romansh

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.

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?