Amy Coney Barrett

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You are the one that I see talking about sexual fantasies. Maybe it is a blindspot for you?

You and one other individual raised the topic of sexual "fantasies" [my emphasis], not me!

[Maranatha]

You and one other individual raised the topic of sexual "fantasies" [my emphasis], not me!

I only go by what you post. I don't care about your sexual fantasies.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I only go by what you post. I don't care about your sexual fantasies.

I never mentioned sexual fantasy/fantasies. The first individual to raise that concept was seer, followed by CivilDiscourse, whose post was commented upon by Gondwanaland, and then you made your contribution.

You might try reading for comprehension next time.

[Maranatha]

I never mentioned sexual fantasy/fantasies. The first individual to raise that concept was seer, followed by CivilDiscourse, whose post was commented upon by Gondwanaland, and then you made your contribution.

You might try reading for comprehension next time.

Whatever makes you feel better about it, I don't care. There is no issue "comprehending" you, you post it.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Whatever makes you feel better about it, I don't care. There is no issue "comprehending" you, you post it.

Falsely accusing me of introducing a topic [i.e. sexual fantasy/fantasies] that have been introduced by others, including yourself, seems not only rather un-Christian but also a tad mendacious and duplicitous.

I shall for you all.

[rogue06]

Perhaps you need to read for comprehension.

I did not employ the phrase "sexual fantasies".

With your Kleenex comment you did not have to.

[Whateverman]

With your Kleenex comment you did not have to.

Not a sexual fantasy.

Closer to a nightmare.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

With your Kleenex comment you did not have to.

Only in your mind.

[firstfloor]

You do not have to display your animus so openly you know.

You must not expect any sympathy from that direction (Stephen Miller's dad).

[NorrinRadd]

Just for the record are you contending that Judaism is also a “false” religion? Is the Jewish deity one of those exalted but which is "ultimately demonic”? Judaism is very much a non Christian religion so I am assuming you are including it with all those other “demonized pagans “ of which you wrote earlier.

Jews who refuse to accept Jesus as I AM will die in their sins. Jews whose righteousness is of Law rather than faith are cut off. So they are lost, but I am unaware of Scripture referring to them as "pagans."

On the contrary liberal and tolerant Christians are not religious bigots.

If they do not recognize the exclusivity of Christ, and the fact that all infidels are lost and doomed, they are severely defective "Christians," if they are Christians at all.

By which you mean you can quote mine from the Hebrew texts to provide verses that Christian apologetics has tortured and distorted to fit later Christian beliefs.

However, you are more than welcome to find me the Greek where Jesus states Ho Theos Eimi.

Actually, my intent was to quote-mine a handful of NT Greek texts, in addition to a few OT Hebrew texts. John 8:24 and 8:58 record Jesus directly identifying Himself as "I AM," with the former showing that accepting this is mandatory. Rom. 10:9, in conjunction with the Joel quote at 10:13, shows that acknowledging Jesus as "I AM" is necessary for salvation. Rev. 1:17, 2:8, and 22:13-16 echo Isa. 44:6, and to a lesser extent, Rev. 21:6 echoes Isa. 41:4 and 48:12 -- the Isa. citations all explicitly referring to "I AM."

Yes because the psychological issues may not be “major” [which is the word you employed].

That seemed a reasonable understanding of this clause of yours: "or as it is often more commonly known displaying symptoms of either neurosis or psychosis.

That you have felt it necessary to recourse to that particular idiom which is used when attempting to belittle and patronise does suggest something to me of your emotional state.

You are correct, my intent was to belittle and patronize. I didn't find it "necessary," but satisfying, owing to my "emotional state" of mild annoyance.

You dismissed, out of hand, a huge corpus of academic research. That struck me as the arrogance of ignorance.

Blame yourself. According to you, the "research" showed glossolalia to be "a form of hysteria." That is simply not the case. If your grand body of eggheads found that glossolalia among Christians is inextricably linked with "hysteria," then their research is faulty.

You have no possible means of assessing if your experiences do differ from those studied. You have dismissed the literature unread.

I am dismissing the literature as you characterized it. If you characterized it correctly, it deserves to be dismissed, because it is in error. If it is not in error, then you mischaracterized it terribly and you need to do a better job of communicating.

Once again I note a denigrating tone and the employment of pejoratives, which again indicates a particular state of mind.

Well yes, a "closed" mind. I make NO pretense of neutrality or objectivity.

Snipped for having no relevance to the modern disciplines of anthropology and psychology.

So? It was a direct and clear response to your question, and it was the only one that matters from my perspective as a believer. If you want a secular answer, specify that in the question, so I can just ignore the question and move on.

I do not think Wright is a narrow-minded bigot.

I'm not yet familiar enough with his work to know his views on the exclusive nature of Christianity. I know he holds at least a few views that liberals would consider "narrow-minded."

To err is human...

Which is all rather subjective.

Oh, definitely. I did use the word, "experience," after all.

Glossolalia is a form of dissociation. Dissociation is a psychological term for partitioning awareness, which is exactly what Dr Brown describes when he mentions he can be thinking something entirely different while making these noises.

That definition or description does not match anything I've heard or can readily locate online. It may be some newer angle, or some kind of nuance that occurs only in serious psych literature, but based on what I've found so far, I'm calling bovine scat.

His references to beginning to "feel a sense of depth of communion with God" and the "richness of the spirit's presence" or his experience of beginning to "groan or weep for a particular subject" can be explained by the release of various chemicals along with other activities taking place in his brain.

Probably so. OTOH, some of us find the "groan" bit alluded to in Rom. 8:26.

[Maranatha]

Falsely accusing me of introducing a topic [i.e. sexual fantasy/fantasies] that have been introduced by others, including yourself, seems not only rather un-Christian but also a tad mendacious and duplicitous.

I shall for you all.

Silliness. You posted of it and I responded. I don't care about you equivocation about who stated what.

Interesting though, have you ever actually prayed in faith before?

Were the heavens silent for you?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Silliness. You posted of it and I responded. I don't care about you equivocation about who stated what.

Interesting though, have you ever actually prayed in faith before?

Were the heavens silent for you?

I challenged another contributor who alleged I had used the phrase "sexual fantasy". Do keep up at the back.

[Maranatha]

I challenged another contributor who alleged I had used the phrase "sexual fantasy". Do keep up at the back.

Your challenges seem more like trolling. You may have the last word because it is important to you.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Your challenges seem more like trolling.

One could make the same observation concerning your interjections.

[CivilDiscourse]

I challenged another contributor who alleged I had used the phrase "sexual fantasy". Do keep up at the back.

Nobody claimed you used the phrase "sexual fantasy". That claim is made up on your part.