Losing your religion? (364)

I think what is "Holy" to someone is relative to the individual. Albeit, folks practicing a specific faith may collectively view certain tenants of that religion, holy. I agree though, spiritualty and religion are absolutely different things. Spirituallity is one person's relationship with a higher power. Religion is a man-made body of people practicing a structured faith. I've found a way to integrate one with the other. I believe some things in my religion are Holy. I also believe some things are archaic, predjudiced, and downright dangerous. I agree with gib though. Controvertial debate can be refreshing as hell.

take what you like and leave the rest.


Rene

I posted the definition to make it clear what the question asked. You were twisting holy into something it isn't.

Did I fault your beliefs? Did I call you a hypocrite? I said what you were talking about isn't holy.

You said you weren't religious, therefore what I said had squat to do with you. I said that those who ARE religious yet pose the questions are. I guess you were too busy taking it personally to read what it said. I found no fault with your "inner spirit/spirituality" comments.

I'm making comments on the original query and you're off and running with Tumpa's interpretations of what holy is and how the meaning of the word is irrelevant.

If one wants to connect to the "Holy", which to me is defined as a sacred, unimpeachable goodness. Watch the expression on someones face as they recieve a genuine unconditional kindness. Watch a baby being born. Hold someone's hand while they die. Feel your child's love. See your child thrive on your love. Watch the miracle of a plant growing. The list is endless. Holy is what is sacred to me. Not what a religion or another person says it should be.

The passage by Tillich is, in my opinion, philosophical psycho-babble for the obvious reasons...anything is possible, isn't it? Academic mouthful-of-chiklets at it's worst. Theologans don't even ask questions with such loftiness. A passage written to impress by word assault, rather than to answer a question.

Well I guess I should say something...As a youth minister/secondary religion teacher I can connect with this statement. My job is to lead youth on their own journey by which they encounter the Holy (capital "H") through a variety of entities. The statement asks whether or not this encounter can take place, not whether or not we are "holy" (see how I use a small "h" here). I do an activity with my teens where by they write down a boundary situation that they have been involved in...a situation where there was the need to turn to someone rather then themselves. Alot of time I get back stories of grandparents or a pet that have passed on or a boy/girl friend that broke their teenage heart and they share with me who helped them get trough it...a friend, a teacher, a parent etc. And then I pose the question, "How did you encounter His presence in this situation (aka the Holy) ?" Most of them answer quite quickly...hindsight is 20/20. Though every now and then I get a story of the here and now. For example one boy wrote how he got kicked out of his house the night before with only the clothes on his back, no money, nothing, he was 15 years old, but he came to my class that day. When I had asked him the question he couldn't answer, he had nothing but hate for the Holy, he couldn't understand why this was happening to him...he couldn't see the Holy working in his life at that moment. I think what the statement is calling us to do is to see the Holy in the "now" the "Ground of Being" and not just as an after thought which is a hard thing to do in this world of "objectivity" and "subjectivity".

Looks like I've missed some fun here today... will have to get caught up.

I do like to toss up a thread without my own comment and see who bothers to reply. Have several with zero posts which I find quite amusing.

Nice of you to kickstart this thread Gibs.

So still no answer from you?

Reading through the bantering of these last several posts I'd like to respectfully suggest that we revisit the quote.

Epicurus questions whether we can regain the lost dimension: the encounter with "Holy', cutting through objectivity and subjectivity.

The Mystery of the Ground of Being does not speak to me of either God or the earthly plane, but of looking inward.

Clearly then, 'Holy' is 'higher self', and we have the potential to embrace, love and become one with it.

Hmm ... Epicurus? Wrong thread maybe? I think that's your Death thread. Paul Tillich is who you quoted here

If someone means 'higher self' they should say 'higher self'. Words aren't open to any interpretation anyone sees fit to assign them. If I ask someone to pass me the butter it doesn't mean throw a spoon at me, it means please pass me the butter.

At this rate and playing loosey goosey with meaning he could just as well be asking someone to please pass him the butter. He said holy, if he didn't mean holy he shouldn't have used it.

His query leaves no room for questions.

Tillich yes... sorry. Shouldn't be pondering replies to 2 threads at the same time.

It's not simply a matter of playing with meaning. Tillich's definition of the dimension of 'Holy' places it beyond objectivity. Beyond subjectivity. Beyond physical world. Tell me what else is left?