What is spirituality?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Your comment is demonstrably false, our minds filter out what is essential and what is non essential and thus not every experience has spiritual meaning although we are conscious of it.

Even if that were true, it doesn't contradict what I am saying, quite the opposite infact.

You are clearly saying that not every experience is spiritual, and thus the definition of
spiritual must be such that not every experience is or can be classed as spiritual.

My problem with FMF's definition is that it does mean that just about anything can be classed
as a spiritual experience.

You seem to be agreeing with me [and DT] that this is not the case.

Originally posted by KellyJay
1 Corinthians 2:11

For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.

In any given language, many words have at least two meanings, and some have many more than two. The Greek word pneuma, which in the New Testament is most often translated as “Spirit” or “spirit,” has many meanings. Sometimes this presents challenges to translators as they try to bring the sense into English. The chart below shows uses of pneuma in four different versions of the Bible, and reveals not only different meanings of pneuma, but how translators differ in how they deal with it. [1]
Ways Pneuma Is Translated In Four Versions
KJV NIV ASV NRSV
Spirit 138 246 231 236
Spirits 4 0 4 0
Spirit’s 0 0 0 1
spirit 123 92 112 105
spirit’s 28 33 28 37
Ghost 89 0 0 0
ghost 2 2 0 2
life 1 0 0 0
wind 1 1 1 1
winds 0 1 1 1
breath 0 3 3 3
breathed 0 0 0 1
spiritually 1 0 0 1
spiritual 1 2 1 2
attitude 0 1 0 0
heart 0 1 0 0
mind 0 1 0 2
prophecy 0 1 0 0
great 0 1 0 0
greatly 0 1 0 0
deeply 0 0 0 1
burning 0 0 0 1

The difference in the lists above highlights the difficulty in properly translating pneuma because it has so many meanings. It also highlights the absolute necessity to understand the context of each use of pneuma. If we do not understand what God is saying in the context, then it is very easy to mistranslate. The various ways pneuma can be translated into English is due in part to the fact that in the Greek New Testament pneuma appears in many forms. E.W. Bullinger wrote about the different ways in which the Greek word pneuma, spirit, is used (not what pneuma means, but simply the way the word itself is employed in the Greek text).

In other words, "spirit" used in the verse you quoted 2Corinth., 2:11 does not necessarily mean natural man has a spirit.
1 Cor 2:14-15
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
NKJV

1 Cor 15:44-45
It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, "The first man Adam became a living being." The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
NKJV

If man is born with a spirit, then after he is "born again" he has 2 spirits?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Even if that were true, it doesn't contradict what I am saying, quite the opposite infact.

You are clearly saying that not every experience is spiritual, and thus the definition of
spiritual must be such that not every experience is or can be classed as spiritual.

My problem with FMF's definition is that it does mean that just about anything can ...[text shortened]... s a spiritual experience.

You seem to be agreeing with me [and DT] that this is not the case.

No that is not what i am saying at all. What i am actually saying is that your attempt to state that all experience may be deemed spiritual therefore the term is meaningless cannot be substantiated because clearly all experience is not spiritual. Fmf's approach is correct because one cannot make any hard and fast rules regarding what may lead to spirituality.

If you are eating a bowl of courgette and humus soup in the same restaurant as me and you simply like the taste of the soup and want to get back to work quickly you may have little time for reflection, its not a spiritual experience for you. If i reflect on why i am able to eat so freely while others are hungry in some other part of the world my experience of eating courgette and humus soup has led me towards spirituality because i remain conscious of the suffering of others. My experience of eating soup has led me to this whereas yours was merely functional. Are we to say that the experience of eating soup is spiritual or non spiritual? or that the term spirituality takes on no meaning because everyone eats soup? i don't think so.

Originally posted by FMF
We have words like religiosity, theism and superstition.

All of which are apparently misunderstood by most atheists, and even some "theists".

Originally posted by FMF
I basically agree with this.

Obviously only because you've already run all this down as invented mythological, ideological "superstition". You've effectively "pre-loaded" the thread to make nearly any theological argument entirely moot. Congratulations.

But some of us aren't really interested in your "dreamworld", and find your presuppositions rather bizarre.

Originally posted by FMF
I don't see how you can characterize what I have said on this thread as being an ideology of worshipping one's self. Perhaps you could explain.

You elevate this "human spirit" above what you term as our "superstitions" (AKA theological beliefs), thus raising man above God. It seems pretty clear what you're doing here.

Again, further evidence that in no way do you know God. Your alleged "theism" is weak, all the way to the vanishing point.

Originally posted by FMF
Indeed, googlefudge disagrees about my use of the word "spirituality" but I don't think he would disagree with this statement about what we have in common when it comes to our humanity:

"We are endowed with a capacity for projecting ourselves in abstract ways and we are also affected and influenced and shaped by the abstract projections of other people. We c ...[text shortened]... cumulates as we live our lives."

Do you think most humans would agree that the above is true?

Changing the goalposts, even a little, in order to garner more "yes"-men is not the wisest argument.

Using more and different words to describe the same concept, only more abstractly, isn't the point of a personal dogma. It's not exactly meant to be a "one size fits all".

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
No that is not what i am saying at all. What i am actually saying is that your attempt to state that all experience may be deemed spiritual therefore the term is meaningless cannot be substantiated because clearly all experience is not spiritual. Fmf's approach is correct because one cannot make any hard and fast rules regarding what may lead to spi ...[text shortened]... or that the term spirituality takes on no meaning because everyone eats soup? i don't think so.

What i am actually saying is that your attempt to state that all experience may be deemed spiritual therefore the term is meaningless cannot be substantiated because clearly all experience is not spiritual.

I am neither claiming that the term spiritual is meaningless nor am I claiming that all experience
may be deemed spiritual.

What I am claiming is that FMF's proposed definition of the word leads to any and all experiences being
labelled as spiritual and that that proposed definition renders the word meaningless, and thus I reject the
proposed definition.

If you are going to try to disagree with me, try to at least disagree with what I am actually saying.

Originally posted by googlefudge

What i am actually saying is that your attempt to state that all experience may be deemed spiritual therefore the term is meaningless cannot be substantiated because clearly all experience is not spiritual.

I am neither claiming that the term spiritual is meaningless nor am I claiming that all experience
may be deemed spiritual.

Wh ...[text shortened]... u are going to try to disagree with me, try to at least disagree with what I am actually saying.

here is what you have stated

all experience may be deemed spiritual therefore the term is meaningless

now refuted

why?

because the very same experience may lead one to spiritually where for another it may not thus the term is not rendered meaningless because we may include all experience, the term is rendered meaningless depending upon the individuals reaction to the experience as i have adequately and admirably demonstrated, with illustration.

If you are going to try to disagree with me make sure you check your variations.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
here is what you have stated

all experience may be deemed spiritual therefore the term is meaningless

now refuted

why?

because the very same experience may lead one to spiritually where for another it may not thus the term is not rendered meaningless because we may include all experience, the term is rendered meaningless depending upon t ...[text shortened]... llustration.

If you are going to try to disagree with me make sure you check your variations.

No, what I said, very clearly was:

I do not agree with this definition of 'spirituality', if for not other reason than it makes the
term almost meaningless, as almost anything can now be labelled spiritual.

Which brings me back to "you're defining spirituality and spiritual experience such that anything
could be spiritual and thus the word ceases to have any meaning."

If you're going to misquote me, I would remind you that that can result in a forum ban.

Originally posted by DeepThought
This question has erupted in my mind due to a couple of other threads. I cannot answer it for myself, so tell me, what does it mean to have a spiritual life or to describe oneself as spiritual? What is spirituality?

Is it a word that is used to be politically correct to not offend anybody?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Well then we need an agreed instance of spirituality that does not include the supernatural.

I can't currently think of any.

Moonbus mentioned Buddhism in one of the other threads. The difficulty with Buddhism as a case example is that although gods do not form the focus of their religion the cycle of life, death, and rebirth does. Even so, I'm not sure that actual reincarnation is essential to it. The point is to change one's perception of one's suffering through self-understanding and so become free.

This seems to indicate that at least an aspect of spirituality would be the search for an answer to the question "Who am I?". So I think that this could form the basis for an answer to my question that does not depend on the existence of gods or other planes of existence.

Originally posted by Suzianne
You elevate this "human spirit" above what you term as our "superstitions" (AKA theological beliefs), thus raising man above God. It seems pretty clear what you're doing here.

I think that developing theological beliefs is an understandable and unsurprising aspect of the human condition and that it doesn't include everybody. Having said that, I believe that without the human spirit, there cannot be theological beliefs.

Suzianne, as for your other posts ~ and your posts addressed to me generally ~ if you are intent on seeing all ideas you disagree with as some kind of attack or insult or 'outrage' or conspiracy against you, you'll never be able to discuss anything properly.

Originally posted by FMF
I think that developing theological beliefs is an understandable and unsurprising aspect of the human condition and that it doesn't include everybody. Having said that, I believe that without the human spirit, there cannot be theological beliefs.

Well yes, spirit and soul are related concepts and Christianity becomes a little empty if we don't have souls to be saved.