Hello.

I believe in Jesus.

Today, I'd like to discuss the phenomena of "Ala Carte Spirituality" which i define as anyone's spirituality that they personally made up.

Generally, I see two groups of people who use this lifestyle.

A) Philosophers who are trying to find the truth through logic/science.

B) Assholes who think saying "I'm 'Spiritual', but not 'Religious'" makes them sound like they have substance, but are not condemming the way religious types are and thus, are more likely to get laid than a non-spiritual person.

The obvious flaw with this type of belief is that you're the only one believing it.

Meanwhile, Prefabs (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Shintohism, Budism, etc) often have the problem of "blind faith" or belief through culture. Hell, Judaism is just as much a nationality as it is a religion.



Start The Debate.



PS. - Please don't get into "Somebody had to make up Religion-X at some point" arguments.

Your kind of shooting yourself in the foot there. But like I said in another post, no two things are alike nor can they ever be. This goes the same for religion. Even your so called prefabs seem to separate into their own little sects, with their own ideas. Another thing I don't understand is why does a person need to condemn anyone. Is part of a human's life reserved to persecute someone or some group? I also notice a large amount of sexual frustration from your post. All these petty conflicts between groups stem from nothing more than topographies of ignorance. People throwing themselves at whatever sliver of knowledge they can find. So what if i'm the only one believing my own beliefs, I do not require that you do, for me to be happy. I'm happy enough knowing I made myself be who I am. People generaly do one of two things around me, they see how happy and simple I live my life, and they either hate me for it, because they don't understand or love me for it because I open their eyes.

We all create and define ourselves, and in the process we are transformed as well as others around us. The only boundary that has ever existed is the self. In order to exceed that boundary you must know what you are not, which is why we are here.

You're right that believers of the same faith often have different or even conflict views in what they believe. However, assuming they well informed, their conflict comes out of a different interpretation of whatever sacred book(s) they may be going by. It's totally different from people who believe different things because they made it up.

I'm not going to say that because you're the only one believing in something, you must be wrong. However, if your belief came out of some quest for the truth through study and reflection, isn't it probable that other people would come to the same conclusion without knowing your beliefs? Except that doesn't happen. Or maybe it does if a belief is obvious enough like "we're here to have fun, then we go on vacation after we die".

As a side-note, i notice that many "spiritual" people look down on other believers of religions for putting faith in something blindly, when they completely made up their own perception of reality(!)

I'm not trying to use this thread as a "Spirituality Bashing" conversation, unless you're in column "B", then I think you need to do some studying.

TheBishop

ps: i am a 20 year old virgin because me and my (also virgin) girlfriend of 4 years think it would be beautiful if we could lose our virginity to eachother on our wedding night. Maybe i'm a bit frustrated ;-)

[This message has been edited by theBishop (edited 02-06-2004).]

That's a good point and I never thought of it like that. The thing is that truth to me is what I feel to be so. Evreyone else is the same as far as that's concerned but utilize this truth in different ways. It's not the blind faith that bothers me about religious people it's their close mindedness

MMM, i smell relativism.

"The thing is that truth to me is what I feel to be so"

While i understand that what i take to be truth is only what i choose to- It goes without saying that truth is not determined by what we feel.

The moment that i feel that it is true that i can walk in front of a bus without getting squished, i destroy relativistic truth.

Did u know that relativism and political correctness has got to the point were a maths teacher "can't" tell a student that their answer is wrong rather "that could be an answer". Truth is not determined by what we feel. Sorry if i sound like im trying cut you down, cause im not.

Regardless you have never in this life felt that you could walk in front of a bus and not be squished. You are speaking in pure hypotheticals. The fact that you do feel it not nessecary to walk in front of a bus, creates the reality of you not doing it.

Also a person can and in fact does say someone else is wrong. Simply because they feel that with the information they have aquired, they can observe a discrepancy with what correlates with their experience.

This is the reason that often times we psychologists derrive different conclusions between statistical reports.

That doesn't change a thing, simply becasuse i do not desire to do something, doesnt necessarily mean that i think it to not be possible (again being hypothetical- which is all relativism is).

Again yes, people can "say" something is wrong, just as much as anyone else can "say" the same thing is right. However if truth is relative both are right and wrong unto themselves only, and regardless of what the actual matter itself is. Neither can empiricaly say, with any authority, that they are right and the other is wrong (in a relative mindset).

This doesnt mean to say that it is not possible to have different "points of view". These can both be valid, however, it doesnt neccesarily make a conclusion correct.

So are you saying that something is empirically right when there is a consensus? Yet how would you explain that a religion has millions of followers, and still disagree with another religion, that again has millions of followers?

quote:Originally posted by inquisitor_11:

That doesn't change a thing, simply becasuse i do not desire to do something, doesnt necessarily mean that i think it to not be possible (again being hypothetical- which is all relativism is).



relativism

n : the philosophical doctrine that all criteria of judgment are relative to the individuals and situations involved

I understand what you mean. But what you refer to is closer to a thought experiment.

v. thought, (thôt) think·ing, thinks

v. tr.

To have or formulate in the mind.

To reason about or reflect on; ponder: Think how complex language is. Think the matter through.

To decide by reasoning, reflection, or pondering: thinking what to do.

To judge or regard; look upon: I think it only fair.

To believe; suppose: always thought he was right.

experiment

\Ex*per"i*ment\, n. [L. experimentum, fr. experiri to try: cf. OF. esperiment, experiment. See Experience.] 1. Atrial or special observation, made to confirm or disprove something doubtful; esp., one under conditions determined by the experimenter; an act or operation undertaken in order to discover some unknown principle or effect, or to test, establish, or illustrate some suggest or known truth; practical test; poof.