James, Week 2, Lectures 3,4, & 5

[Kerstin]

David wrote: "For me it prompts the question, "would a person adopt a creed that makes him or her feel unhappy?"

If not, does that mean the happiest creed wins? If so, does that mean there is more than feelings of happiness that go into the adoption of a religious creed?

I must have recited both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed thousands of times and never once did I ask myself if this makes me happy. It is more a re-affirmation of what I believe to be true. There is a contentment that goes with it and a sense of belonging. ...but I am only one person ;)

[Rex]

I have to say, if Christianity is supposed to make me happy, at least in the short term, it's not working.... But that is not, so to speak, why I'm here.

[Nemo]

Wendel wrote: " Among my religious friends and family few are closely connected to this or that denomination. .."

How can you tell they are religious? I'm assuming they participate in communal religious activities in one way or another?

[Nemo]

Rex wrote: "I have to say, if Christianity is supposed to make me happy, at least in the short term, it's not working.... But that is not, so to speak, why I'm here."

I have to know. Why are you here?

[Wendel]

David wrote: "...does that mean the happiest creed wins?..."

James obviously had difficulties projecting himself into the mind of the common man to whom he attributes this religious consumerism.

But this should remind us of one very hard limit of James' approach: that very few are actively choosing a religion, we more often inherit one. So the relevant psychology must have more to do with traits useful in defending one's identity than anything else.

PS: surely the reason why James was not much interested in the common believer.

[Wendel]

Nemo wrote: "How can you tell they are religious? I'm assuming they participate in communal rel.."

They tell me that they believe in God. Should I ask for more?

[Nemo]

Wendel wrote: "Nemo wrote: "How can you tell they are religious? I'm assuming they participate in communal rel.."

They tell me that they believe in God. Should I ask for more?"

Yes, which one? :)

[Janice (JG)]

Chris wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "The more James is digging into the mind-curer perspective, the more I kept thinking, this is the fore-runner of the 1960s. Has anyone else made this connection?"

Yes! It seems we g..."

James calls it "mind-cure" but the quotations of examples that he gives refer to it as New Thought. One of the founders of a branch of New Thought was Ernest Holmes, who wrote (among other publications) The Science of Mind, which was published in 1926. The law of attraction is dealt with comprehensively in his book. The Science of Mind was re-discovered in the 1960s.

Another similar belief system was published in 1976 called A Course in Miracles: Combined Volume. This continues to influence people today, especially after the publication of Marianne Williamson's explanation of A Course in Miracles in her book A Return to Love: Reflections on the Principles of "A Course in Miracles".

Marianne Williamson, "There is a line in the Course in Miracles that says that enlightenment begins as an abstract concept, an intellectual concept, and then it takes a journey without distance."

This is an interview with Marianne Williamson that is a good example of what James's mind-cure has evolved into, which includes political activism in the present time -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1KRg...

[Roger]

I get the feeling that by "mind-cure" James meant a number of health-by-mind-over-matter fads that were current when he wrote, of which perhaps only Christian Science has survived to our time and gained general acceptance as a religion.

[[deleted user]]

"Every day, in every way, I'm getting better and better."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%8...

I couldn't pin down the exact year, but it would have been the early 1900s. Coue also discovered what is now known as the placebo effect.

But one must believe in order for the placebo medication or the affirmism to be effective.

So...from a pragmatic perspective it may improves one's own life, and belief is a factor. But without the aspect of the divine, I don't think it meets James definition of religion.

It might improve one's health, but is it life-altering, with action ("fruits") resulting?

Guess I'll have to Google Christian Scientists.

[David]

Roger wrote: "I get the feeling that by "mind-cure" James meant a number of health-by-mind-over-matter fads that were current when he wrote, of which perhaps only Christian Science has survived to our time and g..."

Another one that has survived from Jame's time is the Law of Attraction:

The New Thought movement grew out of the teachings of Phineas Quimby in the early 19th century. Although he never used the words 'law of attraction' his basic premise was similar, although restricted only to the field of health:

the trouble is in the mind, for the body is only the house for the mind to dwell in, and we put a value on it according to its worth. Therefore if your mind has been deceived by some invisible enemy into a belief, you have put it into the form of a disease, with or without your knowledge. By my theory or truth I come in contact with your enemy, and restore you to your health and happiness. This I do partly mentally and partly by talking till I correct the wrong impressions and establish the Truth, and the Truth is the cure.

In 1877, the term 'law of attraction' appeared in print for the first time in a book written by Helena Blavatsky. By the end of the 19th century the term was being used by New Thought authors such as Prentice Mulford and Ralph Trine, but for them the law of attraction not only affected health but every other aspect of our lives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_...

I wonder if we could label Scientology's use of the "e-meter" as a more modern manifestation of the mind-cure methodology.

[David]

Wendel wrote: "But this should remind us of one very hard limit of James' approach: that very few are actively choosing a religion, we more often inherit one."

I wonder if James would reply to that with something like, people are still choosing happiness by choosing to avoid the unhappiness of leaving their inherited religion.

[David]

Kerstin wrote: "I must have recited both the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed thousands of times and never once did I ask myself if this makes me happy. It is more a re-affirmation of what I believe to be true. There is a contentment that goes with it and a sense of belonging. . ."

You say you don't ask yourself it it makes you happy, but it apparently does. :) What if it did not make you happy? Would you still think it was true? What would have to change in order for you to be unhappy with it?

[Nemo]

Adelle wrote: "from a pragmatic perspective it may improves one's own life, and belief is a factor. But without the aspect of the divine, I don't think it meets James definition of religion. ."

My impression is that James' "religion" is mainly a person's psychological response to reality, whether the origin of it is the divine or the subconscious is not his concern, though he seems to be leaning toward the latter.

I didn't see this earlier, but the upshot -intended or not - of James' approach to religion is the negation of moral evil.

[Janice (JG)]

Someone wondered about James's comments on Whitman. I thought James was making a really broad statement and assumption by saying that Whitman had never had any really negative experiences and simply approached life with a positive attitude (which James sort of treated like a la-la-la approach).

While it seems James finds value in the positive and mind-cure approaches, I don't think he allows for the possibility that Whitman, or any of the others, were able to sustain a positive approach because they had at some time experienced the depths of despair or depression (dark night of the soul) and found their way out to experience hope again.

Nothing can teach a person to appreciate the precious joy of life and living like having once swum in the pits of devastation and despair.

[Nemo]

Janice(JG) wrote: ".Nothing can teach a person to appreciate the precious joy of life and living like having once swum in the pits of devastation and despair..."

Conversely, nothing drives a person deeper into despair than having once sailed in the river of joy but suffered shipwreck. Milton's Satan comes to mind.

Both the positive and negative attitudes can be sustained indefinitely, and there is no reason to prefer one over the other, or a synthesis of the two -- the position James is aiming at, except that the last gives the appearance of sophistication.

[Janice (JG)]

Nemo wrote: "Janice(JG) wrote: ".Nothing can teach a person to appreciate the precious joy of life and living like having once swum in the pits of devastation and despair..."

Conversely, nothing drives a person deeper into despair than having once sailed in the river of joy but suffered shipwreck. Milton's Satan comes to mind..."

The analogy that comes to my mind is of marriage, which for this purpose might be considered a microcosmic process of religious experience. There can be (and are) shipwrecks after sailing on the river of a joyful honeymoon (maybe even during the honeymoon). The marriage that endures these shipwrecks are the ones that are rescued by mutually positive attitudes that prefer to see the relationship survive. After encountering multiple shipwrecks and rescues, a kind of strength built on the knowledge that these things can be survived, that the relationship can grow and benefit, cements and sustains... solidifying a consistently hopeful and positive approach to the relationship.

This is close to what I meant about James's seeming assumption that Whitman's (and others') positivity was untested and without depth. It could very well be that the survivors of many shipwrecks are the ones adhering to a healthy minded system, not because they were born and remain forever happy people, but because a positive attitude can defeat negative tendencies and build strength and wellness.

We are moving into the next phase of his lectures where he discusses the attitude and behavior of negativity. I'm wondering if he will find it, psychologically at least, a self-defeating behavior.

[Everyman]

Lily wrote: "I haven't figured James out on mind-cure yet. "

Neither, I admit, have I. I'm not, for example, 100% clear whether it absolutely requires an external existence, or whether one can self-mid-cure as it were. Most of the time I think James says that it does require what he calls the unseen in Lecture 3, which is necessarily, if I understand him, an external. But there are occasional passages which seem to suggest to me the possibility of self-mind-cure.

One thing that has struck me during these lectures, partly because of an unrelated article I read on Islam, is the difference between a belief in self-access to God (using that name for the external unseen) and a belief in other-directed access to God. Catholicism, as I understand it, is the latter; the individual can not access God directly, but only through priests or other intercessors (Mary, saints, maybe others). The article on Islam stated that Islam believes in direct individual access to God. Quakerism also holds this belief. I'm not sure about all the other Protestant religions, and I think pagan religions differed somewhat on this.

Its relevance to mind-cure, I think, is that if mind-cure does require access to an external other, I think it has to be direct access by the individual. I am dubious about whether, if I'm correct about Catholicism, a devout Catholic can experience mind-cure.

But these are waters that I admit I am struggling to stay abreast in, so I could be very wrong.

[Everyman]

Rex wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "Question: can you recommend a book or books that deal with these theological movements in the Middle Ages?"

The go-to accessible book for nouvelle theologie would be, I think, [boo..."

I need another lifetime to read all the books I should but just can't in this lifetime. My only hope is that reincarnation is a reality, and that I will come back as someone with sufficient time to read extensively.

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "Wendel wrote: " Among my religious friends and family few are closely connected to this or that denomination. .."

How can you tell they are religious? I'm assuming they participate in communal religious activities in one way or another? ."

Keeping in mind that James is writing about personal religion, not institutional religion.

Is it possible that happiness in religion is a feature of personal religion but not necessarily of institutional religion? Or at least that this would be James's view?

[Everyman]

An aside. At times people have asked questions of other posters about their personal beliefs.

I think it's fine to ask these questions, but it's also fine for a person to decline to answer them and not feel any guilt about that or not feel that not answering should exclude them in any way from full participation in other aspects of the discussion. I don't want anybody withdrawing because such a question was asked and they don't feel comfortable responding, but also feel that if they don't respond they should back off from the discussion.

And if a poster declines to discuss their personal religious beliefs, or wants to discontinue such a discussion, it's not fine to follow up on the question. That decision should be respected absolutely.

This isn't a response to any specific situation, but as I see some questions about personal beliefs being posed, I want to make clear that it is entirely appropriate not to "go there" if doing so would not be comfortable.

[Everyman]

Several statements James made at the end of Lecture 5 seemed to me to need some thinking about.

First, after his string of examples, he says "These are exceedingly trivial instances, but in them, if we have anything at all, we have the method of experiment and verification. For the point I am driving at now, it makes no difference whether you consider the patients to be deluded victims of their imagination or not."

Is this really valid experiment and verification? And does it really not matter whether the patients are deluded? Is he suggesting that for the purposes of his thesis delusional religious experience is to be considered genuine religious experience?

The second passage is "The experiences which we have been studying during this hour (and a great many other kinds of religious experiences are like them) plainly show the universe to be a more many-sided affair than any sect, even the scientific sect, allows for."

I'm not questioning this so much as hoping that he addresses the question in later lectures and becomes more specific and concrete that I have seen him be so far about the nature of that aspect of the universe with which he is concerning himself.

[Roger]

James does seem to rely a lot on subjective anecdotes. But what else can he do? He's a psychologist. These clear and intense feelings of divine presence are clearly part of the human psychological experience, even if only a subset of people ever experience them. But it seems a little like a color-blind scientist studying how people describe the sensation of color.

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "An aside. At times people have asked questions of other posters about their personal beliefs.

I think it's fine to ask these questions, but it's also fine for a person to decline to answer them a..."

Thank you, Everyman, for an excellent job moderating. :) My apologies if the personal questions I've asked in the past few posts have caused any discomfort. It is not my intention to disrupt the flow of discussion.

I'm reminded of a scene from "For A Few Dollars More".

Mon: Tell me, Colonel... Were you ever young?
Col: Yup. And just as reckless as you. Then one day, something happened. It made life very precious to me.
Monco: What's that?... Or is the question indiscreet?
Col. No. No, the question isn't indiscreet. But the answer could be.

[Everyman]

Roger wrote: "James does seem to rely a lot on subjective anecdotes. But what else can he do? He's a psychologist. These clear and intense feelings of divine presence are clearly part of the human psychological ..."

That's a great point. This is the study of human thought, so what can he do but present examples of human thought?

[Everyman]

Nemo wrote: "Monco: What's that?... Or is the question indiscreet?
Col. No. No, the question isn't indiscreet. But the answer could be.."

Precisely. They're legitimate questions, but if some choose not to answer them, that's equally legitimate.

[Kerstin]

David wrote: "You say you don't ask yourself it it makes you happy, but it apparently does. :) What if it did not make you happy? Would you still think it was true? What would have to change in order for you to be unhappy with it?

Now you’re making me think!
It just never occurred to me to use the word ‘happy’ in this context. If I go by my native German and use the word ‘glücklich,’ it doesn’t quite fit – at least for me - even though I readily use synonyms. It is probably because I associate the word ‘happy’ more with peak moments of joy rather than a sustained state such as ‘contentment’ or ‘joy.’ Who knows, all this may be very subjective.

I am having troubles reversing this as you suggest, what would have to change for me to be unhappy with it.
We were talking about creeds. The Latin word ‘credo’ means ‘I believe,’ these are the word(s) how both the Nicene and the Apostolic Creed start, both in Latin and English. ‘I believe’ is a positive statement. If something is untrue - a negative statement - then how could I believe in it? Wouldn’t an untrue creed be a contradiction in terms, nothing but an irrational statement? When you arrive at this point emotions are irrelevant.

[Nemo]

Everyman wrote: "Is it possible that happiness in religion is a feature of personal religion but not necessarily of institutional religion? "

It is possible, although institutional religion has the potential to maximize that happiness to an extent far beyond the reach of the individual, imo.

As far as I know, most people pursue religion in a communal/group setting, whether it be group meditation, festival gathering or worship service. Their religious beliefs make a practical difference in their lives, which is open to the public view. That's why I was curious how Wendel's friends practice their religion.

[Nemo]

Janice(JG) wrote: "..The marriage that endures these shipwrecks are the ones that are rescued by mutually positive attitudes that prefer to see the relationship survive. "

The same analogy can be applied to one's relationship with a religious institution.

It presupposes that the relationship in question is a good thing. Without such a presupposition, that is, without imposing an external value judgement, both the positive and negative attitudes are valid psychological responses.

[David]

James distinction between those he terms once-born and those he calls twice-born is interesting. At first it made me think of the term "born again" as it resurfaced with the evangelical movements beginning in the 60's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_again), however James uses twice-born differently. I think he is saying that the good and the bad in these people battle it out until some experience wins them over to the good. I still see some similarities between twice-born and born again, though.

What is the old Cheech and Chong joke? "First I was messed up on drugs, now I am messed up on the Lord." I know several acquaintances, and some childhood friends for whom that quip contains more than a grain of truth. I can vouch for the strength of their life changing experiences as they ended up leaving the liberal (UCC) church we grew up in for a more fundamental church and are quite fervent if not a bit fanatical in their beliefs now and their dual nature contrasts very strongly. Also for them, their change in attitude seemed part of growing up more than it was an epiphany for them later in their adult life.

[Chris]

Roger wrote: "I get the feeling that by "mind-cure" James meant a number of health-by-mind-over-matter fads that were current when he wrote, of which perhaps only Christian Science has survived to our time and g..."

That's exactly how I was describing this section on "mind-cure" to a friend - mind over matter. I'm all for the power of positive thinking or putting my issues in God's hands, but I couple that with some sort of action on my part as well to fix the problem or health professionals if it is an illness/injury issue.

[Chris]

Everyman wrote One thing that has struck me during these lectures, partly because of an unrelated article I read on Islam, is the difference between a belief in self-access to God (using that name for the external unseen) and a belief in other-directed access to God. Catholicism, as I understand it, is the latter; the individual can not access God directly, but only through priests or other intercessors (Mary, saints, maybe others

Although the Catholic Church through history has utilized intercessors (and it still does), it does not deny that we each much develop a personal relationship with God. One can only do that through direct access to God whether speaking to Him everyday (I often do that in the car!) or through prayer & simply listening.

[Lily]

Chris wrote: "....simply listening...."

"Simply" listening? Personally, despite some recent years of awareness, I still often find that harder than prayers of petition or thanksgiving.

[Lily]

No where yet have I discerned that James makes clear distinctions between "religious experience" and "religious practice." Have I missed it, or am I right in assuming he does not make such a distinction in a rigorous fashion? He may even be leaving religious practice, in the senses of alms giving, care for the poor, healing, worship, .... outside the scope of this inquiry?

[David]

Lily wrote: "No where yet have I discerned that James makes clear distinctions between "religious experience" and "religious practice." Have I missed it, or am I right in assuming he does not make such a distin..."

You are right. All of this subjectivity is looking a bit selfish so far. Religion according to James is:

the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude, so far as they apprehend themselves to stand in relation [morally, physically, or rutualisticly] to whatever they may consider the divine.

The phrase, "in their solitude" seems to rule out social events like attending church, as well as an acts of charity like alms giving, caring for the poor, and healing. The only religious practice I can think of that fits this definition is the ritual of prayer.

[Janice (JG)]

Everyman wrote: "Lily wrote: "I haven't figured James out on mind-cure yet. "

Neither, I admit, have I. I'm not, for example, 100% clear whether it absolutely requires an external existence, or whether one can sel..."

Ernest Holmes, author of The Science of Mind (1927) and the founder of a spiritual movement known as Religious Science, which was a part of the greater New Thought movement whose spiritual philosophy is known as "The Science of Mind," and which is also the same "mind-cure" that James has been speaking of, talks about God as both immanent and eminent.

According to New Thought, since creation is of God, then everyone is a child of God, or you could say, everyone carries the God gene or DNA of godness. So, when New Thought principles (or mind-cure) use personal attitude and new thought patterns to change or create a new personal world view and experience of the world, the method assumes that God is already working perfectly within you, including in your mind. It also assumes that the universe is working perfectly, and therefore aligns with the inner changing.

Joseph Campbell was a follower of Holmes's concepts, and Jung specifically mentions the New Thought movement as the "religion of the future" because it places personal experience over collective belief systems.

Along the same lines, A Course in Miracles: The Text Workbook for Students, Manual for Teachers is a daily lesson plan for breaking old patterns of negative thinking and replacing them with new, more helpful, spiritual and life-affirming information. It is very clearly a psychological approach to altering patterned thinking, but it relies on both an inner and outer religious/spiritual resource to depend upon -- trust -- as an aid for change.

Interesting link for New Thought in its current manifestation...
http://newthoughtlibrary.com/what-is-...

[Janice (JG)]

Chris wrote: "is the difference between a belief in self-access to God (using that name for the external unseen) and a belief in other-directed access to God. Catholicism, as I understand it, is the latter; the individual can not access God directly, but only through priests or other intercessors ...

Although the Catholic Church through history has utilized intercessors (and it still does), it does not deny that we each much develop a personal relationship with God..."

I can't find the section now to quote (I should have hilited it), but I thought it was interesting that James compared the Catholic Confession (which is now called Reconciliation) to how the healthy-minded rid themselves of negative thinking, and that both were psychologically effective tools to well-being.

[Kerstin]

Janice(JG) wrote: "I can't find the section now to quote (I should have hilited it), but I thought it was interesting that James compared the Catholic Confession (which is now called Reconciliation) to how the healthy-minded rid themselves of negative thinking, and that both were psychologically effective tools to well-being."

I don't know if James was aware of it, but this stems from the Catholic understanding of sin. Sin wounds man. That's very different from the language used by "fire and brimstone" type interpretations where sin is seen as thoroughly corrupting man. In Catholicism, sin is like a cloak that covers the inner good of man. We could also say, the innate dignity of the person as a person is still there but has been "bent out of shape" by sinful behavior. As a result, in confession/reconciliation the dignity of each person is being preserved, and the contrition for sinful behavior along with absolution is experienced as a freeing from burden.

[Everyman]

David wrote: The only religious practice I can think of that fits this definition [the feelings, acts, and experiences of individual men in their solitude,...] is the ritual of prayer."

For those for whom meditation involves a higher power, it would happen in meditation also, wouldn't it?

And although a Quaker meeting is a communal gathering, the search for the "still, small voice" is very much an individual search, although amplified by the surrounding power of other individual searches and the occasional shared experience of that voice. But it's a very different thing from prayer. Prayer is a conversation. Quaker searching is active listening.

[Kerstin]

Everyman wrote: "And although a Quaker meeting is a communal gathering, the search for the "still, small voice" is very much an individual search, although amplified by the surrounding power of other individual searches and the occasional shared experience of that voice. But it's a very different thing from prayer. Prayer is a conversation. Quaker searching is active listening. "

St Terese of Lisieux said, "For me, prayer is a surge of the heart, it is a simple look turned towards heaven, it is a cry of recognition and of love, embracing both trial and joy."

Prayer is many things both communal and individually. It is a term comprising many aspects, the conversation part being one, the active listening another, and more. For instance, the "active listening for that still, small voice" is very much at the center of the the ancient practice of lectio divina , or praying with Scripture, with its four parts of lectio (reading of Scripture), oratio (responding), meditatio (meditation), and contemplatio (contemplation).

[Nemo]

Kerstin wrote: "lectio divina , or praying with Scripture, with its four parts of lectio (reading of Scripture), oratio (responding), meditatio (meditation), and contemplatio (contemplation). ."

What's the difference between contemplation and meditation?

Lily, since you mentioned lectio divina in the Week 1 thread, I'm interested in your thoughts on this as well.

[Janice (JG)]

Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "lectio divina , or praying with Scripture, with its four parts of lectio (reading of Scripture), oratio (responding), meditatio (meditation), and contemplatio (contemplation). ."

What's the difference between contemplation and meditation?..."

As I understand it, they are very much alike, but meditation calls for an emptying with perhaps an envisioning of light but with no focal subject or object, whereas contemplation -- which also strives for an emptying -- has God, or communion with God, as a focus for thoughts.

[Rex]

Nemo wrote: "Rex wrote: "I have to say, if Christianity is supposed to make me happy, at least in the short term, it's not working.... But that is not, so to speak, why I'm here."

I have to know. Why are you h..."

The answer to that is complicated, or perhaps I just make it complicated. I've tried at various times to articulate it to my atheist brother-in-law, never to my own satisfaction. To be (relatively) brief, I'd make the following points:

(1) I am rationally convinced of the transcendent origin of the cosmos, and I depend primarily on classical theistic metaphysical proofs for this conviction. Nevertheless, these do not lead me all the way to Christianity and its creeds; nor, did I find these proofs undermined, would it necessarily end my fidelity to my religion (though it would transform the relationship, given that this philosophy does inform my religion and vice-versa).

(2) Conversely, were my faith in Christianity destroyed by some means, I would not necessarily revert to atheism. The theistic proofs would still be just as reliable, and I don't regard atheism as some sort of default. I feel I have learned a great deal about God from other religions and philosophies, and a sort of quietistic eclecticism is more likely to emerge from the collapse of credal loyalty.

(3) So it isn't theistic proofs that draw me to Christianity, nor many other factors one might assume. I was born into Christianity, but that is no reason to stay. Moreover, I have had no special religious experiences (at least, none I could articulate), and feel consistently out of place in churches and among ordinary religious people. I have repeatedly failed to "connect" with God and other believers, and this has caused me intermittent depression. In this sense, I do not think Christianity has gone very far to secure my happiness. It might be easier for me, with my temperament and my lack of supernatural consciousness, to forget the whole thing and stop trying to find satisfaction in religion.

(4) The best way I know to explain all this is an appeal to beauty. My path to the Spirit is doubly through the rational and contemplative sides of the intellect. And the contemplative side perceives an ineffable beauty in the world, one that gives it at once meaning and mystery. I cannot quite get to it directly, but the more I pay attention, the more I find it glimmering quietly in things. This may be a mystical awareness, but I should note that it only transforms my perception of what is already in front of me. It suggests transcendence, but not in the sense of a detached and truly foreign supernatural presence, but in the sense of a logos, an immanent principle.

(5) I am acutely conscious of my own mortality, the briefness of my life, and my bodily participation in the relentless flux of the natural world. I am going to die, very soon in the great scheme of things, and my name and everything I have done will be forgotten. Beauty, by contrast, transcends its ephemeral instantiations and seems far more real. Ultimately, I suspect, this beauty is the only thing worth pursuing, even if my rational mind cannot process it, or I am tempted at times to believe it is all illusion.

(6) I find that Christ, as communicated through the scriptures, the art and theology of Christianity, and the testimony of the saints, is the most perfect image I know of this beauty. Thus far, Christianity has furthered my pursuit, and if Christ is truly Truth, Goodness, and Beauty Itself, then the riches of the Christian way are inexhaustible.

Thus, I am Christian still, and probably will remain so as long as I live.

[Roger]

Rex wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Rex wrote: "I have to say, if Christianity is supposed to make me happy, at least in the short term, it's not working.... But that is not, so to speak, why I'm here."

I have to know. ..."

Rex, I am in awe of your clarity of thought.

[Lily]

@91Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "lectio divina , or praying with Scripture, with its four parts of lectio (reading of Scripture), oratio (responding), meditatio (meditation), and contemplatio (contemplation). ."..."

Nemo -- our recent practice of lectio divina in studying the Gospel of Mark we have described in slightly less religious terms: 1) Read the selection of Scripture 2) Share the passage (word, sentence) that captures your attention (preferably without elaboration, but in our group experience, this seldom occurs!) 3) Read the passage again, possibly in a different version 4) Share the passage that came to attention this time and explain or describe why or how 5) Read the same passage a third time. 6) Attempt to articulate any message or action you see for your life in the minutes, days, ... ahead.

In a group setting, where we are attempting to get through a certain amount of material in a given number of weeks, we have had to make some practical modifications -- the first read is usually before gathering, the read as a group leads to discussion, and the final read may be later or be subsumed into the second read and its discussion.

Lectio divina is an ancient practice, often associated with monastic rule. Kerstin gives us a nicely formal description. In some ways, it is more easily applicable to short sacred passages than the longer ones my group has been using -- especially for groups! It is also very applicable for individual usage -- I now sometimes find myself adapting it for secular material. ;-o

Roughly, you can see how the parts fit together: lectio (reading of Scripture), oratio (responding -- observing, selecting), meditatio (meditation -- expanding upon, questioning, rephrasing), and contemplatio (contemplation -- meaning, significance, application). We have been trying to make the practice of lectio divina as comfortable as the practice of prayer (which isn't always comfortable either).

I hope Kerstin, too, will provide us at least another round of insight. (I'll pull from M-W in a next post in response to Janice on meditation/contemplation.)

[Lily]

Janice(JG) wrote: "As I understand it, they are very much alike, but meditation calls for an emptying with perhaps an envisioning of light but with no focal subject or object, whereas contemplation -- which also strives for an emptying -- has God, or communion with God, as a focus for thoughts...."

JG -- I like what you wrote, especially on "meditation." It is close to what I have encountered in experiences/writings on Eastern religions, yoga, or just plain spiritual meditation. Some teachers emphasize choosing and focusing on a word or sound (hope, love, O) and whenever one's thought drifts away from that word, be aware but without mental chastisement, bring the mind back to it.

I thought it might be fun to compare a bit with good ole M-W:

meditation
1: a spoken or written discourse treated in a contemplative manner and intended to express its author's reflections or especially when religious to guide others in contemplation
2: a private devotion or spiritual exercise consisting in deep continued reflection on a religious theme [meditation is very hard work — W. S. Maugham]
3: the act of meditating : steady or close consecutive reflection : continued application of the mind [enforced seclusion has given him opportunity for the meditation out of which this novel has come — Granville Hicks]

Origin of MEDITATION

Middle English meditacioun, from Middle French meditation, from Latin meditation-, meditatio, from meditatus + -ion-, -io -ion

First Known Use: 13th century (sense 1)

Synonyms: contemplation

Related Words: brown study, daydreaming, introspection, muse, navel-gazing, reflection, retrospection, reverie, study, trance, woolgathering; cogitation, deliberation, musing, pondering, rumination

contemplation
1 a : meditation on spiritual things as a form of private devotion
b : a state of mystical awareness of God's being or presence : an ecstatic perception of God [a state of rapture … in which the soul is freed from its senses and organs and lost in pure contemplation — Frank Thilly]
2: an act of the mind in considering with attention : continued attention to a particular subject : meditation, musing, study
3 obsolete : regard, consideration; also : something for which such consideration is asked : petition, prayer, request
4: the act of viewing steadfastly and attentively : the viewing of something (as a picture or a scene) for its own sake
5: the act of looking forward to an event : the act of intending or considering a future event : expectation [a shooting match … and other sports were in contemplation — S. E. White]

Origin of CONTEMPLATION

Middle English contemplacioun, from Old French contemplation, from Latin contemplation-, contemplatio, from contemplatus + -ion-, -io -ion

First Known Use: 13th century (sense 1a)

Synonyms: meditation

Related Words: brown study, daydreaming, introspection, muse, navel-gazing, reflection, retrospection, reverie, study, trance, woolgathering; cogitation, deliberation, musing, pondering, rumination

“Meditation, Contemplation.” Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. 2016.. Web. 09 Jun. 2016.

Note that M-W treats these words as synonyms and provides the same related words for each, with all the resultant gradations in value judgment reflected!

[Chris]

Lily wrote: "Chris wrote: "....simply listening...."

"Simply" listening? Personally, despite some recent years of awareness, I still often find that harder than prayers of petition or thanksgiving."

Oh, I didn't say it was EASY.... active listening is hard, even more so when it is in conversation with another person(s). I so often want to butt in with my own thoughts on the matter!

[Chris]

Lily wrote: "@91Nemo wrote: "Kerstin wrote: "lectio divina , or praying with Scripture, with its four parts of lectio (reading of Scripture), oratio (responding), meditatio (meditation), and contemplatio (conte..."

My Bible study group used this method for the first time last year. I had not heard of it before. I found it a work in progress within the group but fruitful. I try to use it with my personal biblical study & reflection.

[Lily]

Chris wrote: "...even more so when it is in conversation with another person(s)...."

Chris -- did you mean to imply the Divine is easier to listen to than another person?

[Chris]

Lily wrote: "Chris wrote: "...even more so when it is in conversation with another person(s)...."

Chris -- did you mean to imply the Divine is easier to listen to than another person?"

I am more apt to try to get my two cents in with another person. When trying to be still and listen to God, I manage not to talk or even let my mind wander. However, I can't say I frequently "hear" God. Sometimes, I leave that time uplifted and at others not so much.