Two Versions Of Boom

Believers will tell you a superior and supernatural being created life as we know it by poofing it all into existence at his whim. From nothing to something, every day until he was done. But scientists are crazy because a huge explosion was the cause for the existence of our universe.

Scientists will tell you the best possible explanation that we have to date is the big bang happened. Visually conceptualized, from virtually nothing to something into our current understanding of the universe. But believers are crazy because they think a supernatural being just whipped up the existence of life as we know it out of thin air.

Highlighting the meaning of this concept is clearly one minuscule part of the much larger argument, but it is an irritant for me. Forgive me my OCDs. If we look at these examples, side by side, religion and science seem to agree to the origin (nothing into something) even though each perspective would tell us the how and the why are different. So my point is - let's stop arguing about that particular point! If the explanation for both sides is that our existence got here from nothing, it would seem to me we all (believer, non-believer, scientist or layman) agree to this concept of our beginning.

BOOM... there it is.

I'm Not Spiritual

Armando Favazza, author of PyschoBible, presented us with psychologist David Elkins' definition of what would qualify a person to be a spiritual one. He wrote "These would include belief in "a greater self" or a personal God, a sense of purpose in life and a quest for meaning, acceptance of the sacredness of nature and of all human experience, knowledge that ultimate fulfillment is found in spirituality and not in material things, altruism, idealism, awareness of suffering and death, and leading a life that has a positive effect on people, nature and their relationship "with whatever they consider to be the ultimate and transcendent reality." The take-away for me was that Favazza would agree with that definition.

Well, after reading that I'm going to have to admit that I, too, agreed with that definition at one time. But it's certainly not a label I hold any longer. I think I held this opinion then in the hopes that if there really were a god, I might still get points for the effort of calling myself something closely resembling what he/she wanted me to be.

I understand now am I not spiritual as described in the definition above, but really only a human being who wants to do the best I can during my short stint on this planet. I'll agree (slightly and with some modifications) that I have "a sense of purpose in life and a quest for meaning, acceptance of the sacredness of nature and of all human experience, knowledge that ultimate fulfillment is found in spirituality *being a decent human being and not in material things, altruism, idealism, awareness of suffering and death, and leading a life that has a positive effect on people, *and nature and their relationship "with whatever they consider to be the ultimate and transcendent reality." In other words, just being someone whose presence in this life is not detrimental to others and the world I inhabit. It still doesn't require a holy spirit that sets my actions in motion.

So, I'm not spiritual, but I am a good human and I'm self-led. And that's about as deep as it gets.