In Reply to: Re: Actually, I didn't get you yet!! posted by MG on February 02, 2007 at 01:17:56:
Oh come on MG, are we splitting hairs now?...I tried to show in the post my opinion (emphasis), that it's materialism vs. spiritualism...if you're spiritual you're bound to embrace some religion sooner or later, depending whether you're reading something or not, realising that others might have had similar thoughts as you or even new ones you begin to like.(I don't think, you can be religious just by yourself either ; ) ...if you notice below some efforts to explain the origin of the word religion...from binding together...with only "things"?...no,rather with other people & gods...rather with God! (my preference)
For m e (!!) materialists are per se non-spiritual, therefore non-religious.
If you get a chance, look up the first pages of John Bowkers "The concise Oxford Dictionary of World Religions, Oxford University Press 2000
You don't find an easy definition there, what religion actually is,even after 14 pages...it's not even sure, what the etymological core of the
matter is...religio that is...from relegere or rather religare: binding things together (or back)
By the way, in that dictionary...the first page is dedicated to quotes of "famous people", what they thought religion is from e.g. Marx, Durkheim, Tyler, Freud, Whitehead etc.
Also, I read the journey rules again yesterday, was a surprise, that I was not so far away in my "gut-reaction"...I sometimes get the idea, you're reading into posts, what is not there...sorry.
You don't have to be religious (in the way of some organised religion, if that is your "fear too"), to clarify it again, what I meant...but I am glad, you're acknowledging the spiritual side of the human being, that's more, than many admit & frankly I am not sure, whether Susie can admit to that, I am still in suspense about that...sigh!!