The Nature of Divine Intervention

I understand... I just threw "psychological" coping mechanisms in there on impulse, but in the OP, Xenu just leaves it at coping mechanisms.



We shouldn't. The destructive powers have an important role to play, in my opinion. Sometimes I feel like I have a foot squarely in both in "heaven" and "hell", both abyssal, having no bottom. What I see there depends on how much I am able to take, or perhaps, according to the measure of grace I have received. My measure has it's limits. If I attempt to get ahead of the process, it creates an imbalance. If I become too self-righteous, the shadow will say, not so fast buddy, take a look at this. If I give in to only the view of the darker aspects of the shadow, I would be overwhelmed with despair. It's through the conflict, sort of a conjunction of opposites, that refinement emerges. And I have a long way to go.

I think, perhaps crazily, of the movie "Jacob's Ladder", in which the protagonist was caught between the two worlds, and the quote which was not a quote, very loosely based on Eckhart according to the screen writer, but still quite profound:

Louis: "If you're afraid of dying, and you're holdin' on, you'll see devils tearin' your life away. But if you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freein' you from the world. It all depends on how you look at it."

These darker aspects are presented here as a refiner's fire, taking away the things that are unnecessary, freeing us from our attachments to this world of form and illusion.

None of us are free from suffering, and as John of the Cross points out, especially in the dark night of the spirit, that suffering can become incredibly intense. And yet, the poem which inspired his commentary is without a doubt a love poem. And so, within the context of this suffering, he is able to exclaim, "Oh happy chance!", knowing what the result will be, having passed through it himself.



I've read some Jung, beginning with Man and His Symbols, which was intended to reach a lay audience which would ordinarily not bother with Jung's rather complicated psychological theories. I still regard it as an important work.

But to answer the last question concerning Divine interventions with negative consequences, I can only give my view. Divine intervention will often lead you right into the center of the struggle, to the front lines, so to speak. The "death" experienced there, in its myriad forms, is a necessary part of the journey.

This is how I view my experience in fundamentalism. I always say it was a mixed bag, but I remain thankful for it, even for my fall and subsequent struggles. I view it, paradoxically, as an invaluable experience through which I was divested of many harmful things. Faith is still there, hope is there, nothing really important has been lost.

Perhaps we are over-complicating Xenu's OP. Perspectives were asked for, along with the perplexing question of whether his/her experiences could be separated into divine intervention vs. coping mechanisms. Although I could give no answer due to the subtleties at play, I believed the divine can be more clearly seen in the experiences which alter the course of life from its natural trajectory; ultimately, for the good. Whether the circumstances at play are good or bad, one is forced onto new ground which the person might not have chosen on his or her own. But this is my own perhaps incomplete view, using the poor tools at hand (words), and is of course subject to question.

I hope Xenu will come back at some point and elaborate more on the situation.
Yes.

... how much I am able to take, or perhaps, according to the measure of grace I have received. My measure has it's limits.
Too much light causes blindness. A small touch is enough. Enough to warm and comfort, not so much to utterly overwhelm. And the effects of God's wonderful touch continue long afterwards to expand and grow within. It is never forgotten.
 
Last edited:
I'm just going to object to this binary presentation of gender, but we can move on.
Nevertheless, all Eukaryotes propagate by sexual reproduction ;)

Sure, let's move along ...
 
Do we have simple logical natural answers to explain spiritual events? Probably not, mostly.
Well, psychology, in both the clinical, neuropsychological and some therapeutic disciplines, does apply here, to some extend. We can study how entheogens, magnetic fields, breathing patterns, meditation etc influence the subjective experience of subjects.

Still a long way from explaining spiritual events, but very interesting in its interdisciplinary attempts at understanding them better. Acknowledging the validity, if subjective, of these types of events and experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RJM
Still a long way from explaining spiritual events, but very interesting in its interdisciplinary attempts at understanding ...
Sure. To me, it's Plato's cave. In the same way that our physical sight and senses show us only the tip of the iceberg of what nature really is -- the full electromagnetic spectrum, sub-atomic activity and so on -- perhaps our scientific explorations of nature can only ever reveal only the tiniest fraction of complete reality, because all our scientific explorations can only be explorations of nature, using ingenious telescopes and microscopes and other instruments are extensions of our own natural senses?

In other words we can admit of no reality unless we can see, touch and taste it with our natural senses and the instruments we use to extend them.

Then it reaches the logical conclusion that our consciousness is just a by product of our animal brain function.

A lot of people are totally convinced of the fact. Because it is a logical and natural conclusion of materialism.
 
Then it reaches the logical conclusion that our consciousness is just a by product of our animal brain function.
I would challenge the word "by-product", on the grounds that this value-judgement (not the main product) is made by the very phenomenon that is being judged. This circularity of self-deprecation is coy to the degree of being cheesy.
 
I would challenge the word "by-product", on the grounds that this value-judgement (not the main product) is made by the very phenomenon that is being judged. This circularity of self-deprecation is coy to the degree of being cheesy.
Ok. 'Product', then?
In the sense that consciousness was not the goal of brain evolution, but just popped out of it. So now, here we are debating abstract principles on the internet?
 
It's the gulf between:

We know how it works. Well, a very little bit of it. Therefore we don't need God.

And:

Oh, so that's how God did it! How absolutely wonderful.
 
Oh, so that's how God did it! How absolutely wonderful.

I recognize that, and it comes in many flavors. Here's mine: "How absolutely wonderful, this is unlike anything I expected, unlike anything I ever heard of, how can I call it God without making an utter mockery of what was made evident to me."

That's the thing with divine intervention, I believe, that it won't play according to our rules.
 
how can I call it God
Is it the word God you don't like? Or the concept of a higher, spiritual intelligence?

EDIT
Natural intelligence, even: Gaia sort of thing?
 
Last edited:
Is it the word God you don't like? Or the concept of a higher, spiritual intelligence?
I have no problem with the word or concept of God, gods, higher (or base) spiritual intelligence, natural intelligence, or any of that. These terms and concepts just do not apply to what happened to me. That's all there is to it.

Edited: clarification that this is about my experience.
 
Last edited:
The zillions of events happening every moment in just one single cell of a fly's wing?
 
Well, psychology, in both the clinical, neuropsychological and some therapeutic disciplines, does apply here, to some extend. We can study how entheogens, magnetic fields, breathing patterns, meditation etc influence the subjective experience of subjects.

Still a long way from explaining spiritual events, but very interesting in its interdisciplinary attempts at understanding them better. Acknowledging the validity, if subjective, of these types of events and experiences.

I have no problem with the word or concept of God, gods, higher (or base) spiritual intelligence, natural intelligence, or any of that. These terms and concepts just do not apply to what happened. That's all there is to it.

And you know this?

Are we trapped in Mary's room?
 
I don't think we are arguing about qualia, though that is of course possible.

The venerable old parable of the elephant-investigating blind men is more to the point, I feel. I would be the one babbling about how the space the elephant's tusks just sliced through was nothing like an elephant at all, perhaps.
 
I don't think we are arguing about qualia, though that is of course possible.

You wrote our physical descriptions of the world and ourselves are "still a long way from explaining spiritual events," and I'm thinking spiritual events - such as one's experience of divine intervention - are, well, spiritual because they are always experienced by someone. So even with every physical description of nature, there will be a piece of knowledge that eludes us: the feeling of experiencing divine intervention.

Consider Moses' experience as retold in the Qur'an:

"Hast thou heard tell of Moses, when he saw a fire and said unto his family, 'Stay here. Verily I perceive a fire. Perhaps I shall bring you a brand therefrom, or find guidance at the fire'? Then when came came to it, he was called, 'O Moses! Verily I am thy Lord. Take off thy sandals. Truly thou art in the holy valley of Tuwa. I have chosen thee, so listen to what is revealed'" (Qur'an 20.9-13).

"[Remember] when Moses said unto his family, 'Verily, I perceive a fire. I shall bring you some news therefrom, or a brand, that haply you may warm yourselves" (Qur'an 27.7).​

Sufis view this verse (27.7) as the stages of the spiritual life: theoretical knowledge about spiritual events, the perception of spiritual events, and the realization of spiritual events. The second and third ones involve some form of experience.

So in this discussion about divine intervention, I was thinking about Mary's room. Mary knows every physical description of the color red without experiencing it, but upon experiencing it for the first time . . . she learns something new. I kinda wonder about the religious experiences of these great religious founders in ancient texts. In a sense the world in front of them on a daily basis is similar to the world in front of us on a daily basis, yet what is this experience of "fire" ignited in Moses?! If present maybe an observer would say Moses is not experiencing divine intervention, but how would the observer know without experiencing it himself?
 
Last edited:
The venerable old parable of the elephant-investigating blind men is more to the point, I feel. I would be the one babbling about how the space the elephant's tusks just sliced through was nothing like an elephant at all, perhaps.

I get what you're saying, but we're also talking about what the blind men feel they are experiencing upon touching the elephant. It's the experience that created their descriptions in the first place. For example, Moses felt he was experiencing the divine and that led to interesting descriptions of the so-called burning bush, but some conjecture he was probably just "high," as @Wil discussed in a previous thread. The former understandings of Moses is a classic case of missing the target under the latter explanation?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top