Outstanding explanation of this foolish assertion.
But I think there is another adolescent thing going on in this claim. There is the desire of “I want to do what I want to do.” If I have religion, then I am obligated to obey someone else’s will. But if I am merely spiritual, there are no demands upon me other than to follow my own sense of “this is what I currently prefer.”
I’ve seen this mindset manifest itself with comments like, “Well, I find God the most in nature, so I would rather go into the woods on Sunday morning than to a church.” I also find God revealing himself in nature. But what is going on here? I am merely asserting my own preference: I want to go to the woods, so I will go to the woods. I don’t actually have to be concerned with what God might want. I’m not even asking if God has a preference regarding where he wants to be found or how he wants to be worshiped. I am merely doing what I want to do.
In this case, my “god” is me. I become the one who decides “this is what God would want,” rather than asking, “God, what do you want?”
“Spiritual but not religious” is just another form of idolatry. In this case, the false god is the god I have invented. God is no longer a someone. “God” is now just some vague idea, an impersonal force that makes no demands on me and is simply “there” so that I don’t feel lonely.
The article is a must-read.
People amaze me.
Don't they think about what they're saying?
"I keep my spiritual rudder away from God."