"I'm spiritual, but not religious."

[haeratic]

i hear ya olympus. I apologize, I'll keep myself in check from now on. It just is a topic that seems to come up a lot in my life. Just tired of people I know going around bashing religion and then calling themselves spiritual as if they're above and beyond.

 

[a1pha]

Just tired of people I know going around bashing religion and then calling themselves spiritual as if they're above and beyond.

Had to get it out AGAIN after being asked to stop.

STOP!

 

[haeratic]

was just explaining myself to olympus. it is on topic. sorry...

 

[VIII]

People who claim to be spiritual and not religious are often against *organized religion* rather than the idea of religiosity in general.

This has been said a few times but in my experience this is the position I usually hear the "spiritual, but not religious" thing come from.

Don't let semantics get the best of you. Spiritual and religious can mean the same thing if you want them to, it is your perspective. It appears that the perspective of most other people using label "spiritual, not religious" are implying a dissociation from organized religions and/or set-in-stone philosophies. The author could be right in calling this group "fence-sitters" but is fundamentally wrong in assuming that a choice must be made (beyond his personal choice on the matter).
"It takes wisdom to be confused."

Jamie brought up a great point that the word religion/religious isn't even agreed upon, so how can a subset(?) of that label be accurately attributed as being a religion or religious.

It irks me when people use language because I know they mean so much more than the labels I hear strung together. It takes more than a few words to get a message across accurately, patience beyond "spiritual, not religous" will be necessary to understand what an individual is intending to communicate. Listen a while longer

 

[haeratic]

well said VIII, I'm sorry if I drag stuff into semantics.

 

[slewb]

I feel like everyone is spiritual

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

Being religious and being spiritual aren't the same thing imo. You don't need to be part of a religion to be spiritual.

I think they sort of are the same thing and that you are also right, that you don't need to be a part of a religion to be spiritual, but that to be spiritual is to be religious. I can back this up with the definitions of the words, but connotations do vary.

I love you guys, be peaceful.

 

[acacian]

Just tired of people I know going around bashing religion and then calling themselves spiritual as if they're above and beyond.

it's no different from claiming to be religious either. that's my point, they're one in the same in my eyes. for people to bash religion and say they're spiritual just seems too ironic to me.

this just seems utterly ridiculous to me. Sure maybe if bashing "religion" on the whole.. but I don't think this applies at all when it comes to critiquing specific religious institutions. There ARE institutions out there responsible for some deeply horrid and nasty stuff going on in the world at the moment as well as in the past... genocide, racism, homophobia, fear mongering, sexism, assimilation, suppression.. Personally I see no problem in people expressing their disgust (or as you word it, "bashing" ) of the institutions responsible for these acts.. And I surely don't think that makes said person "unspiritual" or reeking of irony... it seems those who ignore these things are the fence sitters in my eyes. Call it a fad.. call it whatever you want I don't care.. Its deeper than that and I don't think all who critique religions should be lumped into this category. a lot of what you seem to be doing here is just categorising everybody and everything so concretely that a little thing called circumstance is forgotten. Spirituality and concrete definition are a lost battle from the beginning if you ask me.

If your tired of people bashing religion you might want to take a long nap because its going to continue as long as religious institutions hurt people.

 

[olympus mon]

The word attack gets thrown around a lot more than is always accurate. Questioned, challenged does not mean attacked and asking somebody why they believe something isnt at all attacking them. It is challenging their ideas and in a way choices.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

this just seems utterly ridiculous to me. Sure maybe if bashing "religion" on the whole.. but I don't think this applies at all when it comes to critiquing specific religious institutions. There ARE institutions out there responsible for some deeply horrid and nasty stuff going on in the world at the moment as well as in the past... genocide, racism, homophobia, fear mongering, sexism, suppression.. Personally I see no problem in people expressing their disgust (or as you word it, "bashing" ) of the institutions responsible for these acts.. And I surely don't think that makes said person "unspiritual" or reeking of irony

:thumb_up:

 

[AlbertKLloyd]

There ARE institutions out there responsible for some deeply horrid and nasty stuff going on in the world at the moment as well as in the past... genocide, racism, homophobia, fear mongering, sexism, suppression..

I think the actions of the individuals complicit in such events reflect personal choices more than specific doctrines, you can also find cases of the same such institutions doing good as well. There are always exceptions to this, but in general I find this to be true.

On one hand history has various organizations harming others, but the opposite also occurs. Compassion for example, is often as prevalent in association with such organizations as intolerance and cruelty are. Some people might say that the institutions are responsible for the good they are associated with as well, but I hesitate to agree with this just as I hesitate to agree with the antithesis of such a claim.

I, as the fool I am, blame the individual who throws the stone for their actions more than I do the institution they belong to. I for example blame the soldiers and not the orders. Maybe this stupid, but it is how I feel and think right now. I can disagree with a tenet, but when it comes down to actions I blame the actors and not the tenets. Two people might interpret the same tenet in very distinct ways, one acting upon it to the benefit of others and the other acting upon it to the detriment of others, thus for me the blame is largely, though not entirely upon the individuals.

I will blame the person who gives the order, and the person who carries them out, but not the order itself and though I may disagree with the ideology or tenets involved I do not think ideology can act alone.

In some ways ideology is like an axe or a nail gun. You can use it as a tool to do great things, or you can use it as a weapon to do terrible things. It requires personal choice and action to do so and this is where I think the responsibility or blame lays. I do oppose intolerant ideologies, but still blame those who adopt them and act upon them far more than I do the ideology itself. I am of course speaking only for myself and sharing my perspective, not trying to convince others. I did not used to have such an opinion and did think that tenets and organizations were to blame, but personal insight into my own actions, beliefs and affiliations convinced me otherwise.

 

[acacian]

Well said AlbertKLloyd This I agree with. I guess at times like these, it is evident that these individuals of ill intent seem to be at the head of these institutions and driving them in a disturbing direction.. and have been for some time now. I don't deny there is still good done, but it can be easily overshadowed when on a much larger scale there is so much hurt going on. A lot of the bad decisions made also seem to be a reflection of the way the doctrine is interpreted.

 

[Parshvik Chintan]

I think the actions of the individuals complicit in such events reflect personal choices more than specific doctrines, you can also find cases of the same such institutions doing good as well.

this is mostly true, except for when the texts themselves (read leviticus) preach prejudice, hate, and fear mongering.

Without religion evil men would do evil and good men would do good. But for good men to do evil, that takes religion.

 

[acacian]

exactly. I don't see why we need to tippy toe around this stuff... there is a difference between criticising a doctrine itself to criticising somebody who follows the doctrine. If they can't handle the doctrine being criticised maybe it has something to do with knowing deep down that is is in fact flawed... what do others think?

 

[The Meddling Monk]

The main religion/spirituality I see getting worked up and defensive on the Nexus is, I'm sorry to say, Christianity.
Like a chip on the shoulder. New Ager's get attacked all the time and mostly ignore it. Same Hindus, even Muslims on this site.
Even major Church leaders (the progressive ones) have acknowledged the abuses of the past.
In many minds the words Religion and Christianity and Institution are synonymous.
That's a popular conception based on history.

 

[SpartanII]

Right, wrong. Semantics. Concepts. Preconceived ideas. Opinions. Beliefs. It's all relative.

Best not to waste energy in emotionally defending these. You'll go in circles.

Let your heart, your intuition, guide you as you accumulate experience, but don't get worked up because someone else's reality conflicts with your own.

The less we get worked up over relativistic ideals, the more energy we save. More energy saved= less attachment to the beliefs/expectations that we hold with us.

Attachment to our beliefs is a cause for taking offense to other points of view, which leads to needless suffering and ego-driven-attachment to our beliefs, along with closing our minds to different points of view that may be as valid as the one's we hold so dear.

:!: