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 Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 110 of 120 1 2 108 109 110 111 112 119 120
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
To me you still avoided the issue of do I as a human have freedom of choice and why?

This is what I got:

Not my fault. I can't command you to see something.
Originally Posted By: Orac

You view that we live in GODS construct and I get the bit about we have an ego and it is bounded to our reality.
Pity you can't remove the ghosts from your thinking.
Originally Posted By: Orac

I think you are trying to say free will exists only within ones ego within GODS construct ..... rough interpretation.

Every thing is subjective. All realities have their own direction and purpose. You can try to build a house with a herring, but a hammer will do much better.
Originally Posted By: Orac

To me being honest you just moved physical boundaries to psychological boundaries. This all comes out like a bad version of the Matrix movie to me at the moment.

There is a close relationship between physical boundaries and the psychological systems of identification. Hypnotists use that relationship to alter perceptions of reality.

Originally Posted By: Orac

I am left with unanswered questions:

1.) Why GOD's construct what is it's point.

What is God. Answer that question and you will have an answer.

(Hint: It has nothing to do with religion as you fail to understand it)
Originally Posted By: Orac

Remember I couldn't answer why we exist either and that's fine sometimes just recognizing what one doesn't know is enough.
You've just distracted your mind with another thought. The question still exists within you.
Originally Posted By: Orac

2.) Can I defy GOD's will inside my little ego boundary.
You created the ego. Can you defy yourself?
Originally Posted By: Orac

To me this was an attempt to keep GOD's omnipotent in a physical sense by moving freedom of choice into a concept of ego and that's fine I don't think it really matters, can I defy GOD in my little ego. An omnipotent GOD should be able to know what you are thinking and taking the problem up into a psychological domain won't change the problem the question is does GOD give you a "domain" that he doesn't control 100%.

Tho you have no love or respect for religion, you remain bound to the dogma of religious identification with God.
Who's fault is that? Gods?
You should really expand your understanding of consciousness as something other than the emergent programs of identity and conditioning of the senses.
Originally Posted By: Orac

3.) I get I create my own reality in my little ego boundary but what is the point to my reality?

Who are you that created ego? Not much difference in that and God, other than those you have personally created.
Originally Posted By: Orac

This is where I really got the Matrix movie feel that this is all just a conspiracy to keep us thinking so they could tax our electrical energy ... dam you machines .... cue big guns and neo smile

Paranoia will destroya

Originally Posted By: Orac

By the way I should say I am often told I am not very religion sensitive because I really didn't grow up with it at all in my life as it was really banned by the government.

You're also not very open minded about much of anything outside of your own beliefs. Not much difference between you and religion. Not surprising you are so distant from the world around you.
Originally Posted By: Orac
So if I overstep a sensitivity point please don't hesitate to let me know I am not trying to offend and I can be very blunt and insensitive.

Insensitivity is just the distance you put from the world around you.
The use of choice or freedom of thought (tho you can blame it on the past if you will). Ego takes will out of the picture and victimizes its senses and abilities (sensibility) with the will and power of others. You could call it self hypnosis.


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




.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am sorry TT but that is a pile of mindless rhetoric and about as vacuous and non descript as anyone could write.

All I get is the reality is so vast and different that I could never understand it, but I TT do because I live in the glorious enlightenment of the great and wonderful reality that only I understand.

If there is an omnipotent GOD he sure as hell understands me and my reality. I also can describe my reality because if there is a GOD he gave me the ability to describe and articulate my reality which I did in my answer.



However this statement to me was the most strange


Originally Posted By: TT
You created the ego. Can you defy yourself?



The blunt answer is not only can you it is generally a requirement of life that you be able to ... the fact you don't recognize that fact slightly alarms me if you are offering life advice.

You = your own ego for someone with an ego fetish such as yourself I would have thought that was a given. To behave in civilized way it is manifest upon you to not only recognize your wants and desires but to be able to control them.

That is actually the whole point to the question of whether you can defy GOD because it goes to the responsibility of behavior which is the ultimate point of the freedom of choice question.


To show how vacuous your answer is to me I will compare to other religions I know about enough to write on a postage stamp but I am pretty sure I can answer the free choice question in them.



Let me try Rev K's religion answer on the matter and I know scant little about it but I know that people have freedom of choice.

Let's see if I am right Rev K can you check this answer


I am sure he follows the 3 main concepts of Methodist founders

1.People are all, by nature, "dead in sin," and, consequently, "children of wrath."
2.They are "justified by faith alone."
3.Faith produces inward and outward holiness.

If I am reading this right then people are born with freedom of choice to choose to follow the light of god or not. I am not sure what happens if you do or do not follow the light of god but I get that much.

How did I do Rev K?



I can also give you a quick version of the main Islamic view

1. Humans are the greatest of all creatures, created with free will for the purpose of obeying and serving God in a test of their good/evil nature.

2. All humans are born in Al-Fitra, a natural state of submission to Allah (Pure in normal speak).

3. Mankind's chief failing is pride because pride thereby damages the unity of God. Thus pride is Islam's cardinal sin nothing must come before you and god and you must submit to god always.

4. When you die there comes a judgement of your life ... you know the story Heaven and Hell.



I am still confused if I have free choice or not under your reality, belief, god??? You do a lot of talking about reality but you never seem to answer the question unambiguously it's always realities within realities.

Last edited by Orac; 09/27/13 08:09 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
I am sorry TT but that is a pile of mindless rhetoric and about as vacuous and non descript as anyone could write.
I'm sure that's why you continue. Nothing like a good argument over a vacuous and nondescript subject
Originally Posted By: Orac

All I get is the reality is so vast and different that I could never understand it, but I TT do because I live in the glorious enlightenment of the great and wonderful reality that only I understand.

Yeah I got that when you wrote this:
Originally Posted By: Orac
..clinging to illusions we create, even despite demonstrable evidence to the contrary dominates most of our views on things... the need and want to create a solid world is just another aspect of that.

Probably why anything outside of personal illusions become so nondescript and vacuous. What isn't shaped to fit in the personal hole, just has no place in the world.
Originally Posted By: Orac

If there is an omnipotent GOD he sure as hell understands me and my reality. I also can describe my reality because if there is a GOD he gave me the ability to describe and articulate my reality which I did in my answer.

Then you subscribe to the Reverends point of view. Reality is a personal opinion that suits you and services that opinion.
Gee... I wonder who created that. whistle


Originally Posted By: Orac

However this statement to me was the most strange


Originally Posted By: TT
You created the ego. Can you defy yourself?



The blunt answer is not only can you it is generally a requirement of life that you be able to ... the fact you don't recognize that fact slightly alarms me if you are offering life advice.
Why would you want to?
Originally Posted By: Orac

You = your own ego for someone with an ego fetish such as yourself I would have thought that was a given.

You are what created the ego. If you identify with what you created and cease to become the creator, so much for you and those who sleep. No one can make you see anything other than what you choose to imagine yourself to be.
You might even have an edge to the world that can be sailed to where you can jump off. eek
Originally Posted By: Orac
To behave in civilized way it is manifest upon you to not only recognize your wants and desires but to be able to control them.
So all the questions you posed to the idea of free will was just rhetoric. You yourself are a closed system of beliefs, and in your absolute state of self only observe the distortions of reality that are those who pass by your castle walls.
Originally Posted By: Orac

That is actually the whole point to the question of whether you can defy GOD because it goes to the responsibility of behavior which is the ultimate point of the freedom of choice question.

In order to objectify yourself against something you have to know what it is you are discussing. When it comes to God, you've only demonstrated that you have the will to form an opinion. (Limited as it is to religious nonsense)

Originally Posted By: Orac

To show how vacuous your answer is to me I will compare to other religions I know about enough to write on a postage stamp but I am pretty sure I can answer the free choice question in them.

By demonstrating your lack of understanding, you might impress upon me why you fail to put different ideas together?
You've already accomplished that, how about doing something different.


Originally Posted By: Orac

Let me try Rev K's religion answer on the matter and I know scant little about it

Ah yes, the projection of stereotypes.
Originally Posted By: Orac
but I know that people have freedom of choice.

Is will and choice the same thing?
Originally Posted By: Orac

Let's see if I am right Rev K can you check this answer


I am sure he follows the 3 main concepts of Methodist founders

1.People are all, by nature, "dead in sin," and, consequently, "children of wrath."
2.They are "justified by faith alone."
3.Faith produces inward and outward holiness.

Being that the Reverend is seeking allies he will probably be gentle with you. If I were to make that statement to him he would probably use your opening line:
Quote:

I am sorry TT but that is a pile of mindless rhetoric and about as vacuous and non descript as anyone could write.

I'm sure he'll find a way to use it regardless. He's torqued already when it comes to me and loves to use anyone's flaming comments so he doesn't appear to be alone.
Originally Posted By: Orac

If I am reading this right then people are born with freedom of choice to choose to follow the light of god or not. I am not sure what happens if you do or do not follow the light of god but I get that much.

How did I do Rev K?

Yer using the rev's definition of God?
Wait! Do you know what that is, or are you making an assumption based on the Methodists again?


Originally Posted By: Orac

I can also give you a quick version of the main Islamic view

1. Humans are the greatest of all creatures, created with free will for the purpose of obeying and serving God in a test of their good/evil nature.

2. All humans are born in Al-Fitra, a natural state of submission to Allah (Pure in normal speak).

3. Mankind's chief failing is pride because pride thereby damages the unity of God. Thus pride is Islam's cardinal sin nothing must come before you and god and you must submit to god always.

4. When you die there comes a judgement of your life ... you know the story Heaven and Hell.

If I use your logic, you are an Islamist


Originally Posted By: Orac

I am still confused if I have free choice or not under your reality, belief, god???

I can tell. Might be because you come up with so many ideas that only adhere to your predisposed beliefs of the subject matter. Gotta open your mind. Don't worry what you got in there won't fall out. I hope.. wink
Originally Posted By: Orac
You do a lot of talking about reality but you never seem to answer the question unambiguously it's always realities within realities.

I remember when I was in school, and I wanted to ask the teacher how to spell a word. The response was, "look it up in the dictionary." Back then I thought, how was I was supposed to spell the world I didn't know how to spell, so I could look it up?

Basically I think there was a logic in the idea that when someone wants to know something they actually apply themselves rather than demand someone else do the work for them.

The other most obvious piece of the puzzle is that when someone stands in defiance of something, they will like to have someone prove to them what they already believe is untrue, so they can stand behind their castle walls without ever feeling their kingdom could be threatened by any other opposing forces. whistle


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




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Orac, what an interesting debate--certainly not what I would call a friendly conversation, or a dialogue--that you and TT just had.

In other words, to me it was a dynamic, shocking and Hamlet-kinda (death-dealing?) duel shocked --one in which both protagonists ... Do you know the play? It is the story of the vengeance-seeking prince, who could not make up his mind about what to do about the untimely death of his father, who was murdered (by poisoning). BTW: A summary of Hamlet:

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090211164803AAhBQKm

MY STYLE of interaction? DEBATE NO! DIALOGUE,YES!

BTW, both of you! I avoid debating, which for me is a zero-sum game. Rather, I love conversing--having a dialogue in which we all learn from each other and the game is then a win/win one.

Like the role of science, the dialogue is about whatsoever things are "good, beautiful and true".

Last edited by Revlgking; 09/27/13 08:41 PM. Reason: Always helpful

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Orac, what an interesting debate--certainly not what I would call a friendly conversation, or a dialogue--that you and TT just had.

Everyone has their own system of values.
Those that enter into a debate on a team use the debating system as a means to sharpen their wits.


Originally Posted By: Revlgking

MY STYLE of interaction? DEBATE NO! DIALOGUE,YES!
and mud slinging... don't forget mudslinging. smile
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

BTW, both of you! I avoid debating, which for me is a zero-sum game. Rather, I love conversing--having a dialogue in which we all learn from each other and the game is then a win/win one.

If you don't have an agenda or take offense to language and expression. Freedom of expression is a win win situation.
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

Like the role of science, the dialogue is about whatsoever things are "good, beautiful and true".

Truth being relative, beauty in the eye of the beholder and goodness being relative to personal beliefs...

Everyone has an opinion. wink


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




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Orac, I learn little or nothing from what you call
Originally Posted By: Orac
I am sorry TT but that is a pile of mindless rhetoric and about as vacuous and non descript as anyone could write....
Then you add:
Quote:
I am sure he follows the 3 main concepts of Methodist founders

1.People are all, by nature, "dead in sin," and, consequently, "children of wrath."
2.They are "justified by faith alone."
3.Faith produces inward and outward holiness....
How did I do Rev K?
Interestingly, way back (1955), at Boston University--founded by Methodists (Followers of John Wesley and his family)--I did an extensive course on the ideas of the Methodist movement.
=====
What you describe in more like Calvinism & Lutheranism, than Methodism.

John Wesley, the son of an Anglican minister--a political activist--was an Anglican minister. So were two of his brothers. Methodism was more into FREEDOM OF THE WILL and a liberal kind thinking, not into blind faith.

He was also a pragmatist, into social justice for all classes. The Methodist were up front about public education, holistic health, abolishing slavery and the like.

THE ROOTS OF THE UCC, and why it called "united":
The United Church of Canada (1925)--very open to new evidence-based ideas (science)--owes a lot to it Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian, Congregationalist and other roots.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
Orac, what an interesting debate--certainly not what I would call a friendly conversation, or a dialogue--that you and TT just had.


It wasn't unfriendly either Rev K I hope it was forcefully blunt at least that was what was intended.

I have no problems with anyone views I may agree or disagree with them but if you want to discuss them, then discuss them, don't posture and seek to hold positions by omission.

I differ from you on one personal trait I don't feel the need to be liked or friendly with everyone. I understand that in your religious views such things are undesirable because you value love above all else from comments because you associate love with the essence of your GOD.

It is probably a lot to do with my upbringing but also my people and my family have always been mountain people, in my homeland so a certain amount of loner behavior runs in us and we have an expression for it.

I have no problem if TT wants to discuss something but discuss it enough with the posturing garbage.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Originally Posted By: Orac
It wasn't unfriendly either Rev K I hope it was forcefully blunt at least that was what was intended.

I have no problems with anyone views I may agree or disagree with them but if you want to discuss them, then discuss them, don't posture and seek to hold positions by omission.

I differ from you on one personal trait I don't feel the need to be liked or friendly with everyone. ...
Then you said:
Quote:
I have no problem if TT wants to discuss something but discuss it enough with the posturing garbage.
Orac, I assume you meant: ... "without" the posturing garbage. Right?

What do you expect from people who spend their lives--as TT admits in his own profile--
Quote:
"spinning navel lint into infinite dimensional universes and potentials ... and who is everywhere and nowhere..."
BTW, meanwhile, I am certain that Kate is more than willing to be part of a dialogue with all of us who write to this thread.


G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
It is just inane posturing I don't think it needs moderation just call it what it is.


It follows a standard template

You believe or say x ... TT oh you don't understand x it's not your reality .... so explain x TT .... oh I can't you don't understand the reality.


I watched him do it to every conversation, I thought Paul might get along with TT, but he even did it to Paul who just threw his hands in the air in the end.


What a lot of childish dribble ... it is otherwise known as posturing .. children and students caught picking there nose do it a lot.


I could give you the psychology of why they do it and TT is a classic for it .. the it is "avoidance exposure". The funny part is what TT hates most being labeled and boxed is what happens to them because they are easy to understand smile

Last edited by Orac; 09/28/13 05:58 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Revlgking
I am certain that Kate is more than willing to be part of a dialogue with all of us who write to this thread.
If she were interested she would have already.


The subject at hand seems to be mired by a need within certain individuals, to approach it strictly as one would themselves.
Any direction other than that which appeals to the individual seems to create a glitch in temperament. shocked

Both You and Orac seem sidetracked by your emotional attachments.
Neither of you seem to be able to have the ability to express something without it being revered by another in the same way you attach yourself to your own beliefs about yourselves..
Identification with pride often gets in the way.

Originally Posted By: Orac
It is just inane posturing I don't think it needs moderation just call it what it is.

But then let each who sees it the way they do, call it the way they want to see it, without getting upset because someone doesn't fit everything into your box, or approach it the same way.
If you want to insist everyone clone their experiences to yours you will have trouble in the world.


Originally Posted By: Orac

It follows a standard template

Who derives these systems of labeling what is normal and abnormal? Psychology is not a science.

Originally Posted By: Orac

You believe or say x ... TT oh you don't understand x it's not your reality .... so explain x TT .... oh I can't you don't understand the reality.

You are generalizing all conversations based on your frustration within a single conversation.
You thanked me in another conversation for answering a question that you asked.
If you are insisting,(like the reverend does) that I perform to your expectations, then I would suggest you live your life that way to suit you. Don't expect others to follow tho. The example to free will is in the living, not in the definitions and explanations. If you have to explain yourself to anyone to be free, you have no freedom. You gave that away when you decided you had to meet another's demands.


Originally Posted By: Orac

I watched him do it to every conversation, I thought Paul might get along with TT, but he even did it to Paul who just threw his hands in the air in the end.

Paul seemed a bit less involved in his approach, in that he didn't appear beat his head against the wall like you and the rev. do.
I actually admire the fact that he takes all of the abuse you give him without compromising himself.
Both you and the Reverend seem to like to manipulate thru intimidation, intimating the majority rule. The reverend also likes to use the occasional threat. Psychologically speaking, these tendencies would be a reflection of fear.(but then again psychology is not a science)

What frustrates most, is that when the conditioned mind (ego) is pushed outside the familiar box, it reacts.
Some are adventurous, innocent or curious and move into new ways of thinking, while others who are set in their ways get downright ornery when exposed to something that isn't routine.


Originally Posted By: Orac


The funny part is what TT hates most being labeled and boxed

No, I don't. I just don't have a need or desire to do that to myself, in the same way you do to yourselves. wink


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




Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Why don't you grow up and stop acting like a child.

Either discuss something sensible or leave the mindless oh you said something let me repeat it and make out it is different.

Now we just treat you with arrogance and contempt because we realize you couldn't string a reasonable argument together, sort of the way parents treat there children .... but you would be used to that I suspect because that is the basis of your problem isn't it smile

That if you need it explained is the condescending Orac something Rev K would never do .. shrug.

Last edited by Orac; 09/28/13 07:03 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Orac
Why don't you grow up and stop acting like a child.

Sorry, tho I can accept your point of view as something real in your own experience, I won't be abandoning my present reality for the one you would like to put in place.
So I most likely won't be accommodating you.
Damn.. I hate when that happens. frown
But I'm over it now! smile
Originally Posted By: Orac

Either discuss something sensible or leave the mindless oh you said something let me repeat it and make out it is different.

You mean discuss something you can relate to, or leave out the comments regarding any disparity in mutual understanding?
So we can talk to each other removing any relevance to an interest in the subject or each other, and and subject comprehension?
Originally Posted By: Orac

Now we just treat you with arrogance and contempt because we realize you couldn't string a reasonable argument together, sort of the way parents treat there children ....

The reason for a dysfunctional society. shocked
Self absorbed parents have little tolerance for anything that doesn't meet the short attention span of the average adult ego. Children are often shut down and hammered into the authoritative dictates of a narrow psychological profile where tolerance is almost non-existent.
Must be the socialist influence, in your case.

Anyway.. the term we isn't really a pertinent factor when it only concerns a small percentage of those I converse with. Regardless, I seem to have a freedom to choose whether I succumb to the rants and emotional handicaps of others, whether in a one on one conversation or in a group.
Originally Posted By: Orac

That if you need it explained is the condescending Orac something Rev K would never do .. shrug.

You and he are pretty much the same. Explanations are usually within the terms of expectations. World look like this..speaky like this.. eek


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




Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,311
Orac, you say
Originally Posted By: Orac
... I have to confess I am still reading up on Methodists ...
No time to read, eh! OK then, will you take 7 minutes and listen to the following?. Let me know if you understand what is said in the following summary of the history of Methodism:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=idm5-RkUo5U&list=PLCC68DE2F385D375C&index=4

How come you are so interested in Methodism?
BTW, is there a Methodist church near where you live in the USA?

Things you may not know my connection with Methodism:
I did my BA (4 years) at www.mta.ca It is a Methodist-based university with a good reputation. It is in New Brunswick, just north of Nova Scotia.

Then, I did three years, in a United Church seminary, in Halifax, NS. http://www.astheology.ns.ca/welcome.html It had a Presbyterian background, but very open-minded.

Later, I did two years--post graduate studies--at the great Boston University School of Theology-- http://www.bu.edu/sth/ --a wonderful school. Martin Luther King was a student there, at the same time. There, I focused on THE HISTORY OF IDEAS.

I assume you know that John Wesley--with the help of his mother, Susanna, and family--was the founder of Methodism.

He--one of 19 children--was born in 1703. Here is his story:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wesley

The first Methodists in England were just ordinary members of the Anglican Church--members of a group within the church of England (Anglican).

ABOUT METHODISM IN NEWFOUNDLAND--where I was born, and the first colony of England

The first Methodist to visit North America was Laurence Coughlan. He came to Carbonear, Conception Bay, NL. It is one of the oldest places in North America, not far from the ancestral home of the King/Kelloway family.
http://www.carbonear.ca/thistory.htm

ABOUT THE FIRST METHODISTS IN NORTH AMERICA--Interesting!
http://www.biographi.ca/en/bio/coughlan_laurence_4E.html




Last edited by Revlgking; 09/29/13 03:31 AM. Reason: a

G~O~D--Now & ForeverIS:Nature, Nurture & PNEUMA-ture, Thanks to Warren Farr&ME AT www.unitheist.org
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Tutor Turtle

The reason for a dysfunctional society. shocked
Self absorbed parents have little tolerance for anything that doesn't meet the short attention span of the average adult ego. Children are often shut down and hammered into the authoritative dictates of a narrow psychological profile where tolerance is almost non-existent.
Must be the socialist influence, in your case.


You almost got it TT .. it's a Western disease and hundred of poor children just like you out there.

TT's mum and dad told him he was special and he found it he isn't ... Can't live up to dads expectation and now he has to make his own reality it's the rest of society that have the problem.

See interesting thing I always wanted to be "normal" because that was the desired thing for a good socialist and I was not the right ethnicity and way to independent and free thinking for the cause ... so I fit into the western society smile

Perhaps you need to move to a socialist country TT because you are never going to be special in the Western society you don't have the spark and gift and you really can't work why, can you ... It's like watching a bunny in the headlights just before it gets hit by the car laugh

Yes I have seen all the special realities before TT even trying to be the anarchist rebel you suck at it smile


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
TT,
Your post seems to be straying from the topic into the realms of character assassination and ad hominem attacks. Lumping other posters into a common pot and insulting them is not a good debate technique. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Amaranth


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Revlgking

How come you are so interested in Methodism?
BTW, is there a Methodist church near where you live in the USA?


Reading up on each major religion, Rev K, you started me on this and I do like to read and study things I don't understand.

I am on reservation at the moment and the base caters for most religions so I assume there is but to be honest when working it is pretty full on at the moment it is a fairly large team and we have a lot of ground to catch up before 2016.

I find the religion very gentle it is very much into the love and caring and I get it's background. The thing I still haven't got my head around with it does it have a reward for being a good Methodist? I can't specifically work out if you have a heaven and on the other side I can't work out is there a hell. Or is it like a philosophical undertaking that you do this because you want to be a better person?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
TT,
Your post seems to be straying from the topic into the realms of character assassination and ad hominem attacks. Lumping other posters into a common pot and insulting them is not a good debate technique. Please stick to the topic at hand.

Amaranth



I am afraid he wasn't alone ARII ... I will refrain .. sorry!


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
TT,
Your post seems to be straying from the topic into the realms of character assassination and ad hominem attacks.

Yeah, I've been saying that about this thread for some time now. Most of this thread has little to do with the topic of religion or philosphy of religion. Tho it follows a historical emotionally driven pattern of man seeking control and ownership of the subject at hand (reference crusades, Spanish inquisition and witch hunting).

Hey maybe THIS is the characteristic source or foundation of religion and philosopy of religion!

I believe one of your cohorts (Mike Kremer) promised to shut this thread down because of a similar complaint.
Quote:
THIS SITE HAS DEGENERATED INTO A SLANGING MATCH AND UNRELATED TO RELIGION AS SUCH.
ALSO A DEGREE OF ADVERTISING HAS CREPT IN...IN THE FORM OF
"WONDERCAFE" AS WELL AS AN OFF TOPIC DISCUSSION OF SUICIDE ETC
He must have repented (changed his mind)

Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Lumping other posters into a common pot and insulting them is not a good debate technique.

Been saying something similar in my conversations with the reverend and most recently with Orac since he has wanted to play in this sandbox, but it only brought on more of the same jabs and ad hominems. cry

Evidently some people are mostly interested in the personal point of view, as the topic at hand.

Unfortunately there is no predetermined set definition or authority for this topic other than the idea of the "Supreme Being" created thru democratic majorities. Being that the idea of free will has been brought into the discussion, it points to a personal point of view/opinion regardless of any historic precepts.

Some prefer to aggrandize the personal history in order to create the image of authority, and those of such claim to fame loudly object to the opposing position that might weaken the illusion of authority.
So I think the topic at hand has been drawn to the idea of "What is authority?"

A repeated idea made by the reverend is to use the moderator as the leverage for having more power either as a threat or a suggestion, but so far no moderator has engaged this thread other than to address a complaint or make a threat themselves.
However since the moderator failed to make his promise to take down this thread, that image of authority kinda blew over and now we are still left without an authoritative model for the subject at hand.

Maybe you'd like to step in and claim authority for the topic of religion and philosophy of religion.? smile You couldn't do any worse than anyone else here.
The reverend has always wanted to have someone direct the will and the way if he can't have all the power himself... whistle
Originally Posted By: Amaranth Rose II
Please stick to the topic at hand.

The topic at hand seems to be about something other than the Thread topic.
The reverend has recently brought up the character assassinations of posters in his private conversations with Kate as a subject in this thread. Posting a guaranteed source of information for anyone who would pm himself or Kate for validation of such character determination.

Tho he could be intimating the positive points of slandering people privately, I think he was trying to make a point towards his ongoing disgruntled condition, regarding my statements towards his failure to understand the topic he started, and a need to seek validation for having a connection to an authority he can't command for himself. wink
So the topic at hand seems to continually point toward who has authority to command the will and the way.

I'd be pleased as punch to stay on thread topic if there is an authoritative and defined boundary to the thread subject, and everyone else would like to do the same.

As long as everyone wants to talk about other things then I wanna play with what the majority is discussing. I hate feeling left out. wink smile


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




Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 962
I hate to have to tell you this, but I have received word from someone claiming to be Mike's wife to the effect that he is no longer among the living. I cannot verify that independently, but his prolonged absence from SAGG tends to lend credence to this claim. So I am going to operate on the assumption that I am the only continuing moderator. The topic of this thread, Philosophy of Religions, etc, is fairly broad and all-encompassing. Perhaps we could limit it to the discussion of the merits or lack thereof of religion, and not get into long-winded psychological analysis of other posters. And in the meantime, we should all get a little thicker skinned regarding what other people say about us, and not take umbrage when we are criticized or find that we are characterized in a way which we take to be unflattering. If someone describes us in a negative way, we need to be willing to take responsibility for that image and see if we maybe have done something to warrant the criticism. It should make us think, not bug the moderator because we are peeved.

Peace and Health,

Amaranth


If you don't care for reality, just wait a while; another will be along shortly. --A Rose

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
T
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
T
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,249
Condolences to the family


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




Page 110 of 120 1 2 108 109 110 111 112 119 120

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

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

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5