why are we here?

[cacian]

on this earth?
a straight question deserves a straight answer.:yesnod:

mine is: we are here to sample what could be or is next.

[loe]

There is no reason.
(Straight enough? ;) )

And if we need one that makes us stay, we have to invent one.

[osho]

on this earth?
a straight question deserves a straight answer.:yesnod:

mine is: we are here to sample what could be or is next.

You sound philosophical with question. I of course like this question though i myself do not know the answer

[cafolini]

I think we are here to listen to Cacian and Osho. LOL

[tonywalt]

I think we are here to listen to Cacian and Osho. LOL

I've clearly missed my purpose then.....lol

[cacian]

I think we are here to listen to Cacian and Osho. LOL

cafolini you do magics when you rofle. ROFLMAO!


There is no reason.
(Straight enough? ;) )

And if we need one that makes us stay, we have to invent one.
We have to stay there is no way out.

[Bleeding Pawn]

on this earth?
a straight question deserves a straight answer.:yesnod:

mine is: we are here to sample what could be or is next.

Answer, that too straight, TOUGH. Well here goes. Before going further we have to think and ask ourselves if not here then where? What would our desired destination be? Going by the facts we as the only living superior intellectual being in the whole universe are left with only 2 choices, either hell or heaven and surely most of us would select Heaven.To know the reason that why we are really here , we have to go back to our roots at the very beginning and understand the meanings of punishment and pain. So going by the biblical story, when Adam and Eve were created their dwelling was in Heaven,they took the peace and serenity for granted, thus disobeying their CREATOR. When banished from Heaven they were put on Earth longing for ever for Paradise. So i guess we are here to endure hardship and pain to find the path to everlasting tranquility. Story? Fiction? Maybe but then our existence are a living proof of and we as the characters of this very Ancient Story Book.

[Ecurb]

I'm here because, try as I might, I can't seem to go elsewhere. Where ever I go, I'm still here. It's annoying, but what can I do?

[cacian]

Bleeding Pawn I once believed Adam and Eve story. The classic naughty gets punished and so on.
All stories are cast around Adam and Eve to this day. It is an irony and also I concluded that Heaven must be up there and earth is hell because that is where Adam and Eve were supposed to have been cast as a punishment.

[islandclimber]

I think we are here to listen to Cacian and Osho. LOL

This certainly seems to be the case. Although, maybe more so to ponder (rhetorical?) questions posed by these two...

I often wonder if we're just looking at masculine and feminine sides of the same creature. Maybe they should combine into one rather androgynous entity?

[loe]

We have to stay there is no way out.
Of course there is a way out (usually it's called suicid - a desperate measure if one really can't cope with a life without any reason and is incapable of finding/inventing a worthy reason to stay...)

[cacian]

Of course there is a way out (usually it's called suicid - a desperate measure if one really can't cope with a life without any reason and is incapable of finding/inventing a worthy reason to stay...)

Suicide is sadly a fact of life and it must not go on. One's life is worthy more and must be taken care of. Fortunately for us one must always look up and down to others and figure out what it is they have less or more to work out an even balance for oneself. It is comforting to think that life is always full of surprises and giving up is not an ultimatum a short exit which unfortunately does impend and sorrows other people life around it.
So let's rethink what it is that drives us there and try and prevent it. Forward thinking is much desired.:)

[osho]

I think we are here to listen to Cacian and Osho. LOL

It is really interesting you are listening to me even if what I have to say may be devoid of anything that may excite you. I do not understand your answer is skewed or straight I simply feel you listen. That is what a writer expects of his reader, whether the response is critical or appreciative, or satirical. Even the response is negative is is worth doing.

Rather than not receiving any response or getting an apathy I feel elated to have a response.

[Bleeding Pawn]

Bleeding Pawn I once believed Adam and Eve story. The classic naughty gets punished and so on.
All stories are cast around Adam and Eve to this day. It is an irony and also I concluded that Heaven must be up there and earth is hell because that is where Adam and Eve were supposed to have been cast as a punishment.

yes Earth is really a hellish place , whether literally or metaphorically but one thing is for sure that we are here to carry on the legacy of Adam and eve by fulfilling their long lost dream to see and reside in Heaven by their "living eyes"

[cafolini]

I think we are here because we are not there. Hell in the realm of the idiot. The idiot is always trying to convince us that hell is here. We have always had to protect our freedom here. We have always had to protect the idiots from becoming slaves and being used by the superidiots to turn us also into slaves.

[osho]

We are here just because there are people who mostly come up with negative thoughts and we have to deal with them severely. We are here just because the world is full of negative people who cannot see the beauty of humanity and we have to right these wrong people.

[Bleeding Pawn]

We are here just because there are people who mostly come up with negative thoughts and we have to deal with them severely. We are here just because the world is full of negative people who cannot see the beauty of humanity and we have to right these wrong people.


Agreed osho. Pessimists are like a disease which infects the whole body, in this case ,society.Pray tell me,what are the steps we should take in order to instill love and harmony in them for their own being and bring them to the bright side and let them savour what they are missing. What should we do, as an enlightened part of the community ,to bring forth changes in these kind of cases for them to appreciate nature and humanity, even though these basic ingredients of life are ever present in their life ,albeit, literally. Are they qualities family traditions or does some tragic incidents made them change their outlook towards the world?

[Bleeding Pawn]

Bleeding Pawn I once believed Adam and Eve story. The classic naughty gets punished and so on.
All stories are cast around Adam and Eve to this day. It is an irony and also I concluded that Heaven must be up there and earth is hell because that is where Adam and Eve were supposed to have been cast as a punishment.

Once??? past tense, hmm. What really happened, since it is very difficult to change a persons mindset about their faith, which is handed down the generation as a family heirloom. Will their be any consequences if you do revert back to it?

[cacian]

Once??? past tense, hmm. What really happened, since it is very difficult to change a persons mindset about their faith, which is handed down the generation as a family heirloom. Will their be any consequences if you do revert back to it?

True which leads me to this:
when people seek religion are they looking for a meaning in their life?

[Bleeding Pawn]

True which leads me to this:
when people seek religion are they looking for a meaning in their life?

There`s also another angle to this question.It is not usually people who seek and when/what they seek.Religious hermits are known to wander everywhere for a purpose and its consequences even though religion is a part and parcel of their life
. Sometimes when the cup is full to the brim you need to empty it for a second helping, it is not usually seeking anything for something but what should be the case is that religion should be used as a medium in searching for any significance and goodness in our and others life .

[Bleeding Pawn]

So what does that make you, a seeker who is pursuing something which is already there with you or are you the one who acts as a candle to enlighten others bleak and gloomy life.

[cacian]

So what does that make you, a seeker who is pursuing something which is already there with you or are you the one who acts as a candle to enlighten others bleak and gloomy life.

Are you asking me the question? If so I am just pondering what others think of life. I think we must all at some stage believe something like life is worth talking about:)

[Shevek]

Agreed osho. Pessimists are like a disease which infects the whole body, in this case ,society.

That is awfully pessimistic.

[cafolini]

I think we are here to enjoy KoonPaw chicken.

[osho]

I think we are here to enjoy KoonPaw chicken.
Do you savor all alone or partner with someone?

[Jack of Hearts]

Came in here to use the bathroom. Couldn't find it, went on the lawn. Leaving now, bai.





J

[cacian]

I think we are here to enjoy KoonPaw chicken.


what no chicken kiev?
anyway here is one little ROFL just for you.

8629


Came in here to use the bathroom. Couldn't find it, went on the lawn. Leaving now, bai.





J

are you sure you did not mean the water chamber? bathroom if for undressing and having a bath.
by the way nice to see you back:)


That is awfully pessimistic.

I agree. That statement is one pessimism in itself.


I think we are here because we are not there. Hell in the realm of the idiot. The idiot is always trying to convince us that hell is here. We have always had to protect our freedom here. We have always had to protect the idiots from becoming slaves and being used by the superidiots to turn us also into slaves.

that's lot of thinking there cafo. ''to be or not to be'' ''here and not here''. Sounds familiar. Slavery and idiocy are two very contingent scars society does not need. Neither have a place on this earth. One are here to ensure they nevre take shape again. That is one answer worthy.

[osho]

We are here to do all that we want to regardless of what the rest think for life is short lived and too many negations deaden us and that will disable us to feel belonging here and now

[cacian]

We are here to do all that we want to regardless of what the rest think for life is short lived and too many negations deaden us and that will disable us to feel belonging here and now
Haha true doing what one's like is becoming a thing of the past. Banning is rife these days.

[osho]

Haha true doing what one's like is becoming a thing of the past. Banning is rife these days.

You are interesting Cacai, in fact prehistorically we were free and but there were still fears, the fear of getting attacked, of being seduced, of being killed or displaced etc. Our great great great grandmas and grandpas' life was also not trouble free. Risks were always rife and is for ever.

[cacian]

You are interesting Cacai, in fact prehistorically we were free and but there were still fears, the fear of getting attacked, of being seduced, of being killed or displaced etc. Our great great great grandmas and grandpas' life was also not trouble free. Risks were always rife and is for ever.

Haha risks are what we do when we get bored and since bannig is boredom then risks is what one does to occupy the mind.
I am guessing risks are a good lesson in life if one handles the pressure and wins over the risk. We only get so many chances.;)

[osho]

Haha risks are what we do when we get bored and since bannig is boredom then risks is what one does to occupy the mind.
I am guessing risks are a good lesson in life if one handles and the pressure and win over the risk. We only get so many chances.;)

You are partly true if not fully untrue. Risks are taken out of profit motives, out of love and sex motives, out of adventure motives, out of funny desire to be distinguished, out of revolutionary impulses and the like.

[cacian]

You are partly true if not fully untrue. Risks are taken out of profit motives, out of love and sex motives, out of adventure motives, out of funny desire to be distinguished, out of revolutionary impulses and the like.

osho one must grasp the meaning of risk I feel.
I tend to understand before I can do. That is my priority in everything I do.
The only time i do not is when i read or write.I just do it because i feel like it.
A risk according to me is a big lie that sits on a shelf waiting to be lowered down and off its weight and taken for a walk on the wild side.
The only problem is that it won't leave side it is a 24 hour joby. Full time attention is required. You would have to attend to it addictively. I have not got time so I won't pay it attention. It will sit where it is told too somewhere where it can collect dust and sip on it until it is rusted over. Eventually it would decay from its own crass. That time not me that would do it justice. Ridding it from its own lame.
I guess that is my view point. :)

[osho]

Risk is very much with us, in every walk of life. while I am writing this stuff I am doing at the risk of getting isolated from the rest of my nears and dears. Or at the risk of getting fatter and fatter since I take more and more pounds by imprisoning myself in a cell. When I am obsessed by writing I go antisocial since writing is a private affair one has to distance from the rest of other people at times. And there is a lot of risks in writing. Love is a risk too since at the same time a couple or more people might have eyed the same fellows and yet at any risk we fall in love.

Risk and reward are intertwined and both coexist and risks open portals to opportunities. The meaning of risk is to imperil yourself or endangering yourself . It is in every step life.

[cacian]

Risk is very much with us, in every walk of life. while I am writing this stuff I am doing at the risk of getting isolated from the rest of my nears and dears. Or at the risk of getting fatter and fatter since I take more and more pounds by imprisoning myself in a cell. When I am obsessed by writing I go antisocial since writing is a private affair one has to distance from the rest of other people at times. And there is a lot of risks in writing. Love is a risk too since at the same time a couple or more people might have eyed the same fellows and yet at any risk we fall in love.

Risk and reward are intertwined and both coexist and risks open portals to opportunities. The meaning of risk is to imperil yourself or endangering yourself . It is in every step life.
I am afraid to disappoint but risk is a mild contraception against logic. It is at anyone's peril. The pursuit of risk is the pursuit of wind. One minute it blows and then next it doesn't what happens in between is anybody's guess.

[qimissung]

Why are we here?

Big Bang theory, evolution-basically, fate. :D

[Adolescent09]

I am afraid to disappoint but risk is a mild contraception against logic. It is at anyone's peril. The pursuit of risk is the pursuit of wind. One minute it blows and then next it doesn't what happens in between is anybody's guess.

Let's not be too hasty, cacian. Although I do like the way you coined your argument, you are revealing what is either latent or apparent in us all: a tendency to like Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. To clarify, let us think about the word 'contraception'. Setting aside the objection of theologians to elastic Jimmy wraps, who typically contend that God's blueprint for life is written in the unquenchable flow of man's seed, the line separating risk from logic is either implicit or blatantly blurred.

Good Logic: don't go up to a lion minding its own business and poke it with a stick.

Bad Logic: If your girl won't let you get some, make love to a horse instead. (Based on a true story)

Risk has its consequences with both types of logic as well.

Risk of not following good logic: if you don't go up to a lion, and you don't prod it with a stick, and the lion turns out to be as brave as the one in The Wizard of Oz, you will miss out on the companionship of a cuddly big kitty.

Risk of not following bad logic: If your girl did let you get some, and you don't make love to a horse, and the horse turns out to be BOXER from Animal Farm well... well... that's messed up! Heck, horses need loving too. Before they get slaughtered.

I don't know wat I'm typing... Way too high and tipsy...

Excuse me while I go listen to Pink Floyd, 2 Chainz, Megadeth, Justin Bieber, Jimi Hendrix, Britney Spears, Queen and Rebecca Black all while on good Kush and alcohol until the aforementioned artists/bands all sound the same.

[cacian]

Let's not be too hasty, cacian. Although I do like the way you coined your argument, you are revealing what is either latent or apparent in us all: a tendency to like Bone Thugs-N-Harmony. To clarify, let us think about the word 'contraception'. Setting aside the objection of theologians to elastic Jimmy wraps, who typically contend that God's blueprint for life is written in the unquenchable flow of man's seed, the line separating risk from logic is either implicit or blatantly blurred.


logic is neither blunt late or blend. It is straight forward never bending.
Contraception is an asset if you let it naturally and it is a biceps if you push it hard.
God is neither a footprint a colour or a seed.It is anything but everything . I am not in the know for i have never met one and I speak for myself. Man however is a deed that bails when it fends and tracks when it rides. He or she must follow the path and look forward never backword or else its neither here or there.
Logic is to guide he or she either that or at each their own peril and what is in between is common to all of us. One wish to fail one must do so and another wish to claim then so be it. Everything is doable so long as it mine to decide for you.


Good Logic: don't go up to a lion minding its own business and poke it with a stick.

Bad Logic: If your girl won't let you get some, make love to a horse instead. (Based on a true story)

Risk has its consequences with both types of logic as well.

Risk of not following good logic: if you don't go up to a lion, and you don't prod it with a stick, and the lion turns out to be as brave as the one in The Wizard of Oz, you will miss out on the companionship of a cuddly big kitty.

Risk of not following bad logic: If your girl did let you get some, and you don't make love to a horse, and the horse turns out to be BOXER from Animal Farm well... well... that's messed up! Heck, horses need loving too. Before they get slaughtered.

Logically speaking there ain't a lion to poke what there is is a lion that roars. It is not my business to chase the wild and so I will not be poking any.
Logic: keep up with nature. Keep out of danger and risk is low very low. Go chasing the wind it will chase you back.
Risk: go looking for it and it will find you but at your very own peril.
Bad on its own yes.
logic on its own yes.
peril on its yes.
risk on its own yes.
mix and match is a no no . One or the other but never together. Now that is logic. Perish the thought that peril may have a say. Until then chase a bit of logic and it will return the favour. :)

[Shaman_Raman]

Phew, Cacian I can't tell if thats one long poem, or just logic way beyond my interpretation, but nevertheless bravo!

I'm going to try to revert back to the start of the thread: why the hell are we here? There's so many senses to that question, I don't know where to start..

We're on the Lit Net to share our writing, and discuss other writers work.
We're on the internet to connect with people we could never reach in the real world without extra effort, in addition to obtaining information easily and without hassile.
We're where we live because we chose to live their, or our parents or ancestors descended there.
We're part of the universe because it just so happened to be part of it's course, or God's plan of action, if you so believe. So why are we here? Simply to exist.

What we do with that existence is up to us.

[cacian]

I know you are our existence is tied to ourselves. One takes care of the knot the tie because if it is too tied then it breaks and the consequence are uncertain.
I know I am here because I want to. That is a good enough reason for me to have.
Satisfaction is gratis it comes flawless to those who do not paint it but instead let it breath.

[cafolini]

We are here to await Cacian's dictionary of synonyms. And at least a little clever smile of wisdomnomics.
Now that we have Francisco I, we need Cacian to clarify.

[cacian]

We are here to await Cacian's dictionary of synonyms. And at least a little clever smile of wisdomnomics.
Now that we have Francisco I, we need Cacian to clarify.

Francisco I who is that? Nothing to do with the Franciscan I hope. They were very bad news.

[cafolini]

He's a Jesuit, synonimous with sandles, olympic, caribbean cruise, chingadera, coffee, wine, pate de foi, etc., in the new dictionary, I predict.

[Paulclem]

Francisco I who is that? Nothing to do with the Franciscan I hope. They were very bad news.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciscan

Why?

[cacian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franciscan

Why?

Well because they had divisive orders and ascensions according to classification and saw poverty as a mean to purety which is a mean thing to do.
I quote:

A sermon which Francis heard in 1209 on Mt 10:9 made such an impression on him that he decided to devote himself wholly to a life of apostolic poverty. Clad in a rough garment, barefoot, and, after the Evangelical precept, without staff or scrip, he began to preach repentance.[5]
It is one thing to be poor and another to want to be poor and on top of it one goes repentance. Repentance from what? from wanting to be poor?
The were also into this brotherhood thing. A bit stifling at time.

[Paulclem]

Well because they had divisive orders and ascensions according to classification and saw poverty as a mean to purety which is a mean thing to do.
I quote:

It is one thing to be poor and another to want to be poor and on top of it one goes repentance. Repentance from what? from wanting to be poor?
The were also into this brotherhood thing. A bit stifling at time.

Repentance refers to christian teachings on sinfulness, and that explanation is better coming from a Christian.

I'm not sure you have understood the poverty thing though. It is a rejection of materialistic values in favour of a spiritual life. It's not about simply wanting to be poor. It's about trying to lead a simple life without the diversions that commonly occupy us all rather than the welfare - temporal and spiritual - of others.

St Francis is a tremendous example of a non-vioent, non-dogmatic Saint whose spirituality and compassion extended to people an animals.

A for brotherhood - it was their choice.

[cafolini]

Repentance is not exclusive to the Christians. It is a realization of moral wrongdoings that could reach any person who has done obvious misdeeds. It has no attachment to religion inclinations. Otherwise, morality could be erroneously considered a monopoly of one church or another.

[cacian]

Repentance is not exclusive to the Christians. It is a realization of moral wrongdoings that could reach any person who has done obvious misdeeds. It has no attachment to religion inclinations. Otherwise, morality could be erroneously considered a monopoly of one church or another.

Why repent when youcan just stop doing whatever bad is doing. I find repentence creepy almost needy.


Repentance refers to christian teachings on sinfulness, and that explanation is better coming from a Christian.

I'm not sure you have understood the poverty thing though. It is a rejection of materialistic values in favour of a spiritual life. It's not about simply wanting to be poor. It's about trying to lead a simple life without the diversions that commonly occupy us all rather than the welfare - temporal and spiritual - of others.

St Francis is a tremendous example of a non-vioent, non-dogmatic Saint whose spirituality and compassion extended to people an animals.

A for brotherhood - it was their choice.

I am sorry but I could not agree is some monk decided to preach poverty and look shabby shoeless without clothes to encourage other followers to do the same is practictlyy genesis/cleansing . It is what the nazis did. One does not piet through starvation because it teaches others to do the same which implies that it affects their community and children. To teach someone not to eat is mean and seriously retarded. There are people who have nothing eat in this world and they do not do it out choice religion. One might as well start a religion based on nudity and sex.
I consider it a pervert doctrine. It not only had invaded places such south america imposed a god on them they do not understand and then preach to them to not eat and wear clothes it is very close to insanity if you ask me. I think it is pretty delirious and need looking into seriously.
And then it does not stop there. It goes on to tell them to repent. From what? from not eating? i think something seriously wrong them monks franscicanito/franco I am sorry but that is evil. franco/francis derives from it oops did i derive a french there.

[Paulclem]

I am sorry but I could not agree is some monk decided to preach poverty and look shabby shoeless without clothes to encourage other followers to do the same is practictlyy genesis/cleansing . It is what the nazis did. One does not piet through starvation because it teaches others to do the same which implies that it affects their community and children. To teach someone not to eat is mean and seriously retarded. There are people who have nothing eat in this world and they do not do it out choice religion. One might as well start a religion based on nudity and sex.
I consider it a pervert doctrine. It not only had invaded places such south america imposed a god on them they do not understand and then preach to them to not eat and wear clothes it is very close to insanity if you ask me. I think it is pretty delirious and need looking into seriously.
And then it does not stop there. It goes on to tell them to repent. From what? from not eating? i think something seriously wrong them monks franscicanito/franco I am sorry but that is evil. franco/francis derives from it oops did i derive a french there.

am sorry but I could not agree is some monk decided to preach poverty and look shabby shoeless without clothes to encourage other followers to do the same is practictlyy genesis/cleansing .

I don't know what this means.


It is what the nazis did

If you are referring to poverty - the Nais reduced millions to poverty, slavery and worse. The Franciscans invited people to follow poverty as a way to God. The comparison makes no sense.

One does not piet through starvation

Piety? Agreed. But they didn't teach starvation, just a rejection of the values of the time which was as money grabbing as today.

To teach someone not to eat is mean and seriously retarded.

Their doctrine was based on poverty - not starvtion. The order didn't starve. The implication is materially poor, but spiritually rich.

There are people who have nothing eat in this world and they do not do it out choice religion

There are. It's a scandal.

One might as well start a religion based on nudity and sex.

I don't know what your point is. What is the comparison you're drawing?

I consider it a pervert doctrine. It not only had invaded places such south america imposed a god on them they do not understand and then preach to them to not eat and wear clothes it is very close to insanity if you ask me. I think it is pretty delirious and need looking into seriously.

I presume you're talking about the Catholic Faith in general now. They didn't invade South America - the Spanish did.

And then it does not stop there. It goes on to tell them to repent. From what? from not eating? i think something seriously wrong them monks franscicanito/franco I am sorry but that is evil.

Is this catholocism you're referring to? I thought we were on about Franciscans.

[Paulclem]

Repentance is not exclusive to the Christians. It is a realization of moral wrongdoings that could reach any person who has done obvious misdeeds. It has no attachment to religion inclinations. Otherwise, morality could be erroneously considered a monopoly of one church or another.

As I was talking about Christianity and the Franciscans, then I was referring to the christian form of repentance.

[cacian]

I am sorry but I could not disagree if some monks decided to preach poverty look shabby and people. It is awful.[/COLOR]

I don't know what this means.


I am sorry but I could not disagree more. If some monks decided to preach poverty look shabby and shoeless without clothes to encourage other followers to do the same then it is practically a type of cleansing. It is awful.



If you are referring to poverty - the Nais reduced millions to poverty, slavery and worse. The Franciscans invited people to follow poverty as a way to God. The comparison makes no sense.

Are you sure? What difference is there between the two? One invite people not to eat and the other forces them not. How is that different.? Some people will take this very seriously and to the extreme.
I have met a franscican priest and he was totally screwed up about food and a serious alcoholic. His religion practices on his admittance freaked him out. You can take that as a fact from me.




Piety? Agreed. But they didn't teach starvation, just a rejection of the values of the time which was as money grabbing as today.

They teach others to reject life immunities like food and clothing. They teach people poverty. How much worse then this could it get?



Their doctrine was based on poverty - not starvtion. The order didn't starve. The implication is materially poor, but spiritually rich.

The doctrine is wrong. It teaches people to starve. This affect people's well beings and what you get is boullimic and anorexics. Where is the richeness in this? it is more like death on wheels to me.




I don't know what your point is. What is the comparison you're drawing?


You do agree that religion is a doctrine? then if you do then you do agree that monks ''poeple'' who think they can speak on behalf of a god can preach anything from not eating to not drinking to suicide to death? There has been cases where people committed group suicide because they thought their religious chieftan was a Jesus of some sort? you heard of that famous case right?
Then if you have then you agree another monk could tomorrow start a religion that teaches practices of sex group sex and nudity?
the sky is the limit if what one can do in the name of religion. Are you following? Maybe not.




I presume you're talking about the Catholic Faith in general now. They didn't invade South America - the Spanish did.
There are few franscican churhes in south america. There is one around the corner from where i live.

[
And then it does not stop there. It goes on to tell them to repent. From what? from not eating? i think something seriously wrong them monks franscicanito/franco I am sorry but that is evil.

Is this catholocism you're referring to? I thought we were on about Franciscans.
Franscican is a branch of catholicism I am pretty sure. It is more or less the same only under a slight different name.

[papayahed]

They teach others to reject life immunities like food and clothing. They teach people poverty. How much worse then this could it get?
....
Franscican is a branch of catholicism. It is more or less the same only under a slight different name.

I thought I knew a little bit about the Francisicans but I think I missed this part, where can I find these teachings?

[cacian]

I thought I knew a little bit about the Francisicans but I think I missed this part, where can I find these teachings?

Francisicans? I do not know them. ;)
Do you mean Franciscan then I can refer you to a Priest I very good aquaintance of mine. He is a franscican from southern ireland to be precise. I could put you in touch with him if you like. There is also a franciscan church down where I live I can get you some leaflets.
Here is quote from googal:

Franciscans are people (religious orders) who adhere to the teachings and spiritual disciplines of Saint Francis of Assisi. The term is usually applied to members who also adhere to the Roman Catholic Church. However, other denominations also have members who self describe as Franciscan. They include Old Catholic, Anglican, Lutheran.

[papayahed]

Francisicans? I do not know them. ;)
Do you mean Franciscan then I can refer you to a Priest I very good aquaintance of mine. He is a franscican from southern ireland to be precise. I could put you in touch with him if you like. There is also a franciscan church down where I live I can get you some leaflets.
Here is quote from googal:

Thank You, that would be great!

[Ughek]

I don't know about the pope, but I here because my parents had sex. Why are we here on this earth? There is no answer to that. There is no purpose, no reason. The question does not apply.

[cacian]

I don't know about the pope, but I here because my parents had sex. Why are we here on this earth? There is no answer to that. There is no purpose, no reason. The question does not apply.

Ok why did you parents did what they did?
They must have had a reason.

[Paulclem]

I am sorry but I could not disagree more. If some monks decided to preach poverty look shabby and shoeless without clothes to encourage other followers to do the same then it is practically a type of cleansing. It is awful.



Are you sure? What difference is there between the two? One invite people not to eat and the other forces them not. How is that different.? Some people will take this very seriously and to the extreme.
I have met a franscican priest and he was totally screwed up about food and a serious alcoholic. His religion practices on his admittance freaked him out. You can take that as a fact from me.




They teach others to reject life immunities like food and clothing. They teach people poverty. How much worse then this could it get?



The doctrine is wrong. It teaches people to starve. This affect people's well beings and what you get is boullimic and anorexics. Where is the richeness in this? it is more like death on wheels to me.





You do agree that religion is a doctrine? then if you do then you do agree that monks ''poeple'' who think they can speak on behalf of a god can preach anything from not eating to not drinking to suicide to death? There has been cases where people committed group suicide because they thought their religious chieftan was a Jesus of some sort? you heard of that famous case right?
Then if you have then you agree another monk could tomorrow start a religion that teaches practices of sex group sex and nudity?
the sky is the limit if what one can do in the name of religion. Are you following? Maybe not.




There are few franscican churhes in south america. There is one around the corner from where i live.

[
Franscican is a branch of catholicism I am pretty sure. It is more or less the same only under a slight different name.

I am sorry but I could not disagree more. If some monks decided to preach poverty look shabby and shoeless without clothes to encourage other followers to do the same then it is practically a type of cleansing. It is awful.

You are missing the point. it's not about looking shabby, it's about rejecting spiritual values for spiritual ones.

Are you sure? What difference is there between the two? One invite people not to eat and the other forces them not. How is that different.? Some people will take this very seriously and to the extreme.

Positively sure. There's a massive difference. 20million Russians died as a result of war, persecution famine and murder caused by the Nazis. Your point is incorrect. Again, they don't teach people to starve themselves - that would be against basic catholic doctrine anyway. I know you're curently on an anti-religion kick with your various rcent posts, but it would be better if you knew something of what you were tsalking about. You could effectively argue against a life of poverty in terms of things like it being anti-life, or it is anti-social and non-productive.

They teach others to reject life immunities like food and clothing. They teach people poverty. How much worse then this could it get?

They are teaching a rejection of material values as opposed to materialistic ones.

The doctrine is wrong. It teaches people to starve. This affect people's well beings and what you get is boullimic and anorexics. Where is the richeness in this? it is more like death on wheels to me.

No it doesn't- but go on then - show me a link that demonstrates the Franciscan order teaches people to starve.

You do agree that religion is a doctrine? then if you do then you do agree that monks ''poeple'' who think they can speak on behalf of a god can preach anything from not eating to not drinking to suicide to death? There has been cases where people committed group suicide because they thought their religious chieftan was a Jesus of some sort? you heard of that famous case right?
Then if you have then you agree another monk could tomorrow start a religion that teaches practices of sex group sex and nudity?
the sky is the limit if what one can do in the name of religion. Are you following? Maybe not.


Monks - catholic monks in this case do not teach suicide. it is against the teachings. i assume you are referring to Jonestown?

Here's a quote from Wikipedia:

The Peoples Temple was formed in Indianapolis, Indiana, during the mid-1950s.[3] It purported to practice what it called "apostolic socialism".[4][5] In doing so, the Temple preached that "those who remained drugged with the opiate of religion had to be brought to enlightenment — socialism."[

This was an anti religious cult. if you meant something else - then apologies.

Then if you have then you agree another monk could tomorrow start a religion that teaches practices of sex group sex and nudity?
the sky is the limit if what one can do in the name of religion.

Could? Why would that be the fault of the religion if some nutcase takes it upon themself to form a cult? The reality is that you are advocating rejecting an organisation out of the many religious organisations that do a lot of good in the world. Who are looking after the poor in the large Indian cities? Many charities including catholic ones where the Nuns devote their lives to helping the poor and disabled. i don't like a lot of the catholic church's beliefs - contraception etc etc, but I couldn't deny that they also do a lot of good away from power centres. I'm not a catholic, nor a Christian, but i think there should be credit where it's due.

another monk could tomorrow start a religion that teaches practices of sex group sex and nudity

Could? We are talking about an organisation that exists with a history which speaks for itself. What might happen in any given circumstance is a poor argument. How many times has this happened in the past 2000 years? Sometimes no doubt, but that doesn't reflect the religion.

[cacian]

Hi Paulclem and I do apologise in advance if i come or ever come cross as rude for that is not my intentions.
Ok let me explain in a different way.


you are missing the point. it's not about looking shabby, it's about rejecting spiritual values for spiritual ones.
I consider religion if it has to be any a bonus. A healthy bonus that adds values to the human condition and enriches the senses of life. Religion must add to the way life in order to improve it and improve the human condition. It is not by depreciating/deprecating what is natural to us earth resources such as food garments life that one is a piet. I wish not to piet i want to live fully and eat and drink and dress and hopefully be able to help others do the same. I do not want to join misery in its misery by being misery. I want to get better so that i can better others. Self pity and sympathy is not the option. Getting on with it is.
A religion that dictates doctrines of rejections is a doctrine that prays on the weak and implicate life richeness such as food and clothing as some kind of sin that we must not acquire. It is not logical to tell someone to deprive onself in order to appreciate. In order to appreciate one must allow for little ideas to flourish into big ones.
A religion that takes away from is a religion that teaches guilt and torment. That is not healthy. Just because a monk said this has to be it does not mean it is right.


Your point is incorrect. Again, they don't teach people to starve themselves - that would be against basic catholic doctrine anyway. I know you're curently on an anti-religion kick with your various rcent posts, but it would be better if you knew something of what you were tsalking about. You could effectively argue against a life of poverty in terms of things like it being anti-life, or it is anti-social and non-productive.
OK as I mentioned before I know a franciscan priest an acquaintance of mine and a very good one and I can tell you he is completely screwed up by the doctrine. The lack of food was one. He is still suffering today.

[Ughek]

Ok why did you parents did what they did?
They must have had a reason.Love, booze... Who knows?

People have reasons, but since none of us chose to be here in the first place 'reason' seems to be out of context here. There's a cause and as far as I'm concerned the cause is, as someone else mentioned earlier, the big bang.

[Paulclem]

Hi Paulclem and I do apologise in advance if i come or ever come cross as rude for that is not my intentions.
Ok let me explain in a different way.


I consider religion if it has to be any a bonus. A healthy bonus that adds values to the human condition and enriches the senses of life. Religion must add to the way life in order to improve it and improve the human condition. It is not by depreciating/deprecating what is natural to us earth resources such as food garments life that one is a piet. I wish not to piet i want to live fully and eat and drink and dress and hopefully be able to help others do the same. I do not want to join misery in its misery by being misery. I want to get better so that i can better others. Self pity and sympathy is not the option. Getting on with it is.
A religion that dictates doctrines of rejections is a doctrine that prays on the weak and implicate life richeness such as food and clothing as some kind of sin that we must not acquire. It is not logical to tell someone to deprive onself in order to appreciate. In order to appreciate one must allow for little ideas to flourish into big ones.
A religion that takes away from is a religion that teaches guilt and torment. That is not healthy. Just because a monk said this has to be it does not mean it is right.


OK as I mentioned before I know a franciscan priest an acquaintance of mine and a very good one and I can tell you he is completely screwed up by the doctrine. The lack of food was one. He is still suffering today.

No problem - just took it as a discussion.

I consider religion if it has to be any a bonus. A healthy bonus that adds values to the human condition and enriches the senses of life.

I don't have a problem with your stance on this. It's your stance, but different people consider different values to be important. I noticed a typo of mine where I should have said the Franciscans, and other religions - consider spiritual riches to be more important than material ones. Their view from this is that it is more important to fulfil the spiritual life and that humans' preoccupations with luxury and riches - which is a problem today as it ever was - is misguided. This is not a doctrine that preaches starvation but moderation, and it is a choice. No one who doesn't want to follow this can be compelled. Your assertion that this would lead to a miserable existence is misguided. It might be for you but others have not found this to be so. I would contend that happiness can't be found in food and clothes, and this is the crux of it. Food and clothes are necessary, good food and clothes are nice, but they do not give anything but transient happiness.

A religion that dictates doctrines of rejections is a doctrine that prays on the weak and implicate life richeness such as food and clothing as some kind of sin that we must not acquire.

I don't thik this is correct. Franciscans have a uniform - but their message to ordinary catholics is not to reject clothing, but to focus more on spiritual things. I don't see anything wrong with that.

It is not logical to tell someone to deprive onself in order to appreciate

It's more about our focus. they, and other religions, are about demonstrating that a refocusing of values is beneficial.

A religion that takes away from is a religion that teaches guilt and torment

This has been levelled at catholocism. I think it's less to do with materialism and more about morality. As I said though, I'm not a catholic or a Christian.


OK as I mentioned before I know a franciscan priest an acquaintance of mine and a very good one and I can tell you he is completely screwed up by the doctrine. The lack of food was one. He is still suffering today

I don't think it is valid to base an opinion of religion on one example. The recent scandals in the church have thrown up priests who are bad examples, but this is to be expected in any religion, and any human organisation. There is a teacher being investigated for crimes against children in the north of England, but it would be false to assume that all teachers were a threat to children. Religions are no different except that we expect - and have a right to expect - better behaviour from people who set themselves up as moral authorities.

[cacian]

Love, booze... Who knows?

People have reasons, but since none of us chose to be here in the first place 'reason' seems to be out of context here. There's a cause and as far as I'm concerned the cause is, as someone else mentioned earlier, the big bang.

I chose not to say what I say but I have to because I think it needs to be said. There is a message in all of us and we are here to ensure it is delivered.
That is why I think one is here for the benefit of another. I call it a chain reaction the bosom of healthy attitude.