Christian Mysticism

[Netti-Netti]

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

Hi Thomas, let's go back to the thread on Baptism real quick. In your own words, "the immediate benefit (of Baptism) derives from the Grace conferred by the Sacramental Act — eternal life." Since the sacrament involves and depends upon human agency — i.e., the priest who administers it — I think it's accurate to say that the priest is positioned as having the power to effect an ontological change for the infant undergoing baptism. To use the words of Father Adolfo Dacanáy, the Catholic baptism "incorporates us into the body of Christ precisely by effecting an ontological change in our being conforming us to Christ."

The Catholic view accords the church and its priests special powers, including the power to effect sacramental action with respect to recipients of the sacrament. Remarkably, the consent or awareness of a recipient is apparently not required to accomplish the intend ontological change. The infant being baptized would have no idea of what is going on. Importantly, the child has no capacity to intend the change. Someone else is intending it for the child.

According to the official Vatican position, the Church's Baptism ritual gives the infant Eternal Life. It actually says that denying an infant baptism is tantamount to denying the child Eternal Life. Again, since the sacrament requires human agency — i.e., the priest who administers it — it follows that the priest positions himself as having the power to grant an infant Eternal Life.

My issue on the Baptism thread relates to the importance of the recipient's involvement. Can a sacrament be effected upon someone who does not want it, has no understanding of needing it, and has no appreciation for how it modifies one's relationship to the Divine? To my way of thinking, the answer is no, which is why infant baptism strikes me as being a magical act.

I don't understand how an infant can benefit from a sacramental action without participating it and without consciously receiving it. I also don't see how a priest can effectively intend something for someone else (a child being baptised) that this other person (the child) does not understand. It's like the priest's intention can actualize an ontological change without involving the person at a level of conscious cooperation in the Baptism ritual.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Thomas, let's go back to the thread on Baptism real quick...

... I don't understand how an infant can benefit from a sacramental action without participating it and without consciously receiving it.

I don't think anyone 'participates' or 'consciously receives' a gift of grace intellectually or even 'sensibly' — it all goes on in the depths of the soul.

It's not something you can monitor or measure. By your rule, only one in a few million would be allowed to be baptised.

The Church is empowered to act by proxy. God has said that Baptism frees the soul from the tyranny of death, and opens the path to Eternal Life. It's a Gift God chooses to bestow upon whomsoever He wills, as He wills.

It is a Sacramental Gift He has given the Church to perform in His name. What the gift does is enable the possibility of eternal life that was not there before. It does not guarantee it, rather it opens the way to it.

I don't see what you've got against children, why would you deny them the gift? Why are you looking to set up all manner of conditions? I think it's bloomin' marvellous that the baptism of children works!

Frankly I don't know why God empowered any of us to effect anything in His name, but He did, and I'm thankful for it.

Thomas

 

[Netti-Netti]

I don't think anyone 'participates' or 'consciously receives' a gift of grace intellectually or even 'sensibly' — it all goes on in the depths of the soul..... By your rule, only one in a few million would be allowed to be baptised.

My rule? Let's consult the Bible. As described in the Old Testament, the act of repentance and turning back toward G-d from sin is at the heart of religious commitment. Over and over, G-d enters into dialogue with His children to remind yet again of the possibility for turning. Paul framed this decision to turn back to G-d in terms of receiving Jesus into one's life through faith. His description of it makes it clear that personal salvation is indeed conscious and, importantly, that salvation cannot be accomplished for an individual without the person's commitment, as attested by verbal affirmation:

That if you confess with your mouth, "Jesus is Lord," and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved.
​

~Paul, Romans 10:9-10

The Church is empowered to act by proxy.

The Bible says Christ is the only Mediator.

It's a Gift God chooses to bestow upon whomsoever He wills, as He wills.

Or is it universally available to anyone who would accept it?

It is a Sacramental Gift He has given the Church to perform in His name. What the gift does is enable the possibility of eternal life that was not there before. It does not guarantee it, rather it opens the way to it.

I believe the individual's decision to accept the Gift is what opens the way. This has little to do with Church rites and rituals.

I don't see what you've got against children, why would you deny them the gift? Why are you looking to set up all manner of conditions?

I am not setting them up. I'm merely pointing out what the Apostle Paul had to say on the subject.

I'm inclined to go along wit Paul (Romans 10:9-10) on this matter. I believe the decision to accept the Gift of Grace is the crux. Indeed, how one receive the Gift without a conscious decision to accept it? Likewise, how can one remain aligned with the Son's mission and bear witness and serve without having made a conscious decision to do these things?

 

[Nick_A]

"I am not a Catholic; but I consider the Christian idea, which has its roots in Greek thought and in the course of the centuries has nourished all of our European civilization, as something that one cannot renounce without becoming degraded." Simone Weil

Thomas

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

This is not logical. Blind belief can lead to many different results. So you reply by saying those that don't think like me are murderers. That is just silly.

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

This is true for fallen man but why wouldn't evolved conscious man become aware of meaning and purpose? I'm quite sure Jesus was aware of objective meaning and purpose. Is there any reason that man cannot evolve to the same understanding and function as is normal for MAN as opposed to a cave creature?

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.

The only place human meaning and purpose can be felt and actualized is in the whole of himself. You won't find it by blind belief.

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.

You don't want to be open to psychology as opposed to behaviorism. Of course in modern times psychology and behaviorism are the same. Psychology though is the study of "being," of what we "ARE."

"People should not worry as much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctify our works." Meister Eckhart

How do we "know thyself," what we ARE, in comparison to our potential without self knowledge. You support blind belief and I believe Meister Eckhart expresses something essential for Christianity.

"If you seek the kernel, then you must break the shell. An likewise, if you would know the reality of Nature, you must destroy the appearance, and the farther you go beyond the appearance, the nearer you will be to the essence." Meister Eckhart.

Jesus, Meister Eckhart refers to the kernel and the shell as did Simone Weil, Prof. Needleman and others. This is psychology. For you it is meaningless and for me it is Christianity.

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.

Cosmology is based on trinitiarian relationships. You don't understand it and prefer to say that I'm wrong. The Trinity makes sense to me and how God is simultaneously one and three. Cosmology, levels of reality, also makes sense to me. One of my direct ancestors painted a famous depiction of the cosmological decent in Genesis 1. Am I supposed to disregard everything that I've learned or is within me because you aren't open to it? Would you?

That is such a piece of soundbite BS!!!

Again, you don't understand those like Simone. This is a larger excerpt of her observation:

“Today it is not nearly enough to be a saint; but we must have the saintliness demanded by the present moment, a new saintliness."

How many know what this means? Do we know what she means here?

"One cannot imagine St. Francis of Assisi talking about rights."

Well since we are always talking of rights, how can we respect the saintliness Simone is referring to?

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'.

The idea is to experience the external world with the whole of oneself: head, heart, and body. We are out of balance so cannot do it. You don't want to see it in yourself which is your problem.

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.

All this means is that you don't know what it means to "know thyself" which puts you in the majority. Jesus is speaking nonsense to many here but becoming able to "know thyself" is essential for Christian psychology. From the Gospel of Thomas.

(3) Jesus said, "If those who lead you say to you, 'See, the kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, 'It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you. When you come to know yourselves, then you will become known, and you will realize that it is you who are the sons of the living father. But if you will not know yourselves, you dwell in poverty and it is you who are that poverty."

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 ... '

And kids are gullible. The problem for us is how to become open without being gullible. Simone could do it without being gullible. Must she be such an exception:

"Yet I still half refused, not my love but my intelligence. For it seemed to me certain, and I still think so today, that one can never wrestle enough with God if one does so out of pure regard for the truth. Christ likes us to prefer truth to him because, before being Christ, he is truth. If one turns aside from him to go toward the truth, one will not go far before falling into his arms."

One cannot be gullible and pursue truth and the pursuit of truth doesn't deny the Christ since they are ONE. But of course, who can do it. Not that many Simones and Meister Eckharts.

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.

Good idea. You are limited to Catholic dogma.

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-realization? What hope for the rest?

And without the actualization of some Christians and their participation in conscious influences in society, our situation is hopeless. The rest is dependent on this minority that is so hated.

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?

This reminds me of Father Vincent's account of his time in Africa building a school. The natives there told him he had to leave. He didn't know why but felt it best that he didn't leave. Finally the school was built and tribal leaders and the Christian community got together to celebrate the opening of the school. They were quite nice to Father Vincent.

Finally he came to know that they were telling his church personality to leave. They like him on the inside but the church personality was a bit too much so they wanted it to go so he could be himself rather than this character he was presenting.

What will actually be done to some of these kids in Brazil that are not attracted to playing a part?

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.

Christianity needs to create Christians. Call it elitist if you will but like I said, I believe it to be an essential conscious influence in the world.

That's not the way the Good Shepherd works.

Of course there are many "asleep in the body" of Christ but the world needs the conscious Christian influence to minimize normal harmful results of secular cyclical cave reactions.

 

[Nick_A]

It is amazing that this profound phrase "Know Thyself" can be simultaneouly valued and scorned. Meister Eckhart understood it but so many within christendom see it as senseless and just have faith without any concept that what is having faith is an external coating. To Know thyself begins the experience of the coats but we confuse it with analyis and lord knows what. We simply don't know how to begin to "Know Thyself" so often prefer to ignore it and proclaim it as meaningless in favor of some rituals:

"To seek God by rituals is to get the ritual and lose God in the process, for he hides behind it." Meister Eckhart

"A human being has so many skins inside, covering the depths of the heart. We know so many things, but we don't know ourselves! Why, thirty or forty skins or hides, as thick and hard as an ox's or bear's, cover the soul. Go into your own ground and learn to know yourself there." Meister Echart

To each his own. I have gratitude for the Meister Eckharts and Simones that have been in our world and have provided the psychological alternative to secularism that cannot appreciate the levels of reality represented by these "skins of hides" and only concerned with "doing" this or that from the most external parts or "skins" of ourselves.

 

[earl]

And what is your proposal for how to accomplish that Nick? earl

 

[Nick_A]

And what is your proposal for how to accomplish that Nick? earl

You must need it. You must be willing to suffer for it. The experience of oneself and how we are held in psychological bondage is not pleasant. Awakening is very unpleasant. We are used to the pleasantries of our dreams and for most, it is all that is needed. It is natural then to hate alarm clocks

That is why going into any details on a thread is harmful. Every effort is made to pervert it since it is unpleasant and we prefer platitudes.

Luke 9:

23Then he said to them all: "If anyone would come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me. 24For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for me will save it. 25What good is it for a man to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit his very self?

One cannot deny themselves before beginning to acquire a quality of consciousness capable of Knowing thyself. Nothing cutsey pooh about this. It is pure psychology and leaves a person open through its perversion to harm themselves on the inside.

 

[earl]

You don't want to go into details in this thread because it might be harmful So, you have some secret knowledge not suitable for the masses I take it. earl

 

[Nick_A]

You don't want to go into details in this thread because it might be harmful So, you have some secret knowledge not suitable for the masses I take it. earl

Christian psychology is double edged. In the East esoteric knowledge is respected and passed on in the rightful way by oral tradition. Only here in the West it is considered meaningless so we just create our own reality so as to feel good.

I remember on the thread "Right Speech" where even this basic premise was considered unimportant to warrant another board. Yet you would want to discuss the depths of this most profound psychology of human "being" that can be both meaningful and dangerous depending upon how we take them, most don't even recognize anymore so as to have a debate. This may be your way but I cannot be that unfeeling and inconsiderate towards people.

Take out the secular reasoning for a moment if possible and tell me if you've ever considered seriously why Christ spoke in parables? What could be the psychology behind it?

 

[Bandit]

Take out the secular reasoning for a moment if possible and tell me if you've ever considered seriously why Christ spoke in parables? What could be the psychology behind it?

I dont picture him as someone who enjoyed crowds much at all and have my doubts he intentionally used any psychology when the few little snippets came out of his mouth when crowds gathered. He did not entertain them very long. The baby talk could be understood by children in which he loved children. I doubt that kind of character needed to prove anything & would avoid such places where people debackle 24/7.

His deepest moments & strongest teaching came when talking to someone in a one on one situation unlike an environment like this now or the crowds then.... as far as the parables are concerned. There was another side to him & he had no problem telling the politicians & religions of his day to basicly stick it, but no psychology or nasty debate tactic were ever needed from him.

I am sure you have something totally different but that is my answer in brief to the question.

 

[Bandit]

...and he did say the people are dull of hearing, so why bother talking to them with more than a few words if their ears dont hear anyway.

 

[Nick_A]

I dont picture him as someone who enjoyed crowds much at all and have my doubts he intentionally used any psychology when the few little snippets came out of his mouth when crowds gathered. He did not entertain them very long. The baby talk could be understood by children in which he loved children. I doubt that kind of character needed to prove anything & would avoid such places where people debackle 24/7.

His deepest moments & strongest teaching came when talking to someone in a one on one situation unlike an environment like this now or the crowds then.... as far as the parables are concerned. There was another side to him & he had no problem telling the politicians & religions of his day to basicly stick it, but no psychology or nasty debate tactic were ever needed from him.

I am sure you have something totally different but that is my answer in brief to the question.

Wow! You say Jesus said others were dull of hearing. He didn't like crowds but liked baby talk and children. He also liked to stick it to politicians and religious exponents of his day.

This picture seems to depict Jesus as a bit of an intolerant stick in the mud. As you know, the world has been and will continually be filled with these types yet they are never remembered for too long and most try and erase the memory of them as soon as possible to let the fresh air in. Yet for some reason his name has survived through the centuries. How can this be? Is it just an accident? I don't think so. How many of these royal pains and sticks in the mud have walked by others and have them drop everything to follow them? Perhaps there is a profound psychology in action we know little of and are increasingly forgetting.

 

[Bandit]

Wow! You say Jesus said others were dull of hearing.

No, that is what the bible says that Jesus said -so, do not say that I said it.

Wow! you say Jesus used psychology on people! Wow! & yet you have not one passage that ever said such a thing to even build such an idea from.

Not only does the bible say that he said the people are dull of hearing, but it ALSO reads... their eyes are closed HA! & their hearts are waxed gross.
Wow!
Deal with it!

If you know so much like you declare you would at least know that much. But you don't. Maybe because your ears are dull & your eyes are closed. Go look it up and stop being lazy when you read.

He didn't like crowds but liked baby talk and children. He also liked to stick it to politicians and religious exponents of his day.

He did make the crowds go when he did not want them, passed through them quickly & did not stick around very long in crowds, spending way more valuable time in private with people. He took kindly to children & women, that is what the bible depicts very clearly and you obviously dont know it. And he had no problem telling the religious leaders & politicians of his day their error, or not speaking to them at all if he chose to.



I never said he literally and physically stuck it to politicians and I never said he liked baby talk.

YOU SAID ALL THAT.

Dont put words into peoples mouths. Very lousy debate tactic you have and for no reason other than to fill your own agenda as if you are the only person who could ever be right about something.

psychology

That is what you said, yet there is not a drop written about using psychology. Nothing. Nada, Zippo, Zilch, Zero written about Jesus using deliberate psychology on people. So you go right on and make up a bunch of stuff to satisfy your own psychology as if it depicts him as a psychologoist.

Perhaps there is a profound psychology in action

Perhaps you have another rabbit you can pull out of your magic hat.

I aint biting but do enjoy fussing with yourself from here about some stupid psychology debate you created. I am sure you do it well.

 

[Nick_A]

No, that is what the bible says that Jesus said -so, do not say that I said it.

Wow! you say Jesus used psychology on people! Wow! & yet you have not one passage that ever said such a thing to even build such an idea from.

Not only does the bible say that he said the people are dull of hearing, but it ALSO reads... their eyes are closed HA! & their hearts are waxed gross.
Wow!
Deal with it!

If you know so much like you declare you would at least know that much. But you don't. Maybe because your ears are dull & your eyes are closed. Go look it up and stop being lazy when you read.




He did make the crowds go when he did not want them, passed through them quickly & did not stick around very long in crowds, spending way more valuable time in private with people. He took kindly to children & women, that is what the bible depicts very clearly and you obviously dont know it. And he had no problem telling the religious leaders & politicians of his day their error, or not speaking to them at all if he chose to.



I never said he literally and physically stuck it to politicians and I never said he liked baby talk.

YOU SAID ALL THAT.

Dont put words into peoples mouths. Very lousy debate tactic you have and for no reason other than to fill your own agenda as if you are the only person who could ever be right about something.



That is what you said, yet there is not a drop written about using psychology. Nothing. Nada, Zippo, Zilch, Zero written about Jesus using deliberate psychology on people. So you go right on and make up a bunch of stuff to satisfy your own psychology as if it depicts him as a psychologoist.


Perhaps you have another rabbit you can pull out of your magic hat.

I aint biting but do enjoy fussing with yourself from here about some stupid psychology debate you created. I am sure you do it well.

Dull of hearing? Sounds reasonable. The reason all this religious confusion grew worse and worse was because of hearing problems and the lack of technology necessary to invent hearing aids or PA systems. Just think, if hearing aids and sound systems were available at the time Jesus walked the earth, the crowd would have heard what he said clearing up any confusion.

never said he literally and physically stuck it to politicians and I never said he liked baby talk.

YOU SAID ALL THAT.

Dont put words into peoples mouths. Very lousy debate tactic you have and for no reason other than to fill your own agenda as if you are the only person who could ever be right about something.

You wrote:

The baby talk could be understood by children in which he loved children.

I may be wrong but it seems according to you he used baby talk to appeal to children. This suggests that he liked baby talk for appealing to children.

That is what you said, yet there is not a drop written about using psychology. Nothing. Nada, Zippo, Zilch, Zero written about Jesus using deliberate psychology on people. So you go right on and make up a bunch of stuff to satisfy your own psychology as if it depicts him as a psychologoist.

The psychology of being is experiential. It isn't a matter of BSing about it.

I aint biting but do enjoy fussing with yourself from here about some stupid psychology debate you created. I am sure you do it well.

You like to debate and the results of Christian psychology are experiential over time. Some children lacking experience debate the existence of orgasms while maturity invites the possibility of experiential knowledge. It is the same idea. Objective mysticism as opposed to new age fantasy and altered states of consciousness requires spiritual maturity.

 

[soma]

We have studied psychology, the Bible, and different philosophies and we think we know what God dislikes. We claim to know all about God, new age and other religions, but in the stillness of our mind comes the desire to be united with God. This causes a transformation in God, which I would call Christian Mysticism. I would call this enlightened with love. Our words can't convey the love of the illumined person that is done through the warmth and light of the love that is showered on others. People want to be connected to a Higher Power, God and not words that flatter a path or organization. Let's feed the hunger for God and not the propaganda to favor a certain position over another.