Being 'spiritual'.

Hollyg'lightly

Well it seems this is the buzzword of the modern day. Is it that people are so terrified to say ya, i'm religious, so they smooth it over with this being spiritual business, or is it that some people are too lazy to get up off their arse and go to Mass and instead say i'm spiritual when in actual fact they couldn't be bothered giving a thought to any spiritual matters altogether. Is saying you are spiritual really something higher than religion?
:DWhats going on?

Oryx

My opinion.

Religion has little at all to do with being spiritual. You can be very religious without being at all spiritual, and I would say, vice versa.

Spirituality has nothing to do with ritual, practice, dogma, creed. Although people do use such things to access spirituality.
It is about recognising yourself and others as eternal beings, about seeing life as being more than the sum of our physical selves. Religion seeks to find meaning and the right way of doing things externally. Spirituality is about finding that internally.

Thats how I see it, anyhoo.

I suppose spirituality is a handy catch all word, that can be thrown about a bit like the word love. People do use it without really understanding it, but such is the way with everything.

Darlughda

Hollyg'lightly wrote: »

Well it seems this is the buzzword of the modern day. Is it that people are so terrified to say ya, i'm religious, so they smooth it over with this being spiritual business, or is it that some people are too lazy to get up off their arse and go to Mass and instead say i'm spiritual when in actual fact they couldn't be bothered giving a thought to any spiritual matters altogether. Is saying you are spiritual really something higher than religion?
:DWhats going on?

It does seem that the word 'spiritual' has become a more acceptable term than 'religious'.

I'm not sure if not giving thought to spiritual matters is laziness,tho. Sounds like a good idea to me sometimes.

Spirituality has become another word that means so many different things to each individual. It seems that those who claim to be 'higher' or superior in any kind of way, just because they consider themselves spiritual, are really lacking gravely in another person's definition of spirituality.

richards6

There is always a big difference between acting/being in a spiritual state and wanting to appear spiritual. Personally, I find that some people use it as an adjective, to describe themselves, but that it is hard to see them be spiritual. I believe it is an active state, which involves a bit of doing. Then again I am allergic to the phrase ' I am a very spiritual person' but that's to do with my own stuff. Being a bit vague here, but is it the difference between using the term as an adjective and using it as a verb?

MysticalSoul

Religion and spirituality are not necessarily the same thing. One does not have to be one to have the other, although the two can co-exist. It is all a very individual thing.

I consider myself spiritual, but not religous. My own experience of religion in the type of environment, I grew up in, was one that set about to control, shame, and create fear in people, whereas spirituality for me, is meeting everyone from where they are at on their own individual journey. Spirituality, to me, is more accepting of others, and their differing beliefs.

Joe1919

Oryx wrote: »

My opinion.

It is about recognising yourself and others as eternal beings, about seeing life as being more than the sum of our physical selves.

Does one have to believe that one is eternal in order to be spiritual?
Is this not a limited view of spirit?

What about the person who like Heraclitus believes that all is in flux and becoming, that everything (including spirit) is always in a state of change?

jif

you do realise that religion actually means 'way of life'
being spiritual is another way of life really, just not as whacky as believing some guy was nailed to a cross for your sins 2000yrs ago

philologos

jif wrote: »

you do realise that religion actually means 'way of life'
being spiritual is another way of life really, just not as whacky as believing some guy was nailed to a cross for your sins 2000yrs ago

I personally would consider it more "wacky" to regard yourself as spiritual without any external basis for their beliefs. For example, Christians have the New Testament records, recorded experiences, and secular historical sources to suggest that Jesus Christ was crucified.

In the case of spiritualism (I distinguish this from spirituality) is based on personal experiences alone. In this sense surely Christianity and other religions are more balanced in that they have written recorded texts, and personal experience combined together.

I find it amazing that some people are so quick to slander what other people hold to.

Joe1919 wrote:

What about the person who like Heraclitus believes that all is in flux and becoming, that everything (including spirit) is always in a state of change?

I just finished an assignment on the advantages and disadvantages of the Presocratics, and I found the readings from the fragments we have from Aristotle and other later philosophers to be quite interesting. The sad thing is we don't have any original fragments from Hereclitus himself

MysticalSoul wrote:

Religion and spirituality are not necessarily the same thing. One does not have to be one to have the other, although the two can co-exist. It is all a very individual thing.

The only problem is the more we disregard from religious texts to taking our individual experiences alone is there is no longer a check and balance to determine what is more probable than the other. There is no longer a standard as to what any higher power can be. I.E it's entirely contrived. There is no way that all the contrived notions in the world can be true ultimately.

Oryx wrote:

Religion has little at all to do with being spiritual. You can be very religious without being at all spiritual, and I would say, vice versa.

I'm in agreement. You can often miss the point by engaging in excessive ritualism. This isn't excluded to religion however, it is about as probable that the same can occur in spiritualism.

Oryx

In the case of spiritualism (I distinguish this from spirituality) is based on personal experiences alone. In this sense surely Christianity and other religions are more balanced in that they have written recorded texts, and personal experience combined together.

Until you begin to question the validity of those texts, which is another argument. (One I dont want to have, just pointing out that there are problems regardless of where you have found your belief system).

The only problem is the more we disregard from religious texts to taking our individual experiences alone is there is no longer a check and balance to determine what is more probable than the other. There is no longer a standard as to what any higher power can be. I.E it's entirely contrived. There is no way that all the contrived notions in the world can be true ultimately.

Should there really be a standard? I sometimes wonder if all religion is contrived. I dont see one standard in the world as it exists, and in fact I see more pain caused from disagreements over the one true way than any other thing. If you have your own personal truth, and you live in a good way, what is wrong with that?

I'm in agreement. You can often miss the point by engaging in excessive ritualism. This isn't excluded to religion however, it is about as probable that the same can occur in spiritualism.

There is little ritual in spirtualism, as far as Ive seen. There is method in how spirit contact is given, but no set practice or ritual otherwise. I think people complete rituals for the ritual itself, and forget it is a means to an end, an access to something else.

Joe1919

Oryx wrote: »

My opinion.

.......... about seeing life as being more than the sum of our physical selves.

I think you are right here but its important not to ignore the finitude of our own body when it comes to spirituality. I have included some quotes....

I have said that the soul is not more than the body.
And I have said that the body is not more than the soul,
And nothing, not God, is greater to one than one's-self is,........
( Walt Whitman, from "Leaves of Grass")

Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning.
( Kahlil Gibran )

Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God?
(Corinthians 6:19-20)

Oryx

Joe1919 wrote: »

Does one have to believe that one is eternal in order to be spiritual?
Is this not a limited view of spirit?

What about the person who like Heraclitus believes that all is in flux and becoming, that everything (including spirit) is always in a state of change?

One can be eternal without being the same as you are now.

philologos

Oryx wrote: »

Until you begin to question the validity of those texts, which is another argument. (One I dont want to have, just pointing out that there are problems regardless of where you have found your belief system).

It is another argument entirely alright. There is evidence to suggest that the Old Testament and the New Testament are the same as they were written. Whether or not you believe they were describing true events is another question. I won't get into it since you've kindly asked not to.

I happen to think that there is more basis for Christianity being true than entirely subjective and baseless notions being true. That was the point I put to jif on ridiculing the Crucifixion of Jesus which is a historically verified event (recorded in both Roman and Jewish texts) in favour of something that doesn't have historical basis.

Oryx wrote: »

Should there really be a standard? I sometimes wonder if all religion is contrived. I dont see one standard in the world as it exists, and in fact I see more pain caused from disagreements over the one true way than any other thing. If you have your own personal truth, and you live in a good way, what is wrong with that?

If God exists, His existence is objective.

It depends what you are looking for I guess. When I look and explore my faith I am looking for two things which are both related to each other.
1) The truth.
2) A genuine relationship with God based on the truth.

Subjective notions cannot all be true if we are talking about the existence of an entity. That's what I find to be wrong with it.

Oryx wrote: »

There is little ritual in spirtualism, as far as Ive seen. There is method in how spirit contact is given, but no set practice or ritual otherwise. I think people complete rituals for the ritual itself, and forget it is a means to an end, an access to something else.

I'm not sure I agree. Crystals, mediums, tarot cards and the like seem to be ritualistic.

Joe1919

Oryx wrote: »

One can be eternal without being the same as you are now.

Eternal usaully means being timeless or without change or that there is some everlasting quality. e.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal

The point I'm making is that one can be spiritual and yet believe that we are temporal spirits.
The reason I take issue with your defination (in terms of including the word 'eternal') is that it discriminates against some people who might consider themselves spiritual and yet not believe in personal immortality.

Why do you think the word 'eternal' is important in defining 'spiritual'?

Oryx

Joe1919 wrote: »

Eternal usaully means being timeless or without change or that there some everlasting quality. e.g. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/eternal

The point I'm making is that one can be spiritual and yet believe that we are temporal spirits.
The reason I take issue with your defination (in terms of including the word 'eternal') is that it discriminates against some people who might consider themselves spiritual and yet not believe in personal immortality.

Nothing Ive said here, or anywhere, should be taken as absolute. Its my opinion, my personal outlook, my own spirituality. You take what resonates, leave what does not. That is in essence what it means to me, that each persons own understanding of what we are, is true to them, its their own journey to their own wisdom and peace. Whether thats based on catholic doctrine, wiccan magick, or the belief that when we die we return to an infinite essence like a drop of water returning to the sea. If it brings you to a place of serenity and understanding, then that is good, and that is being spiritual, no matter what path you took.

Jakkass wrote: »

Subjective notions cannot all be true if we are talking about the existence of an entity. That's what I find to be wrong with it.

And in that belief in an entity our outlooks differ completely. And we need to shake hands and agree to disagree on that.

I'm not sure I agree. Crystals, mediums, tarot cards and the like seem to be ritualistic.

In spiritualism in its purest sense, no props are necessary, but I suppose in some aspects they have been brought in. Mediums use a mind to (spirit) mind contact. Is that ritual?

Joe1919

Oryx wrote: »

Nothing Ive said here, or anywhere, should be taken as absolute. Its my opinion, my personal outlook, my own spirituality. You take what resonates, leave what does not......

I kind of understand you here. Sometimes its hard to pin down exactly what we mean by terms like 'spirituality'. Your idea might be different than mine and yet everyone's idea of spirituality has a sort of family resemblance; an idea perhaps that there's more to life than just our bare material selves and that there's a little room for the 'mystic', that there are thing in life that can never be explained or even can never be put into words.....

philologos

Oryx wrote: »

And in that belief in an entity our outlooks differ completely. And we need to shake hands and agree to disagree on that.

True, ultimately we will have to agree to disagree on it. My point is that contradictory concepts cannot be both true. I could well be wrong, but there's not a hope that people with thousands if not millions of differing notions concerning metaphysical concepts can all be true.

I just find that relativism doesn't make sense.

Oryx wrote: »

In spiritualism in its purest sense, no props are necessary, but I suppose in some aspects they have been brought in. Mediums use a mind to (spirit) mind contact. Is that ritual?

Here's where the issue lies. I could claim that Christianity in it's purest sense doesn't require props. Puritanism in it's 17th century form would perhaps represent this. The question is whether or not the props make it easier to display key truths.

Attending mediums on a regular basis would constitute ritualism. Personally I don't think ritualism is entirely bad in religion, but if you only focus on ritualism and ignore the key message, you are only doing it for appearances. If you are only doing it for appearances you are doing it for the wrong reason IMO because it's not about God or developing as a human being any more.

riteshpabari

wondering if you could please PM me Carol Byrnes number. Thanks

Oryx wrote: »

My opinion.

Religion has little at all to do with being spiritual. You can be very religious without being at all spiritual, and I would say, vice versa.

Spirituality has nothing to do with ritual, practice, dogma, creed. Although people do use such things to access spirituality.
It is about recognising yourself and others as eternal beings, about seeing life as being more than the sum of our physical selves. Religion seeks to find meaning and the right way of doing things externally. Spirituality is about finding that internally.

Thats how I see it, anyhoo.

I suppose spirituality is a handy catch all word, that can be thrown about a bit like the word love. People do use it without really understanding it, but such is the way with everything.

Darlughda

Jakkass wrote: »

True, ultimately we will have to agree to disagree on it. My point is that contradictory concepts cannot be both true. I could well be wrong, but there's not a hope that people with thousands if not millions of differing notions concerning metaphysical concepts can all be true.

I just find that relativism doesn't make sense.

This is why some of the atheists I know are more 'spiritual' in my opinion, than those who claim they are spiritual.

Herbal Deity

Oryx wrote: »

I suppose spirituality is a handy catch all word, that can be thrown about a bit like the word love. People do use it without really understanding it, but such is the way with everything.

I must admit, that confuses the hell out of me.

My view would be that to be spiritual is to embrace the feeling of "profoundness". People sometimes describe it as "oneness with the universe", there being "more to life than just the physical" and other such euphamisms. (this can also be extremely confusing to someone trying to figure out what the hell people who describe themselves as "spiritual" are on about)

I think it's a similar emotion to love, in that love is an intense appreciation for and attachment to another individual, and spirituality is an intense appreciation for and attachment to the nature of one's surroundings and existence.

People have found they can heighten these nice spiritual feelings through a variety of means including intense beliefs, ritual, prayer, music, art, literature, drugs, sex, meditation etc., which is why there exist so many euphamisms for the term and pretentiousness surrounding it, and it can be so damn difficult to understand at times.

Personally, I'm not a believer in the supernatural, I don't think any such belief is necessary to achieve spiritual feelings (the fact that the word refers to so called "spirits" is unfortunate, I don't think belief in spirits or souls is in any way necessary). For me, such feelings are induced through reflection, relaxation, meditation and appreciation of certain types of music and art, among other things.

I'm sure people will disagree with me and insist that a supernatural element is necessary to be spiritual. However, I think you're wrong

Joe1919

Herbal Deity wrote: »

..............Personally, I'm not a believer in the supernatural, I don't think any such belief is necessary to achieve spiritual feelings...............

I agree.........there is nothing beyond nature. Spirit is part of nature.

Anyhow there have been great spiritual thinkers in the past that held this view e.g. Epicureas. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Epicureanism

philologos

Darlughda wrote: »

This is why some of the atheists I know are more 'spiritual' in my opinion, than those who claim they are spiritual.

What are you determining as spiritual. For me it describes a connection with God, or the supernatural. If one doesn't believe in the supernatural I'm not sure it is possible to be spiritual.

Again, it's a word thrown around like a rag doll.

Oryx

I think that the supernatural elements of belief are separate from ones own spirituality. As to me the word spirit in this context refers to ones own spirit, not to external beings. This does not preclude the possibility of an external presence but to me that is an additional thing. Those who have faith in a god figure obviously will differ in outlook and I respect that.

philologos

Oryx wrote: »

I think that the supernatural elements of belief are separate from ones own spirituality. As to me the word spirit in this context refers to ones own spirit, not to external beings. This does not preclude the possibility of an external presence but to me that is an additional thing. Those who have faith in a god figure obviously will differ in outlook and I respect that.

What is one connected to spiritually if not the supernatural? It's fine to refer to ones soul, or internal essence, but without external influences how can one regard anything as spiritual?

Herbal Deity

Who says spirituality is about a "connection"?

hiorta

Doesn't spirituality well up from within us, flowing spontaneously with purity from the highest in us that we are capable of reaching?

Nevyn

"know thy seeking and yearning shall avail thee not unless thou knowest the mystery; that if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee, then thou wilt never find it without thee."

Herbal Deity

hiorta wrote: »

Doesn't spirituality well up from within us, flowing spontaneously with purity from the highest in us that we are capable of reaching?

Thaedydal wrote: »

"know thy seeking and yearning shall avail thee not unless thou knowest the mystery; that if that which thou seekest thou findest not within thee, then thou wilt never find it without thee."

See I'm not sure I understand exactly what either of you are on about, but I do think that deep, poetic rhetoric about "seeking and yearning" or "spirituality [welling] up from within us", can induce a thought pattern which produces what I would define as spiritual feelings, if that makes any sense?

philologos

Question: What on earth is spirituality if it doesn't involve a connection that is somehow extraordinary or different to secular existence?

For me, I don't see why on earth I'd be interested otherwise.

Oryx wrote:

I think that the supernatural elements of belief are separate from ones own spirituality. As to me the word spirit in this context refers to ones own spirit, not to external beings. This does not preclude the possibility of an external presence but to me that is an additional thing. Those who have faith in a god figure obviously will differ in outlook and I respect that.

Ones own spirit IMO, is there to connect with the higher spirit. Christian scriptures suggest this to me.

Nevyn

I don't believe in the supernatrual, I think most such things are natrual and not 'super' at all and need as much believing in as the postman.

I thikn you can have a spiritual connection to diety, other people and to places ect, I don't see it as being a single connection but I do think that you have to reach out to make such a connection, from with in yourself, almost like a leap of fatih.

Herbal Deity

Thaedydal wrote: »

I don't believe in the supernatrual, I think most such things are natrual and not 'super' at all and need as much believing in as the postman.

I find that interesting, but confusing. Are you saying that deities are perfectly natural and that it's obvious they exist? What would you define a deity as being, for example? (natural would imply that it can be described in simple scientific terms, no?)

Nevyn

Herbal Deity wrote: »

I find that interesting, but confusing. Are you saying that deities are perfectly natural and that it's obvious they exist? What would you define a deity as being, for example? (natural would imply that it can be described in simple scientific terms, no?)

I don't' want to drag this thread off topic as it is about being spiritual rather the the nature of diety.