Forum Home Forum Home > Topics not related to music > General discussions
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Spiritual but not religious?
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedSpiritual but not religious?

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617>
Author
Message Reverse Sort Order
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 18:12
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Regarding Mormonism specifically, we can quite easily investigate Joseph Smith's life and claims.  For example, he made prophecies that failed to come to pass.  According to the Bible, that makes him a false prophet, and we should ignore him (Deuteronomy 18:22).  Easy enough.

Mormons teach that The Book of Mormon is consistent with The Bible.  It is not.  This is why I do not consider Mormonism "true Christianity."

Now, with respect to the question of "Are Mormons saved or not..."  ...well, that's a different matter altogether. Wink



Well, you're quoting scripture to make a point against - scripture. Just because the old testament is old doesn't make it any more relevant. The whole book of Genesis has been shown to be fiction by Jewish scientists ...

Anyway - how about John the Baptist's claim that the new prophet would come in his lifetime ... or Jesus' claims that the world would end in his lifetime? He was a doomsday fanatic, convinced that the world was going to end soon - "have no thought for tomorrow". Excuse me, but does anybody see the problem here?

But like in any cult movement, when prophecies don't come true, many cultists get even more fanatic. It's counter-intuitive, but the fact that many Christians still expect the second coming of Christ after it's been postponed numerous times kind of illustrates this nicely.


I find it amusing that you accused me of being "a tad arrogant," especially in light of claims you make.  I'm pretty sure no one has proved the whole book of Genesis to be fiction.  That's silly.  And even if I believed that, what do you expect me to say?  "Oh gee, somebody says some Jewish scientists proved the whole book of Genesis to be a work of fiction.  I think I will be an atheist now."

The new prophet John the Baptist spoke of?  That would be Jesus Christ. 

As for the passage you're referring to about Jesus, that's in Matthew 24, and you assume that he is talking about the same stuff that's in Revelation. 
Matthew 24 is one of the most divisive passages in Scripture because (I would argue) of the way the passage is often translated (especially the Greek word aion, which would refer to an age, not planet Earth).  The Jews recognized two ages- the Mosaic age, and the age of the Messiah, and the latter would have no end (Luke 1:31-33).  There is also a lot of Ancient Near Eastern "judgment language" (like the stars not shining) that hearers would understand immediately (such phrases are found in the Old Testament, like Isaiah 13:10).  In short, Matthew 24 regards the consummation of the Mosaic age and the events that happened in 66-70 AD.  This article is lengthy, but does a good job explaining this.

Now I've admitted several times that eschatology is a weak subject for me, but that is my understanding of Matthew 24.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:58
Originally posted by akamaisondufromage akamaisondufromage wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying.




Not necessarily.  If my wife gives me permission to sleep with other women (an "open marriage"), and I do, I have still committed adultery (and committed evil), even if it did not hurt my wife.

I do not base my morality on "not hurting" other people.  You see?  You do have a philosophical basis for morality.  Wink
 
That seems an extreme thing to say.  Do you really think that?  (I suppose you must you said it).  Out of interest what is evil?
 
(Sorry to butt in!)LOL


Evil is being and doing that which God calls evil.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:43
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying.




Not necessarily.  If my wife gives me permission to sleep with other women (an "open marriage"), and I do, I have still committed adultery (and committed evil), even if it did not hurt my wife.

I do not base my morality on "not hurting" other people.  You see?  You do have a philosophical basis for morality.  Wink


Well, there you have it. When you say "adultery" you actually mean the victimless crime against god, when I only see the empathic level of whether someone suffers in the process. This is how religion poisons your mind. You have effectively destroyed your basis for morality, since your objective is simply pleasing your god. What happens to actual people is peripheral, unless it might also violate one of your religious rules - then you obey because you fear to be punished by your god. How can anything be a moral action if you do it out of fear of eternal damnation?


That's a smug accusation to make.  It's also loaded with assumptions.  I do not "obey because I "fear to be punished by [my] god," for one.  I obey out of gratitude.  But you have proven not to understand the true concept of faith and grace ("patronage") as they related to ancient people, so I don't expect you to understand this.

Also, you judge morality on motivation.  Is that true?  If it is, I'm surprised.  Lots of people don't break the law because they fear legal consequences.  Would a person refraining from theft for that reason alone not be acting morally?





Edited by Epignosis - June 06 2010 at 17:56
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:14
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying.




Not necessarily.  If my wife gives me permission to sleep with other women (an "open marriage"), and I do, I have still committed adultery (and committed evil), even if it did not hurt my wife.

I do not base my morality on "not hurting" other people.  You see?  You do have a philosophical basis for morality.  Wink


Well, there you have it. When you say "adultery" you actually mean the victimless crime against god, when I only see the empathic level of whether someone suffers in the process. This is how religion poisons your mind. You have effectively destroyed your basis for morality, since your objective is simply pleasing your god. What happens to actual people is peripheral, unless it might also violate one of your religious rules - then you obey because you fear to be punished by your god. How can anything be a moral action if you do it out of fear of eternal damnation?
Back to Top
akamaisondufromage View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar
VIP Member

Joined: May 16 2009
Location: Blighty
Status: Offline
Points: 6797
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:12
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying.




Not necessarily.  If my wife gives me permission to sleep with other women (an "open marriage"), and I do, I have still committed adultery (and committed evil), even if it did not hurt my wife.

I do not base my morality on "not hurting" other people.  You see?  You do have a philosophical basis for morality.  Wink
 
That seems an extreme thing to say.  Do you really think that?  (I suppose you must you said it).  Out of interest what is evil?
 
(Sorry to butt in!)LOL
Help me I'm falling!
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:09
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Mike, Henry said that, not me.  Could you correct the quote box please?  Thanks.


Embarrassed Sorry.
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 17:00
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying.




Not necessarily.  If my wife gives me permission to sleep with other women (an "open marriage"), and I do, I have still committed adultery (and committed evil), even if it did not hurt my wife.

I do not base my morality on "not hurting" other people.  You see?  You do have a philosophical basis for morality.  Wink
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:56
Mike, Henry said that, not me.  Could you correct the quote box please?  Thanks.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:45
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:39
^ Adultery? Where is this coming from all of a sudden?

I never said that adultery is moral. Personally, I think it is wrong because it involves hurting a person. It's a special form of lying.

About children: I have none. But some of my friends and relatives have children, and I have seen many times that they adopt the behavior of their parents. My stepsister married a Muslim from Tunisia, and they have two cute daughters at the age of 3 and 1. Their parents are always arguing and the "man" in the house is beating the children and his wife. Our whole family is on the verge of breaking up because of this, and what do you know ... I saw the 1 year old daughter hit her grandmother when she wasn't getting what she wanted.

We are all hard-wired to be good (peaceful, empathic, generous, forgiving etc.) but it's very easy to change that for parents. That's my take on the situation.

BTW: I "bow" to nobody. I simply hear the criticism and come up with arguments against it. Needless to say that religious people will not accept these arguments when they are in contradiction with their dogma, which simply is not up for discussion.


Originally posted by Henry Plainview Henry Plainview wrote:


I think being spiritual but not religious is really a contradiction in terms


I think that being spiritual and religious is a contradiction in terms. It all depends on how you define "spiritual" of course, but IMO religious dogma is always in contradiction with introspection and reflection. Dogma tells you what to believe, removing any need for spiritual journeys or discoveries except for those that confirm the dogma.





Edited by Mr ProgFreak - June 06 2010 at 17:08
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:10
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Like I said, keep it to thine self, that's all I want.



I don't see how this is helpful at all (and would inevitably mean the end of traditional religion- maybe that's your point).


Well, it certainly is my point. Basically Christianity could be described as a racket started by John the Baptist, with Jesus (who was one of his disciples) as the successor. And after that you have Saul/Paul, picking up the scam without even having known Jesus in person. He sets up this new religion as an improved version of Judaism, without the inconveniences of circumcision, kosher meat etc.. There are also no fixed taxes to pay to the priests ... you pay only what you can afford to give. No wonder this new religion thrived.

"Be a good person". That's a motto that most modern Christians would agree to, yet it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Spirituality also has nothing to do with Christianity ... you're not supposed to be spiritual, you're simply supposed to believe what you're taught. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll stick with being good and pursuing some kind of spirituality by meditation/introspection and pondering the meaning of life.


Right...it's all a big scam that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul profited greatly from.  Really made them rich and got them in good with the Roman elite.  Ermm


No, in fact they died or got imprisoned for their beliefs. But they managed to pull people away from the established religions. The profit came later - when the religion became more powerful. They may not even have intended the profit in the first place - maybe it was simply about power or the feeling of satisfaction that you can get from people following you.


This is one of the silliest claims you've ever made.  May I remind you that Paul was already among the elite?  He was a Pharisee, a "Hebrew among Hebrews," and he was a furious persecutor and killer of early Christians.

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:


Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


I don't even know what being "spiritual" means in this context.

"Be a good person" is, in itself, a meaningless imperative.


It's only meaningless if you think that good end evil are values defined by religious books. I maintain that these definitions are innate - education can pervert them or enhance them, but in essence anything that religion can tell us originally comes from our own intuition.

Spirituality enters this context because atheists (which don't follow any religion) are often criticised by religious people to be overly rational and blind to the spiritual aspects of life.



I maintain that adultery is immoral (as does the Bible).  "Nature" would have us being sexually proliferate.  The very fact that your idea of what is good will run counter to the varying code of ethics people adopt throughout the world (irrespective of religion in many cases) demonstrates that morality is in no way innate (in fact, I don't know if you have children, but I can attest that they don't have a clue what is right and wrong unless they are taught- otherwise they will often behave selfishly, deceitfully, and without regard for others).

What "spiritual aspects of life?"  What does that mean?  I'm asking.  And since when do you, an atheist, bow to the criticisms of the religious?
Back to Top
Henry Plainview View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: May 26 2008
Location: Declined
Status: Offline
Points: 16715
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 16:02
Technically Mike, the apocalypse was only delayed once.

I think being spiritual but not religious is really a contradiction in terms, and generally speaking I'm pretty sure they're just being too lazy to commit to anything.
if you own a sodastream i hate you
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:50
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


Regarding Mormonism specifically, we can quite easily investigate Joseph Smith's life and claims.  For example, he made prophecies that failed to come to pass.  According to the Bible, that makes him a false prophet, and we should ignore him (Deuteronomy 18:22).  Easy enough.

Mormons teach that The Book of Mormon is consistent with The Bible.  It is not.  This is why I do not consider Mormonism "true Christianity."

Now, with respect to the question of "Are Mormons saved or not..."  ...well, that's a different matter altogether. Wink



Well, you're quoting scripture to make a point against - scripture. Just because the old testament is old doesn't make it any more relevant. The whole book of Genesis has been shown to be fiction by Jewish scientists ...

Anyway - how about John the Baptist's claim that the new prophet would come in his lifetime ... or Jesus' claims that the world would end in his lifetime? He was a doomsday fanatic, convinced that the world was going to end soon - "have no thought for tomorrow". Excuse me, but does anybody see the problem here?

But like in any cult movement, when prophecies don't come true, many cultists get even more fanatic. It's counter-intuitive, but the fact that many Christians still expect the second coming of Christ after it's been postponed numerous times kind of illustrates this nicely.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:41
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Like I said, keep it to thine self, that's all I want.



I don't see how this is helpful at all (and would inevitably mean the end of traditional religion- maybe that's your point).


Well, it certainly is my point. Basically Christianity could be described as a racket started by John the Baptist, with Jesus (who was one of his disciples) as the successor. And after that you have Saul/Paul, picking up the scam without even having known Jesus in person. He sets up this new religion as an improved version of Judaism, without the inconveniences of circumcision, kosher meat etc.. There are also no fixed taxes to pay to the priests ... you pay only what you can afford to give. No wonder this new religion thrived.

"Be a good person". That's a motto that most modern Christians would agree to, yet it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Spirituality also has nothing to do with Christianity ... you're not supposed to be spiritual, you're simply supposed to believe what you're taught. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll stick with being good and pursuing some kind of spirituality by meditation/introspection and pondering the meaning of life.


Right...it's all a big scam that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul profited greatly from.  Really made them rich and got them in good with the Roman elite.  Ermm


No, in fact they died or got imprisoned for their beliefs. But they managed to pull people away from the established religions. The profit came later - when the religion became more powerful. They may not even have intended the profit in the first place - maybe it was simply about power or the feeling of satisfaction that you can get from people following you.

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


I don't even know what being "spiritual" means in this context.

"Be a good person" is, in itself, a meaningless imperative.


It's only meaningless if you think that good end evil are values defined by religious books. I maintain that these definitions are innate - education can pervert them or enhance them, but in essence anything that religion can tell us originally comes from our own intuition.

Spirituality enters this context because atheists (which don't follow any religion) are often criticised by religious people to be overly rational and blind to the spiritual aspects of life.
Back to Top
Chris S View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: June 09 2004
Location: Front Range
Status: Offline
Points: 7028
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:38
I think we could go on and on so I am going to have one final comment and leave this thread. So much emphasis in some religions is put on the words of religions. To coin the science ficton great ,Frank Herbert, the people have come, through religious spin, obssessed with the words of God/their Prophets and have forgotten to worship God directly.
And I dismiss comments stating that you cannot be spiritual if you are not religious........................Why? Because I Know that you can, and that is as strong as faith.
To each their own.
<font color=Brown>Music - The Sound Librarian

...As I venture through the slipstream, between the viaducts in your dreams...[/COLOR]
Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 15:13
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:



From my perspective, I see little difference between your positions. How can you be so sure that you're right?


I've shared this with you many times before.  I will quote the exchange:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Where have I given "personal opinion?"

I've cited three areas of study for my belief.  Do you need them again? 

History, prophecy, and typology.

None of these things are opinions.  Nor are any of these things proof.  I'm not out to prove anything, but I can provide evidence and reasons.  Just because they aren't from the school of science doesn't make them invalid for discussion.


That's where we disagree. Of course I accept history - but the further we go back, the more we'll have to take the reported "facts" with a grain of salt. Especially in the case of the bible, which contains inconsistencies that people who are more knowledgeable on the bible than I could ever be have shown, and which - like shown in the video - also professors of biblical studies teach.


But not prophecy.  Either Christ fulfilled ancient prophecy or he did not.

However, I know you aren't interested in that subject, so I believe I can once again safely bow out of the discussion.

Have a great weekend Mike.  Smile


Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

^ you too! Smile


Regarding Mormonism specifically, we can quite easily investigate Joseph Smith's life and claims.  For example, he made prophecies that failed to come to pass.  According to the Bible, that makes him a false prophet, and we should ignore him (Deuteronomy 18:22).  Easy enough.

Mormons teach that The Book of Mormon is consistent with The Bible.  It is not.  This is why I do not consider Mormonism "true Christianity."

Now, with respect to the question of "Are Mormons saved or not..."  ...well, that's a different matter altogether. Wink

Back to Top
Epignosis View Drop Down
Special Collaborator
Special Collaborator
Avatar
Honorary Collaborator

Joined: December 30 2007
Location: Raeford, NC
Status: Offline
Points: 32581
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:56
Originally posted by Mr ProgFreak Mr ProgFreak wrote:

Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Like I said, keep it to thine self, that's all I want.



I don't see how this is helpful at all (and would inevitably mean the end of traditional religion- maybe that's your point).


Well, it certainly is my point. Basically Christianity could be described as a racket started by John the Baptist, with Jesus (who was one of his disciples) as the successor. And after that you have Saul/Paul, picking up the scam without even having known Jesus in person. He sets up this new religion as an improved version of Judaism, without the inconveniences of circumcision, kosher meat etc.. There are also no fixed taxes to pay to the priests ... you pay only what you can afford to give. No wonder this new religion thrived.

"Be a good person". That's a motto that most modern Christians would agree to, yet it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Spirituality also has nothing to do with Christianity ... you're not supposed to be spiritual, you're simply supposed to believe what you're taught. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll stick with being good and pursuing some kind of spirituality by meditation/introspection and pondering the meaning of life.


Right...it's all a big scam that John the Baptist, Jesus, and Paul profited greatly from.  Really made them rich and got them in good with the Roman elite.  Ermm

I don't even know what being "spiritual" means in this context.

"Be a good person" is, in itself, a meaningless imperative.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:54
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:


He asked me what I liked.

I said I like beer.

He told me beer was bad for me.

I told him so was his cake.


Isn't this a tad arrogant? I mean, you keep telling me (at least I remember that from previous discussions) that you *know* you're right. Now there's this other guy who also *knows* he's right. He believes in wooden submarines, you believe in a world wide flood and a boat that someone built and used to perpetuate people and all land animals of the planet.

From my perspective, I see little difference between your positions. How can you be so sure that you're right? Nothing in scripture can verify your claims unless you see scripture as evidence in and of itself - which the Mormons also claim for their magic book. You can try to beef up your point using the argument of revelation - you can claim that Jesus talks to you, or you sense his presence by other means. But again, your counterpart claims the same. Add to that that experiments have shown that there's an area of the brain which, if properly stimulated, creates just this kind of spiritual experience.

By this argument alone all religions are easily exposed as what they are: Man made delusions.
Back to Top
Mr ProgFreak View Drop Down
Forum Senior Member
Forum Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: November 08 2008
Location: Sweden
Status: Offline
Points: 5195
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:44
Originally posted by Epignosis Epignosis wrote:

Originally posted by JJLehto JJLehto wrote:

Like I said, keep it to thine self, that's all I want.



I don't see how this is helpful at all (and would inevitably mean the end of traditional religion- maybe that's your point).


Well, it certainly is my point. Basically Christianity could be described as a racket started by John the Baptist, with Jesus (who was one of his disciples) as the successor. And after that you have Saul/Paul, picking up the scam without even having known Jesus in person. He sets up this new religion as an improved version of Judaism, without the inconveniences of circumcision, kosher meat etc.. There are also no fixed taxes to pay to the priests ... you pay only what you can afford to give. No wonder this new religion thrived.

"Be a good person". That's a motto that most modern Christians would agree to, yet it has nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus. Spirituality also has nothing to do with Christianity ... you're not supposed to be spiritual, you're simply supposed to believe what you're taught. Thanks, but no thanks ... I'll stick with being good and pursuing some kind of spirituality by meditation/introspection and pondering the meaning of life.
Back to Top
JJLehto View Drop Down
Prog Reviewer
Prog Reviewer
Avatar

Joined: April 05 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Status: Offline
Points: 34550
Direct Link To This Post Posted: June 06 2010 at 14:25
LOL
Well played Rob.
Yeah, back in early High School I knew a kid who was a Jehovah's Witness and he was always trying to give me his pamphlet's. I don't have so much a problem the door to door either because at least they go away if you ignore, or just say "no sorry".  At least where I live.

And actually I do remember walking back to my dorm and a Mormon stopped me to talk about it. Told me about their on campus meetings and all. Also, the one guy who was standing right outside a door and just thrust a small New Testament into my hand LOL. Needless to say, not the way I'd prefer it

I guess it happens all across the spectrum (damn atheists outside the HUB with horns yelling their insanity at us) and we seem to agree that if we don't want it, just leave us be.


Edited by JJLehto - June 06 2010 at 14:26
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 1314151617>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.273 seconds.
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.