mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...)

[Guest guest]

Not really arguing for or against anything, just giving my own insights to

some of the issues.

For me, religion is an expression of one's spirituality in community with

others. There is a special case of religion when one of the tenets of a

religion is that all other religions are wrong or at least inferior. We, at

least in the US, have come to assume this subset is the definition of all

religion. This is a case of attributing a characteristic of a part to the

whole of religious practice.

It is the general idea that all other religious beliefs can be " wrong " that

causes problems. Religious knowledge is not based on anything that can be

objectively shared. It is knowledge founded ultimately in the private

spiritual experience of the individual. I cannot " prove " my spiritual

knowledge to you or vice versa. Any attempts to convince other people who

do have some similar personal experience, are misguided. It is this

inability to allow for different personal experiences of whatever might be

called " the divine " that is at the heart of illness caused by religion.

But a religion does not need to contain this belief. It is enough to say,

this works for me and mine and if something else works better for others,

that's fine. This laissez-faire attitude still gives plenty of room for

belief in the religious tenets held in common by one's religious group (the

strict definition of " dogma " ). A religion can be a group of individuals,

all bringing their own personal experience, and through their time together,

deepening the meaning of those experiences and having new experiences of the

Divine (whatever that is) they can share. Religious experience need not,

and I would go so far as to say they should not, have much if anything to do

with people outside the particular group.

YR

Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...)

-

>Maybe dogma creates the tumour you are talking about. Can`t there

>religion free from dogma?

Well, dogma is pretty much definitionally required by religion, I

think. If there's no dogma, there's nothing to have faith in.

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>hmmm - I think that people can be religious without adhering to dogma. But

>I think that generally the 'cancerous' element of religion is when people

>try to foist it on others. I think that it takes a lot of gall to post

>Christian stuff to a public list like this, and when people are so public

>about this stuff, I doubt that they are truly religious.

Gall? I think that depends entirely on the tone and content.

As to whether you can be religious without adhering to dogma... well, that

gets into semantics.

Dictionary.com's definition of dogma

>1. A doctrine or a corpus of doctrines relating to matters such as

>morality and faith, set forth in an authoritative manner by a church.

>2. An authoritative principle, belief, or statement of ideas or opinion,

>especially one considered to be absolutely true. See Synonyms at doctrine.

>3. A principle or belief or a group of them: " The dogmas of the quiet past

>are inadequate to the stormy present "

would seem to rule it out, inasmuch as I think there have to be SOME kind

of beliefs for something to qualify as religion. But OTOH, " dogmatic " is

often taken to mean an excessive adherence to dogma, so in real life the

issue is somewhat fuzzy.

-

[Guest guest]

I find that many people interpret a statement of belief as an implicit

demand that others agree. To be fair, this is often because many people

have a hard time accepting that others belief differently and so actually do

expect some level of agreement whenever they express their own beliefs. But

that still doesn't mean that every expression of belief is also an

insistence on agreement.

For instance, I'm a pagan - one of the quintessential " enemies " of the

Christian Church and modern fundamentalists. I have absolutely no need to

convert anyone and no interest in having other views pushed on me.

And when I read the passage, I recognized something similar to my

own beliefs. I, too, believe that through my relationship with the DWTI

(the Divine, Whatever That Is - a term I like to use in interfaith

discussion) my food becomes better for me. Sometimes I understand this as

the DWTI working through the food, sometimes I just let it be a form of

positive thinking and placebo effect. But my spiritual understanding is

that reality has a consciousness and by my religious and spritual actions, I

can come into a closer relationship with that consciousness. Christians

would, of course, do this through their own practices which are somewhat

similar and somewhat different than my own. For instance, I too, may pray,

but I'd probably have a different aspect of the DWTI when I did so.

Now the test: I have no intention of convincing anyone else about my

beliefs. I am merely sharing them. I am sure that there are plenty of

others on this list who do not have these beliefs. Some may believe that

there is only one right god to pray to (and some of those people might be

Christian and some might not). There are others who believe that *any*

spiritual or religious experience is ridiculous and refuse to allow room for

me to merely even express that I have spiritual beliefs. All of these

people, Christian, Pagan, Buddhist, Atheist, Whatever, would be doing the

same thing: insisting that their beliefs about the spiritual are more

correct than my own.

If just my expression of my own beliefs coupled with my clear statements

that I do not need or wish others to change their beliefs is enough to get

me labelled a " religious fanatic " then that's the other person's problem.

YR

Re: mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

straight...)

Gene-

>hmmm - I think that people can be religious without adhering to dogma.

But

>I think that generally the 'cancerous' element of religion is when people

>try to foist it on others. I think that it takes a lot of gall to post

>Christian stuff to a public list like this, and when people are so public

>about this stuff, I doubt that they are truly religious.

Gall? I think that depends entirely on the tone and content.

[Guest guest]

mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...)

>

> For me, gaps are caused by a lack of friends and loved ones, not by

my

> unbelief in a supreme being which wants a lot of my time and money

and

> which insists I believe all sorts of bizarre things.

>

> -

" Oh , they say it's not the God who is, but it's the God we create

in our minds...

i think sometimes we create God in 'our' image, and imagine Him to be

Who we think He is and not what He truly is....

(for example i've heard we tend to look at God the way we tend to

look at our own father.)

i believe that every person who seeks after the True God ultimately

finds a Loving Father who demands neither time or money nor strange

beliefs...but He is there for all who want Him, or seek Him, or love

Him, or trust Him...

i have given up church mostly to go inward and focus on prayer. the

messages from churches were multitudinous and conflicting and

confusing...i wanted to turn inward to try to hear that still small

voice.

He is the most kind and loving Father if we just focus on that and

leave the things of this earth behind...the hard, difficult and

horrible things of this earth. but it's not an escape...He gives us

the courage to face and to 'deal'. and peace...

but people still hurt us. every day...even here on this list. the

gaps left by friends and loved ones will always be there...but there

is One Who fills those gaps...and He is Real...

laura "

Blurp.

The anti-christ

[Guest guest]

mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...)

>

> -------------- Original message --------------

>

> > -

> >

> > >Maybe dogma creates the tumour you are talking about. Can`t

there

> > >religion free from dogma?

> >

> > Well, dogma is pretty much definitionally required by religion, I

> > think. If there's no dogma, there's nothing to have faith in.

> >

> hmmm - I think that people can be religious without adhering to

dogma. But I think that generally the 'cancerous' element of religion

is when people try to foist it on others.

Gene i couldn't agree with you more here. what's that

expression? 'a person convinced against his is unconvinced still'?

or something like that?

I think that it takes a lot of gall to post Christian stuff to a

public list like this, and when people are so public about this

stuff, I doubt that they are truly religious.

maybe some people just like to talk...and their faith is such a part

of them, like cancer might be or being a triathlonist, that it just

comes up in conversation...or they like to talk about it. if people

always kept it to themselves...then there might never be any

discourse about it. when i talk about my faith... i might as well be

talking about my husband, which i do, or our son, which i do, or our

beloved 3 cats, which i also do, because they all mean so much to me

and are such an intrinsic part of my life.

and if we talk about it here...it's because nutrition is somehow

bound up with God in our life because we believe that He is the

author of our bodies and therefore has designed the ultimate

nutrition for which is why we are all here. and so for us it is all

bound up together inextricably.

but what i don't understand is...look, people have all kinds of

conversations here i take no interest in, so i skip them. why do we

make you so MAD? why not just ignore us and move on? this is what i

don't understand. we are happy just to be left alone...but you don't

seem to want to leave us alone.

i ignore posts all the time...why not just ignore the ones that

bother you rather than get the posters all riled up and upset?

we tend to talk about that which we love, and if someone loves God,

at some point it will come up in conversation.

but i totally agree with you...faith can't be foisted. it must be

desired. it's like trying to get someone to try octopus. if someone

wants to try it, they will. it someone is adamantly opposed to

trying it...trying to get them to try octopus is just going to really

tick them off.

but the person trying to foist the octopus does so because he LOVES

eating octopus and wants to share his joy and wants the other person

to experience the joy of eating octopus.

but having it shoved down your throat, literally, would turn someone

off to octopus maybe forever.

laura

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record straight...)

" but what i don't understand is...look, people have all kinds of

conversations here i take no interest in, so i skip them. why do we

make you so MAD? why not just ignore us and move on? this is what i

don't understand. we are happy just to be left alone...but you don't

seem to want to leave us alone. "

Because you are posting publicly to this list, and it annoys me. You are

entitled to your beliefs, and in fact, I have a healthy respect for people

who are truly religion. But, personally, I think that when you are so free

to post this stuff, repeatedly on a nutrition list, that you talk the talk,

but you don't walk the walk. I probably respond for the same reason that you

respond to me - you feel it needs saying.

True I could ignore it, but you're posting it publicly, and so i am offering

my opinion. I find it obnoxious.

" we tend to talk about that which we love, and if someone loves God,

at some point it will come up in conversation. "

No. Not necessarily. There are situations where you restrain yourself. If

you're at a job, for instance, unless your job explicitly involves religion,

you probably shouldn't bring it up. People aren't interested. If you teach

children, you better damn well not bring it up. And if I see you posting

this gratuitous father/god nonsense here, I'll comment on it, because, after

all I'm the anti-christ. Seems totally inconsistent with me having a

tremendous respect for spirituality, doesn't it? Well, I think that you're

being very disrespectful to the entire notion by repeatedly posting your

particular views about it here, whether it is relevant or not. That's not my

idea of spirituality.

" but i totally agree with you...faith can't be foisted. it must be

desired. it's like trying to get someone to try octopus. if someone

wants to try it, they will. it someone is adamantly opposed to

trying it...trying to get them to try octopus is just going to really

tick them off. "

So, stop trying to get people to try the goddam octopus!

" but the person trying to foist the octopus does so because he LOVES

eating octopus and wants to share his joy and wants the other person

to experience the joy of eating octopus. "

This is getting rather silly. I love octopus, but I don't want yours.

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

[Guest guest]

>

>

> mostly off-topic (was Re: Setting the record

straight...)

>

>

> " but what i don't understand is...look, people have all kinds of

> conversations here i take no interest in, so i skip them. why do we

> make you so MAD? why not just ignore us and move on? this is what

i

> don't understand. we are happy just to be left alone...but you

don't

> seem to want to leave us alone. "

>

> Because you are posting publicly to this list, and it annoys me.

SOOOO....ANYTIME SOMEONE ANNOYS YOU BY SOMETHING THEY SAY...YOU THINK

IT'S OKAY TO INSULT THEM? I'M ASKING AN HONEST QUESTION HERE. WHY

NOT JUST IGNORE THEM? I READ STUFF HERE THAT ANNOYS ME TOO, BUT I

DON'T EXPRESS MY IRRITATIONS BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HURT ANYONE,

AGITATE ANYONE, ANNOY ANYONE, OR MAKE THEM ANGRY. BECAUSE THAT'S

WHAT IT DOES.

DO YOU ENJOY DOING THIS TO PEOPLE? OR DO YOU NOT KNOW THAT YOU DO

THIS? AGAIN, HONEST QUESTIONS.

You are

> entitled to your beliefs, and in fact, I have a healthy respect for

people

> who are truly religion. But, personally, I think that when you are

so free

> to post this stuff, repeatedly on a nutrition list, that you talk

the talk,

> but you don't walk the walk.

AND WHO ARE YOU TO JUDGE THAT, GENE? I MEAN HONESTLY? IT RINGS OF

INSINCERITY TO YOU? WHY WOULD I WRITE ANYTHING UNLESS I BELIEVED IT

OR FELT IT? WHY DO YOU JUST DISMISS AS IF YOU THINK WE ARE MORONS OR

SOMETHING? WHY ARE WE HERE ON THIS LIST? TO LEARN AND SHARE. TO

SOME OF US, GOD IS PART OF THAT. I THOUGHT THIS WAS AMERICA; I

THOUGHT WE HAD FREE SPEECH.

SO YOU DISAGREE. SO JUST DISAGREE THEN AND KEEP IT TO YOURSELF IF

YOU'RE GOING TO INSULT.

I probably respond for the same reason that you

> respond to me - you feel it needs saying.

>

> True I could ignore it, but you're posting it publicly, and so i am

offering

> my opinion. I find it obnoxious.

THAT'S BECAUSE YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND AND YOU DON'T WANT TO

UNDERSTAND. YOU PREFER TO DISMISS. YOU DON'T TOLERATE...

>

> " we tend to talk about that which we love, and if someone loves God,

> at some point it will come up in conversation. "

>

> No.

NO? HOW CAN YOU SAY NO? I'M TELLING YOU WHY AND YOU ARE SAYING NO.

Not necessarily. There are situations where you restrain yourself.

YES OF COURSE. ABSOLUTELY. THAT'S PART OF LIFE, PART OF BEING A

HUMAN BEING.

If

> you're at a job, for instance, unless your job explicitly involves

religion,

> you probably shouldn't bring it up.

UNLESS YOU'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION WITH SOMEONE. THEN, IF IT COMES

UP, IT COMES UP.

People aren't interested.

UNLESS YOU'RE HAVING A CONVERSATION. LAURA AND I WERE OBVIOUSLY

INTERESTED IN WHAT WE WERE SAYING TO EACH OTHER. AND THERE ARE OTHER

CHRISTIANS WHO POST HERE AND READ POSTS.

If you teach

> children, you better damn well not bring it up.

IN A PUBLIC SCHOOL IT'S NOT APPROPRIATE TO BRING IT UP. IF IT'S A

CATHOLIC SCHOOL YOU BETTER BRING IT UP.

And if I see you posting

> this gratuitous father/god nonsense here,

GRATUITOUS TO YOU...MEANINGFUL, NO, CRUCIAL TO ME. MY OWN FATHER WAS

NOT GRATUITOUS. NEITHER IS MY HEAVENLY FATHER.

I'll comment on it, because, after

> all I'm the anti-christ.

GEE, THAT'S A RELIEF. BUT I STILL THINK YOU LEARN TO LET PEOPLE

ALONE, LET PEOPLE BE AND NOT INSULT THEM, RILE THEM UP, ANNOY THEM,

HURT THEM AND IRRITATE THEM. IF YOU'RE STILL YOUNG, WHICH I PRESUME

YOU ARE, YOU WILL LEARN IT OR YOU WILL HAVE NO FRIENDS, EITHER THAT

OR YOU WILL ALIENATE PEOPLE LEFT AND RIGHT.

Seems totally inconsistent with me having a

> tremendous respect for spirituality, doesn't it? Well, I think that

you're

> being very disrespectful to the entire notion by repeatedly posting

your

> particular views about it here, whether it is relevant or not.

I'M RESPONDING TO *****YOU*****. I'M TRYING TO GET YOU TO SEE THAT

YOU ARE VERY HURTFUL. OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T CARE........I AM ONLY

RESPONDING TO YOUR INSULTS. OBVIOUSLY A MISTAKE. IN REAL LIFE I

KEEP MY LIFE TO MYSELF UNLESS I GET IN A CONVERSATION WITH

SOMEONE...AND THEN WE TALK. LIKE FRIENDS. I'M VERY QUIET ABOUT MY

FAITH UNLESS I'M ASKED, OR I GUESS, UNLESS I'M INSULTED AND WANT TO

DEFEND MYSELF. OBVIOUSLY A BIG MISTAKE ON MY PART. GENE, YOU DON'T

KNOW ME, YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHO I AM AND WHAT I'M LIKE AND YET YOU ARE

JUDGING ME LIKE I'M SOME KIND OF MONSTER.

That's not my

> idea of spirituality.

I SINCERELY DOUBT YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF SPIRITUALITY THAT IS BASED ON

ANYTHING THAT'S TRULY SPIRITUAL... BECAUSE TRUE SPIRITUALITY IS BASED

ON LOVE AND FROM WHAT I CAN SEE FROM HERE, I JUST DON'T SEE ANY LOVE

AT ALL IN YOU. YOU HATE, YOU INSULT, YOU AGITATE. IT'S VERY

UPSETTING. I DON'T SEE ANY CARING OR COMPASSION OR UNDERSTANDING IN

YOUR 'VOICE'.

> " but i totally agree with you...faith can't be foisted. it must be

> desired. it's like trying to get someone to try octopus. if

someone

> wants to try it, they will. it someone is adamantly opposed to

> trying it...trying to get them to try octopus is just going to

really

> tick them off. "

>

> So, stop trying to get people to try the goddam octopus!

I DON'T SEE IT AS TRYING...I SEE IT AS RESPONDING TO YOUR INSULTS AND

TRYING TO EXPLAIN IT FROM MY POINT OF VIEW...SINCE YOU ARE SO

INSISTENT ON EXPLAINING YOUR OWN POINT OF VIEW BUT DON'T WANT TO HEAR

ANYONE'S THAT IS DIFFERENT FROM YOURS.

BASICALLY YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OPINION...BUT I'M NOT. THAT'S

WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

>

> " but the person trying to foist the octopus does so because he LOVES

> eating octopus and wants to share his joy and wants the other person

> to experience the joy of eating octopus. "

>

> This is getting rather silly.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS. AND MEAN SPIRITED ON YOUR PART.

I love octopus, but I don't want yours.

THANKS, GENE, FOR THE ADDITIONAL INSULT. I'VE GOT QUITE A COLLECTION

HERE NOW.

YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY BECAUSE YOU WON'T LISTEN TO A

WORD I'M SAYING AND THAT'S OKAY.

THIS IS SUCH A POINTLESS CONVERSATION...ABSOLUTELY NO UNDERSTANDING

REACHED HERE.

AND SO THERE IS NO POINT FOR ME TO RESPOND TO ANY MORE OF YOUR

POSTS. UNLESS ONE OF THEM BEGINS 'I'M SORRY'...BUT I KNOW THAT WILL

NEVER HAPPEN.

I WAS AN ATHEIST FOR MANY YEARS SO I UNDERSTAND THE HATRED YOU HAVE

FOR CHRISTIANS BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE STUPID AT ONE POINT TOO.

BUT I WAS WRONG. AND YOU ARE TOO. AND SOME DAY YOU WILL REALIZE

THIS.

laura

>

[Guest guest]

Gene-

>You insult, repeatedly, but in a different way, and you do it in a

>particularly irritating way, which is to SHOUT. I can't even read it. It's

>hard on my eyes. If you were more secure in your beliefs you would be so

>hurt and need to shout them.

And you think your backquoting of entire messages including headers and

footers ISN'T annoying?

-

[Guest guest]

>I WAS AN ATHEIST FOR MANY YEARS SO I UNDERSTAND THE HATRED YOU HAVE

>FOR CHRISTIANS BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE STUPID AT ONE POINT TOO.

>BUT I WAS WRONG. AND YOU ARE TOO. AND SOME DAY YOU WILL REALIZE

>THIS.

>

>laura

>

With all due respect for everyone, I just wanted to note that there are

atheists, pantheists, deists, Christians, Jews, Muslims?, Hindus?,

Buddhists, and other religious or philosophical schools of

thought/spirituality on this list. I realize you are addressing Gene,

, but this could be applied to others and might be considered

offensive. I had to read it twice myself. I don't know that Gene hates

Christians, or whether it is just the topic, but I would really hope we

can have respectful dialogue on all subject matters, no matter what our

beliefs.

Deanna

" Come on people now, smile on your brother

Everybody get together, try to love one another right now. " - The

s

[Guest guest]

>

> >I WAS AN ATHEIST FOR MANY YEARS SO I UNDERSTAND THE HATRED YOU HAVE

> >FOR CHRISTIANS BECAUSE I THOUGHT THEY WERE STUPID AT ONE POINT TOO.

> >BUT I WAS WRONG. AND YOU ARE TOO. AND SOME DAY YOU WILL REALIZE

> >THIS.

> >

> >laura

> >

> With all due respect for everyone, I just wanted to note that there are

> atheists, pantheists, deists, Christians, Jews, Muslims?, Hindus?,

> Buddhists, and other religious or philosophical schools of

> thought/spirituality on this list. I realize you are addressing Gene,

> , but this could be applied to others and might be considered

> offensive. I had to read it twice myself. I don't know that Gene hates

> Christians, or whether it is just the topic, but I would really hope we

> can have respectful dialogue on all subject matters, no matter what our

> beliefs.

>

>

> Deanna

>

Well, I wasn't going to post any more, but I realized that I had stopped reading

's post before I saw this accusation from she who doesn't insult anyone

that I hate Christians.

No - absolutely not, and nowhere do I imply anything of the kind. But I don't

like being proselytized to, repeatedly, and I particularly resent the prediction

that I will come to assimilate this particular set of ingrown, capitalized,

Christian beliefs.