Spirituality, global hoax or personal truth?

[Swift]

No we're not born that way, but it doesn't necessarily have to be taught to us by others. Human beings have the capacity to think.

If we are not taught what is right and what is wrong, how are you going to know? You can think all you want, but if someone doesn't tell and show you what is wrong and what is right. How can you have any kind of basis to "think" on.

You cannot lead a productive life without standing on the shoulders of those who came before you - but you'll get nowhere if you let others run your life. You have to pick and choose what you're going to test and what you'll accept based on the information you have. This is why Adam and Eve were right to eat from the tree of knowledge in the story of the garden of eden. Given the information they had - it was the right choice and I might have done the same.

Wow, amazing. So, you have to be disobedient and rebellious to live a productive life? What kind of philosophy is that? I mean, when you are going to try something that your parents did and they tell you, "I tried that and it ended up very badly" Then, you do it anyway just because you have to experience it for yourself, that's a fool. A wise person listens to council. He doesn't just throw it away because it doesn't agree with his current stance at the moment.

 

[Pako]

Is this a put-on? Are you testing us? This is a joke, right?

"Explain yourself", you ask? Huh? What? You actually think I'm the one who has some explaining to do?

This is precisely the mentality that Jim Jones exploited when he got his sheep to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid! This is exactly what the president of the Mormon church is relying on when he says that he tolerates no dissenting opinion from members of his vastly wealthy supercult. This is how Khomeini came to power in Iran, and how the Madrassas schools manage to pump out so many fanatical graduates!

Your way of thinking is pre-medieval! How can you expect anyone to have any respect for anything you say when you make a statement like this?

Not a put-on. Not testing anyone. Certainly not joking. You somehow decided that I (or someone) was in someway comparable to soldiers of Hitler's army and I was dumb founded in how you would arrive at that conclusion, so yes....I was asking you to explain that to me.

If you think my way of thinking is pre-medieval, that is your opinion, regardless how wrong you are, you are still entitled to your opinion. I certainly don't expect respect from anyone, all I am doing is sharing my experiences and reasons why my spirituality works for me.

What expectations do you have?

 

[Danoff]

If we are not taught what is right and what is wrong, how are you going to know? You can think all you want, but if someone doesn't tell and show you what is wrong and what is right. How can you have any kind of basis to "think" on.

I'm not sure I know how to explain something that basic. That civilization and morals exist today proves your statement wrong. Nobody told humanity what is right and wrong - we developed it for ourselves.

Now, if you think that humanity has derived all of its morals from the word of God - then I ask you to explain the existance of eithcs prior to the existance of christianity or Jesus.

Wow, amazing. So, you have to be disobedient and rebellious to live a productive life? What kind of philosophy is that?

...how about... creative? original? skeptical?

I mean, when you are going to try something that your parents did and they tell you, "I tried that and it ended up very badly" Then, you do it anyway just because you have to experience it for yourself, that's a fool. A wise person listens to council. He doesn't just throw it away because it doesn't agree with his current stance at the moment.

A wise person doesn't always listen to council, nor does he always disregard council.

 

[Duke]

Knowledge is always worth hardship. If nothing else, knowledge gives you the power to avoid future hardship.

And look at the cost of that knowledge. I gained nothing from my experience other than being able to tell other people what NOT to experience. If they're anything like me, they will ignore my warnings and learn things the hard way, much in the same way I did, or they will die.

You learned to stop. You learned how to avoid killing yourself. You learned to change your ways. That's quite a bit of gain, in my book. You were hard headed about learning the lesson. It happens. It doesn't mean you should then just accept what you're told.

A wise person would be able to make the right decision without having to personally experience for themselves. I don't know where you find this kind of wisdom unless you make choices based on others wisdom.

Some kinds of people can, some can't; mostly it has to do with the specific question and the specific person.

Learning from other people's experience can be a rare talent. Learning from other people's advice without seeing the effects first hand (either on them or you) is very difficult. This is a result of natural, healthy skepticism.

I had a friend in college with a well-managed cocaine habit. He had it under control for the 5 years I knew him. I saw others who did not. I drew my own conclusions based on that observed evidence. But I wouldn't have listened to advice from either side.

This is why I try to look towards God for direction and wisdom in my life. I've learned my lesson and will continue to ask for guidance from God, and so far He's been pretty good at offering His advise. I don't need to jump off a cliff to know it's going to kill me, I don't need to know that the quest for self gratification is empty and shallow, I don't need to know that murder is wrong, I don't need to know that cheating on my wife is wrong, I don't need to know any of these things from personal experience. I can look to God for those answers without having to experience it for myself.

As danoff says, I don't need God to tell me not to jump off a cliff. I only needed a few months worth of serious drinking and smoking pot to tell me it was not a constructive lifestyle. I didn't need to try anything more serious myself to see the same thing. But I can think for myself, and so can any other human being. It just takes a small amount of intellectual honesty and rationality.

I don't need to know that the quest for self gratification is empty and shallow...

That depends utterly on how you gratify yourself. And no matter how you gratify yourself, it still depends utterly on your attitude towards that gratification.

You can spend your life having sex with as many different women as possible. If you think that it will fix some hidden self-esteem problem, or make you an admired person, or if it is an addiction, then you are correct, it will be empty and shallow. But if it is simply an experience you prize, to experience in many different subtle forms, and savor and appreciate in all its variety and complexity, and is not a dysfunctional part of your psychological makeup, who's to say it's shallow? Perhaps you work with sex the way an artist works with brush and paint or a winemaker works with grape and cask. I wouldn't call that 'shallow' self-gratification.

I can make my life a whole lot easier if I let God guide my life instead of trying to guide myself, but that's just me.

That is just you. My life would become a whole lot more complicated if I let anybody else guide my life.

 

[Swift]

I'm not sure I know how to explain something that basic. That civilization and morals exist today proves your statement wrong. Nobody told humanity what is right and wrong - we developed it for ourselves.

Now, if you think that humanity has derived all of its morals from the word of God - then I ask you to explain the existance of eithcs prior to the existance of christianity or Jesus.



...how about... creative? original? skeptical?



A wise person doesn't always listen to council, nor does he always disregard council.

Again, I'm talking about a person. Singular, not a civilization. If you put a baby by themselves in a lab and just give it food and water. I seriously doubt it's going to develop into a productive member of society. Certainly, it wouldn't have any notion of what is right and what is not. That is TAUGHT by parents and other things in society.

A wise person ALWAYS listens to council. Does it always effect his conclusion, nope. But why would he not listen if he was wise?

 

[Danoff]

A wise person ALWAYS listens to council. Does it always effect his conclusion, nope. But why would he not listen if he was wise?

By listen I meant affect his decision.

Again, I'm talking about a person. Singular, not a civilization. If you put a baby by themselves in a lab and just give it food and water. I seriously doubt it's going to develop into a productive member of society. Certainly, it wouldn't have any notion of what is right and what is not. That is TAUGHT by parents and other things in society.

Isolate one human being in a room and let it grow up and it will have no sense of just about anything - including other human beings or its own appearance. It's a rather silly idea.

Isolate 10 human beings in a room and let them grow up with food and water and games or whatever and they will organize into a society. Some of them will understand right and wrong and others will not. But there is some argument as to whether the ones who do not could be taught. It is possible they could be threatened into abiding by other people's concepts of right and wrong - but they would have to be threatened with something bad... like eternal damnation.

 

[Swift]

By listen I meant affect his decision.



Isolate one human being in a room and let it grow up and it will have no sense of just about anything - including other human beings or its own appearance. It's a rather silly idea.

Just as silly as saying to don't "believe" in anything when infact you do.

 

[Pako]

Knowledge is always worth hardship. If nothing else, knowledge gives you the power to avoid future hardship.

You learned to stop. You learned how to avoid killing yourself. You learned to change your ways. That's quite a bit of gain, in my book. You were hard headed about learning the lesson. It happens. It doesn't mean you should then just accept what you're told.

Some kinds of people can, some can't; mostly it has to do with the specific question and the specific person.

Learning from other people's experience can be a rare talent. Learning from other people's advice without seeing the effects first hand (either on them or you) is very difficult. This is a result of natural, healthy skepticism.

I had a friend in college with a well-managed cocaine habit. He had it under control for the 5 years I knew him. I saw others who did not. I drew my own conclusions based on that observed evidence. But I wouldn't have listened to advice from either side.


As danoff says, I don't need God to tell me not to jump off a cliff. I only needed a few months worth of serious drinking and smoking pot to tell me it was not a constructive lifestyle. I didn't need to try anything more serious myself to see the same thing. But I can think for myself, and so can any other human being. It just takes a small amount of intellectual honesty and rationality.

That depends utterly on how you gratify yourself. And no matter how you gratify yourself, it still depends utterly on your attitude towards that gratification.

You can spend your life having sex with as many different women as possible. If you think that it will fix some hidden self-esteem problem, or make you an admired person, or if it is an addiction, then you are correct, it will be empty and shallow. But if it is simply an experience you prize, to experience in many different subtle forms, and savor and appreciate in all its variety and complexity, and is not a dysfunctional part of your psychological makeup, who's to say it's shallow? Perhaps you work with sex the way an artist works with brush and paint or a winemaker works with grape and cask. I wouldn't call that 'shallow' self-gratification.

That is just you. My life would become a whole lot more complicated if I let anybody else guide my life.

There are definitely a lot of dependencies on these topics for sure. I would also agree that I don't need God to tell me that jumping off of a cliff is going to hurt/mame/kill, my point with that particular example is that I didn't need to experience it to guess at the outcome. Other situations aren't that simple to see what the outcome will be. The knowledge I gained from my lifestyle many years ago is valuable, but it wasn't worth the price that others had to pay around me nor was it worth the sacrifices that I had to make. I wasn't the only one effected by my lifestyle. I am grateful for where I am today but wish I would have taken better advise and hope that others would take better advise as well. Your example of the sex artist, although and interesting example, is based on a lot of what if's. What Christ teaches are absolute truths, and if practiced, the outcomes are definite and his promises are finite. That's what I hold on to and that is the foundation for my spirituality.

I sincerely appreciate how you respond without belittling or demeaning my experience even though it contradicts your own opinion, so thanks.

 

[Danoff]

Just as silly as saying to don't "believe" in anything when infact you do.

Is this supposed to make me look like some kind of hypocrite? I've been clear on this issue.

There are definitely a lot of dependencies on these topics for sure. I would also agree that I don't need God to tell me that jumping off of a cliff is going to hurt/mame/kill, my point with that particular example is that I didn't need to experience it to guess at the outcome. Other situations aren't that simple to see what the outcome will be. The knowledge I gained from my lifestyle many years ago is valuable, but it wasn't worth the price that others had to pay around me nor was it worth the sacrifices that I had to make. I wasn't the only one effected by my lifestyle. I am grateful for where I am today but wish I would have taken better advise and hope that others would take better advise as well. Your example of the sex artist, although and interesting example, is based on a lot of what if's. What Christ teaches are absolute truths, and if practiced, the outcomes are definite and his promises are finite. That's what I hold on to and that is the foundation for my spirituality.

The whole thing presumes God exists. Do you suppose that all men are immoral in the absense of faith?

I sincerely appreciate how you respond without belittling or demeaning my experience even though it contradicts your own opinion, so thanks.

Is this a dig at me or were you just being nice to Duke?

 

[Swift]

Is this supposed to make me look like some kind of hypocrite? I've been clear on this issue.



The whole thing presumes God exists. Do you suppose that all men are immoral in the absense of faith?

Danoff, you don't believe you just typed that. How am I supposed to hold a conversation with a person that doesn't believe in the things that they do themselves?

So he proved that god existed by showing you documents that are, arguably, meaningless in a scientific and historical (I'm not saying the scriptures are meaningless to history. I am, however, saying that they do not reveal a whole lot that is true to history) context?

Blake

I looked at his life, the people in the church and what the word said and they weren't hyporcrites.

 

[Pako]

The whole thing presumes God exists. Do you suppose that all men are immoral in the absense of faith?

Not at all, but it does mean that a lot of mistakes will be made during life that could otherwise have been avoided should the teachings of Christ be put into practice in an individual's life. Unlike some examples of mass murder, religious suicide, mass cult media, living by Christ's teachings is actually a good way to live. A lot of people who don't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior still live with some principles that parallel Christ's teachings.

Is this a dig at me or were you just being nice to Duke?

I sincerely do appreciate how he responds in this thread and wanted to let him know that.

 

[Swift]

A lot of people who don't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior still live with some principles that parallel Christ's teachings.

Amazing how that works huh?

 

[Duke]

A lot of people who don't accept Christ as their Lord and Savior still live with some principles that parallel Christ's teachings.

That's correct. It doesn't mean the Christians can co-opt those principles as "Christian" necessarily, though. Many Christian principles are parallel with Buddhist, Islamic, or other major religions... not to mention non-religious principles.

Amazing how that works huh?

I do, myself. It doesn't make me a Christian in any way. Some people did so before Christ was born. They weren't Christians either.

May I ask your point?

 

[Swift]

I do, myself. It doesn't make me a Christian in any way. Some people did so before Christ was born. They weren't Christians either.

May I ask your point?

Certainly! However I find it funny that most people posting in this thread has expressed that things happened "before" Christ was born. Well, yeah. That was the time of the Law. Abraham, Issac, Jacob(Israel), Moses, David and others. When Christ was born he fulfilled the law, he wasn't rebelling against it.

Oh yeah, my point is that as I've said a long time ago. The vast majority of what we consider good moral values, come from spirituality or dare I say, religous influence.

 

[Tacet_Blue]

Right at the beginning of this thread Swift posted this

Religion is not spirituality, as we have concluded in the Religion is contrived thread. So what is your spirituality?

So how did this thread turn into another debate about the existence of God, Adam and Eve, salvation etc. That all sounds like religion to me, and not just any religion, Christianity again.

It is obvious it means a lot to Swift and Pako, but come on guys, let us entertain the idea that there are other religions, and other concepts of spirituality that are non Christian.

I would have thought that the eastern religions were more centered on the spirit. Taoism, Buddhism and probably some more ism's that I can't think of, all talk about cultivating the spirit.

They describe it as life force, and you can assist its path through your body by meditation and Qui Kung. It passes through the chakra's or acupuncture points, and sometimes can get congested there.

They believe that a rigid mind reflects itself in a rigid body, so stretching is important as the process works both ways. If you indulge in those bizarre yoga moves your mind is meant to benefit.

The spirit is your life force, sometimes portrayed as a golden spark. In some texts Shaolin monks are said to get their Qui to such a level that it passes from their tail bone to the top of their head in what is known as the greater heavenly circulation.
It then leaves the top of the head and travels to heaven, so in a way they believe that the spirit is it's own entity. Apparently that is why Shaolin monks shave their heads, it is so that God can touch their Qui more easily!

Whether any of that is true, I don't know but I have seen those monks sit on a frozen mountain top with nothing more than a robe, and stay there all night with no ill effects. The camera crew watching them, dressed in arctic clothing had to stop filming after a few hours as they were in danger of getting hypothermia. The level these monks can take there bodies to is incredible, whether it is the power of their spirit or just the awesomeness of the human body, is up to you to decide.

Whilst you are having a lively and interesting debate about Christianity (again..Swift ) I would just like to remind you of the spirituality the east has practiced for millennia.

 

[Swift]

That's all well and good TB. And I appreciate the distinction you made. But my intent was never to open discussion about multiple religions. But to discuss why people do or do not ackhnowledge their spirit.

 

[Duke]

Oh yeah, my point is that as I've said a long time ago. The vast majority of what we consider good moral values, come from spirituality or dare I say, religous influence.

I disagree. The vast majority of what we consider religious influence comes from moral law. That's why religious law exists.

 

[Swift]

I disagree. The vast majority of what we consider religious influence comes from moral law. That's why religious law exists.

Wow, I'm really missing that. Seriously. From my understanding, it's people basic moral values, that have come from spirtituality that gave us morality laws. Guess I'm not right.

 

[Danoff]

Wow, I'm really missing that. Seriously. From my understanding, it's people basic moral values, that have come from spirtituality that gave us morality laws. Guess I'm not right.

I'm sure that religion has played a role in some morality laws - though I'm probably against most of them. I don't think its necessarily the source of law and morality though.

Our society would look quite a bit different if our law was structured entirely by the bible. The 10 commandments, for example, would actually be law.

 

[Duke]

Moral law existed because there are rights that are inherent in being a civilized human. You have the right not to be attacked, raped, stolen from, or lied to. These all derive from your right to own the property you earn and your right to own your body. Lying is a form of theft and therefore comes under the umbrella of property rights. The more physical rights obviously come from your self-ownership.

Religious law was created to provide a compelling method of teaching these rights to humans in need of civilization. But the underlying moral law derives from humanity; God is merely a method of getting the point across with authority in the face of the more physical authority of a club or spear.

The spirituality aspect was created to provide answers and information that the as-yet undiscovered sciences were not around to give. They were also created to give people a compelling reason to follow the laws taught above, in order to combat the threat of physical violence.

A byproduct of this is the corollary to "Knowledge is power" as quoted above. Those with knowledge have an advantage over those who don't. Therefore the shaman/priest/disciple will have the power of authority since they are the alleged source of knowledge concerning the spirit or deity.

So religion derives from morality. Not vice versa.

 

[Danoff]

Moral law existed because there are rights that are inherent in being a civilized human. You have the right not to be attacked, raped, stolen from, or lied to. These all derive from your right to own the property you earn and your right to own your body. Lying is a form of theft and therefore comes under the umbrella of property rights. The more physical rights obviously come from your self-ownership.

I think that some of the stranger laws we have come from religion.

Like laws against drinking, drugs, prostitution, etc. These things were fairly convenient to eliminate legally because they made most people feel better - and most people went along with it because of religion.

But if religion were the basis of all law and morality - it wouldn't be legal to cheat on your wife or work on Sunday.

 

[Swift]

But if religion were the basis of all law and morality - it wouldn't be legal to cheat on your wife or work on Sunday.

It's still not legal to cheat on your wife. As far as the working on Sunday thing goes, well. That's total preference. But chic-fil-a isn't open on Sunday!

 

[Danoff]

It's still not legal to cheat on your wife. As far as the working on Sunday thing goes, well. That's total preference. But chic-fil-a isn't open on Sunday!

It is legal to cheat on your wife. I don't know of anyone who has been put in jail for adultery.

Don't dodge the point. If the 10 commandments were law it would also be illegal to:

Have any Gods before the christian God.
Make carved images of anything that is in heaven above blah blah blah...
Take the Lord's name in vain.
Forget the Sabbath day.
Dishonor your mother and father
murder - ok we went with that one.
Commit adultery - already covered
Steal - we went with that one too.
Bear false witness against your neighbor - also adopted.
Covet your neighbor's hourse, wife, male servant, female servant, ox, donkey, mercedes, etc.

 

[Swift]

It is legal to cheat on your wife. I don't know of anyone who has been put in jail for adultery.

Don't dodge the point. If the 10 commandments were law it would also be illegal to:

Have any Gods before the christian God.
Make carved images of anything that is in heaven above blah blah blah...
Take the Lord's name in vain.
Forget the Sabbath day.
Dishonor your mother and father
murder - ok we went with that one.
Commit adultery - already covered
Steal - we went with that one too.
Bear false witness against your neighbor - also adopted.
Covet your neighbor's hourse, wife, male servant, female servant, ox, donkey, mercedes, etc.

Get over yourself. Man, you love to quote the Ten Commandents. You don't even understand that "Don't forget the sabbath" Doesn't even apply to christianity. But that's ok.

And only corrupt individuals, Lie, murder, commit adultry, or steal. Coveting is a subjective term so I'll leave that one alone.

I don't think for 2 seconds that these should be part of the governmental law. However, I think they form a great foundation for laws of morality to be built.

Anyway, as TB said earlier. This is religion, NOT spirituality.

 

[Pako]

Either argument of where morality came from could be right or wrong depending on what you believe or don't believe.

I believe that the Christian God is the one true God and based on that belief, I can conclude that morality clearly came from God's instruction, not a priest of a made up religion. I don't believe for one moment that my God was some sort of scare tactic created and used by ancient civilizations to control their people into behaving. What sort of smoke and mirror act that would be. Not only would the technology be too limited to pull it off, but it would have faded away as a myth like other false teachings. I don't know if anyone else who was dead for 3 days after being crucified only to be resurrected, hang with a bunch of people then float into the heavens. It happened, people documented it, and have been telling the story of the events ever since. You can ignore it or you can accept it. I think we have already had this discussion before. It's all good. I'll continue to tell it if you like.

 

[Danoff]

Either argument of where morality came from could be right or wrong depending on what you believe or don't believe.

I'm just pointing out that it didn't come from the bible.

 

[Blake]

I don't know if anyone else who was dead for 3 days after being crucified only to be resurrected, hang with a bunch of people then float into the heavens. It happened, people documented it, and have been telling the story of the events ever since.

And for 30,000 years Aboriginal Australians have been telling the story of how the kangaroo got its tail:

Once upon a time there were two kangaroos they were having a conflict. They both had a stick each they were fighting over territory. They were fighting for five years, five months, five days and five minutes until one of the kangaroos jumped up grabbed another stick and stuck it up the other kangaroos bottom. That’s how the kangaroo got its tail.

Do you believe this story? I doubt it, but it's been told for over 30,000 years.

Just because a story has been told for 2000 years doesn't make it true, things could be changed to make the story more exciting or whatever, I believe it was 70 years after Christs death until the story was written down for the first time, that's a lot of time for a story to be changed a little.

Blake

 

[Pako]

And for 30,000 years Aboriginal Australians have been telling the story of how the kangaroo got its tail:

Do you believe this story? I doubt it, but it's been told for over 30,000 years.

Just because a story has been told for 2000 years doesn't make it true, things could be changed to make the story more exciting or whatever, I believe it was 70 years after Christs death until the story was written down for the first time, that's a lot of time for a story to be changed a little.

Blake

I have never seen, heard, or accounted for any events relating to kangaroo tails, nor has any credited sources confirmed that story's validity. Again, I can't see how kangaroo tails can be compared to the Son of God. I think it was 40 years but even if it was 70 years, if a life event such as the life, death, and resurrection of Christ happened to me personally, I would be able to account for the events accurately. These were direct disciples of Christ that wrote the Gospels. It wasn't the village idiot or some guys friend that was a second cousin to a person that heard that something happened about this guy.

 

[Blake]

Correct me if I'm wrong I though they were all written by 'random' people. Not like some guy off the street but I didn't think any were actually disciples, except somewhere I have a thought that maybe 1 was.

Anyway, the point of that story was to say that culture and religion aren't necessarily true just because a book says so or it's been passed down for I-don't-care-how-many years.

And what credible sources have confirmed that Jesus 'floated' up into the heavens?

(Man this has gotten off topic)

Blake

 

[Swift]

Correct me if I'm wrong I though they were all written by 'random' people. Not like some guy off the street but I didn't think any were actually disciples, except somewhere I have a thought that maybe 1 was.



Blake

Sir, you show your lack of knowledge about the bible. John wrote the book of revelation. He was the closet of the 12 to Jesus. The Apostle Paul wrote more then 10 of the books.

Anyway, it wasn't just random people.

Why are we still talking about religion?