I don't think you understand what exactly it is I'm asking you. You're throwing out label after label on something because you seem convinced it's literally there. What if I told you that a person can experience everyday awe, wonder, or gratitude about life, living, nature, the universe and many other things around us without the need for a literal spirit or a literal "energy" that's supposed to be behind all life? I believe this is possible, and naturally I have to ask: What makes your version of spirituality necessary? Why add them? Reality already has a name and a presence. In it, we can figure things out including questions of our origins, give our lives meaning, and determine how to treat one another better. Why try to sell me something that's another attempted approximation when there's already a reality?
hmmm ... one of them books that those people claim to not be all about everything all the other books are about says something about not putting up "treasures" in "this city" because their inheritance is another city that they will get to later ... i think it was Hermes? <shrug> but them people been all about contradictory and bass-ackwards ever since they killed the guy that showed up to tell them that Father said "Come Home" ... and ain't paying no attention to the Promise that they gonna reap when Father Calls up the 144 thousand and brings their Armageddon. the really sad part is is that they are not gonna realize that they are way off on the wrong side until it's all over and they ain't nowhere around!! <ouch!> sucks to be them, eh?
well, if you gonna characterize that one as such, you really ain't gonna like this one. amongst them "higher standards" it would be ... or should be assumed (maybe i should say "presumed" to short circuit the obvious evading rejoinder?) that there is expected a higher standard of THINKING up in here too, eh? "personal" you responded to me; i responded to you - how you gonna hold that "personal" "against" me? after all, you did write a book. much like your position on "religion vs Spirituality" disagrees with mine, so stated i. "still looking for a fiction" related to the "help us find" so was more general than personal. does my continuing refutation of your "lanes/collisions/unite" metaphor rub you "personal" or "argumentative"? or was it the word "danged" that prompts the "incendiary discourse". or is it just that, as usual, when your "points" are answered, clyde coger seeks to bring the higher standard required card. <sigh> guess i shouldn't be so hard; most iconoclasts having trouble understanding things that don't come across in a manner consistent with their perspective. especially if it looks to being able to break apart the status-quo that upholds their philosophy and bring a fix that puts EVERYBODY on the same playing field!! you always do that; seek to "correct" my perspective up until i show that my perspective is at least equally, if not more, valid than the one you espouse and then try to get up on some moral high ground and attempt to "correct" me again. as you have said "that dog don't hunt". you gots to come with a higher standard!!
In the Spirit of Sankofa, ... This is all purely argumentative brother. There is nothing of substance that can manifest from our exchanges; there never has nor ever will, I suspect, don't play dumb, okay? Peace In,