If God Exists, Where is He to be Found?

[Mr Walker]

3 hours ago, third_eye said:

Right, pack up and bring the shovels ...

~

 

~

Bring extra undies ...

~

That map !!! ive seen it half a dozen times somewhere before.

A   book by Edith Nesbitt

A geocaching site

  On English writing worksheets 

[danydandan]

@Mr Walker, we are currently discussing the basic difference between the Copenhagen interpretation and the many world's interpretation of quantum mechanics. It led me to start thinking, like this thread, where God might actually be. If we take the many world's interpretation it would suggest that there might be an outside observer of our universe. But doesn't the many world's interpretation not allow interference from that observer, lets call the observer God.

So would that mean God is outside our universe and can't interference but is simply observing?

If one is a proponent of the Copenhagen interpretation it suggests that everything is random and chance, and that there probably isn't a Good.

[I'mConvinced]

1 hour ago, Mr Walker said:

Another, truer, statement is this,  "You can only find god by first believing in it" 

It certainly isn't 'truer' at all.  Explain how God supposedly comes to those of no faith? There are many cases and so we can conclude, from the evidence, that if there is a God it is not bothered by which faith you follow.  In fact, do you not describe yourself as an atheist/humanist that was found by God? 

This logically leads us to the conclusion that a belief is not the deciding factor in who God chooses to make contact with.

[Illyrius]

8 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

It certainly isn't 'truer' at all.  Explain how God supposedly comes to those of no faith? There are many cases and so we can conclude, from the evidence, that if there is a God it is not bothered by which faith you follow.  In fact, do you not describe yourself as an atheist/humanist that was found by God? 

This logically leads us to the conclusion that a belief is not the deciding factor in who God chooses to make contact with.

Of course it is not a factor. This sort of false reasoning stems from quasireligious people that consider themselves protected by god just because they are "followers" of certain distorted doctrine, nothing can be further from the truth.

Edited April 20, 2018 by Illyrius

[Lilly]

4 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

 

it is the belief of a person  who does  not think a god can be real and physical/

 

While I believe God is real, I do not believe God is a physical being. Were God a physical entity then we could prove existence by simply collecting physical evidence. Now, Christians believe God became physical (Jesus ) and for them this serves as proof. That said, since no one currently living was there to witness the resurrection then we are back at it being a matter of personal faith. You say you have personal experiences, but since said experiences were not (I assume) in front of large numbers of neutral people and documented then they would be subjective experiences (proof for you but not for everyone else). 

[The Narcisse]

On 4/19/2018 at 7:23 AM, Lilly said:

God is not corporeal. You can't *find* something that's literally everywhere. 

Or nowhere...

[danydandan]

4 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

It certainly isn't 'truer' at all.  Explain how God supposedly comes to those of no faith? There are many cases and so we can conclude, from the evidence, that if there is a God it is not bothered by which faith you follow.  In fact, do you not describe yourself as an atheist/humanist that was found by God? 

This logically leads us to the conclusion that a belief is not the deciding factor in who God chooses to make contact with.

I actually think Mr Walker is kind of correct. There was a study done comparing people's brain activity when praying, meditating or contemplating God. Half the people described themselves as Ahteist and half described themselves as Theist. The study showed a clear difference in people's brain activity when they believe in what they are doing. In my opinion it leads on to you have to believe in your experience to believe in it, if that makes sense. Or you typically won't have an experience if you don't believe in having a Godly experience.

It holds true regardless if one has faith or not.

Edited April 20, 2018 by danydandan

[Lumpino]

On 19. 4. 2018 at 7:55 AM, Guyver said:

That's my question. 

To add.....is God to be found in this life, or what we think of God to be found?  Some people think we are God (or a part of  his essence) and this can be known if we become enlightened....but isn't this potentially what I just asked about us finding what we think of God?

The mind is quite something, probably more than we know.  Anyway, I'd like to hear your thoughts about coming to know God.  It seems to me that if God is to be found in this life, if He can be known.....then there wouldn't be any doubt about it.  Your thoughts?

What a long meditation about a God name? And ask him? Like some christian mystics, hebrew kabbalists, hindu bhaktiyogis ......?

[I'mConvinced]

2 hours ago, danydandan said:

I actually think Mr Walker is kind of correct. There was a study done comparing people's brain activity when praying, meditating or contemplating God. Half the people described themselves as Ahteist and half described themselves as Theist. The study showed a clear difference in people's brain activity when they believe in what they are doing. In my opinion it leads on to you have to believe in your experience to believe in it, if that makes sense. Or you typically won't have an experience if you don't believe in having a Godly experience.

It holds true regardless if one has faith or not.

There is no doubt that belief in things like prayer, mantras or meditating etc produces different brain activity.  This is the very basis of the Placebo Effect and the reason we give sugar pills instead of nothing at all, it helps you to believe.  What this does not show, in any way, is that people who believe are more likely to encounter an actual God as opposed to some internalisation of what they think and believe God might be.  For example, it is no wonder that the majority of reincarnation cases occur in societies that believe in reincarnation.  Does it make it true? No, it just makes you more likely to fall into your confirmation bias because your culture dictates it.

Mr Walker means none of this however.  He means that you will not find the actual alien God that he believes exists unless you believe in that alien God.  He can't explain why it picked him and he can't explain why it came to him....however he was an atheist at the time of the visitation so go figure. Just another example of him making up stuff to fit his narrative at the time.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

19 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

20 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Well, that's cool for you feel it that way.  But, for me, it's not always like that. So, I'm also in the confusion, and if I could be a bit perplexed about it, having things explaining away for all of us, when everything feels things differently. Like how this is said: 

Yes, everyone feels things differently. But don't you think there is something within us that is the same for all of us?

I do think that, yes. But, even for that kind of thinking, I feel it's not so black and white. I'm not so sure, if it's being automatic in me to think that it is, or that I just personally wish it. If I reflect on the 'arrogant' part of how I see my belief, (and who know, maybe me  ) I like to think that, so to verify my belief of not one person needs to depend on a material item for their belief. Yes, I said that 'arrogant' part of me.     

But, another part of me, is one part not so sure, another thinking it's great that it is all different for everyone, and it helps me and that is what counts for me...............     

And a final note on this part, I can't be sure totally, and so feel that it's not something I would recommend 'passing it off' to others. And, I have had to 'assure' myself, that, 'that's alright'. *shrugs* So, that's why, I think one has to be careful into thinking that it's there for all of us, and how they want to make others 'assume' that it is there for them. I don't think one can be sure of it, to feel they are entitled to tell others about it. 

Kind of like comparing you, me, and others who don't believe, if it was there as a definite thing, we all would be in the same belief boat.   

Quote

20 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I'm also in the boat about our environment being there around us. It shaping us. And even then, that depends on each individual and how they want it to define us. 

Though, I'm not so sure I'm understanding your point about how we are separate from everything else. 

We usually feel what is me and what is not me. This is the separation. And yes, our environment affects us depending on each individual and how we want it to define us. Maybe if we just become aware of ourselves and our environment without wanting a certain definition for us, we may see more clearly. 

 

You mean, not allowing outside labels, and the clear mind of our own mind labeling ourselves honestly? Well, I can feel that way too. But, I think that still falls under the subjective understanding, because the chances of what we see and define ourselves compared to outside of us see and define us. I can see how you would think, it's a way to see 'God', because you're making room, if that is correctly assessing it. But, for me, it also had something else fill in the blanks. And I could be wrong with those who don't believe, but I would think, there would be a 'conclusion' that would define their lack of belief, or what is actual for them to define and see themselves. 

Again, I see subjectivity. I don't know if you're debating the objectivity of it, but to me, I'm not seeing the objectivity of it, on a whole. I would have the perspective of a group of people in a room, and blanking out the outside world, and more than likely have first come to the literal sense of ...................... similar literal things, like they're breathing. Anything else, I think we'll have an unseen subjective perspectives. 

Quote

20 hours ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

I guess, I could agree to that, but would you think this happens to everyone? Isn't experiences differ from person to person, that you cannot really say this happens all of the time? 

This kind of inner awareness may not happen every time, of course. It's like learning a new skill. Everyone has their own preconditioned state of mind to overcome, to free themselves of. But I think one's true nature is the same for everyone.

 

How do you think that? Just curious, considering a lot of how we react and interact tends (for my observation) to come from experience, thinking, and understanding and those are different from person to person. I just can't see how one's true nature is the same from person to person, when person to person, each act differently. And I would think, that defines someone's true nature. 

Quote

Things are different. It hasn't been, I found a higher power, because I loss everything else. And when I did, my version, I still had all the rest. 

I think looking for something to happen interferes with what may happen without the looking. When we expect something or have some ideal of what it should be or what we'd like it to be, then we experience this expectation. Then we experience our version which includes all the rest. 

The perceiver of thought is not thought. Our version is still thought thinking about thoughts. 

It's like,if we think we hear a sound, and we listen intently with all other mental processes shut down. There is only the silent listening. 

Kind of like the blind's hearing becomes stronger? In which I can understand why you think that. But, I still don't believe that happens on the same level person to person. I think, the levels of how an unused thing becomes depended on, doesn't always perform the same for the next. 

[danydandan]

8 minutes ago, I'mConvinced said:

There is no doubt that belief in things like prayer, mantras or meditating etc produces different brain activity.  This is the very basis of the Placebo Effect and the reason we give sugar pills instead of nothing at all, it helps you to believe.  What this does not show, in any way, is that people who believe are more likely to encounter an actual God as opposed to some internalisation of what they think and believe God might be.  For example, it is no wonder that the majority of reincarnation cases occur in societies that believe in reincarnation.  Does it make it true? No, it just makes you more likely to fall into your confirmation bias because your culture dictates it.

Mr Walker means none of this however.  He means that you will not find the actual alien God that he believes exists unless you believe in that alien God.  He can't explain why it picked him and he can't explain why it came to him....however he was an atheist at the time of the visitation so go figure. Just another example of him making up stuff to fit his narrative at the time.

That's what I was trying to get to in around a bout way.

I'm not really interested in discussing Mr Walkers experiences, it's not for me to judge, but what I don't agree with some of the arguments he puts forward.

[Blizno]

If one is over-creative with definitions, anything can be a god or the God.

"Sunsets are beautiful therefore sunsets are God". This is a waste of time. Come up with a single definition of "God" and then conversation can be started.

 

My definition of a god: an intelligent, aware being that is partly or completely supernatural and that interacts in some way with the universe.

If it's not intelligent, it's just a force of nature. If it doesn't interact with the universe and can't be observed in any way, why think that it exists?

 

I grow weary of these constant attempts to shoe-horn God into existence. If you need gods to exist, perhaps you should ask yourself why you have that need. Is it just to explain the universe? People have invented gods of storms, gods of disease, gods of war, etc. for most of human history and probably before history started (with the invention of writing). If we looked at the question of the existence of gods with the same clear eyes we look at everything else, the notion of gods would evaporate.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

12 hours ago, third_eye said:

Right, pack up and bring the shovels ...

~

 

~

Bring extra undies ...

~

I think, I get you're meaning...............  

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

7 hours ago, I'mConvinced said:

It certainly isn't 'truer' at all.  Explain how God supposedly comes to those of no faith? There are many cases and so we can conclude, from the evidence, that if there is a God it is not bothered by which faith you follow.  In fact, do you not describe yourself as an atheist/humanist that was found by God? 

This logically leads us to the conclusion that a belief is not the deciding factor in who God chooses to make contact with.

I actually think Mr Walker is kind of correct. There was a study done comparing people's brain activity when praying, meditating or contemplating God. Half the people described themselves as Ahteist and half described themselves as Theist. The study showed a clear difference in people's brain activity when they believe in what they are doing. In my opinion it leads on to you have to believe in your experience to believe in it, if that makes sense. Or you typically won't have an experience if you don't believe in having a Godly experience.

It holds true regardless if one has faith or not.

I think, that I find that understandable if I compare it to sales individuals. One can sell a product, if they truly believe in the product. The behavior of the excitement for the product, helps bring the product closer to the one that is being tempted to sell it to. I would think, if not literally something would come into existence from the total belief and it's actions behind it, something can make a great substitute for it.   kind of a good thing that the McGuyver gif was posted here.     

 

[StarMountainKid]

30 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

You mean, not allowing outside labels, and the clear mind of our own mind labeling ourselves honestly? Well, I can feel that way too. But, I think that still falls under the subjective understanding, because the chances of what we see and define ourselves compared to outside of us see and define us. I can see how you would think, it's a way to see 'God', because you're making room, if that is correctly assessing it. But, for me, it also had something else fill in the blanks. And I could be wrong with those who don't believe, but I would think, there would be a 'conclusion' that would define their lack of belief, or what is actual for them to define and see themselves. 

I think you're speaking of psychology here in the sense that we're still labeling ourselves, defining ourselves subjectively, honestly or not. Beliefs and conclusions.

I'm attempting to speak to something that does not include the subjective psychology of the mind.

39 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Again, I see subjectivity. I don't know if you're debating the objectivity of it, but to me, I'm not seeing the objectivity of it, on a whole. I would have the perspective of a group of people in a room, and blanking out the outside world, and more than likely have first come to the literal sense of ...................... similar literal things, like they're breathing. Anything else, I think we'll have an unseen subjective perspectives. 

Subjective and objective experience. Usually, subjective is one's personal psychological perspective, objective is one's exterior projection of one's subjective psychological perspective.

What I'm trying to ask is, is it possible to look without this personal psychological perspective?

45 minutes ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How do you think that? Just curious, considering a lot of how we react and interact tends (for my observation) to come from experience, thinking, and understanding and those are different from person to person. I just can't see how one's true nature is the same from person to person, when person to person, each act differently. And I would think, that defines someone's true nature. 

When we react from experience, thinking, memories, knowledge, etc., we are just going around in the same old circles, usually seeing nothing new. Really, we're just seeing ourself projected onto others. Others do the same to us, so its sort of a psychological dance between us.

I would say one's true nature is the discarding of this personal psychology, to see clearly what is actually happening. I think from this perspective we may be able to come to a more truthful and appropriate response to life.

[Stubbly_Dooright]

23 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

You mean, not allowing outside labels, and the clear mind of our own mind labeling ourselves honestly? Well, I can feel that way too. But, I think that still falls under the subjective understanding, because the chances of what we see and define ourselves compared to outside of us see and define us. I can see how you would think, it's a way to see 'God', because you're making room, if that is correctly assessing it. But, for me, it also had something else fill in the blanks. And I could be wrong with those who don't believe, but I would think, there would be a 'conclusion' that would define their lack of belief, or what is actual for them to define and see themselves. 

I think you're speaking of psychology here in the sense that we're still labeling ourselves, defining ourselves subjectively, honestly or not. Beliefs and conclusions.

I'm attempting to speak to something that does not include the subjective psychology of the mind.

Well, yes, I am. I believe this, based on my perspective and observation. And, that is what I think you are talking about it. So, I'm assuming, you are thinking of everyone having this internal experience as being the same for everyone, in thinking it's objective. Am I correct, that's what you're discussing? 

Quote

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

Again, I see subjectivity. I don't know if you're debating the objectivity of it, but to me, I'm not seeing the objectivity of it, on a whole. I would have the perspective of a group of people in a room, and blanking out the outside world, and more than likely have first come to the literal sense of ...................... similar literal things, like they're breathing. Anything else, I think we'll have an unseen subjective perspectives. 

Subjective and objective experience. Usually, subjective is one's personal psychological perspective, objective is one's exterior projection of one's subjective psychological perspective.

What I'm trying to ask is, is it possible to look without this personal psychological perspective?

In my opinion, observation, and perspective, of individual connections to 'God' or other type of experiences like that, I don't think so. I would say no. I think, considering we're discussing personal experiences within themselves, I would not doubt it's more so of a subjective experience and falls under the personal psychological perspective. 

It's like saying we all like the flavor of one particular thing, and that wouldn't be true, because there would be people who hates the flavor of that thing. I often get annoyed at someone who finds out I can't state the taste or don't like a particular something they love, and they go like, "How can you not like this?" It's like, easily, because I don't. I feel, when a particular emotion, feeling, and perspective is discussed that it's normal for all, when I don't experience that, I get a bit  because that's not it's happen for me. We are all born the same, yes, and have the beginnings of emotions reacting to the same thing of being brought into the world. But even then, things become individualized, because of the different personalities of each new infant. Both of my children's birth are different from each other. So my daughter cannot assume it was the same for her brother than it was for her. (Differences also being not only they're different genders, but different hospitals, different kind of hospitals, (military vs civilian) and what drugs I was on too. (demeral vs epidural), and such) 

So, are we're going to assume that the psychological outlook is not important, when considering differing perspectives in how they perceive something? 

In the end, one must be totally blank, I mean, really completely blank, to avoid that. But then, the individual characteristics I think will still come through, because I think that is what innately is in each individual. 

Quote

1 hour ago, Stubbly_Dooright said:

How do you think that? Just curious, considering a lot of how we react and interact tends (for my observation) to come from experience, thinking, and understanding and those are different from person to person. I just can't see how one's true nature is the same from person to person, when person to person, each act differently. And I would think, that defines someone's true nature. 

When we react from experience, thinking, memories, knowledge, etc., we are just going around in the same old circles, usually seeing nothing new.

Are you sure about that? Where do you get this understanding to say this? Again, quite curious in how you have come to that. And I ask, because, by my own experience and with conversations with people in things like this, there is the experience of looking at these experiences and somehow coming up with something new. I get this a lot, with me. 

Have you just observed and experienced, people who go through experiences that all end the same way? 

Quote

Really, we're just seeing ourself projected onto others. Others do the same to us, so its sort of a psychological dance between us.

If I'm getting this correctly, I'm going to heavily disagree with that. I don't see all of us, seeing ourselves projected onto others. I might feel that way, but as someone who worked in retail all my adult life and various companies, states, towns, I see a lot of people not even paying attention to that. And even with me, I sometimes don't see that, and that depends on my outlook and experiences during that. 

No matter what, I can't see all of us, doing the same thing, having the same experience, and thus, having the same reaction of how we experience spiritually type of situations. And that's because, I have come across the thought that it is accepted that we cannot fully get into someone else's mind, to know fully if their's is the same as ourselves. And the fact, that people behavior and react differently to each other and things, shows me, how I cannot accept that as well. 

Quote

I would say one's true nature is the discarding of this personal psychology, to see clearly what is actually happening. I think from this perspective we may be able to come to a more truthful and appropriate response to life.

Naw, I don't think so. Granted, I think one person may become 'psychological and personally' naked, may see something, but what one sees could be different to another who does that same situation. Plus, I think one's true nature is also made up of that personal psychology. Without that, I wouldn't be surprised if someone is pretty much dead inside. 

I'm sorry, StarMountainKid, I don't think I can agree with your assessment on this. Part of me can see why you do, and respect you seeing that. (I wouldn't dream of saying you shouldn't be seeing that), but I can't fully accept it, based on how I have experienced and see how different and personal, each react to it. 

I think it's because what is being discussed here, is so personal in nature, I don't think we can escape the psychological outlook of it. 

But,   I like reading your point of view of it, and hope you enjoyed reading mine.  I thank you for answering my questions and feeding my curiosity of how you see it.  

 

[StarMountainKid]

All this can be discussed forever I'll just say this:

I'm only asking the question, can we observe without comment?

If we can, what happens within our mind? It's sort of counter-intuitive in that we're not used to just looking simply and quietly, without some idea about what we are observing.

It's not being blank, it's an attentive awareness. Usually we're not very aware because of our busy minds. Usually, our attention is on our busy mind, on our content of consciousness. Can we ignore all the rubbish our mind has accumulated, and become attentively aware of this very moment? Or are we always to be distracted by our thoughts, opinions, etc.?

It's a quite different way to live than what we are normally used to, with our mind so busy busy busy.

The mind has its own intelligence when we allow it to function without imposing upon it. Then the mind can respond spontaneously without our preconceptions interfering. It's not loosing control, it's being in control in an unexpected way, without all our psychological filters we use to manipulate what we observe..

Then we see clearly, and we're the boss. We're the boss in the sense that we're not responding to our learned psychological experiences, we're responding to what is, the truth of the moment.

 

 

[Guyver]

20 hours ago, Sherapy said:

There are times in life just "hot" works. Lol 

You have a good point too. 

You invested a lot of your life in the idea of a god, huh? 

Yes.  I became a "born-again" Christian at the age of 17 and spent the next nearly 3 decades being very involved in the religion as an Evangelical Christian minister.  The idea of God was central to my life.  It overshadowed everything because I believed in God first.  Faith, being the representation of that, and church also included.  I believed the bible was inerrant and not even as originally delievered.....I believed in inerrancy as the bible is now.  I believed it because that's was taught in my church.  The discovery that the bible was not inerrant was one of the first reasons that led me to no longer believe in the Christian religion.  

[Guyver]

16 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

You are correct.  "God"  can be found in this life There is not any doubt about it, given the number of people who have found "him" 

Yes, but some may argue that people find religion and believe they have found God, and this is not necessarily the same thing as actually meeting God here, on this planet, in this plane.  As I mentioned above, I thought I had found God when I found religion.  But, my religious beliefs have changed, and now I no longer have any.  One wouldn't think God would change, but people sure do.  So again, that goes back to my OP.....is it God who is found or is it our ideas of God that we find.  

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

1 hour ago, Guyver said:

...and this is not necessarily the same thing as actually meeting God here, on this planet, in this plane.

So again, that goes back to my OP.....is it God who is found or is it our ideas of God that we find.  

In my case, my new God sought me out in the "outer darkness," the Biblical kind. And yes, I did not even call Him since I was in a completely different path before I physically died; His name was not even on my "awareness" list, so to speak -- VERY far away from it. So yes, it all happened in the afterlife.

Edited April 21, 2018 by Ehrman Pagels 1

[Mr Walker]

2 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes, but some may argue that people find religion and believe they have found God, and this is not necessarily the same thing as actually meeting God here, on this planet, in this plane.  As I mentioned above, I thought I had found God when I found religion.  But, my religious beliefs have changed, and now I no longer have any.  One wouldn't think God would change, but people sure do.  So again, that goes back to my OP.....is it God who is found or is it our ideas of God that we find.  

I agree. I was taking you literally and i was talking about human beings who have encountered "god", or an avatar of god, like an angel or a energy being such as the spirit , in a real physical form.

People whose lives have been saved or totally changed by the actions of that god. 

If you construct an idea or concept of anything, then that will change as you change and your perceptions change.

This happens with real people as well but not as much. eg your feelings for your parents probably changed over time as did your understanding and perception of their natures 

The answer to your question is that it depends  

Some people find a construct of god, and a belief in that construct,  which transforms their lives from within. Others find a real, powerful being, who does the same from without .

[Jodie.Lynne]

I really don't give a flying fig 'where' god is, but I do have a question.

If the Jewish/Christian bible is true, how come only certain individuals merit a personal appearance of the Big Guy? Why does Saul/Paul merit a One-to-One, but the rest of us have to make do with 'faith'?

And please don't drag out the olde trope of 'free will', it doesn't exist in the bible. Examples include god 'hardening pharaohs heart' in exodus, Mary. alleged mother of Jesus (who apparently didn't have a choice about who was dumping seed in her womb), Abrahams requested sacrifice of his son,  Jonah, and the entire story of Job. And Saul/Paul's godly encounter itself.

[+Sherapy]

3 hours ago, Guyver said:

Yes.  I became a "born-again" Christian at the age of 17 and spent the next nearly 3 decades being very involved in the religion as an Evangelical Christian minister.  The idea of God was central to my life.  It overshadowed everything because I believed in God first.  Faith, being the representation of that, and church also included.  I believed the bible was inerrant and not even as originally delievered.....I believed in inerrancy as the bible is now.  I believed it because that's was taught in my church.  The discovery that the bible was not inerrant was one of the first reasons that led me to no longer believe in the Christian religion.  

Was it hard for you to let go of your beliefs? If I may ask. 

Edited April 21, 2018 by Sherapy

[Guyver]

3 hours ago, Ehrman Pagels 1 said:

In my case, my new God sought me out in the "outer darkness," the Biblical kind. And yes, I did not even call Him since I was in a completely different path before I physically died; His name was not even on my "awareness" list, so to speak -- VERY far away from it. So yes, it all happened in the afterlife.

A most excellent testimony.

[Guyver]

1 hour ago, Sherapy said:

Was it hard for you to let go of your beliefs? If I may ask. 

Yes.  But I decided truth was more important than my beliefs and it became a freedom of a new kind.

[intoyoulikeatrain]

1 hour ago, JMPD1 said:

I really don't give a flying fig 'where' god is, but I do have a question.

If the Jewish/Christian bible is true, how come only certain individuals merit a personal appearance of the Big Guy? Why does Saul/Paul merit a One-to-One, but the rest of us have to make do with 'faith'?

And please don't drag out the olde trope of 'free will', it doesn't exist in the bible. Examples include god 'hardening pharaohs heart' in exodus, Mary. alleged mother of Jesus (who apparently didn't have a choice about who was dumping seed in her womb), Abrahams requested sacrifice of his son,  Jonah, and the entire story of Job. And Saul/Paul's godly encounter itself.

Paul saw a light. Didn't see Jesus. Only Jesus Christ knew the Father. Marcion wasn't a Jewish Christian. People who followed a gnostic form of Christianity hated the demiurge the god of this world. The story of Moses isn't about a guy named Moses. If Jesus was the only one who saw God the fiction Moses saw the demiurge. Wrong to lump Christianity in one pile.