@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:Can you give me any examples where they would not be synonymous?
Spirituality is having to do with, or relating to or affecting the concept of a spirit; and we've already talked about the established definition of Religion. So... that shows really well the difference. I'm not quite sure what you're looking for - they're already two separate, though related, concepts. Just like a separate being called 'god' isn't contained in every religion, I'd think it a 'given' that not every religion ascribes to the notion of a 'spirit'. To verify this, I'd need to contact everyone on the planet and get their inner-most theological views; compare and verify. Unfortunately, I'm off to get lunch soon
Perhaps a good way to answer it is this: Where they
are pseudo-synonymous, would be those belief systems where one's faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity
encompasses some sort of "spirit" reference. Where one has those elements already defined in 'Religion' wherein there is no "spirit" element could equal the other. Because they describe different aspects, doesn't necessarily mean they're mutually-exclusive.
Zetherin wrote:I ask because I believe many, upon hearing "religion", immediately think of the organized religion of our time. However, as learned from DT, "religion" spans much further.
Well, believe it or not, many of us knew this before DT came along :p
But seriously, it
is a common mistake; and given the prepondrance of cultures from which people here hail, it's no wonder. Stand around a hall in northeast africa talking about such existential issues and someone would inevitably say, "Hey, spirituality isn't ALWAYS tribalism!". It's what so many of us know.
Zetherin wrote:Not only has the meaning of "religion" changed over the centuries, but even to this day I don't think there is a consensus establishment.
I dont' think the definition's changed. I do; however, believe our
examples of it has. It still has to do with the same constitient elements, yet the 'faces' of it - that we happen to see - have. Not so much has changed as sometimes we think; not a whole lot of truly-original thought for the last several dozen millenia. Always there's the ego that says, "Wow! Things are so different nowadays"... no, not really, not from what I've read.
And no, you're not going to get any concensus anyway; and perhaps therein lies the only real truth you'll find in the study of the matter: That it is this personalized area that will have countless iterations.
Zetherin wrote:Every definition I've seen is vague and could be applied to so many different notions (such as spirituality). I find it useful to evaluate the mythological progression of humanity, not redefining "religion" per se. In fact, I'm just trying to learn what "religion" actually is! Sure, I could just spout off a commonly used organizational definitions of the term, but I honestly feel it is much deeper than the affiliations with which I was raised.
I think here you've answered your own question: By realizing just how vague the issue is, it only stands to reason that there are so many personalized 'definitions'. In this, the problem hasn't to do with any definition, per say; it's vaguery has to do with the issue itself.
Zetherin wrote:It's hard for me to think of anyone that doesn't believe in anything besides the corporeal, material, or commonly-experienced aspects of life.
And it's likely from this from whence your questions come. How might one think outside the box - away from the basis of their own notions of existence, meaning, potentialities and so on? In many ways, it's like two people trying to have a debate; one in English, one in French. You'll pick up some elements of what the other's trying to say, but only bits and pieces will make sense. This isn't to say the effort doesn't have worth; it illustrates the difficulty in coming from such vastly-divergent mindsets.
Our theology, metaphysical view and notions of religion, existence and spirituality lie at the heart of our sense of self. As such, they influence nearly every aspect of our life. Yes it's important to talk about, as long as one realized the inherent difficulty; this murkyness of definition and divergent mindsets.
Zetherin wrote:That's completely fair, I simply have different interests. Because, for me, those notions borne of the mind (which don't appear to have an objective nature) are the most intriguing, and I find myself time and time again delving into those murky waters seeking the 'heart'. I feel these intricate, personalized experiences are what make us human (qualia, perhaps), and are most definitely worth philosophizing about.
Matters of the heart are most-worthy, to be sure! Again though - if I may offer - matters of the heart, spirituality and religion are three different things. One needn't look very far to probe those aspects of human most mentally-intimate; likewise, one needn't ascribe any 'ultimate-anything' to discover those elements you describe as, "... intricate, personalized experiences".
Zetherin wrote:This is why I consistently question my beliefs, my views on seemingly abstract concepts such as "spirituality", "God". No, there's no logical arguments made, and I understand many could interpret the critical thinking as meaningless, but, well, I simply do not.
No, they're not meaningless at all. It's a needful and necessary exercise (imho) for everyone who is a fan of our existence. There came a time for me, personally, where I sought and sought different systems, ideals and notions of religiosity/spirituality until I came to a place that felt right; felt real, and brought some peace (that being that all such notions are a product of one's own mind wherein consensus is rare, culture is king and one's hopes and fears dictate with free reign).
I, too, remain open to all the possibilities expressed, but no longer feel a 'need' to keep re-examining. Perhaps I will again some day (and in this, too, I keep myself open to the experience).
Again, good luck with this. I hope you find some sense of what you're looking for.
Thanks
