The Nature of the Holy Spirit

[_The Nehor]

Thanks for the laugh, my earlier attempts at this kind of humor were lost on everyone, thanks for getting it right.

Please explain the humor, I don't get it.

JAK's posts tend to be very similar. They all include bolded emphasis words like grade school textbooks. His spiel is almost always exactly identical, though admittedly modified slightly to fit the context. He uses colors to contrast certain words. His posting style was just taken to the extreme.

[_marg]

Thanks for the laugh, my earlier attempts at this kind of humor were lost on everyone, thanks for getting it right.

Please explain the humor, I don't get it.

JAK's posts tend to be very similar. They all include bolded emphasis words like grade school textbooks. His spiel is almost always exactly identical, though admittedly modified slightly to fit the context. He uses colors to contrast certain words. His posting style was just taken to the extreme.

It seems to me he uses colors to make is easier to differentiate speakers. So while his intent is consideration for those he converses with yours and Inconceivable's is to be deliberately inconsiderate.

This forum is for serious participants. Both you and Inconceivable are violating the intent of the Celestial level and being immature. If I were the moderator I'd be deleting Inconceivable's post, because in my opinion it's the equivlent of ad hominem fallacy, done deliberately to distract. Those tactics are invariably ploys by individuals who have nothing worthwhile to add or counter with in a discussion.

[_moksha]

With sufficient color coding and bread crumbs, I could have pigeons peck out my posts.

[_The Nehor]

It seems to me he uses colors to make is easier to differentiate speakers. So while his intent is consideration for those he converses with yours and Inconceivable's is to be deliberately inconsiderate.

This forum is for serious participants. Both you and Inconceivable are violating the intent of the Celestial level and being immature. If I were the moderator I'd be deleting Inconceivable's post, because in my opinion it's the equivlent of ad hominem fallacy, done deliberately to distract. Those tactics are invariably ploys by individuals who have nothing worthwhile to add or counter with in a discussion.

I don't think it's inconsiderate, just humorous. If I had a posting style that someone did a good job parodying, I would laugh.

[_marg]

It seems to me he uses colors to make is easier to differentiate speakers. So while his intent is consideration for those he converses with yours and Inconceivable's is to be deliberately inconsiderate.

This forum is for serious participants. Both you and Inconceivable are violating the intent of the Celestial level and being immature. If I were the moderator I'd be deleting Inconceivable's post, because in my opinion it's the equivlent of ad hominem fallacy, done deliberately to distract. Those tactics are invariably ploys by individuals who have nothing worthwhile to add or counter with in a discussion.

I don't think it's inconsiderate, just humorous. If I had a posting style that someone did a good job parodying, I would laugh.

If the parody was done out of respect I would agree, but it wasn't. And you fully appreciate that.

[_The Nehor]

If the parody was done out of respect I would agree, but it wasn't. And you fully appreciate that.

Parodies rarely come out of respect but I suspect this one had no malice either.

[_marg]

If the parody was done out of respect I would agree, but it wasn't. And you fully appreciate that.

Parodies rarely come out of respect but I suspect this one had no malice either.

Right so you admit the parody in this instance lacks respect. These are the rules of this level of the forum :

The upper-crust forum for scholarly, polite, and respectful discussions only. Heavily moderated. Rated G.

[_Inconceivable]

It seems to me he uses colors to make is easier to differentiate speakers. So while his intent is consideration for those he converses with yours and Inconceivable's is to be deliberately inconsiderate.

This forum is for serious participants. Both you and Inconceivable are violating the intent of the Celestial level and being immature. If I were the moderator I'd be deleting Inconceivable's post, because in my opinion it's the equivlent of ad hominem fallacy, done deliberately to distract. Those tactics are invariably ploys by individuals who have nothing worthwhile to add or counter with in a discussion.

I don't think it's inconsiderate, just humorous. If I had a posting style that someone did a good job parodying, I would laugh.

If the parody was done out of respect I would agree, but it wasn't. And you fully appreciate that.

Marg, would you be willing to agree to disagree?

(otherwise, nanner nanner)

(humor off, now back to the really serious discussion at hand..)

Like I was saying, there are actual spiritual experiences that point to the viability of an intelligent and unseen world - one that assists us human beings as well as hinders us. I have witnessed such events many times in my short life. They are what they are regardless as to whether I am intelligent enough to attach the proper meaning to them.

These truly "spiritual" events generally illicite an emotional response by those witnessing it. In my experience the emotional response is certainly not the catalyst for the event. However I am certain we can all agree that we've witnessed emotion and even random anamolies in our environment creating an emotional response - a nonspiritual event. I'm sure we've all heard a faith promoting rumor as well to entice us to gather with the rest of the chicks.

Now, I imagine that with the advances in science, it may be possible to quantify such events in the future. Jak, you may have noticed the world is not quite as flat as previously imagined. With the proper calibrated technical instrument (like a boat) you could prove this to yourself as well.

It may not hurt to keep an open mind on the subject.

[_Roger Morrison]

Some where back in this fast moving thread Nehor inferred "...science has not brought happiness..." or words to that affect. Really Bro??

Are you suggesting there was more "happiness" before the predominance of "science"?

It's quite likely in my "vision" ;-) to see Science revealing truth about what contributes to unhappiness--actually it already has, but not everyone pays attention. So, there will be more information to that purpose. That will bring more questions re the value of religion/church as now seen.

This could lead to more real-spirituality that might expand core values beyond the narrow confines of religion. Albeit confines that are becoming more flexible as intelligence dispells the dependence on miracles and rituals...

Discovery is the essence and purpose of existence, as i understand things... Warm regards, Roger

[_JAK]

Thanks for the laugh, my earlier attempts at this kind of humor were lost on everyone, thanks for getting it right.

Please explain the humor, I don't get it.

JAK's posts tend to be very similar. They all include bolded emphasis words like grade school textbooks. His spiel is almost always exactly identical, though admittedly modified slightly to fit the context. He uses colors to contrast certain words. His posting style was just taken to the extreme.

It seems to me he uses colors to make is easier to differentiate speakers. So while his intent is consideration for those he converses with yours and Inconceivable's is to be deliberately inconsiderate.

This forum is for serious participants. Both you and Inconceivable are violating the intent of the Celestial level and being immature. If I were the moderator I'd be deleting Inconceivable's post, because in my opinion it's the equivlent of ad hominem fallacy, done deliberately to distract. Those tactics are invariably ploys by individuals who have nothing worthwhile to add or counter with in a discussion.

marg,

One thing which we lack in a forum such as this is tonal inflection or emphasis. My use of available emphasis was/is to keep focus on the issues at hand and to address the content and context of the posts to which I have responded.

Thus far, some appear to prefer evasion rather than focus on issues. I understand why some prefer that over addressing the issues which I raised.

You are correct as you recognize that I use some available devices for emphasis and focus on the points and issues at hand. What does it tell us when those who post refuse/fail to address the issues and analysis?

As a novice here with far fewer posts than most, I just addressed posts of others as if they were serious and interested in thoughtful consideration. That, it appears, may have been an error.

It’s often easier to attack the messenger than the message.

JAK