ForumGarden

Lurking at the back of the Christian's mind is a terrible suspicion which must be blocked from his conscious awareness at all costs: namely, the suspicion that when he talks to Jesus he is only talking to another part of himself. The Christian's secret suspicion is correct. Let me explain....

When the Christian talks to Jesus he is really carrying out an internal dialogue with himself. That is, he splits one part of his self off, calls it 'Jesus', and then puts words into its mouth. The Christian's conversations with Jesus are really a form of religious ventriloquism: and deep down he knows this because, like every other ventriloquist's dummy, the Jesus dummy never answers the Christian back. The Christian must do its talking for it.

When the Christian talks to Jesus what he is actually doing is no different from what Norman Bates did in the film Psycho. Norman kept the mother he loved and worshipped 'alive' by pretending that one part of his personality was her. Thus, to make Jesus believable, to make this fantasy-figure seem real and plausible, the Christian's personality must undergo a form of schizophrenic splitting similar to Norman's in order to keep Jesus 'alive' in the fruit-cellar of his mind.

Another way to understand the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus is to think of Jesus as the Christian's imaginary play-friend. As is well known, many children invent an imaginary play-friend - a play-friend whom no one else can see - when they feel lonely, abandoned, vulnerable, troubled, and when no one in the world seems to understand or care about them. In the eyes of the child, as is also well known, the imaginary play-friend can do anything and is always there to talk to, to listen, and to share worries, sorrows and joys with, and even to lend advice. But there is a difference between the imaginary play-friend invented by the child and the one the Christian has called 'Jesus'. And the difference is this: Whereas the child is extraordinarily creative with regard to his imaginary play-friend inasmuch as he fashions the latter's mind and character all by himself using his own inner resources, the Christian is not so creative since the mind and character of his imaginary play-friend come ready-made for him by his religion. Needless to say, when the child matures and grows more confident and secure in himself his imaginary play-friend disappears from his life. But the Christian remains dependent on his imaginary play-friend even as an adult and never emerges from his infantile fantasy until he abandons his religion.

The schizophrenic splitting of the personality which underpins the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus also underpins the Muslim's 'relationship' with Allah, the Jew's 'relationship' with Jehovah, the Catholic's 'relationship' with the Virgin Mary, etc. - but here I'm telling the rational person something he already knows.

Regards

James

Glaswegian;458811 wrote: there is a difference between the imaginary play-friend invented by the child and the one the Christian has called 'Jesus'. And the difference is this: Whereas the child is extraordinarily creative with regard to his imaginary play-friend inasmuch as he fashions the latter's mind and character all by himself using his own inner resources, the Christian is not so creative since the mind and character of his imaginary play-friend come ready-made for him by his religion.That's the point of adopting the religion - the fact that your inner exploration can follow the route traced by earlier explorers, that there's a map established by people who have been there before, and that you in turn can leave further experiential traces for those who come after. I'd describe myself as a practicing Christian and I have no problem agreeing with your post, with only a rather miffed frown at my mind being described as a fruit-cellar. I can see that as a productive image, but I doubt whether it was intended as such. From what I've read from Christian mystics a lot of them would be content with the post as well. It's not a bad description of what, why, who and where.

schizophrenia is a psychotic disorder.

psychosis - n. A severe mental disorder, with or without organic damage, characterized by derangement of personality and loss of contact with reality and causing deterioration of normal social functioning.

the logical fallacy of your post is called "Begging the Question", circular logic. Your premise is not proven true so your conclusion can not be stated as true until such a time. If you back up, the first thing you need to prove is that these "relationships" are, indeed, a splitting of personality - which, by the way, is not exactly schizophrenia. It is Multiple Personality Disorder/Dissociative Identity Disorder and is fairly rare.

Pinky;458815 wrote: Same kind of idea to those that practice meditation...most see this as communicating with 'the higher self'...


I agree. Many who practice meditation do see it this way.

Pinky;458815 wrote: This could either be interpreted as another part of yourself that you have access to when in a quieter state...


I agree. In my view, this kind of interpretation is wholly rational.

Pinky;458815 wrote: some see it as a divine aspect that is present within.


But why do Christians see this aspect of their self - which, of course, is necessarily 'present within' - as divine, as being something other than their self? What rational basis do they have for thinking this?

My argument in the OP is essentially this: The ontological status of Jesus is no different from the ontological status of an imaginary play-friend invented by a child. That is, Jesus is a fantasy-figure who exists only in the mind of the Christian. He has no reality separate from the mind of the Christian. Therefore, when the Christian converses with Jesus he is really only conversing with another part of his mind, or - if you like - another part of his self, another part of his psyche, another part of his being...etc.

Glaswegian;459298 wrote:

My argument in the OP is essentially this: The ontological status of Jesus is no different from the ontological status of an imaginary play-friend invented by a child. That is, Jesus is a fantasy-figure who exists only in the mind of the Christian. He has no reality separate from the mind of the Christian. Therefore, when the Christian converses with Jesus he is really only conversing with another part of his mind, or - if you like - another part of his self, another part of his psyche, another part of his being...etc.


I sorry but I don't yet see your argument. I think you have a question. ie) Have people who claim to have spoken with spirits (by any name) actually conversed with something outside of themselves.

If you have proof that they have not then please share it.

If you have reason to believe that they have not then present it.

You are, as it stands, far from being in a position to make any assertions or arguments beyond that point.

koan;458997 wrote: ...the first thing you need to prove is that these "relationships" are, indeed, a splitting of personality - which, by the way, is not exactly schizophrenia.


The term schizophrenia literally means 'splitting in the mind'. Therefore, it is an appropriate term to use to characterise the splitting of the personality which underpins the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus.

KOAN;458997 wrote: It is Multiple Personality Disorder/Dissociative Identity Disorder and is fairly rare.


I think it is a mistake to view the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus as a form of Multiple Personality Disorder/Dissociative Identity Disorder. This is because the Christian does not take on the putative personality or characteristics of Jesus to such a degree that he thinks he is Jesus. Although Christians seek to emulate Jesus I've never met any who claim that they actually are the Son of God or who think that they can raise the dead...etc. Have you?

spot;458820 wrote: That's the point of adopting the religion - the fact that your inner exploration can follow the route traced by earlier explorers, that there's a map established by people who have been there before, and that you in turn can leave further experiential traces for those who come after. I'd describe myself as a practicing Christian and I have no problem agreeing with your post, with only a rather miffed frown at my mind being described as a fruit-cellar. I can see that as a productive image, but I doubt whether it was intended as such. From what I've read from Christian mystics a lot of them would be content with the post as well. It's not a bad description of what, why, who and where.


Do you, spot, as a 'practicing Christian', have conversations with Jesus?

Glaswegian, I was wondering why you characterize Christians who have a personal relationship with Jesus in the following way:

When the Christian talks to Jesus he is really carrying out an internal dialogue with himself. That is, he splits one part of his self off, calls it 'Jesus', and then puts words into its mouth.


I am not a Christian in the traditional sense but I do choose to use Jesus as a symbol of my personal connection to God. I would describe what I do as the following:

1. Pray for the knowledge of God's will for me in my life.

2. Listen for my direction which comes in the form of a feeling or intuition or often in the advice of someone I love and trust.

I do have a two conversation with Jesus or put words in his mouth. Having said that I also do not consider the Bible to contain the accurate message of Jesus as many Christians do and this is why I do not call myself a Christian.

I think the above quoted statement is to general, I think many Chrisitians have a personal relationship with Jesus and do not have conversations such as you characterize. As Koan has pointed what you describe are psychological disorders or psychosis and not a spiritual relationship. Are you implying that to be Chrisitian is to be psychotic or disturbed?

koan;459413 wrote: I think you have a question. ie) Have people who claim to have spoken with spirits (by any name) actually conversed with something outside of themselves.


Yes, that is my question. And my answer to it is: No, they haven't. When they 'claim to have spoken with spirits (by any name)' they are actually conversing with another part of themselves which they pretend or mistakenly believe possesses a reality independent of themselves.

koan;459413 wrote: If you have proof that they have not then please share it.


If you have proof that they have then please share it.

koan;459413 wrote: If you have reason to believe that they have not then present it.


If you have reason to believe that they have then present it.

Glaswegian;459484 wrote: Do you, spot, as a 'practicing Christian', have conversations with Jesus?Not as far as I'm aware. God and I have a continuing dialogue. What I mean by those words is my interpretation of my experience. I have no doubt that many other equally valid interpretations exist, but I would disagree that mental illness is one of them. I find your use of quotes in that context to be rather insulting - am I to take it that you refuse to recognise my claim to be a Christian, or is it just my claim to practice my faith that you dispute?

Glaswegian;459708 wrote: Yes, that is my question. And my answer to it is: No, they haven't. When they 'claim to have spoken with spirits (by any name)' they are actually conversing with another part of themselves which they pretend or mistakenly believe possesses a reality independent of themselves.

If you have proof that they have then please share it.

If you have reason to believe that they have then present it.


But I have not made any assertions. You have. The burden of proof falls on your shoulders in this thread.

My first suggestion is that you either explain your credentials as a psychotherapist or get well away from redefining their analytical terms. I think what would be an altogether, entirely better way of making your claim would be "hallucination" not schizophrenia. Hallucination can be part of a schizophrenic's symptoms but not the disease itself. All you have proven here is that you are one of the many people who misunderstand what schizophrenia really is. Don't worry, it's the most common error the average person makes regarding mental illnesses.

zinkyusa;459492 wrote: Glaswegian, I was wondering why you characterize Christians who have a personal relationship with Jesus in the following way:


'When the Christian talks to Jesus he is really carrying out an internal dialogue with himself. That is, he splits one part of his self off, calls it 'Jesus', and then puts words into its mouth.'

I do so because this characterisation describes in a clear and concise way what the Christian's 'personal relationship' with Jesus actually involves.

zinkyusa;459492 wrote: I am not a Christian in the traditional sense but I do choose to use Jesus as a symbol of my personal connection to God. I would describe what I do as the following:

1. Pray for the knowledge of God's will for me in my life.

2. Listen for my direction...


This is an interesting choice of words on your part. You write: 'Listen for my direction' and not 'Listen for direction'. I think your use of the first phrase indicates that at some level you implicitly recognise that such direction is your own direction and not someone else's: viz. God's or Jesus's.

zinkyusa;459492 wrote: which comes in the form of a feeling or intuition...


I'm sure you would agree that the feeling or intuition you refer to is yours and that it is not mine, or your mother's, or your neighbour's, or your bank manager's, or anyone else's. Since you, and you alone, are the owner of the feeling or intuition - the one who has it, indeed the one who is it at the time of its occurrence - what makes you think that it is somehow distinct from your self, somehow other than your self, somehow independent of your self? So much so, that you actually go so far as to believe that it originates in a source outside your self. What ground(s) do you have for believing this?

zinkyusa;459492 wrote: I do have a two conversation with Jesus or put words in his mouth.


If this is meant to read - 'I do have a two way conversation with Jesus or put words in his mouth' - then you are making my argument for me. That is, you could have taken these words out of my mouth.

zinkyusa;459492 wrote: Are you implying that to be Chrisitian is to be psychotic or disturbed?


Here is what I wrote in reply to koan earlier in this thread:

'The term schizophrenia literally means 'splitting in the mind'. Therefore, it is an appropriate term to use to characterise the splitting of the personality which underpins the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus.'

The fact that the term can be applied to millions of religious believers doesn't make its use any less appropriate. The reason why some people might find the term schizophrenia unsettling when applied to so many religious believers is because of the negative emotive power invested in it by our culture. Personally speaking, I tend to view the Christian's imaginary relationship with Jesus as a mild form of schizophrenia as opposed to the full-blown variety.

Glaswegian wrote: The fact that the term can be applied to millions of religious believers doesn't make its use any less appropriate. The reason why some people might find the term schizophrenia unsettling when applied to so many religious believers is because of the negative emotive power invested in it by our culture. Personally speaking, I tend to view the Christian's imaginary relationship with Jesus as a mild form of schizophrenia as opposed to the full-blown variety.
The fact that the term is a specific medical condition does make it inappropriate.

My advice here is to make up a new word for what you are describing. Schizophrenic has already been taken.

by Glaswegian

If this is meant to read - 'I do have a two way conversation with Jesus or put words in his mouth' - then you are making my argument for me. That is, you could have taken these words out of my mouth.


LOL, of course I meant I do not have a conversation with ...... as the context of the rest of my post implies. Never claimed to have good typing skills I only use two fingers..

zinkyusa;459852 wrote: LOL, of course I meant I do not have a conversation with ...... as the context of the rest of my post implies. Never claimed to have good typing skills I only use two fingers..


This is just a rationalization on your part, zinkyusa: an attempt to conceal from yourself and other readers of this thread the true cause of your 'typing error'. What your 'typing error' actually signifies is a Freudian slip (or parapraxis - in case koan decides to look in).

But it's okay. I understand.

Glaswegian;459951 wrote: This is just a rationalization on your part, zinkyusa: an attempt to conceal from yourself and other readers of this thread the true cause of your 'typing error'. What your 'typing error' actually signifies is a Freudian slip (or parapraxis - in case koan decides to look in).

But it's okay. I understand.


Thank you Dr. Glaswegian my check is in the mail..

zinkyusa;459956 wrote: Thank you Dr. Glaswegian my check is in the mail..


You're welcome.

Glaswegian;459960 wrote: You're welcome.


Do you have a diagnosis as well for people who have to have the last word?

zinkyusa;459961 wrote: Do you have a diagnosis as well for people who have to have the last word?


Yes. Such individuals suffer from what I call - The Ultimate Psychosis

Glaswegian wrote: Do you, spot, as a 'practicing Christian', have conversations with Jesus?


spot;459718 wrote: Not as far as I'm aware.


This statement of yours, spot, is incredible. If someone were to ask me if I had conversations with an individual who had been dead for about two thousand years, especially an individual of such world historical importance as Jesus, I would most certainly know if I had or not. There would be no doubt in my mind whatsoever about the matter and I would be able to give my questioner a clear and precise answer: either a Yes or a No. For example, if I had conversations with Julius Caesar or Cleopatra or Nero or Mark Antony I would be utterly transfixed by these conversations, I would be 'all ears', as they say, in respect of them. So much so, that the fact that I was having these conversations, the fact that I was actually conversing with these long-dead individuals, would be unmistakeable to me. And each of these individuals is of much lesser significance than Jesus is in world history. So how can you be so non-committal about whether or not you have conversations with Jesus? How can you not know for definite one way or the other?

Let's assume for argument's sake, spot, that what is implied by your statement is possible: viz. that conversations might occur between you and Jesus which you are not conscious of. Then would you say that it is possible that conversations might also occur between you and other individuals - who are either alive or dead - which you are not conscious of either? For example, Julius Caesar or Cleopatra or Nero or President Bush or the current Pope? Or would you say that the non-conscious modes of conversation in which you possibly participate could only occur between you and certain individuals or entities - for example, Jesus or God?

spot wrote: God and I have a continuing dialogue.


What is the nature of this dialogue? Is it verbal or non-verbal in form?

spot wrote: What I mean by those words is my interpretation of my experience. I have no doubt that many other equally valid interpretations exist


Could you give me an example of one of these other equally valid interpretations?

spot wrote: am I to take it that you refuse to recognise my claim to be a Christian?


No. I acknowledge your claim, spot. I have no reason to doubt that you take yourself to be a Christian. Nor do I doubt that you would affirm yourself as such if asked.

spot wrote: or is it just my claim to practice my faith that you dispute?


No. I do believe that you try to practice your faith as best you can. Why should I believe otherwise? What I am disputing is your 'relationship' with Jesus. It is a relationship which has no basis in reality in my view. It is entirely spurious. Merely an imaginary relationship.

Glaswegian;462252 wrote: I acknowledge your claim, spot. I have no reason to doubt that you take yourself to be a Christian [...] I do believe that you try to practice your faith as best you can.Then why did you put 'practicing Christian' in quotes? It implies doubt.

You ask whether my dialogue with God is verbal or not. On occasion, yes. I certainly employ unvocalised words. Some of those are mine, some I interpret as God's. The dialogue is one part of our interaction. A rather greater part, as far as dialogue is concerned, takes the form of situations I find myself in which I interpret as God offering me questions or solutions, and my reaction to those situations.

Now, as to my statement - "Do you, spot, as a 'practicing Christian', have conversations with Jesus?: Not as far as I'm aware - being incredible. You're the one saying Jesus is an individual who had been dead for about two thousand years, especially an individual of such world historical importance, not me. Which Jesus are you talking about? The one in the Nativity scenes with the angels and Mary? My opinion (which I take from the writings of Kamal Salibi) is that those sections of the Gospels come from a far earlier time than their Gospel setting, from Arabia, that they were brought in by the Gospel writers to satisfy their need for prophetic fulfillment of various key Old Testament passages relating to either the Messiah or the Suffering Servant. Are you talking about the ministering Jesus who sprang fully-formed into the final few weeks before the crucifixion setting?

Ever since Renan and Schweitzer in the nineteenth century, theologians have been trying to untangle what they call the historical Jesus from that Gospel theological setting. I would have no trouble fitting within the Christian community even if proof positive were brought forward that Paul had utterly invented his saviour from start to finish and that Jesus was purely a literary device to flesh out Paul's new religion which he developed from the nascent church of Jerusalem. What is of world historical importance is the idea, not the person.

I know nothing about the person. The God with whom I wrestle is that part of the undefineable nature of the universe which responds to my attempts toward engagement. Whether it is external to me or internal isn't, in my opinion, either discoverable or relevant. If God's nature is enigmatic, who's to criticize? If God actually is nature, and the universe itself is capable of providing the events which I interpret, that's equally good as a description. God is a label, and a label is not the thing it is used to encompass. What matters, from within Christianity, is the mindset of the explorer. We are provided with theological insights, in the Bible, which Chistians have employed in their spiritual explorations. We in turn build on their experiences, guided by the insights which originally guided them. If you have an alternative set of resources to explore this territory, far be it from me to say that yours are less adequate to the task than mine are.

That, at any rate, is how I can not know for definite one way or the other.

Glaswegian;462252 wrote: [quote=spot]What I mean by those words is my interpretation of my experience. I have no doubt that many other equally valid interpretations existCould you give me an example of one of these other equally valid interpretations?[/QUOTE]I did say "no doubt" implying that I had no opinion on the validity of faiths I have not myself explored. It seems reasonable to me to include such obvious candidates as Judaism, Buddhism, Wicca, Islam, Zoroastrianism, Mithraism (to the extent that it might still be practiced), Hinduism... my lack of knowledge intervenes, of course. I would wonder what universal joke validated the works of L Ron Hubbard or the Mormons, if I ever found that they led anywhere spiritually - see, I can be judgemental and blinkered as much as the next man.

Jesus is simply a symbol, but in a form I can understand due to my "Western" upbringing. His lesson is to help me learn that we are not bodies. Our belief in bodies is simply a way to hide from oneness or God. We believe that we were able to separate but in reality did not. Jesus teaches me that the fundamental attack thought is the mind's decision to proclaim: “I am a body. Identity with the body is thus established, along with guilt for the “sin of having taken the thought of separation seriously. In order to preserve body identity and escape responsibility for the attack, the mind erases the memory of making the choice. It does so by projecting guilt and seeing attack outside itself. This is the true source of everyone's attack and fear of attack in the world. The deep feeling of vulnerability is a reflection of the guilt for having chosen the ego. Fear thus becomes the force at work in the world, which is why it is filled with attacks ranging from the seemingly innocuous to the vicious. Therefore, like the rest of the animal kingdom, humans are trained to sense danger (sometimes with “gut feelings), defend against it, and attack the perceived enemy. The important thing to remember, is that the source of all fear and vulnerability is guilt in the mind for choosing to believe the separation is real. The guilt is projected in many different forms of attack, some of which the world judges to be more deleterious than others. However, the attacker and the victim's fear have the same source in the mind. In content, they are both equally insane. Recognition of this sameness is a good place to start in dealing with those whose insanity sparks fear in us in a more obvious way. Jesus teaches me that the source of fear is not the potential harm of someone else's attack on the body, but the mind's choice for separation.

Jesus is just the name I choose to give to one who represents the right mind of the separated Sonship, and comes to me from outside the dream of separation in a form that I can relate to. So in that sense he is outside of the dream which contains such concepts as schizophrenia. He represents the reality of oneness to me.

Three guys from a mental institution were introducing themselves.

The first guy says, "Hi, my name is Paul, from the Bible."

The second guys says, "My name is Moses, God gave me the 10 Commandments."

The third guy says, "What did I give you?"

spot wrote: I'd describe myself as a practicing Christian


Glaswegian wrote: Do you, spot, as a 'practicing Christian', have conversations with Jesus?


spot;462467 wrote: why did you put 'practicing Christian' in quotes?


It is self-evident why I did this. I did it because I was quoting you, of course. I was indicating that the words are yours and not mine. I was protecting myself against the possibility of you or anyone else accusing me of...er...putting words into your mouth. All of this is extremely obvious and straightforward. But not to you it seems. For you write:

spot wrote: It implies doubt


It implies doubt only if you read the quotes around 'practicing Christian' in the way that you did. And since you did read them in that way this shows that the doubt lay in your mind and not mine. What you were actually doing, spot, when you wrote those three words - 'It implies doubt' - was projecting. You were shifting a feeling which you secretly harbour about your own faith on to me: namely, doubt. Like zinkyusa's 'typing error' earlier in this thread, your misreading of the meaning of the quotes around 'practicing Christian' is very revealing. And now I have to change my view about you because the doubt concerning your faith which lies concealed in your own mind has entered my mind as well now. Until you wrote the words - 'It implies doubt' - I had no reason to suspect that your Christian faith was anything less than unshakeable. Now I see that it is very shaky indeed.

spot wrote: You ask whether my dialogue with God is verbal or not.


That's right. I did.

spot wrote: On occasion, yes.


So there are times when the dialogue which you have with God takes the form of words.

spot wrote: I certainly employ unvocalised words.


Since 'unvocalised words' are unspoken words, words that have not been formed into sound, this means that these words occur in the privacy of your own mind. They are thoughts in verbal form, if you like. Or to put it even more plainly - they are just thoughts. Thus, when you say that you employ 'unvocalised words' in the dialogue you have with God what you mean is that you employ thinking.

Now let's be crystal clear about who it is that employs these unvocalised words. It is you, spot, isn't it? And, what is more, you have no doubt about this. For you write: 'I certainly employ unvocalised words'.

Now up until this point in your post (sentence #5) you have said nothing about God employing unvocalised words in the dialogue you have with Him. You have made no reference to His doing so whatsoever. Thus far in your post the only person you have identified as employing unvocalised words in your dialogue with God is yourself. Look back and check your post, spot, and you will see that I am right. Let me repeat: up until this point in your post you have only described YOURSELF as employing unvocalised words in your dialogue with God. You and no one else. You have said nothing about God doing so. I have to make this fact very clear, spot, because in the next sentence of your post (sentence #6) you write:

spot wrote: Some of those are mine, some I interpret as God's.


Do you realise what you are saying in that sentence? What you are actually saying is this: that you regard some of the unvocalised words which YOU employ in your dialogue with God as yours ('Some of those are mine') and that you interpret some of the unvocalised words which YOU employ in your dialogue with God as His ('some I interpret as God's').

Here are sentences #5 and #6 of your post for you to look at again, spot:

spot wrote: I certainly employ unvocalised words. Some of those are mine, some I interpret as God's.


In case you still don't get it, spot, the meaning of those two sentences taken together is this:

Some of those unvocalised words of mine I regard as mine: and some of those unvocalised words of mine I interpret as God's.

Or maybe you prefer this:

Some of those unvocalised words employed by me I regard as mine: and some of those unvocalised words employed by me I interpret as God's.

I think you've got it now.

I have to issue an advance warning concerning the next sentence of your post (sentence #7). This is necessary, spot, because in it you perform a verbal sleight-of-hand which a careless reader might miss. So WATCH CLOSELY, reader. For here it is:

spot wrote: The dialogue is one part of our interaction.


Your use of the word 'our' in that sentence, spot, is unwarranted, absurd and thoroughly dishonest. It is sheer self-deception on your part. Do you know why? Because the only person you are interacting with in your dialogue with God is yourself. You have told us this in the sentences leading up to - 'The dialogue is one part of our interaction'. In all the sentences preceding that one the only person you have described as employing unvocalised words is you, spot. You and you, ALONE. So your attempt to suddenly smuggle God into the interaction you have with yourself by using the word 'our' in the sentence - 'The dialogue is one part of our interaction' - is illegitimate. Illegitimate and laughable.

Surely you must realise by now what you have done in sentences #3, #4, #5, #6 and #7 of your post. What you have done in those sentences is confirm the argument I made in the OP of this thread: namely, that when the Christian talks to Jesus (or God) he is really carrying out an internal dialogue with himself. Thus, according to you, spot, when you have a dialogue with God you split one portion of your unvocalised words off and attribute them to yourself and split another portion of your unvocalised words off and attribute them to God.

spot is capable of writing his own reply, this is not to be taken as a response to the last post.

I am not a Christian.

I do speak with beings that are not myself.

Specifically, their names are Hadrian and Michael.

I have spoken with others as well.

I know they are not me because they give me messages for other people I have not met and know nothing about and the information has been confirmed as accurate.

You may make of it what you will, Glaswegian, but as far as facts are concerned you offer nothing but conjecture. Others can confirm what I am telling you.

I have little patience with people asserting themselves while refusing to support their assumptions with fact.

Glaswegian wrote: I had no reason to suspect that your Christian faith was anything less than unshakeable. Now I see that it is very shaky indeed.I suspect you're here just to pick a fight, to be honest. We have at least the advantage of a record of our exchanges from which others may form their own opinion.

As for your use of quote marks...

H.W. Fowler (1858–1933) The King’s English, 2nd ed. 1908. Chapter IV. Punctuation:Quotation marks, like hyphens, should be used only when necessary. The degree of necessity will vary slightly with the mental state of the audience for whom a book is intended. To an educated man it is an annoyance to find his author warning him that something written long ago, and quoted every day almost ever since, is not an original remark now first struck out. On the other hand, writers who address the uneducated may find their account in using all the quotation marks they can; their readers may be gratified by seeing how well read the author is, or may think quotation marks decorative.You had quoted my assertion that I am a practicing Christian already in http://www.forumgarden.com/forums/showp ... ostcount=9 - the post in question. Do please go back and check to be sure. Your second use of quotation, were it that, tied already to the first, would fall well within the range of Fowler's opprobrium if it was genuinely intended to mark a back-reference as you claim. I think my interpretation that they were there solely as a sneering gesture will be assumed by most readers, especially in light of your subsequent post today. To insert quotation marks simply by way of drawing attention and conveying a sneer is surely a very heavy and unwarranted assumption of superiority on your part.

For the rest - bluster as you like, by all means. I did read your argument, tedious though it was. It bored me sideways. I'm not going to reiterate my statements since they stand earlier in the thread and others will make of them what they will. They are my accurate description of experience and interpretation. You interpret my experiences differently. Do so, by all means. As I pointed out already, "Whether [God] is external to me or internal isn't, in my opinion, either discoverable or relevant". What matters is the exploration, and the consequent change it produces within me and, through me, within the world.

This is why you turned up on FG? To be as insulting as you could manage, while employing pseudo-psychological analysis to sound clever?

Glaswegian;458811 wrote:

The schizophrenic splitting of the personality which underpins the Christian's 'relationship' with Jesus also underpins the Muslim's 'relationship' with Allah, the Jew's 'relationship' with Jehovah, the Catholic's 'relationship' with the Virgin Mary, etc. - but here I'm telling the rational person something he already knows.

Regards

James


Just another sad nonbeliever grasping at straws to try to show that believers are some kind of child or mental issue and trying to show there is no God. I waste no words to even discuss this sadly lacking issue.

Ooooooooooops maybe that was offensive when I didn't really mean it to be. I just don't buy into any of what you said James. It isn't at all the way I see my relationship with God. I, and probably most Christians, believed the same as a child as I do now. It is just that now I have tested and chosen for myself. Your arguments seem to put Christians in a box where they have no individuality. A lot of people do that with God too which is rather sad.

koan;463473 wrote: I do speak with beings that are not myself.

Specifically, their names are Hadrian and Michael.

I have spoken with others as well.


What sort of beings are Hadrian and Michael and these others?

koan wrote: I know they are not me because they give me messages for other people I have not met and know nothing about and the information has been confirmed as accurate.


Could Hadrian and Michael and these others provide you with information about me?

koan wrote: You may make of it what you will, Glaswegian, but as far as facts are concerned you offer nothing but conjecture.


In your heart of hearts, koan, you know that this isn't true. You know that my posts drip with reason and careful analysis of the facts.

koan wrote: I have little patience with people asserting themselves while refusing to support their assumptions with fact.


Me too.

Glaswegian;463538 wrote: What sort of beings are Hadrian and Michael and these others?

Could Hadrian and Michael and these others provide you with information about me?

In your heart of hearts, koan, you know that this isn't true. You know that my posts drip with reason and careful analysis of the facts.

Me too.


They are not living humans.

Yes.

In my heart of hearts I know that you don't want to hear what they've told me about you.

Your posts certainly drip with something and it is not reason.

I suggest you are done with your preaching. There is at least one member here who can testify on my behalf.

koan;463548 wrote: They are not living humans.


If they are not living humans then what are they?

koan wrote: In my heart of hearts I know that you don't want to hear what they've told me about you.


koan: I'm just dying to hear what they told you about me. Surely they at least told you that?

Glaswegian;463557 wrote: If they are not living humans then what are they?



koan: I'm just dying to hear what they told you about me. Surely they at least told you that?


Why would you care? You don't believe and you've certainly not acted like the kind of person who deserves a favour

koan;463558 wrote: Why would you care? You don't believe...


But koan: I'm not in a position to believe one way or the other until you tell me what they said about me, am I? And who knows? After you tell me I might even start to care....

koan wrote: and you've certainly not acted like the kind of person who deserves a favour


Does this mean then that they spoke well about me? That I would be delighted to hear what they had to say?

Glaswegian;463569 wrote: But koan: I'm not in a position to believe one way or the other until you tell me what they said about me, am I? And who knows? After you tell me I might even start to care....



Does this mean then that they spoke well about me? That I would be delighted to hear what they had to say?


But, I don't need to tell you what they said to prove it.

No it was unpleasant...in my books, anyway. If you want proof ask jimbo.

Also ask spot. He forgot a username for an old account that he wanted to access. I told him the name. It was right. There was no way for me to have known it. He will confirm.

weber;463518 wrote: Ooooooooooops maybe that was offensive when I didn't really mean it to be.


No offence taken, weber.

zinkyusa;462502 wrote: Jesus is simply a symbol, but in a form I can understand due to my "Western" upbringing.


What you are saying in this sentence, zinkyusa, is that there is nothing more to Jesus than the attribute or property of being a symbol. That that's all there is to Jesus. Jesus=symbol. No more. No less. Simply that.

Now you aren't being entirely honest with yourself here, are you? You don't really think of Jesus as only a symbol, do you? It's quite clear that in practice you don't, zinkyusa, because in the next sentence of your post (sentence #2) you write:

zinkyusa wrote: His lesson is to help me learn that we are not bodies.


Here you have already moved a long way from thinking of Jesus simply as a symbol. In the eyes of rational men, a symbol is unable to do anything for itself: it is a mere sign or representation. But you have got no further than your second sentence when you start to anthropomorphise the symbol 'Jesus': more precisely, you allocate a gender to it ('His') and endow it with agency - viz. the capacity to teach ('His lesson is to help me learn'). Surely you cannot be blind to what you have done in sentence #2 of your post, zinkyusa? In case you are then let me spell it out for you. What you have done is make the symbol 'Jesus' take on a life of its own.

Tell me, zinkyusa: How do you get from Jesus simply being a symbol to Jesus coming alive and teaching you all of those things you mention in your post about 'bodies' and 'separation' and 'fear' and 'guilt' and 'vulnerability' and "sin", etc.? How can Jesus qua symbol - that is, Jesus as a mere sign or representation - do this? On what basis do you make the extraordinary leap from symbol to didactic entity?

There is a picture of Stanley Kubrick on the cover of a book lying on a table near me: a picture which symbolises him. But I don't expect that symbol of Kubrick to so much as wink at me let alone teach me how to direct movies. So if Jesus is simply a symbol as you state in the first sentence of your post, zinkyusa, then can you explain to me how this symbol is able to teach you all that stuff you talk about in the rest of your post?

Glaswegian;464101 wrote: What you are saying in this sentence,...

Now you aren't being entirely honest with yourself here, are you? You don't really think ...




Your repetition of the phrases "what you are really saying" and "you aren't being entirely honest with yourself" shows that you have a distrust of people and doubt that they ever understand what they really think. This is obviously a sign that you don't know what you think and are projecting it onto other posters.



In the eyes of rational men, ...




When you say "in the eyes of rational men" you are clearly speaking about people other than yourself, the third person, indicating that you doubt your own sanity. This makes sense because someone doubting their own sanity would immediately accuse others of being irrational and insane to overcome their own fears.



There is a picture of Stanley Kubrick on the cover of a book lying on a table near me: a picture which symbolises him. But I don't expect that symbol of Kubrick to so much as wink at me let alone teach me how to direct movies. So if Jesus is simply a symbol as you state in the first sentence of your post, zinkyusa, then can you explain to me how this symbol is able to teach you all that stuff you talk about in the rest of your post?


Bringing a film director into the discussion shows a desire to separate yourself from your anxieties as if they are projected on a screen in front of you instead of having to cope with the emotional turmoil in which you find yourself. The characterisation of the book as "lying there in front of me" shows a helplessness in that you are confronted with something which was inescapable. Your recognition that the photo is only a symbol shows that you wish to negate that part of yourself which causes you pain. Your final sentence lashes out calling for an explanation as to why you should deal with your inner self.

Clearly this is a cry for help and, being helpful people, we at FG will try to assist you in overcoming these difficulties. But first you must admit you have a problem.

guys i dont know how but koan and i have never met nor talked on the phone



but somehow she pm'd me something she could not possibly know i have no explanation at all but my mind is now open to all possibilities honest

guys i dont know how but koan and i have never met nor talked on the phone



but somehow she pm'd me something she could not possibly know i have no explanation at all but my mind is now open to all possibilities honest:-3

koan:-6

I can agree with what you have said so far.

I would only add that what I see from Glas. is nothing more than verbal diarrhea which I really found boring.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;464320 wrote: koan:-6

I can agree with what you have said so far.

I would only add that what I see from Glas. is nothing more than verbal diarrhea which I really found boring.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Welcome to the surrealist thread.

All your dreams will be interpreted as words.

Have an up so down day.

koan;464233 wrote: Your repetition of the phrases "what you are really saying" and "you aren't being entirely honest with yourself" shows that you have a distrust of people and doubt that they ever understand what they really think.


If you examine carefully the contexts in which I use these phrases then you will see that their use is appropriate. You will see this...But in order to admit this, koan, you must be entirely honest with yourself.

koan wrote: you have a distrust of people


I don't have a general distrust of people. But I trust some more than others. Don't you?

koan wrote: This is obviously as sign that you don't know what you think


I'm wrong at times with regard to what I really think. But so are you. And so is everyone else. It's a universal human failing.

koan wrote: you doubt your own sanity


I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Let's just say I don't take it for granted.

koan wrote: someone doubting their own sanity would immediately accuse others of being irrational and insane to overcome their own fears


No. This reaction is not invariable among those who doubt their own sanity. But it occurs.

koan wrote: Bringing a film director into the discussion shows a desire to separate yourself from your anxieties as if they are projected on a screen in front of you instead of having to cope with the emotional turmoil in which you find yourself.


No. Kubrick didn't just suddenly irrupt into my consciousness. He didn't burst in yelling: 'It's Johneeeeeee!'. As I said in my earlier post his picture was on the cover of a book nearby. He was ready to hand. Convenient. That's why I brought him into the discussion.

koan wrote: The characterisation of the book as "lying there in front of me"


No. I wrote:

Glaswegian wrote: lying on a table near me


But your choice of words is interesting.

koan wrote: Clearly this is a cry for help and, being helpful people, we at FG will try to assist you in overcoming these difficulties.


The offer of assistance is very kind. But even if these difficulties existed - and they don't - I'm afraid I would have to decline the offer. When it comes to overcoming difficulties of any kind I prefer to rely on myself.

koan wrote: But first you must admit you have a problem


Who doesn't?

Tag team Ted,

YOU'RE IT!

koan:-6

I'm not the least bit interested in playing with verbal diarrhea.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Ted;464604 wrote: koan:-6

I'm not the least bit interested in playing with verbal diarrhea.

Shalom

Ted:-6


Ah, crap

koan:-6

LOL



Shalom

Ted:-6

Glaswegian;464598 wrote: If you examine carefully the contexts in which I use these phrases then you will see that their use is appropriate. You will see this...But in order to admit this, koan, you must be entirely honest with yourself.

I don't have a general distrust of people. But I trust some more than others. Don't you?

I'm wrong at times with regard to what I really think. But so are you. And so is everyone else. It's a universal human failing.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. Let's just say I don't take it for granted.

No. This reaction is not invariable among those who doubt their own sanity. But it occurs.

No. Kubrick didn't just suddenly irrupt into my consciousness. He didn't burst in yelling: 'It's Johneeeeeee!'. As I said in my earlier post his picture was on the cover of a book nearby. He was ready to hand. Convenient. That's why I brought him into the discussion.

No. I wrote:

But your choice of words is interesting.

The offer of assistance is very kind. But even if these difficulties existed - and they don't - I'm afraid I would have to decline the offer. When it comes to overcoming difficulties of any kind I prefer to rely on myself.

Who doesn't?


But, how does it make you feel?