peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 This is a tacit admission that the Buddhist experience is totally different. Fancy that, hey?Why don't we just say that no one is "qualified" to experience another tradition's experience and then we will have come full circle?I am saying the almost no one is qualified for say whether or not Buddhist enlightenment is aptly described by the phrase {union with God} except those very few Buddhists that have had this experience.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 And since you are not a Buddhist, you are not qualified to say, correct?
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Even if you're right, it doesn't change the Hebrew, which is the only relevant question.I was simply noting that even the Jacobean English doesn't say what you think it says.The Hebrew bible scholar said that it means: {Only God exists, and nothing besides God exists}.In any case the enlightenment experience itself trumps everything else.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 The Hebrew bible scholar said that it means: {Only God exists, and nothing besides God exists}.In any case the enlightenment experience itself trumps everything else.Then your "scholar" is a quack.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) PO, you do realize there is more than just one Hebrew Bible scholar out there and even the one you keep citing would disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase. Edited December 3, 2012 by calmoriah
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Yep. This is pretty close to classic Platonism also. We are all shadows of the Forms which are the only reality.But unfortunately you totally avoided the Bible question.I did not at all ignore the bible question:reference to multiple Gods is a figurative reference
Bill Hamblin Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 In any case the enlightenment experience itself trumps everything else.Then there is obviously no point in trying to discuss things with you, is there? If we raise an objection to your claim, you respond, "Well, I'm enlightened, and you're not, so I'm right and your wrong." A real conversation stopper. Anyway, I'm finished wasting my time on this one.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 And how, precisely, do you know whether anyone here has had such a direct first-hand experience? "Those who know don't speak; those who speak don't know."It is possible, of course, that some have had such experiences and simply don't care to discuss them on a message board with non-initiates. At any rate, if your ideas are so incomprehensible to the rest of us, why are you bothering telling us about it?Everyone here could join in the {Union with God}, and reap the benefits of this holy union.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 I did not at all ignore the bible question:reference to multiple Gods is a figurative referenceSo when it speaks of multiple Gods it is figurative, but when it speaks of a pantheist God (assuming just for this point your interpretation is correct) it is literal.What happened to taking the words to mean precisely what they say?
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Then there is obviously no point in trying to discuss things with you, is there? If we raise an objection to your claim, you respond, "Well, I'm enlightened, and you're not, so I'm right and your wrong." A real conversation stopper. Anyway, I'm finished wasting my time on this one.I'm smart, you're dumb; I'm big, you're little; I'm right, you're wrong, and there's nothing you can do about it. I am shocked you lasted this long.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Then there is obviously no point in trying to discuss things with you, is there? If we raise an objection to your claim, you respond, "Well, I'm enlightened, and you're not, so I'm right and your wrong." A real conversation stopper. Anyway, I'm finished wasting my time on this one.The only way to the actual truth is with a mind that is completely open, it seems that there are none of those here. The whole paradigm of belief and disbelief is inherently fallacious and must be utterly discarded to have any chance at ever reaching the truth. Instead of belief and disbelief, considering every possibility that has not been proven false beyond all possible doubt is the only way to the actual truth.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 So when it speaks of multiple Gods it is figurative, but when it speaks of a pantheist God (assuming just for this point your interpretation is correct) it is literal.What happened to taking the words to mean precisely what they say?I know, right?
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Everyone here could join in the {Union with God}, and reap the benefits of this holy union.How do you know everyone hasn't already?
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 The only way to the actual truth is with a mind that is completely open, it seems that there are none of those here.The whole paradigm of belief and disbelief is inherently fallacious and must be utterly discarded to have any chance at ever reaching the truth. Instead of belief and disbelief, considering every possibility that has not been proven false beyond all possible doubt is the only way to the actual truth.Pete, nothing ever has been proved false beyond all possible doubt, so I guess that in order to find the actual truth we all ought to take a hatchet to little old ladies we rent our flats from, right?
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 The only way to the actual truth is with a mind that is completely open, it seems that there are none of those here. Unless of course it is your mind that is closed and all others that are opened, how could you possibly tell the difference?
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 PO, you do realize there is more than just one Hebrew Bible scholar out there and even the one you keep citing would disagree with your interpretation of the meaning of the phrase.Do you fully realize taking completely to heart the statement that truth is not a democracy?
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Unless of course it is your mind that is closed and all others that are opened, how could you possibly tell the difference?For one thing I accept as possible the 100% completely unbelievable.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Pete, nothing ever has been proved false beyond all possible doubt, so I guess that in order to find the actual truth we all ought to take a hatchet to little old ladies we rent our flats from, right?That Squares are not round and circles do not have four flat sides of equal length is proven beyond all possible doubt.The next comment seems mentally ill.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 For one thing I accept as possible the 100% completely unbelievable.That much is evident.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 That Squares are not round and circles do not have four flat sides of equal length is proven beyond all possible doubt.It hasn't, actually, until you are able to fully and completely define terms.The next comment seems mentally ill.Dostoevsky did write disturbing things. However, it has not been proven 100% false, so why shouldn't people do so in order to find truth?
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 How do you know everyone hasn't already?Although that is quite possible, and I keep looking for signs of this, and often see signs of this, the fact that people here are arguing against what I am saying can be taken as evidence that this is not occurring right now.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 For one thing I accept as possible the 100% completely unbelievable.That precise sentence makes no sense.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Although that is quite possible, and I keep looking for signs of this, and often see signs of this, the fact that people here are arguing against what I am saying can be taken as evidence that this is not occurring right now.If you aren't open to the strong possibility of your being wrong, then you yourself have a clsoed mind.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 That much is evident.Taking as possible the 100% completely unbelievable is an absolutely required mandatory prerequisite to the true mystical experience.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Do you fully realize taking completely to heart the statement that truth is not a democracy?You are the one that appealed to an expert to prove your 'truth'. Now you ignore any other expert who disagrees with you.You don't see any hypocrisy in that?
Recommended Posts