| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 1212.1 | What is reality? | BSS::R_SCHMITT | | Thu Feb 15 1990 16:08 | 3 |
| If you want to see something bad enough you will but, it is generally
caused by drinking your own bathwater.
|
| 1212.2 | IMHO (In My Humble Opinion) | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Thu Feb 15 1990 17:06 | 55 |
| First off, to be my usual pedantic self, I do not think that
experiences can be anything *but* "valid". People experience what they
experience, period.
What can be valid or invalid is people's *interpretation* of an
experience (whether it is their's or someone elses). Most people have
trouble distinguishing their experience from their interpretation of
the experience, which is not in the least surprising since the act
of interpreting the experience is part of the experience and even more
a part of remembering and coming to terms with the experience.
Let's be more specific.
"Sam Jones" goes out into a field, and comes back claiming to have seen
a vision of the Holy Virgin. If I act the least skeptical than he gets
upset and says that I am "trying to deny my experience". Unless I
think that Sam is a liar (which, let us assume that I do not) I am not
doing that. I do not deny that he had the experience. I question (not
necessarily deny) his interpretation of the experience, and then only
within the so-called "consensus reality" context.
Validity always carries the question of context. Within the context
of "personal or spiritual growth" the experience may be very *valid*
without being objectively "true" by the criteria of consensus reality.
Anyway, to really answer the question you thought you were asking:
I, as an "outsider" do not see any particular way to distinguish the
religious experiences of Christians from those of people of other
faiths or of ill-defined faiths. All show roughly the same subjective
and seemingly objective phenomena. (By "subjective", as opposed to
"seemingly objective" phenomena, I mean things like the experience
carrying similar levels of absolute conviction). In all cases the
experiences manifest in ways which support the religious views of
the person experiencing them -- the Christian sees Our Lady, while the
Buddhist sees The Buddha. Occasionally, there is a manifestation
which seems particular to a specific religion (as far as is known by
the collectors of such facts, for example, no non-Christian has ever
shown true stigmata). In the vast majority of cases, for all
religions, there are conventional explanations which could explain the
objective facts (which does not mean that they are correct). In all
religions their is a stubborn core of occasional miracles which resist
plausible, conventional explanations (which doesn't mean that such
explanations don't exist).
Personally, I think that all such phenomena, veridical or not,
represent human capabilities and tendencies and say more about the
common human facility for religious experience than about the truth
of the religions in question.
In other words -- The experience is a human act of worship, not a
non-human act to be worshipped. It should be respected in those terms
by those of any faith, or of no faith whatever.
Topher
|
| 1212.3 | No, Missouri's too close.... | MFGMEM::ROSE | | Fri Feb 16 1990 06:27 | 38 |
| I view such apparations as - most likely - productions of the viewer.
For example, there is probably some connection between the fact that
Bernadette Soubirous of Lourdes lived in a cold and dreary hovel, the
front yard of which had been a dung-heap, and the fact that she saw a
warm and beautiful lady wearing a white dress with a blue sash and a
golden rose on each foot who said, "I am the Immaculate Conception."
The fact that Bernadette - at the bidding of the lady - uncovered a
spring in an area that has many such springs could be attributed to
chance; but I think that Bernadette may have had some psychic ability
that allowed her to zero in on the now famous water. I find Bernadette
very interesting from a psychological- rather than from a religious -
point of view.
Another interesting person who was deeply religious and whose miracle
services showed marked psychic ability was the late Kathryn Kuhlmann.
She became adept at zeroing in on the exact locations and medical con-
ditions of particular people in very large audiences, people whom she
felt were being touched by the Holy Spirit. Kathryn felt that she had
absolutely no power of her own. She approached God non-analytically.
In explaining healings, she said things like, "It must be God. What
else could it be?" As far as I know she never saw any connection -
which there might or might not have been - between the instantaneous
death of her beloved father, which occurred when she was a child, and
her choice of a lifestyle (single, in the ministry) in which she was
united with God on a daily basis.
I had an aunt who had an apparition. She saw her sister, who had re-
cently died. The sister told my aunt that she wanted her to have the
lamp that my aunt had given to her about six months before. My aunt
wasn't faking the apparition, but oh, how she wanted that lamp, and
needless to say, she got it back.
Virginia
|
| 1212.4 | ALL OF THE ABOVE | CSCMA::PERRY | | Fri Feb 16 1990 14:27 | 26 |
| The Kabbalist will have his vision/experience
The Christian his/hers
The Muslim his/hers
The Buddhist his/hers
The Zulu his/hers
The who ever - - whatever...
To me the source is the same, or better said...the experience means
something to the person...
Is God:
A: a jew
B: a christian
C: a buddhist
D: a pagan
E: a witch
F: a kabbalist
.
.
.
or Z: All Of The Above
I choose Z.
joe p.
|
| 1212.5 | | CRISTA::MAYNARD | FAMOUS BLUE RAINCOAT | Fri Feb 16 1990 14:33 | 16 |
| First of all, the title of this note refers to an inherent kind of
skepticism... Harry Truman used to say " I'm from Missouri, show me"..
in other words accept nothing at face value. Which as .2 pointed out
is a healthy attitude... to respect the person but not necessarily
agree with his point of view or whatever mystical experience they claim
to be privy to.
What I am trying to understand, is at what point do people accept a
second hand revelation? Only Bernadette spoke to the apparition in the
grotto, yet most Catholics accept Fatima as a place where the Mother
Of Christ appeared... By the same token- when someone channels an
entity,( Ramtha, Seth) many people accept this as something worth
paying attention to...
Why has there not been more discussion of phenomenons such as
Medjugorge, outside of avowed Christian circles? Is it not something
worth investigating?
|
| 1212.6 | God flows through us in different ways | JOKUR::CIOTO | | Fri Feb 16 1990 15:52 | 45 |
| .5 Jim,
I am having some difficulty understanding what it is you are trying to
ask/say here, so let me address your concerns in .0...
Getting back to your original question -- how does a non-Christian
feel about Christian paranormal experiences -- that is a good question.
It provides an opportunity to emphasize the dignity of everyone's
spiritual path and to find common ground among different spiritual
perspectives.
Personally, I don't think one can have a "right" or "wrong" experience,
by comparison. Furthermore, I don't think that one experience can
or should negate another. A Christian apparition, in my opinion, does
not discredit a New Ager's "channeled" experience, or vice versa.
If a Christian tells me he/she speaks in tongues, or receives messages
from the blessed virgin, then I try my best to honor the dignity of
the experience and know that the experiences means something special
and sacred to the Christian -- that is, as long as the Christian feels
it is something special and scared.
Everyone's spiritual path (or nonspiritual path for that matter) is
something special. Each path is appropriate for who we are, what we
need in our lives, and how we relate to God and nature. I've heard
Christians say, vehemently at times, "God does *not* send conflicting
messages!" Well, maybe God does. We are all unique children of the
universe, with unique minds, souls, wants, and needs. Our uniqueness
manifests in unique perspectives, and ultimately unique paths of
spiritual growth. Is it so difficult to understand that the universal
Divine force can and does flow through each of us, according to our
uniqueness of who and what we are?
I am not Christian, but believe something rather special happens when
Father Ralph DiOrio heals patients. Same with Louise Hay. Same with
healers of faiths of all kinds. The ultimate divine source, which we
call God, manifests in our lives in different, yet special, ways.
It remains the same source, irrespective of the different manifestations.
So why then do we humans, as a race, degrade ourselves by constantly
pointing fingers at, comparing, discrediting, and insulting each other's
different spiritual paths? When will we learn to start celebrating
those differences?
Hope this helps answer your questions,
Paul
|
| 1212.7 | Add'l | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Mon Feb 19 1990 19:03 | 7 |
|
In "The Road Less Traveled" by Scott Peck (a psychotherapist), he
writes that many his patients who were professed atheists seemed to
have dreams of religious/mystical symbols - the dove with a scroll,
and so forth.
Cindy
|
| 1212.8 | | CRISTA::MAYNARD | FAMOUS BLUE RAINCOAT | Tue Feb 20 1990 08:32 | 14 |
| "...Many...who were professed atheists seemed to have dreams of
religious/mystical symbols..."
This seems to be a contradiction. Spirits only seem to channel through
people who are receptive, just as apparitions such as Fatima and
Medjugorge, are apparent only to those who already believe in a
Christian God.
One of the stories I've heard about Fatima, was that the sun was seen
to literally dance( i.e. bounce up and down) in the sky.
Every account I have ever read of this phenomonon has been from
"Christian" eyewitnesses.
Why has this never been investigated by an unbiased group of scientists
or researchers? (Like the Shroud of Turin)
|
| 1212.9 | Atheists are religious people. | CADSYS::COOPER | Topher Cooper | Tue Feb 20 1990 10:40 | 36 |
| RE: .8
> This seems to be a contradiction. Spirits only seem to channel
> through people who are receptive ...
First off, let me say that you have a point even for those of us who
do not accept dream content, however symbolic, as necessarily or even
normally channeled from spirits. People perceive symbolic events in
terms of symbols which are emotionally meaningful for them for whatever
reason.
However, there is not any real contradiction. Most "professed
atheists" (those who believe that there is no god/God, as opposed to
agnostics, those who have no strong beliefs about the exitence of
god/God) are, in my experience, reacting *against* a specific religion
(or their experiences of a particular religion). They are atheists,
it would seem because the symbols of that religion still have power for
them -- a power which, for good reasons or bad, they wish to reject.
Vehement denial is their solution -- a solution which is only a bit
more than skin deep.
> Why has [the Fatima sun dance] never been investigated by an unbiased
> group of scientists or researchers? (Like the Shroud of Turin)
To some degree it has been. In the case of the Shroud there is clear
"objective" phenomena to be investigated. In the case of Fatima, there
is only subjective reports to investigate, so as definitive an
investigation as for the Shroud cannot be expected. As I remember,
investigation shows that not everyone present saw the same thing, and
many saw nothing unusual about the sun at all. I have not seen any
detailed breakdown on the basis of degree of faith, but that would not
seem to be the only critical factor in what was seen by whom.
I could look up more on this if I get the time.
Topher
|
| 1212.10 | mass hypnosis? | DNEAST::PUSHARD_MIKE | | Tue Feb 20 1990 11:31 | 12 |
|
It seems to me,that,a lot of this is related to the
conscience/subconscience link. It seems dreams come from the
subconscience. Hypnosis seems to bring the subconscience to the
surface. So how much of this is self hypnosis to differing degrees? And
what about mass hypnosis,where those who are less effected by hypnosis
are the ones who fail to see the same as those caught up in the
subconsciences effort to project a phenomena,as in the case of Fatima?
Peace
Michael
|
| 1212.11 | On the surface, yes, in the depth, no | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Tue Feb 20 1990 18:23 | 9 |
|
Re.8 (Maynard)
Hi - first, yes to what Topher said in .9, and if you're interested in
taking a look at the tables of contents of the books Peck has written,
search for the topic DIR/TITLE=PECK and you'll find them in the first
few notes.
Cindy
|
| 1212.12 | an unusual book | MFGMEM::ROSE | | Wed Feb 21 1990 06:14 | 96 |
| re: .5,.8
There's a book by D. Scott Rogo that I think you'd find fascinating.
It's entitled, "Miracles, A Parascientific Inquiry into Wondrous Phen-
omena." The paperback edition was published in 1983 by Contemporary
Books, Inc., 180 N. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60601. Here is the
table of contents:
Preface
I Science, Psi, and the Miraculous
Part One
Miraculous Talents
II Levitation
III The Stigmata
IV Bilocation
Part Two
Miraculous Events
V Divine Images
VI The Miraculous Hailstones of Remiremont
VII Bleeding Statues and Weeping Madonnas
VIII The Miracle of St. Januarius
Part Three
Miraculous Interventions
IX Manifestations of the Blessed Virgin Mary
X Miracles at Garabandal, Spain; and Zeitoun, Egypt
XI Miraculous Healings
Conclusion
XII Psyche and the Miraculous
Bibliography
Index
Rogo devotes about fifteen pages to the Marian visitations at Fatima.
He says that there are "...really only two basic theories that can
account for [such] visitations. The first is that these apparitions
are psychic projections, something akin to thought forms, which are
produced by the minds of the spectators or by the Catholic community
at large in the countries in which they appear. The alternative is
that they represent actual visitations by a spiritual being or presence
deliberately sent here to instruct us. The first of these seems to be
the more cogent."
Continuing, he says, "A tentative explanation for the miracle of Fatima
is that there may actually have existed two distinctive forces - one
that gave rise to the apparition and another that produced the miracles
that took place before thousands of onlookers. The figure of the Vir-
gin Mary may indeed have been an archetype projected either by the
children themselves or by the entire Portuguese people in response to
overwhelming national chaos...Perhaps these children had just the
unique psychic constitutions needed to see the apparition."
Regarding the final miracle of the dancing sun, Rogo says, " The crowds
may have produced this effect themselves, or the apparition may have
tapped the crowds psychic energy to manufacture it. Despite the awe-
someness of the Fatima miracle, it is not unique. It is a fact that
mysterious orbs of lights play a conspicuous role in the history of the
miraculous." He cites examples of this phenomenon in Wales in 1905,
in the Dominican Republic in 1972, and in Zeitoun, Egypt in 1968.
Photographs of the apparition in Zeitoun are included in the book.
After spending some time in the pages of "Miracles...," you may find
yourself glancing around furtively, wondering where "She" will appear.
Virginia
|
| 1212.13 | a mind so open it fell out, err... | GVAADG::DONALDSON | the green frog leaps... | Thu Feb 22 1990 03:50 | 26 |
| Re: .12
> He says that there are "...really only two basic theories that can
> account for [such] visitations. The first is that these apparitions
This is of course being a *little* narrow-minded. Here are some
other 'theories', to be going on with:
- there is a planet at the centre of our galaxy, the rays from which
generate Marian visions.
- everyone there ate mouldy bread the night before which gave them
hallucinations.
- the CIA have 'fixed' all the evidence and witnesses.
- it's just a crazy idea in *your* head.
- the universe is a special torture chamber in which *nothing*
is true and no explanations are correct.
- the Pope has a miracle machine (which doesn't work very well).
Would you like me to continue, or have I made my point? :-)
John D.
|
| 1212.14 | Whew! | MFGMEM::ROSE | | Thu Feb 22 1990 06:09 | 16 |
| re: .13
>...have I made my point?
Yes! And thank god You've appeared - it's a miracle! Rogo's imagina-
tion must have been caught in a steel trap. It wasn't until you men-
tioned the "bread" that I remembered having the three slices of wry
toast yesterday and that, of course, explains why this apparition with
the long hair and ourstretched arms keeps trying to butter me up. I
had begun to think that Bonnie Raitt had been teleported from the
Grammies!
Virginia
|
| 1212.15 | Comin' through the wry | LESCOM::KALLIS | Pumpkins -- Nature's greatest gift. | Thu Feb 22 1990 08:11 | 5 |
| Re .14 (Virginia):
Wry toast is the basic staple of cynics. ;-)
Steve Kallis, Jr.
|
| 1212.16 | Here's to the Cynics, Tom said, wryly. | CIMNET::PIERSON | Tiger Food?? | Thu Feb 22 1990 12:31 | 6 |
| Only, i think, the seedier sort of cynics, and the half baked...
thanks
dwp
|
| 1212.17 | No, just passing through. | MFGMEM::ROSE | | Fri Feb 23 1990 06:35 | 10 |
| re: .16,.17
My word! Cynics go for wry toast? I think I'll cut down to
two and a half slices, just to be on the safe side. But under
no circumstances will I give up my cereal! I love those grains
of salt!
Virginia
|
| 1212.18 | You *thought* you were passing through. | CGVAX2::PAINTER | And on Earth, peace... | Fri Feb 23 1990 19:01 | 5 |
| Re.17
Cynical Wry Catchers here - you're not going anywhere.
Cindy
|