its funny how they call this christian fiction... Showing 251-300 of 1,587

[Will]

Mary wrote: " If there is something...well...that would be pretty cool."

Sure, but that's just wishful thinking. If you want to believe that you have a sixth sense of being able to see dead people, go for it. As long as you aren't taking people's money out of this claim or hurting anyone, go for it, but just know that there are lots of other explanations, most of them more logical than the explanation that you are actually seeing a person after they're dead, and not just an image of that person. And, you still have to accept the fact that the majority of people don't get to see their loved ones after they die in this world, so, what makes you so special that you get to? Isn't this hubris?

[Mary]

"I don't doubt that you saw your father after he was dead, but is what you saw based on reality, did he actually manifest himself here? Why is it so hard to believe the logical answer? That what you saw was a response to chemicals in your brain, just like everything else that you experience. I know that might seem like a dull explanation, but it's actually a really beautiful and complex process that happens in the brain. You wanted to see your father again, I'm sure. So wouldn't your brain do everything in its power to help you accomplish this? Isn't seeing things that aren't there precisely within the brain's abilities?"

So what about the creepy ones I saw? Did I subconsciously want to see them too? How do we know what is real and what is not real if the possibility of hallucination is always there? Since I am not the only one who saw him, was it mass hallucination? There are many things in this life that are currently inexplicable. Religion is a way to explain what we do not fully understand. As knowledge and science progresses, more and more is understood. 100 years from now we might have the scientific capabilities to examine and explore that elusiveness we now call a soul. Brain waves produce energy. When the brain dies, where does that energy go? It does not disappear. It is converted into something else. There are too many unanswered questions in science to discount the possibility of something more. Who could have conceived of the atom 300 years ago? Who would have thought that we would have the ability to replicate DNA, make use of the Human Genome Project to potentially grow organs for transplant or to come up with a vaccine for a new flu strain within hours? We call things metaphysical because we have not yet relegated them to the physical. If there is a soul, there may very well be a scientific explanation for it.

[Mary]

"Until someone else that could also see your father when you happened to see him after he died." They did. It was pretty scary actually.

[Will]

Mary wrote: "They did. It was pretty scary actually."

I have to ask, what were the circumstances? Was that person aware that you had seen your father too before they saw him? Was that person close to your father as well?

Xox wrote: "But still, I could not take that as evidence of an afterlife, or human soul."

Yes.

[Will]

Mary wrote: "Since I am not the only one who saw him, was it mass hallucination?"

Also not uncommon, fyi.

[Mary]

"Personally, I think it is good to see your dead love ones, even if it is just projection from your brain. It probably give you comfort.

But still, I could not take that as evidence of an afterlife, or human soul. "

I understand and respect your skepticism. I even entertain the possibility that you are right and I was hallucinating (on a number of occasions btw). What I will not do is fall into the dogmatic trap of impossibility. What possible harm is there in my experiences leading me to believe there might be something more? Without the idea that something more might be out there, science itself would fail. Curiosity is the driving force behind science and the need to understand. What if experiences like mine led to research that explained a new dimension or we developed some type of super microscope that was able to see beyond what we can now and the evidence demonstrated there was a soul? Scientists/Astronomers believed at one time the sun revolved around the earth. Galileo proved them wrong and a new understanding was reached. Does anyone truly believe that we already know all there is to know? I think if there is a point to existence, that point is the acquisition of knowledge. Refusing to entertain possibilities is antithetical to knowledge acquisition.

[Mary]

"Someone else see it? Under what circumstance?

Multiple persons shared experience. This could be interesting for the psychologists. "

My husband saw him at the same time I did. He is NOT prone to illogical behavior and he had no emotional reason to conjure him up.

[Mary]

Will wrote: "Mary wrote: "Since I am not the only one who saw him, was it mass hallucination?"

Also not uncommon, fyi."

I know. I read quite a bit about it after it happened.

[Mary]

"I'm curious about your personal experience, that was shared at least by one other person.

What I didn't do, is to take this as evidence.

My mind is open for all sort of possibility. But unless there is concrete evidence, I would not accept things like ghost, alien, just because some other persons said they have that in their personal experience."

...and you do not have to take my experience as evidence . I actually would not expect you to. That is the beauty of individuality. My beliefs are not dependent upon the approbation of others. If I am wrong, no harm, no foul. As I said before, if there is something else...that would be pretty cool and I would love to discover what it is. I think philosophy is a gateway to scientific exploration. First we must ask the questions and then we must determine a way to find the answers.

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: "Mary wrote: "Deuteronomy 22:28-29

King James Version (KJV)

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29..."

And this is where it all gets very hard to take.

Somebody points out that rapists are *required* to marry their victims by the bible, and you flat out deny it. Immediately, we have to wonder if you actually possess genuine biblical knowledge, because we *know* it is in there.

Then, when forced to accept it is in there, you immediately attempt to frame it in a more positive light *ignoring* all the other similar stuff in there about exactly how a man is allowed to treat his wife according to the bible. Not to mention about how he is allowed to treat his slaves, and what to do with a conquered enemy... It's pretty vile stuff which you somehow seem to have completely missed.

It's this kind of magical cherry-picking that makes so many Christians hard to take seriously. They profess a belief in the ineranncy of the bible without actually knowing what is in it, and then when confronted with what is in it, try to gloss over it.

In this discussion you have (a) Shown that you don't actually know what is in the bible and (b) shown that you do not understand the actual, documented, history of the bible, and (c) Judged the KJV to be the "most accurate" based on no evidence whatsoever.

You profess astonishment that we don't believe in the bible - did you stop to think that it is *because* we have read it more closely than you?

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "Don't mock the KJV, please. It is what I have found to be the most accurate version around."

You mean the version that was specifically altered at King James behest to be how he wanted it, and to further the general teaching that the monarch had divine rights? The one that has a description of the holy city that does not match the description of Jerusalem, but is amazingly reminiscent of King James' home town of Edinburgh? That King James version?

[Hazel]

Mary, do you think the soul is simply the energy that animates us, or that it is who were are, our personality which is contained within, but seperate from our body?

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Mary, do you think the soul is simply the energy that animates us, or that it is who were are, our personality which is contained within, but seperate from our body?"

I have no idea Hazel. I tend to think of the body as a house and the soul the people who live in the house. I think it is interesting to delve into the possibilities. Personally, I think that fundamentalists and atheists are opposite sides of the same coin. There is a rigidity and finality to both positions. Fundamentalists like the "straight forward" blueprint to salvation. Atheists want tangible proof, but both have made up their minds. OTOH, people might claim that agnostics are wishy-washy and fail to take a definitive position. I think which category one falls into depends a lot on innate personality coupled with life experiences. I am a questioner by nature. My teachers either loved me or hated me, but they always knew I was in their classroom. I think one of the most profound questions we can ask is "why."

[Shaun]

I think you are mis-categorising atheists. I haven't closed my mind to the possibility of a god or gods, but in the absense of either a need for one or evidence for one, I choose to believe otherwise.

Should new evidence ever crop up, I shall add it to me observations and re-evaluate my position.

[[deleted user]]

Shaun wrote: "I think you are mis-categorising atheists. I haven't closed my mind to the possibility of a god or gods, but in the absense of either a need for one or evidence for one, I choose to believe otherw..."

But......by then it may be too late! Please don't wait forever!!

[Shaun]

So, you are saying I should become a Muslim today in case it is too late tomorrow?

[Hazel]

I think "why" is the last question anyone with a toddler wants to hear :P

You see the reason I ask is that when the brain gets damaged, the personality can change. Damaging different parts of the brain results in different effects on the personality. What this tells us is that our personalities, and everything that makes us us is completely ruled by the physiology of our brain, the neurons and their pathways, and that disrupting these alters who we are. Who we are is inextricably linked with our brain physiology and chemistry, it is not separate.

When we die, the brain dies, this is the ultimate in brain damage, the brain stops working. As such, if damaging the brain can remove or change parts of our personality and change who we are, or in fact destroy who someone is completely, the death of the brain will completely eradicate our personality and who we are. As such, nothing continues after we die, and there is no soul.
.

[[deleted user]]

Shaun wrote: "So, you are saying I should become a Muslim today in case it is too late tomorrow?"



You're mocking me, aren't you? :(

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "I think "why" is the last question anyone with a toddler wants to hear :P

You see the reason I ask is that when the brain gets damaged, the personality can change. Damaging different parts of the ..."

Ah. So you're saying there is no after-life, right? "After-life" and what happens to the soul are 2 different things, you know.

[Hazel]

so, if theres no afterlife, what happens to the soul?

[[deleted user]]

you're the one who said there is not after-life. I believe there is an after-life. "After this life" - in Heaven.

[Hazel]

sigh, wow, you're the egotistical one aren't you Kendra.

I was talking to Mary. It was a question on what she said. This isn't the Kendra show you know.

I also don't believe in the soul. Go look up the word "hypothetical" in the dictionary.

So, Mary, as I was saying, if there's no afterlife, what do you hypothesise happens to the apparent soul?

[Hazel]

Shaun wrote: "So, you are saying I should become a Muslim today in case it is too late tomorrow?"

No shaun, you're sure to go to hell that way, its John Frum who shall be your saviour.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "I think "why" is the last question anyone with a toddler wants to hear :P

You see the reason I ask is that when the brain gets damaged, the personality can change. Damaging different parts of the ..."

Yes Hazel. I understand how the brain works (and I have had 3 toddlers in my life so I understand about the question "why"). Yes personalities can change. My brother was born left-handed. His teachers insisted he write with his right hand. Now at age 57, he eats, bats and does many things with his left hand, but he cannot write with it. The fact that environmental or chemical factors might have altered an innate trait does not mean it was not innate to begin with. When you definitively state: "there is no soul," you close off the possibilities entirely. You have found your explanation and have no further need to explore. There is a difference between passively accepting new discoveries and actively seeking them out. If science were to prove the existence of a soul separate from the physical body, then you would probably accept it. However, in order for that proof to come about, one must actively be searching for SOMETHING to make that discovery even if it is accidental.

Back to the "why" question. When my children were very young, why was their favorite vocabulary word . Most of their "whys" were inane and designed to garner attention. When the late afternoon came about (a time I called the arsenic hour), the whys were more numerous. At that point I would tell them they each had 10 more "whys" until dinner so they better make them count. Some of the most wonderful questions came about during that time as they thought about what they really wanted to know. The correlation between the sky being blue and the ozone layer came about because someone asked why.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel wrote: "sigh, wow, you're the egotistical one aren't you Kendra.

I was talking to Mary. It was a question on what she said. This isn't the Kendra show you know."

First of all, I am sorry for intruding. I didn't know you were not talking to me. It's not like you said a name here. How was I to know?

And, secondly, I'm a little confused. This started out as a discussion (or supposedly) about the Left Behind books. I get that you are all against what they teach in thsoe books. I don't agree with everything either, but it's a very small percentage of what is contained in those books.

Tim LaHaye and Jerry B. Jenkins (I have spoken to both on Facebook) did lots of research. That's necessary for something like these books. They know what they are talking about.

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "Shaun wrote: "I think you are mis-categorising atheists. I haven't closed my mind to the possibility of a god or gods, but in the absense of either a need for one or evidence for one, I choose to ..."

Kendra: with all due respect, this tactic does not work. It just irritates people. You cannot force someone through fear or threats to believe what their mind tells them is illogical.

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I think "why" is the last question anyone with a toddler wants to hear :P

You see the reason I ask is that when the brain gets damaged, the personality can change. Damaging differe..."

Explain

[Hazel]

Kendra, i apologise, i had a brain fail, and thought your post was written by Mary. I retract what I said earlier, and will reply to you in amoment

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: "Shaun wrote: "So, you are saying I should become a Muslim today in case it is too late tomorrow?"

You're mocking me, aren't you? :("

Partly, yes, I am mocking the amusing idea that (to paraphrase a certain australian musical genius) in history's endless parade of gods, the one that *you* happened to be taught to believe in is the actual one.

But outside of the amusement, its a valid point, isn't it? And one that applies to you as much as it does to me - maybe we should both convert to Islam before it is too late. Just in case they are right.

After all, if I am going to convert to an Abrahamic religion, and become one of the people of the book, why wouldn't I want to join the most recent version? And why wouldn't you?

Because here is the kicker. EVERY event, witnessing, miracle, text, or other article of faith that makes you convinced that you are right can also be claimed by *every* other truly religious person on the planet.

I just can't see why Christianity's claim of a 3 day ressurection deserves to be taken any more or less seriously that the Sikh claim that Guru Nanak spent 3 days in heaven talking to god before returning to teach Hindus and Muslims to live in peace together. If one can be held to be true, why not the other?

From whence does this utter certainty come. How can it be anythign but an act of supreme arrogance to tell millions of other religious people that "Hey, you are delusional, but I'm not. You miracles are all made up, but mine are real!"

[Hazel]

Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I think "why" is the last question anyone with a toddler wants to hear :P

You see the reason I ask is that when the brain gets damaged, the personality can change. Damaging different..."

Mary, thats exactly what I intend to do when my little girl really starts with the why questions, answer with all the facts. My other half is really into physics, so you imagine how long the explanation for the sky being blue, and rainbows will last for...

[[deleted user]]

Shaun wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Shaun wrote: "So, you are saying I should become a Muslim today in case it is too late tomorrow?"

You're mocking me, aren't you? :("

Partly, yes, I am mocking the amusing idea tha..."

Well, I do have one single argument for you here. All religions think they are right, correct? And all religions have "saviors", correct? And they all boast of "miracles", right? Nearly every single one I've heard of says that they have a savior who rose from the dead. Would you agree? But...I've not heard of any other belief systems where the savior (or Savior) rose from the dead. have you?

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "Ah. So you're saying there is no after-life, right? "After-life" and what happens to the soul are 2 different things, you know. "

basically, Kendra, when you said this, I extended an extrapolation from it, and asked if the afterlife and what happens to the soul are two different things, then what happens to the soul. That was essentially the reason for saying, if theres no afterlife (ie, if the afterlife isn't what happens to the soul, which was an extrapolation I made from your statement), what does happen to the soul?

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "sigh, wow, you're the egotistical one aren't you Kendra.

I was talking to Mary. It was a question on what she said. This isn't the Kendra show you know.

I also don't believe in the soul. Go look ..."

I have a number of hypotheses. It may just merge with another energy source (i.e., the sun, radio waves, etc.) and have no further consciousness. Or there might be a collective consciousness that we all tap into. I have always thought it interesting that many of the most profound ideas seem to sprout up in different locations at the same time. Is this just a natural evolution of education and intelligence, or are these ideas being sucked from some general source? As I have stated before...I do not know. But just because I do not know does not mean a thing is unable to become known. I am an attorney (although I no longer practice). Law school pretty much trains you to walk in the shoes of both sides. I also learned that just because evidence does not exist or cannot be found does not mean the verdict is just. Evidence can also point to a logical result and still be the wrong result. The more evidence we accumulate, the closer we get to some type of good outcome, but the possibility always exists that the evidence does not tell the entire story. So my stance is always search for more evidence.

[Shaun]

Mary wrote: "Kendra wrote: "Shaun wrote: "I think you are mis-categorising atheists. I haven't closed my mind to the possibility of a god or gods, but in the absense of either a need for one or evidence for on..."

Especially when what you are threatening them with is something they don't actually believe in.

"Believe in the unicorn in my sock draw, or else he's going to come and poke you with his horn" is a bit of an empty threat to somebody that doesn't believe the unicorn is real.

[Hazel]

But...I've not heard of any other belief systems where the savior (or Savior) rose from the dead. have you?

Norse heathenry, Odin hung crucified on the world tree for 9 days, upside down, and died in order to gain the wisdom of the runes to pass on to humans. He was then resurrected.

Osiris, the egyptian god, who dies and is resurrected to ensure the continuing return of the waters to maintain life in the nile valley.

Mithra, zoroastrian, and later roman deity (the romans borrowed a lot of other cultrues deities): Mithra was called the son of God, was born of a virgin, had disciples, was crucified, rose from the dead on the third day, atoned for the sins of mankind, and returned to heaven. Interestingly, the roman emperor constantine, who decided which books went in the bible at the council of nicaea and who deified jesus at that time, was a follower of Sol Invictus, of which mithra is part of the aspect. Makes you think, really doesn't it.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "I think "why" is the last question anyone with a toddler wants to hear :P

You see the reason I ask is that when the brain gets damaged, the personality can change. Damag..."

Kids that age are great. When I am interested in a subject, I immerse myself in it and read everything I can about it. When my kids were that age, I think I read every book published about brain development, how children learn, creativity, etc. I think parents set the stage at this age for how their kids think about learning throughout their lives. I encouraged their questions and curiosity and I am so proud of the adults they have become. Good luck with your little one.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: " But...I've not heard of any other belief systems where the savior (or Savior) rose from the dead. have you?

Norse heathenry, Odin hung crucified on the world tree for 9 days, upside down, and die..."

I have a cat named Loki and another named Fenrir .

[Hazel]

Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "sigh, wow, you're the egotistical one aren't you Kendra.

I was talking to Mary. It was a question on what she said. This isn't the Kendra show you know.

I also don't believe in the ..."

I like your stance and respect it :)

Your cats also have awesome names :D

[[deleted user]]

All right, Everyone. I know and realize that you don't like talking with me. I'm a devout Christian, and even if I don't know much (thanks to the TBI that took much of my memory from me) I still believe in God Almighty.

So, you can all argue/discuss as you wish. i'm sorry to have intruded.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: "Hazel wrote: "sigh, wow, you're the egotistical one aren't you Kendra.

I was talking to Mary. It was a question on what she said. This isn't the Kendra show you know.

I also don't be..."

It is hard to tell with this cut and paste style who you are talking to, but if you are talking to me Hazel, thank you! I respect yours as well.

[Shaun]

Kendra wrote: "Shaun wrote: "But...I've not heard of any other belief systems where the savior (or Savior) rose from the dead. "

Well, apart from the story that Buddha was resurrected after three days in hell after being crucified in a sin-atonement. Horus was crucified, buried in a tomb and resurrected. Mithra was buried in a tomb and after three days he rose again. Krishna rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. Osiris also died as a sacrifice for the sins of the world, was killed and then on the third day returned to life.

And there are more. Many more, and most with virgin-born mothers and divine fathers.

****

But ignoring that, so what? It's just another fantastical claim with no evidence behind it, no more believable or unbelievable than the tale that Gautama
Buddha produced flames from the upper part of his body and streams of water from the lower part of his body in order to prove his enlightenment to a doubting kingdom.

When outlandish claims are made, making an exceptionally outlandish one does not somehow make that one automatically more trustworthy than others.

[Hazel]

Mary wrote: "HIt is hard to tell with this cut and paste style who you are talking to, but if you are talking to me Hazel, thank you! I respect yours as well. "

Yes, it was you who I was speaking to :)

[Stephanie]

Karen wrote: "This is my favorite series ever. I have read it 3 times all the way through. The person that started this posting is either a "troll" trying to start debate or does not know the Bible.
The Bible i..."

I appreciate your strong stance.. I just now found this topic and haven't read all of the comments, but I love this series and have read all but the last two, I think.. The store where I was getting them closed and I just moved on to other things.. I still really would like to finish them.. but without reading them, I still know how they will end, for I have read Revelation, many times and I believe in the Word! I think it's nice to see people stand in the gap for Christ on such a public forum! I may not be perfect (but none of us are!) but I do know and believe that these books portrayed something true and I believe probably not far into our future!

[Hazel]

Kendra wrote: "All right, Everyone. I know and realize that you don't like talking with me. I'm a devout Christian, and even if I don't know much (thanks to the TBI that took much of my memory from me) I still ..."

Kendra, we don't dislike talking with you, well at least I don't, in fact, its very stimulating. But we won't just agree with you to make you feel happier or more comfortable.

[Stephanie]

Kitty wrote: "I have read the entire series and they are a very good depiction of the authors view of how Revelation and Daniel prophecies can play out. No one knows only that the bible clearly states it will h..."

I think you just about said it perfectly! :)

[Mary]

Kendra wrote: "All right, Everyone. I know and realize that you don't like talking with me. I'm a devout Christian, and even if I don't know much (thanks to the TBI that took much of my memory from me) I still ..."

Kendra: You have the right to believe as you need to believe. I would never take that from you. In order for any type of conversation to take place, more than one side needs to be represented. If your religious beliefs give you comfort, then they are right for you. However, what you need and what other people need are entirely different things. I grew up in the church. I went every Sunday, Wednesday and attended Vacation Bible School every summer. My religion did not answer my questions or give me any spiritual comfort. I could not reconcile my own mind with a religion that automatically deems me a second class citizen because of my gender. I could not reconcile myself to a religion that passes judgment on all other religions. I remember talking with my pastor at age 9 about the Jewish religion and how Christians can consign them to hell. We had a pretty good intellectual conversation about it and since his answers satisfied my need for justice, I went ahead and got baptized. As I grew older it became more difficult for organized religion to meet my need for equality and justice. So now I seek on my own, but I still seek.

[[deleted user]]

Hazel (do you mind my calling you by your first name? That's all I know, really), I appreciaet your telling me that. And I also understand that none of you are going to agree with me "just because" or to make me feel better. I wouldn't want you to. I want you to make your own decisions. The right ones, but you all obviously know so much - more than I do - and I guess there's no point in my arguing with any of you. Your minds are made up.

[Hazel]

Kendra, if you feel that we know more than you, would you like some suggestions on reading material to make you better prepared to enter into these debates in future? Because, honestly, I'm impressed that you stood up to say what you think, despite us rebutting it at every turn.

And no, I have no issue with you calling me by my first name, I haven't given any other name, and so anything else you called me would be an adjective instead.

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Mary wrote: "HIt is hard to tell with this cut and paste style who you are talking to, but if you are talking to me Hazel, thank you! I respect yours as well. "

Yes, it was you who I was speaking ..."

;0)

[Mary]

Hazel wrote: "Kendra, if you feel that we know more than you, would you like some suggestions on reading material to make you better prepared to enter into these debates in future? Because, honestly, I'm impress..."

There are some good concordances out there and I particularly like John Shelby Spong's books. I would also look into the books that treat the Bible as literature rather than dogma as you get a more historical perspective. The life of Constantine is also good because he was so instrumental in canonizing the Bible.