Bringerofrain

I can't completely comprehend what he is saying above. The parts I understand though are mentioned in the Enneads. 

Thank you

There probably aren't many jews here to answer you, but they can be stubborn. When Moses was in the wilderness with them, God gave them manna from heaven on the condition they did not store any up. Despite God literally raining the modern day equivalent of free pizza on the Jews daily, they still had little faith in him and hoarded manna. They were punished for this by the manna they hoarded rotting and God refusing to rain down more free pizza. 

High context language would mean that you have to look beyond the word. Google "high context language" . Japanese is similar in that regard. Dude just Google it. That means the word could have a thousand possible meanings depending on the context. So even looking up the definitions would not be enough to get to the true meanings, you would need access to a greek scholar who is familiar with that particular time period and regional history.

It's cute that you think translations is an easy thing and all translated 100% know for a fact what was intended and have no controversies as to the meaning of anything

A high context language means it takes more work to translate properly. The translation of the bible is not sacred is it? Just the original words that also happened to have been written in Greek (a high context language) right?

We believe in science

We believe in equality"

The whole sign is basically saying their entire ideology is built on a straw man. That is why I have so much respect for communists and libertarians whose views are complete opposites. Their ideologies stand on their own and don't depend on straw man's.

You are ignoring that it is a high context language still as well as other problems that come along with translations. If I say my hair is wet in english, everyone knows my hair is wet. The same phrase in greek would have over a thousand possible meanings. Japanese as a language has the same issues. I think high context languages are superior because they get points across quicker, but they come with the issue of being less precise. This is why Japanese lawyers make a killing. The good ones can twist the law however they want because of the languages high context, while american lawyers can see the law is usually pretty straight forward. A 55mph speed limit in america can only be interpreted in one way. 

True, If he lied here, I certainly wouldn't blame him. I just think in this context instead of saying secret it should have said something like 

"They were taught the same general things in private, but in more detail"

I don't see these things as contradictions though. I also think you're wasting your time arguing against people who would take the Bible in a very literal way. 

The bible mentioning "milk for babes" is an acknowledgement that there is more to the teachings though than what you would get at face value. Paul told us all the same hermetic principle known thousands of years before he came along. "Milk for babes and meat for men" or the equivalent in terms of spiritual information. 

Can I be a replacement. I will be reading the game while it is being played anyway, so subbing in should be easy to do.

Anyone with even a basic understanding of greek knows the greek word translated to secret means "more detail" in one context and in the other supposedly contradictory statement the word "secret" is not even translated from the same greek word

Please learn greek before offering your interpretations. Or at least study the greek translation of each passage you are looking at

You are still ignoring that this is a translation from greek. In this context he means his overall message is consistent in public and private, but that of course certain people are getting more in depth teachings.

You do know that Greek was a high context poetic language while English is an ugly straightforward language right? There is no such thing as an accurate translation from Greek. This is unlike other languages like German or spanish where translation is more straight forward. We have the same problems with ancient hebrew which was both poetic and mathematical. 

In that context it means in a general way nothing was secret. For example if a science teacher says there are planets in the solar system to kindergarteners. When he's talking to the 5th graders and says there are nine planets it's not really something he kept secret is more of an elaboration on the general concept. The Greeks really don't have the same word so we have to look at the context of what was said and use the original Greek language to decipher it from. 

I guess a direct response would be new testament authors (assuming you mean the translators) put words in Jesus's mouth

What are the other possible interpretations of those translated greek words besides "secret". Remember greek is a high context language so one word can have 30 meanings. Why do you think of the 30 meanings the correct translations were chosen 100% of the time. Also because it is a high context language, an accurate translation may actually take 200 words to properly translate 1 word. I assure you the translators did not go into that much detail

I didn't think you would want to debate that :)

Here read through this and you will have a better understanding of the word. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-euphemism.html

If you insist on humiliating yourself than challenge me to a debate on how to use the word. 

Occult secrets are like open secrets. We don't have to lie. We just speak plainly and if you have ears to hear and eyes to see, you understand. 

It is true that Jesus was teaching secret things and yet he spoke them openly, like with his parables for example. 

It is a secret (or more properly called occult) because not many people know it, not because it is not spoken about openly.

I would have translated the greek words differently before putting the in the bible so as not to confuse people like you.

You see the Greek language is highly contextual. They were high context communicators like the Japanese or to a lesser extent people from the southern part of the United States. English has become a low context language unfortunately, And so you are approaching a high context language with a lower vocabulary with a low context mindset. Just Google "high context speaker or language". These translations are not precise and only a true occult master could accurately translate the bible by understanding the contextualness that Jesus spoke in. 

You still wouldn't understand it, but it would be more accurate. I know you wouldn't understand it because it is hard to remove the high context nature of the language but it would bring you closer to understanding. Don't believe me, than read the Enneads which are translated similarly to what I propose. 

Jesus christ. I understandd what is going on. You learn words by looking at a new word in the dictionary every day and not waiting until you have seen it used by educated people repeatedly before adopting it. It would explain why you are looking for excuses to use words like colloquially where it doesn't belong as well. 

Here is the link again with the elaborated definition and examples. Seriously though it is a Thursday. Go ask your English teacher. https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-euphemism.html

Even though if you are able to mentally twist definitions that agree with me than perhaps even your teachers won't be able to help you. 

Lol, look at the list of euphism I gave earlier on that site

Euphemisms are not meant to be deceptive. Not sure where you get that ideal. Calling a toilet a john is not deceptive. Saying passed away instead of dead is not deceptive. 

No, like saying mentally disabled instead of retard would not necessarily be deceptive. They both describe the same exact medical condition, but one feels nicer so we call it a euphemism. 

The examples I gave above in my last post are accurate. I suggest you look at how educated people use the word. Use google scholar to find studies with the word in it. 100% of everyone will use it in the way I am saying, while you'll find zero using your more liberal interpretation of the definition. 

It is for obvious alternative language to mean the same thing. Not just obvious but intentionally obvious. 

Telling my wife she looks nice in a dress to avoid calling her fat is not intentionally obvious so it is not a euphemism. 

Calling a toilet the john is obvious and intentionally so, it would be considered a euphemism.

Saying states rights are important to avoid saying let's mandate integration, would not be a euphemism because it is intentionally deceptive. 

Euphemisms can be bad or good. I am not assuming that. Cambridge dictionary is not wrong, it is your liberal interpretation of it's definition. It doesn't give the full definition of the word though. If you look up golf in the dictionary, many say a game played with a stick and a ball, but as you know the definition would also apply to baseball and cricket if taken as prescriptive instead of descriptive. 

The definition is not wrong, just incomplete. Dictionaries are meant to give you a quick ideal of what a word means not be am in depth analysis. 

If I said a dress looked nice on my wife to avoid calling her fat, that would not be a euphemism, despite the definition you just provided. 

You're welcom

It is more of a personality test than political one anyway. It doesn't differentiate between things like whether I believe companies unfairly exploit third world countries and whether I think there should be a political solution to that or not. 

Your dictionary agrees with me though

Also gold water was a libertarian. You can argue libertarian values were harmful towards the civil rights movement in some respects, but it is silly to claim he was a racist because he believes in a decentralized form of government. 

You should probably trust your English teacher on whether you are using the word correctly or not, but since most people know what euphemism means your political science teachers if you take them to this can probably help you as well. 

I don't understand you. If you showed me a word I was using wrong, I would not pervert the definition of the word to say I was using it right the whole time.  I would say "thank you, for teaching me something new". You on the other hand just make yourself look silly and apply the definition of euphemism more liberally than was ever intended. 

The gamblers fallacy would be something like . Betting on black in roulette 5 times in a row and then thinking it is overdue for the ball to land on black and assume the odds are greater than 50%. 

The danger with synchronicities is probably more likely to lead to the texas sharp shooter fallacy than the gamblers one.  

I think you need to trust yourself that you aren't allowing yourself to trick yourself. If you need absolute certainty to erase your skepticism of something it will never happen. If I believe with all my heart light does not exist, you could shine a flash light in my eyes, and I might chalk it up to an internal delusion or being in a dream. 

You seem to lead towards solipsism, so I can tell you likely take skepticism to an absurd degree as it is. 

However I think even with solipsism as your most basic axiom, you will still find God when you keep going back to it's logical conclusion. 

The only certainty you have for example is "I am" . I and am are two different things and you can ponder what each is. The first assumption of the solipsists is that you exist, but what is "you". Well it is onlu mind, even if you are a brain in the vat. So now you know mind exists, and know nothing that exists outside of mind. Anything outside of mind is unfalsifiable and unprovable as you stated in the op. 

Now ponder the "I" and the "Am' and think about what they mean.

You see, keep your axioms and the logical conclusion is still going to take you to God.

" I think, therefore I am"

Don't drop that fundamental axiom. Take it to it's logical conclusion.

Almost dead center. This is odd https://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2?ec=0.38&soc=-0.87

You are confusing a descriptive definition for a prescriptive one as well. 

Yes you have the dictionary definition in front of you, with an example below it. You have went on the website I provided that has examples of it and you still do not understand it.  You did go on the website I provided with 75 examples of it in Use right? 

You should now know saying something like

"We should have state rights because decentralization of power is more democratic" is not a euphemism for something racist. Even if  you think it is a dog whistle for that. 

You are using the word wrong. It's not debatable. 

I think it's a safe assumption given that there are people who have spent more time than me studying God and who are more intelligent than me. I could be the most knowledgeable person on the planet, but I doubt it.  

I don't have any specific people in mind I think know more, it is just my humble opinion that I don't know shit and I have a lot to learn. 

I will give you a list of euphemisms please explain how they are deceptive. Usually they merely take the sting off of something.

My wife has passed away instead of died.

Johnny is special instead of stupid.

I drained the snake instead of I pissed

I lost my job instead of I was fired. 

I gave you a link to about 75 examples earlier. How were any of those examples deceptive?

You are using the word euphemism wrong. All it takes is following the link I gave you earlier and reading through it to know that. 

I don't think there is any point in arguing further about this. You'll apparently continue to use the word euphemism incorrectly instead of clicking my link or googling what it is yourself. You'll continue to conflate euphemism with political correctness and confuse and conflate pc with dog whistles. I gave you a list of euphemisms above. Pet me show you a dog whistle.

"Illegals are taking our jobs"

Racist dog whistle (possibly not always)

Same statement now with a euphemism for illegals

"Undocumented workers are taking our jobs"

Same statement below but said in a politically correct way.

"We need to punish business owners who violate labor laws" (aka that hire illegals)

Saying the following is not a euphism no matter what the intent.

" As a preacher who does not support gay marriage, I would appreciate if I am not threatened with legal actions by refusing to participate". 

Why did you choose the name Merlin? 

You can learn that all is mind with the following experiment. https://www.lady-lion.com/try-this-manifesting-experiment/#:~:text=Visualise%20yourself%20climbing%20up%20the,feeling%20of%20climbing%20your%20ladder.

Jung also discussed synchronicity a lot so you can look into that. 

If you tell me other people have suggested similar experience and have a different opinion of what God is, than I would just respond by saying, maybe they are right and I am wrong. Maybe we are all wrong. Your discovery of God and understanding of God will not look like mine. That is fine. I don't have a monopoly on knowledge and a lot of people know significantly more than me and have more accurate views of God. 

It's fine not to believe. Your choice. 

I would say God is like the dreamer. He is asleep and dreams us into existence. I would say my view of God is maybe closely defined as deistic. If you're a familiar with hermeticism or neoplatonism it's that sort of view of God. The difference between what maybe he causes and what would be caused by the big bang or something like that is non-existent. God is the cause of everything he created this story he is in constant creation of the story and so anything that happens his hand is what has made it happen. 

The problem with explaining occultt or more esoteric ideals in terms of what the belief they hold is that it's very complicated. for example that's why occultists willl use the tree of Life as a tool for understanding God. You use the tree of Life as a way to kind of classify things that you can't understand on an intellectual level. The brain is not prepared to understand something is complicated and is complex as God not in a detailed way anyway. So what we use is we use symbols and meditation and we try to clear our mind because clearing our mind will allow room for God to enter it. I am a part of some secret society and can't explain too much you'll just have to find a teacher on your own if you don't understand. 

There is a such thing as the first step in occult initiation. The first grade as some will call it, and the first grade, what is required for initiation is a belief in God. 

You can't understand God without symbols and meditation and other abstract ways to build intuitive knowledge. Kinda like how you can only learn to ride a bike by riding it. 

You can not describe to me how to ride a bike, any better than I can describe to you how to believe in God.

I could guide you if you want though. God is mind. Knowing that God is mind I can teach you exercises that will teach you that all is mind, once you know all is mind, it is easier to know the essence of God and to believe. 

These exercise wouldn't merely be tricks you play on your reticular activation system, they would be legitimate ways of experiencing the fact all is mind and understanding that in order for that to be true, God must exist. Would you take on the experiment or is it I possible for you to believe through experiential learning like you would with riding a bike?

There are great philosophical reasons to believe. However I was an atheist for most of my life. Even when I was going to church as a little kid I was still an atheist never believed the b*******. However once I decided to just take a leap of faith and believe things started happening. it's like God started to reveal himself to me. It's odd to explain but history even changed it seemed like. When Christians used to say you have to believe to see I thought it was confirmation bias working on them. However I think there's something more in the universe. It's not just confirmation bias. Jung n talked about this quite a bit. He discussed synchronicity. I would say if you just start believing he'll show himself. I don't know why this is but I suspect it has something to do with God being a lover of free will. He wants you to have free will and knowing he exists would take away your free will to love him or to try to know him. You see if you know he exists then there's always that hanging over you the belief that he could snap his fingers and and everything. However if you choose to take a leap of faith and love him and believe in him well then you have come to him of your own free will. hell even if you take a leap of faith and believe in him but hate him you have come to him in your own free will. I do think it matters what your perception of God is when you choose to believe as well. For example most people when they choose to believe in God believe in the god a materialist would believe in. A guy who is separate from the universe or separate from the world but who created and rolls over the world.. the problem with that is this just not an accurate description of God so he's not going to necessarily reveal himself when you believe in him that way. You would have to believe more along the lines of a god who creates the world kind of from himself. He create the world through speaking it or believing it into existing. You see the world is made up of God's instantaneous thoughts he is a creator and his being is creativity. If you believe in the correct God or have the correct vision of who God is then he will reveal himself to you. Just as he has revealed himself and two people before us who spoke of them.. the first I thought the ancient philosophers were just trying to deal with the concept of death however it's something different than that. They believed in the same God I'm talking about I would look into neoplatonism for the type of God that is real and wants you to know him.

My starting assumption is that God is real. 

Euphemisms aren't really deceptive. Maybe dog whistles. Also don't think religious freedoms are a bad argument here. I think it's something that we need to discuss as a society where religious freedom ends. it clearly you don't want to allow everything that a religion that could pop up any day would advocate for. However you still need to as much as reasonable allow people to practice their religion. If a person's religion is that they should not perform marriages for gay couples I don't see what's wrong with having marriages performed by a judge or close family friend religion that is okay with doing such a thing. religion as a defense is not such a terrible argument that you would think it's merely a dog whistle or a what would you call it a  thing that hides a person's real or hidden malevolent intentions.  

I think it should be pretty understandable that if a person believes they will burn in eternity in hell for marrying a gay couple, or if they have values that would allow them to do so, that they don't personally want to do it. 

I would suggest looking at the actual arguments from people that oppose your points of view. That way you don't have to make assumptions about what they believe in. I wouldn't just look at any random opposing view though, you see random opposing views everyday. I suggest you do what I would refer to as steel manning, which is the opposite of straw manning and ultimately what you do when you assume an opponent is being intellectually dishonest and has ulterior motives for their view.

No doubt, politicians appeal to the highest common denominator and will often choose words or sayings that are going to appeal to the largest demographic likely to vote for them. However you are assuming people who get more votes when they are intentionally vague, are good representatives of what your opponent's actual arguments are. 

That would be virtually all of big tech.

Here is a list of examples to help you. 

The question is, why are you assuming malevolent intent and not taking people with ideological differences as you, at their word and address what they are actually arguing as opposed to the malevolent secret beliefs you think they hold?

I'll probably put it on my profile so everyone knows but you have to excuse my misspellings and grammar mistakes. The reason being is because I'm using speech to text a lot considering my condition.

A euphemism will be something like calling a toilet a john. it wouldn't be about dog whistles or having secret opinions that you camouflage with other pensions. As I think that it's possible you're using the term incorrectly and what you mean is dog whistles.