When There Will Be One Religion

  • Thread starter Thread starter mojobadshah
  • Start date Start date
What really happens in death?

Your body goes to fertilizer in the soil, its energy is given back to existence. Your mind goes back to the universal consciousness, its energy is also returned to existence. You are an arising in the whole, eventually you return - just as a wave in the ocean.

The point is to come to the peak of life while you're here, to not miss any opportunity to bring life to a new height in you. To have life absolutely abundantly and to fully understand it...

Yet, ultimately you are the ocean, and you can know yourself to be the ocean, you can stop living as the wave - this is enlightenment, self-realization, nirvana, etc... it is to wake up.

Can the wave ever really be separate from the ocean though?
 
Simply allow the wave to fall back into the ocean this moment, why remain as the wave? Simply look at the wave and see whether it needs to be so, do you trust the ocean to receive you and continue your life afterwards? Is it really you that is managing your life now?

Simply let go, only that which is false falls, what you really are is not touched at all, all that is required is to trust. Now no theories need to be considered, they all look utterly impotent, meaningless.

All that can be said is you've come home.
 
The whole thing here is that we are trying to communicate. We use words (this is a strictly verbal medium) which connotate ideas (which are really memes that evolve and change with each touching). It is a matter of "intersubjective verification" or "communicative rationality"

The problem is "what good are our ideas?" That which is good is that which furthers the good (of the individualm family, tribe, nation, species, ecology-from-within at higher-and-higher, more inclusive levels). And the obligation to justify one's religious beliefs occurs only when our behaviors interferes with another's good (that which satisfy one's needs).

By this, I believe SG totally correct. Evil and bad behavior are interference with another's needs and must be countered. Once one has a "peak experience" or "meets G!d" one needs to get back there and (with the exception of Linitik's vision) religious and spiritual progess (towards returning) is facilitated by paying attention to things like... love, kindness, selflessness, good. Behaving as if one were G!d when one it not at at-one-ment makes it easier to return (habitual behavior is pretty well documented in neuroscience).

Another wasy to put this is resisting evil is a "moral emperative" (for you Kantians, which must raised in the West are) or "good" (for pragmatists and utilitatians and Stoics) or "what one must do" (for we whose feet are on some kind of spiritual path or journey). Does that make sense SG?
 
radarmark said:
The whole thing here is that we are trying to communicate. We use words (this is a strictly verbal medium) which connotate ideas (which are really memes that evolve and change with each touching). It is a matter of "intersubjective verification" or "communicative rationality"

The problem is "what good are our ideas?" That which is good is that which furthers the good (of the individualm family, tribe, nation, species, ecology-from-within at higher-and-higher, more inclusive levels). And the obligation to justify one's religious beliefs occurs only when our behaviors interferes with another's good (that which satisfy one's needs).

By this, I believe SG totally correct. Evil and bad behavior are interference with another's needs and must be countered. Once one has a "peak experience" or "meets G!d" one needs to get back there and (with the exception of Linitik's vision) religious and spiritual progess (towards returning) is facilitated by paying attention to things like... love, kindness, selflessness, good. Behaving as if one were G!d when one it not at at-one-ment makes it easier to return (habitual behavior is pretty well documented in neuroscience).

Another wasy to put this is resisting evil is a "moral emperative" (for you Kantians, which must raised in the West are) or "good" (for pragmatists and utilitatians and Stoics) or "what one must do" (for we whose feet are on some kind of spiritual path or journey). Does that make sense SG?
Click to expand...

The problem is that 'returning' or 'getting back there' and 'progress' are all ideas, you have not looked at how it happened in the first place - it has happened because mind has ceased functioning for a moment. You are that, but you believe you have to get back because you believe you are not that. Trying to act like God is foolish because you are God, you only have to settle into this acknowledgement.

For me, it is exactly because people insist on 'good' or 'moral' behavior that - despite being 1/4 the size - America has more adults in prison than China. We only need to look at the Drug War to see the affects of trying to make people do what you consider the right thing - in some states in Mexico, more than a thousand civilians are killed a month! If they made those drugs legal, things wouldn't need to be dealt with in a violent way, and making it illegal has actually INCREASED use! People don't understand that saying "no" creates a fundamental impulse for young adults that at the least creates curiosity - they are wired to rebel, you are just giving them ideas. Perhaps they'd still use even if there was no rebellion in it, but far less would.

Trying to enforce 'good' always creates 'evil' in retaliation, it is a law.
 
The same is true of the wars in retaliation to 9/11...

2,500 Americans were killed in an atrocious act...
Almost a million have died to bring justice for it...

For me, the latter is more evil...
 
from radarmark's essay link above:
The philosophy of religion I have just sketched is one which is
shadowed forth in much of James's work and is the one he should
have invoked when replying to Clifford. Unfortunately, in "The Will
to Believe" he attempts a different strategy and gets off on the wrong
foot. Rather than fuzzing up the distinction between the cognitive
and the noncognitive, as he should have, James here takes it for
granted and thus yields the crucial terrain to his opponent. The
italicized thesis of "The Will to Believe" reads: "Our passional nature
not only lawfully may, but must, decide an option between
propositions, whenever it is a genuine option that cannot by its
nature be decided on intellectual grounds" (WB, 20). Here, as in his
highly unpragmatic claim that "in our dealings with objective nature
we obviously are recorders, not makers of the truth" (WB, 26),11
James accepts exactly what he should reject: the idea that the mind
is divided neatly down the middle into intellect and passion, and
that possible topics of discussion are divided neatly into the cognitive
and the noncognitive ones.
When philosophy goes antifoundationalist, the notion of "source of
evidence" gets replaced by that of "consensus about what would
count as evidence." So objectivity as intersubjectivity replaces objectivity
as fidelity to something nonhuman. The question "Is there any
evidence for p!" gets replaced by the question "Is there any way of
getting a consensus on what would count in favor of p!" The distinction
between settling the question of p on intellectual grounds and
turning it over to one's passional nature thus turns into the question:
"Am I going to be able to justify p to other people?" So James should
have rephrased the issue between Clifford and himself as "What sort
of belief, if any, can I have in good conscience, even after I realize that I
cannot justify this belief to others?" The stark Cliffordian position
says: no beliefs, only hopes, desires, yearnings, and the like. The
quasi-Jamesean position I want to defend says: do not worry too much
about whether what you have is a belief, a desire, or a mood. Just
insofar as such states as hope, love, and faith promote only such
private projects, you need not worry about whether you have a right to
have them.​
*Sigh*
You don't have to blur the line between desire and cognition. You just have to realize that they are interactive. By observing and meditating upon ones desires, one develops discerning wisdom. By looking into ones negative desires, one can understand them, and dust them off the dark mirror of your mind in order to be able to empathize with others more effectively.
 
radarmark said:
Yep, your argument is pretty much what Routy says at end (if I remember). That is why he changed James' argument.
Click to expand...
Half way through right now--just had to make the comment before being distracted by the rest of the arguments coming up. (It's spring out there, and we have pink trees all over the place now, and I'm easily distracted by them atm...)
 
You are entitled to that opinion. I do not believe it tracks to any spritual system I have ever come across... definately not Ch'an since Hui-Neng or Daoism. Your words and mind-set are "foolish".

You second paragraph has nothing to do with the topic. You can feel that way all you want, with my blessing. It does nothing to advance you or anyone or anything else (IMHO).

You are entitled to you interpretation of "good". Just realize it is a mental construct you have made that differs from how the rest of "normal" humanity uses it.
 
radarmark said:
Yep, your argument is pretty much what Routy says at end (if I remember). That is why he changed James' argument.
Click to expand...

In the end he says humans should embrace "romance*" instead of insisting upon a theistist/athesitic dichotomy.

*he defines romance as follows:
The kind of religious faith which seems to me to lie behind the
attractions of both utilitarianism and pragmatism is, instead, a faith
in the future possibilities of mortal humans, a faith which is hard to
distinguish from love for, and hope for, the human community. I
shall call this fuzzy overlap of faith, hope, and love "romance."​
 
We are right behind you, SG, our cherries are in full bloom and red-buds out (but not open). My willows are gorgeous (I am a fool for the green).

What I took away (been awhile) is the possibility of using epistemology and mathematico-logic (reason) to bridge the gap between science and religion. James tried (and failed due to his fuzzying of desire-cognition border), Peirce tried (Neglected Arguemnt comes real close), Whitehead tried (but is too filled with Whiteheadeanisms)... but his student Hartshorn hit the nail on the head (though I disgree with soime of his metaphysics).

The divine, if expressed as "something different" (or beyond the physical universe we sense), can be reasoned about based upon our consensus of what the experience is.
 
Lunitik said:
Idealism doesn't change the facts...
Click to expand...

This is exactly my point. The cultural ties, language, expressions, history, religious heritage, between one Aryan and another are overlooked even suppressed thanks to the artificial connections made by religions like Christianity. Instead of promoting a shared Proto-Indo-European heritage we're supposed to believe that we're all connected UNDER Jesus.

seattlegal said:
What's all this hub-bub with culture wars and such? I really don't understand. Heritage? We are all human.
Click to expand...

The way Christianity works is: there is Jesus… Jesus is a Jew… and this Jew is God… and we all non-Jews, most of us Aryans, are supposed to be subservient, slaves, subjecting ourselves to this Jew. All I'm saying see how much the Jews would like it if they were told that God was personified as an Aryan.

Also I'm not here to promote war PERIOD. I'm pro-Aryan. Not anti-Semitic.

Lunitik said:
The same is true of the wars in retaliation to 9/11...

2,500 Americans were killed in an atrocious act...
Almost a million have died to bring justice for it...

For me, the latter is more evil...
Click to expand...

Does anyone but me an Lunitik not see how God damned ridiculous this is! People say those wars were about the oil. But there was definitely some crusading involved. Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian, and there were no Iraqis or Afghans on the 911 planes, yet Saudi Arabia didn't get invaded. So Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but I honestly can not see how 30,000+ Talib Afghans were responsible for 911. Before 911 the Afghans were killing Afghans. After their country had been invaded their attention turned toward the invaders. It was better when the Afghans were killing Afghans. A lot less Afghans were being killed. If the US really wanted to battle Muslim extremism in Afghanistan all they would have to have done is promote Afghanistan's Aryan heritage. They said that music was one of the mediums that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union… But that's not happening because it would upset the Jews, Christian right and the Neo-Nazis who would rather promote Judeo-Christianity and their supremacist version of the Aryan phenomenon, respectively. Westerners like believing that the Irano-Afghans are Arab because it suites their crusader tendencies.

NiceCupOfTea said:
not quite true, in some forms of Christianity the Kingdom of God is a real place, i have been there myself and met God the Father, when I was a Charismatic
Click to expand...

First off I thought you were an agnostic. Secondly, why then do they say that "The Kingdom of God is within"?

radarmark said:
The problem is "what good are our ideas?" That which is good is that which furthers the good (of the individualm family, tribe, nation, species, ecology-from-within at higher-and-higher, more inclusive levels). And the obligation to justify one's religious beliefs occurs only when our behaviors interferes with another's good (that which satisfy one's needs).
Click to expand...

That's what I've been trying to explain. Expressions have 1.) psychological effects 2.) expressions can be translated to money. Were it not for a few technicalities of the law expressions like angel for example could be converted from free goods (goods that can be reproduce at little or no cost) into scarce goods by the law such as is the practice with free goods patents and copyrights.
 
mojobadshah said:
This is exactly my point. The cultural ties, language, expressions, history, religious heritage, between one Aryan and another are overlooked even suppressed thanks to the artificial connections made by religions like Christianity. Instead of promoting a shared Proto-Indo-European heritage we're supposed to believe that we're all connected UNDER Jesus.



The way Christianity works is: there is Jesus… Jesus is a Jew… and this Jew is God… and we all non-Jews, most of us Aryans, are supposed to be subservient, slaves, subjecting ourselves to this Jew. All I'm saying see how much the Jews would like it if they were told that God was personified as an Aryan.

Also I'm not here to promote war PERIOD. I'm pro-Aryan. Not anti-Semitic.
Click to expand...
I admire Christianity for the dharma teaching it contains. I don't care if Jesus was a Jew or not. The dharma teachings can easily transcend culture, as was highlighted in the parable of the Good Samaritan. There is nothing artificial about this--it is a human thing, not a cultural thing. You can see that the attachment to cultural ties is the artificial construct we build to impede the dharma by the question posed by the so-called expert in the law: "Who is my neighbor?" Luke 10:25-37
 
seattlegal said:
I admire Christianity for the dharma teaching it contains. I don't care if Jesus was a Jew or not. The dharma teachings can easily transcend culture, as was highlighted in the parable of the Good Samaritan. There is nothing artificial about this--it is a human thing, not a cultural thing. You can see that the attachment to cultural ties is the artificial construct we build to impede the dharma by the question posed by the so-called expert in the law: "Who is my neighbor?" Luke 10:25-37
Click to expand...

But the fact remains that Jesus is described as a Jew and this is the main reason that Christians are so cozy with the Israelis because of this fairytale called the Bible. They deny the Muslims on the other hand. And they have virtually no notion of Zarathushtra who the credit should go to for the "dharma teaching." Without the Zarathushtrian expressions that went into Christianity Christianity would be no different than Greek myth. But of course we live in a world where people have this ingrained facination with Christianity, overlooking the biasis, and Zarathushtra may never get the credit he deserves, at least in my lifetime. For some reason its ok to teach the Greek religious heritage, but not the Aryan religious heritage. Could it be that the Christian west would have an issue being told that the idea God, for example, did not originate with Abraham or Moses, but by the ancient Irano-Afghans who are mostly Muslim today, on the outside anyway? And give me a break Christians are Christians because they think that Christianity is a Aryan construct. Most Churches are ethnically based. They try to justify that Christianity is not a Jewish construct by attributing universal qualities to Jesus. Jesus was God therefore he wasn't only Jewish, but the Bible's entire backstory is told from the Jewish worldview. Zoroastrianism is actually way more universal. Jesus preached to exclusively Jews about the Kingdom of God. Zarathushtra's message was directed towards the believers regardless of whether they were Aryan or Turanian (the invaders).
 
mojobadshah said:
But the fact remains that Jesus is described as a Jew and this is the main reason that Christians are so cozy with the Israelis because of this fairytale called the Bible. They deny the Muslims on the other hand. And they have virtually no notion of Zarathushtra who the credit should go to for the "dharma teaching." Without the Zarathushtrian expressions that went into Christianity Christianity would be no different than Greek myth. But of course we live in a world where people have this ingrained facination with Christianity, overlooking the biasis, and Zarathushtra may never get the credit he deserves, at least in my lifetime. For some reason its ok to teach the Greek religious heritage, but not the Aryan religious heritage. Could it be that the Christian west would have an issue being told that the idea God, for example, did not originate with Abraham or Moses, but by the ancient Irano-Afghans who are mostly Muslim today, on the outside anyway? And give me a break Christians are Christians because they think that Christianity is a Aryan construct. Most Churches are ethnically based. They try to justify that Christianity is not a Jewish construct by attributing universal qualities to Jesus. Jesus was God therefore he wasn't only Jewish, but the Bible's entire backstory is told from the Jewish worldview. Zoroastrianism is actually way more universal. Jesus preached to exclusively Jews about the Kingdom of God. Zarathushtra's message was directed towards the believers regardless of whether they were Aryan or Turanian (the invaders).
Click to expand...

It's interesting how your focus is not on the dharma teaching, but rather on cultural/political issues.

As for Jesus only preaching to the Jews--you might want to check out John 4

You might also find this interesting:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edicts_of_Ashoka
Buddhism and Christianity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
seattlegal said:
I admire Christianity for the dharma teaching it contains. I don't care if Jesus was a Jew or not. The dharma teachings can easily transcend culture, as was highlighted in the parable of the Good Samaritan. There is nothing artificial about this--it is a human thing, not a cultural thing. You can see that the attachment to cultural ties is the artificial construct we build to impede the dharma by the question posed by the so-called expert in the law: "Who is my neighbor?" Luke 10:25-37
Click to expand...

I always thought u were a Christian SG, a rather odd one though.

Are you a Budist ?
 
mojobadshah said:
This is exactly my point. The cultural ties, language, expressions, history, religious heritage, between one Aryan and another are overlooked even suppressed thanks to the artificial connections made by religions like Christianity. Instead of promoting a shared Proto-Indo-European heritage we're supposed to believe that we're all connected UNDER Jesus.
Click to expand...

Christ Jesus

The way Christianity works is: there is Jesus… Jesus is a Jew… and this Jew is God… and we all non-Jews, most of us Aryans, are supposed to be subservient, slaves, subjecting ourselves to this Jew. All I'm saying see how much the Jews would like it if they were told that God was personified as an Aryan.
Click to expand...

Jesus the Christ not Jesus the man.

Also I'm not here to promote war PERIOD. I'm pro-Aryan. Not anti-Semitic.

Does anyone but me an Lunitik not see how God damned ridiculous this is!
Click to expand...

its a crazy story, people believe all sorts of crazy things.

People say those wars were about the oil. But there was definitely some crusading involved. Bin Laden was a Saudi Arabian, and there were no Iraqis or Afghans on the 911 planes, yet Saudi Arabia didn't get invaded. So Bin Laden was in Afghanistan, but I honestly can not see how 30,000+ Talib Afghans were responsible for 911. Before 911 the Afghans were killing Afghans. After their country had been invaded their attention turned toward the invaders. It was better when the Afghans were killing Afghans. A lot less Afghans were being killed. If the US really wanted to battle Muslim extremism in Afghanistan all they would have to have done is promote Afghanistan's Aryan heritage. They said that music was one of the mediums that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union… But that's not happening because it would upset the Jews, Christian right and the Neo-Nazis who would rather promote Judeo-Christianity and their supremacist version of the Aryan phenomenon, respectively. Westerners like believing that the Irano-Afghans are Arab because it suites their crusader tendencies.
Click to expand...

First off I thought you were an agnostic. Secondly, why then do they say that "The Kingdom of God is within"?
Click to expand...

I think some translations say the "Kingdon of God is in your midst" or "amongst you" I dont know what is more accurate.

Also its an inner journey, like astral travel, but that does not mean that its also not a real place.

The theology works a bit like this, Jesus only did what he saw his Father do, so if a Christian can see what Father does in Heaven or the Kingdom he can release it here on earth like Jesus did, signs wonders and miracles etc.

for example
[youtube]huPEv6o-DxU[/youtube]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top