Christian Mystics

[ButterflyWoman]

http://www.centersoflight.org/

Really interesting website, with a lot of material that may be of interest. From their front page:


At our Centers of Light it is always a "soul thing" because we know that we are all souls with bodies, not bodies with souls. Our connection with our souls, our missions on earth as souls, and our experiences of God within our souls is most important to us.

We are mystics which means we are all about experience. We seek, find, and develop the deepest experiences of soul, light, and God. These experiences grow peace in our hearts and we work to bring this peace out into the world.

[star]

Cool find OW. I've read a small amount of related material myself. You can find your god, regardless of who it is! "mysticism is fun that way"

[Timotheus]

:D

[CFTraveler]

Considering that a good portion of modern christianity tries to convince people to not meditate and to only seek salvation from a hierarchy that is sociopolitical, I find that a branch of christianity that teaches that meditation is a good thing, well, is a good thing. (I need to get me a picture of Martha Stewart).
Most people do not know how to meditate because it's not part of their priorities, and they are actively discouraged from doing so.
Perhaps if more people try it they may find the 'God within' and rely less on instruction.
But while we have forces telling them not to seek the inner path, I think having organizations teaching them that it's ok is a good thing, judgement or not.

[Timotheus]

:D

[star]

Good teachers can be guides who have already been down the path. The thing is, even people with well developed spirituality are still people. Sometimes they charge for services rendered.

Also, many techniques and ways of living do result in the end goal. "Your personal end goal" (Tai Chi, Chi Kung, Hoshin, ect..)
Its just that its seen much more often on the flip side of the coin. In the faster paths to learning, martial application is what I mean.Partaking in forum discussions can end up being a much slower learning proccess, especially if you have no teachers and have to rely on trial and error, your own research, and weeding out BS..

Also, my opinion, being that everyone needs to search out a personal truth.. So you'll not vibe with every teaching you come across, it is funny how so many teaching criss cross, and how so many of the teachings are similiar. Its important to keep an open mind though. Unfortunatly, even psychopaths can develop abilities of the metaphysical nature, so you have to be smart, and a bit selective - take what you read and hear with a grain of salt - but don't discount too much either. (It really can be a headache.)

Honestly, there are people even here I'd like to chat with, they don't have the time to answer all of my questions or do all the training I'd like to partake with them though. ;)

[Timotheus]

:D

[ButterflyWoman]

i do suppose that christians do indeed meditate. they pray, they meditate and they contemplate.
Only a handful of them. The majority of people who call themselves Christian don't even really go to church regularly, let alone meditate or practice contemplative prayer. Not only is it not taught, it's a lot of work. Most people aren't really spiritually inclined. Religious, maybe, but spiritual? Not really.

And that is absolutely not a slight against Christians. I come from a (moderate, Protestant, mainstream) Christian background and still consider myself to be a Christ follower, though I'm very unorthodox and I lean more toward "interfaith from a mostly Christian perspective". I say what I do about the majority of Christians because of years and years spent in Christian churches of a wide variety of denominations. In all those years, not ONE person told me about contemplative prayer. I suspect because nobody knew what it was, despite it being well established in the writings of Christian mystics through the centuries.

I've been interested in Christian mysticism for a very long time (since I figured out what it was and that I bear all the signs of a natural mystic), and so I've done a lot of reading on the topic. I was really interested to see a deliberately and distinctively mystical Christian movement such as this one. (I don't really consider most Pentecostalism to be mystical; despite all the speaking in tongues and holy hands to heaven and laying on of hands and whatnot, they're still very legalistic, rules-bound, and mostly fear-driven).

[star]

I was reading about christian mystics the other day, I'll share some of the info with you for informational purposes, later.

[ButterflyWoman]

The quote in my signature is from one of the great Medieval Christian mystics, in fact. I'll quote it here in case I decide to change it at some point (because it'll change on ALL my posts):


All will be well
And all will be well
And all manner of thing will be well.
- Julian of Norwich

I'm also a fan of St Teresa of Avila (who disliked stupid people and would only accept intelligent women into her newly formed order, saying, "Heaven preserve us from stupid nuns!"), John of the Cross (aka Juan de la Cruz), who wrote an amazing treatise on "the dark night of the soul", and Hildegarde of Bingen, who was quite intimately acquainted with the person of Sophia as Holy Spirit, and wrote about it.

Oh, and my patron saint is St Gregory the Great (aka Pope Gregory the First). Not that I chose him, mind you. He was chosen for me. I had no idea what he was about before I became aware of him as a spiritual presence in my experience. He was actually quite the scholar and was said to have an angel as a guide (what we would think of as a "spirit guide"). Gregory was one of the great mystics, too.... ;)

[Timotheus]

:D

[ButterflyWoman]

what need have you of any other proof or approval than your own true self calling you to it???
What makes you think I need proof or approval?

I just found the website, the group, and their ministry interesting.

[Timotheus]

:D

[CFTraveler]

Note to self: Must read Hildegarde of Bingen.

[ButterflyWoman]

not so much thinking 'you' exactly. thinking of being human in common. i have myself lingered thinking to need proof and/or approval from an external medium. it's what humans do.
I should have put a smiley face in my post. I realised when I read back over what I wrote that I came across a bit to defensively. That's not at all how I intended it. It was more with a smirk and a wink and a saucy flip of the hair. ;) :P

[Ouroboros]

Note to self: Must read Hildegarde of Bingen.

Wasn't Hildegarde von Bingen also a composer of music?

[Timotheus]

:D

[Timotheus]

:D

[CFTraveler]

You know, I've read most of the McAffee books (I actually own Beyond the Sutras) and never connected him to the antivirus program.
Small world!

[Timotheus]

:D

[Jaco]

ok, if we are mystics as souls in bodies as the quote says, then why a website, why classes and training, why 'real' teacher and master teachers.

looks good though, well done website. but, i'd imagine Jesus with his stick running them out of the temple court yard for selling doves and such. i mean how much does 'peace' cost?

to be true to one's self is to listen and learn from your self. this obstructive obsession of attainment from external sources is just that, an obsession from compulsions affixed with an external identity.

On a side note, I just noticed something hilarious. Jesus himself was a travelling preacher. So ironically, listening to his teachings doesn't make sense, because he is an external identity to those who listen to him. :lol:
Forget about Jesus (and of course about the other teachers), just listen to yourself - kill all the Buddas and Jesuses. :) :wink:

[star]

ok, if we are mystics as souls in bodies as the quote says, then why a website, why classes and training, why 'real' teacher and master teachers.

looks good though, well done website. but, i'd imagine Jesus with his stick running them out of the temple court yard for selling doves and such. i mean how much does 'peace' cost?

to be true to one's self is to listen and learn from your self. this obstructive obsession of attainment from external sources is just that, an obsession from compulsions affixed with an external identity.

On a side note, I just noticed something hilarious. Jesus himself was a travelling preacher. So ironically, listening to his teachings doesn't make sense, because he is an external identity to those who listen to him. :lol:
Forget about Jesus (and of course about the other teachers), just listen to yourself - kill all the Buddas and Jesuses. :) :wink:

IMO the meaning of "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" is just a way of removing the tendency towards dependancy on others. There really is nothing wrong with having a guide or teacher who has traveled the path before. It can speed up your progress immensly.
Why else does Robert Bruce and so many others hold seminars and workshops? To teach and guide, while making a dime. (Money isn't as evil as people make it out to be)
Of course if you don't do the ground work yourself you'll end up going no where, just remember that the heart chakra is a chakra that functions through others. As opposed to isolation.

[Jaco]

IMO the meaning of "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him" is just a way of removing the tendency towards dependancy on others. There really is nothing wrong with having a guide or teacher who has traveled the path before. It can speed up your progress immensly.
Why else does Robert Bruce and so many others hold seminars and workshops? To teach and guide, while making a dime. (Money isn't as evil as people make it out to be)
Of course if you don't do the ground work yourself you'll end up going no where, just remember that the heart chakra is a chakra that functions through others. As opposed to isolation.
I think I agree with you. :)

In my post I was trying to show that when one says that the answers can only be found within and that outside teachings are meaningless, one has to have no outside master and follow no outside teachings, because if one does then he/she contradicts him/herself. :)

[ButterflyWoman]

Forget about Jesus (and of course about the other teachers), just listen to yourself - kill all the Buddas and Jesuses. :) :wink:
While I understand what you're getting at, nobody lives in a vacuum. I read the writings of mystics, saints, and teachers because I want their perspective on things spiritual, to compare to my own experiences, point of view, etc.

Going inside myself is all well and good (and I do), but that doesn't mean I can't have an interest in the words of those who have taken the spiritual path in the past. There's a great deal of wisdom and enlightenment to be found in the writings of the great teachers. Sometimes, just hearing/reading the words of some great saint can spark a whole new awakening, great or small.

There's absolutely no need to throw out the baby with the bathwater. ;)

[CFTraveler]

The manifested baby with the unmanifest bathwater? No, I've got it backwards- the primordial baby with the collective bathwater- or something like that. :| Tee hee- excuse me, I'm being silly. :D

[Jaco]

While I understand what you're getting at, nobody lives in a vacuum. I read the writings of mystics, saints, and teachers because I want their perspective on things spiritual, to compare to my own experiences, point of view, etc.
Just to clarify. I don't think that receiving guidance from more experienced practitioners is meaningless. :wink: The point of view I was presenting isn't my own. I was just explaining that someone who tells that only personal experiences are important and outside teachings and experiences are meaningless, by the definition can not follow any masters and teachers. :)

[CFTraveler]

But there is a difference between studying and following. I can read all the mystics in the world (and enjoy reading about what they have experienced) without 'following' them. The theories or interpretations of what they see and experience is not necessarily how I would- so there is a difference between saying that the personal experience is more important than saying 'you shouldn't' do this or that.

If you look at history you get a few mystics who had this or that experience, were able to achieve things that were miraculous in the context of their own place in history- and then what you see next is others who didn't have the experiences, who tried to use the movements these mystics started and created systems that developed into social controls (religions) based on what the mystics experienced, but based on the followers' own interpretations. And you know how that goes.

So yes, it's ok to tell you to seek your own experience, and it's also ok to study what other mystics saw or experienced, and even to read how they reconciled their experiences with what their beliefs of the time is.
If you're a mystic, and you have experiences, chances are you'll do the same.

What's not cool is telling people that they shouldn't strive to find their own personal connection with God- because that is what most seekers are trying to do anyway- or getting lawyerly about what others are reading and what they're not.

I'm just sayin'
MO, of course.

[Jaco]

What's not cool is telling people that they shouldn't strive to find their own personal connection with God- because that is what most seekers are trying to do anyway- or getting lawyerly about what others are reading and what they're not.

But of course. People have the right to find their own personal god, centre, source, mystical magical experiences and so on.
And about telling others what they should and should not do, well, people do have the right to state their opinions and say why they disagree with each other. It is good if the conversation is civilized and backed up by valid arguments, but that is not always the case. And even if it is not civilized and not backed by solid arguments, people still have the right to state their opinions anyway. The line is drawn when one party is trying to impose their way of life on others.
We can accept other peoples opinions and we can ridicule or ignore them. But when one places him or herself as an authority in a given field, he/she needs to show on what basis he/she is an authority. But the rant above is a bit off the topic.

My one and only point that I was trying to express in my first post is a logical contradiction of one’s statement: If a person says that teachings and experiences of other people are meaningless and the only way to find true answers is from within, then by definition he or she should not follow the teachings of other people or give them any validity. So, if he or she says that the only valid answers can come from within but accepts Buddha or Jesus or whoever/whatever as a teacher, then he or she contradicts him/herself, because by the definition the outside teachings should not be valid to him/her, including Buddha’s or Jesus teachings.
That is it. I just wanted to point out a contradiction in ones reasoning.

[CFTraveler]

I wasn't picking on you specifically- I was pointing out that it can be equally valid to go within if you're led to or go without if that's where you are. Both groups (mystics and religionists) have a drive and a need, and the problem is when either of them disparage or try to take away either group's rights to look for their own spirituality in their own way. Unfortunately, the drive to control what others do or think is not limited to one group.

[Tom]

Why can't they just be mystics and abandon the Christianity thing?

[CFTraveler]

Why can't they just be mystics and abandon the Christianity thing?
'Cause some of them (us) consider Jesus the Christ as a (or 'the', for some) teacher and want to learn what we believe he taught. Some may or may not have been born in a time where Jesus was the religious authority (like the 'old' christian mystics, such as some saints) and the modern ones may have dropped the title, but still study Jesus' teachings, and consider themselves christian. I would be one of them. It may be cultural, it may be for some other reason, but it is what it is.


edit: 'Cause I dont' want to. :D

[star]

.. it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.
- Notes on Virginia (1782), Thomas Jefferson

Everyone has to go at it their own way. One size doesn't fit all.
If your having visions of wolves, witches, trees, moons, and suns - it may be a good idea to look into Wicca, or even not. it depends on what your drawn to, and what is drawn to you.

[CFTraveler]

Exactly.

[ButterflyWoman]

Why can't they just be mystics and abandon the Christianity thing?


'Cause some of them (us) consider Jesus the Christ as a (or 'the', for some) teacher and want to learn what we believe he taught. Some may or may not have been born in a time where Jesus was the religious authority (like the 'old' christian mystics, such as some saints) and the modern ones may have dropped the title, but still study Jesus' teachings, and consider themselves christian. I would be one of them. It may be cultural, it may be for some other reason, but it is what it is.
Yeah. What she said.

But on another level, it's kind of a strange question, isn't it? You may as well ask why the Sufi are Muslim mystics. Or why Hasidic Jews are Jewish mystics. Or why Hindu mystics are Hindus. They are who they are, that's why. You don't have to totally abandon your culture and heritage in order to pursue mysticism. In fact, most people do pursue God in their own particular idiom, in the way in which they feel comfortable. If that's through Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or some flavour of New Age or Buddhism or whatever, that's what they may be comfortable doing and being. It's what they're drawn to, or maybe even what they feel called to.

Surely you know that there is no One Best Path for everyone? Not even for mystics.

[Tom]

If I wanted reliable information about Jesus Christ for whatever reason, I wouldn't know where to begin.

[Jaco]

If I wanted reliable information about Jesus Christ for whatever reason, I wouldn't know where to begin.
If there were known any reliable information about Christ, you would know. People have been looking for information like that for centuries.

[Neil Templar]

why does anyone need information about the Christ anyway?
if his teachings feel right to someone/work for someone, what difference does verification of information about the man himself make?
we're not here searching for historical, or archaeological facts, are we?

i mean, sure, it would be good to have those facts, but it wouldn't make the teachings any more effective.

[Timotheus]

:D

[Tom]

i mean, sure, it would be good to have those facts, but it wouldn't make the teachings any more effective.

So many people have intentionally distorted the message as it has been passed on ... how can you hope to untangle what remains when you can't even trust the Bible?

[CFTraveler]

That's where metaphysics come in. You take what makes sense to you, and discard what doesn't. I mean, that's the core of mysticism isn't it? Everything that happens has more than one level of meaning. You use what means something to you.

For example, there are many stories in the NT (take the Sermon on the Mount, for example). You listen to a story (like the loaves and fishes) and a person will get something out of it, I will get something different. That doesn't mean it's wrong, it means that the writing (like life, if you think about it) had a series of meanings attached to them- where someone else will take it as a story to show how many miracles Jesus is purported to have done, someone else will take it as an affirmation to the necessity of physical sustenance (they went for the preaching, but needed to eat and drink), and I'll see it as a manual for manifestation. He did his teaching, looked at the sky (raised his vibration, if you will) , went to silence (connected to the source), and affirmed what he knew was going to happen. Bam. Loaves and fishes. Go to God first and then Man as God directs.

Now, did the sermon actually historically happen? I don't know, and I don't care. The important thing here is that he taught me (and by 'he' I mean Jesus as a teacher) how to manifest in all ways in the world. And for that I am grateful, and wouldn't ever sit around and say that the lesson is not valuable because it didn't happen for a, b or c reason. Now, if someone wants to use the bible to justify something that they know is wrong (like saying that kids should be stoned for talking back, that's just child abuse) you bet I'll get all lawyerly about it.

So sure, maybe some stuff didn't happen. Maybe some other stuff happened differently. The thing is, does it make sense to you? If it doesn't it's ok, that means that your way is another. And frankly Tom, I think it's working for you.

[ButterflyWoman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_mysticism

Just in case anyone wanders into this thread and wants to read more on the general topic. I found both of those pages extremely interesting.

[ButterflyWoman]

If I wanted reliable information about Jesus Christ for whatever reason, I wouldn't know where to begin.
Well, there's plenty written on the "historical" Jesus, on both sides and right down the middle.

However, none of that has anything at all to do with mysticism. ;)

[Tom]

And frankly Tom, I think it's working for you.

What can I say? I have been caught red-handed.

Given that I'm a vegetarian that's truly impressive.

[Palehorse Redivivus]

Why can't they just be mystics and abandon the Christianity thing?

In addition to whats already been said about personal preferences and beliefs -- historically the goals and characteristic experiences of various "flavors" of mysticism have been different, and proposed different ways to get there. Notable differences include but probably aren't limited to: the presence or lack of God(s), how the "I" is regarded (or disregarded), dualistic or nondualistic, attitude toward the siddhis, identification with the All vs. God remaining "wholly other," how to regard one's desires, whether the end result is union with God, becoming God, profoundly experiencing God who remains "other," or losing the self (and by extension all concept of "God") entirely.

Even within Christian mysticism there have been divergent traditions on these main points, particularly between East and West. Eastern Orthodoxy for instance favors deification (theosis), whereas Catholic mysticism usually kept God separate. In Christian mysticism, "meditation" is also understood as an active process with a subject, such as a passage of scripture. From the Catechism:

Meditation engages thought, imagination, emotion, and desire. This mobilization of faculties is necessary in order to deepen our convictions of faith, prompt the conversion of our heart, and strengthen our will to follow Christ. Christian prayer tries above all to meditate on the mysteries of Christ, as in lectio divina or the rosary. This form of prayerful reflection is of great value, but Christian prayer should go further: to the knowledge of the love of the Lord Jesus, to union with him."

Of course now that we've got global communication and travel, and people are more free to practice in their own way rather than having to worry about staying on the church's good side, a lot of ideas have been mix 'n matched between the various systems among individuals a lot moreso than in the past. But someone might still choose to consider themselves a Christian mystic, because they gravitate more toward the historical goals and practices of Christian mysticism than to other forms.

[Timotheus]

:D

[star]

In general do any of the Christian Mystics here practice and work with the salvation thing? That's what gets me, the idea of needing an external savior to save from..well, from what I'm not sure.

[CFTraveler]

@star:
No, I don't believe there was never any stuff about 'salvation' anyway, that's cultural talk.
If you look at the historicity of the bible, Jesus was around when his country was occupied by the romans. So if there was any need for 'salvation' it was a need to 'be delivered' of the romans. In other words, it's what got him crucified, along with any other jewish dissenter at the times. Just take a read of how many people Nero boasted about having crucified.
Christian metaphysics describe 'salvation' as the internal process you go through which eliminates all error thinking.
Error thought is the type of thinking that makes you think you are a miserable sinner and a victim of the 'World'.
So salvation is the realization that God is in you (i.e. the Christ presence) and that God doesn't make mistakes, therefore you are co-creator.
So you are not 'saved' of any external circumstance, except for the 'belief' in external circumstance.
Dig?

[ButterflyWoman]

In general do any of the Christian Mystics here practice and work with the salvation thing?
Even by traditional orthodoxy, you don't have to "do" anything to "receive" salvation, so there's nothing to work or practice. It's supposed to be a gift, a grace.

I am more than aware that a lot of Churches don't teach it that way, and have all kinds of ridiculous conditions on what you're supposed to do and not do in order to receive salvation, blah blah blah blah blah.

But what it's SUPPOSED to be is freeing you from the fear that if you make mistakes you're going to get in trouble for it, and thus encourage spiritual growth and make you into a vessel for Christ (i.e., that which is currently being described as Christ Consciousness).

I don't know of any church that teaches that, of course. I came to this conclusion based on having actually read the New Testament with the purpose of finding out what's really there, rather than what other people claim is there. There's a LOT of traditional orthodox dogma that is poorly supported by the Bible, or which isn't really supported at all.

Furthermore, I'm of the current opinion that what Jesus was talking about was following in his footsteps, that is, growing to spiritual awakening, to realise the truth that you are God, and that you are beyond death, and so forth. When he commented that the path was narrow, it wasn't because of "sin" or "wrongdoing", it was because spiritual awakening is a lengthy process and it can be difficult, painful, and a lot of other things that most people are unwilling to endure.

I could go on and on and on about the way the orthodox church has taken very spiritual, esoteric teachings and turned them into rather bizarre rules and regulations that have little internal logic.

[Jaco]

Even by traditional orthodoxy, you don't have to "do" anything to "receive" salvation, so there's nothing to work or practice. It's supposed to be a gift, a grace.
I would disagree. In fact you do have to do something to receive salvation in some (maybe in most) Christian churches - you have to be a follower of Christ. If you are not then it is eternity in hell for you :wink:
Some people truly believe that. :)

[ButterflyWoman]

Even by traditional orthodoxy, you don't have to "do" anything to "receive" salvation, so there's nothing to work or practice. It's supposed to be a gift, a grace.
I would disagree.
You're welcome to do so. I'm basing this on my reading of the Bible and many years of contemplative prayer and meditation. You can base your opinion on whatever you want.


In fact you do have to do something to receive salvation in some (maybe in most) Christian churches - you have to be a follower of Christ.
Again, "church". I already said that CHURCHES put rules and regulations on the gift. Are you sincerely unable to understand that God doesn't live in a church or follow the rules set forth by a bunch of deacons or bishops or whomever else decides to be in charge of people's souls, or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? ;)


Some people truly believe that. :)
So? People believe all kinds of stuff. Again, this is nothing at all to do with mysticism.

[Palehorse Redivivus]

In general do any of the Christian Mystics here practice and work with the salvation thing? That's what gets me, the idea of needing an external savior to save from..well, from what I'm not sure.

I started pursuing mysticism shortly after discovering the idea of universal salvation... and while I'm no longer explicitly Christian, Jesus still figures prominently into my worldview, so I s'pose I can venture an answer too.

I thought then, and still do to some extent, that Jesus may have opened up a new way to connect with the divine that was not previously accessible to very many people. There may have been a few throughout history, but if my suspicions are correct, then he busted the dam wide open in a way that gives everybody a better shot at it. This would be the meaning of "rending the veil." Before then, connecting with God on an individual level, making your spirituality your own and actually cultivating a personal connection with the divine (or even a strong concept of individual identity for that matter), wasn't really the done thing. Religion was more communal / institutional, and the priestly intermediaries were relied on to connect with God on behalf of the laypeople. I think I've brought up before that artists didn't start signing their work till the medieval period, and it was also common to attribute your writing to someone else whose word would carry more weight, because there just wasn't any concept of individual contributions being important. I can't help but wonder if Jesus had something to do with that particular shift in consciousness... even if the church has been trying to stitch the veil back up again ever since.

I also lean toward the Gnostic view that Jesus liberated himself from the world (and of course there are different views on exactly what that means) and sought to show us how we could do the same. The Gnostics were early Christian mystics (so it counts! :P), though they're rather different from what are known as the major traditions of Christian mysticism today, most of which comes from the major figures of medieval Catholic and Orthodox mysticism. Unfortunately IMO Jesus' message was "follow your own path no matter where it leads" (even if it happens to lead to pissing off the Romans and the unpleasantness that would result) -- and people took that in the direction of "let's all die just like that guy!" It's like the saying all of our moms used to hit us with -- "if he jumped off a bridge, would you do that too?" Except that much of early Christendom would have said "yep!" And "whoosh" goes the whole point. *shakes head*

Suffice to say I don't think Jesus meant to "save" anybody from anything, although I do think that in a sense he did show us how to save ourselves.

[Timotheus]

:D

[CFTraveler]

In a completely unrelated instance, Robert Bruce writes:

"....Do you want to save the world?
Start by saving yourself.
You can only change your self.
..."

Ain't synchronicity grand?
For the whole message, go to:
http://blog.astraldynamics.com/?p=930

[Jaco]

Even by traditional orthodoxy, you don't have to "do" anything to "receive" salvation, so there's nothing to work or practice. It's supposed to be a gift, a grace.
I would disagree.
You're welcome to do so. I'm basing this on my reading of the Bible and many years of contemplative prayer and meditation. You can base your opinion on whatever you want.
Olderwiser, your view on christianity comes from your experience. All I am saying that this is not the only view of Christianity out there, there are others, some of which take quite a different approach at things and see the entire Christian "universe" differently. And for followers of those paths that is the truth, which can be backed by mystical experiences they see as a proof of that truth, as you do I believe. Your truths are your truths alone, and they may not even be truths. With the other views of the Christianity it is the same.



In fact you do have to do something to receive salvation in some (maybe in most) Christian churches - you have to be a follower of Christ.
Again, "church". I already said that CHURCHES put rules and regulations on the gift. Are you sincerely unable to understand that God doesn't live in a church or follow the rules set forth by a bunch of deacons or bishops or whomever else decides to be in charge of people's souls, or are you just being argumentative for the sake of it? ;)
I just pointed a thing that I noticed about this statement:

Even by traditional orthodoxy, you don't have to "do" anything to "receive" salvation, so there's nothing to work or practice. It's supposed to be a gift, a grace.
And I disagree with it because according to some "traditional orthodoxy" (roman catholic and protestant - I checked those two) unless you have faith in Christ/god you won't get saved. And in fact for roman catholic the faith is not enough to grant you salvation, you have to also live a "faithful"(good christian) life.
I don't want to argument, but the orthodox dogma is still a truth for many.
You say they are not right. They say they are right. So? :?
As for me - Christianity is a folk tale with bits and pieces of universal (common in many places) wisdom stuck here and there. No Jesus the half-god, no salvation, none of that.


Some people truly believe that. :)
So? People believe all kinds of stuff. Again, this is nothing at all to do with mysticism.
But the way you can interpret an experience can be dependent on a belief.

Blessings to you and everyone :)

[star]

@star:
No, I don't believe there was never any stuff about 'salvation' anyway, that's cultural talk.
If you look at the historicity of the bible, Jesus was around when his country was occupied by the romans. So if there was any need for 'salvation' it was a need to 'be delivered' of the romans. In other words, it's what got him crucified, along with any other jewish dissenter at the times. Just take a read of how many people Nero boasted about having crucified.
Christian metaphysics describe 'salvation' as the internal process you go through which eliminates all error thinking.
Error thought is the type of thinking that makes you think you are a miserable sinner and a victim of the 'World'.
So salvation is the realization that God is in you (i.e. the Christ presence) and that God doesn't make mistakes, therefore you are co-creator.
So you are not 'saved' of any external circumstance, except for the 'belief' in external circumstance.
Dig?

That sounds like the psyche work, and digging into core issues, or even understanding our emotions... its described by Franz Bardon and other authors I'm sure, just in Bardon's case it has to be done before you even take a single step forward.

[CFTraveler]

Yep. But you have to realize that most modern western metaphysicians were christian- it's just that some kept the title and expanded their christianity, while others decided to go another way. Either way, we all started from the same template, so to speak.