• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Is there justification in preaching to others from personal (spiritual) experience?

Nixiam

Bluelighter
Joined
Feb 20, 2016
Messages
2,016
It's been on my mind recently. Occultists often tell you do do experiments and see for yourself if something occurs, while preachers just say to pray. Is there a justification in telling someone to believe something where no empirical evidence is presented? Surely not, that'd be delusional. Right?

I've always been interested in the paranormal, not that I'm a believer or a disbeliever. And I certainly won't believe until something undeniable occurs (I've come close actually).

What do you objective P&S pals think?
 
Your question has several parts to it.

What do you mean by empirical evidence? A double-blind experiment? If so, you're unlikely to find much of that kind of evidence concerning spiritual matters.

If you're asking whether or not we should try to attain personal experience before taking someone's word about spiritual matters, I would say yes, if possible... but we can't always do that either. Whether or not someone's kind of evidence is satisfactory to you will depend on your journey and requirements.

For me, personal experience can be of equal value to whether or not I trust a person based on their character. I mean, how much do we learn in this life which is second hand that we trust vs. what we directly experience? Entire education systems are based on other people's findings and not on our own.

I would say it ultimately comes down to trust and there are many variables, not just empiricism, for why we trust other people.
 
Thank you for the input Foreigner. Yes, by empirical evidence I meant an observed experiment, gone as objective as possible. I guess with belief likelihood should also be a factor?
 
It's been on my mind recently. Occultists often tell you do do experiments and see for yourself if something occurs, while preachers just say to pray. Is there a justification in telling someone to believe something where no empirical evidence is presented? Surely not, that'd be delusional. Right?

I've always been interested in the paranormal, not that I'm a believer or a disbeliever. And I certainly won't believe until something undeniable occurs (I've come close actually).

What do you objective P&S pals think?

Likely not. Personal experience is everything.
 
I've always been interested in the paranormal, not that I'm a believer or a disbeliever. And I certainly won't believe until something undeniable occurs (I've come close actually).

What do you objective P&S pals think?

honestly, I wouldn't be concerned about it at all Nixiam. Don't feel like you need to push hard to make things happen in that realm. There is a time and place. It happens naturally if you're inclined and interested. You'll hate that answer, but let me lay the foundation for it a bit.

said it many times before but not to you, so sorry if I'm repeating myself to others reading. There are 4 major perceptual bodies that I'm aware of: vibrational (energetic/spiritual), emotional, mental and physical. It takes about 7 years for the emotional, mental and physical bodies to develop to maturity. This development follows the development of a human born into this world.

That means from birth till about 7 years of age your primary mode of experience is emotional. Life as you know it is a flow of emotions. That's the intelligence of your perceptual experience and your primary language for relating to the world. Of course you still have vibrational, physical and mental/conceptual experiences but those are not the dominant mode of relation to life.

Next 7 years: 7-14 is the age of mental development. You develop concepts as reality. Those include the conceptual framework of language. That becomes the primary mode of experience. The voice in your head becomes the main actor in reality as you know it during this time. Symbols are imbued with meaning and interrelations. Concepts applied to the physical world are science. A fascinating subset of reality if you ask me. All that exists if you ask someone else. That's your choice to make, so not going to try to convince you of anything.

Next 7 years: 14-21 is the age of physical development. Puberty and growth spurts, society and personal relationships. Sex, sports and all that. Life as you know it happens out there. The physical world is reality as you know it. It's what matters and is what you go out to get. It's the engineering when based on science. Doesn't mean emotion and mental learning stop, just means they aren't your primary mode of relating to the world and what you value.

So when you hit 21 you're a fully grown adult. Now your perceptual bodies are mature. What about the vibrational body I mentioned? Well, that's more like one of those things that just is. It's our experience in the womb before birth. Sure, some people will sell you expensive courses to develop your vibrational/energetic/spiritual bodies but that to me it is the wrong focus. You aren't developing these bodies, you are directing your focus towards it. Therein lies the problem. We don't value the vibrational body any more. Why? It doesn't require believing anything whatsoever to experience it, yet we have all these ideas about it that confuse the experience of it. Also, because going back to the vibrational body requires traversing emotional territory that is sometimes painful or reminds us of childhood, we aren't so interested in going back there anymore. Most of us like being in our energetic bodies, but aren't willing to tune past the emotional pain and our ideas about it that lie as a barrier towards vibrational awareness. We awaken to vibrational intelligence as if entering a new reality. Then it fades and we forget. Over and over again. That's how I experience it at least.

People reading about occult and paranormal are substituting book learning for experience. Nothing wrong with that, I've done it too. Honestly, it hasn't helped me much, but it can be interesting. The stuff that focuses on evil spirits actually did harm to my development spiritually, but that's what my experience of it was. Not saying it has no reality, but I'm bound to do myself harm if I go into spirituality thinking it's about fighting off shit.

It's important if you're looking for a model of reality, you choose one that resonates. I've seen systems with 88,000 chakras, so if that was the model you needed you might as well start studying for the next twenty years. Finding the right model requires exploring. Ultimately, that model will influence your experience of reality, so don't go adopting any old garbage. It's important to note that what you are learning isn't reality. What reality is is something beyond. Finding out is the human condition. Better to discover it for yourself experientially, but that takes a lot of experiential practices and finely developed visionary sight to translate it into concepts, feeling and physical manifestations. Most people are weakly attuned in that sense, myself included. Only way I know to experience reality on a deeper level is to tune in experientially. I used mediation in the traditional sense and benefitted from it but breathwork is what has helped me the most. I did it for many, many years off and on. I suffered from suicidal depression a large part of my life, so at least in that respect it has done me good and helped me become present. By no means am I happy all the time; that isn't the point. I just don't think I can ever turn on myself the way I did in the past.

As for drugs, yeah, not saying they are bad but they are insidious. They will impart their personality on experiences in ways that can help open the door but ultimately will influence the experience pretty dramatically. Nothing wrong with that as far as I can tell, but it interferes. Honestly, I wouldn't mess around with psychedelics or drugs in general till after 21 because before then your physical body isn't fully developed and you are less likely to cut off that important physical developmental stage. That means getting out there, running around on a field catching balls, talking to people and having deep conversations, falling in love and having (safe) sex while continuing to nourish your mental and emotional bodies. That's the good stuff. You're human so the other stuff will always be there. That's the advice I'd give but it's not one I necessarily followed myself. Didn't do me any favors.

Enjoy the journey.
 
I suppose I'll have to redirect my focus. If spirituality is what I seek, then I guess the best thing to do is try and experience it myself. Thanks levels, foreigner, CT.



But I can't really give up the drug part.
*cough*weedxopium*cough*


One more thing levels, since I kind of trust you as a human (which according to Foreigner is also an important variable). What is it you believe? Are you religiously subscribed or spiritually inclined? After the redefining god thing a couple months back I felt a bit more open to spiritualism which I still greatly appreciate.



And CT, if you have any spiritual experience then sharing it would be cool as well. You too Foreigner.

Thanks again,
Nix
 
I've always had problems with that word spiritual. How could something be different than everything? In other words it's all spiritual or nothing is. I've had plenty of life experience in 63 years. What part is spiritual and what part would be mundane I wouldn't be able to say.
 
It's been on my mind recently. Occultists often tell you do do experiments and see for yourself if something occurs, while preachers just say to pray. Is there a justification in telling someone to believe something where no empirical evidence is presented? Surely not, that'd be delusional. Right?

Do you mean that it is delusional to believe in something for which no evidence exists, or telling people to believe in such things is delusional...? This brings up the eternal p&s question, whether faith is reasonable or irrational. I think religious faith is irrational and unreasonable. Insisting that other's believe in the same thing is also unreasonable.

I think that preaching and advocacy can have a somewhat altruistic motivation. I think that (some) christian missionaries truly believed that 'primitive' man would benefit from the teachings of Jesus. The problem is that, given the total absence of evidence for christianity (and all other religions) a certain carrot/stick had to be introduced. Hell/heaven shit. IMO, these sort of fear/reward based induced motivations don't really benefit anybody but exist in place of empirical evidence which, if presented, would totally remove the need for preaching and missionary work anyway.

In my opinion, anybody can believe and say anything they desire. I think that preaching is okay, as long as I have the same right to dismantle the basis of such preaching. I enjoy the few occaisions when I am accosted by religious people trying to get me interested/involved in their cult; I think they are fair game, and I enjoy challenging their views. In essence, I find myself 'reverse preaching' and I don't think its valuable, though its stimulating for me.

Off topic, but as a younger man, I once preached for a few hours on the local train system. Me and a friend were enormously drunk and dissociated and really felt like introducing strangers to jesus's bloody love. The reactions were interesting; we had shit thrown at us, people swearing and laughing at us... It was eye opening. I heartily reccomend it. Its a very odd place to be, spurned and reviled by people- which is part of the toolkit of christians, to inspire persecution and follow in Jesus's footsteps.
 
Do you mean that it is delusional to believe in something for which no evidence exists, or telling people to believe in such things is delusional...? This brings up the eternal p&s question, whether faith is reasonable or irrational. I think religious faith is irrational and unreasonable. Insisting that other's believe in the same thing is also unreasonable.

I think that preaching and advocacy can have a somewhat altruistic motivation. I think that (some) christian missionaries truly believed that 'primitive' man would benefit from the teachings of Jesus. The problem is that, given the total absence of evidence for christianity (and all other religions) a certain carrot/stick had to be introduced. Hell/heaven shit. IMO, these sort of fear/reward based induced motivations don't really benefit anybody but exist in place of empirical evidence which, if presented, would totally remove the need for preaching and missionary work anyway.

In my opinion, anybody can believe and say anything they desire. I think that preaching is okay, as long as I have the same right to dismantle the basis of such preaching. I enjoy the few occaisions when I am accosted by religious people trying to get me interested/involved in their cult; I think they are fair game, and I enjoy challenging their views. In essence, I find myself 'reverse preaching' and I don't think its valuable, though its stimulating for me.

Off topic, but as a younger man, I once preached for a few hours on the local train system. Me and a friend were enormously drunk and dissociated and really felt like introducing strangers to jesus's bloody love. The reactions were interesting; we had shit thrown at us, people swearing and laughing at us... It was eye opening. I heartily reccomend it. Its a very odd place to be, spurned and reviled by people- which is part of the toolkit of christians, to inspire persecution and follow in Jesus's footsteps.

Good post. However, the most compelling reason to adopt Western societal values (and education) is to show this "primitive man" the quality of life. It doesn't even begin to compare to theirs. And it all comes from education and science. No need for religion.

(I'm not implying that you think the opposite or whatever, just sayin')
 
It's been on my mind recently. Occultists often tell you do do experiments and see for yourself if something occurs, while preachers just say to pray. Is there a justification in telling someone to believe something where no empirical evidence is presented? Surely not, that'd be delusional. Right?

I've always been interested in the paranormal, not that I'm a believer or a disbeliever. And I certainly won't believe until something undeniable occurs (I've come close actually).

What do you objective P&S pals think?

Proof or not, if someone experiences something novel and out of the ordinary, they should not be shy about putting it out there.

If all those who had experience telepathy, for instance, much research that is beginning to prove it to be a real part of reality, might not have begun. If we would continued hiding real life experiences, who knows what kinds of science we will never develop.

Regards
DL
 
Top