To me It is the beginning of spirituality, still with a mixing of religion, so a hybrid between the 2, for those who believe in God’s relationship with mankind. It is finding fault with the religion and it’s interpretation and condemning aspects of it, it is realizing one’s ‘god-self’ and righteous authority to do that.
How I am defining them:
Religion = Man made rules that simulate a relationship with God, but have nothing really to do with God.
Spirituality = Relationship with God and/or spiritual beings, including the supernatural soul/spirit of other people and (higher) self.
It is a path towards independent thinking and breaking away from religion, and figuring out things for one’s self and our place in the universe, a similar path is done by Atheists who left religion, however this is more of a gradual process, not a all at once slamming the door, type of process that one may associate with Atheism. And yes some people do get stuck there in this hybrid state.
This breaking away from religion is needed to become a child of God, and is normal and good and part of God’s plan.
I really like a lot of what you are saying here, kanicbird. I NEVER refer to myself as being a RELIGIOUS person, in fact I cringe when I hear someone saying that about me. I usually correct them and prefer to be thought of as someone SPIRITUAL-minded, not religious.
Religious makes me think I’m following some man made religion’s dogma, which Can be hit or miss. I think I have attended and left about 10 different denominations because I just wasn’t religious enough to stay in that religion (according to their dogma and interpretation).
If you have cobbled together your own personal version of Christianity, you have a religion. If you don’t have followers, well that’s a difference in degree, not kind.
Joseph Smith did the same thing you did (came to his own set of beliefs). He was just able to get a bunch of people to follow him.
As far as the Bible (whichever canon you select) is concerned, no-one is a strict literalist. It’s impossible to follow all the dictates in the text literally.
Simster: And what part of the “holy bible” or scripture do you think Timothy was reffering to there –
TM: I believe it has to be the First testament, known more commonly as the Old Testament (I dislike that connotation) because when Paul wrote these words to Timothy in 2 Timothy, there was no New Testament. But let me add this thought, since the New Testament came into being, I think one can infer to that those words also are meant to be applied.
Simster: And don’t you think thats a bit of circular reasoning? “The bible is beneficial because the bible says it is”
TM: it sure sounds like it, but if you believe God wants to communicate with man by leaving his word to be written for all to read for all time, then it makes sense. To me, this is just Gods way of saying to those who are reading his word- “You can believe these words you are reading because they come from my thoughts I passed to man to record.”
Of course, one has to have faith in these matters, right? I realize this is not good enough for some, which is why some do not believe.
It’s just that citing the Bible as an argument for the Bible’s own truth is…circular.
The Koran and the Book of Mormon both have verses that say that these books are the word of God. Those verses aren’t enough for you; why should the similar verses in the Bible be good enough for a Muslim or a Mormon…or any of them good enough for a nonbeliever?
Faith is fine, but it is pretty much self-contained. You can’t realistically argue for a faith-based position, only “witness” for it.
(I like to compare it to personal tastes in cuisine. I can’t possibly “argue” you into agreeing with me on my choice of pizza toppings. Either you share my tastes or you don’t. There isn’t any “right or wrong” in personal tastes, and there isn’t any possible “evidence” that one is better than another.)
Good points. Here are a few thoughts I have after reading your post as to why the Bible is different than any other religious book and why I trust it:
I rely on the words of the Holy Bible over Koran, Book of Mormon, whatever because I have confidence that what is written is accurate and I can count on it to be true. On what basis do I say this? The Bible, as you know, is almost one third prophetic. For example, it has been stated that there are over 300 prophecies foretelling the coming of the Messiah, Jesus. (This is not the place to discuss each of those prophecies, but anyone can find links to show this.) To me, that is powerful. The Koran, Book of Mormon have none.
Of course, I believe Jesus not only was a historical person, but was who he said he was, The Son of God and Lord incarnate, who rose from the dead, as witnessed by over 500 people. Of course, Buddha, Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or any other religious leader can say that.
To me, this is all I need. To you or any Joe Blow, it may not be enough. Maybe it all comes down to FAITH, but I actually don’t think this is BLIND faith because what are the odds of all 300 prophecies actually coming true as told? Astronomically “impossible” I’m told…and yet it did come true (I’m satisfied ).
I may have veered off topic a bit and for that I apologize. I’m very tired. I will pick this back up in the morning.
Tell that to any minister of the Church of God in Christ, and they’ll explain at length why you’re wrong. Of course, COGIC ministers tend to be simple.folk, the common clay of the west…
That the Bible is prophetic is, of course, a matter of opinion. There are many prophecies relating to the eventual coming of the Jewish Messiah…but Jesus fails to fulfill a great many of these.
You’re also quite wrong about the Book of Mormon and the Koran: they both have a goodly number of prophecies.
(I do not advertise these web-sites for the validity of their contents – far from it – but only to observe the factual error entailed in claiming that neither of these books engages in prophecy. They do, however inadequately to fact.)
Again, there is no universal agreement that any prophecies were actually fulfilled. Jesus didn’t lead the Jewish people to a great military conquest, for instance, which was one of the roles of the Messiah.
As to your faith, again, no worries. You’re absolutely free to any faith you want. I won’t attack it, nor seriously question it. Everyone can have the faith they choose. You just can’t have the facts you choose. There is a different process of evaluating the truth of factual claims.
Again, there is no universal agreement that any prophecies were actually fulfilled. Jesus didn’t lead the Jewish people to a great military conquest, for instance, which was one of the roles of the Messiah.
I believe this is especially where the chosen people of God, the Jewish people, get tripped up. The Tanakh (OT) is full of prophecies regarding BOTH the first and second coming of the Messiah!!! Obviously, God knew his Son would be rejected the first time he entered the planet. Thus, there are prophecies concerning both comings.
Of course, some may not see it, and that is fine by me, but what is clear to me which makes it fact to me is that there are hundreds of prophecies regarding the Messiah’s first coming, which were fulfilled.
There were prophecies regarding his rejection ((Isaiah in particular, chapter 53 being most obvious to me), which were fulfilled, and lastly, there are a ton of prophecies regarding that MILITARY CONQUEST you brought up, which will occur at Armageddon. This makes it his second coming. Again, I believe, perhaps in the not so distant future, this will be fulfilled.
So to me, based on my exegesis of scripture (which millions throughout the years have shared) it is all right there- God telling man what will happen, and it all happens just as He said. This is why I have so much confidence in that book.
If still interested, here is a website documenting the fulfilled prophecies I mentioned above.
