Spirituality

Feral children behave very differently than civilized ones. Assuming being civilized is the correct way to be, being without it could be seen as being "damaged or impaired". Know what I mean?That can easily get translated into spiritual experiences.

Feral children aren't born feral. They become feral if they're left out of civilization during their formative years and somehow survive the experience.

I think this is a reactionary prejudicial view.Why I can't I also say "People who talk about taping into your spiritual abilities are by nature greedy power hungry guides. They want your money. They want fame. They want prestiege and thought of as being guides to the uninformed. As soon as you hear someone talk about awakening unused spiritual abilities of which you were unaware, Look out. You are dealing with a power hungry and abusive person."How would you feel if I adopted that attitude ? Would you protest that such a case was ridiculous. Oh ... Oh ... I have evidence ya know. I can point to this guy and that guy. These bad apples represent the whole lot of you. Power hungry charlatons all. You didn't read about it in the news? "Is what's good for the goose good for the gander here ?

No, I don't think it will be an easy task at all, but I'm all ears (or eyes...).Why do you think you can "get me to admit something is wrong with us as we are born into this world" without any evidence of such a thing? Why should I take your word for it? Why should I take the word of the Bible for it?Why should I even consider the possibility? Especially when we can objectively see that there is absolutely no difference between a "very spiritual man" and a newborn baby (other than growth, of course). There is no organ, or portion of the brain, or aspect of the baby's body that is "incomplete" or "gains completion" upon being an adult. Actually, that's not quite true, there are plenty of "undeveloped" parts that become "complete" through puberty. But even describing those parts as damaged or impaired is a stretch that's not worth making.I can show you that average human babies are born "completely human" and not damaged or impaired in any way. It isn't right for you to claim that people are damaged when you can't show it to be so. It's very close to lying. Although I'd lean towards you simply being mistaken. And maybe my reaction is simply because you keep saying humans are born damaged and impaired, without giving any actual reason to take you seriously. Also when all the evidence ever collected all shows you to be mistaken and that babies are born as perfectly healthy humans.But, if you want to believe I'm attacking your idea simply because of some inner-battle you believe I'm going through, that's your choice. Not very spiritual or honourable of you, but your choice.Spirituality and being moral may not be a choice that all humans make once they are adults. This is true. But such a thing certainly doesn't give any credence to the idea that human babies are somehow born defective. The same way you do.Spirituality is subjective. Like having a favourite colour. How do I KNOW that green "really is" my favourite colour? It's subjective I know simply because I'm me.I don't think your "true spiritual" vs. "mistaken spiritual" vocabulary is useful in any way. With such a subjective concept as "spirituality", you cannot make such divisions. You can, however, ask how I KNOW my spiritual feelings are the same as yours. And, of course, my answer would have to be that I do not know. However, I can say that everything you describe as being a part of "a true spiritual experience" are things I also feel during my spiritual experiences. Who says spiritual feelings aren't as normal as breathing? Or passive? And I think that "the flow of the spiritual" is as natural in man as the heart beat or breathing.It's the feeling of losing yourself when you're having fun.
It's the feeling of loving your spouse and knowing they love you.
It's the feeling of euphoria that comes from many different artistic sources.Exactly like what you say here: ..except I'd replace "peace towards God and man" with "peace towards everyone."And again, we see that "God" is not required. But you're simply wrong. God is not a necessary piece to the spiritual puzzle. He certainly can be a piece, and is for a great many people. But He doesn't have to be a piece, and He isn't for a great many more people.Are you actually going to try and claim that believers in God are capable of "higher feelings" than non-believers? Such an idea has been verifiably refuted many, many times. But we can do it again, right here, right now, if you'd like. Go ahead, describe to me the "higher feelings" you think some people have that I am not capable of having, and I'll tell you if I've had them or not.
(Comparing subjective feelings certainly is ridiculous... don't you think? It reminds me of kids growing up... "My mommy loves me more than your mommy loves you... nyah nyah...") This is incorrect.The spiritual experience has nothing to do with God. I've shown you how I have myself experienced various spiritual experiences, while being an atheist. This alone shows that spiritual experiences do not require God.However, if you're going to define spiritual as "being dependent on God," then I am forced to agree that this strange defintion of the word certainly includes God in some degree. But, there is no reason to attach such an extraneous feature to the definition of the word "spiritual." So, if you insist on simply defining God into the word, our debate over whether or not God is actually required is over... and I will simply have to continue pondering why you insist on adding God in places He is not required to exist for no reason at all. Here, I again agree with your wonderful description of spirituality. You've done a great job at putting something into words that inherently resists clarification.
And, again, I must point out that you do not speak of God or religion here. That's because they are not a mandatory aspect of spirituality. God is not required for humans to reach the highest of spiritual levels.Perhaps, in order to continue, you could describe an experience of your own that you consider to be "spiritual" and we can see if it's possible for non-God-believers to experience similar feelings. I will choose my own, if you'd like:Stile's spiritual experience:The feelings I get when I look into my wife's eyes and can see her love for me, and see her knowledge of my love for her. I get lost and euphoric, I feel incredibly calm and understood... the most amazing feelings I ever experience. All at once, an overwhelming feeling of comfort and safety. Much as you described above, it gives me feelings of light, comfort, peace, refreshment, uplifting, easiness, support, bouyancy, encouragement in spite of visible circumstances, joy, uprightness and peace towards everyone.Curiously... I get all these spiritual feelings without God or religion. I get all these spiritual feelings just because I'm human and I'm capable of experiencing them.Or, are you seriously going to try and tell me that my love for my wife is not a spiritual experience? Because, I do not want any of that stuff, and I can show you how what I say about babies being born as healthy, non-defective human beings is true. And you have yet to show how what you say (babies are born damaged and impaired) is actually true.So, if I do show what I say is true, and you do not show what you say is true... which one of us is on the side that is more easily corruptable by people interested in taking money, fame and prestige from others? Of course it is. That's why I showed that what I say is true. Now I'm waiting for you to do the same thing.

Sure they are... feral is the default state (by definition). They certainly aren't born civilized and then turned feral.

I'd disagree here. Feral is what they become after they've matured in an uncontrolled environment. Babies start off as a sort of blank slate, as far as civilization goes, and through their learning/maturing process, they end up at a certain spot on the scale.

Ok..."I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, I think I fall somewhere in between the two. Like, I enjoy smoking pot, but only while watching FoxNews."Hows that?------------------------------I think "soul" and "spirit" are basically describing consciousness and our (humans) unique ability to be aware of our consciousness.Where "spirit/spiritual" describe consciousness, and "soul" is describing how we reflect on it.Using the definitions that you provided:

quote:

---

The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.

---

Seems to describe our consciousness. Our ability to think, feel and will is our conscious thoughts.While...

quote:

---

"spirit" is used (with the adjective "spiritual") to denote all that belongs to our higher life of reason, art, morality, and religion as contrasted with the life of mere sense-perception and passion.

---

Seems to describe our subjective awareness to our existance.It seems like "soul" and "spirit" are a primitive ways of describing consciousness and our subjective awareness of it.- Oni

---

If it's true that our species is alone in the universe, then I'd have to say that the universe aimed rather low and settled for very little.
~George Carlin

I disagree. Aside from the purely physical sense, babies are not born "completely human" as we can see with feral children.

Not bad! (although conservatives smoke pot too)Ya know, you could probably come up with a whole list of "dichotomies" like that... That could be pretty funny. Kinda like the whole you might be a red-neck thing, but:"I don't consider myself liberal or conservative, I think I fall somewhere in between the two. Like, I enjoy X, but only while Y."Where X and Y are a liberal and conservative thing, respectively, that are really funny when put together. I dunno, that might be worth working on.However, I was thinking of some king of sophmoric response to me saying "our higher life". Right after that it says:

quote:

---

The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while "soul" denotes the source of our vegetative activities as well.

---

I can see how it looks like that. At the bottom of the page on "soul" there's this:

quote:

---

Such is the Catholic doctrine on the nature, unity, substantiality, spirituality, and origin of the soul. It is the only system consistent with Christian faith, and, we may add, morals, for both Materialism and Monism logically cut away the foundations of these. The foregoing historical sketch will have served also to show another advantage it possesses -- namely, that it is by far the most comprehensive, and at the same time discriminating, synthesis of whatever is best in rival systems. It recognizes the physical conditions of the soul's activity with the Materialist, and its spiritual aspect with the Idealist, while with the Monist it insists on the vital unity of human life. It enshrines the principles of ancient speculation, and is ready to receive and assimilate the fruits of modern research.

---

So, I think there's a little more to it that you're allowing for.

I have nothing against the take Onifre is taking on this point from you, but I'm going to try another method.What makes you think that feral children are not "completely human" in the context of this discussion?Specifically, this discussion is about spirituality. What makes you think that feral children lack spirituality, or are somehow incapable of it?I admit that feral children may very well be incapable of communicating to you that they did, indeed, have a spiritual experience, but I don't see how you could imply that they are not capable?This goes on into the more general sense, too.What is it, even generally, about feral children that makes you think they are not "completely human?"Civilized speech and educated intelligence may be specializations we take for granted. What makes you think that feral children are not human?Or even, the cheap cop-out route: I did say "average human babies." What makes you think that feral children are the 'average' human baby?

I don't understand this.At what point do babies become "completely human"?Given the context of this thread are you suggesting that some form of "human spirit" is missing from babies that will somehow emerge later in life?

Using your definition of spirituality:

quote:

---

Basically, Peg's right in that spirituality is "love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faith, mildness and self-control." Spirituality is all those virtues that we generally associate with the term.

---

Feral children lack kindness, mildness, and self-control for starters. and using my definition:

quote:

---

In Psychology, "spirit" is used (with the adjective "spiritual") to denote all that belongs to our higher life of reason, art, morality, and religion as contrasted with the life of mere sense-perception and passion. The latter is intrinsically dependent on matter and conditioned by its laws; the former is characterized by freedom or the power of self-determination; "spirit" in this sense is essentially personal.

---

They also lack art and morality too.I'm not claiming that they are incapable of being spiritual, nor that they lack it altogether, just that they are not "completely human" in the sense that they have less spirituality than normal people. And that that is the default state for people suggests that there is something "damaged or imparied" in us if we use our normal civilized sprituality as the basis of comparison. Because they're just like every other baby except for the circumstances that they are born into. At birth, there is nothing different and you're saying that we're born full. But we're not, we have to learn our spirituality.

Actually, I completely agree with you. I suppose I've been using confusing terminology, though.What I mean is that every human baby is born with everything they need in order to "learn spirituality." That is, they certainly are not defective, damaged, or impaired at all in any way. They most certainly are lacking the knowledge to being spiritual, but they are not "broken" at all in any sense of the word. I mentioned "missing the knowledge" at some point earlier... this would be the same as "needing to learn." They don't need to be healed or fixed.. they simply need to uncover the knowledge.My arguement here is to say that we are not born defective or damaged or impaired, sorry if I was confusing.

Check Message 42 for more clarification.Jaywill was saying that we start off spiritually damaged or impaired and Stile was disagreeing. I'm sayin that we do start off (our default) without much spirituality (as in not a "complete" amount of it). Well we can't quantify spirituality but we can see how some people have more of it than others and kinda of get at what the normal amout is with normal people and say that getting there makes you complete, or you could put complete at the far end of the spectrum as being completely spiritual but that's not really what were talking about. No, not at all. I'm suggesting that people can have more or less spirituality.

No, I gotcha. I'm saying that we are born defective or damaged or impaired if we accept being civilized as we our today with our current spirituality as the normal undamaged and unimparied state.A man left alone (or a feral child) will not have the spirituality that we have. If that were the case then feral children would not be so wild and lacking of spirituality... but they are... so you're wrong.