Lets say that tomarrow someone finds definite, unrefutable, emprical proof that ghosts exist, and they are the souls of dead people. Would this be good for Christianity (
Yea, ghosts exist, Christ could have been reborn!) or bad (
Huh? These dead people are in niether Heaven nor Hell? Where’s that in the bible?) for it?
If they are souls then I think it would help christianity.
If they are ghosts I think they would hinder christianity.
It would damage the materialistic model of consciousness.
There are a range of metaphysical systems and religions that are consistent with the existance of ghosts. But materialism isn’t one of them.
Which religion gains the most support from the evidence for the existance of ghosts would depend upon the nature of that evidence.
eg “I talked to one of my ghosty pals. Turns out his number came up: he’s going to (gulp) the hot place”.
or “…but he’s only scheduled to stay for 207 years. After that he gets reincarnated as a giraffe.”
or “…or would have, except he didn’t stay kosher during his life…”
etc. etc.
A christian who accepts what’s in the Bible (time out here I don’t think you have to be a fundie to take this view, ie creation at 4004BC and all that) would say that ‘demons’, ie the satanic equivalent of angels, are abroad in the world, seeking to enter those that let them, or deceive those who would be deceived.
Presumably they can note enough relevant details of a person to pass themselves off as the ghost of that person.
So a person’s ‘ghost’ (in this sense, a copy) is just that - a copy.
Depends on what the ghosts have to say on the subject. 
Today’s Financial Times (front page, left column, bottom blip) gives the following:
This is truly a case “putting your money where your mouth is” and, in my opinion, is about as close as anything, short of actually capturing one, to providing a proof of ghostly existence.
The FT is not a tabloid; it is the front-page of a highly respected World-business newspaper.
Comments?
The FT is indeed a serious newspaper. So the facts in the story will have been checked.
And the sole fact is…a landlord has taken out an insurance policy.
What are not facts:
‘the building is allegedly haunted by a monk who hanged himself’.
Note the use of the word ‘allegedly’. Newspapers use this to cover themselves from libel damages (but the dead can’t sue for libel, so you can say what you like about the monk!) or when there is no supporting evidence.
‘there are fears that the resident poltergeist could hurt customers’.
I wonder who spread this rumour? Could it be that the pub landlord has decided that publicity about a (non-existent) ghost would bring in extra trade?! :eek:
Has he decided that the cost of the insurance policy would be so low that it would be worth it? :rolleyes:
Have you ever wondered why the rumours of aliens at Roswell, or the Loch Ness monster continue, despite there being no evidence? Are there shops in Roswell and by the Loch selling souvenirs? Oh, indeed there are!
Finally, in case you don’t know, insurance companies will discuss just about any ludicrous policy you want.
You can be insured against being abducted by aliens just before being crowned King of England whilst breaking the record for eating boiled eggs. 
I expect an insurance company would offer a payout of $1,000,000 for an annual premium of about $1 for the above.
Now if I took out such a policy and the FT reported it (it’s quite a ‘newsworthy’ story), would you assume I was in line for the throne of England? (If so, I have a bridge I’d like to sell you…)
The report is poking fun at the quirks of human behaviour, and provides no evidence for ghosts at all.
A quote from glee:
That very, exact thought crossed my mind as I ate breakfast. 
More quote from glee:
Nonsense. An annual premium of a dollar would even cover the cost of the paper the policy was writen on. I can’t see such a premium being anything less than $300-400 per annum, and even that would barely cover the costs of writing the policy–assuming not even a whiff of a possibility of having to pay out.
And finally from glee:
On this count you might be right. Having had no experience whatsoever with ghosts of any kind, I don’t know whether the article offers “no evidence for ghosts at all” or if it was the tip of a journalistic iceberg on a subject that is generally considered inappropriate for serious discussion.
We here in the Americas use this method of a tongue-in-cheek type of report to give a public report on something that we suspect might–just** might**–be true but that we are otherwise loathe to attach our name or reputation to.
Can you tell the difference in the FT news-blip? I can’t.
Well I was trying to emphasise that I could get a quote for $1,000,000 easily.
I accept that there will be some minimum payment for any quote. Let me rephrase: you could get $1,000,000 worth of cover for every $1 you got charged in the premium.
I see you think there is a whiff of a possibility that ‘I would abducted by aliens just before being crowned King of England whilst breaking the record for eating boiled eggs’?
Could you define ‘whiff’ mathematically?!
Are you saying US newspapers don’t report claims of perpetual motion machines, reports that the world is going to end or print horoscopes?
I hope you don’t think any of these ‘might --just** might**–be true’. They’re simply there to sell newspapers, not because they have any merit.
I think if a newspaper is loath to attach its name to some report, then they simply don’t believe it (or it’s libellous).
What might convince you is whether the FT sent a journalist and photographer down to Suffolk to stay at the pub looking for evidence of ghosts.
After all, if they thought there was any chance it was true, it would mean press awards, a complete sellout of the edition that broke the scoop and the full admiration of the world’s media.
But I’m sure they didn’t sent anyone.
My last sentence should have read ‘send anyone.’
Meanwhile I looked at the FT report, which doesn’t name the pub (suggesting they didn’t think it was worth sending a reporter).
I then searched for ‘Suffolk monk ghost pub’ and found these sites:
http://www.mystical-www.co.uk/ghost/zeast.htm
http://www.nzghosts.co.nz/animal_ghosts.htm
http://members.aol.com/MercStG2/GOEANGPage1.html
This site contained a reference to a monk (highlighted by me):
'The White Hart, Blythburgh, Suffolk
The White was originally built as an ecclesiastical court house in the 13th century but there are 15th century additions and it has been an inn for many centuries.
Knocking sounds have been heard on an old oak door which leads from the bar to the living quarters and the sounds are those made by a hand with a ring on it. Footsteps have also been heard in the house but both phenomena stopped abruptly when a mysterious fire seriously damaged the pub in 1967.
Before that time, a little old man, dressed in a monk’s habit, was seen on several occasions and it is thought that he may have been connected with the building in the 14th century when it was the church court house. ’
But it doesn’t say he committed suicide by hanging himself.
http://www.sjgr.org/haunted-places/uk.htm
And this site included an interesting comment (highlighted by me):
‘GOLDEN LION HOTEL
Market Place
St. Ives
Cambridgeshire
The Cambridge University Society for Psychical Research were called upon to investigate the haunting here in 1970 and, **as usual, nothing occurred during their visit. **’
what if it HURTS christianity and that is a GOOD thing? see:
OLD SOULS by Tom Shroder (c)1999
claims to be scientific evidence for reincarnation.
Dal Timgar
Zev Steinhardt
I would like to add for those who don’t have the fortitude to wade through Samuel, that King Saul, who consulted with a woman who consulted with ghosts, was no light-weight. I can only think of two rulers in the ancient history that I know who got such a classy helping hand as did Saul:
[li]Saul who got David with his sling to get rid of the crumb Goliath[/li]
[li]The Egyptian Pharoh who got Joseph, the kid with a shirt of many colors, to help with 7 years of plenty followed by 7 years of famine.[/li]
The point is that although Saul indirectly consulted with ghosts, he didn’t seem to fall into any kind of a ‘cursed’ catagory, either as King or as an individual.
Well, I can tell you that in classic Jewish literature, Saul is not looked upon kindly for doing this. In addition, let’s not forget that he died right after this episode (a sure sign that things weren’t going his way). You could definitely argue that Saul was on the downslide well before this episode, but I don’t think you can say that Saul is looked at in a positive light for this act.
Zev Steinhardt
glee: “Let me rephrase: you could get $1,000,000 worth of cover for every $1 you got charged in the premium.” We’re talking about a poltergeist here. As I understand the lore, they can do a lot of damage. I would like the name of the insurance company that would give you a $1,000,000 worth of coverage for a dollar premium; even if that premium were above the base cost of writing and administering the policy.
glee: “Could you define ‘whiff’ mathematically?!” 0.001 %
glee: “Are you saying US newspapers don’t report claims of perpetual motion machines, reports that the world is going to end or print horoscopes?” Not papers like the Wall Street Journal, IBD or Barrons; unless they have some specific purpose in mind for doing so.
glee: “What might convince you is whether the FT sent a journalist and photographer down to Suffolk to stay at the pub looking for evidence of ghosts.” It might convince me to drop my subscription to the FT. I think that the FT played it exactly right: If there is anything real about the alleged ghost, the local papers will sniff it out–after all it was published in the Financial Times. 
Let me ask a couple of questions here:
A person dies. Said person goes to Heaven. Now, who is to say that once in Heaven this person is forbidden from visiting the loved ones from their past life, maybe even make themselves visible? Would this person be considered a ghost?
A different person dies. This person goes to Hell. What if Hell is that you are forced to stay on Earth forever? What if you are forced to watch your spouse marry another, your children grow old and die, and just generally be stuck here, kind of like solitary confinement? What if this person can make themselves visible and possibly even affect the surrounding environment? Would this person be considered a ghost?
If either of these are the case, I see no way that this would hinder Christianity.
It seems like every other pub you go in here in the Uk claims to be haunted; if nothing else, it’s good for publicity; getting your story published in a national newspaper would be very good publicity, I would think.
I think it would greatly help Christianity.
Say that there is definate, 100% proof that ghosts exist. Something along the lines of its appearing on national TV, meeting everyone in the world. . .something indisputable. Let us also assume that we can prove that it’s a ghost in the traditional sense; the soul/essence of a person who once lived.
Life after death, therefore, would be proven to be possible. The existence of an immutable soul/essence would shore up just about any faith.
Except the bible says the Lord’s favor passed from him to David… and Saul was allowed to be tormented by an evil spirit.
…denies that it is a publicity stunt.
glee: “Are you saying US newspapers don’t report claims of perpetual motion machines, reports that the world is going to end or print horoscopes?”
Parameter: Not papers like the Wall Street Journal, IBD or Barrons; unless they have some specific purpose in mind for doing so.
flowbark: Every edition of the WSJ has a humorous article with rather flexible journalistic standards. Front page, center column.