Esoteric Christianity

[regnauld]

---

liwat siguro ka ni Karl Rahner Mr Buddha...

I admonish you: "When you see the Buddha on the road, kill him! "

BTW, Karl Rahner was a gifted theologian!

[bluedes]

this is the question......pls?

brad,

No mystical practices come from the devil.

in other words..

Mystical practices do not come from the devil.

Kung mag-contemplate ang usa ka mystic about God, does it come from the devil?

Mystical practices like meditation and contemplation, recollection and retreats.. pilgrimage and homage to the prophets and saints.

[The_Child]

if we are to believe that there is a God and there is a Devil, and the latter is exactly what we conceive it to be - a deceiver - then even "mystical" attempts can be works of the devil.

only the pure of heart can, i believe, have an authentic mystical experience, i.e., a union that is with the divine. other attempts to force oneself to experience the divine, through dubious 'channels', is already questionable. St. John of the Cross, never forced himself to be in a mystical union with God, nor did St. Therese.

although some religious orders are embracing mysticism, there is nothing wrong about it, the obvious reason that they are still within the Church is precisely because they still uphold the Orthodox Christian belief, ergo, you do not see them being practitioners of syncretism not because they are not open-minded but because they have the prudence to separate authenticity from doubtful tricks brought about by the times.

[bluedes]

if we are to believe that there is a God and there is a Devil, and the latter is exactly what we conceive it to be - a deceiver - then even "mystical" attempts can be works of the devil.

only the pure of heart can, i believe, have an authentic mystical experience, i.e., a union that is with the divine. other attempts to force oneself to experience the divine, through dubious 'channels', is already questionable. St. John of the Cross, never forced himself to be in a mystical union with God, nor did St. Therese.

although some religious orders are embracing mysticism, there is nothing wrong about it, the obvious reason that they are still within the Church is precisely because they still uphold the Orthodox Christian belief, ergo, you do not see them being practitioners of syncretism not because they are not open-minded but because they have the prudence to separate authenticity from doubtful tricks brought about by the times.

you're still stuck at the duality of things..

any form of mysticism that fails is not mysticism at all. in mysticism, there is no such thing as the opposite of God. God Is. that's all.

the great prophets do not even consider Satan as anywhere near close in comparison to God..

[The_Child]

you're still stuck at the duality of things..

any form of mysticism that fails is not mysticism at all. in mysticism, there is no such thing as the opposite of God. God Is. that's all.

the great prophets do not even consider Satan as anywhere near close in comparison to God..

unlike you i do not share that optimism.

in the following grounds i object because:

1,) one must qualify a mystical union, i.e., someone thinks he/she is in a mystical union but is actually in an unstable mental state or what have you, how do we qualify a mystical union.
2.) when a mystical union occurs, it is ineffable, so refer to number one objection.
3.) it is self-contradicting in a way. because the epistemic means for mystical union is only through faith, but it is the same epistemic means that those who is fondly called 'religionist' by some of the guys here, also do.
4.) there is no connection between the propositions "there is no such thing as the opposite of God" and the next statement "God is". God exists and the same time there is nothing opposite from him, but this again, refer to number 3 is reach out through Faith, there is no way for Reason to explain this.
5.) advocates of mysticism, because of its ineffable nature, will find it prudent to leave the notion in silence, but i noticed that what is done here is rather the opposite - a bashing of religion based on faith by a "non"-religion based again on faith. So a clashing of belief occurs, with no end, its just faith over faith how is it to end? nowhere just stalemate; we apparently have to relive history again and again.
6.) at the end, its self-defeating, because if mysticism cannot fail, who would be the judge if it didnt if noone can even speak of it.

[bluedes]

unlike you i do not share that optimism.

in the following grounds i object because:

1,) one must qualify a mystical union, i.e., someone thinks he/she is in a mystical union but is actually in an unstable mental state or what have you, how do we qualify a mystical union.

like i said, anything that fails is not considered a mystical union. you have to see the result or output for it to qualify as a mystical union. and such a union cannot be validated by any means in this physical universe.. no science or religion or any public institution can validate a successful mystical union. in the end, there is no need to validate a mystical union.

2.) when a mystical union occurs, it is ineffable, so refer to number one objection.

it can be expressed, but only in abstract terms.

3.) it is self-contradicting in a way. because the epistemic means for mystical union is only through faith, but it is the same epistemic means that those who is fondly called 'religionist' by some of the guys here, also do.

define faith, then we'll discuss where the contradiction lies. in mysticism, faith is not a contradiction. it is a requirement.

4.) there is no connection between the propositions "there is no such thing as the opposite of God" and the next statement "God is". God exists and the same time there is nothing opposite from him, but this again, refer to number 3 is reach out through Faith, there is no way for Reason to explain this.

The mind is not used to describe God because it will fail. God Is. That's all!

5.) advocates of mysticism, because of its ineffable nature, will find it prudent to leave the notion in silence, but i noticed that what is done here is rather the opposite - a bashing of religion based on faith by a "non"-religion based again on faith. So a clashing of belief occurs, with no end, its just faith over faith how is it to end? nowhere just stalemate; we apparently have to relive history again and again.

in mysticism, it is true, it is better left in silence. but i am not advocating mysticism here. I am advocating its outer shell only. true mysticism is the silence of one's self for the voice of the Divine to manifest in you. That statement I just uttered is in fact just the outer shell of mysticism. it is a paradox that only the spark within every living thing can attest individually.. not let somebody else attest it to him. again, that is only the outer shell of mysticism that I am talking of..

6.) at the end, its self-defeating, because if mysticism cannot fail, who would be the judge if it didnt if noone can even speak of it.

only the Divine Grace will be the judge. how will the Divine Grace judge? in silence you will know when you begin to turn to the Path.

[The_Child]

exactly my point! you seem to agree with me. all in silence. only in silence, for even the outer shell fails as a representation of the kernel of mysticism. the greatest form idolatry is to mistake the representation as God himself.

so why bother with all the talk about it? talking about it ends up with the very contradiction the you just uttered: "The mind is not used to describe God because it will fail. God Is. That's all" God is, is itself a description.

exactly why matters like this must be relegated to silence; so there is no need to shrink the "religionists" either out of fun or just out for reason sake, to a smaller size. just let it be, exactly because both camps have their own convictions, and neither camps can pass judgement of matter reserve for God.


p.s how do you do a jester-laughing-smiley? i cant seem to find my way with that.

[handsoff241]

oh child.. playing in the mud again,,,?

how do you do a jester-laughing-smiley? i cant seem to find my way with that.

Funny, had this suspicions with reg too.

[The_Child]

oh child.. playing in the mud again,,,?
Funny, had this suspicions with reg too.

no, no, no, no.

i sincerely want to find out how to do that jester-laughing smiley.

[miyay]

6.) at the end, its self-defeating, because if mysticism cannot fail, who would be the judge if it didnt if noone can even speak of it.

....all in silence. only in silence, for even the outer shell fails as a representation of the kernel of mysticism...."The mind is not used to describe God because it will fail. God Is. That's all" God is, is itself a description.

exactly why matters like this must be relegated to silence

very true, sir. i think it's very hard for the mind to describe a mystical experience. only the heart and soul can tell it best. but since the average man is very wary of what the heart and soul speaks of, it is best to relegate mysticism in silence