those wacky religious types....

[RIJIMMY]

Oh wait,,,,,,its okay to be religious if you're a dem? Hmm.
Like Gods got nothing better to do than help Obama....

Instead, the first lady made her political presence felt immediately Wednesday, delivering an impassioned and overtly religious pitch for Democrats to defend her husband’s legacy in the midterm elections.
“Everybody I know in our communities [is] praying for us,” she said, adopting a religious theme seldom used by her husband — and landing her on top of The Drudge Report, a space she occupied with some regularity two years ago.

“Every day we feel that, and let me just tell your listeners, it means the world to us to know that there are prayer circles out there and people who want to keep the spirits clean around us,” she added. Huh? What a crazy kook, no? I mean imagine if Palin said this! The spirits clean, what a hoot.

[spence]

Most people are spiritual to some degree, that being said I'd assume this means a belief in spirits.

This is a far cry from claiming first person direction from God, literal interpretations of the Bible or otherwise absurdly intolerant beliefs that conflict with mainstream positions.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Most people are spiritual to some degree,

Ah, Spence's spectrum--even spirituality exists in degrees. No doubt with degrees from extreme spiritualism to total materialism. And the centrist, mainstream, spirituality would be comfortably in the middle of that. Sort of a well balanced spiritual view . . .used when needed to assuage vexations from the unknown and to call upon higher powers when, say, right wingers threaten to overwhelm you. And, then, a healthy taste for skeptic carpe diem when you're riding high.

that being said I'd assume this means a belief in spirits.

Yes, but not an extreme belief. That would be intolerant. More like a belief in the clean spirits. Well, not just a belief (that implies that dirty ones also exist and must be believed in) but more of an affinity for and a dependence on. The dirty spirits would be driving the forces that are against you, say, like evil right wingers and insane, intolerant, extreme Palinites and Tea Baggers.

This is a far cry from claiming first person direction from God, literal interpretations of the Bible or otherwise absurdly intolerant beliefs that conflict with mainstream positions.

-spence

Yes, one must never assume that a spirit, or God, would personally direct an individual. Spirits can only be called upon by groups. Especially groups that don't take their belief in the spirits to extreme directions. And any word or direction that God or spirits give to groups must not be interpreted literally. These words are living, breathing entities that take on different meanings as groups morph along the spectrum and the mainstream evolves. Yesterdays mainstream was right for its time. Todays mainstream perceives the intolerant beliefs of yesterdays. And the future mainstreams . . . all will be well if we just stay in the middle of that spiritual spectrum and stick with the clean spirits.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Ah, Spence's spectrum--even spirituality exists in degrees.

From God's perspective or from the individuals perspective?

No doubt with degrees from extreme spiritualism to total materialism. And the centrist, mainstream, spirituality would be comfortably in the middle of that. Sort of a well balanced spiritual view . . .used when needed to assuage vexations from the unknown and to call upon higher powers when, say, right wingers threaten to overwhelm you. And, then, a healthy taste for skeptic carpe diem when you're riding high.

I think for most people, spirituality is a guide for an imperfect person, not an absolute. To say that some measure their spirituality based on the political need of the moment is probably quite true, but also would be applicable to all parties.

In this example though I'm not sure this is appropriate. MO's not pushing religious views on others or using religion to divide, it's just a simple rally as is God Bless America.

Yes, but not an extreme belief. That would be intolerant. More like a belief in the clean spirits. Well, not just a belief (that implies that dirty ones also exist and must be believed in) but more of an affinity for and a dependence on. The dirty spirits would be driving the forces that are against you, say, like evil right wingers and insane, intolerant, extreme Palinites and Tea Baggers.

Oy.

Yes, one must never assume that a spirit, or God, would personally direct an individual. Spirits can only be called upon by groups. Especially groups that don't take their belief in the spirits to extreme directions. And any word or direction that God or spirits give to groups must not be interpreted literally. These words are living, breathing entities that take on different meanings as groups morph along the spectrum and the mainstream evolves. Yesterdays mainstream was right for its time. Todays mainstream perceives the intolerant beliefs of yesterdays. And the future mainstreams . . . all will be well if we just stay in the middle of that spiritual spectrum and stick with the clean spirits.

And why it's a good thing that most Americans are somewhat conservative. The idea that there's value in the time tested beliefs of the collective people keeps us from changing too fast...hence to "conserve".

Then again, times do still change...

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

From God's perspective or from the individuals perspective?

If, as you say, most people are spiritual to some degree (which is why I assumed that you see spirituality--as you see most everything--as existing on a spectrum--that spectrum being degrees of spirituality)then where do "God" and "individuals" exist on this spectrum? Is the spectrum larger than God? Does God know everything, or does God merely have a "perspective" that differentiates from the individual's "perspective," these both existing on a spectrum of perspectives?

I think for most people, spirituality is a guide for an imperfect person, not an absolute.

Ah, again the "imperfect person" (which is either a redundancy--all persons being imperfect by nature--or an implication that perfect persons exist. But, then, perfection is an absolute). If spirituality is a guide for the imperfect, is it a sort of an aid to pseudo-perfection--a sort of manufactured perfection?

To say that some measure their spirituality based on the political need of the moment is probably quite true, but also would be applicable to all parties.

But if spirituality exists on a spectrum and is not absolute, how can it be a guide? which portion of the spiritual spectrum is chosen? Do all portions give equal or good results? Ah . . . right . . . the centrist, mainstream portion (if you can determine what that is), the clean spirits.

In this example though I'm not sure this is appropriate.

Oh, so she doesn't feel imperfect, nor needs the spiritual guide.

MO's not pushing religious views on others or using religion to divide, it's just a simple rally as is God Bless America.

I see--she's just throwing out some spiritual sounding babble that no-one need take seriously--that she welcomes the prayers which keep the spirits clean around her and O but, not to be divisive, atheists needn't worry that religion or spirituality might creep into her husband's policies.

Oy.

Yo Yo.

And why it's a good thing that most Americans are somewhat conservative. The idea that there's value in the time tested beliefs of the collective people keeps us from changing too fast...hence to "conserve".

Which time tested beliefs of the somewhat conservative collective people are Obama and the Dems conserving?

The true center of our political spectrum has been the original Constitution which was created by the imperfect but wise enough founders who, no doubt, called on the clean spirits to help them write the simplest document based on human nature, which would assure optimal individual feedom within the bounds of that nature. If, as Obama has stated he wishes to do, that foundation is changed from a prohibition against what government can do to the "people" to a command of what it must do for them, human nature will follow the path of least resistance, and a country driven by the natural urge to struggle to be free and strong to survive will be replaced by the natural urge to find comfort in the easiest way of receiving it with the least effort--dependence. Of course, when Atlas shrugs, the unnatural house of cards will tumble.

Then again, times do still change...

-spence

So far, human nature has not changed.

[Raider Ronnie]

I don't believe in religion.
Don't believe in god.
None of it !
It's all a tax scam !
Show me the proof !!!

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

If, as you say, most people are spiritual to some degree (which is why I assumed that you see spirituality--as you see most everything--as existing on a spectrum--that spectrum being degrees of spirituality)then where do "God" and "individuals" exist on this spectrum? Is the spectrum larger than God? Does God know everything, or does God merely have a "perspective" that differentiates from the individual's "perspective," these both existing on a spectrum of perspectives?

I think individuals could fall on multiple spectrum. God could be considered an absolute (it either is or isn't) but there's certainly a lot of variation on what God is and how it should be interpreted. Additionally the individual determines how inward or outward facing their spirituality (or lack there of) is and how it influences others.

Just because there's variability doesn't mean that a common set of ethics aren't present that bind people together. What I find interesting is that often when people say "Judeo/Christian ethics" it's not meant in a religious context. A good question for God would be if they see this as a positive development or not.

Ah, again the "imperfect person" (which is either a redundancy--all persons being imperfect by nature--or an implication that perfect persons exist. But, then, perfection is an absolute). If spirituality is a guide for the imperfect, is it a sort of an aid to pseudo-perfection--a sort of manufactured perfection?

You could say the same for certain mood altering drugs. Perfection may be an absolute, but absolutely what? Perhaps perfection could be described as a condition of balance, but that's quite vague and could have side effects.

But if spirituality exists on a spectrum and is not absolute, how can it be a guide? Do all portions give equal or good results? Ah . . . right . . . the centrist, mainstream portion (if you can determine what that is), the clean spirits.

A compass doesn't tell me where I am but it sure indicates which direction I'm going. As to results, that's impossible to answer without first defining perfection...that could take a while

I see--she's just throwing out some spiritual sounding babble that no-one need take seriously--that she welcomes the prayers which keep the spirits clean around her and O but, not to be divisive, atheists needn't worry that religion or spirituality might creep into her husband's policies.

I think it's quite reasonable to think MO is not an atheist and believes in the Declaration of Independence. This doesn't seem like much of a radical position and it would seem as though she wasn't going much deeper.

But it's also the point of the OP. Had Sarah Palin made a like statement in a similar neutral context I don't think people would have even noticed or cared for that matter. She's building a little empire through irritation and titillation, it's just not her MO these days.

Which time tested beliefs of the somewhat conservative collective people are Obama and the Dems conserving?

The comment wasn't meant to be divisive.

The true center of our political spectrum has been the original Constitution which was created by the imperfect but wise enough founders who, no doubt, called on the clean spirits to help them write the simplest document based on human nature, which would assure optimal individual feedom within the bounds of that nature. If, as Obama has stated he wishes to do, that foundation is changed from a prohibition against what government can do to the "people" to a command of what it must do for them, human nature will follow the path of least resistance, and a country driven by the natural urge to struggle to be free and strong to survive will be replaced by the natural urge to find comfort in the easiest way of receiving it with the least effort--dependence. Of course, when Atlas shrugs, the unnatural house of cards will tumble.So far, human nature has not changed.

This would be a fair warning if Obama was a dyed in the wool socialist, but this seems more of political straw man than what we've seen from his policies. Has Obama proposed anything not seen previously, or perhaps ideas even supported by conservatives throughout history? One would think this is also part of who we are, and might include some elements also deserving of conservation.

Gotta paint.

-spence

[RIROCKHOUND]

Don't worry, Spence is more spiritual than you think. He prays to the gods of TJX and his favorite book is:

[spence]

Originally Posted by RIROCKHOUND

Don't worry, Spence is more spiritual than you think. He prays to the gods of TJX and his favorite book is:

Don't laugh, a few years back I found an 800 dollar pair of Bally Scribe monks at Marshalls for cheap money at the Great Lakes Crossing mall near Detroit.

Trust me, it was a spiritual experience.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

I think individuals could fall on multiple spectrum.

Falling on one spectrum would be painful enough.

God could be considered an absolute (it either is or isn't) but there's certainly a lot of variation on what God is and how it should be interpreted.

The created considering whether the creator exists and how to "interpret" the possible existence? Spence, you've chastized against hubris on many occasions--wonder how God feels about hubris--hopefully with amusement at the insignificant, imperfect specs of creation attempting to analyze it/him/her.

Additionally the individual determines how inward or outward facing their spirituality (or lack there of) is and how it influences others.

So now this "individual" has the stones not only to tell the clean spirit that would guide his imperfect person how inward or outward the facing of the guidance will be, but will decide for others how they will be influenced by how this massively hubristic individual interprets God and how he faces the guiding spirit!

Just because there's variability doesn't mean that a common set of ethics aren't present that bind people together.

Nor does it mean that there are. Certainly, along that spiritual spectrum, the variability suggests a lack of a "common set of ethics."

What I find interesting is that often when people say "Judeo/Christian ethics" it's not meant in a religious context. A good question for God would be if they see this as a positive development or not.

So, are you referring to the "individual" asking God if "its" created minions would see this as positive, or if this individual is asking a plural God if "they" (polytheism?) see this as positive?

You could say the same for certain mood altering drugs.

That would be at the totally materialistic end of the spiritual spectrum where perceived spirit and spiritualism is merely a chemical reaction and not at all metaphysically spiritual.

Perfection may be an absolute, but absolutely what? Perhaps perfection could be described as a condition of balance, but that's quite vague and could have side effects.

All existence is perfectly what it is. Imperfection is a state of mind, an opinion. Perfect balance exists only for an imperceptible moment. Matter is in a constant state of flux. In those minutest moments, not comprehensible to our nature, the flux is in that particular balance. In the next moment, the new balance exists. The whole process is perfectly what it is. That you may object is only a part of the perfection. Are you criticizing God's creation? That's only a part of the process. Some refer to it as evolution. Just words.

A compass doesn't tell me where I am but it sure indicates which direction I'm going. As to results, that's impossible to answer without first defining perfection...that could take a while

What good is that compass on the spectrum of spirituality, or interpretations of God? Does it have a marker for the clean spirits?

I think it's quite reasonable to think MO is not an atheist and believes in the Declaration of Independence. This doesn't seem like much of a radical position and it would seem as though she wasn't going much deeper.

But it's also the point of the OP. Had Sarah Palin made a like statement in a similar neutral context I don't think people would have even noticed or cared for that matter. She's building a little empire through irritation and titillation, it's just not her MO these days.

So long as Palin is a threat, any statement she makes that can be ridiculed or neutralized will be noticed. Even your little jab is in that direction. I have yet to hear a substantive explanation of why she is not "qualified" to lead, or of why she is "stupid" or "silly," but she has, apparently been politically destroyed.

This would be a fair warning if Obama was a dyed in the wool socialist, but this seems more of political straw man than what we've seen from his policies. Has Obama proposed anything not seen previously, or perhaps ideas even supported by conservatives throughout history? One would think this is also part of who we are, and might include some elements also deserving of conservation.

-spence

Whether he is a dyed in the wool socialist or any other type of socialist--there are a myriad of types ranging from Marxism/Communism to state capitalism, and he certainly fits into one or more of those types--is not my point. My point is that the Constitution is our true political center, our political foundation. It is a foundation built upon the principles of human nature, a nature that, to this point, seems immutable. The Constitution's charter of negative liberties, as Obama has put it, guarantees the optimum of individual freedom in concordance with that nature. And it requires of our nature that we be strong and self sufficient to maintain that freedom. Obama has lamented that the "Supreme Court never ventured into issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society." And he was not satisfied that the court was not radical enough to "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution." And he complained that "the constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the States can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal Government or State Government must do on your behalf." He is busy appointing Federal Circuit Court and Appeals Court justices that favor those sentiments, as well as SCOTUS justices.

Obama is not alone in doing so. This process has been going on for a long time, presidents on both sides of the aisle are guilty. The Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the States from central control, but the Supreme Court has long since turned those ammendments AGAINST the States, telling them what they couldn't or what they must do. As I've said above, this process of the SCOTUS demanding that the Governments do for the people rather than prohibiting what the Governments can do to the people leads to a weakening in the fiber of "collective" (a word you like) will. It leads to a dependant populace. If you want to call that socialism, fine. It's not the nomenclature that is troubling. It is the result.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

I don't believe in religion.
Don't believe in god.
None of it !
It's all a tax scam !
Show me the proof !!!

just for starters....of the approximately 1,367,555 known living animal species on this planet...you are very fortunate, or blessed some would say, to be a member of the only one that can contemplate or even ask that question

you might at least have the humility to thank God that you weren't born a cockroach or a slug

[sokinwet]

"don't believe in religion.
Don't believe in god.
None of it !
It's all a tax scam !
Show me the proof !!!"

Knew there was something I liked about you Ron. Sunday is for fishing in "my good book".

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by scottw

just for starters....of the approximately 1,367,555 known living animal species on this planet...you are very fortunate, or blessed some would say, to be a member of the only one that can contemplate or even ask that question

you might at least have the humility to thank God that you weren't born a cockroach or a slug

"to be a member of the only one that can contemplate or even ask that question"

What question did I ask ?
I stated my opinion and also stated some facts !
The church is a scam and it is a fact that they are tax exempt in this country !

[Goose]

If I where you Ron I read a book about God, not an adult book but one that a 1st or 2nd grader would use, children have the ability to love and know what love is...sadly many adults don't.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Raider Ronnie

"to be a member of the only one that can contemplate or even ask that question"

What question did I ask ?
I stated my opinion and also stated some facts !
The church is a scam and it is a fact that they are tax exempt in this country !

the only fact that you stated was that you don't believe in religeon or in God...you asked for someone "to show you proof" regarding the question of whether God exists...it's a valid question.....why all the exclamation points?


For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible.
Stuart Chase