Who Speaks?

[anonymous person]

Ah, OK. So you just know.

Interestingly, studies show that - despite the superficial similarities - children understand their invisible friends to be 'pretend', but understand God to be real. Whether this is because they are given external authority for God, or whether there is some neurological connection (e.g. shared neural pathways) remains to be discovered; neuroscience now has the capability to determine whether the same neural mechanisms are at work in both cases, and how they compare with such belief in adults. Perhaps we will soon know more...

I suggest a better way. If you want to know the truth, you don't have to wait for the publication of the findings of neuroscientists. God loves you and wants you to experience the joy and peace and assurance and hope that will sustain you as you go through life. He wants the best for you and is able to bring it about if that is what you want. Read the gospels as if God were speaking directly to you, and find yourself in what they say. In Christ, you will find the answers you seek.

 

[HitchSlap]

I suggest a better way. If you want to know the truth, you don't have to wait for the publication of the findings of neuroscientists. God loves you and wants you to experience the joy and peace and assurance and hope that will sustain you as you go through life. He wants the best for you and is able to bring it about if that is what you want. Read the gospels as if God were speaking directly to you, and find yourself in what they say. In Christ, you will find the answers you seek.

Do you find this to be an effective way to communicate with others?

 

[The Cadet]

I suggest a better way. If you want to know the truth, you don't have to wait for the publication of the findings of neuroscientists. God loves you and wants you to experience the joy and peace and assurance and hope that will sustain you as you go through life. He wants the best for you and is able to bring it about if that is what you want. Read the gospels as if God were speaking directly to you, and find yourself in what they say. In Christ, you will find the answers you seek.

This is particularly helpful for all the ex-christians who did exactly this and never had God speak to them.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I suggest a better way. If you want to know the truth, you don't have to wait for the publication of the findings of neuroscientists. God loves you and wants you to experience the joy and peace and assurance and hope that will sustain you as you go through life. He wants the best for you and is able to bring it about if that is what you want. Read the gospels as if God were speaking directly to you, and find yourself in what they say. In Christ, you will find the answers you seek.

I detect a subtle undertone of anti-intellectualism in this proselytism pie.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I suggest a better way. If you want to know the truth, you don't have to wait for the publication of the findings of neuroscientists. God loves you and wants you to experience the joy and peace and assurance and hope that will sustain you as you go through life. He wants the best for you and is able to bring it about if that is what you want. Read the gospels as if God were speaking directly to you, and find yourself in what they say. In Christ, you will find the answers you seek.

I'm afraid the gospels, however you read them, say nothing about the neural correlates of belief in God; as such, they don't contain the answers I seek (nor do I find myself in what they say).

As far as the joy and peace and assurance and hope that sustains me as I go through life (which, incidentally, is an off-topic red-herring), I gained most of that after I left the purview of the Christian church that stifled my early years. I don't hold it against them - to paraphrase someone, they knew not what they did

 

[anonymous person]

I'm afraid the gospels, however you read them, say nothing about the neural correlates of belief in God; as such, they don't contain the answers I seek (nor do I find myself in what they say).

You're right, the gospels don't give accounts of neural correlates of belief in God.

They do however, give accounts of the teaching that life is more than food and the body is more than clothing. That there is a way we should live and this way is determined by the One who caused us to be. They give us accounts of people dealing with issues common to all. Life, death, forgiveness, how to relate to one's neighbor, etc.

As far as the joy and peace and assurance and hope that sustains me as I go through life (which, incidentally, is an off-topic red-herring), I gained most of that after I left the purview of the Christian church that stifled my early years. I don't hold it against them - to paraphrase someone, they knew not what they did

I don't really know what you mean when you say the Christian Church stifled your early years. Could you elaborate?

 

[Locutus]

I would trust the Word of God that was written for thousands of years before I was even born and the experience and testimony of countless people past and present, along with my own past experience, more than some apparition that just popped up out of nowhere that only I can see and who only told that to just me. My first thought would be that that is NOT God.

so poor old Jesus hasn't got a hope, if he ever does return.

 

[Locutus]

Ah, OK. So you just know.

Interestingly, studies show that - despite the superficial similarities - children understand their invisible friends to be 'pretend', but understand God to be real. Whether this is because they are given external authority for God, or whether there is some neurological connection (e.g. shared neural pathways) remains to be discovered; neuroscience now has the capability to determine whether the same neural mechanisms are at work in both cases, and how they compare with such belief in adults. Perhaps we will soon know more...

That's an easy one. Imaginary friends are rarely validated. Or are validated in a very conditional way. If everyone and everything around you validates 'god', you'll most likely take it seriously. But yes, the mechanisms are the same.

 

[Locutus]

Read the gospels as if God were speaking directly to you, and find yourself in what they say. In Christ, you will find the answers you seek.

So in order to believe, you have to first believe.

Quite apart from that absurdity, such an approach is about the worst possible for gleaning merit. If the thing is meritorious, it will be clear and patent even to the entirely detached and clinical reader.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

You're right, the gospels don't give accounts of neural correlates of belief in God.

They do however, give accounts of the teaching that life is more than food and the body is more than clothing. That there is a way we should live and this way is determined by the One who caused us to be. They give us accounts of people dealing with issues common to all. Life, death, forgiveness, how to relate to one's neighbor, etc.

When I was younger, if I had a problem, I would go to the Bible. My version had a helpful list matching scripture to common problems, so I would go to the recommended verses, read them, ponder them at length, and then eventually realise that the Bible didn't have the answers. I would have to find another way of solving whatever problem I was experiencing. So I sought help from sources better equipped to offer assistance or advice specific to the situation.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

They do however, give accounts of the teaching that life is more than food and the body is more than clothing. That there is a way we should live and this way is determined by the One who caused us to be. They give us accounts of people dealing with issues common to all. Life, death, forgiveness, how to relate to one's neighbor, etc.

We don't need bible stories for that (although they may give useful perspectives in some areas).

I don't really know what you mean when you say the Christian Church stifled your early years. Could you elaborate?

At first, I found the seemingly arbitrary obligations and constraints on my physical activities stifling (restrictive) compared to non-religious friends. By my teens, I found the intellectual environment to do with questions of ethics, morals, religious beliefs, general metaphysics, etc., stifling - some things couldn't be questioned, some couldn't be discussed, and some either couldn't be explained or the explanations were incoherent or irrational. Fortunately, my parents felt their responsibility for my religious development was over by the time I was about 14 or 15, so I only had school to deal with in that context. Equally fortunately, although it was an abbey school run by Dominican monks, religion did not intrude on the arts and sciences curriculum.

 

[anonymous person]

When I was younger, if I had a problem, I would go to the Bible. My version had a helpful list matching scripture to common problems, so I would go to the recommended verses, read them, ponder them at length, and then eventually realise that the Bible didn't have the answers. I would have to find another way of solving whatever problem I was experiencing. So I sought help from sources better equipped to offer assistance or advice specific to the situation.

I would imagine you would if that is how you used it.

 

[anonymous person]

At first, I found the seemingly arbitrary obligations and constraints on my physical activities

What physical activities specifically?

stifling (restrictive) compared to non-religious friends.

Seems you are comparing apples with oranges.

You compare obligations/restraints with friends. I think what you mean to say is that you found Christianity as a worldview, to be more restrictive than the worldviews of your non-religious friends when it came specifically to what you could do with your body. A point which I would agree with.

Do you have something against obligations and restraints in general? Or is your qualm specifically with those obligations one finds in the Christian faith?

By my teens, I found the intellectual environment to do with questions of ethics, morals, religious beliefs, general metaphysics, etc., stifling - some things couldn't be questioned, some couldn't be discussed, and some either couldn't be explained or the explanations were incoherent or irrational.

If that is the case, then to say it was stifling would be putting it mildly.

I have never been in a place where two or more are gathered in His name and people were forbidden from asking questions or were forbidden from discussing certain issues. Nor have I been in such a place where explanations given were incoherent and irrational.

Seems to me your perception of the church is based on something that is not really the church at all.

Fortunately, my parents felt their responsibility for my religious development was over by the time I was about 14 or 15, so I only had school to deal with in that context. Equally fortunately, although it was an abbey school run by Dominican monks, religion did not intrude on the arts and sciences curriculum.

This is what I usually find to be the case. A person rejects Christianity based on their perception of it and the world during that time of their life when they are first getting a sense of independence and freedom and at a time when they are pretty certain they know everything there is to know about everything under the sun. The fact that they see their friends having fun definitely encourages this moving away from "stifling" old-fashioned notions.

And the parents who think they are somehow no longer obligated or responsible for their children's spiritual development just because they have become adolescents, far from doing their children a service, do them a great disservice. One that will play no small part in their journey into adulthood.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What physical activities specifically?

Just generally - where I could go, when I could go there, what I was permitted to do there, what I wasn't permitted to do; what I must do, where I must do it, when I must do it. These were specifically religious restrictions and obligations on top of normative social ones.

Seems you are comparing apples with oranges.

In what way? I'm comparing my perception of my religious upbringing with my perception of non-religious upbringing I encountered.

I think what you mean to say is that you found Christianity as a worldview, to be more restrictive than the worldviews of your non-religious friends when it came specifically to what you could do with your body. A point which I would agree with.

I didn't mean to say anything about 'Christianity as a worldview'. I meant to say how I perceived the religious constraints and obligations of my childhood.

Do you have something against obligations and restraints in general?

Not at all.

Or is your qualm specifically with those obligations one finds in the Christian faith?

I have no qualms about them now and had no qualms about them then - I simply found them stifling.

I have never been in a place where two or more are gathered in His name and people were forbidden from asking questions or were forbidden from discussing certain issues.

I didn't say they were forbidden, they just wouldn't get a productive response.

Nor have I been in such a place where explanations given were incoherent and irrational.

Really? I've seen quite a few incoherent or irrational explanations in this very forum...

Seems to me your perception of the church is based on something that is not really the church at all.

My perception of the church itself wasn't the issue, it was my perception of the influence of what they called the church on my life.

This is what I usually find to be the case. A person rejects Christianity based on their perception of it and the world during that time of their life when they are first getting a sense of independence and freedom and at a time when they are pretty certain they know everything there is to know about everything under the sun. The fact that they see their friends having fun definitely encourages this moving away from "stifling" old-fashioned notions.

From my perspective, I didn't so much reject it as cease participating; I had simply been going through the motions, doing as instructed. It did nothing for me, and as soon as I was no longer obliged to continue, I stopped. It simply wasn't relevant or useful; I didn't have a religious belief to reject. This is partly why I'm interested in how and why other people have or gain religious beliefs - for me it didn't 'take'. This was also the case for many of my school friends, though a few did carry on with it.

And the parents who think they are somehow no longer obligated or responsible for their children's spiritual development just because they have become adolescents, far from doing their children a service, do them a great disservice. One that will play no small part in their journey into adulthood.

I'm extremely grateful to my parents for their open-mindedness in allowing me to make my own decisions when I was old enough to be able explain the reasons behind them. They continued to contribute to my moral and spiritual development in a non-religious sense, by the example they provided.

 

[Locutus]

Do you have something against obligations and restraints in general? Or is your qualm specifically with those obligations one finds in the Christian faith?

I have never been in a place where two or more are gathered in His name and people were forbidden from asking questions or were forbidden from discussing certain issues. Nor have I been in such a place where explanations given were incoherent and irrational.

And the parents who think they are somehow no longer obligated or responsible for their children's spiritual development just because they have become adolescents, far from doing their children a service, do them a great disservice. One that will play no small part in their journey into adulthood.

Not posted to me, but I want to respond.

1) the obligations and restrictions seen in ultra conservative religious families are not wholesome. they are puerile and trivial, and focused on sex. smutty and infantile mostly.

2) I actually laughed out loud at this. I've never yet come across a (protestant) place where two or more are gathered in His name and questions weren't forbidden. In fact, pastors have been the very worst. And I've spent about 30 years asking questions - both in churches and out.

3) A disservice? To encourage your kids to think for themselves? Wow.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have never been in a place where two or more are gathered in His name and people were forbidden from asking questions or were forbidden from discussing certain issues. Nor have I been in such a place where explanations given were incoherent and irrational.

Seems to me your perception of the church is based on something that is not really the church at all.

Seems to me that her description is spot on.

This is what I usually find to be the case. A person rejects Christianity based on their perception of it and the world during that time of their life when they are first getting a sense of independence and freedom and at a time when they are pretty certain they know everything there is to know about everything under the sun.

I don't think FrumiousBandersnatch implied that she rejected Christianity at a time when she thought that she "knew everything." In my experience, the erosion of my faith happened as I was becoming more accustomed to admitting the opposite: that I don't know everything. I was most devout during my teenage years.

And the parents who think they are somehow no longer obligated or responsible for their children's spiritual development just because they have become adolescents, far from doing their children a service, do them a great disservice. One that will play no small part in their journey into adulthood.

What does this supposed responsibility entail?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't think FrumiousBandersnatch implied that she rejected Christianity at a time when she thought that she "knew everything."

Yes; it wasn't that I (btw I'm male) 'knew better', it was just that it didn't work for me. Early on, I liked the robes, the incense, the hymns & carols, and the impressive solemnity of the mass, but that soon wore thin and became boring (and they switched from mysterious Latin to a dull religious dialect of English).

I didn't have any sense of God's presence, guidance, or whatnot. I had a conscience, but I knew where that had come from. I sometimes wondered if they were all pretending to each other so as to be part of the 'club', or whether they'd all managed to convince themselves to believe, or whether I was just born without the 'special sense' required. When I got to university and met my age peers from around the world, with so many different beliefs and worldviews, it was a major eye-opener - and, in a sense, a validation; most thought the belief structures of my parochial childhood absurd. Students, eh? what are they like?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Yes; it wasn't that I (btw I'm male) 'knew better', it was just that it didn't work for me.

My sincere apologies, FrumiousBandersnatch.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My sincere apologies, FrumiousBandersnatch.

No worries

 

[Locutus]

Early on, I liked the robes, the incense, the hymns & carols, and the impressive solemnity of the mass, but that soon wore thin and became boring (and they switched from mysterious Latin to a dull religious dialect of English).

I like the robes, the incense, the hymns, and the carols But I agree entirely, a spoken English mass is a very poor substitute for a fully sung Latin mass.