PDA

View Full Version : Spiritual but nor religious



Bluesky
01-02-2013, 02:11 PM
Here's a study that'll rattle some chains.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9774259/Spiritual-people-at-higher-risk-of-mental-health-problems.html

The Left Sock
01-02-2013, 09:52 PM
I don't know why this would 'rattle' anyone, unless you are attempting to use the results to achieve political gains. If so, I would caution against using this study as a platform to promote Christianity, because such a move would be short-sighted.

Barry Morris
01-02-2013, 10:51 PM
"The nature of this association needs greater examination in qualitative and in prospective quantitative research."

I agree that it needs more study, but the opposite viewpoint has been mentioned before, deeply religious have fewer problems.

But why would such a move be short sighted??

The Left Sock
01-02-2013, 11:48 PM
Well, I am fully aware that the 'spiritualist' movement threatens Christians who are trying to bolster their failing ranks, so trying to politicize a study like this to promote Christianity is the obvious move Christians might make with it, but again, it is short-sighted.

The short-sighted part is the fact that those who declared themselves atheist or not religious at all, did not exhibit the symptoms of phobia, anxiety, or drug use that those who declared themselves 'spiritual, but not religious' displayed. Thus, the argument can be made that if you avoid religious thoughts altogether, you are better off than those who dabble with it.

But going even deeper, there is a flaw in the methodology of the study itself. An undefined belief in a greater power is classically referred to as 'agnosticism', yet this study poses 'agnostic' and 'spiritual' as exclusive and separate responses, when in fact, they are the same answer. So, someone who responds 'spiritual' rather than 'agnostic' is suspect, because you have to ask yourself why they responded that way.

To some people, stating that they are agnostic may leave them feeling vulnerable to religious recruitment. It seems like a trap, because if they believe in a higher power, then the only thing left to resolve is to 'pick a flavour', in other words, pick which religion most suits them. So, people who shy away from such a commitment may be suffering from phobia, anxiety, or are locked in the horns of a drug addiction, so they instinctively declare 'spiritual' rather than 'agnostic' because they fear religious pressure if they answer any other way.

And finally, it is well understood by many who steer clear of organized religion, that the process of becoming religious is often associated with a complete mental breakdown. People experience deep trauma in their lives, and emerge from the other side of such trauma 'reborn'. Alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, career criminals, death row inmates, when faced with the horrors of what their life has become, will throw themselves into religion, as a final desperate measure to save themselves. So, a person who considers themselves 'spiritual' rather than 'religious' or 'atheist' is by deduction, more likely to be in a state of desperation, in a state or transition, or increased stress, so the symptoms that are associated with such a condition are more likely to be present.

So for several reasons, trying to use this study as a promotion of Christianity would be short-sighted.

SSMP
01-03-2013, 02:01 PM
From the abstract, sorry don't have a subscription and can't get conclusions.
"Of the participants 35% had a religious understanding of life, 19% were spiritual but not religious and 46% were neither religious nor spiritual. Religious people were similar to those who were neither religious nor spiritual with regard to the prevalence of mental disorders, except that the former were less likely to have ever used drugs (odds ratio (OR) = 0.73, 95% CI 0.60–0.88) or be a hazardous drinker (OR = 0.81, 95% CI 0.69–0.96). Spiritual people were more likely than those who were neither religious nor spiritual to have ever used (OR = 1.24, 95% CI 1.02–1.49) or be dependent on drugs (OR = 1.77, 95% CI 1.20–2.61), and to have abnormal eating attitudes (OR = 1.46, 95% CI 1.10–1.94), generalised anxiety disorder (OR = 1.50, 95% CI 1.09–2.06), any phobia (OR = 1.72, 95% CI 1.07–2.77) or any neurotic disorder (OR = 1.37, 95% CI 1.12–1.68). They were also more likely to be taking psychotropic medication (OR = 1.40, 95% CI 1.05–1.86)."

Note the bolded part.

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 08:24 AM
And you wonder why I like to separate religious from Christian?

I always thought an agnostic is one who believes there's no way to know if there's a God. That's what the word means.

Certainly quite different from the meaning of the word spiritual.

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 08:27 AM
...
And finally, it is well understood by many who steer clear of organized religion, that the process of becoming religious is often associated with a complete mental breakdown. People experience deep trauma in their lives, and emerge from the other side of such trauma 'reborn'. Alcoholics, drug addicts, prostitutes, career criminals, death row inmates, when faced with the horrors of what their life has become, will throw themselves into religion, as a final desperate measure to save themselves. So, a person who considers themselves 'spiritual' rather than 'religious' or 'atheist' is by deduction, more likely to be in a state of desperation, in a state or transition, or increased stress, so the symptoms that are associated with such a condition are more likely to be present.

So for several reasons, trying to use this study as a promotion of Christianity would be short-sighted.

"..as a final desperate measure to save themselves." Indeed, a common phenomena.

And it works.

Mind you, I'd love to see some studies differentiating between those who "throw themselves" into religion, and those who become Christians.

This of course, is bogus and contradictory:

"And finally, it is well understood by many who steer clear of organized religion, that the process of becoming religious is often associated with a complete mental breakdown."

And exactly WHO it might be well understood by is beyond me.

The Left Sock
01-04-2013, 11:16 AM
"I always thought an agnostic is one who believes there's no way to know if there's a God. That's what the word means.

Certainly quite different from the meaning of the word spiritual."

The word 'spiritual' is vague, meaning very different things to individuals. Alas, another small flaw in this study - no proper operational definition.

In order for an agnostic not to be an atheist, they have to be open to the idea of a higher power. What that power is, they aren't sure, and they doubt that any organized religion holds the 'true' answers, but they must have some belief in a higher power, or they would simply be atheists.

A Christian may be described as spiritual, but in a survey like this, they would respond they were religious, not spiritual. To do otherwise would be to deny their belief in Christ.

So, despite a lack of an operational definition, some of the alternatives can be ruled out, so we are left with the responses 'spiritual' and 'agnostic' adding up to the same response. There is no way to clearly separate the two, based on the way the study was designed.

The Left Sock
01-04-2013, 11:26 AM
"And exactly WHO it might be well understood by is beyond me."

When you watch someone you care about go through a major life crisis, and come out the other side a religious fanatic, you get a really good understanding of how it works.

They exchange a life of addiction, for one of sustained delusion.

When you are a drug addict, people are always looking for ways to get you help, treatment, sympathy, and understanding. Nobody embraces it, accepts it, or should enable or sustain it. You have to keep looking for hard answers, to get yourself out of the nightmare you have created.

When you snap into a religious fervor, you are welcomed with open arms, supported, sustained and encouraged by an entire community. Whatever caused the mental breakdown you had to get like this is dismissed, forgotten, considered a 'good thing'.

When you're a drug addict, the whole world wants you to do something to fix it, and you need to look for real solutions to your problem.

When you're a religious nut, you are told you finally have it right, there is nothing wrong with you, and instead of real solutions or help for the reasons that got you there, you get snippets of scripture, instead of real answers.

And then, like a drug addict, you go on to infect others with your illness.

Asparas
01-04-2013, 11:34 AM
I'm quite in the middle of things myself. I don't agree with organized religion at all. I also sometimes doubt many things that are taught in the Bible. To me the Bible feels like fiction, filled with morals and teachings that help guide you to be a better person.
Now in saying that, I have no doubt in my mind that there is a higher power. I call him God and I want to believe there was a man called Jesus who was his only son. However not wanting to be part of an organized religion and being very doubtful of many Christian beliefs, does than make me a bad Christian or just simply agnostic?

lynys
01-04-2013, 12:18 PM
I believe in the possibility of something else. It may be cowardly on my part, but, I can look around and see so many incredible things on this earth and can't help but wonder if. Seeing as I do not know (I was not there first hand) I can't say for sure there "is" something.

The Left Sock
01-04-2013, 01:03 PM
As a student of Buddhism, I suppose I would have had to answer that study as 'religious', or not at all. Wouldn't want to respond as being 'religious' though, because my beliefs don't claim to have exclusive 'truth'. So, I guess I wouldn't fit in anywhere, with the list of options.

What's really interesting to me is that a proponent of Intelligent Design can be either religious, spiritual, or agnostic. Perhaps the common ground for mankind lies behind this theory?

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 02:07 PM
They exchange a life of addiction, for one of sustained delusion.

In your opinion


When you are a drug addict, people are always looking for ways to get you help, treatment, sympathy, and understanding. Nobody embraces it, accepts it, or should enable or sustain it. You have to keep looking for hard answers, to get yourself out of the nightmare you have created.

Yes, quite right


When you snap into a religious fervor, you are welcomed with open arms, supported, sustained and encouraged by an entire community. Whatever caused the mental breakdown you had to get like this is dismissed, forgotten, considered a 'good thing'.

No, wrong. Teen Challenge, the one I am familiar with has a year long program, with counselling, and other helps, to help the person turn his life around. The "mental breakdown" is never forgotten





When you're a drug addict, the whole world wants you to do something to fix it, and you need to look for real solutions to your problem.

When you're a religious nut, you are told you finally have it right, there is nothing wrong with you, and instead of real solutions or help for the reasons that got you there, you get snippets of scripture, instead of real answers.

And then, like a drug addict, you go on to infect others with your illness.

And, whaddya know, you stay alive, along with others you "infect".

Sounds better to me than dead in a gutter.

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 02:08 PM
"...my beliefs don't claim to have exclusive 'truth'."

Flexible truth. Cool.

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 02:14 PM
I'm quite in the middle of things myself. I don't agree with organized religion at all. I also sometimes doubt many things that are taught in the Bible. To me the Bible feels like fiction, filled with morals and teachings that help guide you to be a better person.
Now in saying that, I have no doubt in my mind that there is a higher power. I call him God and I want to believe there was a man called Jesus who was his only son. However not wanting to be part of an organized religion and being very doubtful of many Christian beliefs, does than make me a bad Christian or just simply agnostic?

I'd have to say there's no such thing as a bad Christian.

In my opinion, the REAL important thing about a Christian is the "born again" part, when one becomes a child of God. Once that happens, and it has very little to do with "religion", it's permanent. God will never let you go. We are to trust Him as a child trusts it's mother.

There's lots of things in the bible I have trouble with too, but I know that I can trust God. But, I suspect like you , I don't believe that organized religion saved anyone, ever.

Bluesky
01-04-2013, 02:39 PM
"And exactly WHO it might be well understood by is beyond me."

When you watch someone you care about go through a major life crisis, and come out the other side a religious fanatic, you get a really good understanding of how it works.

They exchange a life of addiction, for one of sustained delusion.


If by delusion you mean they now believe in things like the resurrection of Jesus Christ and belief in the possibility of miracles, and an after life, then I would say that you are question begging here. You decided a priori that these things are not possible, therefore the drug addict is delusional.

Or did you have real delusions in mind when you wrote that?



When you are a drug addict, people are always looking for ways to get you help, treatment, sympathy, and understanding. Nobody embraces it, accepts it, or should enable or sustain it. You have to keep looking for hard answers, to get yourself out of the nightmare you have created.

When you snap into a religious fervor, you are welcomed with open arms, supported, sustained and encouraged by an entire community. Whatever caused the mental breakdown you had to get like this is dismissed, forgotten, considered a 'good thing'.

When you're a drug addict, the whole world wants you to do something to fix it, and you need to look for real solutions to your problem.

When you're a religious nut, you are told you finally have it right, there is nothing wrong with you, and instead of real solutions or help for the reasons that got you there, you get snippets of scripture, instead of real answers.

And then, like a drug addict, you go on to infect others with your illness.

Are all people who are religious nuts in your view? What do you mean by religious nuts?
You are a buddhist who believes that you lived a former life many times, and will transmigrate into future lives as well, either as a gnat, camel, my next pet dog or human or maybe a bhodisatva, depending on how you lived this life. Would you consider yourself a religious nut?

Bluesky
01-04-2013, 02:41 PM
I'm quite in the middle of things myself. I don't agree with organized religion at all. I also sometimes doubt many things that are taught in the Bible. To me the Bible feels like fiction, filled with morals and teachings that help guide you to be a better person.
Now in saying that, I have no doubt in my mind that there is a higher power. I call him God and I want to believe there was a man called Jesus who was his only son. However not wanting to be part of an organized religion and being very doubtful of many Christian beliefs, does than make me a bad Christian or just simply agnostic?

One is either a Christian or not. And one can be a poor Christian or an excellent one.
What makes a Christian a Christian in your view? The Bible is quite clear about the definition of a Christian.

Asparas
01-04-2013, 03:51 PM
One is either a Christian or not. And one can be a poor Christian or an excellent one.
What makes a Christian a Christian in your view? The Bible is quite clear about the definition of a Christian.

Well to me someone who believes in Christ and his teachings is a Christian. That's the thing though. I'd like to believe in it I just have a hard time believing things around him. For example the virgin birth, miracles he performed, resurrection. Is it just fiction or fact? That's how I see it. How do I know that he wasn't just a crazy man walking around like those miracle cure priests and people just believed so strongly in him. I do believe in the morals of his teachings or at least what's written in the Bible, I just struggle with the Bible itself constantly wondering if it's a true account of history or just a work of fiction accumulating over time written to guide us as humans to a better path.

Bluesky
01-04-2013, 04:18 PM
Thanks Asparas. That helps me to understand your viewpoint.
And you raise a critical point. So many people recognize that many of the teachings of Christ are truly virtuous and good. But the critical line that runs through the New Testament is whether one believes in WHO HE IS. Because the logic goes like this.

No human could teach this stuff. What He taught was so counter-intuitive.

And of course, there are those claims to the miraculous that makes belief in Him so difficult. And then there is the price to pay if one comes out and actually accepts the New Testament in its totality. One can be viewed as a religious nut case if you go too far.

I have crossed the line, from believing his teachings to actually believing that He is who he claimed to be.

I believe that if this universe was intelligently designed and created, then it is no biggie for God to intervene at times in human history. And what God does naturally looks to us like the supernatural.

That is why people would rather believe that the universe came from nothing, as a random event, and out of nothing, there came life in its many variegated shapes and sizes.

So when Jesus Christ said, "I am the way, the truth and the life", I believe Him, and trust Him.
He actually is the Son of God who died for us. He actually was raised from the dead. He actually does want us to live for His pleasure. It's what we were made for. To live for a higher purpose than to spend life on just ourselves.

I don't know how to convince someone of the possibility of miracles or a resurrection. I certainly believe in the possibility, because I believe that God exists, and of necessity, that God must be able to do things beyond our ability to understand.

The Left Sock
01-04-2013, 04:50 PM
"...my beliefs don't claim to have exclusive 'truth'."

Flexible truth. Cool."

Flexible and exclusive are two different terms, with two very different meanings. Or were you just deliberately trying to be snide?

By 'exclusive truth', I mean the notion that certain religions claim to have the one, 'real' truth. Fact is, there is truth hidden in many things, sometimes very simple things, and cumulatively, this truth equals the sum parts of who we are.

All religions have truth hidden within them. Something drove generations of people to hold onto the traditions and teachings of the many forms of belief that exist in our world. However, the notion that any one religion has captured the essence of truth, to the exclusion of others, is nothing more than politics, and has nothing to do with real truth.

The Left Sock
01-04-2013, 05:02 PM
"Or did you have real delusions in mind when you wrote that?"

Yes, absolutely. A person who is filled with religious fervor stops attempting to perceive their world through objective eyes. For them, everything is an act of God, the will of God, a lesson from God, a sign from God. They filter each and every thing that they encounter through a religious filter, and actively block any attempt by anyone else, to introduce any concept other than what they have before them, derived from exclusively theological sources.

These people are nuts - they are ill, and the common reality that the rest of us experience, the ability to reason, to communicate openly, and resolve basic human differences, is lost to them. They are encased in a religious cocoon.

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 06:56 PM
I don't think those could be Christians.

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 07:02 PM
"...my beliefs don't claim to have exclusive 'truth'."

Flexible truth. Cool."

Flexible and exclusive are two different terms, with two very different meanings. Or were you just deliberately trying to be snide?

By 'exclusive truth', I mean the notion that certain religions claim to have the one, 'real' truth. Fact is, there is truth hidden in many things, sometimes very simple things, and cumulatively, this truth equals the sum parts of who we are.

All religions have truth hidden within them. Something drove generations of people to hold onto the traditions and teachings of the many forms of belief that exist in our world. However, the notion that any one religion has captured the essence of truth, to the exclusion of others, is nothing more than politics, and has nothing to do with real truth.

No I actually believe that YOUR beliefs are flexible truth.

There IS exclusive truth out there somewhere. And I hope that you and I both laugh at those who state the the bible is totally bogus, because it does have truth in it, even for an atheist.

Your lack of understanding about Christianity leads you to some very amusing statements.

Barry Morris
01-04-2013, 07:04 PM
....trust Him..... .

I think our major point of difference is that I would prefer to say this first.

The Left Sock
01-04-2013, 11:38 PM
"No I actually believe that YOUR beliefs are flexible truth."

The Four Noble Truths are universal truths. They hold true whether you are a Christian, Muslim, atheist, or Buddhist. They are not flexible; rather, they are provable, measurable, observable concepts that apply equally to all mankind. What they are not, is exclusive. You don't have to 'join' the club, take a pledge of allegiance, or forsake the beliefs of others while holding yourself superior, in order to appreciate them.

You have no real idea what I believe, do you?

Bluesky
01-05-2013, 07:58 AM
According to Wikipedia, here are the four Noble Truths

The four truths are presented within the Buddha's first discourse, Setting in Motion the Wheel of the Dharma (Dharmacakra Pravartana Sūtra). An English translation is as follows:[web 4]

1. "This is the noble truth of dukkha: birth is dukkha, aging is dukkha, illness is dukkha, death is dukkha; sorrow, lamentation, pain, grief and despair are dukkha; union with what is displeasing is dukkha; separation from what is pleasing is dukkha; not to get what one wants is dukkha; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are dukkha."

2, "This is the noble truth of the origin of dukkha: it is this craving which leads to renewed existence, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there, that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for existence, craving for extermination."3.

3. "This is the noble truth of the cessation of dukkha: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, nonreliance on it."

4. "This is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of dukkha: it is the Noble Eightfold Path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness and right concentration." [14][e][f]

Are these truths (or principles) absolute and universal? Discuss.

I guess the first order of business would be to explain dukkha and give some more definition to these 4 statements.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

Barry Morris
01-05-2013, 10:23 AM
That is to say, Bluesky can somewhat support his arguments, and you can't support your own.

If I thought you were interested in more than just bashing.....

The Left Sock
01-05-2013, 12:46 PM
Thanks for putting up the Four Noble Truths, Bluesky.

Because Buddhism has Asian origins, many of the terms used are foreign to us in the West. But the terms of the Four Noble Truths are actually simple to understand, and once given useful terms that Westerners can relate to, the universal application of them becomes easier to accept.

Noble Truth 1. (Life means suffering)

To be born into this world, to receive the great gift that is life, means that suffering is inevitable. There is a price that comes with this gift. Birth is traumatic. There is suffering from the mother to bring a child into the world, destruction to her body. The child is thrown from the warmth and comfort of the womb into a fragile existence, fraught with peril, and needing constant attention and nurturing, in order to survive. Just to grow teeth means the child must suffer. The bones ache as they grow, the child falls many times, just to learn how to walk.

So, just to be a part of this world, to be human, means suffering will be inevitable. It is part of who we are. It is the same for all of us; Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, and atheist alike. And it is provable, observable, measurable. It is universal. No one escapes suffering. Things like the common cold ensure we all get a share of the suffering to go around.

Noble Truth 2. (desire leads to suffering)

While a certain amount of suffering in life is unavoidable, human beings reap a great deal more suffering onto themselves, that is not necessary, but rather self-inflicted by the choices we make in life. The broad term in Buddhism for this is 'desire', but it incorporates a lot of ideas. The Seven Deadly Sins come in handy here, as a means to explain desire to Westerners. If you lust after a married woman, you suffer from that desire. If you are greedy and materialistic, you suffer from that desire. If you are a jealous or petty individual, you suffer from desire. If you have a deep need to be accepted or admired, you suffer from a desire.

In a spiritually corrupt individual, the amount of suffering they heap onto themselves from desire can far outweigh any of the suffering that life brings. Someone blessed with exceptionally good health can be totally infested with desire, and lead a life of horrible suffering as a result. This is self-inflicted, not necessary. But even those of us who are relatively well-balanced individuals, allow a certain amount of desire suffering into our lives.

This holds true for Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, and atheists. It is easy to observe, prove, and measure. It is universal.

Noble Truth 3. (extinguishing desire reduces suffering)

By seeking out the desire in our lives, the needless suffering we place upon ourselves, and doing something to remedy the illness that is self-inflicted, leads us to the Path of Enlightenment. We must strive to learn about ourselves, our place in the world, the destructive role desire plays in our lives, and find a way to transcend the common pitfalls and traps humans are vulnerable to. By reducing the suffering of desire, we grow as people, our lives improve, our vision clears, we become enlightened as to the human experience.

Again, this is universal, applicable to all, etc..,

Noble Truth 4. (the eight-fold path leads to enlightenment)

The Eight-fold Path is the 'road map' the Buddha developed, a guide if you will, to help his followers understand the basic areas of life where suffering occurs, and by doing so, allow others to navigate through life in a way that can lead to enlightenment. It might seem daunting at first, but it is all really quite simple, sensible, and applies to anyone, who cares to use them. But of course, mastering these concepts takes a very long time, requires much reflection and self-awareness, and a lot of hard work.

For brevity, I won't delve into all of them. The one I like though, the one that catches my fancy on many occasions, is the concept of 'right livelihood'. It becomes startling to realize just how much impact it can have, and how much better the world can be, if it was embraced more widely.

'Right Livelihood' basically means that you are not supposed to earn your daily bread in a way that leads to suffering for yourself, or for others. You need to find something to do in this world that is of benefit, is healthy, and contributes to society in a non-damaging way. For example, I was a bartender in earlier life. To Buddhism, this is a no-no. Peddling intoxicants that lead to addiction, illness, and causes people to run loose with unhealthy desires that inflicts suffering on others, is no way to earn a living, not if you are trying to become 'enlightened'.

Now I work in the service of others, providing care for those who require assistance in daily life. This is acceptable for adherence to the concept of 'right livelihood', but even with that, I am not out of the woods. How I act while working, how I speak, how I think, are all part of the Eight-fold Path. So, while I may have chosen a noble work to do, I can blow all of that by ignoring the other seven aspects of the Path. So, I must try to incorporate all elements of the Eight-fold Path into all aspects of my life. This is where it gets deep, gets complicated, and I routinely fail myself as a Buddhist.

So, in conclusion, I may be able to expand upon the Four Noble Truths, put it into terms that are easily understood in our culture, demonstrate that these things are universal truths, that they have no boundaries and can apply to anyone, but I don't want anyone to think I am any kind of expert on Buddhism. I am an infant, a novice, spiritually a child, walking in a world of giants. I have a long way to go, before enlightenment is something I can claim. When I see my spiritual master, the Dalai Lama, conducting an interview somewhere in the world, I am awestruck at his humility, his simplicity, and his wisdom.

But then again, that would lead to Tibetan Buddhism, which would only confuse matters. The Four Noble Truths hold true for all Buddhists. The Tibetans have simply developed a 'vehicle', to assist them in mastering these truths.

Bluesky
01-16-2013, 12:42 PM
Ahh, someone is moderating. Good.

Bluesky
01-16-2013, 02:11 PM
Oh, it was you. Yeah, thanks for reconsidering.

Upper Decker
01-16-2013, 02:18 PM
why did it need to be deleted... oh wait censorship and religion go hand and hand.

Bluesky
01-16-2013, 04:02 PM
In that case, Blunt censored himself. And he is not religious. Oh wait. He is. He worships himself.

The Voice
01-16-2013, 07:25 PM
In that case, Blunt censored himself. And he is not religious. Oh wait. He is. He worships himself.

Oh Wait, backhanded insults are allowed.

lynys
01-17-2013, 12:45 PM
In that case, Blunt censored himself. And he is not religious. Oh wait. He is. He worships himself.

Nothing wrong with a little self love. :)

Bluesky
01-17-2013, 01:00 PM
Oh Wait, backhanded insults are allowed.

How is that an insult?

The Voice
01-17-2013, 09:25 PM
How is that an insult?

Well I guess you are just trying to point out that he has the character flaw of Narcissism.

Just your opinion so I guess its not really an insult.

Hans
01-17-2013, 10:08 PM
'Freud said that narcissism was a natural part of the human makeup, but also a characteristic that if taken to extremes can prevent us from having meaningful relationships'.

Bluesky
01-18-2013, 07:49 AM
Well I guess you are just trying to point out that he has the character flaw of Narcissism.

Just your opinion so I guess its not really an insult.

Now you're being judgmental. WHo says being selfish or narcissistic is a character flaw? Many people who make it to the top of the ladder are narcissistic.

Bluesky
01-18-2013, 01:44 PM
Ahh,, yes, for the believer, this is a good verse to heed. But I am talking about you... from your point of view.

Light_Keeper
01-23-2013, 10:23 PM
Perhaps you all could try and view yourself as your "GOD", Just a thought, since all seem to wonder what the truth is yet none of us where there in the Beginning. Maybe we all have a spark of "GOD" within us.
Ponder, ponder, wondering, thinking, searching are all we can do. Yet at the end of the day my Truth may be far different than yours, bur neither of us can be absolutely sure, as we where not here in the beginng.

Bluesky
01-24-2013, 06:33 PM
Is "being there in the beginning" a requirement to know something with certainty? If so why? If not, why not?

Light_Keeper
01-25-2013, 09:02 PM
Is "being there in the beginning" a requirement to know something with certainty? If so why? If not, why not?

YES
If you where not there for the event, than you are relying on someone else's beliefs, interpretation and reasoning.
JMO

The Left Sock
01-25-2013, 09:39 PM
Is "being there in the beginning" a requirement to know something with certainty? If so why? If not, why not?

As the wisest man who ever lived (Socrates) often said, "A man cannot begin upon the path to wisdom, unless he first admits he knows nothing".

We must begin all knowledge with total ignorance, or risk starting off on a false path. So, being present from the beginning of an event is irrelevant. An ignorant man can witness an entire event, and remain oblivious. A wise man can examine an event a thousand years later, and extract some truth from it.

Having said that, if you believe in a God that knows all past, present, and future events, and is in control of it all, there really isn't much motivation to figure anything out, because your knowledge of events won't change a thing.

Why did the tornado turn left, and miss the house? - It was God's will.
Why did the child die, when the disease was curable? - It was God's will.
What if global warming is real? - It is God's will.

Not much motivation to do anything for ourselves, in that equation, is there?

Oh yeah, and under such a regime, any claim of free will is just an illusion.