|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 05 2010 : 9:23:30 PM
|
Interesting article: "Are there dangers in being 'spiritual but not religious'?".
I like the parable that BJ Gallagher is reported to have said:
quote:
...says she's SBNR because organized religion inevitably degenerates into tussles over power, ego and money.
Gallagher tells a parable to illustrate her point:
"God and the devil were walking down a path one day when God spotted something sparkling by the side of the path. He picked it up and held it in the palm of his hand.
"Ah, Truth," he said.
"Here, give it to me," the devil said. "I'll organize it."
-- jo-self
|
Edited by - Jo-self on Jun 06 2010 10:40:19 AM |
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2010 : 12:34:13 AM
|
" because organized religion inevitably degenerates into tussles over power, ego and money."
Although I understand the concept, and I also think being SBNR is fine, this person may be missing all the good that organized religion can do. Organized religions are divided into primarily two kinds of followers. Those who don't "get it" and consequently use their religion as a means of determining what is "right" or "wrong" and applying that to other people. This often degenerates into the above tussles.
But I think the majority of followers usually DO "get it", and use religion to better themselves. Then there are a few who use their devotion to propel themselves further on the road of enlightenment.
While religion is not necessary for this, it can provide a path that many prefer to follow.
The Huffington Post has very progressive leanings. One of the pillars of progressive thought is that religion is bad.
In answer to the topic question, no I don't think being SBNR is dangerous at all. But religions are not inevitably bad either. Some people are in their actions, and they manifest that evil in religion, business, family, sports, forums - you name it! |
 |
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2010 : 10:38:12 AM
|
Sure. The article discussed those concepts. On the whole most of the quoted people said that it is dangerous. It was a CNN piece not Huffington Post, btw.
|
Edited by - Jo-self on Jun 06 2010 10:41:13 AM |
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2010 : 11:37:54 AM
|
Yes, quoted people representing organized religions.
The article quotes a Catholic as saying without religion you can be complacent and self-centered, and won't help the poor.
Another guy says people seem to not have the time or energy or interest to delve deeply into a religion.
They seem to be talking about people who are not religious, OR spiritual.
You won't find much of those people here. |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2010 : 8:56:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jo-self
Sure. The article discussed those concepts. On the whole most of the quoted people said that it is dangerous. It was a CNN piece not Huffington Post, btw.
Hi Jo-Self, Ether & All,
Jo-Self - I just read that article, and I respectfully disagree with what you wrote above.
Most of the people quoted in that article don't say "Spiritual But Not Religious" is dangerous.
There are six people quoted; three see SBNR as problematic, and three say that they are SBNR.
Father James Martin, a Catholic priest, is quoted at the beginning and end of the article, giving his comments more apparent weight.
The article also cites the statistic that a Christian research firm found that 72% of 18-29 year-olds consider themselves to be "Spiritual But Not Religious".
(I wonder what a Yogic research firm would find??  )
Basically, the three "againsts" are from people affiliated with traditional institutions, two of them Catholic; they seem to feel that the choice is between spiritual community and discipline within "the Church" ... and ego-based loners without structure, who consider themselves "SBNR".
That's factually incorrect, not to mention downright silly.
The world is full of dedicated spiritual practitioners, who have as much spiritual discipline and devotion as a person can have, and who engage in practices and other spiritual activities, while belonging to rich, successful and growing spiritual communities, but who are not part of a traditional European-style Christian Church.
I'm not sure how much of the rest of the religious-spiritual "world" would even understand this "issue" ... it seems to be very much a "Western Church Model" thing. For instance, in nations and religions where religious-spiritual life is simply integrated with regular life to a much greater degree (i.e. India/Hinduism, China/Taoism, Tibet/Buddhism, Etc.) ... this entire dialog/question wouldn't even really compute; religion and church have never been as much of a "separate thing" in that part of the world.
And even more importantly: dedicated SBNR people seem to have a FAR greater likelihood of true spiritual success (awakening / realization / enlightenment ) than those affiliated with churches.
And so, the article was interesting, but the people citing SBNR as "dangerous" or at least problematic are way off base, in terms of their opinions and the basis for their opinions (in my opinion.  ).
Interesting article, though; thanks for sharing it.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
PS- I might suggest a new designation:
Absolutely Loving Life, Happily & Enthusiastically Allowing Reality & Truth - ALL-HEART.
As In:
Are You Religious?
SBNR?
"Nope ... I'm ALL-HEART!"
|
|
|
|
Etherfish
USA
3615 Posts |
Posted - Jun 06 2010 : 11:13:55 PM
|
Good, very comprehensive K-man, as usual!
One more point; people who belong to a religion tend to want you to "name and claim" a tradition in order for them to call you religious. For instance, I follow ALL the teachings of Jesus, but i am not considered a Christian because I don't belong to a group or go to church.
People who follow AYP methods would not be considered religious because nothing on this site claims it is part of a religion. Personally, I like not having it called religion here, because people can follow their own religion in addition to AYP practices and feel there is no conflict, and an atheist can follow here and still call himself an atheist. (I know, shockingly blasphemous to some, but there are explanations elsewhere on the forums). So it appeals to a much larger crowd, and reinforces that enlightenment isn't exclusive to any one religion. |
|
|
|
amoux
United Kingdom
266 Posts |
Posted - Jun 07 2010 : 06:08:17 AM
|
Interesting topic
I read the article, and was struck that the author appeared to believe that while religious people were aware that it was a good thing to feed the hungry, spiritual people might not be. Which is ridiculous Christopher Hitchens debunked a similar idea in "God is not Great", when he raised the question of whether, prior to the ten commandments, anyone seriously believed that the Jewish people thought that it was okay to kill, steal etc., etc.? So far as organised religion is concerned, I am an atheist myself. Compassion is not dependent upon religion.
Another thing that came to mind was a quotation that I used in my father's "in memoriam" - and it is this: "Religious men attend church and think about fishing: spiritual men go fishing and think about God". Of course, it's an oversimplification Because spiritual and religious aren't mutually exclusive. Very many people are both. Is it really any different from, say, liking football but not supporting a particular team?
|
|
|
|
Jo-self
USA
225 Posts |
Posted - Jun 07 2010 : 6:52:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kirtanman
Jo-Self - I just read that article, and I respectfully disagree with what you wrote above.
Most of the people quoted in that article don't say "Spiritual But Not Religious" is dangerous.
Kirtanman:
Your correct, I misspoke (maybe I should run for political office!). I'll have to re-read it again.
I agree with you 100% on this. Its good that articles like that are written, the non-conventional approach toward God is important. Maybe, as in everything, following the money will get at the root: tithing is at stake.
|
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Is SBNR dangerous?
