For my fellow theists

[junebug72]

I believe that, the inner quality or nature of a person, does gel with what I've said before. 

I'm perfectly OK with you guys being as spiritual as me.

I've got to get on the roof after while and sweep the chimney.  It's going to take some spirit for me to do that.  It's cold, wet and I don't like heights.  My spirit will give me strength.

What do you think?

[wheels5894]

I think the problem here is that the idea of spirituality is really something that comes from religion. The idea of a spiritual person is one who prays a lot, who is close to the deity and who insights into the world of the god concerned.

The problem lies when we separate the word from the religious context and try and fit it into a non-theist context. Does it still refer to contact with a god? Does it imply a religious style of life? I suggest that the word has the meaning the person who uses it wants and it does not have to follow the dictionary definition. Personally, I think the word is really redundant when used outwith the context of religion but that's just me.

[junebug72]

I think the problem here is that the idea of spirituality is really something that comes from religion. The idea of a spiritual person is one who prays a lot, who is close to the deity and who insights into the world of the god concerned.

The problem lies when we separate the word from the religious context and try and fit it into a non-theist context. Does it still refer to contact with a god? Does it imply a religious style of life? I suggest that the word has the meaning the person who uses it wants and it does not have to follow the dictionary definition. Personally, I think the word is really redundant when used outwith the context of religion but that's just me.

Good point Wheelie, is it OK if I call you Wheelie?  I hope so I think it's cute.

I guess it matters how you define God.  If you define God as self then yes a non theist contacts God. 

To me spirituality did not attach itself to religion.  Religion attached itself to spirituality to give validity/power to it's claims.  Religion does not own spirit.

This thread is way off track.  Let's continue in the thread I just started out of respect for OCG.  This is his thread.

Sorry O.

[Anfauglir]

I'm perfectly OK with you guys being as spiritual as me.

And if that's the case, why not simply say "we are all human" and have done - why use another word that makes no additional distinction?

....and carries a whole lot of other baggage with it? 

But fair enough - we are all equally "spiritual".  So no more need to reference the term.  Back to the thread.

[junebug72]

I'm perfectly OK with you guys being as spiritual as me.

And if that's the case, why not simply say "we are all human" and have done - why use another word that makes no additional distinction?

....and carries a whole lot of other baggage with it? 

But fair enough - we are all equally "spiritual".  So no more need to reference the term.  Back to the thread.

 
Yes you're right.  Thanks to religion. 

I think this thread is dead.

[G-Roll]

Nature G, nature and consciousness. 

I do believe the whole religion is made up.

Do you believe science is made up? I ask because science explains quite a bit about nature and consciousness.
If you feel science produces tested facts of nature and consciousness, and religion is made up why be religious/spiritual?

There are many concepts of God left behind and then there's mine.  I mean these days it's like I interpret that from this guys interpretation and I believe this based on that guys interpretation of that guy so on and so on and so on and so on and so on etc etc etc......

Ultimately I think that is how we all roll. In some ways. Believers and non believers alike.

I believe; how you believe in God defines you not God.  I also believe how you act as an atheist defines you not atheism.

Fair enough.

Although I think the second statement holds true for both camps. How you act as a Christian defines you not Christianity. And how you act as an atheist defines you not atheism.

Hey G,

No I don't believe science is made up.  I am not religious.  I am spiritual because that's what my mind decided was good for me.  It has helped me through some very rough patches.   I am a hopeless romantic, probably hard wired for it.

G, I had just said that you must have missed it. 

Yeah I was agreeing with you. Cool font though. Its kinda spooky with all the colors.

[junebug72]

I was playing around with the "G".  Glad you like it. 

[lotanddaughters]

As you probably suspect, I heartily disagree with that position. I did a bit of googling, and I am in agreement with the critque of "Love Wins" linked here:

http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.7729125/k.E07E/God_Wins_A_Critique_of_Rob_Bells_Love_Wins.htm

I, on the other hand, am not in agreement.

Paul warns us very strongly in Galatians 1:8 the danger of preaching another gospel. Unfortunately, Bell here presents another gospel and in doing so, presents a false message of hope that has eternal consequences.

Is Paul speaking of the danger that the other three authors of the "canonical" gospels partook with their preaching of a gospel other than "Mark's"?


To utter "Paul warns" with any seriousness is fucking retarded.

To speak seriously of "eternal consequences" is also fucking retarded.

Unfortunately, Bell here presents another gospel and in doing so, presents a false message of hope that has eternal consequences.

What's hilarious is that the author of the Gospel of Mark could just as easily say, "Unfortunately, YHWH, Micah, and David here present a false message of hope that has eternal consequences."

YHWH, Micah, and David could just as easily say, "Unfortunately, the author of the Gospel of Mark here presents a false message of hope that has eternal consequences. For one, this motherfucker wasn't even Mark, but what scholars do agree upon, was that he was full of shit."

[magicmiles]

^^ A very sobering post.

[lotanddaughters]

^^ A very sobering post.

Yeah. It's good to see you getting sober from the education that we provide here.

Next time, you'll think before posting a weak link.



He he he he he.

[Traveler]

I rather like the definition of spirituality on wiki ...

...The use of the term "spirituality" has changed throughout the ages.[4] In modern times, spirituality is often separated from Abrahamic religions,[5] and connotes a blend of humanistic psychology with mystical and esoteric traditions and eastern religions aimed at personal well-being and personal development.[6] The notion of "spiritual experience" plays an important role in modern spirituality, but has a relatively recent origin.[7]

... from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirituality

I sort of see it as attempting to achieve our best/highest selves, or seeking enlightenment, or something. Basically, a (mostly) personal journey of self discovery.

[Jesuis]

Realistically, all babies born atheist.  They do not become religious until indoctrinated to be so. Infant circumcision and baptism may placate the parents and church, but the infant knows nothing of why these rituals are being performed.  Therefore the first, literalist preacher was probably closest to the pragmatic target, IMO.

All babies are born conscious not atheist. The label atheist is adopted later in life through a thinking process.

[Anfauglir]

Realistically, all babies born atheist.  They do not become religious until indoctrinated to be so.

All babies are born conscious not atheist. The label atheist is adopted later in life through a thinking process.

Yes, good try.  But the point is that babies are not born with belief in any god or gods.

If you believe babies are born with a belief in your god, then surely you should be out campaigning against all other religions - BAD religions that take all those Good Christian Babies and indoctrinate them away from the One True Faith.

What could be worse than that?

[Ataraxia]

All babies are born conscious not atheist. The label atheist is adopted later in life through a thinking process.

I understand your point, but this is a contentious issue. The difference, as I see it, is between an active disbelief and a simple lack of a belief. Right now, there'll be countless amounts of concepts that you are unaware of and therefore you'll lack a belief in those things by default. Then, in comparison, there'll be a tiny amount of concepts that you are aware of that you actively dismiss and do not believe. However, the point is in both cases you do not believe. Nowhere is the definition of atheist dependent on being actively aware of the concept of god/s. Whether it's an unaware adult, a baby or an inanimate object, they are atheist as they either do not, or cannot, believe gods exist.

[screwtape]

All babies are born conscious not atheist.

1. Atheist and conscious are not mutually exclusive options.
2. Whether newborns are "conscious" is debatable.  Their brains are minimally functional.  But it is entirely likely the "lights are on, but no one is home" yet. 

The label atheist is adopted later in life through a thinking process.

So you are saying everyone is born believing in god?  I find the unbelievable.