hahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahhaahahahahhahahahahha
You believe that guy is "spiritual" hahahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahaa
You also believe Jesus isn't or never existed? hahahhahahahhahahahahahahahahhaa
ouch. You wound me.
Do You Consider Yourself Religious? Do You Believe In God? Are You Spiritual?
by minimus 36 Replies latest jw friends
-
Mr. Falcon
-
djeggnog
@Diest:
A two page post that ends with...in a nutshell. I like it.
I did, too. In fact, I actually used the word "nutshell" thinking it could possibly draw the scorn that evidently had you in its grip. I trust that the experience of reading a two-page post wasn't too unpleasant for you. It is a known fact even that, for many folks, sleeping is so much more pleasant to them than reading.
@djeggnog wrote:
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.
@OnTheWayOut wrote:
I think most people do a good job of establishing what they mean so that others can understand.
With this statement of yours, were you making a kind of cruel joke or what, or is this what you really think my reprobative friend? I think most people on JWN express themselves using whatever words they wish sufficient to make their point without bothering to "[establish] what they mean so that others can understand" what they are saying. I dare say to you that "most people" don't typically bullet point or footnote what they say on here; they just say it, and if there should turn out to be something that they don't understand, they might post a message seeking clarification of that which was unclear to them in some way regarding a vague or ambiguous "word, phrase or expression" that was used. Or they might not, depending upon how important it is to them to gain an understanding of what was said.
Just like the word "spiritual," the word "gospel" means one thing to some, another thing to some and something else to some, and if we don't take the time to explain or "establish" what it is we mean by the word, "gospel," then when we should use this word, aren't we really leaving it up to people that hear what we say or read what we write and don't know what we mean by "gospel" to determine for themselves that what we mean by "gospel" isn't what they mean by "gospel"? Now you were once as are so many here on JWN one of Jehovah's Witnesses, @OTWO, so I would expect you to know what I mean by "the gospel," and while I don't know you personally, I don't think you to be either stupid or clueless, but judging from your comment (quoted above), I feel I should repeat my question to you:
If we don't take the time to explain or "establish" what it is we mean by the word, "gospel," then when we should use this word, aren't we really leaving it up to people that hear what we say or read what we write and don't know what we mean by "gospel" to determine for themselves that what we mean by "gospel" isn't what they mean by "gospel"? Let's say you were asked by someone, "What is the gospel?" what would you say? One of the ways I might explain the gospel is as follows:
The gospel is the message from Jehovah God that began to be preached by the Lord Jesus Christ as to how the whole world of mankind that had been born into a world in which they have had to learn the dire consequences that flow from sin would eventually be brought into the way of righteousness and given the privilege of securing for themselves the opportunity afforded us by the ransom paid by Jesus Christ, which not only pardoned us, but satisfied justice as well, and now enables all mankind to enjoy eternal life.
Now what if I were to have used the word "gospel" without "establishing" what it was I meant by the word? There's a gospel currently being preached in the world that is espoused by Baptists, Calvinists, Lutherans, Presbyterians and Seventh-Day Adventists, where the Lord God Jesus devised a diabolical plan where the billions of people today as well as those that had lived on this earth all the way back to Adam were predestined to spend eternity experiencing torture in the flames of a hellfire for their sins as "the damned," while the folks born since Jesus began to preach the gospel, not because of their works, but due to their luck in being alive to have heard the gospel, will all receive God's favor because of their faith in Jesus' work on the cross and spend their eternity in heaven as God's "elect" as they observe the fate of the "unlucky" damned, who undergo perpetual torment night and day while the "lucky" elect enjoy perpetual heavenly bliss.
Another gospel that is currently being preached in the world is being espoused by adherents of the Roman Catholic Church, which pronounces the entire world of mankind from the billions alive today back to Adam, including all of the Protestant religions, as doomed to spend eternity being tormented in the flame of hell for not being Catholics, who will all have escaped the fate of the heretics through the redemptive work of the Lord God Jesus as supplemented by their ritual acceptance of the Mass and receiving the sacraments, and their many penances and prayers to the saints, which purged them of their sins.
I cannot speak to what "most people do," and you could be right, @OTWO, but I make it a point to establish what I mean "so that others can understand" what it is I'm saying. Likewise, I explained what I meant by "spiritual" so that there would be no doubt as to what it was I meant.
I don't think they are defining "spiritual" as they please. They are defining it according to some application of the accepted definitions.
To be honest, I don't much care what you think other people mean whenever they should use the word, "spiritual." I do want to know what you mean by the things you say, I do want to know what other people mean by the things they say, but you may be someone that is only interested in positing your point of view and you may be someone that cares little or nothing about trying to understanding what it is I am saying, and that's fine. As you can see from how I define the word "gospel," whatever "accepted definitions" may exist for the word "spiritual," I make it a point to distinguish between my definition of the word and someone else's definition of the word.
For instance, I understand that djeggnogg redefines it to only allow Christians who accept the Bible to be able to be "spiritual." He seems to feel that the Bible is the only valid "dictionary" of such words.
I'm glad that you wrote "it seems," because it does seem to me that you mistaken about what I "feel," let alone what I believe to be the significance of the Bible. You wrote how you "understand" that I had redefined the word "spiritual," to only allow Christians who accept the Bible to be 'spiritual.'" Why? I didn't mention acceptance of the Bible as being a factor in determining whether or not someone is spiritual or spiritual-minded did I? I have the mind of Christ, so I don't believe I would have done what you suggest here, but just to check, please go back and re-read what it was I actually wrote, @OTWO.
In my previous message, I wrote about the physical or natural man, who is motivated by his fleshly desires, who is motivated to do the things he does by his five senses. I cited 1 Corinthians 2:14, 15, where, in pertinent part, Paul explains that "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God." I wasn't redefining the word "spiritual." I was merely making the point that Paul was making, to wit, that the natural man isn't a spiritual person, because the spiritual person is someone that is led by God's spirit, someone -- again according to Paul -- that doesn't reject, but readily receives or accepts "the Spirit of God." In identifying who is or isn't spiritual, Paul wasn't referring to Christians at all and neither was I. He stated that the natural man isn't a spiritual person and why he isn't a spiritual-minded individual: "He who is spiritual judgeth all things," whereas it isn't possible for the natural man, who is devoid of God's spirit, to judge the spiritual man. There are many Christians that accept the Bible who are not "spiritual" persons. Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans are all of them "Christians who accept the Bible," but they are not spiritual persons. Let me repeat that in the event you didn't "hear" me, OTWO: There are Catholics, Baptists, Methodists and Lutherans, who all profess to be "Christians [that] accept the Bible," but they are not spiritual persons.
As to all of these Bible-believing Christians, Paul goes on to say, at 1 Corinthians 3:1, that are "carnal" Christians, that is to say, they are fleshly Christians, "babes in Christ," Paul says in this verse. They, like the natural man, are driven by their five senses to do according to what they feel. I don't at all "feel" the Bible to be "a dictionary" by any stretch of your imagination. The Bible is the product of God's holy spirit that motivates the spiritual person to share the gospel with others; it's not a dictionary.
Catholics, Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans are each one of them "Christians who accept the Bible" -- I intentionally exclude secular Christians, who are "Christians" in name only, but only refer to Bible-believing Christians -- but they are "babes in Christ," fleshly-minded Christians, carnal-minded Christians, and not spiritual-minded persons. Many Jehovah's Witnesses think themselves to be spiritual persons, but they are fleshly Christians, too. You may no longer be one of Jehovah's Witnesses yourself, @OTWO, but you have to be a Bible-believing Christian, otherwise you and I would be having a very different discussion here, but there's really no distinction to be drawn between you and these other carnal-minded Christians.
Ask one of these Christians the question, "What is the gospel?" and you will get some rather interesting answers to the question, but they are not spiritual persons. I'm a Bible-believing Christian, but I believe in a different gospel than these other Bible-believing Christians do. I don't worship God in trinity; some of them do. I don't worship Jesus as God; some of them do. (2 Corinthians 11:4) I don't believe one's acceptance of the Bible to be something that makes one spiritual; some of them do. I don't believe it possible to have adulterous political relations and patriotically wave my nation's flag while at the same time being loyal to the Jesus as God's appointed king; some of them do. I believe the true test of patriotism is paying my taxes and obeying the law of the land just as I would as a citizen under the heavenly rule of the kingdom of God.
I understand that even though he keeps saying that it is just an opinion.
You understand what now?
I love how it is just an opinion but "...in a nutshell, a spiritual person must have God's point of view."
We are all of us on JWN contributing our own opinions to these threads. In a nutshell, a spiritual person must have God's point of view," is an opinion. It's my opinion. You don't have to agree with it. If you want, you can be of the opposite point of view and opine that a spiritual person does not need God's point of view, and that would be your opinion. I don't get the point in your saying this. If you were you attempting to be clever, you totally missed.
The word "spiritual" can be a loaded word, so as long as each person defines it, who gives a crap what djeggnog thinks?
Wait -- hold on there. I just quoted you writing the following:
I don't think they are defining "spiritual" as they please. They are defining it according to some application of the accepted definitions.
If it is true that the word "spiritual" can be described as being "a loaded word," and folks are defining this word "according to some application of the accepted definitions," then shouldn't I define my use of the word if I know that the way I define "spiritual" doesn't fit or may not fit any of the "accepted definitions" out there? Being someone that was formerly one of Jehovah's Witnesses means that JW-speak isn't foreign to you, so should I use the words "soul" and "hell," you're spiritually bilingual and understand my use of these two words perfectly. I need not explain to you what I mean by them even though my definitions do not accord with "some applicable of the accepted definitions," so how "loaded" would either of these be to you, @OTWO? Why should anyone care what you think as to how the word "spiritual" should be refined?
For that matter, it's a label and if you think Bible-believers should have a lock on the word, then I will just take another label like "caring rational human" to apply to those that reject the Bible. But that's just an opinion.
Well, for some, "spiritual" is an adjective that might be used as a "label" or as an attribute to describe someone, but I don't think Bible-believers have a lock on the word "spiritual" or that they should control or have the final say on how this word ought to be used. If this is what you thought I believe, then you have another "think" coming, and you should use it wisely. As to this "opinion" of yours as to the phrase, "caring rational human," were you clothing yourself with this phrase diametrically as a label so that you would assert this phrase to be the polar opposite of "spiritual" or what? Part of what you said here makes no sense to me, so maybe your rephrasing what you said here would help to get across to me the point that you intended to make(but didn't).
@Mr. Falcon:
some of the most "spiritual" people in history didn't even believe in Jesus. So what's that tell you?
What this tells me is that you would use the word "spiritual" differently than I would use it, since Bible-believing Christians would be more apt to use this word in a way that accords with the way Paul's uses it at 1 Corinthians 2:15 than in the way in which non-believers would use the word. It's important to keep in mind that not all Bible-believing Christians are spiritual-minded; some are, some aren't.
@djeggnog
-
OnTheWayOut
Let's look at how people on this thread make themselves clear about "spiritual."
Cofty said: I'm in awe of the grandeur of life the universe and everything but wouldn't use the word spiritual becasue of its connotations.
He doesn't define "spiritual" because he avoids using the word, but clearly tells us how he feels.
Lohengren said: No, no and maybe. (to the title question.) Spiritual is such a nebulous term I guess in some ways it would apply to me. But it's not something I think about regularly.
So that's explained a little bit. You have to look up "nebulous." (Unclear, vague)
Reopened Mind fully explains: I do believe in the HUMAN SPIRIT, ie., I think that it is HUMANS that accomplish whatever gets done. When I give thanks it is to the person who does something for me, not a mythical supernatural being. In that sense, then, I consider myself spiritual.
Tec doesn't explain how she is spiritual on her entry.
xchange explains well, but doesn't take a personal view of the word, SPIRITUAL: As to spiritual - what the heck does that even mean? It seems to me that one person's(x) spirituality to another person(Y) may seem like bunk, even as they consider themself(Y) as being spiritual.
breakfast of champions does well to explain personal feelings about SPIRITUAL: I would consider myself "spiritual," not in the sense I believe in anything supernatural, but because I look below the surface. I also think you can have a "spiritual" experience, but it is all brain stuff.
-
OnTheWayOut
N.Drew is not clear at all: I am spiritual but I also realize that I can not know myself that I am spiritual compared to The Spirit.
stillajwexelder is slightly unclear, but I believe he is saying that the standard dictionary definition is the one he accepts instead of WT's definition: I think I am a spiritual person to some degree as defined by me and most people.
lilbluekitty seems to indicate that being Christian makes one "spiritual" : I'm a Christian now, so I would say I'm spiritual and believe in God. As far as being religious, no clue.
justmom seems pretty clear that she has a belief and gives a basic understanding of it: I don't understand why people lose faith in him and the son alltogether because of a life in the WTBS. (trust me I know what happens to you) but now that we have been allowed to be freed from it, whatever our
experience has been, USE IT to grow in your faith and truly learn to trust NOONE but him, let holy spirit finally lead you and not a organization of man. And help others to be freed without being soooo bitter unless of course on occasation when we are really down venting a little.
But not to discourage the new babies, the new generation that questions authority and has the right to unlike we did in growing up!
WTWizard didn't say, but I think the statements told us enough: I believe that God is an Almighty Lowlife Scumbag that cares nothing except to initiate suffering in the human race, stifling all my attempts to better myself
timebandit skipped explaining but took the NO answer to "Spiritual"
Thetrueone denied being spiritual, but still gave a thought: If ones spirituality is derived from religious teachings alone than that person has created their own wrongful self delusions.
Jay88 stuck with "I don't know."
N.Drew gave another shot at explaining: Spiritual means putting spiritual things like love, hope, peace, goodness, gladness, ect ahead of the desires of the flesh. The most powerful desire that many have is for something not happening (their own death). But Christ taught that he who loves his own flesh more than Him is not "worthy" of him. It means how can he be led if he is concerned with self? So even a man who is trying to put off sin thus imagines himself spiritual, might be fleshly because he is doing it for himself.
You can read the whole account above, but Smiddy explained well: Pondering the answers to those questions then you could say I`m spiritual.
HappyOutsideTheBox takes the negative view and explains well enough: Not at all to all 3!
Previously it would have been a resounding YES but now I have a very high and thick wall around all things 'spiritual' that I will not even try to overcome.
I inwardly cringe when I hear religious debates from anyone and any religion.
ILTSF gives a short explaination without defining: I do not consider myself religious at all, and do not believe in any gods. As for spiritual...I guess it depends on the day but in general, no, not really.
So my point stands, at least in my opinion: I think most people do a good job of establishing what they mean so that others can understand.
It's not a cruel joke to say that.
-
cofty
So my point stands, at least in my opinion: I think most people do a good job of establishing what they mean so that others can understand.
Its a good point. I get frustrated when people get pedantic about definitions. Unless its a formal debate its more important to try to get a sense of what the other person feels about things and why rather than the semantics of their words.
As you illustrated a number of people claimed to be spiritual but mean very different things. Words are our tools not our masters.
-
transhuman68
If I can't eat it, smoke it, or make love to it- I don't want it.
-
OnTheWayOut
djeggnog: You wrote how you "understand" that I had redefined the word "spiritual," to only allow Christians who accept the Bible to be 'spiritual.'" Why? I didn't mention acceptance of the Bible as being a factor in determining whether or not someone is spiritual or spiritual-minded did I?
I will stand corrected if I am wrong, but you did lead the horse to the water with the following:
Regarding the natural man, the physical man -- the Bible says ...
According to the Bible, a spiritual person would be ....
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)
You asked us to read a scripture and then suggested that "then you would know" something that we should not do. You certainly used the Bible as your guide:
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.'
Your topper was:
You can tell us that God contacts you to give his point of view, but then He would have to contact everyone. I am pretty sure you meant to use the Bible
So in a nutshell, a spiritual person must have God's point of view
to get that point of view. Again, I stand corrected if you say that isn't so.