Spirituality vs Religion

[Zillah]

When we speak about religion, we ask "What are your religious beliefs?"

"BELIE" - [1a] to give a false impression of [1b] to present an appearance not in agreement with [2a] to show (something) to be false or wrong [2b] to run counter to.

"BELIEVE" - [1a(1)] to have a firm religious faith, to consider to be true or honest [1b] to accept as true, genuine, or real, [1a(2)] to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something [1a(3)] to hold an opinion.

When we speak about spirituality, its described as an innate knowing

"KNOW" - [1a(1)] to perceive directly: have direct cognition of [1a(2)] to have understanding of [1a(3)] to recognize the nature of [1b(1)] to recognize as being the same as something previously known [1b(2)] to be acquainted or familiar with [1b(3)] to have experience of [2a] to be aware of the truth or factuality of, [2b] to have a practical understanding of.

Definitions came from the Merriam-Webster Dictionary

>>The following passage I found on the topic of belief made me think of Celine's comment:

Religion is about "Man"

Spirituality is about "God"

Robert Traer Takes a look at the historical meaning of belief:

In English, to believe originally and literally meant to hold dear or to love.

"In German 'belieben' continues to mean this today. The English and German words share the same root., 'lieb' or 'lief', which also appears in Latin as 'libet', meaning it pleases. In Old English the word was 'leof' or 'liob'. A parallel form, 'lufu', became the word 'love'. In Old High German, 'gilouben' also meant to hold dear and developed into the modern German verb 'glauben' (to hold dear, to have faith, to believe) and the noun 'Glaube' (the act of holding dear, faith).

Thus, in early Modern English believe meant to cherish and to have faith. It was related to "belove," which has only survived in Modern English as beloved. For centuries belief was only used to refer to persons. To believe was to cherish and trust in someone. One could not, therefore, believe in what was impossible or false. One could only believe in persons.

so then why do we refer to religion (that is supposedly all about GOD) as a belief if this word was reserved for MAN? Who/What are we really devoting ourselves to?

By the time of the Reformation, the meaning of belief had already begun to change. John Wycliff twice translated the Bible into English. In his first translation he often used the word 'bilefe' (belief) for the Greek word 'pistis', which appears frequently in the gospels and in the letters of Paul. In his later translation he used the word "faith" to capture the New Testament meaning. The Oxford English Dictionary notes this shift observing that: "’ belief’ was the earlier word for what is commonly called ’faith’." The word, faith, comes from the Old French fei, which originally referred to duty or loyalty to a person."

so when asked, "what is your faith?" - should we redirect our thoughts from GOD and rephrase the question to "whom or what MAN do you serve?"

In the fourteenth century, as faith was used to translate the Latin fides, it began to replace belief in English, especially in theological works. As a result, belief began to lose its original meaning."--Robert Traer

I thought this was an interesting take on the words "Faith" and "Belief" as referring to persons - which subsequently has nothing to do with GOD, and yet these are the primary words to describe Religion.

O ye, of little faith? Perhaps that's a good thing!!! .... at least when it comes to you and your divinity.

Just some things to consider <3

[grannyfranny100]

Hi

I am new to my community. A few people have invited me to their churches to play cards and games - activities of no interest to me. Eventually some one will invite me to their church services. Does anyone have a polite response for me to use. "I carry my own church within me, " sounds really flippant and asking if their minister has actually translated the Bible from the original language would blow them away.

Granny Franny

[Seikou-Kishi]

If you know what denomination they are, claim to be something else lol. "I'm Catholic... I mean Episcopalian... would you believe Samaritan?" lol

[AlkaMyst]

Spirituality is who you really are...........Religion is just a disease !

I think that the Film "Wake Up" is an excellent film that has lots to do with what spirituality really is.....this film is a gem and it should be watched by every Avalon Members. You can't find it online unless one pays for it, but I have taken the liberty to bring this film to the Avalon Community.....Please see this thread started by Teakai.

[trenairio]

[edit][edit][edit]

[Teakai]

Posted by grannyfranny100 (here)
Hi

I am new to my community. A few people have invited me to their churches to play cards and games - activities of no interest to me. Eventually some one will invite me to their church services. Does anyone have a polite response for me to use. "I carry my own church within me, " sounds really flippant and asking if their minister has actually translated the Bible from the original language would blow them away.

Granny Franny

Maybe just a "No, but thanks for asking", Granny, Franny?

I have a bit of a situation myself. Sometimes when Jehova's come to visit I usually invite them in and we have a theological discussion and it's all very nice.
I do let them know in advance that I'm not interested in joining any religion and if that's what their aim is then they're wasting their time.

Anyway, the new lot who have come to visit me (3 times so far) the last visit they urged me to look up the JW site on the internet. So, I did.
And then I looked deeper into it and found out that the religion (and the mormons - mormons seem to be anathema to the JW's)) was founded on the funding and families of the Elite.
Then I came across all these testimonies about ex- J.W's telling of the mindcontrol that is involved and how, if you leave you are isolated and shunned by the rest of the cult and even your family.

Now, I don't think these people who are visiting me are aware of any of the history of the J.W's. I think they are just good people searching for something within religion to fulfill them.
The question I'm pondering is whether to let them know.
Or not.

I think they may already be fairly far gone, because all the logical and provable points I put across in our conversations were simply dismissed while they made some other point and as such it's very likely that my telling them will be like water off a duck's back.

Very likely I'll tell them - because it doesn't seem right not to. Maybe if I just say, "look, sorry, I looked into the origins of the JW church and they were started by what Christianity refers to as satan's spawn."
Mmm, that would go down nicely, I'm sure.

What I find worrying, is the depth to which people will give their mind away. They have sacrificed self thought and reason for blind faith. And this is totally irrational - and there's no telling what irrational people will do.

Reminds me of a quote I read once - “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.”
Steven Weinberg.

So, now I know this about the JW organisation - should I just say thanks, but no thanks - or take all who come by my door in and try and reconvert them back to rationality?
Not liking the chances of that, but am usually up for a challenge

[araucaria]

Posted by RedeZra (here)
good now 'Yud' represents the number ten in Gematria ( I O ) which signifies a self sufficient system

moreover it's the 1st letter of the Tetragrammaton

and a representation of maleness since Y chromosome is passed from father to son

Here’s a piece I promised Lunar on another thread where it would have been OT – hopefully not here. This was written ten days ago, I’ve tried to update it, not easy, that’s a long time right now.

On believing and knowing, and triangles

10 is a triangular number: you can stack the numbers 1- 10 to form a triangle (1, 2 3, 4 5 6, 7 8 9 10, the tetraktys). 33 is three short of a triangular number: you can form a topless triangle by starting with 1 2 3, 4 5 6 7 etc. This is the 2D equivalent of a pyramid without the capstone. Why the missing capstone? It means that when you think you are at the top of any hierarchical structure you are already at the bottom of the next one up – caught in an endless string of superiors exploiting subordinates.

This is an upside down way of doing things. There is another way.

The philosopher/mathematician Pascal’s triangle is also incomplete, only at the bottom, not the top. The apex starts with 1, 1 1, 1 2 1, and every row is generated by adding the two figures immediately above. This triangle was designed for a betting friend of Pascal’s and is a table of probabilities. It works in the real world, and provably so: the gambler’s winnings. The question is, how did Pascal construct the apex of his triangle? Clearly the 1s down both sides come from following the rule of adding the two numbers above, i.e. 1 plus nothing.

However by that same token, the 1 at the very top would have to be the sum of nothing plus nothing!
Now Pascal himself was not a betting man, except for his one famous wager: ‘God exists’. Sometimes seen as a cowardly act of faith, this wager here takes the form of posing the equation 0 + 0 = 1*. But remember, you can bank on it working because it generates all the rest! Hence what started out as a leap of faith is turned instantly into dead certainty, because as soon as he writes it down in a probability table, 1 means a 100% probability! Hence ‘God’ exists as the creator of something out of nothing. From the certainty of infinite oneness at the top, it is increasing uncertainty all the way down to infinite multiplicity at the ‘bottom’.

1, 1 1 – this is the only possible apex on the triangle or capstone on the pyramid. Understandably it sometimes goes missing… The bottomless Great Pyramid has also lost its facing stones, the 1s down the sides. Hence our journey has to be upwards (and hence outwards), unless of course you prefer the upside down pyramid symbolism and take the negative path, pretending down is up.

The glasshouse we are in, as Charles suggested with stones or seeds in our pockets, stifling in greenhouse gases, is deep down inside, a kind of prison planet reminiscent of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon (cf. Michel Foucault in ‘Discipline and Punish’). So from this viewpoint, we may want to side with Eva Brick! Explanatory note: Eva Brick (’eave a brick), if I’m not mistaken, is part of the cockney alphabet, A for… E for… etc. I think Ava Gardner the seed-planter comes into it as well. Also you can demolish a glass house from the outside, e.g. with Qbrick’s Eva Monolith? (paragraph more relevant, or rather more topical, last week, sorry).

* Lunar, for you: we were talking about solving a paradox by adding an extra dimension. This equation would be the mathematical formula for that process.

Let’s say, to make sure I’m still on topic: spirituality is the upward path, religion (as a control mechanism at least) is the downward path.