26 Aug '13 22:07>
Originally posted by Proper KnobI thought OP referred to the original post, which is the first post on the thread subject.
Original Poster.
The Instructor
Originally posted by lemon limeHi there,
I admit my reading is incomplete and sketchy, but I am aware of more than just that one verse in the New Testament. I started by reading the four gospels and couldn't read any more for a few years... I was stunned to discover how some denominations have actually gone to the trouble of doing the opposite of what Jesus was saying. Like "call no man your fat to sort through, about 60 or more years worth of junk up there in my attic.
Originally posted by VelnsGalveston will be pleased now that you have someone else to harass.
Hi there,
What kind of things are you referring to that disgust you so much. And when you say that you "don't want to offend people here, but don't think it can be avoided" who are you thinking you may offend? And for what reasons?
Thanks.
Originally posted by lemon limeSince its inception (long before the Science Forum), the Spirituality Forum has also been the de facto philosophy forum—perhaps partly because there were a number of posters back then discussing and debating topics of religious philosophy (e.g., the philosophical foundations of religion), as distinct from, say, theology or scriptural exegesis or particular religious doctrines; some of those people have been, and are, atheists generally. It has never been the “religion forum” per se, and there are different understandings of “spirituality” (the forum description notwithstanding)—e.g. by Buddhists and Taoists—some of which do not entail theism. We have also discussed alternative understandings of theos, e.g. among the ancient Stoics.
As near as I can tell, the topic (OP) here has to with hijacking a forum that is being swamped and controled by people who naturally oppose the idea of spirituality. To be fair the atheists feel they are being put upon as well, the only difference being they seem to think the science forum is the natural home for atheism. I don't think so, I think if ther osed to define a group that defines itself by what they [b]don't believe?[/b]
Originally posted by VelnsFor years I thought Christianity was very simple and easy to understand. The very first service I walked into (a long time ago, the early 70's) was probably the worst example of a group pretending to be spiritual, and it made me realise what I was up against... someone had told me it was a place that welcomed Christians, so I wanted to hear for myself what they had to say. I felt like a fool who had been suckered in, because the place was actually run by the Moonies.
Hi there,
What kind of things are you referring to that disgust you so much. And when you say that you "don't want to offend people here, but don't think it can be avoided" who are you thinking you may offend? And for what reasons?
Thanks.
Originally posted by vistesdGood answer, but now I'll have to go and look up the word conflated. It's not often I run into a word I haven't see before, but that's a good thing... I'll gladly take almost anything to relieve the bordom of seeing the same tired old answers over and over again.
Since its inception (long before the Science Forum), the Spirituality Forum has also been the de facto philosophy forum—perhaps partly because there were a number of posters back then discussing and debating topics of religious philosophy (e.g., the philosophical foundations of religion), as distinct from, say, theology or scriptural exegesis or parti ...[text shortened]... ed to spirituality". I do argue against conflating "spirituality" and religion or theism.
Originally posted by Proper KnobOkay... opening post or poster, either way that makes sense. I assumed it meant something more formal (like premise) because it doesn't make sense for so many people to complain about straying from "the topic", which is presumably represented by the opening post. Some of the best threads I've read here end up having little or nothing to do with the opening post, so I assumed the opening post was more of a starting point than strictly a topic that MUST be adhered to.
Original Poster.
Originally posted by VelnsI agree. The main purpose I post here is to offend everyone that does not believe as I do.
Hi there,
What kind of things are you referring to that disgust you so much. And when you say that you "don't want to offend people here, but don't think it can be avoided" who are you thinking you may offend? And for what reasons?
Thanks.
Originally posted by vistesdThis meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.
Here is a similar view to that of His Divine Grace AC Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, by the Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan. Although Inayat held lineage in more than one traditional Muslim Sufi tariqas, he also founded the universal (universalist) Sufi movement—
Inayat began a tour of the sacred sites across India, and early in that adventure, he met th ...[text shortened]... oted nondualists here; I believe that Swami Prabhupada’s Vedanta is dualist, however.
Originally posted by DasaWhat do you mean, 'non-dual' means atheist?
This meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.
If I met this man I would slap him on the head with my slipper.
Why would I do this.???
Because this man is an atheist. (nondual means atheist) and he is posing as a saintly man and cheating the people (he is a rascal)
Islam is not an authentic reli ...[text shortened]... lgion and false religion / and this disqualifies you from discussing spirituality and religion.
Originally posted by lemon limeConflated just means blended together, mixed.
Good answer, but now I'll have to go and look up the word conflated. It's not often I run into a word I haven't see before, but that's a good thing... I'll gladly take almost anything to relieve the bordom of seeing the same tired old answers over and over again.
Originally posted by DasaIt is you who, in your ignorance and your pretence of knowledge you do not possess, disqualifies yourself. It is senseless to have any exchange with you at all so from here on out I will refrain.
This meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.
If I met this man I would slap him on the head with my slipper.
Why would I do this.???
Because this man is an atheist. (nondual means atheist) and he is posing as a saintly man and cheating the people (he is a rascal)
Islam is not an authentic reli lgion and false religion / and this disqualifies you from discussing spirituality and religion.
Originally posted by DasaThe man who called for the forced extermination of all Muslim men is moaning that another religion is a 'political fascist ideology'. You couldn't make it up.
This meat eating and intoxicating and womanizing Sufi Hazrat Inayat Khan is a cheater and charlatan.
If I met this man I would slap him on the head with my slipper.
Why would I do this.???
Because this man is an atheist. (nondual means atheist) and he is posing as a saintly man and cheating the people (he is a rascal)
Islam is not an authentic reli ...[text shortened]... lgion and false religion / and this disqualifies you from discussing spirituality and religion.
Originally posted by sonhouseNondualism can be nontheistic, it need not be. The same for personal/impersonal (though I might prefer "conscious/unconscious--whether the all-in-all Real could in some sense be said to be conscious or not): Sufism is more "personalistic", as are Kabbalah and Hasidism in Judaism (as was the Christian theologian Meister Eckhart); Zen is not. That is why I mentioned the pronoun "who", as well as "which", in my post.
What do you mean, 'non-dual' means atheist?