Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Dr. D

Would it be acceptable?

181 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dr. D

From my point of view, from what I've seen with my own eyes, I believe praying or asking for prayers to/of Mary is a form of idol worship. I don't believe she is co-mediator, so naturally, I don't support any form of prayers directed towards her. The Bible teaches that Jesus Christ is the ONLY mediator between man and God. I've seen people get on their knees in front of Mary statues, that really does happen wether you want to believe it or not. Maybe they do it for other reasons, but it still feels wrong to me.

This applies to the Saints and to "La Muerte" whom is basically thought to be the angel of death. It's widespread among Texas, California, Mexico and Latin America. If you haven't heard of it, perhaps you should do some research? I suppose it wouldn't be officially approved by The Pope and whatnot, but it's incorporated nevertheless. I really don't care to talk about the Vatican, as I see a whole lot of wrong there to begin with.

Anyway, I respect your views in any case. Be good.

The Santísima Muerte is not, and never was, a part of the Catholic doctrines. It is an imagined saint embraced by members of gangs and cartels. One famous curadero in Ojinaga, Chihuahua performs his black magic cures with the Santísima Muerte but it is not a religious symbol or representation.

Of course I have heard of it and seen it. But if you have seen it in the mass of any Catholic Church, I would certainly like to know what church and where it was.

Edited by Dr. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mklsgl

Ha ha ha ha ha I was contemplating starting a thread along these lines.

So.do you mind if I may be so bold, as to ask you, if I can add a question to your thread? "Puppy dog eyes " :wub:

The question is: For all those who have had an out of the ordinary experience/or euphoric/or spiritual experience...And did not conclude that it was from g-d, Why not?

Because The Grateful Dead were onstage! :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Believers often state that they gained their belief through a spiritual experience so euphoric that it is beyond description but it led them to absolutely know the legitimacy of Jesus as the Savior of mankind.

Would it be acceptable to Christians if one said that they, too, had a spiritual experience directly from God, so inspiring that it could not be denied, telling them that the tenants of Christianity are false and that only He should be given worship?

Interesting that when I had my particular experience with God he never mentioned anything regarding chrsitianity. God wasn't preocupied with any type of religious activity on my part, His words were directed at me and my heart. He showed me his love and told me that I had a future life "in him" if I trusted him.

Since at the time my choice was at the other end of a 9mm and intent on using that choice, it was touch and go until He demonstrated his love for me.

Christianity came later so to speak, by the time I "became a christian" I was already a believer in God and his love for me.

Therefore it would be surprising to me D, that God in the event that he did give you such an experience as you describe, would have said anything about any religion at all. As I said, when God intervenes in this manner, it ain't about religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

Interesting that when I had my particular experience with God he never mentioned anything regarding chrsitianity. God wasn't preocupied with any type of religious activity on my part, His words were directed at me and my heart. He showed me his love and told me that I had a future life "in him" if I trusted him.

Since at the time my choice was at the other end of a 9mm and intent on using that choice, it was touch and go until He demonstrated his love for me.

Christianity came later so to speak, by the time I "became a christian" I was already a believer in God and his love for me.

Therefore it would be surprising to me D, that God in the event that he did give you such an experience as you describe, would have said anything about any religion at all. As I said, when God intervenes in this manner, it ain't about religion.

I don't think God has established a criteria for his messages since they have been delivered in many, and sometimes bizarre, forms. In this instance he wanted mankind to know that they were following a false belief and that would be pretty Godlike. He spoke openly about false beliefs before.

Edited by Dr. D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

I did not say that my experience came from your God, but could it be possible that it came from THE God?

Everything i know, from personal experience, or have read, experienced and studied, about humanity, gods, and the universe, strongly suggests to me two things.

One, there is a real physical sapient entity in communication with humans, that humans define as god. (Personally i know that, as much as i can know that i have a wife or a dog, and for the same reasons) It may not be a god, by its own definition, and probably isn't, but to humans it is defined as god, because that is how we have always named and seen it, since we developed the sapient self awareness to be able to become aware of its presence.

The physical nature (or perhaps the will) of this entity precludes humans, with their evolved and current senses of perception from seeing it like we see a rock or a platypus. (Perhaps becuase its form and function is not like that of a rock or a platypus)

None the less, like the elephant in a dark room, humans can sense and feel parts of it and can know its presence in the room ..

Second, that this one god is interpreted through human perceptions, just a we filter our knowledge and understanding of everything. And every individual and every culture has a different world view, and differnt ways of thinking about things.So we perceive many forms of god.

Last, probably because of being who I am, I feel no need for myself, for religious forms like churches ( I havent been in a church for nearly a year now) I disapprove of any one, or any group, trying to impose their percpetion of god on another or others; although i think wise humans will only connect to a form of god which, overall, brings creative/constructive things to them and their world.

Having said that, the presence of god in a human's life alters it utterably, physically and mentally. It enriches, empowers and, i would say, completes what it measns to be truly human.

Knowing god, I no longer can logically believe that humans are meant to be isolated, lonely disconnected individuals, on a planet of 7 billion other isolated lonely and disconnected humans, in a universe of isolated and disconnected sapient beings.. I know we do not have to be.

So I always suggest to people that they consider the presence of god, and trying to connect to "him", however they might perceive him (more accurately, it) to be.

I use the term "my" god, becuase of this perception. It is my personal perception and connection to god. But it is OF the one god, just as i logically conclude, from within my own understandings, that all genuine relationships with, and connections to, a real physical god are with the one god.

Humans are also quite capable of, and often do, construct gods, and beliefs in god, without any knowledge of the physical god. Such constructs can serve very useful purposes(and very destructive ones) but dont represent (except perhaps by chance) the physical god.

If I am wrong, (and, like Feswick, i am never wrong) :innocent: it doesn't matter, because it works for me.

So, in my view, your experience might come from "your" god and "your" god might be THE ONE god Its message to you, if you interpreted it accurately and correctly, was designed to give guidance and direction to you. No one else. In your place, I would consider it, using all forms of my intelligence. I would check it against my standard ethical and value lines, as i would any action , and then follow it, if it made sense and did no harm.

And if that led you away from my own understandings, then so be it. If it was god, then he had a purpose. If it was not god, then you have not done anything harmful, because you have checked its potential results, using reason and ethics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Interesting that when I had my particular experience with God he never mentioned anything regarding chrsitianity. God wasn't preocupied with any type of religious activity on my part, His words were directed at me and my heart. He showed me his love and told me that I had a future life "in him" if I trusted him.

Since at the time my choice was at the other end of a 9mm and intent on using that choice, it was touch and go until He demonstrated his love for me.

Christianity came later so to speak, by the time I "became a christian" I was already a believer in God and his love for me.

Therefore it would be surprising to me D, that God in the event that he did give you such an experience as you describe, would have said anything about any religion at all. As I said, when God intervenes in this manner, it ain't about religion.

That is, in essence, my own experience and understanding. Religion is a human construct. God can be also, but the god i know is a real being, upon/about whom, some people try to build religious forms.

Given human psychology and sociology, they most likely do this so they can feel more comfortable. Humans love; ritual, pageantry, form,/structure, and membership/belonging. It is those things, imo, that "drive" people to create and join religions, rather than god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

I don't think God has established a criteria for his messages since they have been delivered in many, and sometimes bizarre, forms. In this instance he wanted mankind to know that they were following a false belief and that would be pretty Godlike. He spoke openly about false beliefs before.

The point being that we are the ones who establish criteria, not God, if God had to really give you one of those experiences, you could not and in most instances would not ignore it. But since God is actually above religious criteria and doesn't even bother with them, it is doubtful that he would take time to tell you that this religion or that religion was not from him.... any purpose he might have would solely be for your spiritual benefit not to give you a lesson in religious beliefs and practices.

God is nothing if not succinct in what he has to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

But in this case many Christians, including you, have had such experiences and I am asking by what authority my experience would be any less valid?

My point is was that your experience, for you, once you had performed the checks below WOULD be just as valid.

My only concern would be if you had this experiecne and dismissed it as unreal or impossible out of hand.

Do you have a history of mental illness were you feverish or on drugs. were their any environmental factors internal or external (food you had eaten, or paint fumes for example) which might cause false perceptions visions etc? Did this occur in sleep or near entering/ leaving sleep? What was the contextual continuity and quality of the vision. EG how did god blend into the real physical landscape which existed before and after the vision. Did god appear of the same visual and aural quality as all the surrounding environment?

First ask yourself (hypothetically of course, in this examle) those questions. (and any other checks you can think of)

If you decide it might have been a genuime manifestation of god, rather than a delusion or halllucination, then apply the tests I explained in an earlier post. Check it for logical consistency and extrapolate the consequences of acting on the words. Examine your individual, and your society's ethical and moral standards, and ensure the message does not conflict with them.

Make sure the end result will be constructive, or at least not destructive. Do all these things.

Just DO NOT think to yourself as a first step, " I am going mad," or, "This is impossible."

Neither is NECESSARILY true :devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

The point being that we are the ones who establish criteria, not God, if God had to really give you one of those experiences, you could not and in most instances would not ignore it. But since God is actually above religious criteria and doesn't even bother with them, it is doubtful that he would take time to tell you that this religion or that religion was not from him.... any purpose he might have would solely be for your spiritual benefit not to give you a lesson in religious beliefs and practices.

God is nothing if not succinct in what he has to say...

Did he not prohibit any religion that might have a god before Him?

Did he not condemn religion featuring an idol?

He did this with open and clear statements. So why would he now take on a different attitude about instructing us about our beliefs?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fullywired

Just DO NOT think to yourself as a first step, " I am going mad," or, "This is impossible."

Neither is NECESSARILY true :devil:

But remember either is very possibly true :yes::yes:

fullywired

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

But remember either is very possibly true :yes::yes:

fullywired

Or both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Because The Grateful Dead were onstage! :w00t:

Ha ha ha ha ha ha that is funny!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jor-el

Did he not prohibit any religion that might have a god before Him?

Did he not condemn religion featuring an idol?

He did this with open and clear statements. So why would he now take on a different attitude about instructing us about our beliefs?

But is not God, at least the one that "gave you" you experience, the one true God?

If so, you would automatically know that he is not to be worshipped in Idols, as for the religion, does he not love those who worship him but do not belong to "The Religion"?

Are you saying that God is to be found exclusively in your view of religion and how you view it through your experience?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

But is not God, at least the one that "gave you" you experience, the one true God?

If so, you would automatically know that he is not to be worshipped in Idols, as for the religion, does he not love those who worship him but do not belong to "The Religion"?

Then I must assume that Moses would not have known this even though his experiences with his God were rather intimate.

Are you saying that God is to be found exclusively in your view of religion and how you view it through your experience?

Isn't that what has been done for two centuries? It was never a question of my view, rather the content of God's message. It did not leave much room for interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker

Isn't that what has been done for two centuries? It was never a question of my view, rather the content of God's message. It did not leave much room for interpretation.

ROFPMP If that was actually the case, how has humanity managed to interpret it in so many diverse ways?

"God's" message, like all messages has two parts. Intent and reception.

Whoever, (god or men)wrote the bible in its many bits, had their own personal intentions and understandings. However, every single man and woman who reads it, will bring their own interpretation of the words, based on both the experiences and understandings of their life, and also on the way they think, and the forms of intelligence they use when thinking.

I am suprised there aren't 6 billion+ intepretations of the bible message. IMO the reason there are fewer is human nature. Most humans are lazy in their thinking and in their habits. they follow form and routine, and the path of least resistance. So most people don't really consider the bible message through their own careful analysis, they just accept an earlier version. Thats easier and often works satisfactorily.

And even in the short message (hypothetically) god gave you in this scenario, his intent is not automatically your own interpretation. You may be certain you are right in your interpreation, but what objective or even personal and contextual evidences do you have that you understood what god was saying as he intended to be understood?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superglobe

No offense, but this is kind of a pointless question.

Someone willing to accept the word of a person claiming to have had a spiritual experience would already have to be looking for such a person. Hence why I don't go preaching about mine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

ROFPMP If that was actually the case, how has humanity managed to interpret it in so many diverse ways?

"God's" message, like all messages has two parts. Intent and reception.

Whoever, (god or men)wrote the bible in its many bits, had their own personal intentions and understandings. However, every single man and woman who reads it, will bring their own interpretation of the words, based on both the experiences and understandings of their life, and also on the way they think, and the forms of intelligence they use when thinking.

I am suprised there aren't 6 billion+ intepretations of the bible message. IMO the reason there are fewer is human nature. Most humans are lazy in their thinking and in their habits. they follow form and routine, and the path of least resistance. So most people don't really consider the bible message through their own careful analysis, they just accept an earlier version. Thats easier and often works satisfactorily.

And even in the short message (hypothetically) god gave you in this scenario, his intent is not automatically your own interpretation. You may be certain you are right in your interpreation, but what objective or even personal and contextual evidences do you have that you understood what god was saying as he intended to be understood?

Interpreting the bible subjectively is not an aspect of bible scholarship, or academia. Unless you are a Christian, then it is called a religion.

At first It seems in' theory' on paper you grasp this , but then you post this.

"God's" message, like all messages has two parts. Intent and reception.

So let me ask you the same question you asked DR. D what evidences do you have to support this.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

No offense, but this is kind of a pointless question.

Someone willing to accept the word of a person claiming to have had a spiritual experience would already have to be looking for such a person. Hence why I don't go preaching about mine.

And, it can be inferred such a person is gullible; therefore, assumes all others are too. IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superglobe

"Gullible" isn't the word I'd use. But more or less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

"Gullible" isn't the word I'd use. But more or less.

Fair enough .:P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superglobe

Heh, I just don't like the word. As it implies something that can't be fixed.

"naive" is what I prefer to use.

Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in my own faith in my own way, but I often can't help but think followers of major religions are...misguided. Probably a stereotype.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dr. D

ROFPMP If that was actually the case, how has humanity managed to interpret it in so many diverse ways?

"God's" message, like all messages has two parts. Intent and reception.

Whoever, (god or men)wrote the bible in its many bits, had their own personal intentions and understandings. However, every single man and woman who reads it, will bring their own interpretation of the words, based on both the experiences and understandings of their life, and also on the way they think, and the forms of intelligence they use when thinking.

I am suprised there aren't 6 billion+ intepretations of the bible message. IMO the reason there are fewer is human nature. Most humans are lazy in their thinking and in their habits. they follow form and routine, and the path of least resistance. So most people don't really consider the bible message through their own careful analysis, they just accept an earlier version. Thats easier and often works satisfactorily.

This is often claimed but I doubt its validity. The "message" has not been changed that much, only the names of denominations in order to form their own pockets of power and influence.

The birth and life of Jesus remains untampered within all the sects and denominations.

The concept of salvation has not been altered.

The ritual of baptism has been adjusted only to the question of sprinkling or dunking.

The content of the Bible has not been revised to the point of textual change.

And even in the short message (hypothetically) god gave you in this scenario, his intent is not automatically your own interpretation. You may be certain you are right in your interpreation, but what objective or even personal and contextual evidences do you have that you understood what god was saying as he intended to be understood?

In the same way that I share the constant understanding of the commandments. The language was clear and concise, not leaving room for alternate meanings or understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Heh, I just don't like the word. As it implies something that can't be fixed.

"naive" is what I prefer to use.

Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in my own faith in my own way, but I often can't help but think followers of major religions are...misguided. Probably a stereotype.

Again fair enough. :tu:

I think in some sects the naivety/gullibility factor is exploited.

I think if a dogma markets itself as the one true path or else. Or the all wise one.. It is a read flag to me that it has the potential to exploit.

Edited by Sherizzle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Superglobe

I think in some sects the naivety/gullibility factor is exploited.

I think if a dogma markets itself as the one true path or else. Or the all wise one.. It is a read flag to me that it has the potential to exploit.

Pretty much, nak.

QFT

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy

Pretty much, nak.

QFT

What does nak and QFT stand for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.