IC please clarify for us

[Walker]

Spirituality permeates all. The separations you make are delusional.

[Immanuel Can]

Rational folks are found in all cultures.

They are. But it's also true that the irrational are found in all cultures. So it doesn't suggest that all cultures are rational, far less that all the members in a given culture are.

The fact that Christianity has spread worldwide is probably not based on irrationality.

No, I'm sure that's true. But it doesn't mean that other cultures and religions take the same view of rationality. In fact, there's a wide variety of stances on the role of reason in the ideological equation. Mystical and experiential traditions tend to have a lower value on reason. But some others approach faith more cerebrally than viscerally. One has to look at the particular ideology, on a case-by-case basis. It's certainly not true that they're all ultimately the same in their view of cognition, or reason and logic, or truth, or reality, or science, or morality, or divinity, for that matter.

[Walker]

Agnostic. You don't know.

You fly low.

I'm not agnostic about everything. I'm agnostic about matters having to do with spirituality.

Spirituality permeates all. The separations you make are delusional.

[Walker]

Do you think that Christianity has spread worldwide because it appeals to irrationality?

If God exists, then Christianity may or may not be an accurate interpretation of the divine.

Qualifiers almost outnumber the words of that bold statement.

Agnosticism permeates more than you know, apparently.

[Gary Childress]

Agnostic. You don't know.

You fly low.

I'm not agnostic about everything. I'm agnostic about matters having to do with spirituality.

Spirituality permeates all. The separations you make are delusional.

So if "spirituality permeates all" does that mean Christianity is the correct interpretation of the divine?

[Walker]

Do you really think you know enough to make such distinctions and separations?

Do you think it is incorrect that if there is a God, then Christianity may or may not be an accurate interpretation of the divine? You can always disagree with me. I would like to hear what is wrong with my statement above if you disagree. It's basically If G, then C or not the case C.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a349b90-b31c ... e277ebbfd9

You pick may, or you pick may not.
Then, you write what you think about that, to share.

If someone wants to agree, they can.
If someone wants to disagree, they can.

Okay?

Don't ask me to write an essay on the topic of your interest, for you.

[Gary Childress]

Do you really think you know enough to make such distinctions and separations?

Do you think it is incorrect that if there is a God, then Christianity may or may not be an accurate interpretation of the divine? You can always disagree with me. I would like to hear what is wrong with my statement above if you disagree. It's basically If G, then C or not the case C.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a349b90-b31c ... e277ebbfd9

You pick may, or you pick may not.
Then, you write what you think about that, to share.

If someone wants to agree, they can.
If someone wants to disagree, they can.

Okay?

Don't ask me to write an essay on the topic of your interest, for you.

Then don't.

[Walker]

They are. But it's also true that the irrational are found in all cultures. So it doesn't suggest that all cultures are rational, far less that all the members in a given culture are.

The fact that Christianity has spread worldwide is probably not based on irrationality.

No, I'm sure that's true. But it doesn't mean that other cultures and religions take the same view of rationality. In fact, there's a wide variety of stances on the role of reason in the ideological equation. Mystical and experiential traditions tend to have a lower value on reason. But some others approach faith more cerebrally than viscerally. One has to look at the particular ideology, on a case-by-case basis. It's certainly not true that they're all ultimately the same in their view of cognition, or reason and logic, or truth, or reality, or science, or morality, or divinity, for that matter.

Then we can say that Christianity has spread because it appeals to the rational within a culture, and where it has spread to, the rational outnumber the irrational of the culture in influence if not number, or else Christianity would not have spread there.

Or, we can say that Christianity has spread because it is irrational to a culture.

If so, examine the cultures where Christianity has not spread.

Then, we can examine where it spread to and was crushed by government because ... Christianity is irrational?

Naw. It's so rational it can't be tolerated by Commies.

[Walker]

Do you think it is incorrect that if there is a God, then Christianity may or may not be an accurate interpretation of the divine? You can always disagree with me. I would like to hear what is wrong with my statement above if you disagree. It's basically If G, then C or not the case C.

https://chatgpt.com/share/6a349b90-b31c ... e277ebbfd9

You pick may, or you pick may not.
Then, you write what you think about that, to share.

If someone wants to agree, they can.
If someone wants to disagree, they can.

Okay?

Don't ask me to write an essay on the topic of your interest, for you.

Then don't.

Don't be afraid, Gary.
Put your thoughts out there.

May, or may not?
Which is it?

Take a stand. Get off the fence. Write the essay.
You can do it.

You will learn from the critiques of others.

[Walker]

I'm not agnostic about everything. I'm agnostic about matters having to do with spirituality.

Spirituality permeates all. The separations you make are delusional.

So if "spirituality permeates all" does that mean Christianity is the correct interpretation of the divine?

It means that you tried to separate spirituality from the rest of life.
You should dwell on that, and find your spirituality in some of the places where you assumed it didn't exist.

That's the point of what I wrote.

[Lacewing]

Spirituality permeates all. The separations you make are delusional.

Who are you and what did you do with Walker? This would be the smartest thing ever posted under his name.

[Gary Childress]

Spirituality permeates all. The separations you make are delusional.

So if "spirituality permeates all" does that mean Christianity is the correct interpretation of the divine?

It means that you tried to separate spirituality from the rest of life.
You should dwell on that, and find your spirituality in some of the places where you assumed it didn't exist.

That's the point of what I wrote.

What exactly is "spirituality"? Is it the belief in "spirits" and the "supernatural"? If so, then those are things that science cannot study. If anything can be known about such things, then it's not known through the means of the natural sciences.

[Walker]

Are you trying to say that scientists cannot believe in God?

Yes or no?

If you simply answer yes or no, to that simple question, you may attract interest.

That may clarify for yourself how you manage to separate spirituality from the rest of life.

[Immanuel Can]

What exactly is "spirituality"? Is it the belief in "spirits" and the "supernatural"? If so, then those are things that science cannot study. If anything can be known about such things, then it's not known through the means of the natural sciences.

Well, how is evolution "known," Gary? (Serious question: I'm not trying to reverse it on you. I'm asking you to think about the method by which you have come to believe in something you believe in.) For you will find it is exactly the same method by which the natural sciences also relate to the question of the existence of God.

[Gary Childress]

Are you trying to say that scientists cannot believe in God?

Yes or no?

If you simply answer yes or no, to that simple question, you may attract interest.

That may clarify for yourself how you manage to separate spirituality from the rest of life.

No. I am not saying scientists cannot believe in God.