Christianity

[Immanuel Can]

I asked, what do people mean when they say they are not relgious but "spiritual?".

What I mean when I say that I'm 'spiritual - not religious' is that I believe all is connected as one, and one is being manifested/reflected through all. This is in contrast to believing in any separate hierarchy or god-figure who is depicted by various religions as separate and above all else.

Thank you for a frank answer.

[Immanuel Can]

Wait, from where are you getting the idea that all of those who refer to themselves as "spiritual but not religious" disbelieve in God?

That's a good question.

And it goes with this one: can a person say, "I believe in a god" and not be religious?

Apparently so, by your own (unsolicited) admission a page back:

For one thing, I'm not religious.

Well, the reason why, as I pointed out, that many people would be upset with me saying that is that they have a different idea of what "religion" means. And they'd certainly prefer to think that Christianity was "one of the religions," to borrow their language. And they would think that anybody who said, "I believe in God, but I'm not religious" was being disingenuous.

But I agree: a person can be a Christian and not "religious," once we understand what "religious" really implies.

But it doesn't help us understand what people mean by "spiritual." Lacewing has been forthcoming...others, not so much.

There will be different opinions about that, since "belief in God" is ordinarily taken to be one of the hallmarks of what secularists call "religious."

But you disagree?

Yes.

Interesting. You and I are in the minority, then. For I suspect that many others would disagree. They would not only think Christianity was a "religion," but also that anybody who believed in God was also "religious."

What do you say?

I say that, to me, in this context, "religious" denotes adherence to an institutionalised system of spiritual belief and practice, which might or might not (e.g., see Buddhism) involve belief in God.

Well, Buddhism over in Western culture, what I call "Beatles Buddhism" is very sanitized version. Buddhism in places like Tibet is very different and very occultic. And East Asian Buddhisms (there are various) tend to be highly spiritist, with temples, images, sacrifices, prayers...and gods. The whole spectrum.

"Spiritual (but not religious)" simply denotes adherence to a non-institutionalised set of spiritual beliefs and practices,

I can buy that, except for the fact that you use "spiritual" to explain the word "spiritual," which is circular. What makes a "belief" "spiritual"? Can you give an example of that?

What, for example, makes one type of prayer, or morality, or relationship "religious," but another "spiritual"?

"I believe in divinity and in a divine realm of spirit transcendent to this physical realm. Through such practices as prayer, meditation, fasting, and scrupulously ethical behaviour, I have developed and maintain a reverent and tangible relationship with divinity and the spiritual realm. The tangibility of this relationship is demonstrated by such regular occurrences in my daily life as synchronicities, answered prayers, visions, miracles, my (sometime or even regular) expression of paranormal abilities, and things 'just working out' for me when the odds of that were very low. I also experience this relationship at all times: I have a continuous sense of God's presence and of our connectedness."

Many people would call you "religious," then. How do you wish them to distinguish you from that?

Not at all.

Well, that's what you more-or-less said a post or two back (emphasis added by me):

I don't doubt that [those who affirm that they are spiritual but not religious] think they're better than the raw unbeliever in some way; otherwise, why would they bother to stipulate themselves as "spiritual"? If they didn't think it made them somehow better than "non-spiritual" people, would they say it at all?

But you'll notice I was speaking of what they say...not at all of what I say. So the answer's still "No."

When Christians say they're "spiritually alive" whereas non-Christians are "spiritually dead", they don't "think it [makes] them somehow better than" non-Christians.

No. Check Ephesians again. It says that we all were in the same state. It's God who takes anybody and does anything better with them. No credit to them. That's what "...by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9, emph. mine) means.

[Harry Baird]

[M]any people certainly prefer to think that Christianity was "one of the religions," to borrow their language.

Quite reasonably, because it is.

But I agree: a person can be a Christian and not "religious," once we understand what "religious" really implies.

No, in fact, we don't agree. Christianity is a religion*, ergo, Christians are religious.

* Per my working definition from my previous post: an institutionalised system of spiritual belief and practice, which might or might not (e.g., see Buddhism) involve belief in God.

But it doesn't help us understand what people mean by "spiritual." Lacewing has been forthcoming...others, not so much.

You don't think I've been forthcoming? I gave you a whole paragraph of detailed explanation. What more do you want?

There will be different opinions about that, since "belief in God" is ordinarily taken to be one of the hallmarks of what secularists call "religious."

But you disagree?

Yes.

Interesting. You and I are in the minority, then. For I suspect that many others would disagree. They would not only think Christianity was a "religion," but also that anybody who believed in God was also "religious."

You're straying from the point, which is what people mean when they say that they are "spiritual but not religious". Obviously, people who say that - since many of them do believe in God - do not define "religious" to mean "believes in God". Sure, a bunch of other people, especially the hardcore atheist/skeptic/materialist/secular/humanist types might, but that's irrelevant to the point.

It's hard work keeping you in line!

What, for example, makes one type of prayer, or morality, or relationship "religious," but another "spiritual"?

Refer back to the definitions I provided.

Many people would call you "religious," then. How do you wish them to distinguish you from that?

See above, especially the definitions I've provided. You continue to stray from the point.

But you'll notice I was speaking of what they say...not at all of what I say.

Exactly. Straight from the horse's mouth: it only applies to others, not to Christians such as yourself. Again, it's interesting how that works.

[Immanuel Can]

[M]any people certainly prefer to think that Christianity was "one of the religions," to borrow their language.

Quite reasonably, because it is.

No, no it isn't. But they think it is.

But it doesn't help us understand what people mean by "spiritual." Lacewing has been forthcoming...others, not so much.

You don't think I've been forthcoming? I gave you a whole paragraph of detailed explanation. What more do you want?

No, you're fine. I gave Lace her kudos -- I didn't say anything about you.

You're straying from the point, which is what people mean when they say that they are "spiritual but not religious".

Quite right. Let's get back to it.

What, for example, makes one type of prayer, or morality, or relationship "religious," but another "spiritual"?

Refer back to the definitions I provided.

They don't help, because they don't distinguish the two.

For example, you say that "prayer" is one of your "spiritual" things; but most people are going to think "prayer" is religious. So I'm asking you to explain how one "prays" without praying TO anyone, and how it's "spiritual."

But you'll notice I was speaking of what they say...not at all of what I say.

Exactly. Straight from the horse's mouth: it only applies to others,

No. Check Ephesians again. It says that we all were in the same state. It's God who takes anybody and does anything better with them. No credit to them. That's what "...by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9) means.

Now you're straying.

But let's go back to the point.

[Harry Baird]

[M]any people certainly prefer to think that Christianity was "one of the religions," to borrow their language.

Quite reasonably, because it is.

No, no it isn't. But they think it is.

Presumably, you say this because, in your view, Christianity is simply "the truth", and thus not "one among many". However, many of the adherents of other religions would say exactly the same thing about their own religions, and would offer their own arguments to that effect.

You're straying from the point, which is what people mean when they say that they are "spiritual but not religious".

Quite right. Let's get back to it.

At this point, I have nothing to add to that which I've already written.

What, for example, makes one type of prayer, or morality, or relationship "religious," but another "spiritual"?

Refer back to the definitions I provided.

They don't help, because they don't distinguish the two.

They clearly do. The essential difference they describe is whether or not the beliefs and practices are institutionalised.

So I'm asking you to explain how one "prays" without praying TO anyone, and how it's "spiritual."

Wait, what? How did you get the idea that I'm suggesting praying without praying TO anyone?

But you'll notice I was speaking of what they say...not at all of what I say.

Exactly. Straight from the horse's mouth: it only applies to others,

No. Check Ephesians again. It says that we all were in the same state. It's God who takes anybody and does anything better with them. No credit to them. That's what "...by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9) means.

OK, so, answer this: is it better to be saved than not to be saved?

[Immanuel Can]

Quite reasonably, because it is.

No, no it isn't. But they think it is.

Presumably, you say this because, in your view, Christianity is simply "the truth", and thus not "one among many".

Well, it is, and obviously, any Christian thinks so, or he wouldn't bother being a Christian. But that's not the reason I gave, and you missed my explanation, a few messages back.

Are you actually reading what I say? I have to ask, because your summation doesn't resemble my actual answer.

Refer back to the definitions I provided.

They don't help, because they don't distinguish the two.

They clearly do. The essential difference they describe is whether or not the beliefs and practices are institutionalised.

So..."institutionalized" prayer = "religious," you say? But if somebody prays without an institution, then that's "spiritual"? Because if that's your definition, then Christian prayer isn't "religious." It does not require any institutions.

So I'm asking you to explain how one "prays" without praying TO anyone, and how it's "spiritual."

Wait, what? How did you get the idea that I'm suggesting praying without praying TO anyone?

I stand corrected: to whom or what do you pray?

Exactly. Straight from the horse's mouth: it only applies to others,

No. Check Ephesians again. It says that we all were in the same state. It's God who takes anybody and does anything better with them. No credit to them. That's what "...by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9) means.

OK, so, answer this: is it better to be saved than not to be saved?

Of course. But it's not "better" by way of human beings having earned it or merited it, and it doesn't mean they are saved because they are better than other people.

As Christians are fond of saying, "Christians aren't perfect -- just forgiven." That's the actual Christian attitude. Or to quote another Christian standard, a Christian can look at any person, no matter how degraded and down they may be, and sincerely say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I."

Christians believe everybody starts of as a sinner, alienated from God. And it's God's work, not ours, that saves us. That's why the Ephesians quote concludes, "so that no one can boast." It's God who saves. The religious may try to save themselves; Christians give up their pride, and submit to the salvation of God, realizing that they are no better...and sometimes even farther down...than anyone else.

That's a key Christian distinctive. And if you try to make it fit with what, say, Islam or Modern Judaism teaches, you won't find it does, at all. For both of the former, and for self-improvement religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, the key to their "salvation" concept is something like personal enlightement, good works, charity, or self-improvement of some kind. Christians aren't that. They certainly believe in and practice some of these things, but they do not suppose any of them is salvific.

See again, Ephesians 2. Or Titus 3:54-7. "But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life."

[Harry Baird]

Presumably, you say [that Christianity is not "one of the religions"] because, in your view, Christianity is simply "the truth", and thus not "one among many".

Well, it is, and obviously, any Christian thinks so, or he wouldn't bother being a Christian. But that's not the reason I gave, and you missed my explanation, a few messages back.

Kindly repeat it for me, because I can't identify it.

So..."institutionalized" prayer = "religious," you say? But if somebody prays without an institution, then that's "spiritual"?

Either way, prayer is spiritual, it's just that in some cases, that spiritual practice occurs in an institutionalised context.

Because if that's your definition, then Christian prayer isn't "religious." It does not require any institutions.

Christianity simply is, in the sense I intend, institutionalised. If you're struggling with that particular word, then here are some alternatives: organised; codified; systematised; doctrinal.

I stand corrected: to whom or what do you pray?

When I pray, I pray to God. Who else? Did you think you had some sort of gotcha here?

OK, so, answer this: is it better to be saved than not to be saved?

Of course.

Right, so, Christians are in their own understanding better than non-Christians in this sense, or at least in a better state. Why do you think it's different for the spiritual but not religious folks?

[Immanuel Can]

Kindly repeat it for me, because I can't identify it.

It was in the same section you linked to.

So..."institutionalized" prayer = "religious," you say? But if somebody prays without an institution, then that's "spiritual"?

Either way, prayer is spiritual, it's just that in some cases, that spiritual practice occurs in an institutionalised context.[/quote]
Then "institutionalization" isn't after all the thing that makes prayer spiritual or not, according to you? So what makes the difference between your idea of a "spiritual" prayer and a "religious" one?

Christianity simply is, in the sense I intend, institutionalised.

It's actually not. Any actual Christian knows it's not. And anybody who knows Christian theology knows it's not.

Churches are not sources of salvation, not essential to prayer, to meditation, or to any of the other activities you listed. Christianity holds that all these are functions of individual Christians. They may choose to meet for them, or do them independently.

So no, not institutionalized.

I stand corrected: to whom or what do you pray?

When I pray, I pray to God.

But not an objective God? Certainly not the Christian God? And people who pray to other entities...Baal, Ishtar, Odin, Zeus, Krishna, Ahura Mazda, the Force...are equally really "prayers" as you are? Just as "spiritual"?

Just asking. Don't get mad.

Right, so, Christians are in their own understanding better than non-Christians in this sense, or at least in a better state.

Of course, they're "in a better state." But they're not "better persons" than non-Christians in any inherent way.

Why would you be surprised? Every believer in every religion always thinks their way is true, and that they are better off being what they are than not. And that's true even of the putatively "inclusive" religions, like the New Age or Buddhism...they all think you're better off being like them than not being like them.

Why do you think it's different for the spiritual but not religious folks?

What's "different"? Their opinion? Or the truth?

[Harry Baird]

Kindly repeat it for me, because I can't identify it.

It was in the same section you linked to.

I have no idea what you're referring to. What is "the reason [you] gave" that Christianity is not "one of the religions"?

So..."institutionalized" prayer = "religious," you say? But if somebody prays without an institution, then that's "spiritual"?

Either way, prayer is spiritual, it's just that in some cases, that spiritual practice occurs in an institutionalised context.

Then "institutionalization" isn't after all the thing that makes prayer spiritual or not, according to you? So what makes the difference between your idea of a "spiritual" prayer and a "religious" one?

Try reading for comprehension. Mull it over a little.

Christianity simply is, in the sense I intend, institutionalised.

It's actually not. Any actual Christian knows it's not. And anybody who knows Christian theology knows it's not.

Ah, right, so, there are a bunch of people going around referring to themselves as "Christians", with a "Christian theology", but that doesn't constitute institutionalisation in the (religious) sense I intended (for which I provided a bunch of synonyms). Nope, you're not making any sense.

When I pray, I pray to God.

But not an objective God?

What on Earth are you on about? Why would I pray to a God who I don't even think is real (objective)?

Right, so, Christians are in their own understanding better than non-Christians in this sense, or at least in a better state.

Of course, they're "in a better state." But they're not "better persons" than non-Christians in any inherent way.

So, why would you think it's any different for "spiritual but not religious" people?

You know what, don't bother. You'll never admit to your double standard, and I don't care to press you on it any further.

[Harbal]

Your criterion for the moral is so low, that even Jeffrey Dahmer could meet it, so long as, in his own depraved mind, he was following values he personally held. That would be, if we used your suggested criterion, praiseworthy.

Well just forget my criterion for the moral then, if you don't think much of it. I don't know what criteria any spiritual people have for morality, and I don't know to what extent morality and spirituality are connected. We've already had the subjective / objective argument in relation to morality, but it seems you are trying to have it again.

I don't think so. Human nature is the source of morality, but I don't know what role spiritual people see nature in general as playing in it.

Well, then I guess that doesn't bring us any closer to knowing what a "spiritual not religious" person is, then.

That's because you keep making spirituality all about morality, when it might not have anything to do with morality, and I don't know if it does or it doesn't.

Well, what a person does is a product of the kind of person he is. And the person he is depends on what he believes.

That's meaingles. It doesn't tell us what kind of people do what kind of things, and it probably isn't something you could make a generalisation about anyway. What my neighbour believes is of absolutely no value or interest to me, but how he behaves very much is.

I am. Go back and check.

I asked a genuine question, and I'll take a genuine answer. I asked, what do people mean when they say they are not relgious but "spiritual?" And for some reason, people seem embarassed or unable to make a simple answer.

But I'll take one, if there is one.

I don't need to go back and check, I've been checking as I go along. For one thing, your question isn't genuine; you asked it with the specific intention of rubbishing any answer you might get in response to it. People have tried to give you answers, so it isn't true that they are embarrassed or unable to do so. Go back and check.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can paraphrased Ephesians 2: 8-i:

It says that we all were in the same state. It's God who takes anybody and does anything better with them. No credit to them. That's what "...by grace you are saved, through faith, and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God, not of works, so that no one can boast" (Eph. 2:8-9) means.

That is one of the bits of The Bible that tempts me to believe like a Christian. However I suspect philosophers and theologians other than St Paul, and from diverse religions or none, have expressed the same deterministic idea and belief.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote in a reply to Harbal:

Your criterion for the moral is so low, that even Jeffrey Dahmer could meet it, so long as, in his own depraved mind, he was following values he personally held. That would be, if we used your suggested criterion, praiseworthy.

To forgive is divine.

[attofishpi]

?[

Do you believe you have lived in a past life, that you have been reincarnatated into this current life?

Or.

Do you believe this life you have is your first instance upon planet Earth?

..oar?

[Immanuel Can]

Kindly repeat it for me, because I can't identify it.

It was in the same section you linked to.

I have no idea what you're referring to. What is "the reason [you] gave" that Christianity is not "one of the religions"?

That it's not works-based.

Either way, prayer is spiritual, it's just that in some cases, that spiritual practice occurs in an institutionalised context.

Then "institutionalization" isn't after all the thing that makes prayer spiritual or not, according to you? So what makes the difference between your idea of a "spiritual" prayer and a "religious" one?

Try reading for comprehension. Mull it over a little.

You said "institutionalization." Now you say that's not it. So what is?

Ah, right, so, there are a bunch of people going around referring to themselves as "Christians", with a "Christian theology", but that doesn't constitute institutionalisation in the (religious) sense I intended (for which I provided a bunch of synonyms).

There are. I can't help it, if you don't know there are. Most secularists and others only know the larger, institutional groups, and don't know anything about personal Christianity or actual Biblical theology, because they don't really think Christian theology is about anything (so why familiarize yourself with it, they figure) and because institutions are much easier to locate.

When I pray, I pray to God.

But not an objective God?

What on Earth are you on about? Why would I pray to a God who I don't even think is real (objective)?

Well, that was my next question. But your view of "spirituality" seems entirely based on the subjective and personal, so that would be the right question.

You know what, don't bother. You'll never admit to your double standard, and I don't care to press you on it any further.

That's fine. You already have the appropriate Biblical quotations to refer to, whenever you may decide you actually are ready to hear the answer.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know to what extent morality and spirituality are connected.

Exactly the way theory and practice are connected. What one thinks is true always determines one's actions.

I don't think so. Human nature is the source of morality, but I don't know what role spiritual people see nature in general as playing in it.

Well, then I guess that doesn't bring us any closer to knowing what a "spiritual not religious" person is, then.

That's because you keep making spirituality all about morality,[/quote]
I don't, actually. Morality is certainly one of the things it's about, but it's not the first.

Well, what a person does is a product of the kind of person he is. And the person he is depends on what he believes.

That's meaingles.

Not so.

It's quite ordinary. What we think drives what we are.

What my neighbour believes is of absolutely no value or interest to me, but how he behaves very much is.

I don't think that turns out to be right.

If you neighbour is a resentful terrorist, do you not suppose that is a concern to you? Or if she is a socially-active and compassionate nurse, do you not think that is of any benefit to you, rather than the terrorist?

People have tried to give you answers,

I have one from Lace, and one from Harry. They're different. They don't agree.

I'm still collecting answers, to see what kind of a range I get.

Hold the fort, and I'll eventually tell you what I think about whatever I end up getting.