Nathan's comments

Nathan's comments from the Faith and Spirituality group.

Note: Nathan is no longer a member of this group.

Non-Violent Communication with the Clueless

That would be a tough book to write. Even more difficult if it was Calm Communication with the Clueless. I have no experience with that at all.

I have been told I have anger management issues. I still say I have stupid people issues but...

I've been told the same thing R.C.

But both are subjective knowing, not objective knowledge.

That simply isn't true. I know I don't like squash. This is not believing. This is absolutely true. I don't. It isn't some sort of ultimate truth. It is just a fact. I may be the only one who knows it, but it doesn't change the fact that it isn't a belief.

Now, if I say that squash is the root of all evil, we ahave a different situation. I am claiming something that is either true or false, but it would be extremely hard to figure out if it is objectively true or not.

There is a huge difference between these two things. One is known, and one is believed. Of course, not actually believed because I don't really think squash is the root of all evil.....just most because it tastes terrible ;-)

If, on the other hand, a person loves his girlfriend, he knows the love is there.

There is a huge difference between knowing that one loves another person and "knowing" some ultimate truth about the world and what happens when we die, etc, etc. The latter is simply believing.

Also,
If we can't see the apple, I would call that belief, to believe the apple is on the table or to believe there is no apple.

This makes no sense. To see the apple is on the table is knowledge but when one cannot see an apple on the table it is belief? That does not logically follow. The end result for both comes from the same process of observation. Either they are both knowledge or they are both believing.

Hasn't spirituality to do with a certain inner "knowing", instead of the opposite, believing?

I think "knowing" is a very poor descriptor. You may agree with me somewhat as you put it in quotes. Many people who are "spiritual," claim to know that something they believe is true when someone else claims to know that a contradictory belief is true. Obviously, they all can't be right. So I would argue that spirituality is merely about inner believing and not inner knowing.

That book, though, was beneficial and impactful for millions of readers - his claim fulfilled itself because God is the source of such beneficial guidance and wisdom.

Or he is simply a good writer who knows what people need/want to hear.

It always seems obviously arrogant when people claim god is speaking through them. They are asserting that whatever they say is indisputable because "it wasn't me it was god."

That is dangerous thinking and it is dangerous to believe people like that.

He seems to suggest that something higher wrote the book through him. In my opinion that is not so likely looking at the result.

It is funny you bring this up. If anyone has ever written something that he/she is passionate about, he/she has probably experienced the same thing as Armstrong.

When I was in college, I took many philosophy/English classes where I was completely engrossed in the subjects I was writing papers about. I would get into a zone or groove and just type away. Afterward, I would think, "Wow, this is really good stuff. I can't believe I came up with those words." At no time did I think God was working through me to write my papers. I just got into a zone and my fingers were desperately attempting to keep up with my brain.

What Armstrong describes is merely the process of writing. There is nothing supernatural in it.

Black Skin White Masks by Frantz Fanon

The Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol

Crimes Against Logic by Jamie Whyte

Atheist Universe by David Mills

These are a few that helped shape my views on racism, taxation in regard to education, the proper use of logic, and atheism (in that order).

your spirituality (or lack of) shapes your world view

Agreed. I just wanted to clarify. I will think about an answer to it and post soon. I need to think about it first.

Well, is it books that shaped our worldview that you are asking for or books that shaped our spirituality? If the question is the first, I could answer it. If it is the latter, I can't because I don't have anything one could call spirituality.

Coyle,

Even if there was no such thing as good or evil without God, it would not lend any evidence to support the idea that God exists.

Perhaps there is just no such thing as good or evil.

I find it a little rude that you would even attack this post.

That shows a lack of intelligence on your part. I was not rude at all. I simply pointed out that the post was ridiculous. It was.

"I was healed by God. Nothing really changed at all or anything, but I was healed by God anyway!"

This is the approximate point of the post (yet taken much much longer to say). The post was bogus and I attack bogus things. It is the responsibility of humans to attack things that are bogus for the betterment of humanity.

Also, you find everything anyone says as being rude if they don't say, "You know what eric...whatever you think is cool with me."

Well, it isn't cool with me that people delude themselves. That isn't being rude, it is being honest. Grow thicker skin Eric.

rgb,

I guess no one wants to talk to us about how the original post is completely bogus.

Such is life...

rgb,

I used the term fable in the sense taht they are

a). short tales to teach "moral" lessons

and

b). stories not founded on fact


Perhaps not the best word in hindsight.

Adam and Eve didn't hang out in a garden and then eat fruit from a tree which caused the rest of us to have to deal with original sin.

The tower of Babel didn't exist.

Moses didn't obtain Ten Commandments (or twelve if you prefer) on stone tablets from god.

Jesus never walked the earth.

Etc, etc, etc....

The bible is not an historical document. It is not history. This is why it cannot be taught in a history class. The events never happened.

They are fables like the Epic of Gilgamesh or the Ramayana.

You believe you will be alive in the morning when you wake up. You act today based on that belief. You have no evidence that you will be alive in the morning.

Ooooooo......so wrong.

I do have evidence. I am not in poor health. People who are not in poor health and don't live in the middle of a war zone generally wake up in the morning. This is evidence that I will wake up in the morning.

Religious people constantly want to claim that believing one will wake up in the morning and believing that 2000 years ago God came to earth, died for our sins and then went on chilling in heaven are the same thing. They aren't! they aren't even close....and to think that they are even remotely related is to ignore one of the faculties of your brain-....which is....to think!

Coyle,

To say that the Bible was "misused" by humans and it shows a lack in their character rather than a lack in the Bible's quality, character, or value is a bit ridiculous.

Yes, humans are jerks and have done horrific things. Some have used the Bible to justify these horrors. However, it also just so happens that humans are the ones who wrote the Bible in the first place.

This is why it could be used to justify atrocities in the first place. It condones them in many, many cases.

For example, the Bible condones slavery. It is in there, plain and simple.

Also, the Bible is not historical...not sure how many times someone needs to say that and explain it before Christians get it.

So, in the early-to-mid first century B.C., there were dozens and then hundreds of people running all over the Mediterranean claiming that not only had this "Jesus" guy had been executed and come back to life, but that he is also God and that if we want eternal life we desperately need to accept his death and his life as our own through repentance and belief.

Who were these people? Historically speaking, this, in fact, was not going on at all. People did not start talking/writing about Jesus's supposed life until 70 C.E. (I am assuming that you meant C.E. and not B.C.E.)----people who actually believed he existed and these things really occured that is.

Kipahni,

I think you are correct in saying that most of these horrible actions never made it on the news. However, there is evidence that they did occur. I think the lack of coverage is more due to the fact that people tend to deify Mother Teresa and a news source's ratings could be hurt by saying something bad about her.

Coyle,

For one, the people who wrote about Jesus never knew him. They wrote abou thim a minimum of 70 years after he supposedly died. These are the "documents" we have about Jesus. Ones that were written by people who never knew him decades after he supposedly lived.

Of course, I might read a biography about George Washington written by a modern author. Although this person never knew him and wrote it many years after George Washington died, it is not the same thing. This author will have used historical documents written by people who did live at the time George Washington did, that were written by people that did know him, or even ones written by George Washington himself.

It is quite obvious that the Old Testament is not historical as well. It is simply a bunch of stories written by men just like any other mythological stories.

Hopefully, I have explained my point to your satisfaction.