Talking to deceased loved ones

[cloudyday2]

Sometimes I find myself talking to deceased loves ones. It is a one-way conversation. A few times I might ask for help if that is possible. I don't know if deceased loved ones exist or if they might be too busy with problems of their own or there might be a process. Maybe the deceased person is limited to interceding with God on behalf of the living person. It is all open to speculation.

Anyway, here are my questions:

(1) How is my interaction with deceased loved ones different from prayer?

(2) Catholics and Orthodox and others pray to saints. They consider the deceased people to be awake in heaven, so praying to a deceased person is merely asking that deceased person to pray on your behalf.

(3) There are the Christians that believe in soul sleep. I assume they do not talk to their deceased loved ones.

(4) The OT has the story of Saul using a medium to ask Samuel for advice. Apparently Saul had outlawed mediums.

Sometimes I feel that praying to a deceased loved one is more sensible than praying to God, because I know my loved one existed in the past and I do not know if God ever existed at all.

Any thoughts? I hope to get perspectives from a variety of denominations.

 

[Radrook]

You are talking about necromancy. The Bible has this to say:

Leviticus 19:31 ESV / 36 helpful votes

“Do not turn to mediums or necromancers; do not seek them out, and so make yourselves unclean by them: I am the Lord your God.

Leviticus 20:6 ESV / 24 helpful votes
“If a person turns to mediums and necromancers, whoring after them, I will set my face against that person and will cut him off from among his people

The reason is that fallen angels called demons mimic or impersonate the dead in order to mislead. These articles explain it in detail:

Contacting The Dead
http://www.openbible.info/topics/contacting_the_dead

"Why consult the dead on behalf of the living? Consult the message and the counsel of God." (Isaiah 8:19)

The True Meaning of "Inquiring of the Dead"
http://raphaelonline.com/dead.htm

What Does the Bible Say About Talking to the Dead?
http://christianity.about.com/od/whatdoesthebiblesay/a/talkingtodead_2.htm

 

[AGTG]

When God warns against such activity, as Radrock shows with scripture, there is a reason.

There really is a supernatural realm. People can, and have, accessed demonic entities, which are eager to entice people into interaction, and it never turns out well.

It's a practice you should cease for your own well being.

While you may be more comfortable talking to dead relatives, you have the glorious opportunity to get to know the One who created heaven and earth, and sent His only begotten son to die for our sins and redeem us from the power of sin.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

1: Prayer isn't a one way conversation. It is a relationship with God. He might not respond in kind, but there will be some response at some point. I understand the superficial similarity though.

2: Correct, at least in my understanding.

3: Correct, at least in my understanding.

4: The hebrew actually translates either as 'woman with a familiar spirit' or 'woman who throws breath' if we take it literally. Therefore, it has been argued that she was a con-artist ventriloquist based on the literal translation or was communing with demons based on the looser translation. Either way not really someone you should be visiting. As Radrook pointed out, there is no reason that such a response will definitely come from the person contacted and not from another entity.

Ancestor worship has a rich and diverse anthropologic history within humanity and many Catholic instances of saints essentially tap into this seam (like kings asking for intercession from previous sainted kings). But there is a big difference: Christians hold that God is the only fount of Life, so saints and their ilk only exist in reference to God.
Secular talking to relatives has no underpinning of possibility as their is no mechanism for survival or even existence of the soul that can be demonstrated.

 

[cloudyday2]

1: Prayer isn't a one way conversation. It is a relationship with God. He might not respond in kind, but there will be some response at some point. I understand the superficial similarity though.

2: Correct, at least in my understanding.

3: Correct, at least in my understanding.

4: The hebrew actually translates either as 'woman with a familiar spirit' or 'woman who throws breath' if we take it literally. Therefore, it has been argued that she was a con-artist ventriloquist based on the literal translation or was communing with demons based on the looser translation. Either way not really someone you should be visiting. As Radrook pointed out, there is no reason that such a response will definitely come from the person contacted and not from another entity.

Ancestor worship has a rich and diverse anthropologic history within humanity and many Catholic instances of saints essentially tap into this seam (like kings asking for intercession from previous sainted kings). But there is a big difference: Christians hold that God is the only fount of Life, so saints and their ilk only exist in reference to God.
Secular talking to relatives has no underpinning of possibility as their is no mechanism for survival or even existence of the soul that can be demonstrated.

In my case, my father passed away, so I have a picture of him on my desk. I help to manage the family business in his absence. Sometimes I look at my father's picture and try to guess his opinion about various issues that come up. Other times I like to imagine that my father continues to exist and might keep an eye on his family that remains. I practically had a nervous breakdown a few weeks ago, and I found myself asking for my father's help if he exists and is able. Then I wondered if my behavior was acceptable from a Christian perspective. To call it necromancy seems to be a stretch IMO.

What do you think?

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

In my case, my father passed away, so I have a picture of him on my desk. I help to manage the family business in his absence. Sometimes I look at my father's picture and try to guess his opinion about various issues that come up. Other times I like to imagine that my father continues to exist and might keep an eye on his family that remains. I practically had a nervous breakdown a few weeks ago, and I found myself asking for my father's help if he exists and is able. Then I wondered if my behavior was acceptable from a Christian perspective. To call it necromancy seems to be a stretch IMO.

What do you think?

No, I wouldn't call that necromancy either. From a Christian persective, the only one that can help you is God, so asking for help from a dead relative isn't very Christian. Some denominations may say you could ask him to intercede to God on your behalf. This is a paper thin differentiation I know, but the metaphysical framework is radically different between asking for help from the dead and asking for help from God, albeit via an intermediary.

 

[cloudyday2]

No, I wouldn't call that necromancy either. From a Christian persective, the only one that can help you is God, so asking for help from a dead relative isn't very Christian. Some denominations may say you could ask him to intercede to God on your behalf. This is a paper thin differentiation I know, but the metaphysical framework is radically different between asking for help from the dead and asking for help from God, albeit via an intermediary.

I think my "prayer" was something like: "Dad, I don't know if God exists, but I know that you existed at one time, so I'll ask you for help. I don't know if you can help me, and I don't know if you might be busy with your own difficulties..." I wasn't excluding the possibility that my father might intercede with God on my behalf. Surprisingly, things miraculously turned around for me. However, I felt uncomfortable praying to my father instead of to God, so I deliberately started trying to pray to God. Then in a couple of weeks all my psychological progress seemed to evaporate as though my behavior had been judged to be fear-driven and unworthy of aid. Of course this was probably coincidental. In the past I have felt that something is challenging me to fearlessly tear my Christian heritage to shreds so that I can see past it to the truth. I read a thread by a woman who claimed to be truly practicing necromancy. She viewed this as a psychological exercise to overcome her fears of religion, so that she could be more happy as an atheist. There is a certain logic to it I guess. Atheism for me is a safe middle ground - analogous to divorcing your spouse and remaining unmarried as opposed to marrying somebody else. (Of course atheism is also a very reasonable position to take.)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I think my "prayer" was something like: "Dad, I don't know if God exists, but I know that you existed at one time, so I'll ask you for help. I don't know if you can help me, and I don't know if you might be busy with your own difficulties..." I wasn't excluding the possibility that my father might intercede with God on my behalf. Surprisingly, things miraculously turned around for me. However, I felt uncomfortable praying to my father instead of to God, so I deliberately started trying to pray to God. Then in a couple of weeks all my psychological progress seemed to evaporate as though my behavior had been judged to be fear-driven and unworthy of aid. Of course this was probably coincidental. In the past I have felt that something is challenging me to fearlessly tear my Christian heritage to shreds so that I can see past it to the truth. I read a thread by a woman who claimed to be truly practicing necromancy. She viewed this as a psychological exercise to overcome her fears of religion, so that she could be more happy as an atheist. There is a certain logic to it I guess. Atheism for me is a safe middle ground - analogous to divorcing your spouse and remaining unmarried as opposed to marrying somebody else. (Of course atheism is also a very reasonable position to take.)

I disagree. Agnosticism would be a safe middle ground etc. as you mention and be reasonable position etc. Atheism is a belief, unscientific and unprovable as any religion.

 

[Sketcher]

(1) How is my interaction with deceased loved ones different from prayer?

Well, when I pray, I pray in faith that God hears me and will filter my request through his perfect wisdom and goodness, and has the power to do what I asked and more.

(2) Catholics and Orthodox and others pray to saints. They consider the deceased people to be awake in heaven, so praying to a deceased person is merely asking that deceased person to pray on your behalf.

They do what they do. I believe if I'm going to engage in speaking with someone in Heaven, it might as well be God himself. This idea of getting saints in Heaven to pray for you came from a time where if you petitioned the Emperor, it helped to have a friend in his court to help your case along. Jesus however, granted a direct line to the throne, so why beat around the bush. Yes, we have people on Earth pray for us. But that is just as much an opportunity for us to help each other. If I go to someone with a prayer request, maybe he's part of the answer to that prayer.

(3) There are the Christians that believe in soul sleep. I assume they do not talk to their deceased loved ones.

That would be silly, yes. I'm not sure where I stand on that issue.

(4) The OT has the story of Saul using a medium to ask Samuel for advice. Apparently Saul had outlawed mediums.

Yeah, that story, as well as the Law made it plain that this was sin on his part.

Sometimes I feel that praying to a deceased loved one is more sensible than praying to God, because I know my loved one existed in the past and I do not know if God ever existed at all.

But what can that loved one do for you? Also, you said it's a one-way conversation - if you for sure hear something back, how do you account for it?

 

[ViaCrucis]

It can be therapeutic to have "talk" to a loved one who has passed on. Not as though they can hear us, but the need is on our end to deal with the grief that they are no longer in our midst.

People like to throw around the word "necromancy" pretty liberally. Necromancy is a form of divination in which one seeks to communicate with the dead to receive answers to questions or signs of portents to come.

For the sake of information: Lutherans don't reject the petitioning of the saints for prayer because it's necromancy", but because we simply don't have any way of knowing whether or not the saints can hear us. Since we have no way of knowing one way or the other, and since prayer involves faith that our prayer is heard. More importantly what is rejected is the idea that 1) asking the saints to pray for us is necessary (Scripture does not command it, and if Scripture does not command it then it can not be required of the Christian) and 2) the idea that we can benefit from the merits of the saints--this is part of the larger Lutheran rejection of the post-scholastic idea of there being a "treasury of merit" which the faithful can benefit from. In Luther's time the opinion of many was that the saints had acquired extra merits from their lives of holiness, and that these were stored away and could be put to use for ourselves. I'd argue that it is precisely these two reasons--and especially the latter--that is the most important reason for why Lutherans did not retain the practice of asking the saints for prayer. Because nothing mattered more to the Reformers than the integrity of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[cloudyday2]

I disagree. Agnosticism would be a safe middle ground etc. as you mention and be reasonable position etc. Atheism is a belief, unscientific and unprovable as any religion.

I would say that atheism is Occam's razor applied to the question of God's existence. An atheist sees that God's existence is not necessary to explain natural phenomena, so he/she doesn't believe in God. The Christian believes everything the atheist believes and then adds a belief in God that has no utility.

 

[cloudyday2]

...
But what can that loved one do for you? Also, you said it's a one-way conversation - if you for sure hear something back, how do you account for it?

Thanks, @Sketcher , those are some good points about the Christian perspective.

To answer that question at the end of your post (quoted above), if I hear something back, I am excited and puzzled. There are several possibilities:
- it's my imagination (confirmation bias, hallucination, etc.)
- it's deceased loved ones
- it's God responding on behalf of deceased loved ones
- it's spirits pretending to be deceased loved ones
- it's aliens with telepathy

 

[cloudyday2]

It can be therapeutic to have "talk" to a loved one who has passed on. Not as though they can hear us, but the need is on our end to deal with the grief that they are no longer in our midst.

People like to throw around the word "necromancy" pretty liberally. Necromancy is a form of divination in which one seeks to communicate with the dead to receive answers to questions or signs of portents to come.

For the sake of information: Lutherans don't reject the petitioning of the saints for prayer because it's necromancy", but because we simply don't have any way of knowing whether or not the saints can hear us. Since we have no way of knowing one way or the other, and since prayer involves faith that our prayer is heard. More importantly what is rejected is the idea that 1) asking the saints to pray for us is necessary (Scripture does not command it, and if Scripture does not command it then it can not be required of the Christian) and 2) the idea that we can benefit from the merits of the saints--this is part of the larger Lutheran rejection of the post-scholastic idea of there being a "treasury of merit" which the faithful can benefit from. In Luther's time the opinion of many was that the saints had acquired extra merits from their lives of holiness, and that these were stored away and could be put to use for ourselves. I'd argue that it is precisely these two reasons--and especially the latter--that is the most important reason for why Lutherans did not retain the practice of asking the saints for prayer. Because nothing mattered more to the Reformers than the integrity of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

Thanks, @ViaCrucis , I am always surprised at how different Catholicism is from some of the other denominations. Every "i" is dotted and every "t" is crossed in the Catholic theology. Catholicism doesn't appeal to me at all, but I must respect their achievement in creating such a comprehensive set of practices and beliefs. I don't know much about Lutheranism, but it must have seemed fun for those early reformers to have a clean slate.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

I would say that atheism is Occam's razor applied to the question of God's existence. An atheist sees that God's existence is not necessary to explain natural phenomena, so he/she doesn't believe in God. The Christian believes everything the atheist believes and then adds a belief in God that has no utility.

Actually, Occam was a Franciscan and Theologian. Essentially it is the system with the most assumptions should be discarded. Religion has one, God exists. Atheism has one, God does not exist.
If you want to take it farther into doctrine and so forth, with modern untestable assumptions built into theoretical physics, string and quantum theory on top of the assumption that something must be falsifiable and repeatedly so to be considered valid, Scientific atheism would lose.
For Religion would only add one or two assumptions on the nature of their god/s then the rest follows by argument and reason.

 

[cloudyday2]

Actually, Occam was a Franciscan and Theologian. Essentially it is the system with the most assumptions should be discarded. Religion has one, God exists. Atheism has one, God does not exist.
If you want to take it farther into doctrine and so forth, with modern untestable assumptions built into theoretical physics, string and quantum theory on top of the assumption that something must be falsifiable and repeatedly so to be considered valid, Scientific atheism would lose.
For Religion would only add one or two assumptions on the nature of their god/s then the rest follows by argument and reason.

The average atheist believes in chemistry, biology, etc.
The average Christian believes in chemistry, biology, etc. PLUS Christianity.
Christianity adds nothing to the package, but the Christian includes it. Does Christianity predict anything useful? No it does not. So Occam's razor says to be an atheist. (Occam lived in a time when Christianity was ubiquitous and scientific knowledge had not progressed as far, but today he would have agreed with me.)

 

[Hieronymus]

To call it necromancy seems to be a stretch IMO.

What do you think?

Consulting the dead is impossible, they are 'asleep'.
Consulting spirits however, is possible, but they're not human, but they may convince you they are.

 

[Hieronymus]

I would say that atheism is Occam's razor applied to the question of God's existence. An atheist sees that God's existence is not necessary to explain natural phenomena, so he/she doesn't believe in God.

Ah, but the naturalistic explanations are rather far fetched and need naturalistic theory and events to have explanatory power.
So itś not Occam's razor at all i.m.o.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The average atheist believes in chemistry, biology, etc.
The average Christian believes in chemistry, biology, etc. PLUS Christianity.
Christianity adds nothing to the package, but the Christian includes it. Does Christianity predict anything useful? No it does not. So Occam's razor says to be an atheist. (Occam lived in a time when Christianity was ubiquitous and scientific knowledge had not progressed as far, but today he would have agreed with me.)

You are wrong. Atheists believe in chemistry etc. and Atheism. Christians in chemistry etc. and Christianity. There is no difference.
Don't confuse atheism with Agnosticism, for which it would be the case, maybe.
As to Occam, he was a Franciscan, a highly spiritual branch of Catholicism. I highly doubt he would ascribe to Atheism, you are sadly mistaken. He could have stayed a secular scholar, but chose religious orders.
Also, as I pointed out, Scientific Atheism loses in a head to head with any Religion by the rules of Occam's Razor. Religious types are under no obligation to accept all the assumptions of secular science, so arguably the assumptions required could be even less.

 

[cloudyday2]

You are wrong. Atheists believe in chemistry etc. and Atheism. Christians in chemistry etc. and Christianity. There is no difference.
Don't confuse atheism with Agnosticism, for which it would be the case, maybe.
As to Occam, he was a Franciscan, a highly spiritual branch of Catholicism. I highly doubt he would ascribe to Atheism, you are sadly mistaken. He could have stayed a secular scholar, but chose religious orders.
Also, as I pointed out, Scientific Atheism loses in a head to head with any Religion by the rules of Occam's Razor. Religious types are under no obligation to accept all the assumptions of secular science, so arguably the assumptions required could be even less.

O.k. I didn't want to derail into definitions of atheism and agnosticism, but I guess I will address that. There are a variety of different definitions of atheism and agnosticism. 99% of atheists do not believe that God is an impossibility - they simply do not believe that there is enough evidence to believe in God. So the definitions of atheism and agnosticism overlap, and the people who choose these labels might have varying degrees of certainty about them. Agnosticism is often portrayed as "undecided", but there are definitions of agnosticism that claim to know that it is impossible to have a rational opinion for or against God's existence. The most popular definition of "atheist" among atheists is "a person who hasn't yet been presented with a version of god that he/she can believe in" (paraphrasing by me - I can't remember how they state it exactly)

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

O.k. I didn't want to derail into definitions of atheism and agnosticism, but I guess I will address that. There are a variety of different definitions of atheism and agnosticism. 99% of atheists do not believe that God is an impossibility - they simply do not believe that there is enough evidence to believe in God. So the definitions of atheism and agnosticism overlap, and the people who choose these labels might have varying degrees of certainty about them. Agnosticism is often portrayed as "undecided", but there are definitions of agnosticism that claim to know that it is impossible to have a rational opinion for or against God's existence. The most popular definition of "atheist" among atheists is "a person who hasn't yet been presented with a version of god that he/she can believe in" (paraphrasing by me - I can't remember how they state it exactly)

Yes, people can make up any definition they want. I can call myself a Christian Atheist if I want, that doesn't make it a real meaning of the term. Language is about agreed definitions by the two parties.
The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language defines Atheism as "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existences of deities". It defines Agnosticism as "a belief that nothing is known or can be known regarding the existence of deities". There is no overlap.
So those people who call themselves atheists while holding clear agnostic views need a lesson in English. They are cheapening the term atheism into non-meaning while a better term exists.