Spirituality

Now that my "sin" topic has gotten some traffic and corrected some of my misgivings about Christian views on sin, I would like another religion-related question answered: I have listened to hundreds of people talk about spirituality, and everybody except me seems to know what is being talked about.For instance, in a wellness class that was required at BYU, it was briefly mentioned that there were some number of "areas of wellness," which included "mental," "emotional," and "spiritual" as three distinct concepts. I would personally have thought that mental and emotional essentially covered the spiritual thing.Furthermore, I have often heard non-religious people and atheists talk about spiritual experiences; and non-religious experiences being described as spiritual by all kinds of people.Is spirituality only a religious concept? Or is it broader than that?What could it possibly mean outside of religious thinking?Is there anything real about it? Or is it just a poetic way of viewing the world?

---

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

Hi, Peg.If I could sum up your post, I would say that you equate "spirituality" with "moral purity," or some similar concept.So, from that BYU wellness class, "spiritual wellness" would be referring to a healthy moral code. I think I can buy that: emotion, intelligence and ethics are three distinct things.The problem I see comes up here: You used the word "spiritual" in your definition of the word "spiritual." I assume you're not intentionally creating a circular definition, so you must be using the word "spiritual" in two different ways: one to describe a certain class of "things," and one to describe people who like those "things."So, I know what makes a person spiritual in your view, but what makes a thing spiritual?

---

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

Hi, Perdition. That's what I would think.How do you think the concept of a "spirit" relates to the concept of "consciousness?" Bad Joke: So, in religion, if a person's spirit is just their rational and emotional "programming," when God said He is going to "save" us, He must have meant "on a hard drive."----- It sounds like Fox News to me: "You can trust me. See? I have a pie chart."Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi, Stile. You and Peg both seem to equate "spiritual" with "virtuous."This is obviously in reference to people, and not to experiences or things.When I hear people describe spiritual experiences, it seems like they're just talking about strong, positive emotions in a poetic way. For instance: I personally have little taste for poetry, so people who talk like the above always come of an extremely fake and fluffy. Does this make me a non-spiritual person?It seems that this may be a case of people associating powerful, emotional experiences with moral integrity, perhaps because moral integrity is thought to bring about powerful, emotional experiences.Edited by Bluejay, : No reason given.

---

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

Hi. Peg While I appreciate what you're trying to say, this is one of the points that has always confused me before. I assume that "things one cannot see" refers to intangible things, rather than to invisible things.But, the vagueness of the description makes it hard for a literalist like me to understand. For instance, hatred is just as intangible as love; happiness and sadness are also equally intangible. So, if the dichotomy is physical vs spiritual, then I would expect "spiritual" to be devoid of a value judgment, and to simply refer to anything that is not physical.For instance, are hatred and sadness not also spiritual "states," just as love and happiness are? Or, does "spiritual" only refer to the positive side of the emotional spectrum?----- I personally would have viewed "goodness for goodness' sake" as the most noble motivation. Anything else could rightly be called an "ulterior motive," and seems to suggest that we will only be good if we have to.

---

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

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.

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.

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.

Hello, Everyone.I’m afraid this discussion hasn’t helped me iron out my cognitive dissonance much at all.For the moment, let’s ignore the atheistic views on spirituality (but, by all means, feel free to continue your subtopics), just so I can get a grasp of the religious side of things.As seems to be terminably the case in religious thought, there has been a lot of elusive talk that defines spirituality in the absence of a frame of reference, so I’d like to try and nail spirituality down by analyzing it in terms of dichotomies.I can think of two dichotomies with which spirituality is often associated:

• Spirituality vs Physicality
• Spirituality vs Immorality

Do most Christians agree that these two dichotomies exist and are distinct from one another?Even if they are not both part of the actual belief system, I think it is safe to say that both dichotomies rear their ugly heads in discourse. This has caused many headaches for science-minded people, and has led to much equivocation on the part of religious people in debates, such as take place at EvC.So, is spiritual the opposite of physical or the opposite of immoral? If anyone says, "both," I will regard him or her as no longer worth talking to on this thead.

---

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

Hi, Peg. In light of this, does this mean that you believe everything physical is bad and everything spiritual is good?

---

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

Hi, Peg. Ah, I see: I misunderstood you. I think we agree, at least, that physical things are not all bad.----- In your last post, you said "spiritual" is the opposite of "immoral": Now, you are saying that "spiritual" includes both good things and bad things. If so, doesn't this mean that "spiritual" is not the opposite of "immoral"?So, now, it sounds to me like you've said that "spiritual" is the opposite of "immoral," the opposite of "physical," the opposite of both, and the opposite of neither at different times in this discussion.It's really getting confusing.

---

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

Hi, Jaywill.I've been trying to think up a good response to your comments so far, but I just have no idea what to say. I share Onifre's and Stile's confusion about how it is possible for anyone to discern the difference between "spiritual" and "soulical."However, your earlier comments seem to suggest that, in your belief, the difference can only be seen by someone who is already "spiritual," so there is apparently no hope for Onifre, Stile or even Bluejay, to understand unless they first accept that you are correct.My father has expressed similar feelings of discernment between "spiritual" and "emotional" experiences, but I personally have never felt such a distinction: mind, emotions, intuition and all of that internal stuff appears to be coming from a single source to me.-----Why, in your opinion, do you think the Bible contains no direct exposition on the tripartite man concept?It seems to me that that would be the most sensible thing to do, yet, no where is there a direct explanation of this, or any other doctrinal concept, in the scriptures. Instead, the narrative is written as if we already understand the mechanics of God's work, so those of us who do not know are forced to rely on contextual cues to reconstruct the intentions of Jesus's teachings.The end result of this is that life-long Christians, like myself, who have spent hours studying the scriptures, and hours in discussion with others about the scriptures, still haven't the slightest idea what a basic, fundamental concept like "spirit" or "spirituality" means.Yet, I am still expected to strive toward improving some component of my being while no consistent explanation for what that component is is forthcoming.-----What I have gathered from this thread so far is that I am not the only Christian who does not understand what "spirit" and "spirituality" are.Of the three Christian respondents, one seems on the other side of a language barrier from me; the second has (unintentionally) said about four different things, and does not believe that the adjectival form of a word refers to the same concept as the noun form of the same word; and the third claims that there is a difference between "spiritual" and "soulical" experiences, but can't describe for us how they can be distinguished nor why they merit distinction. Furthermore, none of the three is in line with the teaching that I grew up with, which is also lacking in a straightforward exposition.I am a perfectionist and a chronic worrier: to me, the most annoying part of the science that I do for a living is the ubiquitous, nerve-wrecking uncertainty. But it seems that the religious community is even more inept at this, despite the clarity and certainty its advertisements say it can provide.

---

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

Hi, Peg. So, there are good and bad "spiritualities"?Then, what is the difference between "fleshly" and "bad spiritual"?

---

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

Hi, Jaywill. My concern is that you believe it to be impossible for you to accurately convey to me what the experience is like. Thus, I have absolutely no frame of reference with which to compare my own experiences when I get them. So, even if it happens to me, I cannot be sure that it is the same thing you are talking about.For that matter, it should also be impossible for you to be sure that what I, or what Stile is talking about is not the same thing you are talking about. In fact, if Stile were actually the spiritual one, and you were not, I don't see how this thread would have gone any differently than it has.----- In all honesty, this scripture doesn't even come off as coherent to me.It sounds to me like God's word is capable of literally separating a spirit from a soul (hence the juxtaposition with "dividing of joints and marrow"), not of helping somebody see the difference between a spirit and a soul.----- I have had this very experience, and have heard my father describe similar experiences many times over. I have gone through many "spiritual highs" in my lifetime, where everything suddenly seems to make sense, and I suddenly understand my purpose in life and my relationship to my Savior. It almost feels like I've actually been given a premature taste of Heaven.But, I am a science fiction writer, and I have had experiences in writing that I would describe in exactly the same way: some new idea would pop out of nowhere, as if somebody else had given it to me, and suddenly, the story I was trying to hash out before takes a new, clearer direction that makes much better sense than before. It is always accompanied with the exhilirating hope that my story might actually be good enough to publish this time.Furthermore, the sensation is literally identical to the sensation I experience when I've just learned something new and particularly interesting from a science lecture I just heard or a peer-reviewed paper I just read: it seems to completely and instantaneously rearrange everything I knew before into a clearer picture, and fills me with new direction and enthusiasm for my own research.But, in the end, I am left with a puzzle: if I can feel this certain sensation in association with a work of fiction, which I know is a work of fiction, then how do I know that the Gospel isn't also a work of fiction?
Furthermore, if I can also feel this certain sensation in association with an intellectual stimulation, which I know is actually intellectual in nature, then how can this jive with the tripartite man concept, which has spiritual and intellectual as arising from separate sources?I do not feel that it is possible to separate the sources of these three sensations: they were identical in every detail save only for the context and the sphere of my life that was impacted. On this grounds alone, I must conclude that I am one, gestalt entity, and not a tripartite being.

---

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

Hi, Shane.Welcome to EvC! Judging by the recent shift of the SyFy channel to showing almost non-stop ghost shows, I would say most people who believe in spirits disagree with you.This leaves us with the question of whether you or they should be considered more authoritative on the subject of the nature of spirits.I have led a very religious life. I was raised by highly religious parents. I am a member of a priesthood. I was a full-time missionary in Taiwan for two years. What I have come to recognize is that I don't "feel the spirit" in the same way, at the same times, or for the same things as other people.A few years ago, I learned that the differences in my ability to feel the spirit from others was very probably explained by the hereditary psychological disorder with which I was diagnosed about seven years ago.This means that, either I never knew what spiritual sensations felt like, or spiritual sensations emanate from my brain. How else could a psychological disorder scramble my spirituality?

---

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