It feel like it would be alot easier to just lean on the fact of your indefensible beliefs being intractable than to imagine the full range of scientific explanations you take issue with are insufficient.

Think about it, if you can't help but believe in panpsychic gods, you don't really have to offer reason, and the belief isn't actually based on any reason you give - it's just native. Offering reasons by itself suggests that you're open to reason and..as such, your beliefs are not (or would not be) really all that intractable. I've not personally seen any evidence that your beliefs are based in reason or that you're open to reason....so...

(Yesterday at 7:15 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It feel like it would be alot easier to just lean on the fact of your indefensible beliefs being intractable than to imagine the full range of scientific explanations you take issue with are insufficient.  

Think about it, if you can't help but believe in panpsychic gods, you don't really have to offer reason, and the belief isn't actually based on any reason you give - it's just native.   Offering reasons by itself suggests that you're open to reason and..as such, your beliefs are not (or would not be) really all that intractable.  I've not personally seen any evidence that your beliefs are based in reason or that you're open to reason....so...

I'm pretty sure you've never met the Lord.  The gallery here seems to think my "invincible belief" is just a sounds-good doctrinal proposition entrant in my mind and, as such, vulnerable to reason.  It's not like that.  It's more like meeting someone face to face and, while still talking to him, trying to convince yourself that he's not real.  Such is the Inward Witness of the Holy Spirit. Most evangelicals describe their conversion in such terms, viz.,  "I finally met the Lord about three years back."

Conversion is actually defined in the Bible as a face to face encounter with God. Unless you're a prophet, however, the vision is so faint you don't even realize it's a vision. You just have a clear sense of being in a new relationship but have difficulty explaining how it works. Christians don't even  realize it's physical. For example, it's a vision where Christ literally shines His facial Light directly into the eyes and body, as Paul wrote:

"The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so they cannot see the  [physical] light of the gospel..For God, who said, “Let [physical] light shine out of darkness,”b made His [physical facial] light shine in our hearts to give us the [intuitive] light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the [radiant] face of Jesus Christ" (2Cor 4 - comments addedn).

God seems to leverage a variety of subtle stimulations to indicate His presence. The pages of the Bible might even seem brighter, and surprising intuitions will flash into the mind (recall that intuition is itself called a light dawning on the mind).  Coupled with tickles of joy on occasion, and a flooding of the brain with peace and tranquility on occasion - all that is IN ADDITION to a new set of invincible convictions about the gospel. 

When you put the whole package together, you find yourself in a position impervious to reason. The revelation is just too strong for that, because it's designed to be.

HOWEVER, you can grieve the Holy Spirit by too much sinning. If He withdraws most, or all, of His presence, you will probably no longer be impervious to reason. For example I know a guy who seems to have had a strong meeting of the Lord as a youth but since then has fallen away from the faith.

It would be pretty weird if a person had met a god and didn't believe in gods, wouldn't it? I'm actually a big fan of the point in every convo like this where the mask just slips right off. Way back when we first spoke I already knew it wasn't on account of any of the things you were saying that you believed in gods. I don't think you believe in panpsychism either, to be honest. That you hadn't reasoned your way to any of this is no surprise. That you recognize you are not motivated by and are in fact impervious to reason is a bit of a twist, though.

I'm as uninterested in being your boyfriend's boyfriend now as I was before. Truth be told, if I ever met a god, I obviously couldn't be an atheist anymore, but I still wouldn't be a christian. Christianity disgusts me.

(Yesterday at 9:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It would be pretty weird if a person had met a god and didn't believe in gods, wouldn't it?  I'm actually a big fan of the point in every convo like this where the mask just slips right off.  Way back when we first spoke I already knew it wasn't on account of any of the things you were saying that you believed in gods.  I don't think you believe in panpsychism either, to be honest.  That you hadn't reasoned your way to any of this is no surprise.  That you recognize you are not motivated by and are in fact impervious to reason is a bit of a twist, though.

I'm as uninterested in being your boyfriend's boyfriend now as I was before.  Truth be told, if I ever met a god, I obviously couldn't be an atheist anymore, but I still wouldn't be a christian.  Christianity disgusts me.

But part of that disgust probably stems from the idiocy of traditional bible scholars who essentially depict Yahweh as a jerk.

When I first realized Jesus was God, I hated Him.  He was indeed a jerk, in my view. This went on for two years at which point I began to suspect that traditional theology might be wrong.  I soon began to postulate panpsychism (didn't know that term back then).  After that, I never looked back.

(Yesterday at 10:14 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It would be pretty weird if a person had met a god and didn't believe in gods, wouldn't it?  I'm actually a big fan of the point in every convo like this where the mask just slips right off.  Way back when we first spoke I already knew it wasn't on account of any of the things you were saying that you believed in gods.  I don't think you believe in panpsychism either, to be honest.  That you hadn't reasoned your way to any of this is no surprise.  That you recognize you are not motivated by and are in fact impervious to reason is a bit of a twist, though.

I'm as uninterested in being your boyfriend's boyfriend now as I was before.  Truth be told, if I ever met a god, I obviously couldn't be an atheist anymore, but I still wouldn't be a christian.  Christianity disgusts me.

But part of that disgust probably stems from the idiocy of traditional bible scholars who essentially depict Yahweh as a jerk.

When I first realized Jesus was God, I hated Him.  He was indeed a jerk, in my view. This went on for two years at which point I began to suspect that traditional theology might be wrong.  I soon began to postulate panpsychism (didn't know that term back then).  After that, I never looked back.

I have a hard time hating imaginary beings, but that's just me.

Boru

(7 hours ago)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

(Yesterday at 10:14 pm)Jal Wrote: But part of that disgust probably stems from the idiocy of traditional bible scholars who essentially depict Yahweh as a jerk.

When I first realized Jesus was God, I hated Him.  He was indeed a jerk, in my view. This went on for two years at which point I began to suspect that traditional theology might be wrong.  I soon began to postulate panpsychism (didn't know that term back then).  After that, I never looked back.

I have a hard time hating imaginary beings, but that's just me.

Boru

Believe me, I get it.  My Dad became a born-again Christian when I was in high school. One day I asked him to drive me to school. In the car, he listened to some preacher on Christian radio. I was so disgusted that I could have killed for a pair of ear plugs.

Four years later, in college, it happened to me. I met the Lord. Seeing is believing. 

Somebody once insinuated that it might just be "my feelings."  This fails to distinguish sensations from random emotions. If someone punches you in the back (you never saw him), you can't dismiss it as, "Maybe was just my emotions." 

Or let's suppose you KNOW yourself to be delusional, but nonetheless you decide to drive a vehicle.  You see a couple of pedestrians up ahead. You're thinking, "Probably just a delusion." Is it okay to run them over? Chalk it up to a hallucination? No. Generally the rational thing to do, when confronted with sensations, is to respect them. This is especially true when your conscience is demanding it.

(Yesterday at 10:14 pm)Jal Wrote:

(Yesterday at 9:57 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: It would be pretty weird if a person had met a god and didn't believe in gods, wouldn't it?  I'm actually a big fan of the point in every convo like this where the mask just slips right off.  Way back when we first spoke I already knew it wasn't on account of any of the things you were saying that you believed in gods.  I don't think you believe in panpsychism either, to be honest.  That you hadn't reasoned your way to any of this is no surprise.  That you recognize you are not motivated by and are in fact impervious to reason is a bit of a twist, though.

I'm as uninterested in being your boyfriend's boyfriend now as I was before.  Truth be told, if I ever met a god, I obviously couldn't be an atheist anymore, but I still wouldn't be a christian.  Christianity disgusts me.

But part of that disgust probably stems from the idiocy of traditional bible scholars who essentially depict Yahweh as a jerk.

When I first realized Jesus was God, I hated Him.  He was indeed a jerk, in my view. This went on for two years at which point I began to suspect that traditional theology might be wrong.  I soon began to postulate panpsychism (didn't know that term back then).  After that, I never looked back.

It's tragic that you think it's a problem with some bible scholar somewhere.  No, the issues all lie with the source material and fruits like yourself.

I am beginning to think this person needs help, professional help.

(4 hours ago)Deesse23 Wrote: I am beginning to think this person needs help, professional help.

So many replies void of any real substance - just leads to me feel more confident in my conclusions.

What wouldn't?