Post by a UR concerned about Mysticism....


This is a post by a UR from another discussion board about his concern where UR is heading. Enjoy.

I have been coming here for years, I’ve seen mods come and go and members come and go and I try my best not to hold anything against anybody but it’s getting to a point where it’s not individuals but has become the whole group.

There is no longer a desire for enlightenment by UR believers. Instead mysticism and supposition has taken over. People aren’t interested in sound understanding but invent their own vain ideologies.

Just as mainstream Eternal Damnation believers got way off track of the gospel it sure hasn’t taken UR to long to do the same. Just as they invented unbiblical docrtrine to establish their claims, UR believers are well on their way also.

I tell everybody here right now so when they see it coming they aren’t taken off gaurd; there will have to be another revelation from God given to another people about the goodness He has for the world, the same revelation that started UR, because this revelation has become man polluted. This site has stopped being discussion and has become a den for cliques and a battlefield for anyone who may think differently. People used to come here to search for answers to life’s questions… now all that takes place is judgment against those who arent here… we are just the newest gang… The Universalists.


The Gospel as the latest fad! Clever BA! Who are you working for, Jonah?


I think he’s just talking about people being knee-jerk hostile, Ran. :wink:

But speaking as someone who has both an appreciation for mysticism (being something of a mystic myself) and as someone who doesn’t actually like most mysticism (being more of a logician than a mystic): I wouldn’t say there’s much mysticism per se on this forum yet. John strikes me as the most mystical contributor here by a wide margin.

And that’s probably just as well. :slight_smile:

Where I have agreements and disagreements with various contributors, tends to be on technical issues: logical validity, getting in the data, context, etc.



Thank you. Amen. Ranran, Total Victory, Aaron, Studentoftheword and others… are not too far behind.



Most people on this discussion board are not evangelical at all. They post mystical, not-biblical comments and invent their own vain ideologies. The scripture support they do give is wrenched out of context to the point it is embarrassing. :wink:


It seems to me that anything BA disagrees with is immediately dismissed as being “mystical”, non-biblical, and out of context. If it doesn’t agree with the traditions that he particularly follows, that means we’re making it up.

Of course, I have no problem with “mysticism” of a sort that is warrented by scripture. Anything to do with God is necessarily mystical, as well as anything we call “spiritual”. BA surely believes in such mystical things such as believers having the Spirit of God in them, Jesus being both God and Man, the inspiration of the bible, etc. Or do you deny those things, BA? :confused:

From my perspective, anything that supports infinite torment can only do so while being taken out of context. But, you see, I can also understand how BA’s reasoning works–having been there myself–only now I believe I was mistaken in my understanding. BA just labels us a bunch of unreasoning, illogical, emotion-led mystics–all because we disagree with him! :laughing:

Well, anyway, if that other board is being taken over by un-Spiritual behaviour and un-warrented mysticism, I’m glad that someone is wise enough to stand up and rebuke his fellows. Believing in UR does not automatically make a better Christian–“you will know them by their fruit”–doctrine is not the issue there, practice is.




This gentleman sees where UR used to be( in his mind) and where it is now…man polluted vain ideologies. I agree 100% with him. :wink:


It would help if you would define ‘mysticism’.


I discussed that privately with BA, offering him the following. (I said I was fine with #1.)

He means #3.




The best definition of Mysticism is definition #3.

mys·ti·cism (mst-szm)
a. Immediate consciousness of the transcendent or ultimate reality or God.
b. The experience of such communion as described by mystics.
2. A belief in the existence of realities beyond perceptual or intellectual apprehension that are central to being and directly accessible by subjective experience.
3. Vague, groundless speculation


Dondi: It would help if you (BA) would define ‘mysticism’.

Tom: U-o, here it comes…

BA: The best definition of Mysticism is: 3. Vague, groundless speculation.

Tom: Ya’ll have to forgive me for the hard time I’ve been giving BA. I’m just more surprised every time I drop in to the site and read him. He’s beyond ridiculous. I mean, I’ve gone from mildly surprised to amazed at his inability to grasp arguments and follow a line of reasoning, then from frustrated to humored at the ridiculous things he says. But to hear HIM comment on mysticism takes the cake. BA, I apologize for making fun with the pictures and silliness. I really thought you were intentionally trying to get under our skin. People do that on websites you know. But no; you really do believe the things you say. And the reasoning process behind your posts? Wow. That really IS you trying to think. In that case I cannot laugh about your posts any more. Dude, I’m truly sorry and I feel for ya.

Sonja’s #1 captures the Eastern Orthodox understanding and practice of mysticism. Right on. If BA knew anything at all about Christian mysticism he’d…oh well, doesn’t matter. Whether BA’s here to intentionally frustrate us or because he’s theologically/philosophically challenged (I don’t know), trying to converse with him is pointless.


Κύριε Ιησού Χριστέ, Υιέ του Θεού, ελέησόν με τον αμαρτωλόν.
Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner.


So, he chose the least common definition to define the word? They should make him a bible translator. :smiling_imp:


This would at least explain why BA thinks those other guys aren’t so far behind John–I mean our forum poster–in being ‘mystical’ in their writings. :unamused:

Most Christian scholars, though, regard mysticism as a genre type (whether the mysticism says something they agree with or not, and whether they themselves can appreciate the attempts or not), where the artist or practitioner attempts to express the content of a mystical experience (and usually hopes to lead another person into sharing that experience). Heck, most formal scholars of any ideology typically think of mysticism that way.

There are of course various ignorant scholars, speaking far out of their field, who would denigrate any mysticism as piffle by definition. But dang, why follow them??

Now, poor or cheap or fake mysticism results in vague or groundless speculation (including when Christians are trying to do it and failing to do it particularly well). But for any Christian to define all mysticism that way, would be to contravene quite a lot of material in the Bible!


Here is a good example of Christian mysticism. It’s a 15th century English poem, author unknown, which applies a common tradition among Christians to apply the Song of Solomon (among other OT scriptures) to Christ and His relationship to Israel/the Church. (As it happens, the quote from SoS was spoken by the bride, not the bridegroom, but then the groom in the SoS is hardly suffering for the bride that much. :wink: )

The original can be found in an old edition of Penguin’s Book of Mystical Verse (not all of which is Christian in doctrine, btw.) I happened to find it while meandering bored through an antique store (following Mom and sister-in-law :mrgreen: ), and bought the book mainly so that I could take this poem home and transliterate it into more modern English. (The original isn’t Middle English, but hews a lot closer to that form.)

Within the vale of restless mind
I sought on mountain and in mede.
True love I quested for to find:
upon a hill, I then took heed;
a voice I heard, quite near indeed,
in great dolour complaining tho:
“See, dear soul! My side does bleed!
Quia amore langueo!” [cf SongSol 2:5, 5:8]

Upon this mount I found a tree;
beneath this tree a man sitting;
from head to foot wounded was he,
his heart’s own blood I saw bleeding.
A seemly man, to be a king;
a gracious face, whose tears did flow.
I asked from where his pain did spring.
“Quia amore langueo.”

I am true love that false was never;
my sister (he said) I loved her thus.
Because I would not desert her–ever!–
I left my kingdom glorious.
I paid for her a place precious.
She fled. I followed. I loved her so,
I suffered these woundings piteous!
Quia amore langueo.

Ah! My love and my lady bright!
I saved her from treason; she hath me betrayed.
I clothed her in grace and in heavenly light;
this bloody surcoat she hath on me laid.
For longing of love I shall not be dismayed;
I have loved her as ever I promised her so.
These wounds are full precious to me, though I’m flayed!
Quia amore langueo.

I crowned her with bliss; she crowned me with thorn.
I led her to chamber. She led me to die.
I brought her to worship. She brought me to scorn.
I reverenced her. She spat in my eye.
To love that does love, it is no wonder why (that)
her hatred has never made my love her foe.
So ask me no more why my love does not die!
…but quia amore langueo.

Look unto my hands here, man!
These gloves I was given, when her love I sought;
they be not white, but red and wan,
embroidered with blood–my spouse them bought.
I could take them off–but I leave them not!
With these I do woo her wherever she goes.
These hands full friendly for her have fought!!
Quia amore langueo.

Marvel not, man, that I sit here still;
my love hath sure shod me with wonderous deed.
She buckled my feet, as was her will,
with bright sharpened nails! Observe and take heed:
I let her, though surely she had not a need.
I love her so deeply, I would give also
my body and blood for her own heart to feed!
Quia amore langueo.

Into my side I have made her a nest;
look you and see! How wide a wound here!
This is her chamber. In here she can rest,
and safe in my heart she can sleep free from fear.
Here she may wash away any filth clear;
here there is succor for all of her woe;
come, if she will, and she shall have cheer!
Quia amore langueo!

I will abide, until she is ready.
I will send love to her, though she say nay.
If she is reckless, I will be steady.
If she is haughty, I will her pray.
But if she does weep, then shall I here stay!?
My arms are full spread for to clasp her here, so!
Cry only “Come!”, and I shall not delay!
Quia amore langueo!

I sit on this hill, that I may see far.
I look to the vale. My spouse I do see.
Now she comes nearer; now she runs wayward.
Yet from my clear eyesight she never will be.
Some wait to slay her, and on her to feed!
I charge as a lion to chastise her foe!!
Ah, my dear soul, won’t you come back to me?
Quia amore langueo!

My sweet beloved spouse, shall we go out to play?
Within my bright garden are ripening vines.
I shall bring clothing of fairest array!
Your meat shall be cold milk and honey and wine!
Now my dear soul; let us go dine!
I have for your pleasure the quick and the slow!
Tarry not dearest, oh lovéd spouse mine!
Quia amore langueo!

If you have come foul, I shall clean you fair.
If you have come sickened then I shall you heal.
If you ought to mourn, your tears I will share.
O why, my dear spouse, will you not with me deal!?
What love do you seek that could be so more real!?
Tell me, I beg you: what shall I do more!?
Against your own hatred, I make the appeal!
Quia amore langueo!

What more shall I do for you, oh my dear spouse?..
I will abide here in deepest address.
If you would but look up from out of your house
built of selfish desire, and of uncleanliness.
Your bed I have made, and your bower blooms bliss,
and your chambers are chosen–oh, look up dear soul!
I would share all I have! I would give you my best!
Quia amore langueo!

Although your desires might be ever so high,
my love is more deep than your dreaming can be.
Your joy and your sorrow I share sitting by,
yet how I do wish you would look here to me!
How long shall you feed your self only on thee?
Till you starve without meat? Oh my love, be not so!
I say to you with the utmost sureity:
Quia amore langueo.

My spouse is in chamber…! Hold you your peace!
Make not a noise; but let her sleep.
My love shall suffer no more disease.
And if ever the tears from her eyes she weeps,
I shall share with her strength from my heart to keep.
No wonder it is, that I tend her so;
this hole in my side has been never so deep,
but quia amore langueo.

Do not be weary, my own dear wife!
Find strength in our love, for our work can begin.
Together against tribulation and strife,
we shall stand and give life unto others again.
Let me lift you up high, so you fly in the wind,
to give hope and give love wheresoever you go.
And your home shall be deep
in the stars of heaven,
in bliss…

quia amore langueo.


Ahh! sweet English poetry - just behind the Welsh of the same period! :wink:


There are too many new-age ‘mystics’ entering into the UR believing it to be a movement and trying persuade others away from sound doctrine.

However, BA, himself, is revealed as a mystic when he said things like along the lines of the need of being born-again to understand, or the Spirit of God to understand what the Gospel is. So to complaints about mysticism in Universalism is rather self-defeating, as mysticism is found throughout Christianity (doesn’t mean mysticism is correct, just that there is a lot of it).

My biggest problem with so-called mystics is that they cannot be cross-examined without resorting to the fallacy ‘Appeal to Authority’ or refuse on emotional appeals to even attempt it.



You said: However, BA, himself, is revealed as a mystic when he said things like along the lines of the need of being born-again to understand, or the Spirit of God to understand what the Gospel is.

Born Again: Never said that at all. One of these days Craig you will stop slandering me. I said you need to be born again to understand the bible and spiritual things. Read 1 Corinthians 2:10-14.


Paul was the greatest Christian mystic. Read his letters. Man, they are far out! :mrgreen:


I agree with you. Paul, at the same time, always made an effort to explain the mystery he never kept it to himself which makes him a little different of mystic then what most would qualify.


Nobody is slandering you Born Again

As I said before, and you just confirmed, you think you need to be born again to understand the bible and spiritual things, which by definition makes you a mystic.

Trust me on this, John can attest, I had my issues with mysticism which; but as a result of John’s discussions in the past have slowly waned and I have accepted that mysticism is not an evil word. Yes, John, I do learn :mrgreen: