Spiritualty vs Religion... differences?

Post Reply New Topic

I've had this argument with an NT in recent weeks. I know that I am a spiritual person. However, one person told me that I couldn't be spiritual unless I was part of a religion. I don't go to church, or attend any kind of religious ceremonies. I just spend some time with some meditation and read some books that help me with discovering the truth about who I am. I am starting to find with a spiritual sense myself that I am feeling more authentic now compared to a few months ago.

Seriously, do people really need to argue that you must be involved with religion in order to be a "spiritual being?"

I am not affiliated with any particular religious organization although I have a deep spiritual relationship with God. As an Aspie, I don't like being in a huge Church full of people. Churches have changes over the years and now their is a lot of loud singing, etc. I prefer a private relationship. I do enjoy watching Joel Osteen. He helps me get positive when I am down.

Religion is a way groups of people attempt to organise spirituality. Organised religion is often another step away from spirituality and towards politics and power.

I consider myself to be a spiritual person; I am an atheist and loosely speaking a Zen Buddhist. I do not believe in the existence of any gods. I do not follow specific tenets of Zen, it merely happens that my personal philosophy, path, spirituality and insights happen to align very well with Zen. In my youth I was a monk too (for just over a year).

People who claim to be spiritual but not religious either imply that they do not belong to a group (which is hardly true, unless the group in that definition absolutely has to be in some sort of physical contact among themselves) or they simply look down on religious people and want a different word for themselves that dissociates from said people (=arrogance).

'Spirituality' can often be used to wrongly denote any of the following:
- morality
- appreciation of high art
- occupation with ultimate destinations of humanity
- some sort of deep, contemplative meaning

Spirituality is the property of the religious people (which does indeed include some atheists).

I know religion was created ions ago for rulers to have power over large groups of people, e.g. Constantine basically incorporated Christianity and the Bible into his reign to manipulate the people.

If you were an atheist you would not have any beliefs. It is interesting that you were a monk at one time for a year. I am a Christian and I find other religions interesting but I belive in Christ but I do not go to church per se so I consider myself Spiritual.

I can say that with certainty that I disagree that Atheists don't have any beliefs. Most atheists I have met believe in something and even have a spiritual sense of who they are. My own truth that I have discovered was that I always had a spirit and chose to ignore it because I spent too much time listening to those little thoughts or voices in my head. Having said I was Agnostic before, I am not certain if you want to say that Agnostics are the true non-believers or not. As an Agnostic, I didn't know what to believe.

Maybe it is a question of linguistics and definitions but I disagree with the above. To me being spiritual is not synonymous with being religious. While there are indeed people who profess to be both religious and spiritual there are also:

a) People who are religious who are not spiritual. e.g. the sort of people who claim to be religious and to be Christians and attend church every Sunday because it is expected of them or to rub shoulders with their fellows but beyond that never think about concepts of god or spirituality.

b) People who are spiritual but have no affiliation to any specific religious doctrine or dogma. Such people search by themselves, those with a belief in a god have told me they seek to form a relationship with god (whatever that means) and people like me follow a path delving into the nature of consciousness itself in a manner that happens to coincide largely with the practice of Zen Buddhists and Jnana Advaita Vedanta Hindus. Though I have no religious allegiance with those religions nor do I profess to "believe" in their doctrines.

So, going back to the OP, I say that yes one can indeed be a spiritual being and follow wherever that leads yet to be free of religious doctrine and dogma. Participation in services at churches, mosques and temples does not necessary mean a person is spiritual, merely that they profess allegiance with the beliefs of the people at those places.

^
Participation in religious service in itself doesn't even make you religious, as Chesterton put it “Just going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in your garage makes you a car.”

And I also agree with the rest of your post.

Religion is man's attempt to be spiritual. It's not always a bad thing, but it often gets in the way and people create institutions that ultimately become political.

Likewise, being spiritual doesn't mean you're doing anything worthwhile. It should involve a search for ultimate truth but without guidance of others, you can just be stumbling in the dark.

I am Spiritual but do not attend a religion or church.

I believe in God and that the Bible is the only place we are going to find out about him.

In the Bible I read that in a spiritual or religious sense, he is a Jealous God, the first of the 10 Commandments for instance, isnt Thou shall not murder, it is Thou shall have no other gods against my face.

The Tribes of Israel were all condemned and abandoned because they were forever mixing worship of God, with the worship of the pagan gods like Moloch.

Likewise the New Testament gives many warnings, Jesus said the Great Apostasy would come, that he would send many away who considered themselves Christians saying "I never knew you", seems the most important thing isnt being good, its being religiously clean.
Hense, I cannot find a single Christian religion that isnt glaringly out of sync with the Bible.

The worst of which is that they claim and worship Jesus as God, whereas Jesus himself says he is Gods son, his high priest in the manner of Melchizedek.

So, for religious reasons, I avoid religion,
Haggai Chapter 2 sums it up when the question of dirty things making clean things dirty is brought up to show why God rejects even the good worship when so contaminated.

Why wrongly? I define spirituality like that - why exactly am I wrong to do so?

Also, I don't look down on religious, but I don't use the label 'spiritual but not religious' either. I think if you have to say you're spiritual, you aint so much.

At a practical level, if your religion or spirituality is not helping you form a reasonable set of ethics, you are just wasting your time.

Because they are separate from the notion of 'spirituality' - being very worldly qualities. They are soulful rather than spiritual, or even connected entirely to the area of human intellect.

You are right that I could use more and deeper spirituality (though hardly so in the meaning you attach), but a supposed religious equivalent of the modern 'tolerance' mythology could as well be added as the fifth thing of what spirituality is not on that quick list I made. I'm sure there's more.

Such beliefs are very geographical. Those brought up in Western culture tend to say that of the Bible, those born in Islamic countries say the same of their Koran, those born in India of the Vedas and Gitas (though Hindus tend to be more embracing and accepting of other religions) and so on, each geographical location having it's own religious beliefs and associated texts.

I find it curious that people's religious beliefs are predominantly an accident of birth. Each believing that their tradition alone is the one and only "truth".

Whilst exclusively true through most of mans history, I dont think it needs to be the case now, though generally is, if somebody is genuinely in search of God, there are plenty of ways open to them today, with the internet and with Holy books being available in so many languages.

I for instance, though having the Bible, still have bothered to look at other world religions, to see if more or better truth is available.

I have read the Koran and the Hadiths for instance, I cannot find a religion that gives me as much confidence as being from God as the Bible however, it is full of such wisdom in comparison to the Koran which basically goes on and on about how God is going to torture people, if such a god is appealing to much of the world, that is their choice, I would imagine though that most of the world, including Christians, would worship their own religion rather then God anyway, God is not looking for such ones regardless of their geographical position.

Just curious, but why does that seem so compelling to you?

Why would such a powerful being be such a petty douchebag?

Seems more likely that the bible was written by a jealous priesthood.

Personally, I'll stick with Marcus Aurelius' take on God...

“Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.”