Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

[arthur]

Arthur sir...we could say that we have got it wrong! You are not supposed to defend your ego, your ego is supposed to be in a state of well-being and strength so it defends you.

Sorry, there is no in my eyes! I am not here to judge or weigh you or even decide your credibility. The statement that you had no ego reminds me of such psychological/spiritual babble that tells people they must rid themselves of their ego...now that is silliness sir...

Aside from the above, the statement was yours! Thank you for clarifying.


Regards Mikal

It seems to me mikal that you didn't understand or you didn't carefully read my last post.
I have no idea what induced you to sent to me of all people, what appears to me and others as, an immature patronising lecture concerning my ego based upon a statement you could only have 'assumed' that I had made.

"The statement that you had no ego"

The statement I made was *NOT* "I have no ego" OR, "I do not have an ego" But it *WAS* I have no axes to grind and I do not have an ego, intellectual or otherwise, to defend." which came from a post which greg, the moderator, deemed suitable for censoring, ostensibly because it was a post amongst the dozen or so other off topic posts which he edited because he claimed it was off topic, the paragraph in question was:

"I don’t use 'bad language', I have no need to. I do not get angry. I have no axes to grind and I do not have an ego, intellectual or otherwise, to defend. I am never gratuitously sarcastic, disparaging or rude and I don't make moral judgments and what may appear as criticisms, to the guilty, are in fact no more than observations and all of my posts are monitored before I post them. Greg the only emotions that I have experienced in this thread is sadness and tinges of embarrassment for the posters who have displayed their lack of goodwill etc. One cannot and does not blame the beast for its nature."

Remembering, Mikal, that you did intend your post to have a public impact, I can only guess your motive for sending it. It seems to me, and others, that you have finally succumbed to the bizarre self induced emotional hysteria of a willingness to publicly display a prejudice to prevent sensible discussion of my proposition by bogusly construing my posts.

(I have just heard a speech by the Honduran 'president' to the UN which included, "Whenever humans allow brute force to prevail over reason they return to their primitive state" perhaps he is watching this forum.)

Anyway Mikal, whether your post was the result of maliciousness or of naivety it has had the same effect as the moderators activity towards me which combined has tipped the balance as to whether I should waste any more of my time trying to introduce sensible discussion on what I consider an extremely important subject both socially and academically in this thread.

I will also send you this post as a PM because from past experience Greg or Liskey are likely to censor it by claiming that it is 'off topic'.

...arthur..

[Mikal]

Hi Arthur…and a good morning to you too!

Tell me something; do you know the difference between an immature, patronizing lecture and somebody telling you about a piece of disinformation concerning the ego which confuses people?

I notice you have said, “to me of all people” which seems quite strange when you can make the statement to many people in this thread, “you and your ilk.” What does that say to you?

Your original statement was, “I have no ego,”…no assuming here, those were your words!

You say that you have no axe to grind yet it must seem to many posters that you’re carrying that axe and never put it down.

Now what would be my motive for my post? Certainly not to be malicious and I am most definitely not naïve! When someone is being malicious they do not address you SIR or THANK YOU! Those were genuine remarks and my motive was simply to address a piece of disinformation that floats around out there. It has never been my intention on the TOE to disempower people, I like empowering people.

You keep alluding to emotion and have now escalated that up to “emotional hysteria”…yet I have seen no trace of emotional reactions on this thread, just posters discussing, debating certain points and offering their perspective which is what the TOE is about.

You keep using the term, “me and others.” Seeing I am not seeing that on the thread here, then the judgement must be going on between shared PMs. Let me assure you I am not here concerned with winning friends, applause or admiration so you see Arthur when you and others are having a shared judgement of me, you’re just leaving someone else alone and to me that is so much water running off a ducks bill.

You have a fine day and keep in mind and heart peace for in a small yet big way it will always counter positively against the BRUTE FORCE which so marks our world today.


Regards Mikal

[Graybeard]

... to me that is so much water running off a ducks bill.

Shouldn't that be running off a duck's back .... or is it different up on the top side of the world ...... and also Mikal, Sweetpea, couldn't you have fitted a good word in for the moderators ... those brutes. ............. rotflmao

cool bananas ... greg

[Mikal]

Hi cool bananas...in my world nobody has ownership over expressions and what does it matter if the water is running down the ducks back or off its bill??

I think I made it clear in another thread that I respect the postion of the moderators and their role on the forum...you do what your duties are...simple enough to accept would you not agree....

Thanks for the "sweetpea"....should I see it as your not involved in the shared judgement of Mikal??....lol....good job I have been given a fair sized sense of humor...

I see your dusting your house again....cool!!!!


Mikal

[Profpat]

Down with CENSORSHIP. A little something we inherited from the Catholic Church, just ask Galileo.

Up with FREEDOM of the press, and thoughts and words.

[Mikal]

Although I understand what your saying here Prof, is this our site or is it Roberts? If posters are decent to one another and posts are professionally put forward as the site deems necessary would censorship even come into the equation?
From my perspective, it is a privledge to be here as Robert has given us an opportunity to re-find our social voice and once again have a voice as active citizens concerning our social issues that face us all.

Maybe we need to re-define censorship because we might have it confused with TOE guidelines....then again even Arthur pointed out public impact and although he definitely took my post wrong I can tell you I take pains to be aware that there is such a thing as public impact....


Mikal

[MJA]

So then, what is this thread really all about?
"Knock God??", That doesn't sound very intellectual to me.

=
MJA

PS: The censoring of posts should be censored.
PS PS: I enjoy reading your positive constructive post Mikal, keep writing those kind.

[Graybeard]

I think that if we 'knock' God, Arthur is implying that we may suffer the same fate as Father Malachy.

Next to a church in a prosperous Scottish industrial town is the "Garden of Eden", a dance hall of dubious reputation. The "Garden of Eden" is a thorn in the side of the innocent and unworldly Catholic priest Father Malachy, who is praying to God that He will close the dance hall.

During an argument with a Protestant minister, Father Malachy, claims that God could miraculously remove the "Garden of Eden." The skeptical Protestant scoffs (knocks God) and Father Malachy inadvertently predicts that God will indeed remove the "Garden of Eden" on a specific date.

The date comes and the building and all people inside vanish and reappear on Bass Rock, a small island in the Firth of Forth. This apparent miracle draws the attention of the media, politicians and scientists, all trying to find rational explanations. The Catholic Church is reluctant to officially recognize this occurrence as a miracle, both fearing a loss of control in matters of faith, or a loss of face if the disappearance of the "Garden of Eden" would turn out to be a hoax or fabrication.

Meanwhile believers from all over the world pilgrimage to the former location of the dance hall. Soon the site becomes a fairground, with the town’s people, profiteers and journalists trying to make a profit from the miracle and the resulting sudden influx of pilgrims. This includes the sale of holy water and miniature models of the "Garden of Eden." A young woman, who was in the dance hall during the night it vanished, becomes a media star. Financial investors are buying the island where the "Garden of Eden" reappeared, and construct a casino that soon attracts crowds of people.

Father Malachy is confronted with interview requests by journalists, pilgrims beleaguer the church hoping to meet the miracle-working priest. As he has spent most of his life in the monastery, he feels helpless in the face of the excesses of modern society. He soon regrets that he asked God for the miracle. He travels to the island and prays for a second miracle that will end the frenzy, and is heard by God who returns the "Garden of Eden" to its original location.

A very good read .... by Bruce Marshall

cool bananas ... greg

[SB_UK]

Does it take an intellectual to knock God??

If your initial proposition is correct
- how must we (people) change ?
I'm looking for an unequivocal statement on how people (society) must change in order to be consistent with your proposition.

Any suggestions on how we might bring about this change would be welcomed?

~*~

The flavour of your posts seem to suggest that you'd like to see more respect for religious communities from people of no fixed persuasion.

If that's true -
perhaps a mechanism would be to bring together a few recognized leaders from science and religion
- to lock 'em in a room together and told not to emerge until they've gotten their 'heads around' the other's point of view.
Perhaps suggesting also that if they're unable to understand each other
- then what chance ? normal people who spend less of their time considering these various disciplines -
and the conflicts which exist
between.

If that were to happen we'd find that all parties were pretty much screaming agreement and not disagreement (as they'd formerly thought) at one another.

Religion -
the prophet was a member (novel emergent) of Homo neosapiens (our next incarnation) where
Science -
is the study of emergence (the emergent evolutionary process and deliverables).

The magic of emergence resides in the observation that the novel species which is formed post-speciation is greater than the sum of its parts.

[SB_UK]

... he feels helpless in the face of the excesses of modern society.

~s ource~

We had access to too many
to much money
too much equipment
and little by little we went insane.

It's a great tune - and great tunes appear to court particularly meaningful lyrics.

The essential nature of music to human creativity
- explorations in uncharted innate space.

{All~we~need}
- where all we need
is not much.