Can there be civility without spirituality? (A Religious Troll Thread, LOL)

Originally posted by getreadyalready

Originally posted by libertybgordeal11
reply to post by getreadyalready

 

Boy! I hope your wrong. If people had spirituality and then added to it morals anything could be called moral. Take for instance the best way to be spiritual. All you have to do is be thoughtful, in fact people are spiritual and never mention it simply because the act is natural! PS I dont want to visit your church.

For him, I always try to pin him down to Jesus' words stating, "No one gets to the Father, but through me." It is the singular thing keeping me from being a Christian. I do not believe any religion should be isolationist. I think everyone has an opportunity to reach enlightenment or heaven or whatever.

Good for you!

In an earlier post, I mentioned that the Judeo-Christian teachings about God offered a reasonable explanation and understanding of my spiritual experiences. Likewise, I find much truth in the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, adore the wisdom and mystery of the I Ching, and so on. But I am a Christian, firmly believe in the three Creeds of that religion (Apostles, Nicene, Athanasian).

For all I know, God has used spiritual persons to write and teach what is beneficial or even necessary throughout all peoples and time-- so that all persons can come to have access to God by many means.

And all the faults and misuses of religious beliefs I see most closely in Christianity, I must admit, are visible in most other religions to about the same degree. Likewise, all of the wisdom of God, of the spiritual Reality, and of what it is to be truly human seem to be in about equal portions in most religions.

My culture is marginally Christian, and so Christian references and symbols were commonly to be heard and seen when I was a child-- that alone is reason enough. But the way my mind works through problems, the way I respond, physiologically, to altruism and experiences of awe, and the way in which I encounter mystical experiences-- those, too, make that faith right for me-- as if God intended to encounter me through that means.

- - - - - - -

Can I take a swing at that pitched question (about "No one comes to the Father except through me")?

Perhaps the statement of Jesus cannot bear the weight placed on it by many? Perhaps, then, there is a mystical understanding which is not about "being a Christian," or "going to Church," or accepting the creeds or even Baptism?

After all, Jesus did NOT say that "no one comes to the Father but by the Church," nor "by His teachings" nor "by the Sacraments" (although I, personally, find all of those indescribably helpful in my spiritual life).

Perhaps it means something more meaningful-- perhaps He leads the dead to the Father? Perhaps he guides all souls in all states to Paradise where they find the Father, finding them? I much prefer such speculation to any interpretation which demands only mental accent and or physical acts-- or obeying a legal code. Christianity includes intellectual accent, and physical acts (e.g., Baptism), and has behavioral expectations, but the faith and practice is not limited nor fully contained by those.

reply to post by Frira


I think that is a great example. Jesus has wonderful teachings, and I believe he was an example of an incarnation of god. Perhaps the churches do interpret his words too literally and they were not intended to be an isolating command. I'm on my cell phone or I would find the two specific passages and we could interpret them here.

Great post.

Still, the teachings of Jesus are pretty much ruled by the organizd church, so it is difficult for an average worshipper to find their own way.

reply to post by getreadyalready


Here, watch this, I hope you get some insight and don't just deny it without really understanding.

reply to post by darkendmetal


Yes... but...

(You knew someone would do that right?!)

But slavery was neither invented by religious nor did slavery become abolished without the help of religious argument. That truth hollows-out the audience member's question as much as it hollows-out Dawkins' answer.

That is to say the "us verses them" component of the question was ill-conceived as was the "them verses us" answer.

If both the religious and the non-religious oppose murder as a moral absolute, then neither gets to claim moral superiority. The inverse is true-- both religious and non-religious have had their times burning the others at the stake-- so religious and non-religious must claim both as victim and as oppressor.

If non-religious claim religion to be immoral and the religious claim non-religion to be immoral, than neither can claim the moral high ground regarding tolerance.

* You rarely hear a Protestant Christian mentioning burning persons at the stake and using Salem as the example.
* You rarely hear a Catholic Christian mention burning persons at the stake and using the Spanish Inquisition as the example.
* You rarely hear an atheist mention burning persons at the stake and using Nero as the example.

But you do hear persons from each of those groups mention burning persons at the stake quite often.

Therefore, it seems to follow that:
- Morality is not the distinction between religious and non-religious.
- Immorality is not the distinction between religious and non-religious.

Perhaps, most important to be learned from this, is that most of mankind sees immorality in others but rarely dares look for it in themselves.

One more example of just that point:

Guess which group have I found to be the primary source (by an overwhelming margin) of calling me a "hypocrite?" It is not my own group which has different moral expectations of me than they have for themselves. No. I am held to a higher standard by atheists.

But among atheists, certainly the criticism for not living up to the highest expectations of others does not come from other atheists nearly as often as it comes from religious.

And now, I have, just perhaps, addressed the problem.

The problem is not religion.
The problem is not God.
The problem is not morality.
Could the problem, then, be law?
(or maybe it is just us?)