Losing Your Religion: Embrace the Mystery, August 26, 2009

Here is a link to the Previous Episode

Here is a hot link to the main article:

Holding the Center

Semantics maybe, but I beg to differ with that view of being centered a "linear" view ... it may be relatively so when one does not consider that nothing is strictly linear, that in fact everything is holographically everywhere ...

The "linear" view that causes the problems in this world is that of the "two ends" polarized in opposition resulting so often in conflict ... such as the dualistic view of God at one extreme (+) and Satan (-) at the other, (+/-).

In such a view, that in the very center then is considered a gap or void, the grey area of what our dominate religion tends to call "fence sitting" and so cautions against.

Thus it is the "linear view" based upon opposing extremes that causes a tendency towards extremism ... one reason being that for people in doubt there is much more "definition" seen in "comparison" when extremes are put up against each other, so much easier to "decide", which all too often results in "judgment" rather than simple discernment.

So seeking the extremes for understanding is good ... as long as one does not try to operate there. One needs to find the center balance point that works best for them ... not in a selfish way, but considering the greater picture of universal truth, that we are all interconnected by Spirit (=) ...

(+=-)>(+/-) ... IMnsHO.

" (+=-)>(+/-) " . . . ?

The "greater than" sign (>) denotes an inequality, which is to say (+=-) / (+/-) . . . division !!!

Would not (+=-)=(+/-) , be the ultimate "equation" therefor? Would that not be the final reconciliation? Not the "trinitarian" view, which is still oppositional, but the Omnitarian !


(+=-)=(+/-) has arrived . . . evolution time, Jer ; )

Yes John, absolutely ! I have been through that quite a few times before, but I tend to speak in the dualistic language of the ego first, because more understand that ... (+/-) ... then we mention the "next" step of transition or transcendence, to the Spiritual Trinity (+=-) and it being "greater than" (>), from the "world" perspective, and then ... from the cosmic perspective, (+=-)=(+/-) because in the universe their is room for everything, and everything has it's place and time.

I think that you could be very close to understanding the "mystery" ...

PS ... well, almost absolutely, there are a few minor discrepancies to be worked out.

William, this is beautifully done. I particularly like the act of belief is always an act against. What I find most meaningful is when I bring that balance within myself. I have always loved embracing and understanding the spiritual and religious beliefs of others but seldom am persuaded to follow. I am not convinced that I even need to follow my own beliefs, just respect them. I hope that makes sense. Thank you for the post.

Karen,

Welcome to LYR and thank you for your comment.

The comment you like is certain to generate controversy. I hope you come back to see what others have to say and weigh in again.

Hi Karen, good to see you. I also hope you come back by.

Rosa, thanks for the welcome. I am a more timid sort and when the gloves come off then I will predictably find another place to go. Wimp me !!!

Nah, you are no wimp. I left here for a time too. I always pop back in though, hoping they throw the gloves in the trash. There's always hope! We had some grand conversations way back when, and I am hoping those times can return.

Karen,

"I am not convinced that I even need to follow my own beliefs, just respect them."

That sure makes sense to me . . since we are living beings, and what we believe MUST result from what we experience, I say, it makes more sense to say that beliefs need to follow us ; )

This notion that people believe what they declare, is just not realistic. We believe what we have been convinced of in real life (including our mind's responses, and reasoning, etc). The very concept that what we say, or think, is the same thing as what we actually believe, bestows on the self, a power it simply does not have; One can try to believe something one has not been convinced of in reality-land, till hell freezes over ; ) But, the self cannot cause the whole being to believe anything by its will, I can see for myself anytime.

John, I like that you say beliefs need to follow us. I know that some feel a great comfort from clear beliefs. I was not raised to be a religious person and so it is not troublesome to me to lack structure.

Rosa, there is always hope. Perhaps it is about timing too.

Karen,

"I know that some feel a great comfort from clear beliefs."

Well, naturally. That is a very good thing . . . but I am not speaking of beliefs that are not clearly established as well founded, in reality. I am speaking of whatever it might be, that has been demonstrated to a convincing extent, in one's actual life. That would naturally include the belief that the Book is an actual Message to the individual human beings on earth, as was clearly demonstrated to myself.

Hi Karen! I hope all is well with you and yours.

Michael, good to see you too. I returned to Home Health Nursing, just darned tired of the OR. It suits me well and I have some solitude in the car from case to case. The farm is well, we lost one ewe this summer, coyotes and racoons are giving us a ride. I look forward to fall and winter, they are so beautiful here. How is your farm doing?

Oh, I see John. Thank you for clarifying your thoughts.

We are well Karen...We have our first two alpacas...both girls and both pregnant. They are boarding until we get our barn built and the fencing...AND until we can move to the farm full time. Our plans now include keeping ducks for eggs and meat if I can overcome the emotional hurdle of eating something I have known.

Speaking of coyotes...we have quite a few in our area. I have been letting off a few rounds with my 12 gauge to scare them off...but when we have our animals I will have to be more aggressive.

"Belief systems are closed and strident, pretending to knowledge that they do not have."

Atheist Dictionary

Bible: A closed and strident belief system, pretending to knowledge that it does not have. (hell, that's what we believe, anyway.)

This thread will serve as a spectator sport for me. Y'all can 'take over.'

Have fun!

Nothing I can argue with there. Nicely done, Bill and Boris.

Good topic, Bill. This ought to be interesting. I think I will go read the entire article and then come back. It may be in the morning, depending on how long the piece is.

"The act of belief is always an act against; it requires an opponent who holds the contrary belief. . . "

I believe my car is a blue/green '95 Saturn, no opposing view required . . .

Theory falsified.

Ferosh,

"Does it make it any less than what it is?"

No, theory doubly falsified . . ; )

Alexsandralyn, (Damn it, start calling yourself Alex ; )

" . . . and a car thief may beg to differ with you there in his own opposing belief. If that car is no longer in your possession, do you believe you still own it?"

He didn't make out so good, seems the police have access to records and things, and phones through which I was able to convince them that my car had been stolen.

He over-believed a bit.

Ferosh,

This fellow "owned" my car for about four hours, it seemed. It was spotted, parked, and they waited nearby. And sure enough the young fools got nailed getting back into it . . . no harm to the car.

I did have to pay an annoying amount of time and money with towing/storage and all, but it was basically just a teeny blip, on the vast radar of life . .


. . . for me, anyway . .

John still owned the car...no matter who was in possession of it and for how long. Possession and ownership are not the same. One may posses without owning and one may own without possessing. One may own and posses.

John, can't you find more transcendent things to believe in than cars ... ?

Ownership is a culturally supported belief? Hmmmm.. I wonder. Without the mutual agreement that we can each posses certain items as our own...there would only be community property....and constant battles about who could use what and when. The battle would be won by the strongest who would then gain possession....exclusive use of....what they wished to have that exclusive use of. They would then be the owners of that property as they control the property exclusive of the wishes and demands of others.

"The act of belief is always an act against; it requires an opponent who holds the contrary belief. . . "

Slices of a full text are often misleading when presented without the full text.
In the case of religion...the belief is not against..because the belief of the non believer is a lack of belief...not a belief.

Meaning atheists do not believe a god does not exists...we lack a belief that a god exists. Lack a belief..........

Theism makes a positive belief claim. Atheism refers to the absence of that belief. Again...atheism is not the conviction that there is no god, it is the absence of a belief that there is a god...or supreme being....which is not a positive claim.

and those ideas Slim are the descriptions of "pro" and "con" based upon the extremes ... actually, (+/-).

The article in it's entirety, seemed to me to be suggesting a form of middle ground compromise, the spiritual (=) in (+=-) ... just saying.

I don't know Jerry...and I will go back and carefully read ...not Carse's book but what Carse has specifically said in response to specific questions about his intent.

Carse lays out a distinction between belief systems and religions in that belief systems provide the comfort of clear answers; religions provide a sense of wonder in the contemplation of mystery.
(http://www.uuworld.org/ideas/articles/129000.shtml)

A direct quote is "...there is a deeper vitality in the Christian faith, as in all the great religions, that no single belief system can fully represent.”

The "middle ground" is rather shaky if Carse does not believe in ANY god. This isn't a middle ground as far as faith in the supernatural. Carse's interest is his fascination with the unknowable. "...in the sense that I am endlessly fascinated with the unknowability of what it means to be human, to exist at all."

This fascinates me too Jerry. And yet I am not spiritual....not in the slightest...not by the broadest definition.

Slim, my impression about something nearer to a "balance" was the words of the article author Doug Muder and the title of that article "Holding the Center".

I'm pretty sure most everyone believes their position is balanced just right, Jerry . . or they'd scootch over a bit, no?

I suppose so John, assuming they really seek some balance ... unfortunately most people seek a more "extreme" position, believing that "perfection" lies as far positive (+) as they can get and the opposite negative (-) is worse than worthless ... winners and losers ... but often the so-called (by the winners) losers are just fine, being only different ... but they then resent being looked down upon and the conflicts begin in reciprocation.

Many of our more pious and righteous religious folks fall into that area of considering themselves the more, if not most, positive (+) ... and the rest of the "heathens" more related to Satan (-) ... (their standards). IMnsHO

(see my earliest comment to ben on this thread).

I must await the 'morrow to read it all ...

Belief systems are closed and strident, pretending to knowledge that they do not have.

Is this true? How does the author know this?
He advises us to embrace the mystery while he prattles off about twenty declarative and absolute statements. . .
Such hypocrisy. . ."There's no way we can know."
Well how do you know that big guy? Are you the only enlightened one in the room?

-Mark

The great and powerful Oz has spoken, Mark . . Surely if he does not know something, no one can ; )

Better than if he thinks he knows something every one must, to my view....

Ron,

"Better than if he thinks he knows something every one must, to my view..."

But, that's just what the author is doing here, is it not? He is declaring that what he considers not discoverable, must not be discoverable by anyone . . He goes so far as to make absolute assertions about what all people cannot know . . but, how could he know that stuff, if his own assertion is fact?

It's like a snake eating its own tale ; ) . . . The logical basis for his assertions are swallowed by the assertions themselves.

from the prologue:

He’s given me a lack of understanding.

He must have given me the same gift, because I don't understand what this statement means. can anyone explain. . .
And, by the way, who's the He that's doing all the gifting or the lack thereof? Does anyone know anything about Him or is He like some anonymous donor?

In the dark, -Mark

The apparent contradictions inherent in a
Mystery?

can you give me an example Ben?

-Mark

you lost me dude. . .

Ben I eat my fries without cheese. . .

Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?
Luke 1:34

Seems pretty cut and dried to me. . .

-Mark

Ben,
with all due respect, I'd rather enjoy the union than your goofy metaphor. . .

-Mark

Mark, there is nothing wrong with asking questions provided one desires to have real answers in order to learn ... is your mind already made up Mark ?

If you don't answer I will understand, suspicions confirmed. :-)

Mark, there is nothing wrong with asking questions provided one desires to have real answers in order to learn. . .

What would you have us learn Jerry?
When is it right to question God's Word?

"Hath God really said?" was the tempter's original ruse. . .

-Mark

Mark, "" What would you have us learn Jerry? "" ... how about a higher Truth ... then you will never need to fear the "tempter".

Mark, "" When is it right to question God's Word? "" ... When God is an impostor for GOD ...

... how about a higher Truth ...

So rested he by the Tumtum tree,
And stood awhile in thought. . .

Thanks for that bit of poetry, Jerry.

-Mark

very interesting, thanks

Mark:

It seems you're mainly interested here in quick takes and smarty put-downs, that show your sharp wit and usually veiled acerbicness. Can you present anything not merely reacting to something negatively? This may be exaggerating, but mostly true, I believe. Your misplaced wit gets old, IMO.

Your misplaced wit gets old, IMO.

Frank, your Don Ho "Aloha" gets old too. Deal with it. . .

-Mark

I didn't use it for you, Mark. Only the deserving.

Ouch, Frank! That was rather nasty. I feel like the stuck pig with the apple in his mouth at the luau. . .

-Mark

Bill, there was a suggestion some time ago of not closing the old thread immediately as the new thread goes up, so if anyone has anything to finish there, they can do so. Have you and Ann thought about this? I agree that they can't be left open forever, but I don't think there would be that much harm in leaving them open for a day after the new thread goes up (and the notice is posted).

After days of thinking, I've just come to the point where I thought I needed to say something there about the main topic of conversation (I didn't think so, initially, because Ann and yourself already know what I think). The thread is closed now, and I wouldn't want to "spoil" this one with comments that don't belong here.

Hi Aniko,
I, for one, always enjoy hearing what you have to say about anything. . .
Why don't you have at it?

-Mark

Aniko, we close the old threads because we have enough trouble minding one open thread!

I'd be happen to open the old one for you, but as it sits at 589 comments and is barely working, would you consider bringing the relevant comments and your reply over here? You'd in no way be "spoiling" this conversation.

I have in the past carried over comments from particularly robust conversations, in order to encourage continuation. The threaded comments scheme makes this far more difficult.

The opening of a new episode has never been intended to cut off a previous disscussion. The primary reason we do this is because comment threads over two hundred comments slow things down and some with oldeer computers or slower connections are shut out altogether.

Ann and I have been remiss in allowing the comment stream to build to 500+ comments.

Additionally, when I took over publishing duties from Ann, I began injecting additional stuff into the header. Initially, it was a group ot themed quotes and later evolved to include brief essays.

These offerings are intended as seeds of discussion that our commenters may or may not address. It is not intended to close out previous topics.

Lastly, adding some seeds for thought to the heading allows me to share more of the enchanting images that Boris sends me.

I know all of that, of course. I was just asking if it was possible to not close the thread immediately, which also usually means without any warning that it's about to be closed. (I suspect people have actually lost typed-out comments that way. I haven't, but that's because I copy everything before trying to post it on this site. On a bad day, about one out of four of my comments don't go through on the first attempt.

It does take me about ten minutes (completely frozen browser) to post a comment on those longer threads, so I know what you're talking about there. (It takes much less to just load the page--twenty seconds, maybe). Despite this, sometimes something really belongs on a specific thread and nowhere else.

No need to open the thread though. All of that's pretty much over here now.

If I were to sum up the last thread in one sentence it would read:

Some feel persecuted for who they are and what they believe while others believe LYR is heading for hell in a handbasket because of the belligerent behavior of a few wascally wabbits. . .

-Mark

Not bad, Mark. I like brief and to the point. :-)

Sorry, I didn't mean to ignore your comment. I was out for much of the day (most of it, registering a kid for HS), and now may have lost my inspiration again.

c'mon Aniko, the pregnant pause must be overcome. . .you've kept us in suspense all day long. . .

-Mark

Aniko,
Have they instructed you, as well, to pick up your toys and bring them along home?

-Mark

Gosh, no, Mark, not at all. I'm just running around doing RL stuff. (And, I admit, also having some issues holding on to a sense of purpose, as usual. I posted the comment that started this subthread when I was on top of that wave--I'm more in the trough now.)

I'll be back (at the bottom of the thread, I think).

Hi Aniko,
It's good to hear from you again and from all the others too! Together we're better!

-Mark

The subject matter of this thread, beliefs and religion, seems to use the word religion in error and should have used instead "spirituality" which is generic and un-branded as are religions and their "dogma" ...

IMnsHO.

I also thought the use of terms like "belief system" and "religion" was idiosyncratic, but since they're used consistently, it's not terribly confusing.

I don't think it's true that belief is an "act against" and requires that someone hold an opposing view. I believe the sun will "rise" tomorrow. Does anyone hold the opposing view? Or, how about something personal: I believe a current story idea I have is stupid. I know no one holds an opposing view, since no one even knows about it.

Careful there, Aniko . . . illusions are a fragile thing . . ; )


It really seems to me, that what is being championed in this piece, is the notion that not knowing, is the same as knowing. This all hangs on the assumption that we humans are not valid witnesses of our own reality. By this logos, there simply is no point in believing anything, cause you can never be absolutely certain, you're not insane.

This is what I sometimes refer to as "the wisdom of the stones". . cause, within this pit, you might as well be one ; )

"" I believe the sun will "rise" tomorrow. Does anyone hold the opposing view? ""

It depends upon the "time" stipulated, I believe the sun will "set" tomorrow. :-)

Dawn breaks on Marblehead. . .

It depends upon the "time" stipulated, I believe the sun will "set" tomorrow. :-)

No it doesn't, genius. Somewhere the sun is rising and at the same time somewhere the sun is setting. . .
Have you missed the headlines? Earth Not Flat But Spherical

-Mark

The time, Jerry? At any given (universal) time you can stipulate, it will be doing both. Just not in the same place. :P

Aniko,

Not so fast . . the really deeep ones can argue anything . . .


Let's whip up a few alternate universes, and just see about your smug conclusions then . .

OK then, it depends upon 3 things, the time, the space, and the observer. (from a worldly perspective anyway).

PS ... at least IMnsHO ... subject to change of course. (but doubtful that there will be a need). :-)

That was why I called it a belief, Alex. I trust that it will, but I can't claim to be certain... :-)

It's good to see you again!

John K, re: "It doesn't mean much of anything to me what this article is called, or whether the author published some other articles with similar titles."

This is really the root of the complaints about your abrasive presence here that disregards the premise of the blog. You obviously are adamant re: what the bible promulgates as words to obey yet you callously dismiss the rules of LYR's heading as well. Your value here is to sharpen the wits of those who care to respond to your baiting and serves of value to shake up the bloggers here. Your comments are usually so vitriolic reading them inspires contradiction. If I may say, your disregard and disrespect for the premise of this blog shows you as an uninvited and very rude intruder. I expect you will not pay heed to anything I submit here but perhaps there may be a surprising attention paid and some thought given to your behavior. Aloha,

Frank,

"If I may say, your disregard and disrespect for the premise of this blog shows you as an uninvited and very rude intruder."

The author has the option of not allowing just any old rag-a muffin to intrude upon the lofty discussions of the wise and knowledgeable "core group", if they choose. When they don't choose that, I'm rather sure it is the intention of Gather, that we little nobodies actually speak up, even if our contributions serve only to demonstrate the vast superiority of our betters ; )

"The author has the option of not allowing just any old rag-a muffin to intrude upon the lofty discussions of the wise and knowledgeable "core group", if they choose."

Not true.

Gather allows for selective inclusion via the "friends only" option. There is no mechanism for selective exclusion.

Sometimes intruding and rudeness ARE the purpose, though, obviously. The fact that others are discouraged from taking part here IS the motivation (ideas, other ideas, thinking about religion, spirituality, are a threat to them to be put down). The disruption of a forum that they neither believe in, or approve of has allowed them to make sure it stays a small thing. Little nobodies have staged a coup here, and that was their plan from the start...

You can be temporarily "un-friendly", it worked for Ann ... :-)

WM,

You want a nice little closed discussion? You just make this a private affair, nothing stopping you.

In a public group like LYR, I should add.

Comments are of course restricted to "members only" in a private group. However, I'm not in favor of making LYR a private group because it's contrary to our goals.

The above is an answer to WM.

Closing the group to members only, friends only, inhibits other's participation, and is exactly what some would like. You cannot exclude anyone, on an individual basis, it's all or nothing.

In short, until Gather pulls it's head out about situations like this, the "little nobodies" have this forum by the short hairs...

Everyone who has participated here has had something valuable to contribute. Some, occasionally go to far in pushing a personnel agenda rather than simply sharing their personnel beliefs.

We tread a fine line between promoting a rigorous and robust discussion and degenerating into incivility and contentiousness.

Unfortunately, those very comments are why some choose not to participate here. If I believe Ann and Bill, and I do, that negativity here has prevented a lot of people from joining the group that would otherwise love to participate. I'm not a fan of censorship, but I think this situation goes far beyond that particular ideal to the point of it being a form of censorship, itself.

There are some who make it their business to act as annoying gnats, buzzing around our heads, unendingly spouting their self-righteous piety, trying to force their cyclops view of religion on everyone in earshot, despite the obvious disdain of those who are obliged to listen. Of course they also demand respect for their fantastical opinions, although they are far too superior to give it to those who dare to disagree. Not naming any names here, but if the initials "J.K." fit the description, it's probably not a coincidence.

The greatest threat to the believer, then, is not the unbeliever, but the religious: the person whose appreciation of mystery causes him or her to see a world larger than the one that the believer has cleaved neatly in half.

Oooh, that sounds so profound, so enlightened, so progressive. . .
Point in fact, however, the unbeliever is possibly more religious and dogmatic in their unbelief than a believer in his belief. An unbeliever is actually a believer as well. He just happens to believe in a different set of propositions.
As far as cleaving the world in two, what could be more limiting and constricting then the individual who says "If my net can't catch it, it ain't fish". . .
What would be left of the world if it were only limited to what we could grasp with our three pounds of grey matter?

-Mark

(Perhaps the author is a dope ; )

I reckon you're right ben. . .

Hey John,
Perhaps, but I just think that it has become fashionable to be agnostic - you paint everything with a broad stroke and pride yourself in being open-minded and progressive. . . Check out this dialog from my new one act play:

curtain raises, house lights come up
"I love pop tarts."
"We can't know what your breakfast favorites are."
"I just told you; I love pop tarts - actually brown sugar cinnamon."
"Hush, we must embrace the mystery. Will you come to breakfast?"
"Sure."
"Oh dear, what shall I serve you? Eggs, no waffles. . ."
"I love pop tarts."
"Oh dear, I can't know."
"Brown sugar cinnamon pop tarts - I like 'em toasted with black coffee."
"Don't worry, I'm sure the creative mystery juices will stir inside of me and we will have an enlightened breakfast."
"How about just some pop tarts?"
prospective host goes out scratching her head. . .
curtain closes, stage goes dark

-Mark

but I just told you Ben; I love pop tarts. . .

I don't know, Mark . . it's been so long since I had pop tarts . . ?

I haven't had a pop tart since they called sleepovers pajama parties, and I hated pop tarts then too.

PSSST~ I think that would be 'hostess' . . .


Prospective hostess . . ; )

Thanks John,
I'm in the process of doing a re-write now. I think it has Tony Award written all over it. Do you think it needs more action?

-Mark

Sue,
You put me in mind of a strawberry with sprinkles girl. . .

-Mark

My host ess not serving pop tarts. He's serving liver pâté on matzoh crackers tonight.

No sprinkles here, Mark. :)

goose grease on a Ritz - not near as good as a good pop tart. . .

. . . hmm . . I would venture to suggest a bit more angst, on the part of the tart . . . very profound like angst . .

Beyond Pop Tarts, Embracing Muffins

Do you know the muffin man,
The muffin man, the muffin man,
Do you know the muffin man,
Who lives in Drury Lane?

No I don’t know the muffin man,
The muffin man, the muffin man,
How can I know the muffin man,
And still embrace the mystery?

C’mon, you have to know the muffin man,
The muffin man, the muffin man,
you have to know the muffin man,
He lives in Drury Lane!

I simply can’t know the muffin man,
The muffin man, the muffin man,
I can’t know the muffin man,
And where d’you say he lives?

Author - unknown

PSSST~ I think that would be 'unknowable' . .



Author - unknowable . . ; )

Listen mister,
You're really beginning to irritate me with your red pen. . .
Where are the moderators?

-Mark

Who knows ?

If she "embraces" the muffin man too closely she may be called a tart ... or a "sinner" in the popular religious vernacular.

Mark, re: "I just think that it has become fashionable to be agnostic"

If by agnostic is meant to doubt the truth of religion, I don't think that's fashionable and I think many bloggers here would believe so as well. Losing belief in organized religions doesn't necessarily, in fact shouldn't include losing one's spirituality. I think more and more are coming to lose religion, dissuaded by the behaviors of believers in them that exhibit lack of understanding of compassion and spiritiual values.

Amen to Frank ... at least we would like to hope so ...

Belief systems. . . Lacking mystery, they do not invoke a creative response in their followers. . .

I believe in God the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.

Whoa dude! I'm made in His image? How awesome is that?
You mean, I'm made to be creative too?
You mean, I, too, can speak things into existence?
You mean, I, too, can love and receive love?
He's my father? I'm actually His child?
He loves me so much that He would sacrifice His Son to reconcile me to Him?
Whoa dude!

-Mark

"Lacking mystery" . . ?


Oh, yeah, this is Thursday . . . By Saturday we'll be back to harping on how difficult it is to interpret the Book with certainty . .

Sleep well, ben.

The essence of this thread is a mystery to me.

Congratulations, gibbs . . . ; )

Stick around gibbs, it can be a learning experience ... unless of course one's mind (no insinuation regards you) is too closed. :-)

Bed time, I'm outa here ...

Welcome to the discussion, Gibbs.

Gibbs......"The essence of this thread is a mystery to me. "

Right now its pointless chit chat. But it appears that everyone is having fun. Maybe that is the point.

A good point about "this" pointlessness ... just a pendulum swing from the super serious nastiness of the last one ... or something like that ...

religions rely on “the authority of poetry.”

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe. . .

from The Jabberwocky by Lewis Carroll

That makes perfect sense to me. . . I will wonder as I wander. . .

-Mark

Religion is an attempt to "package" under the name of a God, for common consumption what was intended by GOD to be a Free Spirituality.

PS ... IMnsHO of course. (just trying to put out something here to jump-start this slow thread).

No real "structure" required when one understands the truth of the universe and seeks to operate within it. It is extremely simple and unencumbered requiring only self responsibility and a belief in the karmic principle. IMnsHO.

And so Jerry...do you believe the Bible is part of that package? (in the case of the Christian package)

Slim, very much so ... I do of course also believe that there are spiritual aspects of GOD who attempt to "advise" us from time to time (IE, my own experience) through esoteric spiritual "revelations" of a sort ... but "we" do not all that often completely understand, then when written down "wrong" (in error) and turned into creed and dogma we get just what we now have. (a bunch of sheeple).

(No doubt our trusty moderators stand at the ready, lest anyone disrespect Jerry's "beliefs" . . . )

John, if the shoe fits ...

PS ... John, I am just sharing information here and the truth only hurts those in denial of it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheeple

Re: Putting spirituality to work

With all his frailty, Senator Kennedy (and his entire impressive family) has been a real exemplar of exercising his spirtitual (Catholic) values vigourously, leaving a legacy of service that's made the world a better place for multitudes of the grateful, lining up as well as memorializing him in thought to thank him. On balance, I believe his accomplishments far outweigh his failings. Many of that remarkable family, though not in Congress, are involved in public service. Bless them and all who thus are so, as well.

Senator Kennedy (and his entire impressive family) has been a real exemplar of exercising his spirtitual (Catholic) values vigourously, leaving a legacy of service that's made the world a better place

I wonder if Mary Jo Kopecne's(sp?) folks would assent to your eulogy.

-Mark

Mark, go back and keep on watching your FOX source of life information.

PS ... I thought Christianity was supposed to be about non-judgment and forgiveness ... love your neighbor and all of that ... of course that is not the way FOX sees it all ...

Mark:

In the larger scheme of things, the Kopeckne family might. You note my use of the words (On balance)?

Hi Frank,
I'll give you this much on Kennedy; he, like any of us, has a checkered past. I just wouldn't waste a whole lot of type glorifying him though. I grew up near the compound in HyannisPort; I've seen both sides of the Kennedy legacy. . .

-Mark

from Jerry's Wiki link above:

the termSheeple:
It is often used to denote persons who voluntarily acquiesce to a perceived authority. . .

LYR's Bo Peep has lost her sheep
But I bet she knows where to find them
She's set the tone, said leave them alone;
They're precisely where she's assigned them. . .

Author - unknowable

-Mark

Pope says atheists are responsible for global warming

The Pope has claimed that atheism is responsible for the destruction of the environment. In a speech at the Vatican on Wednesday, Ratzinger said: “Is it not true that inconsiderate use of creation begins where God is marginalized or also where his existence is denied? If the human creature's relationship with the Creator weakens, matter is reduced to egoistic possession, man becomes the ‘final authority,’ and the objective of existence is reduced to a feverish race to possess the most possible.”

Terry Sanderson, President of the National Secular Society, commented: “This is rich coming from the leader of an organisation that has plundered the world to enrich itself. As he sits in his golden palaces, surrounded by unimaginable luxury and material wealth, he lectures the rest of us about restraint and greed. We have nothing to learn about environmentalism from this hypocrite.”

Here is the transcript of the entire speech: http://www.catholic.net/index.php?option=zenit&id=26693

The fact that he is such a hypocrite does an extreme dis-service to the truth of his statement ... the "problem" is an ego problem (lack of spirit) but he and his also have that very same problem that he unfairly accuses the secular community of holding.

And this guy (Ratzinger) used to be the Vatican's science advisor? Sheesh.

Even my devoutly Catholic mom is getting disallusioned by the fact that the Pope appears to live in some past century.

He doesn't quite say "atheists", but he certainly tries to blame the consequences of the industrial revolution on the more or less concurrent phenomenon of increasing secularization.

Logically speaking, it makes about as much sense as the claim that religion is the cause of all wars and violence.

It is when you consider they promote dualism (+/-) ...

Aniko,

"Logically speaking, it makes about as much sense as the claim that religion is the cause of all wars and violence."

Only if one assumes the Book is not genuine. If it is, then naturally, marginalizing God, would mean the inevitable drifting further away from His advice, which would just as naturally result in real world consequences that are harmful to mankind.

It is simply not possible, logically speaking, that the Book is the Word of God, and yet ignoring what it tells us would not be to our detriment.

Pope says atheists are responsible for global warming

This is a rather sensational headline. It looks like a lead from the Boston Herald or the New York Daily News. Lest you think it is only non-believers who have marginalized God; in effect banning Him from His own creation - more and more Christian believers conduct their affairs as if God has no real involvement in the affairs of the world around them. They pay lip service to a God who little resembles the sovereign Living God Who reveals Himself to us in His creation, in history and in the Living and Written Word. . .
I am just as guilty of it as any - of living out a practical atheism, conducting my affairs as if God has no sway. I think this is what Ratzinger is driving at. . .

-Mark

-Mark

I have seen the incredibly detrimental and dramatic effects of global warming close at hand. Just yesterday my daughter filled her water bottle chock full of ice before she left for cross country practice. By the time she got home, the ice was gone!
I'm pretty sure some of her harrier teammates are agnostic, perhaps even blatant atheists. . .

-Mark

Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Irish blasphemy law proposal

There is a proposed amendment to Irish defemation legislation including an updated blasphemy Libel law. Go here.

As TheObserver and Gary C point out. The article says:

"Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.”

“Blasphemous matter” is defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.”

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises.

A comment from the blog:

"Steelman said...
The publishing of the basic tenets of any revealed religion that bills itself as the only true route to the attainment of paradise, and the avoidance of eternal punishment, should qualify.

So, will the Catholics, Protestants, and Muslims all be taking turns on filing complaints against each other? That way the police could organize their workload by, say, regularly raiding in turn church and mosque offices on different days of the week. ;)

April 29, 2009 6:43 PM "

Sounds rather "inquisitional" ...

http://www.uwsp.edu/education/lwilson/learning/ninthintelligence.htm

Existential intelligence can be defined as the ability to be sensitive to, or have the capacity for, conceptualizing or tackling deeper or larger questions about human existence, such as the meaning of life, why are we born, why do we die, what is consciousness, or how did we get here.

There are many people who feel that there should be a ninth intelligence, existential intelligence (A.K.A.: "wondering smart, cosmic smart, spiritually smart, or metaphysical intelligence"). The possibility of this intelligence has been alluded to by Gardner in several of his works. He has stated that existential intelligence might be manifest in someone who is concerned with fundamental questions about existence, or who questions the intricacies of existence. And while Professor Gardner has offered a preliminary definition as: "Individuals who exhibit the proclivity to pose and ponder questions about life, death, and ultimate realities," he has not fully confirmed, endorsed, or described this intelligence.

Perhaps the difficulty is that Gardner wisely believes that this will open a can of worms best left out of the arena of education. Or, since a great deal of the importance and credibility of Gardner's work rests on neurological evidence of site specific locations within the brain, it might be that it is a bit risky for any author or scientist to definitively pinpoint the exact biological seat of spiritual wonder or cosmic awareness without offending any number of people, or some cultural or religious groups. It is important to remember that part of the power of Gardner's work depends upon careful examination of the available data and scientific evidence. So, at this point in time, it might be safer to say that existential intelligence is the "half" in 8-1/2 intelligences that comprise MI Theory.

Despite this avoidance on Gardner's part to definitively commit to existential intelligence, there are many who have accepted the presence of this intelligence as fact and have attempted to clarify what it might look like if it were part of the MI array. For those who have met children who appear to have "old souls," it is often easy to accept the existence of existential intelligence as something very real and important. These are the children who appear to have a sixth sense, they may be psychic, or ones who pose, and sometimes even answer, life's larger questions. Like:

Why am I here? Why are we here?

Are there other dimensions, and if so what are they like?

Can animals understand us, or do animals go to heaven?

Are there really ghosts?

Where do we go when we die?

Why are some people evil?

Is there life on other planets?

Where is heaven?

Why does God live?

These may be those children who can be described as "fully aware" of the cosmos -- of its diversity, complexity, and wonder. Frequently, these are the children who persist in asking those "big" questions that adults cannot answer.

copyright Leslie Owen Wilson, 1997, 2001, 2003. 2005

So. As I said, my first instinct was to stay out of [the current episode of] the discussion about moderation on LYR, because Ann and Bill already know what I'd have to say on the subject. But the discussion has deteriorated, as usual, into fairly overt suggestions of who or what group of people is "the problem", and people reading the thread could get the impression that everyone but those very people being pointed at agree. So I'll post (taking the easy way out) what I sent to Bill and Ann some time ago (in response to a question).

I'm cutting the beginning, which is tongue-in-cheek and refers to my disqualification for being here, not being "spiritual" by my definition, and a couple of other fillers.

...But my serious response is that I don't see the "religious" as the problem on LYR. The problem I see is that people are completely ignoring rule #1. Instead of talking about their own beliefs, they're criticizing others' beliefs. It's a constant "What's wrong with..." rant instead of concentrating on what one's own perspective can offer.

And not only are others' beliefs criticized (which I'd have no problem with on another thread, where it wasn't part of the desired ethos not to do that and everyone would know what they were in for), there are frequent insinuations of character faults in those who believe differently or disagree with one's thesis. These ad hominems shift between indirect and direct references, and come from all sides of the nonbeliever-spiritual-religious triangle. That is what drives me nuts on LYR, and if you asked me what to add to the rules, I would say something about that. (There's nothing about not attacking people personally at this point.)

As for the idea of open-mindedness, I would say that we should have the ability to listen and learn from each other, even if our worldviews and foundational beliefs differ significantly and are not very likely to change.

[Re: the idea that the thread becomes a referendum on fundamentalist Christianity]... the attacks on Christianity that have dominated the past few threads are not against fundamentalists. Calling church-going people indoctrinated "sheeple" and suggesting religion was invented to control the masses--for example--is a slam against all Christians, no matter how modern or liberal they are.

thank you Aniko

Thank you for this.

I say that those who are most hurt by truth are only the ones most in denial of it ... sheeple exist ... in massive droves ... they (their thinking) is a huge problem for freedom loving folks without excessive fears.

They can take that personal or not, it is just a fact ... if the shoe fits ...

Cuts both ways, Jerry. (Or, less dualistically but also less idiomatically, in all directions.)

Whatever you say, I said my piece ...

That's all I meant to do too.

Wouldn't it be great if our moderators actually told somebody, anybody, that hurling insults, and ad hominem attacks, and defamatory rhetoric, is not OK because such crap is harmless, unless one "fits" the slanderous railing?

One wonders if they get it . . . ?

Maybe your "problem" John is that you so well and so often "fit" the ideas ... and so your ego rebels.

Sure, Jerry, that's probably why the Jews were not happy with how they were depicted by the Nazis . . they fit the ideas. And the "blacks", with how they were depicted by bigoted "whites" . . they probably really were shiftless and lazy, and so their egos were rebellious of the ideas . .

Makes perfect sense, to some, it seems.

When all such folks listen to their INternal Spirit, their higher Self, they will have none of those problems because they will no longer think they need an outside authority figure to direct them and/or get them "fired-up" (double intendre intended) as Hitler did.

yay, Dave is back!

-Mark

The next episode begins ...................

"" This is a Gather forum for discussing religion and spirituality. Sharing our spiritual beliefs is one small step towards building a better world. ""

And of course that is just what I attempt to do here ...

"" LISTEN carefully and try to see other participants' points of view, no matter how different from your own. ""

I always do, that is why I can understand them so well ...

"" Please don't "preach" or attempt to convert anyone else to your viewpoint. ""

Other than because it breaks a rule, why the hell not ? ... anything worth believing in should be worth passing on to others ... nobody is forced to accept.