Why don't Christians like to talk about the basis of their belief?

FundiMentalist said:

Mike, that's for sharing.

As you considered me insincere and as the one who started this thread I kindly ask you to bow out.

Click to expand...

Magic Eight Ball says: "Not at this time".

1. OK, you mentioned "natural, logical, mental, brainpowery" stuff.

2. Alternatively I believe we both can agree there's the mythical, superstitous, fictious, imaginary stuff.

3. I would suppect you have a third category that's spiritual, heart, inspired stuff.

You're suggesting that #1 is an invalid path to God.

I would concur, based upon my experiences, it is a non-starter path to accepting any popular world religion.

Are you also suggesting, solely, it is an invalid path to truth?

I presume so based upon your posts but it is worth confirming.

So that leaves us with categories 2 and 3.

How then do you judge which of your beliefs (as well as those of others and all humans really) are in category 2 and those which are in category 3.

From my observations, it seems folks (myself included as a former believer) generally just see their own beliefs and those of those with sufficiently similar beliefs in category 3. And see the beliefs of other sufficiently different belief systems in category 2.

How broad or narrow the gate into 3 is depends upon how ecumenically minded one seems to be.

Anyhow, I hear believers frequent mention truth and absolutes. That's what this really is about.

Scientific method helps us make progress on things in category 1. To belittle this method of understand is to not appreciate much of what is the basis of our modern comforts. It really is quite effective if you think about it a moment.

So I guess what I'll ask you is how do you separate between 2 and 3?

Yes the bible is unique. Yes the bible makes truth claims. Yes a believer's belief is real.

But at the bootstrap-level one has to reconcile how one concluded that which believed is indeed truthful.

So brainpowery stuff is at your available. But if alternatively you can show how to judge between #2 and #3 and do so without any circular logic (I believe the bible is true and it says it is true therefore it is true), I'm very, very interested.

We may or may not arrive at a mutual agreement. But that's separate from understanding. Simply, I'm wanting to understand the basis of your faith.

BTW, when I say I don't "believe," at it's epistemological core is that I no longer believe I have a mechanism to know if category 3 exists and that I wouldn't any longer think I have the ability to judge between that which is category 2 and category 3.

Lacking "faith," doesn't mean I lack hopes or a sense of wonder or excitement. It doesn't mean that I don't want fulfillment.

epistemological

Hmmm.
Mixing Religion and Philosophy this could turn out to be a very interesting thread.

FundiMentalist said:

Cerette, excellent. You're getting very close to getting where I'm coming from.

When you say, "My husband is in my heart," you're right. It doesn't mean he somehow got into that blood pumping muscle in your chest.

It's wonderful, poetic, metaphorical language.

For something like...

Your mind has thoughts of devotion for your husband.

OK. So now we need to disambiguate this a bit. There are two separate key things here.

There's your husbands.

And separately your thoughts of devotion for your husband.

Very separate things.

And the evidence of the two things are quite separate. Your husband exists completely indepdent of your thoughts of devotion for him.

So here's the issue.

When you say something akin to "I know God is real because he is in my heart," what is that evidence of?

Is that evidence of your thoughts of devotion for God?

Or evidence of God? (And then there's the fact that YHWH of the Bible is the God is yet another matter.)

So what I've heard more or less in metaphorical terms is evidence of your belief.

That I concede. I fully understand that you believe and that your belief is real.

The separate matter is, is that which is believed to be real?

That's where I'm asking you to get out of the metaphorical language and avoid the circularity.

And hoping something to be real, doesn't necessarily make it real.

This is what I'm trying to understand.

Can you show me God is real beyond the fact that your belief in him is real in the same way you could show me that your husband is real beyond the fact that you have thoughts of devotion for him.

A few posts ago I mentioned the difference between the quest for that which is fulfilling vs. that which is true. Perhaps this illustrates.

Click to expand...

Ok thanks for your reply & new set of questions.

Sounds to me like this is in the philosophy area. It is not something I am very good at, but let me give it a try:

All human knowledge about God is dependent upon God revealing it to mankind. This is because God is of a kind that we can't even imagine by ourselves, cuz there is nothing else like him, and because he "lives in unapproachable light" (1 Tim 6:16).

God has made himself known in two ways:
-His Creation
-His Word

There is a very good book in which you can study this matter in depth: Christian Dogmatics by Francis Pieper.

FundiMentalist said:

1. OK, you mentioned "natural, logical, mental, brainpowery" stuff.

2. Alternatively I believe we both can agree there's the mythical, superstitous, fictious, imaginary stuff.

3. I would suppect you have a third category that's spiritual, heart, inspired stuff.

You're suggesting that #1 is an invalid path to God.

I would concur, based upon my experiences, it is a non-starter path to accepting any popular world religion.

Are you also suggesting, solely, it is an invalid path to truth?

I presume so based upon your posts but it is worth confirming.

So that leaves us with categories 2 and 3.

How then do you judge which of your beliefs (as well as those of others and all humans really) are in category 2 and those which are in category 3.

From my observations, it seems folks (myself included as a former believer) generally just see their own beliefs and those of those with sufficiently similar beliefs in category 3. And see the beliefs of other sufficiently different belief systems in category 2.

How broad or narrow the gate into 3 is depends upon how ecumenically minded one seems to be.

Anyhow, I hear believers frequent mention truth and absolutes. That's what this really is about.

Scientific method helps us make progress on things in category 1. To belittle this method of understand is to not appreciate much of what is the basis of our modern comforts. It really is quite effective if you think about it a moment.

So I guess what I'll ask you is how do you separate between 2 and 3?

Yes the bible is unique. Yes the bible makes truth claims. Yes a believer's belief is real.

But at the bootstrap-level one has to reconcile how one concluded that which believed is indeed truthful.

So brainpowery stuff is at your available. But if alternatively you can show how to judge between #2 and #3 and do so without any circular logic (I believe the bible is true and it says it is true therefore it is true), I'm very, very interested.

We may or may not arrive at a mutual agreement. But that's separate from understanding. Simply, I'm wanting to understand the basis of your faith.

BTW, when I say I don't "believe," at it's epistemological core is that I no longer believe I have a mechanism to know if category 3 exists and that I wouldn't any longer think I have the ability to judge between that which is category 2 and category 3.

Lacking "faith," doesn't mean I lack hopes or a sense of wonder or excitement. It doesn't mean that I don't want fulfillment.

Click to expand...

I do understand where you're coming from. Thing is though, like I said earlier, that we stand on different foundations or 'starting points'.

To me, a believer in Christ, it is not important to somehow prove that the Bible is the truth. My starting point is "the Bible is true". Your starting point is "Is the Bible true?" (Have I understood you correctly?)

And if you and I stand on these foundations and start a discussion, it will be very difficult to reach a common ground because we are already walking on different paths, so to speak. (Please forgive me my picture language again.)

If your question to me is "How can you prove to me that the Bible is the truth without actually going to the Bible itself?" my reply would be that I don't think I can, and I don't have a problem with that because Step 1 on my path is The Bible is true. This is the basis of my faith.
It is from the contents of the Bible that I get my bunch of beliefs.
Believing the Bible to be true is not just a belief among others in my bunch of beliefs, it is the very foundation on which my beliefs stand.

Fundi...

About your 3 categories:
1. OK, you mentioned "natural, logical, mental, brainpowery" stuff.

2. Alternatively I believe we both can agree there's the mythical, superstitous, fictious, imaginary stuff.

3. I would suppect you have a third category that's spiritual, heart, inspired stuff.

I do believe that all these 3 categories exist. I do not believe that all 3 of them have to be involved in every single matter, and I do not believe that only one can be involved in a specific matter.

I dare not go beyond Scripture. If the Bible is not clear about something, I can not be clear either. My beliefs are founded on Scripture.

If someone claims to have an inspired experience for example, I dare not say it is just your imagination, unless the Bible very clearly states that such experiences would be imaginary. Also, if the Bible doesn't say that you will certainly have such experineces, I dare not say that it was definitely a spiritual Godgiven inspirational experience.

cerette said:

My starting point is "the Bible is true"

Click to expand...

My OP is really abot the basis of belief. Why such and such is belief, not what is believed.

I understand that you believe the Bible to be true, but why do you believe "the Bible is true?"

I believe I had mentioned that this is epistemological.

It's like the toddler who keeps peskily asking, "Why?" And again, and again, to each response wanting to get to the bottom of it.

Here the question in my mind is more the one of, "well then why do you think that?"

So you think the Bible to be true.

"Well then why do you think that?"

And whatever the answer to that question, again the same question applied to that. To get to the bottom of it. The foundation. The basis of belief. The stuff that needs to be of solid rock.

I guess that's the nature of what I'm asking about.

And furthermore within this context, there are many, many questions that come to mind about the bible being the foundation. Here are some examples.

1. How did you pick a canon?

2. What are your thoughts about the canonization process?

3. What are your thoughts about the Roman Catholic church and their role in defining the Bible? They see it that Jesus set of the church and the church assembled certain writings into an anthology of the Bible and thus church and church tradition are as significant as the Bible.

4. How do you work through textual criticism issues? One example being the story of the woman caught in adultery. (Feel free to Google "Comma Johanneum.")

5. You mentioned what apologists often refer to as natural revelation (creation) vs. special revelation (prophets -> bible -> canon -> copyists -> translators). How do you work through the historicity vs. metaphorical aspects of biblical stories that don't match so well astronomical, genetic, archaeology, linguistic sciences?

6. What do you make of the history of the development of belief in and items such as the Hebrew notions of El vs. YHWH?

7. What are your thoughts on the Documentary hypothesis?

8. What are your thoughts on non-canonical scripture and divergence among early church beliefs?

9. How do you work through the morality topics such as slavery, polygamy, treatment of women in general, not really "witnessing" to the Amalakites shall we say, being commanded to kill those rebellious kids, not wearing mixed fabrics, stuff like that?

10. Even the whole notion that it's God inspired, not just the product of well-intended men working off their own hopes, dreams, fears, and imaginations as well as that of their predecessors as well?

Maybe this is all sounding technical and geeky and "brainpowery," but you assert step 1 on your path is that "The Bible is true" and that it is the "basis of your faith" and that you get your beliefs from it.

So I guess I'm asking almost in a toddler-like fashion, albeit not with toddler-like ignorance, why, well then, why do you think that?

I realize some of this may not be familiar and you may need to Google a good bit of this but I don't think I've brought up anything here unfamiliar within the domain of bible scholarship.

cerette said:

Fundi...

About your 3 categories:
1. OK, you mentioned "natural, logical, mental, brainpowery" stuff.

2. Alternatively I believe we both can agree there's the mythical, superstitous, fictious, imaginary stuff.

3. I would suppect you have a third category that's spiritual, heart, inspired stuff.

I do believe that all these 3 categories exist. I do not believe that all 3 of them have to be involved in every single matter, and I do not believe that only one can be involved in a specific matter.

I dare not go beyond Scripture. If the Bible is not clear about something, I can not be clear either. My beliefs are founded on Scripture.

If someone claims to have an inspired experience for example, I dare not say it is just your imagination, unless the Bible very clearly states that such experiences would be imaginary. Also, if the Bible doesn't say that you will certainly have such experineces, I dare not say that it was definitely a spiritual Godgiven inspirational experience.

Click to expand...

Again, this is at the core of my question and at the essence of my OP.

Why then do you think that a specific biblical canon is the gauge between #2 and #3?

Shadowfax503 said:

epistemological

Hmmm.
Mixing Religion and Philosophy this could turn out to be a very interesting thread.

Click to expand...

I once heard it tongue-in-cheeck said that...

Philosophy is qestions where you aren't allowed to find answers.
And religion is answers where you aren't allowed to ask the questions.

I personally find the two very inter-related based upon that neither one is really approach the world from that category #1 perspective that I mention.

However, it looks like that philosophy is breaking down as a separate thing as the brain and neural and cognitive sciences are becoming better understood.

Personally I think a lot of the vocabulary and ideas of philosophy will survive going forward but I think that more advances will be occuring on the brain sciences side and understanding developed there will be inching into what historically has been philosophy's historical territory. But that's my musings I suppose.

I will continue to believe the Bible over the doubts of my own or the doubts/disbelief of one who is no longer a believer of the Truth: Jesus,"I am the Way, The Truth and The Life, No one comes to the Father except by me", so says Jesus. The Word: The Bible is God-breathed and useful for many a thing. I will not doubt the truth thereof the Word.

Templedweller said:

I will continue to believe the Bible over the doubts of my own or the doubts/disbelief of one who is no longer a believer of the Truth: Jesus,"I am the Way, The Truth and The Life, No one comes to the Father except by me", so says Jesus. The Word: The Bible is God-breathed and useful for many a thing. I will not doubt the truth thereof the Word.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the thoughts.

My OP was more about why what is believed rather than what is believed. Your post is an attestation what.

I'm interested in exploring why.

Perhaps the answer to my OP is that folks "will not doubt" what they believe is anything other than the truth.

I guess then I just don't get how that's different from the devout of other slightly to vastly different faith traditions.

Any thoughts on the why or how it's material different TD?

Otherwise, how does one evangelize, or even covince one's self, that their own undbouted truth is The Truth and that the other guy's different undoubted truth is not The Truth?

I have not read this whole thread so if I am redundant forgive me. Does it not just come down to the fact that however scientifically man understands the universe some will see a creator God who made it & whose uncreated energy conducts it? Whereas those who are atheistic see randomness & matter as being an ongoing thing; ya live and die & decay & that is it. Science need not be rejected in either outlook. It is just that the atheistic one seems so hopeless. Of course, I believe in the fall, sin, & Christ's redemption but am leaving these aside for now.

In response to Fundi... I will reply to your questions in bold letters below:



My OP is really abot the basis of belief. Why such and such is belief, not what is believed.

I understand that you believe the Bible to be true, but why do you believe "the Bible is true?"

I believe I have already answered, or at least tried to answer, that question before. The reason I believe what I believe is because the Holy Spirit has opened my heart (not the body part) to see it to be the truth.

You might now ask me to not give an answer which goes in a circle, but the fact is, that is the only answer.There is no reason outside of the Holy Spirit revealing it to me/opening my heart to it ,which would be why I believe what I believe.

Frankly: I believe what I believe because the Holy Spirit has opened my heart to believe it.
And again, I am aware that this sounds like total foolishness to an Unbeliever.


I believe I had mentioned that this is epistemological.

It's like the toddler who keeps peskily asking, "Why?" And again, and again, to each response wanting to get to the bottom of it.

Here again the answer is: I believe the Bible to be the truth BECAUSE the Holy Spirit has opened my hard heart to see that this [The Bible being true] is true.

Here the question in my mind is more the one of, "well then why do you think that?"

So you think the Bible to be true.

"Well then why do you think that?"

And whatever the answer to that question, again the same question applied to that. To get to the bottom of it. The foundation. The basis of belief. The stuff that needs to be of solid rock.

I guess that's the nature of what I'm asking about.

It is a very good question! The very basis of me believing the Bible to be the truth is that the Holy Spirit has made me believe it. It is not about me; it is not about me having done so much research that I finally ended up with the result 'it is true', it is not about me comparing different religions and figuring Christianity is true because it makes more sense than the others etc etc..it is NOT about me. All glory be to God for opening my heart and bringing me to faith!

God is the content of my faith, but he is also the reason I have the faith in the first place.


And furthermore within this context, there are many, many questions that come to mind about the bible being the foundation. Here are some examples.

1. How did you pick a canon?
I did not. The Bible [which I hold to be the truth, and therefore errorless] says that God will protect his word and keep it safe. I trust this promise. I trust God when he says that he will make sure that his word will remain.



2. What are your thoughts about the canonization process?
I have no thoughts about it because I was never interested enough to learn about it. I have listened to sermons and Bible lessons on the matter, but don't remember much because I wasn't too interested.

3. What are your thoughts about the Roman Catholic church and their role in defining the Bible? They see it that Jesus set of the church and the church assembled certain writings into an anthology of the Bible and thus church and church tradition are as significant as the Bible.
I am not a Roman Catholic and I don't agree with them adding manmade rules to the Bible. (The issue of salvation for example.)

4. How do you work through textual criticism issues? One example being the story of the woman caught in adultery. (Feel free to Google "Comma Johanneum.")
Can't answer this one because you didn't ask a detailed question so I am not sure what you want to know. I am not very interested in text criticism issues. I believe in the Bible and have no personal need to criticize it.

5. You mentioned what apologists often refer to as natural revelation (creation) vs. special revelation (prophets -> bible -> canon -> copyists -> translators). How do you work through the historicity vs. metaphorical aspects of biblical stories that don't match so well astronomical, genetic, archaeology, linguistic sciences?
The Bible is the main authority. In matters where science seems to point to something which would go against Scripture, I believe the Scripture.

6. What do you make of the history of the development of belief in and items such as the Hebrew notions of El vs. YHWH?
I don't understand what you're talking about.

7. What are your thoughts on the Documentary hypothesis?
Again I have no clue what you're talking about.

8. What are your thoughts on non-canonical scripture and divergence among early church beliefs?
I think that some of the non-canonical scriptures have wisdom in them, but I do not hold them to be God's errorless word.

9. How do you work through the morality topics such as slavery, polygamy, treatment of women in general, not really "witnessing" to the Amalakites shall we say, being commanded to kill those rebellious kids, not wearing mixed fabrics, stuff like that?
There are many regulations and laws, especially in the OT, that are very odd to me because I am not used to them. Some I believe were valid back then..I believe that some of them were Godgiven laws (Jesus changed some stuff though, such as the Sabbath regulations), and some were sins committed by man (they were not allowed to do it yet God didn't stop them from doing it), in some occasions God tested someone to see if they were willing to obey him.

10. Even the whole notion that it's God inspired, not just the product of well-intended men working off their own hopes, dreams, fears, and imaginations as well as that of their predecessors as well?
I don't think I understand what you are asking here...

Maybe this is all sounding technical and geeky and "brainpowery," but you assert step 1 on your path is that "The Bible is true" and that it is the "basis of your faith" and that you get your beliefs from it.

So I guess I'm asking almost in a toddler-like fashion, albeit not with toddler-like ignorance, why, well then, why do you think that?

Dear Fundi, I think that because God has opened my heart to see it to be true. I can almost feel the "desperation" in your question... you want to understand so bad but nobody seems to have an answer.. I have an answer...now you just have to accept that my answer will not suit your step 1 on the path you are walking.


I realize some of this may not be familiar and you may need to Google a good bit of this but I don't think I've brought up anything here unfamiliar within the domain of bible scholarship.
Right. All of what you brought up is within the field of Bible scholarship. Bear in mind though that I am not a Bible Scholar.

May God grant you the answers you are seeking for!
Best wishes to you Fundi.. God bless you

FundiMentalist said:

Again, this is at the core of my question and at the essence of my OP.

Why then do you think that a specific biblical canon is the gauge between #2 and #3?

Click to expand...

Because I believe the Bible is The errorless Word of God.
What goes beyond that Scripture cannot be verified as truth. (I am talking about spiritual, religious, matters.)

Templedweller said:

I will continue to believe the Bible over the doubts of my own or the doubts/disbelief of one who is no longer a believer of the Truth: Jesus,"I am the Way, The Truth and The Life, No one comes to the Father except by me", so says Jesus. The Word: The Bible is God-breathed and useful for many a thing. I will not doubt the truth thereof the Word.

Click to expand...

Good!

FundiMentalist said:

It's been about 15 months post-deconversion after 3.5 decades as a born again Christian.

Though I've only revealed my disbelief to a few friends, family members, and clergy members and have tried to do so as factually, honestly, sincerely and calmly as possible, I'm generally only greeted to two responses.

Silence. I mean people just staring at me like I'm an alien or something. Not knowing what to say. Not willing to discuss at all my journey, my discovery, or the foundations of their own faith for that matter. Kinda like when folks don't know what to say to a post here.

Venom. I mean straight out of the Middle Ages inquisition-style, not-so "Christ-like" mean-spirited, "you're going to hell," compassionless spew. When I try to explore their testimony, why it is that they believe what they believe and do so as calmly as possibly, it's like some sort of B-grade horror movie response.

It seems nobody really likes to talk about the basis of their belief. Why they believe what they believe. And how that's fundamentally different from how the devout of numerous other slightly different and vastly different faiths believe what they believe.

So I guess I'll ask any Christian that's brave enough and polite enough to answer, what is the fundamental, epistemological basis of your faith and how's that fundamentally different than how the devout in other faiths believe what they believe?

Thanks.

Might provide me some insight IRL.

Click to expand...

1) The "why we believe" is God. He wants us to believe.
2) Why we believe differently while claiming the same tag (Christian), is due to sin.

Because sin entered the world man can't know God unless God draws man to himself. Because sin entered the world man can't know God's will or understand His truth completely/perfectly apart from perfect obedience to the Spirit of God. So, sin is the reason for 1 and 2. What does this mean? Christians don't have their act completely together no matter how much we claim otherwise. Until the Lord returns we all struggle on a journey of faith in a world of sin.

If you were ever born again, you still are.

! and 2 (above) are biblical truths. Knowing the bible as the only source of truth is a gift from the Holy Spirit. We were promised a helper, and we have it, both in words and Spirit. But like any helper man can choose to do all the work and leave the helper to watch our foolishness. When we do this we quench the Spirit. Paul even said it's like being handed over to the enemy, (even though it's a process we initiate.)
Once apart from the Holy Spirit the bible becomes foolishness, the assurance of faith is gone.

The story of the prodigal son applies: The son walks away from the Father. The son believes he's walking away from his inheritance (turns out not to be the case) The son fails and goes broke. the son wonders if he could become a servant of his Father to improve his present condition. This thought process comes to the son because the son wrongly believes he has no inheritance. The son returns to ask for a place as a servant. The Father welcomes the son home, the inheritance never was in question.


Consider praying?

I believe because God communicates with me.

I'm open to follow-on questions on this statement. I won't presume to know what questions you would have for me, I'll wait for them to be posted.

FundiMentalist said:

... what is the fundamental, epistemological basis of your faith and how's that fundamentally different than how the devout in other faiths believe what they believe?

Thanks...

Click to expand...

The fundamental basis of my faith is Holy Spirit.

The epistemological (I needed to look that up) basis of my faith is the Bible.

The way these are fundamentally different from the devouts of different faiths is that their belief is not based on the revelation of Holy Spirit and their books lack sufficient internal evidence that they are from God.

(By saying God I refer to the Creator and not other gods).

Thanks,
Ed

So many good posts. I'll just focus on one for now. Gotta go to the Cub Scout Blue and Gold Banquet here tonight. (Good thing they don't know of my apostasy, they'd have to kick me out per their rules.)

cerette said:

The reason I believe what I believe is because the Holy Spirit has opened my heart (not the body part) to see it to be the truth.

Click to expand...

OK. Essentially, you're saying you know the Bible is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit has caused you to see it to be the Truth.

Good stuff. We're getting down "underneath." This feels a bit like the presuppositional apolgist Francis Schaffer's "taking the roof off method."

So I guess a key question here is...

1. That which influenced you, how did you know it was a supernatural source, not just a voice within your own head, essentially your own imagination fueled by your hopes, fears, desires, insecurities, and most profound needs?

2. Since you concluded it was a supernatural source, how did you conclude which it was talking to/influencing you? How did you authenticate that it was the Holy Spirit and not another Christian worldview supernatural entity (such as a demon or incredibly deceiving Satan) or even not a supernatural being from the Old Testament trying to deceive you (say Baal?) or a supernatural entity from another supernaturalistic religion's worldview trying to deceive you?

So basically, how did you conclude it was a supernaturalistic influence not just your imagination? And then how did you conclude it was none other that The Holy Spirit talking directly too you?

Also, what was it like. Was there a voice of Road to Damascus like blinding impact? A voice that was heard not just by you but by others as well, similar to Saul?

I think "testing the spirits is a good thing."

Allow me ...

FundiMentalist said:

So many good posts. I'll just focus on one for now. Gotta go to the Cub Scout Blue and Gold Banquet here tonight. (Good thing they don't know of my apostasy, they'd have to kick me out per their rules.)

Click to expand...

Well you would need to tell them sooner or later, I guess.

FundiMentalist said:

OK. Essentially, you're saying you know the Bible is the Word of God because the Holy Spirit has caused you to see it to be the Truth.

Good stuff. We're getting down "underneath." This feels a bit like the presuppositional apolgist Francis Schaffer's "taking the roof off method."

So I guess a key question here is...

1. That which influenced you, how did you know it was a supernatural source, not just a voice within your own head, essentially your own imagination fueled by your hopes, fears, desires, insecurities, and most profound needs?

Click to expand...

Because voices in one's head can hardly distinguish such complex issues as a Supernaturally based thruth.

FundiMentalist said:

2. Since you concluded it was a supernatural source, how did you conclude which it was talking to/influencing you? How did you authenticate that it was the Holy Spirit and not another Christian worldview supernatural entity (such as a demon or incredibly deceiving Satan) or even not a supernatural being from the Old Testament trying to deceive you (say Baal?) or a supernatural entity from another supernaturalistic religion's worldview trying to deceive you?

So basically, how did you conclude it was a supernaturalistic influence not just your imagination? And then how did you conclude it was none other that The Holy Spirit talking directly too you?

Click to expand...

If a deceiver deceives there must be an agenda on the part of a deceiver that is benefitial to the deceiver.

You listed demons as possible deceivers.

If believers are deceived by demons or gods and demons or gods are planning to expect a benefit from their deception, there is no benefit for them, since Christians are taught to reject demons and gods.

Therefore, the demons and gods did not deceive humans, since this teaching that Christians have, denies demons and gods human worship, the very thing that these beings strive for.

How did we "authenticate" that it is Holy Spirit.

As you mentioned, by "testing spirits"

FundiMentalist said:

Also, what was it like. Was there a voice of Road to Damascus like blinding impact? A voice that was heard not just by you but by others as well, similar to Saul?

I think "testing the spirits is a good thing."

Click to expand...

To me it was not a Damascus Road experience nor hearing voices.
It was like, well, you just realize that there IS God and whatever Jesus Christ said is the truth.

Can't explain it any better.

It is due to an internal evidence, not external.

Thanks,
Ed