Feeding Spiritual Hunger

[Jeremiah]

You might be better off removing the words like "spiritually" completely.

My dad goes to a church that accepts people of all denominations. He says they practice positive living instead of pursuit of the truth.

But I think you might be confusing people when you talk about "spiritually".

 

[PureX]

We seem to be agreeing that, for purposes of discussion, some distinction can be made between "material existence" and "spirit." You say "material existence" is an expression of "spirit." I say that the "spirit" is a non-physical aspect of the integrated human "self," which includes body, emotions, thoughts, and decisions. I'm not sure that our different ways of stating this relationship make much practical difference to how most people experience life.

Nevertheless, I realize that you are talking about a profound theory of ultimate reality. However, it is only a theory, as is my theory about spirituality and free will. The challenged faced by all of us is how to present our theories to groups of skeptics. In our hurried, materialistic world, what evidence of the truth of your theory would you present to the skeptics who have, say, a five-minute attention span? (Note that I said "evidence," not just an explanation of the theory.) I think my question is fair, because I've already, in this threat, presented succinct summaries of the evidence I would present.

Rodge

I wouldn't bother.

I don't necessarily see any reason that other people should see their own existence in the way that I see mine. Also, I don't think it matters much. I don't think our idea of reality is really all that important except for how it effects the way we interact with each other and the world.

We often let our egos convince us that we are "truth-seekers" working on some amazingly complex intellectual puzzle of the nature and meaning of existence and all that. When in actuality we're just primates with hyperactive imaginations, imagining that we are human beings working on some amazingly complex intellectual puzzle of the nature and meaning of existence. We monkeys pound at our intellectual typewriters, producing mostly gibberish, and pretending that we're working out the ultimate mystery. But all we're really writing is the endless dialogue of our own egos making much ado about nothing.

I enjoy intellectual discussion and debate, but not because I hold to any delusions about seeking out "Truth". I enjoy them because I am a primate with a hyperactive imagination and a big ego and this is the kind of activity such primates enjoy.

What really matters is how I am as expressed by who I am. I am an event, happening. And the quality of that event can be measured a couple of different ways: the most obvious one being how the event that is me effects the other people-events that I encounter. Do I effect them in a positive way, or a negative way? Is their encountering me good for them, or not? Another is how I effect myself, as I 'happen', and lastly, it's how I effect my environment. What I think intellectually about all of this is a minor adjunct.

 

[RationalRodge]

You might be better off removing the words like "spiritually" completely.

My dad goes to a church that accepts people of all denominations. He says they practice positive living instead of pursuit of the truth.

But I think you might be confusing people when you talk about "spiritually".

Thanks. I understand your point, but I think I'm talking about something different from humanism. I want to assert that life is more than physical reality — and that it's a verifiable truth, not just one among many possible theories. Help me with a better word that "spirituality" to convey that.

I want to respond to your longer post, but I don't have time right now. Later, I hope.

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

I wouldn't bother.

I don't necessarily see any reason that other people should see their own existence in the way that I see mine. Also, I don't think it matters much. I don't think our idea of reality is really all that important except for how it effects the way we interact with each other and the world....What really matters is how I am as expressed by who I am. I am an event, happening. And the quality of that event can be measured a couple of different ways: the most obvious one being how the event that is me effects the other people-events that I encounter.....What I think intellectually about all of this is a minor adjunct.

Fair enough. But the original premise that launched this thread was my sense that I had made a discovery about reality that was important and useful to me, and might be important and useful to others. So the things that aren't important to you were and are important to me. But I think we've arrived at a helpful understanding of our differences.

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

"My observation: A large number of folks in our society are spiritually undernourished. They spend little time or effort tending to their inner lives."

I think that a majority of the world’s populaces is not spiritually undernourished.

When I wrote "our society" I was referring to the United States, but I was thinking it might apply even more to Europe. But I don't know enough about the rest of the world to comment on your statement. Also please note that I think "spiritually undernourished" means that they don't make the care and feeding of their spirituality an improtant priority in their lives — not that they don't think of God as a kind of 911 resource standing by to help in emergencies, or that the meaning of Christmas is goodwill toward others, or that they have some ill-defined and unexamined "soul."

"My theory: Many of these people ignore or reject spirituality because they associate it with God or religion, toward which they are either indifferent or hostile."

I would think that the people who reject "God" and "religion" do so because they are not fully satisfy with the answer that they provide. Indifferent and hostility may contribute some but I do not believe that it is the dominating factor.

To me, this sounds like a distinction without a difference. Either way, the point is that the message must satisfy them, and not turn them off more.

"My prescription: One way to express our concern would be to help people recognize that they possess a miraculous gift of spirituality — a reality that they can confirm through their own experience, without reference to either God or religion. How can we do this? I think we need only to point out three commonly-accepted ideas...."

And I do not think that it will be the type of people that just accept ideas, they need to be sold on the idea. People who are willing to just accept ideas are generally not spiritually undernourished they already have found a structure that works for them.

Here you refer to a category that you invented, "people that just accept ideas." Having invented them, you can say anything you want about what they may or may not do. I'm talking about calling attention to things people already believe, to that they will be more aware of implications and connections. My theory is that they are undernourished because they have not paid attention to those implications and connections.

The problem I see is that you want to take people that did not just accept any other religion and to have them just accept your ideas. And when asked for an explanation, you tell them that is not important and to just accept your ideas. I do not think this will work as efficiently as it could, unless you can successfully answer Dopp's questions.

I don't know what explanation I've refused or what questions I haven't answered "successfully." I have tried to explain and answer, several times, but my explanations and answers seem to be ignored or dismissed. But, since you asked, what is the most important explanation that I haven't given, or most important question that I haven't answered?

Rodge

P.S. I apologize if I've messed up any formatting on this. I don't know how to preview and edit these replies.

 

[Willamena]

I'm struggling to find ways to communicate an idea that is relatively new to me, so I may not be using terminology as precisely as a I should. So I appreciate suggestions for clarifying my message. But I am trying to take a practical approach, based on reality as experienced by me (and, I think, many others). So why should I be concerned with abstract concepts like the line of demarcation between "inner life" and "not inner life"? On a practical level, I don't have any problem telling "self" from "non-self."

Rodge

Rodge, which is the idea that is "relatively new to you?"
Is it that life is a "gift"?

 

[Willamena]

Edit: I'll see if I can find an approprite thread about it to link to, tomorrow.

Here is the thread I was thinking of:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=809228#post809228

 

[Random]

Fair enough. But the original premise that launched this thread was my sense that I had made a discovery about reality that was important and useful to me, and might be important and useful to others.

Rodge, can you describe this discovery or revelation about reality in such a way that the person reading can relate within the framework of terminology and meanings extant, or does that seem like an impossibility?

I, like some others here, would like to understand what you've uncovered...

thanks,
Random

 

[Jeremiah]

I'll just get straight to the point I know it's rude and you will most likely will be offended and I apologize for that.

Your theories are half baked, your commutation skills are lacking and you have not done enough research to know what you are doing.

I will jump out on a limb; I think this is what you are looking for.

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – Socrates (470-399 BCE)

Just my opinion.

 

[Jeremiah]

"but I was thinking it might apply even more to Europe"

-RationalRodge

I hope this has nothing to do with Atheism.

 

[may]

JESUS said: "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need." (Matthew 5:3) Such ones will seek life-giving information from God’s Word, the Bible, and taking in this knowledge will lead them to everlasting life.—Matthew 4:4; John 17:3.

 

[RationalRodge]

JESUS said: "Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need." (Matthew 5:3) Such ones will seek life-giving information from God’s Word, the Bible, and taking in this knowledge will lead them to everlasting life.—Matthew 4:4; John 17:3.

What about those NOT conscious of their spiritual need? That's who I'm concerned about.

 

[RationalRodge]

Rodge, which is the idea that is "relatively new to you?"
Is it that life is a "gift"?

What was new to me was the idea that it is possible—likely, even—that a non-material (spiritual) part of reality actually exists, and is not just something made up by humans to fill a need. All my life, I've struggled with that question about God, and my suspicion that God is fictional caused me to think that spirituality was probably fictional, too. Two or three years ago, as I was trying to be systematic about sorting out what I knew and didn't know, I decided that I knew I had free will. And I decided that the existence of free will was good evidence (if not conclusive proof) of the existence of non-material spirituality. It was an exciting realization that freed me up to think about other possibilities. Of course, I probably always realized that life is a gift, but knowing that physical evolution could have led to a non-physical result was so amazing that the gift of life took on a whole new dimension.

 

[Willamena]

What was new to me was the idea that it is possible—likely, even—that a non-material (spiritual) part of reality actually exists, and is not just something made up by humans to fill a need. All my life, I've struggled with that question about God, and my suspicion that God is fictional caused me to think that spirituality was probably fictional, too. Two or three years ago, as I was trying to be systematic about sorting out what I knew and didn't know, I decided that I knew I had free will. And I decided that the existence of free will was good evidence (if not conclusive proof) of the existence of non-material spirituality. It was an exciting realization that freed me up to think about other possibilities. Of course, I probably always realized that life is a gift, but knowing that physical evolution could have led to a non-physical result was so amazing that the gift of life took on a whole new dimension.

Thank you, Rodge, that is much clearer now.

And not unfamiliar.

But (as you probably realise) 'free will' is not really evidence without some way to define it. You're looking for help with a frame? If I understand correctly, you are trying to find help framing 'free will' in a small package (finding the words, so to speak, that might allow materialists to break through with a similar realisation).

For myself, I suspect (as doppleganger hinted earlier) that even if you find the words you will not find them coming around to your realisation, as any realisation they come to will be their own. What works for you won't necessarily work for anyone else. It's your path. Many religious philosophies emphasize that people will each find their own path to realisations.

Edit: I should have specified "free will is not evidence to others without some way to define it."

 

[Willamena]

For myself, my realisation of unity came through a few very special words about language. It seems odd to even me that I would find a realistaion in this way, but it was my way and although I could try to to explain it to others, there's no guarantee they would listen.

I've heard people describe coming to realisations through maths, through mythology, through particle physics, and even one person through the idea of humility.

 

[may]

What about those NOT conscious of their spiritual need? That's who I'm concerned about.

many say that they dont have a spiritual need , but there is not one human who does not need the remedy that the most high is offering to us . and Jesus sheep will hear his voice . following the christ will lead to everlasting life . so the question is.............what does it mean to follow the christ?
When Jesus said those words he was speaking to those who had responded to Jesus . so many have got a spiritual need . those who had not responded had more than likely been influenced by their religious leaders to not listen to Jesus . and i think it can be the same today , false religious leaders turn people away from the really sayings of Jesus . but Jesus knows his sheep and they listen to his voice .

 

[RationalRodge]

Here is the thread I was thinking of:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?p=809228#post809228

Thanks. Fascinating discussion there, and I couldn't resist adding my 2 cents worht.

 

[RationalRodge]

Rodge, can you describe this discovery or revelation about reality in such a way that the person reading can relate within the framework of terminology and meanings extant, or does that seem like an impossibility?

I, like some others here, would like to understand what you've uncovered...

thanks,
Random

Does my post #93 help?

Rodge

 

[RationalRodge]

I'll just get straight to the point I know it's rude and you will most likely will be offended and I apologize for that.

Your theories are half baked, your commutation skills are lacking and you have not done enough research to know what you are doing.

I will jump out on a limb; I think this is what you are looking for.

“The unexamined life is not worth living” – Socrates (470-399 BCE)

Just my opinion.

All that you say may be true, and there's no need to apologize for saying what you think. Having come to the conclusion you've reached, you probably don't see much point in continuing to respond. I'll just say that I find specific criticism more helpful than generalized comments, but thanks for taking the time with me that you did.

 

[RationalRodge]

"but I was thinking it might apply even more to Europe"

-RationalRodge

I hope this has nothing to do with Atheism.

This has nothing to do with God or non/God or ?/God. I'm just talking about attitudes toward personal spirituality.