Spirituality
21 Dec 05
21 Dec 05
It has occured to me as of late that there is a common statement occuring (with due grounds in my book).
"Religious people should learn about thier religion" or something to this end, also commonly followed by, "they should learn about other religions".
I can certainly appreciate this sentiment, as I myself will admit that there are a vast number of people in this world who love to speak about that which they do not know, and this is never more true than with religion.
The query I pose is this, "Can someone who does not know about religion actually be considered 'religious'." Spiritual, perhaps, but religious?
I know this is, for all intents and purposes, a moot point. However, I thought it funny that, in my own mind, this common sentiment might be more accurately stated as, "People who speak about religion should be bothered to be learn about it first". I suppose this is true of anything really.
Pax Vobiscum,
Omnislash
21 Dec 05
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadIll informed would be closer to the truth. Imperfection (in knowledge and deed) is part of our humanity. Does "spiritual" have a fine print clause of perfection?
I have met people who carry a Bible under thier arm all the time, can quote hundreds of passages word for word, and insist the King James Version was written by King James himself and is the only "true" Bible.
Is this person "religious" or "spiritual" or just a little looney?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadI know a guy who stands out by the road holding out scriptures.He may be a bit looney...but i reckon there is a good chance he has a relationship with the Lord.Don't think God cares that much if a person is looney or not?Mabey he gets loved more.
I have met people who carry a Bible under thier arm all the time, can quote hundreds of passages word for word, and insist the King James Version was written by King James himself and is the only "true" Bible.
Is this person "religious" or "spiritual" or just a little looney?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by HalitoseLol, you raise a good point here. Indeed, I must concede that spirituality has little/no necessary connection with knowledge.
Ill informed would be closer to the truth. Imperfection (in knowledge and deed) is part of our humanity. Does "spiritual" have a fine print clause of perfection?
That said, how about 'religious', assuming we cleanly clarify that the two terms mean very different things?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashWhat do you mean by "know about religion"?
The query I pose is this, "Can someone who does not know about religion actually be considered 'religious'." Spiritual, perhaps, but religious?
For instance, I consider my grandmother to be a deeply religious person. She attends Mass every morning (to the extent that her arthritic knees permit) and prays the Rosary with the family every night before we go to bed. She fervently believes in the Christian/Catholic faith.
Is she particularly "spiritual"? Not if you say that "spirituality" has to be related to mystical experiences. But if being spiritual is about believing that the material world is not all of reality, then she is definitely spiritual.
But does she "know" about the [Catholic] faith? She knows the sacraments and what they do. She knows about, and believes in, the Real Presence. But if you asked her what an 'ex cathedra' proclamation was, she probably wouldn't be able to tell you.
So maybe you need to refine your query.
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy query is open ended intentionally, as I do not wish to assume anything within the question itself. 😉
What do you mean by "know about religion"?
For instance, I consider my grandmother to be a deeply religious person. She attends Mass every morning (to the extent that her arthritic knees permit) and prays the Rosary with the family every night before we go to bed. She fervently believes in the Christian/Catholic faith.
Is she particularly "sp ...[text shortened]... tion was, she probably wouldn't be able to tell you.
So maybe you need to refine your query.
As from your example, this individual may not know, shall we say, complex/advanced theology, but her grasp of the basics of her religion allows her to be 'religious'. Do I understand correctly?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashI have made statements similar to this in this forum. My meaning for "religious people" was anybody who claims to follow a particular religion. The word religious itself has a fairly broad meaning depending on context and in my mind does not imply knowledge of a religion.
"Religious people should learn about thier religion" or something to this end, also commonly followed by, "they should learn about other religions".
One reason why I would suggest that Christians for example should learn as much as the can about Christianity is for example people who insist that every word of the "Bible" is fact but are not so clear about what "The Bible" is. If you for example make the statement that it is in its entirity inspired by God, does this mean the origional text only or every possible translation ever made? What about the selection of particular texts to be put in one book, was that "inspired"? If you have no knowledge of the origins of these books then it would be very unwise to believe every word.
Another thing I object to is a common trend of making sweeping statements about the invalidity of any science that appears to disagree with ones religion without checking first whether it really does disagree and whether there is any valid reason to accept the science.
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by OmnislashI think that would be a fair comment.
As from your example, this individual may not know, shall we say, complex/advanced theology, but her grasp of the basics of her religion allows her to be 'religious'. Do I understand correctly?
I mean, it's possible that someone could imitate a religious person (go through all the motions, in a manner of speaking) without actually understanding why a religious person does them.
It's also possible that a person could understand his/her religion, go through all the motions and yet not be religious. Being religious is not just about what you know and what you do, but also why you do it.
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerYou appear to be redifining the word "religious". Can you provide at least one dictionary reference to back up your statement ?
I mean, it's possible that someone could imitate a religious person (go through all the motions, in a manner of speaking) without actually understanding why a religious person does them.
It's also possible that a person could understand his/her religion, go through all the motions and yet not be religious. Being religious is not just about what you know and what you do, but also why you do it.
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadQuoting scripture doesn't mean as much as living it. Anyone including
I have met people who carry a Bible under thier arm all the time, can quote hundreds of passages word for word, and insist the King James Version was written by King James himself and is the only "true" Bible.
Is this person "religious" or "spiritual" or just a little looney?
the devil can quote scripture, some do it for gain, others power, others
to find God and learn the ways of righteousness that Jesus calls us
too.
Kelly
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by twhiteheadhttp://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=religious
You appear to be redifining the word "religious". Can you provide at least one dictionary reference to back up your statement ?
Synonyms: religious, devout, pious
These adjectives mean having or showing a belief in and veneration for God or a divine power, especially as it is reflected in the practice of religion. Religious implies adherence to religion in both belief and practice: The cathedral at Chartres is an expression of the religious fervor of the Middle Ages. Devout connotes ardent faith and sincere devotion: Devout Muslims observe Ramadan punctiliously. Pious stresses dutiful, reverential discharge of religious duties: a pious woman who attends Mass every morning.
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by lucifershammerIs she particularly "spiritual"? Not if you say that "spirituality" has to be related to mystical experiences.
What do you mean by "know about religion"?
For instance, I consider my grandmother to be a deeply religious person. She attends Mass every morning (to the extent that her arthritic knees permit) and prays the Rosary with the family every night before we go to bed. She fervently believes in the Christian/Catholic faith.
Is she particularly "sp ...[text shortened]... tion was, she probably wouldn't be able to tell you.
So maybe you need to refine your query.
I’m just thinking on the keyboard here—
There seems to be some tendency to think about mystical experiences as sudden, powerful “in-breakings,” say, of a deeper reality, etc. (e.g., Zen satori). That is, there is something very “non-ordinary” about them. Also that they can be identified as specific “happenings” or “events.”
Now, I’m wondering: perhaps your grandmother is living mystical experience, not explosive but pervasive; stretched out over time; not in-breaking, but gently flowing, rhythmic wave after rhythmic wave, slowly building, not height but depth; barely discernable so that it becomes the in-forming ground of her life, rather than an ecstatic, out-standing “figure” experience…
Maybe we need to revise our understanding of the mystical…
There, that was just a meandering of thoughts: maybe you can make sense of it, or see what I’m getting at.
BTW, Is she your paternal grandmother?
21 Dec 05
Originally posted by vistesdv: Maybe we need to revise our understanding of the mystical…
[b]Is she particularly "spiritual"? Not if you say that "spirituality" has to be related to mystical experiences.
I’m just thinking on the keyboard here—
There seems to be some tendency to think about mystical experiences as sudden, powerful “in-breakings,” say, of a deeper reality, etc. (e.g., Zen satori). That is, there is something v ...[text shortened]... you can make sense of it, or see what I’m getting at.
BTW, Is she your paternal grandmother?[/b]
I don't think so. My view is that you can be spiritual without being mystical; i.e. mysticism is one form of spirituality. There are others - as I believe my grandmother's life denotes. She does not experience the "what is out there" of mysticism directly, nor does she seek to.
She's my maternal grandmother.
21 Dec 05
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdDo you think Jesus was spiritual his whole life according to scripture?
[b]Is she particularly "spiritual"? Not if you say that "spirituality" has to be related to mystical experiences.
I’m just thinking on the keyboard here—
There seems to be some tendency to think about mystical experiences as sudden, powerful “in-breakings,” say, of a deeper reality, etc. (e.g., Zen satori). That is, there is something v ...[text shortened]... you can make sense of it, or see what I’m getting at.
BTW, Is she your paternal grandmother?[/b]
Do you think Jesus was Holy his whole life according to scripture?
If so, would you think it odd that he could live the first years of his
life among people and many thought of him as just a good man
before his ministry started? Spirituality doesn't have to mean a
mystical life with great miracles occurring left and right, it does mean
if talking about Christianity a spiritual experience in knowing God,
but the outward would look if done outwardly as Jesus taught would
have people doing good and loving things one to another day in and
day out. That is true spirituality, true obedience to Christ.
Kelly