Christian Mysticism

[Thomas]

Christianity has the unenviable task of trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

Well if you consider that the deification of man is the task that Christ was set by His Father, that's one way of looking at it. However, the reality is that Christ knows we are sows' ears — but we're His sows' ears (He preferred lost sheep, but then He was Jewish) and He loves us none the less.

Athanasius said: "God become man that man might become God" and "God came into man and not into a man" ... furthermore Gregory Nazienzen said "what is not assumed is not saved".

So man is saved as man, not as some meta-human silk purse. He does not need to know anything beyond Christ and His commandments, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth" John 16:13.

The difference is, Christians, and Christendom, have faith in God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. You insist that's not enough, and rely rather on human psychological constructs.

The fact that we are nothing doesn't mean that we cannot become consciously something and capable of the more normal God/Man relationship.

Still think that argument's nonsense. Nothing cannot become conscious or capable, and again why would God seek a relationship with nothing?

And it fails to comprehend the Christian understanding of the soul.
Matthew 25:34
"Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world."

Ephesians 1:4
"As he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and unspotted in his sight in charity."

Acts 17:28
"In him we live and move and have our being"

Colossians 1:16-17
"For in him were all things created in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominations, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him and in him. And he is before all, and by him all things consist."

I don't understand why you're arguing that Christianity should be a certain way, when it's apparent you don't believe in it. And if you don't believe in it, why should a Christian listen to you?

This is the idea. Without help from above we can do nothing. How can we prepare ourselves to receive help from above?

Love God, and love thy neighbour. And leave yourself out of the picture.

Christianity lives within Christendom much like the living kernel of life of the acorn lives within the shell of the acorn.

Exactly. But the living kernel cannot exist outside of the kernel, or apart from it.

Meister Eckhart was initially condemned by the Church.

Sorry Nick, but this kind of statement is invariably bandied about by those who are unaware of the facts — Eckhart was never condemned. Might I also add that he held several important posts within the structure of 'Christendom' and was tasked with ensuring the orthodoxy of Catholic teaching.

1260: Born.
1298: Prior of the Dominican convent at Erfurt and vicar-provincial of Thuringia.
1300: Lectures at the Catholic University in Paris.
1302: Master of Sacred Theology.
1301: Provincial of the province of Saxony.
1307: Vicar-general of Bohemia (and charged to reform its convents).
1311: Chair at Paris.
1314: Move to teach at Strasbourg.
1317: Prior at Frankfort.
1320: First professor of his order at Cologne.
1329: Died (at Avignon).

Eckhart on trial
1325: Charged at a general chapter of his order that some of the German brethren were disseminating dangerous doctrine. Pope John XXII ordered an investigation which declared in the following year that the works of Eckhart were orthodox.

1327: Acting independently, Archbishop Heinrich of Cologne undertook an inquiry. Eckhart appeals to Rome.
From the pulpit of the Dominican church in Cologne, Eckhart repudiated the unorthodox sense in which some of his utterances could be interpreted, retracted all possible errors, and submitted to the Holy See.

1329: John XXII, undoubtedly under pressure from the Archbishop Heinrich (upon whom he depended for support in a political dispute) issues the papal Bull In agro dominico. It condemns 28 articles from Eckhart’s teaching. It also attacks Eckhart’s character in its Preface. It does not formally declare that Eckhart had been a heretic (he personally has never been condemned).

Modern view
1987: Pope John Paul II says in audience:
"Did not Eckhart teach his disciples: "All that God asks you most pressingly is to go out of yourself … and let God be God in you" (cf Walshe Sermon 13b)? One could think that in separating himself from creatures the mystic leaves his brother humanity behind. The same Eckhart affirms that on the contrary the mystic is marvellously present to them on the only level where he can truly reach them, that is, in God."

1992: The Master of the Dominican Order (Fr Timothy Radcliffe), in a letter to the Chairman of the Eckhart Society (Peter Talbot Willcox), says:
"I wonder whether you know that we tried to have the censure lifted on Eckhart and were told that there was really no need since he had never been condemned by name, just some propositions which he was supposed to have held, and so we are perfectly free to say that he is a good and orthodox theologian."

According to one source, Eckhart does not need a 'rehabilitation' in the canonical sense of the word, since his person, his doctrine, his apostolate or his spirituality were not really condemned. The censured teachings were presented out of their context and impossible to verify, since there were no manuscripts in Avignon. The Bull even uses the caution of saying prout verba sonent, to protect both the author and his authentic thought.

Another investigation found Eckhart's doctrine perfectly coherent with the orthodox tradition of great theologians like the Cappadocians, St Augustine, St Thomas and others.

A third theologian, T Suarez-Nani, has proved that each of the censured propositions may be interpreted in a perfectly orthodox way.

Somewhat lengthy, but the point is that most probably ambition blighted his posthumous reputation, however Eckhart was defended, and his name carefully preserved, and now recognised, by what you would call Christendom.

You can't separate them.

The social organism of Christendom is based on beliefs while Christianity is based on being open to the mysteries

The beliefs are in the Mysteries nothing other; the Mysteries are what we believe — you're introucing an artificial separation.

You think that the apostles in Acts received the spirit by just being there.

That's what Scripture says. Of course, they were 'just there' because they'd been with Him for years before.

Jesus was a teacher and taught how to get out of ones own way in order to be able to become open.

No. That's a psychological teaching, not a religious or revelatory one.

Of course such things cannot be written down but is past on as an oral tradition

Ah, well, the gnostics tried that one on in the 2nd century, and we knocked it down with ease. The true oral tradition is what we call Apostolic Tradition, which ranks alongside Scripture in the teaching of the Church. Precisely the truth that you reject.

Thomas

 

[Nick_A]

Thomas

So man is saved as man, not as some meta-human silk purse. He does not need to know anything beyond Christ and His commandments, "But when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will teach you all truth" John 16:13.

I don't know what you mean by saved "man?" Are you referring to the physical body and our personality or the God Seed?

"The seed of God is in us. Given an intelligent and hard-working farmer, it will thrive and grow up to God, whose seed it is; and accordingly its fruits will be God-nature. Pear seeds grow into pear trees, nut seeds into nut trees, and God-seed into God.” Meister Eckhart

The difference is, Christians, and Christendom, have faith in God and the Power of the Holy Spirit. You insist that's not enough, and rely rather on human psychological constructs.

Of course it is enough but the sad reality that as fallen man is that we have neither. You wrote about condemnation of Meister Eckhart

1329: John XXII, undoubtedly under pressure from the Archbishop Heinrich (upon whom he depended for support in a political dispute) issues the papal Bull In agro dominico. It condemns 28 articles from Eckhart’s teaching. It also attacks Eckhart’s character in its Preface. It does not formally declare that Eckhart had been a heretic (he personally has never been condemned).


Do you really believe that political pressure is the Holy spirit in action? It is man made Christendom asserting its politics. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

IMO you completely overestimate what a man on earth is. Paul makes sense to me but yet it is nonsense to secularism and Christendom.

the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 is offensive but just consider this.

35But someone may ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?" 36How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37When you sow, you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. 38But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body. 39All flesh is not the same: Men have one kind of flesh, animals have another, birds another and fish another. 40There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendor of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendor of the earthly bodies is another. 41The sun has one kind of splendor, the moon another and the stars another; and star differs from star in splendor.
42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 45So it is written: "The first man Adam became a living being"[e]; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit. 46The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual. 47The first man was of the dust of the earth, the second man from heaven. 48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.
50I declare to you, brothers, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed— 52in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."[g]
55"Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?"[h] 56The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57But thanks be to God! He gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. 58Therefore, my dear brothers, stand firm. Let nothing move you. Always give yourselves fully to the work of the Lord, because you know that your labor in the Lord is not in vain.

I don't think you appreciate the difference between the spiritual body and natural body.
Flesh and blood doesn't inherit the Kingdom.

48As was the earthly man, so are those who are of the earth; and as is the man from heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. 49And just as we have borne the likeness of the earthly man, so shall we[f] bear the likeness of the man from heaven.

We are dual natured. What difference does it make what the earth man says about loving God and his fellow man? It changes by the minute. The question then is how to become able to be open to the Spirit so the inner man can begin to develop. This is the greatest psychology. It doesn't happen because you went to church on Sunday and pronounce yourself a Catholic

We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed

Sleep is the human condition we know as Plato's cave. Some can awaken.

Ah, well, the gnostics tried that one on in the 2nd century, and we knocked it down with ease. The true oral tradition is what we call Apostolic Tradition, which ranks alongside Scripture in the teaching of the Church. Precisely the truth that you reject.

Well if you knocked it down it sure got up in a hurry. Apostolic tradition is one thing and being able to understand it is another. This probably seems absurd. But according to Jesus we don't understand scripture.

Luke 24
45Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46He told them, "This is what is written: The Christ will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47and repentance and forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48You are witnesses of these things. 49I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high."

Well no one has opened our minds so it is pretty certain that we don't understand scripture. Why think we understrand christianity?

Matthew 7
15"Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. 16By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? 17Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them.
21"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'

We will always have this trouble with "experts." they are very impressive and people will be convinced the Spirit is in them. You seem to be saying that self deception vanishes when one calls themselves a Catholic. I disagree. It takes a certain practice, a psychology of being, that frees a person from self deception and allow one to appreciate their nothingness. Then the inner man can begin to develop that the Spirit can nurture.

The beliefs are in the Mysteries nothing other; the Mysteries are what we believe — you're introucing an artificial separation.

Beliefs are OUTSIDE mysteries. Imagination is outside consciousness. The trouble is that people take them as equal when in reality imagination is just the subjective devolution of an objective concept. To appreciate this requires humility which is one reason why the distinction is rarely admitted.

 

[Thomas]

I don't know what you mean by saved "man?" Are you referring to the physical body and our personality or the God Seed?

Ahh ... you obviously don't understand Christian anthropology.

Of course it is enough but the sad reality that as fallen man is that we have neither.

You might assume so. I choose not to sit in judgement on my neighbour, but rather have faith in God.

Do you really believe that political pressure is the Holy spirit in action?

Of course not.

It is man made Christendom asserting its politics. This has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit.

Actually, the careful wording of the Bull is everything to do with the Holy Spirit. That you can't see such is another issue altogether.

Paul makes sense to me but yet it is nonsense to secularism and Christendom.

So now you alone understand Scripture?

the whole of 1 Corinthians 15 is offensive but just consider this.

Oh, you find Scripture offensive ... so patently, you don't understand it.

I don't think you appreciate the difference between the spiritual body and natural body. Flesh and blood doesn't inherit the Kingdom.

Again, I think you don't understand Christian anthropology.

The question then is how to become able to be open to the Spirit so the inner man can begin to develop. This is the greatest psychology.

No, this is the work of the Holy Spirit. Man cannot effect anything outside of his own nature. Cosmological solutions will not open metacosmic doors. It's just a more modern 'Tower of Babel'...

PS: Can you show me such people who, through psychology, have become deified? That psychologist must be earning a fortune.

Sleep is the human condition we know as Plato's cave. Some can awaken.

Yes, awaken to the human condition, but not transcend it. That's the point.

You seem to be saying that self deception vanishes when one calls themselves a Catholic.

Of course I don't, that would be naive.

I disagree. It takes a certain practice, a psychology of being, that frees a person from self deception and allow one to appreciate their nothingness. Then the inner man can begin to develop that the Spirit can nurture.

Again, it's evident you don't understand Christian anthropology.

Beliefs are OUTSIDE mysteries.

Nonsense. Faith is in the Mysteries. If it were not, it would be knowledge, and not faith.

Sorry Nick, but the kind of Christianity you're proposing is a cosmology, and falls well short of the doctrine.

Also, assuming you could set it up to suit yourself, would this require every Christian undergo therapy? By whom? Psychologists become the new priesthood? Popes would be megapsychologists ... or would you simply write off the vast majority as being incapable of knowing God's love, and stick with the elite few who think as you do?

Thomas

 

[soma]

I feel Nick has a very deep understanding of Christian Anthropology. He expresses it very well in modern and Biblical terminology.

1 Corinthians 2:10-16) “The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God. 11For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man’s spirit within him? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 12We have not received the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, that we may understand what God has freely given us. 13This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.[a] 14The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned. 15The spiritual man makes judgments about all things, but he himself is not subject to any man’s judgment:
16″For who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct him?” But we have the mind of Christ.”

 

[Nick_A]

Ahh ... you obviously don't understand Christian anthropology.


You might assume so. I choose not to sit in judgement on my neighbour, but rather have faith in God.


Of course not.


Actually, the careful wording of the Bull is everything to do with the Holy Spirit. That you can't see such is another issue altogether.


So now you alone understand Scripture?


Oh, you find Scripture offensive ... so patently, you don't understand it.


Again, I think you don't understand Christian anthropology.


No, this is the work of the Holy Spirit. Man cannot effect anything outside of his own nature. Cosmological solutions will not open metacosmic doors. It's just a more modern 'Tower of Babel'...

PS: Can you show me such people who, through psychology, have become deified? That psychologist must be earning a fortune.


Yes, awaken to the human condition, but not transcend it. That's the point.


Of course I don't, that would be naive.


Again, it's evident you don't understand Christian anthropology.


Nonsense. Faith is in the Mysteries. If it were not, it would be knowledge, and not faith.

Sorry Nick, but the kind of Christianity you're proposing is a cosmology, and falls well short of the doctrine.

Also, assuming you could set it up to suit yourself, would this require every Christian undergo therapy? By whom? Psychologists become the new priesthood? Popes would be megapsychologists ... or would you simply write off the vast majority as being incapable of knowing God's love, and stick with the elite few who think as you do?

Thomas

Ahh ... you obviously don't understand Christian anthropology.

I do know that there are differing views as to Christian anthropology which means that there must be a lot of ignorance in it. All cannot be right.

You might assume so. I choose not to sit in judgement on my neighbour, but rather have faith in God.

I prefer to open myself to admit the reality of the human condition manifesting in the world. You prefer to keep your head in the sand and justify it through the belief that you believe in God. Your way, not mine.

So now you alone understand Scripture?

No, secularism based on dualism cannot because we live in a triune universe. It has nothing to do with me but rather coming to experience the limitations of dualism and what the additional dimension allowing for the experience of the triune universe reveals as to human "being."

Oh, you find Scripture offensive ... so patently, you don't understand it.

Not to me but it will be offensive for those glorifying man on earth.

Again, I think you don't understand Christian anthropology.

And I don't believe you understand Christian anthropology. I at least have the humility to admit to being pre-Christian.

Matthew 25

1"At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. 2Five of them were foolish and five were wise. 3The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. 4The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. 5The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
6"At midnight the cry rang out: 'Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!'
7"Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. 8The foolish ones said to the wise, 'Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.'
9" 'No,' they replied, 'there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.'
10"But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
11"Later the others also came. 'Sir! Sir!' they said. 'Open the door for us!'
12"But he replied, 'I tell you the truth, I don't know you.' 13"Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.

This is classic Christian psychology. It is about "attention." Who understands attention better than Simone Weil?

"Grace fills empty spaces, but it can only enter where there is a void to receive it We must continually suspend the work of the imagination in filling the void within ourselves."

"In no matter what circumstances, if the imagination is stopped from pouring itself out, we have a void (the poor in spirit). In no matter what circumstances... imagination can fill the void. This is why the average human beings can become prisoners, slaves, prostitutes, and pass thru no matter what suffering without being purified."

You appreciate psychology by the modern meaning of behaviorism. Christianity knows it as the study of "being"
Exercises in attention and quality of prayer are a means to practice keeping the void open in oneself so that the bridegroom or Spirit can enter. How to "keep watch" or conscious impartial attention is Christian psychology

Sorry Nick, but the kind of Christianity you're proposing is a cosmology, and falls well short of the doctrine.

Whose doctrine? What is re-birth other then life in a lower cosmos called earth consciously evolving from the help of the Spirit to become life natural for a higher cosmos called "heaven"?

Also, assuming you could set it up to suit yourself, would this require every Christian undergo therapy? By whom? Psychologists become the new priesthood? Popes would be megapsychologists ... or would you simply write off the vast majority as being incapable of knowing God's love, and stick with the elite few who think as you do?

Yes, Christian psychologists should be capable of allowing a person to become open to the experience of "meaning" that is more meaningful then their normal secular experiences. Christendom is sadly lacking in this department and prefers telling people what to do.

Yesterday I heard something very sad on the radio. It seems a question was asked of many Canadian teenagers as to what their heart needs. The majority answer was "someone to believe in."

Kids sense the BS and Christendom does nothing to provide anything else. It defeats the purpose of Christianity which is to provide the inner experience of the direction to meaning now even more necessary because of the dominance of secular media. It may be your way but not mine.

Why do you think that when Simone Weil died there were seven people outside of family at her funeral and now, without any intent of profit, she is loved around the world? It is because people sense that she was pure in relation to the love of higher truth, the "good" that transcends earthly meaning. People know they cannot have this quality of pure need but it is still an inspiration, a quality of love that is a human potential. The ego has no desire to suffer for truth yet our essential selves know it is necessary just as the seed of the acorn pushes to get out of the shell that at one time protected it.

The kids need it and Christendom does nothing to help them in their need to experience higher meaning and even denies the essential quality of inner efforts to become open but instead just advocates blind belief. This is not to deny the benefits of secular efforts to help people in need. I am referring to deeper essential human meaning. Who in Christendom is there for them to believe in that hasn't disappointed?

 

[Thomas]

I prefer to open myself to admit the reality of the human condition manifesting in the world. You prefer to keep your head in the sand and justify it through the belief that you believe in God. Your way, not mine.

Well ... let's see ... you believe that you have the solution to all man's problems. My experience and studies of history lead me to suspect such statements and their motives.

I put my faith in God, rather than any man, as the only being who knows man's true good and true end. If you want to call that 'head in the sand' then again I wonder why you even bother with Christainity, it holds nothing for you.

(btw: How can you place such an emphasis on a triune universe when the Trinity is absent from your ideas?)

I at least have the humility to admit to being pre-Christian.

A catechumen? Good for you. I am a Christian. However, that does not make me better than you.

You appreciate psychology by the modern meaning of behaviorism. Christianity knows it as the study of "being"

OK. You'll evidence that statment for me, please?

What is re-birth other then life in a lower cosmos called earth consciously evolving from the help of the Spirit to become life natural for a higher cosmos called "heaven"?

who's doctrine is that? Can you provide references that locate this statement within Christianity? I don't know of any source that accepts 're-birth' — Origen said something along these lines and was shown to labouring under an overly-Platonic interpretation of Christian revelation.

Yes, Christian psychologists ...

So you are proposing a new priesthood ... and Christianity then is like undergoing therapy ... it's a shame you've never met a Spiritual Director. I've known a few who would blow the socks off you and your psychologists.

Yesterday I heard something very sad on the radio. It seems a question was asked of many Canadian teenagers as to what their heart needs. The majority answer was "someone to believe in."

Yes, I know, I come across this all the time. Of course, they're rejecting your psychologising along with everything else, arent't they? So you're hoist by your own petard, on this point.

The way I see it, you get the inbuilt skepticism of post-modernism, and the 'gimme now' reflex of consumerism. It's a tragedy, but our kids have been indoctrinated to be pap-fed ... now they're unhappy with what they're given, they see no reason why it's upon them to make the effort to improve their diet, they want to proof first ...

And, to paraphrase your own words back at you:
"I do know that there are differing views as to psychology which means that there must be a lot of ignorance in it. All cannot be right."

As the man said, "Physician, heal thyself" (the answer being, iof course, he can't.)

... so you will excuse me if, from the evidence of the mess the modern seculr world is in, that I think your post-modern psychologising is all BS.

On the whole, I fail to see wht you consider any of what you say "Christian' when neither Father, Son nor Holy Spirit figures in any meaninful way — if indeed they figure at all — in your doctrine. Whatever your beliefs, it seems the Holy Trinity are incapable of self directed action, incapable of comprehending man and incapable of overcoming his short-comings. It seems the Father never took man into account when He sent His only Son, and the Son never took man into account when He made provision for man's sanctification.

If by 'pre-Christian' that you don't know about God, the Trinity, nor the Mission of the Persons ... then I can understand where you're coming from. But do not fall foul of believing that a 'pre-Christian' understands what Christianity is ... the best you can hope is to press your nose against the window, and hope that what you think you see is what is actually there.

Thomas

 

[soma]

"Many people today believe that psychology originated in the 1800’s. However, every developing culture has some understanding of the nature of human beings. If we define psychology simply as the disciplined study of individual human beings, then versions of psychology can be found in many cultures, some rather ancient, and in the great writings of human civilization. Christian psychology began in the Scriptures of the Hebrews and early Christians. Later, Christian thinkers and ministers throughout the ensuing centuries developed many understandings of human beings, using the Bible as a canon or standard for reflection. As a result, the history of Christian thought contains countless works of psychological import that offer the Christian community a rich treasure of insights, themes, and foundational assumptions upon which to ground the project of a Christian psychology."
Society for Christian Psychology
About the Society-- Society for Christian Psychology

 

[Nick_A]

Hi Thomas

Well ... let's see ... you believe that you have the solution to all man's problems. My experience and studies of history lead me to suspect such statements and their motives.

No. The world must hate the message so the world's problems will continue. The solution for an individual's quest for the experience of human meaning and purpose begins with the impartial efforts to "Know Thyself" or inner empiricism. Blind followers kill people. Those that have experienced the human condition within themselves in the context of the human potential for meaning and purpose are aware of the the dangers of blind belief

I put my faith in God, rather than any man, as the only being who knows man's true good and true end. If you want to call that 'head in the sand' then again I wonder why you even bother with Christainity, it holds nothing for you.

But what is putting its faith in God? You or your conditioning? Many people put their faith in God and kill each other. What good is that?

(btw: How can you place such an emphasis on a triune universe when the Trinity is absent from your ideas?)

The Trinity and its expression within creation is the essence of esoteric Christianity. Every-thing in the universe is a union of three forces.

A catechumen? Good for you. I am a Christian. However, that does not make me better than you.

If you are a Christian you are better, more awake, than me.

OK. You'll evidence that statment for me, please?

Soma answered that. Only recently has psychology devolved into behaviorism.

Yes, I know, I come across this all the time. Of course, they're rejecting your psychologising along with everything else, arent't they? So you're hoist by your own petard, on this point.

To the contrary, Ive organized book discussion groups on Jacob Needleman's "Lost Christianity." You'd be surprised at how many have felt what they could never do through the usual secular channels. If I can give back just this little bit, I'm at least helping to pull some out of the gutter.

The way I see it, you get the inbuilt skepticism of post-modernism, and the 'gimme now' reflex of consumerism. It's a tragedy, but our kids have been indoctrinated to be pap-fed ... now they're unhappy with what they're given, they see no reason why it's upon them to make the effort to improve their diet, they want to proof first ...

To the contrary, secularism including secular Christendom has denied the opportunity for the young to think and replaced it with media. So you wish to make them brain dead followers.

When someone asked Simone once if she wanted to be a saint she replied that we don't need any more saints, what we need is saintliness. This requires the ability to "ponder."

And, to paraphrase your own words back at you:
"I do know that there are differing views as to psychology which means that there must be a lot of ignorance in it. All cannot be right."

Exactly. This is why the solution is acquiring the ability to "Know Thyself," the experience of oneself The objective inner experience of reality is worth more than a hundred books.

... so you will excuse me if, from the evidence of the mess the modern seculr world is in, that I think your post-modern psychologising is all BS.

How to "Know Thyself" so as to get out of our own way in order to receive the Spirit is ancient knowledge. Jesus actualized it and opened a path.

On the whole, I fail to see what you consider any of what you say "Christian' when neither Father, Son nor Holy Spirit figures in any meaninful way — if indeed they figure at all — in your doctrine. Whatever your beliefs, it seems the Holy Trinity are incapable of self directed action, incapable of comprehending man and incapable of overcoming his short-comings. It seems the Father never took man into account when He sent His only Son, and the Son never took man into account when He made provision for man's sanctification

To the contray, it is you who underestimate the Trinity and the extent of its meaning. The Roman church has done its best to pervert it IMO. By now you should at least be able to differentiate between God and LORD God in Genesis.

If by 'pre-Christian' that you don't know about God, the Trinity, nor the Mission of the Persons ... then I can understand where you're coming from. But do not fall foul of believing that a 'pre-Christian' understands what Christianity is ... the best you can hope is to press your nose against the window, and hope that what you think you see is what is actually there.

A Christian is one who is able to follow in the precepts of Christ. A Pre-Christian is one who knows and feels its value but is not yet able to do so.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Mohandas Gandhi

The mistake he is making is in calling those he met "Christians." Some were misguided pre-Christians and others were just non-Christians.

 

[Thomas]

The solution for an individual's quest for the experience of human meaning and purpose begins with the impartial efforts to "Know Thyself" or inner empiricism. Blind followers kill people. Those that have experienced the human condition within themselves in the context of the human potential for meaning and purpose are aware of the the dangers of blind belief

Again, the straw-man, those who don't think like me are murderers.

In this entire post, as in others, not one mention of Father, Son or Holy Spirit — just 'inner empiricism' — and might I remind you that man is not his own alpha and omega, so he does not know his own good or his own end — so 'meaning' and 'purpose' are external to him, unless he's inventing himself and the world around him as he goes along.

So I look for meaning and purpose where it can be found, not where it can't be found, but oh-so-easily assumed. That was Adam's error. That is modernism's error, when the Enlightenment insisted it could remodel the world and work nature according to its own demands. You're doing the same thing to God.

Your Christianity, it seems to me, is just an abstraction as far as you're concerned, with no objective reality, no power, no causal effect upon the soul, everything depends on self-analysis.

The Trinity and its expression within creation is the essence of esoteric Christianity. Every-thing in the universe is a union of three forces.

Nope, that's cosmology. You're nowhere near the Trinity yet ... any triune fits that bill, you've missed what is unique to Christianity, you've missed the real esoterism and assumed a cosmological esoterism applies. Common mistake.

When someone asked Simone once if she wanted to be a saint she replied that we don't need any more saints, what we need is saintliness. This requires the ability to "ponder."

That is such a piece of soundbite BS!!!
A) A lot of saints were 'doers'. St Francis had a close companion, St Leo, who was found playing with the kids when supposed to be with Francis on his way to see the Pope. His hosts were about to berate the monk, when Francis said "If I had a hundred like him, I could win the world for God!", or words to that effect.
B) The lives of the saints offer us actual examples we can see, taste and touch, not intellectual abstractions we can ponder about;
C) What is a saint if not someone who evidences saintliness as an example and a sign for others to follow?
D) Without saints she wouldn't know what saintliness was to talk about.
E) Ergo, if there is no saint, there is no saintliness.
F) She's missed 'sanctity' altogether, which is what makes a saint a saint.
G) I could go on.
Sorry Nick, but that statement is a crock. Sounds like she's trying to be 'clever' to me.

Saintliness with no saints is just someone blowing smoke.

For us, the Immaculata is the patron of philosophy, for she heard and collected all these things "and pondered them in her heart" (says Luke, twice). You ponder them in your head ... that's your 'problem'.

How to "Know Thyself" so as to get out of our own way ...

So why engage a science which points the spotlight on 'you' for love's sake!? In my experience, 'knowing thyself' in the modern idiom is a short canoe ride up one's own wazoo — you know nothing until you try it for real. Lord, 'therapy' is big business!

All modern day 'knowing thyself' navel-gazing accomplishes nothing but overt self-consciousness.

A better way is the child's way — forget yourself for a change, and get engrossed in something. Christ loved little children because they loved Him without reserve. You would have us so self-focussed we'd be so reserved and self-conscious we'd not be able to speak.

What Christ wants is for us to run at Him and throw ourselves at Him like kids – at least it gives Him something He can deal with. Instead we stand about at a distance, shuffling and mumbling, wondering whether we've attained some standard of self-knowledge, self-awareness ... 'look at me, in my sinfulness ... '

Anyway ... it's unlikely we'll find any common ground, and this is getting circuitous and too much of a distraction for me, so I shall retire from the discussion.

I'm tired of playing Augustine to your Pelagius ... and this argument is that old.

I know that our Christian lives are not perfect, but we're human. But it still offers a more and better hope than your philosophy. I've been around people, and know, for the majority, the level of intellectual ability and asceticism required to achieve your goals is just out of the question. What percentage of the populace d'you think will actually make it, following your model of self-realisation? What hope for the rest?

What percentage, without access to a western education, or any education at all — how are you gonna explain to a street kid in Brazil the love of God by engaging him in an intense self-awareness course?

Christ was not an elitist. Your philosophy is fundamentally elitist, you can't escape that ... it's for a very, very few. Those who can, do. Those who cant? They are lost.

That's not the way the Good Shepherd works.

Thomas

 

[soma]

So why engage a science which points the spotlight on 'you' for love's sake!? In my experience, 'knowing thyself' in the modern idiom is a short canoe ride up one's own wazoo — you know nothing until you try it for real. Lord, 'therapy' is big business!

All modern day 'knowing thyself' navel-gazing accomplishes nothing but overt self-consciousness.
Thomas

Love comes to us through the enfoldment and revelation of our own inner being. “Love your brother as yourself,” in this work we must first know and love ourselves.

 

[Thomas]

Love comes to us through the enfoldment and revelation of our own inner being. “Love your brother as yourself,” in this work we must first know and love ourselves.

I would dispute that. Love of one's own inner being is pride.

Christian self love resides in knowing that through Him we exist, that by another we exist, that in another we exist ...

We have to be very careful here:
Either you end up with Christ and the Holy Spirit have no real power at all in the life of the person, the only real power is the process of psychoanalysis.

Or you end up declaring yourself to be Divine by misunderstanding a whole other raft of texts.

Again and again, it seems to me, the argument states that God is fallible, but man is not.

+++

Regarding psychoanalysis, Popper argued that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience because its claims are not testable and cannot be refuted, if a client's reaction was not consistent with the theory then an alternate explanation would be given.

Other sources argue that although a science, the claims of psychoanalysis are unsupported by clinical evidence and therefore have to be taken on faith.

The proliferation of methods suggests schism, and any real science soon gets lost under the welter of personal opinion: behaviour therapy, cognitive therapy, gestalt therapy, person-centered psychotherapy, etc., etc.

Others determined that so-called results were due to spontaneous remission., and yet others that psychotherapy is no different than placebo controls.

Michel Foucault and Gilles Deleuze claimed that the institution of psychoanalysis has become a center of power and that its confessional techniques resemble the Christian tradition.
Nick himself posits the therapist as a new priesthood. Too often, people look at the church, and devoid of faith, see nothing but a powerful institution and think, "I want some of that" — that's why the proliferation of religion in the US, where it is treated as a commercial enterprise like everything else.

Looking at the degree of vehemence that marks dialogue in the field, so much so they've been named "Freud Wars", I am of the opinion that such a priesthood would be at each other's throats in moments, and that we'd soon be back in the dialogue and the superstitions of the Middle Ages.

Thomas

 

[soma]

To love one's true self one needs to move beyond self-hatred and get rid of resentment and bitterness. Forgiving others and ourselves will not only change the way we relate to others, but will remove from our life something similar to a cancerous cell, which has been infecting everything we do. Jesus said, “Love thy neighbor as thyself,” because it provides an effective answer to the many problems of modern life. This call for love tells us that we are united and that no other person is separate or apart in God’s spiritual consciousness.

 

[earl]

Mysticism is essentially an effect within one's consciousness. Christian mysticism, by definition, would be an "effect" mediated by reliance upon the Christ. Agree with some of Thomas' statements in this thread that some of the posters seem to be attempting to define the contours of Christian mysticism without the crucal element of reliance upon Christ. earl

 

[soma]

I agree, Christian Mysticism is mysticism in Christ that is how it got the word Christian, but I think it can be explained with science, psychology and philosophy.

 

[Quahom1]

I agree, Christian Mysticism is mysticism in Christ that is how it got the word Christian, but I think it can be explained with science, psychology and philosophy.

Sure you don't mean it can be "dismissed" through science, psychology and philosophy? I mean that is what is being attempted in this thread, the dismissal of Christian unknowns, through natural sciences, and man's logic and reasoning ability...

 

[soma]

No, I think it can be explained and it should be. We need to satisfy our intellect so we can go beyond it.

 

[Netti-Netti]

Yes please.

Sorry for the delay....
http://www.spiritualjourneys.org.uk/pdf/look_understanding_the_spirituality_of_people.pdf

But I would say then, that what people report is a cosmic and not a metacosmic experience — the Christian Mystical experience is of the self in Christ, in the Divine life, not of the self in the cosmos.

I've decided that ideological religion just helps us organize concepts and does not shape ontological reality and also does not give rise to it.

"Glorify self or discover self? They could look the same." Your response:

The temptation is always there.

I don't believe any particular religion is better able to help people avoid or manage the temptation toward self-idolatry. Ironically, Buddhism probably offers the most practical measures in this regard without invoking theistic ideology.

 

[Thomas]

I've decided that ideological religion just helps us organize concepts and does not shape ontological reality and also does not give rise to it.

That's why I cleave to traditional religion.

I don't believe any particular religion is better able to help people avoid or manage the temptation toward self-idolatry. Ironically, Buddhism probably offers the most practical measures in this regard without invoking theistic ideology.

True ... but I have a Daoist friend who is deeply saddened by the self-serving approach of some Westerners to Buddhism, it's attraction being it's interpretation as an "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy that aims as self-satisfaction as a good and places no requirement on you towards your neighbour.

Find anything good ... and man will find a way to bend it to suit himself.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

That's why I cleave to traditional religion.

I had the catholic church in mind when I said that some ideological religions presume to shape ontological reality.

True ... but I have a Daoist friend who is deeply saddened by the self-serving approach of some Westerners to Buddhism, it's attraction being it's interpretation as an "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy that aims as self-satisfaction as a good and places no requirement on you towards your neighbour.

The application of some Westerners would not necessarily reflect on Buddhism. The "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy is also a possibility among the practitioners of Christianity. The idea of being forgiven for sins one is about to commit has little deterrent value and arguably only encourages sin.

Find anything good ... and man will find a way to bend it to suit himself.

Again, I don't believe any particular religion is better able to help people deal with that tendency.

 

[Thomas]

I had the catholic church in mind when I said that some ideological religions presume to shape ontological reality.

I'm sure you did. I would rather say orthodox Christianity reveals the true deiform ontology of reality.

Whether Christianity is a philosophical ideology or a reality depends upon one's engagement with it. Indeed, in the words of its founder, the Church can in fact shape this world, as long as it conforms to its ontological image.

I rather think human ideologies have bent the perception of reality almost out of existence.

The application of some Westerners would not necessarily reflect on Buddhism. The "I'm all right, Jack" philosophy is also a possibility among the practitioners of Christianity.

That's my point. No one's perfect.

The idea of being forgiven for sins one is about to commit has little deterrent value and arguably only encourages sin.

And the idea that it doesn't matter cos you can come back and have another go?

Again, I don't believe any particular religion is better able to help people deal with that tendency.

Here I would disagree, but there are no magic wands.

Thomas