romansh

What about the Danish cartoons? The depictions of Mohamed were not meant to be disrespectful of Islam but were making political, social, and perhaps religious statements? To be fair the cartoonists were indifferent (to some degree) to the deeply held beliefs.

So what you appear to be saying is, Gulley is this guy on the internet with no special insights? If you are, I would certainly agree with you. Phil Gulley for me, has some nice homilies but completely lacks substance, but then I'm just some guy on the internet. Weyler, in his book/study also suggested Jesus said: Seek the truth.There is a light within; look and you will find it.Know yourself.When you find the light within, share it with the world. Commit fully now.Act on your knowledge.Your understanding is revealed in the fruits of your actions. I think you would enjoy The Jesus Sayings.

Yeah ... Weyler's take was Jesus had said don't trust those with spiritual pretensions. And here we are in a thread on the meaning of spiritual. While I agree with Gulley on the exploration of ideas and concepts, I don't get a sense he is doing that. OK I agree with you in his environment a limited God is probably out their everyday belief.

This for me is a tad over-egging. I tend to agree with Paul; but even his guidelines are just that guidelines, and whether he applies them or not will be a factor of circumstance. As for unity, it is there whether we recognize it or not.

I don't think anyone disagrees with the Bible being a work of man here. Most Christians don't take it literally. So then, how do we reconcile the Adam and Eve story. This is plainly false! Incidentally Ehrman is a kafir so you can't trust him.

Lying by omission our friend Phil ... just joking. Though he does admit he was untruthful later. What I don't get why does he does not consider the possibility God does not exist? The meme is too difficult to shake? If God is not all powerful is it a god or is it more like one of those Homeric gods? Rex Weyler from his Jesus Sayings, thought Jesus may have uttered these two lines. Don’t trust those with spiritual pretensions.Question those who presume to speak for God. I certainly can follow these two guidelines.

Yeah ... that's the same link as I posted in the OP I agree with you Paul. The book burners got the the result they wanted, but note the BBC are careful not to say explicitly who the rioters are. We seem to be OK to call out the far right for their nonsense, but we are reticent to callout Muslim rioters. The rioting is the far greater environmental hazard. While I see the far right as despicable (not that can they help themselves), I see religion, as practiced, especially Islam, far less tolerant. And the far right is exploiting this. Note Muslims (and the rest of us) cannot help themselves either. I can only hope for someone benevolent meme to win out.

akay ... do you know what the word "discussion" means?

This reminds me of the militant agnostic bumper sticker. I don't know and neither do you.

So you would you object to someone publicly burning Mein Kampf to antagonize an Aryan Nations person?

Here I agree completely. A couple of things, firstly Jesus did not speak American English, he spoke likely Aramaic so no doubt if he indeed did say anything it likely was lost to some extent in translation and the mists of time. This is plainly incorrect and the Qur'an gets it wrong too. Funnily enough, I think this one the most important verses in the Bible even though Jesus likely does not say it. This line explains why Jesus was crucified (blasphemy) and if we think of God as the universe then this points to the unity of everything. Here I agree again, though the reasons are not simple like you make out. I am still wondering what does the Qur'an say about what the Sun is orbitting?

In Sweden a rightist group is planning on burning a copy of the Qur'an. Generally I am against this sort of thing, including this particular instance. This particular behaviour is designed simply to incite a portion of the populace. I would feel similarly about burning copies of of Mein Kampf and Das Kapital. Having said books are burned every day in waste incineration projects, so what's the difference? Well I suppose intent is one thing and public display is another. While I don't like the idea of burning/destroying books, realistically it is burning cellulose impregnated with complex patterns of carbon black. It's not as though the idea behind the book is going away. So what's the issue?

You think you know the mind of God? Hubris anyone?

PinkAzalea mentioned she does not feel sinful. The original sin was tasting the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. In Genesis 3:22 God is complaining to the other gods that Adam and Eve have become like gods being able to parse things into good and evil. They could no longer remain in the Garden of Eden. Plainly Genesis is an allegory. As John mentions above, the snake is an interesting character. He is the one who encourages Eve to think in terms of good and evil. So who are the "snakes" today that encourage us to think in terms of good and evil? Pastors, priests and preachers etc come to mind. Of course there are lots of other people who are of this mind. In today's western landscape it is difficult to think of Putin as not evil. So in this sense Christianity built on salvation is based on a huge misunderstanding of Genesis.

So what I am reading into what you are saying you want to choose a "right" flavour of Christianity and in the next sentence you think it will have little meaning. Hope I am not being to "pushy", that's my style. I certainly accept you feel this way. I certainly don't believe you don't have the capability or intelligence to work out a plan for yourself, your family, community and the world in general. As to the need for where the want comes from, I suspect you missed out one important aspect, social pressure. You rightly noted evolution as an aspect, humans have evolved as social animals and social conformity is a valuable trait. I find hedonism is given a bad rap. Firstly hedonism, it is about doing things for pleasure. In its shallow aspects I agree, buying stuff for oneself, partying etc I agree does not do much after a while. And if you don't get pleasure from helping the poor or those in some kind of hurt then fair. I know you are not saying this. But if you are looking for something "more", then is this not looking for some form of pleasure that you feel you do not have at the moment? A more sophisticated form of hedonism, if you like? I think intelligent Christians discard this idea completely. I have seen people argue that the Genesis myth is really an analogy of how we create our own hell and whereas we could be metaphorically in the Garden of Eden. So ultimately your interpretation of the "horse's mouth" will be based on the myriad of influences you have had in your life? The fact that you have settled on the Bible is a reflection of those influences. Are you going to read/investigate criticisms of the Bible? Hopefully I planted a seed that causes you to examine carefully all the influences around you. When I lost the tiny bit of faith I had in Christianity, I was all to aware of its effects on society, some I agreed with, some I find horrendous.

Highlight the bit you want to quote and you should get a little pop-up saying "quote" ... click it.

And then we have hate No doubt we will have expert apologists to explain this away in terms of context etc. and give an opposite meaning. Ultimately we end up believing what we believe.

My reply was not particularly aimed at you, but more hammering home my position. I am aware in a cold analytical sort of way. I don't think you mean that though. Pollan and Harris extoll a drug induced awareness or perhaps a regular euphoric state of awareness induced at looking at the night sky will do? I look at some of the oligarchs' yachts that have been sequestered. Up until that point their outcomes had looked pretty good.

Before claiming zero percent, I would like to get a sense what spiritual means, to whoever is using the word. Welcome back by the way. You described awhile back the question do you believe in god as meaningless. This concept is close to Ignosticism, we having theological discussions without well defined terms as meaningless. So overall I agree. I have seen churchgoers sing themselves into a sort of a euphoria. This may well be a spiritual event for them. Definitely not me. I can remember seeing the Milky Way for the first time. That was a kind euphoric awe for me ... if that is spiritual I can't claim zero percent.

Sorry, I'll try to be kind. Assuming there is a God, why do you think she would want you to choose a religion? Why not live your life as you best see fit? Why choose a dogma that comes with many religions? Gandhi's Be the change you want to see in the world comes to mind. To me this seems like sound advice. Well this seems like the basis of Pascal's wager. The problem for me is what is the cost of knowingly living a lie? For some it may well be zero or even a benefit. It is not something I could do, but you no doubt will decide for yourself. Again what is making you choose? Do you need need a holy text to guide you through life? I have my own guidelines for living life, as honestly as I can. I also have a wife that tells what to do. But of course not all circumstances will fit the guidelines, and it will require some thought and action to get a desired outcome. I don't see any gods coming to our rescue. My advice is to live your life to the best of your ability, try and do what makes sense. By all means be kind and generous to those in need as it hopefully will lead to a more equitable world. If you want a dirty great big luxury yacht start saving now. Another suggestion is to examine your wants, where they came from and where the might lead.

While I did read the rest of your post, I got stuck here! Largest? While Christianity as a whole is the largest, which denomination has the intellectual property on rightness? I have heard Evangelicals argue that Catholicism is not really Christianity. Also a large consensus is not a measure of being right is it? For example, there have been times that people have believed the Sun goes around the Earth. Right? When you say right do you mean accurate, useful or something else? Say Calvinists are a little circumspect about free will. It takes some special pleading to make sense of salvation without free will, does it not? Do you think the Russian Orthodox patriarchy is interpreting Christianity "right" given the current situation in Europe? Do we take some Evangelicals insistence on the Bible as being literally true as right? Is the almost atheistic take by late John Shelby Spong and the definitely atheistic take of Gretta Vosper somehow right? Likely? You seem to suggest that we have some insight into the probabilities of being "right"? This is a bit of a bookmakers fallacy. Where punters believe the bookmakers have an insight into the outcome of a bet. The bookmakers don't care. What they care about is how much money has been placed on each bet. What you say is about as logical as if I were to argue, most of the people on Earth are not Christian therefore Christianity is likely wrong. I think a study of Bayesian probabilities might be in order here. I can't help thinking your opening line is a reflection of your biases (which of course is fair enough) and what follows is a confabulation or motivated reasoning. What if pantheism or deism are closer to the truth?

For me this "connectedness" is a matter of physics and logic. While it might be nice to feel this "connectedness" I don't have the need. Some people (Harris and Pollan in their books) have recommended entheogens (psychedelics) to obtain this feeling. Again I don't feel the need and so far have not. But I am sort of curious. Having said that, I think consciousness is the great trip of a lifetime and I am always suspicious of wanting "more". Anyway ... physics and logic tells us we are connected to the universe, never mind one another, whether we like it or not and whether we are aware of it or not. We can't define articulate spirituality and yet it is important in our lives? Is it important in the sense of getting a report out on time otherwise there might be consequences we don't like? You just iterated my point of Is it important that we are spiritual or not? For me, if a person is oblivious to this connectedness (don't like the term) that is fine, that is how the universe unfolded. That I might proselytize for connectedness, akay for Islam and you for a progressive Christianity that too is fine. Does the concept of mattering exist beyond the human mind (perhaps some other minds)?

Is Phil aware you are reposting his blog? Either way a link to it would be in order? Perhaps an invite to Phil, to participate, would be in order also?

Perhaps, but I am far from sure I know what it is. I don't even know if it matters. I am not religious in the everyday sense of the word. But I could argue I am religious in the semantic literalist sense of the word. What if someone claims they are not spiritual, what they have seen of it is hokum, and have no intent chasing after this ephemeral state of mind. Does this in any way decrease the 'value' of this person's being? Is someone who is seen as or feels spiritual, better than someone who isn't? Perhaps being indifferent to spirituality is the root of spirituality. Maybe it is like enlightenment, knowing you have not found it is the enlightenment. It might be like Joseph's acceptance and my understanding. Perhaps Joseph might not be accepting of everything and I don't understand everything, but that too is OK.

I agree with you Paul ... though I would express it a bit more strongly. In previous articles he says you find spirituality in your own way and here he is saying it's got to be done in this prescribed way. It's pablum. And then to dispense that nonsense about Mother Teresa ... While Christopher Hitchens is not a completely disinterested observer, he is not completely jaundiced either: While people were donating to the terminally ill in Calcutta, Bojaxhiu opened 500 convents. To be fair to Phil, a lot people were taken in.