Spiritual question/thoughts

Martial Media, Culture and Other Arts Off Topic
1

Since we have seen some spiritual based posts of late, I thought I would add one of my own, just to opine a bit and get some thoughts. I am just shooting in the dark on this one.

Can a person be christian spiritual without having a specific denomation of worship and do you have to go to church to be fully committed??

A long time ago, some may or may not remember, I was a very staunch atheist who would of given Fux a serious run for his money. Over the course of the last two years, some things have changed that when I added them up, caused me to readjust my outlook on the subject, which if you knew me, would be a huge deal.

The problem is, I still am not a church type of person, it still makes me feel very out of water, I would rather just be private in my own connection with whatever god is, than be forced into some thought factory, by people who may or may not have there own act together.

But if a person does this, if he self educates himself, is he missing the boat??

Thoughts,

Thanks;)

2

Church should educate, not indoctrinate.

I’m sure you could do some soul searching and book reading to come to your own conclusions, but ulitmately you’ll find deeper meaning if you surround yourself with others who have already been where you are at, imo.

3

I personally belong to a non-donominational church. My advice would also sorround your self with people who are not into the religious ( stand up 5x kneel, say 7.5 hail marrys etc.) study the bible and pray for understanding. I would attend a church because a good pastor / preacher whatever they wanna go by can help guide you and push you more in the right direction. you should talk to
JDK.

4

Yeah it’s always good to have a room full of yes men to tell you your right. :rolleyes:

5

Well, the fact that you have a position or opinion on God (yes, Athetists have spirituality too), you are indeed recognizing spirituality. Whether you are religious, that’s a different issue IMHO.

If we think of God as the ultimate reality and ulitmate truth (not a reasonable purpose but utterly truthful principle), then it doesn’t matter what form of religion you practice or not practice at all IMHO.

The Bible is written by men in the name of GOD. To err is human, how much faith you have on these men wrote? Now that’s the question. The Bible like many other religious texts is partial truth relative to God (truth in entirity). So ultimately it’s upto you to know or rather experience God/Dao/Allah/whatever label. Or you can just ignore it altogether. It’s a free world and it’s your choice.

Mantis108

6

If we think of God as the ultimate reality and ulitmate truth (not a reasonable purpose but utterly truthful principle), then it doesn’t matter what form of religion you practice or not practice at all IMHO.

That is more what I am meaning to convey.

7

Got time for a beer? This is one of my favorite topics - although in the case I’m kind of like a Democrat - a lot of opinions but no real clear of what to do…

PM me, man.

8

a persuit of truth or enlightenment;

it is a personal effort of a life time;

the monks/priests may give you some guidance or directions; and yet we make the trip/journey/experiences etc.

–

being in a church/congregation/commune etc. may or may not be a good idea.

–

again it is your call.

–

:smiley:

9

The Book of Romans teaches we are saved by grace (a gift from God, or an act of God) and not by works (actions, behaviors). This means that our spiritual transformation firstly occurs internally, in our hearts and minds. This internal change then changes our outward actions/behaviors and also our motivations for performing those actions/behaviors. The motivation for our actions is shifted from personal gain to the performance of actions because we understand them to be correct or beneficial to ourselves and others.

It is incorrect to considered a person a poorly practicing Christian if they do not regularly associate with other Christians since this is clearly an outward act (work) that does not necessarily reflect the persons inward spiritual attitude. While outward actions may provide some evidence of an individuals internal spiritual state of being they are not absolute indicators. Empty works/actions are actions performed from the wrong motivation that is, selfish motivations such as to gain some worldly or social benefit. So to attend regular gatherings with other Christians for the purpose of appearing to be a good Christian or for the purpose of avoiding the ridicule of other Christians is incorrect motivation. One is to attend gatherings with other Christians for the purpose of establishing and sustaining their faith. The recommendation to associate with other Christians then is for the individual’s benefit and not intended to be an indicator of a good Christian.

The reason Christian teachings encourage Christians to attribute the results of their actions to the glory of God is for the purpose of helping the Christian to avoid falling into arrogance. Arrogance is a form of aggrandizement that occurs as a result of accepting personal glory/rewards/reputation/benefits resulting from the performance of good actions/behaviors.

The works performed by “good” Christians are a consequence of the fruits of the spirit. Fruits of the spirit are personal qualities that occur as a result of internal transformation. Our motivation for performing good actions is changed because now we understand the greater purpose for performing such actions, as opposed to performing good actions for the purpose of personal worldly benefit or from fear of punishment.

While “faith without works is dead”, so are works without grace, or the correct attitude for performing the actions, dead (empty) as well. Actions performed for the purpose of personal worldly gain, while outwardly “appearing” to be benevolent are motivated by selfishness and so are inherently incorrect behaviors. “Good works” are to be born from an internal attitude that understands them to be correct. Their motivation is purely selfless without regard for consequences good or bad and is therefore correctly motivated and is rightly given to the glory of God, not to the glory of the individual!

This concept was also clearly illustrated by the comments of Bodhidharma to the Emperor Wu of Liang. When asked by Wu what virtues (benefits) he had achieved by building temples, ordaining monks, giving alms and charitable meals, Bodhidharma replied, none at all. Bodhidharma and other Chan patriarchs taught that this is because outward good works are not an accurate demonstration of an individuals state of mind/being. One can be mean-spirited, arrogant, selfish, cruel, etc. and still perform those same actions. True virtue is a consequence of personal qualities, not outward actions. Good actions are outward behaviors while spiritual virtue is an internal quality of character. Identical actions may be performed by both types of individual, the worldly and the spiritual, but the motivations for the actions are different and this is what separates one from the other.

10

Christianity is about your personal relationship with god, your belief that jesus was god’s only offspring sent to us to absolve us of our sins by dying at our hands and to commune with others.

the communing with others part is called church in the simplest of terms. I suppose you could take up the gnostic form of chritianity, but you would still commune with others.

it is the same in virtually all religions that there is a point of community with others.

It’s not very christian to be a loner and uncommunicative.

11

Hi Scott,

Aye, a great piece of magnum opus on the Grace of God.

Warm regards

Mantis108

12

There are many non-denominational churches, or you could try a Friends’ Meeting House or something (Quakers - older style non-denominational).

I considered myself very spiritual for a long time, and was more than happy to welcome the notions of the Christian God, but I found there was no way I could believe that Christ was literally the Son of God. Simply through study of history: there are few reliable history books written nowadays (most have an agenda, or sometimes worse - a lack of one and a lack of context!), none from 500 years ago, none from 1000 years ago… so it stands to reason that if any of the books in the Bible were contemporary… there would be no reason to believe them either, just because the author said they were the word of god.

So, it was Church of England, aetheism, or agnosticism…! :smiley:

I’m a devout agnostic… and nothing will shake that! If you honestly don’t profess knowledge on something you’re left with intuition and feeling. That’s more honest and responsible spirituality than most knees-benders ever get close to.

Having said that, I always wish religious people the best, unless they try to force their opinion on me… all too often the moderate religious person becomes a fundamentalist when questioned logically, and the ravings of fundamentalists are the same in any religion.

Good luck.

13

In my opinion (which probably shouldn’t be worth much)

[QUOTE=Black Jack II;758605]Can a person be christian spiritual without having a specific denomation of worship and do you have to go to church to be fully committed??[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. Denominations are just like different styles of KF. You can be a purist and suscribe to a specific teaching or you can sample multiple styles and synthesize them to what you think is the best. Both are still KF though.

With regards to your church question - I don’t think that going to church is necessary, but it’s not a bad idea. Going to a church is like going to a kung fu school. You can go and learn what people who have spent much of their lives dedicated to it have to say and be directed more quickly, or you can figure it out on your own. You will probably spend a lot of time wasted in the long run though, so I would recommend trying to find something you can stand if you’re really wanting to learn more about it. There are some pretty non-conventional churches out there (example: www.steelcitychurch.com).

[QUOTE=Black Jack II;758605]But if a person does this, if he self educates himself, is he missing the boat??[/QUOTE]

Definitely not. Missing the boat would be ignoring the question altogether. There is no law written the stars (or anywhere in the Bible either) that says ‘you must go to church’. If you earnestly seek God, you’ll find him, whether at a church or elsewhere.

14

This concept was also clearly illustrated by the comments of Bodhidharma to the Emperor Wu of Liang. When asked by Wu what virtues (benefits) he had achieved by building temples, ordaining monks, giving alms and charitable meals, Bodhidharma replied, “none at all”. Bodhidharma and other Ch’an patriarchs taught that this is because outward “good works” are not an accurate demonstration of an individual’s state of mind/being. One can be mean-spirited, arrogant, selfish, cruel, etc. and still perform those same actions. True virtue is a consequence of personal qualities, not outward actions. “Good” actions are outward behaviors while spiritual virtue is an internal quality of character. Identical actions may be performed by both types of individual, the worldly and the spiritual, but the motivations for the actions are different and this is what separates one from the other.

I think this interpretation of the concept is incomplete.

to me, the lesson and understanding is that there is not much virtue in the doing of what is easy and that one cannot claim to be actively good through deeds by the doing of which there is no sacrifice on their part either via time or material goods.

One cannot “act” in good ways with evil intention because the result will not be good and therefore, the action was not good to begin with.

If the emperor was only giving out of his self interest, his manifest intention would be undoubtedly different from that of a person who clearly sacrifices.

there is a Christian tale of a woman who is poor and a man who is wealthy. the wealthy man puts much in the poor box at the temple and the poor woman gives everything she has even though it is not 1/1000th of what the rich man gave, but her action and the nature of her being revealed the sacrifice of her giving vs the tainted intention of his and therefor, in this parable, it is indicated that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for this man to pass through into heaven.

so, in my opinion, the tendency to dismiss good deeds entirely because real intention is supposedly hidden is an aspect of passive nihilism that is associated with Ch’an, particularly those who over intellectualize Buddhism in general can get caught in this way of interpreting the teachings.

TaMo may have said that Wu’s actions were meaningless because the nature of Wu’s intention was apparent to him.

i will cede that charitable actions can be taken without a compassionate heart. obviously and that it is akin to thinking you’ll go to heaven because you dump your good garbage at the salvation army bin. :slight_smile:

15

Some very good feedback guys,

Basically I think calling myself a hopefull agnostic at this point is a decent start, I don’t have nor want any specific dogma forced down my throat at any fast pace, its more of a inner gut feeling that started this change of view.

It’s going to take a lot to find where the road is at and where I feel comfortable in those thoughts, a clash of logical view and I guess for a lack of a better word, some essence of faith brought on by new occurances.

16

Hi David,

Bodhidharma did not say that Wu’s actions were meaningless; he said they did not confer virtues. One must have a more complete understanding of Ch’an to fully understand Bodhidharma’s meaning here. The point he is making is that while outward displays may be good/beneficial in the worldly sense, they do not reflect or create inner transformation. It is inner transformation that gives rise to true virtue; Hui-Neng states that “Wu’s mind was wrong…”, that is, he did not fully understand the teaching. Bodhidharma’s meaning was that while the outward actions of Wu confer blessings (beneficial worldly effects), they do NOT reflect/create virtue within the mind. Blessings are outward beneficial consequences, while virtue is a consequence of inner transformation. This inner transformation spontaneously occurs when one perceives clearly without obstruction. This is very similar to the Christian assertion that Grace is a gift from God freely and spontaneously given, NOT something a person earns.

The passive nihilism found in some Ch’an practices have been repeatedly criticized by Hui-Neng, the sixth patriarch of Ch’an, and his school of thought and is associated more closely with Shen-hsiu’s school of mirror wiping! Shen-hsiu was passed over by the 5th patriarch in favor of Hui-Neng. Hung-jen, the 5th patriarch stated that Shen-hsiu stood at the door, but had not entered yet!

The key point is that salvation cannot be gained through actions, only by inner transformation.

Since this is the case no actions of any kind are required to earn or demonstrate a depth of spiritual understanding. That is not to say they won’t occur, only that they are not required!

17

actually, I think it’s a little different than both of the above: it’s not about morality, it’s about reality…

the “point” is that there is no virtue to be gained at all, regardless of what you do, or how you do it, regardless of your actual intentions, because ultimately there is nothing to gain in general

the “ideal” of Ch’an is the Heart Sutra - which essentially is saying that beyond all phenommenon lies emptiness: no gain, no loss; nothing soiled, nothing pure; so the very notion of “virtue” was simply a relative construct that inherently was empty - whether you do something virtuous or evil, it is still, intrinsicly, without substance, fundamentally

so Ch’an is not concerened with things like character, good deeds / intentions - these are all things still bounded up in mind; Ch’an triesd to break out of this, to literally shut the conditional mind down in order to enable one to see clearly the nature of things such as they are: so you could do all those “good” things, it’s just a matter of seeing clearly why - even if you clearly saw that you were simply doing them to curry popular favor, at least you weren’t fooling yourself…

remember, this was written during a time when the vogue was doing good deeds to pay off your “karmic debt”; think of Ch’an as sort of the Lutheran version of Buddhism, telling people that simony wouln’t get you anywhere…it wasn’t a very popular viewpoint at all…and telling the Emperor what he told him was like telling George Bush that Iraq was a huge mistake - to his face, in front of the White House Press Corps, while he was giving you an award

now, don’t get me wrong - Boddidhrma wasn’t telling the Emperor not to do those things - he was just taking the question as an opportunity to give him insight into the ultimate nature of reality - in a way, perhaps it was a “reward” to the Emperor for even doing those thing - I mean, it’s actually about as direct an answer that you would ever get froma a Ch’an master - he could have walked up and slapped the Emperor in his face and let him figure it out that way, or muttered something cryptic about going out 4 gates in 4 different directions simultaneously…

18

[QUOTE=Scott R. Brown;758742]The passive nihilism found in some Chan practices have been repeatedly criticized by Hui-Neng, the sixth patriarch of Chan, and his school of thought and is associated more closely with Shen-hsius school of mirror wiping! Shen-hsiu was passed over by the 5th patriarch in favor of Hui-Neng. Hung-jen, the 5th patriarch stated that Shen-hsiu stood at the door, but had not entered yet![/QUOTE]

yes - I believe that the Fifth Patriach Abott asked all “candidates” who wanted to succeed him to write a short verse about their insight: Shen-hsiu wrote about his mind being like a spotless mirror without a speck of dust on it; when the Abott heard this, he said that this was close, but not quite right; Hui Neng, an illiterate peasant who heard someone “preach” the Dharma once on the street and just “got it”, had to ask one of the young monks to inscribe his own verse on a wall: the verse basically was like “there is no dust, there is no mirror”; the Abott, realizing that the author of this verse was the right man for the job, asked who wrote it; the young monk was like “I did”, thinking that the Abott meant literally who did the actual writing - the Abott, a bit unsure (since it was not impossible for a child to have that level of insight), asked again if he had been the one who composed it; the young monk was like, “no, it’s that Hui Neng guy”; after hearing this, as it was in public, the Abott was like “nope, sorry, you are totally wrong”; however, he arranged to meet Hui neng in secret, for fear that the other monks would rise up and kill him because he was not a learned scholar and all that; so, the Abott met with him in secret to give him the Dharma transmission and his bowl and robe (symbols of his authority) - he then he told Hui neng to get the Heck out of Dodge before sunrise! I know that upon discovering what the Abott did, the monks did chase after Hui Neng, but I forget what happened next!

19

Hi cjurakpt,

You are correct. Words/explanations are merely used as a teaching device meant to point us towards direct apprehension. So when Wu queried Bodhidharma, Bodhidharma answered in a manner befitting the needs of the situation. The conversation was not one of the deeper meanings of Chan because it would have been over the head of Wu since he didnt yet understand the difference between inner transformation and works.

Chan is only concerned with virtue and works, good and bad, etc. in regards to using them as a teaching device for those of lesser understanding. The contradiction of opposites is used as a device for the purpose of getting us beyond the conditioned mind and to direct experience.

I agree with you it is less important what one does and more important why, however from a deeper perspective it is also not important why as this also originates from the conditioned mind.

The question is does one perceive, experience and act with an unobstructed mind. Unobstructed mind is the unconditioned condition, the thoughtless thought, etc. Unobstructed mind uses conditioned mind, but is not bound by it.

Remember that Wu missed the point entirely and dismissed Bodhidharma from his court.

20

Hi cjurakpt,

Hui-Neng hid out for 10-15 years in the mountains and then eventually came out to teach. Shen-hsiu continued to teach in the north at Jade Spring Monastery while Hui-Neng taught at the Jewel Forest Monastery in the south. While their was not enmity between the two as would be befitting of their understanding, some of their followers with lesser maturity had feelings of competition and tended to bad-mouth the other school.