Ok- this is an end to the long holiday hiatus. A short post today with possibly another tomorrow as today is chock full of awesome but has little hanging around on LJ time.
My discussions on passion the last couple of weeks have been fruitful and interesting. Most hilarious was when I mentioned my view tbhat I am not a passionate person to an old friend and he calmly, quickly and decisively denied that view. I had already revised that position to a large extent ( I am passionate but *not* dramatic) but it was oddly insightful to have someone who knows me well and for a long time flat out deny it.
Said friend then helped me elucidate my own definitions of spirituality vs regliousity. Upon reflection on a bright sunny Winter morning I have to soften my definition of spirituality a bit but still argue that I am religious and not "spiritual". The definitions of last night were: in common liberal parlence "I'm spiritual, not religious" tends to mean that someone has squishy feeligs about the divine/reality/insert-term-here but does not intensively question their own actions and worldview in light of those feelings nor do they actively investigate the nature or implications of those feelings. Basically, "I'm spiritual" means that I generally act how I want in the moment without regards to any larger framework in my life but get all high-handed when I think that I can impart some sage-sounding advice to someone else. Not that this is what any particular person I know does this but it seems to be the cultural use of the phrase. Religious people however volunteer to have the implications of their espoused views affect their actions and words (often with annoying and disasterous results for people who do not agree with them) but that in theory such practice should make them take a sweet and humble stance when met with the annoying habits of others.
So people who are spiritual but not religious take me to task for this!