III. Mysticism and belief (Tangaza)

III. Mysticism and belief

11.       What is the Christian approach to “mysticism” in religions?

The Christian approach to mysticism in religions is  that of reservation – a feeling of doubt about its ideas; and as a religion which claim superiority to other religions (Benjamin Juana 12132 T)

Christian approach to “mysticism” in religions its an attitude that does not tolerate any other element superior to itself rather, it regards the imageless, unmetaphorical, and mysterious experience of the mystic as the only determinative and ultimate reality in the realm of religion. (Romao Majone 12052 T)

A Christian should approach mysticism in religion as one path in the history of religion, as an attitude that does not tolerated and other element superior to itself rather, it regards the imageless, unmetaphorical and mysterious experience of the mystic as the only determinative and ultimate reality in the realm of religion  [Sereka Francis 12109T]

Mysticism is understood in more radical senses, as one path in the history of religion that does not tolerate any other element superior to itself it regards the imageless, unmetaphorical, and mysterious experience of the mystic as the only determinative and ultimate reality in the religion [Godfrey Munanga 12074T]

Mysticism is here understood as in more radical sense, as one path in the history of religion, as an attitude that does not tolerate any other element superior to itself rather, it regards the imageless, unmetaphorical, and mysterious experience of the mystic as the only determinative and ultimate reality in the realm of religion [Mulyandanda Paluku 12136 T]

12.       Why is the monotheism of Israel a sort of “revolution” in the history of religion?

It is a sort of “revolution” because of how it came about and, its principles which are contrary to mysticism in terms of the history of religion (Benjamin Juana 12132 T)

Because shattered the myths and overthrew the gods of whom the myths spoke (Romao Majone 12052 T)

Monotheism in Israel arose as a revolution of a few people who were filled a new religious awareness and who shattered the myths and overthrew the gods of whom the myths spoke. It was a completely independent departure from the myths in a proper sense to a separate development in the history of religion (P. 35).  [Sereka Francis 12109T]

Because it had a few people who were filled with a new religious awareness and shattered the myths and overthrew the gods of whom the spoke [Godfrey Munanga 12074T]

The model, in which the monotheism revolution is embodied, on the contrary, is not the mystic but the prophet. For him, the decisive thing is, not identifying with, but standing over against the God who calls and who commands. Thereby we can finally explain why we have thus far continually talked about a monotheistic revolution whenever we wished to contrast this with the way of mysticism in terms of the history of religions. The monotheism of Israel had its origin by way of a revolution, the revolution of a few people who were filled with a new religious awareness and who shattered the myths and overthrew the gods of whom the myths spoke. Solely because of this completely independent departure from the myths monotheism, in the proper sense, represents a separate development in the history of religion [Mulyandanda Paluku 12136 T]

13.       How is the monotheism of Israel different from that of Hinduism of ATR?

Hindus monotheism is directed toward mysticism, that is, it is open to monistic development. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, it arose, not through a revolution, but through an evolution, as such the gods were never overthrown but a peaceful balance was achieved between God and gods (monotheistic and polytheistic beliefs)
On the contrary, the monotheism of Israel had its origin by way of revolution; the revolution was effected by the few people who, filled with a new religious awareness shattered the myths leading to the overthrow of the gods of whom the myths spoke [Samuel Apondi 12011T]

While the monotheism of Israel involved the revolutionary overthrow of gods in favour of the one true God, that of Hinduism and of ATR was just an evolution from mysticism that tried to strike a peaceful balance between the beliefs in many gods and the belief in the one supreme God, in which case the gods were never overthrown (Justus Nuwagaba (12063T)

Monotheism of Israel has its origin by way of revolution from myth. While Hinduism involves the kind of revolutionary monotheism it is directed toward mysticism and developed through evolution.[Joseph Ebenyo 12060 T]

The monotheism of Israel emerge through revolution and people are filled with awareness of God but Hinduism of ATR emerge through evolution and is directed towards mysticism and is open to monistic development. [Sr. Juliet Onuchukwu - 12149 T]

The monotheism of Israel is different from that of Hinduism in the sense that it had its origin by way of a radical and complete revolution, a revolution inspired by a new religious experience and leading to the rejection of the gods spoken of by the myths of religion. On the other hand, that of Hinduism cannot be seen as a revolution but an evolution in which the gods are not rejected but “forced” to exist in harmony. Furthermore, its direction towards mysticism as the essence of religion marks another difference with the monotheism of religion [Akagwu Ojonojima John - 12027T]

14.       How does monotheism and mysticism differ from each other radically? What is the core of their difference?

In mysticism, God remains entirely passive and the decisive element is in man’s experience, his discovery of his identity with the being of all that is. Here inwardness holds the first place; spiritual experience is posited as absolute.  While in monotheism, there is belief in the activity of God, who calls man. Man can do nothing of himself; he rather opens himself to salvation through obedience in response to the call.

The core of their difference is on the experience of the activity and the personal nature of God, that is, monotheism hold the reduction of everything impersonal to persons. While for the mystics the activity and the personal nature of God is based on a quite different overall relationship to reality from the mystic’s concept of identity and the reduction of the personal to the impersonal state is bound with it. [Samuel Apondi 12011T]

Christianity is a part of a single history that is in many different fashions on the way towards God. The Christian holds the history of religions to be a genuine history, to be a path whose direction we call progress and whose attitude we call hope. The end of history is being fulfilled in Christianity, the transformation of the chaos into the eternal dwelling of God among men.[Ram Rainu 12078 T]

Christianity, down through the history of religions, is viewed as being rigid and not ready to accept other religions.

However, as Christians identify what divides them from the other religions, they should not also forget what unites them with other religions. [Isaac Amponsah 12136T]

In mysticism, inwardness is upheld. What is absolute is spiritual experience since God is regarded as passive in relation to man, so that man has to take the first step towards the God who does not act. On the other hand, in monotheism God is active and he acts upon man who is passive and who cannot do anything on his own. God takes the first step towards man, who in turn has to respond to God’s call to salvation through obedience (Justus Nuwagaba (12063T)

In monotheism, there is belief in the activity of God who calls man. Man is passive element upon whom God acts. Here man opens himself to God for salvation

Mysticism:- spiritual experience is posited as absolute. God is purely passive in relation to man and that the content of religion can only consist of man plunging into God. God does not act but their is a gradual ascent to union [Joseph Ebenyo 12060 T]

In mysticism God remain entirely passive and the decisive element is man's experience while monotheism belief in the activeness of God who calls.[Sr. Juliet Onuchukwu - 12149 T]

The core difference between monotheism and mysticism is expressed in the opposition of their respective structures. On the one hand, mysticism presupposes God as inactive and man by his own ability, plunges into the depths of God and eventually merits union. God here is identical to a passive object of man’s desire which he eventually attains. On the other hand, monotheism sees God as the active party in which he calls man and man opens himself (not even by himself but with God’s help) to salvation through obedience to God’s call. [Akagwu Ojonojima John - 12027T]

IV. The structure of the two great ways of Religion (Tangaza)

IV. The structure of the two great ways of Religion

15.       What does Jean Daniélou say about Christianity in contrast to the great non-Christian religions?

    

 In the point of view of Daniélou, Christianity is a historical religion. It is concerned with experiences of God in our history. Yet great non-Christian religions show a dualism between two worlds (ours opposed to the eternal one). {Bertin Bouda 12092]

Jean Daniélou asserts that Christianity is essentially faith in an event, whereas the great non-Christian religion maintain the existence of an eternal world, that “stands in opposition to the world of time” [Anthony Musonda - 12010]

Jean Daniélou stresses that Christianity “is essentially faith in an event”, whereas the great non-Christian religions maintain the existence of an eternal world “that stands in opposition to the world of time. The fact of the eternal breaking into time, which gives it duration and turns it into history, is unknown to them.” [Deem Virtundazo 12133T]

He says that Christianity is essentially faith in an event, i.e the faith is based on the fact that God acts in the history. The relationship between man and God enables in time and space (Jean Luc A. 12111T]

                    I.            Christianity is faith in an event or faith in history

                  II.            Her believers are founded and believe on the word

                III.            They stand a higher and better place than any great and good ascetics

                IV.            They are the servants of the incarnated word

                  V.            It makes no significance even if one is good in asceticism without believing and obeying the word of Christ, everything becomes absolutely nothing and baseless.  

[Josphat Okemwa 12144 T]

Christianity is essentially faith in an event, whereas non-Christianity religions maintain the existence of an eternal world that stands in opposition to the world of time.[Dominic Makau 12061 T]






16.       Mention the obvious difference between the patriarchs and prophets of Israel and the great founders of East Asian religions. What does this say about the structure of the way of mysticism and belief in one God?

The patriarchs and the prophets of Israel are obviously different from the founders of East Asian Religions. The patriarchs and the prophets had nothing extraordinary to human life; they attempted to relate to God in their weaknesses. However, the masters of East Asian religions are seen as holy and sublime peoples. Mysticism in Christianity is a grace given by God to encourage us in our faith that is an answer to God’s self-revelation {Bertin Bouda 12092]

The religious personalities of Israel (Abraham, Isaac Jacob and Moses) are less attractive in their human excellence as compared to their East Asian counterparts (Buddha, Confucius, and Lao Tzu). This says a lot about God’s will to reveal himself to man without the former’s merit. Thus, here we can talk about a mysticism that is biblical. The images previously held are replaced in Israel’s monotheism by revealed word. And revelation is not as a result of men’s ascent to purity by way of contemplation but an act of God. God invites man to act in his divine plan of salvation. This makes man an actor in history but God is still the master of truth and time [Anthony Musonda - 12010]

In patriarchs and prophets: God seeks out man in the midst of his worldly and earthly connections and relationships, God comes to man of his own volition and enters to relationship with him while the great founders of East Asian religion: man does not make his own attempts to rise, passing through the various levels of being to the innermost and most spiritual level, thus to seek out the divine in its own place. Biblical mysticism is not a mysticism of images but of words and that its revelation is not contemplation by man but the word and the act of God. Its meaning is, not that divine reality becomes visible to man, but that it makes the person who receives the revelation into an actor in divine history. In contrast to mysticism, God is the one who acts, and it is He who brings salvation to man [Deem Virtundazo 12133T]

The obvious difference is that, we can see those patriarchs and prophets of Israel seek God in darkness of his ordinary life but not like the great founders of East Asian religions who sought God in the great mystics (Jean Luc A. 12111T]

Both the patriarchs and the prophets prove to portray an aspect of being aggressive, impatient, cruel, ill-tempered, use harsh and scaring words, like violence, punish the evil doers even by condemning them. They portray their God as watchdog, mistake finder and ready to exclude or do away with however proves to be waywardly behaving. On the side, the Asiatic religion founders prove to be committed, pious, accommodative, peaceful, welcoming, forgiving, regard high moral and ethical standards, and ever remain within the realms of meditative and contemplative mood [Josphat Okemwa 12144 T]

The covenant event.[Dominc Makau 12061T]

17.       Why does Christianity not recognise the distinction between “first hand religion” and the “second hand religion” as viewed by mysticism?

It does not recognize –since Christianity does not distinguish between two kinds of religion, between the possession of religious reality and mere borrowed piety that has to do with symbols because the power of mystical absorption is lacking. [Nicodemus Rono 12128 T]

What mysticism presents has no validity in Christianity, it could be objected that in Christianity too there is a distinction between the saint and the ordinary worshipper, between the mystic and the ordinary believer, for whom the direct experience of God is inaccessible [Elizabeth Akoth 12147 T]

It's because in mysticism the mystic is indeed the possessor of religion. Everyone else is secondhand.But in divine call each is called in the same way. God alone deals at firsthand. All men deal as second-hand without exception as servants of divine word [Jovith Kweyamba - 12110]

Christianity not recognise the distinction between first hand and second hand religion because Christianity stresses on Divine call rather one’s own religious experience [Cipriano Cajanja 12002 T]

it is because so far as the decisive thing in approaching God is not one’s religious experience but God’s gratuitous gift, all men without exception are servants of the divine call [Dominic Wambui 12070 T?]

In Christianity there is distinction between saint and ordinary worshiper, mystic and the ordinary believer, for whom direct experience of God is inaccessible. If I regard the mysticism as the essential thing then everything else becomes secondary. But if the decisive thing is the divine call, then everyone who believes in that call is in the same situation. While in mystical religion the mystic has firsthand and the believer secondhand religion, God alone deals with the firsthand experience. All of us have secondhand experience thus we are the servants of divine call. [Kodato 12080 T]

In Christianity the distinction between the ordinary worshiper and the mystic is present but unlike in Mysticism, this is secondary. This does not distinguish between two kinds of religions but two aspects of the same faith. The most important thing here is not one’s own religious experience but the divine call, which puts all those who believe in it in the same category. God is the only one who takes the front seat and thus ‘first hand’ and all people are ‘second hand.’ [Martin Ikiao 12046 T]

-The distinction between “first hand religion” and the “second hand religion” is not recognised by Christianity as viewed by mysticism due to the fact that; it has no validity within it (within Christianity). It could at once be objected that in Christianity, too, there is a distinction between the saint and the ordinary worshipper, between the mystic and the ordinary believer, for whom the direct experience of God is inaccessible. There is no doubt that this distinction exists, but it is secondary. It does not distinguish between two kinds of religion, between the possession of religious reality and mere borrowed piety that has to make do with symbols because the power of mystical absorption is lacking  [JOSEPH  LAURIAN  MMASI  -12124T]. 


18.       In brief, what is the place of Christianity in the history of religions?

      Christianity holds the history of religions to be a genuine history, a path whose direction is progressive and whose attitude we call hope. [Nicodemus Rono 12128 T]

   We are all a single history that is in many different fashions on the way towards God. For Christian faith, Christian religion is a circle of what is endlessly the same, never touching the essential thing, which itself ever remain outside history rather, the Christian holds the history of religions to be a genuine history, to the path of progress and whose attitude we call hope [Elizabeth Akoth 12147 T]

Christianity is apart of a single history that is in many different fashions  on the way toward God. It holds the history of religions as true  and genuine, to be a path whose direction we call progress and whose attitude we call hope [Jovith Kweyamba - 12110]

    The place of Christianity in the history of religions is to hold the history of religions to be a genuine history, to be a path whose directions we call progress and whose attitude we call hope [Cipriano Cajanja 12002 T]

   

it is part of a single history that is in many different fashions on the way toward God [Dominic Wambui 12070 T?]

Christian faith in the history of religion is not a circle of what is endlessly the same with other religions. Christian holds the history of religions to be a genuine history, i.e., progress and hope. Through every failure and human discord, the end of history is being fulfilled.[CHANIKYA KODAT 12080T]

We are all a part of a single history that is in many different fashions on the way toward God [Martin Ikiao 12046 T]

      By looking on the place of Christianity in the history of religion, you can see that what unites it with them should not be forgotten: that they are all part of a single history that is in many different fashion on the way toward God. [JOSEPH  LAURIAN  MMASI  -12124T].