|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
|
Have you ever watched Joyce Meyer or read any of her stuff? She is a stereotypical literalist and she talks about God as if he lives in her basement.
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
itstarssaddam said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: As far as I know, literalist Christianity gets its beliefs from scripture, NOT from direct experience of these transcendent realities.
Most of the fundies that I know claim to talk to God on a regular basis.
Have they ever experienced the nondual awareness of being one with God? Mysticism isn't about hearing voices.
--------------------
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
|
Quote:
Silversoul said:
Quote:
itstarssaddam said:
Quote:
Silversoul said: As far as I know, literalist Christianity gets its beliefs from scripture, NOT from direct experience of these transcendent realities.
Most of the fundies that I know claim to talk to God on a regular basis.
Have they ever experienced the nondual awareness of being one with God? Mysticism isn't about hearing voices.
And here we have yet another definition of mysticism. At this rate we may be able to compile a "Mysticism Definitions" tear-off calendar.
|
RRRR
Rapture Ready
Registered: 07/26/06
Posts: 170
Last seen: 17 years, 1 day
|
|
He didn't imply definition, but rather a single characteristic. Do I have to keep filtering the non-sense through your posts as I did earlier?
Please take the time to fully read each post and respond accordingly.
-------------------- Now when He was asked by the Pharisees when the kingdom of God would come, He answered them and said, "The kingdom of God does not come with observation; nor will they say, 'See here!' or 'See there!' For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you." Luke 17:20-21 (New King James Version)
|
it stars saddam
Satan
Registered: 05/19/05
Posts: 15,571
Loc: Spahn Ranch
|
Re: Define G(g)od [Re: RRRR]
#5948499 - 08/09/06 07:38 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
You watch your tone with me boy. He implied that one isn't a mystic unless he had "experienced the nondual awareness of being one with God." Silversoul is smart enough to handle his own debates.
Edited by itstarssaddam (08/09/06 07:45 PM)
|
Dark_Star
train driver pervading a desktop
Registered: 08/20/04
Posts: 31,859
Loc: Uranus
|
Re: Define G(g)od [Re: RRRR]
#5948569 - 08/09/06 07:59 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
God is love....literally. It is an energy that is everywhere, an energy that is pure love. It is conscious and totally aware. I also feel that there are many higher powers, from all sorts of places and dimensions, and whatnot. But as far as "God" goes, God is love.
--------------------
|
apfrommsp
Just a box ofrain
Registered: 07/17/06
Posts: 1,171
Last seen: 16 years, 3 months
|
Re: Define G(g)od [Re: Dark_Star]
#5948822 - 08/09/06 09:19 PM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
I think lennon said it pretty good. I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky. I believe that what people call God is something in all of us. I believe that what Jesus and Mohammed and Buddha and all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong. John Lennon
-------------------- "It's a joke. Greed and the desire to take drugs are two separate things. If you want to separate the two, the thing you do is make drugs legal. Accept the reality that people do want to change their consciousness, and make an effort to make safer, healthier drugs."
|
Basilides
Servent ofWisdom
Registered: 02/10/06
Posts: 7,059
Loc: Crown and Heart
Last seen: 12 years, 9 months
|
|
Quote:
itstarssaddam said:
Quote:
Basilides said:
Quote:
So you feel that a literalist Christian should not be classified as a mystic?
Here we have yet another example of a mystic conjuring up his own special definition of the word. The dictionary defines a mystic as "One who practices or believes in mysticism or a given form of mysticism," and mysticism is defined as "A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience." I'd say that the beliefs of Christians, literalists included, are most certainly beyond "intellectual apprehension."
I think SS sums it all up well (in both his reply and the thread he made). The fundamentalist's spirituality is mostly psychological, thus personal instead of impersonal, and is entirely dictated by their interpretation of scripture. I describe myself as a Mystic because my spirituality is ultimately defined by direct experiences of matters of pneuma, not ancient allegorical and metaphorical texts attempting to illustrate such experiences in colorful language.
-------------------- "Have you found the beginning, then, that you are looking for the end? You see, the end will be where the beginning is. Congratulations to the one who stands at the beginning: that one will know the end and will not taste death."
|
capliberty
Stranger
Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
Re: Define G(g)od [Re: Basilides]
#5949563 - 08/10/06 01:23 AM (17 years, 7 months ago) |
|
|
Mysticism is definitely not fundamental Christianity,
They both differ in their overall pursuits, fundamentalists look at the text as literal accounts of his-story
but Gnostic's have been long in the mix of mystifying Jesus and the religion itself, although the roots of gnosticism extend predate of the biblical era, their text has been intermeshed with biblical text to paint a abstract portrait of Christianity,
Gnostic's would like you to believe that Christianity was a mystical inspiration, but really I don't think some of what was going on was totally fiction writing, or was ever intended for it to be looked as such, (allegorical or metaphorically)
This is the point that I'm trying to illustrate, why does something like gnosticism make any sense with the bible, when much of the bible was never/ever intended to be looked at as simply a self-help/self-exploration book, but as a historical reference of actual proclaimed faith,
I'm not making a claim to whether it is false or true, but why would you take something out of its context and try to manipulate and confuse its purpose, unless you had a hand in the influence of a "false idea", for false persuasion can delude practitioner into thinking something is literally true, and give the source of the false persuasion status, now I have come to the argument of the 'anti Christ'. That the anti Christ will be manifestation of all false persuasion that is deemed true, that is why he would be viewed as a great savior, but really is the deep secret lie that has grown an festered through religious influence and has risen into one entity, such as Adolf Hitler, as the anti disciple to do gods bidding,
|
Silversoul
Rhizome
Registered: 01/01/05
Posts: 23,576
Loc: The Barricades
|
|
Quote:
This is the point that I'm trying to illustrate, why does something like gnosticism make any sense with the bible, when much of the bible was never/ever intended to be looked at as simply a self-help/self-exploration book, but as a historical reference of actual proclaimed faith,
Have you ever heard the term "midrash"? Judaism has a long, rich history of interpretation of sacred texts. Jewish mysticism goes back at least to the prophet Ezekiel, and the Merkabah mysticism which it inspired, and which in turn grew into the Kabbalah.
--------------------
|
capliberty
Stranger
Registered: 04/23/06
Posts: 1,949
Last seen: 14 years, 7 months
|
|
Certain sects have had a rich history of their own interpretation, and it does extend back into the old testament,
and even some of the text itself is gnostic inspired writing, that the bible is definitely worded with definite false script, in which the old Church's couldn't totally root out all the speculative gospels that was circulating the few centuries after Jesus Crucifixion, alot of the weird creatures you here about in revelations, and alot apocalyptic acts are all gnostic imagination, but see the thing is, people look at this as literal truth, not some authors wild imagination, I have nothing wrong with philosphy and self-exploration from imaginative works as long as they proclaim it as such.
Some of us actually have others convinced that Jesus never was a person, but there were definitely tombs where crucifixions took place, and there has been evidence to suggest a person was crucified with a bright shinny gown, in which the bible has eluded to Jesus as wearing
|
|