Glow BULL WAR ming

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

You have it totally backwards.

Second, if God created us, He gave us both thoughts and feelings.

If you prefer to live your life totally in your emotions, go for it. I thought you were Mr. Balance, what with yin and yang and all that crap.

Emotions are "egoic" as you would say. They are all about MEEEEEEEEEE!
Thoughts are "nonegoic," because they result in one understanding right from wrong, and enable people to do the right things even if they don't FEEL like doing them.

But what did God give us first? He gave us feelings first, and warned us of the dangers of knowledge. When man decided to put thoughts BEFORE feelings, he ate of the apple and suffering ensued. It's quite an easy metaphor to understand if you aren't reading it through clouded spectacles.

Whether you seek to realize it or not, your thoughts are guided by your emotions. This is not about living through emotion, but in living through feeling. Feeling and emotion are two different parts of the whole that come from two different places. Emotions are truly egoic, but not because they are all about "MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE", but because they come from the ego. Thoughts are egoic as well because they are based on the "MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"'s version of what is right and wrong (to be judged by the "meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"'s of others).

So, tell me, are you Christian because you THINK you are right or because you FEEL it is right?

If you don't "feel" that something is the right thing to do, then doing it makes it wrong. There can be nothing simpler.

[Pineygirl]

Originally Posted by Arius

But what did God give us first? He gave us feelings first, and warned us of the dangers of knowledge.

First of all, I didn't think you believed those stories.

Second, the danger was of the "knowledge of good and evil," not plain old knowledge.

Whether you seek to realize it or not, your thoughts are guided by your emotions.

Nope. The other way around. Otherwise, I would not be able to love unlovable people, would I? I would not be able to persevere at an activity that was necessary but no fun at all.

I would not be able to refrain from violence when it was either warranted or unwarranted.

Emotions are guided by thoughts -- which is why so many people are able to overcome their neuroses or addictions. They learn to THINK differently, and soon they find they FEEL and ACT differently.

This is not about living through emotion, but in living through feeling. Feeling and emotion are two different parts of the whole that come from two different places. Emotions are truly egoic, but not because they are all about "MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE", but because they come from the ego.

Ommmmmmmmmmm.....

Thoughts are egoic as well because they are based on the "MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE"'s version of what is right and wrong (to be judged by the "meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee"'s of others).

Thoughts allow us to rise above our basic emotions and feelings to do marvelous things.

So, tell me, are you Christian because you THINK you are right or because you FEEL it is right?

Both. In balance.

If you don't "feel" that something is the right thing to do, then doing it makes it wrong. There can be nothing simpler.

Then you don't read your Bible, do you?

Jesus told a parable of the two sons. He asked one to go work in the field, and sonny-boy said "sure, Dad!" But he never showed up.

The father asked the second son to work in the field and he said "no way, Jose. I'm too busy." But he showed up anyway and did the work.

Jesus asked, "which one did the will of his father?"

The one who didn't FEEL like doing it, but THOUGHT about it and did it anyway, because contrary to what he FELT he KNEW it was the right thing to do.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

First of all, I didn't think you believed those stories.

Second, the danger was of the "knowledge of good and evil," not plain old knowledge.

Actually...many believe that the "knowledge of good and evil" is a mistranslation and that a much better translation is the "tree of the knowledge of opposites" or the "tree of knowledge, both good and evil". Again, God's word has many translations so it appears that God didn't do a very good job of putting the word in a way that could mean the same thing to many different people.

Many believe the "knowledge of good and evil" to be what is called a "merism".

Therefore, it would be knowledge of all things, not just of two specific things. Besides, all things are either "good" or "bad", right?

And I was talking to a believer of the story, so therefore I was using a story you not only "know" but believe.

Nope. The other way around. Otherwise, I would not be able to love unlovable people, would I? I would not be able to persevere at an activity that was necessary but no fun at all.

I would not be able to refrain from violence when it was either warranted or unwarranted.

Emotions are guided by thoughts -- which is why so many people are able to overcome their neuroses or addictions. They learn to THINK differently, and soon they find they FEEL and ACT differently.

If your thoughts were not guided by your emotions, there would not be any "unlovable" people. You would not need to "perservere". You would not need violence, let alone refrain from its use. Rather, your emotions feed off of your thoughts AND vice versa because they are ONE IN THE SAME in the egoic state we live in.

Both come from the same place. What you are trying to do is like saying light doesn't come from heat or heat doesn't come from light without realizing they are BOTH coming from the same source: the fire.

And neither is the feeling I am speaking of. Until we learn the difference the world will continue to relive the mistakes of history over and over again. Feeling is not emotion or thought...it is not the fire, but something very different. Perhaps it is like the tree that dropped the branch that gave you the kindling to start the fire.

Ommmmmmmmmmm.....

Or "Amen", whichever works.

Thoughts allow us to rise above our basic emotions and feelings to do marvelous things.

Thoughts allows us what? Wow...amazing.

Both. In balance.

In balance with what?

Then you don't read your Bible, do you?

Jesus told a parable of the two sons. He asked one to go work in the field, and sonny-boy said "sure, Dad!" But he never showed up.

The father asked the second son to work in the field and he said "no way, Jose. I'm too busy." But he showed up anyway and did the work.

Jesus asked, "which one did the will of his father?"

The one who didn't FEEL like doing it, but THOUGHT about it and did it anyway, because contrary to what he FELT he KNEW it was the right thing to do.

Or perhaps you only read the things that make you right. So tell me, which son are you?

Ephesians 4:17-19 (New International Version)

Living as Children of Light
17So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. 18They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. 19Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.

Such is the folly of thinking Piney. Again, truth can be found in the unity of inspiration:

“All that we are is the result of what we have thought. The mind is everything. What we think we become.”- Buddha.

[blockerhead]

Can't you 2 use the proper forum? sheesh...

Back on Topic:

Climate Emails Stoke Debate - WSJ.com

FYI: John Christy, mentioned in this article as a target, was one of the scientists interviewed in the Great Global Warming Swindle....

"John Christy, a scientist at the University of Alabama at Huntsville attacked in the emails for asking that an IPCC report include dissenting viewpoints, said, "It's disconcerting to realize that legislative actions this nation is preparing to take, and which will cost trillions of dollars, are based upon a view of climate that has not been completely scientifically tested.""

[Pineygirl]

It seems as if we're getting used to having dissent be discouraged, banned, or shut down completely.

I'm not saying that those on the right are innocent; however, for decades it has been my experience that shutting out those who disagree come from the left. From Bob Casey being denied a speaking role at the Democratic Convention to Columbia University students shouting down conservative speakers, to the Obama administration redefining what a "real news" station is, to the climate change propaganda, it has all come from the left.

It's how Pravda worked. It's how China works (they refused to broadcast an Obama "town meeting" or permit questions).

I'm beginning to believe that we will accept anything as long as it "feels good" (which is why the apparent off-target posts were relevant) or is convenient. Like that chip, which will make medical records, grocery shopping, etc., more convenient. Or like repeating convenient talking points, like "we need to reduce our CO2 footprint." Makes us sound all intellectual and furthers their goals at the same time.

[blockerhead]

Except for pre-emptive warfare and the murder of civilians, that came from the right.

[Arius]

Originally Posted by Pineygirl

It seems as if we're getting used to having dissent be discouraged, banned, or shut down completely.

Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

Or the Vietnam protestors at Ohio State.

Or Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Or gay marriage proponents.

Or Ted Haggart.

I'm not saying that those on the right are innocent; however, for decades it has been my experience that shutting out those who disagree come from the left.

Just ask Cindy Sheehan.

Or the Vietnam protestors at Ohio State.

Or Senator Joseph McCarthy.

Or gay marriage proponents.

Or Ted Haggart.

It's how Pravda worked. It's how China works (they refused to broadcast an Obama "town meeting" or permit questions).

When was the last time any President fielded questions in a way that was not censored or controlled? We can't even say the word "shit" on TV for pete's sake.

I'm beginning to believe that we go for anything that "feels good" (which is why the apparent off-target posts were relevant) or is convenient.

No...we go for anything we "think" will feel good because we are so out of tune with ourselves that we don't KNOW what feeling good feels like. So, we turn to outside sources like the Bible for rules on what is good, since we don't really know ourselves.

[blockerhead]

Gee, after only 10 minutes of reading!
(The "file" is available for download, and the origin of it's contents have been verified by Reuters, AP, UPI.)

Whoever wants to rummage through it, can download it here:

MEGAUPLOAD - The leading online storage and file delivery service



After 10 minutes, I found this little gem.
_________________________________

From: "Graham F Haughton" <G.F.Haughton@xx> To: "Phil Jones" <p.jones@xx>

Imagine if there were no reliable records of global surface temperature. Raucous policy debates such as cap-and-trade would have no scientific basis, Al Gore would at this point be little more than a historical footnote, and President Obama would not be spending this U.N. session talking up a (likely unattainable) international climate deal in Copenhagen in December. Steel yourself for the new reality, because the data needed to verify the gloom-and-doom warming forecasts have disappeared.

Now begins the fun. Warwick Hughes, an Australian scientist, wondered where that "+/-" came from, so he politely wrote Phil Jones in early 2005, asking for the original data. Jones's response to a fellow scientist attempting to replicate his work was, "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it?"

Reread that statement, for it is breathtaking in its anti-scientific thrust. In fact, the entire purpose of replication is to "try and find something wrong." The ultimate objective of science is to do things so well that, indeed, nothing is wrong.

Then the story changed. In June 2009, Georgia Tech's Peter Webster told Canadian researcher Stephen McIntyre that he had requested raw data, and Jones freely gave it to him. So McIntyre promptly filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the same data. Despite having been invited by the National Academy of Sciences to present his analyses of millennial temperatures, McIntyre was told that he couldn't have the data because he wasn't an "academic." So his colleague Ross McKitrick, an economist at the University of Guelph, asked for the data. He was turned down, too.

Faced with a growing number of such requests, Jones refused them all, saying that there were "confidentiality" agreements regarding the data between CRU and nations that supplied the data. McIntyre's blog readers then requested those agreements, country by country, but only a handful turned out to exist, mainly from Third World countries and written in very vague language.

It's worth noting that McKitrick and I had published papers demonstrating that the quality of land-based records is so poor that the warming trend estimated since 1979 (the first year for which we could compare those records to independent data from satellites) may have been overestimated by 50 percent. Webster, who received the CRU data, published studies linking changes in hurricane patterns to warming (while others have found otherwise). Enter the dog that ate global warming.

[Arius]

So sad such hogwash reduces the real issue, man's behavior, into a witch hunt that will ultimately serve as a feeling that we can continue on our polluting, self-serving ways without worry.

[blockerhead]

If you think taxing CO2 is going to stop pollution, you are not educated enough on the issue. I respect the fact that you lack the education in this area and will leave it there.

When 2 EPA lawyers stick their necks out, and tell you that, you still will not listen.
Cap and Trade taxation will NOT help the planet, and gives power to the greatest polluters.

You make fun of Piney for her religious dogma, you have it too.