Thank you. A considered presentation. I remember one “spiritual teacher” saying that, after years of Zen mediation and teachings, when spirit awoke to itself within him (ie, he had a transformative mystical experience), he was anxious in telling his zen teacher of this realisation. When he finally spoke to her and ventured that this awakening was “so much bigger than Buddhism”, she simply smiled and said, “But of course.” Religion is always downstream of culture; the mystical experience always beyond it.
After the Buddha attained enlightenment, his first words were: “this cannot be taught.” It is “bigger” indeed 😊. Thats why we consistently hear that Buddhist teachers like that Zen master do not teach Buddhism. They teach the way to Buddhism. Thanks for the kind words 🙏🏻
Thank you, Clint - a wonderful way to start the day. In a nutshell, here's my perspective, which I know is shared by many: I can read Eckhart - and be tremendously inspired. I can read Molinos - and be inspired. I can read Cyprian Smith - and be inspired. I can read Richard Rohr - and sort of be inspired. Then I go along to our local Catholic Church. I am told I am a sinner. That I need to be saved. They open their Bibles and point to passages to prove their point. They recite the Nicene Creed. My heart freezes and my eyes glaze over. I leave the church and run back to my books on Buddhism and Advaita. Back to sitting on my cushion. Back to wondering why I cannot break through? Back to being no-one - going nowhere.
That was my experience growing up as well. What I discovered is that there’s a tremendous variation in priests, pastors and rabbis. Real esotericism in Christianity is pretty rare, unfortunately. The Church is moving in that direction though - as evidenced by the recent interest in St Teresa of Ávila and St Catherine of Sienna who were made doctors of the church a few days apart in 1970. They’re both mystics. Thanks for the kind words! 🙏🏻 😊
This touches on a lot of things I've learned throughout the years. I had originally left turned my back on Christianity from around the age of 13 to 20 because, being in the Southern US, I only understood Christianity from a rather fundamentalist perspective. Two major turning points for me was in taking a university class on Biblical literature wherein I learned that Christian interpretation was/is more diverse than I had understood, and in reading from or about the saints/mystics alongside Kierkegaard, Simone Weil, Emil Cioran, and, eventually, Meister Eckhart. If it were not for these two points, I probably would not have been interested in Christianity and I probably would not have joined the Religious Society of Friends. I have just recently read Paul F. Knitter's "Without Buddha I Could not be a Christian" wherein he quotes someone (I forget who) who explicitly says that Christianity needs to turn to mysticism in order to survive and he touched on how the average Christian's understanding of theology never surpasses a childish understanding, so when confronted with pressing issues, most simply fall out of the faith and that does match my experience in New Atheist circles. What sucks is that you can explain a mystical, alternative, or simply a non-literal/hermeneutical approach to Christianity to either a Christian or atheist and be met with the accusation that these approaches are not actually Christian. As was said, people likely would not consider Eckhart as Christian. In any case, I do hope to see change for the better in the future.
My whole distaste and repulsion was because I was Pascal's Wagered by the SBC. That event of God showing up to the "God shaped hole" never showed up. I never had a single day I wasn't paranoid. If it was so great, every personality trait set would get it. Everybody would have suitable belief in God circuitry in their brains. Nobody would have to dupe kids to get them in.
@@skylinefever I can't quite relate with being Pascal Wagered and expecting God to show up in such a way, but I can understand the following distaste and repulsion. Personally, I would not measure greatness by whether every personality could get it. I can think that reading and keeping up with academia is great, but I know most people really don't care to read to learn, for example. That is to say, I don't think great things have to appeal to everyone, nor do I feel as if everyone ought to be Christian. One of Kierkegaard's critiques is that Christianity effectively went wrong, in a sense, to try to make Christianity appealing and easy to everyone (though this critique is partially directed toward the fact that one's Danish citizenship was tied to being baptized - he thinks this is a grave mistake and un-Christian among other things). Doing such a thing promotes, well, duping kids and a superficial or childish understanding of Christianity.
I very much sympathize. That’s my primary misgiving with recommending something mystical. Most people just aren’t up for it and won’t be. That’s why I think a more Buddhist approach of instrumentality may be the only option, and one that has theological precedent and history supporting it. It does mean discarding a lot of the harsh rhetoric we hear today though. That said, we don’t burn witches anymore so big change is possible. I understand the frustration with Pascal’s wager. It’s really not a good argument. When I cover Pascal in class, I mention the wager as part of history, but I talk more about his impact on statistics which is arguably more important. By the way, the “God-shaped hole” is a simplified version of what Eckhart was doing with synderesis. I talk about that in the Kierkegaard video. As you might imagine, Eckhart’s version is probably a lot more interesting than what you probably got from the SBC
@@Nico-Tine That is one thing that made me hate the SBC. Such Biblical literalists saw some passage that says everyone must do it. Since they can't question that, the concept of someone who can't or shouldn't convert is beyond them.
As an atheist I have had mystical experiences. Especially when seeing the beauty of nature. The stars, sunset etc. Mysticism is an internal state that is accessible to everyone in all walks of life. It says nothing about if there is a specific God despite how you may feel internally. Secondly apologetics is like a battle plan. It sounds all great and fine in the war room but put it out on the field (a debate/discussion) and they quickly fall apart due to blatantly obvious counter points apologetics fail to consider.
I'm no theologian Clint - I'm a simple physicist (these days, far more simple than used to be) but I have a question about something which I think lies at the heart of the 'moving away' from Christianity. It concerns the basic premise that I am a sinner. I 100% reject the notion that Adam and Eve existed as real human beings. I can accept they are symbolic - but that's another issue. If I don't accept the reality of Original Sin, it seems to me that the whole edifice of Christianity comes tumbling down. Am I correct? The reason for asking is that although I know very few people who claim to be Christians, but those who do, accept Original Sin, at least in some form. Most people I know reject this concept, and therefore also reject the whole Christian saga. However, many of this group also accept that there is something which could be referred to as the Absolute, or even the Creator. This, as I see it, is the problem for the Church, or indeed for any Christian denomination. (Just for info, weekly church attendance in the UK runs at less than 2% of the population. Although around 65% claim to believe in some type of 'higher power' but not the God of the Bible.)
I appreciate the question! Original sin traces back to Augustine circa 400 AD. So it’s not essential or even original (ironically), arguably. The “higher power” statistic is interesting. That’s part of the problem I have with how Pew research words their questions… many people here in the US are also “spiritual” and not avowedly atheist, but don’t belong to an organized religion anymore.. the so-called “nons”.. hardline atheists are actually pretty uncommon. I don’t think the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is very useful to most modern people. As you might imagine, I would side with the way Eckhart uses Scripture 😅
@@goodtothinkwith Thank you so much for replying Clint - I really do appreciate it. After your comment, I did look at the Wiki (yeh, I know - hardly definitive) article about Original Sin and was, frankly, shocked at what I read. I had no idea of the origin and complexity of the concept, let alone how much controversy it has caused - and still does I think. My ignorance of Christianity is far deeper than I realised. I probably don't need to enter the Cloud of Unknowing, since it seems as though I'm already inside! I am reading your Paradox at Play. At chapter 3 I started to underline expressions and ideas which were causing me to stop, think about what you had written - most of which I found very inspirational. After a while though I stopped the practise because I was underlining far more of the text than I was leaving alone! I'm enjoying the text a great deal. Anyway, thanks again.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27 I always felt this to mean the kind of religious practice that is devoid of the mystical. I have never been able to find a way into the church due its lack of focus on the mysticism in the teachings. It is vital for the church to recover this if it is to survive.
I liked and agreed with all you were saying here. One question: Which of the several St. Gregorys were you talking about at 3:20 in the video? I think it was probably St. Gregory of Nyssa, but since you did not specify, I could be mistaken.
I am an atheist/agnostic and your acknowledgement of Bruno and Nietzsche in this video is highly pertinent. I have been reading Simone Weil's "On the Abolition of All Political Parties" and in that book there is an essay written by Czeslaw Milosz. He mentions "Man will become a God for man." This mirrors what you are saying at the 5:00 mark. In addition, Nietzsche even mentions - " Man is God in miniature." Interesting stuff indeed. Have you read anything by Rene Girard ? He and Weil have helped me see Christianity and its relationship to man in a far more compelling light.
I totally agree. The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic’-someone who has ‘experienced something’-or will cease to be anything at all. Karl Rahner
Those people are all good to think with, nice choices. I like the suggestion of Girard. I haven’t read him in a long time… may be time to revisit. I need to go through the twentieth century French intellectuals again sometime… may be useful for this project
Good afternoon. I have to respectfully disagree. I think the problem is quite other than - as you present - that the philosophical framing no longer works for people. I think the problem is multi-faceted, but in order to be brief: 1. The arguments presented in favor of Christianity are generally poor, even though better ones exist. Most people - in America at least - think Christianity boils down to "I believe it because the Bible says so." Even a lot of the Christians seem to think that. 2. The better arguments are philosophical and complicated. Most people simply can't be bothered; they're too busy scrolling Facebook. 3. Those that do look into it are convinced by easy-to-understand - but shallow and silly - catchphrases, such as "there is no evidence for god." Take Christopher Hitchens. While admittedly a wonderful orator and someone who was extremely enjoyable to listen to, when you get down to it, his philosophical arguments were quite weak. He persuaded with wit, charm, and humor, not good argumentation. This is very similar to something like the Daily Show, where strong analysis gives way to mocking quips and goofy faces. The general populace isn't looking for a great philosophical argument, they're looking to be entertained. And THAT is why Christianity is declining. In our self-centered, hedonistic society, Christianity is not only a road block, it's just plain BORING. Thanks - a former atheist.
So you imagine that you have evidence for god? I have yet to see any, and I have been searching for 40 years. Hitchens arguments were not weak, they were spot on. Yes, he was humorous, but he posts out problems that are insurmountable for christianity. A former atheist? I don't see how that is possible without intellectual dishonesty.
Way of the world, we only search for deeper meaning/truths to ground us, when we are in crisis, And when the normal numbing opiates, which in this day and age are extremely strong w social media, stop working. But nothing is more satisfying/entertaining than truth, by its very nature. But its obvious that very few people in modern society have found it and have been willing to serve as positive examples publicly, so now most believe it just doesn't exists or isn't attainable. So intellectual laziness will lead most towards the nihilistic deconstructionist atheist examples, because they sound better/wiser than the out of date bible/quran/torah etc, which they often do. Until more positive examples show up, we'll likely continue along our current atheistic trajectories. But imo the positive examples will show, nihilism creates a vacuum for them, demand creates the supply. Laws of nature will continue.
Thanks for your thoughts on Christianity. This reminds me of quote by Wittgenstein (which you may have alluded to) - "he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)"
@lordvoldamort4606 Problem there is that woke liberalism is going to win out in practice. It has a clear metaphysics, an eschatology, a calendar of holy days, martyrs, ethics, a hierarchy of grievance, a devil and a great holy and a way for it's adherents to rid themselves of the original sin of privilege
I don't think Christianity will shift to a mystic position. A mystical philosophy is simply too difficult for most people to wrap their heads around. Most people are average intelligence and their lives are focused on work, family, social media, and TV. They find something like Meister Eckhart abstruse, incomprehensible, sand through their fingers. They *need* concretized images, a clear story, and defined theological beliefs to hang on to. Mysticism is too esoteric for them. I don't believe the shift you're describing will happen. .... I've had what I consider spiritual or transpersonal experiences in my life. They have fed me spiritually and let me know what is important and what is not. They seem quite personal to me, though, and not about the sort of Unity Consciousness or Oneness that mystics describe over and over. I am not a mystic. I like individuality too much. I suppose you could say I'm more interested in Differentiation Consciousness than Unity Consciousness. I also tend to be verbally precise, so the intentional obfuscation and contradiction of mystical language annoys me. I think, "Stop trying to be clever and just say it plainly." Perhaps I'm asking too much. But most mystical language seems like an abstraction that I can't do much with. If that's true for me, I'm sure it's true for the vast majority of Christians. .... Anyhow, if Christianity survives, I don't think it will be by becoming a diffuse, universal mysticism. That's my opinion, anyhow. Thanks for the thought-provoking video.
I have argued that there is one way there may be a way to get that to the masses. Maybe letting shrooms, DMT, and LSD would give the masses the spiritual experience they usually do not get.
I love your interest in differentiation consciousness, your distaste for contradictory mystical/unity language, and your emphasis on verbal precision. I'm the same way. Yet, as I see it, the same fundamental positive psychological structures of consciousness are present within all of us, and Unity consciousness is just the experience of that. But yeah, the language mystics use sure can be gross when co-opted by too much new age babble.
LOL! The problem with trying to change Christianity to help it "survive" is that Eternal Truth has already won in Christ. If it's a true religion, it cannot pass away, if you have to try and salvage it, it's false...
Only 26% of pepole aged 30 or less call themselves Christian in my country so you would say Chritianity is faulse. Its bad enough with "double cavlanists" not trying to stop this from happening . Im surrounded with pepole facing death and judgemnet who wont repent or even try and be saved. I came here to learn about something that could help when i talk to the Pagans and Athiests around me. You would give up in my country.
So then it’s false. I don’t need apologists to convince me my wife exists, or to give philosophical arguments that Australia is real, or to insist that I should “lean not on my own understanding” if I ask how airplanes work. I don’t need anyone to explain why my conscience objects to an authority’s definition of good. Why does Christianity need so many excuses, and why does it try so hard to dissuade people from asking too many questions? Only false ideas need that kind of coddling.
@@weirdwilliam8500 it doesn't, there are literally millions of words explaining and arguing over tiny details. You can ask any question, there is already an answer.
@@feedthewhale4266 that's actually the opposite of what I said lol. Things are true regardless of who believes them if they are TRUE. My point is "changing" Christianity to make it relevant is ironic because only untruths are changable.
The goal of our instruction is the love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith. Some have strayed from these ways and turned aside to EMPTY TALK 1 Timothy 1:5.
I appreciate your points, I have my disagreements but I want to inquire is why should your definition of Truth be a priority?, was it demonstrated? I love the Prince of Egypt, but that doesn't mean I'm observing some "truth", aesthetics are not truth values. Not everything that is true is useful. Again I appreciate the discussion but I remain unconvinced.
Experience is key. Don’t take anyone’s word for it. Demand it. Everything is a pointer. Those pointers aimed at the shadows of truth being cast against the wall. Truth cannot be discussed, it can only be experienced. That truth is within you. It is not anywhere else.
I take issue with your statement "Not everything that is true is useful." I was raised Mormon. There was an apostle of the LDS church, a real hardliner, that spoke to church education and seminary teachers. Speaking about facts that had recently come out that cast doubt on the accepted history of the Mormon church, he told these teachers not to pursue these facts, even if they were true. And he used that exact phrase. "Not everything that is true is useful." Well let me tell you something, I would rather have the truth in all it's splendid ugliness and horror than an aesthetically pleasing lie. Because ultimately that lie will only benefit the liar who manufactured it. And once you know the truth you can start to do something about it.
@@pytime8621 a few problems with that, experience is subjective. Projections and the mind filling the gaps is why we have to be able to test our assumptions, so I disagree with the "Everything is a pointer" argument. I have no way of conceptualizing how every pointer is in the shadow of the truth.
@@squeakhawk01 I think you have misunderstood me, it is true that "not everything that's true is useful", the difference between me and the Apostle is that I want to know true things regardless and he uses it as a rhetoric to keep dogma.
"Every-thing is a tool" makes sense in a proper context, once there is a recognition about what "not this not that"/ no-thing-ness/ non-duality is 🙃❤️ Much more could be said... 😁❤️
You didn't define what "works" means. But if you mean increasing membership, based on current trends of growth in Prosperity Gospel, NAR, and NIFB/Greg Locke style churches, what "works" is greed, desire of power, and hate.
How does it make sense to say, "Truth is posterior to God". Posterior meaning prior? Posterior meaning behind? Why not say "Truth is to the left of God" or "Truth is North of God"? This language just leads to agnosticism.
As usual, very thought provoking. To help answer the question can Christianity adapt you might take a look at (maybe you already have) Ilia Delio's new book "The Not-Yet God". She includes Eckhart and his Durchbruch in the Chapter God, Ground, and Mystics. I was happy to see Eckhart's inclusion. If the Western Catholic Church does not burn Sister Delio at the stake as a heretic and takes a serious look at what she, a Theologian/Scientist, suggests we might be on our way to moving Christianity into the 21st century and not becoming an old relic of a forgotten age.
God had meant for you to be perfect in all your ways and a friend to him throughout all of eternity... You are not your body, you are not your mind, you are a spirit that uses both these things. But your vision is blurry and you choose to know only through your physical senses, that is why God can't find you... You were never meant to be a mortal... You are the only animal in existence that God would want to have a conversation with... God created you in his image to live forever and rejoice, but you have chosen the temporary and have lost your way, this is why you live in vain only choosing that in which you are familiar and comfortable in the physical sense. That is why you choose, money, social validation, material wealth, and quick thrills, because you know deep down you'd have to bring yourself to a more profound form of humility in order to face your God who made you and confess that you were wrong... but no matter... whatever sins, whatever burdens, whatever feelings you may have... What happens on earth is forgotten yesterday and is forgiven for tomorrow. God loves you and wants to be with you, don't choose ego and pride over happiness. If you believe in God, no matter what, whether you are wrong or right, you have nothing to lose... as opposed to the alternative... God is waiting for you! He's been waiting since the beginning and will continue to do so... You think it's "too good to be true" but that is what you project from your heart which has been molded by the iniquities of this world by men like yourself, men who would take the word of the Lord and twist it to sound right in their own minds or believe half-heartedly and expect reward. God wants to be with you but can't because you've turned from him.... You are like a fish out of water thinking their is nothing beyond matter but their is a spiritual realm, YOU are living proof of this! Seek God in the scripture, find humility, find truth, reject ego, reject arrogance. If God is real and created you, why call him evil if you are not the same? I say to you, their is so much you have chosen to forget... Those with ears let them hear, for it is the sight that truly blinds a man! ... 1 Corinthians 2:11-16 Isaiah 5:20-21 Romans 1:18-32 Romans 2:1-29
Since mysticism as I’m using the term doesn’t and can’t make particular claims, it doesn’t make sense to “debunk” it because there’s nothing to debunk. Freud was skeptical about what people call “mystical” experiences of miraculous things that resulted in particular claims, which isn’t mysticism… It’s more like magic and ritual. His “oceanic” feeling is closer, but he didn’t follow it to the end.
@weirdwilliam8500 It appears you've fallen victim to TH-cam cencership as I cannot provide you with anymore truth than what I've already given... sorry.... seek and ye shall find! Luke 17:21
This is because the idea of the existence of a god in Christian terms is completely irrational. Any defense of Christianity will necessarily be irrational and so, only a defense that responds to emotional needs.
Well, LOL, if Truth is posterior to God, then you are assuming the conclusion before you even start. Not even worth addressing seriously. Have a good day. You don't care about what is true or false, only about your contingently-held irrational beliefs. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
"why are there no good defenses for Christianity?" Because it's entire ideology is based on the supernatural and fantasy. It's impossible to defend anything that doesn't exist in reality. that's why believers claim "faith" is all they need. LOL. This is another way of saying: "I don't have any credible evidence for the existence of gad." it also means you are gullible and irrational.
@@feedthewhale4266 Certainly not religion and the belief in gad. tell me something what credible evidence can you offer to show your gad is real? Thank you.
@@feedthewhale4266 "So what value foundation framework have you managed to discover that doesn't require faith?" Answer: all science and mathematical studies and laws!
@@blakemoon123 Can I have faith that Santa Claus is real? Of course I can. Does that mean Santa Claus is real? Of course not. Faith just means you don't have any credible evidence to support your claim. It's admitting you are gullible and irrational.
The name of God, a question no Jew can answer, its very sacrilegious, Jesus Christ, Yashua the messiah, gave us a name...if you haven't realized that then you have no understanding of what every other religion fails to do, Christ comes to reveal the spiritual vail, only to people who listen.
"The name of God, a question no Jew can answer" That wasn't even a question! Regardless, how about offering some credible evidence for the existence of ANY gad? Good luck.
People like Idolatry aka Images,Art and Etc. Yes yes, monotheist do it More, Ignore 1st and 2nd Comandment, Creat More art , and People like Art, with or Without Monotheistsic Tyrant. Whatever you do, Polytheism will win. Akhrn aten tried it, It failed, Even Jews are not immune to it. Understand Polytheism is Natural and True and Can Hold Diversity of Many Ultimates aka Gods and Godesses.
Thank you. A considered presentation. I remember one “spiritual teacher” saying that, after years of Zen mediation and teachings, when spirit awoke to itself within him (ie, he had a transformative mystical experience), he was anxious in telling his zen teacher of this realisation. When he finally spoke to her and ventured that this awakening was “so much bigger than Buddhism”, she simply smiled and said, “But of course.”
Religion is always downstream of culture; the mystical experience always beyond it.
After the Buddha attained enlightenment, his first words were: “this cannot be taught.” It is “bigger” indeed 😊. Thats why we consistently hear that Buddhist teachers like that Zen master do not teach Buddhism. They teach the way to Buddhism. Thanks for the kind words 🙏🏻
I am the way the TRUTH and the life
Thank you, Clint - a wonderful way to start the day.
In a nutshell, here's my perspective, which I know is shared by many:
I can read Eckhart - and be tremendously inspired. I can read Molinos - and be inspired. I can read Cyprian Smith - and be inspired. I can read Richard Rohr - and sort of be inspired.
Then I go along to our local Catholic Church. I am told I am a sinner. That I need to be saved. They open their Bibles and point to passages to prove their point. They recite the Nicene Creed. My heart freezes and my eyes glaze over.
I leave the church and run back to my books on Buddhism and Advaita. Back to sitting on my cushion. Back to wondering why I cannot break through? Back to being no-one - going nowhere.
That was my experience growing up as well. What I discovered is that there’s a tremendous variation in priests, pastors and rabbis. Real esotericism in Christianity is pretty rare, unfortunately. The Church is moving in that direction though - as evidenced by the recent interest in St Teresa of Ávila and St Catherine of Sienna who were made doctors of the church a few days apart in 1970. They’re both mystics.
Thanks for the kind words! 🙏🏻 😊
This touches on a lot of things I've learned throughout the years. I had originally left turned my back on Christianity from around the age of 13 to 20 because, being in the Southern US, I only understood Christianity from a rather fundamentalist perspective. Two major turning points for me was in taking a university class on Biblical literature wherein I learned that Christian interpretation was/is more diverse than I had understood, and in reading from or about the saints/mystics alongside Kierkegaard, Simone Weil, Emil Cioran, and, eventually, Meister Eckhart. If it were not for these two points, I probably would not have been interested in Christianity and I probably would not have joined the Religious Society of Friends.
I have just recently read Paul F. Knitter's "Without Buddha I Could not be a Christian" wherein he quotes someone (I forget who) who explicitly says that Christianity needs to turn to mysticism in order to survive and he touched on how the average Christian's understanding of theology never surpasses a childish understanding, so when confronted with pressing issues, most simply fall out of the faith and that does match my experience in New Atheist circles. What sucks is that you can explain a mystical, alternative, or simply a non-literal/hermeneutical approach to Christianity to either a Christian or atheist and be met with the accusation that these approaches are not actually Christian. As was said, people likely would not consider Eckhart as Christian. In any case, I do hope to see change for the better in the future.
My whole distaste and repulsion was because I was Pascal's Wagered by the SBC. That event of God showing up to the "God shaped hole" never showed up. I never had a single day I wasn't paranoid.
If it was so great, every personality trait set would get it. Everybody would have suitable belief in God circuitry in their brains. Nobody would have to dupe kids to get them in.
@@skylinefever I can't quite relate with being Pascal Wagered and expecting God to show up in such a way, but I can understand the following distaste and repulsion. Personally, I would not measure greatness by whether every personality could get it. I can think that reading and keeping up with academia is great, but I know most people really don't care to read to learn, for example. That is to say, I don't think great things have to appeal to everyone, nor do I feel as if everyone ought to be Christian. One of Kierkegaard's critiques is that Christianity effectively went wrong, in a sense, to try to make Christianity appealing and easy to everyone (though this critique is partially directed toward the fact that one's Danish citizenship was tied to being baptized - he thinks this is a grave mistake and un-Christian among other things). Doing such a thing promotes, well, duping kids and a superficial or childish understanding of Christianity.
I very much sympathize. That’s my primary misgiving with recommending something mystical. Most people just aren’t up for it and won’t be. That’s why I think a more Buddhist approach of instrumentality may be the only option, and one that has theological precedent and history supporting it. It does mean discarding a lot of the harsh rhetoric we hear today though. That said, we don’t burn witches anymore so big change is possible.
I understand the frustration with Pascal’s wager. It’s really not a good argument. When I cover Pascal in class, I mention the wager as part of history, but I talk more about his impact on statistics which is arguably more important.
By the way, the “God-shaped hole” is a simplified version of what Eckhart was doing with synderesis. I talk about that in the Kierkegaard video. As you might imagine, Eckhart’s version is probably a lot more interesting than what you probably got from the SBC
@@Nico-Tine That is one thing that made me hate the SBC. Such Biblical literalists saw some passage that says everyone must do it. Since they can't question that, the concept of someone who can't or shouldn't convert is beyond them.
If you turn back from a false Church, you did the right thing. There’s only one Church that’s 2,000 years old.
As an atheist I have had mystical experiences. Especially when seeing the beauty of nature. The stars, sunset etc. Mysticism is an internal state that is accessible to everyone in all walks of life. It says nothing about if there is a specific God despite how you may feel internally.
Secondly apologetics is like a battle plan. It sounds all great and fine in the war room but put it out on the field (a debate/discussion) and they quickly fall apart due to blatantly obvious counter points apologetics fail to consider.
I'm no theologian Clint - I'm a simple physicist (these days, far more simple than used to be) but I have a question about something which I think lies at the heart of the 'moving away' from Christianity. It concerns the basic premise that I am a sinner.
I 100% reject the notion that Adam and Eve existed as real human beings. I can accept they are symbolic - but that's another issue.
If I don't accept the reality of Original Sin, it seems to me that the whole edifice of Christianity comes tumbling down. Am I correct? The reason for asking is that although I know very few people who claim to be Christians, but those who do, accept Original Sin, at least in some form.
Most people I know reject this concept, and therefore also reject the whole Christian saga. However, many of this group also accept that there is something which could be referred to as the Absolute, or even the Creator. This, as I see it, is the problem for the Church, or indeed for any Christian denomination.
(Just for info, weekly church attendance in the UK runs at less than 2% of the population. Although around 65% claim to believe in some type of 'higher power' but not the God of the Bible.)
I appreciate the question! Original sin traces back to Augustine circa 400 AD. So it’s not essential or even original (ironically), arguably. The “higher power” statistic is interesting. That’s part of the problem I have with how Pew research words their questions… many people here in the US are also “spiritual” and not avowedly atheist, but don’t belong to an organized religion anymore.. the so-called “nons”.. hardline atheists are actually pretty uncommon. I don’t think the literal interpretation of the Adam and Eve story is very useful to most modern people. As you might imagine, I would side with the way Eckhart uses Scripture 😅
@@goodtothinkwith Thank you so much for replying Clint - I really do appreciate it. After your comment, I did look at the Wiki (yeh, I know - hardly definitive) article about Original Sin and was, frankly, shocked at what I read. I had no idea of the origin and complexity of the concept, let alone how much controversy it has caused - and still does I think.
My ignorance of Christianity is far deeper than I realised. I probably don't need to enter the Cloud of Unknowing, since it seems as though I'm already inside!
I am reading your Paradox at Play. At chapter 3 I started to underline expressions and ideas which were causing me to stop, think about what you had written - most of which I found very inspirational. After a while though I stopped the practise because I was underlining far more of the text than I was leaving alone! I'm enjoying the text a great deal.
Anyway, thanks again.
"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness." Matthew 23:27
I always felt this to mean the kind of religious practice that is devoid of the mystical. I have never been able to find a way into the church due its lack of focus on the mysticism in the teachings. It is vital for the church to recover this if it is to survive.
"You can stop right there, your majesty, it's turtles all the way down"
🐢
I liked and agreed with all you were saying here. One question: Which of the several St. Gregorys were you talking about at 3:20 in the video? I think it was probably St. Gregory of Nyssa, but since you did not specify, I could be mistaken.
Ah yes - and thank you! You’re quite right: St Gregory of Nyssa
For many, ‘the answers have been provided for you’ is still a very attractive option.
I am an atheist/agnostic and your acknowledgement of Bruno and Nietzsche in this video is highly pertinent. I have been reading Simone Weil's "On the Abolition of All Political Parties" and in that book there is an essay written by Czeslaw Milosz. He mentions "Man will become a God for man." This mirrors what you are saying at the 5:00 mark. In addition, Nietzsche even mentions - " Man is God in miniature." Interesting stuff indeed. Have you read anything by Rene Girard ? He and Weil have helped me see Christianity and its relationship to man in a far more compelling light.
👍🏿....its been a while....nice to hear You 😉
Thank you, my friend. 😊
I totally agree.
The devout Christian of the future will either be a ‘mystic’-someone who has ‘experienced something’-or will cease to be anything at all.
Karl Rahner
I guess what hes saying here is that when you cannot see where your going , its nice to know if someone is kind enough to show us the way!
Those people are all good to think with, nice choices. I like the suggestion of Girard. I haven’t read him in a long time… may be time to revisit. I need to go through the twentieth century French intellectuals again sometime… may be useful for this project
Good afternoon. I have to respectfully disagree.
I think the problem is quite other than - as you present - that the philosophical framing no longer works for people. I think the problem is multi-faceted, but in order to be brief:
1. The arguments presented in favor of Christianity are generally poor, even though better ones exist. Most people - in America at least - think Christianity boils down to "I believe it because the Bible says so." Even a lot of the Christians seem to think that.
2. The better arguments are philosophical and complicated. Most people simply can't be bothered; they're too busy scrolling Facebook.
3. Those that do look into it are convinced by easy-to-understand - but shallow and silly - catchphrases, such as "there is no evidence for god."
Take Christopher Hitchens. While admittedly a wonderful orator and someone who was extremely enjoyable to listen to, when you get down to it, his philosophical arguments were quite weak. He persuaded with wit, charm, and humor, not good argumentation. This is very similar to something like the Daily Show, where strong analysis gives way to mocking quips and goofy faces. The general populace isn't looking for a great philosophical argument, they're looking to be entertained. And THAT is why Christianity is declining. In our self-centered, hedonistic society, Christianity is not only a road block, it's just plain BORING.
Thanks - a former atheist.
So you imagine that you have evidence for god? I have yet to see any, and I have been searching for 40 years. Hitchens arguments were not weak, they were spot on. Yes, he was humorous, but he posts out problems that are insurmountable for christianity. A former atheist? I don't see how that is possible without intellectual dishonesty.
Way of the world, we only search for deeper meaning/truths to ground us, when we are in crisis,
And when the normal numbing opiates, which in this day and age are extremely strong w social media, stop working.
But nothing is more satisfying/entertaining than truth, by its very nature.
But its obvious that very few people in modern society have found it and have been willing to serve as positive examples publicly, so now most believe it just doesn't exists or isn't attainable.
So intellectual laziness will lead most towards the nihilistic deconstructionist atheist examples, because they sound better/wiser than the out of date bible/quran/torah etc, which they often do.
Until more positive examples show up, we'll likely continue along our current atheistic trajectories.
But imo the positive examples will show, nihilism creates a vacuum for them, demand creates the supply. Laws of nature will continue.
Yeah, Hitchens ain't the best at dismantling Christianity and other stuff like it.
Thanks for your thoughts on Christianity. This reminds me of quote by Wittgenstein (which you may have alluded to) - "he who understands me finally recognizes them as senseless, when he has climbed out through them, on them, over them. (He must so to speak throw away the ladder, after he has climbed up on it.)"
I think we are forgetting to ask. Should Christianity survive?
@@lordvoldamort4606 What are you replacing it with? Woke liberalism?
@@feedthewhale4266 Good god no. Or at least not the lunacy kind. Was hoping to replace it with untied mysticism.
@@lordvoldamort4606 Everybody does what they want and believes in everything and anything?
@@feedthewhale4266 Kinda
@lordvoldamort4606 Problem there is that woke liberalism is going to win out in practice. It has a clear metaphysics, an eschatology, a calendar of holy days, martyrs, ethics, a hierarchy of grievance, a devil and a great holy and a way for it's adherents to rid themselves of the original sin of privilege
I don't think Christianity will shift to a mystic position. A mystical philosophy is simply too difficult for most people to wrap their heads around. Most people are average intelligence and their lives are focused on work, family, social media, and TV. They find something like Meister Eckhart abstruse, incomprehensible, sand through their fingers. They *need* concretized images, a clear story, and defined theological beliefs to hang on to. Mysticism is too esoteric for them. I don't believe the shift you're describing will happen.
....
I've had what I consider spiritual or transpersonal experiences in my life. They have fed me spiritually and let me know what is important and what is not. They seem quite personal to me, though, and not about the sort of Unity Consciousness or Oneness that mystics describe over and over. I am not a mystic. I like individuality too much. I suppose you could say I'm more interested in Differentiation Consciousness than Unity Consciousness. I also tend to be verbally precise, so the intentional obfuscation and contradiction of mystical language annoys me. I think, "Stop trying to be clever and just say it plainly." Perhaps I'm asking too much. But most mystical language seems like an abstraction that I can't do much with. If that's true for me, I'm sure it's true for the vast majority of Christians.
....
Anyhow, if Christianity survives, I don't think it will be by becoming a diffuse, universal mysticism. That's my opinion, anyhow. Thanks for the thought-provoking video.
I have argued that there is one way there may be a way to get that to the masses. Maybe letting shrooms, DMT, and LSD would give the masses the spiritual experience they usually do not get.
I love your interest in differentiation consciousness, your distaste for contradictory mystical/unity language, and your emphasis on verbal precision.
I'm the same way.
Yet, as I see it, the same fundamental positive psychological structures of consciousness are present within all of us, and Unity consciousness is just the experience of that.
But yeah, the language mystics use sure can be gross when co-opted by too much new age babble.
LOL! The problem with trying to change Christianity to help it "survive" is that Eternal Truth has already won in Christ. If it's a true religion, it cannot pass away, if you have to try and salvage it, it's false...
So you that things are no longer true if the majority of people don't believe them?
Only 26% of pepole aged 30 or less call themselves Christian in my country so you would say Chritianity is faulse. Its bad enough with "double cavlanists" not trying to stop this from happening . Im surrounded with pepole facing death and judgemnet who wont repent or even try and be saved. I came here to learn about something that could help when i talk to the Pagans and Athiests around me. You would give up in my country.
So then it’s false. I don’t need apologists to convince me my wife exists, or to give philosophical arguments that Australia is real, or to insist that I should “lean not on my own understanding” if I ask how airplanes work. I don’t need anyone to explain why my conscience objects to an authority’s definition of good.
Why does Christianity need so many excuses, and why does it try so hard to dissuade people from asking too many questions? Only false ideas need that kind of coddling.
@@weirdwilliam8500 it doesn't, there are literally millions of words explaining and arguing over tiny details. You can ask any question, there is already an answer.
@@feedthewhale4266 that's actually the opposite of what I said lol. Things are true regardless of who believes them if they are TRUE. My point is "changing" Christianity to make it relevant is ironic because only untruths are changable.
The goal of our instruction is the love that comes from a pure heart, a clear conscience, and a sincere faith. Some have strayed from these ways and turned aside to EMPTY TALK 1 Timothy 1:5.
Hey Tgtogan, great seeing you here! ❤️
I appreciate your points, I have my disagreements but I want to inquire is why should your definition of Truth be a priority?, was it demonstrated?
I love the Prince of Egypt, but that doesn't mean I'm observing some "truth", aesthetics are not truth values. Not everything that is true is useful.
Again I appreciate the discussion but I remain unconvinced.
Experience is key. Don’t take anyone’s word for it. Demand it. Everything is a pointer. Those pointers aimed at the shadows of truth being cast against the wall. Truth cannot be discussed, it can only be experienced. That truth is within you. It is not anywhere else.
I take issue with your statement "Not everything that is true is useful." I was raised Mormon. There was an apostle of the LDS church, a real hardliner, that spoke to church education and seminary teachers. Speaking about facts that had recently come out that cast doubt on the accepted history of the Mormon church, he told these teachers not to pursue these facts, even if they were true. And he used that exact phrase. "Not everything that is true is useful."
Well let me tell you something, I would rather have the truth in all it's splendid ugliness and horror than an aesthetically pleasing lie. Because ultimately that lie will only benefit the liar who manufactured it. And once you know the truth you can start to do something about it.
@@pytime8621 a few problems with that, experience is subjective. Projections and the mind filling the gaps is why we have to be able to test our assumptions, so I disagree with the "Everything is a pointer" argument. I have no way of conceptualizing how every pointer is in the shadow of the truth.
@@squeakhawk01 I think you have misunderstood me, it is true that "not everything that's true is useful", the difference between me and the Apostle is that I want to know true things regardless and he uses it as a rhetoric to keep dogma.
Which St. Gregory? There were a lot of them and many were mystics?
"Every-thing is a tool" makes sense in a proper context, once there is a recognition about what "not this not that"/ no-thing-ness/ non-duality is 🙃❤️
Much more could be said... 😁❤️
You didn't define what "works" means. But if you mean increasing membership, based on current trends of growth in Prosperity Gospel, NAR, and NIFB/Greg Locke style churches, what "works" is greed, desire of power, and hate.
How does it make sense to say, "Truth is posterior to God". Posterior meaning prior? Posterior meaning behind? Why not say "Truth is to the left of God" or "Truth is North of God"? This language just leads to agnosticism.
As usual, very thought provoking. To help answer the question can Christianity adapt you might take a look at (maybe you already have) Ilia Delio's new book "The Not-Yet God". She includes Eckhart and his Durchbruch in the Chapter God, Ground, and Mystics. I was happy to see Eckhart's inclusion. If the Western Catholic Church does not burn Sister Delio at the stake as a heretic and takes a serious look at what she, a Theologian/Scientist, suggests we might be on our way to moving Christianity into the 21st century and not becoming an old relic of a forgotten age.
Also watch Matt Dillahunty videos for the real truth about gad and religion. Matt will set your mind straight. Good luck.
@@TboneWTF The Andrew Wilson debate in particular.
The problem with Christianity is that it's based on Judaism and Judaism isn't a religion as much as it is a national identity.
Jesus died to release others from a contract, through himself. Judeo-Christianity is nonsense.
God had meant for you to be perfect in all your ways and a friend to him throughout all of eternity... You are not your body, you are not your mind, you are a spirit that uses both these things. But your vision is blurry and you choose to know only through your physical senses, that is why God can't find you... You were never meant to be a mortal... You are the only animal in existence that God would want to have a conversation with... God created you in his image to live forever and rejoice, but you have chosen the temporary and have lost your way, this is why you live in vain only choosing that in which you are familiar and comfortable in the physical sense. That is why you choose, money, social validation, material wealth, and quick thrills, because you know deep down you'd have to bring yourself to a more profound form of humility in order to face your God who made you and confess that you were wrong... but no matter... whatever sins, whatever burdens, whatever feelings you may have... What happens on earth is forgotten yesterday and is forgiven for tomorrow. God loves you and wants to be with you, don't choose ego and pride over happiness.
If you believe in God, no matter what, whether you are wrong or right, you have nothing to lose... as opposed to the alternative... God is waiting for you! He's been waiting since the beginning and will continue to do so... You think it's "too good to be true" but that is what you project from your heart which has been molded by the iniquities of this world by men like yourself, men who would take the word of the Lord and twist it to sound right in their own minds or believe half-heartedly and expect reward. God wants to be with you but can't because you've turned from him.... You are like a fish out of water thinking their is nothing beyond matter but their is a spiritual realm, YOU are living proof of this! Seek God in the scripture, find humility, find truth, reject ego, reject arrogance. If God is real and created you, why call him evil if you are not the same? I say to you, their is so much you have chosen to forget... Those with ears let them hear, for it is the sight that truly blinds a man!
...
1 Corinthians 2:11-16
Isaiah 5:20-21
Romans 1:18-32
Romans 2:1-29
Christianity is the voice and body of Jesus Christ.
Freud already debunked mysticism.
Since mysticism as I’m using the term doesn’t and can’t make particular claims, it doesn’t make sense to “debunk” it because there’s nothing to debunk. Freud was skeptical about what people call “mystical” experiences of miraculous things that resulted in particular claims, which isn’t mysticism… It’s more like magic and ritual. His “oceanic” feeling is closer, but he didn’t follow it to the end.
@@goodtothinkwith Not making any claims at all? Now that's just convenient. And pointless.
Citing Freud proves that you are out of touch. Nobody takes Freud seriously any more. Least of all on these matters.
@@byrondickens No intelligent people takes Christianity seriously, and yet you morons believe regardless.
@weirdwilliam8500
It appears you've fallen victim to TH-cam cencership as I cannot provide you with anymore truth than what I've already given... sorry.... seek and ye shall find!
Luke 17:21
This is because the idea of the existence of a god in Christian terms is completely irrational.
Any defense of Christianity will necessarily be irrational and so, only a defense that responds to emotional needs.
Well, LOL, if Truth is posterior to God, then you are assuming the conclusion before you even start. Not even worth addressing seriously. Have a good day. You don't care about what is true or false, only about your contingently-held irrational beliefs. Pretty pathetic if you ask me.
"why are there no good defenses for Christianity?" Because it's entire ideology is based on the supernatural and fantasy. It's impossible to defend anything that doesn't exist in reality. that's why believers claim "faith" is all they need. LOL. This is another way of saying: "I don't have any credible evidence for the existence of gad." it also means you are gullible and irrational.
So what value foundation framework have you managed to discover that doesn't require faith?
@@feedthewhale4266 Certainly not religion and the belief in gad. tell me something what credible evidence can you offer to show your gad is real? Thank you.
@@TboneWTF You've answered the question with a negative response because you have no positive response.
@@feedthewhale4266 And you couldn't even offer any answer because you have no rational one! LOL. Good luck my friend.
@@feedthewhale4266 "So what value foundation framework have you managed to discover that doesn't require faith?" Answer: all science and mathematical studies and laws!
Why are there no good defenses for faith? Because FAITH IS NOT ABOUT REASON. You're welcome!
True faith and reason are compatible when understood properly.
@@blakemoon123 you are incorrect. reason is for science, which can solve problems. Faith is for prayer, which solves nothing.
@@blakemoon123
"True faith and reason are compatible when understood properly."
You do understand how vapid and worthless that assertions is, right?
I agree. Well said.
@@blakemoon123 Can I have faith that Santa Claus is real? Of course I can. Does that mean Santa Claus is real? Of course not. Faith just means you don't have any credible evidence to support your claim. It's admitting you are gullible and irrational.
The name of God, a question no Jew can answer, its very sacrilegious, Jesus Christ, Yashua the messiah, gave us a name...if you haven't realized that then you have no understanding of what every other religion fails to do, Christ comes to reveal the spiritual vail, only to people who listen.
This comment is confusing and disturbing. Your problem, whatever it is, is not being solved by religion.
@@yetanotherjohn LOL. Indeed my friend.
"The name of God, a question no Jew can answer" That wasn't even a question! Regardless, how about offering some credible evidence for the existence of ANY gad? Good luck.
Was Jesus not a jew?
People like Idolatry aka Images,Art and Etc.
Yes yes, monotheist do it More, Ignore 1st and 2nd Comandment,
Creat More art , and People like Art, with or Without Monotheistsic Tyrant.
Whatever you do, Polytheism will win.
Akhrn aten tried it, It failed, Even Jews are not immune to it.
Understand Polytheism is Natural and True and Can Hold Diversity of Many Ultimates aka Gods and Godesses.