Notices
Results 1 to 43 of 43

Thread: What Pentecostal Christians call...

  1. #1 What Pentecostal Christians call... 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    wv
    Posts
    49
    I don't want anyone to think I'm crazy or nothing..
    right now I don't know what to believe really but I wanted a point of view about this. In the past I was a pentecostal Christian, and I don't want to offend anyone but there is the belief of "getting laid out in the spirit". Where you get knocked out cold. Well 2 times when 2 different preachers laid hands on me I did fall to the floor, I didn't get knocked out cold but something literally made me not be able to hold my body up at all. Is there a psychological explanation to this or what. This is a normal thing to happen in all of the pentecostal churches I've been to. It really felt like a shock. But it did not hurt. Many others I have seen this happen to also in church. What do you think?


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    722
    I think it is interesting. If it is repeatable maybe we can do some scientific experiment and measurement. But I have not experienced it myself so far.

    A word of caution: I think when you wrote "getting laid out in the spirit" you don't mean anything of sexual nature. But some people may misunderstand.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    wv
    Posts
    49
    lol, It is called that usually when I have heard it talked about. Sorry, not using to much caution at 2 am. (Bored at the moment) ...I have heard it also call "knocked out by the power of God," so I think I start referring to it as that. Thanks for the word of caution though. I'd like to see what others have to say to but thanks prasit for your many replies. My aunt also has said that she's had uncontrollable shaking in her hands when the Pastor has laid hands and prayed for her. So hmm..
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Sacramento
    Posts
    237
    Slain in the Spirit. Harkens back to the book of Acts.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5 Re: What Pentecostal Christians call... 
    Forum Radioactive Isotope mitchellmckain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Salt Lake City, UTAH, USA
    Posts
    3,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah1234
    I don't want anyone to think I'm crazy or nothing..
    right now I don't know what to believe really but I wanted a point of view about this. In the past I was a pentecostal Christian, and I don't want to offend anyone but there is the belief of "getting laid out in the spirit". Where you get knocked out cold. Well 2 times when 2 different preachers laid hands on me I did fall to the floor, I didn't get knocked out cold but something literally made me not be able to hold my body up at all. Is there a psychological explanation to this or what. This is a normal thing to happen in all of the pentecostal churches I've been to. It really felt like a shock. But it did not hurt. Many others I have seen this happen to also in church. What do you think?
    Well I am both a Christian and a scientist, so I am ok with whatever explanation you might want to make for this. I have never experienced anything like this, but if you want a scientific explanation, how about hypnotic suggestion? I am sure you already have a better religious explanation that I do.
    See my physics of spaceflight simulator at http://www.relspace.astahost.com

    I now have a blog too: http://astahost.blogspot.com/
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6 Re: What Pentecostal Christians call... 
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah1234
    I don't want anyone to think I'm crazy or nothing..
    right now I don't know what to believe really but I wanted a point of view about this. In the past I was a pentecostal Christian, and I don't want to offend anyone but there is the belief of "getting laid out in the spirit". Where you get knocked out cold. Well 2 times when 2 different preachers laid hands on me I did fall to the floor, I didn't get knocked out cold but something literally made me not be able to hold my body up at all. Is there a psychological explanation to this or what. This is a normal thing to happen in all of the pentecostal churches I've been to. It really felt like a shock. But it did not hurt. Many others I have seen this happen to also in church. What do you think?
    it's a combination of Hypnotic suggestion and want.
    it's the deep ingrained wish that is indoctrinated into you through your life, that makes you want to be with god, that and the Hypnotic suggestion, which reduces conflict in the human brain, http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0503064102v1 thus making you virtually knocked out, sort of like when your half a sleep and still dreaming but you cant move, because the body is relaxed.
    belief in god/gods is something that is, subjective to the individual, this being the case, make's Hypnotic suggestion easier to do, the priest/preacher is most likely unaware he doing it, because it deals solely with the subconscious mind. http://www.bcx.net/hypnosis/suggest.htm
    the main point of Hypnotic suggestion is the progressive and instantaneous relaxation that is achieved by it. http://www.psywww.com/asc/hyp/auto_hyp.html
    theres nothing mysterious about it.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Sarah1234

    My own experience at a pentecostal church may add something to the debate here. During the service the pastor invited me up to be prayed for, having done so for a few others, all of whom were lying on the floor after being 'slain in spirit'. As he prayed for me I felt absolutely nothing. Near the end I was sure he was trying to force me down, claiming it was the Holy Spirit trying to enter me. I stayed standing. Afterwards I was half-convinced that the whole 'Toronto blessing' business was nothing more than play-acting.

    I say 'half-convinced' because of a previous experience of being prayed for, where I also felt nothing, until about an hour later, when a tremendously powerful, yet beautifully subtle, energy began to flow through me. This lasted for days, during which time I felt I had come to myself for the first time in many years. After the second experience of being prayed for I waited to see if I would again be connected to this energy source. Sure enough, after an hour or two I felt its power again, though with less force and for a much shorter time than before.

    These and other experiences with the pentacostal/charismatic movement convinced me that much of it, including many attempts at spiritual healing, is sham, learned behaviour and wishful thinking. Yet I am equally sure that there is a genuine spiritual wellspring that can be tapped and that really can heal. Through stylised rituals such as being 'slain in spirit' we somehow open ourselves to receiving the Holy Spirit. Of course, one could argue that it is a placebo effect, depending on the power of belief (although try telling that to someone who has experienced the power of the Holy Spirit). But I would counter that the idea that prayer has no real effect is also a belief, and that it could act as a barrier to the Spirit. So, paradoxically, it could be that we need to believe it to be possible before the Holy Spirit can fully do its work.

    Bluetriangle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8 Re: What Pentecostal Christians call... 
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    326
    Quote Originally Posted by Sarah1234
    I don't want anyone to think I'm crazy or nothing..
    right now I don't know what to believe really but I wanted a point of view about this. In the past I was a pentecostal Christian, and I don't want to offend anyone but there is the belief of "getting laid out in the spirit". Where you get knocked out cold. Well 2 times when 2 different preachers laid hands on me I did fall to the floor, I didn't get knocked out cold but something literally made me not be able to hold my body up at all. Is there a psychological explanation to this or what. This is a normal thing to happen in all of the pentecostal churches I've been to. It really felt like a shock. But it did not hurt. Many others I have seen this happen to also in church. What do you think?
    the next question would be what does being "laid out cold" have to do with the advancement of religiosity ....
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    But I would counter that the idea that prayer has no real effect is also a belief, and that it could act as a barrier to the Spirit. So, paradoxically, it could be that we need to believe it to be possible before the Holy Spirit can fully do its work.
    I remember reading about some experiments some doctors did in order to test the effect of intercessionary prayer over sick people. I think it featured in a New Scientist. Apparently it doesn't make enough of a difference to be proved decisively that it does in fact make a difference. People of course will believe what they wish to believe and pick their evidence accordingly.

    I find it hardly paradoxical that you would have to believe in the Holy Spirit for it to work on you. It's one of those self induced and self reinforcing effects.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10 Re: What Pentecostal Christians call... 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    Quote Originally Posted by punarmusiko
    the next question would be what does being "laid out cold" have to do with the advancement of religiosity ....
    That’s exactly my question as well. If God was going to reach out and use his divine power to touch someone’s life like that, why would his miraculous act be causing people to fall over? :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11 Flip McWho 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Flip McWho,

    I find it hardly paradoxical that you would have to believe in the Holy Spirit for it to work on you. It's one of those self induced and self reinforcing effects.
    We have to separate two different things here. There is the power of belief, which can have real, measurable effects on, say, ones rate of recovery from an illness. This may be pure psychology, but its existence is recognised by both religious and secular communities.

    Then there is the power of the Holy Spirit, recognised by Christians but not by most others. I have had enough personal experience and seen enough evidence of this phenomenon to believe it is real, and I know of many others who would agree. If it is a purely mental phenomenon it originates from a deeper level than conscious belief, distinguishing it from belief. It also appears to be enhanced by the prayerful presence of others, which, again, if it is all in the mind, may point to the existence of telepathy or a group mind or some other non-rational phenomenon.

    However, there does seem to be an interaction between these two effects, such that belief can enhance or diminish the effect of the Holy Spirit. The forming of conscious attitudes that allow the Holy Spirit to operate more effectively in our lives is (or should be) one of the principal functions of religious instruction.

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Bluetriangle:

    There is the power of belief, which can have real, measurable effects on, say, ones rate of recovery from an illness. This may be pure psychology, but its existence is recognised by both religious and secular communities.
    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-recovery.html
    Suggests that prayer has no effect. Though I do agree that if somebody is optimistic about their recovery chances then it is more likely that they'll recover faster/more fully then a pessimist, especially if the recovery process takes more than just bed rest. And religion can form the basis for such optimism.

    Then there is the power of the Holy Spirit, recognised by Christians but not by most others. I have had enough personal experience and seen enough evidence of this phenomenon to believe it is real, and I know of many others who would agree.
    Why is the Holy Spirit only recognised by people whose religion is based on experiencing the Holy Spirit? People who often are either Christian in the first place or sufficiently aware of the Christian worldview that when a religious experience occurs they bookmark it as a Christian religious experience are the ones that testify to the Holy Spirit. This appears self reinforcing at the very least.

    If it is a purely mental phenomenon it originates from a deeper level than conscious belief, distinguishing it from belief.
    I would contend that a significant portion of mental phenomena originates from a deeper level than conscious belief. For example I am conscious of the fact that I am currently feeling content, this is not a product of my belief that I am content, it is a reflection based on the emotional compass of my brain and my ability to interpret my brain. Such as experiencing the Holy Spirit is not so much a product of the conscious belief that you are possessed by the Holy Spirit but more the conscious reflection of the variety of mental phenomena that compromise the Holy Spirit and your interpretation (based upon your preexisting worldview) of the mental phenomena as the power of the Holy Spirit.

    It also appears to be enhanced by the prayerful presence of others, which, again, if it is all in the mind, may point to the existence of telepathy or a group mind or some other non-rational phenomenon.
    Which I would explain as a kind of group hypnosis session. You are all of the presupposition that what you believe is an accurate depiction of reality and open yourselves up to that reality. When coupled with the relaxation brought on by prayer and the reassurance of others who believe the same, you can induce yourselves into a hypnotic state in which you are possessed by the Holy Spirit.

    However, there does seem to be an interaction between these two effects, such that belief can enhance or diminish the effect of the Holy Spirit.
    Which I interpret to mean that the Holy Spirit is dependant on the strength of the individuals conviction which suggests that is not necessarily an objective part of the universe but rather a product of peoples minds.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Flip McWho,

    http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...-recovery.html
    Suggests that prayer has no effect...
    There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence (Christian testimony, etc) that prayer does indeed work, and often in spectacular fashion. So why is it so elusive under scientific investigation (this can also be asked of other supernatural phenomena, such as telepathy, etc)?

    I think Young's slit experiment may provide a clue. Here, light is passed through a diffraction grating and an interference pattern forms behind the slits, evidencing the wave nature of light. Even when individual photons are passed through the grating, an interference pattern will build up, despite the fact that only one photon at a time passes through the grating. However, when only one slit is present, no interference pattern builds up, because at least two slits are necessary for diffraction. So how does the photon 'know' when there is more than one slit? When detectors are placed at each slit to determine which one the photon actually passes through, the interference pattern is lost again. So, only when nobody is looking do the photons behave as waves.

    I think it's like that with miracles. They only work when nobody is looking. That sounds like a cop-out, but, with Young's slit experiment we have an explanation that scientists should accept as a possibility. We also have a hint that what we are dealing with may be a wave phenomenon.

    Why is the Holy Spirit only recognised by people whose religion is based on experiencing the Holy Spirit? People who often are either Christian in the first place or sufficiently aware of the Christian worldview that when a religious experience occurs they bookmark it as a Christian religious experience are the ones that testify to the Holy Spirit. This appears self reinforcing at the very least.
    The power of the Holy Spirit is simply Christian terminology for what is going on. Other religions have their own terminology. The real question is: what is going on? May reasonable people have concluded that something genuine is happening when people are healed, something over and above any psychosomatic effect (as we understand psychosomatic effects at present).

    Quote:
    If it is a purely mental phenomenon it originates from a deeper level than conscious belief, distinguishing it from belief.

    I would contend that a significant portion of mental phenomena originates from a deeper level than conscious belief. For example I am conscious of the fact that I am currently feeling content, this is not a product of my belief that I am content, it is a reflection based on the emotional compass of my brain and my ability to interpret my brain. Such as experiencing the Holy Spirit is not so much a product of the conscious belief that you are possessed by the Holy Spirit but more the conscious reflection of the variety of mental phenomena that compromise the Holy Spirit and your interpretation (based upon your preexisting worldview) of the mental phenomena as the power of the Holy Spirit..
    I accept that many spiritual phenomena may be mental in nature. However, I would contend that the mind is not simply an epiphenomenon of the workings of the brain, but something that is neither produced by the brain, nor contained within it.

    Quote:
    It also appears to be enhanced by the prayerful presence of others, which, again, if it is all in the mind, may point to the existence of telepathy or a group mind or some other non-rational phenomenon.

    Which I would explain as a kind of group hypnosis session. You are all of the presupposition that what you believe is an accurate depiction of reality and open yourselves up to that reality. When coupled with the relaxation brought on by prayer and the reassurance of others who believe the same, you can induce yourselves into a hypnotic state in which you are possessed by the Holy Spirit.
    This can only be true if what we are supposing to have happened has not actually happened. If it has happened, then we are correct.

    Quote:
    However, there does seem to be an interaction between these two effects, such that belief can enhance or diminish the effect of the Holy Spirit.

    Which I interpret to mean that the Holy Spirit is dependant on the strength of the individuals conviction which suggests that is not necessarily an objective part of the universe but rather a product of peoples minds.
    We are again back to the question: what is mind? Perhaps the entire universe is a creation of the mind, a consensus reality? If it is, then a group of people with a converging set of beliefs (say, a group of Christians) could perhaps create their own reality.

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Bluetriangle

    There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence (Christian testimony, etc) that prayer does indeed work, and often in spectacular fashion. So why is it so elusive under scientific investigation (this can also be asked of other supernatural phenomena, such as telepathy, etc)?
    Evidently because what ever is a supernatural occurance does not fall within the realm of science which investigates natural phenomena only. This then means that supernatural phenomena largely has to fall under the jurisdiction of what is logically possible, and there are a lot of things that are logically possible that aren't necessarily a part of the universe. If logic doesn't hold jurisdiction then anythings possible.

    I think Young's slit experiment may provide a clue. Here, light is passed through a diffraction grating and an interference pattern forms behind the slits, evidencing the wave nature of light. Even when individual photons are passed through the grating, an interference pattern will build up, despite the fact that only one photon at a time passes through the grating. However, when only one slit is present, no interference pattern builds up, because at least two slits are necessary for diffraction. So how does the photon 'know' when there is more than one slit? When detectors are placed at each slit to determine which one the photon actually passes through, the interference pattern is lost again. So, only when nobody is looking do the photons behave as waves.
    Aye, following from this I have wondered if God is simply the supreme observer that collapses the wave nature of particles in quantum mechanics into the determined nature as they appear in classical mechanics. But then again, my understanding of quantum mechanics is only in its infancy.

    I think it's like that with miracles. They only work when nobody is looking. That sounds like a cop-out, but, with Young's slit experiment we have an explanation that scientists should accept as a possibility. We also have a hint that what we are dealing with may be a wave phenomenon.
    Though all miracles have been witnessed, either as they occur (for example the parting of the red sea) or after they'd occured (jesus' resurrection). If a miracle was not witnessed how would we know it occured?

    So far the wave function is evident only in quantum mechanics (well as far as I know), whereas miracles always occur only in the scale of classical mechanics, where things are a lot more caused then probabilistic.

    The power of the Holy Spirit is simply Christian terminology for what is going on. The real question is: what is going on?
    That is the big question true enough.

    However, I would contend that the mind is not simply an epiphenomenon of the workings of the brain, but something that is neither produced by the brain, nor contained within it.
    Four questions:
    1) Why are the only times we have come across a mind they inhabit a human body? If you contend that animals have minds as well (which I do incidently, well some form of a mind) Why is it only then associated with a physical being that has a brain?
    2) Why does the mind develop as the body also matures?
    3) Why does the mind deteriorate as the brain is injured? (with Alzheimers being the extreme case in point here.)
    4) How does the mind transfer into post physical experience? (alzheimers being a case in point here again, does the mind of an alzheimers sufferer pass into post death with the same inability to remember as it had during the end of its physical existence? Does the mind of a child remain in that child like state when it transitions into post death experience?)

    This can only be true if what we are supposing to have happened has not actually happened. If it has happened, then we are correct.
    I apologise but I am struggling to comprehend that sentence, could you please clarify if the following attempt by me proves incorrect.

    a] I am supposing that the Holy Spirit is enhanced by the prayerful presence of others
    b] I suppose that (a) does happen.
    c] I explain this happening by referring to hypnosis.
    So
    "This (I'm assuming is my hypnosis explanation) can only be true if what we are supposing (the enhancement of the holy spirit by prayer) to have happened has not actually happened (which I disagree with and contend that it does happen). If it has happened (as in ithe enhancement of the holy spirit by prayer), then we are correct. (By which I'm assuming you mean you are correct?)
    Would this be correct?

    We are again back to the question: what is mind? Perhaps the entire universe is a creation of the mind, a consensus reality? If it is, then a group of people with a converging set of beliefs (say, a group of Christians) could perhaps create their own reality.
    A consensus reality over which we have no control. If the entire universe is a creation of the mind then what existed before the first conscious (by which I mean human) observer? A quantum soup that only collapsed into reality once the first observer came about then what gave rise to this observer? Unless we assume that this is God of course.

    It is an interesting question what is mind for sure, but before we can state that it is something that is neither a product of the brain or contained in the brain then the questions I asked above need answers. The question of Solipsism also needs to be addressed. What is to say that reality contains other consciousness for instance? Could God have created the universe as it appears now only yesterday for example?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Flip McWho,

    Quote:
    There is a huge amount of anecdotal evidence (Christian testimony, etc) that prayer does indeed work, and often in spectacular fashion. So why is it so elusive under scientific investigation (this can also be asked of other supernatural phenomena, such as telepathy, etc)?

    Evidently because what ever is a supernatural occurance does not fall within the realm of science which investigates natural phenomena only. This then means that supernatural phenomena largely has to fall under the jurisdiction of what is logically possible, and there are a lot of things that are logically possible that aren't necessarily a part of the universe. If logic doesn't hold jurisdiction then anythings possible.
    When you read the accounts of mystics and the writings of those working in quantum physics, you often get the impression that they have reached the same plateau of understanding, even though the language they use is very different. Mystics have long claimed that their experiences are ineffable. Quantum physicists have the same difficulty, which may show that they have reached a frontier, beyond which the scientific method is no longer useful.

    Logic is the set of rules that make philosophical discussion possible. I think it will, by definition, always hold.

    Aye, following from this I have wondered if God is simply the supreme observer that collapses the wave nature of particles in quantum mechanics into the determined nature as they appear in classical mechanics. But then again, my understanding of quantum mechanics is only in its infancy.
    I've wondered something similar. But I also wonder if God needs the universe to observe Him into being, in a kind of feedback loop. My understanding is, however, that God exists outside of time. A consequence of this is that God may not actually exist at this time, but will exist at the 'end of time'. So God (in eternity) is evolving the universe (in the timestream) in the direction that will cause Him to become manifest. Miracles are interventions or 'corrections' that adjust reality towards that end. In other words, God created the universe by fragmenting Himself (or a small part of Himself) , then, like Humpty Dumpty, gradually piecing Himself together again.

    Though all miracles have been witnessed, either as they occur (for example the parting of the red sea) or after they'd occured (jesus' resurrection). If a miracle was not witnessed how would we know it occured?.
    There may be a critical part of the miracle that is not witnessed. An object could miraculously appear when nobody is looking, but then be visible to many.

    So far the wave function is evident only in quantum mechanics (well as far as I know), whereas miracles always occur only in the scale of classical mechanics, where things are a lot more caused then probabilistic
    Even at the classical level, the apparent solidity and stability of objects is not certain, but dependant on the extreme improbability of a spontaneous change in location, etc. But the mind could alter the probabilities.

    I said above that God be be evolving the universe in a certain direction, in other words, steering a course through the infinity of probable futures. Miracles could be a device to keep the universe on course, or a manifestation of the 'healing' of the universe, as God reconciles it with himself. Miracles require a state of readiness on our part, so we too are part of this process.

    Why are the only times we have come across a mind they inhabit a human body? If you contend that animals have minds as well (which I do incidently, well some form of a mind) Why is it only then associated with a physical being that has a brain?
    Because brains have evolved as transducers for mental energy. The mind is really everywhere, but usually acts in the world through a vehicle. I think plants and even inanimate objects may have a form of consciousness too. In LSD and holotropic breathwork sessions carried out by Stanislav Grof patients reported identification with the consciousness of animals, plants, inanimate objects and even the entire universe. I recommend you look at his work, which has enormous implications.

    Why does the mind develop as the body also matures?
    I think the mind doesn't so much grow as change in nature. We develop an ego (babies are ego-less). The ego mind learns about the world, which is the laying down of memories, skills, etc, all of which allow us to function, but which cut us off from higher levels of consciousness. Learning occupies nearly all of our attention when we are young. Once we have learned enough about life to survive (although this process never really stops), our higher consciousness tries to connect with the ego, which is why many people become more spiritual and less egotistical in later life.

    Why does the mind deteriorate as the brain is injured? (with Alzheimers being the extreme case in point here.)
    The ability of the mind to function in the world deteriorates. The alzheimer sufferer is still conscious.

    How does the mind transfer into post physical experience? (alzheimers being a case in point here again, does the mind of an alzheimers sufferer pass into post death with the same inability to remember as it had during the end of its physical existence? Does the mind of a child remain in that child like state when it transitions into post death experience?)
    The mind is already in the 'post death state'. After death it simply becomes aware of being a pure mind again, rather than the physical world it views through a body. It could be that after death the mind may still have the illusion of being a separate entity. It might then create a replica to maintain this illusion. Another way of looking at this is to say that the mind is trapped in the body, until it is released after death (and, incidentally, during sleep).

    Quote:
    This can only be true if what we are supposing to have happened has not actually happened. If it has happened, then we are correct.

    I apologise but I am struggling to comprehend that sentence
    We were discussing whether the calling down of the Holy Spirit was a real event (as Christians believe) or merely group hypnosis (as you were suggesting). I think the calling down of the Spirit can be real and also a mental phenomenon, because I think that the universe is the creation of Mind in the first place. I do agree, however, Christian prayer may have elements in common with hypnosis. I think that the relationship between mind and matter is really the crux of the issue here.

    Quote:
    We are again back to the question: what is mind? Perhaps the entire universe is a creation of the mind, a consensus reality?

    A consensus reality over which we have no control.
    Perhaps we do have control, but just need to learn to act in unison. In fact that is the problem as well as the answer: most of us are unitied in our illusion about the nature of reality, which is what keeps it in place. The more people who escape (at least to some degree) from the illusions held by the majority the more miracles we will see.

    If the entire universe is a creation of the mind then what existed before the first conscious (by which I mean human) observer? A quantum soup that only collapsed into reality once the first observer came about then what gave rise to this observer? Unless we assume that this is God of course.
    I don't think the universe was a quantum soup until man came along. There may have been some kind of observing consciousness before man.


    It is an interesting question what is mind for sure, but before we can state that it is something that is neither a product of the brain or contained in the brain then the questions I asked above need answers. The question of Solipsism also needs to be addressed. What is to say that reality contains other consciousness for instance? Could God have created the universe as it appears now only yesterday for example?
    I think that only God has all the answers. It seems to me, however, that there is only one consciousness, but that it is fragmented.

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Logic is the set of rules that make philosophical discussion possible. I think it will, by definition, always hold.
    I concur.

    There may be a critical part of the miracle that is not witnessed. An object could miraculously appear when nobody is looking, but then be visible to many.
    The result of the miracle is still witnessed. If a miraculous event took place in the void between the milky way and Andromeda, for example a rocky planet popped into existence and then out again, then it is impossible to say whether this miraculous event took place or not. A miracle has to be observed, either during of post the event of the miracle itself occurring otherwise it may or may not have happened.

    Your example is similar to the resurrection of Jesus. Nobody saw him resurrect but they saw him afterwards. The miracle here is that he was witnessed to have died and everybody knows it is impossible for a dead body to resurrect, hence his resurrection was miraculous, which is inferred from the surrounding data, i.e. his death, and then seeing him aftewards when he is supposed to be dead.

    The rest of what you posted was interesting to read though I would disagree with probably most of it.

    For this discussion to progress then the minds relation to matter must be agreed upon and I would like to hear what you mean when you use the word consciousness as well as what is meant by mental energy

    For me, the mind appears to have an inherent connection with the matter that is the brain. I believe this because:
    a) Every instance of mind we have an example of is connected with a physical being that has a brain.
    b) If we damage the brain in some way we damage the ability of the mind to function in this world (note I am using your terminology here, I would just state that if we damage the brain we damage the mind)
    c) If we influence the brain (for example through the God Helmet, or drugs) we can induce changes in the mind of that individual
    c) The mind of an individual, for all intents and purposes, stops upon the physical death of the body
    d) The only unity that exists between all individual cases of beings with a mind is the faculty of consciousness.

    As far as what consciousness is, we only have the one example to work from, and that is human consciousness, so all we can say about consciousness is necessarily prefixed by the qualification that it is human consciousness we are talking about. So, to me, claims about a metaconsciousness (i.e God as the one conscious) are unintelligible, because we can only understand consciousness as a factor that belongs to individual humans.

    Interesting discussion nevertheless.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Flip McWho,

    A miracle has to be observed, either during of post the event of the miracle itself occurring otherwise it may or may not have happened.

    Your example is similar to the resurrection of Jesus. Nobody saw him resurrect but they saw him afterwards. The miracle here is that he was witnessed to have died and everybody knows it is impossible for a dead body to resurrect, hence his resurrection was miraculous, which is inferred from the surrounding data, i.e. his death, and then seeing him aftewards when he is supposed to be dead..
    I'm offering a possible explanation for why the results of miracles are often observed but the actual miracle may not have been observed. It may be because miracles are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. It may be the wave-like part of the behaviour of matter that makes miracles possible - observation causes the collapse of the wavefunction associated with any lump of matter and causes it to behave in a deterministic way.

    However, that doesn't totally explain visions of religious figures and many other types of miracle. Visions of religious figures, for instance, seem to be dependent on the cultural background of the experiencer. So Catholics see the Virgin Mary, protestants see Jesus, Muslims see Mohammad, etc. I think these indicate that miracles, if they exist, have some connection with the mind of the person or persons witnessing them, which leads me on to your next comments.

    For this discussion to progress then the minds relation to matter must be agreed upon and I would like to hear what you mean when you use the word consciousness as well as what is meant by mental energy
    I would probably define consciousness as 'subjective experience of awareness'. This is all we know. There are obviously different degrees of awareness, from simple awareness of stimuli to degrees of self awareness and higher states.

    By mental energy I mean the intent of a mind to produce an effect or in the process of creation (a thought, dream, etc). There may not be any energy transfer as such.

    For me, the mind appears to have an inherent connection with the matter that is the brain. I believe this because:
    a) Every instance of mind we have an example of is connected with a physical being that has a brain.
    Not in the case of OBEs and NDEs. Many people have reported being separated from their body in these states, yet still able to think. Telepathy, precognition and other psychic phenomena are also impossible to explain unless we accept that the mind is not bounded by the brain.

    b) If we damage the brain in some way we damage the ability of the mind to function in this world (note I am using your terminology here, I would just state that if we damage the brain we damage the mind)
    This is just as easily explained by the hypothesis of a separate mind as by the materialistic hypothesis.

    c) If we influence the brain (for example through the God Helmet, or drugs) we can induce changes in the mind of that individual
    What is the God helmet?

    Drugs affect the brain's ability to process stimuli from the world around us, so it appears to be distorted. They can also temporarily make the mind more aware of spiritual realms. Many people have undergone spiritual awakenings through drugs. Shamans the world over use psychotropic drugs for communicating with higher realms.

    Also, if the mind believes that every experience it has comes from the brain then it will behave accordingly. Beliefs tend to define what can be experienced. That, in fact, is the problem. Our minds are focused on the material plane, which has largely cut us off from the experience of higher planes and higher guidance.

    c) The mind of an individual, for all intents and purposes, stops upon the physical death of the body
    The brain stops, which is all you can say from observation. The mind, however, may well go on, if phenomena such as NDEs, after-death communication (Prof. Gary Schwartz has ammassed impressive evidence for such communication) and psychic phenomena are real.

    d) The only unity that exists between all individual cases of beings with a mind is the faculty of consciousness.
    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I would say that this in no way invalidates my argument. In fact, it supports it, because I would say that the entire universe is conscious to some degree.

    As far as what consciousness is, we only have the one example to work from, and that is human consciousness, so all we can say about consciousness is necessarily prefixed by the qualification that it is human consciousness we are talking about. So, to me, claims about a metaconsciousness (i.e God as the one conscious) are unintelligible, because we can only understand consciousness as a factor that belongs to individual humans.
    Stanislav Grof has used LSD and holotropic breathwork to induce altered states of consciousness. In these states, experiencers report fusing with the consciousness of animals, plants, inanimate matter and even the entire universe. These states are distinctive and can lead to profound insights about natural processes. Read his books for more.

    Notwithstanding what I just wrote, I agree that we can usually only speak about human consciousness. But if the mind can affect natural processes (miracles), communicate with other minds (telepathy), gain information about future events (precognition), move objects (telekinesis), obtain data from distant locations (remote viewing/clairvoyance), then there is a good case for saying that what we call the mind is not simply an epiphenomenon of the workings of the human brain, but something more fundamental.

    I believe that consciousness is more fundamental than matter and may in fact CREATE matter. The entire universe may in fact be a consensus reality, created by our combined mindpower, or, more accurately, by Mind at large, within which each individual mind resides.

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    I'm offering a possible explanation for why the results of miracles are often observed but the actual miracle may not have been observed.
    then you need to use occams razor.
    what your refering to is called imagination.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    It may be because miracles are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. It may be the wave-like part of the behaviour of matter that makes miracles possible - observation causes the collapse of the wavefunction associated with any lump of matter and causes it to behave in a deterministic way.
    wow that a leap and a half,
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    However, that doesn't totally explain visions of religious figures and many other types of miracle.
    it doesn't explain anything it just imagined ramblings. you could have said that the sky being blue, and the effect of the sun on pluto, could cause miracle's to happen, just as rambled and just as meaningful.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Visions of religious figures, for instance, seem to be dependent on the cultural background of the experiencer. So Catholics see the Virgin Mary, protestants see Jesus, Muslims see Mohammad, etc. I think these indicate that miracles, if they exist, have some connection with the mind of the person or persons witnessing them,
    well done, they're pure imagination.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    which leads me on to your next comments.
    I would probably define consciousness as 'subjective experience of awareness'. This is all we know.
    this is what you think.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    There are obviously different degrees of awareness, from simple awareness of stimuli to degrees of self awareness and higher states.
    can you show me one or two of these different states as you call them, thank you.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    By mental energy I mean the intent of a mind to produce an effect or in the process of creation (a thought, dream, etc). There may not be any energy transfer as such.
    ah so your talking about imagination, got you.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Not in the case of OBEs and NDEs. Many people have reported being separated from their body in these states, yet still able to think. Telepathy, precognition and other psychic phenomena are also impossible to explain unless we accept that the mind is not bounded by the brain.
    you can be serious, I've had dreams whereas I'm flying above myself, without any qualifying evidence it all just BS, NDE are just hallcinations, dreams, etc. nothing fancy at all.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Drugs affect the brain's ability to process stimuli from the world around us, so it appears to be distorted. They can also temporarily make the mind more aware of spiritual realms.
    you know this how and how so.
    you dont half let your mind wander.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Many people have undergone spiritual awakenings through drugs.
    oh yes these, have drug induced dreams and believe them to be real, lol.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Shamans the world over use psychotropic drugs for communicating with higher realms.
    and the mugs of the world believe in all the hype and BS, they spout.
    if some said he had an imaginary friend he get put in an asylum, but if he's talking to a higher being, he's allowed to walk the streets go figure.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Also, if the mind believes that every experience it has comes from the brain then it will behave accordingly. Beliefs tend to define what can be experienced. That, in fact, is the problem. Our minds are focused on the material plane, which has largely cut us off from the experience of higher planes and higher guidance.
    isn't that a good thing, else we all be going round talking to ourselves and believing we are in another dimension, here comes the matrix. lol
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,893
    The problem with most "miracles" in general is that they usually end up simply being lame. Sometimes people are "miraculously" healed of serious diseases...but then, sometimes serious diseases simply go away for no apparent reason even among non-religious people. Sometimes people have "miraculous" visions...but the visions are always only available to certain people, can never be captured on film/video/audio, and they never seem to impart any information that the people experiencing the visions couldn't have known/figured out on their own. Sometimes people are "miraculously" saved from harm...but then, sometimes even non-religious people are saved by freak occurrences or luck.

    Why doesn't anyone ever miraculously re-grow a lost limb? Why doesn't a miraculous vision ever tell people something like "there will be a powerful earthquake in Denver tomorrow"? Why don't bullets ever miraculously pass through people without injuring them, or miraculously survive being lit on fire without any burns?

    In sort, why don't miracles ever involve anything that's genuinely fantastic?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Geezer,

    bluetriangle wrote:

    I'm offering a possible explanation for why the results of miracles are often observed but the actual miracle may not have been observed.

    then you need to use occams razor.
    what your refering to is called imagination.
    No, I'm referring to what are called miracles. They are certainly not products of the imagination (not in the way you mean, anyway), because they often leave behind evidence. That evidence may have been misinterpreted, of course, but that does not make it illusory.


    bluetriangle wrote:
    It may be because miracles are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. It may be the wave-like part of the behaviour of matter that makes miracles possible - observation causes the collapse of the wavefunction associated with any lump of matter and causes it to behave in a deterministic way.

    wow that a leap and a half,
    I said it may be a quantum phenomenon, and if it's an intuitive leap, so what? There's nothing wrong with a little speculation.

    bluetriangle wrote:
    However, that doesn't totally explain visions of religious figures and many other types of miracle.
    it doesn't explain anything it just imagined ramblings. you could have said that the sky being blue, and the effect of the sun on pluto, could cause miracle's to happen, just as rambled and just as meaningful.
    Wow! Yet again, Geezer cuts through my flimsy argument with his Sword of Truth. And so eloquently put!

    bluetriangle wrote:
    Visions of religious figures, for instance, seem to be dependent on the cultural background of the experiencer. So Catholics see the Virgin Mary, protestants see Jesus, Muslims see Mohammad, etc. I think these indicate that miracles, if they exist, have some connection with the mind of the person or persons witnessing them,

    well done, they're pure imagination.
    Words of praise from the master himself - music to my ears!

    bluetriangle wrote:
    which leads me on to your next comments.
    I would probably define consciousness as 'subjective experience of awareness'. This is all we know.

    this is what you think.
    Either this is some subtle Zen koan that is beyond my ability to fathom or your stating the obvious. Yes, it's what I think...but what does Geezer think?

    bluetriangle wrote:
    There are obviously different degrees of awareness, from simple awareness of stimuli to degrees of self awareness and higher states.

    can you show me one or two of these different states as you call them, thank you.
    Well, let me see. There is the state of awareness of someone who likes to rubbish statements that disagree with his own. That is a low state of awareness. Then there is the state of awareness of someone who comes onto forums such as this one with the intention of actually joining in the debate. That is a higher state of awareness.

    bluetriangle wrote:
    By mental energy I mean the intent of a mind to produce an effect or in the process of creation (a thought, dream, etc). There may not be any energy transfer as such.
    ah so your talking about imagination, got you. bluetriangle wrote:
    Absolutely. Well done, Geezer!

    Not in the case of OBEs and NDEs. Many people have reported being separated from their body in these states, yet still able to think. Telepathy, precognition and other psychic phenomena are also impossible to explain unless we accept that the mind is not bounded by the brain.

    you can be serious, I've had dreams whereas I'm flying above myself, without any qualifying evidence it all just BS, NDE are just hallcinations, dreams, etc. nothing fancy at all.
    The evidence is there, if you are prepared to actually look. Also the therapeutic value to NDE experiencers is priceless.

    bluetriangle wrote:
    Drugs affect the brain's ability to process stimuli from the world around us, so it appears to be distorted. They can also temporarily make the mind more aware of spiritual realms.

    you know this how and how so.
    you dont half let your mind wander.
    I've never taken any drugs. However, I have taken the trouble to research the subject. Maybe you should do the same.

    bluetriangle wrote:
    Many people have undergone spiritual awakenings through drugs.
    oh yes these, have drug induced dreams and believe them to be real, lol.
    You're talking from the bottom of a deep well of ignorance.

    bluetriangle wrote:
    Also, if the mind believes that every experience it has comes from the brain then it will behave accordingly. Beliefs tend to define what can be experienced. That, in fact, is the problem. Our minds are focused on the material plane, which has largely cut us off from the experience of higher planes and higher guidance.

    isn't that a good thing, else we all be going round talking to ourselves and believing we are in another dimension, here comes the matrix. lol
    No, we'd be getting guidance from a great source of wisdom, which is why I urgently request that you attempt to make contact with it.
    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Sometimes people have "miraculous" visions...but the visions are always only available to certain people, can never be captured on film/video/audio
    Between 1968 and 1971 there were numerous visions of the Virgin Mary around a Coptic church in Cairo. These were seen by many, many thousands of people (Christians and Moslems) and, furthermore, were interactive with the crowd. Many people who went intending to photograph the apparitions felt a curious lethargy when they attempted to take pictures. However, a few were taken, These show exactly what people witnessed. The phenomenon was grossly undereported by the media. Many people stayed out all night to see the apparitions, which appeared regularly for a while.

    Sometimes people are "miraculously" saved from harm...but then, sometimes even non-religious people are saved by freak occurrences or luck.
    Absolutely, but the experiences of those who believe that divine intervention saved them are often of a different order. These incidents often involve mysterious strangers who appear and act at vital moments, in a way that often convinces the recipient of such favours that they have been assisted by angels.

    Why doesn't anyone ever miraculously re-grow a lost limb? Why doesn't a miraculous vision ever tell people something like "there will be a powerful earthquake in Denver tomorrow"? Why don't bullets ever miraculously pass through people without injuring them, or miraculously survive being lit on fire without any burns?
    Most of these things - and other even more amazing miracles - have indeed happened! It's just that few believe it until it has happened to them. The world is divided into two camps, those who know and those who don't.

    In sort, why don't miracles ever involve anything that's genuinely fantastic?
    But they do! However, the more fantastic they are, the less likely people will believe. Why don't you investigate the Cairo apparitions?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    No, I'm referring to what are called miracles. They are certainly not products of the imagination (not in the way you mean, anyway), because they often leave behind evidence. That evidence may have been misinterpreted, of course, but that does not make it illusory.
    some links to this alleged objective evidence would not go amiss, please.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    I said it may be a quantum phenomenon, and if it's an intuitive leap, so what? There's nothing wrong with a little speculation.
    yes we can all imagine, strange possibilities, they're only intuitive, if based on objective evidence, else they are just inane ramblings.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Wow! Yet again, Geezer cuts through my flimsy argument with his Sword of Truth. And so eloquently put!
    why thank you, I do try.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Words of praise from the master himself - music to my ears!
    yes, it just shows, how good you can be, with a little bit of thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Either this is some subtle Zen koan that is beyond my ability to fathom or you’re stating the obvious. Yes, it's what I think...but what does Geezer think?
    then is not "all we know" it's “all you know" your subjective beliefs.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    Well, let me see. There is the state of awareness of someone who likes to rubbish statements that disagree with his own. That is a low state of awareness. Then there is the state of awareness of someone who comes onto forums such as this one with the intention of actually joining in the debate. That is a higher state of awareness.
    so there is just the one state of awareness, as the lol two above are one and the same, could you do me the dubious honour of supplying links to these allege states of awareness. That’s what I asked, if you cant supply the evidence, then don’t make inane statements.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    absolutely. Well done, Geezer!
    yes, it just shows, how good I can be, with a little bit of thought.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    The evidence is there, if you are prepared to actually look. Also the therapeutic value to NDE experiencers is priceless.
    sorry my dear chap, the onus is on you to supply the evidence, I make no claim that it exists, do I.
    The therapeutic value of laughter is priceless, what’s your point.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    I've never taken any drugs. However, I have taken the trouble to research the subject. Maybe you should do the same.
    never taken drugs smoked or drank, but had family members who had, I'm a guardian in a drug clinic, and have studied the subject for many years, they are hallucinogenic thus, by there very nature can not be deemed, as factual.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    You're talking from the bottom of a deep well of ignorance.
    sorry don’t think so, more likely for a position of pure understanding.
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    No, we'd be getting guidance from a great source of wisdom,
    a hallucinogenic drug induced state is a great source of wisdom, oh of course it is(sarcasm intended)
    Quote Originally Posted by bluetriangle
    which is why I urgently request that you attempt to make contact with It.
    not figging likely, I seen first hand what drugs and alcohol can do.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    935
    Quote Originally Posted by Scifor Refugee
    The problem with most "miracles" in general is that they usually end up simply being lame. Sometimes people are "miraculously" healed of serious diseases...but then, sometimes serious diseases simply go away for no apparent reason even among non-religious people. Sometimes people have "miraculous" visions...but the visions are always only available to certain people, can never be captured on film/video/audio, and they never seem to impart any information that the people experiencing the visions couldn't have known/figured out on their own. Sometimes people are "miraculously" saved from harm...but then, sometimes even non-religious people are saved by freak occurrences or luck.

    Why doesn't anyone ever miraculously re-grow a lost limb? Why doesn't a miraculous vision ever tell people something like "there will be a powerful earthquake in Denver tomorrow"? Why don't bullets ever miraculously pass through people without injuring them, or miraculously survive being lit on fire without any burns?

    In sort, why don't miracles ever involve anything that's genuinely fantastic?
    That post can pretty much be copied and pasted to any thread on miracles there ever will be - until, of course, God starts extending his healing hand to amputees. Definitely agree with the whole post.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Neutrino,

    The problem with most "miracles" in general is that they usually end up simply being lame. Sometimes people are "miraculously" healed of serious diseases...but then, sometimes serious diseases simply go away for no apparent reason even among non-religious people. Sometimes people have "miraculous" visions...but the visions are always only available to certain people, can never be captured on film/video/audio,.
    If you want to believe this, then fine, but it is simply untrue. Some miracles have been photographed, such as the Marian visions seen by many thousands of people in Cairo between 1968 and 1971. And miracles are never lame. They may be of different orders but a miracle is a miracle nevertheless. If it reverses or overrides natural law it is a miracle.

    and they never seem to impart any information that the people experiencing the visions couldn't have known/figured out on their own
    Rubbish. I assure you, prophetic dreams and visions are absolutely real. It's just that they don't happen to everyone all the time.

    Sometimes people are "miraculously" saved from harm...but then, sometimes even non-religious people are saved by freak occurrences or luck.
    Yes, but people who have been miraculously saved often speak of being saved under very unusual circumstances, such as a voice in their head warning of danger, or a stranger who appears out of nowhere to ward of danger then disappears in the same unaccountable fashion. There are many thousands of anecdotal accounts testifying to the reality of miracles.

    Miracles also tend to work on a one-by-one basis (although not always). The scientific method is founded on the principle of repeatability. Miracles, by definition, are not repeatable and so cannot be either verified or subject to scientific scrutiny. But even when they are more available to scrutiny, science stays away, as in the case of the Marian visions in Cairo. Why? Because materialists, as much as any religious fundamentalist, have a belief system to protect.

    That post can pretty much be copied and pasted to any thread on miracles there ever will be - until, of course, God starts extending his healing hand to amputees. Definitely agree with the whole post.
    Miracles may be difficult to detect by scientists and affect the lives of people only rarely, but this can also be said of neutrinos. Do you doubt the existence of these ghostly particles?

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    68
    Hello again Bluetriangle:

    I'm offering a possible explanation for why the results of miracles are often observed but the actual miracle may not have been observed. It may be because miracles are subject to the laws of quantum mechanics. It may be the wave-like part of the behaviour of matter that makes miracles possible - observation causes the collapse of the wavefunction associated with any lump of matter and causes it to behave in a deterministic way.

    However, that doesn't totally explain visions of religious figures and many other types of miracle. Visions of religious figures, for instance, seem to be dependent on the cultural background of the experiencer. So Catholics see the Virgin Mary, protestants see Jesus, Muslims see Mohammad, etc. I think these indicate that miracles, if they exist, have some connection with the mind of the person or persons witnessing them, which leads me on to your next comments.
    I would concur largely. I have heard that is the interaction between particles that causes the wave/function to collapse but I do not know nearly enough about quantum mechanics to differentiate the two theories.

    I do agree that visions are culturally dependant.

    In so far as miracles go. I once read in a book of Dawkins, that miracles are possible given the current understanding of quantum mechanics. For instance a statue of the virgin mary can be seen to wave her hand if every particle that made up that arm moved in such a motion as to make that happen. It is possible, given the uncertainty principle, very very unlikely of course, the probability must be astronomically huge, but would this be a miracle? We would percieve it as such of course.

    I would probably define consciousness as 'subjective experience of awareness'. This is all we know. There are obviously different degrees of awareness, from simple awareness of stimuli to degrees of self awareness and higher states.

    By mental energy I mean the intent of a mind to produce an effect or in the process of creation (a thought, dream, etc). There may not be any energy transfer as such.
    Agree largely here too.

    Not in the case of OBEs and NDEs. Many people have reported being separated from their body in these states, yet still able to think. Telepathy, precognition and other psychic phenomena are also impossible to explain unless we accept that the mind is not bounded by the brain.
    Here I would begin disagreeing. OBEs (which i'm assuming is outer body experiences) is a product of a particular spot in the brain which pertains to self transcendence as far as I'm aware. NDEs i've heard explained as a result of our brain releasing opiates to help the brain deal with the upcoming death. The increase of people reporting this is to do largely with humans becoming better at dragging people back from death. Other psychic phenomena I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar explanations, in that it is a by product of the brain. Consider that the brain is made of millions/billions of neurons with trillions of synaptic connections, that's an awefully complex phenomena that we are only beginning to understand.

    This is just as easily explained by the hypothesis of a separate mind as by the materialistic hypothesis.
    How is this explained by the hypothesis that there is a separate mind. We only have the evidence of the persons physical personality, or mind, which appears damaged, we can speculate that there is an undamaged separate mind but this is conjecture.

    What is the God helmet?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
    Essentially a helmet that influences the brain in such a way as to produce religious experiences.

    Drugs affect the brain's ability to process stimuli from the world around us, so it appears to be distorted. They can also temporarily make the mind more aware of spiritual realms. Many people have undergone spiritual awakenings through drugs. Shamans the world over use psychotropic drugs for communicating with higher realms.

    Also, if the mind believes that every experience it has comes from the brain then it will behave accordingly. Beliefs tend to define what can be experienced. That, in fact, is the problem. Our minds are focused on the material plane, which has largely cut us off from the experience of higher planes and higher guidance.
    Here you assume the existence of higher planes and higher guidance. It may be that we are largely focused on the material plane because it is the only plane that science is largely capable of explaining sufficiently. I'd also say that our minds aren't all focused on the material plane. The vast majority of people are not entirely materialistic.

    The brain stops, which is all you can say from observation. The mind, however, may well go on, if phenomena such as NDEs, after-death communication (Prof. Gary Schwartz has ammassed impressive evidence for such communication) and psychic phenomena are real.
    I agree. If those phenomena do in fact exist. I relate brain and mind.

    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but I would say that this in no way invalidates my argument. In fact, it supports it, because I would say that the entire universe is conscious to some degree.
    Apologies for not being clear. By faculty of consciousness I mean that every human is conscious in the manner you described in an above quote. By saying unity i'm not saying we're all conscious as in one metaconsciousness, just unity in that we all share consciousness as defined above. There is no other connection between consciouesness, such as ESP for example.

    Stanislav Grof has used LSD and holotropic breathwork to induce altered states of consciousness. In these states, experiencers report fusing with the consciousness of animals, plants, inanimate matter and even the entire universe. These states are distinctive and can lead to profound insights about natural processes. Read his books for more.
    Here, my counter is that these only produce these effects on particular individuals who may have other factors at work as well as that the LSD trip is obviously caused by the chemical reactions going on in the brain. I admit I occassionally dabble in LSD and have also experienced what could be interpreted as religious experiences. However none of these I attribute to anything outside of myself, but rather things working on myself (LSD afterall is working on myself by ingesting and this starting the chemical reaction that leads to the trip). I agree that these states are distinctive and can lead to profound insights about natural processes, though just because it can do doesn't mean it will do and if it is it should be based on further research and an analysis when you head isn't in such a distinctive state.

    Notwithstanding what I just wrote, I agree that we can usually only speak about human consciousness. But if the mind can affect natural processes (miracles), communicate with other minds (telepathy), gain information about future events (precognition), move objects (telekinesis), obtain data from distant locations (remote viewing/clairvoyance), then there is a good case for saying that what we call the mind is not simply an epiphenomenon of the workings of the human brain, but something more fundamental.
    I would agree, but, I don't think the mind can affect natural processes, or communicate with other minds, precognition, telekinesis, or any of the others mentioned. These, or the beliefs that people hold about having these abilities are a product of their own brain.

    I believe that consciousness is more fundamental than matter and may in fact CREATE matter. The entire universe may in fact be a consensus reality, created by our combined mindpower, or, more accurately, by Mind at large, within which each individual mind resides.
    This could be true, but then it could not, and I am more inclined to not. Mainly because as I stated before the brain is incredibly complex and we are only at our very beginning of understanding it.

    Miracles may be difficult to detect by scientists and affect the lives of people only rarely, but this can also be said of neutrinos. Do you doubt the existence of these ghostly particles?
    The difference here consisting of the fact that neutrinos are part of a scientific theory, and as such is open to experiment, peer review, falsifiability, repeatable observation (though the observation is inferred rather than directly observed, but then can we observe wind? We just see the effects of wind.)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    72
    Hi Flip,

    I've been on holiday.I don't know if you want to continue this discussion, but I have one or two points to make here.

    In so far as miracles go. I once read in a book of Dawkins, that miracles are possible given the current understanding of quantum mechanics. For instance a statue of the virgin mary can be seen to wave her hand if every particle that made up that arm moved in such a motion as to make that happen. It is possible, given the uncertainty principle, very very unlikely of course, the probability must be astronomically huge, but would this be a miracle? We would percieve it as such of course.
    It would not be a miracle, just a possible consequence of the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. We would perceive it as a miracle, as you say, but such an occurrence would be so unlikely that we can effectively discount the possibility.


    OBEs (which i'm assuming is outer body experiences) is a product of a particular spot in the brain which pertains to self transcendence as far as I'm aware. NDEs i've heard explained as a result of our brain releasing opiates to help the brain deal with the upcoming death. The increase of people reporting this is to do largely with humans becoming better at dragging people back from death. Other psychic phenomena I wouldn't be surprised if it has similar explanations, in that it is a by product of the brain.
    One has to ask: what would be the biological advantage of the brain releasing opiates to deal with upcoming death? How would that be passed on to ones descendants?

    As for other psychic phenomena being solely due to brain function, this is literally impossible, given the nature of these phenomena and our current understanding of how the brain collects, processes and retreives information. Take precognition. How can this be explained in neurological terms? If precognition is real, then the future must in some sense already exist and a part of the mind (not the brain, which is material) must be able to access it. My own take on this is that the mind already exists in the future and is simply feeding information to the part of itself that exists in the present. This has major metaphysical implications, of course. One verified example of precognition demolishes the materialistic paradigm. Even quantum mechanics (as I understand it) can't explain precognition, without postulating the existence of tachyons - faster than light particles that move backwards in time. But that seems to be clutching at straws.

    Why am I going on at length about precognition? Because it is something I have experienced. It is absolutely real.

    Quote:
    What is the God helmet?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_helmet
    Essentially a helmet that influences the brain in such a way as to produce religious experiences.
    Very interesting. However, the helmet is simply another way of inducing mystical (or quasi-mystical) experiences, no different in practice from psychotropic drugs, fasting or meditation. It may open the dooor, but the place beyond the door is real. People such as shamans have been having or inducing these experiences since the dawn of history and have found them to be useful sources of information. This information (obtained from precognitions, talking with the spirits of the dead, etc) often could not have been previously known by the mystic or shaman and often aids the survival of the tribe. Modern mystics and shamans include those such as Kekule, who got the structure of the benzene ring from a hypnogogic vision he had of snakes biting their own tails.


    Here you assume the existence of higher planes and higher guidance. It may be that we are largely focused on the material plane because it is the only plane that science is largely capable of explaining sufficiently. I'd also say that our minds aren't all focused on the material plane. The vast majority of people are not entirely materialistic.
    No, but self-appointed Guardians of Truth such as Dawkins are usually fervently materialistic and arrogantly dismissive of any phenomenon that their own God, science, cannot explain. Like all fanatics, they are in the minority but very loud. Note here that I am not denigrating the scientific method (although this is not the only route to knowledge). What I am attacking is scientific materialism, an atheistic worldview based on a particular interpretation of the findings of science.


    every human is conscious in the manner you described in an above quote. By saying unity i'm not saying we're all conscious as in one metaconsciousness, just unity in that we all share consciousness as defined above. There is no other connection between consciouesness, such as ESP for example.
    There is a connection between our individual consciousnesses. That is what makes psi phenomena possible.

    Quote:
    Stanislav Grof has used LSD and holotropic breathwork to induce altered states of consciousness. In these states, experiencers report fusing with the consciousness of animals, plants, inanimate matter and even the entire universe. These states are distinctive and can lead to profound insights about natural processes. Read his books for more.

    Here, my counter is that these only produce these effects on particular individuals who may have other factors at work as well as that the LSD trip is obviously caused by the chemical reactions going on in the brain. I admit I occassionally dabble in LSD and have also experienced what could be interpreted as religious experiences. However none of these I attribute to anything outside of myself, but rather things working on myself (LSD afterall is working on myself by ingesting and this starting the chemical reaction that leads to the trip). I agree that these states are distinctive and can lead to profound insights about natural processes, though just because it can do doesn't mean it will do and if it is it should be based on further research and an analysis when you head isn't in such a distinctive state.
    I haven't taken any drugs, so I can't comment. However, the visions of ayahuasca-taking shamans and others around the world convince me that they are garnering real information they couldn't have gotten by ordinary means. Jeremy Narby (The Cosmic Serpent) showed that the double helix structure of DNA was known by many primitive peoples through visionary experiences before it was discovered by Crick and Watson.

    Quote:
    Miracles may be difficult to detect by scientists and affect the lives of people only rarely, but this can also be said of neutrinos. Do you doubt the existence of these ghostly particles?

    The difference here consisting of the fact that neutrinos are part of a scientific theory, and as such is open to experiment, peer review, falsifiability, repeatable observation (though the observation is inferred rather than directly observed, but then can we observe wind? We just see the effects of wind.)
    Good point. However, there is a tendency for scientists to require overly-rigorous standards of evidence for any work on parapsychology. This may seem like good science, but it is not. It is in reality a cultural immune system, specifically designed to prevent acceptance of the paranormal. Why? because acceptance would necessitate a huge paradigm shift, which career scientists are generally unwilling to make.

    BT
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Freshman Amaya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    32
    I apologize in advance, I am sure some will be offended by my opinion. I mean no harm, but I have to say...

    I always thought it was strange that only in a pentecostal church can you typically see people falling over, shaking all over the ground, and speaking in tongues. This is the same church that sometimes brings snakes to church services and other questionable practices, such as drinking poison. I know that not all pentecostal churches do this nation-wide, but in many bible belt small town areas it is almost typical. I do not believe in holding snakes and drinking poison because the bible says to not tempt God, and that is exactly what someone is doing when they hold a rattle snake.

    Because I believe the practices in the church go against his word, I have a hard time believing that God comes there to show special favors to the church members. It seems more likely to me that the devil is with them, giving them feelings and taking them over. He makes people believe they have witnessed a true miracle to keep them coming back, and keep them lost.

    Being laid in spirit isn't something I am aware of, because in my area people who are "touched" have what looks like a seizure, mixed with the new ability to speak a strange language. It can happen to almost anyone who is there during services, even if they don't really believe in God at all. Because of that, I believe it must be a demonic attack.
    Gravity isn't MY fault--I voted for velcro!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    wv
    Posts
    49
    I always thought that if you have to root of believing in Jesus Christ that God would protect you from ignorance and obviously tell you before hand if you were even thinking about something that in His eyes was of the devil. I always thought that if someone prays for protection, God would cover that someone, and if they truely have a good heart would make sure they weren't led into something seriously evil. I mean why would God let that happen if you pray before hand? Just my thinking. Who knows.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    Sarah, from what the bible says, Satan had the chance to deceive Eve without God stopping him, or telling her that he was a liar. God said from the start not to eat from the tree, which apparently was enough information not to eat from the tree.

    So if the bible says not to do things that are harmful to yourself, don't do anything harmful to yourself! Whether you believe God authored the bible or geniuses throughout time did advice that connotes not taking drugs or playing with snakes is damn sensible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    wv
    Posts
    49
    I wasn't talking about playing with snakes and doing dumb things. Thats not what i was supporting. I fully agree that you need to you common sense and that goes with the scripture of not tempting God. I was talking simply of any statement about speaking in tongues, and getting slain in the spirit and how I thought that God would no doubt let you know if that was of the devil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    Well let's consider a few things such as the biblical deal with Job, that guy had to deal with a lot of Satan's evil games that were designed to turn Job from God, God speaking nothing of this to Job. If I remember right, didn't Job even think God was mad at him or something? Nevertheless Job continued living his life the same, just as God had predicted.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    Well let's consider a few things such as the biblical deal with Job, that guy had to deal with a lot of Satan's evil games that were designed to turn Job from God, God speaking nothing of this to Job. If I remember right, didn't Job even think God was mad at him or something? Nevertheless Job continued living his life the same, just as God had predicted.
    yes God and the Satan did a number on Job, (the devil had God's permission however) the 10 murders here were the only ones the devil ever did, and he shared them with God.
    And this in comparison to Gods 32,000,000. Their both nasty f**ks but one seems to be a whole whole lot worse, dont you think.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    That makes no sense, geezer. God not stopping someone from doing something is not the same as doing it himself. Satan challenged mankind's integrity to God. If Job had known about the matter Satan would have been able to claim it wasn't a fair experiment.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    That makes no sense, geezer. God not stopping someone from doing something is not the same as doing it himself. Satan challenged mankind's integrity to God. If Job had known about the matter Satan would have been able to claim it wasn't a fair experiment.
    And you know what is good sense how; your standpoint is the irrational.

    When an all powerful being stands by and watches, but does nothing, this is evil in the extreme.
    Do try to think on your feet please, thank you.
    Or just don’t bother replying.
    Inane stupidity is extremely irritating.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    And you know what is good sense how; your standpoint is the irrational.
    You make a habit of replying like the quote above, and it is evidence that you lack a logical mind. If not in other areas at least when speaking about the things that you have an obvious stigma against.

    And before you continue to attack any standpoint that I may or may not take, I would like to remind you that in our past conversation you made it quite clear that you believe that intellectualism will save everything with out strict punishments for doing the no-nos of the land.

    Frankly any nut from a mental hospital that thinks all we need is to be more strict with criminals would do a better job running the country than some pro anarchist like yourself who thinks that all we need to do is make criminals read more books. Because we all know the pages of Darwin instantly transform murderers and rapists into wonderful community members magically!

    When an all powerful being stands by and watches, but does nothing, this is evil in the extreme.
    No geezer that would not be considered evil by any clear thinking person with a decent knowledge of the English language. Without considering every possible angle it would immediately be classified as being apathetic.

    Now whether he was actually being apathetic I won't say. I sincerely doubt that the bible would purposely paint him as apathetic, least of all apathetic. But from a perspective such as your own it really makes more sense to concluded him apathetic rather than evil. He did no harm to Job himself and thus was not causing evil for Job.

    Or just don’t bother replying
    Perhaps you forgot you replied to me. Believe me when I say I've heard quite enough of your emotionally driven opinions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    And you know what is good sense how; your standpoint is the irrational.
    You make a habit of replying like the quote above, and it is evidence that you lack a logical mind. If not in other areas at least when speaking about the things that you have an obvious stigma against.
    thats because how can you possibly class yourself as a logical thinker, when you have a believe that has no foundation, no base you are clearly delusional.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    And before you continue to attack any standpoint that I may or may not take, I would like to remind you that in our past conversation you made it quite clear that you believe that intellectualism will save everything with out strict punishments for doing the no-nos of the land.
    Frankly any nut from a mental hospital that thinks all we need is to be more strict with criminals would do a better job running the country than some pro anarchist like yourself who thinks that all we need to do is make criminals read more books. Because we all know the pages of Darwin instantly transform murderers and rapists into wonderful community members magically!
    could you possibly show me the post/posts where you think I said that, thank you.
    and remember it not what you believe I said, or how you interpreted what I said, I asking for what I actually said
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    When an all powerful being stands by and watches, but does nothing, this is evil in the extreme.
    No geezer that would not be considered evil by any clear thinking person with a decent knowledge of the English language. Without considering every possible angle it would immediately be classified as being apathetic.

    Now whether he was actually being apathetic I won't say. I sincerely doubt that the bible would purposely paint him as apathetic, least of all apathetic. But from a perspective such as your own it really makes more sense to concluded him apathetic rather than evil. He did no harm to Job himself and thus was not causing evil for Job.
    I'd agree with you if we were talking about another human being but we are talking about an all powerful God, he most certainly would not be called apathetic, at the very least he would be refered to as sadistic.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    Or just don’t bother replying
    Perhaps you forgot you replied to me. Believe me when I say I've heard quite enough of your emotionally driven opinions.
    I agreed with you, you replied to that post. reread it it starts "yes God and the Satan did a number on Job," but technically your right, however I'm asking you not to reply to me, if you cant reply with good sense.
    so it quite irrelevant whether I replied to you.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    Geezer you have already declared me incapable of logical thought because you believe me to be religious, despite the fact that I do nothing but reply pragmatically.

    As I've said before, I believe I actually lean more agnostic, but I will advocate for nearly any side. Now I don't actually dare to say that I know what I am because I've been it all at least twice. But for the hell of it, let's say I was a dogmatic Christian now, I would then be grouped with a brilliant cosmologist by the name of Allen Sandage. You and I are both not likely to match his achievements in our lifetime. So I hope you can get over your prejudice.


    [quote] could you possibly show me the post/posts where you think I said that, thank you.
    and remember it not what you believe I said, or how you interpreted what I said, I asking for what I actually said[quote]

    It was interpretation, but you're not beyond that either. And it was obvious, replace the name god with human and it fits perfectly. What I mean by this is that you believe it is somehow logical to demand certain standards from a being of supremacy that you don't hold for humans. This is not a rational view as far as I can see although I understand how you could come to this thought with how a lot of religions speak.


    I'd agree with you if we were talking about another human being but we are talking about an all powerful God, he most certainly would not be called apathetic, at the very least he would be refered to as sadistic.
    Well, does the bible say God took pleasure in seeing Job suffer? Because if it does you're right, but I don't recall anything like that being in there.

    I already related to this in the last quote so I won't beat the already dead horse. But I would like to know out of innocent curiosity. How do you actually come to this analysis that God would somehow have different motives than a human or that he is somehow worse than us for doing the same things as we do?

    I agreed with you, you replied to that post. reread it it starts "yes God and the Satan did a number on Job," but technically your right, however I'm asking you not to reply to me, if you cant reply with good sense
    I too see no reason to continue conversing if we can't seem to agree on what is sensible thought. So we may just have to agree to disagree, and agree not to reply to each other's posts. I would hate for this to be, honestly, it just sounds childish.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    Geezer you have already declared me incapable of logical thought because you believe me to be religious, despite the fact that I do nothing but reply pragmatically.
    that’s doubtful, having seen your posts.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    As I've said before, I believe I actually lean more agnostic, but I will advocate for nearly any side. Now I don't actually dare to say that I know what I am because I've been it all at least twice.
    being agnostic does mean you are open to the irrational.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    But for the hell of it, let's say I was a dogmatic Christian now, I would then be grouped with a brilliant cosmologist by the name of Allen Sandage.
    who turned Christian in is old age, the most intelligent person in the world could be a Christian, that’s irrelevant, if he came on here trying to prove the irrational, he would get the same treatment.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    You and I are both not likely to match his achievements in our lifetime. So I hope you can get over your prejudice.
    now that is a pretty bold arrogant statement, as you don’t know me from Adam, excuse the pun. I could be somebody of note you would have no idea, now would you.
    it's so happens your right, but there’s still time.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    I'd agree with you if we were talking about another human being but we are talking about an all powerful God, he most certainly would not be called apathetic, at the very least he would be referred to as sadistic.
    Well, does the bible say God took pleasure in seeing Job suffer?
    it doesn't have to, to sit there and do nothing, when it well within your power to do so. Is callous and cruel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    I would like to know out of innocent curiosity. How do you actually come to this analysis that God would somehow have different motives than a human or that he is somehow worse than us for doing the same things as we do?
    quite simply if you murder you can be killed for it, if you were able to stop someone being raped and did nothing you would be shunned, hated, reviled.
    But your God cannot die, he does not get hated or reviled, and yet he can kill with impunity. Watch women being raped and look on with relish. Go figure.
    The religious baffle me.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    I agreed with you, you replied to that post. reread it starts "yes God and the Satan did a number on Job," but technically your right, however I'm asking you not to reply to me, if you cant reply with good sense
    I too see no reason to continue conversing if we can't seem to agree on what is sensible thought. So we may just have to agree to disagree, and agree not to reply to each other's posts. I would hate for this to be, honestly, it just sounds childish.
    I haven’t ask you to completely stop replying just to do it with a little more thought, thank you.
    I too don’t believe in the ignore button, it's a wholly childish endeavour.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    Is callous and cruel.
    This is what I'm talking about when I say you're being just as irrational as I am if in fact I am being irrational.

    Being apathetic is not the same thing as being cruel. You can't call someone cruel just because they stand by, it's misrepresentation of character and a violation of distinction. That kind of incorrect categorizing is rooted from emotion and/or ignorance. I believe emotion on your part.

    Definition of CRUEL by Dictionary.com:

    willfully or knowingly causing pain or distress to others.

    Definition of CALLOUS by Dictionary.com:

    insensitive; indifferent; unsympathetic: They have a callous attitude toward the sufferings of others.

    Big difference there! But of course this is all taken out of context. I went ahead and looked at the beginning of the book of Job and it explains why God did nothing, right in the beginning.

    In verse 8 of chapter one God brags of how loyal and good Job is. In 9 and 10 Satan declares that Job only does it because God has shown him favor. In 11 Satan poses a challenge; God accepts it but says Satan can only take away what he has, but can not touch Job.

    But after that Satan says in chapter 2 verses 4 and 5 that Job would curse God if Job's life and flesh were put to the test. In verse 6 God allows it but makes it clear that Satan can't kill Job.

    I can still see how someone could get away with calling him callous or apathetic, but there's just no accurate grounds for using the word cruel or evil.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    I am being irrational.

    Being apathetic is not the same thing as being cruel. You can't call someone cruel just because they stand by,
    That’s the point your missing, if it was a person, I would not condemn them, because if they intervened, they put themselves in harms way, but a God can intervene without fear of harm.

    The rest of your post is just childish and stupid; we are talking about an all powerful everlasting God, not a man for F**k sake.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    Quote Originally Posted by geezer
    That’s the point your missing, if it was a person, I would not condemn them, because if they intervened, they put themselves in harms way, but a God can intervene without fear of harm.
    You miss the entire point of the situation, and frankly the ultimate points of the bible. The whole point to the bible is that man and angel need God to lead them. Now it doesn't matter whether anyone considers the bible true or fictitious, within the concept of the bible and it's plot, this is the storyline between God, Satan and everyone and everything else.

    Considering the plot, God's authority is on trial; all of his loyalists are under scrutiny by Satan. And Job was God's best. After Job's tests were over God tried to make up for the hardships Job had to go through for God's name, blessing him every which way.

    Yes God could have stopped it, even from ever starting. But before Job was born God had agreed to allow Satan to have his chance to prove his case. Job's situation was just an especially grim part of the bible's story plot.

    If it's forgivable for a human to stand by for fear of death, then it should be reasonably understandable that a god might feel the need to stand by because of a trial of honor, especially if he has the power to renew lives.

    The rest of your post is just childish and stupid; we are talking about an all powerful everlasting God, not a man for F**k sake.
    You see to me I see absolutely no difference. Whether a man or god, that person would have feelings, thoughts, and principles just the same. And just as humans do, a god should also have a right to his own prerogatives.

    It's stupid to call Bill Gates evil because there are starving children that he could feed with his fortune. Even if he gives some, there will be a lot he won't that could be found useful for many. Sure he has the power, but he also has the right to decide where and when that power is put into action.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Forum Masters Degree geezer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    london
    Posts
    544
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    yes God could have stopped it, even from ever starting. But before Job was born God had agreed to allow Satan to have his chance to prove his case. Job's situation was just an especially grim part of the bible's story plot.
    and theres the point, nothing is more powerful than this God.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    If it's forgivable for a human to stand by for fear of death, then it should be reasonably understandable that a god might feel the need to stand by because of a trial of honor, especially if he has the power to renew lives.
    no not when he can change the situation completely, it is callous and cruel to stand by, and do nothing.
    Quote Originally Posted by Happydude
    It's stupid to call Bill Gates evil because there are starving children that he could feed with his fortune. Even if he gives some, there will be a lot he won't that could be found useful for many. Sure he has the power, but he also has the right to decide where and when that power is put into action.
    give me a break with this inane drivel, bill gates (a man, I would not call him evil) stands to lose something if he helps.
    A God stands to lose nothing, enough already!.
    "Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense - Buddha"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    52
    Bill Gates is a perfect example, man! Losing money isn't anything to him, he could spend 20 billion and never experience the slightest change in his comfortable home life.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •