astral projection is biblical

[Jollybear]

Then perhaps you might like to know how the prayer used by every Orthodox Christian before studying the Scriptures begins:

"Illumine our hearts, O Master Who loves mankind, with the pure light of Thy divine knowledge, and open the eyes of our mind to understand Thy Gospel teachings..."
Also, all Christians have the Holy Spirit inside of us, it's just a matter of asking Him to illuminate our understanding.
If you don't connect with God, then you're not praying at all.
Correct. We are not Pharisees. In Orthodoxy, simply paying attention in the divine services is considered one of the best ways to learn the Orthodox Faith, because of how rich in meaning, Scripture and teaching they are.

I agree. But Just because one can grow in the knowledge of God through these things done correctly, does not mean one cannot receive any knowledge of God through any other avenue, because there is many ways up the mountain. You heard the expression before, many roads that lead to Rome?

Yet it would not happen at all if God would not allow it.

This is where I think are greatest focus should pick away at now.

Thanks for the physics lesson.

They may have an OBE on their own, but they would never enter Heaven unless God allowed it and helped them get there.
I'm quite aware of the health benefits of meditation. It's impressive stuff.

Ok, some people have a spontaneous OBE, but yet don’t enter heaven. Yet they had that OBE without meditation, would you say there spontaneous OBE was caused by God? Even though they did not enter heaven?

 

[Shiranui117]

Very cool. I like exercise science myself, I do go to the gym and workout and eat right. I find that stuff interesting too.

I think people overcomplicate it sometimes though. Some people who are skinny say they tried everything to gain muscle and it didn’t work. And others who are overly fat say they tried everything to lose weight and it did not work.

If the skinny guy would just eat more and gain weight and exercise 2 to three times a week at the same time, he would gain muscle. If the person who is fat, would eat less calories and exercise three to four times a week, they would lose weight and fat.

It’s so simple. Usually the problem is though, the person not gaining muscle, who thinks he is eating enough, is TRULY NOT eating ENOUGH. He just needs to EAT MORE, and if that don’t work, then eat MORE. And the person not losing weight, they need to exercise MORE, or eat LESS, and if that don’t work, exercise even MORE, or eat even LESS.

Everyone wants a short cut. Give me a muscle building powder, I drink one scoop of this and I’ll look like Arnold, and give me a weight loss pill to lose 100 pounds. Haha! There are no short cuts in life.

And then even those who do get into great shape, either from losing a lot of fat or gaining some muscle, EVEN they are still going to reach a genetic ceiling, and the only way to break it is through drugs, which is dangerous.

Agreed on all counts. I just enjoy learning about the physiology of the body, what works for a certain goal, what doesn't, and how can it move and flow?

Ok, in Colossians 3:1-2 it says “Since, then, you have been raised with Christ, set your hearts on things above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God.”

Now, notice, this is not just talking about virtues of heaven, such as the list of things below the verse, that you quoted. It mentions objects of heaven, such as, things above, WHERE Christ is, SEATED at the RIGHT HAND of God. So, notice the objects mentioned? Not virtues, but objects? There is a “seat”, there is “Christ” on that seat. And there is the “right hand of God”. Those things are objects, not virtues. So, set your hearts on things above, not just the virtues, but the objects, as mentioned.

So, it’s BOTH the objects, which I quoted, and the virtues, below this verse, which you mentioned. It’s both, because, both are mentioned in the passage.

Fair, but this is still not an exhortation on our part to go try and visit Heaven through an OBE.

Also, it says we are RAISED with Christ. What is raised? Obviously not our body, so it’s our spirit. So, then by implication, it stands to reason, we can project our spirit consciousness to where Christ is seated.

We are raised bodily and spiritually through Christ from the death of sin into the life of God. The raising of our spirit is not on a locational level, but on an existential level--from a state of death, decay, mortality, pollution, loneliness and darkness to a state of life, incorruption, purity, communion and light.

Yea, but I don’t want to see in order to believe, I want to see in order to be encouraged in what I already believe.

What do you need encouraged in? (Not a rhetorical question, an honest one)

What’s wrong with seeking the spectacle miracles and wonders?

Because there are far more important things, like seeking virtue, seeking love for God and for neighbor, and forgiveness of our sins. If we have these things, but never see any spectacular miracles or wonders, then we shall be saved. But if we see the spectacles and do not acquire virtue, love and forgiveness, then we will perish.

Even though Jesus said “a wicked generation asks for a miraculous sign”, nevertheless, Jesus still, at times, did miraculous signs. Turning water into wine, walking on water, withering a fig tree, calming a storm, these would be classified as wonders and spectacles. Oh the miraculous catch of fish in the nets. Oh, the catching a fish and finding a coin in it, in fulfillment of his prediction.

Yes, to prove that He is God incarnate, and to teach the people a lesson.

But also, everything in the bible has a context, and deals with motives. When Jesus said a wicked generation asks for a sign, he was dealing with the motives of the people he was addressing. Not everyone who asks for a sign is asking for the same reasons.

Here is a list of diverse motives behind asking the same question.
1: person asks for a sign because they don’t believe unless they see one
2: person asks for a sign because they have a bias against the person they are asking, they assume the person won’t be able to provide the sign, and then they can attempt to make them look like a fraud because of it. Even if the person provided the sign, they would still not believe, they would dust it under the rug, or muster it up to natural causes and coincidence, and then still try to make the person look like a fraud.
3: Person asks for a sign because they love to be tickled.
4: person asks for a sign because they need encouragement of the dry journey of life. (this is me).

I think the people Jesus was addressing was number 2, even logic would say, number 2 would easily be classified as “wicked”, which is the word Jesus used. However, he could have lumped in there number 1 and 3 as well possibly. But, number 1 and 3 are obviously not as wicked as number 2.

Number three is just as sinful as number 2, in my book; it assumes that the workings of God are merely for our entertainment, and not to admonish us and urge us to repentance. Number 1 is an honest person; they see no evidence, but were they to see it, they would believe. They don't have any faith, sure, but at the very least, they are honest and open.

Also, what do you mean, needing encouragement for the dry journey of life?

I agree. But Just because one can grow in the knowledge of God through these things done correctly, does not mean one cannot receive any knowledge of God through any other avenue, because there is many ways up the mountain. You heard the expression before, many roads that lead to Rome?

My point has been, a state of ecstasy doesn't inherently teach us more than what we are able to learn and experience otherwise through other practices and experiences in the Christian faith.

Ok, some people have a spontaneous OBE, but yet don’t enter heaven. Yet they had that OBE without meditation, would you say there spontaneous OBE was caused by God? Even though they did not enter heaven?

I don't know.

 

[Shiranui117]

Ok, well, in that case, when Jesus said “I am the bread” and if this meant literally, then that means Jesus was walking around over in the east as a walking loaf of bread. People would have seen a loaf of bread, literally walking around. Just imagine what would have gone on. Little child says “look momy, it’s a loaf of bread, it’s walking, it’s talking” and the momy looks and is like “oh my gosh!” she looks at her husband and says “Charles, look, a walking loaf of bread” and he looks and is like “nah, it’s gotta be a costume, lets go check.” So Charles goes over and checks, and then he realizes it’s a real loaf of bread walking, talking and hearing. And then he goes “oh my gosh!” and then the loaf of bread says “if you don’t eat a piece of me, you will not have eternal life” and Charles is like “oh my gosh”! lol…..Also, if the crowd really saw Jesus as a literal loaf of bread, they would have no problem eating his flesh, because it would not be flesh, skin, blood, and bone. It would be, BREAD. But, it obviously was not bread as in the literal sense.

Jesus was connecting the manna that rained down upon the Hebrews to His descending from Heaven to give life to the world. In both cases, this bread is received by the people and eaten; the Israelites gathered the manna and made it into cakes, whereas Jesus dwelt among the people of Israel and instituted the Eucharist.

Also, if Jesus meant literal, then when Jesus said that “I am the good shepherd” he must have meant literal for that too?

Sheep aren't the only thing that get shepherded, you know. People can be shepherded as well.

Also when Jesus said “I am the lamb” he must have meant that literal too?

Jesus never called Himself the Lamb. John the Baptist called Him the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world--but this is because Jesus would be playing the same role as a lamb in being led to the slaughter to bear the iniquities of the people.

But, how can he be literally a loaf of bread and literally be a lamb at the same time? Was a lamb walking around doing miracles and talking in greek or Aramaic with a mans voice? Imagine that one too. Another strange sight to see.

Jesus is not literally a walking loaf of bread. A loaf of bread is, however, mystically His Body.

Also, Jesus said that he was the light of the world. Was a literal ball of light floating around, talking to people and doing things? Imagine the light causes bread or wine to go up to it’s mouth and start eating and drinking?

Surely you remember Mount Tabor, where Jesus shone as the sun. Jesus is He Who illuminates all the world, as the Gospel of John states in the first chapter.

He also said that he was the “way” the “truth” and the “life”. Ok, what would that look like? There is no way to physically describe those things.

Jesus is God, so He is Truth and Life. He is also the One Who bridged the gap of alienation between God and man, and so He made of Himself a way back to the Father.

Jesus is called the Rock. Does this mean a rock was walking around, with a mouth and two eyes and arms and legs coming from it talking and doing things? Was he literally a rock?

He is called Rock in a very specific context--that is, He is the foundation on which the Church rests. He is also spoken of the Rock that poured forth streams of life-giving water for the Hebrews in the desert.

You see, obviously this stuff was all symbolic language Jesus was using. It’s like dream language, it’s not literal, it’s symbolic and thus needs to be interpreted.

The people who personally knew the Apostles certainly didn't seem to think so. Why don't you consult again what St. John the Evangelist's own personal student said on the matter? He surely knows what his teacher meant when he conveyed that story in the Gospel.

I mean, if the bread and wine at church really was his literal flesh and blood, then why is it that when I eat and drink it, I never taste blood or flesh in my mouth? I always taste bread and wine. The flavor and the texture is always bread and wine. If it was literal, then I would taste the texture of flesh and blood. And I know what flesh and blood taste like because I tasted my own blood through cuts many times and I tasted my own flesh through biting my calluses. So, I know what flesh and blood taste like and the thing at church does not taste anything like flesh and blood.

That is because the bread and wine are mystically transformed into His Body and Blood, in a way that we don't entirely understand. You can consult the Roman Catholic teaching on transubstantiation if you absolutely demand a logical explanation on how an ineffable miracle of God happens, though.

That being said, there are numerous well-known miracles of either people seeing the Eucharist as being a piece of bloody flesh--this happened at least once among the Desert Fathers after one of them, like you, doubted whether the Eucharist was truly the Lord's Body and Blood. Here's the story below:

This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, 'Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete he was deceived and said, "The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol."

Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, "Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol."

The old man said, "it is I who have said that." Then the old men exhorted him saying, "Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ."

The old man said to them, "As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced." So they said, "Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us." The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed in these words, "Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ."

The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, "Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward." God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold an angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child's blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angel also cut the child in pieces.

When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, "Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood." Immediately the flesh which he held in his hand became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, "God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith."Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labour. So all three returned with joy to their own cells.'

There are other miraculous stories involving the Eucharist here.

 

[Jollybear]

Agreed on all counts. I just enjoy learning about the physiology of the body, what works for a certain goal, what doesn't, and how can it move and flow?

Fair, but this is still not an exhortation on our part to go try and visit Heaven through an OBE.

True it’s not a direct exhortation to project to heaven, but I am focusing on the words “set your hearts on things (objects and virtues) on things above, where Christ is seated”. So, usually to set your heart in a location, is to wish to be there, visit there, project there.

If I were to say my heart is set on things of Canada, that would mean I want to go there.

We are raised bodily and spiritually through Christ from the death of sin into the life of God. The raising of our spirit is not on a locational level, but on an existential level--from a state of death, decay, mortality, pollution, loneliness and darkness to a state of life, incorruption, purity, communion and light.

True, but heaven is also locational, not just a state of being too.

What do you need encouraged in? (Not a rhetorical question, an honest one)

I need encouragement in the power and glory and wonder and bliss of that place and that realm. Why do I need it? Here is an analogy to help you understand this: A child’s dad, whom they are very close, goes to work, so he leaves the child in the car of his uncle, whom, the uncle is ok, but they are nothing like dad. Well, 8 hour’s go by, the child knows his dad is real and they will meet soon, but he can’t wait. He is getting dad sick. He knows his dad is with him in thought, but still, it’s not quite enough to KNOW this. It’s also not enough to know his dad is coming soon to get him. He needs to be with his dad, NOW. He is getting weary of the wait.

I am getting weary of this journey of life. This realm is so mundane, so wearisome. Just like Solomon said “everything is wearisome, a chasing after the wind”. I have had many tastes of his presence and that glory of that realm, but I need more, for it’s way better and greater then this realm by far. This realm pales in comparison.

Or think of the Israelites, in the desert. This life journey is like the desert. Along the journey, we need that refreshment, those oasis’s of spiritual experience, the wonder and glory type of experiences.

Because there are far more important things, like seeking virtue, seeking love for God and for neighbor, and forgiveness of our sins. If we have these things, but never see any spectacular miracles or wonders, then we shall be saved. But if we see the spectacles and do not acquire virtue, love and forgiveness, then we will perish.

This is true, the virtues save, and the wonders do not, however, having the virtues along with seeing the wonders, that is the best of both worlds, is it not?

Yes, to prove that He is God incarnate, and to teach the people a lesson.

Other men of God in scripture did wonders and they were not proving themselves as God.

Number three is just as sinful as number 2, in my book; it assumes that the workings of God are merely for our entertainment, and not to admonish us and urge us to repentance. Number 1 is an honest person; they see no evidence, but were they to see it, they would believe. They don't have any faith, sure, but at the very least, they are honest and open.

Also, what do you mean, needing encouragement for the dry journey of life?

True, the wonders of God are not for entertainment, but for lessons, but the wonders of God can encourage us.

What do I mean by needing encouragement? Look at John the Baptist when he was in prison? He experienced the glory and wonders and power of God in his life. He KNEW it was real. But when he was in prison, he sent a message via his disciple to Jesus to ask “are you the one, or should we expect another?” and Jesus KNEW why John was asking this, Jesus knew John knew and SAW what he did when the voice spoke from heaven and a dove rested on Christ after he baptized him. He also knew John witnessed miracles. So Jesus knew John was not asking this because he did not believe, or did not have experiences or did not have evidences, for he did. Jesus knew, it was because John was getting discouraged and so what was his answer to be sent back via the disciple? It was “go tell John what you have seen and heard, the blind receive sight, the lame walk, leprosy is cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised and the gospel is preached to the poor.”

In other words, Jesus knew that John NEEDED the WONDERS in order to be encouraged. Did Jesus respond like “John, how dare you want encouragement, you should just hang on” lol. No, he told him what he needed.

My point has been, a state of ecstasy doesn't inherently teach us more than what we are able to learn and experience otherwise through other practices and experiences in the Christian faith.

Actually, I think ecstasy can teach us equally what other things in the Christian life can teach. If you go to heaven, and see Christ directly and tour heaven, those experiences can teach you things. All experiences teach things.

I don't know.

Recap. The question was: those people who have spontaneous OBE’s without meditation, but don’t enter heaven, did God cause that or not? Your answer is, you don’t know. Ok, fair, so the next question is, what’s your VIEW on it? Did God cause it or not? I’m not asking you if you know it, but what’s your view on it?

 

[Jollybear]

Jesus was connecting the manna that rained down upon the Hebrews to His descending from Heaven to give life to the world. In both cases, this bread is received by the people and eaten; the Israelites gathered the manna and made it into cakes, whereas Jesus dwelt among the people of Israel and instituted the Eucharist.

Right, but the manna was manna and Jesus was flesh and bone.

Sheep aren't the only thing that get shepherded, you know. People can be shepherded as well.

Right, but are people LITERALLY sheep? No. It’s a parable. Or a symbol.

Jesus never called Himself the Lamb. John the Baptist called Him the Lamb of God, Who takes away the sins of the world--but this is because Jesus would be playing the same role as a lamb in being led to the slaughter to bear the iniquities of the people.

Right, but was Jesus literally a lamb? Or is it a metaphor? A symbol?

Jesus is not literally a walking loaf of bread. A loaf of bread is, however, mystically His Body.

Mystically his body? What does that mean? Didn’t you say Jesus is literally bread? That the bread is literally his flesh? So, what do you mean now when you say the bread is mystically his flesh? Does mystically mean the same as literally? Define mystically for me?

Surely you remember Mount Tabor, where Jesus shone as the sun. Jesus is He Who illuminates all the world, as the Gospel of John states in the first chapter.

Yea, true, but Jesus was still a figure of a man, he was not the sun or light itself, he still had a head, arms, legs, flesh, blood. The light that came from him was from the father in the spirit realm.

Jesus is God, so He is Truth and Life. He is also the One Who bridged the gap of alienation between God and man, and so He made of Himself a way back to the Father.

Right.

He is called Rock in a very specific context--that is, He is the foundation on which the Church rests. He is also spoken of the Rock that poured forth streams of life-giving water for the Hebrews in the desert.

Right, but was he literally a rock? Or, is that a metaphor?

The people who personally knew the Apostles certainly didn't seem to think so. Why don't you consult again what St. John the Evangelist's own personal student said on the matter? He surely knows what his teacher meant when he conveyed that story in the Gospel.

So, what did St Johns student say on the matter?

That is because the bread and wine are mystically transformed into His Body and Blood, in a way that we don't entirely understand. You can consult the Roman Catholic teaching on transubstantiation if you absolutely demand a logical explanation on how an ineffable miracle of God happens, though.

What do you mean by mystically transformed into literal flesh? Is mystically the same as literally?

That being said, there are numerous well-known miracles of either people seeing the Eucharist as being a piece of bloody flesh--this happened at least once among the Desert Fathers after one of them, like you, doubted whether the Eucharist was truly the Lord's Body and Blood. Here's the story below:

This is what Abba Daniel, the Pharanite, said, 'Our Father Abba Arsenius told us of an inhabitant of Scetis, of notable life and of simple faith; through his naivete he was deceived and said, "The bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol."
Two old men having learnt that he had uttered this saying, knowing that he was outstanding in his way of life, knew that he had not spoken through malice, but through simplicity. So they came to find him and said, "Father, we have heard a proposition contrary to the faith on the part of someone who says that the bread which we receive is not really the body of Christ, but a symbol."
The old man said, "it is I who have said that." Then the old men exhorted him saying, "Do not hold this position, Father, but hold one in conformity with that which the catholic Church has given us. We believe, for our part, that the bread itself is the body of Christ as in the beginning, God formed man in his image, taking the dust of the earth, without anyone being able to say that it is not the image of God, even though it is not seen to be so; thus it is with the bread of which he said that it is his body; and so we believe that it is really the body of Christ."
The old man said to them, "As long as I have not been persuaded by the thing itself, I shall not be fully convinced." So they said, "Let us pray God about this mystery throughout the whole of this week and we believe that God will reveal it to us." The old man received this saying with joy and he prayed in these words, "Lord, you know that it is not through malice that I do not believe and so that I may not err through ignorance, reveal this mystery to me, Lord Jesus Christ."
The old men returned to their cells and they also prayed God, saying, "Lord Jesus Christ, reveal this mystery to the old man, that he may believe and not lose his reward." God heard both the prayers. At the end of the week they came to church on Sunday and sat all three on the same mat, the old man in the middle. Then their eyes were opened and when the bread was placed on the holy table, there appeared as it were a little child to these three alone. And when the priest put out his hand to break the bread, behold an angel descended from heaven with a sword and poured the child's blood into the chalice. When the priest cut the bread into small pieces, the angel also cut the child in pieces.
When they drew near to receive the sacred elements the old man alone received a morsel of bloody flesh. Seeing this he was afraid and cried out, "Lord, I believe that this bread is your flesh and this chalice your blood." Immediately the flesh which he held in his hand became bread, according to the mystery and he took it, giving thanks to God. Then the old men said to him, "God knows human nature and that man cannot eat raw flesh and that is why he has changed his body into bread and his blood into wine, for those who receive it in faith."Then they gave thanks to God for the old man, because he had allowed him not to lose the reward of his labour. So all three returned with joy to their own cells.'
There are other miraculous stories involving the Eucharist here.

Well, that’s interesting experience he had. But, the bread was literally flesh, FOR HIM. For me, it never turns into literal flesh and blood.

Now notice also what the old man says “God has turned his body into bread and his blood into wine”. I thought though it was the other way around, he turned the bread and wine into his flesh and blood?

If he turned the flesh and blood into bread and wine, still, why are the bread and wine not flesh and blood before it is bread and wine when we eat it? Those that prepare it never say they saw it as flesh and blood before they served it. So, this shows in many cases that it is not flesh and blood turned into the bread and wine.

 

[Jollybear]

I have some more information I would like to lay on the table concerning spontaneous OBE’s and astral projection and NDE’s. And how they are all related, both in content, and in similar ways they are produced.

This is my claim, I am claiming that spontaneous OBE’s and willful astral projections and NDE’s are all the same. The spontaneous OBE, has an out of body experience, it sees things in the spirit realm, and it is caused by either low blood pressure, or lowered heart rate, or a decline in some form of the person’s health. The same thing, such as body asleep, mind awake, also takes place.

As for the astral projection, it has an out of body content, it sees things in the spirit realm, it also is caused by lowered heart rate, blood pressure. Same thing as well, body is asleep, mind is awake.

As for the NDE, it has an out of body experience to it, it also sees things in the spirit realm, because of any form of injury done to the body, blood pressure is lowered, heart rate is lowered, health is drastically threatened. The body falls asleep, the mind is awake just the same.

All three of these, are the same in content and in how they are produced. The only difference is very slight, such as astral travel has the deliberate will involved, the spontaneous OBE has no will involved, and the NDE has severe injury involved.

But basically, all three, are just different levels for the body coming near death.

When one astral projects, they are coming NEAR death, when one has a spontaneous OBE, they are coming near death. When one gets severely injured, they are coming even CLOSER near death.

There is just different levels of this “Near death” experience.

Even if God does it (grouped into the spontaneous OBE) the person comes near death. But there are different levels or closeness to the near death experience. So, the more near death a person is, the more crisp the afterlife experience will be.

This is the claim I am making.

I have two articles I would like to provide to give this credence.

Here is the source http://www.near-death.com/experiences/triggers16.html#a02 and it’s number 5 in the contents, starting at the third paragraph down.

“Muldoon also noted that physical disabilities seemed to provide an incentive for projection. Muldoon himself was very frail and sickly during the years when his projections were most pronounced. He hypothesized that the unconscious will - motivated by habits and desires - would otherwise resulted in sleep walking, would led to astral projection for him because of the frailty of his body. For example, if he was thirsty at night, he might discover his astral body travelling to the water pump.


In one instance, it occurred to Muldoon that his heart was beating unusually slow. He visited his doctor who told him his pulse was only 42 beats per minute and gave him a cardiac stimulant to correct the condition. For the next two months while Muldoon took this stimulant, he was unable to induce a projection although he normally averaged at least one astral projection per week. But once he stopped taking the medicine, he was again able to perform astral projections. He also noticed that whenever he experienced intense emotions while astral projecting, it would cause his heart to beat faster. Later in life, as Muldoon's health improved, his ability to astral project diminished and practically disappeared. Nevertheless, he certainly made the most significant contribution in research involving astral travel his time. Since then, several other people have contributed to astral projection research.

Some researchers have argued that Muldoon's frailty and sickliness was the result of his numerous astral projections. This is supported by research into the life of Edgar Cayce and his astral projections. Cayce gained national prominence in 1943 after the publication of a high-profile article in the magazine Coronet titled "Miracle Man of Virginia Beach" (see America's Alternative Religions by Timothy Miller, 1995) In the middle of World War II, Cayce said he could not refuse people who felt they needed his help, and he increased the frequency of his readings to eight per day to try to help those on his ever-growing pile of requests. Cayce's "Source" informed him that performing so many astral projections would take a toll on his health as it was emotionally draining and often fatigued him. His Source would scold him for attempting too much and that he should limit his workload to just two readings a day or else they would kill him. In the spring of 1944, Edgar began to weaken. While his Source advised him rest, Cayce felt compelled to continue to assist those who called him. Finally, exhaustion overcame him and, like his first reading he had made for himself in 1901, was issued last in September 1944. Cayce's Source urged him to suspend their activities. When his wife asked Cayce's Source for how long, the answer was, "Until he recovers or dies." Cayce almost immediately suffered a stroke and became partially paralyzed. By the end of the year, his friends feared the worst. Edgar was told he would "heal" after the new year, but his family and friends realized his Source was actually announcing his death, which occurred on January”

Also, I would like to show you this one too. This was a NDE, as it is classified at least, source is here http://www.nderf.org/NDERF/NDE_Experiences/chad_c_nde.htm

The parts I want to bring to attention is here “I felt my heart beating fast again and then it happened.
My heart went from beating fast, then slowed down to two beats at normal tempo, and then—nothing. I had just enough time to think, "This isn't good," and then everything went black. My heart had stopped. I was dead before I hit the floor. I don't even remember falling—everything was just gone.
I remember there was sort of a darkness all around. I was moving forward through the darkness, but don't know if I was floating or walking. There was some kind of "light" ahead, but it wasn't like any kind of light I can describe.”
And this part
“The darkness was starting to fade, and feeling was returning to my body. I awoke with difficulty and found myself lying on the floor. I was unable to move and my breathing was labored.”
And here
“blood pressure fluctuating wildly from extremely high to unreadably low,”
And remember the other article a few days ago I gave you from astralvoyage website, the guy got a doctor check up and he was told his blood pressure was very low.
You see the corroboration here?

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I want to talk to a Christian or a Jew about astral projection. Why do you think it's demonic? Why do you think God does not aprove of the practice of astral projection via meditation techniques? What is your scriptural evidence and logical argument that astral projection is wrong? Currently I am convinced it's not wrong or demonic from scripture, but am open to debate it and be convinced otherwise. And i hope i got this question in the right section of the forum, not sure. But either case, here it is.

For those who don't know, astral projection is the means of having out of body experiences through meditation and mind work.

I'm a former Christian turned agnostic and in my reading of all the Bible I have found nothing that would clearly show any out-of-body experience to be wrong. I would say if the Bible doesn't speak on it or it's unclear then we don't know if it's right or wrong. From reading experiences, some of the OBEs are beyond the control of the person and can happen spontaneously even w/out meditation. In fact, the Bible mentions that the Apostle Paul may've even had an out-of-body experience and he spoke about it in neutral terms (2 Corinthians 12:1-4). Perhaps if you get into talking to spirits of the dead and demons, then it may become a sin in God's eyes.

 

[Jollybear]

I'm a former Christian turned agnostic

Why did you turn agnostic for?

and in my reading of all the Bible I have found nothing that would clearly show any out-of-body experience to be wrong.

I agree

I would say if the Bible doesn't speak on it or it's unclear then we don't know if it's right or wrong.

Actually, we do know, we know in other ways, we know from things the bible ILLUDES to, and we know through logical argument and we know by personal experiences with the OBE.

From reading experiences, some of the OBEs are beyond the control of the person and can happen spontaneously even w/out meditation.

Some experiences are spontaneous, but some CAN and HAVE been done under control.

In fact, the Bible mentions that the Apostle Paul may've even had an out-of-body experience and he spoke about it in neutral terms (2 Corinthians 12:1-4).

Actually, he did not speak of it in neutral terms, he said he would BOAST about a man like this, meaning, this type of experience he highly praised it.

Perhaps if you get into talking to spirits of the dead and demons, then it may become a sin in God's eyes.

I disagree, even from a scriptural stand point it’s not wrong to talk to the spirits of the dead or demons all the time. It depends on what you’re talking to them about and why you’re talking to them.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Why did you turn agnostic for?

I started to doubt my Christian faith after encountering some objections to Christianity/Bible, like inconsistencies, lack of good evidence, bad theology (in some cases), etc. There are also many other religions out there and I don't know which is true let alone have a method for determining such. I thought I was on my way to becoming an atheist until I realize that I wasn't fully convinced to become an atheist either, so got stuck between the two, in a sense. For now, I only see that the Bible has some truth to it.

Actually, we do know, we know in other ways, we know from things the bible ILLUDES to, and we know through logical argument and we know by personal experiences with the OBE.

I agree with you in this case because I accept your reasoning about the apostle Paul's experience. In principle though, I can't say that the Bible explicitly or implicitly (alluding to, implications) covers every single aspect of life that someone encounters. I'll take everything on a case-by-case basis.

Some experiences are spontaneous, but some CAN and HAVE been done under control.

I agree : ). On another forum site, I was following a discussion on if meditation was a sin, but I lost track of that conversation and never saw what was the best conclusion. I may have to reread the discussion on this forum.

Actually, he did not speak of it in neutral terms, he said he would BOAST about a man like this, meaning, this type of experience he highly praised it.

Good point!

I disagree, even from a scriptural stand point it’s not wrong to talk to the spirits of the dead or demons all the time. It depends on what you’re talking to them about and why you’re talking to them.

I agree. I would say it would not be good to call on them or to consult them. Some times the demons and spirits come to you without you calling them, like the story where the Devil came to tempt Jesus while he was fasting.

 

[Jollybear]

[/font][/color]
I started to doubt my Christian faith after encountering some objections to Christianity/Bible, like inconsistencies,

What inconsistencies?

lack of good evidence,

What lack of good evidence?

bad theology (in some cases), etc.

Like what?

There are also many other religions out there and I don't know which is true let alone have a method for determining such.

I think the method is experience and logic. I also think each religion holds some truth. It’s like putting a puzzle together, each religion holds a piece. There is no ONE FULL true religion. The one full truth, is that which stands up to experience and logic. It passes all scrutiny. That’s my take on it.

I thought I was on my way to becoming an atheist until I realize that I wasn't fully convinced to become an atheist either, so got stuck between the two, in a sense.

I’ve debated with atheists in the past and if you ring them through the arguments of logic, their arguments look insane.

My view is that both religion and atheism are two faces on the same worthless coin. Destroy them both and then we have the truth.

For now, I only see that the Bible has some truth to it.

My take is that the bible holds all truth; just not ALL interpretations of the bible hold all truth.

I agree with you in this case because I accept your reasoning about the apostle Paul's experience. In principle though, I can't say that the Bible explicitly or implicitly (alluding to, implications) covers every single aspect of life that someone encounters. I'll take everything on a case-by-case basis.

Well, from my reading of the entire bible many times over, I see it touching on, but not going into detail on every aspect of life. For instance, does the bible touch on material science? Yes, but is it a science textbook? No. Does it touch on transportation? Yes, but is it a book about cars and trucks? No. You get the point.

I agree : ). On another forum site, I was following a discussion on if meditation was a sin, but I lost track of that conversation and never saw what was the best conclusion. I may have to reread the discussion on this forum.

I can’t even conceive how meditation could be a sin. Even the bible says meditation is good. It says Isaac went out to the field to meditate (Gen 24:63) and here is a whole strew of scriptures with the word meditate in it https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=meditate&version=NIV&searchtype=all

Also Psalm 46:10 says be still and know that God is God. Being still is a form of meditation.

Basically transcendental meditation is relaxing the body, while keeping your awareness intact. It can also be manipulation fo energy in your body. Astral projection or OBE, is basically taking that to a deeper level, making the body so relaxed to the point it falls asleep, and keeping your awareness intact to where your mind stays awake. That’s it. What’s so sinful about that? If that’s sinful, then being awake is sinful, going to sleep is sinful.

I mean the things people think are sinful are so stupid. People need only to THINK. Also, thinking is a part of meditating.

Good point!

I agree. I would say it would not be good to call on them or to consult them. Some times the demons and spirits come to you without you calling them, like the story where the Devil came to tempt Jesus while he was fasting.

Right, but Jesus also communicated with the devil, he did respond to him, but he did not obey him.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

What inconsistencies?

There are some simple inconsistencies in the Bible but the ones that get me are the ones relating to God's all-good nature and His acts. A simple inconsistency would be like the inconsistency between 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 when it comes to the number of horse stalls that king Solomon had. Minor things like this are enough to take away the view that the Bible is infallible and just claiming that only the original manuscripts had no error is an assumption.

A more serious inconsistency is that an all-good God would not destroy a city with its inhabitants if there were some righteous people in it (Genesis 18:23-33). But then we find God ordering for ALL inhabitants of various civilizations to be killed, including children and babies (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

What lack of good evidence?

For the whole basis of Christianity, for starters. Do you have any evidence that God talked to any of the writers of the Bible? There are plenty of people who start religions today claiming that God spoke to them, for example, Joseph Smith.

God is also not falsifiable or testable through empirical means so that leads to a lack of scientific evidence. Now there are some anecdotal evidence, some of which I see as having 'some' validity since I've had experiences myself but it's not enough for me to conclude that these experiences or God exist 100%

Like what?

Bad theology? Like having to marry your rapist, ARRANGED marriages - monogamous and polygamous, women having to be in submission, etc.

I think the method is experience and logic. I also think each religion holds some truth. It’s like putting a puzzle together, each religion holds a piece. There is no ONE FULL true religion. The one full truth, is that which stands up to experience and logic. It passes all scrutiny. That’s my take on it.

It is not practical to experience every single religion and from experience I see that most just end up 'dabbling' into other religions and spiritual practices. As far as I'm concerned no one religion stands up FULLY to experience and logic so you'll always have to allow some room for error and lack of logic. I see this matter as being unknowable unless there is a good method.

I’ve debated with atheists in the past and if you ring them through the arguments of logic, their arguments look insane.

My view is that both religion and atheism are two faces on the same worthless coin. Destroy them both and then we have the truth.

I wouldn't say destroying BOTH theism and atheism would lead to truth because there is no alternative. The only logical options is that there is a god or there isn't one. You can do away with certain atheistic and theistic ideologies when or if they're found to be false, but it would not lead to the truth if you completely reject both of them.

My take is that the bible holds all truth; just not ALL interpretations of the bible hold all truth.

I don't share your view. I used to but because there are some from other religions who make similar claims and the LACK of methods or evidence to verify the claims one way or another, I'm happily an agnostic on that issue.

Well, from my reading of the entire bible many times over, I see it touching on, but not going into detail on every aspect of life. For instance, does the bible touch on material science? Yes, but is it a science textbook? No. Does it touch on transportation? Yes, but is it a book about cars and trucks? No. You get the point.

Touching on a matter is not always adequate to draw a conclusion as far as what should be done. The Bible does not mention if transcendental meditation is a sin or if actively pursuing to have an OBE on your own, through the devil, is moral. For all i know Paul did not seek out to have an OBE, and in fact, he was not even sure if he had one. If he did have one, it may've been by God's direct causing. The Bible does not talk about the astral plane. Also, the Bible does NOT say that any other religion is true or how much truth as your view involves and I will get into that more in my next response below.

I can’t even conceive how meditation could be a sin. Even the bible says meditation is good. It says Isaac went out to the field to meditate (Gen 24:63) and here is a whole strew of scriptures with the word meditate in it https://www.biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?search=meditate&version=NIV&searchtype=all

Also Psalm 46:10 says be still and know that God is God. Being still is a form of meditation.

There are different types of meditation and not all of them are spiritually related or even related to quieting your thoughts. Meditation in the Hebrew language meant 'musing' or engaging in deep thought or reflection about God, about the Law. Psalm 36:10 does not mention meditation.

Also, there is the meditation found from Eastern practices which sounds like what you're getting into and trying to mix in or impose on the Bible. If transcendental meditation has yogic roots then there it has its own philosophy. I'll post further information that pertains to the yogic tradition. In Hinduism there is 'samadhi' which is a form of meditation that is claimed to bring supernatural powers called 'siddhis' (e.g. having knowledge of the future, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc). None of these practices incorporate the bible God into the picture. It has its own philosophy contained in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali including their own gods.

You can read the first paragraph here: Samadhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's also Samyana - read 1st paragraph Samyama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The powers are listed as 'siddhis' Siddhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (read intro and scroll down to usage in Hinduism section)

So why do you need God's spiritual gifts if these things can be attained through meditation?

Basically transcendental meditation is relaxing the body, while keeping your awareness intact. It can also be manipulation fo energy in your body. Astral projection or OBE, is basically taking that to a deeper level, making the body so relaxed to the point it falls asleep, and keeping your awareness intact to where your mind stays awake. That’s it. What’s so sinful about that? If that’s sinful, then being awake is sinful, going to sleep is sinful.

This is interesting but I still don't see any justification in the Bible to meditate in the way that you're describing and to seek out OBEs - and OBEs are not the only paranormal experience that are claimed to come through meditation. I would also ask what is so sinful about homosexual acts, so trust me I'm not surprised at what the Bible labels a sin.

Being awake or sleeping is not the same as trying to 'focus your energy' or quiet your mind. While sleeping and awake, my thoughts are still active. If you want to sit down on the floor and close your eyes that's one thing, but once you're telling me that you're trying to bring on these types of experiences then that's where it's a gray area to me that the Bible does not mention you should seek after with your own power as opposed through God bringing that on himself.

IN all, I'm very agnostic about a lot of the things that you have proposed here.

 

[Jollybear]

There are some simple inconsistencies in the Bible but the ones that get me are the ones relating to God's all-good nature and His acts. A simple inconsistency would be like the inconsistency between 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25 when it comes to the number of horse stalls that king Solomon had. Minor things like this are enough to take away the view that the Bible is infallible and just claiming that only the original manuscripts had no error is an assumption.

Ok, I don’t see any reason to become agnostic over something like this. Here is why, I think the assumption is a reasonable assumption, that the original manuscripts had the correct sentence. It could have been four thousand or forty thousand stalls for horses. Personally I think the author was writing down the account honestly, but scribes made some scribal mistakes. When you know the nature of a scribe’s job, you will realize these types of mistakes will occur and did occur more than once. They occurred many times. I mean, you try making a copy of the entire bible with just a pen, I’m sure you will make a mistake, at least one, probably a few hundred.

I mean even an author of something he is writing as history, even the original author can be honest, but may make a mistake in writing a number, or how he spells something. This does not just apply to a scribe copying an author’s manuscript, it can apply to an author to.

The way I interpret “all scripture is inspired of God” said by Paul, or Jesus words “scripture cannot be broken” is not so much mistakes, but rather honest intention and honest documentation of what one witnessed.

A more serious inconsistency is that an all-good God would not destroy a city with its inhabitants if there were some righteous people in it (Genesis 18:23-33). But then we find God ordering for ALL inhabitants of various civilizations to be killed, including children and babies (1 Samuel 15:2-3).

I’ve heard this one so many times. On the surface it may appear like an inconsistency. But, what if in the case of Sodom there really was no righteous? And what if the Amalakites there really was no righteous?

There is a few different ways to justify the act
1: Either there was remnants of the Nephiliam in the land (hybrids of angelic and human) thus the babies would need to die.
2: The Israelites had their own babies they needed to take care of, even if they did save the other babies, they may not be able to afford taking care of them, and thus the babies would die anyhow.
3: The babies are reincarnated souls of people who need to pay off bad karma by being killed.
4: Justice needed to be done because way back in the time of Noah, when the land was distributed by lot to his sons and grandsons, some of them did not like the lands they got and so they stole. So now, God in justice tells Israel to take back what was stolen, to show that justice needs to be administered against steeling. That steeling is not right.

There is many ways to justify it, but ONE of these is correct. The fourth one is even documented in the book of Jubilees. So, it’s not even a theory in that regard.

For the whole basis of Christianity, for starters. Do you have any evidence that God talked to any of the writers of the Bible? There are plenty of people who start religions today claiming that God spoke to them, for example, Joseph Smith.

I tend to believe God spoke to someone or showed himself to someone who is willing to die for their claim. In the case of many of the biblical authors who claimed to be witnesses, they also were willing to suffer and die, and did die for their claims. Also, archeology backs up there writings. If someone says God showed himself to them, but there not willing to suffer for it, or archeology does not back up what they claim, I won’t believe it.

In the example you gave, I’m not aware of Joseph smith suffering or dying for his claims about the book of Mormon, and I do know archeology does not back up his book of Mormon.

God is also not falsifiable or testable through empirical means so that leads to a lack of scientific evidence. Now there are some anecdotal evidence, some of which I see as having 'some' validity since I've had experiences myself but it's not enough for me to conclude that these experiences or God exist 100%

I think God exists 100%. I think order, complexity and design in the universe and the near death experience and spiritual experiences of diverse kinds all point to that being so.

Bad theology? Like having to marry your rapist, ARRANGED marriages - monogamous and polygamous, women having to be in submission, etc.

God does not parse approve of all forms of culture, he works with all forms of culture though. Plus, there were more regulations in the law around the issue of the rapist. Here is a short article detailing it.

In summary, the rapist would be stoned if the women was engaged. That would not take place in our culture today. If the women was not engaged, then the women may not be desirable, so her financial security would be in jeopardy, so the rapist would have to PAY for his crime by taking care of her. But, if her father did not want her to be taken care of by the rapist, then he could nullify that law.
http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-could-the-bible-command-a-rape-victim-to-marry-her-rapist/

 

[Jollybear]

It is not practical to experience every single religion

I’m not talking about every single religion, but rather some major ones. A lot of religions can be similar or rehashes of the same thing, just using different language. So, if it’s reduced to the major, then that would be more practical.

and from experience I see that most just end up 'dabbling' into other religions and spiritual practices. As far as I'm concerned no one religion stands up FULLY to experience and logic so you'll always have to allow some room for error and lack of logic. I see this matter as being unknowable unless there is a good method.

One needs to find the truth and then not dabble with it, but surrender to it wholeheartedly.

I agree no one religion stands up fully to experience and logic. I think all religions hold a PIECES of truth and pieces of error. One must use experience and logic(critical thinking) to determine the true pieces from the error pieces, and then throw out the error and keep the truth and put it together like a puzzle in order to get the FULL picture.

So, I think the matter is KNOWABLE, and my method is good, the method being experience and logic or critical thinking. Throw out the error, keep the truth. The truth is determined by experience and logic. Error is determined by experience and logic.

I wouldn't say destroying BOTH theism and atheism would lead to truth because there is no alternative.

Sorry for my generalization, it created a misunderstanding. When I say destroy atheism and religion (by religion I did not mean theism). I meant all the false things (a.k.a “error&#8221. Same with atheism, not everything atheists say is false.

Destroy everything that is false by experience and logic. Experience and logic is the only path to knowledge. Everything else is nonsense.

The only logical options is that there is a god or there isn't one.

Right.

You can do away with certain atheistic and theistic ideologies when or if they're found to be false, but it would not lead to the truth if you completely reject both of them.

That is correct, but again, sorry for my generalization which created this misunderstanding.

I don't share your view. I used to but because there are some from other religions who make similar claims and the LACK of methods or evidence to verify the claims one way or another, I'm happily an agnostic on that issue.

The reason I am not agnostic is because the way I look at it is like this: the biblical authors had experiences which they in turn interpreted, then wrote them down. THEN we in turn RE INTERPRET what we read from them. This creates a problem. So, what we need to do, and which is my method, go by our own experiences and use logic or critical thinking and when we interpret their experiences that they wrote down, we must understand they also interpreted them first. So, the whole way through, as we read, we must use logic. You can’t go wrong when using logic and experience. It will never lead you in the wrong direction.

Touching on a matter is not always adequate to draw a conclusion as far as what should be done.

That is true, so when the bible touches on a matter, the only way to make a conclusion, is not from what it says, because it does not give enough details, therefore one must make the further conclusion based off experience and logic. Experience and logic will not lead you in the wrong direction. Those are things God gave us.

The Bible does not mention if transcendental meditation is a sin or if actively pursuing to have an OBE on your own, through the devil, is moral.

Isaac went out to the field to meditate, the bible was not written at this time, so what was he meditating on?

I’m also not saying we should pursue OBE’s through the devil, that would be a bad idea, I’m saying we should do it by techniques by intention and will. Just like how we do ANYTHING else in life, that is how it’s done, techniques/intention/will.

Everything we do, is done that way. It’s the same with controlled OBE’s.

 

[Jollybear]

For all i know Paul did not seek out to have an OBE, and in fact, he was not even sure if he had one. If he did have one, it may've been by God's direct causing.

I agree with you that Paul did not SEEK to have an OBE, I disagree however that God DIRECTLY caused his OBE. I believe his OBE was directly caused by his stoning. In other words, what happened to him is what we would call today a near death experience. Paul was stoned in Acts 14:19-20. Also scholars note that 14 years prior to when Paul mentioned being caught up to paradise, would have had him being in lystra where he was stoned.

This is a logical interpretation because this is HOW near death experiences also work.

Now yes, God PERMITTED his stoning and God PERMITTED his OBE and God PERMITTED him being caught up to paradise, but the direct cause was the stoning. That was what caused the first domino to fall.

The Bible does not talk about the astral plane.

The “astral plane” is only a word, it’s something we call it. It’s a name people use today. But, the bible calls it the heavenly realms. In Colossians 1:16 it says “For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” And in Ephesians 6:12 “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” And 1 Peter 3:22 “Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”

The bible just uses different names or language for the same thing. The astral planes are just another name for the spirit world. I think experience and logic allow for this.

Also, the Bible does NOT say that any other religion is true or how much truth as your view involves and I will get into that more in my next response below.

There are different types of meditation and not all of them are spiritually related or even related to quieting your thoughts. Meditation in the Hebrew language meant 'musing' or engaging in deep thought or reflection about God, about the Law.

Yes, that is true.

Psalm 36:10 does not mention meditation.

It don’t have to, to be still, is like meditation. The bible talks about dreams. Well, a form of meditation is lucid dreaming, one can also have an OBE through a lucid dream. Jesus said go into your room and close the door and pray to your father who is in secret. Jesus also said the kingdom is within. What does meditation do, it goes within, the secret place.

Look at what Elijah did when he heard the whisper of God; he covered himself with his cloak. This in principle is the same thing.

It’s not so much the “METHOD” one uses to connect to the soul, the spirit, or God, as in the success. Whatever WORKS, if it works and is safe, then it should be fine.

Also, there is the meditation found from Eastern practices which sounds like what you're getting into and trying to mix in or impose on the Bible. If transcendental meditation has yogic roots then there it has its own philosophy. I'll post further information that pertains to the yogic tradition. In Hinduism there is 'samadhi' which is a form of meditation that is claimed to bring supernatural powers called 'siddhis' (e.g. having knowledge of the future, telepathy, clairvoyance, etc). None of these practices incorporate the bible God into the picture. It has its own philosophy contained in the Yoga Sūtras of Patañjali including their own gods.

You can read the first paragraph here: Samadhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
There's also Samyana - read 1st paragraph Samyama - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The powers are listed as 'siddhis' Siddhi - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (read intro and scroll down to usage in Hinduism section)

Remember I said above about experiences and interpretation of experiences and logic? Ok, well in all these religions, people can have meditations and gods and philosophies. Here is what I would do, TEST the method to see if it works. Apply logic to the philosophy. The meditation can be correct without all the philosophy and without all the gods. Some truth is in all of it and some error is in all of it.

So why do you need God's spiritual gifts if these things can be attained through meditation?

Your missing the point, we are to receive God’s spiritual gifts, but we are also to WORK at developing those gifts. I have a gift of a body, but does that mean I sit around and believe God will move my body for me? That’s a misunderstanding of what having a natural gift is, well it’s the same with spiritual gifts.

 

[Jollybear]

This is interesting but I still don't see any justification in the Bible to meditate in the way that you're describing and to seek out OBEs –

The bible does not directly justify it or directly unjustify it. But, I think it alludes to us being free to do it.

and OBEs are not the only paranormal experience that are claimed to come through meditation. I would also ask what is so sinful about homosexual acts, so trust me I'm not surprised at what the Bible labels a sin.

The bible directly calls homosexuality forbidden, but it does not do the same for OBE’s. So you’re comparing apples to oranges. But, yes, you could ask what is so sinful about homosexual acts. Asking the question is not wrong.

Being awake or sleeping is not the same as trying to 'focus your energy' or quiet your mind.

What’s wrong with focusing energy or quieting the mind?

While sleeping and awake, my thoughts are still active.

You actually can have an OBE with your mind still being active. But it has to be a focused active. If you have one thought, or hold one imagination, that’s fine, as long as it’s controlled, and your thoughts are not all over the place.

The bible actually does encourage us to control our thoughts. It says take every thought captive.

If you want to sit down on the floor and close your eyes that's one thing, but once you're telling me that you're trying to bring on these types of experiences then that's where it's a gray area to me that the Bible does not mention you should seek after with your own power as opposed through God bringing that on himself.

It does not forbid seeking after them. And God does not bring on everything for us all the time. Many times he wants us to walk things out.

IN all, I'm very agnostic about a lot of the things that you have proposed here.

I’m going to work on taking you out of your agnosticism and bring you into knowing, lol.

 

[Katzpur]

In the example you gave, I’m not aware of Joseph smith suffering or dying for his claims about the book of Mormon, and I do know archeology does not back up his book of Mormon.

Actually, Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob of 200 "Christian" men, and as far as archeology is concerned, I didn't realize South American and Central American archeological studies had concluded. When did this happen?

 

[Jollybear]

Actually, Joseph Smith was murdered by a mob of 200 "Christian" men, and as far as archeology is concerned, I didn't realize the process was complete. When did this happen?[/font][/color]

Why was he murdered by this mob that i would scaresly call christian men?

I agree, the process is always open. If they can prove the book of mormon's history archeologically, i would believe it, but until then, i believe it's history is suspect. As fare as it's teachings, i agree with them, they are practically verbatum with the bible.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

Ok, I don’t see any reason to become agnostic over something like this. Here is why, I think the assumption is a reasonable assumption, that the original manuscripts had the correct sentence. It could have been four thousand or forty thousand stalls for horses. Personally I think the author was writing down the account honestly, but scribes made some scribal mistakes. When you know the nature of a scribe’s job, you will realize these types of mistakes will occur and did occur more than once. They occurred many times. I mean, you try making a copy of the entire bible with just a pen, I’m sure you will make a mistake, at least one, probably a few hundred. I mean even an author of something he is writing as history, even the original author can be honest, but may make a mistake in writing a number, or how he spells something. This does not just apply to a scribe copying an author’s manuscript, it can apply to an author to.

The minor errors that I brought up may not be enough to prove that God does not exist but it does lead me to doubt the infallibility, including that of the original texts. The errors aren't the only problem but also the lack of evidence for the originals to examine them for their alleged infallibility.

The way I interpret “all scripture is inspired of God” said by Paul, or Jesus words “scripture cannot be broken” is not so much mistakes, but rather honest intention and honest documentation of what one witnessed.

Well I tend to start from scratch and say that I'm not 100% sure that a God exist, and that he would be all-good if he did exist. If I can't be sure about his existence and character due to lack of evidence/experience, then I also can't assume that being 'inspired' by this God would ensure honesty from the biblical writers. All of these assumptions need to be covered step by step since I'm not a Christian and I tend to go by evidence and/or logic. Limitations in what I can know (like if God even talked to these writers to begin with, etc) restricts my use logic and evidence.

I’ve heard this one so many times. On the surface it may appear like an inconsistency. But, what if in the case of Sodom there really was no righteous? And what if the Amalakites there really was no righteous?

Speculation does not answer it for me. If babies were present, and the passages I referred you to earlier mentions infants being involved, then I have no doubt that God ordered for the killing of the righteous with the wicked.

There is a few different ways to justify the act

1: Either there was remnants of the Nephiliam in the land (hybrids of angelic and human) thus the babies would need to die.
2: The Israelites had their own babies they needed to take care of, even if they did save the other babies, they may not be able to afford taking care of them, and thus the babies would die anyhow.
3: The babies are reincarnated souls of people who need to pay off bad karma by being killed.
4: Justice needed to be done because way back in the time of Noah, when the land was distributed by lot to his sons and grandsons, some of them did not like the lands they got and so they stole. So now, God in justice tells Israel to take back what was stolen, to show that justice needs to be administered against steeling. That steeling is not right.

There is many ways to justify it, but ONE of these is correct. The fourth one is even documented in the book of Jubilees. So, it’s not even a theory in that regard.

All of the options you mentioned still doesn't cover the principle of not destroying the righteous with the wicked. As soon as a baby is killed no matter for what reason, that is a killing of an innocent. This is a matter of God going too far with His wrath and judgement. Your #1 point mentions that these babies were hybrids but I doubt every single one of these babies were hybrids, and these hybrids, if they existed, were supposed to be killed during the Great Flood. The text does not mention that the Amalekites were descended from or part of any nephilim or hybrid race but to the contrary God wanted every remnance of them wiped off the Earth because they attacked Israel. That is specifically what the text says. God even wanted their animals killed so that leads me to believe more that it wasn't a matter of hybrids nor did God consider any righteousness. As I mentioned before, this is an instance where God went too far in his judgement.

I tend to believe God spoke to someone or showed himself to someone who is willing to die for their claim. In the case of many of the biblical authors who claimed to be witnesses, they also were willing to suffer and die, and did die for their claims. Also, archeology backs up there writings. If someone says God showed himself to them, but there not willing to suffer for it, or archeology does not back up what they claim, I won’t believe it.

I understand you believe but I'm trying to come at this from a neutral position. You give the writers the benefit of the doubt because you're already a Christian. I try not to accept anything, or at least not 100%, unless I have evidence and/or logic to support my view.

I think God exists 100%. I think order, complexity and design in the universe and the near death experience and spiritual experiences of diverse kinds all point to that being so.

Near-death experiences have not been objectively verified and by verified I mean the experiencer being able to relay information that they shouldn't have known about due to their deteriorated state. There is the AWARE study being done by Dr. Sam Parnia and he places random images on shelves right above the bed of patients. If they have an NDE and float above their body, then theoretically they should be able to see the image. AS of yet, there has been no positive result.

I like the teleological argument but it doesn't point me exclusively to the Christian God. I'd need to study the counter-arguments more, as well.

God does not parse approve of all forms of culture, he works with all forms of culture though. Plus, there were more regulations in the law around the issue of the rapist. Here is a short article detailing it.

In summary, the rapist would be stoned if the women was engaged. That would not take place in our culture today. If the women was not engaged, then the women may not be desirable, so her financial security would be in jeopardy, so the rapist would have to PAY for his crime by taking care of her. But, if her father did not want her to be taken care of by the rapist, then he could nullify that law.
http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/how-could-the-bible-command-a-rape-victim-to-marry-her-rapist/

Theologically-speaking, I don't see that God will work with any form of culture when it goes against his pre-existing moral law. God tells believers to come out of the world or be apart for a reason so that way culture or worldly norms don't mix in with God's standards.

It's one thing for the man to have to pay for his crime but he could do that without having to marry her, especially when the woman doesn't want to marry her rapist. So another problem here is non-consensual or ARRANGED marriages.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I’m not talking about every single religion, but rather some major ones. A lot of religions can be similar or rehashes of the same thing, just using different language. So, if it’s reduced to the major, then that would be more practical.

THat would narrow down the search quite a bit but I don't see that making the task significantly easier. I've studied Christianity for years and I still have things that I don't understand nor that have I've been able to experience. I guess I can always go for a M Div degree in each religion because to apply logic you should make sure you are working with correct information with the most reasonable understanding of the text. Many claims of religions are not testable, can not be evidenced, some may take lifetime devotions. So I'm still of the opinion, that your method of using logic and evidence is good, but to put it in practice would be time consuming, if even possible.

So, I think the matter is KNOWABLE, and my method is good, the method being experience and logic or critical thinking. Throw out the error, keep the truth. The truth is determined by experience and logic. Error is determined by experience and logic.

Learning all of the religion, examining it, experiencing it, testing it, etc can be daunting enough just for one religion. So I'm skeptical that anyone could find the truth in one lifetime. Perhaps they may learn about SOME truth, but that is not enough to know for sure all of the truths that apply to reality in this lifetime or the afterlife. Hek, some Christians believe that there is only ONE true God and that a lot of other religions were started by demons or other spirits without God's favor in mind.

That is true, so when the bible touches on a matter, the only way to make a conclusion, is not from what it says, because it does not give enough details, therefore one must make the further conclusion based off experience and logic. Experience and logic will not lead you in the wrong direction. Those are things God gave us.

This assumes that the matter is testable or that logic can be applied. Once you get into experience that can lead to get into subjective conclusions and personal preferences.

Isaac went out to the field to meditate, the bible was not written at this time, so what was he meditating on?

You're referring to Genesis 24:62-63. Isaac did not need the Bible to know about God. God could've revealed himself to Isaac directly and then later on someone would write about it.

I’m also not saying we should pursue OBE’s through the devil, that would be a bad idea, I’m saying we should do it by techniques by intention and will. Just like how we do ANYTHING else in life, that is how it’s done, techniques/intention/will.

That's the thing in question. Are OBEs themselves moral when not done through God's power. Transcendental meditation or those meditation that stems from Eastern practices/philosophy is also what I'm telling you the Bible does not support and is therefore in question here, as well.

You speak of meditation as if it's a normal human function just like eating but it really depends on your intent/purpose for meditating and the type of meditation. If by meditation you're referring to focusing inwardly then that has its roots in yogic traditions/philosophy and is associated with various spiritual experiences and "higher states of consciousness". That's doing more than just a biological need like sleeping or eating or taking an examination. Yes, and I see it as a possibility that God would see this as a sin just like he doesn't want people to do good based on their own power but to use His power through His spirit as opposed to our human nature.

Everything we do, is done that way. It’s the same with controlled OBE’s.

Again, it depends on the purpose of the meditation.

 

[AgnosticBoy]

I agree with you that Paul did not SEEK to have an OBE, I disagree however that God DIRECTLY caused his OBE. I believe his OBE was directly caused by his stoning. In other words, what happened to him is what we would call today a near death experience. Paul was stoned in Acts 14:19-20. Also scholars note that 14 years prior to when Paul mentioned being caught up to paradise, would have had him being in lystra where he was stoned. This is a logical interpretation because this is HOW near death experiences also work.

I'm not sure if it is a reasonable interpretation without looking at the evidence or source for this scholars views. But it is possible as you say that he had a near-death experience.

The “astral plane” is only a word, it’s something we call it. It’s a name people use today. But, the bible calls it the heavenly realms. In Colossians 1:16 it says “

For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him.” And in Ephesians 6:12 “For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.” And 1 Peter 3:22 “Who has gone into heaven and is at the right hand of God, with angels, authorities, and powers having been subjected to him.”

The bible just uses different names or language for the same thing. The astral planes are just another name for the spirit world. I think experience and logic allow for this.

The astral plane may be a spirit plane but it may not be the same as the spirit plane that is mentioned in the Bible if it works differently or contains different things. I also can not assume that all of the worldviews are supposed to be connected because for all i know some experiences may be hallucinations or as some Christians say '.. tricks of the devil.

It don’t have to, to be still, is like meditation. The bible talks about dreams. Well, a form of meditation is lucid dreaming, one can also have an OBE through a lucid dream. Jesus said go into your room and close the door and pray to your father who is in secret. Jesus also said the kingdom is within. What does meditation do, it goes within, the secret place.

Praying in secret just means praying where no one can see you as opposed to praying within or whatever you are referring to. Jesus did not say to pray in secret because the kingdom was within, but rather he said that because people were praying in public to show off their holiness. He wanted to avoid that.

The kingdom being within us means that God lives within us through the Holy Spirit. Our body is the temple. This does not mean that God endorses the type of meditation that you're proposing to assess him. He does not advocate meditation at all, other than to engage in deep thinking rather than quieting your thoughts. You're making a lot of assumptions here.

Look at what Elijah did when he heard the whisper of God; he covered himself with his cloak. This in principle is the same thing.

It’s not so much the “METHOD” one uses to connect to the soul, the spirit, or God, as in the success. Whatever WORKS, if it works and is safe, then it should be fine.

It's not always a whatever works because God may want things done a certain way. I can use the devil to try to connect to my soul or to have an OBE and I doubt God would approve of that. I could consult psychics to know about my future, but God may want me to use just Him.

Remember I said above about experiences and interpretation of experiences and logic? Ok, well in all these religions, people can have meditations and gods and philosophies. Here is what I would do, TEST the method to see if it works. Apply logic to the philosophy. The meditation can be correct without all the philosophy and without all the gods. Some truth is in all of it and some error is in all of it.

Sure I can test different methods but the question is if it is right to engage in these practices or does the Bible approve of it. That question is not answered by the Bible in my view.

It’s not so much the “METHOD” one uses to connect to the soul, the spirit, or God, as in the success. Whatever WORKS, if it works and is safe, then it should be fine.

It's not always a whatever works because God may want things done a certain way. I can use the devil to try to connect to my soul or to have an OBE and I doubt God would approve of that. I could consult psychics to know about my future, but God may want me to use just Him.
[/COLOR][/FONT]