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



## JBrainard (May 9, 2007)

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 (May 9, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

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 (May 10, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

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 (May 10, 2007)

I agree Carol, it could get confusing in here.


----------



## Andrew Green (May 10, 2007)

Mod Note

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

Andrew Green
MT Tech Admin


----------



## JBrainard (May 10, 2007)

ChingChuan said:


> 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!&#8221; 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 (May 10, 2007)

ChingChuan said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

Cirdan said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

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 (May 10, 2007)

ChingChuan said:


> 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 



ChingChuan said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

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 (May 10, 2007)

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 (May 10, 2007)

tellner said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 10, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


 
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 (May 10, 2007)

(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 (May 10, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

ChingChuan said:


> 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.



JBrainard said:


> 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.



ChingChuan said:


> 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.



ChingChuan said:


> ...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. 



ChingChuan said:


> 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 (May 10, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> .....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.



tellner said:


> _(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.


----------



## Ninjamom (May 10, 2007)

ChingChuan said:


> ... 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).


CC, that was extremely well said.  For someone who doesn't speak English as a first language, you have a great way of expressing yourself clearly and kindly.  

Well done!


----------



## heretic888 (May 14, 2007)

ChingChuan said:


> 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.



With all due respect, ChingChuan, I would question both your understanding of "mysticism" and Biblical exegesis.

Although many Christians may like to believe otherwise, aphorisms like "relationship with God" are modern rhetoricisms. These terms just aren't used in the New Testament and really weren't even used in Christendom itself until the last few centuries. I liken them to marketing slogans of the modern evanelical movement moreso than anything else.

Mysticism is explicit in the New Testament, most notably in the epistles of Paul and the Johannine gospel. The authors of these text make it very clear that the old "you" is epistemologically transcended (or, as Paul put it, "crucified") and subsumed within a deeper or higher Self (the Christ). This is mysticism pretty much as we see it throughout the world. Some exegetes have also seen Paul's injunction to "pray always" as a call for meditative awareness.

A lot of this is besides the point, though. The Church doesn't "reject" mysticism as a whole, given the high rank given to people like John of the Cross, Teresa of Avila, Thomas Aquinas, Dionysius, and Augustine. Even the posthumously criticized Johannes Eckhart was held in admiration by the late Pope John Paul. 

The trick to Christianity and mysticism is you can't be too blunt when you're talking about it. You have to "hide" your experiences and explanations in appropriately churchy rhetoric. Of course, that isn't good enough for some of the hard-liners out there. I once heard a modern Christian complain that St. John of the Cross was too "Buddhist" for him. 

Go figure.



ChingChuan said:


> 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).



According to the Gospel of John, you mean. Such claims are not found anywhere else in the New Testament, certaily not in the other gospels.

Curiously enough, it is only in the Johannine gospel that we find these "I Am" speeches and it is only in this gospel that Jesus is identified with the pre-existent Logos (a familiar concept in Greek metaphysics). It is highly evident that the "I Am" the Johannine author is talking about is the Logos. Jesus is merely a symbol or manifestation of the Logos.


----------



## heretic888 (May 14, 2007)

Ninjamom said:


> 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.


 
Ninjamom,

Personally, I think you're constructing a strawman for "mysticism" here. Individuality is not "destroyed" or what have you, nor is the self "identified" with the divine in an absolutist fashion. Most of what you're talking about is just metaphorical language.

St. John of the Cross described traditional Christian mysticism probably better than any other source I can think of. He (along with St. Gregory of Nyssa) makes it very clear that any and all ideas we have about "God" are at best analogies, that contemplation is the way to "union" with God, and that true faith is characterized as a "dark cloud of unknowing". This "dark cloud" and the accompanying description of the divine presence as a "luminous night" or "dazzling darkness" is, for all intents and purposes, analogous to the Madyamika Buddhist notion of shunyata (void).

Some exegetes may like to pretend that their way is special or unique among all mystical traditions, but anyone's that read up on all the literature can plainly see they're all talking about the same stuff. The reason being that this stuff _is_ genuine cross-cultural and universal, it isn't the exclusive property of any one people or culture.


----------



## MA-Caver (May 14, 2007)

I am a Christian but I also consider myself a closet Buddhist because I identify with so many of their beliefs about our relationship to our planet and the life within. In my travels I've studied also Muslim and several others, including for a _very_ short while satanism. 
I've seen the abject rejection of other beliefs/faiths/doctrines by stout or overly zealous type Christians and am personally grieved by it (if not disgusted). Seems to me they forget the 11th commandment which was given by Christ; "Love ye one another as I have loved you." He meant this for *ALL* people not just those within His church. 
There is truth everywhere you look and in every church/faith on the planet. And like a certain martial art you keep what you need in your life and throw away the rest. This I have done to the best of my own ability and continue to do as I follow my own path through this life. 
I've very little use for organized religion as a whole. I prefer to continue learning the various doctrines that I find and make my own judgment as to what is truth. If that includes the truth from other faiths then so be it. I need what I need for me. My own salvation is my own responsibility not this or that church or this or that faith... by my own merits and by how I love my God shall I obtain the immortality that every man seeks.


----------



## Brother John (Dec 2, 2007)

JBrainard said:


> 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.


that's a VERY interesting proposition! Seriously.

I think that you're onto something, and I'm a Christian!

I think that there is a Great deal of wisdom that comes from sources outside of my religion!!! But to me there are various levels of 'need' or importance that I ascribe to different things. For instance, the idea/concept of salvation. I don't believe that there is any other means to avoid eternal damnation except through salvation via Jesus Christ. If another faith or doctrine tried to convince me that:
A: Salvation isn't needed.
B: Salvation comes from other sources than just Jesus.
C: That Salvation isn't obtainable via the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.
Then I would outright say that that is false. I won't "Force" anyone else to accept this proposition that it's false, but I'll hold that perspective just the same.

BUT: There's plenty in other faiths that commend themselves to simply "Getting along" in the world or seeking more 'meaning'. BUT: I do not believe that they can usurp nor provide a deeper or more meaningful perspective than I get through the Philosophy/Doctrine/Faith of basic, scriptural Christianity. At best, the most it could do is to reaffirm and further convince from a different angle or vantage point that which I already have through a diligent search of my Christianity.

Just my point of view.

Interesting subject

Your Brother
John


----------



## burkspatrick (Jan 17, 2008)

ok i'm going to have to put my two cents worth and will probably have the inquistion at my doorstep.  look it might sound like i'm church bashing but contrary to to what's preached out of the pulpit and also out of the mouths of tv preachers and pentecostal snake handlers( i'm from tennessee home of church of god, the bible belt) churchianity sorry i mean christianity does not has not cornered the market on the truth nor does it have a monopoly on it either.  And about regecting knowledge because it's not in the bible( I hear it all the time in the various churches i've been in including a vary well meaning friend)  well computers aren't in the bible telephones aren't in it either does that mean it has come out of the mouth of hell.   well if you want to be a good bible thumper then you'll have to reject all technology and live like the the amish and the way they live isn't all that easy either for us 21st century people.  See how stupid closedmindedness  is.  Sorry for my rant


----------



## burkspatrick (Jan 17, 2008)

and why is christianity so hateful about sexuality like its evil.  does that mean we have to live like a vulcan and suppress it.   i've been involved with the nazarene church and have heard about sanctification that it's supposed to burn the kernal of carnality or the original sin.  oh please after I went to the altar seeking sanctification I still had to battle it so either the doctrine is wrong and I was trying to suppress my human nature or like my well meaning friend I was holding something back from god.  oh please I tire d of hearing church clap trap


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 17, 2008)

Looking both ways, stepping VERY cautiously and all the time saying to myself &#8220;I know better than to get into a pure religious discussion&#8221;

Here I go&#8230;

Strong faith is one thing fear is another. 

Why do the reject them? If it is due to lack of understanding then it is likely they will do nothing to learn about them. If it is out of fear then first fear of what and second they again will likely do nothing that takes them outside of their safety zone. Bottom-line if they don't bother me, I don't bother them. But I will admit once getting a pastor to look at his watch and say "is that the time" during a discussion he started about true religions.

I have an Aunt that is a Christian that is VERY concerned about my mother-in-law from China who is a Buddhist. And my mother-in-law couldn&#8217;t care less what religion you are and she knows Taoists, Christians and a few others in China and she has no problem with any of them. She even knows some Falun Gong people and has no problem with them, although we, the rest of the family, would prefer that she not associate with Fulan Gong, it is not a good thing to do in China. But to be honest that woman is the happiest person I have ever known.


----------



## kaizasosei (Jan 17, 2008)

yeah, flg, fldf, those are really wild.  really persecuted also.  christians as well are still persecuted in some places.
  really great ideas mentioned.  i completely agree that it is a disservice to oneself to be a religious extremist.  it's not about devotion. there are people who go through all kinds of hardships for their religion,tradition or job.  but it's just if one can be a tollerant and accepting person rather than simply hurting others in the name of something that is supposed to be good.

j


----------



## Big Don (Jan 23, 2008)

Isn't a rejection of other faiths a requirement for any religion? If all faiths are valid, there is no reason to choose one over others.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Jan 23, 2008)

Big Don said:


> Isn't a rejection of other faiths a requirement for any religion? If all faiths are valid, there is no reason to choose one over others.


 
As far as I no it is not required in all. I do not believe "Rejection" of other religions is required by Buddhist or Taoists.


----------



## Josh Oakley (Jan 29, 2008)

burkspatrick said:


> and why is christianity so hateful about sexuality like its evil. does that mean we have to live like a vulcan and suppress it. i've been involved with the nazarene church and have heard about sanctification that it's supposed to burn the kernal of carnality or the original sin. oh please after I went to the altar seeking sanctification I still had to battle it so either the doctrine is wrong and I was trying to suppress my human nature or like my well meaning friend I was holding something back from god. oh please I tire d of hearing church clap trap


 
Now, do you mean Christianity the religion, or Christendom, the people? In the case of the former, I'd refer you to to the many conventional Christian traditions which view sex as not only a good thing (within the context of marriage), but as a sacred rite. Quite frankly, if there's a Christian out there who thinks sex is evil I'll slap them straight myself. 

For many Christian mystics, it's important as prayer. More, important even. For those outside the conventional circles, or the mystics (such as gnostics) spiritual sex extends outside even the marriage bed. 

Now how about, say, the puritans? 

As for myself I am a Christian, who emphasizes direct experience with the divine (which by default makes me a mystic as well), and sex with my wife is a serious spiritual issue to the both of us. I brings us closer to each other, and closer to God. There's nothing prudish about our marriage bed... or house.... 

ANYWAY, in response to the latter assumption (Christendom, that is) all I can say is that there is no accounting for taste. Supression of the sexual urge in history, even-- especially-- within the Christian church, and the tradition tends (with exceptions) to come from those of political influence, rather than Christians themselves. Bad habits are hard to break, communal ones included, and so the demonization of sex continues.

The history of all this is quite easily accessable, though. Any joint search on Chistianity and sexuality should pull up more than enough results to satisfy your question.


----------

