Spirituality

Hi, Catholic Scientist. Do mainstream Christians refer to their "intangible, inner being" as a spirit? Or is this called a "soul," and "spirit" means something different?Do you view "spirituality" as a spectrum from 0 (no goodness) to whatever (perfect goodness), as opposed to a spectrum from whatever (perfect goodness) to negative whatever (perfect badness)?Does this mean that a "spirituality score" of 0 means one has no soul?If bad people have a soul, isn't it appropriate to refer to the things of that soul as "spiritual things?" Why or why not?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

That's the soul:

quote:

---

The soul may be defined as the ultimate internal principle by which we think, feel, and will, and by which our bodies are animated.

---

The spirit is:

quote:

---

In Psychology, "spirit" is used (with the adjective "spiritual") to denote all that belongs to our higher life of reason, art, morality, and religion as contrasted with the life of mere sense-perception and passion. The latter is intrinsically dependent on matter and conditioned by its laws; the former is characterized by freedom or the power of self-determination; "spirit" in this sense is essentially personal.

---

If you use the 0 - perfect scale for spirit, then being at zero doesn't mean that you don't have a soul, it would mean that you lack all of things of "our higher life". (Oni, insert pot-smoking joke here)Assuming there's a negative side does necessitate that the bad things are of a spirit too.I suppose that when I wrote this:

quote:

---

It could refer to only the positive, with hatred and sadness being negative; them being a lack of love and happiness.

---

I kinda contradicted myself because simply being a lack of, is not really a negative. I remember backspacing a few words out before submitting it and then having to go afk, but I don't remember my train of thought. There needs to be an either or, or something, in there. Peg seems to use the 0 to X scale, and I was going to advocate for the -x to +x scale. I didn't intend to equate them.If the spirit is "essentially personal" and "characterized by freedom or the power of self-determination", then there'd be bad spirits too, dontcha think?

quote:

---

Saying that spirituality is only available through God is like saying driving is only available through Ford.

---

So then who are the other car companies?

Hi, Catholic Scientist.Thanks for the definitions.Unfortunately, I'm not sure I grasp what the difference is between "the ultimate, internal principle... by which our bodies are animated" and "the unseen mysterious force behind the vital processes."Reading those pages gave me three separate impressions about what is meant by "spirit" and "soul":

1. "Spirit" is a universal medium transcending the physical universe, and the "soul" is an individual entity.
2. "Spirit" is the vital quality of the "soul" and the intangible force that causes all the vital functions of the body.
3. "Spirit" is the substance from which a "soul" is constructed.

Are any of these correct?Once again, I find myself in a semantic struggle. Sometimes, I frustrate myself.-----In Mormonism, the word "spirit" refers to the intangible, vital component of a person. A "soul" is a complete being that consists of both a spirit and a body. I realize that this is a non-traditional view of things, but, in practice, Mormons usually just use both "spirit" and "soul" to refer to the intangible part.Perhaps this is why I'm always so confused when people talk about spirituality and spirits: because they're speaking in a different language from me.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Bwuh?Why eliminate all the distinctions if you're trying to understand the difference? You seem to have made the definitions as the same as possible.Sometimes the word "spirit" is used for the same concept as the word "soul" and sometimes they refer to different concepts. I didn't read any of those pages in their entirety. Lets see if simply be raised Catholic generates better or worse answers than you reading those pages.... I'd say that its the exact opposite. The soul is the universal medium and the spirit is the individual entity. No, the soul is what "causes all the vital functions of the body" as it is the "ultimate internal principle by which our bodies are animated.", although you're right that the "spirit" is A (note: not 'the') vital quality of the "soul". Again, I'd say its closer to the opposite. The "soul" is the substance from which the "spirit" is constructed, although, that phrasing doesn't seem to be very accurate at all.Shit... I got to go.

To an outsider, this reeks of old-fashioned essentialism and reification. Why do people insist on talking about processes as if they were things?Life is a process that occurs in suitable assemblages of matter. Do people really still think like this in the modern world? I thought vitalism was out of fashion.Spirits and souls are fictions used to terrify the gullible into obeying the priests.

I completely agree with you.
Notice how you said nothing about God or religion in this paragraph. Again, I completely agree with you. And my answer to both your questions is "no."
Again, please notice that God or religion is completely irrelevent to the points you've just made.
The ability of being a spiritual person is an inherent part of being human (or having intelligence). God, or religion, is not required. For some people, God and religion can certainly be the best way to become a spiritual person. But certainly not for all, or even most people.This is where you go wrong: God and religion is absolutely not required at all. Every single one of the spiritual qualities you talk about are all available to all people.Some people have reached heights in these qualities that would be impossible for those same people under the "guidance" of God or religion.I do agree that for some people religion is a great avenue to spirituality. It's just not necessary or required. And it most certainly does not have any monopoly on the best path, such a thing varies for each and every person.To say that God or religion is mandatory for spirituality is utter ridiculousness that borders on detrimental mental abuse.If you are capable of describing a beneficial attribute that is unique to being part of religion or God, please do. You'll be the first. Good luck, because as far as I've been able to find, it just simply doesn't exist.

I take it you kind of meant this as a rhetorical smirk. But, I'm going to explain just incase anyone actually can't think of any other source for spirituality."The other car companies" represent all the other (basically infinite) sources of spirituality in this world.
-friends
-family
-enjoyable activities
-achieving personal goals
-self confidence
-understanding other people
.
.
.The list goes on and on. And, each element of the list is basically infinite in itself.The path to being a spiritual person is different for each and every one of us. Just as "a favourite car" will be different for each and every one of us.There is no right or wrong way.There most certainly is no "one way" that is best for everyone.I don't understand how "spirituality" is such an obviously subjective concept... yet some people actually believe there can exist a single, objective pathway (for everyone) to attain it. The idea is beyond ridiculous. It's ludicrous on the most basic level.People are different.
Spirituality is extremely subjective.I think it's blatently obvious that "how people obtain spirituality" is going to vary (greatly!) from person to person. I don't understand the mental process that must be ignoring such basic principles in order to think otherwise.

Actually, I'm attempting to avoid giving a strict defintion to the word "spiritual." Mostly because I don't have one To me, "spirituality" is such an extremely subjective concept (kind of like "music" or "poetry") that a definition that actually encompasses all aspects would be so vague as to be basically useless.Did you know that the actual, theoretical defintion of "music" is:

quote:

---

Any combination of any sounds or silences that anybody considers to be 'music'

---

How ridiculous is that for a definition? It's useless. Pretty much anything and everything "can be" music. There have been actual, serious recitals where people have paid to fill an auditorium to "listen" to a musical "genious"... who comes out on stage, sits at a piano... and doesn't hit a single key. Silence.. for like an hour or so... and then he gets up and leaves.
(My mistake, it wasn't "an hour" but only 4 minutes and 33 seconds, in the aptly named "song" 4'33" by John Cage in 1952. Regardless of the actual length, however, the point stands)It's really the same thing for such subjective concepts as "poetry" and "spirituality." They don't have strict, difinitive defintions. They don't have such defintions because they are extremely subjective. Yes. Or "intelligence" at least. I think I'll just say "people" from now on, since it's getting tiresome saying "intelligence" all the time too.Even those who say they had a spiritual experience. As far as I can tell, they simply mean they received spiritual feelings from that particular experience. I can absolutely confirm to you that the same experience may be considered "spiritual" by some, and not by others. There's certianly nothing "external to people" or "non-subjective" about spirituality. Not at all. It just makes poetry a non-spiritual experience for you.
Is there anything you're passionate about?
Anything you receive bliss from?
Anything you get a sense of fullfillment from?
Anything you feel calm and serene about?
...any experience that causes such "spiritual qualities" is a spiritual experience for you.Personally, I even find very-mundane things such as video games to be a spiritual experience sometimes. Mostly when I'm playing with friends, but sometimes even on my own.There is no such thing as an objective "spiritual experience" that would make everyone feel spiritual. There are too many different kinds of people who feel too many different subjective feelings from too many different stimuli.It is possible to be a human and not be capable of spiritual feelings, though. However, this is generally due to certain kinds of brain damage or under-development. Any basically-average human is fully capable of spiritual feelings from certain experiences.Edited by Stile, : Found information on the "silent song" I was talking about.

as usual, im going to completely contradict some of the above posts...i like to be differnt hehethe original hebrew is completely different to what our english definitions are.the hebrew word for soul is ne'phesh and it means the person himself, with the very blood in his veins, his very being. Its the flesh and blood or the body of the individual or animal. Thats why Genesis says 'the man came to be a living soul' and also that God created all the 'souls according to their kinds'IOW, living creatures ARE souls.In Hebrew ru'ach is spirit and it basically means 'breath'... and the word is extended in meaning to wind, the vital force in living creatures, one's spirit, spirit persons such as angelic creatures, and even to Gods holy spirit.
at Genesis 2:7 neshamah is the word that described Adams body coming to life. And later in Gen 7:22 we read about the death of those who died during the flood
"Everything in which the breath (neshamah) of the force of life (ruach) was active in its nostrils, namely, all that were on the dry ground, died."
Notice how Neshamah/breath is directly linked with ruach/spiritthis means that according to the original writers, people were souls, and their life was their spirit. When their body died, their spirit ended and their soul returned to the ground.its completely different to the english descriptions i know, but in terms of which ones are accurate, i'd always say the original writers are because they were the ones telling the story. Edited by Peg, : No reason given.

Hi, CS. I was only using the phrases from the Catholic dictionary page that I thought most resembled succinct definitions. Sorry if I got it wrong.----- Obviously, I am incapable of understanding the Catholic view of spirituality (and the Catholic language, as it turns out).I'll be back to try again soon: I've got to go do some field work now.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Both. Spirituality is obviously nonsense, there is no spirit, and thus no spiritual. But when people talk about spiritual experiences they are talking about real experiences, and when people talk about spiritual needs they're talking about real needs. The problem is that there is no sensible language in English to talk about these things that hasn't been perverted with religious overtures.

I don't think that spirituality is nonsense nor that there is no spirit. Both are real.Spirituality involves the human spirit of man. But the human spirit is not the same thing as the human soul. And in we come into this world with a comatose human spirit which is damaged and empaired.The function of the human spirit in the average person is damaged but the detection of the loss of that function many people sense. Different people have different ways of dealing with the sense of the loss of the spiritual function of the human spirit.Some react by denying that there is anything wrong. This is logical. That is if one feels that nothing can be done about the loss of a spiritual sense they may accomodate for that by assuming that the need is illusionary."I obviously cannot do anything about it. So I will count that there is no such need."Others react by misapplying other kinds of experiences to be "spiritual". These are usually soulical experiences which they mistakenly regard as "spiritual". They could be very unusual or parapsychological experiences, for example hypnosis. Such deeper soulical abilities they may mistakenly regard as spiritual experiences.Then others have truly spiritual experiences only because the comotose spirit has been healed and made alive. But in this case it takes time, patience, trial and error, and guidance from God and often from fellow spiritual people, to learn to discriminate between truly spiritual sense and something else.In other words, a new dimension to one's life has been added. But the person is not use to having it and must take a life time to learn to live with something they have never experienced. There is no quick and easy road. There is no shortcut to time and patience to learning to use the enlivened human spirit.An additinal difficulty in learning to live with the awakened spiritual sense is that the human society as a whole is adversee to its existence. So the person who wishes to use their spiritual sense is like a Salmon swimming upstream against the current of the world. Everything about the world is hardwired to flow in the opposite direction - towards the soul and the body of man. Sometimes they may be talking about real spirituality. But this is not all always automatically the case. They may be mistaken. "Mistaken" here means that they are unaware of error are and not being necessarily devious intentionally.However, enlightenment as to the truly spiritual is a moral matter which involves the conscience. And a person may resist what the conscience tells them. In that case a person is willfully ignoring the spiritual to protect the self, preserve some ego realm. I believe that spiritual needs are real needs of the human personality.For example, I was once a young man living in a farmhouse in the country. One autumn night I awoke and crawled out of my bedroom window on to the roof of the house. I observed on a moonlite night the silvery light of beautiful leaves all over the ground. It was really a pleasant and beautiful scene. Yet deep inside I ached because I couldn't understand why such beauty still left me feeling empty and unfulfilled. I thought it should make me happy.I latter came to understand that such a feeling was a sense of something missing in my being. That sense of something missing was the sense of the absence of a functioning spiritual component of my being.Sometimes a person will sense something is missing within them. Sometimes this can be a sense of the absence of an awakened human spirit. Like Jimi Hendrix wrote in a song, in essence:"Will I live tomorrow? I just can't say. All I know is that I don't live today. I feel like I'm living at the bottom of a grave." "I Don't Live Today."Many artists, poets, composers, and others have expressed this exasperated feeling of not quite being fully alive yet alive. Many great works of art capture this sense of something missing about human life. Often times I think it is the sense of the absence of the spiritaual dimension in human life.However, others have other ways of dealing with this sense of "something missing". As I stated before, some people react with skeptical feelings that there is no such problem. "I cannot do anything about it so WHY fret over it. It is better to regard this as nonsense, not real. Everything is exactly as it should be." I don't think that the answer is dispair that the perversion has made it impossible to discuss. I think what you say is true about perverted and religious overtones. But I think discrimination can be developed. One has to be willing to learn. One has to have a teachable attitude. And one has to tolerate patient trial and error. And one has to be accomodating to understand that those with more experience have so relatively and not absolutely. In other words they too may make mistakes.So one has to have an accomodating attitude that few have totally "arrived" at perfect spirituality. Just the same, some help can be rendered by imperfect yet relatively more experienced spiritual people.I am a Christian and much of this is based on Christian experience.One other thing I would mention. As above I said that the human society generally is hardwired to go against the spiritual. Those who have no idea what to make of people who profess a spiritual realm is to broadly catogorize all such under the label "religious".I think "religious" or "religion" is for the most part a socialogical broad brushed term to give the majority of people a way to talk about all manner of real or unreal, true or not true "spiritual" talk. Genuine and non-genuine spiritual usually comes under the world's broad brushed catagorizing of "religious" things.Actually, in many and perhaps most cases, institutionalized religious structures can be opposed to spirituality. Or they may attempt to channel it for its own use. This can be compared to a hand trying to grasp a pool of oil. It just doesn't work because the oil slips through and inbetween the clutching fingers.Controling the spirituality of people is extraordinarily problematic. And often can terribly backfire and cause damage to people and resentments. As a result some people will be discouraged to give up the entire spiritual dimension of life. Others may develop an attitude that it is so intensely personal that it is useless to involve anyone else but one's own self.It is possible however, that genuine spiritual communities emmerge. That is a corporate entity with both personal and collective and cooperative spiritual experience.The link below is to Watchman Nee's book "The Spiritual Man". Only the table of contents of Volume One of this three volume work is included. The chapter on "Spirit, Soul, and Body" I think is helpful. It really should come under that forum of "Bible Study" though. However, IMO the writer was very subjectively and personally experienced in the matter in practical life.http://www.worldinvisible.com/...y/nee/sprtmnv1/1968cont.htmEdited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I agree with your sentiment, but not your wording. Your wording is similar to that used by abusive, power hungry leaders.People may very well come into this world not knowing how to tap in to their spiritual side. But there is nothing damaged or impaired with the average human coming into this world. Again, I agree with your main focus, but your wording seems incredibly abusive. I would phrase it more like "Different people have different ways of figuring out how to tap into their spiritual side... it's not the same for everybody because it's such a subjective concept." This sounds even more abusive in the controlling sense. Are you going to explain how people can identify "misapplied" spiritual experiences? Who gets to judge? Okay. So what, specifically, is the difference between "soulical" and "spiritual?" What feelings does one get from a spiritual experience that are not present from a soulical experience? Or are you saying that certain objective experiences are strictly spiritual or soulical? Are you saying that "hypnosis" is always soulical, but never spiritual... for everyone? Why is that? What makes an experience objectively spiritual, or objectively soulical? Oh, I see. Only God can provide "true" spiritual experiences. Is this the same God that only has "true" Christians as followers? Can you explain the difference between a "guided by God" spiritual experience and a "non-God-guided" spiritual experience? Because I have never heard anyone, ever, explain an experience that atheists are incapable of. It would be interesting if you'd be so kind. Actually, I completely agree with your sentiment here. Notice how it says nothing about God. That's because God isn't required for such things. At all. In any way.
However, I would hesitate before saying "there is no quick and easy road"... there are people who exist where such things comes easier to them then it does to the average person. I'm not one of those people... but they certainly do exist. I agree that "enlightenment to the spiritual" can be difficult when a person is trying to "preserve some ego realm."
Again, notice how when you are actually making sense about spirituality... you're not mentioning God or religion. That's because they're both totally irrelevent, and can sometimes even be detrimental roadblocks in the way of spirituality. I agree with your situation. I would simply describe it as you not yet knowing how to deal with your spritual nature. It's not that you were "missing" your spiritual side in a defective or undeveloped way. It's just that you were unaware of how to deal with it. That's all. Just a function of missing knowledge, not a function of missing anything physical, or needed to "heal" anything. General people are not born broken, such an idea is only used by power-hungy, abusive leaders. Well said.
Notice, again, that you did not have to mention God or religion, because they are not required.

It could be that you are paranoid also. I don't want your money. I don't even want to boss you around so as to have "power" over you.Setting aside for a moment what I wrote "sounds like" I'm considering how to convey that the comatose and deadened human spirit is a matter of damage inflicted upon the God created man. This is not the Bible Study room which I usually frequent.I want to consider a little more how I can convey this "damage" matter to be the case. But initially I think some people are suspicious that things are not the way they should be somehow. Most people look around and say "Something is WRONG with humans."I think a more idealistic attitude would be to say nothing at all is wrong with humans. I think the first thing I would attempt with you to demonstrate "damage" or impairment of the spiritual component of man is to try to get you to admit something is wrong with us as we are born into this world. That may not be an easy task.But I would ask you this. How come there are not a lot of books teaching parents how to teach their children to lie? It seems that lying comes with growing up like weeds come with an uncultivated garden. There are some moral problems with people that we really need no effort to learn.The idealist humanist may remark "Well, nothing is wrong. And to suggest that something is sounds like you are power hungry and eager to boss people around like an evil religious leader type."Well, even having that motive would not necessarily mean everything with man is OK. Is there something wrong with people ? Are we functioning as we should ? Does my being a power hungry tyrant make that not true ?I have not explored in this brief response the connection between spirituality and morality. That's a whole another can of angels or worms depending on your point of view.Maybe at this point I could just submit that the human conscience the gateway to the restoration healing of the human spirit.I am not writing a book here but only a internet disussion post. I don't assume that I have adaquately addressed your point. That is one view.My questions would be:1.) After having taped into some form of power/ ability or new realm of consciousness, how do you KNOW that that is truly a spiritual experience ?I gave before the example of hypnotism. I believe that the SOUL of man is more powerful than we realize. We only use a low percentage of the ability of our brain. So some disciplines cultivated around to world DO indeed have methods of taping into latent soulical forces.My opinion is that in many cases these powers or experiences belong in the realm of parapsychology and are latent forces buried in the soul of man. There are varied disciplines in human culture how to unleash latent soul force or mind force.These may not be spiritual experiences necessaily IMO. And often people be quick to attach "God" to these science of the soul / science of the human mind abilities.2.) Why should taping in be normal as breathing? You protest that nothing is wrong. At the same time you assure us that we can tap in to the spiritual.But why is it not simply a passive given if there is no impairment ?
Why then is the flow of the spiritual as natural in man as the heart beat or breathing ?If you were to insist that there were available methods to learn how to breath, I might assume that something is wrong with the normal functioning of something so vital to human life. Do you see this point? We are talking about something very subjective. I agree.There are multitudes of ways of taping into latent soul force. There are also many ways to experience the spiritual. But in this case I believe that if God does not act we have no hope. It is God's willingness to reach out in conjuction with our willingness to reach out, that meet, making the human spiritual possible.I believe that God is willing and eager. This is now the second time you see a motive problem. I would like to inform you that I could also be reactionary.I could for example say that you the hostil and the paranoid may be quick assume a motive of abuse here? Maybe your reaction is an ingrained hostility to ideas of spirituality not consistent with your beliefs.I will try to answer the question of "Who Gets To Decide Anyway?" Its a fair question.At this point I would say that the realm of the spiritual, I think, is not a democracy but a kingdom. Those under spiritual authority may have progressive discernment of the spiritual depending to their submission to the spiritual authority of the spiritual kingdom.As discernment grows, love must also grow proportionately. And the principle of living in the spiritual kingdom is this:To be strict with the self and accomodating with others.The strictness of deciding the truly spiritual to those who have the discernment should first be excersized towards one's own life. It is not to be strict with others and to be merciful towards the self. Rather true spirituality is to first be strict towards the self and accomodating and allowing to others.The sense of the spiritual and pride and arrogance are adverse to one another. The spiritual cannot gloat of thier knowledge. The spiritual are meek and know that they can miss reality at any time easily. There keen insight can encrease. But with this encrease grows a proportional amount of mercy and love towards others.The spiritual has to be exacting towards herself or himself and accomodating for the weakness of others.A truly spiritual person does not delight to be in authority over others. He has not thought of controling others. It is a paradox. A person eager to excercise authority over other people is less likely to have encountered much spirituality deeply. The spiritual experience makes one more dependent upon God.The feeling that God is an arbitrary tyrant, a despot out to limit the highest possibity of man, makes one want to seek independence from God. That is to gain the knowledge so that dependence upon God is not necessary. One can do quite well on one's own, thankyou.This is the briefest of replies to a deep question that involves a lot more discussion. And we are still learners and not experts.And I don't know how much you will permit me to refer to the Bible. There is a lot there about the sense of life and peace:"The mind set on the spirit is life and peace." writes Paul.The sense of the spirit is hard to discribe. I will try. It is a feeling of light, comfort, peace, refreshment, uplifting, easiness, support, bouyancy, encouragement in spite of visible circumstances, joy, uprightness, peace towards God and man.Often times though the sense of the spiritual is not apparent until something has gone wrong. This is like not being able to feel your own body unless there is a problem.You may not feel your teeth until something is wrong and you have a toothache. Often we are not aware of the spiritual because we have learned to live normally in that realm. But if something distracts us and we veer off the spiritual walk, then there is the sense of spiritual darkness, uneasiness, futility, emptiness, death, vanity, weakness, or a strongness to do wrong.So it is a mistake to think one always "feels" the spiritual. She may not until she is out of that realm. Then the feeling of being out of normality arises deep within. I guess this is a question of Who owns the definition of "spiritual"?There is no law against someone saying that hypnosis is a spiritual experience. You cannot be sued for liable for saying that. You cannot be dragged into court for fraud or false advertizment in claiming that hypnosis is "spiritual".So it is not easy for me to answer your question. I would say this. Man has a human spirit that is distinct from the human soul. Spiritual experience involves the use of the human spirit.I think it is possible for many things to occur in the immaterial part of man which do not involve the human spirit.But this is not all. This is not the whole problem. There is another problem. And I think you'll have even more objections to it. But I am convinced of it. What is that?There is not only the problem of mistaking the soulical for the spiritual (and according to no societally inforced legal definitions). But there might also be the problem of evil spiritual forces.For example. Perhaps a witch who practices "white magic" may be dabbling with spiritual forces. But they are evil forces. Now what do I mean by "evil spiritual forces"?For now let me just say this about "evil spiritual forces". These spiritual forces NEVER have man's ultimate benefit in view. They are adverse and hostil to humanity. They may be disquised as good for people, ie. "white magic" as opposed to "black magic". But just the same the end result is bondage to spiritual powers which really have man's destruction in view and not benefit.I am called away at the moment and must continue latter.