Forums > Social Discussion > Following Your Own Path - Discussion on Self-Based Religion
Login/Join to ParticipateSILVER Member
Discoverer of Rainbow Cheese
143 posts
Location: Inverness, Scotland.
Discoverer of Rainbow Cheese
143 posts
Location: Inverness, Scotland.
Posted:
Hey all! First, thanks for reading this post and I hope the subject interests you. This thread is about what has become known to people as "unofficial religion", or as the school computers tell me when I try to do research on it; "Unofficial/Indigenous/Occult Beliefs".
After being a Buddhist for 2 years, I have found deep satisfaction in my life. Everything has changed for the better. However, I feel that there is more to the story than Buddhism tells. I believe, unshakably, that there is a God, which Buddhism attempts to, in a sense, dispel.
I find it extremely interesting that some of the people I know and love follow their own paths; their own beliefs, which no-one can distort with their own. I find these people admirable and, to say the least, courageous.
What do all of you beautiful people think about this topic?
Peace & Love
Hey all! First, thanks for reading this post and I hope the subject interests you. This thread is about what has become known to people as "unofficial religion", or as the school computers tell me when I try to do research on it; "Unofficial/Indigenous/Occult Beliefs".
After being a Buddhist for 2 years, I have found deep satisfaction in my life. Everything has changed for the better. However, I feel that there is more to the story than Buddhism tells. I believe, unshakably, that there is a God, which Buddhism attempts to, in a sense, dispel.
I find it extremely interesting that some of the people I know and love follow their own paths; their own beliefs, which no-one can distort with their own. I find these people admirable and, to say the least, courageous.
What do all of you beautiful people think about this topic?
Peace & Love
Time does not exist. In theory, everything with a beginning has an end. Therefore, only things with an end can have a beginning. As time has no end, it has no beginning, therefore does not exist. GO PHILOSOPHY!!!
Brittle Week was the shizz!!!
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
and the moral judgements, i think, were what he was talking about when we should decide whether or not to confine ourselves to a stricter code of conduct
and i am not talking about a theocracy really but consider many of our laws vs the standard 10 commandments
don't kill:murder is illegal
don't steal: stealing is illegal
don't lie: perjury
if i thought harder, i could probably come up with some more
govermental corporal punishment: lose a hand for stealing, stoning an adulterer, killing a rapist in some middle eastern countries. we say it's wrong, they say it's right
(as for use of drugs not hurting someone other then self, i find it does if for no other reason than a bag of whatever or pill of whatever can be laced and then that could lead to behavior that could hurt someone other than self)
i guess what i am trying to say is that it just seems that self-based religion will infringe on someone elses
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1166728394)
and the moral judgements, i think, were what he was talking about when we should decide whether or not to confine ourselves to a stricter code of conduct
and i am not talking about a theocracy really but consider many of our laws vs the standard 10 commandments
don't kill:murder is illegal
don't steal: stealing is illegal
don't lie: perjury
if i thought harder, i could probably come up with some more
govermental corporal punishment: lose a hand for stealing, stoning an adulterer, killing a rapist in some middle eastern countries. we say it's wrong, they say it's right
(as for use of drugs not hurting someone other then self, i find it does if for no other reason than a bag of whatever or pill of whatever can be laced and then that could lead to behavior that could hurt someone other than self)
i guess what i am trying to say is that it just seems that self-based religion will infringe on someone elses
EDITED_BY: faithinfire (1166728394)
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
enthusiast
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
255 posts
Location: Melbourne - home of pirates
Posted:
When do you forsee the paths intersect in a not so great result?
Most religions have most of the major moral codes in common - as you say, all ban lying, stealing, murder, rape.
Its not so much the basic moral code but the method of attaining spiritual peace that really varies between religions. I think its interesting that the people replying to this thread have gravitated towards Pagan and Buddhist traditions, as these traditions often offer a moral flexibility in the things that do not impinge on another's personal welfare that many other religions don't. They also offer a more tolerant and compassionate response to other religious beliefs, rather than the dogmatic approach which, IMO, has become real obstacle to orthodox religious growth within Western societies today.
When do you forsee the paths intersect in a not so great result?
Most religions have most of the major moral codes in common - as you say, all ban lying, stealing, murder, rape.
Its not so much the basic moral code but the method of attaining spiritual peace that really varies between religions. I think its interesting that the people replying to this thread have gravitated towards Pagan and Buddhist traditions, as these traditions often offer a moral flexibility in the things that do not impinge on another's personal welfare that many other religions don't. They also offer a more tolerant and compassionate response to other religious beliefs, rather than the dogmatic approach which, IMO, has become real obstacle to orthodox religious growth within Western societies today.
"You've gone from Loey the Wonder Lesbian to everyone wondering if you are a lesbian." - Shadowman
Yesterday is yesterday. If we try to recapture it, we will only lose tomorrow.
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
Well I'd say that's a vast generalisation.
And may you remember that the strive for "enlightenment" and the "nirvana" is also a desire that leads to suffering and needs to be 'cut'...
"Be your own light"
Merry X-Mas
Written by: onewheeldave
Most buddhists are not monks, they're not celibate and they maintain good relationships with their familes.
They do not cut all ties with the world, neither do they aspire to ending all desire.
They endevour to 'cut' only those ties/desires which lead to suffering.
Well I'd say that's a vast generalisation.
And may you remember that the strive for "enlightenment" and the "nirvana" is also a desire that leads to suffering and needs to be 'cut'...
"Be your own light"
Merry X-Mas
the best smiles are the ones you lead to 
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
morals don't come from religous beleaf religous morals come from morals aready pre-built into our brain. though the evolution of altruism.
if we all went round killing each other civilisation would collaps, same with rape, stealing etc. because of this hummans have evolved a sence of morality. its not exclusive to hummans chimps have a basic moral sence as well.
a good way to think about it is to say
should X be aloud
then think would i like to live in a socity where X was aloud
if yes its moral
if no its amoral
(when a goverment does this it shouldn't baise any part of its reasoning on religous belef only on facts and evidence. an example of religous reasons would be should we alow homosexuality, no because it would anger god and i dont want to be in a socity that angers god)
thats how people fundimentaly decide on there morals not though religous scripture. all though scripture can often distort there reasoning at this point. if we realy got our morals from e.g. the bible all christans would concider the following moral and acceptable behavior
slavery
killing non beleavers
killing of adulters
killing of disobediant children
that women should not be given the same rights as men
but they odviously don't, they get there morals from a inbuild moral code then pick out the bits of the bible that supports there own moral code and ignore the rests.
i guess what i am trying to say is that it just seems that self-based religion will infringe on someone elses
what i am trying to say is when this occures we must uses reason to decide what is aloud, sometimes this may results in a comprimise some times it may result in supporting one position or another, but that is the only fair way to do it.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166793666)
morals don't come from religous beleaf religous morals come from morals aready pre-built into our brain. though the evolution of altruism.
if we all went round killing each other civilisation would collaps, same with rape, stealing etc. because of this hummans have evolved a sence of morality. its not exclusive to hummans chimps have a basic moral sence as well.
a good way to think about it is to say
should X be aloud
then think would i like to live in a socity where X was aloud
if yes its moral
if no its amoral
(when a goverment does this it shouldn't baise any part of its reasoning on religous belef only on facts and evidence. an example of religous reasons would be should we alow homosexuality, no because it would anger god and i dont want to be in a socity that angers god)
thats how people fundimentaly decide on there morals not though religous scripture. all though scripture can often distort there reasoning at this point. if we realy got our morals from e.g. the bible all christans would concider the following moral and acceptable behavior
slavery
killing non beleavers
killing of adulters
killing of disobediant children
that women should not be given the same rights as men
but they odviously don't, they get there morals from a inbuild moral code then pick out the bits of the bible that supports there own moral code and ignore the rests.
i guess what i am trying to say is that it just seems that self-based religion will infringe on someone elses
what i am trying to say is when this occures we must uses reason to decide what is aloud, sometimes this may results in a comprimise some times it may result in supporting one position or another, but that is the only fair way to do it.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166793666)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
member
70 posts
Location: On top of a Nipple
70 posts
Location: On top of a Nipple
Posted:
Yeah, but by buddha, everything is suffering.
everything that we do and think, is based on our ego, which makes us suffer.
and they try to sever every connection that keeps us tied to this world, because by buddha, this world is suffering...
and yeah, most buddhists are not religious monks and all that, but the basic idea of buddhism is that...
Written by: onewheeldaveWritten by: Pinkadelic
i personally think, that what u believe in, is what there is.
if your a buddhist, you will probably live ur life as a buddhist, renouncing family, renouncing fame and all things that keep u tied to this world.
Buddhism isn't about renouncing family.
You may be thinking of monastism- becoming a monk.
Most buddhists are not monks, they're not celibate and they maintain good relationships with their familes.
They do not cut all ties with the world, neither do they aspire to ending all desire.
They endevour to 'cut' only those ties/desires which lead to suffering.
Yeah, but by buddha, everything is suffering.
everything that we do and think, is based on our ego, which makes us suffer.
and they try to sever every connection that keeps us tied to this world, because by buddha, this world is suffering...
and yeah, most buddhists are not religious monks and all that, but the basic idea of buddhism is that...
Love is Life
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Buddha did not claim that 'everything is suffering'- the word used was 'dukka' which is often mistranslated as 'suffering'.
It actually means things more along the lines of 'impermanent', 'unsatisfactory' etc.
Absolutely not.
A relevant story is that of when the siddartha, in the days before discovering the path that would become known as 'Buddhism'- lived in the forest amongst the 'ascetics', a sect who did take cutting ties to the world to an extreme level.
Siddhartha excelled at these practices, learning to eat less and live in less comfort than all the other ascetics.
Despite his prowess at these skills, he realised that they were not the way to true peace, contentment and freedom from suffering/dukka.
So, for the first time in years, he took a decent meal, at which point the other ascetics dismissed him as a failure.
Siddartha went on to discover a way of life that avoided such extremes and yet lead, in his eyes, to a peaceful, balanced life in which desires that lead to suffering where worked on and diminshed.
Buddhism is not based on extreme practices, on rejecting the world etc- a central theme is 'the Middle Path' where one strives for balance, rather than extremes.
There are/have been 'buddhist' schools which do not follow these practices and, instead, encourage followers to engage in cult-like practices- by definition, they are not following the path set down by the Buddha.
And, that path has been clearly set down- true Buddhism is based on the 'Four Noble Truths', 'Eightfold Path' and the 'Middle Way'- these are clear and consise doctrines which promote a balanced, harmonious and non-extreme way of life.
Any sect that promotes extremes and rejection of the world, is not Buddhist.
Buddha did not claim that 'everything is suffering'- the word used was 'dukka' which is often mistranslated as 'suffering'.
It actually means things more along the lines of 'impermanent', 'unsatisfactory' etc.
Written by:
and they try to sever every connection that keeps us tied to this world, because by buddha, this world is suffering...
Absolutely not.
A relevant story is that of when the siddartha, in the days before discovering the path that would become known as 'Buddhism'- lived in the forest amongst the 'ascetics', a sect who did take cutting ties to the world to an extreme level.
Siddhartha excelled at these practices, learning to eat less and live in less comfort than all the other ascetics.
Despite his prowess at these skills, he realised that they were not the way to true peace, contentment and freedom from suffering/dukka.
So, for the first time in years, he took a decent meal, at which point the other ascetics dismissed him as a failure.
Siddartha went on to discover a way of life that avoided such extremes and yet lead, in his eyes, to a peaceful, balanced life in which desires that lead to suffering where worked on and diminshed.
Buddhism is not based on extreme practices, on rejecting the world etc- a central theme is 'the Middle Path' where one strives for balance, rather than extremes.
There are/have been 'buddhist' schools which do not follow these practices and, instead, encourage followers to engage in cult-like practices- by definition, they are not following the path set down by the Buddha.
And, that path has been clearly set down- true Buddhism is based on the 'Four Noble Truths', 'Eightfold Path' and the 'Middle Way'- these are clear and consise doctrines which promote a balanced, harmonious and non-extreme way of life.
Any sect that promotes extremes and rejection of the world, is not Buddhist.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
member
70 posts
Location: On top of a Nipple
70 posts
Location: On top of a Nipple
Posted:
when buddha did come out of the ascetisism world, he said that u dont need to harm yourself to be free, you dont need to renounce your body, but you need to renounce your desires and ties.
he looked for a way, and put a little of everything he found out, in his latter philosophy.
when buddha did come out of the ascetisism world, he said that u dont need to harm yourself to be free, you dont need to renounce your body, but you need to renounce your desires and ties.
he looked for a way, and put a little of everything he found out, in his latter philosophy.
Love is Life
GOLD Member
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Carpal \'Tunnel
3,252 posts
Location: sheffield, United Kingdom
Posted:
Yes. However, some in this thread seem to be saying that Buddha advocated renouncing all ties and desires, which is probably impossible and, if attempted, likely to not give good results.
The way I see it, is that Buddhism advocates diminishing those desires and ties that lead to suffering.
Examples are excessive desire to eat, leading to health problems and emotional problems.
The normal desire to eat is no problem whatsoever and buddhists do not advocate cutting that desire.
Yes. However, some in this thread seem to be saying that Buddha advocated renouncing all ties and desires, which is probably impossible and, if attempted, likely to not give good results.
The way I see it, is that Buddhism advocates diminishing those desires and ties that lead to suffering.
Examples are excessive desire to eat, leading to health problems and emotional problems.
The normal desire to eat is no problem whatsoever and buddhists do not advocate cutting that desire.
"You can't outrun Death forever.
But you can make the Bastard work for it."
--MAJOR KORGO KORGAR,
"Last of The Lancers"
AFC 32
Educate your self in the Hazards of Fire Breathing STAY SAFE!
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
I've always had a soft spot for Buddhism they seem like a very well thought out set of principles. its probly one of the few religions i could see my self joining.
i particualy like the fact they dont clame to be infalable. i think thats the bigist problem with most religions. because when two people beleave there beleafs are infalable the only option to resolve a despute is violence
i think if more religions excepted that they wern't infalable debate would take the place of voilence in alot of conficts.
faithinfire:
(as for use of drugs not hurting someone other then self, i find it does if for no other reason than a bag of whatever or pill of whatever can be laced and then that could lead to behavior that could hurt someone other than self)
LOL thats a very week argument observe how the same reasoning can be used demonstrate the immoraity of eating sweets.
as for someone who eats sweets not hurting someone other then self, i find it does if for no other reason than a pack of sherbert or a bar of chocoholate, can be laced and then that could lead to behavior that could hurt someone other than self.
COMEING SOON TO A GOVERMENT NEAR YOU THE WAR ON SWEETS
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166809477)
I've always had a soft spot for Buddhism they seem like a very well thought out set of principles. its probly one of the few religions i could see my self joining.
i particualy like the fact they dont clame to be infalable. i think thats the bigist problem with most religions. because when two people beleave there beleafs are infalable the only option to resolve a despute is violence
i think if more religions excepted that they wern't infalable debate would take the place of voilence in alot of conficts.
faithinfire:
(as for use of drugs not hurting someone other then self, i find it does if for no other reason than a bag of whatever or pill of whatever can be laced and then that could lead to behavior that could hurt someone other than self)
LOL thats a very week argument observe how the same reasoning can be used demonstrate the immoraity of eating sweets.
as for someone who eats sweets not hurting someone other then self, i find it does if for no other reason than a pack of sherbert or a bar of chocoholate, can be laced and then that could lead to behavior that could hurt someone other than self.
COMEING SOON TO A GOVERMENT NEAR YOU THE WAR ON SWEETS
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1166809477)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
member
70 posts
Location: On top of a Nipple
70 posts
Location: On top of a Nipple
Posted:
yeah, you're right.
eating is an important part of buddhism.
its just another way of connecting to energies.
and even sex is a part of buddhism.
there is a story that tells of three monks (or more) that would sit a month on top of a mountain, and once a month they would come down to the city's brothel to have sex, and went back up.
buddhism doesnt tell us to oppress our normal necessities, but he tells us to cut all "Unneeded" things, like excessive eating, too much sleep, hoarding money, etc.
i try to make a mix between taoism, buddhism, and hinduism, and it comes out nice ç)
BooM
Written by: onewheeldave
Yes. However, some in this thread seem to be saying that Buddha advocated renouncing all ties and desires, which is probably impossible and, if attempted, likely to not give good results.
The way I see it, is that Buddhism advocates diminishing those desires and ties that lead to suffering.
Examples are excessive desire to eat, leading to health problems and emotional problems.
The normal desire to eat is no problem whatsoever and buddhists do not advocate cutting that desire.
yeah, you're right.
eating is an important part of buddhism.
its just another way of connecting to energies.
and even sex is a part of buddhism.
there is a story that tells of three monks (or more) that would sit a month on top of a mountain, and once a month they would come down to the city's brothel to have sex, and went back up.
buddhism doesnt tell us to oppress our normal necessities, but he tells us to cut all "Unneeded" things, like excessive eating, too much sleep, hoarding money, etc.
i try to make a mix between taoism, buddhism, and hinduism, and it comes out nice ç)
BooM
Love is Life
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
I once cobbled together some sort of bullsh!t personal philosophy based on my own interpretations of ideas presented by various religious sects, and found that it needlessly complicated my life, and more often than not, the ideas ran afoul of one another.
I eventually dumped it, seeing as how it amounted to not much more than intellectual and emotional wanking, with a healthy dose of self righteousness thrown in for good measure. Now I keep it simple, and worship at the alter of healthy skepticism.
I once cobbled together some sort of bullsh!t personal philosophy based on my own interpretations of ideas presented by various religious sects, and found that it needlessly complicated my life, and more often than not, the ideas ran afoul of one another.
I eventually dumped it, seeing as how it amounted to not much more than intellectual and emotional wanking, with a healthy dose of self righteousness thrown in for good measure. Now I keep it simple, and worship at the alter of healthy skepticism.
SILVER Member
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Momma Bear
4,525 posts
Location: Telford, Shrops, United Kingdom
Posted:
totally agree Jon! The world and its organisms are amazing. You can take simple pleasures in just going out in nature in awe of it all.
And have none of this bickering about who said what in the bible. Now that's pointless!
totally agree Jon!
The world and its organisms are amazing. You can take simple pleasures in just going out in nature in awe of it all. And have none of this bickering about who said what in the bible. Now that's pointless!
Hoppers are angels who lift us to our feet when our wings have trouble remembering how to fly.
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
1)sweets and drugs are no where near the same argument...i can't tell how many times i've heard stories about how something was laced with crack or meth or the crack was laced with rat poison
you could look at x, it seems ok but consider the people who die-their death doesn't affect anyone?
besides, a friend get violent on xantax, another friend is such an addict for whatever, he robs and steals whatever he can get his hands on, another beats his gf while he is strung out, another drove home and killed his gf in an accident because he was tripping, that is just the beginning of people i know-if i have all those stories after less than a year of meeting people with "habits" what about all the other people who have been in it for awhile
2)we all worship the same God-oh hell no-if you look at the books and theology, God is a very different Diety in each religion. From what I understand, and it has been awhile so someone please do correct me if i am wrong, but the Jewish God seems much stricter Father and has not sent Himself as the second person in the Trinity down to us yet. Do the Jewish believe in the Trinity. Christians believe in Jesus having come, in the Holy Spirit, and God as Trinity. Jesus appears as a much gentler figure, like a brother or friend. Allah appears similar to the strict and fiery Jewish Yahweh, but according to Mohammed there are different promises made to the faithful, like on the Heaven special yesterday, one of the jihad and a theologist (2 different people) believe that there will be 72 virgins for each martyr in Paradise...who was a martyr was a little disputed but nonetheless they agreed on the virgins for martyrs
1)sweets and drugs are no where near the same argument...i can't tell how many times i've heard stories about how something was laced with crack or meth or the crack was laced with rat poison
you could look at x, it seems ok but consider the people who die-their death doesn't affect anyone?
besides, a friend get violent on xantax, another friend is such an addict for whatever, he robs and steals whatever he can get his hands on, another beats his gf while he is strung out, another drove home and killed his gf in an accident because he was tripping, that is just the beginning of people i know-if i have all those stories after less than a year of meeting people with "habits" what about all the other people who have been in it for awhile
2)we all worship the same God-oh hell no-if you look at the books and theology, God is a very different Diety in each religion. From what I understand, and it has been awhile so someone please do correct me if i am wrong, but the Jewish God seems much stricter Father and has not sent Himself as the second person in the Trinity down to us yet. Do the Jewish believe in the Trinity. Christians believe in Jesus having come, in the Holy Spirit, and God as Trinity. Jesus appears as a much gentler figure, like a brother or friend. Allah appears similar to the strict and fiery Jewish Yahweh, but according to Mohammed there are different promises made to the faithful, like on the Heaven special yesterday, one of the jihad and a theologist (2 different people) believe that there will be 72 virgins for each martyr in Paradise...who was a martyr was a little disputed but nonetheless they agreed on the virgins for martyrs
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
How can you follow your own path, if you're constantly gazing at other peoples light and whilst aiming to fit in their footsteps?
IMO Eat as much as you want, just give your body the chance to work it out... Same applies to many other things in life...
Individual balance ist the key, not readymade doctrines.
Inquire with(in) yourself, IMHO there is not right or wrong - just consequences...
How can you follow your own path, if you're constantly gazing at other peoples light and whilst aiming to fit in their footsteps?
IMO Eat as much as you want, just give your body the chance to work it out... Same applies to many other things in life...
Individual balance ist the key, not readymade doctrines.
Inquire with(in) yourself, IMHO there is not right or wrong - just consequences...
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
Contra to Faith's confusing respose about lacing pills...
How can you possibly claim that drug consumption only effects yourself? If we concentrate only on alcohol (one drug) and the UK (one country): the NHS annually spends around £1.7 billion treating alcohol-related illness whilst the annual cost of alcohol-related crime and public disorder has been estimated at £7.3bn.
Quite clearly consumption of drugs and alcohol have a massive impact on communal life - what happens when individuals mistakenly believe that they are only affecting themselves is that the detrimental communal side effects are externalised to the community/taxpayer. As usual... I blame capitalism. By creating an economic system which views the sale of alcohol/drugs/anything as a capital exchange between two parties - producer and consumer - the wider implications of the transaction to those not immediately involved remain hidden.
It is very rare for an individuals actions not to affect change in the social and environmental systems in which they are embedded. One of the cheif obstacles we collectively face at the moment in the struggle for social and environmental justice is a monumental lack of awareness as to the consequences of our actions.
This reminds me (cue offtopic rant) of a campaign I'm helping out with about Chelsea Tractors (4x4's) in Bristol. Over 70% of the people in the city say they don't want these vehicles in their community. They may have a legimate need for them in the country - where some people face a 10 minute drive through a muddy field to get to their home - but not in an urban environment where they serve purely to create unneccesary pollution (contributing to both global issues such as Climate Change and local issues such as inner city asthma in kids), pose a hazard to pedestrians and other road users, and inflate the ego's of middle aged men with insecurities regarding the size of their penises (the argument is generally that it's a status symbol - watch Borat for a side splitting example of a car salesman declaring a Hummer a 'pussy-magnet').
A democratic system would see these vehicles banned from our city - however capitalism permits them, on the basis that it is up to individual consumers and car producers to decide what to make and buy. The impacts on the wider community - and their consent to decisions which affect their lives - are simply not factored in to the process. (rant over... sorry)
Your example of mind is actually commonly used to counter reductionist materialist postions by philosphers advocating an emergentist position.
While you're correct in assessing materialism as a form of ontological monism (which counters only those notions of god which draw upon a conception of god as a transcendent entity), in its reductionist form it is hopelessly inadequate for describing emergent phenomena such as 'mind' or 'consciousness.'
A reductionist argument would entail that consciousness is immanent in a single neurone. This is preposterous - as you correctly acknowledge it is a result of the complex interactions of around 100 billon neurones.
Perhaps a simpler example is something like a digital photograph which is composed of say 5 million pixels. A reductionist argument is that by studying each individual pixel you can learn everything about the picture. This is clearly untrue - looking at 5 million coloured dots may tell you about information such as there is no luminous green - but it wont tell you what the photo looks like. This can only be understood through looking at the parts in the right order - that is by understanding the structure of the system - the relationships between the parts which create the whole.
Where these examples differ is on the kind of causality which can effect the system. Systems such as consciousness are characterised as strong emergence as there is downwards (as well as upward) causality. If I consciously decide to drill into my brain then the whole will influence the constituent parts. Again - a reductionist argument holds that this is fundamentally impossible - as different properties, which arise at different scalar levels, with different causal mechanisms is radically removed from asserting that all laws can be derived from properties immanent in the simplest parts.
Interestingly, the reductionist materialist view was popular primarily before the advent of quantum physics, hence its psuedonym atomism. The discovery of the somewhat bizarre laws of quantum physics have since posited that the apparent stability and (limited) predictability of the atomic world is an emergent property of the quantum world.
Written by: the boy G
Laws should ideally allow everybody to do what they want to do so long as it doesn't infringe the right of others to do the same. In the case of murder, if I want to murder someone then that is wrong because I am denying them their right to do what they want to do (presuming that they do not want to be murdered).
Where laws go beyond this premis they bring up serious issues of liberty. Do I have the right to take drugs given that I am only harming myself?
Contra to Faith's confusing respose about lacing pills...
How can you possibly claim that drug consumption only effects yourself? If we concentrate only on alcohol (one drug) and the UK (one country): the NHS annually spends around £1.7 billion treating alcohol-related illness whilst the annual cost of alcohol-related crime and public disorder has been estimated at £7.3bn.
Quite clearly consumption of drugs and alcohol have a massive impact on communal life - what happens when individuals mistakenly believe that they are only affecting themselves is that the detrimental communal side effects are externalised to the community/taxpayer. As usual... I blame capitalism. By creating an economic system which views the sale of alcohol/drugs/anything as a capital exchange between two parties - producer and consumer - the wider implications of the transaction to those not immediately involved remain hidden.
It is very rare for an individuals actions not to affect change in the social and environmental systems in which they are embedded. One of the cheif obstacles we collectively face at the moment in the struggle for social and environmental justice is a monumental lack of awareness as to the consequences of our actions.
This reminds me (cue offtopic rant) of a campaign I'm helping out with about Chelsea Tractors (4x4's) in Bristol. Over 70% of the people in the city say they don't want these vehicles in their community. They may have a legimate need for them in the country - where some people face a 10 minute drive through a muddy field to get to their home - but not in an urban environment where they serve purely to create unneccesary pollution (contributing to both global issues such as Climate Change and local issues such as inner city asthma in kids), pose a hazard to pedestrians and other road users, and inflate the ego's of middle aged men with insecurities regarding the size of their penises (the argument is generally that it's a status symbol - watch Borat for a side splitting example of a car salesman declaring a Hummer a 'pussy-magnet').
A democratic system would see these vehicles banned from our city - however capitalism permits them, on the basis that it is up to individual consumers and car producers to decide what to make and buy. The impacts on the wider community - and their consent to decisions which affect their lives - are simply not factored in to the process. (rant over... sorry)
Written by: 87wt2gxq7
My beliefs/semi-reasoned way of interpreting life is basically reductionist materialism.
Reductionism = the nature of this complex universe can be reduced to simple(r) laws. Fundamentally, everything boils down to particles interacting with each other.
Materialism = there is no spirit, no soul, no god and no unique self, it's all just matter.
So reductionist materialism = it's all matter obeying simple laws and this is the origin of everything we see and experience, including experience of our own experience, ie conciousness.
This means that what we call "mind" isn't this nebulous cloud of something-that's-not-matter which is somehow seperate from but interacts with "body". "Mind" is an illusion formed by 100 billion neurons in our central nervous system interacting with each other.
Your example of mind is actually commonly used to counter reductionist materialist postions by philosphers advocating an emergentist position.
While you're correct in assessing materialism as a form of ontological monism (which counters only those notions of god which draw upon a conception of god as a transcendent entity), in its reductionist form it is hopelessly inadequate for describing emergent phenomena such as 'mind' or 'consciousness.'
A reductionist argument would entail that consciousness is immanent in a single neurone. This is preposterous - as you correctly acknowledge it is a result of the complex interactions of around 100 billon neurones.
Perhaps a simpler example is something like a digital photograph which is composed of say 5 million pixels. A reductionist argument is that by studying each individual pixel you can learn everything about the picture. This is clearly untrue - looking at 5 million coloured dots may tell you about information such as there is no luminous green - but it wont tell you what the photo looks like. This can only be understood through looking at the parts in the right order - that is by understanding the structure of the system - the relationships between the parts which create the whole.
Where these examples differ is on the kind of causality which can effect the system. Systems such as consciousness are characterised as strong emergence as there is downwards (as well as upward) causality. If I consciously decide to drill into my brain then the whole will influence the constituent parts. Again - a reductionist argument holds that this is fundamentally impossible - as different properties, which arise at different scalar levels, with different causal mechanisms is radically removed from asserting that all laws can be derived from properties immanent in the simplest parts.
Interestingly, the reductionist materialist view was popular primarily before the advent of quantum physics, hence its psuedonym atomism. The discovery of the somewhat bizarre laws of quantum physics have since posited that the apparent stability and (limited) predictability of the atomic world is an emergent property of the quantum world.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
SILVER Member
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
currently mending
493 posts
Location: Bristol, New Zealand
Posted:
this is reductionism
this isn't
neither is this
This is a reductionist argument. However it directly contradicts the previous quote. To explain consciousness you cannot just look at a neuron (or the atoms which compose it). You require 100 billion neurones arranged with 60 trillion synapses as a brain, connected in a very particular way to the rest of a human, connected to an external environment (or so studies into total sensory deprivation suggest).
What is important then is not only the constituent atomic parts of the system, but the way in which they are arranged. As soon as the arrangement of the parts - and the relationships between them - become in any way necessary to the explanation of a higher level system then reductionist arguments cannot apply. Examining relationships means synthesis - putting things together - and holism - examining the whole rather than the constituent parts. Holism and synthesis cannot equate to reductionism and analysis.
Based on your last post then, you are not a reductionist.
Written by: 87wt2gxq7
Reductionism = the nature of this complex universe can be reduced to simple(r) laws
this is reductionism
Written by: 87wt2gxq7
you can't predict the behaviour of the system by looking at the behaviour of the elements
this isn't
Written by: 87wt2gxq7
if you looked at a how a single neuron behaves you couldn't predict consciousness
neither is this
Written by: 87wt2gxq7
The fact that complex phenomena can emerge from a system with simple rules governing its 'atoms' means to me that you don't need anything else to describe those phenomena
This is a reductionist argument. However it directly contradicts the previous quote. To explain consciousness you cannot just look at a neuron (or the atoms which compose it). You require 100 billion neurones arranged with 60 trillion synapses as a brain, connected in a very particular way to the rest of a human, connected to an external environment (or so studies into total sensory deprivation suggest).
What is important then is not only the constituent atomic parts of the system, but the way in which they are arranged. As soon as the arrangement of the parts - and the relationships between them - become in any way necessary to the explanation of a higher level system then reductionist arguments cannot apply. Examining relationships means synthesis - putting things together - and holism - examining the whole rather than the constituent parts. Holism and synthesis cannot equate to reductionism and analysis.
Based on your last post then, you are not a reductionist.
He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze long into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Nietzsche
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
maybe you're starting your own path already?
But pondering upon my previous statement once more, I repeat:
Moses was not a JewIST
Buddha was not a BuddhIST
Jesus was not a ChrISTian
and Mohammed not a IslamIST
Some on this thread seem to be caught up in translation. I have a pretty good idea, what these figures of the (spiRitual world) mean to ME - no matter what they mean to others
It friggin doesn't matter to me what the priests and apostles then made out of their philosophy, IMHO these figures chose to follow their individual paths. What some of them might have wanted, was to liberate (at first) themselves (and then maybe others) from the dogmas and the power-struggle of the all dominating priest-cast... their ideas have again been taken and turned into exactly that: Dogmas.
If you expereince yourself to be uncomfortable with freedom and (spiritual) choice, you may pick ONE of the philosophies and simply obey the rules - see how far you get with it.
Maybe you become pope of the grand mufti, or whatever title the main representatives carry.
IMO a religion is putting limits and conditions on their devotees - which is perfectly allright with me, no judgement But these are readymade (spi)rituals... one may follow and inquire (further).
I can only say that much (IMHO): one has to liberate ones-self from these readymade concepts and work out her/his own, if one wants to really be "free".
This applies to technology and science as much as it applies to the spiritual world: Know the rules and then try to break them properly. One may need to get a firm knowledge, the other only needs to scratch the surface...
As human beings we are the same in principle, but very diverse if looked at under the "micro-scope"... physically and psycho-logically...
enjoy the quest
maybe you're starting your own path already?
But pondering upon my previous statement once more, I repeat:
Moses was not a JewIST
Buddha was not a BuddhIST
Jesus was not a ChrISTian
and Mohammed not a IslamIST
Some on this thread seem to be caught up in translation. I have a pretty good idea, what these figures of the (spiRitual world) mean to ME - no matter what they mean to others
It friggin doesn't matter to me what the priests and apostles then made out of their philosophy, IMHO these figures chose to follow their individual paths. What some of them might have wanted, was to liberate (at first) themselves (and then maybe others) from the dogmas and the power-struggle of the all dominating priest-cast... their ideas have again been taken and turned into exactly that: Dogmas.
If you expereince yourself to be uncomfortable with freedom and (spiritual) choice, you may pick ONE of the philosophies and simply obey the rules - see how far you get with it.
Maybe you become pope of the grand mufti, or whatever title the main representatives carry.
IMO a religion is putting limits and conditions on their devotees - which is perfectly allright with me, no judgement
But these are readymade (spi)rituals... one may follow and inquire (further). I can only say that much (IMHO): one has to liberate ones-self from these readymade concepts and work out her/his own, if one wants to really be "free".
This applies to technology and science as much as it applies to the spiritual world: Know the rules and then try to break them properly. One may need to get a firm knowledge, the other only needs to scratch the surface...
As human beings we are the same in principle, but very diverse if looked at under the "micro-scope"... physically and psycho-logically...
enjoy the quest
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
the henna lady
6,193 posts
Location: WNY, USA
Posted:
There are many things I find interesting in here.
That while the thread started around the concept of self-made religions, there are many discussions about the principles of exsisting religions occurring. Huh.
To whomever asked, Jews do not believe in the Trinity.
The elders in my family raised me, and hold the belief, that as long as you are a good person the exact tenents of your belief system to do matter. Some of my family are christian others (like me) walk a different path.
However, what constitutes a "good person" is really subjective. My favorite example of this is on a show I watched where the spirit of an ancient mayan returned from hell to seek revenge. She was pissed because she was condemned to the christian hell for maintaining the great honor and joy it was to sacrifice her daughter to her god.
It all goes back to the morality.
I went to church on Sunday (and didn't burst into flame suprisingly!..it was to watch my son play violin, btw) and the pastor made this sermon that made me laugh then and it fits into this thread, I think.
In ancient times it was confusing. To the south you had one religion, to the west another, to the east another, etc. It was like going to a buffet restaraunt where you go and pick a little of this and a little of that and by the time you are done, your plate is a mess. Those who choose to do that end up with a religious plate that is a mess.
It was at this point that PWB and I looked at each other and whispered "But it tastes so good and is so filling."
We had a hard time surpressing our giggles.
And the Christian world isn't united in one belief obviously, otherwise it would be like a steak house that only serves porterhouse and nothing else at all. Bleh. We didn't say it though...that would have been baaaaaaaaaad.
My son did get a new bible from a relative that won't accept we are not christian and as I read through it last night it just..wow...has that thing changed through the years. Picking and choosing is the domain of the organized religions as much as any other...if you read through their books and see the evolution of them (Old Test, New Test, King James, the New International Version for example, but most religions I've read seem to have this).
Which brings me to two quotes that have always been my answer to such things...
"Faith is where you find it." Be it in a stone and tree, in yourself or in an appointed "house of god"...it doesn't matter.
"If of all the truths in one world you pick one and follow it blindly, it becomes a falsehood and you a fanatic." Truth in this I think is subjective, but I view it as any...proven or personal. It is a quote from one of my favorite television shows when I was younger and it is has become not only a favorite but one of those things to live by in my world.
There are many things I find interesting in here.
That while the thread started around the concept of self-made religions, there are many discussions about the principles of exsisting religions occurring. Huh.
To whomever asked, Jews do not believe in the Trinity.
The elders in my family raised me, and hold the belief, that as long as you are a good person the exact tenents of your belief system to do matter. Some of my family are christian others (like me) walk a different path.
However, what constitutes a "good person" is really subjective. My favorite example of this is on a show I watched where the spirit of an ancient mayan returned from hell to seek revenge. She was pissed because she was condemned to the christian hell for maintaining the great honor and joy it was to sacrifice her daughter to her god.
It all goes back to the morality.
I went to church on Sunday (and didn't burst into flame suprisingly!..it was to watch my son play violin, btw) and the pastor made this sermon that made me laugh then and it fits into this thread, I think.
In ancient times it was confusing. To the south you had one religion, to the west another, to the east another, etc. It was like going to a buffet restaraunt where you go and pick a little of this and a little of that and by the time you are done, your plate is a mess. Those who choose to do that end up with a religious plate that is a mess.
It was at this point that PWB and I looked at each other and whispered "But it tastes so good and is so filling."
We had a hard time surpressing our giggles.
And the Christian world isn't united in one belief obviously, otherwise it would be like a steak house that only serves porterhouse and nothing else at all. Bleh. We didn't say it though...that would have been baaaaaaaaaad.
My son did get a new bible from a relative that won't accept we are not christian and as I read through it last night it just..wow...has that thing changed through the years. Picking and choosing is the domain of the organized religions as much as any other...if you read through their books and see the evolution of them (Old Test, New Test, King James, the New International Version for example, but most religions I've read seem to have this).
Which brings me to two quotes that have always been my answer to such things...
"Faith is where you find it." Be it in a stone and tree, in yourself or in an appointed "house of god"...it doesn't matter.
"If of all the truths in one world you pick one and follow it blindly, it becomes a falsehood and you a fanatic." Truth in this I think is subjective, but I view it as any...proven or personal. It is a quote from one of my favorite television shows when I was younger and it is has become not only a favorite but one of those things to live by in my world.
Pele
Higher, higher burning fire...making music like a choir
"Oooh look! A pub!" -exclaimed after recovering from a stupid fall
"And for the decadence of art, nothing beats a roaring fire." -TMK
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
moses wasn't jewish?
i think i started the whole existing religion discussion within this one because people were talking about laws and i said that it was subjective despite best efforts depending on where you live, many people do not agree on what westerners consider basic laws...like the governmental corporal punishiment for say-stealing or adultery, but then again some of those are theocracies
and then i made the point to say that many standard laws are based in Christian ideals so even if you chose your own path, legally there are Christian limitations
moses wasn't jewish?
i think i started the whole existing religion discussion within this one because people were talking about laws and i said that it was subjective despite best efforts depending on where you live, many people do not agree on what westerners consider basic laws...like the governmental corporal punishiment for say-stealing or adultery, but then again some of those are theocracies
and then i made the point to say that many standard laws are based in Christian ideals so even if you chose your own path, legally there are Christian limitations
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
GOLD Member
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Stream Entrant
2,829 posts
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posted:
Ok, one thing to get here is that Buddhism is based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautoma (The Buddha or enlightened one).
Rather than having a "God " as a focal point, Buddhism concentrates on the dilemmas of being human ie. the human condition.
Buddha had unusual psychological gifts and was aware of the difficulties people face. This is why his teaching are concerned with enlightenment of human beings and the meaning of life, rather than blind belief in non existent 'supreme" beings.
Old Zen Poem
The perfect way is without difficulty,
Save that it avoids picking and choosing.
Only when you stop liking and disliking
Will all be clearly understood.
A split hairs difference
And heaven and hell are set apart!
If you want to get to the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right or wrong,
The conflict between right and wrong is a sickness of the mind.
Ok, one thing to get here is that Buddhism is based on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautoma (The Buddha or enlightened one).
Rather than having a "God " as a focal point, Buddhism concentrates on the dilemmas of being human ie. the human condition.
Buddha had unusual psychological gifts and was aware of the difficulties people face. This is why his teaching are concerned with enlightenment of human beings and the meaning of life, rather than blind belief in non existent 'supreme" beings.
Old Zen Poem
The perfect way is without difficulty,
Save that it avoids picking and choosing.
Only when you stop liking and disliking
Will all be clearly understood.
A split hairs difference
And heaven and hell are set apart!
If you want to get to the plain truth,
Be not concerned with right or wrong,
The conflict between right and wrong is a sickness of the mind.
If we as members of the human race practice meditation, we can transcend our fear, despair, and forgetfulness. Meditation is not an escape. It is the courage to look at reality with mindfulness and concentration. Thich Nhat Hanh
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
could chosing bhudism then be equatable to chosing your own path?
could chosing bhudism then be equatable to chosing your own path?
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
enthusiast
363 posts
Location: manchester uk
Posted:
everyone follows there own path.
for example i know alot of people who associated them selfs with a particular faith (normaly there parents) but they dont take it all as true they just pick out the bits they like, and ignore the bits they dont. by doing that they have effectively created there own path.
its very hard to find people who "Religiously" follow a main stream religion everyone just makes it up as they go along picking out this bit or that bit depending on what they feel is right.
and while this is all well and good i personaly think its a mistake to commit to one religion because it sevearly limits your options concerning the amount of raw matteral you have to pick bits from.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1167238945)
everyone follows there own path.
for example i know alot of people who associated them selfs with a particular faith (normaly there parents) but they dont take it all as true they just pick out the bits they like, and ignore the bits they dont. by doing that they have effectively created there own path.
its very hard to find people who "Religiously" follow a main stream religion everyone just makes it up as they go along picking out this bit or that bit depending on what they feel is right.
and while this is all well and good i personaly think its a mistake to commit to one religion because it sevearly limits your options concerning the amount of raw matteral you have to pick bits from.
EDITED_BY: robnunchucks (1167238945)
My nunchucks vital statictics
weight: 500g
handle lenght: 16 inches
chain length: 2 inches
Carpal \'Tunnel
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
7,193 posts
Location: in the trees
Posted:
follow my own path you say....................... well i've not read the entire thread but what i'm thinking of is this..............
i don't own a penny to anybody, i'm free to do what i like in that way.
i don't have to work to live i only have to work to survive in this babylon clture.
following my dreams may lead me to be arrested for my belifes
follow my own path you say....................... well i've not read the entire thread but what i'm thinking of is this..............
i don't own a penny to anybody, i'm free to do what i like in that way.
i don't have to work to live i only have to work to survive in this babylon clture.
following my dreams may lead me to be arrested for my belifes
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
...would someone explain to me, why so many people actually refer to a "Babylonian System" (apart from the incident, described in the Bible)... ?
@ faith: Why would Mose have been a Jew?
Do I remember correctly that he actually HAS BEEN a Pharao - and not just a child that "accidentally" has been raised by the family... ?
When I look at the Bible, I tend not to take it literal, but am more referring to the pictures that it creates in my head, this merged with my (admittedly fragmented) informations, I conclude that the Jews were not (physical) slaves of Egypt and Mose took them nowhere, but liberated them from the predomimant religious dogmas...
@OWD and Stone: Wasn't Siddharta a Bhraman (or at least of the highest cast)? And doesn't the term and title "Buddha" refer to his state of being, after he ceased to be an Asket?
IMHO what applies to me, not necessarily/ most unlikely HAS TO apply to YOU. Meaning that for say listening to FreeJazz I will get a headache, whilst you will start hovering in bliss, whilst wandering St. Pauls Cathedral you may fall in awe, while I might get pretty upset about the lives wasted away to erect a symbol of domination... Guess what I'm trying to point out is that: one may detach from desires and still get nowhere even close to what her/ himself or others would call "enlightened"...
Namaste
...would someone explain to me, why so many people actually refer to a "Babylonian System" (apart from the incident, described in the Bible)... ?
@ faith: Why would Mose have been a Jew?
Do I remember correctly that he actually HAS BEEN a Pharao - and not just a child that "accidentally" has been raised by the family... ?
When I look at the Bible, I tend not to take it literal, but am more referring to the pictures that it creates in my head, this merged with my (admittedly fragmented) informations, I conclude that the Jews were not (physical) slaves of Egypt and Mose took them nowhere, but liberated them from the predomimant religious dogmas...
@OWD and Stone: Wasn't Siddharta a Bhraman (or at least of the highest cast)? And doesn't the term and title "Buddha" refer to his state of being, after he ceased to be an Asket?
IMHO what applies to me, not necessarily/ most unlikely HAS TO apply to YOU. Meaning that for say listening to FreeJazz I will get a headache, whilst you will start hovering in bliss, whilst wandering St. Pauls Cathedral you may fall in awe, while I might get pretty upset about the lives wasted away to erect a symbol of domination... Guess what I'm trying to point out is that: one may detach from desires and still get nowhere even close to what her/ himself or others would call "enlightened"...
Namaste
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
moses may not have been raised jewish but i think the whole exodus thing is evident that he chose judeaism
you look at a cathedral as some sort of domination-i look at it as an incredible feat of architecture and art
moses may not have been raised jewish but i think the whole exodus thing is evident that he chose judeaism
you look at a cathedral as some sort of domination-i look at it as an incredible feat of architecture and art
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
Stargazer
6,650 posts
6,650 posts
Posted:
there you go: two people looking at the exact same thing from a very different angle...
Hence I don't call it "domination", but "exploitation"... If I remember correctly, Jesus never preached in a temple or church, never advocated that one would need a building in order to worship...
Can anyone tell me, when "Judaism" was invented? Before, with or after Moses....
there you go: two people looking at the exact same thing from a very different angle...
Hence I don't call it "domination", but "exploitation"... If I remember correctly, Jesus never preached in a temple or church, never advocated that one would need a building in order to worship...
Can anyone tell me, when "Judaism" was invented? Before, with or after Moses....
the best smiles are the ones you lead to
journeyman
61 posts
61 posts
Posted:
Hi Lil,
My opinion is that there only thing higher than ourselves is energy. It is everywhere, it is formless, it has no shape, no sentience, its just there subject to the will of sentient beings.
How we affect/manipulate this energy is the main point of decension between all religions. When you pray to a God you are directing and giving purpose to that energy. The idea of a god is to bypass the conscious mind and imbed itself into the unconscious, the unconscious mind being the part of the mind that manipulates this energy.
Basically what i am saying here is that you can make up your own religion, make your own gods. Damn become your own God, it doesnt matter because when push comes to shove it is your will that affects the world, not some god figure. The buddhist teachings you would have already received may come close to this theory already (depending on what type of Buddhism you studied)
There are ways of using your will to manipulate energy without having to make speeches (prayers) or perform a play (ritual, spells etc) but its not an easy paradigm to believe in, it requires a lot of unconditioning of pre conceived ideas about the universe.
Hope it makes some sense to you.
-Nado
Written by: LilBBoy
What do all of you beautiful people think about this topic?
Hi Lil,
My opinion is that there only thing higher than ourselves is energy. It is everywhere, it is formless, it has no shape, no sentience, its just there subject to the will of sentient beings.
How we affect/manipulate this energy is the main point of decension between all religions. When you pray to a God you are directing and giving purpose to that energy. The idea of a god is to bypass the conscious mind and imbed itself into the unconscious, the unconscious mind being the part of the mind that manipulates this energy.
Basically what i am saying here is that you can make up your own religion, make your own gods. Damn become your own God, it doesnt matter because when push comes to shove it is your will that affects the world, not some god figure. The buddhist teachings you would have already received may come close to this theory already (depending on what type of Buddhism you studied)
There are ways of using your will to manipulate energy without having to make speeches (prayers) or perform a play (ritual, spells etc) but its not an easy paradigm to believe in, it requires a lot of unconditioning of pre conceived ideas about the universe.
Hope it makes some sense to you.
-Nado
BRONZE Member
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
wandering thru the woods of WI
3,556 posts
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Posted:
no actually there is a point when He taught at the temple when He was 12 or so
Nado: don't agree but well said
no actually there is a point when He taught at the temple when He was 12 or so
Nado: don't agree but well said
Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed
BRONZE Member
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Pooh-Bah
1,872 posts
Location: Canada
Posted:
Well said Nado..I've never thought in terms of speeches and plays before and it's an interesting take on religious dogma.
It's been done though, what you're basically describing is "The Force".
Well said Nado..I've never thought in terms of speeches and plays before and it's an interesting take on religious dogma.
It's been done though, what you're basically describing is "The Force".
journeyman
61 posts
61 posts
Posted:
Hi Stout/Faithinfire
The "path" i described is called chaos magic. It's not very well known even in occult/pagan circles.
The basic tenet is (and some chaotes will disagree) is that "Nothing is True and therefore Everything is True" and also "Nothing is Possible and Everything is Possible".
It's all very "There is no spoon'ish" The philosophy behind it is incredibly hard to wrap your head around.
The main difference between chaos magic and the force is the force separates itself into the dark side and the light side. In chaos magic theory magic is neither good nor evil (good and evil being inventions of the human mind) it is just there its the intent that the chaote gives the magic that is good and evil.
As you can imagine this theory can be quite distabilising to the mind, the mind needs absolutes to function properly. There are no absolutes in chaos magic, most chaotes tend to be a little erratic. Laughter seems to be the agreed upon method of keeping ones feet firmly imbedded in reality.
Hi Stout/Faithinfire
The "path" i described is called chaos magic. It's not very well known even in occult/pagan circles.
The basic tenet is (and some chaotes will disagree) is that "Nothing is True and therefore Everything is True" and also "Nothing is Possible and Everything is Possible".
It's all very "There is no spoon'ish" The philosophy behind it is incredibly hard to wrap your head around.
The main difference between chaos magic and the force is the force separates itself into the dark side and the light side. In chaos magic theory magic is neither good nor evil (good and evil being inventions of the human mind) it is just there its the intent that the chaote gives the magic that is good and evil.
As you can imagine this theory can be quite distabilising to the mind, the mind needs absolutes to function properly. There are no absolutes in chaos magic, most chaotes tend to be a little erratic. Laughter seems to be the agreed upon method of keeping ones feet firmly imbedded in reality.
Similar Topics
Using the keywords [following path discussion self based r] we found the following existing topics.
Show more..
© 1998 - 2025 Home of Poi
All prices converted to United States dollars using XE.com