A burning bush experience...

[Pierce]

As the story goes, Moses saw on the mountain a bush burning, but not consumed. The sight intrigued him. It represented a rift in his cosmic view, and he felt compelled to investigate. The rest of the story is his account of an encounter with God. He did not initiate the event, but responded to it. The details of the event are unique, but the pattern is not. Centuries later, struck by lighting and blinded, hearing a heavenly voice in his head, Paul also recorded an encounter with God, which he did not initiate. Such stories are countless, and pervade history. The vast majority of humanity does not experience such dramatic events. INTPs are skeptics and suspicious. The impulse is to reject the phenomenon and look for the man behind the curtain, the corporeal "Oz" figure, pulling levers of deception, and guessing at motives. But, this is often done from a detached, third-party, theoretical and "safe" distance.

My question is: Would you welcome such an experience for yourself? Mind you, the question is not, would you want to be exposed to a clever deception, but, would you welcome an encouter with God?

[kuranes]

Absolutely. I'm not sure if God would welcome an encounter with ME, though. Lately I have been noticing a lot more coincidences than I have ever noticed before, and I sometimes joke to myself that this is God nudging me.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Well, I do have visions like Moses. Full visual experiences, sounds/tones that seem to resonate to the core of my being, accompanied by a mysticism; a sense that I understand the secret yet obvious order of the Universe. The understanding of "God". We treat these "hallucinations" as trivial blots on the visual screen, but indeed, what you see with your eyes is the least of the experience. The only difference is that i'm not a prophet - they give me medication for it.

Indeed, I believe the the visionaries of early times were a majority influenced by psychoactive drugs, and to a lesser degree mental disorders. If you have any expereince with either it's very compelling to think so. I think we fail to relize this due a combination of arrogance, ingnorance, and an unwillingness to find out for ourselves - this is what we're unwilling to accept.

To call it "God" is too easy. A petty word in the face of limitless realities.

This world of "visions" - I live it. The fact is, most religious people won't even try to enter it for a second. Indigenous folk have been doing it for thousands of years - but you could enter it in the comfort of your own home. It only takes 20 minutes. But most won't. This arrogant disposal of possiblities is the very reason I laugh outloud when a religious person squeals about how so and so saw God, etc, etc. He was tripping. Don't believe me? Try it.

[kuranes]

Perhaps the burning bush was a SHRUB of a certain sort! It sounds like you don't require Entheogens to have your visions Isaac. There's some city ( in Colorado? ) that has these springs that people take baths in, that are supposed to be natural sources of large quantities of Lithium. The story went that some high strung type A Wall Street execs went out there for a break, and decided to never come back. Still "soaking in it" like Madge. I agree that the visions themselves are minor compared to the thoughts, when "in that mode." K

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Perhaps the burning bush was a SHRUB of a certain sort! It sounds like you don't require Entheogens to have your visions Isaac. There's some city ( in Colorado? ) that has these springs that people take baths in, that are supposed to be natural sources of large quantities of Lithium. The story went that some high strung type A Wall Street execs went out there for a break, and decided to never come back. Still "soaking in it" like Madge. I agree that the visions themselves are minor compared to the thoughts, when "in that mode." K

Haha, maybe so. The lithium story is interesting.

To deny the possiblity of psychoactive plants/substances as the cause of religious visions is just ridiculous to me. It seems very likely, indeed almost indefinate, that early men would eat unknowingly eat psychoactive substances without realizing it - and in turn have a mysterious vision. It's also worth mentioning that we all have a hallucinogenic compound in our brains right now called DMT, which is released in times of stress - mainly birth and death. . The side effects are a bright flash of light, the feeling of being physically transported elsewhere, and contact with entitites subjective to culture. Some see Jesus, others Aliens.

Why do we ignore this stuff?

[kuranes]

People suggested that the Salem witch trials ( or one of the REAL "witch hunts" ) were the result of ergot poisoning causing hallucinations which couldn't be explained otherwise at the time. Later, hard nosed types disputed this, and used their Occam's razor/KISS arguments. No doubt that many spiritual visions were created this way over the centuries. I cracked up reading that a ruler once used to put subjects in his kingdom to death if they dared showing up in a bad dream he was having! "Holy Men" used to reassure one another that financial debts they incurred on earth would certainly be repaid, "if not here, then in heaven" you understand. K

[Sir Isaac Lime]

People suggested that the Salem witch trials ( or one of the REAL "witch hunts" ) were the result of ergot poisoning causing hallucinations which couldn't be explained otherwise at the time. Later, hard nosed types disputed this, and used their Occam's razor/KISS arguments. No doubt that many spiritual visions were created this way over the centuries. I cracked up reading that a ruler once used to put subjects in his kingdom to death if they dared showing up in a bad dream he was having! "Holy Men" used to reassure one another that financial debts they incurred on earth would certainly be repaid, "if not here, then in heaven" you understand. K

Yes, those are good examples. I certainly wouldn't deny the possiblity of ergot poisioning, since from what i've read, was quite common in those days, especially in places with abundant sources of rye. No doubt Salem was one of these.

It goes without saying though, that witches and the culture itself was heavily influenced by hallucinogenic plants - Daturas, Mandrakes, Henbane. Witches used brooms to apply these compounds; they flew because they were high :) It's always fun to notice how all religious ceremonies/traditions celebrated in culture can be directly coorelated right back to these plants - Halloween, Christmas, Easter...they're all completly based on drugs. It makes you think the Gods themselves are too.

(waits almost impatiently for someone to question this)

[waxwing]

Makes me think about Neo-Platonism, which has to do with the combination of rationalism and mysticism. Suggested by Plato in his Republic (the form of God is the supreme form in the universe), but developed by some of his successors, Neo-platonism seems to allow room for such mystical encounters. King Nebuchanezzar comes to mind as another one who was humbled by God. Apparently, he grew claws and ate grass for several years, after which he served God. Mystical experiences, I think, are about intuition and insight, both of which INTPs generally possess. I find often that not being able to logically explain an experience can be invaluable to my unquenchable thirst for the truth. I will never completely understand, but I'll continue to question and seek understanding, and the quest is mostly what I'm after anyway. That's partly why I see the need for mysticism as an INTP. If everything were actually able to be rationally explained, where would that childlike spark of curiousity come from?

[coffeezombie]

If I experienced a divine force during a moment of mystic vision, I'd still want to know the ultimate origin of that divine force, what created it. I am a natural skeptic who is always investigating.

[waxwing]

If I experienced a divine force during a moment of mystic vision, I'd still want to know the ultimate origin of that divine force, what created it. I am a natural skeptic who is always investigating.
Yes, and isn't that the essence of a mystical experience? To glimpse the power of the deity you may or may not believe in? To potentially come to understand something of its origin?

[YardGnome]

Indeed, I believe the the visionaries of early times were a majority influenced by psychoactive drugs, and to a lesser degree mental disorders. If you have any expereince with either it's very compelling to think so. I think we fail to relize this due a combination of arrogance, ingnorance, and an unwillingness to find out for ourselves - this is what we're unwilling to accept.

To call it "God" is too easy. A petty word in the face of limitless realities.

This world of "visions" - I live it. The fact is, most religious people won't even try to enter it for a second. Indigenous folk have been doing it for thousands of years - but you could enter it in the comfort of your own home. It only takes 20 minutes. But most won't. This arrogant disposal of possiblities is the very reason I laugh outloud when a religious person squeals about how so and so saw God, etc, etc. He was tripping. Don't believe me? Try it.

I was just about to type the exact same thing. It is the only logical explanation. When the Jews were in the desert all that time wandering around and "GOD" bestowed "MANA" upon them I believe they were actually eating some form of hallucinogenic fungus...

Think about it, they must have had camels which would provide nutrients for the "Shrooms" to grow. The bible describes it as something that was available with the dew in the morning but dissapeared or something like that at night (or maybe it's the other way around)... Mushrooms do this. The description provided could most certainly match that of a psychedelic mushrrom...

So then maybe moses really did see the burning bush... and he did talk to god... He was fucking tripping his sack off...

This is a very logical explanation to these bible stories, more believeable to me than believing they actually saw this stuff sober...

[Chukamuk]

Yes, and isn't that the essence of a mystical experience? To glimpse the power of the deity you may or may not believe in? To potentially come to understand something of its origin?That's if you believe in mystical experiences. Honestly, if I started hearing God talking to me I would make sure no one was playing a trick on me and then I would make a Doctor's appointment as soon as possible. Better yet I'd go straight to the emergency room.

Why? Because there's no scientific proof that god talks to people (or that there is a god). There is scientific proof that mental illness or drug-induced hallucinations can make one believe that god is talking to them. Yes I rely on my intuition but not when it conflicts with logic.

[waxwing]

That's if you believe in mystical experiences. Honestly, if I started hearing God talking to me I would make sure no one was playing a trick on me and then I would make a Doctor's appointment as soon as possible. Better yet I'd go straight to the emergency room.

Why? Because there's no scientific proof that god talks to people (or that there is a god). There is scientific proof that mental illness or drug-induced hallucinations can make one believe that god is talking to them. Yes I rely on my intuition but not when it conflicts with logic. I would do the same thing. It may even be how I was diagnosed with manic-depression. So, yeah, I understand the gravity of mental illness and hallucinations.

What I was asking, though, is not contingent upon whether or not I believe in a mystical experience. See, I am trying to get to the root of the purpose of one of these encounters, but I am falling short because I have no personal opinion or strong faith in the matter. Is that why or is it because I lack a premise that I can build upon? Okay, so I had to back up and try to understand what the essence of the encounter is from an objective standpoint. Mystical experience, by definition, is something that we cannot logically explain, something perceived via intuition. That said, how can I expect to logically arrive at an understanding of how it happens, why it happens, to whom it happens, and so on?

I think that our premises and axioms are not matching up here. I'm thinking about the mystical experience as potentially occurring regardless of a person's belief in God or mysticism (although I think the latter is sort of irrelevant at the moment). I see no purpose in getting stuck on whether or not I logically believe in something (meaning mysticism itself) that, by definition, defies logic.

coffeezombie wrote:
If I experienced a divine force during a moment of mystic vision, I'd still want to know the ultimate origin of that divine force, what created it. I am a natural skeptic who is always investigating.

waxwing wrote:
Yes, and isn't that the essence of a mystical experience? To glimpse the power of the deity you may or may not believe in? To potentially come to understand something of its origin?

Keep in mind that I'm not sharing a personal belief here. Actually, I'm very much detached, simply trying to find out what questions I should be asking myself. I was trying to point out to czbie that I think the purpose of a "mystic vision" or mystical experience may be irrespective of ones personal belief in that type of experience. It would seem that the point would be to understand the origin of the divine's power, not the validity of the venue he uses. Of course, I may be completely wrong.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Mysticism defies belief. You can't even get your hands around it enough to "believe" in it. Thats like trying to catch a river in a bucket: you'll certainly get water - but somewhere along the line you've seriously missed the point.

Hence religion. The proverbial water in the bucket being sold as a river.

[CosmicDust]

As the story goes, Moses saw on the mountain a bush burning, but not consumed. The sight intrigued him. It represented a rift in his cosmic view, and he felt compelled to investigate. The rest of the story is his account of an encounter with God. He did not initiate the event, but responded to it. The details of the event are unique, but the pattern is not. Centuries later, struck by lighting and blinded, hearing a heavenly voice in his head, Paul also recorded an encounter with God, which he did not initiate. Such stories are countless, and pervade history. The vast majority of humanity does not experience such dramatic events. INTPs are skeptics and suspicious. The impulse is to reject the phenomenon and look for the man behind the curtain, the corporeal "Oz" figure, pulling levers of deception, and guessing at motives. But, this is often done from a detached, third-party, theoretical and "safe" distance.

My question is: Would you welcome such an experience for yourself? Mind you, the question is not, would you want to be exposed to a clever deception, but, would you welcome an encouter with God?
I would welcome it as a potential source of insight and new perspectives. I wouldn't have to believe it was "God" visiting me, per se, for that. It might really freak me out at first, though, if it didn't occur during a course of dreaming. Even with lucid dreams, stuff like that happening won't freak me out, it's more like, "Wow, cool, I'm dreaming! Let's fly and have fun! But if I'd just been awake and known it, I'd likely be kind of scared...wtf is happening? Am I dying? I might make the most of it and let it happen thereafter, though, as there wouldn't be much I could do until I got out of the hallucination, if I got out of it.

[waxwing]

Mysticism defies belief. You can't even get your hands around it enough to "believe" in it. Thats like trying to catch a river in a bucket: you'll certainly get water - but somewhere along the line you've seriously missed the point.

Hence religion. The proverbial water in the bucket being sold as a river.
Very true, I think. Your last line is classic.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Very true, I think. Your last line is classic.

Well, I kinda stole it. I read a book once where the author made mention of trying to mail someone a box of water - and the illogic of it. It was by Alan Watts I believe. I think you'd really like him.

I didn't know you were diagnosed bipolar - i'm a diagnosed schizoaffective, which is pretty similar.

[waxwing]

Well, I kinda stole it. I read a book once where the author made mention of trying to mail someone a box of water - and the illogic of it. It was by Alan Watts I believe. I think you'd really like him.

I didn't know you were diagnosed bipolar - i'm a diagnosed schizoaffective, which is pretty similar.
Thanks for the recommendation. I'll check it out.

Yeah....Ive done some reading on schizoaffective, and it seems similar. Especially, in the case of bipolar I and full-blown mania.

Good to know someone knows.

http://forums.intpcentral.com/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I was just about to type the exact same thing. It is the only logical explanation. When the Jews were in the desert all that time wandering around and "GOD" bestowed "MANA" upon them I believe they were actually eating some form of hallucinogenic fungus...

Think about it, they must have had camels which would provide nutrients for the "Shrooms" to grow. The bible describes it as something that was available with the dew in the morning but dissapeared or something like that at night (or maybe it's the other way around)... Mushrooms do this. The description provided could most certainly match that of a psychedelic mushrrom...

So then maybe moses really did see the burning bush... and he did talk to god... He was fucking tripping his sack off...

This is a very logical explanation to these bible stories, more believeable to me than believing they actually saw this stuff sober...

I actually didn't even think about the mana. Thats a pretty good example. Now that I think about it, I believe a man by the name of Gordon Wasson made a similar suggestion with Soma, or Amanita Muscaria.

These psychoactive plants are some of the oldest on the planet, and primitive man certainly made use of them - just as the animals did. I think i'm with Mckenna on the suggestion that mans early use of hallucinogens resulted in radical shits in conciousness - and in my opinion are the oldest link in mans idea of "God", or even mans idea of himself as his own entity.

The garden of eden story says this to me. Man eats a strange plant, he self-actualizes himself, and he "knows" what God knows. But this knowledge - this conciousness - is ultimatly what results in his fall - he destroys whats given unto him.

[Sally]

I'm frightened by the thought of losing myself. Not to the point that I wouldn't welcome it, but... I don't think I'd seek it out.

I've never been to a psychologist, but I know I exhibit bipolar symptoms if I'm extremely stressed out for a long period of time - feelings of euphoria and depression that are... disproportionate to reality. Disproportionate to the degree that I feel frightened. And yet... excited.

I think I feel that I could be more creative if I went insane. Instead of the eternal cycle of losing interest in something as soon as I figure it out.

[YardGnome]

I actually didn't even think about the mana. Thats a pretty good example. Now that I think about it, I believe a man by the name of Gordon Wasson made a similar suggestion with Soma, or Amanita Muscaria.

These psychoactive plants are some of the oldest on the planet, and primitive man certainly made use of them - just as the animals did. I think i'm with Mckenna on the suggestion that mans early use of hallucinogens resulted in radical shits in conciousness - and in my opinion are the oldest link in mans idea of "God", or even mans idea of himself as his own entity.

The garden of eden story says this to me. Man eats a strange plant, he self-actualizes himself, and he "knows" what God knows. But this knowledge - this conciousness - is ultimatly what results in his fall - he destroys whats given unto him.

John Marco Allegro, one of the Catholic priests deciphering the dead sea scrolls popularized this idea (Mana / Original Catholic Communion actually being mushrooms). He actually was stripped of his title of priest and taken off the project when he wrote his book, The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross.

[Chukamuk]

...What I was asking, though, is not contingent upon whether or not I believe in a mystical experience. See, I am trying to get to the root of the purpose of one of these encounters, but I am falling short because I have no personal opinion or strong faith in the matter. Is that why or is it because I lack a premise that I can build upon? Okay, so I had to back up and try to understand what the essence of the encounter is from an objective standpoint. Mystical experience, by definition, is something that we cannot logically explain, something perceived via intuition. That said, how can I expect to logically arrive at an understanding of how it happens, why it happens, to whom it happens, and so on?

I think that our premises and axioms are not matching up here. I'm thinking about the mystical experience as potentially occurring regardless of a person's belief in God or mysticism (although I think the latter is sort of irrelevant at the moment). I see no purpose in getting stuck on whether or not I logically believe in something (meaning mysticism itself) that, by definition, defies logic. ...Ok, I must be thick as a brick because I'm just not following you. Let me try to sum up what I understood you to say.

You want to logically understand the purpose(get to the root) of mystical encounters(something that we cannot logically explain, something perceived via intuition)?

If you logically understand something then it is no longer mystical, it's scientific fact.

Do you see my confusion?

Here is the definiton Webster's dictionary gives for Mystical:
Main Entry: mys·ti·cal
Function: adjective
1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light>

[Sir Isaac Lime]

But yes Chuckamuk, this is how it works.

Mysticism drives one to attempt to understand a "secret" order - or to place a rational understanding on the supernatural. It puts a somewhat "spiritual" significance in the process of converting ideas into something functional - like a model. For example, Carl Jung wrote his primary works after becoming delirius from a medication he recieved in the hospital. Indeed, most of his theories were based in mysticism - from abstract thought, dreams, and in that one case - a psychoactive drug.

It's like a fog you can see forms in. Revolutionary ideas are "out there" in the mystical. They reside in areas of thought that are just off the beaten path and most times seen as illogical - because they are. They don't fit into current models - they redefine them.

To me, the "belief" in mysticism seems a bit ridiculous. Belief is like encountering the mystical but giving up because you got tired of thinking about it.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

And fuck the word God. Seriously, i'm tired of it. It should be retired for 1,000 years so that man might seperate it from all his miscontrued assumptions and personal rationalizations. It's literally impossible to add that word into a logical discussion and have it work to any advtange. It's useless.

[Jacque]

But, this is often done from a detached, third-party, theoretical and "safe" distance.

My question is: Would you welcome such an experience for yourself? Mind you, the question is not, would you want to be exposed to a clever deception, but, would you welcome an encouter with God?

So how would you go about your skepticism?

I'm sorry God, I know I should recognize your voice, but a reassuring bucket of water would really do miracles for my faith - rekindle the fire so to speak. I know I shouldn't question You, especially when use that deep masculine authoritative voice (like OMAHGAWD!), but there's been a lot weird stuff by a lot of false prophets. Personally, I think they were on pot, but I know You work in mysterious ways. After all, pot probably grew wild and free in Garden of Eden for Adam and Eve to enjoy, except for the apples of course. Anyway, so I'm going to try to put You out with water. I mean no offense, it's for my own benefit, and if You're God then it won't hurt, so our assets are covered.

While I don't suspect a magnesium fire, I going to need a few samples for confirmatory testing. If you could shed a fews leaves in this cup, that would be great, to also include Your Full Name and social. I won't have the results in for a few days, so if You could answer a survey that would help me out immensely. Alright, do you solemnly swear or affirm that everything You, God, say is the truth, so help You, Yourself? O.K., how long have You been burning? What color would You say is Your flame? Have You been involved in any acts of arson in the past week? Month? Year? Would You say You are spontaneous? Do You smoke? Are You good with kids?

[kuranes]

The best Alan Watts books, IMHO, are "On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are: The Book" and "This Is It". There are some other great ones too.

[Helios]

I think something is only "mystical" if you don't understand it. Perhaps their is a God, and we are only confused/scared/pissed/disbelieveing 'cause we are ancients looking at a comet we don't undeerstand, or asking why the rains aren't coming?

If He is real he would exist on a plain beyond our comprehension, and things wouldn't made any damn sense to us. Just ask my cat about her baths.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

The best Alan Watts books, IMHO, are "On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are: The Book" and "This Is It". There are some other great ones too.

Oh, totally. Heres the first few chapters for anyone that'd like to check it out:

http://www.zenhell.com/GetEnlightened/watts/contents.htm

"The wisdom of insecurity" come in at my second favorite.

[Pierce]

Glibly suggesting that there is no God, or that the experience is a merely a physical process (chemical or electrical, imbalance or disorder) misses the point. The question presupposes God. The assertion that there is no God is a statement of fashion (or a belief system), not reason, since God can neither be proven or disproven by logic.

Nor were the ancients ignorant of the effects of drugs (or plants, roots, etc.) or their hallucinagenic effects. The word translated witchcraft in the Bible is pharmakia, the word from which we derive pharmacy. From ancient times there has always been association between drugs and sorcery. And, in Hebrew/Jewish and Christian faiths, there is a very clear distinction between the drug or trance induced visions of sorcerers (forbidden) and visions of God. Words like sacred and holy, extasy and rapture were conceived to give a form of expression to such experiences, but these words are hardly applied to drug induced highs or the confused hallucinations of fever or disease (though I agree these have a kind of spiritual quality to them). Frankly, I find the suggestion that we moderns possess the enlightened view, and that the ancients were provincial asses to be absurd and supercilious.

Burning bush experiences invariably contain an overwhelming element of awe -- even terror. It is an encounter with holiness -- the close proximity of being of goodness so extreme in purity that it burns, exposing our impurity as though every mask hiding every thought and deed were transparent. The prevailing posture is prostrate, and the attitude humility and submission. There is no account of cavalier conversation or defiance, and no one ever remains unchanged.

The question remains, (no alternate universe theories, no empirical explanations of possible physical/mechanical theories -- just as presented), would you welcome such an experience?

[euterpenc]

And fuck the word God. Seriously, i'm tired of it. It should be retired for 1,000 years so that man might seperate it from all his miscontrued assumptions and personal rationalizations. It's literally impossible to add that word into a logical discussion and have it work to any advtange. It's useless.

Logic isn't everything. God is a name for an inexpressible force or existence or something which cannot be put into words. God exists. There are many names but the actual thing/concept in itself is the same. God is within or without you, it is all a matter of perspective.

And yes, I would most certainly welcome an encounter with God. That is my life's objective.

[waxwing]

Ok, I must be thick as a brick because I'm just not following you. Let me try to sum up what I understood you to say.

You want to logically understand the purpose(get to the root) of mystical encounters(something that we cannot logically explain, something perceived via intuition)?

If you logically understand something then it is no longer mystical, it's scientific fact.

Do you see my confusion?

Here is the definiton Webster's dictionary gives for Mystical:
Main Entry: mys·ti·cal
Function: adjective
1 a : having a spiritual meaning or reality that is neither apparent to the senses nor obvious to the intelligence <the mystical food of the sacrament> b : involving or having the nature of an individual's direct subjective communion with God or ultimate reality <the mystical experience of the Inner Light> Yes and no. I see confusion in mystical experiences themselves, for good reason, but I don't see contradiction in what I have said. Maybe I haven't explained it well. What I mean to say is: You seem to be talking about mysticism, and whether or not it can be logically explained. I am talking about the mystical experience, and admitting that it cannot be logically explained (thanks to the meaning of mysticism). If it could be, then it would fail to fall under the category of mysticism. In other words, we seem to have conflicting frameworks here. You're talking about the order, the category, the theory. I think it's entirely different to try to understand the deity as a result of the experience. A different realm, right?

I'm not willing to say up front: "I do/do not believe in mysticism, but I am willing to say that in the event of experiencing a mystical vision/encounter, I will not be able to logically explain it. But somehow, perhaps intuitively, I believe that an encounter such as one with a burning bush would keep me on the quest for truth for quite some time. In my thinking, the mysticism and rationalism do not have to be separate entities. Well, perhaps they are separate, but one can lead into the other and vice versa. The point, then, is not: "Do I believe in mysticism?" Too narrow, in my opinion. I would be compelled to respond: "Regardless of whether I thought beforehand that I believed in mysticism, there's this mysterious flame about to consume me. Or I've got claws on my feet. Or I'm eating grass. Or I'm suddenly blind. Or I've been asked to build an ark and been warned of a cataclysmic flood." Uhm, better pay attention. I sure hope I wouldn't shut down because I simply thought it couldn't happen.

On the other hand, "believing" in the theory beforehand may be totally irrelevant once the theory is temporarily made nil by some chariot of fire, so to speak. Does that make sense? Either way, I tend to think that the most intense questioning would follow the experience. If I were Nebuchanezzar, I'm pretty sure growing claws and eating grass for days wouldn't lead me to some logical belief in a higher power. It would, however, literally bring me to the ground if for no other reason than to nourish myself with grass. Humbling? Perhaps. Life-changing? I think so. An impetus for some serious questioning of the deity? Uh, no doubt.

[kuranes]

I think that isaac meant that there are so many different ideas of what "God" is that people can no longer assume that they are speaking of the same thing when they have a discussion about the subject. Therefore there can be miscommunication when doing this, which seems to be already happening here, perhaps proving my ( his ) point.

Sartre talks about another Isaac, who was scheduled to be sacrificed by Abraham when God commanded it so as a test. The sacrifice was called off at the last moments, again by command of God, so that Abraham showed he was willing to do anything God wanted, even to kill his own son. Sartre asks how did Abraham know it wasn't Satan or some other force issuing the command? Sartre postulated that no one could say for sure whether God exists or doesn't exist, because there is no "proof" per se, in the traditional meaning of the word. So that therefore whether God EXISTED or not was non-functional to us as humans.

Having a "mystical" experience could mean lots of things. Some might include feeling that you had a glimpse into some primordial order or chaos in the "grand scheme" or lack thereof. Some might relate to other things. Again, we could get hung up on the word "mystical."

This is one of the points that Alan Watts makes, is that we can get hung up on our "tools", ( words, in this example ) forgetting that they were just formed as temporary ways to help us out in a situation. That's not to say that we can't create NEW tools later, as our situation changes, or as new resources for tool making, measuring, etc. become available. And that we shouldn't confuse our tools with the ultimate, because its only possible to hint or approximate what THAT'S all about.

Which is why the mystical traditions WITHIN religions ( as there are mystical traditions OUTSIDE of religion ) emphasize the inability to express it in words. Many middle eastern people believe that art shouldn't try to "counterfeit" nature, and should exist instead as symmetrical or asymmetrical abstracts only, which have a purposely introduced mistake in the pattern so as to acknowledge that no human can equal the skill of the "ultimate artist." For the same reason, perhaps, the name Tetragrammaton in a different tradition is not supposed to be completely spoken. Acknowledging that our words for "naming/knowing" and therefore "applying parameters to" should not be applied to something as fluid and powerful as this "spirit" that can seem as powerful as black hole galaxies colliding or the difference between the infinitely small and pure void. Or "God as aesthetics."

To be able to appreciate this is something that some have seen while they were high, and some have come to perfectly straight. No one's saying ( SO far, anyway, I don't think ) that you HAVE to have ingested drugs to "grok" this.

However some experiences may certainly have been "enhanced " this way. Drugs don't diminish the thing that's being perceived through them, although opinions vary on whether they diminish the perception OF that thing. And obviously not ALL drug experiences are automatically going to be "mystical" ones. Adding cinnamon to toast doesn't mean that the toast was without value before putting it on, either. Even calling "satori" "God", or "the APPRECIATION of God", can confuse things if one aspect of God ( is it a wave or a particle? ) is nothingness itself.

Some of us enjoy the fact that this subject cannot be pinned down anymore than quicksilver can. Some don't. This post itself has doubtless left a number of "logical" holes as it tries to "explain", and that may annoy some and yet APPEAL to the whimsy of OTHERS.

( edit ) I noticed after posting this that Waxwing was composing while I was, so that my post seems a reply to her, when in fact it was written as a reply to earlier posts.
K

[Chukamuk]

Waxwing, I think I understand where you are coming from. This subject matter has always frustrated me and probably always will. I think I need to bypass the Philosophy and Spirituality section for a while. My head hurts.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

And yes, I would most certainly welcome an encounter with God. That is my life's objective.

If you look hard enough you'll find a thousand. Soon enough your objective will slip from your hands.

[Pierce]

If you look hard enough you'll find a thousand. Soon enough your objective will slip from your hands.
I disagree. The existential supposition that life events are random and meaningless I find unsatisfying -- so many empty calories. The quest for God and meaning in life is programed into us, and I expect that God intends us to seek and find him. Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. I also expect that God would insist on sincerity and earnest intent. If some damned fool approached me demanding this and that be delivered to him on his terms, I'd also ignore him! But, God suffers fools better than I.

On the other hand, some people prefer the back door approach to spirituality, bypassing God through mysticism or occultism. What must God think of all this?

I do find it much more interesting to construct the paradigm as if God does exist and project the various results accordingly. And I do believe people genuinely find God to what ever level they aspire; the smaller the box you choose for him, the smaller he appears to you -- and you really can't get too big a box.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I disagree. The existential supposition that life events are random and meaningless I find unsatisfying -- so many empty calories.

I will stop here, as by this statement it's apparent you have no idea what i'm talking about. You're not even arguing the same thing - you're so far off base it's not even funny.

[cjs55]

The quest for God and meaning in life is programed into us

But it's not programmed for me, because I could care less about any God and I know exactly what my 'meaning in life' is and always have, so I have no quest to undertake. Thus, obviously, God finds me unworthy to becomed enlightened of his presence. Or maybe, some believe in God because some human beings must make peace with the world, since human consciousness separates us from the rest of the animals and forces us to see our own mortality. (I need no such peace made for whatever reason...not a moral or 'i'm better than you' statement)

[Pierce]

I will stop here, as by this statement it's apparent you have no idea what i'm talking about. You're not even arguing the same thing - you're so far off base it's not even funny.
I'm sorry if I misread your post... It seemed to me you were indicating that someone seeking an encouter with God would find many, and in doing so miss their objective (a clear singular view) -- the implication being that either God mocks us, or that there is no God and we mock ourselves. My assertion in either case is the same -- God exists and desires to be known.

[kuranes]

I think Pierce's idea of a "back door" to God ( or to something BEYOND God? What would THAT be? ) versus going through the lobby entrance is hilarious. Me and Jim Morrison ;^D - "Back Door Men."

"The men don't know what the little girls . . understand . . "

[Sir Isaac Lime]

I'm sorry if I misread your post... It seemed to me you were indicating that someone seeking an encouter with God would find many, and in doing so miss their objective (a clear singular view) -- the implication being that either God mocks us, or that there is no God and we mock ourselves. My assertion in either case is the same -- God exists and desires to be known.

What assumptions do we make by the term "God".

1) An entity?
2) A single entity?
3) A single male entity?

From there we slap on the male ego - paternalistic father figure. Now he's gotta be old, with a beard, and of course wear a robe. To me it's no different then an Ape colony thinking "God" is an Ape, or a Weasel colony thinking God is a Weasel. It's a narcassistic disposal of possiblities.

What i'm saying is that the word "God" doesn't work well for me. It implies too much, by definition and by use. I don't get along well with "belief", nor do I get along with existential atheism - which is usually rooted in materialism. I've experieced a lot of "spiritualexperiences. " Things that are so absolute to me, but aren't - and which are somehow completly inexpressible in the language I speak.. I can experience it, and I can use it, but I can't really help to define it. To casually give it a name and act as if I know it, just doesn't work for me.

Once again, I don't believe in belief. I think that once you "believe" in something, you've just signed away a part of yourself. I'm just riding the wave so to speak, not pretending to know what the hell i'm doing. To me "finding God" is the equivalant of sitting on the beach.

[Miss Anthropic]

Once again, I don't believe in belief.................. I'm just riding the wave so to speak, not pretending to know what the hell i'm doing. To me "finding God" is the equivalant of sitting on the beach.
Very concisely stated Lime. I couldn't have said it better.

[Pierce]

What assumptions do we make by the term "God".

1) An entity?
2) A single entity?
3) A single male entity?

From there we slap on the male ego - paternalistic father figure. Now he's gotta be old, with a beard, and of course wear a robe. To me it's no different then an Ape colony thinking "God" is an Ape, or a Weasel colony thinking God is a Weasel. It's a narcassistic disposal of possiblities.

What i'm saying is that the word "God" doesn't work well for me. It implies too much, by definition and by use. I don't get along well with "belief", nor do I get along with existential atheism - which is usually rooted in materialism. I've experieced a lot of "spiritualexperiences. " Things that are so absolute to me, but aren't - and which are somehow completly inexpressible in the language I speak.. I can experience it, and I can use it, but I can't really help to define it. To casually give it a name and act as if I know it, just doesn't work for me.

Once again, I don't believe in belief. I think that once you "believe" in something, you've just signed away a part of yourself. I'm just riding the wave so to speak, not pretending to know what the hell i'm doing. To me "finding God" is the equivalant of sitting on the beach.
Believe it or not, I respect your intelligence and the sincerity of your views, and I do not challenge your personal spiritual experiences; I have plenty of my own that are beyond the bounds of either doctrine or theory.

I would challenge you and others to not dismiss the profound essence of religion on the basis of its superficial trappings. I fully understand the resistence to blind acceptance of an unconvincing creed -- I also would consider that copping out. Your sarcastic references to bearded male gods only conveys your contempt for what you perceive as the absurdity of orthodoxy. I'm simply saying that there is far more to religion than what you currently perceive.

As for a reluctance to committing to a thought or concept for fear of limiting it, I think your observation is both profound and naive. On one hand, repeatedly poking your finger into a flame demonstrates an inability to learn; on the other hand, when you extract an element of "truth" from its place in the context of the cosmos, you have corrupted it. I think we should extract truths from their place to examine them and learn... and then put them back where they belong and grasp for a larger piece... indefinitely. As a statistics professor once told me, "One should be open minded enough to receive truth when it comes to you, and closed-minded enough to hold on to it once you've found it." To that I would add one should always seek to replace smaller truths with larger ones.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Believe it or not, I respect your intelligence and the sincerity of your views, and I do not challenge your personal spiritual experiences; I have plenty of my own that are beyond the bounds of either doctrine or theory.

I would challenge you and others to not dismiss the profound essence of religion on the basis of its superficial trappings. I fully understand the resistence to blind acceptance of an unconvincing creed -- I also would consider that copping out. Your sarcastic references to bearded male gods only conveys your contempt for what you perceive as the absurdity of orthodoxy. I'm simply saying that there is far more to religion than what you currently perceive.

As for a reluctance to committing to a thought or concept for fear of limiting it, I think your observation is both profound and naive. On one hand, repeatedly poking your finger into a flame demonstrates an inability to learn; on the other hand, when you extract an element of "truth" from its place in the context of the cosmos, you have corrupted it. I think we should extract truths from their place to examine them and learn... and then put them back where they belong and grasp for a larger piece... indefinitely. As a statistics professor once told me, "One should be open minded enough to receive truth when it comes to you, and closed-minded enough to hold on to it once you've found it." To that I would add one should always seek to replace smaller truths with larger ones.


What your statistics professor said is true - but if you "believe" in the truth you find, you have no ability to re-evaluate it in the light of new evidence.

(warning: i've used this metaphor already)
I think our models of reality are like sand castles. We're constantly doing something - building moats, adding levels, collecting sand. To me "belief" is simply a process of trying to prevent the water from destroying your creation - the one you have such a strong personal attachment to. If you "believe" something, and you encounter something that challenges it, you work around it as opposed to redefining your model. "No, I can't think that - I believe this".

As opposed to belief - I like the idea of "subjective best guess". I "know" that sticking my hand in a fire isn't a good idea because it'll burn me - yet I don't accept that to be a universal truth. In some place - somewhere - fire may be cold. I'll be open to that possiblity if I should encounter such a situation.

Some background is neccessary: I was raised a believer in Christ. As I got older I rejected it - and found other religions. At first I studied Eastern religions and immediatly thought Oh man, this is IT. Then I moved onto another, and another, and another. Then I came to a realization - You know what, these are all pieces of it - but none of them could never be it. There is no perfect castle and no absolute model of the universe or reality.

[kuranes]

I followed a very similar path, bro.

[Pierce]

What your statistics professor said is true - but if you "believe" in the truth you find, you have no ability to re-evaluate it in the light of new evidence.
I don't accept the idea that belief obviates reconsideration or expansion. That's simply growth.



(warning: i've used this metaphor already)
I think our models of reality are like sand castles. We're constantly doing something - building moats, adding levels, collecting sand. To me "belief" is simply a process of trying to prevent the water from destroying your creation - the one you have such a strong personal attachment to. If you "believe" something, and you encounter something that challenges it, you work around it as opposed to redefining your model. "No, I can't think that - I believe this".
This reminds me of Jesus' parable. The foolish man built his house (life) upon the sand (unstable foundation). The wise man built his house upon the rock (stable foundation). In your metaphor no house is built. To me, the question is, what constitutes a stable foundation? Of course, Jesus uniquely declared himself to be the foundation, the rock of salvation, the stone that the builders rejected, etc. Envisioning truth as a not a concept or creed, but as a being gets very interesting, in fact.


As opposed to belief - I like the idea of "subjective best guess". I "know" that sticking my hand in a fire isn't a good idea because it'll burn me - yet I don't accept that to be a universal truth. In some place - somewhere - fire may be cold. I'll be open to that possiblity if I should encounter such a situation.
I think it's pretty safe to say that what we define as fire would burn your flesh within the constraints of time and space. But, should you assume some other form, whether upon death or in the spirit, you might experience it otherwise. I actually agree with that.


Some background is neccessary: I was raised a believer in Christ. As I got older I rejected it - and found other religions. At first I studied Eastern religions and immediatly thought Oh man, this is IT. Then I moved onto another, and another, and another. Then I came to a realization - You know what, these are all pieces of it - but none of them could never be it. There is no perfect castle and no absolute model of the universe or reality.
By the way, Chirstianity is an oriental religion, not western. I too was exposed to Christianity as a child and rejected it as an adult. It's almost necessary to reject the faith of one's parents to discover your own beliefs. I also studied eastern religions, philosoply, occultism, etc. At some point I reached a point of reconsideration of Christianity and found a new appreciation for the faith of my childhood. And I believe that a divine thread passes through all man's attempts to understand God. And I even agree that there is no perfect model or system that encapsulates God. And I don't find find this at all incongruous with my ever growing and changing relationship with Jesus.