No plan is necessary to move beyond religion. One simply does. As Fran noted, he, myself, Ian, and many others on here are agnostic or atheist. I lost the need for religion long ago. I didn't need a plan...I simply didn't need religion. In proselytizing your plan, you are coming across as that which you decry.
On Fri, May 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > Yes sir, I have and do. > Fran, do you have or do you know of a plan to move beyond religion? > Am I arrogant because I do have a plan? > The religions have a lot of good stuff in them. A lot of that good > stuff is 'common' to them and is what I go forward with. I am not > intentionally putting down anybody's beliefs, I am simply defending my > own. > > peace & Love > > On May 8, 4:42 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > Tinker, I have to wonder if you actually read and understand what > > others post here. Five hours ago, I stated clearly that I believe that > > the time has come for humanity to move beyond religion. As I have > > repeatedly stated here, I am an agnostic/atheist. > > > > Nonetheless, it strikes me as pretty arrogant to simply dismiss all of > > what people have thought and reasoned within a religious context > > (particularly as, for most of human history, a non-religious > > standpoint was simply inconceivable) as bullshit. It's like saying > > that Caesar was a bad general because he didn't use tanks and have air- > > support. > > > > Francis > > > > On 8 Mai, 22:19, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Fran, what you would expect is the BS of religions gone past failing > > > for thousands of years. > > > I am rude and crude in your face trying to get you to wake up from the > > > apathy of those failed religions. > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > On May 8, 4:12 pm, frantheman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Tinker, the tone of your posts doesn't particularly serve to make > your > > > > claim to have reached some new level of spiritual illumination > > > > particularly credible. I would expect someone who claims to have > > > > attained new spiritual insights to be courteous and compassionate > > > > towards others who appear to be honest seekers - along the lines of > > > > the old maxim, "by their fruits shall ye know them." > > > > > > Francis > > > > > > On 8 Mai, 22:04, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > My dear Lady, > > > > > > > He sounds to me like someone telling their grandfather he ought to > > > > > find a lady and have some kids :-) > > > > > I've been through all of that BS and it goes nowhere. > > > > > I'm talking about taking action here and now to bring about the > > > > > evolution of mankind to become spiritual beings. > > > > > All of your spiritual beliefs are 'wannabe' what I'm talking about. > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > On May 8, 3:29 pm, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > Don't be so quick to dismiss what Justin is trying to tell you. > There > > > > > > is a truth for you there. > > > > > > > > On May 8, 1:07 pm, Tinker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Guess again :-) > > > > > > > > > peace & Love > > > > > > > > > On May 8, 3:55 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > So, who’s right? Is it one out of the jumbled clusterfuck > of spiritual > > > > > > > > > beliefs? Or is it the Fact, that Life IS here and now. > > > > > > > > > The ‘Dream of Utopia’ points at Life, not some spiritual > other shit. > > > > > > > > > That’s why I ask if it’s dead. > > > > > > > > > > Well Ok, but you are setting up a false dilemma. Above you > have > > > > > > > > capitalized the following words "Fact", "Life" and a double > capital of > > > > > > > > "IS". > > > > > > > > > > Basically, if you consider what something is, like "its red" > or "its > > > > > > > > round" you are considering its nature, or its essence. It is > possible > > > > > > > > however to cease to consider what is and turn your > consideration to > > > > > > > > the fact that it is. When you do you transcend what life is > and > > > > > > > > consider the fact that it is, or to use your writing, the > Fact, that > > > > > > > > Life IS. Now, it turns out that you can experience the fact > that life > > > > > > > > is in some very, what are called, "profound" ways. You can > either > > > > > > > > appreciate its meaning fully or not. When you no longer are > > > > > > > > considering what is but the fact that it is you are going > beyond the > > > > > > > > physical to the metaphysical, or going beyond the natural to > the > > > > > > > > supernatural or going beyond the sensory to the extrasensory. > That is > > > > > > > > the "some spiritual other shit" because it is not what is, > but rather > > > > > > > > is the fact that it is. That is why it is "other" or > transcendent. It > > > > > > > > is also Immanent meaning roughly "here and now." That is why > "the > > > > > > > > Fact, that Life IS here and now" IS "some spiritual other > shit"... it > > > > > > > > just happens to be YOUR "some spiritual other shit". > > > > > > > > > > It turns out that the appreciation of the meaning of the fact > that > > > > > > > > life is in its fullest sense is the experience underlying all > of the > > > > > > > > religions. The meaning of that experience is expressed, > indirectly > > > > > > > > through the books and stories that constitute the religious > texts and > > > > > > > > genuine religious activity and mythology is about the problem > of > > > > > > > > knowing what it means to be and is part of the intellectual > history of > > > > > > > > mankind. > > > > > > > > > > You might think it is easy to know what it means. It is not. > > > > > > > > > > Now many activities and beliefs interpret these texts > literally. For > > > > > > > > them God is basically like any other thing capable of either > being or > > > > > > > > not being and they believe he "happens" to be. They interpret > religion > > > > > > > > not existentially but essentially. They think it is about > what is not > > > > > > > > the fact that it is. These people are fundamentalists. Their > > > > > > > > interpretation is truly not even religious. It is just bad > science. > > > > > > > > > > However, when the religions are not interpreted essentially > then we > > > > > > > > can see their value. Their value is in their appreciation of > the > > > > > > > > meaning of "the Fact, that Life IS here and now." So you > raise a false > > > > > > > > dilemma between religion and what you are saying. > > > > > > > > > > With respect to Utopia I recommend that you read Kierkeguard > on > > > > > > > > despair "The Sickness Unto Death". He analyzes what despair > really is > > > > > > > > and how one falls into its clutches. It is truly a very big > problem. > > > > > > > > Utopia is not being realized because of something that is > called Maya > > > > > > > > or illusion in the hindu literature. It is called original > sin in the > > > > > > > > christian literature. In the Hindu litterature it is noted > that all > > > > > > > > suffering comes from a failure to realize the true nature of > life. > > > > > > > > > > To put as close to your terminology as I can: When "the fact, > that > > > > > > > > life that life is here and now" fails to become "the Fact, > that Life > > > > > > > > IS here and now" then there is suffering. > > > > > > > > > > You should be careful about prematurely cutting out the > meaning of the > > > > > > > > religions because you correctly realize that their literal > > > > > > > > interpretation is false and even distracting. > > > > > > > > > > Now to the most important question: Is the dream dead. I > think the > > > > > > > > answer is no. Not even in the most evil would I say dead... > or at > > > > > > > > least not completely incapable of being resurrected. We know > basically > > > > > > > > that there is this problem, the problem of Maya or original > sin and > > > > > > > > there is this clouding of our vision but religious experience > still > > > > > > > > happens. The real question can be posed in terms of the myth > of Lot > > > > > > > > and his fleeing of his city. The dream is alive. We are like > in a game > > > > > > > > with the stakes doubling. The technical capabilities we have > for > > > > > > > > communication now are making possible a major reawakening. > They also > > > > > > > > make possible our destruction and these capabilities, the > ones we > > > > > > > > currently have are nothing compared to what is in the > biological > > > > > > > > design / neurology synergy. We are about to become very > capable. Are > > > > > > > > we responding to it is the question. > > > > > > > > > > Good luck. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
