Lunar Shadow Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 my thoughts exactly Cerise Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokmer Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 When someone has a "spiritual" experience, religious or not, I don't imagine that their disembodied (or, indeed, embodied) ghost is somehow excited or stimulated. And yet, religious and not, the varieties of what people call "spiritual experience" point to something profound going on deep in the self. I use the word not because I believe in a spirit, but because, as far as I can tell, there is no other concise way to describe the innermost parts of one's being. -Lokmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 Spirituality can be defined as self-fulfillment, and research of our own "souls" to better understand ourselves. It's somewhat like studies in philosophy, I guess. Just like the word "soul", by using it, one doesn't necessarely mean a spiritual soul that will live eternally after our body is dead, it can be used to describe "our inner being" or our self awareness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skankboy Posted June 28, 2005 Share Posted June 28, 2005 yeah i blame religion. forcing everyone to literalize every goddamn concept lol. Exactly! Embrace the metaphor, not the metaphysics... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Hello Lokmer... so nice to hear from you again! Attacks on Christ *as a messiah* according to the criteria and laws of the Old Testament are very well merited. That was actually the thing that pushed me over the threshhold into unbelief. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Hey, unbelief is ok with me. If you're really interested in discussing this, I'd be happy to explore it with you. Actually, this is a new idea that I have not done much research. Jesus in the gospels also did and said some pretty insane and nutty things. If you're a Historical Jesus-type, ignoring the apocalyptic pronouncements and some of the nuttier things, that's fine. But that Jesus isn't the one found in the gospels. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Revelations is a pretty difficult book! I did do an extensive study on the Seven Seals, that really got my curiosity going. The one thing to remember in Revelations is chapter 1:1, 2. Something like... this book is about the revealing of Jesus Christ, written in signs and symbols to my brother John.... So, the book of Revelations is a book really revealing love, compassion, and mercy... yet written in signs and symbols for the time. And I agree that this is not the same Jesus found in the gospels. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in the appearance of ONE man. The book of Matthew says that if a person shall point to a man and say that here is the Christ, or there is the Christ, he is lying. The caveat, of course, comes in how you define "spiritual." <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Lokmer, as always... you have my full attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lokmer Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 Actually, this is a new idea that I have not done much research. Let's hear it Revelations is a pretty difficult book! I did do an extensive study on the Seven Seals, that really got my curiosity going. The one thing to remember in Revelations is chapter 1:1, 2. Something like... this book is about the revealing of Jesus Christ, written in signs and symbols to my brother John.... So, the book of Revelations is a book really revealing love, compassion, and mercy... yet written in signs and symbols for the time. Revelations isn't as obtuse as Christians - particularly those attempting to see it as prophecy - make it out to be. It's part of a literary genere of Apocalyptic, into which fit parts of Ethiopic Enoch, The Apocalypse of Peter, the second half of Daniel, Tritero-Isaiah, and several dozen other Christian, Jewish, Gnostic, and mystery-religion works contemporaneous. Like all members of the genre, Revelation is a contemporary polemic told in metaphor - a great deal of it astrological. And I agree that this is not the same Jesus found in the gospels. When Jesus comes back, it will not be in the appearance of ONE man. The book of Matthew says that if a person shall point to a man and say that here is the Christ, or there is the Christ, he is lying. When I said "Apocalyptic Jesus" I did not mean the one in Revelation. I meant the apocalyptic elements of Jesus in the gospels (Olivet Discourse, cursing of the fig tree, etc.). -Lokmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 When someone has a "spiritual" experience, religious or not, I don't imagine that their disembodied (or, indeed, embodied) ghost is somehow excited or stimulated. And yet, religious and not, the varieties of what people call "spiritual experience" point to something profound going on deep in the self. I use the word not because I believe in a spirit, but because, as far as I can tell, there is no other concise way to describe the innermost parts of one's being. -Lokmer Thanx for clearing that up there Lok when you define it as that I would have to say that yes I guess I still do have "spiritual" experiances yeah like you said that kinda shit you feel at down to the core. rock on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I really do love sitting here reading all the thoughts of the board members... I is becoming smart... no but really this is great I am learning a lot from all of you this board fuckin rules Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fweethawt Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 When someone has a "spiritual" experience, religious or not, I don't imagine that their disembodied (or, indeed, embodied) ghost is somehow excited or stimulated. And yet, religious and not, the varieties of what people call "spiritual experience" point to something profound going on deep in the self. I use the word not because I believe in a spirit, but because, as far as I can tell, there is no other concise way to describe the innermost parts of one's being. -Lokmer Thanx for clearing that up there Lok when you define it as that I would have to say that yes I guess I still do have "spiritual" experiances yeah like you said that kinda shit you feel at down to the core. rock on It's funny how you feel it more often too, isn't it? That's another thing I hate about religion. It became corrupt once it decided to define spirituality (in the above sense) instead of just guiding, or helping to define a person's own individual spirituality (as described above). But, that's just my sick'n twisted way of seeing it from that perspective, I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dogmatically_challenged Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 this board fuckin rules Hell yea! I'm glad you found us! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lunar Shadow Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I got refered here by a good friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mythra Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I'm not spiritual. I'm physical. As soon as someone can explain exactly what a "spirit" might be then I can consider whether or not I have "spirituality". <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm not spiritual or physical. I'm completely mental. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amanda Posted June 29, 2005 Share Posted June 29, 2005 I'm not spiritual or physical. I'm completely mental. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Mental, Mythra? That could be taken different ways.... ....but I will vouch for you that you are completely sane, my friend! (just couldn't resist that one!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts