Originally posted by krazyken Thanks to Darfius and Starrman for demonstrating what religion without spirituality is like, a bunch of petty debate 😉
for a religion to be effective, it needs to incorporate spirituality, communicating with god on a personal level. To get truth requires only a prayer. Books are not needed, but may help spread knowledge that others have gained in their ...[text shortened]... at works for a desert nomad society, may not be right for a suburban information based society.
Wow, something intelligent for a change. Well done.
Originally posted by Darfius Sprituality is for those who fear Heaven. Religion is for those who aspire to go there.
Darfius, why are you so angry. I made a statement that reflected where I come from. I didn't call anybody any names, yet your replies are often in the spirit of picking a fight or denegrating someone. I cannot be responsible as to how others respond to you, but I felt that nothing I said deserved your anger.
Originally posted by kirksey957 Darfius, why are you so angry. I made a statement that reflected where I come from. I didn't call anybody any names, yet your replies are often in the spirit of picking a fight or denegrating someone. I cannot be responsible as to how others respond to you, but I felt that nothing I said deserved your anger.
I'm sorry I came off as angry, dear kirk. I am merely stating my opinion. I would let you know if I was angry. It's extremely difficult to get me in such a state, though, so please do not worry.
Originally posted by ivanhoe * Bump* ...... for Kirk of course ...
No, I wouldn't say higher "intellectual status." I would simply say that for me, I am more comfortable with the concept of "spiritual" but have not always been that way. It is simply an evolution of my faith. The reason I am more comfortable with spiritual is that the people I get support, friendship from subscribe to an incarnational theology where God might be manifested in a variety of ways and experiences that may or may not include the Bible. And in my work I come across many people who would be more comfortable with strict literal interpretation of the Bible as God's only word. Many of these people I experience as bitter and unhappy and ill at peace.
Originally posted by ivanhoe Kirk, do you believe that being "spiritual" has a higher intellectual status than being "religious" ?
Kirk, do you believe that being "spiritual" has a higher intellectual status than being "religious" ?
Hi Ivanhoe.
I’m not Kirk, but I’ll throw my answer out: If by religion you mean a particular expression of spirituality, then I’d say that spirituality has a higher general status because it crosses over religious barriers. Maybe we ought to try to define spiritual, however.
Interestingly, RBHill’s argument, which I think has a long pedigree, is that Christianity represents a Christ-centered spirituality (acceptance of Jesus as the Christ) that cuts across the religious lines of different doctrines and denominations (if I’m interpreting him correctly).
Originally posted by kirksey957 No, I wouldn't say higher "intellectual status." I would simply say that for me, I am more comfortable with the concept of "spiritual" but have not always been that way. It is simply an evolution of my faith. The reason I am more comfortable with spiritual is that the people I get support, friendship from subscribe to an incarnational theology w ...[text shortened]... as God's only word. Many of these people I experience as bitter and unhappy and ill at peace.
Kirk: " ... that the people I get support, friendship from subscribe to an incarnational theology where God might be manifested in a variety of ways and experiences that may or may not include the Bible."
..... incarnational theology ...... where God might be manifested in a variety of ways and experiences ........
Could you be more specific about this please ? Manifested in which ways and which experiences ?
Originally posted by vistesd [b]Kirk, do you believe that being "spiritual" has a higher intellectual status than being "religious" ?
Hi Ivanhoe.
I’m not Kirk, but I’ll throw my answer out: If by religion you mean a particular expression of spirituality, then I’d say that spirituality has a higher general status because it crosses over religious barriers. Maybe we ...[text shortened]... religious lines of different doctrines and denominations (if I’m interpreting him correctly).
[/b]
..... mmmmh. What I'm trying to find out is whether being "spiritual" is somehow at a higher level or rather possesses a higher status, than being "religious".
Ivanhoe, let me give another example from my personal life. I very much like classical music. So as I am typing this I am listening to Bach's Sheep May Safely Graze. When I listen, excuse me, experience , this music, I am filled with peace and awe that may be beyond my words to explain. You may have had a similar experience. I am simply open to this as a gift.
Originally posted by ivanhoe ..... mmmmh. What I'm trying to find out is whether being "spiritual" is somehow at a higher level or rather possesses a higher status, than being "religious".
From your tradition (Roman Catholic) what would you say? There is a great tradition of mysticism in the Catholic church.
Originally posted by ivanhoe ..... mmmmh. What I'm trying to find out is whether being "spiritual" is somehow at a higher level or rather possesses a higher status, than being "religious".
I would say only in the sense that there can be people who are spiritual without having a particular religious expression that they adhere to, while some people can bind themselves (religare) to a religious expression without having a real spiritual sense. I would suspect that the first is relatively rare, while the second seems to be quite common. More common may be people who find spirit within and through their religion; some of those can "transcend" the religion (without necessarily leaving it behind as an outward expression--Thomas Merton comes to mind here), and some cannot.
That's the spirit!
02 Mar '05 21:25
Back to Top