Caliope on "spirituality" and "the soul"

[Stubby]

Caliope,

Earlier, you posted this (@ post 51):

Originally Posted by Caliope

No, the Chinese government is officially atheist.

"The People's Republic of China was established in 1949 and since then the government has been officially atheist." Wiki.

I posted a link to the full text of the Chinese Constitution, in post 61 and pointed out that there was nothing in that document to support your statement. You have not, since then, addressed the evidence refuting your statement at all. You have simply tried to justify your conclusion by citing the wiki page, which (as others have pointed out) goes somewhat further than your one-liner assertion.

Direct question as a result - do you now accept that you were wrong when you asserted that the "Chinese government is officially atheist"?

If not, why not?

[Xeno]

This is the question I had in mind when asking earlier for an answer:

Originally Posted by Croc

If your god asked you to kill somebody then would you do it? <YES|NO>

It can't be that hard, Caliope.

[Caliope]

What does "retarded" mean, and if you didn't mean it "that way" then what did you mean?

In terms of spiritual retardation, it means to surpress, and not develop the spiritual faculty.
I conceded that a better use of a word was stunting.

All it was just pointing out that the atheist stance was to deny the spiritual world, and the faculty of the soul. That's what an atheist stated to my face that the spiritual realm does not exist and man has no soul. So the spiritual faculties are totally denied thus the faculty itself is stunted.

That's all that was meant by that.

[Bolero]

Caliope, what do you consider the "spiritual faculty of the soul" to entail? Can you give us particular instances of this "faculty" being engaged? Can you provide links to sources which can verify your assertions?

Otherwise, I'm terribly sorry to say, it sounds like more made up bollocks.

[Logic please]

Originally Posted by Caliope

Yes, but God does not just interact in the natural and material world, He actually holds it in existence.

Thank you for this answer.

So, if you claim that your god does interact with the natural, material world, wouldn't you agree that the "real world" results of those interactions would be open to science and scientific investigation/testing?

After all, a physical world subject to *divine intervention*, would be fundamentally different to one that is not, wouldn't it?

[two dogs]

"Culture is a legal fiction,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Cameron, it is not so much culture that is a legal fiction, but rather the absurdity, and some would say the genre, of culture.

Foucault uses the term ‘predialectic narrative’ to denote the failure of textual sexual identity. Thus, a number of deconstructions concerning not theory per se, but subtheory may be revealed.

“Class is intrinsically responsible for hierarchy,” says Baudrillard. Sartre’s critique of Baudrillardist hyperreality states that narrativity is used to entrench outdated, colonialist perceptions of sexuality. It could be said that the example of modernism intrinsic to Pynchon’s Vineland is also evident in The Crying of Lot 49, although in a more self-falsifying sense.

[Goldenmane]

Originally Posted by Caliope

Yes, but God does not just interact in the natural and material world, He actually holds it in existence.

Oh, it is to laugh.

If it interacts with the material world, then there is a mechanism by which this is done, and it can be measured and fucked with.

As we put it in spiritual terms " I him we live and move and have our being"

Or as I put it in simpler terms: "Fantasies can be fun, but you're not really fucking that supermodel."

It's not so much that everything would fall to pieces without God, it's more that everything would actually cease to exist without him. Because everything proceeds from him.

I think this is probably the stupidest thing said in this thread. Tough call, I admit, given the supremely stupid things said so far, but I'm prepared to make the call nonetheless.

I was about to ask this question: "How do you know any of this shit?" - but I see you've already answered it...

I was given this by seeing it's reality spiritually, it is by insight or better awareness.

...oh, wait. My bad. So, you just made it up, then?

You become aware light is a person,

No it fucking isn't. Light is electromagnetic energy within certain frequencies, which interacts with other stuff in reasonably well-definable ways, not least of all stimulating the rods and cones in our eyes in ways which allow us to build a model of our world that is a passably useful-enough approximation for us to tie our fucking shoes.

and energy is a person,

No, it isn't. Energy is a word we use to describe 'the potential to change shit'. It isn't a person, it's a general term for a certain type of phenomena, and always needs to be accompanied by a descriptive that indicates the type of energy in question.

and love is a person.

Oh, for fuck's sake. No, it goddamn isn't. 'Love' is a catch-all word for the subjective experience produced by certain chemical stimuli in certain areas of the brain, notably oxytocin and others. It isn't a person. This kind of numpty bullshit might make people like Deepity Chopra lots of fucking money, but it's still tripe.

It is very confronting to be aware of a person when you first enter the spiritual world, a person who is at once strange, but also very familiar.

Argument from 'it makes me feel good'? I once took some DMT, and boy, did that feel awesome. I felt all connected to the forest and shit. Still just brain chemistry, though.

But He is a distinct Person who is timeless and absolute.

Not.
Possible.

Without time, change cannot happen. Without change, no such thing as a person. Self-contradictory bollocks.

It is very hard to explain to someone who has no spiritual life, but exists in a carnal tangible reality.

It's very hard to make some fucking sense to people who don't automatically accept your unstated assumptions, and require you to actually support your claims with something other than mildly-lyrical flatulence? yeah, i can see where that would be a problem.

But I'll try to elaborate further if you have other questions.

Why start actually answering questions now? You were doing so well at not.

Forgive me if I'm not explaining it properly.

Forgiveness doesn't enter into it. You're entertaining me no end.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted by two dogs

"Culture is a legal fiction,” says Baudrillard; however, according to Cameron, it is not so much culture that is a legal fiction, but rather the absurdity, and some would say the genre, of culture.

Foucault uses the term ‘predialectic narrative’ to denote the failure of textual sexual identity. Thus, a number of deconstructions concerning not theory per se, but subtheory may be revealed.

“Class is intrinsically responsible for hierarchy,” says Baudrillard. Sartre’s critique of Baudrillardist hyperreality states that narrativity is used to entrench outdated, colonialist perceptions of sexuality. It could be said that the example of modernism intrinsic to Pynchon’s Vineland is also evident in The Crying of Lot 49, although in a more self-falsifying sense.

Makes perfect sense. Think we can get that guy to define soul for Caliope?

[two dogs]

Originally Posted by Lilith

Makes perfect sense. Think we can get that guy to define soul for Caliope?

I'm not sure if The Postmodernism Generator does soul.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted by two dogs

I'm not sure if The Postmodernism Generator does soul.

Sure it does.. I used to wear a lyotard to ballet as a little girl and my dance teacher said I danced with soul.. so there's definitely a connection. That generator is insightful!