Astral Projection

[Horendithas]

[COLOR=DeepSkyBlue]I for one don?t think Astral Projection is real either. Instead I think it?s a state of mind, like it?s mentioned in the book Aaryanna quoted in that it is mistaken for a real experience. It is real, but I think it?s real within your own mind and not in the real world.

Not that there is anything wrong with thinking your spirit is out of your body, I just don?t think it actually is. I would imagine that with practice and patience, one could learn to induce the Lucid Dream state Stephen LaBerge is talking about by mediation or other methods. Or they might even find it possible to find ways to help trigger it as they are dreaming in the night.

It?s been a while since I actually read his books, but I remember that it discussed different ways to help you enter a Lucid Dream state. So I think Astral Projection is a phenomenon where people think they have discovered how to leave their body, when in fact they have simply figured out how to enter a Lucid Dream state. If I remember correctly the book also talked about different levels of awareness for Lucid Dreams so it would make sense to me that Astral Projection is one of those levels. [/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[quote name='HedonismBot][COLOR=Sienna']Gavin, I'd just like to point out the fact that Christianity, as a religion, has been heavily influenced throughout the years by paganism and other forms of spirituality, to the point that the modern incarnation is almost completely different from the one that existed when the religion was first conceived. Even such Christian staples as Christmas are heavily based on pagan celebrations (Ever wonder what a Yule Log is supposed to be?). It's pretty hypocritical to say someone isn't really part of their church because the want to integrate other religions into their spirituality.[/COLOR][/quote]

[SIZE=1]While I accept HB that there have been some integrations from other religions into the early Christian religion, I would say to call it "heavily influenced" is inaccurate, bordering on completely untrue. Much of this was done for conversion purposes rather than "we like that bit from that religion and this bit from this one, so let's just form our own Pick & Choose religion". After all, if the new religion does not seem completely alien to the previous one, it makes conversion much easier on those who were willing to convert. Every aspect of life in influenced by something else, every film we watch, every book we read, every piece of clothing we wear has been influenced by something else somewhere back the line. What I was saying in reference to DF's post was that you can't just use the term Christian as some all encompassing title because your own beliefs don't fit with any of the Churches. [/SIZE]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]Man, the only prerequisite to calling yourself Christian is a sincere love of Jesus and believing that he lived, died, came back in three days and was the son of God. You don't have to belong to a specific church, or close your mind to all possibilities just to say you're a Christian, as long as you believe in Jesus [i]Christ[/i] (thus [i]Christ[/i]ianity, clever huh?) you are, by definition, a Christian.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote]

[SIZE=1]DS, I was dealing with specifics here, seeing as personally I really do have an immense dislike for the term Christian is the way it's being applied in modern day usage. It's fine for you to say "You're a Christian so long as you believe in Christ" but believing in Christ goes beyond just believing he was the son of God and rose from the dead three days after the Crucifixion, there's also following the tenets of Christ as laid down by him to his Apostles and then on from his Apostles through the Church, whichever particular one you're a part of. Christ taught a specific path, and simply adding in what beliefs you feel are appropriate and interest you is straying from that path. I'm not trying to be confrontational, as I said I just take issue with people using the term Christian as it seems too vague in modern times.[/SIZE]

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][quote name='Gavin][SIZE=1']DS, I was dealing with specifics here, seeing as personally I really do have an immense dislike for the term Christian is the way it's being applied in modern day usage. It's fine for you to say "You're a Christian so long as you believe in Christ" but believing in Christ goes beyond just believing he was the son of God and rose from the dead three days after the Crucifixion, there's also following the tenets of Christ as laid down by him to his Apostles and then on from his Apostles through the Church, whichever particular one you're a part of. Christ taught a specific path, and simply adding in what beliefs you feel are appropriate and interest you is straying from that path. I'm not trying to be confrontational, as I said I just take issue with people using the term Christian as it seems too vague in modern times.[/SIZE][/quote]
The Bible doesn't mention most of the newer concepts people are embracing though, so the whole situation is a grey area (unless we count the Gnostic Scrolls but man, I'm not touching that one). Besides. who's to say Jesus wouldn't be cool with it anyway? He was a pretty laid back guy, the original hippy, as it were - and even if the ancillery beliefs are wrong, Jesus will forgive anyway. It's in his MO. As for the whole church stuff, I am a Christian and I rarely, if ever, visit a church. The last time I visited a church was with my ex, and that was in January (in another [i]country[/i]) and I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to go again anytime soon. I do acknowledge and feel JC's presence in my life, however, and the lack of church hasn't really changed that.

In fact, there's millions of other people like me who don't identify with a single church who still believe in JC and consider themselves Christians. I'm kind of surprised that just because we don't attend a church that doesn't make us Christians in your sense of the concept, despite acknowledgement of Jesus, and the things he did and the things he continues to do in our lives and others. It's like, woah, medieval era Christianity all over again.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[QUOTE=DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]The Bible doesn't mention most of the newer concepts people are embracing though, so the whole situation is a grey area (unless we count the Gnostic Scrolls but man, I'm not touching that one). Besides. who's to say Jesus wouldn't be cool with it anyway? He was a pretty laid back guy, the original hippy, as it were - and even if the ancillery beliefs are wrong, Jesus will forgive anyway. It's in his MO. As for the whole church stuff, I am a Christian and I rarely, if ever, visit a church. The last time I visited a church was with my ex, and that was in January (in another [i]country[/i]) and I'm not exactly chomping at the bit to go again anytime soon. I do acknowledge and feel JC's presence in my life, however, and the lack of church hasn't really changed that.

In fact, there's millions of other people like me who don't identify with a single church who still believe in JC and consider themselves Christians. I'm kind of surprised that just because we don't attend a church that doesn't make us Christians in your sense of the concept, despite acknowledgement of Jesus, and the things he did and the things he continues to do in our lives and others. It's like, woah, medieval era Christianity all over again.[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

[SIZE=1]Well to be fair the Bible was written nearly 2000 years ago, so it's a bit unfair to look to it for direct guidance for what happens when for example, someone has sent you a virus to your new computer by posing as someone you trust. That's personally I why I believe it is important to be a member of a particular church, in my case the Roman Catholic church, because you can directly speak to someone who can give you relevant advice to modern situations, maybe not technical support for computers, but you know what I'm saying. These people are trained to tell you what Christ's teachings are and how they apply to now.

As for the "Jesus was the original hippy" comment, I think we'll leave that with the Gnostic Scrolls and Judas Gospel for another discussion.

If someone want to identify themselves as a Christian because they believe in Christ and his teachings, that's fine, I don't have any problems with that. What I've said three times now, is that I don't agree with someone adding in outside stuff that clearly contradicts what Christ taught, for example Wiccanism and claiming they're still following the path of Christ. It's like someone calling themselves a vegetarian while eating a burger once a week.[/SIZE]

[Drix D'Zanth]

[quote name='DeadSeraphim][size=1][color=indigo][font=arial]I consider 'proof' in the scientific sense, something that can be tested and observed. It's pretty impossible to get proof for anything involving spiritual concepts or religion, so it's up to the individual to believe what they feel is true and right for them. The end.[/font][/color'][/size][/quote]

Again, being tested and observed doesn't make something "proven" at all. Please spare me the dictionary definition on this; but many logical, tested, and seemingly "well understood" scientific principles have been disproven over the years. Just because we have our doubts as to what Aristotle describes is the "Formal cause" doesn't mean that a natural phenomena described by many as a spiritual one is unquestionably false. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of "supernatural" events considering everything should carry the burden of truth as opposed to the other way. Let's open up our minds, though, maybe there is something real hiding behind the facade of spiritualism?

I've heard of lucid dreaming, this seems more likely than some "spritual" release. I'll see if I can't dig up some neurochemistry articles on the subject.

[DeadSeraphim]

[COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial][QUOTE=Drix D'Zanth]Again, being tested and observed doesn't make something "proven" at all. Please spare me the dictionary definition on this; but many logical, tested, and seemingly "well understood" scientific principles have been disproven over the years. Just because we have our doubts as to what Aristotle describes is the "Formal cause" doesn't mean that a natural phenomena described by many as a spiritual one is unquestionably false. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical of "supernatural" events considering everything should carry the burden of truth as opposed to the other way. Let's open up our minds, though, maybe there is something real hiding behind the facade of spiritualism?

I've heard of lucid dreaming, this seems more likely than some "spritual" release. I'll see if I can't dig up some neurochemistry articles on the subject.[/QUOTE]
Hey man, I totally agree. I just don't choose to believe Astral Projection is a possibility, without proof. lol Some things I am more inclined to believe than others, and most people are that way. That's why I said it's up to the individual (I'm also very aware that science can be disproven but man, it's been pretty solid the past couple of decades).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[YoukaiAlchemist]

[quote name='cancer']I've heard a good deal about astral projection, but most of it comes from articles and other untrustworthy sources. So I'm curious to know what people on here think of astral projection. Also, have you ever experienced this phenomenon, and how does one go about detaching their spirit from their body?[/quote]
One of my friends (I shall call him D) Astral Projects. D says he's been to a higher plane and talked to Buddha for a moment. then went and saw the past. O.o Not sure how true that is, but that's what he claims.

[Drix D'Zanth]

[QUOTE=DeadSeraphim][COLOR=Indigo][SIZE=1][FONT=Arial]
Hey man, I totally agree. I just don't choose to believe Astral Projection is a possibility, without proof. lol Some things I am more inclined to believe than others, and most people are that way. That's why I said it's up to the individual (I'm also very aware that science can be disproven but man, it's been pretty solid the past couple of decades).[/FONT][/SIZE][/COLOR][/QUOTE]

I know, my post wasn?t really a stab at you so much but more a catalyst to get this discussion away from ?is it possible? (because we likely won?t come to a conclusion) and more towards ?why do we think it?s impossible??. We look at the successes (and some failures such as Miller-Urey prebiotic soup and Haekel?s embryo drawings) in our biology textbook and forget that our solid knowledge base is built upon a significantly greater multitude of failures.

Thanks for being a good sport, Seraphim, and don?t think I?m picking on you ;). I think I?m fair in saying that without any reputable evidence, I?m not really going to pay much attention to this subject.