religion and spirituality

[bent_redeemer]

one of the biggest problems ive found in people is the fact that there are are many people who could be much happier if they embraced their spiritual beliefs, but scared away from doing so as in their minds they would be submitting to a church/religion.

I am a very spiritual person, however i am in no way religious. i explore my beliefs in the way i see fit, without following any silly rules or rituals, and since i started doing so i have become a more satisfyed person.

and to all of those atheists and agonist folk, just because religion is foolish doesnt mean you cant have any faith at all. the moment you fall into this paradigm you are just as defeated by religion as those who are slaves to it

[Chicki5150]

I agree.

I dont like religion, yet i am a very spiritual person. I dont even like the WORD religion. That word brings to mind, control, rules, fundamentalism, followers, and other negative thoughts.

Spirituality however does not have rules, followers, sheep, sheherds etc......

To me at least.

~Chicki

[Metal_Demon]

Religion=Control

Control=Rules

Rules=Boundaries

Boundaries=Conformism

Conformism=Evil

Therefore:

Religion=Evil



However, spirituality is not. It is too often that people fall to control by means of religion, but individual exploration of spirituality does not cause this problem. Individual exploration of ones spirituality causes one to become fulfilled and aquainted (sp?) with their inner self. This makes people all around better people (unlike set religion which causes mental corruption and dampening of intelligence after too long).

[user X]

quote:Originally posted by Chicki5150:

Spirituality does not have rules...

It conforms to the laws of nature.

[crunked]

Spirituality conforms to the laws of nature

How so?

[Schizophrenic Styrofoam]

Spiritually doesn't conform to any rules.

You guys need to re-examine the word religion. If you define it as the form of expression of spirituality then it is not so offensive. Many people go with established religions because they don't see another way, often because of how their parents were. They are set in the belief that there is only one way, theirs. To be religious is to place emphasis on the expression of your spirituality.

Many established religions become corrupt as they grow in popularity because all of the sudden they have power, and people listen o them like they were a god.

[crunked]

""You guys need to re-examine the word religion. If you define it as the form of expression of spirituality then it is not so offensive. ""

In my opinion, that is an incomplete definition of religion. Now, while it is self-serving to make up definitions to suit ourselves, well- okay, but religion defined should also include ritual and conduct.

Ritual is a defined component of religion and religious school of thought.

spirituality not to be confused with religion

comes from the soul, as in the thinking and feeling part of a mans intelligence. A person may be spiritual without being connected to religion.

Two different entities.

[ArmsMerchant]

Right on!

Religion is exclusive; spirituality is inclusive.

Religion teaches hate (can you say "jihad"? "heretic"?); spirtuality teaches love.

I rejected Christianity at age 15; it was many more years before I found god in all his/her/whatever fullness and wonder.

[lady_dw]

Why does everyone support faith? Having faith simply means that you have no logical reason for what you believe in so you are just going to ignore any facts that disprove it. How is that noble? That is the exact definition of ignorance.

[Chicki5150]

I 'support' faith the same way i do love (for example)

Faith, love, concepts like that dont follow logic, they arent meant to.

~Chicki

[lady_dw]

There's your fault. Love isn't the same as faith. Love is based on the need to procreate, which is real honest fact. We developed the idea that it is more than that because to encourage procreation we had to develop a need and a rewarding system for love itself. I do support the idealism of love because it is the driving force of humanity, but I won't get over philosophical about it.

[This message has been edited by lady_dw (edited 06-24-2003).]

[Chicki5150]

Well, i was comparing love and faith for contextual reasons. I dont think either of them are logical.

Like you said that love was for reproduction? Well, what about if i loved a woman? THAT is not for reproduction. Two women cant reproduce. But they can still love each other, right? (i will probably get flamed for that one!)

What about love between friends? Thats not to reproduce either, yet there is still a bond between them that cannot be 'logically' explained.

Im just trying to entertain the notion that faith is not a logical idea by using the concept of 'love' as an example.

but...thats just my 2 cents

~chicki

[lady_dw]

Firstly, I mentioned that we developed a need for love and a reward system for it (you know, orgasm) but that doesn't mean that it is still limited to heterosexuality. You can still enjoy sex without reproducing, but the original intentions were still for reproduction. I am a lesbian myself lol.

As for friendship... You are mixing two ideas again. Romantic love is not the same as friendship. Friendship developed from a completely different biological human need.

[bent_redeemer]

you went off and assumed she meant romantic love. what about love of parents/family. i love my family, they arent necessarily my friends.

also, the nobility seen behind faith isnt necessarily the fact that someone believes something and doesnt necessarily have an idea why. why faith may be considered honorable is that someone has someone/thing that they live and die for. i am happy to see a person who goes on living for a reason besides fear of death

[crunked]

Love is not a need, love is a desire. Basic needs are water, food and sleep. Sex is a need, and a want, maybe a secondary need. There are different kinds of love, i.e. romantic love, platonic love (as between two people without romantic involvement), parental love.....etc.

Faith is believing in something without scientific proof it exists. So, I see where you are coming from, that there is no reason behind faith -more like believing in the unknown or yet proven, and believing that thing above other proven ideas.

thats my 2 cents...

[lady_dw]

If you live and die for something that evidence shows doesn't exist, then you are wasting a lifetime of experience on a hope for something after death. Also, living and dieing for something that doesn't exist might be great for an individual, but what about when those people force others to die, for what they DON'T believe in?

Why not live and die for life itself, for experiance, or happiness?

Crunked has got it right.

[This message has been edited by lady_dw (edited 06-24-2003).]