Ship of Fools: Religious Experience

Thread: Religious Experience Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030546

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Personally, I think a "religious experience" is really about the brain releasing certain hormones at a time that we associate with religious or spiritual meaning. But that doesn't make it less real or valuable.

I suppose it is just that we interpret all of our experiences with the context we put on them. It doesn't prove or disprove the reality of God, but it can give us a chance to reflect on our faith, on our belief, to see it in a more personal way.

Personally, I am all for religious experience, because I think anything that helps us engage with our faith more is probably good. At the same time, I have known people who are so obsessed with experience that their faith is all about having the next experience. Which is bad, because faith is more than that.

Anyone else have thoughts on religious experience? What does it mean? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Fine as long as we're cognitive about it. Feelings aren't facts.

I had a powerful one yesterday, much to my surprise. Most affecting. I was prophesied over. And I only accept it as metaphor, as ritual, but it was still most beguilingly affecting. I wish it were so. But it isn't. I'm still processing it in the light of my implacable certainty that I own my feelings and God doesn't interfere with them directly, let alone know if it's going to rain tomorrow. I accept the faith of the cleric who 'prophesied' over me, it was beautifully done and he is incarnational and grounded and real as well as Charismatic, the best I've encountered, and the faith of all present, I bow my head to it, I'm grateful for it, embrace it and don't believe it.

I'm glad of the experience as it stretched me, I had to put my inclusivity in to practice without any reserve of hostility, of alienation.

And it got my wife and me back to church 'proper' this morning.

[ 23. October 2016, 19:44: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I'm not certain what a "religious experience" is, nor that I've ever had one. Unless it refers to Holy Communion.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

I had a 'road to Damascus' experience in 2001. It happened independently of any Church-life at that time, and given hindsight it was probably the result of being in an emotional Foxhole.

Yes I'm glad it happened, and yes I would consider it a good thing were it to happen for others. There is though the matter of caution, every high in life is generally followed by a low sooner or later. Also, if the feeling is overwhelming then it may cloud the thinking and lead to bad judgement.
This might be me being over analytical though.

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
At the same time, I have known people who are so obsessed with experience that their faith is all about having the next experience. Which is bad, because faith is more than that.

The next experience? A first experience might be interesting. A bit like Mousethief I suppose - however I am not sure what he means when he refers to Holy Communion as an experience either.

[ 23. October 2016, 21:43: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I assume you mean you don't understand what I mean when I refer to the Holy Communion as a religious experience. It's quite obvious it's an experience, according to any conceivable definition of "experience."

According to the teaching of my church, it's an encounter with the actual body and blood of Christ. Which would seem to qualify it as a religious experience, if true. YMMV.

Posted by Nick Tamen (# 15164) on :

The Wiki: Religious Experience.

It seems to me that the term is usually used to describe something out of the ordinary, in which the divine is perceived to have been directly encountered in some way. I've had one experience I would describe that way. It did occur in the context of Holy Communion, but was beyond anything I've normally experienced during Communion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Ah, so the definition refers to a subjective, unusual "experience."

In which case I haven't had any. As I indicated in my first post on this thread.

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

Reading the likes of Merton or any of the older mystical writers (and some of the Fathers) I had always held out 'hope' that the mystical direct experience of God was not only possible but maybe even expected. Not for the 'experience' in an of itself, but because if God is indwelling then why would we not if 'open' expect to do so.

Apart from that, I hear so often Jesus spoken of as our 'personal' saviour, our friend and lover who knows us better than ourselves, is always with us etc etc . . . . then why would we not expect to come into contact directly with God?

I get very tired/down about an absent God, I want to walk with him not just talk myself into the belief that I am.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

I had an experience once. It's difficult to put into words, but it was amazing. I felt the power and glory and greatness of God all around me as I was walking through a thunderstorm. I laughed and danced through the rain. It was a long time ago now, but I'll always remember it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
Apart from that, I hear so often Jesus spoken of as our 'personal' saviour, our friend and lover who knows us better than ourselves, is always with us etc etc . . . . then why would we not expect to come into contact directly with God?

While some people clearly have subjective religious experiences that make a profound impact on them, I'm not sure mind-blowing experiences are the norm or even a legitimate expectation.

It's also true that the "Jesus is my personal saviour" line can be overused and abused.

However, I can't get away from the idea that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the defining feature of the New Covenant, and that the whole essence of this New Covenant revolves around a relationship with God rather than mechanistic obedience to a rule.

That relationship* may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.

==

*These days I use this word less and less due to its "Jesus-is-my-boyfriend" overtones, but again, I flounder for a better term. "Walk", perhaps, or "trajectory" (a bit of a mouthful); "journey"? (French has a nice word meaning a bit of all of the above, which I use a lot: cheminement, 'way-going', with its echoes of Emmaus (did that count as a religious experience?)).

[ 24. October 2016, 05:21: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

Eutychus I think it is this 'sense of knowing' beyond reason but also more than just a sense of strong belief, something almost tangible but then how tangible can God be? Well I guess God can be as tangible wants to be, and I also guess that that level of awareness is entirely at Gods discretion, we cannot obtain Him, He can only reveal.

When I wish for more, I then quickly find myself wondering what I would do with that once experienced. Maybe not 'having' in itself is a grace.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Many dedicated Christians never have any kind of religious experience or feeling. I don't know why, but I theorize it might have to do with a person's wiring/chemistry. It's probably the same for people of other faiths, because I know some of them have religious experiences, too, so it would make sense that some don't.

And there's always the question of whether the Divine exists and sends religious* experiences.

Buddhist teacher Jack Kornfield has some good ideas about keeping your balance after a spiritual experience. He's been a monk, a husband and father, co-founded the Insight Meditation Society and retreat centers in the US, and written several books. Check out "A Path With Heart" and "After The Ecstasy, The Laundry". I'm not sure if there's anything about what to do if you never have a spiritual experience; but he does address not making a big deal of a particular experience, because that isn't what your spiritual practice is about.

*And spiritual experiences. I heard recently that some atheists are working on ways to acknowledge a spiritual dimension of life.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I asked for a "religious experience" from God when I was thirteen, and I got one a few weeks later after the asking, so I don't think it was something emotional I just whipped myself into. Even at the time, I knew it was a precious gift that I shouldn't expect to be ongoing. I thanked God for it and promised to remember the experience and treasure it when things got dry.

I have had a few quiet brushes with the feelings since then, but that was my personal commitment moment.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Personally, I think a "religious experience" is really about the brain releasing certain hormones at a time that we associate with religious or spiritual meaning. But that doesn't make it less real or valuable.

I suppose it is just that we interpret all of our experiences with the context we put on them.

Agree absolutely. The dominant features of our earlest years, our parents, other influential adults, the culture , the local area and the country we were born into,, plus the need instinctively to obey and rely on those for our very survival, establish our early belief system.*

quote:
It doesn't prove or disprove the reality of God, but it can give us a chance to reflect on our faith, on our belief, to see it in a more personal way.

And the more we have been surrounded and influenced by our religious background, the more unlikely one is, and the harder it would be, to step outside it, in order to see that there is a total lack of facts about any God/god/s. I consider that I was fortunate in that the only belief I had been told was true was that God existed; all other beliefs and stories were different cultures’ differing routes to said God. Even so, with a wider knowledge of non-belief I think I would certainly have stepped away from it far sooner in my life.

quote:
Personally, I am all for religious experience, because I think anything that helps us engage with our faith more is probably good. At the same time, I have known people who are so obsessed with experience that their faith is all about having the next experience. Which is bad, because faith is more than that.

I would be most interested to hear how you would elaborate on those last five words.
Havingf sat and thought about that for a while, I think I would say that faith in a human idea which is a complex story based on an originally human idea is a barrier to saying that there are many questions to which we do not know the answer but it is no longer valid to say the answer is God rather than these are simply unanswered questions.

quote:
Anyone else have thoughts on religious experience? What does it mean? Is it a good thing or a bad thing?

The moment you find that you totally lack belief in any God/god/s, you know that all the experiences you have had and which you might have interpreted as religious experiences were simply human experiences, every single one of them easy for our evolved brains to create … and then interpret according to culture, background, etc etc. So all in all I think your first paragraph is spot on!

*I’m sure there is a better phrase or word for that, but I can’t think of it at the moment.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

While some people clearly have subjective religious experiences that make a profound impact on them, I'm not sure mind-blowing experiences are the norm or even a legitimate expectation.

And I think that there are some Evangelical/charismatic circles in which people will "talk up" their experiences in order to gain kudos or to prove they really "belong".

Which is not to gainsay the genuine article.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
*And spiritual experiences. I heard recently that some atheists are working on ways to acknowledge a spiritual dimension of life.

I hope they are doing so in a way that points out that all humans have a variety of experiences - it is the interpretation of many believers that atheists are not spiritual in anyway!! Do you have a relevant link, I wonder?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Susan--

I'll try to find something for you. The latest I heard was on the radio, over the weekend. May be a couple of days before I have time to track it down.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Susan--

I'll try to find something for you. The latest I heard was on the radio, over the weekend. May be a couple of days before I have time to track it down.

Thank you, Golden Key, that would be most kind of you. It certainly sounds interesting! [Smile]

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Schrodingers Cat:

quote:
Personally, I think a "religious experience" is really about the brain releasing certain hormones at a time that we associate with religious or spiritual meaning. But that doesn't make it less real or valuable.

As it stands that it uncontroversial. If you mean it is "all about . . " then I disagree. I am fond of a famous dictum (I thought by Feuerbach but I can't find it) "All statements about God are reducible WITHOUT REMAINDER (my caps) to statemennts about man".

Again it's a useful rule, like yours, but taken too far. Because of course the same is true of all experiences, like relationships, appreciating the beauty of nature etc. These are, of course, mediated by hormones, but also have external referents.

Somebody coined the term "peak experiences" and I have these fairly regularly, and often they are indeed random. But when one studies the lives of those who really have gone far down the path of prayer and meditation, I think it is fair to say they have religious experiences.

Any connection to God is still to be determined, especially if they are Buddhist.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What external referent beyond the material is involved in any of these experiences?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Do you think the Holy Spirit is more a feeling or a fact?

Posted by North East Quine (# 13049) on :

I had a religious experience a few weeks after our son was stillborn. It was ...wondrous. I can't describe it. It got me through a very difficult time and stopped me sinking into depression, which was invaluable because I had two children, aged 5 and 3, and really couldn't afford to be depressed.

BUT I thought that God had promised me another baby; I thought I had even been given a name for the baby.

In the event I had a further two miscarriages. I kept hoping for another baby long after it was reasonable to do so, and delayed resuming my career on the basis that I expected to have another child.

Technically, as I'm not through the menopause yet, it's still possible I might have the "promised" baby, but I really, really, REALLY don't want to find myself pregnant at 52!

Long term it has really screwed with my faith; not my faith in God, which is very strong, but in my faith in myself. I have lost faith in my ability to discern. I know I am capable of great self-deception. I don't trust myself not to deceive myself again in the future. I feel I hold myself back in prayer and study because of this.

This isn't something I can talk about in RL, because I feel foolish about it. One of the reasons I joined the Ship of Fools was because this seemed a place where fools like me could gather.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I think an awareness of the presence of God is a distinct thing from being sure we know what he's saying.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Fact of course.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

But this fact cannot be known to us in any meaningful sense if it is not felt.

When Paul says "I know whom I have believed", I don't think he's talking about mere head knowledge.

The disciples on the Emmaus road had their heads stuffed full of the Scriptures by Jesus, but what they referred back to after all was made plain was the fire burning in their hearts.

There's an experiential component to knowing this sort of "fact", one you can't prove by logic alone.

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But this fact cannot be known to us in any meaningful sense if it is not felt.

When Paul says "I know whom I have believed", I don't think he's talking about mere head knowledge.

The disciples on the Emmaus road had their heads stuffed full of the Scriptures by Jesus, but what they referred back to after all was made plain was the fire burning in their hearts.

There's an experiential component to knowing this sort of "fact", one you can't prove by logic alone.

What a lovely summary, almost what I would call a definition of, gnosis.

Perhaps I have underestimated Paul (I hold him in scant esteem I confess).

If I replace the emphasis on his words "I know whom I have believed" then I can't really place any distinction between his experience on the road to Damascus and my own experience in my living room when I was 24.

So Paul, I owe you an apology. But I still disagree with you.

AFF

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
As it stands that it uncontroversial. If you mean it is "all about . . " then I disagree. I am fond of a famous dictum (I thought by Feuerbach but I can't find it) "All statements about God are reducible WITHOUT REMAINDER (my caps) to statements about man".

Oh yes. If we are to follow the argument to its logical conclusion then we are faced with this.

Then where is the benefit of making the distinction between the human and God? What then is the burden of our responsibility for our relationship with one another? Why is "human" always equated with "inferior to God"?

It seems to me that we prefer to hide from ourselves and run from our responsibility toward one another and from our responsibility for this existence.

Even the Buddhists greet one another with "namaste" - I salute the Divine in you.

The gnostic parables freely admit the parity: the Human origin and place is above that of the god of the Hebrews.

So why do we behave towards one another as if we do not own this divinity?

AFF

[ 24. October 2016, 10:11: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:
If I replace the emphasis on his words "I know whom I have believed"

I have never put the emphasis anywhere else, probably because of the scansion of this hymn, which was part of my youth, as at 0:23.

[ 24. October 2016, 10:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
..."All statements about God are reducible WITHOUT REMAINDER (my caps) to statements about man".

Again it's a useful rule, like yours, but taken too far. Because of course the same is true of all experiences, like relationships, appreciating the beauty of nature etc. These are, of course, mediated by hormones, but also have external referents.

Can you think of anything which could come under the heading of religious experiences that is not reducible to 'statements about Man', or which have been 'taken too far'?
I think that definitions of the word 'religious' have, unfortunately, become too blurred and unclear because it is applied to, for instance, sports.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Do you think the Holy Spirit is more a feeling or a fact?

Unsurprisingly, I do not think the word 'fact' can be applied to any spirit, let alone one called 'holy'!

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

You'll have to have that out with Martin, then.

If there is a Holy Spirit, existence thereof is a fact, but I don't think it's one we can prove.

What is important for a Christian, in my view, is that belief in the Holy Spirit should make sense and, ultimately, have its root in some experiential knowledge on the part of the believer.

In my own experience, this is not necessarily spectacular, but it does prove to be pretty unbudgeable even in the face of doubt. Others' mileage may vary.

[ 24. October 2016, 10:28: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Eutychus

Thank you for your reply.
Interesting topic this one.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

It's all about beliefs imo.

In the past I would put the feelings down to the Holy Spirit, now I see the scource as far more natural, psychological, chemical and hormonal.

But, if those feelings bring positive changes, does it matter?

'God did it through me' may sound far more humble, but is it really?

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Martin:

quote:
What external referent beyond the material is involved in any of these experiences?

First, I'm not sure there has to be for them to count as religious experiences.

But mainly, except for strict materialists, other people are not simply material. Nor are ideas.

A friend of mine found that the idea of The Incarnation induced feeling of religious exaltation in him, for example.

Mind you, in the Bible, contact with God tended to make people feel a bit sick, and if we accept that we find God in the poor and the generally not very nice to our sensibilities, the same may well still apply.

People who associate feeling wonderful when in the presence of God, may in my view possibly be in need of a more accurate map. Doggies and pussycats do a better job of making you feel good.

[ 24. October 2016, 12:14: Message edited by: anteater ]

Posted by A Feminine Force (# 7812) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's all about beliefs imo.

I don't know if it is. My own "Road to Damascus" experience happened when I was quite young, inclined towards atheism, and came out of a clear blue sky apropos of nothing.

I wasn't looking for it, I wasn't asking for it, and I would have found much comfort and solace if I could have written it off to too much wine, or weed, or bad shellfish.

But it was none of those.

And to top it off, I had a recurrence 6 nights later wherein the One who came to me said "Look I know you're looking for a way to dismiss our conversation earlier this week. So this is Me just to show you in no uncertain terms that yes it's Me, yes we are really having this conversation, and no you will never be able to dismiss this experience."

It's been indelible. I can't alter the experience. It's there, perfect, whole, complete and completely unchanged for decades now.

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
In the past I would put the feelings down to the Holy Spirit, now I see the scource as far more natural, psychological, chemical and hormonal.

But, if those feelings bring positive changes, does it matter?

What you describe are the mechanics by which the human organism facilitates the experience.

The origin of the experience lies somewhere else, if I am to give my own experience any credit.

The "How" of something can never satisfy the question "Why" or "Wherefore".

That's for the individual to decide, and not for anyone else to decide for them, no matter how sophisticated their understanding of biomechanics.

IMO it's Ok to say "I'm a human being having a spiritual experience." Just it isn't OK to dismiss the POV of someone who says "I'm a spiritual being having a human experience".

AFF

[ 24. October 2016, 12:15: Message edited by: A Feminine Force ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's all about beliefs imo.

In the past I would put the feelings down to the Holy Spirit, now I see the source as far more natural, psychological, chemical and hormonal. ...

Boogie, I'm not sure that makes much difference. When I see the screen of the computer on which I am typing this reply, what I suppose is actually happening, is that I am experiencing various minute electrical or other charges in my brain and the image of the screen constantly updates itself. And the computer itself is driven by a whole lot of electric impulses. But neither of those incontrovertible facts has any bearing on whether the computer is really there or whether I'm imagining it.

So saying a religious experience may be more natural, psychological, chemical and hormonal, doesn't actually change the answer to the question whether any particular religious experience is objectively real or not.

So I think I agree with you that it is really about beliefs.

Thank you North East Quine for having the courage to share some of the things you've just shared.

I'm both puzzled and intrigued by the statement that "some atheists are working on ways to acknowledge a spiritual dimension of life". How is even the possibility of there being a spiritual dimension compatible with being a convinced atheist? To me, it would seem a fairly fundamental tenet of convinced atheism that there is no such thing as a spiritual dimension.

Susan Doris, you may be the only person who regularly posts on the threads who has the factual knowledge of atheism to be able that question. Can you help? Is that position an incompatible one, or is there some more nuanced explanation?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I can't get away from the idea that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the defining feature of the New Covenant, and that the whole essence of this New Covenant revolves around a relationship with God rather than mechanistic obedience to a rule.

That relationship* may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.

I hope this subjective "knowing" and "mechanistic obedience" aren't the only two choices on offer. I don't profess either but still consider myself a Christian. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What is important for a Christian, in my view, is that belief in the Holy Spirit should make sense and, ultimately, have its root in some experiential knowledge on the part of the believer.

Okay, well, it seems I'm wrong.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But this fact cannot be known to us in any meaningful sense if it is not felt.

When Paul says "I know whom I have believed", I don't think he's talking about mere head knowledge.

The disciples on the Emmaus road had their heads stuffed full of the Scriptures by Jesus, but what they referred back to after all was made plain was the fire burning in their hearts.

There's an experiential component to knowing this sort of "fact", one you can't prove by logic alone.

Fact precedes feeling precedes fact. As it did on the road to Emmaus. And for me on Saturday morning. As it does for me now. And all facts are accompanied with feelings on reception and after.

Jesus is a fact for me. I accept that God the Holy Spirit is a living, immanent one now but I have no idea how, beyond and even in orthodox teaching as the paraclete: counsellor, helper, encourager, advocate, comforter. Where I am counselled, helped, encouraged, advocated, comforted, taught, guided, convicted and, especially for me, in revelation of Jesus, I MUST acknowledge It.

I see the God the Holy Spirit acting in many places in the New Testament, but I NEVER see It (formally should that be Him as a Person of formally male God? Like Mr. Saavik?) making anyone feel or think anything directly by fiat, changing their thinking or feeling by intruding, interfering in their minds beyond dreams and visions and hearing and other externals in their sensorium. Do you? Psychiatric healing is another issue.

And no one experiences any of those things in any transferable sense since. No one. Ever.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Enoch wrote:

quote:
I'm both puzzled and intrigued by the statement that "some atheists are working on ways to acknowledge a spiritual dimension of life". How is even the possibility of there being a spiritual dimension compatible with being a convinced atheist? To me, it would seem a fairly fundamental tenet of convinced atheism that there is no such thing as a spiritual dimension.

It depends on what you mean by 'spiritual', but in some Eastern religions there is a sense of the spiritual or transcendent, without God. Obvious examples are Buddhism and advaita (Vedanta).

One of the basic experiences here is a nondualistic one, which refers to the transcendence over the self/other duality, leading to a sense of unity. However, this would not be called God by many practitioners.

No doubt, there are other ways to the transcendent like this. I suppose it is transcendent yet not supernatural.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

Religious experience in its broadest sense would be acknowledgement of God's hand in the beauty of nature, the sense of stillness and peace in a holy place or church, sharing in worship or Holy Communion, or finding that some of the words of the Bible come to life as we're reading it. All stimulate those elements built into us which are there for that purpose, to help us to come to life spiritually.

Particular religious experience varies, from Road to Damascus experiences which are often unpleasant and painful, as was Paul's, to vivid visions or dreams or 'words of wisdom' which will always be affirmed in other ways, usually through other people, as was Paul's.

Then there is the day by day religious experience which grows faith, the revelation of God to us which increases the more time we spend with God in prayer, the more we yield to God, the more we serve God in our daily lives, the more we listen for God's voice and acknowledge God's presence through the Holy Spirit. The mutual invitation of relationship with God, like that between us as human beings, depends upon our willingness and readiness to give.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Makes sense to me. Consciousness - a transcendent, emergent phenomenon in itself one feels - reaches for what it cannot grasp and when it does it collectively, all manner of meta-evil and meta-good synergistically emerges.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The interesting thing, well, one interesting thing is that transcendence seems a natural process, whereas the supernatural is quite a stretch for some people.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Enoch

Just as soon as I get back from swimming!!!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by A Feminine Force:

The "How" of something can never satisfy the question "Why" or "Wherefore".

And the answers to the 'why' and 'wherefore' questions come down to what we believe.

My own 'road or Damascus' experience was also sudden and very much unsaught and unasked for. I still remeber the date, 6th June 1990. I was in my front room at home looking at the birds on the roofs opposite. No music, no charismatic preachers, just me and 'God'.

But I now think that, subconsciously, I was looking for 'meaning' in my life and was far more suggestible than I wanted to admit.

I was going to a Bible study at the time and put meaning on an experience which I now think was due to suggestion - not God.

I could be wrong. Plenty of people would (and I used to say) that the Holy Spirit had been at work through scripture.

But if only good came of it why worry anyway? I think only good came of it, I became more involved at Church and in 'good works'. If people change for the better why do we need to look for reasons?

(I wasn't 'searching' at the Bible study, it was set up for Mums and toddlers and I went along as a pleasant way in to a ready made toddler group for my two small boys)

[ 24. October 2016, 14:04: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The interesting thing, well, one interesting thing is that transcendence seems a natural process, whereas the supernatural is quite a stretch for some people.

Intriguingly well observed. Everything is spiritual. I find God and everything about Him completely unbelievable, especially in the Bible, especially especially in supernatural realms including the afterlife, EXCEPT in Jesus.

So, due to Him, I have to believe, without even a mustard seed of faith, that the natural transcendence in the material world DOES continue impossibly beyond it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I can't get away from the idea that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the defining feature of the New Covenant, and that the whole essence of this New Covenant revolves around a relationship with God rather than mechanistic obedience to a rule.

That relationship* may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.
I hope this subjective "knowing" and "mechanistic obedience" aren't the only two choices on offer. I don't profess either but still consider myself a Christian. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What is important for a Christian, in my view, is that belief in the Holy Spirit should make sense and, ultimately, have its root in some experiential knowledge on the part of the believer.
Okay, well, it seems I'm wrong.

According to whom? I quite clearly emphasised that this was my take and (in the part you opted not to quote) that others' mileage may vary.

If you want to argue for a different position, though, it would be polite to give your reasons. For my part, my objective reasons for seeing things this way revolve around the terms in which God promises the New Covenant in Jeremiah, i.e. in terms of the coming of the Spirit into our hearts, an idea I also find paralleled in the Gospels and the epistles. What's your take?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

John Wesley famously added "religious experience" to Scripture, tradition and reason to form a "quadrilateral" source of authority/ rubric for discernment. But Wesley was clear that experience was a only a means of confirming faith, not a means of determining faith or a source of new doctrine. His term was actually not "experience" but rather "experimental faith". I like that. I think it encourages us to "test" our faith-- to pray big, for example, to write down "leadings" and "test" them (the Quakers in particular have good "tests" for leadings). And to think of it the same way a scientist does an experiment-- iow, when you don't get the desired outcome, you aren't shattered, but rather, that is new data that needs to be considered. When you do get the results you want, that, too, is new data. All of which is just data-- observations-- that go into the mix (along, again, with Scripture, tradition and reason) of growing in your knowledge and understanding of God.

The approach to religious experience lends itself well to journalling-- writing down what you're praying for, what you think you might be "hearing" from God-- and then checking back 3, 4, 6 months later to see how it appears on later reflection. Again, in a non-anxious way but simply as data for further understanding.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The interesting thing, well, one interesting thing is that transcendence seems a natural process, whereas the supernatural is quite a stretch for some people.
Intriguingly well observed. Everything is spiritual. I find God and everything about Him completely unbelievable, especially in the Bible, especially especially in supernatural realms including the afterlife, EXCEPT in Jesus.

So, due to Him, I have to believe, without even a mustard seed of faith, that the natural transcendence in the material world DOES continue impossibly beyond it.

Fair enough, Martin. One of the things I got from Zen, was an admiration for this world. It seems complete.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Anteater - I would probably argue that this is all a spiritual experience is, but you need to understand the whole of what I was saying.

I have had what I would call religious experiences. With some hindsight, they were occasions where I could realise some of the truths about God that I know were actually true for me. I would probably at the time have said they were when God was reaching out to me, but now I might say they were times when I had some space for God.

As I have said in other places, I do believe in a God who intervenes. But I also believe that there is quite enough in what we know about Christianity, if we are prepared to spend time understanding it and making it real. We don't need God to intervene to understand. He does on occasions, but that is his prerogative, not something we "need" or should expect.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

I have long held that those of us in the "" have long dismissed common spiritual experiences because if we cannot measure it (see it, taste it, touch it) it did not happen.

However, I have had many people who have worked in pre scientific cultures tell me there are many other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.

The challenge for us to to be open to other experiences that are more than 3 dimensional.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
I'm both puzzled and intrigued by the statement that "some atheists are working on ways to acknowledge a spiritual dimension of life". How is even the possibility of there being a spiritual dimension compatible with being a convinced atheist? To me, it would seem a fairly fundamental tenet of convinced atheism that there is no such thing as a spiritual dimension.

Eeek! That is only if you believe that a ‘spiritual dimension’ must include a belief in God or god/s. Every single human being is born with a unique set of genes which results in a unique set of characteristics , however similar are people who could be more or less grouped together. Every one of them responds to and has an appreciation of some aspect of the Arts. They respond to rhythm, to bird song, the human voice singing, aspects of Nature, to sunshine or gloom, to calm or angry words – in other words everyone has an aesthetic sense, an aesthetic dimension, to their lives. If that does not come under the heading of having a spiritual aspect or dimension to life, then , well, I won’t eat my hat, it’s a bit too woolly, but I shall be astounded! There has, in my opinion, been far too much of a tendency for religious believers to assume that the word spiritual applies only to them.

quote:
Susan Doris, you may be the only person who regularly posts on the threads who has the factual knowledge of atheism …

It is a bit tricky to have a factual knowledge of atheism since it is a lack of something, i.e. a lack of belief in any God/god/s. The atheists I know and whose posts I read on a couple of forums are all clear that one actual fact about any God/god would change the world, since then there would be no need for faith alone. I wwish I had read more about the Greek philosophers who were atheists.

quote:
…to be able [to answer] that question. Can you help? Is that position an incompatible one, or is there some more nuanced explanation?

I don’t think there needs to be a nuanced explanation … I'll have to have a think about that. I wonder if there is anywhere a ‘History of the World from the point of view of Atheists’?! I would love to read such a book. [Smile]

from googling: spiritual dimension: its importance to patients' health, well-being and quality of life and its implications for nursing practice. ... The spiritual dimension is described and is interpreted as the need for: meaning, purpose and fulfillment in life; hope/will to live; belief and faith.

I accept that faith is ‘needed’ in life, but there are far and away enough real,verifiable things to have faith in without the need to have faith in one more which does not have the verification.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have long held that those of us in the "" have long dismissed common spiritual experiences because if we cannot measure it (see it, taste it, touch it) it did not happen.

However, I have had many people who have worked in pre scientific cultures tell me there are many other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.

The challenge for us to to be open to other experiences that are more than 3 dimensional.

'other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.' The vital word missing there is, I suggest, the word 'yet'.

[ 24. October 2016, 18:06: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Luigi (# 4031) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I assume you mean you don't understand what I mean when I refer to the Holy Communion as a religious experience. It's quite obvious it's an experience, according to any conceivable definition of "experience."

According to the teaching of my church, it's an encounter with the actual body and blood of Christ. Which would seem to qualify it as a religious experience, if true. YMMV.

Hi Mousethief - thanks for your answer. Have been out - only just seen this. One question - whilst this may be what your church teaches presumable something inside affirms that there is substance to this claim. Or perhaps not even that happens or is important for you.

[ 24. October 2016, 18:15: Message edited by: Luigi ]

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

But Susan Doris, what does 'spiritual dimension' mean when there is only what can be touched, seen etc and be made amenable to scientific examination and experiment? And what does 'spiritual' itself mean, if there is nothing 'out there'?

Yes, I accept that 'aesthetic' is a bit woolly and difficult to get a grip on, but is that what 'spiritual' means? Is being aware of 'aesthetics' being spiritual? Are they anything much to do with each other?

If - which I recognise you may not agree - there are body, mind, soul and spirit, my suspicion is that aesthetics, music etc are more to do with soul than spirit. But either way, if one is a committed atheist, how does one deal with these difficult and inexplicable matters? Can one do anything more than say that there are things we haven't manage to discipline into science's grasp yet.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gramps49:
I have long held that those of us in the "" have long dismissed common spiritual experiences because if we cannot measure it (see it, taste it, touch it) it did not happen.

However, I have had many people who have worked in pre scientific cultures tell me there are many other phenomena that just cannot be explained rationally.

The challenge for us to to be open to other experiences that are more than 3 dimensional.

I grew up on such tales, truly terrifying stuff at the time and that cast a lengthening shadow. A primary school teacher telling us about the death shout. My maternal grandmother could make my blood run cold while I studied biological sciences. When an Aussie friend told me "Don't point the bone.". Which works of course. And you can be as unspookable as Dawkins with his unusually unpolarised frontal lobes but I defy you to read M. R. James in an empty house. John Simpson the great journalist relates an utterly spine tingling echo of A Warning To The Curious. Then there's Kate Adie's eye witness account of a blood shouter in her ancestral Sweden.

Like all claims, no matter how utterly sincere, I wasn't there.

Apart from where I was ... that I'm not claiming.

And my spine is tingling as I write. And I don't believe a word of it. Apart from the bone pointing ... and a healthy Japanese POW dying of shame in days which presages the fictional demise of the Reverend Colley in Golding's first volume of To the Ends of the Earth; Rights of Passage.

Our minds are phenomenal.

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

Are people here saying that once God the Son ascended humanity will not or should not expect to have a direct interaction with God. One where we don't just feel, but know we have been touched by other, the One who is Love?

Is it not something to be desired, even if not expected? Why would it be wrong to desire such a thing. The Spirit who dwells within me, communicating with my spirit in a tangible and real way. I tend to think the only barriers to such a thing happening would be ones erected by myself.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
However, I can't get away from the idea that the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is the defining feature of the New Covenant, and that the whole essence of this New Covenant revolves around a relationship with God rather than mechanistic obedience to a rule.

That relationship* may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.
I hope this subjective "knowing" and "mechanistic obedience" aren't the only two choices on offer. I don't profess either but still consider myself a Christian. Perhaps I'm wrong about that.

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
What is important for a Christian, in my view, is that belief in the Holy Spirit should make sense and, ultimately, have its root in some experiential knowledge on the part of the believer.
Okay, well, it seems I'm wrong.
According to whom? I quite clearly emphasised that this was my take and (in the part you opted not to quote) that others' mileage may vary.

If you want to argue for a different position, though, it would be polite to give your reasons.

Where in the above am I arguing for a different position? The only statement of putative fact I make is that I consider myself a Christian. I suppose given your take on what makes a Christian, that is something I would have to defend, since I don't meet your criteria. My other statements are a hope ("I hope that's not all there is on offer") and a recognition that I don't clear your hurdle ("It seems I'm wrong.")

quote:
For my part, my objective reasons for seeing things this way revolve around the terms in which God promises the New Covenant in Jeremiah, i.e. in terms of the coming of the Spirit into our hearts, an idea I also find paralleled in the Gospels and the epistles. What's your take?

So you feel if the Spirit comes into our hearts, it must do so in a splashy way that we recognize as some kind of epiphanic moment? Otherwise He's not there at all? Is that what you're saying?

Your "take" seems to be putting a lot of stress on a single prophetic statement, as interpreted in your special way. My question is just, why should I doubt my salvation based upon your take? What's so special about your take?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Luigi:
Hi Mousethief - thanks for your answer. Have been out - only just seen this. One question - whilst this may be what your church teaches presumable something inside affirms that there is substance to this claim. Or perhaps not even that happens or is important for you.

No prob. I have an emotional reaction to the Eucharist and most especially to confession (this is nearly universal among my Ortho acquaintances), but I'm not sure I'd describe either of these as "religious experiences" in the sense defined above by somebody. When I was an evangelical I sometimes thought of my emotional responses as religious experiences. I think that was a dangerous mistake.

I do not doubt that there are people who have numinous experiences or encounters with God. In Orthodoxy they tend to be people who have spent a lot of time (like, years and years) in prayer and meditation and sacrament. Monks and nuns, mainly, because who else has the time for that? But doubtless such moments are also given to plain old everyday Christians as some have recounted here. I do not know why I am not one of them. Maybe God keeps trying to ping me and I'm not recognizing it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
Are people here saying that once God the Son ascended humanity will not or should not expect to have a direct interaction with God. One where we don't just feel, but know we have been touched by other, the One who is Love?

Is it not something to be desired, even if not expected? Why would it be wrong to desire such a thing. The Spirit who dwells within me, communicating with my spirit in a tangible and real way. I tend to think the only barriers to such a thing happening would be ones erected by myself.

If this is in part addressed to me, here is my answer. I do not thing this kind of thing no longer happens. I do not think it's a bad thing (although it can easily be misinterpreted and misused). I have only said here that it doesn't happen to me, as near as I can tell.

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

Hi MT, I wasn't thinking of anyone in particular or part just casting a wide net. It seems to me the terminology of 'Religious Experience' does not help, as it makes something that I believe should be intimate sound like a Benny Hinn crusade.

I understand there is a long history within Orthodoxy of such contact and many warnings about splashing it about. I am drawn to the idea of a heart to heart communion and would hate to give up the desire/thought that this is not for today.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So you feel if the Spirit comes into our hearts, it must do so in a splashy way that we recognize as some kind of epiphanic moment?

I said here that

quote:
That relationship* may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.

Which I think answers that well enough.

quote:
Your "take" seems to be putting a lot of stress on a single prophetic statement, as interpreted in your special way.

The idea of the New Covenant being characterised by the presence of the Spirit is hardly "my special way" or based on a single prophetic declaration: it runs right through the New Testament. If you have a different characterisation, I'm genuinely curious to hear it.

quote:
My question is just, why should I doubt my salvation based upon your take? What's so special about your take?

It's very hard not to think you're simply spoiling for a fight here.

I said my take was my take, and didn't seek to impose it on anybody. I explicitly stated that "others' mileage may vary", and you have ignored this qualification entirely.

I'm not setting up a standard I think you ought to fulfil; you, meanwhile, seem intent on trashing my view without providing any explanation of yours.

If you think my assertion that being a Christian includes some sort of experiential aspect [NB: not necessarily your idea of some spectacular epiphany, as I have made plain myself from the outset] is wrong, then why not put forward your own view instead of getting all defensive?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
But Susan Doris, what does 'spiritual dimension' mean when there is only what can be touched, seen etc and be made amenable to scientific examination and experiment? And what does 'spiritual' itself mean, if there is nothing 'out there'?

Thank you for interesting questions. The word ‘spirit’ comes from a Latin word meaning ‘breath’, and the etymology seems to trace it back further to a proto-indo-european word. Wikipedia seems to have a neat basic explanation but language itself and the variety of different languages spoken will be a very, very long-term study. However, one link I clicked on – and did not spend time on! – has this:

quote:
The following paper examines the true origin of speech and language, and the anatomical and physiological requirements. The evidence conclusively implies that humans were created with the unique ability to employ speech for communication.

since the word ‘created’ nullified the rest as far as I’m concerned. It seems logical to me that as soon as humans started to communicate using the mutated/evolved ability to speak, sounds were allocated to things, so that would be naming them, wouldn’t it. Rapidly expanding use of words and discussion of feelings would quickly result in names being given to different aspects of themselves. Doing this did not mean that the aspects* named ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ were somehow separable from the totally integrated, totally physical, functioning body. It’s imagination that must have enabled those long-ago humans to think of soul and spirit as separate items.

quote:
Yes, I accept that 'aesthetic' is a bit woolly** and difficult to get a grip on, but is that what 'spiritual' means? Is being aware of 'aesthetics' being spiritual? Are they anything much to do with each other?

I suppose it would be incorrect to say that all aesthetic appreciation is spiritual, or that all feelings labelled spiritual are aesthetically pleasing or not, but there is a great deal of overlapI think.

I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very spiritually uplifting. I would certainly argue strongly with anyone who feels that the word spiritual can only apply to those who believe in the idea of God/god/s.

quote:
If - which I recognise you may not agree - there are body, mind, soul and spirit, my suspicion is that aesthetics, music etc are more to do with soul than spirit.

Mind, body, soul and spirit are lables which enable us to consider and discuss human aspects, but all are totally integrated and totally reliant upon us physical humans. We, said physical humans, are lucky enough to be part of an unbroken line of evolution without becoming extinct along the way!

quote:
But either way, if one is a committed atheist, how does one deal with these difficult and inexplicable matters? Can one do anything more than say that there are things we haven't manage to discipline into science's grasp yet.

I am completely comfortable, as are many atheists I know, in the knowledge that there are things not explained yet, that there are some which will probably never be definitely proved, but whatever they are, none of them needs a God or any other conjecture to be put in place as a solution. I quibble with the word ‘committed’. I am an atheist because there is nothing in the universe that is not entirely natural and although to be absolutely precise, an atheist must allow for the possibility that one day a fact might emerge about a God or something supernatural, at which point the world changes, but in my remaining years I think it is most unlikely that that will happen. When I finally erased the small spot in my brain which persisted in thinking there ‘must be a power/force somewhere’, I felt as if I had been a sort of jigsaw with all the pieces delineated and one minute piece missing. On realising that of course there isn’t a God, that tiny piece fell into place and all the pieces smoothed into one.

*I see no reason why the word ‘aspects’ should not be interchangeable with the word ‘dimension’.
**No, it was my hat that is too woolly to eat, as in ‘I’ll eat my hat’ !!

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I am wondering how to tackle this when I have come to a conclusion I may post in a very different way.

Firstly the sociologist tends to associate religious experience with an experience of transcendence.That is the sense of being at one with something larger and yes that can be a football account.

Secondly, I am increasingly aware of the power of the story we tell ourselves about who we are. Religious narratives and ceremonies are powerful tools to sustain, change and permit rethink our own narratives. This process of engagement is capable of making a religious experience.

Thirdly, there are those that escape the domain of rational. The scientific mindset is blind to them in my experience. I speak as someone who was raised to believe these do not exist (yes by Christian parents) but have experienced enough to simply not be able to sustain this view. These are difficult. I am rather agnostic as to their cause but I know that people incorporate these into the religious narratives.

Fourthly, I am not sure that there is a clear divide between the religious experience and the way we relate to other people. This goes back to questions of identity and ethics but is wider.

When combined they make a powerful domain of experience.

I should add that the broad domain of eclectic religious experience, magical thinking and superstition shows no sign of decreasing in line with affiliation to formal religious institution.

Jengie

[ 25. October 2016, 09:22: Message edited by: Jengie jon ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

I forgot the numinous, see what I mean by work in progress.

Jengie

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
..."All statements about God are reducible WITHOUT REMAINDER (my caps) to statements about man".

Again it's a useful rule, like yours, but taken too far. Because of course the same is true of all experiences, like relationships, appreciating the beauty of nature etc. These are, of course, mediated by hormones, but also have external referents.
Can you think of anything which could come under the heading of religious experiences that is not reducible to 'statements about Man', or which have been 'taken too far'?

All statements about ANYTHING are reducible without remainder to statements about human beings. This includes physics, math, love, ocean pollution, the mess my dog made this morning...

This is true because all our knowledge is mediated through the senses (all eight or nine of them, however you count them). All of our experiences involve the senses in some way, even if it is only via memory and analogy (for example, our experiences in dreams).

And therefore if we choose, we can dismiss anything, anything at all, as merely a statement about ourselves and our own perceptions.

The fact that we can do that suggests that either we should just give up on having any meaningful discussion whatsoever about whatsoanything, or we should rule the "it's just you, silly" argument out of court.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

[/QB][/QUOTE]

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Firstly the sociologist tends to associate religious experience with an experience of transcendence.That is the sense of being at one with something larger and yes that can be a football account.

Transcendence is one of those words whose definition is somewhat elusive I find. As you say, it is a sense, a feeling, therefore it is the brain which is doing the sensing. If I have feelings which I could describe as transcendent, I know they are entirely from my brain and need no imagined non-natural source. From my point of view, this does not lessen the feeling - I hope it makes me appreciate and give all the credit to my being a member of the evolved human species. Whether the sensation is enhanced by thinking it includes some non-human spirit, or by being fuly aware of its stimulus, and origin in the human brain is subjective, isn’t it, and the experience is just as likely to be equal in value.

quote:
Thirdly, there are those thatescape the domain of rational.

Could you give an example?
I can’t think of one at the moment.

quote:
The scientific mindset is blind to them in my experience.

I think that is rather too vague a claim – you couldn’t say that of, for instance, Richard Feynmann, could you.

I apologise for using the word vague, as I see you too are having a good think!

[ 25. October 2016, 13:52: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Oh dear, apologies for messing up the quote and qb tags.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

The fact that we can do that suggests that either we should just give up on having any meaningful discussion whatsoever about whatsoanything, or we should rule the "it's just you, silly" argument out of court.

I don't see why it should be so 'either/or'. I prefer 'I simply don't know'.

I can still enjoy the feelings and be thankful for them.

I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as we'll be out of the picture.

[ 25. October 2016, 14:15: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as well be out of the picture.

To say, 'It's all me,' would be too self-centred and selfish, but that's not me!!! It is all of us humans. I do have an in-built, comfortable self-confidence though

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as well be out of the picture.
To say, 'It's all me,' would be too self-centred and selfish, but that's not me!!! It is all of us humans. I do have an in-built, comfortable self-confidence though

Sorry, I put that badly and should have said 'it's all natural/human' [Smile]

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

The fact that we can do that suggests that either we should just give up on having any meaningful discussion whatsoever about whatsoanything, or we should rule the "it's just you, silly" argument out of court.
I don't see why it should be so 'either/or'. I prefer 'I simply don't know'.

I can still enjoy the feelings and be thankful for them.

I find it impossible to be like Susan Doris and declare 'there is no God' it's all me'. But I think God is so elusive s/he may as we'll be out of the picture.

Well, that works if you're not trying to figure out the whats and wherefores of these feelings. I took the OPer to be interested in more than just "this is cool."

And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.

LC/Slightly cranky right now as it's been a desert in terms of "religious experience" here for several months. Normal, I know, but grrrrr.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

When you think about it everything is natural - even plastic and iPads nothing can be conjured out of thin air.

Which reminds me of 'Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.'

Our feelings depend entirely on our bodies. Terry Pratchett has a clever take on waking up dead with no glands/hormones/nervous system/etc to get in the way of rational thought [Razz]

I believe in God but not in the supernatural - is that possible? Yes, because God is in and through all things, not a separate being. Without God there would be nothing. S/he holds the whole caboodle together. Imo.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

[Votive]

LC

Boogie, again both/and applies. God is both immanent and transcendent. Anything less limits God to our human capacity to imagine.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Boogie, again both/and applies. God is both immanent and transcendent. Anything less limits God to our human capacity to imagine.

doesn't the fact that you can say that God is 'imminent' and 'transcendent' show that you are using your imagination to say so? God is limited to our imagination.
Hmmm, that' is not well put, I'm afraid.

[ 25. October 2016, 16:29: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Examples of things that do not fit neatly in the rational:

spontaneous healings - no not miracles but people who get well when medical knowledge says they should not. It's more common than people think and one of the reasons why I want to know more before I claim a miracle.
various reports in ethnographic diaries which are distinctly odd and excluded from official reports because of this e.g. lights happening, spirits becoming visible etc. There really seems to be a state where if you seek to be as close as possible to societies which do not rely on our model of rationality you start to experience things that do not fit our rationality.

For a personal one the silent conversation. I spent a lot of time with a friend. One day we went for a walk. As you do we started a conversation and then because we were good friends we walked in silence. Spontaneously we started talking again. Although we had not shared a word for at least fifteen minutes it is quite clear that our brains had run on such similar lines that we picked up the conversation as if we had been talking the whole time.

Jengie

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
Are people here saying that once God the Son ascended humanity will not or should not expect to have a direct interaction with God. One where we don't just feel, but know we have been touched by other, the One who is Love?

Both. Will not and should not. Not while we're still dependent on oxygen. We can know it and feel it all we like. But they aren't facts. We should certainly be grateful for that provision in our human repertoire. But it isn't God twiddling our dials. It's the realisation of Him. It's nothing that SCIS rapist murderers don't experience.

quote:

Is it not something to be desired, even if not expected?

As above.

quote:

Why would it be wrong to desire such a thing.

Nope. It's right and proper. It just won't happen and if it does it's us.

quote:

The Spirit who dwells within me, communicating with my spirit in a tangible and real way.

I don't see that as Biblically normative apart from dreams, visions, hearings which are no longer normative. Being enabled, encouraged, comforted, advocated, taught, guided, having Jesus revealed (YES!), convicted, regenerated in heart, sustained is normative, orthodox now as then.

quote:

I tend to think the only barriers to such a thing happening would be ones erected by myself.

It's not you.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Boogie, again both/and applies. God is both immanent and transcendent. Anything less limits God to our human capacity to imagine.
doesn't the fact that you can say that God is 'imminent' and 'transcendent' show that you are using your imagination to say so? God is limited to our imagination.
Hmmm, that' is not well put, I'm afraid.

No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation. It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Reality, existence is mind blowing, absurd, unbelievable, whether God (ontologically) is or not. Either stuff is eternally, meaninglessly self caused or pre-eternal, trans-infinite God is. That breaks Occam's Razor big time at least once, but the Spirit keeps revealing Jesus to me.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation. It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.

One of the unique things about being human is having an imagination - yet we can't use it to think about God? odd.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation. It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.
One of the unique things about being human is having an imagination - yet we can't use it to think about God? odd.

We will think and use our imaginations, Boogie, but God will always be greater than we can ever imagine.

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Reality, existence is mind blowing, absurd, unbelievable, whether God (ontologically) is or not. Either stuff is eternally, meaninglessly self caused or pre-eternal, trans-infinite God is. That breaks Occam's Razor big time at least once, but the Spirit keeps revealing Jesus to me.

Martin how does God the Spirit reveal God the Son to you if you can't experience God. If you know it is God then isn't that a direct experience of God in your life, an experience that would be different to my experience.

Jesus, God incarnate, ate drank walked debated with people . . . . . and then just buggers off and leaves us in a vacuum. I just don't get that.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Reality, existence is mind blowing, absurd, unbelievable, whether God (ontologically) is or not. Either stuff is eternally, meaninglessly self caused or pre-eternal, trans-infinite God is. That breaks Occam's Razor big time at least once, but the Spirit keeps revealing Jesus to me.
Martin how does God the Spirit reveal God the Son to you if you can't experience God. If you know it is God then isn't that a direct experience of God in your life, an experience that would be different to my experience.

George, I experience the effect. One of the orthodox characteristics of the Spirit is that It reveals Jesus,

John 16:14 He will glorify me, because he will receive from me what is mine and will tell it to you.

2 Cor 1:21 But it is God who establishes us together with you in Christ and who anointed us, 22 who also sealed us and gave us the Spirit in our hearts as a down payment.

I can't not accept Christ. In fact I accept Him first and all else follows.

I'm sure there's a perfectly good, even better, purely material psychological narrative, I'd love to hear it, it can't cast a shadow of doubt.

I've been given this faith - or made it up - and it suits me.

quote:

Jesus, God incarnate, ate drank walked debated with people . . . . . and then just buggers off and leaves us in a vacuum. I just don't get that.

It was enough. He did enough. Over to us. In the Spirit. With Its provisions. The orthodox, normative ones I keep listing, which again I could be making up. I don't care. I've taken Pascal's wager. It suits me. So I now have to be incarnational. Which DOESN'T! God and His sense of humour eh? You're not alone. You have ME! Lucky you eh?

[ 25. October 2016, 23:09: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

Well Martin I might not always get what your on about but yes I am lucky to have you. I can deal with having 'no idea' when I know I am not alone.

Answers disturb me more often than not; I am happier with questions which often leaves me out of step with people who think they have it together.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The idea of the New Covenant being characterised by the presence of the Spirit is hardly "my special way" or based on a single prophetic declaration: it runs right through the New Testament.

Either you are moving the goalposts or you really don't realize this is different from what you said earlier about requiring some kind of subjective feeling. The thing about "I will pour out my spirit on all people etc." from Jeremiah says nothing about subjective feelings -- that's something you dragged in. Which is why I was referring it to your special interpretation. Because it is.

quote:
If you have a different characterisation, I'm genuinely curious to hear it.

It's not hard to figure out what I believe about this from what I've been saying -- someone can be filled with the HS without this special warm feeling you are alluding to (however you want to describe it; I got "warm" from Wesley).

My proof text, as you appear to be wanting one, is: Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe. I am taking "seen" to be "experienced" because of course Thomas did a lot more than see. Indeed his demand was not to see, but to feel.

quote:
It's very hard not to think you're simply spoiling for a fight here.

I suppose some may see it that way. This says more about them than about me.

quote:
I said my take was my take, and didn't seek to impose it on anybody.

This is bullshit. If your "take" is right, it applies to everybody. You are saying we all have X relationship, and X relationship contains Y experience. You didn't say "my experience of X contains Y experience." You said it was a necessary part of X, simpliciter. To then come back and say "I only meant it about me" seems disingenuous at best.

Here's a sweet little contradiction from your own post:

quote:
I'm not setting up a standard I think you ought to fulfil

quote:
[M]y assertion [is] that being a Christian includes some sort of experiential aspect....

You don't say "for me, being a Christian includes some sort of experiential aspect." You are saying this is part of being a Christian. Thus setting up a standard you expect all Christians to fulfill.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You are saying this is part of being a Christian. Thus setting up a standard you expect all Christians to fulfill.

Your quoting is selective to the point of distorting my original meaning beyond recognition.

I made it clear I was giving my view only, that others' views might differ, and that notions of what might constitute experience differ widely. I certainly never used the word "warm". Your argument on that score is with Wesley, not with me.

I'll own to arguing that the New Covenant is characterised by the indwelling Spirit (of course there are other ways of characterising it, but this one certainly doesn't rest on a single proof text and is a view I would happily defend), but not to any of your caricatures of what that must necessarily entail.

I don't "expect" all Christians to fulfil my "standard". I don't stand at the door of my church and interrogate people on their special feelings, indeed, I get nervous when they start splurging about them.

Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.

In my experience and understanding (which, lest there be any doubt about this, is not ex cathedra or definitive), all I'm saying is that belief such as Jesus describes when talking to Thomas is, to my mind, more than intellectual assent to a series of propositions. It can't be reduced solely to logic or reason. There's something else going on, something subjective. And by definition, being subjective, it's going to be somewhat different for everyone; but it seems to me it's going to be there.

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

It's not possible for God to be absent. So if God is ever present it makes no sense for me not to experience that.

I don't care about eternity, I want to believe and be with a God of the now! No parent hides their face from their child. If it's a case of 'wait and see' then I give up!

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
It's not possible for God to be absent. So if God is ever present it makes no sense for me not to experience that.

I don't care about eternity, I want to believe and be with a God of the now! No parent hides their face from their child. If it's a case of 'wait and see' then I give up!

Good point, but if God is all that is good, then maybe we simply don't notice him/her? So celebrating the good, the positive, the caring, the kind in this world is maybe as good as worship for those who don't sense the presence of God or believe in him/her/it?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

What Boogie said and ...

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
It's not possible for God to be absent. So if God is ever present it makes no sense for me not to experience that.

I don't see the connection. I don't see the sense of anyone being able to experience the presence of the immanent ground of being apart from that which He grounds.

quote:

I don't care about eternity,

Me neither! Infinity too!

quote:

I want to believe and be with a God of the now!

You are.

quote:

No parent hides their face from their child. If it's a case of 'wait and see' then I give up!

His face, the Father's face, is all around and behind and above and below, in the mirror darkly and in this conversation. Darkly [Smile]

Invoke Him. Make Him up. From the materials available. The materials He provides and sustains thanks to His Son by the Spirit.

That means walk with Him, TALK to Him. As Father. As Dad. As Daddy. As Brother. Bro. Friend. Mate. Consigliere. Sarge. Sar'nt (there's a difference). Advocate. Comforter.

These are His light materials. From His word.

I invoke Him all the time and not enough. At my most broken, intruded upon, ruminant, I eventually remember to invite Him in.

I have sat Him down in all His persons in my room, set chairs out for Them and talked EVERYTHING through. Every broken, afflicted, shameful thing.

I've sat Him on my bed behind me from my desk chair in my bedsit room at 55, Gelert the Hound of Heaven's head on my lap, eyes looking up.

He has looped in figures of eight around my legs as I walk as the Father and the Son flank me.

I walk with Him in the park, on the street. When I can't think of how to start I find reasons to be grateful. It's easy when you're walking. There's always the sky.

A year or so ago I related here how I was walking in the park and expressed that if died there and then I would like to carry on walking in His 'real' presence, face to face. That was revelatory. That the resurrection for all of us will be waking up to a walk with Him in paradise. I hope I don't notice the transition immediately.

By chance I got to near the spot yesterday, after two years at least probably, which I have since many times. I don't know what I was thinking about, the beauty of an American red oak in flame probably, and I was moved as good as John Wesley by the memory.

I'm grateful for that.

But that's me. Do what you gotta do mate. Feel what you gotta feel. Experience what you will. God bless you in that. Now. Don't wait and see, Hell will freeze over. Get on with it.

Invoke Him.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

Susan Doris, I still can’t quite understand your position. You say

quote:
Originally posted by Susan Doris
I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very spiritually uplifting.

but I can’t see how on your terms that statement can have a meaning. What do ‘spirit’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘spirituality’ mean, if there is nothing in the universe except that which is amenable to observation, experiment and science?

Seeking to get round this by examining the derivation of the word, doesn’t really get us any further. Yes, the Latin, Greek and Hebrew words for spirit are all breath related. Interestingly, that is despite their not being etymologically connected. However,
'I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very breathily uplifting',
wouldn’t mean anything. Besides, what determines what word in English means isn’t its derivation but how it is used now.

quote:
You say to Jengie John
Transcendence is one of those words whose definition is somewhat elusive I find.

On your terms, aren’t ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ equally elusive? If you say that some of Poulenc is very spiritually uplifting, what would be conceptually different, on your terms, between that statement and saying that you found some of Poulenc transcendent?

It seems to me that your statement

quote:
I am an atheist because there is nothing in the universe that is not entirely natural.

is just as much a statement of committed faith - though faith in an absence - as the faith I have as a Christian. I accept, and am grateful for, your caveat,

quote:
an atheist must allow for the possibility that one day a fact might emerge about a God or something supernatural, at which point the world changes.

and your ability to be comfortable with there being things that are not explained yet. I’m more uneasy about the possible implication that it will follow from that, that any ‘unexplained bits’ will just be odd pieces sticking out round the edges that will be expected to fit in with a standard materialist understanding of the cosmos. You may also be making assumptions as to how Christians do actually understand the cosmos, and whether they draw the same distinction in the same place between the scientifically amenable parts of it and its more mysterious realms.

To us, there is much that is difficult, imprecise and unamenable about the parts we cannot see and don’t fit our preconceptions, but our world view can cope with that. It still seems to me that for (and I repeat the term deliberately) a committed atheist, allowing the words ‘spirit’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘spirituality’ to have a meaning, however imprecise, apart from variations of,
'a form of self-deception from which other people, more benighted than we 'bright' ones, suffer',
causes immense existential difficulties.

For an atheist, once one allows these three words to have any possible meanings at all, one has to allow space for the possibility that reality might include other 'dimensions', 'aspects' or whatever one prefers to call them.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Transcendence - the experience of connecting with something larger than yourself as an individual. As such it is experienced by football supporters and pop concert goers. It is also an important part of identity creation. To claim to be British is to claim to belong to something bigger than you for instance.

Religious use of it tends to be when that which is larger than you is associated with the divine. As a description of what this may feel like there is a wonderful description of what an esctasy experience can be like in Chapter 7: A Piper at Dawn in the Wind in the Willows. However, must to the time the experience is mundane and often caught up with the sense of belonging to a religious community.

Jengie

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Enoch and Jengie Jon

Thank you for interesting posts - much to think about; this I will do and return anon!

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I'm not sure about Susan's position, but the term 'committed atheist' is something of a trap in this discussion. Most atheists that I know simply lack a belief in God, so to speak of them being committed to such a lack is odd.

There are indeed atheists who do assert that there is no God, but I find that this is rare (gnostic atheists).

There are also atheists who are not materialists, or physicalists. Indeed, many Buddhists are atheists, and they say different things about reality, including, 'What is that?' (Maybe also animists are atheists).

So I don't find anything odd in atheists having, or valuing, spiritual experience, no more that it's odd that they experience and value love, or that they can describe propositions, without referring to brain events.

Straw man, in other words.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.

What on earth in what he said gives you that idea?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Transcendence - the experience of connecting with something larger than yourself as an individual. As such it is experienced by football supporters and pop concert goers. It is also an important part of identity creation. To claim to be British is to claim to belong to something bigger than you for instance.

Religious use of it tends to be when that which is larger than you is associated with the divine. As a description of what this may feel like there is a wonderful description of what an esctasy experience can be like in Chapter 7: A Piper at Dawn in the Wind in the Willows. However, must to the time the experience is mundane and often caught up with the sense of belonging to a religious community.

Jengie

It's a fascinating concept, and isn't only used in a religious sense, or theistic sense. Its use in Eastern religions often refers to going beyond the ego, or separate I.

This can be linked with the numinous, or the divine, or with the One, and so on - or not, of course. As they say in Zen, be careful to do the washing up after you, even if you've had an enlighenment experience.

It might provide a meeting place between religious and non-religious, theists and non-theists.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.
What on earth in what he said gives you that idea?

Jesus says "because you have seen me, you have believed", and says that those who have not seen yet believe are blessed. He says nothing at all about experience however we define that, or about the grounds on which those who have not seen might believe.

Thomas was looking for (and got) tangible grounds for belief ("unless I see... unless I place my hand..."). The fact that one can believe without seeing offers evidence, to my mind, that there are intangible grounds for belief.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.

I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think

We are in complete agreement SusanDoris. No faith is necessary to realise that existence needs no further explanation, no faith whatsoever. It explains itself in that it is. If you want to flesh it out it doesn't get any better than Alan Guth's cosmology.

If eternal, infinite stuff can only exist because God wills it pre-eternally, trans-infinitely that just pushes what is, back one self-existent entity, but something has to self-exist.

The only justification for believing it's God is Jesus.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Besides, Jesus did not say "blessed are those who have not experienced, but believe". The episode with Thomas is not about drawing a distinction between belief and experience but about the difference between tangible and intangible grounds for belief.
What on earth in what he said gives you that idea?
Jesus says "because you have seen me, you have believed", and says that those who have not seen yet believe are blessed. He says nothing at all about experience however we define that, or about the grounds on which those who have not seen might believe.

Thomas was looking for (and got) tangible grounds for belief ("unless I see... unless I place my hand..."). The fact that one can believe without seeing offers evidence, to my mind, that there are intangible grounds for belief.

Don't let me get between you guys at all, you're going great, but what intangible grounds are there outside the text?

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Boogie
*tangent* .You mention a Terry Pratchett quote - do you have a link, please? *end tangent*

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think

That's not quite right, is it? The idea of 'all me' does't just say that the human is involved in various ideas, but that nothing else is. It's that last bit that is a guess, just as 'God did it' is a guess.

But then most atheists of my acquaintance are careful to say that they don't know that there is 'nothing else'. But there is simply no evidence for 'something else', hence their lack of belief. Hence, they are agnostic atheists, since knowledge and belief are being distinguished.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
what intangible grounds are there outside the text?

As I said here (new emphasis mine, now):

quote:
a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone

As far as Christian "experience" goes, it is of course text-dependent in that we rely on the Scriptures to give us some hint of what this "experience" might be ("the Spirit bears witness to our Spirit that we are sons of God"), but the text points beyond itself to something more dynamic. As you and I have discussed previously*.

The text also serves as ballast to preserve us (well, at least hopefully...) from rabid gnosticism or delirium.

==

(*and you wouldn't believe how long it takes me to find that post each time I want to quote it).

[ 26. October 2016, 14:59: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Indeed, but if the text weren't there, we'd have no grounds at all.

We didn't see, but heard, we read. First. That's tangible. Nothing less. Or more. The hope, the belief evoked in us is intangibly ... felt.

[ 26. October 2016, 15:05: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
We are in complete agreement SusanDoris. No faith is necessary to realise that existence needs no further explanation, no faith whatsoever. It explains itself in that it is.

Thank you for your post beginning thus. I will come back to it when I've caught up!!

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jengie jon:
Examples of things that do not fit neatly in the rational:
[*]spontaneous healings - no not miracles but people who get well when medical knowledge says they should not. It's more common than people think and one of the reasons why I want to know more before I claim a miracle.

It is a known fact that people quite often recover , so although doctors might not be able to analyse completely why a person has done this, there is no need to consider any answer except the evolved human body's ability to cure itself. If this had not been happening for an extremely long time, humans wouldn’t be here to think about it!!

quote:
[*]various reports in ethnographic diaries which are distinctly odd and excluded from official reports because of this e.g. lights happening, spirits becoming visible etc. There really seems to be a state where if you seek to be as close as possible to societies which do not rely on our model of rationality you start to experience things that do not fit our rationality.

All such anecdotes would fall down when it came to verification. If there were any factual truth in such ideas, then detection should be possible. If there is no means of such detection then the likelihood of their being in any way objective is extremely small. I cannot think of any advantages in putting aside modern scholarship, science and medicine in favour of believing in ghosts etc etc.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation.

Via which of our five senses? There is no limit to imagination. Anything that is beyond it does not, for all intents and purposes, exist, since it cannot be imagined.

quote:
It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.

I think even many who believe in god would perhaps agree that the Trinity was a product of the human imagination in the first place.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Susan Doris, I still can’t quite understand your position. You say
quote:
Originally posted by Susan Doris
I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very spiritually uplifting.
but I can’t see how on your terms that statement can have a meaning. What do ‘spirit’, ‘spiritual’ and ‘spirituality’ mean, if there is nothing in the universe except that which is amenable to observation, experiment and science?

That is quite a hard question! When I listen to wonderful music, with particular points where combinations of notes produce feelings of – let’s call it ‘rapture’, I am experiencing sensations which other people would experience in a very similar way. I do not consider labelling it as being other than entirely from my physical brain. Others may give the credit for it to God and categorise it as spiritual because of that association.

quote:
Seeking to get round this by examining the derivation of the word, doesn’t really get us any further. Yes, the Latin, Greek and Hebrew words for spirit are all breath related. Interestingly, that is despite their not being etymologically connected. However,
'I love to listen to Poulenc’s Stabat Mater and Gloria, where some of the music is, for me, very breathily uplifting',
wouldn’t mean anything. Besides, what determines what word in English means isn’t its derivation but how it is used now.

Yes, I agree and have seen and heard people saying that the word spiritual is pretty much ‘owned’ by believers. Well, I dispute that and reserve the right to use it in a secular sense!

quote:

quote:
You say to Jengie John
Transcendence is one of those words whose definition is somewhat elusive I find.
On your terms, aren’t ‘spirit’ and ‘spiritual’ equally elusive? If you say that some of Poulenc is very spiritually uplifting, what would be conceptually different, on your terms, between that statement and saying that you found some of Poulenc transcendent?

Fair point. Yes, I certainly could use the word ‘transcendent’, but for me that word has too many religious overtones, and I’d find myself explaining that I didn’t quite mean that every time I used it!
The next point in your post about ‘committed faith’, I think I have answered in a post to LC.

quote:
You may also be making assumptions as to how Christians do actually understand the cosmos, and whether they draw the same distinction in the same place between the scientifically amenable parts of it and its more mysterious realms.

Humans have always loved a good mystery, but in reality, any ‘mysterious realms’ would be better designated as unknowns. This does not detract from the value and enjoyment of fiction, especially when the distinction is clear.

I think atheists are less likely to have ‘existentialist difficulties’, but am probably on very shaky ground here.

quote:
For an atheist, once one allows these three words to have any possible meanings at all, one has to allow space for the possibility that reality might include other 'dimensions', 'aspects' or whatever one prefers to call them.

I understand that some mathematics can show this, but it seems to be a very remote possibility and I certainly don't think it will affect my remaining years!

Thank you, that kept me thinking for quite a while!.

Posted by Raptor Eye (# 16649) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
No, as it is beyond our imagination that God may be both immanent and transcendent at the same time, which is why so few people may accept as much as the possibility that it is the truth. And yet it is, by observation.
Via which of our five senses? There is no limit to imagination. Anything that is beyond it does not, for all intents and purposes, exist, since it cannot be imagined.

We have more than five senses, if we tune in to our spiritual dimension.
There is a limit to our imaginations, and far more in the universe than we can ever imagine.

quote:

quote:
It also fits with the one God as Father, Son and
Holy Spirit. And the Trinity is truly mind- blowing, if we try to use our imaginations.
I think even many who believe in god would perhaps agree that the Trinity was a product of the human imagination in the first place.

I disagree, of course, as I am convinced that the one living God: Father, Son and Holy Spirit is as real as you are, as have and do billions of people worldwide past and present to whom God has been revealed.

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

If you have never experienced or believe you will never experience your beloved in this lifetime, then all you are left is an infatuation with a self created image of who they are.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
It's not possible for God to be absent. So if God is ever present it makes no sense for me not to experience that.

I don't care about eternity, I want to believe and be with a God of the now! No parent hides their face from their child. If it's a case of 'wait and see' then I give up!

Actually, we parents do that all the time. Usually for the sake of the child--for example, when we are getting them accustomed to preschool or a babysitter, and the sight of a parental face will induce crying and set the whole process back immensely. But it can also happen later in life--I had to excuse myself from the room last night when my teenager was working himself into a fit of worry rather than going to sleep as he ought. I knew from long experience that if he has no audience he will stop emoting and drop off in about 30 seconds. Which he did.

The parallels with God are real. There are cases where a felt sense of God's presence would set us back rather than forward spiritually speaking. In my experience these are mostly cases when I need to learn to do what's right based on my own will to obey God rather than being lured into it by spiritual/emotional inducements. God withdraws the sense of his presence (though not the reality of it) so that I can learn to walk on my own instead of clutching his two fingers like I did in spiritual toddlerhood. The goal is that I will be able to walk with God whether he's holding my hand or not at the moment. I hope I haven't totally screwed up this metaphor.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think

I really don't want to hijack this thread into yet another go-round of the game "how do you know anything?" In my previous post I was addressing the question of whether it is reasonable to object to a X (here X is religious experience) on the grounds that "It's all you, after all," i.e. you are the one whose senses are reporting all this, and X is therefore untrustworthy as we cannot get at X in an unmediated state.

My rebuttal was that EVERY experience is mediated through the senses, and therefore to object to numinous or religious experiences on those grounds is in essence to reject ALL experience of any sort, however mundane. This applies to the experience of fossils, astronomy observations, microscope work, and the like just as surely as it applies to religious experience. If we are to mistrust anything mediated by the senses, we might as well give up on reality altogether. We're never going to get anything un-mediated.

So yes, on the point I was addressing it IS possible to equate the two. Every proposition about the outer world is ultimately based in a faith that one's senses are reporting things accurately, and one's reason is handling those things correctly.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The parallels with God are real. There are cases where a felt sense of God's presence would set us back rather than forward spiritually speaking. In my experience these are mostly cases when I need to learn to do what's right based on my own will to obey God rather than being lured into it by spiritual/emotional inducements. God withdraws the sense of his presence (though not the reality of it) so that I can learn to walk on my own instead of clutching his two fingers like I did in spiritual toddlerhood. The goal is that I will be able to walk with God whether he's holding my hand or not at the moment. I hope I haven't totally screwed up this metaphor.

I don't think you have. It's quite similar, actually, to something in the Screwtape Letters.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:
If you have never experienced or believe you will never experience your beloved in this lifetime, then all you are left is an infatuation with a self created image of who they are.

Now this is really interesting to me as it points out a classic difficulty--how do I keep myself from creating a mental idol to suit myself rather than worshiping the real but invisible God?

IMHO this is why God gave us a) the Scriptures and b) other believers. There would be no easy correctives for a believer afloat on his/her own. But in my experience, any tendency I have to start mauling and reshaping my mental picture of God to suit myself--well, it gets blown to smithereens pretty often, either because of something I'm reading/hearing in the Bible, or because of something a fellow Christian says or does. That is my safety against drifting into what you call "an infatuation with a self-created image of who they are."

But as for experiencing God, there are plenty of avenues other than the classic "I got all shivery" thing. There is, as Mousethief points out, holy communion. There is baptism. There is reading the Scriptures or hearing good preaching. There is prayer and meditation, regardless of the emotional reactions you may or may not experience. A whole lot can be going on between God and me "behind the scenes" even when to my conscious experience there's nothing out there but desert.

I mentioned upthread that I'm in a desert phase right now. It sucks. And of course I keep asking to get out of it. I'd rather be having the sense of God's presence and attention, and I'm frustrated at the sense that I'm all alone right now.

But I'm not despairing or giving up, and I do not in fact believe that I am all alone now, no matter what my guts are presently reporting. That's because I've had desert spells before, including a really nasty one of about three years in my college years. By the grace of the unseen unfelt God I endured it even though it felt horribly boring and lonely, and eventually came out the other end. So I know now that these spells DO have an end sooner or later, and that the spiritual senses/emotions I may or may not have don't tell the whole story. God was not in fact absent just because I couldn't sense him. There was nothing wrong with me, either, to the best of my knowledge. This was a just a normal part of growing up in the faith--the experience of Isaiah (chapter 8):

quote:
I will wait for the LORD, who is hiding his face from the house of Jacob, and I will hope in him.

tl;dr version: Times of spiritual dryness suck like a Dyson. But they are a normal part of growing up in Christ.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

mt--

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The parallels with God are real. There are cases where a felt sense of God's presence would set us back rather than forward spiritually speaking. In my experience these are mostly cases when I need to learn to do what's right based on my own will to obey God rather than being lured into it by spiritual/emotional inducements. God withdraws the sense of his presence (though not the reality of it) so that I can learn to walk on my own instead of clutching his two fingers like I did in spiritual toddlerhood. The goal is that I will be able to walk with God whether he's holding my hand or not at the moment. I hope I haven't totally screwed up this metaphor.
I don't think you have. It's quite similar, actually, to something in the Screwtape Letters.

The "Law of Undulation", IIRC. That it's normal for your feelings, faith, etc. to go up and down. It doesn't mean that you're bad, or not a Christian.

CSL also said--in his non-fiction, IIRC--that it's ok to wonder if you're on the right train (or bus?), as long as you don't get off of it.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Since we are apparently well into the realm of CS Lewis, and doubt, I was thinking of asking mousethief in particular what he makes of Orual's initial awareness of the gods in Till we have faces.

(I know it's a favourite book of his, which I re-read in the wake of Kelly's U.G.L.Y. thread in Heaven).

Orual belatedly knows the gods are real, on the basis of intangible evidence that goes well beyond reason and logic (the Fox could explain everything otherwise on the same evidence, but she knows just how far out of his reckoning he would be). But her experience was a long way from a "special warm feeling".

OK, it's fiction, and it doesn't correspond to anything I've ever experienced. But it makes a lot of sense to me (I think CSL probably has more to answer for in my thinking overall than any theologian).

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

It makes no sense to me at all.

I have no idea what "intangible evidence that goes well beyond reason and logic" could possibly be.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

There are things of which we are convinced, the correctness or otherwise of which cannot be settled solely by appeals to reason.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
[*]various reports in ethnographic diaries which are distinctly odd and excluded from official reports because of this e.g. lights happening, spirits becoming visible etc. There really seems to be a state where if you seek to be as close as possible to societies which do not rely on our model of rationality you start to experience things that do not fit our rationality.
All such anecdotes would fall down when it came to verification. If there were any factual truth in such ideas, then detection should be possible. If there is no means of such detection then the likelihood of their being in any way objective is extremely small. I cannot think of any advantages in putting aside modern scholarship, science and medicine in favour of believing in ghosts etc etc.

Yes, that is actually the problem and why the official write-up they do not occur but only in the unofficial (ethnographers keep diaries which are technically highly private (same level as a confessional) but some have been printed usually after the ethnographer's death, this is how we know. Evans-Pritchard has at least one such account). Rather troubling when this is a consistent behaviour. The requirement for verification has meant that a significant body of experience is ruled out from exploration by science and therefore can not be open to scientific rational.

Jengie

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

The trouble with stuff like that is that you open the floodgates to all experiences. My local shaman is very eloquent when talking about power animals - so should I demand some substantial verification, or should I be content with a nice subjective feeling about it, i.e. I like it? I suppose it doesn't matter really, as long as she doesn't start telling me that power animals ought to be important to me.

Posted by Jengie jon (# 273) on :

Well, use your critical faculties do not use the absolute denial or absolute acceptance. It is often quite useful to actually try and step into the perspective someone is inhabiting at that time. Some of these may be oddball; many will, however, have an internal coherency within the system of thinking.

You then have to decide whether their system causes them (they are a product of their system or a re-interpretation of things we understand differently), our system blinds us to them (they exist but our way of thinks means we discount them) or they are entirely illusory. My take is all three categories exist but our habit of discounting them because they do not meet the requirements of scientific data means we cannot determine between them.

By the way, popular culture often maligns them as malicious when there is no evidence for this. My take would be is most of this phenomena have zilch interest in humans either benign or malign.

Jengie

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I just take a friendly interest in stuff like that. I don't really care if it's 'true' or not, it obviously responds to a need. As I said, so long as nobody demands my agreement or lectures me.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
There are things of which we are convinced, the correctness or otherwise of which cannot be settled solely by appeals to reason.

My acceptance of Jesus seems to fit that bill, mediated by God the Holy Spirit, but I think we abandon reason too soon, that we don't stretch the paradigm of it enough. I'm happy for a reductionist, materialist critique of my acceptance of Jesus to be made, would value one. I'd do it for myself I'm sure, given three years of psychoanalysis. It couldn't remove the external Jesus story, which is as real as evolution, the history of World War II or quantum mechanics. The Jesus story stands appeal to reason.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
The Jesus story stands appeal to reason.

Yes, but I think there's more than reason alone going on in the life of a Christian, by virtue of the presence of the Spirit.

(Which does not equal heart strangely warmed, being caught up to the seventh heaven, falling on the floor, barking like chickens, or even Pascal's gripping Feu (fire), etc.).

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think
We are in complete agreement SusanDoris. No faith is necessary to realise that existence needs no further explanation, no faith whatsoever. It explains itself in that it is. If you want to flesh it out it doesn't get any better than Alan Guth's cosmology.

If eternal, infinite stuff can only exist because God wills it pre-eternally, trans-infinitely that just pushes what is, back one self-existent entity, but something has to self-exist.

I had a look at some info about Alan guth and his cosmology, which seems to be fairly conventional. You start the next sentence with ‘if’, always a bit of a stumbling block! And then say that something ‘has to self-exist. You may be right, but I’ll stick to I don’t know the answer.

I think I am probably missing something, since I think it is unlikely that we are in complete agreement. [Smile]

However, it is a harmonious thought in the meantime. Thank you for post.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Since we are apparently well into the realm of CS Lewis, and doubt, I was thinking of asking mousethief in particular what he makes of Orual's initial awareness of the gods in Till we have faces.

(I know it's a favourite book of his, which I re-read in the wake of Kelly's U.G.L.Y. thread in Heaven).

Orual belatedly knows the gods are real, on the basis of intangible evidence that goes well beyond reason and logic (the Fox could explain everything otherwise on the same evidence, but she knows just how far out of his reckoning he would be). But her experience was a long way from a "special warm feeling".

OK, it's fiction, and it doesn't correspond to anything I've ever experienced. But it makes a lot of sense to me (I think CSL probably has more to answer for in my thinking overall than any theologian).

It's been a while since I read this, but if I recall correctly, she had rather a negative experience of the gods. I find that entirely plausible and can parallel it (well, not with the real God!) from my own life.

Not all spiritual experiences are pleasant. Some say "get the hell out of here."

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
And "there is no God it's all me" or "all human" is as much a faith position as the opposite.
I know what you mean of course, but there is no equating the two. There are billions of years of evidence for life and for the existence of we evolved humans, but only conjecture for God. The latter requires 100% faith, the former as near to 0% faith as makes no difference, I think
We are in complete agreement SusanDoris. No faith is necessary to realise that existence needs no further explanation, no faith whatsoever. It explains itself in that it is. If you want to flesh it out it doesn't get any better than Alan Guth's cosmology.

If eternal, infinite stuff can only exist because God wills it pre-eternally, trans-infinitely that just pushes what is, back one self-existent entity, but something has to self-exist.
I had a look at some info about Alan guth and his cosmology, which seems to be fairly conventional. You start the next sentence with ‘if’, always a bit of a stumbling block! And then say that something ‘has to self-exist. You may be right, but I’ll stick to I don’t know the answer.

I think I am probably missing something, since I think it is unlikely that we are in complete agreement. However, it is a harmonious thought in the meantime. Thank you for post.

There's no may about it. If anything exists something always has existed. Here we are. Therefore ... Because it can. It either can because that's the opposite of null, not can't. There can be null or something. So there is.

Or it can because it can't of itself, unlike the eternal aging infinite growing physicalist cosmos above, but someone thinks it.

There is no evidence of that whatsoever.

Apart from Jesus.

And the evidence of elegance. The argument that stuff exists because it can, that a null is the ultimate vacuum that mathematical or other philosophical or some ineffable non thinking nature abhors, feels ... meaningless to the point of ... silly. Bad taste. Arbitrary. At best whimsical.

Whereas eternal infinite creation in the mind of an ineffable creator has ... elegance. Grandeur. The promise of transcendence. The certainty of immanence.

The God revealed in Christ is peerless. The ultimate in awesome. Is the best story there can be.

Saying that stuff exists meaninglessly, of itself, because it can, it might as well instead of null, 50:50 is a paltry 'explanation'.

And that's all you've got.

Posted by GeorgeNZ (# 18672) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It makes no sense to me at all.

I have no idea what "intangible evidence that goes well beyond reason and logic" could possibly be.

God does not make sense, totally belong our comprehension, and I would imagine that direct experience with the One would only confirm that. Reading Merton this morning he makes that point that in 'knowing' God we realise that we know nothing, for God is not a 'thing' that can be known even as we are known.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Since we are apparently well into the realm of CS Lewis, and doubt, I was thinking of asking mousethief in particular what he makes of Orual's initial awareness of the gods in Till we have faces.

(I know it's a favourite book of his, which I re-read in the wake of Kelly's U.G.L.Y. thread in Heaven).

Orual belatedly knows the gods are real, on the basis of intangible evidence that goes well beyond reason and logic (the Fox could explain everything otherwise on the same evidence, but she knows just how far out of his reckoning he would be). But her experience was a long way from a "special warm feeling".

OK, it's fiction, and it doesn't correspond to anything I've ever experienced. But it makes a lot of sense to me (I think CSL probably has more to answer for in my thinking overall than any theologian).

I'm not sure (a) which point in the book you're referring to, or (b) what exactly you're asking me about it. As for (a), can you point me to a chapter? And maybe the first sentence of the paragraph where your passage (the one you're asking about) starts?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

In chapter XII, a few pages in, Orual first catches a glimpse of the god's house - which she later doubts.

Indeed, in chapter XIII, she finds the Fox can explain away all she relates to that point in the story by wholly rational explanations (basically, that Psyche is the prisoner of some outlaw living in the wilds), while her trusted servant Bardia is convinced of the existence of the gods. She cannot decide between them in the absence of her own experience.

Then in chapter XV Orual is confronted by the god and all doubt vanishes. The chapter concludes

quote:
now that I'd proved for certain that the gods are and that they hated me

A few pages on in chapter XVI, she tries as best she can to explain her experience to the Fox - within limits:

quote:
There was no use in telling him about the god; he would have thought I had been mad or dreaming

The inability of argument, or belief devoid of any experience at all, to have the final say in Orual's journey resonates with me; I suppose my question is, does it not with you?

And to everyone who hasn't read Till we have faces, rush out and buy it now.

[ 28. October 2016, 06:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by GeorgeNZ:

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
It makes no sense to me at all.

I have no idea what "intangible evidence that goes well beyond reason and logic" could possibly be.
God does not make sense, totally belong our comprehension, and I would imagine that direct experience with the One would only confirm that. Reading Merton this morning he makes that point that in 'knowing' God we realise that we know nothing, for God is not a 'thing' that can be known even as we are known.

I love Merton and the genius who penned The Cloud of Unknowing. If God chose to give me a direct experience of Himself in this life, it would have to be interactive, conversational, real not immersive like a dream or virtual reality game. With me sitting in my underwear on my laptop with BBC 24 on TV. Some of the prophets, Peter, Paul had such. Nobody else.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The inability of argument, or belief devoid of any experience at all, to have the final say in Orual's journey resonates with me; I suppose my question is, does it not with you?

Not immediately upon reading this, because I've never seen the god. What does resonate is the futility of trying to argue religion with people who have already made their mind up that nothing beyond the five senses exists. You get tied up in so many circular arguments and straw men it's not worth it.

quote:
And to everyone who hasn't read Till we have faces, rush out and buy it now.

On this we agree 100%.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Resurrecting this thread to say that yesterday, Mrs Eutychus discussed this somewhat with an Orthodox priest who is part of the same ecumenical working group as her.

He said that the concept of antimony, or paradox, was central in Orthodoxy (for example Jesus being fully man AND fully God) and that it was important within Orthodoxy not simply to mentally assent to any such two paradoxical ideas but to experience the antimony.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

How exactly, one wonders, does one experience the two natures of Christ? Asking for a friend.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Vicariously in the accounts of His transcendent acts whilst human? The epitome for me above all being the woman caught in adultery. Rendering in to Caesar. Cana. Lazarus. The woman at the well. The Syro-Phoenician woman and her demon possessed child. The feedings. The eyeless guy who needed TWO healings. Walking on water: By the (Spirit mediated) hearing of the word?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Those seem to be, from the majority point of view of this thread, precisely not experiential. I've read Bible passages. All of them, actually, but that is not the same thing as a personal experience in the way it has been defined here. If receiving the very body and blood of Christ doesn't count, then surely reading a book, even THE Book, is not enough.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Agreed [Smile]

and that's all we have. What more could we possibly need? What could possibly help?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If receiving the very body and blood of Christ doesn't count

My insight here is that perhaps Orthodoxy in particular views this experience as being largely aided/fuelled by externals; all the various liturgical flamboyancy, icons, etc., whereas nonconformists tend to identify it as something internal. Each may look paltry to the other.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If receiving the very body and blood of Christ doesn't count
My insight here is that perhaps Orthodoxy in particular views this experience as being largely aided/fuelled by externals; all the various liturgical flamboyancy, icons, etc., whereas nonconformists tend to identify it as something internal. Each may look paltry to the other.

No. What an odd thing to say. Orthodoxy views this experience as being fuelled by the Holy Spirit. I have this feeling that non-Os, particularly low-church non-Os, look at Orthodoxy and what they see are bells and smells and icons and robes and fancy music, and think that's what matters to us the most. Because it's most obvious, I suppose. But you could lose all those things and still have an Orthodox service, and it would still mean exactly the same thing, and effect exactly the same thing(s) in the participants (if any, YMMV).

The Eucharist is about God, through the agency of the Holy Spirit, changing bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, and the faithful communing with God by partaking of this feast.

What others think about the Eucharist is for them to say.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Agreed and that's all we have. What more could we possibly need? What could possibly help?

May I refer you to the words of Eutychus:

quote:
... a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone.

And again...

quote:
What is important for a Christian, in my view, is that belief in the Holy Spirit should make sense and, ultimately, have its root in some experiential knowledge on the part of the believer.

So apparently, dear Martin, there is something more we need. How much it helps, I dunno. It's never helped me a tinker's damn.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

How do you cope mousethief?! How do I?!? How do we?!?!? What's to be done for us second class Christians?!?!?!?!?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So apparently, dear Martin, there is something more we need.

I never said that you "needed" anything.

And Martin60, I'll thank you for not taking this misrepresentation at face value.

I offered my perspective much as mousethief, you often offer Orthodox perspectives - and would be the first to react if those were taken by others as you imposing requirements on them.

The priest Mrs Eutychus talked to - not to "win" any argument here but out of a genuine interest in the subject - spoke in precisely the same terms as me of a "subjective sense of knowing".

I'd be interested to know what your own priest's take is on this idea of antimony being something that needs to be experienced and that this is a central part of Orthodox piety.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Eutychus. The magic word is 'apparently'. I don't see any misrepresentation. There is an implication that I am inferring, especially based on mousethief's second quote.

Jungian "knowing" I can cope with. But "experiential knowledge on the part of the believer" beyond hearing the word and being affected by it?

If God does not exist, I'm still affected by it. Even if He does, which of course He does, a good shrink could easily come up with a watertight psychological reason why I believe. I must research that mustn't I! And regardless of how perfect the shrink's story, I'd still believe. That IS a work of the Spirit orthodoxly. But the orthodoxy of the earliest Christian, New Testament messianic and pneumatological prophetic hermeneutic is invalid, so what else is? And I'll still believe. So will mousethief. So will you.

[ 04. November 2016, 12:01: Message edited by: Martin60 ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Martin60:
Eutychus. The magic word is 'apparently'. I don't see any misrepresentation.

The misrepresentation is the unqualified "we need".

quote:
Jungian "knowing" I can cope with.

Can you explain what you mean by that?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Knowing without being able to explain why. Strong intuition. Bias.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

I can't slip a wafer of Bible-thin paper between what I'm saying and what you're saying, then.

From what I understand mousethief to be saying, he wouldn't go so far as what you're calling Jungian knowing, but that's for him to say.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

Aye Eutychus. I am the bridge of this unholy trinity.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I'd be interested to know what your own priest's take is on this idea of antimony being something that needs to be experienced and that this is a central part of Orthodox piety.

I doubt I understand what you're saying well enough to convey it to someone else, particularly when I quote you, and you say I'm taking you wrong.

So let me see if I've got it straight yet. It's important for Christians to have "experiential knowledge" but it's not necessary. Have I got you now? Because that's the thing I just quoted ("important") and what you just said ("not necessary"). Or will you deconstruct your own words even further?

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The bit you are constantly missing is that I was expressing my view alone; what I personally thought; and that I explicitly stated that others' mileage might vary.

Despite which you managed to interpret my words as imposing my take on everybody else here, and continue to do so.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

You don't seem to understand how language works. If you say "It's important that a Christian do X," you are NOT just speaking for and about yourself. If you said "It's important that I do X," then you are speaking about yourself. If you say "a Christian" then unless you are in the habit of referring to yourself in the third person in this manner, you are talking about people other than yourself.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

The full text of that part of my original post reads as follows, emphasis mine:

quote:
What is important for a Christian, in my view, is that belief in the Holy Spirit should make sense and, ultimately, have its root in some experiential knowledge on the part of the believer.

In my own experience, this is not necessarily spectacular, but it does prove to be pretty unbudgeable even in the face of doubt. Others' mileage may vary

Nowhere have I said "it is important that a Christian do X".

I expressed my personal view that Christianity involved some experiential knowledge, made it clear that was my view and not some sort of ex cathedra statement, went on to relate my own experience, and made it clear that others might not share this experience.

I'm not trying to dictate what's important, or necessary, or unnecessary, for you or for anyone else, and I'm tired of you repeatedly implying I have done instead of continuing with the conversation. I'm trying to have an exchange of views, not convert you to mine.

If you persist in taking offence at that, take it to Hell, but don't count on me to show up there in response.

I'd much rather you told us about your take on Martin's "Jungian knowing", for instance.

[ 05. November 2016, 22:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Your sig quote is

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
One has to take part. Scary as it is. - Martin60

Is it enough to take part? Must I have a religious experience beyond saying the prayers and involving myself in the liturgy and taking communion. Can I please avoid all the experience parts of it? No Really Big Feelings, no transcendent spiritual orgasms, just being there, and trying in a stupidly incompetent way to follow the Jesus teachings? Is it enough?

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Why not? I don't see anything in Scripture that says "Thou shalt have shivery feelings and a Really Good Testimony Story."

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

Exactly!

And I don't think it is 'second rate'. It was realizing this that let us continue and not walk away.

I get the excitement of these experiences, but we mustn't ever replace the simple core, the foundation of Jesus-following with anything.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Ah well, everybody thinks their own way is the best. Like the time I got thrown out of a Korean Bible study for not having the proper spiritual gift. They wanted speaking in tongues, and nothing else--even healing--would do. I was quite chuffed to be thrown out of a Bible study. It made me feel Big and Bad. [Devil]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Can I please avoid all the experience parts of it? No Really Big Feelings, no transcendent spiritual orgasms, just being there, and trying in a stupidly incompetent way to follow the Jesus teachings? Is it enough?

I'm in no better position than anyone else here to tell you what is "enough". But since you address me personally, as far as I'm concerned,

quote:
While some people clearly have subjective religious experiences that make a profound impact on them, I'm not sure mind-blowing experiences are the norm or even a legitimate expectation.

However,

quote:
When Paul says "I know whom I have believed", I don't think he's talking about mere head knowledge.

This resonates with me. It

quote:
may well not revolve around the sort of thing we mostly seem to mean by "religious experience", but I think it does involve a subjective sense of "knowing" that goes beyond logic and reasoning alone

As explained earlier, my understanding of the New Covenant is that it is a work of the Holy Spirit in the believer.

(I do not base this view on a single verse, as was asserted earlier, but on a much broader reading of the NT. This is of course open to challenge, but nobody's actually challenged it yet here).

How that translates into feelings or any degree of experience clearly varies widely between believers, but I (personally!) find it hard to understand how, if the person of the Holy Spirit is the modus operandi of the New Covenant, this could not involve something beyond mere intellectual assent or obedience based solely on the law.

I am not into intense spiritual experiences. But on the days when I have my greatest intellectual doubts about the whole thing, what keeps me on track is a not a series of intellectual arguments, however compelling they may be, but a sensation that to me at least makes sense in the light of Scripture passages like that quote from Paul, or where he says things like "the Spirit bears witness to my spirit that I am a child of God".

If that's "Jungian knowing", so be it. And if other believers see things differently, and make sense of their attachment to following Christ differently, that is fine as far as I'm concerned. I have been trying to share my own take and reasoning, undoubtedly clumsily, but honestly. I would just like to know their take and reasoning.

[ 06. November 2016, 05:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
But this fact cannot be known to us in any meaningful sense if it is not felt.

When Paul says "I know whom I have believed", I don't think he's talking about mere head knowledge.

The disciples on the Emmaus road had their heads stuffed full of the Scriptures by Jesus, but what they referred back to after all was made plain was the fire burning in their hearts.

There's an experiential component to knowing this sort of "fact", one you can't prove by logic alone.

As this has been quoted from again recently, Paul had [head] knowledge of the gospel of the risen Christ whom he knew personally. It affected him deeply. What else did he know? What else could he have known? What else did he need to know? There is no need for Jungian 'knowledge' here. He'd MET the risen Christ in no uncertain terms and may have spent YEARS with Him in Arabia. What's to 'know'?

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

And of course when I said 'quoted from again recently', it was you, Eutychus, quoting yourself unattributably above ...

Posted by keibat (# 5287) on :

Martin60 wrote:

quote:
He'd MET the risen Christ in no uncertain terms and may have spent YEARS with Him in Arabia.

Hmm. What Paul himself talks about (not, incidentally, Luke's conversion story from the Road to Damascus) is being caught up in the Spirit into the seventh heaven [2 Cor 12:2], and then essentially he holds back from trying to define or explain or even narrate it, because he heard 'inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell.' (NIV)
So where does "may have spent YEARS with Him in Arabia" come from? Yes, I know Paul says he spent years in Arabia [Gal 1:17].
It has however long seemed to me to be rather crucial that unlike the Apostles from the original Twelve, Paul did NOT 'meet' Jesus in the flesh.

Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on :

He may have done, but it don't sigger-ni-fy.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Susan--

quote:
Originally posted by SusanDoris:

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Susan--

I'll try to find something for you. The latest I heard was on the radio, over the weekend. May be a couple of days before I have time to track it down.
Thank you, Golden Key, that would be most kind of you. It certainly sounds interesting!

Profuse apologies for the delay! Fallout from the campaign and election.

I couldn't find the radio program I mentioned, but here are some other links:

"In Awe Of Everything" (Daylight Atheism blog at Patheos).

Atheist Spirituality

"Atheists Take Old Hymns Out Of The Chapel And Into The Streets." (NPR) (That's just for fun--street choir of mostly atheists and agnostics, singing Renaissance music. Has both text and audio.)

[ 24. November 2016, 23:56: Message edited by: Golden Key ]

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Golden Key

Many thanks for the links. I will follow them up later today.

Posted by SusanDoris (# 12618) on :

Golden Key

What interesting links - the first one in particular has been added to my 'favourites' list. I very much liked the singers too. The best part of singing part music like that is, I think, the discipline of following a line of music - wish I could still do it! I watched a few moments of the video of the 'Unbeliebable' TV programme, but I'm afraid it was too saccharine for me - especially the mention of WLC put me off straight away, even though he wasn't actually on the programme - he really sets my teeth on edge! I'll have another look at that later on.

There was mention of
The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality': Andre Comte-Sponville, . I read that with my reader a while ago and we both found it very interesting.

Thankse again, I really appreciate your help.

[ 25. November 2016, 13:07: Message edited by: SusanDoris ]

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0