Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Karen,
    		I can only explain it in the way it's has meaning for
    myself and it may not be what your looking for, nor is it anyone
    necessarily anyone else's experience.

    Faith is a gift from God. It is His revelation of Himself to us 
    through Jesus Christ.

    Religion is our response to that faith. We receive faith, and because
    of faith we are desire to be closer to God. 

    Does current organized religion help us to get closer to God ? Not 
    always but, most often what religion does do, is give us  a community
    of people who have experienced God in the same way as ourselves and 
    who can come together and worship that same God. Also, within that 
    community, God is revealed more fully, because as Jesus said, "the
    kingdom of God is within us," and we attempt to share that kingdom with each
    other. Religions tend to fail for most people, because people tend to
    seek God through the religion itself, and not through Him alone. Again
    religion is an response or action that we make in response to our
    faith. 

    Keep in mind that Churches are full of sinners and not righteous people. 
    Any religion claiming to be righteous is not what Jesus came to call.
    For He said, "I came to call sinners, not the righteous." Being that we
    are sinners, it would be a poor place to try and find God. However,
    understanding the forgiveness of God, we can better understand, why
    there are people in those churches.

    The best testimony of faith that I have read, and although it is
    probably fiction, but is nevertheless an account of the authors own
    faith, is in the book by Daniel Defoe, "Robinson Caruso."

    Robinson Caruso, has a conversion experience while being stranded
    on an Island. In is experience he comes to realize his sinfulness,
    and then the forgiveness of God. He says of it; "of all the tribulations
    I have experienced in life, no greater relief was there than the
    knowledge that my sins have been forgiven by God."
    	
    I feel like I'm preaching, so I'll just shut up and let go and let God.

    Peace
    Jim

I have always been interested in this.  A couple of years ago, my 
in-laws wrote my wife and me a letter expressing concern in our lack of 
church-related activity.  It was a heart-felt letter which genuinely had 
our best interests in mind.  We spent much time considering there letter 
and offered a fairly lengthy, but substantive reply.  I'm going to enter 
that letter in the next couple of replies.  It's kind of long, even 
though I've cut out some of it, so I'll enter it as two replies in order 
to honour the guidelines regarding brevity of notes (I hope is this 
isn't cheating :-)  ).

Jeff

Dear Folks:

<personal intro stuff removed>

Though we may not seem to be very religious, we do consider ourselves to 
be Christians, and we gave much thought to this aspect of our lives 
prior to our marriage.  The compatibility of our thoughts in this area 
was so complete that it played a significant role in our decision to get 
married and share our lives together.  Our mutual understanding is based 
on our ideas of what it means to lead a spiritual life.  We would like, 
through this letter, to share some of these ideas with you.

Our lives are based on the following principles and, in our minds, 
activities in accordance with these principles constitute a spiritual 
life.  These principles are not from any text, nor are they part of any 
doctrine.  They are written here for the first time in order to share 
with you this important aspect of our lives.

1. We honour all life.

All life is divine in essence.  While we do not support or condone all 
activities or expressions which we may witness, we honour the underlying 
divinity in all life.

2. We respect all religions as paths to God.

The great religious traditions of the world arose in different cultures 
and different circumstances, but all with the goal of bringing man 
closer to God.  They all have value.  No one of them is better than the 
others, and no one of them is right for everyone.

3. We serve God by serving mankind.

Service based on love and compassion helps those who are served, those 
who serve, and sets an example for others who have the capacity to give 
of themselves.  All individuals are connected through their common 
relation to God. Serving an individual serves all mankind, bringing all 
mankind closer to God.

4. We offer our services through an organized group.

The effect and activities of a coherent group are more powerful, by orders 
of magnitude, than those of individuals working alone.  By working as 
integral parts of an organized group we significantly increase our 
effectiveness in service.

5. We strive to be completely harmless.

In support of our attitude of "honouring all life," we do our best to 
cause no harm, in any form, to any life.

6. We strive to be humble.

We strive to approach life and all activities in a humble manner.  
Though we are confident in our approach to life, we do not consider 
ourselves to be "better" than anyone else.  We seek to eliminate the 
pride which reduces the capacity to serve.  Through humility we hope to 
offer the greatest service possible.

7. We seek Truth.

We seek Truth in our understanding and in all activities, no matter what 
the cost to us personally.  This means that we hold Truth to be more 
important than any personal concerns.  In all situations, we seek to do 
what is best.

Our focus as Christians is to do our best to live in accordance with the 
principles which were exemplified in the life of Christ.  We think, 
correctly or incorrectly, that the principles outlined in this letter 
are representative of Christ's teaching which he also lived as an 
example.  His focus was on service throughout His earthly life.  He 
served through His teaching, when He healed the sick, when He fed the 
poor, and no doubt in other ways as well.  The amount of time we spend 
in service is simply an attempt to begin following that example.

Many people spend their entire lives actively attending church, donating 
their money, etc., without any significant commitment or even 
understanding of why they do what they do.  For many it is simply a form 
of divine insurance, "just in case."  At the same time there are many who 
lead very balanced lives, always mindful of their responsibility to their 
family and community.  

For the former group, church is little more than a social gathering.  
Though these people may go through the motions of what might be considered 
by some to be a "religious" life, this type of situation does not constitute 
what we would call a *spiritual* life.  For the latter group, however, the 
church is more of an anchor, directly tying them to their faith.  The church 
provides a very valuable service to this latter group of people.

It is important to us not to fall into the first group described above.  
In our thinking, if Christ was among us in physical form today, it would 
matter little if we went to church regularly or donated large sums of 
money.  The important thing, as we view it from His example, is 
demonstrating these principles in service to humanity.  

The church, as you pointed out, offers people a place for worship, 
education in the teachings of the faith, and a platform for evangelism. 
*Each* of these aspects of the church is important.  Each of these things, 
however, can be viewed quite differently by different people.  For us, 
worship is a quiet, private activity which takes place both in and outside 
the home.  In the home, we worship God through prayer and regular periods 
of quiet contemplation.  Outside the home, we worship God by serving His 
children.  When we serve humanity we are serving the Christ spirit within 
each individual.  Our worship, in this sense, is similar to your 
description of evangelism.

Education, both giving and receiving, is also important.  In terms of 
giving, we do not spend much time trying to teach or convey our 
understanding to others.  It is our hope that we might set an example 
which others will deem valuable, and that they might in turn offer 
themselves in service.  In terms of receiving knowledge, we realize that 
there is much information available through the church as well as through 
other sources.  We tend to think that too many people spend too much time 
hearing the same things over and over without *doing* anything about what 
they have learned.  Often it is necessary for people to hear something 
repeatedly before taking responsibility for the meaning.  We seek to 
practice what we already know.  We don't close our minds to knowledge, 
ideas or information; we simply don't make that the central point of 
focus.

We are not trying to rationalize, through these words, the replacement of 
the church with a new set of activities.  We are, however, trying to 
share with you the reasons why we do not feel any lack in the spiritual 
aspect of our lives.  When loved ones spend significant amounts of time 
focussed in one area, as we do with [our volunteer work], it is natural 
to wonder whether or not balance is being maintained.  It is probably 
important that we assure you that when we share ideas as we are in this 
letter, we are speaking for ourselves, not [our volunteer group].  Others 
in our service group may or may not have similar views.  [Our service 
organization] does not hold its volunteers to any doctrine, nor does it 
espouse any particular doctrine.   Our group is very close-knit because 
of our common focus on service.  

The basic ideas we are trying to convey here are:

  o  We have a strong set of shared values which we try to live by, and 
which are definitely based on the fundamentals of Christianity:  those 
values which were exemplified in the life of Christ.

  o  We are very confident (and thus far pleased) with our current 
direction and focus.  

Having said all of this, we should now say that, though we are very 
confident and stable in our understanding and practices, we could be 
wrong.  We do not have a monopoly on truth.  We do not think that 
everyone else should be doing what we are doing; nor do we feel any need 
to doubt our understanding or commitments.  Our primary concern is that 
we feel comfortable in our hearts that the direction of our lives is 
appropriate and valuable; and such is the case.

It is our hope that, though you may not agree with some of our ideas, 
you will see integrity in our lives and can respect our decisions, 
whatever they may be.  If you should ever have doubts or concerns about 
our lifestyle you are invited to bring them to our attention.  We will 
gladly listen to any ideas you wish to share.

<personal closing remarks removed>

Jeff

I have a small confession.  I frequently use "religion" and "spirituality"
interchangeably.

To me, one's spirituality has much to do with one's religious outlook.
The institutional aspect may or may not be a significant part of that
religious outlook.

Perhaps I'm too ecumenical.  While a member of one church which *could*
reasonably be labelled traditional, even conservative or Fundamentalist,
I also frequent other gatherings, including unprogrammed Friends (Quaker),
Roman Catholic, United Methodist, and Unitarian Universalist.

Peace,
Richard

    Re: Basenote
    
    Karen,
    
    For a technical definition you'll it in the dialectic analysis of the
    words, religion and spirituality;
    
    	re-ligion: means to bind you back [to God], note prefix re.
    
    	spirituality:  is the present expression of things spiritual,
    spirit.
    
    So, IMO, Religion, as you've mentioned, is a form of worship, which by
    and large is intended to help you "draw nigh to God".  All "religions"
    seek to bind you to some God.
    
    Spirituality, is the advanced stage of worship, when you have
    transformed from wanting to be close to God, to being close to God, and
    in fact a direct expression of God.
    
    You mentioned having made a transition from Religion to Spirituality,
    after the church had taken a certain stance with you.  The same
    happened to me.  However, as I look back with understanding the role of
    the church and religion, it had taken me as far as it could take me,
    and when I became ready I was kicked out of the nest.  I wonder do
    birds hold grudges for being kicked out of their nests?  I thought
    probably not and now do participate in church activities again...do not
    forsake the fellowshipping with the assembly of those for Christ.
    
    Playtoe

    Karen,
    
    I'm afraid I'll have to disagree a bit with the conclusions of note .6,
    though not with the basic methodology. While we certainly need to
    understand the technical definitions of the words under scrunity, we
    really need to explore them as used Biblically if we're going to arrive
    at a difinitive position. This approach in fact brings you closer to
    some of the earlier responses you received.
    
    In the N.T., the most common word translated "religious", is the greek
    word - threskos. While it generally denotes religious worship, it more
    particularly refers to a careful devotion to the externals of divine
    service. It has to do more with actions in a generic sense. i.e. one
    can in the truest sense of the word pay a religious devotion to any
    given pursuit - but especially here to the outward acts of
    Christianity.
    
    To be "spiritual" in contrast has more to do with the actual internal
    condition of the individual. Here the N.T. word is - pneumatikos. It is
    in fact never used in the gospels, but doesn't come into use until after
    the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost in Acts 2.
    
    It refers to the person who is indwelt and motivated by the Holy
    Spirit. One who is quite literally - Spirit controlled, as in The Holy
    Spirit, not man's or any other. 
    
    It is our spirituality that should inform our religious service in
    light of the commands of Scripture and the natural result of being
    motivated and energized by the Spirit of Christ.
    
    Hope this helps,
    
    Lisa
   

    I think the distinction being made here is between a personal relgion
    which expresses a belief in God without a defined set of beliefs or
    worship and not in a community of believers, and a religion which does.
    
    Spirituality is a belief in the existence of an immaterial soul or
    spirit.  Spirituality is common to all religions.

    Sorry, but that is not the distinction that I am making.  I am making
    the distinction between organized religion and spirituality.  
    
    Karen

Karen,

	To address your basenote a little more, I would acknowledge that
there comes a time when the teachings of organized religion (sometimes called
doctrine) can actually be a hindrance to one's spiritual growth (or depth,
if you will).

	It sounds as though you may have found this to be so in your own
experience.

	In the movie "Oh, God!" John Denver's character tries to excuse himself
from an assignment saying, "Why me?  I don't even belong to a church."

	To which God (represented by George Burns) answers, "Neither do I."

Peace,
Richard

 

      I've consulted a couple of dictionaries on the meaning of
    spiritual and was a bit surprised to find that it did not
    necessarily pertain to an immortal soul or to some kind of
    incorporeal entity, but also meant intellectual, moral and
    philosophical activities and pursuits or things that are 
    not of a physical or material nature. 
      The dictionaries also, of course referred back to the root
    word "spirit". One definition of this that struck me was
    "the essence of something". You know, I really liked that
    particular definition.
      Some of the most spiritual people I know couldn't care less
    about religion. Several of them do not believe in immortal souls
    or spirits. I would say that they are deeply interested in and
    concerned about the essence of things.
      Not being a member of an organized religion in the conventional
    sense it is a bit difficult to elaborate on on the question of
    religion versus spirituality, but there is an analogy to an activity
    I participate in that might fit. Perhaps some of you can tell me
    if I am off base on this.
      Running is my primary form of exercise. Yes, I am one of those
    crazy people you see out in all kinds of weather huffing and puffing
    along the side of the road. It is a solitary and sometimes painful
    activity, but there is nothing us like it for those of us who find
    something in this activity that no other seems to provide.
      Every now and then I will participate in a race. An event perhaps
    best described a bunch of people together who are all by themselves.
    A kind of group solitude, to use an oxymoron. There is of course a
    sense of camaraderie and a race is very much a competition, more so
    against one's self than other people to tell you the truth. At the
    heart of the thing, the essence if you will, is the shared love of
    a particular activity.
       Perhaps the difference between spirituality and religion is like
    the difference between a solitary run and participating in a race
    An attempt to communicate something that cannot be described by
    the means of shared experience. 
   


                                                               Mike
        
    

    re: 7
    
    I see no difference in your conclusions, sir, only a difference with
    the basic methodology of reaching that conclusion.
    
    Without a technical understanding of the term you probably won't
    understand the full meaning of its usage.  "Religious" and "Religion"
    surely have different meanings.  As you say, however, "religious" means
    careful devotion to the externals of worship (eg which encompasses
    "behavior" in general, rituals in particular), the object of it is to
    "re" once again, "legion" bind you back to God.  "Religious" also
    refers to the behavior and rituals that bind us back.  So when Paul
    says "True religion is to visit the sick....", he's saying simply that
    "true religion" is performing the acts that bind us back to God, which
    is "religious" behavior, "not the hearers, but the DOERS".
    
>    It has to do more with actions in a generic sense. i.e. one
>    can in the truest sense of the word pay a religious devotion to any
>    given pursuit - but especially here to the outward acts of
>    Christianity.
    
    I would say, the "only on the second time and more" would an act be
    considered a "religious" act. 
    
>    To be "spiritual" in contrast has more to do with the actual internal
>    condition of the individual. Here the N.T. word is - pneumatikos. 
    
    Ahem...is this not just another way of saying the same thing.
    
    Personally, I'm offended at you pointing to and devaluing my 
    explanation only to say the same thing I said in a different way.  You
    could have simply said another way of looking at it is [so and so], you
    didn't have to make a comment on my reply...I'm not upset and hope you
    arent' by my reply here. 
    
    The note may be to Karen, and she may be a friend of yours, but surely
    many other read onlys are reading and please be more careful.
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    re: 8
    
    Religion is commonly associated with "God", but technically does not
    have to be.  Man and animals are basically "religious", or creatures of
    habit.  Nothing in the root of the term implies the object of "God".
    
    Spirituality, is more than a belief, but is the "dwelling in" a belief,
    as in "the children of God shall know the truth and DWELL IN IT".  As
    we dwell in or act out of belief that constitutes spirituality.  That's
    why both terms must be also qualified in terms of "God"; Christian
    Religion, Religion of God, Spirit of God, "Spirit or truth vs Spirit of
    Error"...every form of Spirituality is not "a belief in an "immaterial
    soul or spirit".  A "materialistic" person, such as belief in a
    material only reality, is a form of spirituality.  There are spirits of
    darkness and of light.
     
    Spirituality, however, is common to all religions or religious
    behavior, as long as one is operating out of a set of beliefs.
    
    God is a Spirit.    The Word was God....thus God is the Word. 
    Spirituality is therefore believing and operating out of the knowledge
    of a Word...as opposed to animal instinct and/or lust.
    
    Playtoe

    Re 10
    
    I saw that movie just the other day!
    
    And Richard I think that is an excellent example of Spirituality.
    
    As the scriptures say, there will come a time when "I will put my words
    in your minds and in hearts and you will be my people" and I imagine on
    that day we will not need the physical church any more but we shall be
    that church.
    
    Also, Religion did not always exist, and became only necessary when men
    had fallen too far away from God.  On the same token, Jesus would not
    have had to come and die unless man had needed salvation from
    wickedness...I came to save the righteous but the wicked from
    destruction....we needed religion.
    
    Again, excellent analogy.
    
    Playtoe

    Thank you everyone.  The responses here have been excellent and very
    thought provoking.  I appreciate the input.
    
    Karen

    re:299.13
    
    Playtoe,
    
    Whooooa, what was that all about?
       If I said ANYTHING that in any way offended you, forgive me, that
    was the farthest thing from my mind. I expressed a different opinion
    from yours, but I in no way intended to, nor do I believe did, devalue
    your explaination. If I didn't explain our fundamental difference in
    clear enough terms, allow me to do so now.
       Your approach to Karen's question was to define the terms "religion"
    and "spirituality" in light of the english usage and etymology. A
    legitimate and necessary action. In contrast, believing that religious
    and spiritual questions can best be understood in their Biblical
    context, I stove to explore the original Greek expressions behind the
    english ones. I did this because sometimes the english translation
    lacks in the full expression of the original word, and sometimes the
    english word changes over time in respect to its current usage, and its
    usage at the time of translation.
       My point simply, was that the mere current technical definitions
    are not sufficient to obtain a full understanding of what their root
    terms conveyed as expressed in the Bible. Hence our definitions of the
    word spirituality do appear to differ. However, I don't find this a
    reason for conflict, but an opportunity for deeper discussion.
       
    I hope this clarifies,
    Till next time,
    Lisa

    If you care to, you can semantically degrade "spirituality" from the
    belief in existence of an immaterial soul or spirit to "essence" using
    any dictionary.  Then you'll be talking about someone's spirituality by
    saying "Gee, she's got a lot of team spirit".
    
    To use that word, "essence": the essence of religion is not one but a
    whole set of beliefs relating to the unseen, non-physical creation.
    
    Religon: the word fits, even it makes people uncomfortable.

    Re: 17
    
    First, Lisa, let me apologize for calling you "sir"...:-)
    
    Secondly, when you said (in note .7) that you "disagreed with my
    conclusions", I looked forward to hearing what other conclusion you
    had reached.  However, after reading your note I didn't really see a
    difference...and then it bothered me as to why you said  you disagreed
    with my note only to say the same basic thing I had said.
    
    Now, as to English eytomology of Spirit and Religion, I believe that's
    the most that can be done.  In other words, I don't believe there is a
    greek term for Spirit (the closest to it is "psyche") and nor is there
    a greek term for religion.  They are both from Latin.  
    
    Also, you never defined "religion" but instead "religious".
    
    Some, or maybe even yourself, may consider it "too semantical" to delve
    into the knowledge of a word like this, but "Dialectics" is a whole
    field of academics, and it is quite important to know the word and it's
    roots to understand its usage or how to use it.
    
    I'm quite into philosophy and logic and dialectical analysis of words. 
    It seems important to the study of religion because of the many
    translations.  So please bear with me if I analysis the words too
    deeply, but it is important for me to do so, because word meaning and
    usage is rather tricky and can be a tool of deception to the ignorant.
    
    Anyway, all I was saying was this.  You pointed to my note in
    disagreement, not talking to me though, but talking to another, Karen. 
    Yet, you didn't say anything significantly different, but merely put it
    in other words.  I don't know but I felt like I was being "kicked to
    the side"...which if you had made a definite other argument I could
    understand it and see the justification in your disagreement with my
    note.  I felt like you had a need to be "mentor" or "counsellor" for
    Karen, and that you wanted her to understand the matter in your terms
    only, by the way you used my note to explain it to her.
    
    Anyway...I'm OK, you're OK!
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 18
    
    What is this "Immaterial Soul" thing?  Every "soul" has substance, is 
    MATERIAL.  Corporeality is the nature of the soul, Incorporeality is
    the nature of the Spirit.  
    
    I also understand where you are coming from with that term...some greek
    philosophers used it.  But "Spirit" goes beyond the reality of the
    soul.  As the scripture says, "God's word is sharper than any two edged
    sword, even to the dividing of SPIRIT and SOUL."  Now if Spirit and
    Soul were the same thing then why would Paul, inspired by God, say
    this?
    
    Spirit, like essence (as you defined it), is manifested by "not one but 
    a whole set of beliefs relating to the unseen, non-physical creation." 
    It takes a "set" of beliefs to manifest "spirit/spirituality" or an
    "essence".
    
    Playtoe

    We move from one semantic error to another.  What do you think
    "material" means?  To me and most dictionaries it means "physical,
    detectable by the senses or phyical measurment".
    
    Is the soul is "material"?
    
    In mainstream Christian theology, the human being is composed of a
    mortal body and an immortal soul.
    
    Is that common ground for this disucssion and least among Christians
    here?
    
    I don't know about "beyond the reality", I'll have to think about that
    phrase, but I do know that the Bible in Hebrews 4:12 is talking about
    things that can't normally be be divided, some translations render it
    as "spirit and life".  Stating that God's word is powerful enough to
    divide what can't be divided is consistent with the scriptural message.

    Re: 21
    
    Well, as I understand the Theology of Religion, the reduction of terms
    semantically occurred during the Greek exposure and expression of
    religious concepts as they understood them from the Egyptians.
    
    The idea of an "Immortal Soul", is such a reduction.  The soul is not
    Immortal, is a "Mortal Soul".  Animals have souls, but lack Spirit.  
    
    The OT says, "And God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and
    man became a LIVING soul"...and shortly after it says, "unless man
    takes from the tree of life and live forever."  
    
    In the OT men had "souls", but they were not immortal then.  Only after
    Christ came bringing the Holy SPIRIT upon us did man learn of and come
    to possess "eternal life" in the SPIRIT.  By the Spirit, our MORTAL
    bodies/souls are "quickened", but the SPIRIT is the immortal essence of
    life.
    
    When you speak of "physical, detectable by the senses or physical
    measurement" it means to me the SOUL as manifested in the form of Body. 
    We can sense the soul as it animates the body, the Spirit does not
    animate the body, that's why it (flesh) is cast off at death, the soul
    dissolves with the physical body, but the Spirit when "formed in you"
    (ref Galatians and other books) is immortal.  This is what I gather as
    the "separating of soul and spirit."
    
    Greeks translated the scriptures, they did not originate them.  And in 
    the English the meaning is even more obscure...the original meaning,
    the originators of biblical principles and concepts, however, are the
    Egyptians...not the Hebrews.  The Hebrews received it as they came out
    of Egypt, from Moses who was "learned in all the knowledge of the
    Egyptians".  Galatians also speaks of the "allegory" of Mt. Sinai.  
    
    Playtoe

  Re.18

   Pat:
        I think the degradation of the concept of spirituality is 
      accomplished by narrowing it down to a specific theological
      viewpoint.
        It that case you are excluding the spiritual and intellectual
      life of a great many people. I categorically reject your claim
      that we could comment on  spirituality by saying "Gee, she's got
      a lot of team spirit." This is straw woman. No one has suggested that
      such a thing can or should be done. Actually, to use my definition
      you would say, "She has a lot of essence". While this may sound a bit
      odd it is not uncomplimentary or degrading.
         Your definition excludes the existence of a spiritual life in those
      who do not believe in an immortal soul or disembodied entities.
      It is a fact that those who do not believe in such things manage
      to lead rich, full spiritual lives. This leads me to believe that
      your point of view may be insufficient in its scope.
          I am not uncomfortable with the idea of religion, but rather that
      a certain religious tradition "owns" and defines what spirituality
      is. 
          I do not believe in an immortal soul. I do not believe in 
      non-physical entities yet, none the less, I have a spiritual life. 
      How do you explain this given your definition of spirituality ?



                                                               Mike

    
     P.S. Long time no argue... What are you up to these days ?
          How ya been ?

    Re:.19
    
    Playtoe,
    
    Thanks for the reply, it gives me another opportunity to try and
    clarify what I believe to be our difference in the conclusions we've
    drawn from the terms in question. That I think can be best seen in a
    reference back to your note 7.
    
    >So when Paul says "True religion is to visit the sick...." he's saying
    >simply that "true religion" is performing the acts that bind us back to
    >God, which is "religious" behavior, "not the hearers , but the DOERS".
    
    My contention is that while the english rendering of the word religion
    does indeed refer (in the technical sense as you correctly pointed
    out), to binding one back to God, this defininition is not the best
    understanding  of the word used in the Bible for which it stands. 
    The term implies in this sense, that the act is what binds one back to
    God. But when examined in the original greek, it rather refers to
    outward action as the RESULT of having been bound back to God
    spiritually. i.e. the act itself has no efficacy, but is a mere outward
    result of the inward condition. If THIS is what you were communicating,
    then I misunderstood your meaning and do in fact apologize for
    retreading your ground unnecessarily. I understood you to mean that the
    acts themselves had power to bind us to God.
    
    Just a few more comments regarding note .19, if you'll allow me.
    
    >I don't believe there is a greek term Spirit (the closest to it is
    >"psyche") and nor is there a greek term for religion. They are both
    >from Latin.
    
    The greek word for Spirit is - pneuma, and for spiritual is -
    pneumatikos. The word psyche, is derived from psuche which is the word
    for soul.
    
    The greek word for religion is - threskeia, and for religious is -
    threskos, as I stated before.
    
    I go into this here, because I agree with you entirely on the necessity
    of exactitude in the discussion of these most important terms. But I
    believe that in this instance, the greek terms hold a more important
    place than the latin, because they pre-date the latin in Biblical
    literature. The first latin translation directly from the Hebrew, was
    executed by Jerome, but not until 400 A.D. The New Testament autographs
    were composed in the koine greek of the day, our oldest extant
    manuscript fragment dating back to the first part of the second
    century. Jerome produced his vulgate version again around 400,
    translating from the original greekIt is from these latin version ts   
    that our first english Bibles were produced, but unhappily they
    remained translations of a translation (the Douai-Rheims is a prime
    example). This is why a version translated directly from the greek and
    hebrew is of greater value, in determining a more precise understanding
    of the terms as they were employed originally.
    
    Thats all for now,
    Lisa

    re: .22
    
    As I suspected, we lack sufficient common ground or understanding of
    the terms each other is using to continue.
    
    re: .23
    
    My error in discussing this here is believing that there'd be some
    agreement at the basic definition level of terms like spirit, soul,
    religion, etc. from a Christian perspective.
    
    I can accept that some people don't believe in the existence of an
    immortal soul, and I accept that these people call themselves
    Christian.  It's just tough to have a discussion when people won't
    define terms, and only tear down what I offer as definitions.

    Gonna step in for a minute here.  Um, guys, I am not looking for a
    precise dissection of the terms.  What my whole point of starting this
    topic was for a discussion around spirituality, actually living the
    principles of God's will for us, and religion, particularly organized
    religion and the doctrines of organized religions.  Where I know that
    alot of churches do try to live by God's will, I *REALLY* feel that
    living the principles gets lost in the doctrines of organized religion. 
    The note that was posted today, about the guy who is no longer allowed
    to preach in his church, is to me, IMHO, a prime example of how the
    doctrines overshadow the spirituality.  This guy has worked for his
    church for a long time, had the respect of many people and was really
    trying to live by the principles.  And he got hurt by the doctrines. 
    All because one person wants a strict interpretation of Scripture. 
    Maybe I missed something in that note, and I will freely admit that
    this is one more example supporting my position in not attending a
    church, but what is more important, the doctrines of a church or living
    and doing whatever God's will is for us?
    
    Sorry, didn't mean to be so wordy and I also don't want to stifle the
    conversation in here.  But I had to say my piece.
    
    Karen

     Re.25

            I certainly have defined my terms and I don't believe
         I am tearing yours yours down by providing a different 
         point of view. I believe that this is also a place to 
         share perspectives about Christianity.
            Too hold a different or broader point of view does
        not constitute or degrade how you have defined your
        beliefs. 
            As for being a Christian - I am not, so perhaps some
        differences are to be expected,

                                                               Mike
       

    Perhaps you found an obscure dictionary with an obscure meaning to
    spirit so you reject the definition of spirit as "incorporeal entity"
    the common English definition, and the definition used in Christianity
    since the time of Christ.

    In your word, that's "narrow".

    If you want to call day-dreaming a spiritual activity, then be my
    guest.

    Lots of preachers/ministers/priests lack the training or lack the
    inspiration to encourage in the congregation thought about the role of
    humans in the universe, or if you're a Christian, our lives as an
    imitation of the life of Christ, they stick to concerns in this life. 
    They're not pefect, no one is.

    If your church isn't calling you to live the life of Christ then may
    the Holy Spirit guide you to find a church which calls you to live the
    life of Christ.

    Religion is the means to spirituality in this sense.

    Many religions, and many religious people, do not believe in an
    immortial soul.  Mike Seabury, for example (who is a Buddhist) pointed
    out that he does not; and neither do I.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 299.26 by RIPPLE::KENNEDY_KA:

>     All because one person wants a strict interpretation of Scripture. 
  
        Unfortunately, Karen, many people feel that they would lose
        all if they did not have a strict interpretation of inerrant
        Scripture.

        I pity them.  They cling to the spirit of the words rather
        than to the Spirit who inspired the words and to which the
        words point.  Such people do indeed have nothing but a strict
        interpretation and cannot tolerate any alternative.

        Bob

RE:  .30

Bob, 

  Of course, the other side of the fence is to have so loose an
interpretation of Scripture that anything goes and that we essentially
have no guidance from God on most anything (e.g. homosexual acts).

Personally, I feel that we should interpret Scripture only as strictly
as it was meant.  :-)

Collis

re Note 299.31 by OVER::JACKSON:

>   Of course, the other side of the fence is to have so loose an
> interpretation of Scripture that anything goes and that we essentially
> have no guidance from God on most anything (e.g. homosexual acts).

        Collis,

        The above assumes that Scripture is the only thing we have.

        I believe that God created the universe, and that everything
        from the design of our bodies to the fundamental laws of
        physics communicates volumes about God and how God "thinks"
        and works.  Scripture attests to this, too.

        I believe that God is alive and is involved in history.  I
        believe that much guidance from God can be gleaned from a
        study of history.  Scripture attests to this, too.

        I believe that God's spirit lives within those individuals
        who open their hearts to God's spirit.  I believe that the
        lives, deeds, teachings, and writings of those in whom God's
        spirit dwells are inspired (literally!) by God.  Scripture
        attests to this, too.

        History gives ample evidence that even a people who
        ostensibly hold to a strict interpretation of Scripture allow
        "anything to go" -- and even defend it with Scripture -- when
        convenient.

        History also gives ample evidence that a strict
        interpretation of Scripture is often used to silence or
        suppress those multitude of other ways in which God speaks to
        the world.  "Nothing goes" can be as deadly as "anything
        goes."

        Bob

Re:  299.32

     >>   Of course, the other side of the fence is to have so loose an
     >> interpretation of Scripture that anything goes and that we essentially
     >> have no guidance from God on most anything (e.g. homosexual acts).

  >The above assumes that Scripture is the only thing we have.

Well, it does assume that Scripture is by far the most explicit of
what we have.  I certainly agree with you (as Scripture clearly
indicates) that God has revealed Himself in many and various ways.

  >History gives ample evidence that even a people who ostensibly hold 
  >to a strict interpretation of Scripture allow "anything to go" -- 
  >and even defend it with Scripture -- when convenient.

I would agree.  On a more general note, history gives ample evidence
that any people will allow "anything to go" and defend it with
whatever is important to them -- when convenient.  Those who
believe in the Bible are no more likely (and, in fact, somewhat
less likely in my opinion) to do this than anyone else.

  >History also gives ample evidence that a strict interpretation of 
  >Scripture is often used to silence or suppress those multitude of other 
  >ways in which God speaks to the world.  

History gives ample evidence that a liberal interpretation of Scripture
is often used to support those activities explicitly forbidden by
God in His Word.

  >"Nothing goes" can be as deadly as "anything goes."

Agreed.  I don't advocate either "nothing goes" or "anything goes".

Collis

    Re: .31
    
>Personally, I feel that we should interpret Scripture only as strictly
>as it was meant [to be interpretted].  :-)

Collis,

	Funniest thing.  Me, too! 8+}

Richard

    Re.28

     Pat:

          I found the definition in the paperback Webster's New Expanded
      Dictionary that I keep on my desk, hardly an obscure publication.
          It also includes the definitions you prefer and I think this
     should tell us something - there is more than one definition
     of spirituality.
          I am reluctant to dismiss the spiritual lives of others as 
     "daydreaming" simply because I do not share their beliefs.
          So, Pat tell me just how much you know about Zen Buddhism that
     you can dismiss it as "daydreaming" ? 
          I may have difficulty with understanding a great deal about
    Christianity, it I do not doubt spiritual sincerity of those
    who believe in it. There is room in my definition for both of
    us. It saddens me to think that there is no room in yours for
    those of us who adhere to other beliefs. 
          Basically, you have told me I have no spiritual life. Were this
    not so funny I'd probably be upset.

                                                               Mike 
          

    Mike I don't need sorrow or sarcasm.  My many errors here are rooted in
    the fact that I can't be allowed to use the words "soul", "spirit" in
    the sense they have been used by Christian writers for 20 centuries.

    Now I've been accused of excluding the Ancient Egyptians or modern
    Bhuddists, that's not my action, it's the actions of these authors who
    through the centuries developed a theology of the soul which I have
    tried to explain.

    You're free to believe what you want to believe, I want to be free to
    explain the classical view of spirituality without the accusation that
    I'm denying the validity of the views of others.

    In fact, I support the view of others, namely the certain churches are
    so focused on the world that they block the transcendent thoughts that
    one needs to seek God.
                     

    Pat .36,
    
    > My many errors here are rooted in the fact that I can't be allowed to
    > use the words "soul", "spirit" in the sense they have been used by
    > Christian writers for 20 centuries.
    
    I've seen a person question your definition of these terms, Pat, but 
    no one, (other than yourself perhaps), has not "allowed" you to use 
    those terms.  If you feel your "many errors here" are due to you not 
    using these terms, please, by all means, use them as you understand
    them.    
    
    Karen
    Co-moderator C-P

    re: 25
    
    Sweeney, why MUST you believe in an "Immortal Soul"?  Or, why is it so
    imperative that the "soul" be immortal?
    
    Do you have any scriptural support for you position, being this is a
    Christian dilemma?  Who said it there was an "Immortal Soul" and is
    that one a Christian?
    
    In regards to "tearing down" you personally, I don't think you should
    take it so personally.  Why?  Because surely you didn't create or
    conceive the notion to which you cling, and no one can hold you
    accountable for it.  You will, perhaps, be held accountable for your
    beliefs, but not by me.  I only address the ideas you express and not
    you as a person.  
    
    I was listening to Dr. Rv. Frederick K. Price yesterday, and he made a
    good suggestion.  He says, I believe this verse means this (after
    making a statement that was contrary to what most churches were
    teaching) and surely it's just my opinion vs theirs, but how do we test
    opinions?  We MUST go to the Word, when we are talking about the
    meaning of the Word of God.  So, when we have differences of opinion
    regarding the Word of God, we can only resolve them in the Word, not be
    outside sources...don't you agree?
    
    Do you find substantiation in scripture for an "Immortal Soul"?
    
    Playtoe

    Re 36
    
    Sweeney
    
    Now there's a redeeming reply...I'm glad to here you say that.  It will
    help me in the future to translate the obscure meanings of your words.
    
    I would not have known you regarded it that way unless you told me so.
    
    Truly if for 20 centuries writers, which you read, have spoken the same
    thing about a term which described an act which was older than that
    term, one would be inclined to look at a thing as 20 centuries of
    writers have described.  I use to too!  But, when I understood that the
    ACT preceeded those 2000 years of writings, it compelled me to go back
    and see what the originators meant, and then examine any later changes
    in respect to them...it's a search for truth, nothing more!
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    RE: 37
    
    Surely, I agree.  I will try to understand the content of the message
    and translate to myself any terms we might define differently.  As long
    as I know your definition it shouldn't be a problem...we don't have to
    define terms alike, but we do have to know each other's definitions.
    
    Playtoe

            <<< IKE22::NOTE$:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V4.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 440.28                       Spirituality                          28 of 29
BSS::P_BADOVINAC                                     34 lines  24-JUN-1992 16:12
                         -< Religion vs. Spirituality >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       My opinion:

       Religion is what you believe about God etc.
       Spirituality is who you are.

       Religion is a process of acquiring until you have enough to get to
       heaven.
       Spirituality is realized when you let go of enough stuff to see that
       you've had it all along.

       Religion is practised by going to Church, reading the (Koran, Bible
       etc.)
       Spirituality is enjoyed by seeing the interconnectedness of all that
       is.

       Religion tells you what to do to be holy.
       Spirituality has no rules except to be who you are.

       Religion is punitive.
       Spirituality is not.

       Religion will point out your shortcomings.
       Spirituality beckons you to lighten up on yourself and others.

       Religion is rules.
       Spirituality is love.

       patrick
    

"Religion is for those who are afraid of going to Hell when they die.
 Spirituality is for those who've already been there and don't want to
 go back!"

						-- Bob Christie

    
    Interesting...