What might we call that, now? Hmmm . . .

The human experience trying to crawl out from under 4,000 years of divine revelation and two millennia of Christian experience and reflection.

Phil,

If you took my statements about evil to be a about me 'correcting" 4000 years of revelation..etc that was not at all how it was intended, I was just sharing, and I didn't take Brads meaning that way either....I am confused.

I don't understand the value of not sharing how one experiences evil, certainly our experince counts for something. ...I mean surely we are all are equipped differently in how we see experience and process our experiences of the world around us.

But I am curious, and would like to understand...pleeese Phil, pretty please
What theological or experiential difference would it make, if we ourselves don't experience something we are told exists?

Love, Pauline

"The human experience trying to crawl out from under 4,000 years of divine revelation and two millennia of Christian experience and reflection."


I think your skirt is showing here, Brad. If you hold to this statement more than sarcastically, then it suggests something of a background to your recent remarks about evil. As you know, I've urged a close look, on a number of threads, over the subjects of psychic polarization, splitting, and the alchemical/therapeutic process shown to help heal those. And so I share your concerns over the tendency to prematurely equate psychological darkness with evil prior to knowing its character from a first-hand, or experential pov. FWIW, I held out, rather strongly, for the view you are now advocating, i.e, that evil is a psychopathological epiphenomenon (just in case JB is sniffing around . . . ). It was about 5 years after a strong kundalini arousal, via some family forgiveness work, that I first encountered evil, as opposed to psychological darkness; this was clearly not a psychic polarization coming into awareness, which always responds positively to compassionate reception, yielding a nourishment from the alchemical transformation with its opposite. Rather, this experience of evil was of a grizzly being with an utter distaste for love, that had its own external life, just like people would know each other as separate, and with a hideous, sadistic, and horrifying character, not one of longing fiercely to enter conscious awareness, as it already had its own fully-formed identity.

Now, it's impossible to truly say whether or not such evil actually exists, and one could make the argument for a brief period of schizophrenia. The recent research I've seen shows a significant early environmental component to this syndrome. But many, perhaps most, people claiming to have sensed real evil aren't laboring under such a disease. We all are naturally prone to many disparate voices, subpersonalities, etc, and in this way share similarity to schizophrenics, where the distinction appears to be one of pathological degree and kind.

And so it probably is unwise to summarily dismiss evil as a category of reality, since it doesn't fall persuasively into these other categories. Moreover, you have people like myself, and those further along the spiritual path like Phil, Stephen and Shasha, who are aware of psychic polarization yet view evil as a distinct phenomenon.

You might read Rudolph Otto's "The Idea of the Holy," as his focus is on the spectre of irrational presences that may be either beneficent and destructive; this work is a classic review of the validity of subjectivity along these lines.

Pauline and Brad, taking your personal experiences and opinions as the criteria for determining whether a tenet of the Christian faith is true or not is an enormous mistake. That's not how faith works; it is assent to what God has revealed, and trustful consent to the relationship invited. For you to rebut the Church (and Christ himself, btw) on this matter, you'll have to do better than to cite your personal experiences and opinions. You'll have to engage the Tradition itself (e.g., the Biblical, theological, metaphysical, mystical, pastoral, etc. perspectives on this matter). You never, ever respond to points I make about that. Instead, you always go back to your experiences and opinions, which are very narrow and limited criteria for evaluating the teaching of the Traditon on this matter. If you were objecting to teachings that were incoherent, incongruent, and (as is the case, here) without any experiential basis whatsoever, it would be one thing. But that's not the case at all.

The human experience trying to crawl out from under 4,000 years of divine revelation and two millennia of Christian experience and reflection.

Very disappointing, Brad, to see you view the Judeo-Christian tradition as having been so repressive of "human experience." I wonder what "human experience" would be like today had that all never happened? And I wonder if there's any tradition that's been so positively affirmative of the dignity of human individual worth, intellectual life, personal freedom and social justice? A disdain for Christianity and, especially the Church (happy home for over a billion human beings) sometimes comes through in your posts. You should take a look at what that's all about.

Dear w.c.,

I'm really moved by your comments above. Your (partial) description of your encounter with evil sounds so much like some of mine. Few people know this kind of horror and no words can fully describe it.

Thank you for your openness, w.c. And I am also impressed by your patience!

So much to learn from you giants! So happy to be here!

It really is frightening, and why, I think, most of us move so slowly along the spiritual path, as the human organism, at least in its fallen condition, can only embody so much grace/purification. But that isn't a problem for Christ, and shouldn't be for us, as "the first shall be last, and the last first." And as the body of Christ, we all benefit from where each other is.

I think I've known several saints in my life. The one I was closest to was a Christian monk, and then there was a Hindu guru and a Buddhist monk. I say "saint" just based upon the degree of virtue the person seemed to exhibit. But I only saw the Christian monk on a regular basis and in a variety of situations. He was, more than anything else, humble, and delighted to be among the crowd, and took delight in other people for no apparent reason. I was an undergraduate student back then, and took his classes, which were not easy, just to be around him, although I didn't think of it at the time. After graduating I would visit with him over the years, maybe once a year, sometimes more or less, and in looking back it was a kind of spiritual direction, still wanting to be around him, and to support him if I could. His simple joy in living was infectious, and so it really didn't matter what we were talking about. I remember asking him about various things I knew he was fond of, and maybe did this just to watch him glow. But he glowed over the small things. I don't think I've ever seen someone living so un-self-consciously, so peacefully and tenderly/courageously. When it's authentic like that you just feel drawn, as many were, and that was a central part of my conversion experience. There have been others having an important impact, but his influence went particularly deep because of his spiritual maturity.

So that would be, for me, a "giant," and I ain't running those bases yet. Of course, I know you mean "giant" in a pleasant, facetious way, but we often get impressed with ourselves in this strange little world of forums.

But I am curious, and would like to understand...pleeese Phil, pretty please
What theological or experiential difference would it make, if we ourselves don't experience something we are told exists?

Good question, Pauline. If you're told something exists, but don't have personal experience, then it's probably not going to be as personally relevant as if you do experience it. That makes perfect sense. But let's try a little logic exercise to see how these pieces might interact in terms of the teaching of a faith tradition and one's personal experience.

A. The tradition teaches X .
B. I don't experience X, but I do experience Y and I think that's probably all there is.
C. Therefore, other people who've written about X probably really experienced Y, only they expressed it as X.
D. Therefore, it would be better if the teaching about X was changed to mean Y, with X now considered an antiquated way of understanding things.

X, here, could mean most any doctrine: the existence of demons, the Fall, Original Sin, the Trinity, Christ's divinity, etc. And the pattern of reasoning from A - D isn't unique to this thread or its participants; it's come up countless times through the years from many different forum members.

I think the fallacies are obvious enough when you lay it out as I have above, but I'll spell them out nonetheless.

1. That one experiences Y but not X doesn't mean that Y = X.
2. That one experiences Y but not X doesn't mean that X is untrue.
3. It may be that some aspects of X do need to be re-articulated to meet the needs of a culture, but to do so would require engagement with the criteria used to justify X. Those criteria are not Y.

I think the appropriate line of interaction would be as follows:

1. The tradition teaches X.
2. I experience Y, but not X, therefore Y is more meaningful and relevant to me.
3. Others claim to have experienced X, and the criteria used to affirm X aren't totally unreasonable.
4. Therefore, I will honor my experience, Y, even though it is not X, and I will keep an open mind concerning X.

---

When it comes to the life of faith, there are many mysteries conveyed to us as X that don't immediately resonate as Y. If, however, one gives assent to X and is open to what is being affirmed, it often happens that experiential validation does come about. This is true of all the great Christian mysteries -- even the beatific vision, which we can catch glimpses of, during this life. W

On the Christian spiritual journey, our primary "method" of engagement with God is faith. We believe that we might see/experience, not the other way around, which is tantamount to asking God to jump through our hoops. God wants to give us far more than our little hoops allow to pass through.

Phil:

I think that is good ground work for all of us, especially when we get embroiled emotionally. And it doesn't have to result in being overly "heady," since encountering and accepting uncertainty can benefit not just the imagination, but formation of conscience as well.

A reminder to self, included, w.c. I've often been tempted to reinterpret the tradition in terms of my personal experiences. It's a huge struggle, at times, but it's also a great gift to have X to bounce oneself up against.

(As Brad can surely attest, I have a special place in my heart for X.)

Thank you Phil. Good logical framework!

At the risk of being too psychoanalyzing, however, let me pick up on what Phil said above,

"I think that is good ground work for all of us, especially when we get embroiled emotionally."

We are talking about EVIL (in the recent dialogue). It's not possible to be unemotional about this subject, totally, But it seems possible, most of the time, to be *vigilent* about our emotions and try to be open to the *unconscious* as much as possible and how it might be interfering with Grace.

'The heart has reasons that the mind doesn't know' (Pascal?)

Yes. And this interference seems, in my experience, to take two forms: evil itself, and the unhealed, polarized aspects of the wounded self yearning from darkness for a place in the heart. I think this is at least partly what you mean, Shasha, at least from your previous posts, no?

So . . . unless we've done some in-depth work re: intra-pscyhic conflict, it would be more than easy enough to exile a part of the self in pain with the label of evil. And, in doing so, not be able to discriminate, or "test" the spirits. I'm encouraged that you have done so much of this healing work, as it is crucial in clarifying, as best human perception can, what is evil and what are healable wounds in concealed in darkness.

But what does "in-depth" work mean? For those of us with seriously impairing childhood traumas, I think it includes extensive psychotherapeutic work. That's not sufficient by itself, nor is it impossible without therapy to have some good insights re: the subject of psychic polarization vs. evil; however, this sort of pain calls us to seek a healing connection we can't make in isolation, and probably won't find in the average friendship or marriage, as our friends and partners cannot be steady support for a process that could involve them as objects of transference.

And so toward the end of differentiating these two domains of experience, which interact with each other and need great care in their own respective ways, I'd recommend (as I've done countless times) Ann Weiser Cornell's version of Focusing, which is one of several models assisting people in this sort of alchemical healing. It is a short read, but one that strongly invites commitment to real engagement of the process.

Yes, w.c. that's what I mean and you've expanded on it nicely regarding the issue of 'testing the spirits.'

We know that symptoms of paranoia (mild or delusional--sense that there is evil out there) often remit following therapy. The kind of treatment that provides space for integrating these 'split-off' projected parts of ourselves.

But I also agree with your take on extensive psychotherapy--not always the necessary or sufficient condition. Kundalini and Grace also produce miraculous healing for some people.

Thanks for the book recommendation.

Shasha:

Here is a link to Ann Cornell and Barbara McGavin's Focusing Process, describing it step by step in guided fashion; they've gone on to refine and deepen it, but this below gives the essence:

http://www.focusing.org/short_awcbmg.html

From Phil:

quote:

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. (Eph. 6: 12-13).

If you ever come across these face to face, you will know the difference between them and your own inner shadow side, which can indeed seem foreign and hostile, at times.

Agree in full. If one is ever involved in spiritual warfare, one quickly realizes that evil is an entity. If you ever feel it's breath on the back of your neck, there will never be another moment that you doubt its existence or its darkness, and when it wails, you will never doubt the power of Jesus Christ in His protection. Been there, done that.

Welcome to the discussion, Terri.

From Shasha: Thank you Phil. Good logical framework!

You're welcome (and you, too, w.c.). I've gone to great lengths in other threads such as this one to try to show how there are different levels of experience and perspective that need to be recognized and honored for meaningful discussions to take place. I can be pretty hard-nosed about that, I know, and probably come across as some kind of "logic policeman" at times when I sense that the boundaries between these levels aren't being appropriately considered. Sorry about that, dear forum, but I leave you no hope for change on my part concerning the priority I give to these boundaries. I can work a little harder on my communication about that, however.

Re. the topic of evil, there are experiences and accounts of it that can be given at each level, including the theistic and theotic, which account for experiences and considerations beyond what the positivist and philosophic can explain. Same goes for experiences of God, of course, where we also sometimes note attempts being made to collapse these into the philosophic and positivist levels. The Baby's just too big to fit into that bath tub, however. So the "nature of evil" is a topic that cuts across all four perspectives, and each has something important to say about it.

Just some thoughts on why it can be so difficult to seriously consider the possibility of evil, as that which isn't a by-product of psychopathology . . . .


My own personal example would be:

I was deeply shamed by my parents while growing up, and even called "evil." This wasn't said sarcastically, but as a way of extinguishing certain behaviors, and perhaps an expression of maliciousness. In any case, I was quite hostile to the idea of real evil while going through psychotherapy, and afterwards when making a conscious re-entry into religious/spiritual life. It wasn't until I did "parts work" via Focusing that the darkest aspects of early development began to intergrate. Perhaps not coincidentally, the notion of evil also began to seem more credible. And so I'm suggesting that our strongest reactions to "evil," either dismissive or promotional, can arise from how we experience our internal psychological life. That those of a fundamentalist religious persuasion blame their struggles on evil at every turn certainly suggests this psychological immaturity, and I know from my own experience that the converse is true as well.

Hey Phil,
Thanks for the welcome. I'd forgotten about that thread! I'll have to go back and read it over again, but just in the first few posts, I think I recall parts of it. Logic is good and is most certainly needed when discussing evil, experiences, and the world in which we live. For me it is representative of why scripture tells us to be wise as serpents, yet gentle as doves. Wisdom and logic are, to me, complimentary and very much a part of the spiritual life..so carry on as the "logic policeman."

w.c.:

Thanks for sharing that part of your life. It is indeed a hazard to see demons around every corner and can be crippling to emotional, psychological, and spiritual maturity. The other side of that coin is that denying the existence of evil can be just as harmful. Then, of course, we have the "christians" who are constantly in need of nuggets of grace from God in order to maintain the balance of their spiritual lives, which I believe, plays a part in our perspective on "good" as well as evil.

My sinuses are kickin my tail today, so if I don't make good sense, blame it on allergy meds .

God bless,
Terri

Yes. I'm just now getting a strong allergic reaction under control. Having good luck, as last year, with the herb Nettle leaf (anti-histamine), combined with the enzyme Bromelain (sinusitus), both of which give me no side-effects. So my low energy or confusion has fewer excuses.

quote:

From myself on another thread:

Manichaeism is an interesting thought but has some flaws. Especially if God is all GOOD and All POWERFUL. We wouldn't need the balance of polarity. I think Satan came along and gave us another choice. Nothing more or nothing less.

Would he not then be carrying out the will of God? That is if Satan even exists. He could be a metaphor to describe the darker side of humanity. Why would we need Satan anyway? I am sure us humans are capable of such evil that Satan would even be shocked by it.

What are you thoughts on this, Phil?

I was also wondering how literal the Catholic Church interprets Genesis. Or even your own opinion on Genesis.

Also, I was wondering what the Jewish idea of Satan is. Do they view Satan the same way as Christians do? What are their ideas on hell?

And when referring to Sheole, Hades, Gehenna, and Tartarus. Are they different places altogether?

Eric, you ask a lot of good questions that would take a lot of time to answer. I'll give you some short ones, and you can do follow-ups.

1. It's not necessary to have a Satan for purposes of choice. Human freedom is aware of all kinds of options -- even for evil -- without Satan.

2. In Christian understanding, Satan isn't merely a metaphor to express the dark side of humanity. He is an angel in rebellion against God, and the magnitude of his evil work is nothing remotely similar to what humans are capable.

3. The Jews believed in Satan and demons, as evidenced by the ministry of exorcism we see in Jesus' time.

4. Genesis . . . it's an integration of several strains of tradition in Judaism, containing some history and much mythology, which may have something of an historical basis.

5. Hades is another word for Sheol, which is not the same as the Christian idea of Hell. Sheol was the "realm of the dead" in Judaism (Christ went to preach there after his death), but Hell is the "realm of the damned," which includes all spirits that have permanently closed themselves to God's grace.

Lots of good links on the net for all these topics, btw.

quote:

Pauline and Brad, taking your personal experiences and opinions as the criteria for determining whether a tenet of the Christian faith is true or not is an enormous mistake.

I think that is a really good point and I don't think I realized the significance of that statement until just now.

Experiences can be interpreted in many different ways. There are so many variables. Then as the experience fades out- memories take over. Memories can be tricky also.

I often find myself building independent philosophies from my experiences. I wonder how often I am wrong. It could be a lot.

So what you�re saying makes a great point. If you don't have the foundation first then you can't really trust your experiences alone. If there is a Satan I am sure he would like to gain entry through our experiences. He would have to be aware of them.

If everyone was guided by there experiences alone there would be 6 billion religions in the world.

All good points, I believe, Eric. It's one thing to say what experiences and beliefs seem true for you, but another to generalize beyond that for others or a religious tradition. The "rules of engagement" change when one moves beyond self, and the first of those rules is to try to ascertain what is being said and why. That content might or might not coincide with one's experience, or it might coincide in some parts, but not others. At any rate, this "other" content provides a context for dialogue and for examining one's experiences.

In the case of a religious tradition, what we have in its doctrines is a summary and distillation of countless experiences and dialogues. It's true that the doctrine can assume something of a life of its own and can constrain honest inquiry by providing ready-made, a-priori answers to all sorts of questions about issues that one has had no living experience with. But there's also a "gift" aspect, in that we don't have to keep "re-inventing the wheel" anew in every generation, but can be helped by doctrine to clarify our own experience.

If there is a Satan I am sure he would like to gain entry through our experiences. He would have to be aware of them.

Absolutely! And the teaching on this matter has been that Satan can indeed read our "energies" and can telepathically communicate/impute thoughts into our minds that serve to move our energies toward more anger, lust, fear, etc. -- anything to cause dissension in relationships and to separate us from God. C.S. Lewis' Screwtape Letters is still the most masterful reflection on this dynamic, imo. Even if one doesn't completely buy into the existence of a separate "Satan," the book will still have much to offer -- not to mention that it's fun to read. It might also get one to wondering where some of the thoughts we find popping into our field of consciousness actually come from?

I just got done reading that C.S. Lewis piece. Amazing stuff. It really has my mind thinking now.

I remember my first experience was very pure and full of love. Then as I tried to force more experiences I really went into the dark side.

My health got bad. I had panic attacks. My sexuality got more primal. A whole host of unusual experiences happened. I would have to say I don't think they came from God.

My first experience led me to read Matthew over and over. I was really connected to the New Testament at the time. I feel this first experience was Christ. The others I don't think so now.

I think I will go back to the New Testament for a while and try to solidify my foundation. If I don't then I feel that I might get lost on the path somewhere. I really have been guiding myself.

A hell and evil has silently crept into America's nursing homes and rehab hospitals for the aged. You walk in the door of one these homes and the stench of urine almost floors you. These elderly patients are cash cows to these profit making homes and hospitals. How many patients a few hours away from death are given every expensive medical test that you can imagine, like scans and MRI's. These poor souls are medicated day and night with tranquilizers and sleeping pills because the staffing is short to the ratio of too many patients. When they are able to walk the shuffle along in the hallways like zombies.

It is a sad state of affair as to the neglect and care the aged population is receiving in the United Sates. Mr. President wake up to this reality and stop these homes from being profit making.

How many leaders of our country have within their stock portfolio profit making nursing homes. What a money maker they have become.

I plead with you that should you have a loved one, family member, friend or neighbor in these homes, go and visit them and get involved in their care. No visitors means neglect and often abuse with exploitation.

The evil has slowly crept into the money making world of the sick and old. No wonder our insurance rates have gone sky high and the day may come when you yourself will be on Medicare without the needed benefits that are slowly dwindling away.

I want to bring everyone to this awareness of hell and evil that has befallen our society in the lack of human compassion for these people.

What a great exchange of ideas and information. When trying to discern what is true and what is not, I have always found that truth is very simple. Untruth by it's very nature becomes very complex and requires a great deal of explanation. After reading this thread, I must agree with W.C. about the quote that Brad posted from Joseph Labre's book, The Kiss from the Cross, to be truth simply stated: "sin is the result of men not knowing God�s goodness."
James Allen apparently came to the same conclusion in Byways of Blessedness when he wrote: "The deep truth is that all sin, or evil, is a condition of ignorance and therefore to be dealt with in a loving and not a hateful spirit." Perhaps this is the reason Christ told us to forgive the evil doers, returning love for hate and kindness for abuse.