The Gospel of Jesus vs The Gospel of Paul

Originally posted by @fmf
Are you addressing me? If so, what does "it" at the beginning of the above sentence refer to?

I am addressing everyone who thinks it might be relevant. Certainly, as you seem to juxtapose the prayers of two groups as competitive, it has some crossover with you. Whether you choose to acknowledge it is up to you.

The it is:

discuss[ing] the prayers of Muslims versus the prayers of Christians

But the context is clearly not specifically that of Muslims versus Christians but rather is a commentary on the efficacy of non-Christian prayers within a Christian context.

Originally posted by @fmf
Could you not glean it from the piece of writing you are responding to?

I contend that our human spirit is the only "spirit" we have. What I reject, I suppose, is what is manifested by religionists when they pick up the "human spirit” ball and run with it in the direction of conjecture and hope regarding the supernatural.

Surrendering the words “spirit” ...[text shortened]... to discuss it because they don't have spirituality and don’t understand what spirits/souls are.

But w hy do we need thew ord spirit or spirituality at all?

Shouldn't we just need our psyches and pscyhological exercises?

Originally posted by @fmf
Are you being serious?

Dead serious.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
I am addressing everyone who thinks it might be relevant.

What is the "it" you think I was on about?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Dead serious.

OK. Well, your answer is found in the long screed I scribbled on the previous page.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
...you seem to juxtapose the prayers of two groups as competitive...

No, I didn't. Please follow the conversation. I was responding to a generalization about religious people that rings false to me.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
But why do we need the word spirit or spirituality at all?

Because we are conversing in English and the words "spirit" and "spirituality" are English words. "Spirituality" is the name of this forum. If you don't like the way I frame the words "spirit" and "spirituality" maybe it is because you see them through a religionist's prism.

Originally posted by @fmf


Surrendering the words “spirit” and "spirituality" to those who end up believing in supernatural beings just seeks to lend credence to their imaginings, explanations, and their solutions to their hopes and fears because they can turn around to those humans who do not settle for these kinds of theist/religionist packages and say they are not qualified to discuss it because they don't have spirituality and don’t understand what spirits/souls are.

But w hy even use the word spirit?

Spirits do not exist to a materialist.

Do you believe that human beings are too dumb or shallow to give up the concept of the spirit?

You have no problem saying that God or sin does not exist. Why suddenly balk at the word spirit?

Originally posted by @fmf
Because we are conversing in English and the words "spirit" and "spirituality" are English words. "Spirituality" is the name of this forum. If you don't like the way I frame the words "spirit" and "spirituality" maybe it is because you see them through a religionist's prism.

Oh, so we can just strip the word of its etymon and use it in a materialist context with no consequence?

This doesn't seem to have much integrity. It isn't very honest. It also isn't very brave.

Frankly, I think this is what the liberals and secular humanists in general struggle from:not much integrity or courage, not much inventiveness. Really willing to just be the small souled bugmen who recycle the easiest arguments and take the paths of least resistance.

Obviously, not the spirit upon which civilizations are built.

Not very creative, nto very smart, not very... praiseworthy. The antithesis of the philosopher.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
Why would you believe that very regular people, of very regular means, who fit very regular patterns of behavior for their culture & time, have some kind of 'individual spirit?'

Do you ever interact with any "very regular people, of very regular means"? Do you not perceive them as individuals each with "individual spirit" as I have defined it?

Originally posted by @fmf
OK. Well, your answer is found in the long screed I scribbled on the previous page.

Yeah, so the answre is, "let's just use English words badly because we do not want to be inventive or totally honor the actual content of our beliefs."

The path of least resistance.

Reminds me of endless replies and needling of just tiny points divorced from the greater mass of the argument.

Not honorable, not courageous, not really even worthy of being called a debate or a discussion.

I wonder what you would do if there was a debate where each side was supposed to speak for 7 minutes, alternating, and fill their seven minutes with persuasion and arguments.

Would you just come back and read off a small list of questions and complaints for a minute? lol.

Originally posted by @fmf
Do you ever interact with any "very regular people, of very regular means"? Do you not perceive them as individuals each with "individual spirit" as I have defined it?

If I were a materialist, I would not use the word spirit, because I would be honorable and courageous.

And yeah, I meet very regular people.

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
This doesn't seem to have much integrity. It isn't very honest. It also isn't very brave.

You don't agree with the view I have put forward then ~ and you believe its flaws are rooted in personal flaws I have? i.e. Not much integrity, not very honest, and not very brave [edit: also not honourable, not courageous]. Is that right?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
If I were a materialist, I would not use the word spirit, because I would be honorable and courageous.

I have defined it [from my point of view] and illustrated how I then apply it and use it to understand the human condition. How is this affected by you saying that, if you "were a materialist, [you] would not use the word spirit"?

Originally posted by @jacob-verville
And yeah, I meet very regular people.

And do you or do you not perceive them as individuals each with "individual spirit" as I have defined it?