Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Would you read it? Would you understand it? Neither from what I have seen.
My interpretation of faith and how I direct and apply it is markedly different than much of what see here. It seems others are directing theirs to styles of interpretation rather than a deity or positive messages attributed to that deity. I was not raised to view Christianity as a doomsday cult where I sit waiting for the end while flaunting my assumed spiritual superiority in the face of others.
I agree. They lack an ability to understand different perspectives. Or that there can be and are different perspectives that are often more complex than simpled assured perspective that provides easy answers they want to hear. Math is hard.
Dang straight. Loves me some silly answers I do not have to think much about.
You too. Awesome. Inexplicable flash freezing following a global flood makes perfect sense. Especially when it is an explanation full of holes and when you dig deeper, has no supporting evidence except that somebody found a rotten mammoth carcass frozen where it gets really cold.That may be why I am so eager to believe
in flash frozen mammoths littering the
tundra as result of Noah's flood.
I have taken advantage of some of those that are freely available to review and update courses I took years ago, as well as some that were in eras new to me. Academic Earth is great source for courses taught at major universities. AcademicEarth.org - Free Online Courses From Top CollegesStudy much and talk less.
It really is astonishing the available learning tools on the Internet. Even MIT has open course ware online!
Yeah. What do Grace Hopper, Barbara McClintock, Rosaland Franklin, Lynn Margulis, Marie Currie, or Mary Schweitzer know about science anyway. Women.
IMHO, that also takes a lot of education. Not necessarily of the college type, but education is a must.
This would result in 'spirituality' being defined by the possession of those dozen qualities, which I think is arbitrary and baseless as a claim.
It appears to me that anyone who articulates and/or defends what we have already chosen to believe spiritually, we will consider to be an "educated" spiritualist. In other words, confirmation bias is the most prevalent criteria being applied by most people.
As someone who experiences those qualities, they are not "baseless". These are things that researchers can observe and map out across a spectrum of individuals. There is quite a lot of existing data and research that can be investigated. What is baseless, is to just dismiss it because you think that it just can't be real, despite the existing data.
These are qualities of lived experience, and you have a list of the types of categories already here, for one. And the "testing" is really as simple as this. "Does the subject exhibit any of these qualities, and to what degree?" The answer to your request has already been fulfilled.
Saying what research is being done is "baseless", has no intellectual place to stand.
Likewise. I enjoy our occasional encounters like this.
In my own personal experience, it takes an education in a Yeshiva to gain a moderate fluency in Talmud. I for example, am not considered educated in Judaism. Not that I've never opened a Talmud. But when I was Orthodox it was discouraged, and at my present synagogue they simply don't have classes. As a woman, my "educational emphasis" was more around how to create a kosher and hospitable home. I don't mind that at all. Judaism is a religion of orthopraxy (right action) and THAT is what I have learned. It doesn't do a lot of good to be able to parse the Talmud if you don't know how to be shomer Shabbat or keep kosher. Anyone want to come over for Shabbat Table?