I can see that I wasn't defining "things spiritual" closely enough, and works of charity and good will can certainly be done outside of religion, and many are. The "things spiritual" in this connotation are the ideas and concepts that are addressed by religion and are not found in other systems of thought. Also "things" in this connotation are not referring to physical objects, but ideas and concepts of the non-physical.
Either you haven't given this much thought, or you're not taking it seriously.
It's just a bit puzzling, I knew exactly what I meant, why don't others? Actually it's others that I don't take too seriously.
My thoughts on the subject.
The oldest stories passed down tell us that the earth was made from stardust. Then man came about. Then man created god. At that point in mankind’s history, god was a term used for knowledge.
There seemed to be a cast system of upper and lower gods. This is before the standard four cast system came to be.
The OT states that god created earth. Now don’t get hung up on translations. That is because the bible has not yet been fully translated. For example in Genesis, the old script gives the names of the gods. Yet the OT when translated the word “God" replaces the names of the gods. If I remember right there are eleven different gods in the OT.
As far As I know the idea that man and the solar system is made of star dust, is a recent development.
Which religion are you referring to when you state the cast system of Gods.
It's just a bit puzzling, I knew exactly what I meant, why don't others? Actually it's others that I don't take too seriously.
That's because you live in the world where religion still gets a pass, where you can say, "you know, religiousy stuff, religion is the stuff that religion talks about, spirituality and all that non-physical stuff, science can't touch that." If you want to say those things and not be questioned, go to some other forum.
It's just a bit puzzling, I knew exactly what I meant, why don't others? Actually it's others that I don't take too seriously.
That's because you live in the world where religion still gets a pass, where you can say, "you know, religiousy stuff, religion is the stuff that religion talks about, spirituality and all that non-physical stuff, science can't touch that." If you want to say those things and not be questioned, go to some other forum.
I find this forum amusing, and see no reason to go to another. I have long since given up on finding serious discussions on most of the topics I find interesting. So here I am, make of it what you will.
Either you haven't given this much thought, or you're not taking it seriously.
Actually I have given it a lot of thought, apparently not your thoughts.
As far As I know the idea that man and the solar system is made of star dust, is a recent development.
Which religion are you referring to when you state the cast system of Gods.
The oldest genesis stories say that man may never know how the universe was formed. But the earth was formed from start dust. These stories were verbally passed down, so dating them is impossible. The cast system of the gods was told before modern man was domesticated. That would place it before Rig Veda. Thus the people of knowledge (gods) would have been before Rig Veda. This is something that you have to use logic to figure out, we are still missing huge chunks of data. Remember that just about every time line we use has been changed recently. And a lot more changes are still to come. Remember also that we are just coming out of the Dark Ages in subjects like religion and we are still very much in the Age of Deities.
The OT never had the chance to evolve. It was the Assyrians that required the religions of the time that they controlled to be written down. In doing so, the OT used bits and pieces of older stories to cover the creation of earth. The plagues that are told in most genesis stories are also left out of the OT genesis.
Ever notice that the NT never questioned the history of the OT. Maybe it is a religious thing not to question the past. Just like when the OT was created the NT also needed a foundation to build upon and used the OT without question or change.
Either you haven't given this much thought, or you're not taking it seriously.
Actually I have given it a lot of thought, apparently not your thoughts.
Unless I missed something, all you said was " Religion is still the only way to find answers about things spiritual. " and something about the "proper" discipline. But that is just defining one word using one other word. If you were to make any attempt at all, you'd say something about the laws of Moses or the Sermon on the Mount or some moral lesson, or maybe a general theme about family or some other allegorical theme about values. To do some of your work for you, there are a few bits that are hard to find elsewhere, like turning the other cheek. But it's arguable as to whether that's good advice.
One I often cite is the attention to "the least of these". I find that in no other philosopher's writings. If I actually saw that as a primary principle being followed by religious people all the time, I might even say religion has value. But it's a rare exception.
Either you haven't given this much thought, or you're not taking it seriously.
Actually I have given it a lot of thought, apparently not your thoughts.
Unless I missed something, all you said was " Religion is still the only way to find answers about things spiritual. " and something about the "proper" discipline. But that is just defining one word using one other word. If you were to make any attempt at all, you'd say something about the laws of Moses or the Sermon on the Mount or some moral lesson, or maybe a general theme about family or some other allegorical theme about values. To do some of your work for you, there are a few bits that are hard to find elsewhere, like turning the other cheek. But it's arguable as to whether that's good advice.
One I often cite is the attention to "the least of these". I find that in no other philosopher's writings. If I actually saw that as a primary principle being followed by religious people all the time, I might even say religion has value. But it's a rare exception.
"The least of these" is part of one of my favorite verses, and I try to live by it, even though, being human, I'm not very good at it.
As for "Turn the other cheek" I heard a different interpretation that changes the meaning.
It seems that in Jewish law the left hand was reserved for defecation, So the right hand was used to strike someone who you had differences with. The maintaining of honor for the individuals and the community also factored into this, as it was dishonorable to strike someone with the left hand. So to "turn the other cheek" was to turn the body in such a way that the other person could only strike you with the left hand, and this they would not do. It was a form of self defense rather than passive acquiescence to violence.
As for "Turn the other cheek" I heard a different interpretation that changes the meaning.
It seems that in Jewish law the left hand was reserved for defecation, So the right hand was used to strike someone who you had differences with. The maintaining of honor for the individuals and the community also factored into this, as it was dishonorable to strike someone with the left hand. So to "turn the other cheek" was to turn the body in such a way that the other person could only strike you with the left hand, and this they would not do. It was a form of self defense rather than passive acquiescence to violence.
That did nothing to strengthen your case
That did nothing to strengthen your case
I didn't realize that I was supposed to "make a case", I'm just making comments on a particular subject. If you are looking for a debate of a fight, I suggest you look to someone else. That you disagree with me is your problem, not mine.
That did nothing to strengthen your case
I didn't realize that I was supposed to "make a case", I'm just making comments on a particular subject. If you are looking for a debate of a fight, I suggest you look to someone else. That you disagree with me is your problem, not mine.
Prthaps this may strengthen the case. Watch this little fact check by Bill Maher.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybH66U72xd0
That did nothing to strengthen your case
I didn't realize that I was supposed to "make a case", I'm just making comments on a particular subject. If you are looking for a debate of a fight, I suggest you look to someone else. That you disagree with me is your problem, not mine.
Thanks for explaining that. Now, apply that same explanation to what I'm doing. I just made a comment on your comment. If we keep doing that, we call it a thread. Call it a "debate of a fight" if you want. Don't care.