"spiritual but not religous"

[mrs_abbott]

As to your question I guess it comes down to definitions. Plenty of people I know claim to be spiritual, yet reject organized religion. Are they spiritual? Well, in many cases if we define that to mean one who thinks a higher power exists and one should attempt to be a “good” person as one self defines then I would say one could be spiritual and not religious.

Thank you for answering my question.

 

[mikew262]

This doesn’t make sense to me-

When you say that you admire “spiritual” people, but not “religious” people, you are implying that people who are religious are not spiritual. If you say someone is “religious but not spiritual” you are really saying that they are practicing a religion without faith or devotion, and so that differentiation is impossible.

If they are going through the motions of a religious action, that doesn’t make them religious-it makes them tired.

I think that the role of spirituality in one’s sense of their own religious identity is underemphasized. A religious person must, by definition (see the Catholic Dictionary by Hardon) operate according to a defined spirituality.

To say someone is religious but not spiritual is to say that they fly the flag, march in parades, etc, but are not patriotic.

To say someone is spiritual but not religious is to say that they are patriotic, but they do not have a residence in or even citizenship in any country-effectively leaving their patriotism meaningless and empty.

Maybe he mean’t you can be religious (follow all the rules), but not have a clue on what God is really all about or have a true relationship with him.

In being only spiritual, while not following any formal set of rules, you have established a true relationship with God.

Can you be both? Sure! However, being one or the other is very possible too IMO.

 

[fix]

In being only spiritual, while not following any formal set of rules, you have established a true relationship with God.

Yes, I believe that is what many self identified spiritual people would claim. The problem is the words true relationship mean many things.

 

[Oscarthecat]

In being only spiritual, while not following any formal set of rules, you have established a true relationship with God.

I don’t think statement can be made in such an absolute way. I think that in “being only spiritual, while not following any formal set of rules” you have established a true relationship with what you think God is, or maybe even what you wish God to be-

just being spiritual doesn’t guarantee you any kind of inside track to truth-It is nice to just take into account what we like and what feels right to us, because we don’t have to be challenged. I think that you’re at greater risk of falling into error, actually, because you’re effectively relying on only your experience, understanding, and opinions to define God-you’re looking only inward, not outward.

 

[mrs_abbott]

I don’t think statement can be made in such an absolute way. I think that in “being only spiritual, while not following any formal set of rules” you have established a true relationship with what you think God is, or maybe even what you wish God to be-

just being spiritual doesn’t guarantee you any kind of inside track to truth-It is nice to just take into account what we like and what feels right to us, because we don’t have to be challenged. I think that you’re at greater risk of falling into error, actually, because you’re effectively relying on only your experience, understanding, and opinions to define God-you’re looking only inward, not outward.

You’re turning this into a right/wrong debate. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s about being spiritual but not necesarily religious. The opinion of whether this is right or wrong is strictly relevant to the individual and their knowledge of God and/or religion. This is a topic that can only have a yes/no answer, with very little explanation.

 

[fix]

You’re turning this into a right/wrong debate. It’s not about being right or wrong. It’s about being spiritual but not necesarily religious. The opinion of whether this is right or wrong is strictly relevant to the individual and their knowledge of God and/or religion. This is a topic that can only have a yes/no answer, with very little explanation.

It is a right or wrong debate. The OP phrase is common today and carries with it specific meanings and intentions.

 

[jmcrae]

In being only spiritual, while not following any formal set of rules, you have established a true relationship with God.

If you have a true relationship with God, then you have a religion, since a true relationship with God would include setting aside a time and place to worship Him, obeying His commandments, and having an active prayer life. It would also include a definite set of beliefs about God - that is, “a religion.”

 

[FCEGM]

I don’t think statement can be made in such an absolute way. I think that in “being only spiritual, while not following any formal set of rules” you have established a true relationship with what you think God is, or maybe even what you wish God to be-

just being spiritual doesn’t guarantee you any kind of inside track to truth-It is nice to just take into account what we like and what feels right to us, because we don’t have to be challenged. I think that you’re at greater risk of falling into error, actually, because you’re effectively relying on only your experience, understanding, and opinions to define God-you’re looking only inward, not outward.

So true. The Saints didn’t become such because they were “so spiritual”, but because they were so virtuous, that virtue being formed under the guidance of the Church entrusted with the task by Christ. True religion is the whetstone against which true spirituality is sharpened.

 

[Trelow]

True religion is the whetstone against which true spirituality is sharpened.

Ooooooh, me likey.

 

[mrs_abbott]

It is a right or wrong debate. The OP phrase is common today and carries with it specific meanings and intentions.

Here is the OP:
OP:

Short and simple:

What are your ideas on the statement “I’m spiritual but not religious.”

I think that this statement presents an impossible circumstance. Spirituality and religion can’t really be separated because religion is a spirituality which a group of people (could be 10 people, could be 10 million) agree upon and participate in. I think that those who claim to be “spiritual but not religious” are really just trying to be a “one-person religion” where they make the rules and attempt to define God in their own image.

I withdrawl my statement, as I reread the original post and realize that it’s a jaded argument to begin with. Please excuse my assumptions on this being a neutral debate.

 

[FCEGM]

Ooooooh, me likey.

Thankey.

 

[Dale_M]

I agree. I was a little harsh but here in Los Angeles the people that say this are the same ones that bash “organized religion” and view Catholicism as archaic and out of touch and often have very low opinions of us personally.

Perhaps they have had enounters with people who are religious but not spiritual (or at least not very spiritual). Those are the folks I really worry about, because they can harm others.

 

[Steadfast_love]

I agree. I was a little harsh but here in Los Angeles the people that say this are the same ones that bash “organized religion” and view Catholicism as archaic and out of touch and often have very low opinions of us personally. I do have a lot of bitterness but I have been through the mill here – it is something I am working on.

PseudoHermit,

I was “Spiritual but not Religious” my whole life. I had an essentialy Catholic spirituality (I invented it with sola scriptura ) but I was raised in a liberal, Protestant family. It was hell.

I’m resentful for all the times that I met Catholics who had access to Jesus but couldn’t be bothered to share. Why would they do that? I suspect because of the attitudes detailed on this thread.

(Not that I can judge you, the most experience I’ve had with Los Angeles is being mugged by three drunken hispanics who shouted “I’m from L.A. man!” and pointed to tattoos on their bare chests that read “L.A.” I was in Seattle at the time.)

 

[Polish]

There is something to be said of being part of “The Body of Christ” - His church.

 

[havemercy]

I like the way Fulton J. Sheen put it:
“To say we do not want dogma in religion is to assert a dogma.”

There’s no escaping “rules” or “regulations” in spirituality. People who announce to the world their spirituality “but no religion” are timid thinkers or ignorant “noodle-brains”.

 

[mikew262]

Yes, I believe that is what many self identified spiritual people would claim. The problem is the words true relationship mean many things.

True, but it’s not up to you or anybody else to judge what that relationship is. God has that job.

 

[mikew262]

I like the way Fulton J. Sheen put it:
“To say we do not want dogma in religion is to assert a dogma.”

There’s no escaping “rules” or “regulations” in spirituality. People who announce to the world their spirituality “but no religion” are timid thinkers or ignorant “noodle-brains”.

Ignorance comes in many forms my friend.

 

[fix]

True, but it’s not up to you or anybody else to judge what that relationship is. God has that job.

It is not about judging anyone’s soul. As the OP points out the way the phrase is often used it may mean something like this:

" I am spiritual, but not religious and I am against all that rule stuff and guilt. If I think it is ok to have an abortion or sleep with someone that is between me and God and no one has any right to say differently".

Now, we can’t judge that person’s soul, but we certainly can judge such words are objectively wrong and objectively sinful.

 

[mikew262]

It is not about judging anyone’s soul. As the OP points out the way the phrase is often used it may mean something like this:

" I am spiritual, but not religious and I am against all that rule stuff and guilt. If I think it is ok to have an abortion or sleep with someone that is between me and God and no one has any right to say differently".

Now, we can’t judge that person’s soul, but we certainly can judge such words are objectively wrong and objectively sinful.

It is between that person and God, and at judgement time, God will either condemn or reward him for his actions. We all will face this time.

 

[fix]

It is between that person and God, and at judgement time, God will either condemn or reward him for his actions. We all will face this time.

That is not in question.

My point is we are called to discern. To draw appropriate conclusions as in understanding that vague notions of spirituality that contradict reason and revelation should be seen as objective error.