I want the quickest and surest path to God. Maybe that differs for me from that of others, although I'm not saying from ALL others. Maybe that differs depending on personality types and cultures. I would suppose there are some routes that seem to be tried and true and others that just lead nowhere, no matter what temperament you are. Iwas going to say the quickest and EASIEST but, from what I have seen, "easy does it" doesn't do it.

M.

As for this question: theological conditioning can block spiritual progress, but must it?

I think some theological conditioning can get in the way if that conditioning is mostly restricted to memorizing formulas and regurgitating fixed answers and dogmas and has too little of an experiential component. By experiential, I don't mean emotional rewards and charismatic swoons, I mean a true experience of one's growth in internal freedom. You know, that growth which helps you to love better, yourself and God and everyone else. It isn't just a matter of getting saved and going to heaven. I think all of the world religions can help someone do that. For me it is a matter of walking closer to God NOW. Getting more free NOW. If a theological teaching helps that part of my life before my death as well as the part after my death, then it is good. If it doesn't then it is an obstruction?

M.

Miriam, I understand your questions and your desire for a spirituality that provides both a quality life now and an eternity in heaven. I think the world religions address these desires, although in different ways.

The pivotal issue in all of this (to me, of course) is where one stands with Jesus? What do you think of him? His message? the Church's teaching that he was raised from the dead? The revelation of God and human destiny implied by his life and teaching? What priority do you give to Christ?

(see . . . I can ask questions, too . . . )

quote:

Originally posted by Phil:
[qb] Miriam, I understand your questions and your desire for a spirituality that provides both a quality life now and an eternity in heaven. I think the world religions address these desires, although in different ways.

The pivotal issue in all of this (to me, of course) is where one stands with Jesus? What do you think of him? His message? the Church's teaching that he was raised from the dead? The revelation of God and human destiny implied by his life and teaching? What priority do you give to Christ?

(see . . . I can ask questions, too . . . ) [/qb]

As I understand religions, they very much will involve not just an academic and theoretical appreciation of a certain set of teachings or even of a certain teacher's historical status. Religions involve a cultural immersion that involves a way of living and being and seeing all of existence. This would seem to require that before anyone passes judgment on one religion vs another that a rather extensive process of theological inculturation must be undergone. One cannot be considered evangelized by a Hindu perspective simply by a reading of the Bhagavad-Gita. So, too, a mere reading of the Gospels and a hearing of some tv evangelist doesn't really equate to a true evangelization? Most people stay in their native religion cradle to grave because the psychological upheavals that are required from new cultural immersions are very great and neither Christianity nor Hinduism are merely ways of thinking but are also very much ways of being that get proven through long experience and much trial and error. How many Hindi have truly ever heard about Jesus so as to answer your questions, not as I said through mass media or reading or even academic study but in the jumble of life experiences that come from ones parents and grandparents and prayer and worship experiences and experiences with life and death and growing up and growing old, speaking this language or that, viewing reality with this philosophy or metaphysic or some other? All of that said I do think Jesus is a loving avatar and that his wisdom sayings are similar to any I've ever heard from any tradition, some predating Christianity. I admire Christianity and Jesus very much.

M.

. . . I admire Christianity and Jesus very much.

That's nice, Miriam.

----

It seems that whenever we cross over for awhile to explore another religious tradition, everything seems new. There really are powerful teachings and spiritual movements there, which is why they've survived through the centuries. Even just a little reading or use of a practice can bring startling consequences, and it doesn't take long before one is looking back at one's own Christian tradition through the eyes of this new perspective, and sometimes finding it wanting.

I remember back in the mid-80s when I was reading a lot of Zen stuff, including, here, Christians who were into zen -- e.g., Merton, Hugo Enomiya Lasalle, William Johnston, and others. It almost seemed for awhile that Zen was teaching more effectively what the Gospel was all about, and without the encrustations of dogma, liturgy, etc. I was well enough grounded in my Catholic tradition to know that the Christian mysteries revealed more than Zen was pointing to, but I didn't see what difference this made. Then one day, writing in my journal, I decided to "take stock," as it were, and ask myself what I had really learned through my study of Zen (which included by then a Zen retreat):
1. Present-moment awareness.
2. The importance of detaching from inessential things.
3. The delusions of the false self.
4. God as the unspeakable mystery.
5. . . . there was no 5.

I read these over and wondered what it would have been like if a Christian friend had asked me what I got out of Zen and had given this answer. I could imagine him saying, "That's it?!" I then realized that Zen hadn't taught me anything that wasn't already emphasized in the Catholic spiritual tradition; Zen had only helped me come to a deeper appreciation of these values. That was very good, but it wasn't nearly enough. Still, what it gave me, I valued, and do to this day.

About that time I got ahold of a book entitled Zen Catholicism, by Dom Aelred Graham. It was wonderful, relating Zen metaphysics and mysticism to Thomistic ideas. Reading this book was another time when I seemed to "snap out of it," it being the mental laxity and devaluation of dogmatic teaching that had happened during my fling in Zenland. Graham, and later Jim Arraj, showed how you could benefit from both world, and for this I will always be grateful to them.

When reading the Cloud of Unknowing the same thing happened to me. I came to a deeper undestanding of my own tradition, however nothing really new. It did seem like many Christians could well be anonymous Hindoo or Buddhist. The Catholic deChardin's omega point and those who speak of the cosmic christ is an appealing way to conceive of moksha and the resurrected state is something we'd know as little about as parinirvana but Jesus may be one avatar that has revealed the most about the end of our cycles?

Thanks. You have given me more to think about and your answers were helful and kind.

M.

. . . It did seem like many Christians could well be anonymous Hindoo or Buddhist. . .

(Rahner turns over in his grave! )

M., at least you're seeing something of what's unique in Christ. That's better than viewing Jesus as just another avatar and incorporating him into the Hindu system.

Hinduism is very pluralistic and open to different theologies. I never really looked at Buddhism as dealing much with theology. Setting aside the theolgies it does seem that there is also a great diversity on spiritualities. Even though Christianity doesn't seem too open to different theologies it does seem open to many different spiritualities. The Hindu tradition has the different yoga approaches. The Catholic has so many different religious orders and lay movements and spiritualities. I suppose when we talk about htis or that path being the best that we should be clear about whether we are talking about a spirituality or a theology. In Catholicism does one say one religious order is the best? Or does the Hindu say one yoga is the best? Yes there is something unique in each but does that make it good, better or best. What about the active versus the contemplative life? Which is the best? Does one approach bring what you call the fruits of the spirit faster or quicker or more assuredly? What makes Cjristianity better than other traditions when it comes to living a fully human life?

Thanks,
M.

Miriam, have you read our Why Christianity? discussion? I referred you to it earlier.

This fellow, not to be confused with Ananda Coomaraswamy, seems to have explored many of these issues in depth. I've only read a few of the articles, and would like to know what Phil and Miriam see.

http://www.coomaraswamy-cathol...ngs.com/articles.htm

caritas,

mm <*))))><

I like the emphasis in that Christianity discussion on relationship and experience and authenticity. Those themes seem to recur. In that way of looking at things maybe doctrine is secondary or at the service of those themes. Maybe it is good to say that doctrine can serve relationship or serve experience. Then it is good to see if it has so served this person or this group of people.

This quote interested me from elsewhere:

"the Three Degrees of Humility is sometimes called the Three Ways of Loving God.

The first way is to love God to such an extent that one desires faithfully to follow God's desire as expressed in the law. The second way is to love God to such an extent that a person places God's desire, God's call, above all personal desires and attachments, despite one's fears and weaknesses. The third way is the most difficult. Ignatius encourages the retreatant to ask God for the desire to reach this level, or at least to pray for the "desire for the desire." The third way is to love God to such an extent that a person offers to be with Christ actually poor, humiliated, and made a fool of, if God calls the person to that state."

Maybe one can test a doctrine for what it does for a relationship with God in bringing one close, closer and closest to God even if the experience of God cannot always be felt or understood. Sometimes we settle for the desire to have the desire to be closest even if we know we may never really know how close we are or not.

So you are saying Christianity is not "about" Jesus as much as it is "of" Jesus? That doesn't sound very clear but I am saying that the important knowledge isn't what we know from reading or studying but from being with a person? Well I don't think any other avatar said that to see them is to have seen God or called themselves the way. Others pointed to the way or taught this or that yoga. I think this is a difference.

Thanks.
M.

I read the article on Hindu and New Age mm. The author does not understand Hinduism. It is not a type of pantheism at all. The highest Hindu view is panentheism and this includes a supreme being that is immanent and transcendent. This isn't different from some Christian thought. Some see God personal and some not in Hinduism. It is not this simple because there are many different beliefs but pantheism is not correct for sure. Jesus would be a good reflection of the personal God and possibly one of the very best. Relationship and experience with Jesus may not differ from devotion to other deities but what he said and claimed when talking about himself does seem to differ and I could see how this might affect the type of relationship, devotion and experience of a believer.

Thanks.
M.

In looking at this discussion the idea of how a religion or doctrine might bring one close, closer or closest in a relationship to God seems to be the key. I feel like it would be fair to say that the major world religions can all lead one close to God. It would be interesting to see how it could be decided which one might bring most people closest and how this would be measured?

M.

How this could be measured? Any links or thoughts on that?

Thanks.
M.

http://www.carm.net/dictionary/dic_p-r.htm

http://www.igs.net/~tonyc/panentheism.html

The above links explore the difference between the Christian and Panentheistic worldviews.

These explore Panentheism itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panentheism

http://www.panentheism.com/

http://www.pantheist.net/society/panentheism.html

http://panentheism.org/

http://www.kheper.net/topics/w...ews/panentheism.html

Perhaps this will move the discussion forward.


caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Those included some good links and some of the agreements and diagreements within both Christianity and Hinduism and between Christianity and Hinduism. There are parts of Christianity and Hinduism such as the panentheistic parts that show significant possible agreement. I take that for granted and am looking for other possible agreements especially regarding Jesus as a human reflection of the supreme being. And this especially in terms of whether this revelation helps bring people even closer to God than the other religions already do. And how might this be measured?

Thanks.
M.

To the extent that mysticism is a science and the experiments and models and theories are reproducible
in a sense by those of us seeking a result, the question of measurability is not entirely as crass or inappropriate as it might seem to a religious sensibility.

How would one measure the Christian faith and the validity of it's claim to Truth?

Jesus would Himself be the Ultimate measuring stick. He forgave sins and healed and raised the dead. He fulfilled the requirements and attributes
of God. No one else has.

On a more human level, experiments in both ancient and modern times by the Desert Fathers, Greek and Russian mystics and the mystics in the Roman Church and others have confirmed the revelation to a lesser degree.

The human race has reached it's highest level of development by many measurements in the Christian
nations of Europe and North America.

Christianity has grown from twelve individuals to a third of mankind in only two millenia.

At one place in space/time Lao Tzu remarked that

"He who pursues learning will increase every day-
He who pursues Tao will decrease every day."

At another place in space/time John the Baptist said that

"He must increase and I must decrease."

This is the way it must be.


caritas,


mm <*)))))><

One Jesuit priest called mystical theology the science of love. I don't think the question of measurability is inappropriate either. The validity of truth claims where God is concerned is spoken of in Christian scripture as by their fruits you will know them and see how they love one another and by signs and wonders. This must be what gave Rahner to recognize that not only the Chrsitian religion had signs and wonders and fruits of the spirit. These criteria I know and I wonder what you are otherwise considering as measurements when you speak of the highest level of development of the human race?

Thanks.
M.

Mother Theresa said that while other countries were poor materially, the west was poor spiritually.
You could measure our spiritual poverty by our love of money and pleasure and other false Gods we have exalted,
and I can see her point, but we have more freedom
of religion and personal choices far above others.

This woman, who dwelt in Christ went over to a country who shamed the colonialists into leaving, and shamed their passivity and caste system by picking up the dying, the elderly and the untouchable and being a good Samaritan to them.
What could possess a person to become this but the love of God? This would be the triumph of positive action inspired by Jesus over a passive individual
enlightenment which lacks love as it's goal.

Solitude leads to quiet, quiet leads to prayer, prayer leads to love and Love leads to service.
-Mother Teresa of Calcutta

caritas,

mm <*)))))><

Making saints like Mother Teresa is a good measure. Creating an environment for people to become saints and freedom to do what saints would do is a good measure. Enlightenment leads to compassion. The path of contemplation and the path of the active life are not at odds. Even the Christian tradition has its anchorites and eremetic and monastic witnesses along with the apostolic way of giving God glory. This advances the welfare of all people as the author of the Cloud of Unknowing teaches. As for societal structures, all societies and institutions need transformation, too. Even some of the churches which don't view men and women as equals in their ability to minister as if to be like Jesus one needed to be a male. Equal rights for women and civil rights for all races is a very new event even in the U.S.A.

Thanks,
M.

http://www.doctorsenator.com/M...yofChristianity.html
http://www.churchofchristusa.c...r%20Christianity.htm

http://www.doctorsenator.com/M...yofChristianity.html

http://www.songsinthenight.hom...om/fisher_stott.html

http://www.xaviermissionaries....ng_ContribChrist.htm

http://www.peopleunitedforreli.../christian_hindu.htm

I am reading pages like those above and some are good and thoughtful and some are not very good.

Thank you Michael and Phil for your thoughts. I am going to look for and visit other websites and discussion places. It is good that we can agree that God can be found in all of the major religions. It is good to continue to search for the best expression of truth and goodness for this or that people at this or that place and time and also for all people in most all of places and time. In the meanwhile I truly believe that one who seeks and really truly earnestly seeks will not be disappointed in the end with that measure of truth and goodness that God will supply.

Great thanks.
M.

Bye Miriam. I hope you find what you're looking for.

Happy seeking Miriam Blessed are those who hunger and thirst after righteousness, for they shall be full- filled. - Jesus

caritas,

mm <*))))><