A person who needs help.....

[Orchids]

Agree with your answer fuzz, but sometimes we have to give them the benefit of the doubt... Due process... That's all.

Speaking of fuzz, she thinks I am a house because she said I am "haunted".  Now I don't know about any of you but I think that is most definitely problematic. Being the clear headed that I am, I know that houses do not talk, let alone type.... They don't have eyes, so they cannot make the assertions that I have.

To those who are in need of ...:  "The more you know".

[TheRocketSurgeon]

Rocket Neurosurgon,
Thank you. The definition I gave came for the WWW and my brain. I must point the fact that "a type of seizure" has as a base "seizure". I don't like the world "epilepsy " either. And if something happens that does not reach the motor centers and does not cause physical reaction then I am afraid it is not a seizure nor is it an epilepsy.
A chemically induced hallucination is not a vision since it has been brought about by utilizing/ingesting/injecting chemicals. That is why there is special word for it: Hallucination. No such thing was involved in my case. Please, care to take a note as this is important as far as relevant details are concerned. Neither can one compare Neurochemicals to something like LSD. Neurochemicals are made by the human brain/body and it is absurd to compare their respective effects and the roles they play to those of LSD and cocain for example. Furthermore, if you are right, then neurochemicals should also be criminalized just as LSD is along with other illegal hard drugs, if they all belong in the same basket. And we know they don't.
fuzzy did not provide any information, she instead accused me of being "haunted"!!!! and the proper word for that by the way is "possessed" and NOT "hauned". I didn't counter attack but correct. Somebody who clearly does drugs comes in here and tell me that I must have seen a hippie  that looked like Jesus is "providing information on how my brain works"??!?!?!? you can't be serious. And if I tell him to give me a mature reply and not a joke, I am "biting the hand that feeds me"??!?!?
So far, as far as giving me info on how "my" brain "works", that has not been done by anyone here. This post here is the first that tackeled that in an elementary fashion as I already know what "NEUROCHEMICALS" are and have a good idea about the role they play in the human body. My information was not wrong. I know what I saw. Unlike many I am not on Prozak no do I do any drugs or alcohol. I am well in touch with my body as well as HEAD. My head is well attached to my shoulders and not underneath my bottom. And you don't like to be told that you are wrong.
Thank you for the God helmet article. Please do not reply to this post til I read the article and tell you what I learned. Thank you.
Peace and thank you for your decency. Really appreciate it.

You know, I was going to respect your request, and not reply to this post until you come back after the God Helmet article, but not after I saw the "you just don't like to be wrong" comment, and realized that "RocketNeurosurgeon" was not just you being funny, but a genuine crack at my intellectual honesty. I'll say this once and I'll say this as clearly as I can:

I never mind being told I am wrong when I am actually wrong. Anyone here can attest to that; I will say that I have been corrected, and I will say "thank you" along with that correction. When you attack my intellectual honesty, you attack the fundamental basis of who I am and what I stand for.

You, on the other hand, appear to need a serious dose of humility and basic human decency with respect to how you treated us, just then, and throughout your brief tenure on our forum... to which you would have been welcomed with open arms, even as a Believer, if you had shown us the decency that you seem to be demanding in return. But let's look at some issues, shall we?

I'll start with the sobriety thing. I was not suggesting that you are taking chemicals other than the ones that your body produces, and I don't see how anyone could have honestly read my statements that way. My point was that the artificial chemicals work the same way as the ones made by our body, and interact with the same parts of the brain (called "receptors"), which is why they work at all. A totally sober and otherwise healthy person can have imbalances in their brain, based entirely on chemicals their body produces but in imbalanced amounts or at the wrong times, that produce all sorts of malfunction. The entire field of Psychiatry is dedicated to understanding this complex chemical soup that is the human endocrine system.

Your body naturally makes several chemicals (called opioid peptides) which are chemically similar to morphine, in that they bind to the same places in the brain (you can see the structural analogues here). When you inject morphine, the body stops making its own and craves the external source, leading to addiction. It is the fact that they are externally-produced, but similar to what your body makes, and have such a powerful effect on the brain, that makes them illegal.

Otherwise totally normal people have imbalances in the brain all the time. It's one of the side-effects of having a complex computer as a brain which is run by a balance of dozens of chemicals and millions of inputs; sometimes, you're going to get strange results. Everyone will. If you cannot even entertain the possibility  that what you saw was the product of your own mind, rather than some genuine vision, then I'd say the odds that something is wrong with your neurology goes up, not down.

Given that everything I have said thus far is not only the basis for the fields of psychiatry and neurology, and is easily found in any online or book treatise on the subject, I'd have to ask you, in light of the fact that you say that I am (quote) "Somebody who clearly does drugs", why you felt that a statement about the way a brain works warranted an attack on my person? Or a question of my sobriety?

In short: It is not necessary to take drugs to have hallucinations, because our bodies make drugs that affect our own brains. Further, there are several conditions by which a brain's "wiring" can become crossed or otherwise malfunction, not the least of which is schizophrenia:

Schizophrenia is a treatable serious mental illness that affects a person’s thoughts, feelings, mood and overall functioning. This disorder can cause hallucinations, delusions and unusual behaviors. ... About one in 100 Americans are diagnosed with schizophrenia. There is a genetic component to schizophrenia, ... Scientists don’t believe there is a single gene for schizophrenia. More likely, a variety of genes and environmental factors are responsible for the development of the disease. Most people first exhibit symptoms in their teens or 20s.

[robvalue]

I want to help, but I've become unclear on what you actually want from us.

What exactly is the problem you're having? Is the problem that you've seen Jesus? I know you say you "want out" but I don't exactly know what this means. Sorry if I'm being dense and have missed something.

[brewer]

I normally only see fruitcakes around the holiday season. POE.

[Orchids]

Rocket Surgeon,
That article didn't prove much really (I didn't check any of its links yet). Especially having been written by a guy/girl who is critical of the guy who invented/conducted the experiment. His premise (Persinger) is "if you do "this" to the frontal lobes or whatever part of the brain that is aimed that, the subject will start to see things that if attained through some other way, are referred to as "mystical experiences" by some. So?!?! And I say if somebody call you or you call them on the phone, things will be happing inside the phone for that to work. You can't have a dead phone and still expect the remote conversation to take place. Same goes for an internet connected pc or tv,  radio, etc. The human mind turns into a receptor when tuned into the "au-dela". Some have spontaneous experiences while ohers attained those same experiences by maintaining an ascetic lifestyle. I think he would have gotten there by simply going through some meditation cessions, perhaps abstaining from specific polluting food, work to minimize negative selfish thinking out of his head for a while etc. It really isn't that hard.

---

Ha, I knew it.....just few posts in. This douche shot down any alternative to his or her 'vision' way too easily to be anything but a theist. Cute little twist, but still a pretty shitty attempt at so-called "infiltration."

I'll let you guys in on a little something....there's a couple of other faketheists on this forum. A bit smarter though, in shooting for the long grift.

Lame as hell, nonetheless!

Do you have anything to contribute to this thread or all you can squeeze out of your frontal behind is such words as "douche"? speaking of SMART, the word "douche" in French (yes it just so happens to be my native language!!!)means SHOWER as in cleaning one's filth out. In other words, the word "douche" MEANS "tool of CLEANLINESS". So thank you!!!!! I AM FLATERED , Though I personally think that JESUS is the Ultimate
Tool of Cleanliness. And for the fake theist that I am, I know that Christ is smiling down on me for Asserting that...

ALSO,  speaking of SMART,  are you familiar with what is known as "process of elimination"? Apparently not. It's actually a scientific process. I used it to determine the true nature of my experiences. So you're awwwwwwaaaay behind. And I am a theist. It will be stupid and retarded for one to read all my posts and think of me any other way. You don't seem to know what the word infiltration means because if you have you would not have used it knowing that I fully disclosed myself on the 1st 2 posts of this thread. This leads me to believe that you must be of around the 4/5th grade education.
Also I would recommend you go and brush your teeth because you mouth smells bad.  Do you know how I know? When one uses such terms as "shitty" to one who didn't not match that in any way and just because they have a different belief system than yours, that only mean one thing and that you need to brush your teeth and take that "douche" you seem to be desperate for. Oh, that will be meee LOL.
My advise is go back to school and stay in it this time....

---

Rocket Neurosurgeon,
Jeeze Loeeeze, I didn't know that INADVERTANTLY misspelling your handle on this forum constituted A Full Fledged Attack on your intellectual honesty!!!! Few times in the past people pointed out me misspelling their handles and I quickly apologized and made the needed corrections. Things in life can be this easy and simple.
So, I am sorry I misspelled your handle. I really am. And no. it was not me taking crack at your anything. Why the f would I do that when I could simply point a point or an area where I disagree with you. And I have.

Hey Rocket Pilot (now this Is A Compliment and nothing but!!!), come down to the ground buddy. I need you and I really mean it.

[Orchids]

 Dear,Brother 
       
             If you will not believe in God,You will not be saved.You will not have salvation.For it is the one who put's his trust in God who is saved. My friend, if you are a professed “atheist,” I promise you that YOU WILL BELIEVE IN GOD after the very first 5 seconds of awakening in the horrifying flames of Hell. There are no atheists in Hell.

One of the most celebrated, quoted and infamous atheists was comedian George Carlin, whom I liked; yet, he is sadly a believer in God this moment in the fires of Hell, as he awaits his final judgment at The Great White Throne Of Judgment (Revelation 20:11-15). The Bible teaches and warns in Revelation 20:11-15 that God the Father will bring up all the dead from Hell (Greek: Hades) and the dead, and He will judge the dead, casting them into the Lake of Fire (Greek: Gehenna) for all eternity without hope or end. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8 warns that God Himself will punish them, taking vengeance upon them with flames of fire. 2nd Thessalonians 1:8, “In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.” Only a total fool would dare say that these plain Scriptures are merely figurative, or mean anything other than exactly what they teach.

I don't write this article to be unkind; but rather, to WARN YOU OF THE JUDGMENT TO COME IN THE LAKE OF FIRE! Colossians 1:28-29, “Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus: Whereunto I also labour, striving according to his working, which worketh in me mightily.” Only one sin can keep a person out of Heaven, which is the unpardonable sin of unbelief. If you die in your sins without having received Jesus Christ as your personal Savior in your lifetime, you will go to Hell to burn forever. Nobody Is Laughing In Hell (a life-changing, red-hot, MP3 sermon by Evangelist Phil Kidd). Everyone who goes to Hell pays their own way, but every one that goes to Heaven has a free pass.

But you say, “I don't believe in Hell!” You are not alone, a USA TODAY poll shows 59% of Americans don't believe in a literal Hell. Whether or not you believe that a literal Hell exists doesn't change the fact that it DOES exist. Are you calling God a liar? God authored the holy Bible. The Bible teaches much more about Hell than it does Heaven. Research the Scriptures and you'll find an incredible amount of information on Hell. If you'd like to read an excellent Biblical study about Hell, I recommend “A BIBLICAL EXAMINATION OF HELL” (.pdf book by Dr. Max D. Younce). I assure you my friend, whoever you may be, that there are NO ATHEISTS IN HELL. Not a one!

But let's say for argument's sake that you don't know for certain that Hell exists. Are you willing to burn in Hell for all eternity if you're wrong? Common sense tells us that sin MUST be punished. Our very human soul tells us that there MUST be a God Who is going to judge every human being in eternity. The Bible warns in Ecclesiastes 12:14, “For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil.”

Who is this God fellow anyway?

Atheists deny the existence of “gods” - but that necessarily includes a definition of what “god” means. Few atheists realize this logical necessity, and it is up to the apologist to point this out. The word “god” is just a label, and without a definition the atheist doesn't actually mean anything.

The apologist should ask the atheist, “Tell me about the god you don't believe in.” Although this might seem totally illogical and impossible, the atheist will usually be able to give some characteristics of the being he does not believe in. These characteristics are normally a simplistic version of the Christian God – so the atheist denied-god is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, all-loving and so forth.

However, very few atheists have a picture of their denied-god which is, in fact, completely in-line with the Catholic definition of God. Atheists may confuse omnipresence with pantheism, or all-loving with being tolerant of evil (or, even, use the infamous “problem of evil” argument). In short, the atheist is rejecting a god which the Catholic apologist doesn't believe in either!

Technically speaking, Catholics are pagan-atheists, and Hindu-atheists, and New Age-atheists – we deny the existence of these gods! Arguably, we are also Moslem-, Jewish- and perhaps even Protestant-atheists too.

The self-identified “atheist” will deny a particular sort of god – it will be necessary to find out what that god is like and then demonstrate (most likely) that that god is not the real God whom Catholics worship. The atheist can retain his cherished beliefs that a particular being cannot exists because they are not actually incompatible with worshiping the real God.

Lack of direct experience of God

If the person is an atheist because he or she has never had a direct experience of God, then all the Catholic apologist can do is pray and ask the person to pray. It is very difficult (some would say practically impossible) to argue someone to a belief in God through pure logical means – it requires a great intellect (on the part of the apologist and the atheist) and a very solid grounding in philosophy. Saint Thomas Aquinas came up with a number of very good arguments for the existence of God (and also the existence of the human soul) in his Summa Theologica, but these arguments themselves are very complicated and rely on foundational philosophical understanding which is simply beyond or not possessed by most people. Although many atheists claim to be highly educated and clever, this is often simply not the case.

Fortunately, God does not just want those who are intelligent enough to know about Him – He wishes for everyone to come to know and love Him. Most people have an experience of God through prayer – this is the normal method of communicating with God. If the person is an atheist just because he or she has never had any direct experience of God (remember, atheists may not be entirely honest about why they are atheists) then the apologist should ask the person to pray – in their own words, as humbly and genuinely as they can manage.

At that stage, the next phase of apologetics is out of the apologist's hands – and is firmly in God's! All the apologist can do is encourage the person to pray and – if they refuse or do not treat the exercise seriously, or have excessive cynicism about it – tell the person that he or she is being intellectually dishonest, and that there are clearly other – emotional reasons – why he or she is an atheist.

Religion hampers science or leads to violence

Many atheists use these arguments, but these arguments are logically flawed, and the apologist should be able to demonstrate this via the use of logic. In order for the argument that God is not real because religion hampers scientific progress / causes violence to be true, the following two points must be true;

Religion actually is a source of violence or hampers scientific progress

The fact that religion causes violence or hampers scientific progress means that it is untrue.

The second point is a logical jump – just because something causes problems does not mean it does not exist, nor does it mean that its claims are not true. It may mean that a person does not want it to be true, but that is not the same thing at all. From a logical perspective, one point does not lead to the other – there are plenty of things which cause violence (human greed etc.) which clearly exist.

In addition, religion when considered as a single phenomena doesn't cause violence or hamper scientific progress – there are certain religions which do this. A Catholic apologist's duty is to prove the validity of Catholicism – not to defend the entire notion of religion or every single religion in the world. The fact that certain religions have hampered scientific progress and / or caused violence and suffering can actually work to the apologist's advantage; in that Catholicism hasn't (when the historical evidence is examined dispassionately and accurately) and therefore is seen as being “better” than other religions.

The Problem of Evil

This is a predominant theme from atheists – it is exceptionally common and virtually every self-proclaimed atheist uses it in one form or another. It is, however, easily refuted and is – without wishing to sound too dismissive – really Basic Philosophy & Theology 101.

The argument runs as follows; if God is all powerful then He could prevent evil from happening. If God were all-loving, He would want to prevent evil from happening. Evil exists. Therefore, God is either not all-powerful or not all-loving. In either case, He is not worth worshiping (alternatively, God as defined by the Catholic Church does not exist, so I do not worship Him specifically).

Refuting this argument depends on refuting the premises and also refuting the logical structure which forms the conclusion from the premises – both are flawed.

Firstly, God is all-powerful. God could eliminate evil from the world. This is true and accurate.

Secondly, God is “all-loving” or infinitely compassionate. This is true, but there is an implicit third premise in this argument – that infinitely compassionate means that He would wish to prevent “evil” acts and is prepared to take the necessary steps to do so.

Thirdly, the term “evil” is never defined in this argument – what is evil? Asking the atheist will not get a clear answer – given the fact that the only clear definition is “that which is against God” and the atheist denies the existence of God. The atheist will probably give examples of evil – the Holocaust, child rape, murder, war, starvation. All of these things are certainly unpleasant, and many of them are actively evil (some of these things are simply the natural results of evil, selfish actions, and others – like hurricanes and floods – are just natural disasters).

The unspoken premise in this argument is that an all-loving God will intervene to prevent what the atheist defines as unpleasant. This is a key issue – if God interfered prevented everything that was genuinely evil (i.e. what He saw as evil) then no-one would be able to deny His existence, no-one would be able to have premarital sex, no-one would be able to advocate or have an abortion and so forth.

This would result in the complete subjugation of free-will. This is a necessarily logical step – God cannot prevent evil without removing free-will from people (and removing it not just to a degree of coercion – i.e. “Do as I say or you will suffer” - but rather totally removing it so that humanity has no free-will whatsoever and cannot choose to do anything.)

If there is no free-will and humanity cannot choose evil, then humanity cannot choose good either. A rock has no free-will; it is not a moral thing, but neither is it amoral. It simply exists.

So, what does it mean for God to be all-loving? It means that He wants us to choose Him and choose the good. He wants us to reject evil. God's highest good is the correct exercise of free-will to choose Him. He sees death and suffering as, while very unpleasant for humanity, not evil in and of themselves. Death and suffering are often the results of evil actions, but they are not evil themselves.

God is both infinitely loving and infinitely just; in His love He gives everyone the chance to know Him and respond to Him, the chance to choose good. A person who has chosen God and who is killed by an evil man is in a better position than the evil man; he is going to Heaven. God is interested in allowing humanity to choose Him, not in trampling over their wills and turning them into inert objects who have no ability to choose good or evil.

A similar argument to the problem of evil is the idea that an infinitely loving God would never send people to Hell – this is basically the universalist heresy, but with the additional element that God Himself is denied, rather than just the existence of Hell.

A number of atheists will simply ask “If there is a God, why is there so much evil in the world?” A short and snappy answer (which is also very accurate) is “If there is no God, why is there so much good? Why do we even have the idea of good if there is no source for it?”

Individual scientific / historical / social / moral beliefs “prove” that religion is false

There are wide variety of specific belief systems (such as evolution, the notion that homosexuality is okay, the belief that the Church has been responsible for countless deaths) that atheists bring up as “evidence” that there is no god. Addressing these issues – although different in the details – involves basically the same tactic.

Firstly, determine if the belief being advanced is, in fact, true. Is the theory of evolution being advanced accurate, or are there holes in it? Is homosexuality actually moral from a purely secular standpoint, or does it lead to problems and issues which – even when God is taken out of the frame – are disadvantageous to society? If the initial belief isn't accurate, then the whole argument falls apart.

Secondly, and most importantly, does this belief mean that religion isn't true, or does it just mean that the person would find it easier and more appealing if it were not? If a person condemns the Church for forbidding the use of condoms, is that actually proof that God does not exist? Or is it simply proof that the Church (and God) have a different morality to the atheist? Disagreeing with God does not necessarily mean that God does not exist – it means that either you or God are wrong. When this point is reached, it will be necessary to show that the Church's moral positions are – in fact - valid.

The Church contains corrupt individuals and therefore God can't exist

There are two ways of refuting this argument – the first is by pure logic. Merely because corrupt people follow a religion does not mean that the religion is a sham! That is a total logical disconnect. It may be that an individual atheist does not wish to belong to a group which contains such members, but that does not prove that God does not exist. This is the argument of infallibility verses impeccability applied to the Church as a whole.

The second method is by simple example; there are many atheists who have killed people (the Chinese government, for example) – does this mean atheism isn't real? Are Martin Luther King's ideals untrue because he was an adulterer? Are the values of the Founding Fathers wrong because some of them kept slaves? Or are these people just hypocrites?

The truth of a position is not determined by the morality of those who profess to believe it. If a doctor who says that people must lose weight for their health and then dies weighing 350lbs of a heart attack, that does not mean his science was wrong – it means that he just didn't practice what he preached!

The Apologist Strikes Back!

The above examples are all reactive not proactive. The apologist reacts to objections raised by the atheist. However, this should not be the only tactic the Catholic apologist has. Below are a number of active methods of refuting atheism – asking questions and raising objections to that belief!

Humanity's tendency towards depravity

This is an excellent argument to use against evolutionists – not against evolution itself, but rather against atheism.

Most atheists, if asked, will agree that humanity is not morally perfect – there is evil and depravity in human nature. Regardless of what source they ascribe this to (many will ascribe it to “religious men trying to control people!”) the fact remains that it has to have an ultimate source which is external to human consciousness. While people have invented religions to control people and take their money, where did the idea that this could be done come from? Human depravity is not an advantageous trait – it damages the group (because it causes one individual to desire more resources and to hurt others) and is therefore not a beneficial survival trait. It in fact confers no survival advantage to be selfish in terms of resources for a co-operative creature like humanity (although for a lone hunter – like a cat – this would be advantageous.) Most evolutionists think that humanity is genetically predisposed towards a communal living and hunting pattern.

Most theories of evolution maintain that a non-desirable survival trait will rapidly be weeded out of the gene pool – how does this trait (which is not desirable given humanity's nature as a pack animal) survive?

The only logical answer is that either i) it is external to evolution and genetics (and is therefore attributable to what? The Church tells us that the Fall is responsible) or ii) evolution is flawed (and if evolution is flawed, what made life?)

This is an appealing argument to use, but be warned that a number of atheists will either deny humanity's depravity, or will state that it is – in fact – a valid survival mechanism (despite all evidence to the contrary!)

Pascal's Wager

Pascal's Wager is truly effective only against agnostics, although it will work on a number of atheists who haven't thought their position through. In brief, Pascal's Wager states that it is better to believe in God than not because the benefit of believing is potentially infinite (Heaven) and the downside of not believing (Hell) is potentially infinite. The actual act of believing requires only a finite expenditure of energy (as we are finite creatures) therefore it is always worth believing and never worth not believing.

Pascal's Wager sounds exceptionally appealing, but clever people may notice that there is a flaw in it. The wager speaks of belief and it is impossible to act belief through an act of will. What it is possible to do is behave in a certain manner. The hope of Pascal's Wager rests on the notion that God will judge deeds rather than just beliefs. Fortunately, this is the correct teaching and is supported by Catholic theology!

Pascal's Wager does not work very well on died-in-the-wool atheists – but it is very effective on genuine agnostics. Agnostics are not sure if there is a god, but generally speaking act as if they are very sure there is not! Pascal's Wager can be used to suggest to them that – if they are genuinely not sure (as opposed to tied to atheism because of its emotional appeal) – then it is always better to act in a Christian manner. Once someone is praying and conforming their morality to the Christian ideal they are far more likely to actually become a Christian.

Be honest with the atheist

This is perhaps the hardest of all the proactive tactics – be honest with the atheist. You should tell him or her why you think he or she is an atheist; address the emotional appeal of atheism right at the heart. Tell the atheist that he or she is afraid of having to change, of ridicule, of having to waste Sunday mornings. Very often, an atheist will say something like, “So, you think I am going to Hell because I am in a homosexual relationship?” - the primary reason he does not believe is because he would have to change his lifestyle.

The apologist should always be ready to “call out” an atheist – to tell him or her the real reason why he or she rejects God. Very often, this will end the conversation – no-one likes to be called a liar or a coward (which is what this basically is). But the fact remains that unless the real reasons for atheism are addressed they will never be overcome.

Final coda

Very often, an atheist will be a “fundamentalist atheist” - which means someone who, when presented with any evidence which challenges the position “there is no God”, immediately says that the evidence is flawed, or who says there must be some other explanation. Or, people may be so attached to their lifestyles or so poisoned against religion, for whatever reason, that intellectual arguments will have no effect. With people such as this, apologetics is – sadly – a complete waste of time.

At this stage, the responsibility of a Catholic apologist is twofold;

To pray for the person – the apologist might not be able to get through to the person, but God certainly can!

To ensure that – by using these apologetics techniques against the people the atheist talks to – he or she does not have free rein to spread his or her falsehoods. Apologetics may not be able to convince the atheist to become a Christian, but it might be able to stop Christians from becoming atheists.


  
With Love,
              TheThinkingCatholic
Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through Me.John 14:6

Dear "the thinking catholic"

Since your mail is addressed to a man and I happen to be a woman, then I guess it does not apply to me and besides all woman are going to hell anyway, because they all are such wicked sluts. Right? Right! Case closed. And thank you.

PS: And since you do not receive pms, you should not have the cunningness to send me one without allowing me the fair opportunity to respond to your garbage that I did not read anyway. How "Catholic" of you!!!
Also, any "preaching" you have, Now that the only option you left me, is to publish it in full view for all to see, our beautiful friends the atheists will have the opportunity to "learn and benefit" from it" as well. And this, of course will come back to you with many more little children to rape when you go to heaven (how kool!), because God values your work greatly. You might wan to copy it and send it to every priest around the world including the criminals that live in the Vatican and make an average salary of 470,000 Euros a year (over half a million dollar!!!), while the 2/3's of the worldwide population lives on a miserable 2 dollars to 50 cents a day. This, coming for people who profess to have made a vow of poverty, chastity and obedience. The 3 of which they burn not once but many times each and every day of the week.

Let me know if you need me to give you few more HEALING facts about your Cult.

[brewer]

This post here is the first that tackeled that in an elementary fashion as I already know what "NEUROCHEMICALS" are and have a good idea about the role they play in the human body.

---

How about a little test of your knowledge POE-POE?

What's this?

OH-C(=O)-CH2-CH2-CH(=NH2)-C(=O)-OH

What are it's major functions (I'll settle for one)?
What molecule in nature does the body manufacture it from?
What other active entity is it metabolized into?
How many receptors are known?

No cheating little POE. No help from jesus, your vision or the internet.

[Orchids]

I can't see the image mh.brewer. Can you try to repost it please. If you think I am a POE, then why are you wasting our time with me?

---

This post here is the first that tackeled that in an elementary fashion as I already know what "NEUROCHEMICALS" are and have a good idea about the role they play in the human body.

---

How about a little test of your knowledge POE-POE?

What's this?

OH-C(=O)-CH2-CH2-CH(=NH2)-C(=O)-OH

What are it's major functions (I'll settle for one)?
What molecule in nature does the body manufacture it from?
What other active entity is it metabolized into?
How many receptors are known?

No cheating little POE. No help from jesus, your vision or the internet.

[brewer]

I can't see the image mh.brewer. Can you try to repost it please. If you think I am a POE, then why are you wasting our time with me?

---

How about a little test of your knowledge POE-POE?

What's this?

OH-C(=O)-CH2-CH2-CH(=NH2)-C(=O)-OH

What are it's major functions (I'll settle for one)?
What molecule in nature does the body manufacture it from?
What other active entity is it metabolized into?
How many receptors are known?

No cheating little POE. No help from jesus, your vision or the internet.

Not tech savy (so image didn't work) but chem savy. You know neurochemicals so the formula should be enough.

Not a waste of time to expose a POE, fake, fraud. I'm quite enjoying myself.

[houseofcantor]

I am completely confused. You said you think you saw jesus, and now you know you saw jesus, but in your original post you're telling god to go [blank] himself. I was a little confused, but thought you were trying to explain away what you thought was a vision.

But, I guess you got all the things sorted out now, so there is no more discussion to be had. Have fun with what the priest told you, he knows all. Have a good one.

Bravissimo, Sal!!!  Great work.  I was naive - I really thought that just sending this troll to an exorcist would have him screaming about how he had really seen JEEBUS!!!   JEEBUS!!!!

It took a little longer.  But he admitted it.   He came across in the OP as a truly seeking atheist, telling god to go [blank] himself.  Now we have proof from his own posts that his intent was to share his vision with the non-believers.  
Someone passing themselves as an atheist who claims that he has seen JESUS.  Now THAT is unique.

I'm an atheist and I'm a prophet. It's not that unique. I've taken a line to explain this process from Andy Thompson's excellent presentation of "Why We Believe in Gods" on Dawkins' youtube. In times of extreme stress, the brain formulates Agency in mind to assist in the continuing function of mind. When this "hack" works, a prophet appears. I've had similar encounters to the OP. The sense of serenity, the sense of great love in the divine presence...

Rocket nailed it, it's chemicals in the brain. If the OP expresses a genuine experience and is not merely parroting an agenda, what happened was a form of seizure. Coming to terms with the fact that the divine presence is a manufactured device of your internal neurochemistry is only to the good, it will lead to greater self-awareness and understanding. That it is manufactured does not demean the experience.

Another thing I've discovered is that when a person is caught within a web of self-loathing, that person tends to reject compassionate offers of aid, rather accepting harsh criticisms which are seen as a validation of the internal self image as being loathsome. I cannot determine the nature of the OP from the information given. Seek professional help is the only rational advice.