Christian conversion experience: descriptions/analysis/links: input invited

He is such a brilliant "crackpot" though. His book is a very interesting read and has some good challenges. He tromped across disciplinary borders and on lots of people's turf. Still I am fascinated with his notion. But it's other Gods who are motivating the challenging and creating the victories. Achilleus is going to fight Agamemnon but Athena stops him. It was Venus that inspired the love that resulted in Helen leaving for Troy and thus the war in the first place. The plot is always advanced by the actions of the Gods not by "free will" or determination of humans.The area where his work bears on the OP is that of "hearing voices" or the ego having experiences delivered to it. But this seems to fall more under spontaneous conversions experiences and it's now appearing that the OP is about the way some churches are using psychological setting and manipulation to create an experience that results in people believing in that churches teaching. So I'll drop Jaynes for now. Did you read THE ORIGINS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN THE BREAKDOWN OF THE BICAMERAL MIND?lfen

Hysterical "illness" possession phenomenon are well documented in most human cultures. The Salem witch trials are one example. In Asia there was a disease that was rampant where a man felt his penis was about to be withdrawn inside his body. I forget the name of that.It's both embarassing and humbling that we so called modern people many with college educations living in the supposedly most advanced country can fall victim to these hysterias.I suppose I should be grateful to mainline Christianity that it generally subdues the most wildly irrational aspects of their ancient belief system.lfen

right, except for the odyssey. in the odyssey, the title character shouts to the gods, "look at how smart i am, i defeat troy. and i did without you." posieden says in return something to the extent of "good. try and get home without my blessing then."which, of course, odysseus does. odysseus is the first anti-diest hero.the two, the iliad and the odyssey, represent very, very different views on the gods. which is why it's been suggested that homer was merely retelling earlier traditions.it could also be argued that in the iliad the gods are strictly metaphorical. one could easily tell the story without them (and some have. i don't think they were in the recent movie troy, for instance). well, that's sort of what i'm talking about, and why i brought it up. the only point of disagreement that i have, really, is that the mind has CHANGED in the last few thousand years. i think whatever creates voices and visions and religious experiences in the mind is still very much there, and evidenced by the charismatic and pentecostal churches. no, but i've had a lot read to me.

---

אָרַח

so were the werewolf trials in western europe. although that is probably related to ergot in the rye fields. (ergot being related to lsd) we're only human. i think the fact that we understand (and can control) these sorts of things is also a testament to our rathional abilities. we must go to different churches.

---

אָרַח

From what little I've read on the internet, Jaynes wasn't so much a crackpot as much as merely heterodox.

quote:

---

The major problem with Jaynes theory is that I can think of no way to test or falsify it.

---

I can, and this is the main reason I don't quite buy Jaynes' ideas (although I do agree that they are intriguing). There are still plenty of people living in isolated areas of the Amazon and New Guinea and the like that have minimal contact with the "civilized world". I would expect that if Jaynes' ideas were correct then we should see noticeable differences in the "consciousness" of some of these people.Of course, one could argue that even minimul contact is enough to cause the bicameral mind to break down, but if the bicameral state is so delicate I find it hard to believe that it could have lasted as the normal human condition until the the beginning of the 1st millenium BCE.Another possibility is animal research. If it could be demonstrated that the higher primates have an human-like consciousness, just less well-developed, that, too, would be a falsification of Jaynes' theory.I admit, though, as interesting and intriguing as I find Jaynes' theory, I would be disappointed if it were eventually confirmed (for philosophical reasons).

Yes, you did, but I have my doubts about the source of these things."Science" that studies these things always starts with preconceptions that they end up proving. They deny the supernatural so supernatural explanations are never considered. Some *may* be purely psychological or brain-originated phenomena, some may be something else. But this is what is in question, whether the brain creates them or something else is possibly involved. I'm sure they appreciate the anonymity. It usually falls out to be a witch hunt on the part of the accusers. The accusations of misbehaviors in churches seem to be growing -- the accusations are outlandish but great lengths are gone to to prove them, people's lives ruined by overzealous psychologists prompting children to "remember" things that never happened. Meaning what? The eyes rolled back in the head in meditation is illustrated in some books on Hindu practice. Well this is not the thread for going into that, but "what it's actually all about" involves interpretation -- What you do is interpretation. No, that's orthodox doctrine. Original sin is real. If you don't understand original sin you can't really understand salvation. The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has nothing whatever to do with knowledge as such.I would agree that there is an unfortunate anti-intellectualism in some churches today, but I've never heard it rationalized by the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Historically Christianity has been a great promoter of every kind of education.But I guess this is getting off topic.

Hello Faith I elaborated why I define them as conversions above and you have addressed it in your post below.You are coming very close to commiting the "No True Scottsman" fallacy. You guys can argue all you like about who is and who isn't a true Christian, and I'll just stick with this:"Professing belief in Jesus as Christ or following the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus"As I said, I have no issue with liberal Christians who cause no harm to their adherents, embrace science and rational thought, and do not seek to impose their beliefs on others through politics. There are several on this forum, and I aspire to obtain their admirable beliefs.The study I am assisting with will not seek to dissuade all Christians of all their beliefs: just to de-power a particular influential, cult-like fundamentalist church. Surely then, our objectives on this sort of issue may be the same? I wonder if you are actually concerned about the impact the book might have upon your own particular interpretation of Christinity. If your faith is legitimate, if you faith is based on a rational, intellectual process and not on merely emotive appeals or conversion processes, then what would you have to be concerned about?Causing someone a lifetime of emotional turmoil, causing severe financial harm, separating someone from their friends and family, applying politically incorrect and sexiest/racist doctrines, indoctrinating children in fundamentalism from birth, having hypocritically different standards of behaviour for church elders, not having to account for how church funds are distributed, denying critical and rational free thought, sexually abusing children: all these are much crueler than encouraging a convertee to examine their faith.Again, if your particular faith is grounded on "Truth" and none of the above, then we are fighting the same cause, even though I may not have yet seen such truth in your cause. Well then you have supposedly found my Holy Grail: an intellectual path to faith and I have no issue with your beliefs. But after having studied your writings on this forum for a long time, I severely doubt that you have such a Grail. I don't think either of us can read the mind of others. As to whether they are legitimately "Professing belief in Jesus as Christ", I suspect that we both have to take their word on it. Now you profess to be able to read my mind. Just because I interpreted the scenario differently to you: wherein you may beleive the you had an experience of God, and I merely identified my mind playing tricks on me. The actual sensations may have been identical: and I have experienced many different sensations. One of us interpreted the scenario wrong. My arguments as to why it wasn't me are well outside the scope of this thread. Once again: your opinion only. Many of the conversions I witnessed were deeply moving for the persons involved. What is it that you are concerned about here? That the validity of your our conversion might be called into question? But you came into faith through reading books, did you not? Are you concerned about the future conversions of others? If they are not "true" Christian churches, then what do you care if we de-power them? Yea, see below. I did eleborate on why I see these experiences as being conversions. Well I argue that it is an emotional process that transcends intellect. How else do you find a intelligent, rational person arguing Creationism and conspircay theories? Well you should be worried too because these churches are kicking-ass in the conversion stakes. We would have a common cause in some respects except that Christianity as a whole is such a blurry, amorphous mass and jumble of contrary, supplementary, complimentary doctrines and tenets that I suspect your faith is inevitably interwined with these churches in some way. For instance I suspect that you rely or share much of their apologetics and also share their resources on Creationism. Ok. Be honest then Faith. The common response from Christians is that I am an atheist because of my own shortcomings: haven't sought God, not humble enough, not enough faith (ironically), unworthy, too much "sin", too much "of this world" etc etc. Can you admit that there is a chance that I am an atheist not because any fault on my behalf, but because God does not exist? Can you admit the chance that that might be true, or will you join your brethen and throw the burden back on the unbeliever? Well it's not my study and wont contain my prejudices. It is also not intending to be science.

There are many missionary reports of encounters with very isolated tribal peoples over the last century and a half and there are sometimes occultic phenomena involved in their religions.I also read Julian Jaynes' book on the "bicameral mind" and thought it fascinating at the time. His may be especially far out, but the problem with all such studies is that the possibility of a supernatural reality is ruled out a priori.

That out of ignorance and false preconceptions you might do damage to true Christians. Yes, that does appear to me to be a possibility. You haven't shown me that you understand or respect what true Christianity is.

well, yes. and i'm convinced that aliens DO exist, somewhere. just not that they are visiting us and abducting people to do the same experiment over, and over, and over again.still, i'm sure, the possibility does exist of the occasional REAL alien abduction. but as it remains, most if not all of the ones reported have very down-to-earth explanations.i know it's a little pharoah's magicians of me. but seriously, GOD can do better than my explanations. because he's god. in my opinion, most are just in the head of the person experiencing them. all of the ones i've heard about that are fantastic in nature are still well within the realm of things able to be produced by the human mind.still, to extend my analogy, there's one alien abduction report that i'm not sure about. it's a famous one, too. betty and barney hill. not only do their stories corroborate one another, but they report being shown a star chart. reportedly, the stars on betty's drawing are able to be matched with a known constellation, from a different perspective. and it reportedly contained two stars which had not even been found at the time. of course, i don't know the veracity of that information, but i keep the option of a real abduction open in that case.same deal with true prophecy. i'm sure they don't. you know, that's sort of a good point. what if the molestation scandal is the same exact thing? that warrants investigation, i think. meaning, the third eye. it sees on a different plane, the spiritual. supposedly, anyways. i researched hinduism only breifly, and only in regards to certain things. well, i really try to keep my interpretation to a minimum. no one's ever really free of it. usually my points are firmly based on the bible itself, not an interpretation of it. for example, arguing that the 7 days of creation are millions of years is an interpretation. arguing that the bible says "day" in a context that means day (and not it's other specific usages) is not interpreation. it's what the bible says. when i start talking about intent, and how it has to mean literal days because the story is justifying the 7-day hebrew week, with the sabbath on the 7th day, that's interpretation. but not much of one. to quote myself in another thread: "i believe in micro-sin-death, but not macro-sin-death."i do not believe in original sin. it doesn't make sense, and alleges that god is unjust. why should i punished for someone thousands of generations my ancestor? at is MEANEST, god only says he'll punish to the fourth generation. it also alleges that god would hold something against someone that they were essentially ignorant of. adam did not understand what sin was, nor that it was evil. because he didn't know what good and evil were, did he? adam's stupidity even after eating is evidenced by the bible: he blames god for his sin. he says "the woman YOU put here made me do it." what kind of idiot says that to god? god makes up a set of rule designed to damn us, and then saves us from those rules? so basically, god's saving us from god. kind of silly, isn't it?i believe that god saved us from ourselves. it is our TENDENCY and nature to sin, but we do not have to pay for the sins of others. morality comes from knowledge of good and evil. one cannot be moral without knowledge. neither can one be sinful. sin is not just straying from the path, it is first knowing the path. we have to have a target to miss. i think i have once or twice. but i noticed it mostly myself. christian churches speak of the tree of knowledge in an almost regretful way. like they wish it had never happened. the goal they want is to get back into the garden, and christ, as they see it, is the way back in.but without it, none of us would be here. not you, not me, not jesus, nobody. the would have continued (or maybe ended) in the garden. we owe our very existance to that. and so the result must have been part of god's plan, right?to some degree, god probably wanted adam and eve to eat. it's like a parent telling their child not to play with fire. they don't want the child to get burned, but at some point that's how the child learns. and almost every parent allows their child that opportunity. quite.

---

אָרַח

Oh, the Odyssey, yes, that would be during the breakdown or after. Odysseus is much more modern hero than Achilleus. The books are very different. I specifically was talking about the Iliad. I'll have to look back. Maybe I said Homer only, but I'm pretty sure I said the Iliad. Oh, I went back and checked and I just wasn't thinking when you switched to the Odyssey I was still thinking Iliad. Sometimes cutting and pasting makes it too easy not to read thoughtfully.I'm trying to dig out memories when I took the course in the 60's. I think the play was Ajax. Anyway Odysseus is a character who uses trickery rather than straight forward valor to defeat enemies. There was a shift and if I recall Ajax and the other heroes though happy that Odysseus's trickery ended the war yet they mourned the fall of the old values. Something like that at least.lfen

I do have to find time to reread it. I really liked how he explained various aspects of early art and religion and literature. It's fine with me if it's true or not true. I'm interested in your philosophical reasons for being disappointed.lfen

Faith wrote True Christians, again? Well nothing in the book will assail the faith of any Christian not associated with Christian cults or fundamentalism. You or no other self professed Christian has never shown me that your God exists or that your faith is little more than an adult version of a security blanket. In many cases totally benign and certainly none of my business. But in many of it's current manifestations it is dangerous to it's adherents and humanity as a whole, and as a moral being it has become my business.

i think you did. i'm just pointing out that two pieces of text, generally held to be by the same person, are so markedly different that to extrapolate a point from one that is contradicted by the other is sort of absurd. quite.

---

אָרַח

if the faith is true, such an argument shouldn't hurt it.

---

אָרַח