From: ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO)
Subject: Re: Reincarnation
Organization: HFS, Inc., McLean VA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 23:24:33 GMT

In article <1992Oct1.052258.10548@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>In article <1992Sep30.152154.10721@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>In article <1992Sep30.041450.5026@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca> ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca (Ted Powell) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep28.011018.27240@hfsi.uucp> ata@hfsi.uucp (John Ata - FSO) writes:
>>>>In article <1a4qjnINNf10@gap.caltech.edu> carl@SOL1.GPS.CALTECH.EDU writes:
>>>>>[...]
>>>>>Perhaps because we haven't seen a definition of "spiritual needs"?  He *DID*
>>>>>ask you for a definition.  Is this another of those things like a "soul" that
>>>>>can't be defined, but it exists because you want it to exist?
>>>>
>>>>I didn't perceive his question as being any more than rhetorical.
>>>[...]
>>>    If you're going to write things like "I think you are confusing social 
>>>needs with spiritual needs" it's only fair that you make some effort
>>>towards characterizing your perception of the distinction. 
>>>[...]
>>No, he asked the question and then went ahead and defined it
>>himself.  I was only pointing out that his definition was
>>confusing.
>
>First, what you _really_ wrote (see above) was "I didn't perceive his 
>question as being any more than rhetorical." Second, if you felt that he
>was giving a confusing definition, would it not have been more constructive
>to give one that you considered less confusing, rather than simply
>dismissing his question as "[not] being any more than rhetorical"?

Go back and read the first article which promted me to tell him that he
was confusing social and spiritual needs.  You've conveniently left that
out and then quoted me.  I'm making the assumption here that you've read
that posting.

>
>>            If he or anyone else really is interested in a
>>definition of "spiritual needs" vs. "social needs" I will be happy
>>to continue the discussion (probably Email is more appropriate but
>>I won't object to it here).
>
>As I already wrote (see above), if you're going to write things like 
>"I think you are confusing social needs with spiritual needs" it's only 
>fair that you make some effort towards characterizing your perception 
>of the distinction. At the risk of seeming ungracious, it seems to me that
>this was a plain enough request for clarification and that your failure to
>respond to it is at odds with your claim that you "will be happy to 
>continue".

I don't think that his request was for clarification at all.  But we obviously
disagree.  So here are my thoughts:

A spiritual hunger in a person is a recognition that there is more to the
world then what meets the physical senses.  It is trying to get all the
"missing" information it can about this spiritual realm so that they can
live their lives accordingly.  If this spirtual realm contains God, then
the hunger exists to please him and to know everything they can about him.
If it contains the notion of a soul, then certain questions come to mind
for which theories are advanced (reincarnation being the one mentioned).

Must I really define a social need or social hunger?

>
>-- 
>ted@eslvcr.wimsey.bc.ca   {ubc-cs,uunet}!van-bc!eslvcr!ted   (Ted Powell)


-- 
John G. Ata - Technical Consultant | Internet:  ata@hfsi.com
HFS, Inc.		  VA20     |     UUCP:  uunet!hfsi!ata
7900 Westpark Drive	 MS:601	   |    Voice:	(703) 827-6810
McLean, VA  22102	           |      FAX:	(703) 827-3729
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic