Should We Really Call It Religion?

[task0778]

Believers have given religion a bad name

Maybe they weren't really believers. Outside of Islam maybe, I don't know of any religion that calls for violence, death, and destruction.

 

[Augustine_]

as if your naturalist snake oil isn't religion.

Lol, you fuckin clown

 

[Augustine_]

I don't know of any religion that calls for violence, death, and destruction.

That has never been an obstacle for believers

 

[Ringtone]

Lol, you fuckin clown

Naturalism: the religion of atheists.

 

[Colin norris]

Because I don't know, the word religion just seems a bit too made up to me. That's why I call myself and tend to think of myself as spiritual and not religious.

Hello???, the whole thing is made up.
Nothing sceric of truth in the whole thing. It's amazing grown human beings can think There's a God or spirits.

 

[RoccoR]

RE: Should we Really Call It Religion?
SUBTOPIC:
⁜→ Colin, et al,

BLUF: You should not allow a label (in this case: Religion) to interfere with your concept. If there is a word that can be misconstrued, either define it or spell it out more distinctly.

Hello???, the whole thing is made up.
Nothing sceric of truth in the whole thing. It's amazing grown human beings can think There's a God or spirits.

(CLARIFICATION)
There is a serious distinction between "Science" and the "Supernatural" ↔︎ "Within the physical laws as humanity understands them (Empirical Evidence)" and "Beyond Scientific explanation (Faith-Based)." In saying that, it is important to remember that man's knowledge is forever temporary.

Then, in some people's minds (those that take you seriously) or those making an opposing view might ask: Is "God or spirits" the same as in meaning the "Supreme Being or Supernatural Entities?" (Both monotheistic concepts.)

And yet again, in your concept of the Supreme Being, do you imply the characteristic of being as having omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient abilities?

On the matter of the term "Science," do you include the "Noetic Sciences?" (A multidisciplinary field of study that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the nature of reality."✮) or do you consider that as a "supernatural endeavor?"

(COMMENT)

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena,
it will make more progress in one decade than in all the
previous centuries of its existence.​

.................................................................................................................- Nikola Tesla

Well, relative to the statement (" It's amazing grown human beings can think There's a God or spirits.") I would put forth that there are many very famous and quite notable scientists that believe in a higher power.

• Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
• Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
• Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
• Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
• Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
• Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
• Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
• James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)
• Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
• Max Planck (1858-1947)
• Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
• Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)
• Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)

Science is sometimes misunderstood. For instance, take the case of "String Theory." Is it science? Well, it cannot meet the rigors of the Scientific Method.

---

---

NOTES:

✮ Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS)​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[BreezeWood]

Because I don't know, the word religion just seems a bit too made up to me. That's why I call myself and tend to think of myself as spiritual and not religious.

spirituality is sensual, visual and spoken - religion is a 10000 page document ...

not sure what the spoken "religion" of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil - would really then be in comparison with the 3 desert documents of similar origin by text though spiritual as prescribed.

 

[BreezeWood]

Because I don't know, the word religion just seems a bit too made up to me. That's why I call myself and tend to think of myself as spiritual and not religious.

hard to believe a christian could refer to themselves as both christian and spiritual - whatever spiritual is, just seems a hopeless sinner would not fit the bill of also being spiritual. or anything else.

 

[task0778]

hard to believe a christian could refer to themselves as both christian and spiritual - whatever spiritual is, just seems a hopeless sinner would not fit the bill of also being spiritual. or anything else.

I am not sure that being a Christian requires the scrupulous adherence to a specific set of doctrines and practices of a particular church. As far as I'm concerned, if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he died to save us from our sins, then you are a Christian. Period. All the other stuff that goes with being a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or whatever is beside the point. IOW, you can be as spiritual as you want (as long as it's legal) and still be a Christian. But that's just me.

 

[BreezeWood]

Maybe they weren't really believers. Outside of Islam maybe, I don't know of any religion that calls for violence, death, and destruction.

Most is. I believe Christ: NO MAN can come to the Father, except through Me.

is that all -

what of forgeries and fallacies to circumvent the true message a person has died for.

 

[BreezeWood]

I am not sure that being a Christian requires the scrupulous adherence to a specific set of doctrines and practices of a particular church. As far as I'm concerned, if you believe that Jesus was the Son of God and he died to save us from our sins, then you are a Christian. Period. All the other stuff that goes with being a Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, or whatever is beside the point. IOW, you can be as spiritual as you want (as long as it's legal) and still be a Christian. But that's just me.

what sins are christians unable themselves to stop committing - - to require someone else to die for - - and what has that to do with liberation theology and self determination the itinerant died for.

 

[task0778]

is that all -

what of forgeries and fallacies to circumvent the true message a person has died for.

I assume you mean what about a person who is lied to or deceived into believing something that is not the true message. I dunno. Maybe that person's soul is reincarnated or something. Maybe you hafta spend time in Purgatory or somewhere in between heaven and hell. Or maybe something else happens. All I'm trying to say is that religion and spirituality are not at cross purposes, and anyone can be both. In fact, in some Eastern religions it's sorta required. I think.

 

[task0778]

what sins are christians unable themselves to stop committing - - to require someone else to die for - - and what has that to do with liberation theology and self determination the itinerant died for.

Sorry, you're asking questions for somebody above my pay grade and also my limited ability to understand liberation theology and what you're talking about. As for Christianity, I ain't a Christian and I don't know which sins have to be forgiven and which don't. Not my bag, but I won't judge anyone else for their beliefs. Don't care much for sacrificing any living thing tho, not cool.

 

[surada]

Maybe they weren't really believers. Outside of Islam maybe, I don't know of any religion that calls for violence, death, and destruction.

You don't know anything about Islam either.

 

[BreezeWood]

Sorry, you're asking questions for somebody above my pay grade and also my limited ability to understand liberation theology and what you're talking about. As for Christianity, I ain't a Christian and I don't know which sins have to be forgiven and which don't. Not my bag, but I won't judge anyone else for their beliefs. Don't care much for sacrificing any living thing tho, not cool.

seems i've confused you for someone else ... it would matter for the interpretation of the events for the 1st century per the thread, surly the itinerant was foremost spiritual than - religious, irregardless 4th century text.

 

[Colin norris]

RE: Should we Really Call It Religion?
SUBTOPIC:
⁜→ Colin, et al,

BLUF: You should not allow a label (in this case: Religion) to interfere with your concept. If there is a word that can be misconstrued, either define it or spell it out more distinctly.


(CLARIFICATION)
There is a serious distinction between "Science" and the "Supernatural" ↔︎ "Within the physical laws as humanity understands them (Empirical Evidence)" and "Beyond Scientific explanation (Faith-Based)." In saying that, it is important to remember that man's knowledge is forever temporary.

Then, in some people's minds (those that take you seriously) or those making an opposing view might ask: Is "God or spirits" the same as in meaning the "Supreme Being or Supernatural Entities?" (Both monotheistic concepts.)

And yet again, in your concept of the Supreme Being, do you imply the characteristic of being as having omnipotent, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and omniscient abilities?

On the matter of the term "Science," do you include the "Noetic Sciences?" (A multidisciplinary field of study that brings objective scientific tools and techniques together with subjective inner knowing to study the nature of reality."✮) or do you consider that as a "supernatural endeavor?"

(COMMENT)

The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena,
it will make more progress in one decade than in all the
previous centuries of its existence.​

.................................................................................................................- Nikola Tesla

Well, relative to the statement (" It's amazing grown human beings can think There's a God or spirits.") I would put forth that there are many very famous and quite notable scientists that believe in a higher power.

• Nicholas Copernicus (1473-1543)
• Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)
• Johannes Kepler (1571-1630)
• Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
• Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
• Isaac Newton (1642-1727)
• Michael Faraday (1791-1867)
• James Clerk Maxwell (1831 –1879)
• Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
• Max Planck (1858-1947)
• Albert Einstein (1879-1955)
• Erwin Schrödinger (1887 –1961)
• Werner Heisenberg (1901 – 1976)

Science is sometimes misunderstood. For instance, take the case of "String Theory." Is it science? Well, it cannot meet the rigors of the Scientific Method.

---

---

NOTES:

✮ Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS)​

Most Respectfully,
R

Again, you have no evidence a God exists and never have.
2000 years is long enough time and you've produced nothing.

What can be asserted without evidence can dismissed without evidence.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

So pray and keep the faith all you like. You have bern conned and have nothing but delusions.