How does one come to believe something?

[ScottA]

No. Such is your posts.

Alrighty then - Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Back at you!



This procedure of 'stripping away' is self-limiting... The fact is, there ARE encounters men and women have with the world beyond the physical, some divine, some demonical...

I don't think they do...I think that they think they do...but I don't think they actually do.

Philosophy enters into this world first with epistemology, which addresses issues of knowing the physical, and through that, knowing what to do about it [ethics]... And then goes on to address aesthetics, the emotional meaning of the known physical to man in it... There are huge mysteries moving throughout all these regions of understanding...



Did I write that??

Lol you sure did...are you surprised?

When God in my encounter with Him revealed Himself AS God, the following happened:

I'm not all that interested in how this made you feel. What I'm interested in is "how god revealed himself to you". Did he float down out of the clouds? Did he show up in a pancake one morning? How did he do it?

You only know, in this assessment, the epistemelogical duality of knowledge, where you, the subject, know this or that, the object of knowledge, and in a given context, a given statement is either true or not... There is another level of knowing that is analogized by the knowing of a wife by her husband, but is in fact entirely beyond that, which is the identity of the knower with the known. Knowledge of God is in that category, and because the uncreated God is known by the created man, the knowledge attained is exhaustive of the man, and entirely not exhaustive of God...

Do you have a comparable experience that would be something I could relate to?

 

[Arsenios]

I don't think they do...I think that they think they do...but I don't think they actually do. [eg encounter the world beyond the physical, some divine, some demonical...]

One place you can start is with the fact that not all of reality is physical, and simply going to the realm of non-physical reality can be disorienting for a physically limitational grasp of what is real... The issue of memory and emotional charges in memories alone will get one into all manner of cognitive disarray... And if you even go to the simple matter of the question: "What is self?" a whole Pandora's box yaws open into the cognitive abyss...

Lol you sure did...are you surprised?

Well, it just didn't sound like the way I would write, but had great kindred resonance nonetheless... I figured you may have paraphrased me from memory, or maybe I was really tired while posting...

I'm not all that interested in how this made you feel.

Neither am I... What I was showing you was a fundamental shift in cognitive orientation that has persisted 36 years and brings clarity and an ongoing Joy that defies external events...

What I'm interested in is "how God revealed himself to you".

I told you, but it didn't register, apparently... The answer is, He appeared noetically, by means of noetic apperception, in a manner that is apprehended inwardly, but transcends both inward and outward... Which should not be all that surprising, because God is transcendant... It was surprising to me, because I had encountered Him the prior two Christmases, and understood the first encounter to be between me and some deep level of self-awareness, and the second to be between me and a very aware whole universe... The perception of Him qua God was without form or color - He just "did" something that absolutely let me know in power that it was God Whom I was encountering - And up to that very minute, I did not even believe in God at all...

Did he float down out of the clouds? Did he show up in a pancake one morning? How did he do it?

It was an inward encounter that literally has no physically parallel referents...

Do you have a comparable experience that would be something I could relate to?

It was simply and radically "other"... And absolutely normal in a way that totally reversed every idea of normality that I had acquired up to that point... Up to then, I had a working Ayn Rand logical world that was unable to heal the woundedness of my soul... After that encounter, my whole Ayn Rand logical world understanding departed from me as a meaningful process - I could still "do" it, but it no longer meant anything even slightly important... I was walking in a way that found knowledge in identity with what is known... And where that knowledge is given, and not seized...

In a word, it was a radical, fundamental, whole-life self-transformation in the cognitive way of being... These days, some 36 years later, when I want to know something important, I simply ask inwardly, and then pay attention to what happens inwardly and outwardly, and it normally does not take all that long to know what is needed... Answers come in all manner of interesting ways... And NO answer is AN answer!

Back at ya!

Arsenios

 

[Ana the Ist]

One place you can start is with the fact that not all of reality is physical, and simply going to the realm of non-physical reality can be disorienting for a physically limitational grasp of what is real... The issue of memory and emotional charges in memories alone will get one into all manner of cognitive disarray... And if you even go to the simple matter of the question: "What is self?" a whole Pandora's box yaws open into the cognitive abyss...

I've pondered the meaning/existence of "self" and frankly...it's not as difficult to wrap your mind around as you paint it.

I'm not sure what your issue is with memory...but as for emotions, we could easily make you feel a wide range of emotions from utter bliss and contentment to suicidal depression by altering your brain chemistry. So those are definitely within the "realm of physical reality".

Well, it just didn't sound like the way I would write, but had great kindred resonance nonetheless... I figured you may have paraphrased me from memory, or maybe I was really tired while posting...

Actually, if you just go back and read what you wrote...you'll see it right there, word for word.

Neither am I... What I was showing you was a fundamental shift in cognitive orientation that has persisted 36 years and brings clarity and an ongoing Joy that defies external events...

An over long description of how you felt.

I told you, but it didn't register, apparently... The answer is, He appeared noetically, by means of noetic apperception, in a manner that is apprehended inwardly, but transcends both inward and outward...

So basically, he appeared in your mind.

Which should not be all that surprising, because God is transcendant... It was surprising to me, because I had encountered Him the prior two Christmases, and understood the first encounter to be between me and some deep level of self-awareness, and the second to be between me and a very aware whole universe... The perception of Him qua God was without form or color - He just "did" something that absolutely let me know in power that it was God Whom I was encountering - And up to that very minute, I did not even believe in God at all...

So again, he appeared in your mind. Do you understand why now I said your position requires a lot of imagination?

It was an inward encounter that literally has no physically parallel referents...

You don't need to say "inward encounter" when you can just say "I imagined this"....saying "inward encounter" may sound more elegant to you...but it amounts to the same thing.

It was simply and radically "other"... And absolutely normal in a way that totally reversed every idea of normality that I had acquired up to that point... Up to then, I had a working Ayn Rand logical world that was unable to heal the woundedness of my soul...

Well here we go...motivation. You believed that you needed something, so you created it in your mind.

After that encounter, my whole Ayn Rand logical world understanding departed from me as a meaningful process - I could still "do" it, but it no longer meant anything even slightly important... I was walking in a way that found knowledge in identity with what is known... And where that knowledge is given, and not seized...

In a word, it was a radical, fundamental, whole-life self-transformation in the cognitive way of being... These days, some 36 years later, when I want to know something important, I simply ask inwardly, and then pay attention to what happens inwardly and outwardly, and it normally does not take all that long to know what is needed... Answers come in all manner of interesting ways... And NO answer is AN answer!

Back at ya!

Arsenios

"No answer" is an answer? You've set remarkably low standards for a process you claim to hold in such high regard.

 

[Kylie]

The Christian God is falsifiable. All I would need to say that the Christian God did not exist, would be to die, and spend my time in Allah's hell.

Yeah, that's not how it works. You need to be able to communicate your results.

I was, but I wasn't claiming that I have a more recent text or primary source (from the past couple of months); only that the epistles written down by the apostles were primary sources.

But they weren't.

I can write a book today about the September 11 attacks. I can claim I was in New York and barely survived. That doesn't make them primary sources though, does it?

I'm aware of arguments made that support the claim that it's more likely than not that Jesus rose from the dead compared to theories such as mass hallucination, or how the disciples stole the body of Jesus.

Where's the actual evidence though?

Justice. Picture it this way, I murder ten people, but then I feel bad and I won't do it again. Then the police arrest me, and I'm executed, even though I wouldn't have done it again.

But by this logic, the police would have found you deserving of execution even if you had done nothing.

If Paul claimed he saw a man named Levi, who road on a horse, should I assert that he was hallucinating, or telling the truth?

Why are these the only options?

Remember, Paul didn't tell you he saw Levi. You read a book in which there is a text written by someone who claims Paul saw Levi. There are many ways that this could be explained other than truth or hallucination. Maybe the line was added in later. Maybe it's a translation error. Maybe it's just a story.

I'm inclined to believe Paul since I already believe in God for other reasons.

So you've decided that you already believe in God, so you believe Paul because it fits in with your pre-existing belief.

And then you count Paul as evidence for the belief in God, but the only reason you hold that Paul is correct is because it fits in with your pre existing belief.

That's like me saying a Harry Potter fanfic proves Harry Potter is real. I already believe Harry Potter is real, so I'm inclined to believe the fanfic is real as well. And since I believe the fanfic is real, it supports my belief in Harry Potter.

Jesus' Resurrection isn't something I have trouble accepting, and because of that, I treat Paul's experience as believable. It's as if he merely sees a man named Levi riding a horse. However, if I met someone today who claimed to meet Jesus on the street, I wouldn't believe that.

Why wouldn't you believe it? I suspect that you know it's because anyone who makes such a claim is obviously a nut. And yet you don't hold those same standards when it comes to ancient texts.

Why disbelieve that but not Paul, who claims to have met Jesus on a path somewhere?

Because doing that doesn't affect your life in the here-and-now.

If someone on the street today told you he was Jesus, then believing him would require you to make drastic changes to your life. Most people don't want to do that. But believing a book that tells stories about long ago, well, you were raised with that, so you've lived your life that way already. It doesn't require any change on your part.

It comes down to personal trust in one's sources. I trust that the bible contains accurate information regarding Jesus, and his followers.

Based on what evidence?

Similarly I put trust into the authorities who wrote books about American History; our government tends to agree with these books, and they are distributed to schools across America.

Of course, you have a lot more than just those books to go on, don't you?

Likewise, the orthodox body of believers from the past, act as an authority on the matters on what to trust, and we put trust in the bible.

Because, like the books about America's past, you have the actual relics they talk about, like Noah's ark... Oh wait, that was never found. But you have the Ark of the Covenant... Oh, wait, you don't have that either. But you have the other relics mentioned in the... Nope, don't have those either. But there are the chariots that Pharaoh and his army rode after the Israelites when they were flooded by the Red Sea... Nope. What about even the Egyptian records of their labor force just getting up and leaving? Nope. In fact, apart from the texts, you have nothing to support those claims - making the Bible VERY different from the books about America's past.

As a child, I would trust my parents if they told me something about the world. For example, "don't stick your fingers into the power-outlet or you'll get electrocuted." I had no way as a child to determine the actual truth of that besides putting my fingers into the power-outlet to test the claim. I chose to trust my parents, and to this day, I've never put my fingers into an electrical outlet. Please remember, I'm just trying to describe how I've come to beliefs, and why I continue to believe in things; and I think how I've come to believe may be similar to others. My descriptions however, aren't meant to be a rigorous argument for theism. As for Paul, there are some who'd say that his epistles are not scripture at all. So, maybe they wouldn’t mind saying Paul hallucinated.

Of course, it is easily demonstrated that sticking things into power points is dangerous...

To make the claim that the bible’s ”tales” are based on earlier myths and legends is a presumption. I haven’t found the arguments to be persuasive in regards to the bible being based off greek and Egyptian myths. I think that there is a great misunderstanding for people who assert such, since the original disciples were not pagans, but rather Torah-observant Jews who didn’t believe in pagan myths of either Greeks or Egyptians.

Nevertheless, the similarities are there.

I think it is not at all likely that the bible is a mere collection of something meant to be regarded as stories. It seems obvious to me that the Old Testament was regarded as a religious scripture, to be believed in as true, rather than a fictional work for entertainment purposes.

Of course you do. You believe that, and so your belief is preventing you from looking at it in an objective way.

There are certain guidelines listed in the book of Leviticus for example, in which very specific commands are prescribed which detail animal offerings, and sacrifices, and certain practices about the Sabbath. That understanding was present in the minds of Jews in the first century. They were religious people, regarding what we call the Old Testament, as sacred and truthful scripture.

Not going to argue that. But the fact that people back then had superstitious rituals they felt they needed to perform does not mean that they were actually required.

And anyway, why did God need all those sacrifices? What is it with all the killing of animals?

Likewise that belief was retained in the first century in the formation of the New Testament writings. The Epistles are meant to be letters to churches and individuals, not story books at all. Just look at the Epistle called, Philemon, it’s pretty short, and it’s really a letter about thanking people, and God, and a plea for a guy named Onesimus, as well as other kind warm words to brethren. How is that supposed to be a fictional narrative?

I could point at any of Aesop's fables, point out that they had a good moral behind them, then ask you how those stories are meant to be fictional narratives.

The New Testament canonization process itself implies that the NT texts weren’t meant to be regarded as mere entertainment. The Church went through many documents and struggled to find unity on what exactly was to be included in the NT, and what wasn’t. They didn’t do this just to make a story; the goal was to determine what would be authoritative in terms of truth, and what to believe in.

And what they could use to control people using this religion.

As for Harry Potter, sure, why not? We can both come up with ways to say lots of supposed fictional works are based on reality. However, I don’t personally don’t think I’d be compelled by arguments for Harry Potter’s existence.

So, again, you let your beliefs bias you. You believe that the Bible is accurate, so you won't be compelled by arguments against that position. You believe that Harry Potter is not real, and again, you won't be compelled by any arguments against that position.

Quite true. In saying that however, I didn’t intend on arguing that those beliefs were correct anyways!

My only point was that those beliefs they had, were indeed beliefs not to be regarded as fictional entertainment in their minds. The members of the Heaven’s Gate cult obviously believed in what they heard, they didn’t regard it as mere entertainment. My goal was to at least make a starting point because of the objection that goes along the lines of, “Well it was just a story book, and we shouldn’t really look deeper into that, the Christians today are just mistaken, and the original writers never meant for their story books to be taken as being true. No one was supposed to take the gospel literally.”

But you agree that it is entirely possible that stories created for entertainment/control of people can then be held to be completely true by other people, yes?

I don’t think they’d be inaccurate. Understanding the conditions involved in that era, it really isn’t surprising that we don’t have court-room stenographer’s type data from Jesus’ ministry. Paper and pen were not readily available to most people.

This is not an argument for their accuracy.

I think the implication it seems you are trying to make is this, “the first sources arose 15 years or more after Jesus’ ministry, and since that’s a long time after, we shouldn’t think they are accurate since the first sources ought to have been at least within the same time as Jesus’ ministry, if not immediately after his alleged resurrection.”

Human memory is incredibly fallable. If I asked you to write a detailed account of your life 15 years ago, how accurate would you be? Sure, you could probably do pretty well, because you get to look at photo albums, school reports, old accounts on Myspace, Livejournal and whatever else we had back then. But imagine you had none of that.

The reason that’s not likely is because saying new information popped up into existence 15 years after a 15 year old event leads us to think everything was fabricated in that information, as to say, “all of the sudden a book arose about Jesus, someone who no one knew, nor mentioned until this day which is 15 years after the events they describe”.

I don't follow. It's not like 15 years later, someone would have written a book, and every one at the time would have read it and said, hey, that's not true.

And even if they did, how would we know?

So, I’ll mention just two ways to look at our scenario. One, it was made up, everything was a mere story. Two, the reason we don’t have earlier documents is because they’ve been lost to time; and that’s perfectly understandable to me at least. So why should I think they are inaccurate?

Because there are many other ways to look at this scenario, which you seem to have ignored because they go against your pre-existing beliefs.

If I were to die, and be reincarnated several times as different animals, that would convince me that I won’t go to heaven and see God as described in the bible; the “me in Islamic hell” scenario would convince me as well.

Well, yes, that would work, but the trouble is that anyone who is in a position to know this is NOT in a position where they can spread the word about it.

On the other hand...

http://listverse.com/2014/12/30/10-claims-of-physical-evidence-for-reincarnation/
http://reluctant-messenger.com/reincarnation-proof.htm
http://www.collective-evolution.com...about-his-previous-life-as-a-woman-named-pam/

Not saying that I believe in reincarnation, but it seems that your position would require you to be able to explain why this sort of thing is impossible.

I also want the truth. However, remember that question in the OP. It’s about how one comes to believe in something. My goal has been in explaining that. I actually disagree with the OP. People come to beliefs in several different ways. I can give arguments for theism, I just haven’t done so explicitly in our exchange.

But you've also claimed that you will believe in something just because it agrees with something you already believe... I don't think that's a good way.

It’s quite relevant though. It’s about belief in other minds. I stand by the claim that one has no conclusive evidence that other minds exist. No observable behavior can be used, since that can be explained away as mere automaton-like illusion of living with a mind. You can’t say I’m dishonest in my belief, and you aren’t in your belief that other minds exist which has no evidence.

Like I said, I'd be happy to discuss this with you if you create a thread for it.

That’s subjective, depending on how we personally feel about something.

Really? You think that in the case of the existence of God, it wouldn't be amazing for everyone?

I think they are. In being charitable, one accepts claims, on the basis of trust in another’s words. Remember, I’m not talking about proving, but rather how one comes to belief, and that’s not even in a theistic sense.

That's a rather odd definition of charity...

 

[Kylie]

The evidence for Jesus is much more first hand...

It is found within you...

Or not...

Arsenios

Gut feelings are not evidence.

 

[Freodin]

Is that a revelation... or just a realization... or just a random though?
I have had this in mind for quite some time now...

Very often, when I hear or read people telling about their "revelation of God", I wish that the first thing that God revealed to people was a lection of "How to talk to people who don't believe." Obviously, he doesn't.

Or maybe the first thing he tells them is:"I reveal myself to whom I want. This is a personal thing. You cannot do anything to tell people about it... SO DON'T!" Obviously... well, there would be nothing obvious about it, would there?

The true "believers" would be those you don't hear from. They would be the nice, polite, loving people-next-door, that you would meet at church, or at the bar, or at the mosque, or at the soccer field, or at work, or on the street walking the dog.
One would never know they were "believers"... and one wouldn't care about it.

 

[ScottA]

I don't think they do...I think that they think they do...but I don't think they actually do.

You are wrong.

I have been there - and you don't know what you are talking about, and are simply guessing about what you don't know.

 

[Arsenios]

I've pondered the meaning/existence of "self" and frankly...it's not as difficult to wrap your mind around as you paint it.

Care to share?

I'm not sure what your issue is with memory...

It is easy to address these matters superficially, but I was addressing fundamental matters, and even the relationship of memory and self and emotions and their differences from the study of astronomy, cooking and bee-keeping... And all this for the sake of giving you an experiential parallel found in this world to that which "objectively" exists beyond our so called 'normal' experience...

but as for emotions, we could easily make you feel a wide range of emotions from utter bliss and contentment to suicidal depression by altering your brain chemistry. So those are definitely within the "realm of physical reality".

Not all respond to drugs the same way, and there are some whom you will find do not respond as you predict at all... And until you have traveled those inward pathways under such intrusions, you really have no experiential basis for your conclusions...

The 22 Coptic Christians beheaded on the beach in Lybia by radical Islamics from the outside were simply seen as living, being killed, and then dead... Their serenity and joy, much akin to your chemically manipulated emotional states, which carried them through their martyrdom, is not all that visible to most, as is the movement of the person in the chemically disoriented brain functions...

Actually, if you just go back and read what you wrote...you'll see it right there, word for word.

Oh I believe you! Which alters none of my facts, mind you!

An over long description of how you felt.

We will disagree on this one - A radical re-orientation of cognitive being is hardly the dumbed-down "over long description of my feelings." If you need to understand it that way, I can appreciate your words - For you regard anything "inward" as suspicious. I forgot to tell you that I had lived 36 years when that encounter happened. I am now 72, with 36 years of the fruits of that encounter attesting to what transpired... Joyful clarity for 36 years into old age is no small witness!

So basically, he appeared in your mind.

It was a non-material encounter noetically apprehended...

"He appeared in your mind" dumbs it down to jelly beans...

So again, he appeared in your mind.

Noetic perception is not only within the mind...

Do you understand why now I said your position requires a lot of imagination?

You do not have a basis in your experience to understand it any other way...

You cannot understand that encounter as being non-imaginative..

You don't need to say "inward encounter" when you can just say "I imagined this"....

I could do so and would in that action become a liar...

saying "inward encounter" may sound more elegant to you...

It is truthful - You have no idea how hateful to me is any lie...

but it amounts to the same thing.

In this you can only speak for your self...

Well here we go...motivation. You believed that you needed something, so you created it in your mind.

I already went through that explanation, and was corrected the second year...

"No answer" is an answer? You've set remarkably low standards for a process you claim to hold in such high regard.[/QUOTE]

This is only true in your revisionist understanding, and in that I agree with you...

Neither imagination nor emotional need caused the encounter I am describing...

It will remain above your cognitive paygrade until/unless you too have such an encounter...

I mean, it remained above mine exactly as it is now remaining for you...

Much less than one minute reversed a lifetime...

God Bless ya, Bro!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Gut feelings are not evidence.

You got that right...

"Within you" is not definitionally "gut feelings"...

It means noetic perception...

It means experientially perceived within you...

And from within you...

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you here and now...

You can enter it IF you purify your heart in repentance...

God will call you if that is what is best for you...

If not, then live well in truth and goodness...

You will do well if you do no ill...

Arsenios

 

[devolved]

You got that right...

"Within you" is not definitionally "gut feelings"...

It means noetic perception...

It means experientially perceived within you...

And from within you...

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you here and now...

You can enter it IF you purify your heart in repentance...

God will call you if that is what is best for you...

If not, then live will in truth and goodness...

You will do well if you do no ill...

Arsenios

I agree. All of that can be in your mind , but for it to exist in reality, you have to demonstrate where and how. If all of it is "within you", then you are pointing to something imaginary and asking other people to duplicate your own imagination of that thing within you.

 

[ScottA]

I agree. All of that can be in your mind , but for it to exist in reality, you have to demonstrate where and how. If all of it is "within you", then you are pointing to something imaginary and asking other people to duplicate your own imagination of that thing within you.

Your thought process is logical, but you have it backwards. The "reality" that you are referring to is what is actually imagined, i.e., "created in His image[ination]." Genesis 1:26

As hard as that is to follow, the seemingly inverted reality then, is properly described as "within" the imagined (manifest) subject. Luke 17:21 Much as you can imagine that by tracing a thought back to its source you would find the person who had the thought, by tracing the manifest world back to its source, you find God.

And that completes the proverbial OP question.

 

[ScottA]

Is that a revelation... or just a realization... or just a random though?
I have had this in mind for quite some time now...

Very often, when I hear or read people telling about their "revelation of God", I wish that the first thing that God revealed to people was a lection of "How to talk to people who don't believe." Obviously, he doesn't.

Or maybe the first thing he tells them is:"I reveal myself to whom I want. This is a personal thing. You cannot do anything to tell people about it... SO DON'T!" Obviously... well, there would be nothing obvious about it, would there?

The true "believers" would be those you don't hear from. They would be the nice, polite, loving people-next-door, that you would meet at church, or at the bar, or at the mosque, or at the soccer field, or at work, or on the street walking the dog.
One would never know they were "believers"... and one wouldn't care about it.

Actually....what we are told is that God has held even His own chosen people (His light placed upon a hill to lead all peoples of the world) in a type of blindness, until the times of all people are fulfilled. Meanwhile, we are also told to take the God news of His rescue to all people.

In other words, as He slowly reveals Himself in the world through revelations to His people, His people are carrying the message to all the people of the world. The would be frustration then, is so that not even last person would miss out.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Care to share?

The short version would be that the notion of "self" is a superficial and constantly changing idea which no one sees the same way.

It is easy to address these matters superficially, but I was addressing fundamental matters, and even the relationship of memory and self and emotions and their differences from the study of astronomy, cooking and bee-keeping... And all this for the sake of giving you an experiential parallel found in this world to that which "objectively" exists beyond our so called 'normal' experience...

Those are subjective things though...they literally change from subject to subject lol.

Not all respond to drugs the same way, and there are some whom you will find do not respond as you predict at all... And until you have traveled those inward pathways under such intrusions, you really have no experiential basis for your conclusions...

It's a fairly safe bet that heroin makes one feel good...regardless of your personal chemistry.

The 22 Coptic Christians beheaded on the beach in Lybia by radical Islamics from the outside were simply seen as living, being killed, and then dead... Their serenity and joy, much akin to your chemically manipulated emotional states, which carried them through their martyrdom, is not all that visible to most, as is the movement of the person in the chemically disoriented brain functions...

None of that makes any sense...would you like to rephrase?

Oh I believe you! Which alters none of my facts, mind you!

It was a nonsensical statement...much like the one you wrote above.

"as is the movement of the person in the chemically disoriented brain functions..."

You seem to have a habit of loading down your posts with this...word garbage? It doesn't make any kind of sense whatsoever. You would be wise to just leave it out of any further posts.

We will disagree on this one - A radical re-orientation of cognitive being is hardly the dumbed-down "over long description of my feelings." If you need to understand it that way, I can appreciate your words - For you regard anything "inward" as suspicious. I forgot to tell you that I had lived 36 years when that encounter happened. I am now 72, with 36 years of the fruits of that encounter attesting to what transpired... Joyful clarity for 36 years into old age is no small witness!

I think the way you write sounds more impressive to you and the feeble-minded. I've seen many many posters spew out similar mumbo jumbo so it doesn't impress me.

It was a non-material encounter noetically apprehended...

Do you know what those words mean?

Noetic, adj

"of, relating to, or based on the intellect"

So quite literally, this "encounter" is something that you thought up.

"He appeared in your mind" dumbs it down to jelly beans...

You kept using the word noetic.

Noetic perception is not only within the mind...

Mind, intellect, brain...it amounts to the same thing.

You do not have a basis in your experience to understand it any other way...

I think many people have imaginary friends when they are young.

You cannot understand that encounter as being non-imaginative..

That's an accurate word for an "encounter" that happens entirely in your mind.

I could do so and would in that action become a liar...



It is truthful - You have no idea how hateful to me is any lie...



In this you can only speak for your self...



I already went through that explanation, and was corrected the second year...

This is only true in your revisionist understanding, and in that I agree with you...

Neither imagination nor emotional need caused the encounter I am describing...

It will remain above your cognitive paygrade until/unless you too have such an encounter...

I mean, it remained above mine exactly as it is now remaining for you...

Much less than one minute reversed a lifetime...

God Bless ya, Bro!

Arsenios

The rest of this is the esoteric knowledge gambit which I referred to earlier. The sort of "I know something you don't know" equivalent of adults.

If you know something...share it. If you can't, it's reasonable to assume you know nothing.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You are wrong.

I have been there - and you don't know what you are talking about, and are simply guessing about what you don't know.

Lol thanks for your opinion...come back when you have some facts to share.

 

[Kylie]

You got that right...

"Within you" is not definitionally "gut feelings"...

It means noetic perception...

It means experientially perceived within you...

And from within you...

The Kingdom of Heaven is within you here and now...

You can enter it IF you purify your heart in repentance...

God will call you if that is what is best for you...

If not, then live will in truth and goodness...

You will do well if you do no ill...

Arsenios

So it's a gut feeling that your gut feeling isn't a gut feeling, but instead a message from God.

How do you determine the difference between the two when there is no way to test? And if someone has some feeling like this that leads them to believe in a different God, why don't you accept their claims?

 

[devolved]

Your thought process is logical, but you have it backwards. The "reality" that you are referring to is what is actually imagined, i.e., "created in His image[ination]." Genesis 1:26 As hard as that is to follow, the seemingly inverted reality then, is properly described as "within" the imagined (manifest) subject. Luke 17:21 Much as you can imagine that by tracing a thought back to its source you would find the person who had the thought, by tracing the manifest world back to its source, you find God.

Scott,

It is hard to follow, because your God seems to hide in the obscurity of your narrative that you seem to make purposefully confusing. That seems to be my general observation about a lot of things that you post.

Care to speak human language all of us can understand without re-defining concepts without telling us what exactly it is that you are talking about?

 

[Arsenios]

I agree. All of that can be in your mind , but for it to exist in reality, you have to demonstrate where and how. If all of it is "within you", then you are pointing to something imaginary and asking other people to duplicate your own imagination of that thing within you.

It is perceived noetically inwardly - It is not imagined at all...

I do not know if you have thought all that much about death, or have had brushes with it, but when you die your mental focus will withdraw from the world and will turn inward, and in that inward turning it will open for you, and your journey will begin from the end of here to eternity... Imagination is not a part of that process... Nor is it a part of any encounter with God, and if one in that encounter clings to imagination, the event will degrade...

And we NEVER ask ANY person to duplicate ANY imaginary process EVER...

I am speaking from the Ancient Faith of the Church of Antioch and all those in Communion with Her - The Eastern Orthodox perspective... We have been discipling this Faith for 2000 years now and counting...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So it's a gut feeling that your gut feeling isn't a gut feeling, but instead a message from God.

That statement is definitely a low rent rendezvous...

How do you determine the difference between the two when there is no way to test?

It is glaring - You might as well ask how to determine the difference between red and blue, and then deny the validity of eyesight and claim there is no way to test...

And if someone has some feeling like this that leads them to believe in a different God, why don't you accept their claims?

Because it is a feeling...

Arsenios

 

[devolved]

It is perceived noetically inwardly - It is not imagined at all...

Everything is perceived "noetically inwardly". There is no other way to perceive things other than than through intellectual process of the brain. So, I'm not sure why you attempt to make such distinction. In terms of our experience, it's a tautology.

I do not know if you have thought all that much about death, or have had brushes with it, but when you die your mental focus will withdraw from the world and will turn inward, and in that inward turning it will open for you, and your journey will begin from the end of here to eternity... Imagination is not a part of that process... Nor is it a part of any encounter with God, and if one in that encounter clings to imagination, the event will degrade...

Inward to what? In/out is a physical concept that denotes some separation of physical entities. For example, inside the house, or ouside the house. The context of "inside your own self" is merely conceptual idea that has to be imagined as to what exactly it is that you mean by it. There are no physical walls to "self" when it comes to our conscious perception. Conscious perception is a construct of the brain activity... hence it's our imagination of reality.

And we NEVER ask ANY person to duplicate ANY imaginary process EVER...

Yes you do. If you communicate ideas via concepts, then you are asking to do just that.

I am speaking from the Ancient Faith of the Church of Antioch and all those in Communion with Her - The Eastern Orthodox perspective... We have been discipling this Faith for 2000 years now and counting...

Yes, and you seem to follow certain Christian Mysticism traditions that like many other mystery religions in the past (think Kabbalah, or Buddhism) say a lot of meaningless or non-specific concepts in so many different words. It's a form of "abstract art" that people tend to fill with their own understanding and perception, and that's what you seem to be appealing to when you are not saying anything specifically by your meaning of "turning inward" to "experience noetically". What exactly do you mean by that?

BTW. I speak Russian too, among some, so if you think you could explain better in different language, feel free