Religion vs. Spirituality

Post Reply New Topic

You are confusing indoctrination with religion

Both can be considered the same animal, if you like. Spirituality is not bound by rules and dogmas. Nor is there any preconceived ideas on what one must do to commune. Religions are more organised structures who have rules and laws set up for people to live by, mostly in the name of a supreme being. A prime example of religion without spirituality is Scientology; its emmbers worship L Ron Hubbard, but is he God? No, he was just a science-fiction writer whom these people decided was to lead their cult. All the rules are man made, not from some divine source. In a way, Christianity could come under the same path, being as the bible was constructed 1700 years ago out of many texts that may or may not be folklore. The big difference is that even though Christianity is a religion (encompassing many such as Lutheranism, Catholocism, Protestantism), they do BELIEVE in a spiritual connection. Doesn't mean that there definitely is one.

We are each arguing semantics in the end, are we not?

My definition of Religion is typically assumed to mean "reunite" or "to bind". Those are the definitions I associate with Religion.

If you consider these to be the proper definition, then you can understand how religion can "breathe" life into you.

(Spiritual means breathing/spirit meaning breath)

It's the other way round. Not only is religion "a child" of spirituality, but spirituality is just one of the parents of religion, ( most of which involve some/many elements concerned with state social-control ) .


Much more easily since reading Peter Gandy and Timothy Freke, ( some excerpts of their books, "The Jesus Mysteries" etc, are available free online) Robert Price and Earl Doherty, ( website "The Jesus puzzle"), and some of what is technically known as "Higher Criticism" which involves textual analysis of the bible.

These and other sources explain that Jesus was already an established archetype of spiritual traditions long before christianity was invented. Which I can well believe, having had a completely non-christian moment of illumination 16 years ago, in which I directly experienced the unconditional love and willing sacrifice of what I believe was my own personal "Jesus" archetype.

I don't understand what you mean by "authority" all the time, as if I need someone's authority to pursue understanding.


In the case of Christianity I am denouncing what I believe is a fiction pretending to be historical fact. And parables which promote/teach certain attitudes towards those in power. The lord, the master. Introduce beliefs like that in the head, and they do not just apply to accepting the arbitrary decisions of a hypothetical god but also of anyone in a position of power over them. That is how the brain works.

But I do not dismiss/reject "works by great men" out of hand. I am a product of a society ( the Western one) which believes these things, and of parents who although "enlightened" to some extent, have stayed mainly within the christian tradition, so the process has been gradual. It has taken me till now, aged 44, to question the New Testament to this extent. I am very slow.

"All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way..." (Isaiah 53:6)

Independent personal discovery is important. But to always avoid every organized belief system, on the grounds that whatever you discover is automatically superior, is naïve conceit.

Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Jun 2008, 11:05 am, edited 4 times in total.

Spirituality and Religion to me cannot be separated. So, this argument of Spirituality is better , No, Religion is better is nonsense to me since they are one.


What you are describing is basically devotion. The giving of yourself completely, fully in remembrance and love.


Authority: Scripture, guidance, etc. It makes no sense to pursue knowledge while rejecting it. And I only used "authority" after another member mentioned it.


I already stated that it is acceptable to deny what is untrue (What is True? What is untrue?). In fact it is recommended. The ancient practices were to sacrifice an animal for one's advancement, atonement, etc. They would then return to their corrupted lives. How can such a practice achieve anything if nothing is changed inside the person?



You can deny elements, but how and where can you walk when you blinded yourself? I do not speak for the Gospels as I do not follow them. I only read them to understand its followers. In my belief a Guide is necessary to pursue knowledge. This does not mean you accept everything that is said to you, it just means you require the skills and experience of others. We cannot all know the answers without first humbling ourselves to our Master and to our spiritual guide. In a similar sense, a Christian follows the Bible, followed by the Saints, preachers, et al. to better understand the One they follow. It is the path to acquiring knowledge.

Not accepting wholly what the people say is a common event: How many different sects within a religious belief are there? Yet, they do not deny completely what has been revealed.

It's not a question of superiority.

It's question of what makes sense, to me. And until I came across the writings of the afore-mentioned ( Gandy, Freke, Doherty, and Price, plus Higher Criticism, etc), the New Testament didn't make much sense. Some of it did; John's "In the beginning was the word... ..." , the vines cut down and "thee shall know them by their fruit", and a few other things, but not most of it.

Most of it didn't feel real, felt contrived, but I denied this for ages, accusing myself of feeble understanding etc. Then I read Gandy and Freke's ideas, which placed Jesus so firmly in the world of myth, and also replaced a few of the missing characters etc, and ... ... boom! I got it, it was amazing. Jesus isn't/never was a real person.

When something helps me to understand, I tend to believe it, until a new puzzle needs a new explanation, which might completely overturn the previous one.

Not superiority, but those things which help me to understand something that is perplexing/alienating me. Interpretations/data/perspectives which help me to make connections.

Interesting. My dad, who was raised Conservative Jewish, got the exact opposite impression of the New Testament.
He was a professional reporter and writer at the time, and he said that the flow of the writing in the Gospels impressed him as something that seemed written from an eye-witness perspective, in an on-the-go style, as if the writers were moving from event to event to event, while struggling to get them all in just the way they had happened. The brevity of any true reporting style is what he noticed most. There weren't any grandly philosophical pontifications -- it was just the facts. That showed a primary desire to communicate the events that occurred. There was no nagging or lengthy persuading of the reader to believe.



Heh heh, well, I'll agree with "boom!", but I think it was something very different than a realization of the truth.

Last edited by Ragtime on 03 Jun 2008, 1:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Did I say "better"? I think that they are different, if overlapping.


Do you mean what happened to me 16 years ago? The "unconditional love and willing sacrifice" that I experienced was that of my physical body towards "me".

I had had a very bad headache all afternoon; I had been sick; I was lieing down, and I suddenly seemed to see my body from above, collapsed like a beaten and battered and abused animal. And I thought, "I wouldn't treat an animal like that", and started crying for this poor creature. As I wept my hands started wiping away my tears, and I realised that my body would do anything I asked of it, if at all possible. And I kissed my hands with amazement and gratitude.

The experience changed me. In fact you could say that I experienced a conversion. I drove what few friends I had mad talking about how the mind in our society abuses/denigrates/humiliates/desecrates/ignores/oppresses the body, and how must stop the abuse, must stop polluting the body, etc. I could go on for hours about the effect it had on me. I did at the time.

I became a fanatical follower, in fact obsessively penitent worshipper, of "the body", its needs etc, before achieving a more balanced relationship with it, some years later, after understanding that the body had already sacrificed itself, for the mind, many thousands of years ago, and that its sacrifice had been in vain if I did not then appreciate what the sacrifice had achieved, ( mind, language, etc) , because of feeling guilty, constricted by observance of innumerable little dietary etc rules trying to make it, the body, free and whole like "before".

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Jun 2008, 2:24 pm, edited 6 times in total.

I think that the process is called selection or discernment. Incorporating what feels useful/interesting/illuminating at any given moment. Not blindly accepting everything.



I completely agree, and it is probably why my thinking pretty much ground to a halt while all I had was a Bible and my old books and the TV, before we got the internet connection and I began to find things out again.

The Bible as a whole doesn't do it for me. It isn't a guide to me, it is an instrument of oppression, similar to Cognitive Behaviour Therapy ( as distinct from Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy which does not make judgements about our thoughts, whereas CBT, like Christianity, focusses on changing "negative" content; thoughts as crimes against the laws).


Which master are you talking about?

It was what I needed in order to continue. It was like a ladder. I feel so grateful when this happens, as if people are giving me a hand from their experience of a similar journey.

But you've made it clear that reject you "similar journeys" You reject the Bible but embrace these two writers. I want to know why.








When was the last time you ate garlic?

I don't reject "similar journeys". Where did I "make this clear"?

I reject pre-selected packets of beliefs, which seem to suggest that the population divides up into 5 or 6 separate groups, with no overlap. I think everyone's journey is unique, but there are similar ones; at certain points join or cross the paths of others.

I embrace these writers because they gave me an idea. It felt like a gift too. I was thrilled. Something new/different connected as a result.


If you will explain why you ask this question I might answer it.

Last edited by ouinon on 03 Jun 2008, 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I wrote that last question because I don't think you are quite lucid. Your writing doesn't make sense. I wanted to gauge your response.

Before I start: I found this book, you might have already seen it but I thought it was interesting. I didn't buy but I might just check it out one day.

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Buddha-Para ... 1569751692


Now:

"How and where can you walk when you blinded yourself?"

If you're wondering what I meant: When a person rejects religion and scripture completely it is like blinding himself to the world. He cannot see his path because he has removed all traces to it.
There is a difference when a person learns the practice and rejects the source from which it came from, to rejecting the source and practice altogether.


Master was capitalized to signify the One whom we all submit ourselves to. I never call another person Master or Lord.

Thank you for link. Had a look.

I am not surprised that there are many parallel sayings. Buddhist missionaries had been travelling in the Mediterrranean as far as Antioch and Greece since the 3rd century BC.

And as I said on my thread about "Christianity as a CBT Cult", I think the pernicious idea that not only our actions but our thoughts break laws, was the result of monotheistic "Thou shalt not" style religious people being exposed for first time , through unfamiliar focussing/meditation techniques, to a world of inner mental activity of which they had hitherto been largely unaware. ( I'll call it the subconscious from now on, though I dislike the term, but because otherwise people seem to think I mean the thought processes that we are conscious of all the time) .

I think Buddhism was one of the three main strands tied together to create Christianity.

Unfortunately in the collision with Hebrew monotheism and Gnostic/Greek mysteries, the non-judgemental nature of Buddhism seems to have been lost rather. Bizarrely, considering Christianity content apparently teaches love for neighbour, "judge ye not", etc, its most major tenet ( thoughts to be judged like actions) involves massive/far reaching judgements.


I don't. I am increasingly seriously "aware" of Buddhism, ( prob zen, but don't know about that) , because it is making more and more sense to me.

Last edited by ouinon on 04 Jun 2008, 5:03 am, edited 2 times in total.