Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
While I certainly agree with the above - particularly when it comes to religious nonsense such as speaking in tongues, slaying in the Spirit, holy laughter'(the supposed 'Toronto Blessing'), howling like a wolf, barking like a dog, etc. etc. this does not necessarily mean that "a genuine Jesus experience" would not activate the very same chemical centers of the brain to which you refer.
Of course, the tongue-speakers, etc. could also make this claim, but I think their actions would more dictate the genuine article from the phony or from the 'giddiness' associated with temporary euphoria.
Whatever, it's more tricky or even impossible to determine whether 'one's claimed experience with Jesus' is ACTUAL or not. We can only take - or not take - a person's word for it.
I guess we need to retain a degree of skepticism about what we cannot know or prove. Otherwise, we believe everything we're told. Those who claim 'a Jesus experience' also need to accept that people ARE going to be quite naturally skeptical regarding their claimed experience.
I don't buy the "Toronto Blessing" antics. I think it's a combination of mass hysteria, acting and simply getting caught up in the moment. I mean some of these nuts may be having some kind of euphoric thing going but it would be more like what you saw on Jan 6 in DC.
A genuine "Jesus" experience from what I have read is more like what heroin addicts look like after shooting up--nodding off in a stupor, or cocaine addicts acting a little hyper and over the moon, or sex addicts--well, that ear to ear smile says it all, doesn't it? Come to think of it, I've seen all three in a Christian having a "Jesus" moment.
Now speaking in tongues is an interesting phenomena. What characteristic I notice frequently is a rapid-fire repeating of the same syllable as in
"ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba-ba." All I can think is that if this is the language of the angels then most of them have a stuttering problem.
Most of it is put-on in my opinion, usually by televangelists like the lady below. Her "utterances" are slow-paced, cool and calculated like, "ah-mu-sha-kee-la-ba-ke-tu-an-ah-li-bu-ray-kay-and-aw-to-a-ma-shay et.c etc. Push the video to 0:33 and follow the exact same syllables I wrote. A language expert needs to examine this to see if there is an orderly logic to the sequence of the syllables. My guess is they're just gibberish, but Christians fall hard for this stuff.
He DID leave behind people who witnessed his death and later wrote down what happened. The fact that you don't want to believe, doesn't mean it didn't happen.
The fact you want to believe does not mean it DID happen.
And it is not about what we want, it is about the evidence.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57
You mean, He didn't leave behind any witnesses that *you* think are "credible."
While the Gospels were 'published' so many years after Jesus' crucifixion, it doesn't mean they weren't started while Jesus was still alive.
The problem is, there is no evidence for this. Some of the texts we do know that are early do not use any of the gospel stories, even when they are relevant to the points being made, and we must ask why this is.
What I don't seem to be able to get you to understand, Thrill, is that your focus on the nonsense of the dogma and whether or not it can be validated historically is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT AND UNNECESSARILY DESTRUCTIVE. It undermines the message of Jesus for no good reason, potentially undermines the spiritual development of those who believe you, and will, IMO, cause you many regrets, remorse, and grief in the next life.!!!
You can not get Thrill to understand is because your argument is not logical. The message is in the text you do not want us to validate, and some of that message is not only irrelevant to everyday life, some of it is dangerous. That some people find some good by cherry picking the gospel stories does not mean we should just ignore the history of the early Christian church.
Even if Jesus didn't exist, does that mean that the truth of what he "supposedly" said, wasn't the truth?
Frankly, I don't give two hoots about WHO said that we ALL should "do unto others". I ask myself, 'Does that makes SENSE?"
Would this world be a better place if we DID do unto others?
Mystic's right. So many people are so immature when it comes to this stuff...
Do unto others, women be quiet, do not think for yourself, turn the other cheek, do not eat pork, do eat pork, usw. The message is more than the golden rule, which is not even Christian in origin.
Do unto others, women be quiet, do not think for yourself, turn the other cheek, do not eat pork, do eat pork, usw. The message is more than the golden rule, which is not even Christian in origin.
I said what JESUS said. Jesus said, "Do unto others..." Jesus did NOT say, "Women be quiet."
Jesus did NOT say, "Do not think for yourself." Jesus DID say, "Turn the other cheek." Jesus did NOT say, "Do not eat pork."
And yes the message is more than the Golden Rule. Whether the Golden Rule is Christian in origin is irrelevant to me. Christ never claimed ownership of that rule, but he obviously thought it was important enough to speak of it.
The message is about loving others and loving God.
Personally, I don't get the whole "speaking in tongues" ...thing.
I mean, WHAT does that EVEN mean?
To me, speaking "in tongues" means, that we're all speaking different languages.
I don't get the whole "speaking in tongues" thing to mean, the we have to speak like a five year old, in order to communicate with God...
It would seem that someone came across Paul's "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels ...etc." in 1 Corinthians and decided to run with it. Paul was simply using hyperbole and did not intend 'the angels' part to be taken literally. So-called 'tongues' started at the Azusa Street Revival in 1906 when people began to claim an infilling of the Holy Spirit. And, as so often happens among humans, 'the ridiculous' swept through the gullible crowd like wildfire and 'babble' eventually became an actual Pentecostal 'doctrine'. And, as said, this all came about through one hyperbolic sentence from Paul.
You mean, He didn't leave behind any witnesses that *you* think are "credible."
While the Gospels were 'published' so many years after Jesus' crucifixion, it doesn't mean they weren't started while Jesus was still alive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Diogenes
The fact you want to believe does not mean it DID happen.
And it is not about what we want, it is about the evidence.
We DO have evidence, Harry. But what you want is *proof*. Plus, you want to use today's standards of evidence and apply them to 2000+ years ago.
Do you believe that the Gospels were written overnight? In a week? A month?
Did the authors just sit down one day, and write whatever popped into their heads at the moment? Did they handily have all the tools they needed to write? All the scrolls? All the ink? Were they able to write from start to finish with no interruptions and no mistakes?
Even today, I don't know of a single writer -- even with all of the modern conveniences we have -- who could write a few hundred pages like that, even on a laptop! Even when *I* write some of these posts, it can take me a day or two to write them. And I'm only writing a few hundred words, let alone a few hundred pages...on a computer (Thank you God for the backspace key!). Otherwise, if I had to handwrite these posts, you'd probably see about 10+ crumpled up pieces of paper on the floor next to me.
The point is, that 2000+ years ago, writing was a painstaking effort. Even today, it ain't easy. So, its very possible that the Gospel writers may have begun their 'Hero's Journey' closer to Jesus' crucifixion than we know/believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mink57 View Post
You mean, He didn't leave behind any witnesses that *you* think are "credible."
While the Gospels were 'published' so many years after Jesus' crucifixion, it doesn't mean they weren't started while Jesus was still alive.
The problem is, there is no evidence for this. Some of the texts we do know that are early do not use any of the gospel stories, even when they are relevant to the points being made, and we must ask why this is.[/quote]
No evidence per se. But common sense tells me what I wrote above. Just because something is pubished on a certain day, or even a certain year, doesn't mean it was written on that day or in that year.
It would seem that someone came across Paul's "Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels ...etc." in 1 Corinthians and decided to run with it. Paul was simply using hyperbole and did not intend 'the angels' part to be taken literally. So-called 'tongues' started at the Azusa Street Revival in 1906 when people began to claim an infilling of the Holy Spirit. And, as so often happens among humans, 'the ridiculous' swept through the gullible crowd like wildfire and 'babble' eventually became an actual Pentecostal 'doctrine'. And, as said, this all came about through one hyperbolic sentence from Paul.
Oh brother...
Years ago, I attended a "Christian" church. I wasn't much of a Christian back then, and I was trying to find my way. Anyway, being a newbie at this church, I was brought into a small room. I was placed in a circle with about 10 others. We were all holding hands. The 'leader' in the circle said, "Go!", and suddenly the others in the circle started "speaking in tongues."
Talk about scaring the bejesus out of me!
The woman to my left, threw her head back, closed her eyes and said something like,"She-boo-boo-she-boo-boo-she-boo-boo..." What everyone else was saying sounded like pure gibberish. Within about 30 seconds, I broke the circle, and split. Got a call from one of the attendees the next day. "How come you left so suddenly, Mink?" Uhhh...because I don't need to speak "in tongues" when I talk to God. I can use my OW tongue to talk to Him!
Yeah. You guessed. Never went back to that church.
Again years ago, I did read somewhere that 'someone' (a linguist? I think?) actually "analyzed" (ha, ha) what some of the tongue-speakers were saying. He concluded that they were speaking in some dead language.
I think the whole idea of speaking in tongues means something different than what's circling around in some churches. *sigh*
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Come to think of it, I've seen all three in a Christian having a "Jesus" moment. 
Oh brother...
