Christianity

[promethean75]

"I got through 15 seconds. I’m so proud of myself!"

such are the trials and tribulations we must all go through in becoming gangsta. you did fine, AJ.

[Harbal]

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?

I don't know; I'm not spiritual.

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?

I imagine the entity/spirit exists for them in some way or other, but I don't know what they envisage it to be. Neither do I know to what extent morality plays a part in any particular flavour of spiritualy.

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.

I don't think there are rules, and I don't think having a sense of duty comes into it, either. It doesn't seem to be about anything like that, and I can see why that would appeal to folks.

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.

Again, I don't know to what extent it has to do with morality. Maybe people who are in tune with natural frequencies are able to sense what is right. A sort of direct communication, rather than having to look in a book or something.

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

I know; disgraceful isn't it? Being nice merely because you want to.

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?

Spiritual people often do recomend their own beliefs to others, but I don't think they tend to have any kind of imperative to convince anyone else of their value. Besides, I don't find the kind of claims that the spiritual make to be any more puzzling than those of the religious.

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.

I don't know if they make any moral claims. I don't know why you keep saying that they don't believe there is an actual entity. Maybe some do and some don't; I don't know.

So if that's all their 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?

Well if I were interested in judging them, I would judge them by what they do, not what they say, just as I would judge a Christian in that way.

[Harry Baird]

Being in a personal relationship with God, having been saved by Christ makes one (in Biblical terminology) "spiritually alive" and others "spiritually dead"

This is a helpful acknowledge: that you see Christians as in some way spiritually different to non-Christians.

Is it possible that those who affirm that they are spiritual but not religious similarly see themselves as in some way spiritually different to those who don't make the same claim (to spirituality)? Can you grant at least that much?

[Immanuel Can]

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?

I imagine the entity/spirit exists for them in some way or other, but I don't know what they envisage it to be.

I don't either.

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.

I don't think there are rules, and I don't think having a sense of duty comes into it, either. It doesn't seem to be about anything like that, and I can see why that would appeal to folks.

So can I. It lets them claim to be "moral" while only ever having to do whatever it is that they actually wish to do. They get 'virtue' for free.

Maybe people who are in tune with natural frequencies are able to sense what is right.

The phrase, "what is right" would imply objective morality. It already "is," and they're "sensing" what it "is." But I don't think they're making a claim that morality is objective...though I wait to be corrected by them, if they are.

A sort of direct communication, rather than having to look in a book or something.

But again, "communication" always has two ends. Who, or what, is "communicating" to them the morality they're following?

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

I know; disgraceful isn't it? Being nice merely because you want to.

No, not disgraceful. But not meritorious, either. One gets neither praise or blame if morality is not objective.

Spiritual people often do recomend their own beliefs to others...

Yes, that's a good point; and even in the phrase I've been asking about, they seem to want some sort of praise or credit for being "spiritual." Otherwise, why even say it?

But how does one "recommend" an alleged "morality" that amounts to, "Do what you feel like?" Is there anything about total egoism that deserves the special plaudits of "moral"? Can you praise yourself for pleasing yourself? And if you fail to please yourself, does that make you a "bad" person?

It all makes no sense to me.

So if that's all their 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?

Well if I were interested in judging them, I would judge them by what they do, not what they say, just as I would judge a Christian in that way.

And you should. It was Jesus Christ Himself who said, famously,

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes, nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits."

Judge by what they do, not just what they say. That's the message.

[Immanuel Can]

Being in a personal relationship with God, having been saved by Christ makes one (in Biblical terminology) "spiritually alive" and others "spiritually dead"

This is a helpful acknowledge: that you see Christians as in some way spiritually different to non-Christians.

Of course: the Bible says exactly the same. I'm surprised you find it at all surprising...but okay.

"And you were dead in your offenses and sins, in which you previously walked according to the course of this world...and were by nature children of wrath, just as the rest. But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead in our wrongdoings, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved...)" (Eph. 2:1-5)

So it's all there, manifest, in Christian theology. Those who do not know God are spiritually dead, and those who know Him through Christ are spiritually alive.

What then can it mean when somebody says, "I don't believe in God, but I'm spiritual"?

Is it possible that those who affirm that they are spiritual but not religious similarly see themselves as in some way spiritually different to those who don't make the same claim (to spirituality)? Can you grant at least that much?

They must be thinking that's the case. I'm just trying to figure out what they think they're sensing, that quality that to which they are attempting to point. I don't doubt that they think they're better than the raw unbeliever in some way; otherwise, why would they bother to stipulate themselves as "spiritual"? If they didn't think it made them somehow better than "non-spiritual" people, would they say it at all?

Why is this so hard for them to explain, if "spiritual person" is just a phrase with ordinary meaning?

[Harry Baird]

Being in a personal relationship with God, having been saved by Christ makes one (in Biblical terminology) "spiritually alive" and others "spiritually dead"

This is a helpful acknowledge: that you see Christians as in some way spiritually different to non-Christians.

Of course: the Bible says exactly the same. I'm surprised you find it at all surprising...but okay.

Surprising? No, it wasn't at all surprising. It was expected, and I had been trying to get you to (at least) that point from the start. That's why I referred to your acknowledgement as "helpful", not "surprising".

What then can it mean when somebody says, "I don't believe in God, but I'm spiritual"?

Wait, from where are you getting the idea that all of those who refer to themselves as "spiritual but not religious" disbelieve in God? That's a quite manifestly false idea. The "spiritual but not religious" may not believe in the Christian conception of God, but many quite clearly do believe in a God of some meaningful description.

Is it possible that those who affirm that they are spiritual but not religious similarly see themselves as in some way spiritually different to those who don't make the same claim (to spirituality)? Can you grant at least that much?

They must be thinking that's the case. I'm just trying to figure out what they think they're sensing, that quality that to which they are attempting to point. I don't doubt that they think they're better than the raw unbeliever in some way; otherwise, why would they bother to stipulate themselves as "spiritual"? If they didn't think it made them somehow better than "non-spiritual" people, would they say it at all?

Interesting. It seems that, for you, claims to spirituality reduce to feelings of superiority. What about for Christians like you then? Does your claim to being "spiritually alive" reduce to a feeling of superiority?

Why is this so hard for them to explain, if "spiritual person" is just a phrase with ordinary meaning?

Who says it's hard to explain? Which individuals who self-identify as spiritual but not religious have you asked, and how have you concluded that it was hard for them to explain what they meant by that?

[Harbal]

No, not disgraceful. But not meritorious, either. One gets neither praise or blame if morality is not objective.

One does from me. I think that "good" moral behaviour that stems from a person's subjective sense of right and wrong is far more praisworthy than that which merely follows a set of what is considered to be subjective rules. I think that being of good character deserves more credit than merely having a tendency towards being obedient to someone else's rules. I know that you don't agree with that.

they seem to want some sort of praise or credit for being "spiritual." Otherwise, why even say it?

I get the impression they want admiration more than praise. People who claim to be spiritual always seem rather proud of it to me.

But how does one "recommend" an alleged "morality" that amounts to, "Do what you feel like?" Is there anything about total egoism that deserves the special plaudits of "moral"? Can you praise yourself for pleasing yourself? And if you fail to please yourself, does that make you a "bad" person?

I really don't think it's about doing what you feel like and demanding praise for it. I think it is just about existing within your proper place in nature, and in accordance with nature. What that entails, I couldn't say. I don't know how much there is to this kind of thing, but having a reverence for nature seems more worthy than being mainly concerned about the fate of your own soul.

And you should. It was Jesus Christ Himself who said, famously,

“Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves."

People who claim to be spiritual very rarely behave like ravenous wolves, at least not in my experience.

Judge by what they do, not just what they say. That's the message.

I get the impression from some Christians, and I think you may be one of them, that belief in "Jesus Christ, our saviour", is what is of prime importance, and one's behavour towards others is secondary to that. Were I judging someone who did that, they wouldn't score very highly, I'm afraid.

It might appear that I'm defending spirituality, but I'm not. I just don't think your attempt to disparage it is fair.

[Lacewing]

Good discussion, everyone.

Spiritual people often do recomend their own beliefs to others...

Yes, that's a good point; and even in the phrase I've been asking about, they seem to want some sort of praise or credit for being "spiritual." Otherwise, why even say it?

(I thought similarly to ask what Harry Baird did...) Why do you say you're Christian? Are you wanting praise or credit?

And similarly to what Harbal point out... being spiritual means different things to different people, just as being Christian does. And there are many different reasons for acknowledging it to people, just as there are many different reasons for acknowledging any characteristic one might feel resonance with. People often feel that what they resonate with is 'superior' or preferable to that which they don't resonate with, otherwise why would they choose it?

I talk about what is 'spiritual' because it is very powerful and beautiful to me, and I see it as naturally flowing and existing throughout all and everyone. No one and nothing is excluded or commanded or judged (beyond the minds of men) -- rather, all of that is of the human mind.

It is my hope that people who are so inclined to consider such will be inspired to notice how much of all-of-life we are connected to, and how much we (ourselves) are creating the ideas and experience and reality they we having. We are amazing creators. What are we creating? Who or what (else) might we be attributing that to? Do our creations rule us?

I think these are interesting questions/ideas to consider and explore... regardless of our varying belief systems.

[Immanuel Can]

What then can it mean when somebody says, "I don't believe in God, but I'm spiritual"?

Wait, from where are you getting the idea that all of those who refer to themselves as "spiritual but not religious" disbelieve in God?

That's a good question.

And it goes with this one: can a person say, "I believe in a god" and not be religious?

There will be different opinions about that, since "belief in God" is ordinarily taken to be one of the hallmarks of what secularists call "religious."

But you disagree? What do you say?

It seems that, for you, claims to spirituality reduce to feelings of superiority.

Not at all. Go back and read the quotation from Ephesians. Like everybody else, Christians were once "dead in trespasses and sins." That means they were the same as everybody else -- and but for nothing but the grace of God, would be nothing more.

Why is this so hard for them to explain, if "spiritual person" is just a phrase with ordinary meaning?

Who says it's hard to explain?

Oh, great! You'll explain it, then?

What does somebody mean when they say, "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual"? That's what I've been wanting to hear.

[Immanuel Can]

No, not disgraceful. But not meritorious, either. One gets neither praise or blame if morality is not objective.

One does from me. I think that "good" moral behaviour that stems from a person's subjective sense of right and wrong is far more praisworthy than that which merely follows a set of what is considered to be subjective rules.

Hmmm...you might want to reconsider that position. If we take it literally, Jeffrey Dahmer could have met that low bar. He followed his own subjective sense of what he wanted to do (we won't say "right" and "wrong," because those objective values do not exist in that worldview), and he deserves "praise"?

I'm pretty sure you won't say that.

they seem to want some sort of praise or credit for being "spiritual." Otherwise, why even say it?

I get the impression they want admiration more than praise. People who claim to be spiritual always seem rather proud of it to me.

Yes, they do to me, as well. That's an opinion, but it looks true to me. And I don't know what they are actually claiming, either.

But how does one "recommend" an alleged "morality" that amounts to, "Do what you feel like?" Is there anything about total egoism that deserves the special plaudits of "moral"? Can you praise yourself for pleasing yourself? And if you fail to please yourself, does that make you a "bad" person?

I really don't think it's about doing what you feel like and demanding praise for it. I think it is just about existing within your proper place in nature, and in accordance with nature.[/quote]
Oh. So Nature is your placeholder for "God"? It's the force that gives orientation and substance to morality?

You'll have to explain that to me, I would say. What is this "Nature," and how does it issue moral directives, and why are we bound to follow "Nature"? You're not going back to Natural Law theory, are you?

I get the impression from some Christians, and I think you may be one of them, that belief in "Jesus Christ, our saviour", is what is of prime importance, and one's behavour towards others is secondary to that.

You're absolutely right. But "secondary" only means "second." It doesn't imply "unimportant" or "trivial."

It might appear that I'm defending spirituality, but I'm not. I just don't think your attempt to disparage it is fair.

I didn't "disparage." I asked what it meant. And interestingly, people get defensive about that, and a few may even presume disparagement, because they feel confused and unable to answer, possibly. That's a hazard we run when we ask a question like that.

But in point of fact, I don't know yet whether or not it's something that should be "disparaged." Maybe it shouldn't be. But I won't know until they tell me what they mean.

[Immanuel Can]

Good discussion, everyone.

Spiritual people often do recomend their own beliefs to others...

Yes, that's a good point; and even in the phrase I've been asking about, they seem to want some sort of praise or credit for being "spiritual." Otherwise, why even say it?

(I thought similarly to ask what Harry Baird did...) Why do you say you're Christian? Are you wanting praise or credit?

My answer to him answers that.

And similarly to what Harbal point out... being spiritual means different things to different people, just as being Christian does.

Maybe. But most Christians, and myself included, can tell you exactly what they mean.

Why can't the "spiritual" folks?

[Harbal]

Hmmm...you might want to reconsider that position. If we take it literally, Jeffrey Dahmer could have met that low bar. He followed his own subjective sense of what he wanted to do (we won't say "right" and "wrong," because those objective values do not exist in that worldview), and he deserves "praise"?

I'm pretty sure you won't say that.

No, I don't want to reconsider it. It's not the first time I've considered it, and I'm satisfied with my position. What has Jeffrey Dahmer got to do with this? You could just as easily have given an example of a high profile religious figure who has been disgraced for doing something abomanable.

So Nature is your placeholder for "God"? It's the force that gives orientation and substance to morality?

I don't think so. Human nature is the source of morality, but I don't know what role spiritual people see nature in general as playing in it.

You'll have to explain that to me, I would say. What is this "Nature," and how does it issue moral directives, and why are we bound to follow "Nature"? You're not going back to Natural Law theory, are you?

You are the one who insists on connecting spirituality and morality. I don't even know that there is a connection, and I certainly can't explain it to you, because I don't know.

You're absolutely right. But "secondary" only means "second." It doesn't imply "unimportant" or "trivial."

I happen to think behaviour is what is important, and what one believes is trivial. What you believe doesn't matter as long as there is virtue in what you do.

I didn't "disparage."

You are not being honest, IC. You are plainly trying to completely discredit it, because you resolutely refuse to allow that any belief system other than yours could have any value. It's what you always do. It's what we know and love you for.

You old rascal.

[Immanuel Can]

What has Jeffrey Dahmer got to do with this?

Your criterion for the moral is so low, that even Jeffrey Dahmer could meet it, so long as, in his own depraved mind, he was following values he personally held. That would be, if we used your suggested criterion, praiseworthy.

So Nature is your placeholder for "God"? It's the force that gives orientation and substance to morality?

I don't think so. Human nature is the source of morality, but I don't know what role spiritual people see nature in general as playing in it.

Well, then I guess that doesn't bring us any closer to knowing what a "spiritual not religious" person is, then.

You're absolutely right. But "secondary" only means "second." It doesn't imply "unimportant" or "trivial."

I happen to think behaviour is what is important, and what one believes is trivial.

Well, what a person does is a product of the kind of person he is. And the person he is depends on what he believes. The two are certainly intimately related, but as Jesus said, “That which comes out of the person, that is what defiles the person. For from within, out of the hearts of people, come the evil thoughts, acts of sexual immorality, thefts, murders, acts of adultery, deeds of greed, wickedness, deceit, indecent behavior, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness." (Mark 7: 20-22)

I didn't "disparage."

You are not being honest, IC...

I am. Go back and check.

I asked a genuine question, and I'll take a genuine answer. I asked, what do people mean when they say they are not relgious but "spiritual?" And for some reason, people seem embarassed or unable to make a simple answer.

But I'll take one, if there is one.

[Lacewing]

I asked, what do people mean when they say they are not relgious but "spiritual?".

What I mean when I say that I'm 'spiritual - not religious' is that I believe all is connected as one, and one is being manifested/reflected through all. This is in contrast to believing in any separate hierarchy or god-figure who is depicted by various religions as separate and above all else.

[Harry Baird]

What then can it mean when somebody says, "I don't believe in God, but I'm spiritual"?

Wait, from where are you getting the idea that all of those who refer to themselves as "spiritual but not religious" disbelieve in God?

That's a good question.

And it goes with this one: can a person say, "I believe in a god" and not be religious?

Apparently so, by your own (unsolicited) admission a page back:

For one thing, I'm not religious.

There will be different opinions about that, since "belief in God" is ordinarily taken to be one of the hallmarks of what secularists call "religious."

But you disagree?

Yes.

What do you say?

I say that, to me, in this context, "religious" denotes adherence to an institutionalised system of spiritual belief and practice, which might or might not (e.g., see Buddhism) involve belief in God.

"Spiritual (but not religious)" simply denotes adherence to a non-institutionalised set of spiritual beliefs and practices, which, again, might or might not involve belief in God. Given that these beliefs and practices are not institutionalised, their specific nature can't be stipulated in advance, but if I was to refer to myself as "spiritual (but not religious)", I would probably mean something like this:

"I believe in divinity and in a divine realm of spirit transcendent to this physical realm. Through such practices as prayer, meditation, fasting, and scrupulously ethical behaviour, I have developed and maintain a reverent and tangible relationship with divinity and the spiritual realm. The tangibility of this relationship is demonstrated by such regular occurrences in my daily life as synchronicities, answered prayers, visions, miracles, my (sometime or even regular) expression of paranormal abilities, and things 'just working out' for me when the odds of that were very low. I also experience this relationship at all times: I have a continuous sense of God's presence and of our connectedness."

Less strictly, I might mean that this is a state to which I aspire, to which I am sincerely dedicated and devoted (as opposed to merely granting it lip service), and towards which I am progressing.

It seems that, for you, claims to spirituality reduce to feelings of superiority.

Not at all.

Well, that's what you more-or-less said a post or two back (emphasis added by me):

I don't doubt that [those who affirm that they are spiritual but not religious] think they're better than the raw unbeliever in some way; otherwise, why would they bother to stipulate themselves as "spiritual"? If they didn't think it made them somehow better than "non-spiritual" people, would they say it at all?

Apparently, though, in your view, this only applies to others, not to Christians. When Christians say they're "spiritually alive" whereas non-Christians are "spiritually dead", they don't "think it [makes] them somehow better than" non-Christians. It's interesting how that works, isn't it?

Oh, great! You'll explain it, then?

What does somebody mean when they say, "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual"? That's what I've been wanting to hear.

See above.