chieveboy: Oh stereotyping is actually Profiling and in my case, it was an informed grouping.
You came into the thread and made a comment and the rest of the group followed jesting and trolling.
Asking me if I tried the techniques is simply your characteristic way of hoping to discredit the author's work. This is buttressed by the statement "how do you know you're not being hoodwinked" or so. Of all things your mind could go to, it went to the idea of "hoodwinking" right before going back into the book...prognosis alert!
I learnt fast and caught that antic real quick!
You showed you're unwilling to learn right from all that digging of supposed scandals of Mormons even when I made it clear I was neither promoting Mormonism neither was I discrediting them.
These seemingly small details are what I read so well my friend, so you rightly belong in the troll group. Look at the insults your friends here hurl at A 001...
You are jest projecting your quick judgement and stereotyping of people on to me very clearly.
chieveboy: Do not blame me at all. I am responding to you based on what I knew you and the your group. A001 is just being introduced to your group and I'm sure he'll know better.
On asking me: Most times, the problem we face in dealing with people on subject as this even when they encroach on our threads by trolling (e.g you introductory message on this thread), is the problem of establishing information parallels given a neophyte or an absolute ignoramus (no insult intended here).
So for us to tango, you must do some findings, then our interaction will be tilted towards a debate or Qs and As rather than jesting, trolling and getting worked up when the favor is returned.
So go ahead and read, the idea is not for you to understand entirely, its for you to come from the position of knowledge rather than scandal-mining or trolling.
I have been interacting with A001 for years so don't use that excuse. If you are unable to leave your own stereotyping behind, with what mouth are you using to accuse others of being unwilling to learn? Are you not fully demonstrating you are the one unwilling to learn?
How is asking you if you've tried the techniques jesting, trolling and getting worked up? You are the one getting worked up because I asked you a question to show I'm willing to engage. I even included a detail to show you I was even reading the damn book but you are throwing it in my face for what reason?
This 'Naysay' condition comes from the high propensity to rather troll than learn.
You don't ask someone for a taste of a pudding, you taste it.
On the authenticity of the author's work, he could have quote the Bible with "As a man thinketh, so is he", and he would have taught you how to manifest anything from the ethers via thought and some little sunshine within you (which people like you will doubt exists anyways).
Don't ask me questions. Read up and we'll talk.
You are too quick to impugn someone. Run away how? You've read the book, how is asking if you've practiced the techniques now running away? I am trying to engage you and you are acting like a flower wilting under the glare of the sun. You don't seem ready to have your assertions scrutinized with this your behaviour. If you aren't ready to engage meaningfully then say it, your passive aggressiveness is getting irritating.
Take a cue from A001, when I asked him a question, he didn't reply with condescension he gave a succinct answer.
I didn't ask about the authenticity of the author's work, I asked: how do you tell difference between who is trying to hoodwink you from a genuine person? What criteria do you use? What is so difficult in answering these questions?
chieveboy: Lets keep this behind us and focus on civil side of things then. I can help with the book for free if FX is an issue.
I really want to see the looks in your face when we're done with the book. At least you and company will see how science had merged with religion, with God.
Have you practiced the techniques in this book? Have you used the algorithmic sequence to produce a desired object in the world on demand?
Also as an aside how do you tell difference between who is trying to hoodwink you from a genuine person? What criteria do you use?
chieveboy: Lets keep this behind us and focus on civil side of things then. I can help with the book for free if FX is an issue.
I really want to see the looks in your face when we're done with the book. At least you and company will see how science had merged with religion, with God.
Oh good that would save me the trouble. Give a link to download.
chieveboy: Okay sorry about that and I apologize...although it was 90% prognosis and 10% yab... The person behind this keyboard doesn't cry. You don't have what it takes please...
One the work of physics: You will search for the book "Something from No Thing by AR Bordon Lulu.com" Good luck!
Oh don't worry I have my ways but I'd rather not get into it, I prefer civil discussion without any of that baggage.
chieveboy: I initially summarized your line of reasoning earlier where I pointed out your rather simplistic and unclever antics of digging up so-called scandals as justification for any reasonable work done by people.
Google "Albert Einstein Fraud", then go ahead to convince us Einstein isn't a real scientist. More grist for your mill at least.
I provided justification for my statements I am yet to see you do same, only to sling insult.
Stick with your subject instead going off on unhelpful tangents that does not prove anything.
chieveboy: Oh the science actually exists. It's an elaborate work by a physicist who not only explains why it works but how. As in: He explained the physics of not just turning water to wine, but raising the dead!
I am sure your troll and highly I-dont-know skull never thought this was possible and existent.
This is what we've been saying all along, you lack information and knowledge yet make too much noise and intimidate people who are miles ahead...
Let's say I oblige to point you to the research work, do you have the head to understand it? I don't think so! Why do I think so?
The e-rat life you and your colleagues here lead is symptomatic of an emptiness--a lack of intelligence. You troll to fill up this space which only proper education can take care of.
Link the published paper.
I have not impugned your person so this descent into insult just take note that it is you who started it so when I give it to you don't start crying.
chieveboy: A001, the issue with LordReed and company is that they mostly are not even abreast with science beyond the archaic text books talk more of latest development in science judging from his statement that science and religion (God) don't meet.
This was how I referred one of them to CIA's (now obsolete) finding on how Consciousness can be used to create Miracles. The person i referred simply dismissed it as the CIA being a paid actor.
Note that CIA's findings on the subject is yet at the kindergarten stage comparably to what mystics have discovered and used for over 10,000 years back.
How does this CIA document make Joseph Smith not a fraud and the Book of Mormon not a product of fraud?
Chingyyy878: What are you starting to dislike more as you grow older ?
I find that for me it's not so much about things I dislike and more about things I do like. I find myself more interested in finding and doing things I like rather than worrying about things I don't like.
Life is too short to be worrying about what you don't like
tctrills: With science, there is hardly a conclusion. We keep learning everyday. So just because a religious event does not rhyme with the accepted science of today does not mean it can't be found to be absolutely correct in 10 years time still using scientific Indicators. That's where faith comes in.
I can't wait for when science shows us how water turns into wine just by saying or wishing it. LoLz.
A001: Nature is actually far, far complex than what you, or anyone, can imagine. If you take a leaf and put a small hole on it, then look through that hole.
What you see is what physicists mainly perceive as all that exists: A tiny segment of reality. Our eyes and instruments can only detect a tiny segment of the vast ranges of segments of the EM spectrum.
There are tons of realms we don't even know, but they exist right around us.
There are waves that exist beyond (below) the radio wave segment of the EM spectrum that most humans aren't even aware of. These are waves of extremely low frequencies (ELFs), too tiny for the human eye or our instruments to see/detect.
What I'm talking about here is a whole new realm entirely. It's these waves religious people call the soul, spirit and the likes.
It's real, and I've actually developed the physics and mathematics, though I don't use either soul or spirit to refer to these waves.
This is a new field of physics entirely with tons of potential applications, including the design of living systems such as humans.
What kind of phenomena should expect to see at these ultra low frequencies?
A001: Spirituality can also deal with facts and be based on science. It depends on your definition of spirituality. Note I said spirituality, not religion. You can have one without the other.
It's actually good to adopt a science-based approach to spirituality. There's actually a physics underlying what religious people call "spirit".
It's all energy and consciousness.
It can but doesn't need to.
I don't see the need to create another layer of flowery language to describe natural phenomena to make it seem more mysterious or something. I appreciate the complexity of natural phenomena just as they are.
From the distance of pre-information (aka "ignorance", science and religion are apart. Scientist today who have know and chew their onions find it hard to create a dichotomy between science and religion in all it's tributaries as history, belief and even dogma.
They both will be and dine at a particular joint in town.
LoLz. Dude there is a big dichotomy between the 2 whether it is acknowledged or not. Science deals with facts, religion deals with spirituality. Spirituality doesn't need facts and facts don't need spirituality.
tctrills: You clearly don't get the purpose of religion.
Now let's talk a little about scientific facts. One thing we learnt from the COVID 19 pandemic is that the general science view also undergoes constant change. What's viewed as correct today may be seen as wrong in the next 50 years.
There have been records of plants and animals that at a time we believed where extinct only to discover that they were not as more evidence were provided.
So when it comes to things that happened hundreds of years ago, science is not always conclusive.
There are still so many arguments going in the world of science.
So even when we don't have evidence of a religious event, it's not always safe to claim it is false.
That's where faith comes in. Faith is a religious quality. It has no place in the science world.
Hence it's not right to measure religious events with scientific Indicators.
Where these records found in religious scripture and disputed by scientific findings?
What is a religious event? You mean miracle? Are you saying miracles leave no evidence?
Science doesn't declare itself a monolithic body of knowledge that is inviolate, that is religion.
tctrills: We are somehow saying the same thing. My point is that every ancient religions scripture is contrary to reality as historical or scientific. So religion should not be judged the same way we judge other history or scientific texts. There must be in different measure for religion. If not, we all should be atheists. There is a place for religion and there is a different place for science and even historical facts.
Then religion should stay in its lane and not cross over to making bogus historical or scientific claims. Fact is fact, a religion should not have the leeway to attempt to manufacture bullshit and call it fact.
chieveboy: You will recall the famous paragraph "C" in my earlier response and marry that to the substance of the gist of this thread where I said I was not endorsing nor debunking their book.
Although its entertainment watching your discomfort that despite the alleged fallacy in it, I had a supernatural encounter. I further liked how you came home earlier as they everything being supernatural and natural at the same time.
You called the book a historical document did you not?
I never said everything was supernatural and natural at the same time, don't get it twisted. As far as I know, what is termed supernatural has not been substantiated to any reliable degree. Calling what are obviously natural phenomena supernatural is just an attempt to fudge meanings, which is why I told you calling everything supernatural just means you obliterated the word supernatural ie everything is therefore natural.
chieveboy: B: You see? This is the whole point and you did a great job in catching it (although inadvertently and I will say why later)!
C: Everything is supernatural and natural at the same time, it depends on who is viewing and their well being--that's their and state of (respective) biokind (animal or plant), and the space-time index (earth, another planet, another dimension, etc). This is why it's entirely subjective as far as this domain (of physics) is concerned.
Back to B above, initially you were mocking how someone could experience the 'supernatural' reading Joseph Smith who to you was scam. Today you officially became the genius who decoded that yes, seemingly stupid things could be supernatural after all...
This reminds us of the biblical scripture: "God uses the foolish things of the world to confound the wise"
Wrong. I didn't mock your ability to have an experience via the book. You called what is obviously a product of fraud a historical document and that is why I said Joseph Smith was a massive fraud and his book a product of fraud, I nowhere said anything to mock your experience.
Please refer to C above in this would you? Show me you get that science or not. Cheers!
Get what science? You haven't shown me any science yet.
tctrills: I don't think we should judge religious scripture with the eyes of an academic document.
All ancient religions scripture contains contradictory historical accounts and claims that science can proof to be false. All without exception.
For example, archaeology and history have proven that there was no wall of Jericho at the time the children of Israel fell the wall. Jericho at that time wasn't even a city. It was just a small settlement.
The question here is, how best can we judge the content of a spiritual ducument?
You clearly have very intelligent argument so I want to hear your thoughts on judging ancient scripture with historical facts and other scientific measures.
I have no qualms with people interpreting their text in spiritual ways, but a problem arises when they begin to claim what is obviously contrary to reality as historical or scientific. If you notice I didn't tell the OP that his experience wasn't real or profound or meaningful, that's because I think having those kinds of experiences can be helpful to the individual. However, having an experience does not change what is obviously not factual into fact.
chieveboy: Profound experiences can be had with anything at all because everything is supernatural. Everything from the Spaghetti Monster, the scrotum of Zeus up to the table spoon of Jehova!
And this is so when you marry the best of today's science with religion out of necessity because both are not really separate.
If everything is supernatural then everything is natural since nothing is special.
When you're working with the viewpoint of text book and obsolete science, you indeed would accept the possibility of objectivity. Go further...
You are the one who needs to to go further since I already agreed that all experience is either partially or wholly subjective. And also quote which textbook and obsolete science you think my viewpoint comes from.
Christianity Etc › Re: My Experience With The Book Of Mormon by LordReed(m): 10:54am On Oct 04, 2023
, science and religion are apart. Scientist today who have know and chew their onions find it hard to create a dichotomy between science and religion in all it's tributaries as history, belief and even dogma.