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

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?but what i meant was that i'm talking about the ritual, but the transition to the mindse:, the initial accepting of the belief system that prerequisites the ritual.

---

אָרַח

i fail to see the difference. why should one mythology be accepted over the other? it has a perfectly rational explanation, and more importantly can be replicated in a laboratory setting. actually, it is. most of the people in the satanic ritual abuse witchhunt were adults, although some were children. it seemed to make no difference, really. it was all about the religious and/or psychological atmosphere. yes, but as far as i know, they don't accept it with the same degree of reality people in christendom do. they percieve a disjoint between spiritual and physical. and that the physical is fake.i'm not really arguing with your point though. paul says all have sinned. he's talking about the concept i am: we can't escape our nature. not that we are punished for adam's sin.paul's also wrong. according to the bible, there are people without sin. look up the orthodox jewish position on the matter. i bet you'll find it says the same thing. and they're dealing with the same exact text paul is - genesis 3. paul is interpretation, and you quote him as scripture. when the pieces don't fit, some of them have to be from the wrong puzzle. look up the orthodox jewish interpretation on that too, while you're at it. i bet you'll find that says the same thing too. wonder what they're basing it on?but here, we'll follow logic for a second. did god want jesus's sacrifice to happen?

---

אָרַח

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

Hello Phatboy: 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. I have tended to find quite the opposite. 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.

arachnophilia wrote: Agree on all.

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.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.This message has been edited by Faith, 06-08-2005 09:29 PM

I'd be happy to answer your post but it's off topic here I believe.

Faith wrote: Go for it.

Hi, Gil, dunno if these sites wil help you but interesting reading:apophenia - The Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comhttp://www.igpp.de/english/counsel/project.htmpareidolia - the Skeptic's Dictionary - Skepdic.comSide dish: 'touch--falling back' is a well-recognised, fast inductive method of hypnosis.

Faith wrote: 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. 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 - HomeI 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?

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: Emphasis added.This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-08-2005 10:39 PM

it's ok, we should save it for another time.

---

אָרַח

Feel free arachnophilia.

As Believers, we often try so hard to convince everyone else to be agreeable to the absolute that we have embraced. This is human nature and is common among Christians. Consider, however, that it was God Himself who reached out to humanity...ourselves collectively in a total disagreeable state...and accepted (created) the possibility that ALL can be saved. Even though He basically says that many are called and few chosen, He never makes "many" or "few" an absolute value. He is thus saying that a majority will be called and a minority chosen. Similarly, we as Christians need to realize that there will surely be many others who will NEVER agree with us...and yet...like God...we must keep the door always open. It is not for us to warn them that it will soon shut! It is not for us to choose except to choose Him! (sorry, Gilgamesh...I wandered a bit off topic...PB)This message has been edited by Phatboy, 06-09-2005 02:15 AM

Hi, Gil, while there are undoubtedly individual epiphanies, I think the main point in considering conversions/deconversions is to weigh in group-think. Whether it`s religious, political, a member of a football crowd, or keeping up with community trends, group-think sets the pace. I guess wanting some support for our psychological needs means we have to compromise somewhere along the line. Until the stress of comforming becomes too great and we have to make the decision to bend or retreat.
I worked and socialised with quite a few JW`s and never failed to be amazed at the extent they could accomodate contrary evidence. No price too great to remain part of the circle. Of course, once a member had decided to escape, the full panoply of group-think anger was brought to bear--shunning by members, family, abuse, ridicule. It took a determined person to break away. Then they had to shed the accumulated baggage---Bible interpretations, mixing with evil atheists, even reading banned or discouraged matter. I salute those who showed their courage and made the transition.