Search results

wil, probably circular.

Ah, ACOT, very perceptive. If one understands spirituality one is spiritual (JMHO). I do not know what a rational or empirical knowledge of spiritual would be. I must take time to think on that. So we are kind of "different" sides here. You see the outside (the objective) of spirituality and...

No, not I!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Not I!!!!!!!!

Dookie Markus, you may want to re-evaluate your participation here given what the rest of us expect.

So are most religions, I think!

I do not quite agree. Spinoza and Leibnitz and Whitehead did not define g!d in terms of “our image”. You are free to believe what you want. But these three (let alone the thousands of their followers) pretty much disprove your assertion. It really does not matter what you or the vast...

Do I care about deities? Not really... there is a "driving force" that I call g!d. What is it? I do not really know. I can see it as Wakan Tanka (see Lakota spirituality). Ditto for "yin-yang" of daoism. Ditto for "Mysterium Magnum" of Boheme. Ditto for "The Inner Light" of Fox. Are...

Hmmm, thanks, do you think I do that?

I do not think I focus on the social interaction... but you may be right. I try to adopt a balanced approach... however one that is based on a consistent metaphysics.

As a cockeyed optimist, can you guess? Neither!

Yep, the end of the world tis all around us;)!

I do so love all those references to objective knowledge and subjective understanding... I grok the notion completely (just now). I have met individuals (people and others) who are quite empathetic and can easily put themselves in another's place. That, perhaps, is the closest we mortals can...

What, pray tell is a troll?

Fine for you. There are a lot of us who disagree.

Always feed the weasels, true or false.

Fine, just realize there a a lot of Christians and other theists who do not share that view.

What g!d is and what g!d is not are neither masculine nor feminine.

World War Z