The origin of "religion"

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller


Thanks again Matrix! To avoid any confusion, the full link is here:

www.levitt.com...

I read a neurologist who thought religion had its roots in an excessive tendencey to assign agency to other objects. For example, a leaping tiger has "agency": it is coming at you, controlling its own movemments, with the intent to rip your throat out, of its own accord. A skittering leaf has no "agency:" it cannot control its movements of its own accord, and it is not coming in your direction "on purpose."

According to the neurologist, man (and other animals) evolved an excessive sense of agency: we tend to see purpose and purposeful action more frequentl than it actually occurs. this is why young kids might think tree shadows are ghosts or whatever. From an evolutionary standpoint, this is very useful: Who survives, the man who thinks a tiger is acting like a leaf or a leaf is acting like a tiger? There is an unfortunate "by product" to this excess sense of agency: The whole world seems alive and jumping and everything seems full of purpose, even when its just "stuff happening." To organize this excess sensation into something man can live with, we developed various rituals and beliefs that eventually became religion/spirituality.

reply to post by silent thunder


Interesting...can honestly say I've never heard of that!

Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller
But you can find the roots of religion back before Plato and Socrates... In China for example we can go back at least 5,000 years and still find today many small temples scattered across China of many different gods.

Oh, we can go back a lot further than five thousand years. Evidence of religion in prehistory.

Religion is at least as old as Homo Sapiens.

Given this knowledge, how do you think it came into being, and why?

Originally posted by Wookiep
reply to post by silent thunder

 

Interesting...can honestly say I've never heard of that!

Here's an amazon link to the book by the guy with this theory. To be honest its a dull and plodding book once you get the general gist of his theory, IMHO
www.amazon.com...

i honestly take Jordans Maxwell's research very seriously on this subject. It makes alot of sence. For those who arent aware he tells us that ALL religion is based on Astro-Theology.
www.jordanmaxwell.com...
Search for this guy on youtube, he really is a brilliant researcher and has some very, VERY interesting things to say. The way he puts them across makes you laugh, only because it seems so obvious when he says it, and you feel like slapping yourself in the head for being so stupid lol.
Anyway read the information in the link i gave you, that sums it up for me basically.
Also, check out this series from the infamous William Cooper:
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by The Matrix Traveller

Oh, we can go back a lot further than five thousand years. Evidence of religion in prehistory.

Religion is at least as old as Homo Sapiens.

Clearly, there is evidence of the "word" being around certainly a long time. My question is, why did the meaning change, and if it wasn't spiritual in nature (perhaps we won't ever know) from the start, who incorperated it into Christianity and why?

Given this knowledge, how do you think it came into being, and why?

Thats part of the great mystery, lets hear your theory Astyanax!

I understand and agree with your questioning!

But can others grasp this reality you have raised?

In many cases, it comes down to our interpretation, of religion ie identifying religion in history.

No all items found or discovered in history, that are said to be of religious origin, may in fact Not be religious at all.

It is only the interpretation of the Superstitious, and Religious indoctrinated members of humankind, that label much of that which is Not understood, as being of Religious content.

It is simply their belief, it is a religious artefact.

All figures or statues are Not necessarily a god, or item that is worshipped, but instead may have been for entirely different reasons perhaps only a doll or in other cases a statue representing some person in society.

Perhaps we, humankind, have a problem today, and it was Not in past history. Perhaps it our selves, that we should take a look at, including of course myself also.

I believe we are in a very unstable position today, with new frontiers being seen and explored, we are slowly waking up to a new stage in the awakening.

The majority of the human race, don't really want to know the Truth.

Some hide behind the wall of so called accepted religion, while others hide behind the human Scientific interpretation and understanding of the universe.

I do Not believe in the return of a super human, mistaken as the Carpenter, but I am Aware, the "Man Child" or "Son of Man" returned near on 2,000 years ago.

In other words "The Son of Man" or "Man Child" is Not a human, such as A'Dam or the Descendants of A'Dam, but is rather a component of the Soul.

Here is a quote from "The Gospel of Thomas" again.. LOL...

Quote:-

51. His disciple said to Him,

“When will the repose of the dead come about,
and when will the New World come?”

He said to them,

“What you look forward to,
has already come,
but you do Not recognise it.”

So is this Religious material ???
Or is this merely a person, or something making a statement ???

But the statement made by the Carpenter is very true!

You are right, there is Religion, being of perhaps a group, or even an individual, in touch with his/hers own beliefs, of what they would like their god to be, thus trying to assure themselves, they are correct, by being part of a group, or in a relationship with their desires and needs.

This includes the human primate component, I experience.

Then we have beliefs and this includes Science.

The Scientific community, is just another group of sincere and dedicated people, trying to find the answers, and offer explanations according to human understanding, or in some cases, the lack of knowledge and understanding.

This last statement, in No way am I saying, there is a problem with Scientific exploration, but merely states the human condition, without intending to be derogatory in any way!

The Scientific community, has never claimed to be correct in all things...

In fact, Scientific understanding or interpretation, is always developing and changing.

I personally regard this as a healthy phenomena.

Beliefs are different from religion, even though religion contains, in many cases beliefs based on the faith, of the individuals understanding and aspirations about the subject.

"Scientific Theory" is human belief, in an understanding that appears to fit into the All of things but that is all.

We don't hold all the cards, as to say.

But I believe, we are on the edge of a Scientific and social revolution and we should both recognise this and be strong and not be frightened to dig deeper into our roots, or where we have come from in the Conscious sense, what we are partaking in this experience for and where we are going in the Conscious sense.

We should Not just look at the observed, (Environment of the Earth and Universe) but look deeper in understanding the Observer, Awareness or Conscious Component of ourselves!

So you could say that my Last statement I have made involves Belief (of Purpose and Action)

But certainly is Not of Religious Content as many may believe.

So this is where the Word Religion is as you say is Changing and has in fact changed.

So you are very right in saying that Humanity has fused both religion and belief as though one!

Science is very much in danger, of being labelled a modern day Religion, by the fact that its philosophy, is based on theories which some regard as facts.

So here we see many lay people, regarding theory as fact by applying belief to the theory.

But the Scientific community, on the other hand, have never claimed theory, to be indisputable fact.

The term theory, is used to say that it is taken on board, in the light of acceptability, based on diligent observation, until such time it can be proved otherwise!

I believe or am also observing change, that tells me much of accepted Science is about to be challenged.

I also see this as a healthy development, and we should Not resist such a change.

No it won't get rid of religion, but we will come to understand ourselves better.

The understanding of religion will change by coming to know ourselves (Consciousness or Awareness being the Observer of the Experience)

Here is another quote from the same manuscript.. "The Gospel of Thomas"

Quote:-

From Verse 3.

When you come to know yourselves,
then you will become known,
and you will realise, that it is you
who are the sons,
of The Living Father.

If you will not know yourselves,
you dwell in poverty, and it is you,
who are that poverty.”

Let me remind you, I do Not use these text in a religious form but merely recognise and point out the significance regarding understanding of our world and psychology, in seeing truth in the statements of the Carpenter.

This statement by the Carpenter, refers to any stage in history, and will remain for ever, as an undeniable fact, no matter what humankind does, to try and hide from, or cover this fact in any way!


[edit on 20-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by Splitta


I really enjoy astrotheology and Mr. Maxwell's film and audio clips, etc. I think he's really on to something, especially conmcerning the STRUCTURE of myth. He exposes the way different aspercts of religion (from they layout of the pyramids to the metaphors in the Book of Revelation) relate to the night sky. The lore of the sky allowed priests to predict events like eclipses and the movement of the stars, which gave them seemingly awesome power in the eyes of their primative cohorts. Makes perfect sense.

At the same time, its important to be careful not to be overly reductive. I think religion serves many different purposes. Just like a body has a skeletal system, a digestive system, a muscle system, etc., religion has different aspects and ways in which it serves human needs. Astrotheology provides one such "system" for understanding religion, but its not the only one. Religion also comforts people, gives a sense of both meaning and mystery, imparts a sense of tradition and dignity, holds societies together, becomes a repository of common tales and lore as well as elite astrological encodements, and so on...

Religion also allows people to participate in something bigger then themselves. This is known primally as the sense of AWE. As in gazing at the sky and feeling tiny in comparison. This knowledge of our own weakness and mortality could crush us, psychologically. Religion allows us to transcend our limited selves in the form of mystical experiences, etc. or simple awe at something like a sunset...to "get outside" the limits of ourselves in some way, at least for a little while. Psychologically, this chance to participate in the Infinite balances the knowledge of our individual weakness and finitude.



[edit on 7/20/09 by silent thunder]

reply to post by silent thunder


I said this in another thread, but i think it applies appropriately as a response to your post, as well




Here's how I see things. Take it for what it's worth... my opinion


there's something that everyone is essentially trying to find. A center point. This center point can be considered "god", "the source", "nirvana", "total knowledge", WHATEVER you wish to call it... it's at the core of what all of us seek.

it is, in essence, what could be considered "god".


You can look at this all as being a big wheel. That center point that I spoke about is the center of the wheel, the hub. Each possible pathway is a spoke on the wheel. Each of us is on one of those spokes.


Some people find christianity is the spoke for them. Some people islam. Some buddhism, hinduism, tao, science, flying spaghetti monster...

Whatever your own path is, it's what is right for you, and you're on it for a reason.

Originally posted by Wookiep
Clearly, there is evidence of the "word" being around certainly a long time.

The evidence is not of the word, but of the behaviour. People have been doing religious (what you call 'spiritual' things) for about as long as they have existed. The earliest known religious acts were burials in which grave-goods were buried along with the deceased, showing belief in an afterlife and/or a spirit realm.

My question is, why did the meaning change, and if it wasn't spiritual in nature (perhaps we won't ever know) from the start, who incorperated it into Christianity and why?

The meaning didn't change. Religion changed (though not very much).

Thats part of the great mystery, lets hear your theory Astyanax!

Hardly mine. Religion evolved because it had survival value for primitive humans. We can go into more detail, if you like.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Originally posted by Wookiep

The evidence is not of the word, but of the behaviour. People have been doing religious (what you call 'spiritual' things) for about as long as they have existed. The earliest known religious acts were burials in which grave-goods were buried along with the deceased, showing belief in an afterlife and/or a spirit realm.

Woah, wait. when did I state religion was 'spiritual things' ? It seems you don't feel the defention is relevant in this conversation when in fact, how is it not? If it "originated" without "spirituality" then how is it in-fact just that today? Perhaps you havent been reading the thread? We are not in disagreement that the action of "spiritual things" has been around since time started according to man.

The meaning didn't change. Religion changed (though not very much).

Ok, explain to me how it didn't change in terms of *defenition* ? Considering the origin compared to todays defention, it seems it has changed significantly!

We can go into more detail, if you like.

Thats all up to you, and I welcome it! I only ask that you please refrain from making an argument that is not in-line whith my inquiry.

reply to post by Astyanax

The earliest known religious acts were burials in which grave-goods were buried along with the deceased, showing belief in an afterlife and/or a spirit realm.

What use is the material world to the Spirit world as you call it ???

What you have written in the above (quote) is only an assumption, based on the human understanding of some, today.

Just because items were buried with a person then does in No way indicate t6he practice of religion.

Now one knows what the reason for this may have actually been !

They felt just like you or me but acted possibly in a different way according to the environment (socially) of the day.

They perhaps would have had enough insight to know there is No after Life in terra-firma apart from being eaten perhaps by worms... LOL.

A large section of humanity have been aware, of Consciousness or Awareness (Life) being Not material, and thus realising you can't Trap "Consciousness" or "Awareness" in something material (perhaps the ground) and material things after death, are of no use, except to retain some history, left behind, stored in the ground.

Even today some humans practice this, and refer to them as time capsules !

And they, are Not necessarily Religious !

If this were the case ie "buried articles are religious artefacts" can you please give me the evidence, recorded in the writings by the ones involved in the burials.

If the evidence is/or has Not been written by the people, who were either buried, or the ones who buried them, that they had preformed a religious act can't be found, then it can only be an assumption, on the part of those finding the remains today.

Such assumptions of religious behaviour, are generally made, by those who are either a victim of religious indoctrination, or educational indoctrination, and Not fact!

It has to be remembered, there is a Political agenda at work, in the education system of today. This is in all education, also involving Human philosophy, Human Sociology, Human Sciences, and Human Religion.

We ( including you and me ) are all victims of this political system, whether we like it or not!

If we stray outside these Political boundaries today, we are branded, as an outcast and discredited!

I am probably branded as a insane, by the ignorant, or perhaps a hieratic, by the church, but this is just an occupational hazard, and does Not change the Truth, of history or the present day situation, regarding humanity.

Belief is Not fact!

You can believe in Religious beliefs, you can believe in your own beliefs, and you can believe in Scientific theories as Facts, instead of theory!

But belief does Not say you are religious.

I refer to Religious writings, because of my education and the common theme in humanity (for or Against), but at the same time, I do Not regard myself, as being Religious! Nor do I follow any religious ceremonies of humankind!

Many say I am religious, but this is because humanities interpretation of the word religious, has changed over the years just as any language does.

Dictionaries are being updated all the time to conform to our usage of words today.

Belief is Not necessarily Religion, but Religion does have beliefs. But these are accepted on trust (Faith, Not Belief) irrespective, if being correct or false!

Even if you pray, it does Not mean, you are religious.
Some people pray to themselves, or pray that something or some event won't take place, but this does Not say they are necessarily Religious!

Some people even hear voices in their head (perhaps mentally ill), but this does Not make them religious !

Religion is a very, very loose term, and can be attached to anything you like, depending on your own beliefs or bias.

The word Religious, can also be use in an insulting or derogatory sense, in order to just discredit a person, whether they are right or wrong.

We could say (on today's meaning of the word religion) that Science is a Modern day Religion ???

And perhaps Alien species, Not of Earth, would see human Science, as just that a religion ???

And perhaps, see our Science as rather barbaric, and as ill informed, especially if they are of a culture, millions of years ahead of Earth ???

Its all a Matter of Interpretation based on our beliefs isn't it ???


[edit on 21-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by Wookiep

When did I state religion was 'spiritual things'?

I am in error; you did not. I was misled by the following exchange:

Originally posted by Halley86
I strongly prefer spirituality to religion. I feel like I've become closer to God through spirituality

Originally posted by Wookiep
I agree.

Perhaps it would be truer to say you view religion as an unspiritual thing.

It seems you don't feel the defention is relevant in this conversation when in fact, how is it not?

It is certainly relevant in order to define what we are talking about. Do you mean organized religion, which is a form of social behaviour with civic and political overtones? In that case, the thread loses much of its interest (for me, at least) because it is a common question and the answers are common knowledge, more or less. Titen-Sxull's post, with which you largely agreed, lays it out clearly enough:

Originally posted by Titen-Sxull
I think it originates during a transitional time when we went from hunter gatherer species living in small family units, to living in larger villages and communities thanks to the wonders of agriculture... religion was used to tie and bind the community and civilization together in order to assure their success... unknowns became gods and later became God though monotheism was barely ever practiced...

With the lacunae above, this is the commonplace narrative of the origins of institutional religion. I believe it is also the mainstream academic view, insofar as there is one.

If it "originated" without "spirituality" then how is it in-fact just that today? We are not in disagreement that the action of "spiritual things" has been around since time started according to man.

Like you, I prefer to put the word 'spirituality' within quotes. With that caveat, I agree that 'spiritual' feelings and behaviour have been around, not since the dawn of time but certainly since the dawn of humanity. There are some, like the historian Toynbee, who argued that creating religion is the proper function of humankind; there are others, like the psychologist Jung, who went farther and argued that the creation of religion is what defines humanity itself - he called Man the 'mythmaking animal'. But note the past tense in both cases; nowadays we are less inclined toward such sentimentality. However, in my ideas concerning the origins of religion I owe a lot to Jung - but not nearly as much as I owe to Darwin and E.O. Wilson.

Ok, explain to me how it didn't change in terms of *defenition*? Considering the origin compared to todays defention, it seems it has changed significantly!

Here's a list of definitions of 'religion'. The first definition on the list is the one that hasn't changed (except in terms of ambit, perhaps; primitive religion was rather more modest in what it sought to explain). The second and fifth definitions were tacked on later as religion became institutionalized, but they did not and cannot alter the first.

I only ask that you please refrain from making an argument that is not in-line whith my inquiry.

I leave it to you to decide whether you wish to hear more from me, or not. In the meantime...

* * *

reply to post by silent thunder

The lore of the sky allowed priests to predict events like eclipses and the movement of the stars, which gave them seemingly awesome power in the eyes of their primative cohorts. Makes perfect sense.

You're right, but religion was probably already well along by the time it became institutionalized in this way, with priests, temples (as opposed to shrines), liturgies and so forth. Before it could be recognized as a route to power and status for the socially disadvantaged and physically weak, religion had first to emerge and establish its own, intrinsic power.

I think religion serves many different purposes... (it) also comforts people, gives a sense of both meaning and mystery, imparts a sense of tradition and dignity, holds societies together, becomes a repository of common tales...

Yes, all of this, too, is correct. However, some of these purposes are clearly more vital than others. It may be interesting, as a personal exercise, to draw up a list of the benefits of faith and then place them in order of perceived importance. To each his own, naturally.

Religion also allows people to participate in something bigger then themselves. This is known primally as the sense of AWE. As in gazing at the sky and feeling tiny in comparison. This knowledge of our own weakness and mortality could crush us, psychologically. Religion allows us to transcend our limited selves in the form of mystical experiences, etc. or simple awe at something like a sunset...to "get outside" the limits of ourselves in some way, at least for a little while. Psychologically, this chance to participate in the Infinite balances the knowledge of our individual weakness and finitude.

I am not sure religion need come into this at all. Awe and its antidote, the mystical sense of 'connectedness', are human responses to nature. It would be fair to say, I think, that they have been co-opted by religion for its own purposes. There is, however, a natural alliance once religion is established, since the mystic invariably tries to make sense of his experience through the vocabulary of transcendence peculiar to his own culture (invariably, his religion).

Your post covers nearly all the bases - all the definitions of religion, institutional or otherwise - commonly in use among the principal cultures of the world. It still begs, in my view, the question of foundations: whence comes the impulse to make religion, to believe in unseen powers, to propitiate them and construct myths about them? It is clearly visible in pre-agricultural societies; we see it in the archaeological record and in the lore of hunter-gatherer tribes contacted during historical times. Agricultural exigencies and sky gods representing times and seasons are not enough to explain all that.

* * *

reply to post by The Matrix Traveller

I would prefer not to engage with someone whose ideas are so incompatible with mine, Matrix Traveller, but courtesy demands that I reply. So:

It has to be remembered, there is a Political agenda at work, in the education system of today. This is in all education, also involving Human philosophy, Human Sociology, Human Sciences, and Human Religion.

I am not sure where you live, but I am pretty sure you don't live where I do. There is indeed a political agenda at work in the education system of my country. It is a very different agenda from the one at work in yours, and different again from the one that was at work when I was a schoolboy. Education all over the world is heavily influenced by politics and still more heavily influenced by culture. How could it be otherwise? The task of education is to fit people into society.

However, there is certainly no universal agenda, no overarching conspiracy. I have travelled widely, not as a tourist but as a temporary resident of many countries, and I can attest to this with confidence.

If we stray outside these Political boundaries today, we are branded, as an outcast and discredited!

This may be your experience. Happily, it has not been mine. Society can be a lever as well as a mould. Some of us use society to get what we want; that, after all, is what it's for.

Its all a Matter of Interpretation based on our beliefs isn't it ???

Truth is not a matter of belief or interpretation.

[edit on 22/7/09 by Astyanax]

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Wookiep

Perhaps it would be truer to say you view religion as an unspiritual thing.

Fair enough! Let me break *my* opinion down to you so you may see my personal stance on this whole thing better. I do not believe the word "religion" was intended to be incorperated with "Christianity" the reason is because the *origion* of the word is to bind and slave...Not ONLY that tho, but also, because it was never once used in the old testament of the holy bible. Now, Pre-king James we may indeed find it, maybe even the root word? With that said, we have determined that this word *was* around during the times of the old testament. If this word derives from greek meaning, not associating itself with "spiritual things", then my question has always been WHY is it in the new testament, and *who* added it? So, I'm not an advocate of "religion" afterall.

It is certainly relevant in order to define what we are talking about. Do you mean organized religion, which is a form of social behaviour with civic and political overtones? In that case, the thread loses much of its interest (for me, at least) because it is a common question and the answers are common knowledge, more or less. Titen-Sxull's post, with which you largely agreed, lays it out clearly enough:

Yes! Both organized religion AND politics. I'm sorry that makes you lose intrest, but I feel the word has been wrongly passed around for ages, and used as a tool for both political and organized "religious" (in association with 'spiritual') gain. (corruption)

Like you, I prefer to put the word 'spirituality' within quotes.

Me too, I don't like the word "religion" when it associates itself with 'spirituality'. I'm glad we agree at least on this!

The first definition on the list is the one that hasn't changed (except in terms of ambit, perhaps; primitive religion was rather more modest in what it sought to explain). The second and fifth definitions were tacked on later as religion became institutionalized, but they did not and cannot alter the first.

All very relevant! I even posted the same link in the OP. I'm not questioning the first 8, I'm talking about the *origin* listed below all of your examples.

I leave it to you to decide whether you wish to hear more from me, or not. In the meantime...

In hopes we can understand one another, I look forward to hearing more from you, as you are indeed quite insightful.





[edit on 22-7-2009 by Wookiep]

reply to post by Astyanax

However, there is certainly no universal agenda, no overarching conspiracy. I have

travelled widely, not as a tourist but as a temporary resident of many countries, and I can

attest to this with confidence.

Sorry if you misinterpret what I am saying...

I don't go along with "Conspiracy theorists" !

There is Nothing sinister but just normal human behaviour... LOL.

What I wrote:-

If we stray outside these Political boundaries today, we are branded, as an outcast

and discredited!

This may be your experience. Happily, it has not been mine. Society can be a lever

as well as a mould. Some of us use society to get what we want; that, after all, is what it's

for.

Happily it is not 100% negative for myself, probably 40% for me and 60% against, but I

am just being honest and accept that I can't please every one.... LOL.

Its all a Matter of Interpretation based on our beliefs isn't it ???

Truth is not a matter of belief or interpretation.

I said quite the opposite actually !

Please keep my words in context.

I will say it again....

Belief is Not fact!

reply to post by Wookiep


I love finding these (people who love God but are not in a church because of the fallen state of man). You don't belong to something Christ is the head of?
All through the Bible God has 'called' men to lead other men in his ways.

With out a church you're in rebellion and are your own pastor, prophet, and counceller. You obviously have a heart for the lost, so arebringing them to Christ and nuturing them too.

Of course you aren't because then you'd have a chruch - and thats exactly what Christ wanted.

How many have you brought to God who are planted and who are growing God's chrcuh trough your guidnace as a more experienced Christian.

I can tell you because I know. 0!

It smacks of rebellion unless I'm wrong and you have brough many to Christ and they are doign the same and lives are being changed, and the families of those being changed are changing, and the areas they live in are slowly being changed.

And of course, as your not tihing you must be giving at least 10 if not 20% of your income away to the poor insyead because you have no costs or obligations. Of course I know you probably don't sow, because you don't agree with 'church'

Funny thing is... Christ does. Do you argue with him?

And before you get all huffy. I was like you once but now I'm planted and thriving and so are those around me

reply to post by daggyz

I love finding these (people who love God but are not in a church because of the fallen state of man). You don't belong to something Christ is the head of?
All through the Bible God has 'called' men to lead other men in his ways.

Well since I'm one of these "people" who don't attend church, I'll explain just a few reasons why I don't. "Church" today has become very judgemental, hypocritical, and at times out-right mis-leading. How many "pastors" or "preachers" have been proven to be child molestors, or money driven by peaching that "tithing and offering" will make you happy, when it actually ends up making "them" happy? How many churches are SPLIT on small things equivalent to crossing a "t" and end up ultimately cause the church to *shut down*? You are saying it offends Christ that I do not attend such a thing? How about you learn more about how church has become lately? I think Christ is more saddened by how the meaning has been lost. Just opinion!

With out a church you're in rebellion and are your own pastor, prophet, and counceller. You obviously have a heart for the lost, so arebringing them to Christ and nuturing them too.

Of course you aren't because then you'd have a chruch - and thats exactly what Christ wanted.

How many have you brought to God who are planted and who are growing God's chrcuh trough your guidnace as a more experienced Christian.

I can tell you because I know. 0!

Perhaps this is a clear example of why so many are turned against church? Careful what you are saying because you are judging *me* without even knowing me! Actually sir, when I got saved at the age of 17, I was very involved in the "church" I attended SEVERAL of them, but what I found is on ALL accounts there was a lot of bad-behavior that didn't benefit my walk with God whatsoever! in fact , when a pastor started writing love notes to my fiance, I wasn't too impressed. Or when at another church the pastor later turned self-proclaimed "apostle" ended up being caught red-handed in an immoral act with a young boy, definately showed me that *man* yes *man* sir, had obviously corrupted the "chruch" with their own self-fulfilling desires. Ever heard of "New Life Church"? Here in Colorado Springs this church was the most *dominant* of all and was well-respected! However, since the pastor decided to buy sexual favors from a man in Denver, that church lost a lot of respect too.

Now, I'm not saying these actions should turn me from *God* but church itself certainly doesnt do any good for *me*. Judge me all you want but I have my own relationship with God and I do not think he's offended by my choice in the matter. And you can tell I've never "brought" anyone to God? I feel I have done quite well at the task of at least sharing God's message to others. Whether it "brought" them to God or not is between those induviduals and God, and *definately* not up for you to judge, sir.

And before you get all huffy. I was like you once but now I'm planted and thriving and so are those around me

Excellent! Learn from your past mistakes then and do not judge again. Now, if you care to get back on topic in relation to the OP, then by all means keep talking! If you'd like to steer this convo in the direction you just did, do not count on more replies from me.









[edit on 22-7-2009 by Wookiep]

reply to post by daggyz


Show me One reference in the bible that mentions "the Roman church" or an other church, or denomination on Earth ???

Jesus did Not mention, "the Roman church" or any other "church" on Earth.

The Roman church introduced the word "church' from the Greek writings they stole. This is a Bastardisation on their part!

What was referred to in the Original Greek Manuscript, was "The Assemblies of Lights"!

Look through the Original Greek and Hebrew texts!

Jesus My King said....

There are about 110 Different Greek Versions of The Book of The Revelation of Jesus Christ ! The Roman church chose one of these and Standardised it in their Translation of the Greek!

There are hundreds of Versions of the bible, and they only contain a very small number of the Greek and Hebrew writings!

Jesus did Not give any church on Earth "he Book of LIFE".

Why ???

It was humankind that wrote these Scripts!

Why on earth, would Jesus, get corrupt descendants of A' Dam, to write the Truth when the Truth is Not in the Descendants of A' Dam or the Dammed one!

Jesus makes No mention of these writings or even the bible!

Why ???

Jesus said !!!

"Let Not you put your Trust in any man but in The Father Only"!

He also said....

"Woe unto You Scribes and Pharisees and Hypocrites"!

In The Gospel of Thomas it is written.....

39. Jesus said,
“The Pharisees and the scribes
have taken The Keys of Knowledge
and Hidden Them.

They themselves have NOT entered,
nor have they allowed to enter
those who wish to.

You, however, be as wise as serpents
and as innocent as doves.”

and...

49. Jesus said,

“Blessed are the Solitary
and Elect,
for you will find The Kingdom.

For you are from it,
and to it you will return.”

More research required don't you think ???


[edit on 22-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by Wookiep


I am Shocked and Horrified, what "daggyz" said and believes. No Love in that program whatsoever only Emptiness I guess!

[edit on 22-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]