I'm heavily biased here because I don't find much value in the bible personally. Some of the stories are interesting and some interpretations seem useful, but as a whole I find it arbitrary.
I never tell other people what to believe or how they should do that in any capacity.
With that said I find the hallucination component here fascinating. From my perspective everyone who interprets various religious text does so differently and usually that involves varying levels of fabrication or something that looks a lot like it. I'm speaking about the "talking in tongues" and other methods here. I'm not trying to lump all religions into the same bag here, but I have seen that a lot have different ways of "receiving" communication or directive. To me this seems pretty consistent with the colloquial idea of a hallucination.
"From my perspective everyone who interprets various religious text does so differently"
The existence of denominations and confessions/creeds really shows that this isn't true generally. (There may be more than one interpretation, but not a unique one to every reader)
Even ignoring denominations, nearly all mainline christians for example would agree to the Nicene creed. (Anyone that disagreed probably wouldn't be considered "mainline", so somewhat definitional)
To suggest that all of theology is basically noneeterministically making things is naive and in my opinion insulting to an entire academic discipline, much less to the entire body of believers. (I can't tell if this is what you're taking about or not)
Nearly no group of mainline believers accept speaking in tongues and basically all of main protestantism believes that the time of prophets and new messages from God is over, the Bible is complete and will never be added to. (Pentecostals would be the one exception here, but I don't consider them mainline christians personally)
Most study and application tries to either source or fully work out from principles the meaning of the Bible. These can be wrong arguments but wouldn’t be hallucinations.
Your experience sounds limited to Pentecostal-originated churches, which are 100-150 years old. In those churches, it’s acceptable to speak as if you’ve received a spontaneous understanding of the Bible and to not explain it. That does have a parallel to LLM hallucinations in face value output, I suppose, but the origination is completely different as the spontaneous human is making planned remarks passed off as spontaneous, trying to affect specific people in the room, or emotionally overwhelmed. None of those resemble why/how LLMs hallucinate.
As quick as I am to criticize the bizarre versions of Christianity, I do think you're in error to assume Pentecostalism is all or even mostly about "planned remarks passed off as spontaneous".
Improv is a thing, and can be trained as a skill even outside of comedy/entertainment.
Though, outside of Charismatic sects, Christianity does see a more reasonable level of "I had prepared by thinking about (verse X), but suddenly now I'm thinking about (obscure verse Y)."
Interestingly there is an entirely licit charismatic subsect within Catholicism called Catholic Charismatic Renewal. And yeah they’re basically Catholic Pentecostals.
Didn’t say all or mostly. It is one aspect. You’re right it’s typically bullet points that are fleshed out in the moment, rather than a rehearsed speech, when this happens.
I agree fringe religious groups paint a stranger picture, but I don't think that entirely covers it here.
Without specifying any specific religions, many often have different interpretations at different times on critical issues like human rights, torture, slavery and worse. Different interpretations at different times have been used to justify spousal abuse, human selling/trafficking for specific agreed upon prices or transactions, etc.
I think in the same way that LLMs hallucinate because they can't find a proper place in their vector mapping for that embedding to draw on experience or reason (simplifying) the humans are also drawing from a place that has blanks and filling in the gaps.
If read in context, and ancient style, it's one of the most consistent works ever made given how many authors it had over what time period. It tells the "story of redemption" of God making man for a relationship, man betraying God, God redeeming man by literally dying at our hands, God continuing to drag His unfaithful partners to the finish line, and God spending eternity showing us undeserved love.
God's main requirement is to put faith in Christ and repent to enter a relationship with Him. His friends get forgiveness and grace, enemies get justice and wrath. From there, He dwells inside us to change us into what He wants. He rewards every good work He equips us for. He also disciplines our failures, like adopted sons and daughters, to keep us on the right path. He is gracious.
While telling that redemptive story, God's Word weaves together much testimony to teach us almost everything we need to know about life: God's/man's nature, God's laws/design, repeating patterns of man's behavior, different genres, prophecy/miracles for confirmation, and promises for the future. That the same message got the same results in thousands of people groups, peacefully, shows its universal power.
You wondered how to interpret it in an accurate way. Our church follows the historical-grammatical, or literal, method. We ask: who is speaking, what do their specific words mean, in what context, and for what reason then? And how does that apply today? And what do other passages say about the same topic in their context?
I'll leave you with that site in case it helps answer some of your questions. It's really the work Christ did that saves us, changes us, etc. Our actions help us live more effectively while on Earth. Every decision has an impact in eternity, too, as God will render to each for their works.
Since He promises answers, I suggest reading John's Gospel in ESV (good translation) while asking who Jesus Christ really is. You have to be humble and open to hear Him, though.
A really long word salad that doesn't say much, except state your religious pinions and disclaimer? It really is not necessary
With that said, all you said is that the process of transmitting religious ideas is akin to hallucination? Care to explain what the logical argument for that is?
My reason for saying happy holidays is because I don't really have a specific thing I celebrate, I simply take vacation during all of December and don't like being in the cold. That's a holiday for me.
I never tell other people what to believe or how they should do that in any capacity.
With that said I find the hallucination component here fascinating. From my perspective everyone who interprets various religious text does so differently and usually that involves varying levels of fabrication or something that looks a lot like it. I'm speaking about the "talking in tongues" and other methods here. I'm not trying to lump all religions into the same bag here, but I have seen that a lot have different ways of "receiving" communication or directive. To me this seems pretty consistent with the colloquial idea of a hallucination.