Reply to Spiritual vs Religious

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Spiritual vs Religious"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]OP here. I was intrigued by this question in the other post, but wanted to get away from the guy who thought spiritually was supplanting religion because religion is "uncool."
To answer my own question, I am religious and spiritual. I am a member of a religion and believe that theology. Religion is an organized group thing with defined beliefs. Spirituality is personal and more of a feeling, less defined. I can feel spiritual (close to God or one with God's creation) through prayer (personal or communal), hiking/being in nature, meditating, seeing a beautiful work of art, just enjoying a quiet cup of tea before the rest of my house wakes up, or in many other big and small ways.[/quote]

^ this makes complete sense, but what do you make of the reply above from someone who said they are religious but not spiritual?  If one believes in gods (which all religions have) then believe in the divine and supernatural - which is both religious and spiritual.  And if someone believes in the Holy Spirit, that per se is spiritual by definition. [/quote]
At 01/29/2022 20:14 [b]PP defined "religious but not spiritual" as adhering to religious traditions and practices while also being agnostic, because the traditions are comforting, even if she isn't sure about faith/belief in God/etc. [/b]That makes sense to me. I think there are plenty of people who celebrate Christmas and Easter or keep Passover and fast on Yom Kippur because it connects them to their family and the rituals are filled with memories of love and home, even if the spiritual connection to God isn't there for them.

[b]Being religious can still be meaningful by being part of a community that will be there for you, who practice the same rituals and celebrate the same holidays.[/b][/quote]

This is beautiful. Thank you.  Because it is what I hear all the time from acquaintances who shop around for a church that is just right, not too religious, doesn't emphasize God too much, but fits their needs for community and fellowship. :wink:

So maybe the religious/spiritual dichotomy is too over-simplistic.  What I really see, and read on this forum all the time, are people who want religion-lite, you know, something emphasizing love your fellow man, forgiveness, etc. -- but not the other "heavy stuff" like the virgin birth or bodily ascent to heaven, and they don't agree you need to believe in a certain religious figure to get into heaven.[/quote]

I think you need to tease this out a little more.

I’ve never seen people here asking for a “church that doesn’t push the virgin birth or bodily ascension” or “less veneration of Mary” or whatever. If you have cites, I’m happy to be proven wrong.

I have seen posters asking for non-literalist churches or churches that are gay-friendly. These latter questions raise theological discussions that are usually based on text. (What did Jesus say, or not say, about being gay? How do Christians approach dietary rules in Leviticus? What does the Bible say about non-believers like the Good Samaritan?) The people having these discussions are basing them on what’s in the Bible, so they meet your definition of “religious.”

So while in a few cases it may be true, you can’t assume that posters looking for a gay-friendly or non-literalist church are actually looking for “religion lite” or something that’s hollowed out. I think most here would also reject the box of “if you’re not a bible literalist then you’re not religious” that some atheists try to put them in.

To me, “religious” also means practicing the tenets of your religion. Not just showing up in church or synagogue and saying the words, whether you believe them or not. [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics