"You are suggesting that it is good to read the words of others to develop ones own philosophy, and that one finds spirituality through religion. I am stating that I have not, and will not, do this."
I would ask, if you are so resolute within yourself, why are you in this group? On Aug 19, 9:25 am, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > You are suggesting that it is good to read the words of others to > develop ones own philosophy, and that one finds spirituality through > religion. I am stating that I have not, and will not, do this. You are > welcome to say that religion and spirituality are not separate. I do > not share this view whatsoever. But to each their own ;-] > > I am not seeking knowledge. In my world, a perfect existance is > emotional serenity bolstered by a bright spiritual core. If you wish > to search for knowledge by asking the advice of others, I wish you > well. There is no problem, I just do like to follow a "path" created > by others. In fact, I am not much into paths at all. Many paths have > tributaries, and if one stays on the straight and narrow, they may > miss a lot on their way to "nirvana", or whatever it is they are > looking for. > > From my experience, the path to spiritual awareness is internal. One > may read about on how to initiate meditation, but once in that state, > the words of others have no relevance. The development of ones own > ethics, or philosophy, is also a personal thing to me, so to answer > your question, yes, I would much prefer to cut my own weeds than slide > down the nicely groomed path that others have forged. > > On Aug 19, 9:01 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > 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 > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
