I will share my experience in this second post.  There is no way to edit an original posting.  It's somewhat personal, and I will probably edit it / delete it if either it gets no response or a month has transpired.  I have shared this on a few other private forums, but putting it on this forum; where there is more traffic seems risky.  Especially since it seems like the RRS is about to "blow up" in the media -- considering the Nightline gig.

 Here goes.

 I was 17 years old, filled with raging hormones, and upset about everything.  Normal teenage angst.  I had girl problems, I was mad at my parents, and I was confused about life in general.

Needless to say, I was extremely depressed.

I went up on a cliff near my hometown because I wanted to "have it out with God."

I felt like God was making my life shitty and that it was unliveable.  I didn't consider suicide, but I figured if there IS a God up there, and he's fucking up my life, we were going to do battle, so to speak.  If he wanted me to go on living, he was going to have to make me feel better or change some of the extraneous things in my life.  Otherwise, he'd have to take me that night in a blaze of glory.

 I drove up to the cliff, where there was no one, and I planned on camping out.  The day had been oppressively hot, and I saw a thunderhead building in the distance before I had set out on my "battle."

As I sat up on the cliff, I could see the thunderhead coming closer.  It turned dark, and I saw strange lightning.  This was RED lightning, not the regular kind.  (Later investigation revealed this to be "red sprite" lightning in meteorological terms.)  I believed I was going to use my mental energy and concentration to move the thunderstorm away (as part of my battle against God).

 I sat and meditated and concentrated on wanting to live, doing battle with my inner demons, and diverting this storm away from me.

 All was in vain, however.  It was completely dark at this point.  A HUGE cloud that looked like a boomerang that was dark and ominous was coming for me.  I was pretty afraid.  I thought this was God coming to take me away.

I sat in my car, prayed, listened to "As Long As I Can See the Light" by CCR, and I prepared for the worst.  The cloud came and shook my car pretty good with the wind.  I looked out a second time -- and another cloud came with less intensity.  The pattern repeated a third time when I looked out and another even lesser intensity cloud came.  Each time I got in my car and did the same routine.

 The last time I stayed in my car for a long period of time, and I had attributed that waiting period as the "faith" that God exists or loves me or whatever.  When I looked a fourth time, the sky was fairly clear, and I could see the moon.

Then I was stirred up into a fervor, happy to be alive, happy that God had saved me; and I climbed down a gradual path of the cliff and back up because I was filled with adrenaline.

After I while, I got tired and I got my sleeping bag to sleep.  As soon as I got situated, it started pouring rain.

 I didn't see this as a good thing for some reason, and I got in my car to "escape."  It was muddy getting out and I didn't want to get stuck. 

For some reason, I followed the storm until morning, thinking I was continuing to "fight" it.

 My basic conclusion from the experience was that God wanted me to live.

 Later on, several weeks later, I went in for a psychological evaluation because my personality became abrasive and incompatible with normal social interaction.

I was transferred to the mental health ward of a hospital.

---------------------------

To make a long story short, the hospital experience was extremely difficult for me.  I cried numerous times in there, and all I wanted to do was get out.

 I finally realized that I was mentally ill in that I was facing manic depression / bipolar disorder.

 ----------------------------------

Epilogue:  I had 2 other manic depressive "episodes" after that occuring several years apart.  I have managed to "conquer" it for now, and at this point in my life, I would find it unlikely that I would ever endure something to the magnitude that I did before (when I didn't know what was happening to me).

 --------------------------------

Now as for what I have learned.  Firstly, atheism and rational thinking have been both much more comforting and more conducive to sanity.  I view theism as a DAMAGING mental construct that removes the "locus of control" for coping with the trials of life from YOU to a God who doesn't exist.  The control is outside of you and "in God's hands".  This can be disastrous.  For, if you attribute terrible things that happen in this world to God, your outlook on the world becomes very difficult.  One aspect of my troubles is almost unreasonable compassion for other people.  The angst that comes from believing God is responsible is maddening.  It is much easier to understand that "nature is indifferent" and that NOTHING happens for a reason.  Things just happen.  Furthermore, the only thing in my power is to control my perceptions and how I feel about things.

There is one MAJOR point here that is above anything else that I have learned:

 Once you commit yourself to rational thinking -- shirking off delusional thinking -- the realms of GOD and THEISM unavoidably find themselves under the microscope.

If I'm going to question my ability to affect the weather -- I create a process by which to do so that involves rational thinking.  I cannot give God a "free pass" once I create this rational thinking process.

---------------------------------

 I have heard similar experiences from 2 members of RRS which I will not divulge; but I know that things of this nature are more common than just me.

 Moreover, I think theists are simply ignorant of the fact that many atheists have had spiritual experiences on par or even EXCEDING the "supernatural feeling" of their own experiences.

----------------------------------

In almost every case of theistic spiritual experiences, 3 ingredients exist:

1.  Internal strife or depression.  This includes intellectual strife.  Vulnerability.

2.   Pre-existing knowledge of certain myths upon which to base the content of the experiences.

3.  DESIRE to have a spiritual experience.  That is, no one ever sees a burning bush when he isn't looking for it.

 ----------------------------

I would find these experiences much more convincing if:

1.  The person was completely happy, and it was just an ordinary day.

2.  The person had NO pre-existing knowledge of any myths pertaining to the content of his spiritual experience.  (ie an Amazonian tribesman seeing Jesus).

3.  No desire or active seeking for spiritual experiences or signs.

If you know where these examples exist, I'd like to know.  I should offer a personal $666 challenge for a reference to an existing human with such an experience.  That's about how confident I am that there are none.

Thanks, for your post. I'm sure it took some guts to put that much personal information up for everyone to see.

One of my ex-girlfriends' brother is bipolar, and as I was reading your post, I couldn't help thinking that you were writing in a way that reminded me of him. He is also an atheist who was raised fundy, so it's not suprising that he has said almost the same kinds of things to me.

He has often said that any kind of supernatural acceptance leads him away from sanity, and has told of fighting demons for entire nights while everyone else was asleep.

Since becoming atheist, he has held a job for much longer than he had been able before, and he even was able to live by himself for over a year.

Anyway, I say all that to say I believe I understand some of what you went through, having been friends with someone in a similar circumstance.

As for me, when I was young and fundy, I had all sorts of supernatural experiences that later turned out to be my own imagination, or something with a perfectly logical explanation.

When I was maybe eleven, I was taught about demons and how they would posess me if I did anything naughty. Unfortunately, this was about the same time that I discovered that I liked to look at naked women, so I did enough naughty things to be very afraid of demons.

I remember many nights laying awake in a cold sweat, feeling absolutely positive that there were demons in the room with me, and praying fervently. I was afraid that if I allowed myself to drift into sleep, I would have a bad thought and be posessed right before I went to sleep, so I tried to stay awake, praying that I wouldn't think about naked women.

The really odd thing is that before I learned about demons, I had been afraid of vampires. I'd seen my first vampire movie, and had been sleeping with my sheets wrapped tightly around my neck for weeks. My mom comforted me somewhat by telling me that there was no such thing as vampires, and I'd just about gotten over that, and then I found out about demons, and she told me that demons were real, so there were many more months of tortured sleep.

Thanks, Hamby.

 If one like me is inclined to believe that SOME supernatural things exist, one begins searching for those supernatural things or influences.  It is difficult not to take things to the extreme, in that if supernatural things exist, one will want to interact with them.

Furthermore, ANY theist or person must create a standard by which to judge REAL supernatural experiences from FALSE ones.  This "standard" is virtually impossible.  There is no good reason to believe a crazy person's supernatural experiences versus the supernatural experience of someone like Blaise Pascal (who said he had one).  This is a similar argument to the one in which we tell Christians that they are atheists with respect to all religions but one.

I actually find this to be an EXTREMELY powerful argument against religion.  What makes Christian experiences so special and true compared to the experiences of Hindus, Buddhists, or Muslims?  They're all deluded, eh?  Well, couldn't it be that Christians are deluded to?

Believing in naturalism is certainly pragmatic for me; as it keeps me sane.

 Believing in naturalism because it is useful for me would be fallacious and incomplete if that were the ONLY reason why I was a naturalist.

But I find naturalism rational on the basis of many more arguments than just being useful to my psychology.

Fair enough.  I don't own a copy of "Ascent of Mount Carmel."  Would you please summarize how one discerns true religious experience from false religious experience?  What is your criterion for attributing truth to a religious experience?  Furthermore, will you give me 3 examples that pass this criteria that have happened POST 1980?

It is just safer not to trust personal revelation at all. Period. Put faith in God and in His Church and ignore personal revelations. Any movement (not necessarily a revelation, but consolation or desolation as well) in the soul that is from God will be in agreement with what we know by faith and causes lasting peace. If you want something further, short rules for discernment are found in Saint Ignatius' Spiritual Exercises, which can be found here http://www.jesuit.org/images/docs/915dWg.pdf

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Faith is a kind of knowledge which proceeds from the authority of the one revealing. For example, you could believe that the textbook your teacher uses accurately transmits the truth about, for example, gravity. Or, for example, that the Apollo mission actually landed on the moon. This is a variety of probable faith in ordinary affairs. Such faith is not certain, but it is perfectly rational for me to believe that the moon is not made of green cheese, despite the fact that I have not personally been on the moon.

Similarly, religious faith is predicated on trusting in what God has revealed because He has revealed it. It further makes this sort of knowledge most certain because it proceeds not from human testimony or even experimental probability, but from God Himself, who is the most credible testimony.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Actually, believing in X because a person said so is not so irrational as the equivalent of "I believe because the booga-booga monster said so in a book that he didn't actually write, he inspired others to write it - even though it is full of errors and there is absolutely no valid evidence the booga-booga monster exists, but I'll throw a bunch of red herrings and language tricks to make it look like there's proof he exists."

We do accept what other people say all the time. When Tom's wife tells Tom, "Honey, the trash truck is coming, so please take out the trash," does Tom take out the trash? Yes. He accepts the word of his wife as a reasonable object of authority in this matter.

But, as to God, we accept His Revelation as coming from Him because it carries with it such external signs of His authority as miracles and prophecies, of which only God could be the author.

 I don't see what Malachi 3:10 has to do with it....

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

I daresay that most people I know would not look out the window. They would go take out the trash. It is a reasonable authority in this matter because he knows that the trashman comes at this time of day on an ordinary basis. Thus, his wife's experience satsfies for his own. There is not a reason why he would have to verify that the trash truck is coming if he has a reasonable certainty in his wife's words.

 Further, I was not speaking necessarily of just the Gospel accounts of miracles. However, even if they were written with an evangelizing intention, there is no reason why they are not trustworthy. Any more than what I read on this site must be inherently untrustworthy because your intent is to convert me to atheism.

 Finally, if that is how you interpret Malachi 3:10, fine. I believe God is legtimately "tested," but depending on what is meant by "test." Or, as is famously said elsewhere, "thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God."

 I quote what the Fathers of the Church had to say on this:

Pseudo-Chrys.: Yet He says not, Thou shalt not tempt me thy Lord God; but, "Thou shalt not
tempt the Lord thy God;" which every man of God when tempted by the Devil might say; for
whoso tempts a man of God, tempts God.

Rabanus: Otherwise, it was a suggestion to Him, as man, that He should seek by requiring some
miracle to know the greatness of God's power.

Aug., contr. Faust., 22, 36: It is a part of sound doctrine, that when man has any other means, he
should not tempt the Lord his God.

Theod. non occ.: And it is to tempt [p. 126] God, in any thing to expose one's self to danger
without cause.

CHRYS For it is of the devil to cast one's self into dangers, and try whether God will rescue us.
 

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

St,Michael, 

You might be right. In my case, as the garbage truck comes through early in the morning there isn't a problem. If my wife heard the garbage truck coming, I would look because it would be seriously late.

I considered prove to equal test in Malachi 3:10 because other versions have that. If you consider testing to be the same as temptation then Job was tempted. That falls in violation of James 1:13 "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man:" Or are you one who believes the Old and New Testaments are disconnected because Jesus came into the world?

As far as the posts on this site trying to convert you, some may be trying. Me, I'm trying to work out ways that we can both think through religion. You now have my stated intention, Feel free to disregard my posts based on that stated intention as I disregard the Gospels based on theirs.

St Micheal wrote:

"I just wanted to point out that there are different senses of what it is to "test" or "tempt" and the Scriptures use these different senses. Job was tempted by the devil, not by God. Similarly, the epistle of Saint James says immediately afterward that this temptation proceeds from the concupscience of the person tempted, and not from God."

 Uh, no. Job wasn't tempted by Satan, he was tortured by Satan (according to the story) 

Job 1:8-12

 8And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil?

 9Then Satan answered the LORD, and said, Doth Job fear God for nought?

 10Hast not thou made an hedge about him, and about his house, and about all that he hath on every side? thou hast blessed the work of his hands, and his substance is increased in the land.

 11But put forth thine hand now, and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.

 12And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand. So Satan went forth from the presence of the LORD.

Job 2:3-7

 3And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, although thou movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause.

 4And Satan answered the LORD, and said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life.

 5But put forth thine hand now, and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.

 6And the LORD said unto Satan, Behold, he is in thine hand; but save his life.

 7So went Satan forth from the presence of the LORD, and smote Job with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown.

It looks to me like God set up the bet. Satan just administered it.

I'm not sure if that puts God in all that good of a light.

God creates the situation because he created Satan (knowing what Satan was going to do) and dared Satan to try and break Job.

Then God told Satan, "Don't kill him - I want to watch him squirm". I can't see any other reason why a loving God would put anyone into that situation (For the benefit of you and any other theists - don't tell me that Job chose this. Scripture says differently.)

God did not dare Satan to try to "break" Job. That is nowhere in the text, and is merely the imposition of your own interpretation. God created Satan, but did not determine his free actions. In fact, the text clearly indicates that the devil was the one who instigated the attempt to make Job blaspheme. God does not command him to do so, nor does He instigate the affair. God gives the devil permission to tempt Job in the ways he does, but does not directly cause the devil to do such. You are reading something into the text that isn't there.

God did not say, "I want to watch him squirm." Nor did He say its equivalent at all in any way, shape, or form. God allowed the devil to tempt Job and afflict him in various ways, but said, "But do not kill him." I never said Job chose this in any way; rather, if you read the story itself, the entire story is about how Job did not sin against God at all. The entire point of the story is God's providential care; God allows the dismay and suffering so that, in the end, Job's fortitude in suffering shines forth to Job's credit and honor, and Job's fortunes are increased far beyond what he had previously.

 Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

Your interpretation of the passage is erroneous. God speaks figuratively in the passage. I quote:

In saying, “You moved me against him,” one must not understand that God was provoked by anyone into willing something he did not will before as is often the case with men. For according to Numbers, “God is not like a man, that he should lie, nor like a son of man that he should change.” (23:19) Scripture here speaks of God figuratively acting in a human way. For when men want to do something because of someone’s influence, they are said to be excited by that other one. God however wills to do something and so he does it, this because of that. Yet he does it without any excitement of mind because he had the reason he would do it in mind from all eternity. So the Lord had arranged from all eternity to afflict Job in time to prove the truth of his virtue in order to preclude every calumny of the wicked, and so to indicate this the text says, “You moved me against him.” When the text adds, “to afflict him in vain,” this must be understood from the point of view of the intention of Satan, not from the point of view of the intention of God. For Satan in intending the adversity of Job had desired from this to lead him into impatience and blasphemy, which did not follow as an effect. God however permitted this to proclaim his virtue openly, which in fact happened. So then Job was afflicted in vain from the point of view of the intention of Satan, but not from the point of view of the intention of God. (Aquinas, St. Thomas, Comment. on the Book of Job)

I was not patronizing you. I just indicated that I see no reason to posit evil intentions in God when the text clearly here and later disavows that God had any evil intention in afflicting Job.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael

StMichael, this is the smartest thing you've written, in my opinion.  Why is it that you can't understand that since this is true, your entire religion is invalid?

Or do you mean that our personal revelations are untrustworthy, but that the founders of your religion had trustworthy revelations.  How do you know that, if not through revelation, which is untrustworthy?

"Because the Scriptures cannot contradict what we know through other means, such as natural reason. If they conflict in a literal interpretation, then a figurative or spiritual interpretation is rather the correct one. Of course, it is the Church's task, as the infallible interpreter of Scripture, to determine when this is or is not the case."

 So when the Bible contradicts a position held by the Church (or you, in this case), God was speaking figuratively and the church's (your) interpretation is the correct one?

That is not what I said at all. The Scriptures are, in a manner of speaking, part of the Church. The authority of Sacred Scripture is derived from God through the Church, as is Sacred Tradition. The  teaching authority of the Church merely interprets Scripture according to the same authority. All three come from God as their source and cannot contradict. In other words, there cannot be a contradiction between these three at any point in time, because all three are inseperable parts of the same Revelation of God.

The same relationship applies between what God teaches in Revelation and what He teaches in natural reason (science, ect.). God is the author of both and cannot contradict Himself.

 So, if Sacred Scripture seems to contradict what is known naturally, or if what is known naturally seems to contradict Scripture, more investigation is needed to flush out the apparent contradiction. Either the science is flawed, or the result that contradicts faith is not necessary, or Scripture is being wrongly interpreted.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

God did not make Scripture confusing. Human beings have a hard time understanding it. This is the same if I went and read Jane Eyre. You would understand it differently than I according to our natural abilities. But God did not just create the book of Scripture, which is why even people lacking in natural ability to inquire are able to know the truths necessary to their salvation with certainty through the teaching of the Church. The Church is the necessary complement to Scripture, passing down the interpretation through Sacred Tradition, and infallibly acting to define meanings of Scripture in God's name.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,

StMichael 

So,

1. Human beings have different levels of understanding when it comes to scripture.

2. When questions of understanding arise, God created another bunch of humans who used to have varying levels of scriptural understanding before they joined together and went through some initiation ceremonies and made up some other rules and traditions. Now, magically, their corporate interpretation of scripture is infallible (mostly because they say so - I don't recall any scripture where God fully endorsed the Roman Catholic church as the only one.)  

 I had a feeling you'd bring that passage up. Where in Christ's ackolwedgement of Peter does it endorse the organization of the Roman Catholic Church? You can make the interpretation that Christ wanted Peter to head his church but that still doesn't offer proof that the Roman Catholic church is the one Christ was talking about.

please dont lose your faith in god. you came to the conclusion that god wanted you to live and you are living. i dont think your crazy because you belive in god. beliving in somthing dosent make you crazy or far from sanity. im sorry to hear you have bipolar. i know its afull.

 I want my money. Come on man. 

1.  The person was completely happy, and it was just an ordinary day.

2.  The person had NO pre-existing knowledge of any myths pertaining to the content of his spiritual experience.  (ie an Amazonian tribesman seeing Jesus).

3.  No desire or active seeking for spiritual experiences or signs.

 Okay, then you lose because of point 2 (has preexisting knowledge of Christianity).  Happy now?

The condemnation of Galileo was only indirectly related to heliocentrism. They condemned him not for holding one position or another, but trying to force the Church's hand in defining heliocentrism as doctrine. The Church never made an infallible declaration on heliocentrism itself.

Yours In Christ, Eternal Wisdom,
StMichael