Re: Re: Faith in God leads to a long life.

[Guest guest]

On Saturday 12 August 2006 11:59 am, B. Monier- wrote:

> Steve:

> You seem to be very taken with pantheism, for an agnostic. I

I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've never found anyone to claim a belief

in god who didn't have a different god than everyone else I've talked to, and

I've discussed this with 100s if not 1000s of people over time. Get them to

describe their gods and no one will give you the same answer, sometimes not

even the same person will give you the same answer two days in a row, and

this is without considering the 1000s of different religions.

>t must take

> a lot of mental effort to maintain your non belief, much more so than

> for believers. So for that I take my hat off to you.

You're not thinking of agnosticism when you speak of maintaining a

" non-belief " , you're speaking of atheism. Atheism in all forms and theism in

all forms (from spirits in the rocks and trees to the other extreme) requires

effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a requirement

that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief. Evidence

must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system and one

must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to maintian an

atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to " know "

either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrational sense one way or

the other. You can say that your particular god may or may not exist

but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

> True " guilt " has been used by Christianity to control the faithful, but

> you've failed to address how and when this began from an historical and

> social perspective.

Not necessary. It has an evolutionary phycology explanation that makes a lot

sense.

> Then it had its justification. Used now by these

> same religions is wrong. Your answer on this point will let me know more

> about you. However, to give guilt its due, it has a function in life:

> as individuals and as groups, its one of the emotions that can help

> guide us doing what is good and right, and steering us away from the

> bad, whatever that is. It can brings us to repentance and help us heal

> and grow.

No, it's evolutionary purpose is to keep like minded people together against

the hardships of life. Being ostracized for non-belief and not-following the

" rules " of the " group " was a death sentence and most likely lead to failure

to pass this thinking-for-yourself gene on to the next generation. The need

to believe and follow some common belief system and set of rules is now built

into the genes. It had a survival purpose but it is also tends to select out

thinking for oneself and/or create the ability to keep ones thoughts to

oneself giving everying the impression they all believe the same with the

truth is far far different. The concept of " the madness of crowds " also

comes to mind.

> Steve, your assumption that Jagannath, being from India, is ergo

> pantheistic, doesn't speak well of you. He may or may not be.

1) In didn't assume Jagannath is from India. I find the extreme plurality of

beliefs in India highly preferred verses countries where one religion

dominates.

2) I don't assume that people from India are pantheistic. India is a real

melting pot of religious beliefs.

3) I DON'T assume that people that claim to be monotheistic (trinity thinking

notwithstanding) all believe in some common god they identify with like

attributes. Monotheistic belief systems have different gods which change

with historical time.

4) I DO assume that each theistic person has their own particular god belief

(or gods) and I DON " T assume that those that claim the title of monotheism

are in the same boat.

5) I ALSO DON " T believe that monotheism is an improvement or in some what

better than pantheists or polythists, they are all equal in the value of

their belief system with some very particular exceptions. Those exceptions

are those that belief that dying for their particular god/gods/etc., and

taking others with them are the modern definition of evil. Some religions

revere life, others don't when it comes to actual practice. Fundamentalist

of many religions are a dangerous lot.

> Further

> that God or gods die I think a little logic needs to be applied.

Zeus is dead for most people. Most of the " gods " that have ever lived are now

dead.

> I've had the privilege to meet one or two living Saints or at least what

> you might call holy people and a dog, though a good companion in no way

> can replace God....unless your an agnostic then I guess anything will do.

I was speaking of actual studies. Pets improve and extend the quality of life

in the elderly. This is an empirical study. The other one quoted about

belief in some spirituality, be in monotheistic, polythistic, panthistic, or

whatever, was not emperical but merely a self reporting set of vague

statements.

> Steve, everyone on earth, at some time in their lives, must answer two

> questions: " Why am I hear? " and " What do I want? " Many people avoid the

> first and only answer the second, but they cannot escape this earth

> without answering the first.

I don't assume that any of the answers to these questions is a god, or gods,

or devils, or spirits, or UFOs, or any number of supernatural mythological

systems.

Mormonism, a very monothistic and Christian religion, the religion I've been a

member of all my life by virtue of birth and the one I attend Sunday meetings

with my family with, has this concept of " As Man is, God once was, As God is,

Man may become " . It certainly, in an interesting way, promotes the idea of

human progress, even secular humanistic progress, in all areas of life.

(Most Mormons don't see it that but that's the way it often works). Think of

it in the very biblical sense, " The kingdom of God is within you " so you

don't have to go worship somewhere to find it. The Mormon belief in god has

a slightly different spin on it since He/God has " progressed " from being a

man to being a God and this limits the concept of omnipotents and

omnisciences and omnibenevalents just enough to eliminate Him ( " them " , Gods

are married in mormonism) as the source of evil. In traditional

Christianity, evil exists because God wills it and it would not exist if God

didn't' will it - so Evil exists because God Wants Evil to Exist (in

traditional Christianity). In Mormonism, aspects of all humans are

co-eternal with god and therefor not completely created by him. Hence, evil

can exist because free will, something eternal and not-created by the Mormon

god, allow men to act as personal agents allowing them to advance, or not, as

they will.

Now, a question you didn't ask is " Who am I? " For me, who I am is different

each day. Who I was yesterday is dead, Who I am today is a changing answer

as I gain new experiences and throw off old ones, and who I am tomorrow will

be a new person. Hence, " who I am " cannot be answer in the definitive but

whatever it is, it continues an existence morphing into eternity. That, I'm

farely sure, is neither an atheist nor theistic belief system.

>

>

> I hope the anniversary of your marriage of 25 years was faithful as

> well as filthful...good old Fraud..I mean Freud.

It had been a good 25 years. I've found that if I take a pragmatic look at

evolutionary psychology and take it strongly into account in my interactions

and my look at why people act and believe the way they do, take it into

account and apply that knowledge in acting and understanding and then just

enjoy the trip, life is fantastic.

--

Steve - dudescholar2@...

" It is wise to keep in mind that neither success nor failure is ever final. "

-- Babson

[Guest guest]

Steve:

Your comments are limited to a " Faith " system or lack thereof. An

experiential system does not take

effort once an actual experience proves the God theory... other than in

avoiding the daggers from

the Faithful who need to believe that only Jesus and could do it

and the rest is illusion or magic.

Jim

,_._,___

Atheism in all forms and theism in all forms (from spirits in the rocks

and trees to the other extreme) requires

effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a requirement

that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief.

Evidence

must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system and one

must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to

maintian an

atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to " know "

either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrationa

l sense one way or the other. You can say that your particular god

may or may not exist

but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

[Guest guest]

Steve:

It is interesting that your and my answer to the question regarding

what 'god' is, especially vis a vis polytheism were almost

identical. The fact that two people misunderstood each of us

separately referring to multiple concepts of god - gods - as having

to do with polytheism, is also very interesting. I read your

well-written post after submitting mine.

Your other answers are great too, no need for further comment.

By the way, congratulations on your 25 years.

At 01:03 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

>On Saturday 12 August 2006 11:59 am, B. Monier- wrote:

> > Steve:

> > You seem to be very taken with pantheism, for an agnostic. I

>

>I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've never found anyone to claim a belief

>in god who didn't have a different god than everyone else I've talked to, and

>I've discussed this with 100s if not 1000s of people over time. Get them to

>describe their gods and no one will give you the same answer, sometimes not

>even the same person will give you the same answer two days in a row, and

>this is without considering the 1000s of different religions.

>

> >t must take

> > a lot of mental effort to maintain your non belief, much more so than

> > for believers. So for that I take my hat off to you.

>

>You're not thinking of agnosticism when you speak of maintaining a

> " non-belief " , you're speaking of atheism. Atheism in all forms and theism in

>all forms (from spirits in the rocks and trees to the other extreme) requires

>effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a requirement

>that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief. Evidence

>must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system and one

>must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to maintian an

>atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to " know "

>either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrational sense one way or

>the other. You can say that your particular god may or may not exist

>but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

>

> > True " guilt " has been used by Christianity to control the faithful, but

> > you've failed to address how and when this began from an historical and

> > social perspective.

>

>Not necessary. It has an evolutionary phycology explanation that makes a lot

>sense.

>

> > Then it had its justification. Used now by these

> > same religions is wrong. Your answer on this point will let me know more

> > about you. However, to give guilt its due, it has a function in life:

> > as individuals and as groups, its one of the emotions that can help

> > guide us doing what is good and right, and steering us away from the

> > bad, whatever that is. It can brings us to repentance and help us heal

> > and grow.

>

>No, it's evolutionary purpose is to keep like minded people together against

>the hardships of life. Being ostracized for non-belief and not-following the

> " rules " of the " group " was a death sentence and most likely lead to failure

>to pass this thinking-for-yourself gene on to the next generation. The need

>to believe and follow some common belief system and set of rules is now built

>into the genes. It had a survival purpose but it is also tends to select out

>thinking for oneself and/or create the ability to keep ones thoughts to

>oneself giving everying the impression they all believe the same with the

>truth is far far different. The concept of " the madness of crowds " also

>comes to mind.

>

> > Steve, your assumption that Jagannath, being from India, is ergo

> > pantheistic, doesn't speak well of you. He may or may not be.

>

>1) In didn't assume Jagannath is from India. I find the extreme plurality of

>beliefs in India highly preferred verses countries where one religion

>dominates.

>2) I don't assume that people from India are pantheistic. India is a real

>melting pot of religious beliefs.

>3) I DON'T assume that people that claim to be monotheistic (trinity thinking

>notwithstanding) all believe in some common god they identify with like

>attributes. Monotheistic belief systems have different gods which change

>with historical time.

>4) I DO assume that each theistic person has their own particular god belief

>(or gods) and I DON " T assume that those that claim the title of monotheism

>are in the same boat.

>5) I ALSO DON " T believe that monotheism is an improvement or in some what

>better than pantheists or polythists, they are all equal in the value of

>their belief system with some very particular exceptions. Those exceptions

>are those that belief that dying for their particular god/gods/etc., and

>taking others with them are the modern definition of evil. Some religions

>revere life, others don't when it comes to actual practice. Fundamentalist

>of many religions are a dangerous lot.

>

> > Further

> > that God or gods die I think a little logic needs to be applied.

>

>Zeus is dead for most people. Most of the " gods " that have ever lived are now

>dead.

>

> > I've had the privilege to meet one or two living Saints or at least what

> > you might call holy people and a dog, though a good companion in no way

> > can replace God....unless your an agnostic then I guess anything will do.

>

>I was speaking of actual studies. Pets improve and extend the quality of life

>in the elderly. This is an empirical study. The other one quoted about

>belief in some spirituality, be in monotheistic, polythistic, panthistic, or

>whatever, was not emperical but merely a self reporting set of vague

>statements.

>

> > Steve, everyone on earth, at some time in their lives, must answer two

> > questions: " Why am I hear? " and " What do I want? " Many people avoid the

> > first and only answer the second, but they cannot escape this earth

> > without answering the first.

>

>I don't assume that any of the answers to these questions is a god, or gods,

>or devils, or spirits, or UFOs, or any number of supernatural mythological

>systems.

>

>Mormonism, a very monothistic and Christian religion, the religion

>I've been a

>member of all my life by virtue of birth and the one I attend Sunday meetings

>with my family with, has this concept of " As Man is, God once was, As God is,

>Man may become " . It certainly, in an interesting way, promotes the idea of

>human progress, even secular humanistic progress, in all areas of life.

>(Most Mormons don't see it that but that's the way it often works). Think of

>it in the very biblical sense, " The kingdom of God is within you " so you

>don't have to go worship somewhere to find it. The Mormon belief in god has

>a slightly different spin on it since He/God has " progressed " from being a

>man to being a God and this limits the concept of omnipotents and

>omnisciences and omnibenevalents just enough to eliminate Him ( " them " , Gods

>are married in mormonism) as the source of evil. In traditional

>Christianity, evil exists because God wills it and it would not exist if God

>didn't' will it - so Evil exists because God Wants Evil to Exist (in

>traditional Christianity). In Mormonism, aspects of all humans are

>co-eternal with god and therefor not completely created by him. Hence, evil

>can exist because free will, something eternal and not-created by the Mormon

>god, allow men to act as personal agents allowing them to advance, or not, as

>they will.

>

>Now, a question you didn't ask is " Who am I? " For me, who I am is different

>each day. Who I was yesterday is dead, Who I am today is a changing answer

>as I gain new experiences and throw off old ones, and who I am tomorrow will

>be a new person. Hence, " who I am " cannot be answer in the definitive but

>whatever it is, it continues an existence morphing into eternity. That, I'm

>farely sure, is neither an atheist nor theistic belief system.

>

> >

> >

> > I hope the anniversary of your marriage of 25 years was faithful as

> > well as filthful...good old Fraud..I mean Freud.

>

>It had been a good 25 years. I've found that if I take a pragmatic look at

>evolutionary psychology and take it strongly into account in my interactions

>and my look at why people act and believe the way they do, take it into

>account and apply that knowledge in acting and understanding and then just

>enjoy the trip, life is fantastic.

>

>--

>

>Steve - <mailto:dudescholar2%40basicmail.net>dudescholar2@...

>

> " It is wise to keep in mind that neither success nor failure is ever final. "

>-- Babson

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jim:

I'm all in favor of direct spiritual experience or esoteric

spirituality. Nevertheless, it neither supports nor proves the dogma

of mainstream religion. It is a personal experience and may be proof

enough for you alone. Whether it is an encounter with god, some

other spiritual entity or an hallucination is probably impossible to

prove. Did you see a white bearded gentleman of great wisdom sitting

on a throne? I don't denigrate yours or anyone else's experience, I

just point out that it is your experience and your proof not mine or

Steve's. The experience may be valuable to share with others, but

the meaning of your experience for others is for them to decide.

At 01:18 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

>Steve:

>

>Your comments are limited to a " Faith " system or lack thereof. An

>experiential system does not take

>effort once an actual experience proves the God theory... other than in

>avoiding the daggers from

>the Faithful who need to believe that only Jesus and could do it

>and the rest is illusion or magic.

>

>Jim

>

>,_._,___

>

>Atheism in all forms and theism in all forms (from spirits in the rocks

>and trees to the other extreme) requires

>effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a requirement

>that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief.

>Evidence

>must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system and one

>must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to

>maintian an

>atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to " know "

>either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrationa

>

>l sense one way or the other. You can say that your particular god

>may or may not exist

>but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

>

>

[Guest guest]

:

I encountered many things along the way, but three things finally:

Light, sound, & an overwhelming aura of love.

No people, no place, and nothing that most would expect.

It worked for me.

I was not preaching. I was agreeing & don't care what others decide.

Some things are not worth discussing unless someone asks. This is

one of them.

Jim

Brown wrote:

> Jim:

>

> I'm all in favor of direct spiritual experience or esoteric

> spirituality. Nevertheless, it neither supports nor proves the dogma

> of mainstream religion. It is a personal experience and may be proof

> enough for you alone. Whether it is an encounter with god, some

> other spiritual entity or an hallucination is probably impossible to

> prove. Did you see a white bearded gentleman of great wisdom sitting

> on a throne? I don't denigrate yours or anyone else's experience, I

> just point out that it is your experience and your proof not mine or

> Steve's. The experience may be valuable to share with others, but

> the meaning of your experience for others is for them to decide.

>

>

>

> At 01:18 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

>

> >Steve:

> >

> >Your comments are limited to a " Faith " system or lack thereof. An

> >experiential system does not take

> >effort once an actual experience proves the God theory... other than in

> >avoiding the daggers from

> >the Faithful who need to believe that only Jesus and could do it

> >and the rest is illusion or magic.

> >

> >Jim

> >

> >,_._,___

> >

> >Atheism in all forms and theism in all forms (from spirits in the rocks

> >and trees to the other extreme) requires

> >effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a

> requirement

> >that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief.

> >Evidence

> >must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system

> and one

> >must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to

> >maintian an

> >atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to " know "

> >either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrationa

> >

> >l sense one way or the other. You can say that your particular god

> >may or may not exist

> >but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

HI Jim:

Believe it or not, I can identify with what you said in a very

personal way. I also thank you for sharing that with me. However, I

don't take back anything I've said, because it is important to keep

these things in check and not create a 'cult' or religion around

them. That is what ruins the whole thing. Knowing that these

spiritual experiences are just part of what we all are capable of is

important without all the dogma.

I believe that some of my experiences may be similar to yours. I

sometimes feel certain spiritual experiences and some can be

described in part as overwhelming love. With me it is usually either

toward other people or from a spiritual presence that seems to be

loving and perhaps protective in a spiritual sense, whatever that

means. When I am in these states in a deep meditative way, I can see

auras on people and sometimes that is scary as well as

exhilarating. I feel that I'm not enlightened enough to have the

privilege to see that deeply into another's being that well, so I go

out of my way to avoid these experiences at times.

This type of interaction with another or alone can be quite

healing. You don't need to believe in a god to experience it. No

dogma, and no faith are necessary. These are experiences that any

human may be able to have. It is probably their misinterpretation

that often leads to dogma.

At 06:22 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

>:

>

>I encountered many things along the way, but three things finally:

>Light, sound, & an overwhelming aura of love.

>No people, no place, and nothing that most would expect.

>It worked for me.

>

>I was not preaching. I was agreeing & don't care what others decide.

>Some things are not worth discussing unless someone asks. This is

>one of them.

>

>Jim

>

> Brown wrote:

>

> > Jim:

> >

> > I'm all in favor of direct spiritual experience or esoteric

> > spirituality. Nevertheless, it neither supports nor proves the dogma

> > of mainstream religion. It is a personal experience and may be proof

> > enough for you alone. Whether it is an encounter with god, some

> > other spiritual entity or an hallucination is probably impossible to

> > prove. Did you see a white bearded gentleman of great wisdom sitting

> > on a throne? I don't denigrate yours or anyone else's experience, I

> > just point out that it is your experience and your proof not mine or

> > Steve's. The experience may be valuable to share with others, but

> > the meaning of your experience for others is for them to decide.

> >

> >

> >

> > At 01:18 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

> >

> > >Steve:

> > >

> > >Your comments are limited to a " Faith " system or lack thereof. An

> > >experiential system does not take

> > >effort once an actual experience proves the God theory... other than in

> > >avoiding the daggers from

> > >the Faithful who need to believe that only Jesus and could do it

> > >and the rest is illusion or magic.

> > >

> > >Jim

> > >

> > >,_._,___

> > >

> > >Atheism in all forms and theism in all forms (from spirits in the rocks

> > >and trees to the other extreme) requires

> > >effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a

> > requirement

> > >that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief.

> > >Evidence

> > >must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system

> > and one

> > >must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to

> > >maintian an

> > >atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to " know "

> > >either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrationa

> > >

> > >l sense one way or the other. You can say that your particular god

> > >may or may not exist

> > >but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Good stuff .

It is obvious by the sensitivity and depth of your posts that you are a

very

spiritual individual.

I agree fully with what you said. Dogma has no place with me.

I am ready to move to a new understanding in a heartbeat and I find

that each new experience " spins me around " . As to seeing into others

beings

(souls?), would that not be a kind of violation of spirit unless you

were asked,

in any case?

Jim

Brown wrote:

> HI Jim:

>

> Believe it or not, I can identify with what you said in a very

> personal way. I also thank you for sharing that with me. However, I

> don't take back anything I've said, because it is important to keep

> these things in check and not create a 'cult' or religion around

> them. That is what ruins the whole thing. Knowing that these

> spiritual experiences are just part of what we all are capable of is

> important without all the dogma.

>

> I believe that some of my experiences may be similar to yours. I

> sometimes feel certain spiritual experiences and some can be

> described in part as overwhelming love. With me it is usually either

> toward other people or from a spiritual presence that seems to be

> loving and perhaps protective in a spiritual sense, whatever that

> means. When I am in these states in a deep meditative way, I can see

> auras on people and sometimes that is scary as well as

> exhilarating. I feel that I'm not enlightened enough to have the

> privilege to see that deeply into another's being that well, so I go

> out of my way to avoid these experiences at times.

>

> This type of interaction with another or alone can be quite

> healing. You don't need to believe in a god to experience it. No

> dogma, and no faith are necessary. These are experiences that any

> human may be able to have. It is probably their misinterpretation

> that often leads to dogma.

>

>

>

> At 06:22 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

>

> >:

> >

> >I encountered many things along the way, but three things finally:

> >Light, sound, & an overwhelming aura of love.

> >No people, no place, and nothing that most would expect.

> >It worked for me.

> >

> >I was not preaching. I was agreeing & don't care what others decide.

> >Some things are not worth discussing unless someone asks. This is

> >one of them.

> >

> >Jim

> >

> > Brown wrote:

> >

> > > Jim:

> > >

> > > I'm all in favor of direct spiritual experience or esoteric

> > > spirituality. Nevertheless, it neither supports nor proves the dogma

> > > of mainstream religion. It is a personal experience and may be proof

> > > enough for you alone. Whether it is an encounter with god, some

> > > other spiritual entity or an hallucination is probably impossible to

> > > prove. Did you see a white bearded gentleman of great wisdom sitting

> > > on a throne? I don't denigrate yours or anyone else's experience, I

> > > just point out that it is your experience and your proof not mine or

> > > Steve's. The experience may be valuable to share with others, but

> > > the meaning of your experience for others is for them to decide.

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > At 01:18 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

> > >

> > > >Steve:

> > > >

> > > >Your comments are limited to a " Faith " system or lack thereof. An

> > > >experiential system does not take

> > > >effort once an actual experience proves the God theory... other

> than in

> > > >avoiding the daggers from

> > > >the Faithful who need to believe that only Jesus and could do it

> > > >and the rest is illusion or magic.

> > > >

> > > >Jim

> > > >

> > > >,_._,___

> > > >

> > > >Atheism in all forms and theism in all forms (from spirits in the

> rocks

> > > >and trees to the other extreme) requires

> > > >effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a

> > > requirement

> > > >that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief.

> > > >Evidence

> > > >must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system

> > > and one

> > > >must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to

> > > >maintian an

> > > >atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to

> " know "

> > > >either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrationa

> > > >

> > > >l sense one way or the other. You can say that your particular

> god

> > > >may or may not exist

> > > >but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

> > > >

> > > >

[Guest guest]

Jim:

An excellent point, it could be considered a violation of privacy in

a very real sense. Nevertheless, when in that state, it is possible

to perceive a person as a deep thinker, full of love and appreciation

of others, generous, or...dark and deceptive, totally superficial,

angry or violent - etc. - in one glance. These can also be false

impressions as people both vary a great deal over time (e.g.

momentary anger or momentary generosity) and also people vary in

terms of how they express themselves this way (e.g. it is easy to

confuse healthful athletic prowess as anger in some instances). One

must be very careful how to interpret these observations and whether

our own prejudices are triggered, biasing our perspectives. As we

evolve as a species, I would hope that perhaps this capacity will be

reliably there in all humans of a future era.

At 08:21 AM 8/13/2006, you wrote:

>Good stuff .

>

>It is obvious by the sensitivity and depth of your posts that you are a

>very

>spiritual individual.

>

>I agree fully with what you said. Dogma has no place with me.

>I am ready to move to a new understanding in a heartbeat and I find

>that each new experience " spins me around " . As to seeing into others

>beings

>(souls?), would that not be a kind of violation of spirit unless you

>were asked,

>in any case?

>

>Jim

>

> Brown wrote:

>

> > HI Jim:

> >

> > Believe it or not, I can identify with what you said in a very

> > personal way. I also thank you for sharing that with me. However, I

> > don't take back anything I've said, because it is important to keep

> > these things in check and not create a 'cult' or religion around

> > them. That is what ruins the whole thing. Knowing that these

> > spiritual experiences are just part of what we all are capable of is

> > important without all the dogma.

> >

> > I believe that some of my experiences may be similar to yours. I

> > sometimes feel certain spiritual experiences and some can be

> > described in part as overwhelming love. With me it is usually either

> > toward other people or from a spiritual presence that seems to be

> > loving and perhaps protective in a spiritual sense, whatever that

> > means. When I am in these states in a deep meditative way, I can see

> > auras on people and sometimes that is scary as well as

> > exhilarating. I feel that I'm not enlightened enough to have the

> > privilege to see that deeply into another's being that well, so I go

> > out of my way to avoid these experiences at times.

> >

> > This type of interaction with another or alone can be quite

> > healing. You don't need to believe in a god to experience it. No

> > dogma, and no faith are necessary. These are experiences that any

> > human may be able to have. It is probably their misinterpretation

> > that often leads to dogma.

> >

> >

> >

> > At 06:22 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

> >

> > >:

> > >

> > >I encountered many things along the way, but three things finally:

> > >Light, sound, & an overwhelming aura of love.

> > >No people, no place, and nothing that most would expect.

> > >It worked for me.

> > >

> > >I was not preaching. I was agreeing & don't care what others decide.

> > >Some things are not worth discussing unless someone asks. This is

> > >one of them.

> > >

> > >Jim

> > >

> > > Brown wrote:

> > >

> > > > Jim:

> > > >

> > > > I'm all in favor of direct spiritual experience or esoteric

> > > > spirituality. Nevertheless, it neither supports nor proves the dogma

> > > > of mainstream religion. It is a personal experience and may be proof

> > > > enough for you alone. Whether it is an encounter with god, some

> > > > other spiritual entity or an hallucination is probably impossible to

> > > > prove. Did you see a white bearded gentleman of great wisdom sitting

> > > > on a throne? I don't denigrate yours or anyone else's experience, I

> > > > just point out that it is your experience and your proof not mine or

> > > > Steve's. The experience may be valuable to share with others, but

> > > > the meaning of your experience for others is for them to decide.

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > At 01:18 PM 8/12/2006, you wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >Steve:

> > > > >

> > > > >Your comments are limited to a " Faith " system or lack thereof. An

> > > > >experiential system does not take

> > > > >effort once an actual experience proves the God theory... other

> > than in

> > > > >avoiding the daggers from

> > > > >the Faithful who need to believe that only Jesus and could do it

> > > > >and the rest is illusion or magic.

> > > > >

> > > > >Jim

> > > > >

> > > > >,_._,___

> > > > >

> > > > >Atheism in all forms and theism in all forms (from spirits in the

> > rocks

> > > > >and trees to the other extreme) requires

> > > > >effort of some kind non-rational mental jump and in all cases a

> > > > requirement

> > > > >that rationality to some degree be negated to maintain that belief.

> > > > >Evidence

> > > > >must be rejected to maintian any particular theistic belief system

> > > > and one

> > > > >must assume all sufficient knowledge has already been achieved to

> > > > >maintian an

> > > > >atheistic position. Agnostism, the middle path, doesn't claim to

> > " know "

> > > > >either in a science/rational sense or religious/irrationa

> > > > >

> > > > >l sense one way or the other. You can say that your particular

> > god

> > > > >may or may not exist

> > > > >but that is your own personal issue, not theirs.

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

Hi

I agree with your points about us all being in a sense the

same. What you said about the Hindu perspective was nicely put as

well. I wanted to make just a note, however, to amplify some of your

points on Buddhism: Buddhism certainly does focus on the

impermanence of the physical world and our physical bodies. The

purpose of this is to achieve happiness, by focusing on change and

the process of evolution that is the only real constant in the

universe and not to derive disappointment when the inevitable change

occurs, including " good " things or " bad " things like death. Desire,

especially for things to stay as they are, is the main source of pain

and suffering in Buddhism. Reincarnation is also part of Buddhism,

so there is a sense of a long-term continuum. As we evolve to higher

states, we begin to remember our past lives actively. This is not

permanence, however, as in Buddhist belief, we are never the same

from incarnation to incarnation. Nothing is permanent. As I said

previously, however, I'm sort of half Buddhist and half agnostic at

this very finite sliver of time (not to pretend to quantize time, of course).

At 08:37 AM 8/13/2006, you wrote:

>Steve;

>

>You are not exactly an atheist.You too are seeking for meaning. I do

>not claim that I am in any way better than you because I do not know

>anything about you. Even if I knew about your present incarnation I

>would hesitate to come to any conclusion as we Hindus believe in past

>lives.

>

>We are really a melting pot. We generally believe in a formless all

>embracing consciousness but we also believe in various powers we

>describe as Gods. We have our own personal Gods just as many

>Westerners believe in a personal angel/saint who takes care of them.

>

>We are all the same and again each of us is unique. We do not know

>who adopts what attitude and why. We generally believe that whatever

>happens is good for the evolution of human consciousness and that

>chaos is a part of intelligent evolution as various forces meet and

>test each other in the race to evolve.

>

>We believe in both matter and energy because we believe that they are

>different only in degrees and not in form. The energy is stored in

>matter and becomes free to be recognised as energy.

>

>Your views are supported by the Buddhists who do not believe in the

>soul and have their basis on the constant change that is the

>universe. But they also percieve some kind of permanence just as the

>flame of a lamp lighted by another is different from and yet similar

>to the original flame.

>

>You are you because you need to be you, I am me because my past has

>shaped me so. There need not be any quarrel. We quarrel because we

>feel that we are separate entities while we are not. The entire

>universe is a continuous flowing whole, every action is related to

>another, every action has a purpose.

>

>We have to perhaps seek the source and connect with it. We are all at

>different stages of that seeking. A man who is copulating with a

>woman and a monk meditating in a cave are both seeking that same

>source, both will achieve that same source. In Hinduism the Lord

>says, " All men are travelling towards me, whatever be their nature or

>action " .

>

>As I am in a hurry I could not edit my mail. Please forgive any

>contradiction or discrepancies.

>

>Regards,

>Jagannath.

>

> > > Steve:

> > > You seem to be very taken with pantheism, for an agnostic. I

> >

> > I'm not sure what you mean by that. I've never found anyone to

>claim a belief

> > in god who didn't have a different god than everyone else I've

>talked to, and

> > I've discussed this with 100s if not 1000s of people over time.

>Get them to

> > describe their gods and no one will give you the same answer,

>

>