Most people don't even know what love is.
If you ask, you get cliches, that only bring forth new questions, not real answers.
People tend to treat love as some sort of universal tool, universal answer to every question, universal medicine to every illness, universal solution to every problem... but one forgets that never has there been as much bad things done than excused, justified, explained and inspired by love.
To protect one's loved ones, one is ready to do almost anything.
Wars have been fought for love, cities destroyed, families and friendships broken...
You might say that that is not "real" love. Ok, then what is?
When I posted this message from Higher Self, I got some responses...
"Where there is love there is no need to fear."
There might be no NEED to fear, but people are afraid without needing to be afraid.
The story tells that the first thing an angel said to the shepherds on the field was not "love, love, love", but "do not be afraid" (Interestingly, the story tells that the first thing an angel told both Miriam and Yosef was: "do not be afraid"... Nothing about love.)
Also, I love my husband. It is obviously poor kind of love, or not truly, really love, but something else, because I am still afraid.
I am afraid what might happen to him. I fear the day he isn't in my life anymore.
I am afraid that he might say something that hurts me, and that I might say something that hurts him, because we occasionally do say things like that. We do fight, yell at each other, throw things (or want to throw things), are filled with emotions, misunderstand etc. even though we love each other.
I am also afraid of other things, not related to him. I don't like passing bridges, especially if there's car traffic allowed on the same bridge. I'm not afraid of death, I'm afraid of pain. I'm afraid the bridge will fall and I will be damaged by parts of the bridge, fall into water, try to swim with things falling around me, try to swim with broken legs, arms, wounds, concussion... I am afraid of pain, and I have not experienced enough love to take away that fear.
So - what is love?
I define love as an emotion, affection, emotional attachment, intimacy, emotional closeness and devotion, compassion, deep caring of the love interest, strong, good will, interest in other's welfare, setting other before one. It doesn't need to include physical attraction, lust, desire and sex. Oneness is not love.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Friday, March 20, 2009
YOU CAN NOT BE A CHRISTIAN PAGAN!!!
The word "Pagan" means NON-CHRISTIAN.
More precisely it means non-Abrahamic religion, non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim. Some people will exclude also the other bigger world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. as the term has a slightly pejorative sound. In the beginning the word was used of people who were seen as too primitive, uneducated, stupid to be Christian.
If you keep "Christ first", you are Christian, not a Pagan.
If you believe Jesus is just one of the Gods, you are not Christian, you are Pagan.
It's not a question of people telling you what you may or may not believe, or setting rules and limitations to spirituality. It's a question of the correct definition of words and the correct use of language. You cannot start defining the words for yourself and call you what ever you like simply because you like the sound of it.
Antisemite means a person who hates Jews, not a person who hates the Semitic people. Antisemite is a misnomer in that way, but it wasn't at the time, when one meant the Jews with the Semites, the time it was created - by an antisemite, in order to create a word that sounded more clean and clinical that "Jewhate".
Pagan is non-Christian. You cannot be non-Christian Christian. It doesn't matter if you like the sound of "Christo-Pagan", or would like to call yourself one. It's not yours to decide. The word has been around for 1600 years in the definition "non-Christian", so it's not just some conspiracy against you and your right to define yourself.
Of course your religion, faith, spirituality, life philosophy and all that is your private matter, and between you and your God - if you have any. Parents have some say in the spirituality of their underaged children, but adults may define their spirituality as they choose. Nevertheless, this is not a question of beliefs, this is a question of language, and you may not define the language to your liking.
Respecting your ancestral religions at the same time as accepting Jesus as your savior doesn't make you a Christo-Pagan. It makes you a respectful Christian.
To have been raised as Christian and later given up Christianity for Paganism doesn't make you Christo-Pagan. It makes you a Pagan with Christian upbringing. Christianity is not ethnicity, like Judaism. (Meaning, if you are born Jewish but later converted to Paganism, you can be Jewish Pagan, but being a Jewish Pagan doesn't mean you combine Judaism and Paganism as your religion. You cannot be religiously Jewish and Pagan at the same time. The words are antonymes.)
Having melted Christianity into Paganism or Paganism into Christianity and created a new religious system meaningsful to oneself doesn't make one into Christo-Pagan. You are either a Christian with Pagan style devotional system, or Pagan with some Christian inlays in your faith. You cannot be both at the same time.
You can incorporate to your Christianity the belief that Nature is part of the Divine - after all, there's some Biblical support to this idea - but you're still Christian, and not one bit Pagan. (Besides, not all Pagans believe that Nature is part of the Divine. There is really no other definition of Paganism but that it is not Christianity...)
You can be a Witch and a Christian at the same time - if by being a witch you mean a profession, lifestyle, hobby, not a religion. If by being a witch you mean a religion, more precisely Wicca or some other Neo-Pagan form of spirituality, then you can not be a Witch and a Christian at the same time. Wicca is a Neo-Pagan religion. Pagan - even with the Neo-prefix - still means "non-Christian". You can pick and choose features and elements from Wicca to incorporate into your Christianity, worship Jesus with Pagan rituals and ceremonies (after all, what is Christmas other than stolen Pagan ritual?), and take everything you like, except the belief in Goddess the Mother and Her Consort the God. You can even define One God as Goddess. You are still Christian.
Also, being a witch IS practicing magic. Of course, the majority of today's witches are very lazy and "forget" to practice magic, but if you think it's a sin to practice magic, forget your idiotic idea of that you'd be a witch. You really aren't a witch and you don't even want to be.
Pagans don't believe in Devil and are not Satanists. Satan as the Devil, the evil God, is a Christian invention and inherently bound to Christianity, which makes Satanism non-Paganism. Now, there are several opinions on whether the Satanists, who worship Satan (Shaitan) the Pagan God, are really Pagans or not, and that depends totally on whether there really ever was a God Satan - which, as far as I know, there never was, but I really don't care how the Satanists define themselves. It's none of my business. (Well, is this then? Yes, it is, because I'm a Pagan, and I will not suffer Christians trying to steal my religion from me as well as my feasts. You have made your bed, now lie in it.)
A girl I know claims to be a "Pagan-Christian Witch" - she believes being a Witch, Wiccan and Pagan are the same thing and that there's only one rule in being Christian - to believe in Jesus... You can basically ignore all of the Bible, even the 10 commandments, if you just believe in Jesus. I know there's a lot of Christians who have the same idea of what it is to be Christian. It really doesn't matter, because BEING PAGAN IS BEING NON-CHRISTIAN.
You cannot be black and white at the same time.
You cannot be a cat and a dog at the same time.
You cannot have the cake and eat it too.
More precisely it means non-Abrahamic religion, non-Christian, non-Jewish, non-Muslim. Some people will exclude also the other bigger world religions, Hinduism, Buddhism etc. as the term has a slightly pejorative sound. In the beginning the word was used of people who were seen as too primitive, uneducated, stupid to be Christian.
If you keep "Christ first", you are Christian, not a Pagan.
If you believe Jesus is just one of the Gods, you are not Christian, you are Pagan.
It's not a question of people telling you what you may or may not believe, or setting rules and limitations to spirituality. It's a question of the correct definition of words and the correct use of language. You cannot start defining the words for yourself and call you what ever you like simply because you like the sound of it.
Antisemite means a person who hates Jews, not a person who hates the Semitic people. Antisemite is a misnomer in that way, but it wasn't at the time, when one meant the Jews with the Semites, the time it was created - by an antisemite, in order to create a word that sounded more clean and clinical that "Jewhate".
Pagan is non-Christian. You cannot be non-Christian Christian. It doesn't matter if you like the sound of "Christo-Pagan", or would like to call yourself one. It's not yours to decide. The word has been around for 1600 years in the definition "non-Christian", so it's not just some conspiracy against you and your right to define yourself.
Of course your religion, faith, spirituality, life philosophy and all that is your private matter, and between you and your God - if you have any. Parents have some say in the spirituality of their underaged children, but adults may define their spirituality as they choose. Nevertheless, this is not a question of beliefs, this is a question of language, and you may not define the language to your liking.
Respecting your ancestral religions at the same time as accepting Jesus as your savior doesn't make you a Christo-Pagan. It makes you a respectful Christian.
To have been raised as Christian and later given up Christianity for Paganism doesn't make you Christo-Pagan. It makes you a Pagan with Christian upbringing. Christianity is not ethnicity, like Judaism. (Meaning, if you are born Jewish but later converted to Paganism, you can be Jewish Pagan, but being a Jewish Pagan doesn't mean you combine Judaism and Paganism as your religion. You cannot be religiously Jewish and Pagan at the same time. The words are antonymes.)
Having melted Christianity into Paganism or Paganism into Christianity and created a new religious system meaningsful to oneself doesn't make one into Christo-Pagan. You are either a Christian with Pagan style devotional system, or Pagan with some Christian inlays in your faith. You cannot be both at the same time.
You can incorporate to your Christianity the belief that Nature is part of the Divine - after all, there's some Biblical support to this idea - but you're still Christian, and not one bit Pagan. (Besides, not all Pagans believe that Nature is part of the Divine. There is really no other definition of Paganism but that it is not Christianity...)
You can be a Witch and a Christian at the same time - if by being a witch you mean a profession, lifestyle, hobby, not a religion. If by being a witch you mean a religion, more precisely Wicca or some other Neo-Pagan form of spirituality, then you can not be a Witch and a Christian at the same time. Wicca is a Neo-Pagan religion. Pagan - even with the Neo-prefix - still means "non-Christian". You can pick and choose features and elements from Wicca to incorporate into your Christianity, worship Jesus with Pagan rituals and ceremonies (after all, what is Christmas other than stolen Pagan ritual?), and take everything you like, except the belief in Goddess the Mother and Her Consort the God. You can even define One God as Goddess. You are still Christian.
Also, being a witch IS practicing magic. Of course, the majority of today's witches are very lazy and "forget" to practice magic, but if you think it's a sin to practice magic, forget your idiotic idea of that you'd be a witch. You really aren't a witch and you don't even want to be.
Pagans don't believe in Devil and are not Satanists. Satan as the Devil, the evil God, is a Christian invention and inherently bound to Christianity, which makes Satanism non-Paganism. Now, there are several opinions on whether the Satanists, who worship Satan (Shaitan) the Pagan God, are really Pagans or not, and that depends totally on whether there really ever was a God Satan - which, as far as I know, there never was, but I really don't care how the Satanists define themselves. It's none of my business. (Well, is this then? Yes, it is, because I'm a Pagan, and I will not suffer Christians trying to steal my religion from me as well as my feasts. You have made your bed, now lie in it.)
A girl I know claims to be a "Pagan-Christian Witch" - she believes being a Witch, Wiccan and Pagan are the same thing and that there's only one rule in being Christian - to believe in Jesus... You can basically ignore all of the Bible, even the 10 commandments, if you just believe in Jesus. I know there's a lot of Christians who have the same idea of what it is to be Christian. It really doesn't matter, because BEING PAGAN IS BEING NON-CHRISTIAN.
You cannot be black and white at the same time.
You cannot be a cat and a dog at the same time.
You cannot have the cake and eat it too.
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Sky God
"I always mock the sky God concept of a “God” intervening in the affairs of humans [ as some religions teach] as if some super being in the sky, some anthropomorphic super man, with hands and feet, is literally sitting on a throne and “guiding” this horror we call “ this worlds life” to some such end."
“People mock things they don't understand” comes to mind… Some quote put “stupid” first, some kinder put “because they are afraid of them” last.
"I say that if such a being exists, he or she must be a sadist of some sort."
I find the belief in an antropomorphic “sky God” very comforting, and I don't see any valid reason why anyone would see this “sky God” as a sadist.
"As a metaphor it is possible, but like the Buddhist teach: it seems that this very idea is an argument against the existence of such a God.
Indeed, as the Quran says that man fell from grace after the fall, people misinterpret this as if it is a curse from “God” that humans fell from grace.
I say to you, no, it is not a curse from a sky-God, but a metaphysical law of the inner and outer cosmos that determines the “the fall from grace” In this sense “God” is the law, not any super being angry with a disobedient creation that he is punishing.
As a part of ”God” there are certain adepts who have retained or regained their nature and preside over the affair of this human experience, but they CANT magically make things right, because the fallen soul of all - in the macrocosm and microcosm - is bound by metaphysical laws that determine its destiny, not any arbitrary commands by a sky God. Therefore we are ALL destined to become perfect by that metaphysical cosmic law, not any decree by a “God”
God is that law!"
The “fall of man” is actually a purely Christian interpretation of the Jewish texts. What Christianity sees as the “fall of man” Islam and Judaism see as life. The “fall” is seen as a phase of life; when you grow up, you will disobey your parents, you will move from your parents' home, you will try to live on your own, marry, get children and THEN you will be “punished” by the fact of life that your children will do the exact same things you did when you were at that age ;-). That's part of being human being, part of life.
As far as I understand it, Buddhism sees life itself as something “abnormal”, something one should try to rid oneself of, a “necessary evil” one must “suffer” - a bit the same way as Christianity. Christianity has been greatly influenced by the Persian religions which in turn were influenced by the Indian religions. According to Christian ideology life is something inheretantly bad one must suffer through to get to the “prize” - the life after life, Kingdom Come, Paradise, Heaven.
Now, that's something in which Islam differs from Judaism - the belief in Paradise, afterlife, Heaven. Classical Judaism says there's this life and that's it. After life you die and when you have died, you sleep, you rest. No paradise, heaven, afterlife, Kingdom Come, just rest. Islam believes that if you have lived well, you will get back to Paradise, the Garden, Heaven. In Judaism there's no returning to innocence.
But what do I know - I'm not Jewish, Christian nor Muslim.
Which seems to be correct about most of us, so we really can't say anything about how these religions see life, God, sin, fall and what not. (Especially considering that these religions consists of millions of people who all have their own opinion on what their religion is and thinks of these things…) Not that we don't have opinions, and that we can't say what ever we wish. It's just that these opinions are nothing else, not science, not facts, not even very educated… but who cares :-) We are here to express these opinions, aren't we? Not to learn something.
Nevertheless, if God is the law, then we are all destined to become perfect by some decree by God - God the Law. To say that there is no God but God is the Law, but God is not the Law sounds very weird and rather sketchy… Besides, I think we are already perfect. We just keep forgetting it. :-)
"but seriously, can we assume that god is the vast radiant emptiness that one experiences in meditation (samadhi/bliss), but there also exists self autonomous light beings (masters and angels) who still don't know exactly what god is but honor the source of all things in the spirit of devotion and worship?
can we also assume that god is sovereign and no thing can challenge it's absoluteness, so to speak? so if this is true then i would have to ask: do these masters and angels have free will or can they only perform congruent acts of service?
if the latter is true then there is no war in heaven and the angels are simply servicing the law of god. very similar to the torah and the book of job. if this is true that seems to make casino earth a school…that god tests people here….as if it were not enough to throw us in the middle of friggin' nowhere, we now have to deal with every type of predator as well as dealing with angels/satans who trip us up every time we do wrong………
OR……
do the angels of old have free will? is there spiritual wickedness in high places. are the rebellious angels warring against humanity? have they contaminated the human gene and have they been controlling this planet through hybrids?
in my mind the second scenario seems somewhat more plausible out of the two…..
now let's al so assume that humans have been guided on their journey here by these beings (good and bad). that each ethnocentric culture developed their own ideas of god within their own isolated localities. this is very understandable and reasonable to assume. that to a certain degree human culture constructed religious perspectives…….occasionally these perspectives clashed. he's only our god!
so, the question i would ask in light of the coming manmade apocalypse that is approaching due to judaism/christianity/islam, is- why don't they use the technology that is available now and turn on every t.v., radio, computer, and simply tell everyone at one time that they are here and that every culture constructed their religious perspective on god (and that that is fine) and they may keep worshipping in traditional forms if they still so desire with the new knowledge that their tradition was not the only true tradition/belief, but one of many; and that this doesn't offend god……….
or would they rather let us blow the planet into oblivion over this ethnocentric sky daddy squabble………………"
The fact that God is all-mighty doesn't mean She MUST use that might all the time.
The fact that God is all-knowing doesn't negate Free Will. It doesn't mean She influences our choices or that our choices are predestined.
If you are talking about the angels described in the Hebrew Scriptures, they don't have free will. They can only do God's will, and there is no war in heaven. Angels can only perform “congruent acts of service”. How this would “make casino earth a school” is something I don't understand. As far as I know Job was an exception. (Also, Satan is one angel, there aren't more than one of him. And he is rather exceptional as well. Nevertheless, only doing God's will. Might have own ideas, but isn't able to do anything but God's will.) Angels aren't out there to “trip us when we do wrong”, but more to pick us up when someone else exercises his free will and does us wrong, or when the life we so wanted isn't all that we thought it should be. (“it's defective, and I want my money back”, as Meatloaf sang…)
(And the snake? Yes, he had his own will, but was he acting against God's will? Good question… were the humans meant to be able to leave home and grow up? I believe so. Was the “fall” a bad thing? I don't think so. I don't think life is all bad and suffering and something to get rid of. I think the world is a beautiful place and I am happy to be able to live in it, and I am also very happy with my fellow human beings. Very few of them has ever willed me anything bad, but most of them has shown me nothing but good will. So meditating on my own navel and distancing me from life, pleasures, joy and beauty is not something I'd choose. Not that my navel isn't a beautiful thing and worth meditating on, it's just so incredibly egocentric and egotistic. Me, me, me, me, me… I'm more about collaboration, diversity, openness… no herme/itic traditions for me, thank you :-))
So - the idea of thousands of wicked mighty spirits warring against humanity, contaminating the human gene pool and thus making us genetically loosers from the very beginning, but nevertheless mating with these very beings to create “hybrids” to controll the planet sounds plausible? Huh. I would choose another ideology to live by.
“each ethnocentric culture developed their own ideas of god within their own isolated localities”
Now, that's an idea I can agree to.
Considering that I don't believe in any “manmade apocalypse that is approaching due to judaism/christianity/islam”, I would answer your question of why “they” don't use the technology available to tell everyone anything is that every person believes more in their God than anyone appearing in the media, and everyone knows that one cannot believe anything shown in television (as it's all special effects).
Frankly, if human free will is to blow this planet into oblivion, God may not interfere, nor may the angels who are only an extension of God's will. That would be a violation of man's free will.
“People mock things they don't understand” comes to mind… Some quote put “stupid” first, some kinder put “because they are afraid of them” last.
"I say that if such a being exists, he or she must be a sadist of some sort."
I find the belief in an antropomorphic “sky God” very comforting, and I don't see any valid reason why anyone would see this “sky God” as a sadist.
"As a metaphor it is possible, but like the Buddhist teach: it seems that this very idea is an argument against the existence of such a God.
Indeed, as the Quran says that man fell from grace after the fall, people misinterpret this as if it is a curse from “God” that humans fell from grace.
I say to you, no, it is not a curse from a sky-God, but a metaphysical law of the inner and outer cosmos that determines the “the fall from grace” In this sense “God” is the law, not any super being angry with a disobedient creation that he is punishing.
As a part of ”God” there are certain adepts who have retained or regained their nature and preside over the affair of this human experience, but they CANT magically make things right, because the fallen soul of all - in the macrocosm and microcosm - is bound by metaphysical laws that determine its destiny, not any arbitrary commands by a sky God. Therefore we are ALL destined to become perfect by that metaphysical cosmic law, not any decree by a “God”
God is that law!"
The “fall of man” is actually a purely Christian interpretation of the Jewish texts. What Christianity sees as the “fall of man” Islam and Judaism see as life. The “fall” is seen as a phase of life; when you grow up, you will disobey your parents, you will move from your parents' home, you will try to live on your own, marry, get children and THEN you will be “punished” by the fact of life that your children will do the exact same things you did when you were at that age ;-). That's part of being human being, part of life.
As far as I understand it, Buddhism sees life itself as something “abnormal”, something one should try to rid oneself of, a “necessary evil” one must “suffer” - a bit the same way as Christianity. Christianity has been greatly influenced by the Persian religions which in turn were influenced by the Indian religions. According to Christian ideology life is something inheretantly bad one must suffer through to get to the “prize” - the life after life, Kingdom Come, Paradise, Heaven.
Now, that's something in which Islam differs from Judaism - the belief in Paradise, afterlife, Heaven. Classical Judaism says there's this life and that's it. After life you die and when you have died, you sleep, you rest. No paradise, heaven, afterlife, Kingdom Come, just rest. Islam believes that if you have lived well, you will get back to Paradise, the Garden, Heaven. In Judaism there's no returning to innocence.
But what do I know - I'm not Jewish, Christian nor Muslim.
Which seems to be correct about most of us, so we really can't say anything about how these religions see life, God, sin, fall and what not. (Especially considering that these religions consists of millions of people who all have their own opinion on what their religion is and thinks of these things…) Not that we don't have opinions, and that we can't say what ever we wish. It's just that these opinions are nothing else, not science, not facts, not even very educated… but who cares :-) We are here to express these opinions, aren't we? Not to learn something.
Nevertheless, if God is the law, then we are all destined to become perfect by some decree by God - God the Law. To say that there is no God but God is the Law, but God is not the Law sounds very weird and rather sketchy… Besides, I think we are already perfect. We just keep forgetting it. :-)
"but seriously, can we assume that god is the vast radiant emptiness that one experiences in meditation (samadhi/bliss), but there also exists self autonomous light beings (masters and angels) who still don't know exactly what god is but honor the source of all things in the spirit of devotion and worship?
can we also assume that god is sovereign and no thing can challenge it's absoluteness, so to speak? so if this is true then i would have to ask: do these masters and angels have free will or can they only perform congruent acts of service?
if the latter is true then there is no war in heaven and the angels are simply servicing the law of god. very similar to the torah and the book of job. if this is true that seems to make casino earth a school…that god tests people here….as if it were not enough to throw us in the middle of friggin' nowhere, we now have to deal with every type of predator as well as dealing with angels/satans who trip us up every time we do wrong………
OR……
do the angels of old have free will? is there spiritual wickedness in high places. are the rebellious angels warring against humanity? have they contaminated the human gene and have they been controlling this planet through hybrids?
in my mind the second scenario seems somewhat more plausible out of the two…..
now let's al so assume that humans have been guided on their journey here by these beings (good and bad). that each ethnocentric culture developed their own ideas of god within their own isolated localities. this is very understandable and reasonable to assume. that to a certain degree human culture constructed religious perspectives…….occasionally these perspectives clashed. he's only our god!
so, the question i would ask in light of the coming manmade apocalypse that is approaching due to judaism/christianity/islam, is- why don't they use the technology that is available now and turn on every t.v., radio, computer, and simply tell everyone at one time that they are here and that every culture constructed their religious perspective on god (and that that is fine) and they may keep worshipping in traditional forms if they still so desire with the new knowledge that their tradition was not the only true tradition/belief, but one of many; and that this doesn't offend god……….
or would they rather let us blow the planet into oblivion over this ethnocentric sky daddy squabble………………"
The fact that God is all-mighty doesn't mean She MUST use that might all the time.
The fact that God is all-knowing doesn't negate Free Will. It doesn't mean She influences our choices or that our choices are predestined.
If you are talking about the angels described in the Hebrew Scriptures, they don't have free will. They can only do God's will, and there is no war in heaven. Angels can only perform “congruent acts of service”. How this would “make casino earth a school” is something I don't understand. As far as I know Job was an exception. (Also, Satan is one angel, there aren't more than one of him. And he is rather exceptional as well. Nevertheless, only doing God's will. Might have own ideas, but isn't able to do anything but God's will.) Angels aren't out there to “trip us when we do wrong”, but more to pick us up when someone else exercises his free will and does us wrong, or when the life we so wanted isn't all that we thought it should be. (“it's defective, and I want my money back”, as Meatloaf sang…)
(And the snake? Yes, he had his own will, but was he acting against God's will? Good question… were the humans meant to be able to leave home and grow up? I believe so. Was the “fall” a bad thing? I don't think so. I don't think life is all bad and suffering and something to get rid of. I think the world is a beautiful place and I am happy to be able to live in it, and I am also very happy with my fellow human beings. Very few of them has ever willed me anything bad, but most of them has shown me nothing but good will. So meditating on my own navel and distancing me from life, pleasures, joy and beauty is not something I'd choose. Not that my navel isn't a beautiful thing and worth meditating on, it's just so incredibly egocentric and egotistic. Me, me, me, me, me… I'm more about collaboration, diversity, openness… no herme/itic traditions for me, thank you :-))
So - the idea of thousands of wicked mighty spirits warring against humanity, contaminating the human gene pool and thus making us genetically loosers from the very beginning, but nevertheless mating with these very beings to create “hybrids” to controll the planet sounds plausible? Huh. I would choose another ideology to live by.
“each ethnocentric culture developed their own ideas of god within their own isolated localities”
Now, that's an idea I can agree to.
Considering that I don't believe in any “manmade apocalypse that is approaching due to judaism/christianity/islam”, I would answer your question of why “they” don't use the technology available to tell everyone anything is that every person believes more in their God than anyone appearing in the media, and everyone knows that one cannot believe anything shown in television (as it's all special effects).
Frankly, if human free will is to blow this planet into oblivion, God may not interfere, nor may the angels who are only an extension of God's will. That would be a violation of man's free will.
Hello, I'm Ketutar from Finland
My “religion” is Ketutarianism, my own mish-mash of bits and bobs I can agree with. As far as I know there is no one religion which correspondences with all the bits and bobs. This far I fit the description of people you are looking for.
I have problems with the group description, and I would like to hear your reasoning behind it.
”This group is for those who have moved beyond the limitations of religious dogma”
So you are religious anarchists. That's fine. but do you think it's better to be a religious anarchist than a follower of an established religion?
Usually people use the form “moved beyond the limitations” as something positive - that it's better to have left the limits “behind”, that one has no limits, that there are no “no”s in one's life, only “YES!” That there are no spoons.
Having no limitations is with other word having no boundaries. What is yours, is mine too.
No laws, not even Universal laws.
No rules, not even the Golden Rule.
No respect of the word “no”.
I happen to think anarchy is just as hideous form of rule as dictatorship. I am for laws and rules. I think the word “no!” is the best word one can teach to one's kids. I think the boundaries are a good thing. I believe there is a very good reason for the dogmas. I don't see “moving beyond these” as anything positive, on the contrary. Human beings are just too egocentric to be good people without boundaries and respect of them.
It's only in the Matrix world, in the dream world, where there are no spoons. Sure, we are all the same, everything is made of energy, energy and matter, and it is possible to bend the reality. But - why would we? The spoon was invented to make it easy for “unenlightened people” to eat without getting their fingers and mouths burned. Sure, we can wait for the glorious future, where everyone is a superman and God is dead, because we ARE gods, but until we get there, we need spoons. (Besides, even though I agree with Nietzsche in much, I find his world very cold, harsh, demanding and really nothing I'd wish for… so I hope that world never comes, and we will keep needing spoons.)
So - I am a Monotheist. I believe there is only one God, Spirit, Holy, Creator, and that She is a personal, all-mighty, all-knowing and good God. Call it Spirit, Light, Truth or Life, I call it God.
I don't believe there are “elements of Truth of Spirit” in every religion. I believe every religion is of Truth of Spirit and that you can find the path to the Truth, God, by following one - any - of these religions. You don't have to “liberate” yourself from a specific dogma, because the Truth is in that specific dogma as well as in any, because in the end the Truth is IN YOU. I find the idea of that you MUST “liberate youself from the dogmas of the religions” to be REALLY free, offensive, limited, even self-righteous. It is only people who consider themselves having taken the eclectic path who claims it's the Only True one. With other words, they have fallen into the “MY religion is The Only True Religion” pit. (You really don't need to call it a religion for it to be a religion. Anything can be made to a religion, a philosophy, an ideology, a set of beliefs…)
Tolerance is not “you are like me, you're ok”, but “you are different than me, but you're ok”.
I also don't think there is something that can be called “the simple scope of religion”. Religion is an idea just as complex and difficult to define and confine within certain limits as art is. In my eyes this group is just another effort to define the dogmas of a religion, in this case “We are One” -religion. You ask people to come here to share the “Truths” - the Dogmas - of their spiritual experience, lifestyle, philosophy, ideology - their religion.
I have problems with the group description, and I would like to hear your reasoning behind it.
”This group is for those who have moved beyond the limitations of religious dogma”
So you are religious anarchists. That's fine. but do you think it's better to be a religious anarchist than a follower of an established religion?
Usually people use the form “moved beyond the limitations” as something positive - that it's better to have left the limits “behind”, that one has no limits, that there are no “no”s in one's life, only “YES!” That there are no spoons.
Having no limitations is with other word having no boundaries. What is yours, is mine too.
No laws, not even Universal laws.
No rules, not even the Golden Rule.
No respect of the word “no”.
I happen to think anarchy is just as hideous form of rule as dictatorship. I am for laws and rules. I think the word “no!” is the best word one can teach to one's kids. I think the boundaries are a good thing. I believe there is a very good reason for the dogmas. I don't see “moving beyond these” as anything positive, on the contrary. Human beings are just too egocentric to be good people without boundaries and respect of them.
It's only in the Matrix world, in the dream world, where there are no spoons. Sure, we are all the same, everything is made of energy, energy and matter, and it is possible to bend the reality. But - why would we? The spoon was invented to make it easy for “unenlightened people” to eat without getting their fingers and mouths burned. Sure, we can wait for the glorious future, where everyone is a superman and God is dead, because we ARE gods, but until we get there, we need spoons. (Besides, even though I agree with Nietzsche in much, I find his world very cold, harsh, demanding and really nothing I'd wish for… so I hope that world never comes, and we will keep needing spoons.)
So - I am a Monotheist. I believe there is only one God, Spirit, Holy, Creator, and that She is a personal, all-mighty, all-knowing and good God. Call it Spirit, Light, Truth or Life, I call it God.
I don't believe there are “elements of Truth of Spirit” in every religion. I believe every religion is of Truth of Spirit and that you can find the path to the Truth, God, by following one - any - of these religions. You don't have to “liberate” yourself from a specific dogma, because the Truth is in that specific dogma as well as in any, because in the end the Truth is IN YOU. I find the idea of that you MUST “liberate youself from the dogmas of the religions” to be REALLY free, offensive, limited, even self-righteous. It is only people who consider themselves having taken the eclectic path who claims it's the Only True one. With other words, they have fallen into the “MY religion is The Only True Religion” pit. (You really don't need to call it a religion for it to be a religion. Anything can be made to a religion, a philosophy, an ideology, a set of beliefs…)
Tolerance is not “you are like me, you're ok”, but “you are different than me, but you're ok”.
I also don't think there is something that can be called “the simple scope of religion”. Religion is an idea just as complex and difficult to define and confine within certain limits as art is. In my eyes this group is just another effort to define the dogmas of a religion, in this case “We are One” -religion. You ask people to come here to share the “Truths” - the Dogmas - of their spiritual experience, lifestyle, philosophy, ideology - their religion.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)