there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
I have never heard that expression in my entire life. Wow.
It happens. It's amazing sometimes that you can go your entire life without knowing what many consider to be common knowledge. Last year someone was at my house helping made a dinner for some friends and asked for a ramekin. I had no idea that a small bowl was called a ramekin but everyone else said that was common knowledge that everyone knew.
I've no idea how I managed to go my entire life never knowing that.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
Have a day off, for f*ck's sake.
Now you've been correct twice.
To someone new here, i.e. Deltawave, you don't show atheism in a particularly good light.
First, Deltawave is almost certainly a revamp of the Brahma Kumaris who periodically show up, preach, get booted, make a new account, rinse and repeat.
Secondly, this discussion has zero to do with atheism, but rather making false claims and displaying arrogance when trying to promote those blatantly false claims.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
Can I just ask, what the hell is "woo?" I thought it was a typo earlier in the thread.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
Viviane, we seem to be at odds here. I'm sorry you disagree with my views.
We're not "at odds" or "disagreeing" so much as you blatantly misrepresenting facts to promote your version woo while making claims about every human alive. You're being extremely dishonest and displaying a stunning level of hubris and arrogance.
I am not implying you don't value those ideas.
You absolutely did. Don't be dishonest about what you said.
I merely wish to point out that what those inspiring people aimed to teach us was to display qualities that are essential to humanity and that religious dogma has no real place in spirituality.
They endorsed denial of self, rape, slavery, murder and genocide. You're choosing to claim they didn't.
Basically, you are exhibiting the basic tenets and behaviors of the very thing you claim to be against.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
All humans , even atheists, are spiritual in that they have a sense of right and wrong, have culture, see beauty in art, etc. but your OP doesn't do a particularly good job in separating religion and spirituality.
That's not being "spiritual" at all. You don't get to define me in terms of woo.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
So you don't think we would benefit from
- Gratitude instead of jealousy
- Giving more than we take
Or such like Woo ideas then??
- Love our neighbours as ourselves
Wow, interesting way to pretend I was saying those weren't good ideas when in reality, I've never made such a claim.
More dishonesty... yep, you're being religious for sure.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
Have you read the teachings of these men? Or are you quoting what religion has said about these men? Huge difference.
Oh, look, a false dichotomy!
So, at this point you've made false claims about what these people taught, tried to pass your stuff off as truth, tried to tell all of us what we need and tried to claim you aren't teaching anything, all while wrapping this hubris, arrogance and error in the cloak of fake humility.
This sounds exactly like a religion to me.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
If one writes rules/guidelines how to "be spiritual", isn't one starting a new religion then, effectively?
Exactly. The idea of being "spiritual" but not "religious" is simply a way to complain about religion but still want to promote undefined, meaningless woo.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
Yes that's my point. All the spiritual figures in history taught to same few principles. Principles of which I believe are the mark of true spirituality.
That is not true in any way.
there is a huge difference between been religious and been spiritual.
been religious is about been superior to others in the sight of god.
however, been spiritual is about self awareness, inner peace and unity with the natural world.
Who should you believe? I don't know who you should beleive as I am neither your rabbi or your guru.
Then why are you here promoting your idea of truth? Why are you making claims about what all people need?
I however beleive that all humanity has the need to be fulfilled by something beyond the superficial.
Why do you believe that?
When you take what the afore mentioned said in its simplest terms they encouraged
Nope, not at all. Your imagining what you want them to have said rather than addressing what they actually said.
Muhammad taught these principles yet fought in wars.
Jesus taught these principles yet upheld the mosaic law.
Bhudda taught these principles while denying all his desires.
Mohammed had sex with children. Jesus endorsed slavery and rape. Buddha said to deny yourself pleasure and desire.
None of those teaching you claim they made are in any way compatible with their actions or actual teachings.
