Do you believe in God?

Au contraire ... the sacred within is hardly based on obedience to ignorant, barbaric doctrines. That type of thing sacrifices the sacred within along with its agency. The self becomes a superstitious parrot, and that is hardly sacred.

Is this an accusation against me? None of your numerous accusations against me have been true, not one.

Aren't you the guy that won't tell us who the god is and how you came to be channeling his thoughts and exactly how that information comes to you? Same as it ever was with the messengers of god. No different it seems. If it is, prove it. Or at least give evidence for it.

Question: Would you consider yourself exceptional?

Why would I ever answer another one of your questions when you’ve never given a straight answer to one of mine?

Do you think it’s okay that you’re not exceptional?

Tell us? Who are you speaking for? It’s only me and you.

There’s no ‘strength in numbers’ when you’re alone.

Us is anybody who's chimed in on the thread, lurked or read it. Obviously.

And again you have sidestepped the question of why you are different than any of the other god zealots and how that came to be. Other than, of course, just your presupposing it to be true as the religious are so good at doing. "Why do I need any evidence when I believe it? Why, when I have the secrets of the universe and people are skeptical about it because of all the other god zealots, why should I provide any documentation, any details, any verification, any evidence ... anything to establish it as not just another just so story? Why can't I just preach and have it assumed that I'm coming straight from god almighty?"

First provide evidence for your faith.

When it becomes undeniable who I am, then what? You’re going to start being honest with yourself after you’ve provided yourself with a home of dishonesty for so long?

You don’t need any proof or any evidence to stop living in dishonesty.

Because you don’t deserve answers you won’t provide others.

I’m not the one in need.

You are the neediest person I know.

I give voice to my past and offer it as a lifeline, but it’s not for me. I’m also the guy who stands at your deathbed and watches as you struggle for your last breath. You won’t see me at any funerals.

Yeah, well I'm someone who has researched hundreds of books and videos on this, written several, taken classes on comparative religion, adjusted my views according to the information, studied in depth "The Varieties of Religious Experience" by William James (and many other similar books) ... and informed my opinions via all these attempting to honestly investigate. The honesty and objectivity problem just might be on your end.

Now I have someone in front of me who claims ipso facto he is a messenger of god. He seems perplexed that this is not just accepted universally to be true. Because he knows nothing about the varieties of religious experience and is merely a zealot lost in his religious experience.

Liars hide their dishonesty from themselves especially.

A son inherits the sins of his father and does what his father does.

Religious zealots and self-deluded god messengers never seem to realize that their game is a dime a dozen, seem to mysteriously have no appreciation of the fact that others might not see them as any different from any of the other self-professed god messengers, and see no reason to provide evidence for why they are different from all the other impostors personally repping god(s).

Reminder:

When the world is not loving you like a home is supposed to..

When other people are not loving you like they should..

When life is not loving you appropriately..

Model it.

Model it in trust. Model it in patience. Model it in defiance. Model it in rebellion.

He loves the sound of sophistry coming out of his mouth .... communicating with others, not so much.

Tu quoque

I thought you believed in free will ….

I'm no hyper-rationalist type. The most important part of life is subjective and experiential, not how logical one can be. To the extent that science discounts this in favor of repeatable experiments, it's wayward, imo. Our ultimate and only frame of reference is subjective. If science can't capture it, that's a limitation of science, not a diss on subjective experience. And the world is a very mystical place, and consciousness very spiritual. It's just that defaulting to formal doctrines of religions isn't spiritual at all, but closer to anti-spiritual.
The path is the path is the path. An independent path. That's different from obedience. Gnosticism rocks. But formalized religion is a corruption of it, an ending of it.

I've never heard anybody say "We can't have a system of medicine without ultimate and perfect knowledge from an omniscient authority," or "we can't have a system of cosmology without ultimate and perfect knowledge from a perfect supernatural authority," or "we can't have a system of mathematics without perfect knowledge and authority from an omniscient supernatural being," etc.

When we get to morality, in order to smuggle god in, it becomes: "You have no foundation for morality without god, therefore god exists. You can have no system of morality without god."

They are all works in progress. No special pleading because it gets fuzzy and complicated. It's religious-speak to make this exception for morality systems. It's not reality based, as usual with religion.

"Personification of the source of what is and what is happening = god." -- Sadhguru

Thousands of times over, such gods are created by man. Embodied by this, embodied by that, embodied by a thousand different things. "All the same," says Confucius. Check your premises.