quote:
It is your opinion that the methods described in this course do not go against this person's religion. But that is "your" opinion.
It stopped becoming simply an "opinion" and became an argument when I introduced the logic. The debate up to the point I hightailed out of there was as follows:
Ragnar: I need an alternative method for reaching the Accelerated Learning State. The current method is against my religion.
Me: What religion is this? Since the ALS is really self-hypnosis which is really NLP, and NLP is everywhere and in everything (including daily conversations) I find it hard to believe this?
Ragnar: It says not to leave a space for Satan.
Me: You have to argue first that ALS is Satanic, which MANY people would disagree with. (I note this for timeline reasons, though it should be stated I misinterpreted what he said)
Ragnar: It's not the ALS, but the "emptying of the mind" I am concerned with; if you empty your mind, you leave a space for Satan.
Me: That's semantics; if Scheele said "relax your mind" or simply "relax" the "space" issue is no longer an issue.
This is where I left the debate. As far as I browsed, the thread digressed quickly and became whether or not the Kingdom of God is inside us, and then whether or not the KJV of the bible is right. But the original debate, whether or not ALS is Satanic was I think reasonably closed at that point.
I didn't list it there because it didn't seem of importance (since all he really wanted was an alternative and I gave him one anyway - the eye one) but the other way out is if he said, "While it may be semantics, the case remains that on MY tape it tells me to 'empty my mind', a command I refuse to follow." It was a loophole in the argument, but again, I abandoned it because I gave him an alternative he was looking for.
"And "your" logic may not be logical to a person who is trying to follow the teachings of the Bible."
There's no such thing as "your" logic or "my" logic. It's just logic. Logic is argumentation expressed in algeabraic form. The only difference between sides is the acceptance of various premises. I wasn't arguing whether or not he should follow the Bible, I was saying that his reasons for not entering the ALS were not against HIS OWN interpretation of the bible.
With the argument you now suggest, that the bible speaks out against states of unawareness and that it speaks against pagan practices, there is a COMPLETELY different debate than Ragnar's, which was the space issue.
If he had stated he had problems with states of unawareness or with pagan practices, as you contend now, I would have addressed it differently:
1) Prove to me that the ALS is one of unawareness. It is one of being relaxed, but it is specifically requested not to be sleepy. You are alert. The point of it is to become more focused, if anything.
2) Prove to me that ALS is a pagan practice (I ask not to venture on the second point, because I can tell already how far it will digress).
There's the premises - the logic is universal, the premises aren't; the opinion part comes in on whether or not we agree with point 1 or on point 2. That's why you can say, "If the sky was purple, and a mirror reflects images, then if I look at a sky in the mirror, it would be purple." There's a universal logic. The disagreement is whether or not the sky is purple, which of course, it isn't. But it isn't "my" logic or "yours", it's just a disagreement on premises.
Again, though, I must reiterate; when Ragnar and I were in discussion, his problem was about SPACE, not an unaware state. It was a different argument altogether.
"The Bible talks about meditation. But the Bible's concept of meditation is not to blank out your mind but to consentrate on something. (Psalm 1:2; Joshua 1:8)"
You'll see this part for yourself when the course arrives. Scheele mentions various different images and thoughts for you to concentrate on, like your favorite place or the sensation of breathing out; your mind isn't blank, it IS concentrating.
That was a long post and I understand it isn't very entertaining. I do hope I have explained myself adaquately, however.
