Thailand grants citizenship to half a million people – but not farangs

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I don't apply limitations on myself, these limitations are applied to me by the nature of my environment, as they are applied to everyone else.   

You've been influenced by the materialists. The physical realm is just the nursery.

[luckyluke]

I am finished here.
 

This is no more a topic where  people express an opinion,

 

 but a podium for a small number of posters who are posting for their own satisfaction and pleasure.

 

An own lust, own enjoyment, from what they are writing;

 

and convincing themselves they are, oh so particular.

 

 

 

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, Sunmaster said:

Psychology is subjective, is it not? And treated as a scientific field. 

Not all of it, most of it It is based on research, evidence and peer review and replication.

Human behaviour can be studied using the scientific method. Conclusions are applied with great success in everyday life. Madison Av depend on it. So does intelligence community and many others. None , though have looked into the metaphysical depend on it for results.

 

10 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

I could talk about my evidence, but that wouldn't make sense to you anyway.

 I don't disagree with you that there is value in meditation, that has being scientifically proven, what i disagree is that there is a metaphysical source for it.

   

[sirineou]

18 minutes ago, canuckamuck said:

You've been influenced by the materialists. The physical realm is just the nursery.

How do you know what exists outside the physical realm? 

[sirineou]

23 minutes ago, Sunmaster said:

Sorry, but your limitations don't apply to me. ????

 

We can test that opinion.

I am going bungee jumping but only have one bungee  would you care to join me?

[sirineou]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

We can test that opinion.

I am going bungee jumping but only have one bungee  would you care to join me?

^^^^^

I am willing to bet that you will be meditating on your way down and the marta would be a four letter word.????

Edited February 23, 2020 by sirineou

[canuckamuck]

9 minutes ago, sirineou said:

How do you know what exists outside the physical realm? 

Because from the creation of the world, the invisible qualities  of God’s nature have been made visible, such as his eternal power and transcendence. He has made his wonderful attributes easily perceived,  for seeing the visible makes us understand the invisible.  So then, this leaves everyone without excuse.

Edited February 23, 2020 by canuckamuck

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. 

Which God?

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

Which God?

The one this thread is about.

[sirineou]

Just now, canuckamuck said:

The one this thread is about.

I don't know which god this thread is about, I suspect you are talking about Yahweh. Am i right?

 

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Which God?

Come on now, the answer is within you, and you are not going to believe anyone, unless they bring you God on a plate... Which is not going to happen, sure.

[sirineou]

Just now, mauGR1 said:

Come on now, the answer is within you, and you are not going to believe anyone, unless they bring you God on a plate... Which is not going to happen, sure.

Yes it is and I have stated it repeatedly.

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

Yes it is and I have stated it repeatedly.

Uhm, perhaps i am more dumb than usual, but i don't know what "it is" and what you "stated repeatedly".

[canuckamuck]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

I don't know which god this thread is about, I suspect you are talking about Yahweh. Am i right?

 

El Elyon

[Sunmaster]

21 minutes ago, sirineou said:

We can test that opinion.

I am going bungee jumping but only have one bungee  would you care to join me?

My body is subject to physical laws like anyone else. You limit yourself to what your physical senses tell you. I don't.

Care to join me on that journey? 

[Sunmaster]

30 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

I am finished here.
 

This is no more a topic where  people express an opinion,

 

 but a podium for a small number of posters who are posting for their own satisfaction and pleasure.

 

An own lust, own enjoyment, from what they are writing;

 

and convincing themselves they are, oh so particular.

 

 

 

Yes, but my enjoyment is of equal value to your enjoyment. Your enjoyment is not better or worse than my enjoyment and if you say your enjoyment is more important than my enjoyment than there's something seriously wrong with your enjoyment. 

Ahh, I really enjoyed this. I hope you equally enjoyed it too.

[sirineou]

1 minute ago, canuckamuck said:

El Elyon

If I understood correctly  Yahweh was his name  and El Elyon is a term of respect allied to him  "The highest "

There have been many gods invented by many cultures, he is one of them. Plenty of debated about him on Youtube, Christopher Hitchens is one whose wit I appreciated most. 

 

 

[sirineou]

13 minutes ago, mauGR1 said:

Uhm, perhaps i am more dumb than usual, but i don't know what "it is" and what you "stated repeatedly".

My position in the matter.  I am only concerned with the physical, I leave the metaphysical to those so inclined , when they have evidence that they can present to me I will consider such evidence and if I find them correct I will join them , until such time i remain firmly fixed in the physical.  

[canuckamuck]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

If I understood correctly  Yahweh was his name  and El Elyon is a term of respect allied to him  "The highest "

There have been many gods invented by many cultures, he is one of them. Plenty of debated about him on Youtube, Christopher Hitchens is one whose wit I appreciated most. 

 

 

You mean He invented many cultures. He invented Christopher Hitchens too. But Chris was not very grateful.

[sirineou]

Just now, canuckamuck said:

You mean He invented many cultures. He invented Christopher Hitchens too. But Chris was not very grateful.

No evidence that he did any of that

[mauGR1]

2 minutes ago, sirineou said:

My position in the matter.  I am only concerned with the physical, I leave the metaphysical to those so inclined , when they have evidence that they can present to me I will consider such evidence and if I find them correct I will join them , until such time i remain firmly fixed in the physical.  

Well, no one can disagree with that opinion of yours, yet the "physical you" will come to an end, but your consciousness may not.

[canuckamuck]

1 minute ago, sirineou said:

No evidence that he did any of that

What would the evidence look like?

Here is what Matthew says about revelation.

For everyone who listens with an open heart will receive progressively more revelation until he has more than enough. But those who don’t listen with an open, teachable heart, even the understanding that they think they have will be taken from them.

[sirineou]

1 hour ago, canuckamuck said:

What would the evidence look like?

Here is what Matthew says about revelation.

For everyone who listens with an open heart will receive progressively more revelation until he has more than enough. But those who don’t listen with an open, teachable heart, even the understanding that they think they have will be taken from them.

First let me apologize for late or no replies, I get back a lot of quotes and I try to think about my replies to people such as you and others that I respect. Also I am in the US right now and I only have a small window in the morning and evening that we are both up , for me to reply. 

Evidence that are corroborated and duplicatable. If someone tells me I saw someone walk on water, I want to know , did anyone else see him walk on water? can he walk on water again?.  If so then I am willing to say "Wow, look at that!!! " 

Anecdotal evidence are not dependable. You don't depend on anecdotal evidence in other aspects of your life, not in your business decisions, not on your health, why depend on them in this aspect of your life? 

[Sunmaster]

24 minutes ago, sirineou said:

First let me apologize for late or no replies, I get back a lot of quotes and I try to think about my replies to people such as you and others that I respect. Also I am in the US right now and I only have a small window in the morning and evening that we are both up , for me to reply. 

Evidence that are corroborated and duplicatable. If someone tells me I saw someone walk on water, I want to know , did anyone else see him walk on water? can he walk on water again?.  If so then I am willing to say "Wow, look at that!!! " 

Anecdotal evidence are not dependable. You don't depend on anecdotal evidence in other aspects of your life, not in your business decisions, not on your health, why depend on them in this aspect of your life? 

How many anecdotal evidences corroborating something does it take before you have a closer look?

 

I mean... thousands of people describe the same obstacles and breakthroughs when meditating. They're not just random visions and occurrences, otherwise there would be no teaching and no framework where these teachings could be applied.

There are commonalities of experiences among practitioners that can be analyzed and discussed by others on the same path.

Do you consider them as a bunch of odd anectodes or is it maybe possible that there is indeed something going on?

 

Let's say you've never seen water.

If a bunch of people invites you to experience water for the first time, would you not be curious to see what it's all about, or would you rather say: "No thanks, the books I've read say there's no such thing as water, so I see no point in trying."

"Hey man, it's right there. Just move your legs towards it and you can see for yourself! "

"Nah, you're not going to fool me with your anecdotal evidence."

 

Sounds familiar? ????????

[sirineou]

3 hours ago, Sunmaster said:

How many anecdotal evidences corroborating something does it take before you have a closer look?

 

I mean... thousands of people describe the same obstacles and breakthroughs when meditating. They're not just random visions and occurrences, otherwise there would be no teaching and no framework where these teachings could be applied.

There are commonalities of experiences among practitioners that can be analyzed and discussed by others on the same path.

Do you consider them as a bunch of odd anectodes or is it maybe possible that there is indeed something going on?

 

Let's say you've never seen water.

If a bunch of people invites you to experience water for the first time, would you not be curious to see what it's all about, or would you rather say: "No thanks, the books I've read say there's no such thing as water, so I see no point in trying."

"Hey man, it's right there. Just move your legs towards it and you can see for yourself! "

"Nah, you're not going to fool me with your anecdotal evidence."

 

Sounds familiar? ????????

I don't know why you keep suggesting  that it has not being looked into. and only if we looked into it.

 It has been extensively looked into. Just google "the benefits of meditation" "meditation and science"  extensively documented a lot of good information on how you can improve your life through meditation , but nothing metaphysical.

If you have some evidence please publish, but don't tell me that the only reason we have not found it is because we have not looked hard enough.

It is insulting. 

 The subject has being researched by prestigious institutions, it's benefits are well documented, further research is being done right now, No metaphysical connection has being made .

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1745691617709589

 

 

 

[Tippaporn]

11 hours ago, sirineou said:

True,

but faith in a  particular dogma limits the breadth of one's scope.  The breadth of my scope is limited by the Physical as I have no access to the metaphysical. So far no one has demonstrated any access also, all they have demonstrated is opinion, as soon as someone demonstrates access I promise to be the first one to jump in. 

I'll jump in to say that anyone's limits are determined by their beliefs.  Beliefs act to filter information.  What fits an individual's world view is allowed to enter.  What does not fit is either tossed away, ignored, or in one way or another repudiated.  Evidence of that?  It's so simple and easy.  One needs only to examine one's beliefs.  As I've said, the answers are all within us.  They're not really "out there."  But, and unfortunately to my point of view, most believe that the answers are "out there" so they never bother looking within.  The irony is delicious, is it not?

 

Now, you believe that you have no access to the "metaphysical" and also believe that no one has thus far demonstrated access.  Your position is an impossible one to resolve.  In essence, you're saying, "My door is open but I know it's really shut."  If you believe that you do not have access then you must also believe equally that no one else has.  For how can others have access when you do not since we are all the same?

 

Your self created conundrum (as it's your choice to believe as you do) states that "as soon as someone demonstrates access I promise to be the first one to jump in" but if anyone claims to have had access then "all they have demonstrated is opinion."  Do you see now the impossibility of your stance?

 

Now if I were to tell you how you may gain access would you try it?  Most refuse.  They continue to deny the existence of something yet absolutely and unconditionally refuse to see for themselves.  Perhaps to say "I have no access" is just an excuse.

 

I should point out as well, and this is extremely important, if people access realms which are not physical and purely subjective then how would it be possible to provide physical "proof?"  It can't be done.  You cannot provide physical proof of something which is not physical.  My response is, DUH!

 

Don't refuse to look within and then claim there's nothing there.  I believe there's a word for that . . . 

 

Edited February 24, 2020 by Tippaporn

[mauGR1]

3 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I'll jump in to say that anyone's limits are determined by their beliefs.  Beliefs act to filter information.  What fits an individual's world view is allowed to enter.  What does not fit is either tossed away, ignored, or in one way or another repudiated.  Evidence of that?  It's so simple and easy.  One needs only to examine one's beliefs.  As I've said, the answers are all within us.  They're not really "out there."  But, and unfortunately to my point of view, most believe that the answers are "out there" so they never bother looking within.  The irony is delicious, is it not?

 

 

I agree with your logic, but perhaps it's worth to add, imho, that to have a "hard look within", one has to be really fed up and disgusted with most people's material view of the world.

To be honest, when i was about 16, i started to feel really tired of the lies we are fed by the system, and the pretense of most to be happy and cool with it.

Reading Yogananda autobiography was better than watching a magnificent sunrise, and to stop watching the tv was a mind opener.

Yet we have to accept if our brothers and sisters choose to be blind to the wonders of the spiritual worlds, after all nobody really likes to be told what he has to do.

 

[sirineou]

24 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

Now, you believe that you have no access to the "metaphysical" and also believe that no one has thus far demonstrated access.

It is not that i believe. I do not and no one has.

25 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I should point out as well, and this is extremely important, if people access realms which are not physical and purely subjective then how would it be possible to provide physical "proof?"

 by that measure anything  you claim is true, 

[Tippaporn]

Heavy duty skeptics are an interesting breed.  Skepticism is indeed an extremely practical and valued attribute.  If not for skepticism we would be open to believe literally everything.  But, like many good things, it can be overdone and result in being a bad thing.

 

Not long ago I came a cross a forum hosted by The Skeptics Society.  Some chick had opened up a thread entitled, "Seth," and just started cut and pasting material from the books with no commentary.  Post after post after post.  I was highly amused, and that's a huge understatement.  It was like she was dropping bombs all over the place and the resulting fireworks were awesome.  Some of the best I'd ever seen.

 

I mean, just imagine, it's bad enough to talk to "regular" people about Seth but, my GAWD!!, to unload Seth into a nest of hard core skeptics?  A forum of people who takes great pride in debunking bullsh!t theories and pagan beliefs by ripping the posters mercilessly.  That takes HUGE balls, and yet this was a chick!  There was no doubt in my mind about what would transpire.  Skeptics have long ago made up their minds about "metaphysics" and had no stomach for this short of bullsh!t.

 

Now for me the obvious irony of the skeptics' responses was that they out and out repudiated all of the material completely out-of-hand, and wasted no time in doing so.  Comments such as "This is all nonsense" and "This makes no sense" and "I can't understand any of this bullsh!t" were repeated ad nauseum.  And, as to be expected from many people, whether hard core skeptics or regular Joe's, if you can't legitimately argue the material then attack and discredit the source.  "Jane was a drunk," was one such attempt (which, BTW, had no substance in actual reality . . . not that it mattered to them).

 

Now when this chick finally did get around to posting for herself she would ask specific posters, those who claimed Seth was all bullsh!t, which BTW was all of them, whether they had read Seth they all replied in the negative.  555555555555

 

So what's the point of my post?

 

I've stated before that in order to properly and legitimately argue one view over another one needs to have an intricate and rather thorough knowledge of the subject matter . . . . from both sides.  How can, say Vincent for example (please excuse me for offering you up as an example), or any poster here who is heavily grounded in the tenets of science and . . . shall I say it? . . . therefore limited in their understanding due to science's quite narrow set beliefs possibly argue against another viewpoint without having an extensive understanding that viewpoint?  Well for me it's another DUH!!!

 

So perhaps my point will be well taken here by some?  Or not?  Choices, choices, and never ending choices.  Sometimes I wish that someone would just lay down the rules for me and tell me in no uncertain terms how I am to live my life.  <heavy sarc and a hearty laugh>

[mauGR1]

7 minutes ago, Tippaporn said:

I've stated before that in order to properly and legitimately argue one view over another one needs to have an intricate and rather thorough knowledge of the subject matter . . . . from both sides.  How can, say Vincent for example (please excuse me for offering you up as an example), or any poster here who is heavily grounded in the tenets of science and . . . shall I say it? . . . therefore limited in their understanding due to science's quite narrow set beliefs possibly argue against another viewpoint without having an extensive understanding that viewpoint?  Well for me it's another DUH!!!

Personally i am convinced that "official science" is doing a great job in brainwashing the people ????