I wish to re-discover the term religion by discussing it from a non-western, non-christian angle, and then arrive at a new definition.

So what do you guys think is religion? And what is Spirituality?

Unfortunately "religion" is an English word.
It is thus "Western" by this very fact.
Other countries, other cultures will not use the actual word "religion" but words that we have transalated as "religion" and thus apply our preconceptions of the word onto whatever it is the other culture does.


In English the definition is (at least from www.dictionary.com):

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.


Webster's Collegiate Dictionary traces the word back to an old Latin word religio meaning "taboo, restraint." A deeper study discovers the word comes from the two words re and ligare. Re is a prefix meaning "return," and ligare means "to bind;" in other words, "return to bondage."

Alternative etymology traces it back to re and legare - "to read again" - or even to relegere - "to treat carefully".

other cultures will not use the actual word "religion" but words that we have transalated as "religion" and thus apply our preconceptions of the word onto whatever it is the other culture does.
How true of so many other terms and concepts --- right from race (black/ white/ yellow/ brown), ethnicity (Latino, Asian, Caucasian), Geography (what is east and what is westj, middle east, south, north), politics (rightism/ leftism/ centrism), sexual orientation (heterosexual/ homosexual/ bisexual), world order (first world, third world) and so on --- everything is defined by the west* (with its basis in Christianity), and then influences the original cultures/ traditions of the rest of the world all of whom try to fit themselves into these definitions.

* Actually some 'advanced' countries which may or may not fall in the west. While not every country that falls in the west is included in the list --- such are the contradictions of the English language.

In English the definition is (at least from www.dictionary.com):

re·li·gion ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-ljn)
n.

Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Another problem with the English Language! So many important terms mean so many different yet related things that it leads to ambiguity and misunderstandings. It makes it so easy to misrepresent or misinterpret facts.

To take an example when Christianity is considered a 'religion' and so is 'Buddhism' (I'm not a Buddhist! then they are often compared at the same level. However, they are actually two very different concepts and this comparison can be very very unfair and misleading.

i don't think one of the interpretations of reigion 'to bind' should so soley translated as 'bondage'. for example the religion of the Earth, wich i feel is the original religion.

Many Indigenus poples had/have rituals whereby they as a community partake of a ritual which involves eating/drinking etc psychedelic sarcraments

it's purpose is to 'bind' group togther and bind group to Nature. now these may be awkward terms. dunno, let's explore. would BOND be better??

how is 'our' state NOW with teEarth generally would yu say.? havewe lost some essential MEANING of our place in Nature?

I wish to re-discover the term religion by discussing it from a non-western, non-christian angle, and then arrive at a new definition.

So what do you guys think is religion? And what is Spirituality?

Religion is based on bona-fide scriptures (ie, bible, Quran, vedas etc..), the idea is to cultivate faith in the God.
Spirituality carries on from religion, and incorporates methods of how to ultimately reach God.
Bsically.

Jan.

i don't think one of the interpretations of reigion 'to bind' should so soley translated as 'bondage'. for example the religion of the Earth, wich i feel is the original religion.

Many Indigenus poples had/have rituals whereby they as a community partake of a ritual which involves eating/drinking etc psychedelic sarcraments.
I think like with 'science' and 'sexuality' we have to look at the origin of the word 'Religion'. When was it first used? and in what context?

I don't think the ancients had any concept of a 'religion'. They had deities and gods/ goddesses, legends, tales, myths, but the concept of religion is different concept.

It built on the original traditions but is not the same as them.

But then I may be off the mark. I'm still investigating.

How true of so many other terms and concepts --- right from race (black/ white/ yellow/ brown), ethnicity (Latino, Asian, Caucasian), Geography (what is east and what is westj, middle east, south, north), politics (rightism/ leftism/ centrism), sexual orientation (heterosexual/ homosexual/ bisexual), world order (first world, third world) and so on --- everything is defined by the west* (with its basis in Christianity), and then influences the original cultures/ traditions of the rest of the world all of whom try to fit themselves into these definitions.

* Actually some 'advanced' countries which may or may not fall in the west. While not every country that falls in the west is included in the list --- such are the contradictions of the English language.
Take Geography for example. The earth is round. And the words east and west are only relative not absolute terms. But the words east and west are defined according to (I guess) the place where the English language originated. They now become absolute terms. And sometimes it may become funny as Japan which is considered 'far east' is actually west for America --- and probably both 'east' and 'west' for Europe --- depending on which way you approach it.

Similarly, Asian is defined as a 'mongloid'. But there are so many different races in Asia, and it will funny for an Arab not to be considered an Asian.

Likewise, Americans define Caucasians as 'white' but there are so many brows, reds and even blacks who are Caucasians.

The whole identity system of the west is designed to:
a. divide the world into the bipolar extremes of black and white.

b. Group/ Classify the world according of the needs of the powerful.

So, if you take 'color' of people as an example, the west describes brown people or 'whites' with even a slightly brownish complexion as 'blacks' --- because they would like to keep white -- as pure white. While these people may be closer to whites than they'd ever be to blacks.

Take Latinos for example. Many of them are indistinguishable from whites. But they are still 'blacks' because they belong to a impure white race.

So everything is defined and designed to keep up the power balance in the hands of the powerful.

And so is sexuality. They need the power of numbers, so everyone who claims even the slightest interest in women is included as a 'heterosexual'. But a homosexual has to be 'exclusive' to be seen as one.

Similarly countries are divided into first world and third world based on who is powerful and who is not. More wierd is the division of countries as North and South. Many countries in the Northern hemishpere are 'south' because they are underdeveloped. And many in the south are north because they are 'overdeveloped'.

Religion is based on bona-fide scriptures (ie, bible, Quran, vedas etc..), the idea is to cultivate faith in the God.
Spirituality carries on from religion, and incorporates methods of how to ultimately reach God.
Bsically.Please define what you mean by "bona-fide" scriptures. Can you give examples of any non-bona-fide scriptures?

And spirituality is not a continuation of religion - but merely a potentially overlapping view. You can be religious without being spiritual - and you can be spiritual without being religious.
The native indians of America were animists - not deists or theists.
They did not believe in God - but they were very spiritual people.

"Religion" is far more encompassing than just limiting it to those major religions that you deem to have "bona-fide scriptures".

Some more food for thought....
"Religion is nothing more than a response to the deficiency in the human condition to deal with the existential facts of life - primarily DEATH." :)

iMany Indigenus poples had/have rituals whereby they as a community partake of a ritual which involves eating/drinking etc psychedelic sarcraments

it's purpose is to 'bind' group togther and bind group to Nature. now these may be awkward terms. dunno, let's explore. would BOND be better?
Again, a result of the English language.

If you "bind" something to something else, the two things are "bound", and the thing between them is a "bond".

"Bondage" merely means being "bound" to something, usually for a length of time - but its use in everyday parlance is either related to sex or slavery.
However, its everyday usage should not detract from the times when it is used with its purer meaning, without the additional connotations.

Furthermore, religion requires "bondage" - to the tennets of the faith. So it is an accurate description, I think.

The native indians of America were animists - not deists or theists.
Can you tell me what Deist and Theist are? Actually, I don't even know what Theology exactly means. :o

Again, a result of the English language.

If you "bind" something to something else, the two things are "bound", and the thing between them is a "bond".

"Bondage" merely means being "bound" to something, usually for a length of time - but its use in everyday parlance is either related to sex or slavery.
However, its everyday usage should not detract from the times when it is used with its purer meaning, without the additional connotations.

Furthermore, religion requires "bondage" - to the tennets of the faith. So it is an accurate description, I think.

in generql when we say we are bonding with someone it means we are getting to know each other. becoming familiar with each other, doesn't it. it doesn't really mean we are becoming in bondage, which has a negatic connotation

i know what you mean about dogma. for me that ISbinding. i see this transiton occured when it got writ down. in theWest i am seeing tis happening in anceint Greece when the Orphics reformers --the first mystery /mystical school-- wrote down their dogma.

RELIGION IS THE STUDY OF LIFE AND NATURE THROUGH THE SCIENCES AND SCRIPTURES IN AN EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND THE UNIVERSE, ITS CREATION, AND SO, HOPEFULLY THE CREATOR. And it is not so much that we have the answers... it is not so much that our NEW RELIGION OF SCIENCE is correct or absolutely true...
The point is that we seek truth... and we do so with science.

This is my religion, and it is my view based on my studies that there truely is not much conflict between the science world of theory and the spiritual world of scriptures in general.

The problem has been with the 1500 year old interpretation of Genesis, and the idea that we can add up the years of the lives of those people in the bible and determine the age of the earth... Nonsense.. if God wanted to tell us that, it would have been written down clearly... I.e.. the Bible never says 6000 years...

only interpreters say so...

This same kind of problem can be found in the established teachings of most existing religions.


Therefore, i have been forced to establish my own.

http://theempiricalchurch.blogspot.com/

-MT

This is my religion, and it is my view based on my studies that there truely is not much conflict between the science world of theory and the spiritual world of scriptures in general.
I see nothing spiritual about a God who goes around ordering people to worship him otherwise face the consequences. And a god who, as per his own whims and fancies, seeks to control the lives of humans for no spiritual good.

In the ancient mythologies there used to be demons who wanted to be 'God's. This behaviour is typical of them.

And anything which seeks to force humans to procreate more and more, and to enroll more and more members, can have nothing to do with spirituality. Because spirituality is about quality. Materialism is about quantity. Spirituality does not seek social or political power --- that comes from a numerical strength. Any thing that so separates one human being from the other can not be spiritual.

The only difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has retained its original ways and Christianity has been much subdued by reforms. But they both have a similar non-spiritual, political agenda. And anything based on such negative foundation cannot have a fruitful future. Of course we all know what is happening with Islam today.

Can someone here define Spirituality?

The only difference between Christianity and Islam is that Islam has retained its original ways and Christianity has been much subdued by reforms. But they both have a similar non-spiritual, political agenda. And anything based on such negative foundation cannot have a fruitful future. Of course we all know what is happening with Islam today.
Although to Christianity's credit, it has incorporated some amount of 'spirituality' --- and there have been genuine saints that it has incorporated into its folds. But its relationship with spirituality is at best superficial.

Just because many humans have many views of God in many varied and different ways.... doesnt mean any of it is true...

and im not telling you it is.. im just saying that its ok to read it. To study it.

truth is up to the individual to deside for themselves.

the Empirical Church exists to faciclitate the discussion and study efforts.

-MT

This same kind of problem can be found in the established teachings of most existing religions.
In my view, there is nothing in common between Christianity and Islam and what you call the other religions. The other ones do not have a political or expansionist agenda. They are just ways to relate with god/ nature. They are what spirituality denotes. While Christianity and Islam are religions.

The English language (with the Christian background) seeks justification for Christianity by labelling all of them 'religions' and by calling 'Christianity' spirituality in return.

are you a Buddhist? In the Empirical Church we study Buddhism on wednsday.

-MT

truth is up to the individual to deside for themselves.

Yes, but when institutions want to decide the truth for the individual, and they want to proselytise and expand (rule), this is where politics comes in the whole thing --- and then they take away the power of the individual to relate with God on his own, and then they go about murdering others who will not leave their natural freedom to relate with god in order to join them.

Yes... Hence the need to Begin a new religion.. a new church.
-MT

are you a Buddhist? In the Empirical Church we study Buddhism on wednsday.-MT
No I'm not really. I don't have the time for spirituality (alas!). But I do worship Buddha and Jesus and include them in my prayers.

I do feel Jesus has been appropriated by Christianity.

And its not my personal tirade against Christianity or Islam. I'm just trying to see things in a larger perspective. I attribute a lot of what is wrong with the world today to Christianity.

Yes... Hence the need to Begin a new religion.. a new church.- MT
The very word 'church' brings back memories of 'institution', 'politics', mass murders, proseletyzing, spreading hatred against original simple people who worshipped nature......

There have been several movements to reform Christianity and form new branches. And it has made Christianity a lot better.

But why have any institution at all? Why not empower the individual to relate with God on his own.

How can you reach the real God unless you break away from the 'hatched-up' scriptures?

I suggest that we go back to worshipping nature --- we will develop a lot of respect for it then, and this can go a long way in reducing the ill effects of science on our inner and outer nature.

Yes... Hence the need to Begin a new religion.. a new church.
-MT
As long as Chrisitianity and Islam are alive and kicking, the world cannot really return to true spiritualism. Because both these religions are still out to usurp other cultures and convert them by hook or by crook (including violence).

No spiritual faith can survive in this over zealous, over ambitious world without succumbing to the pressure of bringing politics into its folds --- those who could not adjust to this new phenomenon religion (and gave up their spirituality for politics and power) have already been wiped out from the faces of the earth. They are now to be found only in history books --- often maligned. Or to be practised by a few people termed 'freaks' or 'alternative'.

Any new spiritual effort has to contend with these too hostile forces with immense social, political, economic and technological power, and no genuine effort can really take root here.

i dont believe in worship.. and i dont promote it.

I obey, and i encourage you to... and by that i mean Love, and care and treat your fellow man as your very brother... and if this is so, then we must help all our brothers who need help.. and by this.. we must provide real... long term help.

-MT

i dont believe in worship.. and i dont promote it.
Worshipping allows you to be in touch with the 'God' personally. Any other thing is a hoax, especially if it institutionalised worshipping.

Plus, this is what our ancestors did, and thus is much more trustworthy than what your scriptures tell us.

I obey, and i encourage you to... and by that i mean Love, and care and treat your fellow man as your very brother... and if this is so, then we must help all our brothers who need help.. and by this.. we must provide real... long term help.-MT
Proseletyzing talk? :rolleyes:

in generql when we say we are bonding with someone it means we are getting to know each other. becoming familiar with each other, doesn't it. it doesn't really mean we are becoming in bondage, which has a negatic connotation

i know what you mean about dogma. for me that ISbinding. i see this transiton occured when it got writ down. in theWest i am seeing tis happening in anceint Greece when the Orphics reformers --the first mystery /mystical school-- wrote down their dogma.

Witout being patronizing, i really recommend you look at the ancient cult of Orphism. if you type 'From Orphism to Gnosticism' at google you will find.

Orphism was the first mystery/mystical school of anceint Greece, and is a MAJOR influence on Christianity, so to understand Christianity better it's wise to study its origins, no.

Whhat do we find then?----and in looking at this, i will explore your question, Buddha1, where you ask for a definiton of spiirituality.

The Orphics reformed the more CELEBRATORY Earth religion of Dionysos. Celebratory, meaning, celebrating Nature, being human, andecstatic expression, ad open interpretaton of ecstatic experience inspired wit psychedelic sacrament

So soo, tisis crucial to undersand as it reveals a MAJOR TRANSITION from celebratoryunderstanding of being in Nature as a human being/animal gto a guilty being, divided between 'good' and 'bad' and the hop to escape Nature and te body and return to a spiritual souce in the heavens!!

The Orphic myth summarized:

That the human is part 'Titanic' -ie., part gross matter/'bad' (the 'Titans' were the veryancient gods of Greece which were more chthonic gods,meaning Nature spirits), and also had had 'divine sparks'/'Dionysos' trapped in the body/ So the Orphics beliving this devized 'purification' rituals so as to eventually release these sparks so asthey could return.

This dogma they write down for te first time. This dogma psychologically divides the believer of it up, and thus incites conflict within the person.

The Orphics famous saying was 'soma sema' which meant 'the body a tomb'. They claimed one could eithe find release in tei lifetime or it would take mabe many lives--via reincarnation--to finally find release from Nature and return 'home'. so you can see they introduce into the West idea of reincarnation and karma (this is most likey an Oriental influence). They also introduced the notion of hell and everlasting punishment.

So these are ideas aren't they? and once writ down influence the generations, and new religions like Christianity, Islam etc, where same motifs are used to stifle freedom.

The Orphics of course eventually dilute and then phase out even psychedelic sacrament, and all that's left is guilt-inducing symbology, as is same witf Chrtistianity and all the religons and cults now

DIRECT spiritual experience via free use of psychedelics is denied us.
so what do i mean by spiritual?

so what IS spirituality?

in te philosophy forum i began a thred where i had showed a very interesting chart titled 'The Evolution of Dualism'. For me, itis exceptionally interesting because it whos a MASSIVE dramatic turningpoint when we move from Religious Age to Scientific Age, which we are in now

For example. In the reliions and cults from Zoroastrainaism we can seethat 'spirit' is glorified and matter denigrated, but when science arrives this dramatically changes over. 'Spirit' becomes denigrated and eventually phased out from from and 'matter' becomes the be all and end all.

But look closely at how the religious age--ala patriarchal religios indocrination--understood 'spirituality'. For them i is divided from 'gross matter'! it is de-eroticized, de-natured. So they too had created a schism between 'spirit' ad 'matter' and then science comes along, and keeps one side of this--'matter', and discards 'spirit'. thus keeping a conflict between spirit and matter also; though rules have been changed game stays same!

So now we live in a materialistic world dont we, andhave a materialistic mindset indoctrinated into us via schools, etcetc

we are made to feel like isolated islands of consciousness existing in a desert of meaninglessness, where Nature is supposed to be 'deaf and mute'.
For materialistic science tells us that consciousness is a product of complex matter/brains and that all othe matter energy is insentient.

So what weNEED is a seeing through all of the abive obfuscating and debilitating myths so as to understand and FEEL Nature ALIVE!...THAT is spirituality. it is realzing spirit IN matter. matters AS spirited

you know when yo feel spirited right? you feel alive ad full of energy. or maybe you are down yet feel really WIH what yo feel rather than inclonflict wit it. wel i am saying that exploring ohe's way into that integral feel, wit one's self and Nature IS spirituality in its original meaning. Psychedelic sacraments intelligently used also give deep insights into this too. They show awesomly just how spirital materiality is.

Many religionists ad skeptics never seems to be aware of take into account just how dulling dogma can be, even scientific dogma. for it DE-sprits us

spirituality is defined by me as: having an understanding and sensing the murkier aspects of "mystical" thought. to be able to live in a world in the way jesus was reputed to have done is a good example of "spiritual".

spirituality is defined by me as: having an understanding and sensing the murkier aspects of "mystical" thought.

me)))))haven't a clue what you mean by that. can you explain more fully...?

to be able to live in a world in the way jesus was reputed to have done is a good example of "spiritual".
you mean asexually? being able to perform miracles? knowing you will soon be tortured to death, then escape Nature and return to a spiritual heaven with your 'Father'?

Please define what you mean by "bona-fide" scriptures.

Authentic.

Can you give examples of any non-bona-fide scriptures?

Already have done.

You can be religious without being spiritual - and you can be spiritual without being religious.

How so?

They did not believe in God - but they were very spiritual people.

How do you know they did not believe in God?
And why would you describe them as "spiritual people?

"Religion" is far more encompassing than just limiting it to those major religions that you deem to have "bona-fide scriptures".

Explain.

"Religion is nothing more than a response to the deficiency in the human condition to deal with the existential facts of life - primarily DEATH." :)

That is atheist rhetoric, religious, but not religion in the real sense. If you're going to spout this, at least give some facts or definate information.

Jan.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/CCCCP/5g2.jpg

Also, prehistoric art has been found around the world from Europe, Australia, Africa and China, as well as other places. Enough to provide us proof that men invented religions as well beliefs in animal reincarnation for purpose to be leader of a tribe. So blame our ancestors for being such morons for starting the whole "religion" thing in the first place !

so what IS spirituality?

in te philosophy forum i began a thred where i had showed a very interesting chart titled 'The Evolution of Dualism'. For me, itis exceptionally interesting because .....
That's an excellent insight. Thanks for it.

I had somewhere in the subconscious thought about how can matter be completely 'negative' or 'useless' as many religions make us believe. What you say about spirit and matter being part of one whole --- and earlier humans seeing world through something which was an integral and unbreakable whole consisting of what we divide today into spirit and matter.

you mean asexually? being able to perform miracles? knowing you will soon be tortured to death, then escape Nature and return to a spiritual heaven with your 'Father'?
There is a research oriented book written by Morton Smith who chanced upon some highly classified ancient documents in a library in (was it) Constantinople (?).

It points to a heavy possibility that like several other cults of his time Jesus too practised sex with men as a form of attaining spirituality.

Also, the Gnostics --- who according to the classified documents, knew this fact about Jesus are devilised by early missionaries as rampantly engaging in sex with men --- often as forms of religious rituals.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d4/CCCCP/5g2.jpg

Also, prehistoric art has been found around the world from Europe, Australia, Africa and China, as well as other places. Enough to provide us proof that men invented religions as well beliefs in animal reincarnation for purpose to be leader of a tribe. So blame our ancestors for being such morons for starting the whole "religion" thing in the first place !
a. There was no such thing as 'religion' in the ancient world. Just like there was no such thing as sexual orientation. The word was invented as an influence of Christianity.

b. How do you know the purpose of worship was to lead the human pack? How are wild imaginations of scientists any better than those of a lay man?

There is a research oriented book written by Morton Smith who chanced upon some highly classified ancient documents in a library in (was it) Constantinople (?).

It points to a heavy possibility that like several other cults of his time Jesus too practised sex with men as a form of attaining spirituality.

Also, the Gnostics --- who according to the classified documents, knew this fact about Jesus are devilised by early missionaries as rampantly engaging in sex with men --- often as forms of religious rituals.
Yes and in one te the apocryphal Christian texts suggests Jesus had sex with male

howeverrrr, there is not ANY archeological evidence a character called Jesus of Nazareth existed as an actual person!

It is extremely clear how the Cristian followers appropriated the mythological motif of the 'ever living ever dying ever regenerating god~man' from pagan mythologies. BUT...what the former do is this: they get rid of the 'ever dying ever regenerating' aspect of the god~man' who represented Nature and its cyles etc., and historicize his 'ever-LIVING' aspect!...they in other words make mythology into HISTORY. Christians demand tat A man/'Son of God' over 2000 years ago actually lived, was tortured and then crucified, and later resurrected. This CENTRA: to their FAITH. challenge this you cahllenge their central belief. Christianity's most serious heresy is claiming Christ wasn't God.
THISis why the perpetual conflict with their rival Islam, precisly because the Christian belief of God made flesh is antithesis to the islamic belief in the indivisibility of God.

Al is confusion couod be cleared up in an instant if they all knoew hat the secret hidden belief for te inner core on Christian initiates was that 'God made flesh' meant the sacred MUSHROOM flesh, which they assumed WAS the Son of God (Allegro)

hmmmmm, do i mean it would clearup conlict?....it would begin the pocess, but they would BOTH still have to examine the roots of their patriarchal beliefs and how it separates 'spirit' from 'matter'.

Duendy,

I don't know about that..... this is the first time I'm hearing that Jesus Christ never existed. It could be true. But as per what I've read, he seems to be a saint belonging to an ancient cult --- which is not unlikely, who was worshipped for 300 years by Gnostics before being usurped as their prophet by the Christians.

you mean asexually? being able to perform miracles? knowing you will soon be tortured to death, then escape Nature and return to a spiritual heaven with your 'Father'?

i mean living by the standard you choose to live in. whatever that means, correct or incorrect in the eyes of society...do your own thing with regards to spiritual matters. the way jesus did. sorry i wasnt clear with that comment :)
jesus christ (whether he existed or not) set an excellent standard of living by ANY culture's morality. he exhibited the best, most humane traits of any religious leader. i am not a christian, and dont believe he was anything but a guy who understood this earthly existence in a far greater way than most of us will ever comprehend.

emulate jesus fully, and you will live a rich spiritual life. thats what i meant.

i mean living by the standard you choose to live in. whatever that means, correct or incorrect in the eyes of society...do your own thing with regards to spiritual matters. the way jesus did. sorry i wasnt clear with that comment :)
jesus christ (whether he existed or not) set an excellent standard of living by ANY culture's morality. he exhibited the best, most humane traits of any religious leader. i am not a christian, and dont believe he was anything but a guy who understood this earthly existence in a far greater way than most of us will ever comprehend.

emulate jesus fully, and you will live a rich spiritual life. thats what i meant.

when you say emulate Jesus fully, do you mean Jesus as described by Christianity?

Or should we attempt to find out who was the real Christ and try to reclaim his real teachings?

well, jesus according to what you know about him personally from reading scriptures.
dont go to a church to learn about jesus. the "wwjd" fad of the late nineties comes to mind.

but in case that isnt satisfactory...the second thing you said. :D
:m:

Duendy,

I don't know about that..... this is the first time I'm hearing that Jesus Christ never existed. It could be true. But as per what I've read, he seems to be a saint belonging to an ancient cult --- which is not unlikely, who was worshipped for 300 years by Gnostics before being usurped as their prophet by the Christians.

the probably nearest possible clue is J.M/Allegro's clues, in his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, where he speaks of Gnostic 'Teacher of Righteousness' who very preceeded the offical so-called character of J.Christ by a considerable time span and was crucified. thus is probability, Christian myth partly derives from this event

BUT the ESSENTIAL point is this. MYTHOLOGY is not meant in its essnce to be historical. History is dead news, as is knowledge. you KNOWit it's known. the real meaning of mythological insight is to encourage the understanding of the nowness of livin reality. THE best means for doing this is the central sacrament from which all mythology has sprung--even thoug many of its adherents have long forgotten through the mists of time with its bloody violence brutality and prohibition. And this is the PSYCHEDELIC SACRAMENT.
For it is with the eatning/drinking etc of the bona fide sacrament where all words from the pages cease to have any relevance and one is ACTUALLY faced with-inside and out- LIVING REALITY

HOW many people are confused about the insistance of A man dying on A cross lillenia ago has anything to do with their
lifetimes, including suffering. may people suffer FA more that te character Jesus did. yet somehow there is this sentimental
looking at Jesus' suffering as though that is the worst it can get.
It just doesn't make sense.

But it DOES if one reaized that it was all really referring to an actual SPIRITUAL resurrection tat could he had then AND now. that ypou now can gather psychedelic and.....maybe have a spiritual rebirth.

This mans now we may have to investigate what 'spiritual rebith' means from a mystical Christian perspective and a Earth-based pagan perspective...?

well, jesus according to what you know about him personally from reading scriptures.
dont go to a church to learn about jesus. the "wwjd" fad of the late nineties comes to mind.

but in case that isnt satisfactory...the second thing you said. :D
:m:

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!

IMO, spirituality is the assimilation of religion into your life. To me one who is spiritual is concerned with things of the spirit more than the world. One who sees everything in terms of the spirit world is spiritual. It is the recognition that there is more to life than the material plane of existence.

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!

A fallacy of all the religions. All religions are man made. However, IMO God exists. So, anyone who is spiritual or religious only because of the religion, is also false.

the probably nearest possible clue is J.M/Allegro's clues, in his book, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth, where he speaks of Gnostic 'Teacher of Righteousness' who very preceeded the offical so-called character of J.Christ by a considerable time span and was crucified. thus is probability, Christian myth partly derives from this event

BUT the ESSENTIAL point is this. MYTHOLOGY is not meant in its essnce to be historical. History is dead news, as is knowledge. you KNOWit it's known. the real meaning of mythological insight is to encourage the understanding of the nowness of livin reality. THE best means for doing this is the central sacrament from which all mythology has sprung--even thoug many of its adherents have long forgotten through the mists of time with its bloody violence brutality and prohibition. And this is the PSYCHEDELIC SACRAMENT.
For it is with the eatning/drinking etc of the bona fide sacrament where all words from the pages cease to have any relevance and one is ACTUALLY faced with-inside and out- LIVING REALITY

HOW many people are confused about the insistance of A man dying on A cross lillenia ago has anything to do with their
lifetimes, including suffering. may people suffer FA more that te character Jesus did. yet somehow there is this sentimental
looking at Jesus' suffering as though that is the worst it can get.
It just doesn't make sense.

But it DOES if one reaized that it was all really referring to an actual SPIRITUAL resurrection tat could he had then AND now. that ypou now can gather psychedelic and.....maybe have a spiritual rebirth.

This mans now we may have to investigate what 'spiritual rebith' means from a mystical Christian perspective and a Earth-based pagan perspective...?
Very insightful and informative!

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!
indeed. but lies always have a nugget of truth to them, if they are to be believable. just because some crusty old catholics are the source of our current knowledge of jesus doesnt invalidate everything that they allowed early christians to see of his life.

the canonical texts are all proven to be written before the true organized church was formed. *shrug*

but like i said....ask yourself before you believe what some guy has written.

summary: be a decent person with aspirations regarding your soul, and you will be just fine. :)

Scriptures are fabricated by the Church!
*************
M*W: I believe this, too. It's a theory, but it's quite possible that the Roman Emperors wrote the NT (or had it written) as a way to control the masses when they could no longer pay their armies.

i have also considered this, mw.
i discarded the theory when i discovered that the advent of organized christianity actually split rome into 2 empires (theologically and politically). being as roman politics were especially clandestine and thought out, i decided that it probably wasnt the case.
*shrugs again*

indeed. but lies always have a nugget of truth to them, if they are to be believable.
??? :confused:

A lie is a lie!

just because some crusty old catholics are the source of our current knowledge of jesus doesnt invalidate everything that they allowed early christians to see of his life.

the canonical texts are all proven to be written before the true organized church was formed. *shrug*
The Christ that the Gnostics knew for 300 years was quite different than the Christ that the Church built up.

btw, what are cannonical texts and when were they written.
but like i said....ask yourself before you believe what some guy has written.

summary: be a decent person with aspirations regarding your soul, and you will be just fine. :)
The best thing to do is to abandon religion and dogmas and get the freedom to find the true path to spirituality. What Duendy has been saying recently makes a lot of sense.

Duendy, I'm greatly interested in what you've been saying about spirit and matter. I think they may hold an answer to most of the problems that humans face today.

canonical texts are those books that have been approved by the catholic church, and are widely accepted today as the new testament.

be careful about saying what "the best thing" is, my friend.

and always remember: just because someone means to decieve you, that doesnt mean that what they are saying is untrue.
keep on truckin!

and always remember: just because someone means to decieve you, that doesnt mean that what they are saying is untrue.
??? :confused: :confused: :confused:

But it doesn't mean that they are telling the truth either.

I'm not saying that whatever they say may be a lie. But then if certain things seem improabable or untrue, especially about what the saint has supposedly taught --- then you would be wise to question.

In any case there are documented cases of the Church manipulating information about Christ and his teachings. Like Paul (or someone else!) has been reported to have said that --- men are not supposed to know everything about Jesus!

yep. and thats why i said to read scriptures instead of using church teachings. ALL scriptures, not just the vanilla flavored ones in a king james bible.

One of the best 'books' (she asn't published it, it is her Thesis, and she kindly printed it out and sent it to me from the States) , ande you cah readit online is titled The Power of Choice, by Druscilla French....In it she revels tew rules of patriarchal mythology and literature down the ages ad how its narrative structure etc is structured so as to MAINTAIN a status quo.

In patriarchal myth for example we have te 'hero' motif who challenges and subdues and has power over a 'Dragon/Serpent' ---obviously representing, basically, Nature, and 'Her' powers.
In tese tales the king/father passes on his glory to his hero/son....Throughout the dying andliving of tis arrangement the hierarchical situation is maintained

So to question 'religion' you got to begin looking more closey at them tales and at society your in

I mentioned a bit back how it'd be interesting to investigate the difference between a mystical understanding of 'spiritul rebirth' and a pagan Earth-centred understanding of 'spiritual rebirth'?

'Mysticism' can be defined as a presumption that A higher spiritual order exists over and above the 'mere physical'-----so you can either 'return to it' as in AWAY from Nature, or recognize 'Oneness' in it--ala Eastern Vedanta'. Doing so, this philosophical position then tends to put-down a 'Many'---ie., the 'messiness' of real life and individual unique views and interpretations of reality. They instead 'demand' one merges with the 'Onness' otherwise one isn't 'religious/authentic'

For the Christian mystics their dream was escaping to their 'Father' in 'Heaven' and at a certain 'end of time' Nature was to bcome 'spiritualized'. Ie., rescued from its 'fallen state'

So, 'spiritual rebirth' in that mindset would mean some form of escape from Nature. Buddhists terms it the 'escape from the Wheel of Birth and Death'

I see all that mindwset as being 'patriarchal'--and coming from a common root-idea that fears Nature. we could even include male-dominated shamanism.

Alternatively, is the Earth-religious pagan understanding of spiritual rebirth, which i'll explore next post.....

The Earth-based pagan understanding of reality has been ferociously suppressed out of almost all memory by the dominator mindset which divides Nature from 'spirit'

How many Westerners-for example-know much about their ancient ancestors?

Even in ancient Greece the Classical Dionysians are not acknowledged, EVEN by some scholars, who believe Dionysos began with the Orphics, whereas see:

From Orphism to Gnosticism http://www.fortunecity.com/meltingpot/ukraine/231/dionysian/orphism.html

about how it was the Orphics who reformed the much more CELEBRATORY beliefs and practices and worldviews of the originary Dionysians, the last vetige in West of Goddess Earth Religion

So how would an Earth-centred worldview understand spiritual rebirth?

well in this understanding there is no conflict between spirit and Nature and/or matter/energy. For spirit is IMMANENT in Nature.
Nature is alive with spirit, and there is potential to experience at deeper and deeper levels of experience, such as with ecstatic expression...

So in this context, spiritual rebirth is an ONGOING refreshing revitalization of this insight

By that i mean that there would be communal ad/or individual sacred rituals whereby a psychedelic sacrament would be imbibed so as to facilitate an ecstatic communion with Nature and one's BEING in Nature/AS Nature
And that the Inegration from such powerful experience ongoingly revitalizes one's sense of being in the world.
This is NOT about escape, but about opening TO~~~

How many Westerners-for example-know much about their ancient ancestors?

i can trace my family history from the late 400's in iran to present day america/italy.

*shrug*

“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
Please define what you mean by "bona-fide" scriptures. ”

Authentic.Please clarify by what you mean as "authentic" scriptures. Merely using another word with the same meaning does not add any clarification or additional insight.
Who determines the "authenticity" of these scriptures? The followers?
If so, isn't this a rather convenient self-fulfilling cycle: "they are bona-fide because we determine them to be such, and as they are bona-fide we should follow them." etc?


“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
Can you give examples of any non-bona-fide scriptures? ”

Already have done.Where? Please can you repost them to save me trawling through the various posts / threads. I can not find where you have given examples.


“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
You can be religious without being spiritual - and you can be spiritual without being religious. ”

How so?

Religious without being Spiritual: People who go to church, pray, believe in an all-powerful creator, and actually believe in many of the tennets of their faith, and follow the guidance of their religious beliefs where treatment of fellow man is concerned, but do not hold with the idea of a separate spirit.

Spiritual without being Religious: People who believe that there are many paths to enlightenment, that there is no "objective truth", but do not believe in any of the existing religions, do not believe in theology or in any of the scriptures, or in any organised religion at all. They believe that the answers lie within.

Obviously there can be, and generally is, considerable overlap between the spiritual and the religious, and many religions undoubtedly preach some spiritual element. But you can have one without the other.

“Originally Posted by Sarkus
"Religion" is far more encompassing than just limiting it to those major religions that you deem to have "bona-fide scriptures". ”

Explain.
Relgion is any belief concerning the supernatural, sacred, or divine that drives one's moral codes, practices and values, usually accompanied with institutions and rituals associated with such belief.
The fact that many choose a religion that has been around for a few thousands of years or so does not mean that they are the only religions there are, which is what your post implied.



“ Originally Posted by Sarkus
"Religion is nothing more than a response to the deficiency in the human condition to deal with the existential facts of life - primarily DEATH." ”

That is atheist rhetoric, religious, but not religion in the real sense. If you're going to spout this, at least give some facts or definate information.Lighten up and take the comment I posted in the vain in which it was posted... notice the smiley at the end of it? :rolleyes:

i can trace my family history from the late 400's in iran to present day america/italy.

*shrug*
I am speaking about ones Indigenous ancestors. shit, the don even teach the youts here in UK about the relatively recent Enclosures carried ou by the aristocracy. This was when in Feudal times people were at least allowed land to subsist on. Then the 'gentry' enclose all this land and herd thepeople intothe grimmest places in the growing towns and cities and replaced them with SHEEP!

are you talking about the 1800's and such?
or earlier than that?

i can trace my family history from the late 400's in iran to present day america/italy.

*shrug*
*************
M*W: Well, all the way back to the 400s is impressive! I can only go back as far as the 800s. Everyone who is alive today can actually go back to Charlemagne (800s) as he is our common human ancestor. Let's face it, the guy got around. He had some 13 wives and concubines. All his many children were educated in the palaces of the HRE, unlike the common peasant children who probably didn't make it very far into adulthood, etc.. whose family lines died out.

that is on my fathers side of the family:

the other side is only about two hundred years.

http://sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=51990