Gifts of the Spirit

[path_of_one]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ok, so we've "touched" on speaking in tongues, and spiritual discernment, five more to go...how about healing?

I've never seen this done, in person, on any spectacular scale.

I've had some success myself in healing other people's headaches and other minor issues. I can take away or reduce pain but I can't take away illness. Certain crystals amplify this, oddly enough. There's no logical explanation for it, but I get better results. I've also had some success in healing injuries in my animals. I've never been trained in Reiki, but I think what I do is probably pretty similar. It's not very supernatural or exciting, really. It doesn't involve anything but manipulating energy.

I've found that I can take people who are emotionally distraught and calm them down and alter their emotional state. I don't have to have direct contact with them or talk with them at all, as long as I'm in the same room. But it comes at a cost to me and is not permanent. It's more or less an energetic exchange as well, but I will admit it is an invasion of their privacy because it involves altering how they are thinking and feeling. Of course, this isn't that amazing either and I couldn't do anything very spectacular- I can make depressed people happier, people who are severely anxious or afraid comfortable, that sort of thing. I couldn't make a seriously insane person rational or anything that dramatic.

I've seen so many people suffer; I wish healing was more common. I want to have faith in the capacity of people to heal, but honestly I've never seen it on the scale that you read about in the Gospels. I'm skeptical of the stuff you see on TV, and pretty much anyone who would heal for their own benefit and for their own prestige. I think if one is genuinely compassionate, one wants to heal because one feels deeply for those who suffer. I know if I could heal in any long-term, miraculous way, I would prefer to not be recognized or make any profit from it. It doesn't seem right to have someone profit from what God does, you know?

I will add that although I have never seen someone dramatically heal someone else, I have seen people miraculously get well. I've seen God heal people, even people who were dead for a while. But as I understand the gift, it is a gift to heal others and not just describing how some people miraculously are healed by an act of God working independent of a human agent.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

As Christian doctrine has once again been grossly misrepresented I feel it might serve some purpose to try and clarify the mess ...

Thank you, in your demonstration of skill, tact, diplomacy and charity, for reminding me of a prayer that is applicable here, Thomas:

"Deliver me Jesus
from the desire of being loved;
from the desire of being honored;
from the desire of being praised;
from the desire of being preferred to others;
from the desire of being consulted;
from the desire of being approved;
from the fear of being humiliated;
from the fear of being despised;
from the fear of suffering rebuke;
from the fear of being forgotten;
from the fear of being wrong;
from the fear of being suspected."

Still, I would correct an error regarding the relationship between the astral-emotional world and the `Akashic.' These are not synonyms. The "Akashic record" you mention - Biblically referred to as "The Book of God's Remembrance," exists with the realm or abode of PURE SPIRIT. It has NOTHING to do with the astral-emotional plane - even its highest ethers. For as you have described, the lower portions of that realm have everything to do with our animal nature ... and even the higher astral is but a dim, pale reflection of the realm(s) of Pure NOUS, or Spirit.

Originally Posted by Thomas

it is also the grave danger of seeking 'spirit guides' and the like who attach themselves to you, supposedly in service, whilst all the time feeding ...

And here I thought Christians typically prayed to Christ Jesus regarding how THEY MIGHT SERVE, and not how they might BE SERVED. I guess I was wrong. Interesting, since the `Unification Mantram' uttered by esotericists also begins:

The sons of men are one, and I am one with them.
I seek to Love, not hate;
I seek to Serve, and not exact due service;
I seek to heal, not hurt.

And again, for the record, esotericists do not "sit for development," meaning that they do not open themselves unwittingly or as a rule to astral influences. Notice in my post where I specified that Masters such as Jesus DO NOT recruit their disciples from the realms of the astral plane, or from among those with whom drug usage is either habit or familiar pasttime. Such may serve in some capacity as aspirants - but can never become Full Disicples, until these "childish things" are put away ... and nature allowed to heal the wounds of (our) errors.

Originally Posted by Thomas

This is where religious experience 'for real' occurs, and it lies beyond the capacity of the collective or the individual to induce it.

To suggest that LSD and the Holy Spirit are synonymous is ludicrous nonsense, and to likewise suggest that one might as well pop a tab of acid as pursue a virtuous life is contemptible.

Thomas

In terms of our inability to "induce" REAL religious experience, I fundamentally disagree. Yes, I think it is beyond the power of ANY person to simply snap his or her fingers and "get G-d's attention" ... AS IF that's what it was all about. Nor are most people skilled at going into deepest trance. But the four yogic states of consciousness to which George Harrison referred - Jagrat, Svapna, Sushupti and Turiya - are objective, and can be entered by those who are properly trained. It TAKES a Masters to TRAIN a Master. This has EVER been the rule.

Appeal to "God in the Highest," if you like - for example of such a Master, but be careful where you draw the line. I do understand that many Christians choose not to recognize other fully capable Masters besides Christ Jesus. That is a choice and an option available to the Christian, just as the Sikh, the Brahmin, the Sufi, or the Buddhist bhikku makes his own choice ... as to which Master to acknowledge, and Serve and follow.

NOT ONCE in my post did I suggest that drug usage was advisable. I did not advocate this, nor even suggest it. Nor did anyone else. And I would certainly appreciate it if you would refrain from any attempt to either discredit my own (or anyone else's) prior experiences ... both those where drug usage was a factor, and (especially) those where it wasn't.

Many thanks,

taijasi

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Sorry, cavalier, I think I misunderstood you.

No worries

Originally Posted by path_of_one

I think the feeling can be from God, but isn't always from God.

Agreed.

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by taijasi

Appeal to "God in the Highest," if you like - for example of such a Master, but be careful where you draw the line. I do understand that many Christians choose not to recognize other fully capable Masters besides Christ Jesus. That is a choice and an option available to the Christian, just as the Sikh, the Brahmin, the Sufi, or the Buddhist bhikku makes his own choice ... as to which Master to acknowledge, and Serve and follow.

Of course, you realize that the majority of Christians believe Jesus to be God in the Flesh as the only begotten Son of God, and therefore is the only "Master" with which they have to do. Even if there are other "Masters", to quote the cliche, "Why go anywhere else?" To have Jesus as a master, teacher, guide, etc. is about as high as you are gonna get.

Besides, one ought to stick with whom one knows. Since Christians are intimately familiar with Jesus' teachings about love, mercy, and forgiveness, it is a safe straw to draw from.

[taijasi]

Originally Posted by taijasi:
Appeal to "God in the Highest," if you like - for example of such a Master, but be careful where you draw the line. I do understand that many Christians choose not to recognize other fully capable Masters besides Christ Jesus. That is a choice and an option available to the Christian, just as the Sikh, the Brahmin, the Sufi, or the Buddhist bhikku makes his own choice ... as to which Master to acknowledge, and Serve and follow.

Originally Posted by Dondi

Of course, you realize that the majority of Christians believe Jesus to be God in the Flesh as the only begotten Son of God, and therefore is the only "Master" with which they have to do. Even if there are other "Masters", to quote the cliche, "Why go anywhere else?" To have Jesus as a master, teacher, guide, etc. is about as high as you are gonna get.

Yes, Dondi. I entered the caveat explicity because this is the Christian forum. But keep in mind, Christians aren't the only ones who believe in Jesus as a spiritual Master. NOR does one have to be a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or a Muslim, wherein St. Issa is recognized - yet viewed as one of many. As an esotericist, it is up to me to learn to distinguish between the various Masters ... but it would be quite presumptuous for me to INFORM you that "you should believe in" or "direct your attention to" another Master than Christed Jesus. And it is EQUALLY presumptuous and absurd for a Christian to suggest to a non-Christian that Jesus is the only or highest Master, or that `Gifts of the Spirit' is something that applies only to Christians.

While on the Christian forum, I think context is important enough and should not be forgotten. But let's also not forget that people around the world experience everything from ESP, telepathy, PK, out-of-body experiences and so forth ("lesser" gifts, or psychic experiences) ... to Love, discernment, healing, and all the rest of the various "Greater" Gifts of the Spirit. Christians have one way for understanding this, just as the focus has been on Christ Jesus as the ultimate authority on such things.

To be secure in one's faith, and comfortable with one's own understanding of things - and with the answers that one gets from one's pastor/priest/minister, as well as scriptural sources and commentary - THAT's what's really important, I think. However, in our quest for understanding there is nothing wrong whatsoever with investigating what other religions, investigators or authorities have to say on psychic abilities and their higher, Spiritual correspondences (lower and higher `Siddhis,' as the Sanskrit refers to them). Thus the great value of forums like CR, and the community of those who have had various of the experiences described on this thread.

Namaskar,

taijasi

[path_of_one]

Thomas, your post was very interesting. Granted, I don't study these things in the way that you do. However, I would like to ask a few questions to clarify, if you don't mind.

First, are you equating Faerie with the astral realm? And are you saying elementals exist in that realm? I'm curious because my own interpretation has been that Faerie is not the astral realm, but a different place entirely that sort of overlaps our own in a way. I had read that the astral was a realm of human thought- a realm of all the things created by human thought. Perhaps there are not solid definitions of these supernatural places and people are talking past each other and using the same word to describe different things. I suppose I had chalked up the beings people call fae and elementals as nature spirits; perhaps we are talking in the same language about different entities. I've never gotten a very good, solid definition of the astral realm. It seems that all sorts of traditions have their own understandings of what it is and how people get there, and whether or not there are connections between other phenomena, like lucid dreaming and trance, and the astral plane. I've heard some say it's a realm unto itself, and others say it's a gateway to a variety of places. Some say it's thought-forms, others that it is actual spirit-entities. Everyone claims to be basing their definition and beliefs about it on their own personal experiences.

I haven't heard before the idea that all these varied supernatural entities- fae, elementals, succubi/incubi, etc. are all from the same "place," so to speak. I tend to think there are many universes, and the mythology is an attempt of people to grasp glimpses they've had of other places, not one single place.

Second, I'm not sure I understand your definitions of presences vs. essences. Are you saying fae are essences but not presences, and what does that mean? I'm sorry if I'm being dense, but this is new to me and I just am not getting it. As far as I could tell in mythology, fae were personalities, spirit-entities- I would use the term presence for that. I've never been able to tell if what I read in some natural places as "nature spirits" are what others would call fae or not.

Third, as an anthropologist, I have to say that while I do not personally condone drug use to induce trance or spiritual experience, I also do not judge others who do. Though I am a Christian, I refuse to judge the many indigenous cultures around the world who have, for thousands of years, used hallucinogens to induce healing, spirit-journeying, and other spiritual experience. There are many shamans who have given their entire lives to serving their people, and I find it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to somehow judge their religious path and wisdom as inferior to my own and those standard to Western religions and cultures. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems that you were being a bit judgmental of these traditional peoples. I realize this is the Christianity forum, so I won't go into much detail.

I will say that I agree that people who engage in such drug-induced experiences without shamanic guidance are foolish to do so. I do think it opens up a world that is dangerous and frightening to those who have not prepared themselves and who do not have a tradition with which to intepret what they experience.

I do not think anyone was suggesting drugs and the Spirit are the same, but rather that the feeling of spiritual ecstasy can be brought about by a variety of things.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by path_of_one

Third, as an anthropologist, I have to say that while I do not personally condone drug use to induce trance or spiritual experience, I also do not judge others who do. Though I am a Christian, I refuse to judge the many indigenous cultures around the world who have, for thousands of years, used hallucinogens to induce healing, spirit-journeying, and other spiritual experience. There are many shamans who have given their entire lives to serving their people, and I find it leaves a bad taste in my mouth to somehow judge their religious path and wisdom as inferior to my own and those standard to Western religions and cultures. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but it seems that you were being a bit judgmental of these traditional peoples.

I agree.

Thomas, when you say others have grossly misinterpreted Christian doctrine, perhaps you could qualify that to say in your opinion it is misinterpretation. Or according to Catholic teachings it is misinterpreted. Saying it like you do makes you out to be God's standard for correct interpretation. Only Jesus is qualified for such a position.

I think the judgmentalism extends not only to traditional peoples but also to individuals who contributed to this discussion. To call clearly organized thought presentations of others "a mess" is taking things rather far out of context. Not only that, it is being contemptuous and disrespectful. For this same person to go on and seriously twist statements to suggest they equate LSD with the Holy Spirit probably says more about the speaker than about anyone else.

A person who really knows what he is talking about does not need to take such an authoritative, condescending, judgmental attitude. It is probably not within the jurisdiction of Christians, whether Catholic or otherwise, to decide what is true Christian doctrine per se. We all have the Bible.

One more thing. Thomas, you have kindly shared your own personal experience of enlightenment or contact with God. It is an error to assume that all other people must experience God in the same way as oneself. God is so much bigger than one man's experience that we must allow God the right to reveal Godself differently to others than to oneself. As I have stated elsewhere, God seems to use a person's symbology and culture to speak to a person. For you as a Catholic, it worked to use the statuary of Catholic saints. For Taijasi, esotericism speaks to the soul. Follow your Lord and Master who says, "Judge not that ye be not judged."

[Dondi]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

One more thing. Thomas, you have kindly shared your own personal experience of enlightenment or contact with God. It is an error to assume that all other people must experience God in the same way as oneself. God is so much bigger than one man's experience that we must allow God the right to reveal Godself differently to others than to oneself. As I have stated elsewhere, God seems to use a person's symbology and culture to speak to a person. For you as a Catholic, it worked to use the statuary of Catholic saints. For Taijasi, esotericism speaks to the soul. Follow your Lord and Master who says, "Judge not that ye be not judged."

Another contention that I am uncomfortable with, and perhaps because of my unfamiliarity with it , is the idea of Catholic prayers to the saints. I never understood the need for such. If we pray to them, do we expect an answer back? Are we not then getting into similiar ground as communing with the "spirits" in a different plane that Thomas warns us about? Please clear this up. Thank you.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

You see things one way, and the Bible states it another way.

I think it would be more correct to say it is your interpretation of the Bible that states it another way. Because I have read the Bible in the context of the church and it never said the things you suggest it says. Obviously, we interpreted it differently. I don't think you have been elected of God as a standard for the correct interpretation of the Bible.

That bit thrown in about even the faithful being led astray...You thereby insinuate that I am one of the faithful who has been led astray. Note that Jesus said if it were possible even the elect would be deceived. As I said to Thomas, just because someone experiences life differently from you (or traditional Catholic interpretation) that is NOT indication that it is wrong, or misguided or deception.

[taijasi]

Shazam!

I know that`Gifts of the Spirit' is a fairly broad term, no matter what Christian perspective appeals to us most ... but it almost looks like there are quite a few various topics brewing - potential for several threads maybe?

Notwithstanding Q's admirable efforts to steer and moderate, folks have touched on angels/fairies, psychic abilities, healing, discernment, right (or inspired?) interpretation of Holy scripture, intercessory prayer & significance of Saints for Catholics/non-Catholics, as well as specific types of experience in/of the psychic & Spiritual worlds. Oh, and of course, glossalalia!

I know there's a common thread ... and in light of your OP, Cavalier, I hope folks can continue to offer up what you originally asked for:

"Do any of you practice, have experience of, or views on these Spiritual gifts?"

Love and Light,

taijasi

[wil]

I think the site ought to create a beginning for every post, "These are my opinions and thoughts, and no matter how much you percieve they are pointed at you they are truly my own and reflect me and not you..." or something to that affect...tis a tough road out there sometimes. I've stepped on my share of toes unintentionally but then can look back on my postings and see how they were misconstrued. touchy subjects we tread.

On the thoughts of Saints and prayers...I notice that all the time someone is praying to the Saint of lost things..they are looking. We had some Hindus in one night teaching us some chants during a midweek service and they discussed something so similar; as a child does the chant for the god of education...they study harder...wouldn't want to chant to the god and ask for help and then not do your part.

Pray and move your feet. I see the power in whatever it takes to get you focused, whether it is the myriad of faces and names of G-d the Hindus use, or the Saints...tis awesome to have a method that is comfortable for you to establish a connection.

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by wil

I think the site ought to create a beginning for every post, "These are my opinions and thoughts, and no matter how much you percieve they are pointed at you they are truly my own and reflect me and not you..." or something to that affect...tis a tough road out there sometimes. I've stepped on my share of toes unintentionally but then can look back on my postings and see how they were misconstrued. touchy subjects we tread.

I think you're talking to me here. I've been bothered by my response to Quahom in Post 84 ever since I saw your post sometime yesterday. I can finally see what I did wrong. I logged on just now to change or delete that post but I see I can do neither, so I will do the next best and apologize for it. I will also explain what I did wrong for those who are interested in the intricacies of exchanges. That's what I'd like if it were someone else so I hope this is the right way to make things right.

RubySera_Martin said in Post 59 (Response to Quahom’s Post 45)

I think you must be talking about a special kind of discernment. The word "discern" in the everyday sense simply means the intellectual function of figuring out which is the best of two different options, to notice something--pick up information such as a barely visible object--from its surrounding background, etc.

I have always understood spiritual discernment as meaning to differentiate between the good and evil spirits. Empathetic discernment would probably be to become aware of another person's unspoken and invisible condition of emotions or body or spirit.

For a person who does not normally pick up on these things it might possibly appear like a mysterious and powerful thing to be feared and reckoned with. But for a person for whom this is natural I don't think anyone need to attach any supernatural values to it at all. It's simply being aware of psychological nuances and how they are expressed.

In other words, the signals are not invisible and unexpressed. They are expressed visibly or audibly or via pattern of thought or behaviour that is quite obvious to anyone who is awake and aware of this level of nuance. It might be necessary to realize that others are not the same as you. The person who thinks that "everybody's like me and anybody's who's not is wierd" is not going to see it.

Learning to recognize and correctly identify these nuances is a life-long task. Thus, the idea that discernment is like life--either you have it or you don't--is incorrect. Just put yourself inside the other person's skin, mindset, emoting habits, etc., and you're ready to start learning.

Quahom said in Post 67:

Perhaps but scripturally we are warned that even the faithful might be led astray, therefore also scripturally we are told some are provided with the supernatural gift of discerning that which is beyond the normal abilities of man. Now, you don't really have issue with me persee, because I didn't set the standards. You see things one way, and the Bible states it another way.

The two statements that I bolded in my post here are inconsistent. I had been going to stick to the everyday use of the term discernment, and then I forgot and switched to saying Q is wrong in that his type of discernment must be learned. I'm sorry about that because that is not something I can know and I have no right to comment on it. I am also very sorry (embarrassed) for my unfair statement in post 84 where I correct Q.

I think where I was really low-handed was that I started pointing out that I was talking about a different kind of discernment, when I realized I had mistakenly switched to include his. At that point I should have confessed my mistake. I didn't. I tried to cover it over. I tend to dispise people who do this. Now it's me. I'm sorry and ask for forgiveness.

Wil, thanks for gently drawing my attention to this.

Ruby

[flowperson]

Ruby:

Have you ever considered running for President or something ?

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by RubySera_Martin

I think it would be more correct to say it is your interpretation of the Bible that states it another way. Because I have read the Bible in the context of the church and it never said the things you suggest it says. Obviously, we interpreted it differently. I don't think you have been elected of God as a standard for the correct interpretation of the Bible.

That bit thrown in about even the faithful being led astray...You thereby insinuate that I am one of the faithful who has been led astray. Note that Jesus said if it were possible even the elect would be deceived. As I said to Thomas, just because someone experiences life differently from you (or traditional Catholic interpretation) that is NOT indication that it is wrong, or misguided or deception.

No, that is what the Bible specifically states about the faithful near the times of tribulations. I didn't make it up, nor was I pointing a finger at anyone at all.

v/r

Q

[RubySera_Martin]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Ruby:

Have you ever considered running for President or something ?

flow....

No. Sorry if I've been coming across too strongly.