derren brown is my god!
I can't imagine not believing in God.
by MsGrowingGirl20 643 Replies latest members private
-
-
PSacramento
I just saw the clip of thelink I posted, not sure of that was the sameone that cantleave suggested.
Giving the benefit of the doubt that it was liegit and not an act, what I saw was pure sugeestive infulence over a person WILLING to be mentally and emotionally manupulated.
WHich can account for many feelings of "Being with god" yes, I agree 100% BUT can't account for those in which the person is not any ant "post -suggested" frame of mind, instances when the "divine feeling" ( for lack of a batter word), just happens.
Fascinating video though, Derren is quite good.
-
PSacramento
Well, without introducing the external stimulation, the feeling wouldn't be able to be reproduced on command.
Other than via "hypnotic" suggestion as in the Derrick Brown clip.
-
AGuest
Greetings, good morning, and peace to you all! I would like to comment on a couple/few things, if I may - thank you! First, this (from dear tec, I think - the greatest of love and peace to you, dear one!):
This, in no way, conflicts with the evidence that I DO have.
Unfortunately, and I know you know this, there are those who purport to state what "evidence" is - for them: something that can be seen. Only. Which is interesting, given that not all can see. Of course, they will move to the next of empirical senses, in order, and say, that if it can't be empirically heard, felt, smelled, or tasted... then it cannot exist. There are MANY things that exist, however, the man is not able to... discern... with his empirical senses, at least not without the assistance of some kind of tool. There are some things that he may NEVER discern... because the tool he needs in order to do so does not exist. Then there are things he CAN discern... that he DOES have the tools for... but HIS lack of faith prevents him. And when I say lack of faith, I don't mean lack of faith in God. I mean lack of faith in himself.
An example: millenia ago there were those who believed man could fly. Most poo-poo'd such an idea because they just couldn't see HOW man could (he had no wings/feathers... tools... to assist him). Some, though, although they'd never SEEN man fly... or even heard of him doing so... BELIEVED that man COULD. On what did they base that belief? Maybe it was on bird's flying. Maybe it was on dreams THEY had of flying. Someone, though, had FAITH... that man COULD fly... and pursued the means for him doing so. Eventually (and a thousands of years later)... someone invented the TOOL(s) by which man CAN fly. Now, did such one(s) do it because a voice told them to/they could? We will never know that. For any to deny it, though, is... well, not all that intelligent, IMHO. The excuse, "Well, such one(s) would have SAID a voice told them," falls short. Because not everyone who HEARS a voice... openly ADMITS that. So, again, WE will never know. But we do know that "something" told them - whether it be themselves... a voice they attributed to themselves... or a voice they knew not to be of themselves.
My point, though, is that they had faith that man could fly... based on SOME kind of evidence... that most others didn't have/couldn't see/hear.
Now, I'd like to address something dear etude (peace to you, as well, dear one!) stated:
Most explorations in Historical Criticism (the examination of the canon) have established the uncertainty of the Bible and therefore the shaky foundations of what most Christians believe.
I want to thank you for this comment and its observation... and point out that this is exactly the problem: MOST (who claim to be christian) have the "foundation" of their belief based on the Bible. Which is FOLLY... and the reason for all of their "mystery"... because the Bible is "uncertain" in many instances. The only way one should put their faith in the Bible is if it were perfect and perfectly intact... and it isn't. But you said "most" christians... and that is the "thing": just as not all who CALL themselves "Israel" ARE Israel... not all who call themselves "christians" are christians.
Rather, like the word faith... and as has been done with the Word (of God)... we... man... have taken those words to mean whatever WE want them to mean... to fit with our teachings/paradigms on God and Christ. "We" take words FROM the Bible and then dismiss their definitions IN the Bible. For example, nowhere... NO WHERE... in the Bible does it refer to itself as the Word of God. To the contrary, it sets forth what... actually, WHO... that Word is. But "we" overlook that, ignore it. Why? Because we CHOOSE to do so. Same thing with the words "faith" (which has a definition) and "christian" (which has a definition). And "Israel". Which has a definition (those of Abraham's seed through his son Isaac, through that one's son, Jacob, renamed "Israel"... and those who attached themselves to that nation by agreeding to ALL of the Law given TO that nation). In doing this, they were allowed to procreate WITH Israel... so that, yes, their children came to have the blood of Israel, thus constituting them Israel.
TODAY, "Israel" means... solely... Jews. But Jews were only 2 tribes of that nation. How do folks get around that? By saying that the other 10 tribes were (and still are) "lost." That they are not known/recognized by MAN, however, does not mean they are lost - that blood is still out there, just as the blood of Jews is still out there.
In the same way, the term "christian" - we can believe what we want, choose whatever definition we wish to... but it means what it means: chosen (anointed) person. And so regardless of what one chooses to CALL oneself... the TRUTH is that calling oneself a "christian" doesn't make one a christian. Any more than, say, a man calling hiimself a tiger makes him a tiger:
He might "look" like a tiger... even sincerely believe himself to BE a tiger... but he isn't a tiger. Why? Because his blood and DNA says he isn't a tiger. Same thing with being a "christian": BLOOD is what says one is a christian... the blood of God, holy spirit... the "oil of exultation" by means of which such ones are anointed/chosen. Without that blood, one may be a DISCIPLE of Christ... but that does not make one a CHRISTIAN.
I would think that someone desirous to live in truth would want to put his or her faith to the test to see if it holds up. That means looking beyond what supports ones already established conviction and going for what contradicts it.
Absolutely! If one wants to live in the TRUTH. And your second comment is so appropo: looking BEYOND what SUPPORTS one's ALREADY ESTABLISHED conviction... and going for what CONTRADICTS it. Which is what we, christians, do. We MUST. Because, if we truly believe in God, then we also know that not all inspired expressions originate WITH God. But I think this statement applies just as much to you... and those who think/[dis]believe perhaps as you do. You are actually the one's with the "already established conviction"... that there is NO God... and who refuse to "look beyond what 'supports'" that conviction... and "going for what contradicts it."
Why, though? You claim that it is because of the evidence you have. Yet, your evidence changes. Often. You then excuse that away by saying "We don't have all the answers; we never say we do; we go where the evidence leads us", etc. But your "evidence" supports YOUR "already established conviction"... does it not? Such that YOU cannot even entertain what contradicts it? And what could contradict it?
A different KIND of evidence... a kind which you are UNWILLING to even entertain. Rather, you have defined "evidence" to fit YOUR [dis]beliefs... such that you are JUST as unmoving in YOUR "convictions"... as you may accuse others of being. You won't allow yourself(ves) to even entertain that there might other... ADDITIONAL... types of evidence... because they don't fit into YOUR definition. But if you look at the etymology of the word, it actually fits that which I and those like me attribute to it. Even more, many even accept as evidence that which is "circumstantial," when there is not actual PROOF of the thing claimed.
My point in all of this is that while you and others might wish to confine certain words to YOUR particular definitions, such is not binding on US. We use such words as they were either originally intended or as they were used/meant/intended by the writer... or Christ (where such words may have been mistranslated/mistransliterated).
That's the kind of examination I suggested you do. There are ways of going about that.
Indeed, there is from this side, as well, and that is truly all WE ask of folks like YOU: an examination, but with the same regard and consideration you wish from us. You wish us to examine things (say, evolution), by reading books, documents, treatises, and reports/analyses... some of which must be purchased... that state (or suggest) that evolution is a FACT. We do, but don't draw the same conclusion. You, though, won't even ENTERTAIN the examination we ask of YOU (as to the existence of God and Christ)... which doesn't include reading at all, but merely LISTENING. Which doesn't cost you a dime. But... you won't. We can read... and read... and read... the books, etc., that you recommend to US... and we DO. Yet, you won't grant us the same consideration and even entertain the possibility that you MIGHT hear. And so you unequivocally reject our request of YOU. Not only reject, but cajole, disdain, ridicule, snort, guffaw... even outright attack... any such request we make.
So, I have to ask you: nothing stops us from examining YOUR evidence... and, again, we do (although we may not come to the same conclusion as you). What, though, stops YOU from examining OUR evidence? We all know the answer: YOU don't receive/accept it AS evidence.
And so, there we are: at a seemingly immovable impasse. So, what now? Live... and let live. Which is what my Lord taught HIS followers... and requires of his Body. And so we do: live... with our beliefs... and let YOU live... with yours.
I will address something asked by dear John Mann (peace to you, as well!), which I believe deserves a response... in a separate post.
Again, peace to you!
A slave of Christ,
SA
-
cantleave
It is the programme PSac, you need to watch the program from the beginning, unfortunately channel 4 seems to have blocked it from outside the UK.
Hypnotism / suggestion are powerful stimuli but then so is self delusion! At the begging of the program he puts a number of people in a dark room and tells them it is hanuted. All but one person (the girl he uses for the experiment above) see "ghosts".
-
PSacramento
Hypnotism / suggestion are powerful stimuli but then so is self delusion! At the begging of the program he puts a number of people in a dark room and tells them it is hanuted. All but one person (the girl he uses for the experiment above) see "ghosts".
Oh yes absolutley agree on all aspects.
Too many times we see exactly what we WANT to see or what we NEED to see, even if it is not there.
A little cure FYI:
In the martal arts there is a subsytem that deals with using the voice to manipulate another, in japanese it is called "Kiaijutsu" ( Technqiue of harnomized breathe/inner strength).
Most people are familair with the MA yells and breathing exercises used to "phyche" oneself or other up for battle, but it goes FAR beyond that, into mind and behaviour manipulation via voice tones and such.
-
EntirelyPossible
It's almost like a religious experience can be induced artificially...
-
PSacramento
It's almost like a religious experience can be induced artificially...
Sure, probably because we are hardwired for it, no?
What we are seeing is that some type of religious like experince can be induced by either direct stimulation of certain parts of the brain or via suggestion on a person predisposed to feel a certain way about something that can lead to that religious feeling.
-
tec
It's almost like a religious experience can be induced artificially...
Of course it can. Experiences and feelings can be manipulated by someone who knows how to manipulate such things, and emotions are powerful things.
I don't think anyone here has thought otherwise.
Derrin led her exactly where he wanted her to be; setting the stage, the atmosphere, the tone, the content.
What of those whose faith is not based on this 'religious experience'?
Peace,
tammy
-