Some people may be religious without being spiritual; they follow the letter of their holy books, perform traditional rituals and do not question their religious texts which they regard as the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

Other people may be spiritual they believe we are all inter-connected, part of nature.

Some people are both spiritual and religious, combining their interpretation of their holy books with an understanding that not everyone is the same, but that we are all valid living beings under a supreme deity.

Anyone can be religious, but that does not mean they are spiritual.

Being spiritual requires self-knowledge and accountability for one’s actions.

Religion (with the exception of Buddhism) places the onus on a deity – serving the deity, imagining what this deity wants them to do, which could be good; helping the poor, or very bad; suicide bombing.

The spiritual person doesn’t require a ‘leader’ or even a ‘congregation’ – they simply are.

The religious person adheres to a strict hierarchy, god at the zenith, the more enlightened place women and men and nature together under god, the less enlightened place man followed by woman and dominion over nature.

The above is just my definition. There are, no doubt, other better alternatives.

Perhaps, the gentle OLO contributor would like reflect on what makes them spiritual or religious or both or maybe not any of the above.

I believe I am neither. I think I'm just wallpaper in other people's lives.

Dear Fractelle,

One Christmas Eve when I was a little girl I remember my mother was playing Christmas carols, my father was reading the paper in his chair. I did not feel like talking. I did not want to disturb the quiet magic of the spell. A couple of my brothers were wrapping packages, one was struggling with a stubborn set of lights. It was a quiet time in a home that seldom stood so still.

I don't know why that night is etched in my memory, I don't know why its music haunts me. Perhaps it's because of the peace that I felt that night. Perhaps that peace is something that I'm searching for still.

I don't regard myself as very religious. As I've written in other posts. I believe I've got a conscience for a reason. I believe in parents who teach their children the beauty that is life. I believe in understanding, in forgiveness, in mercy, and in faith. I believe in friendship and its power to turn selfishness to love. I believe in lasting love and the painful growth that it requires. I believe in death and the mystery that it unveils. I believe in eternity and the hope that it affords.

I do not believe that laws should crush a person's confidence or smother the spirit of God. I do not believe that any ritual can limit divine love or seal the channels that lead a person to God. I do not believe in the unerring judgement of men
that ignores the conscience of the simple and sincere.

Does that make me spiritual or religious? I don't know. We're all different. I prize the uniqueness that is mine, and you must do the same.

I hope that this doesn't sound too pompous - but, I don't know how else to put it.

Dear Fractelle... nice to see some serious reflection going on there.

Posing such questions is always helpful and valuable.

Seeing as you posed questions (perhaps rhetorically), I presume it would be ok to scrutinize them a tad ?

You juxtaposed the 'spiritual' approach to man and woman... and the 'religious' approach involving the Deity.

In Biblical terms, the central issue is nothing about control, power or status in male female relationships.. its about 2 complementary identities coming in from the cold of alienation from God, and rejoining that beautiful fellowship that can only be understood by those who have savoured it.

Yes.. God does place a structure in the male female marraige relationship. But that structure is in marriage..not neccessarily in the wider sphere of public life. Hence it was possible for a 'Deborah' to become the head honcho of Israel during 'partriarchal' times.

The Holy book, of whichever faith, is deemed to be Gods word to mankind, so the important question is.. "What is it's nature"

-Is it a 'rule' book?
-Is it a 'relationship' book?
-Does it advocate/command/permit things such as violence, abuse, deception? or their opposites....

The Bible contains much about societal rules for Israel as a nation, yes, but within this, there is also a strong theme of the 'relational'. That theme finds it's fullest expression in the Lord Jesus Christ "All those who came to Him, who received him, he gave power to become children of God"

"Our Father"......

I find the idea of the 'spiritual' as you described it, rather nebulous and lacking in anything substantive, its all in the mind so to speak. You are your own reference point. There is no One 'there' .. you just 'are'....

Foxy

To me you sound very spiritual indeed. I could picture the special stillness of that long ago Christmas eve. And I understand what you mean.

I think we are all born with a conscience, how and whether we tune into it determines how we treat others.

I find my spirituality among the Mountain Ash where I live, in the mocking sound of kookaburras, the warble of magpies; I see it when lying on the grass watching an echnida, indifferent to my presence as it snuffles through the leaf litter. I can feel my spirit stir as I listen to the sound of rain on the iron roof of my home for the first time in months and I know that my tree-ferns will survive another summer. It is also the connection you have when walking down the street and passing a stranger, you smile at each other. The world is a little brighter.

But its more than just how the natural world makes me feel. I have been trying to get into the routine of meditating again - I always feel so much better after, like I do after aerobic exercise.

It is not an easy thing to express. I find it effortless to point out the irrationalities of formal religion. And near impossible to explain my own spirituality; my inner self and how important it is to follow my heart.

It is obvious that if you deny the simple plain teachings of Jesus you will swallow a lie. He is the only source of true spirituality. All others who came before Him were thieves and robbers and all who have come since are thieves and robbers. Spiritually is not 'feel good' but having the guts to identify with the Son of God and in turn serving humanity.

"All others who came before Him were thieves and robbers and all who have come since are thieves and robbers." - and there we have the depth of runners understanding of other belief systems, other world views outside his own very narrow view of the world.

It is a much greater and more complex world than you have ever imagined runner. While you keep you head firmly jammed in that tight spot denying the existance of good outside that spot you miss most of the wonder and beauty the universe has to offer. You are the blind man stridently declaring that sunsets have no beauty.

R0bert

I believe that it is the spirit or essence of things that is important and that our bodies, or forms, are merely somewhat clumsy receptacles for that spirit.

Thus, when one gets that overwhelming feeling from studying a tree or simply a blade of grass it is just the spirit of each receptacle recognising the other. I therefore don't see why the idea of a person's spirit lingering for a time after their body has gone is so extraordinary. We have all been in places that "felt good" or felt bad: which to me is just part of that spirit lingering around.

My mother, who was an outgoing, extroverted and entirely practical and fearless person, was yet one of the most spiritual woman I have known. She could walk into a field where a wild horse was running, terrified and hysterical, and calm it within minutes.

Once, in Egypt she walked calmly into a cage where a police dog that was to be put down because it was unmanageable was growling and salivating. People went hysterical and reached for their guns but she just ignored them. Two days later my father took a photo of her with a daft alsation wearing a floppy hat to protect it from the sun snoozing peacefully with her on her surfboard.

Everywhere she went she coaxed lush, beautiful gardens out of stony, rocky or sandy soil and left the place transformed. She was a magical storyteller who could weave indelible words pictures, and would play wild, wonderful or soulful music on the piano for hours. Many long summer evenings we would forget about dinner and sit in darkened rooms, caught up in our dreams and not even noticing the sun had gone down.

She could detect a lie or b.s. from fifty paces, and communicate with one from half a world away.

She was not religious but her Romany spirit taught me all about truth and beauty and connectedness. That spirit reveals itself sometimes from both of my two sons.

Fractelle's belief system appears to coincide perfectly with how Paul described the human condition in his opening statements in his treatise on that subject in relation to God. (His letter to the Romans)

<<since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made,>>

Unfortunately, part of the human condition is well illustrated by the words preceeding and following that statement by Paul

Preceeding: <<The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness,.....>>

Following: <<so that men are without excuse.>>

I've yet to know of a person truly converted who did not begin with a consciousness of their own sinful condition. We supress truth, when we see the awesome grandure of the Creator, but then we don't allow Him to rule our hearts. This is "alienation."

The Gospel is the good news of "reconciliation"

Fractelle see's the greatness of God, but not her (all of us) own need for reconciliation.

When Jesus said "I am the Way"... he mean't the way of reconciliation to the Creator.

Haha. You lot crack me up. You should all work for Hallmark

Romany

Loved your post - it is that connection that I am talking about. Yes, some people have it and some quite obviously do not (or at least fail to locate it within themselves).

Because spirituality is so personal, so subjective, it is difficult to put into words without sounding a bit mawkish. However, anyone who has followed my posts here at OLO will know I am anything but.

I feel that both the capitalist system of unfettered consumerism (no I am not proposing communism - just that we need some regulation in the free market) along with formal religious dogma, has led to a deadening of our spiritual side. People feel that something is missing and this explains the success of many 'new age' type cults and services and the sense of dislocation that many of us feel.

The balance of our world is misaligned, my hope that with a growing awareness of our impact on the environment we may achieve that balance and harmony yet.

Boaz: "Fractelle see's the greatness of God, but not her (all of us) own need for reconciliation."

Do not put words in my mouth - do not presuppose what I mean - your ability for empathy and understanding are zero; you know nothing about me. All you feel is the truncheon of your religious dogma in your hands and you are completely oblivious to whoever you smite in your zeal. You create division, you are the antithesis to unity.

What I see is a magnificent universe and I am honest enough to admit I don't know how it came to be and I honestly don't care. But one thing I am sure of is that it wasn't the god of the christians - no-one that petty could've created anything on the scale of the world around us.

Hmmm. Hallmark, huh? How about: -

There once was a person called Whitty,
Who came across hardboiled and gritty,
He thought we were all *ankers
or just second rankers
and that this proved, ergo, he was witty.

Dear Fractelle and Romany,

Both of you inspire me beyond what I can express in mere words.

Thank you for sharing you thoughts so openly.

You always give me so much food for thought.

What lovely stories Fractelle, Foxy and Romany - thank you for sharing pieces of your life with us.

I would not know how to define spirituality - perhaps 'of the spirit' in the way we might interact with the world around us or the meaning we might give to certain experiences and places. Perhaps we don't need to define it.

Before coming on-line today I spent the morning in the garden digging, weeding (not very spiritual :)) and planting out seedlings before the cold weather hits. I mulched and prepared a new area for a chicken coop to use in a permaculture type system. The smell of the earth, the picking of last season's vegies (even some late tomatoes) the promise of future fresh organic vegies and eggs, the joy of being outside in the sun doing something productive and natural could be a kind of spirituality. The feeling is certainly one of great contentment.

Interesting topic, Fractelle and some fantastic reactions.

Foxy “I did not want to disturb the quiet magic of the spell.”
That sounds like a very spiritual moment to me, just beautiful! What a lovely Christmas eve!
I can recall some very special moments that I’d class as spiritual moments as well. These moments are experienced as so peaceful, so relaxed and I think that we look for these moments when meditating.

I don’t know if others experience these moments more when they’re not feeling well. I do.

I have wondered why and I guess illness takes us away from the day-to-day activities and routines and allows us to focus on yourself more, on our feelings and thoughts, to find new balance, to see things in their real proportion. Things that may have caused us some worry or distress seem to evaporate- we realise that we have given these things too much weight in our lives. Appreciation of the little things in life becomes more important again.

I also think that we have a better chance to keep our health in balance if we regularly just sit and e.g. just ‘be’ for a while- be aware of our thoughts, our activities, of our needs and of other’s needs.
For some, like Boaz, this time may involve prayer, for others, like Romany’s mother it may involve reflection, nature, animals, music...

Having talked about spirituality here and in other threads, I’d like to say that I do struggle with the term perse.
I think that I am in need of a better word than ‘spirituality’, which to me has a supernatural connotation. To say that humans have a spirit is like saying that there is an additional ‘something else’ in addition to a mind. This is a religious idea.

The mind is just a function of the brain. The brain is part of the body. That’s why the brain and body are responsible for our whole being including our emotions, thoughts, feelings, conscience, etc.

Continued

What do I think involves spirituality?
My list is a personal one and in no way complete but more an illustration:

- Awareness of your own being including the connection between your mind and body, thoughts and actions.
- Feeling the inter-connectiveness between yourself and the world.
- Even if you feel no connection, just being aware of the missing feeling of connection or link involves spirituality also.
- Letting go of the 3D structure of the material world.
- Finding the right balance between opposites.
- Finding a balance between your self and everyone/everything else in your life.
- Respect for life, the environment, others and yourself.
- Accepting and respecting diversity.

Romany, you should seriously consider a career at Hallmark! :)

Here's a definition I googled in case it helps:

adj.
Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material. See synonyms at immaterial.
Of, concerned with, or affecting the soul.
Of, from, or relating to God; deific.
Of or belonging to a church or religion; sacred.
Relating to or having the nature of spirits or a spirit; supernatural.

I'll reflect on it as requested.

Romany,

I hope I didn't cause offense, but I cant help giggling about some of the content here.

Fractelle,

Mawkish - Good word. I looked it up (I'm only semi-literate) and it describes perfectly my opinions on the emoting and validating going on in here.

I think Romany, Fractelle, Foxy and Pelican all need to have a big group hug, and a tea party with lashings of ginger beer!

I apologise for playing court jester, but I think even the court jester deserves a turn with the talking stick.

'Yes, some people have it and some quite obviously do not (or at least fail to locate it within themselves).
'

Everybody has it. Some just don't feel the need to romantasize it.

Celivia

Your description reminds me of the Buddhist meditation for mindfulness, a way to focus on the present, let go of the past and let the future simply be. I agree that 'spiritual' does bring with it certain supernatural connotations, especially when one thinks of those Victorian ladies indulging in séances – spiritualist groups. A shame really, I wonder what other term could be used instead. How to convey the awe without implying the supernatural?

Pelican

Getting into the garden and preparing it for new life; yummy vegetables to anticipate... I started thinking about the cycle of life and renewal, may be that was what you found spiritual. Autumn is also my favourite time of year here in Melbourne – not too hot (usually) the changes in the foliage of deciduous trees, the chill in the early morning air…

Whitty

Just be yourself, you may wish to consider the following quote from Lao Tzu:

“There are many paths to enlightenment.
Be sure to take the one with a heart.”

Mjpb

Thank you for contributing, I don’t necessarily find the wonder that you do in your faith, but if it brings you contentment, then that is good.

Fractelle,

"Your description reminds me of the Buddhist meditation for mindfulness, a way to focus on the present, let go of the past and let the future simply be. I agree that 'spiritual' does bring with it certain supernatural connotations, especially when one thinks of those Victorian ladies indulging in séances – spiritualist groups. A shame really, I wonder what other term could be used instead. How to convey the awe without implying the supernatural?"

Interesting and challenging question. After looking up the definition I was thinking Cevilia had a point but didn't get around to saying it.

"Thank you for contributing, I don’t necessarily find the wonder that you do in your faith, but if it brings you contentment, then that is good."

Thank you.

I've said it before and I'll say it again - God was conceived by us humans. It's our expression of "irrational rationalisation" God doesn't speak to anyone, it's all in the imagination and he doesn't answer prayers. There is no need to believe in some made-up deity to appreciate the universe and the wonderful part that nature plays in our microcosm here on earth

Fractelle I liked your renewal analogy. Whitty you are a card - pun intended. :)

A few years ago I suffered a severe medical condition that impacted on my ability to work. I spent a short time in the understandable but unhelpful "why me" self-pitying mode. The odd thing was that after some soul searching and re-evaluation I actually made some changes in my life that involved downshifting, eating well to get the old immune system kicked along and slowing the pace.

This experience also gave me a better understanding toward others who suffer from disabilities and permanent illness and made me more aware of how easy it is to fall through the safety net ie. just how little support there is out there.

I now reflect positively on this time because while I would not wish this illness on anyone, I did grow from it and found some [spiritual] comfort in that knowledge. Our connectedness to others and to the environment around us is what really matters to make our lives full. We are part of one big ecosystem and we are foolish if we don't think that tweaking one part of it does not affect in some way another part - bit like the human body really if we don't respect and care for it.

Sometimes it is the negative experiences that might provide these 'spiritual' awakenings as well as the positive ones.

What a simply marvellous thread...

Thank-You Fractelle!

So many interesting comments ...

All positive.

Life can be very satisfying!

Whitty - right bakatcha. And yeah, like Foxy said, just be yourself. Besides, I live currently in a country where giggling is the normal reaction to people expressing their feelings or to embarrassment. I once had a girl break down completely into hysterics in a Drama class and the entire class giggled uncontrollably.

I grew into adulthood crammed full of the stiff upper lip and don't let the side down attitudes of both my British side and convent boarding schools. Then, as a poster above relates, I had an experience which changed my outlook. Mind you, being a slow learner, its taken 17 bloody years to learn the lesson!

Group hugs? I too could never get over the cringe factor involved once, and I am still not a touchy-feely person. But hugging? now THAT can be a truly spiritual experience. And yeah, if I was ever privileged enough to meet those people in person I probably would want to hug them...and hope that some of their spirit rubbed off onto me.

Hugs rule!

snake

'I've said it before and I'll say it again - God was conceived by us humans.'

I would of thought displaying your ignorance once was enough.

Pelican

I have a chronic illness which forced me to rethink everything. Ironically, I suffered from clinical depression from since I was a teenager, for which I self medicated (as many do) and suffered the career ruining results of that. However, since my body no longer recovered like it used to, I either had to start looking after myself or deal with the consequences.

Everything we do has consequences – sooner or later. No-one could’ve convinced me of that when I was young, I just would’ve nodded in agreement but I never really understood it at any visceral level. I do now.

The irony comes in that since I have changed my outlook, started to ‘smell the roses’ my depression has eased a lot. And when it does come swooping down on me I can manage it better, even though I am struggling, tire easily and my finances are unenviable, I am happier and more self-possessed than I have ever been in my life.

I have always had a deep love for the natural world around me and this has helped me to some extent determine what really matters. But the techniques I have learned through meditation and changing my outlook; how I respond to situations now, have given me a contentment I never had before.

So many of us fail to nourish ourselves from the inside, concerned only with the external, the material: plasma TV’s, bigger houses or investing in shares instead of our environment, to what end?

A smile is far more energising than a disparaging thought and both show on our face.

Fractelle,

Your story is inspiring (consider yourself hugged). :)

My problem was thankfully not life threatening but life changing - a severe gastrointestinal condition that caused mobility problems (won't go into the gory details) and occasional pain. I am much better now and have been back at work for about four years but take time off between contracts to recharge. I only get an odd relapse now and then and like you have learned to manage it better and indeed to 'smell the roses'.

It sounds like you have all your priorities right and your attitude and approach to life I am sure have helped you in managing your illness.

runner: "I would of thought displaying your ignorance once was enough."

Doesn't seem to stop you.

Perhaps one day you'll accept that petulant little nuggets such as this which don't really have much by way of justification or an attempt to understand other views, are about as persuasive as blowing raspberries into the wind.

God is one answer to spirituality, though it's strange that people simultaneously say god is beyond knowing his motives, but also profess to understand he is good and kind and so forth.

It's not the idea of god I find hard to accept. It's the idea that it's some kind of intelligence that has been outlined in a book written by mystics.

Spirituality is such a broad concept that means different things to different people - some people can see spirituality simply in the feelings shared by loved ones and the patterns of wind blowing on long grass - it doesn't have to revolve around some guy sitting in the sky playing games with human chess pieces.

I haven't been following this thread, so I hope this information isn't redundant, but this link is interesting. http://www.thewesterner.com.au/news/article.aspx?ID=1950. Dr. Rosemary Aird has researched "the links between spirituality, mental health and social behaviour as part of a groundbreaking new study".

It seems her research (and I haven't read it, so I'm not advocating it as being correct, just worth some discussion) finds religion more beneficial to mental health and social behaviour than spirituality.

An interesting article there Graham - though there are quite a number of interpretations.

-

"Young men and women who held non-traditional beliefs were up to twice as likely to feel anxious and depressed and to have higher rates of disturbed and suspicious thoughts.

They were also more likely to believe in the paranormal and that they were special, unusual, or destined to be important, than those who rejected this belief."

-

I dare say it's quite likely that those who have a problem with an authority figure or structure - in this case, a religion - would gravitate to disorganised forms of spirituality.
I think it would be a fair assumption that those that can't co-operate with authority figures are presented with more challenges and are more likely to be depressed.

This would also manifest in a lesser extent - those who question assumptions are probably more likely to question the organised nature of a religion, rather than simply accepting teachings at face value. It may be, that people who are constantly skeptical - or critical if you prefer - are unhappier than those who simply accept and move on.

Good points TRTL on Graham's link.

Do naturally obedient people live generally happier lives?

I do know that pessimists tend to see the world realistically, while optimists tend towards a rosy vision.

However, if you don't believe in god: you don't believe in god, I simply cannot believe in the bible anymore than I could change my knowledge that the sun rises in the east.

I would have to pretend to believe and I am sure that this would lead to more mental illness than simply being true to myself.

Believing in a benevolent god is much easier, I guess. It is certainly a great way to justify much that is unjustifiable (ask the people who bomb abortion clinics).

Being true to oneself and to cause no harm are surely more positive ways to live than believing in something that was written when our understanding of the world was rudimentary at best and highly superstitious at worst.

For my final point regarding religious devotion I present:

Gibo and Runner (see, I don't always have to mention Falwell)

;-D

TRTL I agree that it's quite possible that causation runs from personality type to religious/spiritual choice rather than the other way. But it's also possible that she controlled for that (not sure how, but I'd rather check the research than try to second guess her).

I think we'll see if she'll write an article for OLO and that way we'll get a better idea.

BTW, I don't think you should assume that people who are religious accept unquestioningly the dogmas of their faith. Did you know that "Israel" means to struggle with God? If her research is accurate, it would appear that conventionally religious people are less likely to believe in the supernatural than spiritual. That's a little counterintuitive, but if correct underlines my point.

Fractelle,

I suggest that millions more babies are murdered at abortion clinics than the one or two people who have been blown up by fruitcakes. You are now being nearly dishonest as TRTL in his/her posts.

Dear Fractelle,

I'm so sorry to hear about your illness - but happy that you've learnt to cope.

You're a very brave lady.

A great big hug from me as well!

GY - I think it would be a great idea if you could get hold of Aird herself. This article, written for the general consumption of what appears to be a very broad demographic, is couched in terms far too vague to be able actually to draw any conclusions.

One would need an idea of what is understood by religion (e.g. Wicca and Paganism consider themselves religions but Catholics and Methodists consider groups like that as enemies of religion).

We gain very little idea of what is meant by spiritualism here either? at one stage the article seems to be talking about those self-help books, and being self-absorbed, - and truly spiritual persons would probably consider those things as commercialist b.s.

So yes. If one could get an outline, from Aird herself, of what the research involved it would help. As it stands in this article there is really not enough substance for a convincing argument.

Pelican and Foxy - big hugs back atcha, in fact a big hug-fest all round to everyone. (Whitty is probably throwing up – what is it about being positive and caring that brings out the sarcasm from some people?)

I don't consider myself brave just pragmatic.

Romany, I don't know if you know but GrahamY, editor of OLO, is a christian.

As you pointed out, just what constitutes religion is very subjective. For me it is anything that subscribes to a formal set of beliefs, ritual and belief in the supernatural - this is very broad indeed.

What I have tried to do here is explain that many people have a feeling of wonder without it being ascribed to an outside supernatural force.

Two things in particular concern me about formal religion:

1. There is not a single formal religion that treats women are completely equal. The best women get is that we are complimentary to men.

2. The attitude of all religions that their's is the only correct way and opinions to the contrary means that somehow you are lacking in moral fortitude.

Science is showing the interconnectedness of all things - just look at quantum physics. While there may well be an explanation for everything - whether we humans ever discover that is completely unknown. I wonder if we even have the mental capacity for full understanding.

Contd…

Contd…

Science is also showing interesting evidence of the connection between mind and body:

http://littlurl.com/wtti9

http://littlurl.com/26gal

But not through Christianity; through meditation.

Meditation is a skill that can be learned by anyone – there is nothing supernatural about it. And you don’t have to believe in Buddhism to practise it.

Until formal religions truly accept that there are different world views to theirs and that these views are acceptable and valid, we will continue to experience the divisiveness and hatred that intolerance causes – just look at how Runner has proven my point about justifying bombing abortion clinics.

Another point, while there has been some contribution by males to this thread, not one has had anything to say what makes them feel spiritual, if anything at all. Sad; because I know that men are just as deep as women, for example, just look at male artists.

Interesting link Graham. I note that the respondents in the author's survey were all 21 year olds and wonder if that would have any impact on the results and whether a broader age group might provide different results. I think most 21 year olds (regardless of religious beliefs) are struggling with issues of the "me me generation" including materialism, consumerism and individualism.

Which might also tie in with this quote by Dr Aird: "...found that moving away from traditional religious beliefs to trendy, self-focused spirituality is not making young adults happier." I think there are many factors that make this true.

I wonder also how "trendy" is defined or "self-focussed spirituality" because some mainstream religions refer to Bhuddism as self-focussed and trendy despite its long term historical presence. Paganism is another "old" religion/belief as Romany points out that is sometimes allocated cult status despite Christianity adopting many of its festivals. I don't have a wide knowledge of paganism but believe it was not patriarchial and included many female deities/goddesses.

I always find it interesting that the most disparaging comments on this forum about Socialism/Left (the collective) as opposed to Conservatism/Right (the individual) are from the ardent Christians who are the first to claim individualism as selfish.

We humans are a funny lot but another article with more in-depth information on this issue would be worthy if OLO could manage it.

It's true that I don't think you can assume those who follow an organised religion are uncritical - by and large, I'd say people of moderate belief, in any form, are probably similarly capable of critically evaluating their beliefs as one another.

However, when we look at the extremes of belief and critical evaluation, I'd say we could make a few reasonable assumptions -

People who are genuinely very suggestible would be quite likely to gravitate to an organised religion - as I mentioned, it wouldn't preclude the existence of of reasonable people being there as well, no more than it would exclude healthy people from being in a lolly shop, but bearing in mind it's likely those with unhealthy eating habits would make a beeline for it.

Similarly, those who have a very suspicious or critical mindset, who have difficulties interacting with others, are likely to reject organised religion in favour of developing their own belief set.

If there was any kind of objective way of evaluating this, and I'm somewhat skeptical there is, my assumption would be that on the 'very uncritical' side of the graph, there would be a high number of people in an organised religion, while at the other end, the 'very critical' people would be either areligious or not part of an organised religion.

As a pretty non-religious sort, my assumption would be that the vast majority of people would fall in the middle somewhere, though I think there'd be a slight trend of more critical people, such as scientists and the like, who are a-religious, while perhaps other critical sorts would develop their own faith. But I suspect it would still be a pretty wide scattering.

But of course it's conjecture, though perhaps an article by Dr Aird could shed more light on it.

Pelican, good point when you said, “I think most 21 year olds (regardless of religious beliefs) are struggling with issues of the "me me generation" …”.

GY, I am also very interested to read a more in-depth article by Airds on this.
I understand that, when she talks about spirituality, she is talking specifically about “new-age spirituality”.

I’m sceptical, too, TRTL, I question the reliability of Aird’s research; she compared one belief (traditional religions based on a God) with another belief (new beliefs based on other supernatural beings/higher powers) but I wonder whether she compared apples with apples (or should I say: nuts with nuts?).
For example, if she compared moderate Christians with new-age nuts (the kind that lie buried in mud with an amethyst on their 7th chakra) she would’ve naturally ended up with the results she presented.
I doubt that she compared moderate new-agers with nutty Christians (the kind that believe that computers are a creation of Lucifer and that tertiary education is of the devil).

Also, I think that a lot of new-agers may have been attracted to new-age spirituality for a reason: they might have, in the first place, been unhappy with some aspects of their lives and then try out new-age beliefs or self-help book because it seems like a cheaper fix than seeking proper counselling.
Many people who adhere to a traditional religion haven’t chosen that religion for help with their problems; they have simply grown up with that religion at home or school.

Self-help Gurus not only prey on insecure and unhappy people, they help create them as well.
New-age spirituality is just as irrational as the beliefs of traditional religions.

Dear Celivia,

I totally agree with you. Some people are motivational freaks, they buy all the books, take all the courses, listen to all the tapes, know all the jargon, enjoy all the symptoms.

They pay and pray and hope they'll be saved by any of the hundreds of latter-day profits...er, prophets, who peddle hope for cash.

These are the gullible who think a fairly large cash transaction for a weekend on a meatless diet consisting of group confession, several tearful breakdowns and a handful of softly spoken phrases learned in psychological news-speak, will make them brand new again.

It may do, but it probably won't.

It seems to me we're obsessed with having things. We put ourselves in debt for thirty years in order to own a house. We work at thankless jobs we hate for thirty years in order to have sufficient money to retire with some security and to die in absolute obscurity.

There is another way. The idea is to dream up the things you want to do and then make them happen.

Life is not about having things, life is about doing things.

Doing things usually has a rewarding result. You either make more money than you need without being bored in the process, or you discover that you don't really need all that fiscal security to live happily ever after.

You also die smiling.

Fractelle,

'Another point, while there has been some contribution by males to this thread, not one has had anything to say what makes them feel spiritual, if anything at all. Sad; because I know that men are just as deep as women, for example, just look at male artists.'

Why must men share, communicate, romantisize their feelings the same as women. I really reject societies attempts to feminise men. It reaks of female superiority. Nothing personal, and I know you may just be interested to hear more from men on this, but I think more and more this is considered the ideal. That men be more like women. That there is something wrong with a man if he doesn't want to share his spiritual or emotional side with all and sundry. It's not necessarily an inhibition. And men communicate effectively in their own male way. The stigma of being a closed, supposedly emotionally retarded man for anyone who isn't into group hugs is the sad thing to me.

GEE!

This thread is truly wonderfull. Quite a bit of honesty and self exposure.. Fractelle.. you are doing a great job there.. opening your inner self to others.

Often I see comments which are so obviously coming from inherited or accumulated bias or distortions of what faith in Christ means... it's frustrating not being able to go behind the comments with anything other than speculation.

As I was reading one of your posts (F) one verse came rushing out of my heart. You said.

<<However, if you don't believe in god: you don't believe in god, I simply cannot believe in the bible anymore than I could change my knowledge that the sun rises in the east.>>

And I immediately thought of

"Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." (Jesus)

Now.. you also mentioned 'formal religion' and your 2 major objections.

If you look real close at what Jesus said.. he didn't mention coming to a 'church' or a 'building'..but to "Him"...and that..is true Christianity.

1/ Equality for Women. This is a hard one. "Complimentary" is easy for me to grasp. I don't see inequality in that. All I can say is that to love a woman as 'Christ loved the Church' is about as good as it gets.

2/ 'Theirs is the only correct way' is not about 'others lacking moral fortitude. Its about being reconciled from the consequences and power of sin.

Eph 2:3 "But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far away have been brought near through the blood of Christ."

We are therefore Christ's ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ's behalf: Be reconciled to God. (Paul)

Whitty

Sharing information about ourselves is HUMAN. Where do you get this idea that the discussion about our emotional response to the world in which we live is specifically feminine?

Was Shakespeare a woman? Picasso? Mark Twain? These people thought deeply about the HUMAN condition and expressed it eloquently.

Read any Robert Frost?

BTW, I did forget about Mjpb he did at least contribute to the topic at large.

We (humans) have all qualities of so-called 'male' and 'female' to a greater and lesser extent.

I noted that there were more females than males contributing to this thread – it was just a statistic I found sad, not a slur.

All you are doing is revealing that you are not exactly functioning on your ideal capacity. If you reject anything regarding wonder, happiness and affection as 'too feminine' for the likes of you... I can only conclude that you have some major issues to sort out.

Boaz

If you were sincere in your last post and truly appreciated the honesty expressed here – you would have the respect not to
evangelise. Just give it a rest will you? For once accept people as they are, not as YOU want them you be. Quite frankly, my dear, you have no idea what Jesus would want me to do.

Hi, Foxy,
Some new-agers have indeed become new-age addicts on missions to help themselves.
Because addicts constantly look for fixes, the new-age movement has become a multi-million dollar industry. If the books/courses were as good as the gurus claim they are, one would only need to read/attend one.
If the new-age industry were the car industry, we’d all be replacing one lemon with the next without being able to get from A to B.

“…dream up the things you want to do and then make them happen”.
Sound and free advice- sane enough to challenge the next hot $piritual advisor or motivational speaker.

There is probably ‘some’ advice that has helped some people but most of the time when people feel they have benefited from a motivational course or book, the effects wear off as the novelty wears off and their flat spirit needs to be recharged.

My own free (but not so divine) advice to new-agers would be that it’s quite OK to feel like crap sometimes and to indulge in negative thoughts.
One cannot expect to feel on top of the world continuously. Negative feelings and thoughts are as natural to humans as positive ones. I’d hate to be told to ‘smile and think positive thoughts’ when I feel like doing the opposite.

Fractelle, while I don’t really care whether the contributors to this thread are male or female, I agree with you that sharing information about ourselves is human. I’d have thought that men would be as willing to share as women are given the fact that so many motivational speakers, spiritual leaders, spiritual teachers as well as almost all mainstream religious priests and church leaders are male.
Religion is for the most part controlled by men.

OK, I'll bite. I'm neither religious nor particularly spiritual in my daily life and also by inclination, but in my case I don't think it's particularly gendered. My partner certainly isn't religious, but she's one of the most 'spiritual' people I've ever known - albeit in ways that are frowned upon by most religious types. She has one of the most extensive astrology and alchemy libraries that I've seen outside the Adyar bookshop, and frames her understanding of her life through those esoteric disciplines, and that's perfectly cool by me. At least she's not a closet happyclapper (although she was once married to a West African Muslim).

I've reached my middle-aged uninterest in matters spiritual by a long and interesting route, upon which I've had a pretty good look at the world's major religions and also many less well known belief systems. As a former anthropologist, it was my business to have a good working knowledge of numerous systems of myth and ritual, and in particular those of various tribal groups in Melanesia (including, of course, their mostly unfortunate encounters with Christianity).

I guess my lack of personal spirituality or religiosity is in many ways a product of my training and my analytical nature, such that - while I respect that many, if not most, people seem to need to believe in something that is beyond the realm of empirical experience - to me the great world religions are ultimately massively elaborate versions of the same sort of mythic logic evident among Papua New Guinea highlanders. This is, of course, why the poor buggers are so susceptible to the predatory and competitive techniques of missionaries, but that's another story.

[cont]

[cont]

As for spirituality, I'm frequently overcome by the awe and grandeur of nature and the universe, and also by its infinite complexity. I spend a lot of time alone in fairly remote bush, where I suppose I meditate (generally with a fishing rod in one hand and a beer in the other), and I'm known to talk to animals frequently. Strangely, other people have often told me that they think I'm a 'spiritual' person, but that's probably because I'm also regarded as a little eccentric by some.

I have great conversations with the Catholic priests and nuns in our little town - that sometimes touch upon 'spiritual' matters - but the happyclappers and I tend mutually to avoid such conversations (just like I don't talk politics with many people around here). Interestingly, my partner's astrological skills are in some demand in the local area, and not just by the New Age types.

So there you go - I'm a positively secular and profane kind of bloke, but that's not to say that the spiritual and religious dimensions are entirely missing from life :)

I was also gobsmacked at the idea that sharing feelings and discussing matters spiritual should be considered the prerogative of women. Also, I think, a little offended. Some of the most influential mentors in my life have been men...just as some of them have been women...and if talking about/sharing/showing this side of a person is supposedly a woman thing then is the implication that all these wonderful men with whom I've sat talking till dawn, or gone wandering through forests, or shared magical days/weeks of my life are effeminate sissies?

And whats with "The stigma of being a closed, supposedly emotionally retarded man for anyone who isn't into group hugs is the sad thing to me."? Sure, earlier on in the thread we talked about group hugs. I even admitted that I didn't used to be into them either. I never considered that made me a "closed, supposedly emotionally retarded" person. Nor that it was a gender-bender and turned me into a man. And certainly not one single person on this thread stigmatised anyone else in such a way.

CJ Morgan

You are one big fish I have landed here :-)

What a wonderful informative and interesting post. Anthropology is a subject close to my heart - sometimes wish I'd taken that at Uni instead of Landscape Architecture. But I digress.

The background in your post has given me a clearer picture of the man behind CJ Morgan and I thank you for that. I agree with your summations of the formation of religions throughout the world, I hardly need to reiterate that it is the human desire for explanation that first lead us to creating myths, then religion and finally with the explosion of knowledge, as we developed greater understanding of the world, to science as we know it today.

Could we have developed science without these myths? I doubt it. A part of human nature is quixotic, hence the development of art throughout the ages. Art and science are frequent companions for the brilliant, Leonardo da Vinci springs to mind here.

When I have been truly absorbed in a creative task, such as painting or writing or design, time has altered...hours may pass in this state, and when I have stopped I have been amazed because I felt as if I was only working for an hour or so. This is a type of meditative consciousness - one I experience less of these days. I must find ways back to this. Creativity is a truly spiritual process. While meditation helps a bit, I am neglecting the creative side. I am seeking better integration of myself and still have a long way to go. Hmmm, I guess I have just been spouting stream of consciousness I hope it makes a kind of sense.

Celivia

Nothing irritates me more than those people who insist that you smile all the effing time - a little misery can be very inspirational and besides how would you know if you are happy if you hadn't experienced unhappiness?

'Where do you get this idea that the discussion about our emotional response to the world in which we live is specifically feminine?'

I never said that.

'We (humans) have all qualities of so-called 'male' and 'female' to a greater and lesser extent.'

Yes, and the 'female' qualities are considered the ideal, and the 'male' ones discouraged as disfunction, as you are illustrating below...

'you are not exactly functioning on your ideal capacity.'

Why, because I don't bang on about my life in a self obsessed melo-dramatic way to total strangers? It seems like you are running a 'deepness' contest. If so I suspect it's an illustration of irony.

'If you reject anything regarding wonder, happiness and affection as 'too feminine' for the likes of you'

Just where have I rejected any wonder, hapiness or affection? I only reject the fluffy, overblown expression of it being encouraged as the ideal or norm, or more so the stigmatisation of more traditionally male forms of interraction. What's wrong with a stoic nod of respect rather than a screaming hands in the air hug and how are you, oh you look wonderful! What's wrong with considered understatement, or communication of love through actions rather than words more common to the pre-snag age of men? I reject this over-emoting and compulsory navel gazing like I reject the superficial, sensationalist public mass grieving ala Steve Irwin's death.

'I can only conclude that you have some major issues to sort out.'

Thanks Dr Phil. It must be wonderful playing amatuer psychologist and feeling you are so superior as to question the emotional soundness of complete strangers.

Whitty

If you don't like this discussion thread, then why do you spend so much of your time here?

Makes me think of people carping on about TV shows they don't approve of; why they can't go and read a book or change channels is beyond my ability to understand. Of course, there are those who simply enjoy a good whinge.

Perhaps you could start a discussion of your very own. No-one is forcing you to contribute here.

Whitty, I think they were referring to this thread, rather than OLO in general.
Whilst I tend to disagree with you on most points, I concede for the most part that they're well argued - rational debate is what's needed on these boards, regardless of which side they're championing, so I'd hope you stick around.

That being said - I can see a valid point being made here. You say that males are pressured into this touchy-feely image and it's fair enough for the stoic sorts to object. I sometimes think that way as well.

But on the other hand, whilst I think it's fair for blokes to not want to get on the sensitivity bandwagon, those that do shouldn't be hammered either, and your posts here do come across as a tad dismissive of those that do.

Dear CJ,

Thank you for sharing so much of your life with us on this thread...

Wow! is all I can say.

Dear TRTL,

Why are Australian men perfectly happy to have a regular beer or ten, laugh, play, get pissed, womanise and spend considerable leisure time with their mates, but, faced with a personal or family crisis, are unwilling or unable to share or show their grief to mates or to give or take comfort from each other?

Foxy -

For starters, the 'getting pissed and womanising' is a bit of a stereotype, but I guess it's a reasonably accurate one in most cases.

Your question carries all kinds of assumptions. Firstly, there's the assumption that keeping your problems to yourself is wrong.

If indeed the problem is too great to handle alone, then yes, perhaps that's the case.
Many problems however, aren't this extreme, and perhaps simply taking the situation in stride isn't as much of a handicap as its made out to be.

Different people handle things differently. That's just the way it is - some men won't want to talk to others and if that's the way they are, I don't think they should be pressured to.

I don't in any way agree with the idea that they should have to keep it in, but perhaps these kinds of issues are more likely to be shared with female friends. I know the matters I discuss with male friends and female tend to be quite different, but that's just the nature of things. I don't always wish to discuss my problems, sometimes I just go ahead and solve them myself.

I guess it comes back to gender roles - take the stereotyped 1950s style woman. I'd not a criticise a woman who indeed just wanted to stay home and bake and be pretty and all those outdated gender expectations. I probably wouldn't find such a woman very interesting, but that's my problem, not hers. I'd no more have a problem with her, than a modern woman with some feminist beliefs, who trailblazes a place at the top of the corporate ladder.

The same goes for men. The laconic sort who'd rather keep his problems to himself may be a bit of an outdated stereotype, but if he can indeed handle those problems and he's happy with who he is, well, that's his business.
He should feel that he can open up to his mates, but I think he's justified in rebuffing those that tell him he 'should' do so, rather than he 'can'.

Hi Whitty
I kind of understand where you are coming from when you say you reject “fluffy, overblown expression” because I also feel somewhat uncomfortable in the presence of people who are a bit, as Fractelle so beautifully put, ‘mawkish’. Perhaps for that reason I have a dislike of most poetry unless it’s funny and light.

But I do like the topic, and spirituality, even of the atheist kind, has everything to with emotions, philosophy, and self-realisation rather than with intellectual issues.
It doesn’t help that spirituality is a vague term and therefore people, who like this topic, need to be able to describe what it specifically means to them.
There doesn’t seem to be an alternative way to discuss spiritual feelings without making use of somewhat fluffy language to be able to describe what the term ‘spirituality’ means to them.

I sincerely appreciate your opinion, but you’ve got to live and let live as well and as Fractelle says, we sometimes just need to change the channel if we don’t like the program.

I notice some of Fractelle, CJ Morgan and my own posts have been deleted. Not sure whos handy work it is, but I'm glad there isn't any more posts about my mother on OLO.

BTW: I think for transparency the system should display a note in place of the deleted posts (and who requested them to be deleted) after they are removed.

I was on my way out of OLO for good anyway, but with this further risk of me/my arguments being misrepresented or misconstrued by the missing content I am even happier with my decision. I wanted to advise others of this problem though.

I deleted the posts Whitty, and sent you an email telling you so at 1:16 p.m., just more than an hour before you made this post.

We used to put a note when we made a deletion, but for reasons of economy we don't anymore. When we did make a note we didn't reveal who had complained. That is irrelevant as the decision to remove is made by the editorial team here - primarily me.

I thought you would have been happy that content critical of you had been removed.

For the record, I thought that the posts constituted flaming. Best way of dealing with flames is not to flame back, but to complain to the moderator to take action.

I have had wonderful discussions about philosophy, religion, art and spirituality with people of every gender. When I made my observation that more females than males had made more posts pertaining to the spiritual – it was simply that, an observation I did not mean it as a criticism. I never intended my discussion to be a gender war and that I regret any comment that may have inferred such.

I am aware some people see things in a very ‘us and them’ fashion. I feel sorry for them and wonder just where they do find joy – it must be difficult to be constantly at war with so many differing opinions. I have no doubt that there are things in Whitty’s life that make him happy and content.

As Vonnegut would say, “so it goes”.

Cleverly worded Fractelle. I feel sorry for you too. Yes I know I said I am leaving OLO, but I'm sure you find it more satisfying that I have taken the bait.

Re the earlier contribution by David Boaz

David wrote: "In Biblical terms, the central issue is nothing about control, power or status in male female relationships.. its about 2 complementary identities coming in from the cold of alienation from God, and rejoining that beautiful fellowship that can only be understood by those who have savoured it. Yes.. God does place a structure in the male female marriage relationship. But that structure is in marriage."

Permit me to add a few additional comments. When God created men and women as "complementary" he also created two other kinds of human beings (though the holy books are by and large generally quite ignorant of this one).

He created men who have the capacity to love one another. He did this deliberately - to demonstrate that man's innate tendency to murder his brother was not the only option. On the contrary, men can love and care for one another just as men and women do, and their relationship is in no manner inferior to that of "marriage". Such men are peaceable, not warlike, artistic and sensitive, not brutish or unfeeling. They are spiritual while not necessarily being religious, and by their presence in society God made the world a far, far better place than it would otherwise have been.

He also created women with the capacity to love other women, to demonstrate that women do not have to be chattels and slaves to men, but they can manage their own lives and determine their own destiny without men determining it for them. Such women are strong, self-determined, tenacious and demanding of respect for who they are in their own right. They were given to the world as a message to all other women that life has far, far more to it than being a mere receptacle for a man's semen. By their presence also, the world is a much better place than it would otherwise have been.

That's all. I trust it makes sense?

This is off-topic, but I just wanted to address the Whitty situation.

I hope you don't go Whitty, you're one of my favourite posters on OLO and I always look to see if/what you have posted. I thought your first post on this thread was hilarious. I've not written anything myself because, while I've loved some of the other's posts (particularly Romany's about her mother), and have my own "spirituality," it's all too... um... close for me to post about on here. I'm more in the Kierkegaard, unknowable, unsayable camp.

Despite my Kierkegaardness, and despite me being a chick and all, I also agree with you that sharing feelings is often regarded as female (rightly or wrongly) and the Oprahisation/Dr Philisation of culture can be read (ironically) as a feminisation of culture — where male exceptions, like Dr Phil, do particularly well. I appreciate that Fractelle, Romany and others have stated they disagree, but I do think Whitty's argument is a valid and quite well documented argument, and does deserve to be taken seriously.

Much as I enjoy what you've written on this thread, Fractelle, I think the second paragraph of your last post was passive aggressive. Better to be honest about who the "some people" you're talking about are — it definitely sounded like a backhander directed at Whitty, even if you didn't mean it that way. Real spirituality is never smug, and I think you need to be sure your feeling "sorry for" people is genuine, heartfelt pity, and not just disagreement (which, of course, is always welcome on this site).

Anyway, that's what I reckon. Hope you don't go Whitty.

Tuckeroo. Yes indeedy.

I'm just sorry that this thread got sidetracked, as so many do, into yet another bloody gender issue. We were talking about spiritualism, which made a change. And for once we were having a discussion. Then gender rears its ugly head and bang! right back into the same ole, same ole.

Vanilla - what I mean is that I don't consider that the ladies-who-lunch hands in the air, squeals and air kisses thing Whitty describes has anything to do with spiritualism. To me its the very antithesis.

Vanilla

Great post and I understand where you are coming from.

Now one thing I want made perfectly clear I am not a fan of the Dr Phil/Oprah type MAWKISHness. (I am hoping this word will catch on now).

I did have an agenda in raising this discussion thread, like so many OLO posters ;-)

I was tired of the implications by the usual religious suspects that atheists/agnostics lack any kind of ethereal feelings at all. That non-religious are only concerned with the material. So I thought a chat about what moves us would be interesting and it has been. There have been fantastic posts from Romany, Foxy, Pelican, Celivia, TRTL, CJ Morgan even Mjpb got into the intended ‘spirit’ of the discussion.

I too thought Whitty's first port to this thread was funny and treated it as such.

However, his subsequent posts were not humorous and were an attempt to take the discussion off topic into his own issues of concern. This is why I suggested he start a discussion of his own. (And now it looks like R0bert has set up a thread that is probably more appropriate for Whitty).

Not into labelling people, although it is virtually impossible to avoid. But I particularly hate this division into male-this and female-that; human qualities and abilities overlap. I wanted to avoid all that B/S. It was simply meant as more esoteric discussion. That Whitty had difficulties with the topic reveals a lot about him. And I genuinely do feel for him - didn't mean to sound passive-aggressive, but I can see how it would appear that way. If you could see and hear me, you would understand.

Cheers m'dear


To Tuckeroo, cool post.

Romany

Was writing my post just as you posted yours - we are clearly on the same wavelength - thank you.

It was fun and some good things were said.

Is it ever possible to have a real discussion and stay on topic?

Well we came very close didn't we?

:-)

I'm sorry for steering things into oh-so-familiar waters. I was just a bit gutted that Whitty saying he was leaving.

Vanilla

I will not go all 'mawkish' instead I will try to convey in writing the voice that is running through my head:

In a drippy American accent:

"Nooowww, sahm-wahn needs a huuuugggg".

You're cool.

;-D

I think this thread was interesting and successful overall despite a little gender distraction because everybody was able to share their views about the main topic.
I honestly think that every discussion gets a little side-tacked and yeah, Fractelle, we came very close to staying on topic.

I’ll have a look on RObert’s new thread tonight- it’s good to know that someone got inspired by our disagreements ;)

Thanks everyone and especially to Fractelle for coming up with this unusual topic.