Are Christians doing themselves a disservice by rejecting other religions? (split)

[JBrainard]

Ok, now I’m going to completely derail this thread and rant about something that I strongly believe but have never posted.
I hesitate to call myself a Zen Buddhist because I don’t go to Temple and I’m not mindful of my actions/thoughts most of the time, among other things. But I strongly believe in the philosophy of Buddhism, particularly in the Buddhist teachings on seeking knowledge. Spiritual insight can be found in any religion. There are even things in the Satanic bible that make sense, although there are also many things in it that I find silly. My point is that you can find wisdom EVERYWHERE, not just in your religion of choice.
An illustration: The two Catholics that I have met in the course of my life so far that I respect the most are my father and a priest who taught religious studies at the private high school I attended. Both were Buddhists who, through seeking knowledge found that Catholicism, more than any other religion, appealed to them spiritually.
IMHO, I think that many Christians are doing themselves a disservice by complete rejection of all other religions. In doing so they are denying themselves knowledge that can be VERY Christian, if not, at the very least, give them more perspective on their already established beliefs.
Rant over.

 

[ChingChuan]

IMHO, I think that many Christians are doing themselves a disservice by complete rejection of all other religions. In doing so they are denying themselves knowledge that can be VERY Christian, if not, at the very least, give them more perspective on their already established beliefs.
Rant over.

So, it really doesn't matter that we hijack the thread?

I don't want to offend you, but well, I don't really agree with you. Jesus said in the Bible that He was the only way (I am the way, the truth, and the life!” John 14:5) so that's why most Christians 'reject' all other religions. Maybe we deny themselves knowledge, but if God told us that he is the only one, why should we do it?
However, I agree that there might be 'Christian' parts in other religions. I don't know how to explain in English, but uhm, I believe that God is the only 'real' god. (No offence intended!) God wants to have a relationship with everyone, it's our... goal of life, that's why we were made. So, I think that it's very logical that there are other religions that contain ideas/things that are comparable to Christian beliefs, because everyone is somehow searching for God (or something 'higher', whatever). I won't say that other religions are bad because there are many religions that do something good for this world, but in the end, they are, to my opinion, not the truth.

Unfortunately I'm not too good at saying this type of things in English,so I hope it wasn't too confusing... But I hope you understand it isn't really like condemning other religions & believers but rather like... knowing the truth or something.

(back on topic)
Yesterday, my instructor taught me a technique with a fan and my mother wasn't even impressed Okay, it wasn't like I wanted to impress her but she just stood there... I think she doesn't understand the beauty of MA or something.

 

[Cirdan]

Basically there are two kinds of religious people. One seeks wisdom. The other wants simple awnsers to justify his own existence. Guess which one is more concerned about heretics and "pagan practices" like martial arts? Makes it easy to hang on to those easy awnsers i guess.

 

[ChingChuan]

Basically there are two kinds of religious people. One seeks wisdom. The other wants simple awnsers to justify his own existence. Guess which one is more concerned about heretics and "pagan practices" like martial arts? Makes it easy to hang on to those easy awnsers i guess.

I'm sorry, but I can't refrain from replying .

Could you explain what 'seeking wisdom' is? I mean, I suppose that at least a part of seeking wisdom is trying to find out 1. what is good/evil (or at least, something that works for you) and thus, you'll establish a set of... morals. I mean, in the end, you'll have a clear idea of what you think of a 'good thing' to do and a 'bad/evil thing'.

Christians believe that God helps you in this process of finding out what's right/wrong (through the Bible, but also through the conscience). So, bascially, it's possible that one person 'is allowed' (feels okay with) practising martial arts and the other person 'isn't allowed' (doesn't feel okay with) to practise martial arts - and still both are right.

Okay, this doesn't work with all things (cases such as heresy are quite difficult and I don't know anything about it, to be honest) but for MAs it certainly does. I don't think that people who condemn MA are 'wrong' or 'misguided' or wanting simple answers - maybe MAs are really not the right things to do for them. God says in the Bible that it's a sin to do something you're not comfortable with (conscience) so we shouldn't force people to uhm, approve of MA when they don't want to.
However, the people who are... 'limited' shouldn't condemn us. (trhat's also in the Bible) Unfortunately it happens quite often that martial artists are regarded as uhm, people who do occult things, but we're the more sensible side, so why should it bother us? As long as we don't condemn them too, it won't matter.

Hm, I hope I'm not offending people (I didn't intend to do so!), but I encounter this type of... 'problem' quite often as I am also a Harry Potter fan . So that's why I probably come across as a little bit hot-headed, but I simply couldn't refrain from replying.

 

[Carol]

JB, ChingChuan, and Cirdan:

This is actually an excellent discussion that is worthy of a thread of its own.

I'd like to split these last posts off and move them to Philosophy and Spirtuality in the Arts, so we can take the discussion onwards.

 

[Shaderon]

I agree Carol, it could get confusing in here.

 

[Andrew Green]

Mod Note

Thread split from this thread: http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=49482

Andrew Green
MT Tech Admin

 

[JBrainard]

I don't want to offend you, but well, I don't really agree with you. Jesus said in the Bible that He was the only way (I am the way, the truth, and the life!” John 14:5) so that's why most Christians 'reject' all other religions. Maybe we deny themselves knowledge, but if God told us that he is the only one, why should we do it?
However, I agree that there might be 'Christian' parts in other religions. I don't know how to explain in English, but uhm, I believe that God is the only 'real' god. (No offence intended!) God wants to have a relationship with everyone, it's our... goal of life, that's why we were made. So, I think that it's very logical that there are other religions that contain ideas/things that are comparable to Christian beliefs, because everyone is somehow searching for God (or something 'higher', whatever). I won't say that other religions are bad because there are many religions that do something good for this world, but in the end, they are, to my opinion, not the truth.
Unfortunately I'm not too good at saying this type of things in English,so I hope it wasn't too confusing... But I hope you understand it isn't really like condemning other religions & believers but rather like... knowing the truth or something.

First off, I am not in any way, shape, or form offended by your beliefs Like I said, I have a lot of respect for my father, who is a Catholic.
Anyway, as to your post. I am not saying that you should not believe that Jesus is the son of the one true God. What I'm saying is that the Bible is not the only source of really positive spiritual wisdom. Take the prolific writer and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh for example. The life he leads and his writings are more Christ like than any Christian I have ever met! Sound crazy? Try this: The next time you are at a book store, skim through his book "Being Peace," and try to find something un-Christian in it, I dare ya' Now, you can get a lot of positive spiritual material out of that book (for example) but you don't have to stop believing that Christ is the Messiah to do it. That is why I say that many Christians are doing themselves a disservice. Not because they are Christian, but because their spiritual wisdom begins and ends with Christianity. It's like: If you believed that the strawberry was the best fruit, and chose to eat only strawberrys, you'd be missing out on a lot of yummy fruit. Maybe not as good as strawberrys, but you are missing out none the less.

 

[Carol]

However, the people who are... 'limited' shouldn't condemn us. (trhat's also in the Bible) Unfortunately it happens quite often that martial artists are regarded as uhm, people who do occult things, but we're the more sensible side, so why should it bother us? As long as we don't condemn them too, it won't matter.

Hm, I hope I'm not offending people (I didn't intend to do so!), but I encounter this type of... 'problem' quite often as I am also a Harry Potter fan . So that's why I probably come across as a little bit hot-headed, but I simply couldn't refrain from replying.

I don't think you sound hot headed at all. You're expressing your opinion in a way that gets your point of view across, without insulting the viewpoint of someone else.

Personally I think the misunderstanding of MA is...well...ignorance.

In Asia, one can find devout Christians among the indigenous people. Yet these devout folks also bow their head slightly to one another as a greeting or taking some quiet time at the end of the day to meditate and reflect. There's nothing heretical about those actions.

When I first started training in martial arts, there was another adult woman that joined around the same time I did. A couple weeks in to our training, our instructor had us going on a long, painful run of ab exercises. After we were done (and moaning in pain), he told the class how that exercise would specifically benefit us. The woman touched my sleeve and joked "So this isn't magic, after all." No, not magic, just hard training.

I dn't have an issue with someone saying "This isn't for me". I just wish that folks with a disparaging attitude (regardless of what faith they are...or aren't...) would learn a bit more about something before denigrating it as something horrible.

 

[JBrainard]

Basically there are two kinds of religious people. One seeks wisdom. The other wants simple awnsers to justify his own existence. Guess which one is more concerned about heretics and "pagan practices" like martial arts? Makes it easy to hang on to those easy awnsers i guess.

Very, very true. And you can find both kinds of people in every religion.

 

[heretic888]

My thoughts on the subject can be found in the following discussion thread:

James Fowler's Faith Development Theory

Personally, though, I think the vast majority of "Christians" are so mind-boggingly clueless about their own history and traditions that they really don't need to worry too much about looking into that of others'.

But, hey, that's just my opinion.

 

[JBrainard]

Christians believe that God helps you in this process of finding out what's right/wrong (through the Bible, but also through the conscience). So, bascially, it's possible that one person 'is allowed' (feels okay with) practising martial arts and the other person 'isn't allowed' (doesn't feel okay with) to practise martial arts - and still both are right.
Okay, this doesn't work with all things (cases such as heresy are quite difficult and I don't know anything about it, to be honest) but for MAs it certainly does. I don't think that people who condemn MA are 'wrong' or 'misguided' or wanting simple answers - maybe MAs are really not the right things to do for them. God says in the Bible that it's a sin to do something you're not comfortable with (conscience) so we shouldn't force people to uhm, approve of MA when they don't want to.
However, the people who are... 'limited' shouldn't condemn us. (trhat's also in the Bible) Unfortunately it happens quite often that martial artists are regarded as uhm, people who do occult things, but we're the more sensible side, so why should it bother us? As long as we don't condemn them too, it won't matter.

There is something I noticed in your post. Notice that you are saying that some Christians believe this, some Christians believe that? As you have demonstraited with your examples, the Bible and the laws of Christianity can be interpreted differently by different Christians. So, there is no one way, even among Christians. Building on that idea, why then would it be so difficult to study other religions and interpret them for yourself as well. If your faith is strong, there is no reason to worry that it will convert or corrupt you, it will simply provide information. And you never know, some of that information might be spiritually enlightening, even to a Christian

Hm, I hope I'm not offending people (I didn't intend to do so!), but I encounter this type of... 'problem' quite often as I am also a Harry Potter fan . So that's why I probably come across as a little bit hot-headed, but I simply couldn't refrain from replying.

ChingChuan, you are neither offensive or hot-headed. Actually, this is one of the more polite religious discussions I've had in a while. Most people get A LOT more worked up than you, dude.

 

[tellner]

This touches on something I've been struggling with for a long time. Mystics, it is said, tend to recognize each other. Fundamentalists see only themselves.

"Mystic" doesn't just mean that you talk crazy, believe strange things and wear a funny hat. There's a commonality around the world. You can see it in Chassids, Sufis, Buddhists, Esoteric Hindus, Shamans and others. You can say it comes because we're all basically wired the same way, that the greater Divine Unity is the same everywhere or whatever language you choose.

First, there's an emphasis on practice. It isn't just praying or performing the correct rituals and saying the right words at the right time although rituals are often tools. It isn't even disconnecting the speech centers from cognition as the neurologists have shown happens when Pentacostalists "speak in tongues". All of them have progressive methods which discipline and quiet the mind and the emotions although emotional intensity and mental activity, even creative chaos, are often parts of the program.

This practice generally has a strong physical component whether it's the discipline to sit zazen for days at a time, turning (as in the Whirling Dervishes), hard core davening, adopting postures, physical deprivation or martial arts (HA! I managed to slip in something relevant!) Many traditions have the same proverb: "The body trains the mind." I've heard it from Sufis, from my wife's grandfather when he was trying to explain Chinese Buddhist Walking Meditation, Apache Shamans, Yogis and others.

Second, there's an emphasis on actual results. The results may not be physical; you aren't expected to actually turn water into wine without the addition of yeast and grape sugars. But the progress of the practitioner is obvious to those who have been through the same thing. Usually it's referred to in terms like "waking up" or opening one's eyes and seeing, polishing the mirror or something else that implies a change or clarification in consciousness.

The self and the universe are seen differently, and only after direct experience. In most traditions of which I'm aware the ego is dissolved away, merges with the Greater, is radically transformed or similar. The universe is never the same afterwards. "I" becomes an interesting question rather than something which is assumed. "Ich und Du" as Martin Buber said. The teachings all warn that this is dangerous. Without some source of enduring ethics be it the Dharma Eye or Quran it's possible to lose all restraint and morality when the usual categories like "self", "other", "good", "evil" and "existence" lose their everyday meaning.

Connected with this, the practitioner passes through a number of mental/spiritual/emotional states, sort of like mile markers They may be more or less useful, but are generally seen as stages rather than ends in themselves. The kids' game Snakes and Ladders comes from several ancient games - there are Jewish, Sufi and Hindu variants - that outline these things and the progress or regress of the soul.

One of the most important things is the close personal relationship between teacher (guru, rebbe, shaykh, shaman, roshi, etc.) and student. It isn't easy. It isn't always clear. There are plenty of snares on the path. The practitioner needs someone to guide her, kick her *** periodically, serve as a center when she loses her own and generally be responsible for her spiritual growth and awakening. Sometimes one can be one's own guru. For that to work both student and teacher have to be the right sort of person

So how does this relate to the original question? Quite simply, a lot of this has been lost in mainstream Christianity. For the most part the mystics were plopped into monasteries which didn't teach anyone but other monks. In many other times and places the political institution of the Church acted like any other authoritarian institution. Such things detracted from the authority of the Church becuase it allowed anyone access to the Divine in a form not under ecclesiastical control.

It's not unique to the Christians. Being a Sufi is illegal in pretty much every country ruled by Islamic law. But it's more nearly universal, and there are fewer alternatives in Christendom. The things that would allow Christianity as a collective entity to see the essential commonality beyond theology is missing.

 

[Ninjamom]

Even the Bible talks about the knowledge that God has revealed about Himself that is available to all people (The heavens declare the glory of God......there is no language ..... where their speech isn't heard). In fact, my second favorite inspirational book of all time is 'Eternity in Their Hearts' by Don Richardson, a career linguist/missionary, who chronicled the indigenous beliefs of dozens of native tribes around the world that showed a remarkable knowledge of and reverance for the God of the Bible, before any contact with modern missionaries.

I can understand your point, JB. In early Christiandom, Origen argued that Plato was a 'Christian' BC, walking in the light of revelation that was given to him. And if God truly has set 'eternity in our hearts', so that we might know and search for Him, then there will be tidbits of His knowledge found in each culture, among all peoples. I don't believe that the Scriptures that say "He shows Himself through the lattice", or "Now we see through a glass darkly", apply to Christians only.

My personal take on it is this: Although truth may be found in many places, I only have so much time in this one life. I know that Jesus Christ is the wellspring of all truth ("the Dayspring from on high", in Scripture). I know that the Bible does not contain all the truth that there is, but contains all the truth I need for salvation (paraphrase here: Even the world could not contain all the books that could be written, but these are written that you might believe, and believing, have life.). Therefore, what I will do is build a solid foundation of what I know to be truth, then interpret and evaluate other sources, experiences, and revelations, using the knowledge I've gained through Scripture as a mesh/sieve.

This is how I personally approach all religious/philosophical/editorial writings. Sources of other types of information (historical, scientific, mathematical, etc.) I evaluate with the mindset that, if it doesn't directly contradict what I know to be true, or is not expressly prohibited by Scripture (like martial arts, meditation, or macrame' ), then it is fair game for consideration and other methods of evaluation.

 

[heretic888]

This touches on something I've been struggling with for a long time. Mystics, it is said, tend to recognize each other. Fundamentalists see only themselves.

"Mystic" doesn't just mean that you talk crazy, believe strange things and wear a funny hat. There's a commonality around the world. You can see it in Chassids, Sufis, Buddhists, Esoteric Hindus, Shamans and others. You can say it comes because we're all basically wired the same way, that the greater Divine Unity is the same everywhere or whatever language you choose.

First, there's an emphasis on practice. It isn't just praying or performing the correct rituals and saying the right words at the right time although rituals are often tools. It isn't even disconnecting the speech centers from cognition as the neurologists have shown happens when Pentacostalists "speak in tongues". All of them have progressive methods which discipline and quiet the mind and the emotions although emotional intensity and mental activity, even creative chaos, are often parts of the program.

This practice generally has a strong physical component whether it's the discipline to sit zazen for days at a time, turning (as in the Whirling Dervishes), hard core davening, adopting postures, physical deprivation or martial arts (HA! I managed to slip in something relevant!) Many traditions have the same proverb: "The body trains the mind." I've heard it from Sufis, from my wife's grandfather when he was trying to explain Chinese Buddhist Walking Meditation, Apache Shamans, Yogis and others.

Second, there's an emphasis on actual results. The results may not be physical; you aren't expected to actually turn water into wine without the addition of yeast and grape sugars. But the progress of the practitioner is obvious to those who have been through the same thing. Usually it's referred to in terms like "waking up" or opening one's eyes and seeing, polishing the mirror or something else that implies a change or clarification in consciousness.

The self and the universe are seen differently, and only after direct experience. In most traditions of which I'm aware the ego is dissolved away, merges with the Greater, is radically transformed or similar. The universe is never the same afterwards. "I" becomes an interesting question rather than something which is assumed. "Ich und Du" as Martin Buber said. The teachings all warn that this is dangerous. Without some source of enduring ethics be it the Dharma Eye or Quran it's possible to lose all restraint and morality when the usual categories like "self", "other", "good", "evil" and "existence" lose their everyday meaning.

Connected with this, the practitioner passes through a number of mental/spiritual/emotional states, sort of like mile markers They may be more or less useful, but are generally seen as stages rather than ends in themselves. The kids' game Snakes and Ladders comes from several ancient games - there are Jewish, Sufi and Hindu variants - that outline these things and the progress or regress of the soul.

One of the most important things is the close personal relationship between teacher (guru, rebbe, shaykh, shaman, roshi, etc.) and student. It isn't easy. It isn't always clear. There are plenty of snares on the path. The practitioner needs someone to guide her, kick her *** periodically, serve as a center when she loses her own and generally be responsible for her spiritual growth and awakening. Sometimes one can be one's own guru. For that to work both student and teacher have to be the right sort of person

So how does this relate to the original question? Quite simply, a lot of this has been lost in mainstream Christianity. For the most part the mystics were plopped into monasteries which didn't teach anyone but other monks. In many other times and places the political institution of the Church acted like any other authoritarian institution. Such things detracted from the authority of the Church becuase it allowed anyone access to the Divine in a form not under ecclesiastical control.

It's not unique to the Christians. Being a Sufi is illegal in pretty much every country ruled by Islamic law. But it's more nearly universal, and there are fewer alternatives in Christendom. The things that would allow Christianity as a collective entity to see the essential commonality beyond theology is missing.

Excellent post, tellner.

I'm in general agreement with you here, but I would argue that things aren't quite so bleak in Christendom as you make them out to be. There are famous historical exemplars like St. Dionysius, St. Teresa of Avila, St. John of the Cross, Meister Eckhart, St. Gregory of Nyssa, St. Catherine of Genoa, and even the late Thomas Merton that were strong proponents of a "mystical" Christianity. They are all held in general high regard in the Vatican.

Today, there are a few proponents of traditional "contemplative prayer" in different corners of Christianity. Historically, these traditions have been restricted to monastic orders and communities, but they are receiving more public acceptance due to the work of certain individuals. The best example of which comes to mind is Father Thomas Keating.

Just something to look into.

 

[JBrainard]

Even the Bible talks about the knowledge that God has revealed about Himself that is available to all people (The heavens declare the glory of God......there is no language ..... where their speech isn't heard). In fact, my second favorite inspirational book of all time is 'Eternity in Their Hearts' by Don Richardson, a career linguist/missionary, who chronicled the indigenous beliefs of dozens of native tribes around the world that showed a remarkable knowledge of and reverance for the God of the Bible, before any contact with modern missionaries.

I can understand your point, JB. In early Christiandom, Origen argued that Plato was a 'Christian' BC, walking in the light of revelation that was given to him. And if God truly has set 'eternity in our hearts', so that we might know and search for Him, then there will be tidbits of His knowledge found in each culture, among all peoples. I don't believe that the Scriptures that say "He shows Himself through the lattice", or "Now we see through a glass darkly", apply to Christians only.

My personal take on it is this: Although truth may be found in many places, I only have so much time in this one life. I know that Jesus Christ is the wellspring of all truth ("the Dayspring from on high", in Scripture). I know that the Bible does not contain all the truth that there is, but contains all the truth I need for salvation (paraphrase here: Even the world could not contain all the books that could be written, but these are written that you might believe, and believing, have life.). Therefore, what I will do is build a solid foundation of what I know to be truth, then interpret and evaluate other sources, experiences, and revelations, using the knowledge I've gained through Scripture as a mesh/sieve.

This is how I personally approach all religious/philosophical/editorial writings. Sources of other types of information (historical, scientific, mathematical, etc.) I evaluate with the mindset that, if it doesn't directly contradict what I know to be true, or is not expressly prohibited by Scripture (like martial arts, meditation, or macrame' ), then it is fair game for consideration and other methods of evaluation.

Bingo!
This is a great example of what I'm trying to say. Being a true Christian and open mindedness are not mutually exclusive.

 

[ChingChuan]

(it's a pity that I can't quote from the reply to thread screen - I hope I get everyone's name right and everything)

JBrainard wrote: That is why I say that many Christians are doing themselves a disservice. Not because they are Christian, but because their spiritual wisdom begins and ends with Christianity. It's like: If you believed that the strawberry was the best fruit, and chose to eat only strawberrys, you'd be missing out on a lot of yummy fruit. Maybe not as good as strawberrys, but you are missing out none the less.

Hmm, this sounds interesting. But somehow I don't agree with you, even though I don't know how to put it into words.
I mean... Let's compare it with being married. You're happily married and you love each other a lot. How would you like it if your wife started seeing someone else very frequently? I'd at least be suspicious - I'd like to have my spouse for my own. From the other perspective - when you are the person seeing the other person a lot - the danger would exist that you would accidentally fall in love with that person. Of course, you can be friends with other men (women) and learn things from them, but in the end, your... love is only for your husband/wife.
I think it's the same with religion (especially Christianity, since the goal is to have a relationship with God. In the Bible, God is often portrayed as a lover). So, of course, you can learn things from other religions & their believers, but you might get... 'distracted' from God this way. Well, some people can handle that very well (they know their limits) and other people want to stay on the 'safe' side, so they never 'taste other fruit than strawberrys'. I don't think they're really missing out because they already know God.

Carol said: I don't think you sound hot headed at all. You're expressing your opinion in a way that gets your point of view across, without insulting the viewpoint of someone else.

Thanks! I'm not used at all to have this kind of discussions in English, so I'm always afraid to sound rude...

JBrainard said: There is something I noticed in your post. Notice that you are saying that some Christians believe this, some Christians believe that? As you have demonstraited with your examples, the Bible and the laws of Christianity can be interpreted differently by different Christians.

I was mainly talking about the things that aren't covered by the Biblical laws. I mean, the interpretation of the laws & things thare are stated clearly in the Bible is, well, I think it's not that difficult, since God wants us to believe with our heart, mind & soul, so he challenges us to study the Bible (and its context, like cultures etc.). When you do that, it doesn't sound too diffuculr (to me at last. I've never been able to understand the trouble regarding interpretations - maybe someone could enlighten me?)
However, about the things that aren't explicitly forbidden, like practising an art that aims to kill your opponent (even though you'll never do it for real?), in this case, there might be multiple answers... Killing is forbidden, but when practising a MA, you aren't killing anyone. Another example might be Harry Potter - is it allowed to be a fan of something that might be associated with witchcraft? (witchcraft is forbidden).
God says that 'everything is allowed, but not everything is good' (other people might be led astray or you could harm your own relationship with God) and there are more 'advices' like this, but in the end you'll have to make your own decision.

JBrainard siad: So, there is no one way, even among Christians. Building on that idea, why then would it be so difficult to study other religions and interpret them for yourself as well. If your faith is strong, there is no reason to worry that it will convert or corrupt you, it will simply provide information. And you never know, some of that information might be spiritually enlightening, even to a Christian

As I said, you have a point. (hm, to think of it, is this an English expression? I might be speaking Denglish...) I mean, I can understand your point of view, but I don't really agree with it, because... what if your faith isn't strong? I mean, you don't want to make things difficult for yourself.
I hope I've made it clear that I'm mainly speaking for myself - other Christians might not have a problem with it. But I think that the main goal in a Christian's life should be to have a relationship with God and if you want to... enhance that relationship (get spiritual enlightment) you should look to God first.

Tellner, your post is very interesting, but I'm not sure that I understood everything. So if I've interpreted something incorrectly, please tell me.

So how does this relate to the original question? Quite simply, a lot of this has been lost in mainstream Christianity. For the most part the mystics were plopped into monasteries which didn't teach anyone but other monks. In many other times and places the political institution of the Church acted like any other authoritarian institution. Such things detracted from the authority of the Church becuase it allowed anyone access to the Divine in a form not under ecclesiastical control.

You basically say that it's a pity that Christianity condemned mysticism because it was a way to God without the church in it, right?

Well, I don't know enough about such matters, I've once studied it in Church History, but I seem to recall that it was forbidden because it didn't agree with the things in the Bible. For instance, according to the Bible, people aren't meant to merge with the universe/god... We've been created to have a relationship with God and, if I've understood it correctly, in mysticism it isn't the case since you just... merge.
However, fortunately the way to God isn't controlled by the church (anymore) and it has never been since Jesus is the only way to God (according to Christianity, that is).
But I do agree that in the past, the Church wasn't exactly what it was meant for.

Ninjamon wrote: I know that the Bible does not contain all the truth that there is, but contains all the truth I need for salvation (paraphrase here: Even the world could not contain all the books that could be written, but these are written that you might believe, and believing, have life.). Therefore, what I will do is build a solid foundation of what I know to be truth, then interpret and evaluate other sources, experiences, and revelations, using the knowledge I've gained through Scripture as a mesh/sieve

This sounds very interesting, I've never looked at it that way! I think I agree with you .

JBrainard
Bingo!
This is a great example of what I'm trying to say. Being a true Christian and open mindedness are not mutually exclusive.

I hope my post doesn't sound too closed-minded... .

 

[thardey]

First off, I am not in any way, shape, or form offended by your beliefs Like I said, I have a lot of respect for my father, who is a Catholic.
Anyway, as to your post. I am not saying that you should not believe that Jesus is the son of the one true God. What I'm saying is that the Bible is not the only source of really positive spiritual wisdom. Take the prolific writer and Buddhist monk Thich Nhat Hanh for example. The life he leads and his writings are more Christ like than any Christian I have ever met! Sound crazy? Try this: The next time you are at a book store, skim through his book "Being Peace," and try to find something un-Christian in it, I dare ya' Now, you can get a lot of positive spiritual material out of that book (for example) but you don't have to stop believing that Christ is the Messiah to do it. That is why I say that many Christians are doing themselves a disservice. Not because they are Christian, but because their spiritual wisdom begins and ends with Christianity. It's like: If you believed that the strawberry was the best fruit, and chose to eat only strawberrys, you'd be missing out on a lot of yummy fruit. Maybe not as good as strawberrys, but you are missing out none the less.

I've noticed that among people who believe in some sort of a god, there are some few who are interested in finding out who that god truly is, and what that god's personality and character is, in order to truly worship and follow him/her.

There are others who try to find out which god is "right" or which will "win" in the end, and try to be on their side when the dust settles. These people are more worried about not offending their god, and so are not allowing themselves to question.

Hmm, that's confusing. Let me elaborate: Let's say we have a person who worships a god named "Q". That person realizes that "Q" is a name for that god, but that god is not limited to "Q". This person wants to know all about "Q" and sets off in pursuit of knowledge about "Q". If she finds an idea that is consistent with her current understanding, she accepts and add it to her beliefs, whatever the source, it is either true, or it is not. If it is inconsistend with her beliefs about "Q", she rejects it as contradictory and incompatible. Using this method she learns a lot about "Q", maybe even realizing that "Q" can also be represented by "3" or "orange".

Then we have a fellow who wants to succeed at whatever this random life holds, as well as the afterlife. He grows up being taught about a god named "K", and is taught devotion to "K". He sincerely hopes that "K" is the "right" god, or the most powerful one. Part of him would like to learn about the god "M" or "B", but he is afraid that it will look like disloyalty and lack of faith to question "K". So, in order to avoid ticking off "K" he only ever studies or listens to people who sing the praises of "K", and finds ways to belittle, put down, or even kill anyone who does not praise "K".

There are many Christians that I have know who are in the first group, and I try very hard to keep that mindset, myself. But there are many more Christians that I know of who are in the second set, and they are the ones who are quick to judge, fearful of other religions, and only focus on their own cherished beliefs and traditions. It's not the religion itself that teaches them to do this, it's a basic misunderstanding of what it means to search for "God".

So, JB, you're right in many ways, it's not inherently un-Christian to read the teachings of Buddha, or Plato, or even Marx. But it is un-Christian to accept just any belief because it sounds nice. If it contradicts my understanding of God, especially as demonstrated by the life of Christ, then I must reject it. (But I can keep the good parts ).

 

[JBrainard]

Hmm, this sounds interesting. But somehow I don't agree with you, even though I don't know how to put it into words.
I mean... Let's compare it with being married. You're happily married and you love each other a lot. How would you like it if your wife started seeing someone else very frequently? I'd at least be suspicious - I'd like to have my spouse for my own. From the other perspective - when you are the person seeing the other person a lot - the danger would exist that you would accidentally fall in love with that person. Of course, you can be friends with other men (women) and learn things from them, but in the end, your... love is only for your husband/wife.

Again, this goes back to what I posted earlier.

If your faith is strong, there is no reason to worry that it will convert or corrupt you, it will simply provide information.

If your faithfulness (religious faith) towards your spouse (your religion, God, what have you) is strong, you will only be friends with this other person (another religion) and remain faithfull to your spouse.

However, about the things that aren't explicitly forbidden, like practising an art that aims to kill your opponent (even though you'll never do it for real?), in this case, there might be multiple answers... Killing is forbidden, but when practising a MA, you aren't killing anyone. Another example might be Harry Potter - is it allowed to be a fan of something that might be associated with witchcraft? (witchcraft is forbidden).

So, are you a killer or a witch? No, of course not. So studying another religion isn't going to "make" you that religion.

...what if your faith isn't strong? I mean, you don't want to make things difficult for yourself.
I hope I've made it clear that I'm mainly speaking for myself - other Christians might not have a problem with it. But I think that the main goal in a Christian's life should be to have a relationship with God and if you want to... enhance that relationship (get spiritual enlightment) you should look to God first.

If your faith isn't strong, exploring spirituality will most likely bring you closer to God. But that is only IMHO.

This sounds very interesting, I've never looked at it that way! I think I agree with you .

I hope my post doesn't sound too closed-minded... .

Look at your quote above. You don't seem close minded to me.

 

[Ninjamom]

.....Being a true Christian and open mindedness are not mutually exclusive.

I agree. It does mean, though, that you can establish a bedrock foundation that is non-negotiable. (Coming from a math/physics background, I like to compare it to building from a foundation of established truths, as in a series of mathematical proofs.) I think the 'trick' is in coming to grips with your own fallibility in being able to discern what is/isn't negotiable.

(regarding things different strains of mysticism have in common)
....First, there's an emphasis on practice
.........All of them have progressive methods which discipline and quiet the mind and the emotions although emotional intensity and mental activity
..........This practice generally has a strong physical component whether it's the discipline to sit zazen for days at a time, turning (as in the Whirling Dervishes), hard core davening, adopting postures, physical deprivation or martial arts

In Christian mysticism (and my own personal practice), I see an emphasis on the first two, but limits on the third. Practice involves not just 'saying' I'm a Christian, but genuinely striving to implement and intertwine Christianity and walking with Christ in every daily activity. When seen through the lens of serving a sovereign God with an overarching plan that excludes not even the spin of a single electron, this view gives beauty, meaning, and purpose to washing dishes, feeding the kids, putting gas in the van, and mailing a letter. Disciplining and quieting the mind certainly occur in prayer and in meditation on Scripture.

The physical component generally just involves exercises to 'put down' the flesh, so the spiritual is more at the forefront. This happens in fasting, for instance. I don't know of any cases where other physical exercises (stretches, poses, breathing, etc) are seen as holding spiritual benefit in Christianity. Perhaps that is because of my 'Western' mindset (i.e.neo-Platonic, which saw a strict divide between the physical and spritiual worlds), more than the Christian influence; I honestly don't know.

...........there's an emphasis on actual results.

Maybe it's my basic pragamatism, but I wouldn't stick around Christianity long if I didn't believe it 'worked'. Certainly, Jesus' emphasis seemed to be on doing the works (see, e.g., the parable of the sheep and goats).

The self and the universe are seen differently, and only after direct experience.

..and this in a nutshell seems to be the modern divide between 'doing church' and being a Christian. I went to church all my life, but a direct experience of the person of Jesus Christ radically changed me: there's just no other way to describe it.

In most traditions of which I'm aware the ego is dissolved away, merges with the Greater, is radically transformed or similar. The universe is never the same afterwards. "I" becomes an interesting question rather than something which is assumed.

I'd say this is the one difference in what you describe as mysticism, and what I see in Christian mysticism. Christianity tends to maintain the important distinction between Creator and His creation, and allows/demands/seeks an intimacy with God Himself without surrendering the existence and uniqueness of self. In this case, our human will doesn't seem to be something to be destroyed, but a gift to be cherished and tamed. 'I' becomes less important, but only because of the overreaching excellence of 'Him', coupled with love for other people, who are seen as also being objects of His love.

The teachings all warn that this is dangerous. Without some source of enduring ethics be it theDharma Eye or Quran it's possible to lose all restraint and morality when the usual categories like "self", "other", "good", "evil" and "existence" lose their everyday meaning.

In the circles I run, there is a saying: "All doctrine, you will dry up; All experience, and you will blow up." There has to be a balance. Words on paper without the Spirit of the Living God living in your heart is just an education and another excuse for egotism (i.e., 'I know more than you do, so there'). Reliance only on personal experience just isolates individuals further, and opens us up for all kinds of excesses and errors (including our own vain pride) that we will refuse to correct if we acknowledge no authority higher than our own (i.e., 'I've experienced more than you, so there.')

So how does this relate to the original question? Quite simply, a lot of this has been lost in mainstream Christianity.

I see streams of mysticism throughout Christianity (see for instance, the writings of St. John of the Cross, St Theresa of Liseaux, et al.). One of the most popular Christian books of all times is the short monograph, "The Practice of the Presence of God", by Brother Lawrence, a 17th century French Carmelite monk, who experinced such a close intimacy with God through the daily practices of life - in his case, washing dishes in the monastery - that people traveled from across the country to speak with him.

Nowadays, I see a strong tendency towards mysticism in the modern Charismatic movement, a revival that has spreasd across all denominations within Christiandom. In some places, this has a purely mystical component, with all the dangers you mentioned. In most places, I have seen the emphasis on a close, personal, daily, experiential relationship with God balanced with a firm reliance on Scripture for guidance and morality.

Thank you, Tellner, for taking the time to write a post with enough thought and clarity to invite me to do some thinking, too.