What do you think the odds are that Tiger would take swing advice from me?

We aren't talking about Christianity, we're talking about spirituality. You're moving around a lot here.

It's well-established. Spiritual experts and mystics from all traditions - including Christianity - have a long history of emphasizing similarities among the various traditions rather than differences. There have been numerous interfaith panels in which spiritualists from all walks of life have been gathered together, and to my knowledge in almost all of these cases the practitioners from different sects ended up supporting one another.

This was the original post that got the whole "attacking Splendour's spirituality" ball rolling:

This was Splendour's response:

Where in his post did JDalla state that he was giving her advice on "spiritual matters". He wasn't giving her advice, he was telling her what a terrible poster she is, and how she doesn't have a grasp of basic logic.

He wasn't giving her advice. He was calling her out for making terrible posts in this forum.

No, you've just been zealously defending someone who is whining about atheists responding negatively to her posts.

I wouldn't dream of giving you advice about your spirituality. Neither did Jdalla with Splendour. However, you both seem to have trouble differentiating between us disputing the logic of your statements, and us critiquing your spirituality.

Furthermore, repeated neurological studies indicate that what happens in a Christian mystic's brain during prayer is exactly the same as what happens in a Buddhist mystic's brain during meditation. Are you suggesting that's a mere coincidence?

Furthermore, Christians and those of other faiths have, throughout history, had similar visions and have reported similar insights and messages - even to the point of identical symbolism in some cases.

If you deny the commonalities of spirituality, then you are working against the preponderance of the evidence and I think it's reasonable for you to be expected to justify your position.

If you spend 3 hours per day studying morality? Yeah.

And I would certainly consider the moral advice of a Kantian moral philosopher with extensive study behind him over that of the average utilitarian. I'm a utilitarian, and I'm nothing like a Kantian, but someone who has spent his whole life in consideration of morality probably has some damn fine advice to offer me.

I might not follow that advice immediately, but then, I would never do that. I don't take orders where my morality is concerned. I would be more likely to follow an expert on morality who disagrees with me than an amateur who agrees with me. And that is really the core of my position here.

It doesn't matter whether it's exactly the same. Obviously a low-carb diet is very different from a traditional diet. However, the principles of nutrition apply in common to all dietary systems, and to suggest that these physiological principles are somehow "different" with a low-carb diet than with a vegan diet is to ignore a mountain of evidence to the contrary.

It is the same way with spirituality.

Do I need to cite cases of Christian mystics disagreeing with you?

I'm not a big fan of ideals. I'm sure most spiritualists themselves would agree that the ideal is nothing like pushups. But the practice is everything like pushups, and while it may irk many of those who value spiritual practice, the similarities are hard to deny. The more you pray, and the more you develop your "prayer muscles," the greater sense of communion and connection you will experience during prayer. If you continue to pray on a regular basis in a disciplined way, you will start to see the effects in everyday life, and will often experience insights and senses of connection and holiness in all of your actions. If you spend 4 hours per day in prayer, every day, then you will develop certain abilities. These abilities are the same for mystics and spiritualists throughout the world - they include visions, strange physiological abilities (such as decreased heart rate), and supernormal clarity and awareness.

Go ahead and judge Zeus just remember if you're wrong you don't have any power over him.

Spirituality can be viewed in much the same manner as pushups. There's the "aesthetic" element described above (bulging muscles), but there is also the practical element of living life peacefully according to one's tenets (increased strength - and interestingly, almost nobody seems to have the strength to do this unless they "work out" spiritually on a regular basis, spending large amounts of time in prayer or meditation).

These capacities are typically referred to as "spirituality." And those who develop them highly are typically revered as spiritual experts or masters.

And yet again, most Christian mystics that I am aware of are willing to acknowledge that the Buddhist monk and the mountaintop yogi and the wandering sufi are all in contact with the very same God.

I'm definitely interested in what you think - do you think that, despite their remarkable abilities, these monks and yogis and sufis and kabbalists have accomplished nothing meaningful? Or do you believe that their accomplishments, despite being almost identical to those of Christians who spend significant time in prayer, come from a different source? Or do you think the term "spirituality" should not be applied to these people? (In which case, do you think it should be applied to the Christians who devote their lives to God? Even though the observable traits of these Christians are the same as those of practitioners of other religions?)

So tell me, what is spirituality to you? Who do you consider a spiritual expert? And why do you think spiritual advice from recognized spiritual experts is of lesser value if those experts happen not to share your code of beliefs?

(Split into parts because my connection is going nuts and won't let me post long messages.)

they used to think the earth was flat but they were damn well smart in every other area

go moses

Why do people like Splendour repeatedly quote Scripture to atheists over and over again?

Even when she says she's leaving a thread, she goes "OH BTW, here's some more Scripture before I leave, just in case I am able to change your mind this time."

It didn't work the previous 874638423 times you quoted Scripture to us, so why would it work the next time?

Christians who insist on quoting Scripture to atheists are the absolute most annoying salesmen on the face of the Earth. If you were a car salesman and tried to sell me a used car, and I said "NO," would you try to sell me that same used car tomorrow, and the day after, and the day after that? No you wouldn't, unless you were delusional. Never mind the fact that Christians are trying to sell me an INVISIBLE car!

Obv. it was theist chili so we can't help you as its workings are fundamentally different than that of atheist chili.

But take solace in Matthew 15:17: "Do not ye yet understand, that whatsoever entereth in at the mouth goeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught?"

I'm not trying to convince you. If you're not chosen you can't be convinced.
Scripture is enlightening and is suppose to be revelatory.

It also contains all the wisdom we need to know to navigate through this world to the next.

I admire men like the Vilna of Gaon. He wasn't Christian but he did exactly what Psalm 1 said to do. He meditated on the law day and night. He was on the highest path possible according to scripture.

He also had writings that spurred the modern day movement of Zionism into action so we have the present state of Israel today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilna_Gaon

Are you saying that he is not chosen?

Also, I admit I loled a little at the idea of an Almighty God choosing between people.

pretty cruel god. he chooses which people believe in him and which ones don't, then he damns the ones he doesn't choose to eternal hell

I have no idea if he is or not.

We're suppose to seek God diligently so to some extent it might be in our own hands though there is the concept of prevenient grace.

You should be able to wiki prevenient grace.

Is seeking God diligently the same as seeking truth diligently? Do you believe that someone who is aggressively and honestly seeking the truth can possibly come to the conclusion that there is no god?

i would imagine all of them do

This is what I've been getting at.

Imagine God is an employer. If you go to an employee interview what is being assessed?

Imagine that you create a human being and then interview them for a job, and they are not qualified. Whose fault is this?

forgetting this thread ever existed in 3.......2.......1........

If the reason you believe in God is a fear of His power, He will see through that as he already knows your belief in Him is out of self-preservation from hell.

If He truly exists, He already knows I don't believe in Him, whether I make the conscious effort to do so or not.

That list is comical. Even more comical is the fact that because believers feel threatened by the growing number of people of think they're wrong, they feel the need to stretch the truth or yell louder. I'd think that if one truly believed they were right, the opposite would be necessary.

It was thanks to the scientific wisdom of the Bible that the Ancient Hebrews achieved a technological level unmatched by the Greeks or the Romans.

I have posted about this several days ago:

Originally Posted by Pletho
Biblically evolution is not disputed but evolution from one kind to another kind which is propounded as a theory now days is definatly not possible.

Gen 1:12 And the earth brought forth grass, [and] herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed [was] in itself, after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

After its kind........... This is reffering to kinds such as humans, monkeys, horses, cows, dogs, cats which all are different kinds.

Within each kind there are huge amounts of evolution based on many factors, even social and cultoral situations over long periods of time can shape a kind.

Cats can cross breed within their own kind, dogs can crosse breed within their own kind, horses can cross breed within their own kind. Even humans can cross breed within there own kind. But there has never been a kind breed with another kind successfully because its not possible, God set up the law of "EVERY KIND AFTER ITS KIND"

A human cannot be crossed woth a monkey they are different kinds no matter how similar they may look phyically they are not the same and never have been the same. They are not the ancient ancestors of humans.

Before the bible was written the greeks did not do this...

Do you realize when the first book of the bible was written? Before the greeks. The oldest book in the bible is argued to be Job, which dates back almost 6,000 years which is way before the greeks......

As usual the atheist on this forum ignore everything that does not serve their purpose and will find anyway to divert from the truth. So far they have picked from what I have seen 3 points out of 100 to focus on, what about the other 97?

I have not read them all so I do not know if they are correct but the ones I have read are correct.

So what do you atheist have to say about the other 97 points?

Are you going to as usual avoid the points and find some way to rationalize the truth away?

Its amazing the crap you all focus on and teh truths you miss and shove under the carpet...............hmmmmmmm?

What a joke, you all claim to be logical but you are so lopp sided and biased its amazing....... Why dont you evaluate ALL the points.

All the points you cannot honestly mock at overwhelmingly outweigh the ines you can, so by sheer logic of evidence out of the 100 points you lose......

In the Third Chimpanzee Jared Diamond comments on the less than 2 percent genetic difference between chimpanzees and humans and how we really are a species of Chimpanzee. It is an excellent book and I highly recommend it.

Except to Pletho who exhibits willful ignorance.