Spirituality without religion?

[Darwin]

Do you think there can be spirituality (in life) without any religious attachment?

Would you like to tell about ways of approaching this in case you go for "yes"?

[justsaygnosis]

Accepting alternative woo-woo in lieu of religion can lend someone the appearance of spirituality.

[arcticpenguin]

I think everyone is going to have a different definition of "spirituality", making the poll fairly meaningless.

[evildave]

And that's why I chose both yes and no.

Originally posted by Darwin
Do you think there can be spirituality (in life) without any religious attachment?

Would you like to tell about ways of approaching this in case you go for "yes"?

Yes, I think so.

One can respect, value, look up to, be awestuck about, drool over, highly regard, be thankful for, and explore, the universe.

-Who

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I think everyone is going to have a different definition of "spirituality", making the poll fairly meaningless. I couldn't vote for this very reason.

Originally posted by evildave
And that's why I chose both yes and no.I don't think so - you can vote only once.

Originally posted by justsaygnosis
Accepting alternative woo-woo in lieu of religion can lend someone the appearance of spirituality Of course, so I should answer "yes" then.

except.....

Everyone is going to have a different definition of "religion"
....so I'm back where I started.

[crocodile deathroll]

The Australian Aborigine has no established religion, but that does not mean they do not feel spiritually attached to the Australian landscape. They really shout from the roof tops about their spirituality.

[BillyJoe]

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
The Australian Aborigine has no established religion.... The question was......
Do you think there can be spirituality.....without any religious attachment?

[Darwin]

Yes.
I realize one might define spirituality in differing ways but you´re free to interpret.

[woodguard]

I feel spirituality and religion are very different things.

Religion can have spirituality as part of it.

But most religions are formed by people so they can say the other people are wrong, and only their group is right.

Only religion would have the idea of killing someone to save them.

[Lalande]

The spirituality has nothing to do with religion. It is the measure of our acceptance of the "bad things" that we must face. It is dignity. It is morality. Is a man afraid of the god moral? No. Morality must be his own choice, not the choice of his fear.

[Yahzi]

I think a better question would be: can you have religion without spirituality?

[Lalande]

Of course. Christianity do not need spirituality. More: christianity is AFRAID of spirituality.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande
Of course. Christianity do not need spirituality. More: christianity is AFRAID of spirituality.

I infer your identifying spirituality with the occultism that christianity says it abhors.
Is this correct?

[Lalande]

I infer your identifying spirituality with the occultism
Rather mysticism.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande

Rather mysticism.

The roman catholics and eastern orthodox are ripe with mysticism as well as christian gnosticism.
Which non-mystically oriented bunch of christians are you referring to?

[Lalande]

The roman catholics and eastern orthodox are ripe with mysticism
There ARE mystics in christianity, but christianity is afraid of mysticism. It's like this: Mystics know the truth (lets suppose). But we (christians) already know the truth. What if their truth will be other than ours? It is impossible, their truth would be a lie than. They must be heretics.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande

They must be heretics.

You may want to research that before you make a sweeping generalization.
Many mystics have been canonized as saints in the roman church.
I can't speak too much of the others but roman catholicism is what I was raised and educated in.
There is an office of the 'devil's advocate' within the roman church that analyzes modern mystical claims in light of dogma.
If the church won't put its' imprimatur on the claim it is then labeled heresy and/or apostasy.
The emphasis is on the coninuation of the 'spirit' of the preceeding dogma so when confronted with irrefutable circumstances the claim is made that new evidence amplifies and testifies to precedent.
When Tielhard DeChardin, a Jesuit was working extensivley on the Java and Peking man projects his work was submitted first to rome.
While DeChardin was a great scientist he was also mystically inclined in his beliefs,(Oh Duh,he was a priest).
Interesting Ian had one of his quotes in his sig line.

[Lalande]

Many mystics have been canonized as saints in the roman church.

I know that. I didn't say that there are no christian mystics. All I say is that christians are not looking for the truth. They already know the truth (from their perspective).
analyzes modern mystical claims in light of dogma
- Hey guys, I know the truth
- Lets take a look at him... This is ok, this is ok... Oh, that's wrong. You're lucky inquisition is over. In other case...

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lalande

There ARE mystics in christianity, but christianity is afraid of mysticism. It's like this: Mystics know the truth (lets suppose). But we (christians) already know the truth. What if their truth will be other than ours? It is impossible, their truth would be a lie than. They must be heretics.

No my friend, you are definetely wrong about it. Especially if you refer to the eastern Ortodox christians. The edifice of their belief is based on mysticism and they are not heretics or "heretics" if you wish, at all.

And you are wrong regarding the relationship of Christians with the Truth. Truth is a superior stage of spirituality you acquire after following a specific lifestyle.It's not something that it's always there waiting for you to accept it.

and this brings us to our question.

Yes there can be spirituality in life without religion. Socrates and his Demon,Nietzsche and his superhuman one of the most striking examples that come to my mind. Who can accuse those two for being religious? Who can ever suggest that they didn't live a spiritual life?

[Lalande]

Especially if you refer to the eastern Ortodox christians. The edifice of their belief is based on mysticism and they are not heretics or "heretics" if you wish, at all.

And what roman catholic church is saying about them? Church do not use the word "heretics", but in the eyes of church they are heretics (why they call themselves ortodox christians and not roman catholics? because they are not r. c.).

And you are wrong regarding the relationship of Christians with the Truth. Truth is a superior stage of spirituality you acquire after following a specific lifestyle.

I do not agree with the meaning of the world "truth" that I used in the context of christians. I am much closer to your words: Truth is a superior stage of spirituality you acquire after following a specific lifestyle.
I will precise something: When I say christians/christianity I mean roman catholic church. I don't bother with all these small (sometimes big) fractions and sects.

[justsaygnosis]

Originally posted by Lalande


When I say christians/christianity I mean roman catholic church. I don't bother with all these small (sometimes big) fractions and sects.

That lends specificity to the thread.
It's tough to make an argument the roman catholic church rejects spiritualism and mysticism.
It behaves like all things human insofar as corruption is concerned but were it to divorce itself from mysticism and spirituality it would remove its' underpinnings.
It certainly can't stand on science.
This really is hijacking the original thread.

[Frostbite]

Absolutely! I've had a couple moments of enlightenments (usually under the influence of drugs or alcohol) and I was overwhelmed by a deep feeling of being one with the world, of understanding everything. Haven't had that feeling too often, but it was I think a very deep spiritual feeling, which had nothing to do with a school of thought, cult or religion.

[Yahweh]

I looked at the poll for a few minutes and I had no idea what to decide... but I voted Yes. I was thinking about and I thought about Buddhism. Someone could certainly have an idea of what kind of life they should live without really adhering to the bounds of other established religions.

I like to look at it another way. I would like to use my own definition of spirituality: What you need to do to make your life anything but useless (or in a sense, make your life fulfilled). I think about the kind of life I've had all the time. I think to myself that I havent done a single thing of worth or importance. I'm still like that but lets just say that I felt that for my life to have any significance I should help the environment. I would probably spend whatever amount of time cleaning up parks, I might plant a tree, I might clean up animals at an oil spill, or whatever I need to do. I would do all those things and I'd die with a smile on my face because I would know that my life wasnt wasted. I'm sure that I would be spiritually satisfied. It would be considered a spiritual journey because obviously I did not need to go out of my way and save the environment, but I went and did it anyway... and hey look, I didnt need an invisible man in the clouds, a promise of an afterlife, give up all my valuable junk, or religion in any way.

[Tricky]

Spirituality and religion can co-exist just fine together. It is spirituality and critical thinking that cannot occupy the same place at the same time.

[Lalande]

Spirituality and religion can co-exist just fine together. It is spirituality and critical thinking that cannot occupy the same place at the same time.
No. It is religion and critical thinking.

[Dancing David]

Yes,
as I have staed before I feel that spirituality is a human experience , unity with the universe and all. It does not need religion. And I HaveToDisagree you can apply critical thinling and scientific method to the spiritual experience. (you may not come to the same conclusions as most believers.)

[synaesthesia]

I make a point of not being in the least spiritual and of rejecting all spiritualistic language.

[Cleopatra]

Originally posted by Lalande
(why they call themselves ortodox christians and not roman catholics? because they are not r. c.).

:)

In Greek, the word Ortodox means he one who has the Orthi Doxa. That means, the one who is right.
The Eastern Ortodox church keeps the tradition of the first 800 years of christianity, they keep the tradition before the Schism.

If you remember any History, it was the Pope who left the church so,there is a "slight" disagreement here on who is the real heretic :)


I will precise something: When I say christians/christianity I mean roman catholic church. I don't bother with all these small (sometimes big) fractions and sects.

Well, whether you bother or not they exist and they are larger than you think. BTW what catholicicm has to do with spirituality ;)

I thought that it was all about money and scandals ....

edited to add. I don't know anything about catholic mysticism. I would be glad to learn though. To which theologs do you refer?

[Roadtoad]

I suppose the first question is: What do you define as Spirituality? If, by that, you mean the acceptance of a deity, and you are in turn seeking to understand that deity, then yes, I would say Spirituality is possible without the trappings of religion.

I would further go for the extra point here and say that you cannot understand this deity without Critical Thinking. If you're assuming that this being is the Creator of the Universe, how can you ever hope to understand Him/Her/It/Them unless you have a firm grasp of evolution, physics, chemistry, reason, etc. A rational view, it would seem to me, would have a greater connection with the divine, than one rooted in lockstep with a dogma that denies the very things my mind tells me exist.

This is one of the reasons I'm not attending a church at the moment. Common sense seems to to be absent. If I find bones that cannot be identified, the first thing I want to do is dig a little deeper, and find more, and try to figure out what it was. If it looks like a fish, but has a bone structure that is more akin to a lizard, what do I do? Deny what the facts are, and call it a fish? Claim that it can't be as old as common sense tells me it is, because Moses never described one? (Do I also deny the existence of such animals as the Spiny Echidna? Or the American Bison?) Or do I use my mind, which a divine entity gave me, (and obviously wants me do use), and try to identify this animal based upon Scientific Research?

Seems to me the second approach is the wiser move, and further, it would be the approach which would be the most spiritual.

Anyone else?