# "Spiritual but not religious" CNN belief blog post **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2012, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586 "2012-10-03T15:10:38Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 11:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/41 "2012-10-05T11:07:46Z")
> [@PandaBear77](#): > > IME “spiritual but not religious” generally means “ok with any diety but Jesus.” If you look at what Jesus was quoted as saying, or how he acted, you will note that he was spiritual, not religious, and he chided the Pharisees for their Being religious and not spiritual! ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/42 "2012-10-05T11:14:08Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > If you look at what Jesus was quoted as saying, or how he acted, you will note that he was spiritual, not religious, and he chided the Pharisees for their Being religious and not spiritual! Well, ahem, he actually used neither of those terms. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 11:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/43 "2012-10-05T11:14:08Z")
> [@Larry\_Borgia](#): > > It seems to me that people are doing a lot of projecting here and painting with a very broad brush. > > The only thing you can tell about someone who says they are spiritual but not religious is that they are a person who says that they are spiritual but not religious. You could also hazard a likely guess that they feel there is something divine in the universe, but don’t believe the tenets of any specific religion. > > Beyond that there is nothing you can say without asking them. Jim may feel that Christ was divine, but that his essence has been ignored by most or all organized Christian churches. Jane may worship nature. Steve may believe in a sort of Aristotelian prime mover. Carla may feel that the divine is unknowable save for the fact it exists. Bob may simply never have thought about the matter much. Tia might really be an atheist, but be uncomfortable publicly admitting it–or even admitting it to herself. > > If you’re curious as to what someone believes, the only thing to do is to ask that particular person. Stating “everyone who says X is like Y” is never right, and thought patterns like that are a source of much of what is wrong with the world. I don’t believe any true Atheist is uncomfortale about admitting they are spiritual, They seem to go on facts, not faith. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/44 "2012-10-05T11:16:57Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > I don’t believe any true Atheist is uncomfortale about admitting they are spiritual I know many, many, many, many atheists who would be very uncomfortable about “admitting” to be “spiritual” – or to be precise, who do not self-identify as “spiritual”. ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 11:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/45 "2012-10-05T11:38:03Z")
> [@Malthus](#): > > Has anyone chimed in who actually claims they are S but not R? Or are we all just engaged in discussing what _we_ think those people believe? > > Hardly a very fruitful exercise, that. > > Now, I _do_ know people who are religious, but who do not believe in following any mainstream demomination. But they would not describe themselves as “spiritual”. IME, “spiritual but not religious” is often used in 12-step groups to soften what is otherwise a rather [conservative Christian theology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_Group). By framing this theology as “spiritual”, it becomes palatable to a larger population, some of whom may not want to change their religious identification or adopt that theology in its entirety. Jews, for example, have issues with the reasoning of some of it, even though the steps themselves are [acceptable under Jewish theology](http://www.aish.com/sp/pg/48937302.html). So “spiritual but not religious” is often code for “this is what I practice in this context, even though my stated beliefs and practices may be different in other contexts”. ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Borgia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/larry_borgia/32/156_2.png) [@Larry\_Borgia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Borgia)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/46 "2012-10-05T16:12:34Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > With regard to individuals, that’s probably true. You can make informed generalizations about the group provided you have data and I would be interested to see that. [This survey is interesting](http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/2009/05/06/many-americans-are-saying-goodbye-to-religion-but-not-faith), although it doesn’t get into which beliefs individuals are adopting. That’s an interesting article about religion in America, and people feeling more free to choose their own faith system, but it doesn’t really go to the point raised by that blogger. The blogger was making a bold statements about what SBNR people believe, which he doesn’t justify. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/47 "2012-10-05T18:22:07Z")
**Spiritual not religious** is more or less saying … “I listen to alternative music, but make sure you put me down as listening to **ALTERNATIVE** , let me spell that for you… A… L… T… E… R… N… A… oh you got it? Ok, wasn’t sure you had heard of it…it’s kinda underground you know. …I don’t want to be associated with those other establishments like ROCK and JAZZ… no definitely not.” Similarly (or maybe not so much so) “agnostic” and “atheistic” are clearly separate definitions, yet how often do people mis-define even themselves on such matters? While Alan could have written it better, I totally agree with him. And I best sum it up with this …a local bus (like city bus) organization added a new section to their bus pass registration form. It now asks your gender, AND …status quo… it says M, F and T (other). M and F being obvious but anyone take a guess at what T stands for? I laughed all the way home. In life if you need to TELL someone you are something, specifically to make sure they don’t confuse you for something else than either your audience is full of doubtful people or idiotic people. In either case you won’t win anyways so why bother? Why? Because their self-righteous and pompous silly heads. Like I said up-thread, “I listen to alternative music, but make sure you put me down as listening to **ALTERNATIVE** , let me spell that for you… A… L… T… E… R… N… A… oh you got it? Ok, wasn’t sure you had heard of it…it’s kinda underground you know. …I don’t want to be associated with those other establishments like ROCK and JAZZ” ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/48 "2012-10-05T18:42:16Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > While Alan could have written it better, I totally agree with him. It shows. Your post makes all the same kind of presumptions and errors his blog post makes, and just like the blog post, it contains zero factual data to support any of those ideas. You’re making a lot of assumptions about this group of people, and what you are saying reflects your assumptions rather than their beliefs or behavior. > [@](#): > > M and F being obvious but anyone take a guess at what T stands for? I laughed all the way home. I guess it’s transgender, which is not exactly an unheard-of term. The fact that you found this listing hilarious doesn’t reflect well on you. Neither does your assumption that people would only identify as spiritual but not religious (or transgender, or as fans of alternative music) because they are showing off to you rather than as a reflection of their actual views. > [@](#): > > Why? Because their self-righteous and pompous silly heads. Winning! ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/49 "2012-10-05T18:48:54Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It shows. Your post makes all the same kind of presumptions and errors his blog post makes, and just like the blog post, it contains zero factual data to support any of those ideas. You’re making a lot of assumptions about this group of people, and what you are saying reflects your assumptions rather than their beliefs or behavior. _Translation : Your opinion isn’t valid because you can’t go around specifically defining each and every individual to make sure what you say is 100% correct and you’re not possibly making any assumptions._ Well that’s life..either deal with it or don’t complain. Generalizations are all rooted in truths, just like stereotypes. It’s when you go around being aggressive towards others under such presumptions that we have a problem. The complaint by the author(whether he specifically says it or not..we get what he alludes to) is that THOSE people tend to go around being full of attitude because you don’t ‘get’ them. More or less like teenage brats. Like Kurt Cobain and the alternative crowd. Like any other group of people that need to stand out for the sake of standing out or simply because THEY are not comfortable in their own skin. They seek attention to cover their issues and being different rewards that adulation and adoration. It’s almost classic text book psychology it’s nauseating. See the connection? No? Apparently neither can they. > [@Marley23](#): > > I guess it’s transgender, which is not exactly an unheard-of term. The fact that you found this listing hilarious doesn’t reflect well on you. Neither does your assumption that people would only identify as spiritual but not religious (or transgender, or as fans of alternative music) because they are showing off to you rather than as a reflection of their actual views. > > Winning! What you fail to see, is that I am supporting the stance that labels are a detriment and to define oneself so rigidly - especially under false necessities - is only hindering people and causing more harm than good. You would rather we go around pinpointing people’s differences and then grouping everyone up and saying ‘hey, this person is A B and C, and if you don’t agree, you’re a meanie.’ Is this some deranged version of equality or? I see what you did there. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/50 "2012-10-05T19:00:58Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > _Translation : Your opinion isn’t valid because you can’t go around specifically defining each and every individual to make sure what you say is 100% correct and you’re not possibly making any assumptions._ Not even close. The problem is not that you are falling short of 100 percent accuracy. It’s that you are at 0 percent accuracy. The blogger posted no data and no facts to support his commentary. You’re doing the same. > [@](#): > > The complaint by the author(whether he specifically says it or not..we get what he alludes to) is that THOSE people tend to go around being full of attitude because you don’t ‘get’ them. He actually did not say anything about that at all. You’ve said it, but again, you haven’t backed it up. > [@](#): > > What you fail to see, is that I am supporting the stance that labels are a detriment and to define oneself so rigidly - especially under false necessities - is only hindering people and causing more harm than good. This is pretty much meaningless. > [@](#): > > You would rather we go around pinpointing people’s differences and then grouping everyone up and saying ‘hey, this person is A B and C, and if you don’t agree, you’re a meanie.’ I can barely understand this, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote. > [@](#): > > Is this some deranged version of equality or? I’m not talking about equality or anything else you say I am talking about. I am saying that assertions and generalizations should be backed up by facts. What you and the blogger are doing is just complaining about s-not-rs. You don’t have to like them and I really don’t care if you do. But if you make statements about what they think and what they do, you should be able to support them with facts. ---
**Author:** ![Saraya](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b3f665/32.png) [@Saraya](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saraya)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/51 "2012-10-05T19:27:55Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Not even close. The problem is not that you are falling short of 100 percent accuracy. It’s that you are at 0 percent accuracy. The blogger posted no data and no facts to support his commentary. You’re doing the same. > > He actually did not say anything about that at all. You’ve said it, but again, you haven’t backed it up. Source : Everyday life. It is what it is. > [@Marley23](#): > > I can barely understand this, but it has nothing to do with what I wrote. > > I’m not talking about equality or anything else you say I am talking about. I am saying that assertions and generalizations should be backed up by facts. What you and the blogger are doing is just complaining about s-not-rs. You don’t have to like them and I really don’t care if you do. But if you make statements about what they think and what they do, you should be able to support them with facts. And I’ll again refer to everyday life. This isn’t a court of law.. you won’t be getting facts to why people think they way they do. You know that very well. If that’s your position, there is no debate, because it’s a cop out and a trump to everything you’ll ever encounter on the matter. As a society we think that we can tell exactly what people are, just as I have tried to demonstrate, and equally the rebuttal is similar to what you’ve said. The point here seems to be that this guy dislikes how people misuse a label to set themselves apart whether intentional or not. My experiences have shown me most of them do it on purpose and it’s comical. It’s a biproduct of the greater issue of entitlement and over achieving self expression. The idea that this generation and the last one MUST have an IDENTITY or they’ll all perish under the weight of anonymity is a driving force behind why we even have labels. Without them, they’d be doomed to a meaningless existence. Or in short, it’s a vanity check. You don’t need facts, just some awareness to figure this out. I’m not alternative..I’m HIPSTER. I’m not goth.. I’m SHOCK ROCK. I’m not… Whether he meant to or not, Alan hits on something bigger..and that is people just need to BE… Not be _something_, just BE. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2012, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/52 "2012-10-05T19:37:00Z")
> [@Saraya](#): > > This isn’t a court of law.. you won’t be getting facts to why people think they way they do. You know that very well. Actually, many people can explain their opinions and use facts to support them. Some can’t. > [@](#): > > My experiences have shown me most of them do it on purpose and it’s comical. Because you don’t know what transgender means (or this it’s funny)? > [@](#): > > You don’t need facts, just some awareness to figure this out. Except without facts, you can’t be sure your opinions have a solid basis in reality. Of course, some people try to get around this by refusing to look at facts - that way their presumptions are never challenged and they don’t have to consider the possibility that they are wrong or revise their opinions. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 11:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/53 "2012-10-06T11:10:19Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > I know many, many, many, many atheists who would be very uncomfortable about “admitting” to be “spiritual” – or to be precise, who do not self-identify as “spiritual”. That is how I see it too, just wasn’t clear in my statement. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 11:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/54 "2012-10-06T11:13:23Z")
As i read the Bible, I got the impression that Jesus was not religious, but Spiritual, he chided the Priests and Pharisees, for makeing a big deal out of their being religious! ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 1:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/55 "2012-10-06T13:14:17Z")
> [@monavis](#): > > As i read the Bible, I got the impression that Jesus was not religious, but Spiritual I’m not seeing it. Five minutes of googling shows that he chided the Pharisees for grabbing “the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets”, all the while “devour[ing] widows’ property”, and of making long prayers “as a show” (Mark 12:38-40). He accused them of being a corrupting force, for making converts “twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt 23:15). He called them “serpents” and “generation of vipers” (Matt 23:33), he called them “sons of those who murdered the prophets” (Matt 23:31-33), he called them “blind leaders of the blind” (Matt 15:14), and railed against them for “transgress[ing] the commandment of God” (Matt 15:1-3), for not practicing what they preach (“they say, and do not do” - Matt 23:3) and for being “hypocrites” who “shut up the kingdom of heaven against men” (Matt 23:13). He accused them as being “like whitewashed tombs which indeed appear beautiful outwardly, but inside are full of dead men’s bones and all uncleanness”, in that “even so you also outwardly appear righteous to men, but inside you are full of hypocrisy and lawlessness” (Matt 23:27-29), and he turned the words of Isaiah against them: “This people honors Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.” (Mark 7:6-7) But did he ever accuse them of being “religious”, while considering himself “spiritual”? Nope. He didn’t use either term. But I have a feelings you’ll come back and say “but that’s _exactly_ what ‘religious’ _means_!” And then I’ll angrily mumble something about how this whole discussion would really benefit from more precisely well-defined terms, and then someone will crack open a dictionary and then it’ll be on, man, it’ll be on. ---
**Author:** ![Troppus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/a587f6/32.png) [@Troppus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Troppus)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/56 "2012-10-06T13:49:12Z")
**Steken** : 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Ulfreida](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ulfreida/32/8014_2.png) [@Ulfreida](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ulfreida)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/57 "2012-10-06T15:55:59Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > I’m not seeing it. > > Five minutes of googling shows that he chided the Pharisees for grabbing “the best seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets”, all the while “devour[ing] widows’ property”, and of making long prayers “as a show” (Mark 12:38-40). He accused them of being a corrupting force, for making converts “twice as much a child of hell as yourselves” (Matt 23:15)… I believe the word “hypocrisy” sums up Jesus’ accusations against the Pharisees. If “religious” is defined as merely and only the outward, public obedience to the rules of a specific religion, then there could be a case made here, but that’s a very narrow, and I think, easily contested definition. Jesus was a Jewish reformer, it always seemed to me that what he wished to do was revitalize Judaism and remind its adherents to focus on the spirit behind its laws, not turn it into something else entirely. That his ideas didn’t get a lot of traction with Jews at the time doesn’t negate that. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/58 "2012-10-06T19:57:58Z")
> [@Ulfreida](#): > > I believe the word “hypocrisy” sums up Jesus’ accusations against the Pharisees. He even used the Greek word “hypokritai” (ὑποκριταί). ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/59 "2012-10-06T20:03:14Z")
> [@Steken](#): > > He even used the Greek word “hypokritai” (ὑποκριταί). Well, no…the Evangelists did. They wrote in Greek. Jesus probably did not speak Greek, but Aramaic. It’s my (possibly incorrect) understanding that neither Aramaic nor classical Hebrew had a single word for the concept of “hypocrite”. ---
**Author:** ![Steken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e274bd/32.png) [@Steken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steken)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2012, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586/60 "2012-10-06T20:35:02Z")
> [@jayjay](#): > > Well, no…the Evangelists did. They wrote in Greek. Jesus probably did not speak Greek, but Aramaic. You’re right, of course. The historical Jesus almost certainly spoke (primarily) Aramaic. > [@jayjay](#): > > It’s my (possibly incorrect) understanding that neither Aramaic nor classical Hebrew had a single word for the concept of “hypocrite”. Now this is trickier (and even more fun)! [This homepage](http://www.bibleone.net/print_es3.html) quotes the Wycliffe Bible Dictionary, which claims that the… > [@](#): > > … concept of pretended goodness was foreign to OT thought. The Heb[rew] Root _h-n-p_, translated “hypocrisy” or “hypocrite” in the KJV, was translated in the LXX [Septuagint–Greek translation of the Old Testament] by _anomos_, “lawless,” “criminal,” or “godless,” parallel to _poneros_, “an evil doer” (Isa 9:17); and by _asebes_, “godless,” “irreverent” (Isa 33:14). > > In the book of Job it is clear that the _hanep_ is one radically opposed to God, one who forgets God (Job 8:13; 15:34-35; 20:5; 27:8). The verb _hanep_ means to pollute or corrupt (cf. Num 35:33; Ps 106:38; Isa 24:5; Jer 3:1). Theodotion’s translation of Job, later incorporated into the LXX, rendered Heb. _hanep_ as _hypocrites_ in two verses (Job 34:30; 36:13). Thus it seems that Greek-speaking Jews were employing _hypokrisis_ in another sense in addition to its metaphorical meaning of feigning to be what one is not. Additionally, it seems that the Greek word ὑποκριταί, the one actually used in the New Testament, might not quite fit “the concept of hypocrite” as we use it today, either. The same page quoted above claims that the word, originally meaning someone engaged in playacting, was not, originally, always a negative term: > [@](#): > > “In secular Gr[eek] Literature, therefore, hypocrites may be either neutral or undesirable.” And then there’s [this random person on the Internet](http://www.ibiblio.org/bgreek/archives/greek-1/msg00059.html), with his own take on the subject, poor spelling and all: > [@](#): > > The ‘traditional’ understand would have Jesus calling the Pharisees hypocrites, using our normal English definition, that is, they didn’t practice what they preached. But this was not true of the Pharisees. They themselves, in their own writtings, denounced those Pharisees who did not practice what they preached. > > The Greek term hypocrisys has been used in the Greek theatre with the idea of playacting, hence our own etomology of the term. Jesus’ criticism of the Pharisees was that they were “playacting” the part of righteous people. That is, they had screwed their moral gumption up tight enough, and were playaction (doing) the things someone would do if they were righteous. They were trying to keep the law, sincerely, honestly (not hypocitically in our modern sense of the word), but it was only playacting. Why only playacting? Because even if I dress British and speak with a British accent and act the part of a perfect English gentleman and drink tea in the afternoon it does not make me British. > > Jesus’s complaint to the Pharisees was that playacting the part of righteous people did not make them righteous, and thus they were still under God’s wrath. That is why “your righteousness must surpass that of the Pharisees in order to enter the kingdom of heaven.” And why Jesus says that they keep the law, even tithing 10% of their herb gardens but neglect the inward part of the law such as love, justice, mercy, etc. This is also why Paul could say in Philipians 3 that he was a Pharisees of Pharisees, according to the law, found blameless. > > If this understanding is correct Jesus’s complaint was their reliance on themselves, not their hypocrisy (modern english meaning). [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spiritual-but-not-religious-cnn-belief-blog-post/636586.md?page=4)