0
   

So.......they can ressurect people now? WTF.

 
 
curtis73
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 12:05 am
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
curtis, I'd like to point out that your viewpoint, though not religious per se, is at least vaguely spiritual and hence is no better than religion. After all, religion is a form of spirituality, the difference being that religion is a bit more set with an official stance with which you can deviate from..


I couldn't possibly disagree more. I get so tired of people drawing correlations between the existence of god or spirituality with the perverse and corrupt business called religion.

Religion is a huge business. It is an organized corporation devoted to making money. Spirituality is between you and god, not a convoluted path of hierarchy that asks for money in a collection plate, requires you to eat styrofoam wafers and grape juice, and thinks that the earth is 6000 years old.

I respect your opinion, but anyone who thinks that spirituality and religion are one and the same has an intensely small grasp on the definition of both terms. I can believe that god exists without getting dunked in a river, eating styrofoam, or even setting foot in a place of worship.

Religion is NOT a form of spirituality. It is a business based on fear and control. The two terms are completely mutually independent. You can be spiritual and not religious, you can be religious and not spiritual, you can be both, or you can be neither. To imply that one follows the other is purely ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 04:20 am
curtis73 wrote:
Wolf_ODonnell wrote:
curtis, I'd like to point out that your viewpoint, though not religious per se, is at least vaguely spiritual and hence is no better than religion. After all, religion is a form of spirituality, the difference being that religion is a bit more set with an official stance with which you can deviate from..


I couldn't possibly disagree more. I get so tired of people drawing correlations between the existence of god or spirituality with the perverse and corrupt business called religion.

Religion is a huge business. It is an organized corporation devoted to making money. Spirituality is between you and god, not a convoluted path of hierarchy that asks for money in a collection plate, requires you to eat styrofoam wafers and grape juice, and thinks that the earth is 6000 years old.

I respect your opinion, but anyone who thinks that spirituality and religion are one and the same has an intensely small grasp on the definition of both terms. I can believe that god exists without getting dunked in a river, eating styrofoam, or even setting foot in a place of worship.

Religion is NOT a form of spirituality. It is a business based on fear and control. The two terms are completely mutually independent. You can be spiritual and not religious, you can be religious and not spiritual, you can be both, or you can be neither. To imply that one follows the other is purely ridiculous.


This is just a nonsensical rationalzation by you so you can say that you aren't religious. You are convoluting "religion" and "organized religion" as one-in-the-same thing and they aren't. A single individual is fully capable of creating and practicing their own religion.

The reason people draw correlations between the existance of god and/or spirituality and religion is because it directly correlates to the definition of the word "religion". Look up the definition of "religion" and "religious" and you won't find a requirement for any organization.

From Merriam-Webster:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jən\
Function: noun

1 a: the state of a religious <a> b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Main Entry: 1re·li·gious
Pronunciation: \ri-ˈli-jəs\
Function: adjective

1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a> <religious>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined>
3 a: scrupulously and conscientiously faithful b: fervent, zealous

Do you deny that your "spiritual" beliefs fit those definitions? Are your beliefs not "a personal set of attitudes relating to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity, beliefs, and practices"?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 12:46 pm
I heard this once:

Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell. Spirituality is for those that have been through hell and don't want to go back.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 02:11 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
Jesus made it pretty clear how we are to treat others. Shamefully, a lot of people put more emphasis on Peter's and Paul's words and Jesus' words kind of get left out there in space.





But no one knows what Jesus's words were.

Jesus never wrote any of his words down, the best we have is either someone who knew him, or someone who knew someone who knew him.



Plus, how many times over the centuries have the words been changed? Who can count that high?

The idea that from one scribe to the next, from one person with a politcal agenda to the next, has not caused major alterations, is ridiculous.

I can't personally tell someone how to drive to my office without them getting mixed up, much of the time, although my directions are clear. Coming directly out of my mouth are the words, "turn left on Bard, turn left on Sussex, turn right on Avon, turn left into the parking lot with the 10 foot pink flamingo by the entrance.

Oh wait, those changes were much of the time due to "interpretations" that were devinely inspired. Like if the NT got too far off track, someone was inspired to make the appropriate changes to bring it back to the original.

The result being, today, the gospels that are read in arella mae's church is the true word of Jesus.

So today, nothing in there can possibly be even slightly different from what Jesus said one time, and a friend, or a friend of a friend of a friend wrote down, years and years after those were originally spoken one time. These one time spoken words were subsequently passed on to generation after generation that hand copied someone else's words. Also consider that not only were they copied down perfectly, but into different languages there some terms, words and concepts cannot be translated with any accuracy?

How can someone in their right mind say they are reading Jesus words?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 02:20 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
I heard this once:

Religion is for people who don't want to go to hell. Spirituality is for those that have been through hell and don't want to go back.



Good thing you only heard that once.

I sure wouldn't want to hear it again.


Talk about being provincial. Those 2 sentences are meaningless. It's just a homespun way to say nothing. It let's the listener, if they are willing to nod their head in agreement because the word "religion" and "spirituality" are in there, and let's them think they are hearing something wise.
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 03:44 pm
There's hardly a need to attack people Smile
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 05:23 pm
Geesh Chai I just posted what I heard. I didn't say it meant anything in particular. Razz

When I am talking of Jesus' words I am speaking about The Beatitudes. I honestly don't think anyone should have a problem with what was said in the Sermon on the Mount. I don't debate on whether the Bible has changed, etc. There is no benefit in that as far as I am concerned.

I do see validity in your point though.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 05:43 pm
vikorr wrote:
There's hardly a need to attack people Smile


I'm not attacking anyone vikorr.

Flip little sayings that carry no real meaning are demeaning to the speaker.

A string of words flung together, heard by some rambling person is all it is.

Some people are so used to nodding in agreement to inane little pleasantries, which are only meant to divert from the subject at hand.

I once heard someone say (or read rather)...God let the holocost happened so Jews would have the opportunity to be brave and perserver.

I'm sure a lot of people would somberly nod their head to that load of crap too, if they heard the person say it from the pulpit.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 05:52 pm
vikkor I didn't take what Chai said as an attack. Chai, I heard that at an AA meeting once. It seemed to have some very deep meaning to the person that said it and a bunch of others seemed to agree. The conversation just brought it to mind.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 05:59 pm
Arella Mae wrote:
Geesh Chai I just posted what I heard. I didn't say it meant anything in particular. Razz




there you go vikkor, proof positive.

basically, she just wanted to fill up space.


arella....no one knows what was said on the sermon of the mount. matthew could have made some, or all of the whole thing up. Who was there when he wrote it to say he didn't.

No benefit on whether or not the bible has changed?

Well, let's see.....

You see no benefit in knowing if what you believe, and what you talk at length, and how you base your life, and pin hopes on the afterlife, is even true?

You speak at even greater length about people not understanding the bible, not following it's word, not believing that it is important.....but you see no benefit in knowing if everything you speak of is based on truth, or hundreds of rewrites, the results bearing little resemblance to the original.

No one in this world has any idea what Jesus said, about anything.

If I died tonight, people years from now will be able to know what I said about a variety of things, because I am putting them down here.

Unless of course it gets somehow dumped.

The words that are attributed to Jesus can be easily credited to any number of people....nothing I've ever seen that he ever said was original in any way.
0 Replies
 
fishin
 
  0  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:13 pm
First tea, then coffee... Chai is a Jesus snob too? Shocked
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:15 pm
Chai,

I said there is no benefit in debating it. You aren't going to change your view and I won't change mine so it would be fruitless.

Whether Jesus said the words spoken on the sermon on the mount does not take away from their meaning does it?
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:29 pm
It might, and probably would.

You think the sermon on the mount is so meaningful and wonderful because it was said by Jesus.

Would you think the words were as meaningful and wonderful if if they had been said by Lee Harvey Oswald?

For the life of me, I can figure out how so many people consider the bible such a great work of writing. It pretty much is written like a 2nd grade primer.

Oh, the sermon on the mount, the songs of solomon...millions of people have lived that could have said it better, and have.

I'm not a Jesus snob fishin'. It just gets tiresome hearing about how wise and meaningful words are, just because that is what we are supposed to say.

The bible is the word of God because people say it's the word of God....because the bible is the word of God.

I better be careful what I say, or somehow a tiny bit of light might make it's way through a chink in so many peoples suit of armor.

God forbid someone say "I have no idea what the bible originally said" Worse someone might say "I have no idea what the bible originally said, but I'm going to just believe it anyway, because everyone says so, and it's just too hard to think"
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:35 pm
fishin wrote:
First tea, then coffee... Chai is a Jesus snob too? Shocked


What's a jesus snob?
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 06:40 pm
Now Chai, you are assuming that I think the words are so meaningful because they are said by Jesus. Those words are beautiful words no matter who says them.

I am sure there are words that touch you that were written by someone, maybe even someone anonymous? Perhaps those words wouldn't mean the same to me or carry as much weight with me as they do you?

I surely am not gonna get miffed at you because of it. Laughing
0 Replies
 
vikorr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 16 May, 2008 09:04 pm
Quote:
vikkor I didn't take what Chai said as an attack.


Hi Arella. I'm pleased to here that. That said, Chai did and does attack.

Chai wrote:
I'm not attacking anyone vikorr.


Quote:
Talk about being provincial.


Quote:
How can someone in their right mind say they are reading Jesus words?


Quote:
there you go vikkor, proof positive.

basically, she just wanted to fill up space.


There is no need to use the following words :

-"Provincial" is a negative label Chai attached - ie. an attack
-"in their right mind" means anyone that disagrees isn't in their right mind, ie. an attack, despite the fact ignorance in this area, and many perspectives exist - and these may also be a reason.
-The last quote should be obvious enough.

That said, I do see Chai's points.
0 Replies
 
Wolf ODonnell
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 06:18 am
Arella Mae wrote:
Very good point Wolfie. I have to give you that. Unfortunately, scripture can be twisted to pretty much justify anything. I've seen it happen. Christian chatrooms are notorious for hearing all sorts of "spins" on scripture.

I don't pretend to know it all. What I do know is no believer is supposed to hurt another one PERIOD.


No believer is supposed to hurt another believer, and that's supposed to be the meaning of "Thou shalt not kill", apparently. Which doesn't say much for the poor non-believer.

Quote:
If whatever it is someone is contemplating doing is going to hurt someone in some way, then it's wrong and I'd say the scripture someone is using to justify the behavior has been twisted horribly.

Jesus made it pretty clear how we are to treat others. Shamefully, a lot of people put more emphasis on Peter's and Paul's words and Jesus' words kind of get left out there in space.


You mean like to cut off your own hands if they offend you (Matthew 5:29-30)? Or to love Jesus more than your own son and daughter (Matthew 10:34-37)?

I don't think it takes a very twisted interpretation of scripture at all, or at least, it is no more twisted than your interpretation. You at least, have the decency to realise where the Bible is being absolutely horrible and where it is not, thus you pick and choose and your sense of morality (which is independent of the Bible and possibly even God) allows you to see which is right and whcih is wrong.
0 Replies
 
Chai
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 07:35 am
vikorr wrote:
Quote:
Talk about being provincial.


Quote:
How can someone in their right mind say they are reading Jesus words?


Quote:
there you go vikkor, proof positive.

basically, she just wanted to fill up space.


There is no need to use the following words :

-"Provincial" is a negative label Chai attached - ie. an attack
-"in their right mind" means anyone that disagrees isn't in their right mind, ie. an attack, despite the fact ignorance in this area, and many perspectives exist - and these may also be a reason.
-The last quote should be obvious enough.

That said, I do see Chai's points.



Vikkor, if someone in a different thread, a different forum said something like "I drink my first urine of the day, so I know I will never have to go to the doctor. I know this because for generations my family has done this.", not one would claim my saying, that's provinical, how in your right mind can you believe that" If I further questioned, and found that members of that person family died at a regular rate, from the same causes, as everyone else...I would be inclined to believe they were no only ignorant in that area, but that the reason they believe this is that is that they simply accept what they have been told.

If someone spoke of reading of water nymphs, sirens and harpies, and spoke of them as if they were real, would it be an attack to say they were being provincial?

Why is saying this in the context of a religious matter any different? Am I more likely to be struck down by lightening for questioning the bible, then I would for questioning greek mythology?

Provincial, meaning "don't ever question". If I'm told these are Jesus words, just don't question. Or, if I dare ask one, make sure it's of someone who will set me back on the right path by telling me to have faith.

Unquestioning faith.....scarier than anything I can think of right now.

Unquestioning faith leads people to leaving their dead grandmother on the toilet for 2 months.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 08:24 am
I predict a response with more righteous indignation, more deflection and more evangelistic commentary.

Now onto the major leagues ... Presidential predictions.
0 Replies
 
Arella Mae
 
  1  
Reply Sat 17 May, 2008 08:33 am
Presidential predictions? Shocked Now, THAT'S scary! Laughing
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 08/11/2022 at 01:47:50