Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
A Breeze Which Does Not Blow
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="taykair" data-source="post: 176393" data-attributes="member: 9418"><p><em>This is another oldie of mine, from about ten years ago.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>"I am a very spiritual person, but I don't care for religion."</p><p></p><p>We've all heard statements like this. Perhaps we've even said something like this ourselves. But do we really mean it? Is such a thing - the divorce of spirit and religion - even possible?</p><p></p><p>I maintain that religion is the natural result of spirituality. Although it may be possible to be religious without being spiritual, it is (I think) very unlikely that a person can be truly spiritual without, in some way, being religious.</p><p></p><p>Let's begin by taking a look at the origins of the words <em>religion</em> and <em>spirit</em>:</p><p></p><p><em>Spirit</em> is derived from the Latin word for breath, breeze or wind - SPIRITUS. In the Bible, the words which are usually translated as <em>spirit</em> are the Hebrew word <em>ruach</em> (or, sometimes, <em>neshamah</em>) and the Greek word <em>pneuma </em>(sometimes <em>pnoe</em>), which also mean breath, breeze or wind.</p><p></p><p>From the time of their origin, in all three of these languages, the word which is known to us today as the supernatural thing which we call <em>spirit</em> was also used to describe the natural things which we call breath or wind.</p><p></p><p>Why should this be? What does a breath or a breeze have to do with a spirit?</p><p></p><p>The connection should be as obvious to us today as it was to the ancients: A spirit is like a breeze because neither can be seen, yet both can be sensed - both can be felt. The wind can be gentle, and it could also be powerful. Because it was unseen, it was also mysterious. As a breath, it gives life to man. For the ancients (as well as for us today) a breeze or a breath provides the perfect metaphor for spirituality - which can also be peaceful, profound, mysterious, and life-enhancing.</p><p></p><p>So, we see that the transition in meaning from a simple meteorological or biological phenomenon into the word we know today as <em>spirit</em> was a rather natural and logical one. The word <em>religion</em>, however, is a bit more tricky, as its original meaning (at first glance) seems to have very little to do with what we call religion today.</p><p></p><p>Religion is also derived from a Latin word - RELIGIO. Whereas SPIRITUS was a noun (a thing), RELIGIO was a verb (an action). The action, in this case, involved the binding of separate things together so as to form a single thing. RELIGIO was, most often, used to describe the process whereby individual stalks of grain were bundled together in order to form a sheaf. A single stalk of grain was not a RELIGIO, nor was an entire bale of wheat a RELIGIO. Rather, it was the <em>process</em> of RELIGIO which transformed the former into the latter. It was what we, in our day, would call <em>the organizing principle</em> - the action which, for example, changes separate pieces of a jigsaw puzzle into a completed picture.</p><p></p><p>(As an aside: The term "organized religion" would seem to be rather redundant, since religion cannot be anything other than organized - at least as far as the original meaning of the word is concerned.)</p><p></p><p>Given what we know about the etymology of the words <em>spirituality</em> and <em>religion</em>, what can we say about the relationship between the two? Simply stated, it is this: Religion is the visible action whereby invisible spirituality is made manifest. Or, to put it even more simply: Spiritual is what you <em>are</em>; religion is what you <em>do</em>.</p><p></p><p>This is why I say that a religious person may or may not be spiritual, but a spiritual person cannot help but be religious. It's quite possible for someone to perform certain rituals, or take part in a religious ceremony of some kind, and yet not be spiritual. In fact, it is just this kind of hypocritical, going-through-the-motions type of religion (which many confuse with genuine religion) that is the reason why many folks find religion to be so distasteful. However, a spiritual person will feel naturally compelled to do things which reflect his spirituality. He may pray, or meditate, or perform acts of kindness for others, or a host of other things (whether they are ritualized or not) which his spirit leads him to do. These things - these actions - are religion. And the absence of these actions is proof of a lack of spirituality.</p><p></p><p>To make this a bit more clear, let's look at two people who both claim to be athletes. The first athlete enjoys sports, takes part in physical activity (exercise), and has a healthful lifestyle. The second athlete can't stand sports, hates to exercise, drinks like a fish, smokes like a chimney, and eats like a pig. Exactly in what way is the second person - by any stretch of the definition of the word - an athlete? Merely because he <em>says</em> he is? Because he occasionally <em>feels</em> athletic? No, of course not. Unless that athletic feeling which he claims to have prods him into some kind of athletic action, then he is just a hypocrite - a poser. He is lying to himself.</p><p></p><p>As are we, when we glorify spirituality while denying religion. Whether we deny our own religious tendencies or scoff at the practices of others, when we try to separate spirituality from religion, we are like the non-athletic athlete. We are like a breeze which does not blow.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="taykair, post: 176393, member: 9418"] [I]This is another oldie of mine, from about ten years ago.[/I] "I am a very spiritual person, but I don't care for religion." We've all heard statements like this. Perhaps we've even said something like this ourselves. But do we really mean it? Is such a thing - the divorce of spirit and religion - even possible? I maintain that religion is the natural result of spirituality. Although it may be possible to be religious without being spiritual, it is (I think) very unlikely that a person can be truly spiritual without, in some way, being religious. Let's begin by taking a look at the origins of the words [I]religion[/I] and [I]spirit[/I]: [I]Spirit[/I] is derived from the Latin word for breath, breeze or wind - SPIRITUS. In the Bible, the words which are usually translated as [I]spirit[/I] are the Hebrew word [I]ruach[/I] (or, sometimes, [I]neshamah[/I]) and the Greek word [I]pneuma [/I](sometimes [I]pnoe[/I]), which also mean breath, breeze or wind. From the time of their origin, in all three of these languages, the word which is known to us today as the supernatural thing which we call [I]spirit[/I] was also used to describe the natural things which we call breath or wind. Why should this be? What does a breath or a breeze have to do with a spirit? The connection should be as obvious to us today as it was to the ancients: A spirit is like a breeze because neither can be seen, yet both can be sensed - both can be felt. The wind can be gentle, and it could also be powerful. Because it was unseen, it was also mysterious. As a breath, it gives life to man. For the ancients (as well as for us today) a breeze or a breath provides the perfect metaphor for spirituality - which can also be peaceful, profound, mysterious, and life-enhancing. So, we see that the transition in meaning from a simple meteorological or biological phenomenon into the word we know today as [I]spirit[/I] was a rather natural and logical one. The word [I]religion[/I], however, is a bit more tricky, as its original meaning (at first glance) seems to have very little to do with what we call religion today. Religion is also derived from a Latin word - RELIGIO. Whereas SPIRITUS was a noun (a thing), RELIGIO was a verb (an action). The action, in this case, involved the binding of separate things together so as to form a single thing. RELIGIO was, most often, used to describe the process whereby individual stalks of grain were bundled together in order to form a sheaf. A single stalk of grain was not a RELIGIO, nor was an entire bale of wheat a RELIGIO. Rather, it was the [I]process[/I] of RELIGIO which transformed the former into the latter. It was what we, in our day, would call [I]the organizing principle[/I] - the action which, for example, changes separate pieces of a jigsaw puzzle into a completed picture. (As an aside: The term "organized religion" would seem to be rather redundant, since religion cannot be anything other than organized - at least as far as the original meaning of the word is concerned.) Given what we know about the etymology of the words [I]spirituality[/I] and [I]religion[/I], what can we say about the relationship between the two? Simply stated, it is this: Religion is the visible action whereby invisible spirituality is made manifest. Or, to put it even more simply: Spiritual is what you [I]are[/I]; religion is what you [I]do[/I]. This is why I say that a religious person may or may not be spiritual, but a spiritual person cannot help but be religious. It's quite possible for someone to perform certain rituals, or take part in a religious ceremony of some kind, and yet not be spiritual. In fact, it is just this kind of hypocritical, going-through-the-motions type of religion (which many confuse with genuine religion) that is the reason why many folks find religion to be so distasteful. However, a spiritual person will feel naturally compelled to do things which reflect his spirituality. He may pray, or meditate, or perform acts of kindness for others, or a host of other things (whether they are ritualized or not) which his spirit leads him to do. These things - these actions - are religion. And the absence of these actions is proof of a lack of spirituality. To make this a bit more clear, let's look at two people who both claim to be athletes. The first athlete enjoys sports, takes part in physical activity (exercise), and has a healthful lifestyle. The second athlete can't stand sports, hates to exercise, drinks like a fish, smokes like a chimney, and eats like a pig. Exactly in what way is the second person - by any stretch of the definition of the word - an athlete? Merely because he [I]says[/I] he is? Because he occasionally [I]feels[/I] athletic? No, of course not. Unless that athletic feeling which he claims to have prods him into some kind of athletic action, then he is just a hypocrite - a poser. He is lying to himself. As are we, when we glorify spirituality while denying religion. Whether we deny our own religious tendencies or scoff at the practices of others, when we try to separate spirituality from religion, we are like the non-athletic athlete. We are like a breeze which does not blow. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Paranormal Forum
Spirituality & Mysticism
A Breeze Which Does Not Blow
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top