Spiritual but not religious

[Quantum Windbag]

I was initially beside myself with this particular essay. I find this guy completely off the mark, not having the first basic understanding of what "spiritual but not religious" means.

My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out – CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

What did he get wrong? Are we supposed to be outraged because his position disagrees with yours just because you are awesomely awesome?

 

[dblack]

I tend to agree that 'spiritual but not religious' is usually a copout. Most people I query about it seem to be expressing an emotional, perhaps instinctive, urge to believe in the supernatural - conflicted with a rational awareness that it's bullshit.

However, there are some, I'll admit, who are sincerely "spiritual" seekers choosing to forge their own path rather than follow a specific religious practice. That doesn't make them any loonier than the 'followers', or less so.

 

[Truthmatters]

I was initially beside myself with this particular essay. I find this guy completely off the mark, not having the first basic understanding of what "spiritual but not religious" means.

My Take: 'I'm spiritual but not religious' is a cop-out ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

you will make a good mod

 

[Staidhup]

Regardless, 2013 years ago something very unique and special happened, we measure the progress of time based on his birth. So put that into your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Intense]

I always loved the way Thoreau put it, in "Civil Disobedience".

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

Salvation is the Goal. Organized Religion the Beginning, the Foundation, the Training Wheels. One does not need to reject them to advance in Spiritual Growth. There comes a Time for Each of us, where an Individual relationship is inevitable. God first in all things, through Conscience. Locke Found that. Madison found that, Thoreau found that, So did Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. How? By searching out the best or worst in people?

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

 

[ABikerSailor]

Regardless, 2013 years ago something very unique and special happened, we measure the progress of time based on his birth. So put that into your pipe and smoke it.

Depends on your belief system.

Buddha and Jesus taught basically the same thing.

Is one more important than the other?

If you say yes, then you're tied strongly to dogma.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Most of the Christians on the board may be surprised that I actually agree about the "cop out" nature of most who use the tired phrase "spiritual but not religious." It's about as tired as most religion itself.

It is important that if one considers the spiritual, then one is obligated to study the spiritual. This inevitably includes organized religious doctrine. I've studied it. I've just never found God there except in the most abstract ways. There is an inherent fallacy in considering a collection of writings written by men over a large span of time at different periods as the "Word of God." It requires faith. This is okay.

The problem is the ferocity with which people will cling to sacred texts as if they were actually written by God, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in their writing, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in the process of selecting which of the early Christian texts would be canon and which would be rejected. It is a known human tendency to embellish events, but when bringing up the outright likelihood that such behavior was present in the writing of scripture to those of faith they get very upset.

Despite all of this, I do recognize the value of religion, and the moral compass it tends to provide to society. Christians might be surprised to learn that I agree with the general concept that the decline of religious adherence in the U.S. has contributed to a general moral decay. I don't think it can really be disputed.

This does not establish scriptures as the "Word of God," simply because correlation does not imply causation, one of the most basic logical rules. It does strongly demonstrate, however, the moral societal framework that religion provides, the benefits of which tend to outweigh the drawbacks. This also does not mean that non-religious people cannot be highly moral. The fact that there were deists and non-religious people involved with the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution along with the religious people demonstrates this nicely.

I challenge religion all the time. That said, given a choice between being surrounded by Christians and being surrounded by a society lacking a moral compass, I'll take the former.

 

[turzovka]

Most of the Christians on the board may be surprised that I actually agree about the "cop out" nature of most who use the tired phrase "spiritual but not religious." It's about as tired as most religion itself.

It is important that if one considers the spiritual, then one is obligated to study the spiritual. This inevitably includes organized religious doctrine. I've studied it. I've just never found God there except in the most abstract ways. There is an inherent fallacy in considering a collection of writings written by men over a large span of time at different periods as the "Word of God." It requires faith. This is okay.

The problem is the ferocity with which people will cling to sacred texts as if they were actually written by God, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in their writing, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in the process of selecting which of the early Christian texts would be canon and which would be rejected. It is a known human tendency to embellish events, but when bringing up the outright likelihood that such behavior was present in the writing of scripture to those of faith they get very upset.

Despite all of this, I do recognize the value of religion, and the moral compass it tends to provide to society. Christians might be surprised to learn that I agree with the general concept that the decline of religious adherence in the U.S. has contributed to a general moral decay. I don't think it can really be disputed.

This does not establish scriptures as the "Word of God," simply because correlation does not imply causation, one of the most basic logical rules. It does strongly demonstrate, however, the moral societal framework that religion provides, the benefits of which tend to outweigh the drawbacks. This also does not mean that non-religious people cannot be highly moral. The fact that there were deists and non-religious people involved with the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution along with the religious people demonstrates this nicely.

I challenge religion all the time. That said, given a choice between being surrounded by Christians and being surrounded by a society lacking a moral compass, I'll take the former.

I am not surprised by anything you said. It even lifts my spirits in a number of ways. I agree with a great deal of what you put forth. I agree with the cop out postulation, the same one Avatar alleged. I agree with the moral decay, but I do believe there are enough other ways to prove this is a primary cause and not just a correlation.

I disagree in other matters, of course.

"The problem is the ferocity with which people will cling to sacred texts as if they were actually written by God, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in their writing, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in the process of selecting which of the early Christian texts would be canon and which would be rejected. It is a known human tendency to embellish events, but when bringing up the outright likelihood that such behavior was present in the writing of scripture to those of faith they get very upset."

One, yours or anyone else’s rejection does not upset me, and it surely should not upset any believer.

Two, of course human fallacy could have been involved in both the composition and in the selection of “sacred texts,” but I have enough supporting evidence outside of Scripture to convince me that is simply not the case. I am convinced the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but that does not mean we Catholics do not have real disputes with other denominations claims or interpretations.

Three, I see no reason to embellish anything when one is already convinced who God is and what He has in store for us. It would be a disservice to the great cause to lie or embellish.

Finally, you say you only see abstract suggestions or evidence of God in your studies of Scripture and religion. There, it appears, we differe mostly. But I appreciate your honest evaluations and resignations.

 

[Jimmy_Jam]

Most of the Christians on the board may be surprised that I actually agree about the "cop out" nature of most who use the tired phrase "spiritual but not religious." It's about as tired as most religion itself.

It is important that if one considers the spiritual, then one is obligated to study the spiritual. This inevitably includes organized religious doctrine. I've studied it. I've just never found God there except in the most abstract ways. There is an inherent fallacy in considering a collection of writings written by men over a large span of time at different periods as the "Word of God." It requires faith. This is okay.

The problem is the ferocity with which people will cling to sacred texts as if they were actually written by God, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in their writing, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in the process of selecting which of the early Christian texts would be canon and which would be rejected. It is a known human tendency to embellish events, but when bringing up the outright likelihood that such behavior was present in the writing of scripture to those of faith they get very upset.

Despite all of this, I do recognize the value of religion, and the moral compass it tends to provide to society. Christians might be surprised to learn that I agree with the general concept that the decline of religious adherence in the U.S. has contributed to a general moral decay. I don't think it can really be disputed.

This does not establish scriptures as the "Word of God," simply because correlation does not imply causation, one of the most basic logical rules. It does strongly demonstrate, however, the moral societal framework that religion provides, the benefits of which tend to outweigh the drawbacks. This also does not mean that non-religious people cannot be highly moral. The fact that there were deists and non-religious people involved with the American Revolution, the Declaration of Independence, and the Constitution along with the religious people demonstrates this nicely.

I challenge religion all the time. That said, given a choice between being surrounded by Christians and being surrounded by a society lacking a moral compass, I'll take the former.

I am not surprised by anything you said. It even lifts my spirits in a number of ways. I agree with a great deal of what you put forth. I agree with the cop out postulation, the same one Avatar alleged. I agree with the moral decay, but I do believe there are enough other ways to prove this is a primary cause and not just a correlation.

I disagree in other matters, of course.

"The problem is the ferocity with which people will cling to sacred texts as if they were actually written by God, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in their writing, as if human fallacy could not have been involved in the process of selecting which of the early Christian texts would be canon and which would be rejected. It is a known human tendency to embellish events, but when bringing up the outright likelihood that such behavior was present in the writing of scripture to those of faith they get very upset."

One, yours or anyone else’s rejection does not upset me, and it surely should not upset any believer.

Two, of course human fallacy could have been involved in both the composition and in the selection of “sacred texts,” but I have enough supporting evidence outside of Scripture to convince me that is simply not the case. I am convinced the Bible is the inspired Word of God, but that does not mean we Catholics do not have real disputes with other denominations claims or interpretations.

Three, I see no reason to embellish anything when one is already convinced who God is and what He has in store for us. It would be a disservice to the great cause to lie or embellish.

Finally, you say you only see abstract suggestions or evidence of God in your studies of Scripture and religion. There, it appears, we differe mostly. But I appreciate your honest evaluations and resignations.

These little exchanges are beneficial to the cause of understanding, something modern Americans seem reluctant to actually benefit from. The beauty is that it does not require one to change one's position.

See highlighted above. I appreciate that you see no reason to embellish. The problem is that it is a part of the human psyche. It is an extremely difficult tendency to resist for almost all human beings. When one believes in something, be it miracles, ghosts, or UFOs, events are perceived in different ways than one who does not, sometimes in radically divergent ways. That two can see a single event and report two dramatically different experiences can be seen in humanity over and over again. It is in this light that I treat the scriptures. This human tendency is not something that we evolved into, it was with us back then too.

Why do mainstream Christians insist on the authenticity of the Gospels, yet will have no problem with claims that the gnostic texts that were rejected in the Council of Nicea are not? It's a simple answer, because religious organization has mandated that they do. What's more I feel confident in saying that most Christians would fear to read the Gospel of Mary Magdalene or the Gospel of Thomas out of fear of exposure to tainted or heretical content. But the simple explanation to why they were rejected is that there was an effort to consolidate Christianity from an esoteric assortment of sects with radically varying beliefs into something consistent, and those texts were simply not germane enough to help that cause. The Synoptic Gospels are close enough to serve the purpose, and allowing those other texts would perpetuate a wide variety of schisms.

Most of faith consider this a string of events guided by God. Skeptics consider this the means used by Rome for political control. I tend toward the latter, especially because Rome had already proven for centuries up to that point their great skill at conquest and subjugation. Was faith not involved then too? I'm sure it was.

 

[newpolitics]

If you believe In a divinity, you are religious. It's ridiculous to say I believe in a son-god who's father created the universe (but they are two parts of the same) and offers eternal salvation from eternal torment yet you are not religious. You are. Just own it.

 

[MarcATL]

Romans 12:5 KJV - So we, being many, are one body in - Bible Gateway

1 Corinthians 12:24-25 KJV - For our comely parts have no need: but - Bible Gateway

Heb 10:25 KJV - Not forsaking the assembling of - Bible Gateway

And let's not forget the example of the Israelites in the wilderness, as God led them, and made provision for them to fellowship with one another as they worshipped Him.

I'm referring to congregating and worshiping as a group, as do religions and/or denominations...this is Biblically supported.

 

[Avatar4321]

If you believe In a divinity, you are religious. It's ridiculous to say I believe in a son-god who's father created the universe (but they are two parts of the same) and offers eternal salvation from eternal torment yet you are not religious. You are. Just own it.

I don't think anyone actually says that. I also think that if you ought to disagree with what people actually believe, if you are going to disgree, and not create a caricature to disgree.

 

[Avatar4321]

Romans 12:5 KJV - So we, being many, are one body in - Bible Gateway

1 Corinthians 12:24-25 KJV - For our comely parts have no need: but - Bible Gateway

Heb 10:25 KJV - Not forsaking the assembling of - Bible Gateway

And let's not forget the example of the Israelites in the wilderness, as God led them, and made provision for them to fellowship with one another as they worshipped Him.

I'm referring to congregating and worshiping as a group, as do religions and/or denominations...this is Biblically supported.

Not surprising since the Lord is a God of Order. One of His goals is to reconcile us and unite us as human family. That takes organization and planning. And God is truly a master planner. The Plan of Happiness is His design.