Spiritual vs religious

Welcome to Wondercafe2!

A community where we discuss, share, and have some fun together. Join today and become a part of it!

Register Log in
paradox3

paradox3

Peanuts Fan
Pronouns
She/Her/Her
Is there really a difference between these two concepts?
Or is it an artificial line in the sand?
 
Depends on how you define them. For me, Spiritual is a broader term, encompassing an approach to life and the world that looks at relationship, our place in the universe, and something more than just material existence and meeting physical needs. Religious is really a specific approach to spirituality focussed around ritual and a set of beliefs. So there is no line in the sand. One is more general, the other is more specific. There are other approaches to being spiritual. So in that view, "spiritual but not religious" is read as taking another approach than the ritual and doctrine approach of religion. You can be "spiritual and religious" and it's bloody hard to be "religious but not spiritual". But it is not impossible. I would say you kind of get there when the ritual and doctrine become the focus rather than being a means to focus on the spiritual.
 
The Twelve Step fellowships (AA etc) claim to be spiritual not religious these days. They are historically based on an evangelical expression of Christianity (the Oxford group movement) but they are striving to become more inclusive.

In some members' minds being "not religious" means not associated with any particular denomination. Personally I would call this non-denominational Christianity. After all, they still say the Serenity Prayer which is definitely of Christian origen. The Lord's prayer is still used in some groups, too.

There is a separate argument that the first verse of the Serenity Prayer and the Lord's prayer are both suited for generic spiritual use. I don't know about that, given their history and association with Christianity.

I don't imagine @chansen would be keen on seeing them anywhere.

Interesting discussion so far.
 
paradox3 said:
There is a separate argument that the first verse of the Serenity Prayer and the Lord's prayer are both suited for generic spiritual use. I don't know about that, given their history and association with Christianity.
Click to expand...
Referring to a "Father who is in heaven" per the Lord's Prayer is not generic spirituality. It's definitely in the realm of religion. The Serenity Prayer is a bit closer to generically spiritual but it still invokes a "God" which is automatically putting you into a monotheist context. Sure, people can re-vision "God" into something less specifically Abrahamic, but in the end, it clearly comes from that context, esp. some of the later versions.

That said, the basic prayer could work without invoking "God": "Grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference." Then people could direct it to who or whatever the person saying it feels is their source of wisdom. That becomes less religious and more generically spiritual. In fact, it's rather Stoic (and apparently Marcus Aurelius, a Stoic, is one of several people incorrectly credited as an originator).

However, if you read the history, words like "grace" start to creep into later variants, making them clearly Christian in context.

en.wikipedia.org

Serenity Prayer - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
The subsequent verses of the Serenity Prayer have distinctly Christian content. AFAIK the 12 step fellowships just use the first verse.
 
The tagline "spiritual not religious" was very popular a few years ago. Is this still the case, does anyone know?

Practitioners of alternate medicine (Reiki, therapeutic touch) have been known to use it. Ditto some of the new age practices involving crystals, angels and so on.

The angels make me curious because they are rather noisy & fearsome beings in the Old and New Testaments.

Were did we get the idea they were the souls of our loved ones? Did this come from fiction?
 
paradox3 said:
The angels make me curious because they are rather noisy & fearsome beings in the Old and New Testaments.
Click to expand...
I find New Age angels are very much drawing on modern conceptions, not the weird ones we see in OT in particular.

paradox3 said:
Were did we get the idea they were the souls of our loved ones? Did this come from fiction?
Click to expand...
No idea without researching it. Certainly the original angels were spiritual beings who worked with/for God in various ways and that goes right down into the NT and even into Islam (Gabriel both announced Mary's pregnancy to her and brought Muhammad the Qu'ran). I guess somewhere along the line someone decided that if good people were going to Heaven to be with God, maybe they became angels. But that's me speculating.

I don't generally use "spiritual but not religious" but it largely fits me. I am interested in spiritual matters and find spiritual meaning in a variety of ways, but I am not committed at this point to any particular set of rituals and beliefs. Even UU'ism where I resided for a decade leans "sbnr" given the fourth principle of a "free and responsible search for truth and meaning" which opens the door to a wide variety of practices and beliefs rather than enforcing a particular set of them.
 
Anyone heard of the rainbow bridge? It is the place where our pets wait for us to join them on the other side of this life.

The idea seems to have originated in a poem written by a grieving pet owner. Some people take much comfort from the thought of the rainbow bridge. But I don't know if anyone believes literally in the concept.

Even for me, it's very poignant. And I haven't had a pet in decades.
 
paradox3 said:
Anyone heard of the rainbow bridge? It is the place where our pets wait for us to join them on the other side of this life.
Click to expand...
The rainbow bridge is ultimately knicked from Norse and German paganism. Bifrost Bridge was the path from Earth to Asgard, the realm of the gods. In Wagner, it became the entrance to Valhalla, which is where fallen heroes dined with Odin. So maybe someone envisaged their pets as "heroes" entering Valhalla as a kind of pet heaven.
 
WhyCzar said:
Religion binds people to a set of rules that are more political than spiritual.

Spirituality allows for free exploration with the understanding of self accountability.
Click to expand...
Self-accountability is problematic, though. Some people simply do not hold themselves accountable for how they treat others and therefore we cannot rely on it to create a harmonious society. We see it in everything from crime (both organized and not), to school shootings, down to the rather trivial "Karen" incidents of people thinking only of themselves and not how they are impacting others. Religion and philosophy done right ask us to compare our behaviour and beliefs to norms, creating a way of finding and testing accountability. But you are right that organized religion (and even some organized philosophical movements) more often becomes a rigid framework for social control.
 
Mendalla said:
The rainbow bridge is ultimately knicked from Norse and German paganism. Bifrost Bridge was the path from Earth to Asgard, the realm of the gods. In Wagner, it became the entrance to Valhalla, which is where fallen heroes dined with Odin. So maybe someone envisaged their pets as "heroes" entering Valhalla as a kind of pet heaven.
Click to expand...
Well that's really interesting! Nothing new under the sun, right?

The pets are waiting for their owners to join them when they die. So the animals are in a kind of in limbo until the humans get there. i think it is assumed that they will proceed on to heaven together at this point.
 
Mendalla said:
Self-accountability is problematic, though. Some people simply do not hold themselves accountable for how they treat others and therefore we cannot rely on it to create a harmonious society. We see it in everything from crime (both organized and not), to school shootings, down to the rather trivial "Karen" incidents of people thinking only of themselves and not how they are impacting others. Religion and philosophy done right ask us to compare our behaviour and beliefs to norms, creating a way of finding and testing accountability. But you are right that organized religion (and even some organized philosophical movements) more often becomes a rigid framework for social control.
Click to expand...

Its this self-accountability where much of the encountered corruption causes destructive urges ... it is rather like a rebound effect from many addictions ... like excess power! It can consume a person of fixed qualities ... no room for escape! Thus phantom Eire ... ghostly?
 
Artur Clark posted warnings about free essences ... just imagine what happens when the water carrier loses it ... then the fire carrier burns things ... up!

A steam enters there somewhere according to RL Stevenson where X marks the mysterious spot ... venting upon conversion of energy ... volcanic!
 
Mendalla said:
Self-accountability is problematic, though. Some people simply do not hold themselves accountable for how they treat others and therefore we cannot rely on it to create a harmonious society.
Click to expand...
And some people do the inner work of accountability and shadow integration, which leads to a spiritual maturation of the self where - against all odds - the self does not project their own fear of pain and suffering onto others.

At the same time there are still folks, that do not do the inner work, that will lend themselves to blame others for their own reactions to choices that they perceive to be outside of their control it is true.

So while free will does not allow for freedom from the agreed upon rules of a harmonious society - if such a thing exists - it does allow for freedom to react and be accountable for your reactions. One way or another there will be consequences to accept.

Spiritual beings having a human experience is not a cookie cutter recipe where one size fits all.
 
WhyCzar said:
And some people do the inner work of accountability and shadow integration, which leads to a spiritual maturation of the self where - against all odds - the self does not project their own fear of pain and suffering onto others.

At the same time there are still folks, that do not do the inner work, that will lend themselves to blame others for their own reactions to choices that they perceive to be outside of their control it is true.

So while free will does not allow for freedom from the agreed upon rules of a harmonious society - if such a thing exists - it does allow for freedom to react and be accountable for your reactions. One way or another there will be consequences to accept.

Spiritual beings having a human experience is not a cookie cutter recipe where one size fits all.
Click to expand...

Yet some folk are certain that the thing is cut and dried ... thus separations! Isn't that divining ... or perhaps just another misunderstood word ... like quanta!

Imagine that parceled ...
 
Religion might be more about rules then. And rituals. And routines. And structures of various kinds.

Spirituality might be more concerned with meaning and relationships? More process oriented?

Of course any one individual could be both spiritual and religious.

So where does belief fit in? Are there both spiritual and religious beliefs? :unsure:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top