There are many definitions and nobody has a lock on what “religious” means. From Dictionary.com….

Religious as an adjective:
1. of, relating to, or concerned with religion:
a religious holiday.
2. imbued with or exhibiting religion; pious; devout; godly:
a religious man.
3. scrupulously faithful; conscientious:
4. religious care.
5. pertaining to or connected with a monastic or religious order.
appropriate to religion or to sacred rites or observances.

Religion as a noun:
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.

4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

So, minister pp is certainly welcome to her view that the word “religion” means man-made rules, corruption and control. But that’s not a widely-shared linguistic understanding and conflicts with other views on this thread.

The pp who keeps claiming the word religion is “uncool” is speaking from his pov as an atheist. Cultural appropriation aside, he can’t speak for people who call themselves “religious” and who may mean any of the other definitions above.

Anonymous wrote:I’m an ordained minister. I am very spiritual. I despise religion. Pretty sure Jesus did as well. Spirituality comes from within. From your own inner knowing. Religion is a bunch of mad made rules used mostly for control, money, and power.

Maybe we can agree that people have different ideas about what “spirituality” and “religion” mean.

You’re using the word “religion” to mean man-made rules, but many on this thread use it to mean faith and the practice of belief, “that old-time religion.” The pp who thinks the word “religion” is “uncool” has yet another personal definition.

Jesus certainly turned over rules and tables. But he was criticizing the Pharisees, not the Jewish faithful of his time, who would probably have called themselves the Aramaic equivalent of “religious.” A comparison that might be more consistent with your antipathy to organized religion, not that I’m criticizing you, would be to Jesus’ antipathy to the Pharisees, who were the enforcers of the rules.

I’m an ordained minister. I am very spiritual. I despise religion. Pretty sure Jesus did as well. Spirituality comes from within. From your own inner knowing. Religion is a bunch of mad made rules used mostly for control, money, and power.

Anonymous wrote:So we're all in agreement then? It's more socially acceptable these days to say you are "spiritual"? I like to say I'm a "seeker." That seems to satisfy everyone, and they usually don't try to pin me down on what I mean by that.

The discussion here has covered a lot of ground, but it hasn’t addressed the “social acceptability” of various words. So no, you can’t draw broad conclusions about things we haven’t discussed.

Also, I don’t agree with your premise. You’re coming at this as an atheist, and from a subset of atheists who think the words “religion” and “religious” are bad. Religious people obviously think differently and most probably wouldn’t agree with you that being “religious” is “uncool” (to borrow from your posts on another thread).

Anonymous wrote:So we're all in agreement then? It's more socially acceptable these days to say you are "spiritual"? I like to say I'm a "seeker." That seems to satisfy everyone, and they usually don't try to pin me down on what I mean by that.

OP here. Where are you seeing "agreement" in this post that using "spiritual" is about being socially acceptable? Certainly some people have suggested that, but plenty of others have said they see them as different things:
that being spiritual is personal, while being religious is communal;
that spirituality is a belief in something bigger but undefined, while religion is formal and dogmatic;
that being religious is about valuing the framework and order of religion, while being spiritual is about belief in God/angels/spirits;
that spiritual is about the supernatural or New Age beliefs

When you say you're a "seeker" what are you seeking?

So we're all in agreement then? It's more socially acceptable these days to say you are "spiritual"? I like to say I'm a "seeker." That seems to satisfy everyone, and they usually don't try to pin me down on what I mean by that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.

That’s my sense, too. Spiritual to some means crystals or indigo children, and so on. If some of you describe yourselves as “spiritual” and think this is wrong, I’d love to hear about it. For example, do you distinguish between believing in a god or reincarnation, but not going to church/synagogue/mosque? Do you actively pray or worship in some other way, or read scripture or something irk on understanding your spirituality, or is it a more general sense?

Most simply, i think it means "I'm a good person, but I don't belong to a religious congregation." It could also apply to a church goer who likes the community but doesn't buy the dogma. It could also be something that a non-believer or doubter would say, just to get people off their back.

I never called myself spiritual, because I didn't know what it meant and didn't believe in "spirits", per se.

So are you religious, or atheist or what? Or maybe "none of the above"?

Religious people believe in spirits -- particularly God, and if Christian, Jesus and if Catholic, the "holy spirit" and the saints. I was religious and am now atheist.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.

That’s my sense, too. Spiritual to some means crystals or indigo children, and so on. If some of you describe yourselves as “spiritual” and think this is wrong, I’d love to hear about it. For example, do you distinguish between believing in a god or reincarnation, but not going to church/synagogue/mosque? Do you actively pray or worship in some other way, or read scripture or something irk on understanding your spirituality, or is it a more general sense?

Most simply, i think it means "I'm a good person, but I don't belong to a religious congregation." It could also apply to a church goer who likes the community but doesn't buy the dogma. It could also be something that a non-believer or doubter would say, just to get people off their back.

I never called myself spiritual, because I didn't know what it meant and didn't believe in "spirits", per se.

So are you religious, or atheist or what? Or maybe "none of the above"?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.

That’s my sense, too. Spiritual to some means crystals or indigo children, and so on. If some of you describe yourselves as “spiritual” and think this is wrong, I’d love to hear about it. For example, do you distinguish between believing in a god or reincarnation, but not going to church/synagogue/mosque? Do you actively pray or worship in some other way, or read scripture or something irk on understanding your spirituality, or is it a more general sense?

Most urban, educated people are more likely to describe themselves as "spiritual." This seems much more socially acceptable these days. I mean, you wouldn't want to be confused with being a southern baptist or something like that. Down in the Bible belt around Lynchburg or Tennesseeit might be different of course.

Good point. There may be people who think of themselves as spiritual AND religious.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.

That’s my sense, too. Spiritual to some means crystals or indigo children, and so on. If some of you describe yourselves as “spiritual” and think this is wrong, I’d love to hear about it. For example, do you distinguish between believing in a god or reincarnation, but not going to church/synagogue/mosque? Do you actively pray or worship in some other way, or read scripture or something irk on understanding your spirituality, or is it a more general sense?

Most simply, i think it means "I'm a good person, but I don't belong to a religious congregation." It could also apply to a church goer who likes the community but doesn't buy the dogma. It could also be something that a non-believer or doubter would say, just to get people off their back.

I never called myself spiritual, because I didn't know what it meant and didn't believe in "spirits", per se.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.

That’s my sense, too. Spiritual to some means crystals or indigo children, and so on. If some of you describe yourselves as “spiritual” and think this is wrong, I’d love to hear about it. For example, do you distinguish between believing in a god or reincarnation, but not going to church/synagogue/mosque? Do you actively pray or worship in some other way, or read scripture or something irk on understanding your spirituality, or is it a more general sense?

Most urban, educated people are more likely to describe themselves as "spiritual." This seems much more socially acceptable these days. I mean, you wouldn't want to be confused with being a southern baptist or something like that. Down in the Bible belt around Lynchburg or Tennesseeit might be different of course.

Anonymous wrote:Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.

That’s my sense, too. Spiritual to some means crystals or indigo children, and so on. If some of you describe yourselves as “spiritual” and think this is wrong, I’d love to hear about it. For example, do you distinguish between believing in a god or reincarnation, but not going to church/synagogue/mosque? Do you actively pray or worship in some other way, or read scripture or something irk on understanding your spirituality, or is it a more general sense?

This was from 2018 but it is instructive
https://lifewayresearch.com/2018/01/26/americans-say-theyre-spiritual-not-religious/

27% say they're spiritual but not religious
6% say they're religious but not spiritual
48% say they're both

nothing yet about the % of agnostics who just like to go to church -

Anonymous wrote:Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.

Am I alone in finding this post ironic?

Those I know who describe themselves as spiritual are pretty intellectually shallow and hollow. Uninteresting. Their grasp of the divine is minimal and kind of all over the map, ironically soulless. It’s obvious they are just making stuff up. Same could be said though for a few who describe themselves as religious, too.