Religious or Spiritual?

[Baile]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

Well it's a good thing we're not New Agers, isn't it?

I said a couple weeks back that we need a new term around here: religious, new-age, and old-age spirituality.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Baile

I find all discussion that is presented in an open and non-judgmental manner to be invigorating and sometimes even revelatory. Sarcasm I don't resonate with.

Fair enough, though I must aver that my misguided attempts at sarcasm are nothing more than a bit of lighthearted joshing. I sincerely meant no harm by them. The other points from my posts still stand open if you wish to address them.

Peace to you.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Wagner

However, "walking on water" and "turning water into wine" is not at all the same thing as manifesting matter out of nothing.

Is that so? So what would you call manifesting a solid pathway out of thin air, in order to hover above water? How does one turn water into wine without manipulating physical matter (spirit) by forming alcohol out of water molecules? Open and non-judgmental.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Wagner

a bit of lighthearted joshing. I sincerely meant no harm by them.

Then I apologize, that's great to know.

Is enlightenment about selflessness? What happens next in our growth journey after we've attained selflessness? Or is that all we're striving towards?

Those are the questions I would begin with. It's the natural starting point for perhaps seeing that transformation is taking place on more than one level. Yes, it's a selflessness journey (although I wouldn't call it that specifically). That's one of the human components. But what else is it? Because spirit is alive and living and a participant in this journey as well.

[Wagner]

Originally Posted by Baile

Is that so? So what would you call manifesting a solid pathway out of thin air, in order to hover above water? How does one turn water into wine without manipulating physical matter (spirit) by forming alcohol out of water molecules? Open and non-judgmental.

I would counter (in an open manner!) that a solid pathway was not created but rather Jesus' faith allowed his own form to not be subject to the laws of physics. Peter tried the exact same thing and was successful until he saw the wind and his lack of faith caused him to fall. To me this is indicative of the personal transformation of the faithful as opposed to any metamorphosis of physical matter. Then, I suppose, one could say that the physical apparatus of the faithful person was transformed; but again, that seems to me to be a 'change' of preexisting conditions and not 'creation' (same with the water/wine). Something tells me though that the dispute here is solely in regards to semantics and that we may actually be in agreement otherwise... Hmmm. What do you think, Baile?

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Wagner

I would counter (in an open manner!) that a solid pathway was not created but rather Jesus' faith allowed his own form to not be subject to the laws of physics. Peter tried the exact same thing and was successful until he saw the wind and his lack of faith caused him to fall. To me this is indicative of the personal transformation of the faithful as opposed to any metamorphosis of physical matter.

Ha-ha open manner. Interesting, yes that could be it as well. You see it as faith. I understand the power of faith. I'm not sure that's what was happening there, but it can't be ruled out.

That said, does it need to be called anything other than Peter learning to do what Jesus was capable of? Why would the faith element need to be brought in? At that point there's no difference between the faith explanation, and an explanation having to do with cultivating one's own innate ability. The end result was the same.

Either way, if selflessness is the only goal, why is Peter bothering to experiment with walking on water?

[Baile]

Originally Posted by Wagner

Something tells me though that the dispute here is solely in regards to semantics and that we may actually be in agreement otherwise... Hmmm. What do you think, Baile?

I'm in agreement with happy dialogue, always. Reaching unanimous conclusions I seldom care about, mostly because that's not why I discuss things. I discuss things to look at questions from various perspectives. And I don't have the answers, even though I do have my own beliefs. And I try not to give the impression that I do have the answers, but I'm not always successful at that.

[LadyMay]

Originally Posted by Baile

I said a couple weeks back that we need a new term around here: religious, new-age, and old-age spirituality.

I don't really think it's quite as simple as that. Often people are a mix of the lot. Not to mention the distinction between new-age and old-age would just create more inferiority/superiority complexes than there already are.

[LadyMay]

Originally Posted by Baile

Then I apologize, that's great to know.

Is enlightenment about selflessness? What happens next in our growth journey after we've attained selflessness? Or is that all we're striving towards?

Those are the questions I would begin with. It's the natural starting point for perhaps seeing that transformation is taking place on more than one level. Yes, it's a selflessness journey (although I wouldn't call it that specifically). That's one of the human components. But what else is it? Because spirit is alive and living and a participant in this journey as well.

Enlightenment to me is about integrity. Becoming whole within oneself.

[Baile]

Originally Posted by ScarlettHayden

I don't really think it's quite as simple as that. Often people are a mix of the lot. Not to mention the distinction between new-age and old-age would just create more inferiority/superiority complexes than there already are.

Well I just fall back on my original definition anyway:

Religion: Following a specific set of tenets and beliefs.
Spirituality: Individual self-realization path free of specific beliefs.
Both are spiritual in nature.

To me it's that simple and clear cut. Everything else is just complicating the question unnecessarily.