Please Define "Spiritual"

[blü 2]

That business of 'eating my flesh and drinking my blood' was a point Jesus made with the Jews who came to make him king.

Well, he more famously reprised it at the last supper and the script makes him sound dead serious. And for that reason you can get symbolic wine and bread with the reassuring words that actually they're blood and flesh.

People put their own sins upon others, sadly, but having your own sins placed upon the perfect, young male sheep and have it take your sins with it in sacrifice was tremendously helpful

Interesting. How can you tell whether a sheep has sinned or not?

and symbolic of a higher level symbol - that of Christ being the lamb of God.

So you're happy to defend human sacrifice as long as God ordains it? I very certainly am not, regardless of who ordains it.

And there's many things in the bible which offend us - indeed, they offended Jews AT THE TIME THEY WERE WRITTEN.

Good to hear you acknowledge that the bible is full of offensive things. It sure is.

One I like is the commandment of the Hebrews to kill or drive out the Canaanites from Palestine. That's symoblic of the influences you must put to death in your own life (sexual, drinking, vengeance, hate etc..) As it was the Jews did not obey this admonition, and they suffered at the hands of the Canaanites, over and over again.

With as much respect as i can muster, that's a great load of, shall we say, garbage. The Israelites in the story are told by God to kill the populations they conquer and take their lands ─ and on occasion they can leave the virgin women alive for distribution among the males. Your kind of God, no?

And it looks like you're avoiding telling me what you object to about people living together. Let's get that part cleared up first.

 

[Fool]

​

I have my own definition but I'd like to hear from y'all first.

Not really looking for a dictionary definition here. Just what it means to you personally.

simply means mental, or being a state of mind, or being a state of spirit/will.

 

[Heyo]

What is a spiritual reality?

An oxymoron.

 

[PruePhillip]

Well, he more famously reprised it at the last supper and the script makes him sound dead serious. And for that reason you can get symbolic wine and bread with the reassuring words that actually they're blood and flesh.
Interesting. How can you tell whether a sheep has sinned or not?
So you're happy to defend human sacrifice as long as God ordains it? I very certainly am not, regardless of who ordains it.
Good to hear you acknowledge that the bible is full of offensive things. It sure is.
With as much respect as i can muster, that's a great load of, shall we say, garbage. The Israelites in the story are told by God to kill the populations they conquer and take their lands ─ and on occasion they can leave the virgin women alive for distribution among the males. Your kind of God, no?

And it looks like you're avoiding telling me what you object to about people living together. Let's get that part cleared up first.

The point was taken again and again that Israel did not deal with its enemies. Thus they intermarried with Canaanites.They were subject to Amalakites and Edomites. They were defeated by the Phillistines King Saul lost his kingdom because he would not fully destroy the Amalekites, but in truth this was yet another symbol of Saul's inability to defeat his own inner enemies - his paranoia and jealousy.
Until the Exile we find many Jewish graves with Canaanite idols in them. Truly Israel was a pagan society, and the few who were faithful to Jehova were remarkable enough to be written about.

 

[PruePhillip]

... And it looks like you're avoiding telling me what you object to about people living together. Let's get that part cleared up first.

From today's Wall Street Journal
Moving in Together Doesn’t Match the Financial Benefits of Marriage, but Why? - WSJ


A walk down the aisle can be a route to greater wealth and prosperity for couples in the U.S. Married people have higher net worths and are more likely to be homeowners than their unmarried counterparts their age are.

The mystery, though, is why cohabitating but unmarried couples struggle to build wealth in the same way. As of 2019, the median net worth for cohabiting couples age 25 to 34 was $17,372, a quarter that of the $68,210 for married couples of that same age range, according to data from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. For singles it is $7,341.

The wealth gap between partnered and married couples is larger than one might expect, said Ana Kent, a senior researcher at the St. Louis Fed. “It’s so intriguing,” she said.


Now, this isn't taking into account more important things like mental health, security and children, I understand that 75% of African American children come from broken homes - and the impact shows in studies of succeeding generations, ie crime rate, standard of living, education etc..
In other words marriage is good for men, good for women and good for children. We have pulled down fences without understanding why they were put up in the first place. And the impact of rejecting marriage ripples through religious behavior, demographics, the sexualization of society, the loss of trust etc..

 

[blü 2]

The point was taken again and again that Israel did not deal with its enemies. Thus they intermarried with Canaanites.They were subject to Amalakites and Edomites. They were defeated by the Phillistines King Saul lost his kingdom because he would not fully destroy the Amalekites, but in truth this was yet another symbol of Saul's inability to defeat his own inner enemies - his paranoia and jealousy.
Until the Exile we find many Jewish graves with Canaanite idols in them. Truly Israel was a pagan society, and the few who were faithful to Jehova were remarkable enough to be written about.

Who cares? Their morality was primitive ─ Putin-like.

Now, in nice clear language, what's your objection to unmarried couples living together?

 

[blü 2]

From today's Wall Street Journal
Moving in Together Doesn’t Match the Financial Benefits of Marriage, but Why? - WSJ

If I understand you correctly, you object to unmarried couples living together because it doesn't pay enough. So your objection is that it's inconvenient. Isn't that something each couple will judge in their own case?

Now, this isn't taking into account more important things like mental health, security and children

No questions of mental health, security (we were both working and we kept our accounts separate, but we both spent on ─ shared ─ household and entertainment costs. I don't recall any argument about money ever.

I understand that 75% of African American children come from broken homes

Marriage would fix that how, exactly? (Being old-fashioned, I got married when I thought, THIS IS IT! But that wasn't necessary, only gestural.)

 

[rational experiences]

If you think rationally you ignore all pre human teachings.

You think as one self. One. One human.

You then know one species human has two.

As all animal and human life is mutual equal two. You know a thesis one is fake straight away.

Then nature procreated from its parents garden in variations not mutual not equal. By body type to continue. Also not a theory.

So natural law says it's not one.

Obvious.

I listened to Mr know it all and hence researched his evil rich man's science past. Everyone complaining warning today his behaviour choices were evil are still evil and fake. His status fake in mutual equal laws...human life.

He's our destroyer. Enough human advice says so.

Also obvious.

So science said a gas in old science language was a spirit type himself. As compared to mass.

Now if you say I think. If men put mass equations mass reactions into spirit where we live die as biology...life as not spirit a gas not mass either.

You'd teach afterwards advice.

Such as only gases in the heavens love you mass just destroys you. Love by that definition supportive only. Only said by evil attack then choice.

Those types of fake thoughts all reasoned just because of science men. Non spiritual by all references.

If that brother has to ask my life why or what is spirit.

I already know as he does it's not identifiable in baby humans life by humans sex. Human sex the creator human of babies. Life mind says babies us all in our life mind says human parent the creator. Human parent spiritual life.

Isn't about science.

If I want to claim my parents had spirit a type of body before that first emerged out of eternal body.

It meant it had always existed. Still existed but we left it as all living bodies.

So I know my parent spirit history isn't science.

My brother who never asked why did the first ever human theist theory eternal ignores he pursued returning to the body eternal.

Instead said his life sacrificed by its pursuit want ended up as just an image in cloud mass. Not the eternal.

His idea of spirit. Gases in clouds reacting above. Sciences man's spiritual term.

My knowledge spirit said we were always naturally innocent loving kind caring mutual equal. Human as we were that pre spirit type naturally always.

Some of us still attend to our behaviour in loving memory of our first parents. A huge population doesn't.

I think our warning is about the huge populations behaviour is a precursor to our owned destruction. By our choices.

Dis spirited references as living in fakery civilisation cities.

As what isn't spiritual.

 

[syo]

Just what it means to you personally.

You have object A and object B. These two are equivalent. They are united in spirit.

 

[PruePhillip]

If I understand you correctly, you object to unmarried couples living together because it doesn't pay enough. So your objection is that it's inconvenient. Isn't that something each couple will judge in their own case?
No questions of mental health, security (we were both working and we kept our accounts separate, but we both spent on ─ shared ─ household and entertainment costs. I don't recall any argument about money ever.
Marriage would fix that how, exactly? (Being old-fashioned, I got married when I thought, THIS IS IT! But that wasn't necessary, only gestural.)

Ask any psychologist about single parent families, particularly ones with no father figure.
Despite what ideological historians might tell you, marriage is the default for most cultures. We are wired for marriage, and its principle importance is for the children, followed by security, particularly for women. Challenging marriage goes hand in hand with challenging everything else and crime, demogaphics, broken homes, mental issues etc follow suit.

 

[PruePhillip]

Who cares? Their morality was primitive ─ Putin-like.

Now, in nice clear language, what's your objection to unmarried couples living together?

It's amazing to see people treat morals as 'primitive.' Makes for a misserable society. It's why old people get dumped into nursing homes alone. And kids without fathers, or siblings. And the explosion in mental issues. And all the security cameras around the place. And seeing forgiveness, compassion or humility as weaknesses instead of strengths. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[blü 2]

Ask any psychologist about single parent families, particularly ones with no father figure.

Single parent families are not our topic. Living together is our topic.

Despite what ideological historians might tell you, marriage is the default for most cultures.

So what? I don't see how any mere "departure from norms" argument helps you. You have to be specific about the consequences ─ esp when no children are involved, which is itself the modern norm anyway.

 

[rational experiences]

If humans claim Jesus man's image ended in clouds was spiritual.

They are discussing human sciences.

Not spiritual.

Holes in earth sin K not spiritual.
Garden nature combusted....not spiritual.
Animals die in UFO phenomena attacks...not spiritual.

Humans die in phenomena attacks in conjunction with cell biology blood release. Loss of living water biologies removed.

How plagues manifest.

End result humans looking back today was only informed new cloud mass Jesus man image in cloud. Had saved biology on ground life.

Any before story defunct as saving of life had happened.

Today human biblical theist scientists want cloud man Jesus to inter relate with ground mass converting. New. Machine plus machine. Keep his machine safe as it had bio life.

Machine built hadn't blown up. Machine alive like biology by electricity source. Kept as machine as Jesus man's image owned cloud mass.

Said in his head...the advice.

To re act.

So they pretend new reactions wanting Jesus cloud to be a machines image not a man's image..... it will be the same earth life attack summarised after temple in Jerusalem was rebuilt. Technology used again.

Lying.

As it's new mass removal.

So predictive maths of science said the spirit...gas heavens will sacrifice life as it had before. As he hadn't wanted biology evolution human life.

Which was by sex. It's why men of science don't use human sex law in satanic theories. As they hadn't wanted life to continue.

Theme to time shift life as biology by nuclear sun time is the same as dropping a nuclear bomb. Same thesis. What they expected. Based on terms forest flattened in Russia by star fall

Ancient First man science advices.

Sacrifice of life owning no true definition. As life in cosmic law should not be sacrificed. Cosmic law owns humans animal nature's biology presence then natural death. Laws.

Is a human warning beware the theist destroyer scientist.

Who invented nuclear to get electricity. But then used electricity theories to build nuclear bombs.

Life's total annihilation.

Is how a theist scientist hides behind inventions. Claiming he's innocent. When he isn't.

His theory said I don't want humans to have been saved by Jesus the man in clouds.

I want it to be a machines only saving place.

Why the story human science was never spiritual.

 

[PruePhillip]

Single parent families are not our topic. Living together is our topic.
So what? I don't see how any mere "departure from norms" argument helps you. You have to be specific about the consequences ─ esp when no children are involved, which is itself the modern norm anyway.

The 'modern norm' includes things you would once go to jail for, or worse.
Being a 'modern norm' doesn't make wrong things right - I hold that gambling, recreational drugs and porn are 'wrong' even if these are a half trillion dollar industry. The mentality of dispensing with marriage and children feeds off this attitude. And there are consequences.

 

[DNB]

​

I have my own definition but I'd like to hear from y'all first.

Not really looking for a dictionary definition here. Just what it means to you personally.

Things pertaining to man's spirit, and not his physical constitution. Concepts that transcend the flesh and the material world i.e. ethics and morality, good and evil, love and hate. The realities that are intangible and unquantifiable, but that no one will deny are real.
God is spirit, and he has endowed all mankind (and no other creature) with this spiritual awareness, which is why that, from the beginning of time, every single society and culture all over the world has had its religions and deities, moral codes and laws, all in the name of righteousness and reverence to the higher beings in the universe (although there is only one God, the Father of all men , and His beloved creation Jesus the Christ)

 

[blü 2]

Being a 'modern norm' doesn't make wrong things right - I hold that gambling, recreational drugs and porn are 'wrong' even if these are a half trillion dollar industry. The mentality of dispensing with marriage and children feeds off this attitude. And there are consequences.

Okay, you make it clear that yours is not a reasoned position, just a personal set of feelings.

Since a reasoned conversation can accordingly go nowhere, let's forego the attempt.

 

[Heyo]

The realities that are intangible and unquantifiable, but that no one will deny are real.

I will.
5 Planes of Existence

 

[PruePhillip]

Okay, you make it clear that yours is not a reasoned position, just a personal set of feelings.

Since a reasoned conversation can accordingly go nowhere, let's forego the attempt.

'Reasoned' cannot be defined by personal approval or disproval.
Rebuttal must be given in a logical and factual manner.

 

[blü 2]

'Reasoned' cannot be defined by personal approval or disproval.
Rebuttal must be given in a logical and factual manner.

So far your argument's just been a scatter-shot of assertions. but by all means get back in touch when you've got it sorted ─ your premises, and the conclusions they support.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So far your argument's just been a scatter-shot of assertions. but by all means get back in touch when you've got it sorted ─ your premises, and the conclusions they support.

Here is the problem for logic.
A very short and dirty version of it.
A is B, B is C, therefore A is C. That is true as valid, but not sound is it is formal.
The problem starts with everyday proportions as e.g. I am a human and sound or rather true/evidence and not just proof of valid.