Can anybody help me find a logical explanation for this stuff?

[Limbo]

As it happens I've had several mystical experiences (minor? not sure, they seemed pretty major at the time), and I don't have temporal lobe epilepsy, but it's pretty clear to me that they were all inside my head. As for talking to you about mysticism - why on Earth should I wish to do that? especially given the tone of your posts here.

Sorry if my tone is rough. It wasn't always that way, and I'm trying to work on that by putting the more aggravating JREFers on ignore so that they don't angry up my Irish blood.

 

[Resume]

Sorry if my tone is rough. It wasn't always that way, and I'm trying to work on that by putting the more aggravating JREFers on ignore so that they don't angry up my Irish blood.

Pretty weak spirituality/shamanism/mysticism you have there if a couple of snotty JREFers like myself get your blood up. Take a couple of astral projections and call us in the morning.

 

[Zanders]

You can debunk religious fundamentalism with a mythologists perspective. But you can't debunk mysticism or spirituality or the paranormal with it.

(you can also debunk non-religious fundamentalism with it, shh cause most JREFers won't like that)

Ok, I have to say that this just sounds like a cop out.

 

[Limbo]

Ok, I have to say that this just sounds like a cop out.

How so?

 

[Zanders]

How so?

Well, you basically have a way out no matter what. You can never be wrong.

And on another thing you said, it seems more logical to have your own experiences, cross reference them with others and then try to to see if you can confirm them. Just relying on personal experiences seems a little messy to me, even from a mystical perspective.

Couldn't your personal experiences be deceptive somehow?

 

[Limbo]

Well, you basically have a way out no matter what. You can never be wrong.

But, what you hope is to be able to debunk mythologists from a mythologists perspective, so that you can never be wrong. Correct?

A mythologists perspective can't debunk mysticism, because mysticism is a legitimate function of mythology from a mythologists point of view. A mythologist can't debunk the paranormal either, because it is a universal common denominator, in every culture every mystical tradition.

And on another thing you said, it seems more logical to have your own experiences, cross reference them with others and then try to to see if you can confirm them. Just relying on personal experiences seems a little messy to me, even from a mystical perspective.

Couldn't your personal experiences be deceptive somehow?

Its a matter of combining the overlapping comparative fields with comparable experiences and veridical psychic experiences that you can verify yourself, plus mounds of parapsychological evidence that, I must say, skeptics treat unfairly.

Dude...mystics are sometimes silent and cryptic for a reason. The etymology of the word mystic is interesting in that regard to me, now. I know it sucks, I remember being frustrated as hell by it too. But...even so, there is a sort of bind on our tongues sometimes. I cant say everything I want to say about my experiences.

 

[Zanders]

But, what you hope is to be able to debunk mythologists from a mythologists perspective, so that you can never be wrong. Correct?

A mythologists perspective can't debunk mysticism, because mysticism is a legitimate function of mythology from a mythologists point of view. A mythologist can't debunk the paranormal either, because it is a universal common denominator, in every culture every mystical tradition.




Its a matter of combining the overlapping comparative fields with comparable experiences and veridical psychic experiences that you can verify yourself, plus mounds of parapsychological evidence that, I must say, skeptics treat unfairly.

Dude...mystics are sometimes silent and cryptic for a reason. The etymology of the word mystic is interesting in that regard to me, now. I know it sucks, I remember being frustrated as hell by it too. But...even so, there is a sort of bind on our tongues sometimes. I cant say everything I want to say about my experiences.

My point is that I would be familiar with all of the overlapping mythology and mysticism and be able to say that they don't really mean anything in the end. And it is different from your concept of researching it, having personal experiences and not needing any more evidence.

Actually, I can tell you why mystical interpretations of the Quran and Bible are mostly goofy. Would you like me to? (Yes, I am contradicting myself)

 

[Limbo]

Please do.

 

[Zanders]

Please do.

Well, first off the Bible as it is now is very altered from it's original state. It is certainly not Divinely inspired. There are noticeable alterations all over it.

And with the Quran, Muhammad said that it was not to be interpreted or read in to in any such way himself. Did Muhammad have absolutely no idea what the meaning of what he was inspired to write was? And what about the abrogations made? He certainly didn't go by the neo-platonic ways of the sufi when it came to sex and violence. (Fun fact: almost everything about sufism is borrowed from neo-platonism, not Muhammad.)

Why do you only read the mystical interpretations and ignore the actual historic context of it?

There are many more details I can get in to later.

 

[wardenclyffe]

Directed at wardenclyffe, it is more than them both simply saying it was symbolic, it was their interpretations of it. I actually posted a link to the book. The second link was supposed to say "here is the book" not "Here is the full review" again.

Are you suggesting that the biblical flood story is some sort of subtle allegory that's difficult to interpret? Seems pretty obvious to me. The fact that two different sects came up with the same interpretation (and I don't think we can say they did so independently) does not seem in any way surprising.

The puzzling thing when discussing things with you, Zanders, is that you usually see reason when your questions are answered, but then you seem incapable of applying that type of critical thinking in a new situation without being prompted from the outside.

Because you brought it up in your thread about coincidences when you said:

"I am actually very concerned recently that I might have some sort of condition. Because it causes me a unique sort of unease whenever I deal with topics like this."

I ask if you have talked to a professional about this? Something makes you uneasy about these topics, but something keeps drawing you to them. You seem to be able to process them with help, but you seem to have trouble doing so on your own. There might be professionals out there who can help you develop the tools to deal with these issues logically and also without feeling that unease.

You've got the smarts when the switch is flipped, you just need to learn how to flip that switch on your own.

Ward

 

[Limbo]

Well, first off the Bible as it is now is very altered from it's original state. It is certainly not Divinely inspired. There are noticeable alterations all over it.

And with the Quran, Muhammad said that it was not to be interpreted or read in to in any such way himself. Did Muhammad have absolutely no idea what the meaning of what he was inspired to write was? And what about the abrogations made? He certainly didn't go by the neo-platonic ways of the sufi when it came to sex and violence. (Fun fact: almost everything about sufism is borrowed from neo-platonism, not Muhammad.)

Why do you only read the mystical interpretations and ignore the actual historic context of it?

There are many more details I can get in to later.

Don't bother. I see what you're saying. I will make a thread about this in about 15 minutes, in the religion section. OK?

 

[Zanders]

Don't bother. I see what you're saying. I will make a thread about this in about 15 minutes, in the religion section. OK?

Sure, why not?

Fun fact, did you know that a lot of the Bible's content is based on the celestial bodies? I'm not talking about the same old Jesus Sun thing you hear all of the time, I'm talking the Old Testament as well. That could explain similarities in themes. Of course, this does not mean that one could not claim that there are mystical truths and messages hidden inside of the movement of the celestial bodies and seasons. Many people do.

 

[Zanders]

Are you suggesting that the biblical flood story is some sort of subtle allegory that's difficult to interpret? Seems pretty obvious to me. The fact that two different sects came up with the same interpretation (and I don't think we can say they did so independently) does not seem in any way surprising.

The puzzling thing when discussing things with you, Zanders, is that you usually see reason when your questions are answered, but then you seem incapable of applying that type of critical thinking in a new situation without being prompted from the outside.

Because you brought it up in your thread about coincidences when you said:

"I am actually very concerned recently that I might have some sort of condition. Because it causes me a unique sort of unease whenever I deal with topics like this."

I ask if you have talked to a professional about this? Something makes you uneasy about these topics, but something keeps drawing you to them. You seem to be able to process them with help, but you seem to have trouble doing so on your own. There might be professionals out there who can help you develop the tools to deal with these issues logically and also without feeling that unease.

You've got the smarts when the switch is flipped, you just need to learn how to flip that switch on your own.

Ward

I have not see anyone about it yet.

I have this strange habit of trying to see things from both perspectives. One minute I am on one side, and then I think I understand the other and try to think like them. Like the other times, I don't think I will feel comfortable until I read through that book entirely and explain away what it says on my own.

When something like this says it has proof I feel compelled to check it out, but it also fills me with dread until I finish it.

 

[wardenclyffe]

If something claims to have proof, you need to decide what your standards of "proof" are before you start reading. Then, no matter how compellingly told a story is, you must decide if it met your standards of proof. It's easy to get caught up in a story, but if you decide ahead of time what your goalposts are, you will easily be able to tell if the story rises to the level of proof. Don't let the story define its own proof. You know the difference.

Ward

 

[Akhenaten]

Dude...mystics are sometimes silent and cryptic for a reason.

Because mostly they don't actually have anything to say, but if when they do, it's just gobbledigook.

The etymology of the word mystic is interesting in that regard to me, now. I know it sucks, I remember being frustrated as hell by it too. But...even so, there is a sort of bind on our tongues sometimes. I cant say everything I want to say about my experiences.

QED

 

[Akhenaten]

Fun fact, did you know that a lot of the Bible's content is based on the celestial bodies? I'm not talking about the same old Jesus Sun thing you hear all of the time, I'm talking the Old Testament as well. That could explain similarities in themes.

It doesn't explain it as well as syncretism, which quite nicely explains a whole swag of other similarities as well.

Why would each new cult go to all the trouble of rediscovering the secrets of the Universe when they can just adopt borrow steal someone else's secrets?

Of course, this does not mean that one could not claim that there are mystical truths and messages hidden inside of the movement of the celestial bodies and seasons. Many people do.

And tragically, other people believe them.

Sure would suck to be one of those guys.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I have not see anyone about it yet.

I have this strange habit of trying to see things from both perspectives. One minute I am on one side, and then I think I understand the other and try to think like them. Like the other times, I don't think I will feel comfortable until I read through that book entirely and explain away what it says on my own.

When something like this says it has proof I feel compelled to check it out, but it also fills me with dread until I finish it.

I understand, when I was younger I read many books that claimed many things. As I gradually discovered that there was no evidence for some of these, I became more selective about which books I would spend my valuable and limited time studying.
After that, I would sample something like Carlo Castanada for amusement and fantasize about turning into a crow and checking out all the hands at a poker game I was playing.

 

[Akhenaten]

When something like this says it has proof I feel compelled to check it out, but it also fills me with dread until I finish it.

Whatever else you do, you need to avoid television like the plague.

 

[Resume]

After that, I would sample something like Carlo Castanada for amusement and fantasize about turning into a crow and checking out all the hands at a poker game I was playing.

This of course would have a lucrative material use.

 

[Zanders]

What I don't think is done often by the people that like to shrug off all of these people like Swedenborg and their connections to other spiritual and mystical teachings is putting everything in to context. If you look at people's backgrounds, should all of these mystics from different backgrounds have such a matching outline of everything?

And about Swedenborg, his teachings were extremely unorthodox for the time. He said that there was no Satan, angels were all once angels and that "salvation is available to people from all religions, regardless if they embrace the cross of Jesus Christ to reconcile them with God or not, as long as they are prepared to live a good life." Looking at a lot of his teachings, they were the precursor to modern spiritualism. A lot of what he said about the spirit world fits in with what later mystics and spiritualists say, almost like a confirmation. what Sadhu Sundar Singh said in his book "visions of the Spiritual World" about the spiritual planes and levels sounds a lot like Swedenborg, and there are many others.

If you read the "Documents concerning the life and character of Emanuel Swedenborg" he had no background in any mystical traditions.