Originally posted by robbie carrobie 1.I have provided reasons, you may make reference to those reasons.
Your reasons are irrelevant to the point. If you prefer one thing to another then that they are mutually exclusive is implied. You deny 'professing' it and do so in CAPS. You either don't understand the language or you are lying.
2. Unless you have anything constructive to say, anything that mat be construed as spiritually enlightening, them please post it, i will not waste any more time and effort with those who are merely intent to tear down and destroy while proffering no alternative or no reason as to why their point of view is to be accepted ( i was going to say preferred but you may of course use it as some type of semantic argument) I do offer something better (the truth). The problem is your ego is so big you think that what you have is necessarily better and everyone else is wrong.
3. Your apology is accepted, there is no Biblical reason to accept an entity which survives death, its of pagan, Greek origin, possibly Babylonian before that. You can change the sentences where I used 'soul' and replace it with 'spirit'. Here I do not mean some other death surviving entity, but rather the spiritual side of you.
4. Why should i admit to something that i do not profess, it is YOU not i who have stated that the reason one wishes to remain faithful to ones marriage partner is for materialistic reasons, in fact, i resent that assertion, for clearly the reason one does is in respect to vows that one has made before God and because one loves ones partner. How that is materialistic you will now demonstrate. So somehow you believe that that argument somehow supports marital fidelity over sexual promiscuity? How so.
5. I provided many reasons, you may make reference to any of those. Be sure to read them this time. Where is the thread? I will go and have a look. It seems you are too scared of being proved wrong to repeat them here.
Originally posted by twhitehead Your reasons are irrelevant to the point. If you prefer one thing to another then that they are mutually exclusive is implied. You deny 'professing' it and do so in CAPS. You either don't understand the language or you are lying.
2. Unless you have anything constructive to say, anything that mat be construed as spiritually enlightening, them please o and have a look. It seems you are too scared of being proved wrong to repeat them here.
1. Nothingness, absolutely deviod of any reasons.
2.Soul is not Spirit, please look up the term and come to an accurate understanding.
3.Personal attack
4.This is the thread, you may need to go back and find the reasons why marital fidelity is to be preferred over promiscuity.
Originally posted by sonhouse If Dasa actually read that post, I doubt he will even acknowledge it, being unable to refute it with his Vedic greatness.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 1. Nothingness, absolutely deviod of any reasons.
2.Soul is not Spirit, please look up the term and come to an accurate understanding.
3.Personal attack
4.This is the thread, you may need to go back and find the reasons why marital fidelity is to be preferred over promiscuity.
5. Your vision of 'truth', if you please.
If it is the case that marriage is to be preferred to promiscuity, that is either a matter of practical outcomes, in that marriage on this thesis protects against the social evils of promiscuity as listed by you, or it is a matter of morality, in that there is a moral superiority to marriage as compared with promiscuity. Neither scenario reflects what I understand by the ill defined, elastic concept of "spirituality." Both arguments can be derived from a materialist perspective.
Originally posted by finnegan If it is the case that marriage is to be preferred to promiscuity, that is either a matter of practical outcomes, in that marriage on this thesis protects against the social evils of promiscuity as listed by you, or it is a matter of morality, in that there is a moral superiority to marriage as compared with promiscuity. Neither scenario reflects what I und oth arguments can be derived from a materialist perspective.
Spirituality is not morality.
Well it is a good and valid point, although, the two are in my opinion inextricably linked. For what has led those who are the advocates of promiscuity to assert that it is to be preferred, is it not their materialism, their insistence that we are naught but animal and it is the natural progression of events, or their hedonism which thirsts for experience and recognises no restraint? While the theist, being guided by another principle, that of fidelity to God and spouse considers it a matter of his spirituality, for he is counselled to love his wife as the Christ loved the congregation, putting her interests ahead of his own and thus indeed it takes on the form of spirituality. To state that morality and spirituality are not one and the same, well, it may be the case by pure definition, but in practical terms, i dont think they can be so readily extracted, one from the other.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Well it is a good and valid point, although, the two are in my opinion inextricably linked. For what has led those who are the advocates of promiscuity to assert that it is to be preferred, is it not their materialism, their insistence that we are naught but animal and it is the natural progression of events, or their hedonism which thirsts for expe ...[text shortened]... tion, but in practical terms, i dont think they can be so readily extracted, one from the other.
One can posit that the moral code of a society is reinforced by its enshrinement in religion, having the effect of inextricably linking morality to spirituality. Religion unites a society and provides ways to revere, reinforce and celebrate adherence to its values. Endowing the moral code with the imprimatur of religion and a divine provenance, serves also as a conservative force (which can at times become a hindrance to the society, as conditions change). But this does not defeat the premise that a moral code develops within and by a society for secular reasons without divine involvement, having to do with solving the problems that come up for any people seeking the earthly benefits of cooperating as a group.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie 1. Nothingness, absolutely deviod of any reasons.
Just cant admit when your wrong can you. You've got a whopper of an ego problem.
2.Soul is not Spirit, please look up the term and come to an accurate understanding. I understand them perfectly well thank you. I think you know what I meant but wish to side track the argument because of that ego problem mentioned earlier.
3.Personal attack Yep, sure is. What else is there when you refuse to admit you are wrong and refuse to answer any questions?
5. Your vision of 'truth', if you please. The opposite of your untruths of course. For example it is the truth that infidelity takes place within marriages. It is the truth that you made a mistake about this but refuse to admit it.
It is also the truth that many of your beliefs are self contradictory or otherwise illogical.
Whenever I criticize you or point out your errors I am by default offering the alternative truth which is that you are wrong about something. You cant handle the truth.
Originally posted by JS357 One can posit that the moral code of a society is reinforced by its enshrinement in religion, having the effect of inextricably linking morality to spirituality. Religion unites a society and provides ways to revere, reinforce and celebrate adherence to its values. Endowing the moral code with the imprimatur of religion and a divine provenance, serves also as ...[text shortened]... the problems that come up for any people seeking the earthly benefits of cooperating as a group.
Are we not human? do you make no mention of the faculty of conscience? an innate sense of justice? Yet insist that these realities are the mere result of a simple social mechanism and a need to co operate and get on for the benefit of society as a whole. Pure unadulterated materialism if ever i read it. Ants have a need to 'get on', to cooperate and to observe a social order, are we to assume that this inherent 'wisdom', is the result of mere social expediency which necessitates a kind of code of etiquette? That they consciously exercise a sense of what is just through the faculty of conscience? I think not.
Originally posted by twhitehead ust cant admit when your wrong can you. You've got a whopper of an ego problem.
2.Soul is not Spirit, please look up the term and come to an accurate understanding.
I understand them perfectly well thank you. I think you know what I meant but wish to side track the argument because of that ego problem mentioned earlier.
3.Personal attack the alternative truth which is that you are wrong about something. You cant handle the truth.
1. Personal attack
2. Devoid of any reason and an unwillingness to accept correction or to research and define your terms.
3. Another unfounded personal attack
4. Mere opinion masquerading as some kind of truth.
take it to general spanklberger, this is spirituality, if you want to discuss Easter eggs or cheese sandwiches, thats the place. In fact, lets test you out, what is the difference between soul and spirit. If you please.
Originally posted by robbie carrobie Are we not human? do you make no mention of the faculty of conscience? an innate sense of justice? Yet insist that these realities are the mere result of a simple social mechanism and a need to co operate and get on for the benefit of society as a whole. Pure unadulterated materialism if ever i read it. Ants have a need to 'get on', to cooperate a ...[text shortened]... onsciously exercise a sense of what is just through the faculty of conscience? I think not.
I'm only saying what one can posit. If you have reason to posit more, feel free.
I dont accept their fabrications.
22 Feb '11 15:56
Back to Top