Spiritual vs. Religious

[crossfire]

I was recently thinking about the distinction between the labels "spiritual" and "religious". Personally I see little to no difference between the two terms and dislike when people make a big deal out of their distinction, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks about this. The only real difference I could see is that "spiritual" hints at less dogmatic, more individualistic forms of religion whereas "religious" hints are more group-oriented and structured forms, but even this minor distinction seems to be lost when looking at some of the more unorganized religions. So what, if anything, is the difference? Do you like the distinction? Which term do you choose to go by, if any?

I'll include my first poll in here too, if you all don't mind taking it. If you do, please answer both questions in it, I couldn't make two polls.

To repeat a meme: "The religious fear hell. The spiritual have already been there."

 

[Kemosloby]

I believe it's like Jesus said, there is an inside of the cup and an outside of the cup. Spirituality is the inside of the cup, and religious is the outside of the cup. Spirituality is what goes on inside and religion is what others can see you do. If a person is doing things on the outside that don't match what's on the inside this is hypocrisy. So Jesus says to clean the inside of the cup and the outside will be clean as well. So true religion is both Spiritual and Religious.

 

[whirlingmerc]

They are overloaded concepts

On the one hand 'this house is protected by angels' doesn't have much accountability and so
I would not want to be considered like that
and being a man centric religious where you pull yourself up by your bootstraps is enough thing I would want to avoid

The bible says 'true religion includes caring for widows and orphans'
and those who seek for must worship in spirit and truth so I would want to empahsise those

 

[FutureFaith]

Religion that is not spiritual falls into the realm of secular religion. There isn't many secular religions, and the ones that exist have very few adherents. On the other hand, spirituality without religion seems to be prevailing. Ordinary people don't want to follow the traditions and rituals that many religions place on its members. If I don't know what religion someone is, I often unknowingly place them under the 'spiritual but not religious' category. People who are religious and spiritual usually flaunt their religion. This happens many times in the United States with Christians. While I was in college there was a Christian group that asked participates what they thought about God. And then there's the not religious or spiritual category, which incorporates many atheists and agnostics.

I, myself try to be religious, but often fail. I'm not spiritual at all - I don't even believe in dualism. Things like The Sunday Assembly interest me, but there isn't one of them near my area. Unitarianism has been the fit for people who are both religious but not spiritual, and spiritual but not religious, due to their humanistic values and acceptance of other faiths.

I see a large difference between the two. Religious but not spiritual can refer to Unitarianism, Religion of Humanity, and certain sects of Satanism. The spiritual but not religious tend to reject mainstream religion and focus their efforts internally. To people that are spiritual but not religious, they often see religion as having to conform to something that doesn't suit what they are. I'm religious but not spiritual because I happen to agree with many of the ethics and rituals of religion, but I'm appalled by most, if not all, beliefs of most religions.

If I had to guess, I would say that, in the United States, 60% are religious and spiritual, 20% are spiritual but not religious, 15% are not religious nor spiritual, and 5% is religious but not spiritual. I am in the minority, I do realize that. Many people considered Communism to be a secular religion, something I do not agree with. There is a large difference between religious and spiritual. Religion is a shared activity that doesn't need to be spiritual, and spirituality is something internal that doesn't need to be shared with others.

 

[whirlingmerc]

They can have some things in common
Both religious and science can be done for the glory of God.
The earth is near an arm of the galaxy where we can see the milky way up close and also look deep into the universe at other galaxies. We have a clear atmosphere so we can see the universe for the glory of God.
We know God is rational, a cosmos not a chaos and even Carl Sagan had to borrow capital from a Christian world view for his series 'Cosmos' and the recent Cosmos followup but if they were consistent it would have been called 'Chaos' like the bad guys from 'Man from UNCLE"

 

[Tumah]

I just so happen to have read an article this weekend in which the author quotes one Theodore Dalrymple who says:

The reason... so many people claim to be spiritual rather than religious is that being spiritual imposes no discipline upon them, at least none that they do not choose themselves. Being religious, on the other hand, implies an obligation to observe rules and rituals that may interfere awkwardly with daily life. Being spiritual-but-not-religious gives you that warm, inner feeling, a bit like whisky on a cold day, and reassures you that there is more to life - or at least, to your life - than meets the eye without actually having to interrupt the flux of your everyday existence. It is the gratification of religion without the inconvenience of religion.
​

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

I just so happen to have read an article this weekend in which the author quotes one Theodore Dalrymple who says:

The reason... so many people claim to be spiritual rather than religious is that being spiritual imposes no discipline upon them, at least none that they do not choose themselves. Being religious, on the other hand, implies an obligation to observe rules and rituals that may interfere awkwardly with daily life. Being spiritual-but-not-religious gives you that warm, inner feeling, a bit like whisky on a cold day, and reassures you that there is more to life - or at least, to your life - than meets the eye without actually having to interrupt the flux of your everyday existence. It is the gratification of religion without the inconvenience of religion.
​

Sure, some people are spiritual and not religious and don't act with much discipline, but there are also religious people who don't act with much discipline, and certainly who don't attend church regularly or put themselves out much on behalf of their religion.

There are also non-religious spiritual people who are very disciplined in their spiritual practices, very dedicated.

Dalrymple comes off sounding like a presumptuous condescending jerk in relation to non-religious people.

 

[oldbadger]

I was recently thinking about the distinction between the labels "spiritual" and "religious". Personally I see little to no difference between the two terms and dislike when people make a big deal out of their distinction, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks about this. The only real difference I could see is that "spiritual" hints at less dogmatic, more individualistic forms of religion whereas "religious" hints are more group-oriented and structured forms, but even this minor distinction seems to be lost when looking at some of the more unorganized religions. So what, if anything, is the difference? Do you like the distinction? Which term do you choose to go by, if any?

I'll include my first poll in here too, if you all don't mind taking it. If you do, please answer both questions in it, I couldn't make two polls.

Hi.......
A spiritual person might not belong to any religion.
A religious person might not have any spiritual qualities.

 

[oldbadger]

I just so happen to have read an article this weekend in which the author quotes one Theodore Dalrymple who says:

The reason... so many people claim to be spiritual rather than religious is that being spiritual imposes no discipline upon them, at least none that they do not choose themselves. Being religious, on the other hand, implies an obligation to observe rules and rituals that may interfere awkwardly with daily life. Being spiritual-but-not-religious gives you that warm, inner feeling, a bit like whisky on a cold day, and reassures you that there is more to life - or at least, to your life - than meets the eye without actually having to interrupt the flux of your everyday existence. It is the gratification of religion without the inconvenience of religion.
​

...so the author likes whiskey, and has little or no respect for the solitary seeker of truth.

 

[Desert Snake]

I voted neither, since I don't use this delineation in the first place,
.aside from not actually using these words irl either.

 

[SalixIncendium]

I personally consider myself to be spiritual but not religious.

IMO, spirituality is an individual's practice/discipline of Self improvement by whatever means the individual spiritualist deems appropriate. Religion may contain a degree of spirituality, but is typically practiced as a group and practitioners follow prescribed dogma and tenets.

I also am of the opinion that those that identify as spiritual and not religious tend to be more tolerant of other's belief systems that those that identify as religious. I'd be interested to see others' opinions on this.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I was recently thinking about the distinction between the labels "spiritual" and "religious". Personally I see little to no difference between the two terms and dislike when people make a big deal out of their distinction, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks about this. The only real difference I could see is that "spiritual" hints at less dogmatic, more individualistic forms of religion whereas "religious" hints are more group-oriented and structured forms, but even this minor distinction seems to be lost when looking at some of the more unorganized religions. So what, if anything, is the difference? Do you like the distinction? Which term do you choose to go by, if any?

I'll include my first poll in here too, if you all don't mind taking it. If you do, please answer both questions in it, I couldn't make two polls.

"Religious" involves organizations that get preferential tax treatment. "Spiritual", AFAICT, involves something vaguely positive that varies from person to person.

I know that religion and spirituality are different things because of all the people who describe themselves as "spiritual, not religious." What "spiritual" means, though... I have no idea. The only definition I've ever seen that's even coherent is the one from @Sunstone - but I realize that his definition isn't generally accepted.

 

[Sundance]

I was recently thinking about the distinction between the labels "spiritual" and "religious". Personally I see little to no difference between the two terms and dislike when people make a big deal out of their distinction, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks about this. The only real difference I could see is that "spiritual" hints at less dogmatic, more individualistic forms of religion whereas "religious" hints are more group-oriented and structured forms, but even this minor distinction seems to be lost when looking at some of the more unorganized religions. So what, if anything, is the difference? Do you like the distinction? Which term do you choose to go by, if any?

I'll include my first poll in here too, if you all don't mind taking it. If you do, please answer both questions in it, I couldn't make two polls.

@lovesong Nawwww, I love polls! XD

Personally, I don't see any distinction between being ‘spiritual’ and being religious. They are but one and the same. Various religions, and even various forms of the SAME religion, are just different expressions of spirituality. I mean, it's very foolish, to me at least, to try to create any sort of distinction. It'd be like someone who asks,

“What's the difference between visible light and the various colours you see?”

Answer: There is none, for the colors are manifestations of visible light. Visible light has no independent or concrete existence outside of the many colors.

The same is true for spirituality and religion. There is no such thing as authentic spirituality outside of the context of the different religions in the world, only a vague and (somewhat) confusing sense of the holy and the sacred. Because of that, the whole idea of being ‘spiritual but not religious’, while it did have its appeals at one point, is just unthinkable to me now. To what can I liken this mindset? The best analogy I can devise is eating leftover scraps of food after an evening meal, calling it dinner. Deprivation, I calls it.

 

[Sundance]

I just so happen to have read an article this weekend in which the author quotes one Theodore Dalrymple who says:

The reason... so many people claim to be spiritual rather than religious is that being spiritual imposes no discipline upon them, at least none that they do not choose themselves. Being religious, on the other hand, implies an obligation to observe rules and rituals that may interfere awkwardly with daily life. Being spiritual-but-not-religious gives you that warm, inner feeling, a bit like whisky on a cold day, and reassures you that there is more to life - or at least, to your life - than meets the eye without actually having to interrupt the flux of your everyday existence. It is the gratification of religion without the inconvenience of religion.
​

TUMAH WINS.....


FATALITY

 

[idav]

Spirituality is the artistry of religion with its deeper meanings. Religion without spirituality is vain repetition.

 

[Ben Avraham]

I believe it's like Jesus said, there is an inside of the cup and an outside of the cup. Spirituality is the inside of the cup, and religious is the outside of the cup. Spirituality is what goes on inside and religion is what others can see you do. If a person is doing things on the outside that don't match what's on the inside this is hypocrisy. So Jesus says to clean the inside of the cup and the outside will be clean as well. So true religion is both Spiritual and Religious.

The statement that the inside is known by what goes on in the outside, we are back into the status quo. Has it ever been any different that one's faith is known by what he or she does in terms of obedience to the laws? How can one hide the outside aka the works of his or her hands so that one's spirituality is not readable?

 

[Fool]

I was recently thinking about the distinction between the labels "spiritual" and "religious". Personally I see little to no difference between the two terms and dislike when people make a big deal out of their distinction, but I'm curious what everyone else thinks about this. The only real difference I could see is that "spiritual" hints at less dogmatic, more individualistic forms of religion whereas "religious" hints are more group-oriented and structured forms, but even this minor distinction seems to be lost when looking at some of the more unorganized religions. So what, if anything, is the difference? Do you like the distinction? Which term do you choose to go by, if any?

I'll include my first poll in here too, if you all don't mind taking it. If you do, please answer both questions in it, I couldn't make two polls.

religious is doing something and not really understanding why it is done. spiritual is understanding that the ritual, or rite, is just a symbol of an actual state of mind.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Spirituality doesn't make me sit through rituals when a Christian friend has a kid?

 

[Reggie Miller]

The Pharisees and Saducees were very religious, but not spiritual. Jesus was/is spiritual and religious, but with much more emphasis on the spiritual.

 

[Ben Avraham]

The Pharisees and Saducees were very religious, but not spiritual. Jesus was/is spiritual and religious, but with much more emphasis on the spiritual.

Jesus can no longer be any thing else if you read Ecclesiastes 9:5,6.