Ahhh forgive me my freind, I got exasperated at my perception of your willingess, or unableness to grasp the point that I have been trying to make.
Objective truth, well it can't be mine now can it, there can only ever be one objective truth that fits everybody surley, otherwise it would be subjective huh. So bearing that in mind, my stance is obvously that Religion and Spirtuality are not seperate, I have expliend why I see it so. Go on be my guest and rationalise your own stance for me. No of course you are not being unreasonble for doing things your own way, but you see the very reason why I enclosed the word 'Unreasonable' is because you have addmitted to us that you prefer to reach your conclusions not in a reasonable way, that is using reason, and logic, but by forging your own path. I can only hope you take this way not in all aspects of your life but merely the spirtual? To clarify then, if a person uses intuition instead of intelect to guide himself then bythe very defintion of the word he is being 'unreasonable'. On 19 Aug, 16:27, deripsni <[email protected]> wrote: > Do you mean your objective truth? I don't think you are wrong by > associating spirituality with religion. That works for you. I just > don't agree that they are part and parcel of the same cloth. If my > experiences or conclusions are not correct, so be it. No big deal. I > am not trying to compare my experiences with yours, or state that you > are wrong and I am right. > > Those who choose to advance themselves do so in a way that they > determine is best. Mine is introspection, idle contemplation and the > rigourous polishing of spirit. If yours is reflecting off the words of > others, great! I am certainly not trying to suggest that you quit > reading or asking advice. Originally, some did not have this option > and came to conclusions on their own. This is how I prefer to do it. > If some think that means that I shouldn't come here, cool. Everybody > is entitled to their opinion. Am I being unreasonable by doing things > my way? > > On Aug 19, 9:48 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Meh you still do not get it at all. I have only said that religon is > > not seperate to spirtuality, everthing else has been an attempt to > > show you why this is the case. Here though you have admited to not > > being interested in objective truth only what your own subjective > > experiances tell you is correct. You sir truely then deserve the > > label 'unreasonable'. > > > On 19 Aug, 14:25, 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 > > ... > > read more »- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
