@minimus
Do You Consider Yourself Religious? Do You Believe In God? Are You Spiritual?
I do not consider myself religious in any way. I do believe in "God" and I think I am a spiritual person to some degree.
You may, in fact, be a spiritual person, in a sense. Of course, this is just my opinion, and someone else may have a different opinion, but people can define words as they please, and I don't just mean Jehovah's Witnesses, mind you, for everyone, religious or non-religious, is free to define words as they wish.
As an example, were you and I were discussing the pleadings that one files in a courtroom, which are called "motions," and the two of us as well as the judge understood what was meant when using this word, there wouldn't likely be anyone thinking that by "motions" that any of us would have in mind (1) "a formal proposal" (e.g., when voting) or by "motions" you could be thinking about (2) "movement" (i.e., involving a change of location), but when I say "motions," I'm not referring to either of these two things, but to the pleadings I filed to set aside and vacate a judgment entered against my client. So what we mean when we use a particular word, phrase or expression must be established if what we believe is to be understood by others.
It is evident that some here are of the belief that an atheist can be a spiritual person, and some here might be of the belief that an agnostic can be a spiritual person, which would then lead some to conclude that anyone that is a spiritual person must also be a religious person, and that a failure to believe in God doesn't disqualify anyone from being said to be a spiritual person, which is true; it doesn't. One could describe someone that is 72" in height as "tall" if they are 62" in height wearing heels, but to someone who is also 72" in height, someone 81" in height would be considered "tall," so whether someone is or isn't spiritual can be just a matter of one's perspective.
I could tell you that it isn't the case that just because someone that professes to be a Christian that this automatically makes that person a spiritual person. I could also say that just because someone attends church every Sunday, tithes a tenth of their income to their church and has even been baptized as a Christian doesn't necessarily make that individual a spiritual person. But this would just be my opinion, would it not?
Regarding the natural man, the physical man -- the Bible says that he doesn't receive anything of the spirit of God because to him all of such things are foolishness, so he can't get to know those things, he doesn't understand them, he perceives spiritual things to be foolish, so, according to the Bible, such a person would not be spiritual. Such persons don't have God's favor because they don't have God's point of view. But regarding the spiritual man, the apostle Paul states at 1 Corinthians 2:14, 15, KJV, that he "judgeth all things." One way the spiritual person might be described is to say that he is a God-oriented person, but this would just be according to Paul's perspective, a perspective that would only be based on Paul's opinion, would it not?
According to the Bible, a spiritual person would be someone that receives the spirit of God, and while many things can be said to be "spiritual," those that read and study the Bible are the ones that are receiving God's spirit. That's just one viewpoint, one perspective, one opinion: Paul's. So the spiritual man would then be someone that understands spiritual things, examines them, comprehends them, and who judges all things, because, unlike the natural man, he receives the things of the spirit of God, he examines all things, he perceives them and consequently is able to look at things from God's point of view. For this reason, his opposite -- the natural or physical man -- doesn't see things from God's point of view, he cannot see things from God's viewpoint at all, and thus, being unable to comprehend spiritual things, he is in no position to judge the spiritual man.
However, at1 Corinthians 3:1-3, KJV, Paul wrote:
"And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, [even] as unto babes in Christ. I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able [to bear it], neither yet now are ye able. For ye are yet carnal: for whereas [there is] among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?"
Did you notice what Paul was calling these Christians? Three times he uses a certain word to describe them. He said that they were "carnal" or fleshly Christians. What exactly does it mean to be "carnal," or carnally minded? At Romans 8:6-8, this same apostle wrote the following:
"For to be carnally minded [is] death; but to be spiritually minded [is] life and peace. Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God."
If you were to read Colossians 3:5, KJV, which states --
"Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry."
-- then you would know that we should not be trying to satisfy certain fleshly cravings that we might have, that all such should be 'mortified,' treated as if they were dead since the fleshly cravings Paul mentions in this verse appeal to the sensory organs, they are appealling to our senses of sight, smell, hearing, taste and touch, but are as useless as a corpse, and should be 'mortified.' BTW, under the Christian arrangement, we do not hear things like "Thou shalt not do this..." or "Thou shalt not do that...." but what we read in the Bible are requests like "Mortify ... your members...," that is to say, "deaden your senses with respect to this and that...," and "Don't be carnal minded Christians."
God gave us these five senses we have, but how do these five senses control, rule and dominate the physical, the natural man? I'll mention just two of them. Take sight.
Right away we think of the eye, for it is with the eye that one is able to see. But whatever the natural man sees, if he wants it, he's going to try to get it, if he can get it. It doesn't make any difference to him that what he sees belongs to someone else -- if he's envious of it, if he covets that, if he has to do wrong to get it -- none of that makes any difference to him. Does it appeal to him so that he asks his eye, "Do you want that"? "Yes, I do, want it" the eye answers. But does he ever ask the eye, "Does it belong to someone else?" No, he never asks that question.
Instead, the eye says, "Go after what you see anyway; go get it," and the natural man moves in that direction to get it. It could be the craving for clothing -- a new suit or a pair of Nikes he sees in the store -- or the craving for food -- a couple of Big Macs as an in-between-meal snack represented by the Golden Arches he sees off to his right as he drives in traffic, navigating his vehicle toward it -- or his craving for extramarital pleasure -- he sees how very attractive the woman at his job is and he knows it doesn't matter to her that he is a married man, because he knows that all she wants is to spend an hour or two with him at her home in secret and the desire is mutual. He could have deadened such carnal desires, but he had no desire to do so. In fact, his wife won't be there when he pursues his carnal desires with her, and she's not going to tell anyone.
You see, this woman has scruples, not necessarily religious ones, but she is "spiritual" in a sense and doesn't want to break up a family. Being "spiritual" in a sense, she has standards of her own, and so she has no interest in marrying a man that would cheat on his wife. No, her only interest is in knowing those things about him that only his wife knows about him, the intimate things, and in maybe doing things to him that his wife doesn't do as well as she or that she has no interest in doing to him, and he knows this about her, he knows that she's a freak, she even told him so, and she wants him as much as he wants her. He doesn't fancy leaving his wife to live in a "committed" relationship with her for a time, and doesn't fantasize about this at all. If the natural man sees something he wants, and it appeals to him, then if he can get it, he just moves in that direction to get it almost instinctively. Let's take a second one, hearing.
We think of the ear, for it is with the ear that one is able to hear. But whatever the natural man hears, if he wants it, if it's pleasurable to him, he moves in that direction. He wants to hear whatever is pleasurable to him, and he wants to hear it all the time, not recognizing that there's a time for everything. And if what he hears should be disturbing to others, don't tell him that; he doesn't want to hear it. It appeals to him.
Does he ever ask the ear, "Is what I hear something that is good for me, something to which I should listen?" No, he never asks that question. His ear says, "That sounds like a good beat, that sound works for me, that sounds like something by which I could benefit," and off he moves in that direction. The words in the song are profane or are in bad taste, but that doesn't matter to him; the lyrics are attached to a rhythm that pulsates through his entire body, and they appeal to his ear, and other like-minded individuals love this song as much as he does, so that when the ear asks him, "Do you like what you hear?" the natural man says, "Yes, I do."
But what about the children in the neighborhood who are playing nearby that can hear these songs with the explicit lyrics? Should he lower the volume so they cannot hear the "nasty" song as he drives by in his car? Yes, he should, but "No," he says. "Let the children hear what I like to hear. Their parents like this song and their kids have probably heard the song it before anyway. In fact, let me turn it up a little more," he says.
What about the neighbors? It is 1:30 am. Perhaps he should reduce the volume somewhat so as not to disturb others. Yes, he should, but no, he doesn't reason this way. "No, let them hear my favorite songs. I'll probably turn it off after this one or the next one," he says. The natural man wants to hear something, if it makes him feel good, you cannot tell him to turn it down, because he paid $350 for the stereo and the speakers, and the CD he just bought set him back $24.99. Plus, it's a free country. If the natural man likes the way it sounds, if it appeals to him, and he wants it, regardless of how others are affected by it, he moves in that direction to get it.
The point is, Jehovah is a holy God and when we gather together for worship in God's spiritual temple, we have entered God's house and are standing is a holy place, a place where uncleanness is impermissible, where the unclean person is just not permitted to stand, let alone enter. Those who are religious in a sense, spiritual in a sense, don't worship in God's spiritual temple. They don't stand in a holy place; they don't worship in a temple at all. The spiritual person understands this and he or she walks by means of God's spirit, while the physical or natural person does not understand this at all, and because the fleshly Christian is fleshly, he or she does not have the mind of Christ, and fleshly persons are not ready for solid food, which belongs to those that are mature Christians. (Galatians 5:16; 1 Corinthians 2:14-16; 3:1-3; Hebrews 5:14)
So in a nutshell, a spiritual person must have God's point of view, and so he cannot be an agnostic, since an agnostic doesn't know God. I'm giving here my opinion, of course, just as many here in this thread has given their opinion as to what they believe constitutes one a spiritual person, and a religious person, but the word "spiritual" is not a loaded one, for either one defines what a spiritual person is according to how the Bible defines the phrase, or one opts to reject the Bible's definition for some other definition, and how one defines this word or this phrase depends upon whose point of view one embraces, either by Paul's opinion as he was led to write by God's spirit or by someone else's opinion.
@djeggnog
