Are we not at eachother's jugular when we talk about "spirituality"?
i'm not. Q and phlog haven't been around here much so...:shrug:
Are we not at eachother's jugular when we talk about "spirituality"?
i'm not.
You can just feel the luv ooozing like PUSS.
I feel you are.
a question brought up in another thread..
define spirituality.
a question brought up in another thread..
define spirituality.
i have always associated this with religion and God, but others have said god is not needed for spirituality, i have heard this enough to accept that it is possible,but not enough to communicate how spirituality can exist without god,
so my question is define spirituality in a way that does not include God or religion..
or
how does one achieve spirituality without god?
They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight but having visible effects
So 'spiritual' refers to that which is invisible to human sight, such as.. bacteria, atoms etc? You're not saying anything here.
You bring up a list of things that indeed are visible - not only as expressions, but as chemical reactions and brain activity.
that is informative Saquist..but the challenge here is explaining it without bringing god into it..
Last time I checked, emotion is defined as a state of mind. That is an intangible no matter how literal your eyes desires it to be otherwise.
why? i don't attack you. i don't insult you. i don't call you names. i called you honey the other day.
The latter does not follow from the former. Yes, we decribe emotional concepts which are fully correlated by brain actions, (referred to as objects). When, for instance, you get angry, (concept), we can see the action, (referred to as 'object'), in progress through eeg's etc.
Some of those that have a problem distinguishing between the object and the concept, will confuse one for the other.
As an example: I am standing in front of you. I say "hello!". I later show you a printout that only contains wavy lines. You, being unable to distinguish between the concept and the actual object, tell me that this is just a picture of wavy lines, it is not the word "hello". You, seemingly, expect to see the word hello as we would type it wafting through the air once it leaves my mouth. If it ain't in Times New Roman, you can't see "hello".
The fact is that you can see "hello" but in the sense of object, not concept.
So when I say "hello!", you do not see "hello!" wafting into the atmosphere in Arial bold or Helviticus, you simply see a printed graph with wavy lines. The word 'hello' is that wavy line, you are simply stuck on concept as opposed to object.
Regards,
Of course you do, on all counts.
I yet have to witness a conversation that would be "a peaceful, loving, communal state of being; one that transcends materialism and the physical, and all of the garbage that's associated with it. "
because we disagree?
disagreeing about something is not the same thing as attacking.
and if we disagree then would you not be as guilty as i?
It's a little difficult.
Like I said...it is possible but going back to what these words really mean ,and to the best of my knowledge, the idea that truly spawned the most common understanding of the word would imply it is a religious concept.
What do you think?
It is.
The only difference between a person disagreeing with some "spiritual claim" and another person killing another is that of degree; but they both disagree.
Sure.
My point is that "a peaceful, loving, communal state of being; one that transcends materialism and the physical, and all of the garbage that's associated with it" would have to lack any and all disagreement or conflict.
You are welcome to make the case how disagreement and conflict fit into a "a peaceful, loving, communal state of being; one that transcends materialism and the physical, and all of the garbage that's associated with it" !
it's simple. it all comes down to squelching your ego and respecting another, and that is based in love, and valuing freedom across the board. fear, insecurity, and hatred are what turn a disagreement into an attack. people should be free to believe whatever they want to believe without being threatened or threatening.
If you felt as much as the slightest twinge of discomfort upon seeing this image, remember your own words:
it's simple. it all comes down to squelching your ego and respecting another, and that is based in love, and valuing freedom across the board. fear, insecurity, and hatred are what turn a disagreement into an attack. people should be free to believe whatever they want to believe without being threatened or threatening.
If you felt as much as the slightest twinge of discomfort upon seeing this image, remember your own words:
it's simple. it all comes down to squelching your ego and respecting another, and that is based in love, and valuing freedom across the board. fear, insecurity, and hatred are what turn a disagreement into an attack. people should be free to believe whatever they want to believe without being threatened or threatening.
yeah. that's my point.