[MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?

[Dan Glover]

Hello everyone

>From: "Case" <case at ispots.com>
>Reply-To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>To: moq_discuss at moqtalk.org
>Subject: Re: [MD] are theism and mysticism mutually exclusive notions?
>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:08:02 -0400 (EDT)
>
>dmb and Dan,
>
>Between the demands of real life and expansion in the land of Norrath time
>is in short supply in both my worlds. Sorry for slacking on my responses.
>
>
>[Dan]
>This is assuming there was a historical Jesus to actually say something,
>of course. I am sure you know there's not one single shred of evidence to
>prove such a man ever lived. Everything we know about Jesus is hearsay. So
>tell me: can a person who never existed actually say something?
>
>[Case]
>The existence of the man Jesus of Nazareth is as well documented as the
>existence of any of his contemporaries. The New Testament canon includes
>at least six separate sources. There is a reference in Josephus and
>Tacitus as well.

Umm, what part of "hearsay" is it that you fail to understand?

>It don’t think there is any disagreement in the Jesus
>Seminar about whether Jesus existed or not.

I tend to agree with you on this.

>Their aim is to assess the
>historical reliability of the documents we have relating to Jesus. The
>stated aim of the Jesus Seminar is to promote religious literacy.
>Personally I think that in itself is a worthy goal.

Well, yes, as a believer you would. It sounds like just another attempt at 
indoctrination to me, however.

>
>[Dan]
>Old Testament bullshit.
>
>[Case]
>This reflects ignorance about both the content and function of the Old
>Testament.

Right. If someone disagrees with you, they're an idiot.

>This anthology contains writing that span at least a 1000
>years. Parts of it are excruciatingly boring. But other parts are
>hysterically funny. For pure philosophy one would be hard pressed to find
>a more compelling assessment of the nature of human existence than
>Ecclesiastes. From a functional or evolutionary perspective the Old
>Testament has guided Jewish culture for nearly 3000 years.

When I was young I read that Ernest Hemmingway liked the way it read so much 
that he had memorized the bible. I thought Hemmingway was just about the 
greatest writer who ever lived so I memorized it too. But thank you for the 
lesson anyway.

>Whatever it is,
>bullshit it ain’t.

I didn't say the old testament was bullshit. I said there's bullshit in the 
old testament. And there is.

>
>[Case]
>Each mystic has his own view of what mysticism is.

How do you know that? Know a lot of mystics, do you? Tell me too, how come 
there's no female mystics?

>I think there is a lot
>of similarity between eastern and  Neoplatonic mysticism but maybe not.

Yeah? And?

>
>I must add, I was tempted just to respond: Navel-gazing bullshit.

Some navel-gazing bullshit might do you good. It appears to me that you 
might need it.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan