Questions...

[WANDERER]

I wouldn’t normally post in a forum dedicated to a subject so restricting and repetitive and the entire idea of religion seems so infantile and simplistic a concept as to merit no further thought from me.

It would be like debating the existence of a hypothetical Santa, endlessly and trying to prove an assumption with no evidence or logical structure, except for the crude cause/effect prejudices of limited minds, projections of self-interest into the void of ignorance and the influence of fear and hope on a mind that must create its own.

Sure, imaginative speculation can be interesting and satisfying on some level, but religious debates are always limited to a specific two three fates that dominate the world stage, not because of their validity but because of historical circumstance and psychological manipulations.

Nevertheless the idea of belief in god or gods is an essential part of the human condition.
There exists a need, in each man, to reach out into the unknown and to offer sacrifices in return for some consideration and good fortune.
In times of trouble and of suffering each mind screams out into the darkness and listens for a response.
The easiest way to define religious fervour is with one word: Hope.

The question is: What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?

Do the current religious systems benefit or hinder human ascension?

What sort of God would exemplify mankind’s desire to become master of his own domain and willing inheritor of eternity and the responsibility contained in it?

 

[-Bob-]

I wouldn’t normally post in a forum dedicated to a subject so restricting and repetitive and the entire idea of religion seems so infantile and simplistic a concept as to merit no further thought from me.

It would be like debating the existence of a hypothetical Santa, endlessly and trying to prove an assumption with no evidence or logical structure, except for the crude cause/effect prejudices of limited minds, projections of self-interest into the void of ignorance and the influence of fear and hope on a mind that must create its own.

Sure, imaginative speculation can be interesting and satisfying on some level, but religious debates are always limited to a specific two three fates that dominate the world stage, not because of their validity but because of historical circumstance and psychological manipulations.

Nevertheless the idea of belief in god or gods is an essential part of the human condition.
There exists a need, in each man, to reach out into the unknown and to offer sacrifices in return for some consideration and good fortune.
In times of trouble and of suffering each mind screams out into the darkness and listens for a response.
The easiest way to define religious fervour is with one word: Hope.

The question is: What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?

Do the current religious systems benefit or hinder human ascension?

What sort of God would exemplify mankind’s desire to become master of his own domain and willing inheritor of eternity and the responsibility contained in it?

That sort of 'God' can only be the god of life. Man is benefitted because this 'god' soothes his loneliness and isolation in the best way... and it raises him above, because he is part of a vast totality. He is life's most complex and precious creation, and part of a movement that goes far beyond him and in which he can participate.

 

[water]

I wouldn’t normally post in a forum dedicated to a subject so restricting and repetitive and the entire idea of religion seems so infantile and simplistic a concept as to merit no further thought from me.

Well, *you* have defined the subject here to be "restricting and repetitive and the entire idea of religion seems so infantile and simplistic a concept as to merit no further thought", so this is how religion is to you. A perfect circle you have there.

It would be like debating the existence of a hypothetical Santa, endlessly and trying to prove an assumption with no evidence or logical structure, except for the crude cause/effect prejudices of limited minds, projections of self-interest into the void of ignorance and the influence of fear and hope on a mind that must create its own.

The subject of religion seems wanting to you because you have declared cognitive criteria to be the only ones that matter. You are approaching religion the same way you approach mathematics.
As if there were no ethical component to religion as well.

Sure, imaginative speculation can be interesting and satisfying on some level, but religious debates are always limited to a specific two three fates (?) that dominate the world stage, not because of their validity but because of historical circumstance and psychological manipulations.

That's because it is rather fruitless to endlessly debate a set of generic ethics. Instead, people talk about sets of established, historically existing ethics that were and are held by actual people -- in opposition to some philosophical constructs that nobody lives by.

The question is: What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?

That's a tricky question. Do you think of god as being a ladder that one must discard as soon as one climbs it up?

Do the current religious systems benefit or hinder human ascension?

Ask a Mormon.

What sort of God would exemplify mankind’s desire to become master of his own domain and willing inheritor of eternity and the responsibility contained in it?

A god that would give up his own godliness for the sake of man, and bestow man with that godliness.

 

[duendy]

I wouldn’t normally post in a forum dedicated to a subject so restricting and repetitive and the entire idea of religion seems so infantile and simplistic a concept as to merit no further thought from me.

It would be like debating the existence of a hypothetical Santa, endlessly and trying to prove an assumption with no evidence or logical structure, except for the crude cause/effect prejudices of limited minds, projections of self-interest into the void of ignorance and the influence of fear and hope on a mind that must create its own.

Sure, imaginative speculation can be interesting and satisfying on some level, but religious debates are always limited to a specific two three fates that dominate the world stage, not because of their validity but because of historical circumstance and psychological manipulations.

Nevertheless the idea of belief in god or gods is an essential part of the human condition.
There exists a need, in each man, to reach out into the unknown and to offer sacrifices in return for some consideration and good fortune.
In times of trouble and of suffering each mind screams out into the darkness and listens for a response.
The easiest way to define religious fervour is with one word: Hope.

The question is: What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?

d)))straightaway i notice your gender bias terminology. ie., 'mankind' and 'he'. not saying you meant this deliberately, bu i explore patriarchal history etc., and it is this assumption that runs throught the lot. that it's all about the precious MALE arse that needs to be saved, etc

so that out of the way/.......as far as i am aware it is in the process of deification of A 'God' is where the problem begins.
As i have tried to share in other posts, threads. THe essence, source, origins of spirituality are to do with DIRECT experience. ACTUAL felt experience which is ecstatic, and gives the experiencer of being more than the usual sense of self
In modern parlence it is called 'expanding the mind'.....in the ancinet Earth religions, including Dionysianism, it was the feeling of being possessed by the god--"of Nature; of Liberation; of Dance, etc. So, in other words you were actually xperiencing spirituality, instead of having it preached to you out of a book, etc.

Do the current religious systems benefit or hinder human ascension?

d)))HINDER!....they divide people , not only from each other, but divide individuals from their own natures, by making them feel guilty about their own natural being, and their interelationship with Nature


What sort of God would exemplify mankind’s desire to become master of his own domain and willing inheritor of eternity and the responsibility contained in it?

Well again. all 'man man man'. the sort of 'God' who is a patriarchal sky god is who

 

[WANDERER]

water

Well, *you* have defined the subject here to be "restricting and repetitive and the entire idea of religion seems so infantile and simplistic a concept as to merit no further thought", so this is how religion is to you. A perfect circle you have there.

I was commenting on how the subject is approached here.

I draw a distinction between religion and spirituality.

The subject of religion seems wanting to you because you have declared cognitive criteria to be the only ones that matter. You are approaching religion the same way you approach mathematics.
As if there were no ethical component to religion as well.

There are ethical criteria in anything man does.

But given the option of emotional intuitive criteria or cognitive criteria, I choose the second.
That’s what makes me analytical.
You, and those like you, prefer the gentle breezes of feelings with no conceptual definition.

“I feel this is true”
“Why?”
“I don’t know…I just feel it.”

Forgive me for thinking this stupid.
Perhaps in areas where observation is limited or where cognition is denied access, one can fall back on feeling.
Maybe feeling can act as an added source of understanding, but to make it the primary source is a sure way to become a victim of your own nature.

That's because it is rather fruitless to endlessly debate a set of generic ethics. Instead, people talk about sets of established, historically existing ethics that were and are held by actual people -- in opposition to some philosophical constructs that nobody lives by.

Nobody lives by those “established” ethical systems, except for a few fanatics.

Ideals are necessary in that they provide goals and motivations.
But when these ideals trick you into believing that you are growing when you are withering, then it’s time to change ideals.

That's a tricky question. Do you think of god as being a ladder that one must discard as soon as one climbs it up?

No, the concept of God is an ideal.
The God’s characteristics determine the ideals specifics.

But also yes. When one ideal is reached or surpassed anew one must be created.

A god that would give up his own godliness for the sake of man, and bestow man with that godliness.

An idiot God is not that appealing.
I can see the attraction to a fatherly figure that passes down the reign of power without a struggle, but it is also pathetic because it isn’t earned.

 

[Perfect]

The most disturbing aspect about spirituality and religion is the unsacrificing mental state of it.
And as the belief in god(s) is essential to our condition, and the variety of beliefs all interpret something similar and present it in a eulogistic way that complements only the fraction it stems from, it raises problems.

These problems are, in the end, nothing more than personal preferences and digested habits; preferences and habits which are too proud to budge.

If the absolute commitment of religion could sacrifice itself to absorb understanding, then it could benefit human ascension. Current religious systems do no such thing and therefore hinder.

In times of trouble and of suffering each mind screams out into the darkness and listens for a response.
The easiest way to define religious fervour is with one word: Hope.

Frustration, perhaps with a side dish if panic is what forces minds to scream into a void. This fits in the same category with self-delusional behaviour practiced when facing personal failures.
It is wishful thinking taken to the extreme.

As you consult with utter darkness, it seems as if you’re accomplishing/solving certain issues, even though you’re only risking your integrity, and trusting in actions which seem helpful but in reality only rape your objective mind.

And when a person who has lived a ‘blessed’ life, utterly free of distress, places he’s trust into the icon of fervourance. Then the religious fervour you defined with hope, changes into religious fervour defined with fear.
Ones mind is fixated as if loss of faith equals concrete loss.

Mankind ascends with the help of gods when a mortal mastermind deceives once again, and receives god status. At least then there would be something concrete to praise.

straightaway i notice your gender bias terminology. ie., 'mankind' and 'he'. not saying you meant this deliberately, bu i explore patriarchal history etc., and it is this assumption that runs throught the lot. that it's all about the precious MALE arse that needs to be saved, etc

COUGH! You know doll, in Finnish language there are no feminine and masculine forms, he/she.
And we have a female president. Cya, bambino.

 

[duendy]

no. i was being serious. dont call me a child, and patronize
also in English language they dont have male or female for tables and chairs and shit like in French etc. not sure what you mean about Finnish language though. you CAN tell a man from a woman i take it?

 

[Perfect]

No. Everything is androgynous.

For example: Hän käveli poliisilaitokselle.
Which translates to: He/she walked to the police station.

But, this is out of topic.

 

[water]

I was commenting on how the subject is approached here.

Sometimes, yes. But certainly not always. You wouldn't know though, as you don't spend all that much time here ...

You, and those like you, prefer the gentle breezes of feelings with no conceptual definition.

“I feel this is true”
“Why?”
“I don’t know…I just feel it.”

Why don't you just rather admit how much you dislike me?

Instead, you try to discredit me wherever you can, ascribing theories to me that you know I don't hold.

Forgive me for thinking this stupid.
Perhaps in areas where observation is limited or where cognition is denied access, one can fall back on feeling.
Maybe feeling can act as an added source of understanding, but to make it the primary source is a sure way to become a victim of your own nature.

It is defnitely the Mormons and their interpetation of the "workings of the Spirit" that you can accuse of such charlatanism and superstition.

Nobody lives by those “established” ethical systems, except for a few fanatics.

Ideals are necessary in that they provide goals and motivations.

You are arguing from perfectionsm of performance.
It's not a viable criterium -- using it, you'd have to discard pretty much everyone.

But when these ideals trick you into believing that you are growing when you are withering, then it’s time to change ideals.

It all depends on who is judging what "growing" and what "withering" is.

No, the concept of God is an ideal.
The God’s characteristics determine the ideals specifics.

But also yes. When one ideal is reached or surpassed anew one must be created.

So your suggestion would be a polytheism with a hierarchy of gods?
"Today, we serve god nr.1. When we have reached him, we will shift a notch up to god nr.2."

A god that would give up his own godliness for the sake of man, and bestow man with that godliness.

An idiot God is not that appealing.
I can see the attraction to a fatherly figure that passes down the reign of power without a struggle, but it is also pathetic because it isn’t earned.

First of all, my example is not a patriarchal god. Unless, again, we go for the Mormon explanation and its possible offsprings. It's interesting, how the same route of thought that proceeded the inception of Mormonism can be repeated. There was a need for god, but the existing religion were uncomfortable inasmuch as they proposed a great gap between god and man. A need for the deification of man was present, but at the same time the need for a god, and also a god that is reachable to man. Hence the need for complete anthropomorphization. And Joseph Smith and co. did it. It's perfect religious capitalism.

but it is also pathetic because it isn’t earned

What do you mean by that?
Must a god be earned?
Do you believe love must be earned, or it isn't love?

 

[Silas]

What type of deity will benefit mankind and raise him above what he is?

The New Commandments
1. Thou shalt not waste any time in worshipping me. Follow my precepts to live a good live, but do not put aside any time just to stand or sit in rows and repeat how great I am.
2. Thou shalt not SIN. Sin is defined as follows: whatever causes harm, physical or mental, or results in any kind of unearned deprivation of goods or assets or any kind of object of value, to any fellow human being. Let me make this clear regarding sexual morality: whatever you want to do with any part of your body, in private, on your own or with another consenting adult person is pretty much up to you.
3. Thou shalt treat every fellow human being as you would wish to be treated. That is to say, you will not prejudge any other person on any basis whatsoever. Race. Sexual Orientation. Not even (especially not even) if they do not believe in Me. Upon meeting another human being you will treat them with the respect you hope to get in return.
4. Thou shalt not devote any time to futile re-interpretation of My Commandments. Everything I say is clear and unambiguous. When I say "Thou shalt not harm another human being" I mean literally just that. I do not mean "Thou shalt harm those who do not believe in me." Quoting of that line out of context of the whole Commandment is the only crime for which you will go to Hell for all eternity. I hope that's clear.
5. Smiting of one's enemies is right out. I am not kidding about this. No smiting!
6. There is no such thing as Hell. There is no such thing as Heaven, or Paradise. There is, in point of fact, no form of life after death of any kind. This is it, you only have one shot at this life and no other. The only form of immortality consists in having worked throughout your life to make the world a better place for your children to grow up in, and their children after them, and so on.
7. No individual human being is to set herself or himself up in authority over other human beings except by consent of those to be so governed.
8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.
9. Likewise, all Education of the young must be upon a rational basis. No teacher is to teach solely on the basis of any kind of external Authority, but everything a child is taught must be shown in such a way that the child can see that the learning is true and justified, and no reference to Me or My existence is to alter any part of the Education of a human.
10. There are no such things as nations. There is only Humanity. Live together as friends and neighbours.

 

[duendy]

No. Everything is androgynous.

For example: Hän käveli poliisilaitokselle.
Which translates to: He/she walked to the police station.

But, this is out of topic.

So how does that androgynous language affect how you'll view reality?

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

Wanderer, you describe religion as restricting, repetitive, infantile, and simplistic as a concept. Ok, that's fine, it's you're perrogative to do so. However, many followers of religion, unless there has been a traumatizing experience, or misunderstanding at some point, view religion as liberating, expansive, exciting, interesting, mature, and both simple and complex. I don't know how much experience you've had with religion, but I do know how much I've had, and I would ascribe to the viewpoint that I have described, rather than the one you have.

You claim that debating religion would be like "debating the existence of a hypothetical Santa, endlessly and trying to prove an assumption with no evidence or logical structure." Ok, once again, it's your right to hold this standpoint, that's fine. Though, I agree that the debate would be endless, I don't know if it would always be about trying to prove that there does indeed exist a God. After all, most theologians and philosophers that I know would agree with Thomas Aquinas that there is no known proof that God exists. However, there are phenomena that we can use as indicators of the possibility. However, in the interest of avoiding an endless debate, I won't name any here. I would simply say that, though I am quite religious, more than many people who follow the same religion as I, I am also quite more open to new scientific thought and theoretics than those same people. In my experience, it has always been those of deeper religious conviction who are more open-minded than those of shallow religious conviction (ie, those who follow a religion, but don't know much about it, or much about other religions, etc..).

Oh I certainly agree with you about imaginitive speculation, quite interesting and satisfying. However, I try to avoid basing any of my religious beliefs on mere whims that I have. There is a logical structure to that which I believe. Though the initial assumption is quite debatable, what follows is logical based on the initial assumption. I don't know, but perhaps the religious people you have met have been psychologically manipulated. You probably believe the same of me. Yet, from what I can tell, my beliefs are not altogether common, and certainly not mainstream within my religion. I am like you, quite analytical. Though, like any theory, my beliefs begin with an assumption. Any analysis begins with an assumption. In fact, comprehension itself begins with an assumption. Often, I encounter non-religious people, or purveyors of strict logics accusing religious of closemindedness and bigotry. Indeed, how can I argue such an accusation? Many, a very great many, do really fit such an ill-description, which is saddening. However, likewise do I say of those anti-religious. Though I present what I deem to be a fair and accurate image of religion, or at least my own beliefs, I will, without fail, be met with doubt, antagonism, and accusation of infantility, and ill-intelligence. Should I consider this to be of open-minded individuals who promote the uplifting of the mental state and movement away from mental manipulations? Of course not. Antagonism IS a form of psychological manipulation. Bigotry is a form of close-mindedness. I do not believe because I am brainless. I do not believe because I fear the loss of a security. I do not believe because I am infantile. I do not believe because I've been brain-washed to do so. I do not believe because I think imaginitive speculation is satisfying. I believe because both coginitive functions of my brain, the intuitive/ holistic right hemisphere, and the logical/sequential left hemisphere are in concurrance. Plain and simple.

Yes, belief in God (or gods) is an essential part of the human condition. The reason for which is still unknown and under debate. Your assertion in any direction is purely speculative, just as is mine.

Interesting that you would define religious fervour as hope. That is a very strong virtue in the eyes of my religion. Indeed, if one has not hope, one only has despair. Yet, that hope entails faith, and that faith entails love. It is only when faith does not entail love that hope becomes an evil. If you define religious fervour as hope, then this is something you need to realize. Another thing you need to realize is that faith is only an evil if it is blind and uncompromising. This is not what faith should be, as well, this is not what religion should be.

 

[WANDERER]

duendy

Well again. all 'man man man'. the sort of 'God' who is a patriarchal sky god is who

Too bad. Deal with it.
I didn’t create your gender as it is.

Perkele

The most disturbing aspect about spirituality and religion is the unsacrificing mental state of it.

One of Ghandi’s 7 mortal social sins.

Privileges with no or little effort.
The kingdom of God offered to all, if they repent in time.
Quit silly.

If the absolute commitment of religion could sacrifice itself to absorb understanding, then it could benefit human ascension. Current religious systems do no such thing and therefore hinder.

Explain

As you consult with utter darkness, it seems as if you’re accomplishing/solving certain issues, even though you’re only risking your integrity, and trusting in actions which seem helpful but in reality only rape your objective mind.

You return to infancy and make a mockery of your life.

Ones mind is fixated as if loss of faith equals concrete loss.

Or as if there was concrete to begin with.

Looking into the void, akin to the mind looking into itself and finding nothing besides animal drives and fearful expectations.

water

Sometimes, yes. But certainly not always. You wouldn't know though, as you don't spend all that much time here ...

There’s not much to keep my interests alive, here.
Children wallowing away the moments and wanting to maintain the distances that offer them anonymity and comfort.
Giggling girls and witty boys, exchanging ‘private messages’ and thinking they’re socializing.
An interactive role-playing game. You choose your character, an image to represent you and you go off to fight the dragons.

Why don't you just rather admit how much you dislike me?

Instead, you try to discredit me wherever you can, ascribing theories to me that you know I don't hold.

I don’t even know you.

You are arguing from perfectionsm of performance.
It's not a viable criterium -- using it, you'd have to discard pretty much everyone.

Either that or discard the ideals they worship and that have purposefully been created to be so unreachable, as to always result in failure. This in turn leads to self-incrimination, self-hatred, repentance, the need to make amends by surrendering to the others will.
A clever mechanism of enslavement.

So your suggestion would be a polytheism with a hierarchy of gods?
"Today, we serve god nr.1. When we have reached him, we will shift a notch up to god nr.2."

Yes.

What do you mean by that?
Must a god be earned?
Do you believe love must be earned, or it isn't love?

Mmmm…yes.
God must be earned.

Love must be earned or it isn’t worth anything.
Free love, unconditional love is not only a mythological construct – there is no such thing as unconditional – but it is the watering down of an emotion that served mankind well.

Those I love become honored members of my environment and valuable because there are those that I hate.

Silas

The New Commandments
1. Thou shalt not waste any time in worshipping me. Follow my precepts to live a good live, but do not put aside any time just to stand or sit in rows and repeat how great I am.
2. Thou shalt not SIN. Sin is defined as follows: whatever causes harm, physical or mental, or results in any kind of unearned deprivation of goods or assets or any kind of object of value, to any fellow human being. Let me make this clear regarding sexual morality: whatever you want to do with any part of your body, in private, on your own or with another consenting adult person is pretty much up to you.
3. Thou shalt treat every fellow human being as you would wish to be treated. That is to say, you will not prejudge any other person on any basis whatsoever. Race. Sexual Orientation. Not even (especially not even) if they do not believe in Me. Upon meeting another human being you will treat them with the respect you hope to get in return.
4. Thou shalt not devote any time to futile re-interpretation of My Commandments. Everything I say is clear and unambiguous. When I say "Thou shalt not harm another human being" I mean literally just that. I do not mean "Thou shalt harm those who do not believe in me." Quoting of that line out of context of the whole Commandment is the only crime for which you will go to Hell for all eternity. I hope that's clear.
5. Smiting of one's enemies is right out. I am not kidding about this. No smiting!
6. There is no such thing as Hell. There is no such thing as Heaven, or Paradise. There is, in point of fact, no form of life after death of any kind. This is it, you only have one shot at this life and no other. The only form of immortality consists in having worked throughout your life to make the world a better place for your children to grow up in, and their children after them, and so on.
7. No individual human being is to set herself or himself up in authority over other human beings except by consent of those to be so governed.
8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.
9. Likewise, all Education of the young must be upon a rational basis. No teacher is to teach solely on the basis of any kind of external Authority, but everything a child is taught must be shown in such a way that the child can see that the learning is true and justified, and no reference to Me or My existence is to alter any part of the Education of a human.
10. There are no such things as nations. There is only Humanity. Live together as friends and neighbours.

Interesting.
Is it yours?

beyondtimeandspace

Wanderer, you describe religion as restricting, repetitive, infantile, and simplistic as a concept. Ok, that's fine, it's you're perrogative to do so. However, many followers of religion, unless there has been a traumatizing experience, or misunderstanding at some point, view religion as liberating, expansive, exciting, interesting, mature, and both simple and complex.

Most religious belief is a product of either indoctrination or some traumatic event.
Even if it’s the traumatic event of the realization of ones mortality.

There’s nothing complicated about religion, especially popular religion.
There are only simple minds finding it so or ambiguous language creating the illusion of it being so.

Religion is simply this: A set of rules or a tradition based on FEAR/HOPE intertwined and projected inward or outward.

Freud would say it is man’s primordial guilt for having killed the father and replaced him within the community, creating a representation of this father figure to make amends and to appease his vengeance.

However, there are phenomena that we can use as indicators of the possibility.

Like?

In my experience, it has always been those of deeper religious conviction who are more open-minded than those of shallow religious conviction (ie, those who follow a religion, but don't know much about it, or much about other religions, etc..).

I would disagree, strongly.
In my experience those with a strong religious conviction are closed minded and obtuse. This owing to the fact that their belief in absolute concepts and in absolute truth with absolute certainty creates no room for free speculation and scepticism.

I would also say that those with strong religious convictions are also the most immoral and hypocritical humans on this planet.
They are the most willing to kill and die for a cause that they cannot intellectually prove nor defend against criticism.
They are the ones that speak about eternal punishments and rewards and that have, somehow, convinced themselves that their feeble existence deserves more than an ephemeral existence.
They are the ones proclaiming special status and privileged information.

Fanatics always create havoc and destruction, because they are too egotistical or stupid to question themselves and their beliefs.

Oh I certainly agree with you about imaginitive speculation, quite interesting and satisfying. However, I try to avoid basing any of my religious beliefs on mere whims that I have. There is a logical structure to that which I believe.

Really?
Then you would have no problem displaying this logical construct that is not based on a whim.

I find it interesting to know that many men have tried to define reality and prove its existence with little or no success and yet people, like you, can prove something that supposedly exists beyond human perception.
What’s more interesting is that you can make a statement like that without smirking or feeling ridiculous.

Though, like any theory, my beliefs begin with an assumption.

Aha! Therefore from the get go you admit to a prejudice.

I do not believe because I've been brain-washed to do so. I do not believe because I think imaginitive speculation is satisfying. I believe because both coginitive functions of my brain, the intuitive/ holistic right hemisphere, and the logical/sequential left hemisphere are in concurrance. Plain and simple.

All beliefs based on faith.

Yes, belief in God (or gods) is an essential part of the human condition. The reason for which is still unknown and under debate. Your assertion in any direction is purely speculative, just as is mine.

Yes. Therefore your beliefs, just like mine should be tested and not be forced upon infants or pounded into the heads of simpletons.
And certainly no speculative belief deserves the honour of having men killing and dying for.
Spiritualism is a personal thing.

Interesting that you would define religious fervour as hope. That is a very strong virtue in the eyes of my religion.

It is also what binds you to your animal nature and to material concerns.

Indeed, if one has not hope, one only has despair.

That is a piece of dual thinking that explains your dependence on mythology.
The opposite of hope is not despair.
Despair can be a reaction to an absence of hope.

But why only two options?
What about indifference?
Imagine what a playground this earth becomes when ones loses care.

Yet, that hope entails faith, and that faith entails love.

Love is simply a chemical mechanism that binds one mind to another.

If you define religious fervour as hope, then this is something you need to realize. Another thing you need to realize is that faith is only an evil if it is blind and uncompromising.

I already stated that spirituality is essential to the human condition. I just don’t create mystical concepts to make it more romantic.

But your label of ‘evil’ is meaningless.

This is not what faith should be, as well, this is not what religion should be.

How something should be and how something is, are two different things.

Communism should have been different.
Christianity should have been otherwise.
Islam should have become other than.

But ideals are reached for and never reached, when they create standards that are unnatural and detrimental to the health of the individual.
The survival instinct takes precedence over any utopian ideal.

Gods should be more approachable, more earthly and real, or else they become ridiculous and dogmatic.

 

[Perfect]

One of Ghandi’s 7 mortal social sins.

Privileges with no or little effort.
The kingdom of God offered to all, if they repent in time.
Quit silly.

Never read anything about these 7. But it's good to know at least Ghandi backs that up.

So yeah, maybe we all should quit. In fact, I remember a guy once who spouted out similar shit as this other guy, so I told them to shut the fuck up and be ashamed of themselves, disgusting.

Explain

Quite simple.., Absolute commitment furrows trough beliefs/convictions; even trusteeship can turn to ruble. For example, people calling their neighbors in as traitors in Nazi Germany – total commitment for the cause.

And when you think about suicide bombers and people who think every single bit of happiness in their lives is a blessing from god, unattainable without faith…
People who are so committed to their cause that they can not associate themselves with minds of different cultivations. They lack understanding and the ability to interconnect thoughts.

It’s like inbreeding.

So how does that androgynous language affect how you'll view reality?

If you imply I should open my eyes to see the male patriarchy in works, I won’t, for I do not see it, at least not in my environment.

And if you’re asking just for the hell of it: Larger usage for people’s names, and sometimes accidentally neglecting ‘she’ in the English language.

 

[beyondtimeandspace]

There’s nothing complicated about religion, especially popular religion. There are only simple minds finding it so or ambiguous language creating the illusion of it being so.

I would say, then, that you haven't studied religion deep enough. But that's just what I would say. Also, you are, once again, exuding that air of bigotry which you keep accusing the religious of. Ad Hominem attacks such as, "there are only simple minds finding it so" (in reference to me since I was the one who claimed complexity) are not appreciated here.

Religion is simply this: A set of rules or a tradition based on FEAR/HOPE intertwined and projected inward or outward.

Again, you are showing your lack of understanding of religion. My religion, at any rate, will always uphold the person's right to choose. The rules proposed are simply set forth for the individuals own well being, as well as the well being of others. As such, you should understand that breaking such rules, if understood properly, shouldn't impose guilt (unless the hurt of others is involved, which is why forgiveness is strongly pushed, to help the cessation of guilt). The understanding mind would realize that breaking such rules is to his/her own detriment, or the detriment of others. That one is simply hurting him/herself, or others by such bad actions. The first and foremost rule in my religion is to always follow your conscience, even if what you are doing is wrong. The second rule is to properly form your conscience. Your claim that religion is a clever mechanism for manipulation is baseless, as it is based on the assumption that guilt is a key factor is bring about that manipulation. Guilt couldn't be, since my religion presses to avoid guilt always. Some people, like you, would propose that one should simply stop caring, that gets rid of guilt. Yet, even one who would propose such a thing couldn't stop caring entirely, otherwise along with there being no regret disappointment, there would also be no satisfaction, no joy or happiness. It is a human need to care, and so it should be employed properly, to whatever is right and according to proper nature.

I would disagree, strongly.
In my experience those with a strong religious conviction are closed minded and obtuse. This owing to the fact that their belief in absolute concepts and in absolute truth with absolute certainty creates no room for free speculation and scepticism.

I'm sorry that you would disagree. We've obviously had different experiences. However, it seems to me that you are equating the deeply religious with fanatics. I disagree with this parallel. It is true that fanatics have strong religious convictions, but I wouldn't say this makes them deeply religious. More often than not, such fanatics don't have a deep understanding of what their religion teaches. Often, it is a fanatic who has shallowly religious. Strong religious conviction about a religion he/she knows so little about, or understands little of. Fanatics do create disctruction and sorrow. It is a terrible thing.

I find it interesting to know that many men have tried to define reality and prove its existence with little or no success and yet people, like you, can prove something that supposedly exists beyond human perception.

As I said, there is no known proof, and I do not try to find one. Don't put words into my mouth that I never spoke.

All beliefs based on faith.

, and should be supported by reason. You're right though, Wanderer, all beliefs are based on faith. Even your belief that because I'm religious I'm also a simpleton, infantile, illogical, etc...

It is also what binds you to your animal nature and to material concerns.

Yes, it can do this, undoubtedly. It can also move you to spirituality, if you hope in the right things. Interesting that my religion encourages spirituality, and in fact, it's rules are set up to help strengthen the human spirit.

Love is simply a chemical mechanism that binds one mind to another.

Familial love, yes. Parental love, yes. Romantic love, yes. Brotherly love, yes. Lusty love, not so much. Charitable love, not at all, though it often brings about brotherly love, familial love and even romantic love.

I already stated that spirituality is essential to the human condition. I just don’t create mystical concepts to make it more romantic.

Great, neither do I. The concepts I believe certainly weren't created by me (and don't take that as an admission of God as a creation of humans, because it isn't).

But your label of ‘evil’ is meaningless.

Only because you don't know what I mean by it.

How something should be and how something is, are two different things.

Agreed.

But ideals are reached for and never reached, when they create standards that are unnatural and detrimental to the health of the individual.

Agreed, when standards are unnatural and detrimental they are certainly not good and one would hope they'd never be reached. However, as I understand it, the standards that my religion sets are not unnatural, and certainly not detrimental.

Gods should be more approachable, more earthly and real, or else they become ridiculous and dogmatic.

Interesting, first Freud is quoted to show that humans created the concepts of God/gods (and hence, humans created gods), yet here you are, proposing what God/gods should be. In essence, you're creating your own. Were you making an accusation, or simply saying that the gods humans have created aren't realistic. If the latter is the case, will you create your own, more realistic religion?

 

[Silas]

Silas

The New Commandments
1. Thou shalt not waste any time in worshipping me. Follow my precepts to live a good live, but do not put aside any time just to stand or sit in rows and repeat how great I am.
2. Thou shalt not SIN. Sin is defined as follows: whatever causes harm, physical or mental, or results in any kind of unearned deprivation of goods or assets or any kind of object of value, to any fellow human being. Let me make this clear regarding sexual morality: whatever you want to do with any part of your body, in private, on your own or with another consenting adult person is pretty much up to you.
3. Thou shalt treat every fellow human being as you would wish to be treated. That is to say, you will not prejudge any other person on any basis whatsoever. Race. Sexual Orientation. Not even (especially not even) if they do not believe in Me. Upon meeting another human being you will treat them with the respect you hope to get in return.
4. Thou shalt not devote any time to futile re-interpretation of My Commandments. Everything I say is clear and unambiguous. When I say "Thou shalt not harm another human being" I mean literally just that. I do not mean "Thou shalt harm those who do not believe in me." Quoting of that line out of context of the whole Commandment is the only crime for which you will go to Hell for all eternity. I hope that's clear.
5. Smiting of one's enemies is right out. I am not kidding about this. No smiting!
6. There is no such thing as Hell. There is no such thing as Heaven, or Paradise. There is, in point of fact, no form of life after death of any kind. This is it, you only have one shot at this life and no other. The only form of immortality consists in having worked throughout your life to make the world a better place for your children to grow up in, and their children after them, and so on.
7. No individual human being is to set herself or himself up in authority over other human beings except by consent of those to be so governed.
8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.
9. Likewise, all Education of the young must be upon a rational basis. No teacher is to teach solely on the basis of any kind of external Authority, but everything a child is taught must be shown in such a way that the child can see that the learning is true and justified, and no reference to Me or My existence is to alter any part of the Education of a human.
10. There are no such things as nations. There is only Humanity. Live together as friends and neighbours.

Interesting.
Is it yours?

Yes, although I have an idea that I got the 5th one from some list of joke Commandments I read once, but I have no idea where. Otherwise I just knocked that lot off yesterday while I was at work.

Interesting, first Freud is quoted to show that humans created the concepts of God/gods (and hence, humans created gods), yet here you are, proposing what God/gods should be. In essence, you're creating your own. Were you making an accusation, or simply saying that the gods humans have created aren't realistic. If the latter is the case, will you create your own, more realistic religion?

That was actually my understanding of WANDERER's intent all along - to define a God who would actually address the problems of today. That was the entire inspiration of the New Commandments.

Having re-read your posts, however, I do understand and agree with your understanding of a truly deeply religious person, as opposed to blind fanatics.

 

[water]

Frustration, perhaps with a side dish if panic is what forces minds to scream into a void. This fits in the same category with self-delusional behaviour practiced when facing personal failures.
It is wishful thinking taken to the extreme.

What do you suggest? A frustration-free environment?


* * *

The New Commandments
1. Thou shalt not waste any time in worshipping me. Follow my precepts to live a good live, but do not put aside any time just to stand or sit in rows and repeat how great I am.
2. Thou shalt not SIN. Sin is defined as follows: whatever causes harm, physical or mental, or results in any kind of unearned deprivation of goods or assets or any kind of object of value, to any fellow human being. Let me make this clear regarding sexual morality: whatever you want to do with any part of your body, in private, on your own or with another consenting adult person is pretty much up to you.
3. Thou shalt treat every fellow human being as you would wish to be treated. That is to say, you will not prejudge any other person on any basis whatsoever. Race. Sexual Orientation. Not even (especially not even) if they do not believe in Me. Upon meeting another human being you will treat them with the respect you hope to get in return.
4. Thou shalt not devote any time to futile re-interpretation of My Commandments. Everything I say is clear and unambiguous. When I say "Thou shalt not harm another human being" I mean literally just that. I do not mean "Thou shalt harm those who do not believe in me." Quoting of that line out of context of the whole Commandment is the only crime for which you will go to Hell for all eternity. I hope that's clear.
5. Smiting of one's enemies is right out. I am not kidding about this. No smiting!
6. There is no such thing as Hell. There is no such thing as Heaven, or Paradise. There is, in point of fact, no form of life after death of any kind. This is it, you only have one shot at this life and no other. The only form of immortality consists in having worked throughout your life to make the world a better place for your children to grow up in, and their children after them, and so on.
7. No individual human being is to set herself or himself up in authority over other human beings except by consent of those to be so governed.
8. All Legislation to be drawn up must be to make the world a better place for its inhabitants and must in no wise be altered or modified in any way by any reference or otherwise to My existence.
9. Likewise, all Education of the young must be upon a rational basis. No teacher is to teach solely on the basis of any kind of external Authority, but everything a child is taught must be shown in such a way that the child can see that the learning is true and justified, and no reference to Me or My existence is to alter any part of the Education of a human.
10. There are no such things as nations. There is only Humanity. Live together as friends and neighbours.

You do know that this is possible only for people who are extremeley alike and have the same set of values and preferences?

As soon as there are those who don't approve of the suggested commandments -- per commandment nr. 5 they do exist and are called "enemies" -- this pretty model created by the mentioned commandments collapses. So those enemies come and smite you. What do you do? Do you defend yourself? When you get attacked and harmed, and find yourself having to mend the consequences -- what do you do? Who pays for the harm done to you? If your enemies don't abide by the Commandments, you can't hold them to your laws, and you can't judge them. They are free to do anything to you, while you are bound by your commandments to "Upon meeting another human being you will treat them with the respect you hope to get in return." and "Live together as friends and neighbours."


* * *

So how does that androgynous language affect how you'll view reality?

This is like asking a colourblind person how they see colours, or asking someone with photographic memory what it is like to have that sort of memory. Without applying a scientific theory, they can't tell you.

It is only to us who speak languages that have various forms for genders that other languages that don't have those forms seem "androgynus".
If they want to specify the gender, they can use special markers for this. It is just that their pronouns, nouns, adjective and verb forms are not containing the same information as ours do.

The issue is interesting, and since you are so keen on exploring patriarchy, you might like to post a thread on this. I have a linguistic education and can jump in from this perspective.

 

[water]

I don’t even know you.

And yet you have said:

You, and those like you, prefer the gentle breezes of feelings with no conceptual definition.

So much for your consistency.

You are arguing from perfectionsm of performance.
It's not a viable criterium -- using it, you'd have to discard pretty much everyone.

Either that or discard the ideals they worship and that have purposefully been created to be so unreachable, as to always result in failure.

How can you supprt this claim?
It suggests that the primary principle by which people think and have thought by ever since the begining of religion, is that of sour grapes. With a lot of cynicism.

So your suggestion would be a polytheism with a hierarchy of gods?
"Today, we serve god nr.1. When we have reached him, we will shift a notch up to god nr.2."

Yes.

I still think Mormonism has your answer. They don't have a polytheistic hierarchy of gods, but they have a hierarchy of heavens.

God must be earned.

How? How can one earn god/God?
Or, how can one earn an ideal?

Love must be earned or it isn’t worth anything.

How can love be earned?
By what means?

And if those means can't be put to work for some reason for some time, love is not justified anymore?
For example, someone has earned your love, but then gets hit by a car and lies in the hospital in a coma. He now can't do anything to earn your love. Will you cease to love him?

In my experience, it has always been those of deeper religious conviction who are more open-minded than those of shallow religious conviction (ie, those who follow a religion, but don't know much about it, or much about other religions, etc..).

I would disagree, strongly.

I agree with beyondtimeandspace though. You might have a different understanding of what "deeper religious conviction" is though.

Having a deeper religious conviction and being open-minded does not mean that one's religious conviction is *weaker* in comparison to those who are less open-minded.

In my experience those with a strong religious conviction are closed minded and obtuse.

What do you consider to be a "strong religious conviction"? Going around telling everyone what you believe, and condemning them if they refuse to believe what you do?

If one isn't going around telling everyone what one believes, and condemning them if they refuse to believe what one does does not mean that one's religious conviction is weaker or more shallow.

In my experience those with a strong religious conviction are closed minded and obtuse. This owing to the fact that their belief in absolute concepts and in absolute truth with absolute certainty creates no room for free speculation and scepticism.

I would also say that those with strong religious convictions are also the most immoral and hypocritical humans on this planet.
They are the most willing to kill and die for a cause that they cannot intellectually prove nor defend against criticism.
They are the ones that speak about eternal punishments and rewards and that have, somehow, convinced themselves that their feeble existence deserves more than an ephemeral existence.
They are the ones proclaiming special status and privileged information.

Fanatics always create havoc and destruction, because they are too egotistical or stupid to question themselves and their beliefs.

So, according to you, all people who are not potentially willing to renounce everything they believe qualify as "closed minded and obtuse, also the most immoral and hypocritical humans on this planet"?

All beliefs based on faith.

So are yours.

According to you, if you do not wish to be "closed minded and obtuse, also the most immoral and hypocritical human on this planet", you have to be willing to completely deconstruct and rebuild yourself anytime.

Yes. Therefore your beliefs, just like mine should be tested and not be forced upon infants or pounded into the heads of simpletons.

How can they be tested -- when they are self-fulfilling prophecies?!

And certainly no speculative belief deserves the honour of having men killing and dying for.
Spiritualism is a personal thing.

So is survival. Wars may be fought "in the name of god", but all wars are fought for survuval.

That is a piece of dual thinking that explains your dependence on mythology.
The opposite of hope is not despair.
Despair can be a reaction to an absence of hope.

But why only two options?
What about indifference?

The absence of hope, as well as indifference, eventually end up in despair.

Imagine what a playground this earth becomes when ones loses care.

No-one ever really loses care. Not as long as one is alive.

Love is simply a chemical mechanism that binds one mind to another.

And? You have thereby *not* discarded the concept of love.

The human heart is made of cells -- so what to it ... nothing. But without it, there is no us.

How something should be and how something is, are two different things.

Communism should have been different.
Christianity should have been otherwise.
Islam should have become other than.

*Which* Communism/Christianity/Islam should have been different *in regards* to what?

Should the Communist Manifesto/The Bible/The Quran be rewritten?
Or should people lead different ways of lives?

But ideals are reached for and never reached, when they create standards that are unnatural and detrimental to the health of the individual.

No. What makes the difference is the way we approach the ideal.

If one wants to become an ideal, if one wants to become Discipline -- one will necessarily fail. And the problem isn't in the ideal. The problem is in the way the ideal is approached.

One cannot become Discipline, but one can become disciplined.

This may seem obvious -- but since you are arguing from perfectionism of performance, this is exactly what your argument comes down to -- Ideal X is bad if one cannot become X.

Gods should be more approachable, more earthly and real, or else they become ridiculous and dogmatic.

Not gods should be so -- the way we *treat* God should be more approachable, more earthly and real.

Yet many of us have made the first experience of God to be something foreign, something to crawl before, as if we would have to become toads in order to earn God's love. This is the wrong approach.

Where does the Bible say that we have to hate and detest ourselves, or God won't love us?

God and Christianity, for example, have become ridiculous and dogmatic exactly because they were approached as something foreign. They were approached with the demand of being the panacea -- and discarded when they didn't work as a panacea, or accepted out of despair.


* * *

I'm sorry that you would disagree. We've obviously had different experiences. However, it seems to me that you are equating the deeply religious with fanatics. I disagree with this parallel. It is true that fanatics have strong religious convictions, but I wouldn't say this makes them deeply religious. More often than not, such fanatics don't have a deep understanding of what their religion teaches. Often, it is a fanatic who has shallowly religious. Strong religious conviction about a religion he/she knows so little about, or understands little of. Fanatics do create disctruction and sorrow. It is a terrible thing.

Exactly. Remember Proud Muslim? He was so eager to convert everyone, and sent everyone to hell who didn't agree right away.
But as soon as someone knowledgeable approached him, his lacks showed.

 

[Perfect]

What do you suggest? A frustration-free environment?

No, I don’t mean we should have a frustration-free environment; you make it sounds as if the only cure is a cry for help into the external.
What I mean is that the frustration experienced can be vented via other means, with means that inhabit value, or intellectual avocation.

When a desired destination is restricted or destroyed, people tend to find means to struggle with (and encounter) the obstacles.

Sadly there aren’t many people with developed methods of accomplishing this, so they scream into the void hoping to find solutions ill-defined. Fantasy is only an escape route. And by using this escape route you only dampen the sources of distress rather than decapitate them once and for all.

You could say placing hope and asking for guidance from deities is only a medium which man uses as a board to solve his shit- on his own. But if someone is so golden, why not just cut out the (non-existent) middle-man.

 

[water]

No, I don’t mean we should have a frustration-free environment; you make it sounds as if the only cure is a cry for help into the external.

Not at all.

What I mean is that the frustration experienced can be vented via other means, with means that inhabit value, or intellectual avocation.

Sure. But that takes discipline to learn, for one, and for two, for someone to develop this kind of approach to frustration, one has to grow up in a safe home with attentive parents etc. In a relatively frustration-free environment.

Go tell the people starving in Africa, or those left homeles after the tsunami that they should "vent their frustration with means that inhabit value, or intellectual avocation".

It doesn't work that way. Your suggestion is nice, but inapplicable once the frustration already exists.

When a desired destination is restricted or destroyed, people tend to find means to struggle with (and encounter) the obstacles.

Sadly there aren’t many people with developed methods of accomplishing this,

Why do you think it is so?

You could say placing hope and asking for guidance from deities is only a medium which man uses as a board to solve his shit- on his own. But if someone is so golden, why not just cut out the (non-existent) middle-man.

It all depends on what you understand by "hope and guidance". If what one really means by that is that God should live their lives for them -- then such people shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't happen.

Fantasy is only an escape route. And by using this escape route you only dampen the sources of distress rather than decapitate them once and for all.

Do you believe that there is a clearly drawn line between "fantasy" and "creativity"?
For one must be creative in order to come up with "means that inhabit value, or intellectual avocation".