Why do you believe?

[wynn]

Lori do you have any sort of scientific background? Study at college or anything like that?

It just seems to me that you don't critically evaluate those things that have happened.

I don't doubt Lori's experiences. But I do think that her approach to obtaining knowledge of God doesn't work for everyone. As such, I do not think she can rightfully hold it against people if they do not see things her way.

Frankly, I experience her as extremely puffed-up, in-your-face with her statements like "experiencing God is a no-brainer". Granted, it is my pride that gets offended at this. Which, however, doesn't yet guarantee that her approach is universal. My hurt pride doesn't yet mean that she is right.

I think the lesson that seekers of God have to learn in disucssing with people like Lori is that although she may be honest and have the best intentions, this is still not enough. For many people, a more methodical, systematic approach (with various resources) is needed. Which is something that only organized religion can provide.

 

[Lori_7]

Lori do you have any sort of scientific background? Study at college or anything like that?

It just seems to me that you don't critically evaluate those things that have happened.

it only seems that way because i've cited a miniscule example of my experience. a snippet of 43 years. to try to document and explain all relevant experience and all of the rationale used to reach my conclusion would be a daunting task that i'm not at all willing or even interested in attempting. i would however try really hard to, if i thought for one second that it might help someone else, but i know that it won't.

i've always tested in the 98-99 percentile in math, science, and analytical aptitude, and unfortunately earned a bachelor's degree in accounting. i say unfortunately only because i found myself bored out of my skull in my profession. but, i would be classified as a left-brainer. i tend to think about everything as if it is a math problem or a puzzle i have to put together. which is why it was so shocking and foreign to me to compose a poem. poetry was the ONLY thing that ever confounded my mind. until just recently, i had deemed it completely useless, except maybe to entertain a child with a nursery rhyme.

what happened to me in 2005 nearly made my brain explode, trying to take it all in and make sense of it. and though i'm not able to articulate it in a concise and comprehensive way, trust that it's all up there in my head, and it makes sense to me.

at first i felt compelled to write all of it down, and to tell everyone. i thought it was my job, as if that was why it happened to me. but there was too much, and it came too fast, and while my brain barely kept up, my fingers and mouth could not. my attempt to articulate only ended up in frustration for me, and alienation for those around me. what i was testifying to scared people, and offended a lot of people, and i don't want to do that. i've come to realize that my experience isn't for anyone to appreciate and figure out but me. other's have their own to figure out, and we all witness to each other every minute of every day, with our behavior.

i did the best i could. and while it was extremely difficult for me, i think i did a good job, and i'm glad it happened.

 

[Lori_7]

I don't doubt Lori's experiences. But I do think that her approach to obtaining knowledge of God doesn't work for everyone. As such, I do not think she can rightfully hold it against people if they do not see things her way.

Frankly, I experience her as extremely puffed-up, in-your-face with her statements like "experiencing God is a no-brainer". Granted, it is my pride that gets offended at this. Which, however, doesn't yet guarantee that her approach is universal. My hurt pride doesn't yet mean that she is right.

I think the lesson that seekers of God have to learn in disucssing with people like Lori is that although she may be honest and have the best intentions, this is still not enough. For many people, a more methodical, systematic approach (with various resources) is needed. Which is something that only organized religion can provide.

i'm really sorry if i've offended you or anyone else with statements like that. i'm just trying to be honest, and my opinion is based on my own experience. i tried to intellectualize it and i got to the same place as everyone else who tries to do it that way...nowhere. thinking about something doesn't achieve the same result as experiencing that thing. and it's not as if you just turn your brain off and not think on it at all, it's just that thinking does not get you to knowing...believing.

i don't think that religion is useless, i just think it's pretty obvious that it's not the answer.

in regards to intelligence and analytical skills, consider how unfair it would be if that were the way to knowing god. and while i think we all have a unique path, i also know it's a level playing field. and i think that sometimes our intellect, and our conditioning, interferes with our instinct, and that ultimately, no matter how smart you are, this decision rests in your heart, much more than in your mind.

 

[wynn]

i tried to intellectualize it and i got to the same place as everyone else who tries to do it that way...nowhere.

It depends on how one tries to intellectualize it - what the actual "intelligence" involved is.

There is something called "natural theology" - which is what most people pursue. It is a kind of common-sense, mostly non-denominational reasoning about God and ourselves. But natural theology has its limits.

God reveals Himself via scriptures though, and there is more than just the Bible.

thinking about something doesn't achieve the same result as experiencing that thing.

True. But coming to the point of experiencing something, there must be the right intellectual basis for it. Theory comes before the practice. If the practice doesn't bear the desired results, it could well be one has messed up on th level of theory.

and it's not as if you just turn your brain off and not think on it at all, it's just that thinking does not get you to knowing...believing.

It is sometimes said that there are two kinds of faith:
The first kind of faith is the sort of faith that emerges upon intellectually understandings something; when we say "Oh, this makes sense!"
The second kind of faith emerges when we have acted on that understanding with some consistency.

i don't think that religion is useless, i just think it's pretty obvious that it's not the answer.

I do not think this is obvious at all, nor that it is the case.

in regards to intelligence and analytical skills, consider how unfair it would be if that were the way to knowing god.

It is not the kind of intelligence that can be measured on official IQ tests that matters when it comes to know God, but the intelligence to distinguish between matter and spirit.
Perhaps even someone with Down Syndrome may have that intelligence, but they are certainly not able to teach it to others. It is said in the Bible that teaching is a gift. Not everyone can be a teacher.

this decision rests in your heart, much more than in your mind.

I think words like "heart" are extremely vague, I don't understand such words, it is not a language I speak, nor do many other people.

 

[kurros]

i believe in god because of experiences i've had, and the meaning derived from them. it was ultimately the only logical conclusion i could make.

Aha. This I think is at the root of all religion. God can explain everything, and there are a vast many things that happen to us throughout our lives that are difficult to accept, or are just plain beyond our ability to comprehend or understand. Our brains, however, will process all this information anyway, and if we don't have all the background information available for it to slot the new experiences neatly into then God is next best thing for many people.

I am of the opinion that we must all fight this instinct, simply so that we don't stop looking for better, more specific answers, but I can see why many people end up with this kind of worldview. It comes very naturally to us.

 

[Lori_7]

Aha. This I think is at the root of all religion. God can explain everything, and there are a vast many things that happen to us throughout our lives that are difficult to accept, or are just plain beyond our ability to comprehend or understand. Our brains, however, will process all this information anyway, and if we don't have all the background information available for it to slot the new experiences neatly into then God is next best thing for many people.

I am of the opinion that we must all fight this instinct, simply so that we don't stop looking for better, more specific answers, but I can see why many people end up with this kind of worldview. It comes very naturally to us.

aha. the old fallacious paradigm that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
:yawn:

how did this happen?

why did this happen?

do you recognize a difference between the two questions above?

fact is, that science to date can not provide me an answer to the first question. biblical scripture on the other hand does provide me an answer to the second question. and quite frankly, i really don't care how it happened. i do however care about why it happened.

 

[Lori_7]

It depends on how one tries to intellectualize it - what the actual "intelligence" involved is.

There is something called "natural theology" - which is what most people pursue. It is a kind of common-sense, mostly non-denominational reasoning about God and ourselves. But natural theology has its limits.

God reveals Himself via scriptures though, and there is more than just the Bible.

i agree with you. but you do have to have experience to relate the scriptures to.

True. But coming to the point of experiencing something, there must be the right intellectual basis for it. Theory comes before the practice. If the practice doesn't bear the desired results, it could well be one has messed up on th level of theory.

when it comes to some of the spiritual experiences i've had, there was no theory that i was aware of, to explain them, or pre-empt them. i had to look for some answers, and some were handed to me in the form of impressions and words, a portion of which were spoken, and a portion of which were written.

but in a general sense, when i read a lot of the stories in the bible, where god speaks to people, and god tells them to do these crazy things, in light of other crazy things, and they toil and struggle, are rejected by those around them, but press on in faith and accomplish...i can relate to that very well.

It is sometimes said that there are two kinds of faith:
The first kind of faith is the sort of faith that emerges upon intellectually understandings something; when we say "Oh, this makes sense!"
The second kind of faith emerges when we have acted on that understanding with some consistency.

i always equate faith with trust, like you can have faith in a person because you know them.

I do not think this is obvious at all, nor that it is the case.

why?

It is not the kind of intelligence that can be measured on official IQ tests that matters when it comes to know God, but the intelligence to distinguish between matter and spirit.
Perhaps even someone with Down Syndrome may have that intelligence, but they are certainly not able to teach it to others. It is said in the Bible that teaching is a gift. Not everyone can be a teacher.




I think words like "heart" are extremely vague, I don't understand such words, it is not a language I speak, nor do many other people.

yeah, i don't know what came over me. i usually respond to someone who uses the term "heart" like that with, "the heart is a muscle that pumps blood through your veins". but what i mean is "caring". i think that "do you care?" and "why do you care?" are the most important questions to ask when contemplating beliefs.

 

[answers]

Lori I won't criticize your answers, just wanted to say thanks for posting them up.

But I will correct one thing, this is only because I've been studying psychology for 3 years and these sorts of things are a pet peeve of mine. There is no such thing as people being left brained or right brained. It's one of those popular ideas out there that is total BS, like how people say we only use 10% of our brains... no we use 100%. lol anyways....

 

[kurros]

aha. the old fallacious paradigm that science and religion are mutually exclusive.
:yawn:

how did this happen?

why did this happen?

do you recognize a difference between the two questions above?

fact is, that science to date can not provide me an answer to the first question. biblical scripture on the other hand does provide me an answer to the second question. and quite frankly, i really don't care how it happened. i do however care about why it happened.

I don't think they are incompatible in practice, plenty of scientists are religious, but I do think they are logically incompatible. By which I mean that scientific thinking requires reproducible evidence for ideas before they can be accepted and built upon, while religious thinking requires no such thing. It's a rather obvious incompatibility really. That is not to say both cannot coexist in one person; people are excellent at meshing together inconsistent ideas.

But more to the point, the fact that science cannot answer all your questions currently doesn't logically mean that biblical scripture is correct. That is far more of a fallacy than saying science and religion are incompatible. Perhaps you should hold out for a third, as-yet undiscovered option. This is what I meant by our brains demanding answers. Answers are not yet possible (and may not ever be possible), but we want to know them anyway so our brains are ready to cling to all kinds of things which offer to fill that void.

 

[wynn]

i don't think that religion is useless, i just think it's pretty obvious that it's not the answer.

Could you first please explain a bit why you think that religion is "not the answer" and why you think this is obvious?

 

[Lori_7]

I don't think they are incompatible in practice, plenty of scientists are religious, but I do think they are logically incompatible. By which I mean that scientific thinking requires reproducible evidence for ideas before they can be accepted and built upon, while religious thinking requires no such thing. It's a rather obvious incompatibility really. That is not to say both cannot coexist in one person; people are excellent at meshing together inconsistent ideas.

But more to the point, the fact that science cannot answer all your questions currently doesn't logically mean that biblical scripture is correct. That is far more of a fallacy than saying science and religion are incompatible. Perhaps you should hold out for a third, as-yet undiscovered option. This is what I meant by our brains demanding answers. Answers are not yet possible (and may not ever be possible), but we want to know them anyway so our brains are ready to cling to all kinds of things which offer to fill that void.

they are not inconsistent ideas; they are simply answering different questions. imo, religious texts are not history books, or science books, or even books at all. they are tools. tools that are used by the holy spirit to enlighten individuals. it's when we attempt to use these tools for some other purpose that things go awry.

i am not saying that i had no answer in science, so i threw up my hands and said "it must be god". i'm saying that, i'm sure there could be a scientific explanation for HOW what happened to me happened, but i don't really care about that. it's the WHY that i care about. it is not the role of science to provide that answer. it is the opinion of many scientifically minded atheists, that there is no WHY...there is no meaning.

in a general sense, when i reflect upon my life experience, and the world around me, i find an answer to WHY in religious texts. and in a very specific sense, i've had spiritual events and interactions that i have found very specific explanations for in religious texts, namely the bible.

i have had the holy spirit interpret certain scriptures to me, that relate to my life, and these specific experiences, in an extremely personal way. and as far as i can tell, these interpretations are not received by religious folk any better than they are by atheists.

 

[Lori_7]

Could you first please explain a bit why you think that religion is "not the answer" and why you think this is obvious?

because religion is a product of man. and religion can and is used by many, for a purpose other than good, or love, or enlightenment, or salvation. there are many devoutly religious people who do not know god. they look to their leaders for enlightenment instead of the spirit. they practice rituals and don't even realize that those rituals are meant to be symbolic representation of something very real and of something spiritual.

for example, many christians think that it's so important to be dipped into a pool of water at a church because they don't understand that it's a ritual symbolic of the baptism of the holy spirit. they confess their sins to priests instead of to god. and they receive communion without the faintest clue about what that ritual means in a very practical sense.

religion is often used as a substitute for a personal relationship with god, and it is this personal relationship with god that is the answer.

 

[wynn]

It seems to me you are working with quite a different understanding of "religion" as I do.

What you seem to have a problem with is the social, congregational aspect of one's personal relationship with God.

Humans are social, gregarious beings, and they are especially so when it comes to religion.
As Jesus points out:
Matthew 18:20: "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Christianity - and all other monotheistic religions that I know of - wasn't meant to be a lone ranger endeavor.


I suggested this elsewhere - Why not try to go to some churches and temples of different denominations?
From a distance, many religious people may seem very ritualistic, unaware of what going to church is supposed to be about and so on. But if one perceives them as such, and if they actually respond that way - then this may also be due to the asker's uncharitable attitude toward them.

 

[wynn]

religion is often used as a substitute for a personal relationship with god, and it is this personal relationship with god that is the answer.

How can one develop this personal relationship with God all by oneself, without any meaningful contact with other people who have similar interests and have succeeded in building a relationship with God?

 

[Lori_7]

How can one develop this personal relationship with God all by oneself, without any meaningful contact with other people who have similar interests and have succeeded in building a relationship with God?

through god's spirit. i mean, if it's a personal relationship between you and god, then in what way are these other people a factor?

i mean, certainly these other people are around, and people have been responsible for disseminating religious texts that i find enlightening, and people can witness in regards to or in response to god. but you gotta understand, i've been exposed to christianity primarily, and honestly, what i experienced in the realm of religiosity turned me OFF. if anything, religion antagonized me into pursuing a relationship with god all on my own.

 

[Lori_7]

It seems to me you are working with quite a different understanding of "religion" as I do.

What you seem to have a problem with is the social, congregational aspect of one's personal relationship with God.

Humans are social, gregarious beings, and they are especially so when it comes to religion.
As Jesus points out:
Matthew 18:20: "For where two or three come together in my name, there am I with them."

Christianity - and all other monotheistic religions that I know of - wasn't meant to be a lone ranger endeavor.


I suggested this elsewhere - Why not try to go to some churches and temples of different denominations?
From a distance, many religious people may seem very ritualistic, unaware of what going to church is supposed to be about and so on. But if one perceives them as such, and if they actually respond that way - then this may also be due to the asker's uncharitable attitude toward them.

it may seem ironic, but i believe communion to be the most important thing. the very purpose of christ.

but i feel no need or desire to go to some particular building at some particular time, to hear god's word, or to witness, or to worship, or to pray, or to stand around and sing boring songs and clap our hands, perform rituals, blah, blah, blah. BOOOORRRRRIIING.

the holy spirit talks to me, counsels me, and teaches me through all kinds of means and media. teaches me via personal life experience. i have a bible in my house, and a 24 hour a day evangelist cable channel if i want to hear a sermon. i have countless friends, acquaintances, family, and co-workers that i interact with and witness to every day though my behavior, the way i treat them, the way i treat myself, and the decisions i make that are based on my beliefs. i worship god this way...with my life and with my behavior all the time, not just on sunday morning. every thought and every desire i have is a prayer that manifests, and that means something real.

 

[Lori_7]

WOW. i thought it absolutely appropriate to post this here...


http://www.micsem.org/pubs/counselor/frames/spiritabuse.htm

this is why i abhor religion, and i refuse to be a part of it. i WILL NOT fit in. i hate conformity, and i hate the hypocritical, judgmental, insincere, and ignorant bullshit that is associated with it. imo, it does nothing but segregate and alienate. i am NOT codependent, and i do not need anyone telling me how to dress, think, speak, act, and live. i am quite capable of deciding that all on my own with the help of the holy spirit.

i would rather cut my arm off with a butter knife than join what religious people ironically call "a church". like my sig says...i AM the church. my body is the temple of the holy spirit, and how dare you to say otherwise...IT IS WRITTEN.

the other day a couple of jehovah's witnesses came knocking. i was in my robe, my hair a mess, and i was watching the food network, BUT i answered the door anyway. they pretended to be interested in me for a minute, quoted some random scripture, gave me some propaganda, and left. and i'm sure they were amused by the look on my face. first of all, if i'm not mistaken, these people equate their door to door jesus salesman routine with "witnessing". when what they are actually witnessing to, is a complete and utter disrespect of my property, my time, and my intelligence. secondly, if i'm not mistaken, the reason they do this door to door bullshit, is because they think that's what will get THEM to heaven. so, it's rather obvious where their intentions lie...they're doing it for themselves. when all they need to do is look at the scriptures and realize that jesus didn't go door to door. jesus said that your works will NOT get you to heaven. jesus was not arrogant, or intrusive. jesus was humble, wise, and gifted, and because of that, people sought him. it's like any other person selling something, door to door, or telemarketing...insulting me. if i wanted something then i would seek it...i'm not retarded, and i don't need your pitch.

i spent many years waiting tables at a chain restaurant, where i unfortunately had to wait on the after church crowd. they arrived arrogantly and impatiently and neglected their children while they gluttonously shoved junk food into their mouths while at the same time gossiping about people in their own congregation. they treated the waitstaff like shit, and left them a shitty tip. every one of the wait staff abhorred sundays because of their obnoxious behavior and i swear to god, i would rather dig my own eye out with a spoon than be associated with this bunch of heathens.

amen.

 

[kurros]

WOW. i thought it absolutely appropriate to post this here...

http://www.micsem.org/pubs/counselor/frames/spiritabuse.htm

Well we agree on something then. I was particularly disturbed by this passage:

"Narcissism. The reason that many Christians have a problem with developing empathy skills is because they have a problem with narcissism. Narcissists are not necessarily bad people. Narcissism simply means that, for whatever reason, the person's only point of reference in life is himself. For the narcissist only his thoughts, his feelings, his perceptions are fully real. For him the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of others are less real. In the religious context, narcissists simply assume that what they think God thinks, and what they believe is Bible-based. They take it for granted that any idea that jumps into their heads is from the Holy Spirit and that they are only following the promptings of the Holy Spirit whenever they decide to do anything. The fact that other people may see their words as being less than holy, their motives as being less than pure, and their actions as being hurtful and injurious never occurs to them. When you believe that you are right and righteous, then all that you say and do is right and righteous. Any thought to the contrary never enters the picture."

If this is accurate I find it terrifying.

 

[answers]

Lori wrote: "Jesus was not arrogant, or intrusive. jesus was humble, wise, and gifted"

I think it's kind of amusing that you absolutely hate the church and organised religion, yet you choose to believe a version of Jesus from the bible that contains books chosen by the church.

They ignored the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and chose other books to fill the bible instead.

If you actually look at the teachings about Jesus that the church didn't hand pick from the assortment of available literature, you'll see Jesus was arrogant, was intrusinve, was far from humble, and wasn't wise. Heck in the Infancy Gospel of Thomas Jesus kills a boy for knocking some water out of his hand, then kills a boy for running into him, then blinds the dead boys parents when they complain, then later on kills his teacher at school, all the while telling everyone how wise and powerful he is.

No wonder the CHURCH CHOSE not to include that book in the bible.

 

[wynn]

Lori wrote: "Jesus was not arrogant, or intrusive. jesus was humble, wise, and gifted"

I think it's kind of amusing that you absolutely hate the church and organised religion, yet you choose to believe a version of Jesus from the bible that contains books chosen by the church.

Good point!

Lori also believes the doctrine of eternal damnation. There is reason to believe (see here, point 4.2) that the doctrine of eternal damnation and the way that particular word was translated in the Bible was/is a matter of an agreement between influential people of the church. A critical analysis of the biblical text does not support the notion that the stay in hell would be eternal, forever, with no chance of redemption.