Spirituality, global hoax or personal truth?

[Swift]

No, not in any way do I acknowledge spirits. But you apparently do, and you've made a selection of one in which to place your faith and your life.

How did you make that choice?

And, if "spirituality is not religion", why have you chosen on of the world's largest and most over-organized religions?

The difference is quite simple. Most people think that you show spirituality through religion. However, people like Pako and myself, show our religion through our spirituality. To make it even more simple, you don't need one word of scripture to be filled with the spirit of Jesus. Not one, just faith and praise. That's it.

 

[Duke]

How did you make that choice?

 

[Grand Prix]

Jebus appeared in his dreams and said he'd make hot love to him if he wasn't Christian. Who knows?

 

[Funkshen]

Jebus appeared in his dreams and said he'd make hot love to him if he wasn't Christian. Who knows?

That was quite un called for... and further yet. not humerous

I hope you guys, don't mind me joining this conversation.
And i very much show my religion through my spirituality.

 

[Duke]

Jebus appeared in his dreams and said he'd make hot love to him if he wasn't Christian. Who knows?

I know you're on my side, and I'm sure this was an attempt to leaven things a little, but it was fairly uncalled for.

 

[Grand Prix]

I know you're on my side, and I'm sure this was an attempt to leaven things a little, but it was fairly uncalled for.

My apologies to everyone then. Of course none of it was serious.

 

[Swift]

How did you make that choice?

That's very easy, however the answer is not what you want to hear. So I will ask, how did you make your choice?

 

[Sage]

[Answering for Duke, though he did make this post himself:] This way.

 

[Swift]

[Answering for Duke, though he did make this post himself:] This way.

That answer makes no sense. You say that you can't question it, just believe it? I question my pastor all the time and he proves to me, from scripture, what he's saying.

And for the record. I didn't choice God, he chose me. Now, you're going to say, how do you know it's God? Because I do, just like Danoff knows he's the originator of his thoughts.

 

[Sage]

It makes perfect sense. Duke was saying that by forbidding Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, there's an implication that we aren't supposed to know, just do as we're told.

BTW, I think it's rather interesting how there are like a dozen different interpretations of the Original Sin. Either only one of you is right, or all of you are wrong. Which, again, comes down to: How on earth do you choose which one to believe in? Has God given you any indication of which of the Original Sins is the real one?

You're going to be angry at me for saying this, but to me it's all like a buffet table: Choose the one that makes you feel good and that you're comfortable with and conveniently leave the other stuff behind.

 

[Swift]

It makes perfect sense. Duke was saying that by forbidding Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge, there's an implication that we aren't supposed to know, just do as we're told.

BTW, I think it's rather interesting how there are like a dozen different interpretations of the Original Sin. Either only one of you is right, or all of you are wrong. Which, again, comes down to: How on earth do you choose which one to believe in? Has God given you any indication of which of the Original Sins is the real one?

You're going to be angry at me for saying this, but to me it's all like a buffet table: Choose the one that makes you feel good and that you're comfortable with and conveniently leave the other stuff behind.

Do you tell childen everything? Especially right of the bat? Do people have rules they have to follow? Even in today's world? Follow the rules or face the penalty. This is not a concept exclusive to the bible. It exists in any society that we would deem civilized. Adam and Eve only had one rule. Don't eat from one of the umpteen trees in the garden. Adam disobeyed God and thus the fall of man began.

 

[Blake]

That's very easy, however the answer is not what you want to hear.

What is the answer?

Blake

 

[a6m5]

Warning: My post here is from my religious standpoint. I'm not trying to offend anyone who might not share my religious beliefs. It might not make any sense to you, so please feel free to ignore what I have to say. Thanks.

Do you tell childen everything? Especially right of the bat? Do people have rules they have to follow? Even in today's world? Follow the rules or face the penalty. This is not a concept exclusive to the bible. It exists in any society that we would deem civilized. Adam and Eve only had one rule. Don't eat from one of the umpteen trees in the garden. Adam disobeyed God and thus the fall of man began.

This is the best post I've seen from you, yet. To be quite honest, I've always wondered about that Adam, Eve and the forbidden fruit business. I still do remember that post by Duke, Sage just dug out.

Adam and Eve were hanging out naked, lacking certain knowledge. Every time I thought about that, I thought that maybe God wanted us to idiot robots. You can study history or watch CNN for an hour. You'll see the type of things mankind is capable of with the knowledge we gained. It is a disaster with wars and all sorts of crimes. When you made a comparison between man(us) and children in your post, it made so much sense to me. Good job, Swift! 👍

 

[Pako]

[Answering for Duke, though he did make this post himself:] This way.

It takes knowledge to build an atomic bomb, it takes wisdom to not use it. What good is knowledge without wisdom? (rhetorical, really no need to answer that)


Famine,
Sorry, it appeared like a "gripe" list to me, my mistake. The reason why Christ is so ingrained into our lives 2000+ years after his resurrection is because of the truth behind his birth, life, death, and resurrection.

 

[Swift]

Warning: My post here is from my religious standpoint. I'm not trying to offend anyone who might not share my religious beliefs. It might not make any sense to you, so please feel free to ignore what I have to say. Thanks.

This is the best post I've seen from you, yet.

Good job, Swift! 👍

Thanks . And send me a PM if you'd like to hear my take on the fall in more detail.

 

[Grand Prix]

One philosphical view I've always found interesting is that of Friedrich Nietzsche's.

In general, Nietzsche thought that there are two worlds; Appearance and Reality. The world according to humans is Appearance, the real world is Reality. Nietzsche then concluded that both worlds are one, the reason they are distinguished is because of the brain's thinking process, specifically in language. We say "lightning flashes", but are there really two things, the lightning and the flash? No, of course not. But this seems to be the only way we're able to grasp and express things. In our reality, for every deed there is a doer. Every action must have a subject, or doer, performing it, when in reality there is nothing beyond the action.

"... The popular mind separates the lightning from its flash and takes the latter for an action, for the operation of a subject called lightning....But there is no such substratum; there is no "being" behind doing, effecting, becoming; "the doer" is merely a fiction added to the deed - the deed is everything. The popular mind in fact doubles the deed; when it sees the lightning flash, it is the deed of a deed: it posits the same event first as cause and then a second time as its effect." - Nietzsche

The distinction between doer and deed petrified in our language is the beginning of the split between appearance and reality, Nietzsche tells us, and gets transformed by Plato, for example, into the forms/paticulars dichotomy; by Schopenhauer in to the will/representation distinction; and by Christains into the split between Heaven and Earth, God and man.
"I am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar." - Nietzsche

Another interseting bit of his philosophy is his interpretation between good and bad, good and evil. Ever since the existence of man, tribe leaders, nobles and lords have existed. The nobles, with their wealth, land, and peasant workers, defined themselves as "good", and, as an afterthought, labeled everything else as "bad". Weak, sick, poor, stupid, are all words that are commonly agreed to be negative, but not just in the subjective sense. Everyone knows what the word "weak" implies, even if they do not agree with it. These words described "bad" things according to the nobles; they represented everything that they were not.

Now, onto "slave morality". The peasants, or "slaves", weaker and poorer men, resented the cruelty of their masters, and labeled themselves as "good", and, as an afterthought, labeled the nobles as "evil". They wanted to be as powerful as the nobles, however. The slaves' weakness transformed to "something meritorious"; "anxious lowilness" into "humility"; "impotence which does not requite" is changed into "goodness of heart".

In other words, the peasants made it seem as if their traits were something desirable! Being weak was reinterpreted as a virtue.

Moving along on the subject of "good and bad", Nietzsche also brought up this point: If Heaven is eternal good and happiness, what is the value of Earth compared to it? What is the value of my body, compared to my immortal soul? Nothing, of course! Then what point is there to living? Religion is a trap; religion tries to give value to our lives by offering us eternal life after we die. The very idea is seriously flawed, "God" tells me that I will live forever if I am a good person, but at the same time he forbids suicide. This contradiction is what makes religion so popular; religion doesn't try to snare you in (although it does that too, just not as effectively) , it attempts to prevent you from jumping out! The very idea that God will punish you if you quit is enough to keep converts.

Instead of having miserable lives trying to constantly please ourselves in a world without value, we should give value to our bodies, and Earth. Life is short, that's why I try to make the most of it.


All of this is purely opinion and philosophy and should not be regarded as absolute truth.

 

[Duke]

Do you tell childen everything? Especially right of the bat?

I can think of no single instance in the history of mankind where the suppression of knowledge has been, in the long run, a good thing.

Heck, yes, I tell my children everything. In a world where all they have to survive on is their intellect, they need every tool and all the information available to them. They need to be able to make informed decisions every day of their lives, and the earlier they can do so, the better.

Does this mean that I taught my 6-year-old the mechanics of sex? No. But I did teach her that men and women do something that causes a baby to start growing in the woman, and that's where she came from. What would be the purpose of teaching her that the stork left her or that angels brought her? Why not teach her the facts, and add detail as it becomes appropriate for her age? I've made damn sure that my 13-year-old has had a complete health class that does include the mechanics of sex. It's fundamental information that it is critically important she has available.

It doesn't take any training to figure out how to use your genitals. But it does take a lot of education to understand an appreciate the consequences. Again, why would I cripple that effort by denying knowledge to my kids?

It's like teaching toddlers baby talk when they are just learning to speak. It's not only unneccessary, it's counterproductive. Say I teach my 3-year-old to say "choo choo". Then, 3 years later, I'm just going to have to teach her to say "train" instead. Why start her out with a disadvantage - with incomplete or wrong information that she has to unlearn?

People tell me all the time how smart my kids are, and their test scores and grades show it too. It's not superior genetics, or even a concerted effort on our parts to make them excel. It's 100% attributable to the fact that we've never falsified or dumbed anything down in our explanations. Particularly not when answering their questions on topics they initiate.

Do people have rules they have to follow? Even in today's world? Follow the rules or face the penalty. This is not a concept exclusive to the bible. It exists in any society that we would deem civilized. Adam and Eve only had one rule. Don't eat from one of the umpteen trees in the garden. Adam disobeyed God and thus the fall of man began.

But you're missing the fundamental point - why was that rule in place?

The rule was in place so that Man would not presume to know God's secrets. The rule was in place so that Man could be controlled by his lack of knowledge. This is why God never explained why he made the rule.

So, say I tell my 5-year-old not to touch an electrical outlet. No explanation, just a bald, meaningless rule. Not very effective parenting. Yet if I explain that the same electricity that makes her lamp light up and the oven get hot will make her light up and get hot, maybe enough to kill her, then she has a clear understanding of why the rule exists.

Then I'm not simply dictating some incomprehensible and arbitrary rule to her; I'm getting her understanding and buy-in. I'm giving her another tool she can use to generalize her understanding of the world. Yet I'm still preventing the undesirable action - and in fact more effectively than if I was simply authoritarian about it.

Do you see?

Of course rules are part and parcel of civilization. But arbitrary, dictatorial rules are not. Rules exist so that humans can coexist and prosper together. They do not exist for their own sake. Understanding and information allows people to make informed, rational decisions about their own actions. Authoritarian rules with secret motives keep people under control. This is the fundamental evil of the concept of Original Sin, not that mankind dared to question God.

Now, in answer to your question, I made my choice largely based on the event that Sage quoted. That was my reaction to being taught the basics of Judeo-Christianity; it conflicted utterly with what I had learned and figured out for myself by that young age. Since then I have done reasonably extensive reading both of religious texts and of their analyses and religious history. I've also observed the happenings of the physical world in which I live.

The fundamental discord that I noted has been borne out by logical induction and simply thinking about what I see. I have determined no reason that the world must be explained by supernatural means; therefore I have not selected a supernatural philosophy. I am confronted with the choice between an observed, physical world that follows stable, predictable laws (even chaos is predictable in some ways), and a literally infinite number of unknown, by definition unknowable, worlds that follow arbitrary laws which are not based on any observable phenomena.

Frankly, I don't understand why that's even a choice. But I made it; it didn't make me.

 

[Swift]

Duke, perhaps I phrased that wrong. Do you explain everything to your child? When they constantly question you on why they have to do, do you give them a long explaination trying to rationalize it? Or do you say, "Because I'm your father and I said so"?

The tree was not of the knowledge of God. It was of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Hense, eating it would have people know the difference between good and evil. Adam WASN'T stupid. He named every animal and tree in the garden. You can't be stupid and do that. There was one rule, Don't eat from one tree. When Adam, not Eve, but when Adam ate it, that was rebelion against God just like teenagers rebel against parents today. Now, he could've repented, but he decided to blame eve who then blamed the serpent.

The fall was do to rebellion and lack of repentance. Why couldn't they eat of the tree? Because the tree had the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It infact would enable the person to tell the difference between right and wrong. Before that time, Adam and Eve didn't have that wisdom, hence they couldn't sin. I still think it's amazing that people will ALWAYS try to do what they can't do. Instead of having a good time doing all that they can.

 

[Grand Prix]

Most of us still can't tell the difference between good and bad, read my post about Nietzsche's views.

 

[Duke]

Duke, perhaps I phrased that wrong. Do you explain everything to your child? When they constantly question you on why they have to do, do you give them a long explaination trying to rationalize it? Or do you say, "Because I'm your father and I said so"?

Yes, I expalin everything. It's nearly pointless to not explain - that's why my example of the electrical socket. I don't explain everything every time, no. But instead of "because I'm your father and I said so", I can say "I've already explained why it's this way". It's a fundamental difference. "Because I said so..." is arbitrary and thus meaningless. "You need to do this because..." is informative and productive.

The tree was not of the knowledge of God. It was of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Hense, eating it would have people know the difference between good and evil. Adam WASN'T stupid. He named every animal and tree in the garden. You can't be stupid and do that.

I said that it was knowledge of God's secrets. Isn't Good and Evil one of God's secrets? If not, why was he protecting it?

Naming things takes no intelligence. God presented Adam with each thing, and Adam made something up off the top of his head. There wasn't any marketing research or any scientific classification system involved.

Besides, I never said Adam was stupid - if he was, he never would have tried to gain more knowledge. The thirst for better understanding is why humans are not stone age hunter gatherers today.

There was one rule, Don't eat from one tree. When Adam, not Eve, but when Adam ate it, that was rebelion against God just like teenagers rebel against parents today. Now, he could've repented, but he decided to blame eve who then blamed the serpent.

The fall was do to rebellion and lack of repentance.

But in my mind, rebellion against arbitrary authority is a good thing. Not against logical authority - but even that's OK when you're only affecting yourself (which we've covered extensively in another topic).

But if you are given a rule, with no explanation as to why it should be, isn't that unjust? God made the fruit poison - it wasn't inherently poison. So he made it a circular proposition: "Your only rule is don't eat this because it will kill you. I made it so it will kill you. Your punishment for not following this rule is: you will die." So God made an arbitrary rule with arbitrary consequences.

Why couldn't they eat of the tree? Because the tree had the Knowledge of Good and Evil. It infact would enable the person to tell the difference between right and wrong. Before that time, Adam and Eve didn't have that wisdom, hence they couldn't sin.

That makes no sense to me. If I didn't know that killing someone to steal something I coveted was wrong, why wouldn't I just do it? If you cannot tell right from wrong, what stops you from doing wrong?! You can interpret that in a very Nietszchean way: if you do not define sin, then nothing is sin and everything is acceptable.

In another way, I guess your comment sort of explains why Conservatives think that denying sex education will somehow prevent teenagers from having sex.

I still think it's amazing that people will ALWAYS try to do what they can't do. Instead of having a good time doing all that they can.

I do too, though I suspect I find it amazing in a different way than you do.

To me, I'm amazed, because if we didn't try to do what we can't do, "having a good time doing all I can" would include scratching in the dirt all day for digestible roots, hoping I could push a wild pig off a cliff without getting gored, and dying at age 22.

 

[Swift]

That makes no sense to me. If I didn't know that killing someone to steal something I coveted was wrong, why wouldn't I just do it? If you cannot tell right from wrong, what stops you from doing wrong?! You can interpret that in a very Nietszchean way: if you do not define sin, then nothing is sin and everything is acceptable.

Your mentioning rules that were instituted AFTER fall here.

Ok, so when you tell your child to say, clean their room. And they ask "why" do you say because it teaches you responsibility and in the long wrong it will be better because you won't think the world owes you something. You have authority over your children. Granted, they should be given every opportunity to gain knowledge. But at the same time, their future boss isn't going to explain everything to them when they are told to do something, so why should they now?

 

[Pako]

The way I see it is that God couldn't explain something that they wouldn't understand at the time. They would have had no prior experience to draw conclusions, definitions or understanding of what this knowledge would mean to them. God couldn't say, for example, "Eat of the fruit and you will be ashamed of being naked". They didn't know what naked was, much less what being ashamed was. So, do as I say with out explanation because you wouldn't understand the explanation. If the reasoning can be explained and understood, I think that's great, but when the concepts are beyond comprehension, explanations don't work.

 

[Duke]

Your mentioning rules that were instituted AFTER fall here.

So in other words, before killing was defined as evil, it was OK? I'm confused by what you're saying. Killing existed before the fall, or else all the carnivores starved to death.

Ok, so when you tell your child to say, clean their room. And they ask "why" do you say because it teaches you responsibility and in the long wrong it will be better because you won't think the world owes you something. You have authority over your children.

I tell them they need to keep a path clean on their floor so that I can come help them in the middle of the night without stepping on anything. Other than that, it's their room. But I tell them they need to pick up their junk from the rest of the house, because those areas are common to all of us and courtesy demands that we each pick up our own messes and not inconvenience each other.

Granted, they should be given every opportunity to gain knowledge. But at the same time, their future boss isn't going to explain everything to them when they are told to do something, so why should they now?

By the time they have a boss, they'll be equipped to figure out for themselves why certain things are the way they are, or why they are assigned certain tasks. And, frankly, I wouldn't want them to work in a job that called for or with a boss who expected unquestioning obedience (unless of course they decide to join the military).

 

[Swift]

So in other words, before killing was defined as evil, it was OK? I'm confused by what you're saying. Killing existed before the fall, or else all the carnivores starved to death.

Killing and murder are two very different things.

By the time they have a boss, they'll be equipped to figure out for themselves why certain things are the way they are, or why they are assigned certain tasks. And, frankly, I wouldn't want them to work in a job that called for or with a boss who expected unquestioning obedience (unless of course they decide to join the military).

I'm not saying unquestioning. But when you're being PAID for a position and your boss tells you to do something that you deam a waste of time, it's usually not cool to ask why. Unless of course it's unlawful or immoral. But you get what I'm saying.

 

[a6m5]

And, frankly, I wouldn't want them to work in a job that called for or with a boss who expected unquestioning obedience (unless of course they decide to join the military).

 

[Danoff]

I'm not saying unquestioning. But when you're being PAID for a position and your boss tells you to do something that you deam a waste of time, it's usually not cool to ask why. Unless of course it's unlawful or immoral. But you get what I'm saying.

That kind of thinking in the workplace will get you nowhere. The boss got where he/she is by asking why every time.

 

[Duke]

Killing and murder are two very different things.

How, if right and wrong are not defined? I'm honestly confused.

I'm not saying unquestioning. But when you're being PAID for a position and your boss tells you to do something that you deam a waste of time, it's usually not cool to ask why.

True... but there, the overarcing rationale is "because I'm paying you to do what I say", with the implicit corollary that they can quit if they cannot fathom the reasoning. And I still maintain that they will have developed the skills to not need to have everything explained; it should be fairly apparent why they are being asked.

 

[Pako]

That kind of thinking in the workplace will get you nowhere. The boss got where he/she is by asking why every time.

Which of course depends on the situation. Sometimes questioning your boss gets you fired. Sometimes asking "why" at the end of every conversation with your boss will get you fired. Sometimes we have to do it first so that we can learn from it and answer the "whys" for ourselves.

 

[Duke]

Which of course depends on the situation. Sometimes questioning your boss gets you fired. Sometimes asking "why" at the end of every conversation with your boss will get you fired. Sometimes we have to do it first so that we can learn from it and answer the "whys" for ourselves.

But that is, in fact, completely tangential to my original post:

But if you are given a rule, with no explanation as to why it should be, isn't that unjust? God made the fruit poison - it wasn't inherently poison. So he made it a circular proposition: "Your only rule is don't eat this because it will kill you. I made it so it will kill you. Your punishment for not following this rule is: you will die." So God made an arbitrary rule with arbitrary consequences.

Pissing your boss off can get you fired, true. But the odds are that the boss has a rational explanation for why he wants you to do something, or he won't be boss too long. Whether he feels like explaining it is immaterial.

But God had no rational explanation, of course; he didn't need one. He simply defined something arbitrarily as lethal, he made it so, and then he punished Adam and Eve for questioning that lethality. It was a circular, and largely self-fulfilling, prophecy.

 

[Swift]

That kind of thinking in the workplace will get you nowhere. The boss got where he/she is by asking why every time.

Yeah, right. I can see you haven't been in the workforce to long. Or at least, haven't had too many different jobs.