define spirituality

You can just feel the luv ooozing like PUSS.

Ok... I'm not usually the type to point out typos or spelling errors..

But I think you mean pus...

What you have there, clearly stands for something else..

Interesting that it's "ooozing" though.:eek:
 
I feel you are.

why? i don't attack you. i don't insult you. i don't call you names. i called you honey the other day. i typically stay on topic pretty well, state my opinion, answer the question, vote in the poll, and i don't say anything to anyone else that i wouldn't say to myself. typically...
 
a question brought up in another thread..

define spirituality.

As Dennett accurately points out in Breaking the Spell, it doesn't really mean anything at all.

It's actual meaning is 'wind', 'breath'. It comes from 'pneuma', which you might recognise from penumonia, (a breath related illness).

John 20: [Jesus] breathed on them and said; "receive the holy spirit".

Yes, it's a load of hot air.
 
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?

The Greek pneu'ma comes from pne'o, meaning to breath or blow. The same for Ru'ach Hebrew. (correct if mistaken)

They also mean wind and vital force in living creatures, angelic creatures.
They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight but having visible effects.

Spiritual is a term which conveys heighten human qualities.
The Bible calls them the Fruitages of the Spirit.

Love
Joy
Peace
Long-suffering
Kindness
Goodness
Faith
Mildness
Self-control

These qualities are called Fruitages of the Spirit because they are invisible qualities that require the practice of expression to be evident. The bible contrast this with Works of the Flesh.


Fornication
Uncleanness
Loose Conduct
Idolatry
Spiritism
Enmities
Strife
Jealousy
Fits of Anger
Contentions
Divisions
Sects
Envies
Drunken Bouts
Reveries


They come to us naturally, without effort. They are the focus of self rather than than the Fruitages of the Spirit which focus on others and God. As it stands it is possible to be spiritual-like without the Faith in God which is the very epitome of 100% trust in that which we cannot see yet having force but it would be but a shadow of true spirituality if one can't truely trust in those spiritual qualities
 
that is informative Saquist..but the challenge here is explaining it without bringing god into it..
 
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.
 
So 'spiritual' refers to that which is invisible to human sight, such as.. bacteria, atoms etc? You're not saying anything here.

Well, neither are you snake.

You bring up a list of things that indeed are visible - not only as expressions, but as chemical reactions and brain activity.

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.

that is informative Saquist..but the challenge here is explaining it without bringing god into it..


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?
 
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.

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,
 
why? i don't attack you. i don't insult you. i don't call you names. i called you honey the other day.

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. "
 
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,


Which for all intents and purpose is nothing more than a meta-message, to which to be understood is the good humor of the riddler and only the riddler.

This brings us from one philosophy to another. If the action isn't manifested (action) then does it truly exist? (concept)
 
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? :confused:

disagreeing about something is not the same thing as attacking. and if we disagree then would you not be as guilty as i?
 
because we disagree?

disagreeing about something is not the same thing as attacking.

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.


and if we disagree then would you not be as guilty as i?

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 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?

i have always thought of it as a religious thing also..

i think the description earlier as:

Spirituality is not bound by any rules. It does not follow any religion and neither does it adhere to any set of principles. Spirituality is the art and science of self-realization. It's a practice of knowing each part of your body. Being spiritual means awakening the very spirit of being who you are. It's means to recognize what you are made of. It can seem complex in the beginning. However, all of us are spiritual beings, it is just a matter of realizing it. Spirituality is a walk towards the ultimate goal of your life. In essence, it's your journey to find yourself. There are many schools of thought that believe in uniting with the pure mental and physical being by meditating. Meditation is focusing on breathing, which is the very reason for existence.

is the best yet that i have found..
 
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.
 
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.

holocaust123.jpg



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.
 
holocaust123.jpg



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.
 
holocaust123.jpg



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.

it seems like you only responded to the last part of her post..the first part matters also..
that pic does nothing for respect,love, or value
 
yeah. that's my point.

So you have no issue with militant Anti-Semitism?

You squelch your ego and respect the Nazis, and that is based in love, and valuing freedom across the board?
You believe that Nazis should be free to believe whatever they want?
 
Back
Top