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

[Ninjamom]

... 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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Looking both ways, stepping VERY cautiously and all the time saying to myself “I know better than to get into a pure religious discussion”

Here I go…

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’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]

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]

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]

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]

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.