Just a couple points as I go through it: ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <curtisdeltablues@...> wrote :
The moderator of the Peak comes over here for drive bys when he wants to get his nasty on. After provoking the group and getting his reaction buzz he slinks off after making outrageous accusations about the Barry's personal life meant to harm him in the real world. Some of us object to that behavior here and respond. Okay, not sure why Jim came over, but, I hope you are not missing the fact that several posts a day, prior to him coming over were about Jim. That, is the point I'm making. And many posts per day about the_peak in general. Yes, there was somewhat of a "peak" obsession going on over here. Just as there is now. As far as summing up the atheist and believers discussion people are having, as referring to as a "man in the sky", that is an unfair characterization and reduction. When discussing religion, if religious doctrine expresses an opinion about what God wants for people in the world, we are dealing with a lot more than some life force contacted in an abstract way in meditation. Agree 100%, which why Barry, in particular insisting on framing the discussion about the subject matter, with people he didn't like as the "man in the sky" framework. On the other hand, IMO, that became a real bother in general, this straw man deal. Don't you see that any discussion about what the will of God is, which is a phrase often used by Maharishi himself, is a personification of God? Atheists are put down for responding to the personal qualities directly expressed in theistic statements. I think I understand what you are saying, but the discussions of God here, were generally away from a MMY context, I believe. I know that believers here think their version of the God idea is vastly superior to the one found in most of the world's religions, but they are very careful about making any positive statements about their belief in their God idea so it can be examined. Really? I never got that impression from most of the participants. I got the feeling that most of the participants here were pretty much on the fence as regards a belief in God. If anything, it was the personal agendas of some participants, on both sides that got in the way of meaningful discussion. Do I think that the manner is which one participant tended to demean an-others point of view with misrepresentations? Yes, I do. Here is a way to open up an actual discussion about your more sophisticated version of the God idea. Just state what it is and why you believe in it. John did that in a discussion with me and I respect him for it. As I have said many times, I am clueless about God. Whether he/she/it exists, I have no idea. I am predisposed to the idea that there is intelligence at work in the universe. Whether it is random, or by design, I have no idea. It appears to be random. But closer to home, I do believe in the concept of karma. I do believe in life after death, and reincarnation, although I have no actual memories. Until someone does that we are left with the statements made from the major proponents of the idea whose assumptions are often driving public policy in inhumane directions. You enjoy both forums for different reasons. Good for you. So why the need to take shots at this one? Both groups believe their forum is better and express that. OK who cares? I don't so often venture over here. But, sometimes something said over here, may bother me, and I respond. I guess I am an emotional creature, or maybe over emotional. I know I've got a lot of things to work on So I hope you continue in the spirit of our discussion which is not summarized well by this characterization. I hope you and others take my invitation to make a positive discussion of this God idea that is so superior to the "man in the sky" one that it warrents serious consideration from thoughtful people. Yes, always interested. As I've noted before, you have stated , something to the effect, that "there is so much we don't know about genetics, or brain functioning" that could explain anomalies like life after death, NDE, or accounts of reincarnation that are, on the surface, difficult to dismiss. That sounds a lot to me like, "God works in mysterious ways" I know we have had this discussion before, with no real conclusions drawn. You seem predisposed to dismiss accounts of NDE, and accounts of reincarnation as anomalies of brain functioning. I just have a different take on them, or my threshold of evidence is lower. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <steve.sundur@...> wrote : That's funny share. I'd say the three main topics on FFL these days, and maybe in this order, are: 1) Talk about the superiority of FFL to the_peak, with endless references to the moderator of the_peak 2) Endless discussion (by one member of FFL) about all the tv shows and movies he watches 3) And the 'ol standby: atheists vs. believers, often using the "man in the sky" meme in which to frame the argument, at least by the guy most attached to the discussion. Carry on fellas! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : Oh, maybe you meant "spurs" rather than spurns... From: aryavazhi <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 9:07 AM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] 10 reasons why FFL is better, and the_peak sucks ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <sharelong60@...> wrote : wrt #6 Spurn Definition https://dictionary.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVjAjVqlUtcUAbfQPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsa3ZzMnBvBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2JmMQR2dGlkAw--?p=spurn&.sep= dictionary.search.yahoo.com v. verb To reject with disdain or contempt. To kick at or tread on disdainfully. To reject something contemptuously. n. noun A contemptuous rejection. A kick. Or perhaps that was a satire lost on me (-: No, just lack of proper English, take foster. From: aryavazhi <no_re...@yahoogroups.com> To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Sunday, January 4, 2015 8:25 AM Subject: [FairfieldLife] 10 reasons why FFL is better, and the_peak sucks 10 reasons why FFL is better, and the_peak sucks The peak is moderated - somewhat arbitrary, while FFL knows no censorship. FFL allows you to hide your email address, so that you can stay really anonymous. Not possible in the peak. FFL exists much longer and has more members. Although only a few are active, it has many lurkers, and a great variety of posters showing up at different times. FFL is mirrored in the mail-archive.com. This makes sure also deleted posts are still available. Also easier to read on mobile devices. FFL is less restricted to the particular TMO mindset. It is more cosmopolitan. FFL spurns more creativity. It allows for diverse forms of satire, lost on some obviously. There is no oneupmanship on FFL. All those who have tried this in the past terribly failed. FFL archives are an inexhaustible treasure. Sometimes new topic names match those from long time ago, making them resurface in a new context. The moderators of FFL, Rick and Alex are great guys. There are less TBB's on FFL.
