SPIRITUALITY IS NOT RELIGION...

[regnauld]

---

This is the difference with us, you don't know a certain thing then yet you've concluded already.
The original bible or the bible wrote by apostle don't have verses and chapter before.
It was just made by a Catholic priest so that it can be easily located and remembered.
Conclusions? I have not concluded anything yet... that's what you think.

How many times the bible had been revised? answer me that simple question... do you think that during revisions, there were no misspelled, ommissions, changed or even ripped bcause it was necessary for the readers? Do you know who translated all the bibles in the first place? Roman Catholics for crying out loud... meaning to say brod, the book that you're reading was made by Catholics... protestants even uses the same bible as catholics... so, answer me that question... no verses... let me see if you really understand what you have read.


Poetic are rhymed, thus the bible?
King james version are translated word for word that's why it seems out of grammar.
So kinsay nauna shakespeare or bible?
Don't you consider that shakespeare inspired by the bible the way he wrote his sonnets?

Ironside gave you the answers brod, and you still don't see the point...

The original bible or the bible wrote by apostle don't have verses and chapter before.
It was just made by a Catholic priest so that it can be easily located and remembered


I beg to disagree with you with two points here.

1. The bible was not made by the catholic priest. The original bible from Greek was translated by St. Jerome into Latin.

2. The bible had been revised both by catholics and protestants. The original tranlsation still belongs to the Catholic church but it doesn't mean that it was perverted or twisted. St. Jerome, Doctor of the church was a universl scholar of the sacred scripture. The King James version and the Tyndale bible (protestant bibles) were just copied from the original sources. The protestant bible is not even complete because it lacks the deuterocanonical books.

[regnauld]

spirituality is not a religion. i think it's much better to say, religion is not spirituality.

Yet religion is a vehicle to experience authentic spirituality.

[great_jaq]

spirituality is not religion...

Religion separates people.

Religion is the opium of the people

amen!!!!!!!!

[Malic]

but is spirituality part of religion?

Can spirituality stand w/o religion?

[Hellblazer 2.1]

but is spirituality part of religion?

Can spirituality stand w/o religion?

i think it may be possible.

[regnauld]

but is spirituality part of religion?

Can spirituality stand w/o religion?

Yes. Spirituality is an integral part of Religion. Religion is a vehicle for man to experience authentic spirituality.
Yes. Spirituality can stand without religion because "Man is a spiritual being having a human experience rather than a human being having a spiritual experience."

[Malic]

Yes. Spirituality is an integral part of Religion. Religion is a vehicle for man to experience authentic spirituality.
Yes. Spirituality can stand without religion because "Man is a spiritual being having a human experience rather than a spiritual being having a human experience."

I got your point on the first part. The next is a little cloudy.

[regnauld]

I got your point on the first part. The next is a little cloudy.

I will cite an example. If a child was born growing up without a religion, do you think that child cannot experience spirituality? I think no. The child starts to wonder about the universe and its mysteries and will come to the conclusion that there is a higher being or great architect who designed this universe. The child feels he is part of the great wonders of life. My point: The child in essence is spiritual.

[Hellblazer 2.1]

so, religion is unnecessary to the path of spirituality. but the child still needs to be schooled, right?

[regnauld]

so, religion is unnecessary to the path of spirituality. but the child still needs to be schooled, right?

yes indoctrinated by their so called religion!