What am I spiritually??

Best wishes for your speedy recovery Warri. Pleased you feel well enough to post. Surgery/post op certainly has not affected your intelligence. Sigh.
 

Interesting discussion. I am glad we can have this exchange of ideas without being personal or offending. Each of us has a belief system of one kind or another and airing them with friends is a good exercise in communication with respect for each others viewpoint. It's all a matter of taste said the old farmer as he kissed his cow. :)
 
I certainly feel rejuvenated already. I'm hurting a bit from muscles that have long been idle suddenly being called into action. The hydrotherapy feels wonderful but the gym work hurts the knees as it strengthens the muscles around the hips. Still, no pain no gain and we are taking things in small increments.
 
Goodo on your recovery! Now to my spirituality, I wondered and wandered like Omar and have found myself, like him, a confirmed Hedonist...
 
Dame Warrigal, I'm happy to hear that your recovery is coming along very well. I'll check out the link you posted for your updates.

Regarding post #49, I don't ever read commentaries of the Bible because they are just someones observation minus God. I just pray before I read biblical scripture and ask God that the truth be revealed to me and that works well for me. There is a truthful and understandable explanation with evidence to all that you copied and pasted but way too much for me to post here in this thread so I will answer a copy/paste with a copy/paste if you don't mind.

The two chapters in Genesis actually compliment each other rather than contradict. They are written to be seen as a unit for better understanding. The first is an introduction and outlines the broad process of creation of a world as fashioned for Adam & Eve to occupy. The second one pays greater attention to man and his setting. Genesis 1 covers 6 days of creation whereas Genesis 2 only covers one day, the 6th. And there are no contradictions.
______________________________
Here are 2 examples by Lee Strobel in "The Case for the Creator" and Logos Bible Software (but, again, I looked this up for you and copied and pasted to save time because you asked for so much…I personally just use God's Word):

1. There are two primary claims of contradictions between Genesis chapters 1-2. The first is in regard to plant life. Genesis 1:11 records God creating vegetation on the third day. Genesis 2:5 states that prior to the creation of man “no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground.” So, which is it? Did God create vegetation on the third day before He created man (Genesis 1), or after He created man (Genesis 2)? The Hebrew words for “vegetation” are different in the two passages. Genesis 1:11 uses a term that refers to vegetation in general. Genesis 2:5 uses a more specific term that refers to vegetation that requires agriculture, i.e., a person to tend it, a gardener. The passages do not contradict. Genesis 1:11 speaks of God creating vegetation, and Genesis 2:5 speaks of God not causing “farmable” vegetation to grow until after He created man.

2. The second claimed contradiction is in regard to animal life. Genesis 1:24-25 records God creating animal life on the sixth day, before He created man. Genesis 2:19, in some translations, seems to record God creating the animals after He had created man. However, a good and plausible translation of Genesis 2:19-20 reads, “Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them, and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.” The text does not say that God created man, then created the animals, and then brought the animals to the man. Rather, the text says, “Now the LORD God had [already] created all the animals.” There is no contradiction. On the sixth day, God created the animals, then created man, and then brought the animals to the man, allowing the man to name the animals.
________________________________

For all your answers to post #49, Josh McDowell who wrote "Evidence Demands a Verdict" explains Genesis 1 & 2 to the critics here in this link:
http://www.josh.org/resources/study...2-contain-contradictory-accounts-of-creation/
 
For me it all comes down to living the most authentic life possible, within my belief system. I leave theology to the theologians, who often spend lifetimes arguing on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Lol. I need something more
substantive, I choose compassion, mindfulness, attempting to manifest in some small way that love is a verb, and that in the final analysis, only kindness matters. For this woman, there is a sense of pattern, order, a silent hum, if will, that connects us all. Beautiful.
 
Dame, this is like showdown poker, and I'm calling you to show me your cards revealing an afterlife...
 
I have no problem with the approach that recognises complimentary accounts but if they don't fit neatly together, it doesn't matter all that much.

I am not a learned scholar of Old Testament writings but I do know that there are a number of different traditions or strands that emphasise different things. One is the Yahwistic Tradition (J) where God is referred to as Yahweh and this is different to the Elohistic Tradition (E) where Elohim is used to denote God. When reading in English this difference is not clearly apparent. Also there is the Deuteronomistic (D) and Priestly (P) Traditions. All four are collected into the Pentateuch (first five books of the Bible) which many people believe were all written by Moses but for a number of reasons this is not possible.

https://books.google.com.au/books?i... testament two traditions differences&f=false


It's all very complicated, which is the point that I was making. Bible study is both simple and difficult. My approach is to read some text and then reflect on it. Sometimes it speaks to me very meaningfully and at other time it seems completely opaque to me. I don't worry about that because as I have grown older and richer in life experience I find that I do have a greater capacity to derive meaning from the stories and lessons. I do listen to other people's insights though, especially those who have been trained in exegesis.
 
Omar listened to all of them and said that he came away with no better explanation than before he queried them, so exegesis didn't work for him, and I take his word for it. Better to spend my time musing over a chess board or a good martini...
 
AZ Jim said:
Interesting discussion. I am glad we can have this exchange of ideas without being personal or offending. Each of us has a belief system of one kind or another and airing them with friends is a good exercise in communication with respect for each others viewpoint. It's all a matter of taste said the old farmer as he kissed his cow. :)
Click to expand...
Amen.:thumbsup:
 
Shalimar said:
Re Jim being labeled as spiritually confused, and not a seeker? I thought denying absolutism, paint by number beliefs, in favour of the painful inner struggle to find a set of beliefs/principals that resonated with one's sense of personal ethics truly defined the essence of a seeker with or without a label. It certainly is spiritual enough for me.
Click to expand...

I agree, Shali. My parents were so-called "born again" Christians and disappointed that I didn't get myself "saved." By the age of 12, I had decided that organized religion was not for me. I do not consider the bible or any other supposed holy book sacred. I'm more of the Jiminy Cricket school of thought - Always let your conscience be your guide. As for the existence of God or a god-like entity, I stop short of calling myself an atheist because I've had experiences that science can't explain and would call "supernatural." Others would call them "spiritual." I just say hmmm . . . :confused: . . . and continue to observe and question.
 
SifuPhil said:
I tend to follow philosophical Taoism (NOT the religious version).
Click to expand...

Exactly how I describe myself, SP. You are the first soul I've run into to describe himself in that way.

Earlier there was this post: Now though, paganism seems closer to my philosophy and mostly because I think that at a level far beyond this material reality, I think that we and everything in this world, are connected, as in 'all one'. In fact, I think we are all small segments or 'individuations' of whatever great, organizing energy that is the source of this amazing universe.

The "all that is" as the Taoist writings tell us. And "That which cannot be known".
 
I don't have any belief system down in stone, or follow any particular school of thought or dogma. I also try to keep an open mind and do what feels right to me in a relaxed intuitive manner, without getting too rigid or excited about it. As a young person I considered myself to be on what is known as 'the path of enlightenment' but since then have stepped on and off and on again more than a few times. One thing I have learned about religion and many other things is that 'it's all in the mind'.
 
Cookie said:
I don't have any belief system down in stone, or follow any particular school of thought or dogma. I also try to keep an open mind and do what feels right to me in a relaxed intuitive manner, without getting too rigid or excited about it. As a young person I considered myself to be on what is known as 'the path of enlightenment' but since then have stepped on and off and on again more than a few times. One thing I have learned about religion and many other things is that 'it's all in the mind'.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. The last place people seem to look for it. I discovered Buddha, the man, just a few years ago. The religion doesn't interest me at all, but many of the sayings attributed to Buddha resonate with me. Accept life for what it is. Most of all, be kind.
 
Cookie said:
I don't have any belief system down in stone, or follow any particular school of thought or dogma. I also try to keep an open mind and do what feels right to me in a relaxed intuitive manner, without getting too rigid or excited about it. As a young person I considered myself to be on what is known as 'the path of enlightenment' but since then have stepped on and off and on again more than a few times. One thing I have learned about religion and many other things is that 'it's all in the mind'.
Click to expand...


I don't think any of us every step off that path to enlightenment Cookie. I think even those times when we're not actively aiming for that goal, we're progressing towards it because those bad times teach us stuff which we simply don't understand until after we've gone through it. It's all part of an immense process that goes on forever.

Even involvement in any of the religions or lack of involvement is part of that process.


And Davey, religion is only one of man's attempt to explain things they don't understand and to bring meaning into our lives. But there's other ways too and from all the reading that I've done and talked about a while back, I have no doubt that you and your wife and daughter will see each other again. You've travelled through eternity together, why should that change? For you it's been years, but for them hardly a moment and then you'll be together again and it will be a fabulous reunion! :D
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top