Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/25/2014 3:21 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: This article misrepresents the smarta sampradaya. We should probably get into the details of this Advaita Vedanta system and sort it all out, since this is the tradition TMers are supposed to be interested in. Swami Brahmananda Saraswati the Shankaracharya of Jyotir Math followed the Smarta tradition. Smartas worship the Supreme in one of six forms - that's where the TMer bija mantras come from. So, let's review what we know: The Sanskrit word Smarta is derived from smriti - what is remembered by human teachers. The Smarta Sampradaya follows the Advaita Vedanta philosophy, the tradition of the Adi Shankaracharya. The Sringeri Sharada monastery founded by Adi Shankara Acharya in Karnataka is headquarters of the sect. According to Smartism, the supreme reality, Brahman, transcends all of the various forms of personal deity and God is both Saguna and Nirguna Brahman.
Re: [FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/24/2014 5:50 PM, emptyb...@yahoo.com wrote: Our members driving this very thread are the sheer eh-pee-tomee-s of deification. You've lost them, so now we will have to go back and start this thread over again. Lett's review what we know: Absolute monists see one unity with all personal forms of God as different aspects of one Supreme Being, like a single beam of light separated into colors by a prism. Thus Smartas consider all personal forms of God as equal including Devi, Vishnu, Siva, Ganesh and Skanda but generally limit the recognized forms to be six. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism
[FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Message 16 of this thread pointed out - Wiki is a soph-moronic source - full of generalities and misunderstandings. This article misrepresents the smarta sampradaya. Supreme Being is not the meaning of Brahman nor is Hinduism a form of monotheism. The terms monotheism/polytheism ... etc are all categories used to describe Western philosophy and Semitic theology. It's all so 19th Century.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
emptybill, if you're responding to a post (rather than starting a new thread), please click Show message history before you send it so we can see what you're replying to. It's not difficult, just one click. Message 16 of this thread pointed out - Wiki is a soph-moronic source - full of generalities and misunderstandings. This article misrepresents the smarta sampradaya. Supreme Being is not the meaning of Brahman nor is Hinduism a form of monotheism. The terms monotheism/polytheism ... etc are all categories used to describe Western philosophy and Semitic theology. It's all so 19th Century.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
OK - no prob. I was commenting upon the wiki link that Willy posted in message #374571. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_views_on_monotheism ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: emptybill, if you're responding to a post (rather than starting a new thread), please click Show message history before you send it so we can see what you're replying to. It's not difficult, just one click. Message 16 of this thread pointed out - Wiki is a soph-moronic source - full of generalities and misunderstandings. This article misrepresents the smarta sampradaya. Supreme Being is not the meaning of Brahman nor is Hinduism a form of monotheism. The terms monotheism/polytheism ... etc are all categories used to describe Western philosophy and Semitic theology. It's all so 19th Century.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually helpless even to unpress his own buttons. He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document. In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me as saying: I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic. You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually helpless even to unpress his own buttons. He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: ' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document. The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle than the blatant example above. In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me as saying: I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity continually. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic. You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Neo appears to have eaten my first try at a response, so here goes again... From Xeno's post: And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) I don't think Xeno is so stupid as to attempt a direct, unvarnished lie, but that he wouldn't look carefully enough to see his own mistake and would instead try to blame it on me is one more sign that his inability to unpush his buttons is scrambling his brains.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Richard, I think we got our signals crossed. I was thinking of the quote Judy originally made about not discussing anything with me, and Judy was probably thinking of the quote she subsequently made when she responded to me (where she tried to worm around not being able to respond to me without lying by 'commenting' on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both misconstrued the specific item each thought the other was referring to. I rather like her not being able to respond to me directly because then she has to act just like Barry does when he mentions her, she takes on Barry's method of tangential interaction, modeling her adversary in form and style, for as she considers him the most nefarious of liars, voilá, Nothing could be more ironic (in the sense that this is a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was desired). Judy has become the very image of her nemesis, except perhaps she has no heart at all, whereas Barry shows definite signs of normal humanness when not confronting Judy. Judy's snarkiness, as you put it, seems to be a well defined character trait she has that Barry does not have. That does not mean Barry is Mr. Nice with a halo by comparison, he can grind people's heads to powder with the best of them (that is a reference to Krishna in the BG by the way). I recall you posting a number of items with Classical orchestras. Here is one of my favorite pieces: http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Neo appears to have eaten my first try at a response, so here goes again... From Xeno's post: And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) I don't think Xeno is so stupid as to attempt a direct, unvarnished lie, but that he wouldn't look carefully enough to see his own mistake and would instead try to blame it on me is one more sign that his inability to unpush his buttons is scrambling his brains. Oh, the difference a 3 and a 5 can make and placement is everything. And Bawwy claims anything littler than a billion stars isn't important...
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, anartaxius@... wrote: Richard, I think we got our signals crossed. I was thinking of the quote Judy originally made about not discussing anything with me, and Judy was probably thinking of the quote she subsequently made when she responded to me (where she tried to worm around not being able to respond to me without lying by 'commenting' on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both misconstrued the specific item each thought the other was referring to. I rather like her not being able to respond to me directly because then she has to act just like Barry does when he mentions her, she takes on Barry's method of tangential interaction, modeling her adversary in form and style, for as she considers him the most nefarious of liars, voilá, Nothing could be more ironic (in the sense that this is a state of affairs that is the reverse of what was desired). Judy has become the very image of her nemesis, except perhaps she has no heart at all, whereas Barry shows definite signs of normal humanness when not confronting Judy. Judy's snarkiness, as you put it, seems to be a well defined character trait she has that Barry does not have. That does not mean Barry is Mr. Nice with a halo by comparison, he can grind people's heads to powder with the best of them (that is a reference to Krishna in the BG by the way). Barry is an emotional, intellectual and socially inept slob. I recall you posting a number of items with Classical orchestras. Here is one of my favorite pieces: http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw http://youtu.be/qPl2LUq-vpw ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, punditster@... wrote: On 2/24/2014 8:31 AM, anartaxius@... mailto:anartaxius@... wrote: So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. So, let's set the record straight: which is the correct quote?
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Ann, you are right. I am showing slight signs of dyslexia these days. So this mess is my fault. Thanks for pointing this out. I have not gone over the previous posts, but if the error is in those as well, my apologies to Judy. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Neo appears to have eaten my first try at a response, so here goes again... From Xeno's post: And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) I don't think Xeno is so stupid as to attempt a direct, unvarnished lie, but that he wouldn't look carefully enough to see his own mistake and would instead try to blame it on me is one more sign that his inability to unpush his buttons is scrambling his brains. Oh, the difference a 3 and a 5 can make and placement is everything. And Bawwy claims anything littler than a billion stars isn't important...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Xeno's error is indeed in the previous posts, and I have already pointed it out in those posts. Thanks to Ann as well for making it impossible for Xeno to continue to try to blame the error on me by simply ignoring what I had told him (in the post quoted below, for one). Ann, you are right. I am showing slight signs of dyslexia these days. So this mess is my fault. Thanks for pointing this out. I have not gone over the previous posts, but if the error is in those as well, my apologies to Judy. Neo appears to have eaten my first try at a response, so here goes again... From Xeno's post: And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) I don't think Xeno is so stupid as to attempt a direct, unvarnished lie, but that he wouldn't look carefully enough to see his own mistake and would instead try to blame it on me is one more sign that his inability to unpush his buttons is scrambling his brains. Oh, the difference a 3 and a 5 can make and placement is everything. And Bawwy claims anything littler than a billion stars isn't important...
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or direct unvarnished lie) instead of trying to blame it on me. He wrote: 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' The actual post in question: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually helpless even to unpress his own buttons. He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: ' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document. The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle than the blatant example above. In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me as saying: I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity continually. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic. You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Let's see whether batshit crazy Judy can admit that the *only* thing wrong with Xeno's statement is the message number. :-) In other words, she's jumping through all these hoops just to avoid admitting that she is stalking a person who she swore she would never discuss anything with again until he retracted the *true* things he said about her. What a devious, lying cunt. And crazy to boot. And to make it worse, she thinks no one notices... From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, February 24, 2014 6:52 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or direct unvarnished lie) instead of trying to blame it on me. He wrote: 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' The actual post in question: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually helpless even to unpress his own buttons. He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: ' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document. The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle than the blatant example above. In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me as saying: I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity continually. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic. You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Actually, Barry, it's Xeno who has been stalking me. I made it very clear what I would and would not do where Xeno was concerned (quoted below) unless he either retracted his false accusations or documented them (which he couldn't do because they were, duh, false). Xeno and Barry have both misrepresented what I said, no surprise there. They have no case, so the only thing they can do is lie. Let's see whether batshit crazy Judy can admit that the *only* thing wrong with Xeno's statement is the message number. :-) In other words, she's jumping through all these hoops just to avoid admitting that she is stalking a person who she swore she would never discuss anything with again until he retracted the *true* things he said about her. What a devious, lying cunt. And crazy to boot. And to make it worse, she thinks no one notices... Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or direct unvarnished lie) instead of trying to blame it on me. He wrote: 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' The actual post in question: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually helpless even to unpress his own buttons. He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: ' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document. The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle than the blatant example above. In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me as saying: I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity continually. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic. You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Yes, this is the post I was referring to. I have a hand written note that has the correct post number, but in my post, I got the digits transposed when I typed it. You win this one, hands down, though the original matter behind this exchange remains unchanged. If you are curious, the phrase, 'hands down', refers to jockeys' need to keep a tight rein in order to encourage their horses to run. Anyone who is so far ahead that he can afford to slacken off and still win he can drop his hands and loosen the reins - hence winning 'hands down'. Mis-perception and illusion is a powerful force, but do not suppose it is only regulated to me. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: Let's see if Xeno can admit to his whopping error (or direct unvarnished lie) instead of trying to blame it on me. He wrote: 'In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' The actual post in question: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/ https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 A particular discussion of which I am part = one of Xeno's repeated attempts to force me to respond to him so he can accuse me of lying when I said what he quotes (an utterly absurd canard he picked up from Barry). His twisted, malevolent dishonesty is quite amazing in a person who has publicly asserted his freedom from such entanglements--when he is actually helpless even to unpress his own buttons. He pretends to need a reference for my I could have sworn... post when in fact he knows precisely which very recent post I'm talking about. And he got the number of the post he quotes wrong (deliberately?). Here's the right one: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/FairfieldLife/conversations/messages/358537 This is precisely the post I mentioned (#358357) for in post #374410 I wrote: ' In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them.' So the statement above that I quoted the wrong quote is a direct unvarnished lie, unless you admit to having made a mistake. Note that his belligerent fury is at my response to his own knowingly false accusations about my purported pattern of deviousness and lack of integrity--which he himself admitted he could not document. The above in red is an example of your deviousness, for the most part it is the observation of your pattern of behaviour, and you tend to be more subtle than the blatant example above. In a subsequent post, I addressed his misrepresentation of what he quotes me as saying: I was not referring to this one below (though there was a one-sided discussion about it at the time) but commenting on a post is a sly (sly = devious here) way of entering the discussion without directly saying that is what you are doing. Having said what you said, of course I have been baiting you to see if you would slip up more directly and actually directly respond to me rather than tangentially. If that makes me a bad person, so be it. But someone who proclaims honesty so vociferously really should be tested for veracity continually. I said I wouldn't discuss anything with you unless you withdraw your accusations (you can't document them because they're patently not true). I didn't say I wouldn't comment if I found it appropriate to do so (e.g., if you make any more false or insulting statements about me, I may respond to them). But your accusations, as long as they're on the table, have effectively foreclosed on the possibility of our having a friendly discussion of philosophy or science or music or any other neutral topic. You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/24/2014 10:40 AM, anartax...@yahoo.com wrote: I was thinking of the quote Judy originally made about not discussing anything with me, and Judy was probably thinking of the quote she subsequently made when she responded to me (where she tried to worm around not being able to respond to me without lying by 'commenting' on what I wrote), so the 'best' interpretation is we both misconstrued the specific item each thought the other was referring to. Maybe we should just move this whole discussion over to WhatsApp since NOBODY in less than 24 hours is going to EVER again read this discussion about theism and Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God. NEVER. Somebody prove me wrong.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
This suggestion is so inappropriate. Our members driving this very thread are the sheer eh-pee-tomee-s of deification. After all we’re all the apex of evolution. The space bro’s visit us just to admire us. Apparently the word is out. Ca Ca Can’t we jus’ jus' get along? Willy sez: Maybe we should just move this whole discussion over to WhatsApp since NOBODY in less than 24 hours is going to EVER again read this discussion about theism and Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God. NEVER. Somebody prove me wrong.
[FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Willy The paragraph saying - If we were able to unite with the essence of God, we too would become gods in essence. In other words everything would become a god, and there would be confusion so that, nothing would be essentially a god. In a few words, this is what they believe in the Oriental religions, e.g. in Hinduism, where the god is not a personal existence but an indistinct power dispersed through all the world, in men, in animals, and in objects (Pantheism). This is a typical Semitic Monotheistic misunderstanding of the Orientals. It is just as prevalent in Orthodoxy as in RC/Protestant theology - only is uses/misuses Western philosophic terminology (i.e. pantheism). Since the creature/Creator distinction is paramount, it is the backdrop of every discussion about theosis. The point of the discussion is the doctrine of Theosis and how/why it is the original Christian theological formulation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
The position of Classical Theism is this so called God is beingness and not a being. Thus classical theism is an abstract philosophical position and has nothing to do with any religion. Welcome to God 2.0 http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap doodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flapdoodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html --- Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/ deepak-chopras-god-20 LINK Deepak Chopra's God 2.0 The quantum flapdoodle of the New Age author is a failed effort to update medieval theology. Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen Beckner): God 1.0 1. omnipresent 2. fully man/fully God 3. miracle 4. leap of faith 5. transubstantiation 6. Council of Rome 7. supernatural forces 8. heaven 9. hell 10. eternity 11. prayer 12. the Godhead 13. the Trinity 14. orgiveness of sin 15. virgin birth 16. resurrection God 2.0 1. non-local 2. wave/particle duality 3. wave-function collapse 4. quantum leap 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle 6. Copenhagen interpretation 7. anti-matter 8. dark energy 9. dark matter 10. space/time continuum 11. quantum entanglement 12. general relativity 13. special relativity 14. quantum erasure 15. quantum decoherence 16. virtual reality --- emptybill emptybill@... wrote: Willy The paragraph saying - If we were able to unite with the essence of God, we too would become gods in essence. In other words everything would become a god, and there would be confusion so that, nothing would be essentially a god. In a few words, this is what they believe in the Oriental religions, e.g. in Hinduism, where the god is not a personal existence but an indistinct power dispersed through all the world, in men, in animals, and in objects (Pantheism). This is a typical Semitic Monotheistic misunderstanding of the Orientals. It is just as prevalent in Orthodoxy as in RC/Protestant theology - only is uses/misuses Western philosophic terminology (i.e. pantheism). Since the creature/Creator distinction is paramount, it is the backdrop of every discussion about theosis. The point of the discussion is the doctrine of Theosis and how/why it is the original Christian theological formulation.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Um. If classical theism has nothing to do with any religion, how come six of the 16 God 1.0 chart items refer to Jesus Christ or the Trinity? Opsie? The position of Classical Theism is this so called God is beingness and not a being. Thus classical theism is an abstract philosophical position and has nothing to do with any religion. Welcome to God 2.0 http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap doodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flapdoodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html --- Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/ deepak-chopras-god-20 LINK Deepak Chopra's God 2.0 The quantum flapdoodle of the New Age author is a failed effort to update medieval theology. Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen Beckner): God 1.0 1. omnipresent 2. fully man/fully God 3. miracle 4. leap of faith 5. transubstantiation 6. Council of Rome 7. supernatural forces 8. heaven 9. hell 10. eternity 11. prayer 12. the Godhead 13. the Trinity 14. orgiveness of sin 15. virgin birth 16. resurrection God 2.0 1. non-local 2. wave/particle duality 3. wave-function collapse 4. quantum leap 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle 6. Copenhagen interpretation 7. anti-matter 8. dark energy 9. dark matter 10. space/time continuum 11. quantum entanglement 12. general relativity 13. special relativity 14. quantum erasure 15. quantum decoherence 16. virtual reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Opsie yourself. These religions are comprised of Personalistic Theists. Very few people in history held the position of classical theism which is impersonalistic theism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism --- authfriend authfriend@... wrote: Um. If classical theism has nothing to do with any religion, how come six of the 16 God 1.0 chart items refer to Jesus Christ or the Trinity? Opsie? The position of Classical Theism is this so called God is beingness and not a being. Thus classical theism is an abstract philosophical position and has nothing to do with any religion. Welcome to God 2.0 http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap doodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flapdoodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html --- Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/ deepak-chopras-god-20 LINK Deepak Chopra's God 2.0 The quantum flapdoodle of the New Age author is a failed effort to update medieval theology. Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen Beckner): God 1.0 1. omnipresent 2. fully man/fully God 3. miracle 4. leap of faith 5. transubstantiation 6. Council of Rome 7. supernatural forces 8. heaven 9. hell 10. eternity 11. prayer 12. the Godhead 13. the Trinity 14. orgiveness of sin 15. virgin birth 16. resurrection God 2.0 1. non-local 2. wave/particle duality 3. wave-function collapse 4. quantum leap 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle 6. Copenhagen interpretation 7. anti-matter 8. dark energy 9. dark matter 10. space/time continuum 11. quantum entanglement 12. general relativity 13. special relativity 14. quantum erasure 15. quantum decoherence 16. virtual reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
It appeared that you were suggesting the God 1.0/2.0 notion had something to do with classical theism, which made no sense. Guess not, huh? Maybe you could have been a little clearer that they were unrelated and you were just lumping them together in a single post. And you couldn't be more seriously mistaken about classical theism being a position held by a very few people in history. It's actually been the mainstream theological position throughout history and has only recently gotten some competition from theistic personalists and some other flavors or theism. Classical theism is not associated with any one religion, but rather is the basis for the theology of many religions, including those of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions and several Eastern traditions as well. Opsie yourself. These religions are comprised of Personalistic Theists. Very few people in history held the position of classical theism which is impersonalistic theism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism Um. If classical theism has nothing to do with any religion, how come six of the 16 God 1.0 chart items refer to Jesus Christ or the Trinity? Opsie? The position of Classical Theism is this so called God is beingness and not a being. Thus classical theism is an abstract philosophical position and has nothing to do with any religion. Welcome to God 2.0 http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap doodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flapdoodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html --- Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/ deepak-chopras-god-20 LINK Deepak Chopra's God 2.0 The quantum flapdoodle of the New Age author is a failed effort to update medieval theology. Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen Beckner): God 1.0 1. omnipresent 2. fully man/fully God 3. miracle 4. leap of faith 5. transubstantiation 6. Council of Rome 7. supernatural forces 8. heaven 9. hell 10. eternity 11. prayer 12. the Godhead 13. the Trinity 14. orgiveness of sin 15. virgin birth 16. resurrection God 2.0 1. non-local 2. wave/particle duality 3. wave-function collapse 4. quantum leap 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle 6. Copenhagen interpretation 7. anti-matter 8. dark energy 9. dark matter 10. space/time continuum 11. quantum entanglement 12. general relativity 13. special relativity 14. quantum erasure 15. quantum decoherence 16. virtual reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
This is what wikipedia states about classical theism Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the near, caring, and compassionate view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism Xeno seems to be more accurate than you. --- authfriend authfriend@... wrote: It appeared that you were suggesting the God 1.0/2.0 notion had something to do with classical theism, which made no sense. Guess not, huh? Maybe you could have been a little clearer that they were unrelated and you were just lumping them together in a single post. And you couldn't be more seriously mistaken about classical theism being a position held by a very few people in history. It's actually been the mainstream theological position throughout history and has only recently gotten some competition from theistic personalists and some other flavors or theism. Classical theism is not associated with any one religion, but rather is the basis for the theology of many religions, including those of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions and several Eastern traditions as well. Opsie yourself. These religions are comprised of Personalistic Theists. Very few people in history held the position of classical theism which is impersonalistic theism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism Um. If classical theism has nothing to do with any religion, how come six of the 16 God 1.0 chart items refer to Jesus Christ or the Trinity? Opsie? The position of Classical Theism is this so called God is beingness and not a being. Thus classical theism is an abstract philosophical position and has nothing to do with any religion. Welcome to God 2.0 http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap doodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flapdoodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html --- Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/ deepak-chopras-god-20 LINK Deepak Chopra's God 2.0 The quantum flapdoodle of the New Age author is a failed effort to update medieval theology. Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen Beckner): God 1.0 1. omnipresent 2. fully man/fully God 3. miracle 4. leap of faith 5. transubstantiation 6. Council of Rome 7. supernatural forces 8. heaven 9. hell 10. eternity 11. prayer 12. the Godhead 13. the Trinity 14. orgiveness of sin 15. virgin birth 16. resurrection God 2.0 1. non-local 2. wave/particle duality 3. wave-function collapse 4. quantum leap 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle 6. Copenhagen interpretation 7. anti-matter 8. dark energy 9. dark matter 10. space/time continuum 11. quantum entanglement 12. general relativity 13. special relativity 14. quantum erasure 15. quantum decoherence 16. virtual reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Right. Did you think that quote from Wikipedia proved your assertion that Very few people in history held the position of classical theism? That's what I was correcting. On its own terms, with regard to the difficulty reconciling classical theism with the Bible: Yes, it can be difficult for those who are not thoroughly familiar with classical theism. But the Jewish and Christian classical theist theologians dealt with the apparent difficulties in some detail. And no, Xeno isn't more accurate than I am. He's just getting his feet wet regarding classical theism, and his understanding is still seriously deficient at this point (as is yours, even more so). There's no shame in not being familiar with classical theism. I wasn't until fairly recently. What's so inappropriate is when one doesn't recognize one's ignorance and makes arrogant, hostile assertions about it that are grossly factually mistaken. This is what wikipedia states about classical theism Since classical theistic ideas are influenced by Greek philosophy and focus on God in the abstract and metaphysical sense, they can be difficult to reconcile with the near, caring, and compassionate view of God presented in the religious texts of the main monotheistic religions, particularly the Bible.[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism Xeno seems to be more accurate than you. It appeared that you were suggesting the God 1.0/2.0 notion had something to do with classical theism, which made no sense. Guess not, huh? Maybe you could have been a little clearer that they were unrelated and you were just lumping them together in a single post. And you couldn't be more seriously mistaken about classical theism being a position held by a very few people in history. It's actually been the mainstream theological position throughout history and has only recently gotten some competition from theistic personalists and some other flavors or theism. Classical theism is not associated with any one religion, but rather is the basis for the theology of many religions, including those of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic traditions and several Eastern traditions as well. Opsie yourself. These religions are comprised of Personalistic Theists. Very few people in history held the position of classical theism which is impersonalistic theism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theismhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_theism Um. If classical theism has nothing to do with any religion, how come six of the 16 God 1.0 chart items refer to Jesus Christ or the Trinity? Opsie? The position of Classical Theism is this so called God is beingness and not a being. Thus classical theism is an abstract philosophical position and has nothing to do with any religion. Welcome to God 2.0 http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flapdoodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.htmlhttp://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap http://www.rationalskepticism.org/general-faith/quantum-flap doodle-and-god-2-0-t17702.html --- Vaj vajradh...@... wrote: http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/ http://www.bigquestionsonline.com/columns/michael-shermer/ deepak-chopras-god-20 LINK Deepak Chopra's God 2.0 The quantum flapdoodle of the New Age author is a failed effort to update medieval theology. Chopra's New Age theology is essentially an updating of this medieval scheme, with ample borrowings from the vocabulary of particle physics. This upgrade from God 1.0 to God 2.0 can be summarized in the following chart (inspired by my friend and colleague Stephen Beckner): God 1.0 1. omnipresent 2. fully man/fully God 3. miracle 4. leap of faith 5. transubstantiation 6. Council of Rome 7. supernatural forces 8. heaven 9. hell 10. eternity 11. prayer 12. the Godhead 13. the Trinity 14. orgiveness of sin 15. virgin birth 16. resurrection God 2.0 1. non-local 2. wave/particle duality 3. wave-function collapse 4. quantum leap 5. Heisenberg uncertainty principle 6. Copenhagen interpretation 7. anti-matter 8. dark energy 9. dark matter 10. space/time continuum 11. quantum entanglement 12. general relativity 13. special relativity 14. quantum erasure 15. quantum decoherence 16. virtual reality
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
From: anartax...@yahoo.com anartax...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 5:56 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.) While I may admire your hopefulness, I cannot encourage it. She argues because something in her deep, dark past has convinced her that she's only really ALIVE when she's arguing. And, in her mind, winning. Try to imagine the poverty of that. W
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) From: authfri...@yahoo.com authfri...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Oopsie, you didn't read my last sentence. (And with all due respect, you are in no position to call anybody else either a cunt or a coward, let alone both.) A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) From: authfriend@... authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Try to imagine the obsessive narcissism of Barry fantasizing that he knows anything about my psychology. She argues because something in her deep, dark past has convinced her that she's only really ALIVE when she's arguing. And, in her mind, winning. Try to imagine the poverty of that. W
[FairfieldLife] RE: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Wiki is a sophmoronic source - full of generalities and misunderstandings. Most discussions about deity in the current theism/scientism debate are replete with Euro-American myopic views about Western philosophical-theological history and terms. This is particularly true about monotheism’s incipient onto-theology (as Heidegger uses that term). The idea that deity/god transcends both essence (hyperousia) and substance (hypostasis) is either unknown or unrecognizable in this debate by both sides. A short synopsis about Heidegger’s “OntoTheology”: For Heidegger, OntoTheology contributes to the oblivion or forgetfulness of Being. Indeed metaphysics is Onto-Theo-logy, and Western metaphysics since the beginning with the Greeks has eminently been both Ontology and theology. The problem with this intermixing of ontology and theology according to Heidegger's analysis, and the reason why Heidegger and his successors sought to overcome it, is at least twofold. First, by linking the philosophical with the theological, and vice versa, the distinctiveness of each respective discourse is clouded over. As such, the nature of philosophy as a factually unknown and structurally unknowable path of thought is restricted by an economy of faith. Likewise, with theology, as the science of faith, theology at its best testifies to the irreducible mystery of its source in revelation and to the unapproachable and incomprehensible aim of its desire in God. However, once theology becomes Onto-Theological that mysterious source and incomprehensible aim are reduced to the order of beings. Second, and on a more fundamental level, the OntoTheological problem is part and parcel of the overall degeneration of Western thought and the consequent troubles of Western technological culture. The problem, in a nutshell, is the human desire for mastery and OntoTheology contributes to this by presuming knowledge regarding the first cause of philosophy and the highest being of theology. According to Merold Westphal, Heidegger has three main objections to onto-theology: First, it deprives the world of its mystery. Second, it gives us a God not worthy of worship. In a famous passage, Heidegger complains that before the causa sui (a name for the God of onto-theology that emphasizes the need for an explainer that doesn’t need to be explained) no one would be tempted to pray or to sacrifice and that this God evokes neither awe nor music and dance. Onto-theology is hostile to piety. Third, having deprived the world of both its mystery and of a God worthy of worship, onto-theology opens the way for the unfettered self-assertion of the will to power in the form of modernity, namely the quest of science and technology to have everything at human disposal. This is the ultimate hubris of western humanity, in which, under the banner of modernity, it arrogates to itself the place of Plato’s Good and the Christian God. Heidegger describes this self-coronation as an attack, an assault, an uprising, an insurrection. The óntōS Insurrection
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) Bawwy, so classy, so erudite, so sophisticated. You really do take the cake when it comes to exhibiting yourself as an example of the lowest common denominator. What a guy, can anyone imagine spending time with someone like this? How about trying this on for size: ignorant, sad, loser. From: authfriend@... authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
On 2/23/2014 11:45 AM, TurquoiseBee wrote: A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) Somebody got their button pushed. Go figure.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
You could have sworn (reference please) but I do not think that is it. In post #358357, 22 September 2013 you said: Why don't you fuck off? I'm not going to discuss anything with you until you've documented your accusations, or withdrawn them. Because those accusations have not been withdrawn, nor documented you, cannot enter into a discussion with me without having lied. You seem to skirt the edges of this pronouncement rather closely, by talking about me in the third person, by attempting to 'comment' to appear as if you are not involving yourself in a particular discussion of which I am part. The lengths to which you go to 'prove' you are the paragon of truth and honesty are beyond credulity. Advertising simply cannot cover up the basic fact of the matter. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend@... wrote: I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God
Speaking from personal experience, B is showing symptoms of past emotional abuse - chronic rejecting, criticizing, terrorizing, or isolating, or any combo, by a parent or caregiver, leads to the ways he expresses himself. I am not trying to out him, but having been through an exhaustive process of discovering my own history, and consequences, of such emotional abuse, it is easy to recognize the signs in others - specifically, being emotionally abusive, as a way of relating socially, and personally. Being under such an onslaught, at such a young age, is unbearable, and we all develop unhealthy coping mechanisms, as a result, until the light of awareness dawns, through whatever means. B probably doesn't like his negative behavior, any more than anyone else does, who is exposed to it. I sure didn't like mine, which was similar, though not as pervasive. Anyway, I sympathize, and empathize, with B, and hope he works it out. No one likes to be the asshole all the time. Peace. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, awoelflebater@... wrote: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb@... wrote: A cunt, and a coward, too. Talk about karma. :-) Bawwy, so classy, so erudite, so sophisticated. You really do take the cake when it comes to exhibiting yourself as an example of the lowest common denominator. What a guy, can anyone imagine spending time with someone like this? How about trying this on for size: ignorant, sad, loser. From: authfriend@... authfriend@... To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2014 6:31 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Deification and the Uncreated Engergies of God I could have sworn I made it clear I wasn't at all interested in commenting on what Xeno had to say unless he deliberately misrepresented me or something I said. If anyone else happens to be curious about the answers to the questions he asks, let me know. I do not give much of a damn about classical theism. It has a certain interest for me in relation to understanding others. I think that certain aspects of classical theism prevalent in my environment when I was a child were part of the reason theism slipped away from me; certain things did not compute even at an early age, so I had to strike out in other directions to find information and understanding. The rejection or acceptance of a view does not necessarily require detailed knowledge of a subject. For example, it is not necessary to read and understand in detail the life of Bruce Wayne, his world and acquaintances and the psychology of Batman in order to reject Batman as person that is real in the world; it is not even necessary to understand the real world writers that keep Batman a presence in the world. Batman has a virtual existence, a secondary kind of existence. In the world of our own consciousness, thoughts are our virtual existence, but there is no way to delineate exactly or to even understand how this kind of experience that seems to result from meditation, etc., works the way it does to reveal thought as a secondary reality. Those trapped in the ideologies of thought can argue endlessly about their virtual worlds if it is important to them. They do come up with amazing arguments sometimes. A person who argues about a subject that is not dear to them for meaning in life is simply engaging in trivial combat. On the Internet they are called trolls. In 'real life' such argumentation can be valuable in honing debating skills, or for a career (say, politics) where you can argue a point as a support for your job. However such argumentation does undermine the experience of truth, if the experience of 'truth' is not established in awareness. The real question I would ask of Judy is 'what is the value of classical theism to her?' Does she have a genuine interest in classical theism? Is that interest intellectual, or spiritually motivated? Does it help her job? If classical theism is not what she thinks is true, what is its relationship with what she does think is true? What is she trying to find out, if anything? If she is not trying to find out anything that has meaning for her experience, then we can probably find a classification for her presence here. Some have been suggested, which she has not dispelled as yet. I keep waiting to see if something breaks in a genuine positive direction. (Sorry Barry, if I seem delusionally hopeful.)
