The Externalization of Our Spiritual Nature

Hi Bob,

I guess my focus was a bit narrow and was directed at our willingness to grant authority to our judges. It was about religion - secular and other, rather than our spiritualitIn a sense, I’m asking where is Martin Luther when we need him? Who nail’s the theses on the world’s door? I don’t really have an answer to opening the doors other than to continue being who I am. It takes courage and perhaps a stubborn streak to shuck off the authorities and begin one’s own path of realization. Perhaps the real miracle is that anyone even tries.

JT

Hi JT,

It is a real issue that we need to address, since many assume the role of Judges – against wiser counsel. Spirituality provides better judgement, since it is also empathetic and involved, whilst theology or any kind of theory is often distant and concerned with principles rather than real issues.

Martin Luther is a primary ignition, just as any reformer is. If you stick to that first kindling of the flame, you won’t make progress. If you stick to words, you avoid the inspiration of the spirit. I have come to the conclusion that spiritual women and men have remained in the background, because young spirituality is something tender that needs care. If you put it into the furnace of secular strife, it burns up with all of the trappings that have restricted it’s growth. To cope with secular strife and to open doors, you need people who have learnt to free themselves from those things that have no lasting value.

A Moses, a Joshua, a Gideon, a David, etc. up until a Jesus, a Peter, a Paul taking us to leading figures in church and secular history even in the modern age, if they were at all spiritual, they were independent of the trappings of “the world” and could be independent without loosing contact to the people they were leading. There is a truth in the statement that the true leader is a servant of all that politics has rarely understood. Unfortunately, those who did understand, were often those who were assassinated - which tells us something about what “being natural” is about.

Shalom

Hi Bob,

Yes, but it comes back to the same thing we’ve discussed so many times. We but whisper in small groups. Perhaps that is best. Christianity is full of ‘witnessing’, and I suppose that is what it truly is all about. You’re right. It isn’t the principles, it is in empathetically acting out those principles. So what sort of television show would Jesus put on today? Sorry, I just can’t help but wonder…

I guess I don’t accept your assumption that religion and spirituality are different things. Or that we need one and not the other. Just because someone thinks of themself as spiritual does not make it so. Give me an example of something “spiritual” that does not derive from an established religious tradition.

Ned,

A new-born is spiritual without any exposure to religion. There is no escaping our spirituality, although many try. Yes, those who embrace religion may be exploring their spirituality, but they may also embrace religion to avoid their spirituality as well.

From my POV, they are indeed separate issues, but please feel free to disagree with that. :slight_smile:

JT

I guess I don’t see how a baby is any more spiritual than an egg sandwich except in the sense that every human being has the POTENTIAL for spirituality (more than the said sandwich). I agree that our motives in adhering to any religion may be mixed and sometimes have little to do with spirituality. However, this just means that spirituality is a subset of religious practice, not a seperate grouping apart from it.

Again, I fail to see anything in life that is spiritual but not religious. Personally I think this is a viewpoint promoted by those who have some sort of beef against religion and would therefore like it to be true that one can be spiritual but not religious. But just because it is appealing, does not make it true. But you’re free to disagree. Of course that just makes you wrong (joke!).

Hi Ned,

OK. Let’s turn this thing on it’s head. Show me the causal connection between religion and spirituality. Provide me the example of those who, without religion, are also without spirituality.

I’m guessing, but I think we’re up against simply choosing a definition, aren’t we? :wink:

Well, I have a feeling you’e not going to like this. The clearest example of an unspiritual being is the devil.

James 3 says
14But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil.

My contention would be that the devil is the clearest example of the “unspiritual” and also the clearest example of someone without religion. Those who choose to follow him in this life can also be counted among the unspiritual and those without religion.

Does that work for you?

Hi Ned,

Ummmmm, nope.

A personified “devil” is an opinion, not an entity. I’m not a literalist, Ned. I may read the bible looking to understanding, but the literal words mean nothing to me. I have no personal God, and no personal devil.

We just might have to agree to disagree…

I had a feeling that you weren’t going to like that! You’ll probably like what I’m about to say even less. If you look to the bible for “understanding” without acknowledging God then you are simply wasting your time…

Why not think of Satan Mary Shelly-style then? Merely as a dynamic, yet unspiritual character. Not Satan the idea, but Satan the ideology.

Though what I most take issue with is your original premise: to err is bad. Whether we are told that, or not, it ought be ignored. Error is necessary for learning. Erring isn’t bad, merely its effects. Through the effects of errors, particularly terrible errors, society creates rules. Our entire learning model is based on errors.

The Master said, “To have faults and not to reform them – this, indeed, should be pronounced as having faults.”

Ned,

Wasting my time? Perhaps. You’ll forgive me if I disagree with your opinion…

Hey Xunzian,

Uhhh, somehow, I thought I was saying the same thing you just said. :unamused:

Did I say it badly?

Forgiven. Many do…

The way you expressed it seemed like you were looking for a world were error does not exist because people merely ‘are’. You are removing the references whereby we make mistakes. I think that is a terrible, if you’ll forgive the irony, mistake. We need those references so that we can improve ourselves. They are the straight-edge whereby a true line can be drawn.

Mistakes are real, but they aren’t necessarily ‘bad’ as long as we learn from them. I’ve learned more form the correction of my own errors than I have from acts I’ve performed well the first time.

Xunzian,

I don’t think making errors is ‘bad’. Quite the contrary. My original statement was merely saying that we are told that a mistake is bad, and because error making is our prime learning mode, we learn to distrust ourselves because we are always doing ‘bad’ things. We are first controlled, and then control ourselves inside this fallacy. Is that a better explanation?

There is only one ‘bad’ mistake: making the same mistake twice.

Now that, I can agree to without reservation.

Hi JT,

I think that it would be an interactive show, with traditional and meditative elements and practical assistance. It would be a place where thoughts could be discussed and tested for their practicability, but it would be a show without a show master. There wouldn’t be one central person, but the One, the Ineffable, and everything would revolve around this mystery.

Tradition would be presented in the form it began as, as an oral transmission of stories, thought-provoking and exciting, waking the ability to understand intuitively what these stories are about. The universality and timelessness of these legends and myths would become apparent, and would advance the mutual respect between traditions, looking at the global implications.

Meditative elements would stabilise people, help them find their centre, their balance. They would quieten worries, frustration, fears and help people find their Way, their path through life. But these elements would also aim to point to those things that burden people – Mammon, dependency, prejudice, fear, insecurity – and offer methods and solutions to find relief.

Practical assistance would be in the form of advice and treatment of ailments, often pointing to the source of psychosomatic disorders and emotional distress and uncovering latent depression. It would provide a faith-orientated outlook, encourage people to take less medicaments and find a more wholesome approach to life. Discussion would give voice to dissent and encourage policy-makers to listen more to what troubles people with low income.

Shalom

Hey Bob,

I don’t know, that doesn’t sound like a television show to me. It sounds more like a description of heaven on earth… =D> =D>

Hi JT,

Well, at least for an hour or so … :smiley:

Shalom

Hi Bob,

Hey, an hour is an hour. Better than the 30 sec sound bite on the evening news… :smiley: