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
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
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
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
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
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
---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,
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?
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
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
---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:
---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
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:
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
@... 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
38 matches
Mail list logo
