What is accepting Jesus in your heart?

[AmateurScientist]

Inspired by Tricky's thread about what it means to be born again, I have a similar question.

It may be tempting to dismiss it as trivial. I have asked this question of several people, including some fundamentalist Christians who claimed to have accepted Jesus in their hearts, but I have never received an answer that provided me much intellectual satisfaction.

I regard tautological answers such as, "It means to open up your heart to Jesus" as meaningless and obtuse. They provide no insight that I do not already manifestly possess as implied by the question itself.

Of course accepting Jesus in your heart means opening your heart to Jesus. What else could it mean? I'm asking for a little more insight into the concept. What does that mean?

How does one accept Jesus into one's heart? What process takes place for that to happen? Is this the same as being humble and following the Golden Rule? If not, how is it any different apart from calling it "Jesus" instead of courteous and respectful?

The most I seem to have gotten to date is that "it's a feeling." "You just don't understand." "You would know it if you had it." "You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus."

OK, but all of those things are merely purely internal emotional responses taking place inside your body.

How do you have a personal relationship with someone intangible and incommunicative? Isn't it something like unrequited love? Unrequited love is fantasy. It isn't love at all. How is the personal relationship with Jesus any different?

Is it the answering your prayers thing? How about when you pray and do not get what you asked for? (I know the standard apologetics' response is that God always answers our prayers; it's just that sometimes the answer is "No.") Is it miracles? What miracles?

Are fundamentalist Christians just slapping a label onto smugness and calling it "Jesus?"

AS

[tamiO]

I can try to answer that question.

I think its a matter of relaxing and pretending or fantasizing.
Close your eyes and imagine you are in your happy place. Recall a time when you felt very safe and protected and loved. Imagine Jesus, who wants nothing but to love you and protect you from all harm;he is standing before you with arms outstretched. Welcome his hug and feel the love.

Your body will release all sorts of feel good chemicals into your bloodstream and the loving safe feeling will pulse through your heart.

:)

[tamiO]

How do you have a personal relationship with someone intangible and incommunicative?

It takes a lot of imagination and a state of meditation.
I practice falling asleep with awareness. As I drift off I catch images of dreams starting to form and phrases spoken in my head. I can see how this sort of experience can be attributed to Jesus speaking to you and showing you visions.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by tamiO
I can try to answer that question.

I think its a matter of relaxing and pretending or fantasizing.
Close your eyes and imagine you are in your happy place. Recall a time when you felt very safe and protected and loved. Imagine Jesus, who wants nothing but to love you and protect you from all harm;he is standing before you with arms outstretched. Welcome his hug and feel the love.

Your body will release all sorts of feel good chemicals into your bloodstream and the loving safe feeling will pulse through your heart.

:)

So Jesus is really just Mama, or Nana for some?

Shoot, any of us could have accepted Mama in our hearts without the charade of a water dunking tank and the Sunday clothes.

AS

[tamiO]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


So Jesus is really just Mama, or Nana for some?

Shoot, any of us could have accepted Mama in our hearts without the charade of a water dunking tank and the Sunday clothes.

AS
Mama may make you feel cozy and warm, but she can't save you from burning in hell. :D

[Thanz]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
How does one accept Jesus into one's heart? What process takes place for that to happen? Is this the same as being humble and following the Golden Rule? If not, how is it any different apart from calling it "Jesus" instead of courteous and respectful?

The most I seem to have gotten to date is that "it's a feeling." "You just don't understand." "You would know it if you had it." "You have to have a personal relationship with Jesus."

OK, but all of those things are merely purely internal emotional responses taking place inside your body.
So what? So it is an emotional response. Does that somehow make it less real? Love is just an emotional response. Is it not real?

How do you have a personal relationship with someone intangible and incommunicative? Isn't it something like unrequited love? Unrequited love is fantasy. It isn't love at all. How is the personal relationship with Jesus any different?
I would wager that the people who tell you that they have "accepted Jesus into their hearts" are quite capable of distinguishing between it and unrequited love. They do not feel it to be unrequited, you see.

Are fundamentalist Christians just slapping a label onto smugness and calling it "Jesus?"

AS
Are you just asking a bunch of mocking questions and pretending fundamentalists are the smug ones?

[tamiO]

I had a hypnopompic experience once. I was dreaming I was having a very deep conversation with a very important person. As I floated into waking awareness I heard myself ask him if he was Jesus. The answer "YES." was very loud and clear. It was very loud and very real and I can see how convincing this sort of experience would be for someone.

[justsaygnosis]

When I read a book or watch a play or a film I can get 'caught up' in what's 'going on' and experience a wave of emotions.
It's an internalized response to stimuli.
I suppose that's why psychics score so poorly trying to read skeptics. Skeptics won't go along for the ride.

[justsaygnosis]

When I read a book or watch a play or a film I can get 'caught up' in what's 'going on' and experience a wave of emotions.
It's an internalized response to stimuli.
I suppose that's why psychics score so poorly trying to read skeptics. Skeptics won't go along for the ride.

[Boo]

The best explanation I have is where the heart is used as a metaphor for your internal, private life. By accepting Jesus into your heart you are allowing him access to your innermost self, emotions and thoughts. The reward for doing this is as Tami stated a feeling of unconditional love despite knowing you better than you know yourself. That is why love of Jesus is "the love that passes all understanding".



Boo

[Khalid01]

I think that mechanically it is giving up all rationality and replacing it entirely with faith. This is suppose to make you feel good because you're ignoring what cold science and reality tell you for the emotions generated independently, which religion takes credit of. You ask a fundamentalist if you could search for Jesus with some skeptical reservations, and they'll tell you that you can't. It's paramount to have "faith" and not any rationality in your search for Jesus, in this context.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by tamiO

Mama may make you feel cozy and warm, but she can't save you from burning in hell. :D

Yes she can.

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

How does one accept Jesus into one's heart? What process takes place for that to happen? Is this the same as being humble and following the Golden Rule? If not, how is it any different apart from calling it "Jesus" instead of courteous and respectful?

Paul condensed the process of becoming a Christian down to its bare essentials in Romans 10:9: "...that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

Let's look at that more closely. "Confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus"--acknowledge openly and publicly that you accept Jesus Christ as your highest authority. "Believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead"--if you believe this, then you accept that God has indeed validated Jesus's claim to in fact be that ultimate authority.

If we had to break it down and find an analogy in our modern world, I would use the analogy of becoming a naturalized citizen of another country. You begin by stating your desire to become a citizen of that country--which, in this case, is Heaven. You voluntarily accept the authority of that country's government, pledge allegiance to it, and and agree to obey its laws. Jesus, by way of comparison, said, "If you love Me, keep My commandments (John 14:15)." In most cases, you agree to undergo a training program to learn the laws, customs, and practices of the country of your new citizenship. In the case of Christians, this training is done by the Holy Spirit: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you (John 14:26)."

How do you have a personal relationship with someone intangible and incommunicative? Isn't it something like unrequited love? Unrequited love is fantasy. It isn't love at all. How is the personal relationship with Jesus any different?


It's different because the Person in this case is not intangible and uncommunicative; it merely seems that way. God earnestly desires for the new Christian to come to know him, and that is the work of the Holy Spirit. God works in the life of the new believer to encourage him to learn from the Bible and from other Christians. Once a believer has a firm enough grounding in the things of God to keep him from being blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine, then you may begin to hear some things more directly. For most of my life these were few and far between, but they were all the more special because of that.

I can't speak for other believers, but in my own life these "special" touches have often taken the form of questions. The first such that I can remember took place some twenty years ago, as I was working on my 1962 Plymouth Fury and thinking that, some day, I would like to have that same car in the kingdom of God. Suddenly, and very distinctly, I mentally heard Someone asking me, "Suppose you could have an exact copy of that car; every atom in exactly the same place? Would that be good enough for you?" I thought about that question for a minute, and answered, "There should always be something special about an original." Six or seven years later, I was watching the movie Citizen Kane and came to the part where Kane's second wife is about to walk out on him, accusing him of being the kind of man who says, in so many words, "I'll give you the whole world if you'll just love me." Right then, once again, I distinctly heard Someone ask, "Is that what you think of me?" I immediately replied, "Of course not, God," and heard, more emphatically, "Don't be politically correct. I really want to know what you think." And so that's a question I'm still wrestling with, to an extent.

There have been others. Bottom line: If you think that God is "intangible and uncommunicative," then experiment with addressing him as a person while being willing to wait as long as it takes for a reply and being open to the possibility that the answer may not come in the form you may expect--but with the expectation that there will be an answer, it will be personal, and it will come. You may be surprised at the results.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's a vestigial meme of when the Hebrews were in Egypt. There they adopted the concept of the heart as the seat of conciousness. Ostensibly you're supposed to open this conciousness to some sort of vulcan mind meld with Jesus. You then can have communication.

[Roadtoad]

One of the problems with a discussion about "Accepting Jesus into your heart" is precisely what has been discussed before: most of the responses are programmed.

Given that I'm trying to get away from being another automaton, I'm finding such a statement as "I accepted Jesus into my heart" something of an insult.

And while I'm at it, the Bible says you will be saved, not that you'll feel like you'll be saved. World of difference. If you'd rather have good feelings, I'd suggest reading Mother Goose.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Thanz

So what? So it is an emotional response. Does that somehow make it less real? Love is just an emotional response. Is it not real?


Objectively real or subjectively real? Love as an emotional response is merely subjective. Objectively, what is going on in the brain and body is merely chemical reactions.

That's my point about relying on the feeling of Jesus in your heart as evidence of being saved or whatever you choose to call it. It's just emotional response. It's chemicals. It isn't evidence of a cosmic, divine experience.



I would wager that the people who tell you that they have "accepted Jesus into their hearts" are quite capable of distinguishing between it and unrequited love. They do not feel it to be unrequited, you see.


I would wager that your response is unnecessarily hostile. Again, you elevate the mere subjective experience to objective evidence. A feeling is evidence of nothing but internal feelings. I could just as easily label it a delusion and you couldn't prove me wrong.



Are you just asking a bunch of mocking questions and pretending fundamentalists are the smug ones?

Again with the unnecessary hostility. I'm not pretending anything. It is amazing how smug and self-satisfied fundamentalist Christians who openly profess their personal relationship with Jesus can be. I have known plenty and that is one thing they each have in common. I have no problem calling that smug.

I'm not mocking anyone. I'm asking for a rational explanation for how that process occurs without mystical doubletalk. Instead, from you I get hostility and defensiveness. I don't see where that is warranted or called for in this thread.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Roadtoad
One of the problems with a discussion about "Accepting Jesus into your heart" is precisely what has been discussed before: most of the responses are programmed.

Given that I'm trying to get away from being another automaton, I'm finding such a statement as "I accepted Jesus into my heart" something of an insult.

And while I'm at it, the Bible says you will be saved, not that you'll feel like you'll be saved. World of difference. If you'd rather have good feelings, I'd suggest reading Mother Goose.

Then how is a Christian supposed to know whether he's got it right or is merely going through the motions or faking it really well?

I don't understand the difference or what the standard is to know.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by ehbowen


Paul condensed the process of becoming a Christian down to its bare essentials in Romans 10:9: "...that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."


This is the best answer I have heard. If it truly is the case, then I don't understand Christians' preoccupations with morality or witnessing or being good and "Christlike." If being saved is as simple as declaring that you are and sincerely believing in the resurrection, then the rest is irrelevant and superfluous.


It's different because the Person in this case is not intangible and uncommunicative; it merely seems that way. God earnestly desires for the new Christian to come to know him, and that is the work of the Holy Spirit. God works in the life of the new believer to encourage him to learn from the Bible and from other Christians. Once a believer has a firm enough grounding in the things of God to keep him from being blown to and fro by every wind of doctrine, then you may begin to hear some things more directly. For most of my life these were few and far between, but they were all the more special because of that.


How is this at all distinguishable from delusion or hallucination? How do you know schizophrenics don't talk to God when they claim to? I'm not mocking. I'm asking a serious question.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by tamiO
I had a hypnopompic experience once. I was dreaming I was having a very deep conversation with a very important person. As I floated into waking awareness I heard myself ask him if he was Jesus. The answer "YES." was very loud and clear. It was very loud and very real and I can see how convincing this sort of experience would be for someone.

Hallucinations and delusions are common when the brain is starved of oxygen. It's merely evidence that the brain often cannot tell the difference between subjective and objective reality, especially when it's malfunctioning.

A very useful bit of information in assessing the possible truth value of any religious beliefs.

AS

[UnrepentantSinner]

I saw on TV once, that brain scans of schizophrenics show activity in the same area when they are "hearing voices" as normal people do when they actually are hearing voices. I'll try and dig for some backup on this.

- edit Found two.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/buckets/newsletter/697/697halluc.htm
http://w1.875.telia.com/~u87510946/VOICES.html

[Dymanic]

I was told, "Don't analyze -- utilize". And, "If you're not hearing anything, you're listening on the wrong channel". Stuff like that.

The argument seems to be that these are spiritual matters which do not lend themselves to an intellectual approach, and attempting to approach them intellectually will not only be useless, it will stunt your spiritual growth.

Which is another way of saying it all makes perfect sense as long as you don't think about it too much.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Dymanic
I was told, "Don't analyze -- utilize". And, "If you're not hearing anything, you're listening on the wrong channel". Stuff like that.

The argument seems to be that these are spiritual matters which do not lend themselves to an intellectual approach, and attempting to approach them intellectually will not only be useless, it will stunt your spiritual growth.

Which is another way of saying it all makes perfect sense as long as you don't think about it too much.

Which is another way of saying don't shine any light on it because in the light of day none of it truly does make any sense.

Intellectual dishonesty is still dishonesty.

What is spiritual honesty, anyway? Can an analytical person ignore his intellect and be honest about an issue?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I saw on TV once, that brain scans of schizophrenics show activity in the same area when they are "hearing voices" as normal people do when they actually are hearing voices. I'll try and dig for some backup on this.

- edit Found two.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/newsletter/buckets/newsletter/697/697halluc.htm
http://w1.875.telia.com/~u87510946/VOICES.html

I didn't read the links, but I've always understood schizophrenics to be unable to distinguish between voices they hear only in their heads and real voices. It's very confusing to them, because the head voices are just as real. Their "reality filters" don't work all the time. It's really sad.

AS

[Yahweh]

"Accept Jesus Into Your Heart" is a cliche expression that masks its pointless nature with a promise of love. It only has meaning to the optimistic Christian. To me, it has about as much meaning as "wishing upon a shooting star"... sure it makes you feel good but its all something you've created in your mind. To expect any more than that would absurd. It would in someway suggest that one who "does not accept Jesus into their heart" can never be as happy as one who does.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Yahweh
"Accept Jesus Into Your Heart" is a cliche expression that masks its pointless nature with a promise of love. It only has meaning to the optimistic Christian. To me, it has about as much meaning as "wishing upon a shooting star"... sure it makes you feel good but its all something you've created in your mind. To expect any more than that would absurd. It would in someway suggest that one who "does not accept Jesus into their heart" can never be as happy as one who does.

I agree. That's precisely why I called them "smug." I think it's appropriate to do that.

Thanz, on the other hand, took great offense at that and called me smug for asking.

Apparently, many fundamentalists and more mainstream Christians who speak of accepting Jesus in their hearts are sincere and truly believe they have done something. As you recognize, however, objectively it is nothing more than their subjective feeling which justifies this belief. Therefore, as evidence of something objective and external having actually taken place, it is indistinguishable from a genuine belief that one has been abducted by aliens based simply on a feeling that one has.

I would fully expect a devout Christian to denounce me as a mocking heathen and atheist for saying so, however. That doesn't mean I'm wrong.

AS

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


This is the best answer I have heard. If it truly is the case, then I don't
understand Christians' preoccupations with morality or witnessing or being good
and "Christlike." If being saved is as simple as declaring that you are and
sincerely believing in the resurrection, then the rest is irrelevant and superfluous.


If you truly have accepted Jesus as your Lord, then following his commandments
is neither irrelevant or superfluous. Indeed, it is a necessity if you are not
to fall under condemnation for being a hypocrite. Jesus said, "If you love me,
keep my commandments." Evangelism and morality, among other things, are firmly
grounded in the clear commands of Christ.

It is helpful to keep in mind that Paul's instruction to "confess with your
mouth the Lord Jesus" is set against the backdrop of an empire which required
its citizens to say, on a regular basis, "Caesar is lord." Paul's confession of
Jesus as Lord, under these circumstances, is equivalent to a pledge of
allegiance. It is reasonable to expect that such a pledge, if genuine, will be
backed up by action.


How is this at all distinguishable from delusion or hallucination? How do you know schizophrenics don't talk to God when they claim to? I'm not mocking. I'm asking a serious question.



To be perfectly blunt, I must say that in this present age, while God and Satan
are locked in combat over the souls of men, there is no hard-and-fast method of
distinguishing the voice of God from a delusion or hallucination. If there were
a way to be absolutely certain, it would no longer be a question of faith, but
of sight. I believe that God has, on some very special occasions, spoken to me,
but if you choose to believe I am hallucinating or delusional I cannot prove
otherwise.

What I go by in evaluating these experiences is, first of all, consistency. Is
the character and personality evinced by such an event compatible with our
understanding of the nature and character of God as previously revealed in
scripture? Secondly, is it timely? Does it meet a real or perceived need?

I am quite willing to entertain the possibility that schizophrenics who claim to
be talking to God are in point of fact actually talking to somebody who claims
to be "God." I would, in virtually all cases, identify this party as Satan or
one of his angels. A direct spiritual contact is an overwhelming experience,
and I can easily understand how someone who was on the receiving end of such a
contact could misidentify that contact as being with God. Once again, I believe
the key here is consistency. Are these voices influencing this person to act in
a way which is consistent with the nature and character of God as previously
revealed in the Bible? If not, then while they may in fact be talking to
somebody, they are not talking to God.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Don't forget, you're also supposed to accept Jesus in your stomach.

Matthew 23:26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Don't forget, you're also supposed to accept Jesus in your stomach.

Matthew 23:26While they were eating, Jesus took bread, gave thanks and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying, "Take and eat; this is my body."
27Then he took the cup, gave thanks and offered it to them, saying, "Drink from it, all of you.
28This is my blood of thecovenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.

LOL. Don't tell Dr. Atkins. Jesus has too many carbs.

:D

AS

[Dymanic]

"Believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead"--if you believe this, then you accept that God has indeed validated Jesus's claim to in fact be that ultimate authority.

And if you don't believe this? With either your head or your heart (however you make that distinction)? Oh right. The spirit helper comes to fix that. But don't you pretty much have to believe it first, before you can be a candidate for such assistance? I mean, the spirit doesn't go around just ambushing people on the street does it?

How much conscious choice does a person have over what he believes? (as contrasted with what he pretends to believe, claims to believe, or tries to believe?)

[Yahzi]

It means submission. Once you accept Jesus into your heart, you bow your head and pass control of your thoughts and actions to some other source. Like Jesus. Or (since He never seems to say much) one of his appointed representatives.

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ehbowen

To be perfectly blunt, I must say that in this present age, while God and Satan are locked in combat over the souls of men, there is no hard-and-fast method of distinguishing the voice of God from a delusion or hallucination.
Of all the things I would expect an infinitely powerful, knowledgable, and good being to accomplish, making it clear when He was talking seems about the least.

I'm not asking for perfection: how about just the level of FOF (Friend or Foe) identification the US Army has? Is that too much to ask of God? Can't He just hire the guys that made all that neat equipment for the Army? If they can fly around with guns and bombs and people trying to kill them, and only occasionally shoot at the wrong target or get the wrong orders or mess up the bombing coordinates... is it too much to ask that God achieve even a similar level of correct identification?

Why is your omnimax god once again incapable of achieveing what even mortal technology can achieve?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by ehbowen


If you truly have accepted Jesus as your Lord, then following his commandments
is neither irrelevant or superfluous. Indeed, it is a necessity if you are not
to fall under condemnation for being a hypocrite. Jesus said, "If you love me,
keep my commandments." Evangelism and morality, among other things, are firmly
grounded in the clear commands of Christ.



Thanks. Again, this is the best answer I have heard and is in keeping with what I have previously heard from other devout Christians who have given the matter any thought. Basically, the way I understand it is that if you truly love Jesus, then you will want to accept his teachings and follow them.

The problem I have with that is in squaring that with the "fact" Christians are told from square one and all along the way is that they are--and each of us is--born a sinner and will remain sinners. It is Christian predetermination that you will sin, period. Therefore, trying to be good seems meaningless and pointless. One is powerless to avoid sinning.

Against that backdrop, how does one distinguish between earnestly trying to do what is right and failing because of sin, and just not paying any attention to it and living according to one's own moral code, which happens to square very nicely with that of a devout Christian trying but sometimes failing to follow Jesus' commands?

Objectively, is there any difference at all? I realize that the Christian will likely respond that the difference is in your heart. Those who have accepted Jesus will have "grace" or something like it and cannot be faulted for being sinners, as we are all born that way. Not really much of an answer, if you ask me.


It is helpful to keep in mind that Paul's instruction to "confess with your
mouth the Lord Jesus" is set against the backdrop of an empire which required
its citizens to say, on a regular basis, "Caesar is lord." Paul's confession of
Jesus as Lord, under these circumstances, is equivalent to a pledge of
allegiance. It is reasonable to expect that such a pledge, if genuine, will be
backed up by action.


Thanks. That's a very good and thoughtful answer. I don't think I've ever heard any fundamentalist respond with such a reasoned and informed response.


To be perfectly blunt, I must say that in this present age, while God and Satan
are locked in combat over the souls of men, there is no hard-and-fast method of
distinguishing the voice of God from a delusion or hallucination.


To be perfectly blunt, I don't know how you can say this. "In this present age?" What age is that? Are you referring to the entire 2000 years since the time Christ walked the earth? Do you mean in the last 50 years or so?

I thought Christians believed that Satan fell from Heaven thousands of years ago, well before Christ came. I thought they believed that God and Satan had been locked in combat pretty much ever since.

Has there ever been a time when you could distinguish between Satan's work in causing delusions and hallucinations to appear to be real and God's speaking to you? If not, then why don't we simply dismiss Abraham and Moses and Paul of Tarsus as schizophrenics? For that matter, we could toss in anyone who earnestly claimed to have written a book of the Bible through divine inspiration. How does anyone go about telling the difference?


If there were
a way to be absolutely certain, it would no longer be a question of faith, but
of sight.


Then what's the difference between faith and belief in aliens?


I believe that God has, on some very special occasions, spoken to me,
but if you choose to believe I am hallucinating or delusional I cannot prove
otherwise.


Well, at least you are honest about it. I do not doubt your sincerity or earnestness. I hope you don't doubt mine. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to gain some insight into how thoughtful Christians reconcile their intellect with their faith.


What I go by in evaluating these experiences is, first of all, consistency. Is
the character and personality evinced by such an event compatible with our
understanding of the nature and character of God as previously revealed in
scripture? Secondly, is it timely? Does it meet a real or perceived need?


Are you familiar with the effect expecting an outcome can have upon one's perception of events? Haven't you heard of expectation bias in scientific research? Isn't that the sound reason behind double-blind studies?

Isn't your test just as flawed?


I am quite willing to entertain the possibility that schizophrenics who claim to
be talking to God are in point of fact actually talking to somebody who claims
to be "God." I would, in virtually all cases, identify this party as Satan or
one of his angels.


Do you dismiss modern psychiatric and neurological medicine? They have solid evidence that schizophrenic brains are very different organically and structurally from those of non-schizophrenics. Are you just labelling that naturally occurring difference "Satan?"


A direct spiritual contact is an overwhelming experience,
and I can easily understand how someone who was on the receiving end of such a
contact could misidentify that contact as being with God.


The emotional response of awe can be overwhelming as well. I'm not talking about the vernacular usage of "awe" as in "awesome." I mean real awe at the majesty present in the microbial world of a drop of rainwater, or the scope of the Milky Way galaxy, or the complexity of the human brain. Scientists who contemplate these things often experience an overwhelming emotional response. Why don't we call that "God?"


Once again, I believe
the key here is consistency. Are these voices influencing this person to act in
a way which is consistent with the nature and character of God as previously
revealed in the Bible? If not, then while they may in fact be talking to
somebody, they are not talking to God.

Is God's nature and character in the Bible consistent? I don't see how anyone who reads the Old Testament can call it's God the same character as the one found in the New Testament. Anyone rationally comparing and contrasting the two natures and characters should find a host of qualitative differences. A rational person should conclude they are not the same God at all.

How then, do you use such a benchmark for separating delusion or Satan from God's speaking to you?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Yahzi
It means submission. Once you accept Jesus into your heart, you bow your head and pass control of your thoughts and actions to some other source. Like Jesus. Or (since He never seems to say much) one of his appointed representatives.

Yes. That's precisely why non-believers sometimes call themselves "free thinkers."

I don't like the term "atheist" because it is so bound with foolish connotations about extra baggage it doesn't deserve, and because it has been appropriated as the worst sort of pejorative any believer could hurl at someone. It's worse than being a serial murderer or child molester. At least they can be saved on death row and enter God's Kingdom. Atheists burn in hell with Satan forever and ever.

Free thinkers have no use for or fear of heaven or hell. They are as irrelevant and devoid of actual meaning as Planet X.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Dymanic
"Believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead"--if you believe this, then you accept that God has indeed validated Jesus's claim to in fact be that ultimate authority.

And if you don't believe this? With either your head or your heart (however you make that distinction)? Oh right. The spirit helper comes to fix that. But don't you pretty much have to believe it first, before you can be a candidate for such assistance? I mean, the spirit doesn't go around just ambushing people on the street does it?

How much conscious choice does a person have over what he believes? (as contrasted with what he pretends to believe, claims to believe, or tries to believe?)

Good points. Apparently none. Many fundamentalist Christians believe in the chosen 144,000 souls. They are already on a list to be taken into the Kingdom of God upon the rapture. Trying earnestly to believe and be accepted is apparently pointless if you aren't already on the list. God's bouncers aren't letting you in.

AS

[ehbowen]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


The problem I have with that is in squaring that with the "fact" Christians are told from square one and all along the way is that they are--and each of us is--born a sinner and will remain sinners. It is Christian predetermination that you will sin, period. Therefore, trying to be good seems meaningless and pointless. One is powerless to avoid sinning.

One is never "powerless" to make the free will choice to do what is good and right and highest and best. If there were in fact no power to make the right choice, there would be no accountability. However, the Christian position reflects the realistic fact that, on occasion, each and every one of us will indeed choose to do something which we know that we should not do.

In making that free will choice, we fall under the same condemnation as Satan. Yes, there is a difference in degree, but there is no difference in essence. If God compromises his justice in order to let one of us off the hook, then in order to be fair he will have to let everyone off the hook--including Hitler, Stalin, and Satan himself. God is not going to do that. Period. The sacrifice of Jesus provided a means for God to judge and punish the sins which we who are Christians have committed without letting Satan et al off the hook

Against that backdrop, how does one distinguish between earnestly trying to do what is right and failing because of sin, and just not paying any attention to it and living according to one's own moral code, which happens to square very nicely with that of a devout Christian trying but sometimes failing to follow Jesus' commands?

Objectively, is there any difference at all?

As you or I view it? Probably not. But what seems implicit in your question is the view that judgment and its outcome depend upon outwardly observable actions. It does not. You do not "win points" to get into heaven. The primary question is not, "What did you do?" It is, "Who do you belong to?" The Christian belongs to God. When he sins, Satan accuses him before God, and God finds him guilty. But Jesus Christ has already paid the penalty for every sin which a human can commit. The law and justice have been satisfied; the Christian is free to go. This is not to say that there will be no repercussions from that sin, any more than in the case of a teenager who gets bailed out of jail for shoplifting; the law may have been satisfied, but when the kid gets home he will still have to answer to Mom and Dad.

Contrast this with the non-Christian. Yes, he may have done a whole laundry list of good deeds--more, perhaps, than the Christian. But he gets no credit for this, any more than I got from the cop who gave me my first speeding ticket when I pointed out my perfect driving record up until that point. Good deeds and bad deeds do not "balance"--the bad is intolerable; the good is just what you should have been doing all along. And so when the non-Christian does sin, and Satan accuses him, he is found guilty and falls under the same condemnation as Satan himself.


Well, at least you are honest about it. I do not doubt your sincerity or earnestness. I hope you don't doubt mine. I'm not trying to be mean. I'm trying to gain some insight into how thoughtful Christians reconcile their intellect with their faith.

For some more insight, try: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/


Are you familiar with the effect expecting an outcome can have upon one's perception of events? Haven't you heard of expectation bias in scientific research? Isn't that the sound reason behind double-blind studies?

Isn't your test just as flawed?


For one thing, I am not trying to conduct a scientific study, I am trying to develop and grow a relationship. And so I consider it counterproductive to reply to one of these "touches" with, "That's very nice. Of course I won't believe it was anything other than a trick of my own mind until you repeat it in front of witnesses with three tape recorders and a TV camera rolling." For another, in many of these incidents, the messages I received were completely counter to my own expectations. The last thing I was expecting was for God to tell me that I was going to graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy. For your information, I was kicked out of the Academy nearly twenty years ago after the upperclassmen in my company ran me out because I didn't "fit in." This engendered a lot of bitterness in my heart. But four years ago, I felt that God was saying to me, very clearly, that before he was finished with me he would see to it that I graduated from the Naval Academy--and as soon as I heard that, all that old bitterness completely melted away. I'm still not sure how he plans to do it--in human terms, it's impossible--but I believe the message I received was genuine.


Do you dismiss modern psychiatric and neurological medicine? They have solid evidence that schizophrenic brains are very different organically and structurally from those of non-schizophrenics. Are you just labelling that naturally occurring difference "Satan?"

I am not denying that there may be a physical "link;" we are after all physical creatures. But I think that it may not be as "naturally occuring" as you think. I believe that both God and Satan have the ability to reach back in time. And so if Satan has singled you out for that kind of attack, he is able to reach back in time and make the necessary changes to your brain to render you vulnerable.


Is God's nature and character in the Bible consistent? I don't see how anyone who reads the Old Testament can call it's God the same character as the one found in the New Testament. Anyone rationally comparing and contrasting the two natures and characters should find a host of qualitative differences. A rational person should conclude they are not the same God at all.
AS

But if you accept the Bible as being the written record of God's revelation of himself to mankind, then they are the same--by definition. What we see revealed in the OT versus the NT are different aspects of a complex but very real personality.

[Suddenly]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


LOL. Don't tell Dr. Atkins. Jesus has too many carbs.

:D

AS


:roll:

Now I know what to tell mom when she asks me why I don't go to Church.....

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by ehbowen

One is never "powerless" to make the free will choice to do what is good and right and highest and best. If there were in fact no power to make the right choice, there would be no accountability.
That seems fair. But consider the case of a newborn baby, who arguably has had no opportunity to exersize any free will choices whatsoever. Is he not considered 'accountable' nonetheless? Isn't it the 'Christian position' that he is born into sin as a consequence of Adam's act?

However, the Christian position reflects the realistic fact that, on occasion, each and every one of us will indeed choose to do something which we know that we should not do. Right. Doesn't matter though, because of Christ's sacrifice -- his blood washes away all sins (except of course for the ill-defined 'blasphemy against the holy spirit').

In short, it has nothing to do with acts -- good ones won't get you into heaven, bad ones won't keep you out.

[c4ts]

Accept Jesus in your heart, not in your mind.

[Dymanic]

Originally posted by c4ts

Accept Jesus in your heart, not in your mind.
If accepting him in my heart while rejecting him with my mind is an option, there may yet be hope for my conversion.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Dymanic

If accepting him in my heart while rejecting him with my mind is an option, there may yet be hope for my conversion.
Why you're in luck, because just about every Christian does it!

[Janus]

Isn't this like cholesterol. You cant feel it until its too late?

[Yahzi]

Originally posted by ehbowen

If God compromises his justice in order to let one of us off the hook, then in order to be fair he will have to let everyone off the hook--including Hitler, Stalin, and Satan himself. God is not going to do that. Period.
And thus we see the premise that "God is Love" neatly refuted.

One must ask, what is the use of infinite mercy if it cannot forgive even a finite evil? In my simple and naive mind, I thought the point of infinite mercy is that it could forgive even an infinite criminal, like Satan: but according to Eric, it can't even forgive a pathetic mortal.

Here we have a Christian explaining that God is not about love or forgivness or mercy, but about power. The power to save and the power to condemn.

Where are all those people arguing with me about this exact issue? Finella, Luke... are you guys listening? I realize ehbowen is a lunatic, but the words he uses above are not his own: they are standard Christian dogma.

[MartinGibbs]

Many years ago I went to this wild, religious get-together. I went to be nice, but realized how I really didn't believe any of that stuff.

One evening they invited individuals to stand up and proclaim "I accept Jesus in my heart and as my personal lord and whatever..."

Boy, the folks that stood up sure made a whole lot of new friends!!!!