1. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Jul '10 02:425 edits
    Is it assumed on the part of some theists, that other theists should be here in this spirituality forum only to engage in discussion that sets them on the correct path? Also is it assumed that non-theists should be here only to consider submissively the words of theists about some 'one true god', and forsaking all others come to accept and offer their hearts to this entity??

    Conversely, is it assumed on the part of some atheists that theists should ultimately drop their superstitions after sufficient exposure to their "winning" arguments??


    I'm not here to 'find God', nor am I here to destroy anyone's faith in it. I'm here to debate and discuss matters which interest me (most often the properties of some god or other and whether they're feasible or not); I often get the impression that I and others are treading metaphorical dog poo into the carpet of a house we weren't invited into!
  2. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49977
    13 Jul '10 03:10
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Is it assumed on the part of some theists, that other theists should be here in this [b]spirituality forum only to engage in discussion that sets them on the correct path? Also is it assumed that non-theists should be here only to consider submissively the words of theists about some 'one true god', and forsaking all others come to accept and offer their h ...[text shortened]... are treading metaphorical dog poo into the carpet of a house we weren't invited into![/b]
    Agreed.
    If these spiritual/religious houses aren't strong enough to cope with a bit of dog poo then they have a real problem ...
  3. Standard memberGrampy Bobby
    Boston Lad
    USA
    Joined
    14 Jul '07
    Moves
    43012
    13 Jul '10 03:441 edit
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Is it assumed on the part of some theists, that other theists should be here in this [b]spirituality forum only to engage in discussion that sets them on the correct path? Also is it assumed that non-theists should be here only to consider submissively the words of theists about some 'one true god', and forsaking all others come to accept and offer their h are treading metaphorical dog poo into the carpet of a house we weren't invited into![/b]
    "... forsaking all others come to accept and offer their hearts to this entity??"



    "Offer their hearts..." now isn't that so very precious. None of us have a thing to offer God Almighty. Jeremiah 1:9: "The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it?" We have nothing to offer Him. He doesn't accept creature invitations into a garbage dump or sewer. Awaken from your intellectual slumber. We come to Him to accept His gift. Period.



    ...........................................................
  4. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    13 Jul '10 04:121 edit
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]"... forsaking all others come to accept and offer their hearts to this entity??"



    "Offer their hearts..." now isn't that so very precious. None of us have a thing to offer God Almighty. Jeremiah 1:9: "The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it?" We have nothing to offer Him. He doesn't accept creature invitations ...[text shortened]... ept His gift. Period.



    ...........................................................[/b]
    From which I gather your reason for being here is only to preach; and my reason you would hope is to listen...subserviently!
  5. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    13 Jul '10 05:54
    Originally posted by Agerg
    Is it assumed on the part of some theists, that other theists should be here in this [b]spirituality forum only to engage in discussion that sets them on the correct path? Also is it assumed that non-theists should be here only to consider submissively the words of theists about some 'one true god', and forsaking all others come to accept and offer their h ...[text shortened]... are treading metaphorical dog poo into the carpet of a house we weren't invited into![/b]
    I was here when the Spirituality Forum was carved out from Debates (about five years ago, I think). The stimulus for that came from those who complained that the religionists cluttered up every topic in Debates with such things as long Biblical quotes, religious apologetics, evangelical “preaching” and the like. However, neither support nor opposition to the new forum fell out strictly along theist/atheist lines. Some theists thought that it would be a good move to focus more religious discussion and debate (without arguing that atheists ought not to take part); some ardent atheists (Dr. Scribbles in particular) objected that it was a bald attempt to “ghettoize” (my word, not his) the theists.

    There has never been any agreement about that pesky word “spirituality”—some (by no means all) Christians take it to mean strictly having to do with the Holy Spirit; people of other religions, as well as the non-religious, have different ideas. In the course of its history, the Spirituality Forum seems to have become the de facto philosophy forum as well; the most interesting philosophical discussions have been on here since the split. (And, as bbarr points out, religious philosophy and theology are subsets of philosophy.)

    I don’t think that the majority of theists object to our being here. Interestingly, of the very rare theists who have suggested that I am out of place here—well, in each case, I was here before they were. At the time of the split, I was moving through panentheism to non-theistic non-dualism—think Zen/Taoism—and nobody who was around then suggested that I ought to exit the new forum on that account.
  6. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91561
    13 Jul '10 07:29
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I was here when the Spirituality Forum was carved out from Debates (about five years ago, I think). The stimulus for that came from those who complained that the religionists cluttered up every topic in Debates with such things as long Biblical quotes, religious apologetics, evangelical “preaching” and the like. However, neither support nor oppositi ...[text shortened]... ism—and nobody who was around then suggested that I ought to exit the new forum on that account.
    I'm glad you stuck at it in the beginning. Reading your posts when I got on here pretty much made me want subscribe.

    Would you say this forum has "hotted up" in the past year or was it always this ...err... tumultous? Was there always this good mix of theists and non theists?
  7. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    13 Jul '10 17:331 edit
    Originally posted by karoly aczel
    I'm glad you stuck at it in the beginning. Reading your posts when I got on here pretty much made me want subscribe.

    Would you say this forum has "hotted up" in the past year or was it always this ...err... tumultous? Was there always this good mix of theists and non theists?
    Wow! Thanks. I'm glad you stuck around. (Stick with beetle-roshi, though! πŸ™‚ )

    There was pretty much the same mix—although there are few of the “old guard” still participating. It was just as hot, just as much sniping, harsh comments, apologies made, friendships formed across wide adversarial divides, unbridgeable bitter rivalries, etc., etc.

    Actually, nothing has changed much—the names of the parties, but not the arguments. That does not mean that people have not changed; I am not the same, and I am better for both the arguments that I won and the arguments that I lost, and that vast majority that just fizzle to some kind of declared or undeclared impasse. But I now participate little, and take long breaks from here to spend more time on the contemplative side (and I no longer play chess here, as you know: all of which is why I let my sub lapse).

    And when I do participate, I want to change the way I do from what it has been. Since I am convinced that the “spiritual” is about the ineffable, then all discourse—even that which takes a descriptive or propositional form—ought to be conceived as allusive or elicitive. And so I would like to use language that is more appropriately in that mode.

    Drawing an image of the dharma wheel,
    or the interpenetrating tai chi,
    such notions as up, down, sideways depend
    only on how you place it on the page—

    [“Drawing an image…”: metaphor for the concept-making activity; “…how you place it on the page”: metaphor pertaining to the perspectival limitations of our already-formed conceptual context.]

    Be well, old friend.
  8. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91561
    13 Jul '10 21:05
    Originally posted by vistesd
    Wow! Thanks. I'm glad you stuck around. (Stick with beetle-roshi, though! πŸ™‚ )

    There was pretty much the same mix—although there are few of the “old guard” still participating. It was just as hot, just as much sniping, harsh comments, apologies made, friendships formed across wide adversarial divides, unbridgeable bitter rivalries, etc., etc.

    Ac ...[text shortened]... the perspectival limitations of our already-formed conceptual context.]

    Be well, old friend.
    Like I said initially you and then beetle and the others strung words together in a very appealing , satisfactory manner to my way of thinking.
    However the christians too have taught me much about their faith.

    I like the turbulence sometimes
  9. Joined
    10 Jan '08
    Moves
    10206
    14 Jul '10 00:03
    Originally posted by karoly aczel

    However the christians too have taught me much about their faith.

    mAdness... how dare they?
  10. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11458
    14 Jul '10 02:477 edits
    Originally posted by vistesd
    I was here when the Spirituality Forum was carved out from Debates (about five years ago, I think). The stimulus for that came from those who complained that the religionists cluttered up every topic in Debates with such things as long Biblical quotes, religious apologetics, evangelical “preaching” and the like. However, neither support nor oppositi ...[text shortened]... ism—and nobody who was around then suggested that I ought to exit the new forum on that account.
    I think there is an element of closed thinking with 'spirituality' when one believes that the particular path they have chosen is correct. Most discussions seem to rely on the unquestionable truth of propositions like God is perfect, God cannot lie, etc... when infact it is these base assumptions that often deserve more analysis than the conclusions which follow from them. (consider Grampy Bobby's contribution to this thread!)
    That's not to say I won't admit the existence of some putative supernatual realm or entity (sans specific definitions) is, in a philosophical sense, feasible; it's just that there are at least as many notions of 'supernatural' as there are people that formulate them (and of course more since spiritual "understanding" evolves with time (quotes there to cheapen the word slightly)).

    My experience may differ from yours but I find myself often on the receiving end of the insinuation that I'm a fool for questioning their base assumptions; and that I should listen with reverence to their Biblically inspired words. (and less reverence for those of the Koran, the Veda, the Kojiki/Nihon shoki, the Tipitaka, etc... of course)

    To me it's a bit like trying to answer a question such as what is the colour preferred by most people? Do I make a choice based on my own favourite (dark blue)? or should I reserve judgement based on the fact I haven't asked all 6+ billion inhabitants of the world and instead question the choices made by others?
  11. Hmmm . . .
    Joined
    19 Jan '04
    Moves
    22131
    17 Jul '10 03:19
    Originally posted by Agerg
    I think there is an element of closed thinking with 'spirituality' when one believes that the particular path they have chosen is correct. Most discussions seem to rely on the unquestionable truth of propositions like God is perfect, God cannot lie, etc... when infact it is these base assumptions that often deserve more analysis than the conclusions which foll ...[text shortened]... + billion inhabitants of the world and instead question the choices made by others?
    My experience may differ from yours but I find myself often on the receiving end of the insinuation that I'm a fool for questioning their base assumptions; and that I should listen with reverence to their Biblically inspired words. (and less reverence for those of the Koran, the Veda, the Kojiki/Nihon shoki, the Tipitaka, etc... of course).

    Well, I’ve had that experience too. And it’s not always insinuation. Reading through some recent threads, I see this kind of game: “The truth is [insert particular Christian belief], and if you say you don’t believe it you’re a liar, deceitful or a fool—manufacturing arguments for your own self-serving agenda.”

    That kind of accusation seems as often leveled against other Christians who don’t hold to [insert particular Christian belief] as it is against other religionists or atheists—those other Christians are just not “True Christians™”. If the “heretic” protests, and tries to present honest arguments or explanations, the accusation is simply repeated, accompanied by a further load of Biblical proof-texts. If it is suggested that this game is itself self-serving—that it simply preserves its protagonists from having to actually address the merits of any argument (e.g., challenging those “base assumptions” )—the response is likely: more of the same denunciations, with an increase of shrillness.

    Not all Christians on here play this game; I don’t know if it is more prominent recently than in the past. It’s not a game that deserves any respect. But there is really no way to reasonably play against it—just as there was no way to reasonably play against the inquisitors of old.
  12. weedhopper
    Joined
    25 Jul '07
    Moves
    8061
    23 Jul '10 16:42
    Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
    [b]"... forsaking all others come to accept and offer their hearts to this entity??"



    "Offer their hearts..." now isn't that so very precious. None of us have a thing to offer God Almighty. Jeremiah 1:9: "The heart of man is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it?" We have nothing to offer Him. He doesn't accept creature invitations ...[text shortened]... ept His gift. Period.



    ...........................................................[/b]
    I believe we have much to offer God: our prayers, our reverence, humility. And "hearts" could be a euphamism for any of those I suppose. But He certainly doesn't think of us as depraved trash, lest He wouldn't have chosen to speak to Moses, endow Solomon with wisdom and riches, utilize David (a man of His own heart) to form a kingdom...

    I don't think God thinks we're quite as "Godless" as Jermiah writes. πŸ™‚
  13. Joined
    15 Oct '06
    Moves
    10115
    23 Jul '10 17:172 edits
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    I believe we have much to offer God: our prayers, our reverence, humility. And "hearts" could be a euphamism for any of those I suppose. But He certainly doesn't think of us as depraved trash, lest He wouldn't have chosen to speak to Moses, endow Solomon with wisdom and riches, utilize David (a man of His own heart) to form a kingdom...

    I don't think God thinks we're quite as "Godless" as Jermiah writes. πŸ™‚
    Well, if you read the following verse, you'll understand the GB has taken the verse out of context. This happens all too often with those desperate to prop up their self-centered beliefs.

    Jeremiah 17
    9“The heart is more deceitful than all else
    And is desperately sick;
    Who can understand it?

    10“I, the LORD, search the heart,
    I test the mind,
    Even to give to each man according to his ways,
    According to the results of his deeds.


    God answers the question posed in 17:9 with 17:10. God says the He can understand it. He searches the heart, tests the mind and gives to each man according to his ways and deeds. It isn't that man has nothing to offer God as GB purports, but that man will be rewarded according to his ways and deeds. Such is the way of those who advocate "cheap salvation".
  14. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91561
    24 Jul '10 02:28
    Originally posted by vistesd
    [b]My experience may differ from yours but I find myself often on the receiving end of the insinuation that I'm a fool for questioning their base assumptions; and that I should listen with reverence to their Biblically inspired words. (and less reverence for those of the Koran, the Veda, the Kojiki/Nihon shoki, the Tipitaka, etc... of course).

    Well, I ...[text shortened]... bly play against it—just as there was no way to reasonably play against the inquisitors of old.[/b]
    And since there is no way to play that game, I dont know why it comes up so often. I get the feeling some christians think that my sense of guilt and uncertainty will get the better of me and I will yield to Jesus and the bible.

    I think I have pointed out previously the mechanism of doubt and the role it plays in metaphysics/(spiritual) psycology.
    Of course to understand this , one must first understand the basic concept of non-duality. Christian or not.
  15. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91561
    24 Jul '10 02:32
    Originally posted by PinkFloyd
    I believe we have much to offer God: our prayers, our reverence, humility. And "hearts" could be a euphamism for any of those I suppose. But He certainly doesn't think of us as depraved trash, lest He wouldn't have chosen to speak to Moses, endow Solomon with wisdom and riches, utilize David (a man of His own heart) to form a kingdom...

    I don't think God thinks we're quite as "Godless" as Jermiah writes. πŸ™‚
    I agree. We need a positive slef image to work with. I have come across notable exceptions but by and large I would say that in is not good to think of ourselves as depraved trash.
    Costructive critism is useful for undertanding oursleves, however the most effective critism comes from those that know us. Those that know our hearts.
    Lets bring out the postive in eachother and begin the process of healingπŸ™‚
Back to Top