How does one distinguish a 'belief' from a delusion?

[razzelflabben]

Likewise... let's say we test a person who claims to be a Christian... but the test fails. We don't find the joy you are talking about. What does that mean?

It means 1 of two things either 1. the person who claims to be a Christian is one of religion only and not relationship, remember we talked about the difference and would need to test to know for sure or 2. the claim would be falsified and we would have to discard it as evidence of lie.

Like I said, your making this a lot harder than it really is.

 

[devolved]

It means 1 of two things either 1. the person who claims to be a Christian is one of religion only and not relationship, remember we talked about the difference and would need to test to know for sure or 2. the claim would be falsified and we would have to discard it as evidence of lie.

Like I said, your making this a lot harder than it really is.

How would you know which one is which?

 

[bhsmte]

How would you know which one is which?

Important question.

 

[razzelflabben]

How would you know which one is which?

Personally, I would talk to them to start out with, it is usually pretty easy to tell from the way people talk if they have a belief that is based on religion and teaching or on relationship. It's highly unlikely that a few well placed questions wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.

In fact, one of the first questions I ask most people I meet that profess Christ, is how they came to the saving knowledge they are boasting of...it's a real eye opening questions, weeds out a lot of people with just that one simple question.

Let me also add this...most religious groups have those that just claim the name and those that live it out, which is a bit different but similar enough to understand the concept being talked about.

 

[bhsmte]

Personally, I would talk to them to start out with, it is usually pretty easy to tell from the way people talk if they have a belief that is based on religion and teaching or on relationship. It's highly unlikely that a few well placed questions wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.

In fact, one of the first questions I ask most people I meet that profess Christ, is how they came to the saving knowledge they are boasting of...it's a real eye opening questions, weeds out a lot of people with just that one simple question.

And your personal judgement on this would be accurate?

 

[razzelflabben]

And your personal judgement on this would be accurate?

ah...do you really think it is hard to tell the difference between someone who says, "hey, yeah, I think I am Muslim" and a radical Islamist like we see in ISIS or Boko Harum? Would your personal judgement be sufficient when there is pretty clear evidence? What about if I claimed to be close friends of say the Pope and you asked me personal questions about the Pope to see if I had intimate knowledge that would be consistent with the relationship I am boasting of...would you be able to make a judgement call based on the answers, or would you insist on a panel of judges and a jury before you could say, "naw, I don't buy it based on your answers" or "wow, that is so cool, tell me if he likes bananas or strawberries on his ice cream"?

 

[devolved]

Personally, I would talk to them to start out with, it is usually pretty easy to tell from the way people talk if they have a belief that is based on religion and teaching or on relationship. It's highly unlikely that a few well placed questions wouldn't tell us what we wanted to know.

Lol. I see.

Thank you for participating.

You that plenty of Christians recite the correct answers , right? How can you tell the difference?

Just to demonstrate it... interview me and see if you can tell

 

[razzelflabben]

Lol. I see.

Thank you for participating.

Here is the thing that some of you all don't seem to get...it isn't hard to know if someone has a relationship with someone or not with a few well placed questions and to lol about the truth of that suggests that you came to this thread as a troll and not as a serious discussion participant.

It's okay, I just thought that you should know how your responses come across to that in the future, you have an opportunity to make yourself appear through your posts as a legitimate poster and not something much less flattering. Personally, doesn't matter to me if you laugh or not, I know by the lack of serious challenge I am right and that I most likely hit a nerve, which is kind of fun to watch....but I really don't think you want everyone reading your posts to automatically assume that you are a troll because of the way you post. Take it or leave it, it's just a friendly suggestion to help with your debating down the road.

 

[devolved]

Here is the thing that some of you all don't seem to get...it isn't hard to know if someone has a relationship with someone or not with a few well placed questions and to lol about the truth of that suggests that you came to this thread as a troll and not as a serious discussion participant.

1) I'm free to express as much emotion about your answers as I wish. Not so long ago you ridiculed my questions and answers about laughing about these with your son... so let's not be hypocritical

2) You seem to suggest that by merely asking questions you can tell who is really Christians and who is not... but you ignore that many Christians and religious people mimic and respond with ideal answers and scripture.

So how can you tell?

Again.. interview me and I'll show you that it's not something you can merely question... especially in a scope of delusional belief.

Secondly... you are not providing any objective means to tell the difference. You are saying "I can tell", but what if you are wrong about what you belief. You are merely guaging against your wrong presuppositions.

Hence.. lol.

 

[razzelflabben]

1) I'm free to express as much emotion about your answers as I wish. Not so long ago you ridiculed my questions and answers about laughing about these with your son... so let's not be hypocritical

I just said you had the right to express anything you wanted, in fact, my response was to show you what your posts sound like...secondly, I did not ridicule you or your questions, I said that you couldn't just continue to misrepresent people until you got a response you thought you could argue without sounding ridiculous....notice the difference between what I said and what you claim I said, this is more of that behavior that is against forum rules.

2) You seem to suggest that by merely asking questions you can tell who is really Christians and who is not... but you ignore that many Christians and religious people mimic and respond with ideal answers and scripture.

wow, so when do you respond to what I have said, I said that by asking a few well placed questions one could tell if a person claiming to be a christian is one of religion or relationship...your response is like saying that we can't tell the difference between someone who heard Obama speak on TV and someone who has a personal relationship with him simply by asking a few important questions...your denial of that is laughable.

So how can you tell?

Again.. interview me and I'll show you that it's not something you can merely question... especially in a scope of delusional belief.

well, since that is off topic, we can take it to PM, but you have my first question and I don't see you trying to answer it to make your point and challenge my claims...why would you not start out by answering the question to prove me wrong?

Secondly... you are not providing any objective means to tell the difference. You are saying "I can tell", but what if you are wrong about what you belief. You are merely guaging against your wrong presuppositions.

Hence.. lol.

I am saying that we all know that there is a difference between someone we listen to and someone we have a relationship with and it isn't hard to know the difference. Anyone who questions the truth of that is not being honest....we will leave it at that.

 

[devolved]

your response is like saying that we can't tell the difference between someone who heard Obama speak on TV and someone who has a personal relationship with him simply by asking a few important questions...your denial of that is laughable.

You are talking about God as though your experience of God is like your experience of a person, i.e. that you talk to them in person and they respond in person. I've talked to many Christians, and their definition of "personal relationship with God" is nothing like what we generally mean by personal relationship.

In personal relationship... we actually speak to people IN PERSON. In Christian "personal relationship", there's some talking through prayer and reading a book. Or talking through prayer and then interpreting some feeling, or thought, or situation as God's talking back. Hence the OP question. How do you know it's not a form of delusion?

So, when you are making an analogy about a Pope or Obama on TV vs knowing a person in a real life, any Christian's relationship with God is even more distant. They read a book, and then claim that the character in the book is talking back to them through some mysterious feelings. Again, relevant to the question of the OP.

Hence, the dishonest part of this conversation is the shroud of "personal relationship", the nature of which is never unpack or defined. What does that "personal relationship" look like?

What does that mean? Does that mean that you hang out with God in person on daily bases and ask him (it) questions face to face? If it's not, then it's nothing like a human personal relationship you are talking about.

Personal means "in person"... not through prayer, not through some feeling or thought that ascribed to the "Holy Spirit", not through mysterious circumstances that are attributed to God's doing.... it's actually means IN PERSON.

So, unless you are having a heart-to-heart discussion with God sitting across the coffee table from you, there's nothing personal about the relationship you are talking about. It's not much different than watching Obama on TV, and then claiming to know Obama "in spirit" of Obama.

Hence, that's why "lol" on my part, because in this analogy that's what you end up claiming to do - to know Obama personally without actually meeting Obama in person... and then judging whether someone knows Obama or not by asking "a few well-placed questions".

Thus, the question of the OP - how do you know it's not a delusion, if that's how you view "personal relationship"?

 

[amariselle]

You are talking about God as though your experience of God is like your experience of a person, i.e. that you talk to them in person and they respond in person. I've talked to many Christians, and their definition of "personal relationship with God" is nothing like what we generally mean by personal relationship.

In personal relationship... we actually speak to people IN PERSON. In Christian "personal relationship", there's some talking through prayer and reading a book. Or talking through prayer and then interpreting some feeling, or thought, or situation as God's talking back. Hence the OP question. How do you know it's not a form of delusion?

So, when you are making an analogy about a Pope or Obama on TV vs knowing a person in a real life, any Christian's relationship with God is even more distant. They read a book, and then claim that the character in the book is talking back to them through some mysterious feelings. Again, relevant to the question of the OP.

Hence, the dishonest part of this conversation is the shroud of "personal relationship", the nature of which is never unpack or defined. What does that "personal relationship" look like?

What does that mean? Does that mean that you hang out with God in person on daily bases and ask him (it) questions face to face? If it's not, then it's nothing like a human personal relationship you are talking about.

Personal means "in person"... not through prayer, not through some feeling or thought that ascribed to the "Holy Spirit", not through mysterious circumstances that are attributed to God's doing.... it's actually means IN PERSON.

So, unless you are having a heart-to-heart discussion with God sitting across the coffee table from you, there's nothing personal about the relationship you are talking about. It's not much different than watching Obama on TV, and then claiming to know Obama "in spirit" of Obama.

Hence, that's why "lol" on my part, because in this analogy that's what you end up claiming to do - to know Obama personally without actually meeting Obama in person... and then judging whether someone knows Obama or not by asking "a few well-placed questions".

Thus, the question of the OP - how do you know it's not a delusion, if that's how you view "personal relationship"?

If you believe all of this, then you have definitely misunderstood what a "personal relationship" with Christ truly is.

 

[devolved]

If you believe all of this, then you have definitely misunderstood what a "personal relationship" with Christ truly is.

The problem is precisely with subjective nature of that phrase that means a 1000 things to a 1000 people. I've actually met plenty of pastors and theologians that detest the phrase because it's an empty container that one fills with their own imagination...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le...al-jesus-is-language-of-personal.html?start=2

 

[amariselle]

The problem is precisely with subjective nature of that phrase that means a 1000 things to a 1000 people. I've actually met plenty of pastors and theologians that detest the phrase because it's an empty container that one fills with their own imagination...

http://www.christianitytoday.com/le...al-jesus-is-language-of-personal.html?start=2

And yet, it has clearly meant everything to millions of people. I'd hardly call it an "empty container."

 

[devolved]

And yet, it has clearly meant everything to millions of people. I'd hardly call it an "empty container."

By "empty container" I merely mean that it has no consistent meaning when people describe what it is like. They fill that empty container with their own meaning, and it means different things to different people... hence it's very difficult to pin down the semantics.

Some Christians say that it's about praying and then God talking back through Bible. Other are saying that it's not about Bible, but about speaking in tongues and feeling the fire of the Holy Spirit coming down on them. The other will say that it's about feeling constant presence of God in their lives... etc, etc.

The semantics is always shifting, and the personal part seems to be the personal interpretation of the experience.

But, what I was actually replying to what you have quoted... is the claim that one personally knows God in the same way that one personally knows Obama, which is certainly false. Two are not the same even remotely.

 

[amariselle]

By "empty container" I merely mean that it has no consistent meaning when people describe what it is like. They fill that empty container with their own meaning, and it means different things to different people... hence it's very difficult to pin down the semantics.

Some Christians say that it's about praying and then God talking back through Bible. Other are saying that it's not about Bible, but about speaking in tongues and feeling the fire of the Holy Spirit coming down on them. The other will say that it's about feeling constant presence of God in their lives... etc, etc.

The semantics is always shifting, and the personal part seems to be the personal interpretation of the experience.

But, what I was actually replying to what you have quoted... is the claim that one personally knows God in the same way that one personally knows Obama, which is certainly false. Two are not the same even remotely.

Of course they're not. Jesus is God, Obama isn't.

 

[razzelflabben]

You are talking about God as though your experience of God is like your experience of a person, i.e. that you talk to them in person and they respond in person. I've talked to many Christians, and their definition of "personal relationship with God" is nothing like what we generally mean by personal relationship.

In personal relationship... we actually speak to people IN PERSON. In Christian "personal relationship", there's some talking through prayer and reading a book. Or talking through prayer and then interpreting some feeling, or thought, or situation as God's talking back. Hence the OP question. How do you know it's not a form of delusion?

see the entire discussion, it was all laid out many times over. As to the conversation. Look at it this way, when our son was in the military, we had to wait to have a call from him. Thus, even though we had a personal relationship, communication was through emails, letters etc. YOu know like what you describe above with God...opps, I guess that real life examples just got in the way of your objections...in addition, we have a spirit/soul that does communicate with God and we know it isn't just our thoughts because it does not originate from the mind but from the spirit/soul and echoes through the entire being.

Now, one more thing before we move on, as I said, the first question I usually ask to know the difference is how you came to Christ, iow's how were you introduced so that a relationship could exist? None of you who want to try to prove me wrong have been willing to show me wrong by answering the first question I use to determine, the question that must be asked is why? Why, if you want to prove me wrong do you refuse to play the game and answer the first question I ask to determine and see how well you can "fool" the question? Ah well, it is much easier to just criticize an idea than to actually put some effort into showing you have some real challenge to offer.

So, when you are making an analogy about a Pope or Obama on TV vs knowing a person in a real life, any Christian's relationship with God is even more distant. They read a book, and then claim that the character in the book is talking back to them through some mysterious feelings. Again, relevant to the question of the OP.

nope, but then again, real life shows your argument wrong and you don't seem to be accepting of that either.

Hence, the dishonest part of this conversation is the shroud of "personal relationship", the nature of which is never unpack or defined. What does that "personal relationship" look like?

if you want to challenge the claim, answer the first question that I ask to know the difference, feel free to lie all you want to prove that the system can be tricked...this will be entertaining at the very least and prove my point at the same time.

What does that mean? Does that mean that you hang out with God in person on daily bases and ask him (it) questions face to face? If it's not, then it's nothing like a human personal relationship you are talking about.

it is exactly what I am saying. Now, before you twist that into something I didn't say, I am NOT saying that I see His face or hear His voice in my fleshly ears because God is spirit and thus communes with our spirits, but it is none the less as face to face encounter with dialogue and all and anyone who has had the experience knows....but alas this is the problem with your objection, only those that have had the experience know what they are looking for in the answers because everyone else, like you are doing here, try to inflate it into something not said and not believed so that you all feel justified to mock what is not understood. Talking about everyone who refuses to hear what is being said and twists it into what it is not to justify some non sense about insanity when the claim has nothing insane built into it and one can only get to that point through a twisting of the claim.

Personal means "in person"... not through prayer, not through some feeling or thought that ascribed to the "Holy Spirit", not through mysterious circumstances that are attributed to God's doing.... it's actually means IN PERSON.

now, let's break this down just a bit...prayer is a place of fellowship, that is what it means. IOW's prayer is the word used for being in fellowship or in the presence of the living God, so yes, person to person is happening when we pray, that is what that means. The problem is that many people only talk to themselves when they pray thus the word meaning is warped into something new.

Number 2...feelings and thoughts are the anti of everything I have said and if you actually look at what I have said you will know that I have no use for "feelings and thoughts" when it comes to a real relationship with anyone but especially God. In fact, I personally rely on more than feelings and thoughts in every relationship including God. Unfortunately I am so much so this way that it has caused some family issues because I refuse to live in emotions or made up thoughts of what should or should not be.

As to the HOLY SPIRIT, that is one of the "branches" of the trinity, thus God's personal dwelling on earth at the present time.

I don't even know what you mean by "mysterious circumstances that are attributed to God's doing"...seriously, I don't even know what this is suppose to mean. I do not nor have I ever attributed everything to God nor will I ever do so. In fact, earlier in this thread I talked about how I refuse the arguments that attribute everything blindly to God, you know, like the old tired blind faith or God of the gaps. These arguments disturb me to my core and actually turn my stomach, which is a fun way of saying they make me sick and I have absolutely no use for them and will argue against them and call people out who try to use them as you are doing here. If you want to challenge me, don't slander me or my ideas with this type of non sense.

So, unless you are having a heart-to-heart discussion with God sitting across the coffee table from you, there's nothing personal about the relationship you are talking about. It's not much different than watching Obama on TV, and then claiming to know Obama "in spirit" of Obama.

Actually, my heart to heart is in my spirit/soul and I am sure you have heard that but as I said, if you have never experienced it, it makes no sense to your mind because your spirit/soul is still dead and thus cannot comprehend what your mind never knew in the first place. That being said, that is exactly why it is so easy to tell those who have a religious belief from those that have a relationship, cause those that are still dead in their spirit/soul cannot understand what is missing thus cannot imitate what they never knew. It is a difference however that is very distinct and obvious to the one seeking truth not justification.

Hence, that's why "lol" on my part, because in this analogy that's what you end up claiming to do - to know Obama personally without actually meeting Obama in person... and then judging whether someone knows Obama or not by asking "a few well-placed questions".

see above

Thus, the question of the OP - how do you know it's not a delusion, if that's how you view "personal relationship"?

by testing, just like I said and laid out here...whether you understand it or not, it isn't that hard a concept

 

[razzelflabben]

By "empty container" I merely mean that it has no consistent meaning when people describe what it is like. They fill that empty container with their own meaning, and it means different things to different people... hence it's very difficult to pin down the semantics.

let's touch base (nothing more or we are off topic again) these claims...in order to understand what a personal relationship is from the standpoint of truth, we go to the source and see what scripture says. Again, testing the source for truth not individuals making claims.

So, scripture tells us that a personal relationship affects the whole man not just the emotions or thoughts. So, if there is no evidence of the whole man being affected then it is most likely 1. the man in question is lying to us or 2. we have a falsification. Unfortunately on this one, finding even one person that fits what scripture says is evidence since finding no one would be falsification. It's a bit backward, but the only way to test this particular thing. Thus, more than semantics. The three parts of man according to scripture btw is the mind, body, and soul. Three different parts, all three affected by a relationship, only 1 or 2 affected without relationship.

Some Christians say that it's about praying and then God talking back through Bible.

scripture tells us that prayer is a place of fellowship with God, most people, sadly even those in the church are taught that prayer is just telling God what we want to happen and hoping that He will give us our desires. This teaching that prayer is telling God what we want is evidence of religion and not relationship. I could go on, I have an entire in depth study from scripture about what prayer is, but this isn't the place...as to God talking back. Sure, scripture is God's "letter" to us, but He also talks to us in a variety of other ways and I have yet to meet a believer that doesn't know this. He talks to our spirit/soul, through others, scripture, songs, etc. You know, like the multiple means of communication we have today.

Other are saying that it's not about Bible, but about speaking in tongues and feeling the fire of the Holy Spirit coming down on them. The other will say that it's about feeling constant presence of God in their lives... etc, etc.

Now, this gets a bit more tricky, but isn't as hard to distinguish as we might think. Scripture tells us two important things about this "manifestation" that many seek. 1. it can be manipulated by demons, even false teachers will be able to mimic these signs and 2. to test these things to know if they are from God or from demonic/false teachers. There are several ways to test, but just to give you and example, we have a friend who became demon possessed by the "gift of tongues" that was from false teachers not from God. That is NOT to say that there isn't a HS tongues, only to say that scripture makes distinctions and tells us to test to know which ones are real and which are delusion...hum...testing is coming up again, this time in scripture....how could that be?

The semantics is always shifting, and the personal part seems to be the personal interpretation of the experience.

if all you do is listen to man, then it is semantics and experiential, but if you test and seek truth, you find something very different and amazing.

But, what I was actually replying to what you have quoted... is the claim that one personally knows God in the same way that one personally knows Obama, which is certainly false. Two are not the same even remotely.

They are different, because in a personal relationship with God, God dwells within whereas Obama dwells without...but the testing is very similar, slightly different, but similar....again, you are free and encouraged to challenge my claim by answering a few questions, starting with how did you come to the saving knowledge of Christ? It will be a fun experiment and will challenge my claim where this back and forth does nothing but show you don't get what is being said.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

what questions?

Try the question I asked in #167 - "Can you give an example of such a test that you've done (or point me to it if you've already posted one) ? ", and "How do you know that no people who do not live in the HS have Love?"

It's really not as hard a concept as you are trying to make it.

I'm not trying to make it hard, I'm trying to find some logical justification for your claims.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Try the question I asked in #167 - "Can you give an example of such a test that you've done (or point me to it if you've already posted one) ? ", and "How do you know that no people who do not live in the HS have Love?"

I'm not trying to make it hard, I'm trying to find some logical justification for your claims.

I think the OP really should have been "How do you convince others that your belief isn't a delusion?"

Because there's countless cases of people with delusions justifying those erroneous beliefs with internally consistent "tests". The either reject evidence to the contrary outright or are able to adapt their tests on the fly to include the contrary evidence as positive evidence. It's like arguing with a moving target.

So the answer to the OP, for those who are deluded, is often, "I've proven that my beliefs aren't delusions (to myself), and nothing you present to the contrary will affect that."