<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A quick rant on Spiritual Humanism</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/</link>
	<description>P'LYSM!</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:35:31 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Rev. Maureen</title>
		<link>http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/comment-page-1/#comment-1416</link>
		<dc:creator>Rev. Maureen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 10 Apr 2005 06:51:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/#comment-1416</guid>
		<description>Hi again - just a quick note to Monster:

I see that you ran into some of our stricter members. :D  The members of the CSH forum come from all kinds of religious and spiritual philosophies.  Some are devout athiests (is that an oxymoron? :-) ), others like myself are agnostics (I call myself an &quot;agnostic with hope&quot;), others are pagan, wiccan, buddhist, taoist, or follow Native American spirituality, and still others from even more diverse paths.

There are times when someone will get a bit too strict with the science and reason stuff - and forget that the term spiritual itself is something that cannot be quantified scientifically.  Like everyone else, we have our moments of being fallible humans - spiritual or not, clergy members or not.  

Don&#039;t be discouraged if someone seems to be jumping on the &quot;I want proof&quot; bandwagon.  For the most part, we accept that whatever beliefs are held by the individual are valid for that person.  As long as you aren&#039;t trying to convert anyone, then any barking you hear is much worse than our bite ;-)

I hope you&#039;ll come back to the forum and talk to us again.  I found when I first got there that I preferred to stick to general interest topics, like politics (and I can go on forever about THAT!), until I got to know the personalities enough to feel comfortable discussing my spirituality.    That way, if someone did jump on the skeptic bandwagon right away, I already knew what they believed, and could deal with it without feeling attacked.  It worked for me - maybe it will work for you.  

Oh, BTW - AndyH is one of our regulars, although she later changed her &quot;handle&quot; to Preceptor.  She&#039;s been away for a while, but will be back.  I love her writing style - she can talk about the most serious, intense topics, and still say it in a way that makes you laugh!  She&#039;s a good friend of mine, even though we live on opposite coasts and have never met.  

That&#039;s how CSH is.... Once you get to know us, you can&#039;t help but love us!!  </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi again &#8211; just a quick note to Monster:</p>
<p>I see that you ran into some of our stricter members. <img src='http://www.techgnosisweb.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif' alt=':D' class='wp-smiley' />   The members of the CSH forum come from all kinds of religious and spiritual philosophies.  Some are devout athiests (is that an oxymoron? <img src='http://www.techgnosisweb.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  ), others like myself are agnostics (I call myself an &#8220;agnostic with hope&#8221;), others are pagan, wiccan, buddhist, taoist, or follow Native American spirituality, and still others from even more diverse paths.</p>
<p>There are times when someone will get a bit too strict with the science and reason stuff &#8211; and forget that the term spiritual itself is something that cannot be quantified scientifically.  Like everyone else, we have our moments of being fallible humans &#8211; spiritual or not, clergy members or not.  </p>
<p>Don&#8217;t be discouraged if someone seems to be jumping on the &#8220;I want proof&#8221; bandwagon.  For the most part, we accept that whatever beliefs are held by the individual are valid for that person.  As long as you aren&#8217;t trying to convert anyone, then any barking you hear is much worse than our bite <img src='http://www.techgnosisweb.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_wink.gif' alt=';-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I hope you&#8217;ll come back to the forum and talk to us again.  I found when I first got there that I preferred to stick to general interest topics, like politics (and I can go on forever about THAT!), until I got to know the personalities enough to feel comfortable discussing my spirituality.    That way, if someone did jump on the skeptic bandwagon right away, I already knew what they believed, and could deal with it without feeling attacked.  It worked for me &#8211; maybe it will work for you.  </p>
<p>Oh, BTW &#8211; AndyH is one of our regulars, although she later changed her &#8220;handle&#8221; to Preceptor.  She&#8217;s been away for a while, but will be back.  I love her writing style &#8211; she can talk about the most serious, intense topics, and still say it in a way that makes you laugh!  She&#8217;s a good friend of mine, even though we live on opposite coasts and have never met.  </p>
<p>That&#8217;s how CSH is&#8230;. Once you get to know us, you can&#8217;t help but love us!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rev. Katsu</title>
		<link>http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/comment-page-1/#comment-26</link>
		<dc:creator>Rev. Katsu</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2004 15:11:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/#comment-26</guid>
		<description>Inasmuch as I beleive that the universe, by definition, contains everything there is or ever can be, and that the definition of universe is much broader than one might think (it can take into account such concepts as the quantum theory of parallel realities), and tempered by such limits as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which places a hard limit on how far our knwoledge of the universe can go due to its very nature, my answer would be a qualified yes. A more compelling, and, in my eyes, correct, phrasing of the question would be: Is it possible for an intellect to know everything that can be known about the universe? Not neccesarily a human intellect as we understand it now, but an intellect with a finite capacity for knowledge? I beleive, again, that the answer is a qualified yes. While our knowledge of the universe can never be 100% complete due to things like the HUP, everything else is fair game, and I see no reason why it would not be possible to know everything that is knowable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Inasmuch as I beleive that the universe, by definition, contains everything there is or ever can be, and that the definition of universe is much broader than one might think (it can take into account such concepts as the quantum theory of parallel realities), and tempered by such limits as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (HUP), which places a hard limit on how far our knwoledge of the universe can go due to its very nature, my answer would be a qualified yes. A more compelling, and, in my eyes, correct, phrasing of the question would be: Is it possible for an intellect to know everything that can be known about the universe? Not neccesarily a human intellect as we understand it now, but an intellect with a finite capacity for knowledge? I beleive, again, that the answer is a qualified yes. While our knowledge of the universe can never be 100% complete due to things like the HUP, everything else is fair game, and I see no reason why it would not be possible to know everything that is knowable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Monster</title>
		<link>http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/comment-page-1/#comment-25</link>
		<dc:creator>Monster</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 15 Apr 2004 13:04:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.techgnosisweb.com/archives/2004/04/15/a-quick-rant-on-spiritual-humanism/#comment-25</guid>
		<description>OK, I&#8217;m with you so far.  The issue of evidence is a sticking point for me.  There were many posts on the forums along the lines of &#8220;If you are reasonable, you can not believe in incorporeal consciousness (spirits, gods, etc.)&quot;.  Truth is some of these things are things that simply lack reporducible evidence, many no more unreasonable than many of the working scientific ideas.  They are simply associated with superstition and therefore rejected out of hand by some.  Here&#8217;s another question for you:  do you belive the totality of the universe is ultimately knowable?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>OK, I&#8217;m with you so far.  The issue of evidence is a sticking point for me.  There were many posts on the forums along the lines of &#8220;If you are reasonable, you can not believe in incorporeal consciousness (spirits, gods, etc.)&#8221;.  Truth is some of these things are things that simply lack reporducible evidence, many no more unreasonable than many of the working scientific ideas.  They are simply associated with superstition and therefore rejected out of hand by some.  Here&#8217;s another question for you:  do you belive the totality of the universe is ultimately knowable?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
