JackC 0
Recommended Posts
JackC 0
QuoteScience has made defining spirituality easy. It is the nonmaterial part of ourselves that science has failed to identify.
If it hasn't been identified, how do you know it exists?
QuoteSuch as: Self Consciousness ( I exist), Mentality( I think), Volition( I will), Emotion, Conscience(I ought). And for those who choose to embrace it, God Consciousness.
But this is not consistent with your first statement because all these things have been identified and studied by scientists quite extensively.
QuoteSpiritual life means the reality of Gods Truth and spiritual phenomena are available for us to experience. With spiritual death it is not, either in this life or the next.
This makes no sense. Saying you have to be spiritual to experience spiritual phenomena (whatever that is) seems like a circular argument to me. If spiritual phenomena exist external to the observer, they should not depend on who is doing the observing. If it does depend on the observer, it can't be an external reality, c.f. hallucinations.
RonD1120 58
QuoteRon, there's no definition of spirituality in any of those quotes.
Wikipedia provided a definition and examples, Chambers provided another example. Exercise your due diligence and find your personal definition.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
kallend 1,646
QuoteQuoteRon, there's no definition of spirituality in any of those quotes.
Wikipedia provided a definition and examples, Chambers provided another example. Exercise your due diligence and find your personal definition.
Great idea. Perhaps, in addition, we should all just use our personal definitions of: murder, robbery, tax rate, speed limit, treason, measles, rape, hour, minute, gallon, dollar...
That way we can all live in our own little utopia with no fear of ever being contradicted.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
JackC 0
QuoteExercise your due diligence and find your personal definition.
That is not how language works. Although it would explain a few things if that's what the religious folk do.
He only said SCIENCE has failed to identify it.QuoteScience has made defining spirituality easy. It is the nonmaterial part of ourselves that science has failed to identify.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If it hasn't been identified, how do you know it exists?
I don't quite agree with his statement though, because the word "failed" implies that science has attempted to do it, and failed.
Science hasn't defined spirituality because that is not its job.
Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------
RonD1120 58
Quote
Great idea. Perhaps, in addition, we should all just use our personal definitions of: murder, robbery, tax rate, speed limit, treason, measles, rape, hour, minute, gallon, dollar...
That way we can all live in our own little utopia with no fear of ever being contradicted.
Isn't that what is occurring in SC on a consistent basis? In the rest of the country the Crips, Bloods, MS13 maintain different definitions of social conduct then Wall Street, BHO's administration or the Neo Bohemia of the skydiving world. Wouldn't it be great if we adhered to the same basic rule book?
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
JackC 0
QuoteHe only said SCIENCE has failed to identify it.
I don't quite agree with his statement though, because the word "failed" implies that science has attempted to do it, and failed.
Science hasn't defined spirituality because that is not its job.
Why not? If it exists, it's fair game to be scientifically poked to see what falls out. If it exists.
If science has not identified it or even tried to identify it, why is that? And have you told Dr Susan Blackmore that it's not her job to investigate this? Although it seems that even she has given up after drawing a blank.
~ SourceQuoteImagine a world in which each of us has a special inner core - a "real self" - that makes us who we are, that can think and move independently of our coarse physical body, and that ultimately survives death, giving meaning to our otherwise short and pointless lives. This is (roughly speaking) how most people think the world is. It is how I used to think -and even hope - that the world is. I devoted 25 years of my life to trying to find out whether it is. Now I have given up.
QuoteQuoteHe only said SCIENCE has failed to identify it.
I don't quite agree with his statement though, because the word "failed" implies that science has attempted to do it, and failed.
Science hasn't defined spirituality because that is not its job.
Why not? If it exists, it's fair game to be scientifically poked to see what falls out. If it exists.
----
There are many areas of life where we don't use science. Science is useful for exploring physical mechanisms, not internal, spiritual experience. Just because something isn't scientific, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
The study of the humanities are not scientific studies (by definition) but that doesn't mean that they are lies.
When you discuss the merits of a painting or an opera or a novel, you do not use scientific terms or standards. Does that mean that your statements re. these things would all be BS?Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------
Andy9o8 0
[replyIsn't that what is occurring in SC on a consistent basis? In the rest of the country the Crips, Bloods, MS13 maintain different definitions of social conduct then Wall Street, BHO's administration or the Neo Bohemia of the skydiving world. Wouldn't it be great if we adhered to the same basic rule book?
I see. So next time some kindergarten kid recites his complete ABC's from memory for the first time, the entire class should yell, "Beer!"
Gary73 8
Royd - My purpose was to ask Literalists to think about the question and get their answers. Still waiting.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Royd 0
And, to what purpose? To open your understanding, or to poke someone with a stick, because you already consider them a fool?QuoteRoyd - My purpose was to ask Literalists to think about the question and get their answers. Still waiting.
Gary73 8
All very interesting, folks (well, a little bit interesting, anyway), but by way of heading back toward the original question:
I spoke with a friend yesterday who happens to be a Fundamentalist preacher. I asked him what is the proper term for a person who believes that the Bible should be taken literally from cover to cover. Without hesitation, he answered "Christian.".
So, bad news for all you folks who consider parts of the Bible to be allegory or poetry or something: apparently you're not Christians after all. Sorry. 
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Gary73 8
QuoteAnd, to what purpose? To open your understanding, or to poke someone with a stick, because you already consider them a fool?QuoteRoyd - My purpose was to ask Literalists to think about the question and get their answers. Still waiting.
Unlike some of the "Christians" who have posted on this thread, I don't consider Literalists to be either stupid or insane, just mistaken. That's quite understandable, since most "educational institutions" and all churches devote themselves to trying to teach us what to think instead of how to think. If I can get a few people to think objectively about the things they were told to believe before they were old enough to realize that they had a choice in the matter, then that would be worth the effort. If not, maybe it'll get me closer to understanding why people hold onto beliefs even when they're shown that they can't possibly be true.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
JackC 0
QuoteQuoteQuoteHe only said SCIENCE has failed to identify it.
I don't quite agree with his statement though, because the word "failed" implies that science has attempted to do it, and failed.
Science hasn't defined spirituality because that is not its job.
Why not? If it exists, it's fair game to be scientifically poked to see what falls out. If it exists.
----
There are many areas of life where we don't use science. Science is useful for exploring physical mechanisms, not internal, spiritual experience. Just because something isn't scientific, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
The study of the humanities are not scientific studies (by definition) but that doesn't mean that they are lies.
When you discuss the merits of a painting or an opera or a novel, you do not use scientific terms or standards. Does that mean that your statements re. these things would all be BS?
But why not? The scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses. Why can I not discuss opera or novels or paintings or religion or chicken entrails or whatever-the-hell-I-want-to using scientific method? People do.
See:
The physics of paintings - FIG Rawlins
The Physics of Music - Alexander Wood
Making the quantum leap: Lessons from physics on studying spirituality and religion in organizations - C. J. Fornaciari et al
Reading the entrails of chickens - D Graur
Why do you object to using the best tool at your disposal to investigate the validity of outlandish claims such as these? Are you afraid you might not like the answer?
JackC 0
QuoteWouldn't it be great if we adhered to the same basic rule book?
What good would that do? You advocate making up your own definitions of words so no one would be able to agree on what the rules are. Much like the different sects of any religion can't agree either. You only have to go to Northern Ireland to see one bunch of God fearing Christians knocking seven shades of shit out of another bunch of God fearing Christians simply because they aren't the same brand of God fearing Christian.
RonD1120 58
Quote
Unlike some of the "Christians" who have posted on this thread, I don't consider Literalists to be either stupid or insane, just mistaken. That's quite understandable, since most "educational institutions" and all churches devote themselves to trying to teach us what to think instead of how to think. If I can get a few people to think objectively about the things they were told to believe before they were old enough to realize that they had a choice in the matter, then that would be worth the effort. If not, maybe it'll get me closer to understanding why people hold onto beliefs even when they're shown that they can't possibly be true.
How to think? How would you manifest the Gifts of the Spirit, found in 1 Corinthians, to apply the Gifts of Faith, found in Romans, to manifest the Fruit of the Spirit, found in Galatians? How do you determine which of the ministry offices, found in Ephesians, Jesus is placing you at the time? Not to mention, the Scriptures have guidelines for the major institutional areas of church, family, vocation, education and government. How do you accurately apply those guidelines? How do you know when to change your tactics?
Jesus proclaimed his ministry to heal the sick, give sight to the blind, set the captives free and to proclaim the day of the Lord. Then He became the propitiation of sin for all mankind through His atoning death. That was a surprise for his followers and they did not accept the meaning of God's purpose until He was resurrected and lived among them once again. How do you share that with folks? How to think? I think being a Christian servant requires a lot of thinking that is not previously defined in any church.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
RonD1120 58
QuoteQuoteWouldn't it be great if we adhered to the same basic rule book?
What good would that do? You advocate making up your own definitions of words so no one would be able to agree on what the rules are. Much like the different sects of any religion can't agree either. You only have to go to Northern Ireland to see one bunch of God fearing Christians knocking seven shades of shit out of another bunch of God fearing Christians simply because they aren't the same brand of God fearing Christian.
That is the sin nature of man and will not end until Christ's millennial reign. It is said that a battle plan in any war provides a common base of change for the participants on one side and the first casualty of any battle is the plan. I was thinking something like, a Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
kallend 1,646
QuoteQuote
Great idea. Perhaps, in addition, we should all just use our personal definitions of: murder, robbery, tax rate, speed limit, treason, measles, rape, hour, minute, gallon, dollar...
That way we can all live in our own little utopia with no fear of ever being contradicted.
Isn't that what is occurring in SC on a consistent basis? In the rest of the country the Crips, Bloods, MS13 maintain different definitions of social conduct then Wall Street, BHO's administration or the Neo Bohemia of the skydiving world. Wouldn't it be great if we adhered to the same basic rule book?
Before we agree on the rule book we have to agree on the meaning of the words it contains - something you don't seem to think important.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 1,646
QuoteQuoteQuoteHe only said SCIENCE has failed to identify it.
I don't quite agree with his statement though, because the word "failed" implies that science has attempted to do it, and failed.
Science hasn't defined spirituality because that is not its job.
Why not? If it exists, it's fair game to be scientifically poked to see what falls out. If it exists.
----
There are many areas of life where we don't use science. Science is useful for exploring physical mechanisms, not internal, spiritual experience. Just because something isn't scientific, doesn't mean it is non-existent.
The study of the humanities are not scientific studies (by definition) but that doesn't mean that they are lies.
When you discuss the merits of a painting or an opera or a novel, you do not use scientific terms or standards. Does that mean that your statements re. these things would all be BS?
The workings of the brain are quite amenable to scientific study. And that includes "feelings", emotions, and responses to art and music....
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
RonD1120 58
Quote
Before we agree on the rule book we have to agree on the meaning of the words it contains - something you don't seem to think important.
On the contrary, I usually refer to the Strong's Concordance. Do you have a copy?
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.
Royd 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, to what purpose? To open your understanding, or to poke someone with a stick, because you already consider them a fool?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, what does it matter, whether a person believes the earth to be 6,000 or 6 billion years old.... You can't prove either one, and you would be a fool to insist that you were correct.
And, to what purpose? To open your understanding, or to poke someone with a stick, because you already consider them a fool?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, you are assuming that all Christians have been nabbed by the church, as children, and brainwashed, into their belief, and they need a saviour, from the silliness of tall tales, and you have been divinely appointed, as the messenger? If you were serious about your research, you'd find that many of those brainwashed children, already heard your message, and spent years, wandering in a wilderness of decadence and pleasure,[ I believe the followers of that philosophy call it Hedonism.] only to turn back to the Church, in later years, for an inner peace, which they could not find, in the world.QuoteUnlike some of the "Christians" who have posted on this thread, I don't consider Literalists to be either stupid or insane, just mistaken. That's quite understandable, since most "educational institutions" and all churches devote themselves to trying to teach us what to think instead of how to think. If I can get a few people to think objectively about the things they were told to believe before they were old enough to realize that they had a choice in the matter, then that would be worth the effort. If not, maybe it'll get me closer to understanding why people hold onto beliefs even when they're shown that they can't possibly be true.
So, what does it matter, whether a person believes the earth to be 6,000 or 6 billion years old.... You can't prove either one, and you would be a fool to insist that you were correct.
JackC 0
QuoteThat is the sin nature of man and will not end until Christ's millennial reign
Whisky tango foxtrot?
QuoteI was thinking something like, a Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth.
Is it me, or is this starting to sound a bit "Heaven's Gate"?
Gary73 8
QuoteSo, you are assuming that all Christians have been nabbed by the church, as children, and brainwashed, into their belief, and they need a saviour, from the silliness of tall tales, and you have been divinely appointed, as the messenger?
No assumption, just fact, that the vast majority of the members of every religion are born into that religion. They are raised from birth in an environment which treats that religion as being so obviously true that it isn't even questionable. When bad guys do that to prisoners it's called brainwashing and considered to be a crime, but when parents and societies do it to defenseless children it's okay. Go figure.
Divinely appointed? That's funny!
QuoteIf you were serious about your research, you'd find that many of those brainwashed children, already heard your message, and spent years, wandering in a wilderness of decadence and pleasure,[ I believe the followers of that philosophy call it Hedonism.] only to turn back to the Church, in later years, for an inner peace, which they could not find, in the world.
Interesting that you assume that people only "stray" from the Church for selfish, decadent reasons. For me it was an intellectual journey, looking at many different philosophies before the evidence finally required that I reject the existence of the supernatural in all its forms. When I finally accepted that I was genuinely surprised at the way that everything finally made sense. But yes, different people do find comfort in different things, but comfort does not imply correctness. I know (too) many people who take comfort in deeply racist beliefs because it makes them feel better about their own pathetic selves. Personally I'd rather know the truth, no matter how uncomfortable it makes me feel.
QuoteSo, what does it matter, whether a person believes the earth to be 6,000 or 6 billion years old.... You can't prove either one, and you would be a fool to insist that you were correct.
Interesting the way you phrased that: as if the Earth IS the Universe, instead of being a tiny speck that is only significant to its occupants. At any event, you are demonstrating a truly profound level of ignorance of physics, geology, chemistry, astronomy, biology, and a few other subjects. ALL the hard evidence points toward the Universe being billions of years old, and denying the facts in order to keep believing in a myth invented by illlterate peasants is just sad. But hey, if that's what floats your ark, go for it. You can even raise your children that way and preach your beliefs to others, Just don't try to turn your beliefs into laws that everyone else must follow and we can co-exist just fine.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." - Carl Sagan
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites