My Take On Jesus

[IIzO]

If I associate with Christians, they confirm my experiences as valid manifestations of the presence of God.

And....what is the logic that leads to this conclusion ?

But like I said, that was only chapter one. The constant over four decades has been the inner experience of the presence of Jesus.

Well yeah right , care to explain how "jesus manifested" himself and how you came to that conclusion (as far as it is told , you were actually thinking that it was jesus all along but oh well...)

This is simply incorrect. If the events recorded about the life of Jesus are historically true, then the possibility of the existence of another reality is opened. It is valid to start with the historical, not with the "supernatural" (I don't like that word). If I make the case for Jesus first, the case for God follows.

What is a historical Jesus as opposed to a "supernatural" one ?Oh you mean that if we take the story as real beforehand everything inside the story would be natural....oh yeah of course ,but so are every single myth/lies around , myth are originaly taken seriously....before the lack of evidence just nails them as myth that is.

The general course of events in my life plus the descriptions of the experience of the Holy Spirit in the NT lead me to this conclusion.

Could you be more specific upon what the "holy spirit" is supposed to be/make and has supposedly done to you and how the explanation of the NT is worth something?Thanks in advance

[Surendra Darathy]

In a group of letters intended purrported to be a communication of truth statements, internal consistency is a hallmark of authenticity. The genre provides the context which determines the applicability of the proper standard of evaluation.

Fixeted for u, mai kitteh

And we know they were actually letters by the extensive historical record left by which historical recipients of said epistolary foofuraw? There can be little doubt that those who read the texts believed in some sense that they described real events. People are incredibly gullible sometimes. People also write lots of letters to the editor about the secret business at Area 51 which they never send out of some sense of personal responsibility.

[Oldskeptic]

Bruce wrote:
I've only given you chapter one. I've been experiencing things and analyzing things for 40 years. All experiences are in the brain. The question is what causes them.

The easy answer for the credulous has always been to explain things that are apparently unexplainable with the supernatural. You’ve cited a post by Duckphup as being something unexplainable so supernatural, but Duckphup did not explain it that way. One way to explain something like what happened to him is pure coincidence. Before accepting something like this as supernatural it would be interesting if we could know how many of the billions of people existing have had similar premonitions and how correct they were.

Bruce wrote:
And totally apart from any drug I have experienced many other things over the past 40 years. If that first experience was the only one, I would agree that it was probably all drug induced. But like I said, that was only chapter one. The constant over four decades has been the inner experience of the presence of Jesus.

You had the initial experience while under the influence of a drug that causes hallucinations and heightened emotional responses. You enjoyed these emotions and have found ways to reinforce them through belief in a supernatural force that you have convinced yourself is the source of them.

You have a self reinforcing delusion that I suspect works very well at seeking confirmation of your beliefs as well as filtering out anything that would cause you to doubt them.

The above is just my opinion, but I base it on a lot of study of how the mind works. It is fascinating, and I think something interesting to think about.

There was a not so interesting study done on mice being trained to push a lever that caused opiates to be delivered to them. Not surprisingly the mice became addicted and preferred the opiate lever to the lever that provided them with food. But I have read a very interesting hypothesis backed up by neurological research that the reason the mice tended to keep pushing the opiate lever long after it ceased to provide the drug was that just the anticipation of possibly receiving the drug provided similar results within the brain as actually receiving he drug. Part of this hypothesis was that possibly the anticipation of results is enough reinforcement to keep the ritual involved alive even after only negative results are all that resulted from the ritual.

As for the other part of your argument about why you believe:
That Jesus was a historical figure in no way supports a belief that he was what Christians believe him to have been. Even if there were eyewitness accounts from John and Paul (Which is highly unlikely) of his existence or miracles performed by Jesus.

Using the New Testament to defend a belief in Jesus does not work, nor does it work the other way around. You can’t rationally or reasonably say that you believe in Jesus as the Christ because the New Testament says that he is the Christ, and at the same time say that you believe that the New Testament is the true story because you believe that Jesus is the Christ. It is one or the other if you want to avoid circular reasoning, but in neither case can it be called rational or reasonable.

I think that what we have here in your case and countless others is conversion by subjective experience and then selective confirmation in your reading of the New Testament.

So many Christians believe that their Jesus came to spread love and peace but either they have not read the New Testament or they just filter out the parts that don’t match what they want to believe.

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 10
 32Whosoever therefore shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my Father which is in heaven.

 33But whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.

 34Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

 35For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

 36And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.

Wow! Not quite the gentle peaceful Jesus that most Christians these days want to believe in. Sounds more like a sociopath charismatic cult leader that is jealous of any kind of emotional connections that his followers might have with anyone other than himself.

Jesus the Christ is a myth, especially the Christ that Christians want to believe in today. If the New Testament is a historical record then history does not support the modern day myth that is Jesus the loving peaceful Christ with respect to family values or loving bonds.

[colubridae]

[Pombolo]

This is simply incorrect. If the events recorded about the life of Jesus are historically true, then the possibility of the existence of another reality is opened. It is valid to start with the historical, not with the "supernatural" (I don't like that word). If I make the case for Jesus first, the case for God follows.

Nope. I claim that the sun will rise tomorrow... because the sun god Helios will haul it up with his chariot. If the sun actually does rise tomorrow, have I proven the existence of Helios? A prediction coming true does not prove than any explanation I have verbally bolted onto it, is also true. If Jesus himself was in front of me, and could objectively prove he was the Jesus, and could raise people from the dead, split food to create copies of the food, slice of his arm and spontaneously grow it back again: none of that would go a single millimeter toward proving God. It would prove that there is something about this Jesus fellow that we cannot explain. The fact that he was claimed to be the son of a god is a separate claim that is unproven. That is a belief you are simply attaching to the supposed existence of Jesus.

Again, you're doing it the wrong way around.

How do you know what I will say? We just met. We haven't been married for 30 years.

Because I've dealt with this in many discussions. This is not original. I do not need to have been married to you, and as I explained in a preceeding post, your subsequent responses to others have confirmed what I thought 'arational' was designed to do.

It is the "huge pejorative undertones" that cause me to seek another term. You want to use "irrational" so you can end the discussion.

Thank you for the admission that you have no reason for 'arational' other than the fact you don't like irrational. As for
"You want to use "irrational" so you can end the discussion"
"You want to use... makes it easy for you to dismiss them."
"I don't want to fall into the trap you want to set between..."
(from above)
"How do you know what I will say? We just met."

Oh the irony. As you may have noticed from above posts, I pay attention to the meaning behind words, so I wouldn't have used the word irrational to dismiss anything you said. Something can be irrational, yet still valid if rationality was nothing to do with the discussion.

"... makes it easy for you to dismiss them. Something is a colour or it is not a colour" is an example of this.

No, you insisted a binary situation was not binary (despite having now conceeded that you did this because you don't like the pejorative overtones). I explained why it was binary by nature. What you have now done is pretend that I did this to dismiss things. The fact you make this about my personal intentions shows how you turn discussions into personal conflicts between the people involved, rather than the content of what is said. Your past responses to others suggests this, as does the following:

... but synesthetes see certain numbers in colors - a third option opened to them because of the way their brain is wired.

So what? You're talking to a synesthete now, how is this relevant? Of course, there is no relevance. Just as you make disagreements over logic about personal intentions, you are obfuscating here again. You are completely changing the point of the analogy onto a literal understanding of colour, so that you can then sound like a smart-ass who sees some middle-ground that the other person has missed. You pulled exactly the same nonsense with Surendra over the book analogy.

I no longer care about my tone when addressing people who do this, since you are willfully setting up a strawman, and being duplicitious in your treatment of any analogy that does not suit you. Repeating the very same rebutted definition of 'arational' all over again advertises how little you respond to inquiry and disagreement. Like the others in this thread, I won't bother with this any more, since your 'wall' has gone up on that issue.

The information came to him, and then he confirmed that it was correct. He did not know by rational means that the information was correct until he confirmed it. Until he confirmed it, he believed it to be correct, but he did not have final confirmation.

Hence it was arrived at irrationally. The conformation process was rational. But I'm sure that won't stop you from repeating the same line over again. If people can be bothered to check above to see the quotes this is responding to, repetition seems to be a common response from you.

You are the one who pointed out the pejorative connotations attached to the word "irrational." You've answered your own question.

So that's it? Another admission that you don't like a particular word, so you invent your own category? Do you really not see how mendacious that is? Why do you bother asking people to discuss issues when you readily admit that if you subjectively don't like a word, you will invent your own? Communication depends upon people using definitions we commonly agree upon.

You like to trumpet the word "irrational" to nudge the reader in your direction. It's like having a debate and calling one team the Geniuses and the other team the Idiots. Which side will the judges vote for?

Another attempt to infer my intentions (see above) and another bastardisation of an analogy (see above). What the teams were called would mean nothing to the truth of what was said. Again, surface level nicety seems more important to you than substance.

In a group of letters intended to be a communication of truth statements, internal consistency is a hallmark of authenticity.

At best it is suggestive. A hallmark? Really? There is a lot hidden in "intended to be a communication of truth statements". Intended would be the word, since anyone could be wrong, and yet truthfully and accurately report what they thought was correct. If this is offered only as suggestive of the existence of someone called Jesus, then it has a higher chance of being correct. If it is offered as suggestive of proof of miracles or divine nature, well... sun gods and chariots.

Of course I see that. That is what I have been evaluating for the past 40 years.

And I'm sure that evaluation involved researching the neurological reason for it manifesting, right? You did open-mindedly look into explanations that were in no way contingent on the religious?

I've given you my first experience. "Magical healer" is your assumption, of course.

No, Jesus, if he were to be real as described in the Bible, would be a magical healer. I suspect that were are again stepping on those sensitive toes of yours with regards to the sound of words. You don't like supernatural, you don't like irrational, and now we can add to that: "magical".

These experiences, along with many, many others that I have had over the past 40 years, convince me personally that the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit, explained in the early Christian writings known as "the New Testament," are valid and real.

So if someone growing up in a different religious culture had similar experiences (with pagan alternatives replacing the name Jesus) and the feelings were every bit as intense, meaningful, and supported in their ancient writings: they would just be wrong?

So to whom do I go for enlightenment? ... but concluding that I am experiencing the presence of God.

My point was only that the person experiencing is the least equipped to evaluate the objective value of an experience. As for further enlightenment... dare I say that perhaps there is no grand explanation or enlightenment?

The general course of events in my life plus the descriptions of the experience of the Holy Spirit in the NT lead me to this conclusion.

Let us say that you did not have the experience after taking an hallucinogenic drug. Would you have interpreted the "general course of events in my life" in the same way? Without that intensely meaningful experience to 'prime' your mind, so to speak, would you have perhaps thought of other explanations for the other events? I'm trying not to mention confirmation bias but...

[Bruce Burleson]

and when things go poorly, that is also Jesus getting in your way, right? Making a goal is a very old technique and as an atheist I have used it and it appeared to work, sorry no Jesus. Let's look at evidence about historical Jesus from people who kept records back then. Both the Romans and other Jews kept records and were there at that time. Some one with such powers and the son of the 'only' god surely must have been noticed by everyone, right? So cite some of those sources, that's generally how historians do it when possible, multiple sources.

The only sources that exist on the life of Jesus written by contemporaries are those found in the early Christian writings known as the New Testament. The Romans kept records, and Tacitus in about 116 may have referenced some of those records in confirming that Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. We do not have his sources, however. The Jews may have kept records, but the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE probably also resulted in the destruction of those records. Note that, for both the Romans and the Jews, their interest in Jesus' life probably ended when he was crucified. They did not believe that he had been resurrected, so reports of him working miracles in the 3 years prior to his crucifixion would have been discounted - the fact that he was crucified showed (in their minds) that he was just another Jew claiming to be the Messiah. So there would have been no great historical interest in him until after the destruction of Jerusalem when Christianity began to eclipse Judaism. By then, most of Jesus' contemporaries were dead, so firsthand reports would have been difficult. The result is that we are left with the reports only of his followers. These are the only reports we have, and there are no contemporary reports to the contrary.

[Bruce Burleson]

Even if subjective experiences of immediately inexplicable phenomena are actually true, this does not, by a long shot, imply or denote that there is any level of veracity to religious explicative claims, nor is their any more reason at all to assume that these phenomena are, in fact, "arational" and necessitate relying on religion for answers- all it means is that there might exist as of yet unexplained phenomena, and all this implies is that explanations, entirely rational ones, will appear at some point in the future.

That is true. I'm not claiming that the arational category of experiences proves the existence of God. It is one element of my argument, to be taken together with the rest. Just as the immediate transmission of knowledge in the case of Duckphup may someday be rationally explained, it is entirely possible that the existence of God may someday be rationally explained. But right now, we have these experiences that are arational in nature, so I have given them their own category.

[Bruce Burleson]

What is a historical Jesus as opposed to a "supernatural" one ?Oh you mean that if we take the story as real beforehand everything inside the story would be natural....oh yeah of course ,but so are every single myth/lies around , myth are originaly taken seriously....before the lack of evidence just nails them as myth that is.

You analyze each piece of historical evidence on its own merits. Do you care to point me to another example prior to Jesus of a story you consider to be myth where a contemporary of the events at issue gave a firsthand account?

Could you be more specific upon what the "holy spirit" is supposed to be/make and has supposedly done to you and how the explanation of the NT is worth something?Thanks in advance

The Holy Spirit is the presence of God in the life of the Christian. "Holy" simply means set apart - God is separate from his creation in essence. "Spirit" is simply a personal being from another dimension. The New Testament describes an experience known as "the baptism of the Holy Spirit" in which the believer is immersed in the presence of God. Some of the manifestations of this experience are found in I Corinthians 12. Jesus promised in John chapters 14-16 that the Spirit would come and be with the believer. This is our experience - the personal presence of God, which has the capacity to bring joy, peace, strength and counsel.

[Bruce Burleson]

And we know they were actually letters by the extensive historical record left by which historical recipients of said epistolary foofuraw?

Clement of Rome cites a number of Paul's letters in his own letter to the Corinthians, generally dated in about 95 CE. Clement himself was probably mentioned in Philippians 4:3, written about 60 CE. That's about the best we have. Ignatius and Polycarp also cite his letters in the early 2nd century. Regarding your charge of foofuraw (sp? foofaraw?), since these epistles form the basis of the predominant religion in the world, they are hardly a trifling thing. But thanks for the new word.

[Bruce Burleson]

The easy answer for the credulous has always been to explain things that are apparently unexplainable with the supernatural. You’ve cited a post by Duckphup as being something unexplainable so supernatural, but Duckphup did not explain it that way. One way to explain something like what happened to him is pure coincidence. Before accepting something like this as supernatural it would be interesting if we could know how many of the billions of people existing have had similar premonitions and how correct they were.

I did not cite the Duckphup Effect as being supernatural. I cited it as an example of the transmission of information by non-rational means. There may be a perfectly rational explanation for it that we do not know. But the point is that our brains have the capacity to receive information immediately in such ways. This is important for the concept of revelation.

You have a self reinforcing delusion that I suspect works very well at seeking confirmation of your beliefs as well as filtering out anything that would cause you to doubt them.

The above is just my opinion, but I base it on a lot of study of how the mind works. It is fascinating, and I think something interesting to think about.

Your suggestion, of course, is one possible explanation. But my emotions are not the only things that are at work here. The experience of doors opening at opportune times for me throughout my life and the experience of answered prayer are examples of non-emotional events. Furthermore, I have my doubts, and have rejected may of the doctrines I was taught. If I was only interested in confirming my beliefs, I could have retreated safely into the fortress of dogma long ago and become a young earth creationist and fundamental Calvinist.

Finally, in order to diagnose me as having a delusion, you would have to prove affirmatively that my faith, in fact, is a delusion. That would mean that the burden of proof would be on you to prove that the accounts of Jesus in the NT are false and that God does not exist. Of course, you cannot do this, so it appears that we have a Mexican standoff.

As for the other part of your argument about why you believe:
That Jesus was a historical figure in no way supports a belief that he was what Christians believe him to have been. Even if there were eyewitness accounts from John and Paul (Which is highly unlikely) of his existence or miracles performed by Jesus.

Using the New Testament to defend a belief in Jesus does not work, nor does it work the other way around. You can’t rationally or reasonably say that you believe in Jesus as the Christ because the New Testament says that he is the Christ, and at the same time say that you believe that the New Testament is the true story because you believe that Jesus is the Christ. It is one or the other if you want to avoid circular reasoning, but in neither case can it be called rational or reasonable.

You misunderstand my argument about the historicity of Jesus. I am NOT saying that I believe that the NT is the true story because I believe that Jesus is the Christ. I am saying that based on historical analysis of the NT accounts, some of them, but not all of them, appear to make out a claim by a preponderance of the evidence for the historicity of Jesus and what he did. Thus, proceeding from this historical analysis, I conclude that some of the accounts of him are true, including some of the miracles and the resurrection. It is this historical analysis that then leads me as far as reason can regarding the claims of who Jesus is. I do not then return and validate the entire NT. I think some of it is wrong or not historical.

I think that what we have here in your case and countless others is conversion by subjective experience and then selective confirmation in your reading of the New Testament.

So many Christians believe that their Jesus came to spread love and peace but either they have not read the New Testament or they just filter out the parts that don’t match what they want to believe.
..........
Jesus the Christ is a myth, especially the Christ that Christians want to believe in today. If the New Testament is a historical record then history does not support the modern day myth that is Jesus the loving peaceful Christ with respect to family values or loving bonds.

I can assure you that I have read the NT countless times and know everything that is attributed to Jesus. He did not come only to spread love and peace. He came to call us to himself, with the idea that peace is not possible in any other way. In order to achieve that, discipleship demands some tough choices, as you have noted in the passages you cite. My purpose here is not to call anyone to discipleship, as I assume that you have all fully rejected that already. My purpose here is to have a discussion, which I think we are doing.

[Bruce Burleson]

Just poking my nose into this thread, but I have to point out (yet again) that the idea the Bible was put together at some "conclave of bishops in the middle ages" is a myth. This seems to be a reference to the Council of Nicea, which given that this was held in AD 325 can hardly be called a "conclave in the Middle Ages" (they are 500-1500 AD). But the whole idea that the Bible was determined by this or any other council is wrong, as I explained in detail last year in a long post at RD.net.

That doesn't make the Bible even remotely more credible, since the hodgepodge consensus that actually made up the way it came together is hardly more authoritative, but if we are going to use history to make a point it helps to get that history right.

Thanks for your comments, Tim, and poke your nose in any time. There are just as many myths in the atheist community about the Bible as there are in the believing community. I followed your arguments on RD and always found them to be well-reasoned.

[Andrew]

Foofooraw

[Bruce Burleson]

This is simply incorrect. If the events recorded about the life of Jesus are historically true, then the possibility of the existence of another reality is opened. It is valid to start with the historical, not with the "supernatural" (I don't like that word). If I make the case for Jesus first, the case for God follows.

Nope. I claim that the sun will rise tomorrow... because the sun god Helios will haul it up with his chariot. If the sun actually does rise tomorrow, have I proven the existence of Helios? A prediction coming true does not prove than any explanation I have verbally bolted onto it, is also true. If Jesus himself was in front of me, and could objectively prove he was the Jesus, and could raise people from the dead, split food to create copies of the food, slice of his arm and spontaneously grow it back again: none of that would go a single millimeter toward proving God. It would prove that there is something about this Jesus fellow that we cannot explain. The fact that he was claimed to be the son of a god is a separate claim that is unproven. That is a belief you are simply attaching to the supposed existence of Jesus.

How do you know how you would react if Jesus did all that in front of you? Instead, I think you would leave your nets and follow him. My speculation about that is as valid as yours. If Jesus did all that, and then taught that his power came from his Father who was in heaven and that he was his Father's Son, that would be the proper place to start as far as an explanation of the events were concerned. How much more proof could God give than actually working in front of you? If a scientist conducts a successful experiment, to whom do we first look for an explanation? To the scientist himself.

Something can be irrational, yet still valid if rationality was nothing to do with the discussion.

OK, I'll take you at your word. I will use the word "irrational" instead of "arational", and I hereby predict that some atheist will pick up on this and say "see, even he claims his argument is irrational and illogical and deluded and idiotic." When that happens, I expect you to run to my defense.

"... makes it easy for you to dismiss them. Something is a colour or it is not a colour" is an example of this.

... but synesthetes see certain numbers in colors - a third option opened to them because of the way their brain is wired.

So what? You're talking to a synesthete now, how is this relevant? Of course, there is no relevance. Just as you make disagreements over logic about personal intentions, you are obfuscating here again. You are completely changing the point of the analogy onto a literal understanding of colour, so that you can then sound like a smart-ass who sees some middle-ground that the other person has missed.

I didn't think I was being a smart-ass. I thought I was pointing out the fact that you had missed a third option. It's not irrelevant, it challenging you to look at your own assumptions, which apparently you aren't willing to do.

I will respond to the rest of your comments later.

[Bruce Burleson]

You pulled exactly the same nonsense with Surendra over the book analogy.

For your information, I have a history with Surendra that goes back about 3 years. You shouldn't read too much into my responses to him/her/it.

I no longer care about my tone when addressing people who do this, since you are willfully setting up a strawman, and being duplicitious in your treatment of any analogy that does not suit you. Repeating the very same rebutted definition of 'arational' all over again advertises how little you respond to inquiry and disagreement. Like the others in this thread, I won't bother with this any more, since your 'wall' has gone up on that issue.

Since you seem to give an abnormally wide range of meanings for "irrational", including those which cover my category of "arational," I'll agree to go with your definition and use "irrational" in the future.

Hence it was arrived at irrationally. The conformation process was rational. But I'm sure that won't stop you from repeating the same line over again. If people can be bothered to check above to see the quotes this is responding to, repetition seems to be a common response from you.

Given your previous clarification of your use of "irrational," I will agree with you that the information was arrived at irrationally.

In a group of letters intended to be a communication of truth statements, internal consistency is a hallmark of authenticity.

At best it is suggestive. A hallmark? Really? There is a lot hidden in "intended to be a communication of truth statements". Intended would be the word, since anyone could be wrong, and yet truthfully and accurately report what they thought was correct. If this is offered only as suggestive of the existence of someone called Jesus, then it has a higher chance of being correct. If it is offered as suggestive of proof of miracles or divine nature, well... sun gods and chariots. [/quote]

My statement referred to the epistles of Paul. The only miracle of Jesus that he mentions is the resurrection itself. While I acknowledge that references to the resurrection will not be convincing to anyone apart from a personal revelatory experience, the historical value of his statements on that subject equals that of his other statements about Jesus.

Of course I see that. That is what I have been evaluating for the past 40 years.

And I'm sure that evaluation involved researching the neurological reason for it manifesting, right? You did open-mindedly look into explanations that were in no way contingent on the religious?

Yes, that is what I am saying.

I've given you my first experience. "Magical healer" is your assumption, of course.

No, Jesus, if he were to be real as described in the Bible, would be a magical healer. I suspect that were are again stepping on those sensitive toes of yours with regards to the sound of words. You don't like supernatural, you don't like irrational, and now we can add to that: "magical".

You are simply mistaken. "Magical" assumes that there is no natural, scientific explanation that could ever be given to Jesus' miracles. There may be physical laws that we know nothing about that were in play when Jesus healed people. Magical is simply another example of the a priori assumptions that you rely upon in attempting to build an argument based on derision. This makes me question my agreement to go with your use of "irrational," but I have made a commitment and shall stick to it.

So if someone growing up in a different religious culture had similar experiences (with pagan alternatives replacing the name Jesus) and the feelings were every bit as intense, meaningful, and supported in their ancient writings: they would just be wrong?

I am in no position to make any claims about anyone else's experiences, and do not do so. I am simply relating my experiences and the basis for my Christian faith. In the end, everyone has to judge his/her own experience.

So to whom do I go for enlightenment? ... but concluding that I am experiencing the presence of God.

My point was only that the person experiencing is the least equipped to evaluate the objective value of an experience. As for further enlightenment... dare I say that perhaps there is no grand explanation or enlightenment?

So, if you fall in love with someone, you should not evaluate your own experience, but should follow the advice of someone else about whether or not you should marry that person? Of course, listening to other opinions is wise, but in the end, you have to make your own decision. I disagree that the person experiencing the phenomenon is the least equipped - he is the only one who knows what the experience was like. It simply becomes his responsibility to evaluate, as objectively as possible, the events of his own life. Am I really in love with that girl? Did I really experience God?

The general course of events in my life plus the descriptions of the experience of the Holy Spirit in the NT lead me to this conclusion.

Let us say that you did not have the experience after taking an hallucinogenic drug. Would you have interpreted the "general course of events in my life" in the same way? Without that intensely meaningful experience to 'prime' your mind, so to speak, would you have perhaps thought of other explanations for the other events? I'm trying not to mention confirmation bias but...

Hard to say. You are asking me to speculate. All I have is the experience of my own life, and this is how I have interpreted it to date. It's been a pretty good working hypothesis for 40 years.

[Bruce Burleson]

Foofooraw

I see it has alternative spellings - fooforaw and foofaraw. Sort of like rational, irrational, and arational.