[CLIP!]
> P.S.: A solipsist could make a decent case that religious experiences
> aren't the only thing that we hallucinate.... :b
> "Hallucination" in fact, seems to be used frequently as a
> definition/vaccime, especially when the word "consensual" is prefixed to it
> -- it invalidates the ramifications of _any_ type of perception by defining
> the perceptive mechanism as (temporarily?) flawed.
[CLIP!]
[no intent to speak for Wade--this is just an INTERESTING statement!]
This is an impressive vaccime. It's one of the few vaccimes that protect
against the 'resurrection passages' in the New Testament while
maintaining psychological realism in the authors. [I have read about a
number of vaccimes with this intent. I can't recall any others that DO
maintain psychological realism.] We need to be able to pull it off on
the scope of 500 people at once, though.
An internally consistent vaccime against this should allow the belief
that the authors are honest, or are not going to recant under torture,
etc. The latter seems implausible in the time period AD 30 to AD 130.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/ Kenneth Boyd
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////