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.

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.

Well, there you have it. When you say "adultery" you actually mean the victimless crime against god, when I only see the empathic level of whether someone suffers in the process. This is how religion poisons your mind. You have effectively destroyed your basis for morality, since your objective is simply pleasing your god. What happens to actual people is peripheral, unless it might also violate one of your religious rules - then you obey because you fear to be punished by your god. How can anything be a moral action if you do it out of fear of eternal damnation?

Epignosis wrote: Mike, Henry said that, not me.  Could you correct the quote box please?  Thanks.

Sorry.

Mike, Henry said that, not me.  Could you correct the quote box please?  Thanks.

^ Adultery? Where is this coming from all of a sudden?

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.

About children: I have none. But some of my friends and relatives have children, and I have seen many times that they adopt the behavior of their parents. My stepsister married a Muslim from Tunisia, and they have two cute daughters at the age of 3 and 1. Their parents are always arguing and the "man" in the house is beating the children and his wife. Our whole family is on the verge of breaking up because of this, and what do you know ... I saw the 1 year old daughter hit her grandmother when she wasn't getting what she wanted.

We are all hard-wired to be good (peaceful, empathic, generous, forgiving etc.) but it's very easy to change that for parents. That's my take on the situation.

BTW: I "bow" to nobody. I simply hear the criticism and come up with arguments against it. Needless to say that religious people will not accept these arguments when they are in contradiction with their dogma, which simply is not up for discussion.

Henry Plainview wrote: I think being spiritual but not religious is really a contradiction in terms

I think that being spiritual and religious is a contradiction in terms. It all depends on how you define "spiritual" of course, but IMO religious dogma is always in contradiction with introspection and reflection. Dogma tells you what to believe, removing any need for spiritual journeys or discoveries except for those that confirm the dogma.





Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 06 2010 at 17:08

Technically Mike, the apocalypse was only delayed once.

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak 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). Well, it certainly is my point. Basically Christianity could be described as a racket started by John the Baptist, with Jesus (who was one of his disciples) as the successor. And after that you have Saul/Paul, picking up the scam without even having known Jesus in person. He sets up this new religion as an improved version of Judaism, without the inconveniences of circumcision, kosher meat etc.. There are also no fixed taxes to pay to the priests ... you pay only what you can afford to give. No wonder this new religion thrived. "Be a good person". That's a motto that most modern Christians would agree to, yet it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Spirituality also has nothing to do with Christianity ... you're not supposed to be spiritual, you're simply supposed to believe what you're taught. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll stick with being good and pursuing some kind of spirituality by meditation/introspection and pondering the meaning of life. Right...it's all a big scam that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul profited greatly from.  Really made them rich and got them in good with the Roman elite.

No, in fact they died or got imprisoned for their beliefs. But they managed to pull people away from the established religions. The profit came later - when the religion became more powerful. They may not even have intended the profit in the first place - maybe it was simply about power or the feeling of satisfaction that you can get from people following you.

Epignosis wrote: I don't even know what being "spiritual" means in this context. "Be a good person" is, in itself, a meaningless imperative.

It's only meaningless if you think that good end evil are values defined by religious books. I maintain that these definitions are innate - education can pervert them or enhance them, but in essence anything that religion can tell us originally comes from our own intuition.

Spirituality enters this context because atheists (which don't follow any religion) are often criticised by religious people to be overly rational and blind to the spiritual aspects of life.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: From my perspective, I see little difference between your positions. How can you be so sure that you're right?

I've shared this with you many times before.  I will quote the exchange:

Epignosis wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: Epignosis wrote: Where have I given "personal opinion?" I've cited three areas of study for my belief.  Do you need them again?  History, prophecy, and typology. None of these things are opinions.  Nor are any of these things proof.  I'm not out to prove anything, but I can provide evidence and reasons.  Just because they aren't from the school of science doesn't make them invalid for discussion. That's where we disagree. Of course I accept history - but the further we go back, the more we'll have to take the reported "facts" with a grain of salt. Especially in the case of the bible, which contains inconsistencies that people who are more knowledgeable on the bible than I could ever be have shown, and which - like shown in the video - also professors of biblical studies teach. But not prophecy.  Either Christ fulfilled ancient prophecy or he did not. However, I know you aren't interested in that subject, so I believe I can once again safely bow out of the discussion. Have a great weekend Mike.

Mr ProgFreak wrote: ^ you too!

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.

Epignosis wrote: He asked me what I liked. I said I like beer. He told me beer was bad for me. I told him so was his cake.

Isn't this a tad arrogant? I mean, you keep telling me (at least I remember that from previous discussions) that you *know* you're right. Now there's this other guy who also *knows* he's right. He believes in wooden submarines, you believe in a world wide flood and a boat that someone built and used to perpetuate people and all land animals of the planet.

From my perspective, I see little difference between your positions. How can you be so sure that you're right? Nothing in scripture can verify your claims unless you see scripture as evidence in and of itself - which the Mormons also claim for their magic book. You can try to beef up your point using the argument of revelation - you can claim that Jesus talks to you, or you sense his presence by other means. But again, your counterpart claims the same. Add to that that experiments have shown that there's an area of the brain which, if properly stimulated, creates just this kind of spiritual experience.

By this argument alone all religions are easily exposed as what they are: Man made delusions.

Well played Rob.
Yeah, back in early High School I knew a kid who was a Jehovah's Witness and he was always trying to give me his pamphlet's. I don't have so much a problem the door to door either because at least they go away if you ignore, or just say "no sorry".  At least where I live.

And actually I do remember walking back to my dorm and a Mormon stopped me to talk about it. Told me about their on campus meetings and all. Also, the one guy who was standing right outside a door and just thrust a small New Testament into my hand . Needless to say, not the way I'd prefer it

I guess it happens all across the spectrum (damn atheists outside the HUB with horns yelling their insanity at us) and we seem to agree that if we don't want it, just leave us be.


Edited by JJLehto - June 06 2010 at 14:26