And painful. It is, IMO, not coercive to point that out. YMMV. But it remains true that I do not understand your texts.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Science seeks physical "proof" where Spiritual practice seeks awakening from within.
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
No it is not against a norm to speak of death or diseaseI do not understand you (btw, I do not understand 99.99% of what you write). Is it against the spiritual norm to talk of death or disease?
But those to us are just a part of life as physical beings. We get born into the world we grow up to become old, sickness arises more often when we get older, and we die. it is just a part of life. I think this is why spiritual people do not speak a lot about sickness and death, we have accepted it is the way nature goes in this world.And when we accept pain, sickness, and death we do not get attached to it when it happens. Yes, we feel the agony of sickness, but we know it will soon pass.
The one sickness that is difficult to just accept is the sickness of our mind. example for me was the depression, where I have struggled for more than 20 years with depression. but now when I have solved the puzzle and do not feel depressed anymore. I have accepted that it was something I struggle with in the past.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Why do you use letters in a quote and not words if you are not trying to be coercive?
Sorry. I still do not understand you, despite my best efforts. It may be my inadequacy.
So, I guess, I will better ignore your posts.
Last edited:
No it is not against a norm to speak of death or disease
Well. That is not true of Hinduism. Hinduism's icon of Brahman -- namely Lord Shiva's abode is the cemetery. And as far as I know, the subject is not a taboo in Buddhism either -- Mara -- death and rebirth-- being the significant focus.
Well again. You said that spiritual people do not speak a lot about sickness and death. What then is depression? Is it not a sickness?
Last edited:
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Did I say it is a norm to not to speak about death or sickness?
I think I said it is not much to speak about because it is just a part of life. that does not mean i can not speak about it
Did I say it is a norm to not to speak about death or sickness?
I think I said it is not much to speak about because it is just a part of life. that does not mean i can not speak about it
Haha. I edited my post just before you posted.
exchemist
Veteran Member
This is faulty logic.
If science employs reason, it does not then follow that nothing but science does so.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Now you are adding another layer of muddle to your thinking.
Evidence of a theory in science is something that corroborates the theory.
Its purpose is not to answer metaphysical questions about reality.
I did not say that.
exchemist
Veteran Member
It is certainly what you suggested, rhetorically.
Not at all. You cannot assume. Please read in full what I wrote.
exchemist
Veteran Member
You think I haven't?
You are setting up the following straw man argument: following spiritual teaching can't involve reason, because reason is what science relies on. But nobody sensible would make that argument, as it is obviously faulty logic.
The point you are apparently trying to make, so laboriously, seems to be that following spiritual teaching can involve reason.
So do a lot of human activities carried by people that are not mentally ill.
Hello. No you certainly have not.
You certainly are an angry man and do not read the context. My response was to the following statement of another poster.
science operates through rules and reason and spiritual operates through personal need and imagination.
...
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Science does not exist. It was invented by a human being male thinking and making ideas for his WANT, originally.
To prove that situation, science is only practiced by the living human. Not by a God human or a Satan human or a Jesus human. A man human who invented all quotients for his reasoning.
Now ask yourself a simple question.....why do you count, when Age, by natural attrition is the adding you own as a bio life, self and human existence?
You do not gain the addition, which is quantified rationally as existing and surviving in variations to your owned form.
The adult human says I am the scientist, sperm and an ovary cannot be a scientist. A baby or a toddler or a young child cannot be the scientist, the adult was the scientist first. However in modern times young children seem to exhibit a huge amount of scientific awareness and you would ponder why?
Especially when adult males who claim God to man is an adult. No baby is quoted as being a God man are they?
O Earth, natural. Evolution of the atmosphere, natural.
You standing on Earth inside of its atmosphere, also natural.
First order, self, first order, human, human who applies and gives order, for reasons of self.
O planet, atmosphere, 2 conditions light and dark.
A human who says I exist x 2.
But you do not exist as a light human and a dark human......then you would argue...because Father told me that is the basis of your science presence, the want to argue....for you began science upon a spiritual argument of ignoring spiritual advice to not apply change.
But you did it anyway. Where is the LAW that you quote is change?
If you claim from hot to cold that LAW is evolution and science does not own that law in machines.
Humans healing today are only alive by surviving, were mutated and are evolving.
You then use consciousness, which spiritual humans can claim, listen scientist, these are our stated laws. You are just a human the same as we are...so we impose our spiritual laws upon your life, so listen.
Instead of quoting science laws for invention....and for machine reactions, which belong to the Nature of life on Earth, NATURAL LAWS.....and just because you build a machine beyond self, claim it is your life sacrificed.....the machine is therefore by conditions of thinking, your body. It is what killed you.
For God never owned in NATURAL LAW any machine, which is what you lie about non stop, on the premise that no one can challenge you, due to the percentile of science minds that exist today.
The theme Destroyer warning is a multi population statement.
'>2 Thessalonians 2:3
Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,
gnostic
The Lost One
Proof is something like an equation or formula.
For examples, Einstein's famous mass-energy equivalence:
E = m c^2
That's equation is proof, not evidence.
Newton's universal gravitational equation:
F = G (m1 m2) / r^2
That's also proof, not evidence.
Ohm's Law:
I = V / R
Again, another proof, not evidence.
Equations and formulas are bunch of variables, some numbers; they are something that scientists have formulated, and it is part of formulation of the explanatory models.
Each of these equations can be right or wrong, and they are only valid if the evidence support the proof.
Evidence is carrying out testings in the field, discovering evidence, performing experiments to test a hypothesis, recording observation on video, taking measuring, and so on.
Don't get me wrong, Amanaki, mathematical proof is and can be very useful tools to science that allow scientists to frame their hypothesis in logical ways, but in the real world, maths and mathematical proofs don't always provide the correct solutions in understanding natural phenomena. That is evidence is far more important than proof.
Last edited:
OK, it seems to me that you are setting up a dichotomy here. Science, rules, and reason are on one side. Spirituality, needs, and imagination are on the other.
So, yes, it *looks* like you are claiming that spirituality cannot use reason. if that is not what you meant, then maybe you need to write more clearly.
On the other hand, this dichotomy is interesting. I am *definitely* on the side of reason as a path to truth as opposed to imagination.
gnostic
The Lost One
Of course, there is nothing wrong with imagination where arts and fictional writings are concerned.
Oh, agreed. And let no one deny the value of the arts, literature, music, etc.
Also, imagination is required to advance science. Coming up with *new* ideas is one absolutely crucial step.
Of course, we can come up with new ideas all day. The question is which ones actually work.
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
Everything can be quantified by science even spiritual practices.
What I mean by that is you can look at brain scans and such and see how the various regions of the brain operate.
People who meditate a lot excetera, have will typically show different patterns with say somebody who doesn't.