What is a mystic?

[AGTG]

I'm not sure that's different,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Book of Proverbs teaches that it's the glory of God to conceal things, and the glory of kings to search them out.

Moreover, Jesus said that any scribe for the Kingdom of Heaven will bring forth from his storehouse what is old (what is already known in the Old Testament scriptures) and what is new (what God was about to bring forth in the New Testament writings).

Paul is clearly such a scribe.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I dunno, I'm gonna agree with that one for now.

What other ways of knowing are there? I'll start: intuition is one, mystical experience (I'll have to brush up on William James) is another. What else is there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I've never seen intuition or "mystical experience" shown to be actual ways of knowing things...

Though we can test this out if you like.

 

[Neochristian]

James says they require a noetic quality by definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ana the Ist]

James says they require a noetic quality by definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well I wouldn't concern yourself with James's opinion on the matter.

 

[Neochristian]

Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

For however smart he may have been in his day....James couldn't possibly understand the way the mind works as well as we do today. Which isn't to say we understand it well, we just understand it better than him.

 

[Neochristian]

But that has nothing to do with mystical experiences.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Neochristian]

They still teach it in university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ana the Ist]

They still teach it in university.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What university teaches mystical experiences?

To be fair...universities teach a lot of nonsense if they think it will get your money.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Seems insufficiently decisive as a definition, as its open to any way of knowing.

I'm not sure why that is a problem with the definition. It must be flexible enough to include different forms of mysticism.

How would you sharpen the definition?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not sure why that is a problem with the definition. It must be flexible enough to include different forms of mysticism.

How would you sharpen the definition?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Its specifically about experiencing the divine. Not just about generic "knowing".

 

[Eudaimonist]

Its specifically about experiencing the divine. Not just about generic "knowing".

No, I don't think that it is specifically about experiencing the divine (though in nearly all cases it is). This is how Buddhism could be considered a form of mysticism in Wikipedia:

According to Oliver, Buddhism is mystical in the sense that it aims at the identification of the true nature of our self, and live according to it.

But I suppose it is about experiencing something "hidden" that is inobvious to just anybody. I would accept that as an addition to my definition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[durangodawood]

No, I don't think that it is specifically about experiencing the divine (though in nearly all cases it is). This is how Buddhism could be considered a form of mysticism in Wikipedia:

According to Oliver, Buddhism is mystical in the sense that it aims at the identification of the true nature of our self, and live according to it.

But I suppose it is about experiencing something "hidden" that is inobvious to just anybody. I would accept that as an addition to my definition.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Even without divine beings, Buddhist mysticism is an entirely spiritual endeavor.
This isnt about knowledge of chemistry, or boat building, or what have you. Mysticism is the pursuit of (or experience of) a very specific type of knowledge or experience.

 

[Neochristian]

What university teaches mystical experiences?

To be fair...universities teach a lot of nonsense if they think it will get your money.

No, they teach William James who defines mystical experiences as having a noetic quality, which means they involve some "knowing."

 

[Eudaimonist]

Even without divine beings, Buddhist mysticism is an entirely spiritual endeavor.

So, would adding the word "spiritual" satisfy you? If so, you'll have to offer a definition to narrow down just what that means in this context.

This isnt about knowledge of chemistry, or boat building, or what have you.

Of course not, since those fields of knowledge aren't "hidden", and they have already been covered by rational activities. They are right out in the open accessible to just anybody. No one has to have a non-rational means of knowing something to learn about chemistry or boat-building.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

I just want to add that in pre-scientific times if someone did claim to have a non-rational means of figuring out the tiniest constituents of matter, something that allegedly no one else could do without the proper insight, I would be hard pressed not to call that person a mystic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Neochristian]

I just want to add that in pre-scientific times if someone did claim to have a non-rational means of figuring out the tiniest constituents of matter, something that allegedly no one else could do without the proper insight, I would be hard pressed not to call that person a mystic.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with mysticism. It's more like shamanism or witchcraft.

 

[durangodawood]

So, would adding the word "spiritual" satisfy you? If so, you'll have to offer a definition to narrow down just what that means in this context.



Of course not, since those fields of knowledge aren't "hidden", and they have already been covered by rational activities. They are right out in the open accessible to just anybody. No one has to have a non-rational means of knowing something to learn about chemistry or boat-building.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Yeah, "spiritual" is an important component.

I'm a little wary of chasing down one definition after another in order to nail down the first. This could go on and on.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with mysticism. It's more like shamanism or witchcraft.

How are you making that distinction?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Papias]

No, Paul's teachings essentially stem from Jesus' teachings found in the Gospel accounts.

No they don't. It's widely recognized among students of the Bibles that they often contradict Jesus' teachings. I mean, compare the soteriology of, say, Mt 25 with, say Paul's soteriology in Romans, and so on.

...mysticism is antithetical to the Christian faith as we walk by faith, not by sight (or feelings and experiences).

The trouble with mysticism is that there is no baseline for truth. Everything is subjective, and it cannot be compared to scripture. This is why it's so dangerous for Christians to submit themselves to mystical experiences.

The devil is brilliant, and can deceive people through scriptures even. How much more through mystical experiences?

But then aren't you throwing out most of the Bibles? After all, much of the scriptures themselves come from mystical experiences, such as the many already posted about by Paul, or the burning bush, or Daniel's visions, or Jacob's ladder, or Mary's visit by an angel, and on and on.

So since those can't be a baseline for truth, the Bibles can't be trusted?

In Christ-

Papias