Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It is identical to the other sensory interpretations except that instead of visual or auditory composites it is interpreted as the preence of God or oneness, etc. because that is what it "senses" in the presence of "fields." To assume that the only fields that exist to be sensed are the artificial fields used is ridiculous . . . given that 95% of our universe (God) is undetectable energy fields (dark energy and dark matter).
I sometimes say to people that if there are any Nobel Prize hopefuls in physics out there, then you have you work cut out for you:
I sometimes say to people that if there are any Nobel Prize hopefuls in physics out there, then you have you work cut out for you:
We don't really know what 95% of our universe is.
Given the measurement difficulties in dealing with non-baryonic forms of dark energy and dark matter . . . I tend to agree with you, BCD.
knowledge of, and especially the personal experience of, states of consciousness, or levels of being, or aspects of reality, beyond normal human perception, including experience of and even communion with a supreme being.
continuing wikp...
The present meaning of the term mysticism arose via Platonism and Neoplatonism—which referred to the Eleusinian initiation as a metaphor for the "initiation" to spiritual truths and experiences—and is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, instinct or insight. Mysticism usually centers on practices intended to nurture those experiences. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic
Notice above in the second paragraph the word pursuit. Also the second last sentence, mysticism usually centers on practices intended to nurture those experience's.
Man cannot corner or pursue a God by making the toes tingly in order to get tingly toes or a new motorcycle... he cannot commission a God and can only approach with full understood human nature. It is in the active flowing process of acknowledging and honoring the higher power for, the sure reason in tribute and praise itself. Logically it cannot be otherwise within reason itself. Otherwise all perceived is away from realism . If this is not the fundamental, the seating plan is mixed up. Inspiration toward is another matter.
The Christian as most know enter by a pathway in offer and understood human nature. The approach in the tranquil sit down in the woods is the same in mindset except rather then the order of the surroundings in notice, the offer in tribute and honor of god accomplish's, the absorption of order . ( logical opinion
In different cultures, religions and times, people have described experiences which go beyond the senses and knowledge and lead to the union with the Absolute, Void or Godhead. It's been said to be ineffable, liberating, transcendent and ecstatic. Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and other religions have had adherents at various times detailing these experiences.
So, what do you think of mysticism? Is there a scientific/psychological explanation for this phenomenon, or is it actual proof of God?
Mysticism is NOT religious and what you have described is "spiritual" NOT religious. Union as you have stated is also NOT with "Godhead" it is with God. Each human has their own definition of their own spirituality, experiences may be similiar to others but not the same since no human can feel the exact same emotion at the exact same time. Humans are individuals and their feelings, thoughts, reactions and actions are also individual so a definitive experience can be had by only one human. Much like trying to stand in the same place at the same time as another, it cannot be done. You can stand close to but you cannot stand in the exact same spot at the exact same moment as another. Proof of God is according to whatever "proof" is needed by each individual as well. Each defines their need of proof by their thoughts, actions, emotions and reactions. Similiar in nature but definitely not exactly the same.
It is identical to the other sensory interpretations
The sensory interpretations are the things you _are_ seeing. Sight is the sense you are seeing them with. That is the difference.
To repeat - sight is a sense. God is the thing you are claiming is being sensed. God is not a sense.
You think you sense something that others can not so you simply make up a whole new sense to explain it. The existence of this sense however has as little evidence supporting it as the thing being sensed does.
Just because there are things we can not detect does not mean you can make something up and declare it is one of those things. Until they are actually detected or evidenced you are just making stuff up.
The sensory interpretations are the things you _are_ seeing. Sight is the sense you are seeing them with. That is the difference.
That you do not understand the basic disconnect between the interpretation of sight and the actual stimuli involved is just one more bit of evidence that you lack sufficient understanding to discuss this intelligently. All we sense with sight are photon impacts, period. We interpret them into "what we are seeing." What we sense with our brain directly is "fields." We interpret them into "a presence of God" or other experiences.
The sensory interpretations are the things you _are_ seeing. Sight is the sense you are seeing them with. That is the difference.
To repeat - sight is a sense. God is the thing you are claiming is being sensed. God is not a sense.
You think you sense something that others can not so you simply make up a whole new sense to explain it. The existence of this sense however has as little evidence supporting it as the thing being sensed does.
Just because there are things we can not detect does not mean you can make something up and declare it is one of those things. Until they are actually detected or evidenced you are just making stuff up.
This is correct.
Feelings can be untrue. We know this. Scent can suggest only. Scent is only a suggestion. To sense by a suggested sensation (feeling) the reality of a God, is illogical in determining a potential value in belief a God exists. It is a self admitted guess for convenience. Either you got company or you don't.
i does not matter how mystic or how many proofs there are even if he materializes or speaks to people we will write them off as crazy and press them get counseling & to take meds. any of the prophets or leaders of the OT would today be deemed mentally ill.
but why stop there any of the founding father would be deemed unfit for office. OMG LOL
it would seem that we have been turned upside down.
Last edited by Huckleberry3911948; 04-27-2012 at 11:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
