What say you of the Christ?

Originally posted by Rajk999
You have a pretty short attention span for one so brilliant. I already asked where in the Bible there is support for

...Christ..., became man without ceasing to be God, ...

To which you replied with the predictable question about man and wife 'being one'.
I then explained the Bible is full of people being one.

Man and wife
Christ and his disciple ...[text shortened]... Christ.
Something about you make me think of the Pharisees ... cant put my finger on it. 🙂

Let's not get too far off topic. Before examining the 'oneness' of other relations, first let's ask why the union between a man and a woman given such significance in Scripture.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
..why the union between a man and a woman given such significance in Scripture.

Lets hear it ... Im peeing in my pants here.

Originally posted by Rajk999
Lets hear it ... Im peeing in my pants here.

Actually, I was asking for your distinctions. You named several instances wherein the Bible uses the concept of oneness; how are these similar to or different than the oneness the Bible sets apart for marriage?

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Let's not get too far off topic. Before examining the 'oneness' of other relations, first let's ask why the union between a man and a woman given such significance in Scripture.

Once, way back, I started a thread called “God is orgasm”. Most people seemed to think that I was just joking, or being irreverent. Neither was the case (although I was being metaphorical, not literal).

In the deepest loving intimacy that I know, the “I” and the “you” disappear into what I have called the one-ness of “We”. The normal ego-boundaries collapse in that moment of ecstatic vulnerability and intimacy.

So that very sensual experience is analogic. Anyone who has had the analogous (I want to stress that word) with ____________ (one can put whatever word one’s own philosophical or theological viewpoint calls upon in that blank; which I think needs to be left properly blank, however) will have some understanding. That is why I can relate to both mystics and charismatics (not that they are always different people).

Although they will think of it differently, both dualist-theists (such as yourself) and non-dualists (such as myself) can relate to that ineffable experience. Only the musicians and the poets and the artists can really attempt to “say” anything about it—in music and poetry and art (and music pre-eminently, in my mind, just because it employs no word-symbols).

And that is my answer to your question. The sensual experience is an accurate analog of the spiritual experience—and those religious views that attempt to separate the spiritual and the sensual are just wrong (east or west, dualist or non-dualist).

EDIT: By the way, I checked the etymology once: the English word atonement really does (or did) mean at-one-ment.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Obviously, these aspects of His personhood are not in view, then are they? We are here discussing His position and His work, not trying to determine if He was any good at hopscotch or would have thought the Blazing Saddles campfire scene was funny.

Try to stay focused, stoker.

no you wrote understand the person that is what i pointed out stay on track

Originally posted by vistesd
Once, way back, I started a thread called “God is orgasm”. Most people seemed to think that I was just joking, or being irreverent. Neither was the case (although I was being metaphorical, not literal).

In the deepest loving intimacy that I know, the “I” and the “you” disappear into what I have called the one-ness of “We”. The normal ego-boundaries col ...[text shortened]... I checked the etymology once: the English word atonement really does (or did) mean at-one-ment.

Sorry it took so long to respond. I wanted to take the time to address the very pertinent remarks you made and, unfortunately, I've been too busy to sit and think.

“God is orgasm”
I think I get where you were going with the volley, and I probably would have argued only on a semantic level. As your previous learning taught you, and as your studies since then have fleshed out, have further illuminated the path you follow, the pursuit of happiness finds its penultimate expression in overflowing, overpowering, mouth-shutting joy. Or--- when we do it right--- orgasm.

I say "penultimate" because it is next to the final result... the intimacy at the end of the dark night of the soul, as it were. And, I say "when we do it right" because we often do it wrong. Same aim, same goal, sometimes even the same moves... not always the intended results.

That being said, the artist cannot hope to speak his language without having the concreteness of the thing in mind. As elusive as beauty, truth, reality, the 'it' we seek may be, it is real nonetheless... just hard to capture.

So when things are hard to capture, my tack is to narrow down what can be narrowed down, define what can be defined, submit what can be submitted, and let the math do its work. I am uncomfortable with the mystic's approach, not because I consider him less capable of appreciation than me, but because I know that he doesn't know where he's headed.

That's a faith that I cannot abide. It leaves me untethered and feeling more naked than the man and the woman after the first bite. I like His voice: I'm comforted by its consistency, its tone, its finality. If I miss a few experiences of elation along the way by staying on a restrictive path, I'm okay with it. Given my predilections for laughing too hard, enjoying too much--- for downright over-indulging in sensory pleasure--- straight and narrow is probably the wisest choice.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Sorry it took so long to respond. I wanted to take the time to address the very pertinent remarks you made and, unfortunately, I've been too busy to sit and think.

[b]“God is orgasm”
I think I get where you were going with the volley, and I probably would have argued only on a semantic level. As your previous learning taught you, and as your stud indulging in sensory pleasure--- straight and narrow is probably the wisest choice.[/b]

I am uncomfortable with the mystic's approach, not because I consider him less capable of appreciation than me, but because I know that he doesn't know where he's headed.


This is really the only thing that I disagree with, while recognizing that there are people who put on the deception of pseudo-mystics. We are, I believe, all mystics. There are those who recognize it, and those who don’t; those who repress it (or were conditioned to repress it), and those who don’t. Recognition is not necessarily either welcome or comfortable.

The mystic knows where s/he is headed as much (or just as little) as the next person. People can also deceive themselves into thinking they know where they are headed—sometimes by accepting (with or without a great deal of thought) religious or philosophical formulae that offer the (false) security of certainty. Religiously (or spiritually), a little discomfort and a little insecurity are not necessarily bad—they may be spurs to a heightened awareness, and warnings of complacency.

In fact, I would say that religion (or spirituality) necessitates feeling “naked and untethered”; the “trick” is not to escape from that into comfort, but to have a framework that allows one to take more and more (and every persons capacity for growth in that respect is unique, and not a subject for judgment). But, you are partly right too: to survive in the desert expanse, to renew the strength and equanimity (and well-being) to revisit the desert expanse, one also needs the oases. There is another kind of escapism: into the being lost in the desert (which might be a flight from responsibility to irresponsibility).

Some people have a greater fear of mitzraim, the “narrow places” (the name by which Egypt is known to the Israelites in the Bible); others have greater fear of ha’midbar, the desert or wilderness—the expanse—(e.g., those who wanted to run back to Egypt). Or, some of us oscillate and become confused. The “cure” for the awe-ful expanse of the spiritual midbar is not flight into another mitzraim, but to learn to find the oases. Nevertheless, we need to resist the temptation to think that our own tendency toward mitzraim or midbar is somehow better than that of those who have the opposite tendency.

Mysticism has more to do with awareness than with ecstasy; nevertheless, that “O” response is there. The Hebrew word yirah is often translated as “fear”, but there is another word in Hebrew (which I forget at the moment) that means fear as being frightened or afraid. Yirah is often rendered by Jewish writers as “awe”, and sometimes reverence—but I don’t think that those, while being accurate, necessarily capture the full force of it (although surely there are degrees). I might render it as “tremulous awe” at least—and one might describe it as feeling “naked and untethered” as well.

Your recognition of the dangers are quite accurate. I suspect your use of the word “penultimate” is also correct. In my Egypt/desert metaphor, I did not mention the “promised land”. But, quite frankly, in the existential reality of the spiritual journey, no one really gets to “pop” from their own personal Egypt into permanent residence there.

Anyway, we’re not far off: just don’t confuse mysticism with either emotionalism or some psychological fog state-of-mind; both are anathema to the mystic.

_______________________________________

Don’t worry about slow response; I feel another retreat from here coming on. So, if I don’t get back to you for awhile, that’s why. Thanks for your response, which was insightful and a good stimulus for my own thinking…

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I am uncomfortable with the mystic's approach, not because I consider him less capable of appreciation than me, but because I know that he doesn't know where he's headed.


This is really the only thing that I disagree with, while recognizing that there are people who put on the deception of pseudo-mystics. We are, I believe, all mystics. There a ...[text shortened]... why. Thanks for your response, which was insightful and a good stimulus for my own thinking…[/b]

I agree wholeheartedly. It is amazing the similarities between the different Christian traditions. If I can make two remarks on this:

In fact, I would say that religion (or spirituality) necessitates feeling “naked and untethered”; the “trick” is not to escape from that into comfort, but to have a framework that allows one to take more and more (and every persons capacity for growth in that respect is unique, and not a subject for judgment). But, you are partly right too: to survive in the desert expanse, to renew the strength and equanimity (and well-being) to revisit the desert expanse, one also needs the oases. There is another kind of escapism: into the being lost in the desert (which might be a flight from responsibility to irresponsibility).

I am reminded here of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer argued that Christian life necessarily entails nakedness, suffering and even atheism. He was critical of Christian apologists who sought to present Christianity as self-evident as if their opponents were either unintelligent or just obstinate. Bonheoffer observed that Jesus' final words before his death were 'My God, why have you forsaken me?' Consequently, the Christian experience is not a smug intellectual conviction; it is doubt and suffering. Nakedness is a good word. I am not sure whether Bonhoeffer believed doctrine and apologetics were unimportant. What is important is that Christians acknowledge the legitimate place of doubt. A person who doubts has done nothing wrong. That is the start of the mystic life!

I am also reminded of St. John of the Cross. St John of the Cross stands out as one of the more eminent Christian mystics and I think that his insights are very friendly to all Christians because he is not interested in Catholic apologetics. St. John argued that humanity is a love story. Each individual wakes up in the middle of a romance. At the moment of conception, the person is infinitely loved by God. However, in order to reciprocate that love, each person must be purified. Their love must be tested in the desert. It requires an inward transformation, a spiritual 'ascent of Mt Carmel.' St John of the Cross argued that love is best realised in the moment of doubt. His great theological insight is that each person must pass through the 'dark night of soul', in which the person must seek to love God even though their spiritual life has become empty, boring and even depressive.

I think that there are also substantial differences between the major religious traditions. I think one of the great disputes is the I-Thou. Christianity, I think, is generally very personal. God meets humanity as a person. The relationship is nuptial. As Israel was God's bride, the Church is the bride of Christ (Eph 5:31-32). The goal of Christian mysticism is not to dissolve the I-Thou distinction. Christians seek unity with God on a personal level, like a wife to a husband. What do other religious traditions say of this?

Originally posted by rwingett
Salvation comes not through the blood of Christ, but through emulating Jesus. The Christian religion has put such a heavy emphasis upon the mythological attributes of Jesus that it obscures the moral attributes to a very large degree.

The Bible explains to us that "salvation" (itself) comes through neither actually. The actuality of eternal life comes through spiritual regeneration by the spirit of God/Christ within a human being. The blood of Christ is the cost of that redemption and following Christ is the cost of discipleship in terms of this temporal life, i.e. a new life and changed life and obedience.

We cannot buy nor earn our salvation as it is a gift - it therefore follows logically (and I believe is explained in scripture) that you cannot lose it. It is neither about creed nor works nor intellect nor education. Salvation is for anyone and everyone and is accessed through Jesus Christ who was God wrapped in a veil of flesh that was "torn" to provide humans with access to the inner place of his presence.

Originally posted by Conrau K
I agree wholeheartedly. It is amazing the similarities between the different Christian traditions. If I can make two remarks on this:

[b]In fact, I would say that religion (or spirituality) necessitates feeling “naked and untethered”; the “trick” is not to escape from that into comfort, but to have a framework that allows one to take more and more (and ...[text shortened]... ersonal level, like a wife to a husband. What do other religious traditions say of this?

At the top I meant to write 'mystical traditions'. All the difference in the world.