Spiritual but not religious?

akamaisondufromage wrote: Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying. Not necessarily.  If my wife gives me permission to sleep with other women (an "open marriage"), and I do, I have still committed adultery (and committed evil), even if it did not hurt my wife. I do not base my morality on "not hurting" other people.  You see?  You do have a philosophical basis for morality.    That seems an extreme thing to say.  Do you really think that?  (I suppose you must you said it).  Out of interest what is evil?   (Sorry to butt in!)

Evil is being and doing that which God calls evil.

Well, as long as you are smiting people whom God has declared bad because God is not capable of doing this on his own...

Edited by Slartibartfast - June 06 2010 at 18:17

I think we're diverging from the OP again. We might continue with circulral arguments about philosophical aspects of truth and faith - but the thing in question is the new wave of spirituality  - a spirituality without organized religion.

A self-centered spirituality is not a new thing in recent history; however nowadays it's widened with Rainbow family, neuro-linguistical programming, brainwave managing, quantum mysticism, Tolle's 'The Power of Now'  and whatnot. I'm not too keen on such self-helping spleen - and, inevitably, with modern zeitgeist of spirituality - but I'm not going to do moralistic diatribes about that. That article was a bit overblown and bears an aura of 'danger' - but I don't think anyone should be worried, not even the organized religious communities. Surely, there's a danger of self-centrism, skewing of values and delusion - but such danger is present in every human being with emotions and opinions about faith and spirituality (or lack thereof). Religion/spirituality impose certain moral values: we must not forget there were atrocious things done in the name of religion, as well as beautiful ones, since the dawn of history up to the present day.

Human beings are creatures that love to - no, they need  to socialize: Robinson Crusoe wasn't a human being until he met Friday. For that reason, I'm sure the entire 'spirituality without religion' movement will devide itself into various fractions, organizing churches, temples, schools, associations. There's nothing new. In fact, some aspects of it already remind me of Bahai religion.

Epignosis wrote: Finnforest wrote: Epignosis wrote: JJLehto wrote: Like I said, keep it to thine self, that's all I want. I don't see how this is helpful at all (and would inevitably mean the end of traditional religion- maybe that's your point). A genuine Christian will share the gospel with others (Acts 1:8 isn't a command from Jesus- it's a declarative statement). The biblical model for sharing the gospel, however, isn't persistence with the same people.  You throw the seed liberally and freely, and some of the crops with grow (Mark 4:1-20).  If people don't respond or care, you move on.  The concept of "Bible-thumping" and browbeating nonbelievers is unbiblical (and rude). This is very helpful Robert.  It's an important distinction that I've never heard someone put so clearly.  I don't like being "thumped to" and I've been vocal about it.  But for someone to talk about what they believe and then let it go makes it infinitely more palatable.  And I imagine that people who come to God on their own accord via a planted seed are much more likely to stick with it than someone who has been brow-beaten into participation by a well meaning parent, sibling, or friend.   ? Precisely.  People should come to Christianity because of Christ, not to satisfy someone else.

Finnforest wrote: ^ And I used to resent that so much, when people would bring up their faith.  I didn't want to hear about it.  I still have that kneejerk reaction when the Jehovahs come to the door, I rather resent someone knocking on my door about it.  But I'm really trying to give everyone the benefit of the doubt now and realize they are trying to help.  Robert has been more instrumental than anyone I've met so far in changing my views about Christians, precisely because of his easy going style, not to mention his knowledge on these subjects. I think we're lucky to have him here, for people who wish to discuss these topics, in whatever degree they are comfortable doing so.  As I said, I don't know if I'll ever embrace faith again, but I keep myself open to the possibility.  On the flip side, I appreciate that we have atheists willing to open up and talk about it.  Not everyone who does not believe in God is willing to discuss it with others.

Yeap... this is the first site in which I found a polite disscussion about faith... and I think Rob helps a lot, when some of us (like me) get a little heated, then Robs shows and speak well and just as you say, very easy going... I like this kind of discussion and I have learned a lot of Atheist as well, I'm a deep catholic but I do agree I have learn from a lot of atheists, like Dean, Teo or Mike... it's always interesting to get in to this kind of threads...

That's when it gets complicated... I would ask Rob about it... what I have being said is that as Catholics worships idols of wood and the virgin Mary, we are sinners and that's our worst sin... but I have never found why we should not be Christians... I can tell you why evangelistic cannot be saved, according to the most conservative Catholics believers but I do disagree... I think Jesus is the only one who save us, so is not in us to sentence who is "In" and "out"... really... who can...?

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Regarding Mormonism specifically, we can quite easily investigate Joseph Smith's life and claims.  For example, he made prophecies that failed to come to pass.  According to the Bible, that makes him a false prophet, and we should ignore him (Deuteronomy 18:22).  Easy enough. Mormons teach that The Book of Mormon is consistent with The Bible.  It is not.  This is why I do not consider Mormonism "true Christianity." Now, with respect to the question of "Are Mormons saved or not..."  ...well, that's a different matter altogether. Well, you're quoting scripture to make a point against - scripture. Just because the old testament is old doesn't make it any more relevant. The whole book of Genesis has been shown to be fiction by Jewish scientists ... Anyway - how about John the Baptist's claim that the new prophet would come in his lifetime ... or Jesus' claims that the world would end in his lifetime? He was a doomsday fanatic, convinced that the world was going to end soon - "have no thought for tomorrow". Excuse me, but does anybody see the problem here? But like in any cult movement, when prophecies don't come true, many cultists get even more fanatic. It's counter-intuitive, but the fact that many Christians still expect the second coming of Christ after it's been postponed numerous times kind of illustrates this nicely. I find it amusing that you accused me of being "a tad arrogant," especially in light of claims you make.  I'm pretty sure no one has proved the whole book of Genesis to be fiction.  That's silly.  And even if I believed that, what do you expect me to say?  "Oh gee, somebody says some Jewish scientists proved the whole book of Genesis to be a work of fiction.  I think I will be an atheist now."

I'm terribly sorry - first I quote one of Henry's posts in your name, and now I made another mistake: I meant the book of Exodus. But of course the book of Genesis is equally wrong ... I don't have to prove that every verse is fiction, IMO it's enough to show that the basic tenets have no basis in the real world. Of course some of the information could be based on real world events, but I think you'll agree with me that it doesn't matter so much whether a person named Moses existed or not, as opposed to whether God exists and Moses, as described in the book, communicated with God. Or, in the case of the book of Genesis, whether the world could have been created in that way. Back when the book was written it would have been perfectly in line with the science of the time (if you you could call it that), but today we clearly know it's wrong. Still many Christians in the USA visit the creation museum and tell their children that their ancestors walked with dinosaurs.

And no, you don't have to become an atheist just because some scientists discover something. But such discoveries should make you less confident about the validity of your magic book over others. BTW: If I come across as arrogant ... I guess you're right about that. I'm simply fed up with people holding on to bronze age myths ... IMO such beliefs are forces of evil in the world. Nothing good can come out of them that couldn't be accomplished by secular reasoning.

Epignosis wrote: The new prophet John the Baptist spoke of?  That would be Jesus Christ.

Except that John said that the new prophet would come in his lifetime, but he died before he could name one. Then Jesus conveniently assumed that John must have meant him to be that prophet.

Epignosis wrote: As for the passage you're referring to about Jesus, that's in Matthew 24, and you assume that he is talking about the same stuff that's in Revelation.  Matthew 24 is one of the most divisive passages in Scripture because (I would argue) of the way the passage is often translated (especially the Greek word aion, which would refer to an age, not planet Earth).  The Jews recognized two ages- the Mosaic age, and the age of the Messiah, and the latter would have no end (Luke 1:31-33).  There is also a lot of Ancient Near Eastern "judgment language" (like the stars not shining) that hearers would understand immediately (such phrases are found in the Old Testament, like Isaiah 13:10).  In short, Matthew 24 regards the consummation of the Mosaic age and the events that happened in 66-70 AD.  This article is lengthy, but does a good job explaining this. Now I've admitted several times that eschatology is a weak subject for me, but that is my understanding of Matthew 24.

I don't care too much about such details. I don't believe in astrology either, and it's not like reading a thousand page volume on the intricacies of astrology and its different interpretations and approaches would change my mind. I'm sure you feel the same way towards some areas of pseudo-science. You make an exception for (your) religion, I don't. I guess that's one of the simpler ways to outline the difference between theists and atheists.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 07 2010 at 01:54

Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: The new prophet John the Baptist spoke of?  That would be Jesus Christ.  Except that John said that the new prophet would come in his lifetime, but he died before he could name one. Then Jesus conveniently assumed that John must have meant him to be that prophet.

Edited by someone_else - June 07 2010 at 04:32

^I feel free to doubt the authority of these scholars. Anyway, here is wat the Gospel according to Matthew (of which these scholars say that it was written by a Jewish christian towards the end of the 1st century AD) states about the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:1-17):

akamaisondufromage wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: I have no problem with people trying to persuade me to their belief system.  Jehovah's Witnesses should probably start being required to deliver mail.  Although, I'm thinking they probably put a curse on my house and thay's why I got flooded out last year.  And as far as being spiritual rather than religious, it is possible to believe in the supernatural but not follow an organized religion.   I have a problem with those that stand in the middle of Town (Every Bloody Day) and regale us with their beliefs sometimes using amplifiers etc this is noise pollution and selfish behaviour on their parts.    i don't have a problem with them knocking on my door - Ii can choose to answer and how long I talk to them.  Although I find it strange these jehovahs Ws coming over here to convert u poor heathens in little UK!  Haven't they got their work cut out in America?

My friend's grandfather is a Jehovah's Witness and he's a complete idiot.  He basically dislikes anything his granddaughter does.  He hates the way she dresses, he didn't want her to go to College because he doesn't believe in Further Education.

I think he's rather delusion and confused myself.  I don't his views are shared by other Jehovah's Witnesses.  Surely?

Oh and apparently he believes I'm her Pimp.


Edited by James - June 07 2010 at 05:58