Spirituality

Thanks. I'm sure you, they, do. If that joke goes over well, and it doesn't sometimes because it goes over peoples head often, I usually follow up with:"Yea, and if was ever going to have sex with a man - (pause) - it would be with Ann Coulter."(I've actually received hate-mail for that additional tag. Ann Coulter supporters who've actually said "pot is cool but comparing Ann to a man is going a bit too far." ) I try this approach often but I also play in the south more often than the north and, no offense to those in the south, but they don't usually get the dichotomies. I blame the "Cable Guy" for dumbing them down. Subjectively, yes. There is more that a person will add to it. But objectively, consciousness is the only thing that we are aware of that has all of these qualities.My definitions would reflect, IMO, a pre-religion outlook on what we now identify with "soul" and "spirituality."- 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

Oh OK. I did misunderstand your "completely human" comment. I thought you meant babies were "soulless" or something bizzarre like that. So can you give me an example of a what a very spiritual person would be like? As compared to a "normal" level of spirituality.I am guesiing that I would not rank very highly on the "spirituality-ometer"...............Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Like I said with my initial statement to jaywill:I agree with the sentiment of this idea, but not with the wording.We both agree that all we have to do is "learn" spirituality.
We both agree that babies are "capable" of this learning.
We both agree that babies are "incomplete" in the sense that they have yet to gain such knowledge.I'm saying that calling such a situation "defective" or "damaged" or "impaired" is abusive and words that a controlling leader would use.I'm saying that if we simply call it what it is... "babies haven't learnt spirituality yet"... then it gets the same point across, but without the abusive (in a needlessly-negative sense) overtones.There is nothing inherently negative about being ignorant.To label inherently ignorant babies as "inherently damaged humans that are in need of healing" is abusive.That's my point. How are feral babies not "born with everything they need in order to learn spirituality?"What are the missing?I fully admit, and agree, that they do not get the learning as-they're-growing-up. And, along with their feral-raising, they may learn some social behaviours that then blocks any future learning of spirituality (but I think you'd have a hard time showing that to be necessarily true). But, as new-born babies... what are they missing?What I said: "every (average) human baby is born with everything they need in order to learn spirituality."...is not wrong. Even with feral children. It just so happens that feral children do not (possibly) learn spirituality. That doesn't mean that they were born incapable of doing so.

I think I compromised my anonymity some time ago so I'm not going to public admit breaking any laws... /wink-wink, /nudge-nudge. Now that is funny! Or you could have come at it from the other way by using Ellen Degeneres That sounds an awful lot like: "Wah, they just don't get me!" Yeah, your definitions ain't bad. But I think the Catholic one is better that you gave it, as in its not really that primitive at all.

For some reason, I'm thinking Buddhist monks here... Look at the definitions we're using again:

quote:

---

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.

---

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.

---

Whadaya think now?

So when you speak of "power hungry" and "abusive" people you mean they are acting normally? Why are you bothered about it then?If it is abnormal behavior and harmful, how is it that they chose to be that way ? What is wrong with them that they have the capacity to choose such offensive behavior ?Does your charge of power hungry abusive people indicate something is wrong with such people? When did it happen that they were infected with this degrading tendency?I often ask people who claim that everybody is spiritually and morally quite normal:Do you have a set of keys on you? How many keys do you have on you? Why do you need to keep so many things locked such that you keep keys ? Why not leave everything unlocked ?There is nothing wrong with people. Right? So why are you concerned to keep your things under lock and key ? And why do the people you are concerned with decide to pick up this tendency to take you things that are not locked up, if that is your concern?Isn't this perfectly normal behavior for them to remove from you what you do not have under lock and key? I am a Bible believing person. And the Bible tells me that people are in need of something called regeneration.Why did Jimi Hendrix write that song "I Don't Live Today". This is really strange. Of course he lives today. (That is when he was alive). Why would he say that he feels that he is living at the bottom of a grave ? Why would he say that he is sure that today, though his heart beats and he breaths, he feels like he does NOT have real LIFE ?I consider that complaint in the light of the Bible's teaching that man needs to come to Christ for regeneration. We are discribed as fallen sinners as being "dead in trespasses and sins". It also says that fallen sinners are "alienated from the life of God".That is not merely estranged from knowing something ABOUT God. That is alienated from God's very Life, his Person. I think the NT discription of sinners being "dead in trespasses and sins" and being "alienated from the life of God" is related to the popular song about feeling that one does not truly live today - ie. "I Don't Live Today" I believe that something went wrong with the created man. What is average is not what is normal. Either we were born with a problem or for some reason after birth something went wrong.Now do not jump to a conclusion that because something is wrong with man that there is NOTHING good within man. I believe there is nonetheless something good in man's being. But I beleive we are incomplete like a three dimensional being functioning only on two levels. When I raised children I noticed two things. It became easy for them to lie almost instinctively. And I noticed that their conscience bothered them about lying. This was a real a delimma that needed careful handling IMO.First the behavior seems instinctive. Secondly, there needs to be a remedy for the sense of self condemnation as well as the empowering to stop lying. Regeneration, Redemption through Christ was the answer to both problems. I think in this post I asked you some questions to illustrate the point. I also don't want you to be myopic to assume that because I say man is damaged that I mean there is absolutely nothing good in man.Don't over react. There is also something worthy and good in this damaged and impaired human being. God looked upon all that He created and said "And God saw everything that he had made, and indeed, it was very good." (Genesis 1:31)In spite of the fall of man there is still a good created part of man's being.We may be compared to a radio that has a damaged antenna. The radio waves are there in the air. But the radio has a problem and cannot pick up the signal.Spiritual reality is there in the universe. But the spiritual "antenna" of people born into the world is not functioning. It cannot pick up the signal or substantiate the reality of radio waves.This is an analogy. It is imperfect. I think it can be useful though not a perfect analogy of what I want to say. I hope we can generate some light here and not just heat.
I am sorry if something I wrote was too personal and seemed like an attack on you. I will try to be very careful not to offend you. But I will be frank about man's condition as I see it. I think the idea of babies being defective arouses a sense of unfairness. Who can hold a baby responsible for being defective. The sense of outrage might arise with the thought of the born defect matter.I think the matter of accountability is distinct from the matter of being born "fallen" or with a sinning nature. Some people say that there is an "age of accountability." I do not claim to know when that moment is in everyone's life.However, accountability being on the side for the moment, I stand by the idea that we are damaged. Where are the books teaching people to be dishonorable, or to lie, or to steal, or to lust, or to covet ? There is not need to have "How To ..." books about these things filling the shelves of our libraries because they come NATURALLY.Solomon was a wise man. He wrote:"See, this alone have I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes." (Eccl. 7:29) David was the most noteworthy king of Israel. Even in the last book of the Bible it associates Jesus the Son of God with David, saying that He is the Root and Offspring of David. Nevertheless the adultery and sneaky murder by David against a man whose wife he coveted is exposed with extraordinary candor in the Bible. This horrible thing is not covered but exposed from such a man who was said to be after God's own heart.In Davids humiliation and frustration with his spiritual and moral failure he wrote: In other words David no longer had any trust in himself. His lust, his greed, his coveteousness and willingness to murder were so deep rooted in him as to render him hopeless without God's mercy." I was born with this deeply rooted evil. I don't have a chance to overcome it without the power of God. Even in my apparent actions, though I may appear OK to people, my hidden part harbors evil and foolishness. I need TRUTH to prevail in my secret innermost personality. I came out of my mama's womb with this DESEASE to covet, to have unbridled and greedy lust so as to steal a man's wife, give her a baby, and then sneakily have her husband murdered to save my own embarressment."Sin is deeply ingrained into the fabric of David and me too. I think you have the same problem as all men and women. We were CREATED upright. But somehow we have developed this desperate tendency to seek out schemes and devices to use other people at their expense to spend upon our own greed.I think we need to be saved from this ingrained sinning nature. That is what I am taught in the New Testament. Okay. I make mistakes. Do you also sometimes make mistakes about it?I do not trust myself that I always have it right. So if you know the same way I do then you have to mean you too are a learner and have not arrived at total expertise. If spirituality is totally subjective then it must be an illusion. Then no real spirituality exists.I want to understand the balance between universality and subjectivity. If it is so subjective that it means no more than a person's personal taste, then I doubt that there is real spirituality.People have different tastes for all kinds of foods. But I think eating always involves the stomach. That part is universal. Taste in eating is not so universal that there is no need for the standard human stomach.As most analogies it is not perfect. I could probably labor hard enough to make an exception somewhere. But don't you if you pointed out that certain concepts should be associated with abusive and power hungry actions against people? I thought you were saying that such are badly mistaken. They are not true representations of the spiritual.Or are they? Okay. I will not argue about that.I would like to point out a very useful passage in the New Testament in which the writer tells us that there is the need to divide the soul from the spirit. And the dividing instrument is the word of God: Here the soul of man and the spirit of man are attached closely to each other. There is a need for a dividing asunder by the means of some spiritually sharp "instrument". The word of God, the writer says, is unique in that it is living and operative and able to pierce deep into the person's inner consciousness and separate the two.Then that person can see "Oh, this is the SELF. This on the other hand is the spirit in me." The implication is that before when spirit and soul were stuck together it was hard to discern the difference.Ie. "This is the spiritual" when it was really the self, the soul. Or "This is the self. That is just myself" when in reality it really was the spirit within.We have to be careful here. Noth spirit of man and soul of man are component parts of man. Neither needs to be destroyed. But they need to be discerned through separation. The word of God is the "sword" sharp enough to pierce down into this place where spirit and soul may be discerned and discriminated one from another.That goes a long way to helping us know what is of the spiritual and what is of the self or the soul. I am speaking from a Christian perspective which may not be your perspective. Do you mean that there is no need to learn to "tap in" then ? I thought you were saying that some people are ignorant of this facility.I would think normality would mean that no one was ignorant of this facility and no one needed to be encouraged, let alone trained, to tap into this spiritual component. I see. Thanks for that clarification of your stance.However, I did not mean to imply that the soulish is ALL BAD. No, not at all.The realm of the soulish can be exhilerating, happy, beautiful, even healthy.I am not saying "Soul - ALL Bad!"In my opinion Stile, I think we can say that we are having a wonderful experience, a deep experience, and even a healthy experience just in the realm of the human soul. Okay. But in my experience there are spiritual forces of evil. The spiritual does not put me at peace with these someones. It is warfare.Paul wrote:"For our wrestling is not against flesh and blood but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness, against spiritual forces of evil in the heavenlies." (Eph. 6:12)Not against flesh and blood means that the wrestling of Christian disciples is not against person's with physical bodies. We may have a problem with person's with physical bodies, ie. persecutors. But the behind the scene problem is spiritual forces which are immaterial. These are called "world rulers". That is Satanic authorities of "this darkness".In the argots of pop culture it is like we are in a Matrix and we are unaware. What seems apparent to us is a kind of artificially generated world designed to keep us "in the dark" concerning God. I don't see it that way.I see it more like this. When man was created God established a relationship with man that was subject to man's free will. If he chose, he could terminate certain aspects of this relationship and damage it.This is what happened. And these steps I understand.1.) Man has damaged the relationship established by the Creator of man with God the Creator.2.) Man says "Oh, that is no problem. I'll just fix up what I have damaged."3.) God says in essence to mankind as a whole - "No. You don't understand. You have the ability to mess up the relationship. But make it normal again you cannot. I, God, have to come in and restore what you have destroyed. You have the authority to choose to damage it. And you did. Now that the relationship has been damaged don't think you can fix it. I, God, now have to come in and fix the thing you have messed up. And I only need your willingness to come in and do that. I will not do it against your will or usurp your choice. But upon invitation I will come in and restore what you have damaged."And God is eager and willing to do so. And God has gone to encredible lengths to restore the situation. In fact the restoral surpasses what was there before. Man is lifted to an even higher level of the relationship.To say "We are in no need of God". I am first going to assume that you are not saying with these words "We are not in need of Organized Religion." That I would agree with.I would not agree that we are in no need of God for the spiritual.Now one reason I would say that is because of the teaching of the Person I regard as the foremost "spiritual" human being who has ever walked the earth - Jesus Christ.I think that no one has exeeded the level of spirituality exemplified in the life of Jesus. And He was totally dependent upon His Father. He said He was Son of God. And He could do only what He saw the Father in Him was doing.The final seal to this teaching that He could only do as the Father was doing is His resurrection from the dead. The resurrection of Christ is a vindication that the Father God approved of His dependency of the Son on the Father.This dependency of the Son upon the Father amounts eventually to an incorporation, a mingling of God and man. That is a blending, an interweaving of the Human and the Divine. That is an "organic union" of God and man.Christ demonstrated this dependency and taught that we needed it also. My opinion is that His word on the matter surpasses that of other voices saying that He is wrong.Until someone comes along like Jesus Christ saying "See, I am like Jesus. And I do not need God," I remain persuaded that Christ's word is to be trusted on this one. Well, I would repeat my belief here. I think the realm of the spiritual is not a democracy. It is not an anarchy. It is a kingdom. That is a realm with a King. I need a rest now. And I need to farret out the assumptions of this challenge.After I seperate out the assumptions of what you think I am claiming from what I am trying to say, then maybe I can respond.I want to make my proposal known. I do not want to let you put words in my mouth and make your favorite argument to refute.For example, I worry about your understanding me to believe that God loves believers in Christ and God but does not love unbelievers - "My mommy loves ME better than your mommy loves you." I am concerned with your understanding me to say that God is a respector of persons in that Christ did not love and accomplish redemption for ALL people.ie. "He doesn't LOVE you because you don't believe like I do. Na na !"I am going to try not to put words into your mouth. Before I thought you said "It may concern God but not always. And more people have it without God than do." But now you say something a little different. You say it does not include God at all, anywhere at anytime for anybody.You wrote: Which represents your final thought here? Spirituality CAN include God or spirituality NEVER includes God?I have to discontinue here for now.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Oh So what? A controlling leader probably wears shoes too But that's just how and uncontrollable follower would word it I'm calling it what it really is You catch my drift?You're saying its 'not positive', he's saying it 'is negative'. I'm saying you could consider it negative if you want too.And now your saying: "yeah, but that's what a bad person would do" How is it abusive? They are missing the same stuff that they are missing that makes them civilized. You've kinda changed your position now....Here's my original reply in its entirety:

quote:

---

But there is nothing damaged or impaired with the average human coming into this world.

​

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.

---

I'm not saying that we must consider there to be something wrong with them, I am saying that we can accurately consider it that way.I suppose now is when you explain to me how that is abusive...

I think I am probably a spiritual philistine.How about yourself? If our meditating monk is a 10 where do you reckon you rate on the "spirituality-omoter" and what aspects of your personality contribute most to that? Your religion? Or other more personal aspects of yourself.I am not looking to argue here. Just interested in where the balance lies for different individuals.

Not necessarily because not everyone who believes in God has been regenerated or "born of the Spirit". I said before that the human spirit of the natural man is in a comatose state. I may not have specified that the regeneration or rebirth of the spirit takes place specifically because of the resurrection of Christ from the dead.My reason here is what the apostle Peter writes:"Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead" (1 Pet. 1:3)Regenerated how? That is regenerated THROUGH the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The deadened or comatose spirit of man is enlivened through and because of Jesus' resurrection from the dead.There a many theists who believe in God. They may have not been regenerated. They may not even beleive that Jesus Christ rose from the dead. Moslems do not believe that Jesus even died in the first place. So they don't believe in Christ's resurrection or any necessity for it.An orthodox Jew certainly believes in God. But he too would see no use for or truth in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.Now two problems remain. Am I saying that all who have been regenerated in the spirit have a higher sense of conscious? Probably they do. But that by no means insists that they LIVE by that sense. There are born again people who continue to LIVE as carnal people.Just because the sense is higher does not mean that it is manifested in their living.Another problem. Am I saying that only those who KNOW about Jesus can be regenerated? Maybe not. I am not sure. But IGNORANCE is different from unbelief and rejection. That passage of Peter says:" ... who according to His great mercy has regenerated us unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead."Perhaps, it is possible that a severaly retarded person, or a person remote from the knowledge of the Gospel, might not only believe in God but somehow through His mercy be regenerated by Christ in their state of not knowing how to call on the name of Jesus.This is only my speculation. I don't know for sure. But I have heard things which seemed to confirm something like this.What Jesus said was that " ... No one comes to the Father except through Me". I think there is a difference between this and saying "No one comes to the Father except through Christianity". The former is a matter of coming through a living Person. The latter may be coming through a cultural construct.The former implies that if you come to God it will only be because of Jesus Christ.Now to the problem of "Can there be spirituality without God?" I don't think so. Here is my reason for thinking this way.I spoke before about the human spirit being distinct from the human soul. I spoke also about the human spirit of the naturally born person to be in a comatose state - deadened, almost not functioning at all. So the problem is that the spiritual "organ" must be resurrected, or healed, or enlivend, however (in my concept) I may speak of this remedial event.Now the New Testament says that the spirit is LIFE because of righteousness. That is the deadened and comatose human spirit is infused with divine and spiritual life because of righteousness. God is the standard of righteousness. God is the source of spiritual life. God is the uncreated life. Justification is according to God's standard of righteousness. It is not according to our standard.So " ... spirit is life because of righteousness" (Romans 8:10) means that one is declared righeous, justified from sins by God according to God's standard of righteousness. If God does not justify then the human spirit is not enlivened. If the human spirit is not enlivened then it is not spiritual life. Because a man has not yet been justified by God according to God's standard of righteousness, then his human spirit is still in a comatose state and therefore access to the spiritual realm is cut off.The good news is that by receiving Christ into you immediatly "the spirit is life because of righteousness" That is what I believe. Now looking at the whole passage:"But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the spirit is life because of righteousness."The sinner's justification becomes Christ Himself. His history becomes Christ. What happened to the history of his sins and unrighteousness? They were judged on the cross at Calvary 2000 some years ago when Christ died for Him. Upon receiving Christ his past sins are immediately counted by God as having been thoroughly dealt with on the cross of Christ.It is now as if he has never sinned at all. He has exchanged his sinful history for Christ Himself as his imputed righteousness. And Christ having entered into the heart - the spirit is life because of righteousness.Another way this is put is in John 1:"But as many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were begotten [born] not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (John 1:13)A few points here: " ... who were begotten, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:13)The ones given authority to become children of God are those who receive Christ the Son of God - as many as received Him. It is not as many as received Him and also those who reject Him. So the ones granted to become children of God are the receivers of Christ into their hearts.The authority to become children of God is a matter of a spiritual birth, a begetting - "who were begotten ... of God".
This corresponds to "regenerated unto a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead". His resurrection facilitates man's new birth in the comatose spirit.The birth, the begetting, the regeneration is NOT of three things:1.) It is not of blood. You cannot receive the regeneration simply because your mother or father was born again. It is not passed on naturally. It is not inherited by natural birth.2.) It is "not of the will of the flesh" . Here I believe that "the flesh" regers to the entire fallen Adamic humanity. The corrupted and damaged fallen man since the disobedience of Adam the first man.3.) It is not [b]"of the will of man". Here this is not the fallen and sinful man but the original good man created by God. Remember that I did say that God looked upon what He created and pronoucned it "very good". Though man is damaged by the fall and sin there is still something good in his created being. But the new birth cannot come about because of this.The new birth of the human spirit is of God and of God's will. So I cannot believe that the normal use of the spirit can take place without the will of God who begets the spirit out of its comatose state. The will of the fallen man cannot cause it. The will of the good created man left in him cannot cause it. And it cannot be inherited because of the spirituality of one's parents.Now a possible caveat. I have never said that the human spirit is totally dead. I have used the term comatose. I think that there is one part of the human spirit that functions some even in the none believer. That is the conscience.So a possible caveat is that any person who has something of a functioning conscience is perhaps, on the outskirts of spirituality. At least her conscience part of the human spirit is still working.As a matter of fact it is through the conscience that one uses the will to decide to receive the Savior so that forgiveness may happen from God.This may be like living near the "event horizon" of spirituality. One is close. But what he does with his will as the word of God convicts the conscience is the gateway to the spiritual richness of fellowship and communion with God.Your premise is that God is not needed at all to be spiritual. But the spiritual realm, I feel, is not an anarchy or a democracy. It is a kingdom with a King. He may be a very gentle King, but a King nonetheless. And the King of the kingdom holds the key to our entrance into that realm. The idea here I believe is that an Atheist can have just as high a feeling as a Theist. I have tried to show that not all Theists are born of the Spirit in their human spirit.I have also mentioned that not all who are born of the Spirit in thier human spirit LIVE as they should in that realm where the regenerated spirit is the most powerful enfluence.I don't think a person with a deadened spirit can touch, taste, and contact God the Holy Spirit.Then I anticipate the objection "Why can't one be spiritual without any Holy Spirit?"My answer right now would be that it is because of two things one can walk in the spiritual realm:1.) His spirit is born of the Holy Spirit"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit." (John 3:6)The comatose human spirit is born of the Spirit. The small s spirit of man, is regenerated by the capital S Spirit Who is God Himself.2.) The regenerated human spirit is MINGLED and UNITED with the Holy Spirit."He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit" (1 Cor. 6:17)Here it is hard for the translators to decide whether Paul meant the human spirit or the Holy Spirit. The answer is that he means the mingled spirit. That is the spirit of man blended with the Spirit Who is God the Holy Spirit. In this union the two spirits, the human small spirit and the Holy Spirit Who is the eternal Spirit are united to be one blended and mingled spirit in the man:"He who is JOINED to the Lord is one spirit"Spirituality is a matter of being JOINED to Christ the Lord. Spirituality is a matter of being JOINED to the Triune God.I'll stop here.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I take it you've heard of mental abuse, yes?

quote:

---

The U.S. Department of Justice[2] defines emotionally abusive traits as including causing fear by intimidation; threatening physical harm to self, partner, children, or partner's family or friends; destruction of pets and property; forcing isolation from family, friends, or school or work.

---

(Bolding by me) From: Psychological AbuseAnd you're wrong. It's pure, innocent ignorance, which is not negative. To call it negative is a mistake or lie.
(ABE: I'm incorrect, here. You're not "wrong", you're just abusive I got a bit carried away, I guess)Calling innocently ignorant babies "damaged and in need of being healed" is "causing fear by intimidation."How can it possibly be deemed anything else?It's like a father telling his 10 year old kid he's "defective" because he's unaware of integration and derivatives in mathematics.Of course it's "a way of telling the truth." It's an abusive way. It's "causing fear by intimidation."Edited by Stile, : There are no contradictions, only clear, consice arguements... perfect in their very nature.

My position has always been that Spirituality CAN include God, but that God is not REQUIRED for any level of spirituality, especially the highest levels.I apologize for the confusion. I have had to repeat this part of my position many, many times in my discussion with you. I don't like to say things exactly the same way all the time, it gets boring. It's likely that one time I phrased it is such a way as to possibly imply that I thought God can NEVER be a part of spirituality. But that's not what I think. God (and anything else, really) CAN certainly be included in spirituality, He's just not MANDATORY by any means. I've never claimed such a thing. Please stick to the topic we're discussing. I claimed that newborn babies are not born damaged or impaired. They are simply lacking the knowledge of spirituality and morality. They are born with all the tools required to grow into an average human being who is capable of the highest levels of spirituality and morality.They don't need to be healed, they just need some knowledge.Try to focus on what we're talking about, and please refrain from making up things that I haven't said, it only adds unnecessary length to these posts. You are correct. Something does go wrong after birth (with many people). They learn (from themselves or others) how to make personal gain at the cost of other people. They learn unspiritual and immoral things.This does not mean that babies are born damaged. No. Regeneration, Redemption through Christ is a possible answer to both problems. It most certainly is not "the" answer, nor is it in anyway necessary or required.I have had no regeneration, or redemption through Christ... yet I have an answer to both problems as well: simple knowledge and teaching about spirituality and morality. That's what I got, and it worked fine for me. God was not required. You're not offending me at all. I'm simply pointing out that you "being frank about man's condition as you see it" is not actually based in reality. You've created an imaginary reason for something you perceive as a failure that just doesn't exist.Yes, babies are not born moral and spiritual.
But this isn't because they are damaged.
This is simply because they are innocently ignorant of such matters.
They don't need to "be healed."
They simply need knowledge.You're adding complications and confusion and imagination onto a simple, real problem. That doesn't make your imagination correct. No. I don't think babies are innocently ignorant because it "raises a sense of unfairness." I think babies are innocently ignorant because there's nothing damaged or impaired about them. They simply lack knowledge.Again, if you have anything based in reality to show that what you say is true, please present it. Otherwise there's nothing to differentiate your ideas from imagination. I'm not arguing against these unspiritual factors coming naturally (for some). I agree with you.What I'm telling you is that this doesn't lead to babies being born damaged. All it leads to is that babies need to learn how to be spiritual and moral. To jump into "babies are defective" is to invoke your imagination. If it's not simply your imagination, please feel free to show how what you say is actually based in reality. This doesn't make any sense at all. Subjective things are not illusions, they're simply not objective. It is not an illusion that my favourite colour is green. It's just not objective trait for all people. This statement of yours is clearly false. If such things are what your posts are based on, then we need to clear up some basic knowledge about "subjectivity" and "objectivity" before we continue. Neither are illusions. No. I mean that everyone must learn about spirituality. But, it is not necessary to learn such things from other people (although that is the easiest way I know of). It is possible to learn of such things from yourself and reflection on your own experiences... this is simply a more difficult path.Both ways spirituality must be learned. However, it can be learned naturally (from oneself), or from other people.All babies are born ignorant of spirituality.
Some can learn spirituality all on their own.
Some can learn spirituality from others.
Some can learn to not be spiritual (perhaps on their own, or from others, I can even agree that this is the "easiest" of the possibilities)None of these options leads us to think that the baby is initially defective in some way. Such a thought only comes from imagination. Unless you can show how it is anything other than imagination? I understand that you do not agree with me.I am not asking for you to explain how you do not agree with me, you have done so many times now.I am asking for you to show how your explanation of disagreement is different from imagination.I can show you how my explanation is different from imagination:I don't think babies are damaged.
I can show you x-rays and doctor's records of new born babies and how they show no damage.
I can show you how, without God or religion, I or others are capable of spiritual levels you claim are only available "with God." This directly refutes your position.I fully understand that you say babies are damaged, and God is required for spirituality.I am asking you to show how what you say is actually a part of reality. How do you differentiate the ideas you talk about as different from pure imagination?I'm going to try and show you what I'm talking about. Below is an excerpt from your Message 54 in this thread. I have highlighted certain sentences in yellow.I completely agree with everything you discern and conclude from these yellow phrases. However, my issue is that you are simply stating these yellow phrases. You are not showing how these yellow words are actually real. You are not showing how these yellow words are different from pure imagination.I agree that IF we assume these yellow words are correct, then your conclusion follows. My issue is that you give no reason for anyone to assume that these yellow words are actually correct. Therefore, there is no reason to accept your conclusions or explanations (all the non-coloured text). From what you've written, it's entirely possible that the yellow words are equivalent to pure imagination. Can you show how the concepts you talk about are different from imagination? You are simply making statements. They are either from you, or from the Bible. But they are still nothing more than mere statements. Without showing how your statements are different from imagination, your arguements will remain impotent.

I suppose that the whole matter of seeking for the truth is kind of spiritual - ie. a spiritual search. Certainly profound thoughts have been uttered by all kinds of people seeking for the truth of human life. I'll think about it. I tend to be verbose. So I will not respond to every point you make this time. I understand your point. Lacking in development is not "damage". I AGREE. Immaturity in human life is not being damaged or impaired. I AGREE. But I gave other reasons that the fall of Adam has constituted all people born as sinners and estranged from the life of God.You don't believe in the fall of man. I definitely do. In fact I believe that man was created to head up nature. So when man fell nature also fell. I don't understand everything about this. But the New Testament shows that the revelation of the sons of God is awaited by all creation that creation itself would be freed from vanity into a glorious liberty from decay: The spiritual salvation is implanted into the kernel of the saved. It is working its way from the center to the circumference of man. It will eventually cause the body to be glorified at the second coming of Christ. And creation itself which eagerly awaits the sons of God, will be freed from corruption into a glorious liberty.So to me spirituality is a process which must culminate in the revelation of the sons of God and the release of creation. When Man fell the creation fell. When man is recovered to sonship creation is restored. This is what the Bible teaches.It is far from a matter of just my personal spiritual happiness. It is related to the eternal purpose of God in the creation of all things. They need one day to be born of God. They have the natural birth. We all need the second birth which enlivens the comatose human spirit. They need to be saved through the salvation of the Son of God. I'm trying to do that.Especially not to say that you said my mommy loves me more than your mommy loves you. Where did that problem come from though? Was it picked out of the air or something? These "germs" were carried by some teacher. How did that teacher acquire those bad teachings?What is the source of these bad teachings being passed around? Did someone decide to intruduce immorality into human society and it just stuck? How and why did that person do that? How did they have the power to do that? Why did they possess the unfortunate desire to do that ?These are the kinds of questions that I found answers to in the Bible which I think is God's revelation to mankind. In terms of the law of God we come up defective.You see the law of God was given to expose that we have fallen. It is like the liquid that a cancer patient drinks which under X-Ray exposes the growth of the cancer inside their body.Man thought that being estranged from God was a minor problem that he can easily fix. To expose the depths of the problem God said in essence "You think you're OK? Alright, here. Keep this law."So the law of God was given to expose the defect in man. Look at the last of the ten commandments "You shall not covet." To covet is to want something of someone else's in a envious, jealous way. We all have come up short. It is really a commandment against a feeling. You shall not feel that way.No one can keep it. So all have fallen short of being able to live up to the law of God. God is absolutely righteous and sin is an abomination to God. So we all need to be saved from its righteous penalty. And that is a spiritual matter.Of course I see nothing about a baby being commanded to not covet. But up to a certain age it becomes apparent that that human being has a problem with the inability to stop all coveting.We may agree in our mind that it is good not to covet. We have the knowledge of good and evil. In fact we are very proud of this knowledge. We can point out the faults of others. This does not mean that we are one bit better ourselves. It only means that we have a knowledge of good and evil.We need a knowledge of divine life in a subjective way. That is a spiritual matter. To fulfill God's purpose Christ said "Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew." (John 3:7)The person being spoken to was Nicodemus. His name means "Victor of the people". He was an relative highly moral leader and teacher of his nation. Upright, dignified, learned, morally straight Nicodemus was, a highly respected rabbi.Jesus said to him "Do not marvel that I said to you, You must be born anew." Jesus also said that unless he was born of the Spirit he could not even "see" the kingdom of God. He needed regeneration to comprehend this kingdom of God, this spiritual kingdom.I said that the realm of the spiritual is a kingdom. You're saying that Christ is incorrect. You're saying that you do not have to be born anew in your spirit.Jesus said "That which is born of the Spirit is spirit". So the born anew He was speaking of was a birth in the kernel innermost part of man's being, his human spirit. Without the new birth a man cannot see the kingdom of God. He can't understand what that whole realm is.I want what Jesus wants. I want what God wants. You may argue that it is not necessary. But the Son of God wants people to be born anew and says that it is a "MUST". If there are exceptions I think that would not represent the perfect will of God. Maybe it is something He permits.But His perfect will is that men and women be born anew. Rather than to seek out what God will allow I want to seek out what God really wants. Justification by faith is being justified according to God's standard of righteousness. The ultimate decider of righteousness is not you or I. It is God. He is the source of our creation. He is the source of all creation. He is also the source of what is right.Redemption means to purchase of buy. Because of the fall of man man became possessed by the law of God. God is absolutely righteous. And to save us from the just penalty of our sins a price had to be paid to purchase us out from under the possession of the law of God."Christ has redeemed us out of the curse of the law, having become a curse on our behalf ... in order that the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith." (Gal. 3:13,14)This is all according to the standard of righteousness established by the Creator of man and the Law Giver of man.You believe what you wish. As for me, I am sure that ultimately I must answer to the ultimate Decider the Governor of the universe - God. What good will it do me to assume that I am justified according to my own personal standard of righteousness when it is to God that I am accountable?Assuming that I will just conveniently skip the final judgment of God, maybe be absent on that day, is a false hope.But let me return to the matter of spirituality. It says that we are redeemed so that we may receive the promise of the Spirit. So redemption is necessary to receive the Spirit.Your concept is "I don't need the Spirit of God to be spiritual." I think you're mistaken about that. I think if you have not been born of the Eternal Spirit Who is God, your "spirituality" is just something lofty in the human soul.The soul is capable of very lofty things. Nicodemus had a lofty religious soul. Jesus said to him that he must be born again. His spirit must be born of the Holy Spirit. Well, I have to squarely deal with the words of Christ. There is an credibility and approvedness with the man Jesus Christ which I cannot easily dismiss.I think the authority of Jesus and the Bible here is more meaningful to me than the philosopher who says the teaching is mistaken. It is not my teaching. Jesus said "you must be born anew." I think the approvedness and legacy of Jesus Christ impresses me with His authority in the matter.I believe that the reality is with Jesus Christ and what He spoke - "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." Of course they need knowledge. And of course we do not hold a newborn babe accountable for anything.I cannot tell you precisely how God deals with babies. I am pretty sure though, that all people including high and upstanding ones like Nicodemus in John 3, must be born of the Spirit.This Spirit is Christ Himself in another form. After His resurrection the word says "... the last Adam became a life giving Spirit" (1 Cor. 15:45). This divine life that is the life giving Spirit is Christ Himself. This is the spiritual experience. One day that young person must be born anew and receive the life giving Spirit in order to see and to enter into the kingdom of God, the spiritual kingdom.But to be lofty in thought and to utter philosophically high things does not require a new birth. Socrates and Confucius, Aristotle and other deep thinking people may do that. They are "groping after the truth". I am more impressed with the approvedness built up by the testimony borne by the man Jesus Christ. The Person and character of Jesus is what impresses me. I cannot easily dismiss His words as imaginary or a mistake.I may be mistaken in my interpretation of the words of Jesus or of the Bible. But the matter here is "Is regeneration needed to be spiritual?"Let's say I'm mistaken. Let's say that there exists a situation that there is true spirituality apart from being regenerate and born of God. Let's say that one need not be justified before a righteous God in order to be spiritual.That is not the way I want to take. I am convinced that that would represent the less than optimal plan of God. That may (and I emphasis may) be what He will allow in some special case.His perfect will is that I come to Christ to be justified by faith in Him, I be redeemed out from under the curse of the law of God, and I receive the life giving Spirit to be born anew to grow into one of the sons of God. That to me is the plan of God primarily.The New Testament says that this plan was established before the foundation of the world. That means before the creation of the universe: So I understand being presented before God holy and without blemish in the sphere and realm of Christ as the eternal purpose of God. If there is a contigency that you are seeking out, I am less interested in that. That represents a possible permissive will of God and not the perfect will of God established before the foundation of the world.Life is most meaningful to me not in permissive contigencies but in the PLAN that the Creator established before He created man and man's universe.He created all things because of His will:"You are worthy, our Lord and God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, for You have created all things, and because of Your will they were, and were created." (Rev. 4:11)This means to me that FIRST God had a plan, a will. Then based upon this plan He created all things. The Romans passage said that God desired for us sonship through Jesus Christ, before the foundation of the world.For me the best possible place to be is in the purpose of God who created all things - His eternal purpose. If there is a side show going on somewhere that you have found, I am much less interested in that.As it stands, if I do interpret right, the Son of God said we must be born again. So I believe that that is His perfect will and that is what I teach. I am not at all bothered someone saying that this is imaginary or a mistake.Time will tell, won't it? Well, let me speak from my personal experience. I do not remember much about being a baby. I remember some smells and the scent of feshly cleaned linen. "Thanks mom".As I grew to a little boy I do remember being puzzled that I did not have perfect self control over my own thoughts. I remember as a very young kid realizing that I could not keep certain bad things from going through my mind. And that was a problem.I think I remember the first time my conscience told me not to steal something from a friend and I stole it anyway. That was a problem. No one taught me to steal. I just knew that I had to wait until no one was looking and slip it into my pocket. And this was my best friend who I loved and whose family I loved.That was a germ in me that came from somewhere. So I am inclined to agree with David "Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin did my mother conceive me."I knew what I did was wrong. I do not want to do wrong. I did wrong anyway. There was a problem. There still is a problem. But I know now the solution - salvation in Christ. That I stole as a young kid, knew it was wrong, was not my imagination. It was reality. Jesus tells me "He who commits sin is a slave to sin."I think this is not only a reality for me but for you also. You're a big sinner just like I am. Sorry. It is not my teaching. It is not my imagination even. I don't even know you. But I bet you are a big sinner.If you think I am unfair stand up next to Jesus Christ. Read the New Testament and compare His life with yours. Jesus was not only sinless. He was gloriously sinless.You may say that you are a pretty good and spiritual person. But are you glorious? Jesus was more than just good. He was glorious. And when He speaks about spirituality I inclined to take it very seriously, not withstanding a skeptical person saying that Christ's teaching in imaginary and mistaken.I would say that if you don't know God and cannot call Him Father, you don't know yourself very well either. If the light in you is darkness then how great is the darkness?Before I knew God I was in spiritual pitch black darkness, didn'trealize it, and I was proud of myself too.I know that in myself I am only worthy to be damned. I stand upon Christ's merit. I know no other stand before God. I will stand before God as we all must, clothed in the blood of Jesus, my ONLY covering before an eternally holy and righteous Judge. I thank Him for redemption and the gift of a regenerated inner man.If I find out that I am mistaken, I will not have one single regret. It is the best possible human life I could have hoped for, to believe in Jesus Christ.If I had 100 lives to live on this earth, I would not want to waste ONE of them disbelieving in Christ the Son of God.I found what I was seeking for in this world in the love of Jesus.Further comments will have to be real short and selective. The fall of man is something that requires a supernatural solution. The so called "defect" is not one that any human being can correct. The effects of the fall of man require the supernatural intervention of God.We are regenerated to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. I am not advocating sending babies to the doctor for repair of defects.We come into the world with a Satanified and sinful nature. If we don't see it in the infant, the time will come when it will be manifested in thier acts. I don't believe that you were an exception at all. The key word in what I wrote was "totally".Everyone's finger prints are different. But there is something universal about little lines on the fingers of human hands.I think I'll leave this matter for latter. I'd have to review in what context we diverged in this matter.Skipping a little: If you one day come before God are you going to tell God that He was not required ?Or are absolutely positive that your coming before God could never happen ? I gave you a person experience. I don't think you are different.I told you that the teaching and testimony of Jesus impresses me more than you're claiming His teaching that we must be born anew is imagination.I think that your concept that we are not born with a sinning nature is your imagination, an idealistic imagination of a humanist worldview. In fact the notable theologian Karl Barth held such a view too. The First World War shook it. And he changed and adopted a theology that has been come to be known are Reform Theology.But previously he had an idealistic outlook about the nature of man not needing anything more but some moral cultivation. This is the problem. I am not talking about something that comes up in the X-Ray, or fits in a test tube.I am also not talking about that some "defects" that the medical clinic can solve. And I think there is more to the human life than the physical body.The discussion is under the thread of "Spirituality". If you mean that this spirituality matter is something physical which a X-Ray machine can photograph, then we are no on the same page.And I am kind of tired of talking about "babies' defects". I prefer to speak of the fall of man as being born with his ability to contact God the Spirit in a "comatose" or deadened state.I think your emphasizing "babies' defects" if an appeal to the emotional. "How could you accuse these little babies of defects?"If you are trying to appeal to a sense of moral outrage because I'm pushing "defective babies" that need medical attention right away, I would ask you to stop pertraying my posts in that way. The issue is not BABIES. The issue is all born human beings come with a sin prone nature.I don't understand everything about this problem. I have some good questions about it myself, But Ephesians says: I don't understand everything about this passage. But I understand that there is an evil Satanic force operating in man. That is all men and women born since Adam. This is in a realm not detected by other than spiritual means. The doctor does not see it in the X-ray.When we stand up next to the law of God I see the effect of this Satanified spirit operating in fallen man.If you say that we simply get some bad education and learn to be slaves of the lust of the flesh and of the evil thoughts then you should explain how this bad education should be in the world in the first place. Someone had to be evil to start the educational ball rolling. I think you're deceived. I think probably you are just talking about very lofty things in the soul of man."I'm spiritual without God" I wouldn't trust. The very attitude is one of rebellion. And I believe that rebellion against God, like the Ahteist who says God does not exist, is a transgression against God. This kind of "spirituality" will not go unpunished because it is in rebellion against God and has "an evil heart of unbelief" as its source.This is not a personal matter. This is a matter pertaining to all men, including myself. In ourselves we desire to be independent from God. We all have the knowledge of good and evil and we are very proud of the knowledge.However, though we have the knowledge we are not always able to perform the good that we know. And we are not always able to resist the evil that we know. We have the knowledge. We do not have the life power to live as we should according to our Creator's standard of righteousness. Here we go again. The "Damaged Babies" thing. I think you are taking the biblical teaching of the innate sinful nature of all people because of the disobedience of Adam, and trying to appeal to humanitarian emotions by couching it in sense of "Damaged and Defective Babies".I will have to skip again to the end. I believe that the Bible is the revelation of God to man. Its statements are trustworthy.I don't think your philosophy surpasses the teaching of Jesus Christ or the testimony that He bore.I quote the Bible because it is a unique book of which there is no other like it. That is 66 book somehow orchestrated together with a common theme written by 40 different authors of vastly different backrounds, over a period of 1600 years.I use to argue a lot with a Christian friend as you are arguing now with me. I don't remember any of the points of those debates very well. What I remember was the things he said which were right out of the Bible. That is what the Holy Spirit used to open my eyes to the reality. I have since had a feeling that perhaps that will someday also be the experience of someone I talk with.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Our debate isn't going anywhere, so I'm afraid I'm unable to put the effort in to keep... spinning wheels. You keep explaing your theology, and I keep saying that it isn't required.You believe in God and the Bible. I understand that.
You accept the Bible's theology. I understand that.
You fully believe the Bible's theology is an important part of everyone's life. I understand that.I also believe that God and the Bible are a path to spirituality.
They're just not the only one.I have reached levels of spirituality without God or religion.
I know you don't believe such, but your belief one way or the other has no impact on what has actually happened.
Since I cannot know what you feel, and you cannot know what I feel, it isn't possible for us to directly compare our feelings of spirituality.
All I can say is that I'm not lying to you when I tell you that everything you have described about spirituality is what I also feel. I just don't require God, the Bible or the rest of your theological explanations in order to have those feelings.Perhaps, if you could actually describe a discernable difference between your "God granted" spirituality, and my "inherently human" spirituality, you could show how your point has validity.

No. I don't think it would be necessary. But, if God is incapable of reading my mind, then I would only accept that He was required if He showed me that He was required. He, like you, has yet to do so. I am not going to take God's word for it, as much as I am not going to take your word for it. If an all-powerful God gave me a brain to make my own decisions, I would assume that God is not stupid and respect the gifts that He gave me. Especially if I ever find myself in His presence. A smart God would not give me a brain and then expect me not to use it.A smart God would know that human's can't "know" things unless they are shown to be true. If I then bypassed this point, right in front of God, it would be the rudest slap-in-God's-face that I would be capable of. God would *know* that I need to be shown the truth before I can honestly accept it as such. Accepting as truth, without having it shown to me, right in front of God Himself can only be seen as rude and dismissive and lying on my part. I'd rather not anger a God. Being honest, and asking God to show me that it's actually true before telling Him that I accept it as true, would only seem prudent.It is also possible that God exists and He is not required for our existence in any way. No, I am not absolutely positive about this at all.(We should probably start another thread if you want to continue with these types of questions)

It may be necessary for you to speak not for God to see what is in you but for you to see it.I said before that if you do not know God you cannot know yourself well. This is a totally bogus objection. No one has suggested that God wants you not to use your brain.Paul's exhortation is that Timothy would have a "sound mind".I see that as an Atheist you have accumulated an array of irrelevant reasonings which you deem are pretty clever. I have yet to meet an atheist who didn't think he was very clever.We need a keen and renewed mind to interpret what is going on in the human spirit. There is also the facility of the will. There is a saying "A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still."There are some things people for one reason or another are simply not willing to believe. For example, if you are convinced that God is not the Heavenly Father but rather a arbitrary despot, a tyrant, who only wants to withold the best possible good to your life, you may be unwilling to pray to contact God in the realm of the spiritual.You may also be unwilling to recognize that your sins have made a separation between you and God. You may be simply not willing to think of your sins as a problem between you and God.Or you may think that if it is a problem that must mean that God does not love you. The lies that deceive the unbelieving mind are endless. We really need to be delivered from these lies. It is important to identify where the insulation between the sinner and God exists. Where is the barrier that make God not real to you? It is in your sins. This passage has really helped me to see this: This is not the entire message of the Bible. The Bible does not reduce down to this and only this verse. It has been helpful to many of us.The sins that we have commited have made a separation between us and God. The iniquities that we have commited have formed a barrier to fellowship. That is real guilt because of real sins. That is actual transgressions we have commited that have caused an insulation to hinder our fellowship with God.This is why the redemption of Christ is important. That redemptive plan deals with the problem of the separation between a man and God. But the redemption must be accepted by faith. A man's faith is followed by God's FAITHFULNESS. The problem of real guilt is taken care of and there is no separation between enjoying the presence of God.When you come by faith to Christ God looks upon you as if you had never commited any sin. It is not that He overlooks them. It is that they have been JUDGED in Christ on His cross in your place. Justice has been imputed on the sinner's behalf, who comes to receive Jesus.And as I wrote before "the spirit is life because of righteousness".Now many people resent that this coming to God has to require faith. I myself have puzzled over the matter. But one thing is certain. Faith leaves nothing for man to boast about. Faith leaves nothing for man to be proud about that he accomplished by his own power.Maybe that is why God's way of salvation calls for faith. In my experience faith is followed by Divine Faithfulness. It is not my faith alone. It is God's faithfulness responding to my faith.I don't think in myself I have anymore faith then you. But I know where to get faith. It is in the word of God. If I read it and I am willing to be changed faith comes from hearing the word of God. I am pretty sure.Anyway, the barrier, the separation is your sins. It is nothing more interesting that your sins. That is real guilt before God because of your real sins. And you need real forgiveness in Jesus. Tha barrier is removed effectively and there is no problem to having communion and fellowship with God. The truth right in front of each of us is that we HAVE sinned. You may try to rationalize it away. But it is there. You may spend your entire life convincing yourself that you are not a sinner. But you are on a rendevous with reality. I assure you, regardless of the clever arguments you post here, one day your God created human conscience will catch up to you.Today you may use your two lips to criticize Christians and God. The day will come when you will use those same two lips to criticize yourself before God. I am telling you that the problem of your sins has a remedy in the Savior Jesus Christ today. I agree. I never known Him to reject an HONEST prayer. That prayer asking God to show you reality can be made today.Another passage which has been helpful to me: Tomorrow, even tonight, is not garuanteed to any of us. If there is an inclination in the conscience to ask God to show one reality, the Bible says "Seek the Lord while He can be found; Call upon Him while He is near."This is not a threat. It is simply good and sound practical advice. Even an Atheist might have a moment when he is somewhat more willing to excercise some faith to ask this God, just in case God is real, to show him the way of truth.What do you have to lose in doing so? I am happy that we close our exchange today. Thankyou for your thoughts.My philosophy is to speak to people until Jesus becomes an issue to them. I don't like to speak to them until jaywill becomes an issue to them. There is a difference.Jesus loves you Stile. See you around the Forum I guess.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.