The Random Spiritual Thought Thread

[Yuurei]

If people created religion yet religion is one of the most powerful and awe-inspiring concepts on Earth, does that not mean that this power is within humans themselves?

And does this not mean that these religions are as real-although misattrbuted- as humanity itself?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Pride is a heavy burden. As is vanity, but pride is celebrated in these times in one form or another. Nevertheless, we carry it towards the Skull, but pray for me brothers and sisters that the Lord will strengthen me in this burden, to ease the tumult in my mind, the vanity to celebrate my intellect, and forgetting to give thanks to the One who blesses us with gifts. These things I am guilty of among others.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

18 God’s wrath is being revealed from heaven against all the ungodly behavior and the injustice of human beings who silence the truth with injustice. 19 This is because what is known about God should be plain to them because God made it plain to them. 20 Ever since the creation of the world, God’s invisible qualities—God’s eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, because they are understood through the things God has made. So humans are without excuse. 21 Although they knew God, they didn’t honor God as God or thank him. Instead, their reasoning became pointless, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 While they were claiming to be wise, they made fools of themselves. 23 They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images that look like mortal humans: birds, animals, and reptiles. 24 So God abandoned them to their hearts’ desires, which led to the moral corruption of degrading their own bodies with each other. 25 They traded God’s truth for a lie, and they worshipped and served the creation instead of the creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

26 That’s why God abandoned them to degrading lust. Their females traded natural sexual relations for unnatural sexual relations. 27 Also, in the same way, the males traded natural sexual relations with females, and burned with lust for each other. Males performed shameful actions with males, and they were paid back with the penalty they deserved for their mistake in their own bodies. 28 Since they didn’t think it was worthwhile to acknowledge God, God abandoned them to a defective mind to do inappropriate things. 29 So they were filled with all injustice, wicked behavior, greed, and evil behavior. They are full of jealousy, murder, fighting, deception, and malice. They are gossips, 30 they slander people, and they hate God. They are rude and proud, and they brag. They invent ways to be evil, and they are disobedient to their parents. 31 They are without understanding, disloyal, without affection, and without mercy. 32 Though they know God’s decision that those who persist in such practices deserve death, they not only keep doing these things but also approve others who practice them.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

God has made everything beautiful in its time, Ecclesiastes 3:11.

...referring to all things for which there is a time, and all natural things that are beautiful in their season; such as, summer, winter, spring, and fall.

Though everything is beautiful in its time, yet until they are made manifest, and all viewed together, they will not be perfectly understood, or the beauty of them seen, Revelation 15:4.

 

[Firebird 8118]

Hmm... I know this is the random spiritual thought thread, but... nearly all the posts I've seen so far relate more to Christianity. But the way I see spirituality is far, far different from that. I'm a Hindu with New Age ideals on life...

Just saying - is there room to talk about other religions or spiritual/philosophical topics here too? [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

 

[Coriolis]

Hmm... I know this is the random spiritual thought thread, but... nearly all the posts I've seen so far relate more to Christianity. But the way I see spirituality is far, far different from that. I'm a Hindu with New Age ideals on life...

Just saying - is there room to talk about other religions or spiritual/philosophical topics here too? [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

This thread is not limited to Christianity, though thoughts on Christian spirituality are welcome. I have already posted some non-Christian material. Feel free to do the same.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Hmm... I know this is the random spiritual thought thread, but... nearly all the posts I've seen so far relate more to Christianity. But the way I see spirituality is far, far different from that. I'm a Hindu with New Age ideals on life...

Just saying - is there room to talk about other religions or spiritual/philosophical topics here too? [MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION]

Well, your hesitancy is apparent.

19 You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.

-St. James 2:19

 

[Firebird 8118]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION] Thanks
[MENTION=35148]Isk Stark[/MENTION] - Challenge accepted! *rolls up my sleeves*

I feel that most people don't truly understand the wisdom hidden in plain sight within Hinduism. For one thing, it's neither a monotheistic nor polytheistic religion. It's not even a religion persay, but rather a way of life.

Go ahead, throw some questions at me - I may just be able to expand your knowledge. Let's have some fun with a friendly debate.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

It's not even a religion persay, but rather a way of life.

This is interesting because American Churchianity took this same approach with the "It's not a religion, it's a relationship" angle.

Truth be told, all religion is a way of life. You live what you believe to be true.

Shying away from "religion" seems to be common to post-modernism.

As far as questions for Hinduism, I know there is no set "Hinduism" as it's a collection of religious practices of various gods or entities? In that way, it seems similar to Shintoism because Shintoism wasn't a unified system of beliefs until an actual unified system arrived on the shores of Japan in the form of Buddhism.

I may still have the Ganesha tapestry from when I dabbled in elephant worship. Maybe I just thought the icon was cool looking?

 

[Firebird 8118]

This is interesting because American Churchianity took this same approach with the "It's not a religion, it's a relationship" angle.

Truth be told, all religion is a way of life. You live what you believe to be true.

Shying away from "religion" seems to be common to post-modernism.

As far as questions for Hinduism, I know there is no set "Hinduism" as it's a collection of religious practices of various gods or entities? In that way, it seems similar to Shintoism because Shintoism wasn't a unified system of beliefs until an actual unified system arrived on the shores of Japan in the form of Buddhism.

I may still have the Ganesha tapestry from when I dabbled in elephant worship. Maybe I just thought the icon was cool looking?

All right, I'll bite.

The reason I'm not calling it a religion is that the original name for Hinduism is "Sanatan Dharma". It literally means "Way of Life". Foreigners who came to India called us Hindus, and so it stuck with us along with the rest of the world, and this became "Hinduism", or the doctrine of Hindus. Which isn't all wrong, but that in itself shows an incomplete and narrow view.

Yes, this all-encompassing philosophy (as I'll call it now as was originally intended) allows for many branching sects. Because we believe the entity you call God (we call it the Supreme Being or the Divine) is an omnipresent and omniscient entity. It is formless and yet can take on many forms. It is simultaneously male, female and non-gender. Everything that exists, has ever existed, and will exist, all find their source in the Divine. To put it this way, we're all like drops in a vast and endless ocean, having our own individual properties yet connected as one.

All these deities you see is our limited way of trying to understand the concept of a limitless God - one Being, infinite manifestations. And it doesn't matter who or what you worship, because it all leads back to the Divine. That is why I believe that all religions, theologies and philosophies have the right to stick around. They're all just different paths guiding us towards the same destination.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

All right, I'll bite.

The reason I'm not calling it a religion is that the original name for Hinduism is "Sanatan Dharma". It literally means "Way of Life". Foreigners who came to India called us Hindus, and so it stuck with us along with the rest of the world, and this became "Hinduism", or the doctrine of Hindus. Which isn't all wrong, but that in itself shows an incomplete and narrow view.

Yes, this all-encompassing philosophy (as I'll call it now as was originally intended) allows for many branching sects. Because we believe the entity you call God (we call it the Supreme Being or the Divine) is an omnipresent and omniscient entity. It is formless and yet can take on many forms. It is simultaneously male, female and non-gender. Everything that exists, has ever existed, and will exist, all find their source in the Divine. To put it this way, we're all like drops in a vast and endless ocean, having our own individual properties yet connected as one.

All these deities you see is our limited way of trying to understand the concept of a limitless God - one Being, infinite manifestations. And it doesn't matter who or what you worship, because it all leads back to the Divine. That is why I believe that all religions, theologies and philosophies have the right to stick around. They're all just different paths guiding us towards the same destination.

Yes, I understand that in describing God, we must use both apophatic and cataphatic languages.

What is the theistic nature of Brahma?

 

[Firebird 8118]

Yes, I understand that in describing God, we must use both apophatic and cataphatic languages.

What is the theistic nature of Brahma?

Cool, we're on the same page so far I like that.

Brahma is the Creator, the first of our Trinity (which include Vishnu - the Preserver of Life, and Shiva - the Destroyer). I find it interesting to note here that the highest social class of priests are called 'Brahmins', in fact.

(I have to get ready for a job interview now, but I'll be back later to answer any more questions - thanks for the discussion so far! )

 

[Coriolis]

Everything that exists, has ever existed, and will exist, all find their source in the Divine. To put it this way, we're all like drops in a vast and endless ocean, having our own individual properties yet connected as one.

What do you see as the difference between a religion and a philosophy? Either can inform a way of life, if embraced and sincerely followed.

Yes, I understand that in describing God, we must use both apophatic and cataphatic languages.

I find it interesting that your comments often involve applying esoteric labels to things - by that I mean terminology that others won't be familiar with. How important is this to your own spiritual understanding, and your attempts to share that with others? Is this common in your church - that is, would you be readily understood by your fellow congregants?

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

Cool, we're on the same page so far I like that.

Brahma is the Creator, the first of our Trinity (which include Vishnu - the Preserver of Life, and Shiva - the Destroyer). I find it interesting to note here that the highest social class of priests are called 'Brahmins', in fact.

(I have to get ready for a job interview now, but I'll be back later to answer any more questions - thanks for the discussion so far! )

It's neat that the third person of your Trinity is a destroyer.

We say God the Father/Mind is both Creator and Destroyer, as we normally come to the decision to create or destroy through our minds.

My question about what theistic nature is Brahma was more like: Is he a pantheistic nature? Pansychic?

We say God is of a weak-panentheistic nature.

Good luck on your job interview.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I find it interesting that your comments often involve applying esoteric labels to things - by that I mean terminology that others won't be familiar with. How important is this to your own spiritual understanding, and your attempts to share that with others? Is this common in your church - that is, would you be readily understood by your fellow congregants?

It's pretty common in The Church, proper, especially among converts because the catechism is much more rigorous. Although, a lot of this mystical theology is lost on many Western, low-church congregations, or rather they emphasize the cataphatic aspects of God which angers atheists so.

 

[Firebird 8118]

It's neat that the third person of your Trinity is a destroyer.

We say God the Father/Mind is both Creator and Destroyer, as we normally come to the decision to create or destroy through our minds.

My question about what theistic nature is Brahma was more like: Is he a pantheistic nature? Pansychic?

We say God is of a weak-panentheistic nature.

Good luck on your job interview.

Thanks seems it went well yesterday.

Okay, so I don't think I can answer this question, but I did find an article on Hinduism that may help explain why it cannot be defined through any particular label(s):

Is Hinduism a Monotheistic Religion ? – American Institute of Vedic Studies

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION],

For the higher we soar in contemplation the more limited become our expressions of that which is purely intelligible; even as now, when plunging into the Darkness that is above the intellect, we pass not merely into brevity of speech, but even into absolute silence of thoughts and of words. Thus, in the former discourse, our contemplations descended from the highest to the lowest, embracing an ever-widening number of conceptions, which increased at each stage of the descent; but in the present discourse we mount upwards from below to that which is the highest, and, according to the degree of transcendence, so our speech is restrained until, the entire ascent being accomplished, we become wholly voiceless, inasmuch as we are absorbed in it that is totally ineffable.

-St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

It's not merely about speaking in code or "esoteric labels", as you put it. It's more about brevity so to speak, there's no reason to withhold ideas from each other. Scientific language is not unwelcome, so why is metaphysics to be limited? (I know why) Metaphysics is severely limited in the West due to its turn into hard rationalism (around the 16th and 17th centuries). This is why you have so many Westerners looking to the East in order to get their metaphysics whether it be Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, etc. The Reformation blew the metaphysical foundations out of the West, so now we have MILFs in yoga pants at the mall.

Otherwise, if you have the words, use them. If not, learn them.

 

[Coriolis]

[MENTION=9811]Coriolis[/MENTION],


-St. Dionysius the Areopagite.

It's not really about speaking in code or "esoteric labels", as you put it. It's more about brevity so to speak, there's no reason to withhold ideas from each other. If on-lookers are interested, they can google a word they don't understand. If not, they were never really interested in the first place.

I'm all for being concise, but not at the expense of being understood. Unexplained specialized terminology is just jargon. Sure - people can look it up, if they have time, but as with any statement, the burden is first on the one presenting it to make him/herself understood, and that includes explaining specialized terms likely to be unfamiliar to "the layman". Of course that requires that the presenter understand them him/herself. If you are going to assume people who don't look these terms up aren't really interested, I can just as easily assume that someone who uses them without explanation is not really trying to be understood.

 

[Justin of Flavia Neapolis]

I'm all for being concise, but not at the expense of being understood. Unexplained specialized terminology is just jargon. Sure - people can look it up, if they have time, but as with any statement, the burden is first on the one presenting it to make him/herself understood, and that includes explaining specialized terms likely to be unfamiliar to "the layman". Of course that requires that the presenter understand them him/herself. If you are going to assume people who don't look these terms up aren't really interested, I can just as easily assume that someone who uses them without explanation is not really trying to be understood.

Probably not. Those specific terms are a little bit advanced. It's not "layman" language by any means, but the laymen know these Truths by feel. "Blessed are the poor in spirit". The laymen don't need to intellectualize what they feel. It's me who posts on this dumb forum who needs to intellectualize what the layman already experiences.

I'm the one using the language as a crutch. I'm the one who needs God's grace. The layman doesn't need to understand my words. They'd just as well be surprised that there exists a word that describes what they already know and feel. They're already there, man. I envy them. Lord have mercy.

Which reminds me of this short 9 minute podcast about the intellectual theist vs the layman:

Ask Me About Jesus - Steve the Builder | Ancient Faith Ministries

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

What are anyone's thoughts on Edward Feser? I don't find his arguments particularly convincing, and a lot of them seem to made from circular reasoning and feeling. Like, yadda yadda Aquinas said this yadda yadda Thomas bloody Aquinas.