...and salvation?
People who call themselves “spiritual” are atheists who haven’t got the guts to admit they’re atheists.
Here’s a shorthand for SBNR perspective from the Christian tradition:
1) The actual teachings of Christ as documented in the New Testament (e.g., love God and love your neighbor as yourself) are fundamental, spiritually-inspired truths to be honored, taught and practiced through the ages.
2) The Paulian/trinitarian/literal teachings of Christianity as espoused in 98% of churches are an interpretation of Christ and his life that SBNRs simply don’t believe any more than they believe in Santa Claus or the Easter bunny. They are seen as effective only for the simple-minded or for authorities in various churches intent on propping up their importance to the gullibles’ lives. SBNRs find it awkward and hard to justify raising their children in an institution that teaches truths which they themselves don’t believe to be true.
SBNRs would gladly support churches that taught #1 without #2, except that such tend first to be rare and second, by their very nature, not inclined to impose some sort of guilt/duty/obligation to live a spiritual life only through weekly attendance.
SAR types have a hard time understanding and respecting SBNRs, whose numbers continue to rise apace.
Thank you.
I've tried many "churches" in my 62 years. All I've ever come across is dogma and power struggles.
My wife and I and some others gather and talk, and pray to Him. I'm satisfied with our effort, since no one really knows what happens, except in our daily endeavors with others.
As far as I know, Jesus never had an "organized" church...only to follow what would become the Gospels. He said it, I believe Him.
FMCDH(BITS)
SBNR is sort of like a “Non-Denominational” church. The second they separate themselves from the other denominations they became yet another denomination.
What does spiritual mean if not to harbor religous beliefs? I suspect they use the term to mean they believe something but aren’t hampered by rules and regulations. That’s fine, but what rules and regulations are they rejecting? To love others? To love God?
SBNR is sort of like a “Non-Denominational” church. The second they separate themselves from the other denominations they became yet another denomination.
What does spiritual mean if not to harbor religous beliefs? I suspect they use the term to mean they believe something but aren’t hampered by rules and regulations. That’s fine, but what rules and regulations are they rejecting? To love others? To love God?
...and salvation?
Sounds like the author is trying to justify to herself why she attends an organized religion than actually touting the benefits of it.
Many “churches” are not churches at all. They have become social gatherings for little adult girls trying to fit in.
I believe - but I find I can no longer trust organizations ... or sadly most people. I will tend my own and pray to the Lord for guidance. I will research and read the Holy Word of the Bible.
My salvation is through Christ and my relationship to God, not a building or congregation... I only hope that I can lead my family to the same.
I don’t disparage the churches of the land, but I pray for all humanity. God has told me what I need to do. I strive for the same.
I consider myself both religious and spritual. I also consider myself a Christian who has a personal relationship with the Lord.
I have not gone to “church” in years. That does not mean that I don’t pray everyday. I do, sometimes multiple times. (It is a 25 minute ride to town; great time for prayer.) That also does not mean that I don’t donate money to worthy causes. I do. All my donations (except, of course, to FR :) go to local organizations, many of them religious in nature.
I have given up on finding a suitable church. Every church I’ve tried seems to be haunted by back-biting cliques, entrepreneurial megalomaniac pastors set on becoming the next Rick Warren and, like the government, a never ending, increasing need for my money.
No thank you. I prefer to keep it simple.
BUMP to CoadToad, number 13 above and nothingnew, number five above.
Years of watching various organized “religions” promote, accept or ignore a variety of sins while one of their main objectives is maximizing donations has influenced my opinion of churches.
I believe a person who strives to live a moral life, helps others and has deep beliefs and a relationship with the Lord is just fine, church or no church.
bflr
I wanted to post a picture of a couple of people who fall into the SAR (spiritual _and_ religious) category, but due to copyright concerns, I will provide a link to their pictures, below, instead...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/files/2013/04/10_110_20_103.jpg
This really isn’t as complicated as Amy seems to be making it out to be. SBNR people are simply people who have been convinced by the secular press and the world around them that there are other things in life that are more important than God. It’s probably inaccurate to say that they don’t believe in God, as most probably do. They have simply become convinced that even if there is a hell, only those that society defines as truly evil (HItler, Osama Bin Ladin, etc) end up going there. So why should they give up all of the fun and niceties of this world for no good reason?
Now this wasn’t always how it was. There was once a day when the bishops of the Catholic Church preached that there was such a thing as mortal sin, and that all who died with that sin on their soul were cast into hell for a very long time––like forever. But once they became “modernized” after Vatican II, they rarely spoke of even the existence of sin, heaven or hell. Their message isn’t much different than that of the democrats and Obama––redistribute wealth, amnesty for illegals, worship the gods of global warming, and so forth. The rest of the religions (all of which are false) follow the suit played by the Catholic bishops, but just move further and faster to the left.
The more interesting question might be just why are these bishops and the rest of the religious crowd even concerned. Oh sure, they can say they are worried about their souls and all that, but anyone who has bothered to look at what these bishops have been doing over the past 50 years would have serious doubts about that answer. There was a day when the mission of the Church was the “salvation of the souls of mankind”. What it is today is unclear, but one thing it is not is that. Perhaps Cardinal Dolan could ask his friends as the NYT to define it for him some day.
But the real tragedy in all this is that the souls of a great many of those SBNR’s (as well as many SAR) will be lost to hells fire for eternity. We certainly can and should pray for each and every one of them, for as they were being led astray by the media and the satanic pleasures of this world, the bishops stood idly by as silent as lambs. Sadly, the Catholic bishops have long abandoned their flock. Indeed, it could almost be said that in many cases they have virtually led them astray. But a day will come when these bishops will answer to God Almighty for what they’ve done. There will be an accounting and what a mighty accounting it will be.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Thanks, I’m Quaker and I guess the SBNR moniker fits me to a “T”. Maybe it’s in my genes or upbringing, but I see corruption in almost every organized church that makes me lose faith in the institution, but not the message.
