Spiritual vs Religious

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It’s quite interesting how the core content of these “man made rules designed specifically to control the masses” is and has been largely consistent across ages, cultures, societies, geographies, etc., as far as recorded history runs. Almost as if they were inscribed in the human heart like some sort of natural law.

No. Sacred scripture was intentionally distorted to control. Distorted specifically by MEN in power to retain power and wealth. It really is that simple. The natural laws of love, compassion, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality are clearly not religious laws. They transcend religious views and scripture. When we begin to wake up from the lies we’ve been conditioned to believe through fear, we see religion for what it is. A lie.

“Religion” actually is a virtue whose purpose is to render God the worship due to Him as the source of all being and the giver of all good things. This virtue gets confused with the systems that develop around the inclination to exercise it.

As for being conditioned through fear, many people exercise the virtue of religion not merely as an expression of what is due in justice to a supreme being but also out of hope for a better life both in the present and in eternity.

The conformance with natural law is itself an expression of the virtue of religion.

Can’t people render God the worship they deserve without religion?

We seriously need an agreed upon definition of religion. My understanding is that it needs two parts: belief in God, but then also some acts in furtherance of that belief like praying, going to church, etc. So the answer to your question, in my opinion, is what do you mean by "worship"?
Worship, it seems to me, fits the definition of religion, i.e. it's more than just having faith or belief in God or belief, so worship definitely suggests to me religion.

I would say dedicating your life to their work would be worship. Saving the planet, teaching children, feeding the poor, caring for the sick, living the commandments,

For prayer I think meditation, moving meditation are equal to a Hail Mary.

God is in everybody, everything.

I’d say “going to church” is not worship if your just sitting there because “you think it will get you to heaven” and prayer is not worship is you are praying for money or material things.

I agree with the bolded, but those things are indicative of practicing "religion." Theism (belief in God) is not "religion." The other stuff you mentioned, like saving the planet etc., can be done by any well-intentioned but non-religious person, even atheists (who by definition are not religious).

Why are we still trying to convince a handful of readers on DCUM that our definition of “religion” is the only correct one? Particularly if you’re an atheist, this exercise is beyond meaningless to those that actually call themselves “religious” or “spiritual.” And it goes without saying that, with respect to the great world of people outside DCUM who call themselves religious, this is completely pointless.

Define "religion", then we can talk. Pointless talking among people who have different definitions for what it means.

Religious = belonging to a religion

That can't be it. What does "belonging" even mean? Many people say they belong to a certain religion but that's just "checking the box" because they were asked.

Well that’s exactly what is wrong with religious people. Check a few boxes and think they are good to go

Way to indulge your hate in reductive stereotypes. And then you feel like a victim when people dislike atheists (although we know not all atheists are like you).

I'm not an atheist. It's not a stereotype. It's actually part of some religions. "Accept Jesus as your savior" and it doesn't matter how sh*tty a person you are and you will go to heaven. That is actually a "religious" teaching.

If you think that is a stereotype of religious people you really don't understand how many religions there are.

You really don’t understand pp’s post where she talked about “religious people” broadly, without singling out certain offenders or excusing the non-dogmatic from her sweeping condemnation.

Are you the minister who only criticizes other Christians and excuses bad behavior from everybody else?

Go back and read your post. You are the one that said religious people “check boxes”. I agreed with you, you said I was “indulging in hate”. You must be indulging in hate because I agreed with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Go back and read your post. You are the one that said religious people “check boxes”. I agreed with you, you said I was “indulging in hate”. You must be indulging in hate because I agreed with you.

The “check boxes” post wasn’t mine.

Again, why does anybody think it’s productive to define “religion” for a handful of DCUMers, when the real world either doesn’t care or actively disagrees?

Is it just because you guys want to slap a negative, “uncool” label on the word “religion” for the 3 people who are reading this? Because if these 3 people actually accept your (highly debatable) definition, then you can keep slapping insults like “checking boxes” on anybody who says they’re “religious”?

Is that a “win” in your tiny little world? I’m just here because it’s like watching a train wreck, it’s fascinating how you guys are wasting DAYS of your time on a totally meaningless exercise.

[Anonymous]

Reposting for formatting.

*******

The “check boxes” post wasn’t mine.

Again, why does anybody think it’s productive to define “religion” for a handful of DCUMers, when the real world either doesn’t care or actively disagrees?

Is it just because you guys want to slap a negative, “uncool” label on the word “religion” for the 3 people who are reading this? Because if these 3 people actually accept your (highly debatable) definition, then you can keep slapping insults like “checking boxes” on anybody who says they’re “religious”?

Is that a “win” in your tiny little world? I’m just here because it’s like watching a train wreck, it’s fascinating how you guys are wasting DAYS of your time on a totally meaningless exercise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reposting for formatting.

*******

The “check boxes” post wasn’t mine.

Again, why does anybody think it’s productive to define “religion” for a handful of DCUMers, when the real world either doesn’t care or actively disagrees?

Is it just because you guys want to slap a negative, “uncool” label on the word “religion” for the 3 people who are reading this? Because if these 3 people actually accept your (highly debatable) definition, then you can keep slapping insults like “checking boxes” on anybody who says they’re “religious”?

Is that a “win” in your tiny little world? I’m just here because it’s like watching a train wreck, it’s fascinating how you guys are wasting DAYS of your time on a totally meaningless exercise.

Man in the mirror ^^

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Once and for all, there is nothing wrong with believing in God, but disliking organized religion. Doesn't make anyone less of a believer.

That's true. But apropos of this thread, I believe that qualifies you as "spiritual but not religious." Like 27% of those in that poll posted several pages back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think "religion" is broadly defined but should be up to the individual as to whether or not their beliefs constitute membership in one.

For example, when people say "atheism is a religion" that is wrong if the atheist disagrees (as virtually all will), and when people say "Buddhism is not a religion" that is wrong if the Buddhist in question disagrees.

This is for personal discussions, of course, and not for civic criteria or tax purposes.

Buddhism has all the attributes of a religion, including temples, prayers, and rituals - so it is definitely a religion. If someone who identifies as a Buddhist says it's not a religion but a philosophical system, I'll respect their views, but that doesn't change the very widely held belief that it is , indeed, a religion.

As far as the tax thing, you make a good point. The IRS recognizes Scientology as a religion, but many reasonable people would not agree that it is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am spiritual but not religious. I do not belong to an organized religion, and no organized religion fully aligns with my beliefs.

I am the opposite. I am religious but not spiritual. I like the habit and discipline of daily prayer and overall observance. However, I am, at times, doubtful and unsure about the existence of God, and I don’t consider myself deeply spiritual.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Once and for all, there is nothing wrong with believing in God, but disliking organized religion. Doesn't make anyone less of a believer.

That's true. But apropos of this thread, I believe that qualifies you as "spiritual but not religious." Like 27% of those in that poll posted several pages back.

Still trying to make “fetch” happen….

[Anonymous]

Look up "deconstruction." It's a real thing and its momentum is gaining, especially among millennials and Gen X. (too many links to waste my time posting). Basically the idea is they like the "Jesus is love" stuff, but not the nutty stuff in the Bible or the heavy theology which makes zero sense in today's modern world. Poo-poo this if you want but you're behind the times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Look up "deconstruction." It's a real thing and its momentum is gaining, especially among millennials and Gen X. (too many links to waste my time posting). Basically the idea is they like the "Jesus is love" stuff, but not the nutty stuff in the Bible or the heavy theology which makes zero sense in today's modern world. Poo-poo this if you want but you're behind the times.

Deconstruction has been around in literature and other fields for at least 50 years. It doesn’t mean what you think it means—it’s about the relationship of text to meaning. Also, none of this helps in your lame, made-up skirmish about what people actually call themselves.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look up "deconstruction." It's a real thing and its momentum is gaining, especially among millennials and Gen X. (too many links to waste my time posting). Basically the idea is they like the "Jesus is love" stuff, but not the nutty stuff in the Bible or the heavy theology which makes zero sense in today's modern world. Poo-poo this if you want but you're behind the times.

Deconstruction has been around in literature and other fields for at least 50 years. It doesn’t mean what you think it means—it’s about the relationship of text to meaning. Also, none of this helps in your lame, made-up skirmish about what people actually call themselves.

No. You're way behind the times. Look it up with respect to current religious beliefs among younger Americans.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look up "deconstruction." It's a real thing and its momentum is gaining, especially among millennials and Gen X. (too many links to waste my time posting). Basically the idea is they like the "Jesus is love" stuff, but not the nutty stuff in the Bible or the heavy theology which makes zero sense in today's modern world. Poo-poo this if you want but you're behind the times.

Deconstruction has been around in literature and other fields for at least 50 years. It doesn’t mean what you think it means—it’s about the relationship of text to meaning. Also, none of this helps in your lame, made-up skirmish about what people actually call themselves.

No. You're way behind the times. Look it up with respect to current religious beliefs among younger Americans.

Strongly suggest you stop telling people to "Look it up" regarding information that you won't bother to present yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am spiritual but not religious. I do not belong to an organized religion, and no organized religion fully aligns with my beliefs.

I am the opposite. I am religious but not spiritual. I like the habit and discipline of daily prayer and overall observance. However, I am, at times, doubtful and unsure about the existence of God, and I don’t consider myself deeply spiritual.

I wouldn't be surprised to find that there are a lot of people like you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look up "deconstruction." It's a real thing and its momentum is gaining, especially among millennials and Gen X. (too many links to waste my time posting). Basically the idea is they like the "Jesus is love" stuff, but not the nutty stuff in the Bible or the heavy theology which makes zero sense in today's modern world. Poo-poo this if you want but you're behind the times.

Deconstruction has been around in literature and other fields for at least 50 years. It doesn’t mean what you think it means—it’s about the relationship of text to meaning. Also, none of this helps in your lame, made-up skirmish about what people actually call themselves.

No. You're way behind the times. Look it up with respect to current religious beliefs among younger Americans.

Strongly suggest you stop telling people to "Look it up" regarding information that you won't bother to present yourself.

O.K, that's fair. Doesn't change the fact fewer and fewer people are religious, and defections among well known artists and celebrities have increased. Deconstruction is accelerating; ignore it if you wish.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Look up "deconstruction." It's a real thing and its momentum is gaining, especially among millennials and Gen X. (too many links to waste my time posting). Basically the idea is they like the "Jesus is love" stuff, but not the nutty stuff in the Bible or the heavy theology which makes zero sense in today's modern world. Poo-poo this if you want but you're behind the times.

Deconstruction has been around in literature and other fields for at least 50 years. It doesn’t mean what you think it means—it’s about the relationship of text to meaning. Also, none of this helps in your lame, made-up skirmish about what people actually call themselves.

No. You're way behind the times. Look it up with respect to current religious beliefs among younger Americans.

Strongly suggest you stop telling people to "Look it up" regarding information that you won't bother to present yourself.

O.K, that's fair. Doesn't change the fact fewer and fewer people are religious, and defections among well known artists and celebrities have increased. Deconstruction is accelerating; ignore it if you wish.

Not ignoring it. But you are ignoring the request to demonstrate that this is actually happening based on data you say is readily available but which you do not present.