Religion and "Highs"

[andave_ya]

Some time ago, I came across some posts on the forums about religion being bad because it makes people "high" and people who are high do bad things.

I don't mean to point any fingers; it's just that I've been unable to get that out of my mind.

First and foremost I'll say that I am a born-again, Bible-believing Christian.

I can see how "religion gives people highs," but that's not the point of my post. I can go into that later, if need be, but here's what I want to say.

People generally get high on drugs:
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm226/ladyjoker_toc/drugs.jpg

or on alcohol:
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd175/hfxstc/beer.jpg

on fashion:
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp190/FindStuff2/Best%20Images/Fashion/Fashion%20Adjusted/fashioneditedit.jpg

on movie stars:
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q4/lmathieu11226/brad_pitt___angelina_jolie.jpg

by nature:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z15/officialnut/AlleghenyNationalForestPennsylvania.jpg

by animals:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z15/officialnut/EnchantedIndian.jpg

or on music:
Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU49miTzYu8)

or on art:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z15/officialnut/TheGirlwiththePearlEarring.jpg

by poetry:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said:—Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shatter'd visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamp'd on these lifeless things,
The hand that mock'd them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains: round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away.
Ozymandias, Percy Bysshe Shelley

by words. Here are some I get drunk on:

"I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dúnadain, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!"
Return of the King, J.R.R. Tolkien

And etc.


That said - is it true that religion is bad because it gives people "highs," thus making them do criminal things? Upon realizing all I posted above, I didn't think so. I love the last four - even to the point of euphoria, sometimes. But the most they do is put me in a wildly reflective or creative mood. Nothing more.

I'm not denying that people have done horrible things in the name of religion. They have indeed - and given religion a bad name. However, some bankers have absconded with millions - thus giving banking a bad name. Some homeschoolers are the idiot old-fashioned dirty people they are portrayed to be - thus giving homeschoolers a tremendously bad name. Etc. and etc. and etc.

So yes, religion has given people highs that make them commit massive crimes, but that isn't a logical reason to automatically regard religion as false/wrong/criminal etc.

[NikolaiI]

Thank you for this great, thoughtful post. I could write/ talk forever on religion, just as I could write/ talk forever about God. I won't, of course. :D Sometimes it can upset people to hear about God, so I don't want to do that. But I believe in God with all my heart, and I also believe there is a place for all religions (at least those I know much about). Almost every single religious person I know is like this, as opposed to being religiously intolerant. So as Bob Marley said, "Let's get together, and feel alright. Dance and sing to the Lord, and I will feel alright." (Lyrics from One Love).

[weltanschauung]

your intention may have been good but you failed at the core of the justification. religion isnt to be blamed for anything because its just a thing created by man. if left by itself it will remain inert because it doesnt have a life of its own. however, man use it as they wish in order to justify and eternalize mass mind control, and that is why religion and any other instrument of manipulation must be destroyed, because as long as it (they) exist there wont be freedom.
maybe youre just reluctant (frightened) to accept the undeniable solitude of existence, and that is why you cling to a supernatural figure of companion that comforts your fear of being alone in an infinite abyss of time and space. when you die, youll die alone.

[NikolaiI]

Welt - I wrote a response but erased it. Based on your post and other posts you've written, this is a sensitive topic for you.

I deleted my post because I am afraid you will take it personally. The only message I had was that religion is a path toward finding peace, and finding harmony with the divine. It's not appropriate of you to say that another person has their view only because they are unable, due to fear, to accept the cold harsh reality of the universe.

You are projecting such things as fear, negativity, and close-mindedness upon others, but these are actually parts of your post. I am not criticising you, I don't know you or wish you anything good or bad. It's actually an incredibly tiny part of my life, this interaction. I am a good person and I am a peaceful person. I do not take my satisfaction from external objects, but from reliance on my "self."

Life is very fragile and fleeting and yes, trust me, it is possible to attain peace, and also to attain knowledge of the divine. I would never force this one anyone.

Religion for me is about understanding reality and our place, our destiny, and the divine - in which there is no duality. In my understanding the divine is infinite. Certainly the divine is real. This is confusing because it's not apparent to our normal senses. But we get glimpses of it through meditation or brief periods of revelation. We understand that there is a transcendent reality beyond the mundane. It is confusing because it's opposite what the atheist, the naturalist, tells. That nothing exists except for the physical. But the physical world is just the external world.

Sages are those who have found a path, generally one of moderation between action and meditation; also generally with the goal of the transcendent. Sages have universally found that there is a truth, generally if you read all the philosophies humanity has created, they are not in discored but harmony, not different but similar. One is part of everything. This is the basis of mysticism. Understanding our relationship to the Over-Soul, the eternal ONE, in the words of R.W. Emerson. It is not delusional but it is a path toward balance, health, and regeneration. One toward harmony.

What can we know? Never anything absolutely, because the nature of knowledge is to be always overturned, outdated. But could we say that? I do know that there is more than just the physical. Why would the mental be less than the physical? Why would there be nothing more than mental? You speak as if anything religious is scary and delusional, but in my heart I am convinced that it is not just sentimental but also reasonable.

I hope you can come to peace with religion at some point. All religion means is path.

A person of religion - one who is sincere - cannot enter into a discussion without telling what is most sacred to them. And your post is full of fear and loathing for religion. It's not a good thing to sow. We reap what we sow.

[subterranean]

andave_ya, I think your initial post already clearly give the answer of your question. Religion, like all the other man made products (if I may call it product), has been corrupted by men, the creator themselves. Though somehow, I don't really understand why politics doesn't get as much blame as religion. People opted out God right away when horrible things happened, yet would still be willing to vote for leaders, whose past office experience clearly shown the corruptness of leadership. I suppose having divine concept as the main 'feature' pretty much the cause of why religion always gets the blame. It is man who give definition/standard on what God should be like, what God must do and how God must do it. As man is not always clever, then we should have expected a less clever outcome as well.

[pagebypage]

andave_ya, God luv ya, buddy, if that is what you are saying getting high is, you haven't been high. Lived through the 70's--been there, done that. That ain't high.

[sofia82]

Always there were dıfference between a religion of any kind and the people who believe in that religion. I myself never define a religion with what the followers of that do. Although one can learn about a religion at first throughout this. But the best thing is to read about it. People by the means of and by the name of religion do lots of horrible things, as they do such horrible things by the name of peace and freedom too, or anything else. I think the most important point about being so sensitive to religion is that of not being able to seem and find That divinity we are talking about.
I myself am a religious person, and think that any kind of religion leads to the same destiny and eternity and the ONe, I respect all religions and never consider all the horrible things happened in the history because of the religion but the abuse of some people wanting power. What if I believe in a religion, my neighbor in another ... cannot we live together while we believe in the same basic beliefs just different paths?

[billyjack]

What if I believe in a religion, my neighbor in another ... cannot we live together while we believe in the same basic beliefs just different paths?

if your really follow the doctrine of a specific monotheistic creed, then no, you can't. you'd be compelled to isolate or evangelize or exterminate your neighbor depending on which system of control you follow. religions define themselves both from within and from without; ie their enemies are just as important to their survival as their specific doctrines and belief systems bc fear and hate breed unity amongst those doing the hating and feeling the fear.

your agnostic approach certainly doesnt fall into the above situation but its still has foundations in the same belief system making it less harmful but not harmless.

what harm could agnosticism do? it susceptible to corruption (getting high on unfounded power) bc it appeals to a higher authority than ourselves and the natural universe

[sofia82]

if your really follow the doctrine of a specific monotheistic creed, then no, you can't. you'd be compelled to isolate or evangelize or exterminate your neighbor depending on which system of control you follow. religions define themselves both from within and from without; ie their enemies are just as important to their survival as their specific doctrines and belief systems bc fear and hate breed unity amongst those doing the hating and feeling the fear.

I don't think so, at least about myself. I live in a city that most of them are Muslims (I am Muslim too) then there are Christians (Both Catholic, Protestant, ...) and of course Muslims of different sects. I myself never think of any of them as enemy or anything else. All of us believe in One God ... but different ways to worship. There are mosques and churches in the same street without any problem. Maybe other people act as you say or even the authority does this, but myself no.



your agnostic approach certainly doesnt fall into the above situation but its still has foundations in the same belief system making it less harmful but not harmless.

what harm could agnosticism do? it susceptible to corruption (getting high on unfounded power) bc it appeals to a higher authority than ourselves and the natural universe

So sorry but I didn't get what you mean by this. Can you explain more. Consider that English is not my native language :)

[sofia82]

And maybe I am thinking about a Utopia kind of world :) but this is what I believe

[Wintermute]

So yes, religion has given people highs that make them commit massive crimes, but that isn't a logical reason to automatically regard religion as false/wrong/criminal etc.

Hi Anda,

Personally I get a real buzz from my uncertainty. The mystery of our existance--the fact that the universe appears to exist is so amazing to me. From my perspective it seems silly for a human on planet earth to claim with absolute certinty that they know what's going on. And I agree, 'to automatically regard religion as false/wrong/criminal ' is just as silly. Because in order to do so, one must be absolutely, 100% certain, that the religion is wrong--which, in my humble opinion, is impossible (thank god[s], hehe).

Blessings,
Doug

[Virgil]

I think there is a distinction to be made between different types of "highs". There are natural highs (sports, reading, nature, etc) and artificial highs (alcohol, drugs, steroids). Natural highs are derived from natural living and regular human activity. Artificial highs are chemically alterations to body chemistry. Religion I would say a natural high, and I find nothing wrong with any of the natural highs.

Now there are people who's may have mental dysfunction, such as an obsessive-compulsion disorder, that may take a human activity (say, sex, for instance) and become dysfunctional over it. I guess there are sex addicts out there, and I think you will find that it wasn't the activity that caused them to be compulsive, it was already a problem in the brain function and for whatever reason chose that activity to obssess over. Of course I'm not a psychiatrist and this is mostly my judgement.

[subterranean]

And I agree, 'to automatically regard religion as false/wrong/criminal ' is just as silly. Because in order to do so, one must be absolutely, 100% certain, that the religion is wrong--which, in my humble opinion, is impossible (thank god[s], hehe).

Why is it impossible?

[Wintermute]

Why is it impossible?

Hi Sub,

First of all, hehe, its only my opinion. And being agnostic I could always be wrong. But I guess 100% certainty seems impossible to me because how can I be 100% certain that I'm not being fooled? Lol, that stoopid Matrix movie really messed with my head.

Cheers,
Doug

[NikolaiI]

if your really follow the doctrine of a specific monotheistic creed, then no, you can't. you'd be compelled to isolate or evangelize or exterminate your neighbor depending on which system of control you follow.

You are not part of her religion yet you are dictating that she can't follow God without evangelizing to others?

[Tyler Self]

Haha whoa at the nature picture, new desktop background. :)


if your really follow the doctrine of a specific monotheistic creed, then no, you can't. you'd be compelled to isolate or evangelize or exterminate your neighbor depending on which system of control you follow. religions define themselves both from within and from without; ie their enemies are just as important to their survival as their specific doctrines and belief systems bc fear and hate breed unity amongst those doing the hating and feeling the fear.

I have to disagree with this. Jesus said the greatest two commandments are to love God with all your heart, and love your neighbor as yourself. You would not want someone constantly nit-picking your faith, so you should not do so either. The great commission is done, yes, and I think talks about religion and such are much more important than gossip, but the Bible also says that if someone does not wish to hear what you say, you should not push it.

[mono]

Interesting idea for a thread, andave ya! ;)

[I]s it true that religion is bad because it gives people "highs," thus making them do criminal things? Upon realizing all I posted above, I didn't think so. I love the last four - even to the point of euphoria, sometimes. But the most they do is put me in a wildly reflective or creative mood. Nothing more.
On the contrary, I would call it far from 'bad.' I cannot count the number of times, as discussed in another thread, people have committed crimes in the name of religion (we still see it daily in so-called 'holy wars'). As much as religion can act as a catalyst to do a 'good' or 'bad' thing, I think the idea and desire to perform a 'good' or 'bad' act depends on the person more than the religion - sure, a person gets a high off religion, but that requires a person and and religion; at times, I think the religion can receive more blame than the person, when it should seem the opposite, in my opinion.

Religion, like all the other man made products (if I may call it product), has been corrupted by men, the creator themselves.
Precisely! No matter if a Superior Being exists or not, according to a religious person or an atheist, it seems difficult to deny that men and women created and maintained religion; we build churches, mosques, and temples, devote them to (fill in the blank), and call them sacred. Again, though we have created religion, we can make it great, or make it burn in flames; where an individual who committed an unjust act in the name of religion, we cannot blame what s/he created (religion), rather the person - otherwise, I would call it nothing more or less than discrimination and confirmatory bias.

All religion means is path.
Even as an individual without a religion or belief system, I can definitely agree with this, NikolaiI; it does not necessarily mean I have no 'path,' to follow your metaphor, but I also have a path that others may not relate with, in the same way that an atheist may not relate with the path walked upon by a religious individual. This can definitely cause a lack of empathy, but, as multiple philosophers have stated, Michel de Montaigne among them, all means will lead only to one end, despite any religion (or lack thereof).

I think there is a distinction to be made between different types of "highs". There are natural highs (sports, reading, nature, etc) and artificial highs (alcohol, drugs, steroids). Natural highs are derived from natural living and regular human activity. Artificial highs are chemically alterations to body chemistry. Religion I would say a natural high, and I find nothing wrong with any of the natural highs.
Good point, Virgil. I can certainly relate as a person who definitely gets an indescribable high off jogging, but also gets 'weak in the knees' while tasting a good red wine - one originating internally, another externally. A lot of pharmaceutical companies have designed and manipulated highly addictive substances, pain-relievers, for one, that can create a very pleasurable euphoria - let us take opiates as one example (morphine, fentanyl, dilaudid, etc.). Towards the base of the human brain, the hypothalamus produces endorphins in times of excitement as a natural, organic painkiller, and a lot of people describe a 'high' in the moment of intensity (pain, surprise, anticipation, orgasm); not surprisingly, endorphins are organic compounds of an opiate, and commonly called an 'endogenous opiate.' Just like addictions to injections of morphine, an individual can even get addicted to endorphins and certain emotions, because, with more encounters with opiates, the brain will build receptors to opiates, and those receptors need stimulation.

In my opinion, there seems a perfectly logical explanation why people get 'highs' off different things. We produce neurotransmitters and neurohormones endogenously, and when we get a feeling we enjoy from religion, reading, externally absorbed substances (alcohol, drugs), or physical exercise, just like with opiates in the previous paragraph, our brains get used to that pleasurable stimulation, that 'cocktail,' so to speak, of neurotransmitters and neurohormones, for better or worse, and, in essence, we get attached, dependent, sometimes addicted to those feelings.

[andave_ya]

your intention may have been good but you failed at the core of the justification. religion isnt to be blamed for anything because its just a thing created by man. if left by itself it will remain inert because it doesnt have a life of its own. however, man use it as they wish in order to justify and eternalize mass mind control, and that is why religion and any other instrument of manipulation must be destroyed, because as long as it (they) exist there wont be freedom.
maybe youre just reluctant (frightened) to accept the undeniable solitude of existence, and that is why you cling to a supernatural figure of companion that comforts your fear of being alone in an infinite abyss of time and space. when you die, youll die alone.

Dang.

Okay. I'll concede that religion is seemingly manmade - insofar as the good works, peace, and loving everybody stuff. Easy enough to see that it wouldn't be too difficult to come up with a code of good conduct to get mankind to behave in a certain way. I believe that the code of ethics in the Bible is the best one for humanity
But what then of God? You say that man may "use it as they wish in order to justify and eternalize mass mind control."
But that would apply only to getting mankind to look at things a certain way. Granted the threat of an omnipotent God might be enough to keep some on the straight and narrow, but Christianity (I do not speak for all religions, only Christianity.) demands much more than one way of thinking. Dostoevsky said in The Brothers Karamazov,
"And what's strange, what would be marvellous, is not that God should really exist; the marvel is that such an idea, the idea of the necessity of God, could enter the head of such a savage, vicious beast as man. So holy it is, so touching, so wise and so great a credit it does to man.
And I have to agree. Being a Christian the way the Bible says I'm supposed to is really hard! I haven't gotten miraculous wealth from standing up in church and pontificating on how "Jesus saved me and made me rich," I don't have insane good health, I have none of the material riches anyone craves. The Bible says I HAVE to follow a set of rules that in this day and age next to nobody follows, I have to be honorable, I have to strive to be perfect as God as perfect, which is impossible.
I even have to read my Bible, pray, and think about godly things all the time! Frankly, the much easier path of life is the unbiblical one. So I don't think that religion would be inert if we left it alone. Say all the Bibles get destroyed, and in a few generations all knowledge of Christianity dies out. Morals will NOT stay the same - there is no reason for them to - it's every man for himself; but regardless of that what about God?

By the way, I freely admit to being petrified, not just reluctant and frightened, at the idea of an eternity without God. If I wasn't a Christian I'd just stick to the idea of a Big Sleep. An eternity without God - "an infinite abyss of time and space," as you so eloquently put it, however, beggars the idea of a soul. In which case, what is the point of dying? To rid the world of overpopulation? That would be the first truly evolutionary thinking I've ever come across. More so, what is the point of LIVING? Good karma?


andave_ya, I think your initial post already clearly give the answer of your question. Religion, like all the other man made products (if I may call it product), has been corrupted by men, the creator themselves. Though somehow, I don't really understand why politics doesn't get as much blame as religion. People opted out God right away when horrible things happened, yet would still be willing to vote for leaders, whose past office experience clearly shown the corruptness of leadership. I suppose having divine concept as the main 'feature' pretty much the cause of why religion always gets the blame. It is man who give definition/standard on what God should be like, what God must do and how God must do it. As man is not always clever, then we should have expected a less clever outcome as well.

"He's not a tame Lion," if I may say. If it has been corrupted, go back to the original, and prove that it is wrong. Find and incontrovertibly prove one contradiction that cannot be doubted within the oldest known manuscript of both the Old and New Testaments, and the entire Bible will fall apart.
It won't happen. "Not one jot nor one tittle of My Word will pass away while the world lives."


andave_ya, God luv ya, buddy, if that is what you are saying getting high is, you haven't been high. Lived through the 70's--been there, done that. That ain't high.

No, I certainly have not and do not intend to, considering that it's illegal. Furthermore drugs and alcohol were the first two things listed. But, really, let me put it this way: God luv ya, buddy, if that is what you are saying getting high is, you haven't been high. Lived vicariously though the dawn of time - been there, done that. That ain't high.


if your really follow the doctrine of a specific monotheistic creed, then no, you can't. you'd be compelled to isolate or evangelize or exterminate your neighbor depending on which system of control you follow.

Why? My beliefs differ wildly from Nik's, yet I haven't spontaneously combusted by associating with him. I don't agree with many of the things he believes in, yet I'll be the first to admit that I would very much like to attain the calm nature he has, the humane way he talks to people who believe differently than he does, and the openmindedness he has. Do to others as you would have them do to you, or, you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.

[NikolaiI]

God is self-sufficient. All returns to God.

[pagebypage]

Aw, don't get all in a tizzy, andave ya. You take a term, high, and then broaden the definition to range from religious ecstasy to a nature walk--that was the point of my wise-*** comment. The more expansive you make a term the less information you convey. How can you expect anyone to take that seriously?

Addendum: actually, though, I do owe you an apology and not just for the wise crack. I made the original posting so far down the thread that I forgot the latter--and apparently--more significant part of your post. Mea Culpa. I'm not in disagreement with the whole point. Just that little legerdemain with the term.

Still buds?

[Virgil]

Good point, Virgil. I can certainly relate as a person who definitely gets an indescribable high off jogging, but also gets 'weak in the knees' while tasting a good red wine - one originating internally, another externally. A lot of pharmaceutical companies have designed and manipulated highly addictive substances, pain-relievers, for one, that can create a very pleasurable euphoria - let us take opiates as one example (morphine, fentanyl, dilaudid, etc.). Towards the base of the human brain, the hypothalamus produces endorphins in times of excitement as a natural, organic painkiller, and a lot of people describe a 'high' in the moment of intensity (pain, surprise, anticipation, orgasm); not surprisingly, endorphins are organic compounds of an opiate, and commonly called an 'endogenous opiate.' Just like addictions to injections of morphine, an individual can even get addicted to endorphins and certain emotions, because, with more encounters with opiates, the brain will build receptors to opiates, and those receptors need stimulation.

In my opinion, there seems a perfectly logical explanation why people get 'highs' off different things. We produce neurotransmitters and neurohormones endogenously, and when we get a feeling we enjoy from religion, reading, externally absorbed substances (alcohol, drugs), or physical exercise, just like with opiates in the previous paragraph, our brains get used to that pleasurable stimulation, that 'cocktail,' so to speak, of neurotransmitters and neurohormones, for better or worse, and, in essence, we get attached, dependent, sometimes addicted to those feelings.

Yes, I think both of your paragraghs incorporates what I was trying to say.

[mangueken]

In relation to what billyjack wrote, I don't think he was picking on sofia's or anyone else's particular beliefs. It's just for non believers, myself included, it is hard to understand a believer's logic. While many believers will proudly exclaim their version of the golden rule not many want to get into the darker side of their religious texts. I won't fill this post with examples from the Old Testament, New Testament or the Quran but that is what billyjack is talking about. For nonbelievers, those texts contain too many fossilized morals to be of any use to modern society and it appears that believers just pick and choose the parts they find acceptable to the whole of our diverse modern society.
However, on the original topic of the post I have to agree that there are many ways of feeling natural highs and religion can be one of them for believers. I personally have felt natural highs listening to John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" and Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan's music; both artists were "divinely" inspired. Neither made a believer of me but I still love their music independently of where they found their inspiration.

[weltanschauung]

Welt - I wrote a response but erased it. Based on your post and other posts you've written, this is a sensitive topic for you.

I deleted my post because I am afraid you will take it personally. The only message I had was that religion is a path toward finding peace, and finding harmony with the divine. It's not appropriate of you to say that another person has their view only because they are unable, due to fear, to accept the cold harsh reality of the universe.

You are projecting such things as fear, negativity, and close-mindedness upon others, but these are actually parts of your post. I am not criticising you, I don't know you or wish you anything good or bad. It's actually an incredibly tiny part of my life, this interaction. I am a good person and I am a peaceful person. I do not take my satisfaction from external objects, but from reliance on my "self."

Life is very fragile and fleeting and yes, trust me, it is possible to attain peace, and also to attain knowledge of the divine. I would never force this one anyone.

Religion for me is about understanding reality and our place, our destiny, and the divine - in which there is no duality. In my understanding the divine is infinite. Certainly the divine is real. This is confusing because it's not apparent to our normal senses. But we get glimpses of it through meditation or brief periods of revelation. We understand that there is a transcendent reality beyond the mundane. It is confusing because it's opposite what the atheist, the naturalist, tells. That nothing exists except for the physical. But the physical world is just the external world.

Sages are those who have found a path, generally one of moderation between action and meditation; also generally with the goal of the transcendent. Sages have universally found that there is a truth, generally if you read all the philosophies humanity has created, they are not in discored but harmony, not different but similar. One is part of everything. This is the basis of mysticism. Understanding our relationship to the Over-Soul, the eternal ONE, in the words of R.W. Emerson. It is not delusional but it is a path toward balance, health, and regeneration. One toward harmony.

What can we know? Never anything absolutely, because the nature of knowledge is to be always overturned, outdated. But could we say that? I do know that there is more than just the physical. Why would the mental be less than the physical? Why would there be nothing more than mental? You speak as if anything religious is scary and delusional, but in my heart I am convinced that it is not just sentimental but also reasonable.

I hope you can come to peace with religion at some point. All religion means is path.

A person of religion - one who is sincere - cannot enter into a discussion without telling what is most sacred to them. And your post is full of fear and loathing for religion. It's not a good thing to sow. We reap what we sow.

this is just a forum, who is silly enough to take things personally here? we're just discussing stuff.
why isnt it "apropriate"? nobody knows whats real for sure, so anything is apropriate. i am just as bound to being right (or wrong) as anyone else is, so why should i nod on automatic pilot and accept someone else's view without questioning it first? if someone has the right and ability to expose a view of reality so do i, why isnt it apropriate? to me this whole god loves me bable is just as absurd and comical as it is to you reading what im writing right now. whos right and whos wrong we'll probably never know for sure, but that wont ever stop me from exposing the other side of the coin.
ive said this before and i'll say it as many times as its needed: i am not atheist. the thing that annoys me is that most people see god as an infinite person with feelings, and i see god as the universe. the universe doesnt have any feelings, the universe does not notice we're here. the universe does not care if we die, because feeling, noticing and caring are things that humans do, and the universe is not a huge person.
most of you seem to confuse having a label religion in order to have a god, and one thing have nothing to do with the other, but men like to think so. then again we return to the initial point of the fear of solitude. men have to think that they're not alone, so they make up titles that other men can use so that theyre able to have a little club and share their fear of being alone by being with other people who are also scared. "see, im not crazy, im not alone, theres all these people with me, i am right, i know whats going on, and they all agree with me, so it must be true". but the sad truth is that no one really knows, and really, theres no one watching over us either, because the universe cant exist inside itself. how could it spawn a little universal mind father spirit to watch over the gazillion galaxies, stars, moons, planets, countries, cities, families, people. men are so scared of freedom they make up little imaginary sentinels, so that they get to feel watched by someone else, since they cant handle the fact that they are responsible for their actions, and thats where the figure of a father imago god comes. "hey dude, if you dont do this the right way, this other guy who's watching you and whos way bigger than you are is going to punish you for being a bad boy". no one's watching, no one is punishing, its just us here.
you say my post is full of fear, well duh, arent you scared? im dying alternated deaths, one for every second i live, and the fear only increases. one day i'll be gone and the world will remain as if i never existed. and youll be gone and we'll all be gone one day but there will be other people in our places and we'll be nothing but a thought or not even that. how can you not be scared of disappearing. oh no, youre not scared, because youre going to heaven, right? thats where we meet all the other people and we just hang out all day telling jokes and having fun forever. yeah, ok dorothy.
you say im projecting fear, but youre projecting hope among other wishful thoughts. we're all projecting something, what makes you better? what makes you right. sweet words of comfort mean nothing, screw your spoon full of sugar.
people confuse being nice to being true, so theyre always vomiting fake smiles and sweet words that dont mean a thing, its all make up. no substance.


I do not take my satisfaction from external objects,

3,477 posts and counting. im guessing you get out of your house and do anything from the time you wake up until you go to sleep again just because youre here to save us all, huh? its the cross you have to bare...

most times i get the impression that im talking to who someone wants to be and not to whom the person really is. are you sure you are all that you think you are? are you sure you know all you think you know?
my post may be filled with fear, as you say, but yours is filled with wishful thinking. follow the white rabbit, neo.

[NikolaiI]

I found your post quite insulting and personal, and I have no wish to associate with that. I thought you might react that way to any comment, so specifically I am not trying to wish you anything good or anything bad. I am not trying to say you are wrong - but since it seems to be a strong thrust of what you are saying to me, I will not respond or post any message to you again. Ever. We both live in the same universe, with the same people. People are the same all over world. I am friends with and have associated with people in every walk of life. For this reason I know them. I know how they react. There are only certain types of people. I used to be an atheist until I was 17 and during this time I thought all religious people were wrong or worse. Now I am gratefully in a different place.

The purpose of life is to find out what we are - what is the source of our being.

Anyway, I cannot think of anything to say to you. You seem to make everything a personal challenge, and I am not really interested in accumulating more personal challenges. My personal challenges are exactly that - my personal challenges. They're not your challenges nor do you have a right to try and make more for me. I am certainly not doing that for you.

[mono]

And what's strange, what would be marvellous, is not that God should really exist; the marvel is that such an idea, the idea of the necessity of God, could enter the head of such a savage, vicious beast as man. So holy it is, so touching, so wise and so great a credit it does to man.And I have to agree. Being a Christian the way the Bible says I'm supposed to is really hard! I haven't gotten miraculous wealth from standing up in church and pontificating on how "Jesus saved me and made me rich," I don't have insane good health, I have none of the material riches anyone craves. The Bible says I HAVE to follow a set of rules that in this day and age next to nobody follows, I have to be honorable, I have to strive to be perfect as God as perfect, which is impossible.
I even have to read my Bible, pray, and think about godly things all the time! Frankly, the much easier path of life is the unbiblical one. So I don't think that religion would be inert if we left it alone. Say all the Bibles get destroyed, and in a few generations all knowledge of Christianity dies out. Morals will NOT stay the same - there is no reason for them to - it's every man for himself; but regardless of that what about God?
Very interesting post, andave ya.
The world would, indeed, seem a very different place without The Bible, churches, Christmas, and the same if any other religion, other than Christianity, got eliminated. A lot of hostility and passive-aggressive acts have gotten generated over centuries as to which religion seems the greatest, the most accurate, and the most just; some even say that living a life without a religion seems the most just.
That you think 'the much easier path of life is the unbiblical one' really fascinates me. Certainly, a believer must put more-than-a-little effort to believe and participate in a religion, but, in reciprocating that statement in a syllogism, living an unbiblical life does not necessarily require no effort and laziness; people of different belief systems, or who have a lack of belief, need not always wage in war, stating how much harder one Christian has worked as opposed to how slothful that Buddhist looks while meditating.
I call 'Gimpel, the Fool' by Isaac Bashevis Singer one of my favorite short stories of all time. Hopefully others have read it, too . . . ? Gimpel seems far from an intelligent man, but Singer portrays him, the idiot hero, a regular do-gooder, generous, utilitarian, and caring of others; the problem - Gimpel seems about as sharp as a spoon. He lives a very simple life at ease, 'watching the grass grow,' so to speak, and I will spare you the ending, in case someone has never read it. Though Gimpel acts justly and obviously has a big heart, because of his simplicity, lack of intelligence, and taking things one step at a time, does this give him less of a passage into heaven because of his laziness, or must he put more effort into his good deeds that others take advantage of to earn that right?

[andave_ya]

Aw, don't get all in a tizzy, andave ya. You take a term, high, and then broaden the definition to range from religious ecstasy to a nature walk--that was the point of my wise-*** comment. The more expansive you make a term the less information you convey. How can you expect anyone to take that seriously?

Addendum: actually, though, I do owe you an apology and not just for the wise crack. I made the original posting so far down the thread that I forgot the latter--and apparently--more significant part of your post. Mea Culpa. I'm not in disagreement with the whole point. Just that little legerdemain with the term.

Still buds?

:lol: fair enough! I do understand I took liberties, if I may, with the, ahem, traditional meaning of "highs," but I still think my point is valid. If one takes "high" to mean "euphoria, ecstasy, loosening of inhibitions, etc." though, it still makes sense. After all, Beethoven had to be high on something when he said this:
Music is the one incorporeal entrance into the higher world of knowledge which comprehends mankind but which mankind cannot comprehend.


and this:
Music is the wine which inspires one to new generative processes, and I am Bacchus who presses out this glorious wine for mankind and makes them spiritually drunken.




In relation to what billyjack wrote, I don't think he was picking on sofia's or anyone else's particular beliefs. It's just for non believers, myself included, it is hard to understand a believer's logic. While many believers will proudly exclaim their version of the golden rule not many want to get into the darker side of their religious texts. I won't fill this post with examples from the Old Testament, New Testament or the Quran but that is what billyjack is talking about. For nonbelievers, those texts contain too many fossilized morals to be of any use to modern society and it appears that believers just pick and choose the parts they find acceptable to the whole of our diverse modern society.

*shrug*. I'm willing. I won't know it all; I'll make an idiot of myself in many areas, but what I don't know I can ask my parents or my pastor about.


Very interesting post, andave ya.
The world would, indeed, seem a very different place without The Bible, churches, Christmas, and the same if any other religion, other than Christianity, got eliminated. A lot of hostility and passive-aggressive acts have gotten generated over centuries as to which religion seems the greatest, the most accurate, and the most just; some even say that living a life without a religion seems the most just.
That you think 'the much easier path of life is the unbiblical one' really fascinates me. Certainly, a believer must put more-than-a-little effort to believe and participate in a religion, but, in reciprocating that statement in a syllogism, living an unbiblical life does not necessarily require no effort and laziness; people of different belief systems, or who have a lack of belief, need not always wage in war, stating how much harder one Christian has worked as opposed to how slothful that Buddhist looks while meditating.
I call 'Gimpel, the Fool' by Isaac Bashevis Singer one of my favorite short stories of all time. Hopefully others have read it, too . . . ? Gimpel seems far from an intelligent man, but Singer portrays him, the idiot hero, a regular do-gooder, generous, utilitarian, and caring of others; the problem - Gimpel seems about as sharp as a spoon. He lives a very simple life at ease, 'watching the grass grow,' so to speak, and I will spare you the ending, in case someone has never read it. Though Gimpel acts justly and obviously has a big heart, because of his simplicity, lack of intelligence, and taking things one step at a time, does this give him less of a passage into heaven because of his laziness, or must he put more effort into his good deeds that others take advantage of to earn that right?

Mono, I'm not entirely sure I understand the gist of your post; however, I'll try to answer, and if I misunderstood, let me know? :)

I haven't read the short story, but I think I must have seemed a bit rude to unbelievers by my statement that being a Christian is harder than not.
I don't believe that being intellectual or even intelligent and being either believer or nonbeliever is mutually exclusive - that would just be plain foolish when there are so many brilliant people here on the forums :D. However, being a Christian asks for quite a few things that nonbelievers don't have to bother about.

The Bible says that not only good works but faith is what gets you into heaven. Good works are actually not so difficult to do - do not even evil people know how to give good gifts to their children? All it takes is a bit of heart for someone worse off than you. If all I had to do to get to Heaven was be a do-gooder, it would be easy. The praise I'd get from humankind alone would be enough to keep me doing that. But the Bible asks me to believe and champion things that many people see as foolish, unprovable, and idiotic. Like believing that God exists and that I can (and am supposed to, as a born-again Christian) have a relationship with Him. That He sent His Son to earth to die to redeem us from sin, and that Jesus while on earth was fully God and fully man. To believe in the Trinity. To believe in miracles that cannot be reproduced or verified today. To believe in a flood that covered the world and destroyed all that was in it. To believe in an idea - Creationism - that science swears by all that is holy to be false. I can go on...

The Bible says that I have to be perfect as Christ is perfect. On my own, that is IMPOSSIBLE. I mean, forget it. That alone should be enough to turn anyone off religion, because that means something like: If I'm dead-tired and can hardly drag myself out of bed but I committed to ANYTHING, I can't take back my promise. Ditto if I'm sick with something minor - I have to kill to do the best I can with things I promised. And it's honor system, and I'm happy to do it. I have to improve my mind, I have to be cheerful, I have to always no matter what control my temper, I have to be generous, I have to be this and that and the other thing.

And the fact is, I can't. Only by God's grace, which thankfully He dispenses freely to all who ask. So when I fall, as I do constantly, He's there; He forgives me; He picks me up; He blesses me.

so yeah, being a Christian is hard. Not that being alive isn't, but Christians have to, well, strive towards perfection! No breaks!

I hope that makes sense.

[weltanschauung]

I found your post quite insulting and personal, and I have no wish to associate with that. I thought you might react that way to any comment, so specifically I am not trying to wish you anything good or anything bad. I am not trying to say you are wrong - but since it seems to be a strong thrust of what you are saying to me, I will not respond or post any message to you again. Ever. We both live in the same universe, with the same people. People are the same all over world. I am friends with and have associated with people in every walk of life. For this reason I know them. I know how they react. There are only certain types of people. I used to be an atheist until I was 17 and during this time I thought all religious people were wrong or worse. Now I am gratefully in a different place.

The purpose of life is to find out what we are - what is the source of our being.

Anyway, I cannot think of anything to say to you. You seem to make everything a personal challenge, and I am not really interested in accumulating more personal challenges. My personal challenges are exactly that - my personal challenges. They're not your challenges nor do you have a right to try and make more for me. I am certainly not doing that for you.

its insulting? arent you a christian? forgive me!
you didnt feel like it was insulting to tell me my beliefs were inapropriate, so why are do you feel insulted now? is it because you dont have any counter-arguments to strech this thread a hundred more pages with terabytes of empty words?


I will not respond or post any message to you again. Ever.

http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/29.gif
well then give me back my jacket!


I hope you can come to peace with religion at some point. All religion means is path.

i have a path. its just not the one the sheep are using to get to the abbatoir. there are many paths here, but its cute though, that you think your path is better, or that it is the only one.

i guess the lesson we've learned today is this:
saying all kinds of things is only allowed if youre a christian. if not, youre evil and mean, and we'll burn you at the stake.

[weltanschauung]

I won't know it all; I'll make an idiot of myself in many areas, but what I don't know I can ask my parents or my pastor about.

has it ever crossed your mind to actually 'think about' something you dont know, instead of asking someone else to explain it to you? to tell you what to think?
what are you gonna do when your pastor or your parents arent around, who are you gonna ask? who is gonna think for you?

[subterranean]

If it has been corrupted, go back to the original, and prove that it is wrong.

Which original version that I should refer to?
Don't get me wrong, I personally embrace Christianity, but not as religion. Christianity as a religion had failed me.


The Bible says that I have to be perfect as Christ is perfect. On my own, that is IMPOSSIBLE. I mean, forget it. That alone should be enough to turn anyone off religion, because that means something like: If I'm dead-tired and can hardly drag myself out of bed but I committed to ANYTHING, I can't take back my promise. Ditto if I'm sick with something minor - I have to kill to do the best I can with things I promised. And it's honor system, and I'm happy to do it. I have to improve my mind, I have to be cheerful, I have to always no matter what control my temper, I have to be generous, I have to be this and that and the other thing.

That's what religion taught you. Jesus didn't die to so that you'll have a miserable life.


To believe in miracles that cannot be reproduced or verified today.
This is another thing that religion does, putting God in a box.

[weltanschauung]

andave_ya is probably talking about the book of enoch, from which the church cloned (copied) most of the new testament.

john chapter 10:
8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

and i quote:
"They forgot apparently these words of the Saviour: ‘All that came before me are thieves and robbers,’ a word which explains all without any absurd negation and which I commented in these words ‘The Evangel is a sublime drama, parodied and played before its appointed time by ruffians.’ ”

The “ruffians” (les droles), are of course demons whose manager is Satan. Now this is the easiest and the most sublime and simple way of getting out of the difficulty! The Rev. Dr. Lundy, a Protestant de Mirville, followed the happy suggestion in his “Monumental Christianity,” and so did Dr. Sepp of Munich in his works written to prove the divinity of Jesus and the Satanic origin of all other Saviours. So much greater the pity that a systematic and collective plagiarism, which went on for several centuries on the most gigantic scale, should be explained by another plagiarism, this time in the fourth Gospel. For the sentence quoted from it, “All that ever came before me, etc.,” is a verbatim repetition of words written in the “Book of Enoch” lxxxix. In the Introduction to Archbishop Lawrence’s translation of it from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library, the editor, author of the “Evolution of Christianity,” remarks: —

“In revising the proof-sheets of the Book of Enoch . . . . . the parable of the sheep, rescued by the good Shepherd from hireling guardians and ferocious wolves, is obviously borrowed by the fourth Evangelist from Enoch, lxxxix., in which the author depicts the shepherds as killing . . . the sheep before the advent of their Lord, and thus discloses the true meaning of that hitherto mysterious passage in the Johannine parable — ‘All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers’ — language in which we now detect an obvious reference to the allegorical shepherds of Enoch.”

It is too late in the day to claim that it is Enoch who borrowed from the New Testament, instead of vice versa. Jude (14-15) quotes verbatim from Enoch a long passage about the coming of the Lord with his 10,000 saints, and naming specifically the prophet, acknowledges the source. This “parallelism between prophet and apostle, have placed beyond controversy that, in the eyes of the author of an Epistle accepted as divine revelation, the Book of Enoch was the inspired production of an antediluvian patriarch . . . ” and further “ . . . the cumulative coincidence of language and ideas in Enoch and the authors of N.T. Scripture, . . . clearly indicates that the work of the Semitic Milton was the inexhaustible source from which Evangelists and Apostles, or the men who wrote in their names, borrowed their conceptions of the resurrection, judgment, immortality, perdition, and of the universal reign of righteousness under the eternal dominion of the Son of Man. This Evangelical plagiarism culminates in the Revelation of John, which adapts the visions... (...)" (Vol. 2, Page 482 the secret doctrine, H.P.B)

and other plagiarism:
I peter 4 : 17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
enoch1: 6- ... and the judgement shall be for all, even for the just.

matthew 5: 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
enoch 6: 9 The chosen shall have the light, the joy and peace andl inherit the earth.

I corinthians 10; 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
enoch 19: 2 And, being numerous in appearance, they made men err, offering sacrifices to the demons as if they were gods.

etc etc.

[mangueken]

*shrug*. I'm willing. I won't know it all; I'll make an idiot of myself in many areas, but what I don't know I can ask my parents or my pastor about.


I'll take willing. It's millions times more productive than flat out denial. However, I don't want to be rude to Andave Ya by hijacking this thread and turning it into a debate over controversial scriptures. I'll try to get one started where we can discuss these matters further, if you are anyone else is so inclined.

[Drkshadow03]

has it ever crossed your mind to actually 'think about' something you dont know, instead of asking someone else to explain it to you? to tell you what to think?
what are you gonna do when your pastor or your parents arent around, who are you gonna ask? who is gonna think for you?

Why do you see it as a bad thing that she would turn to her pastor or her parents if she had questions?

[weltanschauung]

why dont you

[andave_ya]

has it ever crossed your mind to actually 'think about' something you dont know, instead of asking someone else to explain it to you? to tell you what to think?
what are you gonna do when your pastor or your parents arent around, who are you gonna ask? who is gonna think for you?

But what if one is not a know-it-all? It would be stupid for me to even pretend that I understand everything the Bible says and that Christianity means. To answer your question - when my pastor and my parents aren't around I'll do what I always do when they're not around: research it. Go to some book or other by some authority or other, read it, cross-reference it, see what other people and authorities say, and come up with an opinion. It's served me quite well so far, and I look forward to doing that with many things for the rest of my life.

It's one of my favorite things to do.

Furthermore, I'm rather alarmed that someone who is so thoroughly derisive of a worldview could be so threatened by it.


Which original version that I should refer to?
Don't get me wrong, I personally embrace Christianity, but not as religion. Christianity as a religion had failed me.

That's what religion taught you. Jesus didn't die to so that you'll have a miserable life.

This is another thing that religion does, putting God in a box.

I'm afraid I'm wholly confused by the last sentence. What do you mean?

Go back to the oldest manuscript, as I said before.
How can you embrace Christianity but not as a religion?

Indeed He did not; He died so that I could have a chance at being free from sin - so I can have a chance for perfection. I like that idea very much, and am happy to struggle in the here and now so that long-term, I'm set.


andave_ya is probably talking about the book of enoch, from which the church cloned (copied) most of the new testament.

john chapter 10:
8 All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers: but the sheep did not hear them.

and i quote:
"They forgot apparently these words of the Saviour: ‘All that came before me are thieves and robbers,’ a word which explains all without any absurd negation and which I commented in these words ‘The Evangel is a sublime drama, parodied and played before its appointed time by ruffians.’ ”

The “ruffians” (les droles), are of course demons whose manager is Satan. Now this is the easiest and the most sublime and simple way of getting out of the difficulty! The Rev. Dr. Lundy, a Protestant de Mirville, followed the happy suggestion in his “Monumental Christianity,” and so did Dr. Sepp of Munich in his works written to prove the divinity of Jesus and the Satanic origin of all other Saviours. So much greater the pity that a systematic and collective plagiarism, which went on for several centuries on the most gigantic scale, should be explained by another plagiarism, this time in the fourth Gospel. For the sentence quoted from it, “All that ever came before me, etc.,” is a verbatim repetition of words written in the “Book of Enoch” lxxxix. In the Introduction to Archbishop Lawrence’s translation of it from an Ethiopic MS. in the Bodleian Library, the editor, author of the “Evolution of Christianity,” remarks: —

“In revising the proof-sheets of the Book of Enoch . . . . . the parable of the sheep, rescued by the good Shepherd from hireling guardians and ferocious wolves, is obviously borrowed by the fourth Evangelist from Enoch, lxxxix., in which the author depicts the shepherds as killing . . . the sheep before the advent of their Lord, and thus discloses the true meaning of that hitherto mysterious passage in the Johannine parable — ‘All that ever came before me are thieves and robbers’ — language in which we now detect an obvious reference to the allegorical shepherds of Enoch.”

It is too late in the day to claim that it is Enoch who borrowed from the New Testament, instead of vice versa. Jude (14-15) quotes verbatim from Enoch a long passage about the coming of the Lord with his 10,000 saints, and naming specifically the prophet, acknowledges the source. This “parallelism between prophet and apostle, have placed beyond controversy that, in the eyes of the author of an Epistle accepted as divine revelation, the Book of Enoch was the inspired production of an antediluvian patriarch . . . ” and further “ . . . the cumulative coincidence of language and ideas in Enoch and the authors of N.T. Scripture, . . . clearly indicates that the work of the Semitic Milton was the inexhaustible source from which Evangelists and Apostles, or the men who wrote in their names, borrowed their conceptions of the resurrection, judgment, immortality, perdition, and of the universal reign of righteousness under the eternal dominion of the Son of Man. This Evangelical plagiarism culminates in the Revelation of John, which adapts the visions... (...)" (Vol. 2, Page 482 the secret doctrine, H.P.B)

and other plagiarism:
I peter 4 : 17 For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?
enoch1: 6- ... and the judgement shall be for all, even for the just.

matthew 5: 5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
enoch 6: 9 The chosen shall have the light, the joy and peace andl inherit the earth.

I corinthians 10; 20 But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.
enoch 19: 2 And, being numerous in appearance, they made men err, offering sacrifices to the demons as if they were gods.

etc etc.

Actually, I wasn't. I haven't read the Book of Enoch, though I'm lightly aware of the non-canon books of the Bible. They were not included in the Bible because of various reasons such as contradictions, contested authorship or verity, etc. However, you quote without using context - I dare not comment without knowing the context of the verses you quoted from Enoch. I've read the verses and context of the Biblical verses you quoted. It is indeed very likely that Biblical writers quoted from non-canonical books; I would like to point out that it is common till today that writers quote from other books not related to theirs but sharing ideas.


I'll take willing. It's millions times more productive than flat out denial. However, I don't want to be rude to Andave Ya by hijacking this thread and turning it into a debate over controversial scriptures. I'll try to get one started where we can discuss these matters further, if you are anyone else is so inclined.

This thread's already been hijacked into a three stooges style insults-fest.

Anyways, I'd like that :). Sensible discussion and debate is a pleasure, even if I end up eating my words :nod:.
Call me andave or andya if you like; it's certainly easier than my full screen name :crash: :).

[Drkshadow03]

why dont you

Because knowledge builds off previous knowledge. Asking for other's opinions or feedback on a difficult question does not necessarily constitute someone thinking for them. Not to mention the 'burden of proof' for your statement is on you, not me. I asked the question of your statement first. I only responded to you as a good faith measure.

[weltanschauung]

But what if one is not a know-it-all? It would be stupid for me to even pretend that I understand everything the Bible says and that Christianity means. To answer your question - when my pastor and my parents aren't around I'll do what I always do when they're not around: research it. Go to some book or other by some authority or other, read it, cross-reference it, see what other people and authorities say, and come up with an opinion. It's served me quite well so far, and I look forward to doing that with many things for the rest of my life.

It's one of my favorite things to do.

Furthermore, I'm rather alarmed that someone who is so thoroughly derisive of a worldview could be so threatened by it.

you dont have to pretend, you just have to try, although thinking is really hard.
knowing what others have said about a certain topic isnt reprehensible, its necessary, but to a certain point. if einstein had gone around the scientific community in order to trim his theories to fit what others were expecting from it, we would have never been able to know the relativity theory, and there goes quantum physics and your microwave, cell phone, computer, blah balh balh.
the 'threatened' part is solely your conclusion, so at least we're forced to admit that youre able to formulate your own, since it's unlikely you just went to pastor for advice on how to deal with this, which is a good thing. keep up. :thumbs_up
as for your alarm, you should channel it into something that is more urgent, like developing confidence in yourself and your ability to think, arent you a child of god? im doing quite fine, thanks for the concern, though.



Actually, I wasn't. I haven't read the Book of Enoch, though I'm lightly aware of the non-canon books of the Bible. They were not included in the Bible because of various reasons such as contradictions, contested authorship or verity, etc. However, you quote without using context - I dare not comment without knowing the context of the verses you quoted from Enoch. I've read the verses and context of the Biblical verses you quoted. It is indeed very likely that Biblical writers quoted from non-canonical books; I would like to point out that it is common till today that writers quote from other books not related to theirs but sharing ideas.

yeah i know, it was a snark ;)
but listen, "they were not included in the bible because of various reasons such as contradictions, contested authorship or verity" is one of the most ironic attempted justifications ive ever heard..
if you want to verify it, why dont you read it? :idea: but you probably will just ask your pastor...
one thing though, they didnt quote it, they plagiarized it, since they claimed authorship, its different. because when you quote, you give credit to the author, and the catholic church claims the book of enoch is a copy of the bible, although it was written before... i dont know, time and space were extremelly complicated terms back then, i guess. oh well, they had 15 centuries to get their stories thought out, and its not like anyone was allowed to question it.
a good start would be the Index librorum prohibitorum http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/101.gif

[weltanschauung]

Because knowledge builds off previous knowledge. Asking for other's opinions or feedback on a difficult question does not necessarily constitute someone thinking for them. Not to mention the 'burden of proof' for your statement is on you, not me. I asked the question of your statement first. I only responded to you as a good faith measure.

a wise man is the one who can answer his own questions, solve his own problems. all is necessary is will and effort.
asking for others' opinions is the easiest way to exclude yourself from making choices and decisions. advice is acceptable but people in general rely on it to keep themselves from being responsible for their choices. and the advisors surely take advantage of that.

[andave_ya]

weltanschauung, just wanted to say, read your posts but it's late, I'm tired, and I don't wanna play. I'll answer tomorrow.

[mono]

Mono, I'm not entirely sure I understand the gist of your post; however, I'll try to answer, and if I misunderstood, let me know?
It sounds like you got my 'gist,' and appreciate your reply.

I haven't read the short story, but I think I must have seemed a bit rude to unbelievers by my statement that being a Christian is harder than not.
Not rude at all, no worries. ;) We come from very different backgrounds; though born and raised Catholic, I have ended up without a religion. I have, however, or so I would like to think, stuck with my reverence for others' beliefs. Superiority and inferiority in religion and philosophy have little to no value to me; I more asked your clarification more out of curiosity than anything else. By the way, if you have time, I happened to find an online copy of Gimpel the Fool (http://www3.telus.net/Gimpel_Family/Gimpelthefool.html).

Jesus didn't die to so that you'll have a miserable life.
:lol::lol::lol:

As to seeking sources for good advice, parents, pastors, etc., I have never encountered anyone who does not occasionally act upon the advice of others. Many people ask their parents for advice and recommendations, and receiving advice from religious leaders may seem a bit more taboo due to the conflicts between belief systems; a non-believer could likely not consider advice from a Christian pastor as valuable as a believer, but they both may regard the advice seriously from a medical doctor to take antibiotics while having bronchitis . . . just an example.
Okay, now to get back on topic . . . though not a religious person who gets 'highs' off a religion, I think when a Christian gets advice from his/her pastor, a 'high' gets stronger when the advice works out successfully, if not, one may consider it fate, destiny, whatever. Advice has a priceless value; whether or not it works out, the intention has wealth, despite if it comes from two individuals of the same belief system, or from a Wiccan to a Mormon.

[subterranean]

I'm afraid I'm wholly confused by the last sentence. What do you mean?


One day Jesus came to a town, large crowd came and gathered to see Him for great news have spread about him and the stuffs he did. Then it happened that the blind man, whom Jesus cured by putting mud in his eyes met with the other blind man, whom also cured by Jesus but on different occasion. The first man said, 'look at this Jesus. He's so amazing, He cured my blindness!' Then the second man said, 'Really? He did the same thing to me! He opened my eyes and now I can see!' Then the first man said, 'Yea? That's so cool. So, He put mud on to your eyes to cure you too?'. Then the second man said, 'Mud? No. He just said be healed and I got healed.' Then the first man looked very surprised and said, 'No way. He must have had used mud in your eyes. That's how He cured me so I bet that's also how He cured you,' Second man said, 'No. I can assure you that He only said be healed and I got healed.' .....'No, there must be mud involved. That's how He cured blindness!'...'No, as I said, no mud!... Then the arguments continued 'till this day.


Go back to the oldest manuscript, as I said before.
How can you embrace Christianity but not as a religion?

The church that my family attended back home suddenly have a new rule about sitting and standing after the service. After the service, people usually will sit and pray their last personal prayer. That was the tradition for so many years since the church was founded. One time I came home and joined the service. Then I noticed that people stood when praying the last prayer. So, I asked my mother what was going on. And she said, 'there's new rule from the church leaders; they said (and here she explained the reasons, which I failed to reason) so, now, instead of sitting, we should stand for our last prayer after sermon'. I started walking and she said, 'where are you going, you haven't pray'. I told her, 'I'll do it on my way out'.

[Drkshadow03]

a wise man is the one who can answer his own questions, solve his own problems. all is necessary is will and effort.
asking for others' opinions is the easiest way to exclude yourself from making choices and decisions. advice is acceptable but people in general rely on it to keep themselves from being responsible for their choices. and the advisors surely take advantage of that.


Oh? And how does a wise men manage to answer their own questions and come to the conclusions to solve their problems? Perhaps you could offer a concrete problem. Are you saying wise men just need to have the will to answer their own question, forrow their brow with some effort, and poof they receive the answers from the mystical Forms?


I call 'Gimpel, the Fool' by Isaac Bashevis Singer one of my favorite short stories of all time. Hopefully others have read it, too . . . ? Gimpel seems far from an intelligent man, but Singer portrays him, the idiot hero, a regular do-gooder, generous, utilitarian, and caring of others; the problem - Gimpel seems about as sharp as a spoon. He lives a very simple life at ease, 'watching the grass grow,' so to speak, and I will spare you the ending, in case someone has never read it. Though Gimpel acts justly and obviously has a big heart, because of his simplicity, lack of intelligence, and taking things one step at a time, does this give him less of a passage into heaven because of his laziness, or must he put more effort into his good deeds that others take advantage of to earn that right?

I think this misses the point of the story, especially since your separating it from its original historical context and cultural roots. Gimpel's behavior is idealistic and superior in comparison to the town's cruelty and trickery. Although heaven and an afterlife is mentioned in the story, it is done so for the purpose of commenting on the actions and nature of this world rather then being there in and of itself as a prize to be acheived or a fate to be avoided.

[andave_ya]

a wise man is the one who can answer his own questions, solve his own problems. all is necessary is will and effort.
asking for others' opinions is the easiest way to exclude yourself from making choices and decisions. advice is acceptable but people in general rely on it to keep themselves from being responsible for their choices. and the advisors surely take advantage of that.

How then does one become wise? I see the "path to wisdom" as one taking my entire life; at the ripe old age of seventeen I am by no means confident in my logical/rhetorical abilities and/or my experience of life to be able to correctly answer all of my own questions. It was interesting, though, to read your post because I see research and reading as one of the joys of life; what is the purpose of literature if not to expand one's worldview and add material to form opinions from? I had hoped I had made my position on that clear in previous posts. The analogy that came to mind is that you're art deco - I'm a mere Romantic :p. It's ironic, really. Take a look at this: http://www.online-literature.com/forums/blog.php?b=7501. I'd say your benevolent wisdom is about twelve years too late.

Furthermore, your argument applies both to your side and mine as well. If I am using advice to keep myself from being responsible for the consequences of my actions (which frankly, if I am taking advice based on precedent, I should already have an idea of the possible outcomes and be willing to take the consequences, no matter what they are.) would it not be easier just to not post this thread? From the beginning, I was certain that I would meet with opposition - I've posted in the religious sub-forum to know that. I've seen threads get nasty pretty quickly, just like this one did, and yet I started it anyway. It isn't logical - but I did it anyway. It's long since veered from the original purpose but I'm still posting, reading yours and other people's disagreements, and answering them in the way I best know how.


Because knowledge builds off previous knowledge. Asking for other's opinions or feedback on a difficult question does not necessarily constitute someone thinking for them.


Oh? And how does a wise men manage to answer their own questions and come to the conclusions to solve their problems? Perhaps you could offer a concrete problem. Are you saying wise men just need to have the will to answer their own question, forrow their brow with some effort, and poof they receive the answers from the mystical Forms?

Thanks. I was trying to think up a way to say that objectively :). It's one of the reasons I've decided to become a literature professor :nod:.


you dont have to pretend, you just have to try, although thinking is really hard.
knowing what others have said about a certain topic isnt reprehensible, its necessary, but to a certain point. if einstein had gone around the scientific community in order to trim his theories to fit what others were expecting from it, we would have never been able to know the relativity theory, and there goes quantum physics and your microwave, cell phone, computer, blah balh balh.
the 'threatened' part is solely your conclusion, so at least we're forced to admit that youre able to formulate your own, since it's unlikely you just went to pastor for advice on how to deal with this, which is a good thing. keep up. :thumbs_up
as for your alarm, you should channel it into something that is more urgent, like developing confidence in yourself and your ability to think, arent you a child of god? im doing quite fine, thanks for the concern, though.

You're grasping at straws.

How do you know what point I've gone to? How do you decide what point is necessary? How do you know what I know? Incidentally, how does being a child of God give me an ability to think?

Oh no, I didn't go to my pastor, I went to a bigger Authority. :brow:


yeah i know, it was a snark ;)
but listen, "they were not included in the bible because of various reasons such as contradictions, contested authorship or verity" is one of the most ironic attempted justifications ive ever heard..
if you want to verify it, why dont you read it? :idea: but you probably will just ask your pastor...
one thing though, they didnt quote it, they plagiarized it, since they claimed authorship, its different. because when you quote, you give credit to the author, and the catholic church claims the book of enoch is a copy of the bible, although it was written before... i dont know, time and space were extremelly complicated terms back then, i guess. oh well, they had 15 centuries to get their stories thought out, and its not like anyone was allowed to question it.
a good start would be the Index librorum prohibitorum http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/mesg/emoticons7/101.gif

a snark? What are you trying to prove? I didn't plan on asking my pastor - incidentally, would it ease your mind if I said that I've never gone to my pastor, rarely to my parents, for advice about forums-related stuff? - and I'm not interested in verifying it because it doesn't bother me and I have thousands of other books I consider more important for me to read now than non-canonical stuff?


One day Jesus came to a town, large crowd came and gathered to see Him for great news have spread about him and the stuffs he did. Then it happened that the blind man, whom Jesus cured by putting mud in his eyes met with the other blind man, whom also cured by Jesus but on different occasion. The first man said, 'look at this Jesus. He's so amazing, He cured my blindness!' Then the second man said, 'Really? He did the same thing to me! He opened my eyes and now I can see!' Then the first man said, 'Yea? That's so cool. So, He put mud on to your eyes to cure you too?'. Then the second man said, 'Mud? No. He just said be healed and I got healed.' Then the first man looked very surprised and said, 'No way. He must have had used mud in your eyes. That's how He cured me so I bet that's also how He cured you,' Second man said, 'No. I can assure you that He only said be healed and I got healed.' .....'No, there must be mud involved. That's how He cured blindness!'...'No, as I said, no mud!... Then the arguments continued 'till this day.

This is the first I've heard of it. Where'd you get this from?


The church that my family attended back home suddenly have a new rule about sitting and standing after the service. After the service, people usually will sit and pray their last personal prayer. That was the tradition for so many years since the church was founded. One time I came home and joined the service. Then I noticed that people stood when praying the last prayer. So, I asked my mother what was going on. And she said, 'there's new rule from the church leaders; they said (and here she explained the reasons, which I failed to reason) so, now, instead of sitting, we should stand for our last prayer after sermon'. I started walking and she said, 'where are you going, you haven't pray'. I told her, 'I'll do it on my way out'.

?? Do they say that that is necessary doctrinally? Recently my church services changed too; we used to alternate standing or sitting while singing hymns. Now we stand throughout a bunch of irritating praise songs. But nobody claims that's doctrinal, per se, only just a change.

Looking very much forward to your replies.

[*Classic*Charm*]

To assume that Andave is an unthinking person is really not fair here, Welt, as she has clearly been able to devise a topic you and many others found worthy of attesting to or contesting.

To call her a child and not responsible for what she says is simply rude and has no place here.


I don't know that I would say that Religion provides a high, per se, but more a sense of comfort. For the typical person (and by this, I mean the non-extremists), belief that one will be able to see one's loved ones that have already passed away and the belief that doing good will be rewarded in a most fulfilling way is a comfort, and I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that. For some, that comfort it not necessary and they therefore do not believe in the same things. For others, the belief in a higher power is not the main focus of religion, but the moral guidelines and ways of treating others etc. are what is important.

I myself don't believe in a higher power or follow any religion, though I was raised Roman Catholic. I have my beliefs in morality and ethics and what may or may not happen when death occurs, and I'm comfortable with that. Personally, I don't feel the need to take comfort in the belief that there is Someone watching over me, though I understand those who do.

I think it's extremely ignorant to assume that those who do believe in a higher power do so out of fear or unacceptance of what someone believes to be inevitably true.

When it comes to issues of faith, "True" cannot be measured or proven, everything is a belief. While one may be completely sure that death is it and we're all bodies to be reduced to carbon and returned to the ground, that in itself if just a belief, a faith, and therefore equally as valid as one's belief in God or whom/whatever.

[Logos]

I've done some *major* cleaning up here.

Read the Religious Texts forum rules:
http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=15410

Posts have been removed if they were inflammatory, passive aggressive attempts to be inflammatory, and or personal insults directed at another member, and or if they were quoting said posts that are now removed. Any further such posts or off topic posts will be removed.

Please get back to the original post of this thread without resorting to personal insults.

[subterranean]

This is the first I've heard of it. Where'd you get this from?


I can't remember his name, he's a pastor from Singapore. What he said made realized that the problem is never Christianity, it's religion. That's why when you wrote about going back to the original teaching, I ask you back which version I should refer to as every denomination has its own version.


?? Do they say that that is necessary doctrinally? Recently my church services changed too; we used to alternate standing or sitting while singing hymns. Now we stand throughout a bunch of irritating praise songs. But nobody claims that's doctrinal, per se, only just a change.


Well, to me that's the tricky part. I understand guidelines are made to create an order in the church. But some are very dogmatic that people would feel as if they're committing a sin if not following the rule. Instead of bringing people closer to God, they become stumbling stones. And these dogmas, doctrines, rules, or whatever you want to call them, reach out until your personal daily life, sometimes even to small things like what kind of music you're allow to listen (been there myself and seriously I suffered from lack of progressive rock because it is considered as satanic).

Overall, I get your point about not pointing finger towards religion. Well, I'm not since I kinda have waved goodbye to it quite a long time ago ;).

[weltanschauung]

the christian god (jehovah) in is not by any means a real being, (nor any other god is). it is an attempt to concretize and delimit all the traits and behaviours that an idealized leader should have; its a character slowly built to express all those features that were picked out slowly and through experience and sublimation, and projected into an image of a supreme man in order to guide people through the struggles of life.
take for example the greek gods, with all those less than perfect human features: obviously it will be easy to find individuals who believe in the literal existence of those humanoid deities, because inidviduals with less penetrating comprehension skills are to be found anywhere. but its not absurd to affirm that they were initially created, or that those figures were slowly delimited as abstract images of specific concepts. afrodite, the physical image of abstract love, in all her beauty and vanity. zeus, the physical image of abstract power, in all his tyrany and passion. ares, the physical image of abstract dispute, in his fury and impulsiveness, etc etc.
ive never been to india or china or any of those non-christian cultures, but its hard to believe from here that people in india are living with the idea that ganesha is actually a supernatural elephant-headed man, or that shiva is a huge god-woman with a lot of arms, but i am sure there are individuals who are convinced that they are. those are images created to delimit a specific idea in order to transmit certain values. thats how mankind transmits knowledge, in the shape of metaphores, fables, because using such an artifice, the less prepared individuals will be naturally filtered and will never get to fully comprehend the message, those will be the followers. it is the only way to transmit abstract wisdom, by projecting it into a concrete image, a symbol.
thats where totems come from, thats where crosses come from, thats where symbols come from. the real thinkers will never be fooled to take an image for the real thing. a real thinker is he whos able to tell an illusion from the actual object. the catholic church is very aware of that and through that has manipulated the western world during two thousand years. the groteske adversary they created is the materialization of all the fears we subconsciously have, and they have turned that image into a concrete monster, the scape goat to install the threat and the need to obbey the set of rules they had created in order to maintain their position of power and manipulation, since a king is nothing without a kingdom. if you actually take time to read their bible from start to finish, you will never find any passage that talks about satan as that grosteske frankenstein. even jesus doest blaspheme the so called adversary (zechariah 3:1-2). and i will go further with this, if you read the whole bible you will not find a single line describing the famous "war in heaven" passage which everyone likes to quote as the genesis of evil in the world, in which lucifer rebelled against god and decided to corrupt mankind just because, since no one can provide a logical reason for that. christians find it so easy to believe such absurd philosophy, specially when there isnt a single line written about it in the book they take as their unquestionable moral code. on the other hand, they are the first to feel insulted when anyone dares question their more than dubious sources, as if its a crime. its time to face the fact that their tainted perfect morals were (ironically) carved in mankind through the flash of the blood-dripping blades and not by sincere acceptance; christianism could be briefly described in a line: "i believe because its impossible and absurd".

[i]
"in book I of the treatise, for example, hume argues (i) that we do not have even an idea of necessary connection, let any knowledge of such connections, (ii) that the idea we do have of cause and effect reflects more the nature of our own minds than the structure of the world, and (iii) that any attempt to offer a justification for inductive reasoning, which plays such a central role in our understanding of the world, will fail. he argues as well that we have no idea of substance, of a soul, or even of ourselves, other than the ideas we have of the quallities that these things are supposed to posses (which, of course, is different from actually having an idea of them)."

"what is needed is an account of a moral judgement that makes sense of moral judgements as genuine judgements (as opposed to expressions of sentiment) that underwrite a difference between appearance and reality - between something seeming to be a virtue and it actually being one - while at the same time taking account of how moral distinctions depend upon our capacity to feel approbation and disapprobation".[i]
(geoffrey sayre-mcCord)

to christians it is really hard to accept criticism towards their "beliefs", because their whole system is so dependent, if one thing is proven false then the whole system collapses.
"jehovah must be true, otherwise the world as i know is a lie"
"jesus must be a person, otherwise christianity doesnt make any sense"
"satan must be real otherwise i dont know what evil is".
the whole system is a complex set of viciously confusing dogmas, put together through an imense arsenal of circular falacies.
the fact is that "the consequences of a claim that something is true are entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether the claim is true". just because the western world would collapse would christianity be exposed as a huge fraud it doesnt mean that the huge fraud isnt a huge fraud. just because christianity would be proven a falacy would the existence of historical jesus be proven false, it doesnt mean that he was indeed a person that existed.
what we have in christianity in general is an imense set of abstract images that were intentionally materialized in order to mislead the ignorant and helpless masses as an attempt to impose and reinforce authority by fear.
whether one accepts that or not is completely irrelevant to the veracity of the affirmation, and our history books are a trustworthy source of proofs for that matter.

[Durr-e-Sana]

i dont know what to say..i m a muslim..i love my religion but i m confuced...why????because i call a muslim cuz i born in a muslim family...i respect my parents but i think that most of the people are affiliated with thier religion because of their parents...what do u think??

[weltanschauung]

what are you confused about?

[Durr-e-Sana]

why we r not free to choose our favourite religion?may b if we have freedom we are more faithfull..

[weltanschauung]

i think you know the answer to that.

[kiki1982]

The legend of the fallen angels isnot that easy, Weltanschauung. It has existed since the early Christians and is a merge between a Canaanite legend and Christian belief.

'The Canaanite legend saw the 'morning star' (Venus) as a star that outshone Saturn and Jupiter until the Sun rose. They believed that the 'morning star' wanted to climb high above the clouds and tried establish itself on the mount where the gods resided, after which it was cast down into the underworld. 'Morning Star' in Greek is Lucifer. Lucifer became in the early Christian writings a synonym for Satan.

One can see easily how 'evil reigned until the Sun came'.


The passga of Zechariah you quote is relative to the second year of the reign of king Darius around about 520BC. How can that be Jesus? He was to be born 500 years later... It says 'Joshua', which is not Jesus.


May I remind you that your belief is not the only right one and that not all Catholics are naive?

[billyjack]

and might i remind you kiki1982 ( i too am a year of the dog) that what weltanschauung was saying wasn't really an expression of belief. no appeals to the supernatural were used

[kiki1982]

It was the expression of Truth in the Platonic way, although Rousseau defined that differently, if you know what I mean.

I have a brother-in-law who holds the same ideas in the Platonic way. And he does not recognise Rousseau either.

[mangueken]

This thread's already been hijacked into a three stooges style insults-fest.

Anyways, I'd like that :). Sensible discussion and debate is a pleasure, even if I end up eating my words :nod:.
Call me andave or andya if you like; it's certainly easier than my full screen name :crash: :).

LOL Andave, I see that you were right about the thread being hijacked. It's all part of hyper text intellectualism. A shame that so few took up your idea of "highs" As you pointed out, they come from so many different places and seem to happen to the religious and non-religious equally. However, thinking further on the topic that I raised about the "fossilized morals" of most religious texts, I have reconsidered. I would only create a new venue, perhaps a worse one than others, for more of the same "three stooges" slug fest.
I am going to open a thread called Doubt in the philosophy section. I think it will better suited to a discussion there, although it definitely has a bearing on religion. I think you and Dur-e-Sana will find it interesting.

and one final comment to welt about this post of his:

Originally Posted by weltanschauung
a wise man is the one who can answer his own questions, solve his own problems. all is necessary is will and effort. asking for others' opinions is the easiest way to exclude yourself from making choices and decisions. advice is acceptable but people in general rely on it to keep themselves from being responsible for their choices. and the advisors surely take advantage of that.

The strawman was definitely set up before this quote but Socrates would disagree that an answer could be found. Plato, among other, called Socrates his professor (or whatever similar term would be better suited in ancient Athens). Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle. The Nestorian Christians fled to the east (today's middle-east and Persia) with their books of Greek philosophers. The Muslim philosophers translated these books to arabic and the Jewish philosphers studied the Greeks in Arabic for a few centuries before they were translated to Hebrew. Both the Muslims and the Jews brought Greek philosophy back to Europe where they were later translated (or re-translated ) to latin. This brief history shows that it took individuals a little bit more than self reliant thought processes. However, the real mistake was mis reading Andave, who said if she / he didn't know something she would ask someone who could help with gaining knowledge and understanding while discussing ideas, Not about making choices in life. However, even in choices in one's own life, seeking the advice of others, as far as I know, has never implied a lack of responsibility: no matter how much we may wish it would.

[mono]

I call 'Gimpel, the Fool' by Isaac Bashevis Singer one of my favorite short stories of all time. Hopefully others have read it, too . . . ? Gimpel seems far from an intelligent man, but Singer portrays him, the idiot hero, a regular do-gooder, generous, utilitarian, and caring of others; the problem - Gimpel seems about as sharp as a spoon. He lives a very simple life at ease, 'watching the grass grow,' so to speak, and I will spare you the ending, in case someone has never read it. Though Gimpel acts justly and obviously has a big heart, because of his simplicity, lack of intelligence, and taking things one step at a time, does this give him less of a passage into heaven because of his laziness, or must he put more effort into his good deeds that others take advantage of to earn that right?I think this misses the point of the story, especially since your separating it from its original historical context and cultural roots. Gimpel's behavior is idealistic and superior in comparison to the town's cruelty and trickery. Although heaven and an afterlife is mentioned in the story, it is done so for the purpose of commenting on the actions and nature of this world rather then being there in and of itself as a prize to be acheived or a fate to be avoided.
I alluded to the story as an analogy, rather than as an analysis of 'Gimpel, the Fool.' I admit that I took Gimpel out of context from what Singer intended, but who should blame Dante Alighieri for doing the same to Virgil in The Divine Comedy, as it had nothing to do with The Æneid? If you must, challenge my ideas, as attacking an analogy looks more like shooting one's self in the foot than contributing to a discussion.

[i]
"in book I of the treatise, for example, hume argues (i) that we do not have even an idea of necessary connection, let any knowledge of such connections, (ii) that the idea we do have of cause and effect reflects more the nature of our own minds than the structure of the world, and (iii) that any attempt to offer a justification for inductive reasoning, which plays such a central role in our understanding of the world, will fail. he argues as well that we have no idea of substance, of a soul, or even of ourselves, other than the ideas we have of the quallities that these things are supposed to posses (which, of course, is different from actually having an idea of them)."
Ah, David Hume . . . good stuff! :thumbs_up

[weltanschauung]

The legend of the fallen angels isnot that easy, Weltanschauung. It has existed since the early Christians and is a merge between a Canaanite legend and Christian belief.

'The Canaanite legend saw the 'morning star' (Venus) as a star that outshone Saturn and Jupiter until the Sun rose. They believed that the 'morning star' wanted to climb high above the clouds and tried establish itself on the mount where the gods resided, after which it was cast down into the underworld. 'Morning Star' in Greek is Lucifer. Lucifer became in the early Christian writings a synonym for Satan.

One can see easily how 'evil reigned until the Sun came'.


The passga of Zechariah you quote is relative to the second year of the reign of king Darius around about 520BC. How can that be Jesus? He was to be born 500 years later... It says 'Joshua', which is not Jesus.


May I remind you that your belief is not the only right one and that not all Catholics are naive?


i never said i didnt know where it came from, cause i do. why would i use in my speech theories which i am not familiar with?. the myth of the war in heaven and the fallen angels belong to a multitude of ancient cultures (none of them jewish), and eloquent descriptions of it can be found even in the rig veda and the puranas. im affirming that the great majority of christians, protestants, jews, and muslims doesnt. i also maintain that the christian bible is greatly "inspired" (because euphemisms are cool) in older sources, that arent jewish. the revelations of saint john are entirely based on the book of enoch, a book that the church ironically claims to be fraudulent.

thus, i wasnt stating beliefs, i was laying facts. if you can prove me wrong by showing me an actual god (even if its a greek one since there are so many..) that is living among us right now then i will have no way to dispute your affirmation, but until then you have nothing. if people want to keep using the threat of an imaginary special angry friend in order to keep themselves out of (what they believe to be) trouble, they will and there is nothing i will be able to say thats going to change their minds, however, that will not stop me from trying to. i myself am more inclined to believe and trust in my ability to judge based on the behalf of myself and others, instead of anything else, but that is me.
when lewis carrol wrote alice in wonderland, or when tolkien wrote lord of the rings, people didnt start freaking out because of the implications of the uncanny nature of the things described in those books, because common sense and sanity informed them that they were simply stories filled with symbols that had the intention of transmiting some kind of veiled message that was hidden beyond the obviousness of tangible reality.
"reality is that which, wen you stop believing in it, it doesnt go away" (phillip k dick)



The strawman was definitely set up before this quote but Socrates would disagree that an answer could be found. Plato, among other, called Socrates his professor (or whatever similar term would be better suited in ancient Athens). Alexander the great was taught by Aristotle. The Nestorian Christians fled to the east (today's middle-east and Persia) with their books of Greek philosophers. The Muslim philosophers translated these books to arabic and the Jewish philosphers studied the Greeks in Arabic for a few centuries before they were translated to Hebrew. Both the Muslims and the Jews brought Greek philosophy back to Europe where they were later translated (or re-translated ) to latin. This brief history shows that it took individuals a little bit more than self reliant thought processes. However, the real mistake was mis reading Andave, who said if she / he didn't know something she would ask someone who could help with gaining knowledge and understanding while discussing ideas, Not about making choices in life. However, even in choices in one's own life, seeking the advice of others, as far as I know, has never implied a lack of responsibility: no matter how much we may wish it would.

socrates' historical existence is not even certain, primarily, i only used it in my argumentation rethorically, and if he indeed was, who was his master? and following your argument's logic, if knowledge is sine qua non transmitted from one to another, who was the first to ever get knowledge? from the first master, but who taught the first master? this logic fails.
you said that the mistake in my logic is that i misunderstood andave_ya's argument, but the fact you present to justify my mistake is indeed a choice. its a choice of action. when confronted with the need to obtain an answer for whatever question, she goes after someone, that is a choice, and the choice is based upon the reliance on someone else's choice nonetheless, to get a solution to whatever problem, where does my argument fail here?
i simply base my view on the fact that every person is capable of (and should be encouraged to, from early ages) making difficult decisions without the assitance of others, regardless of the link that unites them. if one wants to see that as absurd or preposterous, its indeed a choice that they have, however it doesnt make my argument worthy or disapprobation. if we want to give birth to dependent individuals, sure, we should encourage insecurity, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions, i mean, advice.

[weltanschauung]

Ah, David Hume . . . good stuff! :thumbs_up

"virtue in rags is still virtue; and the love which is procures attends a man into a dungeon or desert, where the virtue can no longer be exerted in action, and is lost to all the world."

[mangueken]

socrates' historical existence is not even certain, primarily, i only used it in my argumentation rethorically, and if he indeed was, who was his master? and following your argument's logic, if knowledge is sine qua non transmitted from one to another, who was the first to ever get knowledge? from the first master, but who taught the first master? this logic fails.
you said that the mistake in my logic is that i misunderstood andave_ya's argument, but the fact you present to justify my mistake is indeed a choice. its a choice of action. when confronted with the need to obtain an answer for whatever question, she goes after someone, that is a choice, and the choice is based upon the reliance on someone else's choice nonetheless, to get a solution to whatever problem, where does my argument fail here?
i simply base my view on the fact that every person is capable of (and should be encouraged to, from early ages) making difficult decisions without the assitance of others, regardless of the link that unites them. if one wants to see that as absurd or preposterous, its indeed a choice that they have, however it doesnt make my argument worthy or disapprobation. if we want to give birth to dependent individuals, sure, we should encourage insecurity, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions, i mean, advice.

Wow welt,
for the most part all your arguments already answer the questions not even asked. "by your logic" (I use the phrase loosely) we should also know the name, taxonomic placement and geographic location of the primate that created fire. However, I believe even this you would find unsatisfactory. It seems to me you would also want to know the half life of the chemical bonds that started the life of the organism that produced the life that produced the possibility of producing the primate that discovered how to make fire, or the wheel, or interbreed plant species to produce the attractive fruits and vegetables that we now serve on our tables today. Maybe one day science and logic will answer these questions but you are hardly adding to the discussion.
How is any of that second paragraph an answer to anything? You have written something that would shame even the earliest of Scholastics . Sometimes, it's real simple. You made a quick response without any deep thought about what was really said and misspoke. It can happen to any one. But the fact is, you, like Plato and the now mysterious Socrates, depend (ed) on previous thinkers. Although, I could see where the uniqueness of "Greek" society may have had the awesome chance and possibility of individual invention based on the social discussions and culture that presented itself there at that time. Just take a look at the Asian life philosophies that developed independently and are practically devoid of gods. Who taught Lao Tsu about the Tao? Who taught the Buddha about nirvana? who knows but it is much more likely a process of society, either in a movement for or against. However, it is long gone the time of innocence and individual self creation. Today we are all influenced by our ancestors, sometimes even on the most superficial level: just like recognizing the latest bubble-gum pop song even though we don't listen to the radio or buy the CD. You haven't even come close to answering your own question of how asking others for advice implies a lack of responsibility.
Please, tell us all what books or people you never read or consulted to come to your own "independent" views on modern life. Although,I would suggest looking up the term straw man in its use in logic and rational discussion: I believe once you understand that your arguments will be much more satisfactory.

[weltanschauung]

Wow welt,
for the most part all your arguments already answer the questions not even asked. "by your logic" (I use the phrase loosely) we should also know the name, taxonomic placement and geographic location of the primate that created fire. However, I believe even this you would find unsatisfactory. It seems to me you would also want to know the half life of the chemical bonds that started the life of the organism that produced the life that produced the possibility of producing the primate that discovered how to make fire, or the wheel, or interbreed plant species to produce the attractive fruits and vegetables that we now serve on our tables today. Maybe one day science and logic will answer these questions but you are hardly adding to the discussion.

i suppose this is the scholar's way to argue, argumentum ad ignorantiam.



How is any of that second paragraph an answer to anything? You have written something that would shame even the earliest of Scholastics . Sometimes, it's real simple. You made a quick response without any deep thought about what was really said and misspoke. It can happen to any one. But the fact is, you, like Plato and the now mysterious Socrates, depend (ed) on previous thinkers. Although, I could see where the uniqueness of "Greek" society may have had the awesome chance and possibility of individual invention based on the social discussions and culture that presented itself there at that time. Just take a look at the Asian life philosophies that developed independently and are practically devoid of gods. Who taught Lao Tsu about the Tao? Who taught the Buddha about nirvana? who knows but it is much more likely a process of society, either in a movement for or against. However, it is long gone the time of innocence and individual self creation. Today we are all influenced by our ancestors, sometimes even on the most superficial level: just like recognizing the latest bubble-gum pop song even though we don't listen to the radio or buy the CD. You haven't even come close to answering your own question of how asking others for advice implies a lack of responsibility.
Please, tell us all what books or people you never read or consulted to come to your own "independent" views on modern life. Although,I would suggest looking up the term straw man in its use in logic and rational discussion: I believe once you understand that your arguments will be much more satisfactory.

youre stretching the cause here, because the post of mine thats being supposedly criticised is the one i talk about how people should take time to decide their own fate, and where does this claim that i reject the influence of previous thinkers come from? there is a great difference between passive inspiration on someone else's ideas and active submission to it, which is clearly what i condemn. the whole "dispute" has taken a complete unexpected turn into a secondary topic because the initial argument (of the innacuracy to blame religion for the absurdities made by men while hiding under its cloak) couldnt be contested. you are taking a personal quest to defend an argument due to sentimentalism, while i have no feelings involved in here.
if society is based on the transmission of knowledge, which by the way is exactly what ive been saying in previous posts in this same thread, you cannot deny that a few individuals are solely responsible for significant additions made to the archive of human knowledge, and although they were indeed exposed to the influence of previous thinkers who came before, nonetheless the merit for the new concept can only be given to he who formulated it. so its not absurd to affirm that individuals alone are able to come up with new concepts, which somehow seems to intrigue a few, since according to you all knowledge comes from previous knowledge. im saying not all. and the logical reasoning for that is that the first idea ever to cross the mind of a man didnt come from anywhere, since there was nothing before it.
and regarding the straw man argument, after reading your post who would have to research about the definition of it?
your attempt to squib a little jestery is completely defective, by the way.


You haven't even come close to answering your own question of how asking others for advice implies a lack of responsibility.

where did that come from? this is what i said:

a wise man is the one who can answer his own questions, solve his own problems. all is necessary is will and effort.
asking for others' opinions is the easiest way to exclude yourself from making choices and decisions. advice is acceptable but people in general rely on it to keep themselves from being responsible for their choices. and the advisors surely take advantage of that

my own question? where is there a question there? why are you distorting my posts?
i dont see why my post is so absurd, so if you please explain it to me, maybe i could answer a serious question instead of all this circular blaber.

[mangueken]

For lack of any sustained "sentimentalism" on my part, I decline to answer how any other "individual" should respond to the fictional and non fictional parts of their lives. Good night and ...

[weltanschauung]

hah..

[kiki1982]

i never said i didnt know where it came from, cause i do. why would i use in my speech theories which i am not familiar with?. the myth of the war in heaven and the fallen angels belong to a multitude of ancient cultures (none of them jewish), and eloquent descriptions of it can be found even in the rig veda and the puranas. im affirming that the great majority of christians, protestants, jews, and muslims doesnt. i also maintain that the christian bible is greatly "inspired" (because euphemisms are cool) in older sources, that arent jewish. the revelations of saint john are entirely based on the book of enoch, a book that the church ironically claims to be fraudulent.

thus, i wasnt stating beliefs, i was laying facts. if you can prove me wrong by showing me an actual god (even if its a greek one since there are so many..) that is living among us right now then i will have no way to dispute your affirmation, but until then you have nothing.

The church does not claim it is fraudulent. They only do not consider it to be part of 'the Christian atmosphere'. When the bible was put together there was a great desire to hold everything together, because otherwise the 'belief' (which was sectarian) was going to be dispersed in several parts and sub-divisions which was not desirable because of the political situation then (prosecution). So they sorted through all documents available and took out the 'best' ones. Whether that is still right, is the question. But you cannot have inconsistencies, although there are already a lot, you cannot have conflicting views like 'Jesus was a man' and 100 pages later 'Jesus was the Son of God' imaculately conceived (although that was only established in the 11th century in an attempt to eradicate the inistial sin for Jesus).
The second Book of Enoch (number 1 being the Ethiopian one and number 3 being a Jewish version) is part of the Jewish tradition of apocalyptic writings. Even the Jews do not recognise the second Book of Enoch (sectarian).

We, as believers, do not have to proove anything. You (in the plural) as different believers or non-believers neither. Non of these parties can proove that there is either a God or there is no God. For both parties there no empirical uncontestable data that prooves one's point.

Anyone who believes and who believes in the continuous threat of evil is a sad human being because he lives in fear of himself. That contrast between good and evil and God and the devil is there for simplistic people who do not care to think. What is it worth when, materially, you look like a good person, but you have filthy thoughts? F.i. someone who gives away large amounts of money to the poor but then exploits the same people in his factory? And then goes to church every Sunday and is a good 'Christian'... That person is selfish and a hypocrite, yet, according to the rules he 'made up' for his 'sins'. In that case it would not be 1-1=0, but rather 1-0,5=0,5. It proves that the person has a good nature, but he has not found out yet that he is selfish....

[weltanschauung]

i agree completely with what you said, and the whole thing regarding the book of enoch is very shady indeed (but so is the bible in anyways) because for it to have existed all those years it would have had to survive the flood, blah blah blah..., but in case anyone is really interested in finding out about it, which i doubt, they should do some researching of their own.

[Drkshadow03]

i agree completely with what you said, and the whole thing regarding the book of enoch is very shady indeed (but so is the bible in anyways) because for it to have existed all those years it would have had to survive the flood, blah blah blah..., but in case anyone is really interested in finding out about it, which i doubt, they should do some researching of their own.

Uhm, no it wouldn't have. Since tradition states the Torah starts getting transmitted to Moses who comes after the Flood.

[weltanschauung]

im not even sure of things that happen WHILE im witnessing it.. how could i be sure of anything that happened before i was here to notice it?
for all i know its all just a dream in my head and youre nothing but a thought

[kiki1982]

A more rational and probable explanation might be that there were several 'copies' in circulation.

I believe scientist have tried to locate the 'flood' and limited it to a certain area around the Black Sea. It must surely have been a great disaster, but not one that almost destroyed the whole world. Their world world maybe, but we are not talking about the whole earth.

Such 'copies' were widely made and by consulting several 'copies' scolars can presume that there must have been an original version that is probably lost or not found yet. How otherwise would it have come into Ethiopia? There was no copyright so they had it copied and paid for it.

Apparently the text speaks about the Temple which was destroyed by the Romans in 70AD, but was then called Herod's Temple because he renovated it. So they are looking at the Second Temple which was built 5 centuries earlier. So essentially it fades away the flood-problem. But even then it would have been possible for a version to survive...

[weltanschauung]

its not just possible. it did survive. im holding it in my hands right now :P

[blazeofglory]

Some time ago, I came across some posts on the forums about religion being bad because it makes people "high" and people who are high do bad things.

I don't mean to point any fingers; it's just that I've been unable to get that out of my mind.

First and foremost I'll say that I am a born-again, Bible-believing Christian.

I can see how "religion gives people highs," but that's not the point of my post. I can go into that later, if need be, but here's what I want to say.

People generally get high on drugs:
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm226/ladyjoker_toc/drugs.jpg

or on alcohol:
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd175/hfxstc/beer.jpg

on fashion:
http://i410.photobucket.com/albums/pp190/FindStuff2/Best%20Images/Fashion/Fashion%20Adjusted/fashioneditedit.jpg

on movie stars:
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q4/lmathieu11226/brad_pitt___angelina_jolie.jpg

by nature:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z15/officialnut/AlleghenyNationalForestPennsylvania.jpg

by animals:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z15/officialnut/EnchantedIndian.jpg

or on music:
Tchaikovsky's Piano Concerto 1 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CU49miTzYu8)

or on art:
http://i192.photobucket.com/albums/z15/officialnut/TheGirlwiththePearlEarring.jpg

by poetry:


by words. Here are some I get drunk on:


And etc.


That said - is it true that religion is bad because it gives people "highs," thus making them do criminal things? Upon realizing all I posted above, I didn't think so. I love the last four - even to the point of euphoria, sometimes. But the most they do is put me in a wildly reflective or creative mood. Nothing more.

I'm not denying that people have done horrible things in the name of religion. They have indeed - and given religion a bad name. However, some bankers have absconded with millions - thus giving banking a bad name. Some homeschoolers are the idiot old-fashioned dirty people they are portrayed to be - thus giving homeschoolers a tremendously bad name. Etc. and etc. and etc.

So yes, religion has given people highs that make them commit massive crimes, but that isn't a logical reason to automatically regard religion as false/wrong/criminal etc.

Friend, there is a wealth of wisdom in your words, and I like the points you have put forth. But I have some reservations regarding this issue that religion in itself not a bad thing despite that religions have many a time been instrumental in creating havocs, traumas and in propagating terrorists indoctrinations.

All I feel in point of fact is religions have been taken as weapons by many. Like today many use Islam as something that is used to terrorize. Hitler took religions to put people into gas chambers.

Many people use religions as a means of violence. Now do you still idealize your religions?

The religion you have on mind maybe a good one, but in general it has diminished humanity.
Let us co-create something different that has good points of religions only

[Mathor]

Nikolai, there's so many times I start reading a thread, liek this one, and can't wait to post something. This was one of those times. Then i read all the hateful comments. And it makes me not want to post. And I'm saying this as to defend you. I think you know by now that i am agnostic and do not share the same views as you. However, I wish people such as welt would practice a little bit of humility and try to see the opinions of others. That being said:

Natural highs exist. I get em all the time if i'm in a good mood. I know if anyone is happy enough they get a natural high. Some say this is God. Some say it's just the human brain. But it feels good, whatever it is, and even if all the believers in the world are wrong what brings us together is that we all get that feeling in some way. That sense of pure joy. And so I know we feel the same thing, whether it's God or it's not. I don't think that's important, what's important is that humans recognize love and appreciate that feeling that they get and act on that feeling in whatever way they see fit, whether that is to paint a picture, go for a jog, pray, read scripture etc etc etc. I am not religious, but I understand that in our differences we are all the same, for we are all human, and we feel love fill up our hearts.

[NikolaiI]

From Bob Marley to Jeff Lynne, you have it right on. I term it the soul, and yet I was an atheist in my life also, and still was a humanist. The best thing we can do is raise awareness and understanding of people from all traditions, cultures, nations. Best thing we can do is live and share joy. Atheists and theists can live in perfect harmony, and it is a very rare atheist or theist who tries to do otherwise.

[andave_ya]

you said that the mistake in my logic is that i misunderstood andave_ya's argument, but the fact you present to justify my mistake is indeed a choice. its a choice of action. when confronted with the need to obtain an answer for whatever question, she goes after someone, that is a choice, and the choice is based upon the reliance on someone else's choice nonetheless, to get a solution to whatever problem, where does my argument fail here?
i simply base my view on the fact that every person is capable of (and should be encouraged to, from early ages) making difficult decisions without the assitance of others, regardless of the link that unites them. if one wants to see that as absurd or preposterous, its indeed a choice that they have, however it doesnt make my argument worthy or disapprobation. if we want to give birth to dependent individuals, sure, we should encourage insecurity, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions, i mean, advice.

Seriously? Then answer this, please:



How do you know what point I've gone to? How do you decide what point is necessary? How do you know what I know?

It's very interesting to see that the time I think I'm at my most original is the time I'm invariably hit with the "you're brainwashed" bit. Honestly, HOW CAN ONE DECIDE ANYTHING WITHOUT PREVIOUS KNOWLEDGE???

It is indeed a choice - and it is indeed a wise idea to raise children up to think independently. Enough to realize that regardless of their ability to make their own decisions, they might not make the wisest decisions. A few years ago I realized that whenever I disagreed with my parents on a major topic they almost always turned out to be right, not me. So rather than making hasty or uninformed decisions on my own - I ask!

Edit: I just saw this:
im not even sure of things that happen WHILE im witnessing it.. how could i be sure of anything that happened before i was here to notice it?
for all i know its all just a dream in my head and youre nothing but a thought

:eek2: then how can you be so sure you're right about your snap judgements of others? Or just because we're "thoughts" makes us impersonal?

[Judas130]

I was an atheist in my life also

what changed you, if you don't mind?
:)

[NikolaiI]

Buddhism, Daoism and Hinduism all had an effect on me. Plato, Descartes, Spinoza and Pascal, and especially Emerson as well. I am partly a mystic. I've read mystic's writings and poems from all religions and found great truth in some from each. Jewish ones were very great. But I don't take any of those to be all-in-all. Buddhism was very influential on me, and I experienced great realization during the time I was immersed in Buddhism. I can't explain what revelation is to you, and frankly due the nature of your posts, I am not really eager to know your thoughts on it. But I don't mind answering your question.

[JBI]

Uhm, no it wouldn't have. Since tradition states the Torah starts getting transmitted to Moses who comes after the Flood.

Yeah, and the fact that the text wasn't formed until much later, according to the Jewish tradition. Every Rabbinic scholar notes that even Moses penned some of the books in the Torah, he almost certainly didn't pen the end of Deuteronomy, detailing his death. In truth, the stronger tradition of the Oral Torah, what would later be collected in the Mishnah is said to have originated in the same place. One however, is more of a historical record, whereas the other is a philosophical treatise. The Christian tradition almost totally ignores the Rabbinic tradition, which acts more to explain the Bible than anyone would believe. Midrash, Talmud, Mishnah, and subsequent biblical writings, I would argue, emerged with the emergence of the Torah text, and reflect better the actual composition - coming from oral to written from the passing down of history, and the later advancements in written form previously unavailable.

[JBI]

I'd also add, that the irony of getting high on God seems cheap rhetoric for anti-drug lobbiests. One merely needs to try marijuana to know the difference. American religion in general seems to emphasize the "supernatural experience" of god, but really, one is fancy, where the other one is a whole other feeling. Trust me, or better yet, maybe you should go out and try Marijuana, or a psychedelic substance, and realize the difference. When one wants to "stop experiencing" the high achieved by religion they can. When one is high off a substance, the substance takes over. One cannot shut off the drug, because it is a real sensation, not something imagined. I think that's the big distinction, which many here seem to ignore.

[Mathor]

I'd also add, that the irony of getting high on God seems cheap rhetoric for anti-drug lobbiests. One merely needs to try marijuana to know the difference. American religion in general seems to emphasize the "supernatural experience" of god, but really, one is fancy, where the other one is a whole other feeling. Trust me, or better yet, maybe you should go out and try Marijuana, or a psychedelic substance, and realize the difference. When one wants to "stop experiencing" the high achieved by religion they can. When one is high off a substance, the substance takes over. One cannot shut off the drug, because it is a real sensation, not something imagined. I think that's the big distinction, which many here seem to ignore.

i dont think that's necessarily true, certain people are affected differently by different drugs, just as different people are affected differently by religion and emotion in general. So some people's highs can be quite similar to that of marijuana, just as you can get natural highs that are comparable to marijuana. And just as someone can become "possessed", that's not really something a person can just stop experiencing. Of course all of these things are simply in the head, but that is all that any high is no matter what the stimuli, just a chemical reaction in your brain

[*Classic*Charm*]

I'd also add, that the irony of getting high on God seems cheap rhetoric for anti-drug lobbiests. One merely needs to try marijuana to know the difference. American religion in general seems to emphasize the "supernatural experience" of god, but really, one is fancy, where the other one is a whole other feeling. Trust me, or better yet, maybe you should go out and try Marijuana, or a psychedelic substance, and realize the difference. When one wants to "stop experiencing" the high achieved by religion they can. When one is high off a substance, the substance takes over. One cannot shut off the drug, because it is a real sensation, not something imagined. I think that's the big distinction, which many here seem to ignore.

Wow I have many an issue with this little post.

JBI, is it safe for me to assume that you've been atheistic and/or anti-theistic your whole life? You weren't raised with a faith and converted? If this is true, and please correct me if I'm wrong, what gives you the right to say that "one is fancy, where the other is a whole other feeling"? This goes both ways! You suggest that a faithful person should just try marijuana to see the difference. If you have never had a religious experience (and by that I obviously do not mean Christ appears in your house one day) whereby you've experienced some wave of emotion or otherwise, what qualifies you to say that it's "just fancy"?


When one wants to "stop experiencing" the high achieved by religion they can.

You really think so? There's no question that the high produced by a substance is not the same as a religious high, and both are different from an endorphin-induced runner's high. One cannot come down from a substance high when one feels like it, one cannot tune out one's hormones after a work out, and I challenge that one cannot simply "stop experiencing" a religious high, based simply of the fact that when one believes so firmly in something like religion, his or her body starts physically reacting to it.

For example, it's possible that if a woman convinces herself that she is pregnant, her body will physically react by producing symptoms of pregnancy. The fact that pregnancy is something that can be proven or not is irrelevant. If one lives his or her entire life believing in faith, the body reacts. I seriously doubt that that can just be turned off.

[NikolaiI]

I can hardly think of a more false position than this: those states which I do not know are false.

Dang it, I posted here again.

[JBI]

Religious high is rhetoric. What brings it about? An acceptance in one's mind of a belief system? Is that the same as bringing about a feeling by manipulating through psychedelic substances? Yes, it is.

I trust you have done Marijuana, in addition to other drugs? I trust you've gone at least as far as magic mushrooms, otherwise you wouldn't comment? What about pain killers? That is what a high is. What you feel from religion, I would assume to be different.

[NikolaiI]

JBI, I cannot say that states of consciousness which I do not know cannot exist.

The thing about it is, perfect peace is achieveable. You see, we desire this, and that, and we feel unsatisfied. But we can be situated in self-knowledge. This is possible. Our mind is conditioned, but beneath the conditioned mind is the unconditioned, free mind. There is much greater within us than we know.

You say that being high on hallucinogenic substances (Marijuana is this) is higher than one can be without them. But this is baseless, as you are making a statement about states of consciousness of which you have no knowledge - for instance Buddhist, Hindu, or other sects of monks.

The "sustained awareness" (cf. Karl Jaspers) of the unconditioned mind, being aware of itself, is beyond the cognition of the conditioned mind. Therefore, the conditioned mind eternally doubts its existence. I would suggest reading Plato's allegory of the cave, which may give some understanding.

[Mathor]

Religious high is rhetoric. What brings it about? An acceptance in one's mind of a belief system? Is that the same as bringing about a feeling by manipulating through psychedelic substances? Yes, it is.

I trust you have done Marijuana, in addition to other drugs? I trust you've gone at least as far as magic mushrooms, otherwise you wouldn't comment? What about pain killers? That is what a high is. What you feel from religion, I would assume to be different.

id say that's about as close to a religious high as it gets. painkillers make you feel optimistic about everything, everything is kind of cloudy, and there's no real reaosn for you to feel good and yet you do. i'd say this is the way most people feel because of religion.

[*Classic*Charm*]

I can hardly think of a more false position than this: those states which I do not know are false.

Dang it, I posted here again.

I don't mean to say that "If I haven't felt it, it's not true".

I'm simply saying that, for example,

A person who has never been under the influence of a substance will not deny that those who smoke up experience a high, just because he/she him/herself has not experienced it.

Why would a person who has never experienced a religious high not consider that is exists?

Does that make sense?:)

[*Classic*Charm*]

Religious high is rhetoric. What brings it about? An acceptance in one's mind of a belief system? Is that the same as bringing about a feeling by manipulating through psychedelic substances? Yes, it is.

I trust you have done Marijuana, in addition to other drugs? I trust you've gone at least as far as magic mushrooms, otherwise you wouldn't comment? What about pain killers? That is what a high is. What you feel from religion, I would assume to be different.

In a discussion like this, I wouldn't allow myself to be hypocritical. :)

Though as I said, I'm not suggesting that a face-to-face with the virgin Mary is necessary to qualify the point of view.

Mathor's point about pain killers is pretty right on, as far as I see it. And depending on the drug and the high it provides for you, it can supply the same feelings as what one experiences from a religious high. The human range of emotion has its boundaries.

And personally, I no longer feel anything from religion. I practice no faith and believe in no higher power, though I used to. This, of course, did not come about by turning off a switch.

[NikolaiI]

I don't mean to say that "If I haven't felt it, it's not true".

I'm simply saying that, for example,

A person who has never been under the influence of a substance will not deny that those who smoke up experience a high, just because he/she him/herself has not experienced it.

Why would a person who has never experienced a religious high not consider that is exists?

Does that make sense?:)

Classic, I apologize for not being clear. I wasn't directing that toward you in the least! I agree with you wholeheartedly and my post was directed toward JBI. I thought your post was good. Hope you understand.

And, what I said in content was also in reply to JBI, as he was the one who said that those which are not based on drugs are fancy. This seems to me to be the most false view you could possibly take.

I was thinking on it and I wanted to add an example, or talk about a specific case. In Buddhism, the ultimate goal is Nirvana. (Keep in mind this is mainly to JBI or those who hold his view.) Now, according to JBI, the idea of Nirvana is fancy. The state of consciousness of Nirvana does not exist and is not attainable. It is not possible to attain a religious high, and/or, religious highs are by necessity inferior to those from drugs.

The question seems to be is it possible to attain a state of consciousness of bliss, without drugs? The religious scriptures, the spiritual masters, and the practices all say that it is. In fact a great deal of Hinduism and Buddhism is directed in this way; understanding consciousness, reality, what these mean; the different states, what they mean, and what is true or spiritual consciousness.

In Buddhism it's Nirvana or Enlightenment, and in Hinduism it's Self-realization or God-realization. It's the knowledge of one's self - Buddha nature or Atman (the Soul). But they are both just interpretations of reality, of truth, of enlightenment. Let me make clear that enlightenment is not about seeking bliss, and yet it also is. This seems like a paradox. But enlightenment is not about seeking bliss, rather, more it's about helping others to relieve suffering. But at the same time, the enlightened state is a state of bliss.

Hinduism says that we are part of the Over-Soul, and our true state is the Atman which is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss.

Anyway I know I may have wrote too much, I'll back track a little and make it simple. Why is Nirvana beyond or greater than a substance induced feeling? For a couple reasons. One, it is the great enlightenment, experiencing the ultimate state of consciousness. This may seem esoteric and I get, I understand that you do not accept it - otherwise you would be interested in Buddhism already. But bear in mind. It's beyond everything else. Suffering / pleasure are based on much, much limited concepts - including duality, space, and time. Based on the idea that my "self" is separated from the reality, that there is a difference between the internal and the external.

Two, Nirvana is greater because it is permanent. By its very definition, Nirvana is the ending of the causes of suffering, ignorance, and birth and death. If you are experiencing a Marijuana induced feeling, it is temporary. It certainly does not bring spiritual attainment, it does not solve one's problems. Spirituality does.

And there is a "high" to be had just by having a clear conscience, or just being free from things such as the causes of ignorance or suffering - in other words, karma. How can one be happy if one isn't free?

Rastafarians, as I am aware, take Marijuana as a religious sacrament. In their words, it helps them see the truth, as "like taking the wool from one's eyes." But it's also part of the Ras Tafarian religion that it is not necessary, nor is it required. Nor, would I expect, they would share your view that spiritual bliss from other religions such as Buddhism or Hinduism, which are not based on any chemical substances, are inauthentic, or as you say, fancy. (Illusion?)

Looking forward to your reply.


Just a note, I am not disregarding Christianity or Islam or any other, I am speaking primarily of Buddhism and Hinduism because I have greater knowledge and practice within these religions. I believe, as Sri Ramana Maharshi and many others also did, that any religious path can be a true path for an individual. I think it was Swami Vivekananda who said, "A cake is just as sweet whether you eat it length-wise or side-ways." (A butchered quote. :))

[*Classic*Charm*]

Thanks for the clarification, Nik! I wasn't upset or anything! :)

I agree with you here as well- the example of Nirvana is excellent.

I'm not as familiar with Buddhism and Hinduism. I've only studied both minimally.

[NikolaiI]

I can not exaggerate the effect they have had on my life.

Glad you were not upset! That's a fine quality to have.

[Joreads]

I can not exaggerate the effect they have had on my life.

Glad you were not upset! That's a fine quality to have.

Charm is one of the best NikolaiI

[mono]

A person who has never been under the influence of a substance will not deny that those who smoke up experience a high, just because he/she him/herself has not experienced it.

Why would a person who has never experienced a religious high not consider that is exists?
Interesting question - a bit more related to existentialism and rationalism, but fascinating. :nod:
In more of a Berkeleyan philosophy, one could perhaps imagine the existence of a religious 'high' without experiencing it him/herself, but not realize its entire essence, much like someone who uses no drugs or alcohol can imagine the experience attainable through such substances, yet not have full relation to others who use them. The question may presuppose that a religious 'high' comes from something external, like in the first cited other 'highs,' such as by drugs, alcohol, fashion, fame, nature, art, etc. Though I say this as a non-religious person, I think a religious or spiritual 'high' would originate from a more internal, intrinsic doing, rather than like something consumed; an individual could even experience a religious/spiritual high outside churches, mosques, temples, or altars, or even not while praying or meditating. Not quite along the same lines, I heard about a mathematician who once solved a regarded impossible equation, not while after years of studying at his desk, but it instead 'came to him' while stepping out of the shower - totally random!
By saying that a religious/spiritual 'high' has an internal origin, but induced by religious texts and such, I do not want to imply that a non-religious person, like myself, lacks something internally; most people have five fingers on each hand, but we use them differently, the movement and sensation of which occur internally. The possibilities of beliefs and subsequent 'highs' from those beliefs seem endless between a religious and non-religious individual - immeasurable, to put it simply - so I cannot claim that one has more internal 'stuff' to experience or evince a religious/spiritual 'high' over another, yet we have multiple means towards one end. Highs feel good, and we must not always interpret them as Hedonistic, but the differentiation between a high originating from internal or external means seems important; either way, we have some sort of internal sensation that creates the high.

[Mathor]

i'm just saying i've had many late nights with friends up at 4am and we're so tired that we're restless at the same time, and really giddy, and we just laugh at everything. And I've had experience with drugs and it's the same difference. If this can happen just from a couple people getting together and having sober fun, it's not all preposterous that someone who devotes their entire life to religion would probably get an even LARGER high just from devotion.