GameBanshee Forums

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I suggest you read some of the works of Christian mystics, from Hildegard von Bingen to Teilhard de Chardin. I'm not saying that I'm a Christian--I'm not; but the perspective I voiced that you refer to has definitely been believed by some Christians who were hardly schismatic.</STRONG>

Those are not really Christians. There is no such thing as a Christian Mystic. Remember, just because one claims to be a 'Christian' does not mean they are one. No offense, fable, but you're obviously not a Christian. If you were, you'd know a heckuva lot more than you do about what Christians actually believe. I suggest you go find out what Christians actually believe before you start, or rather continue, trying to tell us we believe when what you're telling us that we believe is not what we believe.

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>I feel that being good should just be inate, one shouldn't feel they have to be good so that they get to heaven, that view seems somewhat selfish and conceited. Surely one should just be good out of the kindness of their heart's not because they feel it is going to get them some reward in the afterlife.</STRONG>

Liked that, Sleep.

Well said.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Those are not really Christians. There is no such thing as a Christian Mystic. Remember, just because one claims to be a 'Christian' does not mean they are one. No offense, fable, but you're obviously not a Christian. If you were, you'd know a heckuva lot more than you do about what Christians actually believe. I suggest you go find out what Christians actually believe before you start, or rather continue, trying to tell us we believe when what you're telling us that we believe is not what we believe.</STRONG>

Have you read the Christian mystics I've referred to, above? Do you know anything about their disparate beliefs? What works have you read about "so-called" Christian mysticism, in general?

I'm not trying to tell you what you should believe about anything, @SS. I would respectfully suggest that there is no such thing as a monolithic block of opinions upon all Christian issues--therefore, I was discussing the opinions of some Christians, virtually referred to by one and all as mystics, whose expressed thoughts have been highly considered over the years by many mainstream Christian denominations, and who obviously didn't fit into your definitive statement. ("That is a very humanistic viewpoint he's mentioning and not what Christians believe.")

So tens of thousands (if not more) of Christian mystics and Christian mystical movements over the centuries were simply--non-believers, pagans? The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church have canonized mystics--ie, pagans--as saints? I find that a bit hard to accept.

I find it equally hard to accept that somehow, you are aware of the breadth or depth of my reading on any given subject, since that's never been a theme for discussion. Take Christian beliefs, for instance: when's the last time you pulled out Gregory of Nyssa's The Life of Moses for a good read? Or Gregory Palams' The Triads? Or Evagrios' The Solitary? To misquote an old burlesque show gag from nearly three-quarters of a century ago, do de names Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Augustine and John Chrysostom strike a familiar note? In moderns, I've particularly enjoyed Jaroslav Pelikan's Mary Through the Ages, Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology, and the collection of sermons by Pastor Martin Niemoller, posthomously published after his death at the hands of Hitler's Gestapo.

For the record, I do not consider myself very well read on Christian thought. But I think I have a fair awareness of what many different Christians, through the ages, have believed.

I'll be happy to discuss the views of the Christian mystics I've mentioned with you. Of course, if you're going to outright deny the Christianity of anybody whose religious views differ from those you perceive as dogmatically certain, I think we can end this discussion before it's even begun.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
<STRONG>I feel that being good should just be inate, one shouldn't feel they have to be good so that they get to heaven, that view seems somewhat selfish and conceited. Surely one should just be good out of the kindness of their heart's not because they feel it is going to get them some reward in the afterlife.</STRONG>

Neither reason for being good is mutually exclusive. People do good out of the goodness of their heart, some to get a reward, and still others a combination of the two, or a different reason altogether. But I certainly don't think that doing good in order to get to heaven is either selfish or conceited - it's just plain smart, coinsidering the alternative!

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>Neither reason for being good is mutually exclusive. People do good out of the goodness of their heart, some to get a reward, and still others a combination of the two, or a different reason altogether. But I certainly don't think that doing good in order to get to heaven is either selfish or conceited - it's just plain smart, coinsidering the alternative!</STRONG>

Perhaps, indeed, it's not mutually exclusive --- if you think that some people do good things BECAUSE it makes them feel good. Nothing more, nothing less. If anything, that could be the "reward" you're mentioning for some innately good people.

True enough, consider the alternative!

But why do some feel good when they do something bad?

@MM: To answer your question:

Neither I don't believe in neither reincarnation nor immortal after-life or any other form of life than the fact that my atoms are recycled

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>Those are not really Christians. There is no such thing as a Christian Mystic. </STRONG>

St Hildergard von Bingen was not a "real christian"? According to what standard?

There is no such thing as a christian mystic? Historically there has been plenty.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Have you read the Christian mystics I've referred to, above? Do you know anything about their disparate beliefs? What works have you read about "so-called" Christian mysticism, in general?</STRONG>

Unless I am misunderstand what you mean by "mystic," the things that those people do is, whether they proclaim to do it in the name of God or not, not Christian. Let me reword this to make it clearer. They may be of the Christian religion but that does not make them Christians. There are many 'Christians' who "play" church, but are not really Christians. IIRC, I explained in a previous topic the difference between "religious Christians" and "True Christians." Perhaps you should go back and read it. When I refer to Christians, I'm refering to True Christians. When I say someone isn't a Christian, I'm saying they ain't True Christians.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I'm not trying to tell you what you should believe about anything, @SS.</STRONG>

I did not say you were telling me what I should believe. What I said is that you keep trying to tell me what I, as a Christian, do believe. However, you have yet to tell me what I believe and be right about it.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I would respectfully suggest that there is no such thing as a monolithic block of opinions upon all Christian issues--</STRONG>

Certain things are interpretated differently by different denominations of Christianity(religion), but we all agree on the important issues(i.e., Jesus is the Son of God, He died on the cross for our sins, etc.). Anyone who does not agree on these issues, yet claims to be a Christian is not a True Christian. That is why Jehovahs Witness and Mormons are not Christian Denominations even though they claim to be Christians.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>therefore, I was discussing the opinions of some Christians, virtually referred to by one and all as mystics, whose expressed thoughts have been highly considered over the years by many mainstream Christian denominations, and who obviously didn't fit into your definitive statement. ("That is a very humanistic viewpoint he's mentioning and not what Christians believe.")</STRONG>

Refer to above statements for some on this. God created us. We are not part God. God is not part us. We are created in his image, meaning we, in some way or other, resemble God's physical appearance. As a Christian, God is in me and I in him; but I am not God and God is not me.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>So tens of thousands (if not more) of Christian mystics and Christian mystical movements over the centuries were simply--non-believers, pagans? The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church have canonized mystics--ie, pagans--as saints? I find that a bit hard to accept.</STRONG>

I will not say that there are no Christians among these "Christian mystics." I will, however, say that they are not living the lifestyle that a Christian should live. They are not as close to God as they could be. Because they practice things that are not of God, I question their Christianity. However, only God know whether or not they believe the right things to get them into heaven. What mystics have been canonized by the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Church? If by this you are refering to the "Saints," then that has no bearing on me. Catholocism is highly iconic, almost to the point of idolotry in some cases.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I find it equally hard to accept that somehow, you are aware of the breadth or depth of my reading on any given subject, since that's never been a theme for discussion. Take Christian beliefs, for instance: when's the last time you pulled out Gregory of Nyssa's The Life of Moses for a good read? Or Gregory Palams' The Triads? Or Evagrios' The Solitary? To misquote an old burlesque show gag from nearly three-quarters of a century ago, do de names Origen, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Augustine and John Chrysostom strike a familiar note? In moderns, I've particularly enjoyed Jaroslav Pelikan's Mary Through the Ages, Meyendorff's Byzantine Theology, and the collection of sermons by Pastor Martin Niemoller, posthomously published after his death at the hands of Hitler's Gestapo.</STRONG>

I can honestly say that I have never read any of those books you have mentioned. I do want to point out that, on the subject of what Christians believe, any books on Catholocism do not pertain to my beliefs as I am protestant, not catholic. Though I cannot know your exact breadth of reading on this subject, I can approximate the most likely amount from what knowledge you seem to have on the subject, which is very little. I can point out though that, even with all the reading you apparently have done, there are some things you cannot understand without the Holy Spirit. Since you are not a Christian, you do not have the Holy Spirit and are, thus, unable to comprehend some things. I won't hold it against you. You did, however, fail to mention the most important source of what Christians believe. The Bible. Have you read the Bible all the way through? I have read the New Testament all the way through and I'm about halfway through the Old Testament. While there are many things that are left open to interpretation, there are a few key issues that are not left open to interpretation.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>For the record, I do not consider myself very well read on Christian thought. But I think I have a fair awareness of what many different Christians, through the ages, have believed.</STRONG>

What Christians have believed is not near as important as what Christians do believe. The rule of Catholocism means nothing to me. The priests in the Dark Ages wouldn't allow the "common people" or even Nobles and Kings to read the Bible themselves. The people of that time were allowed only to believe what they were told to believe. Now, we all study the Bible. We have Bible studies in which we work together to figure out what God is saying. We study the Bible on our own, etc. The Dark Ages were as much a Dark time for Christianity as it was for the world. If you want to use history to get an idea of what we believe, go further back to the early Christian churches in the book of Acts.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I'll be happy to discuss the views of the Christian mystics I've mentioned with you. Of course, if you're going to outright deny the Christianity of anybody whose religious views differ from those you perceive as dogmatically certain, I think we can end this discussion before it's even begun.</STRONG>

I don't percieve it as dogmatically certain. I believe what I believe because it is what I believe. I don't believe it just because the church tought it to me. I have never been one to jump on the bandwagon. If someone tries to tell me something is a certain way, I won't believe them until I have made sure that they are right. I question everything anyone tries to teach me. Do not assume I'm just spouting the church doctrine that has been instilled in me since birth. For one thing, that would be spouting the religion. I'm telling what True Christians believe. It is not "I agree with them;" it is "we agree with each other." We may study together to learn this, but we still decide for ourselves what we believe.

I am not outright denying the possibility that some of the Christian mystics are True Christians. What I'm saying is that their Christianity is highly suspect. It'd be kinda like someoen declaring that they are a 100% true pacifist wanting to help human civilization to become peaceful and kind and all that, yet spends hours upon hours playing Baldur's Gate with a Chaotic Evil charactor who goes around killing everyone they come in contact with. You'd wonder if they were really a pacifist. That may not be the best example, but it is the best one I can come up with at this moment.

So if I take it between the eyes with a 7.62, I'll come back to life????

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG> St Hildergard von Bingen was not a "real christian"? According to what standard? </STRONG>

I don't know who "St. Hildergard von Bingen" is, but I do not recognize anyone as a saint. I also will not say whether or not someone who is dead was definitely a Christian or not, especially since I know nothing about the person. Go back to...the God's gender topic(I think) and read what I said there about what a True Christian is.

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>There is no such thing as a christian mystic? Historically there has been plenty.</STRONG>

Mystics claiming to be Christian, perhaps; but you should know better than to believe that just because someone claims to be of a certain 'religion' doesn't mean they truly are. Just look at Osama bin Laden if you need an example of such.

Originally posted by Sailor Saturn:
<STRONG>I don't know who "St. Hildergard von Bingen" is, but I do not recognize anyone as a saint. I also will not say whether or not someone who is dead was definitely a Christian or not, especially since I know nothing about the person.

</STRONG>

??? So if you don't know who St Hildegard von Bingen was, why do you write that she is not a "true christian"?

Btw, she has been dead for almost 1000 years.
<STRONG>Mystics claiming to be Christian, perhaps; but you should know better than to believe that just because someone claims to be of a certain 'religion' doesn't mean they truly are. Just look at Osama bin Laden if you need an example of such.</STRONG>[/QUOTE]

Sure, but you said no christian mystics exists - that's a very broad generalization you make of tens of thousands of people since first centuries AD until today. The fact that some of those groups are only claiming to be christians in the same fashion as OBL claims to be a muslim, does not mean all christian mysticists should be accused of not being christians in real sense.

Posted by Eminem -

You don't believe in a final judgment? Why not? When you really think about it, without a final judgment of our actions here on Earth, there's no point living a good, law-abiding life or a corrupt, rule-breaking one. If our actions, whether good or bad, open or secret, have no eternal recognition and reward, why bother living self-sacrificially like Theresa when you can indulge yourself in power and pleasure like Caligula?

Because you leave behind a legacy, an example. What you leave behind can be a lot less selfish, and more of an investment in mankind - however small - than what you look to take with you

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: Yshania ]

Oroginally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>??? So if you don't know who St Hildegard von Bingen was, why do you write that she is not a "true christian"?

Btw, she has been dead for almost 1000 years. </STRONG>

I did not say she is not a true Christian. I have said it is highly suspect, but nothing more. What kind of "mystic" was she?

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Sure, but you said no christian mystics exists - that's a very broad generalization you make of tens of thousands of people since first centuries AD until today. The fact that some of those groups are only claiming to be christians in the same fashion as OBL claims to be a muslim, does not mean all christian mysticists should be accused of not being christians in real sense.</STRONG>

God told us to not go to mediums(sp?), etc. Mysticism is of Satan, not of God. You cannot serve two masters.

Now, you may be including Christians who have the gift of Prophecy and/or the gift of Healing when you say mystics. However, they would not call themselves "Christian Mystics" because mysticism is not of God, it is of satan. Read in 2nd Samuel about King Saul's visit to a mystic. Also, one who has the gift of healing/prophecy from God do not self-proclaim themselves prophets or healers. My dad has the gift of healing. He has only used it twice. Both times were when God told him to use it. He has not told very many people that he has this gift.


Here is something that may surprise you. I have psychic abilities. I can, to a somewhat limited extent, read people's thoughts, as well as predict the future. Does this make me a "christian mystic"?

Sailor Saturn writes:
I don't know who "St. Hildergard von Bingen" is...

Then with due respect, where do you come off stating that she (and Teilhard de Chardin) are "not really Christians?" If you haven't read their works or at least familiarized yourself with a gloss of their ideas, commenting on their beliefs seems considerably over the top, if you follow me.

Now, you may be including Christians who have the gift of Prophecy and/or the gift of Healing when you say mystics. However, they would not call themselves "Christian Mystics" because mysticism is not of God, it is of satan. Read in 2nd Samuel about King Saul's visit to a mystic.

You might want to look up some good definition of "Christian mysticism," which has been considered part of mainstream Christianity by Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant branches of the faith, since the earliest times. I think it differs from your assumption of what it means.

Have you read the Bible all the way through? I have read the New Testament all the way through and I'm about halfway through the Old Testament.

Yes, I have, in several versions--why else would I read so many authors who have commented upon the bible, like Gregory of Nyssa, if I hadn't already gone to the source, so to speak? I think you may be misinterpreting the word used in Ex 22:18, which you call "mystic." The word kashaph is actually more akin to "necromancer," which in context is one who scries through the use of the dead, as the Endorian sorceress did for Saul. Mysticism has nothing to do with this.

I can honestly say that I have never read any of those books you have mentioned. I do want to point out that, on the subject of what Christians believe, any books on Catholocism do not pertain to my beliefs as I am protestant, not catholic. Though I cannot know your exact breadth of reading on this subject, I can approximate the most likely amount from what knowledge you seem to have on the subject, which is very little.

I'd have thought you'd give up this line of approach after the first time, when I explained some of my favorite Christian texts. That they predated Protestantism does not necessarily invalidate them for Protestants, as quite a few Protestant clergy have gone on record as stating--I can provide references, if you'd like. And as you haven't read them, I question the vigor with which you dismiss them as "Christian texts." As for Protestant beliefs, do you *really* want a list of my favorite Protestant texts, which I enjoy reading? Do I have to explain how I really enjoy Melanchthon, or what I like in Luther? We've been down this road, before. I already mentioned Neimoller--were you aware this favorite author of mine was Protestant?

No offense, but I don't think you really should be telling me how little I know about Christianity, or Christian belief. You don't know me, and making assumptions without fact, based upon appearances (my not being a Christian) is an almost certain way to end up in error--or at the very least, extremely surprised.

What Christians have believed is not near as important as what Christians do believe...

I'm afraid I must disagree, here. Knowing where you come from establishes a firm bedrock for wherever you are, however much you have changed. And this applies, I think, as much to religions as it does to individuals. I'll be happy to break this out into a separate topic, if you'd like.

[ 10-08-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

I ask why? I you thing you are going to heaven. Why worry about ressurection or reincarnation?

For me, I don't want to be reincarnated. As for ressurected, if I am, I want the earth to be different than it is know. I mean different in a good sense, not with the crap we have now.

This is my own opinion, so don't push yours at me. Dp thumps his head on the desk. Why did I even post??? Oh well I'll be dead in a week so, I'll see you all in hell.

Originally posted by Darkpoet:
<STRONG>This is my own opinion, so don't push yours at me. Dp thumps his head on the desk. Why did I even post??? Oh well I'll be dead in a week so, I'll see you all in hell.</STRONG>

Good deal. We'll roast a few marshmallows together.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Good deal. We'll roast a few marshmallows together. </STRONG>

I wonder if ol Satan will let us bring some Guinness with us.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Then with due respect, where do you come off stating that she (and Teilhard de Chardin) are "not really Christians?" If you haven't read their works or at least familiarized yourself with a gloss of their ideas, commenting on their beliefs seems considerably over the top, if you follow me.</STRONG>

This doesn't even deserve a comment as I've already answered this question. I didn't say she isn't a Christian. I know nothing about her and cannot say either way whether she is or not. Let me stress this point, though. Just because the Catholic church has canonized someone doesn't mean a thing. When we accept Christ into our hearts, we become saints. Any True Christian is considered a saint, by God. The canonizing done by Catholocism is just more icon worship, in other words, a form of idolotry.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>You might want to look up some good definition of "Christian mysticism," which has been considered part of mainstream Christianity by Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant branches of the faith, since the earliest times. I think it differs from your assumption of what it means.</STRONG>

Since we apparently have different definitions of mystic, why don't you tell me what the definition you are using is.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Yes, I have, in several versions--why else would I read so many authors who have commented upon the bible, like Gregory of Nyssa, if I hadn't already gone to the source, so to speak?</STRONG>

Which versions? I've read most of it in the NIV, KJV, and NLT; as well as studied out of the NAS, NKJV, and one other version I forgot the 'name' of.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>I think you may be misinterpreting the word used in Ex 22:18, which you call "mystic." The word kashaph is actually more akin to "necromancer," in other words, and in context, one who scries through the use of the dead, as the Endorian sorceress did for Saul. Mysticism has nothing to do with this.</STRONG>

Obviously this discussion can't go any farther until we both know what definition of mystic is being used.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>You've made this mistake twice, now, in almost the same words--I'd have thought you'd give up this line of approach after the first time, when I explained some of my favorite Christian texts.</STRONG>

I made no mistake. Based on the lack of knowledge, or rather understanding, you have shown; I made an estimate.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>That they predated Protestantism does not necessarily invalidate them for Protestants, as quite a few Protestant clergy have gone on record as stating--I can provide references, if you'd like. And as you haven't read them, I question the vigor with which you dismiss them.</STRONG>

Actually, it does invalidate them as a source of finding out what Protestants believe. There may be stuff in them that we agree with, but there is a lot in them that we don't agree with.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>As for Protestantism, do you *really* want a list of my favorite Protestant texts, which I enjoy reading?</STRONG>

Yes, I do. In fact, if you can provide it, I would appreciate a list of the protestant authors you've read books by and the books you read by them. I myself have not read a whole lot of these types of books. In fact, I think I've only read one or two. They, however, are not adequate sources for finding out what Christians really believe.

One of the main reasons that reading books on Catholocism doesn't tell you what Protestants believe is that there are a lot of things Catholics believe differently than Protestants on.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>Do I have to explain how I enjoy Melanchthon, or what I like in Luther? We've been down this road, before. I already mentioned Neimoller--were you aware this favorite author of mine was Protestant? </STRONG>

Since I don't know who Neimoller is, no, I wasn't aware. BTW, I'm not Lutheran, so some of my beliefs vary some from what Luther believed.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>No offense, but I don't think you really have any business telling me what I know about Christianity, or Christian belief. You don't know me, and making assumptions without fact, based upon appearances (my not being a Christian) is an almost certain way to end up in error.</STRONG>

I'm not saying you don't know what Christians believe because you're a non-Christian. I'm saying that I never suspected you to be a Christian because of your lack of knowledge.

Since I am a Christian and you are not a Christian. I have every right to tell you you're wrong about what Christians believe and you have no right to tell me that I'm wrong about what Christians believe.

Originally posted by fable:
<STRONG>What Christians have believed is not near as important as what Christians do believe...

I'm afraid we disagree, here. Knowing where you come from establishes a firm bedrock for wherever you are, however much you have changed. And this applies, I think, as much to religions as it does to individuals.</STRONG>

I agree that knowing where you came from is good. But you're looking at the wrong place. I, and my beliefs, did not come from the Dark Ages. They did not come from the Roman Catholic church. My beliefs come from the Bible which predates the Catholocism. My beliefs, thus, come from before that, the first century A.D. to be exact. Go back to there for what we believe and you might learn something.

You see, it matters not what Billy Graham has taught. It is unimportant what Carman sings in his songs and preaches at his concerts. It is unimportant what Max Lacado(sp?) says in his books. All that is important is what it says in the Bible. All you really know about Christian beliefs is church history. You want to know what we really believe? Read the New Testament, especially the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. And don't just read it as another 'religious text.' Open your eyes when you read it. Let it speak to you. Only then will you truly know what we believe.

Damn SS, you are really turning me on with all those words. You want to go out and get a DR. Pepper??

Originally posted by Darkpoet:
[QB]I ask why? I you thing you are going to heaven. Why worry about ressurection or reincarnation?

For me, I don't want to be reincarnated. As for ressurected, if I am, I want the earth to be different than it is know. I mean different in a good sense, not with the crap we have now. QB]

No so fast DP! You should have known the dangers before you dared to post! Now I've quoted you and you can't deny your own words! Muhahahahaha!

All right, why worry about ressurection or reincarnation if you're going to go to heaven? Because heaven is eternal, and in order for beings to live there their bodies must be immortal, imperishable, and eternal as well. Just as our physical bodies were created and designed for a temporary stay on earth, the ressurection body will be a body created and designed for eternal stay in heaven. The reincarnation body, on the other hand, is forever earthbound and temporal, and was never intended to exist to the end of time and beyond.

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>
No so fast DP! You should have known the dangers before you dared to post! Now I've quoted you and you can't deny your own words! Muhahahahaha!

All right, why worry about ressurection or reincarnation if you're going to go to heaven? Because heaven is eternal, and in order for beings to live there their bodies must be immortal, imperishable, and eternal as well. Just as our physical bodies were created and designed for a temporary stay on earth, the ressurection body will be a body created and designed for eternal stay in heaven. The reincarnation body, on the other hand, is forever earthbound and temporal, and was never intended to exist to the end of time and beyond.</STRONG>

Just as long as I can keep my gun, some C4, and plenty of ammo.