TT has often accused Orac and me--and no doubt others, like Ellis--of attacking his/her person, using ad hominems.
But his/her profile does
NOT not make it clear that he/she is a real person.
TT's profile gives only the following info about location and reasons for living
Location: Everywhere and nowhere ... spinning navel lint into infinite dimensional universes and potentials
In my opinion, TT is a fiction, a sock-puppet, a bad joke! I rest my case!
Obviously you are unfamiliar with the idea of an ad hominem rev. (but then religious folk often remove themselves from their own prescribed moral standards in light of their righteousness).
ad ho·mi·nem
[ad hom-uh-nuhm -nem,]
adjective
attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument, or addressing his conversation.
how come I cannot find one thread that TT has started? In my opinion, TT is a fiction, a sock-puppet, a bad joke!
The need to validate a person, by a referencing their personal resume isn't to get to know someone. Anyone can write a resume and embellish it with all kinds of ideas regarding past fame and glory. Because you are partial to self validation using such a means does not make the standard.
This issue was addressed by AR when you insisted she make me live up to your need to make my personal information available to you by suggesting she, nor any other would be forced to live up to your expectations on this forum.
MY testimony to free will rather than your will. 
I hardly think so. The fact that you seem to have built a case around my character, based on a lack of personal information, leads me to believe your view of the Golden rule is to treat others as non existent unless they present a resume.
I would risk the assumption that not all people see things exactly the same way. Your treatment of my responses based on your own opinions leaves very little room for a second opinion unless it happens to fall into the realm of your beliefs and prejudices.
You assume to make real a truth relative to democratic opinion based on your idea of who might take your side.
The heading of this topic is suggestive of godliness based on discernment.
The Buddhists use a term called mindfulness. It relates to the present moment and the potential within the now. You like to think of the now as whatever G~Õ~D like impression you carry whenever you make the statement toward the NOW. OR if we use mindfulness as exemplified by your special meanings.. WHATEVER your mind is FULL of.. MIND-FULL-ness.
The Philosophies and observations of Eastern spiritual Sciences identify 7 states of consciousness. 3 are well known by most as sleeping dreaming and waking states. The other 4 are expanded states. Each state of conscious has a subjective and objective description of their qualities based on the activity of the physical body, the brain and the awareness. Most think the waking state superior to dreaming because the mind and body are both active, yet there are qualities within the dream state where the mind is freed from the conditioning of past impressions, and thoughts of the future lend the awareness to probable realities which can be experienced in the dream state.
It is somewhat close to what can be achieved in meditation, freeing the mind from the resume of personal ideals and dogmatic judgments of who we think we are, or what we think the world around us is.
You yourself suggest an idea. Discernment makes us god-like.
Discernment based on what you call the Golden rule.
Would that Golden rule be something other than the example you set for others in the use of ad hominems to attack a persons character because they don't present a resume?
Is the rule Golden if it is discerned by someone who calls themselves a rev. and does this title elevate a person above someone who does not carry the references in having been schooled in religion and beliefs in God (or G~Õ~D as you like to use your special acronym).
The fact that your special acronym changes in its meanings and qualities based on who you think you are and what you think you know in the change of time.., do you see discernment as having a standard or being qualified by time or personality, and who would create the standard.
Do you consider yourself an authority of the standard since you made the rule, or is this to be democratically derived?
Do you wish to use the references to the others of name and fame that you stand behind as the resonant disciple or exemplar, as the source of any standard you present, or are you and your sources basically born into saint hood and god-like status, when making claims to the example and to the names you reference within the community of scientists and authors you reference?
Did your method of belief lead you, (and could it lead others) to the experience of God (please define), or is the idea you really present, that anyone can be god-like and experience G~Õ~D by just assuming an elevated perspective of life and themselves, simply by making god up within the definitions of a single (or perhaps many) special acronym(s)?
I've often addressed your beliefs with questions like these, but since they expose the vague reality behind your claims to fame and your beliefs that you would prescribe as the righteous reality, but you would rather object to my presence and find any means to address my character rather than answer them... C'est la vie
You are the ad hominem exemplar when it comes to addressing the opposing thought.
You, as a religiously trained man excel in avoiding reality by living in a bubble of your own making as does anyone bound by the impressions of belief and subjective realities.
The waking state is ruled by the ego. It discerns reality based on personal impressions that are not the collective impressions of humanity or even bigger than the outer senses can imagine.
Truly, being God-like would have to be greater than just what you imagine, don'tcha think?
