Molly I think there is a valid search for validity in beliefs, To me it seems often times beliefs are twisted to meat the desires of those in leadership in an effort to justify their actions. Though I do believe this is not directly intentional.
Like myself I think many people are searching for the truth and not twisted truth. A true understanding of the forces that guide the universe. Allan On Sun, Oct 4, 2009 at 6:06 PM, Molly Brogan <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 » > > > -- ( ) I_D Allan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
