[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 20:32:55 -0400
>
>[Dan]
>Umm, what part of "hearsay" is it that you fail to understand?
>
>[Case]
>Well if by hearsay you mean that we only know about Jesus through the
>testimony of others. That is true. He left no writings of his own. But the
>same can be said of Socrates, Augustus, Alexander the Great... In fact
>nearly every thing we know can said to be hearsay. But I thought you were
>using the term to imply some reason to doubt the man's existence. Or 
>perhaps
>you actually are making a comment on the nature of knowledge itself.

As I told Mr. Buchanan, I thought it odd. That's all.

>
>Case said: 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.
>
>[Dan}
>Well, yes, as a believer you would. It sounds like just another attempt at
>indoctrination to me, however.
>
>[Case]
>I believe that people should be educated about the beliefs their neighbors
>hold dear.

I believe people should educate themselves, not "be educated." That is 
indoctrination.

>Christianity is the dominant religion of the west. Many of my
>family members, friends and coworkers have deep religious convictions. Like
>it or not Christianity is at the foundation of western civilization.

And by god we're going to educate the rest of the world whether they like it 
or not...

>I think
>an educated person should be familiar with the Bible.

How about the other religious texts of the world?

>Promoting religious
>literacy includes an understanding of all of history.

Now I have no problem with this as long as it's understood that the bible 
isn't the be all and end all of religious literature.

>From shamans to monks
>from mushrooms to miracles; to know about religion is to know about 
>Mankind.
>All men everywhere have practiced some form of religion. E.O. Wilson thinks
>this is evidence the religion has a genetic basis. Campbell's
>Transformations of Myths through time gives a broad survey of religion from
>Cave Bear to Holy Grail.

Again, no disagreement other than the predominate lean you seem to have 
towards christianity.

>
>Members of the Jesus Seminar have been featured in several fine
>documentaries shown on PBS.

If you find it of value, wonderful.

>
>It seems that you by indoctrination you mean something unworthy. But 
>perhaps
>I am misunderstanding again.

I guess it depends upon whether you believe a person should think for 
themselves or have others do their thinking for them. I prefer the former.

>
> >
> >
> >[Case]
> >This reflects ignorance about both the content and function of the Old
> >Testament.
>
>[Dan]
>Right. If someone disagrees with you, they're an idiot.
>
>[Case]
>dmb had said earlier: ...the traditional religions were a positive and
>crucial moral force in taming the biological impulses and most of its moral
>values are aimed at that. The seven deadly sins, for example.
>
>You responded: Old Testament bullshit.
>
>I took your statement to imply that anything in the Old Testament is
>bullshit and I suggested that this would reflect ignorance, that is
>unfamiliarity. On the other hand if someone familiar with the Old Testament
>suggested that it is all bullshit they would be an idiot.
>
>Since they ideas dmb laid out are Christian and have nothing to do with the
>Old Testament I assumed you were ignorant. Perhaps I was wrong.

I'm sorry. I thought the 7 deadly sins were a summmation of early christian 
teachings from the old testament. According to wikipedia the 7 deadly sins 
were originally formulated by St. Gregory the Great who... well, you can go 
there and check out for yourself. It just seems to me that as a theologian, 
St. Gregory used the old testament to guide his thinking. I could of course 
be wrong.

>
>
>[Dan]
>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.
>
>[Case]
>I don't even think Hemingway was even the best of his contemporaries.

Well, I was young and stupid. Now I am old and ignorant. Still, I heard 
something about a Nobel prize for literature being awarded to some hack that 
wrote a trashy book about an old man and the sea... not too shabby - you 
think?

>
>[Dan]
>I didn't say the old testament was bullshit. I said there's bullshit in the
>old testament. And there is.
>
>[Case]
>There is plenty of bullshit in the Old Testament. True enough, but I 
>thought
>you meant to imply that the Old Testament had more than it's share. Please
>show me to a bullshit free zone. There is plenty in the Old Testament that
>is not bullshit as well.

No disagreement.

>
>[Dan]
>How do you know that? Know a lot of mystics, do you? Tell me too, how come
>there's no female mystics?
>
>[Case]
>I use second person pronouns interchangeability. I do use the masculine 
>more
>frequently because that is the custom of speech where I live. I acknowledge
>that our language it sexist but he/she or she/he just looks stupid in text.
>I will pass on that bit of political correctness.

You didn't answer my first and second questions. I was joking about the 
his/her thing.

>
>Case said: I think there is a lot of similarity between eastern and
>Neoplatonic mysticism but maybe not.
>
>[Dan]
>Yeah? And?
>
>[Case]
>dmb keeps asserting either theists can not be mystics or that there is some
>philosophical reason for believing that "distinction between god and man as
>the illusion to be overcome."

I'm not sure I understand this.

>
>I am saying that Christianity has roots in Plato and Plotinus. And that it
>has a strong thread of mysticism in its history. There simply is no basis
>for saying that theism and mysticism are incompatible. dmb seems to want to
>define the problem away which is ok, I guess, but not really.

I will let dmb deal with this.

>
>I will ask again: On what basis does one decide between Materialism and
>Mysticism and Theism? All of them make unverifiable claims about the
>fundamental nature of reality. You can not decide among them on logical
>grounds. I have said before that accepting one of these systems is an act 
>of
>faith. It is akin to Don Juan advising Carlos to exercise controlled folly
>and follow the path with the heart.

I think the MOQ tells us that we don't have to decide between materialism, 
mysticism, and theism. And the way I understand the term, we all excercise 
controlled folly. We all don't recognize it though.

>
>[Dan]
>Some navel-gazing bullshit might do you good. It appears to me that you
>might need it.
>
>[Case]
>For a warrior spite is no antidote for sarcasm.

Spite seems like a very strong word but if that's how you feel... I 
genuinely feel we all could do with a little navel-gazing bullshit in our 
lives, but that's just my opinion. And you know what they say about 
opinions.

Thanks for your comments,

Dan