|
|
Post by Firewalker on Oct 10, 2011 13:29:40 GMT
What is the difference between teh two? Can one be spiritual but not religious or vice versa? I have been wondering what is a legitiimate definition for the two terms. I can't help but feel they are almost, if not entirely synonymous with one another. Anyone else have any insight to help clarify this for me?
firewalker
|
|
|
|
Post by paulmurdoch1975 on Oct 10, 2011 14:06:50 GMT
to me religion is something you believe to be true take the bible its the word of i think 12 people does it mean that 12 people are Gospel in what they say it was just there interpretation of something that happened people exaggerate we all read books how do we know things are true or how do we know that the original book tells a different story
everyones got there own right to believe what they want example Jesus was a very talented man but to me he was a healer a very gifted man just like many of us here on earth .
being spiritual means to me we don't follow just one thing we search for truth we search before Christ we try to get to the back door of things example we are all energy we come from a source in the begging we come to earth in our human body's to live our life of lessons then go back to the source we do this many times until we get things right for the next life
different cultures have different religions and to round every ones religion up in two words for me would be law & order people have always needed someone to follow even neandafols had a leader even in animals theres always a leader of a pack
the Church of England's one of the richest businesses in the world and thats a religion i don't follow .
yes there is a god its the source of everything but to follow one way of thinking is up to the individual .
great thought firewalker .
hugs and blessings .
AngelGabriel
|
|
|
|
Post by STORMDANCER on Oct 10, 2011 14:08:28 GMT
A distinction which has emerged in the last couple of decades are people who describe themselves as 'spiritual but not religious'. This is associated especially with the widespread diffusion of spiritual teachings of Indian origin, specifically Vedanta-Yoga and Buddhism.
Typically, these types of teachings appeal more to self-directed spiritual seekers than those who seek the direction of a more organized mainstream religion.
This raises the question of whether 'what is spiritual' can be wholly identified with 'what is natural'. The problem I think it has is that 'nature' itself is by definition temporal as distinct from transcendent. Even the most naturalistic forms of spirituality (e.g. the Tao) speaks of 'the nameless' as distinct from 'the ten thousand things', i.e. nature. The Buddha is said to be 'lokuttara', generally translated as 'world transcending'. Within nature itself, everything is subject to change and decay, although the 'nature mystic' will seek the 'transcendent source' of nature through, as suggested 'inseparability' or union. non-dualistic mysticism will see nature as an embodiment of the supreme principle, however the realization of that unity is the goal of the spiritual discipline of the path.
A big part of spirituality is 'learning to let go'. A good question to contemplate is - 'letting go of what?'
Peace and Love
Storm
P.S Great topic firewalker
|
|
