-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
is spirituality important?
- Thread starter chriscs
- Start date
nazz
Doubting Thomas
I see only positives, no negatives. Peace of mind, positive outlook, etc.
OTOH religion can be a very dangerous thing.
How do you define "spiritual?" That's a nebulous wishy-washy word if there ever was one. It's also a word that I've rather come to hate, to be honest. >_>;
nazz
Doubting Thomas
How so? I think it works rather well in the contrast "spiritual not religious".
It is still as ambiguous a words as they come. Good for self-satisfaction and vague criticism, but not much more.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Spirituality is just a word, it means something different to everyone, its our connection to life, its life itself, we dress it up and call it all sorts of names, just as we do with the word love. We make stories about it, and then we try to organize it and hence all the religions of the world. There is no need to make a belief about spirituality, as you cannot make a belief about love, its simple what IS.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Pretty much where I stand too.
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
How do you define "spiritual"? Depending that how you do so, it could range from entirely essential to wholly worthless.
Personally, I would define the experience and appreciation of the cosmos, nature, art, music, love ( both the bond of friendship and family sort and the intimate, sensual sort), and life itself as "spiritual", and I of course would consider that extremely important.
But "spirituality" as far as blind adherence to irrational, unsubstantiated, and arbitrary nonsense (especially the sort that promotes bigotry and willful ignorance), I would consider it detrimental.
Last edited:
Koldo
Outstanding Member
But what does that even mean?
If anything, that sounds an awful lot like 'Not a practicing member of an organized religion, but rather a more laid-back believer'.
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Or hedonistic eclectic.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Do you mean 'new age'?
captainbryce
Active Member
For those who are either willfully ignorant, or argumentative for the sake of being argumentative, here are the relevant definitions as used from Merriam-Webster:
Spirit 'n':
the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power
Spiritual 'adj':
1. of or relating to a person's spirit
2. of or relating to religion or religious beliefs
Spirituality 'n':
1. the quality or state of being spiritual
2. the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters
Spirit 'n':
the force within a person that is believed to give the body life, energy, and power
Spiritual 'adj':
1. of or relating to a person's spirit
2. of or relating to religion or religious beliefs
Spirituality 'n':
1. the quality or state of being spiritual
2. the quality or state of being concerned with religion or religious matters
Ambiguity is not necessarily a bad thing
Indeed. Do you feel it is usually a good thing in religious contexts, though?
Gjallarhorn
N'yog-Sothep
Father Heathen
Veteran Member
I might interpret "spiritual, not religious" to perhaps mean having a connection with or an affinity for the divine while forgoing the dogma and doctrine of self-appointed, self serving middlemen.
That supposed "contrast" is exactly why I've come to hate the term "spiritual." Distinction between the two terms is thoroughly modern, and it's a distinction I thoroughly reject. Such a distinction the product of a narrow perspective on religion that is not an accurate portrayal of what religion constitutes across cultures and throughout history. It's typically used by the types of people Koldo described in a later post: people who reject organized, dogmatic, authoritarian religion but for some reason fail to realize that this form of religion is hardly the only operating model. In my mind, these "spiritual" people are simply religious, no matter what they choose to call themselves.
Also, I'm sick to death of people demonizing the term "religion" and elevating the term "spiritual." Okay, I get it: you have issues with your organized, dogmatic, and authoritarian religious upbringing. How about instead of running away from the word "religion" and demonizing everything it stands for you recognize that not all religions have such characteristics? Religion is not owned by the strawperson depiction of religion that involves crazy fundamentalists picketing gay people's funerals and brainwashing their children with blind faith through authoritarianism.
nazz
Doubting Thomas
Gosh, tell us how you really feel!
I don't think of religion solely in the way you describe. But for me the term "religious" refers to someone who adheres to a specific religion, of whatever variety it may be. Since I don't, "spiritual" seems the better descriptor for folks like myself.
And how is that distinction meaningful exactly?
Gosh, tell us how you really feel!
I don't think of religion solely in the way you describe. But for me the term "religious" refers to someone who adheres to a specific religion, of whatever variety it may be. Since I don't, "spiritual" seems the better descriptor for folks like myself.
If you've given careful thought to terms like "religious" and "spiritual", then presumably you can tell us what you think the term "spiritual" means.