This is the Truth...!

Originally posted by amannion
What's deeper than the mind?
If you're asking me to start crapping on about spirit and soul, you're talking with the wrong person.
My mind is it.

Are you saying that compassion does not move you inside? Do you not feel things in your gut?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Are you saying that compassion does not move you inside? Do you not feel things in your gut?

I get physical feelings in my stomach - do you mean that? No, of course not. You mean some sort of mumbo jumbo that I can use my head or my heart, right?
Then no, I feel nothing in my gut. My mind is where my feelings originate - up top, in my brain.

Originally posted by amannion
I get physical feelings in my stomach - do you mean that? No, of course not. You mean some sort of mumbo jumbo that I can use my head or my heart, right?
Then no, I feel nothing in my gut. My mind is where my feelings originate - up top, in my brain.

I don't see how you can feel something without having a body. Feelings and being moved with compassion are physical sensations.

BTW- It would be really good if you watched the 10 minutes from 5.30 mins now because it's so relevant to this.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't see how you can feel something without having a body. Feelings and being moved with compassion are physical sensations.

BTW- It would be really good if you watched the 10 minutes from 5.30 mins now because it's so relevant to this.

I'm just wrapping up some stuff at work and then I'm going to have a look at the vid.
As for feelings - you seem to be confusing emotions and the sensory notion of feeling/touch. I'm a teacher of Outdoor Education here in Australia - we take students outdoors camping, climbing, canoeing, surfing and so on - so I understand fully the connection between our bodies and our minds.
But compassion as a physical sensation doesn't make any sense to me.

Originally posted by amannion
I'm just wrapping up some stuff at work and then I'm going to have a look at the vid.
As for feelings - you seem to be confusing emotions and the sensory notion of feeling/touch. I'm a teacher of Outdoor Education here in Australia - we take students outdoors camping, climbing, canoeing, surfing and so on - so I understand fully the connection between our bodies and our minds.
But compassion as a physical sensation doesn't make any sense to me.

I'm thinking empathy here related to compassion. Like when we see someone in pain , we almost enter into the pain ourselves and have a physical reaction , like wincing for example. Tears and weeping are also physical.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I'm thinking empathy here related to compassion. Like when we see someone in pain , we almost enter into the pain ourselves and have a physical reaction , like wincing for example. Tears and weeping are also physical.

Okay I've just watched the bit you suggested.
I have to say, I was pretty underwhelmed. I'm sure he was a powerful speaker to the converted - you could hear them in the background - but to a died in the wool atheist like me?

Hi story about the priest Kevin at the start, doesn't particularly impress me. I can fully accept that people have experiences like the one he described. Where I differ is in the interpretation of that experience. I don't deny that you truly believe in an external god - of which jesus is some part. My interpretation of this is that this 'feeling' of god is in fact an internal part of you. You, in a sense, create god.

The analysis of Jesus's compassion is just one of many after-the-fact interpretations of second hand stories about this charismatic local identity from 2000 years ago.

And, no emotions don't arise from our guts. They come from our heads, and like many things that originate in the brain, they travel via electrical signals along the nerves to end up in other parts of our bodies.

Originally posted by amannion
Okay I've just watched the bit you suggested.
I have to say, I was pretty underwhelmed. I'm sure he was a powerful speaker to the converted - you could hear them in the background - but to a died in the wool atheist like me?

Hi story about the priest Kevin at the start, doesn't particularly impress me. I can fully accept that people have experiences li y travel via electrical signals along the nerves to end up in other parts of our bodies.

So you do agree that the "illusion" of being indwelt by the presence of a furiously compassionate Jesus is highly convincing?

So how do we know the difference between the "illusion" of Christ actually loving us and the real thing? And if we experience his love at the deepest darkest places of our being meeting us in our despair and accepting us as we are (not as we should) isn't that an "illusion" worth taking a risk on? Mind you you have to have the experience in the first place to be able to really comment.


It strikes me that even if Jesus was for real ( which I think he is) then you might still call the experience of him an illusion? Who knows , the whole universe might be a hologram and I might not even exist. All is faith in the end. But boy this jesus eh , what an illusion!!!!

BTW - I respect your integrity to actually watch it. I think you made it 5-3 , I've lost count)

Originally posted by knightmeister
So you do agree that the "illusion" of being indwelt by the presence of a furiously compassionate Jesus is highly convincing?

So how do we know the difference between the "illusion" of Christ actually loving us and the real thing? And if we experience his love at the deepest darkest places of our being meeting us in our despair and accepting us as ...[text shortened]... respect your integrity to actually watch it. I think you made it 5-3 , I've lost count)

I agree that it's highly convincing to some people.
I'm not sure how others know the difference between the illusion and the real thing. I base my position on a kind of ockham's razor assessment - which is more plausible to me: a supernatural explanation for god or an internal feeling/suggestion?
I go with the internal.

As for the experience while in complete despair; I think the experience you, I or anyone else might have at such times is probably pretty much the same. You might call it being infused with the love of jesus; I call it the power and strength of our internal mind t deal with adversity.
The experience is the same, how we describe it - how we name it - is the difference.

Originally posted by amannion
I agree that it's highly convincing to some people.
I'm not sure how others know the difference between the illusion and the real thing. I base my position on a kind of ockham's razor assessment - which is more plausible to me: a supernatural explanation for god or an internal feeling/suggestion?
I go with the internal.

As for the experience while in c ...[text shortened]... ersity.
The experience is the same, how we describe it - how we name it - is the difference.

So even if you felt you were standing in the presence of incredible unconditional acceptance and compassion and felt what seemed like the person of Jesus responding and meeting you at your deepest place you would still label it as implausible? Whilst I understand this position it seems that what might be happening is your world view is dictating to you what your experience is rather than your experience dictating to you what your world view is.

Jesus has been dead for a long time now.
You really don't have any place to be making claims for what he's been up to since that time.
In fact, you weren't alive 2000 years ago so you don't have much place to say what he was up to when he was alive either.

You obey neither facts, nor logic, and thus, your "persuasions" are falling on deaf ears. The baying of the sheep who already agree with you seem to be your only fall back.

If you want to live a truly spiritual life, you need to let go of the past, stop being afraid of the future and making up nice stories about what's going to happen to you when you're shifting out of this manifestation of life, and live in the present.

Although I know Jesus as little as you, I am guessing that he would not be encouraging you or anyone else to waste their time on earth using him as some kind of "golden ticket" to the Willy Wonka Land of the afterlife.

You are responsible for you actions. His compassion means nothing if you do not learn to demonstrate that same level of compassion and tolerance.

Originally posted by mdhall
Jesus has been dead for a long time now.
You really don't have any place to be making claims for what he's been up to since that time.
In fact, you weren't alive 2000 years ago so you don't have much place to say what he was up to when he was alive either.

You obey neither facts, nor logic, and thus, your "persuasions" are falling on deaf ears. The bay othing if you do not learn to demonstrate that same level of compassion and tolerance.

I didn't make the claims ...he did.

I would agree with your last paragraph wholeheartedly.

Did you watch it?

Originally posted by knightmeister
So even if you felt you were standing in the presence of incredible unconditional acceptance and compassion and felt what seemed like the person of Jesus responding and meeting you at your deepest place you would still label it as implausible? Whilst I understand this position it seems that what might be happening is your world view is dictating to you what your experience is rather than your experience dictating to you what your world view is.

Yes, you're right, but the same is true for you. You would deny my version of events because of your worldview.

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, you're right, but the same is true for you. You would deny my version of events because of your worldview.

It's slightly different though because it depends what the primary data is and whether one has experienced it or not. The strange thing is that once one has experienced the deep compassion of christ at the deepest level that manning talks of (however briefly) it becomes much harder to dismiss as illusionary.

I guess what I am getting at is that there are two ways to interpret an experience . We can interpret it second hand based upon reports of that experience or we can interpret it from within from a first hand experience. The interesting thing is that experiences of christ tend to get interpreted as something else second hand by those who have not experienced it and those who have rarely shrug it off as a "product of the mind".

Originally posted by knightmeister
It's slightly different though because it depends what the primary data is and whether one has experienced it or not. The strange thing is that once one has experienced the deep compassion of christ at the deepest level that manning talks of (however briefly) it becomes much harder to dismiss as illusionary.

I guess what I am getting at is that th ...[text shortened]... ho have not experienced it and those who have rarely shrug it off as a "product of the mind".

Yes, that's true, although I would guess that our worldview determines to a large extent how open we are to which ever of the two interpretations we choose. I haven't had the sort of experience you describe, but in all honesty I can't imagine interpreting in any way other than how I described - as some sort of internal revelation.
In fact, my atheism - which I fully acknowledge has no more basis in rationality than your christianity - forces me to choose the internal explanation. I can't stand the notion that I might be wrong and that the world I live in could be run in part by the supernatural. I don't want to live in such a world - the idea is abhorent. So, if I were to experience such a 'jesus' event - you can probably see how I would interpret it.

Originally posted by amannion
Yes, that's true, although I would guess that our worldview determines to a large extent how open we are to which ever of the two interpretations we choose. I haven't had the sort of experience you describe, but in all honesty I can't imagine interpreting in any way other than how I described - as some sort of internal revelation.
In fact, my atheism - whi ...[text shortened]... were to experience such a 'jesus' event - you can probably see how I would interpret it.

You are a very honest debater on this forum and I have always had respect for what you have to say. It sounds like the fact that you can't stand the idea of the supernatural would definitely infuence your thinking. However , Christians are always accused of believing in God because they want it to be true , but it makes me wonder how many atheists disbelieve in God because they find the idea of him "abhorent"?

I speculate that you probably have a particular idea of what the supernatural is and represents that also influences your thinking.

Ultimately the goal for us all should be to try and decide what we honestly feel is true based on freeing ourselves of assumptions and not pre-judging something based on whether we are going to like it or not. If God doesn't exist , a christian wanting him to won't make him exist , similarly if God does exist he will exist whether or not you find him abhorrent or not.