I can’t decide whether or not this is really on topic, but lekatt’s statement demands the question: why should a person be capable of discovering “who they are”? I would say that a human isn’t, because we have sin and inherent evil in us that keeps us in chains. This is the power of religion;* I don’t need to worry about what I am*, but instead what I should do, and what God is. Even such worrying will change me, but I may or may not even notice. It’s just not important.
It appears that cosmosdan is about to respond do my earlier post, so I’ll refrain from further comment until he posts.
The distinction I make between “religion” and “spirituality” is that religion is sufficiently codified and worked through in its details that it could be shared with other people and they could do the same thing, while spirituality can be pure subjective experience, personal feeling about the universe, and so on.
When I just had a spirituality and no religion, I was brimful of muddy thinking. I didn’t have to work through the stuff in my head, so it was just a mish-mash of happy fuzzy connection-to-the-universe. I got a bunch of boots to the head from life in general, and I’m no longer able to be satisfied with something that isn’t pinned down in certain ways.
Some people are entirely satisfied with the sort of things that spirituality has to offer, and even value the idiosyncratic nature of personal spirituality without religion. I figure that’s good for them; I’m not one of them, is all.
The brain, intellect whatever plays tricks on us all. When you are using a system to understand an external impression, depending on incomplete senses, experienced by that same tool… well, anything could be true and nothing could be true.
I have a feeling though that religion was designed by men to denegrate women and control men. I can say this with some confidence because religion is something we created and externalised. It wasn’t around before we made it all up.
Like the majority of the population I cannot help but feel there is something more to life than just what I have had the pleasure or misfortune to experience. The mystery keeps me going
I think this is a relatively narrow view of spirituality.
I consider myself to be very spiritual. However, I do not believe in the supernatural at all. The foundation of my spirituality is a deep appreciation for how amazing life and the world around me really are. What feeds my spirituality most are books like Guns, Germs, and Steel, How the Cows Went Mad, and other biology/ecology/anthropology related texts.
Most of my friends know I am agnostic. They stare goggle-eyed at me when I tell them that I feel I am a very spiritual person. I am getting really tired of this narrow-mindedness.
Spiirituality can mean different things to different people…We even say a horse has spirit etc.
I look at the spreading of a religion as medicine, every one has a different one that is helpful to them. It helps to escape the worlds problems, or personal ones if we feel there is something out there looking out for us. It helps some people to accept things that are troubling in their lives. Men were spiritual long before religion came on the scene,they looked for signs in the stars, and from other people. I have moticed when people are insecure they tend to turn to religion,as they did during the different wars.
For the first 300 plus years there was no Bible, perhaps that is why there is so many contradictory things in the Bible. The Torah was only a couple of hundred years old before Christianity came on the scene. In the 2 volumes of The Egyptian Ressurection one can read how much alike the story of Osiris was(pre-dynasty) to all that Jesus did, I was amazed! Even to the bread and wine sacrifice!
There is nothing in anything I’ve said to indicate that I believe God stopped working after Jesus died. I take acception to your charecterization of me spitting on anything. I merely stated the facts as I see them. My conclusions about Christian history were not made quickly or lightly. They were formed through years of study and a desire to seperate the truth from tradition and myth. During several of those years I studied as a christian seeking to prove doctrine I was being taught. In the last few it has been with more skepticism but still as someone seeking to worship in spirit and truth as Jesus instructed.
They weren’t just trying to summarize what they believe. The Emporer Constantine, {the government} called the council to settle division. Arianism in particular was denied. Arius fled for safety’s sake. When the church and state joined the church became a political animal more than a servant of God’s will.
The problem I have with it is a recognition that this was men serving the purpose of men, but presenting it as God’s work. This is the same “official” church that burned books and sentanced people to death for daring to question their beliefs.
If by followers you mean people who thought he was an interesting guy with neat things to say I agree with you. If by followers you mean people who thought of him as the only begotten son of God then you still haven’t provided any evidence.
Communion with the Holy Spirit is the only thing that allows us to know and do God’s will. Thats exactly what Jesus taught.
the rock is divine revelation , the spirit of truth that was promised to lead us into all truth. Not the Bible, or the Pope, or any group of scholars.
I certainly agree that Jesus taught people to seek the truth. The christianity that exists today bears only similarities with what Jesus taught . The true essence his teachings has been distorted. I don’t say this as a condemnation of anything. Organized religion is a very human mix of helping some and hurting others. Just a human by product of the search for truth.
Not everyone that says Lord Lord, but he who does the will of God.
Holy smokes! What an irrantional conclusion. Jesus was a jew useing a reference he knew other jews would identify with. There is no indication anywhere in the bible that it was ever the will of God or Jesus that the New Testament as we have it be any kind of final authority on the will of God. That is part of the Chistian tradition that stands in the way of the truth rather than promotes it. The Bible was created by men and is a helpful tool. Thats all. Jesus himself clearly states don’t place your trust in any man {that would include so called scholars and religious leaders} place your trust in God and your own ability to commune with him.
Perhaps both are false. Seeing the works of the “official” church in history my conclusion is that the spirit of God wasn’t there. They were the new pharisees, doing what pharisees do.
Like Q.N.Jones I disagree with that statement. That may have been how it started for you,lekatt, but not for me, or many other people I know.
As I’ve said before, I think spirituality begins when you start questioning who you are, what your place is in the universe, and your relation to god (the universe, spirits, nature, insert your flavor here). For you, that questioning happened (and perhaps was answered at the same time) when you had a near death experience, thus leading you to the conclusion that is the only way to reach it. (although I will check out that book you mentioned.)
Lilairen Thank you, for your post.
When I woke up this morning, I came to conciousness still thinking about my post last night, and wondering if some people need religion to support them in finding their own answers. That they would have vaque, undefined questions on their own, but through the support of their church, they could solidify those questions and find answers that work for them. You answered that question.
I still fear (and suspect) that the church will ‘guide’ those people to find answers that are in line with the churches philosoply, and that supports and strengthens the church, rather than being objective about it. But I can at least see how the church can be of help to those who could not find the answers on their own.
Lilairen I ask you to consider that not everyone who is ‘spiritual without a religion’ has only a ‘a mish-mash of happy fuzzy connection-to-the-universe’. That is not true for me at least. I may not have a list of rules spelled out for me like many religions, but I have a very clear cut connection to the universe and I know exactly what my place is in it.
eustachian≠fallopian and cosmosdan I know I have comments/questions for both of you, but I see on preview that you just posted again and I’ll need time to absorb it and formulate my message.
I agree with you. I know organized religion does good things for people but we also see the negativity that can result from the dogmatic mind set. It’s just a human trait that exists in and out of religion. I can go to church and enjoy the service. I take what I want and leave the rest. I enjoy singing praises to God and thanking him. I appreciate the testimonies of people who have been touched and healed by the spirit. If they venture into a realm where I disagree slighty it’s no big deal.
I don’t feel the least but fuzzy minded without the guidence of a church or doctrine. I am comfortable with my own ability to pray and choose for myself what I beleive and where the spirit is leading me. No doubt I make my mistakes. Thats between me and God. Not me and my pastor or the pope.
First, a plea for comments on this subject from those who practice/believe/embrace other religions! I know my OP was phrased using Church and Minister (my family is Catholic and I was raised in an area primarily Baptist and Episcopalian, I think) so those are how I tend to term things. It is not my intent to have this be a debate only about how Xtians and agnostics view religion vs. spirituality.
Ok, that being said…
eustachian≠fallopian I’ve re-read all your posts and I have to wonder what ‘spirituality’ means to you, because I get the impression you are defining it differently than I do.
I use this definition: Spirituality is ones personal connection to the spiritual world, the world of the non-material, the soul, the universe, all life, all existance, god. It is finding your place in the universe.
(if you use a different definition, please tell me)
You said "Jesus didn’t bring spirituality to the Jews; these are people with a great trust in God’s existence, Lucifer’s existence, angels, demons, etc. The attraction of Jesus was hope in a resurrection, and permanent freedom for Israel. In other words, spirituality simply wasn’t the point. " (bolding mine) “Christianity isn’t here to make people feel good; it is here to glorify God by making disciples of Christ, …”
I disagree that spirituality wasn’t the point, it was the entire point. (for the sake of this argument, I am not going to debate what christ said, or if he said it, or if he even existed, I will accept whatever statements you choose to quote from your bible.) Christianity is telling people what their place is in the universe. Yes the Jews were already a spiritual people. They already had their Rabbis telling them their place, and along came Christ telling them that it wasn’t really that way, it was another way. To me, that is instructing someone about their spirituality.
You said "Similarly, merely talking to the spirits, or being in a special relationship with the universe, has little or nothing to do with Christianity. Christ called for Christianity with the command, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned”
Are you seperating ‘spirituality=connection to the universe and spirits’ from ‘spirituality = connection to god’? It seems to me that if whoever belives and is baptized gets saved and whoever doesn’t gets condemned is a pretty strong statement about ones connection to the universe. I don’t see any difference between figuring out where you stand in connection to the universe, and figuring out where you stand in connection to god. (same for ‘life’, ‘spirits’, etc. you can insert your own flavor)
Perhaps this is where we diverge in our understanding of spirituality. I think that it is entirely possible, and in fact desireable, for every human to discover ‘who they are’. Your belief in inherent evil keeping us in chains is not my belief. I believe that god created us with unlimited potential and it is only our limited sight and thinking that restrains us. Sometimes people like lekatt have a visionary glimpse past those limitations, while the rest of us have to work to think about it and figure it out for ourselves. But it is possible.
I do understand your saying there is power in religion. There is only so much we can question at once. By accepting your religion, you don’t worry about what you are, only what you need to do. For me, I don’t need to worry about what I need to do, only what I am. (yes, I simplified the questions, just go with it.) We each have the things we worry about, and the things we have faith in. They’re just different things for each of us.
OK, Cosmosdan so I didn’t have any questions directly for you, I still look forward to seeing your next post.
You wouldn’t think so if you knew some of the things lekatt has done and said in the past. Nevertheless, I apologize to you since this is your thread.
lekatt tends to decide what everything means for everybody. When he says what religion “is”, he means what it is and that’s that. No other input necessary, no other viewpoint valid.
Like I said, if you define “religion” as “organized religion” as many in this thread seem to do, then yeah, I guess there’s a difference, unless of course I decide to define “spirituality” as “organized religion” in which case they’re the same again. That’s the problem with discussions like this one; they hinge on arbitrary definitions.
I define “religion” as one of a set of beliefs sharing certain characteristics. I define “religion” the way the Supreme Court defines porn - I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it. I see no reason to use different words for the beliefs of an Orthodox Jew or Roman Catholic and the beliefs of a new age hippie or astrologer. It’s all religion, organized or not. There is no distinction worthy of a whole different nomenclature.
I’d also like to add that lekatt said what he said in response to my post, even quoting it. In other words, he was saying “you are wrong, this is how it really is”. No backup of course, just assertions, same as always. Surely I must be allowed to respond to that?
I admit I don’t have your history of debating with lekatt. But I opened this thread to debate exactly that, the meaning of spirituality vs the meaning of religion, how they differ, how they are the same, if one interferes with the other, and/or any other things that come up for us when those words are used. If lekatt states something as a ‘fact’ that you disagree with, by all means call him on it. State what you disagree with and why and let him respond with counter arguments. We are here to fight ignorance and learn from each other. Perhaps to him it is as simple a fact as ‘the sun rises in the east’ and so he states it that way, not knowing that perhaps others may see it differently and that it is open to interpertation, that for you ‘the earth rotates while the sun stays still and thus the sun does not rise at all.’ (statements made as an example only - I have no knowledge of how either poster views the movement of the sun and earth)
Ok, I can see how given your definitions of religion and spirituality, you see them as the same thing.
and
which brings us to have to look up
I can see that you use the first definition of Religion while I tend to use the third. I do this specifically to seperate it from Spirituality. Having them both mean the same thing makes it difficult to debate what they mean to different people. So, yes, I agree with you that I, and the majority of the people in this thread, are using ‘religion’ to mean ‘organized religion’ and spirituality to mean one’s personal religion (regardless if it also matches, or was inspired by, an organised religion). It makes it easier to talk about than saying personal religion vs organised religion in this debate. For the purposes of this debate, can you accept this, (or some version of it)? Or do you have other terms that you use to seperate the discovery of one’s personal relationship with god, with the codefied teachings by a religion?
Why? If you do mean “personal religion” when you say “spirituality” and “organized religion” when you mean “religion”, why not use the unambiguous terms?
I don’t really see the debate, I’m afraid. What are we debating? What, given certain definitions, two words mean? Well, given the definitions we already know what they mean.
The “codified teachings” I call dogma or doctrine. They exist inside and outside religion, so I see no particular need to identify them specifically in connection with religion.
Only if you presume I have a church. I don’t. I don’t even have a temple, which would be a more appropriate term for at least one aspect of my religion. Hell, I don’t even have a coven.
I never claimed to have those things, or anything even remotely resembling; I find it moderately fascinating that the immediate presumption about having religion is “church”, and some sort of weird specialised meaning of “church” that seems to also mean “sublimating one’s personal meaningfulness into an externally imposed orthodoxy”. Because orthopraxic religions don’t exist, and “religious” means “Christian”, I guess.
Again with this presumption of external structure. And, apparently, the presumption that all the work I am doing to find and codify the answers I have into a coherent and consistent set of religious practices doesn’t actually exist, because I’m going hat-in-hand to this “church” that I supposedly belong to to ask for my answers.
I wish. It would be a lot less work. But since there isn’t anyone else, I guess I’m stuck, huh?
It’s very easy to consider it, as I never said or felt otherwise, and was very specifically talking about myself and my own experiences. Note all those “I” statements and the lack of any statements about “people who are spiritual without religion” at all.
One of the big differences between religion and spirituallity you have just brought up. As a spiritual person I see no inherent evil in man. We were created in the image of God, and God is not evil. I see humans as sparks of the full energy of God. Learning to grow in wisdom and knowledge by following the path of Love.
My experience has been different. After my spiritual experience life became clear. The endless wondering if I had made the right decision was no more. I only ask myself what would be the loving thing to do, and I try to do it, if possible. If it is not possible I leave it to God.
[hijack] So, Lekatt, by your logic, there should be no evil on Earth whatsoever, since God’s perfect, we’re perfect, and surely if we were perfect we could just effortlessly reject all evil. Or is evil created by society? As in, the one that we constructed ourselves? [/hijack]
(a) Christ didn’t say Judaism wasn’t the way, he said it no longer was the way.
(b) The point was that Christ would justify Judaism with his blood. The point was that a forgiven humanity should behave differently than an unforgiven people. The point was that faith should trump legalism.
(c) These are very solid, bread-and-butter issues—not just spiritual.
Cummon, the disciples didn’t really get that he was the only begotten son of God until after his resurrection.
Lemmesee… first, you need to cite the second and third sentences. Modern Christian thought, like it or not, comes largely from quotes of, that’s right, Jesus. Actually, mostly from quotes, and from his actions.
This is just an observation/side note, but we need a better term than “organized religion.” It’s biggest problem is that generally the only people who use the term are the people who dislike “organized religion”. Also, it’s misleading. Worship is often anything but organized. How does “quantified religion” strike you?
Naturally… but the Holy Spirit is more than the imaginary description I gave that you quoted. Note the “if”. It’s not supposed to be a real illustration. I’m saying that I do follow the Holy Spirit. I think this is just a misunderstanding.
You’ll pardon my lack of response to this, purely because so much here should be debated. We could turn this thread into a talk about the Bible, who wrote it, whether it was divinely inspired, etc.,… but it has zilch to do with the OP. Fair enough?
Hence the fragment, “Or both.” I’m not saying that when two religions are in disagreement, one must be right.
[QUOTE=eustachian≠fallopian]
[hijack] So, Lekatt, by your logic, there should be no evil on Earth whatsoever, since God’s perfect, we’re perfect, and surely if we were perfect we could just effortlessly reject all evil. Or is evil created by society? As in, the one that we constructed ourselves? [/hijack]
I offered no logic, you have offered your interpretation of my post, which is not what I said. Happens all the time.
Simply put “evil” comes from the fear we will not survive. But we will not survive no matter what we do. Like a catch 22.
We hoard money and food, so some starve. We kill for money, territory,
idealogies, and such. Building armies to destroy our enemies, who in turn build armies to destroy us. We are afraid, we do not feel safe, so we want guarantees, but there are none.
That’s why Jesus taught love your enemies, do good to them that hate you, etc. It is the way out, and the way back to God’s Love.
Jesus was spiritual, He didn’t build, nor organize any organizations. He taught the way, but was misunderstood.
I want to add that what I write are my interpretations, opinions, and experiences. If you disagree, it’s ok, I may disagree with your posts. However, we can respect each other’s right to believe as they see fit. If we follow the teachings of Jesus and not condemn others we will get along just fine.
