Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by HOBBIT
why is this? ppl want something to believe in so they buy those books. it doesnt mean that prayer works - they want it to work.

Do you want me to refer you to some of the testimonies?

Read "God's Smuggler," if you want some accounts of the miracles. It's an awesome book, and many of the people in it are still alive today. They'd protest at slander. The integrity of the people involved is undisputed. This is one example, but there are many others.

Once every person in the Frontline class I go to spoke about their born again experience. We went 'round the table also, learning about each others' spiritual gifts. Two people spoke about the Baptism of the Holy Spirit as being like being struck by a lightning bolt. They fell onto the floor and couldn't move. My mother experienced "a light being turned on in her head". My father (a former atheist) asked for an angel to visit him within twenty four hours, and within twenty four hours a man showed up who spoke to him of nothing but the Lord. I myself endured spiritual attack for several months after I began seeking, and then the Lord spoke, and my life has changed.

You see, there are numerous eyewitness accounts. There are books written of these- you only have to look for them. Don't discount Christianity out of hand, but listen to what people have to say, if you're interested. I think you said before that you're not interested, though.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
With the New Testament and much of the Old Testament, the situation is totally different. The Old Testament is corroborated by Assyrian and Babylonian accounts. The Hittite civilization was discovered because of Biblical archaeological research. That's only one example- there are far more.

I don't have time to reply to everything - but I will reply to this. Yes - the old testament as well as the new testament both contain references to existing places. So does the story of the Hoboken Chicken about a giant chicken in Hoboken New Jersey (does that mean that just because the places exist that the events occurred? Also - the Odessey - the Greek places and cities exist - as a matter of fact they have discovered in the last years even more instances that the places exists and even some of the wars. Does that give evidence of a Greek gods? Absolutely not. There are millions of books which take place in known locations - and they're fiction. A thousand years from now - archeologists will have a hell of a time trying to piece together what is real and what isn't.

By the way - you talk about people recording things, undisputed witnesses, and all this stuff. Do you believe in the New Jersey Devil? and why or why not?

As for Giroth - there are a lot of people who die and are revived - it doesn't mean that there was anything spiritual about it. Supply evidence other than belief that it was god. I'm glad your grandmother was revived - she was lucky or the doctors were skilled though.

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
The Hittite civilization was discovered because of Biblical archaeological research. That's only one example- there are far more.

Do you mean, physically excavated? Because the Hittite civilisation actually cropped up in Egyptian diplomacy texts, which occurred earlier than the biblical accounts. (And I'm not too sure on this, but don't the Hittites appear in the Amarna texts from the 18th Dynasty as well?) And then there's the Battle of Kadesh: a propaganderistic text by Ramesses II. This mentions the famous clash between the Egyptians and the Hittites near Kadesh.

[Lizra]

Hoboken Chicken!

[Sheeana]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
Once every person in the Frontline class I go to spoke about their born again experience. We went 'round the table also, learning about each others' spiritual gifts.

I would recommend that you read Persinger sometime.

This is your brain on God.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lizra
Hoboken Chicken!

Yeah I had read it in 5th or 6th grade...

The Hoboken Chicken Emergency

When Arthur Bobowicz is sent out to bring home the family's Thanksgiving turkey, he returns instead with Henrietta -- a 266-pound chicken with a mind of her own. Thus begins the hilarious chain of events that has kept readers in stitches since Henrietta first pecked her way onto the scene in 1977. Revised and with brand-new art by Jill Pinkwater, this new edition of The Hoboken Chicken Emergency is sure to delight chicken-lovers of all ages.

It's a really cool book.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by Sheeana
Do you mean, physically excavated? Because the Hittite civilisation actually cropped up in Egyptian diplomacy texts, which occurred earlier than the biblical accounts. (And I'm not too sure on this, but don't the Hittites appear in the Amarna texts from the 18th Dynasty as well?) And then there's the Battle of Kadesh: a propaganderistic text by Ramesses II. This mentions the famous clash between the Egyptians and the Hittites near Kadesh.

What I remember hearing is that the Hittite's existence was scoffed at generally and was pointed to as a proof of the Bible's being incorrect. However, it was found to be true. I found this in two different sources, so I doubt that it's incorrect. Now the Hittite civilization is well documented. I'm inclined to believe that the sources you've mentioned were found because of the search done as a response to Biblical records.

I read the five pages of "This is your brain on God" that you posted.

Originally written in This is your brain on God
Setting me up like that - you will experience the presence of God - might have been a mistake. When I bring this up later with Persinger, he tells me that the machine's effects differ among people, depending on their "lability" - Persinger jargon meaning sensitivity or vulnerability.

Originally written in This is your brain on God
A few might see a world of possibility in Persinger's theories. His booth has helped us discover and confirm our true predicament. "Seeing God" is really just a soothing euphemism for the fleeting awareness of ourselves alone in the universe: a look in that existential mirror. The "sensed presence" - now easily generated by a machine pumping our brains with electromagnetic spirituality - is nothing but our exquisite and singular self, at one with the true solitude of our condition, deeply anxious. We're itching to get out of here, to escape this tired old environment with its frayed carpets, blasted furniture, and shabby old God. Time to move on and discover true divinity all over again.

Originally written in This is your brain on God
As we sit in his office, Persinger argues that other environmental disturbances - ranging from solar flares and meteor showers to oil drilling - probably correlate with visionary claims, including mass religious conversions, ghost lights, and haunted houses. He says that if a region routinely experiences mild earthquakes or other causes of change in the electromagnetic fields, this may explain why the spot becomes known as sacred ground. That would include the Hopi tribe's hallowed lands, Delphi, Mount Fuji, the Black Hills, Lourdes, and the peaks of the Andes, not to mention most of California.

From time to time, a sensed presence can also occur among crowds, Persinger says, thereby giving the divine vision the true legitimacy of a common experience, and making it practically undeniable.

I'll respond to the article in the following post:

[Lief Erikson]

The writer of that article makes some rather sweeping statements, like that the article would explain all supernatural phenomena. This is a very, very incorrect statement, however. The theory explains relatively few miracles, no prophesies- nothing except experience that's in your mind, and it accounts for that rather poorly too.

We already knew that it's possible through the brain for people to have experiences like that. Schizophrenics, insane people, and individuals on drugs have those things all the time. The possibility that a machine can simulate such experiences in people with "normal" brains doesn't seem impossible. That it explains all such experiences seems improbable, though, based upon the nature of these experiences.

Many of these experiences are "called up." If they were merely electromagnetic waves, even if people were inclined automatically to believe something would happen, then it would largely be chance that something occurs.

Sometimes experiences are called up, which everybody senses. How did the individual manage to open up through his own belief everyone else's senses? Do you think that's because he believed he sensed it coming sooner, and then invoked it?

Look at the occurence that happened in this machine inspired encounter. Nothing much happened. He was actually expecting to encounter or sense God, and yet he instead thrown into old sexual impulses and memories. He felt himself leave his body, but there was really very little control over the random path his mind went on. This seems rather similar to the psychological influence someone on drugs might have. The vision wasn't of a future event, or a gift of some knowledge he couldn't possibly have known, otherwise.

It seems to me that the outcome of the experience only shows that we can duplicate the same effects as drug addicts have. It doesn't explain how people can call up these experiences, and it definitely doesn't explain all the physical events happening at the same time.

For example, take the miracle theory he gives. Every one of his experiences he gives were simply happening to the people, rather than directly interrelating with them. He doesn't pay attention to the fact that most miracles happen because they're prayed for or requested or directed by people. The accounts of magic and sorcery are always coupled with people wielding or directing that power. Although a few spiritual visions might be accounted for by this theory (for which I have seen little hard evidence), as I said before, no prophesies are, and few miracles. The answered prayers, the physical unlikely circumstances, and the fact that many of these spiritual visions, sensations or experiences are tied directly with physical happenings.

Most of my conversations with the Lord have been through the Bible. With my opening the Bible at random and having the first words I see directly relating to my circumstance. Like once I was questioning whether I'd be able to remain a Christian, I asked for an answer, and then no matter where I went to in the Bible, the first passages I came upon were passages like "It is better for a man to have never seen the truth, than to have seen it and turned away from it."

When I'm having a conversation with the Lord, it is back and forth and the Lord is utterly responsive. Once I was having a conversation that was infiltrated by a demon, and I was aware of it. Soon I stopped using the Bible, because no matter where I turned, I was receiving instant responses to everything I was saying, but I couldn't be sure about the source of those words. The conversations are absolutely convincing, and were clear as day that I was hearing. That is in stark contrast with the times when I haven't been hearing from the Lord. Then, the passages just don't line up. Often at the end of a conversation I ask for a confirming word that this was really all from the Lord, and every time, the next passage I see is one like "Thus says the Lord:".

[Lief Erikson]

Sometimes the spiritual experiences directly relate to the physical. Like one time I was praying and a demon interrupted my devotions. It began speaking through the Bible and being an all around interferance, so I prayed that the Lord would banish it. I instantly sensed it disappear into the house, and then at once, I heard my two brothers begin yelling at each other in a fierce argument. I went inside and sensed the spirit there with them. I commanded, in my head, it in the name of Jesus, to stop, and instantly my brothers' argument stopped.

Really, the statement that all supernatural experiences can be dealt with by this experiential theory is a gross overstatement. It ignores New Age levitation, it ignores black and white magical spells, it ignores all Biblical healings or miraculous events (I say all, because these events are always called upon or forknown), and it ignores all physical ones. It also ignores the Old Testament prophesies, and the strangely coincidental fact that many of these prophesies were made by prophets who were known to do miracles as well.

The statement that this is all there is ignores the majority of the circumstances and focuses upon a few, while not giving sufficient evidence for those few.

[Lief Erikson]

When Arthur Bobowicz is sent out to bring home the family's Thanksgiving turkey, he returns instead with Henrietta -- a 266-pound chicken with a mind of her own. Thus begins the hilarious chain of events that has kept readers in stitches since Henrietta first pecked her way onto the scene in 1977. Revised and with brand-new art by Jill Pinkwater, this new edition of The Hoboken Chicken Emergency is sure to delight chicken-lovers of all ages.

I saw a movie of that book. It was quite cute .

[Lief Erikson]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I don't have time to reply to everything - but I will reply to this. Yes - the old testament as well as the new testament both contain references to existing places. So does the story of the Hoboken Chicken about a giant chicken in Hoboken New Jersey (does that mean that just because the places exist that the events occurred?

It doesn't mean that, however it does mean that the author was careful to get historical details right. The Lord's interaction was even more important to the author than the historical details, which means that it seems likely he would have put a good deal of effort into those accounts as well.

So let me get this straight . . . you say little against the historical value of the Old Testament, but a lot against the Lord's involvement? Do you find the authors to be very incorrect about the historical details, and if so, on what grounds do you base your disbelief? Also, upon what grounds do you object to the Lord's involvement?

Also, I'd rather prefer it if you objected to the New Testament, simply because it's easier for me to argue with you there. The Old Testament is older, and there are less supporting evidences. But the argument there basically remains the same. Because of the age of the events in the Old Testament, we know what we know about that time period with slightly less certainty. The claims and events of the Old Testament are very similar though. If you want to object to miracles, you can just as easily object to the New Testament miracles as the Old Testament ones. They're still miracles.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
It doesn't mean that, however it does mean that the author was careful to get historical details right. The Lord's interaction was even more important to the author than the historical details, which means that it seems likely he would have put a good deal of effort into those accounts as well.

So let me get this straight . . . you say little against the historical value of the Old Testament, but a lot against the Lord's involvement? Do you find the authors to be very incorrect about the historical details, and if so, on what grounds do you base your disbelief? Also, upon what grounds do you object to the Lord's involvement?

First - tell me who the authors are. Second - tell me why I should trust them. As to your questions - I don't have a problem with the historical aspects because through archeology we can eventually determine how true they are. As for the prospect of there being a god - that is just belief. I find it unlikely for there to be a god, heaven or hell. I think the concept of god is created by man so we 1) feel good about dying 2) explain things we don't understand.

Also, I'd rather prefer it if you objected to the New Testament, simply because it's easier for me to argue with you there. The Old Testament is older, and there are less supporting evidences. But the argument there basically remains the same. Because of the age of the events in the Old Testament, we know what we know about that time period with slightly less certainty. The claims and events of the Old Testament are very similar though. If you want to object to miracles, you can just as easily object to the New Testament miracles as the Old Testament ones. They're still miracles.

There is NO supporting evidence for god in either the new or old testaments. It is belief. There is historical accuracy in places and events - but other than that where is the evidence of god other than your feelings and others?

It is also how god is portrayed differently between the two testaments. In the old testament - he is vengeful and testing and telling people to kill their first born to prove themselves - the new testament he's a kind and gentle and forgiving god. Did he go to a psychiatrist or something inbetween the two? Was the there a self help program for gods? I just find the concept of god as a fantasy.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
1) I find it unlikely for there to be a god, heaven or hell.

2) There is NO supporting evidence for god in either the new or old testaments. It is belief. There is historical accuracy in places and events - but other than that where is the evidence of god other than your feelings and others?

3) It is also how god is portrayed differently between the two testaments. In the old testament - he is vengeful and testing and telling people to kill their first born to prove themselves - the new testament he's a kind and gentle and forgiving god. Did he go to a psychiatrist or something inbetween the two? Was the there a self help program for gods? I just find the concept of god as a fantasy.

1) Why?
2) As always, it depends on what evidence you would count; also as always, anything considered evidence of God is dismissed by those who dismiss Him, and thus not worth repeating.
3) Ah, but He is not really portrayed as different. That is a common misconception, brought about by lack of understanding; I don't have the rhetoric ability or the time to explain it in any good way, but I expect you can find someone who does, if you're interested.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) Why?

2) As always, it depends on what evidence you would count; also as always, anything considered evidence of God is dismissed by those who dismiss Him, and thus not worth repeating.
[/b][/quote]
No - if you can give me scientific studies that indicate the precense of god - I might look at it. There are a lot of things out there - and science attempts to learn it. A lot of people think there is a Loch Ness Monster - doesn't mean it's there. That's why they do studies and send submarines down there.

3) Ah, but He is not really portrayed as different. That is a common misconception, brought about by lack of understanding; I don't have the rhetoric ability or the time to explain it in any good way, but I expect you can find someone who does, if you're interested.

I went to a Catholic school all my life - we studied the old testament as well as the new testament. I have also READ the bible on my own. it is not a misconcpetion. You just don't want to face the difference - because some people need to believe. I don't need to believe. I also - every christmas - used to read the gospels dealing with Jesus's birth and then during easter I used to read Moses (for passover) and the Crucifiction parts. I used to also read the other parts too at various times. Then as I started looking at it more and more - I just felt it was a good fantasy book and had no basis in reality. I've read Job, Abraham, Genesis and all that - as well as the Psalms. I've read revelations many times - wondering how the world was going to end. You know how the world will end - the Sun will explode in a billion years - swollow all the planets up to Jupiter and then collapse on itself.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
I went to a Catholic school all my life - we studied the old testament as well as the new testament. I have also READ the bible on my own. 1) it is not a misconcpetion. 2) You just don't want to face the difference - because some people need to believe. I don't need to believe. I also - every christmas - used to read the gospels dealing with Jesus's birth and then during easter I used to read Moses (for passover) and the Crucifiction parts. I used to also read the other parts too at various times. Then as I started looking at it more and more - I just felt it was a good fantasy book and had no basis in reality. I've read Job, Abraham, Genesis and all that - as well as the Psalms. I've read revelations many times - wondering how the world was going to end. You know how the world will end - the Sun will explode in a billion years - swollow all the planets up to Jupiter and then collapse on itself.

1) Are you saying I am a liar, then?
2) So then, non-atheists (possibly also agnostics and deists) are nothing but big babies who never outgrew Santa Claus, and called him God/YHVH/The Overmind/The Gods etc.? People who are emotionally deficit, and must use some make-believe higher power to fill their void?

By the way, I believe Abraham is included in Genesis, unless there is a book in the Catholic Bible I am unaware of.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Gwaimir Windgem
1) Are you saying I am a liar, then?

No - just give me some evidence.

2) So then, non-atheists (possibly also agnostics and deists) are nothing but big babies who never outgrew Santa Claus, and called him God/YHVH/The Overmind/The Gods etc.? People who are emotionally deficit, and must use some make-believe higher power to fill their void?

I don't think they're emotionally deficit, I think it's completely normal - but yes - I do think that it is no different than believing in Santa Clause.

By the way, I believe Abraham is included in Genesis, unless there is a book in the Catholic Bible I am unaware of.

he might be - I couldn't remember where he fell into the Bible and since I don't have mine here at the moment - i couldn't look it up. I've read all the bible though and have studied it.

[Giroth]

jerseydevil,

when she died,she was brought to a beautiful hillside with people in the distance riding horses,with flags.
She said that is what she saw.
Here was where she was given another chance.I don't know if that will answer your question,though.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

1) As I said before, I'm really not well equipped to answer. I have difficulty putting concepts into words, especially those dealing with certain subjects, such as religion, God, and the ancient and sorrowful beauty of the Eldar.

2) In what way is that not mentally deficit? If some people "need" to believe, as you say, in what way is this "need" not a deficit?

Completely off-topic, but I just had to say this: Monty Python rules.

[Lief Erikson]

For just about all the destructions of nonbelievers in the Bible, it is because they are either very, very sinful, or they are oppressing and attacking God's children. The first act can be considered justice, while the second act is protection and love. The character of God, meanwhile, is really not inconsistent between the Old and New Testaments. In the New Testament, remember, we have Jesus commanding the hosts of heaven, launching violent destructions upon the people of the Earth. And hell is really necessary if you have both a loving God and free will. You can't have free will without the possibility of sin, and you can't have a loving God without justice. Hell really is justice. Also, it comes in degrees. Remember the passage in the New Testament where Jesus says "Woe to you, Korazin and Bethsaida, for if the miracles that were done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented. But I tell you, it will be worse for you on the judgement day than for them."

There's another similar example that uses Soddom and Gomorrah as examples. Jesus' New Testament teachings also are necessary.

If you really want to delve more deeply into learning about that issue though, I'd suggest the book "The Problem of Pain" by C.S. Lewis. I've only read part of it myself, but it is a thoughtful attempt to explain the different factors in this issue, and how they interrelate. "The Case for Christ," meanwhile, is a very good book on examining the eyewitnesses, the evidence for Christ and the Resurrection, etc.

Originally posted by jerseydevil
No - if you can give me scientific studies that indicate the precense of god - I might look at it. There are a lot of things out there - and science attempts to learn it. A lot of people think there is a Loch Ness Monster - doesn't mean it's there. That's why they do studies and send submarines down there.

Why do you insist that if physical methods don't work on spiritual matters, then nothing works to show you spiritual matters? That just doesn't make sense. It's like saying, "I'm going to skip using a shovel to dig a hole, and I'm going to use a lawn mower. True, the gold digger I've spoken to says use a shovel, but I know that the lawn mower works on the lawn, and I've seen strong evidence for that. As a matter of a fact, I've read a manual all about grass and lawn mowers and weeds, so I'm very well informed. So if this lawn mower doesn't dig me a hole, nothing will. I don't trust shovels."

You don't know what spiritual experiences are like, never having experienced them, and you don't realize that God doesn't have to speak through spiritual experiences. He can use physical methods too, if you seek him. I just don't see any small amount of sense in the refusal to even check out something, because science doesn't apply to it. I have shown you quite a bit in terms of eyewitness accounts. And their validity is not questioned by any material from the time period. On the contrary, we find that the writings of their enemies actually upheld what they said about Jesus' influence and miracles. The evidence that the eyewitnesses were correct fills Part 1 of "The Case for Christ", and there is a great deal of corroborating evidence. The major events of Christ's life can, actually, all be put together without the gospel accounts, simply from the corroborating reports.

So don't just throw this evidence out. The eyewitness accounts do matter, and the fact that Jesus' enemies acknowledged that he did miracles. The fact that his disciples claimed the resurrection and were willing to die because of what they had seen shows that they really thought they had seen it. The fact that Jesus fulfilled so many Old Testament prophesies also is an important evidence that he is who he claimed to be. Anyway, I could go on, there are numerous evidences that can be looked to.

There is also the evidence of modern Christians and modern eyewitness accounts, in complete accord with the historical accounts. The Biblical accounts don't seem very far fetched to me, having experienced what I've experienced. And the experience is open to anyone, if they'll only look.

Anyway, I've said my piece. Now I'm going to be gone for a week, and possibly longer, because of my school schedule. I'll talk to you all more at other times . Goodnight.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Giroth
jerseydevil,

when she died,she was brought to a beautiful hillside with people in the distance riding horses,with flags.
She said that is what she saw.
Here was where she was given another chance.I don't know if that will answer your question,though.

Well i had a similar experience. I stopped breathing at a restaurant and they were ready to give me mouth to mouth and CPR. it occurred in the Poconos where we had a cabin - and I was flying over the mountains and everything. Scientific studies have shown that it's a halucinagenic state from lack of oxygen and various other brain activities.

I believe that something may happen our energy after we die - I just don't believe in a superior being. So technically - I do believe in ghosts. Which if you look - I have posted my experience with my grandfather - as well as my mother - I just don't believe in a god or heaven or hell.