PDA

View Full Version : Spirituality Without Spirits



PoliCon
05-28-2010, 11:53 AM
May 28, 2010
David Mills

It’s a great and self-serving mess, this claim to be “spiritual but not religious,” which we hear from almost anyone who talks about religion in public, outside those the worldlings define as fundamentalist (me, probably you, Joseph Bottum, David Goldman, Benedict XVI, Hassidic Jews, devout Muslims, religious families with more than four children).

It’s one of those easily remembered phrases that work like a “get out of jail free” card for anyone who feels he has to explain his lack of religious practice, and as a claim to superiority for those who care about being superior to those who practice an established religion. It’s the religious equivalent of “I gave at the office” or “There’s a call on the other line” or “I don’t eat meat.”

So we find Lady Gaga, the pornographic songstress, telling a reporter for The Times that she has a new spirituality just before taking her out for a night at a Berlin sex club. Asked by the reporter, “You were raised a Catholic — so when you say ‘God,’ do you mean the Catholic God, or a different, perhaps more spiritual sense of God?”, she responded, “More spiritual. . . . There’s really no religion that doesn’t hate or condemn a certain kind of people, and I totally believe in all love and forgiveness, and excluding no one.”

You see what I mean. To be truly spiritual—on a scale on which “the Catholic God” seems stuck in the middle—apparently means indifferently inclusive or (what is another way of saying the same thing) undogmatic.

I don’t think Ms. Gaga or anyone else who talks like this has really thought it through. That God who forgives everyone and excludes no one doesn’t object to debauches in Berlin sex clubs. A point in his favor, from one point of view. But then he doesn’t object to murderers and torturers and corrupt bankers either. A point in his favor from no one’s point of view.

Even academics don’t see the problem. A few years ago a much-reported study of college students’ religious practice found that they become more “spiritual” as their observance of their childhood faith declined. The researchers defined “spiritual” as “growth in self-understanding, caring about others, becoming more of a global citizen and accepting others of different faiths.” They simply dressed up their favored attitudes by calling them “spiritual.” That kind of spirituality, detached from anything specifically religious, is just materialism in a tuxedo.

The word “spiritual” has no useful meaning if it does not refer to a relation to a real spirit, something from a world not our own, something supernatural, something that or someone who tells us things we do not know, judges us for our failures, and gives us ideals to strive for and maybe help in reaching them. It’s not a useful word if it means a general inclination or shape of mind or emotional pattern or set of attitudes or collection of values. There is no reason to call any of these spiritual.

Unless, of course, you like that little sense of importance and that comforting sense of social approval that our society still gives to “spiritual things,” though not to religious things. It’s a warm and fuzzy word. It’s a cute cuddly bunny word. It’s not like “religion.” That’s a cold and forbidding word. It’s a screeching preacher with bad breath word.

A better definition is not, however, wanted. The moment you acknowledge a real spirit to whom your spirituality is oriented and by whom it is guided, however distant and unengaged that spirit may be, you have a religion. You are bound by something. You have marching orders. You have to ask what the spirit wants and what he requires and what he says.

As the writer Malcolm Muggeridge, himself a convert from a vaporous kind of religion, put it, we crave “a Christianity without tears; . . . an idyll rather than a drama, with a happy ending instead of that gaunt Cross rising so inexorably into the sky.” The spirit might turn out to be a Puritan. He might say something about taking up a cross. Better to be “spiritual” without the spirit, and hope no one notices.

But why bother to be “spiritual” at all? Why not be at least agnostic? Being “spiritual” is a kind of natural default position. “Spiritual but not religious” provides a comfortable compromise between the two sides of our natures, our desire for God and our desire to be God ourselves.

We want the spiritual-ish, because God made us to want him yet we do not want to want him, and we do not want him on his terms. If our hearts are restless without God, as St. Augustine argued, they can be tranquillized with substitutes, of which “spirituality” is easier to find and much less costly than the alternatives. Drugs and drink are bad for you, and wealth and sex are hard to get, and achievement takes work.

“We live in an unbelieving age but one which is markedly and lopsidedly spiritual,” observed the Catholic writer Flannery O’Connor. “There is something in us. . . that demands the redemptive act, that demands that what falls at least be offered the chance to be restored.” The modern man “looks for this motion, and rightly so, but what he has forgotten is the cost of it. His sense of evil is diluted or lacking altogether, and so he has forgotten the price of restoration.”

“At its worst,” O’Connor concluded, ours is “an age that has domesticated despair and learned to live with it happily.” Very often, I think, the distinction of “spiritual” from “religious” with the first emptied of meaning is the ideology, the justification, of domesticated despair. It is a way of feeling better about being alone in the universe by claiming some relation with something beyond us, though we know not what.

Marxism is dead as a source of human hope, but the attempt to find hope in an abstraction safely distant from our lives remains with us. The libertine who claims to be “spiritual” reminds me of the academics who used to be called “Gucci Marxists,” who preached revolution, and felt very good about themselves for their radicalism, but lived the most sybaritic and luxurious of lives, feeling justified in doing so because the Revolution had not come.

Being “spiritual” does not do us any good. As I recently wrote elsewhere, it works fairly well when you are healthy and have enough money to enjoy life, and just want from your spirituality the feeling that all is well with the universe, particularly your corner of it. But it doesn’t help you much when things go from good to bad.

The man wasting away from pancreatic cancer will get no help nor comfort from the “spiritual,” which will seem a lot less friendly and comforting when he feels pain morphine won’t suppress. He has no one to beg for help, no one to ask for comfort, no one to be with him, no one to meet when he crosses from this world to the next. He wants what religion promises.

And he is right to do so. The dying man is the true man, in the sense of being the one who reveals to us what we essentially are. We are on our death bed from the day we are born. To paraphrase Pascal, dying men want not the God of spirituality, but the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

David Mills is the deputy editor of First Things.

http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/05/spirituality-without-spirits

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 01:22 PM
Sometimes I'd consider myself Christian, although I don't accept the existence of an onto-theological God. In that respect, it may be more appropriate to call myself Spiritual. As of now what seems closest to by belief is western Radical Orthodoxy, but I wouldn't call that my religion as I don't know enough about it.

My main principles are faith, selflessness, charity, equanimity, and something something

The thing is today people associate established religions with old traditions of the past, the spirit of the faith needs to be revitalized for today.

In another thread someone posted how the Bible acknowledges the reality of their economic position at the time (slavery), today religion needs to take it into account because religion, economics, politics, and social justice are inseperable.


As for religious fundamentalists, I believe it's just people struggling to deal with existential anxiety.

FlaGator
05-28-2010, 01:43 PM
Sometimes I'd consider myself Christian, although I don't accept the existence of an onto-theological God. In that respect, it may be more appropriate to call myself Spiritual. As of now what seems closest to by belief is western Radical Orthodoxy, but I wouldn't call that my religion as I don't know enough about it.

My main principles are faith, selflessness, charity, equanimity, and something something

The thing is today people associate established religions with old traditions of the past, the spirit of the faith needs to be revitalized for today.

In another thread someone posted how the Bible acknowledges the reality of their economic position at the time (slavery), today religion needs to take it into account because religion, economics, politics, and social justice are inseperable.


As for religious fundamentalists, I believe it's just people struggling to deal with existential anxiety.

Why did faith need to be revitalized for today? It is the same as it has always been, it is us who change and more often than not, not for the better. Truth is truth and does not change. What was true 2000 years ago is still true today. Some don't like what the truth tells them so they manufacture a new truth which isn't a truth at all, just some idea that they are more comfortable with.

The faith of Christianity is simple, believe that Christ paid for your sins and lead a life that he as defined for us doing what he told us to do. What needs to change about that?

PoliCon
05-28-2010, 02:14 PM
Sometimes I'd consider myself Christian, although I don't accept the existence of an onto-theological God. In that respect, it may be more appropriate to call myself Spiritual. As of now what seems closest to by belief is western Radical Orthodoxy, but I wouldn't call that my religion as I don't know enough about it.

My main principles are faith, selflessness, charity, equanimity, and something something

The thing is today people associate established religions with old traditions of the past, the spirit of the faith needs to be revitalized for today.

In another thread someone posted how the Bible acknowledges the reality of their economic position at the time (slavery), today religion needs to take it into account because religion, economics, politics, and social justice are inseperable.


As for religious fundamentalists, I believe it's just people struggling to deal with existential anxiety.

Thanks be to God that we can always count on you for a fucktard answer. :rolleyes:

wilbur
05-28-2010, 03:12 PM
From my observations, most people who would identify as "spiritual", live on a small collection of shallow ideas about the world that are essentially meaningless, but have an illusion of profundity. I generally hear these people say stupid things like "Everything happens for a reason". Then they usually expect you to share a moment of catatonic awe with them, over some "Mysterious Cosmic Purpose" that they seem to be sensing at that particular moment. Sometimes there are dashes of new age mysticism in there, some beliefs in astrology or ghosts, etc.

Of course, that makes them a lot like your average religious person. Most religious people treat their religions with the same lack of seriousness, dedication, or critical thought.

The article has it 100% wrong though, that this "Spiritual" stuff has anything at all to do with materialism.

lacarnut
05-28-2010, 03:24 PM
From my observations, most people who would identify as "ATHEISTS", live on a small collection of shallow ideas about the world that are essentially meaningless.

Many of these lost souls are unhappy and have no meaning in their lives so living is just an existance to them.

FIXED

Articulate_Ape
05-28-2010, 03:27 PM
From my observations, most people who would identify as "spiritual", live on a small collection of shallow ideas about the world that are essentially meaningless, but have an illusion of profundity.

So, when did you start identifying yourself as spiritual?

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 04:56 PM
Why did faith need to be revitalized for today? It is the same as it has always been, it is us who change and more often than not, not for the better. Truth is truth and does not change. What was true 2000 years ago is still true today. Some don't like what the truth tells them so they manufacture a new truth which isn't a truth at all, just some idea that they are more comfortable with.

The faith of Christianity is simple, believe that Christ paid for your sins and lead a life that he as defined for us doing what he told us to do. What needs to change about that?

this is medievil beliefs, Anselm of Canterbury was big on this as well as other thinkers of his time.

Truth doesn't change? I disagree, Truth is change.

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 04:57 PM
From my observations, most people who would identify as "spiritual", live on a small collection of shallow ideas about the world that are essentially meaningless, but have an illusion of profundity. I generally hear these people say stupid things like "Everything happens for a reason". Then they usually expect you to share a moment of catatonic awe with them, over some "Mysterious Cosmic Purpose" that they seem to be sensing at that particular moment. Sometimes there are dashes of new age mysticism in there, some beliefs in astrology or ghosts, etc.

This is what the story of Job is about in the Bible, everyone had this explanation of "everything happens fora reason".

Job was the only person to 'traverse the fantasy' in the Lacanian sense.


Of course, that makes them a lot like your average religious person. Most religious people treat their religions with the same lack of seriousness, dedication, or critical thought.

The article has it 100% wrong though, that this "Spiritual" stuff has anything at all to do with materialism.

Yeah

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 05:00 PM
Why did faith need to be revitalized for today?


Faith centuries ago meant creed, a declaration or profession of belief in a certain statement such as There is only One God, ect. ect.

I think that real spiritual growth comes from much more than declaring a statement, or taking the fundamentalist approach and holding onto beliefs tighly in response to existential threat.

I think spiritual growth means facing the existential nihilism that constitutes our reality, to face the unknown, to be without ideological support and to give yourself up in a reckless moment of abandonment.

Zathras
05-28-2010, 05:04 PM
From my observations, most people who would identify as "spiritual", live on a small collection of shallow ideas about the world that are essentially meaningless, but have an illusion of profundity.

Hmmm, sounds a lot like the people who believe in all the Global Warming lies and total bullshit, doesn't it.

wilbur
05-28-2010, 05:14 PM
Hmmm, sounds a lot like the people who believe in all the Global Warming lies and total bullshit, doesn't it.

No.

PoliCon
05-28-2010, 06:35 PM
this is medievil beliefs, Anselm of Canterbury was big on this as well as other thinkers of his time.

Truth doesn't change? I disagree, Truth is change.speaking of shallow ideas about the world that are essentially meaningless, but have an illusion of profundity. . . . .

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 08:29 PM
speaking of shallow ideas about the world that are essentially meaningless, but have an illusion of profundity. . . . .

Everything is impermanent, impermanence is the nature of everything, so change is truth.

Gingersnap
05-28-2010, 08:46 PM
From what I've seen, "spiritual" people are the ones who pray in ERs, hospices, and when discussing their child's disappearance and only then.

I am not nihilist and I have no interest in those who are (except to fear them, if they have power).

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 08:49 PM
I think nihilism is greatly misunderstood, I'm currently reading Genealogy of Nihilism, a good portion of it from Christian philosophers, it's very interesting.

Gingersnap
05-28-2010, 09:05 PM
I think nihilism is greatly misunderstood, I'm currently reading Genealogy of Nihilism, a good portion of it from Christian philosophers, it's very interesting.

Trust me, when I say I have no use for it, I'm speaking from philosophical familiarity.

PoliCon
05-28-2010, 09:07 PM
Everything is impermanent, impermanence is the nature of everything, so change is truth. You are a total fucking idiot. Our relationship to the truth may change - but the truth does not.

Articulate_Ape
05-28-2010, 09:22 PM
You are a total fucking idiot. Our relationship to the truth may change - but the truth does not.

Not to defend, WWW, but how do you know?

Zathras
05-28-2010, 09:24 PM
No.

Of course you'd say no Wilbur, cultist of the all powerful Goracle. That one line you posted describes you perfectly when it comes to your beliefs about global warming.

PoliCon
05-28-2010, 09:29 PM
Not to defend, WWW, but how do you know?

I know because I know because I know - because it has been revealed and confirmed. I know because creation itself gives testimony. The truth does not change - only our perspective in relation to the truth.

FOR EXAMPLE: I have a 20 oz glass with 10 oz of water in it. Is the glass half empty or half full? That depends on your perspective. What does not change is that I have a 20 oz glass with 10 oz of water in it - that is until evaporation or some other outside factor acts upon the glass. EVEN THEN the truth would be that in a given moment in time I had a 20 oz glass with 10 oz of water in it.

FlaGator
05-28-2010, 09:34 PM
this is medievil beliefs, Anselm of Canterbury was big on this as well as other thinkers of his time.

Truth doesn't change? I disagree, Truth is change.

If it changes then it isn't truth.

FlaGator
05-28-2010, 09:43 PM
Faith centuries ago meant creed, a declaration or profession of belief in a certain statement such as There is only One God, ect. ect.

I think that real spiritual growth comes from much more than declaring a statement, or taking the fundamentalist approach and holding onto beliefs tighly in response to existential threat.

I think spiritual growth means facing the existential nihilism that constitutes our reality, to face the unknown, to be without ideological support and to give yourself up in a reckless moment of abandonment.

What you mean is that people's interpretation of faith was creeds, etc. Faith is independent of creeds. That some people put faith in creeds is one thing. Some people have faith in faith but both are forms of idolatry.

Nihilism is not our reality. It is what you have chosen to accept as reality and you are projecting that reality on others. Your view of the world is based on a defeatist negativism that there is nothing more to life than birth, death and what comes between. To do as you say and face nihilism is not spiritual growth. It is spiritual suicide.

FlaGator
05-28-2010, 09:46 PM
Hmmm, sounds a lot like the people who believe in all the Global Warming lies and total bullshit, doesn't it.

You must understand that wilbur has absolutely no understanding of spirituality and has only joined the conversation on the assumption that it will eventually evolve into a conversation on Christianity which he knows even less about and demonstrates this just every time he posts on the subject.

FlaGator
05-28-2010, 09:49 PM
Not to defend, WWW, but how do you know?

That truth does not change is an analytical statement and is its own defense.

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 11:09 PM
Trust me, when I say I have no use for it, I'm speaking from philosophical familiarity.

Yes? As am I.

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 11:13 PM
I know because I know because I know

Nice.


- because it has been revealed and confirmed.

Scholars, philosophers, and even theologians have taken various perspectives on this through time.


I know because creation itself gives testimony. The truth does not change - only our perspective in relation to the truth.

If truth is change, then it's not "a thing" which is subject (itself) to change.



FOR EXAMPLE: I have a 20 oz glass with 10 oz of water in it. Is the glass half empty or half full? That depends on your perspective. What does not change is that I have a 20 oz glass with 10 oz of water in it - that is until evaporation or some other outside factor acts upon the glass. EVEN THEN the truth would be that in a given moment in time I had a 20 oz glass with 10 oz of water in it.

How long is a "moment" of time? Or rather, how many moments are in a minute?

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 11:14 PM
That truth does not change is an analytical statement and is its own defense.

Assuming a definition of truth. Unless you define truth as that which does not change, in which case there's no such thing.

Wei Wu Wei
05-28-2010, 11:20 PM
What you mean is that people's interpretation of faith was creeds, etc. Faith is independent of creeds. That some people put faith in creeds is one thing. Some people have faith in faith but both are forms of idolatry.

How about pure faith? Faith not in anything, but the action of faith of accepting the becoming that is constantly occurring, or conserved creation (from a Christian perspective)


Nihilism is not our reality. It is what you have chosen to accept as reality and you are projecting that reality on others.

Fair enough, I realize other's have different views


Your view of the world is based on a defeatist negativism that there is nothing more to life than birth, death and what comes between. To do as you say and face nihilism is not spiritual growth. It is spiritual suicide.

There is nothing defeatist about nothingness, this comes from our ancient greek philosophic traditions which have held with the western world for thousands of years.

I am talking about dying to yourself, accepting the nothingness from which all creation happens.

There have been many theologians, including well known Christian philosophers that say that God is so great that we cannot conceive of Him in any way, that any word, description, or concept falls short. Even our ideas of existence/nonexistence cannot apply to God because that's still trying to confine God into our network of symbolic-linguistic understanding.

I don't see nihilism (as the root, ground, or "real reality") as the dreary, sad, philosophy that many others do, but rather one of creation, growth, and continual spiritual rebirth.

FlaGator
05-28-2010, 11:24 PM
Assuming a definition of truth. Unless you define truth as that which does not change, in which case there's no such thing.

Relativistic bull with no basis in fact or reality. Truth has always been what it is. Some don't like truth and thus redefine it. However, that doesn't change what truth really is. I've thought quite a bit about a lot of these post-modern ideas and they basically boil down to "I don't like the way things are so I will redefine terms until I concoct a view of life that suits me." It is truly a pointless and defeatist view that recognizes no truth and reassesses personal ideology as a personal pseudo-truth. Escapism at its finest and in the end totally meaningless.

PoliCon
05-28-2010, 11:26 PM
Nice.



Scholars, philosophers, and even theologians have taken various perspectives on this through time.



If truth is change, then it's not "a thing" which is subject (itself) to change.




How long is a "moment" of time? Or rather, how many moments are in a minute?

fuck off and let two adults have a conversation.

wilbur
05-29-2010, 12:03 AM
Of course you'd say no Wilbur, cultist of the all powerful Goracle. That one line you posted describes you perfectly when it comes to your beliefs about global warming.

Meh, this denier troll post template is miles beyond a cliche at this point.... "Goracle", "cultist", blah, blah, blah....

We're all impressed that you're able to repeat the exact same "zingers" that have been flying off the keyboards of every other frothing denialist on the net, for years now.. really.

Rockntractor
05-29-2010, 12:07 AM
Meh, this denier troll post template is miles beyond a cliche at this point.... "Goracle", "cultist", blah, blah, blah....

We're all impressed that you're able to repeat the exact same "zingers" that have been flying off the keyboards of every other frothing denialist on the net, for years now.. really.
The little pussy calling other people trolls? if you want to see a spewer of unneeded carbon dioxide look in the mirror.

wilbur
05-29-2010, 12:30 AM
You must understand that wilbur has absolutely no understanding of spirituality and has only joined the conversation on the assumption that it will eventually evolve into a conversation on Christianity which he knows even less about and demonstrates this just every time he posts on the subject.

FlaGator: Internet Psychic! :rolleyes:

wilbur
05-29-2010, 12:40 AM
Consider the following statement:

Computers exist.

This is a true statement. Rewind 2000 years, and picture a person from that era saying those words. The statement would be false. Truths *can* (and do) change. The kinds of truths that can change are called 'contingent truths'.

Then there are other truths called 'necessary truths'. 2+2=4 and the rules of logic are necessary truths.... some would say moral values are necessarily true, and cannot change. Necessary truths, as the name implies, are considered necessary. Sometimes they are referred to as brute fact.

So some truths do change, and others always stay the same.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 01:01 AM
Relativistic bull with no basis in fact or reality.

"fact" and "reality" both presume that there is a set Truth, you're arguing that my argument isn't true because it isn't true, when I'm arguing against the idea of Truth. Doesn't work.


Truth has always been what it is.

What is it?


Some don't like truth and thus redefine it. However, that doesn't change what truth really is. I've thought quite a bit about a lot of these post-modern ideas and they basically boil down to "I don't like the way things are so I will redefine terms until I concoct a view of life that suits me."

Idk about others, I know many postmodern thinkers assert there is no truth, so that's hardly concocting a view that suits them because even their own view is undermined. Personally, I don't think any view I have is "True" other than in the context and within the linguistic framework which it arised from, and that it will change.


It is truly a pointless and defeatist view that recognizes no truth and reassesses personal ideology as a personal pseudo-truth. Escapism at its finest and in the end totally meaningless.

No I agree totally that when someone thinks that they've escaped the trap of ideology through postmodern cynicism, they are being MOST ideological. That, however, is not what I'm talking about.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 01:38 AM
I think a lot of this idea of truth comes from Aristotlian ideas of perfection.

The greeks believed that if something is Perfect, it cannot change. the reasoning is as follows:

If X perfect, it cannot change. why?

If X changes, then X loses some property (a), and/or gains another property (b)
(for example, an apple turning from red to green loses it's redness and gains greenness)
If something can be added to or subtracted from X, then X is not perfect at the first time or the second time.

so on and so on....

basically, I reject this idea of perfection, and prefer the pre-socratic greeks, like Hereclitus (who Flagator has referenced before) in his ideas of impermanence. X isn't the same X after any given amount of time, because there is no such thing as "same" X". (you cannot step into the same river twice).

That changing river is never the same river, and what people who look at the river, trying to find the "Truth" of the river, seem to be trying to identify the "sameness" of it, that which remains "a river" despite the changing water. However, all that is, is linguistic, just words. The river itself is never the same river, there's no same river, there's no sameness, there's no "truth" of the river, other than it's impermanence.

This doesn't just apply to a river, it applies to all of reality.

Sonnabend
05-29-2010, 03:34 AM
So some truths do change, and others always stay the same.

AGW was never anything than a bald faced lie.


Meh, this denier troll post template is miles beyond a cliche at this point.... "Goracle", "cultist", blah, blah, blah....

If the shoe fits.....


We're all impressed that you're able to repeat the exact same "zingers" that have been flying off the keyboards of every other frothing denialist on the net, for years now.. really.

Actually when it comes to lies, the Goreacle has the monopoly on the market, followed by Jones and his ilk, NASA, the IPCC...all proved to be liars.

Including you, since you have admitted you have NO degrees or any quals in climate science and therefore are NOT an "authority" on anything

All you have are opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, excepting you

You ARE an asshole, one who worships at the Church of Mother Gaia.

wilbur
05-29-2010, 09:19 AM
AGW was never anything than a bald faced lie.

If the shoe fits.....

Actually when it comes to lies, the Goreacle has the monopoly on the market, followed by Jones and his ilk, NASA, the IPCC...all proved to be liars.

Including you, since you have admitted you have NO degrees or any quals in climate science and therefore are NOT an "authority" on anything

All you have are opinions. Opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, excepting you


LOL, but you don't trust a word from people with climate science degrees. They are obviously co-conspirators lying for grant money. A degree in climate science would make me *less credible* to you. How's that for stupid?



You ARE an asshole, one who worships at the Church of Mother Gaia.

Yea, well you a stupid. Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah, nyah.

PoliCon
05-29-2010, 09:23 AM
LOL, but you don't trust a word from people with climate science degrees. Given that the degrees were created in large part to give legitimacy to the AGW industry - no. I don't trust them.

wilbur
05-29-2010, 09:26 AM
Given that the degrees were created in large part to give legitimacy to the AGW industry - no. I don't trust them.

And neither does Sonna - which makes his chest thumping about "qualifications" all the more stupid. If I had them, it would be a reason to trust my opinion even *less*. He sure is a stupid guy.

*And climatology degrees have been around for far longer than the theory of AGW...

Zathras
05-29-2010, 12:50 PM
Meh, this denier troll post template is miles beyond a cliche at this point.... "Goracle", "cultist", blah, blah, blah....

We're all impressed that you're able to repeat the exact same "zingers" that have been flying off the keyboards of every other frothing denialist on the net, for years now.. really.

Yawn, did you say something? Oh just the same crap as usual. When it comes to AGW, you act like a cultist,you talk like a cultist...you are a cultist. Too bad you're so brainwashed you cant see it.

wilbur
05-29-2010, 01:06 PM
Yawn, did you say something? Oh just the same crap as usual. When it comes to AGW, you act like a cultist,you talk like a cultist...you are a cultist. Too bad you're so brainwashed you cant see it.

No, my mind is open on the matter, and always has been - but it simply takes more to change mind than you are capable of bringing to the table.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 01:45 PM
Wildbur, are you suggesting "UR DUMB" isn't enough scientific evidence to convince you?

You may be posting at the wrong forum then..

Zathras
05-29-2010, 05:52 PM
No, my mind is open on the matter, and always has been - but it simply takes more to change mind than you are capable of bringing to the table.

Even more so in your case...and BS to your mind being open....never has, never will.

Sonnabend
05-29-2010, 06:02 PM
LOL, but you don't trust a word from people with climate science degrees.

Not when I have written proof of the fact that they have lied repeatedly. Why should I trust anyone I know has already lied to me? They lied once so why should I listen to anythng they say now?

How do I know they are not still lying?


No, my mind is open on the matter, and always has been - but it simply takes more to change mind than you are capable of bringing to the tabl

The biggest lie of them all.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 08:41 PM
Not when I have written proof of the fact that they have lied repeatedly. Why should I trust anyone I know has already lied to me? They lied once so why should I listen to anythng they say now?

How do I know they are not still lying?



The biggest lie of them all.

Who is "they"? Are you counting the collective meteorological community as "they"?

If such a broad category is acceptable and you don't accept lies, do you agree that the Republican party lied to their constituents for the last decade?

Sonnabend
05-29-2010, 08:48 PM
Who is "they"? Are you counting the collective meteorological community as "they"?

Every single one who has helped propagate this garbage.


If such a broad category is acceptable and you don't accept lies, do you agree that the Republican party lied to their constituents for the last decade?

Nope. There's a huge difference between the bullshit meme "Bush lied" and the concrete proof that AGW is a hoax dreamed up by liars for money and power.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 08:52 PM
Every single one who has helped propagate this garbage.



Nope. There's a huge difference between the bullshit meme "Bush lied" and the concrete proof that AGW is a hoax dreamed up by liars for money and power.

I'm not tlaking about "bush lied" I'm talking about the Republican failure to live up to Conservative principles.

If you're grouping every scientist and meteorologist together, is it just as a fair to group the entire Republican party (a far more formally unified group) together? That means that the Republicans of the bush era, who were FAR from upholding conservative values, were liars.

Am I wrong? If so, why?

Rockntractor
05-29-2010, 08:59 PM
I'm not tlaking about "bush lied" I'm talking about the Republican failure to live up to Conservative principles.

If you're grouping every scientist and meteorologist together, is it just as a fair to group the entire Republican party (a far more formally unified group) together? That means that the Republicans of the bush era, who were FAR from upholding conservative values, were liars.

Am I wrong? If so, why?

If conservatives do not regain control of the republican party moonbats like you will completely destroy this country!:rolleyes:

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 09:01 PM
I'm merely examining if Sonnabend's logic follows. Republicans lied to their conservative constituents, therefore they should not be trusted.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 09:02 PM
If conservatives do not regain control of the republican party moonbats like you will completely destroy this country!:rolleyes:

I am for working class and middle class families. I am for putting jobs in poor communities to get people off of the welfare rolls. I am for tax cuts and benefits for small businesses. I am for ending "too big to fail", I am for restricting campaign financing to stop the crookedness of our politicians. I am for punishing and regulating the crony capitalists that have been running the system for too long. I am for giving the average American some leverage when the wealthy elite currently dominate the political sphere.

If you think that's so horrible, then feel free to be afraid.

Rockntractor
05-29-2010, 09:04 PM
I am for working class and middle class families. I am for putting jobs in poor communities to get people off of the welfare rolls. I am for tax cuts and benefits for small businesses. I am for punishing and regulating the crony capitalists that have been running the system for too long. I am for giving the average American some leverage when the wealthy elite currently dominate the political sphere.

If you think that's so horrible, then feel free to be afraid.

If you truly are for all of those things, stop voting for socialists and communists!

FlaGator
05-29-2010, 09:06 PM
FlaGator: Internet Psychic! :rolleyes:

Psychic...no, just a person who has seen this before. Watching you discuss spirituality is like watching a 5 year old discuss the nuances of the modern combustion engine.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 09:06 PM
If you truly are for all of those things, stop voting for socialists and communists!

You see, we are not that different after all. It's a matter of perspective.

I think that if we were to put aside the R vs D rhetoric, or the Lib vs Con rhetoric, that we'd be able to actually see what we have in common, and what we can do to better our country.

Rockntractor
05-29-2010, 09:07 PM
I'm merely examining if Sonnabend's logic follows. Republicans lied to their conservative constituents, therefore they should not be trusted.

They need to be replaced by true conservatives. If you had any comprehension whatsoever after all the months you have been here you would know this. it is still day one with you.

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 09:08 PM
They need to be replaced by true conservatives. If you had any comprehension whatsoever after all the months you have been here you would know this. it is still day one with you.

I get this, Sonnabend was just suggesting that once a "group" lies, that they cannot be redeemed, so I was using this logic you are showing now to counter it.

Rockntractor
05-29-2010, 09:08 PM
No, just a person who has seen this before. Watching you discuss spirituality is like watch a 5 year old discuss the nuances of the modern combustion engine.

Don't ever underestimate a five year old or over estimate Wilbur!

Big Guy
05-29-2010, 10:06 PM
It is obvious to me that Wee Wee and Wilbur will not become believers without divine intervention from GOD.

If you always need proof, you will never have FAITH.

I will pray for the both of you.

PoliCon
05-29-2010, 10:19 PM
I am for working class and middle class families. I am for putting jobs in poor communities to get people off of the welfare rolls. I am for tax cuts and benefits for small businesses. I am for ending "too big to fail", I am for restricting campaign financing to stop the crookedness of our politicians. I am for punishing and regulating the crony capitalists that have been running the system for too long. I am for giving the average American some leverage when the wealthy elite currently dominate the political sphere.

If you think that's so horrible, then feel free to be afraid.

You're for working class and middle class families? You're for blinding them with class warfare - you're for controlling their lives with government regulations - but you're not at all for their liberties or their sovereignty:rolleyes:.

djones520
05-29-2010, 10:21 PM
LOL, but you don't trust a word from people with climate science degrees. They are obviously co-conspirators lying for grant money. A degree in climate science would make me *less credible* to you. How's that for stupid?


Didn't you once argue that there are no "climate degrees"?

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 10:37 PM
It is obvious to me that Wee Wee and Wilbur will not become believers without divine intervention from GOD.

If you always need proof, you will never have FAITH.

I will pray for the both of you.

I don't know about Wilbur, but I consider Faith a fundamental necessary aspect of my life.

PoliCon
05-29-2010, 11:15 PM
You see, we are not that different after all. It's a matter of perspective.

I think that if we were to put aside the R vs D rhetoric, or the Lib vs Con rhetoric, that we'd be able to actually see what we have in common, and what we can do to better our country.

Why don't you put down the politics of class animosity - then you'll have room to talk about how others divide. :rolleyes:

PoliCon
05-29-2010, 11:16 PM
I don't know about Wilbur, but I consider Faith a fundamental necessary aspect of my life.

too bad you put your faith in government and in moral relativism. :rolleyes:

wilbur
05-29-2010, 11:39 PM
Didn't you once argue that there are no "climate degrees"?

Don't think so.

Rockntractor
05-29-2010, 11:41 PM
Don't think .
Can't argue with that!

Wei Wu Wei
05-29-2010, 11:56 PM
too bad you put your faith in government and in moral relativism. :rolleyes:

No

PoliCon
05-30-2010, 12:32 AM
No

bullshit.

noonwitch
06-01-2010, 11:22 AM
It is obvious to me that Wee Wee and Wilbur will not become believers without divine intervention from GOD.

If you always need proof, you will never have FAITH.

I will pray for the both of you.


Proof can come in some unexpected and interesting ways. Sometimes even good ways! Example: I signed up on Thursday to sponsor a child in Kenya through the church I attend on Saturdays. On Friday, I received a check in the mail for $350 from the mortgage company. I wasn't expecting to get any money from them. I chose to see it as confirmation from God that I'm doing the right thing.


Of course, Wei and Wilbur would say that the mortgage company had already written the check and made their determination before I signed up, which is true. But I had been considering the sponsorship for several weeks prior to doing so. I made my last car payment, then I signed up. God knew of my desire to sponsor a child, because I had set the intention to do so as soon as my car was paid for.


I would have opted for the "I'm spiritual" response a few years back, when I was practicing wicca. It's an easy answer, and most use it to keep evangelicals from witnessing to them. At least I did. If I had told them I was a wiccan, they would have left tracts on my desk or door constantly.

Now, I just say I'm a christian, or a liberal christian (if I'm talking to people who assume that being a christian means hating gays or voting republican).

I still think that Wei's and Wilbur's questions are masks for their truth-seeking:).

wilbur
06-01-2010, 04:31 PM
Of course, Wei and Wilbur would say that the mortgage company had already written the check and made their determination before I signed up, which is true. But I had been considering the sponsorship for several weeks prior to doing so. I made my last car payment, then I signed up. God knew of my desire to sponsor a child, because I had set the intention to do so as soon as my car was paid for.


I'd say its simply incidental. On the other side of the coin, the child you sponsored might rightfully wonder why God doesn't just cut out the middleman. And the children who have no sponsors might rightfully ask, why God would rather them starve or be poor, than provide them sponsors like you (or the means without the middleman), etc.

One doesnt have to look hard to build a dismal view of the world and God, that is easily as supportable as your optimism, by looking for "proof" in tragedy and unanswered prayer. So I think "proofs" like the one you (and many others) offer, fall apart like a card house in a hurricane, when looking at them closely.

noonwitch
06-01-2010, 04:49 PM
I'd say its simply incidental. On the other side of the coin, the child you sponsored might rightfully wonder why God doesn't just cut out the middleman. And the children who have no sponsors might rightfully ask, why God would rather them starve or be poor, than provide them sponsors like you (or the means without the middleman), etc.

One doesnt have to look hard to build a dismal view of the world and God, that is easily as supportable as your optimism, by looking for "proof" in tragedy and unanswered prayer. So I think "proofs" like the one you (and many others) offer, fall apart like a card house in a hurricane, when looking at them closely.



God doesn't cut out the middleman because He wants us to be a part of the solution.

I wasn't using that example as some kind of serious proof. It's more of a confirmation that I'm doing the right thing.

Wei Wu Wei
06-01-2010, 04:58 PM
I don't mind when evangelists come speak to me, nor do I try to shun them away. The last time a few came over I invited them in and we sat at a table and conversed about the issues for almost an hour. Just like to throw that in there.

However, I have also been outspoken and willing to engage outdoor street evangelists, even in a critical (but of course always respectful) fashion.

Wei Wu Wei
06-01-2010, 04:59 PM
Proof can come in some unexpected and interesting ways. Sometimes even good ways! Example: I signed up on Thursday to sponsor a child in Kenya through the church I attend on Saturdays. On Friday, I received a check in the mail for $350 from the mortgage company. I wasn't expecting to get any money from them. I chose to see it as confirmation from God that I'm doing the right thing.


Of course, Wei and Wilbur would say that the mortgage company had already written the check and made their determination before I signed up, which is true. But I had been considering the sponsorship for several weeks prior to doing so. I made my last car payment, then I signed up. God knew of my desire to sponsor a child, because I had set the intention to do so as soon as my car was paid for.


I would have opted for the "I'm spiritual" response a few years back, when I was practicing wicca. It's an easy answer, and most use it to keep evangelicals from witnessing to them. At least I did. If I had told them I was a wiccan, they would have left tracts on my desk or door constantly.

Now, I just say I'm a christian, or a liberal christian (if I'm talking to people who assume that being a christian means hating gays or voting republican).

I still think that Wei's and Wilbur's questions are masks for their truth-seeking:).

I think it's important to remember the book of Job

wilbur
06-01-2010, 05:52 PM
God doesn't cut out the middleman because He wants us to be a part of the solution.


Right, and we can go back and forth till we descend into a full blown exposition on the problem of evil and suffering - but the more important point is that in order to come to a serious, well reasoned conclusion about the meaning of your anecdote, one needs to examine more than just your single circumstance.



I wasn't using that example as some kind of serious proof. It's more of a confirmation that I'm doing the right thing.

OK, that's fine. But I think many people do use anecdotes like yours as serious confirmations that their spiritual beliefs are true. They call it "confirmation bias" for a reason ;)

Bubba Dawg
06-01-2010, 08:02 PM
Sometimes I'd consider myself Christian, although I don't accept the existence of an onto-theological God. In that respect, it may be more appropriate to call myself Spiritual. As of now what seems closest to by belief is western Radical Orthodoxy, but I wouldn't call that my religion as I don't know enough about it.

My main principles are faith, selflessness, charity, equanimity, and something something

The thing is today people associate established religions with old traditions of the past, the spirit of the faith needs to be revitalized for today.

In another thread someone posted how the Bible acknowledges the reality of their economic position at the time (slavery), today religion needs to take it into account because religion, economics, politics, and social justice are inseperable.


As for religious fundamentalists, I believe it's just people struggling to deal with existential anxiety.

...humility? :D:)

Bubba Dawg
06-01-2010, 08:11 PM
Faith has always been a difficult matter for me, but now I do have faith in Christ.

I believe in the Scriptures as an inspired guide to faith and practice. I don't know if that makes me a fundamentalist or not. I don't mind being called one, but I don't self-identify as one either.

The main thing I can say about faith in my own experience is that it was something given to me by God and did not result from my own efforts.

Rockntractor
06-01-2010, 08:26 PM
Faith has always been a difficult matter for me, but now I do have faith in Christ.

I believe in the Scriptures as an inspired guide to faith and practice. I don't know if that makes me a fundamentalist or not. I don't mind being called one, but I don't self-identify as one either.

The main thing I can say about faith in my own experience is that it was something given to me by God and did not result from my own efforts.
Bonafide thumper!:cool:

Bubba Dawg
06-01-2010, 08:28 PM
Bonafide thumper!:cool:

The Right Reverend Thumper, O Noble Pig. :p:D

erhein35
06-01-2010, 10:14 PM
All questions in spirituality can be answered in the Bible no more no less. This is our spiritual basis. Read the Bible and all questions will be answered.

noonwitch
06-02-2010, 03:33 PM
Right, and we can go back and forth till we descend into a full blown exposition on the problem of evil and suffering - but the more important point is that in order to come to a serious, well reasoned conclusion about the meaning of your anecdote, one needs to examine more than just your single circumstance.



OK, that's fine. But I think many people do use anecdotes like yours as serious confirmations that their spiritual beliefs are true. They call it "confirmation bias" for a reason ;)



I don't sit around and worry about the problem of pain and suffering-it is the nature of the human condition. I also don't concern myself too much with the concept of original sin. We are all broken people. We all have made mistakes, and we all have both been victimized by others and have victimized others. You may not be a serial killer, but at some point in your life you have likely inflicted suffering on someone else because it made you feel better-even if it was when you were a teenager. We all have, that's just the way it is.


It is difficult to explain something as subjective as faith to a rationalist like yourself. A good part of living with faith in God can't be analyzed, it can't be scientifically proven and there are so many contradictions between the various people who claim to be christians that it is easy for a non-believer to dismiss it all. Yet, despite the fact that Ginger, Fla Gator and I may disagree on a lot of social and theological issues, if we lived in the same community, we'd probably at some point all support at least one charity in common-like a food bank. Churches in my community prevent people from starving every day, by contributing to food banks. It's not just liberal churches or conservative churches or catholic churches-it's all churches, plus some synagoges and mosques. It's the people of God coming together to help the needy in their midst, out of the generosity of their hearts, not because the government is making them do it. Of course, people may not need God to inspire them to be kind to others, but for me, it is a constant reminder.

I have one of the most challenging jobs there is, when it comes to social work. I don't know how I did it for the first 15 years, when I was an atheist or a wiccan-I certainly wasn't as good at it as I am now. I didn't have the same level of compassion that I have now, nor the same amount of wisdom and discernment. Of course, part of that comes from my very long experience, but there is more than just that. I ask God to show me my clients the way He sees them, not just the way they appear on paper, or how the CPS worker saw them, when they were at their worst. I pray for them, even the ones who scream, yell and hate me. That is the message of Jesus-he came for the broken, the hurt, the crazy, the poor, the crackheads, and even the junkies that piss me off so much. He calls us to love the outcasts, the people left behind by the rest of the world. The ultimate message of the Bible is not "You are damned and you are going to hell", it is "You are a child of God and you are loved".