Why is this type of delusion seen as necessary by so many Christians?
For a rational thinking person that is a loaded topic to post.
There are two alternatives:
1. The Holy Spirit does not exist and billions of folk self hypnotise in a purely random manner, normally at times associated with a deep need for them or others.
2. The Holy Spirit does exist and you are seeking to persuade yourself that your denial of the Holy Spirits existence is not deception by the enemy.
but how do we know when it is the Holy Spirit and when it is a lieing spirit?
there are instances of both in scripture. And we are told to look out for the lieing one! how do we know for sure?
Test it against scripture. What kind of "fruit" does it produce..
Yup, just slap the spirit with the scripture, if it gives an apple it is holy and if it gives lemon it is the lying one!
AH yes ... but when that spirit is leading us as to how to interpret these scriptures ..?.. this can be a self defeating test cause it is written that when this beast (Rev 13) comes onto the sene it will fool even the elect if possible.
SOooo when we have been fooled we won't know it has happened.
I don't know. I'm just saying? ... ??
Trying to make sense out of the WHOLE thing.
I'm not sure what in this life we can trust cause I think that nothing is as it seems to be.
Have you ever heard that country song, "I'd lie for your love, I'm a doctor I'm a lawyer. ... etc. etc."
No. People do - either ignorantly (unknowingly) or proudly.
Oh really? If god isnt playing mind games why doesnt he just come out and prove his existence?
Seems that God in His infinite wisdom decided that when we come to have faith in Him, He will reveal the proof, I know that's a bummer, but it's the way it is.
Likewise the Army don't train folk who won't sign up and accept the authority over them.
I do like your army analogy.
Except the Army is real. LOL
Except it's not appropriate. God does give us evidence of Himself, even before we become believers. I know that I would never have become a believer if God hadn't reached out to me.
I hate to tell you this but that hand you felt down your pants wasn't the hand of god - it belonged to the priest.
That's almost funny. I would think that someone as intelligent as you would know better than to say that to me.
Read my hubs.
Read my posts.
I'm not Catholic.
Sex had nothing to do with anything.
And I didn't think you enjoyed being nasty just for the hell of it. You and I have had differences in the past but you always seemed like someone who would rather teach than argue.
Yes God does reach out to the lost, He is doing it in these forums with His people testifying to His name, even though few may listen.
But proof of God requires faith and belief, as stated in John 3:16 and Hebrews 11.
The evidence of God is there for sure, for all to see, however the standard of proof that atheists demand precludes them from exploring it.
Taste and see that the Lord is good, is one of my favourite verses, but if folk refuse to taste, then they will never know.
We had a guest visitor last year who called the local food 'slop' and refused to try anything that was not western food, so she ate mainly omelettes for the duration of her stay, because Penang is the food centre of SE Asia and we just don't seem to do ordinary food by western standards.
She will never know what Been Hoon tastes like, or Pad Thai salad or any number of other great foods there are here.
My son was worried that he could not ride a bike, and I only got him riding by taking off the training wheels and holding his saddle as we careered around the square, until finally I took my hand off his bike and it was only a few seconds later that he realised he was cycling, and has never looked back again. Likewise when he started swimming he ONLY managed to prove he could not sink when he detached himself from my back in the deep end and struck out to the side, after which he was jumping in all the time and is now a strong swimmer.
If you will not try, you will never discover that you can do it.
That is the problem I see here daily.
You're right, but sometimes God does reach out to people and they accept the evidence without prior faith.
Yes, if you will not try, you will not discover. I think sometimes that we write them off too soon because some of them, though not all, are so belligerent. At least I fear that I do.
What? considering how condescending you are to us that refuse to believe garbage because we are not afraid to die?
This would be why your beliefs cause so much division and hatred.
Fear is at the root of your beliefs. I can smell it.
Tell us about all that historical evidence of Jesus again. I like that fairy tale.
Me too in the past, but I think we forget that they are deceived by the enemy and therefore at a disadvantage, their little demons pull the strings and they jerk around like puppets spouting nonsensical attacks designed to deter us continuing reasonable dialogue and exploring faith.
They of course have no idea whether their lives are actually lost or saved, by which I mean that in the end result, they may come to faith, and even last minute repentance and confession of faith is sufficient for God to accept the repentant sinner.
The workers in the vineyard covers that point.
So I think the answer is to plug away and ignore the fools who are just here to create dissension, explaining Christ to those who will hear, and dusting our sandals of those who are currently blinded and deaf, but not mute!
Yes - mock them indirectly instead. That will not cause any division. Probably the loving thing to do. How strange you need to mock them indirectly instead of actually ignoring them.
This is why your religion cause so very much ill will and conflict.
Does anyone doubt the existence of the Army when they join?
If they did, then I promise you that a major component of the Army's next recruitment drive would be convincing the doubters that they do exist.
I doubt very much that the army would have any use for someone who doubted they existed, nor would they wish to recruit soldiers who were so myopic that they had missed the fact.
Anyhow, whatever we all think, we are stuck with the fact that the formula set is:
((faith+belief) x (a broken spirit and contrite heart)= (understanding and proof))
Try a different formula and you will always get *circular argument come up.
My point -- which you seem to have missed -- was that your Army analogy was inadequate.
Disagree, the armed services are not conscripting (currently)and therefore it is a choice whether someone joins or not, anybody who doubted that the army existed would by their own doubt be discounted from joining.
You presume that the Army is actually concerned to have folk join it, when in fact, in today's world, they reject folk for not being sufficiently able or willing to come under authority, much the same as Christ does.
There are always some that join but fail basic training and get discharged for their own good.
The Army and God are not analogous. For the analogy to work, they would have to be. I don't mean to be rude, but your disagreement is immaterial. An analogy doesn't become a different thing just because its requirements are misunderstood.
You wrote, "Likewise the Army don't train folk who won't sign up and accept the authority over them."
The existence of the Army is disputed by no one. It would have to be disputed by many for your analogy to work.
Pedantry, and well you know it.
You may not LIKE the analogy, but it is sufficient for the purpose it serves.
I've been thinking about it the analogy since you first wrote it and I still don't understand it.
For simplicity, lets change it to a covert security force.
They don't advertise, they approach you, they deny they exist, there is no evidence to show they do, and they do not tell you their secrets until you are one of them.
What a quaint set of rules - the same rules of belief as those used by Charlie Manson, David Koresh, Jim Jones, and Sun Myoon Moon, some godly people for sure.
This same ideology is the basis for all the cold-reading con artists who claim the ability (for pay) of contacting the dear departed - the audience must first believe the con artist is real, after which the con artist proves himself.
Talk about circular logic.
My you are in bitter mood today, must be not liking the commentary.
Your comments are contemptuous and unworthy of reply.
Then why did you reply? Can you find a fault in the underlying argument I made, that your presentation of god is the same presentation assumed by con artists, i.e., trust me and I will give you proof?
If you can't refute the argument you attack the source. Perhaps instead you would like to put me on the rack or burn me at the stake in order to force me to accept your beliefs?
No, I don't go with burning and racking, nor the folk who did that, any more than I approve or condone those who corrupt the bible for their own ends.
I don't have any problem that you don't wish to accept my beliefs, that is your business, I look (outside of the forums and in them also) for those who do, or might if they understood them.
The forums are useful for feeling the pulse of the secular world, albeit a small section and fairly exclusive part.
I do have a problem with folk who will not accept that I am entitled to hold my beliefs and feel the need to try and attack them at every turn.
If you think I am wrong, so be it, but I come here to discuss Christ with like minded folk, not engage in verbal fisticuffs with atheists.
Anyhow, apologies if I was sharp with you, you should only know the week I have had!
I always respect humanity and I consider myself no better or worse than you or anyone else. I am aware that we, as a species, are easily duped, that we have hard-wiring that leads us to assume correlations that do not exist, to the degree that it takes genuine and concerted effort to push these misleading messengers aside in order to think clearly and concretely based on data, on objective evidence.
Still, your above quote makes me think you are deluding yourself or that you are disingenuous, because Chas made it clear what the topic was about:
I do not believe you when you say you came to this forum topic to discuss Christ with like-minded people. That does not make you a bad person, though, in my opinion. It makes you human, just like me.
I do not dislike you. I do think irrational belief systems are dangerous to the world as a whole, though, so I attack what you believe, not you, and certainly not your right to believe what you want.
My goal is cognitive dissonance in the believer. After that, the believer must make his own choices.
I believe Aguasilver when he says he is looking to discuss Christ with like-minded, or at least interested people. I've seen some of the believers who at least seem as if they're looking for arguments, and he is not one of them. Nor is the fact that this forum is under the header "Atheism and Agnosticism" a definite proof to the contrary because then you would have to accept that all the atheists who go to religious forums are simply there to argue as well. I can think of a couple of people who would fit that bill, even take glee in doing so, but I don't think the majority of them do.
Visiting a forum in an "Atheism and Agnostism" zone automatically entails some argument for the Christians who undertake to make that voyage. If discussion with one's peers were the sole intent, then one's time would best be spent in a Christian forum, after all.
Hi AKA and Chasuk,
I just reply to posts, and in fact (blush) did not even realise I was in the "Atheism and Agnostism" zone, which is my bad...
Apologies, I will keep to my zones, and would welcome the same consideration!
Maybe we could ask HubPages to ring fence the various zones, as the "Atheism and Agnostism" zone seems to have been put in:
Religion and Philosophy »Atheism and Agnosticism »Philosophy and Disbelief/Nonbelief »Self-hypnosis via the Holy Spirit. »
and as you guys don't consider yourselves a religion.... just saying
Also I seem to remember that some atheists have defended their 'right' to disrupt believers discussions by citing the word Philosophy in the header.
I agree, being a believer in the Atheism section is just as much as a disruption to you guys having fellowship as being an Atheist is in those topics pertaining to Christianity and other religions, when Atheism is not of course a religion, is it?
I certainly don't expect -- or desire -- that anyone restrict themselves to their respective "zones," nor have I implied as such.
Further, I don't consider the presence of believers here to be a disruption, although there are disruptive individual users. You are not one of them.
Not saying folk should be banned from 'crossing the lines' to debate, but that there should be some areas where courtesy is expected to the specific zone you are posting to.
I would never knowingly go to the atheism section to poke a stick at atheists, (although as I respond to posts not the subject heading, I obviously have wandered into it by error here) and I would restrain myself because I respect that some areas have or could (should?) be designated as where like minded folk can debate without having trolls (of either persuasion) coming in to disrupt things.
No matter what a person believes or disbelieves, they are welcome in every forum that I create. The exception to this is trolls, who are never welcome. Unfortunately, the HubPages forum structure doesn't allow for their disbarment.
Agreed, though I think there should be some 'private' areas on the Hub where there are clear signs that this is a fellowship area rather than a debate room.
I am trying to remember to simply ignore the trolls, no matter how contentious they try to be, don't feed the troll is my new motto, and I suspect it will work, for trolls crave recognition and when denied that wither and fade.
But trolls bring the partay!
No, Atheism is not a religion, but it is however considered to be a philosophy. Many unfortunately don't know the difference between the two.
Agreed, and speaking personally, I would welcome a separation of the topics!
Maybe additional forums to make it easier for all to stay within their 'zones'
Christianity, the Bible and Jesus
Note I put religion separately also, to allow those who are not Christians to also fellowship in peace, because we surely see some rough treatment of other religious opinions expressed when they post in anything to do with Christ.
So one general forum covering religion and philosophy and others which are specific would cut some of the trolling out.
I would second that. We just need someone who would be able to do it. It's not that I don't like talking to various people, but some discussions I think shouldn't be wondered into blindly.
There is no reason to apologize - I simply pointed out that I think in this case you deluded yourself about your own motivations, not that you purposefully lied. It seems obvious to me that you enjoy this forum else you would not contribute so much and so often. Nothing wrong with crossing barriers if one so desires.
In my opinion and experience, many believers' egos are entwined with their belief system so that an attack on belief is felt as an attack on self, when it is not. Perhaps this is the case with you.
Regardless, any exchange becomes limited in value when one side simply declares an occult (meaning hidden) personal knowledge and refuses to look at logic, rational thought, or opposing views.
I would be a liar if I claimed that I had tamed my ego, as would most other people, I try to ensure that I contain it when it rears it's ugly head, and banned myself for a week when I saw that the forums were occupying too much time, and I was getting 'out of order', hopefully I will keep civil and balanced for a while now!
Overall I try to respond to posts, not react, but I will agree that when I see what pertains to be an attack on my belief, I sometimes react rather than respond or ignore that which is not relevant to me.
And there lies the problem, because one can easily reverse the statement and reach the same conclusion:
"any exchange becomes limited in value when one side simply declares that logic, rational thought, or opposing views are the only discussion worth having, and refuses to look at occult (meaning hidden) personal knowledge, and spirituous experiences as having any validity."
The fact is that nobody can prove anything to anybody else who has already formed an opinion that they believe is correct.
We can debate it, try to expose error in another's thinking or beliefs, but cannot prove anything, so ultimately it comes down to what we all individually believe to be truth.
Anyhow, glad we can discuss without 'fisticuffs'!
On the surface this appears accurate, but on deeper reflection you may come to a different answer. When we discuss occult personal knowledge (god is real to me because I feel him) and religious experiences there is no way to test the ideas objectively to verify the information or see if the experience is repeatable, so the discussion can only be one of opinion. It is important to acknowledge that something that feels real, looks real, and which is believed real still may not be real. Stating opinion is not discussion. The refutation of opinion is simply: Is not!
If you notice, that's basically where these theists/atheists debates degenerate into, Is so, Is not. Discussion needs parameters.
When I say reality is defined I am not trying to be a wise guy but to establish the boundaries of a rational discussion - I admit that an irrational worldview is possibly the right one, but there is no way to discuss an irrational worldview rationally - it can be attempted logically, but then the premises become open to debate.
When someone says "I know god because he talks to my heart", he is stating his opinion only, and when he continues, "and god is my neighbor's black lab and he told me you should give me $100," it is time to run. On the other hand, when I state that a new study questions whether the placebo affect is real, I can point to the information itself, the data, and others can double check my claim for validity.
The key issue is when someone makes a claim that cannot be tested objectively, and he wants you to join him, it is time to run away as fast as you can.
See, objectivity is not foolproof, but it is all we have. Otherwise, we rely on subjectivity, impressions and feelings, and are thus open to the vagaries of fickle emotions, in a land where we are as likely to fool ourselves as to get fooled by others.
The difficulty with delusion is to the deluded it is reality. To follow the lead of emotions, without objective testing, can lead us into a trap of self-fooling, imagined reality from which it is nearly impossible to escape.
Nearly impossible, but not completely. Well said, Mr. Winston!
So you confirm my statement:
"any exchange becomes limited in value when one side simply declares that logic, rational thought, or opposing views are the only discussion worth having, and refuses to look at occult (meaning hidden) personal knowledge, and spirituous experiences as having any validity."
"When we discuss occult personal knowledge (god is real to me because I feel him) and religious experiences there is no way to test the ideas objectively to verify the information or see if the experience is repeatable, so the discussion can only be one of opinion"
But the experience is repeatable, and millions of folk repeat their relationship with God daily, some all the time, being aware all the time that they need to stay aware of the dangers this world offers that will destroy folk.
Your "no way to test the ideas objectively to verify the information or see if the experience is repeatable" is a prime example of why your argument can never bear fruit, and you personally would (I suspect) refuse to actually try a personal experiment to see whether you could experience a spiritual relationship with God.
Lets not waste further time discussing something which you are closed minded about, applying constraints that you know are guaranteed to win any verbal discussion, because your carrot is always just ahead of the donkey, it can never be reached in a world where faith is required before evidence is provided.
And you refuse to try that sequence; probably in case it produces a result you cannot ignore or explain away.
Militant atheism seeks to gain comfort in trying to call any believer deluded, so I can see how frightening it must be that Militant atheism may well be wrong, and that millions of believers in the last 2,000 years may not all have been mysteriously deluded, just willing and capable of trying to communicate with God, and succeeding.
Militant atheism is but the final shots of the enemy trying to diminish Christ and God in the media, it will fail, it is just a smokescreen, people meet with God daily, call us deluded if it makes you happier, I care not, if my relationship with God is delusion, it sure beats the 'reality' of militant atheism hands down.
Would these be the same believers that rampaged across the world murdering and raping in the name of Christ for the last 2,000 years.
Because you told me they were not real christians.
How odd you claim kinship with them, but at the same time reject them as believers-in-kind. Cognitive dissonance much?
This one part you have trouble with, it seems, as far as understanding goes. Emotive response is subjective always - it is never objective. These "feelings" you state repeat you also claim are from god - but that is nothing but your opinion about the cause of these feelings. There is no doubt that rewarding feelings are real and can be brought about by group interaction or personal intrespection, meditation or even yoga - but none of that validates the claim (which is only opinion) that the root cause of the feelings is a god.
Objective testing of god would require a double blind test of an objective data set: did group II of amuputees regrow their missing limb when prayed for.
If they did, we have objective evidence of the reality of god.
It does not matter whether they "felt" god's presence when we prayed for them - the only thing that matters is whether or not they have all their limbs when the prayin' is done.
Your belief in the reality of god is still nothing but belief, and your "proof after belief" can be attributed to nothing but confirmation bias interpreting emotions as validation of your belief.
If this is the offer from your god - I have to be a sucker and take the word of John before I will get my proof - then I pass.
So be it.
I'm late to the party, I've read the first two and last at the time I punched the reply button gassed up my coffee mug and returned to ask you one question and that would be...
John who? or which words are you referring to? and; I get confused by the many intersections that develop as I read, how can I reflect on, then answer the original post when I get to page 10 the subject is no longer the subject, or is it but I'm lacking the way they intersect?
That is well-said and I agree with it for the most part.
Of course, many people who claim supernatural experience (and since I'm one of them I'm aware of the possible irony of any proceeding statements) offer only that they know they are not lying. Even people who don't claim that their neighbor's dog told them to go shoot people in cars usually have nothing beyond their own personal experience, which is often times nothing more than seeing the "face of Jesus" or the "face of Mary" in a dirty window.
There are people (and again, I'm claiming to be one of them) whose experience, whether personal or vicarious, has been born out by exterior (forgive me if I'm using incorrect terminology, hard day) input, i.e. they hear God (or believe they hear God) tell them to do something or that something will happen and the event comes to pass. This could be termed the "Joan of Arc Effect" since historically, when Joan did what God told her to do (at least according to her personal experience) she experienced success, but when she performed actions that men told her to do, absent any input from God, she was captured and eventually burned at the stake.
I wrote a hub about my experiences. I know we're not supposed to promote our own hubs on these forums but it's easier to direct people to it than go through everything I've experienced over and over again.
So finally it does come back to a sort of faith. Not necessarily faith in God, though that may be the ultimate result, but whether you have faith that the coincidental happenings in a person's life, as they recount them, are true or not. If you believe the person to be truthful, then you need to look deeper to try to answer the "why" question. If you don't, it doesn't matter.
What I'm wandering around trying to say is that some people can furnish "proof" it's simply not the kind that can be replicated in a laboratory.
I don't consider subjective experience reliable, not even my own (especially my own?), at least not when considering a question of fact. If the claim concerns a question of opinion, then subjective experience is the ONLY criteria.
I wrote a hub about miracles, which I am not promoting, but I mention it because it details the types of experiences that I would accept as evidence of the miraculous.
I read the Hub entitled Miracles. Is that the one you're referring to?
Yes, of course you're right, but I don't confuse result with intent. If you stray into this territory, and you state what you believe, then I suppose it counts as "argument." It doesn't mean that the intent was to sow discord.
It is a sad truth that con men do use religion and people's fears and needs to bilk people. And it's sad that people become involved in groups like you mentioned. It doesn't change the fact that God does exist. Sometimes He reaches out to people who aren't looking, but usually it's the people who really want to know Him who do.
I was unaware that Manson used any Christian language. Koresh used a veneer of it, but it was completely stripped of any relation to the Bible. Jones started as a preacher, but by the time he moved everyone to Guyana, he was a communist, he had stopped preaching the Bible. Moon is just out there.
I am a pedant, yes. :-)
However, when an analogy is false, it fails to serve the point that its creator intended.
I'm not nitpicking, I promise.
As crazy as this may sound to you, my belief is that we could not physically take actually seeing God right now. He is not human. He is not from our world. We can not try to understand something completely that isn't even of the material we are from. We try to humanize everything to try and understand it because we are human. We can't humanize him. We can't understand completely everythign that He is. There's no way. While here on earth, we do not have the ability to withstand seeing God. I don't believe science and God are two separate things. Who's to say that what He created in a day (His day) didn't take 1,000 years in our time? His time is not our time. I see God in creation more than in anything else. I see evidence of His existance in the things around me and what I feel. These are the things He has given us, for the moment, to prove himself. Again, I recognize where you stand. This is just my opinion.
Confusion is not of God. I'm pretty strong in my faith (this belief) but I'm not one to support what we now have in text is what was originally inspired and written. All I can say is for me...I have a peace like no other on certain things. The bible is not the end all. It's a guide. The Holy Spirit fills in or confirms, and there is no confusion with it. (within yourself) Pray about it.
Also, Pharisees were considered "elite", but they were nowhere near what they should have been. I don't put myself on a pedastool and I don't believe easily. I'm in constant daily struggles. I'm not worried about being fooled.
I'm merely leveling the playing field.
Why should the nonbeliever concede that the Holy Spirit might exist, when the believer won't concede that the Holy Spirit might not?
I've made concessions literally thousands of times (on and off HubPages), explicitly and implicitly. I'm weary of being the only party in nonbeliever-believer dialogues willing to make concessions.
Maybe because the believer has experienced the Holy Spirit, as you admit you have when you had faith?
So when one has experienced that, one cannot deny it, even you do not deny it, you simply say YOU were wrong, so in effect you already conceded that the Holy Spirit might exist.
Still shakin' the dust off I see.
I am not "in effect" conceding that the Holy Spirit might exist, I am baldly and explicitly stating it.
Man's capacity for self-delusion is limitless, Aguasilver, and this is proven no more eloquently than by the ferocity of denial which kicks in when one's most treasured beliefs are threatened.
I get it, Aguasilver. Sometimes, honesty is hard. Admitting that the Holy Spirit might not exist is like admitting that a chink exists in the armor that you pretend is impregnable.
If you're truly the only part in your discussions to make concessions then you've been talking to the wrong parties.
I haven't seen these discussions, but if you truly don't believe then you shouldn't act as if you do. The trick for both sides is to be true to their belief without being rude to the other side (except of course for those who seem to actually believe that they should be rude. In that case, that's one belief they should go against.)
Let's be realistic. You ask why it is necessary by so many. This implies that a high percentage of Christians experience self hypnosis. How many is it?
Pentecostals represent about 2% of Christianity, but they are some of the most referenced when raising an eyebrow at the practices of Christianity.
From what I've gathered Catholics, most mainstream Protestants, the cults (Jehovah Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, Mormons, etc.) don't buy into being possessed with the Holy Spirit. I gather they may feel the presence; but that is merely a feeling. They don't speak in tongues or writhe around on the floor. They simply attempt to live as they understand they are commanded by scripture.
So, the more honest question would have been; why do some sects, primarily Pentecostals, need it?
There are doctrinal and semantic differences, but most Christians believe in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, including Catholics and Mormons. They don't necessary believe that the gifts of the Spirit (tongues, prophecy, etc.) have modern applicability.
So, please explain how this equates to self hypnosis. I see it more as a difference of opinion.
Example. Let's say I have heartburn. I just ate spaghetti. You are sure it's from the tomatoes in the sauce. I think it's from red dye number five. I'm sure it's an ingredient, but you don't see it listed as an ingredient on the jar.
You think I'm delusional. I think you don't understand how ingredients are chosen to be listed. I've still got heartburn. We disagree as to why.
That, to me, is similar. They aren't'self hypnotized'. They attribute a feeling to something you disagree with.
My apologies, but I'm going to have to answer your question in stages.
First, your analogy doesn't work. It would work if I thought your heartburn was caused by tomatoes in the sauce, and you thought that it was caused by freeze-dried unicorn poop (or anything of disputed existence), added to the the sauce by disgruntled factory workers. We both accept that tomatoes and red dye number five exist, but only you accept that freeze-dried unicorn poop exists.
Second, assuming that we know that you are experiencing heartburn and not a heart attack (or something else with similar symptoms), then our dispute concerning the cause of this heartburn is not a question of opinion, but a question of fact. Our respective opinions are irrelevant.
Last, you artificially limit the number of causes to two, when the actual number of causes could be much higher.
A Christian experiences X, and attributes it to the Holy Spirit, which may or may not exist. I attribute it to delusion. Of course, the cause might be neither of those things. However, _something_ caused that feeling. The Christian claims one factual cause; I claim another.
For most Christians, the existence of the Holy Spirit is integral to their faith. For a minority, it isn't. Why for some, and not for others?
I'm not questioning the use of, and disagreement over, the word Holy Spirit as much as I'm scratching my head on the self hypnosis claim. It's an odd term to use when talking about Christians other than the odd and small minority that insists on speaking in tongues and claim people are possessed by evil spirits. I don't understand why you think the majority are self hypnotized.
But, my previous post was simply an example. I wasn't attempting to limit anything. The point was that many claim to occasionally feel something and there is a disagreement over what causes that feeling.
I'm puzzled why you ask about speaking-in-tongues, when I didn't mention it.
Because that would be an example of self hypnosis. I don't consider your average Christian walking around in a hypnotic state. Nor do I think your standard Sunday worship session involves self hypnosis. Those are basically club meetings, I would think.
This forum's subject is, "Self-hypnosis via the Holy Spirit."
The forum's first message is, "Why is this type of delusion seen as necessary by so many Christians?" This message was intended to clarify the forum's subject.
Notice that I refer to hypnosis as a "type of delusion."
I didn't mean to imply what you have apparently inferred, namely, that "your average Christian [is] walking around in a hypnotic state."
Perhaps this forum's subject should have been, "The delusion of the Holy Spirit," and it's first message "Why do Christians pretend that it exists?"
Yes. You are probably right. The self hypnosis title implies a trance like state. Delusion is something else entirely.
But Emile, there are a lot of self help 'self hypnosis' books that promise to improve the well being or help one "get whatever one wants", but none talk about putting the practitioner in a 'trance' except audio books which cautions the listener that he might fall asleep(not trance) when he listens.
But I don't contests delusion is entirely different.
When I was a Christian I attended a Pentecostal church. Basically in the book of Acts it describes an event known as Pentecost wherein the people in the church were praying and were supposedly suddenly filled with the holy spirit, they began speaking in tongues.
Jesus, in the Gospels, promises his disciples that after he's dead the Holy Spirit will come to them in his stead.
So some sects actually believe that you should be saved, and then baptized by water and then baptized by the "fire" of the Holy Spirit.
Titen, please let me 'fine tune' your descriptions. The Pentecost event in Acts 2 also shows Galilean Jews spontaneously speaking in known languages they never studied out in a public meeting...a phenomenon that perplexed the crowd. Peter explained that this fulfilled a specific prophecy in the OT book of Joel to show that, because Jesus was at that time dead AND resurrected, God sent His Spirit as promised and this multilingual speech that was actually understood was designed to validate the message that Jesus was the Messiah. The result: 3,000 of the crowd (no total number of it was recorded) believed the message, the rest did not at that time. A further result was that converted folks continued to gather and have their number increased by God day to day as the last verses in the chapter point out.
Well, I would say that, though many people equate what you're saying to the extreme doings of Pentecostals, I would argue that spending time in prayer is the same. Meditating/praying on that "feeling" and "God's Word" often enough is about par with hypnosis. It's basically what keeps most Christians going, I'd wager. At least the devout ones. It's how bright people continue to believe some spacy things as truth, and convince themselves that certain things are "right." I, along with others I knew, was dissuaded from only believing in God "with the mind," which is easy for those who aren't devout, because they don't think much about why they believe what they believe further than what it is at "face value." Spending a lot of time in prayer and studying the word often had me feeling as though the HS was talking to me, and opening my mind to the "truth," and the more I opened my "heart" to "God," the more I felt Him, and saw Him in everything. Guess what happens when you stop praying and reading?? You "let the devil in." It seems that Free Thought is equated with the Devil. Go figure.
Considering one's "religious experience" is highly dependent on the beliefs the person had before, or grew up with in society, and the human mind has been shown to be very capable of hallucinations in a variety of circumstances, there is no reason to believe the experience, while real, is divine in origin.
I would have to disagree with that considering my own experiences. I was too young of a Christian and had no background in the religion or the Book but things fell into place.
If you were born into an industrialized country, and some non-industrialized, you were aware of Christianity.
Big deal. I'm aware of being President of the United States. The chances of my becoming President are as great and probable as of my becoming a Christian (in fact, more so) but were I to suddenly find myself in the halls of power, even if we're just talking mayor of Indianapolis!, I would have no background and be unprepared.
Yeah, I'm aware of it. But it's not the same as being prepared or having a background.
Geographical location is the best predictor of religiosity. Since you grew up in America, you grew up in a culture infected with religious language and ideas (a disaster of "biblical proportions"). People all around you being Christian (75% openly claim to be so).
Your culture predisposes you, and me, and all of us to see Christianity as a real possibility, and other religions as not, such as Hinduism or Buddhism.
But I live in SE Asia, amongst Chinese, Tamil Indians, Thai's and Malaysians, who are geographically inclined towards Buddhism, Hindi, Islam and Taoist religions, yet we have a strong and vibrant Christian community made up of all those peoples, who have chosen to follow Christ because they saw that He is good.
They have left those religions, seeing that Christ was more in line with what they believed.
So the argument is not strictly true, though I will agree that where folk are able to explore Christ, they will change religion from birth religions to following Christ, even at pain of death for doing so.
But equally nobody is born a Christian, Mum and Dad may stick it on their children's documents, and take them to church with them, but the ONLY way to become a Christian is by individual confession of faith, no nameplate will suffice.
Geographical location is not the ONLY predicator. I never claimed that. It's simply that way for most people.
Christianity is also WORLDWIDE. The U.S. has Buddhists, Muslims, and Hindus, even in a Christianized culture. Not everyone is going to go with the majority.
It makes you more independent if you grew up in a culture that wasn't predisposed to Christianity, but that doesn't make Christianity true. It just means your decision was based on other factors.
A very logical bit of reasoning.
Facile and completely dismissive of my actual history, but logical sounding.
Takes nothing into account about my state of mind, but logical sounding.
Why aren't you Christian, if it's simply that pre-programmed?
I broke away from my programming. There's a few of us who are capable .
But if you would like, feel free to give me an argument for Christianity. I'd be happy to discuss the merits.
You've already shown that you've made up your mind. That's the problem. Because you have already assumed you know my situation and history and judged according to your preconceived notions.
One of the merits of Christianity for me has been to show me that I need to walk in another man's shoes and not judge him. And that's a good thing, because, no offense, but I used to be you. Or at least the you who has talked to me so far.
I used to be a Christian. I went through the agonizing process of freeing myself from the intellectual prison it imposed upon me.
I grew up hearing all of the typical religious propaganda. The Bible is the inerrant word of God; homosexuals are evil; evolution is false; Jesus is the way the truth and the life; the wages of sin is death; God doesn't really want anyone to go to hell.
Talk about not judging. You were wrong! Completely and utterly so. I attended Kingspark Baptist Church/Private school from 1-5 grade. I was then homeschooled from 6-8 grade, and attended Southwest Baptist Church. I started public high school in 9th grade, and in 10th grade, I attended Southern Hills Baptist Church until I got to college, where my Church attendance slowly dropped off.
Aside from a William James type of case, there is no logical argument in favor of Christianity that I have encountered (which is separate from belief in God, which is a more interesting question). Perhaps though, you have something that is new, something that is original and a perspective I have not considered before.
If you believe so strongly in your position, why not lay out a quick summary of your reason(s) for your position, and also why all the other religions are wrong?
For me, it was the opposite. I was an agnostic and God reached out and tapped me, and it freed me up intellectually to check out the evidence and weigh the alternatives.
If I've judged you wrongly I apologize. You were the one who at the very least implied that being surrounded by Christians made it easier for me to become Christian. Although it's true that I live in the United States, the most "Christian" country in the world, it would be untrue to say I was surrounded by Christians most of my life. Most of my life I was surrounded by people who were definitely dismissive of Christianity.
However, if you want to generalize, it would be salient to point out that the vast majority of church-going teens who come out of college as agnostics or atheists followed a path almost identical to the one you described.
Perhaps. You sound like you're going in skeptical and already decided to come out the other side the exact same way. I'm all for having discussion, I talk to a lot of people who I don't agree with, so I'm game.
Well, I've beat you to the punch halfway. I wrote a hub about the proof God has given me. How willing you are to accept it depends more on you than me.
Going to an institution that teaches one how to think critically and learn about science will no doubt have a detrimental effect on religious belief.
It doesn't effect everyone equally though. Francis Collins is a conservative Christian, and he is smarter than most people will ever be. He just happens to turn off his reasoning ability when it comes to accepting Christianity.
I hope you are aware that I'm not quite as dismissive of belief in God. I think it's an interesting question. But particular religious beliefs are most of the time beyond ridiculous.
If I told you I believed in the Greek gods, and you laughed me out of the room, guess what? I'd deserve it for saying something so foolish. It just happens the majority of American society holds onto these unsubstantiated beliefs, so it's socially unacceptable to point out they are false.
I will read your hub as long as you agree not to censor my comments. I've had two different hubbers censor me on political hubs. People don't like defending themselves, but it is what it is :p.
Also, just because I think you are wrong doesn't mean I think you are a BAD person. Many times, people confuse intense debate with dislike for the other person. With politics, there is definitely some truth to that. However, with abstract religious beliefs, I don't bear any ill will towards you for taking a position opposite from my own. Your personal humanity doesn't bear on me disagreeing with you at all.
I can respect you as a total human being without agreeing with everything you say.
I'm at an admitted disadvantage in that I've never been to college. However, going to college is not necessarily synonymous with "going to an institution that teaches one how to think critically." I don't just say this because I'm Christian, I wasn't always one. Many people I've known have made it clear that many college professors consider "thinking critically" the same as thinking like them. And I'm not just talking about religiously/antireligiously.
By the same token, as I've said before, my ability to think critically has grown quite a bit as a result of my Christianity.
Learning about science doesn't necessarily cancel religious belief.
That last sentence, right there, is why I pause over something you write later in this post...
Although admittedly I've had few detractors, I wouldn't censor just because someone disagrees with me. I would if someone became abusive, but if you maintain the same tone as in this post, I would not censor.
I want to believe that and I certainly hope it's true. The thing that gives me pause are statements about "turning off the reasoning." I don't know how you can slice statements like that as merely intense debate. But, as I've said often, I will talk to anyone who will talk to me, even if I disagree with them. A couple of people we sort of steer clear of some touchier subjects but we respect each other. Others, I won't even read their posts anymore because all they're about is telling everyone how little they think of the opposition.
Chasuk, the "delusion" of the Holy Spirit indwelling believers is part and parcel of the Christian belief system. My reply to Titen-Sxull shows, I think, the answer to your "why" question. I would say you don't have to concede His existence from your world life view; which I would see as pretty much equivalent to that of the Sadducees of the first century, based on some of your writings/threads.
In this case, both sides need to state their cases, realizing it's a loggerheads circumstance much as the Pentecost event was...some will buy it, some will not. Enjoy your day and thanks for asking the question!
The Holy Spirit Of GOD. Does not participate in hypnosis of any kind . Hypnosis is witchcraft and one may be helped by a holy spirit but not the Holy Spirit of God. We are warned to avoid witchcraft which has crept into and is practiced in many if not most mainline churches and many others
This is why there should be a definite separation of Church and State.
Jesus H. Christ! Has the entire f#$king world lost its collective f#$king mind?
Yes, they have believed that witchcraft is not real, that the enemy does not exist, and deprived themselves of the spiritual perception required to understand these things.
Wake up world.... the enemy is at YOUR gates.
You obviously don't know the definition of witchcraft either.
Manipulation, deception and intimidation, where those three are present, so is witchcraft.
Witchcraft is defined as invoking a spirit, when you invoke a spirit you allow it into you, much like the holy spirit is suppose to do.
Well aware of that, like I said on your hub, it depends which side the spirit you are allowing authority comes from.
I have been on both teams, I am well 'familiar' with the enemies spiritual entities, and delighted that the Holy Spirit drives the enemy out of us, and has all power and authority.
Why muck around with lowlife spiritual entities when the Holy Spirit has authority over ALL other forces?
How can you tell the difference? How do you really know its the holy spirit?
Ever tried Coca Cola and compared it to Pepsi Cola?
The basic difference is that the Holy Spirit will CONFIRM Gods word and guide you to do the correct thing.
Unholy spirits will encourage you to rebellion and doing ungodly acts, they don't start that way with you, think of paedophiles grooming children and you will get the picture, but as they weaken your resolve, you find yourself becoming more 'open minded' and doing less scrupulous activities, then you start the slippery slope.
But the difference is clear to anyone who has accepted Christ as their authority and been in-filled with the Holy Spirit.
I have also seen unholy spirits manifesting in church bodies where there is a lack of true scriptural knowledge, discernment and biblical guidance, where the leadership has been beguiled into accepting false doctrines not supported by scripture, that will happen, the enemy is subtle and skilful in deception, which is why we need strong leadership well steeped in scriptural understanding, discernment and under the authority and power of the three 'protectors' we live with: God, the Holy Spirit and Christ.
In other words, if you want to know whether it is REALLY the Holy Spirit, ask Aguasilver, because his discernment is BETTER than the discernment of all of those congregations overtaken by unholy spirits. Aguasilver KNOWS that he hasn't been deceived, unlike those other members of the body of Christ who only BELIEVE that they haven't been deceived, he KNOWS that he hasn't.
Well thank you for the compliment, but I am hardly alone in having discernment of spirits, and words of knowledge, they are gifts shared by many believers.
Any congregation that accepts false doctrines, doctrines of demons and 'ear tickling' Churchianity is liable to enemy infiltration, Toronto was a classic example, and there are many others around, the "Purpose Driven Lie' was another clear attempt to present sows ears dressed as silk purses, they are obvious deceptions, and yes, even the beloved Alpha course has some distinct error in it's teachings.
And let's not forget 'The Shack"!
I do know I have not been deceived, you teach bank tellers to spot counterfeit notes by making sure they know the real thing.
My time on the enemy team only assisted in spotting the counterfeits, and my experiences with the Holy Spirit have shown me what the real thing looks like.
Poacher turned gamekeeper is what I am Chasuk, and comfortable with it.
I'm right, what I say is right and those who think like me are also right.Hell with reason and logic, I'm the almighty.
Boy, we really seem to have riled some of those unholy spirits tugging your strings, try thinking about that, you may feel them spurring you on to new heights of denial.
aguasilver, the Almighty, the omniscient!
Down with reason!
Like I said, really riling the demons up today, don't you just love it when the Holy Spirit starts convicting those who need conviction.
The Holy Spirit is the layman's term for an now-extinct bio-luminescent bacterial infection. The name is a reference to the common assumption at the time that all diseases were either demons or spirits. It was assumed that any disease that would cause a person to glow like the Heavens must be Holy; thus the name. As the bacteria went extinct after such a short time on Earth, there is no physical record for scientists to study, and thus they are left with only anecdotal evidence that it ever existed in the first place
The origins of the "Holy Spirit" are, like most diseases of the time, shrouded in mythology and superstition. It is claimed that a woman from the Eastern edge of the Roman Empire was the first to contract the disease from a visitor from the Heavens (or Angel). Whether this is a space alien or a man with a foreign accent is uncertain. What is certain is that her skin started to glow after her "encounter," particularly the forehead. Soon after, she bore a child for some reason, and his skin glowed as well.
This started a trend when people who had close contact with a person who had the "Holy Spirit" contracted the disease, as well. This was, of course, associated with spiritual matters, as the people of this time had no concept of infectious diseases or hygene of any sort, to be honest. Many assumed that it was transmitted through alcohol, as this caused individuals to feel and act as though they "weren't themselves." Thus, many "holy spirits" were brewed and distributed at churches at the holiest festivals.
The religious holiday of Pentecost was specifically dedicated to the Holy Spirit. On this day, in many churches bottles of diluted Holy Spirit are given away free to everyone who leaves a substantial cash donation. In some countries like Germany, a sparkling option is available. Though this had no measurable affect on one's ability to contract the infection, the science of the day relied on authoritarian principles, and thus the practice was never questioned.
Many spirits became used extensively, and the effects were mixed.
You have a talent for creative fiction writing, you should try using it in hubs.
Meanwhile, apologies for disturbing your demonic masters, they must be really getting angry to make you write this crap.
Please continue to show your true self, as the demons manifest in you.
Demonic masters? You mean there is someone more demonic than your Yahweh? You better see a psychiatrist if you can see demons in addition to your spirit. Or are you really taking some spirit? Then change the brand, the present one is too strong for you.
Oh Yes, there is certainly something more demonic, he is our enemy, he is called Lucifer, Satan, and a number of other names, but is our enemy all the same.
As you are (by choice) spiritually blind, you cannot discern him and his works in your life, but he is working in anybodies life that is deceived into denying he exists.
You are having too much spirit. I bet it is some cheap whiskey.
If not, get your head examined.
Nah, sober as a surgeon....
I understand what your getting at, and I did let your comment stand and such because I understand where your coming from. The sound of your previous post however made it sound like you were considering witchcraft to be something other than what it was. My apologies if that's not how you meant it. I didn't get notified of your comment until after I had checked the forums.
No problem, thanks for the redress!
No my friend, it's just apparently full of people who don't know the definitions of the words that they like to throw around.
Hypnosis is not witchcraft and your self deluded if you don't know the difference between witchcraft and hypnosis. Claiming to be filled with a spirit is witchcraft, as it is invoking a spirit.
Hypnosis is, for the most part, self-indulgent twaddle, a "trick" performed by our priests of science (if you believe that psychology is a science) that only works if you believe in it. Witchcraft is, for those who practice it, also self-indulgent twaddle, which is its only connection to hypnosis.
Hey now, don't go dissing psychology. It's helped me in that how I was coming to understand people and myself through observation lined up harmoniously with what I'd begun to learn in my psychology classes and I could give those ideas and conclusions a name, and there are just too many fields that are discovering and helping with different things, from us finding potentially higher states of consciousness in animals, to understanding why certain people are capable of being serial killers. I am majoring in it, and will steer clear or pseudo or parapsychology, and others of that nature. But psychology is an important science, friend. There are hypotheses, there conclusions drawn from experimentation, observation, and the like. When you get into the cognitive side and neuropsychology, it's status as a science especially shouldn't be questioned.
Sorry, I got a little defensive.
I wasn't dissing psychology so much as remembering a few lectures from my psychology and sociology professors. They would stage debates occasionally, and the subject of debate was often whether psychology could legitimately be considered a science. :-)
They like to think themselves possessed and make a show of it. They think it brings them closer to god to do such things.
Confused, are any of you familiar with the spiritual world?
Probably more so than you are.
You might be surprised.
But I can tell, you assume much, but know very little.
You'd be surprised at what I know. Of course, you, much like some others who I will refrain from naming, tend to assume more than actually study.
Perhaps, yet you'rer the one who seriously considers witchcraft.
And your the one who believes in an all powerful, indestructible super-being.
God Almighty you mean. Don't be so ignorant you find yourself in hell fire, as I may very well be...
No, I mean a super-being on the same scale as a comic book super hero.
The Holy Bible is obviously beyond your level of literature.
Don't listen to me Mr. EinderDarkwolf. Please, just ask Jesus Christ to prove Himself to you. That being sinful is a no-brainer, that I need Your salvation. I'm sorry for all I've done.
I promise Jesus Christ will respond. If you're heart is sincere.
There's not a literature that exists beyond my level of comprehension. God = Super Being. Super Beings = Non existent. It's not complicated and certainly not rocket science. I'm sorry if that's the only way you feel comfortable in your existence or with the actions you decide to take. As it's now 3am NY time, I'm heading to bed myself. If your going to continue this though, I'll give you fair warning that like Vector7, I'll just start ignoring everything you have to say.
All people need to feel loved. This communing with God is just an extension of that. It's how they can bolster that euphoric feeling that someone cares about them, loves them, needs them in some way and that somehow they're important to someone. At times I find this a sad reality. I love the people in my life dearly and am clear in the knowledge they love me back so there's no need to start talking to anything in my head.
I am not certain how valid this notion to be. I would accept that there is strong motivation to feel accepted and part of a group. Love, on the other hand, is too squishy of word to have any real meaning.
In fact, the best definition I ever read came from an Episcapal priest who wrote, "Love is a decision and a commitment."
If there is a god, he has already made the decision and commitment to love his creations, therefore no action of his creations would change that decision or commitment. There would be nothing to "feel".
OK, fair 'nuff, you want a better definition. With love I mean a feeling of being needed, wanted, and important to someone, unconditionally, no matter how crappy of a person you think you are. "Jesus loves you." "God has a plan for you"
What does that even mean?
to the original topic, there is nothing like self hypnosis in a real Christian setting except of course you are refering to the ranks of infiltration by satanic agents in other to mock the power behind the world's largest and best religion.
We don't self hypnotized, rather we allow the spirit of God to take control when we are in right standing with God, i can help anyone who is ignorant about this.coming online to gaffe about a religion one does not know much about is sensational in every respect, this topic is quite cheap.
Christians perpetually are under attack in hubpages and i am beginning to wonder if it is not a conspiracy....i am still watching, keeping my antennae intact, my religion is not to be mock by any satanist, i won't fold my arms and watch unbelievers desecrate the name of God and his only begotten son. enough of this cheap mocking.
Such is the blindness of the unbeliever. Do you know Jesus Christ's explanation concerning His Holy Spirit?
You inhale, filling your lungs with an invisible sustenance that you would fight tooth and nail to obtain. But you lack spiritual lungs, for you have yet been born-again. Then, God's sustaining breath of life, His Holy Spirit fills you.
If I deny I have eyes,though I see, what have I gained? The Holy Spirit dwelling in the soul of every born-again believer, is faith's brick and mortar, for it witnesses everything God, our Creator.
May the consequences, born of vanity, quickly find you when reaching for Jesus Christ, with repentance of sin, becomes your only escape.
Yes if anybody only knew what sin was.
I must say it is an interesting question to ask and is along the lines of personal questioning I have been doing of late.
I spent 25 years in the Penticostal Church surrounded by the charismatic worship and the continual refrain of being filled/baptised by the Holy Spirit. I lost count of the number of times I stood in a prayer line, eyes closed and hands raised. Despite their insistence that they are not ritualistic, everything I witnessed was very formulaic. But in all those 25 years, I never once 'felt' or 'sensed' the HS inside or outside of myself, as just about everyone else claimed; not that it was ever explained what the HS presence was supposed to feel like.
I've just finished a book on self hypnosis which does describe the workings of the unconscious brain in layman's terms. Apparently our concious mind is a thin veneer of who we are and all thoughts originate in the sub-concious which some milli seconds later might decide to let our conscious mind be aware of them.
All the thoughts, visions, pictures that pop into our heads 'from nowhere' that the Penticostals claim is the HS speaking can alternatively be explained by the sub-concious putting them there and no HS is present. But then I'm mindful that Jesus said the Kingdom of God is within us which might be aka the sub-conscious.
You betcha ... Is is ours ?? It seems to me that a bunch of my thoughts come from outside of myself.
can't count the times that I wished I had thought "Something" ..
a couple of days quicker than I did. That thought wasn't even in my head a couple of days ago! talk about a DUH moment.
Seems as though my subconcious mind hides itself from me?
Disappearinghead, Jesus Christ responds to the individual lost soul who decided alone, to reach out for salvation. A group can't do that, Though groups of believers can perform effectual prayers, once they agree. I grew up attending a Baptist Church, yet avoided reaching out for salvation until in my early 20's at a point in time when I could no longer fake reasons for existing.
I no longer attempt to to relay all that I've experienced in the realm of my spirituality because it's never received well and I've come to believe that many things performed for the repentant believer is wholly intended for that individual alone.
I also stay away from speaking of emotional feelings, or any physical impact as it might relate to any given spiritual experience, only because that sort of thing varies based on many factors, such as maturity. It's like how an individual might feel when receiving mother's hugs.
Sorry, but I'm very curious: Why did you spend 25 years doing something from which you apparently gained no benefit?
A number of reasons: social scene, security, fear of hell, lack of critical thinking. I'm better now thankyou.
I'm glad that you are better. Seriously. :-)
In the early years of my Christian faith, I was a Pentecostal. I understand its addictive nature.
You two gentlemen never gave your hearts to Jesus Christ of course and is why He has yet to respond to either of you as He would for His believers. Please admit Mr. Chasuk, that whatever addiction you speak of, wasn't for Jesus Christ, but rather some other element going on around you, within some Church setting(I don't go to those buildings). And Mr. Disappearinghead, your critical thinking was applied to experiences unrelated to the actual character of Jesus Christ.
What I now see, is the rationale behind the two of you missing the blessings of the born-again experience. Because you each keep picking at spirituality as though it were a scab. It won't be long before something begins to bleed.
You are sweet, Rdcast, but also sanctimonious. The two don't sit comfortably together.
Agreed, I am sweet. But seriously, I am no comfortable soul.
Concerning sanctimonium, I don't shrink form blasphemy. I simply attack it.
Observation: Mr. Chasuk, God is dealing with you, isn't He?
That's an impossible question to answer.
As I don't believe that God exists, my first answer is, "Non-applicable."
As I acknowledge that God might exist, my second answer is, "Possibly."
I think you missed the hint in my post; I spent 25 years in Penticostal churches, and in that time I certainly 'gave my heart to Jesus'. I walked away from the Church because bible study flat out contradicted many of the Church doctrines.
I believe in God and I am comfortable with Jesus being the sacrifice for humanity's sin, but thereafter I depart from Church beliefs.
But you are right my critical thinking was applied to church experiences. However the Penticostal churches are choc full of people who believe on the basis of supposed HS experiences which I believe are nothing of the sort.
My wife has expressed an interest in the family going back to a different church and I'm sure it will have some tangible benefits. However, how long before I dispair of unbiblical worship songs, claims that God has spoken when he has not, or the unbiblical doctrines?
Start a study group, invite other believers to come and discuss what you have found, if the members agree and want to, form a body of like minded believers, leave out what you hold to be wrong.
I think that is why we are told to 'come out of her my people' but continue in meeting with each other, and the forum, though a 'church' of believers in some ways, is no match for accountability to those you love and serve with.
Tehehe, that's how denominations get started.
I'd have to hoover the floor first.
What for... Oh I see, to clear up all those bits of scripture you had torn out of the book!
(I know that would not be true, but could not resist it! me bad!!!)
Found an even better image! (please do NOT take offence DH, I just like it!)
no offence taken John
Thank you for bringing me up to speed on your viewpoint Mr. Disappearinghead. I would say to you concerning the notion that the Church is represented by buildings, is far from reality. It is the individual believer who is the Church. Otherwise, every time people walk out of that building, they are in a sense leaving the Church. That is unfortunate.
I'm looking forward to learning about the Disappearing-head Denomination in the future. Haha. The no BSers. I guarantee you that if there are enough people who believe the things that you find are corrupt, unbiblical and the like, and you do start a group, in 5 years or so we'll be hearing about it. People might even call you a sect if you're too different!
I've already got an old school friend on facebook that thinks I'm a heretic and lost the plot because he is a young earth creationist and I've the temerity to question his bigoted anti-gay agenda.
You have old school friends that still even speak to you!
You are blessed, all my friends old and new left stage right when I first came to faith!
To be expected Mr. aguasilver. To believe that our experience here on earth and within this time bubble, is designed to prepare us for God's Kingdom, is fanatical, is it not?
We must deal with the view, "you're too heavenly minded to be any earthly good".
Yeah, It's something about that verse, "if the world likes you you're doing something wrong"!
.....Do you not know that being the world's friend is being God's enemy? So whoever chooses to be a friend of the world takes his stand as an enemy of God.
Yep, serves as a solid reminder to me when they get too friendly or stop attacking me!
I've always understood that to be as a friend to the World's systems and moral standards, not the people or cultures per se.
To a degree I agree, I have many 'friends' of all religions and none, and from many cultures, but they are still 'the world' and as such I am unable to fellowship with them in the same way I fellowship with believers.
I spent all Saturday afternoon chatting with a Muslim, but he was uncomfortable when we discussed bible, even the OT and especially when Christ came into the conversation.
For me the telling point is whether they are happy to discuss Christ, if they are uncomfortable, they are still in 'the world' and I would be foolish to think we were in agreement, nor seek their approval of my beliefs.
That's when friendship becomes a witnessing exercise however subtle I try to be.
Then there is the 'do not be unequally yoked' which is a whole other aspect!
"when they get too friendly" that is both sad and hilarious, but so true. Be in the world, not of it.
Mark, Do you believe it is only Christians that murders and rape people in the name of Christ?
Just pointing out the hypocrisy of claiming millions of fellow christians and at the same time disowning them.
How many of these millions of fellow christians were real christians?
To the same degree that I believe it is only Muslims who murder and rape in the name of Allah.
God is a spirit, it''s impossibility for mortality to comprehend immortality with a mindset of mortality.
It's also impossible for immortality to comprehend mortality with a mindset of immortality. The statement works both ways.
Addressing the forum topic: Damn! You're so close, you're burning up! Ever play that game? Colder/Hotter? The spirit itself is the source of the hypnotism. If you don't believe in the spirit, you can't really do it. If you don't believe in hypnotism...well, you can't do that either. It is a higher understanding of self.
by Brittany Williams 3 years ago
Atheism only means the lack of a belief in God. Why is it so hard for Christians to realize that we dismiss their religion for the same reasons that they dismiss all other religions? It doesn't make us horrible people, immoral, or mean that we are going to hell. It just means that we think the...
by Andrew0208 13 years ago
Why Do We Speak In Tongues? Speaking in tongues among Christians was first observed in Acts 2:4-5 "And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance."Speaking in tongues; is it the sign of the presence of the Holy Ghost?...
by Elizabeth 6 years ago
Belief without the Holy Spirit?If what many Christians these days claim is true, that it is impossible to come to have faith in the biblical god without the intervention and interpretation of the Holy Spirit, why was the great commission necessary? Why leave conversion and...
by charlie 6 years ago
Why does it seem most Christians are immature.It seems most people professing to be Christian do not have a proper grounding in the scriptures. They drink the milk but do not seem to be able ( or maybe no desire?) to eat the real meat- understand the deeper things of God, in spite of the fact...
by jonnycomelately 8 years ago
Sexuality seems to be very high on the list of "sins" with many christians. Why is this, when there are so many cruel and anti-social practices reported in news media across the world? Such practices have very real and destructive effects upon the lives of so many...
by Virginia 8 years ago
Why are so many Christians still living an illusion?I see so many poor christians who are just fallowing retarded rules and then forcing there children, who are young and niave to believe things that are beyond there understanding. They are too young to make a decesion so they it's just the parents...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2023 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|