Religion v Spirituality

This is about as usefull a statement to a discussion as saying: "without us there would be no one around to understand the concepts we are discussing".It is an empty statement. But hold on, here comes another. This is a discussion board, my friend. You cannot come here, assert what you reckon is true without even defining your terms.You have been asked several times to define 'spiritual' and you have not done so.Untill you can you will be open to accusations of woo woo, magic and believing in what amounts to an overvalue idea.

The beauty we experience in the physical world is not enough? The amazing dance of interwoven complexities that our knowledge of the physical world reveals to us is not enough? Our relations with other humans and other living things are not enough? Our imaginations and creativity here in the physical world are not enough?You must be a greedy person indeed if all these are not enough!

My dear boy, I have made my position perfectly clear, throughout this thread. If I must reiterate, very well.
I contend that spirituality is a meaningless term when used outside of an explicitly religious or supernatural context. When otherwise employed, spirituality becomes a meaningless buzzword, which tends to be used in pseudo-philosophical new-age waffle. Furthermore, everyone seems to have their own meaning for the word, which makes it useless in communicating ideas effectively.
I'm afraid that, as far as I can see, your attempts to define the concept are only helping to prove me right.

---

Mutate and Survive

Granny, I agreeIn the Is bicamerality bullshit? thread I argued that Julian Jaynes' "bicamerality" explained religiosity and spirituality. But I was not very successful. Others argued strongly that there was nothing really bicameral about religious belief; instead it was only a manifestation "group think" or "peer pressure." Now I'm wondering if "spirituality" is really anything different from "school spirit" in the high-school sense, with those attendant cheers and songs and dancing around the bon fire for a common purpose.In other words, is spirituality anything more than peer pressure for the sake of mass manipulation?”HM

I wasn't speaking on your behalf, only my own. An enquiring mind would have asked why? A misconception on your part. Your assertion came from your judgement of me and you cannot prove it scientifically, so you are wrong mate.

That's not what I learned from the physical world. The physical world only taught me that the physical world does not offer a meaning to our existance. This has no bearing on there being one or not. The spiritual world has also taught me that it offers no meaning to our existance (mostly 'cause it doesn't say much). I have not been shown any world that provides meaning to our existance. When I realized this, it was easy to realize that I could give meaning to my existance in any way I'd like. Much more freedom that way. And it's obvious that it takes much more strength to impose a righteous meaning on your own existance than it is to have it given to you from any external source. Are you able to unblock this expansion somehow? Are you able to show how to be more aware of any misconceptions? Or can you identify any of these awareness-blocking misconceptions? Are you able to provide one? What is it? You seem to be very hesitant to expand on giving any information. Is there a problem with sharing this information?You seem to be saying you have all these wonderful ideas of how to help people break down their misconceptions, or how to help show the reality of a spiritual existance. But then you don't seem keen on providing what the help actually is. Maybe you know you can help, but you don't want to? Is this what your 'down to earth' spiritual existance does? Does it remove your desire to help others? Or maybe it reduces your freedom to only answering direct questions? I hope this message will suffice.

POST 1I believe the terms were stated clearly in post 1. Your response to this 'discussion' (post 3)was to dismiss Heinrik's truth and replace it with one of your own. It was totally void of investigation on your part. Heinrik has not mentioned anything about woo woo magic or anything supernatural in his definition of spirituality. The woo woo came from you, my dear.Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.

Yeah, that about somes it up ans this thread has no where to disabuse me of it.

Ya. His definition of spiritual is obviously wrong. What does spiritual mean to you?Does it mean: Which I would interpret as self awareness; or does it mean: My boldWhich is most definitly woo woo.

Bump.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Still No Useful Definition of Spirituality
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- No, I believe this is the 1st time you have made yourself perfectly clear. This is the first clear example of what you believe spirituality is not. When you know what it is not, it stands to reason you must have an idea of what it is.
What is your definition of spirituality WITHIN the religious or supernatural context?

Larni, these unintelligent, attacking, personal remarks are the reason I felt I was banging my head against a brick wall communicating with you. So I stopped and you move on to someone else. I truly put it down to your mentality age. Young! I hope so anyway.

"Bump for dameeva" means that by putting the post on, the topic is bumped up to the top of the list of the "All Topics" list, since posts are listed here in order of when the last post was made, with the most recent being at the top. It's a polite reminder that there is an unanswered question by dameeva.It's not an attackIt's not a personal remarkit's not unintelligent.It's standard forum speak for when you post to a topic as a reminder to someone else.

Hi Larni, I had no idea waht the term meant or what you were implying. I THOUGHT you were being unconstructive, offensive and oppressive. Now that I understand the 'jargon' I KNOW you were.

Well, thankyou. I had no idea of this forum jargon or the meaning. I now see that it is an excellent ploy for the unscrupulous, but I am not unscrupulous. Alas, unscrupulous people believe I am.My post wasn't intended as a reminder just for the sake of it. There was a valid point that was connecting each of the quotes.However, in my endevours to find the 'bump' rule in the forum rules, I actually, for the first time, read them. I know. Not good that, is it? I thought I already knew the rules as I have debated and discussed issues for many years. We think we know something when in fact, we don't.I observe that some of these rules are broken consistently, mainly because they are ambiguous BUT there is one rule that definately is not. Because of you, Trixie, I have found that I am consistently breaking this rule.I thankyou for indirectly putting me into the position of seeing my mistake. I will now correct that mistake. This is the rule I have broken. I have thoroughly enjoyed this forum and have learned a lot that otherwise I would not. Edited by dameeva, : No reason given.