interesting article in the sunday paper filler here in the US on spirituality http://www.parade.com/news/2009/10/04-how-spiritual-are-we.html. Seems half of us do not belong to a church, 24% are spiritual but not religious, 5% don't believe in god while 69% do and 12% weren't sure. Although 45% of respondents considered themselves religious, 70% of them said they participate in organized religion sporadically or not at all. That means one-third of the people who identified themselves as religious were only minimally connected to traditional worship. A scant 12% of respondents said that their own religion was the only true faith, 12% said no religion has validity, and 59% said all religions are valid. Somewhere in all this mix, and 77% pray outside of religious service.
It seems to me the fundamentalist view of religion is disappearing overall, so isn't it amazing that it has such a hold on American politics. Money talks. Can that be spirit in action? On Oct 3, 1:57 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > I've been through it many times aside of fundamentalism, which is of > course a major problem that I understand skews much of the intent. I > would have to admit that the level on which one stands on a mountain > drastically affects the view, the interpretation of the view remains > subjective and relies much on existing beliefs. Though there have > been many religious and non denominational experiences for me, and > numerous explorations through scriptural paths I've managed to stay > aloof. I don't know that open mind alone can effect influence on > one's perceived notions. > I think there were many viable cultures that existed well enough > without the invasion of mind polluting missionaries who brought their > notions of sin, salvation and saviors. I don't see it really > necessary to proselytize to isolated cultures who survive just fine on > their own. I'm glad I'm totally free of it, life is good. > Spot on Molly with recognition that my dreams are the central focus > for much of my understanding. They are not a production of or a > presentation by any social or cultural group. Dreams are not without > mention in ancient texts and have played important roles, again > whether the stories are true or not is, for me, of no consequence, my > dreams are relevant. > > On Oct 3, 9:41 am, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > > "offers important insights into strategies and interpretations, that > > hold the > > hope of solution, and the keys to understanding, (which in a strange > > way turn out to be the same thing) and may in fact even be decisive." > > > I think this point of yours, Justin, is important but, of course, the > > material will only lead to understanding if read with an open mind and > > desire to feel what is conveyed. It seems to me, Slip, the material > > that speaks the loudest to you are your own dreams, and how wonderful > > it seems to me that this calling comes from within and is not > > dependent on anything external. I do believe that anything worth > > discovering externally can also be discovered internally and then, it > > is in our own language. Keep dreaming. Someday, I hope to meet you > > there. > > > On Oct 3, 3:01 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > Actualy I wasnt trying to be condescending and didnt think I was until > > > I saw your reply. I was trying to be funny actually. > > > > The reality is that we are all dead soon; and there is evil. I do not > > > think that even if our science and our ethics were perfected that > > > would change much. Then there are the ravages of boredom and, of > > > course, despair. > > > > Non fundamentalist interpretations of the global religious, > > > philosophical and aesthetic heritage offers a repository or a record > > > of the historical, or more accurate historistical, attempts to solve > > > this. It is the Budhist problem of suffering as well as the Cqtholic > > > process of Salvation, it is Surrender and insight, a kind of knowing. > > > The suggested methods are, well let me say that I have not been able > > > to find a flaw in them but I still dont understand a lot of it and, as > > > they document, there are the problems of pride, Mindfullessness, > > > confusion, greed etc etc that bother us and keep us from the ecstsy of > > > love and the presence that is the other side of the coin so to speak > > > even as we await our slaughter. > > > > God, if he is, is a monster you say? It is an old argument, and there > > > are old rebuttals and rebuttals to them. The nature of the problem is > > > not academic and must be solved within each person in the present(ce) > > > of his own experience. I will only say it is not so simple as you say > > > and this literature, when not interpreted fundamentally, offers > > > important insights into strategies and interpretations, that hold the > > > hope of solution, and the keys to understanding, (which in a strange > > > way turn out to be the same thing) and may in fact even be decisive. > > > The material is difficult but just dismissing it is unfortunate and > > > inaccurate. > > > > You might give it another °non fundamentalist° read. > > > > On Oct 2, 1:15 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The condescending ending is out of character for you, but if it does > > > > something for you, that's fine but I think it brash that you would > > > > consider someone else as being predictable. I don't really have much > > > > as far as feelings in any Internet environment, generally I'm cool > > > > headed. We are just minds here without interpersonal relationships, > > > > so you could say whatever you want without worrying about hurt > > > > feelings, that is with me, I can't speak for others. Personally I > > > > thought it was discussion as usual not argumentation. It seems as > > > > obvious now as it has in all past threads on religion and politics > > > > that opposition can remain staunch and un-yeilding. You see it as you > > > > do from your window of belief and I from disbelief. Neither will sway > > > > the other and I have no illusions of changing your world or that of > > > > Pat or Molly or anyone else. This is really a way of understanding > > > > how others come to believe what they do. It's come down to two > > > > personal opposing views and one is slinging mud. For me the good book > > > > is just that, a good book, nothing more. I admit I do push hard in > > > > some areas as a way to get past the usual and most common responses > > > > but little has shown to be anything new, just the usual. > > > > Maybe if God saves the tsunami victims suffocating under the crushing > > > > rubble there will be something to believe. Other than that it's just > > > > delusional fantasy. > > > > > On Oct 2, 4:52 am, Justintruth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Ah 'natural' yes of course but what determines what is natural? > > > > > > It is natural if it pertains to what it is. When you are describing > > > > > what it then you are describing nature. It is distinct from describing > > > > > the fact that what is is. Then you are not talking about nature. One > > > > > way of saying the difference is essence and existence. Another is > > > > > physics and metaphysics, another is natural and supernatural, another > > > > > (similiar anyway) is sensory and extrasensory. > > > > > > >What is fact? > > > > > > A fact is basically a truth that is determined non-essentially. In > > > > > other words a fact is a truth that requires some existential > > > > > statement. For example, the question "Do mother's have babies?" can be > > > > > interpreted two ways: Does the idea of "mother" mean something that > > > > > has a baby? That is a question of essence. But it can be interpreted > > > > > also as something like: Are there mother's and are they having baby's? > > > > > The second question is one of fact. The first question does not > > > > > require observation to assert its validity. It requires meaning and > > > > > definition. The second does. It is possible that the following is > > > > > true: Yes, mothers do have babies but no "in fact" they are not. > > > > > > I certainly couldn't > > > > > > > present anything as fact) that it is > > > > > > Really? How do you eat? I am completely dependent on assessing and > > > > > determining facts and without that ability could not function. > > > > > wouldn't be able to find my car keys! > > > > > > > > is supernatural. That means that the fact (fact?) that it is is > > > > > > > not what it > > > > > > > is. Do you see that? (no I'm blind) > > > > > > Being blind is not a problem. Wanting to stay that way, that is the > > > > > problem. I'm not asserting that you "in fact" are, although frankly it > > > > > looks that way, as I get your sarcasm. Just making a point > > > > > essentially. > > > > > > > It is in the latter that that God lies. (God is a liar? "lol") > > > > > > I think that that would be essentially impossible. Just a guess > > > > > though. > > > > > > > (I think I already have an understanding of the supernatural, you > > > > > > speak as if you are addressing a novice, when in fact I've been > > > > > > through all this biblical, supernatural and mystical stuff for over > > > > > > 40 > > > > > > years, fact is I've heard the voice of God and the visual and voice > > > > > > of > > > > > > Jesus, whether it was real or not is another story, Chris seems to > > > > > > chalk it up to DMT while I was comatose, but since I have always > > > > > > been > > > > > > a non believer of such things I found it rather strange that I > > > > > > should > > > > > > come across such an experience, I might mention that a priest was > > > > > > called upon to administer last rites, modern day sacraments of the > > > > > > sick, then I somehow came back to this godforsaken place) > > > > > > I am always amazed when people refer to comatose experience of the > > > > > experience of miracles. In my opinion it is a dead give away for > > > > > someone who has no clue. You needn't be close to death, or on > > > > > mushrooms, or seeing something that violates the laws of physics. It > > > > > is there always in every experience. It is just being conscious of it. > > > > > We are talking about something that technically cannot be not present. > > > > > So I don't think you do have a grasp of it. You don't evidence one. > > > > > > > > Simplistic creation? Where did you get that from? Not me. > > > > > > > NoJustin, not you, the bible, Genesis, Creation, like what, seven > > > > > > days? funny how seven is such a wonderful number for the authors of > > > > > > this perpetual hoax. > > > > > > Here we go with the fundamentalist strawman again.... > > > > > > > > IF scripture, as you point out, has other non > > > > > > > > contextual meaning then for sure, as I pointed out, it > > > > > > > > therefore is a > > > > > > > > more complex collection of Aesop's fables than the word of God. > > > > > > > > SD > > > > > > > > In a sense you are right. (wow, I'm right, in a sense, oh lordy) > > > > > > > You see fairy tales and other myths also > > > > > > > hold > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
