Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

  >>  What do you make of visions and visionaries?
    
    I don't rule out visions and visionaries but I do question their
    source.  I do believe there are visions that can be influenced by the
    powers of darkness.  
    
    I personally have problems with the alleged vision of Mary.  I find
    some of the Revelations the alleged vision spoke of to be disturbing.
    Problem is I haven't discussed this in years and cannot remember
    exactly what the vision spoke of.  I only remember it being disturbing
    when I heard it.  
    
    Does John Covert of somebody else have an outline of what the vision
    spoke of?
    
    -Jack

re Note 1023.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> What do you make of visions and visionaries?
  

I tend to believe the visions unless I'm given reason not to.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    The visions are irrelevant.

Note 1023.4

>    The visions are irrelevant.

In what way, may I inquire?

Richard

    	For those who are drawn closer to God through them, I rejoice.
    	People say that these visions are the work of Satan, intended
    	to draw people away through division.  I tend to see the opposite
    	in the case of those who believe in them, however, so I'm not
    	so sure these are the work of Satan.
    
    	I personally tend to doubt them.  I am more like the Apostle
    	Thomas when it comes to these things.  I've seen photos taken
    	first hand by friends.  They show a rather distinct but semi-
    	transparent Mary, or the gates of heaven, or the sun spinning,
    	the sacred heart, crosses, etc.  In fact, I've seen a series of
    	photos, all taken from the same camera, but by different people
    	in succession all within minutes of each other.  Some people
    	get very clear images, and others get nothing but sky and
    	landscape.
    
    	I don't doubt that people see these things, nor that they
    	took these pictures themselves and they are undoctored photos.
    	Some were taken at the Mother Cabrini shrine near Denver.  Others
    	at some place in Phoenix (I believe) where Mary supposedly
    	appears regularly.
    
    	I still will need to see such things firsthand, however.  I've
    	been to the Cabrini shrine.  It was peaceful and seemed quite
    	sacred there, but I saw nothing supernatural (nor did anyone
    	else while I was there.)  I've been told that my doubt will
    	keep me blind to them.

    
    Perhaps I should have finished the sentence.
    
    The visions are irrelevant to me.
    
    They serve no purpose, they do no add nor detract from
    my existence.  They do not increase my faith nor diminish it.
    Essentially I find them childish.  My visions came when I was
    four years old and they were on time.  They perplexed me for
    30 years until I realized that there are states far beyond
    visions. Therefore I find them irrelevant.
    
      

> What do you make of visions and visionaries?

a united europe was once a vision - in fact 25 years ago, a united europe 
was still utopia; so was the fall of the iron curtain. a european union
with 15 member nations (and more queueing up) would never have become a
reality without the foresight, the perseverance and the work of visionaries.

but the base note addresses another type of vision and visionary. i can 
understand that "messages of divine origin" or "Apparitions of Mary" or 
revelations of any kind can give the person having such visions hope and
strength.

what if such visions were to give other people (and not just the person who 
had the vision) hope too? what if other people started to depend on these
visions too? that's were the problem begins - it gives the person having the
vision, influence over others, by claiming to be in possession of some truth
through a divine message and _all_this_is_not_verifiable_!

so what do i make of visions? they may be good for personal use and should
definitely be kept to oneself.


andreas.

.6 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"

    	I still will need to see such things firsthand, however.  I've
    	been to the Cabrini shrine.  It was peaceful and seemed quite
    	sacred there, but I saw nothing supernatural (nor did anyone
    	else while I was there.)  I've been told that my doubt will
    	keep me blind to them.

Joe,

As an aside (or a rathole if you prefer :^), I have the same problem with belief
in God, and have heard the last line more often than I can count. It kind of
boils down to the circular argument, 'you won't see until you believe'. For me,
I can't believe until I see. 

Maybe this gives a more understandable view of where I'm coming from?

Steve

> As an aside (or a rathole if you prefer :^), I have the same problem with 
> belief in God, and have heard the last line more often than I can count. 

that's just it steve! unless you're prepared to believe in the divine, 
you won't experience the divine! substitute "xxxx" for "divine" and repeat :-)

in my experience, and i am an earthly atheist, if the divine is something 
which i cannot experience with my senses, something which i cannot touch, 
smell, taste, see, hear and share with others, then how can i believe in it? 
a purely rethorical question, as i am sure there are those who will assert 
that they can touch, smell, taste ... the divine!
it does, as you imply, come down to choice: 
either you choose to 
	- experience what you believe in 
   or   - you believe in what you experience.

the latter is oversimplified, as you can also believe in what you can conclude 
from experience (from observation); eg. i see only a shadow, i therefore 
conclude there must be an object (presently outside from my line of sight).

when it comes to transcendental experiences though, such as revelations, 
i am skeptical about the implications of such an experience. since a 
transcendental experience is only ever confined to one single person, and
cannot be repeated/validated by others, such an experience can only ever 
retain validity just for the person making the experience.
eg. if we were in the same room and i heard an angel singing a song, i cannot 
say, "hey steve, hear that tune?" you'd have no way of telling if i really
heard that angel other than taking my word for it. so i best keep that 
experience to myself. but if i hear a child singing, i could point your 
attention to it and we could even sing along together.

hence, "treat transcendental experiences with caution!" :-)


andreas.

    I'm not so certain one needs to be a believer in order to have a
    transcendental (or mystical) experience (or vision).
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.9>>    	else while I was there.)  I've been told that my doubt will
  >>    	keep me blind to them.

>As an aside (or a rathole if you prefer :^), I have the same problem with belief
>in God, and have heard the last line more often than I can count. 
    
    	What does that have to do with CHRISTIAN perspective?  That's 
    	supposed to be the subject matter of the conference, isn't it?
    
    	That's been my problem with the conference from the first day
    	I stepped into it, and my guess is that my previous vocalization
    	is why your statement was so directly addressed to me.
    
    	I have no problem with people who don't believe in Christianity,
    	but for such people to congregate and say that their belief is
    	just another "Christian perspective" -- and even more, to promote
    	in the name of Christianity ideas that are viewed as irreverent,
    	to say the least, perhaps sinful, and even heretical (and I'm
    	not saying that you in particular have done these) -- is what rubs 
    	me the wrong way.
    
    	I can see your point of view regarding God.  I can respect it too.
    	I just question the appropriateness of including such a point of 
    	view among "Christian perspectives", and that's what keeps me
    	wary of this conference.

re .11

and i can imagine that one can be driven to become a believer due to having
had a transcendental (or mystical) experience (or vision).

can a transcendental (or mystical) experience (or vision) actually occur
or is it just a case of imagination, a temporary state of confusion?


andreas.

    >>    I'm not so certain one needs to be a believer in order to have a
    >>    transcendental (or mystical) experience (or vision).
    
    Richard, I believe you are correct.  I believe Daniel and Joseph
    interpreted dreams from God on their perspective King/Pharoah.
    Both non believers.
    
    -Jack

    .13
    
    Hard to say.  The mystical cannot be quantified or empirically
    examined like a physical science can.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    With respect to DECALP::GUTZWILLER  wishes that I respond to the
    previous not I offer the following:
    
    >can a transcendental (or mystical) experience (or vision) actually
    >occur or is it just a case of imagination, a temporary state of 
    >confusion?
    
    
	As I can only speak from my own experience I have found that 
    a true mystical or supernatural experience does occur but is not
    something one creates if it comes from God. When one does occur and as
    I have found to be when will one not occur, one is not imagining, or
    in a state of confusion, or out of control from a mentally conscious
    point of view. 
    
    	One may be taken by surprise and/or experience strong emotions such
    as Love, or Confidence, perhaps a bit bewildered and most definitly
    humbled.
    
    	If the supernatural or mystical event comes from a spiritual source
    not from God then the experience is quite different.
    
    	When people seek for these things they will find restlessness and a
    lack of peace in their soul and mind.  It has been revealed to me that 
    to truly find God one must learn simply to let Him find you. The word
    seek has a far different meaning than what we have come to know. 

thank you for writing this, i think i understand you better now.

"life-changing" could sum the experience up.

.16>    When people seek for these things they will find restlessness and a
.16>  lack of peace in their soul and mind.  It has been revealed to me that
.16>  to truly find God one must learn simply to let Him find you. The word
.16>  seek has a far different meaning than what we have come to know.

this is beautiful!

whilst i relate to very much of what you write about your experiencing, 
for what i have experienced, i remain skeptical as to the relevance and 
source. with the choice that i have made, i believe that simply the state 
of mind, the warmth and inner comfort which an experience gives, is more 
important than knowing the source. the source is a matter of faith.

i grant that my experiencing may not be as intense or is simply not 
allowed much space. all the same, from my experience i have learned to 
have (a somewhat irrational) blind faith in life and in my fellow human.
to live and accept the unexplainable, ie. not to seek answers, as, so it 
seems, they always come when they are needed.

where i grew up, in west africa, i have witnessed alot of spirituality 
in action. a sure indication that there is more to the human being than
rationality. here in europe, i have seen intensly spiritual persons commited 
to psychiatric treatment. to me, an indication, that in our enlightened age
we scare too easily from irrationality due to lack of faith or explanation.
also, it seems, that too much importance is in the individual. i believe it's 
useful to remind ourselves of our insignificane.

hence my conclusion in .10; i have a keen interest in irrational phenomena, 
though this is mainly from a philosophical point of view.


andreas.

.16 TRLIAN::POLAND

No offense, but I have a real hard time parsing your notes :^0

If I understand...

	but is not something one creates if it comes from God.

Why does God not send this vision to everyone once in their life, as an open
invitation? Why are some of us kept stumbling in the dark until we die and
(theoretically) get sent to hell?

    	When people seek for these things they will find restlessness and a
    lack of peace in their soul and mind.  It has been revealed to me that 
    to truly find God one must learn simply to let Him find you. The word
    seek has a far different meaning than what we have come to know. 

Seeking can't really be any other way. For someone to seek something, they must
have a gap to fill, or some desire to find something. I don't 'seek' God because
I feel no holes in my life or psyche to fill. For me, it would make no more
sense than seeking the Easter Bunny. Your definition of seek seems to mean 'stop
running'. I see this as really no different from seeking, as I do not feel that
I am running from anything anyway. BTW, if seek has a different meaning then why
don't you use the word or words that would convey that meaning rather than using
this one while saying it is misleading?

Steve

.18> Why does God not send this vision to everyone 

i presume, that even if each human had such a vision, that whilst 
the content may perhaps be the same, warmth, love, that the images in
which the vision is conveyed would be different for each human. thus, 
when attempting to interpret the vision, each interpretation would be 
different. therefore, if we attempted to communicate the vision verbally, 
we would indeed each be speaking a different language, making for a 
babylonic chaos! so maybe humans can only communicate effectively (what 
they have gleaned with a vision) via emotional content?

this is all highly speculative, and not to be taken seriously, as the 
premise really must be, that transcendental experience is always confined 
to the individual and cannot be communicated verbally.


to return to the question, 

.18> Why does God not send this vision to everyone 

i am not so sure, if having such vision is a 'blessing' or a 'curse'.
maybe this throws a different light on the issue? 

does the vision come from god? does it come from the soul? where does
it come from?

i am presently at a point where i believe that IF there was something 
beyond our mortal existance, then, if it came into contact with us, 
that it can have a profound impact on our existance, particularly in 
times of despair and crisis. i have found this confirmed both in terms
of my own experience and in terms of research.

to answer the question of just what is beyond our mortal existance and 
what can come into contact with us through such a vision, one must, in
my opinion, resort to faith or make a choice - the possibilties that i 
can think of are, that the source of the experience could indeed be god/dess, 
or it could be the (immortal?) soul, or it could be (as in the case of dreams)
a collectively grown memory, archetypal images in the jungian sense.

personally, i believe the question of the source is secondary to the
power of the experience itself. as for the experience itself, it remains 
a source of hope and meaning. 

giving comfort to its recipient, is, as i see it, the only rationale behind
such an experience. 


why are such experiences seemingly restricted to but a few? as you imply 
in .18, steve, the individual must have a prerequisite for the experience, 
must have a "gap to fill", a need for comfort, so that's probably the best 
answer to your question! make sense? :-)



andreas.

    Andreas,
    
    I like your ideas. 
    
    Patricia

.19 DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"

Andreas,

Makes sense to me. I've always suspected that a lot of our visions are actually
ourselves trying to fulfill our own needs. But given the general nature of gods,
it is pretty much impossible to rule out communication from them to us, in the
same way that it is very difficult to prove or disprove their existence. Until
something dramatic happens, I'll continue to try to find the explanation that
best fits the observable facts.

Steve

Note 1023.19

>why are such experiences seemingly restricted to but a few?

It's a good question.  And I can only answer it with more questions.
Like, why is it God has healed others and I'm still in a wheelchair?
Why was I born into a white, middle class family and not born among
the poor of Calcutta?

Some of it is probably random chance.  Some of it, as you suggest, is
- not unlike the mother of invention - to fulfill some sort of need.
Much of it, however, is a mystery.

Shalom,
Richard