Very good. So, if I choose to believe in God, or the god in me, or base my will on god's will,and express this to others and it does not violate others in any way, I will be living my life in the way I wish to live it....No?
On May 23, 6:18 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > Is enjoying my life and doing what I enjoy doing a crime of self > righteousness? > > I don't owe anyone anything but I certainly and without recrimination > support my being and from there I can, if I choose to do so, reach out > to share an enjoyable experience or bring joy to someone else. > > You have created this premise of adversity towards others when in fact > we are simply talking about enjoying life for one's own personal > enjoyment. > > Obviously if we are to step on someone else it would be detrimental to > our own persona and beyond our individual right. But the DB statement > was not that he would live life the way he wanted to by stepping on > others. > > I have no obligation to this world except for the obligations to it > that I willingly set before myself. The DB statement was "I live my > life the way I wish to live it................" which does not imply, > intimate or infer that doing so includes the violation of others. > > On May 23, 4:49 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't think so. to be sure, judging, condemning or belittling > > someone is not as heinous a crime as murder, but by doing so, I think > > we murder our own higher selves because of our self righteous belief > > that we are better or know better or can do better than someone else. > > A crime of the heart is still a crime, and all crimes against others > > are crimes against ourselves. > > > On May 23, 4:24 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I'm sure DB didn't mean to do as one will regardless of the > > > infringement upon others. > > > > That is a gross interpretive aberration of a comment composed of > > > complete generalization and assumption. > > > > I live my life as I wish and enjoy it fully because I have the "right" > > > to. This is not to ass-ume that people who commit heinous crimes > > > against humanity are justified because they are living the life they > > > wish to live, I would think it understood that people do not have the > > > "right" to inflict pain and suffering upon others. > > > > To make a point based upon minuscule and pendantic notion is far out > > > on the limb. > > > > On May 23, 2:16 pm, Molly <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > "I live my life as I wish to live it and I believe that everyone > > > > should have that right." > > > > > An interesting notion, DWB, and I wonder if you mean this literally - > > > > as if anyone who thought stealing, cheating, lying, murdering, > > > > violence, cruelty etc., was right and wished to live their lives doing > > > > as they pleased no matter the cost to those around them should do just > > > > that. It seems to me that belief in not only our own, but the rights > > > > of others is indeed important, but also needs to include the > > > > understanding of how our behavior effects others and the relationship > > > > of what we believe and do with the our world. Doing and saying as you > > > > please without awareness or regard of your response - ability to your > > > > total experience - including others, the earth, society, god....well, > > > > do we really have that right? I think we sell ourselves short like > > > > this most of all. > > > > > On May 23, 10:25 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > "Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. > > > > > Why > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me?" > > > > > > Well I think the time will come when you will be able to answer that > > > > > question yourself my friend, perhaps for some bannanas? I don't know > > > > > and would not venture to guess.As I said, I don't wish to try to > > > > > convince you of anything and do not bear the banner for any crusade. > > > > > Surely we are all in our own little dreamland. > > > > > > "Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to > > > > > enjoy > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > > > kiss god's ass?" > > > > > > Well yes and I'm glad that you make this point! By any religious > > > > > convention I think I would be considerd a heretic though I fail to > > > > > allow any bible beaters and the like to point that out. I live my life > > > > > as I wish to live it and I believe that everyone should have that > > > > > right. Along with drinking (gratuitous amounts I should add) and > > > > > eating it makes me "merry" to search for answers and find truth, > > > > > however subjective it may be, to explain this existance of ours and > > > > > perhaps point to some objective or absolute reason for it. I cannot > > > > > fathom kissing gods ass though, unless it was for bannanas. > > > > > > On May 21, 5:36 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Your in dreamland DB, I don't need any god to do any work on me. > > > > > > Why > > > > > > do I have to have a god to something to me? > > > > > > > Did you ever consider that your "God" might just want people to > > > > > > enjoy > > > > > > life, to eat drink and be merry, to just live and "Stop" trying to > > > > > > kiss god's ass? > > > > > > > I find it all so pathetic. > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:57 am, DarkwaterBlight <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > I agree that there are many unanswered questions/unexplained > > > > > > > phenomena > > > > > > > and the like which can easily be fit into a nice little man made > > > > > > > "God > > > > > > > box". It does seem all too convienient while looking at the world > > > > > > > through eyes such as yours. I also look for "proof" and I often > > > > > > > find > > > > > > > it in the human experience. Truly I do not count this as empirical > > > > > > > though the numbers are convincing.HA! One might conclude this is > > > > > > > mass > > > > > > > dilusions of grandure on a global scale but the diversity of the > > > > > > > numbers is what is convincing to me. You see, many of these > > > > > > > "believers" are the same scientists that have you hooked on your > > > > > > > lack > > > > > > > of beleif! What they are not telling you is the very same thing > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > they "know" to be fact! And in the very same way your are bound in > > > > > > > your unbelief they are promoting false "Gods" and have the > > > > > > > believing > > > > > > > masses blinded by "light" and worshiping "myths"! It comes down to > > > > > > > hegamony! Yes the lust for continued power and control and greed > > > > > > > for > > > > > > > material riches. In anothr thread our friend, ash, spoke of "the > > > > > > > Beligerent Dimurge" and that is who is being worshiped. It is not > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > true "God" as I understand God. Far be it from me to try to > > > > > > > convince > > > > > > > you of anything as it is beyond my capacity but I am certain that > > > > > > > God > > > > > > > shall do his own work with you. > > > > > > > > On May 21, 11:22 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > I had no doubt that we would differ, Pat. What you say still > > > > > > > > evokes > > > > > > > > the question of a consciousness with intent. To say what IS > > > > > > > > just IS > > > > > > > > can be viewed as a truth, like the big boulder outside my > > > > > > > > window. You > > > > > > > > have created the box by imposing a set of inferences. When > > > > > > > > looking at > > > > > > > > the whole there doesn't have to be a box, which essentially is > > > > > > > > a human > > > > > > > > construct stemming from the need to address the unknown. > > > > > > > > We deal with physical science, the proof of things, a sort of > > > > > > > > macro- > > > > > > > > religion which defines everything in terms of what we see and > > > > > > > > experience with our physical senses while the natural world > > > > > > > > leaves > > > > > > > > open ended areas which we have no answers for. This is the > > > > > > > > point at > > > > > > > > which the constructs begin to take form because there is no > > > > > > > > proof > > > > > > > > otherwise, eg; the Gallileo experience. Without scientific > > > > > > > > proof > > > > > > > > anyone can say anything, purport truth from dust and create > > > > > > > > "Myth". > > > > > > > > Storms, lightning and thunder are no longer angry gods and > > > > > > > > sacrificial > > > > > > > > human lambs are no longer necessary but for some reason we have > > > > > > > > yet to > > > > > > > > let go of the main theme of religious belief. > > > > > > > > Religion's foundation is completely based on explanation of the > > > > > > > > unknown and the unseen, the perceptions of good and evil and > > > > > > > > the need > > > > > > > > to explore afterlife. These perceptions/constructs lead to a > > > > > > > > oneness, > > > > > > > > a central being, a deity and in some cultures a multiplicity, a > > > > > > > > composite of deities assigned to elements of the universe such > > > > > > > > as the > > > > > > > > ocean and the sun. Tack on the egocentric nature of humanity > > > > > > > > and what > > > > > > > > you get is man's idea that he is an appendage of the oneness, an > > > > > > > > extension of the almighty. Now we have gods with an uncanny > > > > > > > > resemblance to humans; why am I not surprised. Religions are > > > > > > > > worshiping "Humanity". Jesus = the only begotten son of god. > > > > > > > > Why? > > > > > > > > We are the children of god. Really? Say's who? This tendency > > > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > unrealistic for me and no one has ever throughout history shown > > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > anyway a proof concerning religious dogma. It all remains to > > > > > > > > this day > > > > > > > > simple "Myths" from which to launch holy wars, commit > > > > > > > > unspeakable > > > > > > > > atrocities, build huge organizations that collect tithing and > > > > > > > > instill > > > > > > > > guilt and fear for living a natural and normal life. > > > > > > > > > On May 21, 6:51 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On 16 May, 15:26, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The ball of elaboration is in your court, this is your > > > > > > > > > > thread. You > > > > > > > > > > are making broad statements without saying much. > > > > > > > > > > > You see agnostics as having a "problem" because you have > > > > > > > > > > anchored > > > > > > > > > > yourself within your personal set of beliefs that you > > > > > > > > > > consider > > > > > > > > > > truths. > > > > > > > > > > > While issues can be linked to each other they can also be > > > > > > > > > > explored > > > > > > > > > > individually. > > ... > > read more »
