Islamic Law, God's law?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 06:11 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth;68898 wrote:
"I mean that we've learned nothing directly from mysticism . . . former mistakes feeling for knowing . . . I'm talking about actually acquiring knowledge from mysticism as a methodology."


What about this statement is incorrect? Give me an example of directly acquiring knowledge from mystical experience? What facts about the world can we learn directly from mystical experience? Also, the sentence you quoted is my opinion of the epistemic utility of mysticism, but I said nothing wrong about what mysticism is.

Mysticism (from the Greek μυστικός, mystikos, an initiate of a mystery religion[1]) is the pursuit of communion with, identity with, or conscious awareness of an ultimate reality, divinity, spiritual truth, or God through direct experience, intuition, or insight. Mysticism usually centers on a practice or practices intended to nurture those experiences or awareness. Mysticism may be dualistic, maintaining a distinction between the self and the divine, or may be nondualistic. Differing religious traditions have described this fundamental mystical experience in different ways:


Mysticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 06:33 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;68900 wrote:
Also, the sentence you quoted is my opinion of the epistemic utility of mysticism, but I said nothing wrong about what mysticism is.


Yes you did, you said nothing is learned directly from mysticism. The most precious, enduring, life-altering, wisdom-producing and fulfilling of all that I've ever learned in life has come from the inner experience (aka, "mystical").


hue-man;68900 wrote:
What about this statement is incorrect? Give me an example of directly acquiring knowledge from mystical experience? What facts about the world can we learn directly from mystical experience?


Why should I? IMHO you aren't open to what it takes to acquire knowledge through this, and unless you practice yourself, you only have my word for it which, since you won't accept anybody acquires knowledge through the mystical experience means you won't accept my word either . . . and so it will go with no progress toward understanding. So I think I'll just let you think what you want.
 
Poseidon
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 06:39 pm
@hue-man,
Quote:

What about this statement is incorrect? Give me an example of directly acquiring knowledge from mystical experience?


Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Descartes, Galileo, etc...

All Theists,
all venerated the Divine as the source of all knowledge.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 07:46 pm
@Poseidon,
Poseidon;68910 wrote:
Newton, Einstein, Darwin, Descartes, Galileo, etc...

All Theists,
all venerated the Divine as the source of all knowledge.


Einstein and Darwin were not theists. Einstein was a deist and Darwin was damn near an atheist or agnostic when he founded the theory of natural selection. Newton and Galileo made their discoveries from the use of the empirical method, not the 'mystical method'.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 07:47 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;68935 wrote:
Newton and Galileo made their discoveries from the use of the empirical method, not the 'mystical method'.
And so did Einstein and Darwin.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 07:54 pm
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth;68907 wrote:
Yes you did, you said nothing is learned directly from mysticism. The most precious, enduring, life-altering, wisdom-producing and fulfilling of all that I've ever learned in life has come from the inner experience (aka, "mystical").


Describe this mystical inner experience to me? Tell me the method for acquiring actual facts about the objective world from mystical experience?

LWSleeth;68907 wrote:
Why should I? IMHO you aren't open to what it takes to acquire knowledge through this, and unless you practice yourself, you only have my word for it which, since you won't accept anybody acquires knowledge through the mystical experience means you won't accept my word either . . . and so it will go with no progress toward understanding. So I think I'll just let you think what you want.


You should give me an example because you're claiming that you can. The personal experience argument is just a cop out. Don't make the claim if you can't back it up.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 07:58 pm
@hue-man,
I think that people can have insight that is not derived from some systematic observation of the world. Whether you call it mystical or whatever is a matter of attribution and not process. If such insight is deemed to provide facts about the world (because it's later corroborated), one can't forget that this insight occurs in people who already have experience of the world, so it's no wonder that it might correspond to reality.
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 10:15 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;68938 wrote:
Don't make the claim if you can't back it up.


I can back it up, but how do I reason with a hunk of wood? You already think you know the truth, no amount of explanation by me is going to get you to objectively consider what I say.


hue-man;68938 wrote:
The personal experience argument is just a cop out.


I rest my case.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------

hue-man;68935 wrote:
Einstein and Darwin were not theists. Einstein was a deist and Darwin was damn near an atheist or agnostic when he founded the theory of natural selection. Newton and Galileo made their discoveries from the use of the empirical method, not the 'mystical method'.


Kabir, Jesus, Nanak, the Buddha . . . all made their discoveries WITHOUT the use of the empirical method. So what? Why are you arguing that because empiricism is effective, nothing else is? Is it due to having explored all other ways and speak from experience? Or is it merely an uninformed and opinionated view?
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Sat 13 Jun, 2009 11:51 pm
@xris,
xris;68763 wrote:
This may sound extreme but no ones forcing muslims to live in a secular country.What you should be asking is why in certain muslim countries such as Iran you have no rights to even stand for election if you are not a muslim.In ksa you are not even allowed to carry a bible through customs.Again sharia is not law its a way of life,it is used to decide such things as, is it acceptable for women to train as doctors.As there is no hard and fast rules, its down to the council to decide at anyone time what is correct.There are no written laws, its law by consensus of a few Imams.Todays moderate council can become the extremist council, as no laws are conceived by statute,its down to interpretation.Its the same faith that decides children should not fly kites or play music.I honestly believe sharia will cause more divisions in our communities if it is allowed to increase in its use.



Oh the pride of living in the industrialized first world. Why do people live in their country under theocratic law? Why don't they just leave? Because its what they know its what they were raised into. In discussions of politics and idealistic ethics the people who don't actually live under the policies or in the areas they are discussing forget about the nature of humanity and the nature of culture. People live where they live because they were born there and they do not have the financial options we have in the industrialized first world. Human nature while under duress is not to transcend for the sake of ideal it is to adapt and survive. Human nature is to make the nest out of your situation. The nature of culture is to limit perceivable options. The nature of culture is to raise a person to be integrated into it. Most people do not even notice that they might have an option to leave. Others who do will feel traitorous.
Aside from this revolutions normally do not happen without an economic middle class that has no real power but enough money to free up their existence from the simple struggle of survival. To say why don't they just move is to say, why don't you go tell the queen you want to be knighted. The likelihood of either is small for the majority of the population that they will have the wherewithal to move or get knighted. Idealism is great and noble but practicality is prudent and useful.
 
LWSleeth
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 12:57 am
@Aedes,
Aedes;68939 wrote:
If such insight is deemed to provide facts about the world (because it's later corroborated), one can't forget that this insight occurs in people who already have experience of the world, so it's no wonder that it might correspond to reality.


[SIZE="3"]I'll take a shot at this in hopes of open-minded consideration.

I could describe a thing or two learned in the mystical experience about observable reality, but which correspond to little or nothing in "normal" experience. However, in order to avoid a new debate over how real they are, let me describe something that may be more easily believable.

Most everyone has heard the idea of how it is smarter to teach people how to farm, than it is to keep giving them food. That idea expresses the usefulness of learning new skills over just chasing immediate needs. To explain how that's relevant to this discussion, let's say a person is raised, as most of us are, to study and understand how the universe works using our intellect and senses. As we grow and learn, we accumulate knowledge about existence as a human being in a physical universe.

In general, we learn a great many different things about the "parts" of the universe . . . let's say that learning establishes expertise in the parts-view. Some people are smart enough to grasp principles that connect up a few things, principles that apply more broadly than to just one situation. In some ways these turn out to be the very best sorts of principles to learn because one can best figure out a new situation if he can quickly recognize in what ways familiar principles are at work.

Earlier I quoted a well-known aspect of the mystical experience, that of suddenly being absorbed into a larger realm. This quote of Julian of Norwich (a 14th century monastic) is typical of the report: "And then the Lord opened my ghostly eye and shewed my soul in the midst of my heart. I saw the Soul as it were an endless world, and as it were a blissful kingdom."

Whether or not one really is drawn into "endless world," the experience does leave one with a new awareness of reality: the whole-view. Now, when added to a well-developed "parts-view" it gives a person a new tool for examining reality. How? The whole-view provides a underlying awareness of unity, and a means for better seeing how all the parts are related to both each other and the whole.

So similar to how giving people seeds and training on how to farm doesn't immediately produce food but does better ensure long-term survival, so too does the mystical experience enhance one's overall ability to acquire knowledge of the world without necessarily providing external "facts" right off the bat.[/SIZE]
 
xris
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 03:30 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;68999 wrote:
Oh the pride of living in the industrialized first world. Why do people live in their country under theocratic law? Why don't they just leave? Because its what they know its what they were raised into. In discussions of politics and idealistic ethics the people who don't actually live under the policies or in the areas they are discussing forget about the nature of humanity and the nature of culture. People live where they live because they were born there and they do not have the financial options we have in the industrialized first world. Human nature while under duress is not to transcend for the sake of ideal it is to adapt and survive. Human nature is to make the nest out of your situation. The nature of culture is to limit perceivable options. The nature of culture is to raise a person to be integrated into it. Most people do not even notice that they might have an option to leave. Others who do will feel traitorous.
Aside from this revolutions normally do not happen without an economic middle class that has no real power but enough money to free up their existence from the simple struggle of survival. To say why don't they just move is to say, why don't you go tell the queen you want to be knighted. The likelihood of either is small for the majority of the population that they will have the wherewithal to move or get knighted. Idealism is great and noble but practicality is prudent and useful.
That would be fine but 90% of those who demand sharia chose to live in the UK.They are all rich enough to move to a Muslim country.I could not live in a country that had sharia as its form of law enforcement, my conscious would not allow me.To deny others the right to be elected ,to refuse worship to others, to hang homosexuals or stone adulterers, no i would have to leave whatever the cost.This is sharia and to wrap it up some fine clothes is ignoring the truth.I live in a secular country and to introduce sharia in any form counters my ancestors fight to remove faith from influence in justice.If muslims want advice from their elders thats fine but to incorporate into a form of judgement is in my opinion illegal.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 14 Jun, 2009 09:54 am
@LWSleeth,
LWSleeth;68979 wrote:
I can back it up, but how do I reason with a hunk of wood? You already think you know the truth, no amount of explanation by me is going to get you to objectively consider what I say.




I rest my case.

---------- Post added at 09:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 PM ----------



Kabir, Jesus, Nanak, the Buddha . . . all made their discoveries WITHOUT the use of the empirical method. So what? Why are you arguing that because empiricism is effective, nothing else is? Is it due to having explored all other ways and speak from experience? Or is it merely an uninformed and opinionated view?


Excuses, excuses, excuses. The truth is not some personal, subjective experience. I never said anything about having the truth. I just don't believe that mysticism gives you any real truth. I'm simply asking you to give me an example of how it does give you truth, but your apprehension is stagnating.

Jesus and Buddha didn't discover the truth. Jesus and Buddha asked the question - "what is right", and they didn't exactly reach the same conclusion. There is a difference between the insight revealed by epistemology and the insight revealed by axiology.
 
GoshisDead
 
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 02:51 am
@hue-man,
Xris:
Statistics without references? really 90% of people who want sharia law? In England? Because they are all rich? But don't want to live in the Middle East? Spurious?
 
xris
 
Reply Mon 15 Jun, 2009 05:02 am
@GoshisDead,
GoshisDead;69381 wrote:
Xris:
Statistics without references? really 90% of people who want sharia law? In England? Because they are all rich? But don't want to live in the Middle East? Spurious?
I said rich enough, not rich.The middle east is not the only muslim area that is available to them.The majority of muslims living in the uk have chosen to live here or they have the ability to move to a muslim country.Do you ever hear of Muslim countries accomodating secular law for the benefit of its minorities,in egypt you can be arrested for kissing your wife,on the cheek, hello in the streets.
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 12:16 pm
@hue-man,
The prophet Muhamad saw not Archangel Gabriel. It has accepted for the Archangel Satan. The Satan has given Muhamedu the koran. Therefore Islam is Satanism. Muchamad - the prophet of the Satan. Lucifer & Gabriel - its archangels.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:18 pm
@Marat phil,
Marat;156778 wrote:
The prophet Muhamad saw not Archangel Gabriel. It has accepted for the Archangel Satan. The Satan has given Muhamedu the koran. Therefore Islam is Satanism. Muchamad - the prophet of the Satan. Lucifer & Gabriel - its archangels.

Saitan was never called an arch-angel anymore. He has been Prince of Darkness but I doubt he would teach Mohammed himself.

The teachings to Mohammed could have been done by some other angel or Djin. The problem is the translations to Arabic which caused many mistakes.

We christioans have the same problem.
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 01:29 pm
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;156803 wrote:
Saitan was never called an arch-angel anymore. He has been Prince of Darkness but I doubt he would teach Mohammed himself.

The teachings to Mohammed could have been done by some other angel or Djin. The problem is the translations to Arabic which caused many mistakes.

We christioans have the same problem.


Important one. Gabriel wasn't Gabriel. It not from God. Islam is doctrine of evil ghosts. Not important demons (West) gins (East) or UFO (today). It EVIL.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 06:34 am
@Marat phil,
Marat;156812 wrote:
Important one. Gabriel wasn't Gabriel. It not from God. Islam is doctrine of evil ghosts. Not important demons (West) gins (East) or UFO (today). It EVIL.


Do not worry:bigsmile:
Evil has been 'rpound

Evil has been around a long Time
Never succeeded beyond despair
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 06:41 am
@Pepijn Sweep,
Pepijn Sweep;157037 wrote:
Do not worry:bigsmile:
Evil has been 'rpound

Evil has been around a long Time
Never succeeded beyond despair


I read Koran. Has downloaded from Internet on mine ORSIO txt book. It is the malicious book. Violence, threats, debauchery, dirt!
 
Marat phil
 
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:18 pm
@hue-man,
YouTube - Anovim Anovim - MBD ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ???

This is right !
 
 

 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/19/2019 at 01:38:14