View Full Version : Are there dangers from being spiritual but not religious?
06-06-2010, 11:42 AM
From CNN News:
"The "I'm spiritual but not religious" community is growing so much that one pastor compared it to a movement. In a 2009 survey by the research firm LifeWay Christian Resources, 72 percent of millennials (18- to 29-year-olds) said they're "more spiritual than religious." The phrase is now so commonplace that it's spawned its own acronym ("I'm SBNR") and Facebook page: SBNR.org.
But what exactly does being "spiritual but not religious" mean, and could there be hidden dangers in living such a life?"
Read entire article here: http://www.cnn.com/2010/LIVING/personal/06/03/spiritual.but.not.religious/index.html?hpt=Mid
06-06-2010, 01:51 PM
I did run across a Spirituality vs Religion web site once that started with all good words and ideas then wound up being as completely hypocritical and judgmental as their alledged opposites. Perhaps I might have expected that from the title. I believe my actual search terms were Spirituality 'and' Religion. Sometimes you can find more theory than application with either. And that applies to my own bloated nothingness as well.
06-06-2010, 06:52 PM
Good article. Something to think about!
06-06-2010, 07:53 PM
"fraid I fall in to this category.
My spiritual blend of Buddhism, nonviolence, Living Earth centered metaphysics puts me square on this label
I see it a lowering any perceptible barriers to resistance between my sentiment and compassion and awareness. If it fits, then it is useful. If it doesn't, it is of no value and a waste of time.
I recently visited an Ashram looking for some formal meditation teaching. It did not fit my spiritual essence. I felt like a trespasser of another's sanctuary, Much like when I enter a church. Expectation means judgemet. Judgement means inadequacy. Inadequacey means suffering the violence of oppression. Violence is the opposite direction of my spiritual/emotional path. I have enough trouble undoing my contraction around my past oppression.
06-07-2010, 12:35 AM
While it's an interesting article, I have to say that to say that, like Scotty, I fall into the 'spiritual' and not 'religious category'. Mind you, I sang in church this morning- professionally of course (I got paid). Does that make me religious? Certainly not. However, it does offer me a front row seat on religion in action.
Few want to admit it, but religion involves a great deal of showmanship. Being spiritual does too. However, the difference is one of formality.
One person quoted in the article makes much of spirituality being egotistical. Well. I've seen lots of egos close up in all the churches I have worked for. Sure. One can yak about submitting one's self to a higher order of being, but when it comes down to it, this usually means following the dictates of another person. After all, even the best teachers have one- especially the ones who intone that they have transcended it.
Does this mean that one should trust no one? No. That would be a very insular way to proceed with anything religious or spiritual. My perspective- which echos Scotty's, is that that one should have skillful means, that is, matching the method with the person.
We don't all wear the same size shoe. And some of us don't even wear shoes at all.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.