Spiritual v. Religious?

[The Hammer]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

Yeah the general consensus seems to be that Spiritual but not Religious means they believe in a higher power(s), but not organized religious institutions.

 

[The Hammer]

'erotic but not sexual.'

There is certainly a difference between these two. Erotic is an aesthetic, sexual is more explicit.

 

[Vinayaka]

Same here. From my point of view, the 'spiritual but not religious' thing is a trendy thing. Like some of you, I find it vague. I think it would be similar to 'erotic but not sexual.'

If one is truly religious, one is certainly spiritual. If one is certainly spiritual but not at all religious, what then is the context of one's spirituality?

I also see it generally as another difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic thought or paradigms. 'Religious' in this context generally refers to Abrahamic religions. Eastern faiths, by their very nature, are spiritual. When you look at it from that POV, it does make some sense. It's just difficult for me to look at it from that POV.

 

[MyM]

I believe, Being religious means you can believe in a religion. Practicing one's belief is considered a practicing believer.
Being spiritual is a way out of not practicing a doctrine of belief. I think if they just believe in something to them, it can be spiritual. Doesn't have to relate to religion. Actually some people who say they are spiritual don't even have a belief and some don't care to practice anything but meditate on their own.

Example in Islam, you can be a believer and not practice it. You are still called a Muslim. But, if a believer is practicing their religion, they are considered a Mu'min-a practicing believing Muslim.

 

[mangalavara]

There is certainly a difference between these two. Erotic is an aesthetic, sexual is more explicit.

From my perspective, erotic aesthetic is sexual in nature. Pornography is the more explicit in its sexual content.

I also see it generally as another difference between Abrahamic and Dharmic thought or paradigms. 'Religious' in this context generally refers to Abrahamic religions. Eastern faiths, by their very nature, are spiritual. When you look at it from that POV, it does make some sense. It's just difficult for me to look at it from that POV.

That makes sense to me as well. Thanks for pointing that out. It's quite useful.

 

[blü 2]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

It means they like the woo but not the worship.

 

[The Hammer]

From my perspective, erotic aesthetic is sexual in nature. Pornography is the more explicit in its sexual content.



That makes sense to me as well. Thanks for pointing that out. It's quite useful.

Ok

 

[Neuropteron]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

Hi,
dharma claims to be universal, which means it applies to all people at all times.

For Hindus, following sanatana dharma means living their lives in such a way that they are always considering their moral choices and making the best decisions they can.
However I cannot find much information in its belief structure about the role spirituality or what the definition of a spirit being is.
I would suggest reading the Bible to get a understanding of this subject.

 

[PruePhillip]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

In the Christian world this is largely a cop out - people find the whole constraints of Christianity
oppressive, but want something in their life which is greater than themselves.

 

[lukethethird]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

...and o sooo mysterious.

 

[rational experiences]

Spiritual.

To be reminded our conscious brain natural life body self had been intercepted with conditions of and by science causes as artificial.

Machines.

To be reminded who I am naturally.

So I am given human guidance by experiences human past deceased living and to live and honour my family. Humanity. Spiritual.

 

[DNB]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

In my understanding, when one says that they are spiritual they mean that the recognize and emulate the virtues that are not of the flesh: love, compassion, mercy, justice, altruism - characteristics and behaviours that cannot be quantified or legislated - they transcend the secular. But, when they equally declare that they are not religious, I believe that they simply mean nothing more than, that they do not belong to a defined or structured, and specific, religious group.

I, on the other hand, am both spiritual and religious, as I believe in the existence of God, and of His human son Jesus Christ, and what God has ordained to be the means towards salvation. In other words, I believe that God has dictated the practices, doctrines and dogma, and that we are meant to abide by them accordingly.

So that, it would be an oxymoron to declare one's spirituality, while asserting that there is no source of that self-proclaimed Spiritual dimension in man - which must be a spirit aka God.

 

[DNB]

I think it's important to understand what religion is, and isn't.

Religions are collections of ideas, images, stories, rituals, rules, habits and practices that people can use to help them live their lives according to their chosen theological view of existence. Some people feel they need these 'tools', or some of them, to maintain their chosen theological 'way of life', while others feel they do not need them. They feel they are able to maintain their chosen theological path without the use of all these religious aids.

And I think that is the crux of the difference between 'religion' and 'spirituality'. It is possible to be a very spiritual person without the aid of religion. While it is also possible to become so dependent on religiosity that we lose sight of the spirituality within us that it's supposed to be serving. Religions seem to have a tendency to want to become our masters rather than our servants. They can be, and very often are very helpful to a great many people. But they do have to be kept in their proper place in our hearts and minds, for them to have the positive effect that we seek from them.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, PureX, but as far as an adherent to any particular religion is concerned, namely Christianity in my case, I believe that it is God's ordinance that we conduct ourselves in a certain manner, in order to receive His approbation and ultimately, attain to salvation. In other words, we believe that it is the greater Entity that dictates the modes of worship and comportment.

 

[rational experiences]

In human words I am spiritual as God by my defined teaching as a hu man exists.

When science removes formation my topic I believed in first is then destroyed.

Life attack. I was destroyed as my brother chose it.

Question did your brother know?

His answer no I was naturally spiritual I never knew evil by definition of.

Knowing is by self experience not thesis in other words.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Doesn’t belonging to a religion mean a)accepting certain specific doctrines, underpinned by articles of faith, and b) engaging in shared ritual and/or worship with co-religionists? Not everyone who believes in a Power greater than themselves, be that a loving God or an indifferent Creator, is inclined to do that.

 

[Martin]

I concur that it's vague, and have yet to have anyone explain it to my satisfaction. My best explanation is that it's the 'cool' or trendy thing to do right now. But yeah I groan when I hear it.

Personally, I say I'm religious and spiritual, and don't see much difference between the two at all.

Yes, and it appears to be a fairly modern distinction. Maybe some people think that "religious" sounds staid and conformist?

 

[Martin]

Spiritualism: and when we die,
The Spirit is the remains of what we were, the memory to others still alive,

our cognizance gone and our `soul` revealed, wishing for the coming gate to heaven.

I wish you well, but I fear that you will never enjoy that pleasure.

Though it seems there are quite a lot of people who would describe themselves as "spiritual", but don't believe in a spirit or soul.

 

[Martin]

I agree with your take on vagueness.

It seems very few nowadays are card carrying mainstream members of a religious organization. But many many have personalized beliefs that we would call 'spiritual'.

Yes, the freedom to hold personalised beliefs does seem to be a common theme with those who prefer the "spiritual" label.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What's the practical difference between being "spiritual" and being "religious"?

And when people say "I'm spiritual, but not religious", what do they actually mean? I assume they mean they're religious, but not part of an organised religion, but it's all so vague.

I don’t think one can be spiritual without accepting the Manifestations.

To me it’s like accepting the light of a candle while at the same time denying the light of the sun.

Just as all light really comes from the sun, so too does all spiritual truth emanate from the Suns of Truth such as Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, Christ, Moses and Baha’u’llah.

 

[Martin]

I don’t think one can be spiritual without accepting the Manifestations.

To me it’s like accepting the light of a candle while at the same time denying the light of the sun.

Just as all light really comes from the sun, so too does all spiritual truth emanate from the Suns of Truth such as Buddha, Krishna, Muhammad, Christ, Moses and Baha’u’llah.

Sure, but why do you say "spiritual truth", rather than "religious truth"? What's the practical difference, and why do you prefer "spiritual" here?