Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online
0 registered (), 406 Guests and 1 Spider online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters (30 Days)
Page 85 of 120 < 1 2 ... 83 84 85 86 87 ... 119 120 >
Topic Options
#41951 - 12/31/11 09:59 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Is one capable of seeing what they choose to see


If your earlier comments about Rev have any relevance, the answer would seem to be “yes”.

The answer is yes and it can be qualified with the reality that capability does not necessarily produce quality. Tho a child can walk it will need to master that capability before he/she can run with balance and sure footed steps.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

BTW, in the above quote, your use of grammatical number is interesting; does it reflect your personal belief about the integration of the individual with the “whole”?
Beliefs are irrelevant to the reality of the ONE. The infinite consciousness is not so much fragmented as individuality chooses to see it fragmented, with varying degrees of wholeness based on what is needed to fill the gaps, where the belief in gaps exist.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
is what one sees inclusive to the experience of the potential within all that is, or exclusive to personal belief?


If personal belief is to be divorced from the “experience of the potential within”, then you have answered your own question about the individual’s potential for selective observation.

yes. To implement the connection where belief is primary in ones system of perception. However if one has risen above beliefs to engage the subtle senses, the nature of the universe is fully integrated as ones self, and knowledge will supersede belief.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
If one can choose, is choice limited or infinite in possibility?


Any limitation would necessarily be imposed by our 4-dimensional perception of reality. A lot depends on whether or not you regard the scope of choice as realisable within our finite perception or as a potential that might require some preternatural support for its realisation.

You believe the human nervous system is finite in its capabilities? To what extent?
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Can one know God or simply see what they want to see, and if one can know God could they recognize when someone is simply following a belief or immersed in a constant that is beyond individual belief but also within the belief system?


Any attempt to answer this question without first undertaking a rigorous definition of the terms used would simply be to walk into potential mire of convoluted word games. For example, you would need to define:
a. God
b. knowledge of God

No. when one knows the indefinable there is resonance. It is not the words or the definition that is recognized. Because the indefinable is not a thing or a definition.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
you would need to define:
c. belief, as distinct from knowledge

That can be pointed towards and validated in ones own experience, such as the experience of the infinite which hasn't the need for belief to exist, tho one must let go of belief about it to experience it since it exceeds belief, or cannot be bound by belief.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

d. what you mean by “a constant that is beyond individual belief”
e. how something “that is beyond individual belief” can be “within the belief system”.

The infinite exists throughout the course of time where beliefs about it come and go and never capture it. So it lives within the belief system as the belief system is a reflection of potential. That reflection however can never capture or define potential.

It is belief that pushes one toward opening doors of perception but belief has to be dropped to go thru the door and to perceive.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
.
#41952 - 12/31/11 11:36 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Originally Posted By: TT
Not sure what your case is
... If knowledge is part of “the absolute/infinite”, then all change, and knowledge of that change, is illusion; so your argument, although it may be true, becomes tautologous.

Bill, about 'tautology': a saying of a thing over and over again in other words without adding clearness or force. Bill, I confess: Now and then, I, too, offer a tautologism. So what do you expect of someone called TT?

By the way, aren't families, communities and the media, including this one, populated with tautologists? laugh
==================================
Ellis: This is a tautology about the weather: We do have snow for New Years Eve, in the GTA--greater Toronto Area--as the pneuma promised me. The temp. is 4 above freezing, almos 40%F. Here, in the city, we love it. We ask for a tautology, next year. laugh


Edited by Revlgking (12/31/11 11:44 PM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#41953 - 01/01/12 12:06 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
There is still quite a lot to respond to, but it is mid-night here, so I shall just wish everyone a very happy New Year.
Specially for Ellis: Blwyddyn Newydd Dda iawn, Bach.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41954 - 01/01/12 12:41 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Ellis Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/08/07
Posts: 1490
Loc: Australia
Diolch yn fawr Bill. And a Happy New Year to all who visit here.

Bill-- I see you are still awaiting cogent definitions of terms!

Rev-- I think I will have won the bragging rights on weather if the current predictions come true. Tomorrow is supposed to be 41 degrees, that's 41 C of course.

Top
#41956 - 01/01/12 05:16 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Ellis]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Ellis
Diolch yn fawr Bill. And a Happy New Year to all who visit here....
Just this minute turned 2012, here in Toronto. As my Newfie friends would put it: May ye live for t'ousands & t'ousands of years...h'almost foive 'undered, me sons!
==========
A few years ago I started a habit writing one liners for each year. For example:
Let's make it a great 2008;
And get along fine in 2009;
We'll do it ag'in in 2010;
Hope were closer to heaven in 2011;
We'll dig and delve--[search carefully for information]--in 2012.
Perhaps I will need help thinking up rhymes for the teen years?


Edited by Revlgking (01/01/12 05:22 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#41959 - 01/01/12 07:02 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Just a few more responses for TT:

Quote:
Rash? I see it as a segue for the revival of your case, or to move it from rest to activity.


A segue? Applied by whom? Why would either of us wish to bring about such a revival?

Quote:
You begin to see grasshopper.


You cast yourself as the “master”?

Quote:
However does that mean respect is now exchanged for something else?


Why might you infer that from what I said?

Quote:
The ego in itself is a construct which emerges from the infinite consciousness and facilitates in the experience. It can play a role as master or servant. As the master one assumes the role of being secondary to creation, where one believes everything happens to ones self, rather than the obverse which is where everything emerges from ones Self.


“Facilitates” what? Or is the lack of a direct object with a transitive verb intended to convey some esoteric meaning?

Impressive as your assertion might be it does not address the point to which it apparently purports to respond.

Quote:
No. In this case knowledge is the difference between belief and reality.


Earlier you seemed to deny that distinction. Can you have it both ways, or is one just empty verbosity?

Quote:
The anchor keeps the knower in the process of knowing the known, stable and without the illusion that it itself, becomes what it experiences.


Are you saying that it is the becoming that is an illusion or that being what one experiences is an illusion?

Quote:
One then lives in the world but does not become of it.


Quaintly Biblical, but what does it actually mean in terms of knowledge, either of the self, or anything else.

Quote:
God does not leave its ascended status to lose itself in the dreams and fancies that are the manifestations of God.


I suspect you will have to do better than make bald statements, however convincing your air of authority may be, if you are to be taken seriously.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41960 - 01/01/12 10:26 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Let’s go for another round.

Quote:
Beliefs are irrelevant to the reality of the ONE.


Surely that depends on the relationship between the “ONE”, whatever that might be, and the being holding the belief. Furthermore, if your idea that belief can be tantamount to knowledge has any veracity, such beliefs might amount to knowledge, which cannot be irrelevant.

Quote:
The infinite consciousness is not so much fragmented as individuality chooses to see it fragmented, with varying degrees of wholeness based on what is needed to fill the gaps, where the belief in gaps exist.


Apparent fragmentation of the infinite, conscious or otherwise, must always be an illusion. Are you really making an exception for consciousness?

Quote:
However if one has risen above beliefs to engage the subtle senses, the nature of the universe is fully integrated as ones self, and knowledge will supersede belief.


Your rhetoric fails to disguise the fact that this statement is based on a personal belief system.
If the universe to which you refer is infinite, as it must be, and the “self” is part of that, then integration must be the permanent reality. Any seeming lack of integration will be an illusion.

Quote:
You believe the human nervous system is finite in its capabilities?


Now, there’s something I didn’t say.

Quote:
No. when one knows the indefinable there is resonance.


I stand admonished! I should have said you would need to define:
a. what you mean by “God”
b. what you understand as knowledge of God.

Quote:
such as the experience of the infinite which hasn't the need for belief to exist,


Whilst the infinite, whatever one might understand by that, would have no need of belief in order to exist, that would not explain what you mean when you talk of “experience of the infinite”.

Quote:
The infinite exists throughout the course of time where beliefs about it come and go and never capture it. So it lives within the belief system as the belief system is a reflection of potential. That reflection however can never capture or define potential.


If “the infinite” and “time” actually co-exist, one could not say that “The infinite exists throughout the course of time”. Infinity and time are entirely different concepts. There can be no time, or any other divisions in infinity, it simply “is”. Time is an integral quality of the illusion we call a finite Universe.

Quote:
It is belief that pushes one toward opening doors of perception but belief has to be dropped to go thru the door and to perceive.


True as this might be, can you claim it is anything other than a belief?
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41961 - 01/01/12 10:32 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Originally Posted By: Rev
So what do you expect of someone called TT?


Good to see that tautology has not smothered humour.

BTW, Rev, I shall expect you to put TT and me on your Xmas card list. We are doing wonders for your stats. What's more, these long posts will push up the page count. laugh
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41963 - 01/02/12 01:41 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Bill S, thanks for the care you take when you take the effort to have a dialog with TT.
You write:
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Just a few more responses for TT:..
Quote:
God does not leave its ascended status to lose itself in the dreams and fancies that are the manifestations of God.
I suspect you will have to do better than make bald statements, however convincing your air of authority may be, if you are to be taken seriously.
TT, may I comment: I respect anyone with real authority based on valid qualifications.
Therefore, without prejudice I ask: Would it be offensive of me to ask you: What are your interests, sincerely held ideologies--which I also respect--and qualifications?


Edited by Revlgking (01/02/12 01:49 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#41964 - 01/02/12 02:13 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Just a few more responses for TT:

Quote:
Rash? I see it as a segue for the revival of your case, or to move it from rest to activity.


A segue? Applied by whom? Why would either of us wish to bring about such a revival?

You mentioned definition.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
You begin to see grasshopper.


You cast yourself as the “master”?

I know more than some and less than others.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
However does that mean respect is now exchanged for something else?


Why might you infer that from what I said?

If you didn't say that then say so. However you did mention respect.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
The ego in itself is a construct which emerges from the infinite consciousness and facilitates in the experience. It can play a role as master or servant. As the master one assumes the role of being secondary to creation, where one believes everything happens to ones self, rather than the obverse which is where everything emerges from ones Self.


“Facilitates” what? Or is the lack of a direct object with a transitive verb intended to convey some esoteric meaning?

It is meant to convey the idea that there is more to ones self in creativity than the body and its fleshy components.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Impressive as your assertion might be it does not address the point to which it apparently purports to respond.
It may take some time for you to put it all together, if you are not into the instant gratification thing where everything has to be put into a box.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
No. In this case knowledge is the difference between belief and reality.


Earlier you seemed to deny that distinction. Can you have it both ways, or is one just empty verbosity?

You hear but do not listen.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
The anchor keeps the knower in the process of knowing the known, stable and without the illusion that it itself, becomes what it experiences.


Are you saying that it is the becoming that is an illusion or that being what one experiences is an illusion?

The soul in the reflection of being human is always becoming, the illusion is that it becomes something.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
One then lives in the world but does not become of it.


Quaintly Biblical, but what does it actually mean in terms of knowledge, either of the self, or anything else.

It means the ego becomes a product of its own thoughts rather than being that which imagines.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
God does not leave its ascended status to lose itself in the dreams and fancies that are the manifestations of God.


I suspect you will have to do better than make bald statements, however convincing your air of authority may be, if you are to be taken seriously.
Not interested in convincing anyone. People who wish to stay where they are at figure they have to be convinced to move further. It is usually obvious when someone wants more then they think they have.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Let’s go for another round.

let's
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
Beliefs are irrelevant to the reality of the ONE.


Surely that depends on the relationship between the “ONE”, whatever that might be, and the being holding the belief. Furthermore, if your idea that belief can be tantamount to knowledge has any veracity, such beliefs might amount to knowledge, which cannot be irrelevant.

The ONE is all that is. It is knowledge it is emotion it is wisdom it is niether. It is potential, and the one with the belief sees itself as separate from it rather than, that. The ONE does not become the other, it contains the other within itself so to speak. So,... your argument is without knowledge and experience of the one.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
The infinite consciousness is not so much fragmented as individuality chooses to see it fragmented, with varying degrees of wholeness based on what is needed to fill the gaps, where the belief in gaps exist.


Apparent fragmentation of the infinite, conscious or otherwise, must always be an illusion. Are you really making an exception for consciousness?
The infinite is consciousness.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
However if one has risen above beliefs to engage the subtle senses, the nature of the universe is fully integrated as ones self, and knowledge will supersede belief.


Your rhetoric fails to disguise the fact that this statement is based on a personal belief system.
If the universe to which you refer is infinite, as it must be, and the “self” is part of that, then integration must be the permanent reality. Any seeming lack of integration will be an illusion.

The seeming lack of integration would be the illusion, as is the belief in separation. Altho the above statement which you quoted can be a belief, it can also be directly experienced. When mastered it supersedes any beliefs in mastery or imagination of Unity.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
You believe the human nervous system is finite in its capabilities?


Now, there’s something I didn’t say.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Any limitation would necessarily be imposed by our 4-dimensional perception of reality. A lot depends on whether or not you regard the scope of choice as realisable within our finite perception or as a potential that might require some preternatural support for its realisation.

you mentioned our finite perception...
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
No. when one knows the indefinable there is resonance.


I stand admonished! I should have said you would need to define:
a. what you mean by “God”
b. what you understand as knowledge of God.

You would have to hear what I have said to begin to understand what is being said.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
such as the experience of the infinite which hasn't the need for belief to exist,


Whilst the infinite, whatever one might understand by that, would have no need of belief in order to exist, that would not explain what you mean when you talk of “experience of the infinite”.

You still look for finite definition, rather than hear that experience does not require belief or definition.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
The infinite exists throughout the course of time where beliefs about it come and go and never capture it. So it lives within the belief system as the belief system is a reflection of potential. That reflection however can never capture or define potential.


If “the infinite” and “time” actually co-exist, one could not say that “The infinite exists throughout the course of time”. Infinity and time are entirely different concepts. There can be no time, or any other divisions in infinity, it simply “is”. Time is an integral quality of the illusion we call a finite Universe.

yes time is a construct which the mind uses to experience dimensional quality, based on its immersion into defining properties of itself with beginnings and endings. But to say the infinite is not capable of having qualities is to deny the infinite of its infinite status. It is beyond qualities but it has within it inherent qualities which are perceived by a mind that determines itself to be contained within qualitative ideals.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

Quote:
It is belief that pushes one toward opening doors of perception but belief has to be dropped to go thru the door and to perceive.


True as this might be, can you claim it is anything other than a belief?
Would you believe me if I did make such a claim?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#41965 - 01/02/12 02:17 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
TT, may I comment: I respect anyone with real authority based on valid qualifications.

You remind me of the Pharisees, when they claimed the same thing of Jesus.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Therefore, without prejudice I ask: Would it be offensive of me to ask you: What are your interests, sincerely held ideologies--which I also respect--and qualifications?
Aside from the qualifications you insist are pertinent, my interests are in expanding the experience of God.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#41966 - 01/02/12 04:01 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
... You (LGK?) remind me of the Pharisees, when they claimed the same thing of Jesus.
TT, it never ever crossed my mind to think that you might think of yourself as the second-coming of Jesus, and me a Pharisee.

Me, a Pharisee?--a scrupulous observer of the laws of Moses? One having a separatist attitude towards all life?

Come now! What sense does this really make? I am so inclusive I am even willing to take you at your word that you could be the Messiah come again to complete the task of salvation.

Meanwhile show us how you plan to go about demonstrating that your, "interests are in expanding the experience of God."
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#41967 - 01/02/12 03:44 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
... You (LGK?) remind me of the Pharisees, when they claimed the same thing of Jesus.
TT, it never ever crossed my mind to think that you might think of yourself as the second-coming of Jesus, and me a Pharisee.

But would you seek to measure a man by his qualifications? What does, qualify a man? What is it that is important to you?


Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Come now! What sense does this really make? I am so inclusive I am even willing to take you at your word that you could be the Messiah come again to complete the task of salvation.

No, you wouldn't. smirk
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Meanwhile show us how you plan to go about demonstrating that your, "interests are in expanding the experience of God."
In your determination, how would you assume that should look?
It appears that you could assume something already:
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
[quote=Rev]So what do you expect of someone called TT?


By the way it would appear that Bill would steal your thunder.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

BTW, Rev, I shall expect you to put TT and me on your Xmas card list. We are doing wonders for your stats. What's more, these long posts will push up the page count. laugh


Speaking of numbers... 46,095 more hits since I posted the numbers on page 83. Of those 46,000+ numbers 5 members have posted. Ellis, Bill, Redewenur, the Rev. and me. Bill and I lead the numbers with me at 19. Bill following with his case at 18, Red 1, and you (rev) and Ellis discussing the weather and my qualifications in regard to what is expected from someone named TT..
That means that well over 46,000 people in the last 8 days are still not interested in participating in the content of this thread.

Guess we are going to have to inject some quality into the posts to draw more interest.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#41969 - 01/02/12 07:25 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Here are a few quotes from just one post:

Quote:
It may take some time for you to put it all together, if you are not into the instant gratification thing where everything has to be put into a box.

You hear but do not listen.

People who wish to stay where they are at figure they have to be convinced to move further. It is usually obvious when someone wants more then they think they have.

So,... your argument is without knowledge and experience of the one.

Altho the above statement which you quoted can be a belief, it can also be directly experienced. When mastered it supersedes any beliefs in mastery or imagination of Unity.

You would have to hear what I have said to begin to understand what is being said.

You still look for finite definition, rather than hear that experience does not require belief or definition
.

and you impute pharisaic qualities to Rev! Brings to mind something about the pot calling the kettle black ----. (4 dashes because it’s the UK version) smile
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41970 - 01/02/12 07:33 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Quote:
If you didn't say that then say so.


I didn’t deny saying it, as I didn’t want to state the obvious. I thought your reason for needing to misinterpret my words in this way might be worth investigating. However, if you prefer to side-step that issue, that is your choice, and I respect that.

More to come; back later.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41971 - 01/02/12 08:01 PM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Quote:
If you didn't say that then say so.


I didn’t deny saying it, as I didn’t want to state the obvious.
you really didn't leave any doubt.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
I thought your reason for needing to misinterpret my words in this way might be worth investigating. However, if you prefer to side-step that issue, that is your choice, and I respect that.

Not side stepping anything. You said you had a case. Whether you are prosecuting or defending the language is full of intention rather than interest. If you really want to hear what I have to say you would have to be listening.
Originally Posted By: Bill S.

More to come; back later.
Ain't that a surprise....
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#41972 - 01/03/12 01:53 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Turner]
Bill S. Offline
Megastar

Registered: 08/20/10
Posts: 3570
Loc: Essex, UK
Perhaps you need to listen to what others say in order to understand that not everyone who asks you a question is necessarily a bigot who is daring to question your absolute knowledge.
_________________________
There never was nothing.

Top
#41975 - 01/03/12 04:55 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Tutor Turtle]
Revlgking Offline
Megastar

Registered: 01/17/07
Posts: 2311
Loc: markham (Thornhill), Ontario, ...
To: Bill S and TT: How do you feel about the three-way postings presently going on here: For you, is this a dialog? Or a debate? My apologies for the length of this post, but I was asked: What is important to you? The following is summary.

Me? I feel it is a complex of the two.
I prefer having a dialog--the sharing of information and mutual interests without the shame and blame.

This means that I take the following as a question:
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
...
But would you seek to measure a man by his qualifications?
Depends on the claims made, or implied, by that person's posts.

If a person's posts are are full of comments about physics and the maths of physics, I assume that the writer is a physicist.
One example: When Orac started to write I checked his profile: All it says is: Physics Computer Modeller (Is this a profession?)
Hobbies: Particle physics
Location: Australia
===========================
Bill S: Retired
Location: Essex, UK
================
Bill, you say you are retired. I understand your work had something to do with the science of weather?
What are your favourite topics?
Were you every called on to teach in your field?
Are a bit of a philosopher? Is this why interest in writing to this thread?
=================================
TT, I assume your profile is a joke. What other hobbies do you have?
What questions would you like readers to ask you about?
Perhaps you are an expert in the butterflys of Antarctica smile
=========================================================
Me? Check out my profile.
I make no secret of the facts regarding my profession and the education needed to become a minister.
This is why I included the title Rev.
Over the years, besides being a minister and doing what most people think ministers are ordained to do--preaching, teaching and healing:

Over the years my ministry has involved, town planning--Happy Valley, Goosebay, Labrador, the developing and supervising and the building manses, of churches and recreation buildings.

My studies and interest in pastoral psychology--a broad field--came in very handy. I did a lot of counseling--in rural areas more than many psychologists. Pastoral work involved doing a lot of social work too. In Labrador, the provincial social worker and I met regularly to deal with social crises, including suicides and the families involved. I had similar experience is the two Large cities--Montreal and Toronto--in which I served in the last half of my ministry.

In my 80's I am still doing counselling--no fees.

Just today, I got a call from the USA. I spent about an hour listen to a person pour his heart out. There was also a long post by email.

Yes, as one who is very qualified in the field of hypnotherapy, I have worked in cooperation with hospitals and medical doctors. I have even counselled with criminals who elected to take rehabilitation programs. The programs were great successes.

I am open for all kinds of questions

I taught at Teacher's College, for five years.
I have written a weekly column for a Toronto paper.
Radio and TV broadcasting....
lecturing in Canada, the USA and the UK.

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
What does, qualify a man? What is it that is important to you?
I listed my interests above. What are yours?
===================================
WHAT IS IMPORTANT TO ME? Here it is:
PNEUMATOLOGY Does it now have the same status as a natural science? If so, a meta-prayer I have been making since 1964 has been answered,
YES!
WILLPOWER--A great book, which my family gave me for Christmas. If what is claimed here is true: We now have scientific evidence, brought to the light of day by thorough research, that "willpower"--The Greatest Human Strength--is like a physical muscle. It can be measured and put to work saving civilizations from the curse of self-destruction. Maybe I should post this in the hard sciences section. Any suggestions for a thread title, anyone?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/04/books/...?pagewanted=all
================


Edited by Revlgking (01/03/12 05:05 AM)
_________________________
G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org

Top
#41976 - 01/03/12 04:59 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Bill S.]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Perhaps you need to listen to what others say in order to understand that not everyone who asks you a question is necessarily a bigot who is daring to question your absolute knowledge.

My Knowledge and experience is going to be relative to anyone's own knowledge and experience..or lack there of.

As for the Bigots who would accuse me of absolute knowledge, who might those be in your eyes?
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
#41977 - 01/03/12 05:42 AM Re: Philosophy of Religions--all religions, including, [Re: Revlgking]
Tutor Turtle Offline
Megastar

Registered: 06/19/08
Posts: 1249
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
To: Bill S and TT: How do you feel about the three-way postings presently going on here: For you, is this a dialog? Or a debate?
So far there is not much objectivity due to the need to be so subjective.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Me? I feel it is a complex of the two.
I prefer having a dialog--the sharing of information and mutual interests without the shame and blame.

I would say that you have a way with sarcasm.

Originally Posted By: Revlgking

This means that I take the following as a question:
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
...
But would you seek to measure a man by his qualifications?
Depends on the claims made, or implied, by that person's posts.
Let's narrow the field to the subject of Spirituality and God.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

TT, I assume your profile is a joke. What other hobbies do you have?
I like to fish.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

What questions would you like readers to ask you about?

I would assume that readers would ask me about what I post. Other than that I have no preferences. I may not succumb to another's feelings and subsequent questions that I feel are irrelevant to what I post. And I don't feel a need to bend towards what others feel I am obliged to say or think just because they think it is important for them.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Me? Check out my profile.

I have and I'm sure it means alot to you, but titles mean nothing to me.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

I make no secret of the facts regarding my profession and the education needed to become a minister.
This is why I included the title Rev.
Over the years, besides being a minister and doing what most people think ministers are ordained to do--preaching, teaching and healing.......

You asked me a question about how I would go about expanding the experience of God. Do you believe, that you as a minister with the title Reverend, are more inclined to be effective in what your studies have led you to believe, or in that which we are speaking of here when it comes to the experience of God?
Does your school of ministry education in which you obtained the title of minister teach you to experience God? (By the way, anyone can become a minister on line, without any previous education.)
Also, in asking me how I would accomplish what I seek. Do you see the task as an action or as a lifetime commitment?
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle
What does, qualify a man? What is it that is important to you?
I listed my interests above. What are yours?

What qualifies a man is subjective to the ego. Jesus once said to the Pharisees "Is it not written that Ye are God's?" He (Jesus) was often chastised for hanging out with tax collectors and women of ill repute as well as others that were deemed as not worthy of reputation. His compassion for the common man and their illusions of self worth prescribed by those who would issue titles was part of his ministry.

My interests are often more useful to those who carry no title, and are innocent enough to take God out of the box that is prescribed thru the institutions that print titles for those that need them.
_________________________
I was addicted to the Hokey Pokey, but then I turned myself around!!





Top
Page 85 of 120 < 1 2 ... 83 84 85 86 87 ... 119 120 >



Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor
Facebook

We're on Facebook
Join Our Group

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.