CLARITY

[steve7150]

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.

Why do you think that is Steve




Because as we seek to understand God and Christ ourselves through scripture we learn to appreciate the important things about him such as , He is light and in him is no darkness, He is love, and He is just,merciful and compassionate and cares about all his children including unbelievers. Institutional Christianity has taught that unbelievers are enemies of God and deserve eternal damnation but scripture gives hope to everyone "as in Adam all die and in Christ all shall be made alive." Christ is the true light , the exact image of God and as scripture says, this will be testified to all men in due time. Once man is not constrained by their fleshly lusts and blinded by the devil , i think rebelliousness to him will fall away like the scales fell off Paul's eyes.

[RV]

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.

I guess the difficulty with this is, anyone can claim to have this personal experience.

And one may say, well... we have the bible to measure these experiences.

But... (I may be wrong), I'm not aware of any biblical text that would justify this personal experience you have.

Therefore, anyone can claim these experiences and just say, well it's a personal experience that I really can't prove, and don't care to try and prove, because I can't.

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.

I like this parable!

[kaufmannphillips]

RV wrote:
I guess the difficulty with this is, anyone can claim to have this personal experience.

Inasmuch as everybody should be seeking sincerely their own personal experience, ideally anybody and everybody should claim to have such personal experience.

The eminent difficulty, in our society, is that so few people actually seek to mystically engage G-d. Many prefer to read books about G-d, or to hear others talk about G-d, or to simply imagine or philosophize about G-d.

RV wrote:
And one may say, well... we have the bible to measure these experiences.

One may say a great many things. I certainly do.

But the bible is a book. G-d is G-d.

I will pose another parable:

Maybelle Meriwether lives in late-1800s Massachusetts. One harsh winter, her third cousin Hyacinth passes away. Though Maybelle has never even met her distant relative, she inherits a trunkful of her cousin’s belongings. Packed amidst the linens and things, she finds Hyacinth’s diary.

Over a series of long winter nights, Maybelle begins to read through the diary. She discovers that Hyacinth had been planning to go west in the spring, as a mail-order bride for one Chad Veloacher. As the pages go by, Maybelle becomes more and more impressed with Chad – often through her cousin’s remarks, but occasionally through quotes from his letters to Hyacinth.

Ultimately, Maybelle heads out west herself. After a whirlwind courtship, she weds the man who has impressed her so in her cousin’s diary. They move into a cozy little cabin that Chad has built with his own hands.

And then something curious begins to emerge. Every now and again, Chad does or says something that is ill-received by his wife. Maybelle then furrows her brow and goes digging through her hope chest. Emerging with her cousin's diary, Maybelle locates some remark about Chad or some quotation from his correspondence. She then triumphantly reads the passage aloud, contrasting it to what Chad has said or done, and refuses to hear another word from him on the matter.

Ultimately, Chad cries out during one of these episodes: "Maybelle! Are you married to me, or to that book?! Deal with me - I'm right here!!"

RV wrote:
But... (I may be wrong), I'm not aware of any biblical text that would justify this personal experience you have.

So?

RV wrote:
Therefore, anyone can claim these experiences and just say, well it's a personal experience that I really can't prove, and don't care to try and prove, because I can't.

To whom is one needing to "prove" anything?

[RV]

Well, you don't need to prove anything to anyone, but I assume you share these things for a reason kaufmannphillips.

From what I gather, it appears your beliefs are very simular to that of a Mormon. In the sense that they don't need to prove anything because they have the burning of the bosom.

Is that a fair assessment?

[kaufmannphillips]

I am not terrifically knowledgable about the role of mysticism in the LDS tradition. But mysticism precedes Joseph Smith by millennia.

Consider, if you will, Abraham. Does Abraham go research in a book to find out about G-d? No - his relationship with G-d is built largely upon his personal experience. Those who imagine themselves to be the inheritors of Abraham - should they not seek to emulate his relationship with G-d?


Now, as for matters of "proof" - please do not understand me to hold that personal experience should be spared critical review. Personal experience is not infallible, and it is appropriate for us to make a more holistic engagement of divine matters - employing both rational and irrational faculties, and taking both our own perspectives and those of others into account.

But it is not a primary concern for us to "prove" our personal experiences to other persons. We may share about our experiences - hopefully, to their benefit. Yet our prevailing concern should not be to wrangle persons into agreement with our personal experiences, but rather to nurture the development of their own relationships with G-d.

Let us imagine that we have two friends, Shlomo and Shulamit, and we think they would make a terrific couple. We know that Shlomo is quite interested in Shulamit, so we want to help out with the other end of the equation. Will we be best advised to besiege the lady with analytical arguments, attempting to secure a betrothal by "proving" that Shlomo is a sterling candidate? Or should we pave the way sensitively with various remarks - without overdoing it - then introduce the two of them and let them interact with one another? Certainly, we might attempt to support their relationship with helpful insights along the way, but for the most part we know that this is something that they themselves must develop.

[RV]

[quote]But it is not a primary concern for us to "prove" our personal experiences to other persons. We may share about our experiences - hopefully, to their benefit. Yet our prevailing concern should not be to wrangle persons into agreement with our personal experiences, but rather to nurture the development of their own relationships with G-d.[/quote]

Where do you come up with this kaufmannphillips?

[Jason]

Let us imagine that we have two friends, Shlomo and Shulamit, and we think they would make a terrific couple. We know that Shlomo is quite interested in Shulamit, so we want to help out with the other end of the equation. Will we be best advised to besiege the lady with analytical arguments, attempting to secure a betrothal by "proving" that Shlomo is a sterling candidate? Or should we pave the way sensitively with various remarks - without overdoing it - then introduce the two of them and let them interact with one another? Certainly, we might attempt to support their relationship with helpful insights along the way, but for the most part we know that this is something that they themselves must develop.

I will share a story as well. Tony is a working class Italian kid from Brooklyn. Tony's roommate, Joe, sees how lonely his friend is and tells him about a sweet girl named Amy that he met while in the U.K. Tony e-mails Amy and she responds. Right away, they hit it off. They begin chatting thru IM and over the course of a year they fall in love with one another. Tony tells his workmates that he's smitten by a British girl and has plans of wedding her one day. His friends laugh, saying, "That's ridiculous. You don't even know her!" Tony responds with, "I certainly know her. I read her letters every day." This, again, is met with laughter. "You can't have feelings for someone you've only read about." Tony understands their logic, but he knows what he knows - his feelings of love toward Amy came thru reading what she wrote to him, but his relationship is with her and not her e-mails.

[kaufmannphillips]

RV wrote:

But it is not a primary concern for us to "prove" our personal experiences to other persons. We may share about our experiences - hopefully, to their benefit. Yet our prevailing concern should not be to wrangle persons into agreement with our personal experiences, but rather to nurture the development of their own relationships with G-d.

Where do you come up with this kaufmannphillips?

This is well documented in Kaufmann, Phillip S. "Alternative Models for Triage of Purposes in Interpersonal Relations," Journale Theoreticae Theocentricae 24 [Sept/Oct '98]: 41-126.




Actually – there are numerous antecedents to this perspective.

Perhaps the most important is the principle of theocentrism. Ideally, G-d should be the central focus of one's being, and of one's devotion in particular. Secondary elements - books, preachers, philosophies - these may be heard and considered. But they must not be treated as a proxy for G-d; and they must not be engaged in such a way as to sap one’s growth in interpersonal intimacy with G-d; and they must ever be regarded as potentially dispensable. Only G-d is indispensable.

And just as G-d is indispensable to us, so too is G-d indispensable to others. Yes, we may play secondary roles in nurturing their developing relationships with G-d. But we must not assert ourselves in such a way that we become proxies for G-d to them, or that we sap their growth in interpersonal intimacy with G-d. The center of their gravity, so to speak, must not stray from G-d toward our direction.

Whether or not another person comes into agreement with our personal experiences – this may or may not have much significance in the long run. But whether or not the person develops an intimate relationship with G-d – this is the essential stuff.

[kaufmannphillips]

RV wrote:
I will share a story as well. Tony is a working class Italian kid from Brooklyn. Tony's roommate, Joe, sees how lonely his friend is and tells him about a sweet girl named Amy that he met while in the U.K. Tony e-mails Amy and she responds. Right away, they hit it off. They begin chatting thru IM and over the course of a year they fall in love with one another. Tony tells his workmates that he's smitten by a British girl and has plans of wedding her one day. His friends laugh, saying, "That's ridiculous. You don't even know her!" Tony responds with, "I certainly know her. I read her letters every day." This, again, is met with laughter. "You can't have feelings for someone you've only read about." Tony understands their logic, but he knows what he knows - his feelings of love toward Amy came thru reading what she wrote to him, but his relationship is with her and not her e-mails.

Of course, this is similar to the parable I posted above:

Maybelle Meriwether lives in late-1800s Massachusetts. One harsh winter, her third cousin Hyacinth passes away. Though Maybelle has never even met her distant relative, she inherits a trunkful of her cousin’s belongings. Packed amidst the linens and things, she finds Hyacinth’s diary.

Over a series of long winter nights, Maybelle begins to read through the diary. She discovers that Hyacinth had been planning to go west in the spring, as a mail-order bride for one Chad Veloacher. As the pages go by, Maybelle becomes more and more impressed with Chad – often through her cousin’s remarks, but occasionally through quotes from his letters to Hyacinth.

Ultimately, Maybelle heads out west herself. After a whirlwind courtship, she weds the man who has impressed her so in her cousin’s diary. They move into a cozy little cabin that Chad has built with his own hands.

And then something curious begins to emerge. Every now and again, Chad does or says something that is ill-received by his wife. Maybelle then furrows her brow and goes digging through her hope chest. Emerging with her cousin's diary, Maybelle locates some remark about Chad or some quotation from his correspondence. She then triumphantly reads the passage aloud, contrasting it to what Chad has said or done, and refuses to hear another word from him on the matter.

Ultimately, Chad cries out during one of these episodes: "Maybelle! Are you married to me, or to that book?! Deal with me - I'm right here!!"


One convenient thing about stories like this is one can structure them to suit one’s aims. So naturally, they don’t prove terribly much - but they can illustrate.


Let me contrast Tony's illustration and Maybelle's:


In Tony's illustration, the written materials were written for him; in Maybelle's, they were written for some other party.

When one reads the books of Leviticus or Obadiah or I Corinthians, it is evident that they were written for an ancient and exotic audience – but it is not so evident that they were written for New Millennium Yankee Evangelicals (and fifth-century Celts and ninth-century Franks and sixteenth-century Japanese and everybody else in between).


In Tony's illustration, the written materials are an interactive communication with him; in Maybelle's, they are not an interactive communication with her.

It is evident that the bible orates and legislates and narrates and castigates - all one-way forms of communication - but it is not so evident that it pursues an interactive conversation with a modern reader. So it is interesting that Tony's illustration is painted as a dialogue. Now, we might agree that interactive communication is essential to relationship – but I see that happening in the mystical setting.


In Tony's illustration, the limitation of written communication is given little weight – Tony knows Amy, though he has only read her texts; in Maybelle's, the limitation is given serious weight – Maybelle may have known some things about Chad, but clearly there is more him than she has been able to construe from his letters.

Broadly speaking: to seriously know somebody, you have to live in their space for a while (and not just their cyberspace!). People are frequently more complex than their poetry or prose might indicate. At best writing is like a JPEG image – little pixelated points that convey a figure, but only have a certain threshold of resolution, and a limited field of vision. (And that’s without mentioning the possibility of Photoshop shenanigans...)


In Tony's illustration, the love-interest is alienated in a far-flung land, so writing is a matter of resort (assuming phone rates are just too steep); in Maybelle's, the (ostensible) love-interest is readily present, so there are significantly better alternatives to written correspondence when it comes to communicating and relating.

When one's beloved is present, igniting the breast and quickening the heart and the mind, why would one have more than passing thoughts for old letters from afar?

“You are remote, but, oh, how near! Ordering the stars in the vast solitudes of the dark, yet whispering in the mind that You are closer than the air we breathe.” - Gates of Prayer, Reform Jewish prayerbook

“Nearer than friends we meet every day, nearer than hands or feet, nearer than the air we breathe is our God.” – Rev. John Y. Ewart

[RV]

Hi Kaufmannphillips,

Well, to be honest, I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this. Other than I gather that God is more than just a book and that often times people go to the bible as though the bible is God.

Tell me more about the experiences that you've had with God. How does he interact with you? What things has He shown you? What things from scripture has He cleared up for you?

Be specific!