Spirituality is a vast topic with many different interpretations. In general, it entails a sense of belonging to something larger than oneself, as well as a quest for purpose in life. As a result, it is a universal human experience that affects all of us. A spiritual experience might be described as sacred, sublime, or simply as a strong sense of aliveness and connectivity.
Before You Continue...
Do you know what is your soul number? Take this quick quiz to find out! Get a personalized numerology report, and discover how you can unlock your fullest spiritual potential. Start the quiz now!
Some people may discover that their spiritual lives are intertwined with their affiliation with a church, temple, mosque, or synagogue. Others may turn to prayer or a personal relationship with God or a higher force for comfort. Others look for significance in their relationships with nature or art. Your unique concept of spirituality, like your sense of purpose, may evolve through time as you adjust to new experiences and relationships.
What are the 6 spiritual senses?
Certain Christians believe that, just as your physical body employs five senses to differentiate reality around you, our spiritual nature has five senses that we can develop to distinguish the spiritual reality that surrounds us as well. Spiritually, sight, sound, taste, touch, and smell are all used to receive God's teachings and feel His presence in our lives. Some people naturally develop the ability to perceive in the spiritual world; others require some work, but we are all capable of doing so because it is an intrinsic part of our being.
What is literal sense of Bible?
The Catholic response to this question is that there is no basis for this disagreement. The first two chapters of Genesis were never designed to be “scientific” in the modern sense from the standpoint of biblical interpretation. God created the universe out of nothing, according to the biblical creation story, and the ramifications of this fact are significant. It doesn't go into detail on the natural processes that led to this, and it never pretended to. Because they are communicating two separate things, there can be no conflict between the biblical account and an accurate scientific account. As a result, based on this “conflict,” science cannot claim that Christianity is incorrect.
In my first post, I described a scientific interpretation of the biblical creation narrative as one that goes to “literal” extremes. By this, I mean a reading in which the primary interpretation of the text is either that God created the world in seven 24 hour periods, or that “days” may not refer to our modern understanding of a day, but that natural phenomena were somehow put into the world by God in more or less their current form at the time of creation. Fundamentalists often defend these “scientific” readings while evolutionists critique them. I believe it is inappropriate to speak to these different meanings as “literal.” They're interpretations that misunderstand figurative language as scientific truth, which is why I'm calling them “scientific” readings. The first sense of the creation tales in Genesis was never meant to be scientific, hence a truly “literal” interpretation is one in which the first sense of the Scripture is disclosed.
The contrasts between the various “senses” of Scripture are clearly laid forth in the Catholic Church's Catechism. Scripture can be interpreted in two ways: literally and spiritually. “The literal sense is the meaning transmitted by Scripture's words and revealed through exegesis, following the standards of sound interpretation: ‘All other senses of Sacred Scripture are dependent on the literal'” (See CCC 116.) This means that the “literal” sense is the first meaning that competent exegesis uncovers. The desire to grasp what the authors of Sacred Scripture intended to say is inherent in exegesis. “In order to discover the sacred authors' intention, the reader must take into account the conditions of their time and culture, the literary genres in use at the time, and the modes of feeling, speaking, and narrating then current,” the Catechism says. (See CCC 32).
In exegesis, the question is what the author's aim was in authoring the Biblical creation account. This is an extremely difficult subject, but I believe Pope Benedict XVI's work provides us with a strong starting point. He explains that the first Biblical creation account arose from Israel's encounter with Babylon's pagan myths, which resulted in a “dramatic confrontation implicit in this biblical text, in which all these confused myths were rejected and the world was given its origin in God's Reason and in his Word,” according to him (In the Beginning, 13).
He uses Scripture as an example, citing the sun and moon as lights that God has hung in the sky to measure time. Reducing the sun and moon to time measurements when they were considered deities would have been sacrilegious to pagan peoples. “Here we see the bravery and temperateness of the faith that, in facing pagan myths, made the light of truth arise by proving that the universe was not a demonic conflict, but that it sprang from God's Reason and reposes on God's Word,” writes the author (Ibid.,14). Because the authors of the Scripture intended to use figures to write anything as a part of their chosen genre, this would be a part of the literal interpretation, the first sense of the Scripture, according to the Catechism. This literal view, on the other hand, isn't a fundamentalist “scientific” one. This distinction is made by the Pontifical Biblical Commission in terms of “literal” and “literalist”:
The spiritual sense of Scripture states that “not only the language of Scripture, but also the facts and events about which it talks can be signs” because of the oneness of God's design (CCC 117). The metaphorical, moral, and anagogical senses of spirituality are all subdivided. With so much emphasis on the proper meaning of a “literal” interpretation of Scripture in the science-religion debate, it's easy to forget that these other senses are just as valid as the first. Indeed, “the profound concordance of the four senses guarantees all its richness to the living reading of Scripture in the Church” (CCC 115). When we misread or lose sight of the literal meaning, however, the spiritual meaning loses its foundation. Without a basic literal meaning, the spiritual meaning within the context of the deposit of faith is meaningless.
As a result, limiting the “literal” sense of scripture to an inaccurate “scientific” reading has two effects. The first is that there is no shared interpretation between science and faith. Outside the Church, the literal, primary interpretation of a text is the one that can be understood. The literal understanding of the biblical creation myth is, in fact, one of courageous confrontation with the world, a singular affirmation of who Israel's God is. This kind of meaning never goes out of style, and it's critically required in today's arguments between science and religion, as well as secularism and faith in general. Fundamentalism “accepts the literal truth of an outdated, out-of-date cosmology simply because it is found expressed in the Bible; this inhibits any conversation with a larger way of perceiving the relationship between culture and faith,” according to the Pontifical Biblical Commission (I. F). When those outside the Church lose touch with the Church, unneeded and terrible conflicts arise, such as the purported evolution versus creation argument.
The second consequence is that, because the spiritual sense loses its base without the literal meaning, we are prevented from finding the broadest and most profound meanings of Scripture by losing the literal meaning. This is especially evident in the metaphorical meaning, in which the Old Testament events acquire their real significance in Christ. We can't appropriately apply them to Christ or understand him in light of the initial meanings of the texts unless we understand the literal first meaning.
Finally, based on the opening chapters of Genesis, this sad alleged confrontation between religion and science teaches us the necessity of the Magisterium and Tradition in the Church. We run into problems with “literalist” or “scientific” interpretations when Scripture is taken out of its correct context in the life of the Church and her full history of interpretation. The Church is the one that teaches us to look for the “literal” meaning intended by the sacred authors. After all, the Bible is a “divinely inspired scripture entrusted to the Church by God Himself for care and interpretation” (Divino Afflante Spiritu, 24).
What's the 8th sense?
The sense of knowing/feeling what is happening on inside your body, including internal organs and skin, is known as interoception (i.e hunger, thirst, pain, arousal, bowel and bladder, body temperature, itch, heart rate, nausea, and feelings such as embarrassment and excitement etc.).
How can I improve my spiritual senses?
Seven Ways to Boost Your Spiritual Well-Being
- Examine your spiritual foundation. You are merely asking yourself questions about who you are and what you mean when you explore your spiritual essence.