On Fri, 30 Mar 2001 11:18:02 -0500, Stacie Tolen <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Ken,
>
>>I think at this point that BOTH of you are making up your own definitions
>>of
>>words as you go along....
>
>No

I'm afraid so.

You, after all, did write:

"Think of spirituality as something physical and sensual (relating to the
senses of the body) rather than logical. That's a starting point anyway."

I have to say that this is probably the most false statement that I have ever
read in my life.

All of the definitions I posted contradict your statement:

>1.Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible
>or material. See synonyms at immaterial.  
>2.Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul. 
>3.Of, from, or relating to God; deific. 
>4.Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred. 
>5.Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural. 

ALL of these say that spiritual is something that is NOT physical and is NOT
sensual.

Spiritual practices, including those of shamans, involve going outside of the
realm of the physical or the sensual.

>>2.Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
>
>A-ha. If the soul (spirit) occupies physical space within our bodies (laced
>between the atoms) then it is directly related to our physical bodies as
>well as the "empty space" without. Who's to say it's not related to the
>"empty space" throughout the universe?

A soul does NOT occupy "physical space" (and is not interchangeable with
"spirit").

And when you said "I once read somewhere that the spirit is that which occupies
the 'empty spaces' between atoms" you misinterpreted it if you thought that
meant "physical space".

Actually, it is more meaningful to say that the physical world exists within the
spiritual world.


--
Cheers,

Ken
[log in to unmask]