Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

It’s quite interesting how the core content of these “man made rules designed specifically to control the masses” is and has been largely consistent across ages, cultures, societies, geographies, etc., as far as recorded history runs. Almost as if they were inscribed in the human heart like some sort of natural law.

No. Sacred scripture was intentionally distorted to control. Distorted specifically by MEN in power to retain power and wealth. It really is that simple. The natural laws of love, compassion, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality are clearly not religious laws. They transcend religious views and scripture. When we begin to wake up from the lies we’ve been conditioned to believe through fear, we see religion for what it is. A lie.

“Religion” actually is a virtue whose purpose is to render God the worship due to Him as the source of all being and the giver of all good things. This virtue gets confused with the systems that develop around the inclination to exercise it.

As for being conditioned through fear, many people exercise the virtue of religion not merely as an expression of what is due in justice to a supreme being but also out of hope for a better life both in the present and in eternity.

The conformance with natural law is itself an expression of the virtue of religion.

Can’t people render God the worship they deserve without religion?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The true topic of the thread emerges: religion is bad.

Huh? I musta missed that one. Can you point me to those posts?

yeah, yesterday at 14:08, but that was an outlier. Mostly the posts have discussed the difference between spirituality and religion, with some here being defensive that people describing themselves as spiritual is increasing and people describing themselves as just religious is decreasing.

Anonymous wrote:The true topic of the thread emerges: religion is bad.

Huh? I musta missed that one. Can you point me to those posts?

Anonymous wrote:The true topic of the thread emerges: religion is bad.

And “uncool”

Says the obsessed atheist.

The true topic of the thread emerges: religion is bad.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

It’s quite interesting how the core content of these “man made rules designed specifically to control the masses” is and has been largely consistent across ages, cultures, societies, geographies, etc., as far as recorded history runs. Almost as if they were inscribed in the human heart like some sort of natural law.

No. Sacred scripture was intentionally distorted to control. Distorted specifically by MEN in power to retain power and wealth. It really is that simple. The natural laws of love, compassion, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality are clearly not religious laws. They transcend religious views and scripture. When we begin to wake up from the lies we’ve been conditioned to believe through fear, we see religion for what it is. A lie.

“Religion” actually is a virtue whose purpose is to render God the worship due to Him as the source of all being and the giver of all good things. This virtue gets confused with the systems that develop around the inclination to exercise it.

As for being conditioned through fear, many people exercise the virtue of religion not merely as an expression of what is due in justice to a supreme being but also out of hope for a better life both in the present and in eternity.

The conformance with natural law is itself an expression of the virtue of religion.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

It’s quite interesting how the core content of these “man made rules designed specifically to control the masses” is and has been largely consistent across ages, cultures, societies, geographies, etc., as far as recorded history runs. Almost as if they were inscribed in the human heart like some sort of natural law.

No. Sacred scripture was intentionally distorted to control. Distorted specifically by MEN in power to retain power and wealth. It really is that simple. The natural laws of love, compassion, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality are clearly not religious laws. They transcend religious views and scripture. When we begin to wake up from the lies we’ve been conditioned to believe through fear, we see religion for what it is. A lie.

Jesus was all about giving away his money instead of consolidating power and money, but you do you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

It’s quite interesting how the core content of these “man made rules designed specifically to control the masses” is and has been largely consistent across ages, cultures, societies, geographies, etc., as far as recorded history runs. Almost as if they were inscribed in the human heart like some sort of natural law.

No. Sacred scripture was intentionally distorted to control. Distorted specifically by MEN in power to retain power and wealth. It really is that simple. The natural laws of love, compassion, tolerance, inclusiveness, and equality are clearly not religious laws. They transcend religious views and scripture. When we begin to wake up from the lies we’ve been conditioned to believe through fear, we see religion for what it is. A lie.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

It’s quite interesting how the core content of these “man made rules designed specifically to control the masses” is and has been largely consistent across ages, cultures, societies, geographies, etc., as far as recorded history runs. Almost as if they were inscribed in the human heart like some sort of natural law.

At first the sorcerers tried to use magic to control their environment, and when that didn't work the sorcerers gave way to the priests, and magic gave way to religion. And the idea, of course, was to propitiate the gods, through sacrifices mostly, but later prayers and the like. You're right, this is very consistent across the ages - people who want something appeal to an imagined higher power. Be it wealth, or a baby or to cure sickness etc. And we all want to believe our loved ones, when they die, go to a "better place." Like the happy hunting grounds. It's true, nearly all cultures, societies, geographies etc. have a belief in supernatural powers. But some of the religions are nutty, you gotta admit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

dp. You got it, and it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion.

Freedom is important. Being free from something doesn't mean you suddenly think the topic is unimportant. You agree with that, right?

DP. Pursuing someone you tag with a name “belligerent believer” (if that person even exists) over three threads to try to tell people who call themselves either “spiritual” or “religious” what you, an atheist, insist those mean and they’re relative coolness factors—it just doesn’t seem healthy. Obsession is the opposite of freedom.

Hello DP/Belligerent believer/Troll chaser

Atheist Don Quixote has entered the room…. (FWIW, I’m not the person you called “belligerent believer” right above.)

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

dp. You got it, and it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion.

Freedom is important. Being free from something doesn't mean you suddenly think the topic is unimportant. You agree with that, right?

DP. Pursuing someone you tag with a name “belligerent believer” (if that person even exists) over three threads to try to tell people who call themselves either “spiritual” or “religious” what you, an atheist, insist those mean and they’re relative coolness factors—it just doesn’t seem healthy. Obsession is the opposite of freedom.

Hello DP/Belligerent believer/Troll chaser

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

dp. You got it, and it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion.

Freedom is important. Being free from something doesn't mean you suddenly think the topic is unimportant. You agree with that, right?

DP. Pursuing someone you tag with a name “belligerent believer” (if that person even exists) over three threads to try to tell people who call themselves either “spiritual” or “religious” what you, an atheist, insist those mean and they’re relative coolness factors—it just doesn’t seem healthy. Obsession is the opposite of freedom.

Well then they should say that instead of the pejorative "it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion".

That's no better.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

dp. You got it, and it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion.

Freedom is important. Being free from something doesn't mean you suddenly think the topic is unimportant. You agree with that, right?

DP. Pursuing someone you tag with a name “belligerent believer” (if that person even exists) over three threads to try to tell people who call themselves either “spiritual” or “religious” what you, an atheist, insist those mean and they’re relative coolness factors—it just doesn’t seem healthy. Obsession is the opposite of freedom.

Their not they’re, sorry

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Dear PP who is pushing the “spiritual vs. religious” thing:

You’re obviously free to have your opinions about what these two words mean. You’re also certainly free to argue that one is “cool” and the other is “uncool.” What you can’t do, of course, is speak for people who actually call themselves religious or spiritual.

So why exactly is this worth the last week of your time? You haven’t even won over the handful of DCUM religion forum regulars—let alone anybody in the big, wide world outside DCUM, where it would actually matter. So, why?

because pp is belligerent believer

No, it’s an acknowleged atheist who is pushing these bogus spiritual-religious definitions.

Must.win.lame.online.spat against, what, three max anonymous people of faith. Is here 24/7. Seems like a waste to me.

dp. You got it, and it’s the same type of people who claim they are free of religion, but spend every waking moment immersed in religion.

Freedom is important. Being free from something doesn't mean you suddenly think the topic is unimportant. You agree with that, right?

DP. Pursuing someone you tag with a name “belligerent believer” (if that person even exists) over three threads to try to tell people who call themselves either “spiritual” or “religious” what you, an atheist, insist those mean and they’re relative coolness factors—it just doesn’t seem healthy. Obsession is the opposite of freedom.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Being spiritual is wanting the benefits of religion without having to do the work

It’s actually the complete opposite. Being spiritual requires that you actually think. To spend time in meditation and/or prayer. To seek. Being religious simply requires you to follow a bunch of man made rules designed specifically to control the masses.

It’s quite interesting how the core content of these “man made rules designed specifically to control the masses” is and has been largely consistent across ages, cultures, societies, geographies, etc., as far as recorded history runs. Almost as if they were inscribed in the human heart like some sort of natural law.