A hidden history about humanity, dimensions and spirituality

Adder wrote:
Yea it's in that area, so falls within that category. We cannot have a subarea for every faith people might want to discuss, so it does not need its own subarea with SIG. This is its location;
Forum - Special Interest Groups - Faiths - A hidden history about humanity, dimensions and spirituality

If you don't like it, don't read it or respond perhaps. If you think its akin to trolling then we all know the best way to deal with trolls is to avoid them. There is nothing wrong with people posting topics you don't like... the more (people posting topics) the merrier so long as they aren't breaches of the rules.

This is not how I view it. The FAQ clearly defines only 5 special interest groups and faiths is NOT one of them. Faiths is a place holder for the other SIGs. Its not a matter of not liking it and I never said anything about trolling. I said spamming. There is a difference. That be what it may though is up to personal interpretation and in fact I quite enjoy debunking much of the nonsense he posts. So this is actually the opposite of not liking it. And in that regard I dont believe I have broken any of the rules as you suggest. Were does it say you cant post opposing opinions to ideas put forth on any of these boards? I believe even in the true SIG areas one is allowed to post such things. So what rule was broken?

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote:
Yea it's in that area, so falls within that category. We cannot have a subarea for every faith people might want to discuss, so it does not need its own subarea with SIG. This is its location;
Forum - Special Interest Groups - Faiths - A hidden history about humanity, dimensions and spirituality

If you don't like it, don't read it or respond perhaps. If you think its akin to trolling then we all know the best way to deal with trolls is to avoid them. There is nothing wrong with people posting topics you don't like... the more (people posting topics) the merrier so long as they aren't breaches of the rules.

This is not how I view it. The FAQ clearly defines only 5 special interest groups and faiths is NOT one of them. Faiths is a place holder for the other SIGs. Its not a matter of not liking it and I never said anything about trolling. I said spamming. There is a difference. That be what it may though is up to personal interpretation and in fact I quite enjoy debunking much of the nonsense he posts. So this is actually the opposite of not liking it. And in that regard I dont believe I have broken any of the rules as you suggest. Were does it say you cant post opposing opinions to ideas put forth on any of these boards? I believe even in the true SIG areas one is allowed to post such things. So what rule was broken?

You tell me, its your story by the looks of it because unless I''m mistaken your making it all up...... where did I say you broke a rule? Not to suggest you didn't break a rule, but I don't recall saying you had. All i could find of me replying to you was this .

Adder wrote:
You tell me, its your story by the looks of it because unless I''m mistaken your making it all up...... where did I say you broke a rule? Not to suggest you didn't break a rule, but I don't recall saying you had. All i could find of me replying to you was this .

You imply someone broke a rule somewhere pretty obviously. You and other Knights have mentioned rule breaking several times now. So if no rules have been broken here, why are you all attempting so hard to sensor our conversation?

Adder, out of interest, and not in an attempt to throw this topic off course: Do you think that the enlightenment movement requires faith? I mean, I know my neurosurgeon knows where to cut based on lots and lots of practice, lots and lots of research, and lots and lots of (essentially) maths being applied to anecdotes. But I do feel I still have to have faith in him. I don't believe that a statement of some science is a complete removal of the need for faith. In many ways it clarifies for me the place where the faith lies - in people, and so I would hope that others might be able to take this same spiritual journey. That is hard to do if enlightenment thinking (science) is seen as requiring no faith whatsoever.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Adder wrote:
You tell me, its your story by the looks of it because unless I''m mistaken your making it all up...... where did I say you broke a rule? Not to suggest you didn't break a rule, but I don't recall saying you had. All i could find of me replying to you was this .

You imply someone broke a rule somewhere pretty obviously. You and other Knights have mentioned rule breaking several times now. So if no rules have been broken here, why are you all attempting so hard to sensor our conversation?

Yea Gisteron has flirted with a few here IMO, but talking about rules is not off limits to anyone, especially not Knights.

In regards to the SIGs, the structure of the forum to me is the best indicator of its intended use;
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Special-Interest-Groups

Note: the description of the Faith area is; "For those who feel drawn to other religious beliefs and practices."

SIGs replaced Rites, which both at one point existed as a different type of body before the website had 'groups' with designated leaders etc, so the law is probably stuck in the past a bit in that regard but also probably not specific to forum use anyway, so again not really relevant to the point being discussed.

Twigga wrote: Adder, out of interest, and not in an attempt to throw this topic off course: Do you think that the enlightenment movement requires faith? I mean, I know my neurosurgeon knows where to cut based on lots and lots of practice, lots and lots of research, and lots and lots of (essentially) maths being applied to anecdotes. But I do feel I still have to have faith in him. I don't believe that a statement of some science is a complete removal of the need for faith. In many ways it clarifies for me the place where the faith lies - in people, and so I would hope that others might be able to take this same spiritual journey. That is hard to do if enlightenment thinking (science) is seen as requiring no faith whatsoever.

I think it's a broad label in terms of temporal reach.... commonly understood faith having much longer durations then perhaps the type of faith needed in more likely circumstances. So I don't think its really the same thing, even if it might use the same mechanisms briefly to deal with uncertainty etc. I actually don't think its offtopic because faith could be seen to be working with the potential hidden aspects out there.

Adder wrote:
Yea Gisteron has flirted with a few here IMO, but talking about rules is not off limits to anyone, especially not Knights.

In regards to the SIGs, the structure of the forum to me is the best indicator of its intended use;
https://www.templeofthejediorder.org/forum/Special-Interest-Groups

Note: the description of the Faith area is; "For those who feel drawn to other religious beliefs and practices."

SIGs replaced Rites, which both at one point existed as a different type of body before the website had 'groups' with designated leaders etc, so the law is probably stuck in the past a bit in that regard but also probably not specific to forum use anyway, so again not really relevant to the point being discussed.

Sure thats all well and good and Ill even let that elitist "knight" comment go... but you failed to answer my question though. Why are you trying to sensor our conversation?

Adder wrote: I think it's a broad label in terms of temporal reach.... commonly understood faith having much longer durations then perhaps the type of faith needed in more likely circumstances. So I don't think its really the same thing, even if it might use the same mechanisms briefly to deal with uncertainty etc. I actually don't think its offtopic because faith could be seen to be working with the potential hidden aspects out there.

What I've understood from your reply is "enlightenment is quite young" (a bit like jediism) ... And then I'm not really sure I get the rest except that the discussion of this theme is not off topic.

It was important to me, because I have felt as though persons presenting enlightenment ideas - scientific ideas - have been told not to, because they are scientific. But I kinda don't understand how that can be fair. You need to present scientific ideas to get to the bit where the faith lies - the unknown AFTER the known, if you follow my meaning - if enlightenment thinking is to be given it's voice in this forum (in my understanding of things).

Twigga wrote:

Adder wrote: I think it's a broad label in terms of temporal reach.... commonly understood faith having much longer durations then perhaps the type of faith needed in more likely circumstances. So I don't think its really the same thing, even if it might use the same mechanisms briefly to deal with uncertainty etc. I actually don't think its offtopic because faith could be seen to be working with the potential hidden aspects out there.

What I've understood from your reply is "enlightenment is quite young" (a bit like jediism) ... And then I'm not really sure I get the rest except that the discussion of this theme is not off topic.

It was important to me, because I have felt as though persons presenting enlightenment ideas - scientific ideas - have been told not to, because they are scientific. But I kinda don't understand how that can be fair. You need to present scientific ideas to get to the bit where the faith lies - the unknown AFTER the known, if you follow my meaning - if enlightenment thinking is to be given it's voice in this forum (in my understanding of things).

Yep, that is needed to ensure the difference between faith and delusion.

I don't think people are being told not to present scientific ideas. I think the only people being told they don't have a place to present ideas is those ideas outside of science unless they are neatly classified as fictional or humor. If someone wanted to talk about Reiki for example, then they should be able to talk about Reiki and even start a group about it if enough people are interested. What I think is ok is to point out where its scientific limits are, indeed its vital to enable its maturation - a process inherent to Jediism IMO, but its not ok to shut it down by criticizing the concept or criticizing the people entertaining them.

Depends on what your talking about though... I thought you meant the mechanism of faith in action rather then its existence in science and therefore relevance to inclusion in faith discussion. If its the later, then that is fine if its the topic. Otherwise its a bit like someone of Christian faith arguing with an Islamic faith thread, if that makes any sense. Better if they both have their own threads so people with 'interest in that faith' can talk about that faith in particular.... hence the purpose of the faith areas of the forum, IMO. As the description of the faith area says 'For those who feel drawn to other religious beliefs and practices.'..... otherwise, Open Discussion seems more apt for more critical analysis of a topic from outside the topic, and [strike]interrogation[/strike] interaction.

He he! I like what you did at the end there! :laugh: I have found, working in the middle east, that when Jews and Christians and Muslims are only allowed to talk in their own boxes, they learnt to hate, and suspect one another. When the walls were broken down, and everyone was free to mingle, there was peaceful discussion. Sure... It was a bit... "Elbows in" at first, in the beginning, but it didn't stay that way. Just a thought.