Consciousness / Soul

[B. W.]

…Good points. I think we get into troubles in differentiating between spirit, soul and body and failing to recognize that there is a collective synergy to the 3 of them than defines our existence that is not easily separated. (That's a good thing too, I think to recognize too, when we look at the Trinity.)

I don't completely agree with the idea that our Spirit is something added. I think it is something latent, that is regenerated from one state to another and if anything is added, it is the presence of God's Holy Spirit which is separate from our own spirit. In terms of the practicalities of the experience it's probably a fine point.

The older I get, it seems, the more I find myself moving toward some forms of Christian Mysticism and away from Western detail analysis. Tozer was like that too I think, so hopefully I'm not in bad company in that regard. I get weary of the detailed debate over minute points and I think at times, the questions we ask carry their own presuppositions and lead to a framework that is outside. One can go too far in that direction though too, I know.

Canuckster, you are in good company with Tozer. Zoe, the word mysticism taken on new meanings over the past few hundred years and developed the modern definition that basically denotes spiritual wackeyness or a spiritual meditation technique like Zen or yoga.

Originally the word referred to something else. Christian mysticism refers to simply developing a deeper relationship with the living God that is real and tangible. It involves becoming in union with God so that you are transformed to live and display his divine nature — 2 Peter 1:1-11. It involves contemplation on God and the word of God. As the words of a Christian mystic once said — reach for God with the dart of longing love…to pierce the cloud of unknowing between you and God…he sends a shaft of light quickening you to know him.

Read John 17 sometime. This is Christianity and what Jesus desires us to do. However, there have been many abuses using the name of Christian mysticism that causes it to be rejected by the Western Churches but the true Christian mystic stays away from these abuses and is warned of them as the Holy Spirit teaches comparing spiritual matters with others. It is a rich tradition that has been exchanged for scholasticism's systematic theology.

Actually, many Christians in their privet time alone with God in deep prayer often encounter the Lord in mystical ways without ever realizing it! I could suggest several good books on the subject if you like. Let me know.
-
-
-

[zoegirl]

Yes, I was thinking I was placing a different connotation on the word. Thanks.

Ha, as to the books, you are welcome to provide the titles but my pessimism tells me that they will lie on the ever-growin g pile of "I'll read that....soon"

[Cross.eyed]

Question ! When the soul reaches the final destination with consciouness in tow, would that suggest mind also?

The reason I ask is that it seems mind would travel with soul conscious of the enviroment whether heaven or hell. Or....would there be one that transcends the other?

K's post indicates the soul has faculties. This makes at least some sense to me as I can't seem to fully seperate mind and soul.

Assuming that man is triune in nature, being a spirit and having a body and a soul, what words would be meaningful to describe existance apart from a body, or in a different body with the physical elements of thinking and emotions, to someone who hasn't yet experienced existence in that context?

Actually, I would see our "spirit" as a body just as much as our "physical" body. To be alive, conscious, and experience things, whether physical or spiritual, I see our soul needs a body to compliment it.

Jesus' words that we must be spiritually born is suggestive that our "spirit" (at least in the sense He used) is something added to our core essence.

Good points. I think we get into troubles in differentiating between spirit, soul and body and failing to recognize that there is a collective synergy to the 3 of them than defines our existence that is not easily separated. (That's a good thing too, I think to recognize too, when we look at the Trinity.)

I don't completely agree with the idea that our Spirit is something added. I think it is something latent, that is regenerated from one state to another and if anything is added, it is the presence of God's Holy Spirit which is separate from our own spirit. In terms of the practicalities of the experience it's probably a fine point.

The older I get, it seems, the more I find myself moving toward some forms of Christian Mysticism and away from Western detail analysis. Tozer was like that too I think, so hopefully I'm not in bad company in that regard. I get weary of the detailed debate over minute points and I think at times, the questions we ask carry their own presuppositions and lead to a framework that is outside. One can go too far in that direction though too, I know.

These are the best explanations I've gotten to date. Usually it is something like; "We'll just have to find out when we get there."

I try to answer questions like these when they are presented and it can get sketchy trying to explain how a spirit not composed of matter can think without a material brain. In other words, I can mess up a soup sandwich.

Thank you both very much for the input.

[Kurieuo]

Question ! When the soul reaches the final destination with consciouness in tow, would that suggest mind also?

The reason I ask is that it seems mind would travel with soul conscious of the enviroment whether heaven or hell. Or....would there be one that transcends the other?

K's post indicates the soul has faculties. This makes at least some sense to me as I can't seem to fully seperate mind and soul.

Assuming that man is triune in nature, being a spirit and having a body and a soul, what words would be meaningful to describe existance apart from a body, or in a different body with the physical elements of thinking and emotions, to someone who hasn't yet experienced existence in that context?

Actually, I would see our "spirit" as a body just as much as our "physical" body. To be alive, conscious, and experience things, whether physical or spiritual, I see our soul needs a body to compliment it.

Jesus' words that we must be spiritually born is suggestive that our "spirit" (at least in the sense He used) is something added to our core essence.

Good points. I think we get into troubles in differentiating between spirit, soul and body and failing to recognize that there is a collective synergy to the 3 of them than defines our existence that is not easily separated. (That's a good thing too, I think to recognize too, when we look at the Trinity.)

I don't completely agree with the idea that our Spirit is something added. I think it is something latent, that is regenerated from one state to another and if anything is added, it is the presence of God's Holy Spirit which is separate from our own spirit. In terms of the practicalities of the experience it's probably a fine point.

Those are good clarifications to make. I actually did not intend to mean that a spiritual body is added upon being spiritually born (although that could be the case), but rather that our spirit (a body with certain spiritual faculties) can be distinguished from our soul (our core essence).

I have no issue with our soul being spiritually derived, or even our spiritual body being conjoined as a part of our soul. When someone begins talking of experiencing and perceiving God however, then I think talk of a spiritual body with certain faculties is a quite practical understanding. I would agree with you that we are all be spiritual beings and that certain faculties of our spiritual body are actually latent (or maimed by sin) until regeneration happens.

This has allowed me to understand why many claim there is no evidence for God while I see God so evidently. Those who claim there is none I think are just spiritually maimed. They will not see God until some sort of regeneration happens and God allows them to see Him.

[Kurieuo]

Christian Mysticism and away from Western detail analysis.

Canuckster,

Is there a way you could summarize the differences between these two? What defines Christian mysticism versus western detail analyis?

(keep in mind that I am not well-versed in theology or the different forms, so be gentle, please, in the amount of detail )

Christian Mysticism as I am using it, points to the idea and recognition that God is bigger than we are and that attempting to reduce him to a systematic theology that explains every element to our satisfaction is an unrealistic goal. The Bible is God's revelation of all we need to know, but it is not a revelation of all there is to know and further, there are things we either are not equipped to understand properly and/or that God has chosen not to reveal to us.

Systematic theology, again to my understanding in this context, is pretty much the practise of taking all that the Bible has to say on a particular topic and arranging it in order to come up with a doctrinal statement that captures what the Bible has to say on something. I think it is a valuable practise and a worthy one but I at times have some concerns with how it is done.

1. I think you have to realize that if God intended to use this method of construction He could have made His revelation to us in that manner, and yet he didn't.
2. The method itself of doing this carries with it some assumptions that may affect the interpretation of the passages that adds something to them rather than drawing out what is there.
3. Simply proof-texting items carries a high risk that the context of the passages will be lost. For example, I sometimes cringe when I see passages from the Psalms or Ecclesiastes proof texted next to passages like Paul's epistles. Pauls epistles are probably the closest example of a logically laid our and reasoned dealing with topics and using OT literature to proof-text what he is trying to say. Poetry isn't analytic language and attributing a doctrinal statement from a poem, carries a lot of risk of overstating and reading things in.

In short, the hermenuetic we bring to Scripture to some extent validates itself as to how we understand the Scriptures. We end with what we start with.

I'm finding more and more, that in my own devotions I don't want to jump all over the Scriptures coming up with what the Bible has to say on a topic. I spend time in one passage and try to put myself in the frame of mind and reference of the people who read it originally and then I use that as a means to meditate upon God, who He is and how privileged and blessed I am to be in a relationship with Him. I'm less afraid to admit I don't understand something and in fact I expect there to be things I don't understand and instead of wrestling it to death like a dog on a bone, I'm more willing to embrace that ambiguity and celebrate it as something that is to be expected when a finite creature such as I am, seeks to grasp that which is infinite.

You have to find balance in there as obviously God gave us a brain and requires us to study his Word and there is much there to be plumbed and understood. I think by and large however, there are some of us, (dare I even suggest this as a member of a reformed church rooted in Calvanism) who see admitting there is mystery as a weakness in faith. If there's incomplete or seemingly conflicting information, we'll put a seal of approval to "the" proper way to understand it and argue and debate the issue into the ground.

I'm less satisfied with that approach and feeling that there's more room and need to just sit at the feet of Christ in awe and reverance like a little child and release the need to have complete understanding on all things and just worship Him and celebrate and accept there are many elements I won't understand.

These are my thoughts and my use of the terms and they may not match the academic theological models as well as I would like.

I personally don' like the Christian Mysticism as you have described it.

That is not to say I think we can understand everything, but certainly we can put together a set of logical possibilities, or coherent explanations to Christian theological issues. I tend to look to Scripture for guidance as to which logical possibilities are likely candidates, or logic to unravel how a Christian doctrine can be so. Often reason and Scriptural guidance is enough to settle me into a position, but sometimes I am left to make more of a personal preference which I feel best accommodates my existing beliefs. Usually such preferences are quite insignificant.

Theological issues like understanding the Trinity, Christ's incarnation, why pain and suffering exist if God really cares - I think Christian mysticism acts as a cop out response for many who perhaps fear their beliefs are irrational. Christian mysticism can lead to fideism and this is my main concern with it. That, and I like to think a solution can always be found, and I believe this has driven me in life and deepened my understanding on many theological issues which others wrote off exploring at the surface glance. However, I think you are far from being this kind of person so... perhaps I am expressing a grievance with more extreme forms.

[Canuckster1127]

No offense taken and I see the risks and agree there's a balance needed.

I don't believe faith is irrational. Neither do I believe that pure intellectual exercise is sufficient by itself to meet God.

I think some of it may be explained by something as simple as personality types. I'm reasonably intelligent and able to work with the intellectual concepts and hermenuetics to some extent. However, I am a deeply relational person who really craves intimacy and closeness although for reasons I won't go into, I have difficulty in making that happen.

I never had a particularly close relationship with my father for reasons that don't matter here and have been forgiven on my end now. A great part of my heart's desire is to find in God what I missed there. The intellectual needs and motivations pale beside that.

That's probably all I should say. I reject universalism and the idea that we approach God in different ways like spokes on a wheel. However, within the one way God has provided in Christ Jesus, I think there can be some variance on the things that drive and motivate us and I believe God has provided for some degree of variance within His prescribed paths. Some of these issues may be as simple as that.

I'm a fan of systematics and applied theology. I think we have a responsibility to do all within our power to understand and explain what we can. In the end however, for me, it makes for a secondary basis of faith and I'm not threatened by admitting when something is beyond my comprehension. Then my faith is in the Word giver, not just the Word.

[charlottecowell]

I would see mysticism as something differnt to that which has been said so far, although I liked BW's reference to The Cloud of Unknowing...mystical texts are definitely a major part of mysticism in the way that orthodox texts are to mainstream religion.

I think with mysticism there is an intense focus on one's personal relationship with God and the ultimate expression of that I guess, for a Christian, would be a hermetic existence - in comparison with a mystic of Islam, who would be a Sufi, or a Mystic of Judaism, who would be a Kabbalist. Mystics also tend to use the arts and natural sciences as a form of or channel for devotion - this is where your scientific studies start to blend with religious philosophies and personal achievement to become alchemical. Mysticism is where the major streams of religion blend, it is about unity and universalism.

I am attracted to mysticism because it is not an organised religion, it is about the individual and God, the power of prayer, sacred (not practical) 'magic', comprehension - even re-enactment - of the actual mysteries....and there is an element of initiation with mysticism that is quite profound, the estoeric element is crucial and there is a tendency towards attaining higher states of consciousness and seeing life as a journey in which we all must walk our solitary path towards God. I can recommend a very good book, which is long and could take a lifetime to read, but truly amazing, written by an esteemed biblical scholar called Valentin Tomberg, who was associated with Hans urs Von Balthazar (he wrote the foreword). It is called Meditations on the Tarot, a journey into Christian Hermeticism, and I think many of you would enjoy reading it, or at least find it interesting.

The idea of a soulmate is intriguing and helpful in the present context - it implies a connection with another individual that operates on multiple levels - intellectual, emotional, physical, spiritual...maybe the 'soul' is the highest expression of a human being, that which we must strive to justify? I believe we can have many soulmates in a lifetime (I don't just mean lovers, platonic friends also, sometimes more so) and our love for them is like a reflection of our love for God and the God inside us.

[Canuckster1127]

No offense intended Charlotte, but that definitely is not the form of Christian Mysticism that I am referring to personally although I know that the term is used in a more general way. That's probably why I don't identify myself specifically in that term without going to a lot of pain to identify what I'm speaking about.

Approaching Mysticsm in terms of universalism where Christian Mysticism is just a branch of a larger esoteric spiritual journey cames across to me as new age and lacks the specificity of the doctrine that I believe God has revealed in Scripture and is to form the context of our beliefs and practises and that includes an organized church.

[zoegirl]

Absolutely Canuckster, I agree with you here

To reject studying the word of God in favor of pure emotionalism and feelings leaves us vulnerable to all sorts of "whatever your feelings are telling you, that must be your relationship with the Spirit"

This is where the post-modern world of Tolle, Oprah's latest guru, and our society seems to be heading: open your mind, every way leads to God, your emotions validate your beliefs.

Its similar to artists who get to explore the abstract once they have mastered the fundamentals. I think we get to enjoy the mystery more once we fully understnd as much as we can and can appreciate the infinite nature of God.

[Cross.eyed]

Ravi Zacharias: " Have you noticed how feelings are never thought of as being true or false?"

[Kurieuo]

No offense taken and I see the risks and agree there's a balance needed.

I don't believe faith is irrational. Neither do I believe that pure intellectual exercise is sufficient by itself to meet God.

I think some of it may be explained by something as simple as personality types. I'm reasonably intelligent and able to work with the intellectual concepts and hermenuetics to some extent. However, I am a deeply relational person who really craves intimacy and closeness although for reasons I won't go into, I have difficulty in making that happen.

I never had a particularly close relationship with my father for reasons that don't matter here and have been forgiven on my end now. A great part of my heart's desire is to find in God what I missed there. The intellectual needs and motivations pale beside that.

That's probably all I should say. I reject universalism and the idea that we approach God in different ways like spokes on a wheel. However, within the one way God has provided in Christ Jesus, I think there can be some variance on the things that drive and motivate us and I believe God has provided for some degree of variance within His prescribed paths. Some of these issues may be as simple as that.

I'm a fan of systematics and applied theology. I think we have a responsibility to do all within our power to understand and explain what we can. In the end however, for me, it makes for a secondary basis of faith and I'm not threatened by admitting when something is beyond my comprehension. Then my faith is in the Word giver, not just the Word.

I understand what you are saying. In fact before posting I found myself agreeing with much of what you wrote, but then while posting found myself writing against an extreme "mysticism".

There is also the polar opposite to Christian Mysticism as you defined which would believe everything can be resolved via intellect. I'd also reject such a position since it fails to take into consideration the heart. Some times, most times, truth is best demonstrated through actions such as listening and understanding, rather than mere intellect and arguments. The relational and emotional aspect should not be downplayed to intellect. Each are important. Without a correct heart one will miss many important truths, and without reason one is perhaps just an esoteric nut-case. Anyway, just rambling.

[charlottecowell]

No offence taken, I don't need everyone to agree with me and I know that a lot of my views are considered unorthodox so, no problemo either! But I'm still going to argue my case if you'll please bear with me....

Maybe universalism is a term I used to lightly (although I presume you realise that the word 'Catholic' means universal?) but I stand by the part about unity. For me the peace and harmony of the world is dependant upon tolerance between faiths and cultures. I came to this view some years after I underwent my 'conversion' or 'initiation', whichever way you want to see it, to Christianity - a slight contradition in terms as I was baptised by my parents but they did not bring me up in the church as my dad felt everyone should find their own way to God. I really appreciated that as I was a rebellious character and may well have gone against something as a child if I'd had it forced on me. I also think that an initiation is a very serious thing for the individual, best undertaken by an adult.

Regarding the opening out of my views into something which might be considered liberal (although in some ways I'm very conservative), it arose primiarly as a result of my travels (I've been around the world) when I first fully appreciated that some cultures and races simply do not understand the Christian faith as they've never been exposed to it. I do not consider those people 'damned' or less wise, or whatever, because I think Jesus died for us all, whatever our creed, that is why it is a universal religion, it excludes no-one. It is a shame to deny the inherent truths in other faiths, especially given the huge influence world religions have had on each other historically.

I don't know if anyone here has visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (an amazing place with such a strong sense of the divine that it converted my atheist boyfriend) but there you see several strands of Christianity co-existig as guardians of the site. That in itself makes you think about doctrine, given that there are so many even with this one religion. In this respect you have to look at the common denominators, the universal truths....

Then you have Jerusalem itself, Jews, Muslims and Christians all in one place, all with a claim of ownership to stake - who are we to say which one has the right? I wouldn't be able to set myself up as judge on that matter because I've heard the arguments first hand from all sides and as long as the motivation of the individual is true, it is not possible to say they are wrong, though of course you might disagree. Personally I am a Christian - I think this is the perfect philosophy and that Jesus was a revolutionary; his life marks the turning point of history

About Meditations on the Tarot - I realised of course that this name might freak some of you guys out, but this is a true Christian text, read by John Paul II - it doesn't really get much more Catholic than this book, I wouldn't recommend something way out to you guys....

[B. W.]

Another word: Everyone brought up good points and revealed the flakey side of mysticism and the new age bent. True Christian mysticism has nothing to do this kind of stuff. There are people that bend it that way and therefore Christian mysticism gets a bad name associated because of all this bending.

I think a new term for Christian mysticism should be applied. I think you could use a new word to define it. Historically, not all Christian mystics were universalist. Some practiced some rather odd techniques. Others chased after emotional experiences. Brother Lawrence in 'Practicing the Presence of God' makes a point that when one becomes aware of the Lord in all you do - that you do all your daily routines unto the Lord. He washed pots and pans. I think it was Calvin who spoke of appointments — or vocations in a similar way.

Jonathan Edwards wrote of religious affections (not emotionalism ) being stirred to commune with the Lord. Edwards took long walks to be alone with the Lord and writes of encounters as being sweet and refreshing stirring his affections to become more Christ like.

With this said — a true Christian mystic focus's on holiness to God. Not sinless perfection but separation to the Lord to be become more useful for the Master use no matter what ones appointment in life is. It involves developing a living relationship with the Lord that eventually defies any techniques at reaching union with God one once thought essential. It will drive you deeper into the word of God, the Bible, cause you to wrestle with hard matters, as well as rest in the Lord's sovereignty and acquiesce to his will.

Most of what passes as Christian Mysticism does not produce this. Its fruit instead produces sanctified reliance on human ego, emotionalism, effort, and supports human opinions on spiritual matters. Think on it a moment, why would the Lord cause a person to stray away the bible? Or look for another path? Jesus said in John 14:6…"I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” ESV -- NOTE: Jesus did not preach universalism — neither would a true Christian Mystic.

2 Peter 1:1-11 writes: “Simeon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours by the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ: 2 May grace and peace be multiplied to you in the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord. 3 His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, 4 by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in the world because of sinful desire. 5 For this very reason, make every effort to supplement your faith with virtue, and virtue with knowledge, 6 and knowledge with self-control, and self-control with steadfastness, and steadfastness with godliness, 7 and godliness with brotherly affection, and brotherly affection with love. 8 For if these qualities are yours and are increasing, they keep you from being ineffective or unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. 9 For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins. 10 Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. 11 For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.” ESV

So how should the term Christian Mysticism be re-phrased to avoid being associated with all the wackeyness? Maybe just simply 'Living Christianity' — one who follows the living Jesus, transformed by the Holy Spirit, because we can now live with God forever. The way many Christian's live today — you wonder — who are they following? A tree is known by its fruit.
-
-
-

[charlottecowell]

If words like 'universal' are an issue then sure, don't use them.... from my own point of view I find that the word 'spiritual' is vastly over-used - nowadays it seems to mean anything that doesn't involve materialism.

The term 'new age' is also often misunderstood. For all my ideas of unity, I would not call myself new age as I'm not a follower of Theosophy and Madame Blatavsky, although I have looked into her work and found it disturbing. Similarly, Anthroposophy, whilst yielding some wonderful literary works, leaves me cold from a religious perspective.... so, forgive me if I won't be called 'new age'!!

As for the criticism above about wannabe mystics believing their own feelings are evidence of God, well, I agree that 'mystical' tendencies can bring an individual dangerously close to believing that they are like God. In Meditations of the Tarot Tomberg warns against this on many occasions, describing the process as inflation, something to be avoided above all things at all costs (as it leads to madness through power and total self-delusion - it is the death of the mystic).

However, it is important not to discount feelings. In my opinion the most authentic form of prayer is when you devote your feeling, your self, to God - the mind won't help you understand the creator, who is all knowing and shrouded from view by the mysterious cloud of unknowing, so you need your heart to help you feel your way. That is faith, often blind through necessity. This author (as with Tomberg, there are many, many examples) would suggest that feeling is what you need to reach the truth, not mind, which is not to say that mistakes cannot and will not be made along the way, that is all part of the learning process.

it was an excellent point made above about the Christian sanctifying their life by devoting all works to God - even cleaning the pots or washing clothes. This is precisely the attitude a practising Kabbalist is expected to adopt and reinforces my view that the main streams of world religion - I'm restricting these, for now, to Judaism, Christianity and the Muslim religion - have points in common. It is these points in common that are universal and justified by the universal philosophy of Christianity, in which all men and women are equal....

[B. W.]

+
Very good response charlottecowell!

Somehow we strayed from the original intent of your post concerning the soul but however let's discuss topic of Christian Mysticism a bit more:

I will redefine the term Christian mysticism as Living Christianity for more clarity. All the worlds religions teach opposites. As often is the case, many people assume that Living Christianity holds the same practices as does the Kabbalist, Islamic, Hindu, Zen, and etc new age mystics. This is not the case as all religions of the world are not the same.

Some people make the claim that all in spiritual truth is relative — and that all roads reach God. However, for all such truth to be truly relative there can be no absolutes as absolute is opposite of relative. So if all Spiritual Truth is Relative, then being absolutely certain of this disproves the relativity of relative truth.

If all truth is relative then no antonym can exist for relative truth. Yet 1 + 1 still equals 2. Even mathematics, physics, trigonometry, calculus, etc, cannot be based on relative truths. If all truth is relative then there can be no false. Without a false how can truth exist? Write a bad check while believing you have funds to cover does not negate breaking the law and being charged extra for writing a bad check no matter how much money you sincerely believed you relatively had in your checking account.

For truth to be true there is an opposite that is absolutely false. Truth is absolute, not relative and the same applies for spiritual truth. If all truth is relative then no falsehoods can exist for truth to be truly relative.

Truth is not relative, for truth to be true it exposes an opposite as false. There is a moral right and a moral wrong. Most people on this forum understand this. Jump out of airplane stark naked at 15 thousand feet over the Pacific Ocean without a parachute, when you hit the water, you'll be absolutely dead. There are absolute standards. Only fools deny absolutes.

The only thing in the world's religions have in common is that they present ways that grope after God, or enlightenment, in hopes of reaching God or some utopian ideal either humanistic or works based to acquire, Acts 17:21-30. In fact, contrary to popular public opinion, the world's religions do not teach the same things. Each has critical differences and each only agrees superficially. The only thing in agreement for many is a dependence solely on human centric activities to reach God or achieve some enlightened state. God commands people everywhere to repent from such.

The world's religions in fact teach opposites and oppose each other. How can all these be true spiritual relative roads leading to God when opposites exist for truth to be true? No matter how pleasant a shady lane is, if it is a false road — it remains a false way. For something to be true then that means something must be false. All the world's religions teach opposites and therefore they cannot all be true. Concepts of God differ. Pleasing God differ. Paths to enlightenment differ. It is an illusion to think they all reach the same ends by many varied paths (roads).

All religious roads cannot be true relative spiritual paths to God or some utopia ideal as each teaches opposite ways to find God or enlightenment. Allegorically speaking, even atheism is its own religion; with its own spoke persons as preachers, as it seeks a humanistic utopia and opposes any concept of God. How can all truth be relative when such opposites exist? That is why the philosophy of religious relative truth errs because it makes an objective statement that all truth is relative contradicting its own definition because opposites exist.

Living Christianity does not practice Kabbalism, nor does it practice Zen, or even practice platonic ideals of union and this how many get confused by comparing Living Christianity with these others. In the 'Cloud of Unknowing' the author wrote that such ecstatic states are not to be sought after for these can lead people astray.

Many have wrote on the subject and teach techniques of prayer, study, etc to reach the Interior Castle where the Lord is. I personally do not have a problem with this as long as those practicing such are in the protection of their local Church and Christian mentors who have understanding in these matters.

You are familiar with the Active and Contemplative life. Living Christianity produces a balance between the two. You cannot be very successful in the active life unless you walk as Christ shown us and withdraw ourselves to a quiet place. In this type of contemplation in a quiet place, whether it be in prayer, bible study, thinking on the Lord, reaching out to God with love, cannot be done as a work we do. That is the difference. Simple acceptance - and I'll say no more other than that.

Living Christianity realizes that Jesus Christ is the only way, the truth, and the life to reach God. This is reached not by a novice but by what the word translated as faith - means. Realize that even if the Lord pulls out the rug from under you — he will catch you in the process. It is an understanding that the Lord is always there. Simple acceptance - and I'll say no more other than that.

The Bible reveals God and who he is. That is your guide. Prayer involves what Jesus says in Matthew 7:7-8: "Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.” ESV

How does one know God? Read the bible and ask questions — sometimes you'll need to wrestle with such things as how can God allow evil to exist and remain sinless? This is Living Christianity — learning who God is through contemplation. You will not stray from the Bible nor seek answers from another faith and such that do end up supporting human centric opinions about divine matters and lead others astray.

For example, the Kabbalist strays in rewriting Genesis account of creation and fall. It leads to changing the bible it claims support by unraveling its secret mysteries. Zen and platonic thought depends on human effort to reach an ecstatic state of union as does Islam. These do not look toward Jesus as the only way, the only truth, and the only light and thus are opposites.

Living Christianity depends on the grace of God and relies on the Lord to develop a 'state of faith' spoken of in 2 Peter 1:1-11. You learn to rest in the Lord and actually begin to know the Creator of all things by simple asking, seeking, knocking, and expecting the door to be opened by God to let you dwell in the secret places of the Most High.

In the Western Church, much is made of the legal implications of the cross and pragmatic scholastic forms of bible study and little of relationship with God. This is used to produce much Activity and hustle and bustle. Christians get burned out or end up walking away from the Church for various reasons as activity without cease is not good.

The active life in the Church cannot be maintained without the contemplative. The Eastern Church stresses relationship with God and coming back in union with the Lord as originally intended before the fall. There needs to be a balance of these two. Without such, the Church will not be a very pretty bride.
-
-
-