Fasting can induce hallucination.[1]
This also happened to be one Jesus', Muhammad's, Buddha's, and Moses' favorite activities, and significant relevations happened to them after fasting.
Coincidence?
What do religious people have to say about this?
1. http://hallucinations.enacademic.com/643/fasting-induced_hallucination
Probably something like "muh Jeusus was like son of himself so you are wrong and I'm right".
>>1219321
Not all of us religious people believe in fasting.
>>1219364
What religion are you?
>>1219321
>The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.
John 1:14
>>1219369
>posting pasta with zero relevance to the post you're responding to
Getting really sick of your shit.
>>1219367
Not him, but I think Sikhs are against it.
>>1219367
Sikh.
"Worship, fasting, ceremonial marks on one's forehead, cleansing baths, generous donations to charities and self-mortification - the Lord Master is not pleased with any of these rituals, no matter how sweetly one may speak. ||1||"
>>1219377
Actually, in this case it is relevant. What the OP asked is "what do religious people have to say about this" and I would assume he is indeed religious. So if what he would have to say about is a regurgitated Bible quote, than that's what he would say about it.
Yep, it absolutely can. That is why you need an elder. Saint John of the Ladder strongly discouraged anyone who was new to monasticism to opt for being a hermit, and said without decades of guidance under fasting, you are likely to becoming consumed with hallucinations. Dostoevsky makes fun of such things with Father Ferapont in The Brothers Karamazov.
Christ's fasting on the mount included an encounter with the Devil, but the rest of the time he was not fasting (Matthew 11:19, Matthew 9:14)
>>1219379
>generous donations to charities
Wait, why aren't they supposed to give generously to charity?
>>1219377
By the power of the Holy Spirit He was born of the Virgin Mary, and became man. For our sake He was crucified under Pontius Pilate, He suffered, died and was buried. On the third day He rose again in fulfillment of the Scriptures. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father. He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and His kingdom will have no end.
He preached for 3 years, was eventually betrayed and denied by His own disciples, then later mocked and killed. Less than 30 years after His death and resurrection His Gospel was preached as far as India and as He prophesied, 40 years after His death and resurrection, the siege of Jerusalem occurred, the city was annihilated and the Second Temple was completely destroyed along with nearly a million jews being slaughtered.
This is true. All of it.
He wasn't just a "preaching carpenter" and you know it. His resurrection is the greatest event in human history. The Apostles didn't lie. They didn't get crucified, beheaded, stabbed, burned alive, stoned and bludgeoned to death for nothing. If they didn't see the resurrected Jesus they would've kept denying Him.
>>1219384
oh there you are shillantine, tell me, did Noah die when he was 950 years old as the bible teaches?
>>1219392
Our temples are charities, but giving to charities with the thought of reward, making yourself feel morally superior, or believing you're going to please God is a mistake.
We should reach a stage where our compassion is natural, spontaneous, and egoless.
>>1219395
>>Hey, could you stop posting irrelevant shit?
>OH LET ME TELL YOU ABOUT HOW JESUS CHRIST IS MY LORD AND SAVIOR
What the fuck. No one said a damn thing about your religion, stop shitposting for fuck's sake.
>>1219405
Oh, that makes sense.
I rather like Sikhs.
>>1219445
What's the problem with the flood? Do you think floods don't happen , or are you not realizing the "flood being literally global" is a misinterpretation?
The exact same language is used when Cain was banished from the land. Was he banned to outer space? What about when the same language was used for the sound of horns through the land? Did they hear the fucking things in Mexico?
You're just being an intolerant asshole without your own investigation. You're a fucking gullible peon, more than those you accuse.
>>1219457
How did the flood wipeout life on earth besides what was on Noah's ark if it wasn't global?
>>1219395
>This is true. All of it.
No it isn't.
>>1219462
It wiped out life that couldn't breathe underwater, swim reaaally well, or fly overhead, in the land.
>>1219457
http://www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html
>>1219469
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(AD_70)
>>1219457
>>1219462
>>1219475
I'm absolutely certain these stories are about a very fertile, beautiful place that's now at the bottom of the northern Persian Gulf. It was a spot below sea level, as New Orleans, and such a massive tsunami washed through, for whatever reason, that it filled up that basin and washed boats northward, up the flooded Euphrates. It has remained underwater since, and is in the cultural stories on Sumeria, which would have been directly north, also partially affected but not submerged.
>>1219490
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(AD_70)
And this proves absolutely none of your claims.
>>1219485
Thanks, flawed interpretation, I just mentioned you.
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html
>>1219496
It is a fulfilled prophecy.
>>1219502
It wasn't local, the bible makes it clear. Are you a liberal "christian"?
>>1219504
Hmm no. That's what's called a lucky guess.
>>1219502
>However, there are many more examples of where kol erets is used without reference to any specific land, although the context clearly indicates a local area. For example, in Genesis 11 (the Tower of Babel) the text says, "the whole [kol] earth [erets] used the same language."6 We know that this reference is not really to the earth at all (and certainly not to the "whole earth"), but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth
So the flood was local, but still wiped out humanity because they all lived in one place? That's still demonstrably false.
>>1219506
It was local and this page you're refusing to read explains the confusion.
>>1219511
It didn't wipe out humanity. People have been on earth for thousands and thousands and thousands of years, categorically un-wiped out. Nothing says, "wiped all humans off the face of the planet", it's a fucked interpretation, not God's word.
>>1219516
>but to the people of the earth, who all lived in one geographic location. It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth
>>1219517
The people of the "land".
>>1219520
"Earth" and "land" are two translations of the same Hebrew word.
>>1219529
You didn't even read that link, did you.
>>1219530
I read it like a week ago.
>>1219321
>enacademic.com
>>1219513
shillantine pls
www.gotquestions.org/global-flood.html
>>1219520
>It wasn't until later that God scattered the people over the face of the earth
>I'm Christian
>Christ: "The Flood happened"
>It didn't happen tho!!111
?????
>>1219567
Christ was speaking in allegory you retarded fedora.
>>1219569
lol no
Luke 17:26-27
26 Just as it was in the days of Noah, so will it be in the days of the Son of Man. 27 They were eating and drinking and marrying and being given in marriage, until the day when Noah entered the ark, and the flood came and destroyed them all.
>>1219405
So it's less "giving to charities" and more "conspicuously giving to charities."
>>1219369
This new trip fag is so toxic he makes consTRANtine appear rational.
>>1219593
>triggered by biblical quotes
hello satan
>>1219604
He is not even addressing the topic, just randomly regurgitating bible verses. Imagine you having a conversation like this:
>Anon how's the weather?
>For if, while we were God’s enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!
Wouldn't you think this person is severally mentally ill?
>>1219617
If you are trying to have a conversation with a person whom you know only speaks by quoting bible verses, then you are the "mentally ill" one.
>>1219640
Constantine is claiming that Christ just hallucinated. That's blasphemy.
>>1219644
>Constantine
shillantine*
that tranny isn't even christian
>>1219640
>The message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:18
>>1219654
fuck the cross
>>1219655
*tips*
>>1219644
No I'm not. I'm saying if you didn't believe in God, and wanted to indict him from a purely secular perspective of seeing things because he was fasting, the only thing you could say anything about was the encounter with the Devil. The rest of it you can't really say he was just crazy from fasting, since he wasn't fasting. I'm not saying I believe his encounter with the Devil was an hallucination, which I don't.
>>1219644
It's all just metaphors and allegories and shit bro.
>>1219659
Did Noah die when he was 950 years old?
>>1219664
Either that, or his age is part of the larger context of declining longevity meant to show that the eternal life man had in God as ebbing away, each shorter age meant to reflect declining spirituality.
>>1219669
Adam lived 930 years (Genesis 5:5). Seth lived 912 years (Genesis 5:8). Enosh lived 905 years (Genesis 5:11). Kenan lived 910 years (Genesis 5:14). Mahalalel lived 895 years (Genesis 5:17). Jared lived 962 years (Genesis 5:20). Enoch lived 365 years before God took him (Genesis 5:22–24). Lamech lived 777 years (Genesis 5:21). Genesis 9:29 records that Noah lived 950 years. But the oldest man in the Bible, outliving all the rest, is a man named Methuselah, who lived 969 years (Genesis 5:27).
This is not metaphorical, allegorical or symbolic. Is the Bible lying?
>>1219673
*shillantine's sweating intensifies*
>>1219659
Hey Constantine, did you masturbation today?
>>1219673
I'm pretty sure it must be symbolic, because if the actual age of death were considered important, they would have surely have recorded it for David, but we just hear, "He died in a good old age" (1 Chronicles 29:28)
>>1219684
lol, is Jesus rising from the dead symbolic too?
>>1219321
How to into fasting?
>>1219687
don't eat.
>>1219686
Is God walking in the Garden symbolic?
>>1219673
Hebrew/English:
Adam = Man
Seth = Appointed
Enosh = Mortal
Kenan = Sorrow
Mahalalel = The Blessed God
Jared = Shall come down
Enoch = Teaching
Methuselah = His death shall bring
Lamech = The Despairing
Noah = Rest, or comfort.
>Man (is) appointed mortal sorrow; (but) the Blessed God shall come down teaching (that) His death shall bring (the) despairing rest.
>>1219693
FEDORAS ON SUICIDE WATCH
>>1219690
Is Jesus rising from the dead symbolic?
>>1219693
bullshit
>>1219364
Sikhs and Zoroastrians IIRC
>>1219702
No, it's a firsthand account said within itself to be encountered by skepticism at first.
>>1219693
https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/comments/2u1vgu/a_teacher_at_my_church_is_connecting_dots_between/
>>1219721
>linking to reddit on 4chan
kys
>>1219725
>reddit is bad
What is this, 2012?
>>1219728
>>1219728
How is reddit not bad? They have a built-in system to silence any dissent from the hugbox.
>>1219721
What the fuck bro
>>1219732
>They have a built-in system to silence any dissent
We have that too.
>>1219728
You have to go back
>>1219321
u r retard. according to the stories, they didnt build what they built based only on hallucinating, dumbfuck. they actually went outside their homes and talked to ppl
>>1219794
No, 4chan does not.
Buddha reached enlightenment only after he realized asceticism wasnt going to help him and he began eating again. That's the teaching of the middle way. Living in moderation.
>>1219379
>cleansing baths
is that why they smell bad?
>>1219693
Just so everyone knows, this is chain email-tier made up bull shit.
Just look the names up yourself.
>>1219854
This board does in theory, but owing to the mods' apathy with respect to the racism rule, it doesn't feel like it.
They seem more interested in deleting threads containing actual discussion instead of things that aren't topical.
>>1219617
No, he's just a cunt.
>>1219944
Could be referring to the fancy extravagant baths that the rich had at the time, instead of just putting hot water in a barrel and scrubbing yourself
>>1219321
Fasting can induce hallucinations.
Fasting can induce clarity.
Fasting can fatigue.
Also Siddhartha fasted but gave up as that led to him being skin/bones and almost dying without any result.
>>1220044
>the mods' apathy with respect to the racism rule
Sure, you can't simply post GAS THE KIKES RACE WAR NOW and expect it to stay up, but one can in fact discuss holocaust denial, HBD, ariosophy, biological determinism etc. etc. all you want as it doesn't violate any rules.
>>1220075
You do know that in most people's opinion, that is blatant racism?
>>1220102
discussion of those topics is inherently racist?
damn you really are from reddit
>>1220075
What's the point in debating the Holocaust right now? Honestly, idiots will believe what they want to believe. If the testimony of thousands, and proof so overwhelming you could overload a Star Trek computer with the amount of data isn't enough, what more is here to add?
>>1220113
if it is so clear cut why is it a crime in most of the west to openly deny it?
couldn't well informed individuals such as yourself simply debate the denier and leave him flustered with your overwhelming knowledge?
>>1220116
I don't feel like wasting my time. Whenever someone approaches this subject with that intent he's politically motivated and no amount of proof will convince him.
>>1220119
so laziness?
why would you come to a forum if not for discussion? are you here solely to shitpost?
>Whenever someone approaches this subject with that intent he's politically motivated and no amount of proof will convince him.
whenever someone approaches the subject they're met with an attitude like yours (someone without the will to refute obvious falsehoods) and they continue believing
who knows how many lurkers you might convince even if the person you're debating doesn't budge?
>>1220124
Do you know what happens tho?They just call you JIDF/shit on your sources/jew/shlomo whatever. Debating these""""people"""" is waste of time because they don't want a debate.
>>1220116
>if it is so clear cut why is it a crime in most of the west to openly deny it?
It isn't a crime in most of the West.
And the reason it is a crime in some, mainly countries with links to the Holocaust, is that it is so clear cut the only real reason for doing so is because of support for neo-nazism.
>>1220127
and they'll make that obvious and the thread will end if you know how to debate at all
>>1220134
It's like debating if Napoleon existed or not. Dismiss it out of hand and ignore them.
>>1220133
>It isn't a crime in most of the West.
quick google search, you could well include Britain with their ambiguous "hate speech" laws as well
>is that it is so clear cut the only real reason for doing so is because of support for neo-nazism.
and this is a reason to ban all discussion on the topic and throw people in prison for it because 'X', right?
because having an opinion is apparently meant to be illegal, since some holocaust survivors are still breathing or because thugs and football hooligans hold the same opinions albeit disingenuously and with other motivations
>>1220137
>It's like debating if Napoleon existed or not.
sounds like hyperbole
> Dismiss it out of hand and ignore them.
not a good strategy, maybe on an anonymous imageboard where shitposting is rampant and you can't tell if they're being serious but simply ignoring it allows for it to spread and become more popular
see:/pol/
>>1220149
Where I live it's enough to record someone saying that shit and he's off to jail.
>>1220149
>you could well include Britain with their ambiguous "hate speech" laws as well
Britain has no laws against Holocaust denial and it has been specifically tested in court when Germany tried, and failed, to extradite a Holocaust denier.
It is perfectly legal. Just like it is in Spain and Ireland and the USA and Italy and many others.
The UK with those probably already constitute over or close to 50% of the population of 'the West'.
>>1220149
Are you a libertarian? Honest question
>>1219457
> Cain was banished from the land. Was he banned to outer space?
had me rolling, lol
>>1220188
Daily reminder that although there were 3 people on Earth left at the time, Cain was banished and found a town. No, really.
>>1220162
I live in Ireland and openly denying the holocaust would socially cripple you irreparably
it mightn't be illegal but the ramifications of open denial in the countries not listed as having laws prohibiting it certainly don't make having an opinion on the subject feasible, so no discourse can be head which leads more and more people to deny it
encourage open discourse on the holocaust is all I'm saying, air it out rather than letting it mold like a soggy cumrag in the corner of a dark room
>>1220179
I don't hold any firm political beliefs
never liked politics t b h
>>1220201
>openly denying the holocaust would socially cripple you irreparably
Good
>encourage open discourse on the holocaust is all I'm saying
No. It's fact, proven, denying it leads to other things. Why does nobody deny the Congo genocide/massacre? Or the pogroms against Circassians? Or the ethnic cleansing of Indians(trail of tears)? because they are not politically motivated enough to do so. Who is tho? Nazis. Being a national-socialist is illegal and Holocaust denial is always related to the extreme right.
And just before some faggy /pol/ack comes barging in calling me a gommie :D:D, I think gommies should receive the exact same treatment
>>1220223
>Good
no
>I think gommies should receive the exact same treatment
no
both of these are censorship and you S E R I O U S L Y need some gulag time to cool off, hothead
it doesn't matter if you don't like it or don't want to discuss it
it doesn't even matter if it is blatantly false, it'll spread if you don't discuss it and sweep it under the rug
like protestantism
:^)
>>1220233
>both of these are censorship
Good. Where I live being a Nazi or a Gommie is illegal and I like it that way.
>>1220223
>Why does nobody deny the Congo genocide/massacre? Or the pogroms against Circassians? Or the ethnic cleansing of Indians(trail of tears)?
>any of these
>not a political motive to deny them
how would denying the ethnic cleansing of Natives not benefit the motives of White Nationalists and such?
I wouldn't be surprised if denial of the Congo massacre is rampant in Africa with people who don't like the Congolese, or they simply don't care because what's another genocide to them?
same with the Circassians
>>1220241
then stay on the mainland fuckboy
>>1220243
Don't intend to move mane. Your women are 3ugoo5me tebehe, no offense. Also, fuck yo expensive beer
>>1220201
>I live in Ireland and openly denying the holocaust would socially cripple you irreparably
So now we've moved from "Holocaust denial laws prove the Holocaust and most of the West has Holocaust denial laws" to "if I say idiotic and nasty things people think I'm a nasty idiot".
>>1219944
>>1220070
It's referring to ritual bathing like taking dips in the Ganges river and thinking it will spiritually benefit you.
>>1219588
No. I don't understand how you concluded that.
>>1219321
Didn't Muhammad only suggest fasting from sunup to sundown? Would that really be enough to induce hallucinations? And was fasting involved in his prophetic career?
What did Buddha hallucinate?
>>1220035
Not really
>>1220868
http://www.trackingbibleprophecy.com/name.php
>>1219475
>Breathe underwater
>God magically regulated the osmolarity of everything living underwater you guys
What about plants?
It strikes me as a cheap dodge to call all potentially religious visions 'hallucinations.'
It's like the atheist version of lukewarm Christians calling Scripture a bunch of metaphors.
>>1222922
It's worth considering IMO. As an assertion, it's baseless when you consider that it's built on an assumption that relies on a correlation to highlight another, theoretical correlation. But it's worth the thought to ask this on an individual scale.
For example, was Paul fasting before his visions of Jesus? Can this be isolated from other causes? Can other reasons to assume his vision was hallucinatory be brought up to support the fasting theory? I think this would be a good way to start addressing this question. Without scrutiny, it's just intellectually dishonest.
>>1222922
I get really tired of, and triggered by, the term "lukewarm christians". There is no "lukewarm person" or "lukewarm faith" in the Bible. It is not Biblical. You are misquoting, you are misinterpreting, you are wrong.
It is "lukewarm churches". Get it right or just shut the fuck up about it.
>>1222964
And I, while not him, am sick of Christians using their ideal of the "Shepard leading the flock" to excuse the dishonesty of individuals.
The church cannot affect the churchgoer anymore than the churchgoer chooses to let the church affect them.
>>1219321
Jesus also had public miracles and gave public revelations so doesn't really change anything.
Apparently God prefers cold churches and God prefers hot churches. God is not fond of lukewarm churches and he spits them out. Whatever the heck that means is grounds for interpretation, but it's certainly not something which is measured by "positivity" or "negativity", if the median is "unpreferable". I can't even make heads or tails of it, but I know it's there and it's just one of those things.
>>1222964
Revelation 3:
15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold, nor hot. I would thou wert cold, or hot. 16 But because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold, not hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest: I am rich, and made wealthy, and have need of nothing: and knowest not, that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked. 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold fire tried, that thou mayest be made rich; and mayest be clothed in white garments, and that the shame of thy nakedness may not appear; and anoint thy eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. 19 Such as I love, I rebuke and chastise. Be zealous therefore, and do penance.
(Douay-Rheims Bible)
>See messages to churches in Revelations 3.
>>1222990
Why would something like God prefer anything, in that case, over any other thing?
>>1223002
?
And also his """""holiness"""" friar cuck of Rome
>>1223021
for you
>>1223002
Yeh, it's practices, apparently, not "belief" or "contention", and further it goes on to say "God loves those He punishes, those He rebukes, that they should repent".
It doesn't tell us "what a hot church does" or "what a cold church does" in comparison to a lukewarm church, only that God loves that church and punishes as a parent who loves.
It does talk to the followers of that church but to the prescribers of the church doctrine and practice, but moreover that this formulates the embodiment of the church itself.
Therefore, we might believe, you can interpret things in many ways, and even if you do choose to have a faith which is somehow incorrect in the eyes of God, God still loves you, but will let you know what you're doing is messed up and for that you should repent.
I don't think it's even a "bad or good" thing, because none, ever, are truly "good", because none are righteous, none do better than the next. Now I've talked myself in a circle and I don't even know where I started. Apparently all churches might be lukewarm, but then where is the comparison? If there "is" a comparison, what is the modern equivalent? One is going to say, "That specifically is about a conventional orthodoxy", and another is going to say "That specifically is about a church which doesn't agree with the way I see it". The latter is clearly mistaken if we're ever to understand Paul was inspired.
See, you have to take ALL of the scripture into account when trying to understand these things. You can't just pick "this and this" and make it part of your confirmation bias. It just doesn't work like that, no matter how hard you try.
>>1223042
Third line should be "It doesn't talk to the followers, but to the prescribers". Sorry typo
>>1223042
It sounds like rhetoric meant to push moderates taking sides in a binary conflict, of which Xtianity has had many.
>>1223037
>mfw I've unironically never noticed this before
