I wish to be remembered as the person who best loved the Mormon FAQ and to debate the Mormon regulars on there as good friends and dear opponents of my Roman Catholicism.
Okay, but isn't what I am offering is that mystical experiences are not dependent upon religion or defined spirituality? Love is spiritual, beauty is spiritual, awe is spiritual. Love, beauty and awe do not rest soley upon religion or any agnostically proscribed spirituality.
What have I said ... ?
As for a short version of the above: Skepticism is not compatible with Spirituality, Mysticism, or anything that derives from those mediums even though Spirituality is actually a part of Mysticism, separated usually so people can process the ideas since they are so poorly educated in philosophy. Mysticism basically works off of both evidences that are tangible and evidences that are not, but mainly evidences that are not, probably because of the lack of answers that science can actually provide in totality no matter what measures we manage to achieve like "Why this? Why now?" for instance, even if we had the equation to find out why this today we wouldn't be able to find the moment prior etc. ad infinitum. To that end mysticism tries to answer the unanswerable by pretty much making connections that aren't readily evident.
Skeptics however do not believe in things that hold no readily available and generally heavy evidences as per their thought patterns so they do not believe in the paranormal, the mystical, or the supernatural. Because of this obviously they can't ascribe to spirituality of any sort. Those that do are not "skeptics", they are better defined as "People who are skeptical about many things" but they are not actually skeptics. It's much like the difference between being a baker ( profession ) and being a person who bakes and sells things ( a hobby ), if you understand the IRS you don't have to register if baking, even if you're selling for profit up to a point, is just a hobby however if you intend to make a business of it then you have to register. In the same way we have skepticism where as a rigorous method of thought ( the profession ) it's exclusive, you do and do not believe certain things, in relation to the general layman ( the hobby ) it's just not believing everything you see, it's simple common sense given an incorrect name.
Visiting the sick
in /b/ veritas. This is what the abortion abomination is effectively saying to our children. No wonder the children who have grown up during the holocaust of infants are so confused and mistrusting. Who can blame them?
Pope John Paul, II stated that Heaven and Hell are not "places" but are states of being. The pope didn't "dismiss" the metaphorical imagery of the City of God as depicted in the Book of Revelations. From whence derived you this quote?
During his weekly address to the general audience of 8,500 people at the Vatican on July 28, 1999, Pope John Paul II rejected the reality of a physical, literal hell as a place of eternal fire and torment. Rather, the pope said hell is separation, even in this life, from the joyful communion with God. According to an official Vatican transcript of the pope's speech, Pope John Paul II noted that the Scriptural references to hell and the images portrayed by Scripture are only symbolic and figurative of "the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. " He added, "Rather than a physical place, hell is the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy." He said hell is "a condition resulting from attitudes and actions which people adopt in this life." Concerning the concept of eternal damnation, the pope said, "Damnation consists precisely in definitive separation from God, freely chosen by the human person, and confirmed with death that seals his choice for ever." The pope also added, "The thought of hell and even less the improper use of biblical images must not create anxiety or despair." Rather, he stated, it is a reminder of the freedom found in Christ.
The Religion News Service reported that a Vatican-approved editorial published several weeks ago in the Jesuit journal Civilta Cattolica agrees with the pope's latest pronouncement. The editorial explicitly pronounced, "Hell exists, not as a place but as a state, a way of being of the person who suffers the pain of the deprivation of God" (Los Angeles Times, 7-31-99). The pope said eternal damnation is "not God's work but is actually our own doing." Only a week earlier the pope stated that heaven is neither "an abstraction nor a place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship of union with the Holy Trinity. "
Here are some words to the wise about mean trolls --- not the pixie kind. ^)^
What commonly pulls people like me into this, and it may be happening to you (haven't read enough of the lengthy debate to discern if you have or not), is when people begin to say things that seem to attack my view directly, or try to nitpick at the WAY I say things. When it comes to people addressing me like this, I have to determine, before posting, if they are honestly trying to engage in discussion or if they're simply trying to get me to flare up and burn out, or to just have everyone hear their voice, so to speak.
If they're really trying to engage in conversation, They'll type respectfully, with proper address towards people. They may even ask for clarification on your views, and maybe a little background on them. When they reply with their views, they'll back up where their views come from and not try to persuade you with their reasoning.
Those that are trying to fire you up (trolls) are just trying to make themselves feel better than others by getting them to make their views look stupid by becoming radicals. They resort to attacking you personally and saying that your views are stupid. In those cases, don't even reply.
In the case of people just trying to be heard, look out for the ones that will rip apart a message and reply to each line or paragraph individually. While sometimes it is worth the time to respond to them because of valid, respectful statements being made, more often than not they are just trying to start some kind of war of puzzle pieces. This is why I never brake down people's posts when I reply, and if someone breaks mine down, I always keep my reply within a single set of my own paragraphs.
It can be hard to discern who's worth replying to and who's not, especially since the last two catagories can come at you disguised as the first. As soon as someone takes on the nature of the last two, it's time to stop replying to them unless your goal is to defeat yourself. Even if they come back and try to call you out on skipping an answer, that's just further proof that they're trying to force you to either admit defeat or go into a rage. To give yourself a stance of pride like that will never add credibility to a statement, and make others in the future less willing to care for what you have to say.
HOLLYWOOD ATHEISTS LOL