# Spirituality VS Religion **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 24, 2005, 3:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621 "2005-06-24T03:12:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 6\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/9fc348/32.png) [@The\_Flying\_Dutchman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Flying_Dutchman)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621/81 "2005-06-29T22:00:52Z")
[QUOTE=cosmosdan] Good point. Don’t you think that the conflict can be the source of growth if people can share their ideas with respect and consideration? Yes, it happens, but I find that spiritual people can be very sensitive to any challenge to their belief system. > [@](#): > > I used to think that respect for others beliefs meant not challenging them. I want mine to be challenged. It helps me grow. Now when others feel the need to enlighten me instead of politely saying no thank you it’s more like. “Wheeee here we go” Really? Have you ever invited a Jehovah Witness into your home? 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 29, 2005, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621/82 "2005-06-29T22:17:08Z")
> [@grienspace](#): > > Yes, it happens, but I find that spiritual people can be very sensitive to any challenge to their belief system. I’m sure thats true for some. My goal is to share ideas not to antagonize. You may also have noticed that atheists occasionaly have a smug sense of superiority when it comes to any discussion of spiritual beliefs. People…sheesh…whachagonnado? > [@](#): > > Really? Have you ever invited a Jehovah Witness into your home? 🙂 Not yet. They wouldn’t last long. My brother had a go round with some LDS missionaries who left pretty frustrated. I’ve had several long discussions with certain friends. I don’t actually expect to sway anybody over coffee and conversation. I do hope to at least stimulate the thought process and get them to question some things they may not have before. ---
**Author:** ![straight\_man](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/straight_man/32/3027_2.png) [@straight\_man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/straight_man)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621/83 "2005-06-30T05:48:55Z")
Oh, I forecasted that this thread was going to die soon, having been so heavily moved away from the OP. Shows what I know. > [@GomiBoy](#): > > Wow. That’s good enough for you? That non-believers are not killed for not believing? Such is the religion of love, right? We should love them, too. I just didn’t think that was a part of the issue at hand. I clearly choked. Thankfully, your accusation of intolerance has already been challenged, so I don’t need to defend myself. Thank you, Dopers. **cosmosdan** asked whether I had any objection to the word “catholic” in the Nicene Creed. Of course not. The Nicene Creed was written at a point in time when there was no other Christianity than catholic, because “catholic” means [all-inclusive](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/catholic). This is clearly the intent of the Nicene Creed, both then and now. The point: I can vehemently disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters on many issues, but ultimately we’re of one church, alike in the most important senses of the word. Yes, “catholic”. The “catholic” church consists of all followers of Christ, and is open to anybody who accepts Christ. I second the observation that occasional arrogance is universal among religions and creeds. However, I don’t think that considering yourself right is arrogant; nor is one arrogant for defending an old creed, nor a man who died on a post two thousand years ago. psst… **cosmosdan** … I’m a guy, not a “She”. I’ve already explained my username twice on other posts, so I won’t go into it here, but suffice to say that it’s a reference to my own stupidity. ---
**Author:** ![GomiBoy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b2d939/32.png) [@GomiBoy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GomiBoy)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621/84 "2005-06-30T13:16:14Z")
> [@eustachian≠fallopian](#): > > Thankfully, your accusation of intolerance has already been challenged, so I don’t need to defend myself. OK, intolerant was the wrong word, I apologize. The point remains - you think that your way is the only way, because that is the way Christ told his followers to act. You believe that anyone who believes differently from you (as far as I can tell, so please correct me if my assumption is wrong) is wrong, and will not get the benefits Christ has promised his followers. I disagree. I think the important thing about Christ’s teachings is not to follow by rote what he (and what other groups of Theologians) said, but to try to achieve his goals. It’s like a math teacher who once failed me on an exam because I didn’t follow his exact method for achieving the answer. That I provided proof of my method and got the correct answer didn’t seem to matter. That’s the way I feel about this whole debate - how you get there is not nearly as important as what the end result is, and if I can get to the right goal (love each other human being as you love Christ is I think the relevant phrase, and treat others as you would be treated fits as well) then why does it matter if I follow the structure of your religion to get there? > [@grienspace](#): > > No. I believe spirituality is a personal thing, but if you share it it is bound to conflict with someone elses spirituality. Your comments merely indicate that you had to take exception to **eustachian≠fallopian"s** spirituality. It conflicted with yours didn’t it? To me this inevitable conflict is the root of religion, particularly organized religion which seeks strength in numbers and a format for cohesion. Fair points, thanks for explaining. ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621/85 "2005-06-30T14:05:03Z")
> [@eustachian≠fallopian](#): > > **cosmosdan** asked whether I had any objection to the word “catholic” in the Nicene Creed. Of course not. The Nicene Creed was written at a point in time when there was no other Christianity than catholic, because “catholic” means [all-inclusive](http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/catholic). This is clearly the intent of the Nicene Creed, both then and now. The point: I can vehemently disagree with my Catholic brothers and sisters on many issues, but ultimately we’re of one church, alike in the most important senses of the word. Yes, “catholic”. The “catholic” church consists of all followers of Christ, and is open to anybody who accepts Christ. I understand this concept. In church we often talked of the body of Christ which consisted of those who worshipped him in spirit from all denominations and excluded those from all denominations who worshiped him in word only. The point is that only Christ determines who is in that body. The Nicene creed was man’s attempt to declare that we, and only we , have that authority. Then they proceeded to act on their assumed authority apparently without asking WWJD. You say their was no christianity other than catholic. I disagree. I think those who were persecuted for daring to entertain other concepts would disagree as well. > [@](#): > > I second the observation that occasional arrogance is universal among religions and creeds. However, I don’t think that considering yourself right is arrogant; nor is one arrogant for defending an old creed, nor a man who died on a post two thousand years ago. I think we can only go forward by acting on what we believe to be true. Arrogance is when we fail to acknowledge our limitations and turn away from opportunities we have to learn and grow because of our desire to be “right” Denying the evidence at hand and choosing to embrace tradition over the truth isn’t arrogance. It is folly. I say this not as an observation not accusation, since I struggle with the same human foiables. > [@](#): > > psst… **cosmosdan** … I’m a guy, not a “She”. I’ve already explained my username twice on other posts, so I won’t go into it here, but suffice to say that it’s a reference to my own stupidity. Sorry about that and thanks for correcting me. Dang it. I hate it when I do that. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\ **Post date:** [June 30, 2005, 2:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621/86 "2005-06-30T14:10:32Z")
> [@GomiBoy](#): > > That’s the way I feel about this whole debate - how you get there is not nearly as important as what the end result is, and if I can get to the right goal (love each other human being as you love Christ is I think the relevant phrase, and treat others as you would be treated fits as well) then why does it matter if I follow the structure of your religion to get there? > . I tend to agree with you. A lot of division is created by people disagreeing in the method rather than focusing on the goal and allowing each person the right to choose their own path. Certainly that kind of bickering and division is what Christ preached against. He repeatedly talked about results. i.e. our words and deeds reflecting the spirit within us. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spirituality-vs-religion/309621.md?page=4)