I notice that you've taken my observation personally, which was farthest from my intent. I was still speaking of the idea ... that organised religion has no place in 21st Century. When you suggested with a ' but ' ... that people have cravings and have need of controls, I persisted.
Allow me to say that I have huge regard for you, the life you've experienced, the men you've dealt with, the children you've raised, your happiness and unhappiness, the little pleasures and small regrets, the age that has caught up with you, the body, the mind, the fine upbringing recalls, your memories, your appreciation of arts and letters ... from whatever I know of you from you posts. But I also know that you are not the life you've experienced, the experiences with men, the children, the memories, the body or the mind. You, as I know, are quite another, privileged to have or be all these but absolutely free of it, untouched and unaffected, except for those identities and attachments that pre - claim you in your waking and dream states, but only out of sheer habits of the mind that coalesce as ' ego.' In truth, it is as you might be in deep sleep, having already discarded it all, pure, free of all cravings and fear, of all attachments and identities, having nothing whatsoever to do with any other thing, person, experience ... past, present or future ! But that's me and what I know. You could respond, agree or rebut, or enlighten in any other way, if so inclined. You are the topic here ! Being off topic, I hope the mods and the members would forgive me for the digression. On May 15, 8:53 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > I like this forum and am sorry if I gave you the wrong impression > though I suppose there are disagreeable radical hermits who would like > it as well! I hope you don't think of me that way but perhaps you do. > I have trouble keeping my thoughts and opinions fixed- sometimes I > simply must disagree with myself or there's another point of view that > alters my own. Usually there is a delayed reaction, a struggle or > battle of thoughts and one wins the day. :-) > > On May 13, 8:15 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > The craving brings us here. I spoke of how we could be going here on. > > Why ? Because I've experienced the goodness of living so ! > > > Do you find it disagreeable to you or simply radical, as you seem to > > imply ? > > > On May 13, 11:58 am, rigsy03 <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think humans crave rituals and controls whether in religion, > > > military, government, business and so on and would feel rather lost > > > without them. Or would all the spiritual hermits twitter? > > > > On May 13, 1:43 am, vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Religion, as an organised and institutionalised entity, has no place > > > > in 21st Century ! > > > > > However, religion as an idea, a practice or way of life, could be in > > > > the public domain, as an option ... leaving the rest up to the > > > > individual ... if, whether, what and the how of it. For which, all > > > > freedoms and responsibility should rest with the individual. There > > > > could be churches or mosques or temples, even priests. But no > > > > organised hierarchy, no back seat drivers, no accumulation of wealth, > > > > money or power. No flock. No shepherd. No calling of faithfuls. > > > > > On May 13, 5:57 am, Ash <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > When it's 'cult' leaders people scream for blood. Nevermind, mixed > > > > > [symbols]... > > > > > > Anyways, I was thinking they should let the nuns be with the priests, > > > > > keeping things all in the church but theres the contradiction of > > > > > 'natural law' and sex. And again, abuse of authority. Can this be > > > > > salvaged? I'm not too sure, perhaps they should just enter the 21st > > > > > century like the one in Contact who said, 'You could call me a man of > > > > > the cloth. Without the cloth.' > > > > > > On 5/12/2010 9:55 AM, vamadevananda wrote: > > > > > > > Indeed ! > > > > > > > On May 12, 5:48 pm, Pat<[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > >> On 11 May, 21:44, ornamentalmind<[email protected]> > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > >>>http://www.bishop-accountability.org/ > > > > > >>> All neatly documented.... > > > > > > >> I wonder how many of 'the accused' had actually paid for > > > > > >> indulgences. > > > > > >> If they did, then 'the Vicar of Christ' has approved their actions > > > > > >> by > > > > > >> turning the other cheek, i.e., turning his face away. Surely, it's > > > > > >> time to impeach the Pope. You'll KNOW it's true, if the New > > > > > >> Benedictine Authorised Version has the quote "Come onto me, ye > > > > > >> little > > > > > >> children" in it. Yeah, OK, I may have churned a few stomachs with > > > > > >> that, but, hey, anything goes when you proclaim yourself 'Vicar of > > > > > >> Christ'. It's time to lose that office and face the fact that no > > > > > >> one > > > > > >> can proclaim to be, via creed, 'God incarnate in stead'. It's a > > > > > >> title > > > > > >> that gives FAR too much license; so the result is licentiousness. > > > > > >> What else would you expect?- Hide quoted text - > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text -
