26 Mar 10
1 edit
Originally posted by UzumakiAiNo not all values are immaterial, that is not true, for if it were the case then the worlds economies could not work. Your Pc/laptop had a monetary value, if you own your house, your car, it has a monetary value, which is not immaterial, for if you sold it you would see the pile of cash which represented the value of your house. You could touch it and play with it, smoke it or give it away. Thus the statement that all values are immaterial is to my mind erroneous.
Are you misunderstanding me? I was asking if you meant "passionate" when you said "spiritual". You apparently did not. Instead, you meant religious on an individual level. The answer to my question then, is that you are religious. I don't care what you are passionate about, you needn't worry.
You can use whatever words you want, but "challenging convent nist, millenarian Christian denomination. The RELIGION reports worldwide..."
Spirituality is i think quite clearly defined as values which are immaterial. For example, we see a lady who is pretty, we assign her a value based on her appearance, a physical value, based upon what we can see and touch (if you are brave enough), we cannot see what is inside her, what motivates her, what are her aspirations and dreams, for these values are of a spiritual nature.
Dictionaries are not to be trusted, if you want to know anything about Jehovahs Witnesses, here is the ONLY official site. You will find it in almost 4000 languages, including Japanese 🙂
http://watchtower.org/
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe are speaking not of monetary values, but of human values. The only reason that there are the monetary values there are is because people's minds value that which is worth something to them. I am sorry if I am being unclear. If a house were not valued buy anyone, no monetary value would be assigned. The monetary value is a representation of the perceived value, which is immaterial.
No not all values are immaterial, that is not true, for if it were the case then the worlds economies could not work. Your Pc/laptop had a monetary value, if you own your house, your car, it has a monetary value, which is not immaterial, for if you sold it you would see the pile of cash which represented the value of your house. You could touch it ...[text shortened]... o know anything about Jehovahs Witnesses, here is the ONLY official site
wwww:watchtower.org
What is valued may or may not be material. You can value friendship, which is immaterial, or a friend, which is material, but the desire and value of those two things is in the perception of them.
The value of beauty is similarly immaterial. You may desire beauty, or you may desire a beautiful person. You may value a person with a pure soul (and I use soul in a secular fashion), or you may value a pure soul in a person. The important thing is not the state of that which is valued, but the value itself, which is always immaterial regardless of how you phrase things.
Thank you for the link.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by UzumakiAiyes its is true, money is merely a representation, however the realisation of its value is physical, a house, or a car etc etc. Is it not the case? same with physical beauty, we assign it a value based on its physical representation. The value in itself may be immaterial, however its source is certainly physical. This appears to my mind to be in contrast to what is spiritual, for the representation of its value is based on what is unseen, a morality, or an idea, the character of God or the example of an esteemed figure.
We are speaking not of monetary values, but of human values. The only reason that there are the monetary values there are is because people's minds value that which is worth something to them. I am sorry if I am being unclear. If a house were not valued buy anyone, no monetary value would be assigned. The monetary value is a representation of the perceived ...[text shortened]... elf, which is always immaterial regardless of how you phrase things.
Thank you for the link.
you are most welcome.
- Joined
- 30 Dec 07
- Moves
- 9905
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOkay, I think I understand what you mean. I still think that you are religious, and I still want to know about how people identify in that respect, but I see that the dichotomy you are presenting is just as meaningful.
yes its is true, money is merely a representation, however the realisation of its value is physical, a house, or a car etc etc. Is it not the case? same with physical beauty, we assign it a value based on its physical representation. The value in itself may be immaterial, however its source is certainly physical. This appears to my mind to be in ...[text shortened]... or an idea, the character of God or the example of an esteemed figure.
you are most welcome.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by UzumakiAilol, me meaningful? that shall be a first!, its late i am just talking, i need to sleep before i say too much and wake up wondering if i upset anyone last night with the smoke rings of my mind - goodnight to you my friend and if you see the 'brothers', in Japan, give them my warmest regards - Robbie.
Okay, I think I understand what you mean. I still think that you are religious, and I still want to know about how people identify in that respect, but I see that the dichotomy you are presenting is just as meaningful.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by UzumakiAiI am athiest.
I would like to poll you, please. How many people here are atheistic, and how many religious?
You would have done better to avoid the term 'religious' and gone with either 'theist', or even offered 'agnostic' as well. There are plenty of people who consider themselves both theists and areligious.
26 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadI agree "religous' is a difficult term to understand in todays intellectual climate.
I am athiest.
You would have done better to avoid the term 'religious' and gone with either 'theist', or even offered 'agnostic' as well. There are plenty of people who consider themselves both theists and areligious.
I consider myself 'religous' but it would be drawing a long bow to be able to relate my reigous practices with that of other established religons.
27 Mar 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadThere are plenty of people who consider themselves both theists and areligious.
I am athiest.
You would have done better to avoid the term 'religious' and gone with either 'theist', or even offered 'agnostic' as well. There are plenty of people who consider themselves both theists and areligious.
Deists.