I will like it. Going by my previous experiences with black metal, and my tastes in metal, I most likely won't like it, but I cannot legitimately determine that the cd is crap without listening to it.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
proglodite said:
That's true. However for people such as myself who have experienced Christianity for years I can honestly say that all of my "religioius experiences" can be soundly explained by purely emotional/psychological factors.
Proglodite, you raise a very good point, comparing the bible to said reccomended cd. A good analogy, but there's one huge flaw with it in this specific scenario: I've read the bible. And I find it to be farfetch'd, rediculous, and in desperate need of updating.
And I'm still waiting on an answer to my point about how you can't feel your spirit if it's not somehow connected to the brain.
And I'm still waiting on an answer to my point about how you can't feel your spirit if it's not somehow connected to the brain.
Ptah Khnemu said:
As I always understood it: the spirit, in some form, is supposed to be your true self. An abstract expression of the individual. It is free; unbound by the weakness of flesh. Therefore it has no direct ties to the brain, or any functions of the human body, it remains unencumbered by the physical.
That doesn't answer the question, and there isn't a response that can answer the question.
proglodite
Member
Thoth-Amon said:
At this point may I suggest we drop the term 'religious experiences' in favour of 'Interaction with God'. In my experience, anyone who has had interaction with god will never become an athiest, but rather put other things in life before God. This is not to look down on your experience as a christian, but would you not have to ask yourself whether you experienced a relationship, or just religion?
proglodite
Member
Ptah Khnemu said:
Allow me to continue the analogy: Would you be able to review an album based soley on the booklet?
Ptah Khnemu said:
Sorry, missed that one. IMO, the spirit is to the mind what the mind is to the body. You need one to interpret and interact with the other; just as seeing something might invoke a certain emotion, a thought might invoke a desire of your heart, and vice versa. It's what places humans above animals, just like the mind places animals above plants. As a result, I believe that everyone has a spirit, but some are more aware of it than others.
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
proglodite said:
First off I know the distinction between relationship and religion that Christians make. I was a Pentecostal for years before converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Both groups (though the latter is far more traditional and structured) emphasize a personal relationship with Christ. Secondly I never became an atheist. I'm undecided, I just don't know. My beliefs are closest to deism right now. Lastly I'm well aware of the belief common amongst Christians that "well you were never really a true Christian to begin with because once you've experienced God you could never possbily leave him". This is bollocks. I know what I believed and I know others who were just as devout if not more so who are no longer believers. I think Christians resort to this argument because it makes them feel more secure in their beliefs (afterall if someone else was a true Christian and lost their faith what about me?).
No, but the way it sounds, you're comparing the bible to said booklet, and the religion itself to the album. In this case, it sounds like you're saying "Don't judge Christianity without being a Christian." I, sir, say No Thank You.proglodite said:
Thoth-Amon
Hypochondriac
- Apr 4, 2006
- 6,821
- 8
- 38
Ptah Khnemu said:
That's exactly what he's saying. And of course once you are a Christian you are going to say "oh yes this is true, God speaks to me, etc."
proglodite
Member
Thoth-Amon said:
That's why I was talking about athiests; you can definitely leave God, but I would have a hard time believing anyone who said God did not exist, having interacted with him.
proglodite
Member
XvoraZ
New Metal Member
Hi! I hope im not intruding into the discussion.
I think about bible not as a history or physics textbook I think about it as a fiction like literature. In this sense it might be called untrue, but do you call a novel untrue or judge it because of it? Bible is a text and it is to be interpreted by the reader. I think bible (just as any other mythology) consists of symbolic or meztaphysic truth. Eg. the story of paradise may symbloize the birth of ego or something like that.
I think it is really hard to tell feelings and affections from real experiences. I thought many times that 'this is gods will' and the sort. Sometimes i was right (i think it so now at least) sometimes it proved to be unright. My image of god changes continously, whats more, I think everybody has an image of god. Atheists also. Nothing is something as well :zombie:
As for the christian religion... I dont think its the ever best for everybody; im not even sure that it suites me best...maybe quiet a lot religions would suit. I dont know. I know I was born to it. I know I have deneided it. And I know I have returned to it becouse I found no better option...
I think about bible not as a history or physics textbook I think about it as a fiction like literature. In this sense it might be called untrue, but do you call a novel untrue or judge it because of it? Bible is a text and it is to be interpreted by the reader. I think bible (just as any other mythology) consists of symbolic or meztaphysic truth. Eg. the story of paradise may symbloize the birth of ego or something like that.
I think it is really hard to tell feelings and affections from real experiences. I thought many times that 'this is gods will' and the sort. Sometimes i was right (i think it so now at least) sometimes it proved to be unright. My image of god changes continously, whats more, I think everybody has an image of god. Atheists also. Nothing is something as well :zombie:
As for the christian religion... I dont think its the ever best for everybody; im not even sure that it suites me best...maybe quiet a lot religions would suit. I dont know. I know I was born to it. I know I have deneided it. And I know I have returned to it becouse I found no better option...
Draconysius
Timid, Lurid Raven
I'm a Satanist, so you know how I feel about this. I don't believe in Satan, though; it's more of a symbol in ritual and practice. (no, I don't eat babies! ...When I'm on a diet, at least. 
)
)
