What is Contemplative Christianity?

[sojourner]

Correction...it can be done apart through our flesh, but only through God's divine wisdom through the Holy Spirit will we find truth......not our own truth, His truth and we cannot put human reasoning onto how that happens

"Truth" and "What the writer meant" are two different endeavors.

 

[Windwalker]

For me it would be part of a completely new attempt by me to reaching out again to God, starting over from scratch.

I talked about some of the basic principles in another thread in the Mysticism Dir and lightly touch upon some of my own things I found helps, such as lighting candles, sitting on a cushion, using a bell for sound to help the mind calm and relax, etc. I'm not all hung up on symbols being exactly this or that, as it is really the intent you come to this with, your heart towards God that matters. All the rest are simply tools to help calm your otherwise out-of-control mind. Once you get past the initial normal obstacles and it opens to you, then it becomes easier. Take what you will from the suggestions I offered in that thread. http://www.religiousforums.com/threads/recommend-some-meditation-practices-for-a-noob.179030/

But I'll add a different layer to it here since in a Christian context you approach God through what I'll call here a "2nd person" relationship to God. What that means is that your focus is on the "Holy Other". It takes on the I-Thou form of relating to Spirit through the form of the Christ, or the Father, etc. It can be done in a quite rich layer of devotion and love. It takes on the extraordinary quality of the "Beloved", of Bride and Bridegroom, etc. In this form of meditation, unlike some of the other forms, there is less place for ego to hide out because it is very much that I-Thou relationship of emptying yourself into the Holy Other. So, like I asked in that other thread if the person has any sort of prior experience of the divine, like where the heavens are rent open and your soul is laid naked before the divine, that that can be helpful as a place of 'reaching' towards the taste of the divine you had historically. It's a good starting point that opens you to being receptive. Meditation practice does not "produce" these things. I describe it as a practice to learn how to allow these things.

Let me know if there's anything I could offer in way of guidance from one with experience, and I'll be happy to in whatever way I can. It's really something you learn yourself, the more you do it.

 

[sassysam29]

So, it's magic. Got it.

Really? How about God speaking through meditation? That is somehow more believable?

 

[Desert Snake]

A general comment here. The main argument seems to be that one side looks the Bible as the Word of God. It's not. God did not write the Bible. Men did. And what came to be counted as "The Bible" was the result of many committee meetings among........men. Indeed Christianity existed for hundreds of years before the Council of Nicea decided on the "canon" that became the Bible. Relying on the literal words written there, without an appreciation of their context as a dialogue between religious scholars at different points in history, is wrongheaded.

That's great. But are you suggesting that the logical alternative is to listen to people who have their theology mixed up, etc? I don't think so. That is a matter of personal perspective, not ''facts''.

 

[sassysam29]

BTW, if God preserved his word in the the original manuscripts, where exactly are they then? Who has them in their possession? Answer, none exist. So if God preserved his words in the original manuscripts, shouldn't we still have them? You would think so, wouldn't you? He preserved them long enough for imperfect copies to be made, through which you have your Bible today?

This line of reasoning doesn't help you by saying it's preserved in the originals, which we don't have, and all our translations are not based on. So where is this miraculously preserved word then? And how does this help us if it doesn't exist in anything we have today?

Are you kidding me? Do you understand the odds of just 1 of the prophecies being accurate?

 

[sassysam29]

For instance.... take John 1:1. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word as with God, and the Word was God". Using nothing but the "plain meaning of the text", tell me what it means, knowing nothing of the Greek words, nor the culture, nor the audience. What does it mean to you? What does "Word" mean in this context?

If I give you a line of shakesphere, could you tell me what it meant? I need to compare Scripture with Scripture (you know that). . And that in and of it of itself even more amazing because the writings were written over so many years by different authors and it divinely fits! Yes, sounds like a fluke.

 

[sassysam29]

YES!!! Very much so it does. It's removed from the original language and cultural context, and then injected into another language and cultural context. The meanings are changed radically at times. Certainly the subtle nuances are largely lost.

Ok...give me an example

 

[lovemuffin]

Are you kidding me? Do you understand the odds of just 1 of the prophecies being accurate?

I don't have time right now to go back and quote posts, but as I've followed along (I've missed a lot of recent posts) it seems that at some point this appeal to fulfilled prophecies has become your answer to the problem of establishing the authority of the Bible as I raised it earlier in the thread, although you never directly responded to those posts. However, this claim to the accuracy of prophecy is also problematic.

And so, I claim that there are no meaningful and verifiable instances of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible. Meaningful and verifiable mean, to me, that it can be determined to some reasonable standard that a prophecy was made in advance of an event predicted, that the event actually occurred as predicted, and that the prophecy describes the predicted event in sufficient detail as to exclude the possibility of reading the meaning back into it after the event.

I would challenge you to attempt to substantiate the claim that the authority of the Bible is testified to by fulfilled prophecy by responding to my assertion above and showing how such prophecies were made and how you verify their accuracy.

 

[lovemuffin]

Ok...give me an example

Windwalker already provided the example of the meaning of Logos, or the "Word" of John's prologue. It's a good example.

You might also be interested in N.T. Wright's work on the meaning of "dikaiosyne theou" (the righteousness or justice of God) in Paul's epistles. I would also suggest differences in the connotation of metanoia as compared to the english "repentance", or the usage of the greek work koinonia (communion) as used in the N.T.

 

[Desert Snake]

And so, I claim that there are no meaningful and verifiable instances of fulfilled prophecy in the Bible.

Great. Then I have to wonder, why are you using the Bible as a reference for anything? Prophecy is a major part of the Bible.

 

[sassysam29]

'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' Leviticus 17:11 (NAS)

How did men know this?

 

[Windwalker]

'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' Leviticus 17:11 (NAS)

How did men know this?

First of all, "life" is not in the blood, technically speaking. But in a prescientific age it's things like this that were conjectures based upon basic observation and entire philosophical lines of thought based on these assumptions. If you cut someone's throat and the bleed out, they die. That's not prophecy, but just basic common sense, from their point of view. Lest you forget, the prescientific mind also believed that a woman's menstrual period was because of a curse, not that it actually serves a vital biological function involved in reproduction, which technically is a gift from God for reproduction to work.

 

[lovemuffin]

Great. Then I have to wonder, why are you using the Bible as a reference for anything? Prophecy is a major part of the Bible.

I view the value of the Bible in a different way than your question presupposes, but that shouldn't matter as far as the nature of the claim I made and the point I have in making it and asking him to substantiate his opposition to it. The reason I say that is because the idea of fulfilled prophecy, in the sense of prediction of the future, is a reasonably objective claim. It's not a matter of purely subjective opinion, there are reasonable standards about what would count as a successful prediction.

In fact, the entire point of this argument from prophecy that sassyam is making is that prediction of the future is difficult. So much so that, according to sassyam, even one fulfilled prediction would establish the supernatural authority of the biblical texts. It's a rational and objective argument, and so it should be evaluated in a rational and objective way. If the argument can't be reasonably established, then the claim to authority fails. My opinion is that the argument does, very clearly, fail, and so a different model of the "authority" or value of the biblical text is needed. I don't see how, even as a Christian, it would do any good to deny the clear and rational failure of the argument. I believe that Christians may plausibly make an argument that an authentic understanding of Christianity accepts the reality of things which transcend pure rationality, and yet it makes no sense to willingly fall into irrationality, especially while relying on ostensibly rational arguments to substantiate claims to authority.

'For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.' Leviticus 17:11 (NAS)

How did men know this?

This isn't a prediction of the future, but it also doesn't count as knowledge that we would be surprised that ancient people had. It is a matter of empirical observation: if you drain the blood out of animals and people, they die. Ancient people lived very close to nature. It's not surprising that basic physiological facts didn't escape them. To give another example, in an ancient hymn of the Rg Veda, it is asked "Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit?" (Rg Veda 1.164) The question there (and in the greater context) certainly implies an understanding that blood is central to life. Ancient hebrews were not alone in that understanding.

 

[sassysam29]

I view the value of the Bible in a different way than your question presupposes, but that shouldn't matter as far as the nature of the claim I made and the point I have in making it and asking him to substantiate his opposition to it. The reason I say that is because the idea of fulfilled prophecy, in the sense of prediction of the future, is a reasonably objective claim. It's not a matter of purely subjective opinion, there are reasonable standards about what would count as a successful prediction.

In fact, the entire point of this argument from prophecy that sassyam is making is that prediction of the future is difficult. So much so that, according to sassyam, even one fulfilled prediction would establish the supernatural authority of the biblical texts. It's a rational and objective argument, and so it should be evaluated in a rational and objective way. If the argument can't be reasonably established, then the claim to authority fails. My opinion is that the argument does, very clearly, fail, and so a different model of the "authority" or value of the biblical text is needed. I don't see how, even as a Christian, it would do any good to deny the clear and rational failure of the argument. I believe that Christians may plausibly make an argument that an authentic understanding of Christianity accepts the reality of things which transcend pure rationality, and yet it makes no sense to willingly fall into irrationality, especially while relying on ostensibly rational arguments to substantiate claims to authority.



This isn't a prediction of the future, but it also doesn't count as knowledge that we would be surprised that ancient people had. It is a matter of empirical observation: if you drain the blood out of animals and people, they die. Ancient people lived very close to nature. It's not surprising that basic physiological facts didn't escape them. To give another example, in an ancient hymn of the Rg Veda, it is asked "Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit?" (Rg Veda 1.164) The question there (and in the greater context) certainly implies an understanding that blood is central to life. Ancient hebrews were not alone in that understanding.

Truly the lists of scientific bible references and fulfilled prophecies are endless. I'm not even starting it. It just seems so crazy that you reference a book you don't believe as the supporting argument for your meditation practice. It just doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever

 

[Desert Snake]

I view the value of the Bible in a different way than your question presupposes, but that shouldn't matter as far as the nature of the claim I made and the point I have in making it and asking him to substantiate his opposition to it. The reason I say that is because the idea of fulfilled prophecy, in the sense of prediction of the future, is a reasonably objective claim. It's not a matter of purely subjective opinion, there are reasonable standards about what would count as a successful prediction.

In fact, the entire point of this argument from prophecy that sassyam is making is that prediction of the future is difficult. So much so that, according to sassyam, even one fulfilled prediction would establish the supernatural authority of the biblical texts. It's a rational and objective argument, and so it should be evaluated in a rational and objective way. If the argument can't be reasonably established, then the claim to authority fails. My opinion is that the argument does, very clearly, fail, and so a different model of the "authority" or value of the biblical text is needed. I don't see how, even as a Christian, it would do any good to deny the clear and rational failure of the argument. I believe that Christians may plausibly make an argument that an authentic understanding of Christianity accepts the reality of things which transcend pure rationality, and yet it makes no sense to willingly fall into irrationality, especially while relying on ostensibly rational arguments to substantiate claims to authority.

I think that we should look at theological prophecy and concepts, in totality. Prophecy is basically declared as a default 'truth' in the Scriptures; it is, if anything, something that we cannot, as faithful people, really question without devaluing our very beliefs to suppositions and speculations. I do agree that prophecy or cross reference between books is done too much, by many. In fact, that's a pet peeve of mine. If one says ''prophecy in and of itself, proves everything Scripturally'', then I do disagree with that.

 

[sassysam29]

I view the value of the Bible in a different way than your question presupposes, but that shouldn't matter as far as the nature of the claim I made and the point I have in making it and asking him to substantiate his opposition to it. The reason I say that is because the idea of fulfilled prophecy, in the sense of prediction of the future, is a reasonably objective claim. It's not a matter of purely subjective opinion, there are reasonable standards about what would count as a successful prediction.

In fact, the entire point of this argument from prophecy that sassyam is making is that prediction of the future is difficult. So much so that, according to sassyam, even one fulfilled prediction would establish the supernatural authority of the biblical texts. It's a rational and objective argument, and so it should be evaluated in a rational and objective way. If the argument can't be reasonably established, then the claim to authority fails. My opinion is that the argument does, very clearly, fail, and so a different model of the "authority" or value of the biblical text is needed. I don't see how, even as a Christian, it would do any good to deny the clear and rational failure of the argument. I believe that Christians may plausibly make an argument that an authentic understanding of Christianity accepts the reality of things which transcend pure rationality, and yet it makes no sense to willingly fall into irrationality, especially while relying on ostensibly rational arguments to substantiate claims to authority.



This isn't a prediction of the future, but it also doesn't count as knowledge that we would be surprised that ancient people had. It is a matter of empirical observation: if you drain the blood out of animals and people, they die. Ancient people lived very close to nature. It's not surprising that basic physiological facts didn't escape them. To give another example, in an ancient hymn of the Rg Veda, it is asked "Where is the blood of earth, the life, the spirit?" (Rg Veda 1.164) The question there (and in the greater context) certainly implies an understanding that blood is central to life. Ancient hebrews were not alone in that understanding.

There's really nothing I can bring to the table that hasn't already been offered up, so we part with an inreconciable opinion

 

[Windwalker]

There's really nothing I can bring to the table that hasn't already been offered up, so we part with an inreconciable opinion

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

"Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse."
​

No, not all opinions are valid. I loath this sort of "bow out" of a discussion. His opinion has tremendous credibility that bears considerable consideration. I hear a cop out with this lame, "so we part with an irreconcilable opinion." It was not a discussion of opinion at all. It's an escape out stage left, nothing more.

 

[sassysam29]

http://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

"Secondly, I say something like this: “I’m sure you’ve heard the expression ‘everyone is entitled to their opinion.’ Perhaps you’ve even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it’s no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for.”

A bit harsh? Perhaps, but philosophy teachers owe it to our students to teach them how to construct and defend an argument – and to recognize when a belief has become indefensible.

The problem with “I’m entitled to my opinion” is that, all too often, it’s used to shelter beliefs that should have been abandoned. It becomes shorthand for “I can say or think whatever I like” – and by extension, continuing to argue is somehow disrespectful. And this attitude feeds, I suggest, into the false equivalence between experts and non-experts that is an increasingly pernicious feature of our public discourse."
​

No, not all opinions are valid. I loath this sort of "bow out" of a discussion.

Your claims of your eye becoming one with God's is no more substantial than anything I have said here, so I suggest you reread your little article and self examine because if the scripture don't cut it for me they certainly don't cut it for you. Period.

 

[Windwalker]

Your claims of your eye becoming one with God's is no more substantial than anything I have said here, so I suggest you reread your little article and self examine because if the scripture don't cut it for me they certainly don't cut it for you. Period.

Ah, no. First I was quoting Eckhart as an expression of the experience of divine love. It's poetry. You make claims of fact. You cannot compare expressions of experience with statements of fact. I am not doing the same thing you are. Period? Hardly.

BTW, my "little article" as you call it, is talking about making claims you are unable to substantiate, such as saying meditation lets the devil in! You are not entitled to that as an opinion if you cannot back it up. Period.

 

[sassysam29]

Ah, no. First I was quoting Eckhart as an expression of the experience of divine love. It's poetry. You make claims of fact. You cannot compare expressions of experience with statements of fact. I am not doing the same thing you are. Period? Hardly.

Then stop using scripture as your supporting argument to mystic experiences. Gods word is divinely inspired... not fact. You believe facts while seeing through God's eye and let us know what he says about the bible