I think it comes down to the question of whether you (general you) believe that God ever chooses to bless someone with such experiences. If you’re going on the basic assumption of No, he never does, then it’s easy to see where animosity comes from, as the person must be either a deceiver or self deceived. But if in fact God does occasionally do this, things get much stickier, and you’re forced to start evaluating the character of individual posters, in so far as it is known to you.
Sure, but the point I'm trying to make isn't whether such experiences do or don't exist - but rather 'some said it thundered.'
As it happens, I do believe that there is an 'affective' element to Christian faith and indeed that the Byzantine 'hesychasts' weren't deluded when they claimed to see the 'Uncreated Light.'
Reading Saint Sophrony 'On Prayer' is quite uncomfortable as well as heartening, I find. Uncomfortable because he seems to have had some scarily direct encounters with the Divine. Heartening because he seems to have had some scarily direct encounters with the Divine.
The thing is, I think it's possible to foreclose oneself to such experiences, by refusing to admit the possibility of them--either in oneself or in one's acquaintance, who will certainly not 'fess up to any such experiences if they know they are going to be called crazy, even by implication. I had a parallel experience here on the Ship some years ago when I made the mistake of telling the story of how my husband escaped execution by miracle. I haven't done that again, the reaction ranged from disbelief (fair enough) to outright jeering. And I would not be at all surprised to learn that there were people with such experiences on the Ship who wouldn't be caught dead admitting them, given the atmosphere.
(full disclosure: I actually took a straw poll of roughly 40 of my fellow Lutherans regarding mystic or numinous experiences last week at a presentation I was doing. Roughly half were willing to admit to having had some sort of communication or experience with the Lord (we're not talking about "I saw a beautiful maple leaf and the beauty of life overcame me," that sort of stuff, it was specifically Christian experiences that were specified). And my denomination is extremely buttoned up and about as non-charismatic as it is possible to get.
This was spur of the moment, and raised some eyebrows for the two clerics in the room, who had semi-pastoral responsibility for some of these people. I suspect they hadn't realized just how widespread such things can be. Even (or especially?) among those who don't go looking for them.
There's no way of 'legislating' for these things, @Lamb Chopped of course, but as a general rule of thumb I'd suggest that not actively seeking out such experiences is something of a litmus test of their veracity or authenticity should they arise.
'The wind blows where it listeth.'
Without meaning any disrespect to charismatics, I long ago came to the conclusion that most charismatics are no more or less 'charismatic' than anyone else or people in churches or denominations which didn't make such a big deal about these things. They were often simply using more 'heightened' language or putting things in more dramatic terms than other Christians might.
I can't remember the details of the particular incident involving your husband but do remember you getting some 'stick' from time to time for relating experiences etc that some Shipmates found hard to accept. For all I know, I might have been one of them - I can post rather cynically or sceptically at times - but that can sometimes be in a kind of 'thought-experiment' kind of way rather than an attempt to be rude or dismissive.
If I've ever overstepped the mark then I apologise.
I'm not surprised at the results of your straw-poll though as I've long suspected that 'non-charismatics' are often more 'charismatic' than they imagine themselves to be and the reverse for full-on card-carrying charismatics.
We shouldn't be too surprised at that, I don't think.
None of which 'proves' anything scientifically of course, but it's a conclusion I've come to.
The thing is, I think it's possible to foreclose oneself to such experiences, by refusing to admit the possibility of them--either in oneself or in one's acquaintance,
I think it's the other way around. God's continued silence and lack of such experiences eventually leads one to conclude that they do not in fact occur as a defence mechanism against other possible explanations.
I have had a couple of experiences where I have felt personally connected to God. I have talked about two of them on the forums in the past - but noone really engaged with me about it. I might start an Epiphanies thread about this after work.
And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Except in Christian theology the laws of nature aren't necessarily "prevenient" at all, assuming you mean, "The act or condition of occurring earlier, of being antecedent," as per Wiktionary, since this would be something in the nature that God made in the first place. God is "prevenient" to nature itself, in Christian theology.
He's not prevenient to logic, mathematics and the rules of quantum mechanics, for a start, whether they're instantiated by him as the ground of being or not.
Quantum mechanics, at very least, would depend on the nature of whatever universes He choose to create.
How? Quantum mechanics creates universes. And as there have always been an infinity of them, what is there to choose? Unless he custom builds just one (tuning what?) every hundred trillion years (order of magnitude for when all the stars burn out, not how long then lifeless universes take to cease to be, which is practically eternity; meaninglessly long. Unless he transcends the whole universe. A long time for its dead to wait. What do all the transcendent saviours do all day until then?).
What we perceive as quantum mechanics may only be characteristic of the universe, or even multiverse, we inhabit (insofar as we understand that at all), and may not be the only way He makes worlds. There could be all kinds of things He’s come up with that we can’t begin to imagine in the next universe over.
As for “unless he transcends the whole universe,” well, yeah, that’s kind of basic to the Christian idea of God.
The thing is, I think it's possible to foreclose oneself to such experiences, by refusing to admit the possibility of them--either in oneself or in one's acquaintance,
I think it's the other way around. God's continued silence and lack of such experiences eventually leads one to conclude that they do not in fact occur as a defence mechanism against other possible explanations.
And this is yet another reason for people not to talk about such experiences--because if you DO happen to have such a thing, the first thing you worry about is who you might be hurting, because people inevitably leap to the idea that you somehow deserved it. Which is absolutely not the case, and couldn't be further from the truth--but how in the hell do you stop people from drawing those conclusions?
Or the conclusion that you allude to, that a person without such experiences is somehow in God's bad books--and that, too, is a damnable lie. But again, how to convince anybody?
It would not surprise me one bit to learn that some of the greatest saints, heck, some of the apostles even, had no such experiences ever. It would be totally in keeping with the way God runs the rest of his creation, which is to individualize everything, and not to explain himself when you ask why he made the choices he made.
Oh, I'll just spit it out. Yes, I have had such experiences and have said so before on the Ship, though only once, I think. And for just this reason--because it makes people draw totally unwarranted and painful conclusions. Which you can't argue them out of. Though here I am, trying again.
It's also why I say zip zilch nada in real life, because one person who I couldn't avoid telling shows signs of jealousy and hurt.
And yet, from where I stand, I'm entirely sure that, whatever the reason God did this with me, it had absolutely nothing to do with merit, or deserving, or somehow being a favorite of his. I'm more convinced than ever that he has no favorites. Although it might be possible to argue that those who do have such experiences are somehow weaker than others, and get the experience as a kind of remedial help. Which is what I think happened with me.
And even God couldn't do it. God would humbly have to work with the prevenient laws of nature. From forever.
Except in Christian theology the laws of nature aren't necessarily "prevenient" at all, assuming you mean, "The act or condition of occurring earlier, of being antecedent," as per Wiktionary, since this would be something in the nature that God made in the first place. God is "prevenient" to nature itself, in Christian theology.
He's not prevenient to logic, mathematics and the rules of quantum mechanics, for a start, whether they're instantiated by him as the ground of being or not.
Quantum mechanics, at very least, would depend on the nature of whatever universes He choose to create.
How? Quantum mechanics creates universes. And as there have always been an infinity of them, what is there to choose? Unless he custom builds just one (tuning what?) every hundred trillion years (order of magnitude for when all the stars burn out, not how long then lifeless universes take to cease to be, which is practically eternity; meaninglessly long. Unless he transcends the whole universe. A long time for its dead to wait. What do all the transcendent saviours do all day until then?).
What we perceive as quantum mechanics may only be characteristic of the universe, or even multiverse, we inhabit (insofar as we understand that at all), and may not be the only way He makes worlds. There could be all kinds of things He’s come up with that we can’t begin to imagine in the next universe over.
As for “unless he transcends the whole universe,” well, yeah, that’s kind of basic to the Christian idea of God.
QM is natural. Elegant. The simplest thing. Which also implies one infinite eternal multiverse.
As for "As for “unless he transcends the whole universe,” well, yeah, that’s kind of basic to the Christian idea of God", I meant he performs transcendence on the whole universe, as in a new heaven and a new earth, when it becomes lifeless in two hundred trillion years. I'm au fait with Love, and even God, being transcendent of infinite, eternal nature.
I can hear what you are saying @Lamb Chopped and @KarlLB can correct me if I'm wrong, but it doesn't necessarily follow that his comments imply that he is 'hurt' or 'jealous' that other people claim to have had these sort of experiences.
I don't doubt that people have them but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to have them too.
Sure, I'd like an 'experience' that meant that I was perfect ever after and no longer sinned or hacked other people off. But that’s not going to happen.
I don't read KarlLB's comments as implying he necessarily feels short changed in comparison to other people, more a case that he doesn't see a great deal of evidence for these things either in his own life or that of other people.
Of course, that doesn't mean that no such things ever take place.
But I don't get the impression he's mad at you in any way.
I think I've shared on these boards before how the RC apologist Ronald Knox claimed never to have had a 'religious experience' in his life. Like you, it wouldn't surprise me if many great s/Saints and apostles etc didn't either.
I had all sorts of apparently charismatic experiences back in my charismatic evangelical days, many of which I'd put in the suggestibility category - but I wouldn't write it all off.
These days I'm happy to accept that these things can and do happen but I wouldn't build a big edifice on such things.
Nor would I deny anyone else whatever experiences they say they've had - unless it was something clearly outrageous but we don't tend to hear outrageous claims on these boards.
What we perceive as quantum mechanics may only be characteristic of the universe, or even multiverse, we inhabit (insofar as we understand that at all), and may not be the only way He makes worlds. There could be all kinds of things He’s come up with that we can’t begin to imagine in the next universe over.
Behold, the God of the gaps -- he's getting farther and farther away, no?
Gamaliel, I was not suggesting anything of the sort about KarlLB personally. Who am I, to read hearts and minds? Nor do I think he's mad at me, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't think that was a personal exchange. the "jealous and hurt" bit had to do with a real life person who is close to me, and has nothing to do with anyone on this Ship. It was simply an example.
I was picking up on his very good point about why some people might develop a standpoint of "these things don't happen." And building on that point by explaining further why those who DO experience them, rarely mention them, and so people don't hear much about them. (Case in point: St. Paul, who had them but doesn't elaborate).
Okay, leaving that behind and going on to less painful stuff, I hope...
You say:
Sure, I'd like an 'experience' that meant that I was perfect ever after and no longer sinned or hacked other people off. But that’s not going to happen.
I have no idea how the Orthodox regard such experiences, but in my understanding of the western traditions, having such experiences means absolutely NOTHING about one's personal sanctity, perfection, or good conduct. They are not marks of honor in any way. And speaking very personally about my own life now, that is a point that the Lord has been underlining (like, three times, with a heavy black felt pen, just to make sure I get the message): I AM NOT SPECIAL because I had this happen.
Look, let's come at it a different way. You read Genesis, where Cain had a fit of jealousy because his brother's sacrifice was accepted and his own was not. He then goes on to have a very clear conversation with the Lord (mystic experience, yeah? probably a whole lot clearer than much of what goes by that name today) in which he gets warned about the fall he's about to take. He doesn't listen, murders his brother, and has a second similar conversation which actually involves God promising him protection and placing a visible mark on him. Which again, goes far beyond most of what you might read about today.
Is anybody going to argue that CAIN, of all people, is morally worthy or somehow deserved the double mystic experience he had? Which he didn't seem to appreciate in the least, either...
When I ran across this text recently, I swore to myself I'd bring him up the next time someone made the mistake of confusing "has mystic experiences" with "is a good person." And so I mention it here.
If anything, I have more in common with Cain in one respect--both he and I have a clear need that was answered by the experience (which I'm not going to get into here, because of privacy issues). But it was my weakness, not my strength, that brought this on, as far as I can tell.
There must be people that you (individually, collectively) have heard report experiences that you understand are honestly held but make no sense in your worldview.
To take a silly example: I’ve recently heard people telling experiences of small magical people who live in the woods.
Assuming that you don’t believe that there are small magic people who live in the woods (or if you do, substitute this example with something else), how do you react when someone talks about it?
I don’t doubt sincerity. There are cheats and tricksters, but on the whole these reports are made by sincere people.
I just don’t believe it, and therefore think there must be some other explanation. Just like I assume everyone else does when they hear someone talking about an experience they don’t believe in.
I’d pretty much agree, @KoF, especially with the last two paragraphs.
The other thing I usually try to do—sometimes with better success and sometimes with little success—is to bear in mind the possibility that I could be wrong. I’m making the best call that I can—finding the landing place that seems most right to me—but that’s no guarantee that I’m right. I’m happy to assume that others are likewise making the best calls they can and finding the landing place that seems right to them. There are, as Shakespeare wrote, more things than are dreamed of in my philosophy.
When it comes to something like little people in the woods, I may consider the chances that I’m wrong very small. (And when it comes to conspiracy theories, I’ll consider the chances of being wrong infinitesimal.)
The result is that if someone tells me something they’ve experienced that sounds improbable to me, I really don’t spend much time second-guessing them or looking for alternative explanations. I try to spend more time considering what the experience, whatever it was, meant to them.
Gamaliel, I was not suggesting anything of the sort about KarlLB personally. Who am I, to read hearts and minds? Nor do I think he's mad at me, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't think that was a personal exchange. the "jealous and hurt" bit had to do with a real life person who is close to me, and has nothing to do with anyone on this Ship. It was simply an example.
I was picking up on his very good point about why some people might develop a standpoint of "these things don't happen." And building on that point by explaining further why those who DO experience them, rarely mention them, and so people don't hear much about them. (Case in point: St. Paul, who had them but doesn't elaborate).
Okay, leaving that behind and going on to less painful stuff, I hope...
You say:
Sure, I'd like an 'experience' that meant that I was perfect ever after and no longer sinned or hacked other people off. But that’s not going to happen.
I have no idea how the Orthodox regard such experiences, but in my understanding of the western traditions, having such experiences means absolutely NOTHING about one's personal sanctity, perfection, or good conduct. They are not marks of honor in any way. And speaking very personally about my own life now, that is a point that the Lord has been underlining (like, three times, with a heavy black felt pen, just to make sure I get the message): I AM NOT SPECIAL because I had this happen.
Look, let's come at it a different way. You read Genesis, where Cain had a fit of jealousy because his brother's sacrifice was accepted and his own was not. He then goes on to have a very clear conversation with the Lord (mystic experience, yeah? probably a whole lot clearer than much of what goes by that name today) in which he gets warned about the fall he's about to take. He doesn't listen, murders his brother, and has a second similar conversation which actually involves God promising him protection and placing a visible mark on him. Which again, goes far beyond most of what you might read about today.
Is anybody going to argue that CAIN, of all people, is morally worthy or somehow deserved the double mystic experience he had? Which he didn't seem to appreciate in the least, either...
When I ran across this text recently, I swore to myself I'd bring him up the next time someone made the mistake of confusing "has mystic experiences" with "is a good person." And so I mention it here.
If anything, I have more in common with Cain in one respect--both he and I have a clear need that was answered by the experience (which I'm not going to get into here, because of privacy issues). But it was my weakness, not my strength, that brought this on, as far as I can tell.
Ok, but how was I to know about this friend in real life? You hadn't mentioned them as far as I could see, so I made the not unreasonable assumption that you must have been referring to people posting on this thread.
As @KarlLB had made comments about the apparent dearth of spiritual experiences I not unnaturally assumed you were responding to him.
I'm not a 'staretz' or a mind-reader. 😉
As it happens, I think thee and me are on similar pages with all of this, by and large. I don't know a gr4st deal about the Lutheran tradition but am often struck by resonances and parallels with what I know or understand of my own adopted Tradition - which isn't a great deal either as it also happens.
As far as the Orthodox view of special providence and experiences goes, then it's very similar insofar as we wouldn't see them as evidence of particular sanctity or just desserts. Far from it.
There is a conundrum of course in that we have all sorts of hagiographies with wierd and wonderful things happening - and the mileage varies as to how literally people take these - yet if anyone turned up to see their parish priest tomorrow saying that that they'd had a vision or some kind of special experience they'd most likely receive short shrift.
That said, the RCs are better than we are when it comes to validating claims of miraculous healing or the provenance of relics and so on.
But, by and large, rather like the Litheran tradition from what you've shared on these boards, we don't tend to encourage vatic or mystical experiences per se.
Various ascetics seem to have them and this can give the impression that they are 'earned' by particular effort or feats of ascesis - the sort of thing the Russians would call 'plovdiv' I think.
But whilst there is folk superstition and some whacky claims out there, by and large we don't encourage people to have particular experiences in prayer. The Orthodox can be quite critical and wary of the 'imagen' element in the Ignatian model for instance. Far less so about 'examen' and 'lectio divina' as these have pre-Schism antecedents apparently.
If you read my first post, you’ll see I did mention it was a real life person who has the jealousy issue… but never mind.
As for my particular brand of Lutheranism, we really don’t know what to do (institutionally) with such experiences, which leaves our people at a great disadvantage when God chooses to dump such experiences on them. Do I sound crabby? Why yes, I am crabby, I had a very uncomfortable few months there before an RC professional identified what was going on for me. It didn’t have to be that way, but my church body is still in reaction to 17th century pietism and is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And it’s certainly unfair of me to snarl at God for this, but I’m running on one hour of sleep and he’s used to me, he gets much worse from me on a regular basis. One more hour (physical therapy) and i can finally go to bed again, and hopefully emerge a much better tempered human being. Apologies, everyone.
QM is natural. Elegant. The simplest thing. Which also implies one infinite eternal multiverse.
Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”
…I meant he performs transcendence on the whole universe, as in a new heaven and a new earth, when it becomes lifeless in two hundred trillion years.
Or in the next five minutes, or any other future time.
I'm au fait with Love, and even God, being transcendent of infinite, eternal nature.
Should I assume everyone else knows what au fait means? I assume it’s not a dessert. One moment.
(Googles.)
Ah, okay, “familiar with.” I actually thought it might be something like “a fan of.”
Behold, the God of the gaps -- he's getting farther and farther away, no?
He might be, I guess. I don’t particularly worship “the God of the gaps.” There will always (at least in this world) be new things we’re discovering, and more we don’t know.
If you read my first post, you’ll see I did mention it was a real life person who has the jealousy issue… but never mind.
As for my particular brand of Lutheranism, we really don’t know what to do (institutionally) with such experiences, which leaves our people at a great disadvantage when God chooses to dump such experiences on them. Do I sound crabby? Why yes, I am crabby, I had a very uncomfortable few months there before an RC professional identified what was going on for me. It didn’t have to be that way, but my church body is still in reaction to 17th century pietism and is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And it’s certainly unfair of me to snarl at God for this, but I’m running on one hour of sleep and he’s used to me, he gets much worse from me on a regular basis. One more hour (physical therapy) and i can finally go to bed again, and hopefully emerge a much better tempered human being. Apologies, everyone.
I hope that even as we speak you are getting more sleep! ❤️❤️❤️
I choose to feel God’s blessing in small things. Sunset, sunrise, the flight of geese - etc (not so small really when you think about it!)
Is this self-delusion?
I think it's lovely. And one doesn't choose delusion surely?
Not in this case but I think some do, sadly.
Self-delusion isn't pathological per se, and we're all on that colloquial spectrum, which seems to map to the psychological one of self-deception. Despite delusion per se being clinical and unchosen and deception being chosen, even to the point where it deceives the self.
QM is natural. Elegant. The simplest thing. Which also implies one infinite eternal multiverse.
Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”
…I meant he performs transcendence on the whole universe, as in a new heaven and a new earth, when it becomes lifeless in two hundred trillion years.
Or in the next five minutes, or any other future time.
I'm au fait with Love, and even God, being transcendent of infinite, eternal nature.
Should I assume everyone else knows what au fait means? I assume it’s not a dessert. One moment.
(Googles.)
Ah, okay, “familiar with.” I actually thought it might be something like “a fan of.”
The thing is, I think it's possible to foreclose oneself to such experiences, by refusing to admit the possibility of them--either in oneself or in one's acquaintance,
I think it's the other way around. God's continued silence and lack of such experiences eventually leads one to conclude that they do not in fact occur as a defence mechanism against other possible explanations.
...
And yet, from where I stand, I'm entirely sure that, whatever the reason God did this with me, it had absolutely nothing to do with merit, or deserving, or somehow being a favorite of his. I'm more convinced than ever that he has no favorites. Although it might be possible to argue that those who do have such experiences are somehow weaker than others, and get the experience as a kind of remedial help. Which is what I think happened with me.
Back in my days as a liberal evangelical, I went to some pretty charismatic church services and events. I came to the conclusion that some of us need these experiences and some don't, and that consequently they tell us more about the person than they tell us about God.
It strikes me now, thinking about the point that KarlLB raised, that needing something to happen and it not happening is not a good place to be. Also that, people being people, we often look for someone to blame for these things happening or not happening. We can blame ourselves, the individual (both of which often happened), other people, or God.
The Divine Spirit or the Fruit of the Spirit? The lawyer in me would call that a distinction without a difference. For its fruit to be there, the Spirit must have been present, and the Spirit and thus its presence I take to be eternal.
@KarlLB, who shares a similar church background to myself, would probably concur that one of the most debilitating aspects of full-on charismatic revivalism is the sense of heightened expectations that are almost invariably dashed. Well, not 'almost' ... just invariably.
It's a bit like having an unrequited crush over and over again, says he who is recovering from one.
That doesn't mean that people don't have spiritual experiences or that unusual 'providences' don't happen.
This may be something for a new thread but I've been thinking about this in relation to the way Orthodox Christians, for instance, may feel themselves 'drawn' towards a particular Saint, say. Generally speaking, it's not because they wake up one night to find their room filled with an ethereal glow or an old monk sat on the corner of their bed saying, 'Better mind you do such and such ...' before disappearing, but because they habitually visit a particular monastery or read a particular hagiography etc.
We commemorate Saint Luke the Evangelist and Apostle today. I've long felt 'drawn' to him. I had a particular affection for Luke's Gospel in my Protestant (or 'proto-Orthodox'?) days and a degree of reverence and respect for him as a person - 'Only Luke is with me,' speaks volumes for his character.
The 'beloved physician.'
So, yes, I can say, 'I love Saint Luke' but that doesn't mean he's going to materialise in my living room and tell me what to do. In one sense, he is in my living room already, as I've an icon of him given me by a friend who bought him in Greece and then gave it me as she doesn't want him as she's an RC convert to evangelical Christianity.
I'm sure he can handle that.
I think it was C S Lewis who said that 'miracles are for the immature.'
But then, we are all 'immature' ...
And some would say of course that a miracle happens every time we celebrate the Eucharist.
In recent days I have been increasingly concerned about someone I know. They live too far away to have a chat over coffee, but they've been phoning / video calling. I don't know if the crazy is concentrated into these calls, or whether this is part of a larger issue.
I've been praying about it.
And then I read KoF's post There must be people that you (individually, collectively) have heard report experiences that you understand are honestly held but make no sense in your worldview.
To take a silly example: I’ve recently heard people telling experiences of small magical people who live in the woods.
Assuming that you don’t believe that there are small magic people who live in the woods (or if you do, substitute this example with something else), how do you react when someone talks about it?
This is exactly the issue I've been praying about! (Aliens from space, rather than small magical wood dwellers). How do I react?
I'm uncomfortably aware that if a Christian friend said something similar, but about "God" rather than "aliens" I probably wouldn't even blink. I might not fully believe them, but I wouldn't question it.
The alien message involves spending money, but not a huge amount. Probably, in terms of affordability, on a par with our monthly standing order to our church....
No, I don't think it's any sort of financial scam. I'm not worried about that at all. The aliens are communicating telepathically. It's closer to a "God has laid it on my heart to make this gift" situation. I've been prompted that way myself!
In general, directly arguing against such beliefs is unhelpful. If they become distressed by the beliefs, that might be the time to encourage them to speak to their gp.
I think humans are incredibly suggestible. We can't really trust our senses and tend to reorder information we receive to make it fit patterns that we already know. Also there tends to be times in our lives when visions are more likely, such as when highly stressed out.
My grandmother was in hospital near death and saw all kinds of weird stuff. I've even seen things in a particularly emotional point in my life.
That's not even including the influence of drugs or mental illness.
By all means, @Gamma Gamaliel if you want to refer to yourself as "immature" go right ahead. I do think that's self-deprecating, though, and I think it's a little much to project that "we are all immature."
Then why are you bandying Bible verses around out of context and presuming to pull people up for being 'self-deprecating' when they are doing no such thing.
If you want me to quote the Apostle Paul then I'm more than happy to do so - the bit were he says that he hasn't already attained 'the goal' as it were but presses on ...
You are perfectly at liberty to reject religion and consider it all fraught and made-up but you are in no position to lecture me about what I do or don't believe and to misrepresent what I say.
I'm not lecturing you about what you believe. I've shared that I think your declaration that all of your fellow humans are immature is paternalistic and presumptuous, which I am also perfectly at liberty to say.
I choose to feel God’s blessing in small things. Sunset, sunrise, the flight of geese - etc (not so small really when you think about it!)
Is this self-delusion?
I think it's lovely. And one doesn't choose delusion surely?
Not in this case but I think some do, sadly.
Self-delusion isn't pathological per se, and we're all on that colloquial spectrum, which seems to map to the psychological one of self-deception. Despite delusion per se being clinical and unchosen and deception being chosen, even to the point where it deceives the self.
QM is natural. Elegant. The simplest thing. Which also implies one infinite eternal multiverse.
Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”
…I meant he performs transcendence on the whole universe, as in a new heaven and a new earth, when it becomes lifeless in two hundred trillion years.
Or in the next five minutes, or any other future time.
I'm au fait with Love, and even God, being transcendent of infinite, eternal nature.
Should I assume everyone else knows what au fait means? I assume it’s not a dessert. One moment.
(Googles.)
Ah, okay, “familiar with.” I actually thought it might be something like “a fan of.”
Nature doesn't have preferences. And its simplicity, minimalism, parsimony isn't ours. And sorry you weren't au fait with au fait.
Re "Self-delusion isn't pathological per se," we will disagree here.
Re "Nature doesn't have preferences. And its simplicity, minimalism, parsimony isn't ours," I didn't say Nature has (or doesn't have--if there is a "spirit of nature," she might have preferences, in my view--we will find out later, when the time comes, if there is an overall spirit to Nature, not a being to be worshipped like God, but a fellow creature) preferences--I referred to God having preferences: 'Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”'
Humans, or some of them, may prefer "simplicity, minimalism, parsimony," but that doesn't mean God does. Maybe He loves complexity, maximalism, etc. Maybe He loves both in their proper places and proportions.
In recent days I have been increasingly concerned about someone I know. They live too far away to have a chat over coffee, but they've been phoning / video calling. I don't know if the crazy is concentrated into these calls, or whether this is part of a larger issue.
I've been praying about it.
And then I read KoF's post There must be people that you (individually, collectively) have heard report experiences that you understand are honestly held but make no sense in your worldview.
To take a silly example: I’ve recently heard people telling experiences of small magical people who live in the woods.
Assuming that you don’t believe that there are small magic people who live in the woods (or if you do, substitute this example with something else), how do you react when someone talks about it?
This is exactly the issue I've been praying about! (Aliens from space, rather than small magical wood dwellers). How do I react?
I'm uncomfortably aware that if a Christian friend said something similar, but about "God" rather than "aliens" I probably wouldn't even blink. I might not fully believe them, but I wouldn't question it.
The alien message involves spending money, but not a huge amount. Probably, in terms of affordability, on a par with our monthly standing order to our church....
One can believe, even 100%, in aliens, or fairies (or faeries, etc., not always considered to be small), ghosts, etc., or even God, without believing in any specific claims to have encountered them. Someone could also have a genuine encounter or experience with something "uncanny," and become obsessed with it in toxic ways.
I think all of us on Earth, even the greatest saints, are spiritually "immature" compared with ultimate sanctification later on. But this is a notion predicated on various doctrines of traditional Christianity.
I'm not lecturing you about what you believe. I've shared that I think your declaration that all of your fellow humans are immature is paternalistic and presumptuous, which I am also perfectly at liberty to say.
Comments
As it happens, I do believe that there is an 'affective' element to Christian faith and indeed that the Byzantine 'hesychasts' weren't deluded when they claimed to see the 'Uncreated Light.'
Reading Saint Sophrony 'On Prayer' is quite uncomfortable as well as heartening, I find. Uncomfortable because he seems to have had some scarily direct encounters with the Divine. Heartening because he seems to have had some scarily direct encounters with the Divine.
(full disclosure: I actually took a straw poll of roughly 40 of my fellow Lutherans regarding mystic or numinous experiences last week at a presentation I was doing. Roughly half were willing to admit to having had some sort of communication or experience with the Lord (we're not talking about "I saw a beautiful maple leaf and the beauty of life overcame me," that sort of stuff, it was specifically Christian experiences that were specified). And my denomination is extremely buttoned up and about as non-charismatic as it is possible to get.
This was spur of the moment, and raised some eyebrows for the two clerics in the room, who had semi-pastoral responsibility for some of these people. I suspect they hadn't realized just how widespread such things can be. Even (or especially?) among those who don't go looking for them.
Very well.
'The wind blows where it listeth.'
Without meaning any disrespect to charismatics, I long ago came to the conclusion that most charismatics are no more or less 'charismatic' than anyone else or people in churches or denominations which didn't make such a big deal about these things. They were often simply using more 'heightened' language or putting things in more dramatic terms than other Christians might.
I can't remember the details of the particular incident involving your husband but do remember you getting some 'stick' from time to time for relating experiences etc that some Shipmates found hard to accept. For all I know, I might have been one of them - I can post rather cynically or sceptically at times - but that can sometimes be in a kind of 'thought-experiment' kind of way rather than an attempt to be rude or dismissive.
If I've ever overstepped the mark then I apologise.
I'm not surprised at the results of your straw-poll though as I've long suspected that 'non-charismatics' are often more 'charismatic' than they imagine themselves to be and the reverse for full-on card-carrying charismatics.
We shouldn't be too surprised at that, I don't think.
None of which 'proves' anything scientifically of course, but it's a conclusion I've come to.
I think it's the other way around. God's continued silence and lack of such experiences eventually leads one to conclude that they do not in fact occur as a defence mechanism against other possible explanations.
Is this self-delusion?
What we perceive as quantum mechanics may only be characteristic of the universe, or even multiverse, we inhabit (insofar as we understand that at all), and may not be the only way He makes worlds. There could be all kinds of things He’s come up with that we can’t begin to imagine in the next universe over.
As for “unless he transcends the whole universe,” well, yeah, that’s kind of basic to the Christian idea of God.
It's a different thing.
And this is yet another reason for people not to talk about such experiences--because if you DO happen to have such a thing, the first thing you worry about is who you might be hurting, because people inevitably leap to the idea that you somehow deserved it. Which is absolutely not the case, and couldn't be further from the truth--but how in the hell do you stop people from drawing those conclusions?
Or the conclusion that you allude to, that a person without such experiences is somehow in God's bad books--and that, too, is a damnable lie. But again, how to convince anybody?
It would not surprise me one bit to learn that some of the greatest saints, heck, some of the apostles even, had no such experiences ever. It would be totally in keeping with the way God runs the rest of his creation, which is to individualize everything, and not to explain himself when you ask why he made the choices he made.
Oh, I'll just spit it out. Yes, I have had such experiences and have said so before on the Ship, though only once, I think. And for just this reason--because it makes people draw totally unwarranted and painful conclusions. Which you can't argue them out of. Though here I am, trying again.
It's also why I say zip zilch nada in real life, because one person who I couldn't avoid telling shows signs of jealousy and hurt.
And yet, from where I stand, I'm entirely sure that, whatever the reason God did this with me, it had absolutely nothing to do with merit, or deserving, or somehow being a favorite of his. I'm more convinced than ever that he has no favorites. Although it might be possible to argue that those who do have such experiences are somehow weaker than others, and get the experience as a kind of remedial help. Which is what I think happened with me.
QM is natural. Elegant. The simplest thing. Which also implies one infinite eternal multiverse.
As for "As for “unless he transcends the whole universe,” well, yeah, that’s kind of basic to the Christian idea of God", I meant he performs transcendence on the whole universe, as in a new heaven and a new earth, when it becomes lifeless in two hundred trillion years. I'm au fait with Love, and even God, being transcendent of infinite, eternal nature.
I don't doubt that people have them but that doesn't necessarily mean I want to have them too.
Sure, I'd like an 'experience' that meant that I was perfect ever after and no longer sinned or hacked other people off. But that’s not going to happen.
I don't read KarlLB's comments as implying he necessarily feels short changed in comparison to other people, more a case that he doesn't see a great deal of evidence for these things either in his own life or that of other people.
Of course, that doesn't mean that no such things ever take place.
But I don't get the impression he's mad at you in any way.
I think I've shared on these boards before how the RC apologist Ronald Knox claimed never to have had a 'religious experience' in his life. Like you, it wouldn't surprise me if many great s/Saints and apostles etc didn't either.
I had all sorts of apparently charismatic experiences back in my charismatic evangelical days, many of which I'd put in the suggestibility category - but I wouldn't write it all off.
These days I'm happy to accept that these things can and do happen but I wouldn't build a big edifice on such things.
Nor would I deny anyone else whatever experiences they say they've had - unless it was something clearly outrageous but we don't tend to hear outrageous claims on these boards.
I'd say it wasn't, but I think your use of the word "choose" puts it in the appropriate ballpark.
Behold, the God of the gaps -- he's getting farther and farther away, no?
I think it's lovely. And one doesn't choose delusion surely?
I'd call it the 'fruit of the Spirit', but yes. Not just in ourselves either. Other people.
Excellent question.
No, I don't choose delusion.
But what is the difference between accepting and recognising cognitive dissonance and delusion?
I would suggest that the answer is in your question. Recognition.
Gamaliel, I was not suggesting anything of the sort about KarlLB personally. Who am I, to read hearts and minds? Nor do I think he's mad at me, though he can correct me if I'm wrong. I just don't think that was a personal exchange. the "jealous and hurt" bit had to do with a real life person who is close to me, and has nothing to do with anyone on this Ship. It was simply an example.
I was picking up on his very good point about why some people might develop a standpoint of "these things don't happen." And building on that point by explaining further why those who DO experience them, rarely mention them, and so people don't hear much about them. (Case in point: St. Paul, who had them but doesn't elaborate).
Okay, leaving that behind and going on to less painful stuff, I hope...
You say:
I have no idea how the Orthodox regard such experiences, but in my understanding of the western traditions, having such experiences means absolutely NOTHING about one's personal sanctity, perfection, or good conduct. They are not marks of honor in any way. And speaking very personally about my own life now, that is a point that the Lord has been underlining (like, three times, with a heavy black felt pen, just to make sure I get the message): I AM NOT SPECIAL because I had this happen.
Look, let's come at it a different way. You read Genesis, where Cain had a fit of jealousy because his brother's sacrifice was accepted and his own was not. He then goes on to have a very clear conversation with the Lord (mystic experience, yeah? probably a whole lot clearer than much of what goes by that name today) in which he gets warned about the fall he's about to take. He doesn't listen, murders his brother, and has a second similar conversation which actually involves God promising him protection and placing a visible mark on him. Which again, goes far beyond most of what you might read about today.
Is anybody going to argue that CAIN, of all people, is morally worthy or somehow deserved the double mystic experience he had? Which he didn't seem to appreciate in the least, either...
When I ran across this text recently, I swore to myself I'd bring him up the next time someone made the mistake of confusing "has mystic experiences" with "is a good person." And so I mention it here.
If anything, I have more in common with Cain in one respect--both he and I have a clear need that was answered by the experience (which I'm not going to get into here, because of privacy issues). But it was my weakness, not my strength, that brought this on, as far as I can tell.
To take a silly example: I’ve recently heard people telling experiences of small magical people who live in the woods.
Assuming that you don’t believe that there are small magic people who live in the woods (or if you do, substitute this example with something else), how do you react when someone talks about it?
I don’t doubt sincerity. There are cheats and tricksters, but on the whole these reports are made by sincere people.
I just don’t believe it, and therefore think there must be some other explanation. Just like I assume everyone else does when they hear someone talking about an experience they don’t believe in.
The other thing I usually try to do—sometimes with better success and sometimes with little success—is to bear in mind the possibility that I could be wrong. I’m making the best call that I can—finding the landing place that seems most right to me—but that’s no guarantee that I’m right. I’m happy to assume that others are likewise making the best calls they can and finding the landing place that seems right to them. There are, as Shakespeare wrote, more things than are dreamed of in my philosophy.
When it comes to something like little people in the woods, I may consider the chances that I’m wrong very small. (And when it comes to conspiracy theories, I’ll consider the chances of being wrong infinitesimal.)
The result is that if someone tells me something they’ve experienced that sounds improbable to me, I really don’t spend much time second-guessing them or looking for alternative explanations. I try to spend more time considering what the experience, whatever it was, meant to them.
Ok, but how was I to know about this friend in real life? You hadn't mentioned them as far as I could see, so I made the not unreasonable assumption that you must have been referring to people posting on this thread.
As @KarlLB had made comments about the apparent dearth of spiritual experiences I not unnaturally assumed you were responding to him.
I'm not a 'staretz' or a mind-reader. 😉
As it happens, I think thee and me are on similar pages with all of this, by and large. I don't know a gr4st deal about the Lutheran tradition but am often struck by resonances and parallels with what I know or understand of my own adopted Tradition - which isn't a great deal either as it also happens.
As far as the Orthodox view of special providence and experiences goes, then it's very similar insofar as we wouldn't see them as evidence of particular sanctity or just desserts. Far from it.
There is a conundrum of course in that we have all sorts of hagiographies with wierd and wonderful things happening - and the mileage varies as to how literally people take these - yet if anyone turned up to see their parish priest tomorrow saying that that they'd had a vision or some kind of special experience they'd most likely receive short shrift.
That said, the RCs are better than we are when it comes to validating claims of miraculous healing or the provenance of relics and so on.
But, by and large, rather like the Litheran tradition from what you've shared on these boards, we don't tend to encourage vatic or mystical experiences per se.
Various ascetics seem to have them and this can give the impression that they are 'earned' by particular effort or feats of ascesis - the sort of thing the Russians would call 'plovdiv' I think.
But whilst there is folk superstition and some whacky claims out there, by and large we don't encourage people to have particular experiences in prayer. The Orthodox can be quite critical and wary of the 'imagen' element in the Ignatian model for instance. Far less so about 'examen' and 'lectio divina' as these have pre-Schism antecedents apparently.
That's about the long and short of it.
As for my particular brand of Lutheranism, we really don’t know what to do (institutionally) with such experiences, which leaves our people at a great disadvantage when God chooses to dump such experiences on them. Do I sound crabby? Why yes, I am crabby, I had a very uncomfortable few months there before an RC professional identified what was going on for me. It didn’t have to be that way, but my church body is still in reaction to 17th century pietism and is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. And it’s certainly unfair of me to snarl at God for this, but I’m running on one hour of sleep and he’s used to me, he gets much worse from me on a regular basis. One more hour (physical therapy) and i can finally go to bed again, and hopefully emerge a much better tempered human being. Apologies, everyone.
Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”
Or in the next five minutes, or any other future time.
Should I assume everyone else knows what au fait means? I assume it’s not a dessert. One moment.
(Googles.)
Ah, okay, “familiar with.” I actually thought it might be something like “a fan of.”
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/au_fait
He might be, I guess. I don’t particularly worship “the God of the gaps.” There will always (at least in this world) be new things we’re discovering, and more we don’t know.
Not in this case but I think some do, sadly.
I hope that even as we speak you are getting more sleep! ❤️❤️❤️
Self-delusion isn't pathological per se, and we're all on that colloquial spectrum, which seems to map to the psychological one of self-deception. Despite delusion per se being clinical and unchosen and deception being chosen, even to the point where it deceives the self.
Nature doesn't have preferences. And its simplicity, minimalism, parsimony isn't ours. And sorry you weren't au fait with au fait.
It strikes me now, thinking about the point that KarlLB raised, that needing something to happen and it not happening is not a good place to be. Also that, people being people, we often look for someone to blame for these things happening or not happening. We can blame ourselves, the individual (both of which often happened), other people, or God.
@KarlLB, who shares a similar church background to myself, would probably concur that one of the most debilitating aspects of full-on charismatic revivalism is the sense of heightened expectations that are almost invariably dashed. Well, not 'almost' ... just invariably.
It's a bit like having an unrequited crush over and over again, says he who is recovering from one.
That doesn't mean that people don't have spiritual experiences or that unusual 'providences' don't happen.
This may be something for a new thread but I've been thinking about this in relation to the way Orthodox Christians, for instance, may feel themselves 'drawn' towards a particular Saint, say. Generally speaking, it's not because they wake up one night to find their room filled with an ethereal glow or an old monk sat on the corner of their bed saying, 'Better mind you do such and such ...' before disappearing, but because they habitually visit a particular monastery or read a particular hagiography etc.
We commemorate Saint Luke the Evangelist and Apostle today. I've long felt 'drawn' to him. I had a particular affection for Luke's Gospel in my Protestant (or 'proto-Orthodox'?) days and a degree of reverence and respect for him as a person - 'Only Luke is with me,' speaks volumes for his character.
The 'beloved physician.'
So, yes, I can say, 'I love Saint Luke' but that doesn't mean he's going to materialise in my living room and tell me what to do. In one sense, he is in my living room already, as I've an icon of him given me by a friend who bought him in Greece and then gave it me as she doesn't want him as she's an RC convert to evangelical Christianity.
I'm sure he can handle that.
I think it was C S Lewis who said that 'miracles are for the immature.'
But then, we are all 'immature' ...
And some would say of course that a miracle happens every time we celebrate the Eucharist.
'Matter matters ...'
In recent days I have been increasingly concerned about someone I know. They live too far away to have a chat over coffee, but they've been phoning / video calling. I don't know if the crazy is concentrated into these calls, or whether this is part of a larger issue.
I've been praying about it.
And then I read KoF's post
There must be people that you (individually, collectively) have heard report experiences that you understand are honestly held but make no sense in your worldview.
To take a silly example: I’ve recently heard people telling experiences of small magical people who live in the woods.
Assuming that you don’t believe that there are small magic people who live in the woods (or if you do, substitute this example with something else), how do you react when someone talks about it?
This is exactly the issue I've been praying about! (Aliens from space, rather than small magical wood dwellers). How do I react?
I'm uncomfortably aware that if a Christian friend said something similar, but about "God" rather than "aliens" I probably wouldn't even blink. I might not fully believe them, but I wouldn't question it.
The alien message involves spending money, but not a huge amount. Probably, in terms of affordability, on a par with our monthly standing order to our church....
That amount could increase once they are hooked in. 🧐
My grandmother was in hospital near death and saw all kinds of weird stuff. I've even seen things in a particularly emotional point in my life.
That's not even including the influence of drugs or mental illness.
I don't think this follows. St. Paul didn't think in this way. It's possible to demonstrate humility without self-deprecation.
How did the Apostle Paul think of these things?
1 Corinthians 13:11.
That's not self-deprecation.
Maybe not, but I also wouldn't acknowledge anything like "maturity" or "immaturity" in something made-up and fraught as religion.
If you want me to quote the Apostle Paul then I'm more than happy to do so - the bit were he says that he hasn't already attained 'the goal' as it were but presses on ...
You are perfectly at liberty to reject religion and consider it all fraught and made-up but you are in no position to lecture me about what I do or don't believe and to misrepresent what I say.
Re "Self-delusion isn't pathological per se," we will disagree here.
Re "Nature doesn't have preferences. And its simplicity, minimalism, parsimony isn't ours," I didn't say Nature has (or doesn't have--if there is a "spirit of nature," she might have preferences, in my view--we will find out later, when the time comes, if there is an overall spirit to Nature, not a being to be worshipped like God, but a fellow creature) preferences--I referred to God having preferences: 'Only if those are the only things God prefers when He makes stuff. Not all of us necessarily prefer that. (Not to mention that not everyone by any means sees quantum mechanics as “the simplest thing.”'
Humans, or some of them, may prefer "simplicity, minimalism, parsimony," but that doesn't mean God does. Maybe He loves complexity, maximalism, etc. Maybe He loves both in their proper places and proportions.
Re "au fait," thank you.
One can believe, even 100%, in aliens, or fairies (or faeries, etc., not always considered to be small), ghosts, etc., or even God, without believing in any specific claims to have encountered them. Someone could also have a genuine encounter or experience with something "uncanny," and become obsessed with it in toxic ways.
Which isn't actually what I said.