Purpose of Life-Religion

[Rosey]

I decided to start a new post as I originally intended it to be a
response to the Purpose of Life post but felt it took another
direction.

First off, tip of the hat to everyone in here. I discovered this
group by chance. Second, purpose to life? Ah, the frailties of the
mind, I have been walking backwards as I've grown weak in faith. I am
muslim, I don't think anyone here is immature enough to negatively
comment on such a label, but I do have one thing to say: When I was
more faithful to my religion and consistent with prayers I felt a
sense of completion and calmness. I could even say that I at one
point I felt that I reached a temporary self actualization. It's not
the religion, but more or less the idea of maintaining spirituality
that keeps one fulfilled. Through my recent skepticisms and
analyzations of religion as a whole I have been more distraught than
I've ever been. Is it an oddysey? Why does one who has steered far
from ideological beliefs that a supreme entity exists feel lost and
agonizingly stressed? Wouldn't one be better off just accepting and
following religion knowing that they are abiding by its rules
accordingly? Isn't that comfort?

Sincerely,
Lost

[Tinker]

Dear Rosey,

Religion is like a drug. You are having withdrawal symptoms.
The religion indoctrinates with pat answers to Life's 'big questions'
so you don't have to think about them.
I would think your intelligence saw flaws in the doctrine which caused
you to 'loose faith'.
Exercise your intelligence to get over the withdrawal symptoms.

peace & Love

[Michael Berkovits]

Yes, one would be better off. Studies show that religion is the
single best indicator of human happiness (though these studies suggest
it has more to do with the "belonging to a community of believers"
element than with spiritual fulfillment).

But if you no longer feel it, then you no longer feel it. Sorry!

[Slip Disc]

Did you ever consider that religion simply fills a void within your
incomplete self? Recognizing self and all it's potential overcomes,
as you say, the frailties of the mind. Being faithful to a faith
based belief in a deity that oversees everything in your life is
merely abandonment of personal responsibility to the self, the who and
what you are all about. Every culture experiences the same mortal
life with all its hardships, diseases and woes regardless of religious
belief.
Anthropocentrism seems the main problem affecting the world and it's
inability to become stable. We have become a disconnected entity,
separated from our cosmic origin. This disconnect leaves us void of
the vision necessary for growth beyond the mundane.
God is a concept derived from ancient philosophies as a means of
creating tangible relevance to the unknown origins of life. As
philosophers groped with ideas they failed to reach reasonable truths
and therefore others injected there own ideas rendering the entire
concept as infinitely enigmatic. As science advanced to replace myths
major shifts in deity belief also took place which ultimately led to
the use of religious concepts as a way of controlling the mass
populace. I think God (the name we use) is the essence of all living
things and all things perceived to be as in everything you see and
everything you touch, the energy of life itself.
Religion implies absolute truth and therefore each religious group
must persecute those who fall outside of that truth, ergo, religious
wars and atrocities. Religion has yet to accomplish anything more
than duping people and stripping them of their ability to function
upon their own reason.
Two people of differing cultures can get along really well but when
you throw in differing religions they are more apt to want to kill
each other.
I don't need religion to love someone, to treat someone equally or to
have compassion.

[Don Johnson]

Depending upon your situation it might be better to settle into the
comfort of ritual prayer. You must know these feelings you have are
common and some elder in your mosque could help you with them. If
there is a piece of you that wants to believe, possibly needs to
believe then you should seek help with an elder. Becoming an apostate
should be avoided unless you have a significant support group of
already defected Muslims to help you. Islam, I understand, is not
kind to those that leave the fold. Understand that it's not so much
your relationship with God which is at stake here, it is your
relationship with your friends and family. How will this affect these
relationships?

My family leaves me alone. My son goes to church(Methodist) with his
grandparents and I work or sleep or watch tv for a couple of hours. I
don't talk about the fact that I can't believe and won't believe. I
just don't. It's never been a topic of discussion. They love and
accept me anyway as I am. If you're confident your family will love
and respect you after leaving the faith then I say go for it. Focus
the energy formerly used in prayer to better yourself. Set goals for
more education, increased skill with musical instruments, singing,
dancing -whatever makes you happy.

Shalom,

dj

[Vamadevananda]

I agree with everything you say, SD !

But, it is easy to miss out on the ( very real ) fact that not
everyone is as endowed, evolved, blessed, enabled ... as you are. To
tell the truth, most people are not. These are the vast multitudes of
people who " need religion to love someone, to treat someone equally
or to have compassion." That is, to subsume their animal nature.

If I may offer an analogy, different people need a coat cut according
to their own size. Otherwise, we are never far from " the tyranny of
the masters !"

I only wish that every individual be free of the " herd " mentality,
so that they are able to question and examine, and choose for
themselves. It is the " hard " structure prevalent in organised
religions, the popes and the priests and the mullahs, that should be
dismantled or " softened."

Religions, then, would be just right, if there were no herding and
commandeering of the flock, if they encouraged questioning and
examining and allow exercise of free choice and will. Ideally, there
ought to be as many religions as individuals on this earth !

Just a point of view.

> > Lost- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[iam deheretic]

Hello Rosey

Welcome to the group.. And faith is a fantastic concept or state of being. There is a certain security in the pack mentality because you do not have to be responsible. Fortunately religion is not a one size fits all proposition and it is good to question your beliefs, you are very lucky to be able to examine your beliefs , with out condemnation.
Prayer is a form of ritual, meditation is a from of ritual, letting go of oneself is healthy emotionally other wise you become the enter of your reality, to me that tends to lack the reference points needed for spiritual growth.. one needs a foundation on which to build your spiritual.  That does not mean because some religious person sez something that it is true, it is just their interpretation of what Allah said. I personally have trouble understanding the koran  I believe the purpose of belief is to learn to love Allah with your whole mind , your whole heart and your whole soul.  fortunately anything beyound that is someones commentary on the subject
Allan 

--
(
 )
I_D Allan

[frantheman]

Welcome to the group, Rosey!

The honest journey away from faith is difficult and can be distressing
- I've gone down this road myself and can empathise with what you're
going through. My personal experience has been that it is well worth
while - the farther I travel this way, the more I feel liberated and
at peace, although I see it as a continuing journey and do not know
where it will lead me in the future. But that's part of the fun and
wonder of it all.

One of the things I have learned is that the universe, life and
humanity are deep, complex and wonderful - this is even more the case
when one doesn't posit a divine instance as creator and sustainer.
This realisation is in direct contrast to the insulting, unthinking
untruth frequently offered by religious apologists, who simply claim
that a life without God is amoral, "spiritually" impoverished and one-
dimensional.

Religious systems offer security because they provide ready-made
answers to all the questions, problems and difficulties of life. As
such, they sell our own freedom short. They are, in my view, part of
the childhood/adolescence of humanity which we need to grow out of in
order to become fully (self-)responsible, mature and free.

I wish you courage and serenity on your journey.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TXqSJ9qDQ8

Francis

[gabbydott]

*laughing* Which void are you embracing, Vam, that you agree with
everything Slip says and plead for individualized views within one and
the same post?

[Vamadevananda]

Lots of love, Gabby, your post did set me laughing too !

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Rosey]

One more question, what causes one to question religion after having
been so faithful to it? I'd really like some input. Thank you.

On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, Rosey <indoor...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Rosey]

Then what put us here, only a supreme entity could have devised such a
miraculous creature at the human being. We are physically too
complicated to have simply derived from a cell.

[Marco Afonso]

In any community; spiritual community, religious community, scientific
community, etc... people seems more fullfield and they experience more
calmness and peace than one that doesn't share the same experience as
in a group. I would call it a sort of "lostness". Maybe it is in our
nature to be attached to something, while we also need space and
freedom to maintain our identity. I recognize that in islam it's not
easy to deal with freedom because of the strong religion/culture
influence.

[ornamentalmind]

"...(though these studies suggest

it has more to do with the "belonging to a community of believers"

element than with spiritual fulfillment)...." - Michael

In my eye, such a sense of unity...belonging ...is a central part of
spiritual fulfillment.

[Tinker]

On Apr 20, 9:45 am, Vamadevananda <atewari2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Religions, then, would be just right, if there were no herding and
> commandeering of the flock, if they encouraged questioning and
> examining and allow exercise of free choice and will. Ideally, there
> ought to be as many religions as individuals on this earth !

I believe that everybody does have their own personal religion. Even
two who share a dogma have different interpretations of the elements
of that dogma.
The control element of the dogmas is the problem.

peace & Love

[Rosey]

It's funny how each one of us has a different perspective of religion
altogether. I appreciate all of your thoughts. I was told that once
a person questions the existence of God they grow a black spot on
their heart, the further they press and disbelieve the darker and
larger the spot will become, until eventually the heart itself is
black. Once a person's heart turns black, there is no return or
chance for them to redeem themselves with God. I do believe that a
supreme entity exists. How else could the miraculous invention of the
human being and its complicated bodily function have been created?
But I don't enjoy statements or fears that instill a sense of
hopelessness towards redemption. I do however believe that the people
of the book, Jews, Christians and Muslims are on the right track,
since each religion is closely related in background and initiation,
but of course man alters the true message.

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Tinker]

On Apr 20, 6:05 am, Rosey <indoor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> One more question, what causes one to question religion after having
> been so faithful to it?  I'd really like some input.  Thank you.

Open minded intelligence questioning nonsensical dogma.

Then what put us here, only a supreme entity could have devised such a
miraculous creature at the human being. We are physically too

complicated to have simply derived from a cell. - Rosey

That statement is a part of your indoctrination. I would guess that
you know of evolution and the intelligence you possess recognizes a
logical possibility to refute the supreme entity idea.

peace & Love

[iam deheretic]

Hoi Rosey,  I have a dislike for those that would tell you there is a black spot put on your heart for questioning God,,  Religions trying to force their interpretations  using fear.  One of the saddest parts  of the beliefs of today.

You might become an outcast, lol  believe me I know the feeling well. search to your hears content.
Your friend
Allan

[rosa...@gmail.com]

last year my 19 y/o son passed away in his sleep. Strange, because he
wasn't even sick. on that day i found out just how merciful God is. I
wasn't even religious. God is a mystery.

On Apr 19, 12:42 pm, Rosey <indoor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I decided to start a new post as I originally intended it to be a
> response to the Purpose of Life post but felt it took another

> direction.figuere

[ornamentalmind]

Rosey, since you find a close relationship in 'background and
initation' between religions, what is this relationship between
christianity and buddhism?
Thanks!

[Slip Disc]

First off a belated welcome to Minds Eye, it has been a pleasure to
have you take part in our discussions.
There is no "what" that causes one to question religion, but what you
are referring to is exactly what I was telling you about earlier in my
post. It is the "self" emerging from within you, the "self" that has
been stifled for so long by religious dogma, the "self" that has the
potential and the ability to attain knowledge that comes not from a
"prescribed religious belief".
This is the "self" that has been crushed by many religions which
forbid people to have their own thoughts or their own beliefs, people
were tortured, murdered, exiled and condemned, people like Gallileo,
who spent his brilliant life in prison as a heretic because he
presented something so simple as the scientific fact that the earth
revolved around the sun. Religions can and will be oppressive, frown
on ideas that may provide alternative views and contradict what the
religion "wants" you to believe. Religions are essentially a
dictatorship upon the human mind.
You are for whatever reason concluding that some supreme being "put"
us here and declare that the human body is this wondrous thing in this
wondrous world. But let's have a better look. The human body is
subject to thousands of diseases and ages without mercy in a time when
wisdom has reached impressive proportion. The body consumes,
metabolizes food and excretes waste and for the most part spends it's
life living in pain and fear upon a planet that is unforgiving with
natural disasters that kill and maim people by the millions. And all
this you say is the work of a "supreme being"?
I would think that if a supreme being were to create something it
would not be so wrought with "imperfection". Your perception of the
human body as a precision machine is that of a personal one, a view
that will change as you become old and frail, unable to care for your
"miraculous" invention.
Now you are exposing the true depths of your brainwashing and
indoctrination with this ridiculous story about "black spots. This is
exactly what I expressed earlier about how the ancients conjured up
stories to get people to believe and to get control over the minds of
those who have not the ability to think on their own. People for some
reason forfeit their rights to be governed by others. This notion of
"redemption"; what redemption? redemption from what? This is simple
"fear" tactic and not different from that which parents use on their
little children. "don't touch that or your eyes will go blind"
People of the book you say! Book are written by people not Gods! I
always found it funny that a book written by Jews portrays the Jews as
being the "chosen people". Wow, I find that amazing and wonder if the
"book" was written by Italians, they would be the chosen people. I
think these religious books that have somehow made there way into
modern day, leaving a trail of death and atrocity behind them, are the
biggest "hoax" in the history of planet earth.
The close relation you find in religions stems from the fact that
everyone and there brother needed to have a God of their own and so
different religions popped up all over the place. If you need proof
of that just take a look around and see how many new religions keep
popping up as we speak. Religious splinter groups, cults and sects
seem to take on a life of their own everyday.
There are approximately 4,200 religions, churches, denominations,
religious bodies, faith groups, tribes, cultures, movements, ultimate
concerns, etc. Doesn't that tell you something??
Last but not least "evolution" has not fallen off the edge of the
solar system as a viable theory concerning the origins of life. When
you consider the time span of billions of years it doesn't take much
to allow for expanded thought and open mindedness.

The other day I saw on television the service for 8 year old Sandra
Cantu, who was raped and murdered by a sick woman. The priest offers
this ridiculous phrase that I hear all the time. "She is now in the
arms of a Loving God"
Loving God? What? Where was the loving god when the girl was being
murdered and stuffed into a suitcase to be dumped in a drainage
ditch? Don't you see how nonsensical all this religious stuff is?

You want more?
A pig caused hundreds of Indians to kill one another in 1980. The
animal walked through a Muslim holy ground at Moradabad, near New
Delhi. Muslims, who think pigs are an embodiment of Satan, blamed
Hindus for the defilement. They went on a murder rampage, stabbing and
clubbing Hindus, who retaliated in kind. The pig riot spread to a
dozen cities and left more than 200 dead.
This swinish episode tells a universal tale. It typifies religious
behavior that has been recurring for centuries.

Ronald Reagan often called religion the world's mightiest force for
good, "the bedrock of moral order." George Bush said it gives people
"the character they need to get through life." This view is held by
millions. But the truism isn't true. The record of human experience
shows that where religion is strong, it causes cruelty. Intense
beliefs produce intense hostility. Only when faith loses its force can
a society hope to become humane.

The First Crusade was launched in 1095 with the battle cry "Deus
Vult" (God wills it), a mandate to destroy infidels in the Holy Land.
Gathering crusaders in Germany first fell upon "the infidel among us,"
Jews in the Rhine valley, thousands of whom were dragged from their
homes or hiding places and hacked to death or burned alive. Then the
religious legions plundered their way 2,000 miles to Jerusalem, where
they killed virtually every inhabitant, "purifying" the symbolic city.
Cleric Raymond of Aguilers wrote: "In the temple of Solomon, one rode
in blood up to the knees and even to the horses' bridles, by the just
and marvelous judgment of God."

In the Third Crusade, after Richard the Lion-Hearted captured Acre in
1191, he ordered 3,000 captives many of them women and children --
taken outside the city and slaughtered. Some were disemboweled in a
search for swallowed gems. Bishops intoned blessings. Infidel lives
were of no consequence. As Saint Bernard of Clairvaux declared in
launching the Second Crusade: "The Christian glories in the death of a
pagan, because thereby Christ himself is glorified."

Human sacrifice blossomed in the Mayan theocracy of Central America
between the 11th and 16th centuries. To appease a feathered-serpent
god, maidens were drowned in sacred wells and other victims either had
their hearts cut out, were shot with arrows, or were beheaded.
Elsewhere, sacrifice was sporadic. In Peru, pre-Inca tribes killed
children in temples called "houses of the moon." In Tibet, Bon shamans
performed ritual killings. In Borneo builders of pile houses drove the
first pile through the body of a maiden to pacify the earth goddess.
In India, Dravidian people offered lives to village goddesses, and
followers of Kali sacrificed a male child every Friday evening.

The Assassins were a sect of Ismaili Shi'ite Muslims whose faith
required the stealthy murder of religious opponents. From the 11th to
13th centuries, they killed numerous leaders in modern-day Iran, Iraq
and Syria. They finally were wiped out by conquering Mongols -- but
their vile name survives.

You want more? I've had enough.

[Rosey]

Ornamental,

They don't. I was merely stating that Judaism, Christianity and Islam
relate as they are abrahamic religions. Monotheistic faiths.
Do you think that Christianity and Buddhism relate? If so, details.
I'd love to hear your thoughts. Take care.

[ornamentalmind]

Rosey, perhaps I misread what you said...if so, sorry. I'm ignorant on
such topics. Here is a friend who is much better versed. He has a few
different things, including a free chapter from a new book on his
institute's home page. Enjoy if you wish.
http://www.sbinstitute.com/

[iam deheretic]

Now this is an interesting question I am looking forward to the responses..
Allan

[Justintruth]

Here is my opinion:

The religions can be looked at two ways. In the first way you take
them literaly. You believe that a god "exists" in the same way any
other entity exists. Just like you exist and I exist. "It is possible
that god did not exist but in fact he does" - that kind of thinking.

I label this "fundamentalism". It interprets being in a certain way.
All being is contingent meaning it could have been otherwise but in
fact is not. For example my computer is black but it could have been
blue. God exists but he could have not existed.

Now that form of religion ultimately is a kind of science because it
postulates the existence of an entity and it requires evidence to
either confirm or deny the fact of the existence of that entity. That
is why science seems to contradict religion. Because scientifically,
if you are careful, no such entity is required to explain the data.
Many of the atheists here believe that what God means is this
contingent fundamentalist god and rail against those that believe it
exists on basically, and correctly, scientific grounds.

However, it turns out that is not what the religions are about. If you
look deeply into them you see that they are conceived of in a kind of
alternate metaphysics or ontology. They are not sciences. For a long
time they were confused with them but not now. God, when directly
experienced, is not a contingent being that happens to exist but a
necessary one breathing the life of meaning into experience. There are
"messages" that some claim to get. "Answers" and the experience is
never academic but goes to the heart of who we are. Strictly speaking
it IS heart. Denying this god is in fact - exactly - a black mark on
the heart for what we mean by "heart" is the ability to experience
life and its meaning as it actually is - sacred - full of mystery and
- perhaps at least - loving. That form of religion is not
fundamentalist but is routed in the meaning of being itself. Access to
it is more like access to mathematics than it is like access to
science - although in reality it is neither.

So it is possible to scientifically not believe in the fundamentalist
god while still realizing and experiencing what I will call the real
god" on whom tthe scientific world depends. All of this is rationally
explainable - at least to a point - in the study of ontology and
metaphysics in philosophy. I think though that the reality exceeds
these descriptions and requires a response that is beyond a kind of
limited intellectual knowing.

I wish you well and hope that the "black spot" which is really the
presence of evil does not overcome you. Doubt is not a problem but
unfortunately it is also not the answer. I think that if you doubt
sincerely it is the first step. But it is necessary to go beyond that
and find the answer as well...find the real answer.... or to have the
answer find you!

One thing for sure just abandoning the questioning and "choosing to
just believe" is the wrong answer. It is a kind of lying to oneself
and it is rampant in the more fundamentalist religious views. It is
saying you don't doubt when you do or failing to realize that you
can't just choose what to believe. You just can't stop questioning
because you want to! That is a fundamentaly dishonest process because
your will doesn't just make the truth. That is the real evil. Belief
that you can just choose to make the truth into what you choose to.
That is why I agree with the materialists more that disagree with them
because they are trying, in their own fundamentalist way perhaps, to
defeat that kind of intellectual dishonesty and blindness at the root
of religious fundamentalism.

At any rate I hope that the peace you experienced is not completely
gone and my opinion is that that peace is based in truth and all that
is required is to experience it more fully. Questioning is one path.
There are others. I think that you can directly experience all of this
for yourself and I recommend the Sufi tradition if you are Islamic.
Read Rumi for sure. Or it might be interesting to try a course in
comparative religious studies that compares the religions of the book
with, for example, the Zen traditions. I also recommend exploring the
artistic traditions as they are inherently linked to the religious
ones... and then there is my favorite.... philosophy... the love of
truth.

Salam Alekum.

Ma salam ya sayidati

J

[Slip Disc]

One thing for sure just abandoning the questioning and "choosing to
just believe" is the wrong answer. It is a kind of lying to oneself
and it is rampant in the more fundamentalist religious views. It is
saying you don't doubt when you do or failing to realize that you
can't just choose what to believe. You just can't stop questioning
because you want to! That is a fundamentaly dishonest process because
your will doesn't just make the truth. That is the real evil. Belief
that you can just choose to make the truth into what you choose to.
That is why I agree with the materialists more that disagree with them
because they are trying, in their own fundamentalist way perhaps, to
defeat that kind of intellectual dishonesty and blindness at the root

of religious fundamentalism. >>JT

This is in line with what I was putting forth with the "religious
quash of self" and "self emergence" but with a different linguistic
articulation. Now with your splendid rendition, I'm wondering IF
there really was a fundamental God, could it be that there is really
no human interaction whatsoever and that we have simply been left to
our own devices, left to decipher the mysteries of life which in turn
gave way to conceptual myths, the advent of religion. Religion to me
is archaic mentality which has literally gone nowhere for thousands of
years, it remains as it was in the very beginning, an archaic
mentality. There is nothing to go on except books that were written
by the ancients who really hadn't a clue in the world and nothing to
substantiate their ideas. Nevertheless they were revered by the
populous because they could read and write, they were the scholars of
their time. They spewed out explanations and dictum which the sheep
followed or otherwise be stoned to death. They learned how powerful
religion can be and soon wrote in "tithing" as a way to accumulate
wealth which ultimately became more "power" and then of course came
"persecution" of those whose disbelief or alternate belief presented a
threat to the stability of their religious empire.

[Rosey]

You've made some interesting points J. To accept without feeling the
religion is valid in its own form is ultimately wrong and may be
regarded as sinful. There are definitive answers in the Koran that
require no debate, such as the acknowledgement of the fetus coming
from an atom, Surat Al Alaq, how could this description be known at
such a barbaric time?

<One thing for sure just abandoning the questioning and "choosing to
<just believe" is the wrong answer. It is a kind of lying to oneself
<and it is rampant in the more fundamentalist religious views. It is
<saying you don't doubt when you do or failing to realize that you
<can't just choose what to believe. You just can't stop questioning
<because you want to!

Some things you can't get answers for. Prove that Jin exists, and oh
the blasphemy, prove that God exists. These questions don't have
answers, and require reliance on faith. Believing it to a point where
you don't need to question. That's truely pious. Maintaining the
ability to have faith that God does exist, regardless of all doubts.
I had that once, but it's faded and turned into grumpy analyzations.
Take care. Salaam.

[frantheman]

Let me say (without in the least meaning that in a condescending way)
that I really like your posts, Rosey. They are balanced and reflective
and set me thinking. Thank you!

Coming from the background of a different tradition of the book (a
tradition I see myself as having grown in and then out of), there is a
general Christian view (developed in the two major Christian
traditions, Catholic/Orthodox and Protestant in subtly different ways)
which sees faith - that which is "beyond" reason - as a gift from God
(a thinking vector closely related to the concept of "grace"). In this
sense, faith in God is something which is ultimately initiated and
given by God him/herself. In discussions with those Christian friends
and acquaintances (as a rule, those who would be placed in the more
radical Protestant tradition) I frequently use the argument that God,
for some reason best known to him/herself, has chosen to withhold, or
withdraw this gift from me - and so there's very little point in them
trying to convert me :-). In this sense, I remain open to the
possibility that, at some further stage in my life's journey, this may
change (again), although - as I've commented here earlier - I don't
see it as being very likely at the moment, since my experience of
honest surrender to unbelief has been generally liberating and
positive.

Francis

[ornamentalmind]

"... Prove that Jin exists, and oh the blasphemy, prove that God

exists. These questions don't have answers, and require reliance on
faith. Believing it to a point where you don't need to question.

That's truely pious...." Rosey

So, your particular theological belief structure rejects notions/
experiences such as gnosis, theurgy etc.?

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Justintruth]

>Could it be that there is really

> no human interaction whatsoever and that we have simply been left to
> our own devices, left to decipher the mysteries of life which in turn
> gave way to conceptual myths, the advent of religion.  

I don't think so because being is so radical. I don't think its right
to call it being "left to our own devices". I think "our own" devices
are extremely paultry when compared to creation ex nihlo.

Religion to me
> is archaic mentality which has literally gone nowhere for thousands of
> years, it remains as it was in the very beginning, an archaic
> mentality. There is nothing to go on except books that were written
> by the ancients who really hadn't a clue in the world and nothing to
> substantiate their ideas.

But isn't there a lot of wisdom in what they have written?

 Nevertheless they were revered by the
> populous because they could read and write, they were the scholars of
> their time.  They spewed out explanations and dictum which the sheep
> followed or otherwise be stoned to death.  They learned how powerful
> religion can be and soon wrote in "tithing" as a way to accumulate
> wealth which  ultimately became more "power" and then of course came
> "persecution" of those whose disbelief or alternate belief presented a
> threat to the stability of their religious empire.

Well, there are the scholars, but also there are those that sell soap,
and the politicians. I try not to get religion confused with the
organizations that sell it.

Happy hunting,
Cheers

[Chris Jenkins]

Growth, Rosey.

Welcome to the group.

[Rosey]

So far, from what I understand, some of your are saying that religion
was devised as a group lure for the sole purpose of monetary gains?

Now it makes sense, Moses split the sea so that the Jews could cross
over and sell logo'ed T-shirts advertising the new monotheistic
revelation. To those that believe me, I am kidding.

In times of despair, religion is an answer. Something to look forward
to.

[Slip Disc]

So far, from what I understand, some of your are saying that religion
was devised as a group lure for the sole purpose of monetary gains?

<<<Rosey

No, that is not what religions originally purposed. It was easily
perceived, in ancient times, that humankind was not capable of self
imposed guidelines, anything and everything was the norm due to that
lack of understanding within a world without rules. Imagine sitting
beside a fire wondering what life is all about and then consider that
you are sitting beside the same fire that the ancients sat next to.
Fire is ancient and unchanged so I will use it analogously as we can
with clouds and sun. But you should as a recommendation of mine,
start a open pit fire and sit around it. You are looking at something
that is as old as time itself. Now realize that the ancients also
looked upon that same fire that you are looking at. Then came the
questions, what are we, who are we, why are we here, what is life all
about, what about death, where did we come from and where are we
going, why the sun and the moon, and who is this burger king,<lol?
Needless to say of course, there were the thinkers of their time the
philosophers to which all of humanity turned to for answers. Rather
than look foolish for not having any answers the next best choice was
to come up with reasonable answers for which they spent numerous hours
pondering. The philosophers, much like our current day politicians,
came up with answers that were simple axioms further enhanced by
exemption from dispute. If you listen to politicians you will hear
their perpetual answers to previous answers to previous answers to
continual problems stemming from previous answers. Well to get back
to the philosophers of the ancients we can easily see that it was
necessary to provide answers, even if for the basic reason to maintain
"authoritative establishment". What would it be like if you could not
provide an answer? So came the explanations of life and the rules for
which all humanity should follow originating from a God. Obviously
there must be a God for we are just nomads wandering the earth without
any answers to this wondrous place we call earth, the one which we
think is flat and might fall off of if we walk too far. Surely the sun
keeps revolving around the earth and so does the moon so we must have
answers to all that. Well now, as a philosopher, I'm starting to
realize that all these people are not only trusting me but they are
actually believing all this "I made it up stuff", so I guess I could
tell them anything. So on and on it went and here we are still in the
same pit of listening to philosophers, politicians who provide answers
to the problems caused by previous answers. The only difference being
that science has removed many of the myths. Surely though you must
admit that no one has any "real" answer as to the what are we, who are
we, why are we here, what is life all about, what about death, where
did we come from and where are we going, why the sun and the moon. We
only have one forsure answer to who the burger king is.
Of course now it is all about the money. Evangelists sell books and
every church collects money for your soul. Finding true spirituality
is like finding a needle in a haystack. Religion is no longer an
answer and a "new movement" is in order.

[Justintruth]

It is important to separate religion from the religious organizations
that promote it. The latter are legal persons with bank accounts and
also are hierarchical organizations with decision making concentrated
at the top. That is not what religion is. That is how a small group of
men or women dominate a larger group of men and women. Now it is true
that religion is used to motivate the compliance through
identification of the organization with the deity itself or at least
identification of the organizational goals of the religious
organization with the will of God. But the problem is not religion. It
is human primate behavior in hierarchical organization. It is the lust
for power. Indeed the religions all have two kinds of people - the
saints or holy ones and the ones who run the churches. The problem is
that whenever a saint appears (a real one) then the vision that he
lives causes others to coalesce around him or her and then an
organization forms that is then expropriated by those whose skill is
not religious but rather the skills required to attain prominence in a
primate dominance hierarchy.That kind of behavior is not just
happening in religious organizations. Business and political
organizations are also operating that way. These hierarchies are
formed for one reason - to allow the will of those at the top to be
carried out - to enable their capability to determine the actions of
others. Whether that serves those in the lower part of the hierarchy
or not it is true definitely that the perks at the top are very
similar. Look at the way a pope, a CEO and a president travel or eat
and you will not see religious behavior. The problem is that we are
willing to submit in order to benefit our own position in the
hierarchy. For example I go to work and obey my boss. I do that
because I want money that I can use to allocate resources to my own
consumption. That is not religious behavior. It is my way of coping
with the dominance hierarchy. Both submission and domination are at
the root of the problem.

[e_space]

i think maybe you over-relate religion to god. in my opinion religion
is man-made and has very little relevance to god. my feelings are that
one should listen to their spirit and not the words and admonitions of
man, who have put their own twist on religion, possibly in an attempt
to control people, sometimes through fear and intimidation. it is not
necessary to attend church or to be part of a religious entity to
experience and grow your spiritual being. my father was a preacher and
my whole life at home was focused on the teachings of the bible. i
became disillusioned as you have, partially by witnessing hypocrisy,
and partially because what i was being taught was surplanted with
personal spiritual experiences. i have experienced more with eyes shut
than from being part of a religious group. i have not attended church
for over 30 years and never plan to do so again. i think maybe you are
suffering from the guilt that is associated with the teachings of your
religion. my suggestion is to try to realize that what you were taught
really has very little to do with god or your spirit. enjoy the
beautiful energy that you have within you and try to shed the chains
that are trying to tie you to your past.

[e_space]

i think it is inherantly harmful to try to determine how we got here,
or for what purpose. there are certain questions that we will never be
able to answer and to ask them can lead to exasperation and even
mental illness. there are a lot of bright eyed lunatics inhabiting
mental asylums who have tried to climb that mountain only to realize
there is no top. me feeling is that we should introspect, put out the
welcome mat for all things that scratch on our cranium. i think we all
have spirit but that we must polish it if we want it to get brighter.
maybe is we do this a lot we wont have to keep coming back to
hell...ooops, i mean earth, in order to try and figure it out
again :-)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

So, welcome to Mind’s Eye e-space!

Simple question…what does the view that there are questions that will
never be answered (by anyone?) and such questioning might drive one
crazy have to do with enjoying the
beautiful energy that you have within you and trying to shed the
chains
that are trying to tie you to your past.?

[Tinker]

It seems very incongruous of one so apparently knowledgeable to say
there are questions we shouldn't ask or expect to gain knowledge
through asking.
I've always been crazy, maybe that has kept me from going insane from
the knowledge gained from asking the questions that you and many
religions ban.

peace & Love

[e_space]

nothing other than it has the potential to distract some people from
focusing on the enjoyment of their spirit

[e_space]

u are right, but one must determine if finding an answer is feasible,
if it isnt go find something else to consider. this has led me to
write a little ditty called 'wisdumb, the joy of not knowing'. by the
way, i am not a religion lol...knowledge is not all that its cracked
up to be imo...i would much prefer to be happy and lacking in
knowledge than full of knowledge and unhappy...how about u?

[Tinker]

Ignorance is bliss. Not knowing can be the less stressful way of
living one's Life.
The truth can be painful, but to know the glory of Life makes it worth
while.

peace & Love

[e_space]

the knowledge im talking about is not about the glory of life...to me
the glory of life is spiritual joy...im not 100% ignorant lol...i know
enough about a variety of human and physical things to get by...but
its not the focus of my life ;^)

[Tinker]

To me one of the greatest joys of this glorious Life is the
imagination.
The imagination is the source of all the great accomplishments of
mankind.
We imagine an eternal Life, as a precursor to attaining it within Life
and not becoming dead.

peace & Love

[e_space]

imagination is GREAT...spiritual joy is BLISS

[Tinker]

you said it

peace & Love

[Slip Disc]

What is spiritual joy e?

Isn't it that which you abandoned long ago in retributive upheaval
towards familial indoctrination?

[Don Johnson]

______________ is lighter then a feather and heavier then a mountain.

A.) Life
B.) Death
C.) Love
D.) Knowledge
F.) All of the above

dj

[Don Johnson]

What is spiritual joy e?

Coitus.

dj

[Don Johnson]

I agree, Rosey. I see religion as an answer to our desire to belong.
It doesn't work for me but I have seen it work for many good people.
It helps give their life meaning and allows them to share thoughts and
purpose with like minded individuals. Being alone is dangerous. So
is belonging to the wrong group, so it's good to be able to shop
around for the right church!

dj

[Rosey]

Spiritual joy, spiritual bliss, spiritual disarray, spiritual
disfunction, spiritual, spiritual, spiritual. All of these terms are
insignificant to finding the ultimate outcome. We don't have the
answer. We probably will never have it, maybe in the afterlife. A
person should do what makes them comfortable, comfort should not be
defined as simply conforming. It should be defined as feeling within
your heart that you are doing the right thing. There are many
religions whose members fall into that comfort category. Their mind
is set to the idea that through their beliefs they are walking the
righteous path. We can all sit here an analyze each other's
religions, but when it comes down to it, you have people in every
group who are completely satisfied with their faith and feel they
don't need anything else. It's humbling. That's a good thing. But
because you may have found your happiness in your faith, don't be
biased towards others for finding happiness in theirs.

I have yet to discern what I think is appropriate for my sanity. But
I am going to do it with freewill and conscious thought.

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

I have yet to discern what I think is appropriate for my sanity. But

I am going to do it with freewill and conscious thought. <<R

Bravo, Rosey. There is some comfort in having you around and your
presence is always reassuring that freewill and conscious thought are
alive and well.

[e_space]

no...and if one hasnt experienced spiritual joy, nobody else can
describe it to them

[e_space]

if one has not experienced much in the spiritual realm they will not
determine that it has anything to do with 'finding the ultimate
outcome' and they will consequently keep searching, whether it be in
religion, yoga or a new pet. i found what i was looking for inside of
myself and i think everyone can...of course, i could be wrong.
personally, i have no faith since faith is only required if there is a
lack of knowledge/experience. if one knows something, there is no
requirement for hope, belief or faith.

[e_space]

weighty question...i think you missed one answer ... G) None of the
above...trying to relate physical attributes to non physical things
seems rather impossible, but i think i get your point

[e_space]

analyzing religion from an heirarchy point of view, i see religious
leaders as quite evil. religion is often used to control people
through fear and intimidation, not love and guidance. the roman
catholic religion for example, is the richest 'corporation' in the
world, yet its converts are starving to death and dying of aids
because they cant use contraception. many of the priests are
pedeophiles who have been sheltered and moved around from one church
to the other when scandals were about to break out. they have been
associated with the mafia and murder and will not let females be
priests. they live in mansions that are FAR beyond any dream home you
and i would imagine, have michael angelo on the ceiling, walk around
with massive crowns on their heads and gold jewelry that makes a
rappers bling look like a cracker jack toy. jesus supposedly said,
'give up your riches and follow me'. i guess somewhere down the road,
religious leaders sorta overlooked this admonition. i have nothing
against those who go to church, and if it brings them happiness,
great. just not my cup of tea...

> >> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Rosey]

e, I'm glad that you've been able to resolve yourself spiritually. It
doesn't mean that you've found an answer, you simply don't seek an
answer due to the fact that you feel fulfilled with your current
being. Noone said that's a bad thing.

[e_space]

no they didnt say it was a bad thing, but it wouldnt matter if they
did. and i have found my answer, i havent looked for anything for
decades now...i KNOW i (we) have a bright future and i am content...in
fact, i look forward to my physical demise and in the past even
contemplated suicide, not for negative reasons, but because i wanted
to go home, wherever that is. and thanks for calling me 'e', it is a
name that i enjoy in its simplicity and a short form for my nik that i
was referred to many years ago by some who actually enjoyed what i had
to say :-)

[ornamentalmind]

"e, I'm glad that you've been able to resolve yourself spiritually.
It
doesn't mean that you've found an answer, you simply don't seek an
answer due to the fact that you feel fulfilled with your current

being. Noone said that's a bad thing." - R

For me, resolution is at the very least an answer if not the
answer...perhaps not for the unsatiable ruminations of the dochotic
mind thinking, and, perhaps it is there too....

[e_space]

thinking is wonderful, but seems to relate to a lack of knowledge. if
one knows something they dont have to think about it other than to
revel in the essence of such. i believe it is important to
differentiate between thinking and idle contemplation or meditation.
when it comes to spiritual enjoyment, i prefer to bask in previous
experiences while also putting out the welcome mat for anything else
that wants to come my way. without desire, spiritual growth will
likely not result.

[ornamentalmind]

Yes, knowledge is gnosis.

[frantheman]

On 24 Apr., 12:15, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:
> analyzing religion from an heirarchy point of view, i see religious
> leaders as quite evil. religion is often used to control people
> through fear and intimidation, not love and guidance. the roman
> catholic religion for example, is the richest 'corporation' in the
> world, yet its converts are starving to death and dying of aids
> because they cant use contraception. many of the priests are
> pedeophiles who have been sheltered and moved around from one church
> to the other when scandals were about to break out. they have been
> associated with the mafia and murder and will not let females be
> priests. they live in mansions that are FAR beyond any dream home you
> and i would imagine, have michael angelo on the ceiling, walk around
> with massive crowns on their heads and gold jewelry that makes a
> rappers bling look like a cracker jack toy. jesus supposedly said,
> 'give up your riches and follow me'. i guess somewhere down the road,
> religious leaders sorta overlooked this admonition. i have nothing
> against those who go to church, and if it brings them happiness,
> great. just not my cup of tea...
>

There is a great deal of truth in what you write here, e, but also
large dollops of generalisation, inaccuracy and sloppy thinking which,
in my view, serve only to weaken your argument.

Those who know me better here are well aware of my extremely critical
position viz a viz the RC Church. Nonetheless, I feel I must clarify
some of the points you allude to.

Firstly, the "roman catholic religion" is not a "corporation" of any
kind, but rather a designation for over a billion adherents world-
wide, the vast majority of whom voluntarily associate themselves with
this belief, which is internally organised, according to its own
rules, as a "church". While you and I might regard the official RC
position on contraception, population control and HIV-AIDS as
extremely backward, irrational and regrettable, I must point out that
there is no way the RC Church can force its adherents to follow its
teachings, apart from the "moral" authority accorded to it by many of
those adherents.

The wealth of the RC Church is a difficult subject to discuss, as its
assets are legally in the hands of thousands of distinct organisations
and groups, some of which are quite wealthy, some of which are very
poor. The administrative centre of the Church, the Vatican City, is an
internationally recognised independent country, with its own laws,
maintaining formal diplomatic contacts with most countries in the
world. The present position of this entity is the result of 1700 years
of historical development. Much of its wealth is in the form of real
estate and artistic treasures, a lot of which (including the Sistine
Chapel - which I presume is what you meant with "michael angelo [sic]
on the ceiling") is open to public viewing for a modest fee - used to
maintain the substance of the area generally known as the "Vatican
Museum." The value of it all is priceless, but also practically
useless, since I know of no way in which it could be justly converted
into liquid assets (would selling it to Bill Gates or Roman Abramovich
- preuming they wanted to buy - really make the world better?). A
parallel example would be the Potala Palace in Lhasa (today
nationalised by the Chinese and turned into a museum) which includes
the tomb of the 13th. Dalai Lama, reportedly containing priceless
jewels and a ton of gold.

While the wearing of crowns remains a ritual/liturgical tradition in
the Orthodox Churches (particularly that of Russia) it has never been
a general part of RC liturgy and, in fact, even the Roman popes have
not worn the (till then) traditional tiara for the past fifty years.

The lack of openness and protection by many instances of Church
authority of many priests who have been accused of abusing children is
a scandal of horrific proportions. While not in any way comparable to
the suffering of the thousands of victims, there are also many
thousands priests, sisters, brothers and lay workers who are suffering
from the fall-out and many of them are struggling against corrupt and
encrusted structures within the organisation. My only regret about my
personal departure from the said organisation is the feeling I still
sometimes have that I was leaving a lot of honest, good friends to
carry on their struggle without me.

Francis

[e_space]

i bow to your intimate knowledge on this subject and i agree to
generalization. i guess i was just trying to make a point. im not sure
slopping thinking was involved, maybe less than stellar research.
thanks for the clarifications...

> Francis- Hide quoted text -

[iam deheretic]

You know e-space me and the catholic church have our differences, they are theological and yes I am a heretic,  When you talk about wealth, Francis is right most of it is wealth you just can not dispose of most of it is peoples gifts honoring God, one of the modern one a person needs to look at the Washington cathedral look who was hired to build it,, the unemployed trained in the skills they needed to know and then given a job for the rest of their life, Those were not people that were just out of work, they were the unemployable,
I personally have been involved in projects trying to help the poor earn a living in 3rd world and have lost a small fortune and still do. But poor people can feed their families with pride. But the greatest thing that ever happened is when the letter came.. It read dear Allan We succeeded in finding a cure for leprosy  thank you  may God bless Fr. C

Religion is not about wealth  but learning to serve our fellow man.

disagreements and heretic papers in hand  I will stand shoulder to shoulder with the RC or Orthodox Church

Allan

--
(
 )
I_D Allan

[e_space]

im happy with your success in this area and i dont put religion down.
i was referring to the heirarchy of the church. there is simply too
much hypocrisy at the top. your work is very important and, from my
perspective, this is where the beauty of church lies, with the people,
not those who live in mansions enforcing the laws as they see them.
keep up the good work! :-)

> I_D Allan- Hide quoted text -

[iam deheretic]

Interesting word hypocrisy.  In all organizations there is hypocrisy and including the US Government especially if you look back at the very top of the last administration, oh well now we only have to deal with the after effects of it.

Within both the roman and orthodox church the people in power are kind of stuck there and for the most part they are pretty ordinary and very intelligent men who's lives are controlled by others. That doesn't make them hypocritical it just makes them stuck. sometimes very lonely too. Most of them are very good people to be admired. I have been lucky to see thier good works that are hidden from most.

I do know that if they can ever escape their prison  they are great to have a cup of coffee with..  After all they have a moral and spiritual obligation to save the heretic..

Allan

[Rosey]

You know I am saddened that someone can impose such a bias on another
person's system of belief. There are good qualities and truth in
every religion. I spoke with a gentleman not too long ago regarding
Catholicism and Islam, we had what some would describe as a minor
tiff. All the more joyable for my nature. A well thought out debate
negative of offensive slander is definitely my cup of tea. Now I
don't wnat to seem hypocritical as I am having hard time remaining
true to my faith, but I can't help it. It's most likely biologically
instilled, the defense mechanism for Islam that is. The gentleman
made a point and started within me, a series of introspective views
towards Catholicism. He said that a Catholic Priest will accept
anyone from any faith and talk to he or she without condemning them or
pursuing an initiative to convert them. I find that honorable.
Acceptance by a faith that seemingly is open to advising others of
different faiths. I hope that I am not wrong and was not fed a
fairytale, as I don't like to disperse untrue claims. I guess I could
have researched it prior to writng this post, but i don't want to lose
the frame of mind that I've encountered. I am sure someone will
correct me if I am wrong.

Take care and keep in mind, if you feel it necessary to insult others,
it will only be viewed as ignorance.

[Slip Disc]

Take care and keep in mind, if you feel it necessary to insult others,

it will only be viewed as ignorance. <<<Rosey

You lost me on the insult part. Who and where is someone insulting
another? Your reply is on the post of the Heretic but I don't see
that there is any insult within his post. Unless your comment is a
general statement and not specifically directed?

For the rest I have to say I agree entirely. Regardless of my own
stance concerning religion I respect others personal right to
spiritual belief. There is a commonality with differing faiths and so
I would not find it hard to accept the notion that any one faith would
be able to share, console and advise others of different faith. I
find conflicts of faith to be very similar to racial conflicts in that
we are all members of the human species and all faiths have a central
spiritual theme.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Rosey]

Slip, I was speaking in general terms. I've noticed some animosity
arise from similar posts on religion in the past. It's good to remind
some to think before they write. I didn't aim that statement towards
anyone in particular. I find this forum to be a bit more mature than
others, thankfully.

> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

Thank you for the clarification. It was just in the wording, the "if
you feel" part and I guess it comes down to the single word "you" in
the sentence.
I do understand what you mean by the animosity in religious
discussion, it seem the emotions override the capacity to engage
conversation intelligently. Mind Eye definitely stands alone in the
world of internet forums and I'm am equally thankful for that. Forums
in general can become chaotic and lose direction resulting in a
senseless fray.

> ...
>
> read more »

[Don Johnson]

I feel the need to clarify my statement on finding the right church.
On reading my post again it might have sounded like I was trying to
convert somebody. Nothing could be further from the truth. People
belong where they are happy and comfortable. Where they are respected
and loved.

I've spent most of my life and all of my childhood in the South in
what is popularly known as the Bible Belt. My father moved us around
a bit and we'd find a new church where ever we went. Baptist,
Presbyterian, Methodist and Lutheran are some of the ones we tried and
Dad would settle on the church(not the denomination) he liked. It was
the people and many times most particularly the pastor that attracted
him. Since Dad fancied himself a singer, sometimes it was the choir
director. It was not unusual for us have 8 or 10 churches within a 3
mile radius of our home and it also wasn't unusual for us to travel 15
or 20 miles on a Sunday to try out a church he'd been told about.

He avoided large churches I think because he wanted to help a young
church grow. He'd always want to be on the planning committees to
organize mission trips and what not. He was less interested in the
spiritual side of the church and more interested in the social aspects
of the church community. He left the preaching to the preacher and
worked on planning new construction or whatever needed doing. He
probably couldn't tell you the spiritual difference between the
churches we attended any more then I could(I slept most of time.)

Point I'm trying to make is a person shouldn't form themselves to fit
the group; rather one should try to find the group to fit themselves.
I don't know how Islam mosques orient themselves but I'd imagine they
can be as different from one another as Christian churches are. I'm
not talking Shiite vs. Bathist I'm speaking of the people that make up
the group.

Hope that clears up my stance on religious choice.

dj

[Slip Disc]

In the past, during my church experiences, I've always had this
technique to determine the quality of a church. What I would do is
attend, volunteer, play music, donate my time and effort and then just
drop out of sight. Believe me when I tell you that there has never
been a church that would call me to find out if I was dead or alive.
This little factor revealed to me the worthiness of the church and the
people that went there. If someone goes to a church and offers to
sing in the choir and then mysteriously disappears without the
slightest concern by the church members, something is seriously wrong
with the church. I realize now that it has become a business like any
other private enterprise that has something to sell. In these days it
is selling spirituality to those who are searching, but the problem is
the non delivery of the goods. The church as it exists now is a
failure and if gathering community is the only thing it can accomplish
then there are many other groups, clubs and organizations to which one
can belong that accomplishes the same thing.

[ornamentalmind]

Geezzz Slip! Is that for real? Is that the way to judge an
organization?

If so, I’m giving up Buddhism!

I visited some stupas just being completed w/HHDL where he placed
relics. I’ve had him sit in on a Medical class with us. I’ve gone to
lectures where he has spoken. I’ve recorded his speeches (for free).
I’ve received direct initiation from his lead religious man after
studying with him for over two weeks, sitting at his feet. I’ve gotten
to know many sanghas. I’ve studied the dharma over decades. I’ve
volunteered for helping with tsogs. I’ve spent years helping HHDL’s
personal physician get around and see patients, get housing and eat
etc. I send him money every few months for herbs. I’ve sponsored young
Tibetans who have no money.

And, nary one call to find out how I am from any of them!!!!

Poo on Buddhism in general!!!!


(Yes, irony.)

[Slip Disc]

In your situation there is a huge difference, in that the group is not
local to your community. Actually, I don't really see the comparison,
that would be like me hanging with the Pope and then expecting a phone
call from the Vatican. Still, I would think that at least one person
from the whole should reach out, there is some degree of failure there
on their part. Let me also add that you did not just fail to show up
the next day while recording his speeches which would/should trigger a
concern as to your well being, I would think.

Your simplistic interpretation of my approach is superficial, without
depth. Failure to show any concern for someone who becomes part of a
spiritual family in a local community church is a reflection of the
congregates ability to live up to the spiritual tenets that they
purport to espouse. I would expect, after months of playing/singing
for the choir and receiving expressions of gratitude, for
gratuitousness and ability, from attendees that someone would ask
someone else what happened to the player/singer, with the reply
being, I don't know we need to call and see if all is well. It is
very simple really, especially when you consider that the congregation
(not an organization) may only consist of a hundred members or less.
So your judgment on the matter of my judgment is incorrect, partially
because I had failed to initially present the related and relevant
facts. It is years ago now anyway and I haven't any affiliations nor
need of any so it doesn't matter, but if I did I would rather belong
to a family instead of an organization.
Part of the problem is the lack of instilling that sense of family
within the spiritual community. They take your money, your time and
service and then you return to being a number, not a member. I
personally expect more from a group, any group, in which I would spend
my time engaging in spirituality. This is one area where collective
mentality would make a significant difference. As you say, we are
one, at least we should be!

Thank You!
I rest my case.

There will be a short recess and then the jury will decide the
verdict, unless Judge Judy calls in, and now a word from our
sponsors.

Need a new car? Call gruff's auto!

By the way, orn, is geezzz short for gee wiz or Jesus?

[e_space]

imo the church sells religion, not spirituality, two vastly different
entities. spirit is found within, religion...not so much.

[e_space]

goes to show ya, what one preaches and how one lives their lives are
miles apart.

[e_space]

if the answer is gee whiz, one would then have to ask, is gee whiz a
short form for jesus?

i believe u misinterpreted OM's post. i think she was agreeing with
u.

just a thought...you might want to consider changing the terminology
you use to something a bit more pallatable for the readers of your
responses? you refer to others posts using words such as 'superficial,
frenetic, without depth, simplistic interpretation, mental cache dump,
etc. if one is trying to get a point across it is much better to do so
without attempting to offend the other, because if u do, even if the
words u are saying make sense, the reader will not have a good
interpretation of the 'lesson', because they will not appreciate the
'teacher'...your 'meaning' doesnt have to be 'demeaning'. u have some
good thoughts and comments...if they were slightly less caustic they
might be a bit easier to swallow...again, just an observation

[Molly Brogan]

goes to show ya, what one preaches and how one lives their lives are
miles apart.

Can be, isn't always, doesn't have to be...

[e_space]

100%...should have stated 'can be' istead of 'are'...guess i was
inferring that in essence they are not the same, but can in fact be
similar

[frantheman]

On 27 Apr., 14:03, e_space <espace1...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> i believe u misinterpreted OM's post. i think she was agreeing with
> u.
>

Hey, orn, just when did you have your sex-change? Have you ben hiding
stuff from us? :-)

[e_space]

ooops...bad assumption on my part i guess ;-^(

[ornamentalmind]

geeezzzz isn't short for anything...it just is! :-)

And SD, for the record, for a handfull of years I sang (president) in
a church choir, played flute for services, attended services on a
regular basis, came to youth meetings, met with the pastor (sp?) etc.
And, then just stopped....nada...no call. I didn't expect one by the
way nor would I.

I now am a member of a large spiritual group where I have experienced
the opposite...a group that is not just sheeple nor congregated
together based on evangelism nor faith based theology....

[ornamentalmind]

"goes to show ya, what one preaches and how one lives their lives are

miles apart." - e-s

If that was directed toward my ironic buddhist story...it falls short
in my opinion. The teachings are not thou shalt call a wayward
member...etc

[ornamentalmind]

well e-s, another assumption you made is that I might take umbrage
with Slip for the words....we are old friends and mix it up a little
with no reactive mind stuff like that...so, no worries, ok? :-)
OM
Oh, and I have found others online who make the assumption that anyone
who uses the term ornamental in their screen name MUST be
femanine.....ha! ...so be it...I care not a whit.

> > stuff from us? :-)- Hide quoted text -

[Slip Disc]

Synonym for "wow". Alleged etymology: A way of saying "Jesus!" without
being accused of swearing. More often used as a negative exclamation
than a positive one.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=gee%20wiz

Caustic? LOL I'm sure Orn was up all night crying his eyes out!
Stop projecting your own interpretation, regardless of the inaccuracy,
onto Orn.

'superficial,
frenetic, without depth, simplistic interpretation, mental cache dump,

etc.<<< espace

Caustic? Lesson? Teacher? Preach? What?

Again you project your own timidity upon other readers. If you are
offended it is your personal choice to feel that way but that in and
of itself does not attach new meaning to words very commonly used in
Minds Eye, many of which I learned to use from others, including
Orn.

I would have to ask other members if you have any clue of what you are
saying because I certainly don't think you know what you are talking
about. Unless of course I get out my espace dictionary.

[Rosey]

I will refrain from giving a negative opinion, as that is most likely
what will end up being interpreted. But I too find e's comments a bit
jumbled and out of focus. It is difficult to understand the message
being portrayed especially when words are taken back and other's
opinions are the core basis for new ideas. e try to remain focused
and find non-biased validity in your claims. I do enjoy reading
everyone's comments and find each and every contributor to be a worthy
donor. Your input causes me to think.

> > > By the way, orn, is geezzz short for gee wiz or Jesus?- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

im sorry, i have little idea what this post is referring to...i havent
been offended so far, but keep trying lol

[e_space]

without referrence to what u consider jumbled or out of focus i cannot
comment unless its a generalization. i do not feel i have offered a
bias on anything, unless stating an opinion could be considered
biased. im not sure what u mean by "It is difficult to understand the

message being portrayed especially when words are taken back and

other's opinions are the core basis for new ideas.", so again i cant
comment...as far as making u think...hey, sorry bout that! ;-^)

> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[ornamentalmind]

"...unless stating an opinion could be considered
biased. ..." - e-s

Well, yes, you could say that that is the case. In fact, it IS the
case.

[Slip Disc]

You have no idea what the post is referring to? LOL Yeah OK, e
spaced out!

You are a piece of work, one that I'm done with. I don't want to
waste anymore time.

Adios!

[e_space]

i see...so either u dont have any opinions or your biased...right?

[e_space]

start now and u will accomplish your goal faster ;-^)

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[e_space]

oh i know what u were saying...just didnt make any sense...i hope u
understand what i mean now

On Apr 27, 6:09 pm, Slip Disc <bug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

[Chris Jenkins]

There's been a lot of ad hominem flying around in these posts. Let's
bring it back within the posting guidelines, gents.

[ornamentalmind]

"i see...so either u dont have any opinions or your biased...right? "

- e-s

No, by definition an opinion is subjective and thus a bias...based
upon one's past.

[e_space]

ok...so everyone that has an opinion is biased?

[Chris Jenkins]

Yes! Bias and Opinion are synonyms. :)

2009/4/28 e_space <espac...@gmail.com>:

[e_space]

then i presume being biased could be considered a good thing? because
everbody has opinions. i was under the impression that it referred to
a negative or non-objective slant on something, but from what you are
indicating, being biased could also be considered a positive thing. is
this correct? i mean, i have heard someone saying 'well, im biased,
but after all he is my kid'. maybe ive been oversaturated with the way
it used on the news! ;-^( ...on the other hand, a simple opinion about
something, say ones determination of the validity or truthfulness of
another persons words, without any previous notion, alliance or
prejudice, imo, could not be considered bias, but just an opinion.
what say?

On Apr 28, 9:13 am, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes! Bias and Opinion are synonyms. :)
>

> 2009/4/28 e_space <espace1...@gmail.com>:

[ornamentalmind]

Even though it appears you are asking someone else, I'll chime in
since I pointed it out...
The notion of good/bad does not have to enter into it. It can and
apparently you are doing so. I would posit that this is the case for
about everything.
And, taking it a tad further, looking at just the first definition:

http://www.onelook.com/?w=bias&ls=a

IF one considers having an objective consideration of an issue or
situation to be important, then one could say that being biased is
'bad'...since it prevents such a state.

There are common idioms that do give the term the spin you apparently
have taken on...it is not necessary nor the only way to think/talk/
write. In fact, for clarity, one would want to explore much deeper.

And, again IF you are talking about USA media when you say
'news'....of course one will come up with opinion rather than any
possiblity of objectivity! That has been the case for a few decades
now, sadly. I seldom if ever listen to the 'news'...it has degenerated
into infotainment at best.

When you ask about 'ones determination of the validity or truthfulness

of another persons words, without any previous notion, alliance or

prejudice..", it sounds like you are quoting from a dictionary, are
you? Regardless, such a situation is so rare as to be almost never
found...at least that is how I see it.

[Chris Jenkins]

Ornamental has summed it up nicely. I am biased towards a nice cut of
rare Ahi Tuna. Is that a bad thing? Bias carries such a negative
connotation because there have been so many victims of it...but even
then, we don't think of all of them, do we? How many people have you
chosen not to date, because you did not find them attractive? Look, a
multitude of victims of bias!

Substitute then the word 'preference', and see how that tastes.

[gabbydott]

You are heading for the right direction with the prefixation of your
biases. In your terms, of course.

On 28 Apr., 22:08, Chris Jenkins <digitalprecip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ornamental has summed it up nicely. I am biased towards a nice cut of
> rare Ahi Tuna. Is that a bad thing? Bias carries such a negative
> connotation because there have been so many victims of it...but even
> then, we don't think of all of them, do we? How many people have you
> chosen not to date, because you did not find them attractive? Look, a
> multitude of victims of bias!
>
> Substitute then the word 'preference', and see how that tastes.
>
> On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 12:15 PM, ornamentalmind
>

> ...
>
> Erfahren Sie mehr »