The way I see it, the definition of pneuma didn't change with your personal applications. It still references the spirit and soul within a (human) being. I'll rephrase the questions you decided to answer using some of your ideas in your answers, and we'll revisit the ones you avoided.
If we use the dictionary definition of pneuma: the vital spirit; the soul.

1. How would you separate that which is pneumatological (of the spirit or soul), and non-pneumatological (not of the spirit or soul) when it comes to postings on this website made by me, or anyone else for that matter?

2. What would separate any comment from your idea of a pneumatological comment? Or said another way. What constitutes a pneumatological comment made by any human capable of sinning. Or what comments define one who is not capable of sinning, feeling shame or guilt and incapable of self correction, and what is it that enables you to make this determination?

3. Is your idea of a pneumatological comment similar to others ideas of a pneumatological comment, or is your own opinion of what is pneumatological unique to you?

To clarify this question I will ask it this way. Do you believe you think the same as another in every way or do you think each individual personality is unique in their approach to thinking and living life?
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I am not a fixed-position kind of thinker.
If you're saying you change your beliefs as easily as you change your socks, I would have to say that is sometimes true when it comes to defining yourself and your God. You seem to mirror religion in the way it bends with the changing tides of the majority, to appeal to the basic instincts of others just to get their attention. When the subject doesn't accrue interest, you change the subject.


Originally Posted By: Revlgking

--interesting
Quote:
He's tried to get me to headline my statements and take on his writing style...which reminds me of my grandmother...

My mother insisted I write her on occasion when I was a kid and what I got from granny for the effort was criticism for my penmanship.


Did you reject what I consider to wise directions from your elders? Or, was it because you thought your elders were wrong? Or was it because of the attitude with which the directions were given? Why?


Are you suggesting that your comments toward my writing are wise directions from my elder?
What makes you think your style is a beneficial or a wise change for me to make? Is it something other than personal?
Why did you suggest the change?
Was it because of your own determination of what is pneumatological as a writing style?
Would making the change make me more pneumatological?

Would you be suggesting that my Grandmothers prejudice to have me live up to (her expectations of) the family name, and the pride she had for her name to be wisdom, or to be pneumatological?

The rest is a repeat, strictly in the interest of your claims to always write pneumatologically. I would like to use it as your example to pnuematological diatribe as you see fit.
Quote:

Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Quote:
On top of that most of his posts are repetitive statements about his past, his kids and his vacations.

TT, I write pneumatologically because, IMO, ideas come from people (pneuma beings), not from robots. I want to know who you, and others, are. Or would that be a problem for some? Hmmm!

I've found that you place a person within a category of worthiness based on how you view yourself and your accomplishments, and what you value as pneumatologically correct (comparison).
Obviously you take some pride in all of the things that you list as your achievements and what you have participated in, in your lifetime.

In a conversation regarding your terms of success and ideas that are worthy of your consideration, or what is a good human idea I have witnessed your judgments (what you call your humble opinion) about what is good and what is God (in whatever current acronym is popular to your pneumatologocal belief).
Like anyone with an opinion, your judgment reflects your personal belief in whatever you call your experience of something or someone, no matter whether there is a brief experience or one that is made from an extended study of a process or a historical foundation of investment and study.

You like to say you are open to anything new, but in our conversations your openness has been subject to whether I or anyone else could impress upon you, a different point of view rather than you yourself actually taking the time to discover another experience of something you have previously judged as useless.

I'll just use the comment you made toward Maharishi Mahesh Yogi selling snake oil as an example.

I can understand anyone who has not spent any time studying Vedic philosophy or Eastern Meditative sciences to have little familiarity with one who speaks of their experience and study. And I would also expect one who is partial to western churchianity to be biased in their ideas of what is spiritual or of the spirit or soul, to make personal judgments as you have.

I find a disconnect though when you use eastern philosophical terms such as Brahman while pasting historical dates regarding Adviata Vedanta, without the knowledge that you have condemned these same ideas previously as the selling of snake oil. (ref. post #42120 & #27961)

Some of the ideas you have thrown out while skimming the internet for what you have claimed to be symbiotic with your definitions of unitheism reveal that you place your own ideas upon things that you have little experience in.

It would seem that those who identify themselves as elders form a rigid opinion of reality and would like all they meet to give credit to their beliefs, so they do not feel like they have wasted their life or that they have gone unrecognized in their personal efforts.

Once one reaches the age where mortality seems so real, people often hope that what is temporary may have some kind of lasting effect so that their personal ideas of themselves will not be lost when they leave the living.

BTW: Here's an oldy but goody
Originally Posted By: Revlgking


But seriously TT, except for your posts here, I do not know you all that well. But, pardon me for expressing what I think and how I feel about some of your posts:

Obviously I cannot tell you to your face what I think of you, so here I will simply ask: Would you please limit you comments here to your opinion on the topic--your philosophy of religion, your goals, dreams, ideals and the like.

the freedom to opine, does not give anyone the right to admonish and judge others; to tell anyone what they should and ought to be, fear and do. Let me, as I do you, deal with my ego in my own time.


Or, perhaps you would like to ask the moderators for an opinion.

The pneumatological resonance of the above is simply overwhelming, is it not?

I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!