Phemanderac wrote on Sep 24^th, 2014 at 5:36pm:


I would call it "personal spirituality", myself. I ask nobody nor expect nobody to believe in what I believe, in regards to God and spirituality. I see God as a very different being than the one that organised religions see it, and though I may mention my "version" from time to time, I'm not asking anybody to believe. Especially when most people would probably see me as a nutcase anyway, so it's pointless and really not my responsibility or business to tell others "how it is". What makes humans unique from one another is, after all, what they believe, and the varying differences. This forum itself is a beautiful example of diversity, I've observed many people from all different walks of life with different opinions and beliefs. Though it is a little annoying to have your posts picked a part, analysed, and over-analysed, I can still appreciate and understand why the opposition sees the world the way they do.

I have a theory about organised religions -- especially Christianity -- that they originally started out as schools of thought and were much more basic, but due to years of distortion, such as interpretation and edited bibles, it has become simply a tool to control, to trap somebody in a particular mindset. This mindset is extremely promoting lack of self respect, in my opinion, but in a way, also encourages selfishness and greed -- simply because people only obey the ten commandments so when they die, they get to live forever in a beautiful paradise known as heaven. Where is the self-responsibility, the desire to be a decent person without the expectation of something in return?
The bible also tells you not to worship at all, yet we see a continuous reverence of the Lord Jesus Christ.
And then there is the logic in committing a sin, whenever you want, just so long as you repent. So technically it means you can do whatever you like, but it's all good and all is forgiven if you "repent". How do you repent, exactly? All you have to do is confess your sins, when true repenting is becoming aware of a mistake you have made, and learning from it.
Also, the commandments of God sounds eerily like the "you can't do this, you can't do that" we get from authority. The elite of our world has very carefully and intelligently turned spiritual enlightenment into a tool of control, which destroys actual spiritual evolution.
To me, spirituality is about waking up, knowing that you are alive, and learning about life through experiences on a personal level -- it doesn't actually involve other people, but obviously you experience many things through interacting with others.
Spirituality doesn't always mean "good and evil" you can be "evil" and "spiritual". Good and evil are just narrow-minded concepts, I prefer to use positive and negative. We can use positive energy or negative energy in our experiences.

As to your first question, I think when people find out for themselves that organised religion is just a scam, they are more likely to disregard spirituality altogether because most don't know of anything better.

Thanks Phem and Free.

Excellent posts.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 8:48pm:


I think he's being open-minded.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 25^th, 2014 at 8:33pm:


Thanks and no worries

Thank for you response Free, I have chosen not to quote it due to space, so forgive me if I get bits muddled in my response 

Years back I had a fleeting interest in all things Celtic (I thought I was engaging with my culture, but, let's face it, it's patently evident that head hunting is not a socially acceptable activity these days and that was high on the Celts agenda of fun things to do). In my readings I was taken with an idea presented (I can't remember who the author was) that when the first clan based tribes decided to link up forming a broader community was the beginning of Celtic organised religion (Druids etc). According to texts that I read at the time, this was based on the idea that mere mortals could not tell other men how to live. Now, as a clan based tribe, the head of the clan (Matriarch or Patriarch - Celts had both...) made the rules, clearly this would not work with two or more familial groups forming (in effect) super tribes. So, the Shaman (nearest thing to their wise elders at the time) got together with their shared legends of famous people. In a sense, they elevated the most notorious of these to demigods (perhaps some became Gods, I don't know I wasn't there though..) and it was the moral conduct of these demigods/Gods that their laws were based on.

In a sense it has always been about power and control, however, it seems that the origins were slightly more well intended as a system to codify how tribes could get along together and survive. Sadly, somewhere over the last 40,000 years the original intent has been perverted (in my opinion) and, for the main part, the organisation of religion has been a simplistic tool to exert power and control over the masses. It was one thing that I think Karl Marx got a bit right when he wrote the famous "opiate of the masses" comment.

Also, as I said in the OP, the term "enlightenment" might not be a good word to have used, unfortunately I still don't have another to offer up as the alternate to organised religion.

For my part though, I will state clearly, that I am personally not an adherent to, a supporter of or a fan of that beast (as I see it) that is organised religion. I don't say this with any intent to malign those who do practice their form of religion with any of the organised groups, but instead, to be completely honest about my position.

Also Free, to be clear, I do not place Christianity any better, worse or more or less responsible than any other group. Religion has been an organised thing long before that time of (the alleged Christ), however, yes, I think most religion has its basis in being a "school of thought" or, more pointedly, a way of life. It strikes me that most pagan religions, for example (and still organised) were very connected with nature and based on the natural cycles of life the people developing the practices were living with daily. To my mind, it seems at some level that it may have been a whole lot easier in those times to actually live your faith, given it's connection to the every day world you lived in.

The problems though that history demonstrates for us consistently to this day, is that the different sects all are ultimately about the same thing - a code of conduct that will lead you to spiritual fulfilment.... Except, barring a few (comparatively) they don't.... They more consistently lead to turmoil and conflict when they encounter the "differences" that other groups have identified as important.

This for me comes back to our species having climbed the ladder only as far as adolescence presently. I like to think that we as a species can grow out of being our own worst enemies. I am hopeful that we as a species can learn to clean up our messes (as it were) and put our toys away without too much fuss one day. Hell, we might even grow up, move out and get real jobs.

I suspect though, that when we do grow up we may find quite naturally we don't need our religion (or personal spirituality) organised for us at any level.

Thou shalt not steal
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's ass etc nor anything that is thy neighbour's
Thou shalt not murder
Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbour

Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us

Turn the other cheek

If someone steals your cloak, give them your shoes

Love your neighbour as yourself

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you


If you were setting up a neighbourhood, the above wouldn't be a bad template for neighbourly cooperation and peaceful coexistence

Church-goers donating goods for the less fortunate - at home and around the globe

It's apparently a trend now to knock organised religion, to toss the baby out with the bathwater.  Makes people feel tough, 'grown up', rebellious

Most people wouldn't give two seconds' thought to spirituality, were it not for religious instruction at school

They'd wander through life like animals on two legs, taking anything not nailed down, taking offence whenever possible, bullying, stealing, etc.

Organised religion contains much good, useful content, regardless of whichever 'brand' of religion it might be.  A lot can be gleaned from even a cursory read of various religions.  They've kept many people on the straight and narrow and the work of the police would be far more demanding and extensive without organised religion, imo

When they find themselves in prison, many turn to religion for comfort, for direction and as a way of finding peace and self-forgiveness, self-acceptance, inspiration

Sure, some prisoners claim a new-found interest in religion as a means of manipulating parole boards, but not all

People are always going to seek meaning (within their own lives and those of others, the world around them, etc.).  Their search renders them vulnerable to leaders, be they warlords, magicians, god-figures, etc.  That won't change even if organised religions crumble to dust.  Others will take their place, always have

Many need direction, instruction.  They want it.  They can't do it for themselves.  They want to be led, shown, told

Some can negotiate large railway stations without assistance.  The majority need the loudspeakers, the timetables, the big number displays telling them where to go and how to get there

Many people would be thrown into terrified confusion and severe depression if they didn't have the assurances of their religion regarding how to live in order to arrive at a wonderful afterlife.  Who'd take that away from them?  What would it achieve?  What should be offered to them in return?

One man's enlightenment is another's nightmare

Who can claim with confidence that organised religion doesn't provide enlightenment to its followers by whatever route?

What's enlightenment anyway?  Who's going to claim they've discovered the answers when they may not address or satisfy others' questions?

Freedumb wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2014 at 9:12pm:


I think teachers should encourage students to teach themselves. Let them come to their own conclusions.

Rather than saying 'xyz means hsufahr and you should 4 times a year........' perhaps they should say "now, can we all read chapters 2 - 14 and think about how it refers to yourself and the world'

Give a person a fish, feed them for a day
Teach them how to fish, feed them forever.