Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If one has uncertainty and is comfortable in that state, and it is definitely possible and a heathy one, one would be willing to accept doubt. That will lead to an acceptance of others’ beliefs as well instead of condemning them for it.
The atheistic fervor for denying spirituality as anything more than a feeling does NOT arise from being comfortable with uncertainty. It is some kind of sickness.
This is what I see.
Atheistic fervor: Spirituality is nothing more than a feeling.
Spirituality fervor: Spirituality is more than just a feeling.
Okay. Thanks. I read the story, and I like it. I wish we also had the opportunity to visit Lopburi when we were in Thailand. I'll leave you be with your conclusion or suspicion about a past life, just as I'm inclined to leave anyone be with whatever experience they claim and/or interpret as they will. That's a personal thing that hardly warrants getting in between. As always, however, there is plenty room for alternative explanation, though not all alternative explanations necessarily as we prefer to consider objectively.
In my particular situation as described, I haven't been able to figure out the alternative explanations. And I have tried.
Most of your whac-a-mole comments (AKA whac each other) are about doing that and only that. Hard to get past all the whac noise to get a glimmer of connection to the topics "within them."
Occurs to me you've got your "What the heck Mystic is talking about" thread. That's a good place for y'all to whac away I think.
When a poster actually names a thread after himself, I think that says a great deal about where the poster is coming from. It's not about the idea or concept, it's about the poster.
Most of your whac-a-mole comments (AKA whac each other) are about doing that and only that. Hard to get past all the whac noise to get a glimmer of connection to the topics "within them."
Actually, those comments tend to focus on the bogus motives and fraudulent claims Arq makes for his atheist default and his pretense to objectivity and reliance on science.
Quote:
Occurs to me you've got your "What the heck Mystic is talking about" thread. That's a good place for y'all to whac away I think.
Would you be content to be restricted to your Ten Assertions thread???
In my particular situation as described, I haven't been able to figure out the alternative explanations. And I have tried.
I read your story. Interesting one. Since you don't seem emotionally invested in the concept you had a past life, I'll give my 2 cents worth. Please don't take it the wrong way . For me, I wouldn't connect it with a past life that enabled me to know how to get around without a map. The human mind is a wonderful thing , and capable of more than we understand. Look at an autistic. How is it possible to know what day of the week a particular date was or will be for thousands of years in the past or into the future? How does a blind slave learn to play 2 different songs on different pianos simultaneously ( one hand on each) while singing a third different song at the same time? How can a guy take a very short helicopter tour over a massive city and then proceed to draw in exact detail the entire scene of the aerial view and not leave out or get wrong a single building's appearance ? How can a guy read 2 pages of a book simultaneously, one eye reading each page ?
My guess is that somewhere in your preps for a 7 week trip to Thailand, or in an evidently previous trip to Thailand, you saw a map and it stuck, you just didn't realize it. That your mind saw and stored the city layout somehow is a much more plausible cause than a past life.
Maybe some questions don't really need answers, but I wouldn't see the need to fill this question in with a past life answer.
Interestingly enough, Christianity could have gone either way in the beginning. The original churches were split between eastern/Asian ones (Jerusalem,Antioch,Constantinople, Alexandria) and western/Latin ones (Rome) . The Roman view of Christianity and Christ was crime and punishment . Christ took on mankind's punishment , and salvation is gained by accepting this substitutionary punishment, mostly via communion. A very judicial process. Someone has to suffer and pay , either Christ on your behalf , or you yourself . The eastern ones taught a different relationship to Christ. Mankind is sick, and Christ is the healer/medicine . Salvation is gained by letting Christ heal your spiritual sickness. The goal of an eastern Christian is to get spiritually well and then strive for union with God now that you are well. They call it theosis. Christianity though spread west instead of east via the Roman empires, Christianity became the state religion because it offered a way to control the subjects (communion and excommunication) , and the Roman version won the day and the eastern version remained, and largely still remains , hidden in the Middle East and Near East.
Atheistic fervor: Spirituality is nothing more than a feeling.
Spirituality fervor: Spirituality is more than just a feeling.
The loser: feelings.
Rather, the loser is 'spirituality'. 'Feelings' has nothing to lose but its' mystique. Of course it depends on what one means by spirituality. Feelings? Human culture? or a connection with 'something more' of the divine persuasion?
I feel that the latter Sounds persuasive in the way that the theistic claim that awe of nature suffers if we stop believing that God is behind it became popular amongst Users. In fact (I might quote Degrasse Tyson on this) nature gets more and better awe from us if we don't see it as a socking great advertisement for godfaith.
I would suggest that 'feelings' wouldn't be hurt if it got freed from this equivocationable (TM) usage of 'spirituality' as a semantic swindle (which theist apologetics thrives on) where human feelings can be equated with some sorta 'god', which (I have firm convictions about ) is what those with a godfaith to peddle are trying to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
I look at your comment and the comment below that you are addressing and I don't read anything about condemning anyone for anything...
Originally Posted by elyn02
I don't equate being uncertain with wishy-washy. Humans accept many abstract ideas such as god and spirituality. When the idea is made concrete, such as the formation of religion with followers, they garner more support that their idea is truer or truest. For example, the success of Western civilization is often credited to Christianity.
The feeling of uncertainty may arise when a person realizes that the same outcome could have arisen from different sources. So now it is a matter of preference which source to choose from. Some choose to refer to different sources in order to make decisions. This appears to be wishy-washy to those who believe in the concept of having to stand up for something or risk falling for everything.
I don't see fervor, and I don't see any kind of sickness. I see a pretty well written and thoughtful comment all considered. Worth thinking about.
Why all this over-the-top rhetoric in this forum I really don't understand, but I think to be uncertain about anything is quite possible, common and nothing necessarily unhealthy. I think it's also worthwhile to establish certainty when possible. It is certainly important to properly identify what is certain and what is not, though this does seem to be the problem often mentioned by me and others in many if not all these threads.
One of my "Non - Bible" quotes used (2) to be Charlie Brown's' 'stand up for your right to be wishy -washy'. Even before I came here, I had realised that the popular admiration for those convinced of their own rightness no matter what and their contempt for those who were willing to change their mind was one of the big flaws in social behavior (list available on demand).
If Phet. was 'wishy -washy' in that respect that would be a good thing rather than being one of those who are convinced of their own rightness, no matter what evidence you produce. "At least he has the courage of his own convictions" was a popular UK apologetic for political asshats, in particular. You know the type, I'm sure.
But I think Iwash was taking 'agnosticism' (not sure of this or that religious belief) and equivocating it with being wishy -washy, as though it was something contemtible. In other words, the old dirty -tricks of theist apologetics. They have no case, so they have to resort to lies, dirty tricks, whines of martydom (1) and pot -kettle accusations. I have noticed a few of those here I'm sure we all have.
(1) ok, transparency in view of howls of victimhood. Yes, I tried to rein in Mystic and his endless derails and spamming. I was told to stop it and I have. Back to the alternating stuffy ignoring of posts or wrangling that was annoying to all here - including me, even when I was doing it.
(2) still is, but I hadn't used it for a long time.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 02-13-2021 at 03:13 PM..
Rather, the loser is 'spirituality'. 'Feelings' has nothing to lose but its' mystique. Of course it depends on what one means by spirituality. Feelings? Human culture? or a connection with 'something more' of the divine persuasion?
I feel that the latter Sounds persuasive in the way that the theistic claim that awe of nature suffers if we stop believing that God is behind it became popular amongst Users. In fact (I might quote Degrasse Tyson on this) nature gets more and better awe from us if we don't see it as a socking great advertisement for godfaith.
I would suggest that 'feelings' wouldn't be hurt if it got freed from this equivocationable (TM) usage of 'spirituality' as a semantic swindle (which theist apologetics thrives on) where human feelings can be equated with some sorta 'god', which (I have firm convictions about ) is what those with a godfaith to peddle are trying to do.
The awe of nature that spiritualism raises comes from a different place than the Trans place. It is a combination of the simple beauty of nature, but also the recognition of the Self within. If one is immersed in non-dualism/advaita, it adds another layer of awe, which is the connection of the Self and the Cosmic Consciousness which comes to the fore, and over and above all the nature stuff, is Maya which is also this mystical amazing thing.
Now who exactly is getting swindled if the spiritual seekers revels in it and tells you the pretty lamp is not even close to the bigger awe? You? Or are worried about some mythical “victims” you are valiantly fighting for?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
if it got freed from this equivocationable (TM) usage of 'spirituality' as a semantic swindle (which theist apologetics thrives on) where human feelings can be equated with some sorta 'god', which (I have firm convictions about 
) is what those with a godfaith to peddle are trying to do. 
