Discussion in 'Comparative Religion' started by James R, Jul 23, 2015.
So why is vanity, a sin?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Spiritual - relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Awareness - knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.
I don't believe you think my response is meaningless.
''Self awareness'' isn't ''Spiritual awareness''.
In spiritual awareness, there is no point in the taking of life. Not just human life, but any life.
Only out of necessity.
You need to read properly, what I wrote, because you've gone off on a tangent.
Most forms of trust don't require the suspension of reason and skepticism.
I'm sorry SP, but I don't know what to make of this response to my question.
This sounds like you're attempting to sneak in some kind of a sliding scale. Which, if true, confirms (in my mind anyways), that you're expressing the point that faith is simply faith. Then you separate out the theists from the atheist, mistakenly thinking that they are two separate categories.
What, categorically, are the two different types of faith (that you claim is absolutely the case)?
Faith in common parlance means trust, could be absolute or limited, based on evidence or not. In religious terms, faith is offered as an alternative to evidence and the use of reason.
Short answer "some" knowledge can be derived from scripture. I have faith in my ability to understand something when it is explained clearly. Faith itself does not give knowledge. Information gives knowledge.
But the question if knowledge can be derived from faith is the same as asking if knowledge can be derived from belief. The question is meaningless. Faith in what, Belief in what?
Knowledge is derived from research and/or experience. Why do these simple questions always have to be posed in a vague, complicated and convoluted mystical way.
Can I gain knowledge from having faith in Nazism? Do you see how ridiculous the question is from an objective perspective?
So tell me the knowledge you have gained from JUST faith. No reading, no research, no teaching by a knowledgeable person, just Faith. What knowledge ( information) has faith given you?
If you tell me you have faith, I am to believe that you have knowledge?
OK, let's combine those two statements and see what we get.
Being spiritual pertains to awareness (relating to or affecting) one's spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Having awareness pertains to awareness (relating to or affecting) one's knowledge or perception of material or physical situation or fact.
Thus Spiritual Awareness translates to a self-awareness of being spiritual and at the same time having self-awareness of physical situation or fact.
I am sure you will agree that by your definition, I am not spiritually self-aware. I am merely self-aware of material or physical facts.
But you claim to have awareness of being spiritual - relating to or affecting your human spirit or soul, as opposed to material or physical things, and having awareness - knowledge or perception of physical situation or fact
Thus you are self-aware of your spirituality as well as self-aware of your knowledge or perception of a situation or fact.
Of course I do. Hence my response of "Wow, that's deep"
Who then experiences either or both?
Of course there has to be that "caveat". You must be a Vegan, or do you occasionally enjoy a nice steak, or a nice chicken, or a filet of fish?
No Jan, I am right on point. The tangent (contradiction) is inherent in your definitions of "awareness".
Awareness of self in any form is by definition self-awareness.
Let me ask you a question; from your perspective, is it possible for a person to be spiritual without being self-aware of it? A simple Yes or No will do.
I suggest you take it up with James R. He was the came up with the title.
What makes you think I fall into the category you seem to put me in?
We are essentially spiritual, regardless of our awareness of being spiritual.
Awareness, is being aware of something. Spiritual awareness is being aware that you are essentially spiritual.
Once you understand that the ''self'', is the spirit, and not Write4U, or Jan Ardena (names of the percieved self), you would be correct. But most people identify the self as the name (nick name), the family, society, and country of their birth, and the body that it is attached to (hence the common parlence definition).
As an atheist, you may be ''spiritually aware'', but your understanding of what is ''spiritual'', lack ''spirit'', unless like Dawkins, or other atheists, you believe spirit to mean ''reflection'', ''deep thought'', ''emotion, etc. This is atheist spirituality.
I've made no claim. Stick to the script, rather than try to get personal.
From your percpective, with a bit of tinkering, you could well be correct. But I doubt we have the time to make that happen.
So the best thing is to stick to what I say, instead of assuming what you think I mean, then the conversation will flow, and evolve.
''Either or Both'', is an atheist conception. Atheist conceptions lack the whole.
If you want to comprehend it from my perspective, leave your conception at the door, until you comprehend mine.
Explain your ''self'', to me, please.
We are spiritual, whether or not we are aware of it.
Like I said, your atheist conception is tripping you up.
'Trust' means "trust". Faith may involve "complete trust", but it does not mean "trust". Care to try again?
I'd ask you to elaborate on that, but I doubt that you can. But you could always surprise me.
"Religion" can mean anything these days. Aspects of atheism is as much a religion, as most common Christian denominations, with regards to religiosity, and dogma, and eliteness.
I challenge you to rationally explain any of your responses to me, instead of the preset response you're so used to spouting.
Again, not sure why you insist I be rational while you are not.
I just go by official definitions such as this from Webster;
And my use of self-awareness according to Webster
It's really not very complicated, hard as you may try.
You mean, you cannot give rational explanation, because they are dogmatic, and you really believe you don't have to explain, because they a true (to you).
Which suits your position, because it defines from the perspective of a secular comprehension of terms.
That is because it is a secular term.
It applies to everything that has a unique selfness, as opposed to your philosophy that everything is part of a greater self, but that creates a self-contradictory interpretation.
How hard is it to understand? Religious faith is a replacement for evidence, not conditional trust from incomplete evidence.
Quote from Wiki: Self-awareness is the capacity for introspection and the ability to recognize oneself as an individual separate from the environment and other individuals.
How is that a ''secular term''?
Secular: not connected with religious or spiritual matters:
It is a capacity, or ability. While self awareness could be a quest to find out how tall you are, it is also a quest to find who and what you are at the core. Which for some, it is spiritual, while for others, it is material.
I don't even know what that means, let alone adopt it as my philosophy.
I understand that you are spouting atheist dogma, unless you can explain what it means.
Right, and many animals have self-awareness. Are they therefore spiritual?
I have no problem with that.
But in context of the OP title; "is faith a reliable path to knowledge", your use of the word spiritual seems to
Again I refer to Webster
What then is your definition of "spiritual"?
Yes. But they're not spiritual because they are self aware.
It indicates the definition I gave earlier, and gives us a good start.
relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.
Separate names with a comma.