Voices in my head

It's no secret that I'm a Christian and believe in God. And as a Christian I often use the phrase "God told me" or "spoke to my heart" Many times what follows is ridicule. You know, the "voices" cracks followed by the "meds" cracks. Well, no, we Christians do not hear voices in our heads telling us to do things.

What those of us who have been fortunate enough to have been graced by Gods presence do hear is distinctions between truths and falsehoods. Now one of the first truths is that there is nothing unique about those of us who have been enlightened. We were just willing to be open minded when it came to the availability of knowledge that is beyond our physical senses. Knowledge that can't be proven by human abilities but yet once known can be verified as possible truths by gathering evidence. That is to say there is enough evidence to conclude that the spiritual can and does indeed exist.

Once you can bring yourself to this point in reality then you can begin to see that despite rival writings being constantly brought up to challenge the truth, God can and does preserve his principles throughout the ages by inspiring people to record them. And that brings me to my main point. Scriptures were not meant to be used as a tool for merely indoctrinating people to try and live strictly according to the doctrines of religion. No, they were inspired so people could live according to the doctrine of truth and to show us how to seek it out, objectively. Truth in its purity is infallible. We who are fallible misrepresent it. Truth is beyond the physical realm.

I understand people have a problem with that, all the different religions, all making that same claim and all. But can you describe the process of elimination you used to conclude that no way a single true God could have created what we see and experience with a specific goal in mind? I ask not because of offense or anything but you seem to go against your previously stated philosophy where this possibility is concerned. You already know I've done research in/on the scriptures after experiencing God in a moment of humbled humility and because of that combined with an on going relational experience with God I trust him and his word. Is it your contention that everyone around the world from different ethnic and cultural backgrounds are not credible if they have come to the same conclusion as I? I'm not advocating security in numbers, just curious as to how you would determine each and everyone is wrong in their spiritual assessments of their experiences? Or does science eliminate the possibility of a single god? If so, how?

Sorry, I misunderstood your point before. No the 'idea" itself isn't mine of course. Indeed, my whole point was one of confirmation that separates the Christian scriptures from the others. The others are strictly about doctrine with vain attempts at mythology thrown in. The Christian Bible's focus is on the search for our true spirit and what to expect in that search. Good, evil, sate of mind, absolute truth, are all connected to it and ultimately to the spirit realm.

What problem? I am as free as anyone. Is it that you believe god could be telling peoe different things or is it that god isn't speaking to no one and we are left to find him by feeling our way in the dark. Please, I'm just curious as to your thoughts.0

Though I would still like to hear your thoughts on my questions specifically, I see what you are saying. Since I grew up in America I had to have been exposed to the tenets of Cristianity so my beliefs even though they came later in my life have to be somehow atleast partially due to that environment, correct? Well that is a legitiment concern and a big part of the reason I researched the scriptures, the times, customs and the reasons why God had commanded some of the things he had in the verses. Along with much more. True, I'd hoped what I believed to be confirmed in my heart through some spiritual experiences would hold water, we all hold some bias. But I wasn't then nor am I now uncomfortable with learning new information. I just do not take it at face value until I have a chance to research it. I believe there is one God and that god is consistent to objective truth. I find that god to be the God of the Bible.

Okay, I knew it would be alot to digest once you got started. So I'm going to have to do just that. I suspected you had serious doubts about God personally interacting with people. Now I understand why. You have an extensive education in the psychological sciences?

Oh well, let me digest what you have said and thank you, this is a learning experience. And I didn't want this to become an argument over Christianity either. That never accomplishes anything. I just put that out there so you would know that I wasn't trying to evade the fact that is what I ultimately subscribe to. Though I believe it's taught erroneously much of the time.

I'd be interested in hearing more of your analysis concerning how one experiences a relationship with the universe? Are you simply referring to ones perspective? Or is it some kind of a two way communicative relationship we possibly have with "the universe?" Or are we all theoretically connected on some sub atomic level and that is the extent of it?

Is God tangible in your opinion? If so, what is God? If not, is his existence merely a part of the human psyche? If he's just part of our psyche, and people in my position as you have said are in error when we "attribute what is innate to every soul" to a 3rd party god, is it your contention we ought to stop that kind of thinking so we don't sell ourselves short? If we did stop, wouldn't we in affect be substituting the universe for God? And then that would open a whole other can of worms.

I know I have asked a lot of questions. Can't help it, I'm intrigued by your position. Probably because you've expressed a similar attitude toward science as I have toward Christianity. Both of us using the analytic approach, neither accepting of what is generally promoted at their perspective establishment institutions without us first using our intuition. One difference though seems to be that I do not think science discredits religion, ignorance and dogmatic doctrines do. You however seem to believe that religion produces ignorance that hinders scientific achievements. Perhaps there's elements of truth in both summations, huh?

Let me say this at this time, you are wise beyond your years.

Quote: "I'll start from the end. I think information is all helpful if it is provided in a truthful manner. That means I have no problem, whatsoever with a Christian or a Muslim as long as they agree that it is improbable that their beliefs are the truth...'

If you are implying that truth stands; regardless of what one believes the truth implies; with your statement above, then you're right on target!! If I read something into what is written, then Christian or not, I'm dead wrong regardless of the factual content that I misrepresent. If that is your point, then I agree.

On the evolution thread a couple of months ago, (One of my first responses) I alluded to the fact that despite the vast differences in verbiage between scripture and our modern scientific vocabulary, there are some increasing correlations between the two. And you exemplify that observation with your remarks.

Let's put the Bible quote you mentioned in context:

1 Corinthians 13:9-11 " 9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part. 10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. 11  When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."

That captures the essence of what you're saying, some 2000 years before you typed your words, just with different terminology. You have concluded based on the observation of what can be perceived as "infinities" in the universe that it is illogical to assume our consciousness ends at death. That is biblical per Romans chapter one among other places in scripture. I must ask, are you well acquainted with scripture?

Your statement, "To elaborate just slightly further, i believe it is distancing ourselves from listening, hearing, and understanding this connection that leads to what Christianity refers to as "evil"."

is very profound. Again keeping in mind superficial language differences Jesus extrapolated the same sentiments as you when he said, " 19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. 21 But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God."

I believe "God" is the name given to the "energy" or "substance" you were extrapolating on earlier. According to scripture, God when asked who he was, simply replied, "I am." That to me can imply that he claims to be the one constant in the universe that doesn't degenerate. It is my belief that God in his wisdom preserved his principles in a way that we through the ages of varied language translations could understand and relate. If that is improbable against a strict objective backdrop, then it is improbable. Yet not impossible and definitely not ruled out in any sense except perhaps 'personal preference.' No more improbable then the whole abiogenesis/evolution theory. And yes, it does give me peace of mind believing we were never a result of cold random chance. If we were just a by product of chance then there would be no purpose, no morality, no justice except that what we imagine and impose on one another.

I do not believe "evil" should be simplified either. I guess my problem is it shouldn't be made more complicate then it is. That being it's as simple as this, the DESIRE to run from the light of truth or "distancing ourselves from listening..." as you put it.

Yeah, that's not my intent either. To discuss the viability of Christianity that is. I realize that it seemed I was going there but what I wanted to emphasize was that there is much correlation between the scriptures and the thoughts you were expressing. Not, repeat, NOT with "Christianity" You are right, religion has for all intense and purposes destroyed Christianity.

I believe if Christ walked into a typical "Christian" church today they would reject him and his doctrine. Unfortunately there are two types of Christians today... The few who actually analyze scripture seeking and testing for truth. And those who accept what others tell them it means thereby submitting themselves unto the dogmatic doctrines of men. On that note I would submit to you that it is those who approached Christianity like I have who are the true Christians and those who adhere to a strict, contradictory dogmatic approach are the false one. In my opinion they do not even understand the most basic of definitions scripture gives of God, that he is spirit and truth. Enough said, that's primarily why I didn't want to go there either.