What it means to be a spiritual person?

[Thomas]

Spiritual is completely seperate from physical actions?

No, spiritual is fundamentally tied and communicated through physical being.

Wil — why do you always look to the letter of the post, and not the spirit? So you find one person who is not as charitable as people assume, and this undermines the whole thesis of charity, does it?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[NiceCupOfTea]

we are all spiritual whether we realise it or not.

 

[wil]

A charitable person.

All charitable people? Many an oger, has been charitable...

What did Jesus say? Even the tax man loves his children (something to that effect)

What you do to the least.... I think that more defines it.

One doesn't have to be perfect to be a spiritual person. The story of the tanner of Alexandria is a good one.


I don't know ... I know he called a taxman to be His disciple, and stayed in the house of a publican. Jesus doesn't judge by appearances.

"By this shall all men know that you are my disciples, if you have love one for another." John 13:35.


Cuts both ways tho ... doesn't define a spiritual person.

God bless,

Thomas

Wil — why do you always look to the letter of the post, and not the spirit? So you find one person who is not as charitable as people assume, and this undermines the whole thesis of charity, does it?

Thomas, you and I both know there are more than one...and I asked and you answered and your answer caused me to select one person...

I posited charity was not enough...

One can't be much more charitable than the likes of Carnegie... did he have a spiritual catharis...a change of heart? I don't know.

 

[Thomas]

I posited charity was not enough...

It's clearly enough in Scripture ... in fact it's the very centre of the whole thing:
"And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." 1 Corinthians 13:13.

Jesus Himself said so in His commentary on the Shema Israel — He gave it as a new commandment.

Scripture says so in Matthew 24:10, Mark 12:33, John 13:14, 13:34, 13:35, 14:13, 14:23, 15:7, 15:12, 15:17. Paul in Romans 12:10, 13:8, 15:14, 16:16, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 11:33, 13:33, 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, Galatians 5:13, 6:2, Ephesians 4:2, 4:32, Colossians 3:13, 3:16 1 Thessalonians 3:12, 4:17, 5:11,
Hebrews 10:24, 10:25, James 4:11, Peter in 1 Peter 1:22, 5:14, 1 John in 3:11, 3:23, 4:7, 4:11, 4:12, 2 John 1:5 ...

1 Corinthians 13:13 sums it up:
"And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity."

One can't be much more charitable than the likes of Carnegie... did he have a spiritual catharis...a change of heart? I don't know.

On the basis of that, we write Scripture off?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[quirky]

I think we are all spiritual people, just some of us don't yet know how to lock into that feeling that energy.

The first step has to be acknowledging that you are more than what you can see and feel and sense ... The second step is doing something to find out more.

The third step - living with that knowledge and using it to enhance your current life.

If you can do these, then I think others would think of you as a spiritual person, even if (because of your awareness) you know you've still got a long way to go.

Q

 

[wil]

It's clearly enough in Scripture ... in fact it's the very centre of the whole thing:
"And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity." 1 Corinthians 13:13.

Jesus Himself said so in His commentary on the Shema Israel — He gave it as a new commandment.

Scripture says so in Matthew 24:10, Mark 12:33, John 13:14, 13:34, 13:35, 14:13, 14:23, 15:7, 15:12, 15:17. Paul in Romans 12:10, 13:8, 15:14, 16:16, 1 Corinthians 7:5, 11:33, 13:33, 16:20, 2 Corinthians 13:12, Galatians 5:13, 6:2, Ephesians 4:2, 4:32, Colossians 3:13, 3:16 1 Thessalonians 3:12, 4:17, 5:11,
Hebrews 10:24, 10:25, James 4:11, Peter in 1 Peter 1:22, 5:14, 1 John in 3:11, 3:23, 4:7, 4:11, 4:12, 2 John 1:5 ...

1 Corinthians 13:13 sums it up:
"And now there remain faith, hope, and charity, these three: but the greatest of these is charity."

Thomas, love thy nieghbor is more than charitable don't you think?

My only contention is that charity alone don't cut it. Now if you are inferring by charity that one lead a 100% charitable life...I'm gonna fold my hand and agree.

Or since you quote Corinthians 13:13 twice...a verse that is often not written as 'charity' but 'love'....

Again, I'd concur...

If you would have said, that a spiritual person loves his neighbor...

I would have rebutted...nor would I have brought up Carnegie....or any other unloving yet charitable person.

 

[wil]

we are all spiritual whether we realise it or not.

yeppers

I think we are all spiritual people, just some of us don't yet know how to lock into that feeling that energy.

The first step has to be acknowledging that you are more than what you can see and feel and sense ... The second step is doing something to find out more.

The third step - living with that knowledge and using it to enhance your current life.

If you can do these, then I think others would think of you as a spiritual person, even if (because of your awareness) you know you've still got a long way to go.

Q

Namaste and welcome quirky

(we've already a fellow who signs himself as Q, just sayin)

But again...agree...

We are all spiritual, spirit... some of us though choose to close the blinds and not let the light shine...

 

[quirky]

Thanks for the welcome, Wil, and Q can be quite popular, which is annoying Hopefully, I'm the first woman to use it ;-) Or I'll just change it .. We will see

A scary but sadly true thought that people choose not to look more closely. Our lives are all about choices, so it is probable that many will choose a different path to others. We can only keep going with our own, I guess.

Thanks again,

Quirky

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, love thy nieghbor is more than charitable don't you think?

I was using 'charity' in its spiritual sense, from the Scripture Greek 'caritas', which infers love as agape — unlimited loving-kindness toward all others — as opposed to 'love' which is commonly regarded as eros.

So I would suggest 'love' in the Scripture context needs defining, as the term 'love' as is generally understood is directed towards gratification of the self, rather than the gift of self.

This still leaves me pondering, if you revoke any suggestion of a supernatural spirit active in the physical world, does 'spirit' for you mean the operation of the psyche?

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

I was using 'charity' in its spiritual sense, from the Scripture Greek 'caritas', which infers love as agape — unlimited loving-kindness toward all others — as opposed to 'love' which is commonly regarded as eros.

So I would suggest 'love' in the Scripture context needs defining, as the term 'love' as is generally understood is directed towards gratification of the self, rather than the gift of self.

This still leaves me pondering, if you revoke any suggestion of a supernatural spirit active in the physical world, does 'spirit' for you mean the operation of the psyche?

God bless,

Thomas

Again...if you would have said the definition of being spirtitual is agape....you'd have got kudos from me and not the argument on charity...

I just think you are just too darned edjumacated for me sometimes!

Thomas, I just don't buy 'super' natural. I think nature and natural encompasses it all... 'super' natural to me seems 'man' made.

 

[Thomas]

Thomas, I just don't buy 'super' natural. I think nature and natural encompasses it all... 'super' natural to me seems 'man' made.

I think that's because you just don't see it ...

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Wil —
As a starter, I would say that 'natural' applies to a created nature, and supernatural applies to an uncreated 'nature', of which logically, there is only one.

Thus God, or at least the Abrahamic concept of God (and certain other religious and philosophical ideas of 'The One'), as not belonging to, not being part of, nor produced by, the created order, is considered super-natural, or meta-natural, because God is not created, nor subject to any of the conditions that determine the natural world.

The distinction is, of course, man-made in that it is a definition by which we might talk about the difference between God and 'things', or God and the Cosmos, without confusion.

Johannes Scottus Eriugena, for example, spoke of 'natura' as including both the natural and the supernatural, but purely as an encompassing idea regarding the capacity of the human intellect, and the transcendental nature of the soul. He did not assume thereby that God and nature were one, so was in reality not guilty of the accusation of pantheism, or panentheism, laid against him.

The supernatural in inaccessible to the natural operating under its own power, as a nature cannot transcend it own boundaries, but the supernatural can be transcendentally apparent, and immanently present, to the natural, as is believed by orthodox Christianity.

Thus when St Paul in Acts 17:28 quotes the Cretan poet Epiphemides, "In Him we live and move and have our being" he means that God creates the medium in and by which we come into existence, and which sustains our continued existence, because God is the ontological cause of life and being.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[taijasi]

I would think that the capital `H' in Him tends to suggest ... certainly a little bit more than an inert, or lifeless "medium."

Let's keep thinking on that one ...

Remember, even if I wouldn't claim that I've managed to transcend the errors of anthropomorphism, I have NEVER said that it doesn't serve a Purpose. At times, it may be quite useful to try and remember what that Purpose could BE.

It was 4/20 just moments ago, and yesterday I made it a point to remind myself who is known in history for the saying, "MAN is the measure of all things." That would be Protagoras, and I discovered that he is presumed to have died in 420BC, coincidentally enough [nonsense that it was coincidence; I have long since known better in cases like this one].

Connect the dots. What's all this business about in WHOM we live and move and have our being again? Yeah, I think that one needs a bit more Meditation ...

Let's see, Elohim is plural; and the 1st Commandment provides clarification on this matter.
Further, the Elohim [just as Their much younger `reflections,' or Children: ourselves] are material, as well as Spiritual Beings, every One. They are the "Seven SPIRITS" before the Throne; yet still They have material expression(s).
Why, then, would there be a 1st Commandment at all, which of the Elohim provided it to Moses (if one believes in the Judeo-Christian heritage at all) ... and what might that imply about being spiritual nowadays, in the early 21st Century? Or at ANY point in the past 3000 years of Western history, for that matter ...

Just a few more thoughts on the subject.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

With regards to Thomas, wil ,and Andrew, and not to be argumentative, but just sort of throw out some personal observation... I don't know that I buy the idea of a separation between natural and supernatural. I've tried to get to the minimal roots of my experience; that is, what I think I can say about how things seem to me. I think I'm pretty much down with Andrew's comment directly above. If I deduct anthropomorphism, and try the best I can to put purely conceptual constructs aside, I don't know that the thing that makes experience groovy, and seems to supply an element of Providence, isn't sort of organic to the universe, and activated by me as an aspect of intention and cooperation. I mean, aside from learned metaphysical modeling and construction, I can't find any inherent compulsion toward the idea of an over-arching, separate, supernatural Being-Force. I understand that such a concept works well to underline traditional notions, cultural mores, and institutional power structuring, but aside from rote repetition and philosophical hero worship, I don't find that sort of "spiritual" superlativism self-apparent. I don't particularly like the simplistic pan-panen theistic ordering either as it plays into a different set of religio-gurgitation, so I just don't know, but I think the truth must be much more organic and less gee-whizzy than is presented in most philosophical renderings.

The question for me is: "how do things look when I'm not invested in wanting any of the stock explanations?"

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Hi Chris —

I don't know that I buy the idea of a separation between natural and supernatural.

I'm discussing this elsewhere with Wil — a 'basic' distinction one can draw is that 'natural' covers all created nature, whereas supernatural points to uncreated nature.

I suppose it depends how one views 'separation' — I don't see the two as separate, but on immanently present to the other — but if everything is created, what caused the first created thing?

If I deduct anthropomorphism, and try the best I can to put purely conceptual constructs aside, I don't know that the thing that makes experience groovy, and seems to supply an element of Providence, isn't sort of organic to the universe, and activated by me as an aspect of intention and cooperation.

I don't fundamentally disagree ... as you said before, and I agree, there is inspiration rising from within on contemplation of the world.

But you do speak of 'intention' and 'cooperation', and I would suggest there is an intention inherent in creation that is not of a human agency, and that humanity can co-operate with that agency, at which point the inspiration comes the other way, from the top down, as it were, rather from the bottom up.

Removing all anthropomorphic and conceptual forms is what the apophatic tradition is all about ... but what we should not do is remove everything, to the point we find ourselves effectively dead in the water, as it were.

Thinking of Daoism, the aphorism 'the Tao that can be spoken is not the true Tao' springs to mind, and I would say the Abrahamic Traditions say the same thing. In purely Christian terms we say we can only ever speak in analogies.

But 'Tao' means road ... so whilst where the road leads is beyond words and forms, the road is no less real.

Christ said 'I am the way' and spoke of His relation to the Father (again, in analogies), but this can be likened to the Way that cannot be spoken, and the way that can, and that although the Father is utterly transcendent, He is simultaneously immanently present to us in the Son.

I mean, aside from learned metaphysical modeling and construction, I can't find any inherent compulsion toward the idea of an over-arching, separate, supernatural Being-Force.

I'm currently thinking of the Love of God as a 'weak force' ... but my immediate answer is no, you won't, but that's not to say the call isn't there.

so I just don't know, but I think the truth must be much more organic and less gee-whizzy than is presented in most philosophical renderings.

Why? Or ... have you lost your sense of wonder?

That is the key to unlocking the mystery.

I've been watching programmes on astronomy, biology, this and that, and it's all gee-whizzy to me!

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

Hi Andrew —

Let's see, Elohim is plural...

There's a good explanation of why and in what way the plural is deployed in Scripture, available here, for example.

Simply put, the use of the plural does not designate multiplicity in the Godhead, but Hebrew deploys the majestic plural, as signified by a plural noun-form deployed with a singular verb.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[Saltmeister]

As a starter, I would say that 'natural' applies to a created nature, and supernatural applies to an uncreated 'nature', of which logically, there is only one.

That isn't my concept of "natural" and "supernatural." To me "natural" simply refers to the way in which we expect our world to work. Miracles are "supernatural" in the sense that they are things that we do not expect to happen. Science dictates what is and isn't possible. Therefore, miracles are things that do not happen according to science. If someone claims that a miracle happens, some people ask for evidence.

The "natural" is everything that science can potentially explain within its methodology (that includes the science that will arise in the future as well as existing theories). Miracles disobey all scientific theories. In that sense, miracles are "supernatural."

Those who don't believe in the supernatural believe that everything is natural, that there are no miracles. Nothing happens in our world except that which the "perfect science" (when all phenomena have been explained) can explain.

 

[wil]

That isn't my concept of "natural" and "supernatural." To me "natural" simply refers to the way in which we expect our world to work. Miracles are "supernatural" in the sense that they are things that we do not expect to happen. Science dictates what is and isn't possible. Therefore, miracles are things that do not happen according to science. If someone claims that a miracle happens, some people ask for evidence.

The "natural" is everything that science can potentially explain within its methodology (that includes the science that will arise in the future as well as existing theories). Miracles disobey all scientific theories. In that sense, miracles are "supernatural."

Those who don't believe in the supernatural believe that everything is natural, that there are no miracles. Nothing happens in our world except that which the "perfect science" (when all phenomena have been explained) can explain.

Nice description...at one time, early biblical time, eclipses, hurricanes, floods, northern lights, even the 'heavens' were all in the realm of the supernatural.

They have moved to the realm of 'natural'...how?? Simple education and understanding of what nature is capable of.

 

[Thomas]

That isn't my concept of "natural" and "supernatural."

OK. I was giving the traditional view, from my perspective.

Miracles disobey all scientific theories. In that sense, miracles are "supernatural."

Yes and no ...

In a general sense, yes, anything that cannot be explained is supernatural, until it is explained.

But the traditional understanding is that those things which are caused by the Uncreated are 'supernatural', even in cases where what happens might well have a perfectly natural explanation.

God bless

Thomas

 

[earl]

Thomas, Buddhists like to toss around the term "uncreated" as well:
The Three Characteristics And The Uncreated
earl