The one religion/faith in which it is held as a main value is New Age (which is not one particular tradition but a blending).
I certainly don’t hold it as an ultimate value, or a necessary virtue. I believe in enduring, long-suffering, ever-patient redeeming love, but I don’t think it is or should be unconditional.
Lovely buncha folks, those gods. Teaching by example! Who’da thunk it?
This love fest lekatt talks about makes me want to get my teeth cleaned. Soooo sweet!
Makes sense.
Except that I wasn’t talking about “following” anything. There is nothing to “follow”, as I understand it in the case of what I shall call, for want of a better term, The Reincarnation + Choice Experience, aka RCE, there is no doctrine per se, no policy, no course of action, no dictates on behavior of any sort whatsoever.* And while perhaps some versions of RCE do in fact have such, I don’t know of them and certainly haven’t promoted or suggested any here, nor has Lekatt, to my reading.
It’s just a possible answer to “Why are we here?” with nothing else going on in it.
But your reaction was typical for the average person exposed primarily to religious and spiritual teachings which do have an agenda, which I have to say, all due respect and everything, is kinda knee jerk. Especially since you say you DO have familiarity with RCE. If you didn’t, that would make a little more sense to me, since the ideas presented would be entirely new, along with the notion that there is no underlying behavior modification agenda associated with them,.
As it is, you being so familiar and all, I’m kinda surprised.
But… (this is my new word, evidently) Whatever.
*Which, by the way, seems kinda self-evident. If the theory explaining our existence says, essentially: In the spiritual realm, there is no right or wrong, and life is merely a learning experience for the sake of itself, what kind of agenda could there possibly be? What would be the goal for doing anything associated with embracing that belief, except to go on livingyour life and having your experience, whatever it is?
And I should modify my earlier statement: Lekatt is evidently a believer in the idea that love is part of the whole deal. So I guess he’s kinda promoting love. Which, for my money, needs no proof, explanation, theory or book to justify it, but that’s just me.
Yeah, I get it.
All beliefs are kinda the same, even when they contradict each other or known science, and it’s bad karma to put down the beliefs of others. All ideas must be considered on their own, without regard to any evidence brought forth for or against them. We are not supposed to look for evidence about that which is referred to as supernatural, but accept the stories of others at face value, because what is in the heart matters more than what is in the mind.
Did I miss anything?
Oh. My. God.
Czar… I feel like I’m in Goodfellas and you are Joe Pesci asking over and over if I think you’re funny.
Can you please stop injecting all kinds of other stuff into what I’ve said and start addressing EXACTLY WHAT I’M SAYING???
Keerist… I’m starting to remember what made this place so freakin’ time consuming and frustrating: the incredible amount of time restating things that have been stated previously when they get twisted up and fed back in new and interesting ways!
At no point, in any post, on any date, ever, and most particularly not in this thread, did I in any way suggest that there was bad karma to be had in putting down any beliefs of anyone. Nor did I assert that all ideas must be considered outside of any standard you wish to measure them against. In fact, i didn’t even say ideas MUST be considered!!! Nor did I suggest that a single idea of any kind, from any source, should be accepted by anyone for any reason. I never came close to suggesting that what is in the heart matters more than the mind.
Fiurthermore, I actually did say here and there that the ideas I was talking about, while they made more sense to me than the big religions I’ve been exposed to, didn’t necessarily earn my OWN belief, so why in the world would you CONTINUE to react as though I have been asking YOU to swallow them whole, untested???
STOP MAKING STUFF UP TO ARGUE WITH!!!
Criminy!!!
Are you saying that having read the explanation I gave for what he likely meant?
Well, see, this is a big difference in our thinking. How do you know whether there is any reality to it or not? You don’t believe there is, which I completely relate to, but you assert this in a way that suggests you see it as an unassailable truth.
I wish I could find the exact quote that really summed up my feelings on the subject of spirit and creation and the supernatural in general, but I can come pretty close from memory:
It is the height of arrogance to assume that the limits of our perception constitute the limits [COLOR=DarkRed]of what there is to be perceived.
[/COLOR]
And that is really the guiding thought for me when I consider these matters. I’m quite certain that there’s more to be known and understood, and I know that I don’t know what it is. So the best I can do is take in information and ideas, consider my own experience (which has some interesting moments in it that have prompted me to consider these matters more closely), and arrive at what seems true to me.
At this point, some things seem much truer than others. The one thing that I feel very, very certain of is that none of the religions which suggest A Creator with a personality and an agenda and various hoops to be jumped through make very much sense to me at all. It isn’t the supernatural aspect of them that I have a problem with, (see the big fat quote), it’s that hey all strike me as lacking any kind of meaningful internal logic or consistency. They just fall apart completely at the slightest scrutiny, entirely apart fromt he supernatural aspects.
I’m interested in why you feel this way. Can you explain further?
(I happen to think unconditional love is a very worthy goal, and pretty much impossible for anyone outside of maybe The Dalai Lama to acheive. I think it’s a great goal for the person doing the loving, and I have my own very concrete reasons for saying so.)
The is also no evidence what so ever.
Sorry to assume that, just because someone is going through the effort of posting an idea, they just might be promoting said idea. My bad.
Try to understand this, please. It is totally possible to be completely familiar with and understand a concept and disagree with it absolutely.
The general ideas are not new, just vague(hence the attempt to get to the details) and I didn’t bring up a “underlying behavior modification agenda”-I only pointed out that claiming one is not religious while evidently starting one’s own religion is disingenuous.
Nah, based on what he said he meant, pre-birth experiences, which is a crazy ass idea.
Man, you were so close!
Who seems to be starting a religion around here?
Of course, but you weren’t merely disagreeing, you were fighting it off like someone was trying to force it on you. Different things.
“Here… a different language. Some keen words. Care to study it? Oh, you speak it already and you hate it? Okay, bye.”
See how that goes? Same thing here.
Gee, I never thought I’d report a moderator in GD…Accusing someone of trying to start his own religion is an argument?
I take it that you were asking for speculation since no one could know this for certain. Yet you seemed surprised when you got an answer. Why did you ask the question? Maybe I am mistaken and you were sincere in believing that le katt is a great teacher who would have the answer.
From Shakespeare’s fiction come many great truths.
The details can matter, but the basic idea, by definition, is of fundamental importance.
And once you know where the ideas originated, what then? What is to keep you from following the person who’s putting the ideas forward?
Hitler and Mother Theresa had many things in common besides being dead. It is not just supposition and wishful thinking that they were both human beings, were born of women, had childhoods, were dependent upon others, were hungry, felt pain, and experienced a range of human emotions. That much can be told by logic and from the news reels.
Why does this subject seem to knock you off balance? You lose your perspective in your arguments and flail at nothing.
Interesting points, Stoid.
Now go home and get your fucking shine box!
I confess I have not the slightest clue what this means, nor even the intended mood or meaning behind it.
Zoe: Yeah! And I’m actually a little disappointed, I was thinking we might be engaging in a discussion of the ideas themselves, vs. a debate about whether they are true or if they came from a particular source. I was all bellyuptothebar for some intellectual exercise and instead I got berated and smacked around. Jeepers.
You did bring up Goodfellas.
You are right, but I am talking about spirituality, not religion, big difference. The Christian religion does contest unconditional, but Jesus did not. He lived it.
New Age is not about unconditional love, any more than Christianity. New Age is about psychics, crystal balls, runes, spiritualism as in channeling, mediums and such.
Why suffer when it is not necessary?
Yes, you missed everything. What I am talking about is spirituality. Mankind is spiritual, now being spiritual entails learning about yourself and what you are doing here. Unconditional love is the goal of spirituality. This has nothing to do with religions of any kind. There are no organizations, all belong by birthright, there are no rituals, rules, laws, sacred tomes, or whatever. We all belong, we are all equal, we are all learning in the physical. People who have spiritual experiences can make contact with their spiritual self through them. That is what is being talked about.
What you are talking about, lekatt, is religion. It may not be an established religion yet, but when you talk about the aspects of the god you believe in and aspects of the afterlife, without providing any evidence thereof, you are talking about a religion.
Below are two definitions of religion, the first is the generally accepted one, while the second is so broad it could include science, governments and many other organizations.
As for evidence, plenty has been provided through experience and research of that experience. I realize many are not willing to accept anything that counters their own beliefs, but time will change this as the evidence piles up.
Did Lekatt talk about a god he believed in?
Are people who pbelieve in ghosts and communication with the dead sharing a religion?
Maybe Lekatt is talking about a religion, maybe he’s not, but I don’t think your definition holds up as the true test of the question. (Especially since you use, as part of your definition “without providing any evidence thereof”…perhaps you mean scientifically acceptable evidence? Because the religious would cite many things as evidence.)