Disqus - Latest Comments for raymondsigrist

Re: SOF Observed - Cleanliness Is Next To … Andy Dayton, associate...

raymondsigrist — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 14:21:18 -0000

Hi Andy

re: "My intention was mainly to investigate the relationship between physical cleanliness and spiritual/moral purity in breadth, rather than in great depth."

Your message is well said.

And yet there is another way to look at cleanliness and purity. The notion that cleanliness is needed for optimum spiritual attainment is probably one of the deepest spiritual archetypes found within the human psyche, we see it in almost every tradition. And another archetype is, in sharp contrast-- the idea of some mystics that every person is, and has always been, immutably clean.

ciao,
Raymond

Re: SOF Observed - Cleanliness Is Next To … Andy Dayton, associate...

raymondsigrist — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 09:14:20 -0000

Yes Dennis, a fair question I think. And it reminds me of a habit I would like to be cleansed of. That habit is my thinking that there are others who are substantially more ignorant than me.

ciao,
Raymond

Re: Critical Remarks from a Listener — an Opportunity

raymondsigrist — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 10:52:06 -0000

Hi Trent, Whooops!, I did not think anyone would call me on my hyperbole. But as a penance I promise to try and find a show in the archives that I don't care for.

Re: http://blog.speakingoffaith.org/post/173091163

raymondsigrist — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 08:00:44 -0000

I agree with you Kye. An excellent book which explores this territory is Amy Hollywood’s “Soul as Virgin Wife.”

Here is an excerpt where she has translated the words of Marguerite Porete as she addresses the divine: “Yet again, he asked me what I would do and how I would fare if it could be that he would will that another love me better than he.” Page 116

ciao,
Raymond

Re: It's the Journey and the Destination

raymondsigrist — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:10:06 -0000

"One thing that sticks with me from our conversation is Yenne’s gentle caution about using terms like “spiritual legacy” or “Lakota spirituality” (Sitting Bull was Lakota Sioux) when talking to people — that my understanding of those terms might not translate well across cultures."

Yes, a big challenge. How to relate to someone from a culture that does not compute a division between the so-called "spiritual" and the "mundane."

The "coyote" phenomenon might be a good thing to reflect on as you all begin. We Western explorers of the Spirit fool ourselves when we don't see how false our divisions are. How difficult it is for us to "have faith in everything."

ciao,
Raymond

Re: Neil deGrasse Tyson Interview

raymondsigrist — Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:26:41 -0000

I am afraid I agree with Mr.Tyson. My guess is that our dear friend Mr. Dawkins appears to be more of a religious fundamentalist than a neutral empirical explorer of the human psyche. I would suggest to Dawkins that his fundamentalist point of view probably comes from an underlying fear of "no God equals no meaning." He desperately wants meaning, and one he can be sure of. The world is a quite uncertain place, and fundamentalists of all kinds need to find some degree of certainty. Atheism gives his live the meaning and the certainty he is so desperate for. I would suggest to him that he can find out empirically that love needs no God, no atheism, no human rationale. I suspect Tyson understands this.