CLARITY

[steve7150]

I also think God wants us to seek and use what he gave us to search the scriptures daily and not just sit back and read a list of commandments.

[RV]

I also think God wants us to seek and use what he gave us to search the scriptures daily and not just sit back and read a list of commandments.

Why do you think that is Steve?

Do you think this is also true:

I think God left things messy in order to showcase the love of his followers.

Based on the responces so far...

1. Many things aren't known.
2. There could be a couple of different reasons why, but us not knowing is intentional on God's part.
3. We should be seaching the scripture anyway.

Am I seeing this all correctly??

[kaufmannphillips]

steve7150 wrote:
I also think God wants us to seek and use what he gave us to search the scriptures daily and not just sit back and read a list of commandments.

I think G-d wants us to seek intimate companionship with him in prayer, and not just do literary research.

"Biblical" Christianity has too often made scripture not only a beginning to understanding G-d, but also the end of it. When there is a topic under debate in such circles, notice how many persons will argue from elements in the text, and how few will testify about what G-d has weighed upon or quickened within their hearts and minds.

Bibliocentric Christianity should repent and become theocentric.

[RV]

"Biblical" Christianity has too often made scripture not only a beginning to understanding G-d, but also the end of it. When there is a topic under debate in such circles, notice how many persons will argue from elements in the text, and how few will testify about what G-d has weighed upon or quickened within their hearts and minds.

With so many claiming to have that quickening of the heart and mind and so many coming to different conclusion... what do we do?

[kaufmannphillips]

RV wrote:
With so many claiming to have that quickening of the heart and mind and so many coming to different conclusion... what do we do?

We each cultivate our own intimate relationship with G-d. This is not a thing to be "outsourced," or subordinated to the claims of other people.

Which is not to say that we should not listen cautiously to the testimonies of others. Such testimonies may sensitize us in beneficial ways. But whether a thousand persons testify in harmony with you or a million testify in opposition to you - none of these trump the testimony of the one we must seek. Go to the divine source.

[kaufmannphillips]

We each cultivate our own intimate relationship with G-d. This is not a thing to be "outsourced," or subordinated to the claims of other people. ... Go to the divine source.


Now - many will feel daunted by this endeavor. But let me offer two points here:

Many people are uneasy about defining aspects of their life and faith through mystical intimacy with G-d, yet are quite willing to define such aspects through analysis of scripture. Why is this?

If there are many varying testimonies as to the quickening of hearts and minds, are there not also many conflicting analyses of scripture?

Or is it that the scriptures seem more tangible and more easily engaged? The more deeply one studies scriptures, the more one realizes how illusory such an impression is. These are documents from foreign worlds ... set in historical, social, and intellectual contexts that we have limited knowledge about ... and written in languages that are no longer known by any person with the fluency of a native speaker in their times.

Or is it that the activity of rational analysis seems so much more trustworthy than the activity of mystical engagement? But human reason can be fallible. And is it not the case that life in our contemporary culture has encouraged us to hone our rational faculties, while gravely neglecting our mystical capacities? So perhaps it is not that reason is more trustworthy than mysticism - but that most of us have developed our abilities inequitably. We reason with relative maturity; while our mystical activity is scarcely developed beyond infancy.

(What, then, is the solution? To remain lopsided; or to humbly, yet courageously, seek to nurture our mystical capacities beyond the cradle? Let us ask the question: is one more likely to to wander astray with a mature ability to reason, or with a mature ability to commune intimately with G-d?


We may be fearful in the face of mystical engagement, because we doubt that we can trust ourselves. That fear holds a measure of wisdom. (But are we correspondingly wise about trusting ourselves when we reason?)

Even so, we embark on the mystical journey, looking not to trust in ourselves, but to trust in G-d. Trust that G-d wants us to have intimate communion with him, and empathic understanding of his heart and mind. Trust that G-d can wisely and effectively nurture our maturation in the mystical sphere.

In the sphere of reason, we may have become accustomed to doing the heavy lifting ourselves, by dint of our own rational powers. But in the mystical sphere, though we may have little confidence in our ability to successfully labor of ourselves, we may trust G-d to do what is necessary for us to make the journey together.

[RV]

Kaufmannphillips...

Thanks for your thoughts.

Not sure what you're trying to say... but let put some rubber to the road on your thoughts.

Or is it that the activity of rational analysis seems so much more trustworthy than the activity of mystical engagement? But human reason can be fallible. And is it not the case that life in our contemporary culture has encouraged us to hone our rational faculties, while gravely neglecting our mystical capacities? So perhaps it is not that reason is more trustworthy than mysticism - but that most of us have developed our abilities inequitably. We reason with relative maturity; while our mystical activity is scarcely developed beyond infancy.

Tell me more about this mystical engagement that you have?

Tell me what G-d has shown you on heaven/hell.

[Jason]

We each cultivate our own intimate relationship with G-d. This is not a thing to be "outsourced," or subordinated to the claims of other people. ... Go to the divine source.

I have a great deal of sympathy with your view here. Do you mind answering a personal question on this topic? I notice that you use the Jewish reverential spelling of the word God. I see nothing wrong with such a thing but don't find it particularly intimate. I might show respect to my earthly father by calling him Don, or even D-n, but I doubt he would prefer that to simply "dad." The term G-d actually suggests that a gap in intimacy is present.

[kaufmannphillips]

RV wrote:
Tell me more about this mystical engagement that you have?

Mysticism is about personal and experiential engagement. It goes beyond mediated engagement, where one looks to a secondary source (e. g., sacred text or prophet). And it goes beyond theoretical engagement. This is not to say that mediation and/or theorizing cannot be involved in mystical engagement, but rather that something more than these things must be involved. Or – when it comes to our topic – someone.

Discussing this engagement is a bit like discussing intimate connubial relations:

(1) One might not wish to go into extensive details about one’s own experiences, when conversing with strangers;

(2) When one does go into details, one risks being significantly misunderstood and/or unappreciated;

(3) When one is asked for advice, one may offer suggestions on technique; but there are limits to how helpful one can be, because the essence of the thing subsists in a dynamic between other persons, which they must discover and develop themselves.


This last point ties into an anecdote about the Rizhiner rebbe:

A man once said to him: “Rebbe, I so wish to repent, but I don’t know what to do.”
“And to sin, you knew what to do?”
“Yes, but that was easy. First I sinned, then I knew.”
“Exactly. Now do the same the other way around. Start by repenting; you’ll know later.” {from Souls on Fire by Elie Wiesel}

Many persons will embark upon mystical activity (like other human enterprises) with some significant measure of ignorance. But though there might be some muddling at first, with increasing experience things will begin to come together. And I say this, repeating what I have said previously: [W]e embark on the mystical journey, looking not to trust in ourselves, but to trust in G-d. Trust that G-d wants us to have intimate communion with him, and empathic understanding of his heart and mind. Trust that G-d can wisely and effectively nurture our maturation in the mystical sphere. ... [T]hough we may have little confidence in our ability to successfully labor of ourselves, we may trust G-d to do what is necessary for us to make the journey together.


But if you are interested in my advice, I will recommend petition, posture, and practice: petition - asking G-d for the kind of interaction that you aspire to, and for help in developing it; posture – maintaining a heart that is receptive to encounter and interaction with G-d; and practice – maintaining habits that seem to afford sensitivity to G-d. With more information about your own self, I might or might not have specific techniques to suggest.

RV wrote:
Tell me what G-d has shown you on heaven/hell.

I have a lesser interest in the hereafter. I am more interested in “how now shall we live” – so my mystical forays have to do with living in this world.

Let me adapt a parable just one page over from the anecdote above:

Two young scouts each become separated from their troop during a hike in the woods. Darkness falls, and a storm comes. One child is fixated on the sky, wondering about cloud formations and thunder. The other child waits for the lightning, eager for the flashes illuminating the ground.

Some are concerned with the mysteries of the heavens. Some are concerned with what the heavens reveal about the world below. In the end, both must navigate the same terrain. Which concern is the more profitable?

[kaufmannphillips]

kaufmannphillips wrote:
We each cultivate our own intimate relationship with G-d. This is not a thing to be "outsourced," or subordinated to the claims of other people. ... Go to the divine source.

Jason wrote:
I have a great deal of sympathy with your view here. Do you mind answering a personal question on this topic? I notice that you use the Jewish reverential spelling of the word God. I see nothing wrong with such a thing but don't find it particularly intimate. I might show respect to my earthly father by calling him Don, or even D-n, but I doubt he would prefer that to simply "dad." The term G-d actually suggests that a gap in intimacy is present.

My usage of "G-d" convention has been discussed elsewhere. Diction can be delicate, and I use different nomenclature in different contexts. Here, I often use "G-d." In verbal conversation with a Jewish person, I might use "Hashem."

In private prayer, my diction can vary, and at times I might not use a name or epithet at all. But I suppose you might agree, as a married man, that words are not always necessary for intimate relations.