Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with everything you posted except, Either way, you create your own paradise or perdition. That statement is not always true.
What's there to say? Jetgraphics has stated his view, as we have stated ours. Let the individual decide on the basis of the evidence - not on what some Church or even book, says.
I'm another recovering Catholic. I left the Catholic church at 18 y.o. I left because it was so rigid. The rules, rituals, etc. Abortion is always bad, homosexuality is a sin, etc. Talk to a priest about your sins as he is the messenger to God. And then the sexual abuse by priests. Ugh, I figured I don't need man made religion.
I've tried other churches (i.e. Baptist, non-demoninational, etc.). I didn't like them either. More rules. And then I was introduced to the bible. I couldn't believe a word of it. I wanted to think for myself.
I tried the Unitarian Universalist church and I actually liked it a lot. There are no rules. It's more of a social club where you believe what you want. Your own truth. There are a lot of former Catholics who are unitarians. I stopped going to unitarian churches though because they were tough to find when I moved to a rural area for work. It's a liberal church and are mostly in large cities only.
I haven't been to church for many years now and am non-religious. There is a unitarian church in my city now but I'm too lazy to go.
Good on you for Finding your way out. I don't even know whether there is a U/U church where I am (1). Filling a void left by leaving religion wasn't an issue for me. Finding a community where i could talk about it as nobody else ever does (I went to one Atheist meet up, and we just did the Usual - got tanked up on Real Lager and went for a curry. Nobody seemed interested in talking about religion or atheism
(1) I don't suppose there is, otherwise I'd have heard of some vandalism on it in the local news.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-08-2018 at 08:32 AM..
I agree with everything you posted except, Either way, you create your own paradise or perdition. That statement is not always true.
If you rely on scriptures, breaking rules are never acceptable, but strict obedience is not always rewarded.
However, those who have gone exploring "out of the body" have found that their inner nature directs them. Like attracts like. If you're a warm, loving, compassionate, helpful, forgiving person, you're going to gravitate to others like that. Of course, some might consider that hellacious from their perspective.
Most organized religions are an impediment to awareness of the Deity. But that's to be expected. Their attention is often upon worldly things - wealth, power, displays and influence.
Ironically, disbelief also blinds the ability to sense that which exists in a nondimensional realm of consciousness.
When a pickpocket meets a saint, all he sees are the pockets.
Intention filters perception.
But if you wish to become aware of the Deity, there is no other obstacle to that goal but yourself.
Sequential linear time bound, partially furred, variously garbed, electrically powered, water filled, gas processing, food cooking, meat bags might be confused by a sentient being of pure thought, in a non linear, non sequential, parallel time paradigm. . . just sayin’.
Occasionally, you'll come across those who have "seen" and have that 1000 yard stare of the devotee. Be compassionate and considerate, for they cannot put into words that which transcends this plane.
Fortunately, the Deity doesn't belong to any religion, nor is offended by those who cannot perceive. It's by their own inner nature that they are exiled from that presence. Suffice to say, there are reports that it is a most unpleasant condition to be exiled from that which one desperately wishes to approach.
From my own flawed observations, the sovereign of the universe is a being of radiant love, compassion, and elicits an intense desire to be in its presence. However, like attracts like, so those who are not in harmony cannot approach. Spending eternity barred from that which one intensely desires can be hellish. Which supports the common sense notion that you should strive to be the kind of person you wouldn't mind spending eternity with. Either way, you create your own paradise or perdition.
- - - - -
- - - - -
Secular explorations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Monroe
“Be afraid of nothing. Hating none, giving love to all, feeling the love of God, seeing His presence in everyone, and having but one desire - for His constant presence in the temple of your consciousness - that is the way to live in this world.”
- - - Paramahansa Yogananda
Perfect love casteth out all fear.
- - - 1 John 4:18
If you rely on scriptures, breaking rules are never acceptable, but strict obedience is not always rewarded.
However, those who have gone exploring "out of the body" have found that their inner nature directs them. Like attracts like. If you're a warm, loving, compassionate, helpful, forgiving person, you're going to gravitate to others like that. Of course, some might consider that hellacious from their perspective.
I was just looking at some sites on U/U and what it believes, and its' relationship with the GBLT people and atheists. I imagine that irreligious theists and the bacon, lettuce and tomato god-believers would find U/U churches a godsend ("lower case" ) as just being irreligious leaves a void of losing community feeling, and that's something I felt as an atheist until I found an online community.
But, while U/U seemed to open its' doors to atheists and welcome talks by them. I have always feels a sorta wariness about it - on both sides. U/U is apparently not atheist, though it appears to be humanist in it's social view. It seems to be a Church of Sortagod. A Universal spirit (of course ) that presumably made everything and can have some kind of relationship with its' believers, otherwise, what's the point? (1). It is the church of Irreligious theism, the Community of "Nones". Probably Theistic evolutionists, too.
I read one article (I won't link it so as not to Call Out the writer, but it was on "why you should not become a Unitarian Universalist") and it began with a strawman fallacy claiming that U/U requires people not to ever sin. And builds an entire argument on that. As is often the case, I only wonder whether this is ignorance or dishonesty speaking.
So atheists might find that they are at least able to talk to these people without the "Trying to dialogue with a tape -loop set in a brick wall" feeling that we get talking to the True Believers. But there's also the "agnostic" (irreligious theists" who can be very hostile to atheists. We have seen it here, and it is (I believe) because they have only Faith in some sorta god and can only argue First cause and I/D (which does them more harm than good these days) and they have no Bible to use as evidence, so the have to fight on the First cause argument and to the last man and bullet and no retreat. It is no wonder that they go bananas in defence of this Faith and little more.
It is hardly surprising that there should be this undercurrent of hostility towards atheism. I was quite shocked when i read an attack on atheism by a U/U minister (for the record, based on fallacious appeal to unknowns in support of anybodygod -faith, so he was actually talking Balls) that coud have been written by Bulmabriefs. There was another online article by am irreligious theist reporter who recounted graphically his feeling of revulsion at public display of that peculiarly American mix of Right wing Religion and mass public patriotism. But.
He recounted how when covering an atheist meeting the counter bod asked "Are you with the atheists?"
"No!" he snapped back "more vehemently that I had intended" he put. "I'm just reporting on them". But that nicely encapsulates the ingrained resistance (even if not hostility) that Sortagoddists, irreligious theists and other "Agnostics" and by implication U/U churches - ministers and community, have towards atheism.
The issue may be either the atheist disbelief in a god or the campaign of "New" atheism to push organised religion out of society, which we have seen vehemently attacked here by those who actually have no time for organised religion.
There seem to be continuing barriers between atheists and "Agnostics". They ought no to be there, but they are as surely a if it was in an agnostic's book of Dogma.
(1) unless it is accepted that worship is for the worshipper, not for the Thing Worshipped.
I saw that as a kid. I remember that i felt angry contempt for the self -regarding hypocrisy of the message, but maybe Hollywood is to blame for that. But then, continual attempts to make Mass media serve the needs of organised religion have oft -times backfired. I recall the Faithful having some misgivings about "Noah". And, Btw, I though that 'The passion of Christ" was quite good, in it's own way, though Like Jackson's "Narnia" it could not help the message of the story. Rather than attack the film, I'd prefer to attack the story.
I thought the passion of the christ was a bloody mess in both the American and British sense.
But if you wish to become aware of the Deity, there is no other obstacle to that goal but yourself.
What if your wish is to be either aware that there is a deity or there is not? You start with goal of arriving at only one answer, you are likely to arrive there. My application of rational thinking is a tool, not an obstacle.
Your message is an old one...you wanna be happy, stop thinking. That was the primary moral lesson of Genesis, wasn't it? That humans were perfectly happy until independent thinking put them at odds with their creator?
I thought the passion of the christ was a bloody mess in both the American and British sense.
I read a lot of conflicting reviews. It is - as you say - a bloody mess. The Romans loved that sort of thing. So I look and think - that's how it was - not a bunch of people tied to sticks merrily singing "Always look on the bright side". Mel Gibson was telling it as honestly and accurately as he felt it was, and I agree with the reviewer who said that he respected that.
It's not my kind of film either for the shocking amount of violence or for the solemn re-enactment of a story that just isn't true. Or at least has been grossly worked over to alter the facts. But since he believes it, I rather think it might be his masterwork.
Apart from the extreme violence of the movie - it was a horror story second to none - I didn't like the inaccuracies. Nailed through the palms then turned over and the nails held! Yeah right. And the flogging was just way past ridiculous.
The real horror of it is that that thousands of people were actually tortured to death in this way (minus the ridiculous embellishments).
I read a lot of conflicting reviews. It is - as you say - a bloody mess. The Romans loved that sort of thing. So I look and think - that's how it was - not a bunch of people tied to sticks merrily singing "Always look on the bright side". Mel Gibson was telling it as honestly and accurately as he felt it was, and I agree with the reviewer who said that he respected that.
It's not my kind of film either for the shocking amount of violence or for the solemn re-enactment of a story that just isn't true. Or at least has been grossly worked over to alter the facts. But since he believes it, I rather think it might be his masterwork.
To me it spoke to the near complete nuttiness of xtians. lol And btw life in America is not so calcified that Ms. Oprah could believably plead ignorance of other opinions.
Mel Gibson was telling it as honestly and accurately as he felt it was, and I agree with the reviewer who said that he respected that.
I might respect it as well if I didn't suspect it was just a manifestation of some perverse obsession with blood and gore on Gibson's part. Remember how "Braveheart" ended? It was with the gooey, gruesome torture and death of William Wallace. "Apocalypto" was filled with gore and violence, forced marches through deadly jungles, people being used as human targets in an archery practice, human manhunts, a sadist named "Middle Eye", a village attacked and destroyed.
When Mel is directing, you can't have too much stage blood on hand.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) as just being irreligious leaves a void of losing community feeling, and that's something I felt as an atheist until I found an online community. 
) that presumably made everything and can have some kind of relationship with its' believers, otherwise, what's the point? (1). It is the church of Irreligious theism, the Community of "Nones". Probably Theistic evolutionists, too. 
