relationship help: Religion or Spirituality? - Help.com

True, religion’s have “dogmas” but they are just traditions. What “dogmas” are you talking about? If your talking about “trying to recruit new souls” well, from the Christian faith it is a commandment (not in the ten commandments) but never the less we are told to spread the Gospel and though this we can grow in our faith. Also you asked why are people worrying about others faith or lack of it, because God has done wonderful things for us and we want others to know that so that they can experiance it also.

First, before I go into the actual mechanics of religion vs. spirituality, I should point out that in many ways, for “spirituality” to exist as a concept seperate from dogma, organized religion must exist. Why? Because a great part of spirituality as a way of life is the personal confrontation and overcoming of the inequities of those very dogmatic rules. If nothing else, spirituality is a special thing, pursued by few. In order for it to have meaning, the unthinking majority must have a structure to cling to, which introduces the thinking man (pardon the mysogenistic tendencies of the English language. by “man” I mean human being, it just lacks rhetorical “pizaz”) to the idea of God(s) before he blossoms individually beyond the legal structures of dogma.

That being said, I think that without constant intercession from a active supreme being, any organized religion soon becomes a social structure, which provides for the pragmatic needs of its members on earth. As such, it soon translates from a loosely defined set of principles, which require moral judgement on the part of the individual, to a very specific legal system (perhaps best exemplified by the Talmudic law of Judaism) which, by its specificity regulates behavior and creates a specific standard against which we can justify behavior. The legal system is upheld in most cases by actual physical punishment but in ALL cases by defined spiritual consequences (nirvana vs. continuation of the samsaric cycle in Buddhism, heaven vs. hell or their logical equvalents in Christianity, Judaism, Islam and most others). Thus, in many ways, the drive to convert comes not out of antagonism or hatred of other religions, but out of a genuine altruism: the desire to prevent others from having negative spiritual consequences visited upon them. The problem as I see it is a failure to recognize the patterns in all religions, that is, the fact that there are literally no religions (note: religions as opposed to spiritual beliefs, which are not social structures) which have any purpose other than to promote positive social interaction. All religions, for example, prohibit murder, fraud, infidelity, etc. Furthermore, most religions promote a connection with others and with a supreme being as a communal experience, the bringing together of varied individuals in connection with the supreme being, or beings as the case may be, not, as it is generally found by Islamic extremists and the Religious Right alike, factionalism. It is a commonly observed fact that not only are the Gods of Islam, Judaism and Christianity remarkably similar, they all come from the same root stories. They are not merely cosmetically the same God. They are literally the same God.

Spirituality, on the other hand, is less well defined. It is my understanding that, at least in the context of this post, spirituality is an individual relationship with one’s supreme being that transcends, or at least does not concern itself with dogmatic law. It is generally equated with personal satisfaction, or inner peace and close connection with the divine. It’s fairly easy to agree that spirituality is better than generally practiced religion, but I would argue that spirituality is really just self-actualization renamed. Spirituality begins with the understanding that worship is about spirit and not law, morality and not dogma. It then follows that organized religion is foolish, or at any rate, a pragmatic mundanity, completely unrelated to the pure power, energy and perhaps love of a being so powerful and magnanimous as to create and maintain the universe. Then, pluralism enters the equation as we consider the existence of one (or more) supreme creative force(s) which are selectively interpreted by the world’s religions. Soon enough, we have detached ourselves completely from the concept of religion, as we begin to understand that not only is God not man or woman, black or white, but that he is not even a physical presence, but a spiritual reality. We accelerate rapidly through pantheism and straight out the other side, and now we are, presumably, at a point where God is no longer a presence at all, but a universal existence, or feeling. We see God all around us and wonder at it, but our conception of God is so far removed from any widely accepted conception of a supreme being that we really can’t call him god at all any more. He is…acceptance, self-awareness, existentialism, dada… a personal presence in and awareness of the vast wonder of our surroundings. This turned out rather longer than I expected, and was perhaps less comprehensible than I would have liked, but if you’re still reading, kudos!

What he said

I take slight issue with what you have said about ‘recruitment’ equating ‘altruism.’ One could, perhaps, see the evangelist as simply attempting to reassure himself (my misogyny shows as well, I suppose) that there are other people who believe in this wacky business as well. Also, wondering at one’s surroundings, I am not sure, fairly justifies imagining those surroundings in a personified form. Whether you call something a ‘physical presence, a magnanimous power,’ or any other ambiguously rational name, you are personifying something that could be entirely material, and without need for a creator.

Also, to the question-poser. What is a ‘metaphysical store,’ exactly? You sell the things that structure the world that we experience? How exactly can you bring them inside the world, if they are forming it and us?

Let me clarify a few things….

1. I am an Ordained Minister.
2. I do practice/believe in a religious faith.

My questions I pose is not directed in any way shape of form to a particular religious faith. I have studied most of them, and they all have their pros and cons. From my observations, and upbringing, my personal experieince is that people (and I use that in a vage term, not meaning everyone) tend to focus on what others *should not* do based on their particular faith, rather than what they *Should* be doing themselves to bring themselves closer to God (however they may define the divine within their belief system).

To me the person who has a personal relationship with their divine creator, and works on developing that relationship, has a far greater connection to the spiritual teachings set forth within their doctrine, than the person concerned with someone elses faith/belief system, that may or may not agree with theirs.

Once you transcend and live the life that is taught within the said scriptures, then the personification of God within you will naturally draw others towards you for them to seek that solace.

How can I tell someone not to drink if I am an alcoholic? Or not to smoke if I smoke? I could tell them why they shouldn’t and what it could do to them if they do those things, but I have no right to tell them that they can’t do these things without being a hypocrite.

The same thing applies to religions, dogmas and spirituality. How can I tell someone they need to find God, follow his rules set out within said guideline of such an such belief system if I don’t do it completely myself.

Now, before I get flamed on that last statement let me utter the words of Christ: “Ye who are without sin, Cast the first stone”.

I am not saying or trying to imply that all people that practice a faith are hypocrites, I am saying that we are human, and are therefore by definitation not perfect. However if we do not recognize our imperfections we are doing nothing less than the what Christ taught by pointing out the splinter in ones eye without seeing the beem in our own.

I agree with the above, but if i may ask what does Ordained Minister mean?

Addressing Selkie:
Actually, I would, as a perhaps excessively cynical individual, argue that nearly all altruistic tendencies have their root in self-serving thought patterns. The individual helps others because he himself fears their negative situation. In effect, charity is a sort of socially imposed welfare system. We chip in to nonprofits and soup kitchens because we are aware that at some point we may find ourselves in a similar situation. I was raised as a Catholic, and while our particular denomination relies more on procreation than evangelization to swell our congregations, we were taught at a very early age that, once an individual was given the chance at accepting our religion (those unaware of our teachings were somehow exempt) he had the options of A) joining us or B) burning forever in the fires of Hell. That is, of course, a vast oversimplification, and somewhat unfair to the genuinely positive religion in which I was raised, but it was nevertheless the impression I was given as a young child, and I wasn’t about to be the one who let some poor bastard burn for my lack of effort.
Moving on, I’m afraid I may not have effectively expressed my conception of spiritual evolution. By showing the gradual movement from indoctrination to self-realization, I was not trying to point out that God=Everything. Quite the opposite, I hoped to show that the entire conception of “God” presented by organism is gradually abandoned, that Spirituality is really just another word for self actualization.

Selkie-

To answer your question, we are not attempting to bring those things that are beyond the physical into our world, we sell things, and we have a multitude of other items we have not yet posted online for all religious faiths, to help the individual bring themselves closer to their personification and understanding of the Divine in order that the individual may transcend themselves and gain that greater connection to God. right now we primarily have the Kemetic (or ancient egyptian) items up, however we are working to get our Christian, Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist, and Native American faith based items up as soon as possible.

Ordained:
1.
a. To invest with ministerial or priestly authority; confer holy orders on.
b. To authorize as a rabbi.
2. To order by virtue of superior authority; decree or enact.
3. To prearrange unalterably; predestine: by fate ordained.

Minister:

1.
a. One who is authorized to perform religious functions in a Christian church, especially a Protestant church.
b. Roman Catholic Church The superior in certain orders.
2. A high officer of state appointed to head an executive or administrative department of government.
3. An authorized diplomatic representative of a government, usually ranking next below an ambassador.
4. A person serving as an agent for another by carrying out specified orders or functions.
v. min·is·tered, min·is·ter·ing, min·is·ters
v.intr.
1. To attend to the wants and needs of others: Volunteers ministered to the homeless after the flood.
2. To perform the functions of a cleric.

Wow, what a debate!
I think you should love yoruself because you are the creater and you are the love in a costume of human body.
(email removed)

“Quite the opposite, I hoped to show that the entire conception of “God” presented by organism is gradually abandoned, that Spirituality is really just another word for self actualization.” -captaincalcium

If spirituality is self-actualization, then it is fine by me. I just think of things in a more existential and phenomenological tone. See, spirituality implies sort of a transcendence from body, which I am all about, but I think of the transcendent part as actually wholy contained within the exstasis that are created by the nature of the mind. Anyway, thats merely a difference of opinion. I admit, I failed to read correctly your first post.

However, when I argued re: altruism/egoism, I was not implying that I concur with the diagnosis of psychological egoism. Instead, I was simply saying that evangelism is a complicated issue at any level, and not so simply (which is how I read you as treating it) altruistic.

Sekhem. You are keen on definitions.

Metaphysics - “the study of the nature and being of reality and its origin and structure”

Perhaps you should call your store a religious trinket store. A Metaphysical store would sell books, or something at least related to the study of nature and being. And, if you are going to claim that small tokens bring the beholder into closer connection with God, then I am afraid I am simply at odds with your idolatry.

I apologize again for being unclear. I have a certain propensity for the verbose, one which frequently exceeds my actual understanding of the vocabulary involved, I’m afraid :) Of course, I can’t argue that the feelings behind evanglism are uncomplicated, indeed, are there ANY motivations that are so simple? I will tend towards broad generalizations, because they are more rhetorically impressive, besides which, should I attempt to completely decode the motivational origins of evangelism, I would inevitably fail. At least in this case I choose to focus on what I consider both important and relevant to my argument and the discussion.

Oh, and if we go all the way back, “Metaphysics” comes from the transcriber of Aristotle(I think)’s works, who needed something to label the collection with. Since it came directly after “Physics”, he named it “After-Physics” or “Metaphysics”. So I guess technically that means all philosophy that has come since Aristotle is “Metaphysics”… But now I’m just being antagonistic.

We could go on forever about the semantics of the definition of a word, especially one that has various different meanings depending on the context of what you base it on.

Metaphysical - Based on speculative or abstract reasoning, Highly abstract or theoretical, incorporeal, Supernatural.

and to argue why people want physical things to help them for daily reminders of that which is beyond our senses, you will have to ask the individual. But it may have to do with the fact that imagery, no matter how real, surreal, or abstract that they maybe are the quickest methods to spark the psyche and to move beyond the ego and into the collective unconcisousness and allowing us into the transcendance many want to achieve.

You have the right to your opinions and you can call it what you want, and I respect that. And I will call it what I want, but if you would like, so that you could feel more at ease with your odds of idolaty, once I actually have time to list the books we carry online I can be sure to let you know they are there :)

Otherwise, I do appreciate yours and CC commentary with the main question posed, it has been a pleasure reading them, and helps break me away from the stacks of notes and piles of research materials.

Bless Bless

Calcium: Metaphysics would mean after physics only in a meta- sense. In other words, it is only after physics insofar as it is the substrate which CAUSES the world of physics which we experience (or the experience of experiencing something that can be described by physics).

sekhem: Imagery that causes the sort of astral-projection you are talking about is impossible. It is only the case that those people who buy the items take it upon themselves to give the item the meaning they feel it should have. This may be influenced by religious dogma, but it is entirely contained in and contingent to the presence of humans and dogma to assign its meaning. So, only insofar as they are speculating wildly without any attempts to formalize their beliefs in a proof method, is your store a metaphysics store.

Selkie, dude, I was just pickin’ at you. Your definition of Metaphysics, I think, is the correct one, as opposed to mine or sekhem’s, though, since sekhem is running this post, we ought to discuss it on his terms.

I’m think I have to agree with sekhem in the case of religious imagery. That fits in with the idea of beauty, a normally somewhat indescribable emotional experience, as a sort of momentary connection to some higher stage of consciousness. I would normally avoid such value-based claims, but in this case I must make an exception, since the operation of emotion, and in some ways religion, is completely nonrational. The experience of beauty is in some way based on the background, experience, and mental state of the person experiencing it, but that does not lessen its impact, nor is the experience of beauty limited to a person’s religious affiliation. Again, I am loathe to quote popular culture, but according to Gordon Deitrich, of V for Vendetta (the movie, not the graphic novel), “No [I’m not a Moslem] but that doesn’t mean I can’t find its poetry moving or its images beautiful” (Pardon any misquotation, I’m going by memory.) I can enjoy the aesthetic of arabesque design just as much as I enjoy Catholic intricate crucifixes or Buddhist shrines. So, assuming that beauty is separate from religious connection, we are free to discuss it as an individual experience. Beauty can, in extreme cases like, just as example, first hearing a great Bob Dylan song, first seeing the Pieta, or, first reading the Haiku of Basho (all linked to spirituality, and with the exception of Bob Dylan, all directly affiliated with specific religions) lead beyond pleasant experience and into extasy. And what is extasy but that inexplicable sense of connection to a higher truth, or organization. The sensation is brief, but powerful, and sufficent to warrant what I would consider “astral projection” as you put it.

Captain: I wasn’t offended in the least, I was simply continuing the discussion.

However, I take issue with ‘emotion qua non-rationality.’ There are many views that state that emotions are, in fact, psychologically egoistic. Furthermore, there have been recent studies that have found neurons in the brain that are there to reflect the emotions of the ones around us. It depends on how you define rational, but one could see these ‘mirror neurons’ as a rational way to a) keep in tune with the people around us b) learn new behaviors that we can rationally adapt to our own uses. Also, the Greeks, as I am sure you know, thought that beauty was a thing of rational assesment of the qualia of the thing observed. If you think something is beautiful, it is because you attach a meaning to it: a completely world-alien object could not be called beautiful, because one could not judge whether it was worthy or suited to its entended purpose.

i just wrote a statement on that. there is supposedly no religion outside of this planet in this galaxy. we are the darkest planet those who commit suicide and commit sins return to earth quickly and those of us who pass through to heavenish spirit world are the good people which is why it is much more important to be spiritually aware of everyone and their spiritulity! its so great. religion is a textbook and i dont like textbooks. but i do love god . there is a balance that we cannot find or else we would have greater peace.

More words count less. It’s all right here and now. Away with your likes and dislikes. Away with conceptual thought. Why does the world create cares for itself? Don’t you see? It’s all perfect! You’re standing on a bridge watching yourself go by. Wow! Look at that!