When we talk about the spiritual I go to an expert on the matter, <chuckle> my expert!


>>"A non-existent thing, it is agreed, cannot be seen by signs. In order to write a man must exist -- one who does not exist cannot write. Writing is, in itself, a sign of the writer's soul and intelligence. The Sacred Writings (with ever the same Teaching) prove the continuity of the spirit."<<

No, the "Teaching" is never the same. Similarities can be drawn - but they have to be interpreted - very conditionally, actually. The only way to draw a real connection between this and that "scrip[ture" is to make your connection so vague as to be almost irrelevant. For instance "Be kind to one another" is not precisely the most ground-shaking tit-bit of widsom ever proferred.

>>"Consider the aim of creation:"<<

"Creation" is a myth used to comfort those who lacked the will to go on in the face of the hurtful and bleak truth that existence is aimless without h uman will assigning a meaning and a goal to it.

>>" is it possible that all is created to evolve and develop through countless ages with this small goal in view -- a few years of a man's life on earth? Is it not unthinkable that this should be the final aim of existence?"<<

It's not unthinkable, but it's supported by neither logic or evidence, wheras a more logical view - naturalistic - is supported by evidence and requires no special imaginative athletics to 'believe'. Believe nothing - what's left when beliefs are put away is what is so.

The mineral evolves till it is absorbed in the life of the plant, the plant progresses till finally it loses its life in that of the animal; the animal, in its turn, forming part of the food of man, is absorbed into human life.

Thus, man is shown to be the sum of all creation, the superior of all created beings, the goal to which countless ages of existence have progressed.

At the best, man spends four-score years and ten in this world -- a short time indeed!

>>"Does a man cease to exist when he leaves the body? If his life comes to an end, then all the previous evolution is useless, all has been for nothing! Can one imagine that Creation has no greater aim than this?"<<

I recommend a brief study into the mechanics and facts of evolutional change in order to put your fears and misunderstandings to rest. I'm sorry if this seems dismissive, but you lack an understanding of how evolution works and are probably burdened overmuch by the nihilism that comes with contemplating truth. A real spirituality can be based on truth - as it exists - without recourse to the fallacies (and outright lies) of religionists; that spirituality is, I think, far more valuable than one that extolls the virtues of submitting to a phantom of arbitrary authority assigned to a mere fable, written by mere humans, whose mistakes are more than apparent to those willing to regard them objectively.

>>"The soul is eternal, immortal."<<

Semantics. Eternity is a thoroughly human concept, observable in math, but not wholly valid as a measure of one's individuality - without relying on beliefs. Beliefs are not useless - but they don't belong in the category of objectively critical discussion.

>>"Materialists say, 'Where is the soul? What is it? We cannot see it, neither can we touch it'."<<

Do they? I don't hear that much except from proponents of some organized belief system or other.


>>"This is how we must answer them: However much the mineral may progress, it cannot comprehend the vegetable world. Now, that lack of comprehension does not prove the non-existence of the plant!"<<

How can anyone measure the perceptual capabilities of the mineral? ('Only materially' is an answer - but it's inadequate!) Fallacy upon flaw - and, coincidentally, not very useful in matters of the spirit, eh? ("It doesn't matter" is a better answer...)

>>"To however great a degree the plant may have evolved, it is unable to understand the animal world; this ignorance is no proof that the animal does not exist!"<<

Again - who says what a plant is aware of? This ascription of personality and perception to these other forms of stuff are only assumptions - though I want to point out that that's not the only way in which this line of reasoning is fallacious - a thing's ignorance of animal reality does not *prove* animal existence, either!

>>"The animal, be he ever so highly developed, cannot imagine the intelligence of man, neither can he realize the nature of his soul. But, again, this does not prove that man is without intellect, or without soul. It only demonstrates this, that one form of existence is incapable of comprehending a form superior to itself."<<

Ah yes - so humans aren't animals and animals have no soul? Talk about assumptions! And so arrogant. And so blind - so unspiritual. How disappointing!

>>"...if materialists do not believe in the existence of the soul, their unbelief does not prove that there is no such realm as the world of spirit. The very existence of man's intelligence proves his immortality"<<

Uhhh beg pardon? No. Unless you want to default to mere semantics, again.

>>" moreover, darkness proves the presence of light, for without light there would be no shadow. Poverty proves the existence of riches, for, without riches, how could we measure poverty? Ignorance proves that knowledge exists, for without knowledge how could there be ignorance?"<<

Sophistry, all of it. In the absence of light there is no light. Were there no light (there'd be no universe but also) there'd be - no light. Call it what you will. Poverty is want - riches are not poverty's "opposite" but merely another form of want. Riches are valueless. Poverty is the result of crime. This is only one example of the cognitive detriment that proceeds from rigidly dualistic mentality.


>>"Therefore the idea of mortality presupposes the existence of immortality -- for if there were no Life Eternal, there would be no way of measuring the life of this world!"<<

Oh come on. Are you really not seeing the flaw in this? I suppose, if one is thoroughly solipsistic, that one might imagine that all reality blinks out of existence when "you" die or cease to be conscious, but - what's the point of that? What does it show? This argument gets weaker as it goes along.

>>"If the spirit were not immortal, how could the Manifestations of God endure such terrible trials?"<<

Enh. Better question: what kind of weirdo is this god that keeps manufacturing wooden-nickel ?trials? to bat aside with its omnipotence?

>>?Why did Christ Jesus suffer the fearful death on the cross??<<

Screwed arouind with the romans. Bad call. Should?ve not ridden into the city. Bad move. IU was crtazy like that, too, for a while. Pick your battles, Messiah.


>>?Why did Muhammad bear persecutions??<<

Same problem: too much of the shit-disturber in him, I guess. Gotta admit - it was probably more interesting and exciting than trading and convoying.

I?m not all that familiar with rest ofthe historical material presented, and will decline to comment on it.

>>?Why should all this suffering have been, if not to prove the everlasting life of the spirit??<<

This ?proof? neither necessary nor conclusive. I think a better view of suffering is that it provides for us data on how to reduce it. Paradoxical - but then so is every other real truth.

>>?Christ suffered, He accepted all His trials because of the immortality of His spirit. If a man reflects he will understand the spiritual significance of the law of progress; how all moves from the inferior to the superior degree.?<<

Mythology surrounding Josh Josephson?s execution is not a cogent argument. The ?law of progress? is an illusion and not based on any demonstrable fact nor repeatable experiment. Ascription of ?progress? is a kind of belief - it?s based on the idea that something is ever ?better? than it was, which is a subjective matter. I suppose entropy is a kind of progress....

>>?It is only a man without intelligence who, after considering these things (BUZZ - self-nullifying premise ~ lkfr), can imagine that the great scheme of creation should suddenly cease to progress, that evolution should come to such an inadequate end!?<<

Again, it?s only of note to human intelligence that there is such a process, and only the product of human imagination (or semantics) that it is a ?creation?. We can agree that the universe is a system, and that (technically) that represents a ?scheme? - but the scheme is ours, we invented it as a way of measuring things. The end of evolution is only inadequate insofar as it bothers the human mind to imagine such a thing.

>>?Materialists who reason in this way, and contend that we are unable to see the world of spirit, or to perceive the blessings of God, are surely like the animals who have no understanding; having eyes they see not, ears they have, but do not hear. And this lack of sight and hearing is a proof of nothing but their own inferiority; of whom we read in the Qur'án, 'They are men who are blind and deaf to the Spirit.' They do not use that great gift of God, the power of the understanding, by which they might see with the eyes of the spirit, hear with spiritual ears and also comprehend with a Divinely enlightened heart.?<<

Put another way: ?Those who don?t draw the same conclusion as we do, but insist on questioning the mythology we have so graciously consented to allow them to be controlled by, are terrible creatures who are like dogs, and we should be more privileged than they.?

LAME. Boringly lopsided and childish, also. Got anything better?

>>?The inability of the materialistic mind to grasp the idea of the Life Eternal is no proof of the non-existence of that life.?<<

Assumptions made by the religiously limited mind about the nature of anyone else?s philosophies are not valuable to true critical thought. Until the religionist is able to admit the limitations of beliefs and assent to a critical review of them, their will be trouble in toontown, because these jokers are frikkin? crazy with their whole ?god? schtick and liable to blow shit up.

My advice, if any of this pseudo-argument built up of false dulaities and ascriptive fallacious assumptions actually seemed persuasive to the reader: keep your religion personal and private (thus far more sacred), and learn that it is the height of rudeness to impose your religion on others, be it in public discourse or private judgment. Learn, instead, to cherish the good behavior of loved ones and negotiate the poor behavior of everyone else. If you must pretend in order to remain sane, at least work out a deal where you don?t have to look down on those who aren?t into pretending with you. We?ll all *seem* much nicer and more respectful to one another, should this be possible.

The inability of the materialistic mind to grasp the idea of the Life Eternal is no proof of the non-existence of that life.
==
Nor is a sentance by you, or by a Bible, or by some celt in 1010 CE proof OF the existance of that life.

Baring miracles, the universe suggests that life does not exist enternal. but feel free to offer up proof otherwise.

Actually, Chaz brings up a good point...

What about the civil rights movement. It seems that many people weren't getting a clear view of things and there were these enlightend individuals (MLK, MX and a whole crew of others) offering peace, harmony and reality.

And what happend to them? BLAM! Killed in cold blood.

Seems some people DID need the prescription and got pissed off because they were a bit too attatched to their unfocus.