Think for yourself
sent in by Barb
I went away to a Christian college when I was seventeen. It didn't take long to see that there were many types of Christians. I was most comfortable with people like me: people who didn't smoke, drink, dance,play cards, watch movies, listen to rock music or fraternize with the opposite sex.
I was least comfortable with the Catholics I met-- my church had told me after all that papists worshipped Mary and therefore would be spending eternity in hell. But these Catholics, some of whom smoked, drank, and regularly had sex, were also involved in the community, working at soup kitchens and pantries, tutoring low-income children, etc, things that my church had never encouraged or emphasized. My church was comprised of middle- and upper-middle class people who were comfortably sedentary in the knowledge that they were saved, and except for the occasional "outreach" to save more souls, they felt no burden toward disadvantaged people. What was required was obedience to a long list of "no-no's." What was discouraged was thinking for yourself.
There had been many things that struck me as wrong (the singular derision saved for gay people, for example), but I tried to pray away my concerns. And, like others here, when I dared ask for help, I was told that every day with Jesus is sweeter than the day before-- and that Satan was causing my doubt. Praying all the harder did nothing except make all the clearer the fact that the silence was deafening. It was heartbreaking.
This behemoth of religion that had promised me safety and security began to go ass-up-- it was the Titanic, and if I truly could save myself, it would be BY myself. So, I swam to the shore of reason.
So, I spent twenty years pointedly not going to church.
Then, I found the UU church-- a place that requires nothing of me but to think for myself. Pagans and athiests are welcomed. Gay people are embraced. I have found a community of "believers:" people who believe in the goodness of all people, who don't require answers, who are OK with not knowing.
I don't know either, and that's OK with me. Christianity was safe, like straitjackets are safe. I am free from the ties that had me bound and gagged. I pity the people who remain in bondage.
-Barb
Maine
USA
Joined at 7, then 10, then 13, then 16....
Left at 18
Was: Bible Presbyterian, fundy, evangelical, born-again
Now: Unitarian Universalist
Converted because: I was told the earth was round, and that Jesus was the way
De-converted because: Christian college showed me the many faces of X-ianity
I went away to a Christian college when I was seventeen. It didn't take long to see that there were many types of Christians. I was most comfortable with people like me: people who didn't smoke, drink, dance,play cards, watch movies, listen to rock music or fraternize with the opposite sex.
I was least comfortable with the Catholics I met-- my church had told me after all that papists worshipped Mary and therefore would be spending eternity in hell. But these Catholics, some of whom smoked, drank, and regularly had sex, were also involved in the community, working at soup kitchens and pantries, tutoring low-income children, etc, things that my church had never encouraged or emphasized. My church was comprised of middle- and upper-middle class people who were comfortably sedentary in the knowledge that they were saved, and except for the occasional "outreach" to save more souls, they felt no burden toward disadvantaged people. What was required was obedience to a long list of "no-no's." What was discouraged was thinking for yourself.
There had been many things that struck me as wrong (the singular derision saved for gay people, for example), but I tried to pray away my concerns. And, like others here, when I dared ask for help, I was told that every day with Jesus is sweeter than the day before-- and that Satan was causing my doubt. Praying all the harder did nothing except make all the clearer the fact that the silence was deafening. It was heartbreaking.
This behemoth of religion that had promised me safety and security began to go ass-up-- it was the Titanic, and if I truly could save myself, it would be BY myself. So, I swam to the shore of reason.
So, I spent twenty years pointedly not going to church.
Then, I found the UU church-- a place that requires nothing of me but to think for myself. Pagans and athiests are welcomed. Gay people are embraced. I have found a community of "believers:" people who believe in the goodness of all people, who don't require answers, who are OK with not knowing.
I don't know either, and that's OK with me. Christianity was safe, like straitjackets are safe. I am free from the ties that had me bound and gagged. I pity the people who remain in bondage.
-Barb
Maine
USA
Joined at 7, then 10, then 13, then 16....
Left at 18
Was: Bible Presbyterian, fundy, evangelical, born-again
Now: Unitarian Universalist
Converted because: I was told the earth was round, and that Jesus was the way
De-converted because: Christian college showed me the many faces of X-ianity
Comments
I especially liked your analogy of the Titanic. It's sinking, and all the crew members keep saying "Jesus is going to come and save us." when the lifeboats are in plain sight, ready to be used.
I considered becoming a unitarian universalist for a while, but decided to remain a lone wolf in terms of spirituality. I am a universalist though, in the idea that everyone, atheist, agonostic, buddhist, etc. will eventually be with God.
Out of all of this brokeness I needed a crutch, so I became a Christian. I heard all of the wonderful promises that came with this and I thought wow, happier times are hear again but, one thing that I am now saddened to admit is Christianity turned out to be one dissapointment after another.
It would take me forever to go into all the hurts and pains that came with being a Christian but, most of all is the way the Christian Church treats others who can't help it when they lack faith. It was always my fault, and I have a Spiritual Problem. Like for example I use to be a member of a Southern Baptist Church here in Tennessee. I went to the pastor there who was dealing with sickness and offered to lay hands on him for prayer. He told me that he would rather have one of his deacons do it than some new member of his church. I was highly offended by his comments and went to someone in the church and complained about it. I was told, "I realize that he (The Pastor) may not have one of the best People Personalities but, he is a man, and he's not perfect, the real problem you have is with God." That made me ever more angry. I don't hate this man but, I always noticed that the pastor of this church had his little cliq. They were the Holy Rollers. The ones who were Holier Than Thou. They make me sick looking back at them. Talking about Hypocrites. One of them use to fuss at me about finding a girlfriend. Don't worry about it, if it's God's will, you'll find one, Just learn to be content with Jesus only. The same guy who told me this was married and I remember at a church service he told his wife that he loved her and couldn't live without her and he doesn't know what he'd do without her. I got mad and walked out during service about to puke.
I also saw the ugly side of more Christians who were highly involved in the church. Backstabbing, Gossip, Looking down on others who don't share the same belief that they do, and belittling others who listen to Secular (Non-Christian) Music. I got so sick and tired of this Holier Than Thou Attitude and then finally I thought that I had found my answer in Christianity.
I found a small church with a pastor who was into the God wants you to be rich teachings. I thought that I had found my niche in Christianity. Depend on God to replace that farm that you never got, depend on God to lead you to a woman, & depend on God to get you a job, which is a story that brought me to where I am today.
Back about 3 years ago this preacher who was so annoited by the power of God prayed for me over a job that I had interviewed for, it was a stressful time in my life when I really needed FT work bad. I felt that God knew it and it only made sense for me to get this job. I read in the Bible where God tells us to test him in Tithes and Offerings and about how we'll have so much blessing that we want have enought room to receive it. After the pastor prayed for me to get the job, he told me, "God has told me that you're the one who will get that job," We were celebrating my road back to recovery and I also that same night called the 700 Club and requested prayer and the Prayer Counselor Affirmed it with me, "You've got that job", he said so I believed because the Bible teaches that if two or more agree on anything, it shall be done.
The next day I didn't get the job. I went into a rage with the employer and made a total fool out of myself. I went back to that same pastor and expressed my anger over the situation and all he had to say was, "Well, apparently this person was out of God's will and God couldn't use them to bless you". B.S., I have never heard such a lame excuse in my whole entire life, and then later on he told me, "Son you need to understand, the kingdom of God isn't like Burger King, Have it your way, get it instantly," More excuses. I finally left church for good. I was tired of sacrificing my sleep on Sunday Morning for a bunch of hype and do's and don'ts.
I don't hate all Christians, I have met some that are caring and understanding but the church as a whole is just a stuck up Religious Social Club.
I have now become more of a moderate. I consider myself a "Realist". Some one here may disagree with me on this but, I don't doubt the existence of Jesus Christ, I just don't think that he's involved in all of our personal affairs like some extremists believe.
I believe that God has given us our on abilities to make certain things happen. It is up to us to use our own judgment to find a job, it is up to us to find our own girlfriend and use our own God Given Judgment. There are some things in the Bible and that the Christian Church teach that just aren't realistic, there are some things the Bible teaches that just aren't practical.
I even get talked down to if I even mention Realistic Thinking or anything that has to do with personal pleasure. It doesn't even have to be that sinful. I could tell more and may later on but, I will wrap it up here.
Thank you
Chad
One of the things that a lot of churches do have and can be hard to replace is that sense of belonging to a community of (supposedly) like-minded individuals. The UU church can offer that kind of secure social environment without having to march to a dogmatic drum.
Have fun and welcome.
chad, I totally hear what you're saying. It's really frustrating. I remember being around some people that even if you made a comment about getting older or having an ache or pain they would act like you were the devil. I mean, like everyone grows old and gets worn out. If they can't even admit that reality, there's no way to admit any of it. I especially used to like how everyone would make their decisions based on what "god told them to do". I always wondered why he never told me anything. It's also interesting to not how what he tells people to do most always lines up with what they would want to do anyway.
Best
advice
ever.
There are many free mp3 downloads here: http://www.justbegood.net/Downloads.htm
I encourage you to listen to the Rebirth(Including Questions and Answeres). I reccomend this because I have met a lot of ex-christians and semi-christians who are still unable to free their minds entirely because of the fear that has been placed in them by Christian teachings of eternal Hellfire for not believing. Reincarnation is possible to prove for yourself, and will change your outlook completely when you know this. Buddhist don't usually tell others unless they seek this, since it takes a commitment and focus of mind and lifestyle to do this, but I encourage you to at least check it out.
Past life, my goodness. Sure Consciousness has had "past lives", but no individual. Barb's gonna have to figure that out for herself over time. :-)
I also find it ironic that the stories you hear of people who claim they have lived "past lives" most always include something about being a "King", "Queen", or "Prince" who "lived in a castle"---you never hear anyone say "I was a baglady who lived in a refrigerator box." lol.
Christians are no better than anybody else.
Then she went on about, "well we live in a fallen world." and all of those excuses that everyone on here has probably heard, then I fired back on her and I asked her these simple questions:
1) Who tempted us? Satan.
2) Who is responsible for creating
Satan? God.
3) Knowing that we were going to
screw this perfect paradise and
Satan would be involved then why
did God not stop it?
4) And why should the whole world
past, present, and future gen-
erations be blamed for a crime
that we were not responsible
for?
Then I went on to tell her that this does not sound like a fair and just God who was responsible for the creation of Satan in the first place. I mentioned that innocent people and children are killed everyday and God stands by and does nothing about it. Then I'm told, "God didn't do these things", and then I told her, "you're right God allowed Satan to do these things and God did nothing about it." He did nothing I told her to help the innocent. It's almost like God and Satan are partners in crime.
I finally said that God set us up for the fall in the Garden of Eden, and since we are all guilty of Adam and Eve's sins then I guess the whole world should be in prison for Charles Manson and Ted Bundy's crimes. I could tell this deeply offended her and what really got her was when I said we were all just a bunch of rats in God's lab and he was poking and proding us. She finally said, "I don't want to talk about this anymore, I've got to go." I asked her, "what's the matter, can you not defend you faith?" She responded, "I just don't want to talk to you anymore". I told her that she was getting scared of the truth and couldn't handle it and by that time she had hung up.
The point I am trying to make is,I really do believe that there are a lot of christians in the world who aren't as confident about what they believe as they think they are. This is not the first time I have heard of this happening. I think what really happens to these people is they start having their doubts about what they have believed for so long and it makes them start thinking when you start breaking it down for them into realistic terms. It scares them, they want to run. I will admit the truth is scary, it really is.
From what I understand, LeVox has married the former PMOY (playable mate of the year)...So then, perhaps the more pressing and important question is 'What does Jesus think of you judging and poking your nose in other folks business?
We created God in our image.
Every regular guy wants to get his hands on a playboy bunny with big T&A.
Therefore all God ever thinks about is T&A.
Jesus is the son of God.
Therefore Jesus would approve of any guy who could get himself a little "Playboy Playmate."
Dan (Just being logical, rational, and Godlike)
I love it when Brigid posts. ain't nuthing better, and more soothing to the self, then hearing the real truth come out in such an eloquent manner.
Bill...still lurking still
That last paragraph you wrote describes probably one of the most horrific nightmares a human being would have to encounter; and of course it begs the question, How could God/Jesus assist "people who have" with more...whilist the most defenseless innocents are ravished by the worse evils of life. Jesus should NOT help even one human being..ever, until ALL the children are saved from ALL of the evils of their worlds forever..and ever and ever. NO Way should ANY other prayer be answered...until these are. If the others are answered first...then it is proof positive that the whole pray to God/Jesus ritual is a bunch of Bull Shit. proof positive
Well that sounds all too familiar. Those TV guys are always trolling the depths of human despair for more compliant victims, all the while remaining unaccountable to any governing body. I guess the FCC is too busy busting DJ's for poopy language.
Anyhow, man, no harm no foul... what a grammy winner does on their free time is their business and no one else. I'd still like pics if possible. That includes you, too, brigid.
btw, brig, you're not implying that a government comprised of duplicitous self-serving power hungry egomaniacs is more capable of leading me than God, are you? And if their only qualified in crafting legislation, Where did that ability come from, in other words, Who gave them the idea of Law in the first place?
As for the worlds population becoming to large and there being a shortage of souls, this is wrong. There are more beings in existance than just human beings. This is simple unawareness of the world you live in. There are living beings around you everywhere that aren't human. There are more than 425 million insects per acre of forest. Who knows how many entirley in our world. In fact, there are about 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bacteria and archaea living amongst us. So why do you single out human souls? Humans make up a extremely miniscule part of life in this existance. Not to mention we've only been here an extremely short time compared to all other life forms. Who knows how life first came into existance. There are theories but no one really knows. But we do know that matter in it's most basic form is just energy, so your and my energy is in human form for some reason now, but when you die, of course your energy will not. energy cannot die. Of course to try to explain scietifically it all would not work, just like before microscopes you could not sufficiantly describe microscopic life. But basically humans are a type of energy like any other life. By the way you live your life, the way you handle your energy, is how you become greater or lesser in your next material form. This is karma. So if you waste your energy being mean and destructive, or just being ignorant and in denial, this will bring you to a certain type of existance when you take on your next form, and when you focus and develop your energy, face up to your true presence in life, this will also. One goes down the other up.
But anyway, I just posted here originally because I recently met some ex-christians and became familiar to their situation, and the realization of their past lives was a big thing for them.
As for this comment by boomslang:"I also find it ironic that the stories you hear of people who claim they have lived "past lives" most always include something about being a "King", "Queen", or "Prince" who "lived in a castle"---you never hear anyone say "I was a baglady who lived in a refrigerator box." lol."
Obviously anyone can make up a story about their past lives. There are plenty books and stories about past lives and reincarnation and I would bet that at least 99% of them are frauds. They are trying to decieve gullible people for their own material gain. But of course don't believe these people. In Buddhist practice it is usually a rule not to tell others about your past life experience, esspecially non-buddhists, and it is strictly forbidden for any Buddhist monk. It is a monistic law. It would just bring about confusion and desire.
But in the end it is based on expereincing it for yourself. If you don't believe I can understand, but to say you know it to be wrong of course you cannot say. You do not know what is beyond you. A colorblind animal doesn't know color, but does it exist? Yes,but beyond that animals perception. At my level I can say for sure that color most certainly exists, as well as past lives most certainly exists.
It's all up to you though.
Ms. Buddhist, you wrote:
"What did you do yesterday Arthur? You wrote this comment. How do you know? Because you remember doing it. But was this just Consciousness? How do you know you really did and not just consciousness? Obviously you have a memory of it so you know it was you right?"
I don't agree. How do I know I really did it? I don't know that. Memories are quite unreliable, but even if I believed them to be reliable, what would I know? I would know my immediate experience of the memory and my immediate experience of the thought that the memory is trustworthy. I would still know nothing about the past. I don't believe I wrote anything. For practical purposes, in a way I would say I wrote it, but I don't consider this to be ultimately true. For sure I don't know I wrote it.
"I don't agree."
Therefore, in your immediate state of "mind", you made a decision. Now, how in the flying duck's ass, did you make that decision, without any "memory"? Okay, what, you made a decision, with "untrustworthy" memory, great, so you undermine your own comment.
"How do I know I really did it? I don't know that. Memories are quite unreliable, but even if I believed them to be reliable, what would I know?"
You'd know your past experiences, its called memory recall.
"I would know my immediate experience of the memory and my immediate experience of the thought that the memory is trustworthy."
When you recall a memory, you retrieve the "experience" you encoded at that time. At the exact same time you engage in that cognitive process of recall, you are creating a "new" experience. If you want some lite reading, look up metadata and the Dublin Core element link. Now, if you have amnesia, and aren't capable of memory recall, sure, your memory becomes untrustworthy, and your reliability to make sound decisions in a world that requires stored information looks bleak.
"I would still know nothing about the past."
Yes you would, if you had "faith" in your memory recall, and your ability to "store" information, per your own experiences. If you deny your ability to "experience" life, and store memories, then, you might as well say you can't trust yourself to make logical decisions in life, as your past memories, build your future decisions. No information, means, you have nothing to use to form even basic language skills. The fact that you are actually typing a message, shows you have information and muscle memory.
"I don't believe I wrote anything."
Ah, yes, just because you believe something, doesn't make it real, or not real, okay. Well, if you don't believe you have a past, that is trustworthy, then, the millisecond after you typed that sentence, it totally lost all credibility as being verifiable, thus, your statements hold value only at the quanta level, and alas, since we don't overtly engage in decoherence as a means to interact with information, your statement becomes - meaningless, faster than we can give you credibility.
"For practical purposes, in a way I would say I wrote it, but I don't consider this to be ultimately true. For sure I don't know I wrote it."
Uh, according to your, I can only live in the immediate present, and there exists no information storage in the universe, i.e., absorbable matter, etc., you can't know "anything" for sure, even your own statement after you make it. In short, you introduce yourself to a new yourself every planck second.
Perhaps, you are joking, I mean, that statement had to be sarcastic - right. It mocks yourself, well, I suppose the earlier self, as you really never have a self-understanding.
I suppose that makes you totally "detached", a true buddhist approach to nirvana. I can see detachment from unnecessary stressors in life as being a good thing. However, in order to maintain sanity, one "must" anchor themselves to something, thus, there can't be total detachment - memories suffice for being that anchor.
Perhaps, I am missing the buddhist philosophy, can Mr/Ms or any other buddhist please enlighten me on the correct Dharma, well, if this isn't sarcasm or some joke, thanks.
Before I trapse off, I just read your post. Are you suggesting that you didn't rationalize your belief? If you don't have rational thought, then, your thoughts become absurd, and are reflected in your words. If you do rationalize your beliefs, in order to convey logical communications, like you are attempting to do in your post, then, it appears you are engaging in the act of self-punishment and suffering.
I read a little further, and notice you get into energy and life forms, this is the ultimate form of rationalization, do you find that thinking on such matters, is "painful", or causes "suffering"? Are you presenting buddhist philosophy as the light the Buddha would have portrayed, it, or are you going along with the "no one can really know the past anyway", and thus, really never be capable of relying on the written word of "anyone", to include the Buddha himself.
Why so much illogic, the elegance of life, is that its all one, but even within the "one", one must realize their entanglement, with past, present, and future. To live in just the present, may be emotionally safe, but not physically safe. On a maslow pyramid, that means, a person living according to this philosophy must sacrifice the physiological layers, in order to attain the maximum emotional levels. There are behaviorists that would disagree with that philosophy, as the emotional needs do rely, even if only a little, on the lowest levels of physiological need.
I suppose, if someone were able to totally remove their physiological needs to the extreme, it would be called "death", and thus, I suppose that would lead directly to "nirvana". Is that how the philosophy works?
Xrayman, it's funny that you shared your testimony with me because believe it or not, the very first time I stumbled onto the Ex-Christian Site, It was your testimony that I first read. No joke! It reminds me of a thought that entered my mind the other day before I got involved in the Cultic Practices of the Christian Church. I had more successes in life depending on my own abilities. Thank you for providing your testimony once again to help me to remember how successful I was before getting involved with Christianity.
As for "brigid", I read where you said you kind of felt sorry for me. I do not want anyone feeling sorry for me. Like I mentioned to Xrayman, I knew what it took to succeed in life once before and I will do it again. The only thing left I can say is, it does take awhile to get all of the brain washing out of your head when that's all you've been exposed to for 12 to 13 years. It is hard letting go of those Cultic Teachings. I'm sorry if my testimonies of my debate with other Christians has bothered you. My main reason for doing so even though I knew that I would never change their beliefs was to take my anger and dissapointment out on them for spreading lies.
That's it. Take care.
P.S. I always post Anonymously because I haven't felt like getting around to completely registering.
First I want to adress arthur's comment saying that you don't know what you did yesterday. I am not trying to be mean when I say this, but you are just fooling yourself! You know for sure the comment you wrote. If you didn't know you wrote that comment the other day, you wouldn't have even responded. Why do you think I was refering to you and not someone else, unless you know you made the comment and no one else? Even in a dream, you can be someone else in that dream, and when you wake up you know that you were that person in the dream. Wether the dream exists or not is another thing, but you know for sure that you became someone else in that dream because you experienced it. Yes, philisophically you could question wether or not past reality actually exists, but experiences you cannot question becuase they are exactly what make you who you are. They are the only real thing. If you did not know for sure your experiences of memory then you would never be able to function. When you woke up today Arthur, how did you know how to get out of bed, brush your teath, use a computer, drive, eat, talk, or question what I am saying? You do know.
And to vipassana who said "I suppose that makes you totally "detached", a true buddhist approach to nirvana. I can see detachment from unnecessary stressors in life as being a good thing. However, in order to maintain sanity, one "must" anchor themselves to something, thus, there can't be total detachment - memories suffice for being that anchor."
I agree with you about needing an ancor and detachment from unnecessary things being good. But it is not about detachment really. I think this is the kind of thing that a lot of people try and fail at. Trying to detach themselves from things. They think that when they do that then they will not have to worry about the things anymore. But the idea is not really try to detach, but to be aware. This is because of what you said about needing anchors. If you focus on being aware rather than detaching, the detaching will effortlessly come to you the more aware you become. Like a baby should not try and detach himself from his mother comfort and attention even though it is an attchement. This attachement is helpful for the level of awareness of the baby. When the baby grows up a bit, and becomes more aware, he will be able to loosen from his mother and go off on his own. So of course there are good attachments and blind detachment can be very damaging. In fact, I think Christianity can be like this in a way. Many of you being ex-christians, you may remember a time when having your belief was helpfull for you, or at least know someone who it has been helpfull, but then later it becomes harmfull.
Also vipassana, this notion of having certian attachments can address your comment: "Are you suggesting that you didn't rationalize your belief? If you don't have rational thought, then, your thoughts become absurd, and are reflected in your words. If you do rationalize your beliefs, in order to convey logical communications, like you are attempting to do in your post, then, it appears you are engaging in the act of self-punishment and suffering."
Why did Buddha bother to teach others when he knew that teaching is a meaningless attachment? This is very simply the act of selfless loving kindness. Yes, this is not really helping the Buddha, but the buddha is not trying to avoid anything or to detach from things. The main goal is to be aware. So when I said "You can spend your entire life trying to rationalize what you believe in, but that will only bring suffering." I just ment that if your goal is based on actively seeking answers and proof outside yourself you will always end up failing to find what you really want, like if you based your belief of reincarnation from the RAMTHA lady xrayman mentioned, or based your hope of salvation in some event that was said to have happened in the passed. Of course you can use rational thinking and it's very neccessary to live and avoid confusion, it's a helpfull attachment in our world. Of course I could spend forever trying to rationalize this and then of course there would be no end.
If it turns out there's a fifth post, hopefully it will have a conclusion that's coherent and relevant to something. If the crux is that Buddha is "God" and "reincarnation" is the way to "enlightenment"---well, I can't envision too many people here who have already given up one irrational belief, replacing it with another. Shalom.
1) Your posts serve to blatently reinforce any Christian notion that Freethinkers, Atheists, Agnostics, etc.. like ourselves, are somehow posessed by demons, angry, and not at peace within ourselves and from the point of view in which we comprehend existence.
2) This in turn hinders the cause, this site, the anti-christian/religion movement. It reflects poorly on us as a whole, and if you are truly as angry as you claim, I doubt that you would want to aid the Christians in making us look bad.
3) It is just plain immature and rude. If you truly are as pretentious as you appear on paper, I wish you the best in gaining the experience in life to overcome that hangup. If you are simply being difficult because the internet is a security blanket and you have fun rubbing everyone the wrong way, I wish you the best in finding a more creative and useful outlet for your energy.
Hope you don't mind if I reply to both of you together. You had similar objections, I think.
It was not a joke. I just differenciate between what I view as the ultimate truth or what I can really know and day to day life including the illusion of a personality. On the latter level you are right, on that level I know lots of things and base my decisions on that knowledge. Ultimately, however, there is no "me", meaning an independent entity that does things or is ultimately responsible. This is not "true" Buddhism, it's Zen Buddhism or mysticism in general. Talking about it can get confusing because of the two levels which lead to seeming contradictions such as pathless path or gateless gate. On the one level you do things, on the other level impersonal experiences just arise to nobody. On the one level you remember the past, on the other level an experience of a memory arises in the Now (for nobody). Only the second level is ultimately true. I live my life on the first level of course, it cannot be lived anywhere else, but try to remember the existence and ultimate truth of the second level at the same time. It's not hard to see why you will often hear teachers of nonduality say this cannot be spoken about. All I'm really saying is that what I truly know is that Experiencing is and that I see no reason to believe in responsible "agents" that created themselves. In other words, all I'm saying is I don't believe in free will like Brigid, and apart from that I think Descartes was wrong saying "I think therefore I am". He posited that as self-evident but it's not. Only Experiencing is self-evident.
Laughing out Loud ! This is going to be good.
I think the word detachment has a much Buddah connotation. However, I can see how removing "unncessary" attachments in life, by becoming "aware" of destructive behaviors, such as envying or coveting in such an avaricious manner, that it "consumes" a person, and they "lose" balance in life...
Many that become consumed, attempt to exert a lot of energy, trying to project their influence into the "future", eventually, enough energy spent on such matters can emotionally, and physically bankrupt a person.
The wisdom, is awareness, but also detachment. Information fills our lives, it runs through our neural processors, if a person gets caught in a loop, and they refuse to exit, well, it appears they run the risk of burning up the motor. If they don't burn up the motor, they have little capacity to process new information, as they sit in a perpetual neural spinning hour-glass (computer analogy).
When a person, can become aware of these type looped thoughts, and they accept "awareness" as a legitimate function, they can "detach" themselves, awareness becomes the exit function. Its amazing, however, the number of people who run these type of nueral loops. One could surmize there are many reasons for this type action; environmental, heredity, etc.
And, yes, christianity as taught in much of its doctrine, does push people into this type of thinking process - a never ending logic loop, circular reasoning, that never has an escape. As a matter of fact, "fear", social isolation, etc., is used to ensure no one attempts to establish the validity of the "exit" function. Curiosity is the natural function we have, that persuades us to get beyond such loops, as curiosity pulls us to ingest new experience and knowledge... however, natural curiosity can be quelched with yet another stronger primal aspect to humanity - fear.
It would seem to me, that even though a person is aware of their environment, it many times becomes very "difficult" to determine, where dead ends and loops exist. Its why so many people are caught up in religious doctrine in the first place. Each of us have a threshold for running loops, in regards to information discovery, and information processing.
Once our threshold is met, we begin to seek new information, and to build more "awareness". Seminaries are noted for teaching, how to keep logical loops in play. Each time a person discovers an answer, the theologian associates that "answer" or "awareness" to that which can not be "known", thus running a "new" endless loop.
On Buddah, I suppose one could consume themselves even in Buddhism, and perpetually ask themselves "what would buddah do?", that would not seem to be a healthy alternative after leaving one endless loop.
Perhaps, some of the sayings of Buddah are food for thought, but with thought, one must process it, store it, and use it to make sense of the greater picture.
Someone mentioned, reincarnation. Reincarnation in itself, can be seen as a "loop"? Its hard for me to accept "loops", as having a valid function, unless there is a product for each iteration. I really don't accept the wash machine method for soul cleansing, as, talking about soul in an illogical sense, leads to nothing less than a loop itself, the same with "consciousness", unless its brought into the realm of knowable information, and "awareness", else, even that topic becomes a discussion of endless loops.
Okay, its beginning to make more sense. And, as much as I agree with some of your insights, I am still drawn to categorize our reality - call it the only way I can communicate effectively, as "forms" seem to be necessary when discussing such matters. This appears to be the crux of the communication barrier.
Do you suggest that "true" reality, is a formless matter, yet, everyone lives in the form to experience formlessness?
Do you believe in independent thought? Or, do you attribute independent thought as nothing but the byproduct of the true formless reality? There is a difference.
There is all that there is, but then, there is the combination of the pieces within all that there is. Do you believe reality is a "synergy", where the sum of the pieces of our categorized reality, become "more" than the whole - consciousness? Or do you believe, the pieces make the whole, no more and no less, i.e., a conscious entity does not exist, etc.
I see, you explain that free will doesn't exist, because Nature, Is, Consciousness, etc., is dominant over our lives, thus, we are truly not in control of our destinies. In the bigger picture, perhaps, I can see your logic. However, you pick a flavor of ice cream from the store, there are many options to choose from. Although, it could be said, that there were a finite number of selections, and thus, there wasn't truly "free will" in an infinite sense, a person still had "free will" within his finite understanding and awareness of his "immediate" reality, no?
I think it hard, to discuss matters in the "whole" other than in ambiguation.
Can a person in a "finite" world, with only "finite" information, create a conceptualization for an "infinite" entity, such as "true reality"? One could speculate, that you are only choosing between the few "finite" options are are available in our limited understanding of the "true" reality. The cosmological ice cream store, may have only given you a few flavors of ice cream to choose from, just because you are in the store looking into the glass case at the ice cream doesn't mean you have an "awareness" of the size of the store, or the other flavors that you can't see at the other end of the counter, because of limitions of visibility.
To say, Is, exists, i.e., the ice cream store exists, etc., makes total sense, to say, one knows all about the details of "Is", in every detail, makes the claim that someone is omniscient.
I agree with your dislike for Descartes' statement "I think, therefore I am". I see it as, "I am, therefore I think". Even more, I see, "I am, therefore, I store information about thinking, by placing my information onto objects, to include my own brain, hence, the ability to think about ones' thinking.". Without some form of projection, we would never have survived as a species. Albeit, projecting ones' own internal information onto another verbally does get annoying, in an emotional sense.
I can see what you're saying. In effect, we (ex-Christians) must portray a polished image of the non-Christian side of life, thereby making for an inviting occasion for the fundie to cross the line, jump aboard, or whatever metaphor seems fitting.
However, many ex-Christians (including me) continue to be angry over their "pilgrimage of lies." And sometimes tearing into another individual, albeit verbally, is sometimes frankly the only satisfactory method available.
Think of the colossal deception that is being perpetrated the world over! Religion is essentially the biggest bottle of snakeoil ever sold!
Yes, I agree with you -- it's best to be civil, courteous, and Dale-Carnegie-like; however, sometimes people (e.g., Brigid) aren't out to "win friends and influence people"; sometime they just need to vent the painful poison and hurt feelings that have plagued them for who knows how long.
Besides, if there is no "grand purpose" or "design" to the universe, then who ultimately cares if we're all non-theists and in a nice little unified group? We'd just argue about something else (like politics and taxes).
The "conformity factor" of organized religions is one of its oppressors. As we've come to realize religion for what it is (namely, a farce of pandemic proportions), let people be. Sure, Brigid's caustic technique will hurt our ability to "convert" believers to "our side." But ultimately, so what?
Don't get me wrong here -- I'd love to see Religion peacefully eradicated from the earth -- where reason-based societies rule in freedom.
But, to attempt to "correct" Brigid right now, where she is, having experienced the pain she has and does, I think is not worth the potential converts we'd allegedly get if she were civil in her dealings.
The woman needs to vent. Let her vent.
Thank God for this site (pun intended)! God only knows how the churched-people are so oppressed in their stodgy congregational ways that the only way they can vent is to quietly backbite and tear eachother apart.
Who knows? Maybe an oppressed religionist will see us openly venting the full wrath of our frustrations and anger and think, "God, I would love that sort of freedom of expression!" ... and then convert to "our side."
If Christians are offended at us, so be it. May we be free to express ourselves.
Respectfully,
Salvatore
Do you suggest that "true" reality, is a formless matter, yet, everyone lives in the form to experience formlessness?
Well. I would put it this way. The formless and the "formful" are one. No individual lives in the form to experience formlessness, but the One, the Unmanifest, manifests as forms in order to experience Itself.
Do you believe in independent thought? Or, do you attribute independent thought as nothing but the byproduct of the true formless reality? There is a difference.
If you mean by independent thought that someone owns thoughts, no. Thought itself, as everything else, IS the One, not a byproduct.
There is all that there is, but then, there is the combination of the pieces within all that there is. Do you believe reality is a "synergy", where the sum of the pieces of our categorized reality, become "more" than the whole - consciousness? Or do you believe, the pieces make the whole, no more and no less, i.e., a conscious entity does not exist, etc.
No synergy. There aren't even any pieces. Consciousness can't be divided into pieces.
I see, you explain that free will doesn't exist, because Nature, Is, Consciousness, etc., is dominant over our lives, thus, we are truly not in control of our destinies. In the bigger picture, perhaps, I can see your logic. However, you pick a flavor of ice cream from the store, there are many options to choose from. Although, it could be said, that there were a finite number of selections, and thus, there wasn't truly "free will" in an infinite sense, a person still had "free will" within his finite understanding and awareness of his "immediate" reality, no?
It may seem like free will to the individual, the reason being that the individual doesn't know the future.
Can a person in a "finite" world, with only "finite" information, create a conceptualization for an "infinite" entity, such as "true reality"?
No, one can call it all kinds of names such as the Unmanifest or God, but it can't be conceptualized. That's what the 2nd commandement (no graven images) may actually be about.
One could speculate, that you are only choosing between the few "finite" options are are available in our limited understanding of the "true" reality. The cosmological ice cream store, may have only given you a few flavors of ice cream to choose from, just because you are in the store looking into the glass case at the ice cream doesn't mean you have an "awareness" of the size of the store, or the other flavors that you can't see at the other end of the counter, because of limitions of visibility.
To say, Is, exists, i.e., the ice cream store exists, etc., makes total sense, to say, one knows all about the details of "Is", in every detail, makes the claim that someone is omniscient.
You make the mistake of first taking the vantage of the Absolute and correctly saying it's omniscient but then going down to the level of an individual form, wondering how the form could be described as omniscient.
I agree with your dislike for Descartes' statement "I think, therefore I am". I see it as, "I am, therefore I think". Even more, I see, "I am, therefore, I store information about thinking, by placing my information onto objects, to include my own brain, hence, the ability to think about ones' thinking.". Without some form of projection, we would never have survived as a species. Albeit, projecting ones' own internal information onto another verbally does get annoying, in an emotional sense.
All of those sentences you started with "I am" were from the POV of the individual though. God simply is and nothing else. There's this atheistic argument that if God is perfect why did He create the world. He didn't. He is the world and at the same time He is beyond the world. God is like a television screen. He is the underlying substance that makes the pictures possible. He IS the pictures while at the same time being beyond them and totally unaffected by what happens on the screen. And He is all actors and actresses on the screen. Another analogy is to equate the manifest world with a divine play with God playing all the characters Himself. You don't have to use the word God or make it male to be sure.
That's what I would call Nirvana in Buddhist lingo. To know your true nature as the Beyond, the Witness, Awareness of your own play that cannot harm you. That also creates detachment. When you watch a movie and believe what you see is really happening you will be unnecessarily attached to what you see. When you know it's only a movie you will watch it with a certain detachment but can still enjoy it. And what's also important: Anything can still happen in the movie. Because you know it's a movie doen't mean it's all peaches and cream from then on.
The outlook changes and takes the sting off life. Otherwise, as they say: Before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water...
And BTW, as for "reincarnation", that's when you identify with form again. That's why they say those who have attained Liberation won't be reincarnated again. You don't need to wish for reincarnation to be forever. When a movie ends, the screen doesn't dissolve.
Grasshopper? Sorry, don't get this.
I did say you don't have to call it God or make it male. It was a long post, but if you comment you should read everything. ;-)
Call Yourself whatever you want!
Please do yourself a favor, grow up and get some therapy. I'm sure you'll pitch another fit over this like the immature baby that you are but, that's ok. It doesn't really matter because it is your opinion. Go ahead slam me, it doesn't matter and to tell you the truth I'm not going to respond to what you have to say so don't waste your time. Unlike you I am confident about who I am. And I'm not a Christian. Way to go Brian!
Satsang, and looking within, is mature to the one who perceives and searches, maturity comes to the one in their own time, however, portraying ones' inner voice to another, is truly the test of awareness.
Arthur: "Well. I would put it this way. The formless and the "formful" are one. No individual lives in the form to experience formlessness, but the One, the Unmanifest, manifests as forms in order to experience Itself."
Thus, you speculate "The One" has "Intent" - to carry out its "Purpose".
And, "The Ones'", "Purpose" is to experience "Itself".
"This", gives you "Meaning", for all that you are "Aware" of.
However, your sphere of awareness, can not possibly extend to "All" that is. Thus, you assign "Meaning" to "The One", where "The One", could actually be "One of Many". Equally, as plausible, "The One" as you describe may have no Intent or Purpose at all.
If you subjegate yourself to "The Ones'" Intent and Purpose, and this anchors you to a cosmological "Meaning", then, removal of "The Ones'", Intent and Purpose, in effect "removes" any cosmological Meaning, and all that really remains, is the "meaning" you arrive at, based on your level of "awareness" and "knowledge" at the time you query an answer for "meaning" in your life.
Is it possible to "derive" knowledge of "The One", based on one persons' sample? Is it possible, that "one" persons' sample of the whole, doesn't necessarily provide the "True" picture, but only a small experiential glimpse of the True Reality. Again, one would have to know "all", in order to speculate on the "Whole".
Arthur: "If you mean by independent thought that someone owns thoughts, no. Thought itself, as everything else, IS the One, not a byproduct."
So, we are not currently communicating for ourselves, "The One" is communicating through us, and we are just the medium by which it communicates? Well, that is thought provoking, how does one tell if it pleases "The One"?
Arthur: "No synergy. There aren't even any pieces. Consciousness can't be divided into pieces."
So, cloth isn't made of woven thread, and woven thread isn't really made of fibers, and fibers aren't really made of molecules, and molecules aren't really made of atoms, etc. So, what we experience in reality, isn't "Real", its all the same stuff. Don't we define "different" stuff, based on its "unique" properties? How does one ignore the physical attributes of reality, and chalk them up as equally the same across the board in the universe?
Arthur: "It may seem like free will to the individual, the reason being that the individual doesn't know the future."
However, if "The One", knew the "Future", then, the Intent and Purpose of Experiencing Itself, becomes a moot point, right.
It appears that according to the "Intent", and "Purpose" of "The One", that there is little Meaning derived by using humanity as a communications conduit, if it already knows the future. Well, unless we start giving it a personality, and say its bored, or amused by its own actions.
In order for free will to exist, one must assert that humanity is not being "Deliberately" led towards certain actions (in any manner), and that humanity is not limited in its choices or options in any given situation (finite options).
I don't believe in Infinite, "Free Will", not because I believe we are being "Deliberately" led, according to the notion of "The One", but based solely on the grounds that we are limited in our options in life, and our options are truly based on the information we hold within our organic material. Free will, means we can make choices in our lives, without being influenced. The fact that humanity is not omniscient, and is "highly" susceptible to environmental influence, (we wouldn't exist without that influence) suggests that humanity in no manner has Infinite or Uninfluenced "Free Will".
I don't see the need for "The One" to support the notion that "Free Will" does not exist. The day that humanity can become omniscient, and deflect Nature to the point of having "Zero" influence, is the day that a person can suggest they have complete and utter "Free Will".
The religious who found their doctrine on "Free Will", and the Adam and Eve story, obviously miss the point, that their own god, placed an "option" in the garden that could never be chosen, thereby "limiting" their options, and then directly influences them by allowing a serpent to coax Eve into eating the apple. Free Will, to me is a dead topic, however, the justice system runs on such a premise, thus, one must understand at least the reality they physically conform to.
Arthur: "No, one can call it all kinds of names such as the Unmanifest or God, but it can't be conceptualized. That's what the 2nd commandement (no graven images) may actually be about."
However, although we can't conceptualize such an entity, we can give it "Intent", "Purpose", and derive a Universal "Meaning". That's pretty deep conceptualization from a non-omniscient perspective, wouldn't you say?
Arthur: "You make the mistake of first taking the vantage of the Absolute and correctly saying it's omniscient but then going down to the level of an individual form, wondering how the form could be described as omniscient."
Can we agree, that a "non-omniscient" form, can't in fact, conceptualize in great detail, the "Intent", "Purpose", and "Meaning" of "The One".
Regarding the term Absolute, what does that mean to you?
You speak from the vantage of first person, the "individual", who is not "Absolute" nor omniscient, how are you capable of knowing "The One" is "Absolute". Do you suggest that your thoughts again are not yours, but, some "Absolute" entities? If that is the case, then by its injection of its "Absolute" information into your mind, you have become "Absolute" equally. Are you making that stand? Doesn't that make "everyone" equally Absolute, if they are also receiving some inherent signal from "The One".
Arthur: "All of those sentences you started with "I am" were from the POV of the individual though."
And yet, you speak from the same POV, and thus, it appears we both are speaking equally on this topic. Unless, you believ you have somehow tapped into the "Absolute", and no one else has.
Arthur: "God simply is and nothing else."
Therefore, your initial statement where you assert you know "The Ones'", Intent, Purpose, and derived "Meaning", is no longer valid. This means of course, that "The One", may not necessarily be "Experiencing" Itself, because that lends credibility to "The One" as having much more going on in its "Existence", than just "Being".
Arthur: "There's this atheistic argument that if God is perfect why did He create the world. He didn't."
Again, first person "non-omniscient" POV, how do you know that "The One" did or didn't create the world? You are not capable of speaking on behalf of an entity or consciousness that exceeds your ability to understand. I do not portend to "know" (be capable of referencing) information, that exceeds the bounds of my experience, and information recall capability. Those who make comments about something they can't possibly "know", appear to many as someone who has a need to "influence" others for their own purpose(s).
Arthur: "He is the world and at the same time He is beyond the world. God is like a television screen. He is the underlying substance that makes the pictures possible. He IS the pictures while at the same time being beyond them and totally unaffected by what happens on the screen. And He is all actors and actresses on the screen. Another analogy is to equate the manifest world with a divine play with God playing all the characters Himself. You don't have to use the word God or make it male to be sure."
Do we need to give "It", Intent, Purpose, and Meaning? These three elements, are what prevent me from accepting the concept of a "god". Its not possible, for someone to make statements on behalf of the underlying substance of this universe, unless they are capable of soaking up, the entirity of the substance to make a big picture announcement.
An apt analogy, would be your screen play. If you were only capable of watching one pixel/dot on the television screen, do you believe you would have the knowledge required to give a play by play account of a movie, that had over 10,000 individually animated pictures/frames?
Moreover, if you were capable of imagining the billions of dots that were missing, perfectly, on each of over 10,000 individually animated pictures/frames in order to "label" the movie... do you believe you could read the mind of the movie director? Who is to say, that the movie director, was the only coordinator for the making of the movie, perhaps, he got ideas from "other" contemporaries to help him out.
The bottom line Arthur, is, that is a lot of "knowing", and its called "omniscience". One can not say anything "Absolute", unless they claim "omniscience", and if a person were to do such, they would become the movie director.
Arthur: "That's what I would call Nirvana in Buddhist lingo. To know your true nature as the Beyond, the Witness, Awareness of your own play that cannot harm you."
However, does this concept require "The Ones'" presence in any shape or fashion? I'd suggest no. A person who has never Witnessed the Beyond, does not have an Awareness of harm, fear, etc., thus, internal peace is possible.
Arthur: "That also creates detachment. When you watch a movie and believe what you see is really happening you will be unnecessarily attached to what you see."
Agreed, let me reword. "When you watch a sermon and believe what you see is really happening you will be unnecessarily attached to what you see."
Arthur: "When you know it's only a movie you will watch it with a certain detachment but can still enjoy it."
Agreed, let me reword. "When you know it's only a sermon you will watch it with a certain detachment but can still enjoy it." I find that many people who attend church, do indeed watch the sermon for sheer entertainment, and nothing more. Unfortunately, we get those who can't tell the difference between fiction and non-fiction, and we get people who act out in biblical character.
Arthur: "And what's also important: Anything can still happen in the movie."
Well, actually, a movie is already made. "The One" already knows the ending, as "The One", in essence is the movie director, who wrote the movie, I'm thinking "The One", isn't going to be surprised how the movie ends. Also, humanity becomes the characters on the screen, and its apparent that although humanity may not know the next frame coming, we both know, that they don't have the "Free Will" to change the next frame.
Arthur: "Because you know it's a movie doen't mean it's all peaches and cream from then on."
Agreed, let me reword. "Because you know it's a sermon doesn't mean it's all peaches and cream from then on." Well, true, life is what it is, and nothing someone shouts from a pulpit is going to change the underlying truth of our existence.
Arthur: "The outlook changes and takes the sting off life."
I know what you mean. The moment I had enough information in regards to hell, heaven, religion, etc., I threw it all out the door, and the changes took a lot more than just a little sting off life. Do you know what its like to believe in a literal hell, and then, realize or become "aware" that hell really doesn't exist? Oh, the relief, is unexplainable.
Arhtur: "Otherwise, as they say: Before Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water. After Enlightenment, chop wood and carry water..."
Either way, our reality and existence carry on, no matter how enlightened we become... Life is what happens, when carrying water and chopping wood, being aware of the journey is Enlightenment...
Arthur: "And BTW, as for "reincarnation", that's when you identify with form again."
I thought we are all just one big lump of the whole, the "I" and "Me" don't really exist, or... is there another type of "form" other than "The One" universal consciousness.
Arthur: "That's why they say those who have attained Liberation won't be reincarnated again."
Those who are stuck in an endless neural loop, and pushing out a repetitive and unchanging variable, moment after moment, will indeed need to finish out their movie, I suppose its fitting that those who believe in reincarnation seek closure in some aspect.
Arthur: "You don't need to wish for reincarnation to be forever. When a movie ends, the screen doesn't dissolve."
Agreed, let me reword. "You don't need to be a movie producer to identify the screen. However, it takes a gifted actor/actress to sell the script of a movie without a producer readily available for guidance.
Just a few things: First of all, I don't want to sell anything, but maybe I have slipped into making some unwarranted assumptions. It's one hundred percent certain that experiencing is happening, and it's pretty sure that there is no "doer". Maybe it would be most honest to leave it at that.You don't need the concept of the One to do away with free will, sure. Darwin is enough, or trying to predict your next thought. The fact that we have no free will is really nice, IMO, a pretty nice "religion" by itself. No fame, no claim, no blame, as the nonduality teacher Leo Hartong puts it. A dose of pantheism does appeal to me, though. Maybe I should make it into my personal religion and not be to bold about it, IOW, sell it as the Truth.
BTW, yes, I once believed in a literal hell too. Not THAT long along, actually. It is then very important to find out how to be "saved", everything else pales besides that. Problem: The bible and other sources don't provide a unamimous answer. Even when you think YOU are saved, in everyday life it happens that you picture the friendly person in front of you in hell because you believe that person is not saved. That's horror.
I was accused by a xian friend once of just “changing sides”. My reply “I am on no ones side; I have removed myself from the game”.
Brigid doesn’t speak for anyone but Brigid and that’s the way it should be.
Amen! (Oops. Old habit. Well, you know what I mean.)
I enjoy Brigid's post. Sure, her language is sometimes, umm, "colorful" and not how I (usually) express my opinions, but so what? If it offends you, just skip past them. She does, after all, put her name on every one of her posts, so it's not confusing like the many Anonymouses we get here (i.e., Is that Anonymous the same as person as other Anonymous? No, not that one; the other one!)
Or, everyone who reads these comments could just grow up. We're all adults here, so I don't think she'll corrupt any innocent youth. The point I want to make is that there are no words that should be off limits here. Being able to express yourself how you want is one of the freedoms you gain when you break the bonds of religion.
If a person is looking for "truth", in an effort to better understand another persons' experiences, aesthetics holds little to no relevance. Perhaps, one who places a high value on aesthetics, should attempt to look behind the artful words, and start turning the pages of the persons' life, before they guess the plot of a persons' story.
Actions speak louder than words. This sandbox, allows us to play with information. Its much wiser to test information in a virtual environment, than to allow untested information to run a persons' actions in life. Trial and error, is a poor way to learn. I have yet to see someone get a physical black-eye from this sandbox.
If information becomes directive in nature, then apparently, one is asserting authority over another person. This takes the sandbox and makes it a control platform, for either good or ill purposes. Seeking and communicating to expand ones' sphere of awareness, doesn't require control, or authority. The only person I know, who has authority and control of this virtual sandbox, is the WM, and that's fitting, as he owns the server, and responsibility for the information presented.
As long as there is at least one person, with whom we interact with, the growth process is established, and this forum has purpose. If a person, like "goldie" makes comments on a recurring basis, and no one ever responded back to him/her/it, or even attempted to understand the meaning of the words, then its obvious that the post itself is of little value in a growth process.
In that case, "goldie" is just a mere troll, and can grow just as well on his personal computer without the need of the Internet. Its communication between people, that makes information valuable. I try not to allow aesthetics interfere with my growth process.
The WM identifies those who are the weeds per se, in the growth garden. I dare say, Brigid has had more than enough responses from friends, to suggest that she has brought the potential for growth to the table for many.
I don't have a lot in common with Brigid, I am a late thirties heterosexual male, but I do learn about her as a person, and she reminds me that we all have our own unique value in this life. Care and concern are growth enablers, and Brigid has provided that consistently to those whom she connects with.
She has outdone me, in this area, and dare I say, outdone many others, who forget the human side of our natures. Its great to delve into theoretical physics, and the like, but real life is here - today. Some of us become so logical, we lose sight of the human side of growth, Brigid's words force me to look past the outer appearance. Perhaps, if one of religion can learn to see past their own aesthetic stereotypes, they can possibly continue down that same path of thinking, and eventually see their way past their stereotypical bigotry.
If Brigid has done nothing more, than alienate those who refuse to see past the window dressing in life, then, I don't see any harm done. Those who want to "grow", will look beyond aesthetics. Those who don't have a desire to grow will just sit back and attempt to stagnate the growth process - using aesthetics as an excuse.
As life has evolved for the last 4 billion years nature has tried and discarded millions of reproductive methods. As we speak, throughout nature, there are as many different methods of reproduction as there are species.
Scientists have just discovered that chemical changes take place in a woman's body as she conceives and gives birth that tilt the odds in favor of her giving birth to males with the tendency for homosexuality for every birth of a male preceding. Kind of like nature is saying "Enough studs already"
Subtle, and some not to subtle, biological processes that determine the sex of progeny are evident throughout nature. There are pairings of excessively sexed males with females, with little or no sex drive.
You will find species or sub species that are hermaphroditic.
Homosexuality is found throughout nature. Some species use the male as a throwaway item good for impregnating the female and then relegated as another item in the "diet" of the female.
What I am trying to get at is this: Anyone who thinks God is sitting up there on his throne approving or disapproving of what we do with our sexual organs is simply giving in to the "....petty moralities and its feeble theologies...." of religion. ( Quoted from ( A righteous anger) posted Friday, May 26, 2006 sent in by Alan
http://exchristian.net/testimonies/
Dan (If God only approved of one male and one female doing it in the missionary position we all would be in trouble)
Hi, haven't talked with you in a while. Uh, been out doing chores, dontcha' know :-)
Determinism: "Determinism is the philosophical conception which claims that every physical event, including human cognition and action, is causally determined by an unbroken chain of prior occurrences. No mysterious miracles or totally random events occur."
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Determinism
Determinism or indeterminism correlates to "free will".
The more deterministic the less the "free will" to make decisions in life.
Developmentally speaking, no one had a choice at birth, thus, as each of us are born, we have "zero free will". There really is "no" accountability at that point, this is recognized by both natural and spiritual legalists.
Ubergeek: "Ironically, it also contradicts the idea that there can be any such thing as a "convert" of any kind."
Our decisions to become converts or to not become converts (which is semantic), all relies on our experiential knowledge we gain in life. We have no "free will" to become a convert, if we never have an experience that provides us with the concept of convert. Our experiences in life, give us information, which opens the door for more options to be made, however, the options we have, were "determined" by a prior experience.
Ubergeek: "We might have a genetic predisposition to certain types of feelings, behaviors, and so on, but we are not wholly determined this way. Our environment - including our social group - and our thoughts have as much effect on our lives (perhaps more, taken in combination) as our genes."
However, our social environment, is based on human interaction, and each of the people in that group, are who they are based on their causal experiences in life. Their experiences, cause us to gain new experiences, thus causing us to have "determined" options in life.
Determinism, doesn't necessarily mean predeterminism.
Predeterminism: "Predeterminism is generally the philosophy that all of the events of history, past, present and future, have been decided before the advent of temporal existence."
I don't ascribe to a "god" nor do I know of anyone who knows all of the past, present, and future, who can manipulate it to "cause" our actions in life. Therefore, I don't personally ascribe to predeterminism from the vantage that our lives are already written in the book of life, and we no longer have to be an interested party in our everyday endeavors.
However, since we can't know the future, either, we make decisions in life based on neurological function, and past experience, thus, our lives are determined from our past, not our potential present, nor our future. Therefore, our past "causes", or "determines" the options and choices we have for the "future". We can not have total "free will" as non-omniscient temporal beings, we only have the "free will" to make decisions, based on our unique pasts. A person may not smoke in their life, because they choose not to, based on previous knowledge/experience, they "do" have an option/choice, based on their past, and the number of options their past provides them.
Ironically, there is heated discussion amongst the scientific community regarding the past, present, and future in regards to physics. It is argued, if one can determine the true natural laws of the universe, then its conceivable to predict future events based on the information a person receives in their life.
Stephen Hawking, claims that its possible to predict the future, if natural laws are known, thus, "First Cause", and "Predeterminism" become possible. He offers the term in his book, A Brief History of Time, "scientific determinism" as a more descriptive meaning to his premise. However, Hawking admits that determinism "In principle" can not be absolutely rule-out, with the current level of knowledge we have. Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity is based on cause-effect, or deterministic affect.
Quantum physics supporters, are attempting to challenge the laws of general relativity, by removing the cause-effect element, by stating that some changes in the universe, "immediately" change other aspects, thus, there are circumstances without cause-effect relationships.
Anyway, until humanity claims omniscience of "all" physical laws, determinism is clearly the most tempting view for many people, because they can validate cause-effect in their everyday lives. This doesn't mean that quantum mechanics may not hold some key answers to our universe, but there is some serious growth that needs to occur in this realm of theoretical physics before many choose to believe that there are "effects" in this universe, that appear "random", and thus, have no direct "cause" and "effect" relationship. Personally, I have reservations on some scientific authors, and how they come to their conclusions, or non-conclusions, as it may turn out. Have a great one... :-)
That is why I asked you the question of why you don't just end it all. If you die, there will be nothing to worry about, nothing to search for and nothing to be synical about or angry about or sad about. The reason why you don't kill yourself is two things, hope and doubt. You hope that some knowledge you will find or some enjoyment that will make it all worth it, and doubt what you know is true, so you want to continue living to be sure. But is all hopeless and doesn't matter a bit. So, basically you put faith in that, if you don't find something in life to fully cover your suffering, which of course you will never find that, at least you can take solice in the fact that when you die you can"rest in peace." That's why you are horrified of the notion of yourself entering into some other life agian. I admit, from your point of view, it is deathly(mind the pun) horrifiying. So you don't have to burden yourself with it. That is your choice at your level. But I posted my original comment about experiencing your past lives, not because I was trying to present another illogical belief, but invite those who are obviously in a lot of pain and suffering in there lives to an EXPERIENCE that can dramatically change them and give them a sense of clarity. I'm not saying to trust in that when you die you will be born again. I wouldn't trust in that either. But, obviously if you find it neccassary to constantly defend your reason for Christianity being wrong and tell everyone about it, you must be dealing with a huge amount of doubt and fear, or else you would just leave church and that would be the end of it. You would just go live your life.
if you think that past lives is a bunch of nonesense. OK. Neither of us can prove or disprove this with words, so that is that. When you die and don't come back then you will prove it. I say it is possible you can enter the mind and find out the truth about this. You don't believe it, ok, you try and prove me wrong all you want. Go crazy.
As for this comment you made:
"If the crux is that Buddha is God and reincarnation is the way to enlightenment---"
This shows your confused state perfectly. Who said Buddha is God? I know I certainly didn't. And reincarnation has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment. I don't know where you got all that from. : ) You could reincarnate millions of times, that wouldn't get you to enlightenment. lol
Unfortunatly, I'm not going to satisfy your hope of having a "coherent and relevant conlusion", but you will never find that. If something ends, you just start something else, so it will never end untill you come to your own conlusion yourself. Good Luck. : )
It was me who expressed himself poorly. When I said I don't believe in free will "like Brigid" I meant "like Brigid doesn't either". It's exactly like you say. Not only do we have no more free will than an amoeba but no more free will than the river it swims in. I'm also a (die) hard determinist, the other positions just don't make sense. Two years ago I did't even know the word "determinism". It's really stunning. Both totally obvious and hard to believe at the same time.
You said: "It amazes me how people like you don't get the concept that the fact that life ends, IS what gives it it's meaning." But I do understand this, thats exactly the point I made in this comment: "So, basically you put faith in that, if you don't find something in life to fully cover your suffering, which of course you will never find that, at least you can take solice in the fact that when you die you can"rest in peace." That's why you are horrified of the notion of yourself entering into some other life agian."
But you don't fool me at all with this. The funny thing is you don't even fool yourself.lol That's why you are so angry. And that's why you think you will gain enjoyment from smacking me. : ) You try and fool yourself into thinking that because your life will end, that will put meaning somewhere. "This life is the only one so I better make it worth something." you say. But you know it never will. That is obviously why you are so angry and depressed. And you know you would be better of dead. If you didn't come back, that is.
Speaking of anger, it's obvious from your comments you are dealing with a lot. I'm sorry for you about that. But where is it that you feel that anger? Can you see it? Hear it? Touch it? Smell it? Taste it? Where is it? This is anger is not material, and is not your body. It is you.
And as for your other comment: "What about animals? Dogs don't go to f%cking "doggy-Nirvana" when they die, so gee, why don't we just slaughter all dogs?"
You are a very confused person. : (
What makes you think you are better then a dog? If you ask me, honestly I know a lot of dogs that seem much better being then you. Far more. What are you? What makes you, you? The fact that you have a brain able to do complex things? Thats not you, thats just your brain. So what if you can talk and read. If I gave a dog a human brain they could do that too. Same if I gave you a doggy brain you couldn't anymore. What you think is you is nothing more than parts and pieces. I don't know you personally but from what I get from you, you are far less than most dogs I know. Of course the possibilities of what you can do in a human form is more than what a dog could possibly do in their form, but it can go both ways, like it is possible to be far more aware with your human form than a dog form, but also far more stupid and confused than a dog could ever be.
Well, it's been nice, but this will be my last post. Boomslang, feel free to write a comment angrily disputing everything I said in this post. I won't respond, but I'm sure it will give you a deluded sense of meaning by putting things to an end. Go for it! : )
Ms. Buddhist: "Speaking of anger, it's obvious from your comments you are dealing with a lot."
How omniscient, lets call you god, or is it Buddah? There is the possibility, that anger is justified, and is quite a natural response to actions in life, oh, lets say religious bigotry, and expand that to nagging illogical belief systems that someone wants to impose onto others. Look up the word projection, it appears you are dealing with a lot, as you appear to have a need to continue this dialogue without supporting facts. A diaglogue without rational thought, is fruitless, and your vastly growing orchard of information isn't producing any fruit.
Ms. Buddhist: "I'm sorry for you about that."
If a person has justifiable anger, then there is nothing for you to be sorry for, unless you are the one instigating anger on purpose, now, you wouldn't be attempting to make someone angry on purpose would you? Doesn't that affect your Karma, albeit, I have no idea what Buddhist flavor you are, as you seem to be sincerely confused on many of the notions of buddhism.
Ms. Buddah: "But where is it that you feel that anger? Can you see it? Hear it? Touch it? Smell it? Taste it? Where is it? This is anger is not material, and is not your body. It is you."
We are deterministically influenced, however, yes, once a person realizes the influence, they are no longer bound by its control. Hence, what may appear to you Ms. Buddhist as "anger" on a post, may be nothing more, than someone inquiring as to your factual support for your belief system. You project anger onto others, because you actually believe some people are harvesting "anger", you may want to readjust your radar. Some of the words being used, may not be anger, they may just be "sharp" sarcasm, to exploit the obvious inconsistencies in your belief system. Sarcasm, and ridicule of an illogical belief system, doesn't denote "anger" on ones' part, especially if they are fully aware of their actions, and their underlying purpose.
Ms. Buddhist: "And as for your other comment: "What about animals? Dogs don't go to f%cking "doggy-Nirvana" when they die, so gee, why don't we just slaughter all dogs?"
Okay, since you are now asking questions, as you have failed to provide any consistent answers that can be verified, let me propose that we are deterministically influenced by nature, and many people growing up, through recursive learning methods, early in their infant years, assign value to life.
Your question, why don't we just kill puppies, since there isn't a doggy nirvana, presupposes that there is a nirvana. I have yet to see anyone claim "Nirvana", to be a supported belief. People, don't kill puppies in general, not because they believe or don't believe in Nirvana, they typically don't based on internal values, learned early in life.
If you want to believe in Nirvana, and base your killing or non-killing sprees on your buddhist philosophy in life, then, that's your choice. Nirvana does not exist for many people, thus, killing or non-killing is in no way connected to your philosophy, so, drop the assumptions.
Perhaps, you are going to state I'm angry? Well, wouldn't that just be fun, I suppose you can say whatever you want about anyone, that doesn't make the statement factual though, does it. As a mere observer, I'd really like to know your logical support for your belief system, if you don't have one, then you have nothing to offer but a belief system based on conjecture.
If you want to continue to submit conjecture, then great. However, why don't you just support the persons who posted their testimony in a humane way - that doesn't require you to have a logical or illogical belief system. Your actions are a reflection of your belief. Some people, after being burned by illogical belief systems, aren't looking to jump back in on the rebound, they are looking for something solid and consistent that they can "trust".
You, haven't provided anything in the form of a belief system, that a person can really "trust", with any great confidence. So, rationally speaking, why don't you just console, get to know their story, and make observations, like someone who really cares about them, and not about ones' own personal philosophy.
I'll perform an exorcism on ole boomie!
Satan!!! Satan!!! this is Ben the peglegged priest COME OUT!!! COME OUT!!!
In the name of Buddha, Come Out!!! I know you're in There, speak to me Satan!!! #@%^&*(^%$
growwrawwwall, hissses and foaming at the mouth, ears smoking! g0 AWaY, lEaVe mE AlOnNe!!! yOU PhOnY pRieSt!!!! #8^&$%@
In the name of JESUS COME OUT, COME OUT!!!
nO! nO! nOT tHe NaMe oF jESsuS! Oh nOoOoOoOoOoOo!
I command you in the precious name of Jesus to come out!!!!
pLeASe nO!!! nOt jEsuS, nO nO!!! iM lEAvInG tHe bODy ooooOOOOOOoOOOOoooooo~~~~~~~~~~~~
Go Back!, Back!!! into the pits of Hell where you belong, you evil doer of the world, you ole serpent, you deceiver!
Feel better boomslang? It took the name of Jesus to get him out, but it works every time.
Praise be to Jesus!!! the Healer, the saviour, the resue man, the invisible super hero on a stick, the mr. fix all, the light of the world.
Satan is the source of all evil being done in the world today!!
I'm beginning to believe that Buddha may be a fake tho<:-P
Of course she is the typical superstitious turdlet. When Boom disagrees, mocks and way outhinks her, she says he is angry and depressed, but offers nothing concrete to support anything she believes. Then she gets mad and stomps off, vowing never to return. But alas, she comes back, and still not with any kind of legimate facts or arguements. She does go into a sarcastic rant that further proves her lack of anything relevant to post. She is correct on two points, however, she is an idiot and a fool.
Hi, Boom! Glad to see you going strong.
Hi, Brigid! I don't always agree with you, but you sure do always make me laugh. Like others have said, those that don't like her posts don't have to read them.
Whoever recommended the Fundies Say the Darnest Thing website:
http://www.fstdt.com/
thanks tons. I spend almost as much time there as I do on this site and all my friends here should check it out.
Hi to everyone, Carol
Without thought, we are slaves to our environment, to be controlled and manipulated.
Marie: "Will thought, in and of itself, earn a pay check?"
Yes, there is such a thing as intellectual property, however, I can see the confusion from the religious, its a foreign concept to be sure.
Marie: "Will thought alone nourish a relationship?"
Thoughtful: "Considerate of the feelings or well-being of others."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Well, I suppose a relationship doesn't necessarily have to involve the consideration of feelings and each others' well-being. However, if these factors weren't involved, I'd consider that an "abusive" relationship, kinda' like the relationship found in religiously exclusive groups.
Marie: "Will thought alone clean a house?"
If one doesn't have a thought that determines the house is dirty, then obviously the lack of thought, will prevent the house from ever getting clean.
Marie: "Will thought alone find buried treasure?"
If a person hasn't had time to think about what is truly valuable in life, they will not increase their chances of finding that treasure, by mindlessly digging themselves into holes.
Marie, if you aren't thinking when you make posts, are your posts worth making?
Digha Nikaya, 16: "Make an island of yourself, make yourself your refuge; there is no other refuge.
Make truth your island, make truth your refuge; there is no other refuge."
Ms. Buddhist, many of us, have made ourselves our island of trust, and refuge, and have accepted that there is no other refuge. Thus, the refusal to seek refuge in any religious shelter, even when enticed with eternal torment.
To thine own self be true, as there is no other truer refuge. If your words don't ring true, to some, perhaps, its because many are still seeking to find shelter and refuge within. Perhaps, if you attempted to support their journey inward, instead of pointing outward, your advice and wisdom would be more appreciated. Perhaps, many Buddhists would agree with Buddah, but, I suppose there is the oft chance they would reject such insights.
H.H. The 14th Dalai Lama: "Sometimes one creates a dynamic impression by saying something, and sometimes one creates as significant an impression by remaining silent."
It requires wisdom, to know which of the aobve two roads is most valuable each time they face a fork in the road, take the wrong road, and the impression given, may not be the one intended. I am not a Buddhist, but I do realize the necessity for study.
Bodhidharma: "Only one person in a million becomes enlightened without a teacher's help. If, though, by the conjunction of conditions, someone understands what the Buddha meant, that person doesn't need a teacher. Such a person has a natural awareness superior to anything taught. But unless you're so blessed, study hard, and by means of instruction you'll understand."
I suppose if I wanted to present myself as a Buddhist, it would be wise to understand the philosophy. Enjoy your belief, look inward, and allow others the same opportunity.
That site is absolutly hilarious as they are so fuckin stupid. They don't deserve anyone's respect. Thanks for your post and you can pretty much say anything you want on this site, so don't worry too much about offending anyone. Most of us here are pretty think skinned, except for the trolls who get hurt when we dis their imaginary fake savior.
I am not a parent, but I do disagree with you answer to you son about believing in jeebus. You should definetly point out that all religions are based on myth and legend and there is no proof of any kind of gods or superstitious beings. And there is no historical proof this jeebus character even existed. Immerse him in science, nature, etc. There is too much of a risk to children from influence by fundies if they don't have the knowledge and background to dismiss the lies and brain washing.
Happy Memorial Day, everyone!
Carol
But anyways, I think you are right, I am a fool and an idiot. I said I woudn't respond but yet I did. I'm just very angry and confused and I am oviously unable to give any objective reasons for what I believe. Thats because it's all just wishful thinking on my part. : ( Buddhism is just a fraud. Nothing more. All of you probably know the truth about that already, but I am no where near that level of clear thinking and intelligence. I don't even know why I am even kidding myself now thinking that I can discuss things with you guys. But now I am not going to full myself with Buddha and nirvana trash anymore. In my first post I gave this website: www.justbegood.net/
I feel like a total moron now because I can see the stupidity of it now. But I am posting it again because I think it can be good for a lot of laughs about how blatently absurde it is. : ) To show that Buddhism really is just a pile of dung full of lies and stupidity and unprovable claims which make no sense. I still have a lot of work to do to free my mind from all the experiences I had while practicing Buddhism, obviously formed by my own stupidity. Wish me luck and thank you all for helping me.
Now we see a caricature attack on BuddHism, and it's only been what?....4 days later? Now THAT'S deconversion! Welcome to reality, ms.Atheist!
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!
Hey Uber, excellent insight. Is there a ceiling to our becoming?
This conversation could get deep, in that direction, but it all seems to lead back to nature.
We live a finite number of years, thus, we are temporaly given a ceiling and must accept that we do have limits according to our level of current knowledge. However, there are no absolutes, what a person thought was a ceiling of 30 temporal years to become, is now a ceiling of on average 80-90 years in our lives. We as humanity definitely have more "potential" to become more than those who came before, no doubt.
There are many flavors of determinism, each with its own way of trying to seamlessly mesh with other philosophical musings, especially that of morality, and politics, etc. I am not a separatist, one who believes they can stand on a philosophical stance, and declare it as ultimately the best truth, and yet, in another categorical area, say morality, have an entirely different and contradictory philosophy. There are some who make that claim, I just can't bring myself to believe that the pieces of our reality, can be studied independently, and promoted as "truth", unless it blends in with the other pieces to form a coherent picture.
Perhaps, this sounds abstract, but, my ignorance of the whole, allows me to imagine I have an infinite number of possibilities to become. Its non-omniscience that gives us the option to envision the possibilities in life, we don't know we can't become, until we try, and many times, we can become when we try, because we envision our goals based on naturally supported laws.
There are those who may want to envision a becoming that can't be realized in the natural sense, and thus have set an unattainable and low ceiling for their growth in this natural universe.
In a more real sense, I believe we become every second, with or without our volition of effort. Nature changes us, but yet, we have options along the way that Nature provides, its up to us to make decisions based on the pieces of information we are provided.
There is much heated debate about information theory, and the implication that everyone potentially has a GPS receiver, tuned into Nature, and as it whispers we have the choice, or so we think, to either act according to the direction or attempt to move away. From my experience, it seems that the more a person attempts to move away the greater the dissonance within ones' own being. So, in a more abstract sense, when we make a decision, one could surmize that we are moving along a path that Nature provides us, on a wide road per se, and although we can move back and forth on that road, (decisions in life), the road still exists.
Again, much heated debate on that personal theory, as there are some scientists who believe there is no "time" dimension, and a one way highway, there are those who believe that the road I described in really more like a parking lot, and Nature becons a person from an omnidirectional station, and a person has ultimate free agency to move in circles, slightly move in any direction, etc. Perhaps, there is a little truth to both, I seem to want to limit our free agency to a wide highway going along a time dimension, but I can't deny the temptation to believe that we can move laterally as we attempt to sidestep Natures' unyielding pull towards its epicenter.
Sorry for all the abstraction, I find that I think better outside the box :-) Tis' why I see the temptation to not build a ceiling, except in the form of our temporality, and physical structures, but, I don't kid myself that humanity doesn't have the ability to create a greater range of motion to make decisions through better medical care, and genetic engineering.
Mathematicians, are truly the artists that portray our findings in more concrete terms. I see reality, as a map, and the few that feel the desire to become able to map it all out. There are those who attempt to become in polar direction to Nature, that, well, I'll leave it there, many of us have seen what happens when people move against Nature psychologically, etc.
Knowing I have no absolute truths, only notional explanations of my experiences, let me finally say, I believe Nature to be the great orchestrator, and those who move through reality the musicians, creating "informational" music along the way, and that information (information theory) is sensed from Nature, and Nature seems to react in-turn, to guide using its own transmission of information.
In that form, I don't consider myself a "fatalist".
Fatalism: "A philosophical doctrine holding that all events are predetermined in advance for all time and human beings are powerless to change them."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Again, I believe we have a range of motion in regards to movement and according to our awareness and informational base, some have a deer path, some... have a six lane high-way, and then some... are more omnidirectional, the range of motion though, does differ and I do ascribe that there are some that are less capable of becoming than others... but through their "informational" ignorance, they may just become in their limited sphere, more than someone with unlimited possibilities...
I find that I can do pretty much whatever I want, and its both a curse and a blessing. I suppose there are pros and cons for those living in the confines of a deer path, and those living with total range of movement. There is potential for ranges to move, and can be studied if one cares to look at human development from infant, to dotage.
I don't buy god(s), not do I worship Nature as a god, or even believe Nature to be more than just the harmony that "all" forms and objects dance to, the musical theorists writing the symbolic notes, in the form of modular math, seem to be diligent in mapping the changes of Nature to see if there are recurring patterns or absolute anchors. I just tend to see the whole, as is, and nothing more.
On morality, I would contend, that its based on personal coherence with the music, and judged according to the majorities' range of motion. Those, who have less range of motion, are obviously said to be the least moral, range is subjectively understood, and many religious tend to want to force people into a small range of motion, and then declare they are immoral ;-) Take care...
We look to others for assurance to validate us, to re-assure us that we are ok and we look to others for acceptance from the insecurity instilled in us from our childhood.
I think it was simply brilliant for you to admit that you have seen how foolish all the stupid beliefs and religions are, and I hope you were not just yanking our chain, if not, then welcome aboard and please share your insights with us. Believe me you'll see things intirely different without the silly beliefs and dogma's common sense will over take your brain and great wisdom will flow from the area's that was cluddered and fogged over by silly beliefs, you already sound very intelligent.
Please tell us that you're really being serious, it sounds like you are.
A flower blooms, does it bloom because it wills itself to bloom freely, or does Nature whisper to the flower and persuade it to become... A flower never knew it couldn't become, and it became... to non-flowers, the flower becomes beautiful to many, to the flower, it is what it is, no more, no less... if it knew different, one could suggest the flower harbored pride, but I don't perceive flowers having pride...
I perceive flowers having a very narrow range of motion..., they tend to move towards clustering photons to be nourished. Flowers... tend to act or behave according to the informational instructions that reside in their cellular structure... Flowers, bloom and "become", many who become "aware" of the flowers' becoming, appreciate the becoming itself, as beauty, a job well done... That which becomes according to Nature, is beautiful...
It takes people their entire lives, to know, the song, and to follow it to their becoming... but once reached, they bloom, and are just as beautiful.
Okay, hopefully that makes more sense, but, still abstract, but, I tend to live in the abstract. Take care ;-)
Hence, religions market hell, and denounce the validity of becoming, according to ones' Nature (gay, etc). Religions take what is beautiful, and infuse confusion where there should be clarity... They take the becoming, and attempt to strangle it, and force it into a box... it hasn't worked yet, and never will, if Nature continues to have a voice...
I always feel warmth, knowing, that those who attempt to strangle others, and themselves fail to become, according to their potential range of motion, will always be haunted by Natures' silent whispers... It is unfortunate however, that those who fight off Nature, do seem to find their outlet with others they covet... those who are naturally becoming... Perhaps, its this covetous recursion of self rationalization, that drives some clergy to seek out children...
This mission statement taken from the BuddHist website known as "Just be good."
http://www.justbegood.net/
More---
"Quote: "A religion that welcomes questions and investigations into it's own teachings."
Clearly untrue, as we saw, and STILL see, people foaming at the mouth because their world-view was challenged; because they had nothing to offer in the way of objective evidence that a "Buddhist God" exists.
Quote: "A religion that teaches us to take responsibility for all our own actions."
Hmmmm....is it really "teaching" you?...or is it coersing you with reward/punishment? Well, I guess for those who need to be coersed into doing what is right, coming back as a gerbil is pretty good incentive to "just be good". The ol' excercise wheel would become pretty monotonous. LMAO!!!!!
Here's a novel approach: How 'bout "just be good" because you're worth it?... and because you know that doing unnecessary harm to others is wrong.... why?... because you wouldn't want unnecessary harm done to you. Wow! Brilliant, eh?
Quote: "A religion that is very much in harmony with modern science."
That's good for a full-on belly laugh! "Science"?..please! lol! I'd love to see the science journals that state in concise language that "thought" lives anywhere outside the brain, let alone that "thought" is recycled over many lifetimes and in various life forms.
Speaking of the "five senses", Osiris isn't dedectable using the "five senses"; Santa Claus isn't detectable using the "five senses"...so, does that mean that both are likely to exist? I swear to shit...it's f%cking hilarious how people will lose their marbles when people are skeptical of their beliefs, yet, they are EVERY bit as skeptical of other's beliefs. That's why Atheism/Agnostism--a postion of neutrality---is the logical choice. Let us all welcome our new-comer Ms. Atheist...(formerly "ms Buddhist")
Quote: "There are in fact many well researched and documented cases of rebirth." lol LMAO!!!!!!!!!!
Quote:"Several well known and reputable authorities on this subject are Carol Bowman, Thomas Shroder, Dr. Jim Tucker, Dr. Ian Stevenson and Dr. Raymond Moody." They have links to these so called "authorities where they try to fool people into believing that people actually remembered their past lives.
The worst thing about though is that most of them are CHILDREN! They obviously manipulated these children and fool them into thinking they were someone else. Honestly that isn't even funny, just wrong. Maybe they should take their own advice and "just be good" instead of telling children to lie or fooling them into believing they were someone else. It's amazing the number of times they did these things, thousands and thousands of "cases", in which they falsely concocted extremely complex scemes to fool gullible people. They better pray to their Buddha God that rebirth really is just phoney, or they'll come back as a pile of crap!!!!!! And these so called "researchers pretend to not even be involved with Buddhism or any other fairy tale religion, in order to perpetuate their deciet further!
And your COMPLETELY right boomslang. we should be good, not because of Buddha's dumbass lies, just because we KNOW it's right, we don't need anyone to "teach" us that. And the whole crux of "sensing beyond the five senses" you are also right about. It's trash, shit, vile, all in one.
I wish I were as smart as you boomslang. I'm working on it, but am still a dimwitted loser so far.
Yeah, I think I've heard of all those guys before......all those scientists. I think L. Ron Hubbard was a scientist too, right? And Sylvia Brown?... she's definitely a scientist whose methods shouldn't be scrutinized.
The Energizer Buddhist: "The worst thing about (it) though is that most of them are CHILDREN. They obviously manipulated these children and fooled them into believing they were someone else."
Yeah, and that's weird, because children are generally NOT very gullible, are they? I mean, you could never convince a child that there's monster in the closet, or something like that...no, no....NOT children. Yeah, those darned little kids are just too rational-minded for stuff like that.
LMAO!!!!!!!
So we both agree that these so called "researchers" and "scientists" are nothing of the sort. But I would go even further than you on this. I think what really happened is these people were normal people, and they got normal credentials, like head of phyciatry at american university, medical doctor, PHD's and what have you, and later on they became prey to Buddhist missionaries feeding them lies, and so they felt it neccessary to make up false evidence to support their garbagebag religion.
Quote: "Yeah, and that's weird, because children are generally NOT very gullible, are they? I mean, you could never convince a child that there's monster in the closet, or something like that...no, no....NOT children. Yeah, those darned little kids are just too rational-minded for stuff like that.
LMAO!!!!!!!"
Well, LMAO is not really something I'd do when I hear about children being fed delusional lies and deciet. I guess I will learn to do that when I fully free myself from my Buddhist dogma. I totally agree with the point you made though. I personally think their parents should have thier children taken away from them. You should read how deep they go with some of them. It's absolutely disgusting.
They're put together in such intracite ways and with such detail that many gullible people fall for them(like me before). These Buddhist folks are some of the most decietful people, and are quite good at fooling gullible people.
Oh, another hilarious claim that joke buddhist site was that Buddhist are actually HAPPIER than other people!!!! What MORONS!!!!!!!!!! LMAO!!!!I can't believe I fell for all their garbage for so long!!! Now they make just want to scream and puke at the same time!!! And, of course, we know they will take their false claims and try to pretend like real science supports them. They even put together abunch of "researchers", and "scientists" to try and claim that Buddhist are happier and science proves it! No doubt they poisoned their brains with Buddhist propaganda before the so called "study". Here it is for a lot of good laughs if you can stand the stupidity of it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/3047291.stm
But even if they were happier,(which they aren't of course) when you are successful in manipulating people at such a great rate, that would make you happy!
Now that for sure deserves a big LMAO!!!!!!!!!
Ms Buddhist, or Atheist, or whatever-the-hell you are for today--- that's all so very interesting.....but of course, it's relevant to nothing concerning how to arrive at objective truth. There is no conclusive objective scientific evidence that "thought" exists anywhere out side the mind. NONE, ZIP, ZILCH = )
But wait!--- golly gee, Buddhism makes people "HAPPY"!!!!!!! Yippeeeeee! Yaaaay!
And of course, the belief in the Toothfairy makes children "happy"; the belief in Allah makes Muslims "happy"; the belief in the Great Pumkin makes Linus "happy"; the belief in UFOs makes ufologists "happy", and the happy list goes on, and on, and on, and ON....just like the Energizer Bunny. For christ' sake.....HEROIN makes JUNKIES "happy"...so?...so the f%ck what? As an "Atheist", you should know that none of that means squat when it comes to finding objective "truth". You're not quite there yet....give it more time......::wink::... think ~ anger, anger, anger, anger! LMAO!
But I can't agree with you more, and your saying exactly the point I was trying to show, of course you are much more intelligent then I am obviously, so you make it sound much better. Thank you for agreeing and putting it into a clearer and more intelligent form. You must be a professor at a big university or something. Your intelligence is astounding!!!! I am awe struck be it. Definitly not a fool like those morons at BBC who did that article. How could someone be so blind like that!! I mean, so what, they are happier than other people, obviously there are far more important things then that!!! Like truth.
Quote: "As an "Atheist", you should know that none of that means squat when it comes to finding objective "truth". You're not quite there yet....give it more time......"
I'm not sure what you mean by this. I know that its partly because you are far beyond me intellectually, but if you recall I wasn't arguing for that trash, I was arguing against it. Very much against it. Because you and others have shown me the way to real truth, and I will no longer fall for the Buddhist lies. Why do you still show hostility and meanness to me when I clearly am no longer a Buddhist? I have totally rejected all Buddhism and you still think I am supporting it. I will try harder I guess, I'm sorry.
I agree with you hadduB, if lasting happiness is the goal, then we might as well just give mass labotomies. That's basically the state the f%ckin foolish Buddhist monks are anyway. I've seen them. They wake up early in the morning, eat only two small meals a day, don't watch tv or even listen to music except in rare ceremonies, wear the same damn thing everyday, shave off their head like idiot retards, and just basically sit still for most of the day "meditating". What a crux. And that stupid "study" has the nerve to say that they are happier!!! F%ck that trash!!! I'd rather be alive and doing something meaningful than to be "happy". To make my life worth something, like find a cure for aids or throw the worlds biggest party, something meaningful so when I am on my death bed i can look back and say that I lead a meaningful life.
Those retarded and blind buddhist are stupid cowards by thinking they are better than others just because they are happier than everyone else!! MORONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! They just live a fairytale world thinking that they don't have to do anything to be happy.
Thank you so much for saving me from that garbage. One thing that really kills me about that website is that they have the nerve to quote famous people to perpetuate and promote their filth. like taking the words of a great scientist and taking them out of context and twisting them around to pretend like he actually supported their insanity.
Here's how those dopes worded it:
Quote from www.justbegood.net
"In one of the suttas, the Buddha held up a cup of water and said that there are countless living beings in the water. For a long time, nobody understood what He meant, but today we can see through a microscope that there are in fact countless micro-organisms in any cup of water. Thus there may still be many things the Buddha said that we have still yet to fully comprehend.
Albert Einstein :
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future : it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."
Pathetic rubbish. Was Albert Einstien a Buddhist? HELL NO!!! Obviously he didn't have a clue about Buddhism and their insane beliefs or he never would have even mentioned them!! Buddhism is a sickness just like Christianity!!! The cure is Athiesm!!!!
And, just because I haven't seen you mention anything literally worded in any form of the readings of Buddah, I'd like to hear it in "Buddah's" words, not yours. Start with dukkha, and explain what that term means.
In the Sutta-Nipata, when the Buddah is asked to explain the difference between opposing or different metaphysical beliefs, he responds... "Apart from consciousness", he says, "no diverse truths exist. Mere sophistry declares this "true" and that view "false"."
In short there Ms. B/A, it appears Buddah suggests that all beliefs, and statements are sophist in nature, and the only real topic to discuss is the central theme of consciousness.
"sophism: a deliberately invalid argument displaying ingenuity in reasoning in the hope of deceiving someone"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
Now, obviously, Buddah seemed to believe he found the real truth, because he was capable of removing himself from "existence", and presenting the "real" truth, and of course, because he wasn't really in "this" reality, he couldn't possibly be considered a sophist himself.
So, where many religious people suggest that they have the "one" true "god", and everyone elses' is wrong, we get Buddah, who suggests that he has true enlightenment, and everyone elses' philosophies are mere sophist dialogues.
Both belief systems, have taken a stand, to state that they have the "one" true philosophy/religion, and everyone else, is... well, misguided at best or demon possessed at worst.
Your Buddah, is just as revered as the Pope, or any other major religious figure based on his words alone. What makes your Buddah, the "one true" philosopher? I mean, what is it that your Buddah had, that the entire rest of civilization seems to have missed for the past five or so thousands of years?
Again, perhaps you really do know the writings, but then, I suspect you wouldn't make the comment that Buddhism makes people "happy" and thus, its just gotta be the right flavor of ice cream, as if, no other philosophy/religion can make the same claim, Buddhism, doesn't own a "happy" patent, there Ms. B/A. And, isn't it possible to be happy, and ignorant of ones' own philosophy at the same time? Sure. That means, there Ms. B/A, that just because someone calls themselves a Buddhist and happy, doesn't mean than they are happy because of the Buddhist philosophy. To make such a statement would be sophist.
There are plenty of christians running around stating that they are happy as larks themselves, yet, they have no clue what their bible states, and many declare they don't really have to know their bible, in order to find happiness. Is that your same line of reasoning? If so, then what makes one person a Buddhist and another person "not" a Buddhist. Once the philosophy/religion is thrown to the side, what makes anyone different from the next?
You are a Buddhist, because of Buddah's Philosophy, if you don't follow Buddah's philosophy then you are something else. So, lets hear "how" you explain "Buddah" to be the one "true" philosopher, where everyone else just seems to be practicing sophistry in life, like those religions claiming to have the one "true" modern day prophet, etc.
Again, looking for your explanation of the underlying tenets of Buddhism, to support your claim that all of those smiling people being reported as Buddhists, are happy, because of Buddhist philosophy, and not for some entirely different reason, like... strong family bonds, etc.
If you sidestep the questions presented, then its pretty obvious that you have a level of ignorance of Buddhism, that doesn't compel me to believe you are a "true" Buddhist, you are just a Buddhist in name only. I look forward to your comments, so that I can ascertain your level of knowledge in the matter that you seem so obviously enthralled with.
"Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future : it transcends a personal God, avoids dogmas and theology; it covers both the natural & spiritual, and it is based on a religious sense aspiring from the experience of all things, natural and spiritual, as a meaningful unity."
Albert was a scientist who believed in a unified philosophy in life, can you please explain how one becomes "unified" while using the title "Buddhist", in an exclusive manner, or is that just a label on the way to true unity.
Perhaps that's why Albert stated, "Buddhism has the characteristics of what would be expected in a cosmic religion for the future." instead of claiming that Buddhism is "The True" cosmic religion of the future. Its a paradox of the whole vs. the pieces that many scientists and philosophers have debated even before Buddah lived. So, don't attempt to use Albert as a stool pigeon for Buddhism as being the "One True" philosophy in life. It appears he saw promise in the future for "anything" that was more geared toward "unity", than creating separatist movements, but, it appears you are using Buddhism to make statements that "separate" it from all other philosophies and beliefs - care to explain the obvious contradiction.
Maybe if you would keep up with what's been going on with this post you would have realized that I have been DECONVERTED a long time ago and have since been adamatly apposed to the false teachings of Buddhia and have been making that more than clear in my posts! Judging by your name "Vipassana", you seem to be already brainwashed by the evil Buddhist teachings already, and thats what is clouding your mind so you don't see what's clearly going on. WAKE UP VIPASSANA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!! By the way the whole "Vipassana" crap and it being taught as some universal meditation is a complete sham!!!! This is just the first step, and when you fall for that, then the evil moron Buddhist's will start to infect your mind with all type's of bullshit and fairytale garbage!
And it's clear from your post you are a half-brainwashed idiot because why the hell would you spend all that time asking me questions about Buddhism and me being a true Buddhist if quite clearly I've been deconverted. Go have fun or go do something meaningful with your life!! You don't want to be on your death bed and see that you wasted time asking an Atheist about Buddhism.
BUDDHIISM IS GARBAGE AND BUDDHA IS AN EVIL TWAT!
That clear enough?
And in your last post you stated that I stated Einstiens quote about Buddhism. Yeeaah....but did you miss the point that i was bashing it and not supporting it? Why are you thinking that I support this! Clearly if you read the whole post I was adamatly against it. My do you insist on arguing? Just shut the f%ck up!!! WE AGREE!! I have nothing better to do since I quite Buddhism, I just spend some time crying, look for something to do so I won't be so sad, and then come to this site and vent, but what the hell is your problem!! Obviously the statement by Einstein wasn't supporting Buddhism in the least, and certainly Einstien was NOT a Buddhist and he didn't know the idiotic practices and claims they had, or else he would have been opposed to Buddhism as he was to all the other dumbass religions. He wasn't advocating Buddhist filth at all!! WE AGREE. But those f%ck face Buddhist use it to to fool gullible people into buying into their trash all the time. This website uses that same damn quote right on their homepage!!!
http://www.e-sangha.com/
Einstien must by puking chunks in his grave!! If he were alive to see this he'd probably backslap the taste out of their sh%thole mouths!!!!!!!!!
Vipassana, I highly encourage you to stop with Vipassana if you are involved with it at all, I hope you are just using the literall word and not referring to the practice, because it is just the beginning of a slippery slope to evil and braindead stupidity and fairytale imaginary experiences. DON'T FALL FOR IT! It may seem when you get deep into it that you have some amazing "insights", and experience things, but it is all lies!! There is still time to get out if you are in it at all, beacause you clearly are not deep into it yet. But you don't want to go down anymore. Just get out. NOW!!!!
The Energizer Buddhist.....
.....:: stiiiiill going! ::.....
" Ahmmm, Ahmmm, Ahmmm " LMAO!!!
Vipassana: "If you sidestep the questions presented, then its pretty obvious that you have a level of ignorance of Buddhism, that doesn't compel me to believe you are a "true" Buddhist, you are just a Buddhist in name only. I look forward to your comments, so that I can ascertain your level of knowledge in the matter that you seem so obviously enthralled with."
Well, makes sense to me, all I am hearing is noise, enjoy your life there Ms. _________ Apparently, you have nothing to offer, except reverse psychology, in the attempt to entice people to read a few sites, that you present from a negative perspective. In either case, you presenting those sites from a pro of con stance, the fact that you present them shows your intent. Your inability to show any underlying knowledge of the information seems much more enlightening to me. By the way, Buddhists are Atheistic towards the christian supernatural concept of a god. So, you deconverting really hasn't made that much difference in your philosophy. In the overarching religious schema, Buddhists slide towards a more Agnostic view, but, we happen to be talking about xtianity here, so, you are right at home.
Atheist: "Someone who denies the existence of god."
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
There is no need for you to respond, you have added zero value to this thread, as you haven't supported your view of being a Buddhist, or a newly accepted Atheist, just a bunch of reverse psycholgoy, talking in the negative openly as if your unsupported claims have weight. Most people, do have a reason for what they believe, well, except for obviously you. You can keep your view, even if its unjustified, just keep it to yourself. Ciao
WHY ARE YOU DOING THAT!!!!!! MY NAME IS MS. ATHEIST!!!!!! PLEASE JUST STOP REFFERING TO ME AS A BUDDHIST!!!!!! I FEEL BAD ENOUGH ALREADY, PLEASE DON'T RUB IT IN!!! PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I really don't know what I am doing wrong!! I was honest enough to admit my stupidity of believing Buddhist lies and yet you still are mean. It really hurts me. Seriously. I just don't get. I know I'm stupid but not that much to miss whats going on so badly. I really have no choice but to give up I guess. I just don't undertsand anything else I can do.
Vipassana, I really....AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY!!! WHY!!!! What's wrong with me!!!!
I'm not even going to read the entire post you made becuase I can see you still think I am a Buddhist!!!!
I AM NO LONGER A F%CKING STUPID ASS BUDDHIST!!! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO BELIEVE THAT I HAVE BEEN DECONVERTED??!!!! WHY DO YOU INSIST ON MAKING ME A BUDDHIST STILL!!!!
I try to point out stupidity's of Buddhism and you think I am agreeing when I clearly am NOT!!
I AGREE WITH YOU ALL!!! I AM AN ATHEIST NOW!!!! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO BELIEVE??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I have not made one comment even close to supportive of buddhism since I have been deconverted and yet you still want to argue with me!! Why can't I just agree with you!!!! Why do you think I disagree with you?!!! I AGREE WITH YOU!!!
BUDDHISM IS TRASH!!!!! GARBAGE!!!! PURE SHIT!!! THE BUDDHIST TEACHINGS AREN'T EVEN VALUABLE ENOUGH TO WIPE MY OWN STUPID SHIT OFF OF MY STUPID ASS!!!!!!! HOW MORE CLEAR DO I HAVE TO BE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You know tears are streaming down my face right now? THEY ARE!! You think I'm just being sarcastic or using reverse physcology? I'M NOT!!!!!!!!!!!
My entire structure has been changed since you all deconverted me, and I am just admitting it!!! You all destroyed all the things earlier that I thought were correct, and I ADMIT THAT!!!! And I thank you!! But I just don't get why you think I am just joking!!!
I know I'm stupid and ignorant! I am working on changing that! But when you all say such hurtful things even when I say I agree with you and try to show the different lies of Buddhism, it really gets me down.
Thankfully for you all though, you won't see my ignorant postings anymore. I am going to slit my wrists and die. I just don't know what else I can really do. I'm not joking, not that any of you care. Not that you really should care though, actually you are probably glad. I know I don't offer any good discussion here. I try, but I am just not as clear thinking and smart as you guys. I wish I were. I wish I could come back to life as one of you, or someone with your level of intelligence, but anyway, I know that will not happen.
Well, it was really nice to know you all. I wish you would have accepted me as an atheist, but I know it was just my fault for not being clear enough and smart enough.
Also Vipissana, I am serious about you and practicing that stuff, stop now or you'll end up like me. A depressed ex-buddhist slitting her own wrists because she can no longer stand the pain of her own ignorance and stupidity
!#@#%%$!#$!&!^&@(!&^!^@!!#$$!#!$!!!!!!!@*&!!
We all love ya and we need you to share your experiences and your new found wisdom, please don't be angry, we need you! We need more people like you, the world needs more people like you! With unconditional Love, Ben
"Thankfully for you all though, you won't see my ignorant postings anymore. I am going to slit my wrists and die. I just don't know what else I can really do. I'm not joking, not that any of you care. Not that you really should care though, actually you are probably glad. I know I don't offer any good discussion here. I try, but I am just not as clear thinking and smart as you guys. I wish I were. I wish I could come back to life as one of you, or someone with your level of intelligence, but anyway, I know that will not happen.
Well, it was really nice to know you all. I wish you would have accepted me as an atheist, but I know it was just my fault for not being clear enough and smart enough."
To ms. athiest (formerly ms. buddhist,
I don't believe you will slit your wrists! You don't seem suicidal to me.
I believe your last post was nothing more than an attempt to get attention, but if you do come back as one of us who is your favorite?
If it promised life then there wouldn't be any myrters. You might say well they didn't get life either especially life more abundant but they maybe they did...what if you are wrong? what if the Bible is absolute truth? did you really read it or did you just believe what others said about it? I dare you to read it and try to prove it wrong.
If it promised life then there wouldn't be any myrters. You might say well they didn't get life either especially life more abundant but they maybe they did...what if you are wrong? what if the Qu'ran is absolute truth? did you really read it or did you just believe what others said about it? I dare you to read it and try to prove the Qu'ran wrong.
Your sarcastic driveling reverse-caricatures of Atheism are about as convincing as a horsefly telling us it no longer likes the taste of shit. BTW, yeah, I AM an Atheist, but not everyone here is---furthermore, the one thing most of us have in common is that we are EX-christians. So hey, why don't you start the official "Ex-Buddhist" website? That would be PERFECT for you! You can comfort those who finally escaped the religion of Buddhism. Remember?...those self-delusional thoughts?.....well, NO MORE! Yeah, you can tell them that any philisophical "system" that is built around rewards(Nirvana!) and punishment(...::Meow, meow::...::Moooo::....::bok, bok, bok::....::oink, oink:....gobble, gobble, gobble) is bankrupt from the get-go. Not to mention, your former God/boss could really stand to do some situps. Ohhhmmm~ ohhhmmm~ ohhhmmm~