Spiritual vs Religious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

So people who are spiritual are lazy compared to people who are religious? I don't buy it.

Besides what is the "work" of religion? belonging to a church? adhering to a certain set of beliefs? Telling your children that they must believe certain things to be good people and to go to heaven when they die?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

So people who are spiritual are lazy compared to people who are religious? I don't buy it.

Besides what is the "work" of religion? belonging to a church? adhering to a certain set of beliefs? Telling your children that they must believe certain things to be good people and to go to heaven when they die?

Not that pp and not sure I agree. But she probably means doing the “work” of regular study and prayer, even regular attendance at services or getting out into nature or whatever it means to them. Without these, the word “spiritual” seems, to me, to be sort of empty in definition and practice.

Full disclosure: I know people who call themselves “spiritual” who don’t give a second’s thought to what they believe or how they define the word.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

So people who are spiritual are lazy compared to people who are religious? I don't buy it.

Besides what is the "work" of religion? belonging to a church? adhering to a certain set of beliefs? Telling your children that they must believe certain things to be good people and to go to heaven when they die?

Not that pp and not sure I agree. But she probably means doing the “work” of regular study and prayer, even regular attendance at services or getting out into nature or whatever it means to them. Without these, the word “spiritual” seems, to me, to be sort of empty in definition and practice.

Full disclosure: I know people who call themselves “spiritual” who don’t give a second’s thought to what they believe or how they define the word.

The same applies to some "religious" people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

Nope. There are people who call themselves spiritual who work at it, and others who can’t be bother to figure out what they think or believe. Same for people who call themselves religious, some of whom are work at it through regular study etc, and some who just mouth the words.

Trying to distinguish between spiritual or religious based just on who you think is working at it is just dumb.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

Nope. There are people who call themselves spiritual who work at it, and others who can’t be bother to figure out what they think or believe. Same for people who call themselves religious, some of whom are work at it through regular study etc, and some who just mouth the words.

Trying to distinguish between spiritual or religious based just on who you think is working at it is just dumb.

Agree - The level of work person puts into something, doesn't make it real or unreal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

So people who are spiritual are lazy compared to people who are religious? I don't buy it.

Besides what is the "work" of religion? belonging to a church? adhering to a certain set of beliefs? Telling your children that they must believe certain things to be good people and to go to heaven when they die?

Not that pp and not sure I agree. But she probably means doing the “work” of regular study and prayer, even regular attendance at services or getting out into nature or whatever it means to them. Without these, the word “spiritual” seems, to me, to be sort of empty in definition and practice.

Full disclosure: I know people who call themselves “spiritual” who don’t give a second’s thought to what they believe or how they define the word.

The same applies to some "religious" people.

I think that currently, society most appreciates people who say they are religious, next comes people who say they are spiritual but not religious, then people who identify as agnostics, because they are perceived as searching and possibly returning to religion, which is seen as positive.

Atheists are at the bottom of the list, IMO, not because they deserve to be, but because in current society, acknowledging lack of belief in the supernatural is still considered a bad thing, or at least is suspect.

[Anonymous]

^^^ Respectfully, agnostic simply means you don't know, and atheist means you don't believe. Agnostic doesn't specifically mean you are searching and may come back (although it doesn't exclude that), and most atheists describe themselves as agnostic also.

Also, virtually every atheist will tell you that the instant they are shown evidence they will change their position and become believers. They still may not choose to worship, but of course they will accept evidence.

[Anonymous]

Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^^ Respectfully,agnostic simply means you don't know, and atheist means you don't believe. Agnostic doesn't specifically mean you are searching and may come back (although it doesn't exclude that), and most atheists describe themselves as agnostic also.

Also, virtually every atheist will tell you that the instant they are shown evidence they will change their position and become believers. They still may not choose to worship, but of course they will accept evidence.

Correct - however, agnostics are often perceived to be wavering or searching and trying or hoping to return to religion. And correct that most atheists also describe themselves as agnostic. But often religious people don't know that and don't understand if very well -- and maybe don't care about it much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

Talking about yourself again, belligerent believer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

dp. You got it, and it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

dp. You got it, and it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion.

Freedom is important. Being free from something doesn't mean you suddenly think the topic is unimportant. You agree with that, right?