Born again christians

[fidiot]

I was wondering what's the reasoning behind turning back to christianity? My theory is that when they "doubt their faith" in the first place, somehow they're unconvinced by atheism, and then after a couple of years they turn back to what used to be comfortable. Anyway, I don't mean to argue with anybody, it seemed like a good discussion topic.

[Keneke]

My theory is that two psychological forces, the desire for autonomy, and the desire for relief (from burdens), constantly battle with one another. Skeptics have very strong autonomy drives, and the faithful have very strong relief drive. As a person ages, these drives, along with other influences, change. A middle aged man is expected to supply his family, therefore he has been trained to have a hefty supply of autonomy (which also explains why most skeptics are middle aged men). As a person gets older the kids move out, you have less and less life left to save money for, and have more and more aches and pains. Your autonomy drive lessens as your relief drive increases. This accounts for older people being more religious.

Of course, there might be many more variables that cause action in people. Or maybe this phenomenon is already classified by psychologists. I'm just a dabbler, after all.

[specious_reasons]

My impression was that most "born again" people fall into two major categories:

1. Were "Christian", but not very religious, until they got a "shot in the arm" which caused their faith to be renewed.

2. Were not very religious at all, and were confronted with it.

I think that rational athiests turning to God is probably a very small set of people.

BTW, most evangelism isn't geared towards atheists, most evangelism is geared towards the church-going Christian. They're often trying to get people to be committed to the faith they already profess to believe.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by fidiot
I was wondering what's the reasoning behind turning back to christianity? My theory is that when they "doubt their faith" in the first place, somehow they're unconvinced by atheism, and then after a couple of years they turn back to what used to be comfortable. Anyway, I don't mean to argue with anybody, it seemed like a good discussion topic.

Or so the born again Christians would like you to think...

Actually, their main reasoning can be found mostly in Chick tracts. Their targets are former criminals (who may or may not have already been Christian), or anybody else who can be turned from a life of people beating to bible beating. Although technically their targets are anybody but themselves, it looks like they tend to have the most success with the "reformed criminal" crowd. It makes sense that people who were released from jail might regret their actions, and that a majority of these people would be uneducated, so when a guy comes by threatening damnation for bad actions, promising salvation from divine retribution, and passing out Chick tracts, guess who's likely to believe him.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
My impression was that most "born again" people fall into two major categories:

1. Were "Christian", but not very religious, until they got a "shot in the arm" which caused their faith to be renewed.

2. Were not very religious at all, and were confronted with it.

I think that rational athiests turning to God is probably a very small set of people.

BTW, most evangelism isn't geared towards atheists, most evangelism is geared towards the church-going Christian. They're often trying to get people to be committed to the faith they already profess to believe.


I spent my childhood involved with fundementalist churches, and while it wasn't apparent at the time,
what you say, is glaring now.


They spend a lot of their time talking about backsliding, re-dedicating their lives to Jesus, struggling with the devil etc..
Why so much doubt, and the problem with sinning, after you recognize what it is?

What about Catholics, and all that 'confession' stuff? I mean, you find the truth, confess your sins (once) and start living a Christian life. Why such a struggle?

[stamenflicker]

I think most all of you would serve this discussion best by providing a definition of born again Christian. So far, you're not even close.

Flick

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by fidiot
I was wondering what's the reasoning behind turning back to christianity? My theory is that when they "doubt their faith" in the first place, somehow they're unconvinced by atheism, and then after a couple of years they turn back to what used to be comfortable. Anyway, I don't mean to argue with anybody, it seemed like a good discussion topic.

Hi fidot,

I believe I have a pretty good insight into this as I spent more than ten years of my life in an "evangelical" church.

The term "Born Again" is in reference to the third chapter of the book of John, where Jesus Christ is speaking with the Pharisee named Nicodemus. He's speaking of the Christian notion that man must be "born of the Spirit".

Anyway, that is the origin of the term.

Evangelicals often use the term "backsliding" to describe individuals who have fallen away from the church.

Now, I would agree in principle with your assessment for the most part. What tends to happen, at least it has been my experience that this happens, is that folks "get saved" and are excited about the decision that they've made. They are anxious to tell others about what they've done and this is encouraged by the church leadership. Then, sometime later, the "honeymoon" period is over and the realities of life creep back. They find themselves less enthusiastic about church, and might even question some things, particularly if the preacher is one of the "fire and brimstone" types that isn't particularly concerned with a touchy-feely sermon but rather preaches on things like tithing, the dangers of alcohol, abortion, infidelity, commitment to the church, envangelism, missions, etc.. The individuals *might* start questioning their original decision, but I don't think it is always that way.

It is all very fascinating to me.

Take care,
Sort:)

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by specious_reasons
My impression was that most "born again" people fall into two major categories:

1. Were "Christian", but not very religious, until they got a "shot in the arm" which caused their faith to be renewed.

2. Were not very religious at all, and were confronted with it.

I think that rational athiests turning to God is probably a very small set of people.

BTW, most evangelism isn't geared towards atheists, most evangelism is geared towards the church-going Christian. They're often trying to get people to be committed to the faith they already profess to believe.

I would certainly agree with the last section. In an evangelical church, "prospects" are important and most "witnesses" are ill equiped to witness to atheists, especially an atheist that has an entire grab bag of questions from which to pull "show stoppers".

It is far easier to get the "seeking" man to convert than it is the one who isn't searching for god.

Some evangelical churches have the notion of an "invitation" at the tail end of a service, where the minister makes a strong push for folks to walk down the aisle and make a decision. It has been my experience that most of the folks who walk down that aisle are either already professing christians, "backsliders" looking to renew their faith, or children or relatives of church members. Not always the case, but certainly the bulk of "aisle walkers" I've seen fall into those categories.

Take care,
Sort:)

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by Diogenes

I spent my childhood involved with fundementalist churches, and while it wasn't apparent at the time,what you say, is glaring now.

They spend a lot of their time talking about backsliding, re-dedicating their lives to Jesus, struggling with the devil etc.. Why so much doubt, and the problem with sinning, after you recognize what it is?

What about Catholics, and all that 'confession' stuff? I mean, you find the truth, confess your sins (once) and start living a Christian life. Why such a struggle?

I think I've mentioned this before, but my primary experience is from college, living with an evangelical Christian and dealing with the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship.

I thought that backsliding, continuing to sin, re-dedicating their life was part and parcel for Christianity, since no one is perfect, and the devil is always tempting them. I also thought confession was another way of coping with that.

Also, most of the fundamentalist churches basically think that only a select few of the people who think of themselves as "Christian" are really "saved". That's the viewpoint of IVCF, although IVCF only has one criteria, "accepting Jesus" to be saved. That's fairly liberal for Christianity. Of course, they think that the unwashed masses haven't done this, that's why they're drinking and having sex and listening to rock and roll music.

I could go on, but it's probably not appropriate for this thread.

Ummm... Isn't David Murray-O'Hare (son of the famous atheist) a born-again Christian? Might be interesting to look up in relation to this topic. I don't personally know of anyone who was a confirmed atheist becoming born-again. Well, none that have revealed it to me.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by Diogenes



I spent my childhood involved with fundementalist churches, and while it wasn't apparent at the time,
what you say, is glaring now.


They spend a lot of their time talking about backsliding, re-dedicating their lives to Jesus, struggling with the devil etc..
Why so much doubt, and the problem with sinning, after you recognize what it is?

What about Catholics, and all that 'confession' stuff? I mean, you find the truth, confess your sins (once) and start living a Christian life. Why such a struggle?

Hi Diogenes,

I guess my experience was that folks almost thrived on sermons that told them how poorly they were living up to the Christian ideal. For example, the evangelical church I have a history with would have a Sunday morning service, a "bible study" hour in the morning either before or after the service, a Sunday evening service, a Monday night witnessing meeting (where you end up going door-to-door to "prospects" who have visited the church), Wednesday night services, and usually one other night of the week for something like a "ministry" meeting. So, the minister would really stress that you should always be there "when the doors are open".

The minister would allude to some "other churches" in town that didn't stress such things and claimed that the ministers of those churches were mealy mouthed, compromising individuals. So the mood had been set that it was God's desire that folks be highly involved with the church, for example, and that kept them believing that they weren't doing a very good job at living the (impossible to live) christian life.

Take care,
Sort:)

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I think I've mentioned this before, but my primary experience is from college, living with an evangelical Christian and dealing with the Intervarsity Christian Fellowship.

I thought that backsliding, continuing to sin, re-dedicating their life was part and parcel for Christianity, since no one is perfect, and the devil is always tempting them. I also thought confession was another way of coping with that.

Also, most of the fundamentalist churches basically think that only a select few of the people who think of themselves as "Christian" are really "saved". That's the viewpoint of IVCF, although IVCF only has one criteria, "accepting Jesus" to be saved. That's fairly liberal for Christianity. Of course, they think that the unwashed masses haven't done this, that's why they're drinking and having sex and listening to rock and roll music.

I could go on, but it's probably not appropriate for this thread.

Ummm... Isn't David Murray-O'Hare (son of the famous atheist) a born-again Christian? Might be interesting to look up in relation to this topic. I don't personally know of anyone who was a confirmed atheist becoming born-again. Well, none that have revealed it to me.

I believe that William Murray is his name. He is indeed a "born again Christian" and has spoken on several occasions at a church I have attended. He has a religious freedom business/ministry in a town not too far from where I grew up.

Also, on the notion that "accepting Jesus" is the one thing to do - yes, that is how it is presented - usually a four step process, but then it seems to get more and more involved.

Take care,
Sort:)

[specious_reasons]

It's William Murray-O'Hair:

http://www.wjmurray.com/testimony.htm

(or just Willaim Murray, looks like he's dropped the O'Hair)

[evildave]

Basically, the ones who give me the following speech:

"Have you let Jesus into your life and become born again? I was a drug user (alcaholic/criminal/etc.), but then I found Jesus! And then I was weak and I associated with my old acquaintences and did more drugs (fell off the wagon/did more crime). Then something scary happened (usually in a car), and I KNEW it was God warning me. I've been clean ever since!"

... have colored my picture of "Born Again" all too fully.

And yes, I've been told this tale several times by different people in situations where I couldn't leave (i.e. waiting for laundry, public transportation, etc.)

It's like they all rehearse the same pathetic drool from a book and improvise the details. It just screams "Let Jesus into your life and be a loser just like me!" Like, maybe if I burn out enough brain cells some day, Christianity will have some appeal for me.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by evildave
Basically, the ones who give me the following speech:

"Have you let Jesus into your life and become born again? I was a drug user (alcaholic/criminal/etc.), but then I found Jesus! And then I was weak and I associated with my old acquaintences and did more drugs (fell off the wagon/did more crime). Then something scary happened (usually in a car), and I KNEW it was God warning me. I've been clean ever since!"

... have colored my picture of "Born Again" all too fully.

And yes, I've been told this tale several times by different people in situations where I couldn't leave (i.e. waiting for laundry, public transportation, etc.)

It's like they all rehearse the same pathetic drool from a book and improvise the details. It just screams "Let Jesus into your life and be a loser just like me!" Like, maybe if I burn out enough brain cells some day, Christianity will have some appeal for me.

I've heard it said from a church pulpit before that before one can be saved she has to be lost - the notion that until a person is in a place where they are searching for god, they won't find him. So, yes, folks who have hit rock bottom are prime candidates to be born again.

Take care,
Sort:)

[fishbob]

Flick sez:

I think most all of you would serve this discussion best by providing a definition of born again Christian. So far, you're not even close.
--------------------------------------
I agree with Flick.

The thing that struck me most in my contacts with the Born-Agains was a belief I heard about several times; that they are forgiven when they are born again for all their past and future sins.

To some of them, this forgiveness for future sins apparently freed them to commit petty theft and other mean and hurtful acts, justified by already being absolved of their sins. Had to watch your wallet and your lunch box around them.

I did not meet anybody that carried this beyond petty acts. Fear of the legal system rather than fear of god, I expect.

I don't know if this is what Flick was getting at, but I had not seen it discussed yet.

[stamenflicker]

I think moving to William James on pyschological nature of conversion, especially in relation to the sick soul, would be of use to many of you. I also recommend Loder's "The Transforming Momement."

Fact or fiction, some of you are managing to mock a concept you've not bothered to study.

Flick

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I think moving to William James on pyschological nature of conversion, especially in relation to the sick soul, would be of use to many of you. I also recommend Loder's "The Transforming Momement."

Fact or fiction, some of you are managing to mock a concept you've not bothered to study.

Flick


We'll try to clear our discussion topic with you next time flick...

Since we are so in need, of your enlightened input, why don't you contribute instead of giving us homework..


Hint: This a forum where skeptics talk about things they are skeptical of. Opposing opinions are always welcome..
:D

P.S.

i.e.. your original comment..
I think most all of you would serve this discussion best by providing a definition of born again Christian. So far, you're not even close.

Who would best be served notwithstanding, there may have been a misapplication of of the
term " born again ", when considered from a 'Born Again' Christian's viewpoint.
But it was apparent to most of us, ( who bothered to read between the lines) that fidiot was
referring to 'twice' or more, 'Born Again' Christians'

[Graham]

Far away in the tropical waters of the Caribbean, two prawns were swimming around in the sea - one called Justin and the other called Christian.
The prawns were constantly being harassed and threatened by sharks that patrolled the area. Finally one day Justin said to Christian, "I'm bored and frustrated at being a prawn, I wish I was a shark, then I wouldn't have any worries about being eaten..."
As Justin had his mind firmly on becoming a predator, a mysterious cod appears and says, "Your wish is granted", and lo and behold,
Justin turned into a shark. Horrified, Christian immediately swam away, afraid of being eaten by his old mate.
Time went on and Justin found himself becoming bored and lonely as a shark. All his old mates simply swam away whenever he came close to them. Justin didn't realise that his new menacing appearance was the cause of his sad plight.
While out swimming alone one day he sees the mysterious cod again and can't believe his luck. Justin figured that the fish could change him back into a prawn. He begs the cod to change him back so, lo and behold, he is turned back into a prawn.
With tears of joy in his tiny little eyes, Justin swam back to his friends and bought them all a cocktail. (The punch line does not involve a prawn cocktail - it's much worse). Looking around the gathering at the reef, he searched for his old pal. "Where's Christian?" he asked. "He's at home, distraught that his best friend changed sides to the enemy and became a shark", came the reply.
Eager to put things right again and end the mutual pain and torture, he set off to Christian's house. As he opened the coral gate the memories came flooding back. He banged on the door and shouted, "It's me, Justin, your old friend, come out and see me again."
Christian replied "No way man, you'll eat me. You're a shark, the enemy and I'll not be tricked. "
Justin cried back "No, I'm not. That was the old me. I've changed."
Wait for it
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

"I've seen Cod. I'm a prawn again Christian".

[Skeptical Greg]

Good one!!!:D

[Keneke]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I think most all of you would serve this discussion best by providing a definition of born again Christian. So far, you're not even close.

Flick I was answering the thread starter's question. Of course "born again" does not mean returning to Christianity!

[Tricky]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I think most all of you would serve this discussion best by providing a definition of born again Christian. So far, you're not even close.

Flick
What can we go by, Flick, if not what Born Agains have told us? I asked my friend who was "saved" at the revival tent what it meant to be "born again". He said it meant he had turned his life over to Jesus Christ. When I asked what that meant, he said that he was going to let Jesus make his decisions for him. I doubt seriously that this is what you mean by "born again".

It is pretty obvious that like Christianity itself, "Born Again" means different things to different people. Who is right? Does writing a book about it make you right? Does undergoing the experience of being born again make you right?

[Skeptical Greg]

From the horse's mouth..
John 3
1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again..

[Dragonrock]

My "born again" phase was due to the fact that I'm a coward. I was afraid of being "left behind" so I accepted god and got baptised and all that. When I look back I see that fear motivated me. It was nice to be able to let my imaginary friend do the worrying, but I wasn't turning things over to god, I was avoiding them. Taking responsibility for my own actions is something I've always believed in, and the whole creation and armageddon thing just made me wonder. So eventually I gained enough introspection to realize why I felt what I did and the logic in me won out. God never made sense to me, I just was afraid to not believe.

----
, looks like he's dropped the O'Hair)
----


I don't blame him.

[Ipecac]

Why is it that people who "Let Jesus make all my decisions for me?" don't end up dead from starvation on their couch about two weeks later? Since Jesus doesn't exactly call people on the phone, just what the heck is that supposed to mean? Sounds like those people are making some decisions.

Also, why is it that Christians are the only ones ever possessed by demons? You would think that atheists would be easy targets. The fact that only Christians are possessed seems to be a selling point against becoming a Christian.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Ipecac
Also, why is it that Christians are the only ones ever possessed by demons? You would think that atheists would be easy targets. The fact that only Christians are possessed seems to be a selling point against becoming a Christian.


Good..

I'm saving this...

[evildave]

Oh, well they're all already possessed by demons, don't you know?

Only demonic possession could possibly explain not believing in their imaginary friend, the sky daddy.

[Keneke]

Originally posted by Dragonrock
My "born again" phase was due to the fact that I'm a coward. I was afraid of being "left behind" so I accepted god and got baptised and all that. When I look back I see that fear motivated me. It was nice to be able to let my imaginary friend do the worrying, but I wasn't turning things over to god, I was avoiding them. Taking responsibility for my own actions is something I've always believed in, and the whole creation and armageddon thing just made me wonder. So eventually I gained enough introspection to realize why I felt what I did and the logic in me won out. God never made sense to me, I just was afraid to not believe.
I'd like to think that's the motivation behind all religion. :)

[stamenflicker]

Thanks for the John 3 reference Dio... that's a far different definition of "born again" than the one provided over the top half of this thread.

Born again is not "returning" to anything... that's made abundantly clear in the remainder of the John 3 passage. It describes a relationship of "being" in the world. The first "being" is birth by water, or natural child birth.

The second birth denotes spiritual awakening.


Dragonrock,

Taking responsibility for my own actions is something I've always believed in, and the whole creation and armageddon thing just made me wonder. So eventually I gained enough introspection to realize why I felt what I did and the logic in me won out. God never made sense to me, I just was afraid to not believe.

The entire first half of the bible is about taking responsibility for one's actions. May I suggest a re-read?


Tricky,

Does undergoing the experience of being born again make you right?

Yes, it makes me right. [pun intended]


Flick

[fidiot]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stamenflicker
Thanks for the John 3 reference Dio... that's a far different definition of "born again" than the one provided over the top half of this thread.

Born again is not "returning" to anything... that's made abundantly clear in the remainder of the John 3 passage. It describes a relationship of "being" in the world. The first "being" is birth by water, or natural child birth.

The second birth denotes spiritual awakening.
[QUOTE]

Yeah, but doesn't that imply that one has to lose faith in god in order to be able to be born again? I mean that if a person is already a baptised christian, then he already was "born again", right? Sorry if I'm being blatantly ignorant, I'm not a bible scholar by any means.

[fidiot]

Please disregard my previous post. I am stupid.

[specious_reasons]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Thanks for the John 3 reference Dio... that's a far different definition of "born again" than the one provided over the top half of this thread.

Born again is not "returning" to anything... that's made abundantly clear in the remainder of the John 3 passage. It describes a relationship of "being" in the world. The first "being" is birth by water, or natural child birth.

The second birth denotes spiritual awakening.


Flick,

Do you disagree with the idea that many (most?) people who identify themselves as Christian have not been "born again"? You may correct me if you wish, but from all of my understanding, the critical and necessary part of this is accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.

My contention to fidiot's post (since I didn't really answer him) was that evangleism is generally geared towards "lukewarm" Christians, people who "believe" but haven't necessarily accepted Christ. Although, I think Sort is right in the sense that evangelism is also geared to "backsliders".

I read WIlliam Murray's testimonial, and he's not a good example. If it's to be believed, he was raised as an atheist in the same way most people are raised Christian. He wasn't raised to be skeptical of religion, he was told what was "true" and lived by it.

[SortingItAllOut]

Originally posted by specious_reasons


I read WIlliam Murray's testimonial, and he's not a good example. If it's to be believed, he was raised as an atheist in the same way most people are raised Christian. He wasn't raised to be skeptical of religion, he was told what was "true" and lived by it.

This is basically what I came away with from hearing his testimony too.

[stamenflicker]

Do you disagree with the idea that many (most?) people who identify themselves as Christian have not been "born again"? You may correct me if you wish, but from all of my understanding, the critical and necessary part of this is accepting Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior.

I'm not in a place to discern the genuine or hypocritical nature of other believers. I will say that my understanding of "born again" is one of radical transformation and spiritual birth... so, yes, probably alot of people claim Christianity as a religion, yet reject it as a way of "being" in the world.

My contention to fidiot's post (since I didn't really answer him) was that evangleism is generally geared towards "lukewarm" Christians, people who "believe" but haven't necessarily accepted Christ.

The most successful evangelistic crusades are those happening over seas-- mostly in places that have never heard the story of Jesus. It's a powerful story, but one that we've grown all too familiar with, and in America, the story has lost significance.

It's like the difference between watching a good movie for the first time, or second or third time... and watching it for the 500th time. Certain scenes and sections of dialogue will begin to lose their impact.

Flick


I suppose I should add to that the "movie" of Christianity is now only identified by a few scenes or lines, and the entire power of those lines devoid of context lend to a mediocre appreciation of the entire work....

sort of like saying, "Franky Scarlet, I don't give a damn." Unless you watch the whole film, those words are pretty much meaningless.

edit... Flick

[Dragonrock]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
The entire first half of the bible is about taking responsibility for one's actions. May I suggest a re-read?.

You are taking my statement out of context. I was refering to the christian idea of turning your life over to god and letting him make the decisions for you. I believe that I am responsible for my actions and the good or bad that results from them.

Also originally posted by stamenflicker
sort of like saying, "Franky Scarlet, I don't give a damn." Unless you watch the whole film, those words are pretty much meaningless.

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I think moving to William James on pyschological nature of conversion, especially in relation to the sick soul, would be of use to many of you. I also recommend Loder's "The Transforming Momement."

Fact or fiction, some of you are managing to mock a concept you've not bothered to study.

Flick

And might I reccommend a similar and perhaps counter-source, a book called Battle For The Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1883536065/qid=1045497576/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/002-4472371-5400067?v=glance&s=books), which connects conversion and brainwashing experiences and practices in disparate fields (politics, law, religion, etc) to exceedingly well researched and verified physiological occurrences, originally discovered and elucidated by the works of Pavlov.

In short, given the right circumstances and conditions, every sane person (litterally every single sane human being, as a requirement of being human) can come to believe even the most insane of things, and believe it completely and utterly, and all the while be of the opinion that they came to their position on their own or through supernatural revelation/inspiraton/intervention - even if they most certaily did not.

[Smalso]

"If you're born again, do you get to vote twice?"--Andy Rooney

[BobM]

"If you're born again, do you get to vote twice?"--Andy Rooney

Only if you're born again during the election in question.

[Smalso]

Originally posted by BobM
"If you're born again, do you get to vote twice?"--Andy Rooney

Only if you're born again during the election in question.

What the hell? It's worth a shot.

Originally posted by Whodini
----
, looks like he's dropped the O'Hair)
----


I don't blame him.

Taken that first pill yet, Einstein? :D

[stamenflicker]

Plutark...

And might I reccommend a similar and perhaps counter-source, a book called Battle For The Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brainwashing, which connects conversion and brainwashing experiences and practices in disparate fields (politics, law, religion, etc) to exceedingly well researched and verified physiological occurrences, originally discovered and elucidated by the works of Pavlov.

What difference would physiology make? Unless you are contending points of origin, or referring to states, who cares? On the point of origin, all you've done is pointed to an indicator, in which anyone could just say, well that's the way god made it.

The purpose of understanding conversion must be product based. What does conversion offer us, or take away from us as social and psychological creatures?

Unless of course you'd like a conversion pill, in which case sure physiology might be of some use. I still fail to see where it matters too much.

Flick

[Plutarck]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Plutark...

What difference would physiology make? Unless you are contending points of origin, or referring to states, who cares? On the point of origin, all you've done is pointed to an indicator, in which anyone could just say, well that's the way god made it.

The purpose of understanding conversion must be product based. What does conversion offer us, or take away from us as social and psychological creatures?

Unless of course you'd like a conversion pill, in which case sure physiology might be of some use. I still fail to see where it matters too much.

Flick

Simple, the physiology of conversion points out precisely how it is accomplished in the first place, and what it is that is actually going on. It shows that what is actually being said makes little to no difference whatsoever. It doesn't matter how stupid or crazy the story, or how smart or dedicated an individual might or might not be, and yet people can still be made to believe it, even against their will and even without them knowing what is going on.

What it "gives" or "takes" is irrelevant, but is in fact merely a side-effect of an actual verifiable physical breakdown in the functioning of a biological system, and it works regardless of intent (or lack thereof).

It further informs as to the following:

1) As to cause, there is nothing "special" or "mysterious" going on, no more than the reaction one has to being beaten with a baseball bat is "special" or "mysterious".

2) Further, what is being said or believed isn't special either. The process works just as well no matter what is being said, whether the conversion is to believe in God, the evils of Capitalism and the perfection of The Party, one's own guilt, or any such thing. It works regardless of truth or falsehood.

3) It is a human universal. It simply doesn't matter who or what you are, so long as you are human and clinically sane.

4) It is a pretty well unavoidable biological reaction of the human body to certain extraordinary stimuli.

As such a physiological process it's evolutionary origins and uses can be more rigorously studied and the answer as to its reason for existing can be made clear, such as whether or not is serves an actual purpose or if it merely is a failure or degradation of the system (like death, for instance, which is largely a neccessity of the fragility of physical systems, not an intended or evolutionarily selected for attribute).


Every single one of which has a major effect upon what conclusions one can logically derive or conclude from studying or undergoing conversion experiences (ie- one cannot reasonably think something true merely because of an experience).