questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Is there satan-like figure in non-Christian religions?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Spiritual Vs Material
- Thread starter questfortruth
- Start date
-
- Tags
- proof for god
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
non-material is spiritual. For example, Love. Love causes feeling of love.
There are kinds of demonic creatures, yes. Here's one: Ravana.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
1. Spiritual was first, matter was after. This was Platon's idea. This is Creationism. Non-material is spiritual. For example, Love. Love causes feeling of love.
2. Matter was first, spiritual came after: "priests have created gods". This was Aristotle's idea.
Feeling of love causes Love. This means, that injecting some medical stuff into the blood or brain makes you love some person.
This is incomplete. These are only two of the four logical possibilities describing the relationship of mind and matter. From a post last month:
You're probably aware that there are four proposed relationships of mind and matter - [1] materialism, [2] idealism, [3] neutral monism, and [4] dualism. These refer respectively to [1] matter being the primary reality from which mind derives, [2] mind being the fundamental reality with matter being an epiphenomenon of it, [3] each being derived from a third substance the way space and time are thought to be epiphenomena of something that is both and is their source (spacetime), and [4] the idea that they are not related at all but rather are two unique fundamental substances not derivable one from the other or from anything else.
Are you also aware that none of these can be ruled in or out at this time? You seem to be assuming one of them without justification. Personally, I suspect neutral monism to be correct based in the long history of unifications in science (wave and particle, mass and energy, position and momentum, space and time, electricity and magnetism, etc.). But like you and the rest of the world, I can't rule out materialism. Nobody can at this time.
Are you also aware that none of these can be ruled in or out at this time? You seem to be assuming one of them without justification. Personally, I suspect neutral monism to be correct based in the long history of unifications in science (wave and particle, mass and energy, position and momentum, space and time, electricity and magnetism, etc.). But like you and the rest of the world, I can't rule out materialism. Nobody can at this time.
We're in agreement here. It is anathema to me as well. I just left this elsewhere on RF:
I only use the word spiritual when referring to a specific psychological experience - the spiritual experience. It has nothing to do with spirits (gods, angels) or magic. It is the thrilling and meaningful experience of a sense of connection to the cosmos or a part of it. It occurs in a variety of settings. One might be filled with awe, gratitude, and wonder as one looks at the Milky Way and contemplates one's relationship to the stars. It can occur while gardening, if one feels a sense of satisfaction and connection to nature, a sense of belonging. It can be experienced listening to some music or observing some art, which is described as a moving experience. Or just having a hearty laugh with a stranger, with whom for that moment, a sense of connection and bonhomie occurs - all is right with the world. I also get it playing with my dogs, when I marvel at their existence, and feel a sense of connection to them. It's the same thrill. So is falling in love - the infatuation stage - which is very thrilling and rapturous, but also in the mature stage of love, when the connection is of a different nature than infatuation.
Mathematicians describe the same with elegant mathematics, which has a kind of beauty to them, as with Einstein. Ptolemy expressed a similar sentiment describing his geocentric solar system, one that I referred to above that informed star gazers are familiar with when they contemplate the vast distances separating us from the stars of the night sky yet understanding that we are made of their ashes, and one feels a sense of connection and a thrill. Here's how Ptolemy described the experience: "I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia."
Mathematicians describe the same with elegant mathematics, which has a kind of beauty to them, as with Einstein. Ptolemy expressed a similar sentiment describing his geocentric solar system, one that I referred to above that informed star gazers are familiar with when they contemplate the vast distances separating us from the stars of the night sky yet understanding that we are made of their ashes, and one feels a sense of connection and a thrill. Here's how Ptolemy described the experience: "I know that I am mortal by nature, and ephemeral; but when I trace at my pleasure the windings to and fro of the heavenly bodies I no longer touch the earth with my feet: I stand in the presence of Zeus himself and take my fill of ambrosia."
What I deleted from that post before posting it is the following, which touches on your comment, and the separation of the sacred and profane. I think my opinions on these matters have offended you in the recent past, but you might like this one.
This is a common experience among people, but unfortunately, many associate it with gods and mistake it for experiencing or knowing gods. I say unfortunately, since that is often the beginning of disconnection from the world, as with Christianity. When I was a Christian, I mistook the euphoric feeling I got singing hymns and clapping hands in my first church headed by a gifted and charismatic preacher with the presence of the Holy Spirit. They taught me there that the universe, being made of base matter, is inferior to imagined realms, and is fit for destruction; that my body is vile flesh temporarily housing a soul, and that I was to be uninvolved in his world. I was even alienated from my own mind, which I was told to distrust whenever it wasn't in accord with church doctrine, cognitive dissonance being interpreted as the devil trying to steal my soul. That's what being spiritual meant there. Can one imagine a less spiritual understanding as I've defined it than that? Can one become any more disconnected psychologically from reality than that? But they call it spiritual because they are thinking about spirits and imagined worlds.
The dharmics and pagans seem more connected to reality than what I described with my Christian experience.
Gratitude without an object is a spiritual experience. Danger lies ahead when one mistakes such apprehensions for experiencing interventionalist gods, as Ptolemy did if he meant that literally and began to pray to or offer sacrifices to his god, and turned his attention and appreciation from nature to them. When the empiricist has the same experience, he resists injecting gods (spirits) into the equation, which is what I mean by gratitude without an object.
.The dharmics and pagans seem more connected to reality than what I described with my Christian experience.
Gratitude without an object is a spiritual experience. Danger lies ahead when one mistakes such apprehensions for experiencing interventionalist gods, as Ptolemy did if he meant that literally and began to pray to or offer sacrifices to his god, and turned his attention and appreciation from nature to them. When the empiricist has the same experience, he resists injecting gods (spirits) into the equation, which is what I mean by gratitude without an object.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
Please read my proof. It seems to be argument for "neutral monism", namely spiritual and material are simultaneous.
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But the thought is deeper than this monism. It seems to be unification of "neutral monism" and "dualism".
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you are trying to say here other than repeating substance dualism again. As I said, not everybody adheres to the notion of substance dualism to begin with. If you don't suppose there is a "matter" and "spirit" dichotomy neither of these ideas make much sense. Metaphysically, I actually follow substance pluralism, which doesn't include "matter" or "spirit" in the framework. It means for me there is no "spiritual" versus "material" as I don't understand reality as being either/or of these two things.
Poor Jesus!
questfortruth
Well-Known Member
But he saw God and is therefore dead, you say.
Or, to take you literally, are you saying he's a nobody?
rational experiences
Veteran Member
The con. A human theist.
Predicts life on earths non existence himself. Position first is beginning and end.
Says it relates to the machine plus reaction that he builds owns operates causes.
As he's consciousness uses bio consciousness he says ....he owns lying.
What the status what is a human destroyer as discussed that's relative to lifes destruction.
In bio life you do exist first you do end naturally in the same position a human as deceased. You are warned.
Predicts life on earths non existence himself. Position first is beginning and end.
Says it relates to the machine plus reaction that he builds owns operates causes.
As he's consciousness uses bio consciousness he says ....he owns lying.
What the status what is a human destroyer as discussed that's relative to lifes destruction.
In bio life you do exist first you do end naturally in the same position a human as deceased. You are warned.