What does "spiritual" mean? What can you say about X in these 3 examples?

1.) Spiritual X
2.) X is spiritual
3.) X is not spiritual

Do not provide dictionary links or quotes, I want to know what you think it means...not what google or a book told you it means.

"i'm not religious, i'm spiritual"

><

1.) Spiritual level
2.) Casper is spiritual
3.) The ghost in Scooby Do is not spiritual

Spiritual to me means the transcendence of God's goodness over Satan's earthly power.

Satan is carnal and has ability to influence earthly events so he is supernatural.

God is over Satan so he has transcendent power.

God gives life via his Spirit.

That's why the Word is lifeless without the Spirit and the Spirit is mute without the Word. You need to grasp who Jesus is before you understand that though.

Also many fanatics are wordful but spiritless.

1.) Spiritual (Minded)
2.) God's Word is spiritual
3.) the flesh is not spiritual

In at least one very common usage (which is similar to your example 1), I firmly believe that "spiritual" literally means nothing at all. That is, people speak of being healthy "mentally, physically, and spiritually." It's a nothing word. It adds nothing to the sentence.

1.) X is probably synonymous with "mental" or "emotional."
2.) If X is a person, X is probably a person who does not understand that theism vs. atheism concerns a topic distinct from gnosticism vs. agnosticism; they probably aren't a mainstream adherent to the majority religion in their region/culture, but "believe in" a force, a power, "infinity," or "something out there." Possibly, this something "connects us all."
3.) This one is tough. I'm not sure. I guess you could say X (if a person) might be not only an atheist, but also have a PhD in something scientific? It is uncool for people generally to say they are "not spiritual," but it might be something that a person who is both an atheist and who likes to think at lot and reason things out will have come to terms with and accepted. But ... I'm kind of forcing this; #3 doesn't really speak to me like examples 1 and 2.

Edit: It would be cool if any theists understand and answer the OP.

I've basically found that when people say this, they take it as a license to trade religion's irrationalities for irrationalities of their own invention.

I'll give it a shot:

Spiritual 'statements' are not true or false. They are a-rational.
They are experiential and subjective (like an opinion but without as much conscious control).

EDIT: Having read sockhead2's response, perhaps I am misunderstanding. I didnt think you meant X to be a person so much as an object with the property "spiritual".

I tend to agree with it being a nothing word...the same as morals.
I will try to answer the question.

1. Spiritual is an intangible word. Spiritual pertains to the soul.(another word that is debatable)
2. Praying is spiritual. Worshiping is spiritual
3. Denying god is not spiritual. Choosing to separate from God to seek worldly pleasures is not spiritual.

I tried.
Nice thread.
GGK

I find it interesting that you have two concepts (morality and spiritualism) that are so poorly defined you categorize them as "nothing words". Yet you still fervently insist that these undefined things exist.

Wat? You talking to me?
Undefined things don't exist?
Fervently insist doesn't equal try.

ummm yeah

I didn't say undefined things don't exist.

Do you see how this would be illogical:
"X exists. I don't really know what X is, or even what I mean by X. In fact the word 'X' is really a 'nothing' word. But X certainly exists."

You don't really have a clue what it is you're specifying exists. Very logical.

1) x is the imagined dimension(s) which some religious people claim does't exists but still is there
2a) x believes in the imagined dimension(s) which some religious people claim does't exists but still is there
2b) x is in the imagined dimension(s) which some religious people claim does't exists but still is there
3a) x doesn't believes in the imagined dimension(s) which some religious people claim does't exists but still is there
3b) x isn't in the imagined dimension(s) which some religious people claim does't exists but still is there

exist=measurable, in our universe

this will clarify it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Materia...ual_objections

Might I take your post to mean that you think only people can be spiritual, or maybe rather that you find it difficult to imagine otherwise?

I'm really just throwing it out there to see which responses I get. Do you think objects or concepts (that refers to a specific phenomena) can be spiritual?

I'm not sure there's anything that is spiritual in one situation, that may not be in another. For example, you may have a spiritual dream, but this does not mean all dreams are spiritual, many are banal, and many meaningful epic dreams are still not spiritual.

The word spiritual relates to a dormant faculty which can be awoken and developed through spiritual processes such as studying holy texts and meditating on the themes therein.

It is a real part of the human condition, and is something akin to an additional mental dimension that operates through deep feelings and intuition.

It relates directly to the teachings of all or most of the prominent spiritual teachers and the development of this faculty and the growth it encourages in a person is the spiritual path and the ultimate fulfilling of an individual.

Truly spiritual people will feel compelled to devote their lives to the service of others in one form or another, and will realise that walking the walk and putting their money where their mouth is out-trumps talking the talk and paying lip service to a plastic god in a local temple. Through this lifestyle they will grow and move closer to the reality represented by the word "God".

The human spirit in this context is compassionate, forgiving, loving, strong, wise, inspirational and pro-active. It seeks to help other people overcome their sufferings and it seeks ultimately a positive and loving communion with other human beings and with the divine essence of life that is the driving power behind it: God. It is the capstone of the pyramid; the highest power that dwells in a human being, capable of the most change, and presiding over other baser energies that motivate us, as illustrated by the story of Jesus storming into the temple, overturning the tables of the charlatans and commanding them away; so the spirit of man, once awakened fully, takes its place as king in the internal temple, for "God dwells not in temples built by the hands of man, but in temples built by the hands of God"; we are the temples built by the hands of God, and the divine spirit is God's essence that dwells therein.

Anything that involves this spiritual faculty is spiritual, so it is said, "a tree shall be known by the fruit it bears". Anything that does not involve this spiritual faculty is not and cannot be spiritual, regardless the window dressing it chooses.

What is a "spiritual dream"?

Do you have any sources I can read regarding the biology of this?

You saying it is a real doesn't tell me much. Feelings and intuition are also hazy concepts. Are you talking about what we in psychology call emotions or cognitive mechanisms? These are biologically defined terms, and not definitions we just made up.

It seems fine, but I'm still not getting what the actual difference entails.

Are all people who devote their lives in the service of others spiritual?

Are yoy saing spirituality is laudable or that all that is laudable is spiritual? I'm not following you.

I'm not under the impression that this "faculty" is presented in a manner that is convincing. It seems a lot like spirituality entails agreement that what you assume to be good is good.

TD, allow me to furnish you with a response in the form of your very own words at the start of this thread:

What did you expect?

Those of us with any wisdom have already established long ago and without the use of internet forums that there is and probably never will be any evidence for spirituality, God, or anything related.

You can of course experience it for yourself, this is the only evidence you as a human being will ever have.

I will come back and address your individual points out of courtesy later on, I have to run right now though and haven't the time.

Well, the wisdom part excluded this is really all I need to know from you.

This is what I don't get about theism. No evidence... but you "experience" something and apparently this makes you believe there's a god?

I don't get it. Like did you just read the Bible and say "hmm maybe this is true? Oh look, I prayed and felt a bit emotional - I guess it's all real after all!" Not to be condescending or anything, but any sort of "experience" like that seems to be a weak reason to believe in a god.

On a side note, I think theists fall into a small number of categories:
a) Those who believe because "it's just true". They've been raised to think it's true and never questioned it.
b) Those who have questioned it, but tripped up and held onto logical fallacies which they used as "evidence".
c) Those who participate in religious rituals and feel the associated emotions one would naturally feel from thinking you're communicating with an all loving god. They incorrectly believe that their feelings and emotions must reflect on reality.
d) Those who really don't believe, but are uncertain as to whether it's true or not, and fear the hellfire and brimstone.
e) Those who are socially/violently pressured into following religion.
f) Some combination of the above.

But did you answer the question?
Or are you just here to get your troll on?

What I think people are talking about when they say "spiritual" is some sort of emotional thing, the idea of strong human character, and the idea of there being some additional non-materialistic dimension to humans/reality.

That seems to cover the types of things people classify under "spiritual".

I'm always here to get my troll on. Entertainment baby!

I think the experiential, subjective element is essential to anything which can be rightly be classified as 'spiritual' - thus I think a sentient being's reaction is a necessary component of anything being spiritual. I guess a sunset can be spiritual in the sense that the responses it provokes in a sentient being are not fully captured by their intellectual or emotional components.

As many have noted - the distinction between emotional and spiritual is not easy to pin down (if it actually exists). My first attempt is that emotional reactions involve a consideration of me in some sense or are rooted in my relationship with the world (I also consider them a-rational or sometimes irrational). Spiritual reactions are more concerned with or focussed on the rest of the universe (or part of the universe), independent of my relationship with it.

Not at all. I just went down the people path and never looked back when I wrote that message.

X is spiritual, when referring to an experience, or a place, usually means that X is a natural spectacle that initiates a visceral response of awe, sense of wonder, smallness of self, bigness of universe, beauty, etc., in the open minded wonderer.

I would never actually use the word spiritual to describe it, because I feel that it only muddies the water, but I think in the sense I just described above, I find the stars on a clear night outside of the big city lights to be a "spiritual experience." It is part of the reason I love camping. Interestingly, but perhaps not ironically at all, these kinds of "spiritual experiences" do not at all make me feel religious or that god(s) of some kind must be out there; it makes me feel that life is incredibly precious, and unlikely, and mysterious, and I don't really understand life and death and the fact that I won't be here later, and so on ... and that clearly any stories human beings tell each other about the origins of the world have no meaning and hold no sway for a star, a galaxy, an ice age, an ocean... all things that will exist after we are gone.

So, yeah, spiritual. But as I said, it is a word so twisted in the personal wackiness of everyone who is half-way out the door of conventional religion but not quite out in the open field of atheism, that I think it only muddies the water so I would never describe it that way outside of a conversation like this.

It's about what constitutes evidence, not about believing without evidence.
FWIW I think the theism comes before reading the bible. Having said that, yes it is a weak reason, but that doesnt mean it isn't a reason.
I guess this is me, except I realise that my feelings and emotions have a very poor chance of reflecting reality.