Thank you for the replies.
------------------------
So, I am curious to hear a reply to a commonly used argument I am sure you have heard.
If you say there is no "T"ruth with a big "T", you are in fact saying that the "T"ruth is that there is no "T"ruth. The statement itself requires absolute truth to exist. What is your response?
-----------------------
Also, by saying the mystic allows everything else to become lucid, the point is that the most basic assumptions (God does / does not exist) cast light on the rest of our thinking (or this is my understanding). So, if you know by revelation the existence of God (for example), then you can think clearly about the meaning (or lack thereof) in the universe. Otherwise "thinking" becomes unguided; built upon presuppositions that have no basis and therefore all conclusions unverifiable.
-------------------------
I asked how you "feel" because without revelation you have no basis for thinking anything on these issues. They are unknowns. You can have an opinion, but not a fact. No matter how much you think about them, you cannot know anything for sure. (not to mention I am not exactly taking the time to consider the semantics of every single statement I am making... I, like the rest of you, do have responsibilities).
-------------------------
I agree fully that we should try to understand mysteries rather than automatically attributing them to magic or Deity. However, I believe that there are certain things we can only know by revelation (Plato and Aristotle had a difference of opinion on this point).
------------------------
So, I am curious to hear a reply to a commonly used argument I am sure you have heard.
If you say there is no "T"ruth with a big "T", you are in fact saying that the "T"ruth is that there is no "T"ruth. The statement itself requires absolute truth to exist. What is your response?
-----------------------
Also, by saying the mystic allows everything else to become lucid, the point is that the most basic assumptions (God does / does not exist) cast light on the rest of our thinking (or this is my understanding). So, if you know by revelation the existence of God (for example), then you can think clearly about the meaning (or lack thereof) in the universe. Otherwise "thinking" becomes unguided; built upon presuppositions that have no basis and therefore all conclusions unverifiable.
-------------------------
I asked how you "feel" because without revelation you have no basis for thinking anything on these issues. They are unknowns. You can have an opinion, but not a fact. No matter how much you think about them, you cannot know anything for sure. (not to mention I am not exactly taking the time to consider the semantics of every single statement I am making... I, like the rest of you, do have responsibilities).
-------------------------
I agree fully that we should try to understand mysteries rather than automatically attributing them to magic or Deity. However, I believe that there are certain things we can only know by revelation (Plato and Aristotle had a difference of opinion on this point).
