Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Christian conversion experience: descriptions/analysis/links: input invited
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 199 (215262)
06-08-2005 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Faith
06-08-2005 3:58 AM


So off topic!
Faith wrote:
That's your theory but what's your proof? Some of us who did fake it KNOW we faked it. But if others deny faking it or describe something that would be very hard to fake you are just going to insist your interpretation is the truth about what happened no matter what, right? As you just now did, as if you KNOW it's nothing but "playing along" -- but again, you cannot prove that for all cases.
Maybe some didn't fake it: and actually had a physchotic episode or a fit. Whatever, nothing supernatural there. You have to prove the existence of the supernatural before it needs even be considered when trying to explain very real world phenomena. You can go with my hastily abbreviated description of people being pushed over, or you can propose supernatural powers. What's the point? What explanatory power does it have?
Again you are interpreting but there may be some elements of hypnosis involved in some cases. I just think you need to be very careful not to assume that's the explanation when you find situations you can't explain easily.
I can't recall the current opinions of the legitimacy of hypnosis, but if it's is a legitimate phenomena it is not a supernatural one.
That's the revisionist history that's taught these days for sure.
Humanity finally gets out from under the yoke of having to interpret eveything in light of the Christian faith, on pain of certain death, and you think that this is a undesirable thing? It is hardly suprising that the old way of looking at things was in line with a church that just so happened to like burning people at the stake.
No wonder you guys are so desparate to claim science as your own. Everything we have achieved in the last few hundred years is because we have escaped the yoke of religious dogma. You call it "revisionist", but it is humanity finally getting it right for once. The evidence of this is the world which science has given us.
That you'd drag us back to the old days makes you a very worrying individual indeed.
He also argues that the opposition to empirical science came out of Aristotelian ideas that the Catholic Church had absorbed, rationalized by the Bible but misrepresenting the Bible, which does not oppose science. He makes a good case for this.
But as you guys so often like to forget, the Catholic church was Christianity in it's entirity for a heck of a long time. Did "true" Christiniaty just get put on hold for a milenia?
"'From the thirteenth century onward into the eighteenth,' says Lynn White (Dynamo and Virgin Reconsidered,89) 'every major scientist, in effect, explained his motivations in religious terms'"
If I'm not mistaken, you have argued this hokum in other threads when you atempt to claim that it was Creationist beliefs that lead certain scientists to their discoveries (Pasteur is one of the common examples). And if I am not further mistaken, my response will be the same you received: what scientist was not operating within a religious framework at those times? That religion did not however lead to the discovery, it was undoubtably applying an early form of the scientific method. If their motivations and discoveries were not explained in religious terms that would have risked death.
Where's Schraf when I need her.
Well, at least get our point of view on this because some of us do not see it your way at all. Evolution is not science. It has not been proved and cannot be proved.It is all an imaginative construction that is rationalized as science and defended by its aficionados with all the ferocity and loyalty of Rottweilers, but not with reason.
This is exactly what I did not want to see on this thread. Christians spouting their doctrinal hokey.
I'm absolutely positive that you have been shot down on these issues many other times, much more eloquently:
- Evolution falls within the definition of science
- Your Supreme Court has declared it as such
- Science does not deal in proofs: that's mathematics
- Take your irrational conspiracy theories, along with your mythical demons elsewhere
, so I'm merely stating this for the record.
No you're being a total bitch, breaking forum rules and disrespecting my request in the opening post to refrain from proselytizing. So bugger off: go play on a dates thread!
The testable fields have testable observations, but the theory itself remains forever untestable and nonsensical. The reinforcement as you say is certainly real, but it's just the habit of thought shared by all those in the scientific community, it has no true empirical basis. It's an amazing case of group delusion reinforced by habit.
Admin!!!
I think evolution is crazy. It doesn't faze me at all. It makes me laugh. But it's true that some Christians of weak faith or weak intellectual ability or just noncombative personalities (which doesn't describe me) get broken by this idiotic theory, try to hold on to their belief while embracing it although it contradicts the word of God,
You have nothing to add Faith. You are part of the problem.
We are having a round the table meeting in a half an hour, and you have renewed my vigor in the importance of the book.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 3:58 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 5:20 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 199 (215424)
06-08-2005 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Faith
06-08-2005 5:20 AM


Re: So off topic!
Faith wrote:
How quickly you descend to sheer mean nastiness. Why is that? I was in context, explaining my position and you become a rude raving madman because you can't control what my position is I guess. Get a grip man. And go ahead and do your smear piece, because that is all it will be as you have no understanding and no respect for your subject matter.
My bad. Most of that was meant in jest and hastily written because I was trying to run out the door. We can take some of the points you raised into another thread if you wish, although I totally bet you have been grilled on them many, many times here before by other contributers much more capable than I.
I have little respect for the subject matter, granted. I'm not the author.
It is not written for you but for those you prey upon.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-08-2005 06:16 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 5:20 AM Faith has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 199 (215426)
06-08-2005 6:21 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Faith
06-08-2005 5:22 AM


Re: Last off topic remark
I wonder what treatment plan would work best to cure me of my sanity and reality and return me to my old delusions? Shock treatment? Ice wraps? Lobotomy? An afternoon with Dr. Phil?
For starters your own self assessment would be of no worth. And then we come to the age old dilemma: at what point does the maifestation of religion become a mental health concern.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 5:22 AM Faith has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 199 (215479)
06-08-2005 8:35 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Faith
06-08-2005 1:56 PM


Re: Explaining the phenomena
If there are such terms: the pro-superntaural and anti-supernatural, both can agree that we have a method of knowledge gathering that can exclude subjective bias and come up with findings which we regularly trust with their lives. Three examples of how we are prepared to trust it with our lives: we can trust that plane travel is safe, that an engineering masterpiece such as a tall building or bridge wont collapse or that, for instance, insulin can save to life of a diabetic.
The method of knowledge gathering is science and in has in built mechanisms to exclude subjectivity and bias.
And we can use it to scientifically test the validity of the supernatural, such has claims of the efficacy of prayer....
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-08-2005 08:35 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 1:56 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 9:28 PM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 199 (215485)
06-08-2005 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Phat
06-08-2005 6:41 AM


Re: Quite an interesting topic!
Hello Phatboy:
First off, in my Admin mode, I will have to agree with Gilgamesh, Faith. You need to respect his topic, here. This admonition is coming from a fellow believer.
Oh bugger it. I'm not getting that much information of topic here, so let it run wherever. I myself was guilty of intertwining pro-evolution mantra amongts my on-topic posts, so I probably provoked Faith.
Are you suggesting that I accept things empirically? Skeptically? Cautiously? If so, I probably agree with you. I would caution you to be careful at rejecting things totally. Completely. Obviously. Because truth is often anything but obvious.
I have tended to find quite the opposite.
The church was a non-denominational newly formed group of Charismatics. The Pastor was flashy and had a flare for the dramatic. People had demons cast out of them and showed emotional catharsis of a wide variety...from throwing up to screaming. I was always skeptical, but there was a sense of power and mystery in this process. I know that you may say that I am too quick to label the unknown as "supernatural", but I fear that you have ruled this option out entirely. I will tell you some more stories later...gotta go for now. Thanks, Gilgamesh!
This is fascinating and I would love to hear more.
I haven't ruled out the supernatural entirely. After searching for evidence of it for 15 years, I am nevertheless now exceedingly sceptical of ever finding any evidence of it. Historically what we have associated with the supernatural has turned out just to be something that we couldn't yet explain yet with our growing knowledge of the natural laws of the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Phat, posted 06-08-2005 6:41 AM Phat has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 199 (215486)
06-08-2005 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by arachnophilia
06-08-2005 7:49 PM


Re: fear
arachnophilia wrote:
oh dear. this is a semantics problem. by "intellectual" i only meant the change in thought patterns, not that the conversion itself was intellectual. the are certainly almost, if not always, emotional experience by definition.
although, i reserve the option for the occasional intellectual conversion, especially into the less fanatical "faiths." for instance, a taoist "conversion" might be strictly intellectual. but that's generally not what we're talking about here, is it?
Agree on all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 06-08-2005 7:49 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 199 (215499)
06-08-2005 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Faith
06-08-2005 9:32 PM


Re: charismatic experiences
Faith wrote:
I'd be happy to answer your post but it's off topic here I believe.
Go for it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 9:32 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Nighttrain, posted 06-08-2005 10:19 PM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 199 (215506)
06-08-2005 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by Faith
06-08-2005 9:28 PM


Re: Explaining the phenomena
Faith wrote:
I'm sorry, I have to disagree. The reliability of physics and medicine and other physical ("hard") sciences cannot fairly be extended to the study of mental and psychological and spiritual events where the subject matter is invisible and its connection with behavior subject to interpretation.
Well do these supernatural claims have an affect that can be distinguished from natural processes? If so, we can test and measure them. If not then we might as well assume they are natural events and not supernatural at all.
I'd have to see your criteria for judging answer to prayer, for instance, if you have any idea of the lawfulness of the prayer in the first place for instance (yes, there are biblical standards), the fact that God may say No or answer a prayer in an unexpected way, and the likelihood that He has no interest in being the object of your scientific testing.
The usual Christian explanation that prayer is answered "Yes, no or later" is completely indistinguishable from random chance.
How about you define a "lawful prayer" for me? Is raising 1 million dollars in order to evangelise your Christian message a lawful prayer request? If so we can set up a simple test of supernatrual powers, like guessing hidden cards, for example. Pray for the correct answers and if you score at an agreed level above chance you score the million for your worthy cause, not to mention the phenomenal publicity you will generate.
Have a chat to James Randi: JREF - Home
I know your early authors of doctrine were clever enough to instruct you guys to avoid testing your faith. Why do you think that little clause was added?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Faith, posted 06-08-2005 9:28 PM Faith has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 199 (215508)
06-08-2005 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Nighttrain
06-08-2005 10:19 PM


Thank you!
This piece http://www.igpp.de/english/counsel/project.htm is more relevant than the other two, and although brief does provide a stepping stone for further research.
I note that some of the counselling techniques are those which I have myself independently identifed as being necessary and effective:
- Determine the extend of stress such unusual experiences cause and define the differences with respect to other disorders like Schizophrenia, Schizotypic Personality Disorder, Post-traumatic Stress Disorder, Dissociative Disorder etc.
- Reduce the dramatic and mystical nature of unusual experiences through providing information based on scientific research
- Lower psychological stress by offering help in coping with unusual experiences and helping people integrate such experiences into their self and world concepts
- Heighten the sense of control over unusual experiences
- Competent transferal of the clients to appropriate therapy
Emphasis added.
This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-08-2005 10:39 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Nighttrain, posted 06-08-2005 10:19 PM Nighttrain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Nighttrain, posted 06-09-2005 6:50 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 199 (215554)
06-09-2005 1:51 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by arachnophilia
06-09-2005 1:32 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
Feel free arachnophilia.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2005 1:32 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 78 by arachnophilia, posted 06-09-2005 2:21 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 199 (215805)
06-10-2005 4:26 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by Faith
06-10-2005 12:10 AM


Re: charismatic experiences
Faith wrote:
I'm not denying the phenomenon of sleep paralysis. I've experienced it myself. I'm simply doubting that it is enough to explain these complicated scenarios people report.
I remember when you described this in another thread, and it read like textbook sleep paralysis, but yet you considered it personal proof of demons nevertheless. You can surely understand why we reject this assessment.
As I stated above, one of the greatest steps you can make towards determining if something is real or not, is to acknowlegde that quite often your own subjective interpretation of reality can be very, very flawed.
An essential part of developing critical thinking skills is to never take anything dogmatically. Always be prepared to revise your views/knowledge in light of new and better evidence. For example, like everyone else I have very strong recollection of my adolescent years, but I can envision a scenario whereby it might be demonstrated to me through compelling evidence that my memories were entirely manufactured as a result of a trauma. I would then have to re-assess my entire subjective recollection of these memories that I previously took as fact and be prepared to discard them.
IMO many theists take their knowledge completely dogmatically. Many, such as those from the Institue of Creation Research (ICR) state that any evidence contrary to their beliefs would never prevail. That is dogma, and because of the approach taken, most likely to be false dogma.
Your own subjective appraisal of being assailed by demons was most likely wrong, because we understand exactly what causes these experience and we can even reproduce them. This is a situation where you can use critical thinking skills to acknowledge that your subjective interpretation was wrong, or you can hold you own opinion dogmatically in the face of contrary evidence. Whatever you chose you must understand your opnion of the event is totally uncompelling and for the rest of us paints just part of the picture that is your unconvincing faith, er, Faith.
It hasn't been proved that the supernatural does not exist.
And it hasn't been proved that it does exist.
What makes demons more acceptable? I reason from the Biblical revelation myself of course, and I find demons to be the more plausible explanation.
Well you can take advice from a 2000+ year old book written pre science, by superstitious, primitive bronze age goat herders who knwo very little of the world or human physchology, or you can accpet the assessment of modern day science. Who do you think got it right? The same people who thought epilepsy is caused by demons or the scientists who believe it is a medical condition and can cure it?
UFO expert who is a nonChristian and thinks the phenomena are {EDIT: real but} not physical
In many cases they are probably not physical: optical illusions etc. Some are physical: misidentified aircraft. Why do you think UFO's aren't big in the media anymore? Why do you think they began and peaked after the advent of aviation?
Roughly the idea is that demons would have a stake in leading people to believe in UFOs (or the "gods" and other beings the human race has believed in over the millennia) rather than in demons.
So what are they working on now that UFOs are old hat. Crop circles? (although they are old hat now too).
The rational explanation isn't better. You just like it better. Nobody has disproved the supernatural.
Of course it is better: it has greater explanatory power. Once again, no-body has proven the supernatural.
But we can disprove supernatural claims where we can test them. Want to have a go at the power of prayer?
Definition of test:
1. A procedure for critical evaluation; a means of determining the presence, quality, or truth of something; a trial:
Don't you want to evaluate the presence, quality or truth of the evidence of your faith? I did: I tested all of your conversion experiences. They were very real world natural events or phenomena.
Test Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by Faith, posted 06-10-2005 12:10 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 06-10-2005 6:05 AM Gilgamesh has replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 199 (216104)
06-11-2005 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by Faith
06-10-2005 6:05 AM


Re: paranormal phenomena etc.
Faith wrote:
You have to understand that I STARTED out where you are. I can still misinterpret experiences, of course, and once you start experiencing this stuff you are likely to have all kinds of wild interpretations that need to settle down, but no way will I ever go back to the blinkered materialistic tunnel vision.
And you have since made a leap of faith and have thrown rational thought out the window. You now have too much emotional investment in your new found faith to consider contrary evidence. We witness this on every thread you participate in on this board.
Dogma is simply the codification of established knowledge, and when the knowledge is revelation by God it is simply not open to discussion. Scientists have their dogmas too. Everyone does.
Dogma:
1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.
2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion, especially one considered to be absolutely true
Dogma Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
When you can unambigiously prove that you have received a revelation from a God, then we will be in a position to consider whether such revelation is worthy of discussion. Until that moment, dogma merely comes from the minds of men often acting in their own selfish interest.
Science has mechanisms in place to limit the effect of subjectively held opinions or dogma. That's why scientists can be people of many faiths and philosophical persuasions but yet still come to the same conclusions.
However, EXPERIENCE is something else.
It's subjective and can be very flawed.
The materialistic science mentality will not countenance the supernatural for half an instant.
It already has. It has driven the supernatural from our understanding of the universe back to merely the realm of philosophy, religion and quackery.
If you have read many of my posts you may have run across the one where I say I used to subscribe to Skeptical Inquirer which focuses on the paranormal. As I recall, every article claimed to disprove this or that phenomenon under investigation and give a naturalistic interpretation.
I am that confident that the Skeptical Inquirer does a consistent job of debunking the paranormal that I will provide a link to it for those out there that aren't insanely credulous and still retain critical thinking skills:
HTML Meta Tag
My critical thinking skills have always been superior, and I'm as prone to dismissing such experiences on naturalistic terms as you are, only now I know better.
But you are happy to consider purely subjective experiences, that are arguably caused by physchological episodes or schizophrenia, as evidence of the supernatural that no-one else can see. How is that a superior form of critical thinking? You could be living in a fantasy world of your own making and you would have no way of knowing.
Sorry, I know things you do not know.
Agree. You "know" a lot of stuff that is very likely to be totally untrue. Don't apologise. I prefer reality.
That's because you dismiss the testimony of millions of witnesses of all cultures over the millennia. You reinterpret it by "modern" standards and so blind yourself to what it really is.
That you can't see the flaw in this logic is clear evidence of the emotional investment that you have in your religious interpretation of reality.
Sure, throughout history many many people believed in the supernatural. That's because we didn't understand the natural. Now we do. The ancient Gods of the elements, planets, and animals have all given way. We no longer need to invoke supernatural explanations and our Gods have receded to the heavens, out of sight, but not out of mind because of evolutionary need for religiousity still remains.
Study history. Our forefathers got it wrong. Science has provided us with a tool to get a considerable amount of stuff right. And by living in this modern world, sitting at the computer in front of you, you cannot possibly disagree.
Science is out of bounds when it leaves its proper place of understanding the physical world.
Agree to an extent. Most like to emphasise that science answers the how and religion answers the why. But where religion makes claims of supernatural powers affecting the material world, we can use science to investigate those claims.
When it gets into society and personality and spirituality and history it is just an arrogant fool.
You're only saying that because you are uncomfortable with the findings of science when it delves within those realms. IMO it is performing a very valuable sevice as it is a tool to depower the destructive influence of religious extremism. It is doing a fine job of re-assessing Christian history outside of the churche's yoke, and a fine job of reducing religiousity to a very real world concept that can be studied and analysed.
Prepare to become increasingly uncomfortable as science progresses.
Not that it doesn't give some useful information about some things, but overall the "goat herders" got it right.
Er, nope. Medicine, nup. Age of the earth, nup. Origins of the universe, stars and planets, nup. Shape of the earth, nup. Spacial organisation of the solar system, nup. Origins and evolution of life, nup. They pretty much well got nothing right.
The mere characterization of these people as superstitious and primitive shows you are no judge of character, but in thrall to the god of modernity.
I have been impressed by their philosophical insights, and accordingly have been studying more ancient history to get a context. We often forget that there were many great philosophical thinkers around the times the Old Testament was written. Science, as we know it, didn't exist, so it is hardly surprising that they got many concepts wrong. They generally just copied even older supertitious beliefs anyway.
channeling are big. Oracles. Near-death experiences. Out-of-body experiences. Wait and see I'd say.
Channellers just used hot or cold reading to derive their guesses. Oracles? NDE's are oxygen debt: see arachnophilia's post above. Out of body are temporal lobe experiences. Look at that: a whole swath of your demons dispelled in one blow.
You are too credulous, Faith.
James Randi regularly deals with all of the this stuff:
JREF - Home
I guess we're going to get into an "is too - is not" thing here if we don't watch it.
No we wont! History has shown us that supernatural explanations have always given way to natural explanations. The only situations where they haven't is where we have insufficient evidence and can no longer investigate the claim.
Provide one example of of a scenario (that can be re-examined) wherein a supernatural explanation has greater explanatory power.
I've had many many prayers answered.
Care to test your power of prayer?
. Take the Chinese oracle the I Ching and ask it thousands of questions -- you think the question and throw coins to get the answer -- philosophical questions, who it is, what it thinks about such and such, or anything you like. Write down the question before you throw the coins and note the number combination and the answer and any impression you have about the seeming "coincidence" of the answers. I had the impression that the numbers fall within probability but the answers were about 90% uncannily appropriate as to MEANING. But I'm sure it's possible to explain away anything too. AND if there ARE demons controlling these things they may not see fit to play along with you anyway
Ok, if you believe that this test solicits results above probability, submit you test to James Randi and score yourself a million dollars.
Here's another test. Get half a dozen astrologers with lots of experience and good reputation (there are frauds among these too, and some who rely on "psychic power" -- try to screen those out and go for the ones who simply read the chart). Prepare the birth horoscopes (there are websites that will draw them for you -- don't bother with the "readings" offered there) of a dozen or so people who have their birth certificates so the exact time and place of birth is known. They have to be roughly the same age -- within a few years would be ideal -- because the position of the "heavy" or slow-moving planets (Pluto, Uranus, Neptune) will give away who's in what generation. Give the charts to the astrologers and let them study them. Then let the people be interviewed one at a time in some depth by the astrologers all gathered together for the purpose, taking care to avoid anything that might give away age or birthday. If the astrologers are good they should be able to match the person with his/her horoscope with much greater than probability.
Oh God, astrology?
Done. Failed. NEXT!
What do you mean, test astrology? - Skeptico
You really are too credulous.
EDIT: A Christian may not have anything to do with either of the above. This is from my pre-Christian occultic experience. It is forbidden by God to consult oracles and they are associated with demonic activity in the Bible, so even recommending such a study to you is possibly very wrong of me. I hope I don't regret it.
Christians you need not waste you time investigating superntural claims that have already been debunked. Please be very, very careful receiving spiritual advice by people who hold their views dogmatically, do not utilise critical thinking, value their own subjective appraisal of reality above those of others, have visions of mythical creatures and believe they communicate directly with God. History has repeatedly shown us that these people are very, very dangerous.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Faith, posted 06-10-2005 6:05 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Faith, posted 06-11-2005 11:37 AM Gilgamesh has not replied
 Message 87 by Phat, posted 06-11-2005 12:12 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 199 (217329)
06-16-2005 3:49 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by valerieelliott
06-15-2005 12:30 AM


Re: conversion
Hello valerieelliott,
Thank you for taking the time to share your very moving story. I'm am genuinely sorry to hear the tragedy about your brothers and to hear that you have had a very hard time in your life.
If your faith can help you, then I wish you all the best. I hope things take a turn for the better.
People experiencing a life crisis are very open to religious conversion. Organised religion is well aware of this. It is truly unfortunate that other support, professional or family, was not available to you in your time of need.
Remember that just because your need for faith was so strong and that religion provided you with what you needed, you are not immune to the abuse often inherent in organised religion.
I again wish you the very best, valerieelliott, in getting your life back on track.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by valerieelliott, posted 06-15-2005 12:30 AM valerieelliott has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by ringo, posted 06-16-2005 12:15 PM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 199 (219883)
06-27-2005 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by randman
06-25-2005 5:44 AM


Glossolalia (speaking in tongues)
I have studied glossolalia and claims of xenoglossolalia (reputed actual speaking in a foreign language) extensively in Australian churches.
I can speak in tongues to the complete satisfaction of any Christian church I have attended (where they are not aware that I am an atheist). I taught myself the process merely by observation and practice. I have also taught non-Christian friends to speak in tongues to the satisfaction of unknowing Christians. It is a very real-world phenomena.
Besides being a process that can be simply taught and learnt, some less conscious triggers are repeating multi-syllabillic words, particularly with certain consonant combinations, "L" sounds particularly (eg: hallelujah, praise the Lord etc), witnessing others performing glossolalia and singing, praying and chanting.
The actual process is semi-reflexive, a bit like nervously twitching in your leg or tapping your hand, except in this case your tongue is flapping. You then project a vocal sound and patterned rhythmic utterings come forth. With practice and some semi-conscious input, you can develop the technique to sound more language like, by adding pauses, inflection and emphasis. You can even try new techniques to get completely different sounds.
Importantly, the process is simply not unique to Christianity. As ifen stated above, some pagan churches tap into the same phenomena. It has also not regularly been practised by the Christian church throughout it's history and manifestations. Now, as in the past, there have been probably more Christian churches who believe it is a sign of demonic possession as there have been churches who believe it is an essential indicator of being spirit filled.
In my experience Xenoglossolalia, or actually speaking in a foreign tongue unknown to the speaker has never been independently documented and resides in the realms of church hearsay and anecdote.
Randman, if you honestly believe that your wife spoke coherently in a tongue unknown to her, are you prepared to have that claim independently verified?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 06-25-2005 5:44 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by Faith, posted 06-27-2005 1:13 AM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 136 by randman, posted 06-27-2005 1:32 AM Gilgamesh has replied
 Message 160 by lfen, posted 06-27-2005 11:31 AM Gilgamesh has not replied

  
Gilgamesh
Inactive Member


Message 132 of 199 (219884)
06-27-2005 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by MattAShine
06-25-2005 6:38 AM


Hello Matt
Thanks for your post Matt. It made for interesting reading. Consider yourself fortunate that your were not raised in fundamentalism where you would have found it considerably more challenging to shed the yoke of religiousity and develop critical thinking skills.
I agree with Ifen, that this board will often provide great insight into why your decision is sound.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by MattAShine, posted 06-25-2005 6:38 AM MattAShine has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024