Religious Experience

D

duendy

Registered Senior Member
What is religious experience? reading a book with words and believing the most absurd beliefs, etc, or is it ACTUAL spiritual experience? that in some cases takes people by surprise--comin outta the blue

for example, just read at nother thread here someone describe looking out of the window, and he say a plane flying by accross which a flock of birds flew, and it really gave him a spiritual experience. a sense of DEEP meaning of being in this world......Others said that they too have had these experiences--wonder who has here too. NOt directly linked to biblical stuff, and hearing 'God's voice in the head. but a feeling of empathy with this amzing world. This to me is real MEANING. but from my experience--as like watching tennis? left right left right. where the left are the materialistic scientists who claim that meaning = chemicals and at the right, the literalist religionists who quote scriptures as being THe meaning. they both--to me--seem to MISS THE POINT.... or better, the FIELD.....whats your thoughts?
 
hahhhhhaaaaa...i really feeel i must make a note of the IRONY of this sole thread of mine slipping off the register, into the depths with nill reponse!.....how amazing. that this is called 'religious EXPERIENCE' yet not a one member here seems to have any interest in experience. words, words, words yes, form so-called holy books, espesh the Bible, but e x p e r i e n c e no
Why Is this. i find it incredibly revealing. it is like you --most of you-interpret 'religion' to mean harping on and on about literalist passages from the Bible, and fail to understand that religious experience is a sense of deep spiritualy. ACTUAL experience. but many here just want to hide behind who said what which where when--all focusing on old dead biblical text

nothin WRONG in that. but i just thought i would remrak how the lack of interest in my encouragement to talk about REAL feeling of being in the world, and deeper experience is considered a no no

this might be one of a few of my thread raisers so as to keep pointing this out...wonder if any exploratative soul will take the bait....go ON put yer precious Book down for a minute
 
Okay, Duendy, first a thought that has nothing directly to do with the content of this thread: Yesterday, at about 5:30 PM my time (and your thread was posted at 3:17 PM my time), I saw this thread, and wanted to reply. But then I looked out of the window, saw the marvelous landscape, and said I must go out for a walk in the snow. I preferred a walk in the snow to posting to your thread. Hope you don't mind.

* * *

Religious experience is probably somewhat hard to talk about. And it is, as far I can see for now, due to two reasons that have nothing to do with "clinging to the book".

1. Someone who is a member of an established church with an established doctrine will likely try to stay true to the texts -- but not because of some mechanical "clinging to the book", but because one wants to be as true and consistent as possible.

Do note that a few lines from a text can have the profoundest meaning for someone, but it is impossible to say that meaning in some other words.

Like A rose is a rose is a rose. A simple verse that can bear so much meaning for one person, yet be a mere repetition to another.


2. Talking about religious experience can quickly look like superstition or pathetic emphatic drivel. Surely, one can write it down -- but will one actually post it?



I think addressing religious experience it is a good idea though. We keep going on about our arguments here at the forums, and every now and then someone says how important it is to have a *living relationship* with God, for example. But for some reason, this kind of response is much avoided, even derided.
 
Duendy,

I had a mind-blowing miracle happen to me and I would love to talk about it, but no one wants to listen. The only response I ever get when I do talk about it is being called delusional and/or a liar.

Love,

Lori
 
Lori_7 said:
Duendy,

I had a mind-blowing miracle happen to me and I would love to talk about it, but no one wants to listen. The only response I ever get when I do talk about it is being called delusional and/or a liar.

Love,

Lori
Click to expand...

I know of one you used to speak of more. But the thing is that I can't relate to it, and I guess some others can't relate to it. It's not that I wouldn't want to listen -- I can't relate to your experience.
 
What, your rock star revelations? David Hasselhof is God, we already know that!

Duendy,
There is no such thing as religious or spiritual experience. There is only the sudden disappearance of delusion and mental fakery.
 
And what if the smaller delusion is part of a bigger delusion? Can they know?

If not, how do you know it is not you who is deluded?
 
See what I mean? lol...

It's cool...

People are going to believe what they want...what they choose to based upon a wide variety of intentions.

I was thinking that even when I do talk about what's going on with me...and even with people who are open minded and interested (which there are very few)...I'm still left feeling isolated. And it's because of what water pointed out, and that is unless you have experienced it yourself, you just can't relate. I can make my best effort to describe my experiences, and you can do your best to listen and understand and try to imagine what it might be like even. But your imagination will fail...falling way short of the real thing. And so we find that unless you actually experience something yourself, you can never truly understand...you can never really know.

It occurred to me that this is the same reason that humanity is living in this state of sin right now. It explains why it is ultimately best for us, and why God wants it this way. It's so we can KNOW...so we can truly understand...Him...His law...the meaning of our lives...the importance of our intentions...the consequences of our actions...the deadliness of sin. So that we have perfect knowledge acquired through experience to make our decisions with. He gave us free will and now he's giving us knowledge...truth. As free will without knowledge in truth is worthless at best, and deadly at worst.

Love,

Lori
 
Lori_7: Duendy,

I had a mind-blowing miracle happen to me and I would love to talk about it, but no one wants to listen. The only response I ever get when I do talk about it is being called delusional and/or a liar.

Love,

Lori
*************
M*W: Lori, I don't think I read your original post about your miracle. Later I read posts about your rock star, but I never did get the gist of it. Would you mind PMing me.

Thanks,

Medicine*Woman
 
i also wanted to post to this thread and had the exact same dilemma. what could i share that other people would not want to destroy? very little. my experiences if i felt able to share them would be a target for both religious and non-religious who are both equally as passionate about proving their beliefs to be the only reality. although i must admit the materialist does seem to have less bizarre beliefs than the the religious.
 
§outh§tar said:
And what if the smaller delusion is part of a bigger delusion? Can they know?

If not, how do you know it is not you who is deluded?
Click to expand...
Direct perception without interpretation leaves no room for delusion. Ideas are delusionary, so don't believe them. Spiritual experience is just seeing things as they really are, not giving things names, not extrapolating rules, not formulating philosophies.

There is always the possibility that we are disembodied brains in the matrix, but if that is the case, there is little hope for breaking out.
 
Some great replies....
it's funny how we never say 'tell us about your material experience?'.......what would that mean? we take it sofor granted--'matter' that therer would be no point in saying it. it's just that
so i am wondering then, what we mean when we ask about spiritual experince or claim to know it, or discount it?

what i wonder would QUALIFY A spiritual experience? For me i am feeling it to be a deepening of perception and feeling more so than usual. when things seem more flowy, and you can see events in a different perspective than usual. like i mentioned about what inspired this thread, it was a member here who just looked out of the window. he saw a plane flying by, and then suddenly a flock of birds flwe cross its path...and the observer felt this amzing connection with everything
 
spidergoat said:
Direct perception without interpretation leaves no room for delusion.
Click to expand...

I don't believe "direct perception without interpretation" is possible, but I leave you to qualify the claim.

Ideas are delusionary, so don't believe them.
Click to expand...

Since that itself is an idea, I suggest you follow your own advice.

There is always the possibility that we are disembodied brains in the matrix, but if that is the case, there is little hope for breaking out.
Click to expand...

Is hope not an idea?
 
..and in every instance is shown to be a fallacy.
Click to expand...

I wonder if you live what you preach. Doubt the voice in your mind. He lies to you, scummy homunculus he is. Meet him with critical doubt, why don't you?

APPLE

I perceive I spelled APPLE

What do you perceive.
Click to expand...

Ask a savant the same question and you will quickly discover captiousness to be unfounded.

I see a computer screen. I can choose to either see markings, letters, a word, a piece of art, hmm..

But really, I want you to ask a savant the same question, see how lucky you feel after doing so.
 
how do you prove to a man who is blind and deaf that their are such things as sight and sound. only if it were possible to open his eyes and his ears would he be able to experience directly the world as it is for those who can see and hear.
 
OK, let me suggest a theory.

Religious experience is just experience in a religious context. The only reason why some experiences are isolated and called "spiritual" is because they don't fit into any other context, not even for atheists or agnostics.

When someone who doesn't believe in God or gods have an experience that doesn't fit into their particular paradigm, they may call it fate, luck, chance, or coincidence, or "some other explanation", according to their preferred mode of rationalization, even if they don't explicitly believe in any of those things. If a person doesn't subscribe to any particular religion, but is presented with something not explainable by the usual (non-religious) methods, it might be met with resistance, skepticism and suspicion, maybe even superstition (which I'll call secular spirituality).

On the other hand, someone who believes in the supernatural or is open to "spiritual" matters might actively practice superstition, bet on luck, believe in fate, and will see every coincidence in that context. We've all met people who say they "don't take it seriously", whose actions reveal something else.

Then there is the systematic approach. If your faith in reason is absolute, you will understand all of experience within that context, even the ("as yet")unexplained. Then reason is trusted to be able to reach all of reality, all possible truths, from the position of ignorance. Subjective experience is normally distrusted in favour of "objectivity".

For others, subjectivity is part of who we everybody is, and does not disqualify someone from experiencing the truth. But they will not naively accept any experience at face value either. Rather than the hermeneutic of suspicion, they prefer a more measured approach. Here, religious experience is something that fits into all of history, not in the experience of a single person. For the same reason that a scientist will not interpret an anomaly as consituting an new law, but rather a particular manifestation that is to be understood according to established laws, a person can interpret experience according to previous religious experiences. In this way, he can judge which context the experience belongs to. For such a person it would not be enough to hear someone had a religious experience, they want to know what "tradition" that experience belongs to. Is it an "I'm right and you're wrong" revelation, a "deepening of my spirituality" experience, is it complementary, revolutionary, or both?

For example, although Lori's (Lori, I hope you don't mind me using you!) religious experience was individual, subjective and personal, it is not in isolation -- it fits within the Judaeo-Christian context. But take Joseph Smith or Muhammed. Their religious experiences rely on the Judeo-Christian context, but then deviate from it, suggesting confirmation, yet proposing something new and overriding (syncretism). Where Lori's is continuous, Joseph Smith's is discontinuous, and Mohammed's is less discontinous but equally radical. Paul's Damascus experience was radical, but still historically continous.

All the factors affect our supposed objectivity, and how we judge religious experiences, in fact: how we experience life in general. There is probably a lot more to be said, this was just off the top of my head.
 
Last edited:
spidergoat said:
Direct perception without interpretation leaves no room for delusion.
Click to expand...
Southstar said:
I don't believe "direct perception without interpretation" is possible, but I leave you to qualify the claim.
Click to expand...
I think I see what Spidergoat and Southstar are getting at...
Try looking at an apple and not seeing it as an apple - or as anything at all.
As soon as you see it as an apple you have interpreted your perception.
If you see it as a food-source, you have again interpreted it.
If you see it as 3d shape in emanating colour then you have still interpreted it.

But if you apply this idea to the notion of fact / evidence / theory / truth etc, then the "perception" equates to "observation". By themselves they mean nothing. They are not interpreted.
As soon as you interpret the fact you open yourself up to the possibility of delusion - where you believe in one observation but ignore others.

But then until the observation (or more likely "observations") are interpreted then there is no advancement of knowledge - there is just a collection of observations.

So I would say "Direct perception without interpretation leaves no room for delusion - but also leaves no room for growth."
To understand requires interpretation.
 
Jenyar: Where Lori's [experience] is continuous, Joseph Smith's is discontinuous, and Mohammed's is less discontinous but equally radical. Paul's Damascus experience was radical, but still historically continous.
*************
M*W: There was nothing "historic" about Paul's delusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top