Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Fri Jan 19, 2018 11:04 pm**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:08 pm
Dubious wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 7:04 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 1:31 am If you understood why Jesus didn't laugh you would understand a great deal.
Just because it isn't stated explicitly in the bible doesn't mean he didn't laugh. If he didn't he could never have been as charismatic as he presumably was and unlikely to have the following he had. Can you understand that?
I do understand that you are too caught up with superficial arguments to experience that the New Testament contains levels of understanding to correspond to where a person's understanding is at the time. You are closed to the idea of relative qualities of forces and their function. A person with normal curiosity will wonder why some dropped everything to follow Jesus while others wanted to kill him? You call it charisma and that answer satisfies you. Not everyone is content with this answer.

Without an overdose of Charisma (expected from the "Son of God") he wouldn't have had anyone following him. He had both friends and enemies who either wanted to save him or kill him. What's so unusual or profound about that?

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:16 am**

Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 5:50 am
Greta wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:45 pm
Conde Lucanor wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 3:41 am Greta, as Marjoram_blues seems to have noticed (since I've stated it repeatedly) I have chosen to focus on the Wikipedia article. And I've just stated above that I'm not saying what Greta believes or should believe, but yet you come back to complain about it. I know my English is not top notch, but I think I've done enough to make myself be understood. So I must suspect you're just upset that I'm not being enthusiastic about affiliating to any version of "secular spirituality", just because you do embrace something that fits that label.
No, I'm irritated by your attempts to undermine my, and others', positions with false association between what we consider to be secular spirituality and new age pseudoscience. Suddenly, regardless of how we personally feel about those things, we are associated by you with crystals, homoeopathy, etc, which is absolutely not the case.
That's evidently false, because I've made no associations between any statement of yours or anyone else in this forum and new age or pseudoscience. Again, I've been very specific about the Wikipedia article.

Nonsense! You are forcing me to go through the whole copy-paste annoyance because you are being blindly competitive

1. Examples of you associating my posts with the Wiki article's pseudoscience and ignoring my rebuttals:

1a. In response to:
Do you not endorse secular spirituality for yourself or for everyone? Have you thoughts on this?

You replied:
I don't endorse it for myself and I would hope that most people decided to endorse a different type of secularism, free of the romantic anticapitalism that is behind the New Age movement, which looks for shelter in some elements of Eastern religions and begs for a "return to nature". This "secular spirituality" reminds me of the ideological proposal of Avatar.

1b. In response to:
Are Richard Dawkins, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Max Tegmark and Roger Penrose new agers? If so, then I agree with you that New Age romanticism and secular spirituality are synonymous. Seriously, why paint with such a broad brush?

You replied:
At least the 3 first names, which I'm more familiar with, can hardly be said to have embraced anything close to the "secular spirituality" described in the Wikipedia entry referenced in the OP. I mean, Carl Sagan, for goodness' sake!! The man is on record speaking against New Age thinking and pseudoscience.

1c. In response to:
Marj and I could not have made it more clear that secular spirituality need have nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience. Your response above is very weak, displaying mechanistic thinking and a general lack of comprehension. There is not much point wasting time unless you can lift your game.

You replied:
Are you making reference to any particular description of "secular spirituality"? Because I do. I made perfectly clear which source of descriptions I'm referring to in my comments, and so I have also restrained myself from advancing any description of what "secular spirituality" ought to be. Unlike you, I have never stated that "secular spirituality" has to do or not with something. I just pointed at a description of "secular spirituality" posted in the OP, made it clear that I would assume it's a correct description and said that as an atheist, humanist and secularist, I could not support such view. Is your definition of "secular spirituality" the same as the one in the link provided in the OP? If so, then for sure I don't embrace your view either, but then you will have to solve the contradiction between that source and the descriptions you are proposing. Perhaps then we will see who's responses are weak and who's lacking comprehension.

This would be less problematic if you had not ignored all of these earlier posts:

2. Earlier posts where I'd clearly distanced myself from the OP

2a. I would like to add that I see secular spirituality as secular - not religious superstition without the Big G.

Remember, Marj, Belinda and I don't subscribe to any school of thought about this; we simply define "spirituality" in an individual way that resonates with us personally. I doubt any of us care much for any orthodoxy, aside from that involving basic decency.

2b. Speaking for myself, I see spirituality as everyday, something that all but the most damaged routinely engage in. Kindness, consideration, amiability, cooperativeness, empathising, nurturing, defending, supporting, entertaining, listening, appreciating, passionate enthusiasm - these are all spiritual behaviours IMO. Unlike religions, I don't think about any gate that determines X to be a spiritual person or Y not, aside from the worst psychopathies and those who are too wounded to feel happiness.

2c. I replied to Marj's satirical comment on the new age with my own:
Marj: My sweet honey-tongued spirit medium and guide told me to look out for angels bearing forks

G:

The armour of your dharma saves your karma from the embalmer!

2d. Marj and I could not have made it more clear that secular spirituality need have nothing whatsoever to do with pseudoscience. Your response above is very weak, displaying mechanistic thinking and a general lack of comprehension. There is not much point wasting time unless you can lift your game.

2e. No crystals. No homoeopathy. No chakras, aura cleansing, anti-vaxxing, anti-GMO or anti-science. No religion. No nuns, priests, ministers, rabbis or imams. No churches, creeds, cults, or even ideologies. No pseudoscience. Whatsoever.

Conde, do you understand now?

-- // end quotes

Notice how the tone becomes increasingly exasperated? Why do you think that might be?

What else could I have done to get through to you? Is the only way to get through to threaten to kick you in the nuts every time you try to associate Marj's and my conversation with the extremities of the Wiki article?? Should I adopt Bob's 125 pt bold font? I don't know how else to get through after all that!

I have RSI and cannot readily go through another tiresome search/copy/paste exercise just to deal with such obviously disingenuous gaming.

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:46 am**

-1- wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:29 am
Greta wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2018 12:21 am
-1- wrote: ↑Thu Jan 18, 2018 11:55 pmFor instance, there is not one joke in the bible.
There may be many jokes in there for all we know, in which case people could be living by the tenets of ancient satire
I'm sorry, Greta, but I trust myself to laugh when something is funny. The Bible has not one funny line.

This is important. To me a joke is something that is funny, that you laugh at. To many others, not to all, but to many, a joke can be either something funny or else a prank, a practical joke, that has no humour value, only a the value of feeling superior by easily fooling a lot of people (or some people). My brother is a prankster, while he also has a sense of humour. I see no value in pranks. It is easily done, it is not an achievement in and by itself, and it is mostly ugly. It hurts people, that's its value. I don't condone that.

I see your point, and I appreciate it, that the Bible is a prank, or could have been created to be such, but it's not a joke, it has no humour in it.

I checked and it seems there are some jokes in the Bible, though some is probably lost in translation as language and humour change: https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-jokes-in-the-Bible

Personally, I think the virgin birth is, not so much a joke so much as a trick. What inspiration to claim that the growing foetus delivered in part by sexy young Abraham Jones up the road is actually the product of a tryst with God! It's the difference between being stoned to death and being given gold, frankincense and myrrh.

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:03 am**

Secular Spirituality from the OP

Secular spirituality is the adherence to a spiritual philosophy without adherence to a religion. Secular spirituality emphasizes the personal development of the individual, rather than a relationship with the divine. Secular spirituality is made up of the search for meaning outside of a religious institution; it considers one's relationship with the self, others, nature, and whatever else one considers to be the ultimate.[1] Often, the goal of secular spirituality is living happily and/or helping others.[2]

According to Robert C. Solomon, an American Professor of Philosophy, "spirituality is coextensive with religion and it is not incompatible with or opposed to science or the scientific outlook. Naturalized spirituality is spirituality without any need for the 'other‐worldly'. Spirituality is one of the goals, perhaps the ultimate goal, of philosophy."[3] Cornel W Du Toit, head of the Research Institute for Theology and Religion at the University of South Africa, suggests secular spirituality is unique in that it adapts so well to modern world views, and is therefore compatible with other modern beliefs and ways of life, building community through shared experiences of "awe".[4] Peter Van der Veer also argues an important aspect of secular spirituality is its promotion of community, creating solidarity through shared universal truth.[5]:1101 This 'universal truth' can be experienced through a secular or non-religious world view, without the need for a concept of 'higher power' or a 'supernatural being'.

Really it is just a modern version of Aleister Crowley's Thelema and has been around for quite a while

http://www.thelema101.com/intro

Thelema ("They-LEE-mah" or "They-LEH-mah") is a Greek word meaning "will" or "intention". It is also the name of a new spiritual philosophy which has arisen over the past several hundred years and is now gradually becoming established worldwide. One of the earliest mentions of this philosophy occurs in the classic Gargantua and Pantagruel written by Francois Rabelais in 1532. One episode of this epic adventure tells of the founding of an "Abbey of Thelema" as an institution for the cultivation of human virtues, which Rabelais identified as being squarely opposite the prevailing Christian proprieties of the time. The sole rule of the Abbey of Thelema was: "Do what thou wilt". This has become one of the basic tenets of Thelemic philosophy today. Although touched upon by various prominent visionary thinkers in the following few hundred years, the seeds of Thelema sown by Rabelais eventually came to fruition in the early part of this century when developed by an Englishman named Aleister Crowley. Crowley was a poet, author, mountaineer, magician, and member of the occult society known as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn................................................

Either way it is just glorified egoism worshiping society and sometimes Crowley Crowley as the Great Beast and provider of human meaning and purpose.

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:09 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:03 am Secular Spirituality from the OP

Secular spirituality is the adherence to a spiritual philosophy without adherence to a religion. Secular spirituality emphasizes the personal development of the individual, rather than a relationship with the divine. Secular spirituality is made up of the search for meaning outside of a religious institution; it considers one's relationship with the self, others, nature, and whatever else one considers to be the ultimate.[1] Often, the goal of secular spirituality is living happily and/or helping others.[2]

According to Robert C. Solomon, an American Professor of Philosophy, "spirituality is coextensive with religion and it is not incompatible with or opposed to science or the scientific outlook. Naturalized spirituality is spirituality without any need for the 'other‐worldly'. Spirituality is one of the goals, perhaps the ultimate goal, of philosophy."[3] Cornel W Du Toit, head of the Research Institute for Theology and Religion at the University of South Africa, suggests secular spirituality is unique in that it adapts so well to modern world views, and is therefore compatible with other modern beliefs and ways of life, building community through shared experiences of "awe".[4] Peter Van der Veer also argues an important aspect of secular spirituality is its promotion of community, creating solidarity through shared universal truth.[5]:1101 This 'universal truth' can be experienced through a secular or non-religious world view, without the need for a concept of 'higher power' or a 'supernatural being'.
Really it is just a modern version of Aleister Crowley's Thelema and has been around for quite a while

http://www.thelema101.com/intro

Thelema ("They-LEE-mah" or "They-LEH-mah") is a Greek word meaning "will" or "intention". It is also the name of a new spiritual philosophy which has arisen over the past several hundred years and is now gradually becoming established worldwide. One of the earliest mentions of this philosophy occurs in the classic Gargantua and Pantagruel written by Francois Rabelais in 1532. One episode of this epic adventure tells of the founding of an "Abbey of Thelema" as an institution for the cultivation of human virtues, which Rabelais identified as being squarely opposite the prevailing Christian proprieties of the time. The sole rule of the Abbey of Thelema was: "Do what thou wilt". This has become one of the basic tenets of Thelemic philosophy today. Although touched upon by various prominent visionary thinkers in the following few hundred years, the seeds of Thelema sown by Rabelais eventually came to fruition in the early part of this century when developed by an Englishman named Aleister Crowley. Crowley was a poet, author, mountaineer, magician, and member of the occult society known as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn................................................
Either way it is just glorified egoism worshiping society and sometimes Crowley Crowley as the Great Beast and provider of human meaning and purpose.

It is contradictory how the thelemic school follows the law of "do what thou wilt" as if they had no choice in the matter. If reality is strictly an extension of individual will, why make a law that other's must follow?

If this is the truth that reality is solely, (emphasis on solely), an extension of individual will does that mean we have no choice in the matter?

Is a god really all powerful if he cannot choose not to be a god?

Aleister Crowley is one of the few philosophers, who I have observed, to be complete garbage.

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:24 am**

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:09 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:03 am Secular Spirituality from the OP

Secular spirituality is the adherence to a spiritual philosophy without adherence to a religion. Secular spirituality emphasizes the personal development of the individual, rather than a relationship with the divine. Secular spirituality is made up of the search for meaning outside of a religious institution; it considers one's relationship with the self, others, nature, and whatever else one considers to be the ultimate.[1] Often, the goal of secular spirituality is living happily and/or helping others.[2]

According to Robert C. Solomon, an American Professor of Philosophy, "spirituality is coextensive with religion and it is not incompatible with or opposed to science or the scientific outlook. Naturalized spirituality is spirituality without any need for the 'other‐worldly'. Spirituality is one of the goals, perhaps the ultimate goal, of philosophy."[3] Cornel W Du Toit, head of the Research Institute for Theology and Religion at the University of South Africa, suggests secular spirituality is unique in that it adapts so well to modern world views, and is therefore compatible with other modern beliefs and ways of life, building community through shared experiences of "awe".[4] Peter Van der Veer also argues an important aspect of secular spirituality is its promotion of community, creating solidarity through shared universal truth.[5]:1101 This 'universal truth' can be experienced through a secular or non-religious world view, without the need for a concept of 'higher power' or a 'supernatural being'.
Really it is just a modern version of Aleister Crowley's Thelema and has been around for quite a while

http://www.thelema101.com/intro

Thelema ("They-LEE-mah" or "They-LEH-mah") is a Greek word meaning "will" or "intention". It is also the name of a new spiritual philosophy which has arisen over the past several hundred years and is now gradually becoming established worldwide. One of the earliest mentions of this philosophy occurs in the classic Gargantua and Pantagruel written by Francois Rabelais in 1532. One episode of this epic adventure tells of the founding of an "Abbey of Thelema" as an institution for the cultivation of human virtues, which Rabelais identified as being squarely opposite the prevailing Christian proprieties of the time. The sole rule of the Abbey of Thelema was: "Do what thou wilt". This has become one of the basic tenets of Thelemic philosophy today. Although touched upon by various prominent visionary thinkers in the following few hundred years, the seeds of Thelema sown by Rabelais eventually came to fruition in the early part of this century when developed by an Englishman named Aleister Crowley. Crowley was a poet, author, mountaineer, magician, and member of the occult society known as the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn................................................
Either way it is just glorified egoism worshiping society and sometimes Crowley Crowley as the Great Beast and provider of human meaning and purpose.
It is contradictory how the thelemic school follows the law of "do what thou wilt" as if they had no choice in the matter. If reality is strictly an extension of individual will, why make a law that other's must follow?

If this is the truth that reality is solely, (emphasis on solely), an extension of individual will does that mean we have no choice in the matter?

Is a god really all powerful if he cannot choose not to be a god?

Aleister Crowley is one of the few philosophers, who I have observed, to be complete garbage.

L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology got his ideas from Crowley. It is founded on the same glorification of egoism. People will swallow any old ideas if it makes them feel important

Scientologists believe that the "reactive mind" (the portion that works on a totally stimulus-response basis, not under the control of the individual) commands one's awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and action. Through counseling called "auditing," Scientologists believe they can reduce and ultimately erase the power of the reactive mind, a source of irrationality, fears and nightmares. Before a person is audited they are considered "Pre-Clear."

Those that reach the higher teachings called OT (Operating Thetan) III, a state of being beyond the initial "Clear" state, within the Church of Scientology are said to learn about Xenu, the intergalactic ruler who implanted thetans, or alien spirits, in Earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago. But details of teachings at these higher levels are sketchy.

Since it was founded in 1954, Scientology has grown to include more than 5,100 churches, missions and groups in 156 countries.

It is truly amazing how much money a person can make and how many women a man can get into bed with the ancient art of hypnotic BS

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:43 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:24 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:09 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:03 am Secular Spirituality from the OP

Really it is just a modern version of Aleister Crowley's Thelema and has been around for quite a while

http://www.thelema101.com/intro

Either way it is just glorified egoism worshiping society and sometimes Crowley Crowley as the Great Beast and provider of human meaning and purpose.
It is contradictory how the thelemic school follows the law of "do what thou wilt" as if they had no choice in the matter. If reality is strictly an extension of individual will, why make a law that other's must follow?

If this is the truth that reality is solely, (emphasis on solely), an extension of individual will does that mean we have no choice in the matter?

Is a god really all powerful if he cannot choose not to be a god?

Aleister Crowley is one of the few philosophers, who I have observed, to be complete garbage.

L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology got his ideas from Crowley. It is founded on the same glorification of egoism. People will swallow any old ideas if it makes them feel important

Scientologists believe that the "reactive mind" (the portion that works on a totally stimulus-response basis, not under the control of the individual) commands one's awareness, purposes, thoughts, body and action. Through counseling called "auditing," Scientologists believe they can reduce and ultimately erase the power of the reactive mind, a source of irrationality, fears and nightmares. Before a person is audited they are considered "Pre-Clear."

I am sure you read about this, but their is a growing connection (admist certain researcher) between the extraterrestrial phenomena and certain occult schools up to an including this one. Having been on the other hand of this phenomena, along with family members, neighbors, friends, etc. I can personally attest that their nature "appears" (emphasis on "appears") malevolent.

I have ancient indian burial grounds right behind my house, and several family members have seen to quote "a 30 foot disk shoot beams of light into the ground". Parent called the neighbors, the neighbors drove out on quads, the disk slowly floated into the misty swamp behind our house. The neighbors went in, my parents drove out onto the highway, and the disk was above their house.

Over the years they complained about, to quote again, "the house lighting up for no reason", "strange orbs", "flashes of light causing disorientation", etc.

Another personal story I can add:

While finishing my prayers one night last January/February, I had a trapezoidal light (composed of two trapezoids in itself) appear on my ceiling. I thought someone was shooting a flashlight from another room but that was not the case. I then thought it was a light from traffic appearing through my windows, however the shutters were completely closed. The trapezoidal light, composed of two trapezoids, moved around slowly on my ceiling.

My only thought was: "what the f'ck". It moved for about 15 seconds slowly, and then my whole room lit up. Walls and everything emitted light with no shadows. And then nothingness.

I asked around, neighbors, etc. to see if anyone seen anything. Apparently the neighbors seen a ball of light hovering in the back cornfield, along with an "8 foot bird hovering over the treeline" of my house.

So I did some research, along with visiting an eye doctor and psychologist (both of whom could provide no answers), and found:

http://www.trapezoid.org/

So by all appearances, considering I was simultaneously writing a screen play on "Set" at the time, it appears I have stirred up something unknowingly. It really touches me that an ancient primordial god of chaos and destruction appears to have his eye on me. In retrospect, when I was studying to be a priest in seminary, I heard several students calling me the "destroyer" and at work I was nicknamed "the savage", "chaos", "brutal", "biggest dick ever", father had a horrifying vision of "utter darkness with a white cross burning through to conquer it" during my conception, and have a general reputation for being "gifted in destruction" from both family and friends....so...yeah...for whatever reason I scare people and I do not know why...

Even had a dream where I met Jesus in my youth, with him offering forgiveness. I never experienced anything like it before. His love and mercy was unfathomable, I mean even the word "unfathomable" does not give it any justice. It was completely "free", with no cost at all. I understand preachers keep reiterating it, but I doubt they even believe or understand what they are talking about. It was beyond anything I have ever experienced. It was not something I could, or even can still put into words...the "infinity" of it. Then I got angry with him for it.

But all these things leads one to questions considering the dots and lines connecting. So yeah...I am an enigma to even me. But the questions remain and I hope to be proven either wrong, insane or both....now that I think about it I have a lot on my mind.

Some researchers have found that calling out the name of "Jesus Christ" has caused these phenomena to dissipate...food for thought...however I trust you can do the research for yourself. The stories are in the hundreds, if not thousands. Other ancient religious sects, the Egyptians if I remember correctly, have dealt with these "beings" and have observed them to have a, to quote, "malevolent nature".

Now I believe other worlds exist, however one must question the nature of what these phenomena are regardless of logistic possibilities.

Now what I say, I am sure will be labeled "crazy", however these phenomena are real in themselves.

Those that reach the higher teachings called OT (Operating Thetan) III, a state of being beyond the initial "Clear" state, within the Church of Scientology are said to learn about Xenu, the intergalactic ruler who implanted thetans, or alien spirits, in Earth's volcanoes 75 million years ago. But details of teachings at these higher levels are sketchy.

Since it was founded in 1954, Scientology has grown to include more than 5,100 churches, missions and groups in 156 countries.
It is truly amazing how much money a person can make and how many women a man can get into bed with the ancient art of hypnotic BS

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:57 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:03 amEither way it is just glorified egoism worshiping society and sometimes Crowley Crowley as the Great Beast and provider of human meaning and purpose.

Blahdy blahdy blah.

You are as much unable to grasp the idea of secular spirituality as Conde's impression of homoeopathic new age crystalhood.

It's all be said and it has nothing to do with the ideas some of you are wanting to superimpose on to the notion, each seemingly with a tribal bias - theistic and atheistic. It doesn't matter. You guys can try to overlay your jaundiced and unheeding notions over others, but the physical reality of being curious and respectful enough to enjoy and notice some of the deeper resonances of life in unaffected by ungrounded words on a screen.

Neil dGT gets it: https://bangordailynews.com/2017/09/13/ ... ine-visit/

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:10 am**

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:57 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 2:03 amEither way it is just glorified egoism worshiping society and sometimes Crowley Crowley as the Great Beast and provider of human meaning and purpose.
Blahdy blahdy blah.

You are as much unable to grasp the idea of secular spirituality as Conde's impression of homoeopathic new age crystalhood.

It's all be said and it has nothing to do with the ideas some of you are wanting to superimpose on to the notion, each seemingly with a tribal bias - theistic and atheistic. It doesn't matter. You guys can try to overlay your jaundiced and unheeding notions over others, but the physical reality of being curious and respectful enough to enjoy and notice some of the deeper resonances of life in unaffected by ungrounded words on a screen.

Neil dGT gets it: https://bangordailynews.com/2017/09/13/ ... ine-visit/

Greta, thanks for continuing with clarity and strength. I have sent you a PM.

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:54 am**

Eod

Now I believe other worlds exist, however one must question the nature of what these phenomena are regardless of logistic possibilities.

Now what I say, I am sure will be labeled "crazy", however these phenomena are real in themselves.

That's OK. When the men in the white coats come after you I'll send them in the wrong direction.

Seriously though:

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
- Hamlet (1.5.167-8), Hamlet to Horatio

Best to keep an open mind. Neither blindly believe or blindly deny. You'll be hated for it but it will be worth it. As an aside consider this famous painting. What is hovering over the scene? It seems that people have been pondering these things long before we were born.

https://www.florenceinferno.com/madonna ... o-vecchio/

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:40 am**

Nick wrote:

Best to keep an open mind. Neither blindly believe or blindly deny.

Do you apply that maxim to all areas of your life , including banal matters, or do you reserve it for art history?

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:33 pm**

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 1:46 am Personally, I think the virgin birth is, not so much a joke so much as a trick.

Virgin Birth is not a mystical event, or only a god-inspired event. It can happen to any virgin any day, when the conditions for that are favourable. (And not necessarily by rape either, or by artificial insemination.)

My old girlfriend's only pregnancy started with a virgin insemination. If you define virginity by two factors: 1. No penis penetration and 2. an intact hymen before and after, then it is still possible for the woman to get pregnant and carry the baby to full term, without losing her virginity. The semen can be ejaculated by the male near or on top of the opening of the vagina entrance, and the semen can flow in by gravitation and by surface-static pull. If it reaches the egg, then some zygotes can reach the egg. This is really a simple and not even overly complicated or impossibly hard-to-carry-out process. Any Tom, Dick and Harry can do it (pardon the pun).

BTW, the girlfriend, for the sake of closure of my readers, had got pregnant this way 29 years before we met, and she had married the man that had got her pregnant this way. They later removed her hymen surgically, in order for him to achieve penetration. As such, she did not perform virgin birth, per se, but she easily could have (if she and her husband were willing to forego sex for a few months.)

Yeah, we are all different.

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:36 pm**

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:40 am Nick wrote:

Best to keep an open mind. Neither blindly believe or blindly deny.
Do you apply that maxim to all areas of your life , including banal matters, or do you reserve it for art history?

I try to. But even more importanty, can you keep an open mind in matters of psychological importance? For example do you blindly deny the virgin birth? Do you blindly deny the reality of a miracle? Could secular spirituality suggest how to keep an open mind in the presence of these questions?

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 5:46 pm**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 4:36 pm
Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2018 10:40 am Nick wrote:

Best to keep an open mind. Neither blindly believe or blindly deny.
Do you apply that maxim to all areas of your life , including banal matters, or do you reserve it for art history?
I try to. But even more importanty, can you keep an open mind in matters of psychological importance? For example do you blindly deny the virgin birth? Do you blindly deny the reality of a miracle? Could secular spirituality suggest how to keep an open mind in the presence of these questions?

Do you know what 'banal' means?
Even you must surely have decided that you cannot jump off a 100 foot cliff and live. On a matter of lesser importance, have you decided what to eat for your dinner?

Do you know what art history is?

Have you ever heard of history of ideas?

Do you have any idea about probability and how to assess it?

Are all areas of common sense and of public knowledge matters that justify keeping an open mind? Or just some ideas, and if so, what category of ideas are those?

Posted: **Sat Jan 20, 2018 7:00 pm**

Belinda

Do you know what 'banal' means?
Even you must surely have decided that you cannot jump off a 100 foot cliff and live. On a matter of lesser importance, have you decided what to eat for your dinner?

According to Merriam webster’s dictionary Banal means “: lacking originality, freshness, or novelty : TRITE”

Do you know what art history is?

Yes it is the history of conscious emotional expression as opposed to blind egoistic expression.

Have you ever heard of history of ideas?

Sure, it has two primary sub divisions: BS and objective relationships

Do you have any idea about probability and how to assess it?

Sure. If an idea such as what is described as a miracle fits into a higher probable context then it must be probable.

Are all areas of common sense and of public knowledge matters that justify keeping an open mind? Or just some ideas, and if so, what category of ideas are those?

You can’t distinguish truth until you consciously experience the lie and why we are held captive by it. Without this experience they are considered the same in objective quality

Philosophy Now Forum

Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality

Re: Secular Spirituality