Spirituality
09 Nov 15
27 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeDeflection and evasion.
I am not afraid. And have indeed answered that question many times before.
Which is why you know the answer.
I thus find it much more interesting to ask why you repeatedly ask me the same question
when you already know the answer, than to simply repost what you evidently ignored the
previous times.
Here is a question for you.
Why should I ...[text shortened]... other answering questions from a person who demonstrates that they don't
listen to the answer?
It doesn't really speak well for your position that you won't stand up for it.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Nov 15
Originally posted by SuzianneI'm sorry, you're accusing ME of not speaking my mind, or standing up for my position?
Deflection and evasion.
It doesn't really speak well for your position that you won't stand up for it.
What alternate universe are you living in? [I'm sure there are many here who would like to join you in it]
I have answered your question, in various forms, including from you, many times.
You apparently didn't listen then, why should I expect you to listen now?
Couple that with the fact that it's a stupid question, and mocking you becomes more worthwhile.
You don't have to be a scientist to discuss science, a lawyer to discuss law, a philosopher to discuss philosophy,
a poet to discuss poetry, a dreamer to discuss dreaming, a theist to discuss theism, or spiritual to discuss spirituality.
I believe you are [although I'm starting to have doubts] smart enough to understand this self evident fact.
So why do you ask me [stupid] questions to which you already know the answer.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
27 Nov 15
1 edit
Originally posted by moonbusSatanism is a religion and part of 'spirituality'.
Finding one's place in the scheme of things and relating to others are not fundamentally opposed.
One who has attained a high level of spiritual mastery comes to see various things as intrinsically pertaining to the spiritual vocation, not as effects and not as requirements laid upon him externally. Among these are:
a) the recognition that humanity is ...[text shortened]... owards other existential seekers.
I agree that a religion of permanent retreat is incomplete.
Where does it fit in your definition?
EDIT: rinse repeat for every other crazy religion I will point out... just so you know.
[they are all crazy, there are no sane ones, just in-case anyone thinks I'm suggesting
the less popular religions are crazier than the mainstream ones.]
27 Nov 15
Originally posted by vistesd(it 's been a while)
Clear light spills through a prism
to display an array of hues—
Then people go to war
over which is the only true color…
https://www.redhotpawn.com/forum/spirituality/god.146154/page-6
Yes, because there is no purpose in the nature of the Clear Light although purpose is clear when one follows any hue of its array (going thus to war)
Be well, my vistesd -this ole cow missed you;
Namaste😵
27 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtJust a word
This question has erupted in my mind due to a couple of other threads. I cannot answer it for myself, so tell me, what does it mean to have a spiritual life or to describe oneself as spiritual? What is spirituality?
(to describe the illumination of the mind)
😵
27 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbusFinding one's place in the scheme of things and relating to others are not fundamentally opposed.
Finding one's place in the scheme of things and relating to others are not fundamentally opposed.
One who has attained a high level of spiritual mastery comes to see various things as intrinsically pertaining to the spiritual vocation, not as effects and not as requirements laid upon him externally. Among these are:
a) the recognition that humanity is ...[text shortened]... owards other existential seekers.
I agree that a religion of permanent retreat is incomplete.
I didn't think I'd claimed that they were. Although I still feel that the starting place should be egotistical, the end should transcend that.
People report having quite intense spiritual experiences. I'm wondering how one can integrate that into an account of spirituality where the faculty is evolved rather than the result of divine intervention.
27 Nov 15
2 edits
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI did not mean to imply that you thought they were opposed. I merely wished to try to bring two apparently divergent lines of thought together.
[b]Finding one's place in the scheme of things and relating to others are not fundamentally opposed.
I didn't think I'd claimed that they were. Although I still feel that the starting place should be egotistical, the end should transcend that.
People report having quite intense spiritual experiences. I'm wondering how one can integrate that i ...[text shortened]... ount of spirituality where the faculty is evolved rather than the result of divine intervention.[/b]
(Gad, two edits ... I must be typing cross-eyed tonight.)
27 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, there are some wacko religions and pseudo-religions, such as Wicca and Scientology, but it would be a mistake to conclude from the 'lunatic fringe' that religion as such, across the board, is insane. Otherwise one could just as well point out that there is a lot of wacko science and pseudo-science (such as phrenology and aroma therapy) and conclude that all science is suspect.
Satanism is a religion and part of 'spirituality'.
Where does it fit in your definition?
EDIT: rinse repeat for every other crazy religion I will point out... just so you know.
[they are all crazy, there are no sane ones, just in-case anyone thinks I'm suggesting
the less popular religions are crazier than the mainstream ones.]
You evidently think that spirituality and religion are humbug. So what is your take on my first post to this thread, that the facts are not the end of the matter? If you think that the facts are the end of the matter, then what are doing here (in this thread, I mean)? Do you honestly think there is nothing whatever to discuss beyond empirically verifiable facts?
Originally posted by black beetleI bow (and thank you for that)—
Get your own unmistakably clear kensho and then discard it on the spot
Though, in the spirit of old-time mondo:
Nothing to get,
there is nothing “there”;
just get out of the way—
what always was
without a place
to call its own:
no holiness,
vast emptiness
just shining forth!
Hope you are well, old friend.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by moonbus
Yes, there are some wacko religions and pseudo-religions, such as Wicca and Scientology, but it would be a mistake to conclude from the 'lunatic fringe' that religion as such, across the board, is insane. Otherwise one could just as well point out that there is a lot of wacko science and pseudo-science (such as phrenology and aroma therapy) and conclude that ...[text shortened]... Do you honestly think there is nothing whatever to discuss beyond empirically verifiable facts?
Yes, there are some wacko religions and pseudo-religions, such as Wicca and Scientology, but it would be a mistake to conclude from the 'lunatic fringe' that religion as such, across the board, is insane. Otherwise one could just as well point out that there is a lot of wacko science and pseudo-science (such as phrenology and aroma therapy) and conclude that all science is suspect.
I am not extrapolating from any 'lunatic fringe' to all religion. I am looking at all religion and concluding
that it's all crazy, which is not the same thing. Not that was the point of my post, I was just clarifying
that I wasn't saying that these less mainstream religions were crazy and that the mainstream ones were
not.
And your analogy to extrapolating from pseudo-science to science is flawed.
Because while Wicca and Scientology and Satanism etc ARE religions, pseudo-science is by definition not science.
An equivalent analogy would be to extrapolate from something that wasn't a religion to religions in general.
Of course as I did nothing of the sort, that wouldn't be particularly helpful.
You evidently think that spirituality and religion are humbug.
Well I certainly think that religion is [as you put it] humbug.
I would probably only say that most of what people call spirituality is 'humbug', as opposed to all.
Depending on how you end up defining spirituality.
So what is your take on my first post to this thread, that the facts are not the end of the matter?
My take is that it's not a particularly helpful statement. Philosophy is often about dealing with meaning and experience
outside of mere facts. Politics often seems to be a fact free zone. The Harry Potter books are likewise not a lot
to do with facts... None of these have much [if anything] to do with spirituality.
If you think that the facts are the end of the matter, then what are doing here (in this thread, I mean)?
I am not even sure what you mean by "If you think that the facts are the end of the matter, ..." what matter?
You haven't defined what you are talking about yet... So how can you/I know if 'facts are the end of the matter' or
not. Or what that would even mean.
Do you honestly think there is nothing whatever to discuss beyond empirically verifiable facts?
No. And I don't know how anyone could come to believe I hold such an absurd position from my posts.
You seem to be implying that EVERYTHING that doesn't relate to "empirically verifiable facts" is spirituality,
in which case I reject your definition of spirituality as being neither a good approximation of what most people
are describing in using the term, or for being in any way shape or form useful.
I don't think you actually mean that, but that's what you just said looks like to me.
My point however, was that what you are arguing for as a definition for spirituality [requirements thereof] seem to
be ruling out certain religious beliefs that would normally and should be included. A point that others have made
in different terms.
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeMany of us have been saying that macroevolution is not science either. However, you still cling to your religious belief. 😏
[quote]Yes, there are some wacko religions and pseudo-religions, such as Wicca and Scientology, but it would be a mistake to conclude from the 'lunatic fringe' that religion as such, across the board, is insane. Otherwise one could just as well point out that there is a lot of wacko science and pseudo-science (such as phrenology and aroma therapy) and co ...[text shortened]... that would normally and should be included. A point that others have made
in different terms.
28 Nov 15
gf: "You seem to be implying that EVERYTHING that doesn't relate to "empirically verifiable facts" is spirituality, in which case I reject your definition of spirituality as being neither a good approximation of what most people are describing in using the term, or for being in any way shape or form useful.
I don't think you actually mean that, but that's what you just said looks like to me. "
I am not claiming that everything which is not reducible to empirically facts is spirituality. I am trying to delimit the scope of the discussion to manageable proportions and to find out what you think there is beyond empirically verifiable fact.
So, let me ask you: do you think there is any persistent, objective, cultural value in things such as music, theater, opera, literature, dance, graphic arts, poetry, and so on, or do you think these things merely trigger transient and subjective pleasure in spectators (possibly, but not necessarily, by mechanisms which could in principle be explained entirely in scientific terms, something along the lines of releasing endorphins in the brain) and nothing beyond that?
28 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeDo you think that there is such a thing as metaphysics?
[quote]Yes, there are some wacko religions and pseudo-religions, such as Wicca and Scientology, but it would be a mistake to conclude from the 'lunatic fringe' that religion as such, across the board, is insane. Otherwise one could just as well point out that there is a lot of wacko science and pseudo-science (such as phrenology and aroma therapy) and co ...[text shortened]... that would normally and should be included. A point that others have made
in different terms.