Adding to the Bible?

[_subgenius]

Your ranting is not addressing the issues of the difference between worldly understanding vs spiritual understanding.

I am open to anyone who can articulate what they think the difference is.

For what it is worth, i have little confidence in the claim that you are "open" to any and all counter-physiological notions....but here goes.

A lion kills to eat and for allegedly "territorial" reasons...it is always considered to be "instinctual", and through the prism of the worldly, this is justifiable and acceptable behavior....particularly the latter.
A man may do the same....justifiable and acceptable through the worldly prism.
Through the spiritual prism it is not the same.
The "world" respects and reveres no life beyond the self. The worldly prism is fiercely dependent on the concept that all things are relative only to my own survival and what is best for me.
The spiritual is reliant on a diminished sense of self, it is the essence of community....it is an individual action which is contrary to the instinct...which is a clear and decisive ability to "choose otherwise".

Now, i have heard many exclaim that spiritual endeavors are just acts of "self-interest", that doing "good" to get in to heaven is still just selfish....but i ultimately disagree, as that position is clearly either a means to justify selfishness or a reflection of a gross misunderstanding of both the concept and experience of spirituality.

[_Themis]

A lion kills to eat and for allegedly "territorial" reasons...it is always considered to be "instinctual", and through the prism of the worldly, this is justifiable and acceptable behavior....particularly the latter.

Actually they kill to survive. Territorial disputes are almost always with other animals of the same species, and it usually does not result in death.

A man may do the same....justifiable and acceptable through the worldly prism.
Through the spiritual prism it is not the same.

We to need to kill to survive, but we also kill for other reasons.

The "world" respects and reveres no life beyond the self. The worldly prism is fiercely dependent on the concept that all things are relative only to my own survival and what is best for me.

If that's how you want to define the world.

The spiritual is reliant on a diminished sense of self, it is the essence of community....it is an individual action which is contrary to the instinct...which is a clear and decisive ability to "choose otherwise".

What you describe is just the different reasons we do things. One being more about self interest(world) which is not necessarily bad, but actually in many cases good, and the other(spiritual) less interested in the self and more concerned for others or the group.

I don't have a problem if you want to define it this way, but it is really about behavior and why we do things. People in each religious or non-religious group will all do things for different reasons, so there is no real difference between groups.

Now, i have heard many exclaim that spiritual endeavors are just acts of "self-interest", that doing "good" to get in to heaven is still just selfish....but i ultimately disagree, as that position is clearly either a means to justify selfishness or a reflection of a gross misunderstanding of both the concept and experience of spirituality.

there will always be some self interest even if it may just be to feel good. Many religious people actually will do good in hopes of heavenly rewards. Some will do good to be seen of others. Some will do good because they believe it is the right thing to do, even though feelings good is a part of that. You can find these kind of people in every group religious or not. In atheists or agnostics it might be easier to see since you know they won't be doing it for heavenly rewards.

My issue here is really about spiritual knowledge and worldly knowledge if you want to call them that. Many claim spiritual knowledge. When I look around though I see that it conflicts with so many other people and there spiritual knowledge. This is fine until you get spiritual knowledge claims that can be compared to worldly knowledge. If we compare the two, worldly knowledge fairs better only in that it is more reliable and more agreed upon, and can be tested over and over again, and can be easily shared or viewed by all. My problem is when spiritual knowledge conflicts with a more reliable source. To much suggests the spiritual is not really coming from a divine source, but an internal one. This is especially evident with LDS claims that don't hold water. I think it much wiser to be careful what meanings we attach to our spiritual experiences and be willing to change them, but unfortunately many put more stock in emotions then reason, but I do understand why.

[_subgenius]

Actually they kill to survive. Territorial disputes are almost always with other animals of the same species, and it usually does not result in death.

irrelevant, and does not detract from my proposition. But i understand your desire to make these type of "clarifications". They serve as a small victory for your mind, whereas you likely agree but you also rather enjoy straining the gnat.

We to need to kill to survive, but we also kill for other reasons.

again, see comment above.

If that's how you want to define the world.

of course it is, that is why i typed it...and it was in direct response to your request for someone to "articulate" such a definition.

What you describe is just the different reasons we do things. One being more about self interest(world) which is not necessarily bad, but actually in many cases good, and the other(spiritual) less interested in the self and more concerned for others or the group.

i did not assign any moral value to ether, and your ambiguity about it seems to be more of a distraction. But thank you for the summary as an affirmation that so far you understand the "articulation".

I don't have a problem if you want to define it this way, but it is really about behavior and why we do things. People in each religious or non-religious group will all do things for different reasons, so there is no real difference between groups.

nope.
i have given an example of behavior at the beginning with the lion to illustrate that behaviors are irrelevant, it is the "why/how" which is the source of this articulation...it is the "difference" for which you originally requested.
There is quite a large and 'real' difference between man and lion.

there will always be some self interest even if it may just be to feel good. Many religious people actually will do good in hopes of heavenly rewards. Some will do good to be seen of others. Some will do good because they believe it is the right thing to do, even though feelings good is a part of that. You can find these kind of people in every group religious or not. In atheists or agnostics it might be easier to see since you know they won't be doing it for heavenly rewards.

yes, people that go to church for selfish reasons and atheists that jump on grenades, blah blah blah...not relevant to the topic, nor is any notion of "good" or "bad".. what is relevant is that there is a physical "worldly" and a non-physical "spiritual"...which are "different" as has been articulated.
Doing something for any reward is, in my opinion, simply a physical attribute. The atheist that acts "good" because it feeds his ego is the same as a church member who acts "good" to get into heaven...both of these are of the same physical paradigm.
However, the true spiritual act does it not for the self - just as the true worldly act will always be done for the self.

My issue here is really about spiritual knowledge and worldly knowledge if you want to call them that. Many claim spiritual knowledge. When I look around though I see that it conflicts with so many other people and there spiritual knowledge. This is fine until you get spiritual knowledge claims that can be compared to worldly knowledge.

again, this is an impossible and illogical comparison. There is no example of a spiritual knowledge that "conflicts" with worldly knowledge. Spiritual behavior may conflict with worldly behavior and vice-versa, but that is not the issue at hand.

If we compare the two, worldly knowledge fairs better only in that it is more reliable and more agreed upon, and can be tested over and over again, and can be easily shared or viewed by all.

again, you are confused. arguing about whether there was a global flood is not a point of spiritual knowledge...that is simply an argument about inductive and/or deductive knowledge...the spiritual knowledge from that story is still true....apples and oranges.
If you are claiming that the material which makes up Nephi's bow is "spiritual knowledge" then it is no surprise that you are disenfranchised.

My problem is when spiritual knowledge conflicts with a more reliable source.

what source? a test tube? do you really think that science is a more reliable source when it comes to the topic of whether or not you love someone? Will you allow a chemical analysis to tell you that you "truly" do not love someone?

To much suggests the spiritual is not really coming from a divine source, but an internal one.

again, apples and oranges...if all you want to find is apples then oranges will always seem as "unreliable" apples.

This is especially evident with LDS claims that don't hold water.

which claims? about the joy in serving others? loving thy neighbor? making one's family an important part of their life?
Me thinks you have issue with the administration of the Church and have conveniently ascribed that to its Doctrine...frankly you are confused.

I think it much wiser to be careful what meanings we attach to our spiritual experiences and be willing to change them, but unfortunately many put more stock in emotions then reason, but I do understand why.

the obvious irony evident in your posts is that you are operating mostly on emotion and with little attention to actual reason.

[_madeleine]

Actually, the RCC should not be included among those Christians for whom this argument is fine. They do not hold the book of Revelation with high regard. This book almost failed to make the cut for canonization. They do not believe that John really had a vision or that he knew what he was talking about. Additionally, they question whether it was really John the Beloved who wrote this book. They only concede that John the Beloved is the author after explaining that they cannot prove which "John" wrote the Apocalypse.

In fact, they feel the same away about Daniel's end-time prophecies. They are of the opinion that Daniel's prophecies were not really about the end-times, and they question whether it was Daniel who wrote them. They think they were written about much earlier events which had already taken place by the time the prophecies were recorded. Not only do they think these events were recorded after the fact as history, they believe they were written after Daniel was already dead.

I can say with confidence, that you are imagining things.

[_Themis]

irrelevant, and does not detract from my proposition. But i understand your desire to make these type of "clarifications". They serve as a small victory for your mind, whereas you likely agree but you also rather enjoy straining the gnat.

Some of us just like to be more accurate.

nope.
i have given an example of behavior at the beginning with the lion to illustrate that behaviors are irrelevant, it is the "why/how" which is the source of this articulation...it is the "difference" for which you originally requested.
There is quite a large and 'real' difference between man and lion.

Not as much as you would like. I watch a video of a lion who had captured a young gazelle and was getting it's young to practice trying to capture it. After it was done the lion let the young gazelle go.

yes, people that go to church for selfish reasons and atheists that jump on grenades, blah blah blah...not relevant to the topic, nor is any notion of "good" or "bad".. what is relevant is that there is a physical "worldly" and a non-physical "spiritual"...which are "different" as has been articulated.

You never did articulate a difference other then you saw worldly as more selfless behavior and spiritual as less. The atheist jumping on a grenade is about as spiritual as you can get here.

Doing something for any reward is, in my opinion, simply a physical attribute.

I am not sure you could separate fully from this, although the atheist falling on the grenade is as close as you can get.

The atheist that acts "good" because it feeds his ego is the same as a church member who acts "good" to get into heaven...both of these are of the same physical paradigm.

There are some differences here.

However, the true spiritual act does it not for the self - just as the true worldly act will always be done for the self.

So I am right in what you think is the difference in behavior. The true spirtual act would be the atheist jumping on the grenade.

again, this is an impossible and illogical comparison. There is no example of a spiritual knowledge that "conflicts" with worldly knowledge. Spiritual behavior may conflict with worldly behavior and vice-versa, but that is not the issue at hand.

Behavior can conflict but not spiritual knowledge with worldly knowledge. You are defining spiritual knowledge as some absolute which you don't know, where I am talking about people claiming spiritual knowledge. How do you know your claimed spiritual knowledge is correct and anthers incorrect? It gets to my point that if claimed spiritual knowledge is in conflict with worldly knowledge then you have a problem.

again, you are confused. arguing about whether there was a global flood is not a point of spiritual knowledge...that is simply an argument about inductive and/or deductive knowledge...the spiritual knowledge from that story is still true....apples and oranges.
If you are claiming that the material which makes up Nephi's bow is "spiritual knowledge" then it is no surprise that you are disenfranchised.

And you miss the point again. The claimed spiritual knowledge in many cases make claims about the physical world or can not be separated from it, even if the main emphasis is not the physical world. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are examples of this. They promote certain ideas or spiritual truths, but if we find they are made up as the evidence shows us they are, then those ideas are suspect. Joseph is then shown to be a fraud and many things have to go with it. It doesn't affect Christianity. Now the Bible does make claims about Noah's flood. IF they are wrong then the other claims with it may also be wrong.

what source? a test tube? do you really think that science is a more reliable source when it comes to the topic of whether or not you love someone? Will you allow a chemical analysis to tell you that you "truly" do not love someone?

I already said what source, which is physical knowledge. I have also shown how it is more reliable.

again, apples and oranges...if all you want to find is apples then oranges will always seem as "unreliable" apples.

Nope. When the one makes claims that affect the other, then yes you can compare to see if the claim holds up with the other. This is an area you hate and always want to try and separate from each other in a weak attempt to protect beliefs.

which claims? about the joy in serving others? loving thy neighbor? making one's family an important part of their life?
Me thinks you have issue with the administration of the Church and have conveniently ascribed that to its Doctrine...frankly you are confused.

No, but I think you knew that. I gave examples above. You are now trying to go after me and what you want my motives to be instaed of keeping on topic.

the obvious irony evident in your posts is that you are operating mostly on emotion and with little attention to actual reason.

An assertion without substance. I would say that emotion and feelings cannot be fully separated out when using reason, but some of us do a much better job then yourself.

[_subgenius]

Some of us just like to be more accurate.

which is surprising given your position. Your response was not more accurate...just more detailed.

Not as much as you would like. I watch a video of a lion who had captured a young gazelle and was getting it's young to practice trying to capture it. After it was done the lion let the young gazelle go.

oh, well if you watched a video....now, did you happen to watch another video where a man caught and released a gazelle?....otherwise your anecdote is meaningless to the discussion and rather non sequitur...without the funny

You never did articulate a difference other then you saw worldly as more selfless behavior and spiritual as less. The atheist jumping on a grenade is about as spiritual as you can get here.

i have never heard of nor seen any evidence of an atheist doing such a thing.
and beyond your apparent denials...it was well articulated, but let me dumb it down
worldly = self-centered spiritual = NOT self-centered

I am not sure you could separate fully from this, although the atheist falling on the grenade is as close as you can get.

utter nonsense

There are some differences here.

just because you say so? how about "articulating" them?

So I am right in what you think is the difference in behavior. The true spirtual act would be the atheist jumping on the grenade.

no, you are not right. behavior and act are not the same thing.
Your nose can have the sniffles from a cold or an allergy...the sniffles are not the difference between the two.

:lol: Behavior can conflict but not spiritual knowledge with worldly knowledge.

yes, i know it is alarming, but it is possible that behavior and knowledge are mutually exclusive. Take some of your posts for example, they defy what you know to be true, but your "self" is deeply entrenched.....not an uncommon situation my friend.

You are defining spiritual knowledge as some absolute which you don't know, where I am talking about people claiming spiritual knowledge. How do you know your claimed spiritual knowledge is correct and anthers incorrect? It gets to my point that if claimed spiritual knowledge is in conflict with worldly knowledge then you have a problem.

well if you do not believe that there is such a thing as the spiritual then another discussion is necessary at this point because you would be ill-prepared...why teach algebra when one does not know about numbers?
If you do recognize that there is "the spiritual" and it is distinct from "the physical" then correct or incorrect is also another discussion, but my proposition remains true.

And you miss the point again. The claimed spiritual knowledge in many cases make claims about the physical world or can not be separated from it, even if the main emphasis is not the physical world. The Book of Mormon and Book of Abraham are examples of this. They promote certain ideas or spiritual truths, but if we find they are made up as the evidence shows us they are, then those ideas are suspect.

why are they suspect? You are proposing that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater.
The physical justification of a spiritual truth is an odd proposition, yet you insist upon it....insist upon it for all things. That is hardly sensible or reasonable.
But, obviously you have no reason to believe, and therefore can not believe, that the Resurrection of Christ occurred, correct?

Joseph is then shown to be a fraud and many things have to go with it. It doesn't affect Christianity. Now the Bible does make claims about Noah's flood. IF they are wrong then the other claims with it may also be wrong.

that is a "physical" conclusion...It is not reasonable nor logical to propose that Joseph is the "fruit" of the Book of Mormon, etc..Yet you would suspect the tree anyway.

I already said what source, which is physical knowledge. I have also shown how it is more reliable.

you have only shown that physical is more reliable for physical...it is not more reliable for the spiritual...this is your fundamental error. Physical knowledge is not more reliable with regards to spirituality.

Nope. When the one makes claims that affect the other, then yes you can compare to see if the claim holds up with the other. This is an area you hate and always want to try and separate from each other in a weak attempt to protect beliefs.

exactly how does one "claim" affect the other? a preposterous assertion on your behalf to say the least.

No, but I think you knew that. I gave examples above. You are now trying to go after me and what you want my motives to be instaed of keeping on topic.

and what topic is that?

An assertion without substance. I would say that emotion and feelings cannot be fully separated out when using reason, but some of us do a much better job then yourself.

This is Kirk to Spock.... (there is a reason Kirk was the Captain )

[_gdemetz]

Nipper, your information is wrong again. Any respectable modern scholar knows that the Book of Revelation was written before the Books of John! Thomas Slater writes: "While the traditional gate of the Book of Revelation is A.D. 95 or 96 (primarily based on a statement by Irenaeus) MANY SCHOLARS NOW DATE IT AS EARLY AS A.D. 68 OR 69 A.D. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS GENERALLY DATED A.D. 95-100 {John 1-3 being written progressively later}. "Dating the Apocalypse of John, volume 84"

In any case, it is obvious that that prophesy (Revelation 22:18) only applied to the Book of Revelation itself and not the whole Bible! You can tell that from the wording about the plagues! Also, the Bible as we know it did not even exist then! It was not compiled until the 4th century A.D.!!!

[_Themis]

i have never heard of nor seen any evidence of an atheist doing such a thing.
and beyond your apparent denials...it was well articulated, but let me dumb it down
worldly = self-centered spiritual = NOT self-centered

Well, you are showing your extreme bias regarding atheists.

I fully aware of how you are defining worldly and spiritual, although I think you are incorrect to try and divide them so absolutely since that is not reality. They would be a sliding scale from one extreme of selfishness to the other of extreme selflessness. It also has nothing really to do with supernatural beliefs.

utter nonsense

Ah, there's that extreme bias again keeping yo from seeing reality.

no, you are not right. behavior and act are not the same thing.
Your nose can have the sniffles from a cold or an allergy...the sniffles are not the difference between the two.

The act of jumping on a grenade is about the most selfless you can get.

well if you do not believe that there is such a thing as the spiritual then another discussion is necessary at this point because you would be ill-prepared...why teach algebra when one does not know about numbers?
If you do recognize that there is "the spiritual" and it is distinct from "the physical" then correct or incorrect is also another discussion, but my proposition remains true.

Claimed Spiritual knowledge in your sense is claimed knowledge from a divine source. If that knowledge conflicts with others who claims the same then there is a problem. If it conflicts with the physical evidence which is more reliable, then you have a bigger problem.

why are they suspect? You are proposing that the baby be thrown out with the bathwater.
The physical justification of a spiritual truth is an odd proposition, yet you insist upon it....insist upon it for all things. That is hardly sensible or reasonable.
But, obviously you have no reason to believe, and therefore can not believe, that the Resurrection of Christ occurred, correct?

Since Joseph has been shown to be a fraud, then what he has taught also becomes more suspect that it probably is not correct. An example would be God was once a man. It may be still true, but we have no reason to believe it from a known religious fraudster. Other aspects that are more clearly borrowed from other religious teachings of course are not affected by his fraud.

that is a "physical" conclusion...It is not reasonable nor logical to propose that Joseph is the "fruit" of the Book of Mormon, etc..Yet you would suspect the tree anyway.

The Book of Mormon is a 19th century production. Plenty of evidence shows this, so yes Joseph is main culprit to have produced it, with the possibilities of others. Sure he borrowed heavily on the Bible and other sources, so some of the fruit comes from these sources.

you have only shown that physical is more reliable for physical...it is not more reliable for the spiritual...this is your fundamental error. Physical knowledge is not more reliable with regards to spirituality.

Yet we have much more agreement on the physical and none really on the spiritual. An area you keep ignoring.

exactly how does one "claim" affect the other? a preposterous assertion on your behalf to say the least.

Becuase some claimed spiritual knowledge makes claims about the physical world. As such they can be tested and have. Noah's flood is a classic example.

This is Kirk to Spock.... (there is a reason Kirk was the Captain )

I love sci-fi, but you have lost when you try to use it as analogies to the real world.

[_subgenius]

Well, you are showing your extreme bias regarding atheists.

not by that statement i am not. And it hardly has any relevance to the topic.

I fully aware of how you are defining worldly and spiritual, although I think you are incorrect to try and divide them so absolutely since that is not reality...

"not reality"...please, tell us all what reality actually is ...wait....tell us all how things "actually exist".......let me get some popcorn, cause i know this is gonna be good.

Yet we have much more agreement on the physical and none really on the spiritual. An area you keep ignoring.

no i am not...the topic of our discussion was about an articulation for a difference between the "worldly" and the "spiritual". On that topic more people agree with my position than yours...but that is beside the point. There is no need in proceeding with these allegedly "different" spiritualities if there is not a consensus that they even exist, correct?
(and there is still quite a bit of disagreements among the physical, so your point here is lost)

Becuase some claimed spiritual knowledge makes claims about the physical world. As such they can be tested and have. Noah's flood is a classic example.

the physical "flood" is not spiritual knowledge, evidence for or evidence against such a physical phenomenon is secondary to the spiritual knowledge of that story.

I love sci-fi, but you have lost when you try to use it as analogies to the real world.

[_Themis]

not by that statement i am not. And it hardly has any relevance to the topic.

Yes by your statement.

no i am not...the topic of our discussion was about an articulation for a difference between the "worldly" and the "spiritual". On that topic more people agree with my position than yours...but that is beside the point. There is no need in proceeding with these allegedly "different" spiritualities if there is not a consensus that they even exist, correct?
(and there is still quite a bit of disagreements among the physical, so your point here is lost)

Actually worldly understanding and spiritual understanding. I would view that as more about knowledge then behavior. Behavior is not really on topic, and plenty of people in different religions and non-religious view points are very spiritual in this sense.

the physical "flood" is not spiritual knowledge, evidence for or evidence against such a physical phenomenon is secondary to the spiritual knowledge of that story.

It's relevant to claimed spiritual knowledge, and so is the Book of Mormon. LDS leaders have said many times it is either all true or all false. They understand what you do not.