Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Spiritualistic Dogma      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 VeganCat
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 1
Spiritualistic DogmaPage 1 of 3    (1, 2, 3)
I hear about peoples views on that they are spiritual yet they take no affiliation, foundation or basis for what they say? Im spiritual but it has nothing to do with religion, being a Christian, a Jew, Buddhism, Islam influence. . . nothing.

When we stand up for our beliefs, what is the belief system of just being spiritual without foundation? How can you defend that?
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 2
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/7/2010 3:42:20 PM
Some people consider spirituality to be a religious construct and some don't.

To me (I'm a weak atheist), my spirituality involves awe and appreciation for the wonders of life. Having goals and dreams, loving and being loved, having a life filled with purpose and meaning - these are all elements of my personal definition of spirituality.
 VeganCat
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 3
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/7/2010 5:56:50 PM
Frankly, I believe that people who say they are spiritual without a base belief system say it, because they just like to hear themselves talk.

Its cool to say you're spiritual like its cool to have the latest cell phone or just to fit in with the rest of the crowd. They don't really have a real reason for anything because they don't even know who they are never mind any convictions or a belief system. Mindless chatter without structure, thats all it is.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 4
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/7/2010 6:15:55 PM

Frankly, I believe that people who say they are spiritual without a base belief system say it, because they just like to hear themselves talk.
Well, you're certainly welcome to believe this bigoted, idiotic, false generalization.

They don't really have a real reason for anything because they don't even know who they are never mind any convictions or a belief system. Mindless chatter without structure, thats all it is.
More generalizations I see.
It would seem your idea of spirituality requires hate and intolerance to those who don't have a belief system. Tsk tsk.

Perhaps I was wrong for being one of the few who voted against having this thread deleted.
 VeganCat
Joined: 11/11/2009
Msg: 5
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/7/2010 6:29:02 PM
I don't mean to generalize, I have run across this. I believe you misinterpret my intention. I am very tollerant and I definately do not hate...period. People say they're spiritual but they don't know how to defend or explain as to why they say they are.

Its like a fad. Metaphorically speaking, they don't know why they wear this new style, they just like it and tried it on and it seemed to fit so they think its them. . . an identity of sorts yet when you try to strike a conversation as to what makes them spiritual, I can't get a defining answer. I find there is no basis to why they say what they say.

I frankly, don't understand it. Its like its a label they give themselves without meaning.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 6
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/7/2010 7:43:23 PM

I frankly, don't understand it. Its like its a label they give themselves without meaning.
Well I think most people would consider being spiritual to be a good thing, therefore, it is an enticing reason to label yourself as being spiritual whether its true or not. Kind of like the way people brag about being honest, loyal, intelligent, etc.

Another possibility is that their meaning of spirituality differs from yours. Different people are spiritual in different ways. For example, the items that I mentioned in my first post are a far cry from the conventional definition of spirituality. It doesn't necessarily mean that they are not spiritual, it just means their sense of spirituality differs from yours.

Incidentally, I've met many people that I would consider spiritual or not spiritual and in my experience, religion seems to play only a small role. Simply adopting a belief system is not enough to earn the title of being spiritual in my opinion.
 Montreal_Guy
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 7
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/8/2010 5:05:57 AM
I think that perhaps a part of it is the general overall failure of organized religions to offer what's needed in today's society, in many cases. That's not to say the original concept is a bad one.

I'll offer Quebec up as an example. This province used to be the center of the Roman Catholic churches power in North America. The church used to literally run this place, and involved itself in politics telling people how to vote. If you only had a couple of kids, you could expect a visit from the local parish priest telling you you needed to have a few more.

The Quiet Revolution here involved the French Canadian population walking away from the church, in massive numbers. Once that was done, they started having far less children, and better education.

Now, most RC churches sit empty, or with few members.

The same type of situation occurred in the Netherlands, where the intolerance of the church contrasted with the views of a highly tolerant society.

That doesn't mean that people lost their faith in some higher power , it simply means they lost their faith in the men running the local chapter.

My view is that all major religions are cultural and historical filters of the same common need or truth. If one examines the basic concepts of any of those religions, they seem to reflect many of the same values overall.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 8
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/8/2010 7:12:47 PM
Well, there really is no getting around leaning on something large for one's spiritual opinions. Even the indivdual spiritualist leans on his/her culture, language, and world view ... even if only in a reactionary way.

I believe that by spiritual, these folks just means they don't consider themselves a member of any community of belief, but nevertheless harken to the same sense of mystery and wonder that everyone does.

I'm sure some people build up very beautiful and personally meaningful spiritual systems. In fact, in a highly indivdiualized world, in which the majority of both mainstream and fringe alterntives all look a little "out there", the pursuit of precision tuned, fully customized individual spirituality might be the best way to go.

Of course, Man is at heart a social creature. We might not need to hold the same beleifs as the rest of the world, but its always nice to have at least a few others who we share common ground with on such matters, and can engage in meaningful dialogue with that is supported by common culture, sense of figure and metaphor, common values, and worldview, etc.

Either way, I guess I would say that it is very possible to have TOO much of an otherwise good thing.
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 9
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/8/2010 11:03:25 PM

what is the belief system of just being spiritual without foundation?
Great question.

I read a book by an author whose message I really respected, and one of his strong points really had me thinking. He seemed to believe that those who have no foundational belief system (religion) were somehow just skimming the surface.. not grounded.

I consider myself spiritually eclectic, so I took a good hard look within to truly consider his words...

I guess I just don't understand the concept of needing to become assimilated into a spiritual group/religion in order to formalize my beliefs? For whose benefit? God's? Society's? Cause it sure aint mine.

When we learn anything, we look to our teacher, the text, lessons, etc.. but we must ultimately take steps on our own in order to know.. discover and walk our own path.. and that to me is what is meant by the path being narrow. It is also imo the start of a relationship with God.. not just reading and repeating the phrases which are the fruit of someone else's path/relationship..

How does any religion get started? Someone had the chutzpa to walk their own path and it attracted others to follow them.. but it is still just the finger pointing at the moon.

How can you defend that?
To defend something means you fear its loss.

But I only said all this so everyone would think I'm cool, lol..
 dysfunction_junction
Joined: 7/17/2008
Msg: 10
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/9/2010 5:00:22 AM
I don't mean to generalize, I have run across this. I believe you misinterpret my intention. I am very tollerant and I definately do not hate...period. People say they're spiritual but they don't know how to defend or explain as to why they say they are.

perhaps they're self aware enough to realize they don't need a man-made book advertised as "the inerrant word of god" to tell them exactly what to think and why.

Its like a fad. Metaphorically speaking, they don't know why they wear this new style, they just like it and tried it on and it seemed to fit so they think its them. . . an identity of sorts yet when you try to strike a conversation as to what makes them spiritual, I can't get a defining answer. I find there is no basis to why they say what they say.

actually, the "fad" of which you speak is no different in substance than the reason he is a christian or she is a jew or they are muslims.... for the most part, because that's the way they were raised. they were told to believe, and they believed accordingly. in other words, my “fad” is only 50 years old, but yours is 2000 years old…. as if the mere passage of time and the number of nodding heads themselves were the only arbiters of absolute truth. if "spiritual but not religious" is a fad, it is only because certain people have recently dared to question the consensus reality they obtained through the magic of accidental birth. it doesn't mean they have all the answers. (and unlike religious fundamentalists, "not having all the answers" is mysteriously okay.)

i can't speak for anybody else, but if you want to ask *me* why i am spiritual but not religious, it’s because i recognize religion as nothing more than myth, metaphor, ritual, symbol, double entendre, and allegory. but the map is not the territory.

some things can only be known by direct experience.

I frankly, don't understand it. Its like its a label they give themselves without meaning.

of course you don't understand it. what you’ve basically said yourself is that you require a religious label to provide the meaning *for* you… because you're completely without the context that one gains from the direct experience you’ve heretofore been missing. therefore, for you the label *IS* the meaning.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 11
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/9/2010 9:22:28 AM
Wow, the posts on this thread have been brilliant.

Some think that spirituality is provided only by religion. Allegorically speaking, I envision these people walking an old path that has been trodden on by many. As they follow others' footsteps they look off in wonder at those who have shed their religious coil and are crashing through the forest making their own trail.

If you don't understand why some people don't need their spirituality spoon-fed to them, perhaps you should step off the path and start trailblazing.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 12
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/9/2010 9:54:55 AM

I read a book by an author whose message I really respected, and one of his strong points really had me thinking. He seemed to believe that those who have no foundational belief system (religion) were somehow just skimming the surface.. not grounded.


Renowned comparative mythologist, Joseph Campbell, said the same thing.

I personal think that this goes down to a more fundamental level, to the cultural and linguistic originator/carrier of belief, but agree with the essential idea.

It's all basically comes down to remapping territory already covered. Our experiences as individuals really aren't so unique. Others have been where we are before, and so by harkening to their wisdom we can better understand where we are, what got us there, and prepare for what might lay ahead.

As with personal combat, no matter how much natural talent one possesses, forewarned is always forearmed .... such that, taking two people possessed of equal degrees of athleticism and natural talent, but one has enjoyed the benefit of training within a system, and the other has not, it is the one that has been trained, ie. benefitted from the many experience of those who built and built up that system, will win nine times out of ten. Unlike the pure natural, who must react, however superbly, on the fly, the trained natural is able to react on the fly with as much compotence, but can also see beyond the evident, can see two or three moves ahead and set things up with baiting moves and such. The trained person can also share his/her own experiences within that system, with the culture and technical language of that system carrying him/her along.

Taking part in a community of belief simply enriches that breadth and depth of personal experience. The fund of experience is simply that much larger and deeper ... depending on the belief system I suppose. lol

Eclecticism is always problematic because such is generally based on gross generalizations that equate seemingly similar elements of different cultures, eg. fate, destiny, karma, wyrd, etc., with no appreciation for the informing culture or their idiosyncratic differences. Things are deprived of their proper context and therefore of their full range of meaning, and then with that, technical lingo quickly becomes ... not all that technical anymore. All of a sudden where one word once suffice, one is suddenly having to write entire sentences, paragraphs, and even books.

Of course, like I said in my last post, one can have too much of a good thing.

I personally like to explore, to get a direct experience. And don't find that "maps" hinder my ability to explore the territory for myself. They're quite helpful in fact ... in covering ground, avoiding pitfalls, and getting me to where I want to go. And having gotten there, while I might not get any "landmarks" named after me, I can at least confirm (or correct/refine) the map for others upon my return.
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 13
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/9/2010 10:20:27 AM
Jmars:
It's all basically comes down to remapping territory already covered. Our experiences as individuals really aren't so unique. Others have been where we are before, and so by harkening to their wisdom we can better understand where we are, what got us there, and prepare for what might lay ahead.
This implies that being spiritually eclectic means that I have somehow skipped steps. I have taken the time to learn from others, who are you to say which source I should turn to for this? And I don't think that in learning from the trailblazers in the past, that this means that I should take no steps of my own.

Eclecticism is always problematic because such is generally based on gross generalizations that equate seemingly similar elements of different cultures, eg. fate, destiny, karma, wyrd, etc., with no appreciation for the informing culture or their idiosyncratic differences. Things are deprived of their proper context and therefore of their full range of meaning
And here you reveal your own generalizations..

So I must be assimilated into the group in order to understand full context? Oh my. Many people who are part of a religion never delve deeper than popular opinion!

Taking part in a community of belief simply enriches that breadth and depth of personal experience. The fund of experience is simply that much larger and deeper ...
For you.. which imo highlights exactly what I was saying. We each have our own path to walk, what works for me may not work for you.. would you want it any other way? Because I wouldn't. Being involved in a group/community did not provide me with an ounce of the depth that I feel meditating, reading spiritual literature or even communing in nature.

I personally like to explore, to get a direct experience. And don't find that "maps" hinder my ability to explore the territory for myself.
I like to explore as well and enjoy the maps I have used along the way, but I don't mistake the map for the path. I ultimately must tuck that map into my pocket and walk..
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 14
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/9/2010 11:12:07 AM

This implies that being spiritually eclectic means that I have somehow skipped steps. I have taken the time to learn from others, who are you to say which source I should turn to for this? And I don't think that in learning from the trailblazers in the past, that this means that I should take no steps of my own.


I never said it does. Having a "map" is of little use if one never leaves their couch.

And no, nothing I said implies that you've "skipped steps". You have no doubt taken steps that are appropriate for you. And of course you are free to learn from whomever you chose to learn from.

Don't put words into my mouth.

But don't expect me to call a spade anything other than a spade. Your spiritual beliefs represent the sum total of your personal experiences. Ethno-cultural beliefs represent the sum total of an entire culture's experiences, across the contemporary population, and back into the murky depths of that cultures past.

There simply is no comparison. No one is an island unto themselves.

Once again, I'll reiterate ... in regards to EITHER extreme, it is possible to have TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING.

And in closing, re. "who are you to say what I ...", don't be surprised if I DON'T kick in your door tomorrow with the Inquisition in tow. I'm really not all that threatened by what others believe or don't believe, and tend to pursue a path of understanding over self-justification.
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 15
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 9:49:54 AM
Jmars:
Your spiritual beliefs represent the sum total of your personal experiences. Ethno-cultural beliefs represent the sum total of an entire culture's experiences, across the contemporary population, and back into the murky depths of that cultures past.

There simply is no comparison. No one is an island unto themselves.
Why does there need to be a comparison? I don't need to be a part of a religion in order to benefit from the knowledge gained from mine or another's culture and history. That was my entire point.

I'm really not all that threatened by what others believe or don't believe, and tend to pursue a path of understanding over self-justification.
Good, good.. but when you refer to someone's spirituality as 'always problematic', well.. I think you should be able to back that up with more than a personal opinion, or at least qualify it as such. You have yet to do that.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 16
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 12:12:47 PM
Sass, my point was that culture is like any other ecology ... a delicate interrelated system in which each part is informed and informed by all the other parts.

You are of course aware of what happens when you take flora and fauna from one system and try introducing it into another, yes?

Imagining that you can simply mix and match, and formulate a system that is every bit as deep as those provided by ethno-cultural traditions simply isn't reasonable. It's like saying you can take jokes from all of the various cultures of the world and expect each joke so taken to get a laugh from a culturally specific audience. It ain't gonna happen.


<div class="quote"> when you refer to someone's spirituality as 'always problematic', well.. I think you should be able to back that up with more than a personal opinion, or at least qualify it as such. You have yet to do that.

How can you say this is just my perosnal opinion? You said in your initial post that some author, whom you otherwise respected, was of this opinion. Noted Comparative Mythologist, ie. someone who dedicated years of formal study to the various religions of man, Joseph Campbell, who is also a self-proclaimed eclectic, is also on record as stating this.

This is clearly not MY personal opinion, anymore than gravity is my personal opinion. And it remains a fact whether me or you personally agree or disagree with it. Many people working on a common inter-generational project advance further, deeper, and faster than a single individual. And imagining that karma and wyrd, or Gehenna and Hell, or German and Hindu, are all really the same simply shows a fundmaental lack of respect for their systems of origin ... as much as sticking a a pride of lions in a northern forest and expecting either to prosper.

Why do you think their are so many contradictions is Christianity? Which is at it's root the personal revelation of one man. And which has been translated and retranslated so many times, and removed so far from it's Judaeo-Hellenistic origins, that even people in the same pew can't agree on much of anything regarding it.

It IS possible to have TOO much of an otherwise GOOD thing. Get it? :)
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 17
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 12:33:48 PM

How can you say this is just my perosnal opinion?
You didn't say that it was Joseph Campbell's position, you presented it as fact when it is nothing more than your, Joseph Campell's and yes, an author that I respect's opinion.

This is clearly not MY personal opinion, anymore than gravity is my personal opinion. And it remains a fact whether me or you personally agree or disagree with it.
Hahahaha! You insist on presenting it as fact.. alright then.

Prove it.
 Chiny®™©
Joined: 7/2/2006
Msg: 18
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 12:34:32 PM
Excuse me for butting in but.........


Others have been where we are before, and so by harkening to their wisdom we can better understand where we are, what got us there, and prepare for what might lay ahead.

Taking part in a community of belief simply enriches that breadth and depth of personal experience. The fund of experience is simply that much larger and deeper..........

Eclecticism is always problematic because such is generally based on gross generalizations that equate seemingly similar elements of different cultures, eg. fate, destiny, karma, wyrd, etc., with no appreciation for the informing culture or their idiosyncratic differences. Things are deprived of their proper context and therefore of their full range of meaning, and then with that, technical lingo quickly becomes ... not all that technical anymore. All of a sudden where one word once suffice, one is suddenly having to write entire sentences, paragraphs, and even books.


Yes.....that is excellent and exactly what has been happening to the religions of Asia whether they are West Asian or East Asian in origin. Ever since the Romans forcibly implemented the adoption of the religious philosophies of Jesus, Europeans have been abandoning their own indigenous beliefs like hot turds. Firstly, adopting West Asian beliefs then Central and East Asian beliefs following the dictates of western societal cultural fashion, trouble is they’ve been adopting and then adapting to make the religions correspond and be consistent with European culture of which they were never intended, nor addressed in the original scripts.

The religious beliefs of nomadic desert dwelling Semitic Tribes of South-western Asia, from over 2,000 years ago are idiosyncratic to those Semitic people and are not inclusive of the many other tribes of humans that existed at the same time, either directly adjacent to Semitic lands or at extreme distance to them.

With the passing of 2,000 years since the adoption, pseudo religious practises, formalities and officialdom were created instituted and ingrained into European society to such an extent that they will never come out in the wash, at least not without the risk of some psychosomatic trauma due to any revelation in conflict with what has been ingrained in their psyche for so long a period.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 19
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 1:31:58 PM

You didn't say that it was Joseph Campbell's position, you presented it as fact when it is nothing more than your, Joseph Campell's and yes, an author that I respect's opinion.


I did in fact state that it was JC's **educated** opinion. And the fact that three different people all came to the same conclusion via their own path certainly makes it something more than my personal opinion, now doesn't it?



Prove it.


The proof is all around you, Sass. The proof is in the very language/s and culture/s every individual leans on for all of their thoughts and ideas and opinions.

Where do you think you'd be without culture? I'll tell you where ... shivering in the cold, spending your entire day picking berries, and no doubt, ending up food for the large predators before long. And the divine would be the last thing you had time for, and you wouldn't even have a word to correspond to the thought to correspond to the experience. You would have no language. You would have no culture.

The burden of proof is on you, as it is you who *seems* to be saying that a system of thought, belief, culture, composed by a single individual over the space of a single lifetime, is as deep and rich and as encompassing as those composed collectively and inter-generationally. It is you that *seems* to be saying that any element of any given culture can be perfectly understood within the context of any other given culture; a baseless opinion that the history of inter-cultural diplomacy, as well as linguistics, and anthroplogy in general, all testify against the veracity of.

So, you prove your position ... to the extent that anyone following an highly individual really has to ... **which they don't**, because it is meant for them and is fine so long as it stays with them. And it doesn't become a problem until that one individual starts thinking too much of themselves, starts thinking they have something on the rest of the community, and begins attempting to redefine everything for us.

I'm pretty sure that you are not proclaiming yourself a prophet, Sass. So what's with the need for this self-justification of yours? Isn't it enough that your self-authored belief system is meaningful to you? If JC could follow an eclectic path, but nevertheless give a nod to the superior value of tradition, why is it that you can't? Other than that you don't possess the same level of knowledge -- he has a PhD in the subject, I assume you don't -- and appreciation for the transpersonal traditions you happily pilfer for your personal beliefs. Who else do you think should value, or even begin to understand, your own personal, highly individualized belief system other than you??? Because that's what it seems to me you're after here.
 *sass*
Joined: 11/2/2008
Msg: 20
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 1:40:47 PM
Oh my.

You haven't proven that being spiritually eclectic is always problematic, which is the assertion of fact you made, even correlating it with gravity.. and I fail to see the 'proof all around me', lol..

If JC could follow an eclectic path, but nevertheless give a nod to the superior value of tradition, why is it that you can't?
Ummm, I'm the one who said there didn't need to be an either or. Just that I don't need to be assimilated into a group/religion in order to gain from the knowledge therein. Perhaps you are confused or too busy with projecting self-justification off onto me?

Regardless, its getting off topic and I have nothing to defend. I am not the one who made a statement of fact that can never be proven, lol..
 looked_once
Joined: 2/10/2010
Msg: 21
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 2:15:18 PM

I hear about peoples views on that they are spiritual yet they take no affiliation, foundation or basis for what they say? Im spiritual but it has nothing to do with religion, being a Christian, a Jew, Buddhism, Islam influence. . . nothing.

When we stand up for our beliefs, what is the belief system of just being spiritual without foundation? How can you defend that?



I guess what you would be defending is your personal preference.. Every one has a right to their own.
 JMars
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 22
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 6:55:21 PM

You haven't proven that being spiritually eclectic is always problematic, which is the assertion of fact you made, even correlating it with gravity.. and I fail to see the 'proof all around me', lol..


Do you know why anthropologists state that tribal people are generally so much better psychologically centred and well-adjusted than us urbanized Westerners? It is the result of their common culture, in which words, attiudes, lifestyles, etc. all all bound together into a functional whole. They are homogenus. In other words, they are not eclectic.

Do you know why Christianity originally arose and spread like wildfire throughout the ghettoes of the trade-cities of the Roman Empire? It is because such populations were highly eclectic and alienated from one another and the establishment.

Do you know why our modern society is deemed by the prevailing authorities to be rife with alienation and loneliness? The highly individualized, eclectic nature of it.

I could go on and on and on citing examples. But since you no longer feel you have anything to defend, and I don't need to defend the facts, there certainly isn't much point.


Ummm, I'm the one who said there didn't need to be an either or. Just that I don't need to be assimilated into a group/religion in order to gain from the knowledge therein. Perhaps you are confused or too busy with projecting self-justification off onto me?


Self-justification for what? An idea that existed prior to me, and goes on existing with or without me, and seems to be the general conclusion of those who have taken the time to look, research, critique, and consider?

And you said alot more than that Sass, and came to all sorts of conclusion about what I said and what I must have meant to you, and clearly felt the need to defend you position by setting up a strawman.

You're already assimilated, chicky. lol
 Inicia
Joined: 12/21/2007
Msg: 23
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/14/2010 9:26:45 PM

Do you know why anthropologists state that tribal people are generally so much better psychologically centred and well-adjusted than us urbanized Westerners? It is the result of their common culture, in which words, attiudes, lifestyles, etc. all all bound together into a functional whole..


Well I might say sociologist call that alienation from personal product(including a creator) through industrialization and capitalization and social anomy Karl Marx and Emil Durkheim philosophy respectively.


I identify as spiritual. My philosophy is:
my spiritual/religious beliefs are mine and they belong to me. Yours belong to you. I don't know why you believe the way you do. At times I am not sure what motivates my belief. So on that premise I wouldn't question you or your belief..

Taht is my present spiritual dogma always subject to change but recently acquired...... thump thump...
 dunrich2
Joined: 1/7/2010
Msg: 24
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/15/2010 4:38:55 AM
I look at Spitualistic as being internal, and religion as being external.

Religion by its self, is nothing, unless the person uses it as a step towards being Spiritualistic. When one starts to internalize beliefs, then it has changed from Religous to Spiritual.

I think, when this occurs, one views Religion in a different light. One starts to see to see the common links / or in my twisted way, perhaps common fallicies, found with in all Religions.

I consider my self spiritual, although many would claim I am not as they think spiritual only refers to Estern style Religion. But that in its self, is Religous in my opinion.
 truth144
Joined: 2/1/2010
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Spiritualistic Dogma
Posted: 2/15/2010 5:11:04 AM
Everyone is spiritual.
1 John 4:1 says to try the spirits.

I have to agree with the OP here. What foundation have they builded their spiritulism on? What do they base it on, if they deny the Holy God Spirit, and the Satanic spirit.
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Spiritualistic Dogma