What do you think? In my experiences "spiritual" people are calm and open to understanding, while "religious" people are defensive and are anxious to attack. I find G.W. religious and commits grievous crimes in the name of God (and other corporate reasonings- I am getting off topic though) as do Muslim extremist. Would the world be better without religion? Did communist Russia have the right idea?
2007-05-24 02:56:14 · 22 answers · asked by Boanerges 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
it is my belief that for me, spiritual is better...Religion is manmade, spirit is gift from god.
Would the world be better off without religion? Doubtful. Religion plays a very important part in society and it keeps people of like beliefs in a position to be "a part of"...a part of a congregation, support network..just a plain old part of the community. Religion has helped alot of people and there is nothing more life changing then a spiritual experience. This differs for all people.
For myself, spirituality is the answer.
2007-05-24 03:05:00 · answer #1 · answered by trinity 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am a spiritual person. I believe in God and the lord Jesus Christ. I have a close relationship them . But I am not religious. Yes i do pray, but I don't feel a need to practice or follow any one religion. I am a kind person ,and non judgmental, because that is not my job. But to be a spiritual person or religious is a matter of choice.
2007-05-24 03:07:54 · answer #2 · answered by nellshay 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Some people aren't naturally spiritual, and they need some sort of religious guidelines to make their way through life. Besides, religion has done some wonderful things for the world. Churches help feed the hungry, clothe the homeless, etc.
2007-05-24 03:03:04 · answer #3 · answered by liberpez 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Spiritual of course. Babylon the great will fall as revelations say it the world empire of false religion. No Russia does not have the right idea, the nation has innocent blood on her hands.
2007-05-24 03:02:29 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think it all depends on the person and their beliefs. Someone can be spiritual, not religious, and still be a bigot. If G.W. was spiritual he'd probably do the same things he did. Its about whats right for you, not really whats right for the world.
2007-05-24 03:01:43 · answer #5 · answered by my_soul_saved 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with parts of your statement. America is supposed to offer freedom of religion, which does not involve the freedom to force other people to conform to any particular set of religious doctrines (i.e. W). Spiritual people are generally more calm and understanding by definition, because they have found their own path. Religious people, not all but the really ravenous ones, often need something larger to cling to to make them feel better about themselves, and will defend that thing voraciously.
2007-05-24 03:01:56 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
SPIRITUAL jesus says the man who is humble and has nothing to offer the lord is more favorered then a highly religious person or something like that i don't think being religious is a good thing. god is graceful and stuff and you need to accept it not work twordes it. a spiritual person serves god out of love and thankfullness for his grace and mercy where religious people could tend to do it out of other reasons like a ticket to heaven and such.
2007-05-24 03:01:02 · answer #7 · answered by emma 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Religious: making attempts to maintain/attain right favor with God via behavior(10 commandments, "good" deeds), all the while spitting on the Cross of Christ and what it accomplished.
Spiritual: the type of relationship you have with Jesus Christ; personal, real, yet in the spiritual realm.
2007-05-24 03:01:12 · answer #8 · answered by Soundtrack to a Nightmare 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Regarding your question last night:
Acts 1:18 doesn't say that Judas died from falling and bursting open. It only says that he fell and burst open -- which very likely could have happened after his already-dead body fell after hanging, either because the rope snapped or the branch broke.
Romans 1:1-4 doesn't say that Jesus became Son of God, or God, at the time of His Resurrection. It says that He was "established as Son of God in power according to the Spirit." In other words, the fullness of His authority as the Son became complete at that moment -- but He was still the Son all along.
Mark 1:9-11 doesn't say that Jesus became Son of God at the time of His baptism. It simply tells us that a voice from Heaven said that He was "my beloved Son" -- which was something that God was REITERATING to Jesus, not establishing.
If your father tells you this morning, "You are my beloved son," it doesn't mean that you were NOT his son prior to this morning!
Or, if your spouse tells you "I love you" this morning, it doesn't mean that he/she DIDN'T love you before this morning!
Or if someone says "Derek Jeter is a great baseball player," it doesn't mean that Jeter wasn't a great baseball player before those words were uttered.
See what I'm getting at?
.
2007-05-24 03:11:00 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sure communist Russia had the right idea by murdering their people in the millions if they did not tow the party line,heck they killed them even when they did tow the party line.
But to answer your question it is better to be spiritual and then religious.
2007-05-24 03:01:47 · answer #10 · answered by Sentinel 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋