Christianity

[Belinda]

I too like that people are all different, differ in their approaches to life and belief. If it were not so we could not learn from one another and would be like billiard balls pushmepullyou inanimates.

Only if there is good faith on both sides.
If there is bad faith even on one side, it is just a waste of time.

Could you give an example please?

Can you tell if there is bad faith on one side?
Is it possible to have a broad view of the dialogue so that even when there is bad faith that in itself is a learning experience?

[bobmax]

I too like that people are all different, differ in their approaches to life and belief. If it were not so we could not learn from one another and would be like billiard balls pushmepullyou inanimates.

Only if there is good faith on both sides.
If there is bad faith even on one side, it is just a waste of time.

Could you give an example please?

Can you tell if there is bad faith on one side?
Is it possible to have a broad view of the dialogue so that even when there is bad faith that in itself is a learning experience?

Although we can never be sure that we have bad faith in front of us, we can reasonably assume that there is.

Also in this forum there are many possible examples.

Check out the long discussion between Fannel Jesus and Age in
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=35277

Or the contortions of Trump's defenders in
viewtopic.php?f=13&t=35524

Bad faith is often associated with nihilism. Also widespread among religious fanatics.

You can notice it because they affirm everything and the opposite of everything without problems, bad faith animates them.

[Immanuel Can]

But then, why say anything about it at all? It's clear they want you to take away some vaguely positive impression about them. We just can't, at present, tell what it is.

But what would life be without its little mysteries?

Interestingly, I saw that some of the people viewing the queen's casket in Edinburgh have called it "a spiritual experience." I wonder what they meant. I've seen the subsequent interviews, and most of them seem to explain it as some form of getting emotional.

If that's all "spiritual" is, then a "spiritual" person is just an emotional one, one who has some sort of sentimental reaction to circumstances, I guess. And that would be a distinction of dubious value, since emotions can be good or bad, and sentiment can be well or poorly directed.

[Harbal]

Interestingly, I saw that some of the people viewing the queen's casket in Edinburgh have called it "a spiritual experience." I wonder what they meant. I've seen the subsequent interviews, and most of them seem to explain it as some form of getting emotional.

If that's all "spiritual" is, then a "spiritual" person is just an emotional one, one who has some sort of sentimental reaction to circumstances, I guess. And that would be a distinction of dubious value, since emotions can be good or bad, and sentiment can be well or poorly directed.

I suppose "spiritual" means different things to different people, and in different contexts. When the term "spiritual but not religious" is used I guess it means a belief in a higher, non-physical force or power that is sort of governing the universe. In Christianity that power would be God, and there is a code of practice that goes with it, which is the religious aspect of it. My impression of spirituality without religion is that it is about behaving, and living life in accordance with, the sort of flow of this power, or spirit. Just being in harmony with it. The non-religiousness of it means there is no formal practice to be observed, and no specific rules to be followed. That's only my impression, and there is no doubt more to it than I have described.

Just as the description, Christian, could mean a wide variety things within that classification (to most people, but I know not to you ), so could the description, spiritual.

[Immanuel Can]

Interestingly, I saw that some of the people viewing the queen's casket in Edinburgh have called it "a spiritual experience." I wonder what they meant. I've seen the subsequent interviews, and most of them seem to explain it as some form of getting emotional.

If that's all "spiritual" is, then a "spiritual" person is just an emotional one, one who has some sort of sentimental reaction to circumstances, I guess. And that would be a distinction of dubious value, since emotions can be good or bad, and sentiment can be well or poorly directed.

I suppose "spiritual" means different things to different people, and in different contexts. When the term "spiritual but not religious" is used I guess it means a belief in a higher, non-physical force or power that is sort of governing the universe. In Christianity that power would be God, and there is a code of practice that goes with it, which is the religious aspect of it.

Not just there, I think. That would pretty much be the base definition of any kind of "God," whatever the differences of detail in the conception: a "higher, non-physical force or power governing the universe." What else could it be?

My impression of spirituality without religion is that it is about behaving, and living life in accordance with, the sort of flow of this power, or spirit. Just being in harmony with it.

That makes little sense for people to do, though...they don't believe in the God behind the morality they're trying to "flow" with, or "be in harmony" with. It would be like trying to "flow" with or "harmonize" with unicorns. Why would a person do that, and how would they even know if they did, since the entity with which they're "harmonizing" doesn't even exist, according to them?

The non-religiousness of it means there is no formal practice to be observed, and no specific rules to be followed.

Then who is it, or what is it, that's setting the rules? It has to be the non-religious person who's doing it, for himself; in which case, he has absolutely no duty to follow them at all. He can abandon them all, simply by giving himself permission to do so, should he wish.

But here's the interesting thing about morality: it only comes into focus when there's a disparity between what I want to do, and what I (supposedly) should do. I never have to ask myself, "Is it moral for me to accept my birthday presents," or "is it moral for me to bathe daily," because those are things I want to do, and there's no reason why I should not, so far as I know. But if the birthday presents are stolen, or if by daily bathing I deprive the poor of water, then suddenly morality comes online as an issue; because now there's a difference between what I am inclined to do, and what I ought to do.

So what the non-religious are having, then, is not morality at all. For they are simply free always to do exactly what they want, and there is no division ever between the status of their actions and their personal preferences.

So that's a curious matter: can people who call themselves "spiritual but not religious," have morality, since they are their own authority, and there's never any division between what they choose to do and what they ought to do?

I don't mean, "Can they act nice (i.e. do something you and I consider moral)?" Of course they can. But they'll be doing it because they WANT to, not because it's RIGHT for them to do. What I mean is, is what they are doing rightly termed, "moral"? Or should it be termed "amoral," since they lack the essential division between action and duty that can bring morality into the situation?

That's only my impression, and there is no doubt more to it than I have described.

Just as the description, Christian, could mean a wide variety things within that classification (to most people, but I know not to you ), so could the description, spiritual.

Well, that's not a terribly informative way to look at it, even if it turns out to be true. It might plausibly be the case that people call themselves "spiritual" and mean "a wide variety of things." But how are we to know what they want us to understand by that claim...or what they even understand themselves, if they understand anything specific at all?

What are they trying to say? That they're "moral"? But morality does not enter their worldview. That they are sensitive to a "higher, non-physical force or power governing the universe"? But they don't believe there's any such real entity.

So if that's all they're trying to say, then "I'm spiritual" means only "I delude myself for fun, and in morality, follow only my own preferences." That's hardly a high commendation, by any standard, is it?

[Harry Baird]

IC, do you consider yourself as a Christian, and Christians in general by (your) definition, to be spiritual?

[Immanuel Can]

IC, do you consider yourself as a Christian, and Christians in general by (your) definition, to be spiritual?

Well, I have particular ideas of my own about what "spiritual" means. But I don't think that the people who say, "I'm spiritual, but not relgious" are automatically taking my terms for granted.

And they won't like my way of seeing it. For one thing, I'm not religious. They'll hate that I say that, but it's true: religion means mankind's attempts to placate the unknown or earn occult favour though their own efforts; I don't do that, and as a Christian, I know it won't work. I believe that what I am doing is having a relationship with God, by means of what is true. I'm not doing magic, or believing in myths, or performing rituals or penances, or any of the things conventionally "religious" people do. "Religious" is not what I am.

They're gonna hate that I say so. But that's fine.

Am I "spiritual"? That's much harder to say, since I don't share a definition of that term with my listeners; but that is the defect I'm attempting to correct by asking the question, "What do y'all mean?"

[Harry Baird]

Am I "spiritual"?

Yep, that's what I asked.

That's much harder to say

Feel free to assume your own definitions and answer the question on your those (your own) terms.

[Immanuel Can]

Am I "spiritual"?

Yep, that's what I asked.

That's much harder to say

Feel free to assume your own definitions and answer the question on your those (your own) terms.

Well, for me, "spiritual" is probably best viewed as not some kind of honourific term, but rather as a static description of fact. All human beings have a "spirit."

But I don't think that's what people mean when they use the term, because then, it would just be redundant, like saying, "I'm a biped with two legs." They clearly seem to view it as a kind of honourific, because they parallel it with "religious" and use it in contexts where they want to self-justify, clearly...as in, "Don't look down on me, because although I'm not religious, I'm still 'spiritual'."

That's how I've seen it used, anyway. So I really want to understand what they think they're saying by using the word.

[Harry Baird]

Well, for me, "spiritual" is probably best viewed as not some kind of honourific term, but rather as a static description of fact. All human beings have a "spirit."

Is it fair for me to infer from that the simple, direct answer to my question: "Yes, I'm spiritual, but so, by (my) definition, is everybody"?

[Immanuel Can]

Well, for me, "spiritual" is probably best viewed as not some kind of honourific term, but rather as a static description of fact. All human beings have a "spirit."

Is it fair for me to infer from that the simple, direct answer to my question: "Yes, I'm spiritual, but so, by definition, is everybody"?

It's fair to infer that we all have a "spirit."

What they mean when they turn it into a general adjective, as in the term "spiritual person" is anybody's guess. That's not the way Christians talk; it's the way self-described "non-religious" people talk. So again, I can only ask them what they're trying to say.

From my perspective, it makes no sense. I honestly have no idea what they really mean. The best I have is a guess: "some kind of honourific."

[Harry Baird]

Well, for me, "spiritual" is probably best viewed as not some kind of honourific term, but rather as a static description of fact. All human beings have a "spirit."

Is it fair for me to infer from that the simple, direct answer to my question: "Yes, I'm spiritual, but so, by definition, is everybody"?

It's fair to infer that we all have a "spirit."

I see. You don't want to answer directly and explicitly. Nevermind then.

[Immanuel Can]

Is it fair for me to infer from that the simple, direct answer to my question: "Yes, I'm spiritual, but so, by definition, is everybody"?

It's fair to infer that we all have a "spirit."

I see. You don't want to answer directly and explicitly. Nevermind then.

I'm answering as directly and explicitly as truth will allow, Harry. I don't use the phrase, "spiritual person." It seems a very odd one, to me. As I said, it's as nonsensical to me as somebody saying, "I'm a human being with a head." My response would be, "Everybody has a head: what point are you trying to make?"

[Harry Baird]

I don't use the phrase, "spiritual person." It seems a very odd one, to me. As I said, it's as nonsensical to me as somebody saying, "I'm a human being with a head." My response would be, "Everybody has a head: what point are you trying to make?"

I see. So, is it fair to say that, in your view, being saved by Christ, being in a personal relationship with him and with God in general, regularly worshipping God, and regularly engaging in sacraments, doesn't make a person any more spiritual than anybody to whom none of that applies?

[Immanuel Can]

I don't use the phrase, "spiritual person." It seems a very odd one, to me. As I said, it's as nonsensical to me as somebody saying, "I'm a human being with a head." My response would be, "Everybody has a head: what point are you trying to make?"

I see. So, is it fair to say that, in your view, being saved by Christ, being in a personal relationship with him and with God in general, regularly worshipping God, and regularly engaging in sacraments, doesn't make a person any more spiritual than anybody to whom none of that applies?

Well, let me go through that list very precisely, so as not to be either obscure or unforthcoming.

"Sacraments" as salvific is a Catholic idea, and they DO believe these things "impart grace." (I don't, and Christianity doesn't.)

"Worshipping God" is something everybody ought to do, but doesn't make them "spiritual" (whatever that's supposed to mean).

Being in a personal relationship with God, having been saved by Christ makes one (in Biblical terminology) "spiritually alive" and others "spiritually dead" -- but the having of a spiritual nature and potentiality for relationship with God is universal, according to Christian theology.

So again, I have to come back to the question: what does a "non-religious" person mean when he/she says, "I'm still spiritual"? Clearly, it's nothing that Christians understand by the word. It doesn't mean, "I still do sacraments, worship God, or have a relationship with God through Jesus Christ."

So what DOES it mean? That's my question.