romansh

For that to be 'true', the axioms must have shifted. Having said that the supreme court worked overtime in starting to roll the States back to the dark ages.

This is the closest Gulley as come to defining spirituality. At least for me. Well, to where does he expand it; does he love 'it' when some pharisee tells his grand daughter is full of sin?

Naylor's quote ... This brought me to wondering did Naylor think there is a spirit that delight to do 'evil'? Is this spirit of the same essence in the what we are discussing as spiritual? Do we need to be spiritual to be at one with this world? Or is that what Gulley means by spiritual? I would argue that we are "at one" with this universe whether we recognize it or not. I could go on.

Agree, so based on the laws of the land which is the correct decision? We both share which we would prefer. But for me going through the small print of the US constitution, precedent, statutes etc is too much like hard work for me. I find the whole thing stinks. If such a large portion of the US people were not indoctrinated into their archaic Christian principles then abortion would not be an issue either at a State level or a Federal level.

The US legal and political systems are fully entwined. Here in Canada and I suppose in Oz if it is based on the British system, the judiciary and politicians are at arms length, with minimal influence by those in power; not none but minimal. The US has got it completely wrong here. Having said that, the US judiciary, here I mean those that get elected to senior positions and not the local hacks who get elected based on their politics (I kid you not), I think make an honest attempt to be impartial, but their biases show through, as would mine if I were judicially inclined. So punting the issue back to the State level may well be the logically correct decision based on the laws of the land. I gather the US Constitution is silent on the abortion issue so it may well not be a Federal issue. Regarding freedom of religion, the Constitution is not silent on this issue so it falls under Federal legislation.

Not surprisingly, I broadly agree with you Paul. Bringing kids into poverty or where they are not wanted is not a great option. My understanding (and I may be wrong here) is that SCOTUS pushed the legal decision back down to the State level. Whereas, they should have pushed the decision/choice all the way down to the individual concerned.

Hi Skyler. For me there is something disconcerting about faith. For me: faith << belief < understanding Again for me faith is like a belief in something despite the evidence to the contrary. Belief is observing the world and constructing a worldview from from the observations and there is an implied assumption that the world view may be modified as more observations come in. Whereas understanding has an educational component. It is more of a journey. A questioning. It is agnostic in very essence. Welcome.

But perhaps the existence of poets and writers, even composers and artists are simply "inspired" by existence. Seeing the world in terms of chemistry or perhaps physics or biology is no less creative than than the arts so to speak. I am still no closer to understanding what Gulley means by spirituality. For me it has to be some kind of feeling. Gulley's juxtaposition of religion with spirituality tells me what it is not. Is simply living a "good" life spirituality? Or is it me, trying to live life whilst not thinking in terms of good and evil spirituality? I can't help but read Gulley's writing as trying to hold on to Christian souls in an unyielding ebbing tide.

Hmmnn? I think all this spirituality thing can be summed up in a Campbell quote: Religion turns poetry into prose. And for context ... Joseph Campbell: "Mythology is poetry..." | JCF: Works

I don't know Paul, I can't help thinking, By Krishna need to get some of this spirituality ... should be read with a subcontinental accent. We don't really know what it is, it might be different things to different people, but so long as some lay claim to this spirituality all is good. I am not sure I am buying it. Helping people can make us feel good. That's OK. I wonder about it though.

People living like that [living well in community] may well be a reality. Whether this is spirituality is more of a thesaural debate.

This diagram I hope helps with with the agnostic atheist dichotomy that I think Ehrman is trying to describe. There is an informal fallacy along the lines, I can't see how something could have happened therefore God did it. Ehrman has changed it to, I can't see how something could have happened therefore God might have done it. Personally, I would leave it at I can't see how something could have happened.

Why are you assuming an Abrahamic frame of reference? If I asked do you believe in Odin? what would be stopping you from answering? Or do you believe in pantheism? As a non believer I can say lots about God, I can wax lyrical about all/some of the different concepts. In fact I could argue that this is the "true" non Idolatrous version. As an agnostic I get where you are coming from. But if we look at the advances, understanding over the last six centuries is amazing. Of course as we understand more the more we can point to what we don't understand. If you want a label for what we don't understand we can call it God by all means. But when your answer is silence then you have something in mind. My personal answer would be No. Perhaps I just don't believe in Idols.

I say stuff spirituality! Take a good hard look at reality and the evidence associated with it and work out best we can where to move on from there. Having said that Gulley could be saying the very same thing and calling it spirituality.

To do it perfectly, I agree. But who says it has to be perfect? Just because it is difficult does it mean we abandon the concept of not parsing the world into "good and bad"? Just catching ourselves doing it is a start. I don't think it is a shade of grey. More of a literal illusion, a very powerful illusion. Again, I think you are pointing to the concept of morality rather than morality itself. The concept certainly exists, making it subjective concept (even in a collective subjective) does not reify it. For me, it is like our sense of colour. The large majority of us have it, but that does not make my kitchen chair red.

I must admit I am generally having trouble catching the drift here.

Here I agree with you. But I continue to be reminded of Alan Watts' fable of the Chinese farmer. While I think the distinction between physical and mental can be useful, ultimately it is a false distinction. We might perceive our mental states as non physical, they can be altered/treated by physical drugs, the environment an by instructions to see world differently. I repeat my question does it exist or is it like our sense of colour? In Victorian days it was immoral for a woman to show her ankles. Now of course our sense of morality is subjective, where does the information come from that informs us as to what to be moral about?

Do we we believe Islam after scribes reportedly took dictation from another alleged prophet? Can you point to the verse in the Qur'an that tells what the sun is orbitting and what you think it means and the reasons why? Can you tell us whether you think all the scrolls are forgeries?

Certainly more complicated, I think. Not always? 'Should' the west have stood up against Germany and the holocaust? I don't think these simple statements stand up to the complexity of reality. Here we reducing reality to just our skins. Is your statement true for people with 'mental' issues. Or if a gay person is told homosexuality is a sin, no harm done? Morality is ultimately about aligned world views. So who holds the 'correct' morality: a person who is aligned with their community, or someone who makes their own way, or their world view morality agrees with yours? The whole point of Gen3:22 is not to think in terms of morality: the sin of good and evil. It is tough to let go.

Again responsible is used in two senses - proximate cause, definitely responsible in this sense and morally, this one is a little more circumspect. Is an aggressive dog pathetic? We recognize that there are a myriad of antecedent causes here. What is different about a human being?

OK I watched ... what is your evidence that all the dead sea scrolls are forgeries. Neither of your videos say this!

While I have some understanding of your point of view and even some sympathy for it I more see the violent response as a product of society that people find themselves in and the product of their genetics. I am reminded of the UK football gangs of the seventies and eighties. A human being's desire (chemistry) to conform is strong.

You won't find any argument from me here ... traditional Christianity does not make sense to me. Having said that traditional Islam equally makes little sense to me. What is your evidence that all the Dead Sea Scrolls are forgeries?

The Dead Sea Scrolls date back at least seven hundred years before Islam. So it is hard to imagine Islam was not influenced by the two prevailing monotheistic Abrahamic religions. What do you think akay? I literally don't care about Naik. He seems like a not very pleasant person. If I wanted to discuss it with him I would go to his website and discuss it there. I am discussing this with you, on this forum. If you don't have the education then simply say so. But I doubt you have a PhD in comparative religion, because you seem incapable in articulating what should be your expertise.

Yes the Qur'an took much from the preceding Abrahamic texts ... no one is arguing about this. Even the Jesus bits. The Qur'an makes some of the same mistakes as the Bible does. World made in six days, Adam and Eve, Noah's flood. If you are going to copy you may as well copy the bits that are right.