volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Taking as possible the 100% completely unbelievable is an absolutely required mandatory prerequisite to the true mystical experience.No, the 100% completely unbelievable means that not even God can make it believable to any of our senses and perception, so no kind of experience like that can be believed or even accepted as occuring. Edited December 3, 2012 by volgadon
Calm 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.That is only if you are right and everyone else is wrong.How do you know it is not a case of you being mentally delusional and that is why others disagree with you; surely that must be considered as a possibility if one truly has an open mind.
Calm 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.The next comment seems mentally ill.Squaring the Circle is an ancient past time. 1
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 And what of the alternative translations?Your interpretation amounts to "there will be suffering that will never be/happen"....which is nonsense.All of the mis-translations that you quoted admit that they added words that were not there.The NIV exhaustive concordance says NIG (Not In Greek).
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 That precise sentence makes no sense.I accept as possible that five minutes ago never existed.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 All of the mis-translations that you quoted admit that they added words that were not there.The NIV exhaustive concordance says NIG (Not In Greek).And yet they were translated by experts even more well known and respected than the one you appealed to as to what the verses precisely mean.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) I accept as possible that five minutes ago never existed.Which has nothing to do with what you said before.Precisely speaking, if something is 100% unbelievable, you are incapable of believing it. It is not logical. Edited December 3, 2012 by calmoriah
mathonihah Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 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?Don't you think that is being a bit judgemental? If you want to disagree with him that is one thing, but calling him a hypocrite is another.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Don't you think that is being a bit judgemental? If you want to disagree with him that is one thing, but calling him a hypocrite is another.Ok, what would you call it when someone appeals to (anonymous) academic authority, yet pulls that line when faced with counter-evidence?
mathonihah Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Ok, what would you call it when someone appeals to (anonymous) academic authority, yet pulls that line when faced with counter-evidence?I would bring that to his attention and ask for an explanation. Edited December 3, 2012 by mathonihah
mathonihah Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Squaring the Circle is an ancient past time.But without much success one might add.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 That is only if you are right and everyone else is wrong.How do you know it is not a case of you being mentally delusional and that is why others disagree with you; surely that must be considered as a possibility if one truly has an open mind.Too much empirical evidence going the other direction.The concept of Advaita from Hinduism specifically exactly and precisely agrees. It is like I have been on an alien spacecraft and went to live in a galaxy far, far away for many years, and came back to tell about this experience.Although this truth might be 100% completely unbelievable, this would not change the fact that it would remain true. Also it would be equally difficult to convince me that this experience did not occur, having very fresh memories of many years of this experience.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Which has nothing to do with what you said before.Precisely speaking, if something is 100% unbelievable, you are incapable of believing it. It is not logical.The way that belief actually works, belief is an emotional attachment to an opinion. If one simply refrains from forming this emotional attachment, then one no longer has a belief, one now has a theory.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Too much empirical evidence going the other direction.The concept of Advaita from Hinduism specifically exactly and precisely agrees.It is like I have been on an alien spacecraft and went to live in a galaxy far, far away for many years, and came back to tell about this experience.Although this truth might be 100% completely unbelievable, this would not change the fact that it would remain true. Also it would be equally difficult to convince me that this experience did not occur, having very fresh memories of many years of this experience.Then it is not 100% completely unbelievable.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Ok, what would you call it when someone appeals to (anonymous) academic authority, yet pulls that line when faced with counter-evidence?Maybe you don't pay enough attention. It was not an anonymous academic authority, I provided both the name and contact info.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) The way that belief actually works, belief is an emotional attachment to an opinion. If one simply refrains from forming this emotional attachment, then one no longer has a belief, one now has a theory.Which has nothing to do with what you said before.But since you will likely just go off on another tangent (my prediction is based on an statistical analysis of your responses to past comments), I think I will cease this line of observation. Edited December 3, 2012 by calmoriah 1
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 The way that belief actually works, belief is an emotional attachment to an opinion. If one simply refrains from forming this emotional attachment, then one no longer has a belief, one now has a theory.As shown by your posts here, you merely have beliefs, then, not truth.
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Maybe you don't pay enough attention. It was not an anonymous academic authority, I provided both the name and contact info.Oh, so you meant Udd rather than the anonymous guy from that e-list.
peteolcott Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Then it is not 100% completely unbelievable.Yes it is, to all outside observers the truth of enlightenment is completely unbelievable and can never be realized by anyone who relies on belief / disbelief as a measure of truth. Until it is understood that belief / disbelief is an erroneous measure of truth, realization of enlightenment is not possible.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Don't you think that is being a bit judgemental? If you want to disagree with him that is one thing, but calling him a hypocrite is another.If you prefer the term "inconsistent" I am certainly open to it as I see language as being highly ambiguous.However, holding himself to his own standard of proclaimed precision, observing that his action is a hypocritical one is a sound measurement for someone who operates on the level of extremes as he does, where no one comprehends but him, no one had an open mind but him, no one interprets the Bible correctly but him, all are wrong unless they agree with him and the proof of this is that they don't agree with him, therefore they are wrong, etc. etc.Remember "For by your standard of measure it will be measured to you in return"?
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 But without much success one might add.But it is considered a possibility, is it not?
volgadon Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 Yes it is, to all outside observers the truth of enlightenment is completely unbelievable and can never be realized by anyone who relies on belief / disbelief as a measure of truth. Until it is understood that belief / disbelief is an erroneous measure of truth, realization of enlightenment is not possible.If that is what you meant you must qualify it by saying 100% completely unbelievable to all outside observers. Your use of language is sloppy in the extreme.
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Too much empirical evidence going the other direction.When one picks and chooses what empical evidence one will accept and ignores the rest (such as ignoring all the other biblical experts save the one that doesn't even agree with your own interpretation), it is easy to load the dice the way one wants so it always lands exactly as one 'predicts'. Edited December 3, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 (edited) Yes it is, to all outside observers the truth of enlightenment is completely unbelievable and can never be realized by anyone who relies on belief / disbelief as a measure of truth. Until it is understood that belief / disbelief is an erroneous measure of truth, realization of enlightenment is not possible.Prove it without using circular definitions please.I am an outside observer by your definition. I also accept that there is a possibility that what you say (if I am understanding you correctly) is true at its core though some of the language you use is too ambiguous to understand and determine if logical or not.Have I not just disproved your belief that the truth is completely unbelievable to outsiders? Edited December 3, 2012 by calmoriah
Calm Posted December 3, 2012 Posted December 3, 2012 I must admit I find his investment in this discussion here to be somewhat baffling for someone who considers the highest commandment is to love one another, superceding if I understand him correctly even the commandment to love God (well, it is one and the same commandment in his view so one can apparently disregard it at least). There seems to be so many other things he could be doing that would more effectively demonstrate love for others.
Recommended Posts