Bah you wally! No man I did not say this at all.
The word spirit what do you mean by it? Where did I even suggest that 'your path' is wrong? I tell you that religoin and spirtuality are not seperate, that is what I have said. I tell you that religion can be seen as a guide for the spirt, and from this you take what? That somehow I am unhappy with my lot and begrudge your yours? I tell you this also I read all sorts about all sorts not to shape anything but to learn. I can like anybody else read an idea and disagree with it, as I have done here. You read these words of mine 'religion and spirt are NOT seperate' are you then guilty of 'reaching my destination' merely because you have read them? Let me make myself clearer, in case that is the problem here. Whatever path you walk, whatever realm of knowledge you are seeking, is it better to seek advise from those who have walked the same path before, or does it make more sense to try out things for yourself, make the same mistakes that others have already made, and eventualy (and not at all garrenteed) arrive at the same answers to these problems that others have arrived at long before you where a gleam in the eyes of your father? I tell you if you answer the latter here, I will grill you about what you think therefore of education and schools. I compared nowt my friend, I made metophores, I created anology. Or do you tell me that one can not learn about spirtulaity, that is just somehow comes to one? On 19 Aug, 13:44, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > Spirit is not an idea. It is a joyful experience that gives one > goosebumps. You don't dream up spirit. You bathe in it. Yes, I MUCH > prefer to "blunder around" on my own spiritual path, as I did not > experience anything spiritual from my religious "guidance". The path > you choose to take is right for you. Calling my path wrong seems to > indicate that you have not had much success in the path that you have > chosen. Why? Because if you had reached your perfect place, you would > be happy that I am happy with the "path" I have forged (not taken), no > matter how I got there. > > If you read the books of others to shape your philosophy, you may > think you are taking the short cut to your intended destination, but > you have reached someone elses destination, not your own. That is the > problem with many people, they want things with the least amount of > work. They want to eat the meal, but not grow the ingredients used to > prepare it. > > To compare gaining knowledge in engineering with learning spirit is > the same as comparing religion with spirit. One has everything to do > with human physical life, the other, nothing. > > On Aug 19, 8:29 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > No no no no my freind I disagree. I can see why you say this, yes > > indeed you have already confessed to that part of your upbringing, but > > it is not really true. > > > If religoin is man made then so is spirit. Both of them being labels > > we attach to certian ideas, now the idea of spirt cannot exist without > > somebody to dream it up, nor can the idea of religoin, so in that > > sense all ideas than mankind has are man-made. > > > From your words below I can see that you have done exaclty as I have > > said you have, you see the word religon,and think only dogma and > > attach negativity to that word. It's this simple, religoin is a road > > map for spirtual people. Yes of course you can claim to be religous, > > but if you are not then you are hypocritical, just like you can claim > > to be spirtual but the same applys. > > > You can of course choose not to read books on any subject you like, > > but that is really taking the long way around. > > > Would you decide to become an engineer without any study except the > > formulation of your own way of doing things? Yes of course it is > > possible, you may well eventualy come up with the idea of pi and how > > to use it all on your own, but how much better if you picked up a book > > entitled 'The principles of engineering'. > > > The same then is true for what you call spirtuality. You can choose > > to blunder around on your own and you may well hit upon the truth, in > > the end, how much better though that you have some guidance, relgion > > is such guidance. > > > On 19 Aug, 13:16, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Religion is man made, spirit is not. The two are an eternity apart > > > imo. Religion is based around words in a book, written by humans. One > > > can read about love in a book, but never experience the emotion of > > > such. Similarly, one can read every book on religion ever written, and > > > not feel the bliss of spiritual joy. I am not saying that NO religious > > > people are spiritual. What I am saying, is that they do not go hand-in- > > > hand. There are/have been many men in religious positions, or who > > > claimed to be religious, who were in fact, very evil. Are pedeophile > > > priests spiritual? I think not. > > > > In regards to your statement about philosophy. Should we presume that > > > the first book of philosophy is irrelevant because the author did not > > > read any other books on the subject. You may take any path you want to > > > develop your philosophical stance, I preferred to let my conscious be > > > my guide and I have not read one book on philosophy and never intend > > > to. Does that mean that I cannot be philosophical? Philosophy means > > > "love of wisdom". Can one teach wisdom? Maybe. I preferred to develop > > > my own philosophy and, if this is not cool with some, hey, they can > > > always sue me ;-] > > > > On Aug 19, 7:42 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > I really don't get this. I mean this insitance that religoin and > > > > spirtuality are somehow differant? > > > > > The religious man is a spirtual man, religion is nowt more than > > > > clarifyied spirtuality, it means there is no need to blunder around on > > > > your own, it means that the questions you have have already been > > > > answerd. Claiming to be spiritual but not religious is akin to trying > > > > to learn philosphy by your self without reading what past philospohers > > > > have wrote. > > > > > What exactly is the differance between a religous scientist and a > > > > spirtual scientist then? Can you show me a religous man that is not > > > > spirtual? > > > > > Bah sementic gameplay because some hear or read the word religion and > > > > think only of dogmatism and negativity, if you ask me. > > > > > On 18 Aug, 12:02, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > IMO, science and religion can never get along because religion is a > > > > > man-made belief system that is not based on anything other than a > > > > > bunch of stories that have been translated a hundred times over. Many > > > > > of the "miracles" in the Bible have already been debunked, and > > > > > religions are really just preachings about a code of ethics combined > > > > > with some trivial "historical" events. > > > > > > Proving religion is impossible because it is a fictional story with > > > > > some factual stuff thrown in for good measure. "God" and religion > > > > > should not be talked about in the same sentence as they separate > > > > > issues. A religious scientist seems like an oxymoron. Now a spiritual > > > > > scientist, thats another story! > > > > > > On Aug 17, 9:49 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Will it ever be possible to meld science and religion? Religion is > > > > > > so > > > > > > unscientific and science is so unreligious. > > > > > > > BETHESDA, Md. — Newly sworn-in National Institutes of Health chief > > > > > > Francis Collins, who founded an institute in May aimed at nurturing > > > > > > the coexistence of science and religion, announced Monday he had > > > > > > resigned from his foundation to focus on his research chief duties. > > > > > > > "I want to reassure everyone I am here to lead the NIH as best I > > > > > > can, > > > > > > as a scientist," Collins said, noting Internet and editorial page > > > > > > concerns about Collins, as an evangelical Christian, leading a > > > > > > science > > > > > > organization. > > > > > > >http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2009-08-17-nih-collins_N.htm?csp=34 > > > > > > > What say ye fish heads?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
