Signs From Above - Another Look

reply to post by mysticnoon


You wrote:

["My username may be a hint. I even mention it as one of my interests in my profile, so yes, I am "into mysticism"."]

As I am. (Just for the record).

In my case a COMPLETELY non-denominational and non-religious mysticism, where there even is room for a good deal of parallel science/logic. So I usually prefer to call the whole methodology for metaphysics.

reply to post by bogomil

In my case a COMPLETELY non-denominational and non-religious mysticism, where there even is room for a good deal of parallel science/logic. So I usually prefer to call the whole methodology for metaphysics

Another term for mysticism is "science of the soul", so there is plenty of room for the methodology of science and logic, at least to the extent it may be applied to metaphysical premises.

You may find that I am often more in support of statements by atheists/agnostics than of religious ones, primarily because of the rational and logical aspects of their position.

reply to post by mysticnoon


You wrote:

["You may find that I am often more in support of statements by atheists/agnostics than of religious ones, primarily because of the rational and logical aspects of their position."]

100% agreement. Maybe we meet at some time on a suitable thread, where this can be considered more closely. There seem to be a small 'colony' of us here on ATS. I'm very interested in the small overlapping area between the mundane and the trans-mundane.

But on topic: Apart from the purely doctrinal 'absolute' positions, mostly defended on steam-rolling principles (you just repeat the absolutes endlessly) I also find the 'pseudo'-positions quite detestable.

"It is 'scientifically proved' (or: 'Logical') that ....whatever....., based on something which never has been even close to the most basic science.

I sincerely hope, that the 'signs-and-wonders' of this thread won't need to be chewed over this way, as it's an interminable process, mainly made up of semantic excessess to camouflage the pseudo-science/logic.

Originally posted by mysticnoon

Christ has conquered death through His crucifixion, He now has a new body that can be manifested.

I am not disputing that Christ may be alive spiritually, but he certainly is not present in the flesh in his original form as Jesus, which means that he is not here to settle the debate between us about what he said when he was alive in the flesh 2000 year ago.

Are you into mysticism?

My username may be a hint. I even mention it as one of my interests in my profile, so yes, I am "into mysticism".

I guess I should have read your profile, duh. Actually along I kinda figured you were.
Of course Christ is not here in the flesh, After His death and descended to hell and arose again, He was transformed where He could manifest to flesh and spirit. He is at the right hand of the Father in heaven, waiting to return again. What is here on earth is the Holy Spirit which is the Restrainer, and holy angels as well as demon spirits.
The debate could never be settled here, you strongly believe in mysticism, and I strongly believe in Christianity.
I've seen the mystic side, and I saw a darkness in that, I've always felt a gut instinct to stay away from it, even before I became a Christian. I've known people that mixed Christianity with mysticism.

Originally posted by bogomil


You wrote:

["You may find that I am often more in support of statements by atheists/agnostics than of religious ones, primarily because of the rational and logical aspects of their position."]

100% agreement. Maybe we meet at some time on a suitable thread, where this can be considered more closely. There seem to be a small 'colony' of us here on ATS. I'm very interested in the small overlapping area between the mundane and the trans-mundane.

But on topic: Apart from the purely doctrinal 'absolute' positions, mostly defended on steam-rolling principles (you just repeat the absolutes endlessly) I also find the 'pseudo'-positions quite detestable.

"It is 'scientifically proved' (or: 'Logical') that ....whatever....., based on something which never has been even close to the most basic science.

I sincerely hope, that the 'signs-and-wonders' of this thread won't need to be chewed over this way, as it's an interminable process, mainly made up of semantic excessess to camouflage the pseudo-science/logic.

You sound so much like one of those I know everything types, that at a party would just ramble on, and on dominating the whole conversation with your endless hypothetical ramblings.

reply to post by hawaii50th

Of course Christ is not here in the flesh, After His death and descended to hell and arose again, He was transformed where He could manifest to flesh and spirit. He is at the right hand of the Father in heaven, waiting to return again. What is here on earth is the Holy Spirit which is the Restrainer, and holy angels as well as demon spirits.

I have no argument with any of this, mainly because I am in no position to ascertain the truth of the matter.

However, when it comes to the Holy Spirit and relying on it to illuminate and interpret scripture, I would say that the fact that more than one interpretation exists among Christians for just about every verse in the Bible indicates that reliance on the Holy Spirit (or what is assumed to be such) does not bring consistent results.

The debate could never be settled here, you strongly believe in mysticism, and I strongly believe in Christianity.

The difference is that I do not present mysticism as the Absolute and Only Truth.

I've seen the mystic side, and I saw a darkness in that, I've always felt a gut instinct to stay away from it, even before I became a Christian. I've known people that mixed Christianity with mysticism.

I am in favour of people following their inner guidance in spiritual matters, or their "gut", as you say. Mysticism is not for you, it does not align with your mental inclination. That is OK, I accept that.

I don't know how mysticism can be mixed with Christianity, it is either one or the other, but that is not to say that a mystic cannot derive inspiration from Christian teachings. For example, one of my favourite little books in the earlier days on the mystic path was Thomas A. Kempis' "Imitation of Christ". I am not a Christian and have never been one in this incarnation, but the book was helpful in my practice and attitudes.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

Of course Christ is not here in the flesh, After His death and descended to hell and arose again, He was transformed where He could manifest to flesh and spirit. He is at the right hand of the Father in heaven, waiting to return again. What is here on earth is the Holy Spirit which is the Restrainer, and holy angels as well as demon spirits.

I have no argument with any of this, mainly because I am in no position to ascertain the truth of the matter.

However, when it comes to the Holy Spirit and relying on it to illuminate and interpret scripture, I would say that the fact that more than one interpretation exists among Christians for just about every verse in the Bible indicates that reliance on the Holy Spirit (or what is assumed to be such) does not bring consistent results.

The debate could never be settled here, you strongly believe in mysticism, and I strongly believe in Christianity.

The difference is that I do not present mysticism as the Absolute and Only Truth.

I've seen the mystic side, and I saw a darkness in that, I've always felt a gut instinct to stay away from it, even before I became a Christian. I've known people that mixed Christianity with mysticism.

I am in favour of people following their inner guidance in spiritual matters, or their "gut", as you say. Mysticism is not for you, it does not align with your mental inclination. That is OK, I accept that.

I don't know how mysticism can be mixed with Christianity, it is either one or the other, but that is not to say that a mystic cannot derive inspiration from Christian teachings. For example, one of my favourite little books in the earlier days on the mystic path was Thomas A. Kempis' "Imitation of Christ". I am not a Christian and have never been one in this incarnation, but the book was helpful in my practice and attitudes.

Like you say, "mysticism is not for me, it does not align with my mental inclination, and Christianity is not for you, it does not align with your mental inclination. So there you go, what more can be said?

Mysticism can not mix with Christianity, it's like trying to mix oil and water, also God says not to mess with mysticism, soothsayers, fortune tellers, or magic, etc.

It's too bad that you have a problem with trusting Christian faith, and what's written in the bible, and that you don't see the importance of Jesus Christ.

The thing is, I do understand mysticism I could have easily gotten into that, but I see it in a different way than you do. And the way I can see it, I couldn't even go into it with you, you would just disagree with me or get upset. You and I we are both on different levels of thought and understanding, and I am not trying to insult you, so don't take it as an insult. I am just making an assertive conclusion, you are there and I am here.

Are you male or female?

reply to post by hawaii50th

also God says not to mess with mysticism

Do you mind pointing me to the passage in the Bible where God is supposed say not to mess with mysticism? I have had many lengthy discussions with Christian friends over the years, yet none of them has ever thrown that one at me.

It's too bad that you have a problem with trusting Christian faith, and what's written in the bible, and that you don't see the importance of Jesus Christ.

Thank you for your concern, but my spiritual well-being is in good hands.

And the way I can see it, I couldn't even go into it with you, you would just disagree with me or get upset

I doubt I would get upset, as I am not that easily offended, but I am sure to disagree with you.

you are there and I am here.

Yes, your understanding is growing in leaps and bounds.

Are you male or female?

I think my gender is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

also God says not to mess with mysticism

Do you mind pointing me to the passage in the Bible where God is supposed say not to mess with mysticism? I have had many lengthy discussions with Christian friends over the years, yet none of them has ever thrown that one at me.

Thank you for your concern, but my spiritual well-being is in good hands.

And the way I can see it, I couldn't even go into it with you, you would just disagree with me or get upset

I doubt I would get upset, as I am not that easily offended, but I am sure to disagree with you.

you are there and I am here.

Yes, your understanding is growing in leaps and bounds.

It's too bad that you have a problem with trusting Christian faith, and what's written in the bible, and that you don't see the importance of Jesus Christ.

Why I said this, is because there is something about you in your words that says to me that you would learn and have much wisdom if you ever opened up your heart and trusted God, and invited Christ into your life.



Here is a few that speak against delving into occult practices, I will post another from the new testament.

1 Samuel 15:23 (Amplified Bible) 23 For rebellion is as the sin of witchcraft, and stubbornness is as idolatry and teraphim (household good luck images). Because you have rejected the word of the Lord, He also has rejected you from being king.

Malachi 3:5 (Amplified Bible) 5 Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against the false swearers, and against those who oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, and who turn aside the temporary resident from his right and fear not Me, says the Lord of hosts.

Acts 16: 16-18
16 As we were on our way to the place of prayer, we were met by a slave girl who was possessed by a spirit of divination [claiming to foretell future events and to discover hidden knowledge], and she brought her owners much gain by her fortunetelling. 17She kept following Paul and [the rest of] us, shouting loudly, These men are the servants of the Most High God! They announce to you the way of salvation! 18And she did this for many days. Then Paul, being sorely annoyed and worn out, turned and said to the spirit within her, I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her! And it came out that very [a]moment.

2 Kings 17:14-18 (Amplified Bible)
14 Yet they would not hear, but hardened their necks as did their fathers who did not believe (trust in, rely on, and remain steadfast to) the Lord their God. 15 They despised and rejected His statutes and His covenant which He made with their fathers and His warnings to them, and they followed vanity (false gods--falsehood, emptiness, and futility) and [they themselves and their prayers] became false (empty and futile). They went after the heathen round about them, of whom the Lord had charged them that they should not do as they did.
16 And they forsook all the commandments of the Lord their God and made for themselves molten images, even two calves, and made an Asherah and worshiped all the [starry] hosts of the heavens and served Baal.
17 They caused their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire and used divination and enchantments and sold themselves to do evil in the sight of the Lord, provoking Him to anger. 18Therefore the Lord was very angry with Israel and removed them out of His sight. None was left but the tribe of Judah.

Leviticus 20:6-7 6The person who turns to those who have familiar spirits and to wizards, [being unfaithful to Israel's Maker Who is her Husband, and thus] playing the harlot after them, I will set My face against that person and will cut him off from among his people [that he may not be included in the atonement made for them].(A) 7Consecrate yourselves therefore, and be holy; for I am the Lord your God. 8And you shall keep My statutes and do them. I am the Lord Who sanctifies you.

Deuteronomy 18:10-12 (Amplified Bible) 10 There shall not be found among you anyone who makes his son or daughter pass through the fire, or who uses divination, or is a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, 11 Or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. 12 For all who do these things are an abomination to the Lord, and it is because of these abominable practices that the Lord your God is driving them out before you.

Jeremiah 27:9-10 (Amplified Bible) 9 So do not listen to your [false] prophets, your diviners, your dreamers [and your dreams, whether your own or others'], your soothsayers, your sorcerers, who say to you, You shall not serve the king of Babylon. 10 For they prophesy a lie to you which will cause you to be removed far from your land; and I will drive you out, and you will perish.

Acts 8:18-24 (Amplified Bible) 18 However, when Simon saw that the [Holy] Spirit was imparted through the laying on of the apostles' hands, he brought money and offered it to them, 19 Saying, Grant me also this power and authority, in order that anyone on whom I place my hands may receive the Holy Spirit. 20 But Peter said to him, Destruction overtake your money and you, because you imagined you could obtain the [free] gift of God with money! 21 You have neither part nor lot in this matter, for your heart is all wrong in God's sight [it is not straightforward or right or true before God].(A) 22 So repent of this depravity and wickedness of yours and pray to the Lord that, if possible, this [a]contriving thought and purpose of your heart may be removed and disregarded and forgiven you. 23 For I see that you are in the gall of bitterness and in a bond forged by iniquity [to fetter souls].(B) 24 And Simon answered, Pray for me [beseech the Lord, both of you], that nothing of what you have said may befall me!

Acts 13:6-12 (Amplified Bible) 6 When they had passed through the entire island of Cyprus as far as Paphos, they came upon a certain Jewish wizard or sorcerer, a false prophet named Bar-Jesus. 7 He was closely associated with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, who was an intelligent and sensible man of sound understanding; he summoned to him Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the Word of God [concerning salvation in the kingdom of God attained through Christ]. 8 But Elymas [a]the wise man--for that is the translation of his name [which he had given himself]--opposed them, seeking to keep the proconsul from accepting the faith. 9 But Saul, who is also called Paul, filled with and controlled by the Holy Spirit, looked steadily at [Elymas] 10 And said, You master in every form of deception and recklessness, unscrupulousness, and wickedness, you son of the devil, you enemy of everything that is upright and good, will you never stop perverting and making crooked the straight paths of the Lord and plotting against His saving purposes?(A) 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind, [so blind that you will be] unable to see the sun for a time. Instantly there fell upon him a mist and a darkness, and he groped about seeking persons who would lead him by the hand. 12 Then the proconsul believed (became a Christian) when he saw what had occurred, for he was astonished and deeply touched at the teaching concerning the Lord and from Him.

reply to post by mysticnoon



And here is another in First John this one speaks of sin and deception.

1 John 3:7-9 (Amplified Bible) 7 Boys (lads), let no one deceive and lead you astray. He who practices righteousness [who is upright, conforming to the divine will in purpose, thought, and action, living a consistently conscientious life] is righteous, even as He is righteous. 8 [But] he who commits sin [who practices evildoing] is of the devil [takes his character from the evil one], for the devil has sinned (violated the divine law) from the beginning. The reason the Son of God was made manifest (visible) was to undo (destroy, loosen, and dissolve) the works the devil [has done]. 9 No one born (begotten) of God [deliberately, knowingly, and habitually] practices sin, for God's nature abides in him [His principle of life, remains permanently within him]; and he cannot practice sinning because he is born (begotten) of God.

reply to post by hawaii50th

Why I said this, is because there is something about you in your words that says to me that you would learn and have much wisdom if you ever opened up your heart and trusted God, and invited Christ into your life.

Thank you, I accept this as a compliment. Some of my Christian friends thought I would make a fine Christian, but to be honest, I think I lack the requisite depth of faith to sustain a Christian belief, and I am unable to suspend my sense of logic and rationality for any length of time. Besides that, I am probably too selfish.

Thank you also for taking the time to post all those Bible quotes. I see that you seem to confuse occultism with mysticism. I can tell you that the occult practices referenced in your Bible quotes are stringently avoided in the mystic paths with which I am familiar.

Here is a definition of mysticism which I think sums it up rather succinctly:

A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

www.answers.com...

Or this:

Mysticism...is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness

en.wikipedia.org...

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by bogomil


You wrote:

["You may find that I am often more in support of statements by atheists/agnostics than of religious ones, primarily because of the rational and logical aspects of their position."]

100% agreement. Maybe we meet at some time on a suitable thread, where this can be considered more closely. There seem to be a small 'colony' of us here on ATS. I'm very interested in the small overlapping area between the mundane and the trans-mundane.

But on topic: Apart from the purely doctrinal 'absolute' positions, mostly defended on steam-rolling principles (you just repeat the absolutes endlessly) I also find the 'pseudo'-positions quite detestable.

"It is 'scientifically proved' (or: 'Logical') that ....whatever....., based on something which never has been even close to the most basic science.

I sincerely hope, that the 'signs-and-wonders' of this thread won't need to be chewed over this way, as it's an interminable process, mainly made up of semantic excessess to camouflage the pseudo-science/logic.

You sound so much like one of those I know everything types, that at a party would just ramble on, and on dominating the whole conversation with your endless hypothetical ramblings.

For your information, my epistemological position is similar to that of Jain (an old indian 'religion'):

There are 'relative realities' and inside each 'relative reality' there are 'approximate truths'. This ofcourse leading to the overall situation of there being no ultimate 'absolutes' (in the lack of a more precise way of putting it) in mankind's possession.

So I can't claim 'to know everything', only to have a broad education- and information-background inside the present scope of mankind. And as I haven't got any final university degree on any subject (though 4+ years of university studies) I'm not a specialist, who can claim any final academic 'authority'. Not that I would insist on doing that anyway, as I don't operate with 'ultimate truth'. What I do insist on is to put things in the proper context of where they 'belong'/in their relevant relationship.

It's on your responsibility to label me as a 'knower of everything'. A maneuver which has no topic purpose or relevance. I could live my life in a straightjacket, frothing around the moth and having endless delusions of grandeur, and my posts would still stand on their own content.

Ofcourse a debate of 'reality', 'truth' etc would eventually be rather complex, and reference points would be necessary, but we're not even at the start of such a process here, as I sofar haven't got any direct responses to the moot-points I've brought up (here and elsewhere on ATS), but mostly comments on my person or YOUR absolutes repeated again and again (I actually did understand them the first time, which isn't the same as agreeing with them).

Related to the above, your own self-described position of being a 'messenger' can be questioned. Are you a 'messenger' in the sense of 'somebody just doing their job' for a living, being unknowing and indifferent about the message itself (like a mailman would be about the letters he distributes), or are you aware of the intrinsic content of the message you deliever and do you actively support it on your own. Feel free to add options of "I have no will myself, 'god's' will is the inner driver", if you feel it relevant.

For me it's uncertain, which of these positions you take. You seem to flitter from one to another, as it best suits your purposes. So if you're interested in a dialogue instead of monologue-preaching, you could so to speak break the ice by defining your position better and stick to that position.

Precise defintions of positions (and the paraphernalia surrounding them) is the first step towards meaningful communication. So if you feel like starting dialogues instead of monologues, this is an invitation. And if you accept, I can offer to be the first to 'present' myself, if you wish so.

PS I'm not much of a party-goer anyway. I like solitude, as it benefits my 'mystic' inclinations.

reply to post by hawaii50th


You wrote to 'Mysticnoon':

["The thing is, I do understand mysticism I could have easily gotten into that,...."]

'Understanding' mysticism is a contradiction in terms. It can only be experienced. Conceptualizing around it can only give vague and imprecise information.

Quote: ["Mysticism can not mix with Christianity, it's like trying to mix oil and water, also God says not to mess with mysticism, soothsayers, fortune tellers, or magic, etc."]

I believe you are mixing mysticism with occultism, as has already been pointed out. And from my personal experiments and experiences, I can extend my dialogue invitation to you by first including some real knowledge on the subject, so everybody can be fairly certain to talk about the same thing, instead of relying on pre-digested secondhand 'information'.

Originally posted by mysticnoon
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

Why I said this, is because there is something about you in your words that says to me that you would learn and have much wisdom if you ever opened up your heart and trusted God, and invited Christ into your life.

Thank you, I accept this as a compliment. Some of my Christian friends thought I would make a fine Christian, but to be honest, I think I lack the requisite depth of faith to sustain a Christian belief, and I am unable to suspend my sense of logic and rationality for any length of time. Besides that, I am probably too selfish.

Thank you also for taking the time to post all those Bible quotes. I see that you seem to confuse occultism with mysticism. I can tell you that the occult practices referenced in your Bible quotes are stringently avoided in the mystic paths with which I am familiar.

Here is a definition of mysticism which I think sums it up rather succinctly:

A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.

www.answers.com...

Or this:

Mysticism...is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness

en.wikipedia.org...

edit on 14-3-2011 by mysticnoon because: (no reason given)

From Oxford Dictionaries

belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender.

vague or ill-defined religious or spiritual belief, especially as associated with a belief in the occult.

oxforddictionaries.com...

From Cambridge Dictionary

the belief that there is hidden meaning in life or that each human being can unite with God

dictionary.cambridge.org...

From Dictionary.com

1.the beliefs, ideas, or mode of thought of mystics. 2. a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or of a direct, intimate union of the soul with god through contemplation or ecstasy. 3. obscure thought or speculation.

World English Dictionary mysticism (ˈmɪstɪˌsɪzəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide] — n 1. belief in or experience of a reality surpassing normal human understanding or experience, esp a reality perceived as essential to the nature of life 2. a system of contemplative prayer and spirituality aimed at achieving direct intuitive experience of the divine 3. obscure or confused belief or thought

Cultural Dictionary mysticism definition In religion, the attempt by an individual to achieve a personal union with God or with some other divine being or principle. Mystics generally practice daily meditation.

dictionary.reference.com...

So as you can see, there are a few definitions for "mysticism" it all depends where you look. It is related to God with an upper case G, and it is also related in the lower case g.
Mysticism does not only limit union with one god, it also relates to nature, and from my understanding even as far as chemistry. It also mentions other art forms into the occult, there is a wide range of avenues that mysticism can take you.

And your welcome, it's just that I feel a good soul from you just from your words in how you present them.

Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by hawaii50th

 

You wrote to 'Mysticnoon':

["The thing is, I do understand mysticism I could have easily gotten into that,...."]


Quote: ["Mysticism can not mix with Christianity, it's like trying to mix oil and water, also God says not to mess with mysticism, soothsayers, fortune tellers, or magic, etc."]

I believe you are mixing mysticism with occultism, as has already been pointed out. And from my personal experiments and experiences, I can extend my dialogue invitation to you by first including some real knowledge on the subject, so everybody can be fairly certain to talk about the same thing, instead of relying on pre-digested secondhand 'information'.

edit on 14-3-2011 by bogomil because: clarification

'Understanding' mysticism is a contradiction in terms. It can only be experienced. Conceptualizing around it can only give vague and imprecise information.

Understanding Christianity can only be understood by experiencing it first hand. When it is as you say about mysticism conceptualizing it, it is the same for Christianity, you can't grasp what you don't understand, you can only speculate and form opinions about it. It's the spiritual awakening that one receives that opens the door way to understanding.
I have experienced some mysticism, and I later realized the danger I had put myself in.
If you find mysticism is what you want, then it's for you but not for me.
Mysticism can go in many directions as I have stated before, and this is why I prefer my Christianity, it goes in one direction only.

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by bogomil


You wrote:

["You may find that I am often more in support of statements by atheists/agnostics than of religious ones, primarily because of the rational and logical aspects of their position."]

100% agreement. Maybe we meet at some time on a suitable thread, where this can be considered more closely. There seem to be a small 'colony' of us here on ATS. I'm very interested in the small overlapping area between the mundane and the trans-mundane.

But on topic: Apart from the purely doctrinal 'absolute' positions, mostly defended on steam-rolling principles (you just repeat the absolutes endlessly) I also find the 'pseudo'-positions quite detestable.

"It is 'scientifically proved' (or: 'Logical') that ....whatever....., based on something which never has been even close to the most basic science.

I sincerely hope, that the 'signs-and-wonders' of this thread won't need to be chewed over this way, as it's an interminable process, mainly made up of semantic excessess to camouflage the pseudo-science/logic.

You sound so much like one of those I know everything types, that at a party would just ramble on, and on dominating the whole conversation with your endless hypothetical ramblings.

For your information, my epistemological position is similar to that of Jain (an old indian 'religion'):

There are 'relative realities' and inside each 'relative reality' there are 'approximate truths'. This ofcourse leading to the overall situation of there being no ultimate 'absolutes' (in the lack of a more precise way of putting it) in mankind's possession.

So I can't claim 'to know everything', only to have a broad education- and information-background inside the present scope of mankind. And as I haven't got any final university degree on any subject (though 4+ years of university studies) I'm not a specialist, who can claim any final academic 'authority'. Not that I would insist on doing that anyway, as I don't operate with 'ultimate truth'. What I do insist on is to put things in the proper context of where they 'belong'/in their relevant relationship.

It's on your responsibility to label me as a 'knower of everything'. A maneuver which has no topic purpose or relevance. I could live my life in a straightjacket, frothing around the moth and having endless delusions of grandeur, and my posts would still stand on their own content.

Ofcourse a debate of 'reality', 'truth' etc would eventually be rather complex, and reference points would be necessary, but we're not even at the start of such a process here, as I sofar haven't got any direct responses to the moot-points I've brought up (here and elsewhere on ATS), but mostly comments on my person or YOUR absolutes repeated again and again (I actually did understand them the first time, which isn't the same as agreeing with them).

Related to the above, your own self-described position of being a 'messenger' can be questioned. Are you a 'messenger' in the sense of 'somebody just doing their job' for a living, being unknowing and indifferent about the message itself (like a mailman would be about the letters he distributes), or are you aware of the intrinsic content of the message you deliever and do you actively support it on your own. Feel free to add options of "I have no will myself, 'god's' will is the inner driver", if you feel it relevant.

For me it's uncertain, which of these positions you take. You seem to flitter from one to another, as it best suits your purposes. So if you're interested in a dialogue instead of monologue-preaching, you could so to speak break the ice by defining your position better and stick to that position.

Precise defintions of positions (and the paraphernalia surrounding them) is the first step towards meaningful communication. So if you feel like starting dialogues instead of monologues, this is an invitation. And if you accept, I can offer to be the first to 'present' myself, if you wish so.

PS I'm not much of a party-goer anyway. I like solitude, as it benefits my 'mystic' inclinations.

Over 30 years ago I invited Christ into my heart. Through prayer I asked Him to come into my life, and be my Lord and Savior, to forgive me of all my sins and to open my eyes, show me the way, change me so that I may be of use to Him and to my family and others, and lead me to truth be my light. And to give me the gift of wisdom to understand the scriptures.
Why I did this is because I realized I am a sinner, and I needed redemption and forgiveness of all my sins, and the only way is through Christ. For me I had an experience where my minds eye opened, and now I saw things and realized things that I never did before.
This is a life time of continual learning and awakening, as time moves on God reveals more as needed.
Also, everyday that goes by I always have to ask for forgiveness in all my short comings, no one is perfect, and if anyone claims to be perfect, they are a liar.

reply to post by hawaii50th


You wrote:

["So as you can see, there are a few definitions for "mysticism" it all depends where you look. It is related to God with an upper case G, and it is also related in the lower case g."]

As these definitions differ on some important points, they are COLLECTIVELY not of much value. And your personal choice, only including those with capital or lower case 'g's is exclusively selective.

Some of these definitions refer to what could be compressed in the concept 'trans-mundane reality'. So on what grounds do you choose your specific definitions? So they fit with your predetermined 'answers'?

And as I have stated before, mysticism is experiental (apart from formal definitions). Something which is also clearly indicated in some of the above definitions: " 2. a doctrine of an immediate spiritual intuition of truths believed to transcend ordinary understanding, or.... (I'm not IGNORING the 'or' alternative, but it is just that, an alternative).

Applied mysticism is a kind of enhanced awareness 'empiricism' (though most atheists would protest against the word 'empiricism' on this context. I'm open for better suggestions).

I feel it important to emphasize, that practically all practitisioners of experientally applied mysticism consider the 'method' as initially subjective. Hence no claims of 'absolutes' (i.e.as in religious claims of exclusive monopoly 'absolutes') are made. That would be self-contradictory and remove all functionality of the practice.

There exist several somewhat different practical methdodologies of applied mysticism, but there's very little aggressive rivalry between them, and equalents of 'religious wars' don't exist to my knowledge.

When reaching a certain level of functionality or proficiency in the 'mystical' practice, it is though possible to make comparative studies (on par with the methods used in e.g. social sciences) across cultural, historical and religious borders. Such studies shows a uniformity far exceeding christian-bible interpretations (by different subsets of christianity) which sofar have manifested in 34.000 different christian subsets.

This is ofcourse only relevant, if one puts importance to any rational perspectives.

I can also add, that in an inductive perspective (which is our only option presently) the experienced mystical state correlates far better with the present borders-of-science than christianity (or Abrahamic religion or theism in general). In the name of fairness I must say, that there's nothing conclusive in this, it's still only positive indications giving reason to working hypotheses.

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by bogomil


You wrote:

["You may find that I am often more in support of statements by atheists/agnostics than of religious ones, primarily because of the rational and logical aspects of their position."]

100% agreement. Maybe we meet at some time on a suitable thread, where this can be considered more closely. There seem to be a small 'colony' of us here on ATS. I'm very interested in the small overlapping area between the mundane and the trans-mundane.

But on topic: Apart from the purely doctrinal 'absolute' positions, mostly defended on steam-rolling principles (you just repeat the absolutes endlessly) I also find the 'pseudo'-positions quite detestable.

"It is 'scientifically proved' (or: 'Logical') that ....whatever....., based on something which never has been even close to the most basic science.

I sincerely hope, that the 'signs-and-wonders' of this thread won't need to be chewed over this way, as it's an interminable process, mainly made up of semantic excessess to camouflage the pseudo-science/logic.

You sound so much like one of those I know everything types, that at a party would just ramble on, and on dominating the whole conversation with your endless hypothetical ramblings.

For your information, my epistemological position is similar to that of Jain (an old indian 'religion'):

There are 'relative realities' and inside each 'relative reality' there are 'approximate truths'. This ofcourse leading to the overall situation of there being no ultimate 'absolutes' (in the lack of a more precise way of putting it) in mankind's possession.

So I can't claim 'to know everything', only to have a broad education- and information-background inside the present scope of mankind. And as I haven't got any final university degree on any subject (though 4+ years of university studies) I'm not a specialist, who can claim any final academic 'authority'. Not that I would insist on doing that anyway, as I don't operate with 'ultimate truth'. What I do insist on is to put things in the proper context of where they 'belong'/in their relevant relationship.

It's on your responsibility to label me as a 'knower of everything'. A maneuver which has no topic purpose or relevance. I could live my life in a straightjacket, frothing around the moth and having endless delusions of grandeur, and my posts would still stand on their own content.

Ofcourse a debate of 'reality', 'truth' etc would eventually be rather complex, and reference points would be necessary, but we're not even at the start of such a process here, as I sofar haven't got any direct responses to the moot-points I've brought up (here and elsewhere on ATS), but mostly comments on my person or YOUR absolutes repeated again and again (I actually did understand them the first time, which isn't the same as agreeing with them).

Related to the above, your own self-described position of being a 'messenger' can be questioned. Are you a 'messenger' in the sense of 'somebody just doing their job' for a living, being unknowing and indifferent about the message itself (like a mailman would be about the letters he distributes), or are you aware of the intrinsic content of the message you deliever and do you actively support it on your own. Feel free to add options of "I have no will myself, 'god's' will is the inner driver", if you feel it relevant.

For me it's uncertain, which of these positions you take. You seem to flitter from one to another, as it best suits your purposes. So if you're interested in a dialogue instead of monologue-preaching, you could so to speak break the ice by defining your position better and stick to that position.

Precise defintions of positions (and the paraphernalia surrounding them) is the first step towards meaningful communication. So if you feel like starting dialogues instead of monologues, this is an invitation. And if you accept, I can offer to be the first to 'present' myself, if you wish so.

PS I'm not much of a party-goer anyway. I like solitude, as it benefits my 'mystic' inclinations.

Over 30 years ago I invited Christ into my heart. Through prayer I asked Him to come into my life, and be my Lord and Savior, to forgive me of all my sins and to open my eyes, show me the way, change me so that I may be of use to Him and to my family and others, and lead me to truth be my light. And to give me the gift of wisdom to understand the scriptures.
Why I did this is because I realized I am a sinner, and I needed redemption and forgiveness of all my sins, and the only way is through Christ. For me I had an experience where my minds eye opened, and now I saw things and realized things that I never did before.
This is a life time of continual learning and awakening, as time moves on God reveals more as needed.
Also, everyday that goes by I always have to ask for forgiveness in all my short comings, no one is perfect, and if anyone claims to be perfect, they are a liar.

I take this as your presentation of your basic 'fundament', position or any choice of word you prefer (please state preferred altenatives if necessary).

I just want to make sure: Is this (my above) understanding of your present post correct?

And don't feel yourself painted into a corner by agreeing. It's for the duration and you can redefine it later, if you wish. Though it will ofcourse make communication very difficult, if you do this constantly.

Is there any additional background-information you want from or on me?

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by bogomil

Originally posted by hawaii50th

Originally posted by bogomil


You wrote:

["You may find that I am often more in support of statements by atheists/agnostics than of religious ones, primarily because of the rational and logical aspects of their position."]

100% agreement. Maybe we meet at some time on a suitable thread, where this can be considered more closely. There seem to be a small 'colony' of us here on ATS. I'm very interested in the small overlapping area between the mundane and the trans-mundane.

But on topic: Apart from the purely doctrinal 'absolute' positions, mostly defended on steam-rolling principles (you just repeat the absolutes endlessly) I also find the 'pseudo'-positions quite detestable.

"It is 'scientifically proved' (or: 'Logical') that ....whatever....., based on something which never has been even close to the most basic science.

I sincerely hope, that the 'signs-and-wonders' of this thread won't need to be chewed over this way, as it's an interminable process, mainly made up of semantic excessess to camouflage the pseudo-science/logic.

You sound so much like one of those I know everything types, that at a party would just ramble on, and on dominating the whole conversation with your endless hypothetical ramblings.

For your information, my epistemological position is similar to that of Jain (an old indian 'religion'):

There are 'relative realities' and inside each 'relative reality' there are 'approximate truths'. This ofcourse leading to the overall situation of there being no ultimate 'absolutes' (in the lack of a more precise way of putting it) in mankind's possession.

So I can't claim 'to know everything', only to have a broad education- and information-background inside the present scope of mankind. And as I haven't got any final university degree on any subject (though 4+ years of university studies) I'm not a specialist, who can claim any final academic 'authority'. Not that I would insist on doing that anyway, as I don't operate with 'ultimate truth'. What I do insist on is to put things in the proper context of where they 'belong'/in their relevant relationship.

It's on your responsibility to label me as a 'knower of everything'. A maneuver which has no topic purpose or relevance. I could live my life in a straightjacket, frothing around the moth and having endless delusions of grandeur, and my posts would still stand on their own content.

Ofcourse a debate of 'reality', 'truth' etc would eventually be rather complex, and reference points would be necessary, but we're not even at the start of such a process here, as I sofar haven't got any direct responses to the moot-points I've brought up (here and elsewhere on ATS), but mostly comments on my person or YOUR absolutes repeated again and again (I actually did understand them the first time, which isn't the same as agreeing with them).

Related to the above, your own self-described position of being a 'messenger' can be questioned. Are you a 'messenger' in the sense of 'somebody just doing their job' for a living, being unknowing and indifferent about the message itself (like a mailman would be about the letters he distributes), or are you aware of the intrinsic content of the message you deliever and do you actively support it on your own. Feel free to add options of "I have no will myself, 'god's' will is the inner driver", if you feel it relevant.

For me it's uncertain, which of these positions you take. You seem to flitter from one to another, as it best suits your purposes. So if you're interested in a dialogue instead of monologue-preaching, you could so to speak break the ice by defining your position better and stick to that position.

Precise defintions of positions (and the paraphernalia surrounding them) is the first step towards meaningful communication. So if you feel like starting dialogues instead of monologues, this is an invitation. And if you accept, I can offer to be the first to 'present' myself, if you wish so.

PS I'm not much of a party-goer anyway. I like solitude, as it benefits my 'mystic' inclinations.

Over 30 years ago I invited Christ into my heart. Through prayer I asked Him to come into my life, and be my Lord and Savior, to forgive me of all my sins and to open my eyes, show me the way, change me so that I may be of use to Him and to my family and others, and lead me to truth be my light. And to give me the gift of wisdom to understand the scriptures.
Why I did this is because I realized I am a sinner, and I needed redemption and forgiveness of all my sins, and the only way is through Christ. For me I had an experience where my minds eye opened, and now I saw things and realized things that I never did before.
This is a life time of continual learning and awakening, as time moves on God reveals more as needed.
Also, everyday that goes by I always have to ask for forgiveness in all my short comings, no one is perfect, and if anyone claims to be perfect, they are a liar.

I take this as your presentation of your basic 'fundament', position or any choice of word you prefer (please state preferred altenatives if necessary).

I just want to make sure: Is this (my above) understanding of your present post correct?

And don't feel yourself painted into a corner by agreeing. It's for the duration and you can redefine it later, if you wish. Though it will ofcourse make communication very difficult, if you do this constantly.

Is there any additional background-information you want from or on me?

Sure, feel free to share of yourself.

The Sign Of The Times Are Upon Us, for those that sees and understand, take heed.

Matthew 24:30-44 (Amplified Bible)
30 Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn and beat their breasts and lament in anguish, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory [in brilliancy and splendor].
31 And He will send out His angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather His elect (His chosen ones) from the four winds, [even] from one end of the universe to the other.
32 From the fig tree learn this lesson: as soon as its young shoots become soft and tender and it puts out its leaves, you know of a surety that summer is near.
33 So also when you see these signs, all taken together, coming to pass, you may know of a surety that He is near, at the very doors.
34 Truly I tell you, this generation (the whole multitude of people living at the same time, in a definite, given period) will not pass away till all these things taken together take place.
35 Sky and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away.
36 But of that [exact] day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
37 As were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
38 For just as in those days before the flood they were eating and drinking, [men] marrying and [women] being given in marriage, until the [very] day when Noah went into the ark,
39 And they did not know or understand until the flood came and swept them all away--so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
40 At that time two men will be in the field; one will be taken and one will be left.
41 Two women will be grinding at the hand mill; one will be taken and one will be left.
42 Watch therefore [give strict attention, be cautious and active], for you do not know in what kind of a day [whether a near or remote one] your Lord is coming.
43 But understand this: had the householder known in what [part of the night, whether in a [n]night or a morning] watch the thief was coming, he would have watched and would not have allowed his house to be undermined and broken into.
44 You also must be ready therefore, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour when you do not expect Him.