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

It's part of a large class of behaviours going back a long time. The shamanic trance dances, the utterances of oracles in trance were prior to Christianity. The forms and settings of the culture and belief shape and condition this behaviour so that it varies in expression in different religions or belief systems. I do think the engine is all in the brain and the setting and controls can be the greater milieu.

lfen

In those other cultures it also doesn't occur outside specific religious meanings. I'm sorry, nothing in the physical mechanical realm, the brain, the neurons, whatever, is EVER going to explain MEANING or occurrences within a meaningful context.

The devil in the Bible exited however, and the damage was done in the process. The idea that they get to have a good time tossing around their victim before they exit stretches the Biblical model to say the least IMHO. But I'm kind of sorry I posted those examples as I don't really want to identify anyone. I hope you will not mind if I go back and erase them. I'll know what you are referring to if you bring it up again.

You can erase. Fine with me. If the end result was good though, it was probably a good thing.

Having been involved in that sort of thing, not the tossing part mind you, I can attest that it's not the easiest thing all the time, until one learns and grows more in that arena of ministry.

Even the Lord rebuked a devil to leave and it did not go right away, but stayed around and begged Him to be sent to the pigs. So if people have to struggle a little more than Jesus, it's not really unbiblical.

Same feeling on healing. Healing is just as important for Americans as primitive people. God has always done miracles, in the Old and New Testament. The cessationist argument is not supported scripturally, and moreover, I would argue that Western agnostics need a touch from God in that arena, both to confirm the gospel and to actually bring healing, just as much as 3rd world people.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 03:37 PM

Gilgamesh, you've spent a lot of patient time here today. Thanks for reviving this “exciting” thread. Yet, this seems to be stepping on “dangerous ground” or “holy ground”, if you will.

Jonathan Edwards (late 1700’s) after preaching “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” describes a number of “curious” conversions that occurred in Northampton, CN … in his “Religious Affections” (I think). He reported that even whole towns became “revived”. He described in extensive and dramatically graphic detail how many “experienced” profound euphoria and/or melancholy at the very mention of gospel-scriptures.

He then wrote about how many “fell away” after about 2 years and that the town(s) settled to their pre-conversion state(s).

But he also cited not a few individuals who faced death with great joy in Christ. “David Brainard”, for example, spent his dying days “in house” and even passed his fatal pneumonia to one of Edward’s own caretaking daughters. Edwards wrote: “It pleased the Lord to take her”.

Edwards refuted Wesley sharply. Yet both men described numerous conversions in a cautious manner. I strongly respect both men for peddling hope in a personal Redeemer.

I don’t know where you really stand on the issue, but I HOPE SOMEONE PEDDLES THE GOSPEL STRONGER HERE vs. decaying devolving science-rant and evolution. I strongly crave: regeneration, rebirth, eternal-life, life in a Redeemer, singing in ecstasy unto God, and other joyful metaphysical phenomena.

My personal conversion experience: One day I seemed to die in my sins with Christ, be buried in a deep grave with Christ, then raise again alive in Christ. Redeeming love is my theme.

All honest Christians have major besetting issues (sins primarily) and crave their Redeemer, thus. Their honest craving for conversion and/or renewal is a “gift” that indirectly blesses you and I. Even ToEists are careful in this forum when stepping on “holy ground”.

Please allow the gospel to be peddled to the metal, even if it seems to be proselytizing. Problems are great where I live here in Alabama. Any hopeful-Christ-like conversions at this point would be appreciated.

Randman wrote:

Your initial assertion is wrong, and that sort of makes the rest of your post inconsequential. The idea that there is no intellectual path to God is not substantiated. In fact, quite the opposite for many people, although most people probably do not rely on an intellectual path for much of anything, even those that claim they do!

Disagree. I have muddied the waters be reiterating my thesis that there is no intellectual path to God, for an informed sceptical intellectual, but I'll save that debate for another thread. It is relevant though because it emphaises why the emotive conversion experience (which I have defined in this thread previously) is a brilliant tool for transcending intellectual obstacles to faith. I have witnesses many conversions of non-believers via the conversion process, believers who then are incapable of intellectually rationalising their beliefs without reference to the conversion (or personal experience of God as they call it) or emotional appeals.

I grant there may be some exceptions; probably those who actually find Christian apologetics convincing. If someone here has identified a genuine intellectual path to God that could convince an informed sceptical intellectual, without the need of references to personal subjective experiences/conversion processes or emotive appeals, by all means open a thread and post the good news.

Randman wrote:

But you will just move the goalposts. If someone proves a medical miracle happened at a meeting where the person was prayed for, you will demand a "double-blind study" just as I thought.

No I wont move the goalposts. I'll demand a double-blind study from the outset. You'd be crazy to demand anything less from modern medical therapies and drugs, why accept anything less for spiritual quakery?

It's no biggie. As I stated the is a very sensible reason you guys don't submit to tests, it's because like other claims of supernatural powers, when you analyse them in controlled studies they are exposed for what they really are.

As far as whether she was true, I don't know, but she was real, as were the healings.

Were the claims of healing powers submitted to double blinded test?

Did you read this article?

http://www.csicop.org/si/9709/beyer.html

This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-27-2005 08:24 PM

I think there are double-blind studies involving prayer in general, but in terms of the gifts of the Spirit, God is not subject to man dictating when He should do something, and that would probably be a spiritual violation, imo, of the whole thing.

It has nothing to do with your claims of fear it will be exposed as false or something, but if you want to believe that, no one is stopping you. It doesn't change the fact you are beleiving a lie though.

It'd be sort of like if I said, hey, I don't believe your wife has an orgasm, if you pardon my crudeness. How about you let us do some tests with her to see if she's really faking it or not?

Oh, you don't want to do that. Well, that's because she's faking it. We knew it all along!

There is a holy aspect to the demonstration of the power of God, and I am not saying God cannot lead people to advertise the miracles, but at the same time, Jesus was pretty clear on what He said to the people that demanded a "sign" before they would believe and after He had already been doing miracles. He rejected them.

It's sort of like tempting God, saying hey, God, I am not going to believe you unless I can control what you do and subject you to this testing process set up by us and where you perform when we ask you to.

It just doesn't pass the smell test so to speak.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-27-2005 09:47 PM

Randman wrote:

I think there are double-blind studies involving prayer in general, but in terms of the gifts of the Spirit, God is not subject to man dictating when He should do something, and that would probably be a spiritual violation, imo, of the whole thing

Pretty Pink Pixies are also not subject to man's dictations. Such an argument does not provide credence for their existence, it's just an explanation as to why they perform no better than random chance.

The "no test" thing is just an ancient doctrinal cop-out that some thoughtful scribe/church elder wrote in to early doctrine to prevent Christians jumping off cliffs to test God's ability to make them fly.

Please reference the double blinded prayer studies.

It has nothing to do with your claims of fear it will be exposed as false or something, but if you want to believe that, no one is stopping you. It doesn't change the fact you are beleiving a lie though

My knowledge is subject to test, scrutiny and revision, and I regularyly test it with my life. Your's is held immune from such examination. Which has the greater chance of being fallacious?

It'd be sort of like if I said, hey, I don't believe your wife has an orgasm, if you pardon my crudeness. How about you let us do some tests with her to see if she's really faking it or not? Oh, you don't want to do that. Well, that's because she's faking it. We knew it all along!

Crude it may be, but poignant example nevertheless. Unless I allowed you to scientifically test, I would have no basis to ever really know. I may be totally wrong in believing that I pleasure my wife.

My fear that maybe I am wrong would be the only motivation for refusing to submit her to the test...

There is a holy aspect to the demonstration of the power of God, and I am not saying God cannot lead people to advertise the miracles, but at the same time, Jesus was pretty clear on what He said to the people that demanded a "sign" before they would believe and after He had already been doing miracles. He rejected them

Um, what about doubting Thomas?

It's sort of like tempting God, saying hey, God, I am not going to believe you unless I can control what you do and subject you to this testing process set up by us and where you perform when we ask you to.

No, it's sort of life saying; "hey hyperthetical Christian God, all of the claims of prayer/faith healing/miracles etc look awfully like a mix of wishful thinking, heresay, anecdotal nonsense, confirmation bias, post-hoc reasoning and in some cases outright fraud, all easily explained in terms of the natural world, so how about giving me legitimate a reason to believe in your existence?"

This message has been edited by Gilgamesh, 06-27-2005 10:56 PM

My fear that maybe I am wrong would be the only motivation for refusing to submit her to the test...

Somehow I doubt that...

My knowledge is subject to test, scrutiny and revision, and I regularyly test it with my life. Your's is held immune from such examination. Which has the greater chance of being fallacious?

That's where you are wrong. Christians also regularly test their beliefs with their lives as well, sometimes paying a dear price for that testing, especially overseas.

On doubting Thomas, God will sometimes answer an individual in a crisis of faith so to speak, where they doubt, but Thomas' tone was of different in some respects. He doubted the Lord has risen, but He didn't demand the Lord come and show Him. He said he would not believe otherwise, but he didn't presume to the other apostles and say, hey, unless you make Him come down and perform for me, in a double-blind study nonetheless, I won't believe.

I've had the Lord answer my doubts in a similar manner to the way Thomas' doubts, but I cannot make Jesus perform for you. If he chooses to do so, that's how it will be, and if not, he won't. He's God, not us.

On the double-blind studies, do your own research. There have been hundreds of studies done involving testing whether there is a statistical improvement for people prayed for and those not prayed for.

If you want to know the truth, go look for it. It's not my job to try to cram it down your throat, although I've been known to try.

Btw, please do talk to God about it, seriously. Tell Him you'd believe if He gave you some reason to believe, and tell Him your thoughts.

Just don't ask me to get in the way there. It's not that I don't want to take a lot of time trying to prove God to you. It's just it won't do much good until you are already looking, for real.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-28-2005 12:36 AM

This message has been edited by randman, 06-28-2005 12:37 AM

uncompromising.

= hard.

forgiveness = compromise.

Hell is very real

and a god that punishes his children for all eternity is kind of a hard-ass, dont you think?

---

אָרַח

God's presence can be overwhelming.

yes. it can.

the bible reports people being killed just by getting too close, or seeing god.

---

אָרַח

There's more to the story than that. He "fills all in all."

But as far as the theological understanding of why a loving God would create hell, or allow people to go there, the basic concept is answered by looking at this world and reality. If God is real, and He is, He then allows for tremendous suffering right now.

That's a basic question people have to deal with.

Jesus' message is that God is a Father who loved the world so much He sent His Son, etc,...but Jesus warns of hell quite dramatically.

But I note you add some qualifiers such as "for all eternity" that could be interesting to consider.

What does that mean, "all eternity"?

Is God limited in His ability to save by time? How do "all things become new"?

Yes, that's true,and and the Bible reports people being "filled with the Spirit" to the point of appearing drunk as well.

This message has been edited by randman, 06-30-2005 02:31 PM

arachnophilia

the bible reports people being killed just by getting too close, or seeing god.

You do realize that this statement cannot be an accurate report of an event do you not?

Think about what it is saying and then ask yourself how could anybody ever make such a report without first losing their life? Ergo,if someone makes the statement that you can get killed by getting to close to,or seeing God they cannot have known such to be true without forfeiting their own life to obtain this evidence and so the report could never "make the rounds" so to speak.

Come to think of it,they cannot even get this second hand as the same restriction applies to anyone.

This message has been edited by sidelined, Fri, 2005-07-01 12:55 AM

---

In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
Douglas Adams