Out of body religious experiences

[Rhabbi]

I'd say you've done all the cardinal sins of religious contemplation.

Your first mistake is in your groupings. The error is in assuming we have covered all possible versions of deities already. Even if we have reached the conclusion that there exists a lone intelligent omnipotent being, all today's religions could still all be wrong. You can't line up Islam and Christianity and compare them and from this draw the conclusion that because one doesn't seem to work for you the other does by default.

I admit that my groupings are simplified, and even biased. For one thing pantheism is not the same as polytheism.

To be honest with you monotheism is not even the grouping that appealed the most to me emotionally or intellectually. I preferred a form of solipsism that Robert Heinlein proposed in Stranger in a Strange Land and The Number of the Beast. Multi-person solipsism basically says that the universe is a big joke that we all agreed to play on ourselves.

Not sure how this would fit into the other classifications, but it is the one I was most comfortable with. Trying to keep up with all the ramifications of this theory is always a challenge, and actually ends up with Christianity as a subset thereof.

Second fault is that you assume that if god is good then....well...erm... How could you possibly reason about how a being more intelligent judges and values on moral issues? Let alone a omnipotent. You didn't think that an omnipotent being might have thought of stuff you haven't, did you? It's as if humans is god's pet project and he can empathise with us. Can you empathise with a spider? It's too dumb for us even to try. You don't think that an omnipotents concept of good and evil might be different from ours?

What makes you think I don't accept that? This is a challenge I always present to others, in Christendom we call it putting God in a box. I do not attempt to define what is indefinable by my standards, this is one reason I can accept suffering as part of a larger plan, one that I do not fully understand.

...and then this compulsion to connect this all powerful omnipotent god with the Bible or any religious text! Why even try? What possible evidence could you or anybody come up with to make it even meaningful? What makes you think that anybody in any way have got it even almost right. Let's say for sake of argument that there really exists an all powerful and good omnipotent god, and it speaks to people. Let's also for sake of argument assume that some of those people that know the truth of god have put pen to paper to write about it. They're humans!!!! Humans fuck up and interpret things in ways that aren't true just to fit their world view. Not out of spite or evil, but just out of being human. You also missed the option that Jesus might have been only partly right.

I'd say that the Bible itself proves how people misinterpret. As we all know Jesus didn't write the Bible. The Aryan Bible, Ebionite Bible, Koptic Bible, Donatist Bible and Tawahedo Bible are all major Christian Bibles that all pre-date the Vulgate Bible and all have more in common with each other than with the Versio Vulgata. The Vulgate Bible was quite a radical edit. They're all Christian Bibles, all are the word of god but they're also all different. The Aryan one kept all the angel wars parts which creates a radically different world than the vulgate.

We have the problem of context. In the time around the birth of Christ it was common practice to create myths about kings and emperors which were identical to that of the birth of Jesus. When Julius Caesar was born it was said that a star appeared above his villa and foreign astronomers visited. There's accounts of all the old kings and emperors performing miracles. Witnesses of it was extremely common. This practice even included famous athletes. Nobody believes today that the Mediterranean was any more full of miracle healers than any other period in history. As far as I know all historians agree on that Julius Caesar was just a normal person, even though he was considered a god during his lifetime.

The context tells me that the point of writing in the Bible that Jesus did all the miracles and how he was born, wasn't to say that he had supernatural powers, but simply to emphasize that he really was the new king of the Jews and that he had a normal birth as expected of a king. Which one of the two theories is in your opinion requires the smallest leap of faith? It's also quite possible that Jesus was only a narrative trick. A mythical figure in order to frame a story around. A story with profound implications which may very well have conveyed the truth in an effective way, but none the less a story.

It's quite possible to argue that all the various religions of today are all the result of this omnipotent being talking to people but because of humans doing what humans do best, misinterpret, we've got a plethora of religions of which all are utterly and completely wrong.

Also you must never forget that any action of any beings more powerful than us will always be interpreted by us as actions of an omnipotent being. We don't know better. But just because we can't see that beings limits doesn't mean they aren't there.

I am going on the admittedly biased assumption that if God exists He wants us to know it. I do not think He wants or needs our worship, but unless we were a school project that got tossed into the back of His closet, He did have a reason for creating us. I just assume he wants to communicate that reason. And, yes, I know this is anthropomorphizing, but I am human, and that is what we do.

It is nice to run into someone that knows enough about the various ancient bibles to at least discuss them. I am not trying to defend the Vulgate here though, mostly because I agree that Jerome was biased in his translation, and I consider a lot of what he did to be indefensible.

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This is a thought I grew up with, so yes I have considered it. This still does not rule out the existence of God.

Even if your epiphany was genuine and you really did see the real and existing god you made it perfectly clear that alternatives you allowed yourself to chose between were pretty far from a complete list of possible variations on monotheism.

You really don't think that you chose Christianity because of social or emotional reasons? It was all detached logical reasoning?

Never said it wasn't. We are all products of our culture, something that anthropologist contend with every time they study another culture. the only way to really learn about a culture is to grow up in it, but then all the conditioning becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of it as instinct. I admit to my bias, and am always willing to look at any argument to examine my position and learn.

BTW C.S Lewis faith hinges a lot on morality, (ie Moral Law) being universal. Since it isn't then CS Lewis faith is based on an erroneous conclusion. So much for that. I find it annoying with people who behave like they're masters on a subject in which they're amatures and ignore what all the people doing serious research into it is saying.

I agree with this, which is another reason that I declined to offer a logical proof of God's existence. Lewis made what He thought of as a strong argument for God's existence, but his underlying assumptions are currently being challenged. Nonetheless Lewis's journey from atheism to belief is not contingent on this argument being true, it is simply one of his attempts to try to define the indefinable.

[TomOfSweden]

I admit that my groupings are simplified, and even biased. For one thing pantheism is not the same as polytheism.

To be honest with you monotheism is not even the grouping that appealed the most to me emotionally or intellectually. I preferred a form of solipsism that Robert Heinlein proposed in Stranger in a Strange Land and The Number of the Beast. Multi-person solipsism basically says that the universe is a big joke that we all agreed to play on ourselves.

Not sure how this would fit into the other classifications, but it is the one I was most comfortable with. Trying to keep up with all the ramifications of this theory is always a challenge, and actually ends up with Christianity as a subset thereof.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Descartes was not a proponent of Solipsism. It was just a thought experiment about validity of proof. To date there's no philosopher, (or scientist or psychologist) who has seriously floated the idea that the Solipsism is even worth considering. I'd say it's a gross simplification of what Descartes was trying to say and is purely in the realm of science fiction. Schrödinger wasn't a proponent of Solipsism either in spite of his cat.

What makes you think I don't accept that? This is a challenge I always present to others, in Christendom we call it putting God in a box. I do not attempt to define what is indefinable by my standards, this is one reason I can accept suffering as part of a larger plan, one that I do not fully understand.

So how do you know god is omnipotent? It's a pretty basic part of Christianity isn't it?

I am going on the admittedly biased assumption that if God exists He wants us to know it. I do not think He wants or needs our worship, but unless we were a school project that got tossed into the back of His closet, He did have a reason for creating us. I just assume he wants to communicate that reason. And, yes, I know this is anthropomorphizing, but I am human, and that is what we do.

erm...but with this insight then you know you can't know if god had a reason for creating us, can you? Seriously, god does not want us to know jack shit. If god wanted us to know anything about anything it would make an effort. Right now it feels more like it's trying it's damndest to make it as confusing as possible. A little bit like it would be if god never said or did anything and all we're doing is guessing. Sometimes when things are mysterious, they're mysterious because there's nothing to find. You know, like a cigar might just be a cigar.

It is nice to run into someone that knows enough about the various ancient bibles to at least discuss them. I am not trying to defend the Vulgate here though, mostly because I agree that Jerome was biased in his translation, and I consider a lot of what he did to be indefensible.

Clarke's Third Law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

This is a thought I grew up with, so yes I have considered it. This still does not rule out the existence of God.

You're not exactly putting up a fight here. It's as if you've accepted that your faith is arbitrary. I'd have expected a little bit more here.

Never said it wasn't. We are all products of our culture, something that anthropologist contend with every time they study another culture. the only way to really learn about a culture is to grow up in it, but then all the conditioning becomes so ingrained that we tend to think of it as instinct. I admit to my bias, and am always willing to look at any argument to examine my position and learn.

But isn't the fact that you are Christian in spite of your insights, proof that your aren't willing to look at arguments and learn?

I agree with this, which is another reason that I declined to offer a logical proof of God's existence. Lewis made what He thought of as a strong argument for God's existence, but his underlying assumptions are currently being challenged. Nonetheless Lewis's journey from atheism to belief is not contingent on this argument being true, it is simply one of his attempts to try to define the indefinable.

Again. You agree that we can't know but still make a leap of faith. But you deny it is a blind leap of faith. Ermmm.... does this make sense to anybody or am I just a bit slow.

edit: My problem with Christianity is that it is four distinct faiths.

1) The belief in the supernatural.
2) The belief in a personal omnipotent god which judges you when you die.
3) The stories in the Bible and the claims they make.
4) The moral and ethical guidelines and rules.

None of these are in any way connected and there's no reason to believe in one just because you believe in the other. If you believe in the omnipotent being, there's no way of knowing what it wants, is there? I mean, besides making baseless assumptions

[Rhabbi]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Descartes was not a proponent of Solipsism. It was just a thought experiment about validity of proof. To date there's no philosopher, (or scientist or psychologist) who has seriously floated the idea that the Solipsism is even worth considering. I'd say it's a gross simplification of what Descartes was trying to say and is purely in the realm of science fiction. Schrödinger wasn't a proponent of Solipsism either in spite of his cat.

Not sure where you are going with this. I was just pointing out a part of my journey that I thought pretty enjoyable. Multiperson solipsism is a bit different than solipsism in that everyone has an equal chance to be god.

So how do you know god is omnipotent? It's a pretty basic part of Christianity isn't it?

It is, but does that make it part of my personal belief? I happen to believe in free will, which negates omnipotence. If God knows what I am going to do then there is no free will. This debate has actually raged in Christendom for centuries, and is based on only a few Scriptures that ignore a lot of Scriptures that counter it.

erm...but with this insight then you know you can't know if god had a reason for creating us, can you? Seriously, god does not want us to know jack shit. If god wanted us to know anything about anything it would make an effort. Right now it feels more like it's trying it's damndest to make it as confusing as possible. A little bit like it would be if god never said or did anything and all we're doing is guessing. Sometimes when things are mysterious, they're mysterious because there's nothing to find. You know, like a cigar might just be a cigar.

Maybe we are the effort. Being that He is inherently beyond my understanding I accept that I cannot understand Him or His motives.

You're not exactly putting up a fight here. It's as if you've accepted that your faith is arbitrary. I'd have expected a little bit more here.

I think that what I accept is that my faith appears to be arbitrary to an outside observer. Going back to your experience with your grandmothers voice, if she started giving you advice on what would be happening in the future, and you started following it, it might appear to me that your actions were arbitrary. That does not make them so.

Some of the process I used to arrive at my reasoning has to be internal and cultural. I do not deny this. Does this make it arbitrary?

But isn't the fact that you are Christian in spite of your insights, proof that your aren't willing to look at arguments and learn?

How? My insights have evolved my faith from believing what is taught in the pulpits of American churches to what I now believe. If I have more insights, then I will revise my beliefs. If someone ever manages to prove to me that I am wrong I will listen to them also.

Again. You agree that we can't know but still make a leap of faith. But you deny it is a blind leap of faith. Ermmm.... does this make sense to anybody or am I just a bit slow.

edit: My problem with Christianity is that it is four distinct faiths.

1) The belief in the supernatural.
2) The belief in a personal omnipotent god which judges you when you die.
3) The stories in the Bible and the claims they make.
4) The moral and ethical guidelines and rules.

None of these are in any way connected and there's no reason to believe in one just because you believe in the other. If you believe in the omnipotent being, there's no way of knowing what it wants, is there? I mean, besides making baseless assumptions

I agree, at least in principle. In fact, I would challenge anyone to prove to me that number 2 is supported in the Bible.

One of the things that I have found to be unique about the Bible as a history is that it records the foibles and defeats of the kings as well as their triumphs. Never were the kings of Israel portrayed as being godlike in power and ability, and they lost battles and wars more than once.

Can you point out the problem with the moral and ethical guidelines and rules? It is the basis of most western laws after all. I prefer it to the strict Islamic interpretation of the Koran myself.

[tessa]

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here but Descartes was not a proponent of Solipsism. It was just a thought experiment about validity of proof. To date there's no philosopher, (or scientist or psychologist) who has seriously floated the idea that the Solipsism is even worth considering. I'd say it's a gross simplification of what Descartes was trying to say and is purely in the realm of science fiction. Schrödinger wasn't a proponent of Solipsism either in spite of his cat.

This is classic. Classic Tom indeed. ~applauds~

During the throw's of passion, when all I can seem to muster to say is "Oh God....Oh God!!!..........oooooooooohhhhhhhhh GGGGGGOOOOODDDD!!!!!


Does that count as out of body religious??????

It counts. Sure does.

I would ask why you call out to someone/thing you do not believe in at the most passionate moments of your life.

A most thought-provoking question. Hmm...