Hello everyone. I was wondering if there are any christians on this board who might recognize the possibility of deception in some of these NDE experiences. It seems really strange to me that even though the Bible is real clear on the plan of salvation, that most people coming out of these NDE experiences wind up believing in universal redemption because of what some “angel of light” told them. You’re probably going to blast me but how can the things people are being told (everyone is saved, no need for forgiveness of sin, no need for acceptance of a Saviour, etc.) be true when they contradict what God’s word says? I’m really puzzled that people are willing to just throw the Bible out the window and believe whatever their experience tells them or whatever beings from the spirit world tell them. Especially since the Bible warns of the possibility of deception and tells us to test the spirits (1 John 4:1-3). Well just thought I’d put my two cents worth in. I have to go. Bye.
I never had a NDE, but I see nothing wrong with a belief system based on what you claim those that have had such an experience believe. I long ago came to an agreement with God that if he was the kind of God that the Christian orthodox believed in, then I did not want to continue being a worshiper of Him. I still worship Him because He didn’t intervene at the time. I admit that there is a small possibility that I’m still wrong and there in lies the difference in my belief and that of the “true” Christian.
His4ever, a question: why do you think it is more valid to follow a particular set of religious works (in your case, the Bible) rather than trust personal experience? I do not see why any religion should ask its followers to ignore what their own senses and minds tell them. After all, if God wants people to be saved, why would deceptions exist to get in the way? Being deceived isn’t exercising your free will.
(That being said, I don’t think that all experiences should be trusted, particularly those that occur during a period of lack of a good oxygen supply to the brain. However, I don’t think an experience is less valid than believing what, essentially, someone else tells you to take on faith.)
But, don’t His4ever and the rest of us have to take on faith this supposed experience that someone relates to us?
I believe in near-death experiences.
However, I don’t believe in God. I have no problem accepting that unusual visual effects were experienced and later reported by people who were suffering from oxygen deprivation in the final moments before modern medecine was able to fully restore their lifesigns. Some people choose to view this as evidence of God. I don’t, myself, but it would rude to call these people liars without clear evidence that deception was their goal, as in:
[ul][li]They never had the NDE, or[/li][li]They had the NDE and knew it was a purely physical phenomenon, and tried to invoke God anyway.[/li][/ul]
In any event, Occam’s razor directs me to accept NDEs as comparable to hallucinations, and not evidence of a larger spiritual meaning. I have not yet seen plausible evidence to make me modify that position.
Obviously, not all religions can be correct. There has to be truth that is true for everyone whether they believe it or not. Just as their are absolutes in the physical world. Such as if you jump out a window, it’s absolutely true that you’re going to fall (unless you have a parachute to use). I believe the Bible is God’s word and it tells us the truth about the spiritual world and those that inhabit it. Personal experience and feelings and emotions, etc. can be deceptive. Our eyes can see things that don’t exist (optical illusions). Our senses can’t always be trusted. And God does want people to be saved but He will force Himself on no one. He has a plan of salvation. It’s up to us to individually accept it…or not. You take your experiences on faith the same as I take the Bible on faith. The Bible clearly dictates that deception is possible. It tells us NOT to believe every spirit…1 John 4:1-3
Why? Once you invoke the supernatural, nothing becomes impossible. Why can’t there be a powerful “god” for every human being in existence, a god that takes whatever form dictated by that person’s beliefs? So there are six billion gods, and new ones come into existence every time a person is born, and care for the soul of that person when they die. The individual gods pretty much ignore each other, since each has a well-defined “territory” (i.e. one human). Six billion too large a number? Compared to the infinity and eternity concepts casually thrown around in most religions, six billion is no more significant than six.
I fail to see how this interpretation is any more or less plausible than the monotheistic JudeoChristian view.
Certainly you can believe that if you like but it makes absolutely no sense to me and would be absolute chaos as far as I’m concerned. And if this new “god” comes into existence for every one whose born, to me that’s not a true God. It makes more sense to me to believe in one God sovereign over all creation than to believe in the scenario you’ve shared. It sounds like the “create your own reality” mumbo jumbo that I’ve heard from other people. Demanding something to be so or saying it is so doesn’t make it so. Sorry, but millions and millions of gods? I don’t think so. When you invoke the supernatural, as you say, there are only 2 sources for you to deal with. God and the unfallen angels or the fallen angels, including satan. A new god doesn’t come into existence each time someone is born. There’s already one God for everyone whether He is accepted or rejected by men. Your theory sounds ludicrous to me. This is just my opinion and in no way says anything detrimental about you.
—When you invoke the supernatural, as you say, there are only 2 sources for you to deal with. —
Nonsense: once you invoke the supernatural, all bets are off, because you no longer have any guarantee of any particular rules to play by. Eker’s suggestion seems as good as any: rooting an alternate universe in each conscious person.
It is a puzzler when intensely meaningful experiences affect people more than dogma.
Probably one of those insoluble problems, though. Best not to think of it.
Not necessarily, unless you conclude that “supernatural” means violating fundamental rules of logic. Most people use “supernatural” to mean things that they can’t explain with current knowledge. That doesn’t mean that UFOs and ghosts, should they exist, don’t obey the laws of physics; it just means that the laws of physics as we know them don’t accurately reflect the way the world works in those instances. I don’t think that the existence of God suddenly means that A = not A, or other such logical nonsense. That being the case, most mainstream religions are incompatible. The Christian God says he’s the only one. The Muslim God says he’s the only one. They obviously can’t both be right, because one of them being correct precludes the existence of the other. Now, Ekers’ “infinite gods” theory is logically possible, but if that’s the case, that means that Christianity is wrong.
Jeff
The problem is that as soon you assumle deception can be at work, you’ve no way to know who’s actually deceived. It could very well be you, and the deception can be in what you assume are god’s word, instead of in someone else’s experience.
Actually, most people would be more convinced by what they personnally experienced than by a theory they have been told about. So, I’m not sure why you’re puzzled by these people “throwing the bible out of the window”
Not really. The (traditionally understood) Christian God, co-opted from the Jews, says he’s the only god for the Jewish folks, not necessarily the only God. In fact, I’d say the phrase “no other gods before me” indicates there are other gods.
The revelations of Allah through the Prophet claim the Jews and Christians serve the same God, but their religions are just skewed and not as perfect Islam.
Furthermore, there’s nothing in Buddhism that precludes a simultaneous belief in Christ. And Hinduism practically requires that there are many Gods, or more accurately as many incarnations of Supreme Being as it takes to meet the needs of people. The Hindu religion assumes all of the world’s religions worship different incarnations of the same Ultimate Reality.
You also assume that everyone who is a Christian is interpreting the Bible the same way.
**
I’m afraid I’ve got to disagree with you there Homebrew. Judaism is a strictly monotheistic religion. It does not hold of the existence of any other gods. The prohibition you mentioned is a prohibition against setting up other gods, and a prohibition against worshipping any other being (real or imagined) as an intermediary between yourself and God.
**
That’s interesting considering that with the possible exception of the Unitarians, Jews and Christians do NOT worship the same God. Christians worship a triune deity, while Jews worship a single diety.
As an aside, Judaism holds that Muslim DO worship the same God as Jews do.
Zev Steinhardt
Thank you, Zev I appreciate you providing the Jewish viewpoint on this subject. I didn’t mean to imply that I was providing the Jewish perspective, but rather the Christian one. I especially didn’t know that tidbit about Islam. However, I still contend that whether there are other gods or not is subject to interpretation. He is frequently refered to as the “God of Isreal” and, for instance, Dagon is referred to as the god of the Philistines. When Ruth left Moab, she declared that Naomi’s god would be her god, implying that she had a different god that performed perfectly well beforehand. Baal was treated as a real, albiet impotent, god.
As I mentioned, the Christian perspective was co-opted and I agree that the Christian triune god is significantly different than the Jewish idea. Jesus’ role in that Trinity was what changed the early Christian church from a Jewish sect into a new religion. The idea of a Trinity is surely seen as heresy by Judiasm. However, Christians see it as the same God.
Ah, OK, I misunderstood what you were saying, Homebrew.
In any event, one cannot deny that other civilizations had other gods. That doesn’t mean that they were, in fact, gods.
Zev Steinhardt
I don’t see how you reconcile this statement with your earlier dismissal of my “one man, one god” theory. If Hinduism assumes as many gods “as it takes to meet the needs of the people”, why couldn’t there be one god per person? “Christianity” as a concept doesn’t mean every believer got smushed into one big ball, with collective thoughts and beliefs. Despite their collective adherence to basic tenets and rituals, the members remain individuals, and no doubt each has a slightly different take on things. Periodically, a group of them would decide their views were different enough from what they perceived as mainstream, and a new denomination would be created.
Even if there is an Ultimate Reality (play dramatic music), why couldn’t six billion (not “millions and millions”, please; if we’re going to debate the ethereal, we should cling to whatever facts are available) gods casually get along with each other, swap recipes, go to garage sales, etc, while each keeps an eye on their own individual human? This theory doesn’t even mean that Christianity is “wrong”, it just means that, at the moment, a good chunk of the six billion gods are more-or-less alike. Maybe you could smush them together into one big-G God. Why not?
There’s no point even applying laws of logic and physics and whatnot to such a debate, since they are completely irrelevant; as irrelevant as worrying about the jaywalking laws in Rio while you relax in a café in Brussels.
My own god, by the way, is big on the math and physics and evolution and kittens and stuff like that. Right now, he’s helping me lose weight. I call him “Future”. He doesn’t care if I stay Kosher, or wear a yamulkah or keep the Sabbath. He’d be upset if I went out killing people, though. I sense that much.
I think you’ve confused posters, I didn’t dismiss your idea of “one god per person” and it is entirely plausible within the Hindu context. In fact, all Living Beings, including humans and animals and Dieties are simply manifestations of the Ultimate Reality and as such are all sacred.
His4ever, if I understand what you’re saying, it goes a little something like this:
(A-one, two, three, four)
Assumptions
-My interpretation of the Bible is true.
-God is picky about who He lets into Heaven, I tell you.
-Some people, when they come close to death, think that God tells them that He’ll let any Tom, Dick, or Rajneesh through the pearly gates.
Question:
Are they correct?
Given how you set up the argument, of course they’re not correct: either they’re lying, or they’re hallucinating, or something else is happening to mislead them.
However, you’ve got some big fat assumptions there. Mainly, that your interpretation of the Bible is the best starting point for describing the objective universe. As long as that assumption is there, the argument is both trivial and irrelevant.
If you’ve got some reason why people oughtta believe your interpretation of the Bible over their own personal experiences, or over their own interpretation of the Bible, or over their own faith, or over mainstream science, let’s hear it.
Daniel
(hopefully not a double post)