Spiritual but not Religious

[mfbukowski]

I noticed above in the post in which I quoted Wittgenstein, there appear to be logical errors, due to the way I phrased some sentences, especially where I mentioned "absolute truth"

If anyone cares, which I doubt, I can adjust the wording and carry on the discussion, but I have a busy day today.  What I said was not what I meant to say. 

Even relativism is only relatively "true".

Incidentally, how did the usage of "the Reds" change between meaning the Communists to now meaning Republicans?

😱

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

I noticed above in the post in which I quoted Wittgenstein, there appear to be logical errors, due to the way I phrased some sentences, especially where I mentioned "absolute truth"

If anyone cares, which I doubt, I can adjust the wording and carry on the discussion, but I have a busy day today.  What I said was not what I meant to say. 

Even relativism is only relatively "true".

Incidentally, how did the usage of "the Reds" change between meaning the Communists to now meaning Republicans?

😱

 

RE: "Reds" : pills.

I did take note of the "absolute truth" wording but I understood it was said from your paradigm.

Edited January 5, 2024 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

RE: "Reds" : pills.

I did take note of the "absolute truth" wording but I understood it was said from your paradigm.

Thanks

As Heraclitus taught, the only absolute is change. And I CALL that statement "TRUE".

You cannot step into the same "stream of consciousness" because even trying to do so CHANGES the nature of the alleged "stream", and so we have the famous statement by Heraclitus that we can never step again into the "same" river again.

Reality is experience, ie: the stream of consciousness, and even that varies!  And so we have different accounts, for example, of the First Vision.  Telling the story the second time includes your memory of how you told it the first time, and so it will always be changing.

Notice Wittgenstein's mention of "accept as true" and that is the key.

No one can prove any belief is true unless it is "true by definition" which is vacuous.

So the BELIEF that there IS absolute truth is just as true as the BELIEF that there are no absolute truths.

Language cannot capture what we call "reality" any more than one can describe red to a blind man.

Heard that one before?

And so we accept beliefs "as if" they are true.

So the literalists take the descriptions as written and accept them "as true" and others read the same description and see them as fables, yet still then the non-literalist ALSO holds their their beliefs "as if" they are true and there is no way to prove either is right or wrong.

In both cases,  the individual is accepting their own belief "as if true"

So the believer in a historic resurrection as truth is not in a better OR worse position than the believer in a figurative position!

Neither can be proven

So why pick either belief "as true"?

Fearful literalist says:" But it HAS to have really happened for it to be true"!

Acceptor of Alma 32 says: "But the BELIEF itself is a beautiful one that enriches my life, and besides it cannot be proven either way! AND because we are LDS we follow the scriptures INCLUDING Alma 32!!

That's good enough for me ! "

And yes, so it is!

But yet, there are other beliefs

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-nahom-convergence-reexamined-the-eastward-trail-burial-of-the-dead-and-the-ancient-borders-of-nihm/

 

 

Edited January 5, 2024 by mfbukowski

[CV75]

39 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks

As Heraclitus taught, the only absolute is change. And I CALL that statement "TRUE".

You cannot step into the same "stream of consciousness" because even trying to do so CHANGES the nature of the alleged "stream", and so we have the famous statement by Heraclitus that we can never step again into the "same" river again.

Reality is experience, ie: the stream of consciousness, and even that varies!  And so we have different accounts, for example, of the First Vision.  Telling the story the second time includes your memory of how you told it the first time, and so it will always be changing.

Notice Wittgenstein's mention of "accept as true" and that is the key.

No one can prove any belief is true unless it is "true by definition" which is vacuous.

So the BELIEF that there IS absolute truth is just as true as the BELIEF that there are no absolute truths.

Language cannot capture what we call "reality" any more than one can describe red to a blind man.

Heard that one before?

And so we accept beliefs "as if" they are true.

So the literalists take the descriptions as written and accept them "as true" and others read the same description and see them as fables, yet still then the non-literalist ALSO holds their their beliefs "as if" they are true and there is no way to prove either is right or wrong.

In both cases,  the individual is accepting their own belief "as if true"

So the believer in a historic resurrection as truth is not in a better OR worse position than the believer in a figurative position!

Neither can be proven

So why pick either belief "as true"?

Fearful literalist says:" But it HAS to have really happened for it to be true"!

Acceptor of Alma 32 says: "But the BELIEF itself is a beautiful one that enriches my life, and besides it cannot be proven either way! AND because we are LDS we follow the scriptures INCLUDING Alma 32!!

That's good enough for me ! "

And yes, so it is!

But yet, there are other beliefs

https://journal.interpreterfoundation.org/the-nahom-convergence-reexamined-the-eastward-trail-burial-of-the-dead-and-the-ancient-borders-of-nihm/

 

 

I think the question, "why pick either belief "as true"? -- gets to the value of addressing, for example, how President Nelson's statement can be received as "good" or "enlarging the soul" (Alma 32-wise) as well as "bad" or "stunting the soul." For the sake of discussion, those who hold to one paradigm can examine how his words might be taken as having the opposite effect on themselves. They may well move beyond focusing on what they believe and the resulting dissatisfaction with others and discover a higher basis for unity with those with whom they disagree. That the testimony of Jesus's atonement, resurrection and ascension sustains all other appendages [beliefs] (per Jospeh Smith), for me, demonstrates the uniting / gathering value of this level of testimony.

[mfbukowski]

16 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the question, "why pick either belief "as true"? -- gets to the value of addressing, for example, how President Nelson's statement can be received as "good" or "enlarging the soul" (Alma 32-wise) as well as "bad" or "stunting the soul." For the sake of discussion, those who hold to one paradigm can examine how his words might be taken as having the opposite effect on themselves. They may well move beyond focusing on what they believe and the resulting dissatisfaction with others and discover a higher basis for unity with those with whom they disagree. That the testimony of Jesus's atonement, resurrection and ascension sustains all other appendages [beliefs] (per Jospeh Smith), for me, demonstrates the uniting / gathering value of this level of testimony.

Sure, I agree to the point of being willing to call the evidence "empirical" since thousands of people have had similar direct experience.

I wonder how the world would change if 17 million people could stand up publically and say that they have PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED an encounter with a UFO.

I think the world would be different than it is

Bit the same number saying "I know the church is true"??

Not so much...

 

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Sure, I agree to the point of being willing to call the evidence "empirical" since thousands of people have had similar direct experience.

I wonder how the world would change if 17 million people could stand up publically and say that they have PERSONALLY EXPERIENCED an encounter with a UFO.

I think the world would be different than it is

Bit the same number saying "I know the church is true"??

Not so much...

 

Seeing is believing! But 80 million people the USA believe in UFOs without seeing: UFOs Exist, Say 36 Percent in National Geographic Survey - ABC News (go.com)… AND “77 percent of Americans [170 million!] believe there are signs that aliens have visited Earth.” I suppose there is as high a percentage of those who say "I know the church is true" that also experienced or believe in UFOs and alien visits (and some probably count the First Vision!).

How would those experiencing a personal encounter with a UFO (or God), or a belief that they had, or a belief in them regardless, have to treat and communicate with each other and with those who don’t share their experience to yield world-changing results? How would they even think of making the attempt (i.e., how significant to them is their experience with UFOs and God)?

Why are these guys' experiences with God kept pretty much to themselves? Experiences of ‘Ultimate Reality’ or ‘God’ Confer Lasting Benefits to Mental Health | Johns Hopkins Medicine

Edited January 6, 2024 by CV75

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Seeing is believing! But 80 million people the USA believe in UFOs without seeing: UFOs Exist, Say 36 Percent in National Geographic Survey - ABC News (go.com)… AND “77 percent of Americans [170 million!] believe there are signs that aliens have visited Earth.” I suppose there is as high a percentage of those who say "I know the church is true" that also experienced or believe in UFOs and alien visits (and some probably count the First Vision!).

I said nothing about believing in UFOs. 

I clearly specified having a "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE " of UFO's.  The question is about PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

How would those experiencing a personal encounter with a UFO (or God), or a belief that they had, or a belief in them regardless, have to treat and communicate with each other and with those who don’t share their experience to yield world-changing results?

It's tough.

Ask someone else I guess who says they have had a personal experience proving to them that God exists

I am one, and it's obviously not working either

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

Why are these guys' experiences with God kept pretty much to themselves? Experiences of ‘Ultimate Reality’ or ‘God’ Confer Lasting Benefits to Mental Health | Johns Hopkins Medicine

Because they have experiences like this one.

It's not worth the effort 

[rodheadlee]

On 12/28/2023 at 4:32 PM, manol said:

Spirituality is when a person's mind/heart/thoughts/energy are in alignment with ("tuned in to") the Divine as much as is possible for that person in the present moment.  And imo this does not necessarily require a particular belief in, nor even any belief in, or about, the Divine.

 

To the extent that spirituality is connection with the Divine, the specific goals (intentions) are between that person's soul and the Divine.

 

I think every single person is on a spiritual journey regardless of what the outer appearances may be. 

 

Imo judging one another is not our job. But who am I to say that a spiritual path which leads a person to being judgmental is the wrong path for that person?

 

I think "spiritual but not religious" is the future.  I think the “stone cut without hands" that breaks down our earthly institutions and rolls forth and fills the whole earth will be those who connect directly with the Divine without requiring any earthly intermediary.

This

[mfbukowski]

On 12/28/2023 at 4:32 PM, manol said:

Spirituality is when a person's mind/heart/thoughts/energy are in alignment with ("tuned in to") the Divine as much as is possible for that person in the present moment.  And imo this does not necessarily require a particular belief in, nor even any belief in, or about, the Divine.

 

To the extent that spirituality is connection with the Divine, the specific goals (intentions) are between that person's soul and the Divine.

 

I think every single person is on a spiritual journey regardless of what the outer appearances may be. 

 

Imo judging one another is not our job. But who am I to say that a spiritual path which leads a person to being judgmental is the wrong path for that person?

 

I think "spiritual but not religious" is the future.  I think the “stone cut without hands" that breaks down our earthly institutions and rolls forth and fills the whole earth will be those who connect directly with the Divine without requiring any earthly intermediary.

Don't know how I missed this.

Good stuff !

[Meadowchik]

On 12/31/2023 at 3:47 PM, mfbukowski said:

Jeepers creepers, what we need is church that stresses individual testimonies and flexible doctrine, and stresses a human-based set of flexible doctrines which lean toward the perfection of mankind in seeking to become as close to perfect as we can be, and in immortality and eternal life, while also accepting that traditional Christianity needs to be restored.

And nobody gets paid, and the pastors kind of rotate from being a pastor, then possibly a teacher of children etc. No professional Clergy.

Anybody know about a church like that?  🤔

Closest I've found to meeting that is the Community of Christ. The LDS church didn't in my experience.

[Meadowchik]

The obvious question is what makes a person spiritual in their nature, versus a person who is not spiritual?

I am tempted to conclude that "spiritual" is another label people use to separate people.

If I were forced to define it, I would like it "spiritual" to mean the awareness of ourselves and others as beings, demonstrated by thought and action. The more aware, the more spiritual. This gives me something to work with personally.

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

If I were forced to define it, I would like it "spiritual" to mean the awareness of ourselves and others as beings, demonstrated by thought and action. The more aware, the more spiritual. This gives me something to work with personally.

How is this different from empathy and attentiveness?

I know people who are very aware of others, they make great caregivers, but I wouldn’t say there was much spiritual about them, at least not expressed. 
 

“as beings” needs something more imo…maybe a sense of being connected together with each other and their surroundings somehow?  
 

Spirituality to me is expressed by seeking or sensing/believing there is something more around us than just what we can experience with our five senses…that somehow (whether we have other ways of perceiving or it’s the combination of each into the whole that matters) we can take whatever is around us and sense or create that which is not mundane, something intangible but feels very real and meaningful to us.  Someone who is spiritual intentionally cultivates that sense, seeks out those experiences.
 

Religion to me is when you link that sense to a belief in something divine or an ideal and choose to worship it (worship may be very differently expressed by different belief paradigms).  In essence it is taking this awareness or image of the divine and making it an intentional part of your life. 

Edited January 6, 2024 by Calm

[Meadowchik]

47 minutes ago, Calm said:

How is this different from empathy and attentiveness?

I know people who are very aware of others, they make great caregivers, but I wouldn’t say there was much spiritual about them, at least not expressed. 
 

“as beings” needs something more imo…maybe a sense of being connected together with each other and their surroundings somehow?  
 

Spirituality to me is expressed by seeking or sensing/believing there is something more around us than just what we can experience with our five senses…that somehow (whether we have other ways of perceiving or it’s the combination of each into the whole that matters) we can take whatever is around us and sense or create that which is not mundane, something intangible but feels very real and meaningful to us.  Someone who is spiritual intentionally cultivates that sense, seeks out those experiences.
 

Religion to me is when you link that sense to a belief in something divine or an ideal and choose to worship it (worship may be very differently expressed by different belief paradigms).  In essence it is taking this awareness or image of the divine and making it an intentional part of your life. 

That's my gospel and the principles are simple. It's the practice that is challenging, but it is a worthy challenge of a lifetime. 

I would say that this is the core of all the good stuff religions offer--people being known and seen and feeling part of the worlds of everyone else in a shared sense of mutual value. 

Furthermore I think the fantastic good stuff can result from that shared valuing. That said, there is beauty and joy in the mundane, and feeling that is part of a rich spiritual life. 

 

[Meadowchik]

I want to add something about rowdy people. Cussers, crude people, loud talkers, sarcastic folks... Such energy can be present in highly spiritual, kind beings. Mormonism emphasizes sweetness and lightness so much that I think people sometimes miss this. I observed pious folk see a situation that could otherwise evoke empathy but cannot feel empathetic because of profanity. It's a shame, and I think it is a barrier between people. In other words sometimes people define "feeling the spirit" as feeling comfortable and free of conflict and draw away from uncomfortable* situations and are conflict avoidant when love and kindness would mean drawing nearer and engaging.

(I'm not talking* about the signals of actual danger to life and limb and integrity.)  

Edited January 6, 2024 by Meadowchik

[Tacenda]

4 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

The obvious question is what makes a person spiritual in their nature, versus a person who is not spiritual?

I am tempted to conclude that "spiritual" is another label people use to separate people.

If I were forced to define it, I would like it "spiritual" to mean the awareness of ourselves and others as beings, demonstrated by thought and action. The more aware, the more spiritual. This gives me something to work with personally.

You and @manol spot on! 

I like that spirit in spiritual, is our own spirits that inhabit our bodies, and how we cultivate that. I don't believe that religion did that for me. It only made me farther from it. But that's my personal experience. Religion institution did help with my ability to serve others, which I was grateful, but now is the time to stand on my own two feet and do it spiritually and not because I've been called to do it. That is my challenge for myself, and I'm sure my maker is very disappointed that it took having someone call me to serve, to serve.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Tacenda

[Calm]

1 hour ago, Meadowchik said:

That's my gospel and the principles are simple. It's the practice that is challenging, but it is a worthy challenge of a lifetime. 

I would say that this is the core of all the good stuff religions offer--people being known and seen and feeling part of the worlds of everyone else in a shared sense of mutual value. 

Furthermore I think the fantastic good stuff can result from that shared valuing. That said, there is beauty and joy in the mundane, and feeling that is part of a rich spiritual life. 

 

I have no problem with you making those your guiding principles. They are good ones to choose imo. I am just wondering if there is more to it in your view than empathy and attentiveness. Is there something that moves it to a higher level of experience in your mind…separates it from the ordinary. 
 

“there is beauty and joy in the mundane, and feeling that is part of a rich spiritual life.”

I agree. I am not phrasing this well. I see spiritual people as being able to take the mundane and move it to a category of specialness (not in the sense of better than others, but mundane things become treasured) because they see something more in the everyday, an additional dimension that is a result of their interaction, even if all that interaction is awareness.

Edited January 6, 2024 by Calm

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I said nothing about believing in UFOs. 

I clearly specified having a "PERSONAL EXPERIENCE " of UFO's.  The question is about PERSONAL RELIGIOUS EXPERIENCE.

 

Yes, you did not say anything about believing, but I understood you to mean that a personal religious experience and belief in having had that personal religious experience sustain the same creation. If someone creates a personal religious experience in their mind (who else and where else could it be created?) and subsequently refuses to acknowledge, believe or even remember it, then they did not have a personal religious experience after all -- at least one that changes their world and the world around them.

[CV75]

11 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Because they have experiences like this one.

It's not worth the effort 

I would say that perhaps the quality of their experience affects their ability to share (the kind of fruits that come from the experience), or that they are sharing their experience (by way of the fruits) quite effectively but do not realize it. The ability and effectiveness to share seems to be a function of what they become rather than what they experienced, believe and say about it.

[BlueDreams]

3 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I want to add something about rowdy people. Cussers, crude people, loud talkers, sarcastic folks... Such energy can be present in highly spiritual, kind beings. Mormonism emphasizes sweetness and lightness so much that I think people sometimes miss this. I observed pious folk see a situation that could otherwise evoke empathy but cannot feel empathetic because of profanity. It's a shame, and I think it is a barrier between people. In other words sometimes people define "feeling the spirit" as feeling comfortable and free of conflict and draw away from uncomfortable* situations and are conflict avoidant when love and kindness would mean drawing nearer and engaging.

(I'm not talking* about the signals of actual danger to life and limb and integrity.)  

I hope so...you basically described me on an average day at work or chilling with my bros.   Most everyone finds me kind, very few would describe my as sweet....it's not exactly wrong according to google, it's just not the first descriptor people find when describing me. Maybe lightness but I'm not sure how you're defining that as a contrast so maybe not (?). 

Language in general can be a barrier to understanding people. Cussing's a form of language. It has its utility and limitations in expression. I accept that I need to change my language to properly share my story and help people feel understood. Sometimes I speak spanish or english or both, sometimes my accent and demeanor shifts, sometimes I cuss. Some people are better at code and language switching than others. And most people are going to find their limitations in empathy and understanding based on their own biases and values. It can be an annoying limitation thanks to our humanness...I don't know if I describe it as a shame. It just is.

 

With luv,

BD

 

 

 

[BlueDreams]

On 1/2/2024 at 1:00 PM, pogi said:

Thanks for sharing.  I definitely got a different vibe.   I think the problem you note in your second to last paragraph is a valid one, and one that didn't seem to be addressed at all in the article at all.   The main problem he defines is that we shouldn't generally take "spiritual but not religious" people seriously.   As it states:

That seems to be the main thrust of his article.   As if to say, "so the next time you hear "spiritual but not religious", generally feel free to role your eyes, with an understanding from this article that it is not likely true." 

I try not to put words in other people's mouths. I don't read those words explicitly stated in the article, so I don't put them there. If there were more articles or personal experiences with this guy where he did eyeroll the category of spiritual not religious, then I'd assume it's there. But for now, what I mainly see is a person who's skeptical that a deep spiritual practice is maintained as  much as when spirituality is linked with religiosity in aggregate. I assume he wouldn't assume that means no one can (he says as much), more so that it's less likely to be maintained for many or most. He could be wrong or right, based off of the parameters of what it means to be spiritual.  I assume his bias leans towards religious institutions and a necessary communal access point to spiritual traditions/practices. So I read him more skeptical than derogatory.  

To be fair I'm not really sensitive to possible offenses in general. It's not how my brain works. 

On 1/2/2024 at 1:00 PM, pogi said:

Interestingly, of those who claim to be religious, only a little more than half claim to be spiritual (29% religious and spiritual - 22% religious but not spiritual).  A very concerning point he seems to have missed entirely from his link.   Instead of addressing the 22% who are religious but not spiritual (a much more curious and interesting figure/problem to explore and address, I think), the author chose to go after the lower percentage of spiritual but not religious (18%).  

No idea why he skipped over that, but it doesn't fit the op-ed. Maybe he would in a different one, maybe he wouldn't. I'm curious about this group I have little solid picture on. but it's also not the trendy interesting thing people are looking at right now   (a quick google search of "not spiritual but religious" seems to confirm that since most the articles that it pulls up refocuses on the category "spiritual but not religious). My hunch is they're the group that many picture when the build a caricature of very religious people. But I'm not sure because I haven't dug into it much.

 

With luv,

BD

Edited January 6, 2024 by BlueDreams

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Yes, you did not say anything about believing, but I understood you to mean that a personal religious experience and belief in having had that personal religious experience sustain the same creation. If someone creates a personal religious experience in their mind (who else and where else could it be created?) and subsequently refuses to acknowledge, believe or even remember it, then they did not have a personal religious experience after all -- at least one that changes their world and the world around them.

Mindfulness meditation helps this.

Now that I think about this, it is also important in figuring out what crazy Bukowski is saying

I try to constantly " observe " my thoughts and wonder where they came from.  That's how I understand him anyway. 🤪

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

If someone creates a personal religious experience in their mind (who else and where else could it be created?)...

THAT is the key and THAT what tells me that some do NOT come from "the world" and others do.

Step on your kid's lego at 2 am while shuffling to the bathroom, and you will be POSITIVE that not all experiences come from your own mind. 🤨😩

[CV75]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

THAT is the key and THAT what tells me that some do NOT come from "the world" and others do.

Step on your kid's lego at 2 am while shuffling to the bathroom, and you will be POSITIVE that not all experiences come from your own mind. 🤨😩

But if I am not mindful enough, and fail to process the experience or its meaning, the absence of my experience and its meaning to me does come from my mind (so their presence would, too). The world is still there and still goes on, with or without my mindfulness or experiencing stepping on the lego, the pain, the annoyance, etc. My positivity that the experience came from the interaction of the things in the world around me (the lego, my foot, the darkness, my sleepiness, the shape of the lego, the sensitivity of my foot -- not mention that !@#$ kid!) and not my mind's process of these interactions into the form of a describable awareness of the things around me, comes from my mind having to / learning to economically deal with the world around me in a conscious state.

Edited January 6, 2024 by CV75