is reality as we know it, really a dream?

i

Of course our senses are limited. My dog can hear things and smell things that are way beyond my puny capabilities, but I can beat him when it comes to picking out squirrels and rabbits against a leafy background. But when we hear and see things that aren't there, that's a problem. Groups can certainly be indoctrinated to misperceive reality, see things that aren't there, or claim to. Social psychologists have documented groupthink in experiments ranging from which of two lines is larger to the Challenger disaster. Sometimes group consensus is just wrong.

I don't think science and religion are on the same plain when it comes to detecting the presence of entities--the former relying on instruments, the latter on scripture and doctrine. But if you do believe there's no difference, it puts you beyond the pale of further meaningful communication. You might be right. I don't think so. Either everything is relative or it's not. I'm opting for the latter.

 

Native american culture is chock full of phenomena of various kinds. As are many other cultures. Yet many folks dismiss phenomena for various reasons. We partly are enslaved by 3d. This is a partial result of fear. & the fear itself is flipped around a bit just for good measure.

 

I have responded to your suggestions of what would make the rattles appear to fly in the other post. It is easy to explain such things away when you haven't experienced it first hand. Yes, in the sweat lodge, there is the issue of heat. But not in the yuwipi.

Tishomingo, being native, it is possible you could find out if there are any yuwipis or house ceremonies happening in your area. Go experience one and then come back and tell me how they do it. They typically might start around 9:00 or 10:00 pm and go through the night into the early morning. Bring a small pillow to sit on.

MeAgain, it might be a little more difficult, as they aren't advertised or anything like that---it is word of mouth. But if you are ever in the Denver area I could always see if there are any happening. Or, we could go to the sweat lodge where the rattles fly.

 

One duhznt hafta be part of a ceremony to experience phenomena. But im interested in these possible flying rattles. & ill repeat for tmpteenth time most anyone can cloudbust. But most of ya here laugh it off. Or ignore most of my posts.

 

Ah, you're simply saying that our senses are fallible and can deceive us. The sky and the bluebird of happiness may not be actually or intrinsically blue, since that's just Who could argue with that? Unless your emphasis is on the fallibility to the point that we generally don't trust our senses. That may be good for late night bull sessions and internet chat sites, but not something I'd want to bet my life on. I tend to trust not only my own senses but those of others, as well--reliable witnesses, scholars, scientists, news reporters, etc., although I follow Reagan's advice--trust but verify.

But when it comes to flying rattles--an extraordinary event, in my experience--I'd ask for further evidence. Did anyone else see this and report it? Was he exposed to conditions which are known to alter perceptions: hallucinogens, rhythmic drumming and chanting, excessive heat or cold, hypnotic suggestion?
List of mass hysteria cases - Wikipedia

 

However tho. I think most here in a lopsided way actually mesh. Only seems chaotic as egos cloud the way. If we have any trekkies here. An excellent line from st5. Theyre singing row yer boat. & spock hasta be a buzzkill & say life is not a dream. Phenomena itself lest we forget. Has in most cases a life of its own. & our stumbly crap sometines dissipates it. For instance never blow a candle out. Gently snuff it.

 

Science within its own sphere--i.e., testing refutable hypotheses, is our gold standard for valid and reliable knowledge, even though it is a fallible means for obtaining tentative knowledge. Where the methods of science aren't feasible, we have to rely on other means. But the dangers of groupthink apply in either case. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions.

When it comes to "religious authority", I rely on reason, evidence, experience, intuition, and scholarship to identify the most plausible conclusions. Protestants supposedly believe in the priesthood of all believers, and while many may go by what the preacher says the Bible says, or what others in the congregation say, not all do--my Sunday school class at the Methodist Church being a good example. We started off last Sunday with the TV set up to watch a video for discussion. As usual, that was temporarily derailed when one of the members raised a question about something she'd heard from a minister: that there were lots of discrepancies between the oldest version of the Bible (the Codex Sinaticus) and the King James version. We discussed those, and decided the KJV isn't a reliable translation (e.g., it's the only one that mentions unicorns). Then her husband mentioned that the same minister had said Herod hadn't killed male babies (other than his own sons), that the Romans didn't require everybody to travel to their ancestral homelands for tax purposes, and that the genealogies of Jesus in the accounts of Matthew and Luke were different. Another wondered why the genealogies were even relevant, since they were of Joseph and he wasn't the real father. Then someone commented that the birth narratives of the New Testament were added by Matthew and Luke in the 80s C.E., both sharing the common purpose of getting Jesus to Bethlehem, although by different routes. Luke is the one that has them travel there for the census. Matthew, the one that has Herod killing the babies--a reflection of his overall metaphor that Jesus was the new Moses--indicates the holy family already lived in Bethlehem and settled in Nazareth after returning from the flight to Egypt. After some discussion of a side issue about the status of the withdrawals from the church over the gay issue, we finally got to the video, which was by the evangelical preacher Andy Stanly on the virgin birth. After the video, first question. Somebody asked: Is this guy really saying the virgin birth happened because it's too fantastic and un-Jewish for anyone to make up? And so it goes. I love that class.

Unfortunately, it's probably atypical. But I'm going to another one from a different church next Sunday evening. This is the Disciples of Christ--the one where the discussion leader asked once: "How many believe Jesus was a real historical person?" And I was the only one to raise my hand.

 

Ill repeat myself from somewhere on hf. The council of nycea changed the bible drastically. Those of us who tire of most christianity know of the council from long ago. & we just heard of prior nycean change too. Also tho james changes werent quite as drastic. Still more of em. The sons of god. Or sons of the gods. Choose yer poison. Also the rapture concept is a big screwup. As it takes away from ascension. Big diffy betw th 2.

 

Also no 900 yr old women are mentioned in many of em. & i despise it when magdalene is mentioned as whore. Also hardly ever is lilith mentioned. Also the angelic rebellion is spun. It happened billions of yrs prior to creation of our solar system. & theres much more the council & others changed. Also there are much more details on ships & other other stuff. The angels & demons are here now & in the past. But demons were allowed much more leeway. Just look @ sirius, venus, & jupiter to name a few. Mostly s & v. Why do i see both red & blue shifts @ sametime? That shouldnt happen according to science. But if ya throw in esoterica which is far older science then makes sense. Only learned what i was seeing a few yrs ago. Ppl thot me nuts. Ive also occasionally seen celestial sourcecodes all my life. Only learned what precisely those are a few mos ago. All in all ive probly experienced around 500 phenomena my whole life. Often i dont mention it as i wouldnt have time to live a normal life. Not that i partly do anyway. But i occasionally prefer interaction with others.