What has happened to the God of love?

[_JAK]

You and I clearly define love differently. I would include "not killing" as part of the love. From passages in the the Old Testament, the god of the Old Testament evidently includes killing nonbelievers as part of love.

I'm not persuaded by the tortured mental gymnastics of believers who somehow have to accommodate the long list of commanded atrocities in the Old Testament. I seriously doubt a real god would have commanded these atrocities. Period. Consequently, I reject the diety claims of the Old Testament god.

I do not believe God commanded all the things the Israelites claimed he told them to do in the Old Testament. Too much sounds like an after the face justification, particularly in the Conquest of the Holy Land and the Time of the Judges.

Pay your money, take your pick.

That is, Nehor, you can believe anything you want. It does not need to be rational. It does not need to fit the facts. It requires no basis. Just believe what you wish.

You can make it up. If you’re less imaginative, you can rely on some doctrine or dogma. You can kill people. You can favor genocide (as God does as invented in the Old Testament). You can favor treating people with genuine respect and love -- just claim a God invented in another time favors it. ...Just anything you like, Nehor. Make it up as you go. Nevermind any thoughtful contradictions. Nevermind intellectual integrity.

It’s religion. Anything goes!

JAK

And I still say that Jesus was an alien!

And your evidence for this view is what?

JAK

[_The Nehor]

(In reference to a post by marg)

Nehor state:
I laughed when I read this. I'm accused by most people I know of having issues with being overly self-content and humorously arrogant. I'm curious how I exude low self-esteem here.

I would not presume to speak for marg. But failure to respond with straight-forward answers to questions and analysis strongly suggest “low self-esteem.”

I have set for you, Nehor, a variety of questions and analysis of your posts. You don’t quote me exactly in sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph context and respond.

Why? The options are few:
You cannot do it (lack the skill, lack the information or both)
You prefer to hide from view your thinking.
You cannot bring yourself to recognize that you are a product of indoctrination.

There may be others. But the fact is that you do not offer responses which have honest, clear expression. Instead, you evade. You make additional claims or repeat previously made claims for which you offer no support except that:you can’t know my experiences.

Well, TALK Articulate the “experience” and let’s look at it with an objective, clear eye.

JAK

I have articulated them before in posts with you and the objective, clear eye (by which I presume you mean your eye) always tells me I'm either insane, borderline retarded, an emotional basketcase, or a liar. Forgive me for not wanting to do it again. I note you still have not denied the association I made between you and people I know with mental diseases. Any particular reason?

[_JAK]

(Nehor’s response to marg on arrogance)

Nehor state:
Ohhh, ouch. If they were just claims I'd agree with you. The difference is I have the inside scoop on them. I know what they are, what they stem from, and have the memories to explain context.

I cannot think of a more clear expression of arrogance than this, Nehor. If you were informed in a superior way, you could articulate that information. You could offer detail for everyone to see, and you could do it with clarity and transparency.

But you cannot or do not. My view is you cannot. If you pretend that you could speak clearly but refuse to do that, you’re disingenuous.

Nehor state:
I would like to think if I had an inferiority complex I could come up with a better way of enhancing myself.

A large part of your problem is you “would like to think”. The trouble is that you don’t think. Instead you must resort to claims for which you can supply nothing of support.

To say that only you have had the experience and that no one else can know your experience is evasion.

Had you quoted me on the analysis of no distinction between emotion and spiritual and attempted to elucidate some distinction, you would at least have attempted to think.

Nehor state:
I don't think the things you've accused me of are beyond my capabilities, I know that they are. God does most of the work.

Ambiguous chatter. You have not established God. This is an evasion of your burden of proof. Your claims are irrelevant and not established. Claims absent evidence should be disregarded.

You did not address the “tooth fairy.” My pseudo claim for the tooth fairy is as invalid as your claim for God -- whatever that is from your perspective. Muslims claim God. Their claims are on a par with your claims. You present no evidence. Muslims present no evidence.

While you might accuse me of repeating myself, I am responding to your repetition of God claims. No evidence supports your vague claims. If evidence supported your claims, you would have presented it.

I asked you if you saw the Space Shuttle landing. (No response from you). The evidence for that accomplished fact is overwhelming along with the complete history of the particulars of human exploration of space beyond the earth’s surface.

The key to support of any claim is evidence.
Absent that, we have hot-air rhetoric -- meaningless.

Nehor state:
I just show up for the buffet.

This kind of comment is what earns you the label of irrational, mentally incompetent, foolish, AND a victim of superstition inherent in religion.

Nehor state:
The accusation of intellectual honesty doesn't really ring true since you are asking me to deny some of my experiences and favor the established consensus of the scientific community as the supreme method of discovering the way the world works.

What’s intellectually honest about your comment here? Nothing. No one is asking you “to deny...” We are asking you to explain. Thus far, you have failed. I linked your experiences with emotions. You offered nothing to refute that.

You did not answer the questions about your own behavior regarding the consultation of a doctor. Why see a doctor if (as you claim), you see God, talk to God, and, AND God talks to you?? A doctor seems superfluous.

While no one has asked you “to deny...experiences...”, you might want to re-visit your perceptions, how they occurred, at what age you were when they occurred, what your mental perceptions were when those experiences occurred.

That would be intellectual honesty on your part. I don’t think you are capable of that. You have given no evidence that you are capable of that. You just resort to vague claims which lack detail and transparency.

Established consensus has reliability. Your claims do not. Superior methodology lies in clear, transparent, tested venues. It does not lie in vague claims as yours have been thus far.

Unless you are able to refute science, your attack is without merit. Science explains in fact details of not only this little planet earth but of the larger universe. Religious myth explains nothing. Truth by assertion fails to explain.

Nehor state:
I can't do it, I've done enough experiments on my own to know what does and does not work.

Right, you “can’t do it.” Your “experiments on your (my) own...” are of no consequence or importance. Further, you refuse to detail your “experiments on your own...” And you are no scientist as you attempt to discredit science and its detailed, transparent information.

Again, notice and realize that I have quoted you verbatim and responded to your words in analysis. Should you wish to address the issues and analysis, you have the opportunity to quote me directly and address my remarks, Nehor.

JAK

[_JAK]

(gramps comment)

gramps state:
Nehor, noone is asking you to deny your experiences.

That’s correct.

gramps state:
I don't know about JAK. I do know that I have experienced "the power of the Holy Ghost" many times in my life, just as you have.

Nehor has articulated no detail nor have you. I’m skeptical.

No evidence for any entity of “Holy Ghost” invented around 300 CE under the auspices of Constintine the Great. It has been used in religious mythology by some Christians and has been demonstrated to be nothing more than emotions.

If you care to present clear, concise evidence for such an entity, we will watch for you articulation. Emotions are strong. People experience them (as well as some other animals). However, no evidence has been established for any entity “Holy Ghost.” In more recent religious myth, the phrase has been modified to read holy spirit. While a different term, there is no evidence to support that either.

What’s the difference between those who claim “Holy Ghost” and those who claim “holy spirit”? I should like to see a clear distinction. Such religious mythology is unreliable and unsupported by evidence, gramps.

gramps state:
You are clearly not ready to do so now, but maybe someday you can find, as I have, that there are a lot more sane and reasonable explanations for those experiences than the ones you have chosen (magic rocks, flying angels, gold plates, etc.).

Really? Let’s see your clarification and detailing of your claim here. You present nothing.

gramps state:
I really believe that if you take God out of the equation, even to experiment, you can see a myriad of other reasons for having those experiences and for how and why you have interpreted them to mean that the church is true.

Are you defending some God claim? I cannot tell from your statement. If so, let’s see the evidence. If not, to what “reasons”
do you make vague reference?

Christianity today had hundreds of “churches.” Each tends to claim that it is “true” to ancient Christianity. AND each is different as it distinguishes itself from other groups by name, practice, and emphasis on biblical scripts. So, “true” is ambiguous and subjective.

Let’s see your analysis on this, gramps. I refer to specific detail not vague, enigmatic, and obscure reference.

gramps state:
But to get there you have to have the balls to take off the Peter Priesthood suit, even just to experiment. You aren't there yet.

This is the kind of vague, obscure reference to which I refer. One can read into such a comment. It lacks clarity. Such a vulgar reference lacks clarity and hence lacks meaning.

gramps state:
I must say that I wished I would have had such helpful people on boards like this to point out these things back when I was struggling through this. You are quite lucky. It is sad, however, that you don't realize how much you are being offered.

I appreciate your observation here, gramps. My intent in analysis of your comment is to illicit greater specificity and detail from you. It is not my intention to do less than ask people to be precise, accurate, and clear in their comments and observations.

It is not my intention to be disagreeable with anyone who makes honest effort to communicate with directness and comprehensibility.

JAK

[_JAK]

Thanks to JAK and Nehor and Marg for this interesting discussion.

Nehor, noone is asking you to deny your experiences.

I don't know about JAK. I do know that I have experienced "the power of the Holy Ghost" many times in my life, just as you have. I left the church, but have never denied those experiences. It's scary to deny them, but you don't have to.

You are clearly not ready to do so now, but maybe someday you can find, as I have, that there are a lot more sane and reasonable explanations for those experiences than the ones you have chosen (magic rocks, flying angels, gold plates, etc.). I really believe that if you take God out of the equation, even to experiment, you can see a myriad of other reasons for having those experiences and for how and why you have interpreted them to mean that the church is true.

But to get there you have to have the balls to take off the Peter Priesthood suit, even just to experiment. You aren't there yet.

I must say that I wished I would have had such helpful people on boards like this to point out these things back when I was struggling through this. You are quite lucky. It is sad, however, that you don't realize how much you are being offered.

So far the offering consists of me being told I'm mentally challenged. However I also note JAK didn't deny anything when I made a comment that he reminds me of someone with certain mental problems. Strange that.

If I wanted out of the Gospel I don't really need a helping hand. I've left before. If I wanted to badly enough I could leave again. That would be when I left God out of the equation. Or tried to. It didn't work, none of what had happened made sense.

Nehor stated:
So far the offering consists of me being told I'm mentally challenged. However I also note JAK didn't deny anything when I made a comment that he reminds me of someone with certain mental problems. Strange that.

You’re not reading. You have been challenged to respond to analysis and questions regarding your position. You continue to evade the substance of challenge and question regarding your position/view.

You do not support your claims with anything but more claims. You do not address direct points addressed to your words as you are quoted exactly.

Nehor stated:
If I wanted out of the Gospel I don't really need a helping hand. I've left before. If I wanted to badly enough I could leave again. That would be when I left God out of the equation. Or tried to. It didn't work, none of what had happened made sense.

You keep asserting God. You provide no evidence for any such claim. Nor do you give detailed specifics -- only generalizations.

Your words demonstrate your complete indoctrination in some religious myth. I assume it’s Mormon. Is that the case? If so, you should recognize the historical position of the emergence of that religious group. It was in the 1800s CE. The denomination/group is a very, very late comer to the Protestant Reformation. J. Smith’s family was Methodist. So his inventions come out of the Protestant Reformation. And even Methodists (now United Methodist) are relatively late comers to the Protestant Reformation.

The earliest formal and historic Reformation individual was Martin Luther in 1517 CE. From that, more than 1,000 Protestant groups have developed, evolved, broken away, or been start-ups in a rejection of the complete package of either the Roman Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church.

I am skeptical that you know much history of Christian evolution.

gramps is correct; marg and I have offered you opportunity to think and to articulate with detail. You have refused or demonstrate that you are incapable of addressing issues, questions, and analysis.

JAK

[_JAK]

JAK is correct you do wish to keep your God notions from scrutiny. You have responded to him as a person would, who has something to hide. I remember when I read statements from the Book of Mormon witnesses I observed the same thing, lack of detail. When people are not forthcoming on detail of their experiences their claims do not ring true.

I don't think this is the case.

I have had spiritual experiences which, frankly, are too personal for me to feel comfortable sharing on a message board such as this.

In answer to JAK's earlier question, do I feel that my spiritual experiences were simply emotional responses? No, I do not.

Am I going to go into detail here as to why?

No. I may at a later time, but not in the guise of winning some sort of debate.

I don't think that you or JAK have any business insinuating that Nehor is a liar simply because he does not want to share his spiritual experiences in detail.

They are of a deeply personal nature, and frankly, difficult, if not impossible, to explain to someone who is closed-minded to the possibility that the experience could really exist in the first place.

liz stated:
I have had spiritual experiences which, frankly, are too personal for me to feel comfortable sharing on a message board such as this.

In answer to JAK's earlier question, do I feel that my spiritual experiences were simply emotional responses? No, I do not.

On a “message board” no one knows you beyond what you choose to reveal. How would you distinguish between “spiritual experiences” and emotional ones?

I remain skeptical that there is any difference. You assert difference, you don’t offer particulars. Absent evidence for anything “spiritual,” the claim should be regarded as unreliable.

liz stated:
Am I going to go into detail here as to why?

No. I may at a later time, but not in the guise of winning some sort of debate.

I don't think that you or JAK have any business insinuating that Nehor is a liar simply because he does not want to share his spiritual experiences in detail.

You don’t need to reveal a personal story to distinguish between what you classify as “spiritual experiences” and what you regard as emotional. That’s the issue and the question.

Can you quote directly? Nehor is non-responsive to questions and to analysis regarding his claims. I have detailed how that is the case. Whether Nehor is a “liar” (your word), inarticulate, ignorant, or something else is not the focus of the challenge. The challenge is for him (and you) to articulate a meaningful difference between a claim of “spiritual experience” and an emotional response.

Thus far, that has not been done. Absent clarification and absent any evidence for “spiritual” anything, emotions and emotional experience appear to be a correct analysis and understanding.

You have the opportunity to attempt a distinction.

liz stated:
They are of a deeply personal nature, and frankly, difficult, if not impossible, to explain to someone who is closed-minded to the possibility that the experience could really exist in the first place.

Emotions are “of a deeply personal nature.” What’s the difference?

Evidence clearly presented with transparent detail opens the mind. Hence, if you plan to make a credible case for “spiritual” the burden of proof is on you (and Nehor) to do that.

Again, distinguish between your claim “spiritual” and an understanding of human emotions through psychiatry/psychology.

JAK

[_moksha]

Nehor state:
I just show up for the buffet.

This kind of comment is what earns you the label of irrational, mentally incompetent, foolish, AND a victim of superstition inherent in religion.

Unless you know about the Parable of the Great Banguet of Jesus to which all are invited. Nehor is just expecting it to be buffet style. I liked his answer. Save me a spot at the table.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor state:
I just show up for the buffet.

This kind of comment is what earns you the label of irrational, mentally incompetent, foolish, AND a victim of superstition inherent in religion.

Unless you know about the Parable of the Great Banguet of Jesus to which all are invited. Nehor is just expecting it to be buffet style. I liked his answer. Save me a spot at the table.

I am expecting a buffet style meal when he invites us home. Be glad to save you a spot. I'm also planning on then designing an all-ocean planet and am going to create a wave that will go around the entire globe. I will then surf the whole ways. I plan to invite God to come and you also have an invitation.

[_The Nehor]

JAK, I CAN'T PROVE THAT WHAT I AM EXPERIENCING IS NOT EMOTION!!!! If you've never known spirituality of course you will lump everyone else's spiritual experiences as emotions because you HAVE NO BASIS FOR UNDERSTANDING THEM.

No, I will not quote you directly and respond to everything you say. I'm doing good if I read it all. After a while the whole 'God claims' and 'truth by assertions' all run together into a wild medley like Lucky Charms cereal marshmellows.

Herein follows evidence that God exists as requested:

I see dead people.

Okay, glad that is taken care of.

The reason I'm asking you if you have schizophrenia or Asperger's or some other mental problem is that in my experience many of those people seem unable to distinguish emotion and spiritual things at all, even the religious ones. Your evasion leads me to believe my guess is correct.

Now don't be evasive. Is it correct?

[_marg]

I have articulated them before in posts with you and the objective, clear eye (by which I presume you mean your eye) always tells me I'm either insane, borderline retarded, an emotional basketcase, or a liar. Forgive me for not wanting to do it again. I note you still have not denied the association I made between you and people I know with mental diseases. Any particular reason?

I read a good number of posts on this board. Granted I pick and choose, however I've never read you articulate with detail your experiences.

Link to me a post of yours in which you have.

This is why I said your response to JAK doesn't have a ring of truth. Saying what God what doesn't do is not articulating detail.

I observed the same when reading the 3 Book of Mormon witnesses' statements, they lacked detail. Detail of experience is a prime indicator that someone is likely telling the truth.