Spirit Science

[RongzomFan]

No it does not say. You are just shaking with panic.

 

It says "Vertically mixed" right in your picture.

 

Edited November 16, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Isimsiz Biri]

It says "Vertically mixed" right in your picture.

 

 

RongzomFan,

 

You stay in your hole. I hope Buddha can help you. You can not explain the verses. You are just copying and pasting the same things. The verses are there. Explain that how Holy Quran can state this fact 1400 years before it is discovered.

[RongzomFan]

No it does not say. You are just shaking with panic.

 

It says "Vertically mixed" right in your picture:

 

 

[Brian]

 

RongzomFan,

 

You stay in your hole. I hope Buddha can help you. You can not explain the verses. You are just copying and pasting the same things. The verses are there. Explain that how Holy Quran can state this fact 1400 years before it is discovered.

 

Simple -- it's not "fact."

[Isimsiz Biri]

Simple -- it's not "fact."

 

Brian,

 

If what you say is true, all the oceans and the seas should have the same amount of salt content. Yet, they all have different concentrations. You are still talking although you are defeated.

[9th]

I would encourage all to be cognizant of the original topic and ask yourself whether future posts contribute to that discussion or not.

 

[Isimsiz Biri]

I would encourage all to be cognizant of the original topic and ask yourself whether future posts contribute to that discussion or not.

 

 

 

If you refer to Post no 21 of this thread by RongzomFan, you see the clear derailing and trolling. The discussion was about Drunvalo Melchizedek.

[thelerner]

Wise words.

 

Though I like to say:

You worship God your way

I'll worship him His

 

just kidding. Live, let live and practice wise tolerance. Religious arguments are silly because people have different holy books and traditions. And lets face it, much of the science and some of the ethics (slavery, sexism, religious sanctioned killing..) is a bit dated.

 

Personally I can't help hoping that an Infinite God isn't as tied to ancient books as we humans seem to be.

 

 

What about your house party? Did Ban Ki-Moon come?

WTF? What are you talking about? House party?? Ban Ki-Moon? Does this thread or my post have anything to do with them? Why the repetitive trolling? Did you read my post? Is it somehow insulting to you??

 

Please try to stay on topic and don't go out of your way to pick fights, especially on threads that aren't in The Pit.

 

P.S. From now on I won't reply to your off subject posts, I'll simply report them. Thus I recommend not looking for conflicts where there are none; like my post calling for more tolerance.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Wise words.

 

Though I like to say:

You worship God your way

I'll worship him His

 

just kidding. Live, let live and practice wise tolerance. Religious arguments are silly because people have different holy books and traditions. And lets face it, much of the science and some of the ethics (slavery, sexism, religious sanctioned killing..) is a bit dated.

 

Personally I can't help hoping that an Infinite God isn't as tied to ancient books as we humans seem to be.

 

 

 

WTF? What are you talking about? House party?? Ban Ki-Moon? Does this thread or my post have anything to do with them? Why the repetitive trolling? Did you read my post? Is it somehow insulting to you??

 

Please try to stay on topic and don't go out of your way to pick fights, especially on threads that aren't in The Pit.

 

P.S. From now on I won't reply to your off subject posts, I'll simply report them. Thus I recommend not looking for conflicts where there are none; like my post calling for more tolerance.

 

Religious arguments are silly.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly

sil·ly

adjective \ˈsi-lē\

: having or showing a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment : foolish or stupid

: not practical or sensible

: not serious, meaningful, or important

[Nungali]

 

Religious arguments are silly.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly

sil·ly

adjective \ˈsi-lē\

: having or showing a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment : foolish or stupid

: not practical or sensible

: not serious, meaningful, or important

Of course they are

 

so why do you keep using them and devolving your own arguments and other peoples threads and questions about various subjects INTO religious arguments YOURSELF ?????

[thelerner]

 

Religious arguments are silly.

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/silly

sil·ly

adjective \ˈsi-lē\

: having or showing a lack of thought, understanding, or good judgment : foolish or stupid

: not practical or sensible

: not serious, meaningful, or important

So... the reason you wrote 'How is my house party and have I met with Ki Moon Ban' is because I wrote religious arguments are silly? Um... Reading the definition above I realize, you are silly.

 

You live on religious argument don't you. Its your hobby. Do you realize the amount of bad press you've brought Islam? If you read through the voluminous posts and counter posts you've inspired, you see huge amounts of insults to Islam. Posts that wouldn't exist if you'd be less into religious argument.

 

You inspire and ask for insults. Why else keep repeating nonsense like 'why don't you meet Ki-Moon'; you want a negative reaction. Consciously or unconsciously you're like..'disrespect me.. I dare you'. People do and I suspect you get off on the attention.

 

I further suspect you write here and not on Islamic philosophy sites because your writing would be reacted to there the same way it tends to be here. ie with you calling everyone who disagrees with you Satanic and not getting the respect you deserve from your End of the World predictions.

[Isimsiz Biri]

So... the reason you wrote 'How is my house party and have I met with Ki Moon Ban' is because I wrote religious arguments are silly? Um... Reading the definition above I realize, you are silly.

 

You live on religious argument don't you. Its your hobby. Do you realize the amount of bad press you've brought Islam? If you read through the voluminous posts and counter posts you've inspired, you see huge amounts of insults to Islam. Posts that wouldn't exist if you'd be less into religious argument.

 

You inspire and ask for insults. Why else keep repeating nonsense like 'why don't you meet Ki-Moon'; you want a negative reaction. Consciously or unconsciously you're like..'disrespect me.. I dare you'. People do and I suspect you get off on the attention.

 

I further suspect you write here and not on Islamic philosophy sites because your writing would be reacted to there the same way it tends to be here. ie with you calling everyone who disagrees with you Satanic and not getting the respect you deserve from your End of the World predictions.

 

 

So our famous hypocrite got angry.

 

You came a thread I posted Holy Quran verses and said "Religious arguments are silly."

 

I asked you a simple question: Did Ban Ki-Moon come to your party.

 

You said that your post was a message of "tolerance" and asked me if I am insulted and also you called trolling.

 

I quoted your insult.

 

You are calling me silly openly. So you are a man of tolerance? You did not and do not insult. You have the right to say anything you like. But when there is a question, you attack like a bull who has seen a red flag.

 

For trolling, understand that I do not use nets, therefore I can not troll. I use swords.

 

Invite Bank Ki-Moon. Invite Obama. Make your house parties. Save the world with solar panels. I will pray for your soul.

Edited November 17, 2013 by Isimsiz Biri

[Nungali]

The 'power of ignore'.

 

This is great! I think he has me on ignore so I can say whatever I like about him and he doesn't respond ... I feel POWERFUL <flexes ... expands chest > I can defeat Isimsiz Biri's sword of cutting logic and witty argument with invisibility technique

 

... hang on ... did he just admit to trolling ... with a sword .... wade in to a thread as a troll and practice 8 direction cutting ?

 

Problem is he appears to be using a feather duster

[thelerner]

So our famous hypocrite got angry.

Ohmnnn , reported.

[Isimsiz Biri]

Ohmnnn , reported.

 

Oh, you reported yourself calling me silly? That would be really silly.

[zerostao]

*******moderator notice*******

lets keep it civil. realize that there are cultural differences. and some words dont translate across these cultural differences too well.

 

i will not appreciate any escalation of flaming.

[Nungali]

Back to Spiritual science; IMO there isn't such a thing ... when it becomes 'science' it becomes science not 'spiritual science' which again IMO is usually load of rubbish (as evidenced above).

 

 

BUT ... studying the technique behind religion and spirituality (which some might term science or 'scientific illuminism' ) is another matter and IMO quiet valid;

 

http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/i/ii/eqi02016.html

..

[Marblehead]

What a nice thread. People discussing spirituality and science at one and the same place.

 

I don't talk about spirituality too much because people start thinking I am getting whimpy when I do.

 

But yeah, spirituality and science are compatible. Some would disagree with me though.

[Rara]

What a nice thread. People discussing spirituality and science at one and the same place.

 

I don't talk about spirituality too much because people start thinking I am getting whimpy when I do.

 

But yeah, spirituality and science are compatible. Some would disagree with me though.

 

Oh so we're back to the thread topic now? Hehe

 

Yes, for me it's a no-brainer. Miraculous stuff happens...science can do a great deal explaining how it works. It doesn't take away the fact that we all have consciousness and breathe in air!!

[Rara]

Back to Spiritual science; IMO there isn't such a thing ... when it becomes 'science' it becomes science not 'spiritual science' which again IMO is usually load of rubbish (as evidenced above).

 

 

BUT ... studying the technique behind religion and spirituality (which some might term science or 'scientific illuminism' ) is another matter and IMO quiet valid;

 

http://hermetic.com/crowley/equinox/i/ii/eqi02016.html

..

 

Take the third-eye/pineal gland thing then. The third-eye being a way of what, having a spiritual experience that by most is completely indescribable? Yet scientists explain the gland and hormones produced etc that allows such things to occur. It's all a lot of heavy chemistry and biology (which I suck at, hence my interest)

 

Do you not agree on the significance of this? I find that there is too much spirituality VS science going around because the majority want to prove one or the other right.

 

I'd love to hear more

[Brian]

Remember that science asks the question "How?" and not the question "Why?"

 

This distinction is often significant...

[Rara]

Remember that science asks the question "How?" and not the question "Why?" This distinction is often significant...

 

Lao Tzu didn't exactly say why either

[RongzomFan]

The Youtube guy in the original post loves channeled hungry ghosts.

 

Watch this from halfway, when it starts to get really weird.

 

Edited November 18, 2013 by RongzomFan

[Nungali]

Take the third-eye/pineal gland thing then. The third-eye being a way of what, having a spiritual experience that by most is completely indescribable?

 

I'd love to hear more

Under these terms and definitions I find it very hard to say more about that.

 

If I read or hear what some say is spiritual science, it hasn't fulfilled my definition of science. When it does it doesn't become 'spiritual '.

 

E.g. Psychic energies (telepathy, distant viewing , etc.) ... communication with ancestors/ancestral memory ... and a whole range of 'spiritual stuff' all fit nicely together in the 'scheme' of Exo-psychology (albeit including some far-out propositions and postulations - but much of science has that {evolution , quantum theory etc. } ) but IMO that is a science so those things , in THAT framework have become science ( I can demonstrate the proofs personally to my satisfaction , it correlates with other systems, it does not force any great contradictions with other systems scientific or spiritual and it has been demonstrated to work as a system of psychology (by assisting recovery of 'helpless' cases incarcerated in prison )

 

another example; the Psychiatric work of Wilson van Dusen who used Swedenborg's principles of spirit possession to treat patients ... his findings and case studies and his cases of rehabilitation now have scientific validity. The reason is because he removed the metaphor or spiritual and religious clothing and looked at the underlying principles ...as Crowley has done in the above link .

 

The benefit of this is, one does not have to adopt a religious or spiritual dogma or belief system but one can apply the process to the psyche ... I see this a relevant key in getting to the bottom of it all.

 

Which ... in my extremely limited understanding of the subject, I think that is what a good deal of Buddhism is about ? It IS heavily 'clothed' but it focuses on the techniques and processes of the psyche, in amore 'open way' than the masked way of other systems (except 'scientific illuminism' )

Edited November 18, 2013 by Nungali

[Rara]

Under these terms and definitions I find it very hard to say more about that.

 

If I read or hear what some say is spiritual science, it hasn't fulfilled my definition of science. When it does it doesn't become 'spiritual '.

 

E.g. Psychic energies (telepathy, distant viewing , etc.) ... communication with ancestors/ancestral memory ... and a whole range of 'spiritual stuff' all fit nicely together in the 'scheme' of Exo-psychology (albeit including some far-out propositions and postulations - but much of science has that {evolution , quantum theory etc. } ) but IMO that is a science so those things , in THAT framework have become science ( I can demonstrate the proofs personally to my satisfaction , it correlates with other systems, it does not force any great contradictions with other systems scientific or spiritual and it has been demonstrated to work as a system of psychology (by assisting recovery of 'helpless' cases incarcerated in prison )

 

another example; the Psychiatric work of Wilson van Dusen who used Swedenborg's principles of spirit possession to treat patients ... his findings and case studies and his cases of rehabilitation now have scientific validity. The reason is because he removed the metaphor or spiritual and religious clothing and looked at the underlying principles ...as Crowley has done in the above link .

 

The benefit of this is, one does not have to adopt a religious or spiritual dogma or belief system but one can apply the process to the psyche ... I see this a relevant key in getting to the bottom of it all.

 

Which ... in my extremely limited understanding of the subject, I think that is what a good deal of Buddhism is about ? It IS heavily 'clothed' but it focuses on the techniques and processes of the psyche, in amore 'open way' than the masked way of other systems (except 'scientific illuminism' )

Interesting angle. I will give this some thought