Sacrifice

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No, Waterstones.

Ah, the fount of grate nollidge.

[Rhiannon]

Ah, the fount of grate nollidge.

Is book burning more your thing then?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is book burning more your thing then?

Eh?

[Rhiannon]

Eh?

You seem abnormally alarmed by places that sell books. Would you prefer it if they didn't exist?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem abnormally alarmed by places that sell books. Would you prefer it if they didn't exist?

Sorry, I think you've got the wrong number.

[Shaker]

I can't believe we've reached over 50 posts and no one has mentioned Elton John yet.

[Spud]

Agreeing that selflessness is an important part of spiritual development....how does sacrificing animals to rid ourselves of sin amount to selflessness??!!  It is actually selfishness.

I was talking about this: "eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities" but I wasn't referring to sacrificing animals to achieve it. It was just a definition of spirituality I'd come across that sounded similar to the above.

[floo]

I was talking about this: "eliminating our animal nature and developing more human/divine qualities" but I wasn't referring to sacrificing animals to achieve it. It was just a definition of spirituality I'd come across that sounded similar to the above.

Humans are animals, even if more intelligent than other species.

[Shaker]

Humans are animals, even if more intelligent than other species.

What you sometimes find with people of a theistic bent who know little and care less about science is either that they deny the fact that humans are part of the animal kingdom at all (i.e. the most extreme of creationist reality-deniers) or, amongst the marginally less insane, the acknowledgement that humans are animals but the viewing of this with shame, reluctance and embarrassment, as something they think should be distanced from (e.g. Sriram), as though the animality of the human species is some source of familial shame, like the embarrassing old uncle who drinks and farts and swears that everybody knows exists but nobody talks about in polite company, since our animality isn't polite to these delicate little cupcakes with their pious little eyes on the lofty and the divine.

This attitude was incredibly common in the Darwin era of the second half of the nineteenth century (Queen Victoria on seeing her first orang utan in a zoo is the prime example) and such people - the few who still exist - have mentally and emotionally never left it.

[Rhiannon]

I can't believe we've reached over 50 posts and no one has mentioned Elton John yet.

You really shouldn't have.

[floo]

What you sometimes find with people of a theistic bent who know little and care less about science is either that they deny the fact that humans are part of the animal kingdom at all (i.e. the most extreme of creationist reality-deniers) or, amongst the marginally less insane, the acknowledgement that humans are animals but the viewing of this with shame, reluctance and embarrassment, as something they think should be distanced from (e.g. Sriram), as though the animality of the human species is some source of familial shame, like the embarrassing old uncle who drinks and farts and swears that everybody knows exists but nobody talks about in polite company, since our animality isn't polite to these delicate little cupcakes with their pious little eyes on the lofty and the divine.

This attitude was incredibly common in the Darwin era of the second half of the nineteenth century (Queen Victoria on seeing her first orang utan in a zoo is the prime example) and such people - the few who still exist - have mentally and emotionally never left it.

Yes it is sad, but I suspect there are more than a few who think that way, especially across the pond where extreme Christian fundamentalism is rife!

[Spud]

That's just one (slightly odd) definition, Spud. Others are available.

Can you tell us any which are different from the one I gave - had a google and found definitions mostly quite similar to the one I heard.

[Rhiannon]

Can you tell us any which are different from the one I gave - had a google and found definitions mostly quite similar to the one I heard.

Spirituality is the nurturing of the spirit - the part of us that needs taking care of once our basic physical needs are met. No religion or deity necessary but you can have one if you like.

Incidentally, the thing I found odd about your description is that your lecturer encouraged you not to attend to your own needs. At its heart spirituality has always been about listening to the promptings of the inner voice - and this may very well result in selflessness and altruism - but to suggest starting there and not attending to your own house as it were is not something I've come across in all my years of studying and living the subject.

[Spud]

What you sometimes find with people of a theistic bent who know little and care less about science is either that they deny the fact that humans are part of the animal kingdom at all (i.e. the most extreme of creationist reality-deniers) or, amongst the marginally less insane, the acknowledgement that humans are animals ....

I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.

[Shaker]

Can you tell us any which are different from the one I gave - had a google and found definitions mostly quite similar to the one I heard.

Rhi's question not mine - but those conceptions of spirituality without a creator God or indeed without the supernatural in toto i.e. The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville; Religion Without God by Ray Billington; Spirituality for the Skeptic by Robert C. Solomon; Buddhism; Jainism; a large chunk of Hinduism, etc.

[Shaker]

I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.

Just like I said, laughably ignorant of science.

Good of you to fess up to it, though.

[Spud]

Spirituality is the nurturing of the spirit - the part of us that needs taking care of once our basic physical needs are met. No religion or deity necessary but you can have one if you like.

Incidentally, the thing I found odd about your description is that your lecturer encouraged you not to attend to your own needs. At its heart spirituality has always been about listening to the promptings of the inner voice - and this may very well result in selflessness and altruism - but to suggest starting there and not attending to your own house as it were is not something I've come across in all my years of studying and living the subject.

I agree, and I don't recall suggesting he said that we don't attend to our own needs, but sorry if it came across that I did..

[floo]

I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.

What about apes?

[Spud]

Rhi's question not mine - but those conceptions of spirituality without a creator God or indeed without the supernatural in toto i.e. The Little Book of Atheist Spirituality by Andre Comte-Sponville; Religion Without God by Ray Billington; Spirituality for the Skeptic by Robert C. Solomon; Buddhism; Jainism; a large chunk of Hinduism, etc.

I've remembered now- my thoughts at the time were that I hadn't thought of 'spirituality' as anything to do with relationships with other people - only with the Creator and anything to do with the non-physical realm.

[Shaker]

I've remembered now- my thoughts at the time were that I hadn't thought of 'spirituality' as anything to do with relationships with other people - only with the Creator and anything to do with the non-physical realm.

Well that's your ridiculous error then.

[Spud]

What about apes?

Apes included...

[Shaker]

Apes included...

In what?

[Gordon]

I think you'll find the idea is that we are animals but not genetically related to the other animals.

What a daft idea.

[Anchorman]

What a daft idea.

Not only daft, but innacurate.
We also share some genetic markers with plants as well.

[Shaker]

I see that it's time for me to be 'that guy' yet again but at bargain basement level we have a genetic connection with every living thing - all life on earth is as one; the only thing is difference of genetic closeness, so to speak.

If you intuitively understand the concept of being closer to your mum than your second cousin, you've got the basics already.

From a human p.o.v. it's about 50% similarity with a banana, for example. Otherwise it's a larger or a smaller number, that's all.