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 get the point that one is not worshipping the rock, but worshipping the reality through the rock - as one might worship it through any object. Religious rites and customs then become just an aid to worship, and the way it is done is not Right or Wrong (1). Differences and denominations become totally irrelevant. Heresy becomes absurd, holy wars an abomination and missionary work of no value apart from charitable aid.
The atheist would probably be fine with that, but would simply question the nature and purpose of worship. Something that the all-that-Is entity wants or needs? Just something ha we need? Or 'bonding' as you say We would still have o question whether this bonding is anything other than a feeling in the head or is achieving something or more use than getting he warm fuzzies. But that's a whole other discussion.
(1) unless, as you say, one is ascribing divine power to the rock and forgetting about everything else. But even then, it could be seen as coming to the same thing.
Why it has to be "religious rites"? One can be absolutely IN existence without any religion or any knowledge of it. I'd guess, once mentioned Gurdjiev is that way. there are known historical figures that never had any religion and they progressed. You think in a box.
All that is entity has no wishes. Wants. Needs. It is. Look around. Into existence. Does NOW and INSTANCE need anything? Or do it even cares - or even is aware of - you? It is everything in its entirety and who are you? An ego believing it has some importance, weight in creation, right to say about it?
There are no divine powers.
BOX. BOX. BOX.
Try this:
To comprehend and to understand God above all similitudes, as He is in Himself, is to be God with God, without intermediary, and without any otherness that can become a hindrance or an intermediary. Whosoever wishes to understand this must have died to himself, and must live in God, and must turn his gaze to the eternal light in the ground of his spirit, where the Hidden Truth reveals Itself without means. - Ruysbroek. ...
Transponder, you ever were in love? As in true love? Not the book one, TRUE love? When the world parishes and you become one with your loved?
Why it has to be "religious rites"? One can be absolutely IN existence without any religion or any knowledge of it. I'd guess, once mentioned Gurdjiev is that way. there are known historical figures that never had any religion and they progressed. You think in a box.
All that is entity has no wishes. Wants. Needs. It is. Look around. Into existence. Does NOW and INSTANCE need anything? Or do it even cares - or even is aware of - you? It is everything in its entirety and who are you? An ego believing it has some importance, weight in creation, right to say about it?
There are no divine powers.
BOX. BOX. BOX.
Try this:
To comprehend and to understand God above all similitudes, as He is in Himself, is to be God with God, without intermediary, and without any otherness that can become a hindrance or an intermediary. Whosoever wishes to understand this must have died to himself, and must live in God, and must turn his gaze to the eternal light in the ground of his spirit, where the Hidden Truth reveals Itself without means. - Ruysbroek. ...
Transponder, you ever were in love? As in true love? Not the book one, TRUE love? When the world parishes and you become one with your loved?
If one is doing rites in connection with an act of worship of some entity hat is believed to exist apart from human conventions, it has to be religious rites. That's what religion is- belief in some unproven entity believed to exist, the propitiation (1) of which is supposed to bring benefits in this life or the next, or both.
If the rites are traditional as in patriotic or traditional educational or political ceremonies, they are not religious.
(1) or manipulation, as in Karma or thetans. Jain may be the only exception. I may one day look into what they hope to get out of it. If nothing, and it is just a moral idea made a lifestyle- like vegetarianism, it may not actually be a religion at all.
"Jain" as you call them also do not wash. Or brush teeth. Or eat late in the day. I think they pursue ultimate non-possessiveness. Like in - have one set of clothes and that's it. It's masochistic rites.
No, I by total far am not talking about rites. I am talking about direct commune with creation via a sort of intermediary.
I'll try this.
There's story about Moses. Once he was walking through a forest and came across a praying peasant. Person was very poor, uneducated, he was speaking out loud something like - Dear god, I have nothing to give you. But I am very good cook. When I die, I shall cook for you good meals. I'll pick your lice and wash your feet...
When Moses heard this, he exploded at the poor man. How dare you to insult GOD with such a prayer? Lice on GOD?? You show no respect... To what man got scared and fell down and said - pardon me, my lord, I am simple man, I know nothing better. Teach me how to pray properly.
So Moses did what Moses do.
Proud of himself, he was leaving the forest, when booming voice came from everywhere scolding him.
What have you done? That man was one of my best devotes and you ruined him!
"Jain" as you call them also do not wash. Or brush teeth. Or eat late in the day. I think they pursue ultimate non-possessiveness. Like in - have one set of clothes and that's it. It's masochistic rites.
No, I by total far am not talking about rites. I am talking about direct commune with creation via a sort of intermediary.
Do try to keep the thread of argument in mind. The only point about Jains was that they do not seem to worship a god and thus may not be a theistic religion and perhaps not a eligion at all.
And I get the distinction between rites (religious or not) and communion with creation via an intermediary, though just how you can tell one from the other is not clear
Quote:
I'll try this.
There's story about Moses. Once he was walking through a forest and came across a praying peasant. Person was very poor, uneducated, he was speaking out loud something like - Dear god, I have nothing to give you. But I am very good cook. When I die, I shall cook for you good meals. I'll pick your lice and wash your feet...
When Moses heard this, he exploded at the poor man. How dare you to insult GOD with such a prayer? Lice on GOD?? You show no respect... To what man got scared and fell down and said - pardon me, my lord, I am simple man, I know nothing better. Teach me how to pray properly.
So Moses did what Moses do.
Proud of himself, he was leaving the forest, when booming voice came from everywhere scolding him.
What have you done? That man was one of my best devotes and you ruined him!
A foolish tale. Do you think the man's devotion was spoiled just by teaching him a different prayer? That indeed smacks of 'Rites' where the way something is done is considered more important than what they are supposed to do.
Why do you think we atheists laugh mock and sneer at all the squabbling about which is the right way of worship and which is the wrong and will be punished by exclusion from God's presence or worse, even if it doesn't involve persecution and violence in this life
That's why we goddless bastards have a LOT of time for "Agnostics", who are simply non-religious theists. They have rejected or eschwed and spat out the worst examples of ritual religion.
Actually I think it was. That man was in direct connection with his creator and he was turned into the rites ways. And creator is not about rites. Creator is about being in its creation. And creation being in it. They are one but creation forgot it. Now creation argues this or that about creator while, in reality, it is simply arguing against itself.
Btw, it is hard to have intelligent conversation with someone using terms like "godless bastards".
Hope you understand.
Actually I think it was. That man was in direct connection with his creator and he was turned into the rites ways. And creator is not about rites. Creator is about being in its creation. And creation being in it. They are one but creation forgot it. Now creation argues this or that about creator while, in reality, it is simply arguing against itself.
Btw, it is hard to have intelligent conversation with someone using terms like "godless bastards".
Hope you understand.
F
And the fact is that, despite the best ID and IC arguments, the universe and life does NOT look designed
How the heck could a mere human being decide if the universe looks designed or not?
Scientists gather more and more detailed observations, but their understanding does not increase. The more that is learned the more baffling it all looks.
To me, and to many others, it is OBVIOUS that the universe, nature, god, whatever you might call it, is INFINITELY more intelligent than we are.
How can you judge something that is infinitely more intelligent than you?
There are, of course, a large number of supposedly scientific atheists who have decided that nature is a pile of trash. They could have done a much better job designing it.
I posted this on your other thread which I guess got deleted...
I'm a little confused by where you are coming from. When you say "mainstream" Christianity do you mean mainline? Or neo-orthodox? Maybe like some of the more evangelical/grace preachers? Is there a particular denomination you admire? Or maybe a popular preacher I may have heard of?
As far as Monty Python, they are some of the biggest Christian despisers I've ever seen. So that's confusing too.
Actually I think it was. That man was in direct connection with his creator and he was turned into the rites ways. And creator is not about rites. Creator is about being in its creation. And creation being in it. They are one but creation forgot it. Now creation argues this or that about creator while, in reality, it is simply arguing against itself.
Btw, it is hard to have intelligent conversation with someone using terms like "godless bastards".
Hope you understand.
Namaste
Still a foolish tale. Wha was do direct about offerring to clip God's toenails and Moses proposing a method with a bit more polish? Do you think God can't listen o whoever he wishes to? Tha the wrong kind of prayer blocks him out? Foolishness.
And "goddless bastards" is a term that has bothered some people in the past. It is therapeutic and tactical as it deflates atheists taking themselves too seriously and pre -empts any ploy by theists to use abusive terms to hit at satanic pondslime and hellbent Satanspawn as well as such goddlessbastards as we unbelieving scumbags rejoice, thankfully, in being. And if you cannot live with me using such terms about myself, please yourself. My breakfast will taste just as good without it.
Go without god, my son.
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.
