Scriptural support for universal morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-01-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
Let me ask you Pop goes the weirdo Can you name anything that cannot be proved with scripture? anything at all? These people claiming that NASA never got to the moon were using Babble verses in their arguments!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 02:46 PM (This post was last modified: 15-01-2016 03:16 PM by popsthebuilder.)
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 09:26 AM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 09:07 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The thing to remember is that ungodly and disbelief ultimately refer to one type, and that is the one who knowingly blasphemes.

Ah, blasphemy. Truly the only victimless crime.

And spare me the preaching. Threats of hellfire from long-dead delusional prophets mean nothing.

And I note that you are avoiding the question I posted earlier.
I'd be happy to talk about whatever you want, just reference scripture so I can read for my self please.

Thanks, I look forward to it.

Wasn't trying to put you off.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 02:48 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 10:18 AM)DerFish Wrote:  Let me ask you Pop goes the weirdo Can you name anything that cannot be proved with scripture? anything at all? These people claiming that NASA never got to the moon were using Babble verses in their arguments!
Woe! That's wild. I don't know if there are things that are verifiable or not verifiable by scripture. That's a good question. I guess you could give an example.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 03:09 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 02:48 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  Woe! That's wild. I don't know if there are things that are verifiable or not verifiable by scripture. That's a good question. I guess you could give an example.

FacepalmSadcryfaceSadcryface2Laughat

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Banjo's post
15-01-2016, 03:43 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 05:12 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(14-01-2016 08:31 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  As far as the Qur'an is concerned. It holds the highest regard for Jesus as the one pure messenger of GOD.

They refer to none as the son of GOD for good reason.
The issue is the hypocrisy of So called Christians who don't follow scripture, thinking that Jesus as a man was at that time equivalent to GOD wholly, is a big issue.

You sound like a mystic, no wonder you like to make Gnostic proclamations.
I don't separate natural from spiritual. Based on what I just read on Wikipedia I would agree.

Parson warns that "what might at times seem to be a straightforward phenomenon exhibiting an unambiguous commonality has become, at least within the academic study of religion, opaque and controversial on multiple levels".[6] The definition, or meaning, of the term "mysticism" has changed through the ages.[web 2]

Spiritual life and re-formation Edit
Main article: Spirituality
According to Evelyn Underhill, mysticism is "the science or art of the spiritual life."[7] It is

...the expression of the innate tendency of the human spirit towards complete harmony with the transcendental order; whatever be the theological formula under which that order is understood.[8][note 1][note 2]

Parson stresses the importance of distinguishing between

...episodic experience and mysticism as a process that, though surely punctuated by moments of visionary, unitive, and transformative encounters, is ultimately inseparable from its embodied relation to a total religious matrix: liturgy, scripture, worship, virtues, theology, rituals, practice and the arts.[9]

According to Gellmann,

Typically, mystics, theistic or not, see their mystical experience as part of a larger undertaking aimed at human transformation (See, for example, Teresa of Avila, Life, Chapter 19) and not as the terminus of their efforts. Thus, in general, ‘mysticism’ would best be thought of as a constellation of distinctive practices, discourses, texts, institutions, traditions, and experiences aimed at human transformation, variously defined in different traditions.[web 1][note 3]

McGinn argues that "presence" is more accurate than "union", since not all mystics spoke of union with God, and since many visions and miracles were not necessarily related to union. He also argues that we should speak of "consciousness" of God's presence, rather than of "experience", since mystical activity is not simply about the sensation of God as an external object, but more broadly about

...new ways of knowing and loving based on states of awareness in which God becomes present in our inner acts.[12]

D.J. Moores too mentions "love" as a central element:

Mysticism, then, is the perception of the universe and all of its seemingly disparate entities existing in a unified whole bound together by love.[13]

Related to the idea of "presence" instead of "experience" is the transformation that occurs through mystical activity:

This is why the only test that Christianity has known for determining the authenticity of a mystic and her or his message has been that of personal transformation, both on the mystic's part and—especially—on the part of those whom the mystic has affected.[12]

Belzen and Geels also note that mysticism is

...a way of life and a 'direct consciousness of the presence of God' [or] 'the ground of being' or similar expressions.[14]

Enlightenment Edit
Main article: Enlightenment (spiritual)
Some authors emphasize that mystical experience involves intuitive understanding and the resolution of life problems. According to Larson,

A mystical experience is an intuitive understanding and realization of the meaning of existence – an intuitive understanding and realization which is intense, integrating, self-authenticating, liberating – i.e., providing a sense of release from ordinary self-awareness – and subsequently determinative – i.e., a primary criterion – for interpreting all other experience whether cognitive, conative, or affective.[15]

And James R. Horne notes:

[M]ystical illumination is interpreted as a central visionary experience in a psychological and behavioural process that results in the resolution of a personal or religious problem. This factual, minimal interpretation depicts mysticism as an extreme and intense form of the insight seeking process that goes in activities such as solving theoretical problems or developing new inventions.[3][note 4][note 5]

Mystical experience and union with the Divine Edit
William James, who popularized the use of the term "religious experience"[note 6] in his The Varieties of Religious Experience,[19][20][web 1] influenced the understanding of mysticism as a distinctive experience which supplies knowledge of the transcendental.[21][web 1] He considered the "personal religion"[22] to be "more fundamental than either theology or ecclesiasticism",[22] and states:

In mystic states we both become one with the Absolute and we become aware of our oneness. This is the everlasting and triumphant mystical tradition, hardly altered by differences of clime or creed. In Hinduism, in Neoplatonism, in Sufism, in Christian mysticism, in Whitmanism, we find the same recurring note, so that there is about mystical utterances an eternal unanimity which ought to make a critic stop and think, and which bring it about that the mystical classics have, as been said, neither birthday not native land.[23]

According to McClenon, mysticism is

The doctrine that special mental states or events allow an understanding of ultimate truths. Although it is difficult to differentiate which forms of experience allow such understandings, mental episodes supporting belief in "other kinds of reality" are often labeled mystical [...] Mysticism tends to refer to experiences supporting belief in a cosmic unity rather than the advocation of a particular religious ideology.[web 3]

According to Blakemore and Jennett,

Mysticism is frequently defined as an experience of direct communion with God, or union with the Absolute,[note 7] but definitions of mysticism (a relatively modern term) are often imprecise and usually rely on the presuppositions of the modern study of mysticism — namely, that mystical experiences involve a set of intense and usually individual and private psychological states [...] Furthermore, mysticism is a phenomenon said to be found in all major religious traditions.[web 4][note 8]

History Edit

Early Christianity Edit
Main articles: Greco-Roman mysteries, Early Christianity and Esoteric Christianity
In the Hellenistic world, 'mystical' referred to "secret" religious rituals[web 1] The use of the word lacked any direct references to the transcendental.[25] A "mystikos" was an initiate of a mystery religion.

In early Christianity the term "mystikos" referred to three dimensions, which soon became intertwined, namely the biblical, the liturgical and the spiritual or contemplative.[1] The biblical dimension refers to "hidden" or allegorical interpretations of Scriptures.[web 1][1] The liturgical dimension refers to the liturgical mystery of the Eucharist, the presence of Christ at the Eucharist.[web 1][1] The third dimension is the contemplative or experiential knowledge of God.[1]

The link between mysticism and the vision of the Divine was introduced by the early Church Fathers, who used the term as an adjective, as in mystical theology and mystical contemplation.[25]

Medieval meaning Edit
See also: Middle Ages
This threefold meaning of "mystical" continued in the Middle Ages.[1] Under the influence of Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite the mystical theology came to denote the investigation of the allegorical truth of the Bible.[1] Pseudo-Dionysius' Apophatic theology, or "negative theology", exerted a great influence on medieval monastic religiosity, although it was mostly a male religiosity, since women were not allowed to study.[26] It was influenced by Neo-Platonism, and very influential in Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. In western Christianity it was a counter-current to the prevailing Cataphatic theology or "positive theology". It is best known nowadays in the western world from Meister Eckhart and John of the Cross.

Early modern meaning Edit
See also: Early modern period

The Appearance of the Holy Spirit before Saint Teresa of Ávila, Peter Paul Rubens
In the sixteenth and seventeenth century mysticism came to be used as a substantive.[25] This shift was linked to a new discourse,[25] in which science and religion were separated.[27]

Luther dismissed the allegorical interpretation of the bible, and condemned Mystical theology, which he saw as more Platonic than Christian.[28] "The mystical", as the search for the hidden meaning of texts, became secularised, and also associated with literature, as opposed to science and prose.[29]

Science was also distinguished from religion. By the middle of the 17th century, "the mystical" is increasingly applied exclusively to the religious realm, separating religion and "natural philosophy" as two distinct approaches to the discovery of the hidden meaning of the universe.[30] The traditional hagiographies and writings of the saints became designated as "mystical", shifting from the virtues and miracles to extraordinary experiences and states of mind, thereby creating a newly coined "mystical tradition".[2] A new understanding developed of the Divine as residing within human, an essence beyond the varieties of religious expressions.[25]

Contemporary meaning Edit
See also: Western esotericism, Theosophy, Syncretism, Spirituality and New Age
In the 19th century the meaning of mysticism was considerably narrowed:[web 2]

The competition between the perspectives of theology and science resulted in a compromise in which most varieties of what had traditionally been called mysticism were dismissed as merely psychological phenomena and only one variety, which aimed at union with the Absolute, the Infinite, or God—and thereby the perception of its essential unity or oneness—was claimed to be genuinely mystical. The historical evidence, however, does not support such a narrow conception of mysticism.[web 2]

It's pretty interesting...to me.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 03:54 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 07:32 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 07:22 AM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  The mutations themselves are genetic somewhat, making them not random.

That makes no sense. Transcript errors, cross-overs, and inversions are random events that take place at the genetic level. They have been studied extensively.

Quote:The probability of beneficial traits being passed on through procreation by the organism with the beneficial mutation is no where near random.

That makes no sense either. Every germ cell has a random shuffling of genetic material. Which of the sperm cells merges with which egg cell is random. If the "mutation" is beneficial then that organism is more likely to have offspring which increases the number of occurrences in the population which increases the likelihood that it will be passed on to even more organisms.
It's not a random shuffling of traits. They are generally all the same. Mutations are a fact. Perhaps they are equally positive and negative. The fact that the beneficial ones cancel out the negative ones over time is not random. If there was no mutation whatsoever then there would be no potential for positive change, or change at all for that matter. It isn't the mutation that I'm focusing on. I'm looking at the whole thing. Even what you say is random isn't. Surely it is a variable that is subject to change. Just because a piece of something seems somewhat random, that doesn't make evolution random, at all.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 04:02 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 02:46 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'd be happy to talk about whatever you want, just reference scripture so I can read for my self please.

Thanks, I look forward to it.

Wasn't trying to put you off.

Are you saying that you cannot find the Flood (Genesis), Passover (Exodus) and the others I referenced? And You've studied the bible?

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 04:14 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 04:02 PM)Fatbaldhobbit Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 02:46 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  I'd be happy to talk about whatever you want, just reference scripture so I can read for my self please.

Thanks, I look forward to it.

Wasn't trying to put you off.

Are you saying that you cannot find the Flood (Genesis), Passover (Exodus) and the others I referenced? And You've studied the bible?
No, I would just like for you to be specific, so maybe I can be too.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 04:20 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
At work.

Must admit I look forward to the rebuttal of Pop's last twaddle reply about evolution.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-01-2016, 04:26 PM
RE: Scriptural support for universal morality
(15-01-2016 03:54 PM)popsthebuilder Wrote:  
(15-01-2016 07:32 AM)unfogged Wrote:  That makes no sense. Transcript errors, cross-overs, and inversions are random events that take place at the genetic level. They have been studied extensively.


That makes no sense either. Every germ cell has a random shuffling of genetic material. Which of the sperm cells merges with which egg cell is random. If the "mutation" is beneficial then that organism is more likely to have offspring which increases the number of occurrences in the population which increases the likelihood that it will be passed on to even more organisms.
It's not a random shuffling of traits. They are generally all the same. Mutations are a fact. Perhaps they are equally positive and negative. The fact that the beneficial ones cancel out the negative ones over time is not random. If there was no mutation whatsoever then there would be no potential for positive change, or change at all for that matter. It isn't the mutation that I'm focusing on. I'm looking at the whole thing. Even what you say is random isn't. Surely it is a variable that is subject to change. Just because a piece of something seems somewhat random, that doesn't make evolution random, at all.

1. You are totally unqualified to say ONE word about anything scientific. Including Evolution.
2. Nothing "cancels" anything out. But thanks for demonstrating you have NOT ONE CLUE what you are going on about.

Quote:It isn't the mutation that I'm focusing on. I'm looking at the whole thing. Even what you say is random isn't. Surely it is a variable that is subject to change. Just because a piece of something seems somewhat random, that doesn't make evolution random, at all.

....is meaningless rubbish. You have not one clue how it works.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: