I have a question about God and out of body experiences in all the different religions

[epronovost]

A zombie doesn't eat, drink and talk

Actually yes they do. Zombies are creatures of Haitien folklore and those who passed through the process of zombification need to eat and drink since they are technically alive, but they suffer from large speach impairment and their mind is severely damaged making them perfect to work like beast of burden or as particularly cruel form of punishment.

 

[Kenny]

Actually yes they do. Zombies are creatures of Haitien folklore and those who passed through the process of zombification need to eat and drink since they are technically alive, but they suffer from large speach impairment and their mind is severely damaged making them perfect to work like beast of burden or as particularly cruel form of punishment.

very interesting.... haven't met any of them though. Jesus did't have a speech impairment.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If God knows everything.Why doesn't he think of the perfect way to make everyone see him out of body at the same?With out hurting them by accident? And convince all the different religions that he is real at the sametime?

It can be seen that Free Will is the perfect way, as without a free will choice, it was not a choice we did make.

So each of us is given a life of choices to know and love God and each choice we make to embrace the light, leads to other choices. In that process, some have experiences to show us we are in reality a spiritual being. I see others do not need those experiences to make their choices.

Regards Tony

 

[epronovost]

very interesting.... haven't met any of them though. Jesus did't have a speech impairment.

They are folklore, local legends not much different then the stories of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no credible evidence for such creature or events actually occuring in line with their popular narrative. That they draw their origins from actual real cases of poisonning or someone abusing of people suffering from mental illness or symbolic encounters by grieving friends and familly is a possibility, but it's all supposition.

PS: I was under the impression that Jesus didn't so or do much following his resurrection in the NT narrative.

 

[Kenny]

They are folklore, local legends not much different then the stories of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. There is no credible evidence for such creature or events actually occuring in line with their popular narrative. That they draw their origins from actual real cases of poisonning or someone abusing of people suffering from mental illness or symbolic encounters by grieving friends and familly is a possibility, but it's all supposition.

Except the history of Jesus isn't a legend.

 

[epronovost]

Except the history of Jesus isn't a legend.

The one you read in the NT is a legendary account. The only historical account of the life of Jesus we have is a single sentence from Tacitus that says he was a religious leader crucified by Pilate.

 

[Kenny]

The one you read in the NT is a legendary account. The only historical account of the life of Jesus we have is a single sentence from Tacitus that says he was a religious leader crucified by Pilate.

I disagree.... And I believe the gospels are historical in nature. Heaven forbid we would actually accept eye witnesses.

 

[epronovost]

I disagree.... And I believe the gospels are historical in nature. Heaven forbid we would actually accept eye witnesses.

They are unsigned, at least one of them has more than one author. There are no sourcing in the book nor any reference to external work for comparison and attestation. We can't even say they are eye witness accounts since they aren't written from a personnal account perspective and describe some events in which there were nobody to witness anything first hand. they are telling a story, but they aren't historical. They don't have the characteristics of historical documents. This isn't a matter of opinion. You can disagree, but that would just make you wrong. You can be wrong; nobody has the obligation to be right all the time.

 

[Kenny]

They are unsigned, at least one of them has more than one author. There are no sourcing in the book nor any reference to external work for comparison and attestation. We can't even say they are eye witness accounts since they aren't written from a personnal account perspective and describe some events in which there were nobody to witness anything first hand. they are telling a story, but they aren't historical. They don't have the characteristics of historical documents. This isn't a matter of opinion. You can disagree, but that would just make you wrong. You can be wrong; nobody has the obligation to be right all the time.

yet, historically it has been confirmed of its authenticity. It is only modern skeptics that say otherwise.,,,, But you are free to be wrong

 

[Thief]

If God knows everything.Why doesn't he think of the perfect way to make everyone see him out of body at the same?With out hurting them by accident? And convince all the different religions that he is real at the sametime?

think Prime Directive
of Star Trek fame

 

[epronovost]

yet, historically it has been confirmed of its authenticity. It is only modern skeptics that say otherwise

Actually many branches of Christianity, most notably the gnostic, didn't believe the various Gospels to be historical accounts or even Jesus to be a fleash and blood physical being in some cases. Of course, these were denounced has heretics by the orthodox from which you derive. They were largely massacred, their own writtings, teachings and interpretation largely destroyed. It is dogma that asserts the Gospels as historical documents written by eyewitnesses.

 

[MonkeyFire]

God cant save you, you need to save yourself, save your divinity.

 

[Kenny]

Actually many branches of Christianity, most notably the gnostic, didn't believe the various Gospels to be historical accounts or even Jesus to be a fleash and blood physical being in some cases. Of course, these were denounced has heretics by the orthodox from which you derive. They were largely massacred, their own writtings, teachings and interpretation largely destroyed. It is dogma that asserts the Gospels as historical documents written by eyewitnesses.

Gnosticism was an offshoot of the main branch. What people did has nothing to do with what Jesus and the Epistles wrote

 

[epronovost]

Gnosticism was an offshoot of the main branch.

There was no established orthodoxy or "main branch" in the early early 2nd century when the gnostic emerged. There would not be any clear orthodoxy in until the council of Niceae in the early 4th century. Not that it prevented various schools to present as the one true followers and others as heretics. You side is just the one that won and not necessarily by the strength of its arguments.

What people did has nothing to do with what Jesus and the Epistles wrote

Gnosticism is older or about as old as some Epistles and they claim to cetainly follow the teachings of Jesus, not just what you think they are.

 

[Kenny]

There was no established orthodoxy or "main branch" in the early early 2nd century when the gnostic emerged. There would not be any clear orthodoxy in until the council of Niceae in the early 4th century. Not that it prevented various schools to present as the one true followers and others as heretics. You side is just the one that won and not necessarily by the strength of its arguments.



Gnosticism is older or about as old as some Epistles and they claim to cetainly follow the teachings of Jesus, not just what you think they are.

Actually, there is a "main branch" and it was the influx of Gnosticism and other false doctrines that demanded it to be quantified, qualified and written

 

[epronovost]

Actually, there is a "main branch" and it was the influx of Gnosticism and other false doctrines that demanded it to be quantified, qualified and written

You can't really make a claim for the "main branch" for yourself. Note that what we call the orthodoxy of Christianity was composed of several different sects and school of thoughts that would continue to argue against one another up to the point of causing other schism. Your point of view is decidedly completely in line with acceptance of a particular dogma. A fervant gnostic would say they were overcome by liars and false teachers who wanted power and glory for themselves and hid their greed beneath a false mask of piety referring there to the Church which would then split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

 

[Kenny]

You can't really make a claim for the "main branch" for yourself. Note that what we call the orthodoxy of Christianity was composed of several different sects and school of thoughts that would continue to argue against one another up to the point of causing other schism. Your point of view is decidedly completely in line with acceptance of a particular dogma. A fervant gnostic would say they were overcome by liars and false teachers who wanted power and glory for themselves and hid their greed beneath a false mask of piety referring there to the Church which would then split between the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

what is written is written. How people interpret it, is man's problem. Most division comes when they add to what is written.

And we do claim "the main branch" as being the Gospels and the Epistles. For ourselves and for all.

 

[epronovost]

what is written is written. How people interpret it, is man's problem. Most division comes when they add to what is written.

And we do claim "the main branch" as being the Gospels and the Epistles. For ourselves and for all.

There are many epistles and gospels that never made it into the NT. The Christian orthodoxy didn't established by refusing to add new writtings but by selectively choosing which would be "the correct writtings" by popular vote in the Council of Nicaea and rejecting the others. Of course, the orthodoxy will claim this choice was the correct one and support it by claiming papal infaillability on doctrine matters amongst other things, but those who opposed them called them heretical for denying sacred writtings and their own divine revelations.

 

[Kenny]

There are many epistles and gospels that never made it into the NT. The Christian orthodoxy didn't established by refusing to add new writtings but by selectively choosing which would be "the correct writtings" by popular vote in the Council of Nicaea and rejecting the others. Of course, the orthodoxy will claim this choice was the correct one and support it by claiming papal infaillability on doctrine matters amongst other things, but those who opposed them called them heretical for denying sacred writtings and their own divine revelations.

And with good reasons. We start with the plumb-line of the OT and the established realities of what it is indisputable (the gospels and the epistles) - from there you can determine what is heresy and what is false.

 

[Bird123]

If God knows everything.Why doesn't he think of the perfect way to make everyone see him out of body at the same?With out hurting them by accident? And convince all the different religions that he is real at the sametime?

How about this: It has never been about Believing. It has never been about God. It is about us. God does not want to intimidate those choices. Would a visit from God intimidate your choices? How would it change things? God would never ruin your lessons or anyone else's lessons by a visit.

One does not have to be hurt to get a visit from God.

Religion is a catalyst that brings so many of people's problems to the surface so they can be dealt with. After all, when one thinks one has God's blessing, one can justify anything.

Religion is mankind's attempt to understand God. Religions reflect mankind more than anything else. On the other hand, I find bits of God in all of them. Perhaps, together they might come closer to understanding.

This is what I see. It's very clear!!