:dubious:
That’s just a deliberately absurd, stupid and unnecessary obfuscation of the meaning of the question, which you know quite well does not mean ‘what happens to a body when it dies.’
Try again.
I am always ready to consider the possibility. What I would like to see something more tangible than simply adopting the possibility on the basis that it might be possible. So, how does one analyse metaphysics?
Listen to yourself. “All you reveal” by that sentence is an extreme lack of comprehensive reading skills.
So who cares? What’s your point?
Jeez, where did you get all that parenthetical nonsense? Certainly not from the article in question.
There you go with your straw man again. Take out the freaking parentheses and try again.
“One interpretation of any verse or passage would render the whole story as nonsensical” is obviously what is causing you trouble. This interpretation being referred to, whatever it is, would depend entirely upon the particular passage being read and the person reading it. To overlay your own lack of comprehension and attribute the words ‘literal meaning’ or ‘consistency’ to that particular sentence is meaningless.
no he’s relating a personal experience, not “expounding”.
again with the unreferenced ‘it’. You are simplifying a complex process that you don’t understand because you never tried it. Read again the Lewis Carroll epiphany and try to imagine yourself reading the Bible with something other than contempt.
You can’t.
No, the problem is YOU won’t tackle the idea that what he read made sense because IT MADE SENSE. Get it? Just because you keep saying the same thing over and over doesn’t make it true, especially when an answer was given to you in plain English twice. Your sentence doesn’t make any sense either, and if you must say it again I suggest you spend some time structuring and proofreading it.
IOW, is there a word missing from your sentence? Here, let me help. “IOW, is a True Believer ready to dismiss the possibility that the Bible is false, literally and spiritually?” Unequivocally, yes. Well, except for the literally “and spiritually” part, which is somewhat incomprehensible.
You have fantastic debating skills. You just make insinuations without any actual arguments.
Listen to yourself. All that vitriol instead of an explanation.
The point is that not everyone who dismisses the Bible, does it because that’s their prejudiced conclusion.
Indeed, from the article. He first recounts his dependence and belief in logic (‘rational thought’) as a valid guide. Then the Carroll epiphany directs him to read the Bible not as fact, but as poetry. It’s right there in the article. Hence the shift from a fact-oriented analysis i.e. consistency and literal reading to a poetic comprehension.
Why don’t you provide a précis of the article since you claim to “get it”? It might provide the right perspective.
Assumptions, again. “Did you stop beating your wife?”
Oops, the mind-reader has doomed me to skepticism.
That possibility exists. YOU won’t tackle why it is the case that such happens to be true.
I’ll break it down
Again,
he doesn’t tackle
whether
he believes it makes sense
because
he wants (it) to
Clear?
So you admit the believer is not open-minded. And you claim skeptics aren’t and deride them for that?
As Einstein said, “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind”.
No you’re not, because then you said this:
After saying that sentence 5 times fast backwards and forwards, it still made me laugh.
Well, if you wait around long enough maybe someone will part the Red Sea for you or come floating down from Heaven to reveal All Truth.
See what I mean? You’re not ready to consider anything beyond playing word games on a forum. As to not wanting to consider a possibility on the basis that it might be possible: that’s just not true, you do it every time you form an opinion about any event you didn’t witness or make a decision to take an umbrella to work in the morning because it might rain. Actually, it’s a more a matter of pride and cowardice than some lofty intellectual consideration. Most people who discard God are just too chickensh*t to admit their entire structure is faulty and might have to be torn down. Plus they don’t want to look uncool to their friends or appear unintelligent.
I don’t know. Who said anything about ‘metaphysics’? I’m all up into reality.
No. I said I’m open to that possibility which means it is in the list of possibilites. There are also OTHER possibilities. Give me a reason why I select any one of them.
Straw man. Adopting a possibility as the definitive answer is not the same as being open to it.
Let me make this more accurate. I don’t know if the Christian metaphysic is possible. When I say something might be possible, I mean that I don’t know that something IS impossible. A real difference.
Based on prior experience and assumption of induction.
And it can be said that ‘True Believers’ are too afraid to let go of the edifice of hope, security and fulfillment that they have constructed. No progress here.
Metaphysics is about the nature of reality. Fine, let’s just stick to ‘reality’ if that’s the term you prefer.
Now that this has turned into a genuine debate, rather than a discussion, I’ll jump in again to address a few things.
First, about the earlier question of theoretical science versus non-theoretical, the way I think of it is things like how water turns into ice and how cell division occurs, versus things like the “big bang” and “singularity” and “black holes.” One is easily observable and can be done by us in a lab - the other relies mostly on mathematical equations and is not very tangible or demonstrable.
Also, I don’t want this to be an argument, I really do want it to be a discussion. I want science people to talk about their perspective, and spiritual people to talk about theirs, but there’s no reason to clash over them - this is about compatibility, remember. I’d like to hear from more spiritualists, particularly Buddhists or anyone with a similar philosophy.
It’s not neccessary to restrict the discussion to any one type of religion, but I am more interested in discussing spirituality in a broader sense, not so much in the context of the Bible. I have nothing against the Bible but I want to hear how it personally affects your spirituality, and how you see it working with or going against science, if you’re going to talk about it. I think you can be religious without believing in any one particular religion.
i have only one thing to add. read the tao of physics. mindbending to say the least.
Thank you. 
No, all that vitriol with the extra added bonus of brilliant and illuminating insights!
So what? Start another thread and see if someone wants to debate it, it’s not a subject addressed by anyone here but you.
I know you want very much to put words in his mouth and say he gave up logic and rational thought, and you’re going to lump him in with believers, etc. blah blah because that’s so much easier than trying to wrap your brain around the possibility that an intelligent rational person might consider something you can’t understand as being logical and rational??
Go ahead, it doesn’t make it true but if it makes you feel better that’s ok.
Right. Poetry, something other than a filthy tome written to brainwash the masses, for the first time. And the first time you admitted that is what he actually said.
**fact-oriented analysis i.e. consistency and literal reading ** are your words put into the author’s mouth. Again. Poetic comprehension with the removal of prejudice, yes.
Nah. Not my job. It’s up to truth-seeking adults to supply the right perspective for themselves when they read.
No, just a well educated guess. Tell me you search the scriptures for truth and edification and I’ll retract it.
No, the post reader has read your posts.
It’s your coin, if those are the only two sides you want to put on it.
It’s not my job to convince you of anything. I offered enlightenment, entertainment, that’s as far as it goes. If there is something you want to find, you will find it. If you want to know the truth, it is there for the asking. Frankly, it’s impossible to tell at this point. You are so intent on playing word games you’ve lost yourself in a sea of ambiguity with that last sentence, and the one below this. Truth isn’t the prize or the objective. WE both know that.
NO. It’s nonsense. You want to infer this person could be an imbecile who willfully pitches logic and reason out the window in order to believe made up crap because it feels good, then you get pissed because he doesn’t tell you that in words as an explanation for his conversion.
How sarcastic of you.
Yes.
LEARNING TO THINK SPIRITUALLY
How to perceive God; Truth in Paradox
by
A.S.A. Jones
You just keep on throwing out accusations. Must be very easy to reassure yourself when you already supplied the other person’s basis and prejudices.
Finally, some true insight. Now, only if you were consistent in applying it.
He has admitted that his readings of the Bible before New Year 1998, treated it as a “proposal of fact”. Have YOU properly read the article?
I strive to seek Truth everywhere.
Are you saying this is a strictly true generalization? I can think of 101 mundane things for which this doesn’t seem to apply.
Eh? Truth is the objective.
Yes, that could be the case. I don’t know that it ISN’T. His own words, below, provide some support for that scenario
These words strongly suggest that above all, he wanted to end his suffering; that he hated nihilism and desperately wanted meaning, as the means towards his goal. It also suggests that he did not sincerely believe these other statements
I’m not pissed off because, irrespective of the truth, of course he WON’T admit it. If his belief is predicated on hope, security and fulfillment, acknowledging and admitting it as such, is admitting to himself that his belief isn’t True.
BTW, just in case you have assumed that I’m a materialist/physicalist or atheist, I’m not.
The universe is temporal, existential, and contingent. Reality is eternal, essential, and necessary.
It appears to me that many people in this thread are using a god of the gaps argument to justify their belief in the spiritual. From a purely faith centered viewpoint this seems shaky. You’ll run into problems as science probes and understands more and more of the brain (certainly the most complicated machine so far discovered). It would seem better to simply take the spiritual as a matter of pure faith and not use holes in science’s understanding of the world as a crutch for your belief. I mean, isn’t that the point of faith anyway? You know, believing without needing physical proof or logic.
As for science being in bed with the spiritual…if demons, angels, spirits, and god(s) have no measurable influence upon our universe then science can’t do anything with them and thus I suppose they are incompatible. However, if you can show that Satan is actually subverting my thoughts as I sleep then this could open up whole new fields.
As for your problem with meaning, life only has the meaning you give it. Since you have internet access and are going to college you should consider yourself lucky to be born in a nation that is so resourceful and full of opportunities. If you constantly tell yourself that life is meaningless then it will become meaningless for you. If you go out and make the best of it then you’ll be much happier, I assure you.
But this is all coming from dirty heathen…
I’m not talking about “God” in the sense of Western religion. I never said anything about demons, Satan, or anything like that. Of course you can’t explain away gaps in science by “faith in God.” I’m discussing a broader overarching theme of spirituality in the sense of their being some kind energy force connceting all mankind with nature and the rest of the physical world (and perhaps universe.) Like “the force” in Star Wars.
If this force connects everything physical then we should be able to detect it. Otherwise, how could it connect physical things?
really? and when will that be starting? It will be a refreshing change from your posts up till now.
This part is kinda funny. You have consistently made conclusions about II Gyan II’s posts that are baseless and inaccurate and then make this statement. It’s a joke right?
The post reader has interperted the post with his or her own brand of prejudice., and now insists that the conclusions based on that prejudice are fact. All the while hurling accusations of** II Gyan II** being closed minded. It’s a laughable bit of hypocrisy.
They may be other words that are just as legitimate in place of truth, but the truth is indeed the objective. Someone said it would set us free.
Regarding the OP. I believe science and spirituality are perfectly compatible. Both require a commitment to the truth. What is and what is not true based on the information we have so far? {realizing how very limited that information is} What are the latest theories about how things work? You’ll find a lot of posters on the board who seem to think that anything that cannot be disproven by science and cannot be properly tested under acceptable scientific standards is irrelevant and serves no purpose. I ask, is imagination a nessecary link in the chain of science? Is our ability to wonder and question the boundries of our knowledge a nessecary link? We imagined the ability to fly for centuries before our understanding took it from mythology to the Wright brothers.
Science cooperates with the spiritual quest by helping us to dispell mythology and replace it with truth.
The struggle is that science has little interest in what remains untestable and rightly so. Spiritual truth is something born within from your own experience. It is something you can discuss with others but never give to others. They have to choose it for themselves.
Go forward based on what you percieve to be the truth, whether it’s a spiritual inkling or a moral conviction.
I was inclined to believe what you mentioned above. There is a force that connects all creation. For me that meant that all creatures were a part of me and I had to choose what to do with that understanding. I am begining to look at it differently. It’s not so much that there is something that connects all of us. It’s more that there is nothing that seperates us except our belief in that speration. We embrace the illusion and live accordingly.
Who would they be?