Anyone find religion scary ?

[Roosje]

It's not the only way, but it surely seems the most equal one.

If I slap your children for no reason on their face, you'd slap me back. Wouldn't you? Prisons are full.Do you think I'd go to prison for a slap in the face?

But if it's about getting even we are talking about revenge and that is just not the way we should let an objective judicial system be at work. It should be fair and it should be clear what's good and what's wrong. If it's wrong to kill, the state can not kill. Simple as that. I don't think you can make right by doing wrong.

No, I would not slap you back. I would find that to be a very bad example for my child. I would put you in your place with words and take my child away from the scene as soon as possible. I would warn the police maybe, but if you apologise sincerely that wouldn't be necessary anymore. I think a fine would suffice in this case if you were to be punished by the system. If you would have a history of slapping strange children prison time might be an option.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

But if it's about getting even we are talking about revenge and that is just not the way we should let an objective judicial system be at work. It should be fair and it should be clear what's good and what's wrong. If it's wrong to kill, the state can not kill. Simple as that. I don't think you can make right by doing wrong.

No, I would not slap you back. I would find that to be a very bad example for my child. I would put you in your place with words and take my child away from the scene as soon as possible. I would warn the police maybe, but if you apologise sincerely that wouldn't be necessary anymore. I think a fine would suffice in this case if you were to be punished by the system. If you would have a history of slapping strange children prison time might be an option.

Well, there are people who'd smile in your face and say sorry, but wouldn't mean it. "History of slapping" would be quite weird and I really don't think thta prison would change anything to that if the slapper ever sees the prison.

I however agree with you on the revenge point. I am absolutely against revenge. So we should bear in mind that seeking revenge is one thing. Seeking justice is another.

If you take an apple from me and I am left hungry. I'd tend to think that I may take an apple from you as well in order not to be hungry. The purpose is not to revenge, but to be equal and just. But if I am taking an apple from you out of revenge, then it would be a bad thing.

So, all what I am saying here about killing the horrible killers or whatever, it is not out of revenge, but out of justice for equality. What gives anyone the right to take away one's life and what takes away that same right to all others towards the life-taker? Who are we protecting really?

So, I am repeating, it is not about revenge, but about having the right to be on the equal level. Of course, forgiving option is always the most noble one, but shouldn't be imposed.

 

[Roosje]

justice for equality = getting even = revenge. But it's not to you I guess. I would take my own apple back if I have the chance because it's mine, but I would not steal another one from you because you stole mine. It would still be theft on my part and that can not be justified. My main point in this discussion is: if the moral judgement is WRONG/EVIL/NOT HUMANE for a crime like murder, torture, abuse, stealing, it would be wrong/evil/not humane to do the same. Things are not restored when you do the same to the perpetrator, objectively the crime has doubled. This can't make for a better world in the end, so I think this reasoning about 'equal level' doesn't serve a purpose except for getting netto more evil in the world. You should punish by other means and not by repeating the crime.

Did I say something about imposing forgiveness? You do not think that prison time equals forgiveness, right?

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

justice for equality = getting even = revenge. But it's not to you I guess. I would take my own apple back if I have the chance because it's mine, but I would not steal another one from you because you stole mine. It would still be theft on my part and that can not be justified. My main point in this discussion is: if the moral judgement is WRONG/EVIL/NOT HUMANE for a crime like murder, torture, abuse, stealing, it would be wrong/evil/not humane to do the same. Things are not restored when you do the same to the perpetrator, objectively the crime has doubled. This can't make for a better world in the end, so I think this reasoning about 'equal level' doesn't serve a purpose except for getting netto more evil in the world. You should punish by other means and not by repeating the crime.

Did I say something about imposing forgiveness? You do not think that prison time equals forgiveness, right?

Well the whole problem is to define what is evil and what not, and what is justice and what not. In any case, the countries are full of prisons and it deosn't seem to work at all.

You didn't talk about forgiveness, but it is also an option.

Furthermore, prison in some cases IS worse and less humane than death. So all in all, if we seek to satisfy justice, it can't be done otherwise but by being able to do the same, not out of revenge, but out of justice.

If I borrow from you 5€, it would be natural to give you them back. If I take them from you without permission, you must be able to have them back. Nothing to do with revenge, but prevent injustice and educate people that they are not allowed to do whatever they want.

 

[Roosje]

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that prisons 'don't work at all'. I know a great number of people will return to crime, but many will learn their lesson and be a participating member of society again.

Forgiveness is best for your own heart, but the state can't arrange this to happen of course, whatever punishment is in place. It rather ironic though to forgive a person who has been sentenced to death already.

Prisons should be clean and livable of course. Doing a crime in return 'the same' is not justice it's mixed-up morals, that can never be state-approved. The state should protect it's citizens, not kill them or use them as laboratory animals.

I must get back my five euro from you for sure, but I must not steal them back. By the way, this analogy doesn't stretch to murder and death penalty. Where my 5 euros can be regained, the life of the murdered person will never be, whatever you do with the killer. The means to do things, to punish, are very telling about your own morality.

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

Do you have any statistics to back up your claim that prisons 'don't work at all'. I know a great number of people will return to crime, but many will learn their lesson and be a participating member of society again.

Forgiveness is best for your own heart, but the state can't arrange this to happen of course, whatever punishment is in place. It rather ironic though to forgive a person who has been sentenced to death already.

Prisons should be clean and livable of course. Doing a crime in return 'the same' is not justice it's mixed-up morals, that can never be state-approved. The state should protect it's citizens, not kill them or use them as laboratory animals.

I must get back my five euro from you for sure, but I must not steal them back. By the way, this analogy doesn't stretch to murder and death penalty. Where my 5 euros can be regained, the life of the murdered person will never be, whatever you do with the killer. The means to do things, to punish, are very telling about your own morality.

As you can see from this article, the reality in the Netherlands is not the same in Belgium:


<TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Belgium to rent Dutch jail cells



</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

A warden closes the gate to Arlon prison in Belgium


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA --><!-- S SF -->
Tight on space in its jails, Belgium will start renting 500 cells at Tilburg prison in neighbouring Netherlands. The agreement will make up for the shortage of cells across Belgium and send roughly 500 prisoners away for three years.
Belgium will pay 30m euros (£26.8m) a year for sending its detainees across the border.
No prisoners who are "an escape risk or a risk to society" will be sent to Tilburg, Dutch officials said.
<!-- E SF -->"The Netherlands is putting the prison and its personnel at Belgium's disposal for placing at least 500 detainees over a period of three years," the Dutch justice ministry said.
The prisoners will be guarded by Dutch wardens, but the prison director will be Belgian.
There are still a number of issues that need to be resolved, including how often detainees may be seen by family and friends.
In Belgium, prisoners may receive visitors three times a week, while those in the Netherlands may only receive guests once a week.
Belgium's prisons currently hold 10,400 people - nearly 2,000 more than capacity.
The Netherlands on the other hand has nearly 2,000 empty prison cells, thanks to a significant drop in crime since the beginning of this century.
The deal was signed by Belgium's Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck and his Dutch counterpart Nebahat Albayrak.
The agreement still needs to pass both countries' parliaments.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=storycontent cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD colSpan=2>Belgium to rent Dutch jail cells



</TD></TR><TR><TD class=storybody><!-- S BO --><!-- S IIMA --><TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=226 align=right><TBODY><TR><TD>

A warden closes the gate to Arlon prison in Belgium


</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><!-- E IIMA --><!-- S SF -->Tight on space in its jails, Belgium will start renting 500 cells at Tilburg prison in neighbouring Netherlands. The agreement will make up for the shortage of cells across Belgium and send roughly 500 prisoners away for three years.
Belgium will pay 30m euros (£26.8m) a year for sending its detainees across the border.
No prisoners who are "an escape risk or a risk to society" will be sent to Tilburg, Dutch officials said.
<!-- E SF -->"The Netherlands is putting the prison and its personnel at Belgium's disposal for placing at least 500 detainees over a period of three years," the Dutch justice ministry said.
The prisoners will be guarded by Dutch wardens, but the prison director will be Belgian.
There are still a number of issues that need to be resolved, including how often detainees may be seen by family and friends.
In Belgium, prisoners may receive visitors three times a week, while those in the Netherlands may only receive guests once a week.
Belgium's prisons currently hold 10,400 people - nearly 2,000 more than capacity.
The Netherlands on the other hand has nearly 2,000 empty prison cells, thanks to a significant drop in crime since the beginning of this century.
The deal was signed by Belgium's Justice Minister Stefaan De Clerck and his Dutch counterpart Nebahat Albayrak.
The agreement still needs to pass both countries' parliaments.

</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
Source: BBC

 

[BUMPER SNIPPET]

 

[cinzia]

Killing does not equate to murder.

Repentance, finding God or religion, 'seeing the error of his/her ways', any of this discovered in prison to me is suspect. Why did an innocent person have to suffer before this criminal 'saw the light'? Why is it that the living criminal garners more sympathy than the dead victim and the suffering families? Why should my tax dollars go to support someone in prison for the rest of their life and allow that person to see the daylight, access libraries, tv, video, books, education? Things the victim will never do. When discussions about capital punishment occur, pictures of the victim and the crime scene are never shown. Why is that?
And yet, Society is quick to destroy an animal who injures a person. No thought of rehabilitation there, just a bullet to the brain or a needle of death.
Odd how standards are more rigid for an unreasoning animal than for a human with the capacity for rational thinking.

One of the duties of government is to ensure domestic tranquility, its citizens should be able to go about their lives in relative security. When I was growing up, we never locked our cars or our houses. I could walk down streets alone in safety. Now? Wouldn't dream of it. Why not?
Why has this changed?
I can't help but wonder...since prison is a place in which people are physically confined and, usually, deprived of a range of personal freedoms, some of these "freedoms" should be removed and a little hard labor returned..

 

[AndreyZidane™]

They should test various AIDS and/or cancer attempts at treatment on them before killing them.

 

[LindavG]

I can't believe the things I'm reading here. Prisoners should be killed or used as guinea pigs? Are you insane?! I thought our Western countries were supposed to be civilized. You don't fight evil with evil. What's the saying.. an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? What kind of signal does the state send to its people if they approve using people to test cancer or AIDS on? The thought alone scares me to death. Innocent people are sent to jail all the time. The risk is way too big. Imagine killing someone or purposely infecting them with HIV and then later find out he/she was innocent. I couldn't live with myself knowing that. Besides, I read an article a long time ago that said the death penalty is actually a lot more expensive than life in prison. So that can't be an argument.

Plus, people can change. I don't understand the scepticism around here. Sometimes people do foolish things when they are young and/or under pressure, things they regret later. They deserve a second chance. Not everyone in prison is a child murderer you know. They are human beings just like us, they shouldn't be treated like animals.

And most people who perform these horrible acts like killing children and stuff are mentally ill. They don't have the same perceptions of good and bad as normal people have. Prison will not help them to get better. In my country we have mental clinics for that (TBS), if you are sent there you won't get released before the doctors are absolutely sure you are not a hazard to society anymore, which in practice means that many are there literally for life (until they die). So even though patients have a bit more freedom there, many rather go to prison because then they might have a chance of parole.

 

[AndreyZidane™]

Actually I was talking about those 40 year old guys who go on a killing rampage, GTA style. Those are the guys who we should test cancer and AIDS on. At least make them a bit productive, why not?

 

[chrissychristina]

no, i just find it idiotic.

 

[AndreyZidane™]

Ok, so let's say that some crazy bastard decides to get his "gigs" by killing your family who happened to bump their cart in his at Walmart. Wouldn't you want to shot the guy in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun?

I know that a lot of christians are saying "let God punish them". Well, there's a big chance that God doesn't even exist, so why wouldn't we punish them?

You know what, let's say God does exist for a second here, who wouldn't we make God a favor since he probably gets a lot of "these guys" everyday, he's probably tired of personally spanking these guys before sending them to hell, right?

Note: *this post is not to be taken seriously, a heavy dose of sarcasm has been detected in it*

 

[chrissychristina]

i would blow his head off in a split second.

 

[Roosje]

I can't believe the things I'm reading here. Prisoners should be killed or used as guinea pigs? Are you insane?! I thought our Western countries were supposed to be civilized. You don't fight evil with evil. What's the saying.. an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind? What kind of signal does the state send to its people if they approve using people to test cancer or AIDS on? The thought alone scares me to death. Innocent people are sent to jail all the time. The risk is way too big. Imagine killing someone or purposely infecting them with HIV and then later find out he/she was innocent. I couldn't live with myself knowing that. Besides, I read an article a long time ago that said the death penalty is actually a lot more expensive than life in prison. So that can't be an argument.

Plus, people can change. I don't understand the scepticism around here. Sometimes people do foolish things when they are young and/or under pressure, things they regret later. They deserve a second chance. Not everyone in prison is a child murderer you know. They are human beings just like us, they shouldn't be treated like animals.

And most people who perform these horrible acts like killing children and stuff are mentally ill. They don't have the same perceptions of good and bad as normal people have. Prison will not help them to get better. In my country we have mental clinics for that (TBS), if you are sent there you won't get released before the doctors are absolutely sure you are not a hazard to society anymore, which in practice means that many are there literally for life (until they die). So even though patients have a bit more freedom there, many rather go to prison because then they might have a chance of parole.

Thank you so much for this post. I was beginning to feel quite alone amongst those in favour of death and torture for prisoners. You pretty much listed all the points I forgot to mention. I'm a bit relieved now to finally read a different opinion, as I thought it was getting a bit scary in here. It's very important always, but with prisoners especially, to not degrade them to some subhuman species. They are not. Just like people in other countries or of other beliefs are not. In the end all humans, when life has not treated them so badly they can't see it anymore, just want a peaceful existence in which they can love and be loved and be healthy.

Thanks again!

 

[AndreyZidane™]

i would blow his head off in a split second.

Exactly my point, but why waste his life like that, why not have the chance to posibly save other people's lives by trying various cancer and/or AIDS attempts ar treatment on him? I personally don't see anything wrong with that, and not because I'm an athiest, mind you. Hell, even the Bible is ok with stoning people to death and what not, so I don't see why christians would have a problem with that either...

 

[LindavG]

Exactly my point, but why waste his life like that, why not have the chance to posibly save other people's lives by trying various cancer and/or AIDS attempts ar treatment on him? I personally don't see anything wrong with that, and not because I'm an athiest, mind you. Hell, even the Bible is ok with stoning people to death and what not, so I don't see why christians would have a problem with that either...

This has nothing to do with religion. It is about basic human rights. I don't condone torture or murder, no matter who does it. The fact that so many here think so lightly about this actually scares me. I hope it's not representative for the sentiments among the general population. Imagine if you get convicted for a crime you didn't commit (these things happen all the time) and get sent to prison, where you get injected with the HIV virus for a medical experiment. Even if it is later proven that you were innocent and you're released from prison, you will carry this deadly disease with you for the rest of your life.

No human beings should be degraded to sub-human level. This is very dangerous, as past experiences have shown. If the state resorted to such barbaric measures as torture and murder, it kind of legitimizes these things. The state is supposed to set an example.

Ok, so let's say that some crazy bastard decides to get his "gigs" by killing your family who happened to bump their cart in his at Walmart. Wouldn't you want to shot the guy in the face with a 12 gauge shotgun?

No way! I couldn't imagine killing another human being, not even if he committed such horrendous crimes. So no, I wouldn't shoot him. I don't think I could live with myself if I did that. I have never seen a gun in my life but if I ever saw one, I don't think I would even dare to touch it. I'm terrified of anything that has to do with murder or torture. So I know for a fact that I am not capable of killing anyone, not even in dramatic circumstances. In my opinion, murder is wrong, period. It doesn't matter what the motives are.

Instead of killing this person, I would want him to repent and feel genuinely guilty about what he has done. Then, he should talk to others, reach out and inform people about how this could have happened etc., then maybe someone will recognize himself in his situation and seek help, which would possibly prevent others from getting murdered. At least then, my family members didn't die in vain.

By the way, if I did shoot the guy I would end up in prison. Would you be OK if I were given cancer or HIV then?

I know that a lot of christians are saying "let God punish them". Well, there's a big chance that God doesn't even exist, so why wouldn't we punish them?

We can and we should punish them. But there are more civilized ways of punishment than murder and torture. We have advanced quite a bit since the 15th century (although reading some of the comments here, I'm starting to question that). The idea of prison in itself is already punishment, as it takes away our most fundamental right: freedom. I don't think many people really understand how horrible that is. The problem is that prisoners are not well prepared for life after prison so they easily fall back into their old ways, as that is usually all they know. There should be more guidance for ex-prisoners, help them find a job and a house so they at least have a steady foundation to build up a new life.

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

...My questions were not aimed at the biological functions, but rather at the philosophical purpose of life and the reasons why the human consciousness is developed just enough to realize that we know nothing. What is the aim of our intelligence asking all those questions when we know we can't answer them?

I think you answered your own question. It took consciousness awhile to get there- to get to the point that you 'know you don't know'. You even said 'developed'. So we'll keep developing. That's what's it's all about, continuity, movement- not stagnation.

So maybe we don't know quite yet- but we're sure trying.

By the way, saying that we come to life thanks to the law of the nature, doesn't answer the question where the nature comes from. Where the life as life in general comes from. How innert becomes alive and then conscious? And ultimately, how do you obtain from nothing something?

It's fascinating, right? Life as one big freak accident? Naaah.
When you say 'conscious life'- is there unconscious life? Are rocks and plants not alive? Are they a (developing) consciousness themselves?

Or, another question: Do you limit consciousness to physical life only? Or is consciousness limited to human life? (

When you dream, you never say to yourself: "this is not real". Your brain tricks you and convinces you that you are experiencing reality by creating mental pictures.

Actually, that would depend on dreaming ways of sleeping and dreaming.
I dream quite lucid fairly frequently- meaning I am aware of the fact that I am asleep, yet I am very aware of that fact. It's quite possible to experience this reality AND be aware of the fact that you are asleep. So that depends on different people. Some just sleep and others are quite aware of not only themselves, but even others.

When do you become conscious? If a baby in the mother's womb is consious, it means that the reality is none other than what the baby perceives around thanks to its senses. For it, it is impossible to imagine that there is an outside world, another reality and that there won't be any coming backs to the womb.

But that would still mean consciousness. Even if you never left your village- you would be consciousness.

So, why would one not imagine that what we are experiencing in this life another shape of reality and that after this reality another is awaiting us? Biology can only observe, it cannot anticipatively answer. But as you don't go back into the womb, you don't go back into this life. So, biology can't observe it.

No, biology can't explain consciousness alone by itself. Consciousness is not limited to physical life. You might not go back into a physical life- but you sure can return to it, one way or the other, but I guess reincarnation would be another thread, lol.

 

[Roosje]

This has nothing to do with religion. It is about basic human rights. I don't condone torture or murder, no matter who does it. The fact that so many here think so lightly about this actually scares me. I hope it's not representative for the sentiments among the general population. Imagine if you get convicted for a crime you didn't commit (these things happen all the time) and get sent to prison, where you get injected with the HIV virus for a medical experiment. Even if it is later proven that you were innocent and you're released from prison, you will carry this deadly disease with you for the rest of your life.

I agree with you again, but I would like to stress that even if you were guilty it would be horrendous if they injeceted you with a disease of put you to death. It isn't just immoral because it could be unjustfully done (however it would be more tragic), it is always immoral and just plain wrong.

 

[LindavG]

I agree with you again, but I would like to stress that even if you were guilty it would be horrendous if they injeceted you with a disease of put you to death. It isn't just immoral because it could be unjustfully done (however it would be more tragic), it is always immoral and just plain wrong.

Of course, I agree. I just mentioned the innocent because there seems to be a consensus around here that any prisoner is a lower-than-life criminal.

There are people that were in Michael's situation of 2003-2005. They don't have money to pay for a good lawyer and the prosecutor was more clever than Michael. They could get sent to prison for a crime they never comitted. It happens all the time, for example in custody cases where the mother accuses the father of child sexual abuse so she is granted full custody. How do you defend yourself against that?

 

[kopwatcher]

Has anyone seen the Louis Theroux documentary on the family in America that has taken religious beliefs to the extreme and regularly protest at the funerals of soldiers?

 

[ginvid]

I have not. Sorry!

 

[kindofdisco]

So I've just dipped into the Christian thread here on the board out of interest, and I actually feel really, really upset after doing so.

I do not understand Christianity at ALL. I attended several religious schools when I was growing up, so I've been exposed to a lot of the Christian religion, but never have I read such upsetting things in my life. Apparently people are in fear that Michael didn't repent his sins and do all these stupid things so he might've gone to hell? I find things like that incredibly disrespectful and hurtful. Michael himself said in later years that he considered himself a spiritual person, but had separated himself from the church. Don't you think he did that for a reason? Not everybody wants to be "saved", and if someone has distanced themselves from religion on purpose, I think it speaks pretty strongly of how they feel about it.

I just....all this makes me so upset. People don't need to repent their sins unless you want to live in fear for the rest of your life! I think it's far healthier to make those "mistakes" and to become a better person because of it, not tell some Priest or whomever your problems and suddenly they all go away and you're a good person again. Why don't you learn the mistake? Or even more so, why don't you just let all of that go and HAVE FUN. Good grief, you only live once! Who cares what you do with your life as long as you're happy and not hurting others. I find this notion of someone watching over and judging you for every, single little thing you do quite frightening, and very controlling.

Sorry, just needed to get all of that out, haha!

 

[Roosje]

kopwatcher: I know which 'church' you mean I think, the Westboro Baptist Church. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westboro_Baptist_Church They are headed by this crazy partriarch, but this has nothing to do with religion, even though they claim so. God is just their excuse for hate. They wanted to protest at Elizabeth Taylor's funeral because she 'enabled the gays' or something. That should tell you enough about the beliefs of these people. I can never understand how God can be used as a vehicle for hate.

 

[serena williams]

Edit !

 

[serena williams]

Michael himself said in later years that he considered himself a spiritual person, but had separated himself from the church. Don't you think he did that for a reason? Not everybody wants to be "saved", and if someone has distanced themselves from religion on purpose, I think it speaks pretty strongly of how they feel about it.

loooool Dont get me wrong but michael has always been a BELIEVER in GOD even if he was no longer linked to a proper religion he never stopped believing in God
dont make up things to feel better

Sorry if truth hurts !!

 

[kindofdisco]

^ I said he distanced himself from the CHURCH, but was still SPIRITUAL. Good grief, read my post correctly before coming in here and slamming me! Being spiritual usually means that you still believe in a higher force or in a God, which I'm certain he did. Relgion and God/higher forces are two COMPLETELY different things.

Sorry if that truth hurts, dude.

 

[serena williams]

^ I said he distanced himself from the CHURCH, but was still SPIRITUAL. Good grief, read my post correctly before coming in here and slamming me! Being spiritual usually means that you still believe in a higher force or in a God, which I'm certain he did. Relgion and God/higher forces are two COMPLETELY different things.

Sorry if that truth hurts, dude.

You make it like he didnt realy believe in God anymore but a vague higher force without any principles nor restrains

How is Religion completely different from being "spiritual " ? this word "spiritual" has been hackneyed nowadays
Basicaly the word "spiritual" gets its roots from religion
It has been borrowed from the bible most of the time by non-believers (isnt is funny ?) in order to apply it to any human philosophies

The true and very first meaning of being "spiritual" (given by Jesus himself in the bible ) is walk by the "spirit" or "faith" and not by the "eye" or "flesh" like all the non-believers walk
Therefore you absolutely cant separate "spiritual" from Religion since this notion appeared with religion first with Judaism (the older covenant ) then with Christianism (the new covenant)
Just because a lot of religious people make horrible things (simply because theyd dont follow the bible 's principles ) means religion has nothing to with "being spiritual"

In the other hand human philosophies ARE the ones which have NOTHING to do with being spiritual the true meaning

Just because MJ was no longer linked to a specific religious group means he distanced himself ON PURPOSE
There are many factors in life which can make people distancing from religion despite their inner will
For MJ it was mainly because he has been terribly distracted by his career from Thriller and then by his judicial issues
He had no more time nor strenght to practice properly because unfortunately even if we want to follow Jesus'sprinciples sometimes (most of the time ) the "flesh" is easyier and more attractive at first sight than the "spirit"
But he has always been attached to his beliefs (Jehovah witness ) he never stopped reading the bible and very often took advice from religious people like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpon

More over he would have never let his children with her mother who he knew is linked to a religion with strong believes and principles like the Jehovah witnesses if deep in his mind he realy wanted to distance himself from religion !

 

[chrissychristina]

wow serena is that you

 

[PaceMioDolceCuore]

You make it like he didnt realy believe in God anymore but a vague higher force without any principles nor restrains

How is Religion completely different from being "spiritual " ? this word "spiritual" has been hackneyed nowadays
Basicaly the word "spiritual" gets its roots from religion
It has been borrowed from the bible most of the time by non-believers (isnt is funny ?) in order to apply it to any human philosophies

The true and very first meaning of being "spiritual" (given by Jesus himself in the bible ) is walk by the "spirit" or "faith" and not by the "eye" or "flesh" like all the non-believers walk
Therefore you absolutely cant separate "spiritual" from Religion since this notion appeared with religion first with Judaism (the older covenant ) then with Christianism (the new covenant)
Just because a lot of religious people make horrible things (simply because theyd dont follow the bible 's principles ) means religion has nothing to with "being spiritual"

In the other hand human philosophies ARE the ones which have NOTHING to do with being spiritual the true meaning

Just because MJ was no longer linked to a specific religious group means he distanced himself ON PURPOSE
There are many factors in life which can make people distancing from religion despite their inner will
For MJ it was mainly because he has been terribly distracted by his career from Thriller and then by his judicial issues
He had no more time nor strenght to practice properly because unfortunately even if we want to follow Jesus'sprinciples sometimes (most of the time ) the "flesh" is easyier and more attractive at first sight than the "spirit"
But he has always been attached to his beliefs (Jehovah witness ) he never stopped reading the bible and very often took advice from religious people like Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpon

More over he would have never let his children with her mother who he knew is linked to a religion with strong believes and principles like the Jehovah witnesses if deep in his mind he realy wanted to distance himself from religion !

Both Judaism and Christianity are pretty young players in the field of 'religion'. But I get that at lot (Evangelical) Christians in particular are deeply upset by the use of the word 'spiritual'.

The idea and word of 'spirit' is not trademarked by Christianity or Judaism alone. I can see Hindus and Zen Buddhists and Taoists get upset... I recommend looking up 'Sat' and 'Atma', maybe then it's easier to see that the concept of spirit/atma has been far, far longer around than the bible. That doesn't diminish it's universal truth that is spoken about across all religions. All religions contains aspects of some universal truth that all mankind has been seeking- and it's therefore probably fair to assume that 'spirit/atma' has been around a bit longer than any one religion alone. Don't let the New Agers get to you- they just picked up 'spiritual', which has been around as truth before religions.

To even believe in spirit/atma and 'God' doesn't equal 'no principles/no restraints'. I don't believe in an anthropomorphic God, no, but that doesn't mean no acknowledgement of universal laws and rules, even divine. Quite the opposite.

Organized religion is very different from a spiritual search- and it doesn't have to mean vague New Ageness that seems to scare people. Just 'spirit' alone is a great example how one can search and trace 'it' through all religions in search of the universal nuggets contained in each religion. Sufism, Kabbalah, the Bible, the Bhagavad G?t?- they all speak to the same.

People also forget all to easy that early Christianity has virtually nothing to do with either Roman Catholicism (even the Eastern Rites although much different), or Evangelical Christianity of today.

One does not have to be technical Christian to be acknowledging certain universal aspects of Jesus Christ (it's a work name, if you will), to be wanting to examine certain qualities that Jesus Christ seemed to have spoken to. Nor is 'Gnosis' by default Christian- you could make that Christian Gnosis.
You'll find the entire 'after the third day he shall be brought back from the dead and carried up to heaven' not just in Christianity alone- look to Egyptian initiation rites, etc.

'Things' didn't just start an approx. 2000 years ago.