Saitia

Is it not? Doesn't it depend on who behaves that way? For example, this from moderator Infinitenow to me: Re: Atheism and Faith - 04-24-2006, 11:59 AM But it wasn't followed by a post from you, threatening to ban him if he didn't edit it; it was followed by another moderator— who also took the opportunity to call me an ***: — Boerseun, Re: Atheism and Faith - 04-24-2006, 12:10 PM Immature people with power often exhibit the very behavior they condemn in others; but it appears your moderators do their share of bullying without any repercussions. If you're going to have a fair standard for behavior, it aught to apply across the board. If it doesn't, it makes you hypocrites.

You're an ***, Infinitenow. No more help for you.:shrug:

You appear to be your own foil; you avoided every point put to you. Of course; but clearly reading is not synonymous with comprehension; your analysis shows your comprehension is nothing but superficial. Childish ridicule isn't a substitute for evidence. You made a claim or two about what the "book says," you were asked to support it with quotes; apparently you can't, so you resort to ridicule; not very scientific. (Some people get chastised and banned for such behavior; I guess it's tolerated if you're a site sponsor, aye?) I wasn't looking for it; but do find it and read it; not that you would suddenly develop a fair or balanced approach to discovering the truth about the Papers, but it would make your arrogant assumptions even more painful to maintain. There's nothing like lying to yourself to bring out the hypocrisy in you. More evidence you're not up to an intelligent discussion of this material.

And I can't let an idiot rant against religion "pie" (sic) without poking back just as sharply at your obtuse observations. My my. So stridently put. After reading your so-called previous analysis of the book in this thread, I say your appraisal is the real "load of dung"; not the Urantia Papers. "Urantia" says no such thing; but where is your evidence? Quote it from the Urantia Book.:camera: Tee hee hee.;) Yeah; how about them? You claimed to have read the book; let's hear your scientific evidence refuting them. Again, no evidence. How long have you been posting on this site, Turtle?:D Why would your meager faith "in the majority of people" have a thing to do with your own inability to analyze things, especially as they are presented in this book? I found your "analysis" predictably shallow for someone who didn't actually read the book, but superfically skimmed it; not worthy of response. But since you find it necessary to attack what you do not understand, why not offer some real evidence supporting your arrogant little rant? You schedule such things?:hihi: Yeah; you have a nice day too. ;)

Thinking is of course essential, but it is self-consciousness that distinguishes human from animal. Other essentials of humaness, most of which are shared with animal mind, are: Intuition; quick perception. Understanding— coordination of knowledge and the phenomenon of quick-reasoning. Courage The scientific urge to knowledge; curiosity. The social urge— the ability to work with others. Wisdom; ability to learn from mistakes and progress. Worship; the religious impulse; the one trait which forever distinguishes man from animal mind.

"Defending himself" from what? Rather than just calling my comments rude, why not tell "us" why you think they are. He speaks his mind freely; I didn't say I knew what was in his heart. :Alien: "Us"? Is someone there with you, Ed? :doh: Do you believe in Hell? I didn't think so. I believe you already quoted me correctly about why I think hell is bullshit, but I'll repost it for you: "Most clear-thinking individuals reason out that an all-loving and all-merciful God— by definition— could never create such a crass contradiction of his divine nature as hell obviously is." Are you serious? I'm speaking for myself, just as you are, despite your editorial "us." I don't believe any human being is "authorized [by God] to speak for God." Do you? :Alien: What authority do you think "Scripture" has to back up my assertion? BTW why did you put quotes around "Church of Christ?"Are you not a fan? To indicate a quote, silly.:Alien: You're certainly entitled to your thoughts about Christians, who goes to "Heaven," and everything else; did you have a point? Cheerz, —Saitia

No, you don't. You simply have to have faith in God as best you may conceive him. Why waste your time pointing to some ridiculous creed of man that you know in your mind and (should) know in your heart is bullshit? I doubt anyone in the "Church of Christ" would claim they're authorized by God to speak for Him about the existence of hell, or who is going there. If they do make such a claim, I say they're obviously full of it, and you probably know it too. Most clear-thinking individuals reason out that an all-loving and all-merciful God— by definition— could never create such a crass contradiction of his divine nature as hell obviously is. Hell belongs on the historical trash heap of erroneous ideas. Stop flogging the dead horse if you can. Your point is a good one— if such an absurd contradiction actually existed. It never did. God didn't create a hell; man did. The rejection of eternal life preciptates the more logically consistent equivalent to the idea of hell, but it's not eternal punishment, it's the inevitable result of free will choice: eternal cessation of existence. Yes, an omnipotent God knows who will be saved and who will not, and although predestination is involved in such foreknowledge, personal freewill is not abrogated. Personal beings are gifted with freewill choice, and this power, although relative in time, is still absolute in eternity. Cheers, —Saitia

Projection, perhaps?:shrug: ;) And the third "clue" is your comment in a thread that no one is allowed to post there except a "select few." Not everyone enjoys a clue hunt; why not just spell it out in the user level descriptions? Well yeah, thanks for asking.:) I realize forums this large require the power to ban members occasionally. But Hype's policy on banning seems subjective and whimsical. Consider instituting a three person panel to arbitrate banning members. Since no one is perfect, there is always a danger that the verdict of an individual may be warped by prejudice or distorted by passion. Group judgment is more likely to eliminate the unfairness of personal bias. Thanks, —Saitia

Ed, Thank you for your kind response; I do appreciate it. I appreciate your candor as well; I hope I might address what you said a little more closely without causing you further resentment. I think admitting resentment is always a step towards freeing oneself of it; when I find myself resenting something someone says, I try to remember to look under my resentment; what is the real feeling in myself. In letting go of it, I realize that it's for my benefit; not someone else. If I resent something or someone, it's usually because I think they should be wiser, or more aware; eventually I remember people act in accordance with their abilities; that they're probably doing the very best they can with what they have. When I remember— like them— that what I suffer is a result of my own limited abilities, I find it much easier to forgive, and move on. So— the limit of my awareness at present is seeing scientists as men and women with a passion for the unknown material universe, who use the scientific yardstick to uncover its mysteries; but then I see them use the same yardstick on themselves, which, although quite logical, is nevertheless a monumental mistake. I find it stunning that people with such remarkable intellects can be held so securely in the cultural bondage of the materialistic fetters of a science, at the huge expense of understanding themselves as spiritual beings. And therein is a difference between you and me; I feel a need to discuss this idea; and pointing out my feeling is the beginning of the discussion; not a conclusion. Albert E. said that "cosmic religious feeling is the strongest and noblest incitement to scientific research." I completely agree, and when I say scientists are the "ultimate religionists," it is in recognition of that "feeling." Of course it is not limited to scientists; I certainly experience it as an artist, but my explorations are directed more towards the spiritual than the material. But when scientists feel that, I think they can more readily appreciate the wonders of the universe in a way that is nearly transcendent of all other approaches to God. Cheers, —Saitia

I don't see that you have anything to apologize for; if more people spoke with their true convictions and compassion, the place would be a lot brighter.

Not what again? Sure; what do you want to disagree on?

From MPoV, a scientist is a curious, thinking, choosing, creative, combining, and discriminating observer of universe phenomena who classifies the mathematical facts inherent in the mechanistic phases of the material side of creation. —Saitia PS: thanks for your response this morning Bill; as you can see, I finally got an answer.:)

Both, but certainly more interested in the latter. Scientists who burn inside to know the way things work are the ultimate religionists; they just don't know it. ( I see you answered science is your religion) :) :hammer:

Way too fast!~ Check the real thread and poll at the Philosophy of Science Forum, Bill.:)

KickAss, you're just too fast!:) See my edit above.

Are you a scientist? Hypography started out as a "science site for everyone," but who really hangs out here— inquiring minds want to know.

Are you a scientist? Hypography started out as a "science site for everyone," but who hangs out here— inquiring minds want to know. I am. . . testing the poll procedure. Check the Philosophy of Science forum for the real poll.

Here is your post again: "Yes, but it depends on where you want to post it. The announcement forum is for admins, editors, and moderators only. "Please ask this kind of questions in the User Feedback forum so others can help out and also see the solution." So the "announcement forum" is synonymous with "Community Polls forum"? Where would one come by that information, or the information you supplied above, without having to ask someone for it?

Yeah, I can. That's why I asked two other staff members who were online. Which was great, except they didn't have any authori-tie to fix the problem, only make suggestions. Here is your PM response: "Yes, but it depends on where you want to post it. The announcement forum is for admins, editors, and moderators only. "Please ask this kind of questions in the User Feedback forum so others can help out and also see the solution." I didn't see a question there; only a request to post my question somewhere else. I was trying to post a poll in "Community Polls." Wouldn't it have been a LOT more efficient to simply check my permission settings?;)

:singer: The kicker is, I can open a poll HERE, but not there!

Thank you Turtle; actually, I did PM Tormod, Infy, and TheBigDog, because I saw they were here; a lot like chasing feathers in a gail, though. Infy steered me to the FAQ, The Dog is checking, but probably started sniffing something else, and Tormod said this was the place to ask such questions; so apparently I've gotta start a bunch of threads before I can handle the stresses of a community poll? Is there no end to the idiosyncrasies of the scientific mind?:hihi:

I'm trying to post a poll; the community polls page says I cannot post a poll. This is supposed to be a privilege available to level two users with more than 10 posts. Any ideas as to what the problem is? Is this really the easiest way to get an answer to this kind of problem?

A History of the Urantia Papers By Larry Mullins with Dr. Meredith Sprunger Published 2000 by Penumbra Press A culling of a few extant accounts and a few persons with firsthand knowledge of events. Very scarce volume; occasionally a pricey copy can be found on Amazon. A must read for the genuine account of how the papers got here, even though the answer is still nobody knows the full details. That's "Mr." Saitia, to you. :evil:

Not an easy question to answer. According to historical accounts the process that resulted in the Papers began in 1906, and culminated in the appearance of most of the papers by 1925. Some of the papers include a published inditement date of 1934 and 1936. More puzzling, however, was the initial appearance of 500 hand-written pages which were found in the room of the "sleeping subject" one morning in December of 1924, by his wife. The pages contained the answers to 181 questions that had been assembled in response to a "personality" that spoke "through" the sleeping subject, issuing a challenge to the physician who had been monitoring the sessions of this fellow and conversing with various "voices" that claimed to be personal beings from other worlds. The challenge was something to the effect that, if you knew what you were in contact with you would not ask such trivial questions, you would ask questions that would "elicit answers of supreme importance to the human race." Dr. William Sadler concluded that the sleeping subject had not produced the material, as it was not his handwriting, his hand tested negative for muscular fatigue, his wife said she doubted he could have left their bed without waking her, and the fellow himself said he didn't write anything. (He was likewise oblivious to the voices that regularly spoke through his vocal cords.) All of the papers eventually appeared, in handwritten form in pencil, and a typed copy made. The handwritten material was regularly placed in a safe, but the material disappeared as soon as the typed copy was completed. The papers were published in 1955. —Saitia