"spiritual but not religious" means religious nut.

To me it means that you feel that all religions are man-made and are just the human way of trying to explain how we got here.

But you sense that somehow we are all part of a greater whole - an energy that we can't quite explain.

That's exactly what I meant when I used to say it.

That's what I mean when I say it.

Everyone I ever knew who said that to me was basically trying to impress upon me that although they didn't go to church or live by any of the church's dictates, they still thought tscc was true, wanted their kids to be active, worthy members and didn't want to be considered "Jack Mormon" (ie. inferior). They were trying to say that they were basically good people, believed in God and that should be enough. So why didn't they just say that?

Frankly, saying you are spiritual but not religious means absolutely nothing. Do you pray? Do you believe in the Bible, Buddha, fairies, divining rods, Carlos Castanada, speaking in tongues, revelations from eating mushrooms? It means nothing identifiable. It's a way of trying to sound religious without being religious.

It means nothing at all. If you're "religious" that means there
is something you do. People saying they are "spiritual but not
religious" means they don't do anything but consider themselves
"spiritual." It's a prime example of the Dunning-Kruger effect:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/10/2016 05:53AM by anybody.

Then say THAT! I accept the possibility of there being something more than the physical world but I don't consider myself spiritual in the least. I'd rather say I'm agnostic. I cannot prove that something doesn't exist in a supernatural world but that doesn't make a person spiritual because being spiritual would imply that you have some sort of belief but you don't want to describe it. If you are spiritual what spirit do you acknowledge? Your own? Just saying you are spiritual gives absolutely no context to your belief. Yet you believe in something. Either express your belief or keep quiet because you don't have any belief. Saying you are spiritual is meaningless drivel.

I read that someone said: Religious people are afraid of going to hell. Spiritual people have already been there.

I consider myself to be that way. To me, it means that you have certain beliefs about God and/or the nature of life, but you either don't fit into a neat little religious box or care to spend your Sundays sitting in a pew.

These are both pretty big buckets. Pretty much anything can fit in either of them.

I'm reminded of an old Ellen DeGeneres joke. She tells of going to the dentist, who asks her how often she flosses. "Oh, I floss religiously!" she replies. "On Christmas, Easter..."

I used it to describe my stance for a long time, in the sense that I believe in a higher power but do not believe in organized religion. And I usually said the latter to clarify to those who wondered.

After more thought and research, I would consider myself agnostic. I still believe in something greater than myself, not god or any god for that matter... I believe in energy, earth, love and light.

Beyond that, well... that's TBD.

I usually take them at their word. Probing questions generally yield that the person does not take a strictly materialist view of the world, but they don't want to be tied to any specific dogma or the baggage that comes with it.

Generally harmless, but some of them are total whack-a-doos.

It doesn't necessarily imply they believe in a higher power or god-like being(s) either, although many of them will. However, when they start to describe said being(s) they cross the line into religion, so they back-pedal fairly quickly.

They tend to get very boring at dinner parties.

They also tend to light a lot of incense.

Sometimes the smell of cannabi$ is overpowering.

Also why is cannabi$ a banned word? That seems weird to me...

It tells me they believe in something supernatural beyond themselves, something they consider 'good', 'sacred', or 'holy', but they don't have an organized religion and they don't categorize themselves as belonging to any particular faith.

That's what it means to me, anyway.

Maybe that's what you say to a religious person when you think it is too awkward to say his religion is stupid.

I believe that spirituality is internal and religion is organizational.

"Nones" are the fastest growing religious identity since 9-11.
Many of them, like me were disillusioned with the inability of religion to deliver the promised goods, peace, love and happiness. On 9-11, religion delivered just the opposite, war, hate and misery.
As a result, we responded with compassion, humanism, wisdom and oneness.

This is what the most recent Pew Poll

http://www.pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise/

had to say about "Nones"

"Two-thirds of them say they believe in God (68%). More than half say they often feel a deep connection with nature and the earth (58%), while more than a third classify themselves as “spiritual” but not “religious” (37%), and one-in-five (21%) say they pray every day."

So what is that 'God' that 68% of 'Nones' believe in?

For me, personally, the 'god' I believe in got lost in translation, between the original Greek version of the New Testament, and the modern English, King James version of the Bible. For me, the 'god' I believe in is the 'god' of the Ancient Stoics, Logos, which is the "Divine Reason" that permeates and animates the cosmos.

Or like Carl Sagan said, "Yes I believe in 'god' if by the word 'god' you mean, the embodiment of the immutable laws that govern the universe."

I think its bull shit.

so do i.

As is the saying 'religious people believe in hell, spiritual people have already been through it.' what a bunch of self-righteous quasi-philosophical bullshit.

For me, that phrase is only something I use with highly religious people. It's a way to use their phrasing and familiar terminology to find common ground. When not speaking with religious folk, I tend to use the word agnostic. I am fully aware that I don't understand everything, and I am open to what the true explanation may be. But agnostic tends to throw up unnecessary walls with religious peeps. For me, spiritual but not religious seems to be something they can wrap their minds around.

When I used to say it, it was because I knew religion was man-made, but still had some fear of "god," but even more fear of admitting to others how quickly I was losing that "fear of god."

I was more afraid of them than a god who was becoming as mythical as Ra, Zeus or any of the thousands of others.

Now I tell people I don't believe any of it. Not often, not rudely, but if they try to dish god to me, I will be forthright. I'm sorry to say that it makes believers fearful of me, but that's their hangups, not mine.

If they get too uppity about it, I'll explain how they are atheists, too.

The religious of which there are many assume that those with religion have something extra special which the non-religious don't. They employ a lot of vernacular to drive home that point. People who have no reason to believe in their God are called "Godless," which we all know is a slur to imply that one has no moral compass and is lost.

The knee-jerk reaction by many of these "Godless" is to want to counter that derogatory labeling and one of the ways to do it is to claim to be spiritual instead of religious. Although some definitions are deep and meaningful and speak of connection to our fellow humans, the word "spiritual" could have as many meanings and interpretations as the utterances and writings of Mormon prophets do. Myriad, in other words, rendering the word most likely useless.

I have felt lately like my own definition of spiritual is baloney. I have been wondering when we are going to stop letting the religious make us feel like we have to offer an acceptable reason for not believing as they do. I was wondering when it is going to be enough just to be a human being first and foremost who is on an honest journey of self discovery and enlightenment that doesn't include canned answers to every question. Why isn't that enough?

M. Breckenridge Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have felt lately like my own definition of
> spiritual is baloney. I have been wondering when
> we are going to stop letting the religious make us
> feel like we have to offer an acceptable reason
> for not believing as they do. I was wondering when
> it is going to be enough just to be a human being
> first and foremost who is on an honest journey of
> self discovery and enlightenment that doesn't
> include canned answers to every question. Why
> isn't that enough?

I've been at this point for awhile now. I used to be one of those who insisted that I was spiritual, not religious, as a means of staving off the full brunt of being deemed "Godless". At some point I had adopted an attitude of "screw it!" I don't know what happens beyond our perception and our lives on this planet, and I doubt that I will ever know. I have simply become comfortable with not knowing, though I like to amuse myself with idle speculation.

The thing is, I hadn't even realized I had evolved into this attitude until after I married my TBM wife, and I found myself having to justify to my wife, her ward friends, and the many missionaries we have fed why I will not convert. My justification was I simply don't believe any of what they are selling. They're the ones making extraordinary claims, and I'm not seeing anything even approaching extraordinary proof.

High Five surprenant! (Why did my spell check change that to "suppressant?")

I hope this is not too off topic, but your comment on the pressure from the TBM relatives, members and mishies to convert made me realize that the whole Moroni challenge is designed to put the burden of proof onto you when they are the ones who made the extraordinary claims. Very clever.

To me, it means exactly what they just said until they elaborate on it. Sometimes I want to hear the elaboration, and ask. (Because honestly, what it means to me, as the listener, should be an understanding or acknowledgment of what they mean, as the speaker.)

Sometimes I just leave it at the original statement, and don't ask for further clarification. ;-)

My Judas sibling said it to me when she went back to Mormonism after reading everything I've read. "I'm spiritual!" she yelled through the phone, "and stop blaming the church for everything!" This came after years of her not attending or ever speaking well of Mormonism.

My suspicion is that she wanted to stay connected with our mother, perhaps with hopes of inheritance? Forgive me if it offends anyone, but when I hear someone proclaim himself spiritual, I think the word's a place holder for what he doesn't want to say.