Christian Overconfidence

[Oscar_Kipling]

Well, I think I literally saw a tumbleweed roll across my screen lol. Its been so long since I've even thought about Christianity in depth much less had a perspective, but the desolate nature of this sub makes me want to contribute as I might be the only one of me here. I tried to read a thread earlier that amounted to the classic problem of evil (at least that was the heart of it imo) and the responses were more or less what I remember them being, and after about 2 pages I was bored or disappointed , or both maybe.  I guess I just think one of the worst things about Christians is that there are so many bad answers that Christians expect non believers to find compelling, and if we don't then clearly we are dishonest or woefully broken. I do understand that for most Christians it cannot be the case that their explanations or apologies fail miserably at explaining or apologizing because of course they address the issue because the Christ is alive and in heaven checking his watch for the moment he returns... Its just obvious that at least when the explanations or apologies are mutually exclusive that someone must be wrong, and it seems to occur to Christians far too infrequently that they could be wrong because they have to believe that ultimately they are not wrong, perhaps a detail here or there was missed or misapprehended, but overall they must be right. IDK its not even really a Christian deal although I first noticed it in religious communities and I think that overconfidence is still rampant with in them, its just that the religion seems like a perfect machine designed to prevent a person from being able to accurately modulate their confidence. So alright lets put this in the form of a question...As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith? 


I didn't really have a point when I started writing, but I knew I wanted to talk about something that I genuinely find frustrating about Christianity, though I don't meant this to be especially disrespectful, so apologies if that is what I ended up doing.

[Athanasius]

As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?

I suppose, broadly: study, metaphysics, Plato, Plantinga, warrant, justification, etc. etc.

Yourself?

[Oscar_Kipling]

As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?

I suppose, broadly: study, metaphysics, Plato, Plantinga, warrant, justification, etc. etc.

Yourself?

Essentially the same, I suppose I also actively try to stay conscious of the fact that my interior world and the exterior world is full of distractions, diversions, distortions, delusions, deceptions, prejudices, biases and all manner of stuff that I'm not thinking of or paying attention to that makes it challenging and sometime even impossible to determine the truth or to correctly access whether or not I've determined the truth. I also spend alot of time trying to interrogate or relitigate conclusions as well...still none of it is 100% effective, which I guess in and of itself is another thing I try to remind myself of try as I might I'm still always vulnerable to some failure or foible or well crafted deception.

I should say that being a Christian doesn't necessarily preclude anyone from practicing good epistemological hygiene except that I do not see how a person could be a Christian and also maintain that they could be wrong  fundamentally on at least some set of pretty wild and far reaching ideas about the nature of nature, themselves, the universe, History and the future, which imo is at the very least potentially troublesome in the area of calibrating confidence.

[Athanasius]

Essentially the same, I suppose I also actively try to stay conscious of the fact that my interior world and the exterior world is full of distractions, diversions, distortions, delusions, deceptions, prejudices, biases and all manner of stuff that I'm not thinking of or paying attention to that makes it challenging and sometime even impossible to determine the truth or to correctly access whether or not I've determined the truth. I also spend alot of time trying to interrogate or relitigate conclusions as well...still none of it is 100% effective, which I guess in and of itself is another thing I try to remind myself of try as I might I'm still always vulnerable to some failure or foible or well crafted deception.

Are we talking about Christian overconfidence, or the appearance of Christian overconfidence, or utterances by Christians actively doing what you describe above but who are at different stages in their lives, beliefs, and so on?  I suppose it's difficult to talk about broad nebulous masses of people. I've no doubt there are Christians who have replaced their brains with dogma.

If you think it might be possible to determine the truth, how do you know someone else hasn't (as in, how do you assess the claim)?

I should say that being a Christian doesn't necessarily preclude anyone from practicing good epistemological hygiene except that I do not see how a person could be a Christian and also maintain that they could be wrong  fundamentally on at least some set of pretty wild and far reaching ideas about the nature of nature, themselves, the universe, History and the future, which imo is at the very least potentially troublesome in the area of calibrating confidence.

I'm a Christian, and I could be wrong. This could all be a simulation, or perhaps I'm a brain in a jar, or maybe, I'm merely a fiction of your imagination. Why do you think the epistemic position is difficult? Of course, there are differences between theology and philosophy, and one of those is faith -- in X, Y, and Z axiomatically. To be wrong is to risk being really wrong. But that's true of everyone. Or, are those overconfident Christians merely agreeing with your assessment, and thus, their overconfidence is exactly the epistemic position they ought to be taking?

[Oscar_Kipling]

Are we talking about Christian overconfidence, or the appearance of Christian overconfidence, or utterances by Christians actively doing what you describe above but who are at different stages in their lives, beliefs, and so on?  I suppose it's difficult to talk about broad nebulous masses of people. I've no doubt there are Christians who have replaced their brains with dogma.

If you think it might be possible to determine the truth, how do you know someone else hasn't (as in, how do you assess the claim)?

yeah, lets just agree there as cannot rightly say in the broad general sense what exactly i'm seeing in that regard. I will say though that I do not feel that this is a problem just at the extremes where a person has dogma-for-brains, i mean place anything-for-brains and you're probably in a bad way. what i'm getting at (and believe me i'm still internally trying to get at what i'm getting at) is these sort of baked in propositions that Christians take as axiomatic. For instance there is the expectation that saying and doing good true and proper Christian things ill be met with energetic opposition & protests and will be disputed particularly in a way that is learned and wise by the standards of the world. Now i've seen many ways that any of these forecasted reactions have been interpreted, but suffice it to say at the heart of it is that such a reaction is indistinguishable from legitimate disagreement, that is disagreement that may very well have   epistemologically sound basis. From where i'm perched this reaction doesn't necessarily tell a Christian anything about the legitimacy of their position except that it seems to be baked into Christianity that it actually does inform the legitimacy of their position. So what i'm saying is that even without replacing all sense with nonsense christianity is full of things like this that would to many average non dogma headed seem to provide diagnostic value regarding their degree of confidence but are actually i'd argue demonstrably and uniformly indistinguishable from reactions motivated by actually being incorrect.

As far as accessing claims go there is not a single tool or method, but as in the case above sometimes it can be determined by counterexamples or mutual exclusivity, and it's true that doesn't necessarily get you to what the truth is just that it cannot all be true or that something must be false.

I'm a Christian, and I could be wrong. This could all be a simulation, or perhaps I'm a brain in a jar, or maybe, I'm merely a fiction of your imagination. Why do you think the epistemic position is difficult? Of course, there are differences between theology and philosophy, and one of those is faith -- in X, Y, and Z axiomatically. To be wrong is to risk being really wrong. But that's true of everyone. Or, are those overconfident Christians merely agreeing with your assessment, and thus, their overconfidence is exactly the epistemic position they ought to be taking?

Again, you are not the first or probably the last Christian i'll come across that at the very least has claimed to be able to hold such a position in a meaningful way, still i'd wager that you believe some facts about reality that are informed by your christian faith that bias you toward confidence in some very far out ideas (at least from my perspective). I'd argue that they bias you against brainjarianism and simulation conjecture as well (although those are both pretty far out propositions themselves imo and aren't at all necessary in most cases to maintain a healthy sense of how difficult the truth can be to get at). I would be more interested in your notions on the reality of supernatural revelation and the nature and character of that phenomena as I think that could very well cause you (or maybe not you but a person) to place a very high degree of confidence into some truth that you (or not you but a person) believes has been supernaturally revealed to them.

[ProDeo]

I'm a Christian, and I could be wrong. This could all be a simulation, or perhaps I'm a brain in a jar, or maybe, I'm merely a fiction of your imagination. Why do you think the epistemic position is difficult? Of course, there are differences between theology and philosophy, and one of those is faith -- in X, Y, and Z axiomatically. To be wrong is to risk being really wrong. But that's true of everyone. Or, are those overconfident Christians merely agreeing with your assessment, and thus, their overconfidence is exactly the epistemic position they ought to be taking?

Again, you are not the first or probably the last Christian i'll come across that at the very least has claimed to be able to hold such a position in a meaningful way, still i'd wager that you believe some facts about reality that are informed by your christian faith that bias you toward confidence in some very far out ideas (at least from my perspective). I'd argue that they bias you against brainjarianism and simulation conjecture as well (although those are both pretty far out propositions themselves imo and aren't at all necessary in most cases to maintain a healthy sense of how difficult the truth can be to get at). I would be more interested in your notions on the reality of supernatural revelation and the nature and character of that phenomena as I think that could very well cause you (or maybe not you but a person) to place a very high degree of confidence into some truth that you (or not you but a person) believes has been supernaturally revealed to them.

I am confident Ath will answer for himself.

Me, I (in 1974) had 2 overwhelming experiences with God in ~30 minutes and thereafter never again. It made me an instant believer in God, it was not even a choice, I just knew from that moment on, a life changing experience. Anno 2020 I believe that Christianity (in the person of Christ) and the very basics of it, in its purest form (by far) is the most convincing religion of all.

[Athanasius]

I will say though that I do not feel that this is a problem just at the extremes where a person has dogma-for-brains, i mean place anything-for-brains and you're probably in a bad way. what i'm getting at (and believe me i'm still internally trying to get at what i'm getting at) is these sort of baked in propositions that Christians take as axiomatic. For instance there is the expectation that saying and doing good true and proper Christian things ill be met with energetic opposition & protests and will be disputed particularly in a way that is learned and wise by the standards of the world.

Now i've seen many ways that any of these forecasted reactions have been interpreted, but suffice it to say at the heart of it is that such a reaction is indistinguishable from legitimate disagreement, that is disagreement that may very well have   epistemologically sound basis. From where i'm perched this reaction doesn't necessarily tell a Christian anything about the legitimacy of their position except that it seems to be baked into Christianity that it actually does inform the legitimacy of their position. So what i'm saying is that even without replacing all sense with nonsense christianity is full of things like this that would to many average non dogma headed seem to provide diagnostic value regarding their degree of confidence but are actually i'd argue demonstrably and uniformly indistinguishable from reactions motivated by actually being incorrect.

This kind of "the world tells me I'm wrong so I must be right" modus operandi is quite unfortunate indeed. Should we blame Paul, or Jesus, or both? It's a problem, but hardly one exclusive to Christianity. I wonder what interactions there are between misplaced confidence, arrogance, and so on.

I think I'd argue these are nonsensical all the same because what's in question isn't just this-or-that teaching, but the axiom that is built upon the purported teaching. "The world hates me therefore I'm right" is a pretty piss-poor axiom that I don't think any serious Christian subscribes to. By 'serious' I of course mean anyone who isn't trapped in the grip of dogma or ideology and such.

For every mention of Matthew 10:22, there is a Luke 9:50. So, how 'baked' into Christianity are these positions? Hmm. I suppose a related problem is that most everyday Christians aren't sophisticated theologians.

Again, you are not the first or probably the last Christian i'll come across that at the very least has claimed to be able to hold such a position in a meaningful way, still i'd wager that you believe some facts about reality that are informed by your christian faith that bias you toward confidence in some very far out ideas (at least from my perspective).

We all believe facts about reality that are informed by such-and-such belief, view, perspective, etc., that biases us towards confidence is this-or-that idea.

I'd argue that they bias you against brainjarianism and simulation conjecture as well (although those are both pretty far out propositions themselves imo and aren't at all necessary in most cases to maintain a healthy sense of how difficult the truth can be to get at).

The at-the-edge examples were to demonstrate that there is no tension necessarily between "I'm a Christian" and "I could be wrong". Of course, I don't think I'm a brain in a jar, and I don't think we live in a holographic universe, but neither do most people who are informed by their own biases and perspectives. Biases aren't an issue necessarily, but failing to recognise them is.

I would be more interested in your notions on the reality of supernatural revelation and the nature and character of that phenomena as I think that could very well cause you (or maybe not you but a person) to place a very high degree of confidence into some truth that you (or not you but a person) believes has been supernaturally revealed to them.

What sort of notions are you looking for? If think that if we accept that God is a being who is alien to our very reality, and also the creator of this reality, then any communication between God and God's creation will be revelation necessarily as God's creation would be otherwise unable to comprehend God. I would imagine no method of communication is impossible for such a being, and either way, we're firmly into metaphysics. I don't know, do you prefer talking about God with purely religious language? It's interesting, the utility of religious language.

As for myself, I met Jesus when I was younger.

[RabbiKnife]

I’m a fairly simple man and the older I get and the more of life I experience the more simple I become

Christian doctrine for me is a difficult thing.  I fully recognize my biases and presuppositions, all of which are metaphysical.  I don’t like the reality of sacrifice or sin or guilt or redemption.  I want to do it myself; I want to be captain if my own ship, but alas, I find that I can’t even find the bridge. 

If humans wish to prove anything, at the end root is always faith.  Faith that atoms exist, or that higher math and physics have the ability to define or prove anything related to our perception of a physical reality.  Faith that my wife actually loves me.  Faith that the chair I sit in isn’t the result of the blue pill.  Faith that all the dystopia fiction I’ve read over the years is really fiction and not an instructional manual.  Faith that “To Serve Man” is not a cookbook.  Faith that Pascals Wager isn’t a bad bet.

I’ve examined other options.  None satisfy.  So I’ll stumble on through the darkness in my soul with what some deem a Christian overconfidence in my faith and my presuppositions concerning that faith because I have reached a point at which if I ever lose faith in Christ, I’ll just put a bullet in my head.  I have no other options. 

[journeyman]

As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?

Follow in the steps of our Lord Jesus. Confidence is evaluated by the tests that follow.

[Oscar_Kipling]

I am confident Ath will answer for himself.

Me, I (in 1974) had 2 overwhelming experiences with God in ~30 minutes and thereafter never again. It made me an instant believer in God, it was not even a choice, I just knew from that moment on, a life changing experience. Anno 2020 I believe that Christianity (in the person of Christ) and the very basics of it, in its purest form (by far) is the most convincing religion of all.

Thanks for your reply, this is very interesting because it really is one of the things that I've always found problematic about Christianity. Outside of the idea that I've never encountered a compelling explanation of why every man woman and child throughout all time hasn't gotten one of these experiences, I feel that in some way that expirience might have given you confidence in interpretations of scripture and how they can and should apply to reality that isn't actually justified by the expirience except in that it was supernatural. That is just my inclination though, do you mind telling me a bit more about your expirience and whether or not you put any effort into considering how confident you should be in your beliefs and what steps you take if you do?

[Oscar_Kipling]

I’m a fairly simple man and the older I get and the more of life I experience the more simple I become

haha, I think I feel similarly...I used to be so afraid of getting old, but darn if it doesn't have some advantages in peace of mind , its just a whole lot less "sweaty" lol  if that means anything to you.

Christian doctrine for me is a difficult thing.  I fully recognize my biases and presuppositions, all of which are metaphysical.  I don’t like the reality of sacrifice or sin or guilt or redemption.  I want to do it myself; I want to be captain if my own ship, but alas, I find that I can’t even find the bridge. 

This idea too has always bothered me about Christianity, its like being the mouse watching Dumbo give all the credit for his amazing flights to the magic feather. I've seen Christians do amazing, laborious and brave things because they think they have a magic feather (I've seen the same trick work for non Christians, heck I've even seen some objectively dumb ideas inspire some very not dumb feats of human achievement...just wanted to be clear that I don't think Christians are special or especially worthy of singling out). Anyway whenever I see Christians say stuff like this I always get a little sad and think "don't you see peter, the magic-key-knowledge-McGuffin was inside you all along"...admittedly I don't usually say this to people because its sort of an obnoxious move, lucky you I guess ...sorry

If humans wish to prove anything, at the end root is always faith.  Faith that atoms exist, or that higher math and physics have the ability to define or prove anything related to our perception of a physical reality.  Faith that my wife actually loves me.  Faith that the chair I sit in isn’t the result of the blue pill.  Faith that all the dystopia fiction I’ve read over the years is really fiction and not an instructional manual.  Faith that “To Serve Man” is not a cookbook.  Faith that Pascals Wager isn’t a bad bet.

I mean yeah in the sense that this is true its not profound and in the sense that this is profound its not applicable. What I mean is faith based folks seem to be compelled to draw equivalences between faith as they practice it and the acceptance of some fundamental truths without evidence in order to move forward with any cogent work toward deciphering reality. The belief that Jesus' death & resurrection somehow changed the relationship we all have with death and the proposition that A cannot also be not A are not equivalent. the existence of atoms is not a question of faith in the sense that Jesus' divinity is, there is evidence of atoms that are built up from many thousands of discreet intersupporting bits of information that admittedly ultimately rest upon the idea that stuff both exists and makes sense, but to act as if the chain of evidence from Bernoulli to Higgs is mirrored in quality, quantity, depth or breadth by anything between genesis & revelations is an exercise in doing a thing that just doesn't make that much sense to do....okay I ran out of steam a little at the end there but you get my point, I feel the distinctions are too great to act as if what you mean by faith and what I mean by evidence that atoms exist are playing the same sports ball.

I’ve examined other options.  None satisfy.  So I’ll stumble on through the darkness in my soul with what some deem a Christian overconfidence in my faith and my presuppositions concerning that faith because I have reached a point at which if I ever lose faith in Christ, I’ll just put a bullet in my head.  I have no other options.

well, That's dark. Yea, you should remain a Christian, go in peace.

[Oscar_Kipling]

As a Christian what steps do you take (if any) to evaluate how confident you should be in a particular belief or proposition that is informed by or originates with your Christian belief/Faith?

Follow in the steps of our Lord Jesus. Confidence is evaluated by the tests that follow.

Is that from the bible, it sounds bibly? You want to explain this a little more? perhaps provide an example?

[Oscar_Kipling]

This kind of "the world tells me I'm wrong so I must be right" modus operandi is quite unfortunate indeed. Should we blame Paul, or Jesus, or both? It's a problem, but hardly one exclusive to Christianity. I wonder what interactions there are between misplaced confidence, arrogance, and so on.

I think I'd argue these are nonsensical all the same because what's in question isn't just this-or-that teaching, but the axiom that is built upon the purported teaching. "The world hates me therefore I'm right" is a pretty piss-poor axiom that I don't think any serious Christian subscribes to. By 'serious' I of course mean anyone who isn't trapped in the grip of dogma or ideology and such.

For every mention of Matthew 10:22, there is a Luke 9:50. So, how 'baked' into Christianity are these positions? Hmm. I suppose a related problem is that most everyday Christians aren't sophisticated theologians.

I mean isn't it kind of a problem that you have to be a sophisticated theologian to not fall into the many similar pitfalls and landmines laid out in the bible? Seems like the folks who have the time and ability to be sophisticated are but a fraction of people... and its supposed to be a book full of nourishing words for everyone not just the fancy 1% in their ivory towers with lots of free time to casually ponder what is and isn't properly basic on a chaise lounge while the unsophisticated are too busy fanning them with palm fronds to realize that their miserable job as exploited-palm-frond-boy isn't actually validation that they are good Christians.

The at-the-edge examples were to demonstrate that there is no tension necessarily between "I'm a Christian" and "I could be wrong". Of course, I don't think I'm a brain in a jar, and I don't think we live in a holographic universe, but neither do most people who are informed by their own biases and perspectives. Biases aren't an issue necessarily, but failing to recognise them is.

haha well, you're sophisticated enough to sidestep these tensions and I feel like I acknowledged that plenty of "yous" exist in the first place. I mean I used to do this for fun so I've run across many very impressive Christian minds.... but on the other hand I bet I could also throw a rock out of my window and hit someone who would feel the tension even in those extreme examples, isn't that bad?. but, yes point taken, we are in agreement.

What sort of notions are you looking for? If think that if we accept that God is a being who is alien to our very reality, and also the creator of this reality, then any communication between God and God's creation will be revelation necessarily as God's creation would be otherwise unable to comprehend God. I would imagine no method of communication is impossible for such a being, and either way, we're firmly into metaphysics. I don't know, do you prefer talking about God with purely religious language? It's interesting, the utility of religious language.

You know, I actually don't know what you mean by this, but I can tell that you believe that there is a very clear line of reasoning that points from A to B...so, please lay that out for me because I'm extremely interested! I don't have any preferences, maybe I used to but its been so long that I'll probably need clarification here and there no matter what you use, so use whatever language you like and if I need further explanation I'll just ask.

As for myself, I met Jesus when I was younger.

Okay, tell me what you mean by that please.

[RabbiKnife]

I’m a fairly simple man and the older I get and the more of life I experience the more simple I become

haha, I think I feel similarly...I used to be so afraid of getting old, but darn if it doesn't have some advantages in peace of mind , its just a whole lot less "sweaty" lol  if that means anything to you.

Christian doctrine for me is a difficult thing.  I fully recognize my biases and presuppositions, all of which are metaphysical.  I don’t like the reality of sacrifice or sin or guilt or redemption.  I want to do it myself; I want to be captain if my own ship, but alas, I find that I can’t even find the bridge. 

This idea too has always bothered me about Christianity, its like being the mouse watching Dumbo give all the credit for his amazing flights to the magic feather. I've seen Christians do amazing, laborious and brave things because they think they have a magic feather (I've seen the same trick work for non Christians, heck I've even seen some objectively dumb ideas inspire some very not dumb feats of human achievement...just wanted to be clear that I don't think Christians are special or especially worthy of singling out). Anyway whenever I see Christians say stuff like this I always get a little sad and think "don't you see peter, the magic-key-knowledge-McGuffin was inside you all along"...admittedly I don't usually say this to people because its sort of an obnoxious move, lucky you I guess ...sorry

If humans wish to prove anything, at the end root is always faith.  Faith that atoms exist, or that higher math and physics have the ability to define or prove anything related to our perception of a physical reality.  Faith that my wife actually loves me.  Faith that the chair I sit in isn’t the result of the blue pill.  Faith that all the dystopia fiction I’ve read over the years is really fiction and not an instructional manual.  Faith that “To Serve Man” is not a cookbook.  Faith that Pascals Wager isn’t a bad bet.

I mean yeah in the sense that this is true its not profound and in the sense that this is profound its not applicable. What I mean is faith based folks seem to be compelled to draw equivalences between faith as they practice it and the acceptance of some fundamental truths without evidence in order to move forward with any cogent work toward deciphering reality. The belief that Jesus' death & resurrection somehow changed the relationship we all have with death and the proposition that A cannot also be not A are not equivalent. the existence of atoms is not a question of faith in the sense that Jesus' divinity is, there is evidence of atoms that are built up from many thousands of discreet intersupporting bits of information that admittedly ultimately rest upon the idea that stuff both exists and makes sense, but to act as if the chain of evidence from Bernoulli to Higgs is mirrored in quality, quantity, depth or breadth by anything between genesis & revelations is an exercise in doing a thing that just doesn't make that much sense to do....okay I ran out of steam a little at the end there but you get my point, I feel the distinctions are too great to act as if what you mean by faith and what I mean by evidence that atoms exist are playing the same sports ball.

I’ve examined other options.  None satisfy.  So I’ll stumble on through the darkness in my soul with what some deem a Christian overconfidence in my faith and my presuppositions concerning that faith because I have reached a point at which if I ever lose faith in Christ, I’ll just put a bullet in my head.  I have no other options.

well, That's dark. Yea, you should remain a Christian, go in peace.

Why?  Why should I remain Christian?  If my faith is truly just the result of an unjustified overconfidence in dogma wouldn’t I objectively be better if eating a bullet?

[Athanasius]

I mean isn't it kind of a problem that you have to be a sophisticated theologian to not fall into the many similar pitfalls and landmines laid out in the bible? Seems like the folks who have the time and ability to be sophisticated are but a fraction of people... and its supposed to be a book full of nourishing words for everyone not just the fancy 1% in their ivory towers with lots of free time to casually ponder what is and isn't properly basic on a chaise lounge while the unsophisticated are too busy fanning them with palm fronds to realize that their miserable job as exploited-palm-frond-boy isn't actually validation that they are good Christians.

This is an image you've painted.

It's not as if sophistication is insulation against basic errors, or that the unsophisticated are assuredly lost to basic errors. We wouldn't claim that philosophers are beyond error. I think the kinds of things you're getting at speak towards a failure of teaching, destructive social mimetics (e.g. around COVID measures or Trump), propagandizing, and any number of other social phenomena. These are issues for everyone, and if it's a problem, then it's a problem for all: a person must navigate existence and should they fail in their responsibility their position is precarious indeed.

You know, I actually don't know what you mean by this, but I can tell that you believe that there is a very clear line of reasoning that points from A to B...so, please lay that out for me because I'm extremely interested! I don't have any preferences, maybe I used to but its been so long that I'll probably need clarification here and there no matter what you use, so use whatever language you like and if I need further explanation I'll just ask.

I'm mostly thinking about God through non-religious language. People will talk pejoratively about God the old man in the sky, for example, but how do you talk pejoratively about other propositions, like the being we refer to as God pre-existed our very reality. Or, the being we refer to as God is of such alien intelligence that revelation is a necessity of communication. Obviously, this isn't perfect language and if God is indeed the creator of everything we are and know then there's surely a more appropriate way to relate to God. But, I suppose I'm digging at the reality that familiarity breeds contempt, and if we take a step back and use something other than theological language to think about God, then we arrive at something much less worthy of

Okay, tell me what you mean by that please.

I was 12 or 13 or so and experience a vision wherein a bunch of stuff happened, I saw some things, and I met Jesus, he hugged me, and so on. That was quite weird at the time, because when it happened, at that moment, I was crying profusely, and at the time couldn't figure out why. These days, I know more about the crying and wonder why I was hugged. So, it was quite an emotionally impacting thing.