Unless you believe in "spirit(s)" you cannot be "spiritual"

by logansrun 38 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Country_Woman

  Logansrun, you are going far to deep for me.

  I agree with Allan's (although I am no longer riding a motorcycle):

  For example, I can say "it was a spiritual experience riding through the Rocky Mountains on my motorcycle", and most people will know perfectly well what I mean. They won't think that I suddenly found religion. They won't think that I saw ghosts while on my ride. They'll easily understand that I'm talking about a feeling of respect for the grandeur and beauty of nature, and a sense of wonder at it all.

  because human language is "living" and constantley changing, today's meaning has practically nothing to do with "Spirits" all what is going on at your MIND (coming from within as Elsewhere stated) is called today spiritual (that is when it is on a moral high level) it is a bit strange to say that "it was a mental experience riding through the Rocky Mountains "

  just my idea.
• 

  LittleToe

  Alan:
  Since belief in a spirit world is the territory of primitive mankind onwards, why don't the enlightened "unbelievers" (coming into a rich new paradigm) create their own phrases instead of stealing ours?
  The English language is rich enough already, but isn't adverse to adopting new ideas.

  Are you sure you didn't mean that the bike-ride was an exhilarating experience?
• 

  Narkissos

  Ross,

  Since belief in a spirit world is the territory of primitive mankind onwards, why don't the enlightened "unbelievers" (coming into a rich new paradigm) create their own phrases instead of stealing ours?
  The English language is rich enough already, but isn't adverse to adopting new ideas.

  The "enlightened 'unbelievers'" also belong to the "territory of primitive mankind onwards" and are no less entitled than "believers" to use, subvert and reinterpret this common lexical and conceptual inheritance. Monotheism also "stole" the words "god" and "spirit" to older belief systems. IMO this is not a moral issue, it's just a question of communication efficiency and timeliness. IOW, in the present state of usage (depending on where we live and whom we address) does the benefit of using a religious vocabulary presently outworks the ambiguity?
• 

  logansrun

  I've been thinking about this a bit more, and I guess I understand why theists might feel that non-believers are co-opting their language by describing ourselves as 'spiritual.' By using the word to signify psychological rather than other-worldly phenomena, we are implicitly dismissing the significance--or existence--of the supernatural.

  But I think that an analogy exists in the use of the word 'God'. For centuries, mystically and philosophically minded believers have used the term 'God' to describe an entity far removed from the deity of more literal believers. Aristotle's God and Descartes' God and the God of the Qabbalists are as different from the petty tyrant of traditional Judeo-Islamo-Christian thinking as atheists' spirituality is from believers'.

  The only similarity between Aristotle's (or John Shelby Spong's) God and Yahweh is the psychological function they serve. So if liberal belivers are allowed to call their non-personal deity 'God' on the basis of psychology, I say that non-believers can call our connections to the transcendent 'spirituality' on the same grounds.

  To be really accurate, perhaps non-believers in a personal God should refrain from using the word "God" to describe non-theistic entities and processes. Your example isn't really a refutation of my argument, but an extenstion of it! God! Bradley
• 

  observador

  I fully believe in spirits. just got a botle of Port and another of Amarula. Hummm, delicious! Observador.
• 

  onacruse

  In a way, the "spirit" of "spiritual" might be demonstrated by the fact that this discussion board continues on.

  Why?

  Because people want, and need, to interact with each other, and with every living thing in their environment. My cat, my dog, my trees, the chikadees that are now starting to hop up and down on those trees: I "feel" a sense of bonding with them all.

  Why?

  imho, these phenomena I experience can't be fully explained by 'nature and nurture.'

  Perhaps, like Darth Vader said: "I sense a presence, a presence I haven't felt since..."
• 

  GentlyFeral

  Bradley, I disagree. Being a theist myself, I can't argue this directly, but I can point you to:

  Religious Atheisms: a guide for the whole atheist

  Here's an excerpt

  GentlyFeral
• 

  onacruse

  Bradley is recovering from post-finals syndrome...probably got a D on every one...LOL

  Craigster (of the "likes to harass Brad" class)
• 

  Valis

  I don't agree that one has to believe in incorporeal spirits of some sort to describe oneself as "spiritual".

  nope...fishing in a clear cold stream for a big trout is very spiritual..

  Sincerely,

  District Overbeer