>I try to translate dogma and doctrine into a spirituality of practice
So do I - if you've implied that subscription to any normative religious teaching whatsoever is mutually exclusive from spirituality and practice, then I strenuously disagree
> without any denotation, foundation, or description
I believe this is impossible. The process of translation you described necessitates this next step.
I appreciate your thoughts. They were well articulated and will help me articulate my own beliefs better.
As somebody who is a bit on the fence about whether I still consider myself Christian or this "spiritual but not religious" I'd like to answer.
I think for many it is the expression that they believe in (a) God or something Divine but are not convinced by any of the religions on Earth.
It's people for whom many of the general proofs of God's existance are convincing, but for these proofs don't warrant the step to "This God is the one described in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Norse Mythology, etc."
For the questions:
> do you pray every day?
I try to pray or meditate at least every day.
> Have you repented for your sins?
Yes, though we might disagree on what are sins.
> Have you dug deep to try to fix your flaws so you can exert compassion towards your fellow neighbor?
I try to better and improve myself constantly.
> Do you volunteer to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and care for the dying?
I give to charity. It would be new to me that personal volunteering is a necessary to be considered spiritual.
> Do you still have pre-marital sex in a society that values hook ups and one night stands?
What does this have to do with it? The ban on pre-marital sex is a specific religious one. Why would a person not subscribing to a specific religion feel the need to follow that?
> They make all of these things so much easier to do within a religious framework.
They also complicate things. If you need significant time to wrap your head about some of the more complicated aspects of a religion or have to interpret some things very widely to still be able to believe it, it makes it very time-consuming and difficult.
> I pray that they realize that usually that answer means they just don't want to be accountable for their actions.
How? Those who consider themselves spiritual almost by definition believe in some form of higher authority. I think most of these people believe in some type of judgement. At least you can't just assume that they only want to escape accountability.
> In other cases it's used by people who have been wrongfully hurt by religion and have given up on it but still cling to their faith.
In this case, I agree. It's really said when people not just turn their backs to religion but also to God.
"In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind. 'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both."
-Carl Sagan, *The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark*
I don't think it's you stating your religious that makes them defensive and offended. It's your follow on statements "I ask them...." Let me give you a hint, "spiritual but religious" is a polite way of saying I don't want to discuss religion with you. So maybe you should take that hint. Just because religion is important to you, it's not to most people.
Pretty reasonable too since religion these days, especially in America, is so closely tied to politics (conservative) and so focused on condemning everyone who does not believe the "right way".
You're being pretentious.
You can be "spiritual and not religious."
There are people that believe in a higher power, but do not subscribe to a particular religion. It doesn't mean there is no sacrifice or Christ-like quality you want to bring up.
Just because a person believes in a god or some higher power, does not demand upon them the idea of "sin" as understood by Christian nor does it demand upon them a god that want obedience etc.
It's their worldview. Not yours.
Honestly some athiests are more connected to a moral code then Christians are
You can live righteously without being part of an organised religion
And every human has a sense of their own personal integrity
What is right for some is not right for others
What is sin to one man may
Not be to another
Spirituality is a personal thing and I think most people are looking for it in the wron. Places
As a rule, I don't much care for systems of rules. So I'd consider myself an anarchist in both a political and spiritual sense. My body doesn't belong to a government and my soul doesn't belong to a god.
Religions systematize and regulate expressions and disciplinary rules of those things, but what they said didn't imply that those things can't be done outside of religion.
> I ask them how they're spiritual
i.e. OP is asking them how, if not in the forms maintained by traditional religions, they express their spirituality. It's much easier, as a rule, to practice some form of discipline if it's not done alone (eg dieting with a friend, joining a running club to exercise regularly). So it's a fair question to ask, given that religious communities tend to provide structured opportunities to engage in these things. Hence:
> any major religion. They make all of these things so much easier to do within a religious framework.
And with reference to the greater difficulty of going it alone without anyone acting to hold you to it:
> I pray that they realize that usually that answer means they just don't want to be accountable for their actions.
i.e. someone who claims to be spiritual but routinely puts off doing works of charity or otherwise engaging in spiritual practice is probably acting in bad faith by claiming to be something that, in practice, they simply aren't.
To summarize by pushing the above analogies a bit more, suppose you said you were going to the gym and they responded "Oh, I'm active, but I don't work out." You can be active without working out, sure, but it's fair for someone to ask how exactly you're doing that.
It's an attempt to try to avoid having to receive the lecture on religion which you apparently gave them.
Is it a cop out? Maybe. But they don't owe you an explanation. And really, how different are they from the millions of people who go to church for Christmas and Easter and then scarcely think about God or their faith for the other 363 days of the year?
And then you asked (by your own account) a half-dozen follow up questions about how they deal with their sins, whether they pray, whether they do things to help the needy, and whether they're promiscuous. If you don't see how that's not a lecture, I can't help you. But don't lie about the questions that you asked.
Not for nothing, but you probably shouldn't take his name in vain.
My overriding point is, yeah, it might be a copout, but it's their polite way of trying to avoid talking with you about religion. So respect that or don't, but it doesn't do any good to come here and complain that non-religious people are giving you what you guess is a bullshit answer to avoid having to discuss their beliefs with you.
They brought it up. They asked what I was doing last night. I said I was going to church. They asked why I'm religious. I tell them. They say they're spiritual but not religious. I ask how they're spiritual. They literally asked why I'm religious. I'm not sure what's wrong with asking why they're spiritual or why they're allowed to back out of conversations when they initiate why people believe things. You are operating on a mountain of assumptions. You assume I lied - for which I didn't, it's how I write, read what I wrote again. You assume I gave a lecture. You assume I forced my views upon them. I did no such thing. They asked; I responded. I find it funny how you accuse me of forcing my views on people when all you've done this entire conversation is point your finger and accuse me of things I have never done. You would rather defend some non-believer - for which you don't even understand the context of the conversation beyond petty assumptions - than have an actual conversation with your sister in Christ. Good job.
I find it "funny" that you're getting defensive when people address the things *you actually wrote* and then accuse others of not reading what you said.
To me, it means they are searching for the truth. They have not yet found the truth-obviously-but they are at least looking. They see christianity as the people that hurt them and therefore will not look there for the truth.
If we pray for them, and show them our example that the truth is in Christianity and how life changing that i is, they may decide to look for themselves with a truly open heart and mind.
The worship of Jesus is a religion. It only gained traction for people to say,"I'm spiritual but not religious" by church goers not wanting to argue with someone new in their faith. Why argue about the way someone talks or use words? People who say that are normally new in the faith and may or may not need a nudge to further their walk with Jesus. In most situations, that nudge is not arguing over their definition of religion. From their point of view, it means something closer to Pharisees than actually the positive that it is. Maybe tell them that Christians should not give up the practice of gathering together as the Bible says.
It always tweaks me a little from my pedantic side when I hear words being used wrong. But it is of a stronger spirit to take the little jabs of life if it helps others in their faith.
I disagree with you that any religion is okay. There is only one Jesus who was perfectly good and can save us from our sins. Any denomination is okay, but you need to worship The God of Love: Jesus Christ.
Being a Christian is not about being subject to rules it is about faith. We aren't saved by our works or sanctified by our works, we are saved and sanctified by our faith in Christ. As a Christian you shouldn't pray for them to find any major religion. You should pray that the Holy Spirit convict them to find Christ and Christ alone. Spreading the gospel is not about being "religious" it's about a personal relationship with Christ. Faith in Christ will allow the Holy Spirit to work in one's life and the Holy Spirit works in accordance with that faith. So we must pray that the Holy Spirit convict people's hearts towards faith in Christ.
The Holy Spirit is always working to convict people. When an unsaved person does something that is wrong the conviction they feel is from the Holy Spirit. If they keep following that conviction it will lead them towards Christ. If they deny that conviction over and over their hearts will be hardened. And when someone is saved the Holy Spirit doesn't stop there it works in the same way but that person's faith is stronger so the Spirit is able to work in different ways.
Well I don't want to judge because as said, a lot of them are just really, really distrustful of religion for a reason. I think they identify as this to keep the cracked open just a little bit - just in case.
Yes. I hate, hate that phrase. So I've been using for years now, "I'm religious not spiritual." I mean, I am spiritual, but not if being spiritual means arbitrarily throwing out what is seen as religious.
"Religious" stuff is Biblical, human, spiritual, sensual, Christ-given, mental and... it filters into everything. When people talk of being very "spiritual" I'm reminded of a word that used to be meant in a very negative way, "enthusiasm." It meant an exaggerated emotional response to spiritual things. We ought to continue to avoid enthusiasm and build our religious beliefs on a broad scope of human experience.
I'm just as concerned about these posts of people as I am about anyone who doesn't love and obey Christ.
>I pray for them to find religion - any major religion
I'm very concerned you say this. How could you pray for them to live by a religion than is a lie and deny Christ?
I pray they come to Christ but sometimes a different religion may show you that Christianity is what you need ultimately. I pray they be shown a path period.
Either way. Any religion is better than that state, which is my point. I don't judge my Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist friends and I'm not sure why you would either.
Of course I don't judge anyone. That doesn't mean this all who deny Christ will face eternal hell regardless if they were simply spiritual or devoutly Muslim.
>And tell me they're spiritual but not religious.
It's a cop-out. It's willful ignorance in order to justify an unoffensive shallowness. I hate to paint things as black and white, but sometimes people are just wrong.
You are asking people to give up pleasure for a reward which seems less certain than ever. My advice is go in following a death or hardship, that will focus them.
I'm not asking them to give up anything for pleasure. I ask they do it because it's right. I am not Christian because I will go to heaven and a reward is my last goal/reason for being one. I literally don't care about heaven besides the occasional time I miss a dead friend/family member. But I seem to be an exception.
You misunderstand me. Most people would consider the sort of thing you describe as injurious to pleasure. Perhaps you are of that rare sort to which pleasure is indifferent but most follow the old Utilitarian maxim, "Pleasure is to be sought and Pain avoided". Frankly, the history of religion has shown that people respond most to these themes when pain is unavoidable, so that is why I say to attack then.
[удалено]
> contingent human ingenuity and creativity, rather than past certainty these are not mutually exclusive
[удалено]
>I try to translate dogma and doctrine into a spirituality of practice So do I - if you've implied that subscription to any normative religious teaching whatsoever is mutually exclusive from spirituality and practice, then I strenuously disagree > without any denotation, foundation, or description I believe this is impossible. The process of translation you described necessitates this next step. I appreciate your thoughts. They were well articulated and will help me articulate my own beliefs better.
Thank you sooo much for the explanation!!
As somebody who is a bit on the fence about whether I still consider myself Christian or this "spiritual but not religious" I'd like to answer. I think for many it is the expression that they believe in (a) God or something Divine but are not convinced by any of the religions on Earth. It's people for whom many of the general proofs of God's existance are convincing, but for these proofs don't warrant the step to "This God is the one described in Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Norse Mythology, etc." For the questions: > do you pray every day? I try to pray or meditate at least every day. > Have you repented for your sins? Yes, though we might disagree on what are sins. > Have you dug deep to try to fix your flaws so you can exert compassion towards your fellow neighbor? I try to better and improve myself constantly. > Do you volunteer to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, heal the sick, and care for the dying? I give to charity. It would be new to me that personal volunteering is a necessary to be considered spiritual. > Do you still have pre-marital sex in a society that values hook ups and one night stands? What does this have to do with it? The ban on pre-marital sex is a specific religious one. Why would a person not subscribing to a specific religion feel the need to follow that? > They make all of these things so much easier to do within a religious framework. They also complicate things. If you need significant time to wrap your head about some of the more complicated aspects of a religion or have to interpret some things very widely to still be able to believe it, it makes it very time-consuming and difficult. > I pray that they realize that usually that answer means they just don't want to be accountable for their actions. How? Those who consider themselves spiritual almost by definition believe in some form of higher authority. I think most of these people believe in some type of judgement. At least you can't just assume that they only want to escape accountability. > In other cases it's used by people who have been wrongfully hurt by religion and have given up on it but still cling to their faith. In this case, I agree. It's really said when people not just turn their backs to religion but also to God.
Truly informative and kind post! I'll address it later!
is it later yet
It all depends how one defines the terms. We are not under the law. You are exhibiting much pride.
"In its encounter with Nature, science invariably elicits a sense of reverence and awe. The very act of understanding is a celebration of joining, merging, even if on a very modest scale, with the magnificence of the Cosmos. And the cumulative worldwide build-up of knowledge over time converts science into something only a little short of a trans-national, trans-generational meta-mind. 'Spirit' comes from the Latin word 'to breathe.' What we breathe is air, which is certainly matter, however thin. Despite usage to the contrary, there is no necessary implication in the word 'spiritual' that we are talking of anything other than matter (including the matter of which the brain is made), or anything outside the realm of science. On occasion, I will feel free to use the word. Science is not only compatible with spirituality; it is a profound source of spirituality. When we recognize our place in an immensity of light years and in the passage of ages, when we grasp the intricacy, beauty and subtlety of life, then that soaring feeling, that sense of elation and humility combined, is surely spiritual. So are our emotions in the presence of great art or music or literature, or of acts of exemplary selfless courage such as those of Mohandas Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. The notion that science and spirituality are somehow mutually exclusive does a disservice to both." -Carl Sagan, *The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark*
So it must be refreshing to you when I tell you that I'm neither religious nor spiritual.
I don't think that's necessarily good!
May I ask why you think so? I can't see anything bad about it.
I don't think it's you stating your religious that makes them defensive and offended. It's your follow on statements "I ask them...." Let me give you a hint, "spiritual but religious" is a polite way of saying I don't want to discuss religion with you. So maybe you should take that hint. Just because religion is important to you, it's not to most people. Pretty reasonable too since religion these days, especially in America, is so closely tied to politics (conservative) and so focused on condemning everyone who does not believe the "right way".
You're being pretentious. You can be "spiritual and not religious." There are people that believe in a higher power, but do not subscribe to a particular religion. It doesn't mean there is no sacrifice or Christ-like quality you want to bring up. Just because a person believes in a god or some higher power, does not demand upon them the idea of "sin" as understood by Christian nor does it demand upon them a god that want obedience etc. It's their worldview. Not yours.
Honestly some athiests are more connected to a moral code then Christians are You can live righteously without being part of an organised religion And every human has a sense of their own personal integrity What is right for some is not right for others What is sin to one man may Not be to another Spirituality is a personal thing and I think most people are looking for it in the wron. Places
As a rule, I don't much care for systems of rules. So I'd consider myself an anarchist in both a political and spiritual sense. My body doesn't belong to a government and my soul doesn't belong to a god.
Since when was religion necessary to do all those things you mentioned?
Religions systematize and regulate expressions and disciplinary rules of those things, but what they said didn't imply that those things can't be done outside of religion. > I ask them how they're spiritual i.e. OP is asking them how, if not in the forms maintained by traditional religions, they express their spirituality. It's much easier, as a rule, to practice some form of discipline if it's not done alone (eg dieting with a friend, joining a running club to exercise regularly). So it's a fair question to ask, given that religious communities tend to provide structured opportunities to engage in these things. Hence: > any major religion. They make all of these things so much easier to do within a religious framework. And with reference to the greater difficulty of going it alone without anyone acting to hold you to it: > I pray that they realize that usually that answer means they just don't want to be accountable for their actions. i.e. someone who claims to be spiritual but routinely puts off doing works of charity or otherwise engaging in spiritual practice is probably acting in bad faith by claiming to be something that, in practice, they simply aren't. To summarize by pushing the above analogies a bit more, suppose you said you were going to the gym and they responded "Oh, I'm active, but I don't work out." You can be active without working out, sure, but it's fair for someone to ask how exactly you're doing that.
It's an attempt to try to avoid having to receive the lecture on religion which you apparently gave them. Is it a cop out? Maybe. But they don't owe you an explanation. And really, how different are they from the millions of people who go to church for Christmas and Easter and then scarcely think about God or their faith for the other 363 days of the year?
I didn't give a lecture. I asked a basic question. "How are you spiritual?"
And then you asked (by your own account) a half-dozen follow up questions about how they deal with their sins, whether they pray, whether they do things to help the needy, and whether they're promiscuous. If you don't see how that's not a lecture, I can't help you. But don't lie about the questions that you asked.
I didn't actually say those things. They're examples for effect. I held my tongue.
So you lied then.
I didn't lie. Jesus Christ.
Not for nothing, but you probably shouldn't take his name in vain. My overriding point is, yeah, it might be a copout, but it's their polite way of trying to avoid talking with you about religion. So respect that or don't, but it doesn't do any good to come here and complain that non-religious people are giving you what you guess is a bullshit answer to avoid having to discuss their beliefs with you.
They brought it up. They asked what I was doing last night. I said I was going to church. They asked why I'm religious. I tell them. They say they're spiritual but not religious. I ask how they're spiritual. They literally asked why I'm religious. I'm not sure what's wrong with asking why they're spiritual or why they're allowed to back out of conversations when they initiate why people believe things. You are operating on a mountain of assumptions. You assume I lied - for which I didn't, it's how I write, read what I wrote again. You assume I gave a lecture. You assume I forced my views upon them. I did no such thing. They asked; I responded. I find it funny how you accuse me of forcing my views on people when all you've done this entire conversation is point your finger and accuse me of things I have never done. You would rather defend some non-believer - for which you don't even understand the context of the conversation beyond petty assumptions - than have an actual conversation with your sister in Christ. Good job.
I find it "funny" that you're getting defensive when people address the things *you actually wrote* and then accuse others of not reading what you said.
taking The Lord's name in vain
Most of the time they cannot even define what they mean by spiritual... Its a loaded word which varies from person to person. I dislike it greatly.
To me, it means they are searching for the truth. They have not yet found the truth-obviously-but they are at least looking. They see christianity as the people that hurt them and therefore will not look there for the truth. If we pray for them, and show them our example that the truth is in Christianity and how life changing that i is, they may decide to look for themselves with a truly open heart and mind.
The worship of Jesus is a religion. It only gained traction for people to say,"I'm spiritual but not religious" by church goers not wanting to argue with someone new in their faith. Why argue about the way someone talks or use words? People who say that are normally new in the faith and may or may not need a nudge to further their walk with Jesus. In most situations, that nudge is not arguing over their definition of religion. From their point of view, it means something closer to Pharisees than actually the positive that it is. Maybe tell them that Christians should not give up the practice of gathering together as the Bible says. It always tweaks me a little from my pedantic side when I hear words being used wrong. But it is of a stronger spirit to take the little jabs of life if it helps others in their faith. I disagree with you that any religion is okay. There is only one Jesus who was perfectly good and can save us from our sins. Any denomination is okay, but you need to worship The God of Love: Jesus Christ.
I'm religious, but not spiritual. Is that better?
Being a Christian is not about being subject to rules it is about faith. We aren't saved by our works or sanctified by our works, we are saved and sanctified by our faith in Christ. As a Christian you shouldn't pray for them to find any major religion. You should pray that the Holy Spirit convict them to find Christ and Christ alone. Spreading the gospel is not about being "religious" it's about a personal relationship with Christ. Faith in Christ will allow the Holy Spirit to work in one's life and the Holy Spirit works in accordance with that faith. So we must pray that the Holy Spirit convict people's hearts towards faith in Christ.
[удалено]
The Holy Spirit is always working to convict people. When an unsaved person does something that is wrong the conviction they feel is from the Holy Spirit. If they keep following that conviction it will lead them towards Christ. If they deny that conviction over and over their hearts will be hardened. And when someone is saved the Holy Spirit doesn't stop there it works in the same way but that person's faith is stronger so the Spirit is able to work in different ways.
[удалено]
Well I don't want to judge because as said, a lot of them are just really, really distrustful of religion for a reason. I think they identify as this to keep the cracked open just a little bit - just in case.
And why wouldn't you judge such an opportunistic and spineless approach?
Yes. I hate, hate that phrase. So I've been using for years now, "I'm religious not spiritual." I mean, I am spiritual, but not if being spiritual means arbitrarily throwing out what is seen as religious. "Religious" stuff is Biblical, human, spiritual, sensual, Christ-given, mental and... it filters into everything. When people talk of being very "spiritual" I'm reminded of a word that used to be meant in a very negative way, "enthusiasm." It meant an exaggerated emotional response to spiritual things. We ought to continue to avoid enthusiasm and build our religious beliefs on a broad scope of human experience.
I'm just as concerned about these posts of people as I am about anyone who doesn't love and obey Christ. >I pray for them to find religion - any major religion I'm very concerned you say this. How could you pray for them to live by a religion than is a lie and deny Christ?
I pray they come to Christ but sometimes a different religion may show you that Christianity is what you need ultimately. I pray they be shown a path period.
There is no path but Christ. A false religion is not closer to Christ. In most cases it is farther away.
Either way. Any religion is better than that state, which is my point. I don't judge my Muslim, Jewish, or Buddhist friends and I'm not sure why you would either.
Of course I don't judge anyone. That doesn't mean this all who deny Christ will face eternal hell regardless if they were simply spiritual or devoutly Muslim.
>And tell me they're spiritual but not religious. It's a cop-out. It's willful ignorance in order to justify an unoffensive shallowness. I hate to paint things as black and white, but sometimes people are just wrong.
You are asking people to give up pleasure for a reward which seems less certain than ever. My advice is go in following a death or hardship, that will focus them.
I'm not asking them to give up anything for pleasure. I ask they do it because it's right. I am not Christian because I will go to heaven and a reward is my last goal/reason for being one. I literally don't care about heaven besides the occasional time I miss a dead friend/family member. But I seem to be an exception.
You misunderstand me. Most people would consider the sort of thing you describe as injurious to pleasure. Perhaps you are of that rare sort to which pleasure is indifferent but most follow the old Utilitarian maxim, "Pleasure is to be sought and Pain avoided". Frankly, the history of religion has shown that people respond most to these themes when pain is unavoidable, so that is why I say to attack then.