Which Early Christian Heresy are You (good silly fun quiz)

[Cino]

I think every authentic spiritual tradition says that?


This is the catch though, isn't it?

Without thoughts/concepts we do not consciously experience anything. We would not learn nor grow.

There are those who find fault with the sacra doctrina of the world, and those who find wisdom, insight and illumination – I'm thinking the Dionysius, the Eckharts, the Mertons, the Rumis and the Shankaras ...

Eckhard, Merton and Rumi are not exactly exponents of their respective catechism or equivalent. Shankara got canonized, but there have to be exceptions to the rule. Happens to the best of them, no helping it, it seems...

They all encouraged people to investigate their reality themselves, to look for God everywhere, rather than learn a set of concepts about God.

 

[Cino]

First off, I don't accept the West/East schism. Probably a technical one, but it would alter things significantly for those inside the tent, as it were.

Oh, I meant "orthodox" in the general sense of "doctrinally correct" (for a given doctrine), not in the sense of "Eastern Church"

 

[RJM]

... The Bahais have a way of saying God is unknowable....

I think every authentic spiritual tradition says that?

There will always be more to know about God?

 

[Thomas]

Oh, I meant "orthodox" in the general sense of "doctrinally correct" (for a given doctrine), not in the sense of "Eastern Church"

That's the way I read it. By my leaning towards certain Eastern dogmas, I'm skating on the heretical ice of Latin dogma.

I also think Latins tend to define too much, and so I harbour a number of 'grey area' heresies because I don't accept certain de facto Latin Christian statements. Original Sin, for one. Transubstantiation for another, or more accurately, the insistence that the bread be made precisely 'this way'— misses the point, to me. Anything that falls within the concept will suit. Probably too technical to worry anyone here.

 

[Thomas]

There will always be more to know about God?

There will always be more to be known because God is Infinite ... but the main point is God as such transcends knowing, or 'knowing' which we assume means one can see or speak about the thing known. Knowing as insight, or illumination. This is not the profound knowing of the mystic — that is a 'dark knowing' — it's more akin to blind faith, it's certainty in the face of which nothing can be said.

The mystic and the simple believer have more in common than most stops in between.

This, of course, limits 'the knowledge of God' to probably less than one person per generation — it's an extreme position — so 'It', whatever 'It' is, comes to man in other ways, and then the most intimate way of knowing is then as 'person' because we are persons. It's the Augustine idea that God knows me better than I know me; that when we reach the apex of the spiritual ascent, the urgrund as Eckhart would have it, there God is waiting.

St Paul and St John both said it ...

 

[Thomas]

Eckhard, Merton and Rumi are not exactly exponents of their respective catechism or equivalent.

Really? In what way not, d'you think?

I can't speak for Rumi, mind you.

They all encouraged people to investigate their reality themselves, to look for God everywhere, rather than learn a set of concepts about God.

Mmmm ... not really. Neither Eckhart nor Merton abandoned their faith or beliefs. Both were teaching concepts of God, after all ... you can't say anything about God without doing that.

You can trace Eckhart's ideas back through his Dominican heritage, all the way to Dionysius in the 6th century, for example.

 

[RJM]

... When we reach the apex of the spiritual ascent, the urgrund as Eckhart would have it, there God is waiting.

St Paul and St John both said it ...

But is the apex ever reached? Or does it always recede? I think one of the true rewards of existence may be that there's always something new?

Something new to learn ...

 

[Ahanu]

Eckhard, Merton and Rumi are not exactly exponents of their respective catechism or equivalent. Shankara got canonized, but there have to be exceptions to the rule. Happens to the best of them, no helping it, it seems...

They all encouraged people to investigate their reality themselves, to look for God everywhere, rather than learn a set of concepts about God.

Could you provide an example with Rumi?

 

[RJM]

It's why an encounter with 'guardian angel' is an encounter with God. Angel Guardian is so close to God. Yet there is always a higher power, above ...

 

[RJM]

... Original Sin, for one. Transubstantiation for another ...

@Thomas: to me original sin -- the sin of Adam -- is that because the spirit has now descended into the dimension of Nature and acquired a 'coat of skin' humans have to kill to live: to take life to eat to sustain their own lives. Every breath kills small airborne life and every step kills microscopic creatures, etc.

So: Man, tread lightly.

The transubstantiation to me is that Christ promised to be present in the Eucharist. Christ is present.

 

[Cino]

There will always be more to be known because God is Infinite ... but the main point is God as such transcends knowing, or 'knowing' which we assume means one can see or speak about the thing known. Knowing as insight, or illumination. This is not the profound knowing of the mystic — that is a 'dark knowing' — it's more akin to blind faith, it's certainty in the face of which nothing can be said.

Agreed, anything can be known in the way of 'dark knowledge', including blind faith. God can be found in blind faith, with eyes to see, ears to hear, by digging up the entire field to find the treasure, all that goodness. That applies to blind faith just as well as to anything else.

The mystic and the simple believer have more in common than most stops in between.

This, of course, limits 'the knowledge of God' to probably less than one person per generation — it's an extreme position — so 'It', whatever 'It' is, comes to man in other ways, and then the most intimate way of knowing is then as 'person' because we are persons. It's the Augustine idea that God knows me better than I know me; that when we reach the apex of the spiritual ascent, the urgrund as Eckhart would have it, there God is waiting.

So which is it? Is God infinite and knowledge about God therefore abundant, always more to known -

- or is God coyly hiding at the apex of the spiritual ascent, for that one person per generation, to get there?

I'm in the former camp. The latter understanding is why I prefer to speak about my experience in atheist terms.

St Paul and St John both said it ...

Tried to get this reference, can't seem to make it connect. Can you point me at it?

 

[Cino]

Really? In what way not, d'you think?

I can't speak for Rumi, mind you.


Mmmm ... not really. Neither Eckhart nor Merton abandoned their faith or beliefs. Both were teaching concepts of God, after all ... you can't say anything about God without doing that.

You can trace Eckhart's ideas back through his Dominican heritage, all the way to Dionysius in the 6th century, for example.

I'm not a scholar of either tradition. I think none of them abandoned their faiths or beliefs, but some of them were eyed with suspicion by the respective doctrinal institutions.

Didn't Eckhart get accused of heresy and summoned to appear before the inquisition?

 

[Cino]

Could you provide an example with Rumi?

Rumi goes on about wine, idols, and how he found something superior to belief (and unbelief). Sure, this is highly symbolic, and he claims his poetry can only be properly interpreted within Islam, but plenty of literalist readers have great trouble reconciling some of his poems with the teachings of Islam.

 

[Cino]

It's why an encounter with 'guardian angel' is an encounter with God. Angel Guardian is so close to God. Yet there is always a higher power, above ...

Sounds a lot like C.S. Lewis' "... come further up, come further in"

 

[Ahanu]

Rumi goes on about wine, idols, and how he found something superior to belief (and unbelief). Sure, this is highly symbolic, and he claims his poetry can only be properly interpreted within Islam, but plenty of literalist readers have great trouble reconciling some of his poems with the teachings of Islam.

Not sure what you are referring to exactly. Could you provide actual quotes? Thanks!

 

[Cino]

For example: Masnavi, Book II, Story VI, the verses on Love:

Love endures hardships at the hands of the Beloved.
Through love bitter things seem sweet,
Through love bits of copper are made gold.
Through love dregs taste like pure wine,
Through love pains are as healing balms.
Through love thorns become roses,
And through love vinegar becomes sweet wine.
Through love the stake becomes a throne,
Through love reverse of fortune seems good fortune.
Through love a prison seems a rose bower,
Without love a grate full of ashes seems a garden.
Through love burning fire is pleasing light,
Through love the Devil becomes a Houri.
Through love hard stones become soft as butter,
Without love soft wax becomes hard iron.
Through love grief is as joy,
Through love Ghouls turn into angels.
Through love stings are as honey,
Through love lions are harmless as mice.
Through love sickness is health,
Through love wrath is as mercy.
Through love the dead rise to life,
Through love the king becomes a slave.​

Many more references to wine in the Masnavi. This is mystical language. But read literally, I think (but am not a scholar) these verses might not be in line with Islamic eschatology (where it comes to raising the dead or the destiny of the devil).

 

[Thomas]

But is the apex ever reached? Or does it always recede? I think one of the true rewards of existence may be that there's always something new? ... Something new to learn ...

If we turn from 'apex' to 'depth' ... then, like love, it's inexhaustible.

I don't think we're 'learning' so much as 'knowing'.

 

[Thomas]

To me original sin -- the sin of Adam -- is that because the spirit has now descended into the dimension of Nature and acquired a 'coat of skin' humans have to kill to live: to take life to eat to sustain their own lives. Every breath kills small airborne life and every step kills microscopic creatures, etc.

Gregory of Nyssa and others thought the same.

I'm not so sure.

To me, man was always created a physical being. That's what man is. This is the world. This is where we are.

I think the finite world, the cosmos, is as it is.

I think the sin of Adam was pride. An over-reaching of self, which in the tradition is the desire to be like God, in one's own right.

The transubstantiation to me is that Christ promised to be present in the Eucharist. Christ is present.

Absolutely. What I was aluding to is that the bread has to be made 'just so'. For mass, for the church, I agree. But there is also the aspect that anything will serve, as long as it fits the idea: "Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made".

But I am also of the opinion of St Augustine. Christ is the Eucharist ... and so are we.

 

[RJM]

If we turn from 'apex' to 'depth' ...

What is the deepest depth? The centre of the earth. What is the highest high? No limit.

What is the darkest darkness? The depth of a cave where no light can enter. Light a candle, there is light. What's the brightest light? 10 zillion suns?

What's the coldest cold? Absolutely zero, where atomic motion ceases. What's the hottest hot? 10 trillion degrees? No limit.

 

[Thomas]

Agreed, anything can be known in the way of 'dark knowledge', including blind faith.

I think that dark knowledge is blind faith.

Eddie Izzard did a comedy routine. Being cool is like a circle. You start off a bit nerdy, you get better, you get cooler, then as you complete the circle, you get cooler, super-cool, uber-cool, then you go one step too far, and you're back where you started.

I think the 'ascent' is like that. All the knowledge, the insight, the this and that is just window-dressing along the way.

... by digging up the entire field to find the treasure, all that goodness.

Some people spend their entire lives, going round digging up fields looking for treasure.

And the enlightened man just tends his garden. He's not looking for treasure, he's just doing what's right. And when the seeker asks: "Where's your treasure?" He points to the garden. "There," he says. "Same as yours."

So which is it? Is God infinite and knowledge about God therefore abundant, always more to known –

Yes. But that's just knowledge.

– or is God coyly hiding at the apex of the spiritual ascent, for that one person per generation, to get there?

No. That's the elite's view — the 'esoterist', the 'gnostic', the 'jnani'.

Where God is at is evident from the Beatitudes. There's more God in the 'blind faith' that most modern people turn their noses at, than in the writings of their latest guru.

Tried to get this reference, can't seem to make it connect. Can you point me at it?

1 Corinthians 13:12 "We see now through a glass in a dark manner; but then face to face. Now I know in part; but then I shall know even as I am known."

And the less famous:
1 John 3:2 "Dearly beloved, we are now the sons of God; and it hath not yet appeared what we shall be. We know, that, when he shall appear, we shall be like to him: because we shall see him as he is."