A Crossroads

[Xaqaria]

I debated over whether or not to post this. Its about as zealot sounding as I stand to get in a public setting. That being said, take it with a small grain of salt. All thoughts of God conceived of on this Earth fall short of what they attempt to describe. Humans ability to worship only extends as far as we are capable of seeing, and the scope of our vision is limited. Our earliest known ancestors worshiped that which was right in front of them. They built religions around their shelter, their sustenance, their predators and competition. Water sources were gods, game animals were spirits and angels. The forces that effected them but that were little understood became their objects of worship in attempts to turn the whims of those forces in their favor. Although our objects of worship have changed, the reasons for their divinity remain the same. We moved from worshiping specific phenomena of nature to nature herself. For a time, this planet was our godess. Eventually we began to bring her will under our control through our study of the Earth sciences and so we turned our worship toward higher beings. The sun, the stars; these were the new gods. After a time, even the fabric of reality became an object of devotion. Each time we dedicated ourselves to a new god, we forsook the olds ones as fake. We called the old gods fictions, stories to scare children into behaving. The new god became the new truth, somehow different from what we used to believe. What we've failed to realize each time through the ages is that the world is a hierarchy of influence and that the higher forces do not cancel out the ones below, they simply outrank them. The Earth is still here, her will is simply subverted by the will of her superior, the Solar System. Now most of us pray to the light of the world. What I've come to realize is that we are at a turning point for the control of our reality. The force of the human will has shown itself to be a powerful tool, and the Earth is losing its control over it. Humanity and all life on this planet is being given a choice; Reach the next level of our existence or be destroyed to start again. Can anyone really look around and continue to believe in coincidence? Is it really by chance that all spheres of human existence are reaching an apex at exactly the same time? Our environment, our governance of ourselves, our religions, our technology, our ecology, even our predictions from the past are all coming to a boiling point right now. The will of the current cycle of life is being put to the test, and the only options we are being given are transcendence and destruction. Earth's will is to remain as we are, continuing on the same path that is familiar, but her will is being subverted by superior forces. I began this by saying that we can only worship as far as we can see. Right now our vision is being expanded and we must decide whether we will accept the implications of our new view of reality or be destroyed by it. Because our galaxy spins, so too our lives play out in cycles. If we don't make the push into the larger whirlpool, we will commit ourselves to another time around in this small eddy.

[LucidFlanders]

I say change is needed. Why do people keep saying stuff like "transend(sp) or perish" like we are some type of magical beings?

[Xaqaria]

I say change is needed. Why do people keep saying stuff like "transend(sp) or perish" like we are some type of magical beings? It seems like the beginning of your post contradicts the question at the end. Isn't necessary change the same thing as transcendence? What does it have to do with magic, in your opinion?

[Invader]

We can consider two factors here for the equation of human existence and development on this planet. The first factor I'd like to bring into play is our current understanding of the universe (in terms of the physics and the technology we derive from it). Xaqaria said that our ability to worship only extends as far as we are capable of seeing. Our capabilities thus far have yielded us technology that can rend the planet temporarily lifeless (perhaps for several hundred thousand years or more) if we so chose to do that. We can also destroy life inadvertantly. As our power and influence grows over the planet, this characteristic will become more apparent. The second factor I'll bring up is a rather general one, but for convenience's sake will just call it violence. When I attribute violence to humanity, it encompasses everything that can lead to the reckless use of technology so that it comes at the expense of other life (offshore drilling, the use of sonar, the construction of dams). I use the term violence then to mean nothing more than destruction that comes as a result of particular human actions. If our "violence" remains the same as our understanding of the physical universe grows, then our destructive potential grows along with it. My interpretation of the "Trancend or Die" phrase means no more than to finally realize our own responsibilities as influential sentient beings. Our lack of care would otherwise bring about consequences that we may not have anticipated as a whole. Does my interpretation make sense?

[Carôusoul]

I debated over whether or not to post this. Its about as zealot sounding as I stand to get in a public setting. That being said, take it with a small grain of salt. All thoughts of God conceived of on this Earth fall short of what they attempt to describe. Humans ability to worship only extends as far as we are capable of seeing, and the scope of our vision is limited. Our earliest known ancestors worshiped that which was right in front of them. They built religions around their shelter, their sustenance, their predators and competition. Water sources were gods, game animals were spirits and angels. The forces that effected them but that were little understood became their objects of worship in attempts to turn the whims of those forces in their favor. Although our objects of worship have changed, the reasons for their divinity remain the same. We moved from worshiping specific phenomena of nature to nature herself. For a time, this planet was our godess. Eventually we began to bring her will under our control through our study of the Earth sciences and so we turned our worship toward higher beings. The sun, the stars; these were the new gods. After a time, even the fabric of reality became an object of devotion. Each time we dedicated ourselves to a new god, we forsook the olds ones as fake. We called the old gods fictions, stories to scare children into behaving. The new god became the new truth, somehow different from what we used to believe. What we've failed to realize each time through the ages is that the world is a hierarchy of influence and that the higher forces do not cancel out the ones below, they simply outrank them. The Earth is still here, her will is simply subverted by the will of her superior, the Solar System. Now most of us pray to the light of the world. What I've come to realize is that we are at a turning point for the control of our reality. The force of the human will has shown itself to be a powerful tool, and the Earth is losing its control over it. Humanity and all life on this planet is being given a choice; Reach the next level of our existence or be destroyed to start again. Can anyone really look around and continue to believe in coincidence? Is it really by chance that all spheres of human existence are reaching an apex at exactly the same time? Our environment, our governance of ourselves, our religions, our technology, our ecology, even our predictions from the past are all coming to a boiling point right now. The will of the current cycle of life is being put to the test, and the only options we are being given are transcendence and destruction. Earth's will is to remain as we are, continuing on the same path that is familiar, but her will is being subverted by superior forces. I began this by saying that we can only worship as far as we can see. Right now our vision is being expanded and we must decide whether we will accept the implications of our new view of reality or be destroyed by it. Because our galaxy spins, so too our lives play out in cycles. If we don't make the push into the larger whirlpool, we will commit ourselves to another time around in this small eddy. Sorry but I don't fully understand. If we took a human on the 'next level of existence' and any human from now, what discernable difference would there be? In either physical, mental, even 'spiritual' senses? Or is this more of a group thing than individual?

[Invader]

I think he means as a group, Carousoul. Evolving mentally/"spiritually" as a species, as it were.

[Carôusoul]

I think he means as a group, Carousoul. Evolving mentally/"spiritually" as a species, as it were. OK. So in turn what would this mean for individuals. A group can't change if none of the parts change.

[LucidFlanders]

It seems like the beginning of your post contradicts the question at the end. Isn't necessary change the same thing as transcendence? What does it have to do with magic, in your opinion? When people say transend or be destroyed it sounds like what someone who is into spiritualism would say, like assend to a higher plain of existance.

[really]

What we've failed to realize each time through the ages is that the world is a hierarchy of influence and that the higher forces do not cancel out the ones below, they simply outrank them. The Earth is still here, her will is simply subverted by the will of her superior, the Solar System. Now most of us pray to the light of the world. Are you seriously implying that most of us pray to the sun? I think that is very far off from the true meaning of the phrase. The "light of the world" is often portrayed as a stance of true forgiveness and salvation. What I've come to realize is that we are at a turning point for the control of our reality. The force of the human will has shown itself to be a powerful tool, and the Earth is losing its control over it. Humanity and all life on this planet is being given a choice; Reach the next level of our existence or be destroyed to start again. Can you talk more about this? What stands out the most to you? I began this by saying that we can only worship as far as we can see. I'm still not sure why you're saying this. Many spiritual and the great religious traditions have not changed to this day. These are not about what we can "see" at all.

[Invader]

OK. So in turn what would this mean for individuals. A group can't change if none of the parts change. I believe the common individual would be much more aware of the consequences of their actions, ready to act instead in ways that would produce effects that are non-destructive to their surroundings/themselves/what-have-you. Would this change occur within some years, or some thousand years? Or a million years? Can humans last that long with the destructive potential they've gained? I don't have the answers to any of these questions, and I don't expect anyone out to try answering them.

[Xaqaria]

Sorry but I don't fully understand. If we took a human on the 'next level of existence' and any human from now, what discernable difference would there be? In either physical, mental, even 'spiritual' senses? Or is this more of a group thing than individual? Well I'm not sure. The change may come in the form of a technological Singularity, in which humanity would merge with its technology to become something beyond our current imaginations. Some transcendental religions believe that when a certain percentage of the human race becomes enlightened we reach a tipping point and the rest of us are carried with them. I can't claim to know what humanity might become. When people say transend or be destroyed it sounds like what someone who is into spiritualism would say, like assend to a higher plain of existance. Thats not what I intended to mean, although perhaps that is one possibility. I simply meant proceed to the next stage or era in human and earthly existence. I think the current main stream term for this would be a paradigm shift. Are you seriously implying that most of us pray to the sun? I think that is very far off from the true meaning of the phrase. The "light of the world" is often portrayed as a stance of true forgiveness and salvation. I've seen many arguments that attempt to show Christianity as a misguided sun worshipping religion; the movie Zietgeist being the least of these attempts. I really don't care to argue that point here. It can be easily simplified by saying where we once turned our prayers down towards the earth, now we turn them up to the 'heavens'. Can you talk more about this? What stands out the most to you? I'm not much of a doomsday prophet, but I can see the signs. Nasa has openly predicted a dangerous weakening of our magnetic field within the next 4 years, the entire world is on the brink of complete economic failure, the number one source of energy in use is within perhaps a decade or two of completely drying up, futurists are predicting humans as obsolete next to our machines within 40 years or less (even going as far as actually creating new schools to teach the next generation of scientists exactly what should be expected from thinking machines). With all of the evidence around us, I barely feel like I need to mention something like all of the 2012 predictions. I'm still not sure why you're saying this. Many spiritual and the great religious traditions have not changed to this day. These are not about what we can "see" at all. What religions do you think have resisted change? Being able to "see" goes beyond our actual visual sense. Catholics are saying its okay to believe in aliens. Buddhism has gone from only one buddha at a time, to many possible buddhas, to Lamas that can control their reincarnation, to the Dalai Lama saying there is a chance he may be the last. Jews and Christians no longer think its okay to stone people. Some of them still hate gays but many of them don't. The scope of what we perceive is constantly expanding, and our religions as well as our sciences, philosophies, arts, etc. reflect that. thousands of years ago, we had no concept of a god that was anything but the ground beneath our feet and air that we breathe. Now people say that god is omnipresent across the whole of the universe, even without really understanding what that means. I would suggest that if humans are actually capable of knowing a god, then that which we perceive as the god of the universe is nothing more than our own Galaxy and it may be a force even smaller than that.

[really]

I've seen many arguments that attempt to show Christianity as a misguided sun worshipping religion; the movie Zietgeist being the least of these attempts. I really don't care to argue that point here. It can be easily simplified by saying where we once turned our prayers down towards the earth, now we turn them up to the 'heavens'. I think that is a severe semantic distortion. Praying to the sun is nothing like praying for the Light of God. I'm not sure why you consider this unimportant. I'm not much of a doomsday prophet, but I can see the signs. Nasa has openly predicted a dangerous weakening of our magnetic field within the next 4 years Isn't that part of a natural cycle though? If not, what do you believe such an event will entail? What religions do you think have resisted change? Being able to "see" goes beyond our actual visual sense. The spiritual context of religions has always been beyond the material, perceivable world. I don't think it is that religions "resist" change, but that there is no need for them to. Resting on the solid ground of Truth, the only change is in the way it is expressed. Catholics are saying its okay to believe in aliens. Buddhism has gone from only one buddha at a time, to many possible buddhas, to Lamas that can control their reincarnation, to the Dalai Lama saying there is a chance he may be the last. Jews and Christians no longer think its okay to stone people. Some of them still hate gays but many of them don't. This seems pretty mixed up. I wouldn't take this too seriously, as there are many things people believe that are not concordant with their religion. Zealous obsession obviously exaggerates a belief system in preference to a benign devotion to its foundation. Peoples minds can get caught up in dogma and dates whilst ignoring the essential point. What about the Dalai Lama? He could be the last human re-incarnation because "he" is basically on the edge of enlightenment anyway. I don't see anything wrong with believing in aliens, either, catholic or not. The scope of what we perceive is constantly expanding, and our religions as well as our sciences, philosophies, arts, etc. reflect that. thousands of years ago, we had no concept of a god that was anything but the ground beneath our feet and air that we breathe. Some of the oldest religions were to do with nature, yes. They were of the astral realms, however, showing projections of the human ego. "Thunder and rain - God is angry, we are being punished!" Far in the past though, the animal-mind/ego was much more primitive. Today the world is more benign, hatred and killing is still present, but despite its extremities, it is less present overall. Consciousness research show that the collective consciousness of mankind took a significant jump in the 80's, which was a critical turning point of spiritual awareness. It may increase faster, and perhaps have an exponential effect, as you referred to as the "tipping point", which I believe is a strong possibility however far off it may be. Now people say that god is omnipresent across the whole of the universe, even without really understanding what that means. This is nothing new, actually. Buddhism has probably been the easiest religion to see and convey this (the "void"), despite the lack of the term "God". All-present and all-loving/peace are timeless qualities. Funnily, because timelessness itself is also a quality. The problem with other religions is, they tend to set up an image that God was "out there", and before time. He kick-started the Universe and will see you on the dreaded judgment day. To simplify in contrast, God is just the source of existence; which can be experientially confirmed upon enlightenment and given as much validity as the awareness of existence itself. Of course, people think there is no evidence for God, because it is presumed to be the objective content of the universe - when actually God is the absolute context thereof. Ignoring the infinite context of Reality for the sake of an intellectual proof is unconsciously narrow minded, yet it is a natural propensity of the human species and the intellect. How can man's consciousness be so ignorant? It's supposed to be! Otherwise man would die! How is a human being supposed to understand that God is all that exists? Man is oblivious to it! Here is a limited hypothetical analogy: Live your entire life underground without going above the surface (you've never done that), and you are oblivious to the sky, and thus you are oblivious that you are underground. A "hippy" outside from "above the surface" says to you "Dude, wake up, let's go see the Sky! The Sky has no limits - no celing!" You think he is mad; but really you cannot comprehend the Sky. This is inherent ignorance. Man cannot be aware that he is ignorant, unless he intends to find out why. In which case, he is no longer ignorant, but his universe becomes illuminated with enormous clarity. Man can discover his ignorance, and move beyond it into higher awareness.

[Xaqaria]

I think that is a severe semantic distortion. Praying to the sun is nothing like praying for the Light of God. I'm not sure why you consider this unimportant. Like I said, I don't care for this to turn into a debate on the origins and original meaning of Christianity, since that was only a minor point in my original post. I will say though that I think you are reaching quite a bit when you say praying to the sun is nothing like praying to the light of god; since they have pretty obvious and extensive linguistic similarities at the very least. Isn't that part of a natural cycle though? If not, what do you believe such an event will entail? Everything I'm talking about here has to do with natural cycles. I don't believe in anything supernatural. Why can't a natural cycle be significant? The spiritual context of religions has always been beyond the material, perceivable world. I don't think it is that religions "resist" change, but that there is no need for them to. Resting on the solid ground of Truth, the only change is in the way it is expressed. You still haven't answered my question. What religions haven't changed? This seems pretty mixed up. I wouldn't take this too seriously, as there are many things people believe that are not concordant with their religion. Zealous obsession obviously exaggerates a belief system in preference to a benign devotion to its foundation. Peoples minds can get caught up in dogma and dates whilst ignoring the essential point. What about the Dalai Lama? He could be the last human re-incarnation because "he" is basically on the edge of enlightenment anyway. I don't see anything wrong with believing in aliens, either, catholic or not. I didn't say anything about fringe members of religions holding beliefs that are contrary to the core of the religion. Religions have changed. I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with change, I merely stated that it has taken place. Some of the oldest religions were to do with nature, yes. They were of the astral realms, however, showing projections of the human ego. "Thunder and rain - God is angry, we are being punished!" Far in the past though, the animal-mind/ego was much more primitive. Today the world is more benign, hatred and killing is still present, but despite its extremities, it is less present overall. Consciousness research show that the collective consciousness of mankind took a significant jump in the 80's, which was a critical turning point of spiritual awareness. It may increase faster, and perhaps have an exponential effect, as you referred to as the "tipping point", which I believe is a strong possibility however far off it may be. okay? I don't see the point here. This is nothing new, actually. Buddhism has probably been the easiest religion to see and convey this (the "void"), despite the lack of the term "God". All-present and all-loving/peace are timeless qualities. Funnily, because timelessness itself is also a quality. Buddhism is new. All religions that exist today except for hinduism are new. When I said 'thousands of years ago' maybe I should have said tens of thousands to be more clear. The problem with other religions is, they tend to set up an image that God was "out there", and before time. He kick-started the Universe and will see you on the dreaded judgment day. To simplify in contrast, God is just the source of existence; which can be experientially confirmed upon enlightenment and given as much validity as the awareness of existence itself. Of course, people think there is no evidence for God, because it is presumed to be the objective content of the universe - when actually God is the absolute context thereof. Ignoring the infinite context of Reality for the sake of an intellectual proof is unconsciously narrow minded, yet it is a natural propensity of the human species and the intellect. How can man's consciousness be so ignorant? It's supposed to be! Otherwise man would die! How is a human being supposed to understand that God is all that exists? Man is oblivious to it! Here is a limited hypothetical analogy: Live your entire life underground without going above the surface (you've never done that), and you are oblivious to the sky, and thus you are oblivious that you are underground. A "hippy" outside from "above the surface" says to you "Dude, wake up, let's go see the Sky! The Sky has no limits - no celing!" You think he is mad; but really you cannot comprehend the Sky. This is inherent ignorance. Man cannot be aware that he is ignorant, unless he intends to find out why. In which case, he is no longer ignorant, but his universe becomes illuminated with enormous clarity. Man can discover his ignorance, and move beyond it into higher awareness. I don't see the point of this either. It sounds like you are riffing off of half of a statement I made without really making a point. Is this just a sort of stream of consciousness or were you trying to get at something?

[really]

Like I said, I don't care for this to turn into a debate on the origins and original meaning of Christianity, since that was only a minor point in my original post. I will say though that I think you are reaching quite a bit when you say praying to the sun is nothing like praying to the light of god; since they have pretty obvious and extensive linguistic similarities at the very least. That linguistic similarity is easy to see, but that's not the point. Likewise, a God that is personified does not mean that the God is actually a person or has a personage. Everything I'm talking about here has to do with natural cycles. I don't believe in anything supernatural. Why can't a natural cycle be significant? Ok, so it is natural. I ask if it has happened before, if not then what are the potential dangers? You still haven't answered my question. What religions haven't changed? Actually, I can't visualize a religion changing. Unless you're talking about political manipulation (reformation/church etc)? Otherwise, the major religions, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism/Vedas are pretty solid (On second thought, maybe not Christianity . Too many different churches). I didn't say anything about fringe members of religions holding beliefs that are contrary to the core of the religion. Religions have changed. I don't think there is anything intrinsically wrong with change, I merely stated that it has taken place. Yes but the examples you used are not really reflecting this specifically, they are minor issues. okay? I don't see the point here. I was talking about the old religions - to do with nature/demons and how, as consciousness evolved, spiritual recognition becomes more of a proclivity. Spiritual awareness becomes less concerned with perception, dogma or projections. Buddhism is new. All religions that exist today except for hinduism are new. When I said 'thousands of years ago' maybe I should have said tens of thousands to be more clear. Ok, I guess you must not be talking about "new" religions, then. I don't see the point of this either. It sounds like you are riffing off of half of a statement I made without really making a point. Is this just a sort of stream of consciousness or were you trying to get at something? Sorry, I didn't mean to look so remote. I was expanding on some ideas about the ignorance of mankind; not directly related to your sentence. The recognition of the qualities of God, that would be termed by the mystic, are contaminated in most religious expression. But that does not mean that a given religion was founded upon falsity. I made an analogy about how man is oblivious to God, especially while denying Him. If you are not even talking about the so called "new" religions, please be more specific.

[LucidFlanders]

Thats not what I intended to mean, although perhaps that is one possibility. I simply meant proceed to the next stage or era in human and earthly existence. I think the current main stream term for this would be a paradigm shift. Ah, ok sorry then my mistake. I'm so used to seeing that thing when people talk about what you did. Sorry, I didn't mean to look so remote. I was expanding on some ideas about the ignorance of mankind; not directly related to your sentence. The recognition of the qualities of God, that would be termed by the mystic, are contaminated in most religious expression. But that does not mean that a given religion was founded upon falsity. I made an analogy about how man is oblivious to God, especially while denying Him. If you are not even talking about the so called "new" religions, please be more specific. I don't really get this, why does seeing a leaf blow in the wind considered "god" or "an angel" or w/e? i used to go post at spiritualist boards and all that stuff they posted sounded completly rediculas. I had a dream of my dead mom therefore it actually WAS my moms spirit I wanted something and it happened therefore god did it. I meditated and saw people therefore it was spirits I asked my spirit guide for some help and my problem got fixed therefore i have a spirit guide etc etc etc There is 1 thing that i actually did find intresting, but it could easily be considered a couincidence but it sounds too big if couincidences can be this big. Once a year on this radio station this guy reads these letters people mail in and the music makes the story and his voice make the story breathtaking, anyway this kid sends in this letter and his beloved dog died and he was all sad, he wanted and asked if his dog was in heaven that the dog proves it to him, the next day there was a flag with the dogs name on it, it blew all the way from the other end of town. Of course this could have been a fake letter but you gotta be alittle crazy to deny everything that gets said just because you can't prove the story right. is this story too big to be a couincidence, or is it a perfect example of one? i always think of couincidences as something small happening.

[Xaqaria]

That linguistic similarity is easy to see, but that's not the point. Likewise, a God that is personified does not mean that the God is actually a person or has a personage. I think the linguistic similarity is incredibly signifigant, as our language is the way we communicate our view of the world to each other. If we communicate concepts in similar ways, it means they are similar concepts. Ok, so it is natural. I ask if it has happened before, if not then what are the potential dangers? Well I can't be sure that it has happened before to the same extent that it may be happening now, but if it has, all the previous cycles ended in failure in terms of progressing beyond this point since here we are again. Perhaps we are not meant by the forces that create us to progress beyond this point, but I don't see this possibility as the most likely one. Actually, I can't visualize a religion changing. Unless you're talking about political manipulation (reformation/church etc)? Otherwise, the major religions, Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism/Vedas are pretty solid (On second thought, maybe not Christianity . Too many different churches). Yes but the examples you used are not really reflecting this specifically, they are minor issues. You think there are too many churches in Christianity but not buddhism or hinduism? Wikipedia lists 20 different sects of buddhism and there have been more that have come and gone. There are too many different forms of hinduism to count, since hinduism is the label applied to any group that worships a very large pantheon of different gods and their incarnations and no two groups recognize the same ones. If you can't 'visualize' religions changing, then you need to bone up on your religious history. Christianity and Islam are both changed versions of Judaism; as are the Baha'i Faith, Sikhism, and many other off shoots. As for the examples I gave, I would say that the Vatican is the oldest existing and therefore ranking authority in the Christian religion, and so for them to go from killing heretics to saying that belief in aliens is okay is a very pertinent example of religious change. 700 years ago, belief in an extraterrestrial creature that wasn't an angel would be demon worship and would get you killed. Sorry, I didn't mean to look so remote. I was expanding on some ideas about the ignorance of mankind; not directly related to your sentence. The recognition of the qualities of God, that would be termed by the mystic, are contaminated in most religious expression. But that does not mean that a given religion was founded upon falsity. I made an analogy about how man is oblivious to God, especially while denying Him. If you are not even talking about the so called "new" religions, please be more specific. I didn't say any religion was founded on falsity. I believe that they are all true. I simply believe that their objects of worship form a hierarchy, and that some hold influence over others. Just as Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades ruled over the other gods of the greek pantheon, some gods of the whole of the Earthly pantheon hold more sway over each other, and humanity. Somewhere at the top of this there is a theoretical One true god that embodies all of the others, but we are limited creatures that cannot perceive anything on that scale. My suggestion is that even today's most modern descriptions of an all encompassing god (yahweh, Brahma/Brahman) are probably only really descriptions of the predominant force of the Milky Way galaxy, with something yet completely unimaginable beyond that.

[really]

I don't really get this, why does seeing a leaf blow in the wind considered "god" or "an angel" or w/e? i used to go post at spiritualist boards and all that stuff they posted sounded completly rediculas. I had a dream of my dead mom therefore it actually WAS my moms spirit I wanted something and it happened therefore god did it. I meditated and saw people therefore it was spirits I asked my spirit guide for some help and my problem got fixed therefore i have a spirit guide etc etc etc I don't really know what you're asking; I don't know about where this is coming from either, sorry. There is 1 thing that i actually did find intresting, but it could easily be considered a couincidence but it sounds too big if couincidences can be this big. Once a year on this radio station this guy reads these letters people mail in and the music makes the story and his voice make the story breathtaking, anyway this kid sends in this letter and his beloved dog died and he was all sad, he wanted and asked if his dog was in heaven that the dog proves it to him, the next day there was a flag with the dogs name on it, it blew all the way from the other end of town. Of course this could have been a fake letter but you gotta be alittle crazy to deny everything that gets said just because you can't prove the story right. is this story too big to be a couincidence, or is it a perfect example of one? i always think of couincidences as something small happening. Coincidences consistently arise in every size, whether they're noticeable or not. They are one with a natural cosmos. I think the linguistic similarity is incredibly signifigant, as our language is the way we communicate our view of the world to each other. If we communicate concepts in similar ways, it means they are similar concepts. Fortunately this is not the case, here. If you can understand the metaphor(s) of Christianity, they'd actually be seen as complementary to the many other great religions I have already mentioned. From there on, do the spiritual and religious concepts appear to unite and affirm each other. You think there are too many churches in Christianity but not buddhism or hinduism? Wikipedia lists 20 different sects of buddhism and there have been more that have come and gone. There are too many different forms of hinduism to count, since hinduism is the label applied to any group that worships a very large pantheon of different gods and their incarnations and no two groups recognize the same ones. If you can't 'visualize' religions changing, then you need to bone up on your religious history. Christianity and Islam are both changed versions of Judaism; as are the Baha'i Faith, Sikhism, and many other off shoots. Sure, there have been many branches and groups of this and that. But I guess I don't really see it as change, I just see it as some sort of diversity and cultural preference. Basically, I guess I'm stressing that the foundation of religions never changes. The various expressions; occasional dogmas or socio-cultural relativities are not be relevant to the changeless Truth. I didn't say any religion was founded on falsity. Please, I'm just stating my own conclusions here. I'm not implying you're thinking differently or that I am "putting words in your mouth." I believe that they are all true. I simply believe that their objects of worship form a hierarchy, and that some hold influence over others. Just as Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades ruled over the other gods of the greek pantheon, some gods of the whole of the Earthly pantheon hold more sway over each other, and humanity. Somewhere at the top of this there is a theoretical One true god that embodies all of the others, but we are limited creatures that cannot perceive anything on that scale. My suggestion is that even today's most modern descriptions of an all encompassing god (yahweh, Brahma/Brahman) are probably only really descriptions of the predominant force of the Milky Way galaxy, with something yet completely unimaginable beyond that. The bold I find is very interesting, but it is the part that you are missing. This is where often I'd recommend the mystics explanation, who would attempt express the spiritual truths and nothing more. The bare essentials, if you will. Indeed we are limited creatures, and our perception is flawed. But the basis of God-Realization/Enlightenment (etc) is that we transcend perception and limitation into spiritual realization. To go beyond thought is to move into the awareness of the absolute silence and "beingness" of existence. If enlightenment reveals omnipresent truth, "the infinite", there is nowhere that it is not. Thus, it is beyond a "milky way galaxy" - which is but a fleeting concept, a bread crumb, within the infinite emergence of all universes. Do you see what I'm saying?

[LucidFlanders]

Coincidences consistently arise in every size, whether they're noticeable or not. They are one with a natural cosmos. Define what a coincidence is? i may have it all wrong, but i think of it as something small that happens, people don't understand, so they think it was just "luck" that it happened. I find that there is too much so called "luck" going on, i prefer to call it fate. It was MEANT to happen, so it happened. I don't mean fate as in a magical term, i mean fate just as it i think it really is meant to be used as...it was going to happen regardless. The story i shared seems too big to be a coincidence. What are the odds of that happening the next morning? and from the other side of town.

[really]

Define what a coincidence is? A "coincidence", according to the New Oxford American Dictionary: 1 a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection : it's no coincidence that this new burst of innovation has occurred in the free nations | they met by coincidence. 2 correspondence in nature or in time of occurrence : the coincidence of interest between the mining companies and certain politicians. Really, 1 is given by a relative human meaning, implying a "specialness", sometimes termed "the miraculous". This is actually commonplace and impersonal; synchronous as 2, which is natural occurrence on all levels of existence. Coincidences. It actually is miraculous that cars normally drive on roads. i may have it all wrong, but i think of it as something small that happens, people don't understand, so they think it was just "luck" that it happened. I find that there is too much so called "luck" going on, i prefer to call it fate. It was MEANT to happen, so it happened. I don't mean fate as in a magical term, i mean fate just as it i think it really is meant to be used as...it was going to happen regardless. The story i shared seems too big to be a coincidence. What are the odds of that happening the next morning? and from the other side of town. Yeah, I agree. It is not up to chance or luck, but by nature (karma/fate).

[Xaqaria]

Fortunately this is not the case, here. If you can understand the metaphor(s) of Christianity, they'd actually be seen as complementary to the many other great religions I have already mentioned. From there on, do the spiritual and religious concepts appear to unite and affirm each other. I believe it is the case here, and in every instance in which we use similar language to describe seemingly different phenomena. Since you persist in talking about it, you'll have to do better than asserting that your opinion is the truth and actually back yourself up. Sure, there have been many branches and groups of this and that. But I guess I don't really see it as change, I just see it as some sort of diversity and cultural preference. Basically, I guess I'm stressing that the foundation of religions never changes. The various expressions; occasional dogmas or socio-cultural relativities are not be relevant to the changeless Truth. You believe that changeless truth exists and so you feel like your assertions can be made without backing yourself up, but this isn't the case. The changeless truth that you are speaking of is hardly universally accepted, and so this entire statement hinges on you actually proving its existence first. The bold I find is very interesting, but it is the part that you are missing. This is where often I'd recommend the mystics explanation, who would attempt express the spiritual truths and nothing more. The bare essentials, if you will. Indeed we are limited creatures, and our perception is flawed. But the basis of God-Realization/Enlightenment (etc) is that we transcend perception and limitation into spiritual realization. To go beyond thought is to move into the awareness of the absolute silence and "beingness" of existence. If enlightenment reveals omnipresent truth, "the infinite", there is nowhere that it is not. Thus, it is beyond a "milky way galaxy" - which is but a fleeting concept, a bread crumb, within the infinite emergence of all universes. Do you see what I'm saying? I am missing how? Missing the point that you are trying to make or missing in my knowledge of the world? I'm just trying to figure out if your natural condescending tone is coming out or if I'm misinterpreting you. Have you known the Galaxy? I don't mean have you seen stars through a telescope, or seen th images that have been created to represent what scientists believe it looks like, but really Known it. I'm having trouble believing that you would be able to tell the difference between the immense cosmic scale of space/time encompassed by a galaxy and infinity if confronted with it. It doesn't even really matter, since you haven't even experienced the "infinite emergence of all universes" or any omnipresent truth for yourself anyway. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. All you know of these things is what you've read of other's accounts of them, and perhaps even some first hand description (although I doubt this). How can you be sure that those people didn't transcend normal human awareness, glimpse the underlying force of the Galaxy, become so overwhelmed by its vast and unimaginable immensity and conclude that it must be infinite, and therefore the entire universe? I won't argue that any person claiming to have been enlightened is wrong or lying since I haven't experienced it myself and so cannot know the truth one way or another. This doesn't mean that because they say it is true I must accept it, and it doesn't mean that because they are beyond me that they are beyond error. I will say again, I believe if any human being were to perceive this Galaxy as it really is in its entirity, they would be incapable of distinguishing it from the infinite.

[really]

Edit: Sorry for the long post. I put in spoiler tags. I believe it is the case here, and in every instance in which we use similar language to describe seemingly different phenomena. Since you persist in talking about it, you'll have to do better than asserting that your opinion is the truth and actually back yourself up. Just in case we lost track, you are saying that there is linguistic similarity in the manner that Christianity is a sun-worshiping religion, therefore it is one. I am saying this is untrue and that the linguistic similarity, in terms of religious relationships, is rather due to the spiritual foundation which all the significant religions arise. At the very core, beyond the rituals, ceremonies and dates, is the spiritual essence. The most important part of the religion is its foundation; the prophets, the Self-Realized, Lord Krishna, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, etc. The spiritual connections are all based upon the illumination of the Divine Reality, called Brahman, Enlightenment, Self Realization, The Supreme, Nirvana, Heaven, Salvation (Salvation is not full Realization, however) etc. Those who seek this, by whatever name or teacher, sometimes "via the mind" are called mystics. Sri Ramana Maharshi is a famous mystic, who taught about the "Self" and "Self-inquiry", though he was a Hindu devotee. I hope you can see the connections below, just from the list of quotes; there is a brilliant consistency. I think the context in which they're stated is already self-evident as for those seeking the Ultimate Reality or Salvation, as teachings and preachings. However, if you still doubt what I am saying, there is no harm exposing yourself to more material. It is then inevitable to see more connections. Here is but a few: Spoiler for Buddha/Buddhism: Buddha/Buddhism He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye. Peace comes from within. Do not seek it without. We live in illusion and the appearance of things. There is a reality. We are that reality. When you understand this, you see that you are nothing, and being nothing, you are everything. That is all. Have compassion for all beings, rich and poor alike; each has their suffering. Some suffer too much, others too little. Spoiler for Sri Krishna (Bhagavad Gita)/Vedanta: Sri Krishna (Bhagavad Gita)/Vedanta Out of Compassion for them, I, dwelling in their hearts, destroy with the shining lamp of knowledge the darkness born of ignorance. He alone sees truly who sees the Lord the same in every creature...seeing the same Lord everywhere, he does not harm himself or others. Fix your mind on Me, be devoted to Me, offer service to Me, bow down to Me, and you shall certainly reach Me. I promise you because you are very dear to Me. The power of God is with you at all times; through the activities of mind, senses, breathing, and emotions; and is constantly doing all the work using you as a mere instrument. Never was there a time when I did not exist, nor you, nor all these kings; nor in the future shall any of us cease to be. Spoiler for Jesus/Christianity: Jesus/Christianity Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord and has made the Lord his hope and confidence. - Jeremiah 17:7 The kingdom of God is within you. Luke 17:21 I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by Me. - John 14:6 Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, "Show us the Father"? Don't you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work. Believe me when I say that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; or at least believe on the evidence of the miracles themselves. On that day you will realize that I am in my Father, and you are in me, and I am in you. Because he has set his love upon Me, therefore I will deliver him; I will set him on high, because he has known My name. He shall call upon Me, and I will answer him I will be with him in trouble I will deliver him and honor him. With long life I will satisfy him, and show him My salvation. Psalm 91 14-16 A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; as I have loved you, that you also love one another. JOHN 13:34 Spoiler for Sri Ramana Maharshi/Advaita Vedanta: Sri Ramana Maharshi/Advaita Vedanta There is no mind to control if you realise the Self. The mind having vanished, the Self shines forth. In the realized man, the mind may be active or inactive, the Self remains for him. When we turn the mind inwards, God manifests as the inner consciousness. Happiness is your nature. It is not wrong to desire it. What is wrong is seeking it outside when it is inside. You need not aspire for or get any new state. Get rid of your present thoughts, that is all. The Guru is both external and internal. From the exterior he gives a push to the mind to turn it inwards. From the interior he pulls the mind towards the Self and helps in the quieting of the mind. That is the Guru’s grace. There is no difference between God, Guru and the Self. You believe that changeless truth exists and so you feel like your assertions can be made without backing yourself up, but this isn't the case. The changeless truth that you are speaking of is hardly universally accepted, and so this entire statement hinges on you actually proving its existence first. They are not my assertions, but my observations and my faith, affirmed through what I have read. And while you do not back yourself up either, it is helpful to realize that the Truth stands on its own, regardless and unaffected. You are in trouble if you want it to be proven. The Absolute, the Universal Truth cannot be proven, and it is an ignorance to demand proof of it. Nothing bad or wrong with that, I'm just trying to be clear. I am missing how? Missing the point that you are trying to make or missing in my knowledge of the world? I'm just trying to figure out if your natural condescending tone is coming out or if I'm misinterpreting you. I'm sorry if I come across as condescending. I think you're misinterpreting religious dialogue, taking it too literally. You're missing that the Truth is always there, and always will be. It is unmistakable as it is, but it may be mistakable as a mere concept. Have you known the Galaxy? I don't mean have you seen stars through a telescope, or seen th images that have been created to represent what scientists believe it looks like, but really Known it. I'm having trouble believing that you would be able to tell the difference between the immense cosmic scale of space/time encompassed by a galaxy and infinity if confronted with it. Where is this all coming from, do you know "the Galaxy"? Does anybody else? Is there a religion or spiritual pathway that leads to it? I agree with your emphasizing on knowledge. I think this could be the answer to your own problem, not being able to conceptualize that which rests upon a radical paradigm of knowledge: Being. It doesn't even really matter, since you haven't even experienced the "infinite emergence of all universes" or any omnipresent truth for yourself anyway. If you had, we wouldn't be having this conversation. You can't use the hypothetical as an argument. I am merely discussing the theoretical, and the confirmed spirutal Realities that are indeed complementary and affirmative to each other. I don't need to be enlightened to see the relationships, nor am I claiming to be. All you know of these things is what you've read of other's accounts of them, and perhaps even some first hand description (although I doubt this). I have had profound personal revelations, some of which are better said to be impersonal. However, I won't really talk about these for arguments sake, but rather if you're genuinely curious. How can you be sure that those people didn't transcend normal human awareness, glimpse the underlying force of the Galaxy, become so overwhelmed by its vast and unimaginable immensity and conclude that it must be infinite, and therefore the entire universe? What is this "Galaxy" business, really? There is no relationship between a human and a particular Galaxy. Why are you worried about mistaking God for a galaxy? All is interconnected and One, One without separate parts, without division and thusly without limit. The Source of existence is not only beyond one galaxy, it is beyond millions of them; it is beyond all universes and all time. It is the universal Source, far from any distinctions and divisions. I won't argue that any person claiming to have been enlightened is wrong or lying since I haven't experienced it myself and so cannot know the truth one way or another. This doesn't mean that because they say it is true I must accept it, and it doesn't mean that because they are beyond me that they are beyond error. I will say again, I believe if any human being were to perceive this Galaxy as it really is in its entirity, they would be incapable of distinguishing it from the infinite. Quite simply, a galaxy is a galaxy, and it is a finite, human perception. The infinite is the infinite; forever and everywhere, without limitation; beyond perception.

[O'nus]

Just in case we lost track, you are saying that there is linguistic similarity in the manner that Christianity is a sun-worshiping religion, therefore it is one. I am saying this is untrue and that the linguistic similarity, in terms of religious relationships, is rather due to the spiritual foundation which all the significant religions arise. Really, you are giving far too much room for truth and validity. Even if all things stem from a "truth" does not mean that they are true themselves. A theory can have some parts of truthful things in it, but that does mean that the rest of it is. At the very core, beyond the rituals, ceremonies and dates, is the spiritual essence. The most important part of the religion is its foundation; the prophets, the Self-Realized, Lord Krishna, Lord Jesus Christ, Lord Buddha, etc. The spiritual connections are all based upon the illumination of the Divine Reality, called Brahman, Enlightenment, Self Realization, The Supreme, Nirvana, Heaven, Salvation (Salvation is not full Realization, however) etc. Those who seek this, by whatever name or teacher, sometimes "via the mind" are called mystics. Sri Ramana Maharshi is a famous mystic, who taught about the "Self" and "Self-inquiry", though he was a Hindu devotee. You speak like a Baha'i - the desperate people who actually think all religions are true in some sense to try and salvage humanity and yet fail to see how offering truth to all beliefs is actually completely non sequitur. I hope you can see the connections below, just from the list of quotes; there is a brilliant consistency. I think the context in which they're stated is already self-evident as for those seeking the Ultimate Reality or Salvation, as teachings and preachings. However, if you still doubt what I am saying, there is no harm exposing yourself to more material. It is then inevitable to see more connections. Here is but a few: Have you considered that they are all similar because they all come from humans?! What do you think horses would write, if they could? How do you think the psychology of religion describes these quintessential behaviour of humans that try to understand their environment? They are not my assertions, but my observations and my faith, affirmed through what I have read. And while you do not back yourself up either, it is helpful to realize that the Truth stands on its own, regardless and unaffected. You are in trouble if you want it to be proven. The Absolute, the Universal Truth cannot be proven, and it is an ignorance to demand proof of it. Nothing bad or wrong with that, I'm just trying to be clear. Yet again you denigrate another thread into this cesspool of what you call "unprovable truth". You like to think of it as an invincible predicate while you also say it cannot be demonstrated, yet you can still manage to pontificate it and describe it. Really what you are is an agnostic in sheeps clothing of a spiritualist (or Baha'i, I suspect now). I'm sorry if I come across as condescending. I think you're misinterpreting religious dialogue, taking it too literally. You're missing that the Truth is always there, and always will be. It is unmistakable as it is, but it may be mistakable as a mere concept. No, you misunderstand by giving people way too much benefit of the doubt. Yet again, even if all things stem from a truth, this does not mean that all those subsidiaries of "truth" are, in fact, "true". A simple look at the problem of the "perfect God" creating "imperfect beings" shows this struggle. I agree with your emphasizing on knowledge. I think this could be the answer to your own problem, not being able to conceptualize that which rests upon a radical paradigm of knowledge: Being. Here's where you arrogance of spiritual enlightenment shines - obviously you are the only one that understand the "truth" and no one else does, right? You seriously need to quit trolling about shit that you know you even don't understand nor can demonstrate or speak about. Until you can provide falsifiability in your theory - it holds absolutely no grounds at all - especially no grounds for "truth". But it can't be falsified, right? You can't use the hypothetical as an argument. I am merely discussing the theoretical, and the confirmed spirutal Realities that are indeed complementary and affirmative to each other. I don't need to be enlightened to see the relationships, nor am I claiming to be. Right - you just march around the boards pontificating your "truth" as though you know nothing about it but everyone else is "lost" or "mis-understands" - but you do not claim to be enlightened..? Or is this part of your circular logic where you claim that your knowledge of enlightenment is that you know nothing..? Right. Forgot that part. You're infallible apparently - and so are your arguments. /sarcasm. All is interconnected and One, One without separate parts, without division and thusly without limit. The Source of existence is not only beyond one galaxy, it is beyond millions of them; it is beyond all universes and all time. It is the universal Source, far from any distinctions and divisions. You have no grounds for this, no support, no evidence, no reason, nothing. Been over this before and here you are again infecting another person with your nonsense. Stop it. It's digressive - and you know it as you have already said before that the person has to be at "the same level of understanding" to understand "the true truth". Though I am sure you have many rationalizations of why I do not understand your stance that rectifies your personal philosophies grounds - just the same as a solipsist or a child with an imaginary friend. You know this, but you don't like the comparison, but too bad because you know that you cannot offer anyone anyone incentive to your beliefs or reason to listen to them, SO STOP IT. Seriously. You are far more ignorant and blind than you claim to be - that which claims to "know nothing" and "not be enlightened" while arguing unfalsifiable, isolated, subjective, tautological, non sequitur, garble. ~

[really]

Really, you are giving far too much room for truth and validity. Even if all things stem from a "truth" does not mean that they are true themselves. A theory can have some parts of truthful things in it, but that does mean that the rest of it is. Yes, that holds validity here. Especially considering the political influence on religious foundations. You speak like a Baha'i - the desperate people who actually think all religions are true in some sense to try and salvage humanity and yet fail to see how offering truth to all beliefs is actually completely non sequitur. I'm not a "Baha'i", nor am I desperate. I am offering insight. How is it non-sequitur that religious foundations have something in common? Have you considered that they are all similar because they all come from humans?! What do you think horses would write, if they could? How do you think the psychology of religion describes these quintessential behaviour of humans that try to understand their environment? Do I need to consider that religions arise from man, or should I dwell in the hypothetical, wondering what a horse would do? Of course it arose from humans. However, the religions I have mentioned obviously are not expanded upon random conclusions to do with peoples worldly hypotheses. How about you actually read the quotes? Yet again you denigrate another thread into this cesspool of what you call "unprovable truth". You like to think of it as an invincible predicate while you also say it cannot be demonstrated, yet you can still manage to pontificate it and describe it. Really what you are is an agnostic in sheeps clothing of a spiritualist (or Baha'i, I suspect now). I manage to describe it, though keep in mind that what I am describing is a limited abstraction of the ineffable. No, you misunderstand by giving people way too much benefit of the doubt. Yet again, even if all things stem from a truth, this does not mean that all those subsidiaries of "truth" are, in fact, "true". A simple look at the problem of the "perfect God" creating "imperfect beings" shows this struggle. The trouble is, man may doubt God on account of his limited perception, without realizing that the source of error is not external. The Truth cannot be perceived, it must be Realized as already existent. Here's where you arrogance of spiritual enlightenment shines - obviously you are the only one that understand the "truth" and no one else does, right? You seriously need to quit trolling about shit that you know you even don't understand nor can demonstrate or speak about. This is actually your own arrogance. I do not believe I am the only one that knows, nor do I believe that everybody who happens to read my post does not. If you happen to read my words as trolling and take offense, you're misinterpreting it and taking it personally. Until you can provide falsifiability in your theory - it holds absolutely no grounds at all - especially no grounds for "truth". But it can't be falsified, right? Right - you just march around the boards pontificating your "truth" as though you know nothing about it but everyone else is "lost" or "mis-understands" - but you do not claim to be enlightened..? Or is this part of your circular logic where you claim that your knowledge of enlightenment is that you know nothing..? Right. Forgot that part. You're infallible apparently - and so are your arguments. /sarcasm. You have no grounds for this, no support, no evidence, no reason, nothing. Been over this before and here you are again infecting another person with your nonsense. Stop it. It's digressive - and you know it as you have already said before that the person has to be at "the same level of understanding" to understand "the true truth". Though I am sure you have many rationalizations of why I do not understand your stance that rectifies your personal philosophies grounds - just the same as a solipsist or a child with an imaginary friend. You know this, but you don't like the comparison, but too bad because you know that you cannot offer anyone anyone incentive to your beliefs or reason to listen to them, SO STOP IT. Seriously. You are far more ignorant and blind than you claim to be - that which claims to "know nothing" and "not be enlightened" while arguing unfalsifiable, isolated, subjective, tautological, non sequitur, garble. ~ Blah blah blah. Please consider keeping your heavy criticism to your own posts, if not don't keep it at all. I can see you just like to whinge and whine like a little baby. I can understand you are annoyed, but please don't cry. It is not as dramatic as you crave it to be. You can state that it has "no grounds, no proof, no evidence" and all that blah, but please understand that it is irrelevant and beyond the paradigm of science and logic.

[O'nus]

I'm not a "Baha'i", nor am I desperate. I am offering insight. How is it non-sequitur that religious foundations have something in common? Please tell me how you are not a Baha'i? Your descriptions of philosophical insight and truth are the exact same. Do I need to consider that religions arise from man, or should I dwell in the hypothetical, wondering what a horse would do? Of course it arose from humans. However, the religions I have mentioned obviously are not expanded upon random conclusions to do with peoples worldly hypotheses. You're missing the point. It's a counter-argument - and you're dodging it. I manage to describe it, though keep in mind that what I am describing is a limited abstraction of the ineffable. The ineffable? You mean that thing of yours that you cannot speak of..? Right. The trouble is, man may doubt God on account of his limited perception, without realizing that the source of error is not external. The Truth cannot be perceived, it must be Realized as already existent. Yup, that is what I was talking about. You do not fail to bring it up in every thread you try to make a meaningful contribution to, and this was my point. This is actually your own arrogance. I do not believe I am the only one that knows, nor do I believe that everybody who happens to read my post does not. If you happen to read my words as trolling and take offense, you're misinterpreting it and taking it personally. Meanwhile you go around dispensing reasons why others are "mislead" and "do not quite understand" while you hypocritically say "I know nothing", right? Sure. Blah blah blah. Please consider keeping your heavy criticism to your own posts, if not don't keep it at all. I can see you just like to whinge and whine like a little baby. I can understand you are annoyed, but please don't cry. It is not as dramatic as you crave it to be. You can state that it has "no grounds, no proof, no evidence" and all that blah, but please understand that it is irrelevant and beyond the paradigm of science and logic. Exactly - it is beyond reason and logic - it has no reason for anyone to believe in it except for the subjective individual. Yet, you know this, and continue to pontificate it and fail to see the problem with it and call me arrogant and whining? ~

[really]

Please tell me how you are not a Baha'i? Your descriptions of philosophical insight and truth are the exact same. Show me how they are the same (if it actually matters). I am only vaguely familiar with it, however I am aware my beliefs are not exactly the same, nor relevant to it. You're missing the point. It's a counter-argument - and you're dodging it. Actually, there was nothing to dodge. Obviously the religions founded upon divine revelation are not about understanding the environment. Have you been reading my post, or just fiddling with something in the background? The "psychology of religion" holds more relevance in more outdated, primitive cultures where a "punishing god" was seen in the various aspects of nature. Even then, it is still obvious what the flaw is. The ineffable? You mean that thing of yours that you cannot speak of..? Right. Yup, that is what I was talking about. You do not fail to bring it up in every thread you try to make a meaningful contribution to, and this was my point. Meanwhile you go around dispensing reasons why others are "mislead" and "do not quite understand" while you hypocritically say "I know nothing", right? Sure. Exactly - it is beyond reason and logic - it has no reason for anyone to believe in it except for the subjective individual. Yet, you know this, and continue to pontificate it and fail to see the problem with it and call me arrogant and whining? ~ All of the above is off-topic. O'nus, I'm actually not interested in explaining myself because you are not interested in what I have to explain. Until you show that you can be understanding and make an innovative, thoughtful response, it is pointless to respond to you. Because you are obnoxious and don't actually make intelligent relationships with my descriptions and instead impatiently "sketch" something together, ignoring many essential points we have discussed deeply and biasing toward a hopeless position.