Which were the smartest?
Offline
This is a question for the members who have been around here for a while.
Which have been the most intelligent theists (sic) that have debated here?
Because all I seem to see, are extremely passive aggressive pseudo intellectuals, who suffer from extreme hubris, and are just completely out of touch with reality.
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
- Login to post comments
Offline Hi Luny
[quotemost of the books are about psychology/quote]
A couple things. Psychology, even among secular morons don't realize that psychology is a science. So, in order not to hurt the psychologists feelings, they say, oh well, it's a SOFT SCIENCE. (LOL).
Christian psychology before the acid of modernism came through was good and correctly done. Freud even had little idols by his window that his worshipped, which formed the presuppositional framework of his "work." Jung was always high on LSD. And Skinner, well, he was super psyco. He's that guy who wanted to make Frankenstein.
So what is the christian psychology? People are inherently evil and need to feel a lot of fear of God, which will straight them out and they will magically know what to do, if they pray often?
I like Jung, he was very innovative and progressive. And brave, that's what LSD users need to be. But Freud was coward, he didn't even let anyone use his method on himself. In my opinion he kept seeing everywhere sex and violence, which is our lowest common denominator of humanity and got frightened of his own analysis. So he didn't really discover anything new. His fault was, that he thought this is all that there is to psychology.
I don't know Skinner, but if he wanted to create an artificial man, like Mary Shelley's scientist Victor Frankenstein, then he was either crazy, or his parents didn't explain him how to make a man or woman through easier and more pleasant method.
What esoteric books do you read?
I have read most of Benjamin Creme's bibliography, he bases a lot of his books on A. A. Bailey, H. P. Blavatsky, H. Roerich and the idea of evolving through incarnations into a Master of wisdom, some of whom influence and inspire all departments of human activities, including politics and science. He's also still alive, so he can comment on lots of contemporary events and relate today's knowledge to older esoteric works.
As for AAB, I've read these so far:
Unfinished Biography
Letters on Occult Meditation (my favorite, understood most of it),
A treatise on white magic or the Path of a disciple (didn't understand most of it at the time),
Esoteric psychology I and II,
Esoteric healing
I've also read many related materials on esoteric and mundane modern astrology, rays, karma and Reappearance. Plus something from the books of Blavatsky.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
- Login to post comments
I might be wrong, the man who wrote it wasn't infallible, in fact, he was a pervert and should have rotten in jail. But a literature bridging physics and esotericism is comparatively rare, so let's make some use of him.
If you need to get the hang of some terminology, I recommend the introductory book. If we assume you know nothing about my position, you should read this first. If you're in hurry, the first chapter on physical and etheric-physical matter will suffice for now.
As for the evidence, I can just turn my attention and feel the etheric substance, because it is quite tangible to me. If I feel like wanting a change of evidence on some days, I try to look at some teacher's aura. Teachers are people, who usually sit still in front of white wall, so they're good for practice. Just recently I looked at one. The lowest layer of aura looks like a glow, like a glowing smoke slowly dissipating outwardly, or a very slowed down flame, if you want. It leaves a trace, when the person moves. For untrained eye it has white color, perhaps with hints of violet on the ends. But last time I tried, I saw the aura in distinctly golden color. Of course, I have a great practice in etheric touch, but very little in etheric vision, so I'm grateful for every good observation I can get.
Usually when we debate that, someone pulls out well-known sensory illusions that occur regularly every time, because our brain is hard-wired for them. If the senses would be as unreliable as you describe, people couldn't drive, walk over street or play darts without regular casualties.
Beings who deserve worship don't demand it. Beings who demand worship don't deserve it.
Hi Luny
[quotemost of the books are about psychology/quote]
A couple things. Psychology, even among secular morons don't realize that psychology is a science. So, in order not to hurt the psychologists feelings, they say, oh well, it's a SOFT SCIENCE. (LOL).
Christian psychology before the acid of modernism came through was good and correctly done. Freud even had little idols by his window that his worshipped, which formed the presuppositional framework of his "work." Jung was always high on LSD. And Skinner, well, he was super psyco. He's that guy who wanted to make Frankenstein.
What esoteric books do you read?
You don't know what you are talking about. Psychology even admits both in the Merck Manual and in their DSM manual that they are to change in accordance to the sensitivity of the culture. This is ad hominem evidence that psychology is nothing more than a tickle machine intended for the ears.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).
A Rational Christian of Intelligence (rare)with a valid and sound justification for my epistemology and a logical refutation for those with logical fallacies and false worldviews upon their normative of thinking in retrospect to objective normative(s). This is only understood via the imago dei in which we all are.
Respectfully,
Jean Chauvin (Jude 3).