Wednesday, February 8, 2006

Borrowed from Marty

Marty over at On the Homefront reported the following yesterday. It is a glorious, prophetic message that has half of the US and a good portion of the world standing and applauding and shouting "Hallelujah!" Thanks for the heads up, Miss Marty!

=====
Civil-rights leader, the Rev. Joseph Lowery, blasted Bush at Coretta Scott King's funeral with the following statement:


"She extended Martin's message against poverty, racism and war. She deplored the terror inflicted by our smart bombs on missions way afar."

"We know now there were no weapons of mass destruction over there. But Coretta knew and we knew that there are weapons of misdirection right down here. Millions without health insurance. Poverty abounds. For war billions more but no more for the poor."


The mourners gave a loud and boisterous standing ovation, while Bush squirmed in the background.

56 comments:

Sylvia said...

Ah, that's what Clinton was talking about. I missed that part!

Larry Who said...

..."a glorious, prophetic message"...

Prophetic is defined as a forth coming or foreseeing word from the mouth of God. Since there was no foreseeing in Rev. Lowery's words, I assume that you mean this was a forth coming word of rebuke from God for President Bush. Right?

Wow! How little you know about the Father's heart!

Do you really believe that the Father would rebuke His son on national TV, in front of an audience that is openly against him and in a house of God on a day that was supposed to be spent honoring a dead saint?

Do you really believe that the Father is so mean that He would rebuke a man who as President has voiced his personal love of Christ more than any president before him in front of the whole nation?

What a shame that you believe that God is that way? He is not!

But let me give you an example of the Father's love. In Jeremiah 28, Hananiah had the audacity to embarrass Jeremiah in front of a nation that disliked him. Check out the results for yourself.

If President Bush handles yesterday with humility, I guarantee that he will be openly honored in front of the African-American community.

Larry Who

Anonymous said...

Amen and Amen, Larry.
What a shameful desecration of the Lord's House and a memorial service. Marilyn

Marcguyver said...

Double Amens Larry!!

What a shameful thing to do at a funeral for pete's sake! Of all the places to take advantage of a situation and use it as a self-glorigying 'platform' to voice your personal opinions and beliefs!

Completely disgraceful and shallow.

Dan Trabue said...

Hi all, and welcome.

Larry, in your religious tradition, prophetic has been defined with that whole spooky, "seeing the future" aspect. But biblically speaking, the prophet's main role was to speak truth, especially to speak truth to the rulers of the land. And oftentimes (more often than not), it meant rebuking the leaders of the land.

It is in this sense that brother Lowery was being prophetic. As in Isaiah's call to Israel:

"How the faithful city has become a prostitute! She that was full of justice, righteousness lodged in her-- but now murderers! Your silver has become dross, your wine is mixed with water. Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts. They do not defend the orphan, and the widow's cause does not come before them."

Do I really believe that the Father would rebuke His son on national TV? Depends on who you mean by "His son." If you're talking about Bush, youbetcha.

Just as surely as Isaiah, Jeremiah, John the Baptist and all the other prophets publicly rebuked their leaders, God certainly did use Brother Lowery to rebuke Bush.

Dan Trabue said...

"Completely disgraceful and shallow."

Oh really? The hundreds of family, friends and fans of the Kings did not seem to think so, judging by the applause.

IF you think Bush is a misunderstood man of God, then you defenders of Bush might be right. BUT IF you think Bush's actions have betrayed the cause of Christ, then this was a great and rare opportunity for the Church to Be the Church prophetic with a man who has steadfastly avoided the Church.

I'm of the latter camp.

"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the memorials of the righteous, and you say, 'If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have joined them in shedding the prophets' blood.'...You serpents, you brood of vipers!"

-Jesus

Anonymous said...

Dan, I am left wondering if you have placed your abilities to discern in the same level of accuracy as our Lord's.
Marilyn

Larry Who said...

Forgive me. I assumed that you understood that a forth coming word was prophesy that was needed for the present circumstances. And of course, a foreseeing word was for the future.

Therefore, if you believe that Rev. Lowery's words were prophetic then they fell into the forth coming category.

And I do agree that prophets give rebukes to government leaders.

So that being said, I am curious by what you mean about President Bush steadfastly avoiding the church. By this, do you mean your church? Or your view of what churches should be? Or what?

By all measures, President Bush has been open to the church.

Larry Who

Dan Trabue said...

Larry, Bush has steadfastly refused to see church leaders who oppose his policies. That's what I'm referring to.

And Marilyn, I am a cocky SOB sometimes, and I apologize.

But then, we ARE all called to make judgements, aren't we? I mean, after all, you made the judgement that it was "a shameful desecration of the Lord's House and a memorial service," right?

Ought I accuse you of placing your "abilities to discern in the same level of accuracy as our Lord's"? No. I don't think so. I think you're making the judgement you feel right at this time.

Where I would challenge you is in your biblical interpretation. Or, rather, your application of biblical interpretation.

I'm guessing we both agree that a prophet ought to speak out words of rebuke to leaders when the leaders are in the wrong, yes?

If so, then the question becomes, why would you support Bush who is not acting in a manner becoming Christ, but then we've been through all that and it may not be helpful too hash it again.

Thanks for writing just the same.

Larry Who said...

And how do you know that Bush has steadfastly refused to see church leaders who oppose his policies?

Do you have an insider at the Whitehouse?

Dan Trabue said...

Fair enough. I know that he has refused or been reluctant to see some church folk who are opposed to him.

Rev. Jim Wallis, for instance.

I cannot say definitively that Bush has refused to see ALL those who oppose him. Having said that, Bush is famously known for primarily speaking to hand-picked friendly audiences. Army bases. Republican fund-raisers (lots and lots of those). Veterans groups.

Do you seriously dispute the notion that Bush isolates himself from the opposition?

Larry Who said...

I was involved with a group that had men who spoke with President Clinton on differing points of view. President Clinton welcomed them - even during his really bad times with the impeachment process going on.

Nobody heard of these meetings because the men did not have big time media recogized names. They were humble ambassadors from God.

They were used by God because they kept their mouths shut about what they talked about and prayed about with President Clinton.

God is big enough to get His ambassadors into the Whitehouse.

Larry Who

Dan Trabue said...

And that's exactly what I'm saying with this post: God used Brother Lowery to reach a hard-hearted pharoah. Hallelujah!

Marty said...

Thanks for posting this Dan.

I am amused at the negative reactions to Rev. Lowery's prophetic word along with President Carter's. Both spoke truth to power. What these men said was the basis of Coretta Scott King's life and her husband's. It is their legacy. Why shouldn't it be said? It was at the heart of what they both stood for and part of the suffering they endured. The question is not if Lowery's words offended you and me. The question is did his words offend the King family and their close friends? If the answer to that is no, then no offense has been made. And it just makes those protesting and calling it shameful look rather silly.

Larry Who said...

Whether you or I am offended, or even if the King family is offended doesn't really matter if it was a prophetic word from God. Right?

What matters is if it wasn't a prophetic word from God, then it offends God.

And that is what I am concerned about.

Larry Who

Marty said...

God doesn't bring offense Larry Who. He brings forgiveness and grace. Perhaps President Bush will think about the decisions he's made and how it affects people's lives. Grace can come from that.

Not much has changed since the prophets of old. The reactions of those unwilling to see the truth is still the same.

Larry Who said...

Hmmm! God doesn't bring offense. Right?

What about Ananias and Sapphira? God killed them with prophetic words (Acts 5).


I believe in grace to the nth degree. But I also believe in the fear of the Lord.

And I would be fearful to assume some words are prophetic just because they agree with what I think.

But yes, you are correct, not much has changed since the prophets of old. People still like to have their ears tickled by the words they hear.

Marty said...

I stand by what I said. But I would add that God is never ever offended by someone who speaks the truth from their heart.

The words that came from Rev. Lowrey and Carter, along with the words of Bernice King were the truth.. sharp and cutting. A two edged sword. Hardly anything a person with itching ears would want to hear.


"See what God is saying to us today through the transition of Coretta Scott King is that we, here in this world right now, are suffering from complications, of cancer from materialism and greed and selfishness and arrogance, and elitism, and poverty, and racism, and perversion, and obscenity, and misogyny, and idolatry, and militarism, and violence, and it is a cancer that's eating away at the very essence and nation of what God created of human kind to be-- for he created us!"
--Bernice King

hipchickmamma said...

thanks for the post dan--i love following the commentary. it seems as if i find it late in the game as my visits to the net have gotten more and more sporadic.

thanks for always hosting a great and needed conversation!

Larry Who said...

Out of the mouth your heart speaks. And if your heart is filled with bitterness and anger, God is not pleased when you open your mouth.

1 Corinthians 14:1 says, Pursue love...(then) prophesy.

I_Wonder said...

As I read this post and comments, I'm confronted by some questions that I can't answer.

Is there any common ground between the two factions in the US?

Can we learn to communicate without using labels -- party A, party B, liberal, conservative, etc?

Do we have any reason for hope?

Someone, please, give me a reason to hope.

Larry Who said...

I don't know if this will give you hope or not, but here is a lighter train of thought:

Do you ever wonder what people are doing while they are blogging? Or am I the only one.

I think of Dan with two laptops, a desk model computer and tons of books surrounding him as he works feverishly to keep up with the different sites.

As for me, I'm making supper and ironing some clothes waiting for my wife to come home.

Okay - now you can go back at it!

I_Wonder said...

Larry, you didn't give me hope. You made me feel more hopeless. I interpreted your comment as an attack on Dan. I hope I'm wrong and misunderstood. I'm searching for patience, tolerance, honesty, compassion, grace, and respect. Perhaps it's before me but I can see it.

Larry Who said...

Forgive me, it was tongue in cheek humor and certainly not meant to offend.

Dan Trabue said...

I gotta go to bed, it's late. IW, I find hope in the fact that at least we're here, talking - even if we're disagreeing. We aren't out looking for one another with a six-shooter in our hands.

Peace, y'all.

Marty said...

Larry Who said: "Out of the mouth your heart speaks. And if your heart is filled with bitterness and anger, God is not pleased when you open your mouth."

God isn't pleased when we are being dishonest. Bitterness and anger can be very honest emotions. I think God is big enough to deal with it.

I Wonder said: "Do we have any reason for hope?

Someone, please, give me a reason to hope."

I've found hope here on Dan's blog. He's nice to those who attack him. That gives me hope.

Larry Who said...

Forgive me if I have caused any hurt to anybody with my blogs.

IW's words spoke to my heart and I decided that there is not much fruit of the spirit in my heart.

So with this, I resign from all political blogs now and forever. If you want to read something different stop at my sight or not - I'm a writer and not a blogger.

Go with God and joust with those windmills!

Dan Trabue said...

Larry, your comments have not been nearly so bad as some I've seen. Mild jokes, that's all. Forgiven, if need be.

Thanks, Marty and others for the kind words.

We DO have a division in our country and it seems to be deep-seated. Many of just SEE things differently than others.

In the religious world, we both love God and believe in loving humanity. We both believe in working for peace and justice. Our Big Views are the same.

So why do we disagree on war? On issues of morality? I'm with "I Wonder" - I don't have any great answers.

Perhaps if we can begin with where we agree? We both agree we want a peaceful world and a safe home, but what does that mean? How do we get there?

Must we kill to create a safer more peaceful world? For many of us, it is obvious that such a statement is self-contradicting. For many others, they see no other way to peace and safety but through killing the "bad guys,"... and we're at an impasse.

I fear I've reached ramble stage and will stop for now with that suggestion: Maybe we can begin with where we agree and work from there.

Wasp Jerky said...

For anyone interested in Rev. Lowery's side of the story, he was on Countdown with Keith Olbermann the other night. Video is here.

Eleutheros said...

"For war billions more but no more for the poor."

[Sigh] I don't know why I marvel any more at the completeness of the deception. People view the country's general wealth as if we had a big basket of money and we were going to WalMart and we could choose to buy a couple dozen rifles or else buy shoes and food for the poor.

It doesn't work that way.

If you dumped the $29B being spent on the war to buy housing, food, clothing, and medicine for the poor, it doesn't mean there is more housing and food, it only means the price goes up.

Here's an example, although there are many: When I was in undergraduate school in the early 70's the full in-state tuition at this state's major university was $75 a quarter. The going wage was about $2 an hour. So during the 10 week term, a student could work at any job at all for less than four hours a week and pay their tuition.

About this time was the great hue and cry for 'equality' in education in the form of grants and loans for 'disadvantaged' students. IMMEDIATELY, with more money chasing the same number of classroom seats, the tuition doubled, then doubled again, then again. Now the instate tuition for a 15 week term is closer to $3000 and jobs pay on an average of just under$6 an hour. A student would have to work 35 hours a week, nearly full time, to just pay the tuition.

It is an economic fallicy to look at the money spent for one endeavor (such as war) and think that if only we weren't spending that for war, it would be available to buy that much other things (such as food and education).

Neo-Con Tastic said...

I found my six-shooter!

Eleutheros, wonderful comments, I wonder where you come up with this stuff.

Dan, I can't believe that you find it appropriate to use Coretta King's coffin as a soapbox for anti-war bullsh*t. Fine. Lowery disagrees with the war and Jimmy Carter doesn't believe in wiretaps. That's great. Save it for the right place and time - not a celebration or mourning of a civil right's legend.

Wasp Jerky said...

"Dan, I can't believe that you find it appropriate to use Coretta King's coffin as a soapbox for anti-war bullsh*t. Fine. Lowery disagrees with the war and Jimmy Carter doesn't believe in wiretaps. That's great. Save it for the right place and time - not a celebration or mourning of a civil right's legend."

Because the Kings were so very pro-war. And just listen to the audience boo when Lowery and Carter make those comments. They certainly seem to agree with you, neo-con.

Anonymous said...

Wasp Jerky, Just because a bunch of Democrats clap and whistle at a memorial service does not make it appropriate. Neither, in my opinion does a Christian going into a Christian bookstore to buy Christian music while staggering under the influence of alcohol, make it appropriate. We all slip up, but we need to remember whose we are and who we are affecting by our behavior. Marilyn

Dan Trabue said...

You're right Marilyn. Just because a lot of people (democrats, republicans, whatever) are supporting something together doesn't make it right. For instance, 40-ish% of a population supporting a war does not make it right.

What makes it right or wrong is whether or not it matches up to God's word. Whether or not an action is done for the purpose of justice and love.

Those who spoke at Mrs. King's funeral, those who applauded and thereby rebuked Bush, did so, in my estimation, as an act of prophetic Truth-speaking.

Eleutheros, we've been through this and I'll pass on discussing it again with you. I think you know that I agree with a lot of what you think about economics, but not all. This is one of those instances.

The Kings doubtless would speak the very words that were spoken if they were there. What the people were doing in their great absence, was speaking Truth and rebuking Pharoah. Chastizing the pharisees. And rightly so, according to God's word.

Wasp Jerky said...

Marilyn,

I'm not entirely sure what being a Democrat (or not) has to do with it. Not everything is partisan. Given that the President's approval rating is now in the upper 30s, it appears that quite a few Republicans are also a bit unhappy with the job he is doing. It's also interesting that only about 4-10 percent of African Americans approve of the job our President is doing. So it really shouldn't be too surprising that the response from the crowd was what it was. If the Kings' friends and family weren't upset with the comments, then what business is it of yours what Lowery and Carter said? But if you've got any moral outrage left over, perhaps you might consider aiming it at an administration that lied us into a war that has cost thousands of lives and billions of dollars.

As for alcohol, you might be fascinated to know that Jesus appeared to be rather fond of the stuff. From what I hear, he even made a large batch of it at a wedding. Good thing it wasn't a "Christian wedding" I guess, eh?

lené said...

"weapons of misdirection" -- Wow!

Anonymous said...

I am sure a have quite a few years on Wasp Jerky and Dan and that makes a difference in how we view things. I voted Democrat more years than either of these young men have been alive, so I am not naive enough to think corruption and sin belongs to one certain party. However, life brings with it some lessons and I will not remain loyal to a party that does not value life in its most innocent form (unborn baby in the womb).
Now, as to Jesus liking alcohol, I will differ with that also. I do not see any reference to alcoholic beverages being a favorite of Jesus. I also believe there have been differing views on whether the wine was fermented.
I am also of the opinion that as born again Christians (although still sinners, forgiven) we have become a new creation and should be striving to be more like Christ and I fear some of our churches are not teaching what the Bible views as sinful and it is becoming very hard to distinguish a Christian from an unbeliever. Our fruits should show forth evidence of the change and the changes should continue daily as we seek to know Him - Jesus. Marilyn

I_Wonder said...

Could it be that conflict is Christian? Could it be that the more contentious a person is, the more Christian he or she is? For many years I expected Christians to be different and it caused me much stress. Then I realized the new testament is about contention, disagreement and in-fighting. Why did Paul write to the Corinthians? Because of problems. Why did he write to the other churchs? Problems and fighting.

I suspect that if we agreed that Jesus turned water to wine that we would then begin a debate about whether it was a Merlot.

Could it be that it is foolish to expect agreement, respect and compassion from Christians?

I don’t have answers – just questions.

Eleutheros said...

Anon [nudge, nod, wink]:"Now, as to Jesus liking alcohol, I will differ with that also. I do not see any reference to alcoholic beverages being a favorite of Jesus."

Well, it depends on which whispy threads we find when we card the Bible that we include in our sock puppet and which we ignore and discard.

"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber" (Matt 11:19)

No, no point in bothering with the 'out of context' thing. All threads in the Bible are in or out of context depending on whether we want to believe them.

And speaking of Sock Puppets, Lowery's righteous wrath comes from his own personal sock puppet, you can make out the Haynes label and 'Made in China' if you look closely enough.

Dan:"I think you know that I agree with a lot of what you think about economics, but not all. This is one of those instances."

Of course you don't, Dan, how could you possibly? No need to bring up the Upton Sinclair quote again on why. If a person wanted a full time job passing out 1lb bags of beans to the hungry, or better still a full time job supervising people with full time jobs passing out bags of beans, it would be met with derision to the effect of: "A bag of beans costs 38 cents! If we paid you $15K a year to supervise giving those out, we could just buy 40,000 bags of beans and give them to everyone. That way the poor get fed and we don't have to hire anyone. All the bag passers can find themselves useful work."

But if instead we dump several million dollars to buy beans for the poor, soon a bag of beans will cost $20. The number of 'poor' increases dramatically since now almost no one can afford beans on thier own. And, most importantly, hiring someone at a high salary to supervise passing out the $20 bags of beans doesn't seem so out of line after all, now does it?!"

That is, I much doubt your disagreement is based on the economic principles involved. At least you haven't ever expressed an economic basis for it.

Marcguyver said...

Irregardless of what was said, I still think it is completely disrespectful to use a "Funeral" as a soap box for any agenda!

It's shallow and shameful!!

Marty said...

Marcguyver said: "I still think it is completely disrespectful to use a "Funeral" as a soap box for any agenda!"

What about the "saving souls" agenda? We buried my uncle a week ago today. I might as well have been in a revival service. There were a few personal facts shared about uncle, but for the most part it was a call to accept Christ as Savior or perish in eternal damnation. What about that agenda? Do you consider that shameful and shallow as well?

Dan Trabue said...

I'll just let you know then that, when I die, don't bother coming to my funeral. I'll be glad for my loved ones to trash talk any leaders as bad as W. It'd be a great legacy.

voixdange said...

Great Post Dan, thanks. Yes, I have long since believed that being a true prophet was not about foretelling, but rather about FORTH-telling the heart of God. So yes, speaking truth to power is as prophetic as it gets.

Marcguyver said...

Marty, nope. To me that's completely different; although I have been to at least one funeral that I thought was just as shameful in the way certain people appeared to be using it as a "promotion" for their muscial talent.

Dan Trabue said...

Shameful confession time:

When I married, my wife and I were in to that "save folk at all costs" type/stage of christianity and used our marriage ceremony as a club to preach at our unwary non-christian friends.

With the best of intentions and love in our hearts, of course.

I now find that to have cheapened the gospel rather than promoted it and may have well turned some folk away from church forever.

So, as I said, you'll want to avoid my funeral, but for altogether different reasons.

Wasp Jerky said...

"Now, as to Jesus liking alcohol, I will differ with that also. I do not see any reference to alcoholic beverages being a favorite of Jesus. I also believe there have been differing views on whether the wine was fermented."

That must have been another miracle, given the lack of refrigeration back in those days.

Eleutheros said...

From Anon, I believe:"I also believe there have been differing views on whether the wine was fermented."

Wasp Jerky."That must have been another miracle, given the lack of refrigeration back in those days."

It would have been a miracle indeed. That cloudy film on grapes is yeast. If you crush grapes into juice and don't pasturize it, it becomes wine very quickly. The 'I'm going to out-Christian even Jesus by not drinking any wine' bit of sock-puppetry leads the ardent believing teetotaler to the bring of outright mendacity to explain the references to wine in the NT.

Remember at the wedding feast the govenor of the feast rebuked the host for holding out the best wine for last and what was his explaination for putting out the best wine first? Because, he explained, the guests would drink the good wine, get sloshed, and not know if the wine they had later was good or not. And this was grape juice that was going to accomplish this??

The TBTT (True Believing TeeTotaler) finds the term 'new wine' in the NT and says "Ah, that HAS to mean grape juice, right!? That shows they were swilling on the Welch's back then, right?" It was so strongly held that Jesus would not have anything to do with alcohol by some fundamentalist friends of mine, that they firmly believed that at the last supper Jesus served grape juice, "new wine." I remember one of them reading the account in Acts of the speaking in tongues and the apostles were accused of being drunk with 'new wine' and they had a puzzled look as to why they thought they would be drunk on Welche's.

Well, the term 'new wine' in the NT is 'gleukos' and it literally means 'sweet wine'. Wine in ancient times was made by partially drying the grapes which concentrated the sugars and allowed for a higher alcohol content. When the wine was drunk in polite company, it was mixed in a bowl (crater) with water to dilute it somewhat. Drinking the undiluted stuff was considered boorish and the sort of thing only a drunkard would do, but no doubt it would put someone on their can in a hurry due to it being more potent.

We don't know what month the wedding in Caanan took place, but the passover was half a year after the grape harvest. To have Welch's grape juice then would indeed have been a miracle.

Marty said...

Marcguyver said: "Marty, nope. To me that's completely different"

How is it different?

Marty said...

And Wasp....you're still making me laugh..Ha! :)

Tom said...

I'm sorry, but I thought funerals were meant to celebrate the life of the deceased, not for politcal or personal grandstanding.

And anyone who claims to know of God's mind or will borders on blasphemy...

Dan Trabue said...

Knowing God's will is easy: God's will is for us to love God and love God's people and creation.

Bingo!

Tom said...

I figured that last statement would get me in Dutch somehow...Dan, you are correct in your statememt.

However, I don't think much of various politicians or people stating & using phrases like "...and that's God's Will!" in promoting their own agenda. And that's what I was referring to. My fault for not making that perfectly clear - no sleep for 36+ hours does not make for effective communication.

Dan Trabue said...

No problem, Tom. I've made my share of gaffes by typing before thinking through.

I'm curious though (and can't find it in this post anywhere): Who made a comment about something being God's will? Because I and others thought Rev. Lowery was being prophetic?

kerrismom60 said...

Dear All - A refreshing site... Quite calm - and informative. Christian, for the most part. Very refreshing!

I don't know how old the story line is about the wine (alcohol) issue, but I wanted to bring to Eleutheros attention that the governor of the feast did not say that the guests were "sloshed" (er...I mean "drunk"), but had "well drunk" (as well, I'm sure, as having "well eaten"). E also said that "it would have been a miracle INDEED" - Well, YES, it WAS a miracle INDEED, as all of Christ's miracles were, right? Sincerely......JO

Anonymous said...

Great stuff you have here! I have a hypnosis site I think you might enjoy.

cylon said...

A typical dictionary definition of hypnosis states that it is: a state that resembles sleep but that is induced by suggestion. However, anyone who has tried hypnosis (and any self respecting hypnotist) will tell you that this is a very simplistic view of the subject!
A much better description comes from the Free Online Dictionary which states that hypnosis is: an artificially induced state of consciousness, characterised by heightened suggestibility and receptivity to direction. So what does this mean and how can it be used to your advantage?

Well, the subject of hypnosis has been discussed and pondered since the late 1700s. Many explanations and theories have come and gone though science, however, has yet to supply a valid and well-established definition of how it actually happens. It's fairly unlikely that the scientific community will arrive at a definitive explanation for hypnosis in the near future either, as the untapped resources of our 'mostly' uncharted mind still remain something of a mystery.
However, the general characteristics of hypnosis are well documented. It is a trance state characterized by extreme suggestibility, deep relaxation and heightened imaginative functioning. It's not really like sleep at all, because the subject is alert the whole time. It is most often compared to daydreaming, or the feeling you get when you watch a movie or read a captivating book. You are fully conscious, but you tune out most of the outside world. Your focus is concentrated intensely on the mental processes you are experiencing - if movies didn't provide such disassociation with everyday life and put a person in a very receptive state then they would not be as popular (nor would TV advertising be as effective!). Have you ever stated that a film wasn't great because you just couldn't 'get into it'???
This works very simply; while daydream or watching a movie, an imaginary world becomes almost real to you because it fully engages your emotional responses. Such mental pursuits will on most occasions cause real emotional responses such as fear, sadness or happiness (have you ever cried at a sad movie, felt excited by a future event not yet taken place or shivered at the thought of your worst fear?).
It is widely accepted that these states are all forms of self-hypnosis. If you take this view you can easily see that you go into and out of mild hypnotic states on a daily basis - when driving home from work, washing the dishes, or even listening to a boring conversation. Although these situations produce a mental state that is very receptive to suggestion the most powerful time for self-change occurs in the trance state brought on by intentional relaxation and focusing exercises. This deep hypnosis is often compared to the relaxed mental state between wakefulness and sleep.
In this mental state, people feel uninhibited and relaxed and they release all worries and doubts that normally occupy their mind. A similar experience occurs while you are daydreaming or watching the TV. You become so involved in the onscreen antics