A message for Eric.

W_T_M wrote:

Bob wrote:Hey we just have a different take on all this. That's not breaking news.

Hell, if anything will continue to be argued and debated and thought about until the very last one of us breathes his/her last breath, it's gonna be religion. That debate will always remain with us. The fact that there can be no resolution to it or agreement about it goes a long way towards defining who and what we are. And that's as it should be.

......................................

There's one God, who is all knowing and powerful, but thousands of religions and sects...?

This argument has been going on since Moses was a road guard and Elijah over-cooked that side of beef.

Spirituality is a completely different issue, and religion is not always in agreement.

I have a tendency to want to lump religion and spirituality and philosophy all together. And since there is no all-encompassing term in the language, at least as I'm aware of, I use "religion" to substitute for that.

The reason I don't make the distinction others do, is I see all of it leading to the same thing (and when I include philosophy I mean only the part of philosophy which addresses what religion and spirituality do).

What it all is to me, is an inate desire, a need actually, for human beings to want to know what is not knowable.
And that in no way carries any negative connotation for me. Why wouldn't we? Our curiousity and our need for knowledge is our nature. It's as great a need as the sustenance we need to sustain our lives.

BUT, I'm convinced that what our reality is probably more than anything else, is that we have that same need to know what the very nature of our existence is when that knowledge has not ever, is not now, and likely will not ever be ours to possess.
And even a recognition of that is not going to change anything. We still have the need and the desire to know and always will.

SO, religion, spirituality, philosophy and whatever else we come up with, for me is all a manifestation of that same thing.

It sure gave me a good feeling when I was able to read your words again, seaoat. I was really worrying that I would not be able to do that again.
And now Eric has left us on the same day you came back to us. I hope you can convince him to change his mind.

If anyone would like to have a conversation with me about what I wrote in my second to last post I would very much enjoy doing that.
I can't learn anything from what I write, only what you write.
And I promise not to belittle or insult anyone's ideas if you do. I have no desire whatever to do that. As far as I'm concerned, what anyone else on this planet thinks about this is no more nor any less valid than anything I or anyone else has to say.
Of course if you're not of this planet, I will give more weight to what you might have to contribute. lol

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Bob wrote:Hey we just have a different take on all this. That's not breaking news.

Hell, if anything will continue to be argued and debated and thought about until the very last one of us breathes his/her last breath, it's gonna be religion. That debate will always remain with us. The fact that there can be no resolution to it or agreement about it goes a long way towards defining who and what we are. And that's as it should be.

......................................

There's one God, who is all knowing and powerful, but thousands of religions and sects...?

This argument has been going on since Moses was a road guard and Elijah over-cooked that side of beef.

Spirituality is a completely different issue, and religion is not always in agreement.

I have a tendency to want to lump religion and spirituality and philosophy all together. And since there is no all-encompassing term in the language, at least as I'm aware of, I use "religion" to substitute for that.

The reason I don't make the distinction others do, is I see all of it leading to the same thing (and when I include philosophy I mean only the part of philosophy which addresses what religion and spirituality do).

What it all is to me, is an inate desire, a need actually, for human beings to want to know what is not knowable.
And that in no way carries any negative connotation for me. Why wouldn't we? Our curiousity and our need for knowledge is our nature. It's as great a need as the sustenance we need to sustain our lives.

BUT, I'm convinced that what our reality is probably more than anything else, is that we have that same need to know what the very nature of our existence is when that knowledge has not ever, is not now, and likely will not ever be ours to possess.
And even a recognition of that is not going to change anything. We still have the need and the desire to know and always will.

SO, religion, spirituality, philosophy and whatever else we come up with, for me is all a manifestation of that same thing.

.........................................

The religionists would disagree vehemently.

The philosophers would argue the truthiness of your confession.

The spiritualist would accept you as you are, faith or no faith.

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

Bob wrote:Hey we just have a different take on all this. That's not breaking news.

Hell, if anything will continue to be argued and debated and thought about until the very last one of us breathes his/her last breath, it's gonna be religion. That debate will always remain with us. The fact that there can be no resolution to it or agreement about it goes a long way towards defining who and what we are. And that's as it should be.

......................................

There's one God, who is all knowing and powerful, but thousands of religions and sects...?

This argument has been going on since Moses was a road guard and Elijah over-cooked that side of beef.

Spirituality is a completely different issue, and religion is not always in agreement.

I have a tendency to want to lump religion and spirituality and philosophy all together. And since there is no all-encompassing term in the language, at least as I'm aware of, I use "religion" to substitute for that.

The reason I don't make the distinction others do, is I see all of it leading to the same thing (and when I include philosophy I mean only the part of philosophy which addresses what religion and spirituality do).

What it all is to me, is an inate desire, a need actually, for human beings to want to know what is not knowable.
And that in no way carries any negative connotation for me. Why wouldn't we? Our curiousity and our need for knowledge is our nature. It's as great a need as the sustenance we need to sustain our lives.

BUT, I'm convinced that what our reality is probably more than anything else, is that we have that same need to know what the very nature of our existence is when that knowledge has not ever, is not now, and likely will not ever be ours to possess.
And even a recognition of that is not going to change anything. We still have the need and the desire to know and always will.

SO, religion, spirituality, philosophy and whatever else we come up with, for me is all a manifestation of that same thing.

Is this what you want to talk about bob?

If so I agree that religion, philosophy and spirituality go together. Each of these things require a mind to search, beleive, have thought and seek.

perhaps we were put here by our creator to "experiance" all the terrible human existance to test us on how well we could love and grow in the middle of it all.

on edit: btw. im an alien from another planet.

W_T_M wrote:

.........................................

The religionists would disagree vehemently.

The philosophers would argue the truthiness of your confession.

The spiritualist would accept you as you are, faith or no faith.

Those spiritualist fellers sound like my kinda people. lol

But I'm not a very educated person, at least not in the conventional sense.
So for me to get on the same page with you, I guess it's best now that we get some definitions for these terms so we can try to get on the same page.

Here's one for religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

another for spirituality: "of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature"

and philosophy: "the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge"

If we use those definitions, I still see what is common to all three which is a quest for fundamental knowledge.
And I guess some may always want to make a distinction between the "physical" and the "spirit/soul", but I don't think we necessarily have to do that.

Chrissy wrote:

If so I agree that religion, philosophy and spirituality go together. Each of these things require a mind to search, beleive, have thought and seek.

I think that's an excellent way of putting it, Chrissy.

Bob wrote:

W_T_M wrote:

.........................................

The religionists would disagree vehemently.

The philosophers would argue the truthiness of your confession.

The spiritualist would accept you as you are, faith or no faith.

Those spiritualist fellers sound like my kinda people. lol

But I'm not a very educated person, at least not in the conventional sense.
So for me to get on the same page with you, I guess it's best now that we get some definitions for these terms so we can try to get on the same page.

Here's one for religion: "a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe"

another for spirituality: "of or pertaining to the spirit or soul, as distinguished from the physical nature"

and philosophy: "the critical study of the basic principles and concepts of a particular branch of knowledge"

If we use those definitions, I still see what is common to all three which is a quest for fundamental knowledge.
And I guess some may always want to make a distinction between the "physical" and the "spirit/soul", but I don't think we necessarily have to do that.

............................................................

Bob, I said religionists....the folk that are so heavenly minded they are no earthly good.

And I stand by my off the cuff definitions.

Unless I change my mind.

More will be revealed....

Bob wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

If so I agree that religion, philosophy and spirituality go together. Each of these things require a mind to search, beleive, have thought and seek.

I think that's an excellent way of putting it, Chrissy.

I dont spend a lot of time trying to pick each sect apart. its obvious each of those are expressed they way they are due to cultural differences.

I dont have a problem with any of them as long as they are not trying to kill people.

as far as christianity goes, I was raised by Christians, my mother being the more dedicated one imho. If I had to pick a religion to defend it would be Christianity because of my cultural upbringing. And also because I have seen the things they do good for the world, even here in this country.

As you know I do not pratice going to church because I have negative feelings about that. But those feelings dont extend to all Christians. And basically I consider myself a seeker and I have my own beliefs that I fully beleive God gave to me once I became to understand many things. And I dont beleive anyone can lead another to that understanding. It is something you have to do the work for yourself. This is just what I think. means nothing, except to me.

I also have no desire to rid the planet of athiest. I dont see a point in it, although I see athist often attacking Christians as if christians have done something to them specifically.

"under God" does not offend me.

and yes, I will bitch about the 500 moques built in america the last ten years, but I consider islam more of a political take over movement, and that idealogy does not suit me as a american.

This is just a little bit of my perception, ill prolly head to bed soon and hope sleep comes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276884/Pope-Benedict-XVI-resigns-First-Pontiff-600-years-stand-longer-strength-carry-on.html#axzz2Ke3wQwmS


A sign from God? Lighting strikes the basilica of St.Peter's dome earlier this evening during a storm that struck Rome on the same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation

Chrissy wrote:

Bob wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

If so I agree that religion, philosophy and spirituality go together. Each of these things require a mind to search, beleive, have thought and seek.

I think that's an excellent way of putting it, Chrissy.

I dont spend a lot of time trying to pick each sect apart. its obvious each of those are expressed they way they are due to cultural differences.

I dont have a problem with any of them as long as they are not trying to kill people.

as far as christianity goes, I was raised by Christians, my mother being the more dedicated one imho. If I had to pick a religion to defend it would be Christianity because of my cultural upbringing. And also because I have seen the things they do good for the world, even here in this country.

As you know I do not pratice going to church because I have negative feelings about that. But those feelings dont extend to all Christians. And basically I consider myself a seeker and I have my own beliefs that I fully beleive God gave to me once I became to understand many things. And I dont beleive anyone can lead another to that understanding. It is something you have to do the work for yourself. This is just what I think. means nothing, except to me.

I also have no desire to rid the planet of athiest. I dont see a point in it, although I see athist often attacking Christians as if christians have done something to them specifically.

"under God" does not offend me.

and yes, I will bitch about the 500 moques built in america the last ten years, but I consider islam more of a political take over movement, and that idealogy does not suit me as a american.

This is just a little bit of my perception, ill prolly head to bed soon and hope sleep comes.

.........................................................

Have you even attended a Unitarian Church....?

It's a love fest.

Nekochan wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276884/Pope-Benedict-XVI-resigns-First-Pontiff-600-years-stand-longer-strength-carry-on.html#axzz2Ke3wQwmS


A sign from God? Lighting strikes the basilica of St.Peter's dome earlier this evening during a storm that struck Rome on the same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation

OMG!

Nekochan wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276884/Pope-Benedict-XVI-resigns-First-Pontiff-600-years-stand-longer-strength-carry-on.html#axzz2Ke3wQwmS


A sign from God? Lighting strikes the basilica of St.Peter's dome earlier this evening during a storm that struck Rome on the same day Pope Benedict XVI announced his resignation

..........................................

Are you saying God is trying to kill the Pope...?

I did not take the photograph or make up the caption.

Let he who has the most sin cast the first stone.
Who threw the first stones? Sally

Nekochan wrote:I did not take the photograph or make up the caption.

..............................................................

The whole sign of God text thing...?

Good pic.

W_T_M wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

Bob wrote:

Chrissy wrote:

If so I agree that religion, philosophy and spirituality go together. Each of these things require a mind to search, beleive, have thought and seek.

I think that's an excellent way of putting it, Chrissy.

I dont spend a lot of time trying to pick each sect apart. its obvious each of those are expressed they way they are due to cultural differences.

I dont have a problem with any of them as long as they are not trying to kill people.

as far as christianity goes, I was raised by Christians, my mother being the more dedicated one imho. If I had to pick a religion to defend it would be Christianity because of my cultural upbringing. And also because I have seen the things they do good for the world, even here in this country.

As you know I do not pratice going to church because I have negative feelings about that. But those feelings dont extend to all Christians. And basically I consider myself a seeker and I have my own beliefs that I fully beleive God gave to me once I became to understand many things. And I dont beleive anyone can lead another to that understanding. It is something you have to do the work for yourself. This is just what I think. means nothing, except to me.

I also have no desire to rid the planet of athiest. I dont see a point in it, although I see athist often attacking Christians as if christians have done something to them specifically.

"under God" does not offend me.

and yes, I will bitch about the 500 moques built in america the last ten years, but I consider islam more of a political take over movement, and that idealogy does not suit me as a american.

This is just a little bit of my perception, ill prolly head to bed soon and hope sleep comes.

.........................................................

Have you even attended a Unitarian Church....?

It's a love fest.

No I decided a long time ago to have a very private relationship with the lord. This is very odd for me to talk about because it doesnt suit my online charater

Its very private for me and I make every decision in my life based upon my beleifs. And trust me, they are painful.

I only was discussing it because bob wanted to talk about it. Its a good conversation but this is one slip I dont feel comfy showing.

ehhh that lightening bolt is freaky........................

Is that pic from before or after the resignation?

That's cool by me girl.

It was just a suggestion....not an effort to recruit.


I have a few quirks indexed to the meaning of life, after-life, and fate, etc. Bob and I have had several discussions about this so he sorta knows what I ponder.


.........oh looky look...ghandi is back and my negs went up.

i'm shocked.

This is how I would define the "religionists". At least the ones I have any familiarity with (which I understand is not always the case with the Eastern religions).
Religionists are those who've decided we have had an intervention (divine) to give us that fundamental knowledge of the nature of our existence. The knowledge I believe we have no capacity to possess.
And they've concluded this because of having "faith" that the intervention was and is real.
Of course lately some are attempting to demonstrate that the knowledge that faith provides is not inconsistent with what we've learned with science.
But mostly religionists make use of faith.

I'm not even going to try to explain the problem I have with using faith in this manner. Because whatever I would share about my own thinking on that would be pointless. I've had enough conversations with "people of faith" to know that faith is a concept that begins and ends with itself.
I've learned that I just have to accept that. And I do.

W_T_M wrote:That's cool by me girl.

It was just a suggestion....not an effort to recruit.


I have a few quirks indexed to the meaning of life, after-life, and fate, etc. Bob and I have had several discussions about this so he sorta knows what I ponder.


.........oh looky look...ghandi is back and my negs went up.

i'm shocked.

Oh you poor thing. You got another neg. Almost -500 now. A forum record. Piece of shit of the year award goes to.............................................................w..t.m. And the crowd cheers. A toast. But not for you. Because you have no self control and can't toast. You poor thing.

Edit: I had to say that I'm suprised wtm made a post and didn't edit it within a minute. Another record.

I have to add just this one thing though. When I contemplate the knowledge that the "intervention" has given people of faith, it always leads me to more questions than answers.
So it's not so much how they got it (by way of faith), it's what that purported knowledge consists of which I have the most difficulty with.

I guess an analogy would be this. It's not so much how Alex Jones arrived at his 9/11 conspiracy theory (his faith in his sources) that I have so much difficulty with. It's the theory itself and what it consists of. Regardless of how he came about it, the theory itself just does not make a whole lotta sense to me. lol

Bob wrote:This is how I would define the "religionists". At least the ones I have any familiarity with (which I understand is not always the case with the Eastern religions).
Religionists are those who've decided we have had an intervention (divine) to give us that fundamental knowledge of the nature of our existence. The knowledge I believe we have no capacity to possess.
And they've concluded this because of having "faith" that the intervention was and is real.
Of course lately some are attempting to demonstrate that the knowledge that faith provides is not inconsistent with what we've learned with science.
But mostly religionists make use of faith.

I'm not even going to try to explain the problem I have with using faith in this manner. Because whatever I would share about my own thinking on that would be pointless. I've had enough conversations with "people of faith" to know that faith is a concept that begins and ends with itself.
I've learned that I just have to accept that. And I do.

........................................................

You're reading more into it than I intended. The religionist I reference are the my way or the highway bunch....the keepers of the flame. If you don't believe as they you will burn in Hell for ever and ever and always, and that's a very long time. Your only hope is their insight and dogma.

Like pupdog on steroids.

W_T_M wrote:

You're reading more into it than I intended. The religionist I reference are the my way or the highway bunch....the keepers of the flame. If you don't believe as they you will burn in Hell for ever and ever and always, and that's a very long time. Your only hope is their insight and dogma.

Like pupdog on steroids.

I'm so glad you brought that up. Because to me it would seem to be like this.
If someone truly believes the Holy Bible (or the Koran take your pick) is the inspired word of the "creator of the universe", then I don't see how that person can be an "armchair believer". And by "armchair believer" I mean someone who is not determined to share that "real truth" with you and me and everyone else.
I would think that desire to turn us all onto it would go hand in hand with believing that is the "the truth of our existence inspired by the God who created us".
In other words, that creator did not just create those who accept it. He created all of us and everything else in the universe.
If I had that faith, I would feel like it's my responsibility to get others to recognize that one and only truth. I would be doing that in every way I knew how. And anything that "man" comes up with which is inconsistent with that one and only truth, to me would always take a backseat to it. Would always be superceded by it.
So I guess what I'm saying is, I can better understand those who wear that faith on their sleeves than I can the "armchair believers". Those I do not understand at all. For me, armchair belief is not really a belief. That's just wanting to be a part of something and be accepted by something (conforming).

Onward Christian Soldiers.