Scientific spiritulaity- the future of relegion-- what do you think?

[Bandit]

I am going to make up my own quote.

"A doctrine insulates the devout not only against the realities around them but also against their own selves. The fanatical UNbeliever is not conscious of his envy, malice, pettiness and dishonesty. There is a wall of words between his consciousness and his real self"


When they come back with the blood stained cross that has a note attatched saying, "King of the Jews" and a box of bones that Says 'bones of Jesus of Nazareth' and the DNA of the bones matches the blood on the cross, is when I will be convinced.
That is what some would consider the religion of the future.

However, Jesus has already moved into the hearts of those who seek him in spirit and truth.

[Blue]

If I can have so much peace and certainty from something why would you want me to question that faith? What is really your purpose? Is it even YOUR purpose or something elses? I believe you need to question your motives, Blue.
======
That is the point, FaithfulServant.
You have a peace and certainty... but then, so did the mythological Lotus Eaters, and so do those of many other religions, spiritual responses and faiths.
Have you not understood that all I am suggesting is that that state of stasis is only made stronger by judicious self questioning? It can never be disturbed, even if someone was to demonstrate the non-existenece of your God... even that would not matter.
That kind of faith, the one which questions, is dynamic, not static.
You demonstrate both the comfort and fallacy of blind faith, yet you make pronouncements on a number of threads, (about for example, 'salvation') as if they are true not only for yourself but for others.

I have no wish to destroy your Faith, nor do I attack it... I only point out that all the truly' faithful of many religions who I count as loved and loving friends all question their faith on an almost daily basis and often pray accordingly for greater clarity of vision. They will argue and question themselves and others.. and I have scarcely heard one word that could be construed as 'proselytising' their faith as a 'truth' for others.

I ask for reason and rationality in a person's faith, be they Catholic Christian, Shinto, Pagan or Hindu, that is all... not just affective declarations.

I follow my own theism in reason as well as faith... hopefully combining the Affective and the Cognitive domains.
========
Ciel,
Your comment is praiseworthy, as it is not hedged about in supernatural delusions, spiritual nonsenses, or any other affective determinants.

Love is what is required in all aspects of life here upon Earth. Love that preserves that true recognition of the individual and recognises all significant others in relation to that individual.
That needs no other input, least of all twisted concepts of 'loving' Gods who may be conceived to prefer one human being over another in a vengeful manner.

Is it not sufficient to simply 'love' rather than hate?
=========
Bandit,

Sadly, your altering of a famous person's words does little for your case, in my opinion.

To an unbeliever, there are no doctrines and dogmas, so your alteration is meaningless and insulting to that famous thinker - there is only what IS, unless you have concrete and material evidence otherwise?
The objective and material domain is what an unbeliever normally places their attention upon.... not wild dogmas, or doctrines defined for him or her by those who may be suffering from delusions.

Your concept of 'Jesus' may be personally satisfying, and I am sure it is sincere from reading your other posts, but that does NOT signify a 'truth' to anyone else but yourself. You cannot make this leap implying this is likely true in any other sense... yet you often do so on these threads, making even quite dogmatic statements.

Some people, dear Bandit, can allow any other spiritual concepts into their hearts in "spirit" and what they validate as a personal 'truth', and there is nothing to say that their Pagan or Hindu conceptualisations are in any essential way different to yours. Your focus is Jesus, they have other foci, which are equally valid in their hearts and souls.

You finish by saying, though I do not see why, that:

"When they come back with the blood stained cross that has a note attatched saying, "King of the Jews" and a box of bones that Says 'bones of Jesus of Nazareth' and the DNA of the bones matches the blood on the cross, is when I will be convinced.
That is what some would consider the religion of the future."

If any of those things were likely to come to pass, all it would prove is that the DNA of blood on a cross was identified with DNA from the bones, and there was a sign with a message on it. What else would that prove? It would hardly be likely to be a foundation for a Church in the past or future, unless some people awarded the facts with some affective significance in their own hearts and souls.

[Faithfulservant]

So basically you have a problem with the fact that I believe what I talk... I do not ask you to believe I am merely discussing my beliefs on this board.. anyone who posts here knows I am a Christian they can take what I say and do whatever they want with it because thats what they are going to do anyways.

[Bandit]

No problem Blue. I was only trying to show how it can work both ways. Bones are bones, spirit is spirit. Everyone believes in something. Carry on my brother.