A middle aged woman from rural Minnesota was being interviewed as Mother of The Year.
Interviewer: How many children do you have?
Woman: Seventeen.
Interviewer: How many boys and how many girls.
Woman: All boys.
Interviewer: A boy every time, eh?
Woman: Oh no. Hundreds of times there was nothing.
It is obviously a modal that carries the weight of necessity — otherwise, it would not be obligatory. (American Heritage: Ought, aux verb, “Used to indicate obligation or duty”)
Search on these keywords: deontic logic Mally. (No “e”. My typo.) You can also consult his book: The Basic Laws of Ought: Elements of the Logic of Willing. He was an Austrian, a contemporary of Ludwig von Mises.
It’s the formal definition: “obligation”. Lesser modalities are “permission”, “waiver”, and “prohibition”.
I think of it as religious beliefs, that may be drawn from more than one religious tradition, without the social aspect of belonging to a group of believers or going to church (or whatever). It’s religion for those of us who don’t want to be limited to one religious tradition, or who don’t feel a particular need to be part of a religious community.
I have no problem with people who aren’t spiritual, as long as they’re decent people. I don’t much care for proselytizers, though, whether religious or atheist.
99% of the observable universe consists of a freezing vacuum that is entirely inimical to all life. Sounds hostile to me.
Spirituality…hmmmm…I’m not sure what it is (another one of those words that regardless of what the dictionary says, people make up their own definition), but I think I ain’t got it.
The traditional meaning of the word as I have understood it all my life relates to matters of a higher power. Whether it’s the christian god, the Native American gaggle o’ gods or what have you, it smacks of a superior being who is capable of controlling the destiny of man. I just don’t see anything that convinces me that’s true, so I would have to say I lack in spirituality.
Interesting. So the fact that they believe Christ is the savior is enough of a common ground for you to say you have a pretty good idea what that means.
You don’t know if they’re a homophobic bigot or not. You don’t know if they are kind and loveing or snobbish and superior. You have no idea what their qualities are You know one thing of all the many facets that make up a human being and thats enough. But if someone says they are spiritual you assume that more likely than not they are a flake. What an unfortunate and inaccurate assumption.
You mention “for those who say it” What does that mean? Those who volunteer that kind of personnal information unasked or those who respond directly when asked directly. Quite a difference. Considering those like myself who would never offer that kind of information unless asked directly, how would you get them in the mix. You might meet lots of people who aren’t flakes who consider themselves spiritual and you never knew.
Both good questions that we are not discussing in this thread. So is, what has anybody accomplished that was so important?
I agree with your first statement. As mentioned in this thread. The label Christian doesn’t mean a good person. The label spiritual doesn’t either.
We’ll have to start a thread sometime to discuss non spiritual, spiritual values.
Good observation. I started out as a Christian and later studied other religions, finding truth that was meaningful for me in all of them, as well as flaws. It changed the way I looked at religion and my personnal relationship with God.
Amen, and right On.
to be fair, the rare proselytizer is a good sincere and passionate person who is moved to share their vision of the truth. Even if I don’t agree I find it hard to be angry.
Ah ain’t semantics grand? To me “hostile” connotes actively malevolent. That vacuum, to anthropomorphize, is not out to get us. It just doesn’t consider us at all. Either interpretation is valid so yours is just as good as mine.
To some it smacks of a being{for lack of a better term} that loves us and wants to share that love. We choose otherwise, until we don’t.
Yes, spirituality can help people exercise self-discipline. This may benefit the individual and society. Unfortunately in many cases it is abused to the detriment of others.
Spirituality can certainly make a person *stronger *if, for example, they suffer a psychological weakness as a result of an unfortunate upbringing. I disagree that it necessarily makes a person wiser since being wise is the ability to judge truth, and many flavours of spirituality create their own truths rather than using truths based on evidence. If the later was the case then I suppose it wouldnt be spirituality. So perhaps spirituality is a trade off of wisdom for strength.
Whu-huh?
I’d never dream of suggesting otherwise.
To paraphrase Yoda, “Luminous beings are we–not *just * this crude matter.”
Spiritual Love is the most powerful force in existence, it is the genses of all creation, it contains all knowledge, and all wisdom. We need only to acceot its gift of love to understand who we are. We are of it, and within it. It is this, our greatness, that we cannot face. Our fears hold us in the illusions of materialism.
If someone proclaims that they are Christian I assume they share that common belief with others who make the same proclamation. That may vary based upon what I stated earlier. Some may well be flakes, bigots, nice people, etc. Yet there is still that core connection. Those who I have known and who have claimed to be spiritual have tended strongly towards the flake category. None have clearly defined what they meant by being spiritual, but what was common among them was a flake like quality. So, you are correct it is only those who have claimed to be spiritual who seem to be flakes in my estimation, there may be many who consider themselves spiritual and I don’t know it…But then there are people I consider flakes without knowing if they consider themselves to be spiritual. I wonder if it is the claiming to be spiritual that makes one a flake (at least from my experience)?
[/QUOTE]
My original comment was going to be “BwaaH?” But on further reflection I think I’ll say, “If I can’t see it and you can’t prove it, then it is irrelevant as to whether it is there or not”.
So long as you intend that to be a subjective assertion, then I agree with you completely. If what you value is what you can see, then that which does not consist of a narrow band of electromagnetic energy is irrelevant to you. And if you do not value any proof other than tautological empiricism, then everything outside your optic ganglia is existentially moot for you.
Correct. Logic games are fine and dandy until I actually have to drive a couple of nails into a board. At that time I reach for my real hammer that, after many empirical demonstrations, has proven to be a very effective tool for such a job.
Now I use this nail analogy because one of my hobbies is wood working. I enjoy the feel of the wood and the satisfaction of seeing my efforts result in something that others can enjoy and that may long outlast me. I get a feeling of contributing to the future when I do so. Yet, I can also marvel at the beauty of nature itself. I don’t go into a forest and see the potential for a 100 end tables if I lopped down that tree, I see the tree. It may be 200 years old. What has transpired in the time it was alive? I develop an empathy with the tree and the forsest around me. When I stand on a peak after hours of climbing and look out over the valleys and mountains below, I am moved by the insignificance of myself in the grand scheme of things, yet I can also feel as if I have expanded to that level myself and can easily leap from peak to peak if only I willed it. Is all this the spirituality of which you speak? Nope, it is just that I have a good imagination.
You see a tree is just a tree, I’m neither larger nor smaller than I actually am, and I could actually leap from peak to peak if I had a helicopter. Nothing spititual about any of it.
One thing that I’d like to say generally on this topic, in case Eve is still around, is that I think a statement made by Mtgman in another thread is pertinent here by way of analogy. There, he said that the letter of the law is but a pale shadow of the spirit of the law. I think that physicality is like the letter of the law, and spirituality is like the spirit of the law. And I think that the same statement applies.