I see anything and anybody as a potential pathway to God, this would include the most disdained religion. It is going to be the Experience of some moment(s) as the basis of any decision of choice. Would the elements which constitutes the Experience have been of equal value had they been found in any other religion, or any other point which could have served the same? I would say yes to both. Which would mean, also, that it is the proper mix of those elements that should then be my focus. Just think, all being in my case I would assume some confidence in the idea of them (elements) being impressed upon my soul in the event I was to need to serve another term in this realm in another major- religion- zone. Religions have rules which becomes traditions and customs that won't allow for change and development. Another thing about leaders is that their errors tend to be costly to more than a few souls. Even the scripture describes the blissful state to be had of humanity is in no need of a leader, because they will be taught of God. You are to also be given the Tree of Life. You see, the relationship theory abounds. On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 7:52 AM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 14 Jan, 17:34, edward mason <[email protected]> wrote: >> To have a religion (a product of culture) is to have a leader to lead >> to God. Unnatural in a relationship. For those of you who are married >> imagine needing a leader there. How will you define a difference >> there? >> > > Surely religion is a pathway to God. If you follow the path, there is > not, of necessity, a need for a leader to take you DOWN the path. > That's why Islam has no 'priests'. They DO, however, have prayer > leaders (Imams), but they do not hold a higher status than the rest of > those in the Mosque. That is, prayers that are not led by an Imam are > just as valid as those without one; whereas, in certain faiths, there > is a marked status difference between the priest and the "lay"- > believer. In Islam, the relationship between man and God is one-to- > one. This is as it should be, no? > >> >> >> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > On 14 Jan, 16:58, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Makes a lot of sense Pat. ;-] >> >> > Cheers, mate! I do try. But it's my "life's work", as it were; so I >> > want it to be as sound as possible. Although, I know that, even >> > though I speak the truth, many people will be VERY upset by that. >> > But, that, I'm afraid, goes with the role. ;-) >> >> >> On Jan 14, 7:21 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > On 14 Jan, 08:42, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> > > The world seems more religious than ever these days. >> >> >> > > Across the Middle East, fervent forms of Islam are growing more >> >> > > popular and more politically active. Muslim nations that were somewhat >> >> > > secularized 40 years ago - like Lebanon and Iran - are now teeming >> >> > > with fundamentalism. In Turkey and Egypt, increasing numbers of women >> >> > > are turning to the veil as an overt manifestation of reinvigorated >> >> > > religious commitment. But it isn't just in the Muslim world that >> >> > > religion is thriving. From Brazil to El Salvador, Protestant >> >> > > evangelicalism is spreading with great success, instilling a spirited, >> >> > > holy zeal throughout Latin America. Pentecostalism is proliferating, >> >> > > too - vigorously - and not only throughout Latin America, but in >> >> > > Africa and even, to a lesser extent, China. And many nations of the >> >> > > former Soviet Union, which had atheism imposed upon them for decades, >> >> > > have emerged from the communist era with their faith not only intact, >> >> > > but strong and vibrant. Here in the United States, religion is >> >> > > definitely alive and well. In terms of church attendance and belief in >> >> > > God, Jesus, and the Bible, religion in the United States is stronger >> >> > > and more robust than in most other developed democracies. >> >> >> > > In sum, from Nebraska to Nepal, from Georgia to Guatemala, and from >> >> > > Utah to Uganda, humans all over the globe are vigorously praising >> >> > > various deities; regularly attending services at churches, temples, >> >> > > and mosques; persistently studying sacred texts; dutifully performing >> >> > > holy rites; energetically carrying out spiritual rituals; soberly >> >> > > defending the world from sin; piously fasting; and enthusiastically >> >> > > praying and then praying some more, singing, praising, and loving this >> >> > > or that savior, prophet, or God. >> >> >> > > But that is not occurring everywhere. I am referring to two nations in >> >> > > particular, Denmark and Sweden, which are probably the least religious >> >> > > countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world. >> >> > > Amidst all this vibrant global piety - atop the vast swelling sea of >> >> > > sacredness - Denmark and Sweden float along like small, content, >> >> > > durable dinghies of secular life, where most people are nonreligious >> >> > > and don't worship Jesus or Vishnu, don't revere sacred texts, don't >> >> > > pray, and don't give much credence to the essential dogmas of the >> >> > > world's great faiths. >> >> >> > > In clean and green Scandinavia, few people speak of God, few people >> >> > > spend much time thinking about theological matters, and although their >> >> > > media in recent years has done an unusually large amount of reporting >> >> > > on religion, even that is offered as an attempt to grapple with and >> >> > > make sense of a strange foreign phenomenon out there in the wider >> >> > > world that refuses to disappear, a phenomenon that takes on such dire >> >> > > significance for everyone - except, well, for Danes and Swedes. >> >> >> > > What are societies like when faith in God is minimal, church >> >> > > attendance is drastically low, and religion is a distinctly muted and >> >> > > marginal aspect of everyday life? >> >> >> > > Many people assume that religion is what keeps people moral, that a >> >> > > society without God would be hell on earth: rampant with immorality, >> >> > > full of evil, and teeming with depravity. But that doesn't seem to be >> >> > > the case for Scandinavians in those two countries. Although they may >> >> > > have relatively high rates of petty crime and burglary, and although >> >> > > these crime rates have been on the rise in recent decades, their >> >> > > overall rates of violent crime - including murder, aggravated assault, >> >> > > and rape - are among the lowest on earth. Yet the majority of Danes >> >> > > and Swedes do not believe that God is "up there," keeping diligent >> >> > > tabs on their behavior, slating the good for heaven and the wicked for >> >> > > hell. Most Danes and Swedes don't believe that sin permeates the >> >> > > world, and that only Jesus, the Son of God, who died for their sins, >> >> > > can serve as a remedy. In fact, most Danes and Swedes don't even >> >> > > believe in the notion of "sin." >> >> >> > > So the typical Dane or Swede doesn't believe all that much in God. And >> >> > > simultaneously, they don't commit much murder. But aren't they a dour, >> >> > > depressed lot, all the same? Not according to Ruut Veenhoven, >> >> > > professor emeritus of social conditions for human happiness at Erasmus >> >> > > University Rotterdam. Veenhoven is a leading authority on worldwide >> >> > > levels of happiness from country to country. He recently ranked 91 >> >> > > nations on an international happiness scale, basing his research on >> >> > > cumulative scores from numerous worldwide surveys. According to his >> >> > > calculations, the country that leads the globe - ranking No. 1 in >> >> > > terms of its residents' overall level of happiness - is little, >> >> > > peaceful, and relatively godless Denmark. >> >> >> > > The connection between religion - or the lack thereof - and societal >> >> > > health is admittedly complex. It is difficult to definitively >> >> > > establish that secularism is always good for society and religion >> >> > > always bad. However, the often posited opposite claim is equally >> >> > > difficult to substantiate: that secularism is always bad for a society >> >> > > and religion always good. To be sure, in some instances, religion can >> >> > > be a strong and positive ingredient in establishing societal health, >> >> > > prosperity, and well-being. And when considering what factors >> >> > > contribute to the making of a good society, religion can be a positive >> >> > > force. >> >> >> > > Here in the United States, for example, religious ideals often serve >> >> > > as a beneficial counterbalance against the cutthroat brand of >> >> > > individualism that can be so rampant and dominating. Religious >> >> > > congregations in America serve as community centers, counseling >> >> > > providers, and day-care sites. And a significant amount of research >> >> > > has shown that moderately religious Americans report greater >> >> > > subjective well-being and life satisfaction, greater marital >> >> > > satisfaction, better family cohesion, and fewer symptoms of depression >> >> > > than the nonreligious. Historically, a proliferation of religious >> >> > > devotion, faith in God, and reliance on the Bible has sometimes been a >> >> > > determining factor in establishing schools for children, creating >> >> > > universities, building hospitals for the sick and homes for the >> >> > > homeless, taking care of orphans and the elderly, resisting >> >> > > oppression, establishing law and order, and developing democracy. >> >> >> > > In other instances, however, religion may not have such positive >> >> > > societal effects. It can often be one of the main sources of tension, >> >> > > violence, poverty, oppression, inequality, and disorder in a given >> >> > > society. A quick perusal of the state of the world will reveal that >> >> > > widespread faith in God or strong religious sentiment in a given >> >> > > country does not necessarily ensure societal health. After all, many >> >> > > of the most religious and faithful nations on earth are simultaneously >> >> > > among the most dangerous and destitute. Conversely, a widespread lack >> >> > > of faith in God or very low levels of religiosity in a given country >> >> > > does not necessarily spell societal ruin. The fact is, the majority of >> >> > > the most irreligious democracies are among the most prosperous and >> >> > > successful nations on earth. >> >> >> > > Just to be perfectly clear here: I am not arguing that the admirably >> >> > > high level of societal health in Scandinavia is directly caused by the >> >> > > low levels of religiosity. Although one could certainly make such a >> >> > > case - arguing that a minimal focus on God and the afterlife, and a >> >> > > stronger focus on solving problems of daily life in a rational, >> >> > > secular manner have led to positive, successful societal outcomes in >> >> > > Scandinavia - that is not the argument I wish to develop here. Rather, >> >> > > I simply wish to soberly counter the widely touted assertion that >> >> > > without religion, society is doomed. >> >> >> > > If you can smell my ax starting to grind here, your nostrils are in >> >> > > good working order. The claim that without religion, society is doomed >> >> > > deserves to be challenged because, aside from being poor social >> >> > > science, it is a highly political claim that is regularly promulgated >> >> > > by some of America's most popular and most influential Christian >> >> > > conservatives. Those individuals do not represent or speak for the >> >> > > majority of believers in America, but together they do constitute a >> >> > > formidable and uniquely zealous chorus that reaches the hearts and >> >> > > minds of millions of people on a regular basis. >> >> >> > > I am referring, for instance, to Pat Robertson, the successful >> >> > > televangelist and founder of the Christian Coalition, who regularly >> >> > > condemns secularism. And Ann Coulter, the Christian conservative media >> >> > > pundit, who has written in one of her >> >> ... >> >> read more »- Hide quoted text - >> >> - Show quoted text - > > -- > 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. > > > >
-- 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.
