Everything can be fixed, but it won't always be fixed in the way that we want it.
What do you consider spiritual?
- Thread starter Monkey Turned Wolf
- Start date
Mankind hasn’t changed one iota since the beginning of mankind. My point exactly.
Great movie btw!
windwalker099
2nd Black Belt
an interesting view...reflecting what might seem to be a western respective.
For contrast
(Chapter 29)
將欲取天下而為之，吾見其不得已。天下神器，不可為也。為者敗之，執者失之。是以聖人無為，故無敗；無執，故無失。
"Those who wish to take control of the world and act upon it, I see that they will not succeed.
The world is a sacred vessel, not to be acted upon.
Those who act on it will fail.
Those who hold on to it will lose it.
Therefore, the sage does not act and thus does not fail; He does not hold on and thus does not lose."
"wu wei" (無為)"
"non-action" or "effortless action"
I'm pretty sure my view is not a Western View.
"Western thought is that everything can be fixed as they see believe it should be." I'm of the mindset that things can be fixed, but it's not always to our liking or agreement. "Everythig can be fixed......" as I see it understands that we sometimes do more harm "Fixing Stuff." I'm also of the mindset that the element of the fix is sometime horrible but necessary
Is it…the great…Elon Musk?
windwalker099
2nd Black Belt
Wouldn't it be something that others would note, rather than what one thinks is or is not?
Not to say either way is better, only noting the differences according to what one posts,
contrasted with other cultural ideas and belief systems.
Only if the differences that are perceived are accurate.
Help in what way? But bless them for helping.
Have you seen that Youtube clip of the disgusting Muggeridge and some bishop attempting to chastise John Cleese and Michael Palin for ‘Life of Brian’?
They presented the most facile of arguments and tried to overwhelm Cleese and Palin who respectfully held back, for the most part.They said several times that LoB would soon become a forgotten film
Although ‘married’, Muggeridge was a womanising, heavy drinking, drug taker, who, in mortal fear, became a ‘born again’ when he was nearing the end of his life. This bishop was aware of child sexual abuse but turned a blind eye to as many did and still do.
They presented the most facile of arguments and tried to overwhelm Cleese and Palin who respectfully held back, for the most part.They said several times that LoB would soon become a forgotten film
Although ‘married’, Muggeridge was a womanising, heavy drinking, drug taker, who, in mortal fear, became a ‘born again’ when he was nearing the end of his life. This bishop was aware of child sexual abuse but turned a blind eye to as many did and still do.
So he knows of what he speaks. I never said I worshipped the man or even liked him. Do you only learn from those with whom like and agree with 100%. Like King David that had a man killed in order to be with that man’s wife and lived a debauched lifestyle or the Apostle Paul who chased down Christians to have them tortured and killed, they were confronted, they repented and although flawed became men of God, saved by grace. Grace, if you don’t know, is getting what you don’t deserve! Muggeridge was a controversial character that brought out strong emotions. You really can’t understand the man in snippets. I wouldn’t try to understand you that way either.Have you seen that Youtube clip of the disgusting Muggeridge and some bishop attempting to chastise John Cleese and Michael Palin for ‘Life of Brian’?
They presented the most facile of arguments and tried to overwhelm Cleese and Palin who respectfully held back, for the most part.They said several times that LoB would soon become a forgotten film
Although ‘married’, Muggeridge was a womanising, heavy drinking, drug taker, who, in mortal fear, became a ‘born again’ when he was nearing the end of his life. This bishop was aware of child sexual abuse but turned a blind eye to as many did and still do.
SirKicksAlot
White Belt
I view spirituality as a mission statement for your individual life and how to accomplish it; whether it be organized religion, philosophy, or science. I think it is up to the individual to choose what is spiritual for them. I have practiced Korean arts for decades and have come across some practices here and there that may be considered spiritual in Korea, but to me they are just tradition.
No of course not, but should anyone take moral lessons from someone who’s only moral now because of his fears of judgement in the afterlife?
King David? Watch at least the first 5 minutes of this. Professor (now) Francesca Stavrakopoulou is one of the world’s leading Biblical scholars and historical experts.
I don’t want to understand such a man, thank you very much. There are better people I’d chose to listen too.
Oh you have no chance of doing that, I can assure youI wouldn’t try to understand you that way either.
I'll try to compare this to how I see martial arts. Francesca to me would be like someone who studies martial arts but doesn't do martial arts.
Just a few questions came to mind.
1. Who is Francesca
2. Is she an atheist?
All religions require one thing a person: to believe. The concept is that one has to believe in it, in order to receive the benefit of it.
Consider it analogous to a book aimed at enhancing general striking and footwork skills. In order to receive benefits from this book one must believe in its content enough that they try recommended exercises. If there is no curiosity to try these exercises, one will not benefit from anything from the book. Religion can be viewed in a similar light.
If I choose to read a Bible or any religious text and discover insights resonate with me and positively influence my life, then the content of that book stays relevant. The historical accuracy of the text is inconsequential. The Aesop Fables are an example of this
For me if a person is reading a bible or in a religion for historical truth then I think they are reading it for the wrong reason and because of that they are missing the point of that literature. I would not study Aesop Fables for the purpose of proving that a rabbit and turtle had a race and a conversation. That's missing the point of the story. The only way I can benefit from the story is to believe that the lesson in the story is beneficial to me. That way I follow the lesson.
Sometimes I think religious followers and atheists sometimes "Miss the Point" when it comes to religion.
Well, the 2 years of studying that I did in high school tells me this. Things of benefit get adopted by others of different religions.
It's like martial arts. techniques of benefit are often found in different systems. Straight punch, reverse punch, front kick. Things that aren't of benefit get tossed. Pick any religion and you'll see that many have similar lessons to learn from
Martial Arts is like this after doing a lot of sparring "System A vs System B" I discovered that there's a lot of similarities among systems. The reason why there's spiritualism with a lot of martial arts systems is probably because there's a benefit to it. If there was no benefit to it then I think many martial arts systems would have been against it a long time ago.
windwalker099
2nd Black Belt
Do you consider zen and daoist practice's to be a religion requiring one to believe.
Or do you consider them a practice through which one arrives at an understanding,
not dependent on belief ?.
Regardless of whether one considers the practices spiritual or not
Last edited:
When they talk about ‘faith’ in Zen, they’re often referring to unquestioning acceptance of the methods they employ in awakening.
I don’t consider Zen (Rinzai/Soto) to be a religion - there’s no Deity, no speculation on an afterlife and no scripture. I don’t know enough about Daoism to have an opinion on that.
I don’t consider Zen (Rinzai/Soto) to be a religion - there’s no Deity, no speculation on an afterlife and no scripture. I don’t know enough about Daoism to have an opinion on that.
As a child my mother wanted me to start going to church. My father told her to take me to every kind of church there was in Boston and let me pick which religion I preferred.
So every weekend we’d go to a different denomination of religion. It was very interesting for a young boy.
So every weekend we’d go to a different denomination of religion. It was very interesting for a young boy.
" world's leading Biblical Scholars and Historical Experts."
Doesn't tell me much about her perspective and the context in which she sees the world. That means just as much as "world's leading Martial Artist and Historical Martial Arts Expert." Both of these recognitions can be obtained without having to practice in action what you study.
Like I've always said. There are scholars and there are those who apply what they train. T
I will not visit the Biblical Scholar and Historical Experts if I want to know if religious belief is still relevant. The reason why is because they will not know unless they apply what they study. And that's why I asked. "Who is Francesca"
When discussing religion and religious texts, it's crucial to understand whether the person is an outsider who doesn't practice the religion or an insider who applies what they study. This distinction is key to understanding their perspective.
For Example:
"Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a biblical scholar, has expressed several views that challenge traditional interpretations of the Bible. She argues that the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable historical source but rather a collection of religious texts that reflect the interests and ideologies of their authors and editors"
"She argues that the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable historical source"
People do not turn to the Bible for a Historical Source. People turn to the Bible for religious purposes. If I ask anyone here what happened in a specific area of the middle east during a specific time. NO ONE is going to grab the Bible for that answer. A person who uses the bible will understand this. A person who doesn't use the bible will make the assumption that people turn to it for historical reliability. People turn to the bible for comfort and guidance, but no one turns to it to learn about historical facts. In my mind, that's like saying. Swimming is not historically reliable for walking. People say things like that to invalidate.
What happened in the 33 AD? How many people are going to pick up a bible to find the answer?
I can ask the same thing of all the religions of the world, and no one is going to pick up a Bible or a Religious book to learn about the historical events that were going on around that time.
"..the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable historical source but rather a collection of religious texts that reflect the interests and ideologies of their authors and editors"
Yes, people who read the Hebrew Bible already know this. There are different Hebrew Bibles. So I think those who practice already know and understand. These things. As a Christian to have someone point this out makes me want to ask them "What are you surprised by that?"
All Jewish Communities are not the same nor do they have the same interpretations and beliefs about the Hebrew Bible. This is the same with all religions. Even Buddhism isn't the same across the board.
So to her points.
1. Bible not historically reliable - No one turns to the bible for history. Pick a random date and ask them what happen in that part of the world on that date and they won't pick up a bible. Just like people don't pick up a history book for spiritual comfort.
2. It's a collection of authors. Those who practice this already know this and they have preferences on which bible they use. People who practice know that there are differences.
I train Jow Ga Kung Fu. To a person who doesn't train Jow Ga. All Jow Ga Kung Fu schools will train the same things and have the same perspectives. But once that person trains, they will learn that all Jow Ga schools are not the same nor do they have the same perspective about what Jow Ga should be. You will then learn that every Jow Ga school follows the path of a specific brother. What the founder taught is not the same as what the brother's taught. Depending on what school you go to, you'll get different techniques as the main focus. Same system, different authors.
People who practice what they apply understand this already. It's not something that requires an argument.
Doesn't tell me much about her perspective and the context in which she sees the world. That means just as much as "world's leading Martial Artist and Historical Martial Arts Expert." Both of these recognitions can be obtained without having to practice in action what you study.
Like I've always said. There are scholars and there are those who apply what they train. T
I will not visit the Biblical Scholar and Historical Experts if I want to know if religious belief is still relevant. The reason why is because they will not know unless they apply what they study. And that's why I asked. "Who is Francesca"
When discussing religion and religious texts, it's crucial to understand whether the person is an outsider who doesn't practice the religion or an insider who applies what they study. This distinction is key to understanding their perspective.
For Example:
"Francesca Stavrakopoulou, a biblical scholar, has expressed several views that challenge traditional interpretations of the Bible. She argues that the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable historical source but rather a collection of religious texts that reflect the interests and ideologies of their authors and editors"
"She argues that the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable historical source"
People do not turn to the Bible for a Historical Source. People turn to the Bible for religious purposes. If I ask anyone here what happened in a specific area of the middle east during a specific time. NO ONE is going to grab the Bible for that answer. A person who uses the bible will understand this. A person who doesn't use the bible will make the assumption that people turn to it for historical reliability. People turn to the bible for comfort and guidance, but no one turns to it to learn about historical facts. In my mind, that's like saying. Swimming is not historically reliable for walking. People say things like that to invalidate.
What happened in the 33 AD? How many people are going to pick up a bible to find the answer?
I can ask the same thing of all the religions of the world, and no one is going to pick up a Bible or a Religious book to learn about the historical events that were going on around that time.
"..the Hebrew Bible is not a reliable historical source but rather a collection of religious texts that reflect the interests and ideologies of their authors and editors"
Yes, people who read the Hebrew Bible already know this. There are different Hebrew Bibles. So I think those who practice already know and understand. These things. As a Christian to have someone point this out makes me want to ask them "What are you surprised by that?"
All Jewish Communities are not the same nor do they have the same interpretations and beliefs about the Hebrew Bible. This is the same with all religions. Even Buddhism isn't the same across the board.
So to her points.
1. Bible not historically reliable - No one turns to the bible for history. Pick a random date and ask them what happen in that part of the world on that date and they won't pick up a bible. Just like people don't pick up a history book for spiritual comfort.
2. It's a collection of authors. Those who practice this already know this and they have preferences on which bible they use. People who practice know that there are differences.
I train Jow Ga Kung Fu. To a person who doesn't train Jow Ga. All Jow Ga Kung Fu schools will train the same things and have the same perspectives. But once that person trains, they will learn that all Jow Ga schools are not the same nor do they have the same perspective about what Jow Ga should be. You will then learn that every Jow Ga school follows the path of a specific brother. What the founder taught is not the same as what the brother's taught. Depending on what school you go to, you'll get different techniques as the main focus. Same system, different authors.
People who practice what they apply understand this already. It's not something that requires an argument.
Last edited:
Well the new/old “Christian Atheist” movement has been around for a while now, whether it’s Franny, Dawkins or Sam the arguments are the same and the answers are the same. Folks like John Lennox and a slew of other have successfully addressed this stuff over and over. That your answers are basically from preconceived prejudices is okay. My suggestion is to study deeper. Kinda like Lee Strobel, award-winning legal editor and investigative journalist who after his wife became a Christian, attempted to disprove her faith. He ended up accepting that faith based on evidence he had to discover for himself.No of course not, but should anyone take moral lessons from someone who’s only moral now because of his fears of judgement in the afterlife?
King David? Watch at least the first 5 minutes of this. Professor (now) Francesca Stavrakopoulou is one of the world’s leading Biblical scholars and historical experts.
I don’t want to understand such a man, thank you very much. There are better people I’d chose to listen too.
Oh you have no chance of doing that, I can assure you
Anyway, no reason to continue this on this forum. PM me if you wish to continue the dialogue.
Similar threads
