There is nothing scary about life, if you are not attached to results. (990 hits)
Category: NoneRating: 1.15 on 66 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by PokeyMen (View user info) at 2006-12-04 14:39:19 EST
I've been reading "Conversations with God," and the following concepts have really jumped out at me...and I felt compelled to share for Uber's collective cognitive stimulation and discussion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most loving person is the person who is Self-centered. Many people make the mistake of seeking love of Self through love for another. This losing of the Self in a relationship is what causes most of the bitterness in such couplings. They feel less than when they were single. Less capable, less able, less exciting, less attractive, less joyful, less content. This is because they are less. They've given up most of who they are in order to be - and to stay - in their relationship. Relationships were never meant to be this way. Yet this is how they are experienced by more people than you could ever know.
When human love relationships fail or change (relationships never truly fail, except in the strictly human sense that they did not produce what you want), they do so because they were entered into for reasons not wholly beneficial or conducive to their survival. The purpose of relationship is not to have another who might complete you, but to have another with whom you might share your completeness. Trying to complete another person leads to failure, which builds resentment, frustration, and anger, because it is impossible (and puts an incredible pressure on people to be all sorts of things that they are not).
Your first relationship, therefore, must be with your Self. You must first learn to honor and cherish and love your Self. You must first see your Self as worthy, blessed, and holy before you can see another as worthy, blessed, and holy. If you put the cart before the horse - as most religions ask you to do - and acknowledge another as holy before you acknowledge yourself, you will one day resent it. If there is one thing none of you can tolerate, it is someone being holier than thou. Yet your religions force you to call others holier than thou. And so you do it - for a while. Then you crucify them.
Opportunity, not obligation, is the cornerstone of religion, the basis of all spirituality. So long as you see it the other way around, you will have missed the point. God has never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't." To do so would be to strip you completely of your greatest gift - the opportunity to do as you please, and experience the results of that. There are those that say that God has given you free will, yet these same people claim that if you do not obey him, he will send you to hell. What kind of free will is that? Does that not make a mockery of God - to say nothing of any sort of true relationship?
Accept Who and What you are right now - and demonstrate that. This is what Jesus did. It is the path of the Buddha, the way of Krishna, the walk of every Master who has appeared on the planet. And every Master has likewise had the same message: What I am, you are. What I can do, you can do. These things, and more, shall you also do. Yet you have not listened. You have chosen instead the far more difficult path of one who thinks he is the devil, one who imagines he is evil. You say it is difficult to walk the path of the Masters. Yet I tell you this: it is far more difficult to deny Who You Are than to accept it.
Expectation is the greatest source of man's unhappiness. It is what separates man from God. The point of life is not to get anywhere - it is to notice that you are, and have always been, already there. You are, always and forever, in the moment of pure creation. The point of life is therefore to create - who and what you are, and then to experience that. To live your life without expectation - without the need for specific results - THAT is freedom. That is Godliness.
In short, all that you see and experience in your world is the outcome of your idea about it.
User Reviews
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-07 15:50:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 14:43:32 (#)
Ranking: 2
Indo -
I am most certainly not backing off from saying you were wrong to claim belief in GOD is about faith not logic... because you are.
Telling you that doesn't seem to work, explaining things to you simply gets ignored. So what would you propose I do?
I've already explained that I have employed both logic and faith in my ongoing awareness journey - and continue to moderate all of my experiences with a healthy mixture of both of those - plus a smattering of passion, intelligence, and some spiritual duct tape.
If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of scanning it briefly to find some semantic element to misinterpret and then badly regurgitate in some fleeting attempt to prove your limited and highly presumptive points about religion - you might learn a little something about what I actually believe.
If you would like to call my perception of existence, my faith and my personal relationship with GOD 'religion' - that is entirely up to you.
I don't consider it religion - but I can appreciate that you have some intense desire to define it as such. Perhaps it is your way of marginalizing it. Perhaps you need that petty classification in order to validate your own limited relationship with GOD. Either way I don't really care. It's a pointless, semantic argument - something you obviously thrive on but in this case it is just a complete waste of time.
to-MAY-to - to-MAH-to
Of course I pass judgments. So do you. So does EVERYone. We are a very judgmental civilization and I am not afraid to make my calls.
As far as negative assumptions are concerned - you might want to examine the color of that big metal container you spend your time boiling water in. Of course the difference between you n' me is I tend to make mine based on what you actually say and the manner in which you say it - you tend to walk into most conversations with your cunt flaps locked and in the ready position, ignore what I actually have to say and then proceed to make negative assumptions about what 'people like me' might say.
--------------------------
Rob,
I don't care what you believe, I don't care what anyone believes.
I do find it annoying when pompuos asses, like yourself, babble on and on about their relationship with god and then have the nerve to pretend it is somehow different and above being classified as religion. Your view of the almighty is no different, has no more merit than the countless other religions out there, and it certainly doesn't require a special classification so you can feel good about being one up on those red-neck bible thumpers.
Which one of us needs a petty classification, you came out and said you have a "perception of existence, a faith and a personal relationship with god" but don't like to call it a religion. I mean how else would you define religion, what you describe sounds a lot like a system of beliefs to me.
You keep telling me I am wrong on religion being about faith (although at least now you are including faith, as opposed to before when it was about "making sense") not logic. Please explain to me how logic is needed with faith? How has logic helped you arrive at your "perception of existence, your faith and your personal relationship with GOD" (don't want to hurt your delicate belief system by calling it a religion)? If you accept an all powerful being (GOD) then logic doesn't matter because his existance can't logically be explained, nor can his will or anything about him. If god isn't all powerful then, well then he isn't much of a god. Logic goes out the window when it comes to religion. If you believe in an all powerful being or consciousness that you have a relationship with then an indescribable entity makes no more logical sense then an old man in the clouds or a flying spaghetti monster. it all comes down to faith.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 14:43:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-07 07:36:28 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 03:14:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
Indo - I told you my relationship with GOD makes sense to me. It does. I don't fully understand the whole GOD concept simply because I know there is FAR more to it than I will ever likely be able to comprehend - but that is why I have faith.
I do not have a religion.
--------------------------------------------------
I have a big metal container that I use to boil water and make soup, but I don't have a pot.
That made about as much sense as what you just said. You DO have a religion. Belief in god IS a religion.
I like how you are completely backing off from saying I was wrong to claim belief in god is about faith not logic.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 03:26:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't claim to be right or wrong - simply that using "he" is a personification of a concept that is infinitely larger and more complex than such a common name would suggest.
That said, I do think that using the term 'GOD' or simply 'God' is more appropriate than anything more familiar - but that is just me.
------------------------------------------------
You don't claim to be right or wrong, but you do pass a lot of judgements and assume negative things about people who don't agree with you.
---
Indo -
I am most certainly not backing off from saying you were wrong to claim belief in GOD is about faith not logic... because you are.
Telling you that doesn't seem to work, explaining things to you simply gets ignored. So what would you propose I do?
I've already explained that I have employed both logic and faith in my ongoing awareness journey - and continue to moderate all of my experiences with a healthy mixture of both of those - plus a smattering of passion, intelligence, and some spiritual duct tape.
If you bothered to read what I wrote instead of scanning it briefly to find some semantic element to misinterpret and then badly regurgitate in some fleeting attempt to prove your limited and highly presumptive points about religion - you might learn a little something about what I actually believe.
If you would like to call my perception of existence, my faith and my personal relationship with GOD 'religion' - that is entirely up to you.
I don't consider it religion - but I can appreciate that you have some intense desire to define it as such. Perhaps it is your way of marginalizing it. Perhaps you need that petty classification in order to validate your own limited relationship with GOD. Either way I don't really care. It's a pointless, semantic argument - something you obviously thrive on but in this case it is just a complete waste of time.
to-MAY-to - to-MAH-to
Of course I pass judgments. So do you. So does EVERYone. We are a very judgmental civilization and I am not afraid to make my calls.
As far as negative assumptions are concerned - you might want to examine the color of that big metal container you spend your time boiling water in. Of course the difference between you n' me is I tend to make mine based on what you actually say and the manner in which you say it - you tend to walk into most conversations with your cunt flaps locked and in the ready position, ignore what I actually have to say and then proceed to make negative assumptions about what 'people like me' might say.
Submitted by PokeyMen (user info) at 2006-12-07 13:37:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-07 08:47:50 (#)
Ranking: 2
Great dialogue going on this post.
-------------------------------------
Indeed.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-07 08:47:50 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Great dialogue going on this post.
Submitted by PokeyMen (user info) at 2006-12-07 08:46:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-06 16:12:32 (#)
Ranking: 0
Alright theres a situation Ive been wondering about.
There is no doubt that each individual is unique. However, isn't each individual just an accumulation of facts and statements that have been told to him by others? Therefore, isn't each individual simply a collection of parts of each other? I mean I doubt that any of us have actually come up with something completely unique to the world, its simply just the accumulation of previous ideas combined with our individual reasoning, correct? That being said, how can one love one's self without them loving each and every individual that you have come across with in your life because each and every one of them is reflected, in some way, within you, no? So then love cannot simply be with a person to share you completeness, because you are never truly complete as a solitary individual. So then if love is not sharing your completeness, what can it then be? Is it a ying-yang situation where your faults are then defined as strengths within the other individual to be combined in a union?
-------------------------------------------
Funny you should mention this, since one of the key concepts in the CWG spiritual train of thought is that if there is such a thing as sin, it is to allow your thoughts, words, and speech to be completely dictated by the ideas and behaviors of others.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-07 07:36:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 03:14:23 (#)
Ranking: 2
Indo - I told you my relationship with GOD makes sense to me. It does. I don't fully understand the whole GOD concept simply because I know there is FAR more to it than I will ever likely be able to comprehend - but that is why I have faith.
I do not have a religion.
--------------------------------------------------
I have a big metal container that I use to boil water and make soup, but I don't have a pot.
That made about as much sense as what you just said. You DO have a religion. Belief in god IS a religion.
I like how you are completely backing off from saying I was wrong to claim belief in god is about faith not logic.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 03:26:53 (#)
Ranking: 2
I don't claim to be right or wrong - simply that using "he" is a personification of a concept that is infinitely larger and more complex than such a common name would suggest.
That said, I do think that using the term 'GOD' or simply 'God' is more appropriate than anything more familiar - but that is just me.
------------------------------------------------
You don't claim to be right or wrong, but you do pass a lot of judgements and assume negative things about people who don't agree with you.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 03:26:53 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2006-12-06 15:42:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
---
Who are you to say otherwise? You're in the same position as Indoninja, are you not?
How do you know God is actually God. What if God is Ted. Or Alana? What if God is clickity-clacker-fuckingsonofabitch?
---
I don't claim to be right or wrong - simply that using "he" is a personification of a concept that is infinitely larger and more complex than such a common name would suggest.
That said, I do think that using the term 'GOD' or simply 'God' is more appropriate than anything more familiar - but that is just me.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-07 03:14:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Indo - I told you my relationship with GOD makes sense to me. It does. I don't fully understand the whole GOD concept simply because I know there is FAR more to it than I will ever likely be able to comprehend - but that is why I have faith.
I do not have a religion.
I don't know what else you are trying to argue about - you seem rather content on having most of the conversation with yourself anyways - so by all means continue.
I have little desire to continue talking at you.
Oh and people tend to like me - I imagine you would too if you weren't so keen on being such a miserable cunt.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-06 16:12:32 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Alright theres a situation Ive been wondering about.
There is no doubt that each individual is unique. However, isn't each individual just an accumulation of facts and statements that have been told to him by others? Therefore, isn't each individual simply a collection of parts of each other? I mean I doubt that any of us have actually come up with something completely unique to the world, its simply just the accumulation of previous ideas combined with our individual reasoning, correct? That being said, how can one love one's self without them loving each and every individual that you have come across with in your life because each and every one of them is reflected, in some way, within you, no? So then love cannot simply be with a person to share you completeness, because you are never truly complete as a solitary individual. So then if love is not sharing your completeness, what can it then be? Is it a ying-yang situation where your faults are then defined as strengths within the other individual to be combined in a union?
I hope uber isnt devoid of thought today.
Submitted by Still-Life (user info) at 2006-12-06 15:42:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:12:44 (#)
Ranking: 2
hehe... Look captain cranky pants - it's not a word game.
You said "In pretty much every major religion he has." "...he wants us to live."
'HE' is a poor description of GOD. Period.
I believe in GOD - but not because I should, or because my parents went to church, or because I have some irrational fear of death. I believe in GOD because the concept makes sense to me. I don't fully understand it, and my limited brain power can only attempt to rationalize GOD's incomprehensible magnitude... but I manage.
-------------------
Who are you to say otherwise? You're in the same position as Indoninja, are you not?
How do you know God is actually God. What if God is Ted. Or Alana? What if God is clickity-clacker-fuckingsonofabitch?
How do you know that there is A God, rather than a logical reason yet undiscovered by your 'limited brain power' ? Maybe its something so complex human beings have yet to begin to understand THAT?
Or maybe God is Logic?
What makes you right for calling it God, and him wrong for addressing it as a He?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-06 14:45:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-06 14:04:58 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Mr. Ninja (aka: poopie pants)
I realize full well how annoyed you get when I go line by line and address what you say on the micro level but I find that tends to air out most of your bullshit and allows you to focus on what is actually being said. I am perfectly capable of making an argument without quoting what you are saying - but to be honest I simply don't understand WHY that is so frustrating to you. I mean it provides context to what I am saying and allows me to actually reference what it is you said."
-----------------------------------------
It doesn't air anything out, it distracts people from the main thrust of the argument by cutting it into piecse that are too small for the big picture.
"Maybe that is what bugs you about it?"
-----------------------------------------
This isn't annoying to read?
"Besides, you make so many assumptions and tend to have such a limited fixed viewpoint that breaking you out of your tunnel vision approach to an argument is sometimes necessary."
-----------------------------------------
Please point out where my assumptions are incorrect? I am sure they are but not in places that are pivotal to any argument I make.
"Ever notice you use the word "should" a lot. A LOT. I should be able to explain the unexplainable? I should have solid irrefutable proof about a feeling? About my faith?
Heh."
-----------------------------------------
Way to miss the point on this one. This is why you should stop responding to every single sentence, because you miss the point. I am not saying you should be able to explain your religion, I don't ask or care if anyone can explain their religion. As I said earlier religion is about faith, it is about things you can't prove it is about not making sense. You are the one who said it makes sense, if it makes sense it IS explainable. Up until your last reply you were sticking to the making sense argument and denying religion was about faith not logic. http://www.ubersite.com/m/96482#2246085 I wasn't calling your religion or beliefs into question, I was calling them making sense into question.
I am done going point by point here because to be honest it annoys me even when I do it.
"See, I haven't seen that with any 'religion' either - which is one of the many reasons why I abhor organized religion.
OK, I am going to slow down here and wait for you to catch up. Maybe go back and read that line. I'll wait.
I think organized religion is dumb, and limiting - if you take away the community aspect and Church's brilliant leveraging of the pre-existing human capacity for goodness and charity - all you are left with is rules and control and a LOT of unanswered and unanswerable questions.
Religion doesn't make sense to me.
What I am saying... again... lets... take... this... slowly....
Is that I have found my own personal faith. I am comfortable with my relationship with GOD. I promote only my satisfaction with it - I do not guarantee any happiness or salvation through mimicking my beliefs. I will happily discuss my beliefs and my intellectual journey that has formed and strengthened them. I am always up for a keen theological chat - but I force my views and opinions on no one. Do I think some people are wrong.
Fuck yeah. But hey, there are varying degrees of happiness out there, and as long as they keep their faith personal - I really couldn't give a shit what they worshiped so long as it didn't affect me.
One thing you you just seem really lost on is the concept that I have to 'prove' my religion to you.
I don't. I am happy. I am content with my relationship with GOD. It is unfortunate that you are not, and I wish you the best of luck with that.
For the record, I find it equally stupid personifying GOD. I think it is lazy and an exercise in futility. You can call GOD poopsie for all I give a shit - all I am saying is that you look like an idiot for doing so.
Oh, and if you notice, I refer to GOD the same. 'GOD' all caps. That way, for me, its not arbitrary. It is very measured and with personal reverence. A proper name, if you will. Again, this is my choice and not something I push on people, just another thing that makes sense to me."
----------------------------------------------------
It is funny you throw this blanket generalization over organized religion that none think for themselves, but you find a bullshit book like this and I bet you applaud the thousands of people who go along with every idea in it. What is the difference? Granted some organized religions have stricter rules, but not all, and not all followers of organized religion absorb every single rule. Organized religion is no more limiting than any school of thought or belief system. It can be taken too far.
Once again I never said you have to prove your religion, you said it made sense if something makes sense you can prove it.
So you don't push your choice to capitilize GOD on other people but if they use 'he' they are lazy and stupid? I thought I was the one who made a lot of assumptions and had a limited view point. And of course 'GOD' isn't arbitrary for you if you think it is measured and proper name, but to plenty of other people it is arbitrary, and hardly a basis for gauging people's faith.
I bet you are th type of guy who doesn't get invited to co-workers weddings. Nothing to do with this conversation, but I am just pretty sure you aren't liked in real life.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-06 14:04:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Mr. Ninja (aka: poopie pants)
I realize full well how annoyed you get when I go line by line and address what you say on the micro level but I find that tends to air out most of your bullshit and allows you to focus on what is actually being said. I am perfectly capable of making an argument without quoting what you are saying - but to be honest I simply don't understand WHY that is so frustrating to you. I mean it provides context to what I am saying and allows me to actually reference what it is you said.
Maybe that is what bugs you about it?
Besides, you make so many assumptions and tend to have such a limited fixed viewpoint that breaking you out of your tunnel vision approach to an argument is sometimes necessary.
Ever notice you use the word "should" a lot. A LOT. I should be able to explain the unexplainable? I should have solid irrefutable proof about a feeling? About my faith?
Heh.
See, I haven't seen that with any 'religion' either - which is one of the many reasons why I abhor organized religion.
OK, I am going to slow down here and wait for you to catch up. Maybe go back and read that line. I'll wait.
I think organized religion is dumb, and limiting - if you take away the community aspect and Church's brilliant leveraging of the pre-existing human capacity for goodness and charity - all you are left with is rules and control and a LOT of unanswered and unanswerable questions.
Religion doesn't make sense to me.
What I am saying... again... lets... take... this... slowly....
Is that I have found my own personal faith. I am comfortable with my relationship with GOD. I promote only my satisfaction with it - I do not guarantee any happiness or salvation through mimicking my beliefs. I will happily discuss my beliefs and my intellectual journey that has formed and strengthened them. I am always up for a keen theological chat - but I force my views and opinions on no one. Do I think some people are wrong.
Fuck yeah. But hey, there are varying degrees of happiness out there, and as long as they keep their faith personal - I really couldn't give a shit what they worshiped so long as it didn't affect me.
One thing you you just seem really lost on is the concept that I have to 'prove' my religion to you.
I don't. I am happy. I am content with my relationship with GOD. It is unfortunate that you are not, and I wish you the best of luck with that.
For the record, I find it equally stupid personifying GOD. I think it is lazy and an exercise in futility. You can call GOD poopsie for all I give a shit - all I am saying is that you look like an idiot for doing so.
Oh, and if you notice, I refer to GOD the same. 'GOD' all caps. That way, for me, its not arbitrary. It is very measured and with personal reverence. A proper name, if you will. Again, this is my choice and not something I push on people, just another thing that makes sense to me.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-12-06 13:34:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
spirituality and religion are the same thing. one just sounds prettier and has a better image. that's it.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-06 13:03:41 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-12-06 08:36:37 (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:47:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
So if you have a group belief when it comes to religion you are brainwashed and can't think for yourself, but if you have a group belief when it comes to everything you are somehow liberated?"
er, no, indo. i was agreeing with you
---------------------------
My bad....
Submitted by The_taste_of_Monkeys (user info) at 2006-12-06 09:53:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
*nods knowingly, sups beer, wanders off*
Submitted by Stogie (user info) at 2006-12-06 09:40:27 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Some good thoughts to mull over, thank you.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-06 08:57:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
So nice to be greeted in the morning with a lovely debate on this post...
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-12-06 08:36:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:47:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
So if you have a group belief when it comes to religion you are brainwashed and can't think for yourself, but if you have a group belief when it comes to everything you are somehow liberated?"
er, no, indo. i was agreeing with you
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-06 08:05:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Rob,
Do you realize how annoying it is to go line by line and respond to each comment? Do you do that on purpose to annoy or can you not put together solid arguments without replying to each line?
If something makes sense you should be able to explain it. There should be some solid irrefutable reasoning behind it. I have yet to see any religion with that. If you claim you have found it then you are no different than the fucking mullahas who insist their way is right, or televangelists who say they know and can prove god is real. Religion is about faith not logic, and that isn't me saying that, it is anybod who has studied religion, if it wasn't true you could prove your religion to me.
I wan't waxing religious when I was using a longer formal title for God, I was pointing out how it is stupid to say 'he' is inadequate to describe god but arbitrarily say a three letter word is acceptable. We are all grown up here, and I don't think you are such a PC cry baby that using the commonly accepted masculine really hurts you that much. I don't think your faith is that sensitive that using 'he' really bothers you. I think you are a whiny cunt who likes to pretend he is clever by pointing out imagined shortcomings, prejudices and stereotypes in other peoples terminology for god.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-06 06:04:58 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
---
"Yes Rob that makes you an idiot."
---
Fair enough. I will defer to your extensive; some might say intimate familiarity with idiocy.
---
"You admit something makes sense after you say you don't understand it, after you say you can only attempt to rationalize it's incomprehensible magnitude. God doesn't make sense in any religion, (anyone) who says so is full (of) shit."
---
Let's take this opportunity to re-read what I actually said:
*I believe in GOD - but not because I should, or because my parents went to church, or because I have some irrational fear of death. I believe in GOD because the concept makes sense to me. I don't fully understand it, and my limited brain power can only attempt to rationalize GOD's incomprehensible magnitude... but I manage.*
As you have obviously had some trouble understanding what I wrote - let me explain it to you a little better.
I believe in GOD because I do. I have me a relationship with my GOD - What can I say? I am comfortable. It makes sense to me.
I live a good life. I think Jesus was a pretty smart fella
GOD is a massive thing to comprehend. Each of us human types - and potentially every living species in existence - we are believed to be an extension of said GOD. That big.
Huge, even. Incomprehensible. But like I said - I manage.
You say that GOD doesn't make sense in any religion?
Well I am saying certain aspects of religion just do not make sense. Period.
The harder some religions push for religious cleansing, for example, the more fucked up I know this world is becoming.
Of course there is also the very real possibility that there is no GOD.
We COULD have this shit wrong. It could be completely fabricated and substantiated by our own need for validation. We have constructed this reality. Built on our own awareness through generations of information being passed down.
Although the bible barely holds up to any critical examination of certain portions of its text and as for the rest of it? The Koran, the dead sea scrolls? heck any sacred text of any of the religions out there are all at least somewhat suspect. Even forgetting any sort of translation errors that might have occurred along the way there are omissions of certain authors, editing errors, manipulation of text, meaning, interpretation, the fact that all of these religions are manufactured to keep as much control as they can is just bullshit. It's spiritually revolting.
BUT
The good these religions do invariably negates any critical thinking about their own particular contentious doctrines and practices. Not allowed to masturbate? Circumcision? Communion? Kneeling? Virgins?
Fear is all too common and guilt is readily distributed in every single one of them... weekly...sermon after lesson filled sermon. Spiritual manipulation is rampant - yet the picnics are swell, and let's face it them teachings of Christ are pretty fucking fantastic as well. As I understand it that Buddha fucker was good times as well. Zen, eh. Oh fine. There is GOOD. But there is also some pretty significant suck.
---
"Religion requires faith, not logic."
---
Says you.
---
"If I didn't have a life I might be concerned how I came off on the internet, like you seem to be."
---
You can justify being a dick however which way you like. If you want to make believe that you are just an internet asshole, I'll suspend my disbelief - it still doesn't make you any more likeable ya bitch.
---
"If we are going to play your stupid little semantic game..."
---
YOU? Complaining about semantics?
That is rich.
---
...then yes 'he' is a poor description.
---
It really is. I am SO taking that point.
---
But so is GOD, how can a simple three letter word capture all his majesty, how about 'the master of the universe' how about 'the benevolent and great beyond all comprehension, magnificent creator of the world' oh wait no 'the benevolent and great beyond all comprehension, magnificent creator of the universe' or how about you stop pretending you are clever...
---
...um I hate to bust your flow, but ah... its YOU who is being clever. I'm not actuyally having this part of the conversation with you, you are waxing religious all on your own...
---
"...or special or outside the mainstream because you won't use a common and widely accepted shorthand term for god."
---
Wow, you really let yourself have it there.
---
"You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that since I understand popular religions that I follow them."
---
I assumed nothing, I inferred you were. Suggested. I don't care if you are or not. It just seems that way to me. You understand popular religions and also refer to GOD as 'him' and use terms like "his majesty." Which illustrates to me a stronger buy-in than a pure intellectual one.
---
"As far as reading the book if it was so good why couldn't you finish it?"
---
I don't know. I got distracted, I guess. That happens a lot. I got what I needed from the first part of it though. Heck even the passages represented here are inspirational all on their own if you drop your entire annoying religious pretense for a few moments.
---
"The ideas he presents are far from original and anyone with even a cursory understanding of religion and philosophy would have been exposed to them. I don't need a pop-theology book by some hack to find my beliefs. I find it amusing that someone like you who isn't "stupid and easily led" swallows this sugar coated dumbed down package of old ideas and then thinks they are somehow different for doing so."
---
This review is useless and almost entirely without merit. You might want to read a couple chapters of the book with an open mind before passing judgment ... or you can just continue to look like a petulant asshole arguing his point from an emphatic position of ignorance. It is certainly a familiar place for you to be.
Although for the record, I happen to agree that his dialogue and ideas were not entirely new... they really weren't supposed to be. What was unique and refreshing is how he explains it. Like I said, it makes sense to me... for me it affirmed some of my intensely believed concepts of GOD and experience and has helped influence some of how I interpret the various bits of religious influence we are exposed to in this crazy world.
SO there. That will learn ya. I bet that is more than you will even bother to read through... but you might surprise me.
Submitted by scourge (user info) at 2006-12-05 19:55:56 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
do i love you?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 19:45:28 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:31:11 (#)
Ranking: 2
haha
Oh I get it - I'm an idiot because my own concept of GOD makes sense to me?
You silly, angry, confused little ninja. I am convinced you were in need of more hugging as a child - an perhaps a little less fondling. Either way you always seem to come off as mad.
You are the one following the pack.
'He' IS a poor description of GOD, and just because the masses have allowed themselves to personify such an incomprehensible belief that lends no credibility to its continued use. It's the whole 'jumping off a bridge' argument. People are stupid and easily led... amusing that you seem to be one of those people - if only by religious default.
--------------------------------------------------
Yes Rob that makes you an idiot. You admit something makes sense after you say you don't understand it, after you say you can only attempt to rationalize it's incomprehensible magnitude. God doesn't make sense in any religion, antone who says so is full fo shit. Religion requires faith, not logic.
If I didn't have a life I might be concerned how I came off on the internet, like you seem to be.
If we are going to play your stupid little semantic game, then yes 'he' is a poor description. But so is GOD, how can a simple three letter word capture all his majesty, how about 'the master of the universe' how about 'the benevolent and great beyond all comprehension, magnificent creator of the world' oh wait no 'the benevolent and great beyond all comprehension, magnificent creator of the universe' or how about you stop pretending you are clever or special or outside the mainstream because you won't use a common and widely accepted shorthand term for god.
You seem to be making the mistake of assuming that since I understand popular religions that I follow them.
As far as reading the book if it was so good why couldn't you finish it? The ideas he presents are far from original and and anyone with even a cursory understanding of religion and philosophy would have been exposed to them. I don't need a pop-theology book by some hack to find my beliefs. I find it amusing that someone like you who isn't "stupid and easily led" swallows this sugar coated dumbed down package of old ideas and then thinks they are somehow different for doing so.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 19:15:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:14:19 (#)
Ranking: 0
30 million Americans are part of the largest Evangelical association in the US that is dominated by such megapastors. The latest chairman of that association wanted to try to expand the group to help poverty and take environmental concerns, and he was tossed out. Apparently Jesus didnt want to help thte poor according to that group!
-----------------------
was he tossed out? I thought I heard on NPR he was elected and then left because he couldn't accomplish his goals helping poverty and the environment. Either way it shows that there is discord in that group of 30 mil and that they don't all beleive the BS that some guys shovel just to line their pockets.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:45:26 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Yet, there is only one place where goodness is born, and that is in the human heart. There is only one place where fairness can be conceptualized, and that is in the human mind. There is only one place where love can be experienced truly, and that is in the human soul.
____________________
As a so called "intellectual athiest", I would argue the mind for all three!
But I get what youre saying and I agree completely.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:32:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
And to think that we haven't even TOUCHED on the subject of government yet....
...which, yes, has EVERYTHING to do with spirituality. Government is the human attempt to mandate goodness and ensure fairness.
Yet, there is only one place where goodness is born, and that is in the human heart. There is only one place where fairness can be conceptualized, and that is in the human mind. There is only one place where love can be experienced truly, and that is in the human soul. Because the human soul IS love.
You cannot legislate morality. You cannot pass a law saying "love each other."
Truly, even the most basic of laws would not be needed if all people everywhere simply followed the laws of love. What is needed is a growth in consciousness, not a growth in government.
Not that I'm suggesting anarchy, because man is not advanced enough for that to be a practical solution. Some level of governance is going to be required until the human race evolves to the point where we naturally do with is naturally right.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:31:11 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:35:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:12:44 (#)
Ranking: 2
---
He may be a poor description of god, but it works for the beliefs of muslims and christians and jews. Hindus it is split on what God they are talking about when they use he or she, but they do assign a gender in most cases.
If the concept makes sense to you, then you are an idiot. God doesn't makes sense. it isn't possible for god to make sense.
---
haha
Oh I get it - I'm an idiot because my own concept of GOD makes sense to me?
You silly, angry, confused little ninja. I am convinced you were in need of more hugging as a child - an perhaps a little less fondling. Either way you always seem to come off as mad.
You are the one following the pack.
'He' IS a poor description of GOD, and just because the masses have allowed themselves to personify such an incomprehensible belief that lends no credibility to its continued use. It's the whole 'jumping off a bridge' argument. People are stupid and easily led... amusing that you seem to be one of those people - if only by religious default.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:14:19 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:09:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
All your truth commments seemed to point to the impossibility of a species consciousness as you described it, I am confused why you blame religion if you think it is impossible.
___________________
Just because the absolute is impossible does not mean we should not strive towards it. Absolute truth is an impossibility for humans, but it should not stop philosophers from attempting to describe it or reach towards it.
What percent of churchgoers in the world do you think ascribe to the teachings of these "megapastors"? if that is your benchmark for organized religion I suggest you try and get out of whatever po-dung town you live and see a little bit of the world.
__________________
30 million Americans are part of the largest Evangelical association in the US that is dominated by such megapastors. The latest chairman of that association wanted to try to expand the group to help poverty and take environmental concerns, and he was tossed out. Apparently Jesus didnt want to help thte poor according to that group!
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 16:09:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:59:31 (#)
Ranking: 0
I agree that blind faith/blind obedience isn't synonymous with religion in general, I think religion has the possibility to be a great help to many, but...when you see 16,000 pour into a megachurch to hear some insanely wealthy "megapastor" give demands to his followers on how to live life, aka how he thinks God wants you to live your life, you will see differently about it not being synoymous with organized religion.
----------------------------------------
All your truth commments seemed to point to the impossibility of a species consciousness as you described it, I am confused why you blame religion if you think it is impossible.
What percent of churchgoers in the world do you think ascribe to the teachings of these "megapastors"? if that is your benchmark for organized religion I suggest you try and get out of whatever po-dung town you live and see a little bit of the world.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:59:31 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
If we as a species were all to agree on what we are, what we can be and how we should relate to each other don't you think that some ideas about this would be squashed?
_________________________
It is a possibility. Debate will create the truth. As Mill points out, the vast majority of people live life according to half truths and it is only through open debate that the truths will emerge from the half-truths and the falses will be discarded.
Don't you recognize that there will always be difference of opinions on these things?
_________________________
I do, that is why I said that species consciousness is an ideal that will not be achieved.
If we did all miraculously come to one conclusion on this wouldn't following that one path suspend rational thought, if we all came to the same conclusion about it wouldn't that mean that different points of view were not taught and that people weren't thinking for themselves?
_________________________
So long as what is talked about a half-truth, there will be debate. There is no way for humanity to learn the complete truth regarding these matters, but there is a truth necessary for the completion of individual life.
_________________________
Blind faith/blind obedience aren't synonymous with organized religion. Religion is no different than philosophy. People can shop around find a beleif system they like and live it. that doesn't mean they haven't questioned their beliefs or not been exposed to other beliefs. Yes there are some people who are brought up to believe one way and never question it, but that can be said anout any belief system or way of life, not just religion.
_____________________
I agree that blind faith/blind obedience isn't synonymous with religion in general, I think religion has the possibility to be a great help to many, but...when you see 16,000 pour into a megachurch to hear some insanely wealthy "megapastor" give demands to his followers on how to live life, aka how he thinks God wants you to live your life, you will see differently about it not being synoymous with organized religion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:46:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:22:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Consciousness evolved within humanity as an evolutionary necessity, so that humans could survive. Therefore, the use of one's rational abilities, the expression of consciousness, is beneficial to life and a suspension of rational thought, aka blind obedience/blind faith, is the antithesis of being beneficial to life, for it is suspending the very tool that we evolved to have to survive!
-------------------------------------------------------
In your previous response you defined species consciousness as "a recognization of what we are, what we can be, how we should relate to one another as simply organisms who have evolved to such a point so far in history." If we as a species were all to agree on what we are, what we can be and how we should relate to each other don't you think that some ideas about this would be squashed? Don't you recognize that there will always be difference of opinions on these things? If we did all miraculously come to one conclusion on this wouldn't following that one path suspend rational thought, if we all came to the same conclusion about it wouldn't that mean that different points of view were not taught and that people weren't thinking for themselves?
Blind faith/blind obedience aren't synonymous with organized religion. Religion is no different than philosophy. People can shop around find a beleif system they like and live it. that doesn't mean they haven't questioned their beliefs or not been exposed to other beliefs. Yes there are some people who are brought up to believe one way and never question it, but that can be said anout any belief system or way of life, not just religion.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:35:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:12:44 (#)
Ranking: 2
hehe... Look captain cranky pants - it's not a word game.
You said "In pretty much every major religion he has." "...he wants us to live."
'HE' is a poor description of GOD. Period.
We are indoctrinated with this personified image of an old man in white robes sitting on some celestial throne. Your passive use of the word 'he' and your obvious belief that GOD has actually 'given' us these rules suggests you are a little too caught up in one of those top three religions.
I believe in GOD - but not because I should, or because my parents went to church, or because I have some irrational fear of death. I believe in GOD because the concept makes sense to me. I don't fully understand it, and my limited brain power can only attempt to rationalize GOD's incomprehensible magnitude... but I manage.
If you read the book - which you really should - you will find it almost universally extracts the elements of religion and showcases the truth of them outside of the control and stigma of any church.
Religion is a term used to describe the relationships people have with their chosen "GOD". It does not necessarily define their belief, it describes it. Quite frankly more people should transcend the limitations and bullshit rhetoric of their chosen religions and focus on their own belief and their own personal relationship with GOD.
The church has interpreted the "words of GOD" throughout the years and have created a pretty coherent list of "do" and "do nots" - one of these days Mr. Ninja you will realize that list isn't religion - it's simply a really good way to live your life.
---------------------------
He may be a poor description of god, but it works for the beliefs of muslims and christians and jews. Hindus it is split on what God they are talking about when they use he or she, but they do assign a gender in most cases.
If the concept makes sense to you, then you are an idiot. God doesn't makes sense. it isn't possible for god to make sense.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:22:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:47:21 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:24:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:18:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
And a species wide consciousness wouldn't entail getting rid of your individual thought process?"
THANK YOU, YES
------------------------
So if you have a group belief when it comes to religion you are brainwashed and can't think for yourself, but if you have a group belief when it comes to everything you are somehow liberated?
_________________
Consciousness evolved within humanity as an evolutionary necessity, so that humans could survive. Therefore, the use of one's rational abilities, the expression of consciousness, is beneficial to life and a suspension of rational thought, aka blind obedience/blind faith, is the antithesis of being beneficial to life, for it is suspending the very tool that we evolved to have to survive!
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:15:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:18:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:44:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
The collective consciousness of humanity is an ideal that will never be achieved. The intelligence by those who understand and believe in it are outnumbed 1,000 to 1 in this world.
I would like to thank organized religion for that. keyword here is organizaed. I have no issue with people individually interpreting religion, but when you place your interpretation abilities, based upon individual reason, to others, youre in essence getting rid of your individual thought process, a key point in any sort of species wide consciousness.
---------------------
And a species wide consciousness wouldn't entail getting rid of your individual thought process?
_____________________
Absolutely not. A species consciousness just means a recognization of what we are, what we can be, how we should relate to one another as simply organisms who have evolved to such a point so far in history.
I hate to bring up Rand, but in her Objectivist ethics, it is (in part, I dont come close to wholly believing in her because she ignores the evolutionary points within humanity) the indvidual rational thinking, devoid of abstract beliefs and faiths, that should shape society.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-05 15:12:44 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 13:53:14 (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PokeyMen (user info) at 2006-12-05 08:34:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-04 18:14:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:39:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't play word games dumbass.
Religion is how people define their belief of god. In the worlds top three religions, and in the religions practiced by the majority of the people on earth God has given us in one form or another rules that specifically say "do and do not". Unless this post is addressed at the small group of agnostics out there who put absolutely no stock in judeo-christian, islamic, or hindu beliefs and values then he is wrong. Athiests don't believe in god so this is clearly not for them, and most other religions in the world do have rules.
I don't recall many religions attempting to comprehend god, only how he wants us to live.
---
hehe... Look captain cranky pants - it's not a word game.
You said "In pretty much every major religion he has." "...he wants us to live."
'HE' is a poor description of GOD. Period.
We are indoctrinated with this personified image of an old man in white robes sitting on some celestial throne. Your passive use of the word 'he' and your obvious belief that GOD has actually 'given' us these rules suggests you are a little too caught up in one of those top three religions.
I believe in GOD - but not because I should, or because my parents went to church, or because I have some irrational fear of death. I believe in GOD because the concept makes sense to me. I don't fully understand it, and my limited brain power can only attempt to rationalize GOD's incomprehensible magnitude... but I manage.
If you read the book - which you really should - you will find it almost universally extracts the elements of religion and showcases the truth of them outside of the control and stigma of any church.
Religion is a term used to describe the relationships people have with their chosen "GOD". It does not necessarily define their belief, it describes it. Quite frankly more people should transcend the limitations and bullshit rhetoric of their chosen religions and focus on their own belief and their own personal relationship with GOD.
The church has interpreted the "words of GOD" throughout the years and have created a pretty coherent list of "do" and "do nots" - one of these days Mr. Ninja you will realize that list isn't religion - it's simply a really good way to live your life.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:47:21 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:24:59 (#)
Ranking: 2
"Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:18:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
And a species wide consciousness wouldn't entail getting rid of your individual thought process?"
THANK YOU, YES
-------------------------
So if you have a group belief when it comes to religion you are brainwashed and can't think for yourself, but if you have a group belief when it comes to everything you are somehow liberated?
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:24:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
"Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:18:57 (#)
Ranking: 0
And a species wide consciousness wouldn't entail getting rid of your individual thought process?"
THANK YOU, YES
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 14:18:57 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:44:04 (#)
Ranking: 0
The collective consciousness of humanity is an ideal that will never be achieved. The intelligence by those who understand and believe in it are outnumbed 1,000 to 1 in this world.
I would like to thank organized religion for that. keyword here is organizaed. I have no issue with people individually interpreting religion, but when you place your interpretation abilities, based upon individual reason, to others, youre in essence getting rid of your individual thought process, a key point in any sort of species wide consciousness.
---------------------
And a species wide consciousness wouldn't entail getting rid of your individual thought process?
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-05 13:53:14 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by PokeyMen (user info) at 2006-12-05 08:34:34 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-04 18:14:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:39:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
God has never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't."
----------------------
In pretty much every major religion he has.
You were cooler when you were an alcoholic.
---
Incorrect. Religion is not GOD.
And 'he'?
Far to limited Mr. Ninja.
=========================================
Mr. Berg makes the point precisely...God is not limited to the confines of organized religion as we know it. God is MUCH, much bigger than any religion we could ever wrap our heads around and attempt to comprehend.
---------------------------------------------------------
Don't play word games dumbass.
Religion is how people define their belief of god. In the worlds top three religions, and in the religions practiced by the majority of the people on earth God has given us in one form or another rules that specifically say "do and do not". Unless this post is addressed at the small group of agnostics out there who put absolutely no stock in judeo-christian, islamic, or hindu beliefs and values then he is wrong. Athiests don't believe in god so this is clearly not for them, and most other religions in the world do have rules.
I don't recall many religions attempting to comprehend god, only how he wants us to live.
Submitted by Istaros (user info) at 2006-12-05 13:38:40 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by apollo88 (user info) at 2006-12-05 13:24:15 EST (#)
Ranking: -2
god is a homo
Submitted by PokeyMen (user info) at 2006-12-05 08:39:23 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by laika (user info) at 2006-12-04 18:31:52 (#)
Ranking: -1
This doesnt sound that great to me, and doesnt seem that far from mindless new age babbling.
Let's assume that there is some theoretical perfect balance in life that should be sought after.
The problem with advice is that depending on the person they might need to do less or more of a particular thing to reach that balance.
This guy is basicly telling people to be more self-centered and worry less about any rules.
The problem is that most people are already too selfish and undisciplined. His advice would be bad for the large majority of people. What it tends to amount to is basicly flattering people into thinking that they can get some sort of great spiritual/emotional reward without doing any real work or having to change. Just think happy thoughts and everything will be ok.
Not having read the book I suppose it is possible that I have mischaracterized it. But based on the mishmash of ideas you chose to quote I doubt that I am that far off.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The best one-sentence summary of the book I can derive is: stop trying to please other people for intrinsic reward, honestly assess and take care of your needs, and the end result will be a greater self-developed spiritual union with God.
I don't agree with everything in the book, but it's still an interesting read - especially for a book written ten to twelve years ago. Go pick it up at your local library and give it a chance; I think you'll find it intriguing at the least.
Submitted by PokeyMen (user info) at 2006-12-05 08:34:34 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-04 18:14:45 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:39:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
God has never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't."
----------------------
In pretty much every major religion he has.
You were cooler when you were an alcoholic.
---
Incorrect. Religion is not GOD.
And 'he'?
Far to limited Mr. Ninja.
=========================================
Mr. Berg makes the point precisely...God is not limited to the confines of organized religion as we know it. God is MUCH, much bigger than any religion we could ever wrap our heads around and attempt to comprehend.
Submitted by Phallic_Cymbals (user info) at 2006-12-05 06:33:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
"You must first learn to honor and cherish and love your Self"
Firstly, i do this AT LEAST daily in the shower and i'm still single.
Secondly, this in no way explains why 5000 Jews didn't go to work on 9/11.
Submitted by Zebra (user info) at 2006-12-04 22:01:25 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by JMG114 (user info) at 2006-12-04 21:39:17 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Says it all, and says it well.
Submitted by PioneerBill (user info) at 2006-12-04 18:38:07 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
WOWWOW ... I never knew that ... how profound
Submitted by laika (user info) at 2006-12-04 18:31:52 EST (#)
Ranking: -1
This doesnt sound that great to me, and doesnt seem that far from mindless new age babbling.
Let's assume that there is some theoretical perfect balance in life that should be sought after.
The problem with advice is that depending on the person they might need to do less or more of a particular thing to reach that balance.
This guy is basicly telling people to be more self-centered and worry less about any rules.
The problem is that most people are already too selfish and undisciplined. His advice would be bad for the large majority of people. What it tends to amount to is basicly flattering people into thinking that they can get some sort of great spiritual/emotional reward without doing any real work or having to change. Just think happy thoughts and everything will be ok.
Not having read the book I suppose it is possible that I have mischaracterized it. But based on the mishmash of ideas you chose to quote I doubt that I am that far off.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-04 18:14:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:39:13 (#)
Ranking: 0
God has never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't."
----------------------
In pretty much every major religion he has.
You were cooler when you were an alcoholic.
---
Incorrect. Religion is not GOD.
And 'he'?
Far to limited Mr. Ninja.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:44:04 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:46:42 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:27:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
i mean the expectation of a few individuals have the potential to shape millions.
---------------------
Indeed. Now imagine the immense power behind the collective consciousness of the whole human race...the power to move mountains, create world peace, etc.
_____________________
The collective consciousness of humanity is an ideal that will never be achieved. The intelligence by those who understand and believe in it are outnumbed 1,000 to 1 in this world.
I would like to thank organized religion for that. keyword here is organizaed. I have no issue with people individually interpreting religion, but when you place your interpretation abilities, based upon individual reason, to others, youre in essence getting rid of your individual thought process, a key point in any sort of species wide consciousness.
Submitted by indoninja (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:39:13 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
God has never set down a "right" or "wrong," a "do" or a "don't."
----------------------
In pretty much every major religion he has.
You were cooler when you were an alcoholic.
Submitted by TheUniter (user info) at 2006-12-04 17:13:59 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:46:42 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:27:33 (#)
Ranking: 0
i mean the expectation of a few individuals have the potential to shape millions.
---------------------
Indeed. Now imagine the immense power behind the collective consciousness of the whole human race...the power to move mountains, create world peace, etc.
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:27:33 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:07:37 (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:56:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Expectation is the necessity of human inguinuity. How radically different would life have been if Einstein just said fuck it, lived life without any expectation, and didn't do shit his entire life but have sex with his mistresses instead of creating one of the cornerstones of modern physics?
-----------------------------
Einstein didn't create the laws of physics - he merely discovered them first. If he hadn't, someone else would have done so eventually. The laws of physics and the universe are timeless, and our choices won't change those laws...
_______________________________
absolutely correct, but how long would that have taken? how many industries would that have effected?
i mean the expectation of a few individuals have the potential to shape millions.
Submitted by messmind (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:13:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
gooood stuff.
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:07:37 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:56:49 (#)
Ranking: 0
Expectation is the necessity of human inguinuity. How radically different would life have been if Einstein just said fuck it, lived life without any expectation, and didn't do shit his entire life but have sex with his mistresses instead of creating one of the cornerstones of modern physics?
-----------------------------
Einstein didn't create the laws of physics - he merely discovered them first. If he hadn't, someone else would have done so eventually. The laws of physics and the universe are timeless, and our choices won't change those laws...
...right?
Submitted by Brdn_Nkd (user info) at 2006-12-04 16:07:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by Merlina (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:57:43 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by bob (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:56:49 EST (#)
Ranking: 0
To state that the importance of life is to live a life without expectation is to assume that this life is not the only life.
For example, if you believe that there is no other life but this one, then it would be most wise to live life in accordance to your survival (Part A in Narcissus and Goldmund). If you believe in reincarnation, then it would be wise to take the path in life that this life has dicated you to live. However, if you are to believe there is another, separate, life past this one, then it does not truly matter how you live this life so long as you uphold the ethics in concordance with what you think is moral for that other life.
Expectation is the necessity of human inguinuity. How radically different would life have been if Einstein just said fuck it, lived life without any expectation, and didn't do shit his entire life but have sex with his mistresses instead of creating one of the cornerstones of modern physics?
Reason evolved within humans as a tool for survival. Reason and expectation cannot, and should not, be separated for this very fact.
Submitted by rob_berg (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:41:29 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
I have been a giant fan of Conversations with GOD for years now. I have only read the first book - actually I only read about 3/4 of the first book, but is has been a source of great spiritual delight.
I am curious what they are going to do with the movie - I hear its actually pretty good.
Thank you for posting this... it has actually inspired me to re-read this wonderful book.
Submitted by LongestPants (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:14:22 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
This article gave me a boner.
Okay, I gotta go take my medication.
Submitted by ticklish_squirrel (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:10:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
That was incredible. Good read, well worth my time.
Submitted by DudeThatsBOSH (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:07:48 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
SUMMARY:
masturbate frequently.
Submitted by combatwombat (user info) at 2006-12-04 15:00:45 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I touch my Self.
And if you put the cart before the horse, won't that result in a fucking confused horse?
Submitted by Shlongy (user info) at 2006-12-04 14:55:08 EST (#)
Ranking: 1
I told you.
The world owes me a living
I've waited on this dole queue too long
I've been standin' in the rain for fifteen minutes
That's a quarter of an hour too long.
I'll take all they can give me
And then I'm gonna ask for more
Cos the money's buried deep in the bank of England
And I want the key to the vault
I'm gonna take your money
Count your loss when I'm gone.
I'm alright, Jack,
I'm lookin' after number one.
If I want something I get it
Don't matter what I have to do
I'll step on your face, on your mother's grave
Never underestimate me I'm nobody's fool
Don't wanna be like you.
Don't wanna live like you.
Don't wanna talk like you, at all.
Don't give me love thy neighbour
Don't give me charity
Don't give me peace and love or the good lord above
You only get in my way with your stupid ideas
I am an island
Entire of myself
And when I get old, older than today
I'll never need anybody's help in any way.
Don't wanna be like you.
Don't wanna live like you.
Don't wanna talk like you, at all.
I'm gonna be like
I'm gonna be like
I'm gonna be like ME!
Submitted by St_Jimmy (user info) at 2006-12-04 14:46:00 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
So, to sum up, always look out for number one?
Done and done!
Submitted by CaptainThorns (user info) at 2006-12-04 14:45:47 EST (#)
Ranking: 2
WTF I'M NOT RAEDING ALL TAHT
Actually, I did. Good food for thought, indeed.
I'll be back later.