What does 'spiritually rich' and 'spiritual gain' mean? Really I'm curious to know what your definition of these concepts are. Isn't everything made of 'spirit', including 'material' objects?
I thought this was the 'debate and discussion' forum? Isn't challenging the viewpoint what you're supposed to do here?
Actually I was interested in having an enjoyable debate but it seems that most of the people in this thread can only resort to calling me names such as 'troll' and 'fool'
I don't know whether you are trolling or really just don't understand. These terms are fairly basic concepts of philosophy shared both in Western and Eastern philosophy. I would recommend you review Plato to get a handle of them if you haven't heard of them before.
I'm not a Christian but from what I know of Christianity and Judaism that argument presented seems very cherry picked. Keep in mind the argument for personal responsibility isn't just limited to individual welfare but one of social responsibility and the Bible and Christian history is replete with stories of individual sacrifice for a greater communal good in the service of God. Further if you look at the stories of the life of Jesus very clearly his message went against personal financial gain for the sake of gain. He threw the money lenders out of the temple, spoke about how hard it is for the rich to get into Heaven, and talked about treating the least among us well. I don't think Christianity is inherently anti-Capitalism but it isn't pro-Capitalism either. From what I gather it is really isn't for any economic system but is really saying that focus of life shouldn't be on material gain but on spiritual betterment. In this same regard I don't think Pope Francis is saying that we should do away with Capitalism or that people shouldn't try to materially better themselves. What he is saying that a singular focus on personal material gain has created a lot of problems. That is my read on it and I would be interested in hearing more from MadMax and also from Rhester and Twhy.
I think "spiritual" ends up relating to the human ego. Human beings are just sort of free floating on this planet, defining it for ourselves. We are faced with a limited existence and certain fate with an undefined meaning. As we develop as children, we are imbued with a concept of morality (and reality) by our social group, it's hardwired by the connections we form in our brains. A lot of this comes from religious training ( I think mine came more from Superman and the Lone Ranger). Anyway we always measure ourselves against the what we've formed as our ideal morality because the brain is really just a grand comparison crunching machine. There is a reward of 'peace of mind' for conforming behaviors and a punishment of stress for non-conforming behaviors, though we are certainly capable of continuing them (self-destructive actions may be self-punishment) //not a psychologist, philosopher or scientist
Concepts differ from person to person, which is why I asked one person what he meant by 'God'. I can ask one person what 'god' is and get one answer and another person what 'god' is and get a completely different answer. Generally the 'Eastern' concept of 'spirit' is also completely different to the general 'Western' concept. What you know as 'Eastern' philosophy may have been re-interpreted through Western ideology which is why you think there are similarities. Funnily enough to truly understand what these words like 'god' and 'spirit' are pointing to, you must go beyond concept and experience with your senses. Just like you cannot understand 'colours' without seeing.
Why is that crap? Because you don't understand it? Remember just because you don't understand doesn't mean it doesn't make sense. Someone could start speaking to me in French and I wouldn't understand, but I wouldn't say they are speaking crap.
It always confuses me why atheists feel the need to push their lack of religion on people who do believe in God. If you sincerely don't believe in God, why are you so worried about the rest of us who do? Is it an arrogant belief that you are almost certainly right, and religious folk are almost certainly wrong?
If the (bolded statement) is indeed what the Pope meant, then I have nothing to say. That is certainly not how I interpreted his message, however. I pretty much agree that the Bible does not give a pro-capitalistic or anti-capitalistic view. My problem is this: the Pope is giving an unfounded conclusion that seems to suggest that we should dump capitalism because of what Jesus said or did. That's ridiculous, IMO. Let me be clear: I have a very strict, and perhaps idealistic, view that Christians should lead the charge in helping poor people. Government welfare should be minimal simply because the Christian Church (as a whole) is working to stop poverty. The problem is hypocrisy among 'Christians' in the US and elsewhere.
No - it's because, as someone already said, the concepts are pretty basic and that you don't seem to know them and are using them wrong is making the prospect of arguing with you as appealing as arguing with a child.
I think the pushback many atheist exhibit is a reaction to the forced religion of the last 2 millennia. It's not too long ago, on this continent that Christians were burning witches. And even in 2013, you couldn't get elected dog-catcher in 90% of all Western democracies if your atheism were publicly known. Science has come so far in the last 50 years that a lot of miracles that earlier only attributable to "God" are becoming understandable natural phenomena. People fighting discrimination get pretty adamant about it when they feel they are equally valid human beings that are being ostracized for being who they are; and especially so when they feel the are being rejected by people with anachronistic beliefs. It's frustrating to have the advancement of civilization held back the people history always proves to be wrong. Your position is like people that didn't understand why Blacks felt the need to riot in 1966. and: What he is saying that a singular focus on personal material gain has created a lot of problems. yeah, that's what the Pope is saying. There is no spiritual satisfaction (salvation) in the pursuit of money. Spiritual satisfaction is only found in love, acceptance and service to others. "Government welfare should be minimal simply because the Christian Church (as a whole) is working to stop poverty." The problem with this statement is that not everyone is Christian, or any religion. You should think of 'government' as the the religion that everyone in the country belongs to. We use it to decide or morality and organize our collective efforts. Now think of taxes as tithing. Done.
When we start thinking of government as analogous to religion, we need to take a big step back and think about what we are doing. Taxes are not the same as tithing. The last time I checked, churches will not imprison you for failing to tithe.
I am very familiar with the Eastern concept of spirit and without going into a very long tangent regarding the differences between the Western and Eastern views I will agree and say yes they are different. That said though in regard to a dichotomy between the spiritual and the material both East and West have similar dichotomy. What Pope Francis is saying isn't really that much different than what the Buddha and Vedics teach is that overly focusing on material gain isn't a good thing. While the specific goals of an ascetic life are different in Judeo Christian versus Vedic traditions the reasons for doing so are similar. I don't know what exactly you are arguing for here. The Pope is laying out a critique of modern society and Capitalism as being too focused on individual material gain. That is the point of his call to poverty for the priests and the church to be an example of a different way of life than the material focused life. YOu seem to be arguing something different regarding how one understands spirituality which is somewhat different.
I think it is pretty clear that the Pope is saying the singular pursuit of personal material gain is a problem. From the original article: [rquoter]Pope Francis called for renewal of the Roman Catholic Church and attacked unfettered capitalism as "a new tyranny"[/rquoter] What else could "unfettered capitalism" be except for the singular pursuit of material gain? Again I don't think he is saying we should dump Capitalism wholesale. He is talking about unfettered Capitalism and that there seems to be an obsession to material gain to the detriment of societal and spiritual concerns. To paraphrase what former Czech leader Dubcek said about Communism Pope Francis is almost making a call for Capitalism with a human face. As I said earlier I don't think Jesus' teachings specifically apply to modern Capitalism, or for modern Socialism for that matter, but I find it very difficult to agree that there is Biblical justification for Capitalism especially Laissez-Faire Capitalism.
Looking at the bible and the actual words of Jesus one of the things he talks about most is how people with a large amount of money should give it away. In fact when people with large amounts of money do give it away, Jesus talks about how they will be in heaven because of it. Most of the time Jesus is only talking about having wealth. He often mentions wealth without directly mentioning greed, etc. Jesus talks about that more than sexual immorality, more than working hard to earn a living, and more than adultery or stealing. Obviously the pope's message is well in line with what Jesus was talking about according to the bible. Certainly there is greed mentioned at times as well, but to claim that ever time Jesus talks about people giving away their wealth is really just him talking about greed isn't totally accurate. The problem is that the church (not just the Catholic church, but many churches in general) have changed the emphasis of Jesus' message on earth if not the entire message itself in many cases. This pope seems to be all about following the actual examples of Christ's message. People who have become more followers of the church's message than the message of Christ would not be happy.
Not a direct analogy, only related because of this thread. But, both are hierarchical, organizing, human constructs of like minded people for common purposes and the greater good, that require funding from their constituents. Both use the indoctrination of children to instill loyalties and values and ostracize 'others" to maintain the cohesiveness of the group. So, it's not exactly crazy.
Like minded is where the analogy devolves. Look at this forum as a microcosm. There are many different types of people that post here. It is extremely diverse, from an opinion standpoint. It is the antithesis of like minded, yet we all pay taxes. Tithing comes from conviction of the heart and soul. Taxation comes from the force of law. They are about as different as you can get.
Atheists and Christians disagree on basic worldview. As a Christian, I believe in showing love to everyone, regardless of what they believe. There were no exceptions to Christ's love. There is no doubt I will fail at times, and I don't deny that there are many Christians who have not shown love to Atheists. Obviously Christians by themselves cannot solve poverty. My point was that if Christians actually followed the teachings of Jesus and worked to reduce poverty, a significant reduction in poverty would follow. There are pervasive examples in the Bible of Christians taking care of the least among us. We (referring collectively to Christians) should follow the examples given to us and take action.
