Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
and this is probably the wrong forum for this. not that i am a forum nazi, i really coudn't care less, its just that it would be received in a different context in another forum, and thus i might be more accurately understood. to tell you the truth i thought of putting it in the philosophy forum, but i don't feel smart enough to contribute much to the conversations that usually ensue with the philosophizers.
which might generate assurances that i am not dumb, or maybe suspicions that i am very clever lol i don't know what the assumptions are until i see them....and make them myself. see i could go on all night.....will spare you though. and it already feels like more of a risk than i would be wise to take.
An interesting post, if a bit rambling. It's like saying all humans are primates but not all primates are humans. Just because you do not believe in a religion does not mean you can not be spiritual. Afterall, many of these prophets that created these religions obviously did not completely believe other religions of their time or else they would not have created another religion. But that does not mean they were not spiritual. If anything, they were more spiritual.
I'm spiritual but not religious: what about pure religion undefiled?
Pure religion, undefiled is to love the Lord your G-d with all your heart, soul, and mind. The devil himself believes in G-d, but that doesn't seem to have profited him very well at all. Lucifer was at the top of decorated angels before his fall.
It seems easy that we mortals can fall into saying that we are spiritual but not religious as far as worldly religions are concerned. or vice versa, that we are religious but not spiritual. But It would seem that when it comes to "pure" religion in G-d's sight I don't think you can really separate the two.
It is written that G-d is spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and in truth, not on this mountain or that mountain. It seems to me that there is something about institutional religious brand names, trademarks, or marks (whatever you want to call them) that is probably not very acceptable to G-d
Cattle are branded and sheep are dipped. It seems to me that G-d's sheep understand the difference. To me it seems that institutional organized religion (any of them) are only mere fan clubs of G-d, when compared to the true flock of G-d. (they are dipped in His Spirit).
So to simplify what I am trying to point out is that playing church and the "real deal" don't seem to go by the same set of rules.
Don't many modern Jews fit this description? Those who participate in many Jewish traditions and rituals, but often don't care about the spiritual aspect of Judaism, or even really know what they're supposed to believe. I think for many of them the cultural tradition means far more than the spirituality.
well i was just musing on the whole 'spiritual but not religious' thing, and it just struck me obvious, as often as i've heard people describe themselves as spiritual but not religious, but never once have i ever heard anyone describe themselves as 'religious, but not spiritual'.
as though one has anything at all to do with the other. or that one precludes the other. or as if religiosity inspires/rejects spirituality, or as if spirituality inspires/rejects religiosity. they are two very separate 'things' in my understanding, and yet they seem to be always presented together, as though there is by design, some kind of unbroken connection there, some natural law that one cannot co-exist in consciousness without the other. yes i know what i just said there.....as though the contradiction itself is of any importance. without being everything at the same time.
like many others, i am tired of the old cliches. it's just that the cliches i tire of have not lost their novelty or capacity to inspire....it's that my own imaginative capacities have grown stagnant. that happens i find, when i feel secure in all my answers.
would anyone of us, religious to atheist and in between, call ourselves religious but not spiritual.
you know something, that seems like the most succinctly accurate description of an atheist. do any athiests here feel any accuracy in that? i am wondering if that sounds as denigrating description to the religious, or complimentary to the atheist, or vice versa, i don't mean it either way.
somehow, it feels more accurate for me to say that i'm religious, but not spiritual. my concept and understanding of these seemingly opposing words has flip-flopped. i have no affiliation to any organized religion. i cannot find it in myself to say i'm spiritual at all anymore, how limited my own imagination has become, due to my own seeking and settling on the answers. and also partly due to the imagery most people seem to have become long attached to each concept, spiritual and/or religious.
yes settling for the answers, the ones that make the most sense to you. if i'm not careful, i find myself settling for the answer that feels best.,validates me in some way. i haven't a clue how anything works, but as long as i hold fast to my own vanity.....the answers i settle for are the ones that keep me from seeing truth. with a capitol t.
despite our differences, we are all the same. the spiritualists might call it oneness. the religious might call it the holy spirit. well then by those definitions i am neither spiritual or religious.
my apologies if this sounds like i'm blogging. i am socially inept in truth, and find message boards somewhat uncomfortable to participate much in. i would like to hear your responses, not for debate in a vs. sort of way. just for.....i don't know...possible opportunity.
ty
In my experience, people who say, "I'm not religious, but I'm spiritual," are those who don't like organized religion but still want to believe in all kinds of nonsense. It is just a less formal way of being irrational.
It's rare, but I've heard of people say "religious, but not spiritual" half-seriously. They're intellectually quite into the religion, yes religious people can be intellectuals, but emotionally they're maybe a bit shut-off. They may see "spiritual" as meaning the person's religion is purely emotional and possibly anti-intellectual. Or in some cases they might associate the word "spiritual" with something New-Agey.
In the most extreme cases maybe Humanistic-Judaism or Roger Ebert come close. Ebert, toward the end, said he practically deemed himself Catholic if it weren't for it's teaching on sex and that you had to believe in God to be Catholic. Humanistic Judaism I believe has no belief in the supernatural, but does value the customs of Judaism. Although I don't know if an HJ would ever call themselves "religious, but not spiritual."
Googling the phrase "religious but not spiritual" (as opposed to "spiritual, but not religious") I find a Catholic cardinal discuss it.
Many or most of these are half-joking or "making a point." Looking it up an emphasis in some is that they value the "connecting" nature of religion and find the "spiritual but not religious" crowd to be excessively subjective or individualist.
A useful and comprehensive colection of links Tadj. I would place this 'Religious but not Spiritual' thing (where it is not a quip like 'I know a lot abouit art, but I don't know what I like.' - which actually has a bit of truth about it) tends to be Coffee morning and Creche Christianity. It is useful and ...comforting. But it has nothing to do with any spirit but the human one.
Spirit is in my own mind, and Religion is something that is imposed from outside. There is no connection between the two. They are completely unrelated concepts, but the purveyors of religion are very adept at hijacking the spirit of their intended converts.
This is true and very well put. In fact, I never thought of it this way.
In this case, I am spiritual and not religious. My wife, who is Catholic, is religiously spiritual.
My concept of being spiritual was clarified last year when I ran into a New Ager who claimed to be "spiritual, not religious." Her New Age beliefs were based on faith alone and were being imposed from outside. Her spirit was indeed hijacked. She is spiritually religious.
This is true and very well put. In fact, I never thought of it this way.
In this case, I am spiritual and not religious. My wife, who is Catholic, is religiously spiritual.
My concept of being spiritual was clarified last year when I ran into a New Ager who claimed to be "spiritual, not religious." Her New Age beliefs were based on faith alone and were being imposed from outside. Her spirit was indeed hijacked. She is spiritually religious.
Lexus ,If you dont mind me asking, how are you spiritual ?.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm spiritual but not religious: what about pure religion undefiled?
