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.